How powerful is modern HE?

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by dan/california:

In support of the theory that better fighting positions are just better targets I would like to point out that the first 120mm laser guided mortar rounds have been shipped to Iraq for final combat testing. So if your position can't hide from the IR in a Raven drone or stop that little new toy from coming thru the roof it is going to be a short uncomfortable ride to paradise. It called the XM-395 I believe. It would appear that the X is short lived at this point too.

In the spirit of not seeming to be a complete fan boy I must point out that Charles horribly, woefully behind in simulating both of these wonderful pieces of technology.

Yeah. That's why foxhole with topcover is much better than trench It gives even good level of camoflage against IR, as well as traditional optics. Only thing foxhole with top cover does worse than trench is offering field of fire... well that depends of how topcover is done and how well field of fire of foxhole-group is designed.

Ofcourse if we are discussing about troops like Syrian militia without strong missileweaponry or MBTs, then their positions should be positioned so that US can't fire or spot them from longer than 300-200 meters ranges (at ground level atleast). Yes i've studied closely subjects which are discussing about light infantry force dealing with mechaniced opponents. My past unit is (was) likely to face this kind setup and it's trying to achieve everykind bonus it can to get, cut down enemy firepower etc. But terrain is 100% different than in Syria, so idon't know how much of this applies to our beloved Syria.

Other thing: How much US will have these kinds of laser quided things? More than timed fuzes for theor tradiotinal HE-shells? I doupt it quite much and i doupt how well they will hit to spot. Good foxhole with topcover (or should we say mousehole) can be destoryed if 152mm grenade hits inside few meters from foxhole. Plus adding additional decoys, which are simple to produce. This all lifts Syrian sides capacity to face US firepower. It won't manage to overcome it, but cut down loses drastically, forces US either waste their ammo or go around (which itself won't destory defender, more effort is needed).

Foxholes with topcover against trench, and out beloved foxhole will win. It gives stealth value at low cost and it's easy to achieve: Put blanket over foxhole, support it with few sticks and shovel some sand on it, then just pray that it will last (this is dirty cheap). Foxhole then can be made so that it gives good resistance to everything but direct hit from big shell, if one has capasity to put effort and resources to it. this can be issue in Syria, but there are locations where this is smart move to make. Expacely with everything which is related to AT, leaders, other heavy weapons systems which basically determes how battel turns out.

And most of all: Combatant isn't forced to stay in his foxhole even if it has been constructed by using sweat(dear god!). They are not having heavy ironweights in their legs and sign in wall of foxhole saying: "Those who run will be shot. If that is not enough they will be shot again."

Keep war as manuverous you want, but fact is: if there time and resources to make foxhole with topcover, then do it. When i take shovel to my hand and start digging, no one isn't taking my legs and vehicle because of that, right?

But it's Battlefront's decicion. There's good reason that this ain't in top of their priority list. But still...

Damn. This was long post.

EDIT: And loaded with typos... As usual.

[ January 20, 2008, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

Secondly, would it be any fun?

More fun than calling in anything from VT 81mm mortars and watching the defenders die in 30 seconds in the mass graves they've thoughtfully dug for themselves.

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Er... can't a guy discuss elaborate maginot line-nonsense with the people that are asking me about it without getting sniped at by someone who wants just foxholes?

No, because that's what the guys in the foxholes do best. And we're darn bored in here after Mahmud went to catch the butterfly he needed to complete his collection and got shot by the infidels. And he had our gameboy!

1. You can simulate foxholes using craters

2. You can not simulate overhead cover. I'd like to see a battalion on the move carry enough materials, or find them locally, to get everybody in under cover on the fly without the US noticing.

Having said that, I am not philosophically opposed to having more detailed foxhole treatment. It just isn't on the list of priorities.

That's the crux, isn't it. You cannot provide the red side (or blue side but that's besides the point) with any protection against VT arty whatsoever.

For your 2nd point, what's the materials needed? Spades? Sweat? Pairs of hands? Something you can pile stuff on top of (plastic and corrugated steel has been suggested)

Just as a clarification, my idea of "top cover" isn't having the entire trench/foxhole covered but rather having small mouseholes where two guys can hunker down that have top protection so you don't get wiped out by VT arty. Obviously you don't do any fighting when you're holed up and if you're too slow on the uptake when you can hear the shells you end up donating your stock of chocolate to the rest of the guys afterwards.

That sort of thing gives you waaaaaaaay more survivability in face of US arty than the mass graves provided right now do. And it doesn't take much in the way of resources at all. If you have capability of digging a hole in the ground, you've already done most of the job.

