CM2 Infantry firepower (firelanes!) news from Steve

[Username]

Heres some stuff from another thread...

SMG troops are not über, beat anything, all the time, everytime troops. They are not in any way shape or for a "magic" unit that unhinges the game. Some people kick this around as if it is Truth, but then someone comes right back and says "well, not in the PBEM games I play. I challenge you" and then the discussion moves on. Yet this "SMG troops beat everything" argument keeps popping up, even though it is not true.

They can, like any unit, be used in favorable circumstances to gain an advantage. And that is, after all, why the Germans actually made this type of unit. So that is not unrealistic in and of itself.

What is HIGHLY unrealistic is the quantity of SMG troops that some Allied players find themselves facing. Not only in and individual battle (i.e. 6 out of 6 platoons are SMG platoons) but as a whole from game to game (i.e. 10 games played, SMG troops in 8 of them). Anything, and I mean ANYTHING, that is used in a way that is substantially different than reality will distort the perception of reality resulting from the simulation. Period. Therefore, trying to compare the overall SMG effectiveness in CM is difficult if one's experience with them is totally out of whack compared to reality in terms of frequency and quantity encountered.

Kinda like saying "everytime I eat Cheerios I puke my guts out. Something must be wrong with the Cheerios."

"Ok, so how many bowls of Cheerios do you eat in one sitting?"

"The whole box of course, since everybody knows it is the best cereal available and really cheap too"

"Uhm... but you are only supposed to eat ONE, perhaps two, bowls in a sitting. No wonder why you get sick"

"But the box doesn't stop me from eating the whole thing, so I conclude that Cheerios are defective and make everybody sick because they are too cheap"

This is the same thing that is happening with SMG units Overuse is the #1 problem. Period.

The #2 problem is that infantry units, ESPECIALLY SMG TROOPS, can run too fast with too much cover while being able to lay down suppressive fire too well. Since time, distance, and enemy suppression are the three enemies of an advancing force, a SMG unit is able to shrug off some of its real world limitations in CM in some situations more than others.

The #3 problem is that firing oportunities for MGs are fixed. This does, as Jeff stated, allow enemy units (in some circumstances) to get unrealistically close. ESPECIALLY when combined with the #2 problem noted above.

The #4 problem is that long distance shooting drains ammo counts as fast as close distance shooting. Since SMG units can only fire at close distances, they get to use all their ammo at optimal range while rifle units might not (depends on circumstances). Since a strength of a rifle unit is its ability to engage the enemy at greater distances, the over consumption of ammo at such ranges can be a disadvantage if the unit spends too many turns trying to pin down enemy units.

Conclusion

The combination of unrestricted availability of SMG troops, their ability to close distances too quickly and too safely, the lack of MG ability to "let loose" at lesser distances, and the bleeding off of rifle unit ammo before the charge might create a situation that is unrealistically favorable for SMG troops. Not will, but might. The problem is that the more times SMG units are played with, the greater the chances of getting an advantage. Hence the #1 problem being overuse.

How are we fixing this for CMBB?

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

#2 - Movement. Changing "Run" to be a minimal cover, no return fire type order means units using this order will find themselves highly vulnerable and incapable of causing enemy suppression and/or casualties. The new Assault move order has much the same function as Run does now, but without the speed. Therefore, cover is better and return fire is possible, but speed is not much better than Move. The longer it takes to close with the enemy, the worse off you are. These changes have already been made.

#3 - Variable MG fire. MGs now increase the number of times they fire in a given time period depending on range, experience, suppression, etc. Units getting right up close with an unsuppressed MG will be dead. We have also increased the effects of bullet spray (present in CMBO, but lesser) which means one MG can now better deal with a full platoon. And firelanes, which keep a unit focused on a specific line of fire, means that advancing units in such a lane will be targets, not something else 400m to the side. All of these things have already been implemented.

#4 - Ammo usage. Since we can't change the way firing and ammo usage is simulated, we have instead decided to up the standard loadout of rifle infantry to compensate for long range "plinking". When we rewrite the engine we will do a far more detailed treatment of ammo expendature. But until then, we have already upped the ammo for rifle units.

