Exposure

[Wreck]

I just did some testing of exposure numbers, and posted the results over in the tips and tricks area. Having done that, I want to get some discussion going about these numbers.

There are several aspects of CM exposure that I think could use tweaking.

One is that moving units are no more exposed than stationary units. This seems wrong to me. Generally speaking a stationary man, lying on the ground facing the enemy, would present perhaps 1/3 as much area to the enemy as a man standing. Therefore he should be substantially less exposed.

Secondly, I am quite surprised by the (lack of) cover offered by foxholes. Foxholes in open are 45% exposed. This is practically unusable as a defensive position, unless there is no cover anywhere. I think that foxholes should be at least the equivalent of a wall (30%), because in both cases you need only expose the head and upper shoulder area to fire. Also similar to a wall, pinned infantry in foxholes would be very difficult to affect with direct fire small arms.

Also, foxholes in brush and wheat are no better than foxholes in open. I would think that in both of these (and especially brush), the combination of cover (the foxholes), plus concealment from the terrain, would show up in the exposure numbers.

Finally, I think that "being really prone" (hiding, pinning, crawling) is undermodelled with some terrain -- or perhaps overmodelled behind walls. Behind a wall, infantry in one of those states is 0% exposed: invisible and untouchable w/ small arms. But consider stone buildings. Presumably a stone building wall is at least equal to a terrain wall. Yet, pinning/hiding/crawling infantry in stone buildings get no benefit from their status.

[ 11-11-2001: Message edited by: Wreck ]</p>

[Michael Dorosh]

But a foxhole in wheat or brush is useless, because your head is below the level of the terrain, and you can't see to shoot - unless you stand up to see over the low-lying vegetation. Which would decrease the cover your foxhole gives you.

I suspect CM abstracts this - either you are inside the foxhole, in which case you cannot see a damn thing 5 feet in front of you - or you are out of the hole observing, in which case the foxhole does you no good. Perhaps CM is splitting the difference, here?

[Wreck]

But a foxhole in wheat or brush is useless, because your head is below the level of the terrain, and you can't see to shoot - unless you stand up to see over the low-lying vegetation. Which would decrease the cover your foxhole gives you.

QUOTE]

I'll buy that. Now, I was testing with my guys right at the edge of the brush. It still seems to be that the edge of a brushy area or wheatfield, there would be positions available to dig a hole where the concealment from the terrain would still be effective.

Now there are two ways to deal with that. One is to make the cover % for tracing fire through brush dependent on the aspect of the firer -- if the firer is pinned/hiding/crawling, or in foxholes, then the attenuation of LOS should act more like tall pines.

Another way is to just ignore it. I can live with that. But I still think foxholes themselves should be sufficient cover, even in open, to be viable fighting positions.

[Wreck]

I have searched the forums for "foxhole" and "cover", and I am surprised to not find any other threads complaining about the lack of cover afforded troops in CMBO foxholes.

By my reading of history, foxholes were the preferred cover for troops under fire, excepting perhaps stone buildings. Now a good part of that is probably due to their resistance to artillery (which I have not measured in CMBO). But infantry also fought with small arms from foxholes in the open all the time. In CMBO, a smart player will never fight from a foxhole in the open unless the map is essentially devoid of any other cover.

Doesn't this strike anybody else as odd? It certainly strikes me that one of the reasons that CM attacks tend to win, even with just 3:2 odds, is that the defenders are lacking the flexibility that foxhole cover should give them to defend where they want.

[Redwolf]

I *think* it might be required to run more tests than the exposure display.

Under the hood, there are at least two different values, that for cover against fire and that for the chance to be seen. Both are munched together for the display and I suspect the displayed number may be misleading.

Also, infantry units are much more resistent against fire from the front than front the sides, this would model additional cover they dug behind, like a stone that happens to lie in front of them. If that applies as well when they are in foxholes, this additonal cover comes on top of the basic cover.

[Galatine]

I've heard it said that artillery, not bullets were the leading cause of battlefield causalties.

So I've been thinking:

Is it not possible that the real advantage of foxholes (and craters) are in the providing of shelter vs artillery fire?

A tree or wall you can hide from direct fire behind, but it offers notta' against projectiles from other directions.

But a heads down in a hole in the ground offers 360 protection against shell shrapnel unless a near hit occurs.

[xerxes]

I'd swear I posted about "undermodelled foxholes" but now I can't find it.

