"SMG GAP" A Proposal...Take 2

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Michael,

I agree, at least in theory. My point was that the Allies did a poor job trying to duplicate the German squad concept....

Now, don't get me wrong, both guns were very good battle weapons. But as for its intended use, the MG34/42 was by far the more flexible weapon for this role

Oh, and to answer an earlier question... we are not going to do anything special for split squads. We drew the simulation line at Squad and do not wish to start muddying the waters by going lower. For once we start doing detailed team simulations we will get calls for detailed simulations of individiual men. With a multi-company to battalion focus, this is simply not a good idea.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can live with your rationale, though I wouldn't be too quick to put the Bren and the BAR in the same league; I have read that the Americans were indeed hampered by the lack of a true LMG; I think the Brit gun, even though hampered by a 30 round mag, was a little more effective - but it is a matter of degrees, and your main point - they were inferior to the German GPMG - is well taken.

As for muddying the waters - I think you have opened the door to simulating fire teams by including the split squad command. Now that you've taken that step, it remains as an imperfect model. There are no instances in CM of individual men being modelled (which is fine by me, believe me), but since you are partially modelling team sized units, it seems only natural to fine tune their treatment.

I suspect you may be thinking of the "separated" men in Close Combat and a gravitation towards modelling them, too, but I agree that they are best handled (like wounded men, etc) abstractly and invisibly.

But with the door open to squad breakdowns, it seems a shame not to focus some energies on this at some point; it would satisfy both gamer and recreationist alike and would be a neat way of simulating some of the tactical differences we are speaking about in these threads - ie denying the Soviet squad the ability to split into teams would be a good way of modelling their tactical inflexibility (or even applying it to the British when you do the early war CM).

Just a thought. The other option you could have taken (and perhaps you think you should have) is to not allow any kind of splitting. In a game of this scale, though, with 20 metre tiles, I have done enough infantry training in real life to know that sometimes squads do split apart into teams that operated over more than 20 metres from each other.

Really, this feature is already halfway modelled anyway...why not go the nine yards?

Just a suggestion.

[dalem]

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

I don't see how the modifiers you think are necessary are not already available in CM.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've asked this same question a few times and no one has yet answered, you bridge-blowing-up, rain-scenario, gamey sound tactics-type guy, you.

[TopShelfCookieJar]

(Hopefully not too far off-topic - Gyrene's post raised a question for me).

Does the rarity modifier in CMBB extend to infantry unit types (eg Heer, SS, Volkssturm, etc), not just vehicles?

If this is the case, then is it possible that a veteran SS platoon would cost significantly less than a veteran Volkssturm platoon (simply because you were probably likely to find more of the former than the latter) all things being equal (ie weapon/men loadouts roughly similar)?

I ask this after reading this by Steve:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The typical engagement should have Conscript Volkssturm, without many supporting arms, going up against a sturdy combined arms Allied force of Regular or Veteran. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With current QB's you don't necessarily see this type of matchup (well I don't), but with the rarity factor thrown in, both these forces would be more likely to be bought since there'd be some sort of 'discount' taking effect.

I could be way off base here, so feel free to point out all its flaws.

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Jeeves ]

[imported_argie]

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

Does the rarity modifier in CMBB extend to infantry unit types (eg Heer, SS, Volkssturm, etc), not just vehicles?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmm ... seems like it. This is what BTS said in the first version of this thread, on page 6 or 7, (it was regarding the problem of the hordes of German smg troops:

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

#1 - Rarity. If you can't buy 'em, or can't buy 'em without trading off other stuff, you can't use them unrealistically even if we make NO other changes. This means that in an individual game you won't find 6 out of 6 platoons being SMG units or 8 out of 10 games having at least some SMG troops. This feature has already been implemented.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So yes, the rarity system seem to be connected with infantry troops. But as Jeeves also was wondering about, is rarity connected to troop quality? I would like to see rarity extended to troop quality. But then we have the ever present problem of quantification. For example: what was the ratio between green/reg/vet/crack troops in the Heer, during feb 1942? Good luck to find an answer to that, that is not a number pulled out of someone's ass.

Mattias

[Tero]

A carry over from the old tread

By dalem

>Let's go even further and let's say that

>you're correct, or even partially so, in

>that some nations were 'just better' (which

>I don't think is the case).

I wonder why you assume I think some nations were (or are) "just better".

"Just better" is a very complex issue. The über-Finnish infantry arguably knew how to fight in the forest but they had no exprience in combined arms tactics (apart from the infantry element of our sole armoured division). During the summer of 1944 they would sometimes panic when the armour seemed to pull back when in fact they were going to rearm when they had expended all their ammo. They would fight on even if they were sustaining casualties but if they saw a tank pulling back they would assume it was time to pull back.

>How would you apply those to CM anyway?

Under the current spotting there is no way to implement force specific squad battle drills realistically.

>So my squad drill is different than yours -

>does that mean I go to ground differently

>than you do?

Propably not. Depends entirely on circumstances and how we have been conditioned by our respective trainings and experiences.

