British Infantry

[OGSF]

I too like Jason's ammo adjustment idea. The British armour and arty is good, but I believe the ammo load out is bogus, as is the firepower / suppression at longer ranges.

I have had dug in British squads wiped out by German squads which ran across open ground to assault them with no supporting fire. I think the Lee Enfield was accurate enough to discourage such moves.

I have also had British infantry run out of ammo by turn 25 when attacking in a 30 turn game. I'm sure that happened all the time in actual attacks. Shades of the QM unscrewing ammo boxes in "Zulu Dawn".

And thanks Jason for the primer on British tactics in CM.

Cheers,

OGSF

[WWB]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I commented on the scheme last time it came up, I think it is worthwhile. Unfortunately most scenario designers are not really willing to follow recommendations like these "as they are for gamey player only anyway" or something like that. Same issue with the number of victory flags.

A far better way to control this in scenarios is to not hand out masses of SMG toting infantry unless appropriate. And when you do give them, balance it out in experience and points. Not to mention the fact the SMG rush does not work too well with green SMG squads, which the bulk of the VGs were anyway. Also, SMG rushes work alot better on QB maps than realistic maps, due to the randomly strewn cover. A real defensive position is generally not nearly as easy to approach.

JCs idea is pretty good, I think Steve has said that it will be tweaked for CMBB. As it stands right now, the biggest problem is that it is a pain to work, due to the fact that you will have to change alot of values. (Note to BTS: a spreadsheet style unit data editor would be really cool.)

What is this "victory flag" theory you have? I don't recall seeing it anywhere.

WWB

[Redwolf]

I agree that many scenario designers treat this kinda well by giving few SMG troops or green ones. I just found that number-heavy recommendations are generally not welcomed.

Originally posted by wwb_99:

JCs idea is pretty good, I think Steve has said that it will be tweaked for CMBB.

IIRC the rifle fire will increase in lethality and will take less than an ammo point per "shot" (they should double the points and let SMG squads eat up two is).

As it stands right now, the biggest problem is that it is a pain to work, due to the fact that you will have to change alot of values. (Note to BTS: a spreadsheet style unit data editor would be really cool.)

There are a number of items missed in the editor GUI, like the right mouse key could jump in bunches of 10, or a mousewheel could be used, or an interface to lower or raise the ammo for a group of units, maybe in map preview.

What is this "victory flag" theory you have? I don't recall seeing it anywhere.

I don't have a complete writeup anywhere. I mentioned several times in assorted threads that most scenario designers do not put enough flags on their maps. As a result, the player who understands scoring and simply ignores them will be rewarded. That is a bad thing if the scenario designer really intended to make the battle directed by the flags. The feedback to the numbers I gave was very negative, as in "this applies to gamey bastards only anyway", so I didn't go further to come up with a compact set of recommendations.

Mind you I don't have a problem with a player who takes many losses losing the battle no matter how many flags he holds.

But I found that scenario designers underestimate how much damage the typical CMBO battles causes, and as a result the outcome of their game depends more on knockout points than they intend it to.

Here are some items:

- designers fail to take into calculation that a battalion comes at a 10% discount at purchase time, but not at knockout time

- they fail to calculate that crews will provide extra point which are not in the editor summary

- they fail to see that artillery spotters work against that by being always cheap when killed

- neutral flags have the nasty side-effect to raise the importance of knockout points

As a datapoint, I had a 1500 points quickbattle last weekend, and I inflicted 1450 knockout points on the opponent, without him being forced into surrender, he had a mostly intact platoon left. The high points come mostly from a fire base run over (mortars, guns, company HQ, transport, partly taken prisoner) and him doing a flag rush with crews and empty spotters . No scenario designer I know would believe this is even possible.

In an older thread I gave an example of two forces, which both cost the same at purchase time, but one had twice as many knockoutable points on the map than the other. The example was artificial and pushing the points, but still they were imaginable competive forces.

