Proposed Cover-based MG firepower modifier

[JasonC]

It is probably too late for this to make it in to CMBB, but I can hope. In discussions past, BTS has made it clear that changes to things like rush behavior, and also the possibility of "hot gun" changes in MG rate of fire, will be made in CMBB. I welcome those changes and can't wait to see them.

I have stumped in the past for an MG firepower modification system based on the targets cover or movement states, and others have stumped for MG fire lanes. Some of these suggestions may have been too complicated to impliment easily. Here I make one more stab at a simple system, meant to enhance the ability of MGs to deny areas of open ground more effectively, without making them uber-weapons in all other circumstances.

The thought behind the system is that CM already has a variable that pretty accurately tracks the vunerability of targets to penetrating, grazing fire effects. That being, % exposure. Units without much cover present much more ample opportunities to "skewer" multiple targets along the same line of fire. Units with good cover present few opportunities to do so, as concealment of targets farther back prevent intelligent aiming with this end in mind, and more solid cover stops bullets from penetrating at all.

In addition, target facing also captures such effects. A unit hit in flank presents a denser target for grazing fire than one spread out across the axis of fire, oriented on the MG, and making maximum use of available local cover in that direction. The historical practice of sighting MGs for interlocking fire from different angles was meant to exploit this, and make it harder to find cover from the bullets from one of the set of defending MGs. CM already models fire taken through a flank as having greater morale effect, so it tracks this issue already.

So the overall idea is to use a system based on these two existing program capabilities, coupled to a simple formula modifying MG firepower. It would apply as a special ability only to crew-served automatic weapons.

"Flank Flag" is set to 1 if the fire is not taken through the front 90 degrees (45 degrees left or right of unit facing). The FlankCoefficient is simply 1 plus Flank Flag, thus either 1 (not flanking fire) or 2 (flanking fire). It is a straight multiplicative factor in the effect modeled below. Basically, the MG grazing fire bonus is doubled if the fire is through a flank.

The basic grazing fire bonus is 2 * ((exposure) ^ 2). This is then multiplied by the flanking coefficient. Thus, 10% exposure produces a 2% grazing fire bonus - too small to matter. 50% exposure produces a 50% grazing fire bonus.

Thus, men in brush cover will take 1.5x the base MG FP for shots through their forward arc. They will take 2x the base MG FP for shots through their flank or rear.

The results the formula will produce for various common CM exposure values, in table form, would look like this -

100% exposure (pavement e.g.) - 3x FP forward arc, 5x FP flank

70% exposure (open ground) - 2x FP forward arc, 3x FP flank

50% exposure (brush) - 1.5x FP forward arc, 2x FP flank

25% exposure (scattered trees) - 1.13x FP forward arc, 1.25x FP flank

15% exposure (woods) - 1.05x FP forward arc, 1.09x FP flank

10% exposure (stone buildings) - 1.02x FP forward arc, 1.05x FP flank

As you can see, the grazing fire bonus becomes significant as the % exposure rises to around 50%. For high exposures, it makes a large difference, and the additional effect of flanking fire becomes serious.

Units under decent cover are not blown away by runaway rate of fire effects, so MGs are not uber-weapons. But they will chew up units in open ground much more effectively than they do in CMBO.

Combined with altered "rush" behavior, you should see attacks without cover falter in the face of a few HMGs much more often. If defending MGs can be suppressed, advances across open ground can still proceed, of course. And it is easier to rush one MG than two firing from converging angles.

All without needing any detailed fire lane planning on the part of players or the AI, and without any cumbersome new system tied to movement states. The variables used - exposure and flank or front facing - are already tracked. All that is needed is a flag for crew-serve automatic weapons, and a short intermediate subroutine when the flag is on.

For what it is worth.

P.S. If testing shows the effect is too large, one can just drop the leading 2 from the formula. That would halve all the grazing fire bonuses, throughout the range of exposures. The open ground numbers would look like the brush numbers above, and the pavement numbers would look like the open ground numbers above.

[ February 04, 2002, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Thomm]

Originally posted by JasonC:

A unit hit in flank presents a denser target for grazing fire than one spread out across the axis of fire ...

Doesn't this concept rely too heavily on the idea that the unit maintains a specific formation, namely `line'?!

[Thomm]

I think that flanking fire should result in higher exposure numbers depending on the position of the soldiers (prone, standing) and the nature of the cover (building -> little influence, trees -> strong influence). Unless the precise meaning of the term "firepower" is revealed it is maybe inappropriate to suggest specific changes to this value.

[JasonC]

No it doesn't rely on assuming the men are in line. To see this, try arranging 10 dots in any pattern you like, and see whether you can draw a line through the pattern of dots that "skewers" 2 or 3 dots. See if any pattern you can come up with that avoids easy skewering from one particular direction, manages to avoid it from another direction rotated 90 degrees from the first.

It can't be done. A line is the narrowest against fire from directly ahead, but thickest against fire from a side. Anything that reduces thickness from the side allows more skewering from the front than a line, and never gets rid of skewering entirely. All that is necessary is for the line of fire to pass through the squad formation - whatever that is.

