Some Combat Mission Myths

[ASL Veteran]

Yes, CMBO is the best WW2 tactical combat on the computer - no doubt. Yes, it does do some things well. No, I don't think it does city fights as well as they could be done. Now, in a perfect world I would have larger buildings. Every building in a European city isn't a rowhouse. I seem to recall from my days stationed in Germany that there was a business district downtown and the buildings varied in size quite a bit internally. Why is this trivial little item important? Well, if you are defending in a city and you place troops in a building on a corner with two other buildings on each side you are basically trapped! It is even worse if you are in a block of - say six buildings all adjacent 3 buildings to a side - and you are in one of the center buildings. You only have one way out.

If the enemy acheives fire superiority on your position or a tank rolls up (or your building catches fire) you can't get out or retreat to a building located behind the one you are in. Do ya think that a defender might prepare an escape route through to an adjacent building if he had the time? If the building was a little larger too you could just retreat back into the interior of the building - or to a different side (or to a different 20 by 20 square to help you visualize what I talking about). Currently, if a tank is firing at your building and you decide to retreat back into the interior, the tank can continue to area fire on the building until your entire 20 by 20 building is rubbled - then you die. There is no escape without running out into the street (usually directly in front of the enemy).

This is the importance of larger buildings - or allowing troops to pass from one building to another. It gives the defender a chance to use fall back positions or to redeploy to counter an unexpected enemy thrust. Of course if someone likes their troops to fight to the death all the time and never have a chance to redeploy then I guess it doesn't matter. A map like the 'Walk in Paris' map is a perfect illustration of this problem. I think an attacker would find city fighting much more difficult if the buildings were larger or if you could pass from one building to another. While it might keep an attacker out of the streets a little more - it would allow the defender much more flexibility in the defense. It would shift the defense from that of individual buildings/deathtraps to that of individual city blocks (because you can fall back). Even if an attacker did break into a block - the defender could blast at them from a building that abuts the building the attacker goes into.

Another problem is the inability of MGs to lay down effective grazing fire the length of a street. This makes it difficult to isolate city blocks or to provide defensive fire across the front of a main line of defense from the ends of streets. Without going into more detail, your approach to city fighting would be tactically totally different if you had buildings that you could pass through rather than buildings you can't (and proper MGs too for that matter - but what can you do). Totally different. You probably don't see it now, but if they do make buildings to where you can pass through them you would see the dramatic difference it would make. If some don't see how important this is that's fine.

Another difficulty is the limitations of the grid squares that we have to build cities out of. Many streets in European cities do not fit a neat grid square pattern so it is difficult to try to fit the various buildings into the odd angles that sometimes are required - and have it look normal. Of course there really isn't much that can be done about this.

[JasonC]

To make more tactically correct bocage, don't use the terrain type with that name (which is a tall wall or fence, practically). Instead, make a "berm" 1 elevation level higher than the terrain on either side, with a line of scattered trees or woods along it. (Use scattered trees to allow vehicles through but with a chance of bogging, woods to disallow vehicle passage in this or that spot).

This is wider than the real thing, but it recreates the tactical effects of bocage very well. The trick to using it is understanding how CM handles the ability to see over a small height obstruction. If the terrain the looker is on is the same height as the lookie, and there is higher ground between, the LOS is only clear if the looker is right next to the obstruction.

So, up on the berm you can see either field. Just behind the berm, on either side, you can see either field. But a short ways back from it on either side, and you can only see your own field and the berm area itself. A unit hiding on the edge or in the berm can wait and ambush, and then break contact completely with a small withdrawl.

Once it does, to re-establish LOS an attacker needs to move right next to the berm - which can mean very close to defenders, and always means into LOS of the whole enemy field. Vehicles are the same - to support they have to crawl right next to the berm, which puts them in panzerfaust range of men hiding within it.

It works just fine, as long as the surrounding terrain isn't too sloped, nullifying the effects of the small height difference. Wood lined berms (as opposed to scattered tree lined ones) are a bit harder to see over and through from second stories nearby.