Foxholes in CM basically act like the infantry had 15 mins to dig a shallow hole. They are nothing like a real foxhole and yes, the weak foxholes greatly hurt the defender. A foxhole combined with hiding should give great cover except against grenades and airbursts.

Building defensive modeling is just as weak. People complain about afv issues but infantry issues seem far more important to me.

-marc

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by xerxes:

Foxholes in CM basically act like the infantry had 15 mins to dig a shallow hole. They are nothing like a real foxhole and yes, the weak foxholes greatly hurt the defender. A foxhole combined with hiding should give great cover except against grenades and airbursts.

Building defensive modeling is just as weak. People complain about afv issues but infantry issues seem far more important to me.

<hr></blockquote>

CMBO never attempted to model any defense more than a hasty one.

If you give them foxholes that would have taken much time to build in real life, you would have to give them trenches and other useful non-equipment defensive position improvements. It is a limitation of the game and I don't see how it could have been made better with the same effort.

Yes I know that CMBB has some improvements.

[Redwolf]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Galatine:

I've heard it said that artillery, not bullets were the leading cause of battlefield causalties.

<hr></blockquote>

More specific, mortar fire for the Allies in Normdany is what I see claimed most often. Anyway...

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Is it not possible that the real advantage of foxholes (and craters) are in the providing of shelter vs artillery fire?

<hr></blockquote>

Not the foxholes we see in CMBO.

Shelter from artillery is at least foxholes with overhead cover which are assumed not to be available for CMBO defenders, modeling only "hasty" defense.

In static positions, you would usually even have different shelter for the artillery barrage and for the actual firing. Trenches with extra dugouts without any LOS to the sky, cellars without windows etc. CMBO fighting is assumed to happen after the artillery barrage (or without a real one), after the defenders left their "night quarters" and manned positions with field for direct fire. Artillery fire is only tactial one, not the preperation barrage.

CMBB will have improvements, it seems it will be possible to have better positions of the latter kind, especially trenches. Still, I don't think you can play a real artillery barrage to see how many troops will still defend when the actual ground attack happens.

Whether CMBO got the hasty 15-minutes foxholes it models right -and I think that is Wreck's point-, I am not sure. More tests required, see above.

A lot of the defensive weakness is actually the MG-no-emerygency-bursts and the too-much-fire-when-running issues discussed in zillions of threads and the rather weak camouflage of static AFVs.

Approaching with just an infantry company on an infantry platoon in foxholes is pretty hard in CMBO and feel realistic to me. But you can overrun the MGs easily and running on the foxholes works too good either. Try it with just "move". Also it might be that close support AFVs are modeled as too precise, and in any case we don't have vehicle morale so a Tiger approching (but not yet in LOS) doesn't cause the 105mm Sherman to flee or freeze like it would in real life.

[Redwolf]

If you want ralistic play in CMBO:

1) do not "run" in LOS of the enemy, except away from it.

2) Scenario designers should man each MG position with one HMG with the amount of ammo appropriate, plus two LMGs with low ammo. If someone threatens to overrun the position, the additional MGs will help in a similar way as if the HMG itself would fire emergency bursts in wide sweeps. Instruct the player not to seperate these MG units.

[Wreck]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

CMBO never attempted to model any defense more than a hasty one.

<hr></blockquote>

I suppose this may be, but if so it was a bad design decision on BTS's part. The foxholes they should have modelled are the "standard" foxholes. 1-2 hours digging. A hole in the ground, no overhead cover, but providing sufficient cover for the defender to completely hide himself if he chooses. Why? Because this sort of foxhole is the most common WWII defensive position.

Yes there were WWI style trenches in some places, and "shallow" foxholes, and foxholes with overhead covers. And bunkers, for that matter, which would not die from a single 37mm penetration. All of these things it would be nice to model, but in addition to the common, vanilla foxhole.

I prefer to think that BTS was trying to model vanilla foxholes (and not 15 minute jobs), and just got the cover percentages wrong. Or that I have not tested them properly.

[Wreck]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

Shelter from artillery is at least foxholes with overhead cover which are assumed not to be available for CMBO defenders, modeling only "hasty" defense.

<hr></blockquote>

You do not have to cover a foxhole to provide very good cover from artillery. In a foxhole the arty has to land almost on top of you in order to be able to "see" you with its splinters. It is the splinters that are the primary wounding agent from arty.

Overhead cover in foxholes was used primarily to protect from airbursts: in trees, or from VT arty. It might also protect a hole from a direct hit, but only from relatively small arty -- light mortars. That was certainly not its main function.