Which means the only thing that really helps is cover to break the LOS of the MG, before it passes clear through the squad formation. Thus, cover state is the right variable to model how easy it is to get multiplied firepower from grazing fire effects.

And the effect of cover is more pronounced against grazing automatic weapons fire, than against aimed fire at individuals. (Otherwise put, poor cover is a "twofer" for MGs - easier to hit the first guy, and to hit guys behind him with the same line of fire).

The differential for fire from the front as opposed to the sides primarily reflects chosing individual squad member placements to exploit local cover. Local cover is always somewhat directional, in the sense that you are on this side of that rock or tree or window, or on that side of it, etc. Put a few trees or rocks or depressions in your little dot diagram and this is obvious enough.

You can use local cover to break up long lines of grazing fire through the formation, more easily in one direction. (Fire is from the east, you get on the west side of rocks. Fire doesn't penetrate the formation). If you then are hit from a different, unexpected direction, the local squad member placements you have chosen will not be the best against the new direction of fire.

Thus, grazing fire multiplies firepower of automatic weapons against targets without good cover, and more effectively the worse the cover available is. And it also is more effective when the target is not expecting the incoming direction of fire, than when it is deployed to reduce grazing effects from that direction (which means facing it).

The effect is thus realistic, but it does not require playing draftsman with fire zones, or coding whole new procedures. MGs just hurt guys in the open more, especially if they aren't facing that MG. Which therefore boosts considerably the ability to deny open ground with multiple MGs firing from different angles. Which is what full fledged fire lanes would accomplish, but can be implimented much more easily.

[Charlie Rock]

While conceptually what you are saying makes sense, it falls short in terms of scale.

When fired in a burst, a machine gun usually sprays its rounds in a cone of fire 2-3 mils wide, or approximately 1-2 meters wide at 500 meters. On flat ground this is grazing fire of up to 900 meters in length. While firing into a unit or squad icon is more effective and should be more effective from the flank, you are firing into an area that is approx 30-50 meters wide and 10-20 meters deep.

A US Rifle company had only two tripod mounted guns per company. Same with the Germans. Bipod mounted guns are less easy to model. In the defense you would place your guns to the flanks, secure their flanks with BARs or MG42s on bipods, and they would be responsible for an FPL of approx 200-300 meters.

As I understand, the new feature will be a covered arc, and the machine gun will be able to jump from target to target ,more rapidly.

If you orient the gun at a 60 degree angle to your main line of resistance and give it a narrow arc, than if it can jump from target to target within that arc rapidly enough to simulate an FPL, then that would be great.

If you are firing at a squad you are not using the precision of the system to its fullest effect, and there is really no difference between a HMG or an LMG or a group of SMGs, or riflemen for that matter.

The hardest thing to replicate, and is a coding problem as I understand, is to model the penetration factor of grazing fire so you can interlock your weapons.

If a machine gun fires flanking fire into one squad and inflicts 50% or 200% or 300% more damage, while the other two squads run by on flat ground, that is not a good model.

If given a narrow sector of fire it engages the three squads and fixes them or shakens them before any can run out of the arc, than that's a good model.

I think the issue is how well the new model can inflict damage on widely spaced targets along generally the same azimuth with varying ranges, not how well the point to point damage results.

Obviously this is predicated on flat ground.

[JasonC]

No, the problem is not widely space targets, as has been extensively discussed before based on detailed tests. If you really haven't followed any of the discussion, then you have precious little to say about it, I am sorry to say.

The single units hit by HMG fire in the middle of wide areas of open ground today, are not appreciably hurt by that fire. Spreading the same low firepower out over more units does not solve the problem, which is that the level of FP doesn't hurt them to begin with. It is not the case that rushes depend on some targets remaining unengaged to be effective.

The *engaged* targets are rarely hurt by one MG, or hurt seriously, especially before the range falls to less than 100 meters. (And once that close, attacker replies can suppress the MGs and the assault typically succeeds).

If the target hit can be hurt - by higher firepower - then existing targeting procedures, which heavily favor the nearest target among those similarly exposed, will ensure that MGs switch from one target to another in the course of a long assault. If the MG team has to rotate only slight angles to hit successive targets, it can do this without wasting time for shots rotating instead of firing.

None of that is what is broken. What is broken is, an HMG fires at a squad 250 yards away in open ground, and the squad doesn't give a darn. A related issue, that is already going to be corrected, is that units fired on in the open typically accelerate to "run" immediately on taking fire. They thus tend to outdistance the rest of the attack.

This is what provides the illusion that the protection is due to limited targeting, since the units farther back aren't targeted. Which is not due to any target stickiness, but to mere inability to hurt anything, even pounding away repeatedly at the closest squad.

You can easily see this in testing, if you bother to look at what actually happens in CM today, instead of just thinking about idealized fire lane behavior. Just set up a regular company to "move" at a couple of HMGs, set to give converging fire ahead of their destination position.

There is no burning need to model simultaneous fire effects on multiple seperated units, which is a programming, player, and especially a tactical AI nightmare. Playing draftsman on the fly is not the point. That is for the members of the MG team to worry about, not the player-commander.