Yup, already mentioned that "small flaw" in my theoretical argument

Well, sorry, but you went on for long time about what they "should do" on a premise that's impossible to start with. Arming the civilians is impossible for reasons stated elsewhere. And you need a standing army to keep your good friends Israelis, Turks and Iraqis on THEIR side of the border even when political pressure calls for high-profile action against "external threat".

And, well, as pointed out, you need to have enough formations that enterprising colonels cannot stage coup d'etat too easily.

Look, if a Syrian Battalion or Regiment digs in, and magically finds all the resources it needs to get overhead cover (sandbags do not provide overhead cover!), you have yourself a fortified defensive line, do you not? And if you do, then everything I said applies. It gets spotted, it is pounded into oblivion by air and artillery, or simply bypassed until it is sufficiently irrelevant.

Sandbags are good for stopping schrapnel, thought. So you have to go back to using good old dirt-moving way of pounding your opponent to submission instead of wiping them out with less time than it takes to arrange that arty mission.

What would happen if a US mixed infantry/armor force came upon a significant nest of resistance that was dug in beyond what CM already allows for (trenches, "foxholes", and bunkers)? The answers are:

1. Assault WWI style and get very bloody

2. Assault WWII style with combined arms and get fairly bloody

3. Call in organic artillery and attached air assets to obliterate the defenses then either mop up or bypass

Yup. So from the POV of a Syrian Major, you have an option of making the invaders expend more time and effort while making your men survive longer and having better change of actually fighting back without expending meaningful amounts of extra work and effort. Would you take it?

The alternative is NOT putting any effort into making shelters to the trenches/foxholes and allowing the blue side to butcher your men with organic 81mm mortar shells.

Hey! You from the syrian army intel who bought this game! I hope you're taking notes!

Continuing on with the points raised above... what is standard US doctrine for dealing with such a situation? I already know the answer and have stated it over and over again... call in heavier indirect fire NOT assault CM style.

See? You have to actually call in some heavier firepower. As in make an actual effort and delay the advance. And if you just drive past, you risk exposing your supply lines afterwards, assuming their soldiers actually want to fight for their country instead of waiting for any excuse to go home. That is assuming they have SOME way of coordinating things, which can be a single guy in a town with a cell phone, map and a pair of binoculars.

But it has to be it happens in bite sized pieces, with each battle representing one small piece. And I have to say that most of those pieces, from a wargamer's perspective, will be boring as Hell. That's a much larger discussion and is far beyond just foxholes with overhead cover or not.

I'm just speaking for myself, but hosing down helpless opponents without having to expand any planning, coordination or, well, thought is boring as hell for me. I'm not asking for scenarios where the blue side is on the losing end as you already claimed in a previous thread, I'd just like to see the blue side having to try a bit harder as they'd have to do in real life against an opponent with a real life desire of not getting killed after 30 seconds after being spotted.

[Secondbrooks]

Naah. They are carving mugs, lamp's pedestals, making rings, building chur-... Mosques from building materials they receive. Infidels won't come, no need to keep on digging.

Damn! This sounds bit too familiar...

[Pandur]

I'd just like to see the blue side having to try a bit harder as they'd have to do in real life against an opponent with a real life desire of not getting killed after 30 seconds after being spotted.

i think here you bump into the problem that this would bust all the 30 minutes scenarios -> the fast RT action(sorry, had to say this, imagine some kind of joke )

the dicussion was held some time befor in the CMSF forums, its like the russians in CMBB, in some way they inherently sucked, not too bad but still.

now in CMSF the "russians" suck big time and they feel artificaly held at that place, to suck as soon as the US is comming around.

they cant send abdulah onto the roof to fire his RPG for example. also if this action would support this specific squad, as the doctine seems to say.

if i "cannot" move the RPG team further than, lets say, 3-5 action spots from the group, wich could be coded i guess, its perfectly fine for example.

the way of CM to model inferiour forces just not "totaly" inferiour and than giving the challenge to the players totaly changed. the RED´s in CMSF are so handicaped, its not fun to play with them.

well acually it is for some people, myself incuded, but in the end of the day its pretty frustrating as no matter what level of non flawed leadership instead of asumed, flawed syrian/russian doctrine you may pour into it, your man on the ground just dont pull it off becouse they simply suck in summ. EDIT: sorry for the late edit. i dont mean they shoot to bad when i say they suck

but in therms of reaction and capabilities i place them around the CMBB volkssturm. and i think that syrian regulars are better than the volkssturm was. unconventionals are allready there to be the low end, and they are, but the conventional RED´s dont realy behave different.

but i am verry glad that BFC acually allready helped the RED side "a bit". in the early versions it was even worse.

i hope in 1.06 RED´s can finaly rearm somehow, i think it was said its pretty fix, also the fact that weapon teams, wich the syrians have plenty, can setup on roofs finaly since 1.05, is verry welcome on my side.

also the enhanced LOS thingy will be interesting. maybe its a bit easier to move the RED´s unseen than, also Tanks could finaly find "hull down" positions AND see from there.

