Auto-sneak-exhaustion not improved in 1.01

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The closer to Squads we make them behave, the less realistic they become.

I'm with SuperSulo on this one. The more you move them away from the squads the more realistic they do NOT get.

The question that is not answered is: do the teams get different training than the squads and how is that modelled in the game ?

They are not hauling mere chunks of metal of XXX kg. They are hauling pieces of a weapon system which they have been trained to operate. Sure, they get exhausted hauling them around. But they also get the pieces slapped together and working within seconds as per SOP they have drilled ad nauseam during training.

For example, strictly speaking, the HMG does not need the tripod in order to make it work. When surprised would the team go about assembing the entire set up or would they use whatever support they find, slap in the belt and start blasting away trading accuracy for speed, worrying about the tripod when they have the time ? In the case of the MG-34/42 this dual ability is even more pronounced.

The mortar will not work if not assembeled correctly. Is it OK to have the HMG team perform the same way a mortar team performs when setting up the weapon system ? IMO, no. This because I think the differences in training of the two teams is so different that the HMG team would know when to cut corners whereas the mortar team simply can not cut corners if they want their weapon to fire.

The logic here is that they are being proactive. They move slower and harder to hide than Squads. Therefore, they are more likely to be uncomfortable when affected by enemy fire.

By the same token one would think they would also be more alert and be more prepared to open fire rather than start sneaking around taking casualties and getting exhausted.

You can stop a unit from Sneaking provided it isn't still getting shot up out in the open.

I think the main point is there are people who think there is no way to prevent then from starting Sneaking or that they start Sneaking at the drop of a pin.

I too would like to see a more aggressive behaviour patterns, especially for more experienced troops, when it comes to coming under fire.

Or the Sneak command reverted back to resemble more the CMBO patter. The new set of commands seem to lack a stealthy movement/keep fit command that would allow sneaking upright without getting sapped when trying to sneak up on an unsuspecting enemy.

By focusing in on the details we have determined that, by and large, there is no problem here other than the one the player creates for himself. And that end result is, by and large, completely realistic.

What is missing is the user interface that would allow for such RL terms like "use your own discretion" or other FRAG-OR type partial orders which allow for interpretation and alternate ways to following the orders.

As things stand sinking down to the AI level when thinking about the issuing of commands is the only way to get the AI do what you want. When the player is shouting at the screen "Did I tell you to do THAT !" more often than not he did tell the AI to do that. The problem is what you ordered does not always match up with what you thought you ordered.

Rather, coherent means that all the sub pieces work together in a way that produces a realistic reflection of whatever it is we are attempting to simulate.

What kind of a pool of sample permutations did you test out to determine if the sub pieces work consistently in any/all conditions ? What kind of a pain treshold did you allow for in the design to accomodate deviations ?

In this case, the differences between lugging around a rifle and person gear and lugging around a clumsy 40 lb tripod, Schreck, AT Gun, loads of ammo, etc. The notion that a HMG Team should be treated equally compared to a Squad is not realistic at all, and therefore is not something we will cater to.

IMO it is warranted to call for the HMG team to be treated more like a squad than for example a mortar team is.

[tabpub]

I beg to differ. The tripod, the extra barrels and ammo are what separates a MG34/42 in the "heavy machine gun" role from the same weapon in a squad/LMG role.

Now as to the purpose of this thread.

Moving heavy weapons under fire is not, repeat NOT desirable. So, any scenario should be set up to reflect this. Either, the setup line should have suffcient fields of fire to the objective areas to simulate the preparation for the assault; or sufficient time should be allowed for them to be moved in to position. Now in the case of a QB, give yourself plenty of turns to move up and follow at least 100m behind your infantry and let them secure the fireline position.

My 2 cents for what it's worth.

[Battlefront.com]

Tero,

I'm with SuperSulo on this one. The more you move them away from the squads the more realistic they do NOT get.

I don't think he said that, and I completely disagree with it in any case. And my point was the more a Team starts to behave like a Squad based on CMBB as it is right now, the less realistic it is. Crew served weapons absolutely, without question, were not as flexible and easy to deploy as a squad of infantry. Pick up any book on tactics and you will have a hard time not noticing this.

The question that is not answered is: do the teams get different training than the squads and how is that modelled in the game ?