>That I run differently?

Depends on the gear. And not only your combat load of ammo and you weapon but also if your uniform is suitable for the terrain and climate. It also depends what is meant by "run" in the context of squad battle drill.

>That I die differently?

That is a tough one. Depends if I go against conventions and use illegal ammunition, like dum-dums (the Red Army did use explosive bullets).

In the Eastern Front German and Red Army troops did not use the helmet as much as it was used in the west. It was considered dead weight more than it was protection. So, will the Germans and the Red Army units be more susceptible to casualties from for example treebursts in CMBB ?

>Squads under fire seek cover, stay put, and

>may or may not fire back whilst doing so.

>Currently CM allows you to have an

>experience of Veteran, which means on

>average that your squad will do any

>and all of these things better than mine if

>mine is 'merely' Regular. The addition of

>the Fitness attribute in CM2 will allow even

>more differentiation.

Yes. Fitness has interesting prospects.

But even here I have a caveat.

It has been suggested that Winter War scenarios can be made using CMBB as a base. You just model the Finns as Elite. OK. But the fighting went on for 105 days with most of the troops in the front with a minimalistic rotation cycle. So by February, if you want to be ultra realistic, you have to model them as Tired or Exhausted Elite vs Fresh Green or Regulars. The Finnish defences caved under the extreme pressure at Summa. After that the Red Army advanced some 30 km's in thet sector while the eastern part of the Mannerheim line held its positions before the peace was signed some 30 days later. North of Lake Ladoga the defenders held their position in a place called Kollaa. Had it fallen the Mannerheim line would have been in a danger of being taken from the behind. The question now is will a historically accurate set up with historically accurate fitness ratings but with historically inaccurate experience ratings (not all Finnish units were elite) work out properly to produce historically viable results.

>I still fail to see why you are dissatisfied

>with the current implementation.

The current system works OK because the forces currently engaged in CM are demographically unified with fairly unified tactics and doctrine. The Allies use tactics that were not that different from each other, the Germans on the opposing team are chips off the same block. When CM goes Barbarossa there are new players involved that do not adhere to the team tactics and doctrine. On one side you have the Red Army with subtypes (not unlike the Germans in CM) on the other side you have the Germans with subtypes. These should work OK using the CM game engime when pitted against each other. What muddy up the equation are the other nationalities fighting against the Red Army with non-comformist equipment and tactics and doctrine developed to suit those weapons they have at hand.

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Really, this feature is already halfway modelled anyway...why not go the nine yards?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I've been dying to pose this question when the opportunity presented itself. The time is now!

Where did the expression "the whole 9 yards" come from? And no, it has absolutely nothing to do with American football either.

First correct answer wins a...wins a... oh stuff it, knows that he's the fastest grog around.

Regards

Jim R.

[Tero]

>Higher level tactics, which are totally

>within the control of the player, can be

>influenced to more-or-less conform to the

>real world tactics used by that formation in

>the same situations in the real war.

Concur. My preferred Allied forces are the British. They resemble the Finnish forces the most in terms of squad level armament and they perform as efficiently as the US troops when proper (in my case Finnish ) tactics are used.

>The Germans tried to engage the enemy at

>longer ranges than shorter, whenever

>possible.

Really ? I always thought that applied to the armour while the infantry was not too shy about getting ist hands dirty, especially in the west when they could get out of or avoid alltogether the barrages by hugging the Allied troops.

>A player can attempt to engage T34s or

>Shermans at 100m, but it is not a good

>idea.

Is there anything to the seeming inaccuracy of the hand held AT weapons, other than the laws of statistics that is ? Are the accuracies going to be altered for CMBB ?

BTW: what is your source for the Finnish AT research data ?

>It is true that the player can only

>influence the tactics used above squad

>level. This is true for all games I can

>think of, including Close Combat, that do

>not focus on the single soldier as a

>commandable element. So any differences that

>would come about at the sub-unit level would

>have to be programmed in by us.

Glad to see we agree in principle.

>But WHAT changes should we be programming

>in?

Aye, there's the rub.

In my view there is no way to program any of these changes in before the spotting is changed from absolute to relative. Only then will the squads be acting as the individual units they really are and only then can they be assigned with force specific combat drills that do not throw a monkey wrench into the game engine as a whole.

>Hence the German tactics designed to keep

>the enemy at a distance, especially while on

>the defensive.

That may have been the case prior to 1943 when they were holding all the aces and the jokers but what about the realities of the eastern front (seemingly endless hordes of armour and men coupled by withering artillery barrages) and how they affected the tactical and doctrinal development of the German army ? They opted to increase the number of automatic weapons in a squad, just like you said, so that would indicate that they were getting prepared to close quarter fighting. How did that affect their tactics and doctrine ?

>So if Tero and others are simply asking us

>to make squads inherently different from

>each other, it is already done

A graphic example:

Here is a comparison between the BAR and the Finnish LS-26 LMG

BAR, selective fire or full auto only, depending on the model

Caliber .30 (7.62 mm)

Muzzle velocity 853.4 mps (2800 fps)

Capacity 20-round detachable box magazine

Weight 8.33 kg (18.5 lbs)

Overall length 1194 mm (47 in.)

