Soviet artillery modelled inaccurately in CMBB?

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Kip,

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>However, when it comes to the bit about “operational fireplans” I do not agree. This is a bit of a standard defence mechanism for Steve. <hr></blockquote>

It is not a defence mechanism, I assure you. It is a recognition that CM can only do so much and therefore must, for reasons of time and sanity, remain focused tactical combat. Large artillery use is CERTAINLY within the scope of even the smallest battle, but it is without any question outside of the scope of the game system. If you want a 20 minute prep barrage for a battalion sized battle... sore... snort.. ahmm... sorry, I fell asleap thinking about a 20 turns of nothing but artillery falling

The point is that much of what you are asking for is simply NOT in CM's practical scope. If you want to simulate that 20 minute prep bombardment, give the defender a certain % of pregame casualties. Not perfect, but it is more practical than watching paint dry for fun

Remember, although CM is indeed a simulation it is still a warGAME. If we forget that then everything falls apart and we get sucked down the slippery slope of interconnectivity between scales. Some will want us to simulate every man's boots and buttons, another will want the ability to simulate carpet bombing. We MUST draw the line somewhere, and when we do everything that is not within the bounds is considered "outside of CM's scope". We can split hairs about how someone does or does not define various terms like operational, but at the end of the day the game can only do so much before it becomes broken.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>This is very good news. It remains my view that “when” the Soviets did use FOs their delays times, from the summer of 43 onwards, will have been similar or better than at Kursk because they will have been using the same or better SOPs.<hr></blockquote>

We never disagreed with this. What we disagreed with, and still do, is that long delays have no place in CM. That has been your position since the very first post, but perhaps now it has changed?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I am not saying you have done this, but do be careful that you are not “setting the bar higher” for Soviet delay times than for German delay times. That you judge them equally, given equally reliable sources. If you go off and setup a Kursk scenario the delay times should be similar to those given above.<hr></blockquote>

They should be similar when apples to apples are being compared. As always, there are many oranges mixed into this barrel and therefore one can not assume that picking two roundish things from it blindly will yield the materials necessary for direct comparison. In some ways German and Soviet artillery are compariable, some ways they are not. Sometimes the Soviets have an advantage in a comparison, sometimes it is the Germans. All depends on the context.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Thanks for your time, greatly looking forward to CMBB, with or without fireplans,<hr></blockquote>

We'll see what we can do to have fireplans simulated as functionally as possible. But until we rewrite the entire artillery system, and parts of the user interface core, we will not be able to simulate this sort of thing to the nth degree.

Steve

[kipanderson]

Steve, hi,

Sorry to get back to you, but really a last post on this one.

First great to hear that you will do what you can on fireplans, but I realise it will not be “full feature” fireplans.

On delays I am not worried about them being there in some circumstances. The problem was that the Madmatt interview “implied” that Soviet delays would, across the board, be vast. Remember I have not seen the game; I could only go on what I read. Secondly, Moon then “seemed” to confirm my fears by writing that against TRPs expect 4-7 minutes and against other targets 8-10 minutes.

Truly final conclusion,

Steve says delay for divisional guns will be the lower end of the Kursk figures; this is exactly what I am after. So I am a lot more relaxed. That means they will be historically accurate.

Steve also says he will do his best to have as much of the functionality of fireplans in CMBB, but it will not be the full feature fireplans. I could not ask for much more so am quite relaxed about that as well, life is not perfect.

That just leaves the Army and Front artillery guns. I believe, historically, their delay times are likely to have been represented by the upper end of the Kursk figures I gave. “When” used for called fire. This I will not be getting. Delay times will be somewhat greater. Life is not perfect. The fact that people disagree adds to the fun.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. JasonC, I understand fully what you say. But, no, long delay times and fireplans are not the same. But again, of course long delay times do force you to think ahead. If there is a ten minute delay, one can wait till turn twelve and plan for a barrage in turn twenty two. But that is not the same as setting a number of strikes to come in at given fixed times, say, turn 16 with one, then turn 27 with another and so on.., all set in turn one. Simulating the fact that they were pre-planned before the battle started.

