Objects still mising in CM

[JonS]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

Yankee Dog

You're correct in demanding evidence for this kind of thing, but sadly I cannot give it to you in a concrete form.

Take a look in Bidwell, Firepower.

... does anyone seriously contend that close air support is realistically portrayed in CMBO or CMBB?

Probably not. But if you said 'is it good enough for what is essentially a company to battalion level game based of ground fighting in WWII?', I think yoiu might get a bit more people to agree that the current model is acceptable.

Wether or not the actual battlefield commander had control over these strikes is irrelevant. ...

Eh?!? How on earth do you figure that? If you as the player represent the Bn commander, and bn commanders had no practical way of controlling air-strikes, how can you justify giving a-historic amounts of control over planes in order to, somehow, make them more realistic?

Air power is arguably the most important factor in WWII or any war since and CM does not come close to showing this.

Arguably you are correct. But, you cannot argue that air-power should be the single most important factor in CM, given that CM is a company to battalion level game based of ground fighting in WWII, and not a flight sim. if you want that, play Il2.

The 22nd Panzer Division was forced to counterattack on D-Day with a fraction of its tanks because allied strikes hounded them the length of their journey to the battlefield.

Surely you mean 21st? Anyway, these airstrikes are outside the scope of any CM battle, regardless of how realistic the CM airstrike model becomes.

The Germans habitually made airfields (something not included in either game) their number one priorities.

So what? You don't think that planes continued to sortie out of airfields while ground forces were fighting over ownership do you?

The "not included" comment earns you another 'So What' medal, with a 'Lack Of Imagination' bar to go with it. There are lots of ways to build an airfield in CM if you want to, and have the imagination.

It seems to me that a WWII game which does not give due attention to the role of air power is a game which, no matter how well designed, is sadly lacking.

And BFC did give 'due attention' to airpower. In their opinion, in a game of the scale and focus of CM, airpower was worth no more than the programming resources it recieved.

I expect to see a huge improvement in CMAK, mainly because I think the designers at BFC are fully in agreement with me, ...

LOL!

[ September 03, 2003, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

So what I would advocate is some sort of system that allows Tac Air to be controlled by the player in a way similar to the way very high level Arty assets are now in CMBB - basically only useful as pre-planned strikes, though probably with some randomness in arrival time, and a wider area of affect than your typical Arty strike. For example, Air Strikes might have a minimum target area of about 400m x 400m, and an arrival range of +/- about 5 minutes. Upon arrival, planes would drop bombs and strafe within their assigned target area, whether or not they actually saw enemy units there (and even if they did see friendlies in the area!).

I like this idea.

[YankeeDog]

Cabron -

I certainly agree that Air Power was a very important factor in the ETO, including North Africa.

What I think is still an open question (at least in my mind), is to what extent Tactical air power actually appeared on the CM-scale battlefield.

I must admit that its not something I have read about in great detail, but I have managed to get my hands on histories and personal memoirs from several USAAF fighter/bomber squadrons in the ETO.

Before I go any further I should say that I'm going from memory here, as I do not own the texts (the public library is a wonderful thing). To the best of my memory, in the accounts I have read from the time these units arrive in Normandy in July 1944 to the end of the war, the vast majority of the time, they are sortied on planned missions on pre-selected targets - the kind of thing that is generally planned at least a few hours ahead of time.

Most of the time, the FBs are given a target like a rail depot, an airdrome, known area of enemy troop concentration, etc. Some other times, the FBs are given a road, bridge, rail line, or other communitcation avenue, and told to attack whatever they see moving along it. In almost all cases, they are given their target area before they take off. I vaguely recall a few incidents of FBs being rerouted in mid-air to hit an important target of opportunity.

