Ambush: a possible improvement for CM2

[Sig]

The way an ambush is handled in CMBO seems to raise some problems regarding its accurate simulation. I would like to propose a possible simple way to improve the efficacy and realism of ambush while in a defense scenario.

First of all, a precision: I am NOT a micromanagement fan, and I think the way the ambush marker works is generally OK (at least for me). And to clarify further, I like CMBO the way it is, with chaos, surprise and unexpected failures (and success) which forces you to react, adapt and be imaginative. Very stimulating.

However, the way an ambush is set seems to be unsatisfactory, when you are in a DEFENSE scenario. See many previous treads.

What is one of the numerous advantages a defender in ambush has over the attacker? He knows the EXACT distance to target (by target I mean the ambush zone)! Because in a *prepared* defense, these distances have been measured. Having fired an AT weapon very similar to the Panzershreck, I can tell you that knowing the exact distance to target leads to a *very* significant increase in first shot accuracy, ...and survival.

I would like to propose the following add for CM2: the possibility to buy ambush zones when on defense (and ONLY on defense)!

Two options:

*First: fixed volume, a rectangle you could place like say, the barbed wire element. Dimensions would be something around 20m by 10m.

*Second: flexible. By flexible, I mean you would just buy the four corners of the zone (materialized by 4 flags, or buttons, or whatever) and then would place them on the field to create the ambush zone. This would help to create a more versatile zone, and not simply a rectangle. However, in this case, to prevent "gameyness" (e.g. an ambush zone 200m by 0.10m...) you need to give maximum and mimimum distances between the flags. And also to give a price depending on how far from each other the flags are. More complicated to implement.

Now, to improve this system, you would have three types of ambush zones:

1/Armor (open fire only when armor enters the zone)

2/Infantry and soft skin vehicles

3/Kill them all (everything that enters is attacked)

Example: I have a rifle platoon and an AT gun over watching a key road. I need to interdict this road. I would then buy two ambush zones, one against Armor and one against Infantry and superimpose them where I want my ambush to be. The platoon would target the Infantry zone and the AT gun the Armor zone. Et voilà: no more At gun opening on enemy scout infantry, and no more infantry platoon firing at an AFV, but a "FLEXIBLE" ambush.

Now, here is the bonus: *scenario design*! Today, if you design a scenario with for instance an AT gun over watching a critical sector at 500m, with the normal ambush marker (the one we have now in CM), the enemy must pass very close to this marker to trigger the ambush. If you have no marker, and your gun is not hidden, the enemy can scout with infantry, the AT gun will often open fire....2min later, artillery barrage, a dead AT gun. And finally, if you have hidden your AT gun, at 500m even if a complete Panzer Division passes in its sector, it won't open fire. However, with the different ambush zones I would like to propose, scenario designers would be able to create *real* and *efficient* ambushes. More challenge for the players, and more fun!!

One last thing: to be closer to real life, once targeted, an ambush marker should give the ambusher an improved accuracy for the *first* shot (distance to target is precisely known).

Since I don't program, I have no idea how difficult it would be to implement this system. However, I believe it could really improve the efficacy of an ambush. Again, this is meant only for the DEFENDER (like pillboxes, mines, etc...).

Feedback and comments appreciated.

Thx.

Sig

[Juardis]

Sig, interesting concept. But I can't help but think that TRPs are what you're after. I mean, they cost 10 pts so buy 3-5 and place them side by side. Mortar teams that have not moved during the ENTIRE battle can target the TRPs whether they are in LOS or not. AT/Inf guns supposedly have better accuracy when firing at a target that is sitting on an AT gun. Arty of course falls more accurately and faster on a TRP. And finally, (I'm not sure on this one, so take it with a grain of salt), finally, you can set your ambush command on the TRP.

I mean, if your ambush zone is going to cost 50 pts or so, buy 5 TRPs for the same effect. Just my opinion of course.

Note: A TRP is 10 pts if you're the Germans, not sure how much if you're the Allies. But then again, the allies weren't defending all that often either. I know, Ardennes and what not, but you get the idea.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Sig]

Well, TRPs are not the answer. FOs target them and that's all (can be enough sometimes ).

The main problem with ambush arises when you design a scenario in which you want to set for instance an AT ambush (AI controlled defense). Against a clever player, your settings will NEVER work properly!

Why? As I explained before: if you hide an AT gun, it won't fire except when the enemy comes close, too close for health in fact. So, no long distance ambush. If you don't hide your AT gun, it will open fire, but more often then not will so on the scouting infantry (again I assume a "good" player). Result: artillery fire or similar, gun out and enemy AFVs intact. If you place an ambush marker, too restricted for a *prepared* defense: the enemy has to pass on or very close to the merker, and again the AT gun will probably open fire on the scouting infantry.

This is not too much of a problem if it's player against player, because you can hide and then unhide the AT guns when enemy armor appears, thereby achieving surprise. But this IS a real problem when the AI is in charge.

