The "debate" about CMBB's Infantry Modeling

[Arsenal]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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

Steve

Hi Steve, I've got a completly OT question for you.

Will there ever be an option to delete units in the quick battle purchase screen?

I just ask this because when I'm attacking I would like to be able to buy a battalion but not have to drag along all the heavy weapons that come with it for similar reasons that you mentioned above. I would rather delete the hmgs,mortars and put the points back into units that can keep pace with an attack.

Would this be possible? or is it too ahistorical?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Personally, I'm a counter-whiner.

Wrong board. CM doesn't use counters.

Michael

[Mike13]

Here's the situation. There is a split squad of veteran Germans in a well prepared foxhole and about 200m to the east a Russian 76MM FG fires a couple of rounds at these guys. One of the Germans is WIA, the end result is that they all jump out of the foxhole and run across open ground where they really get pounded. If that's not bad enough, in another situation a veteran HG-MG 42 in a trench, no less, facing a human wave attack of Russians refuses to acquire a target and will not fire, eventually the crew was killed.

Am I whining about this? No, these two events are from a book that I just finished reading called BLOOD RED SNOW, and I have to tip my hat to CMBB as an excellent predictor of human behavior under stress.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Mike13:

Here's the situation. There is a split squad of veteran Germans in a well prepared foxhole and about 200m to the east a Russian 76MM FG fires a couple of rounds at these guys. One of the Germans is WIA, the end result is that they all jump out of the foxhole and run across open ground where they really get pounded. If that's not bad enough, in another situation a veteran HG-MG 42 in a trench, no less, facing a human wave attack of Russians refuses to acquire a target and will not fire, eventually the crew was killed.

Am I whining about this? No, these two events are from a book that I just finished reading called BLOOD RED SNOW, and I have to tip my hat to CMBB as an excellent predictor of human behavior under stress.

Combat anecdotes make great reading but are still a few standard deviations away from the mean.

-dale

[mididoctors]

Seems that the change from CMBO to CMBB reminds me of the old ASL vs SL debate...

I did not pay CMBO but started with CMBB gamming recently after stubbling across the CM website...It is noteworthy that I do not consider the game broke compared to CMBO (I have only played the CMBO demo) since I have no preconceptions of what CMBO gamming was like. I can say I think CMBB to be the best tactical wargame I have ever played and owned (still have nostalgal for ASL and miss certain features of that game, goliath demo tanks anyone).

As for hitting the dirt under fire, I think that more experienced units may do this QUICKER as they are experienced about the effects trans/super-sonic metal can have on your body...... those that hit the deck quicker get to live.

As a seasoned ASL gamer I found to my delight I could assimilate my ASL tactics into CMBB with great effect (I was quite a good player back in the day, maybe a bit slow) that included patient build up of forces PRIOR to movement into final firebase position (advance/hide/+ maybe cover arc) ad hoc piecemeal occupation of firebase positions without fire superiority is a one way ticket to defeat in ASL never mind CMBB. The attacker chosses the point of contact and should with a reasonable amount of cover be able to establish a suppresive firebase.

The features not in ASL such as progressive exhaustion and ammunition only increase my enjoyment of gamming as does the increased challenge make the whole experience more rewarding yet the good tactics in ASL are still applicable here. must be doing something right.

NOW DOWN TO BUISNESS

TacAI is of course bound to fail and be short of perfect (my god what a crowd of real anoraks we are)..panic behaviour is hard to model

factors that need modeling of units under fire IMHO..(YMD)

1 unit under fire.

2 direction of incomming fire,this includes panic when fired at from three directions with angles greater than 180 degress in a single move...encircling fire!

3 intensity of fire

4 nature of weapon(+/- mods for flamethrowers , explosives ,wet towels etc)

5 Location terrain

6 proximity and direction to known enemy

7 proximity and direction to friendly troops

8 LOS and proximity TO LEADER

9 Proximity and direction to cover

10 crew manned weapons are "hardier" in maintaining position than small arm equip troops

11 tank fright

12 troop quality

13 WALLS....a unit should be able to hug a defailde whether man-made or natural...LOS from source of breaking/pinning fire could be used..no?