What is needed is an increase in MG firepower at units in the open, and a tendency of units fired at hard enough to go to ground. Then MGs will hit the foremost unit, hard, it will go to ground due to the fire effect. The MG will then switch targets as another unit draws out in front, rotating through a small angle to do so. And hit it in turn. The result should be more damage, and especially more stopping of the advance.

Nothing that spreads out the existing FP will do that. Right now, a squad that runs straight *up* a "firelane", *lengthwise* (meaning, is the target of every shot), is not appreciably hurt by it. And if the fp is multiplied to the point where it does become effective at stopping targeted units, then spreading it over the attackers will happen automatically, when sensible, with the existing targeting routines.

So there is no burning need for the complexity of literal fire lanes, which would not solve anything anyway if the overall FP effect was not increased as well, in impact on each unit hit. And if there is such an increase (in more open ground only), then that complexity isn't needed. It isn't an "inability to spread out existing FP" problem at all.

But other solutions to the firepower problem - like simply increasing MG rate of fire, or increasing MG rate of fire as the range drops, have unwelcome side effects compared to the proposed system.

ROF based increased in effective FP are not tied to target cover state. They would therefore increase MG firepower against men in woods, buildings, etc. Across the board. The FP "envelope" of MGs would be steeper, making them nastier close by, instead of acting as long range weapons especially effective in open areas.

And no, rifles are not in the same situation as MGs, in the benefits of grazing fire. If a rifle bullet hits the man aimed at, that is the end of its effective trajectory. And if it does not, its chance of hitting anybody else is miniscule.

Neither is the case for a 25-40 round, 2-3 second MG burst, which has more than enough bullets to hit several men along the same trajectory, and spreads then enough to easily achieve hits on targets not explicitly aimed at. This effect requires the long bursts only belt-fed MGs with plenty of ammo can afford.

From the level of comment this post as received, I am not at all optimistic that anything like it will be used. But I can hope.

[Battlefront.com]

Well Jason...

While I am not disagreeing that we should look at some of the existing variables, I think you are still totally missing the boat in terms of where the SERIOUS shortcomings are in CMBO right now. I find it ironic that if Charlie Rock is so ignorant of previous discussions, as you so pompously claim, how he could have a more firm grip on this issue than you, who has probably typed up 10,000 words or more over the course of the last year.

There are several compounding problems in CMBO right now. There is no silver bullet solution as you so plainly believe in. Now, I admit that I haven't played CMBO in a while, and instead play with the new modeling in CMBB instead. My guess is that you will still find my opinion less valid than yours, but I'm going to express it anyway

The problems in CMBO that we fixed are as follows:

Problem - units running were given far too much cover for the speed in which they were traveling. The more open the terrain, the larger the number of units Running, and the fewer enemy units firing... the more noticeable this is. Since cover affects morale, this in effect gave a morale bonus to running units which should not have been there.

Solution - changed Run so that it is an all out, upright, sprint. No cover in open terrain and no ability to return fire (except at VERY close range by full auto stuff). Assault is a new order which more accurately simulates fire and move tactics within the squad.

Problem - target fixation. A unit in CMBO was too prone to selecting a single target and remaining fixed on it, even after it was combat ineffective (at least temporarily). This does not make sense for MGs because their job was to suppress as many targets as possible, not hammer one individual target until it was eliminated.

Solution - MGs, and to a lesser extent squads, are now much more prone to whacking a target until it is suppressed, then move on to whack another target. In this way if a single HMG is presented with 3 targets rushing it from different angles, it will attempt to knock all three down to the ground. In CMBO you could safely attack from three directions and be assured that the lone HMG would be knocked out while only risking one of your three squads.

Problem - spraying fire not simulated enough. In CMBO if you clump three squads together and fire one MG at it, all three will drop. If you spread them out a few meters, only one will drop.

Solution - In real life the gunner, especially using a tripod, could rake targets left and right, front to back quite easily. So we simply extended out the radius of effect from the target area.

Problem - fixed rate of fire. Currently MGs, and all units in fact, practice highly disciplined rates of fire (depending on Experience). However, one of the unique benefits of a MG (especially a belt fed one) was its ability to lay down a huge volume of fire for a sustained period of time if need be. Obviously ammo supply, jams, barrel changing, etc. come into play so the kind of fire I am talking about was saved for exceptional situations. But at the moment, MGs do not get to go "all out" when the exceptional becomes reality.

Solution - MGs, and to an extent squads, now have variable rates of fire as units get closer. Couple this with the target fixation fix, and you will see "final defensive fire" that will make your blood curdle I watched a full company laid waste while attacking a single unsuppressed HMG42 over open terrain using the new Run command. The closer they got, the worse it became. In CMBO this sort of thing would be impossible to have happen because the closer they got the better it would be. I don't recall the statistical outcome, but the entire company was a write off and the HMG suffered (I think) 1 casualty.