And as a scenario designer this is frustrating (very) to know your long range AT ambushes have practically *no* chance against any player who knows a bit about infantery "scouting".

What I would like with this kind of system is to introduce a simple way to eliminate the AI limitation (know when to unhide) to be able to create more realistic, or at least challenging ambushes. Such an improvement could only increase the pleasure the player can have, by increasing the challenge. At least that's how I see it.

To end, just note that I used as example an AT ambush, but obviously this should also work with other arms as well.

Thx.

Sig

[Major Tom]

Well, putting ambush markers to only fire on things that you tell it to will cause the same problems and complaints as if each individual unit had this ability. If you put 'only fire at armour' and infantry stumble accross your position, and wipe it out you will be pretty pissed off when they didn't fire at a distance to scare them off. The way BTS set CM ambush up is that they had each individual unit look out for their own survival. Those AT guns targetted those infantry BEFORE they got within lethal distance. Unfortunately, other tanks and arty could now see the position. However, if they would have left the infantry alone they would most probably have walked right on your AT position and annihilated it without a fight.

Ambush and long range AT fire are also two completely different things. The average CM map will not be large enough to warrant successful AT long range fire unless you have more guns than enemy tanks. The way an ambush works, is, that your weapons have a limited fire arc both in and out (so they can't get you from other angles). Direct fire AT guns won't last long (ie. if they are facing the frontline. Angled AT fire, accross roads for example, will result in the enemy getting killed or stopped within a good fire range. Also, ambushes are ambushes, they are only temporary, meant for a quick strike then retreat. AT guns are only good for 1-3 Tank kills before you should definitely move them out.

PROTECT your AT guns with ample Infantry and HMG's. Make it so that enemy infantry can only directly attack your AT unit AFTER going through a platoon of your own infantry. Have HMG's set up around to stop a direct frontal attack on the AT gun. However, there is NO protection from Artillery fire. Once your position has been discovered if you don't retreat you will loose everything. Always have a light transport vehicle nearby (Universal Carrier, Jeep, Kubelwagen, etc..) so you can move out your AT guns either to better positions, or out of the main attack once they have fulfilled their ambush job, or, have been discovered before they could.

I have set up some pretty good ambushes using both Infantry AT and AT guns. The key is, to have enough support so that if an enemy squad should happen to stumble upon them they should be quickly annihilated by your escort squads so they won't just eliminate your gun. Infantry AT, Zooks, Schrecks and PIAT's are much more versitlie than AT Guns. They are much more mobile and can go more places than a gun can. Although they have a very small amount of ammo, they can kill any enemy tank in the field. They are more manuverable meaning that you can get closer to the enemy to guarantee a hit.

Also, not every ambush has the benefit of time to set up perfect ranges, nor would this necessarily guarantee success or better aiming. It might help, but, every ambush should not give your troops a to-hit bonus.

Create kill zones with just more than one AT weapon. Have an AT gun, along with some or one Infantry AT guy, plus some HMG's and infantry to further confuse the enemy. Open up with your HMG on the lead tank to button him (so he won't discover your AT guns!) and your infantry and other HMG's to suppress enemy infantry and other tanks.

Remember, every plan falls apart once you get in contact with the enemy. The same goes for ambushes. It wouldn't be much fun if your opponent ALWAYS did what you think they would!

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 02-04-2001).]

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

You only need "ambush" for point targets (as with "keyhole" sighting) and close ranges. At longer ranges and more open areas, you just make the fire decision yourself, at the right minute of time. So it isn't exact to a second, so what? Nothing in combat really is anyway, that only happens in rehearsals.

You also do not have to program the ambush at set up and then never tweak it. Often you will see an enemy tank but want it a little closer for a flank shot or what have you. You just "lead" it with an ambush marker - like a duck, LOL - and when it gets there you open up as planned.

Ambush zones are not meant to completely replace your own exercise of the "fire discipline" decision. They are meant to show this unit is *aiming* at this point - which you can only do with a point, not some big long box.

For shorter ranges, the use of the ambush function is more critical, because that is when the target aspect, lethal ranges e.g. of short-range infantry AT weapons, and actual overrun of your positions, come into play. You only have to cut the timing to open up so exactly, when you are holding your fire until very close range.

Note that infantry HQs can set their own ambush markers, which all units under their command can react to. A company with support weapons can have a dozen ambush markers out. If you are worried about the AT ambush being sprung early, just leave the AT assets on "hide" and the anti-infantry assets on "ambush". After the anti-infantry assets open fire, you can make the decision to shoot with the AT assets or not, half-a-minute later.

[Leonidas]

Sig,

I think it's a fine suggestion, especially for creating scenarios. I think CM would be improved with the ability to give more detailed order to units, but there are clearly many players who love the lack of detail in orders. For me, the inability to give precise orders breaks away from the sense of historical accuracy. This is illustrated in your example. A real company commander could give very detailed orders to his AT gunners on when to spring the ambush. (Whether they would follow those orders is of course another question.) But for reasons I still do not fathom, many players insist that the ability to give more precise orders would somehow ruin the game.

