mav1 Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 The firepower of tanks in combat mission against infantry in open terrain is far too weak. In one game I had a tank shot at infantry in open terrain with mg for 3 minutes at 50m range causing only 1 casualty. :confused: The infantry should have been wiped out in seconds unless the gunner is blind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 'Open' is not supposed to be some kind of golf course, but with occasional small dips, rocks, tree stumps, high grass etc. behind which one might be able to take cover. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mav1 Posted March 1, 2006 Author Share Posted March 1, 2006 Its not only the firepower of tanks that is too weak against infantry in open terrain. After capturing a flag in one game. The enemy infantry couterattacked in the usually suicidal mass attack (glad to hear the ai is going to be improved). They charged through open terrain towards my forces. It should have been a massacre but more than half survived. If anyone knows about ww1 then 1 machine gun can do enormous damage against charging infantry in open terrain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gpig Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Are you playing CMBO? Or CMBB/CMAK. As the MG's were "fixed" in the latter two releases of Combat Mission. CMBO had a less realistic simulation of MG fire on infantry in the open. Gpig 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 I had complaints about tanks blasting 'abstracted' squads to little effect too. You're pumping 75mm rounds and coaxial mg fire ino a 5 foot square containing nine men and not getting any casualties? I'm assuming things are going to be drastically different in CMSF. If they're claiming that they're going to be able to represent individual bullet strikes on-screen there's not going to be much room left for abstractions in the game! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oren_m Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Originally posted by MikeyD: I had complaints about tanks blasting 'abstracted' squads to little effect too. You're pumping 75mm rounds and coaxial mg fire ino a 5 foot square containing nine men and not getting any casualties? I'm assuming things are going to be drastically different in CMSF. If they're claiming that they're going to be able to represent individual bullet strikes on-screen there's not going to be much room left for abstractions in the game! Well, these things happens, i personelly saw a dude being hit from a 105 mm round landing 1 meter from him, he was flying in the air, landed on the back and ran away!!! He was probobly wounded, but alive enough to run. Oren_m 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
37mm Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 What on earth kinda sig is that bloody Swede sporting? As for the topic, I once read a history book about WW1 and in it everyone died to one machine gun... just goes to show, doesn't it, ey? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mav1 Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 The mg's might have been fixed in CMBB/CMAK but there firepower is still too weak. Try out this battle for yourself. Attack a enemy flag in woods defended by 1 hmg by attacking through 400m of open terrain with 1 rifle platoon (48 men).Then try this battle with 1 pl hq and 1 rifle squad defending the flag. Taking the flag against the hmg is much easier. It should be much harder taking the flag against the hmg. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mav1 Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 Open terrain should be open terrain (no cover). Occasional small dips, rocks, tree stumps, high grass should be created by the terrain editor. Which at the moment is not possible in individual or small scale. Maybe it would be better creating smaller terrain tiles than the 20m x 20m used at the moment, say 5m x 5m, this will allow more smaller detail be created on the map. Plus having height contours at a minimum choice of say 50cm instead of 125cm will allow you to create small dips in terrain to hide behind, but will still allow infantry be targets if standing up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mav1 Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 It seems to be much harder to cause casulties against mg crews than against other infantry. I don't see why this should be the case, if the attacking infantry is not being suppressed, then it should be nearly as easy to cause casulties against the mg crew as other infantry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Originally posted by oren_m: Well, these things happens, i personelly saw a dude being hit from a 105 mm round landing 1 meter from him, he was flying in the air, landed on the back and ran away!!! He was probobly wounded, but alive enough to run.Huh? Where was this? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Originally posted by mav1: Open terrain should be open terrain (no cover). Occasional small dips, rocks, tree stumps, high grass should be created by the terrain editor. Which at the moment is not possible in individual or small scale. Maybe it would be better creating smaller terrain tiles than the 20m x 20m used at the moment, say 5m x 5m, this will allow more smaller detail be created on the map. Plus having height contours at a minimum choice of say 50cm instead of 125cm will allow you to create small dips in terrain to hide behind, but will still allow infantry be targets if standing up. The CMX2 engine has a higher resolution terrain set than was possible with the three extant CM games based on the CMX1 engine. The abstraction was absolutely vital in CMX1 as there was no way for the computer to do it any other way. Even in CMX2 you will see some significant abstraction, as likely as not. Apart from anything else, there is no set states that infantry will assume - they will make as much use of cover as humanly possible and you cannot put that much coding in a company-sized game. On top of that you'd have to code the AI to make the right decisions - major headache - so it's probably better to abstract it, as long as you get the statistical rules about right. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oren_m Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by oren_m: Well, these things happens, i personelly saw a dude being hit from a 105 mm round landing 1 meter from him, he was flying in the air, landed on the back and ran away!!! He was probobly wounded, but alive enough to run.Huh? Where was this? Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Originally posted by oren_m: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by oren_m: Well, these things happens, i personelly saw a dude being hit from a 105 mm round landing 1 meter from him, he was flying in the air, landed on the back and ran away!!! He was probobly wounded, but alive enough to run.Huh? Where was this? Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oren_m Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I dont know how you call it in english, but it was a hollow charge round, you know, with the copper liner. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 We call it " A Hollow charge round with a copper liner". Peter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oren_m Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Originally posted by Peter Cairns: We call it " A Hollow charge round with a copper liner". Peter. Dammmmmm, i was so close! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imperial Grunt Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Originally posted by mav1: The mg's might have been fixed in CMBB/CMAK but there firepower is still too weak. Try out this battle for yourself. Attack a enemy flag in woods defended by 1 hmg by attacking through 400m of open terrain with 1 rifle platoon (48 men).Then try this battle with 1 pl hq and 1 rifle squad defending the flag. Taking the flag against the hmg is much easier. It should be much harder taking the flag against the hmg. This is not necessarily true. A single HMG, while dishing out alot of firepower, is not accurate. And it has to change barrels, reload, etc... Experienced infantry will quickly take cover below the grazing fire of the HMG and somebody will start picking off the gunners with precision rifle fire. Now if the infantry line up WWI style and charge, then the HMG should easily win. But CM does not seem to simulate the effects of MG's working together to create inter-locking sectors of fire. Two or three well-placed machineguns working together can be very difficult for an infantry platoon to overcome, especially when a squad recieved enfilading fire through its entire formation at once. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 A tiny tangent here, and forgive me if I'm treading well-trodden ground, but I've often found myself wondering whether there shouldn't be some kind of "first fire/ambush" factor that increases casualty probability the first time an unalerted, moving unit is direct fired upon within normal range by a previously unspotted enemy unit. When you're moving, whether in open ground or not, it's pretty hard to hide all your men from enemy in unknown locations. You might take it a step further, and compound the factor for green troops, who have a tendency to bunch, particularly in column, and thus incur multiple casualties from a single surprise burst. That's the main point of having MGs in defilade for example. Don't know if this would tax the AI too much, but it would certainly reflect the RW challenge of modern COIN sweeps and patrols, where a casualty-sensitive US player can't afford to winkle out snipers by letting them pick off the scouts (a la "Big Red One"), but instead has to go slow, and spot them first with overwatch. Whether these kinds of patient, slow, cat and mouse ops are the right subject matter for CMSF, I'll leave to the experts. I'd personally find the suspense quite absorbing, in a game anyway.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Originally posted by oren_m: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Peter Cairns: We call it " A Hollow charge round with a copper liner". Peter. Dammmmmm, i was so close! </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mav1 Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 I agree with LongLeftFlanks comment. Green troops would bunch together and so they would suffer more casualties than reguler troops who would spread out more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Mr. flamingpicky would like to point out that both features are already in the CMX1 engine. Certainly there's a significant morale modifier to troops fired on from ambush, and Green troops are easier to kill that Vets etc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveP Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Originally posted by flamingknives: Mr. flamingpicky would like to point out that both features are already in the CMX1 engine. Certainly there's a significant morale modifier to troops fired on from ambush, and Green troops are easier to kill that Vets etc. I also think people may be over-complicating what is going on when CM does combat results calculations. I don't think it is any more sophisticated than FP modified by the exposure of the unit being fired on, further modified by a randomizing factor, with the result compared to some probability values (which vary by the experience level of the unit being fired at) for casualties and/or morale effects. The system doesn't care if the FP is coming from an HMG, a squad, or an HQ. If it really is easier to advance against a lone HMG vs a squad/HQ combination, it is probably because in the latter case there are two units firing rather than one (which means more FP "bursts" are going out in any given turn), or that the HQ has combat bonuses which make the squad's FP higher at short range than the lone HMG can deliver. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Troops fired on from unlocated enemy suffer from a severe morale hit. I'm not sure if they're any more likely to take casualties beyond being in a less advantageous position cover wise - i.e. being on 'move' orders. HMGs can seem to have a disproportionate effect as: a) They can deliver effective firepower at ranges that they are not likely to be spotted at. b)Their firepower does not drop off as they take casualties. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis Lead Posted March 4, 2006 Share Posted March 4, 2006 Originally posted by LtCol West: Hey LTC, what makes you think this is the case? I think CMAK and CMBB (but not CMBO) do a great job of representing this. Unless the infantry platoon is at close range, 3 HMGs will chew a platoon up. This is especially true if the rounds are fired into a squad's flank or rear. Some of the other guys are assuming the squads are packed together and are also overestimating the effects of firepower. Squads are not jammed into a five foot area--they are moving more tactically--5 feet to 5 meters (or more) of seperation per man. The unit representation on the screen does not represent the physcial space the squad occupies. And--as has been pointed out--there is actually cover and concealment in open terrain. As far as firepower---it is harder to kill people than one would think. I have read that in historical AARs, commanders on average assume that they hit twice the number of enemy that they actually hit. Simply put--no one can imagine that anyone could survive all of that lead and HE heading downrange. But they do. They find dead space and then get the heck out of exposed positions at the first opporunity. [ March 04, 2006, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Nemesis Lead ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.