Of course not. There is no such thing as the modeling of training in any unit. And if we did do correct modeling, how would it be possible to enforce when the Human can order the unit to do something it was not supposed to do.

They are not hauling mere chunks of metal of XXX kg. They are hauling pieces of a weapon system which they have been trained to operate.

[

True, but what difference does that make? If I am trained to move around something heavy and difficult to handle, and you are trained to move around with a rifle, are you saying that makes us equal? Sorry, I don't buy it

Sure, they get exhausted hauling them around. But they also get the pieces slapped together and working within seconds as per SOP they have drilled ad nauseam during training.

True, their SOP in a non combat situation without having crawled through 50m of open ground under fire. Setting up the weapon is not the issue here. Being able to use it is. Two entirely different things. The former is training, the latter is specific circumstances.

For example, strictly speaking, the HMG does not need the tripod in order to make it work.

Not true. It depends on the weapon. You could not fire the US .30cal or .50cal MGs without their tripods. Nor could you fire a Maxim, Vickers, or any other water cooled MG without their mounts as well. Oh, I suppose in theory it could be fired, but it would most likely jam before it hit anything.

When surprised would the team go about assembing the entire set up or would they use whatever support they find, slap in the belt and start blasting away trading accuracy for speed, worrying about the tripod when they have the time ? In the case of the MG-34/42 this dual ability is even more pronounced.

Sure, but we do not simulate the particulars of each individual weapons system to the nth degree. If we did, you wouldn't even have a CMBB Beta Demo to play with. Plus, this still ignores the ability to fire based on circumstances. The ones Redwolf was bringing up were not favorable circumstances. The crews were already shook up enough to cease being effective in the way you describe.

The mortar will not work if not assembeled correctly. Is it OK to have the HMG team perform the same way a mortar team performs when setting up the weapon system ? IMO, no.

Depends on the situation. In the kinds of situations we have been discussing here, I think it is an absolute "yes" because the unit is NOT trying to shoot but instead trying to get to cover.

By the same token one would think they would also be more alert and be more prepared to open fire rather than start sneaking around taking casualties and getting exhausted.

Well, it is the player's choice. If he wants them to sneak around, they don't get to shoot. If he wants them to shoot he cancels their orders or plots a more realistic path so that they can shoot from there. Simple as that.

I think the main point is there are people who think there is no way to prevent then from starting Sneaking or that they start Sneaking at the drop of a pin.

We have been over this already. I refuse to address this point in the same thread where this has been so clearly documented. If you don't want to read it, that isn't my problem. If you can't understand it, I have done all I can so ask someone else.

Or the Sneak command reverted back to resemble more the CMBO patter. The new set of commands seem to lack a stealthy movement/keep fit command that would allow sneaking upright without getting sapped when trying to sneak up on an unsuspecting enemy.

Teams aren't supposed to sneak up on anybody. They are supposed to be set up in place before the battle in favorable positions. Or at least that is what US, German, and Soviet Doctrine I have read states quite clearly.

What is missing is the user interface that would allow for such RL terms like "use your own discretion" or other FRAG-OR type partial orders which allow for interpretation and alternate ways to following the orders.

This is basically an entirely new feature set. It is something that we are building into the new engine, but there is no way it can be retrofitted into the existing code base.

As things stand sinking down to the AI level when thinking about the issuing of commands is the only way to get the AI do what you want. When the player is shouting at the screen "Did I tell you to do THAT !" more often than not he did tell the AI to do that. The problem is what you ordered does not always match up with what you thought you ordered.

The conditions for that are pretty simple. If the unit feels it needs to Sneak in order to avoid being killed, it will do this even if you did not order it. Just like a squad will alter its path when under fire or a tank will reverse even when not ordered to. It is entirely consistant.

What kind of a pool of sample permutations did you test out to determine if the sub pieces work consistently in any/all conditions ?

Something like 50 testers and a year's worth of testing. I think that is more than adequate. Especially since the starting code was play tested by a lot more than that over a greater period of time

IMO it is warranted to call for the HMG team to be treated more like a squad than for example a mortar team is.

On a relative scale, I agree. But if I only have two categories to choose from (which is what we have), there is no question at all that it is closer to the mortar than the squad. Both in terms of intended function as well as the reality of its mobility.