[Battlefront.com]

Kip,

Both Matt and Martin said things that were true. However, so much depends on the year, type of artillery, and how it is used. I have seen 35 minute delays for Corps level artillery in 1941 for example

Jason, I think much of what you say is true, however there is a degree of flexibility that Kip is asking for which to some degree was possible to see on the battlefield. But like you, I disagree with Kips original arguments (as phrased) that delays are not a part of the solution to simulating Soviet artillery. They are, just like for any other nation. The key is having the historic options to do things without massive delays at the expense of flexibility. This is our challenge.

Steve

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Is everyone on here realy this anal!??! why don't you let BTS make their F-ing game already, they did a great job with CMBO and i think their capable of handling their new upcoming title CMBB.

I've heard of arm chair quarterbacks, but i never realized armchair game makers existed until i've seen this forum.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

However, understand that there will NEVER be a "zero delay" artillery strike. It simply is not physically possible.

IRL it is possible to get such a mission (the only delay between the call and impact is the shell flight time): FO Aleksei Arty calls in a 30 RPT mission on (preplotted) target refrence Vatjusha, it lands and sometime after that he calls in a follow up mission on the same target reference (assuming of course the battery did not fire other missions in between the calls and they were instructed to leave the guns pointing the way they pointed during the last mission).

Since there is no "memory" in the game previous targets are forgotten so that means there is no way to track where the FO ordered the last mission. Right ?

So we are talking about small delay (couple minutes), medium delay (several minutes), long delay (closer to 10), and massive delay (greater than 10). Or something like that

In essence, I agree. First time we agree on something ?

However, I think organic, dedicated TRP's for high level arty with minimal response delays(representing preplots in a fire plan) along with first turn 0 delay fire would bring about the appoximation and abstraction of a full fledged fireplan. If they could be made to have activation periods like TRP 1 activates after 5 turns, TRP 2 after 7 turns (reserves as it were) the issusion would be even more real.

Disclaimer: this applies to the Red Army arty.

[Andreas]

Jason, Steve, one problem I have with the use of delay times for fire plans is that they are quite variable for non-LOS targets, e.g. I had two vet 25pdr FOOs in a game, and they entered at the same time. Both were given non-LOS targets to shoot. Result was 3 (6) mins for the one, and 4 (8) mins for the other. I understand why they have different times, and I agree with the reasoning, yet it messes around with this 'crutch' (for want of a better word) a bit. I don't suppose that will be changed?

As for tero's point - even the Finnish rounds had flight time Granted that would be very little, but technically speaking Steve was correct. The point you raise about memory is very important though. In the Commonwealth and Finnish system, almost certainly in the US system, probably in the German and maybe in the Red Army system, the gunners would keep a record of targets they engaged, so that if a repeat shoot was necessary they could just retrain, without having to do the firing solutions again. I.e. any point on the map that I order my guns to shoot at would in these armies have become a TRP by my order to shoot at it. I realise that this is probably difficult to code in, and that TRPs have other properties that would make it inappropriate to allow this memory. Just an observation then - after all, we don't want our games governed by the artillery too much, where would be the humour in that, to quote Fluellen

Iron Chef, you probably don't know this, but the board grew on discussions like this one. This is one of the most interesting we have had in a long time, IMO. Since Steve said he learned something from it, it can not be all that bad to have it. If it annoys you, don't read it.

[kipanderson]

Iron Chef Sakai, hi,

There will be many reasons why people buy and enjoy CM so much. Some buy it because it is a great computer game; such people no doubt also play other computer games. Some buy it because it is a historically accurate simulation of WW2 ground combat, because it is military history, as close as one can currently get with today’s computers. It will not surprise you to hear that I fall into the latter group. I do not play other computer games, they do not interest me.

The first thing I did, when I received CMBO, was to check the armour penetration figures by running my own version of one of the established WW2 armour penetration equation. Before I even played the game. Finding some, but very few, deeded attention I wrote an equally long and “anal” thread explaining what the problem was. Charles very politely responded and altered some figures. When I receive CMBB I will be doing exactly the same.

The great thing about CM is that both computer games fans, and “anal” military history fans, can equally enjoy it.

All the best,

Kip.

[Grisha]

I have to agree with Kip as well, Iron Chef Sakai. My interest in the Soviet military goes back to the early seventies when I started getting into wargames. Games like Russian Campaign, Drang Nach Osten, Red Star/White Star and Squad Leader set me on my present path, and now that the Soviet archives are mostly accessible, these are truly exciting times for military historians, professional and amateur alike. So, if we post concerns about a seemingly 'anal' aspect of the game, please bear with us - it's only because a computer-based tactical wargame like Combat Mission, using data from the Soviet archives, makes possible a game we never thought would happen.