14 armoured units as cover?

15 fanatisim/human wave/berserk effects

16 SPECIAL SCENARIO RULES... EG.beach assualt, there is only one way to go inland....

As for troop exhaustion..I think apart from the sneak exhaustion behaviour CMBB has just about got it right....try running 100m with army boots on, just normal clothing and a pair of heavy work/squadie boots.....never mind all the clobber.

anomilies such as foxhole behaviour and crew served weapons I expect can be fixed fairly easily.

Fog of war in CMBB is superb. after playing with the extreme settings for Berzina battle I think I will stick with them..this is a major strength in the game system...

there are a host of features I would like to see included along the lines of all those special chapters ASL use to have (I know many are modeled in ,wheather etc)..of course some are not that easy....tanks throu buildings, trailbreaks, captured equipment..the list goes on....ASL became very unweildy as you could alwas bolt a rule on to cover anything , god those pacific cave rules!!....computer 3D modeling is not so flexable in this regard as such modelling intails major re-writes..still one lives in hope......

well that lot is propably a bit much to encompass....but it is worth stating that current computers are very powerful indeed...my dated internet/ gamming machine, an upgraded (circa 1996) PPC 7600 350MHz G4 mac with a 32mb raedon PCI graphics card can quite comfortable play medium and large scenarios (the tracktor factory was off limits due to turn render boredom)....even so the new crop of PC's and MACs are blistering fast and any hardcore CM player is going to have some serious muscle to play with, so modeling all these characteristics and factors are not impractical from a gameplay point of view...perhaps from a programming one they are a bit excessive on human workload/debugging????

I would pay about $100 (£75-80 my money) for a ultimate game that needed a 64 meg card and at least 800Mhz G4 to run my present turn speed...but i would expect a hell of a lot more in depth modeling of TacAI and game features

especialy as and when i retire my studio dual gigger I can use it for gamming.

Great game hope updates are applicable to this version without need to purchase new version (would be willing to pay upgrade fee if jump was to my stipulated expectations which I have yet to air) oh yeah mac OS X version please.

peace

Boris

london

[url=http://www.conversion2.co.uk]

[Kong]

Way to far into this thread to add anything other than I think the Inf modeling in CMBB is great and expect the few quirks to be addressed, as Steve mentioned.

As for Corsendonk, that is the best ale I have ever had, period. In fact it is so good it got me to stop drinking beer! What?!!? Cause it is expensive and it ain't no "lite" beer, and I was drinking too much! So I decided to stop and stick to good quality gins and vodkas!!!

[murpes]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I think it is a mistake to think that CM can be turned into a "one size fits all gamers" project. CM is practically unique at this moment in that it presents the gamer with a reasonably accurate representation of WW II tactical warfare. To dilute that would be to make it indistinguishable from a host of already available products that are aimed at the less-than-serious gamer. To put it another way, there are and always will be an abundance of games that have been dumbed down enough to meet the needs of the tyro or the casual gamer. Let's leave CM as a pinnacle to be strived for when, and only when, the gamer has become seasoned enough to tackle it, if and only if he no longer finds sufficient challenge in the lesser models.

I wouldn't necessairly advocate a watering down of the game for those of us that are having troubles with the increased "sim-ness." But there does seem to be a gap between those of us that play PC games that happen to be a combat sim, and those of us looking for a combat sim that happens to be a PC game.

For someone to roll thier eyes and say, like an anrgy comic-book store guy not believing you don't know Bruce Wayne's middle name, "well, DUH, the reason you're troops are panicing is because you're advancing when you should be assaulting blah blah blah." Fine. Where in the manual does it explain this? Which tutorial? How am I supposed to know the difference between a Stug III and IV without even so much as a quick reference card to pull from? Yeah, I know, "it's on the 'net." But the fact of the matter is it's overwhelming, and often assumes a certain point of reference to start from. I bought a piece of software here, not a lifestyle.

I'm not advocating that it's BTS role to provide all this either - I'm just outlining what I see as the sources of my frustration with the game sometimes. And I'm learning ... slowly. But I look at other games which main purpose was simulation and realism, and as the games evolved (along with the processing power of the computer mostly), so has the tutorials and the ability to adjust "sim-ness."