Four areas for improvement, for areas already addressed. And although we haven't had put this stuff to a wider group for testing, I can tell you that using the same stress test setup (SMG troops charging a various defenders without combined arms) with CMBO 1.12 and CMBB Alpha yields totally different results. Especially when Rarity is on and I can't buy SMG troops for a reasonable price

And this is why the discussion is rather pointless. We have fixed what needed to be fixed. The proof will be in the pudding (i.e. final release of CMBB) so might I just suggest putting this issue to bed and moving on to something different. It is a waste of time to debate the need for changes based on something that is no longer relevant.

Steve

This sounds like good stuff. Is the firelane a seperate command or will it be a narrow arc? Will there be a difference in move and assault? Will a unit get more tired making an assault? Do you target an area/unit for the assaulter to fire into?

And finally. Can you see it in your hearts to release an infantry battle in the demo so that we will have something till the game comes?

Man it feels like Christmas and its only July. I cant wait..

Lewis

PS If there were chococalte covered creme-filled cheerios, I would eat a whole box.

[Michael Dorosh]

Excellent post by Steve.

Thanks Lewis, for bringing our attention to it. It's nice to see you do something besides backbiting; keep it up, you done good this time.

[Username]

UHHHH duh-tanks dare Dur-roach. A liddle complumints goes the long way y'know.

[Matthew_Ridgeway]

Hey Michael! Didn’t you read the sign when you logged into this forum. It clearly says don’t feed the monkeys.

[Username]

Could someone please recognise doormatt_ridgedgay and tell him his yellow-shells posts are clear genius? No? Could someone please be his friend so that he quits stalking me?

Thanks

Lewis

[Mr. Johnson--]

Steve said,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The #2 problem is that infantry units, ESPECIALLY SMG TROOPS, can run too fast with too much cover while being able to lay down suppressive fire too well. Since time, distance, and enemy suppression are the three enemies of an advancing force, a SMG unit is able to shrug off some of its real world limitations in CM in some situations more than others.

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

I disagree with this. I don't think its "Easy" crossing open ground. If your enemy wants too, it is possible to make crossing a section of ground impossible, unless some is using lots of smoke. I think that aspect is fine. The few times I catch someone in the open they usually all fall down. As it should be.

[Capitalistdoginchina]

Many players do indeed buy SMG squads for their short range firepower - especially if the QB perameter is heavy trees/farm/rural setting and even more so if the weather conditions mean poor visibility.

But is it not true that allied players under such conditions nearly always purchase Americans?

Not many players would choose British, Canadian, or Polish since we know that their infantry cannot cut it at close range encounters?

Just a thought.

CDIC

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Hey Michael! Didn’t you read the sign when you logged into this forum. It clearly says don’t feed the monkeys.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, I know - but they also say you can get more with honey than you can with vinegar. Guess it depends on whether or not the monkey likes honey.

Some monkeys live on vinegar. How sad.

[Tero]

>Many players do indeed buy SMG squads for

>their short range firepower - especially if

>the QB perameter is heavy trees/farm/rural

>setting and even more so if the weather

>conditions mean poor visibility.

>

>But is it not true that allied players under

>such conditions nearly always purchase

>Americans?

If you play with random weather settigs you can not determine the weather until after you have picked your forces.

>Not many players would choose British,

>Canadian, or Polish since we know that their

>infantry cannot cut it at close range

>encounters?

When used properly even Commonwealth troops do just fine. I'm just finishing (last turn under way) a PBEM QB with 20+ meter LOS (night+heavy fog) and while my infantry did take heavy casualties (no remaining squad has more than 4 men) I have yet to lose a single tank out of 4 I bought while I have taken down 2+ platoons of infantry, AT teams, MG's, a wooden bunker, Jpz-IV with skirts and a late Stug-IV. I have taken all but 1 flag.

It remains to be seen how the results look. I currently show 60% victory while my morale is soaring at 30-something.

[Sergei]

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

But is it not true that allied players under such conditions nearly always purchase Americans?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good point.

