3 concrete ways U.S. is under-modeled in CM.

[JoshK]

I love this game, but seldom get to play it.

While I don't post very often, and I am at work and without sources, I do want to address a question that has been lost in all of the static in these my country is better than your country treads: In CM, are there ways that U.S. tactical effectiveness is under modeled? This is not a criticism of the game or BTS' work, but I have noticed the impact of each one of these ways while I have played. After reading this post, I hope people let me know if they think I am way off base, or if there is something to be said about my points.

Like I said, a good question has been lost in the static: Does CM, in any way, under model the tactical effectiveness of the U.S.

I think that the answer is yes in three ways. To back up my first two points, I will quote Steve from a thread titled WW2 U.S. inferiority complex 101.

"By the end of the war the US Army's forward air control and artillery coordination was better than the Germans ever had."

While the above statement is an opinion (one very well supported by historical evidence however), there are some objective ways that this could and, IMO, should have been modeled in CM.

First, the U.S. procedure for allocated artillery had two distinctions. First, it did no solely rely on FOOs. In fact, the importance of FOOs decreased as the war went on. Almost all veteran officers and senior NCOs (down to platoon Sargent level often) were able to (through training and equipment) call in artillery. While one would presume that this was at a diminished ability vis-à-vis FOOs, the lack of this ability in CM undervalues a key U.S. tactical advantage. Secondly, the technical means that U.S. artillery was linked by radio meant that often these junior officers or senior NGOs were able to call in guns that were on general support (such as idle divisional or corps units) without even realizing it at the time they called in for the strike. Closing with the Enemy, Company Commander, and Time for Trumpets give examples of all of these phenomenon in practice.

Second, the U.S. had a working model for tactical level (i.e., CM scale) dedicated FAC to call in air strikes. I think that Doubler has an entire section devoted to this. These forward air controllers were often on call down to the battalion level, even to point of riding in tanks or occupying front-line foxholes. Beyond Doubler, Ambrose's Citizen Solders talks about this skill in its chapter on fighting in Normandy.

Finally, there is a third way that the U.S. effectiveness at the tactical level is under modeled: some key equipment is left out. This is not a laundry list, but small numbers of units are conspicuous by their absence. First is 155mm self-propelled artillery. These were used in a direct fire role on several important occasions: Brest, Aachen, and in assaulting the west wall. While this may be a relatively rare occurrence, it happened on CMs scale, and was certainly more common than battles between some of the supper-rare heavies modeled in CM. Read Doubler and The Good War for accounts of DF 155mm.

The second type of allied unit missing is SPAAA, especially the quad- .50 M16 half-track. This weapon was used on the tactical level quite often. It was SOP to use them to as suppression weapons in river crossings. Doubler has a whole chapter on river crossing that makes numerous mention of this tactic. Also, they were used as a defensive weapon time and again during the Bulge. Several CM scenarios cover battles where U.S. AAA played a key role, but this could not be modeled. See a time for Trumpets or any other good tactical level history of the Bulge for numerous examples.

Regards,

Josh

p.s. sorry for all of the edits.

[This message has been edited by JoshK (edited 10-12-2000).]

[This message has been edited by JoshK (edited 10-12-2000).]

[This message has been edited by JoshK (edited 10-12-2000).]

[Colin]

I agree with everything here.

Especcially the FO part.

------------------

And if we abandon any platform, I can assure you it will not be the Macintosh.

-Steve

My website!

[JoshK]

I think that the FO modeling is the most important as well (though maybe impossible to model for a patch).

While U.S. air power had a huge operational impact (and a significant tactical one for sure) it was U.S. artillery, the "wall of steel", that so often tipped the balance in the U.S.' favor at the tactical level. The fact that the ability to call in a strike was so decentralized was a key part of this advantage.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Colin:

I agree with everything here.

Especcially the FO part.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Normally, I would agree with much of what you have to say, but since my forced inclusion into the secret "Deutschland uber Alles" conspiracy (which does not exist) I find it difficult to support anything that would result in the possibility of the Germans not winning every single scenario.

