"SMG GAP" A Proposal...Take 2

[Tero]

>Therefore, it is rather hard to cary on a

>debate with you when you are apparently

>playing a different game than Combat

>Mission

With all the abstractions in the game it is sometimes hard to say which phenomenon occur because of the actions the player is thinking he is doing and which occur because of the TacAI. You as the programmer have the edge over us mere mortals in that respect.

>By not giving the Finns an unrealistic

>Experience rating. I don't think you have

>been listening to me much

Actually I think it was not you who suggested that in the first place.

>You can not, repeat CAN NOT, take any one

>of these elements out of context.

It seems we are thinking in different CM terms here: you think about things from the Scenario Editor POV while I think from the QB POV.

Every training manual I have read stresses the importance of adapting to the prevailing situation (terrain, who is defending, weather, etc). How much can a player in CM adapt in a QB and how much of that ability is affected by the hard coded "laws of nature" ?

>A battle is not a bunch of individual

>elements, but the sume of them.

Yes. Some of these elements in the equation do not change from one battle to the other. They are the laws of nature the player has to live by as they are the factors he can not affect.

>Advantage Finns.

That is what the Red Army use as an excuse when they did not get a pushover victory.

The Red Army had the advantage in every cathegory you care to imagine, except perhaps morale. But in fact the Red Army soldiers did not surrender in anywhere near the numbers they did in 1941 so that advantage is questionable too. No discount warranted in that respect. The Finns really had only one thing going for them: early mobilization.

>They were tired, so make them one or two

>notches below optimal.

After some 90 days of continuos front line service ?

>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).

The squads had captured automatics at their disposal, yes. But there was little or no artillery support due to ammunition starvation.

>So... when you get all these elements in

>place, I would expect to see a pretty

>historically relevant battle play out.

We'll see when CMBB is released.

>If you start making the Finns überFinns

>then no, you will most likely see an

>unrealistic battle.

That is my concern too. I do NOT want any Deux-ex-Machinas. For anybody.

>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.

I'd rather say I do not want to make up a ton of rules to make QB set ups what they are supposed to be. Quick.

>Your thinking is, for lack of a better

>word, too "simplistic".

Someone would call it user-friendly.

>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".

I have always gone for the latter part with the question "what might these reasons/factors been?" added to it. Our troops did manage better than they should have but there was nothing über about them.

>German infantry doctrine called for

>engaging the enemy at 500m + (more or less)

>with HMGs to break up the cohesiveness of

>the enemy attack.

So is the German HMG undermodelled in CM at present time ?

And what about the remark about the average engagement range having been 100 meters ? How does that fit in ?

>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.

They just plain feel too inaccurate, especially against stationary targets. They can not be consistently THAT unlucky.

>Tommi gave us a bunch of nice data. We

>haven't had a chance to implement any of it

>yet.

Thanks. Just wanted to know if there were some non-Finnish sources about on the subject I should include to my collections.

>I disagree. The individual units ALREADY

>act differently.

But by virtue of absolute spotting they do not act independently. Not really. They do act differently but I would not say their actions are truly independent.

>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?

That is a tough question: Depends from the set up. I prefer standard WH rifles over VG SMG's. I back them up with what I feel is realistic within the parameters of the engagement (more hand held AT assets than recoilles guns, more Stugs than Tigers, more guns than vehicles, FO's more than on board direct fire arty).

I play Finnish tactics as far as I can so I pick the forces so that they fit the tactics. Aren't you SO surprised ?

>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.

My answer is yes and no. I take into account the built in characteristics of the units and I try to cajole the units, and the set of commands available, into fitting into the tactics I use. From that point of view all squads I use ARE the same.

>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?

You missread me. I was referring to the keeping the distance axiom. The Red Army fought in a different manner and that must have shown in the tactics of the German army. They could not keep them at an arms lenght so they had to increase the volume of fire being dished out by the regular infantry units.

>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.

Agreed. But was the approach the US Army and the Finnish army took the same, or even similar in nature ? One noteworthy thing is that the Finnish squad was using bolt actions rifles, not the Garands.

>No, but they can be armed with them to

>begin with.

I though as much.

>For example, it will be fairly common for

>the German and Finnish player to see PPSh

>SMGs in use instead of their native ones.

Please make that PPSh's (and other captured equipment) ALONGSIDE the native ones. At least for the Finns.

[Spook]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you quite certain about this circumstance, Gyrene?

I would share your concern if this indeed was the case. But I've always been under the impression that it's not. My best recollection of BTS's public record (and I'm not in the mood to pursue an archive search!!) is that "firepower," as listed by the summed small arms in the unit info box, is NOT applied in the direct sense but rather serve as "reference values." Further related by BTS, on one occasion or another, is that unit experience DOES affect its firepower in certain ways.

It'd be best now for Steve or others of BTS to explain beyond this, though.

On second thought, though, I did find a forum link that can be useful:

How is Firepower calculated?

[Slapdragon]

I believe Spook is right, from a conversation about 6 months ago. FP is the reference which gets modified by a packet of variables including experience.

[Tero]

<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>

Excellent point.

