The "debate" about CMBB's Infantry Modeling

[tracer]

Well, The infantry in CMBB are fine to me, beats using a cardboard tile with a pic on it, and beats the heck outa stick men

[dalem]

Originally posted by rune:

Just a question. To those that are having squads not fire:

1. Are they area firing?

Never in any of the examples that are burned into my brain. I have always understood Area Fire as a commitment for the whole 60 seconds (i.e. it got stickier back in one of the CM:BO patches) and I like it that way.

2. Are they attempting to fire through the friendly unit to hit the enemy unit?

Not that I recall. I wasn't aware that fire lanes were ever an issue. Interesting.

I am trying to re-create this, but have not been able to so far.

Rune

Thanks Rune! I remember I sent a save game of some kooky "My tanks moved out of cover for no reason" file to Madmatt, and thought I had sent a file about the No Fire thing, but I may not have after all. Since I saw other people bringing it up I assumed they were being more rigorous about it than I was. Sorry about that. Complaints without valid data aren't much good.

-dale

[rune]

No problem Dalem, I am just trying to see what you guys see. If I can recreate it, then we can find out if a bug, or another reason for the firing to stop. Anyone else have a saved file? If not, if you can answer the above two questions so a test scenario I am making matches your circumstances.

Rune

[Spook]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

"quote:

As a suggestion I think it might be a good idea for there to be a 'realism' toggle for the next CM engine. In the same way a flight sim such as IL-2 has different realism toggles..."

I would suggest that in some small way the choice of unit experience (Green v. Elite) is a "little" like a realism toggle.

you want troops that don't panic, just play will all Elite troops, SIMPLE Realism toggle OFF.

Want more realistic behaviour play Green and Conscript troops Realism Toggle ON !

What more can you ask for?

-tom w

That was exactly the notion in the back of my head too, Tom, although I must also note that this can be potentially misconstrued.

Some "historical" scenarios can be devised where the balance of one side's forces ARE relatively "elite." So this wouldn't be the case where the availability of elite units would represent "less" realism.

Perhaps it might be better defined as "handicap." If a player of a CM game doesn't like the experience levels of the troops he has for his chosen side, after entering the scenario set-up phase, he could be given a handicap toggle which, if activated, would "bump" the experience of all units up one level. (The elites remaining elite-level, of course.) By doing this, however, the overall force point value would increase, and perhaps an added toggle could be provided to see if this point value change would prorate into a change in victory conditions by some way or another.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by rune:

No problem Dalem, I am just trying to see what you guys see. If I can recreate it, then we can find out if a bug, or another reason for the firing to stop. Anyone else have a saved file? If not, if you can answer the above two questions so a test scenario I am making matches your circumstances.

Rune

I'm just wondering if this request for examples of this behaviour needs it own thread.

More than a few folks have mentioned units in over watch positions not firing at valid targets shooting at their buddies out in the open but no one seems to have a save game file of this behaviour handy.

Maybe we should put a call out for examples and save game files?

-tom w

[dalem]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

dalem: Do you think the "tweaks" in the next upcoming patch will "do it" for you or is the game just too far from being "patchable" for your liking?

-tom w

tom-

I certainly will eagerly dl the patch and start playing seriously again, so I sure hope so. For myself, I was running into too many weird situations that were giving me "static" instead of good feedback - the No Fire issue was one, and my tanks moving in suicidal ways was another. I couldn't learn the new combat model very well without good feedback, and so I surrendered all my PBEMs and tried my standard QBs against the AI for training. Still got very confusing results.

Now I make maps and fool with the occasional BB QB maybe once a week.

However, I don't think the game is "broken", in fact I want to learn the new style because I am generally a "realism" kind of guy. Now it's entirely possible that I will break the barrier using the patch as some kind of sugar pill placebo. Maybe I've convinced myself that No Fires and Suicidal Tanks wait for ME to click on them because it's all about ME. Groovy. I'll accept that psychosis and let myself be fooled by the patch.

-dale

p.s. Oh and Michael- still friends. No offense taken or meant, I was just being .... cautionary.