Steve

[Mace]

Originally posted by tero:

What kind of a pool of sample permutations did you test out to determine if the sub pieces work consistently in any/all conditions ? What kind of a pain treshold did you allow for in the design to accomodate deviations ?

I can answer this I beleive.

For the past several months, the beta tester's sole role was to test the game and look for anything that appeared to be anomolous in the game.

This was done by playing practically non-stop against the AI and other beta testers via QBs, prepared scenarios and operations.

In other words, to go out and play until we broke it.

This gave Battlefront the permutations needed to observe how well the game performed holistically through our comments on how we felt CMBB modelled our perceptions of WW2 combat.

OMO it is warranted to call for the HMG team to be treated more like a squad than for example a mortar team is.

As you said this a matter of personal opinion.

I've had little or no trouble with HMG teams because I don't have them up front with the infantry squads but back in the battle field for covering support.

I move them forward if the amount of return fire is minimal and once done, I then bound the infantry further forward.

So as far as I'm concerned the HMG behaves as I would expect it to behave, and that the HMG team modelling needs little if no more refinement in the game.

Mace

[Tero]

Originally posted by tabpub:

I beg to differ. The tripod, the extra barrels and ammo are what separates a MG34/42 in the "heavy machine gun" role from the same weapon in a squad/LMG role.

True. But does that affect the actual opening of fire when the feces does hit the ventilation ? IRL I mean.

Will the first gunner hauling the actual MG wait for the tripod to be brought up before he even starts to think about getting the belt in and scanning for fields of fire etc ? There are differences between the MG34/42 family and the Maxim but in both cases the crews could and most propably would act according to the situation rather than strict parade ground training drill SOP.

Mind you, the wheeled undercarriage in the Soviet version is a mixed blessing. On one had it arguably moves better in flat terrain but to bring it about to face the enemy in that ground will expose the crew more than setting up a tripod mounted one would. And if the terrain is something else than flat, even steppe the wheels are a liability more than they are a benefit. And still the crew will be more exposed when seeting it up.

Moving heavy weapons under fire is not, repeat NOT desirable. So, any scenario should be set up to reflect this. Either, the setup line should have suffcient fields of fire to the objective areas to simulate the preparation for the assault; or sufficient time should be allowed for them to be moved in to position. Now in the case of a QB, give yourself plenty of turns to move up and follow at least 100m behind your infantry and let them secure the fireline position.

I tend to agree with that. But there are times when you have to move them. For example if you are attacking in covered terrain you have to either move the heavies at a faster pace or slow the infantry advance down.

Having a Syncronice Speed option would be nice since you can only get one way point for group meovements.

[Mace]

Actually, I must add that this topic reminds me of a famous saying:

You can please all of the people some of the time; some of the people all of the time; BUT, you can never please all of the people all the time

Mace

[Treeburst155]

Well, I just spent valuable sleep time reading this entire thread. Why? Because I think there is something not quite right with HMG's (maybe all heavy weapons?), the TacAI sneak command "stickiness", and the suppression level at which the TacAI generates the sneak command.

I predict the issue WILL come up again later unless the Supersulo tweaks are implemented in more than a slight way. I won't be the one to bring it up however. I don't think I'll have to be.

Then again, I haven't had much experience with 1.01 yet. Perhaps the auto-sneak thing has already been dealt with to some degree, as suggested by a few posts above.

Treeburst155 out.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by tero:

I tend to agree with that. But there are times when you have to move them. For example if you are attacking in covered terrain you have to either move the heavies at a faster pace or slow the infantry advance down.

Ummm... I don't know how fast you advance through covered terrain, but a sane rate of speed is plenty slow enough for your HMGs to keep up

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

And my point was the more a Team starts to behave like a Squad based on CMBB as it is right now, the less realistic it is.

In absolute or relative scale ?

Crew served weapons absolutely, without question, were not as flexible and easy to deploy as a squad of infantry.

True.

Pick up any book on tactics and you will have a hard time not noticing this.

I believe live fire excersises with a Maxim did convince me.

Of course not. There is no such thing as the modeling of training in any unit.

Really ?