But what about the units that are out of CC ? The Red Army units in 1941 either surrendered enmasse, they became partisans or they died to the last man when (effectively) out of CC. What are the leader ratings of the squad commanders ?

And do the leader ratings affect actions that can be considred to be in the realm of individual initiative only when the sub-unit is in CC ?

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

[Gyrene]

Slapdragon and Spook, if experience has an impact on firepower then its a good thing. I have not made any experiments to that end, but as an aside I noticed that for whatever reason crack tankers get better results than elite ones.

Still, a skill rating would not be a bad thing.

Gyrene

[Spook]

Excellent point.

But what about the units that are out of CC ? The Red Army units in 1941 either surrendered enmasse, they became partisans or they died to the last man when (effectively) out of CC. What are the leader ratings of the squad commanders ?

The recognized abstraction to squad leaders in CM is that it "rolls in" with however the squad/unit's experience is defined. If you wanted to simulate a "regular" squad being led by a veteran SL, then let the squad be "veteran." And if it breaks or routs, the "!" symbol will apply to indicate a morale loss. The abstraction could then extend to say that the higher-experienced NCO got nailed in this case.

And if you want units that are "out of CC" to still show a willingness to stand their ground, then adjust the "fanaticism" toggle in the scenario design parameters. A slick feature. With this option, I can re-create the green SS troops of 12th SS Panzer in the Ardennes, who regardless still showed great determination to press on in spite of losses.

And it'll certainly find LOTS of use in the East Front setting of CM2.

The core lesson should remain, however---if you want troops to perform effectively, keep them in CC as much as possible. Regardless of nationality.

And do the leader ratings affect actions that can be considred to be in the realm of individual initiative only when the sub-unit is in CC ?

You'll need to expand here as to what you are expecting to see as "individual initiative" in the realm of CM. But on the unit level, units "in command" will respond to movement orders quicker while in CC (and even faster if the leader has a "command" bonus"). They will hide better under CC of a leader with a "stealth" bonus. And so forth.

So, unit-level "initiative" is enhanced in certain ways by being in CC. But it depends on the leader's qualities.

[engy]

Steve,

Thanks so much for the responses. I know the MG-firepower-won't-stop-hordes-of-SMG-troops topic has been beaten to death, and I certainly wasn't trying to drag this in that direction again. I only brought it up because I have a PBEM opponent who tends to buy extra German HMGs and he still can't keep me from closing (with US or British Rifle) the gap. However, random QB's are far from the textbook case, as you pointed out.

Secondly, on the experience range, my only thought was that a Green-Regular group is not going to be a whole lot of fun to play on the attack:

Advance 50m to next treeline. Get hit by MG Fire and Direct Fire HE. Break and rout backwards 50m. Repeat as necessary until surrender.

However, I think the lights just went on in my head...using Green/Regular troops it is entirely possible to recreate that "Stop the attack cold at 300m" scenario. Hmmm...

[Username]

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ARRRRRGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

You beat me to it. Oh well. I got laid off today so I wont have to put up with delays like this again.

I think Steve is confusing alot of things. But you usually dont open fire unless you want to or have to. An enemy formation is not a parrallel line advancing towards you usually.

So in reality, whenever the enemy point units trot into your kill zone (usually 50-150 meters away), you open fire (everyone). The enemy might have large elements beyond this range and long range weapons will take them under fire.

The germans (and russians) also believed in penetration fire. This is when small outposts of your guys hold their fire and let the enemy get past them. When the enemy gets into the MLR and the fire order goes, the everyone opens fire. It has a devastating effect on the enemy. I believe the germans used this around the Caan battles. Of course, you take the chance of the enemy running into these fireposts and overwhelming them but thats the gamble.

In many battles, the overwhelming shock of many weapon types (MG, mortar, artillery, direct heavy fire weapons, etc) just stun an attacker beyond the sum of the parts. the germans used this time and again to seperate the russian infantry from the russian armor. The armor could then be dealt with easily.

Lewis

[Battlefront.com]

Gyrene

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve, i did mean Volksstrum and not Volksgrenadiers, btw.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, but it really doesn't make a difference. Your assumption that a Conscript bunch of old men armed with auto weapons can't mess up a professional force does not hold water, either in WWII or today. Given the right situations, the best soldiers in the world can find themselves, at least in a firefight, in a heap of trouble. Somalia hammered that point home. So again, you have a preconceived notion of what is and is not realistic and are arguing for changes because of that. But your notions of the previous post you made are all generalizations that aren't necessarily true. Modifiers of the type being discussed here would therefore be more unrealistic and arbitrary than the current system, not less.

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

Uhmmm... not true See below...

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

Although it is not visible on the screen, Firepower is adjusted up/down depending on Experience. This is designed to simulate accuracy, fire discipline, coordination of firepower, etc. So not only to units have different reactions to being shot at depending on Experience, outgoing firepower is also affected. I checked with Charles and the Elite units are basically twice as powerful as Conscripts. Regular are in the middle.