[ January 20, 2008, 10:02 AM: Message edited by: Pandur ]

[Battlefront.com]

LongLeftFlank,

Steve, kudos to you for hanging in there with us malcontents on Saturday night! I have a sick baby and a sick wife here so I have a built in excuse for no life (although I am halfway through a nice Zin).

You don't need an excuse to either debate or drain a bottle of vino, however you do have a dandy of an excuse just in case

You forgot answer 4. Stumble into concealed positions in the Syrian kill zone, take serious casualties in the first few minutes of contact, be unable to shoot them out of their positions, withdraw and then bring in the arty and air, per 3 above. In game terms, Blue has lost decisively, even if they subsequently flatten the Syrians to a man.

Sure, and that can be achieved with the game right now. It may be a bit time compressed in that you can flatten the Syrians to a man within the space of time of a specific battle, but that's getting me to the larger point that I think a lot of you guys have lost sight of.

In real life a battle between even small forces tends to go on for hours with long lulls inbetween significant fighting. Wargamers, especially those with an appreciation for history, want to picture all the elements of such a battle and yet have it play out in less than an hour. Meaning, they want to time compress half a day, or even more than a day, into a single, short, sharp engagement. This in turn colors the sense of what should be possible within the space of a single battle. Throw in the fact that real battles don't have map edges, outside events often have a direct bearing on a battle, and other factors and you have yourself a bit of a dilemma:

How can you make a wargame that has 1 hour or less tactical engagements that are fun, exciting, action packed, dynamic, and yet realistic? And how can you duplicate this for not one battle but literally hundreds of thousands of battles?

The short answer is that it simply isn't possible to do.

BELIEVE ME when I say that I'm not being judgmental about skewed player expectations. When I first started designing CMBO with Charles I had a very, very hard time getting over this conceptual hump. I remember he and I having a long debate about this back in 1998 or so. I still struggle with it even today, though after 10 years of designing tactical wargames I've got a pretty good sense of things. It is my day (and night, and weekend ) job so I should!

The real issue I see in this discussion is wanting to have too much stuff that is outside the bounds of what works within the limitations of wargames. Or at least within the limitations of one that is trying to be as realistic as possible for a very specific setting and still balance all the competing demands on our internal resources.

So I must repeat myself. The basic problem, from a wargaming standpoint, is that REALISTICALLY the more dug in the Syrians are the less likely there would be anything realistic about engaging them at the tactical level in a way that would be consistently fun and/or realistic. Sure, an unobserved hardened fortification line, that is immune to VT artillery, might be fun to tackle with an infantry force every once and a while. But even that is a stretch of reality and it would get old very fast. Which is why we don't see the absence of a specific type of fortified terrain as being either a big deal or important. If you want to have a hardened defense line out in the open, use trenches and bunkers and you'll get about the same end result.

OK, so I can hear the cries of "it's no fun to mow hapless Reds down in the open, so the game is already not fun as it is". Then stop playing open battles and move into MOUT. That's where Red, in real life, has its only hope of survival. I don't know a military expert that would disagree with that statement. Urban warfare is the best, easiest, and cheapest way for a force to stand up against a current Western conventional force. That's reality and we don't think we should try to distort that any more than we already are. Which is your next point:

And if you counter that the onrushing US Stryker brigades would seldom fail to spot such a large force dug in before running onto its guns -- they've got JSTARs and drones and Cav and IR and yadayadayada, I simply say: sauce for the goose. At least half the current CMSF scenarios implicitly assume some kind of SNAFU, weather/ sand-related or other, in that vaunted US C4I capability, otherwise they'd never take place at all. The Syrian vehicles if not the grunts would be sliced and diced by airpower before even arriving on the map.