Problem - MGs were traditionally assigned specific vectors/areas to concentrate their fire upon. This allowed them to have "firelanes", which in turn could be overlapped and combined with other weapons to form very nasty kill zones. But in CMBO you can not be assured that such things will happen unless terrain, luck, and the enemy's advance rout basically all present favorable circumstances. Otherwise, HMGs and the like would spin around and try to plink whatever they felt like, even if the main attack was not being targeted.

Solution - Covered Arcs. Now any unit can be ordered to only engage units in a specifc arc and range from its current position. The degree that a unit does this depends on Experience and circumstances. This is especially useful for MGs because now the player can plot overlapping fields of fire and be reasonably assured that they will lay down fire as instructed. That means all of the above Solutions can be focused on a particular patch of ground, which highlights and maximizes their effectiveness.

-----

OK, all done explaining the big changes The point is that the problem was not a simple one to fix. Boosting or lowering a variable or two, as Jason suggests, would not have changed the core behavior. At best it would have simply punished a single unit a bit more than in CMBO. Not good enough since the problems professional soldiers and well read historians have noticed would have remained evident in CMBB just as much as in CMBO. Jason, you are certainly no dummy, so I am really puzzled to understand why you do not understand why a near complete overhaul was necessary instead of what ammounts to your variable tweak suggestion.

The one thing that CMBB is going to still have problems with is a simulation of true "grazing fire". Unfortunately, this is impossible for us to simulate with the hardware CMBB will be played on. We would have to do vector based outgoing fire for each and every single weapon instead of the poinpoint type fire system we have now. In other words, we would have to trace the path of each shot from origin to wherever it would likely stop, checking each partial meter along the way to see if it came into contact with something. Quite simply put... even the 2GHz systems out there would choke on this if there were anything more than a mild firefight. Therefore, we must continue to use our point based fire system where the rounds leave the shooting unit and magically appear in or around the target area. Nothing inbetween can be checked for. That is just the reality of hardware limitations, as the coding is actually quite simple.

Steve

[JasonC]

I understand all the proposed changes, and I agree they will fix one part of the problem - infantry overruns of MGs. They will marginally improve other aspects of the problem (run behavior, etc). The ROF solution, however, will also have an unintended tactical side effect - making MGs more effective against nearby men in good cover, not just against overruns. And the ability of MGs to deny areas of open ground at medium range will remain minimal. Depending on how steeply the ROF increases are concentrated on the short end, proper assault tactics will also remain effective against them.

The no cover running change is welcome. It effectively raises FP 43% for men running in the open (70% cover before, 100% now). That is the same sort of effect I was after, but restricted to runners. If they assault, at move speed, then FP against them is unaltered. And I have simulated and reported to you many times, the result of move speed assaults on MG positions, and their success.

One might think - 43% more if running, and twice the time if not, means a big increase in effective MG firepower. It is in the right direction certainly, and so will certainly help. But at the longer ranges, 200-500m, more firing occasions will typically not result in a smashed or pinned attack. Because small FP fire attacks repeated, do not kill people and break squads. They push them to "altered", occasionally "cautious", and rarely hit 1-2 men. They recover in seconds. Presumably the ROF is not appreciably increased at the longer ranges, since you say the hot-gun stuff is tied to range, and especially noticable in short range, final protective fire.

It is certainly the case that higher ROF close will prevent actual overruns of working MGs, and that is a change and most welcome. But infantry doesn't have to literally overrun MGs for assaults to succeed, in CM today. Closing to around 100-150 yards and then firing until the MGs are suppressed, is quite sufficient. Actually closing to grenade or close-combat range can be deferred until the MG has heads down.

I have conducted such simulated attacks before and reported the results of them to you. This is a more realistic picture of assault on MG positions, and so it is welcome. But it still means closing from 500 yards to effective small arms range is perfectly feasible and relatively cheap. And that is all that infantry needs to defeat MG fire-plan defenses.

It is the ability of MGs to pin attackers in the outer part of their range envelope - thus *before* the reply fire becomes terribly effective, when the MGs cover is taken into account but also the attackers numbers - that remains unaddressed. My proposal was meant to address not just MG overruns, the last 100 yards and FFP, but the approach to small arms range.

Then you say part of the problem was target fixation, firing on a unit already blasted to heck and gone, and thus wasting firepower needed to deal with other units of the assault. The problem is, this is not what happens in CM today. The unit the MG fixates on is *not* trashed, until very close range. It is not a case of overkill, as though one squad is not only broken but completely blown away. It isn't blown away in the first place, even taking *all* the fire, from 500 to 150 yards.

The spray area effect is also welcome and in the right direction, because it will mitigate against "bum's rush" concentrations of men. Again, to the extent that the whole problem was limited to infanty overruns of function MGs, it is well addressed. But this will make little difference in medium and long range MG fire, at troops that have room to spread.

The covered arcs are great, and I am glad to have them, for this and for many other things. They may reduce silly spinning by defending MGs sometimes. But that is rarely the critical issue in assault on MG defenses, especially against linear MG defenses and while the ranges are still long.