Rate of fire 550 rounds per minute

Effective range 550m (600 yds)

M-26 LAHTI-SALORANTA LMG, selective fire

Caliber: 7.62 mm x 53 R

Muzzle velocity 800 mps (2800 fps)

Capacity: 20-round box magazine

Weight: 9320 g ( 20.55 lbs. )

Overall lenght: 1180 mm ( 46.5 in )

Rate of Fire: 450-550 r.p.m.

Practical ROF 180 r.p.m

Effective range: up to 1400 meters, Practical range 200 - 1400 meters

1935 pattern text book Finnish platoon TOE:

Source Rifle and LMG (litterally rapid fire rifle, not LMG at all) squad in combat, 1935

Infantry squad was 1+ 9 men (leader, SMG gunner, 7 riflemen, 1 riflegrenade man).

Squad weapons: 9 rifles, 1 SMG, 1 rifle grenade launcher

LMG squad was 1+ 6 men (leader, LMG gunner, gunners assistant, 4 ammo beares of which one can double up as the sharp shooter), Squad weapons: 5 rifles, 1 LMG, 2 pistols (for the gunner and his assistant)

Finnish platoon consisted of 2 rifle squads and 2 LMG squads.

There has been posts that claim that the US troops were hampered by BAR. The Finnish LS-26 is virtually identical in characteristics, yet it was not hampering the Finnish infantry, it was considered a valuable asset eventhough it had serious defects due to too fine machining that rendered it inoperable in sub-zero temperatures. It could be made operational again by urinating on it so Finnish soldiers were litterally urinating on their guns in combat to save their lifes.

Captured Degtaryev LMG's were taken up to supplement the LS-26, but can troops capture weapons from the enemy in CMBB during the game ?

So, going by the CM premise that only the guns matter coupled with experience and fitness levels, not how the weapons is used as a part of the force specific squad level combat drill I look forward to see the modelling of the Finnish troops in CMBB.

>If we are being asked to make the individual

>men (all else being equal) different from

>each other, we will never do that.

I play FP shooters if I want to see individual men in action.

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

OK, I've been dying to pose this question when the opportunity presented itself. The time is now!

Where did the expression "the whole 9 yards" come from? And no, it has absolutely nothing to do with American football either.

First correct answer wins a...wins a... oh stuff it, knows that he's the fastest grog around.

Regards

Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unknown. I have heard that 9 yards was the length of a belt of machine gun ammunition, that it was the amount of material in a Scottish kilt, etc., etc.

Berkut

[Tero]

>Where did the expression "the whole 9 yards"

>come from? And no, it has absolutely

>nothing to do with American football either.

The amount of fabric in a womans peticoat ?

[Jeff Duquette]

Google....there is no substitute.

"Some say that this phrase is attributed to WWII fighter pilots who's aircraft contained about 9 yards of ammunition. When a pilot had a particularly heated battle he would exclaim that he shot "the whole 9 yards." Another interpretation is a jailbreak. Going "the whole 9 yards" meant successfully traversing the 9 yards of distance between the cell block and the outer walls. Yet another interpretation has its origins as a sea term. When a captain used "the whole 9 yards" of his primary sails he was fully committed to his course of action. A cement truck holds 9 yards of material and it was sold by the truck load. You had no choice but to take the whole 9 yards. Or a Scottish kilt... A well dressed Scot had 9 Yards of material."

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I have it on good authority that the expression first came about when referring to the 9 yards in the Hurricane & Spitfire ammunition belts. So that using "the whole 9 yards" meant expending all your ammunition in the battles fought over Britain during the 1940's (& beyond of course).

Therefore I reckon Jeff gets the prize for being pretty certain of his facts rather than just guessing (plus, of course you just knew it had to be wartime related being in this thread).

Regards

Jim R.

[Mark IV]

Sorry, urban legend again. There is no definitive answer to the origin of the phrase, though everyone "knows" an explanation. The MG belt story also came from the Pacific... and there's another one about the alleged capacity of a bomb bay.

whole nine yards?

Whole Nine Yards

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Michael,

I agree, at least in theory. My point was that the Allies did a poor job trying to duplicate the German squad concept....

Now, don't get me wrong, both guns were very good battle weapons. But as for its intended use, the MG34/42 was by far the more flexible weapon for this role

Oh, and to answer an earlier question... we are not going to do anything special for split squads. We drew the simulation line at Squad and do not wish to start muddying the waters by going lower. For once we start doing detailed team simulations we will get calls for detailed simulations of individiual men. With a multi-company to battalion focus, this is simply not a good idea.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can live with your rationale, though I wouldn't be too quick to put the Bren and the BAR in the same league; I have read that the Americans were indeed hampered by the lack of a true LMG; I think the Brit gun, even though hampered by a 30 round mag, was a little more effective - but it is a matter of degrees, and your main point - they were inferior to the German GPMG - is well taken.