The affect of these kinds of tactical air interdiction attacks on the German Army is undisputed. While the vulnerability of tanks themselves to air attack is debatable, tanks cannot move any great distance without the support of fuel trucks, repair vehicles, etc. Once these support vehicles were taken out by FB attacks, the tanks couldn't move far before they were stranded for lack of fuel and supplies. By some accounts, in the ETO more German tanks were lost because they were abandoned after running out of fuel than were taken out by enemy fire. If so, allied air power can claim credit for a high proportion of these abandonment 'kills'.

There were many other affects of Allied tac air support; one big one is that Germany's rail system was almost completely wrecked by late 1944, making large-scale movements of troops and supplies extremely difficult. Very often, when German units ran out of artillery shells or fuel, the supplies were sitting in Warehouses only a short train ride away, with no transport to get them forward to the troops.

At any rate, my point is this: The fact that tac air was extremely important to the Allied war effort does not necessarily mean that it's relatively small presence in CM is unrealistic. A very high proportion of FB attacks took place behind the 'front lines', and so would not be visible on the CM battlefield.

Here's where I have read about Tac Air that lend support to its presence on the CM-scale battlefield: Usually, when an advancing Allied column ran up against a difficult, well defended obstacle like a town, defended ridge, river, etc., they would rely on Artillery blast their way through - by late war, the Allies generally had plentiful, highly mobile and responsive artillery. However, sometimes artillery was not available because the attacking columns had outpaced the arty support or whatever. In these cases, I sometimes hear of lead elements pulling back a bit and calling in air support to work over the defended area before continuing the attack.

Unfortunately, the accounts are maddeningly sparse on details, such as how long it took between when the call for air support was put in, and when it actually showed up. However, my impression that it was not an especially responsive form of support, and took at least 15 min., and probably more than a half hour, to show up. If my suppositions are correct, this kind of tac air support would be best portray in CM by some kind of 'pre-planned' barrage.

As I said, though, these are impressions based on sparse evidence, and I would *love* to see concrete information on how quickly (and reliably!) a forward columns of various combatants could expect a call for air support to be fulfilled.

Clearly, ground combat units called for and received Tac Air support in the ETO and Med in WWII. I think the real question relevant to CM is just how quickly and reliably they got it.

What I think needs to be shown in order to make a strong arugument that controlled Tac Air should be in CM (other than the aforementioned pre-planned area strikes): That it was at least not rare for a Company or Battalion commander to have the ability to out in a request for air support on a specific target or target area, and then have that request reliably fulfilled in less than a half hour.

If this was the case during any period of the conflict in Europe and the Med, then I think controllable Tac Air should be in. If not, then I think it should stay out.

If I uncover anything supporting controllable tac air, I will certainly post it on the forum post-haste. At the moment, my reading is more focused elsewhere, but you never know when you'll stumble on something. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I suspect BTS will want specific references, etc. before they'll actually consider changing anything, but your information at least gives an idea of where to look.

I've read references to it in several places. Cornelius Ryan's A Bridge Too Far mentions it I think, and another book Over Lord (yes, two words) by an author whose name I don't recall—an account of the 9th. US Air Force and General Pete Quesada who commanded it—also mentions it, though I don't believe either go into any great detail. The official histories of the respective air forces probably discuss it.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Charlie Rock:

1) Speed up movement in trenchs. Defender should be able to run from point to point in a commo trench. Unless it's wet or mud, trench floors are usually pretty fast to run down.

You're right to some extent. It depends on how much time and effort had been devoted to evening the floor, etc. But a couple things need to be considered. The first is that the men running through the trench have to move in single file and CM is concerned with the movement of entire units. Therefore, the time between the first soldier leaving point A and the last arriving at point B will be considerably longer than one trooper running from A to B.

Secondly, trenches were not always unobstructed straight lines. In fact, such would be an exception. Trenches were usually built with angles or chicanes every so many meters. This was done deliberately for two reasons. The first was to limit the lethal range of blast and fragments of any shells that might find their way into the trench. The second was to prevent the unlimited abilitiy of enemy rifles, SMGs, etc. to sweep the entire length of the trench should they gain the trench line.