Correct, we are already being overly generous in allowing Syrian vehicles to appear within killing distance of US forces. Sure, in real life it would happen from time to time, but it would be the exception. But wargamers want vehicles so we're forced to compromise (not that we really had any thought of excluding Red armor!). However, it's far less of a stretch to say that a handful of Red vehicles would find their way into a CM scoped battle than to say that a US force would attempt to assault a hardened defensive line without either flattening it first or going around it. Even still, we do give the Syrians the ability to dig in and have hardened positions that are actually superior in many ways to foxholes with blankets over them.

Which would you choose? So sorry, option 6: site your OPs and HQs (preferably your ATGM and MGs as well) into easily-dug and roofed over/IR camoed slit trenches having good fields of fire and requiring direct HE hits to knock out (you know, that Soviet doctrine they follow so slavishly) so you can ambush and kill infidels for 15 minutes or more instead of 2, is not available as it would be rare and have little relevance to this game.

What you have described is... wait for it... a bunker Having overhead cover that is flush with the ground precludes fighting from that position. To fight from the position you need to raise the fighting position to be above the prevailing ground height. When you do that you expose yourself to direct fire. If you think a bunker is somehow less likely to survive direct fire than a bunch of sandbags or sheetmetal roofing... well, you're going to have a very hard time convincing me of that

If you apply the rules Steve has applied above -- that the US juggernaut would inevitably spot and kill anything in its way whether or not it digs in or hides, so why would they bother -- then you get back to my "France, 1940" (the boardgame, not the battle) analogy.

That's the reality of war today. As I've said since the very first day we announced CM:SF that open mapped battles are likely to be highly favorable to the US side and there isn't anything we can do about that. The key to Red's survival, if you want to call it that, is MOUT environments. This is as true in the game as in real life. If you don't like MOUT then obviously you will have a skewed perspective of what the game simulates.

According to that same standard of omniscience, the very notion of Syrian mechanized forces somehow making it to the front (or the front making it to them) in one piece and then being able to come into close action with main force Stryker units (as opposed to a few scout elements who promptly withdraw and call in air) becomes equally onanistic as a simulation, though a fun game.

Yes, as stated above we are being overly liberal with the Syrians in this regard. We are also, however, being overly liberal with open battles too. There are some campaign games, in fact, that have infantry positions that are quite elaborate and likely would have been pounded to China prior to the battle starting.

And I've heard this "Syrian conventional forces will do things only in huge thundering herds or not at all just like the Soviets taught them" argument from Steve numerous times now. And a number of highly knowledgeable people on this board have disputed it. So why not give us the tools to model it both ways and make the call ourselves?

I've debated those people and I feel that I managed to put their disputes into a greater context and showed that their requests would actually make the overall simulation far less realistic than it is now. Giving people the ability to play the Red as if it were Blue is simply not something we want to do. If you want to play a fair, evenly matched battle... play Blue on Blue. If you want to play a simulation of the pros/cons of each side as close to real life as we can possibly make it, then play Red on Blue. It isn't perfect, but taking away realistic constraints means reality goes completely out the window, so might as well play Blue on Blue and leave the more realistic experience intact.

Barleyman,

That's the crux, isn't it. You cannot provide the red side (or blue side but that's besides the point) with any protection against VT arty whatsoever.

For your 2nd point, what's the materials needed? Spades? Sweat? Pairs of hands? Something you can pile stuff on top of (plastic and corrugated steel has been suggested)

Right it is the crux and you're missing your own point What can a spade, sweat, a pair of hands, and a blanket do against VT artillery? Nothing. To get even moderate cover against VT artillery, even the small stuff, you need heavy reinforcement. It's really that simple. The other stuff can give you good concealment, if prepared well enough ahead of time and by competent troops, but that isn't the same thing since concealment and cover are different concepts.

See? You have to actually call in some heavier firepower. As in make an actual effort and delay the advance. And if you just drive past, you risk exposing your supply lines afterwards, assuming their soldiers actually want to fight for their country instead of waiting for any excuse to go home. That is assuming they have SOME way of coordinating things, which can be a single guy in a town with a cell phone, map and a pair of binoculars.

Right, but as I've stated over and over again... this sort of thing is outside the scope of an individual battle. So sure it would happen in real life, but who the Hell would want to spend 1 hour sitting in front of the computer doing nothing but arranging artillery strikes then waiting to see if anybody wanted to surrender?

I'm just speaking for myself, but hosing down helpless opponents without having to expand any planning, coordination or, well, thought is boring as hell for me. I'm not asking for scenarios where the blue side is on the losing end as you already claimed in a previous thread, I'd just like to see the blue side having to try a bit harder as they'd have to do in real life against an opponent with a real life desire of not getting killed after 30 seconds after being spotted.