Anyway, I'm drifting. What I observe, for example from the Nordic Wannabee tournament is that there is a fraction between players understanding the points system and doing their own thing, and players following the designer's briefing, and the number junky is of course at the advantage. That is not good, and can easily be avoided by careful flag placement and flag numbers.

I would be more than happy to give some example and a more polished writeup if there's interest (and I see you are with WBW's group).

[Pud]

[edit] error in my thoughts, ignore this.

[ March 24, 2002, 06:43 PM: Message edited by: Pud ]

[OGSF]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

What is this "victory flag" theory you have? I don't recall seeing it anywhere.

I don't have a complete writeup anywhere. I mentioned several times in assorted threads that most scenario designers do not put enough flags on their maps. As a result, the player who understands scoring and simply ignores them will be rewarded..[/QB]</font>

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by OGSF:

Would a cheap and dirty fix be to place say 6 big flags where the designer would usually only put one? So that the VL is effectively worth 1200 points instead of 300?

Make it more important to capture or sumfink.

If you figure it has too few flags, that is.

I'm not saying all scenarios have too few flags. I am saying scneario designers do not make a proper calculation to get the player direction they intend. Can be one way or another, can as well be that the designers wants a big shootout all over the map, so that killing counts and sets flags all over the map and get too many flags in.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by OGSF:

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

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

What is this "victory flag" theory you have? I don't recall seeing it anywhere.

I don't have a complete writeup anywhere. I mentioned several times in assorted threads that most scenario designers do not put enough flags on their maps. As a result, the player who understands scoring and simply ignores them will be rewarded..</font>

[History Buff]

I've found that brit inf. is most likely the worst in the game for inf. vs inf. combat. Germans I find are the best hand down with all the SMG's avaliable. But the brits aren't useless.

Always try to keep the enemy at arms length. Remember the rifles have a far longer range than SMG's of the Germans. They may get a couple of pot shots off at you but more likely you'll pin enemy squads down at long range where tose precious SMG's are out f range. If you must go into close quarters with Germans, try to avoid it, if you can't at least send in two squads for every German. I've found that's good insurence.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by JonS:

To be fair, Jason was talking about how to use UK inf in CMBO, not how they (and their support weapons) were used in Real Life™

Well, his entry point was that British Infantry is undermodelled compared to history.

I know that Jary talks about the firepower of the MG42, but the point still stands. A British platoon in Real Life™ could not go toe-to-toe with a German platoon because they would be chopped to pieces. They needed something else to win. Surprisingly, the same holds true in CMBO. That to me indicates that the modelling is correct in principle, although one can argue about nuances.

Regarding ammo levels, another thing that Jary commented on were the inordinate amounts of ammo thrown about by the Germans. So as a scenario designer who cares about an historical approach, I would rather take that as a guidance than some sort of mathematical correction to make the game 'fair'. Since I don't really care about QBs, and since my scenarios are usually designed around a tactical problem and balanced afterwards through double-blind testing, I feel no need to tweak any ammo levels in them.

[flamingknives]

I believe I read somewhere in this forum that standard british infantry loadout was 50 .303 rounds per man.

Bearing in mind that a well trained soldier (see veteran or better) could fire 15 aimed rounds per minute, that would leave him out of ammunition in three and one third minutes of contiuous fire from a stationary position.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

I believe I read somewhere in this forum that standard british infantry loadout was 50 .303 rounds per man.

Bearing in mind that a well trained soldier (see veteran or better) could fire 15 aimed rounds per minute, that would leave him out of ammunition in three and one third minutes of contiuous fire from a stationary position.

MacDonald Fraser in 'Quartered Safe Out Here' and Jary in '18 Platoon' comment on ammo expenditure. Fraser mentions he was drilled to be very economical with expending ammunition during training, e.g. the drill instructors emphasised the cost of the single round. He also threw his Tommy gun into a river as soon as he could to get back to his Lee Enfield.

Jary quotes one of his section leaders, who believed that the profligate use of machine gun ammunition was a direct contribution to Germany losing the war, and Jary believes he may have had a point.