I can't be the only one coming from the Sudden Strike arena (and really, I've never played that one. I like the rpgs mostly, so I'm worse off!). Here's a simplified scenario: I buy CMBB. A couple of tutorials gets me used to the commands. And then that's it - kinda stranded. I'm faced with either trying to develop my own strategies (heh), or learn "real" ones from fragmented posts on the forums or digging through military documentation, which really I've never been that successful at finding anyway.

Now I for one am willing to keep trying and digging and reading - I think because the game's subject matter has sparked an interest, and because I'm impressed by the power of the CM engine. And not to mention that fact that the game is FUN and satisfying. But I can easily see someone else in my shoes saying "screw it" and moving onto the next game. Maybe that's the way it's meant to be - but where will that ultimately get us? Eventually the game will evolve to the point where a few guys at West Point are the only ones who can play it, and this breakout game is back into the niche market.

I think a one size fits all game is do-able here, but not but dumbing down the game but by smart-ing up the player. Better documentation (I can't believe I'm saying this about the best game documentation I've seen in YEARS, but you know what I mean - accessable reference materials) and by graduated tutorials.

[Battlefront.com]

Boo,

OK, now I'm understanding a bit more. In the "Pavlov" scenario where my troops aren't firing even though the Germans are within their cover arcs, it may be that at 230m, the AI figures they'd be wasting ammo and so therefore, holds off on firing. Correct?

Most likely correct.

JonS,

Mmm. I think it may have swung too far the other way. I have had a number of occasions where HMG teams will not open up on targets of opportunity. Often it isn't practical to 'area fire' every possible piece of cover, and leaving it to the AI to act seems like the best option ... but it doesn't act.

They must have been very poor targets *or* the target kept coming and going enough to break LOS ever so slightly.

Dale,

Okay. So I'm not crazy. I am a little surprised that this thread is the first I've read of something I would consider fairly major.

Hmmm... I guess it is because it appears to natural. In fact, after reading your posts several times it didn't dawn on me to suggest this as I thought you would have rulled this out already.

I will carve that on the headstones of the soldiers that expected some suppression fire, I assure you.

If the TacAI doesn't want to target it is highly doubtful that it would do much even if the unit did fire. The threshold is set so that only really piss poor results could be expected if shots were fired. You see descriptions in veteran accounts all the time about how picky they were about taking shots. When you only have 90-120 bullets at the beginning of a battle, you tend to not want to waste them

Warren,

Since turn limits were brought up, I was wondering something. Does the strategic AI take into account how much time is left when performing actions. For example will it be more cautious in games with large maps and long time limits relative to games with large maps and short time limits? My guess is no, but I am not certain.

Yes, to some extent the StratAI does take into consideration turn # as well as some other factors (like Global Morale). But overall it is coded to be more cautious than a Human would be. A Human might be able to pull off an 11th hour rush assault but the AI is unlikely to be able to do this in a coordinated enough way to do more than get his last troops killed.

Jazza,

Will there ever be an option to delete units in the quick battle purchase screen?

For CMBB, no this will not be possible. For the engine rewrite many possibilities not possible in current CMs will be realized. We are going to go with a more "task force" type purchase system in place of the more ridged TO&E setup we have now. TO&E will, oddly enough, be even more important but will be exercised in a totally different way to increase flexibility and variability (ex: you purchase a Medium Tank Platoon and get whatever you get ).

You can, of course, purchase 3xCompanies of infantry and leave the HW behind. This would not be typical, but would be a historically realistic possibility. Of course you lose a bit of the group purchase discount, but not much. In any case you free up lots of points because the HW Company's value will be available to spend on other things.

mididoctors,

Glad you stumbled upon us! Welcome.

factors that need modeling of units under fire IMHO..(YMD)

Hehe... off the top of my head I think I can safely say the TacAI does almost all that and more. However, it is not readily apparent all the time and some things (like wall hugging) is simply not possible for us to code. Or at least not possible at this time. All bets are off for the new engine

And yes, MacOSX and far more demanding hardware requirements are two things that can be counted on for the next CM. Charles and I were talking about it today and pontificating that in 2 years, when the first game will be ready, we expect 64MB video cards to be low end. So we are shooting for 128MB cards, which of course aren't even out yet

kking,

Glad to see another fan of the Belgian suds!