I can't help modern battlefield reality. If you play a battle where the Red forces are pretty much out in the open, they will probably get mowed down pretty quickly if the Blue force isn't stupid and is instead careful. But if the Red forces use the existing elements at their disposal, such as trenches and bunkers, they can do almost everything you want them to. Urban, though, is where the real world equalizer is. The US has the open battle locked up. If you're not interested in MOUT warfare than that explains your dislike of the status quo.

OK, so what the heck is going on with this argument? As far as I can see the things people are saying are missing are, largely, in the game now. You want a hardened defensive line with good overhead cover and opportunities to kill the enemy before being taken out? The game already has all that you need for that. Nothing is stopping anybody from making such a battle a reality.

What is missing is marginal overhead shelter which has marginal, if any, protective properties from enemy fire but could aid in concealment from enemy observation. Mind you, such positions are shelter only, not fighting positions. They will not stop VT artillery from doing damage, they will not allow outgoing fire at the oncoming enemy forces. They are simply there to stay out of observation so long as the soldiers remain beneath them. As such, they do not have a lot to offer a pitched battle once the troops within have exposed themselves, and therefore are more useful in terms of avoiding operational detection prior to the enemy's arrival within range.

Again, from a realism standpoint, the more hardened and elaborate a defensive line is, the more likely that it will be detected. If detected the more likely that it will be avoided or pounded by indirect fire. This does not mean it wouldn't ever happen in real life that a modest sized US force would stumble upon a surprise, it would simply be a minority event and the US forces in question would hunker down until the indirect assets could be brought into action. They would not assault WWI or WWII style. You can also reasonably simulate this in the game right now. Make a 15 minute scenario and don't give the US forces any artillery until the 12th minute. There you go

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Pandur,

the RED´s in CMSF are so handicaped, its not fun to play with them.

In the right settings they are a blast to play. Having said that, if people have the idea that they can have formations of Red forces operating without significant problems and vulnerability... they shouldn't be complaining to us about the results. We do not wish to alter reality simply to make the game "fun" for such people. That would make CM:SF more like an unrealistic RTS or shoot-em-up game and not a simulation. That's not what we want to do.

but i am verry glad that BFC acually allready helped the RED side "a bit". in the early versions it was even worse.

i hope in 1.06 RED´s can finaly rearm somehow, i think it was said its pretty fix, also the fact that weapon teams, wich the syrians have plenty, can setup on roofs finaly since 1.05, is verry welcome on my side.

There are a bunch of fixes coming in v1.06 that you will probably like, such as Red vehicles having stores of ammunition like the Blue vehicles. There have also been tweaks to all kinds of values to make infantry combat more evenly realistic. I mean, besides the improvements found with Enhanced LOS.

Steve

[Pandur]

significant problems and vulnerability

as a example, its totaly ok for me if the US player splits a city into parts by massive firepower along the streets for example, and i have a hard time moving across the streets, thats "legit", as all other tactical possibilities are

but when i sneak up a RPG team to any vehicle "side" standing in front of the "house" the RPG team is in, looking in a totaly different direction, may it be a red one, i have a good chance to get spotted by the buttoned vehicle. i had some of those situations and kept reloading the turn to see how frequent it happens. and well its a bit too frequnt i think.

i know that modern tanks have good 360° viewing abilities, but still they cant look everywhere at the "same time". there is mostly just the commander wich can look to the sides and back through the hatch or copula!? the gunner and driver can spott where the gun and the hull is directed to.

and if they look for enemys "there" they wont look "as closely" somewhere else. thats not really possible. cover arc anyone!?

however, its the little things wich are out of place like this example. its not like i want to pull off big RED mech attacks and beat the US head on in the open, wich i think, also like you suggested, is a suicidal aproach to fighitng the US. but they "must" be able to pull off the most basic manuvers, like aproaching a vehicles side through a house without getting spotted at least 50% of the time. you try to unexpectedly shift a "group" into a house, in the flank of the other unit you want to engage with, but since they have to move in LOS, in the house, for a few seconds without shooting, they have a good chance that the standing and shooting unit spots them first.

maybe spotting should be dynamically reduced as more the unit is shooting or something like that.

as you have to watch at the target you are shooting at and loose eyeballs everywhere else so to say.

anyways, thanks for the reply, iam waiting in anticipation on 1.06

it just got better so far, except the turning tanks wich are still turning towards lousy rpg´s somewhere while every moment a tanks "could" come along the street they should overwatch.

also they totaly destroy my attempts to position them true to the "kleeblatt". at least that keeps MMG´s from penetrating the BTR´s to soon if found so far ...

its just nasty to have em turn like they want...