And if we did do correct modeling, how would it be possible to enforce when the Human can order the unit to do something it was not supposed to do.

I believe this is reflected in the way crews and selected teams are now treated in the game. There is no RL obstruction for them to pick up a rifle/SMG and start acting as infantry once their ordnance is exhausted or KO'd. For example, I have read several accounts how FO teams had to defend themselves against infantry attacks while doing their dedicated mission.

I know, I know: gamey universal spotting etc..

True, but what difference does that make? If I am trained to move around something heavy and difficult to handle, and you are trained to move around with a rifle, are you saying that makes us equal? Sorry, I don't buy it

Equality is not what is called for. What is called for is specialized skills. It is taken for granted engineers or artillery men can operate certain devices better than ordinary infantry, even under combat conditions. I fail to see there is no benefit in drilling to operate a HMG.

True, their SOP in a non combat situation without having crawled through 50m of open ground under fire. Setting up the weapon is not the issue here. Being able to use it is. Two entirely different things. The former is training, the latter is specific circumstances.

The very basic of military training is to instill automated, instinctive action when under fire. I agree that works only up to a point. But until that point is reached a team should be able to function pretty consistently. Should the team start crawling to safety in the first place if they know they are risking life and limb hauling the stuff around or should they set up and start blasting ? I'm predisposed to think their first instinct would be to get their prime asset working for them before it is too late.

Not true. It depends on the weapon. You could not fire the US .30cal or .50cal MGs without their tripods. Nor could you fire a Maxim, Vickers, or any other water cooled MG without their mounts as well. Oh, I suppose in theory it could be fired, but it would most likely jam before it hit anything.

You are wrong. I trust you are correct when it comes to the US weapons but the water cooled MG's could be used without the tripod. They are steadier because of their weight and if you find a suitable rest for it (log, root, branch, knoll, cart, wreck) which gives enough clearance for the belt you can operate it without a tripod mount quite easily.

Oh, just remembered, the Brits and the Soviets used canvas belt, the Finns used non-disintegrating metal belt (but the Soviet belt could be used if there was no time to move the ammo to a "proper" belt). This accounts for the differences here as a canvas belt is more prone to jamming than a metal belt.

Sure, but we do not simulate the particulars of each individual weapons system to the nth degree.

nth degree being what ? Or are you saying the stoppage rate for MG-34/42 and water cooled models is the same ?

Plus, this still ignores the ability to fire based on circumstances. The ones Redwolf was bringing up were not favorable circumstances. The crews were already shook up enough to cease being effective in the way you describe.

Yes. Because they have been sapped after crawling around a bit. Right ?

Depends on the situation. In the kinds of situations we have been discussing here, I think it is an absolute "yes" because the unit is NOT trying to shoot but instead trying to get to cover.

Should it be trying to shoot instead of trying to get to cover ? I'm predisposed to opt for the trying to shoot option.

Well, it is the player's choice. If he wants them to sneak around, they don't get to shoot. If he wants them to shoot he cancels their orders or plots a more realistic path so that they can shoot from there. Simple as that.

Unless the AI countermands and issues Sneak orders instead.

Teams aren't supposed to sneak up on anybody.

I would have thought for example an AT team should sneak up on a tank and be fit enough to assault it instead of getting sapped crawling needlessly when they could sneak up on it upright most of the way keeping their fitness level high enough to be effective when the target is in range.

They are supposed to be set up in place before the battle in favorable positions. Or at least that is what US, German, and Soviet Doctrine I have read states quite clearly.

When talking about heavy support weapons then I agree. But AT teams get thrown out with the bath water on this one because by their very nature they need both stealthy movement and stamina to perform. The Sneak command denies them of that as it is.

This is basically an entirely new feature set. It is something that we are building into the new engine, but there is no way it can be retrofitted into the existing code base.

Figured as much.

The conditions for that are pretty simple. If the unit feels it needs to Sneak in order to avoid being killed, it will do this even if you did not order it. Just like a squad will alter its path when under fire or a tank will reverse even when not ordered to. It is entirely consistant.

Then it must be asked if the Sneak command is structured correctly. In CMBO the separate Sneak and Crawl command were OK. Now with the Sneak and Crawl combined it seems there are inconsistencies about its usage by the AI as opposed the usage by the player.

