A really annoying issue in CM that I would like to talk about

[Sardaukar]

Well, as JasonC said, it took (and still does) lot of firepower to kill and wound people in good cover. MG 42s are not going to do much from 250 m..nor is other rifle fire if you don't get lucky.

Since those guys decided to fight fanatically to the death, there is not much you can do about it. They will be very hard to hit, even if above ground, more so in foxhole, and since they are fanatical, they'll return fire quite frequently. Actually, not very uncommon happening in history of WW II. If you absolutely have to kill them..since they won't rout or surrender..you have to assault their position. You need to blow them apart, burn them (even fanatical unit rout when exposed to flamethrower etc.) or just plain close in and kill them in close combat. That aspect of warfare hasn't changed much from ancient times.

Also, what is bad for attacker, fanatical troops don't quit if they suffer a scratch from bullet or shrapnel. They only quit when dead or truly incapacitated. I think CMBB is quite right how it treats those units.

While HMGs, LMGs and small arms are deadly for exposed infantry, they don't do much for troops who refuse to expose themselves to that firepower. One rarely kills dug-in infantry from distance with rifle caliber ammunition. It cannot shoot through the earth. You need lots of bullets and luck to achieve kills, even 10 MG-42 HMGs could shoot all their ammo from distance towards enemy foxholes, without single kill. Mostly, you kill them when they are pinned, so you can kill them by closing in to hand grenade range with other units, or when they break and expose themselves more.

If that kind of behaviour was not modelled in CMBB, it could not model for example Stalingrad, or dozens of other engagements where opposition chose to fight to last bullet. Tough luck that it can happen in crucial place/moments, but that's war. When it happens, you need to remember it's similar effort in miniscule scale that US Marines etc. had to do in Iwo Jima and Okinawa, for example. If they don't retreat nor surrender, and you need the location, you just have to close in and wipe them out.

Cheers,

M.S.

[ August 31, 2003, 05:34 PM: Message edited by: Sardaukar ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Will you posting the by-now obligatory half-dozen complimentary posts on the same subject and then ignoring all the responses, as per syllabus?

Nope, looks like he's going to keep his half-dozen complimentary posts to this thread - but he is indeed going to ignore the responses.

You're good! :cool:

[Sgt. Beavis]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Will you posting the by-now obligatory half-dozen complimentary posts on the same subject and then ignoring all the responses, as per syllabus?

Nope, looks like he's going to keep his half-dozen complimentary posts to this thread - but he is indeed going to ignore the responses.

You're good! :cool: </font>

[Sgt. Beavis]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

Well, as JasonC said, it took (and still does) lot of firepower to kill and wound people in good cover. MG 42s are not going to do much from 250 m..nor is other rifle fire if you don't get lucky.

Since those guys decided to fight fanatically to the death, there is not much you can do about it. They will be very hard to hit, even if above ground, more so in foxhole, and since they are fanatical, they'll return fire quite frequently. Actually, not very uncommon happening in history of WW II. If you absolutely have to kill them..since they won't rout or surrender..you have to assault their position. You need to blow them apart, burn them (even fanatical unit rout when exposed to flamethrower etc.) or just plain close in and kill them in close combat. That aspect of warfare hasn't changed much from ancient times.

Also, what is bad for attacker, fanatical troops don't quit if they suffer a scratch from bullet or shrapnel. They only quit when dead or truly incapacitated. I think CMBB is quite right how it treats those units.

While HMGs, LMGs and small arms are deadly for exposed infantry, they don't do much for troops who refuse to expose themselves to that firepower. One rarely kills dug-in infantry from distance with rifle caliber ammunition. It cannot shoot through the earth. You need lots of bullets and luck to achieve kills, even 10 MG-42 HMGs could shoot all their ammo from distance towards enemy foxholes, without single kill. Mostly, you kill them when they are pinned, so you can kill them by closing in to hand grenade range with other units, or when they break and expose themselves more.

If that kind of behaviour was not modelled in CMBB, it could not model for example Stalingrad, or dozens of other engagements where opposition chose to fight to last bullet. Tough luck that it can happen in crucial place/moments, but that's war. When it happens, you need to remember it's similar effort in miniscule scale that US Marines etc. had to do in Iwo Jima and Okinawa, for example. If they don't retreat nor surrender, and you need the location, you just have to close in and wipe them out.

Cheers,

M.S.

It seems the fanatical behavior is quite common among platoon HQs. In QBs I see platoon HQs fighting to the last man fairly often. The...percentages, if you will, don't seem correct.

The other aspect of my argument concerns the massive amounts of fire that can be directed against an enemy, and they refuse to go to ground. Fine, if they're fanatic that's possible...but they won't be fanatic for long, since they'll all end up getting shot by remaining exposed.

Stalingrad involved city fighting...and lots of fanaticism and fighting to the last man. I agree... But this fight I'm describing doesn't involve good cover in a ruined city. It's 3 guys, by themselves, in a shallow foxhole under fire from close range by an entire platoon of infantry, backed up by 3 HMGs.

How could they remain so aware of their surroundings when under that kind of fire that they pop up at just the right moment, fire, and stop the squad I had moving in on them? Seems a little too wacky for me to accept...

[JonS]

I think Jason's point on the last page was that they weren't going to hurt you, so why did you have to kill them? Just leave them. Go around them, or over them, whatever, but move on with your mission rahter than bogging down.

Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:

How could they remain so aware of their surroundings when under that kind of fire that they pop up at just the right moment, fire, and stop the squad I had moving in on them? Seems a little too wacky for me to accept...

