Area fire gamey?

[Glider]

I've been mostly lurking around but today I am riled enough to post.

I have been playing a 10-battle The Seelow Heights operations as Russian and me and my PBEM opponent are at the battle 7.

I enjoyed the operation tremendously but it has been a very hard going with open flooded plains and more Stugs, Panthers and Tigers than I care to remember.

And today, after killing the (hopefully) last two Tigers I have been accused of using "dirty" area target tactics, i.e. of concentrating artillery and tank guns aimed at areas close to Tigers&Panthers to cause mobility kills and gun damage.

I mean, with my tanks reversing as soon as they see a Tiger (due to range and cover almost always misidentified as King Tigers) it was not easy to arrange a shootout.

Any opinions on 'gaminess' of use of area targeting to score mobility kills?

[stikkypixie]

I would call in artillery for less. I say if you have it use it, why go one on one with a panther (in which case you're almost sure to lose)?

[fridericus]

i wouldnt call it "gamey", but i wont do that with normal guns, upto a calibre of 85mm.

you get unrealistic damage on enemy tanks. so i use area fire only with 105mm and of course 150mm. tha should be fair.

[Glider]

Really? Didn't know about the small calibers... you mean that they are unrealistically effective?

I used everything I could find, from 82mm and 76 mm spotters, through SU-76s and T-34/85s up to 122mm and 152mm IS and SU guns.

[nevermind]

Glider,

You're talking about selecting your tank and then hitting shift-V and then area targeting under the enemy tank,with your tanks main gun,right?

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by fridericus:

i wouldnt call it "gamey", but i wont do that with normal guns, upto a calibre of 85mm.

you get unrealistic damage on enemy tanks. so i use area fire only with 105mm and of course 150mm. tha should be fair.

Unrealistic damage? How?

To answer the original question: no, it's not gamey. Hell, anyone wold probably do the same in real life.

[fridericus]

Hell, anyone wold probably do the same in real life.

NO.

in real life you can shoot a tank immobilized, when direct hitting with a he, area doesnt make nothing.

[Glider]

Originally posted by nevermind:

Glider,

You're talking about selecting your tank and then hitting shift-V and then area targeting under the enemy tank,with your tanks main gun,right?

No, I am talking about an enemy tank that your tanks cannot see, but they can see a point few meters from it.

So you fire at that point with HE ammo, hoping that the blasts will damage the gun or tracks.

Not very effective though, out of 20-25 tanks I destroyed only 2 have been damaged that way.

[Glider]

Originally posted by fridericus:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Hell, anyone wold probably do the same in real life.

NO.

in real life you can shoot a tank immobilized, when direct hitting with a he, area doesnt make nothing. </font>

[nevermind]

Originally posted by Glider:

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

Glider,

You're talking about selecting your tank and then hitting shift-V and then area targeting under the enemy tank,with your tanks main gun,right?

No, I am talking about an enemy tank that your tanks cannot see, but they can see a point few meters from it.

So you fire at that point with HE ammo, hoping that the blasts will damage the gun or tracks.

Not very effective though, out of 20-25 tanks I destroyed only 2 have been damaged that way. </font>

[Joachim]

Originally posted by nevermind:

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

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

Glider,

You're talking about selecting your tank and then hitting shift-V and then area targeting under the enemy tank,with your tanks main gun,right?

No, I am talking about an enemy tank that your tanks cannot see, but they can see a point few meters from it.

So you fire at that point with HE ammo, hoping that the blasts will damage the gun or tracks.

Not very effective though, out of 20-25 tanks I destroyed only 2 have been damaged that way. </font>

[Maj. Battaglia]

I would not say it's gamey, but as others have pointed out (including Glider, posting the results), it is not typically effective.

Certainly, the ammo you expend is tradeable for the low probability of success. If your opponent reverses during the turn he will be safe and you will have wasted ammo.

There is a "borg spotting problem," however that can't be helped. So that does make it fairly unrealistic: it would take a long time for infantry unit A, who is under fire from opposing tank X, to direct friendly fire from friendly tank (or gun or spotter) B to some spot near enough to tank X to cause damage if tank X cannot be seen by unit B. If you are a nut for realism, I would say don't do it.

What Nevermind posts is more realistic and not gamey (IMO). I have read accounts of tankers (well American anyway) choosing to use HE (or even WP!) on armored targets for various reasons. In CM the friendly AI will always choose some sort of AP unless it's all gone, so this is a way around that. However, if the target moves during the turn, you'll be doing nothing more than making nice shellhole patterns in the middle of nowhere.

[Glider]

Since the borg spotting is an unavoidable part of the game engine I don't think its part of 'gamey influence' should be considered (after all it affect many, if not almost all, of the game realism issues).

Basically, the question is - is it unrealistic to use heavy-caliber direct HE fire to try to damage a tank you know is "there somewhere"?

I must admit I never heard of an actual battlefield example but it never occurred to me that such a practice in CMBB might be considered gamey.