The big effect comes from the way the LOS block "seperates" the attackers front to back, the way the whole enemy field can see anyone who moves right next to the berm, and the defender's choice of "up" or "back" deployments, and ability to change it rapidly from one to the other.

Incidentally, this isn't the only case where you can make more tactically realistic terrain by use of the height as well as terrain tile type. Another example is a camoed gun or mortar pit. Just make a 1 tile depression, 1 level, and put a scattered tree tile there to represent the camo nets and such.

Placed a bit forward, the gun can see anything at or above its height. But just behind that position at the bottom of the depression, the LOS will be limited to under 100 yards in each direction. If you place the gun carefully, right at the edge of forward visibility possible, then you can back it up even at limited speed and get it just out of sight, and back up again. This does work best with the lighter guns, it is true.

As for European buildings, many were stone or brick, and a number of the more recent additions were concrete cinderblock construction. Many of them did not survive the war, after street fighting and heavy bombers rearranged the decor. Even present day European buildings are a far more recent and lighter building mix than what was around then, to say nothing of US construction, almost all of which happened very recently. (Even the centers of the older eastern US cities are mostly brick, however).

The key thing to remember here is that steel did not become cheap enough to use in building until the bessemer process in the middle of the 19th century, and took a while after that to spread. Modern frame designs basically hang the building off of a few load bearing steel beams. Before that was possible, much more substantial construction materials were necessary - the walls had to support themselves. Modern ones do not - they can "hang" off the frame and central supports.

There were flimsier buildings in Europe too - peasant huts, wooden rural houses (though even those usually had substantial cellars). But they did not become the focus of heavy fighting (except, again, the cellars as shelters). The heavy stuff did.

A single large cinderblock housing development ("new worker housing", 1920s era in Germany and 30s in Russia) with a reinforced concrete frame, could absorb an entire battalion, and still have enemy infiltrators and snipers remaining inside. The closest US approximation would be fighting a war inside some of the 1960s public housing developments that have since become slums.

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: JasonC ]</p>

[Berlichtingen]

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

Having said that (and having been there) I have to disappoint you on the bocage issue : those fields are not small with twisty borders. They're huge, and the hedges run straight as an arrow.<hr></blockquote>

Only in the American sector. In the bocage the Pommies had to fight through near Caen, the fields rarely exceeded 80m across. Also, damn few things run straight as an arrow in Europe

[Kurtz]

One thing that makes city fights difficult in CM:BO is the complete lack of cover between the houses (pavement). Judging from WW2 photos, there was often a lot of rubble in the streets, since many cities had been hit by artilery or bombs in addition to the damage done by the actual fighting. On many photos it seems as you could only drive a vehicle in the mmiddle of the street, where there weren't that much debris from the houses.

The fact that there is no way to move between the houses is understandable, perhaps the trenches in CM:BB could be placed inside huoses, making it possible to move between them. The cost of trenches could represent the work necessary to make passages through the walls.

[Thomm]

I can imagine that city fighting took place mainly on the streets and not inside buildings. As far as buildings are concerned I think that the most important ones are those placed at a T-crossing which face a road along its axis and can, therefore, project firepower on it. As the attacker is starting to suppress such a building (picture SiG 33) the locical route for retreating is out through the back door, which should be well possible in a normal city block with an inner court. I do not know if a building is even allowed to have more than two fire walls.

Regards,

Thomm

[JasonC]

"I can imagine that city fighting took place mainly on the streets and not inside buildings."

You can imagine whatever you please, but it is just not true. The streets were too lethal. I am not making it up, you have to go read what the actual participants say (anywhere, just stop spinning it out in your imagination and pick up any decent history of the subject). "The first rule of street fighting is stay off the streets", and "never go through a door" - those are the two most common comments about how it was done, what it involved.

Patrols sometimes went down streets when they did not know if a town was occupied or had been evacuated, yes. If only scratch forces were left behind, then a force might progress a fair ways into a town still moving that way. But that is not what people mean by "street fighting" - it is occupying an abandoned town. If the town is defended - e.g. Aachen in the west, Stalingrad or any of a number of others in the east - then that goes right out the window, and the methods of block clearing become necessary.