As for muddying the waters - I think you have opened the door to simulating fire teams by including the split squad command. Now that you've taken that step, it remains as an imperfect model. There are no instances in CM of individual men being modelled (which is fine by me, believe me), but since you are partially modelling team sized units, it seems only natural to fine tune their treatment.

I suspect you may be thinking of the "separated" men in Close Combat and a gravitation towards modelling them, too, but I agree that they are best handled (like wounded men, etc) abstractly and invisibly.

But with the door open to squad breakdowns, it seems a shame not to focus some energies on this at some point; it would satisfy both gamer and recreationist alike and would be a neat way of simulating some of the tactical differences we are speaking about in these threads - ie denying the Soviet squad the ability to split into teams would be a good way of modelling their tactical inflexibility (or even applying it to the British when you do the early war CM).

Just a thought. The other option you could have taken (and perhaps you think you should have) is to not allow any kind of splitting. In a game of this scale, though, with 20 metre tiles, I have done enough infantry training in real life to know that sometimes squads do split apart into teams that operated over more than 20 metres from each other.

Really, this feature is already halfway modelled anyway...why not go the nine yards?

Just a suggestion.

[dalem]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Among other things Tero said:

The question now is will a historically accurate set up with historically accurate fitness ratings but with historically inaccurate experience ratings (not all Finnish units were elite) work out properly to produce historically viable results.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's what abstraction has to be about. You are worried about a game simulating a particular theater when the game is quite clearly not being designed to simulate the particularities of that theater. So you have an abstraction to deal with. Rating the Finns as relatively Elite in those scenarios you are interested in creating will get you most of the way towards where you want to be, correct?

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: dalem ]

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Michael,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think the Brit gun, even though hampered by a 30 round mag, was a little more effective<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally agree. Not only did the Bren have 10 more extra rounds "at the ready", but it was also easier to reload since the mag was on top, not under like with the BAR. This allowed a second man to act as an assistant if desired, or at least allowed the single man gunner to reload without having to muck around with the weapon's placement. Since the weight was about the same between the two, I'd say that the Bren was definitely better at the LMG role than the BAR.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for muddying the waters - I think you have opened the door to simulating fire teams by including the split squad command.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. The merrits of the Split squad command were debated many times during the course of development. It only went in as a feature very late in development.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But with the door open to squad breakdowns, it seems a shame not to focus some energies on this at some point; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But this is actually the exact reason we do not wish to go down this route. The 1/2 squad is NOT something we want people focusing on. Combat Mission is not a "team" game, but a "squad" game. Therefore, we should not be spending any time on this as it will distract both us and the gamer.

So why did we put in the Split Squad command? Simple -> recon. Platoons did not have dedicated recon elements. Instead, one squad would give up a small number of men and they would walk "point" about 100-200m ahead of the platoon. If we did not allow squads to split, the player would have to comit fully one third of his platoon to do this mission. And that is not only unrealistic from a historical standpoint, but also not wise from a game standpoint. A platoon can afford to lose 4-6 men, or a portion of that, in exchange for valuable recon information, but it can not afford to lose a squad. Same is true for defensive operations, but in this case the "recon" element would be called an "outpost".

On the Eastern Front there is another reason. The Germans, who were almost always spread VERY thin towards the later half of the war (especially) often had depleted squads holding 100m-500m of frontline, which was generally supposed to be held by a full platoon or at least a full squad (depending on terrain and circumstances). They would penny packet their men in 2s and 3s for extreme conditions. While we will not allow this, we really do need to allow squads to spread out more.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In a game of this scale, though, with 20 metre tiles, I have done enough infantry training in real life to know that sometimes squads do split apart into teams that operated over more than 20 metres from each other.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

From what we can figure, having debated this point several times now, this is generally a "modern" reality. WWII squads did not, for the most part, do this. The main reason why is the weapons being used. 3 men with full auto rifles can take care of themselves a lot better than 3 with bolt action or semi-autos. Plus, in WWII it was more common to meet full formations (like a platoon) and not scattered resistance. This makes spreading out, either as attacker or defender, rather risky at best. At least for standard combat operations.

In WWII there certainly was spreading out at times. The LMG was often left stationary as the rest of the unit ran forward, advancing on the bound in 3s and 4s were also common tactics, sending two men out for recon instead of 4-6, etc. However, we can not support all of these various options so we have accounted for these things in one way or another using different means (mostly abstraction). They are simply too finite for the system we have. It would take a lot of programming, CPU power, and graphics card power to fully simulate the inner workings of a squad like this. So it is a bad idea to pretend that we can.

The split squad is there to represent an "every once and a while" measure, either for recon or for extremely thin lines. The half squad is reduced in effectiveness because it is assumed that the two halves will NOT be used in conjunction with each other, thereby limiting their ability to coordinate fire and maintain morale. We are not going to change this for CMBB.