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dale,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Okay. So I'm not crazy. I am a little surprised that this thread is the first I've read of something I would consider fairly major.

Hmmm... I guess it is because it appears to natural. In fact, after reading your posts several times it didn't dawn on me to suggest this as I thought you would have rulled this out already.</font>

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It is true that the TacAI is a bit more cautious with expending ammo than in CMBO. If the unit thinks it has a good shot, it takes it. Otherwise it holds back.

Ha!! Exactly what I predicted, t'other day.

Makes sense, and all that, and I for one can live with missing a few opportunities to inflict damage here and there, for the next couple years, but...

Could we forward the suggestion I made last post to the programmers for consideration, that an enemy who is or has recently been wacking my friends should be considered a "good" target, where it would otherwise be considered a "pretty crappy" target?

That would fix a good proportion of this Reluctance problem, for me, since that is really the one critical time where at the end of the turn it is simply exactly Too Late to tell my troops that I really really really really want you to spend that precious ammo. Yeah, even your last bullet. You can Withdraw afterwards, if you like.

Assuming, (guys?), that we mostly agree on this one...? I have to feel that it is very possible that it is very easy to fix.

And if you haven't seen this... YOU WILL!

Eden

[Schoerner]

[ November 21, 2002, 05:58 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[wodasini88]

Combat anecdotes make great reading but are still a few standard deviations away from the mean.

-dale]

ya but his point still makes sense, I've only seen an hmg not fire at a group visible to him once out of a good deal of playing time so I agree with him.

[somazx]

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!

WARNING - further spoiling and spoilage

I experienced the Maxim MGs not acquiring targets as well when playing that battle - both times I played it. Though I attributed it to strange things with LOS either by design or by accident - as visibility is limited due to weather but I was basically trying to rationalize what I was experiencing.

In fact, that battle (DoVG - along with some similar experiences in other battles but on a smaller scale) is what made me come into these forums; because one factor has really been a thorn in my side. Being pinned, panicked, routed, etc by what appears to be largely ineffective machine guns (100 fire power rating at 100M shooting from 150m out) with veteran units (at least in DoVG they are) with few to no casualties. Yes I know the machine guns are effective at suppression, but the result was all my units (four platoons worth) panicked and routed within a turn by one MG - with the platoons and squads well spread out over about a 500m area - a large range to suppress in 60 seconds I would think.

My usual style is a cautious advance clinging to cover, and leap-frog men - which usually works well enough for me. However I'm often running against the clock with my overly cautious play. I decided to attempt the blitz/storming approach on this battle against a certain nagging feeling that it would be foolish to attempt it but there were several other reasons why I did it:

- The number of units was large enough I felt at least half my troops ought to cover the distance without being decimated (or rendered ineffective) and it appeared I had excellent cover with my Maxim MGs. also the default setup of the troops seems to suggest the approach

- an impression that historically speaking the Russians won by sheer numbers

- the human wave command (perhaps misunderstood by me) seemed to reinforce the above two points as I thought it was intended for just this sort of thing

So answer this, is the above a sound tactic for this battle - can it be made to work and I just didn't work it well enough?

Or is the above a sound tactic in terms of realism, but not the games current modeling?

Another rationalization myself and my human opponent were considering was that maybe the Russians had some intrinsic penalty to morale or experience and this had to be taken into consideration.

Load that battle, take the four closest platoons to the church in the center of the map and human wave or move them 150m to the cemetery area. Watch 1 machine gunner nearly hold back the lot of them.

I'm not saying its necessarily a problem in the games modeling, I'm just adding my voice to the numbers who mentioned these factors. Whether the solution be further training material for us newb (well novice anyway) players, or tweaks to the modeling, or just accepting the change. I still play the game, though I find it more frustrating than CMBO but I am embracing the challenge.