Something like 50 testers and a year's worth of testing. I think that is more than adequate. Especially since the starting code was play tested by a lot more than that over a greater period of time

And they did cover all the permutations even with the changes when migrating from CMBO to CMBB ?

On a relative scale, I agree. But if I only have two categories to choose from (which is what we have), there is no question at all that it is closer to the mortar than the squad. Both in terms of intended function as well as the reality of its mobility.

An option would be to make them even less mobile but more prone to open fire instead of going to ground.

[Redwolf]

Good morning, folks,

just for note, it would be useles to convinice me that a sneaking HMG exhausts faster than a squad, I never disagreed.

If you want to make me happy then you point out to me how I can move a HMG into effective range in an infantry-only attack with only spots of cover, without getting it out of business for 15+ turns on minimal fire which should be good for 3-4 turns of slackery.

If your answer is "don't do that", then please explain to me how Manstein made it into the Crimea at Perekop, with what would be green troops with good HQs in CMBB terms.

[Dschugaschwili]

Moving HMGs:

In version 1.01 you can use move to contact with cover arcs to prevent them from stopping at the sight of an enemy unit 800m away. Hopefully they will still stop when they are fired upon (haven't installed 1.01 yet). If you want to be sure that they don't do anything on their own, issue a hide order at the end so they will hide themselves when they come under fire.

Also always have them in control of a HQ (preferably with extra moral bonus) while moving to get them from pinned to OK as fast as possible when they come under fire so sneak times are minimized if you don't use move to contact.

At least this seems to work for me.

Dschugaschwili

[WWB]

Exactly what I was going to suggest.

One question for redwolf--what is effective firing range of infantry support weapons. From your descriptions of your problems it sounds like you are within effective range of his support weapons, indicating you might be trying to get too close too early.

WWB

[rune]

By using part of LAH Panzer Division to get across the tank ditch? I quote: "The LAH was part of Army Group South, and as such, did not itself see combat until it was used to assault the Tarter Ditch blocking the way into the Crimea." Or maybe by using 2nd Panzer Division in the Crimea itself, which is NOT flat and NOT an all infantry battle? Neither division would be considered Green.

Rune

Originally posted by redwolf:

Good morning, folks,

just for note, it would be useles to convinice me that a sneaking HMG exhausts faster than a squad, I never disagreed.

If you want to make me happy then you point out to me how I can move a HMG into effective range in an infantry-only attack with only spots of cover, without getting it out of business for 15+ turns on minimal fire which should be good for 3-4 turns of slackery.

If your answer is "don't do that", then please explain to me how Manstein made it into the Crimea at Perekop, with what would be green troops with good HQs in CMBB terms.

[ November 26, 2002, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: rune ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by rune:

By using part of LAH Panzer Division to get across the tank ditch? I quote: "The LAH was part of Army Group South, and as such, did not itself see combat until it was used to assault the Tarter Ditch blocking the way into the Crimea." Or maybe by using 2nd Panzer Division in the Crimea itself, which is NOT flat and NOT an all infantry battle? Neither division would be considered Green.

Rune

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

Good morning, folks,

just for note, it would be useles to convinice me that a sneaking HMG exhausts faster than a squad, I never disagreed.

If you want to make me happy then you point out to me how I can move a HMG into effective range in an infantry-only attack with only spots of cover, without getting it out of business for 15+ turns on minimal fire which should be good for 3-4 turns of slackery.

If your answer is "don't do that", then please explain to me how Manstein made it into the Crimea at Perekop, with what would be green troops with good HQs in CMBB terms.

</font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Well, I just spent valuable sleep time reading this entire thread. Why? Because I think there is something not quite right with HMG's (maybe all heavy weapons?), the TacAI sneak command "stickiness", and the suppression level at which the TacAI generates the sneak command.

I predict the issue WILL come up again later unless the Supersulo tweaks are implemented in more than a slight way. I won't be the one to bring it up however. I don't think I'll have to be.

Then again, I haven't had much experience with 1.01 yet. Perhaps the auto-sneak thing has already been dealt with to some degree, as suggested by a few posts above.

Treeburst155 out.

Interesting comment and observation

They are working on the v1.02 patch so maybe a small tweak in the HMG fatigue model and "auto-sneak-to-exhaustion" issue can still be made??