[ November 20, 2002, 01:45 PM: Message edited by: dalem ]

[[Wiking]]

I haven't been playing CMBB non too long, but I am a CMBO veteran. Now comparing the two, there is definetly progress. Troops do panic too often, at least in my experience (for example, as they run, a tank opens MG fire on them, they are about 10 meters from their objective, and instead of running towards it, they'd rather run about 200 meters from where they came from, maybe even across an open field!!).

Anyway, great game, blimey, what a great game!

[rune]

tom,

Overwatch is not the answer. I created two massive battle with infantry, based on real battles, used over-watch, and never saw the issue. One is Germans attacking a hedgehog at Kursk, the other Italians on a retreat from Stalingrad. I and the testers of the scenarios never reported anything when using over-watch. I then created today 2 test small scenarios using over-watch, and again, never had the problem. So, I need to create what they are doing. Maybe it is a force thing, or a certain circumstance.

I will make yet another test scenario if someone can tell me what they saw. What sides/units and terrain type. A saved game file would be best, but no one has said they have one, just they saw it. So, if you do see this behavior, please send it to me.

Rune

[dalem]

Originally posted by rune:

No problem Dalem, I am just trying to see what you guys see. If I can recreate it, then we can find out if a bug, or another reason for the firing to stop. Anyone else have a saved file? If not, if you can answer the above two questions so a test scenario I am making matches your circumstances.

Rune

Rune-

I don't have the save game file anymore but I can tell you that it happened repeatedly in the scenario "Defense of Verkniye-Golubaya" on the CD.

(SPOILER)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I was the Sovs and I kept the 2 Maxim platoons back in essentially their starting positions, made sure they all had LOS to the buildings in front where I figured the Germans would be.

As I advanced my rifle platoons forward (admittedly clumsily-enough) and they came under fire from those buildings, I noticed turn after turn where the Maxims (in command, not Hidden, and not under any fire) displayed the following behaviors:

1) refused to acquire targets by themselves. I could target successfully some Germans but the AI rarely did. And I mean "rarely" - I was paying attention this time.

2) when I would specifically target a unit, and that unit's target became unspotted, that MG would not acquire another target that turn.

3) Area Fire worked just like it should in the game. No problems in evidence there.

Now maybe I have unrealistic expectations regarding Exposure, LOS, range, and suppression, but Holy Hotcakes I am not interested in personally pulling the triggers on 8 Maxim MGs!

Hope that helps a little.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Gary,

There's seems to be two forms of 'whiners' - those that claim they can't do anything with their infantry at all and those that are concerned about the 'sneak of death' issue.

Very true. I have pointed this out a couple of times. This thread was originally aimed at the first group of "whiners" you identified, but it has obviously turned into a discussion about the sneak-death thing.

I think it is patronising to claim that those that have issues with the sneaking under fire somehow don't know what they are doing, use the wrong tactics, are Sudden Strike converts etc

I disagree. It is probably completely accurate to state that the first group of "whiners" are creating their own problems through bad tactics and incorrect understanding about what is realistic. So that is not patronising at all, more a statement of fact which has no other baggage attached to it.

Now, for the second group... I think tactics *might* be part of the problem. Many people, myself included, do not have problems with the sneak-death issue. We simply don't see it happen that often. Why is that? Well, since the game system functions the same no matter who is playing it, there must be SOME reason why one group thinks this is a game killer and another group sees it so rarely that it doesn't impact their games. What could possibly account for this difference? Tactics. Taking this suggestion as a put down of sorts is all in your own head. At least when I say it. I am simply trying to find a logical, rational explaination as to why there is a difference. No insulting or demeaning intentions are present.

I, together with many, would rather see my unit pinned an not move rather than see the sort of antics my prostrate men get up to.

As the old saying goes... be careful what you wish for because you might just get it I personally advocated that units do this behavior 4 years ago and again 1 year ago. In general it is the more correct behavior, at least initially. Charles made the code changes both times, with the second time saying "hmmm... I remember it didn't work last time, but can't remember why. So don't be surprised if it doesn't work".

And it didn't.

Why didn't it work? Because units have no memory. A unit hit by suppressive fire would remain pinned indefinitely as long as it was fired upon. No matter where it was, even if it was .0000005m from cover. If you think you have a problem with the current implementation, you would probably have broke your keyboard in frustration over the behavior you have just asked for. Which is why Charles ripped that code out after only an hour or so of testing. Yes, it was that bad. And no, it could not be made to be any better. At least not with this game engine.