Those being - first, sight MGs along the streets on either side of the block. If at all possible, get one block on a flank of the one you intend to clear, so you can also sight MGs along the back side of the block, to prevent easy reinforcement or withdrawl. Over and over you hear it stressed that trying to take a block before it is cut off from reinforcement is asking for trouble.

Then, get enough men and weapons in the neighboring buildings to get fire ascendency across the street, forcing the defenders away from the windows. Without leaving your own cover to get it. But that does not mean you are done, nor that you can rush. If you rush at that point, your guys will be shot down the moment they pass through the doorways into the building interior.

Instead, blast new holes in the building side with tanks or engineer demo charges (working outside briefly, under the cover of the fire ascendency already mentioned). And/or put ladders across to the roof of the other building above ground level. Ladders or scaling lines are other ways to get access to the roof or second story windows. Try to clear the building from top to bottom instead of the other way around. But above all, avoid the pre-existing entrances, especially the doors, because they are the spots the defenders will be covering from inside.

Once you have new points of entry, enter them rapidly and simultaneously at several points, in each case preceeded by grenades to stun the defenders in the first room. Then jump inside before the smoke has cleared and spray the area with small arms. Once inside, every room must be held and outposted, every corner searched, because a few men left behind the attackers can do a lot of damage to them by surprise, from behind. Clear each floor, a room at a time along each axis of entry.

The stairwells are an additional issue, with grenades the main way of getting through them but "upward" being a lot harder than "downward" (thus the "clear top to bottom" adage, when possible). If defenders hold you off by grenade tag in a vacant intervening room or down a stairwell, keep it up until they run out of grenades. Use hearing to locate the enemy, rather than sight - because if you can see each other, one or the other will be dead in seconds.

Keep an organized reserve to feed into the fight when the front attack units get depleted by losses and scattered through the rooms already cleared. As soon as the block is cleared, set up MGs on the far corners, upper floors if possible, to cover the streets beyond and prevent counterattack while your men are still spread throughout the building interior. Form a building reserve away from the windows and doors, ready to react to enemy threats. Cover all existing entrances, without exposing yourselves.

Repeat for every block the enemy has men available to defend. No, that is not fighting "mostly in the streets". But it is easy to see why trying to fight "mostly in the streets" will get clobbered by somebody able and willing to fight in the above manner instead.

The latter infiltrates MG teams and whole companies along the back alleys, sewers, and through holes cut in building walls, and forms strongpoints behind the attackers, blocks held in the above manner and covering all surrounding avenues by MG fire. Clearing streets means nothing. Clearing a few buildings at the end of Ts does not keep anything, unless every building flanking the longer streets is also firmly held.

Fighting inside the buildings trumps fighting in the streets. So both have to do it, unless the defender is so thin on the ground he can't provide forces to hold anything. Even if his forces are limited, he is better off strongly holding a few blocks, with just snipers and a few MG nests to contest passage of the other streets, than trying to fight in the streets.

The interior of the larger heavily built buildings (and the cellars in particular) is also the only place pretty much immune from shellfire. Attackers still out in the streets and rubble get cut to pieces by the defender's barrage (see what happened inside the town of Cassino, for example).

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: JasonC ]</p>

[Stacheldraht]

Fwiw, you can find a little more about the details of city fighting in Fighting in Hell: The German Ordeal on the Eastern Front, ed. Peter G. Tsouras, p. 105-07. (An ironically titled book...)

Also see the Handbook on German Forces Ch. IV, pp. 26-8.

Here is something on modern Russian practice, from the fighting in Grozny, Chechnya. (Interesting that they mounted something akin to Schürzen on their tanks to negate shaped-charge rounds from man-portable AT weapons.)

The MOUT Homepage may be of interest, too. Again, contemporary.