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Right it is the crux and you're missing your own point What can a spade, sweat, a pair of hands, and a blanket do against VT artillery? Nothing. To get even moderate cover against VT artillery, even the small stuff, you need heavy reinforcement. It's really that simple. The other stuff can give you good concealment, if prepared well enough ahead of time and by competent troops, but that isn't the same thing since concealment and cover are different concepts.

Hmm. That's true because..? It seems to me that sandbags and some rocks piled on top of a board would give you plenty of protection from VT arty. After all, it's not like the shell is going to actually hit the ground! The penetrative power of schrapnel isn't on par with even wimpy .22 round. Yes, if you get unlucky, you can still get hit from the side, but the exposed area is dramatically less than in the mass graves we have now.

I know, I know, the engine doesn't even try to model guys taking shelter and it would probably take lots of effort to get right without adding that much to the game. You'd get into all of artillery game of peek a boo of trying to lure the infantry out of their shelters etc.

What is missing is marginal overhead shelter which has marginal, if any, protective properties from enemy fire but could aid in concealment from enemy observation. Mind you, such positions are shelter only, not fighting positions. They will not stop VT artillery from doing damage, they will not allow outgoing fire at the oncoming enemy forces. They are simply there to stay out of observation so long as the soldiers remain beneath them. As such, they do not have a lot to offer a pitched battle once the troops within have exposed themselves, and therefore are more useful in terms of avoiding operational detection prior to the enemy's arrival within range.

I'm fairly sure that given readily accessible shelter your average GI would seek the imperfect cover as soon as incoming shells are detected by MkI ears. Yup, VT rounds would do damage but it wouldn't be instant charnel through as it is now.

And for MOUT, yes, it's more interesting. But unfortunately game engine weirdnesses are more readily apparent there. In any case, it's outside of the scope of the discussion here.

Ed: If nothing else, better ability for field fortifications would make for more interesting and varied red vs red engagements.

[ January 20, 2008, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Barleyman ]

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[LongLeftFlank]

I guess I can see where Steve is coming from, although I'd rather be able to simulate a smarter, less-rigid Syrian batallion commander able to use the 3 or so hours before the infidels arrive to map out some ambush zones and stick some key weapons in hidden AND hardened holes. Or at least put his arty OP and HQs in something where they won't get instantly spotted and pounded.

And I still assert -- from trying and failing -- that the trenches, shellholes and bunkers provided in the game are too big and easy to spot to serve in this kind of role. Their very presence betrays the ambush. Which basically leaves us with only buildings to use.

[Paper Tiger]

Quote:

There are a bunch of fixes coming in v1.06 that you will probably like, such as Red vehicles having stores of ammunition like the Blue vehicles. There have also been tweaks to all kinds of values to make infantry combat more evenly realistic. I mean, besides the improvements found with Enhanced LOS.

Steve

Woo hoo! That is GOOD news.

I do mostly Red on Red just now because I can't help myself, I like the open terrain warfare, meeting engagements, two forces fighting over a key piece of terrain. Red can't hack it against the US for all the reasons you've stated before. But I can have all this good fun with Red v Red. Blue v Blue is LETHAL man! No fun (for me)

The option to resupply Red forces during a scenario will give me more options. This weekend, I've been puzzling how to do a Red on Red MOUT situation without resupply and the only way I could do it was to have reinforcements trickle onto the board. Now, the 'Blue' side will have to work harder to preserve their carrier vehicles so that they can resupply later in the campaign.

I'm glad to hear that it's coming so soon and that I'll be able to adjust all my existing scenarios within the campaign to take advantage of these new features. >sigh< more hours of playtesting . Looks like it will be March before I finally get the campaign finished.

[Bigduke6]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Right it is the crux and you're missing your own point [big Grin] What can a spade, sweat, a pair of hands, and a blanket do against VT artillery? Nothing. To get even moderate cover against VT artillery, even the small stuff, you need heavy reinforcement. It's really that simple. The other stuff can give you good concealment, if prepared well enough ahead of time and by competent troops, but that isn't the same thing since concealment and cover are different concepts.

Well I disagree with the assumptions behind that, and frankly it sounds an awful lot like what professional military engineering officers tell the rest of the world: "without us, you can never, ever dig in."