[Battlefront.com]

I just played a very random QB. Wound up with a small, Elite/Crack force of depleated, tired 'ol SS guys in 1943. I had to take a pretty good sized town with hardly anything in support. The game was 35 + turns long and went for 37. I was within a few turns of securing three flags (had two of them for a bit), but just didn't have enough "ooomph" left in me to finish the job. In the end I was facing Green/Conscripts and they still had a SU-85, couple of Bren Carriers, and a Regimental gun + a couple of partially messed up platoons. I managed to knock out 7 light tanks and ACs using grenades and one brave Tank Hunter team, but I lost my 5 HTs in the process. Minor Defeat due to the AI (barely) retaining control of one flag (other two were contested).

Anyhoo... my point of bringing this up is that I not once saw any problem with Sneak behavior. In fact, three or four times I saw it save my ass BIG TIME. If my units had stopped in the middle of the street, as some have suggested should be the behavior, they would have been wiped out. Simple as that. As it was they managed to Sneak to safety fairly quickly and without any noticable drain on their condition.

I also never had my units dip below "Tired", even though they were "Weary" physical condition. Sure, their superior Experience helped out quite a bit, but Assaulting a built up area defended by superior numbers of infantry and a buttload of AFVs at close quarters is just about the most demanding situation that can be asked of a small force. I suspect that the people who have complained about troops tiring too quickly would have had their troops constantly Exhausted

Also, I never once saw a unit of mine not engage a target that was either decent or firing at me. Well, except for one or two that I did not have more than a "?" concept of their location. Area Fire helped sort that out in one situation.

All I can say is that this is yet another game under my belt where I didn't see these three horrible problems (tiring too easily, getting sneaked to death, and not engaging targets) rear their ugly heads Sure, no one game means anything... but I would think that I should have experienced one or all of these problems at least a little. But I didn't.

BTW, I barely had any ammo left and I was in fairly close quarters. If the TacAI had been busy firing at shadows, I would have been F'd.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Another thing to keep in mind...

Units take time to target. This time is variable based on a host of factors, including random luck. But if a target is juuuuust barely keeping within effective range/LOS, then it can be enough to keep on juuuuuust missing firing chances.

We have not seen any cases where we felt units were not firing when they should. So for now, those of you who think this is a "bug" of some sort should assume otherwise. Assume, for now, that there is a very predictable reason or reasons. Look for them next time you see a unit you think should fire not firing. I bet it won't take more than one instance to figure out why.

Not all things in CM are spelled out for people in blaring Neo lights. In fact, we took some criticism for giving the player too MUCH feedback. So much so that people wanted the option to turn off things like Detailed Hit info so they could play the game more intuitively. The info is all there in front of you, even if you have to figure it out for yourselves. And without seeing the exact save file I can't guess what it is.

Steve

[Dschugaschwili]

Is there any chance to include a "get out of LOS" behaviour for infantry? Currently infantry always seems to sneak towards some kind of cover when their self-preservation instincts kick in. Sometimes it would be much faster/better to just get out of LOS (behind a wall/house/the ridge they have just climbed.

Vehicles already seem to be able to do this, so why not give infantry units the same option?

Dschugaschwili

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

BFC,

I don't think I'm part of the "whining team" this time : first I really don't think the "Sneak" issue should be considered "critical" and breaks the game, and second my concern was more with HW support teams exhausting to death than with plain Inf, so I hope the patch will make it somewhat better

Dshugashwili,

The "get out of LOS" order already exists : it's called "Run" or "Withdraw"

LOS is not an absolute thing, and the player is much better at figuring WHERE is "out of LOS" than the AI !

[lcm1947]

Excellent idea Sschugaschwili. I have thought the exact thing many times in playing CMBO but never brought it up. It only makes sense that men would take cover or move to another location if fired on. I realize that sometimes the situation would keep this from happening as if they didn't know where the fire was coming from, etc, but in many cases I would think that they would at least make an effort to get away from the fire rather then lying there watching the other members of the outfit being killed and not do anything except wait for their turn to get zapped.

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO:

Dshugashwili,

The "get out of LOS" order already exists : it's called "Run" or "Withdraw"

LOS is not an absolute thing, and the player is much better at figuring WHERE is "out of LOS" than the AI !