Both basically disapprove of just blasting away, and I have read other comments from British vets who were astonished about the amount of ammunition 'wasted' by Americans.

So it appears that while the soldiers were certainly trained to get off the rounds quickly, they were also drilled to make them count, i.e. only use them if you can have an effect.

[xerxes]

maybe the brit rifles should even be tweaked up to 55 to represent this?

[Phorncastle]

I agree with the JasonC argument I have read it before and think it all perfectly reasonable and a far better model than currently.

I like the idea about the bayonet charge, rifles in literal hand to hand combat would be far better than an SMG or something similiar and it would be a nice to see something like this modelled in CM

[flamingknives]

Again, something from a distant memory tells me that there were few, if any, sucessful bayonet charges in WWII.

Running at someone with an SMG with a knife tied to your gun is a quick way of getting your very own pine box.

Of course I could be wrong, and I don't have literature to check, but after WWI I thought the bayonet was only used to add momentum to the charge and for training (and as a big knife)

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Again, something from a distant memory tells me that there were few, if any, sucessful bayonet charges in WWII.

There were few bayonet wounds reported -- that has been true at least since the Russo-Japanese war of 1904, though. That is a very different thing from there having been "few, if any, successful bayonet charges". A successful bayonet charge is one from which the enemy runs before getting to handigrips. AIUI, getting a very small number of men up to the enemy position was normally sufficient to cause the enemy to abandon it. The moral effect on both sides -- the attacker's commitment symbolised by acting on the order "Fix bayonets, bayonets fix", and the defender's reaction to seeing the bayonets "glitter in the sun" -- is something that I do not believe the CM engine attemtps to simulate. The effect may be considerable, as Paddy Griffith argues in his excellent and thought-provoking "Forward into Battle" (Antony Bird, Chichester, 1981; I believe a second edition is now available).

British infantry were still conducting successful bayonet charges in the Falklands in 1982, remember...

All the best,

John.

[Skipper]

> British infantry were still conducting

> successful bayonet charges in the Falklands in

> 1982, remember...

WOW! Really??? BIG WOW!

[Skipper]

What I mean to ask was - how and why?

[M. Bates]

Originally posted by Skipper:

What I mean to ask was - how and why?

The Gurkhas' probably used their kukris (if they got a chance) in the Falklands, as their preferred method of close combat. there are more stories of use against the Germans, Japanese and Malayan Communists.

[WWB]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I agree that many scenario designers treat this kinda well by giving few SMG troops or green ones. I just found that number-heavy recommendations are generally not welcomed.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by wwb_99:

JCs idea is pretty good, I think Steve has said that it will be tweaked for CMBB.

IIRC the rifle fire will increase in lethality and will take less than an ammo point per "shot" (they should double the points and let SMG squads eat up two is).

As it stands right now, the biggest problem is that it is a pain to work, due to the fact that you will have to change alot of values. (Note to BTS: a spreadsheet style unit data editor would be really cool.)

There are a number of items missed in the editor GUI, like the right mouse key could jump in bunches of 10, or a mousewheel could be used, or an interface to lower or raise the ammo for a group of units, maybe in map preview.

What is this "victory flag" theory you have? I don't recall seeing it anywhere.

I don't have a complete writeup anywhere. I mentioned several times in assorted threads that most scenario designers do not put enough flags on their maps. As a result, the player who understands scoring and simply ignores them will be rewarded. That is a bad thing if the scenario designer really intended to make the battle directed by the flags. The feedback to the numbers I gave was very negative, as in "this applies to gamey bastards only anyway", so I didn't go further to come up with a compact set of recommendations.

Mind you I don't have a problem with a player who takes many losses losing the battle no matter how many flags he holds.

But I found that scenario designers underestimate how much damage the typical CMBO battles causes, and as a result the outcome of their game depends more on knockout points than they intend it to.