Then of course, there is the possibility of the trench walls being caved in due to shellfire, and the fact that the trench line must follow the terrain.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

We actually worked in trenches on the set of Legends of the Fall; if anyone thinks you can sprint down them - duckboards or no - with full equipment, you're wrong. Also, Michael's point about entire units moving is also apt.

[Cabron66]

Yankee Dog

I appreciate the eloquence of your response. I agree with you completely. Although I do know a fair bit about the topic I was unable to back my arguments up with actual evidence and accordingly tried to make my argument a bit more general.

I am suggesting that CM (and many scenario designers for that matter) have largely ignored the huge role played by air power in WWII. The pre-planned air strike idea is an excellent one, but I would like to add something to it (instead of simply criticism). Control of the size of the attack and more control for the scenario designer.

As CM maps get bigger and scenarios more elaborate, I think it will be possible to do much more with this feature of the game. Apart from suggesting that the game make pilots a bit smarter I would like to be able to include air raids of varying size in my scenarios to simulate coordinated attacks by squadrons or formations of fighters. Anything to reduce the unavoidable impression of random targeting that I often get when I play CM.

As a designer I would simply like to have more control over what those planes do. It would add considerable depth to the game if designers could at least influence the actions of these aircraft. This would be a huge improvement that would be credible no matter what the eventual outcome of the CAS-NO CAS argument.

Also, for longer battles, the time scale of 15 to 30 to 45 minutes is completely viable. I personally would love the option of attempting to coordinate my attacks with an incoming air strike. I think it would be great to be able to order the thing, receive an approximate estimate of its arrival and size, and plan an attack around it knowing that once it is ordered it will be difficult to cancel or adjust.

Of course, anything can happen and the game can reflect that, but I simply don't see how making airpower a more prominent feature of this game could hurt it or not improve it greatly. Even on the tactical level I simply feel more could and should be done to reflect the relative importance of airpower.

JonS

I admit I might have chosen a more open style for this post, but that does not warrant your overzealous response. I am grateful to you for setting me straight on one point. It was indeed the 21st Panzer Division. I've been reading a bit about Operation Storfang lately and got confused. As for the rest of your comments, I will respond when it appears you have taken a less fundamentalist approach to your defense of CM.

[ September 04, 2003, 01:29 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Cabron66 - PLEASE hit the return key twice after each para - that gelatinous mass of words is hard on the eyes. Too bad, cause most of the stuff you write seems to be worth the read.

Like this.

Seperate paras.

Easier on eyes.

Tarzan tired now.

Must sleep.

[Cabron66]

Thanks Micheal. I'm still new around here. By the way, thanks for the compliment. Most of what you write is a good read, too.

[ September 04, 2003, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: Cabron66 ]

[eichenbaum]

About the <font color="purple">purple</font> smoke in the movie "A bridge too far"...

If you watched the movie beyond that point you'll see a scene where they drop supplies in enemy territory despite all the signals that the allies gave to their aeroplanes. Pilots had the order to ignore signals on the ground. This was necessary to prevent the abuse of these signals by the enemy.

For what I know about sorties by bombers is that they fly between predefined waypoints. The predefined objectives consist of large constructions such as buildings, radar stations, ships etc.. How many of these sorties were that close to the frontline ? CM does not go beyond 4000 meters in size. And with tactical sorties you'd fly over the battlefield and search for targets?

I could be wrong about that :confused:

[Sergei]

I could see need for two ways of air support. One functioning the way it now does, and one that gives more control to the player like with the artillery. Maybe it would be subject to such long delays that it would be in most cases directed by a pre-plan like with high-level arty in CMBB. With these two types we could model the more "casual" way of a patrol stumbling upon a battlefield and diving in to give some ad hoc support to the friendlies, and the planned way of doing things.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

Of course, anything can happen and the game can reflect that, but I simply don't see how making airpower a more prominent feature of this game could hurt it or not improve it greatly. Even on the tactical level I simply feel more could and should be done to reflect the relative importance of airpower.