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]</p>

[Berlichtingen]

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

One thing that makes city fights difficult in CM:BO is the complete lack of cover between the houses (pavement). Judging from WW2 photos, there was often a lot of rubble in the streets, since many cities had been hit by artilery or bombs in addition to the damage done by the actual fighting. On many photos it seems as you could only drive a vehicle in the mmiddle of the street, where there weren't that much debris from the houses.<hr></blockquote>

Actually, this can be done in CM. If you are building a town that has not been shelled, be sure to line the road with trees (mostly scattered). This provides cover were there should be. If you are building a shelled city, replace the road tiles adjacent to rubble tiles with rough. This provides cover for infantry and blocks vehicular traffic

[Thomm]

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

... just stop spinning it out in your imagination and pick up any decent history of the subject).<hr></blockquote>I do whatever I want, and no, I will not pick up anything!

Replace fighting in my post with "movement within the time scale of a CM battle".

Regards,

Thomm

[wes hays]

Okay people! This is enough. When they made this game, it wasn't for fighting in the buildings. Yes, it's an important part, but you can't sim everything. Too big. If you really want to play a game that deals with in-building fighting, play a 1st person shooter like Rainbow Six. I cleared buildings in Panama. Not fun.

These designers came out with probably the best damn game out there, for WW II stategy, period. Are there things I'd like to fix about it? Sure. Are these guys standing by their game and updating it alot. Oh yeah.

On the bocage. I've never been there, never seen pictures, never talked to anyone who has. Is there a way to sim bocage properly? Sort of. Nothing is exactly the way it is supposed to be in a computer SIMULATION. We are simming what happened there.

Don't worry. Be happy. It's a great game, guys.

[Hensworth]

http://www.sosremembrement.com/bocage.html

Says here there were originally some 2 million km of "talus" (not sure if all of that can be described as bocage), of which 65 % has now been destroyed.

Judging from the pics on this site (I've seen others much like it), it's safe to say that certainly some of the bocage hedges were a lot more then just tall hedges.

[Stacheldraht]

A description from someone who was there at the relevant time:

"Norman farmers who wanted to divide their land among their sons would plant rows of hedges and trees to separate the fields, which were often only one to three acres in size. The roots embedded themselves deeply and held the soil. Natural erosion over seven centuries of Norman occupation washed away the land, leaving these hedgerows--earth mounds six to eight feet high and ten to twelve feet thick at the base [emphasis mine]. Reinforced by tree and hedge roots, these natural fortifications could not be penetrated by tanks."

Belton Cooper, Death Traps, pp. 8-9.

He later goes on to discuss the invention of the "hedge-chopper" or "rhino" attachment that was mounted to tanks to plow through the bocage. Anyone who's ever had to dig up a tree or old shrubs or bushes knows how tenaciously they can root themselves.

[ 01-22-2002: Message edited by: Stacheldraht ]</p>

[Holdit]

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

Folks-

RE bocage, here's a link I've posted before bocage pics.

[ 01-21-2002: Message edited by: dalem ]<hr></blockquote>

Some of the smaller examples a-d in particular, look remarkably like the hedgerows where I live. The other thumbnails look similar too, but when you look at the full-sized version, the banks are that much higher and (especially) steeper in Normandy. The ones here usually have a knee-deep ditch along each side of the road too. They're more usually covered with briars than trees - usually a mix, so in CM terms the foliage would be represented by a mixed brush/scattered trees tile.

While not being as formidable as the Norman variety, a defender would nevertheless snuggle in quite nicely. I'd say the crucial difference would be (a) tanks should be able to cross in most cases and ( they're not usually high/steep enough to tunnel from one field to another, which I understand the Germans did to great effect.

As regards modelling hedgerows, will in the visual sense it should be redone from scratch in a much more irregular fashion The only place I've ever seen anything like a CM hedgerow was at Hampton Court Maze. But that's trivial enough.

I won't make any claim to have the answer to the computer modelling issue, as I'm strictly "grognard lite" and have only a little experience of computer programming, but...here's how I'd try to do it: somewhere in the code that decides how a unit reacts to incoming fire I'd have something like this:

if: incoming firepower crosses wall or hedgerow

then: stay put

else: find cover

This is based on my (possibly incorrect) understanding that it's the target unit's location in what is technically open ground that's causing the trouble.