Just in case you didn't notice, I was talking about the possibility of the TacAI considering those options.

That I can give a withdraw order is not new to me. But if my men have already started sneaking towards some distant cover, getting them out in one piece becomes increasingly difficult, especially if the cover is in the opposite direction.

Dschugaschwili

[xerxes]

I like the TacAIs ammo conservation for poor targets. CMBO units would fire at ANYTHING and burn ammo for no effect.

That said, having a command to override and fire no matter how poor the target is would also be nice.

[JaegerMeister]

Interesting debate this. I still have a problem with some of this infantry behaviour, particulary the 'panic and get shot to pieces/wiped out' mode.

Last night in a QB 1941, green troop, light tree cover. I had worked some German infantry using good cover up to a position where they could support an immoblised AC. I had also moved up a Pz3 to also give support. However one of the infantry squads in a light building with scattered trees around it, started taking fire from a few soviet infantry units that were a minimum 150m away. They had no chance of closing on my men, cos they were receiving fire from the AC & tank. Yet after only 1 turn, the squad decided it had to panic (with no casualties) and rather than stay in the light building or nearby trees or lay down etc, it would be best to run out the back door and attempt to run down a gentle slope to some ruins about 100m away!..the result - it got cut to pieces and i was left with 2 men out of 10!....how is that for 'fuzzy' logic?

Considering i'm playing Billtongs rules, that unit is screwed for a while....very frustrating.

The other annoying fact is that 2 of the other 3 nearby squads, some with cover-arcs, some not, didn't bother to help their hapless buddies with some cover fire (i checked their ammo, watched them closely, as this behaviour quirk has bothered me for a while now). None of the other units was surpressed/taking cover.

[massimorocca]

One of the problem is that gamers are talking about sensations, experiences, "facts" that happened in material but false world of some icons that moves, fires, and deads on the screen, while the programmers must work with the true but immaterial strings of code. The miracle is that the two field could be superimposed in a so high percentage. Any suggestion, hint, or request must be traslittered in codes and sometime this isn't possible, like BTS explained so well in the " no memory for the units" post.

I'm still hoping that the actual morale status take covering could be implemented in the future with a consequent new moving command "Covering" giving to the units so coldness and skillness to chose if stay pinned, or hide, or use a reversed/advance pace, or sneak, or run as berserk against the incoming fire or made the Dance of Death, ALL realistic and actual options under fire. But I think that we must wait to CMIII and happily wait playing CMBO and CMBB

Massimo Rocca playtester at http://www.militarygameronline.com/boots_tracks/

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by somazx:

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

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!

WARNING - further spoiling and spoilage

I experienced the Maxim MGs not acquiring targets as well when playing that battle - both times I played it. Though I attributed it to strange things with LOS either by design or by accident - as visibility is limited due to weather but I was basically trying to rationalize what I was experiencing.

In fact, that battle (DoVG - along with some similar experiences in other battles but on a smaller scale) is what made me come into these forums; because one factor has really been a thorn in my side. Being pinned, panicked, routed, etc by what appears to be largely ineffective machine guns (100 fire power rating at 100M shooting from 150m out) with veteran units (at least in DoVG they are) with few to no casualties. Yes I know the machine guns are effective at suppression, but the result was all my units (four platoons worth) panicked and routed within a turn by one MG - with the platoons and squads well spread out over about a 500m area - a large range to suppress in 60 seconds I would think.

My usual style is a cautious advance clinging to cover, and leap-frog men - which usually works well enough for me. However I'm often running against the clock with my overly cautious play. I decided to attempt the blitz/storming approach on this battle against a certain nagging feeling that it would be foolish to attempt it but there were several other reasons why I did it:

- The number of units was large enough I felt at least half my troops ought to cover the distance without being decimated (or rendered ineffective) and it appeared I had excellent cover with my Maxim MGs. also the default setup of the troops seems to suggest the approach

- an impression that historically speaking the Russians won by sheer numbers

- the human wave command (perhaps misunderstood by me) seemed to reinforce the above two points as I thought it was intended for just this sort of thing

So answer this, is the above a sound tactic for this battle - can it be made to work and I just didn't work it well enough?