But surely even those who dislike any increase in order detail wouldn't object in principle to improving detail in scenario design. Surely designers should have access to any tools available to make their scenarios more interesting.

There would still be a question about whether giving scenario designers those tools would be an efficient use of time and effort by BTS, but that requires an understand of the programming issues involved.

[Major Tom]

The problem about detailed ordering of units is that occasionally the tide of battle will change so that the orders you give the unit will be obsolete once they first encounter the enemy. You will be yelling at that AT team when they ignore the infantry moving toward them waiting for a tank to plod on by. The way BTS set up the thing now is that each unit uses its own discretion based on the best chance of survivability in relation to its experience. Regular units will behave better (on average) to green units. In reality, AT guns could NOT and did NOT obey their commander 100% of the time. They saw some infantry advancing on them so they decide to use their HE to get rid of them while they were at a suitable range. If they would have obeyed orders NOT to fire on infantry, they would be able to walk right up beside the AT gun and wipe out the crew.

Giving detailed orders for who to kill will not work in CM. If BTS did add this feature people would start complaining that 'my AT gun/tanj ignored this infantry advancing on them which killed them' and so on.

[Leonidas]

I partly agree, Tom. Sometimes troops will get killed following orders. And sometimes they could make better decisions acting on their own. But much of the time soldiers get killed when they act on their own, and getting men to follow orders when they don't want to has been the foundation of military training since the phalanx.

There has always been a tension between getting the benefits of men who follow orders and support the overall plan versus getting the benefits of letting men make decisions on the spot, more quickly and based on better small-scale information. I think the most common conclusion is that soldiers usually don't have enough information to act on their own, and thus should generally stick with orders, even if those orders don't seem to make sense on the small scale. But there are always exceptions. It's just a complicated issue that depends on many different factors.

I recently played a game in which my MG was ordered to Hide, but decided instead that it should open fire at an infantry squad that was crossing open ground. No doubt the MG gunner decided that he had a sweet shot, and shouldn't waste it. But if he survives the battle, his CO will point out to him (just before assigning him to latrine duty for the rest of the war) that opening fire revealed the MG's position, and thus allowed the enemy's tanks, arty and mortars to blast the MG team before the enemy infantry was close enough to take much damage.

I think that WWII generally involved more autonomous units than in previous wars, because 1) the weapons were not more effective if used in lock-step (not like spears or muskets), and 2) the units tended to have better communication than ever before, and thus better information about what was going on, so they could make better decisions.

[Sig]

Thanks for the feedback.

What is funny is that I'm basically happy with the LACK of precise orders. As I said before, I like the way CMBO limits the micromanagement. It is far more challenging.

But I need to insist (sorry if I wasn't clear): the ambush zones would be great for *scenario or operation design* to help the AI! The AI does not use the protection tactics we as players use, and it *cannot* decide to hide or unhide at a critical time for distance ambushes (lets drop de "long distance" for lack of common definition ) ! It is not "smart" enough in this situation. Therefore the scenario *designers* cannot place a viscious ambush that would be challenging for a good player.

If my proposal leads to too much micromanagement (and I dislike too much of it), then make this feature "scenario or operation design only". The designer would be the only one able to use this feature, and the player would stay with the usual Ambush marker. My opinion is: great, no problem at all. In fact it's even better.

Now, the only thing to know would be: is this possible without too much coding?

And BTW guys, great feedback and comments. I agree with the protection or engagment tactics you describe. In fact it's the way I always try to set AT ambushes. But what you explained can also be of great use for people who want to learn CM tactics.

To sum up: if I may mix what I propose with your feedback, the system should be used only for scenario and operation design. Should be limited to the AI, to prevent too much micromanagement. And even if the exemple used in the topic speaks about AT ambush, is not limited to that kind of ambush.

Cheers,

Sig

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

Sig,

For me, the inability to give precise orders breaks away from the sense of historical accuracy. This is illustrated in your example. A real company commander could give very detailed orders to his AT gunners on when to spring the ambush. (Whether they would follow those orders is of course another question.)

I can't recall having ever read of a company commander -- or any commander, really -- giving detailed instructions to an AT gun on when and how to fire on enemy units. Generally set up the guns, but the gunners made the actual fire decision themselves.

Which suggests that this is an AI problem, although the only way to correct it would probably be through the "Order" menu. That is, real AT gunners might know that there was a company of tanks behind that infantry screen, and so would hold their fire until the tanks appeared -- unless the infantry got too close. The AI only really knows what it sees, and, given that constraint, it's reasonable for it to fire on juicy infantry targets that it can damage.

The work-around, of course, is to hide the gun and set an ambush close by, then manually engage the armor when it appears.

Or maybe there should be some sort of "Armor Ambush" command that would allow you to set an ambush that would ignore non-armored units that crossed the ambush marker (although the unit would, of course, react normally to other units).