A hole capable of giving its occupant a fair chance of surviving VT artillery is not rocket science. It has to be deep, narrow, and either the ground has to be solid enough to dig holes in the wall near the bottom to cower in, ideally without shoring but given a will with shoring.

The combat engineers will tell you that what you need is a layer of 4 x 4s, something like a meter of dirt, then another layer of 4 x 4s, and then they ask you how are you going to hide a monstrosity like that? Then they tell you it won't survive a direct hit in any case.

But repeatedly since about the 1860s military history has shown that, if men are threatened by flying bits of metal, they will figure out ways to survive, and usually, if they can't run away or eliminate whatever is shooting at them, they will dig, and with their survival as their motivation most of them will dig well indeed.

I point out here that taking the opinion of 1st world professional soldiers on what is and is not necessary to dig in, is risky. 1st World militaries suck at digging in, and when they must they deal with the problem primarily with materials and earth-moving, not shovels and human ingenuity.

A short slit trench 3 meters deep and a meter or less wide, with a hide slot at the bottom is not a logistic impossibility for a man with a shovel trying to stay alive.

Nor is it something that will inevitably be detected by sattelite reconnaissance, or that is impossible to conceal even if it is.

Nor is it something that must have a truckload of materials and a forklift to reinforce.

In CMSF, artillery and heavy weapons fire will hose to death pixel versions of men attempting to survive fire, in the best defensive positions the game will allow them to make, in about two to five minutes.

Steve I think is saying, the reason this is so is that the Syrians would be unable to build anything better, or if they did it would be found and wiped out pre-game and so dosn't fit into the framework of CMSF, and in any case Red forces in serious fortifications wouldn't be too much fun as a computer game.

Me, I am not so sure.

[LongLeftFlank]

I've been reading these forums since 2001 and there's a few people here who when they post, I sit up and listen. BigDuke6 is one of them.

That being said, I think we're championing a lost cause here. Steve's mind is made up on this topic, and it's his game. He has suggested we focus on MOUT if we want a challenge. I agree, but there's still some critical stuff missing, most significantly thick (cement) vs. normal (mud brick or cinderblock) building walls.

But I'm going to take that cudgel up in a different thread.

[C'Rogers]

But I'm going to take that cudgel up in a different thread.

But I don't know if you and Steve have managed to clarify how powerful modern HE is? That is what you guys have been talking about right?

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by Adam1:

What do we need to stop a fragment from an 81mm airburst? 122? 155?

Treat 155mm fragments as they would be bullets (small arms fire in general). They are not 100% same from their penetration capacity, but nearly. Basically about 50 cm of sand in bags should be enough. Combining rocks, sand and wood 40 cm has same effect. 80 cm of untouched rockless soil is fine. Those should give 100 % (and maybe much more) protection from all shaped and sized fragements. But i quess one can take half of those away and still be safe from everything else but biggest and meanest fragments, this is quessing however. So, don't try at home.

But fragment size should be decreasing to gain more covering "field of fragments", which then again reduces penetration.

EDIT: So actually foxhole with coverhole (or mousehole, what ever) is best idea: One doesn't have to build it much above ground level.

[ January 21, 2008, 01:45 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[average]

I don't think Steve is completely closed to some refinement of the system. He said, like a few of us, he wouldn't mind strongpointed houses.

The game would have trouble dealing with dispersed fox holes while the squads are stuck in 8 x 8m.

I think the point of departure is what can a a rifle coy manage to dig in a timeframe short enough to avoid being allocated prep numbers by a staff officer with a toughbook and microsoft outlook.

It's not difficult to build something that will stand up to 81mm and 120mm vt and 105mm splintex. The skills are taught on the abriged g-res infantry IET in the Australian Army. Basic fighting pits, dug outs, bunkers, slit trenches, stuff you can do without having a forest or combat engineering support nearby, they all enhance your chances of surriving bombardment out of all proportion to the effort.

Whoever said that first world armies don't/can't dig, well, I remeber having little digging parties, and then filling them in, and hating it.

Its the bits of hot metal that do most of the killing, and provided your out of the way you can surrive a half battery dropping 32 rds of vt/splintex on a wide shceaf across your front, although, people will get hurt

What you can't do without multiple bursting layers and engineering support is protect yourself against impact, delayed or phos coming in on top of you. Same goes for mk84's. If it lands close enough, your ok.

