Defense in CMBO and CMBB

[zahl]

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

Zahl,

so what you want is correct orientation of tank and turret, but no marker for the target and no hint what the tank is shooting at.

<hr></blockquote>

Exactly.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I don't think that will do any good, the only difference is that you don't know in what distance from the tank the target is and what kind of target. Both will be pretty easy to guess, IMHO.

I guess that is what makes our opinions different: non-absolute spotting as implementable in a CMBO-like game and as describben by Steves is not that much different from the absolute spotting we have now. It will make the gun more safe for a short time after it is being spotted (because other units will not shoot on it automatically), but after the next player plot phase everyone and their dog with still rain area fire on the gun's position.

You seem to overestimate what this will achieve.<hr></blockquote>

I think you are overestimating your ability to guess right. First, when you see direct fire impacts around your tank(s) or ricochets, you, as the player, would not know (even though some of your units might know) -

1) are the shooters tanks or guns

2) their type

3) how many shooters are there

4) their exact location. Your tank's first few shots can easily be +/- 30m off at 500m provided the terrain is flat and totally off if there are nasty elevations. More importantly, if there are many targets opening up simultaneously and even if your tank(s) spots all of them and engages one or two, you would have absolutely no idea where the rest are.

Then your tank might spot an infantry unit, engage it and then receive direct fire. You would incorrectly assume that your tank is engaging a gun/tank when this enemy gun/tank would still be unspotted and be in a totally different direction.

[ 12-31-2001: Message edited by: zahl ]</p>

[Redwolf]

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

I don't think the solution to the spotting issue needs to be really fancy. IMHO just make everything a little harder to spot.

<hr></blockquote>

The problem with that is that it will make for very unrealistic gameplay. If you just lower the spotting chance, you will benefit from recon-en-masse, from massing eyes like you usually mass weapons.

This outright reverts several military principles, most prominently that of econemy of force, that you should only subtract the bare minimum of forces for secondary efforts (secondary besides the main concentration intended for actual combat). Players would find that in CMBO there is would be an entirely different tradeoff of how much you need for the recon secondary effort than it would be in the real world.

Besides, you would have to lower the spotting chance very much to make a gun properly survivable in realistic positions with semi-wide LOS angles. A CMBO-style placed gun with a very narrow LOS angle will be almost impossible to find. Which in turn can only be countered by deep kamikaze recon.

[Cauldron]

Have to say that was an excellent post and sums up most of the tactical grips in CM 1.

Only 1 to add to that, fire dispile is very bad in CM 1 though CA's in BB should help a lot.

I hope BTS have some other forum for " things to do" for engine 2, not that they need incoporate them all by any means but i am sure certain threads are going to emerge as crucial.

CM 1 is a good game, its not a great game, but it could be

[Uedel]

Ok reading this all following comes to mind.

For Tanks and spotting:

IMO if a Tank "Spots" a enemy Unit the system is fine for me because in CMBO ALL Tanks have Radio communications that could tell (you the Leader) the location and the exceptet type of force the tank is fighting. all fine so far even in CMBO with this, for CMBB the things should be a little different explained a little latter.

For Infantry:

Inf. has contact to next HQ (red line + radio symbol)you get the Informations like Tanks (Target Type and location of expectet enemy unit + recon infos like right now).

Inf. has no contact to next HQ (black line and stroked radio) u only get the Inf. highlightet in a different color seeing that it is fighting something but no clue what (no type, no location, etc). PLUS u dont get a correct status of your inf unit (no men counter, no ammo counter) until a HQ unit is in range then u get all the infos about your own and the spottet and reconed enemy infantry untis. this would fix a lot of the problems.