Overall, I expect the set of changes being implimented to be improvements, which will address part of the problem, leave part as it is, and also have unintended side effects in one area. The part addressed very well will be infantry overruns of working MGs. The part left basically as it is will be the ability of a few MGs to deny areas of open ground at medium to long range. The unintended side effect will be high ROF short range blasting at nearby enemies in full cover, instead of rushing the MG or in open ground. Which will tend to make MGs less long range weapons, and more like slower ordinary infantry, in the "steepness" of the rise in their effective firepower with range.

What my proposal was meant to do, along with all the changes you outline expect one, was to largely replace the ROF "hot-gun" tweak. Instead of higher firepower at short range and the same at long range, regardless of target cover, you would have higher firepower at targets in poor cover, regardless of range.

All of the movement changes, covered arc changes, spray fire changes, target fixation changes - would be the same. You might even leave a smaller ROF increase at close range too, to simulate FFP hot guns and address direct overrun. Preferably very close by, and not too steep. But in addition, FP increases tied to target exposure, including at medium to long range.

The difference between the ROF solution and the exposure formula solution, is that the former leaves the ability of infantry to walk through long-range MG fire, even in the open, largely unchanged. They can't run, yes. But they can walk or assault-move, and in the process will take a few "alerted" results from which they will recover - as now.

In addition, the ROF solution lets MGs be used as "assault guns" against troops in heavy cover, if they can be maneuvered close enough to start getting hot-gun ROF increases. This may be hard enough not to matter. I merely mention it to point out that the ROF solution's FP effects are not restricted to cases of overrun attempts, or targets in the open, or running attackers.

Whereas, the exposure tweak instead, would equally increase FP against rushers in the open nearby. Short range MG firepower is already higher. Multiplied by the exposure factors provided, it would still be higher. So you'd see many of the deadly results of FFP you do see in CMBB now. Overruns are addressed, and well addressed, in either case.

But in addition, area denial at medium to long range would be increased with the exposure-linked grazing fire bonus, while it is left alone by the range-linked ROF solution.

BTS has well addressed the infantry overrun issue. The improvements in movement and fire arcs are welcome, and I certainly did not intend my FP tweak in place of them. It is meant to be in addition to them, in place of a purely short-ranged based ROF multiplier.

It was also, incidentally, meant to be a constructive and workable proposal, not at all as carping. I haven't written 10,000 plus words on the subject over the last year, performed scores of CM tests and reported the results to you, and made half a dozen proposals about possible changes (as close to pseudo code as I could get it), in order to carp. Carping is a lot easier than that.

I am quite aware that full fire-lane grazing fire mechanics would be unworkable. I tried to present an easily implimentable system instead, that would capture the multiplier effects of grazing fire at medium and long ranges. As long as the enemy is in the open - thus the tie-in to target exposure.

I also realize, and said at the outset, that I am aware this particular proposal may come too late to be practically useful for CMBB. If it is too late, I regret that. I am however at something of a loss why it would be considered unhelpful, whether you use any of it or prefer not to.

It is a workable suggestion with slightly different effects than the ROF approach to one part of the problem. It cannot possibly harm anything, as you are free to use it or not - it can only help if those effects (open at any range, vs. close in any cover) are desired.

[Ligur]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Well Jason...

Stuff about MGs.

Steve

This fired several typetantrums of "Wooot! Hooray!" and "Yay!" in IRC.

Great improvements.

[Battlefront.com]

Jason,

The part left basically as it is will be the ability of a few MGs to deny areas of open ground at medium to long range.

Having seen how all of the above changes play out... I can say that this concern of yours is not one I share. From what I have seen (haven't tested this aspect specifically for months now) MGs are more effective at all ranges, not just at short ones. Here are the reasons why:

1. The CMBO problem with suppression (at any range) has a lot to do with the use of the Run command. Units at further distances are able to cover more ground than they should, faster, and with less difficulty. By changing the Run order we have effectively eliminated this problem in one fell swoop.

Now the unit is well advised to use a slower, safer method than the current Run command. This means the unit will be exposed to more fire, especially in CMBB because of all the other changes made to MGs. Longer time exposed to higher levels of fire further away from its destination... boy, that sure doesn't add up to a pretty picture! And if the player opts to use the new Run command, and gets hit by the newly crafted behavior, it will likely be laid waste (at least morale wise) very quickly. If the unit is far away from the source of fire, chances are it will simply be pinned or forced back to better cover. If the unit starts out closer to the source of fire, it is likely to be mowed down.

2. As I stated above, we have changed the cover ratings for movement orders, which does escentially the same thing you are asking for. In other words, what you see as being a problem in CMBO was already identified as a problem by us and fixed. However, we fixed it by lowering the cover aspect instead of raising the firepower. Why? Because with all the other changes made, raising the firepower would have made things like MGs unrealistically lethal.

3. Although I didn't mention it above, we did in fact make a seperate morale modification system for MG fire. So yes, in CMBB we already have a system in place where MG fire is considered to be worse, from a morale/suppression standpoint, than the same firepower coming from mixed small arms. But we did this without increasing the firepower value of the MGs, rather by tweaking how that firepower affects the unit's morale/suppression.

The short of it is... what you are talking about is already accounted for through a combo of making MG firepower weighted more against morale/suppression, reducing cover, and creating more realistic MG behavior. If you are still unconvinced, you will just have to wait until CMBB is released to see for yourself.