It has to be remembered that the efficiency of air tac support has been, more often than not, exaggerated. From Zetterling's "Normandy 1944: German Military Organization, Combat Power and Organizational Effectiveness":

The German attack at Mortain is frequently cited as an example to show the effectiveness of the fighter-bombers as tank killers. Actually, this engagement is an example of vastly exaggerated claims. The British 2nd Tactical Air Force claimed to have destroyed or damaged 140 German tanks in the Mortain area from 7-10 August, while the 9th US Air Force claimed 112. This actually exceeded the number of German tanks employed in the operation. In fact, no more than 46 tanks were lost in the operation and of these only nine had been hit by air weapons.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

The affect of these kinds of tactical air interdiction attacks on the German Army is undisputed. While the vulnerability of tanks themselves to air attack is debatable, tanks cannot move any great distance without the support of fuel trucks, repair vehicles, etc. Once these support vehicles were taken out by FB attacks, the tanks couldn't move far before they were stranded for lack of fuel and supplies. By some accounts, in the ETO more German tanks were lost because they were abandoned after running out of fuel than were taken out by enemy fire. If so, allied air power can claim credit for a high proportion of these abandonment 'kills'.

Not really as it required a successful Allied envelopment to "catch" the out of fuel Panzers and actually force them to burn up the fuel, allied ground units were also astride the line of communications meaning that fuel could not be transported into the kessel. I also think you'll find that artillery directed at the kessel caused the majority of the damage to "soft targets." The out of fuel/abandoned Panzers owed more to successful allied ground offensives, as air power operating on it's own proved to be poor at even interdicting units marching to Normandy. The situation of TAC air power on marching German units provides the best equivilent of dependent and independent variable, the problem is that when squared with German loss reports the damage inflicted by air power was insignificant.

Also Normandy was an army backwater meaning that fuel stockpiles were effectively non-existent relative to the number of mechanised units involved. Allied Air power merely aggravated a serious situation, it did not create it. The biggest drop in German fuel production occurred in 1944 as a direct result of occupation/capitulation of Romania by Soviet army units.

The affect of allied air power is almost comically exaggerated even by the Germans, for instance a report submitted by 12. SSPz to Rommel on the 3 July states that the unit suffered considerable casualties on the march to Normandy. The report is manifestly overstated when compared with the loss of 83 men during the "marching" period.

The Commander of the 9th Pz Div also catagorilly states that the victims of air attack during the march to Normandy were insignificant in spite of numerous air attacks.

2nd Pz Div was forced to cover another 150km due to knocked out bridges; the problem was that 2nd Pz Div proceeded to cover 400km in 48hrs

Panzer Lehr move to Normandy is often cited as proof of the ability of Allied airpower to interdict moving German units. The information cited is from the division commander Fritz Bayerlein, his equipment/manpower losses seem to be based on overstated memory i.e. equating the entire months losses as losses suffered during the march. Reports dated June show that 82 SPW and 10 prime movers were lost during the entire month. Ritgen, the commander of the repair and maintance coy of the PIV battalion also states that the high losses were greatly exaggerated. (2000 Zetterling)

[ September 04, 2003, 08:07 PM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Andreas]

Stop posting here and send me a turn. So that a few of your T34s can go back to my maintenance depot when I clean up the battlefield searching for the Vodka rations, you Gormless Gimp of the God of Gulags™.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Cabron66:

Yankee Dog

I admit I might have chosen a more open style for this post, but that does not warrant your overzealous response. I am grateful to you for setting me straight on one point. It was indeed the 21st Panzer Division. I've been reading a bit about Operation Storfang lately and got confused. As for the rest of your comments, I will respond when it appears you have taken a less fundamentalist approach to your defense of CM.