In CMBB tanks without a Radio (like most soviet early tanks and some Germans too) should be handled like inf without radio (with a generic icon that dont shows hull/turret facing and Ammo status etc except someone with a communications line sees the own tank wich will recover your hull/turret facing direction and if it is firing and what direction location (impact location is visible only if it is in the los of a unit in command)

At all all shell impacts etc should only be vis to the player if the impact point is in LOS of a unit under C&C this would solve a lot of problems from the GOD mode we playing now. :cool:

[kipanderson]

Spotting in CMBO.

Hi,

On this one I am firmly on BTS’s side. I think the spotting and LOS stuff is handled very realistically.

“1) Simplistic spotting. A concealed ATG 500m away is exposed for all units to see the moment it fires. Soldiers wearing camo in woods are spotted at 200m. Etc.”

When it comes to ATGs I feel it is realistic for them to be easily spotted. As is the case with many people on the forum I have seen a lot of footage from WW2 of 75mm/76mm guns firing. Even in black and white they make a huge flash and blast. If one were dealing with the famous “empty battlefield”, i.e. the ATG was amongst the first defending units to fire, it would be spotted by just about everyone instantly. Camouflage is for concealing the gun until it fires. Using WW2 ammo, flash/blast, it would be unrealistic for an ATG not be spotted at 500m, in my view. As I say, a huge flash and blast.

However, I am not saying that CMBO is perfect.

I would like to see multi-play, team play. This would be far more realistic and would go a very long way to solving the “relative spotting/ relative command” problem. If a reinforced company was “manned” by, say, a team of four in a live game each player would only see what the units he actually commands see, what his platoon sees. Not what the units commanded by someone else see.

Anyway, we are all different, but I have no problem defending in CMBO. Nothing is perfect, but CMBO comes close, given the machines it is designed to run on. Using “real world tactics” I find defending works very well.

All the best,

Kip.

[Abn_Ranger87]

SpectreX,

Here are some thoughts on spotting from real world experience (12 years of service in the Infantry.) The first thing the human eye picks up is movement, camoflauged or not, at 200 meters you WILL be seen or heard in even fairly dense woods unless your crawling carefully or using a cover/concealed route (like an old stream bed thats probably been marked as dead space on some troopie's range card and coverd by the appropriate weapon system ala M203 and a claymore or two.) The second thing your beady little human eyes notice is what we call contrast to color. No pattern of camo is effective in 100% of enviroments it's used. For example, the standard "woodland" pattern is fairly dark (especially once wet and grunts usually are soaked from incliment weather) and will get you noticed fairly quick in places where the brush is or a lighter shade. Try sneaking through a stand of connifer trees in Germany where there is no ground foliage, I have and it's not easy... This isn't to say the stealthy approach doesn't work, it's just a lot more difficult than Hollywood would have you believe.

When big things go "boom" everybody and their 2nd cousin who isn't buttoned up or underground will know where exactly it came from. This doesn't just apply to anti-tank guns. It's almost humerous how many M60/M240 teams I've seen become the focal point of OPFOR fire once they engage. If you have the loudest toy, your going to attract the most attention.

Fighting postions or "foxholes" as depicted in CM are more eloborate than a simple hole in the ground. Most armies have some sort of standard design that incorporates overhead cover (amazing how quickly you can dig one of these when properly motivated/scared) U.S. Army's baseline model has 16" of logs, sandbags or what have you. More than enough to protect the occupants from smaller caliber indirect assets such as 81mm mortars. Remember that rounds are usually set either quick (proximity) for airburst or delayed for rooting out moles (that's one of the things that should be incorperated into CMBB.) Either fuzing with light artillery requires almost a direct hit to neutralize dug in personnel. While a unit that's been entrenched for a while might have advantages, they also get too comfortable. No matter how well constructed, bunkers and such usually can be spotted. Troops get lazy when static and depending on their level of disipline will leave traces of their presence. Dead foliage is the first such give away, after 24 hours bushes wilt and are very distinguishable from surrounding vegetation. Trash sometimes accumulates and noticable paths develop within the same period of time. I've seen defensive positions fail for many reasons, from unburied commo wire to hanging laundry. Thing is, once spotted, a dug in unit is easily fixed and destroyed with artillery, especially now a days with such things as IDPCM submuitions...