Sorry.

Jeff Heidman

[JoshK]

Jeff,

Please don't go there. I think that this game is remarkably well balanced and historical. In the past, people have raised valid points about improving the modeling of both sides. BTS has often agreed, and just as often made a real effort to adjust the game.

If such an adjustment is warranted in any of my three points, then I hope people comment. If it is not, then a discussion on that would be great.

However, this has nothing to do with the over-heated commentary for other threads.

Thanks,

Josh

[Herr Oberst]

I for one would love to be able to call in a TOT strike.

"Yes, I want all four batteries firing for effect in four minutes exactly."

Not: Ouch.

Nor: Ouch ouch.

But: Ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch ouch...

[82nd Airborne]

Good topic. When all is said and done , I think that adjusting the time delay for each nation would achieve the desired result. From what I've read the ability to quickly bring down arty was the key difference in national doctrines and went from fastest to slowest. US, German, UK, Russia. Alot of the Germans prowess was some pre planning, while the US, top to bottom had a better doctrine.

Sooo, my point is , considering the scale, varying "lead times" by nationality might be more historical. Don't know if this is impossible to program/patch but it would be interesting and give each side even more of a flavour.

regards

------------------

What you see depends mainly upon what you look for.

[JoshK]

I have never been under the hood, but if I remember from past posts, there are already distinction for the amount of time before impact and how accurate the barrage is. I do not know enough to say if this should be altered.

However, this still may not totally address the historical advantages of U.S. doctrine.

Josh

[Priest]

I agree with Josh on every respect. As far as the game is concerned I think it would be great but impossible at this time. BTS?

------------------

Sir are you sure you want to go to red alert...it would mean changing the bulb

-Priest

[Cuchulainn]

Quite agree with all of the above.

And, while we're at it... BTS ...why do arty barrages end the moment a FO is killed, and why can't they call in a barrage while riding in a jeep?

[This message has been edited by Cuchulainn (edited 10-12-2000).]

[Tiger]

Another stupid idea, almost as bad as giving the Allies auto-air support in clear weather. sheesh....

[KiwiJoe]

If u play around with the different artillery u will quickly find that the USA has a massive advantage in how quick a barrage falls. German 75mm takes a full 3 mins from a reg foo. USA 75mm, 105mm and 155mm comes down in 2 mins or quicker. 4.2inch mortors will often comes down inside 1 min which means you can call in a mission during the same turn, quite handy

[The Commissar]

I think Josh raises valid points. However, I ALSO think that most of these things are an issue of gameplay balance contrary to BTS' ignorance.

We all know how devastating artillery can be, even in small numbers and with spotters. If every platoon leader could do this, and even if it was uneven and poorly directed, the sheer volume of fire would totally devastate the foe.

Same thing with the half track. The machine gun it has now is deadly as it is. 4 machine guns cut everything in it's path tp ribbons. Yes, it was indeed this way in real life, however, it doesn't make for balanced gameplay. I know, i know, we like realism. Sometimes however, a line has to be drawn in the sand between what's playable and what's totally realistic.

Just my 2 cents.

------------------

"...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[aka_tom_w]

Yes but...

WE still want to see that Quad .50 cal

game play balance or not I imagine like any halftrack it could still be taken out fairly easy at long range by any piece of heavy German armour.

I say yes to the inclusion of the quad .50 cal halftrack. I would be happy to pay for an add on vehicle mod pack and I'm sure Most folks here would happily pay to upgrade to the latest release with the inclusion of additional new vehicles, both Allied and Axis. (maybe some new infantry units to like the U.S. Rangers as well, and others that have been suggested else on this board)

Just put it up for sale and I'm sure BTS will be pleasanlty surprised how many of us order it.

(only, after TCP/IP is done and out the door of course)

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-12-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-12-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 10-12-2000).]

[Frenchy]

I agree with all the points mentioned for US Artillery. As for the quad 50...I think it should be included.