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

Fantic, Fit, Conscript. That sounds like the same thing you have asked for. Oh, and hopefully we will manage a new Global Morale feature (I'm 99% sure we'll get it in) that can add/subtract GM points before the battle even starts. This means that you can strengthen/weaken the resolve of one side or the other to fight it out. Add points to both and you are likely to see a bloodbath. Lower both and a short, sharp firefight might end the battle quickly. All depends

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

Hehe... well, the game is certainly better because of the suggestions that have been tossed our way. We don't always agree with them, like in this case, but that is to be expected.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Tero,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>With all the abstractions in the game it is sometimes hard to say which phenomenon occur because of the actions the player is thinking he is doing and which occur because of the TacAI. You as the programmer have the edge over us mere mortals in that respect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not the programmer, but close enough The manual does adequately, but perhaps not thoroughly, outline the major cause/effect relationships between the different elements in the game. Experience playing with the different options should fill in the rest.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It seems we are thinking in different CM terms here: you think about things from the Scenario Editor POV while I think from the QB POV.

Every training manual I have read stresses the importance of adapting to the prevailing situation (terrain, who is defending, weather, etc). How much can a player in CM adapt in a QB and how much of that ability is affected by the hard coded "laws of nature" ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quick Battles, by their very nature, will not be as capable of simulating a historical battle as one created in an Editor by someone with skill and knowledge. It is simply not possible to do. However, QBs can come close. Right now you can choose Experience ranges for each side, terrain, weather, bonuses, force composition, type of battle, etc. Then either you or the computer picks your forces. This is not too much different than what happens in the Editor, but certainly not as focused.

In CMBB the "Rarity" and "Region" options will better direct a QBs other parameters. The "Region" variable, BTW, is either Finland, North, Central, or South. That way you can start up a Random QB and be assured that Romanians won't be fighting on the tundra So this variable controls forces, force type, weather, and map variables to create the correct setting for the area in question.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Red Army had the advantage in every cathegory you care to imagine, except perhaps morale. But in fact the Red Army soldiers did not surrender in anywhere near the numbers they did in 1941 so that advantage is questionable too. No discount warranted in that respect. The Finns really had only one thing going for them: early mobilization.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And favorable terrain. Just look at what happend to the Romanians and Italians in the winter of 1942. It is much harder to defend a featureless, snow swept plain than it is thick woods dotted with lakes and other difficult terrain.

BTW, by late 1944 the average German frontline unit had very few advantages over the enemy they were facing too.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>After some 90 days of continuos front line service ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dunno. Depends on how hard those variables hit. This is a matter of play balancing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That is my concern too. I do NOT want any Deux-ex-Machinas. For anybody. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is good to hear.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So is the German HMG undermodelled in CM at present time ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In some ways, yes. In some ways other factors are under/over modelled. Combine a whole bunch of these things, in a given situation, and you will see unrealistic results. See my earlier post about some of the changes we have already made to the CMBB Alpha.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And what about the remark about the average engagement range having been 100 meters ? How does that fit in ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The goal was to avoid this type of combat, but it was found to be very difficult to do. Not impossible, but as time went on the engagement ranges for Germans definitely decreased for a bunch of reasons. Like I said, this prompted the Germans to change their TO&E and to increase the firepower of their squads. Or at least to try.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>They just plain feel too inaccurate, especially against stationary targets. They can not be consistently THAT unlucky. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a different issue that is being looked at.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My answer is yes and no. I take into account the built in characteristics of the units and I try to cajole the units, and the set of commands available, into fitting into the tactics I use. From that point of view all squads I use ARE the same.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is your choice. You are basically attempting to override the inherent qualities of the squads, which may or may not work depending on the circumstances and forces in question. But all the same, your squads still don't behave the same even if your tactical use of them is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You missread me. I was referring to the keeping the distance axiom. The Red Army fought in a different manner and that must have shown in the tactics of the German army. They could not keep them at an arms lenght so they had to increase the volume of fire being dished out by the regular infantry units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Correct. They also had to absorb losses like they never had to in previous battles. IIRC, the Germans lost as many KIA/WIA in the Yelnia battles during the summer of 1941 than they did in the operation against France. So yes, they did have to adjust their tactics. But it took quite a bit of time for that to happen. The German Infantry Division's TO&E didn't significantly change until 1943.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Please make that PPSh's (and other captured equipment) ALONGSIDE the native ones.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It won't. Basically a unit will have a slot labled "SMG". When the unit is created it will get a weapon for this slot depending on a % chance of the possible choices. So a Finnish unit might have a high chance of getting a PPSh in 1941 and a high percentage of getting a Suomi SMG by 1943. Just an example.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

(hehe... never mind. Stupid refresh problem)

Gyrene,

An extra factor for this is not necessary since weapons handling and general combat/training go hand in hand. There is no "elite" unit in the world I can think of that is poor at shooting stuff up. It is also wrong to assume that every farmer pulled into a unit the day before can handle a gun well in combat, even if he bags the biggest deer in the village every year. So this is a matter of not cluttering up the system with a fine point that is already covered.