[Massattack]

Thank you ABN for an excellent post, giving a real world insight into infantry battlefield conditions. This and Kipandersons post go a long way towards convincing me that CMBO's model, with absolute spotting, though not perfect, is a lot less unrealistic in it's effects than many would have us beleive. There has been a lot of hypothetical talk about the range at which different units could be spotted in various terrains etc., and it is refreshing to obtain some real life information about this. In particular, I really like the way CMBO allows you to spot foxholes shortly before you spot their inhabitants if you are moving towards them at a sensible speed. I do not wish to criticize the very interesting debates on this forum, but sometimes I feel they stray away from reality, perhaps because only a minority of us have had relevant military experience.

My two cents, euros, dollars, whatever.

[Patgod]

actually non absolute spotting would be exceedingly helpfull to an ATG. if he kills a tank on the first shot, and no other unit spots him, he wouldnt even be placed on the board.

*boom*

front turret penetration KO

"wtf was that"

now, if the tank survived, and the TC saw the target it would still be helpfull, since not until the next turn would massive ammounts of death and pain come raining down on the ATG. just return fire from the target and anyone close enough to see it.

[Priest]

I am sure this has been discussed before and allow me to bring up a couple of points.

One, Cauldron, what is a better game than CMBO for WWII tactical combat?

Two, I am a realist and I like realistic gameplay, that being said it still has to be able to be played and enjoyed.

Three, no offense to marco or franko or whoevers rules but I think they are overrated. Simply put, all these rules do is take longer. I have played them and did just the same as I did without them. Using the full interface simply allowed me to do my turn substantially faster, btw I use view #3 about 90% of the time. My average turn time for a 5000 pt game is around 8-10 minutes max, the two players I have played using these other rules took close to 40 minutes, I won both games.

Just my thoughts.

As far as spotting goes, I put my trust into BTS to do the right thing, they always do. It still shocking to me that in the first months of the games release everyone was slobbering over the game and it received high marks from every source it was reviewed by, but now some folks are questioning it, hmmm, it has not changed since back then (actually due to patching it has gotten better) and nothing has come out to in anyway invalidate the game so hmmmm. Especially with CMBB coming out this is odd behavior. Oh well to each his own. Personally I am happy to be playing a great game that is in my opinion still the most complete game out for the PC since it's release date.

[Specterx]

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

As far as spotting goes, I put my trust into BTS to do the right thing, they always do. It still shocking to me that in the first months of the games release everyone was slobbering over the game and it received high marks from every source it was reviewed by, but now some folks are questioning it, hmmm, it has not changed since back then (actually due to patching it has gotten better) and nothing has come out to in anyway invalidate the game so hmmmm. Especially with CMBB coming out this is odd behavior. Oh well to each his own. Personally I am happy to be playing a great game that is in my opinion still the most complete game out for the PC since it's release date.<hr></blockquote>

Trust no one....

As more people play the game for longer periods of time, the various bugs, inaccuracies etc. become more obvious and in some cases more pronounced (people start using specific strategies, etc).

Nobody's saying CMBO is a bad game (in fact, everyone's saying that its a great game), and I at least am not demanding that BTS release a patch to fix this stuff. However, since CMBB is coming out, there's no harm in trying to get some of these gripes at least looked at.

[Michael Dorosh]

One wants to ask the obvious question after 8nd Abn's post - how common was it for WW II infantry to employ overhead cover in their entrenchments?

I am under the impression - not very.

I know that old doors, etc., were sometimes put overtop of rudimentary foxholes (or slit trenches as the Commonwealth called them) to keep the weather out, but anything approaching 18 inches of overhead cover was very uncommon - especially in NW Europe where infantry were not often in the same positions for long (the Normandy and winter stalemates notwithstanding).