But again, we are seeing two camps on the sneak-death thing:

One group thinks this is SO bad that the game is unplayable.

Another group hardly ever sees it and therefore isn't bothered by it.

There *must* be a reason for this difference of experiences. Tactics is the only logical place to look. What exactly it is about the tactics is not something I can determine with any accuracy. But I think the likely root of it is rushing things just a tad bit too much. Not as much as the guys saying that the infantry modeling is horrible compared to CMBO, but enough that it makes a difference in outcome.

Steve

[Hat Trick]

From Battlefront:

A unit hit by suppressive fire would remain pinned indefinitely as long as it was fired upon. No matter where it was, even if it was .0000005m from cover.

That seems a little extreme. Presumably right now the AI evaluates what is the best cover to sneak to -- say, the scattered trees 20 meters away or the woods 100 meters away (and taking into account other factors, like where fire is coming from). Couldn't a thrid option for the AI to consider (in this example) be "stay put and hide"? Thus, if good cover was available .0000005m away, off it would go; if there was no good cover for 300 meters, it might stay put (of course, if your unit is 300 meters from cover, you probably do have a tactics problem, but you get the idea).

[Battlefront.com]

Hat Trick,

That seems a little extreme.

But exactly what the code change promoted

Presumably right now the AI evaluates what is the best cover to sneak to -- say, the scattered trees 20 meters away or the woods 100 meters away (and taking into account other factors, like where fire is coming from).

Correct. It takes into account lots of factors and makes the "best" decision (which might be purposefully negative if the unit is flipping out).

Couldn't a thrid option for the AI to consider (in this example) be "stay put and hide"? Thus, if good cover was available .0000005m away, off it would go

Sure, no problemo. But what if the unit is .0000006m away? Should the unit crawl or stay where it is?

This is the problem with computer code. It is inherently an asswipe about stuff like this Even using Fuzzy Logic we run into situations where it is very, VERY difficult to have the AI make a realistic approximation for what real people would do in a given situation. In one situation Sneaking even 5m would be the WRONG decision, while in another running 25m would be the correct one. Trying to establish rules for this, without unit memories, is very difficult.

The key to this problem is for units to have memories. Not just for this one particular issue, but in general. For example, a unit should be able to remember what unit it was shooting when that target goes out of LOS for more than a few seconds. Currently, this is not the case. After a couple of seconds the TacAI will consider its plate clear and look for new thigns to target. The higher level AI can't remember "I tried attacking that building and got my ass kicked, so either I try again with more force or I beat the crap out of it or I ignore it from now on".

Unfortunately, as I said before, adding memory capabilities increases the demands on hardware, increases the file size, and increases the amount of code that needs to be written. Not to mention testing it all out

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by dalem:

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

No problem Dalem, I am just trying to see what you guys see. If I can recreate it, then we can find out if a bug, or another reason for the firing to stop. Anyone else have a saved file? If not, if you can answer the above two questions so a test scenario I am making matches your circumstances.

Rune

Rune-

I don't have the save game file anymore but I can tell you that it happened repeatedly in the scenario "Defense of Verkniye-Golubaya" on the CD.

(SPOILER)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

I was the Sovs and I kept the 2 Maxim platoons back in essentially their starting positions, made sure they all had LOS to the buildings in front where I figured the Germans would be.

As I advanced my rifle platoons forward (admittedly clumsily-enough) and they came under fire from those buildings, I noticed turn after turn where the Maxims (in command, not Hidden, and not under any fire) displayed the following behaviors:

1) refused to acquire targets by themselves. I could target successfully some Germans but the AI rarely did. And I mean "rarely" - I was paying attention this time.

2) when I would specifically target a unit, and that unit's target became unspotted, that MG would not acquire another target that turn.

3) Area Fire worked just like it should in the game. No problems in evidence there.

Now maybe I have unrealistic expectations regarding Exposure, LOS, range, and suppression, but Holy Hotcakes I am not interested in personally pulling the triggers on 8 Maxim MGs!

Hope that helps a little.

-dale</font>

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[QB]Gary,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />There's seems to be two forms of 'whiners' - those that claim they can't do anything with their infantry at all and those that are concerned about the 'sneak of death' issue.