Lewis,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I got laid off today so I wont have to put up with delays like this again.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And they say there isn't a Recession coming...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think Steve is confusing alot of things. But you usually dont open fire unless you want to or have to. An enemy formation is not a parrallel line advancing towards you usually.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I am not confusing things. Just not attempting to cover all possible tactical situations and responses. The German training manuals I have here (both pre and mid war) go into great depth about when to fire and when not to fire. I only outlined a straight forward, preplanned Attacker/Defender situation.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So in reality, whenever the enemy point units trot into your kill zone (usually 50-150 meters away), you open fire (everyone). The enemy might have large elements beyond this range and long range weapons will take them under fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, the concept was to attempt to keep as few of the enemy from getting that close as possible. German squads were even supposed to open up, with RIFLE FIRE, at ranges of up to 800m if the situation was favorable for such action. For example, being on the march and seeing an enemy column on the march as well. Again, the concept was to bust up the cohesion of the enemy unit when it was most safe to do so.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The germans (and russians) also believed in penetration fire. This is when small outposts of your guys hold their fire and let the enemy get past them. When the enemy gets into the MLR and the fire order goes, the everyone opens fire. It has a devastating effect on the enemy. I believe the germans used this around the Caan battles. Of course, you take the chance of the enemy running into these fireposts and overwhelming them but thats the gamble.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, which is why it was only done with the gamble looked like it might pay off. Even the prewar squad manual talks about doing this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In many battles, the overwhelming shock of many weapon types (MG, mortar, artillery, direct heavy fire weapons, etc) just stun an attacker beyond the sum of the parts. the germans used this time and again to seperate the russian infantry from the russian armor. The armor could then be dealt with easily.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. And trying to do that at 100m was not going to happen, hence the Germans following the basic concept of their prewar doctrine (tweaked here and there) all the way to the bitter end. And as far as I know, this is still the basis of modern combined arms doctrine, so it must have merrit.

Steve

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

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Engy,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thanks so much for the responses. I know the MG-firepower-won't-stop-hordes-of-SMG-troops topic has been beaten to death, and I certainly wasn't trying to drag this in that direction again. I only brought it up because I have a PBEM opponent who tends to buy extra German HMGs and he still can't keep me from closing (with US or British Rifle) the gap.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Depending on what you are using for an attacking force, and the terrain, this might be mostly realistic. US troops made it ashore and up the cliffs at Normandy and they were facing some of the most concentrated MG fire of the entire war. All depends on the situation

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, I think the lights just went on in my head...using Green/Regular troops it is entirely possible to recreate that "Stop the attack cold at 300m" scenario. Hmmm...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo As someone's sigline points out, if you think Combat Mission doesn't simulate the average battle very well, play with Green troops. The tendency for people to over use Regular and Veteran, instead of using Green and Regular, is mostly our fault. We made the defaults one notch too high, so people think it is the norm to have Regs and Vets. That is why we are changing the settings for CMBB.

Steve

[Username]

Doctrine is great if the lay of the land and the enemy cooperates.

In normady the germans could have thrown that doctrine book at the enemy they were so close. In russia, the germans developed a defense based on reverse slope and blasting the enemy at close range. By using reverse slope and denying the enemy the ability to use direct fire to suppress the defense, they had to deal with a rather hairy tradeoff, ie enemy close enough to call you names.

the germans had the belt fed MGs to do this. Many other nations couldnt.

Lewis

PS Yeah I remember the early nineties and the great work george sr did for the economy. george w is here and watch out. he wants to start a war. jobs be damned..

[Battlefront.com]

Lewis wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Doctrine is great if the lay of the land and the enemy cooperates.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, which means that units in the field either figure out what to do when this doesn't happen or they learn a hard lesson.

In and around 1944 German attack doctrine, especially armored doctrine, was also busted up by the realities on the ground. Difficult terrain and plenty of enemy air activity made the sweaping movements of previous years impossible or at least costly. The Mortain offensive was one of the bloodiest examples of bad terrain and enemy air activity I can think of. They were slaughtered while trying to execute the doctrine of days gone by.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Steve - thanks for the reply.

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Steve Said:Yup, which means that units in the field either figure out what to do when this doesn't happen or they learn a hard lesson.

In and around 1944 German attack doctrine, especially armored doctrine, was also busted up by the realities on the ground. Difficult terrain and plenty of enemy air activity made the sweaping movements of previous years impossible or at least costly. The Mortain offensive was one of the bloodiest examples of bad terrain and enemy air activity I can think of. They were slaughtered while trying to execute the doctrine of days gone by.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Major General Michael Reynolds (former NATO commander, also commanded an Infantry platoon with distinction during the Korean War) in his book “Steel Inferno” discusses the sometimes over-rated success of Allied airpower(with respect to its ability to destroy armored ground targets)during the Normandy Campaign.