Steve

[Keith]

Steve, what is the chance that some of these great enhancements will be retrofitted int CMBO after you wrap up CMBB?

[Battlefront.com]

Keith,

A Search will turn up probably a dozen detailed explainations better than this one:

No chance at all

At somepoint we will redo the Western Front, but it will be with the new engine, not the CMBB version of the original engine. It is a matter of time and resources. We do not have enough of either to retrofit without sacrificing forward motion on new stuff.

Steve

[MajorBooBoo]

I didnt read this whole thing but have one question:

Is cover tied to the troop quality? That is, would conscripts have less cover/more exposure than vets? This does have some basis in reality (where drills like spreading out take effect) and could nicely simulate WWI where a bunch of stiffs walk in HMG fire.

[Battlefront.com]

Use of cover is, like dozens of other things, tied to troop quality. Specific movement order is also a heavy factor.

Steve

[MajorBooBoo]

So if I tell conscripts to run in the open, its a blood fest?

[Spookster]

Originally posted by JasonC:

[QB]No, the problem is not widely space targets, as has been extensively discussed before based on detailed tests. If you really haven't followed any of the discussion, then you have precious little to say about it, I am sorry to say.

[QB]

JasonC,

This is what is getting you in trouble with the big boys. If you read this again, you will realize that you come across as terribly, terribly rude. People who reply to your often times rambling, never-ending posts should not be raked over the coals for taking the time to respond, no matter how ignorant you think they appear.

Anyway, now that I have your attention, my advice to you is: 1) Be concise when you write. You tend to reinforce points that are apparent or discuss topics that are better expressed elsewhere. In many of your posts you go into great detail about something or other when all you need to do is list one of the myriad of WWII websites covering the topic (e.g www.onwar.com). It will save you and all those who slave through your lengthy prose mucho time. You are a good writer, and I would love to read what you are thinking, but LESS is MORE. 2) Do not be so rude when somebody challenges your opinion. That is to say, do not throw darts at your dedicated, though eye-sore, audience; they just may decide to stop reading your future posts when they see your name in the title.

Cheers.

Spookster, of Liverpool

[Caesar]

Just trying to confirm something in the current game. If I arrange my units so that I am firing from more than one angle, i.e. I fire at the flank of my opponent as well as the front, does this affect their morale more than if I simply have two units firing from the one angle. Also, will it reduce their cover.

[Battlefront.com]

Caesar,

Yes. The flanks and rear are more "sensitive" and therefore hit the targeted unit's morale harder. However, hitting a unit once from the side is not generally going to do very much. You pretty much have to also hit it from some other direction. The more points of fire and the greater the difference between the points, the worse it is for the target.

Think of it in real world terms. If a unit takes a bit of fire from the left, it will likely pivot left and deal with it. If additional fire then comes from more towards the right, the unit will split the difference or rotate back and forth in an effort to to deal with both sources. This will make the unit more uncomfortable, but it should deal with it OK in most cases. But if some new fire comes from the far right or from directly behind the unit will have too much area to defend against and will generally not handle the situation well.

A unit which is being toasted from several directions will either be highly suppressed or will bugger out. I do not think cover is reduced (ooo... been a long time since someone asked me that!). However, since suppression simulates the individuals taking cover the more suppressed, the more the men are taking advantage of cover at the expense of returning fire, spotting, or being happy

Steve

[JasonC]

The increased exposure sounds great. And the increased pinning effect of MG fire may well go a long way toward halting attacks farther out in the range envelope of the MGs. I certainly do want to see how the changes all work, naturally.

If I might suggest one playtest to run, to see how the overall effect works, it would be as follows. Instead of simulating an overrun charge (which obviously works right with the changes made), try simulating a deliberate, cautious infantry attack on an MG based defense. (If they have infantry too, it isn't simulated).

Give the defenders 4 HMGs, in two seperated pairs, each pair with an HQ, but not a particularly good one (so e.g. +2 combat bonuses don't skew the test). They should be in foxholes in cover, scattered trees is enough.

Put an infantry company (regular, vanilla type) without support weapons about 500 yards away, mostly open ground, some wheat, brush, slight elevation changes only. Then move out with the company, headed for about 150 yards shy of the MG positions, assault move. Not on top of them, just to good rifle range. Try it with regulars, and then greens if you like.

When or if anyone gets to effective rifle range - 100-150 yards - halt them and just fire, trying to suppress the nearest pair of MGs. If not pinned or broken, move up another platoon alongside to swell the fire. Once the survivors of two platoons are more or less on-line, creep forward to 100 yards, walking one platoon at a time while the other just keeps firing. When both nearby MGs go heads-down (if they do), assign a single squad to rush to grenade range of each. If they manage to get that far.

The idea is to see if the combined changes (1) lead to a pinned down company at 300-400 yards, unable to advance further, (2) let some guys get to 150-200 yards, but not enough to outshoot the MGs, thus breaking the remainder of the attackers there, the attack thus failing, (3) many attackers get on-line, but lose the shoot-out even after reaching rifle range, perhaps encountering "hot gun" effects, or perhaps just depleted to much by the advance, or (4) get enough men on-line to suppress the MGs, and then manage to kill them closer in. Note which outcome, the losses taken, and the time it took.