Here are some items:

- designers fail to take into calculation that a battalion comes at a 10% discount at purchase time, but not at knockout time

- they fail to calculate that crews will provide extra point which are not in the editor summary

- they fail to see that artillery spotters work against that by being always cheap when killed

- neutral flags have the nasty side-effect to raise the importance of knockout points

As a datapoint, I had a 1500 points quickbattle last weekend, and I inflicted 1450 knockout points on the opponent, without him being forced into surrender, he had a mostly intact platoon left. The high points come mostly from a fire base run over (mortars, guns, company HQ, transport, partly taken prisoner) and him doing a flag rush with crews and empty spotters . No scenario designer I know would believe this is even possible.

In an older thread I gave an example of two forces, which both cost the same at purchase time, but one had twice as many knockoutable points on the map than the other. The example was artificial and pushing the points, but still they were imaginable competive forces.

Anyway, I'm drifting. What I observe, for example from the Nordic Wannabee tournament is that there is a fraction between players understanding the points system and doing their own thing, and players following the designer's briefing, and the number junky is of course at the advantage. That is not good, and can easily be avoided by careful flag placement and flag numbers.

I would be more than happy to give some example and a more polished writeup if there's interest (and I see you are with WBW's group).</font>

[Pud]

I love Jason's idea on ammo layout.

I have put it to the guys I play with and its got a good reception. I have extended it to workout squad layout based on types of arms carried per man as I was a bit concerned about arguements as to what consitutes "mostly rifles"

Use the following scoring

Rifles 1.2

LMG 1

MP44/SMG 0.8

Average the squads score as to 40 (ammo), so all rifles would have 48 ammo, all smg would have 32, everything else would be someplace between.

I certainly hope this is fixed in CMBB as mentioned.

[edited typo]

[ March 25, 2002, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: Pud ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

I think I get your meaning here. And I do have to say my initial respose was "I don't tweak my battles for gamey bastards." That said, there is some truth in what you say, especially for larger battles, where one will get gads of KO points.

Hm, the size of the battle plays no role, only the relation of flags and knockoutable points.

Still, I pretty much agree with Andreas here, but I will give you a better explanation. I, and most other designers, are aware that KO points really do dominate the final score on a percentage basis. So I generally design with the idea that both sides will incur similar losses and KO points will largely cancel themselves out. Therefore leaving the flags as the all-important swing factor in the final score.

That is exactly what will not work. If the battle is rather even, and knockout points are about equal, then it is very likely that flags are neutral. Neutrals flags are removed from the calculation, raising the importance of knockout points.

I find a generally good rule of thumb is to put about half of the defending side's point value in flags on a map.

Assuming that the attacker comes with 1:2, and the defender destroys 1/4 of attacker force and then retreats from the map, the game is a draw. If he manages to kill half the defending force and captures the flag, then he will get a draw when he loses 1/3 of his fleet.

I am not sure that is what you want. For starters, as I said the force value is not exactly what you see in the editor summary. Battalions and companies lose their rebate, crews and prisoners come on top.

But more importantly, losing 1/3 of the attacker's force, capturing the location while destroying half the defender, who was weaker to start from, is that historically correct?

Consider that the attacker, if he wins, can recover all his wounded and many of the abanonded tanks. If he loses 1/3 of his force in the CMBO sense, this means temporary loss. At the next morning a major part of these losses may be available again.

The defender instead lost 1/2 of his combat mission points? But what does it mean in reality terms? Lots of heavy equipment lost. Ammo dumps lost. Rehicles not recoverable.

In my opinion, a 1:2 attacker, when getting 1/3 CMBO short-term losses in an attack where he kills 1/2 of the defender in CMBO terms, and securing the terrain, is a winner. That is not a draw.

One thing to keep in mind is that good designers learned to ignore the QB point ratios a long time ago, so I am not bound by the bang-for-the-buck purchasing required to be successful at thouse.

I don't understand that. You may not care if a player pair ends up with 81:19 or 61:39 score, but you surely care whether they come up with 60:40 or 40:60?