The true value of tactical airpower was in its ability to interdict supplies and material from reaching front line troops. General Reynolds sites several studies performed immediately following the Normandy Campaign by both the British and American Armed Forces, which would imply German Tank casualties due to tactical airpower were minimal.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>This is a quote from his chapter on The Mortain Counter-Attack. “RAF pilots claimed a total of eighty four tanks destroyed and twenty one damaged, plus a further 12 other vehicles destroyed and twenty-one damaged. The IXth US Tactical Air Command, which flew 441 sorties over the period of the 7th to 10th August, made claims of sixty nine tanks destroyed, eight probably destroyed and thirty-five damaged and 116 other vehicles destroyed or damaged. Confirmed results on the ground were somewhat different. Between the 12th and 20th August 1944, operational research teams from both the 21st Army Group and Second Tactical Air Force conducted separate investigations in the battle area and than compared and collated their results. They found thirty-four Panthers destroyed, ten MkIV’s, three SP guns, twenty-three armored personnel carriers, eight armored cars and forty-six other vehicles. Of the forty-six tanks they concluded that twenty had been destroyed by ground fire (sic. ATG’s, tank fire, etc), seven by air force rockets, two by bombs, four from multiple causes, and eleven by either abandoned or destroyed by their crews…seventeen additional Panthers were found in the area over which the LAH Panzer Division had operated, and of these six had been knocked out by Army ground fire, four by air force rockets and the reminder were destroyed or abandoned by their crews.”<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bare in mind that the Allies committed a huge percentage of their available tactical air strength against the German thrust around Mortain between August 6th and August 10th (458 Typhoon sorties were flown in the Mortain Sector on August 7th alone). We are literally talking about hundreds of sorties flown over the course of 5 days with the specific mission of stopping a German Armoured Counter Attack. 13 confirmed Air to ground inflicted tank kills.

Now lets all speculate as to what these numbers really mean.

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[Triumvir]

OT: Incidentally, has anyone seen Reynolds' OTHER book, _Men of Steel:1 SS Pz Corps in the Ardennes & the Eastern Front_? It's been rumoured to be out in paperback, but I couldn't find it on the web.

ObCM: Playing with hordes of Conscripts, surprisingly, can be more effective than playing with Regulars. I think Steve is right when he says that QBs can come close to simulating historical battles.

I once played a random expierience attack/defend QB against an unnamed opponent, with me having hordes of conscript Germans and him having elite Brits.

The details are too gory to go into, but once my opponent ran out of ammo, even shaken conscripts could mop him up.

I'd like to see an addition to CMBB whereby you could select from the entire experience range of troops. This would not be the default selection, of course, but would be analogous to the Unrestricted option we got for formations in the 1.12 patch.

This would let us simulate the gamey Russian tactic of flinging line units at the enemy till they were exhausted, then break through with a fresh group of veteran soldiers i.e. Guards units. I call this the Zhukov gambit.

I recognise that there'll always be people who take all elite units when they get the chance, but again I stress that I'd like to see this not as the default option.

NB I think I remember something of the sort being posted some time back, but again, no search ran in reasonable time... and I can't remember the outcome of that request. (Besides, minds can change...)

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Triumvir ]

[Tero]

>13 confirmed Air to ground inflicted tank

>kills.

What was the number of lost aircraft during that operation again ?

>Now lets all speculate as to what these

>numbers really mean.

I think that was done months ago. But I'm game.

The Finnish army lost 0 tanks to enemy air action of the 40-odd tanks it lost during the battles in the summer of 1944. The Red Airforce held absolute airsuperiority. I'll have to look up the losses they sustained for their efforts.

[PzKpfw 1]

The battle at Mortain was ideal conditions for TAC air operations, Ie, clear weather, no enemy air cover, tanks lined up nose to tail in restricting terrain.

150 RAF Typhoons faced off vs 220 German tanks & AFVs & over 100 soft skinned vehichles. The Typhoons flew 1,014 sorties & expended over 4,000 RPs. Typhoon pilots claimed 84 tank's destroyed, 55 damaged, & 112 AFVs & soft skins destroyed. Typhoon losses were 14 aircraft & 3 pilot's KIA.

Verification of claims was not possible due to ongoing fighting, an week later the claim teams, found 39 German tank's & 58 other AFVs & soft skinned vehichles on the battlefeild.

Of these 24 tanks had been destroyed, 10 damaged, & 5 abanodoned, along with 32 other vehiches destroyed. Tanks claimed equaled 28% of the original claims, but their was clear evidence German recovery teams had operated in the area.

Regards, John Waters

[Tero]

>I am not the programmer, but close enough

You are closer to the source than most of us.

>The manual does adequately, but perhaps not

>thoroughly, outline the major cause/effect

>relationships between the different elements

>in the game.

I think it is the minor, less conspicious cause/effect relationships that cause the majority of these gripes. You know, the "a fly farts in Uganda and it rains **** in Siberia" type causalities which seem totally disjointed but, when put under the microscope, are connected.

>Experience playing with the different

>options should fill in the rest.

That opens the door to negative reinforcement as well. I was truly surprised I could use realistic squad/platoon rush tactics (especially against a human player), only to find out the units would be decimated when they approach the enemy position and the squads fall victim to the nearest cover (more often than not next to the enemy unit) TacAI feature. What agrevates this is the fact they do not fire to save themselves when they run up to the enemy unit.

>Quick Battles, by their very nature, will

>not be as capable of simulating a historical

>battle as one created in an Editor by

>someone with skill and knowledge. It is

>simply not possible to do. However, QBs can

>come close.

But tantalizingly not close enough.

Lets put it this way: if you have to go to the editor as the scenario designer and you have to tamper with the forces to get them to adhere to the established (or commonly accepted) historical settings which is faulty, the established (or commonly accepted) settings or the basic, preset force modifiers ?