Jeeves & Mattias,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So yes, the rarity system seem to be connected with infantry troops. But as Jeeves also was wondering about, is rarity connected to troop quality? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is the plan. This would make Veteran troops fairly common for the Germans in 1941, but probably not available for the Soviets (or more expensive, depending on the Rarity Option used). We have to be careful about how this is done so we shall see if we can get that aspect of Rarity implemented though.

One thing we have already done is make Green the default Experience level, not Regular. Experience ranges for Quick Battles have also been adjusted downward so, for example, you get to buy Green-Regular troops instead of Conscript-Green or Regular-Veteran. This should lead to more use of Green and Regular troops and less Regular and Veteran combos.

Tero,

You just don't get it. You have formed a (flawed) concept and continue to argue for it by ignoring what everybody else says, or when conveint, trying to poke holes in those arguments by ignoring the fundamental principles which are behind them. In other words, you are not thinking very much during this discussion. You have made up your mind that CM works in a way that it does not, and does not work in the way that it does. Therefore, it is rather hard to cary on a debate with you when you are apparently playing a different game than Combat Mission

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It has been suggested that Winter War scenarios can be made using CMBB as a base. You just model the Finns as Elite....So by February, if you want to be ultra realistic, you have to model them as Tired or Exhausted Elite vs Fresh Green or Regulars...The question now is will a historically accurate set up with historically accurate fitness ratings but with historically inaccurate experience ratings (not all Finnish units were elite) work out properly to produce historically viable results.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By not giving the Finns an unrealistic Experience rating. I don't think you have been listening to me much It is very simple. The force and weapons of one side needs to be taken in context of the force and weapons of the other side PLUS the major factors of the battle in question (terrain, who is defending, weather, etc). You can not, repeat CAN NOT, take any one of these elements out of context. A battle is not a bunch of individual elements, but the sume of them.

I am not sure about the specifics of the battle you used in your example, but if the Finns are on the defensive in generally favoarble terrain with prepared positions. Advantage Finns. The general Experience level of the Finns present might have been just barely a cut above the rest, so make them a mix of Regular and Veteran. They were tired, so make them one or two notches below optimal. For the Soviets, I dunno... probably a mix of Experience ranging between Conscript and Veteran for all I know. They might have been fresh, so their Fitness rating would be optimal. The weapons each had at their disposal is not known to me, but in general I would say the Finns probably had a decent mix of weapons for the role they were trying to accomplish (defending).

So... when you get all these elements in place, I would expect to see a pretty historically relevant battle play out. If you start making the Finns überFinns then no, you will most likely see an unrealistic battle.

My major point here, Tero, is it sounds like you don't know how to balance the various elements REALISTICALLY to get a realistic result. Your thinking is, for lack of a better word, too "simplistic". And that is "Finns did better than they should have, so they must have been über in some way" instead of "there were probably a multitude of reasons why the Finns managed to do better in this situation, many of which had nothing to do with troop quality and training".

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Really ? I always thought that applied to the armour while the infantry was not too shy about getting ist hands dirty, especially in the west when they could get out of or avoid alltogether the barrages by hugging the Allied troops.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

German infantry doctrine called for engaging the enemy at 500m + (more or less) with HMGs to break up the cohesiveness of the enemy attack. Artillery and larger mortars were then called down to (hopefully) finish the job. That was the primary goal -> to stop the attack before it really started. This meant that friendly infantry losses would not be necessary and the line could be held for sure. If the enemy continued its attack at about 300m-400m the LMGs of the squad would open up suppress/kill targets that had slipped through the HMG and artiller/mortar fire. Again, the hope was to stop the attack cold, not let the enemy get into the trenches. If the enemy continued to advance then all weapons would be brought to bear on the enemy at about 200m. Once again, the hope was to turn the enemy around and send them packing with large casualties and minimal friendly ones. If the enemy got to within 100m it became rather impossible to use artillery and heavy mortars, and difficult even for light mortars (before the Germans ditched them). Now it was up to the infantry men to fight on their own. Casualties, depending on the nature of the enemy force at this point, could be rather high. And that is why they did not wish the enemy to close to this range.