Very true. I have pointed this out a couple of times. This thread was originally aimed at the first group of "whiners" you identified, but it has obviously turned into a discussion about the sneak-death thing.

</font>

[Boo Radley]

Originally posted by rune:

No problem Dalem, I am just trying to see what you guys see. If I can recreate it, then we can find out if a bug, or another reason for the firing to stop. Anyone else have a saved file? If not, if you can answer the above two questions so a test scenario I am making matches your circumstances.

Rune

Rune,

I was going to see if I had a saved game in which this happened to me, but I got home too late last evening to do so. I will look this evening. Do I send it to you or Matt?

[Grisha]

By dalem:

1) refused to acquire targets by themselves. I could target successfully some Germans but the AI rarely did. And I mean "rarely" - I was paying attention this time.

2) when I would specifically target a unit, and that unit's target became unspotted, that MG would not acquire another target that turn.

3) Area Fire worked just like it should in the game. No problems in evidence there.

Dale,

I remembered this the very first time I played El'nya Stare, playing the Soviet. Ranges were long, say 400-500m, and I was using EFOW. It took a long time before I started getting solid contact with the enemy, and only after I was able to get some of the infantry within 200m. Even so, contact was fleeting. Hence, I made much more use of area fire.

What sort of ranges are we talking about and what were the morale conditions of your forces in general during the fracas?

I'm asking because, after that first experience with El'nya Stare, I came to the conclusion that solid, visual contact would only occur during optimum conditions, such as short distances, running in the open, continuous firing, etc. Otherwise, most fire is based on a general idea of where the enemy is, resulting in the use of area fire. This makes sense to me, since I doubt most combatants saw who they were shooting at, aside from the muzzle flashes. And area fire does cause casualties, just not as much as targetting a unit. Area fire, if concentrated, will do the job, too. I actually prefer it to targetting of units, since it affects a wider area. The only time I target individual units is when I'm close, I can see them, and want them to break from their position; and then I make sure the target is being hit by as many units as I can bear on it. The funny thing is I use the targetting of units as an ammo saving measure now, because area fire is constant and solid

Don't discount area fire. Do a test scenario (if you haven't already), and place a few German squads in covering terrain and dug-in, then place a bunch of Soviets units at some reasonable distance away. Padlock all positions. Play the game hotseat, then have the Soviets area fire everything they have as close to a German squad as you remember, then watch what happens from the German side for a few turns. Rifle fire alone is pretty impressive if within 300-400m. Add mortar fire (50mm is great for this), and the results improve noticably. Try the test with a more generalized approach with Soviet fire spread out evenly across the covering terrain holding the Germans. The results are very informative.

When on defense and I've got mg's firing on advancing German units, I will actually break target and hide for a turn or so, knowing that the Germans will lose contact with my mg.

Hopes this helps you in some way

[ November 20, 2002, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Grisha ]

[Schoerner]

Dalem, tom w, Pascal:

Steve already explained in depth the technical problems with DoD (Dance of Death) in this thread.

In conjunction with Abbotts thoughts and forgetting that in CMBO there was always a solution for every situation, i definately can live with it:

Originally posted by Abbott:

No smoke assets?, unable to cross it with advance or run and you are unable to provide sufficient suppressive fire assets, then don’t do it. Simple really. It is called real tactics.

As it was clearified in this (excellent) thread, too, tactics has NO influence on DoD.

Either the player controls the units or the TacAI takes the control over them.

But tactics influences how often it occurs.

And i think this could be a good reason to rethink some tactics that worked very well in CMBO and therefore keep playing CMBB.

And when this still will happen from time to time, we should take it as a challenge to avoid situations forcing the TacAI taking control over the units, even more.

What stays is the units-not-firing problem.

And I'm very confident that this will be solved.

[ November 20, 2002, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by dalem:

Were playing with EFOW or FOW?

Maybe that is a factor here???

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

I don't really like that (again) this is narrowed down to single factors, instead of combinations of factors which affect few correctable situations.

But unless one looks at those individual factors, how can one have an informed discussion about the overall problem? The absolutely most useless thing for us to see is something like this:

"My troops are getting too exhausted. The AI sucks because it takes control of my guys all the time and ruins their physical condition".