>Right now you can choose Experience ranges

>for each side, terrain, weather, bonuses,

>force composition, type of battle, etc. Then

>either you or the computer picks your

>forces.

Could the Editor be made to be more adept in handling global settings when it comes to the forces ? I have taken only a few cracks at it and the micromanagement of each and every squad/platoon is tedious when you have a set of variables you wish to set globally to all the units and the variables do not conform with the basic standard settings.

But to be honest I prefer QB's in my PBEM's. So does the wife.

>This is not too much different than what

>happens in the Editor, but certainly not as

>focused.

I can see that. But what I find fascinating in the QB's is the potential for setting up what-if scenarios with random terrain and climatic conditions.

>In CMBB the "Rarity" and "Region" options

>will better direct a QBs other parameters.

>The "Region" variable, BTW, is either

>Finland, North, Central, or South. That way

>you can start up a Random QB and be assured

>that Romanians won't be fighting on the

>tundra So this variable controls forces,

>force type, weather, and map variables to

>create the correct setting for the area in

>question.

I trust you will inhibit the German forces available in Finland to SS Gebirgsjägers in the north of Finland and Lapland and Detachment Kuhlmey air support and a small number of Stugs and infantry in the south of Finland/Karelian Isthmus for a short period of time during the summer of 1944.

>And favorable terrain.

I maintain that it was the terrain coupled with tactics and doctrine adapted and suited to that particular terrain type.

There is a formation called a gaggle (parvi) mentioned in the 1935 manual and it says the infantry squad (10 men) is deployed in an area of 25m by 25m and the LMG squad (7 men) is deployed in a area of 20m by 20m. The formation area varies according to the terrain, in the open it is bigger, in the forest it is smaller. The terrain tile in CM is now 20 meters square, isn't it ?

>Just look at what happend to the Romanians

>and Italians in the winter of 1942. It is

>much harder to defend a featureless, snow

>swept plain than it is thick woods dotted

>with lakes and other difficult terrain.

Arguably, yes. But will the treebursts be less effective against the Finns than they are to the rest of the forces ? Will the Finnish troops be harder to spot than the rest of the forces ?

>BTW, by late 1944 the average German

>frontline unit had very few advantages over

>the enemy they were facing too.

That is my belief too.

>>After some 90 days of continuos front line

>>service ?

>

>Dunno. Depends on how hard those variables

>hit. This is a matter of play balancing.

What are the criteria you are using to model the modifiers and how they take effect ?

>>That is my concern too. I do NOT want any

>Deux-ex-Machinas. For anybody.

>

>That is good to hear.

I am running out of way to express that.

I use a lot of examples based of the Finnish experiences but I do not see get anybody getting branded an über-American zelot for using exlusively American examples. A frame of reference issue, I quess.

>In some ways, yes. In some ways other

>factors are under/over modelled. Combine a

>whole bunch of these things, in a given

>situation, and you will see unrealistic

>results. See my earlier post about some of

>the changes we have already made to the CMBB

>Alpha.

Will the water cooled HMG's get any special treatment for being able to fire longer bursts than the aircooled ones ?

>The goal was to avoid this type of combat,

>but it was found to be very difficult to do.

>Not impossible, but as time went on the

>engagement ranges for Germans definitely

>decreased for a bunch of reasons. Like I

>said, this prompted the Germans to change

>their TO&E and to increase the firepower of

>their squads. Or at least to try.

In contrast the Finnish TO&E did not change radically during the entire war. The basic pre-war tactics and doctrine were designed for close in fighting with the weapons available (note the effects of budget cuts) in the prevailing terrain types present. So, while the firepower increased with the influx of captured weapons and ammo the basic infantry tactics and doctrine remained practically unchanged. The German forces in the forests of east Karelia were not very effective because of their predominance of flat trajectory artillery (non-howitzer guns/cannons) and their basic infantry tactics and doctrine were not designed for such confined spaces.

>That is a different issue that is being

>looked at.

OK.

>This is your choice. You are basically

>attempting to override the inherent

>qualities of the squads, which may or may

>not work depending on the circumstances and

>forces in question.

That is what I have found too. They either perform spectacularly or they fail miserably. But it has more to do with the tactics I use than the forces I use. So, am I using improper tactics or improper forces ?

BTW: are you saying that there are inherent qualities in the squads of various nationalities that work (or do not work as the case may be) accoding to and depending on the tactics used and the terrain being fought over ?

>But all the same, your squads still don't

>behave the same even if your tactical

>use of them is.

But they are behaving the same way. That works both for the regular German rifle infantry and the Allied British regular infantry I prefer. These have the closest TO&E one can get to fit the Finnish tactics in terms of FP realism. It is just that both their TO&E and basic operating priciples are not tailor made to the terrain and tactics I prefer to use so I have to adapt them through an ellaborate use of orders and other tricks.

>It won't. Basically a unit will have a slot

>labled "SMG". When the unit is created it

>will get a weapon for this slot depending on

>a % chance of the possible choices. So a

>Finnish unit might have a high chance of

>getting a PPSh in 1941 and a high percentage

>of getting a Suomi SMG by 1943. Just an

>example.