:confused:

-tom w

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Andreas:

I am sure however Manstein did not get into the Crimea by leading the charge with his HMGs, he somehow does not strike me as that kind of fellow.

But... but... but... aren't MG34's equipped with bayonet mounts?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

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

I am sure however Manstein did not get into the Crimea by leading the charge with his HMGs, he somehow does not strike me as that kind of fellow.

But... but... but... aren't MG34's equipped with bayonet mounts?</font>

[Holien]

ROFL...

The Der Kessel team at work... (smell those flames).

I am going to stick my head slightly above the wall and risk being shot down as well.

I have seen a unit go into this sneak until tired routine long after the threat has gone. It was not a HMG and just an ordinary foot slogger.

I will watch my games until I see this again, (if I see it in 1.01). When I do I shall send the save to Steve and a full explanation.

All I can say is that I spent several turns trying to get he sodding unit on a 1/2 track and it kept ignoring me and crawling around a wooden house.

I guess they were looking for the vodka in the basement?

Right must get off this thin ice before it breaks or flames melt it.....

H

[Battlefront.com]

Tero,

In absolute or relative scale ?

Relative. If we were to make Teams relatively closer to Squads relative to the whole, this would be less realistic because the realistic differences between the two would diminish. And nobody, not even you, has made a case for them being able to move around with greater ease than they do now. And that is what this thread is about, not about how quickly a MG assistant gunner can get a belt out and load a MG. That is something entirely different that you have, for some odd reason, dragged into this discussion.

I believe this is reflected in the way crews and selected teams are now treated in the game. There is no RL obstruction for them to pick up a rifle/SMG and start acting as infantry once their ordnance is exhausted or KO'd. For example, I have read several accounts how FO teams had to defend themselves against infantry attacks while doing their dedicated mission.

I just had a mortar team defend itself, quite well in fact, against an enemy infantry assault without losing its mortar. So I don't understand what it is you are saying here, except for perhaps pointing out that occasionally some foolish specialist would ignore all his training. According to your perception of training effects in combat this would not happen

Equality is not what is called for. What is called for is specialized skills. It is taken for granted engineers or artillery men can operate certain devices better than ordinary infantry, even under combat conditions. I fail to see there is no benefit in drilling to operate a HMG.

Absolutely agree. And that is why a HMG Team in CM can handle a HMG better than a Squad can Or are you saying that because a HMG team can operate a HMG better than a Squad that they should somehow be better at returning fire under fire than a Squad, even though the Squad is better trained in the use of rifles and LMGs than the HMG team? Don't you see here... your argument is irrelevant when looking at how each handles incomming fire. It has zero to do with their weapons training. And just to repeat again, this discussion is about Exhaustion, which has nothing to do with training.

The very basic of military training is to instill automated, instinctive action when under fire.

Correct. And what is the basic, automated thing troops of all flavors are most interested in? Staying alive.

But until that point is reached a team should be able to function pretty consistently. Should the team start crawling to safety in the first place if they know they are risking life and limb hauling the stuff around or should they set up and start blasting ? I'm predisposed to think their first instinct would be to get their prime asset working for them before it is too late.

This is exactly what they do. The conditions being discussed here are basically so bad that the unit has already decided that the risk of moving is better than the risk of setting up shop and defending from where they are at.

You are wrong. I trust you are correct when it comes to the US weapons but the water cooled MG's could be used without the tripod. They are steadier because of their weight and if you find a suitable rest for it (log, root, branch, knoll, cart, wreck) which gives enough clearance for the belt you can operate it without a tripod mount quite easily.

No, you are wrong because you are treating this thing in an overly simplistic way. For example, we have been talking about units out in the open. How is the Maxim going to be fired when there is nothing handily available to fire from other than the tripod? And again... what the heck difference does it make to this discussion??

Also, as someone else pointed out this is not about one guy being Rambo with a HMG. This is about a team of 4-6 men with heavy loads of ammo and other weapon specific equipment.

Oh, just remembered, the Brits and the Soviets used canvas belt, the Finns used non-disintegrating metal belt (but the Soviet belt could be used if there was no time to move the ammo to a "proper" belt). This accounts for the differences here as a canvas belt is more prone to jamming than a metal belt.