------------------

Webmaster

http://www.trailblazersww2.org

http://www.vmfa251.org

[Pak40]

All are good points. Here's my thoughts:

1) The accuracy and abundance of US artillery can be simulated by giving the allies more FO and lots more TRPs. This will work well for user made battles and operations. Quick battles, however, will still be limited by the number of points allotted for artillery, so you are correct, company commanders should be given the power to call in artillery. But then you would have to model the fact that enemy artillery could cut your phone line.... then you would have to model the fact that your company commander could send runners out to repair the line.... the list goes on and on.... You see my point?

2) Unless I misunderstand something here, CM already models the ability to call in air strikes. But I agree, the Allies should definitly get more points in this area in the Quick Battles.

3) Heck most US AA units were pretty much turned into infantry support units, especially later in the war. There should be more AA units period.

all three of your points are valid but can pretty much be simulated by giving the ally more points than the Germans. The allies just had more resources than the Germans and the only way to simulate that is to give the allied player more points.

[Doug Beman]

2) players don't "call in" air strikes. If an attack aircraft is included in the scenario, it has a chance to appear and do something. The chance to appear is determined during scenario creation, and what it does is TOTALLY beyond the control of the player. The plane is modeled with its own ability to spot targets, target them, and engage them effectively.

Can you show conclusive evidence that air powre was more often directly "called in" vs. "in the area?" If you can't (and I don't think so) then IMHO airpower is modeled correctly. If, on the other hand, airpower was more commonly directly targeted by line units during tactical battles, then some changes should be examined.

DjB

[Hamstersss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by The Commissar:

I think Josh raises valid points. However, I ALSO think that most of these things are an issue of gameplay balance contrary to BTS' ignorance.

We all know how devastating artillery can be, even in small numbers and with spotters. If every platoon leader could do this, and even if it was uneven and poorly directed, the sheer volume of fire would totally devastate the foe.

Same thing with the half track. The machine gun it has now is deadly as it is. 4 machine guns cut everything in it's path tp ribbons. Yes, it was indeed this way in real life, however, it doesn't make for balanced gameplay. I know, i know, we like realism. Sometimes however, a line has to be drawn in the sand between what's playable and what's totally realistic.

Just my 2 cents.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The moment BTS comes on here and says that they sacrificed realism for gameplay (Rather than more features for a closer release date) is the day I lose a lot of respect for BTS and CM. CM is about realism. It is a simulation. Saying the Quad .50 shouldn't be in there because it's unbalanced would be like saying the KT shouldn't be in there because it's unbalanced, it would be crap and we know it. The points are nice and QBs are fun but the gameplay is great because of realism not in spite of it.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[Los]

There are a lot of weapons systems and sub details of various aspects of WW2 combat that did not get into CM1. This is as much a resource issue as anything else. There will be changes made to many of the things discussed here and these change swill be announced in due time. It's not an conspiracy or any lack of awareness that they existed so save the X files stuff for some other game.

Los

[Simon Fox]

3 concrete ways U.K. is under-modeled in CM

1. No bayonets

2. No bayonets

3. No bully-beef

------------------

"Fatso-the battlers' prince"

[Guest MantaRay]

I think that gameplay has been knocked around a bit too much. If Steve and Charles had to "sacrifice" a few minor details that makes the game smoother, and we still have such a remarkable game to play, who cares.

Want more realism? Convince all the game players here to get better computer so the minimum specs for this game are p3-800 (or Mac g4 whatever)so BTS will not be as limited in what they can truly do with thier talents.

Sometimes some of you forget that this is their first release under BTS(Not sure where AS and OTR fall under). As computers get better, I do believe that it will only multiply from here.

Maybe even CM 9 will even be able to model frozen chickens being shot at Hampsterstruppen. You never know.