I think you mean the other way around. :-D

Suomi in 1941, PPSh in 1943. But both can be said to have been as common so the Suomi should be prominently represented all the way to 1945. I'd say the precentage could be 60/40 in favour of the Suomi.

BTW: how many weapons slots in a squad ? Will a Finnish squad be able to have bolt actions rifles, DT LMG's, SVT/SVS semi-auto rifles and SMG's in it ? Along with the regular pistols, knives, bayonets, grenades, satchel charges, molotovs, logs, crowbars etc.

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Slapdragon]

A great study called: "Tactical Aerial Interdiction in the Second World War, European Theater" done by the Army when the Air Force split from it (and whose research would lead to the Thunderbolt II several decades later) found that on call air support was generally effective at shocking the defenses of enemies, but that "toe kicking" of claims made by the airforce had been nearly impossible, since a pilot could claim a dead AFV from .50 cal fire, and be perfectly right, since the crew had abandoned the vehicle (technically a k-kill if the vehicle is then captured instead of being put back into service), or be completely wrong (crew stuck with the AFV, popped a smoke, and the pilot thought it was a dead tank.

Air interdiction was found to have three major effects:

Defense shock came from the fact that defenses, under air attack, would often feel helpless and unable to respond. Out right casualties could be light from an air attack, but the defenses were knocked out just the same because the soldiers felt helpless. This of course was more dependent on the level of training for the soldiers involved, and the amount that they could see someone shooting back, but it had a real collective moral hit on all soldiers completely out of proportion with the wounding ability of the platform.

Ancillery destruction. Interestingly enough, rather than killing a tank, shooting off its radio antannae, and for infantry putting bullets through supplies, radios, and support equippment was a major setback for the defense that air power could cause. While an airplane would kill few prepared people (who dove into foxholes ) even the best troops wont sticj around when getting straffed securing radios, dumping fieldguns into trenches, protecting ammo cans, and the like. Communication gear in particular suffers under air attack, at least in the second world war, since most of the stuff used by the Germans was not man pack in operable condition (and thus did not dive into the trench with the operator.)

Finally, air interdiction did kill things, but this caused more problems in the rear areas with air interdiction blowing up tanks and trucks on bridges, and generally making rear area troops loose morale (unlike strategic bombing which often raised morale of the enemy).

[Tero]

>And if it breaks or routs, the "!" symbol

>will apply to indicate a morale loss.

What if CC is lost due to terrain features or regular movement and not by enemy action ?

>The abstraction could then extend to say

>that the higher-experienced NCO got nailed

>in this case.

Agreed.

>And if you want units that are "out of CC"

>to still show a willingness to stand their

>ground, then adjust the "fanaticism" toggle

>in the scenario design parameters.

OK. I think it is as easy to make them surrender at the drop of a pin. And combine the two in one platoon.

But what about QB's ?

>A slick feature.

>

>And it'll certainly find LOTS of use in the

>East Front setting of CM2.

I'm sure.

I just hope it is not mandatory to use the editor to design the entire eastern front campaign from start to finish to overcome various deficiencies in the game engine generated battles.

>The core lesson should remain, however---if

>you want troops to perform effectively, keep

>them in CC as much as possible. Regardless

>of nationality.

That goes without saying. But I think you agree that things do not always work out like that. What happens then ? The green troops lead by a veteran remain veteran, they do not revert to green when they go out of CC.

>You'll need to expand here as to what you

>are expecting to see as "individual

>initiative" in the realm of CM.

What hampers things here is the damned absolute spotting. A unit gets intel on enemy units eventhough it is out of CC.

For example the German sub-unit commanders were informed of the battle plan so that they would know what their expected role was in it and they would know what to do in case they fell out of CC. Is that modelled in their out-of-CC responce times ?

>But on the unit level, units "in command"

>will respond to movement orders quicker

>while in CC (and even faster if the leader

>has a "command" bonus"). They will hide

>better under CC of a leader with a "stealth"

>bonus. And so forth.

Yes. But if the commander is removed (for what ever reason) and the unit has been hiding since turn 1 and is still going to hide some more do they lose that hiding bonus they have been enjoying since turn 1 ?

Lets say a platoon is in an ambush position. Enemy is approaching is just entering the intended kill zone. A preparatory barrage hits the command unit just so that it relocates behind the hill severing CC. What happens to the units that have stayed hidden from the enemy due to the stealt bonus ? Are they lit up like a christmas tree and do they get shot up without a chance to spring the ambush or even return fire ? Just because the command unit holds all the bonuses ?

>So, unit-level "initiative" is enhanced in

>certain ways by being in CC. But it depends

>on the leader's qualities.

I am aware of this. And the current system does work. I'm just a bit apprehenisive about squads falling out of CC and turning stupid (or rather reverting to experience level defaults and losing the benefits it has enjoyed since turn 1) at that very instant.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

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>

Although I admit to being totally biased on this issue, I strongly suspect this will not be a real popular decision among QB players. While I agree that green/regular would be a more common mix historically, there seems to be a general opinion that green troops are not a good choice for competitive play, and are only useful in scenarios where you are modeling actual specific units that really were green.

If given a choice between regular and green I doubt many will chose green. The end result will be a lot of totally regular forces, or totally veteran if you go high quality.