The point about wilting camouflage is an apt one; changing the foliage on a tank daily was one more headache for experienced tank crews to have to do.

[Priest]

Spect,

Trust can be earned and BTS has earned my trust. Steve, Charles, Matt, and Kwazy have all earned my trust in concerns to developing and executing a game properly. Trust no one? Initially yes, but it can be earned.

Actually I have not yet even addressed the original question. I find defense just fine, and in fact on an attack I am currently conducting an ATG just took out three tanks and lived three turns after that until a platoon, two mg squads and another tank could be brought around. They had a coy commander it seems that was in command raduis. As far as I can tell it was a regular rated gun.

[Amidst_Void]

I've never felt I was at a disadvantage as a defender. I believe the best strategy is to place your defending units in vital positions, or positions that the enemy will most likely pass through, and from then on, as you observe enemy movement, reposition troops to more useful positions. It could be that this "defensive limitation" issue stems from the result of imporper movement of troops from unskilled players. There's many people who feel timid about moving troops out of their given foxholes that they were placed within at the beginning of the game, as they think this will criple their defences, when in reality, your forces are rarely in the spot they should be and repositioning is vital to holding ground.

there are some problems however. As spectorx said, defending units that are in a position for a while should be very hard to spot, especially in comoflouge, and should have a great advantage. There was a certain scenario in Operation Flashpoint where about 5 men and myself were advancing up a hill through thick forest defended by three Russian riflemam. The Russians defeated my squad easily, I didn't even see them, they were invisible but they easily saw me.

[Midnight Warrior]

This is an excerpt from a new thread I started yesterday and just revised (Poor man's relative spotting) but it better belongs here. The idea here runs pretty much with some of the other post in this thread. (He He. I think this is a case of great minds think alike). I would put a link here if I knew how so I will just cut and past the excerpt.

excerpt

A simple way to create the effect of relative spotting is to introduce a new level of being spotted that is inbetween unspotted and absolutely spotted, called partially spotted. Whenever an unspotted unit first become spotted it has the potential of becoming a partially spotted target. Partially spotted units would be something akin to sound contacts in that there is some random amount of error in its location. However, unlike sound contacts the icon of the partially spotted unit has the proper ID and directioanl orientation (subject to fog of war restrictions). Whenever anyone shoots at a partially spotted unit the TAC AI would randomly decide whether he spotted the target or not. If yes, then the shot is normal. If no, then the shot becomes an area shot directed at some radius around the partially spotted unit's icon (similar to the proceedure that it scatters indirect fire). This area fire may still hit the target but has reduced liklihood due to the uncertainty of where the target actually is. TAC AI could use some simple rules to affect the probability that the firer spots the target (e.g. his chances go up if he is being shot at by the unit or if he is close to it). As time goes on the degree of error of the location of the partially spotted target could decrease. The rate in which it decreases could be a function of target activity such as motion and firing, the terrain that it is in, and whether the shooter spotted the unit the previous turn or not. When the error foes to zero the target becomes absolutely spotted so that everyone knows exactly where it is.

Note that the firer could also choose to fire area fire at where it thinks the real location of the partially spotted unit is. He would do this if he thinks he can guess better than having the AI randomly pick for him. However, if it does this then it forgoes the possibility that the AI declaring him to have sighted the target. With this approach it would be harder to game the system and use area fire to defeat the relative spotting mechanics since the target icon's location is randomly displaced from the target's actual location. Thus his area fire would have to cover a wide area with reduced liklihood of actually hitting the partially spotted unit.

Implementation of this should not be a problem in the current engine in that it is only adding a few more logic checks to the existing firing proceedure (e.g. is it in Line Of sight, is oit in range, ect). It should be easier to implement than true relatively targeting sense it does not require every unit ro keep track of which targets it has spotted or not but only requires that the TAC AI decree whether the shooter when he shoots at a target actually has spotted it or not by use of some simple rules.