But due to the reality of shortages of men, guns, ammo, etc. and the increasing problems with better and bigger enemy formations, the Germans recognized that as their ability to fight this type of battle diminished they needed to make up for it in some way. There were several things done, some of them were to reorganize their combat formations (done 3-4 times in the last year of the war) and to add as many automatic weapons as possible to the frontline. HOWEVER, the tactical goals as I described above were the same until the war ended. The problem was that the Germans had to rely more on the infantry to break up the attacks as time went on. The Sturmgewehr was designed to give the infantry that ability. Basically making each "rifleman" capable of causing suppression and casualties at 200m+. So instead of having one LMG and scattered rifle fire, they had (in theory!) great volumes of "accurate" full auto fire to replace it with. Of course this theory didn't really come to pass as the rifle remained the standard weapon for the average soldier.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is there anything to the seeming inaccuracy of the hand held AT weapons, other than the laws of statistics that is ? Are the accuracies going to be altered for CMBB ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't understand the question. In CMBO there accuracy of hand held AT weapons is influenced by Experience, degree of suppression and Morale, cover, and luck (maybe some other things) as well as the inherent factors of the weapon being used. Since I can't think of any reason why this is inadequate, there will be no changes in CMBB.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTW: what is your source for the Finnish AT research data ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tommi gave us a bunch of nice data. We haven't had a chance to implement any of it yet.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Only then will the squads be acting as the individual units they really are and only then can they be assigned with force specific combat drills that do not throw a monkey wrench into the game engine as a whole<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. The individual units ALREADY act differently. I challenged someone else, and now I challenge you. Do you use VG SMG and standard WH Rifle infantry, backed by their realistic range of support weapons, the same way tactically in all situations all the time and get the same results? If the answer is NO, then my contention that individual squads DO model their inherent "drill", at least the most important aspects of it, is correct and your position that "all squads are the same" is not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That may have been the case prior to 1943 when they were holding all the aces and the jokers but what about the realities of the eastern front (seemingly endless hordes of armour and men coupled by withering artillery barrages) and how they affected the tactical and doctrinal development of the German army ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I explained this above and in previous posts. You can't seriously wish me to believe that changes to squad size, wepaons, support units, availability of artillery and tanks (etc.) will have NO impact on the tactics used by the player especially when coupled with the changes made on the other side?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There has been posts that claim that the US troops were hampered by BAR. The Finnish LS-26 is virtually identical in characteristics, yet it was not hampering the Finnish infantry, it was considered a valuable asset eventhough it had serious defects due to too fine machining that rendered it inoperable in sub-zero temperatures. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You obviously missed the entire point. The US valued their BARs very much, just like it appears the Finns did. But did it serve the same role as well as a belt fed LMG as used by the Germans? No. All the BAR did was offer the squad some more firepower, while the German LMG offered a hell of a lot more firepower.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Captured Degtaryev LMG's were taken up to supplement the LS-26, but can troops capture weapons from the enemy in CMBB during the game ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, but they can be armed with them to begin with. For example, it will be fairly common for the German and Finnish player to see PPSh SMGs in use instead of their native ones.

Steve

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Battlefront.com]

The thing that bugs me about the national/drill modifier debate is that the pro side of the argument isn't producing anything to support the notion that CM can't adequately simulate the differences between one side and another. Here is how I see the debate as it plays out (pro = in favor of modifiers, con = someone against)

PRO - "Training for different types of units for different nations at different times were not necessarily the same. Often they were quite different"

CON - "This is a true statement and is not even a point worth arguing over. However, what practical effect did these training differences exhibit on the battlefield?"

PRO - "Well, in such and such a battle it was clear that this or that unit was able to do that or the other thing differently than the other side".

CON - "Agreed. But take a look at the reasons why. The battle was fought in A terrain in B weather against troops with C experience and backed up by D weapons from prepared defensive positions. The other side had to advance over E terrain and had F experience and were not backed up by G weapons but instead H weapons. So how can you say that the small unit drill of one side led to this when compared to all the huge and unarguably significant factors?"

PRO - "(ducking) But drill was different"

CON - "Yes, we know that, but what effect did it have on a particular battle when taken in context of all the other factors?"

PRO - "(trying not to duck as much) Since drill was different there needs to be differences with the sqauds. They shouldn't all behave the same"

CON - "They don't. You can't seriously tell me that you use SMG and regular Rifle units for the Germans in the same way, nor use a German company in the same way as a US? Or that when you play the British you use the same exact tactics and strategies that you use when playing as the US? Sure, there are similarities, but that was because all of them used similar core tactical concepts. Still, not all squads are created equal"

PRO - "But when I recreate a historical battle with x unit versus y I should see z result, therefore you need to model drill and/or national modifiers"

CON - "You still haven't shown WHY. If you have a battle with x and y unit you should see z result if the values of the units in question are propperly selected with the realistic level of Experience (and Fitness in CMBB)."

PRO - "But they still won't have modified behavior based on their drill and/or national characteristics"

CON - "Once again, what affect do these modifiers bring to the simulation that are currently not evident with the system as is?"

PRO - "Drill and/or national differences are a reality, so therefore you need to simulate them"

CON - "Damn, this is sounding familiar. Once again, what practical difference do these factors have on the battlefield that can not be simulated with the factors already available?"

PRO - "Since you don't simulate drill and/or national modifiers, you obviously don't see their results in CM".

CON - "ARGHHHHH!!!"

Steve

[Spook]

Ya know, the added irony is "leadership factors" from the leader units haven't been broached so much in this pursuit for "differences" between the nationality's squads.

Considering that leader units have four "variables" that all impact on troops that are IN COMMAND---and that all of these are within bounds to modify in scenario design---isn't that four more ways as to help approximate "doctrine" or "drill" or "responsiveness" or whatever?