Ray

[Hamstersss]

Mantaray, those kinds of sacrifices are fine. Those aren't features for gameplay, they're features for performance and/or closer release dates, which is completely understandable. If, however, Steve posts, "No 4x.50 because it was just too powerful," then that, I think, goes against the design philosophy of CM and the reason I bought the game.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi all,

Nice to find a lively and civilized discussion right as I am trying to go to sleep

OK, let me clear this one up first:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The moment BTS comes on here and says that they sacrificed realism for gameplay (Rather than more features for a closer release date) is the day I lose a lot of respect for BTS and CM. CM is about realism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is correct for the most part. However, as Los and MantaRay pointed out, sometimes things have to be aproximated (i.e. not simulated as well) or left out (due to limited time). However, these are concious decisions and the primary motivator is to make sure the game as a whole works. Fortunately, we have had to "sacrifice" very little realism in CM. Hehe... probably why it took us a year longer to make than we thought it would

OK, now on to Josh's points:

1. Artillery - FOs are largely an abstracted means of simulating the rather limited supply of radios. Even the US, which was radio rich compared to all other nations, did not have WORKING sets available to all Platoons all the time. So the FO is meant to simulate this ability. Yes, it is abstract, but it largely works.

The other problem was that we did not have time to make a rather simple FO feature into a much more "on call" type deal. What I mean by that is, to have a rather flexible pool of artillery available to pretty much any HQ would have involved a great effort in terms of programming. For the most part you can simulate the reality by simply having more FOs. Not perfect, but it largely works and (ironically) INCREASES tactical flexibility.

As has been pointed out, US artillery comes down faster than German stuff. Advantage US

2. Dedicated Air support - There is nothing wrong with the way it works now. If the scenario has air support in it, that airsupport has already been called in. Or, it was hanging around and decided to shoot up the works. From the tactical standpoint of a CM battle, there is effectively no difference.

I suppose you could argue that if you were allowed to have a forward air controller you could get some sort of bonus for picking out the target to be attacked, but this was a rather rare asset to have on the battlefield. Doubler pointed out that forward air controllers were generally used for major pushes, not your everyday scrape. Remember, CM is designed to simulate the average more than the outliers.

3. Allied AAA vehicles - we would have loved to put them in, but time ran out and they didn't make it. Since the Allies are not likely to be attacked from the air, we gave priority to the German AAA vehicles. Yes, the US used M-16s sometimes in the ground support role. No arguments there. Just didn't have time to put them in.

OK... looking at how these three things affect US abilities in the game...

1. Artillery FOs - Toss up on this one. In some ways there is reduced historical flexibility (i.e. Platoons with working radios can't call in strikes), and some ways increased historical flexibility (3 or 4 dedicated FOs doing the job while HQs are used for something else).

2. Air Control - Overall, no negative impact. If you were trying to simulate the rather uncommon situation where (much later in the war) a large formation could have more control over a plane... yes, CM doesn't allow this. But on the average, this functionality was not available. Plus, there are other "outlier" behaviors that we don't allow (like German Booby Trapping or US Mouse Holing), so this one has to get in line with the others

3. AAA Vehicles - Sorta like the above. Yes, if you have a specific scenario in mind that might realistically have a M16 involved, sure... you have a problem. But again, these are not common or fundamental use problems we are talking about here. For example, it isn't as if we didn't include something like the M5A1 Stuart

Er... I think that about does it

Steve

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

AAA Vehicles - Sorta like the above. Yes, if you have a specific scenario in mind that might realistically have a M16 involved, sure... you have a problem. But again, these are not common or fundamental use problems we are talking about here. For example, it isn't as if we didn't include something like the M5A1 Stuart

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How rare was the M16 AAA compared to, say, the Puma?

[ibucephalus]

I'm in the canadian artillery and I don't think we've changed things much since wwii. Infantry section and platoon commanders have extremely limited abilities when it comes to competently directing firepower.

Also, I think the belief that american artillery was superior is fallacious. Commonwealth artillery was renowned for its speed and ability to bring down heavy weights of fire at a moments notice. For a good account read "The guns of Normandy" by George Blackburn. He was a FOO in my unit(2nd field Battery) during the war.