The 21 Pz div was not halted/unduly slowed by air attacks during its march to Normandy because this was the only Pz div close to the beachhead and the only one in "Normandy". The biggest break on 21 Pz movements was the inaction by Divisional commanders Speidel and Feuchtinger. For example Major Vierzig OC of II Panzer battalion in spite of holding his Panzer on standby since 0220 did not move until 0900 because he received no orders.

'It remains one of the minor mysteries of D-Day that throughout the long drive up the road to the battlefield that morning... 21st Panzer suffered little material damage from allied fighter bombers.' (1984 Hastings p112).

21st powerful armoured regts- moved northwards hampered by checks delays and changes of orders imposed more as a result of failures of intelligence and the indecision of their own command than by Allied interference.' (1984 Hastings p112).

I suggest you actually research your information as opposed to making up incidents to fit your agenda.

Andy The time is now 0055 Comrade

Donaldino Keayiskyi is off to bed. I'll kill more facists tomrrow.

[ September 04, 2003, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[xerxes]

Having been doing so research on the north african campaign it is notable that in CM size engagements air power was more often then not absent. The reason was target confusion. Neither side would commit air when troops were engaged because the chance of hitting your own troops was far too high.

Close air support during an actual assault appears to have been extremely rare. Air when supporting a major attack would be used before the ground forces engaged. Commanders on the field had no control over their own airpower.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Keke:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cabron66:

Of course, anything can happen and the game can reflect that, but I simply don't see how making airpower a more prominent feature of this game could hurt it or not improve it greatly. Even on the tactical level I simply feel more could and should be done to reflect the relative importance of airpower.

It has to be remembered that the efficiency of air tac support has been, more often than not, exaggerated. From Zetterling's "Normandy 1944: German Military Organization, Combat Power and Organizational Effectiveness":

The German attack at Mortain is frequently cited as an example to show the effectiveness of the fighter-bombers as tank killers. Actually, this engagement is an example of vastly exaggerated claims. The British 2nd Tactical Air Force claimed to have destroyed or damaged 140 German tanks in the Mortain area from 7-10 August, while the 9th US Air Force claimed 112. This actually exceeded the number of German tanks employed in the operation. In fact, no more than 46 tanks were lost in the operation and of these only nine had been hit by air weapons.

</font>

[Skolman]

What i miss are bunkers where you are able to put ypur troops in . When i first encounterd bunkers in CM i was surprised that the have a fixed crew and weaponry . from various tabletop games i was used to purchase a bunker and then put whatever infantry i liked in it ...

What are your opinions on this ?

[eichenbaum]

Originally posted by Skolman:

What i miss are bunkers where you are able to put ypur troops in . When i first encounterd bunkers in CM i was surprised that the have a fixed crew and weaponry . from various tabletop games i was used to purchase a bunker and then put whatever infantry i liked in it ...

What are your opinions on this ?

I agree. It would be nice if you could pick your own type of gun for those. I'm Working on coastal artillery battery's for Storfang scenario's but there's only the choice between a MG or a 76.2mm gun, while I need a variety of AA guns.

[Michael Emrys]

[acerbic old lady's voice from Monty Python]

"You don't put AA guns in bunkers! A bunker would limit the field of fire for an AA gun!"

[/acerbic old lady's voice from Monty Python]

What you want is a gun pit or a flak tower. Something open on the top. I think flak towers have been asked for in CMwhatever but we'll have to wait to see if they make it in. Meanwhile, have you tried putting them in trenches? That might help.

Michael

[IntelWeenie]

I like the "empty bunker" idea, too. If it was coded more like a building (with the important exception of being able to contain guns), this shouldn't be too hard. Of course, there would need to be different sizes available so a "small bunker" couldn't hold an 88 FLAK.

Forgot to mention: They must be able to be reoccupied unless "totally" knocked out. Guns would have to be immobile inside a bunker, though.

[ September 04, 2003, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: IntelWeenie ]

[eichenbaum]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

[acerbic old lady's voice from Monty Python]

"You don't put AA guns in bunkers! A bunker would limit the field of fire for an AA gun!"