[Battlefront.com]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ya know, the added irony is "leadership factors" from the leader units haven't been broached so much in this pursuit for "differences" between the nationality's squads.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great point Spook If someone wants to sterotype squad behavior, one way to do this is to muck around with the leadership ratings. Never give the Germans a "Stealth" bonus or the US a "Combat" modifier or the British a "Comand" bonus. Because as we all know the Germans couldn't keep quite, the Americans panicked at the first shot, and the British had horribly old fashioned officers

Seriously, although leadership modifiers are not given out based on nationality or troop type, they are given out based on Experience level. So a Veteran platoon will more likely have better leadership qualities than a Regular or Green unit. Conscript will generally have no advantages. This further increases the differences between the different Experience levels and plays up unique aspects of a platoon's leadership vs. another platoon of even the same Experience level. You can also, in the Editor, create a platoon with a great leader (say... Veteran) and so-so Squads (Regular or Green). Or you can do the reverse and have good squads and a bonehead for a platoon leader.

Steve

[Andreas]

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

Ya know, the added irony is "leadership factors" from the leader units haven't been broached so much in this pursuit for "differences" between the nationality's squads.

Considering that leader units have four "variables" that all impact on troops that are IN COMMAND---and that all of these are within bounds to modify in scenario design---isn't that four more ways as to help approximate "doctrine" or "drill" or "responsiveness" or whatever?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that is a really good point.

Also, as I said in the other thread - different drills are reflected in a different doctrine, and therefore different weapons. Once you have learned how to use a US Rifle squad, you will use it in a different way than you use a Gebirgsjaegersquad. And that is where the difference in Doctrine/Drill (which is really inseparable) comes into the use. So it is after all a function of your understanding of the differences.

[Dittohead]

Quick question to ponder

If the game was real time, would that increase or decrease the SMG Gap?

[aka_tom_w]

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

Quick question to ponder

If the game was real time, would that increase or decrease the SMG Gap?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I always like a post with a sense of humour!

-tom w

[Jeff Duquette]

PRO: ZZZZzzzzz….ZZZZZzzzz..

CON: ZZZZZzzzzzz……zzz

PRO: ZZZzzz..ZZzz..ZZZzzzzzzzz….

CON: zzzzzzzZZZZZZzzzzzzz…

PRO: zzzz…zzzz….ZZZZZZZ….

CON: zz..ZZZ..zzzZZZzzz…ZZZZZZ…

PRO: zzzzzzzzzzzz…ZZZZZZZZZZZ…

CON: ZZZZZZzzzzzzzz…ZZZZ….

PRO: ZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzz…zzzzzz

CON: ZZ..ZZ…ZZZZ…zzzz…

slow day at work plus big lunch makes me sleepy. isnt there a sleepy instant gremlin?

[engy]

Steve, I'm extremely sorry to butt in where I probably don't belong, but I've become extremely curious about 2 points:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

One thing we have already done is make Green the default Experience level, not Regular. Experience ranges for Quick Battles have also been adjusted downward so, for example, you get to buy Green-Regular troops instead of Conscript-Green or Regular-Veteran. This should lead to more use of Green and Regular troops and less Regular and Veteran combos

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is there a reason you haven't expanded the range to include 3 levels: Con-Grn-Reg, Grn-Reg-Vet, Reg-Vet-Cr/El? I understand the point about the historical basis for the inclusion of more Green troops, but it would seem also historical to have a Veteran platoon to form the crucial part of the attack/defense. A Green-Regular-Veteran mix is exactly what appeared throughout the war for most nations, excluding crises (early war Russian Green/Conscript abundance, etc).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

German infantry doctrine called for engaging the enemy at 500m + (more or less) with HMGs to break up the cohesiveness of the enemy attack. Artillery and larger mortars were then called down to (hopefully) finish the job. That was the primary goal -> to stop the attack before it really started. This meant that friendly infantry losses would not be necessary and the line could be held for sure. If the enemy continued its attack at about 300m-400m the LMGs of the squad would open up suppress/kill targets that had slipped through the HMG and artiller/mortar fire. Again, the hope was to stop the attack cold, not let the enemy get into the trenches.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Will we be able to recreate this in CMBB? Currently, unless the defending German has a ridiculous amount of HMGs, there is no way MG fire at 500m will slow anything down. It hardly even changes the alertness state in CMBO. Even 300m is extreme range for HMG fire to have any appreciable effect, yet this is where you say the attack is supposed to be stopped cold.

Hmm, the above tone sounds much more critical than it's intended to be. I love CM and have never played anything like it, so please don't feel like I'm calling your baby ugly.

Again, sorry for the intrusion...

[Battlefront.com]

Jeff,

Gotta agree with you there. I myself nearly nodded off making that last response Unfortunately, falling asleap doesn't stop the same old posts from showing up over and over again

As for your call to discuss the differnces, without keeping CM in mind, is a good one. It is, in fact, what the "pro" camp needs to do. Show real world ways that drill and/or national abilities influenced battles. If any of this survives the debate about it being realistic or not, then we can figure out if it makes a hill of beans difference in the game itself.

