Infantry cover

[SenorBeef]

This got lost in, I think, the ammo thread that was going before the BB crashed, and anyone could respond to it, so I'm reposting it here.

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

Panzer Leader, this makes some sense but it would mean that as soon as the unit rotated the extra cover would be lost. And since that happens all the time, I'm not sure this would have any real effect on the game. We would also have to program in some sort of "don't move around" order as well as give units some "memory" about how long they have been sitting there. This is quite a bit of work for something that probably will have only a minimal impact on realism or combat results.

Steve[/QB]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, Jason brought this issue up a while back with greater depth. (Of course, he always does.)

One of the great unrealistic advantages of the attackers in CM is their ability to instantly take maximum cover of the terrain the instant they step into it. A unit (not in a foxhole) that has been sitting in heavy woods for 2 minutes has no cover advantage over a unit who just ran into another patch of heavy woods 100 meters away.

I believe this to be clearly unrealistic. The defenders (those that have been static for longer) have had a chance to find the perfect firing spots, at least as much is allowable in 2 minutes. However, the unit entering the woods does not share that advantage. They can hide behind a tree, or hit the ground, but their positions are taken hastily, not sought after moments to decide their best positioning, until they have been long enough to shift themselves to benefit from the specific cover provided.

This gives the attacker an obvious benefit that he would not have in the real world, and serves to harm the balance between attacker and defender. I do not believe this to have a minor effect on the game.

Additionally, in regards to losing cover benefits after rotating, I don't believe that to be true. Rotating, as I understand it, is an abstraction of some men getting into different firing positions to attack a different target.

Unless a radical change in facing were to occur, most men in a squad would likely be able to shoot at their new target without even moving, simply by aiming a different way. Those troops that couldn't, perhaps 1 or 2 of them, would then move to a position that allows them to fire at the new target. This would depend on specific terrain and angle, but in general, an entire squad isn't keyholed so much as to have all of them need to move to shoot elsewhere.

This could be represented by the unit losing partial cover during rotation, rather than full.

It can be as simple as saying 'For every 20 degrees rotated, one man needs to move in order to reach the next target, although probably a bit more complex in execution. So in the case of a new target 40 degrees to the left, the squad would lose a percentage of cover equal to:

(2/Squad size)(Time_in_cover_benefit)

to represent only 2 men, of say 10, actually having to lose their added cover to attack their new target, rather than all 10.

They would still be provided the 'base' cover of the terrain, but some cover would be subtracted from their 'added' cover benefit from time of occupation, equal to the portion of the squad moving. No reason for members that aren't actually moving to lose cover.

So if the base cover of a terrain type is 40%, and after a minute, a squad gets an extra 20% of cover from finding better specific cover. Upon switching targets, 2 men must move. So they lose

(2/10)(20%), 4% of cover, until the rotated men could regain that cover. Specific numbers are off the top of my head, for demonstration purposes, real values would be different, of course.

As a whole, I think this would provide a more accurate war game, and give back some of the historical advantage of the defender.

It will not be a drastic change, but I believe it to be a useful one, and would add value to gameplay.

[JasonC]

Thanks for bringing it up again.

I can offer some explanation for why I think this sort of effect does have an important impact on game play now. But first a comparison, and a slight practicality issue, about implimenting it.

One of the more distinctive features of CM today is the "command delay" feature. It is a great bit of realism, and has a large effect on the game. Units do not react instantly to orders. While the total delay is tens of seconds, this matters, because the turns are minutes. A unit that changes its orders every turn, winds up using up a high portion of its time in command delay. While a unit that sticks with a plan already settled on, spends all of its time executing the plan. And since suppression effects increase these delays, units lose even more of their flexibility once under fire.

With veterans not under fire, the overall impact is not too high. 8 seconds out of 60 is typical, leaving 87% of the time to execute orders, even with new ones each turn. But regulars and greens, the effect becomes pronounced. A unit that changes its mind every turn only gets done a fraction of what a unit working to a plan gets done.

When I first proposed a relation between % exposed and time in cover, it was exactly this fine system I was thinking of. I think the way to impliment it would be to use the same sort of code and system as the command delay timer. Every unit already has one - a number associated with it, between moves, changing with the clock setting. Just add another "field" to this "array", another number being counted. But start this timer the moment a unit stops moving, instead of the moment it gets a new order.

Then, have a mathematical reduction in the cover benefit proportional to this number. As the number counts down to zero, the cover reduction drops to zero - full cover. The amount of the reduction can be scaled to the past movement type - .8x run, .4x move, etc. Rotations can be handled by treating them as a "crawl" movement type, meaning the total cover reduction possible is very small.

So, say the cover for scattered trees is 75%. But the cover number for "moving" is 0.4x. Then the cover when moving in woods would be 1 - .4 = .6, times 75%, = 45%. A unit moving in scattered trees would have a 55% exposed number, instead of 25%. Then it stops. Perhaps 26 seconds later (regulars, say - supposing one uses twice the standard command delays now) it will have full 75% cover, thus 25% exposed. The % exposed number would fall from 55 toward 25 with each tick of the clock.