Or is the above a sound tactic in terms of realism, but not the games current modeling?

Another rationalization myself and my human opponent were considering was that maybe the Russians had some intrinsic penalty to morale or experience and this had to be taken into consideration.

Load that battle, take the four closest platoons to the church in the center of the map and human wave or move them 150m to the cemetery area. Watch 1 machine gunner nearly hold back the lot of them.

I'm not saying its necessarily a problem in the games modeling, I'm just adding my voice to the numbers who mentioned these factors. Whether the solution be further training material for us newb (well novice anyway) players, or tweaks to the modeling, or just accepting the change. I still play the game, though I find it more frustrating than CMBO but I am embracing the challenge.</font>

[Nabla]

Originally posted by JaegerMeister:

Interesting debate this. I still have a problem with some of this infantry behaviour, particulary the 'panic and get shot to pieces/wiped out' mode.

[snip]

This isn't a statement about the actual issue, but I think that it might help a bit if people ended these messages with:

I have the save file/video, which can be requested from me either on this forum or via email at address ...

[ November 21, 2002, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]

[Tarquelne]

Oh, heck: Here we go -

German LMG in patch of woods (1 "tile"). Soviet platoon (rifle/LMG squads) ~150m away in larger woods. Very little degredation in the LOS between G. and S. units. EFOW on.

G. LMG starts firing at units to the left of the S. platoon, about 100-200m away.

S. platoon is not moving, not hidden, not being fired on, Fit, Regular or Crack and facing toward the G. LMG. LMG appears on the Russian map about 30sec. into turn 1 or beginning of turn 2. At the end of turn 3 or 4 no units in the S. platoon have fired at the LMG. However, if manually targeted all will fire until the LMG lies prone.

(Something I thought odd, though: Several times a tank (BT5) was placed about 250m away from the LMG, on the same line of fire the LMG was using (ie, the units the LMG was attacker were in between the tank and the LMG.) The tank immedietly opened fire. Saw the muzzle flash?)

However, if a covered arc is used the S. units will fire and always fire. 3 of the 4 squads in the platoon were given cover arcs. One arc was just large enough to take in the LMG's position. One was a 90 degree. arc out to 250m centered on the LGM's position. The third was a 3000m 180 degree arc with the center at least 60 degrees from the LMG position. When the arcs are used the three squads with arcs (and only those squads) open fire very quickly, and like manually targetted units they fire untill the LMG lies prone. (They manually targetted units might be more persistent over several turns, I'm not sure.)

It didn't seem to matter how large the arcs were - each squad fired at about the same time as the others, and the all used the same amount of ammo.

In the test even a 3000m, 180 degree CA vastly improves a squad's spotting/reaction abilities. (Yes, I am calling the difference between firing as-soon-as-enemy-spotted and not firing for 3 or more turns "vast".)

And the fire was effective. The LMG was regularly "suppressed", in that it ceased firing and hit the dirt, and on one iteration broke and ran.

In this case, at least, troops seem to be spending too much time trying to see through copses of woods 5000m away and not enough checking out why their comrades 100m away keep screaming... either that, or binocs and Long Ears are issued when the cover arc command is given and taken away afterwords.

Or is that the way Cover Arc is supposed to work? And conversely, non-covering arcs... cover arc = unit "eager" to fire, no arc = unit reluctant to fire.

I used a scenario for my origional test, though I just made a "scenario" I can e-mail to people. But it's just a couple of patchs of woods seperated by the distance I described and a few units. I replaced the LMG with a German squad just to see if that made a difference. It didn't. A quick run through found units without covering arc not firing over multiple turns, but firing immedietly if given an arc of any size/shape.

BTW - I'd never seen the "problem" before either. It might be because I've never (or seldom) had stationary, non-Hiding units on "overwatch" but not restricted to a specific arc before. IIRC, my infantry is usually either moving, Hiding, being fired upon (and returning that fire), or watching a specified chunk of ground (probably in combination with Hiding.)

[ November 21, 2002, 10:39 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]