All belts are prone to jamming when they are not set up in the prescribed way. Perhaps some less than others, but this is still totally irrelevant to this discussion.

nth degree being what ? Or are you saying the stoppage rate for MG-34/42 and water cooled models is the same ?

Tero, could you PLEASE stay focused? We are not talking about the difference in seconds one weapon takes to set up vs. another. That is, like much of the above stuff from you, totally irrelevant. And no, they are all pretty much treated equally, although I think there is a lower chance of JAM for water cooled MGs. But this, like the rest of your distracting side coversation, is irrelevant.

Yes. Because they have been sapped after crawling around a bit. Right ?

No, because Redwolf got them into a bad situation while on the move, they decided they wanted to get out from that spot, and Redwolf did not try to influence that decision.

Should it be trying to shoot instead of trying to get to cover ? I'm predisposed to opt for the trying to shoot option.

Depends on the circumstances. What we have been talking about is a pretty specific situation. I have seen, plenty of times, a unit stop under fire and return fire instead of crawling away. HMGs included.

Unless the AI countermands and issues Sneak orders instead.

Please don't come into a 5 page thread without reading it. The answer to this is found on every page of this thread, or at least the last 3 or 4 pages.

I would have thought for example an AT team should sneak up on a tank and be fit enough to assault it instead of getting sapped crawling needlessly when they could sneak up on it upright most of the way keeping their fitness level high enough to be effective when the target is in range.

True, we could in theory use a seperate SNEAK command for this type of unit in this type of situation. However, Assault or Advance works damned well for something like a Tank Hunter. For something like a Scheck, use Sneak only for the last portion of the move. In real life Sneaking while standing up in most cases isn't any different than what Advance will yield in the game. Standing up means you have a good chance of being spotted.

When talking about heavy support weapons then I agree. But AT teams get thrown out with the bath water on this one because by their very nature they need both stealthy movement and stamina to perform. The Sneak command denies them of that as it is.

From my experience, Tank Hunters do very well with the Sneak command. Do you have some direct experience to say otherwise, or are you just arguing to argue?

Then it must be asked if the Sneak command is structured correctly. In CMBO the separate Sneak and Crawl command were OK. Now with the Sneak and Crawl combined it seems there are inconsistencies about its usage by the AI as opposed the usage by the player.

Not for me. I use it in the same way the TacAI does, as well as being more creative with it in general. But that is not limited to the Sneak command as a good player can do all sorts of things the TacAI isn't coded for.

And they did cover all the permutations even with the changes when migrating from CMBO to CMBB ?

Sure, the playtested it for a year. How else do you expect to figure out a couple billion possible permutations? By testing them one at a time out of context?

An option would be to make them even less mobile but more prone to open fire instead of going to ground.

I think it is fine the way it is now. They will do this, but not in crappy circumstances like the ones discussed to death in this thread.

Steve

[Brian Rock]

I've been trying really, really hard not to buy into this thread, but I have to respond to this:

Originally posted by redwolf:

If you want to make me happy then you point out to me how I can move a HMG into effective range in an infantry-only attack with only spots of cover, without getting it out of business for 15+ turns on minimal fire which should be good for 3-4 turns of slackery.

Hard to answer without looking at the specific terrain. I can make a series of sweeping generalisations that may or may not apply - eg:

1) Don't move them. If LOS is open, fire from range.

2) If you are out of range, move forward behind whatever cover you have until you are in range.

3) If there is absolutely no cover at the point you begin taking fire, have your lead elements begin returning fire while your rear elements come forward.

And so on.

Whether or not these work depends on the particular map, so my suggestion is: create a map that simulates a situation such as you describe. Then let a bunch of us play with your "Manstein at Perekop" map and see if we can make it work.

What do you think?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by rune:

By using part of LAH Panzer Division to get across the tank ditch? I quote: "The LAH was part of Army Group South, and as such, did not itself see combat until it was used to assault the Tarter Ditch blocking the way into the Crimea." Or maybe by using 2nd Panzer Division in the Crimea itself, which is NOT flat and NOT an all infantry battle? Neither division would be considered Green.