[Scott B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

We'll see what we can do to have fireplans simulated as functionally as possible. But until we rewrite the entire artillery system, and parts of the user interface core, we will not be able to simulate this sort of thing to the nth degree.

Steve<hr></blockquote>

Fantastic - I'm more than happy with this. Thanks and also, thanks to Kip for starting the thread on this topic.

Scott B.

[JasonC]

It is not just that long delays force you to think ahead. My primary point was about the existing ability of a CM commander to plan. The difference between planning every shoot by location and minute before the game begins, and sequentially in the first 10 moves to achieve the same fire missions, is not worth worrying about from a game design point of view. Because the sensible use of the ability to do the second of those, is to create the first with it, and commanders can be counted upon to do sensible things when the incentives for them are accurate enough. The underlying military reality is that a combination of planned fire and adapting maneuver element moves to that plan, is a workable alternative to flexible fire dictated on the fly by maneuver elements moving dynamically in response to new local intel.

Where could the ability to plan fire break down for a CM commander who realizes this, and thus chooses to create a Russian-style (or WW I style, for that matter) fire plan with his longer delay artillery support? It is only going to run into problems if (1) the number of artillery modules is very low and each has to do lots of things and (2) if the delays are extremely long compared to overall battle length.

I really don't see the problem with the first, because one battery of 76mm guns would not realistically have a detailed fire plan with half a dozen different targets - and wouldn't hurt them if it did. The second won't be a problem if the delays we are talking about are on the order of 5 minutes - as Steve seems to indicate - rather than on the order of 20 minutes. With enough supporting batteries even a 10 minute delay average would allow fire planning, but it would be pushing it.

To see this just consider realistic fire plans for realistic numbers of supporting batteries, with various mixes of times. If I have 1 3 minute (light), 3 6 minute (medium), and 2 9 minute (heavy) delay modules, what are my general fire plan options?

2xheavy used immediately for prep, full modules

small missions by 3 minute module on discovered targets, 2-3 times

medium battery shoots with intervals as short as 2 minutes, continually, starting turn 6.

Or, one heavy module can be used to hit the main objective on turn 10 or 15, before the expected main attack, say, while only one is used for prep.

In CM today, the ability to do 100 yard adjusts with limited time delay would allow all the creeping around that the mediums might want to do, in addition to their longer lifts, for which they can simply take turns if some arriving soon is wanted in each time window.

Now, if I only have 2 modules with 20 minutes delays, then sure I can't plan anything. My options are a whole module hitting something so late into the fight it is unlikely my maneuver plan can be kept in synch with it, or using all of it on prep. All prep would be the obvious way to go. But it would leave little in the way of suppression, and overall would not work well at all - since about 5 minutes after a barrage, only the heaviest artillery has left serious lasting effects in the form of casualties.

But is this a realistic difficulty, so that only pre-plotted fire on any turn by the two heavy modules could solve it? It does not seem so to me. Because (1) the "long" delays aren't likely to be 20 minutes, they are likely to 5 minutes. (2) Any attack is likely to have at least one lighter module of lower echelon artillery to fill in the early time gaps, and between the prep barrage and early FO fire 5 minutes is not long. And (3), serious fire plans are going to arise with more modules of artillery to play with, not just 1-2. (4) When called on one location only one delay applies; small shifts are possible without incurring full delay again; and multiple long lifts are unlikely to be needed unless the fight is huge, in which case there is presumably a lot of arty and the taking turns trick addresses the issue adequately. Many long shifts with only 1-2 weak modules is going to be ineffective anyway, because 1/4 of a medium arty module just doesn't do much. That would not be more historical, just more micro-managing of pipsqueak levels of arty support.