Another possible approach might be to give increaed cover to units that are "in" the bocage (or wall). This could represent their being up close taking cover behind it. This might also have the efect that units nearby in open ground that come under fire could run to the hedgerow/wall for cover which I imagine would be fairly realistic.

Anyway, there must be a lot more to it than that, otherwise Charles would no doubt have rewritten the code in his head ages ago. Still, it would be nice if it could be fixed.

Oh yes, I'd like to see multi-tile buildings too. Wouldn't it be the same as factories are going to be done in CB:BB? Except with two floors.

Regards,

Paul

[ASL Veteran]

Actually factories are a whole different ball of wax compared to larger buildings. Some of the factories in Stalingrad were as big as 400 x 160 meters or more. The thing with factories is that you would have a LOS that extended beyond 20 meter increments - so if they are going to do factories you may have to be able to see like, 100 to 200 meters or more in the interior depending on if there is a roof or not (or pieces of the roof and general debris hingering LOS on the interior). Tanks can drive around inside factories too! Factories would also be very tall structures - maybe level two in height in CMBB, but you couldn't go up to the second level. Rooftops should probably accessible though. You would also need a way to allow the designer to place interior factory walls as well. Yep, a very difficult proposition compared to what they have created in CMBO building terms. I can only imagine it being done with "building shell" tiles - you know, like maybe one tile would have a eastward wall only and another tile would have an east wall and a north wall (a corner), while another would have a west wall, etc. Then you would have interior tiles with no walls and interior tiles with internal walls. You would then connect the appropriate tiles together to create the factory of your choice. I would guess the roofed or non roofed sections may be more than we could ask for .

[Richard Morgan]

Jason C

I agree with every word. My old Sergeant Major put it much more succinctly: "You are trying to blow a hole in the enemy's building and get in that way - he is trying to do the same to you. If they get's into mine, I'm not f*cking hanging around: I'm off out".

Amen,

Richard. :confused:

[Michael Dorosh]

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

Also, damn few things run straight as an arrow in Europe<hr></blockquote>

I thought the Romans made sure to put in lots of straight roads, as they were the shortest distance between points and the quickest way to move an Army? Wasn't that also one of Napoleon's legacies to Europe?

[SpazManOught]

Sure you get straight roads in Europe. I even read somewhere that the longest straight road in Britain was 250m long and was called "The straight road". People would come from all over to marvel at is linear ness. The irony is that it runs up a hill and is slightly bent 3 dimensionally.

One of the largest motorways in England has no straight sections at all and goes nowhere, the M25, don't know how long it is, about 150 miles I suppose, travels in one large loop around London.

[Bullethead]

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

I thought the Romans made sure to put in lots of straight roads, as they were the shortest distance between points and the quickest way to move an Army? Wasn't that also one of Napoleon's legacies to Europe?<hr></blockquote>

If you go to England, here and there in various places you can see the remains of Roman roads, that do indeed run arrow-straight to the horizon. The roads you have to travel on cross them repeatedly.

If Nappy made straight roads in France, it's unfortunate that he never made it to England .

[Bastables]

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

Sure you get straight roads in Europe. I even read somewhere that the longest straight road in Britain was 250m long and was called "The straight road". People would come from all over to marvel at is linear ness. The irony is that it runs up a hill and is slightly bent 3 dimensionally.

One of the largest motorways in England has no straight sections at all and goes nowhere, the M25, don't know how long it is, about 150 miles I suppose, travels in one large loop around London.<hr></blockquote>

Don't suppose you wrote for the Blackadder show? Bloody brill.

[Sir Uber General]

http://www.users.bigpond.com/balladonia/area/nullabor.htm

I like this:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> While the "Ninety Mile straight" does undulate up and down by several metres in places along it's length, if it was reduced to the size of a pool table it would be smoother and flatter than the pool table! <hr></blockquote>

How did we get to this?