Neither of these divisions ever set a foot onto the Crimea entraces during the breakthrough at Perekop from Sept 24 to Sept 26th 1941. LAH was planned to stay behind 46 and 73 infantry divisions to exploit success, but in the event they were drawn into the battle north of the sea of asov which concluded on Sept 29, 3 days after the breakthrough at perekop had been made.

2nd panzer was never part of 11th army during that period.

The crimea is not flat, the entrance is. I was never talking about anything but the entrance.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Brian Rock:

3) If there is absolutely no cover at the point you begin taking fire, have your lead elements begin returning fire while your rear elements come forward.

This is exactly what is broken. Even single bursts gotten off the defenders towards your HMGs (which the defenders will get off no matter how hard you supress them) will take your HMGs out of the game for an inappropriately long amount of time.

I can only repeat how much worse this is in mud or snow or hot or very cold weather or with lowered global morale.

Whether or not these work depends on the particular map, so my suggestion is: create a map that simulates a situation such as you describe. Then let a bunch of us play with your "Manstein at Perekop" map and see if we can make it work.

What do you think?

I was thinking "great idea", in fact started it last week.

It is not going to work. It would be my first scenario and it is avoidable that I screw something up, unrelated to the discussion here. Looking at the style of argumentation in this thread this will lead to people bashing the scenario and by inappropriate extension of unrelated scenario mistakes take it as proof that my original point was wrong.

I mean, look at Rune, who really should know better, how he pulls "Signal"- style total BS out of his hat about the Leibstandarte charging over the Tatar Ditch into the Crimea when in reality it was cutting of a Russian armored breakthrough behind the Rumanian lines north of the sea of asov.

Is there an indication that this would be anything else than a waste of time?

[ November 27, 2002, 06:11 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Andreas]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I mean, look at Rune, who really should know better, how he pulls "Signal"- style total BS out of his hat about the Leibstandarte charging over the Tatar Ditch into the Crimea when in reality it was cutting of a Russian armored breakthrough behind the Rumanian lines north of the sea of asov.

Is there an indication that this would be anything else than a waste of time?

How about you respond to me pulling Erickson style total BS out?

[Martin Rapier]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Neither of these divisions ever set a foot onto the Crimea entraces during the breakthrough at Perekop from Sept 24 to Sept 26th 1941. LAH was planned to stay behind 46 and 73 infantry divisions to exploit success, but in the event they were drawn into the battle north of the sea of asov which concluded on Sept 29, 3 days after the breakthrough at perekop had been made.

The crimea is not flat, the entrance is. I was never talking about anything but the entrance.

Neither was LAH a panzer division at this time, just a motorised infantry division. IIRC 11th Army didn't have any tanks at all at this time.

One thing to have a look at in the real battle is the artillery density employed by the attackers - assaulting with two divisions on a 4 mile front allows one tube per 50m just from divisional resources (two artillery battalions and a regimental gun company per mile, assuming a two up attack). If you add in available Corps & Army artillery the gun density goes up even further. Given sufficient artillery & ammo density infantry attacks could be shot in over few thousand metres without any great difficulty over the most unpromising terrain using a combination of bombardment and a creeping barrage.

Unfortunately the only OB I've got for Hansens Corps is for 22nd June, when it only had a single battalion of Corps artillery along with a few battalions of coastal artillery & 11th Army was considerably reorganised after this date. Kublers mountain corps alone had five battalions of additional artillery.

Cheers

Martin

[Holien]

Hi,

Redwolf, those guys are picking at your words and it is to be expected. You are saying something is broke in the game. Other people with a lot of experience (actually a hell of a lot of experience ) are trying to understand what you are saying and to see if it is true or not.

When you make comments that appear wrong to them then they will wade in. Expect it and understand it for what it is, just debate and friendly chat. (On the whole).

So far this has been fairly interesting and has not crossed the line too much. If you can provide a scenario where we can see this problem then all well and good, but don't get upset if people can not see your point of view.

Last night I managed to move a Russian Maxim forward and did not encounter this crawl problem even though it did at one point crawl as it came under fire. The next turn I got control of it and all was well.

Only time will tell if there is a real problem or it is something that can be lived with. From what I have seen so far (very limited play time) it is not a problem.

I would test your scenario for you and not be too critical.

H