I think a realistic result with little cover would be 1 with greens, perhaps 2 with regulars rather than greens. Even 3 would be a significant improvement, though, and would make MG area denial at range a more significant factor in CM tactics, which would be most welcome.

I hope this is helpful.

[ February 05, 2002, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Charlie Rock]

Once more into the breach....

As a practical matter, unless we are talking about a frontal assault into a heavy weapons company on line, (not a typical battle, or typical use of heavy weapons companies)a typical rifle company in the German army had only two HMGs.

But wait! Each squad had an LMG each. Many of the beaten zone, grazing fires become really less important in this case, as your average 19 year old has difficulty replicating the beaten zone/grazing fire/ final protective line effects when banging away using his bipod and shoulder minus the traversing and elevation gear.

As I recall, in a truly delightful bit of techno-German efficiency the German Laffette 34 or 42 Traversing/elevating gear had an "auto search" capability, where the recoil of the machine gun in battery would operate the T&E, cranking the barrel up a few mils between bursts. Which has nothing to do with anything, but I thought it was nifty. Gamey Germans

Well, here's a point:

If the german rifle company has a front of 300 meters, has two guns shooting along FPL's at a 60 degree angle to the front lines, then the intersection of these two FPLS should be approx 120 -130 meters out from the line of riflemen. If these guns can shake, pin, or panic an attacker for even 30 seconds to a minute, that is a minute that the riflemen in rifle squads with relatively inconsistent LMGs (who are positioned between the flank guns) have to inflict damage, hopefully while our attackers are in the open. This is also about where a TRP or two representing the mortar FPF should be doing it's job. So rapidly pinning and breaking the momentum of most of the attackers, and the one or two squads of fanatics that run the gauntlet will go down at point blank range by themselves.

Some additional firepower wouldn't hurt, but increasing firepower ratings vice less cover for running gets you to the same place; increased effects.. If you can fix the attacker in the open within 100 meters or so of your MLR, then your guns have done their job.

The primary target for an MG, once ordered to fire an FPL, is the FPL. After that, it is groups of 3-5+. I don't think you can reasonably test a rifle company vs 4 MGs unless you have included two platoons of riflemen with your MGs for engagement of point targets (individual pinned and shaken guys you see hiding in the grass) and securing the guns from anyone that trys to low crawl up and take out the MGs.

If you test four MGs vs a company and your company beat the four MGs, it is not the game's fault. Even in WWI, a rifle battalion of 600 Germans did not get 150 maxims.

A more realistic test would be four MGs plus two rifle platoons vs. six rifle platoons. At 3:1 odds that should be close.

I've seen quite a few scenario designers do this with an SMG platoon defending MG bunkers on their flanks and rear. I usually screw up attacking them; the piles of friendly causalties seem to stick in my mind.

[ February 06, 2002, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: Charlie Rock ]

[Battlefront.com]

I'll see about running a quick test Wednesday. However, I will go with a setup more akin to what Charlie Rock suggested. And that is a "typical" German platoon position being attacked by a "typical" company sized attack in or around the 1944 timeframe (so you compare with CMBO). I will rule out extra support weapons for both sides and put everything down on a map which is more or less favorable to defense (similar to what Jason described).

Should be intersting

[Iron Chef Sakai]

BTS should put some of the memebers of this forum on the payroll.

[Grisha]

Looking forward to it, Steve.

[Battlefront.com]

Ah.... couldn't wait, so I did a quick test

I set up on a randomly generated map and picked out a good place to start the Soviet attack. The area of advance was through some scattered trees and a wheat field, with the final advance section being open ground. The German troops were located in a small bunch of scattered trees and woods.

Soviets (Company sized force):

1 x Company HQ

2 x Maxim HMG

3 x Rifle Platoon

Germans (Platoon sized force):

1 x Company HQ

2 x HMG 42

1 x Rifle Platoon

All units were Green and no HQs had more than +1 of anything. The weapon choices were tough because so many support weapons should have been available to both forces, but that would be a little tough to deal with for this quick test. So many HMGs, mortars, and guns were excluded.

The German defenders were arranged with the three rifle Squads abreast with their Platoon HQ with two Squads and the Company HQ with the other. Both HMGs were positioned on the flanks, only slightly forward of the Platoon MRL (terrain dictated forward positing). I gave the three Squads slightly overlapping Covered Arcs out about 100m from their position. The two HMGs were given overlapping Covered Arcs over this same area.

The Soviets were arranged in a wedge formation, with one Platoon point, one trailing to the left flank and the other trailing to the right flank. The Company HQ was in the middle so that it had influence over all units. Each Platoon was formed up into a diamond, with the Platoon HQ forming the bottom tip. The entire formation was 75m wide by about 55m tall. Each Platoon occupied about 25m x 25m and the centers were generally about 45m apart. The two HMGs were positioned to the rear so that they could cover the advancing infantry. One of the HMGs couldn't get a bead on the German's right hand HMG42, but both had LOS to everything else.