Utterly useless in and of itself. We need to know the details and how each may or may not be doing something wrong. A generic, overall statement is otherwise as good as saying:

"The world is a dangerous place to live in. If we could just have world peace, everything would be fine."

And no, I am not being sarcastic. OK, maybe a tiny bit, but my point is still valid

Indeed. Not only tactics but also choice of weapons, of transport etc.

My complaint about the auto-sneak-exhaustion problem is that the opponent player can basically take the mover's heavy weapons out of the game with minimal fire, too few fire to be realistic.

This, BTW, is a prime example of why we need to look at low level stuff. Most of the complaints I have seen thus far appear to be more centered around Squads, not heavy weapons. And as I have said earlier, we have adjusted things for Heavy Weapons teams. They were too likely to move if fired upon. So it is kinda pointless to talk about this any more until the patch is released since you aren't playing the most current version.

I think the difference here is not so much tactics, I think the people not seeing this are using the MGs in place, they use transport for the heavy weapons or they use tanks instead of infantry MG teams.

Excepting out the heavy weapons issue, I disagree. If the ONLY issue were heavy weapons being too prone to move when fired upon I am sure this discussion would have been easy to wrap up weeks ago. It clearly is not that simple. Which again is why we need to look at the low level stuff.

CMBB terms with good HQs).

If CMBB is realistic they left all the HMG and other weapons at home. This did not happen in real life.

Incorrect. Heavy weapons were not generally moved DURING a battle. Check the doctrine of the day. They were generally brought up into position inbetween battles, often at night or in sectors not currently under enemy observation. Moving stuff about with transport in active combat zones was absolutely not done as a rule in WWII. It was near suicide. Of course that doesn't mean it never happened, but it was not supposed to happen.

So why do we have a realism problem? - Because the game works fine in not killing too many of the heavy weapons crewmen in light fire, it works fine by not breaking too many under light fire?

Again, you are lumping all the various complaints into one pile of your own design. From what I have seen this is NOT the major issue being discussed over and over again. The main issue is how to use infantry in general, but specifically over contested open ground.

You gave us these beatiful new MG model, but if you try to use it in a vehicleless big battle (when true reconnaissance is going on and every weapon has to be moved), you make them strand in the middle of nowhere on much too few enemy fire.

The problem you are identifying is, to a large extent, a realistic one. The redeployment of heavy weapons DURING a battle in a contested environment was extremely difficult to do. Goes along the lines of the old axiom of "an error in deployment can never be made good on during the battle". Heavy weapons need to be placed in good firing positions before the battle starts. Once the battle is engaged, they need to remain put. If they need to be moved forward, they can only be moved AFTER infantry has secured safe routes.

So although 1.01 will fix some of the issues you brought up, it won't fix others because they need no fixing. Tactics need to be adjusted or at least perception of what was really possible. Again, I am not insulting you but instead suggesting that some of the "problems" you have voiced are of your own making and can be avoided by using more realistic tactics or applying more realistic expectations.

Steve

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

Dalem, tom w, Pascal:

Steve already explained in depth the technical problems with DoD (Dance of Death) in this thread.

In conjunction with Abbotts thoughts and forgetting that in CMBO there was always a solution for every situation, i definately can live with it:

Originally posted by Abbott:

No smoke assets?, unable to cross it with advance or run and you are unable to provide sufficient suppressive fire assets, then don’t do it. Simple really. It is called real tactics.

As it was clearified in this (excellent) thread, too, tactics has NO influence on DoD.

Either the player controls the units or the TacAI takes the control over them.

But tactics influences how often it occurs.

And i think this could be a good reason to rethink some tactics that worked very well in CMBO and therefore keep playing CMBB.

And when this still will happen from time to time, we should take it as a challenge to avoid situations forcing the TacAI taking control over the units, even more.

What stays is the units-not-firing problem.

And I'm very confident that this will be solved.

I have been critical of the infantry model in several of the posts discussing the subject so I can speak as someone who is definitely not pro CMBB. Steve gave a very good insight into some of the mechanics of what goes on. Abbott quoted above gave the simplest reason why not to try certain things. Schoerner ties things together nicely

"....tactics has NO influence on DoD.

Either the player controls the units or the TacAI takes the control over them.

But tactics influences how often it occurs."