I hope they make American troops very rare in CM2.

[Jarmo]

British paratroops are easily the best infantry the allies have. If it's cost effectiveness we're talking about.

[Lt.Reaper]

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

Good point.

I hope they make American troops very rare in CM2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh....why on earth would there be American troops offered in CM2?

:confused:

[Terence]

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

Uh....why on earth would there be American troops offered in CM2?

:confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lend Lease of course.

Besides, didn't you know there was an entire infantry division in the Red Army made up entirely of British and American bomber crews who crashed over Eastern Europe and took up grenade and rifle to smash fascism?

The Soviets wouldn't give the troops back but they did permit the US send them enough equipment to function as a real infantry division. Rumor has it that this unit, the Uncle Sam's Guards Division, was about to break through and take Berlin, but Chuikov ordered them to secure the rear areas.

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Terence ]

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Uh....why on earth would there be American troops offered in CM2?

:confused:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suggest Rossokovsky's updated edition of RED AMERICAN ARMY; it discussed in detail the USGD that Terence refers to.

I believe they were equipped with Tokarev semi-auto rifles because of their previous familiarity with the M-1 Garand. Quite unusual given their rarity in other, "ethnically pure" Soviet units.

Edit - ISBN 1889138118

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Sergei]

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

Uh....why on earth would there be American troops offered in CM2?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It was a joke.

[The Commissar]

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

Lend Lease of course.

Besides, didn't you know there was an entire infantry division in the Red Army made up entirely of British and American bomber crews who crashed over Eastern Europe and took up grenade and rifle to smash fascism?

The Soviets wouldn't give the troops back but they did permit the US send them enough equipment to function as a real infantry division. Rumor has it that this unit, the Uncle Sam's Guards Division, was about to break through and take Berlin, but Chuikov ordered them to secure the rear areas.

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Terence ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good one, Terence

[Terence]

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

It was a joke. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Comrade,

Red Army is not to be subject of degenerate capitalist running dog jokes. Please attend a self criticism session at once.

WRT to Rossokovsky's book, -- a whopper at 1900 pages -- Mr. Dorosh is quite right. Red American Army is the seminal work on the subject, and contains detailed TO&E and tactical evaluations.

For a more light hearted look at the Uncle Sam Division take a look at Mudakov's "Red White and Pink: Americans Fighting for the Soviets" which was published in the US-Soviet thaw of the 60s at Kruschev's instruction.

Of particular interest will be the description of the battle of Maly Durak, where the USGD executed a textbook double envelopment of a German Panzergrenadier outfit, but in the dark ended up savaging its own supply columns.

You can be sure Stalin had a laugh over that!!!

[ 07-06-2001: Message edited by: Terence ]

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Terence Said: Lend Lease of course.

Besides, didn't you know there was an entire infantry division in the Red Army made up entirely of British and American bomber crews who crashed over Eastern Europe and took up grenade and rifle to smash fascism?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is clearly untrue. These were not in fact British and American bomber crews but actually refugees from the Canadian Football League. After rejection from the NFL these lads were still intent on wrecking-havoc on somebody. Joining the Red Army Foreign Legion to fight the Nazis seemed the obvious choice.

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

This is clearly untrue. These were not in fact British and American bomber crews but actually refugees from the Canadian Football League. After rejection from the NFL these lads were still intent on wrecking-havoc on somebody. Joining the Red Army Foreign Legion to fight the Nazis seemed the obvious choice.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You make a mockery of actual history and brave men with this pack of lies.

[Jeff Duquette]

Uncle Sams Guard Division? You are not kidding about this unit?

[Terence]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Duquette:

Uncle Sams Guard Division? You are not kidding about this unit?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have emailed you some verification materials to your hotmail account.

[David Aitken]

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

But is it not true that allied players under such conditions nearly always purchase Americans?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

"Aye, 'tis a dreich day, an' we're attackin' through heavy woods intae a toon where we'll have tae do a bit o' house clearin'... what dae ye think is the best course o' action sarr?"

"Well Sar'nt Major, that's frightfully obvious... we'll become Americans!"

Now that's gamey!