[Andrew H.]

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

there are some problems however. As spectorx said, defending units that are in a position for a while should be very hard to spot, especially in comoflouge, and should have a great advantage. There was a certain scenario in Operation Flashpoint where about 5 men and myself were advancing up a hill through thick forest defended by three Russian riflemam. The Russians defeated my squad easily, I didn't even see them, they were invisible but they easily saw me.<hr></blockquote>

I think there's a an important scale difference between three riflemen and, say, a rifle company, or even a rifle platoon. I've read a lot of AARs from small unit actions in WWII, and while there are several accounts of a hidden gun or sniper or other single unit holding up the advance of a larger group (usually by covering a roadway), I can't recall any instances where a defender got an advantage like the one described above simply because he was well hidden.

I think this probably has to do with the underlying WWII reality that units on both sides had a pretty good idea about where enemy units were because of scouting. Not in precise detail, because units did move around, but in general. In company commander, for example, there's a description of how Macdonald's troops, in a quiet sector of the line, were constantly patrolling and observing the German line. If you watch the defensive line for weeks with binoculars, and frequently probe, you will have a decent idea about where enemy troops are.

Which is not to say that people went into battle with maps showing the location of every enemy foxhole; of course they didn't. But you also never read about situations where a company advances across a field, observing nothing, until concealed enemy units pop up at point blank range and gun them all down. The attackers just don't have that level of blindness.

In general, though, I think that CM's spotting is about right, especially after the button-up-delay patch. Guns remain a real danger because they can usually get a couple of shots off before being spotted, and concealed defenders in cover remain hidden until enemy units close to within 200 meters or so.

[Redwolf]

AT gun groups destroying large number of attacking tanks always exploit things that are very hard to simulate in a game at all, or in a balanced CMBO game in special.

For starters, the confusion amoung the attackers is decise. There aint no confusion in the single-brain CMBO attacker.

Other cases had either large numbers of unsupported tanks thrown away (e.g. British in Normandy), or large number of AT guns far behind the first line of resistence (Kursk), both will not happen in CMBO games.

[Mr. Johnson--]

Nice post KipAnderson.

[Abn_Ranger87]

Concerning stages of and advantages of the defence.

To answer Mike D's question about the use of overhead cover in the ETO during WW2. A good position with all the neccesary elements came be completed in a little over three hours if the troopers are serious. Digging in after every movement is tedious and exhausting but it was deemed a neccesity as well proven by the massacre of 2/115 Infantry at Le Carrefour (the unit just did the rucksack flop at the end of the day and were rudely awakened to the reality of war by the 352nd Kampfgruppe.) I can garauntee that anything at hand that was usefull for cover was utilized. If the materials for overhead protection were available you can be certain G.I.'s used it. Hollywood doesn't like the fact it's not camera friendly for the hero's to be obscured in such a way so this bit of accuracy is usually omitted.

Anyway I wanted to write about the timeline for defence and what could be expected (based on two men per position.)

1 hour (+/-) Hasty positions about 12" deep with sector stakes (just sticks or tent poles sunk in to define the position's sector of fire.) Range cards complete, copies of which passed to the PL so he can create the platoon's sector sketch. LP/OP (listening post/Outpost) with landline put forward of position. Crew served weapon positions given priority over individual ones.

2 hours (+/-) Positions are at least waist deep with the dirt forming a burm for forward cover (most units have an SOP for each troop packing a half dozen empty sandbags for this purpose.) Platoon sketch finished and a copy given to the CO so he can finalised the company sketch. TRP's plotted for key avenues of approach, natural lines of drift, deadspace, etc... V notch stakes placed in conjuntion with sector stakes to assure accurate fire into critical locations as well as marking the FPL for crew served weapons.