[Wreck]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

A lot of the defensive weakness is actually the MG-no-emergency-bursts and the too-much-fire-when-running issues

<hr></blockquote>

I disagree. The main problem with CMBO for modelling defenses is that firepower (including MGs), doesn't slow and stop enemy infantry movement. It isn't that MGs don't close defend well. Firing when running should be impossible, but it tends to be a minor part of any attack.

This is related to the complaint I make above, about moving infantry being no more exposed than nonmoving infantry (excepting crawling behind walls). In reality moving was considerably more hazardous for almost any terrain type. This probably makes a much bigger difference in attack:defense dynamics than foxhole tweaking.

The problem with foxholes (if it is), if fixed, would change the odds slightly in the defender's favor.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: Wreck ]</p>

[Galatine]

Personally I've alway thought that while the game grahics show a single unified block indicating the squad, conceptually the squad on the move is actually using some form of bounding overwatch, explaining the cover fire while on the go.

If a unit is heavily supressed it's movement speed is slowed considerably (if not stalled).

Has anyone experimented with MG area fire to try supress a general region of the map, rather than direct targeting of a single unit?

[Chad Harrison]

i would have to agree with wreck. ive never been in a REAL battle before, but i play alot of paint ball in the woods. no we dont have foxholes dug, but something i feel is not accurate about infantry in the open is how exposed they are when they are moving. when your in a prone firing position, how much more exposed are you than in the woods????????? sure you might have a tree to hide behind, but to direct small arms fire, you can only really hide one arm and your side behind the tree, and thats only to one direct person. if your troops are in the open, not moving, they get chewed up in seconds and will always run for cover, losing even more men!

i would like to see the ability to fight better from the open ground.

i would have to agree with the foxholes offering more cover. i would agree that they should be modeled as walls in the sense of cover, and when hiding, they are immune to small arms fire. if your IN your foxhole, how can someone cap you with a rifle? arty is a diferent story all together. a single air burst takes out too many men too IMO. only idiots would clump up together with their foxholes, but one 105mm shell will take out 4 or 6 men with one airburst. does that seem a bit much? that was one big tree with a lot of razor bladed branches!!!! :eek:

[Galatine]

But remember 'open ground' is a relative term.

It isn't flat barren plains. It has rocks, depressions, bushes, trees etc.

Plenty of cover for relatively small groups to move through.

[Chad Harrison]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Galatine:

But remember 'open ground' is a relative term.

It isn't flat barren plains. It has rocks, depressions, bushes, trees etc.

Plenty of cover for relatively small groups to move through.<hr></blockquote>

thats my point. in the game, "open ground" seems to mean no bush, no rock, no small depression anywhere! in reality, ground like that exists no where. theres always a dip here, or a rock there, or you can just lay down and shoot back, and you dont deserve the 70% or so exposure. still confused why that is so high a number

[Kingfish]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>CMBO never attempted to model any defense more than a hasty one.<hr></blockquote>

Really? :confused:

I think you need to take another look at the fortification menu. Concrete pillboxes, wooden bunkers, tile after tile of AP/AT mines. Those aren't things you could just whip up in the half hour lull before combat.

[Redwolf]

I think we all agree over the basic issues here, lying around in CMBO open ground isn't suspected to be mismodeled.

The questions are:

1) the movement penalized enough? As I understand, a lot of fixes went into CMBB around this model.

2) are the foxholes "right-sized", should they be 15-minutes foxholes or 2-hours foxholes, and does the CMBO model offer appropriate protection for the type chosen?

On the other hand there can be no doubt that in real life a foxhole on a forward slope, once spotted, can easily be emptied by tank direct fire. So too much protection is bad as well. It seems to me that issue 1) is more important and could balance the game when done right.

As Wreck pointed out, the protection offered by different terrain types relative to each other looks fishy when looking at exposure display, when interpreting the exposure display as "vulnerablity-meter" for the men in there. However, the display is not directly useable to draw these figures, so without further tests we cannot tell one way or another.

[JasonC]

Redwolf said "Approaching with just an infantry company on an infantry platoon in foxholes is pretty hard in CMBO".

I just love empirical tactical statements like this, because they always give me fun little games to test. Right or wrong, they always wind up being fun. Here is the test game I ran.

The machine gets the Americans with 1 Rifle 44 platoon, plus MMG and 60mm mortar, in foxholes. All regulars; the HQ drew +1 command and +1 combat and I left it. The map is 480 long by 320 wide, and the terrain is rural open small hills. The game length is 15 turns.