Generally, if your going firm and if its a medium intensity conflict, you'd dig in, get your templates done, get your guys out of observation, get piquets out to stop any reece elements from bumping you to preserve your killing grounds.

I'd like to see the Syrians be a able to do that.

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

The bit about not being able to dig in better is nonsense. The bit about game design angle is not. However, Steve's argument was that it wouldn't be fun to spend 1 hour waiting for division (or whatever) arty resources to become available and pound the poor sods who've taken some effort digging in with spades.

For me it's not fun to wipe out guys in mass graves in about 5 minutes including the time it takes to call in the arty. It's like playing a shooter in "very easy" difficulty level.

That or even worse, you can just hose the guys in trenches down with MG fire as they're completely exposed from the sides.

The scenarios outside towns that are interesting to play actually do not give you sufficient arty to eradicate opposition so you've got to juggle your strykers to get them into position to machinegun the grunts while potentially exposing them to rpg's.

[Battlefront.com]

BigDuke6

Steve I think is saying, the reason this is so is that the Syrians would be unable to build anything better, or if they did it would be found and wiped out pre-game and so dosn't fit into the framework of CMSF, and in any case Red forces in serious fortifications wouldn't be too much fun as a computer game.

That's largely what I'm saying, yes. One small addition is that from looking at previous wars the amount of chaos, confusion, indecision, and general incompetence that can be expected from the Syrians is very high. To really get a unit dug in, in the right place at the right time and the right way, is not easy to do. Sure, at the individual man level it isn't that tough (though materials can be a problem), but individuals don't spend half a day digging in unless they are ordered to do so.

Therefore, part of my argument is that within CM:SF's scope I don't think there would be all that many instances of Syrian forces dug in in the right spots at the right time and in the right way. Those that did would likely be discovered before contact or by scouts, resulting in a detour or (more likely) overwhelming firepower.

Barleyman,

The bit about not being able to dig in better is nonsense.

Only if you misread what I wrote I never said they couldn't dig in, I simply defined realistic conditions for how it applies to CM:SF. Since that is all that really matters, that's should be the focus of the discussion.

For me it's not fun to wipe out guys in mass graves in about 5 minutes including the time it takes to call in the arty. It's like playing a shooter in "very easy" difficulty level.

I agree. If that's really all you need to win a scenario, then there is some sort of deficiency with the scenario, not with the game system. Giving one side an unrealistic counterbalance to a realistic situation is never the way to go. Therefore, better to avoid the situation than to pervert it.

That or even worse, you can just hose the guys in trenches down with MG fire as they're completely exposed from the sides.

Should be largely fixed in v1.06.

The scenarios outside towns that are interesting to play actually do not give you sufficient arty to eradicate opposition so you've got to juggle your strykers to get them into position to machinegun the grunts while potentially exposing them to rpg's.

Yup. Just like in CMBO it wasn't very interesting to get stuck on a 3000km rolling fields map with a bunch of Shermans and the other guy having a platoon of Panthers. Some things are just not fun for one side or even both. I started up this thread to discuss ways to play the game

Steve

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Therefore, part of my argument is that within CM:SF's scope I don't think there would be all that many instances of Syrian forces dug in in the right spots at the right time and in the right way. Those that did would likely be discovered before contact or by scouts, resulting in a detour or (more likely) overwhelming firepower.

On the other hand, if you'd like to do scenarios based on somewhat more likely events such as Turkish military adventures in Iraq or Russian "border distipute" in Georgia, more heavy-duty field fortifications would be helpful. Oh, and arty smoke. Lot's and lots of artillery smoke.

That is, if you want scenarios made with CMSF engine that are not strictly within the scope you've set for the game. I guess you could do better trenches just by providing a few variants in the editor with different stats. If the engine works that way.

Then again, you'd have linear trench that would provide much too good protection to the guys in it WRT visual look. Unless you put in new 3D model.. And so forth.

[ January 21, 2008, 02:58 PM: Message edited by: Barleyman ]

[Battlefront.com]

Barleyman,

My answer to this won't come as a surprise to you, or anybody else, I'm sure

That is, if you want scenarios made with CMSF engine that are not strictly within the scope you've set for the game.

CM:SF is designed for one setting and one setting only. We have not, and probably will not, put in any effort into expanding that setting. That gets us moving backwards to CMx1 type games and I shudder at the implications that brings with it. As noted in this thread... CMBB had a ton of stuff in it that probably the vast majority of CMBB gamers didn't use or, when they did, hated. Yet the development effort was significant. We've learned our lesson

Steve