This means there will be a large cover difference between a unit that remains stationary, compared to the *average* % exposed number of one regularly moving around. Just as the small command delays are not important when it is a one-time effect of 8 or 13 seconds, the impact of *one* "settling in" period of 26 seconds will not be all that high. A unit might be shot at once or twice with higher % exposed numbers. But, a unit that moves around -repeatedly-, will incur the "cost" -repeatedly-. It will wind up spending half its time, perhaps, in lower cover states. Which will have a much larger effect on the firefights it is engaged in.

In addition, it will create trade off that I think realistic and important. A stationary unit will adopt better positions and keep them - but with its position being known, it is also a better artillery target, easier to maneuver around, etc. While a unit that keeps up and moving regularly, is harder to pin down in those respects. But realistically, is more vunerable to infantry and MG fire.

One of the main reasons I originally recommended such a system, stems from an analysis of the nature of cover advantages on the one hand, and numbers advantages on the other. The first common observation is that attackers with 150% odds often quite easily roll over dug in defenders in CM today.

This is known not to have happened regularly in practice. And this happens not by rushing to point-blank, but by settling down opposite the defenders at relatively close range and blasting them to "cowering", first.

How does this happen in CM systems as there are today? Assume the infantry types are similar, and ignore complications from supporting arms for now. The main difference is the attackers have 50% more guys and the defenders have foxholes. Which matters more?

Well, the effect of foxholes in common types of cover is to reduce the % exposed number in half, or a little less. 10-14% for the dug in, vs. 20-25% for the non-dug in, are typical numbers in woods and pines, varying of course with thickness and LOS, etc. Suppose the defenders have 10% exposed numbers and the attackers 20%. What happens?

You might naively think that with a 2x cover edge, vs. only a 1.5 times numbers edge, the cover would win out. But numbers are a "two-fer". They increase firepower, and they also allow more firepower to be absorbed. 150 shooting into 10% get 15. 100 shooting back into 20 get 20. So the better covered guys, though outnumbered, put out 1/3rd more "net". But 1/3rd more net, will stop 4/3rds odds, but not 3/2 odds.

Thus, the attackers can "dial down" the range, to so close they can barely stand the replies without breaking. Then their own fire will evaporate the less numerous defenders. As some of those get pinned, they will fire less at the attackers, and like a tipping balance the initial edge snowballs into fire ascendency.

The reason for the defender's inability to match the common historical success, of sometimes holding off up to 3:1 odds, is then directly related to the limited size of the -cover differential- that defenders enjoy in CM.

Now, compare my example with the scattered trees, and movement state reducing cover effect, only "growing" to full cover with time. Suppose the attackers are moving around every other minute. Right now, scattered trees they get ~25% exposed numbers, moving or not. Say the defenders have 10% exposure. One can calculate the likely odds the defenders can "match". 25/10 ^ .5 = 1.58x odds, for foxhole in woods vs. moving in scattered trees.

This shows that the attackers in the present system can waltz up through limited cover with little danger. Their own fire plus odds could sustain long periods of such a cover differential. With a little many-on-one, or a little time at the end in more nearly equal cover (ending in forest, or a building e.g.), 3:2 would be enough to match the effect of that cover differential. Which historically speaking, ought to be rather large (stationary defenders in foxholes in woods, vs. moving attackers above ground through thin scattered trees).

Now, have movement reduce the cover 0.4 times as above. Move the attackers every other turn for 45 seconds, and have the cover grow back in ~26 seconds. Then the average cover state of the attackers is - moving 55, growing 40, stationary 25. Times 45, 26, and 49 seconds out of 120. The average cover is thus around 40. Compared to the adversary's 10. 4 times, with odds a two-fer, means it would take 2:1 odds to "break even".

Now, again with running, and a 0.8 multiplier for cover while running. Then the cover states are 85, 55 average, 25. The average exposure is more like 54%.

And the more moving the attackers do, and the faster they do it, the more exposed they are to the defender's fire. The higher the cover differential gets, up to 5-6 times even with some scattered trees used, instead of 2x or less. A much bigger cover differential against "scrambling" attackers should mean a much improved ability of defenders to hold off numbers.

If the attackers don't want the cover reductions, they have all the realistic attacker means of overcoming this wider cover differential. They can use covered approaches that are completely out of LOS. They can pin the defenders by artillery fire, or mask them with smoke, before moving through LOS. They can shoot it out stationary to stationary, with only the old, smaller cover differentials - but at the cost of not getting close, and thus perhaps not having the firepower or ammo to blast out the defenders effectively.

What they can't do, is just pick any body of cover close enough, dial down the range, repeat as often as desired, and let mere numbers and nearly equal cover, do all the heavy lifting "automatically".

Today they can. Because the cover differentials are so limited. Only units moving over open ground face high % exposed numbers at the moment, and since players don't stop in open ground, they face these only for short periods, and usually at longer ranges.

So, the idea is to have larger cover differentials, and to tie these to movement. When both sides have been stationary for a while, they will be no different from now. But scrambling around, and especially doing so repeatedly, turn after turn, will mean significantly higher % exposed numbers and thus much wider cover differentials.