[Abteilung]

The Soviet forces have a large armor and arty cap for a reason. Spamming anything that moves with mass HE is a very popular "tactic" which carried over from BO. Not very challenging or realistic in many aspects, however, it is possible and was done in some situations.

*raises glass*

Here's to CMAK and extremely expensive arty!

[Glider]

Well, I forgot to say that my opponent used his arty to target and damage my tanks (and more successfully, I must say, since I lost 4 IS-2s to barrages).

He just never used direct HE fire from tanks.

Ah, another interesting note... after we started playing and I noticed that Germans were strangely well-equipped for a defending force I checked the battle designer website and found out that the designer recommended it to be played as Human (Soviet) vs German (AI)

That said, I don't think my opponent knew/noticed that piece of info when he selected the battle.

[Jack Carr]

How can calling down an artillery strike on enemy men and material be "gamey"?

If you know they are there and feel that this is an effective way to disable them then I wouldn't say that it's gamey at all.

Notice I said "you know they are there...". On the other hand, I would consider rolling a couple of tanks up to a village and knocking down every house in the village with the tanks even though not one enemy soldier has been spotted "gamey". That I consider "gamey". But if you have seen the tanks and have their general vicinity pinpointed I'd call down artillery in a heartbeat.

For me, if you have seen the enemy, then go for it. Just because you know as a player that the enemy has to be somewhere so you just start calling in arty and knocking things down for no reason other than, "The enemy might be there"...to me that's "gamey".

The real question is what kind of effect will an arty strike have on German heavy tanks?

[Glider]

Originally posted by Jack Carr:

...

The real question is what kind of effect will an arty strike have on German heavy tanks?

I must say, mostly insignificant. I targeted two closely deployed Tigers in scattered woods with about 300 82mmm mortar shells, 40 76mm artillery shells, 20 122mm howitzer shells, 40 76mm SU-76 shells, 40 85mm T-34/85 shells and 30 122mm IS-2 shells + a few 100mm SU-100 shells 90% of those fired by tanks landing within 10-20m from the targets. No damage whatsoever despite several observed 82mm top hits.

This is the most radical example, don't think it was like that every time

Mostly I tried to drive them into the open so they could be correctly identified as ordinary Tigers... than their life expectancy would drop to about 60 seconds

[Maj. Battaglia]

Originally posted by Glider:

Since the borg spotting is an unavoidable part of the game engine I don't think its part of 'gamey influence' should be considered (after all it affect many, if not almost all, of the game realism issues).

I agree. That's why I made a distinction between unrealisitic and gamey. Even if unrealistic (for the reason I outline above) it's not gamey because it cost you quite a bit of ammo (based on your stats) and accomplished nothing (i.e. the result was hard to obtain). To me, gamey is doing something unrealistic by exploiting a game feature and is accomplished without giving up much of anything in return.

Incidentally, I disagree with Jack Carr regarding blindly blowing up houses in a town. Not only is this realistic, but it uses a lot of ammo on a target you can't even be sure contains the enemy. If a town contains a dozen buildings of varying size and strength and a guy has a handful of tanks, he is going to use most if not all of his HE to demolish the buildings, and this will unlikely result in the elimination of all the infantry, even if each house contains a unit.

As a defender, you should be careful about using houses as cover: don't fill every house with troops. In particular, if you have a spotter in a house, put nothing else there. The last thing you want is a spotter sitting next to a MG unit and having that MG unit draw the fire of a heavy gun and cause incidental casualties to your spotter.

[Other Means]

just started reading "Achtung Panzer!" which says that the major enemy method of stopping armour in WWI was indirect HE fire.

what is unrealistic in CMBB is the *lack* of indirect arty fire. IRL you would have possibly 10 times more.

you would expend this & call for more if you saw a concentration of Axis armour.

then the IL2's, then more of everything.

the last thing you would do would be to press the attack.

[Beta1]

Originally posted by Glider:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jack Carr:

...

The real question is what kind of effect will an arty strike have on German heavy tanks?

I must say, mostly insignificant. I targeted two closely deployed Tigers in scattered woods with about 300 82mmm mortar shells, 40 76mm artillery shells, 20 122mm howitzer shells, 40 76mm SU-76 shells, 40 85mm T-34/85 shells and 30 122mm IS-2 shells + a few 100mm SU-100 shells 90% of those fired by tanks landing within 10-20m from the targets. No damage whatsoever despite several observed 82mm top hits.

This is the most radical example, don't think it was like that every time

Mostly I tried to drive them into the open so they could be correctly identified as ordinary Tigers... than their life expectancy would drop to about 60 seconds </font>

[Jack Carr]

Maj. Battaglia wrote: Incidentally, I disagree with Jack Carr regarding blindly blowing up houses in a town. Not only is this realistic, but it uses a lot of ammo on a target you can't even be sure contains the enemy. If a town contains a dozen buildings of varying size and strength and a guy has a handful of tanks, he is going to use most if not all of his HE to demolish the buildings, and this will unlikely result in the elimination of all the infantry, even if each house contains a unit.