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sir Uber General:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/balladonia/area/nullabor.htm

I like this:

How did we get to this?<hr></blockquote>

Coming out of Canadian Forces Base Wainwright, anyone travelling home to Calgary turns onto a 100 km stretch of road running into Wetaskiwin. The road is perfectly straight - not a single turn on it. After spending a weekend in the bush with little sleep, and then sitting at the wheel of a 2 - 1/2 ton truck with no radio and a top speed of 90 kph (with the wind), the throbbing of the diesel - you can imagine how hard it would be to stay awake on said stretch of road.

[Thin Red Line]

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

[QB]To make more tactically correct bocage, don't use the terrain type with that name (which is a tall wall or fence, practically). Instead, make a "berm" 1 elevation level higher than the terrain on either side, with a line of scattered trees or woods along it. (Use scattered trees to allow vehicles through but with a chance of bogging, woods to disallow vehicle passage in this or that spot).

This is wider than the real thing, but it recreates the tactical effects of bocage very well.

<hr></blockquote>

I agree.

Not only what you propose is tactically more correct but it simulates EXACTLY what actual french bocage is : a trench, then a slope with woods (not hedges) on top, everything covered by thick bushes. From far,the true bocage looks like woods or forests.

Besides, it avoids the presence in maps of the bocage texture which is , despite all mods, the ugliest thing in CMBO. Maps are more realistic, and also better looking.

[JasonC]

If anyone is interested in seeing an example of my revised bocage suggestion in action, I have a small Normandy scenario I am working on that uses it. It simulates part of the US push toward St. Lo against German Fallschirmjaeger infantry, and is called simply "Toward St. Lo". Email me if you want to help playtest the scenario. (I realize this could be in the scenario area, but I figure people here are interested in the bocage issue). It is meant for head to head play (at this point - not set up for the AI).

[Spook]

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

Coming out of Canadian Forces Base Wainwright, anyone travelling home to Calgary turns onto a 100 km stretch of road running into Wetaskiwin. The road is perfectly straight - not a single turn on it. After spending a weekend in the bush with little sleep, and then sitting at the wheel of a 2 - 1/2 ton truck with no radio and a top speed of 90 kph (with the wind), the throbbing of the diesel - you can imagine how hard it would be to stay awake on said stretch of road.<hr></blockquote>

Next time, sing "Beer Run" to help pass the time.

[mensch]

Now I have seen the Bocage first hand when I visted Normandy and wow was I impressed.

Some points to bring in CMBO, one point is that CMBO can only be as good as the designers make it. Due to the restrictions of 20m tiles and not say 5m tiles (optimal) or say 1m tiles (a dream but a horror to but a plesure to do maps if this were true) one can only do what one can. now most designers place bocage next to roads like this (not all but most) see fig. 1

Fig. 1

now this is ok but as I have seen in France that bloody hill which the trees and schrubs live happly on is not there so one could up the height by one or two points. Also there are trees and such so adding as Berli said a Light tree or forested road next to it produces somefink like this. See Fig 2.

Fig. 2

one could add one more factor to the Bocage (if this is your taste in blocking absolute visibility, add a forest line beside the bocage. See Fig 3.

Fig. 3

Now doing this, making in my example the area the Bocage lies on is two elevation points from the rest of the map. you can simulate as realisticly as possible Bocage.

See Fig. 4.

Fig 4.

now one problem (maybe not) is that your Bocage becomes bumpy and some people compalined that visibity varries in this. One thing I can say is Bocage is not even! if anything it can be blocking everything from site or sometimes there are small holes in the bocage alowing one to see through. Personaly I have no problem with this bumpy effect, why? well where on earth have you seen a level hedge? exept from your neighbours finely cut hedge which he prunes evey weekend.

trust me the French farmers are not trimming these suckers, and if anything saying things in french like "wow look'd at my Bocage!! wild as my wifes hair style!!" See Fig. 5

Fig 5.

now in reality (game terms if they (BTS) ever modeled the tiles to 2m or such then bocage would look like this and more realisticaly. (sorry such a bad hack job but I'm tired.)