Hi Engy,

If you got a brain and the desire to talk shop about CM, you are in the right place

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Is there a reason you haven't expanded the range to include 3 levels: Con-Grn-Reg, Grn-Reg-Vet, Reg-Vet-Cr/El?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only reason is that we can't really control what people purchase once the range choice has been made. Con-Grn-Reg is quite a spread. Although you are correct that there might be a little bit of the extremes sprinkled in to the mass, without making a more complicated purchasing system we can't prevent someone from going to one extreme or another. If there are only two choices then that makes the range more focused.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Will we be able to recreate this in CMBB?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. As this has been a subject of much debate, it can also be recreated in CMBO. At least to a reasonable, realistic degree. The current version breaks down because either the situation does not lend itself to the correct application of the doctrine (i.e doctrine does no work for all situations equally) or because one side uses poor tactics. In extreme cases there can be blame laid on other aspects of the game, like SMG rushes and successful charges of a single isolated MG.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Currently, unless the defending German has a ridiculous amount of HMGs, there is no way MG fire at 500m will slow anything down. It hardly even changes the alertness state in CMBO. Even 300m is extreme range for HMG fire to have any appreciable effect, yet this is where you say the attack is supposed to be stopped cold.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you set up an ideal example, as the doctrine describes, you will find out that CMBO does in fact simulate such a situation very well. But there are aspects of the game that do need improving in order to make this work realistically well in some other situations. This is what we have changed in CMBB:

1. Global Morale penalty - If your force gets chewed to pieces and the enemy's doesn't, then you are going to be more likely forced to end the game (with the option to play for fun instead of points). One of the problems in CMBO is that the attacker has NO incentive to pull back after an initially bad start, since this is a game and the game is all about winning the battle you are in. In real life if a force were hit fairly hard at 500m-1000m it might simply decide to try again some other time. This was a founding principle in German doctrine, and one of the main reasons why they were so ticked off when they got into the Soviet Union. Soviets tended to keep on going when any other Western force would have pulled back.

2. Run and Assault Move orders - Run in CMBB is now just that -> sprinting from point A to B. Fast, but little cover and no return fire. Units using Run in CMBO get cover and return fire capabilities, which allows them to cover distances (in some cases) too quickly and too effectively. This is a MAJOR change. The new Assault order provides cover and return fire, but is not be much faster than the regular Move order.

3. "Cover Arc" order - MGs, and all units, can now be assigned "fire lanes". This will keep firepower concentrated on the places it needs to be. Right now it is possible for key units to become distracted, which can undermine an otherwise decent defense plan.

4. Increased "spray" effect - MGs currently can effect more than one unit at one time. However, we feel the range that this effect applies to, and the degree, were a little conservative. So we have allowed MGs to affect greater areas more with each burst. This applies to ALL MGs, even the ones carried by squads.

5. MG Fire frequency - at closer ranges the MGs fire more frequently then they do now.

The net effect makes the defender better able to hold positions with less optimal forces than CM currently allows. However, in a textbook example, like what I described, I would expect the net result to be about the same for CMBB as for CMBO.

Steve

[ 07-10-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Gyrene]

Steve, i did mean Volksstrum and not Volksgrenadiers, btw.

My "annoyance at the way things are stems not from the fact that the game can't be compensated for realism, which it can, but that people will still continue to abuse the system and use CM as their laboratory demonstrator for their arguments.

I am aware that CMBB will include rarity modifiers to prevent much of that, and the new fitness rating will add another excelltn modifier to create realistic units, and if you bear with me for the rest of this post I'd like to make another case unit training and how it could be implemented in later versions of CM.

A unit can be made green, with a low fitness rating to simulate rear guard units,

but when time comes for them to deliver their firepower they still achieve the same accuracy and volume as units 3 or 4 steps above their rating.

Unit grade does a good job at simulating morale, but making an unit crack or elite does not make them any more accurate than a conscript unit.

A simple way to solve this situation and add another dimension to the customization of the game would be to add a "skill" rating, along with the grade and fitness.

Imgaine that for whatever reason you wanted to model a Montganard tribesman squad, they would have veteran or crack morale, high fitness but low skill. The first two are "national" modifiers and the second is to illustrate their lack of modern military training. Making them green to reduce their skill would make them break in an unrealistic manner.

An early war USMC squad could be Green/Regular with high fitness and high skill, pointing out the emphasis on marksmanship in the USMC.

A VG smg squad could be regular/fit/high skill while a VS smg squad could be regular/unfit/low skill.

My argument goes back to the point that squads should not be rated on their firepower potential only, but also in their training and skill in delivering that firepower.

If no one was shooting at them, I'd expect a regular infantry squad from a German, US or CW unit to deliver more rounds on target than a regular partisan squad identically armed, but without the formal small arms training.

At the same time, a partisan squad composed of backwoodsmen could have regular morale, high fitness & high skill due to their "shooting for food" lifestyle.

It might seem at times that we are arguing just for argument's sake, but I think that many of us see CM as the greatest contender for the Holy Grail of squad level wargaming and feel that we actually stand a chance at helping to improve the game and being heard by the men behind the code.

Also, we like to complain.

Gyrene