The Americans are on a hill in the southwest corner, where a road runs by it there is the sole 100 point flag, only 40m from the SW corner. In front of their hill is first a snaking marsh, 100 yards long and 20-40 yards wide, with the road passing north of it and a 40m gap between the end of the marsh and the south edge. Then a wide, bowl shaped depression, which they can see almost every spot of from the hill. They have a little lower ground behind their hill, if they want to retreat someone out of LOS.

They are initially set up 3 squads ahead, HQ in the middle behind them, MMG right rear about 50m behind the right squad, and the 60mm mortar left rear, about 75m from the front foxhole line, so as not to have minimum range problems. I played with "default set up" to ensure this solid if conventional deployment.

The attackers were a regular rifle 44 German company, with 1 81mm mortar added. The company HQ had +1 command only, and I just used it as a weapons platoon HQ, in effect, for the 2xHMG and 1x81mm. The three line HQs drew +1 combat, +1 stealth for two of them, and no bonuses for the third. I put the no-bonus platoon behind the center of a line formed by the other two. The weapons were on my left, the south, in a few rocks ("rough" tiles).

Then the attacking company walked off on its attack. No running, just "move". I allowed myself the use of "run" only for HQs to reestablish command lines (still behind the line of squads), and later when crossing the road with a couple of squads, with a "run" order only for a perpendicular "dash" leg, until back onto open ground on the other side.

Net result - 29 attacker losses, including 8 KIA. 36 defenders hit, 10 surrendered, 4 ran off the map alive. With no cover, just an infantry company (117 men) against a platoon in foxholes (50 men). The attackers took 25% causalties, but wiped out the defenders in less than 10 minutes.

Try it. It was a blast, and played in an hour.

[ 11-13-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]</p>

[Wreck]

Firing range. American attackers w/ 1917 HMGs. Targets: 9 elite German rifle 44s. 18 HMGs; 2 per defender. Range: 293m. Firepower: 45.

Test 1: targets in scattered trees plus foxholes. Exposure for targets displayed: 21%.

Total shots fired: 2124

Casualties: 27

firepower/casualty: 3540

exposure*firepower/casualty: 743

Test 2: targets in open plus foxholes. Exposure for targets displayed: 40%

Total shots fired: 2122

Casualties: 42

firepower/casualty: 2274

exposure*firepower/casualty: 909

Test 3: targets in rough. Exposure for targets displayed: 25%

Total shots fired: 2123

Casualties: 27

firepower/casualty: 3538

exposure*firepower/casualty: 885

Test 4: targets in stone buildings. Exposure for targets displayed: 11%

Total shots fired: 2155

Casualties: 19

firepower/casualty: 5104

exposure*firepower/casualty: 561

Test 5: targets in scattered trees (no foxholes). Exposure for targets displayed: 30%

Total shots fired: 2137

Casualties: 28

firepower/casualty: 3434

exposure*firepower/casualty: 1030

[JasonC]

Mean 826 per causalty, std deviation 161 or 20% of the mean figure. However, I think the mean is rather high, and may reflect the low level of effective firepower per shot (potential rounding effects, e.g.). With shorter range, higher firepower match ups, against worse cover, I often see figures between 300 and 500, roughly half the totals you saw. For what it is worth.

[Wreck]

I also expected to see lower exposure*firepower/casualty. But that's what I got. Such tests are easy to run (I did all fire in perhaps an hour), so I encourage others to do some.

I think it very likely that exposure*firepower is not the only thing which determines casualties. I don't think a roundoff error or two is going to cause something like this to double or triple.

On the other hand, the tests do show pretty clearly that foxholes are relatively bad cover, at least versus American 1917 HMGs at medium range. Since I have no reason to think otherwise, I assume that foxholes are poor cover against firepower from any source.

BTS, why are foxholes such lousy terrain in CMBO? Will this be fixed in CMBB?

[Galatine]

Maybe I'm missing something...

-I'm firing from behind a rock.

-I'm firing from a ditch.

-I'm firing from a foxhole.

-I'm peaking around the trunk of an heavy oak.

In each case my upper torso, arms and head are exposed to return small arms fire. In each case it's the same body area exposed.

And as for forests, as I remember it: cover in trees reduces incoming fire AND outgoing fire. Foxholes in open do not. That alone _tremendously_ enhances the value of foxholes.

[Redwolf]

Maybe CMBO emulated idiotic slackers who don't dig decent foxholes?