Personally, I like to buy mostly regulars, but always buy my sharpshooters at veteran. I won't be able to do this anymore (yeah, whaaaa, I know, but it bugs me).

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Will the water cooled HMG's get any special treatment for being able to fire longer bursts than the aircooled ones ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is actually a good question. Because of the way CM abstracts MG and small weapon fire, I doubt that longer bursts are possible. More frequent bursts would be, however.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So is the German HMG undermodelled in CM at present time ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BTW tero, any problems with MG modeling currently in CM apply equally to all MGs in the game, not just German MGs.

[Spook]

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

>And if it breaks or routs, the "!" symbol

>will apply to indicate a morale loss.

What if CC is lost due to terrain features or regular movement and not by enemy action ?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then the unit operates out of CC. It can still move around. But it takes longer to do so because the SL is now spending more time trying to second-guess the PL's intentions. In the abstracted sense.

(snip)

I just hope it is not mandatory to use the editor to design the entire eastern front campaign from start to finish to overcome various deficiencies in the game engine generated battles.

Perhaps added toggles can be provided for "quick battle" generation in CM2.

>The core lesson should remain, however---if

>you want troops to perform effectively, keep

>them in CC as much as possible. Regardless

>of nationality.

That goes without saying. But I think you agree that things do not always work out like that. What happens then ? The green troops lead by a veteran remain veteran, they do not revert to green when they go out of CC.

Because the SL is still "veteran" in my earlier example. You seem to be confusing something here. Veteran PL's do NOT raise green sub-units to "veteran" status across the board. They are still GREEN. But the leader's attributes can improve the performance of the green troops in select ways IF they are still in CC of the PL.

You are mixing up leader experience ratings as applying to sub-units's experience ratings. That's not the case.

>You'll need to expand here as to what you

>are expecting to see as "individual

>initiative" in the realm of CM.

What hampers things here is the damned absolute spotting. A unit gets intel on enemy units eventhough it is out of CC.

For example the German sub-unit commanders were informed of the battle plan so that they would know what their expected role was in it and they would know what to do in case they fell out of CC. Is that modelled in their out-of-CC responce times ?

On the first point, yes, absolute spotting is problematic, and we can only hope in time that methods to mollify this in later CM versions may come to pass. But that's an issue that doesn't lend to simple solutions.

On the latter, if you are asking if a special "out-of-CC" response applys to German sub-unit (squad) leaders across the board, you're steering down that "nationality" path again. And the answer is NO. An out-of-CC veteran Allied squad responds in the same way as an out-of-CC veteran German squad. If you want German out-of-CC squads to be more "responsive" in the relative sense, then their average unit experience will have to be higher than for their opposition.

And even if briefed down to squad level on a "plan," what if the whole plan goes in the trash can because the enemy shows up in a completely different direction than anticipated? Then the Germans who "rehearsed" would have to go from scratch. But now they have no time to rehearse or "drill" the needed counter-response.

Are you assuming that German squads, at all experience levels and throughout the entire war's course, had backup plans for each & every last contingency that could happen on a battlefield? If so, then not a good assumption.

>But on the unit level, units "in command"

>will respond to movement orders quicker

>while in CC (and even faster if the leader

>has a "command" bonus"). They will hide

>better under CC of a leader with a "stealth"

>bonus. And so forth.

Yes. But if the commander is removed (for what ever reason) and the unit has been hiding since turn 1 and is still going to hide some more do they lose that hiding bonus they have been enjoying since turn 1 ?

Lets say a platoon is in an ambush position. Enemy is approaching is just entering the intended kill zone. A preparatory barrage hits the command unit just so that it relocates behind the hill severing CC. What happens to the units that have stayed hidden from the enemy due to the stealt bonus ? Are they lit up like a christmas tree and do they get shot up without a chance to spring the ambush or even return fire ? Just because the command unit holds all the bonuses ?

No. Units in cover aren't spotted immediately. They'll only "light up" if they open fire. And higher-experience units are better able to obey orders, if ordered to stay hidden (whether in CC or not.)

A leader's "stealth" helps his units stay hidden, but isn't the only factor to "hide" those units.

>So, unit-level "initiative" is enhanced in

>certain ways by being in CC. But it depends

>on the leader's qualities.

I am aware of this. And the current system does work. I'm just a bit apprehenisive about squads falling out of CC and turning stupid (or rather reverting to experience level defaults and losing the benefits it has enjoyed since turn 1) at that very instant.

Again, experience levels of platoon leaders (& higher) don't transmit to sub-units. A green unit in CC is still a green unit. Rather, the leader "attributes" (combat/command/stealth/morale) transmit into select bonuses for the units in CC.

You might rather that German (or other) squads be more "autonomous," and not have to be in CC so much. And if experience level of the squad is high enough, perhaps they could get by (at least on defense). But it was the same for German squads as it was for all others: if events changed on the battlefield in an unanticipated way, then someone higher up had to give guidance.

Bottom line repeated---regardless of nationality, you have to abide by C&C realities to expect your units to operate in the most effective way. And units that stay out of CC too long have a higher likelihood to get into a "stupid" situation.

[ 07-11-2001: Message edited by: Spook ]