Another major issue is that I really have no desire to make battles with a calculator in hand. Actually, I have no desire to calculate anything if it can be avoided. That said, I usually can get the final scoring close to right on gut feeling then with some good double-blind playtesting get the scoring worked out very well. Also, I suspect you are in a rare breed of players who are arguably too into the scoring system, and desiging to satisfy a small minority is not a successful marketing strategy.

I don't think it needs an especially game-mechanics oriented player to run into fun degradation with these issues.

As I said, the problem I see goes this way:

- the scenario designer has something in minds for his/her battle

- he/she places flags to guide players while in-game

- he/she write a scenario briefing where the intention is being formulated in historical terms

If the scenario designer chose a wrong number of flags (and locations to a lesser extend), then you will immediately run into problems with players who know the scoring system and those players who enjoy to play by the briefing.

And don' understand me wrong: I *want* to play by the briefing and the designer's intend, but what do you do if you see that you are better off parking the halftrack APCs in the rear forever, snipe his armor from a distance, rain your artillery and win the game without ever moving? When the scenario designer spent days or weeks on fine-crafting those pathways through the woods where true gameplay was supposed to happen?

Yes, I'm getting carried away

I do believe that it doesn't take a very gamey player to understand the scoring, many people do that. What does the player do who obeyed to the briefing word by word, was successful in every aspect listed there, and loses, while the opponent doesn't even try to take terrain?

Still, I think some folks would find a good writeup of this interesting, so by all means continue in your project.

I will see to write something and place it on some website. There is a large gap to bridge, it seems.

Having said all that, I truely appreciate your and the other designer's work on the scenarios. I just want to help making them better.

[JasonC]

That's one way to do it, although it will result in somewhat tighter ammo variations than I use, and will use every sort of figure between the endpoints. Also, the LMGs probably have the highest absolute ammo expenditure, not a middling one, so 2 LMG squads should arguably be worse off than your numbers might make them.

Overall, through, I consider that too much detail. What I use is as follows -

1 LMG and 1 SMG or fewer automatics - 50

more rifles than automatics - 45

automatics = rifles, or 1 more auto - 40

more automatics than rifles, by more than 1 - 35

Pure automatics - 30

So British rifles get 50, British paras and gliders get 40. US rifle 44 gets 50, US rifle 45 and paras get 45. German rifle 44, 45, and security get 45. A few types like Pioneers with 1 LMG and 1 SMG or none, get 50. German Heer Mot Pz Gdrs get 40, FJ and GB get 35. VG rifle get 40, VG SMG or Hvy SMG get 30.

Much simpler to remember and to impliment, since you don't have 36 for this and 43 for that...

[Brian]

A problem with your ammunition theory, Jason.

Those who are on the defensive, tend to stockpile ammunition reserves.

Therefore, as the Germans were primarily on the defensive, they would have more ammunition on hand than would the attacking Allied force.

That, then completely throws your ammunition theory out the window, from a viewpoint of realism.

[109 Gustav]

Originally posted by Brian:

A problem with your ammunition theory, Jason.

Those who are on the defensive, tend to stockpile ammunition reserves.

Therefore, as the Germans were primarily on the defensive, they would have more ammunition on hand than would the attacking Allied force.

That, then completely throws your ammunition theory out the window, from a viewpoint of realism.

Doesn't seem like it to me. (At least not this late at night) Just take Jason's numbers, add 5 or so ammo points to all the squads on the defense, and you have your stockpiled ammo.

Does anyone recall BTS saying something about SMG squads going through ammo faster in CMBB? I think they did, but I'm too tired to do a search right now.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Brian:

Those who are on the defensive, tend to stockpile ammunition reserves.

Therefore, as the Germans were primarily on the defensive, they would have more ammunition on hand than would the attacking Allied force.

But then, what about those occasions when it is the Germans who are attacking?

And how do you account for defending troops leaving extra ammo behind if forced to vacate their prepared positions? And don't say they would have shot it all off by then, because that may not be the case.

Michael