3 hours (+/-) Fighting positions are armpit deep with grenade sumps and construction of overhead cover begins. Details for establishing obstacles start work (concertina wire, mines, log cribs on roads, etc... All should be covered by direct and indirect fires and just outside hand-grenade range from friendly position, around 45 meters.) Company sketch finished and passed to battalion. Alternate and secondary fighting positions scratched out.

4 hours (+/-) Overhead cover complete, camoflaging begins with vegetation and sod taken from behind the position. Work continues on obstacle placement and construction of alternate positions (usually not more than hasty 12" ones unless area to be occupied for several days.)

5 hours and beyond Primary positions complete, obstacle emplacement finished (improvements made over time if needed.) Local security patrols conducted by squad/team size elements (ongoing until position attacked or abandoned.)

Anyway, in a nutshell the above is abasic outline of what occurs. How does this relate to CMBO? Well, certain advantages that aren't really apparant in the game and will hopefully be included with CMBB are as follows...

Accuracy, units dug in will have knowledge of the exact range to their targets and from which direction they'll be coming (passive obstacles such as tanglefoot or concertina wire are effective for channelizing the enemy into the kill zones for your most casualty producing weapons such as machine guns.)

Protection, relative invulnerability from light indirect fire such as 60mm & 81mm mortars and airbursts of larger systems. Concealment also falls under this catagory.

To illustrate how effective a well made position is, during an exercise at Ft. Campbell my old platoon got tasked to be the OPFOR against two companys from 3/502nd. We were given a day and a half to dig in then faced numerous probes and aerial reconnaisance before a night attack was conducted on the third day. End result, a couple hundred "Widowmakers" sitting on the OBJ with their helmets off and MILES gear beeping.

Why? well, their scouts were compromised and waxed by our patrols and the Apaches and Kiowas that overflew us at night couldn't locate our postions, even with thermals. So the "good guys" did not have an accurate picture of our arrangement. When their prepatory fires began, they were well away from our actual location and on false positions (during this sort of exercise, an Observer/Controller or OC who acts as sort of a refferee will get the grid coordinates from the fireplan and using a GPS will go to the spots and throw a few arty simulaters around then use his MILES god gun to assess casualtys.)

The attackers support position was masked by trees from our true location and had to reset itself, then their assault element came in perpendicular to our MLR and found itself enfiladed by no fewer than two M-60's and four SAWs... Of course, after the intial attack the OC's rekeyed all the "good guys" and they got a second chance at us. All these years and I'm still a little ticked about the "notional" M136 that took out my position. The bastards weren't even carrying the sand filled tubes that are used to simulate the weight of live ones let alone the training verison with it's signature producing (ATWES) cartridge...

[Stephen Smith]

Hmmm-

The whole idea of relative spotting has never really bothered me. I actually think the biggest problem with CM for the defense is that there is not enough of a benefit for being the defender. In other words, if I as the defender start out in a woodline, and the attacker moves to a facing woodline and begins firing at me, we are essentially 'equal' in terms of combat power, morale, combat effectiveness, etc (assuming they are equivalent squads). The whole idea of "if I see you, you see me" and the fact that one terrain type has one terrain effect (ex. woods) no matter how long you have been there, means that many of the intangible benefits of defending (knowledge of the terrain, more extensive knowledge of blind spots, prepositioned ammunition, more extensive establishment of fields of fire and interlocking fires between individuals or teams, sheer morale bonus of knowing that you are staying put, while the attacker has to come across that open field to get you, and so on) are not simulated. Thus, defense, which theoretically requires 3x the attacking force to overcome, is in game terms equal.

A few solutions:

Add Improved Positions (like foxholes): after 15 turns (15 minutes) or in setup positions at the beginning of a scenario, units are in Improved Positions. This doesn't represent any digging in-it represents some minimal amount of planning on the part of the squad and platoon leaders. It yields some defensive benefit AND A MORALE BENEFIT, and it makes the IP squad harder to spot. Thus, in the situation where two squads facing each other in woodlines across a field, all else being equal, the squad that has been there longer will break less easily, will be harder to spot, and will suffer fewer casualties.