The attack started with the Soviets advancing using the "Move" order. As they started to near the edge of the wheatfield, the German's right hand HMG opened up. Let us call this turn one. This was a tad bit too soon. Within a few seconds this position was being slammed with the firepower of two full platoons and one HMG. There was no HQ to steady it, so after only peppering a Soviet Squad or two it Panicked when it lost 2 men. It attempted to flee during the next turn and was mowed down.

On turn two I switched the Soviets over to the Assault order. They had about 120m to cover and were well rested. They sat for a while due to the C&C delay, but took no fire while they wiped out the German's right HMG42 as noted above. They then started their attack and were very quickly hit by the HMG42, but the turn ended before much happened.

On turn three the HMG42 was joined by the other three Squads. The Soviets were still moving forward, but were paying a lot of attention to the HMG42, as were both friendly HMGs. For a while the HMG42 managed to hold its own, beating up the majority of the point Platoon. The three German Squads were also peppering the others with fire.

Later in turn three the HMG42 took a casualty and decided it didn't like war any more than the other team. So it Panicked and hid in its foxhole. The German Platon and Company HQs began shooting at this point, while some of the Soviet Squads had been ordered to give covering fire instead of advancing.

However, the Soviet attack was totally beaten to a pulp. 2 Squads and 1 Platoon HQ eliminated, 3 Panicked, and every single unit had casualties. About 1/3 only a few, 1/3 2-3, and 1/3 4 or more. Four Squads had pulled back to the wheatfield where the Company HQ was, another was trying to make for cover along with 2 Panicked Squads. Meanwhile, the right most German Squad took one casualty.

By the end of turn four the attack was totally dead. A Squad and HQ made it to the German MRL, to be met with final defensive fire and hand grenades. That did them in quite nicely. One mostly panicked Platoon (Soviet left) pulled off to the woods on the German's right flank, but were combat ineffective. The remains of the Soviet middle and right Platoons were clustered in the Wheatfield around the Company HQ. This force was roughly equal to a Platoon in size, but largely combat ineffective.

I am tired so I gave both sides a Casefire to see what the score was:

Out of 144 Soviet soldiers, 70 were casualties

Out of 51 German soldiers, 8 were casualties (6 from one team)

Conclusion... even though the German HMGs were largely neutralized before they could do much, the attention they attracted took the heat off of the 3 LMGs and other guys in the three Rifle Squads. This at first didn't look like it was going to be good for the Germans, but with all that massed firepower at 100m and less, there was little the Soviet Platoons could do but get mowed down. So even though I was at first worried for the Germans after they lost their HMGs, this quickly changed as the casualties and morale problems started adding up from the fire of the German Squads. It then became quickly apparent that no WAY was this attack going to do anything but retreat in shambles.

What does this prove? Eh... not much. It is an artificial test at best. However, if people look over the above and picture how this would have happened in CMBO with Americans attacking the same German force... I think you will get an idea about how differently CMBB will play out

Steve

[JasonC]

I thank you for the account, but you are right it doesn't prove much. Largely because you altered just about everything, and so tested whether a platoon in foxholes can hold off a bum rush once it gets inside 100m (the answer is yes - good! but that wasn't the original question). Notice how you planned the whole defense for shooting at 100m?

The fellow who didn't like the 4 HMGs is still thinking western Europe. In Russia, no, a German company does not have to defend only 300 yards of frontage. It gets to defend more like 1000 yards, sometimes more. Typically by using strongpoints, more tightly deployed, yes. But the heavy weapons - HMGs especially, and a few 81mm mortars - have to cover the areas between the strongpoints. Usually by interlocking with the fire zones of the MGs of strongpoints on either side. Crazy Ivan does not have to charge the strongpoints unless they can reach out and hurt him.

And no, it is not sound assault tactics to try to rush a dug in platoon from 100 yards. I thought I explained that the last time, but evidently the joy of watching dumb rushes die is too strong to resist. The attackers should stop at 150 yards (if they can get there - sounds like the answer there was an emphatic "yes") and just shoot, until many of the defenders go heads-down. Then and only then, creep to 100 yards. Shoot some more. Gang up on people at first, then put something on everybody once the heads have gone done.

It is not physical presence that takes ground. The bayonet is not the idea at all. It is fire ascendency that takes ground. If a more-or-less intact company can get to 150 yards from the defenders, then they can just shoot them to broken, and only rush afterward to mop up.

Also, the company deployment was way, way too tight for the number of men. Platoons on 25m? The whole company packed into 75m? 75m is more like how spread out a single platoon should be (40m minimum), with up to that much between them too. The company wants to "crescent" around the strongpoint, to get flanking fire itself. Not bunch up into a bayonet and try to stab the defending platoon.

I'd also like to see German infantry in a deliberate attack on Russian MGs. Because the German HMG teams have the highest FP ratings and are thus the smallest problem; it is really the water-cooled Vickers type that have the biggest problem in CM as it is today. Perhaps I will just have to wait until BB is out to run the tests my way - lol.