Get troops into bad situations and you hand over control to the AI subroutines. I am actively reassessing my play style to see whether a rethink will reduce my problems. I hope to be able to report positvely very soon.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Grisha:

I remembered this the very first time I played El'nya Stare, playing the Soviet. Ranges were long, say 400-500m, and I was using EFOW. It took a long time before I started getting solid contact with the enemy, and only after I was able to get some of the infantry within 200m. Even so, contact was fleeting. Hence, I made much more use of area fire.

What sort of ranges are we talking about and what were the morale conditions of your forces in general during the fracas?

Approximately 200-230m. (EDITED to add And EFOW.) My MGs are in cover (scattered trees, not under fire, in command, and not hiding. My advancing platoons were rapidly dead, of course, but I am not discussing that. I am focusing on the behavior of my "support" platoons.

Now, there is light snow, BUT I can spot and target no problem, therefore I expect the AI to. This is what I mean when I talk about feedback in the game. Behavior X yields Outcome Y? I have NO problem with that. I am not asking for unworried strolls through hails of bullets. I am not asking for laser accuracy and instant action. I am just looking for consistency.

Don't discount area fire.

Oh I don't. I love Area Fire and have used it since my first CM:BO QB. But if I have 4 MGs and I decide I want to hose a key building with two of them and keep the other two free for targets of opportunity, the two that are not firing should fire when ToOs appear. That's their purpose.

Unless I have a critical misunderstanding going on which is clouding my view. That is certainly possible.

-dale

[ November 20, 2002, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: dalem ]

[BlackVoid]

I could not read through all this yet, so maybe someone ha already brought up this idea.

Why not have a difficulty setting?

With just two settings:

Easy - like it was in CMBO

Realistic - like it is now

I know you can also go for VET or better infantry, but sometimes this is not available.

[DugIn]

Ok.. enough already. Steve. Stop typing, get in that mail room, and ship my game!!

Really...

Great forum. Nice to see the company taking a real interest in what their consumer is staying.

[Battlefront.com]

Doodlebug,

I think you have a good sense of what I (and others) have been saying now for some time. And that is the best way to avoid a problem is to.. er... uhm... avoid it Running guys out into an open field without adequate covering fire (and/or recon) is going to get you into a very bad spot if the enemy is ready for you. And that is entirely realistic. What is the best way to not get pasted in such a situation? Don't put your guys in that situation in the first place

The best advice I can give you, or anybody else, is to do one thing:

SLOW IT DOWN!!

If you are on the attack you have the initiative, so use it. You can set the pace of the attack and choose when the right time is to do this or that. Sometimes you might have to sit and exchange fire for 5-10 minutes before you can move up in that area. But while you are doing that, you can bring more units into the fray or work around the guy's flank. Or just wait for the big guns to zero in and start firing

If you are on the defense, deploy effectively and creatively so you don't have to do much unexpected swapping around forces during combat and/or set them up so they have ways to move without coming under enemy fire.

Either way, there is nothing more beneficial than a good plan. The inverse is true too. If you have a bad plan you had better hope the other guy has a worse one

BlackVoid,

Easy - like it was in CMBO

Realistic - like it is now

Impossible because there is only one set of code - the CMBB code. There is no way to switch to something that no longer exists. With the new engine we can plan on having two or more options for certain features from the get go. That is the only way it can be done.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Like Dale...

I love Area Fire and have used it since my first CM:BO QB.

The propper use of Area Fire rocks! In the Krusk scenario in the Demo as the Germans I took some fire from a patch of woods. I halted my PzIVs and had them sit in overwatch using Covered Arcs. One platoon of PzIIIs proceeded to pummel the suspected gun positions (which thanks to EFOW I had little hint of) while the second platoon advanced cautiously with Covered Arcs on the same area. One gun was revealed by the advancing PzIIIs and was elimintated by them. The PzIVs keep the KVs at bay (killed one IIRC), and the other platoon of PzIIIs kept blowing the crap out of the area.

I later discovered I knocked out 3 guns and sent a couple of ATR teams running. I only spotted 1 gun, which had fired at me. Because of Area Fire I knocked out 2 guns which (as far as I know) never got a shot off at me.

However, Area Fire at the wrong time, or in the wrong proportions, can create more problems than it solves.

Steve