Add more morale benefit for being in foxholes, for the same reason.

steve

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Abn_Ranger87:

Concerning stages of and advantages of the defence.

To answer Mike D's question about the use of overhead cover in the ETO during WW2. A good position with all the neccesary elements came be completed in a little over three hours if the troopers are serious. Digging in after every movement is tedious and exhausting but it was deemed a neccesity as well proven by the massacre of 2/115 Infantry at Le Carrefour (the unit just did the rucksack flop at the end of the day and were rudely awakened to the reality of war by the 352nd Kampfgruppe.) I can garauntee that anything at hand that was usefull for cover was utilized. If the materials for overhead protection were available you can be certain G.I.'s used it. Hollywood doesn't like the fact it's not camera friendly for the hero's to be obscured in such a way so this bit of accuracy is usually omitted.

Anyway I wanted to write about the timeline for defence and what could be expected (based on two men per position.)

1 hour (+/-) Hasty positions about 12" deep with sector stakes (just sticks or tent poles sunk in to define the position's sector of fire.) Range cards complete, copies of which passed to the PL so he can create the platoon's sector sketch. LP/OP (listening post/Outpost) with landline put forward of position. Crew served weapon positions given priority over individual ones.

2 hours (+/-) Positions are at least waist deep with the dirt forming a burm for forward cover (most units have an SOP for each troop packing a half dozen empty sandbags for this purpose.) Platoon sketch finished and a copy given to the CO so he can finalised the company sketch. TRP's plotted for key avenues of approach, natural lines of drift, deadspace, etc... V notch stakes placed in conjuntion with sector stakes to assure accurate fire into critical locations as well as marking the FPL for crew served weapons.

3 hours (+/-) Fighting positions are armpit deep with grenade sumps and construction of overhead cover begins. Details for establishing obstacles start work (concertina wire, mines, log cribs on roads, etc... All should be covered by direct and indirect fires and just outside hand-grenade range from friendly position, around 45 meters.) Company sketch finished and passed to battalion. Alternate and secondary fighting positions scratched out.

4 hours (+/-) Overhead cover complete, camoflaging begins with vegetation and sod taken from behind the position. Work continues on obstacle placement and construction of alternate positions (usually not more than hasty 12" ones unless area to be occupied for several days.)

5 hours and beyond Primary positions complete, obstacle emplacement finished (improvements made over time if needed.) Local security patrols conducted by squad/team size elements (ongoing until position attacked or abandoned.)

Anyway, in a nutshell the above is abasic outline of what occurs. How does this relate to CMBO? Well, certain advantages that aren't really apparant in the game and will hopefully be included with CMBB are as follows...

Accuracy, units dug in will have knowledge of the exact range to their targets and from which direction they'll be coming (passive obstacles such as tanglefoot or concertina wire are effective for channelizing the enemy into the kill zones for your most casualty producing weapons such as machine guns.)

Protection, relative invulnerability from light indirect fire such as 60mm & 81mm mortars and airbursts of larger systems. Concealment also falls under this catagory.

To illustrate how effective a well made position is, during an exercise at Ft. Campbell my old platoon got tasked to be the OPFOR against two companys from 3/502nd. We were given a day and a half to dig in then faced numerous probes and aerial reconnaisance before a night attack was conducted on the third day. End result, a couple hundred "Widowmakers" sitting on the OBJ with their helmets off and MILES gear beeping.

Why? well, their scouts were compromised and waxed by our patrols and the Apaches and Kiowas that overflew us at night couldn't locate our postions, even with thermals. So the "good guys" did not have an accurate picture of our arrangement. When their prepatory fires began, they were well away from our actual location and on false positions (during this sort of exercise, an Observer/Controller or OC who acts as sort of a refferee will get the grid coordinates from the fireplan and using a GPS will go to the spots and throw a few arty simulaters around then use his MILES god gun to assess casualtys.)