The "feel" of the result will be that movement will seem much more dangerous when done in areas the enemy can hit with his fire. It will not be enough to put a waypoint in any kind of vegetation or building, in order to make movement essentially safe, when under fire. Essential moves will still be worth a cover reduction, which will be temporary. But hopping from here to there to yonder regularly, will face steep risks.

I hope this is interesting, and sorry it is so long.

[Triumvir]

I never understand why people complain that Jason's posts are too long; they're hardly a one page document.

[Treeburst155]

Jason's posts are my favorites. Thanks for taking the time Jason. Check out the "Packing Squads Into One Terrain Square" thread I started. I'd love to hear your thoughts on that.

Treeburst155 out.

[JasonC]

"they're hardly a one page document"

LOL. Well, thanks. But 2 1/2 is more like it for that one. You might easily get it on two with smaller fonts or something.

[JasonC]

"I'd love to hear your thoughts on that."

I replied to that thread. In general I don't see a problem with over-packing, because I think overpacking did really happen at times. Maybe full cover shouldn't be available with too much "stacking", or maybe the area that is effected by small arms fire should be a bit bigger. But in general, I think CM is ok on that score.

Packing is physically possible, but artillery makes it dangerous. That is true on both counts, and CM has it on both counts. Big effects from HE as the main reason units to try to spread out, and sometimes they bunch up quite a bit. And pay for it.

[ASL Veteran]

Jason, do you feel that the type of movement that the attacker is using should influence the attacker's cover state. Sneaking infantry should have better cover than Moving infantry, and Moving should have better than Running ... ?

[Wolfe]

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

This got lost in, I think, the ammo thread that was going before the BB crashed, and anyone could respond to it, so I'm reposting it here.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey! Do you still have a copy of that thread? If so, could you send it my way? Thanks.

- Chris

chare@erols.com

[JasonC]

"Jason, do you feel that the type of movement that the attacker is using should influence the attacker's cover state. Sneaking infantry should have better cover than Moving infantry, and Moving should have better than Running?"

Yes, definitely. That is something I suggested months ago, and the "timer" for cover adjusting back up to full after a halt, was a refinement of that suggestion.

In my example, I showed one way this could be done. A coefficient for the movement type, that modifies the benefit from cover, or otherwise stated the size of the penalty for moving. Thus my "0.8x for running". That would mean only 20% of the cover benefit was available to running units. "0.4x for moving", would mean 60% was available to those units.

That is, right now % exposed = 100 minus cover. The "cover" portion of that would be reduce for moving troops, by an amount that changed with the rate. So a Crawl would keep almost all the benefit of cover - the reason it was actually used, of course. Sneak would keep almost as much, Move a bit less, Assault-move (new for CM2) not very much, and Run almost nothing.

Perhaps 0.1, 0.25, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8 respectively. The "move" and "assault move" settings would be most common when really trying to get somewhere, and on average those would reduce the effect of cover by half. Sneak and crawl would keep most of the benefits of cover, at the expense of being slower and more tiring. Run would get you there fast, but you if you get shot at you might as well be in open ground, almost.

Then, when the movement rate changes, you don't pick up the full cover benefit or the slower movement right away. Otherwise people would be micromanaging their waypoint speeds too much for cover reasons. The cover benefit keeps improving as time passes, until it is as good as it can get with the new movement state, including stationary. That is the idea.

So, someone assault-moves through scattered trees until he reaches some tall pines. Then he drops to "sneak". Say the cover of the scattered trees is 70%, and the tall pines is 85%. On assault-move he gets only 1-.6 x 70 = 28% benefit, so his exposure is 72%. When he gets to the pines and slows to "sneak", his -max- cover benefit becomes 1-.25 x 85 = 64% benefit, which would be 36% exposed. The % exposed starts still up at 72%, and falls to 36% over perhaps 15 or 30 seconds, perhaps depending on vet or regular, etc. When the unit halts completely, the max benefit is now 85 same as today, and the % exposed drops - after he stops - from 36 to 15.

If later, he started another assault-move out of the pines, his % exposed would jump up to 1-.6x85 = 34 benefit means 66% exposed. So charging would negate most of the cover of the pines.

If the effects seem too large, just tweak the numbers - 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.35, 0.5 say, for crawl-sneak-move-assault-run. Then the cover still depends more on the terrain you are in than the movement state. The point is, you can tune it to whatever, until it "feels" right and gives the right sort of balance between importance of "hitting the deck" vs. having something to hit or hide behind.

[SenorBeef]

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

Hey! Do you still have a copy of that thread? If so, could you send it my way? Thanks.

- Chris

chare@erols.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, sorry, just my post. I edited my post with wordpad rather than on the web page for ease.. so I ended up saving it.

[Wolfe]

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

No, sorry, just my post. I edited my post with wordpad rather than on the web page for ease.. so I ended up saving it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dang. I think that was the post where Steve mentioned the JS3, which is what I was looking to confirm. Thanks anyway.

- Chris