What might help with the issue is making sure the delay times don't get too long - over 10 minutes (except for stuff *meant* to be used only for prep fire, perhaps - some rockets or naval guns perhaps). And perhaps making the adjustment of time for unobserved aim points more like 1.5 times rather than 2 times, to avoid times getting too long by that "backdoor". And keeping the time delay for short 100 yards adjusts reasonable, a minute or less, as things generally are now. If any pre-plotting is added besides prep fire, the early time window might be addressed with plot orders like "fire here on turn 2, 3, or 4" in addition to pre-fight prep and calling the barrage on turn 1 - which is a marginal thing if the maximum delay times are reasonable. "Fire here on turn 16" just isn't needed, because the player can do that himself without any programming changes.

[Jeff Duquette]

Well said Kip and Greg. Wargaming without studying history is like trying to eat French Fries without Ketchup…uncivilized behavior at best.

[Skipper]

Speaking of prep fires in CM...

In the last three games I've played against human opponents (all MEs), I've been treated with three Nebelwehrfer barrages. For the total loss count of 10 infantrymen, I wasn't too impressed. The thought of one of these rounds actually hitting something was scary though...

[Iron Chef Sakai]

I did'tn mean to come off to harsh. I've read alot about WW2 and took a big interest in the eastern front myself. Admitedly it's been quite sometime since i've done any reading on it, and it's obvious i'm a bit rusty.

I want the game to be just as accurate as you guys, even though i do play other computer games as well.(this is the only wargame i play though)

I just figured that since alot of people know tons of facts about all facests of world war 2 right down to uniforms, that BTS would not bother rushing over overlooking anything in their new game. Human error aside(nothing that can't be fixed by a patch) i think the game will be solid upon release, thanks impart to some of you. I never have seen a game that actualy takes imput from the players and makes adjustments accordingly to the software. I think it's pretty nice.

[Battlefront.com]

Skipper,

Yeah, the problem is that rocket artillery gets its effectiveness from mass not from accuracy. Unfortunately, mass is not something you want to see in a CM sized game In reality rocket artillery was generally used for prepatory bombardments which are outside of CM's scale. There are exceptions of course, which is partly why we allowed rocket artillery into the game. The other reason is people would yell us until we put them into a patch

For fun take a premade scenario, go into the Editor, and give the Germans a ton of rocket artillery spotters. The effect will be quite differnt than what you experienced! Hehe... that actually sounds like so much fun I might just do that myself

Steve

P.S. From my own use I would say that rocket artillery is far more effective when used against built up urban areas. Much greater chance of causing damage and casualties than out in the open.

[Grisha]

Speaking of preparatory fire missions and the ability of setting up depleted units in CMBB. I was wondering, has anyone set up a test scenario in CMBO to determine what sort of casualties would occur from a massive bombardment of a fortified position? You know, deploy a company with AT assets in fortified positions, then hammer the position for, say, 15 turns with a wide assortment of heavy and rocket artillery? I think I'll try this tomorrow after work, maybe 2 tests, one rural setting, and the other, urban.

[ 01-07-2002: Message edited by: Grisha ]</p>

[Grisha]

Okay, did a late war Soviet assault artillery prep type mission on a German infantry company. Had roughly a regiment of artillery(155mm gun & 4.2in. mortar) hitting a default-size map. Germans also had 2 wood MG bunkers, a concrete MG pillbox, and 2 AT guns. All were in foxholes and hiding. I spent 10 turns barraging the place off of 3 TRP's with some shifting of fire to saturate the entire defensive line. In one scenario the Germans were in woods, in another they were in brush with conifers to the rear. In either case, it didn't matter. Losses were horrendous - in one scenario, of the German company only 17 men were still effective, the concrete pillbox was abandoned and one wood bunker took a direct hit, destroying it. This was pretty much the norm too. It was grim watching it all happen. I involuntarily groaned as I watched German squads break and make a run for it, then take a direct hit from 155mm.

Frankly, I think I'll have to wait for CMBB to test average losses, since trenches are better protection from artillery than foxholes. At least I'm hoping so.

[James Crowley]

Will the AI use TRP's and prep. bombardment in CMBB, specifically in QB's?

Currently it does not appear to use TRP's in CMBO.

With the importance of soviet artillery, this would be a major deficiency.

[TSword]

Sorry beside your very interesting conversation i have a question regarding Ari in CMBB:

With unobserved fire does the incoming rounds still only scatter more instead of substantial deviation from aimingpoint but same scatter pattern as with observed fire ? (Something really annoying in CMBO)

Are there also "patterns" available like say a walking barrage (Fire more or less in lineabreast walking foreward) ?