I feel that the gamey part is making blind assumptions even though you know as a player that the enemy has to be somewhere on the map. If your orders are to advance to a cetain point on the map and hold it why would you demolish every building in a town that you have to pass through unless you spot the enemy there? Seems like an incredible waste of time and material. As you pointed out in your example, with just a handful of tanks, those tanks are likely to expend almost all of their HE in the process leaving them with little protection for themselves. They would certainly be unable to effectively support any accompanying infantry.

Let me know what you think about this. It's been bandied about quite a bit since I've been on the forum and it always seems to make an interesting conversation.

[Glider]

I agree, sometimes it is very difficult to set aside things we know as players. So, if you are assaulting a town with a big flag in it you know there will be enemy units inside. But would a RL commander know that?

Similarly, one of the key reality issues is the fact that we all know that enemy strength in CMBB battles is comparable to ours.

So, if you have 5 PzIIIJs and you destroy 6 T-34s, you will advance rapidly since you know there can be no entire T-34 company waiting around the corner.

[Maj. Battaglia]

Jack and Glider, you both raise good points that are problems for gaming tactical battles (i.e. you know the enemy is on the map and likely to be evenly matched).

One thing to consider, however, is that CM assumes that strategic, operational, and even some tactical-level intelligence and recon has already occurred. So in fact you, as company or battalion comander, know the enemy is on the map and you've been ordered to attack. Your scenario briefing may even provide some intel on the enemy.

It is also one reason why designed scenarios are superior to quick battles. In QBs, you can reasonably deduce where the limit of the enemy setup will be as the attacker. It is unlikely there will be forces forward of that area. With designed scenarios, there can be a lot more suspense. On a big map in particular, there may be a small village you have to pass through that may contain no enemy units at all. No one in their right mind will waste ammo without first reconnoitering.

Further, in designed scenarios, it is more likely that balance may not be standard, like QBs. Using victory point handicapping, reinforcements, etc., can help to make the game unbalanced at times (and unknown to the other player as opposed to QBs where handicap is announced), presenting a particular challenge to one side. But when reinforcements arrive or the victory determinations are made there is compensation.

I understand how it can be frustrating when there is a flag in a small village and the attacker blows down the few buildings there. Especially when it so happens your strongest defenders are there. But that, to me, is smart tactics.

You, as the defender, have to think ahead that there's a good possibility the attacker might deduce the best spots for a defender to be and somehow try to target them even before knowing if your troops are there. You have to find alternate defensive positions, have a flexible defense, and perhaps leave certain obvious places vacant or else use some sort of deceptive ploy to draw fire.

In some ways, you can turn this behavior by an opponent into an advantage. Set up in foxholes behind buildings and then move into the rubble or stay put if you have good LOS after the building is destroyed. Or move into the building on the first turn and when he fires his first shells, hightail it back to the foxhole. He'll waste his HE ammo and then have little to support his infantry. Next time, if you play the same opponent, I'll wager he doesn't do the same thing.

[Wisbech_lad]

UK tankers in NWE also had a SOP of shooting up just about every house/ hedgerow with area fire.

Using HE to get mobility kills? Try playing "2pdrs vs Tigers" in CMAK without this tactic...

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by Maj. Battaglia:

Jack and Glider, you both raise good points that are problems for gaming tactical battles (i.e. you know the enemy is on the map and likely to be evenly matched).

One thing to consider, however, is that CM assumes that strategic, operational, and even some tactical-level intelligence and recon has already occurred. So in fact you, as company or battalion comander, know the enemy is on the map and you've been ordered to attack. Your scenario briefing may even provide some intel on the enemy.

It is also one reason why designed scenarios are superior to quick battles. In QBs, you can reasonably deduce where the limit of the enemy setup will be as the attacker. It is unlikely there will be forces forward of that area. With designed scenarios, there can be a lot more suspense. On a big map in particular, there may be a small village you have to pass through that may contain no enemy units at all. No one in their right mind will waste ammo without first reconnoitering.

Further, in designed scenarios, it is more likely that balance may not be standard, like QBs. Using victory point handicapping, reinforcements, etc., can help to make the game unbalanced at times (and unknown to the other player as opposed to QBs where handicap is announced), presenting a particular challenge to one side. But when reinforcements arrive or the victory determinations are made there is compensation.

I understand how it can be frustrating when there is a flag in a small village and the attacker blows down the few buildings there. Especially when it so happens your strongest defenders are there. But that, to me, is smart tactics.

You, as the defender, have to think ahead that there's a good possibility the attacker might deduce the best spots for a defender to be and somehow try to target them even before knowing if your troops are there. You have to find alternate defensive positions, have a flexible defense, and perhaps leave certain obvious places vacant or else use some sort of deceptive ploy to draw fire.

In some ways, you can turn this behavior by an opponent into an advantage. Set up in foxholes behind buildings and then move into the rubble or stay put if you have good LOS after the building is destroyed. Or move into the building on the first turn and when he fires his first shells, hightail it back to the foxhole. He'll waste his HE ammo and then have little to support his infantry. Next time, if you play the same opponent, I'll wager he doesn't do the same thing.

Good point about advanced recon and intelligence already having played a part.