[/acerbic old lady's voice from Monty Python]

What you want is a gun pit or a flak tower. Something open on the top. I think flak towers have been asked for in CMwhatever but we'll have to wait to see if they make it in. Meanwhile, have you tried putting them in trenches? That might help.

Michael

No, that's not what I meant. The Rusky really put AA guns in bunkers like 76 mm Flak „Lender" L/30 and used them as field guns. This was only done where the Navy was the main supplier like in the Crimea.

I also meant other Russian guns like :

- PTRD/PTRS-41 14.5 mm

- PTP-1930 37 mm

- PTP-1932 47 mm

- L/52 B-24 100 mm

- L/60 102 mm

- L/50 B-13 130 mm

[Charlie Rock]

Well...

Cheerfully acknowledge all re: duckboards and zig zag trenches.

Squads clear trenches in a tightened stack similar in many ways to how they do it in urban fighting. Two stacks of four men with a gap, and a squad in a 30 meter so space is not unrealistic.

I've seen squads clear trenches at what average out to a walk pace. Once you round the corner it's a careful hurry that averages out to a walk. I'm curious, as I think of it, whether a squad in the same trench as another receives the same protection as if it was shot at from a 90 degree angle (to it's front) IMHO it looks to me like in run mode the floor of a trench is about as fast as "rough" or "marsh."

Perhaps a trench can be friendly or enemy so that the defender can run down it in a communications trench type of way, while it is still slower to clear, if you're with the visiting team. I recall seeing pictures of Stalingrad where the whole point of the trench was to rapidly move troops to and fro with good protection. They were dug from building to building acorss the street, IIRC. If the zig zag protects you from fragmentation then it could be built slightly wider for rapid movement.

I still like the flare idea.

CR

[Alsatian]

I like the conversation about trenches....because they piss me off and I am the AI's bitch on Cemetary Hill. Damn the mailman for bringing me this game last week.

Anyway, I think trenches in CMBB are counterintuitive.

If I'm in the same trench as you, neither of us should get much protection from each other. We're shooting straight at each other at the same level with nothing in between, unlike all the bozos shooting at us from outside the trench and frontally.

Walls are modelled this way, so why not trenches? If you're behind the wall, you get its protection, but if someone is shooting you from the sides or above the protective factor is lowered greatly.

Trenches were zig-zagged to prevent trenches from being rapidly rolled up once they were breached. But CM should model trenches like roads and not like woods. That is: in roads, if you see the road is straight, it's straight. If the designer wants to put a bend or corner in the road he uses an angle or intersecion tile. Woods, as we all know, don't model every specific trunk and branch. What you see is not what you get (specifically speaking) with woods.

Right now in CMBB, if the notion is that I see a straight trench, it's really zig-zagged, I don't like it.

The trenches should be of a decent length and cost during force seletion that as a defender or designer I can choose whether or not to zig-zag my trench. That way, straight is straight and if in laying out my defenses I want to stretch my trench line across the entire map, so be it, but I risk getting rolled up if I'm breached. If I want to protect from being breached, I zig-zag my trench line at the expense of having a shorter perimeter.

And as for movement within the trench, the point that it takes a while for a squad to "get in line," is a good one. But once in line, shouldn't they move along decently.

That's the Pause concept in CM. Receive orders, process, organize, moveout. The more complicated the order or formation, the longer the pause. Ordering a squad to move inside a trench should cause a long pause, but then once it starts moving it should have a decent speed. That's the way it should be modelled: long pause then go, not the way it is now where it's sloooooooooow as mud the whole time.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Alsatian:

If I'm in the same trench as you, neither of us should get much protection from each other.

You're seeing the trench too literally. The ingame graphic is just a suggestion of where the trench is - no trench would really be built 20 metres long and straight as a gunbarrel. If you're in a trench and another unit is also, you're probably throwing grenades over the top or shooting around curves in the zigzag....