That one's easy to answer - they had a better leader than your guys

Regards

JonS

[ August 31, 2003, 06:34 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[lcm1947]

Hang in there Sgt. Beavis I think you're winning this one. At least in my opinion although I know that's not the issue here but thought I'd throw that in for moral support. The issue is not whether you could by pass them, ignore them, or whatever but why they don't die like humans. They are evidently firing back and causing you casulties so that must mean that they are not down in deep holes which means they should also be vulnerable to fire. I actually just had a similar superman HQ units in a game I just played which is why I remembered this topic and thought I'd check back on it. This God like HQ unit fended off one Pz II ( 20 mm ), three HT 151's and two full 10 or 9 man squads and was able walk away and live to see another day or at least he would have if I hadn't got pissed and sent the two full sqauds after him to hunt him down and kill him, which they did. I actually thought of saving the game but and sharing it here but thought what's the use. I think as close as an agreement as we are going to get is from JasonC when he said:

_________________________________________________

It could be argued that the infantry fp model is too forgiving to small units. It seems to put casualties on them as some percentage chance against the men in the unit, so smaller units take fewer absolute losses. The way you are supposed to adapt to this is by ignoring impotent tiny units. "Eliminationist", willful desire for overkill of the last man is extremely inefficient in fp expended and ammo terms.

_________________________________________________

Anyway if people can't see or understand your point which was very well worded and explained, I might add, then I'm afraid it's just you and me against these hordes. and you just can't win against hordes. PS: Do you suppose the guys that are so dead set against admitting and recognising this obvious game flaw were or are actually officers themselves. Only possible answer.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:

Pay attention next time you're doing an attack. Platoon HQs, 3 guys, are sometimes immune to everything you throw at them. You have to close assault them and cut their heads off in order to defeat them. Simple MG and rifle fire isn't enough. Argh

Hmm, well you see, my experience has been different. I've killed a lot of HQs and even had one or two surrender when I got close enough. I haven't noticed any special difficulties with them. That doesn't mean that I'm saying there isn't a problem and you haven't caught it. I guess this is just one of those YMMV issues that while there doesn't show up for everyone all the time.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Unfortunately, ammo IS scarce in CMBB and so I agree with your doctrine on avoiding these small teams. Of course, this 3-man team could also be covering a jump-off point or an entire lane where infantry need to cross. How then do you deal with this problem when there are no support teams around and you need to advance squads of infantry?

Smoke 'em and send in the flame throwers.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:

Those 3 supermen somehow weren't suppressed by the huge volume of firepower directed at them, from close range.

Okay, I've got to say right here that I don't regard 130-250 meters (the figures you estimated for the ranges your troops were firing at) close. I'd call 75-150m medium range and anything over 150m long range for a rifle caliber weapon.

On average, I would expect, with you, such fire to have suppressive effect, and that is what on average I see. It is a long time observation that CM allows non-average or exceptional things to happen, because exceptional things happened in the real war. It's hard to say whether CM permits this to excess because it isn't the kind of thing good statistics were kept on. There are anecdotal tales, but we know what they are worth when it comes to game design.

Also, from the beginning of the design process for CM, it has had to struggle against the perceptions and expectations of gamers. These perceptions in many cases were formed by playing other games that were not so attentive to historical detail. In some cases these perceptions were formed by what they saw in movies! Now, I'm not saying you are one of those. You sound well informed and for all I know you may have read a stack of histories that reaches the ceiling. What I'm saying is that nearly all of us have approached CM with some kind of bias that we hope to see realized in the game, including yours truly. But histories are open to a lot of interpretation. Whether yours is at variance with BFC's on the issue, I will leave for them to say sometime when they aren't so busy.

Michael

[von Lucke]

From John Keegan's, The Face of Battle, the Somme, 1 July 1916:

On the far side [of no-man's-land], the London Scot's CO, got together a relief party... Only three of the fifty-nine who started got through, and while this does not mean that all the rest got hit, the figures do testify to the weight of fire which the Germans were laying on and over the London Scot's positions.

Two of the four company commanders were by then out of action, and, soon after 2p.m., a third was killed. The burden of managing the defence now fell wholly upon the fourth, Cpt Sparks. 'The better to direct the fighting, he was often seen standing and moving on the unbroken ground between the trenches' -- conduct which, when displayed on a WWI battlefield, beggars power of eulogy. His men, though less exposed, where steadily being wounded or killed by bomb-blast or sniping shots, and though his garrison was steadily being reinforced by refugees from even harder pressed battalions on his left flank, it was dwindling in strength.

By 4p.m. Cpt Sparks recognized that his tiny force, now under attack by thirteen German infantry companies from three different regiments (emphasis mine), was about to go under. Using discarded German rifles and ammunition, he and four NCO's made a final stand in the German front trench while the other survivors escaped into no-man's-land.

There most of them, including Sparks, hid until darkness fell and allowed them to regain the British lines. During the day, the London Scottish, which had numbered 856 at dawn, had been reduced to 266.

So, here we see five men (about the size of yr standard CMBB HQ element), lead by a company grade officer, standing up to the combined fire of 13 companies (which at the Somme, included quite a few HMG's), often a mere trench line away, and living to tell the tale. This does not even include the several hours spent under enemy fire previous. And the London Scots were second-line Reservists --- Green troops.

[ September 01, 2003, 03:58 AM: Message edited by: von Lucke ]

[Monty]

Did you, as i suggested, send the save file to BFC ?

That is the only way they can check if the behavior is possible a bug or somefink like that.'

Monty