The attackers support position was masked by trees from our true location and had to reset itself, then their assault element came in perpendicular to our MLR and found itself enfiladed by no fewer than two M-60's and four SAWs... Of course, after the intial attack the OC's rekeyed all the "good guys" and they got a second chance at us. All these years and I'm still a little ticked about the "notional" M136 that took out my position. The bastards weren't even carrying the sand filled tubes that are used to simulate the weight of live ones let alone the training verison with it's signature producing (ATWES) cartridge...<hr></blockquote>

Now, is all that based on your personal experience, or does it relate to WW II practice? If the latter, I'd be interested in your source - I know there are WW II field manuals on line, I'd be interested in visiting those.

While I don't scoff at real world experience (I have dug fighting positions myself), you have to realize how great the tendency is for current soldiers to say "they must have" done it that way in the Big One, simply because we do it that way now.

Personal camouflage was a rarity in WW II (ie face paint, ghillie suits, etc.), though I agree that positions were camouflaged when possible - Charlie Martin (a Canadian CSM in NWE in WW II) points out a photo of a bren Gunner and says that the cameraman probably made him peel back the camouflage - a good LMG gunner would not be seen at all.

But your point about overhead cover fails to convince. Just because we do it now, does not mean it was doctrine, or even practice, to do it that way then - no matter how silly it seems not to have.

Standard tactics in 1914, don't forget, was to walk very slowly towards the enemy with troops being forbidden from firing on the move.

In 1864, the practice was to line up in long lines and fire at each other at a few dozen yards range...

[Abn_Ranger87]

Michael D.

I bounced the question on the use of overhead cover off some of the WW2 vets in my VFW lodge (4 of them were present during lunch today.) All agreed that German positions usually had it and only one said he never used it (gentleman in question was a tanker.) The others (2 ETO, 1 PTO) said they used anything they could get their mitts on.

You are right about the tendency for current soldiers to think that things have been done the same way in the past as now. However, remember that techniques in use now are the result of experiences of those who've gone before. Things get modified over time but what works usually remains unchanged.

A bit of sad news, a long time member of the afor mentioned organization has passed away at age 84. Al Fedorowicz was in the original cadre of the 10th Mountain Division. After being wounded in Italy he returned home, got an education and had a successful career with Pratt & Whitney. He was a very quick witted individual with a heart of gold. Guys, even if your not a member or eligable to join a veterans orginazation, please volunteer your time to seniors and get to know these men who answered the call to arms then rebuilt the nation. They are a living part of our heritage and will soon vanish into dusty text books. Listen to them and carry their stories on for following generations.

[Cauldron]

If ASL could find another way to get results other than dice it would be better.

Heuristic game engines are coming into play nowadays, ones that learn by error, the game Road to Moscow was one such. Sadly, it did not come to fruition. I also have not kept up with "whats on" but there are quite a lot of Internet based games.

The thing I was mentioning was that although CM is a good game there are still many shortcomings, no amount of "talking up" the game will over come them. Only a better game will.

Two things that come to mind are 81mm mortars have nowhere near the power in CM than in real life ( although perhaps they are too accurate against stationary halftracks).

Machine guns fire at "questionable" targets and loose thier ammo. As a result there is some merit in allowing units to be fired on one by one in a bid to get the MG to expend all ammo. Then all you have to do is roll a platoon over the position and one captured MG.

On another level there are newbies who spout the most amazing rubbish. That MG's did not kill many peopbe but were used mostly for supression........... duhh ~~

There are lots of other issues as well, it is not until we can get some sort of artificial INTELIGENCE either through a better game engine or some heuristic learning that we can stop calling them "games"

I happen to believe that CM CAN be one of these, one of the best things about CM is the Forum itself. If we contunue to work together 2007 might be the birth of virtual WW2. >>>>