MOUT and Urban Warfare is unplayable

[MiB]

Jesus shrink some of those pictures, you've broken the page.

[civdiv]

I don't know how to do that with others pics.

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

I very much doubt that Syrians use cinder blocks or Lekaharkko for their building construction

I don't know, not necessarily 1:1 presentation in material, producing process or name, but something like they are. Manual said that there are modern buildings in Syria's new parts of cities and towns, hotels made of a concrete and such. But like civdiv said material's quality and hardness won't necessarily be the same.

[Wiggum]

So, what does Battlefront say to the discussion here ?

I hope they dont ignore it...

And what about Squad splitting ?

I think every Squad should have the ability to split into a "Anti Tank" one and a "Attack" one.

[ January 09, 2008, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Wiggum ]

[flamingknives]

JasonC, I have the .pdf version from the US army "General Dennis J. Reimer Training and Doctrine Digital Library". The table is more clearly laid out, and "Initial" clearly lines up with "70" rounds.

That said, "Initial" is never clearly defined.

As a second source, the USMC "Cover and concealment" tests indicated that the M16, firing single rounds or bursts, was unable to defeat cinderblock walls or a single brick wall from an incident angle of 45 degrees.

[Battlefront.com]

Wiggum,

So, what does Battlefront say to the discussion here ?

I hope they dont ignore it...

Not ignoring it, simply don't have anything new to add Buildings in that part of the world aren't all that tough. Comparing the average poorly constructed Middle Eastern home to one in Germany is a very bad idea. Germany has something called "building codes" while in the Middle East (and just about everywhere else but the "developed" nations) they just have "buildings"

And what about Squad splitting ?

I think every Squad should have the ability to split into a "Anti Tank" one and a "Attack" one.

Squads that in real life can are able to in CM:SF. Those that are doctrinally tied together as a single entity do not have that ability. We are not making any changes to that.

Steve

[Drusus]

I think the problem with the AT sections is that the Syrian squads should be very much capable to have a AT team. The limitation to the team is that it needs to be near the body of the squad. The game limits the AT team to be in the same action spot, which is unrealistic.

[Battlefront.com]

The problem is if we allow players to split the RPGs off from the rest of the Squad, they will. And when that happens we can not control what they do with them. Experience shows that they will be used in a way that is completely unrealistic, so we are going with the lesser of two unrealistic results. By and large the Soviet doctrine was to keep the Squad intact and occupying a relatively small footprint. It would be exceptional circumstances for this to be violated, so as is the game is fairly realistic the majority of the time.

Steve

[the Fighting Seabee]

Buildings in that part of the world aren't all that tough. Comparing the average poorly constructed Middle Eastern home to one in Germany is a very bad idea. Germany has something called "building codes" while in the Middle East (and just about everywhere else but the "developed" nations) they just have "buildings"

Steve

http://shock.military.com/Shock/videos.do?displayContent=79990

[Hev]

LOLOLOL quality video, case and point!

[Splinty]

My squad was visiting an Iraqi Highway Patrol station that had a narrow entrance through a 10 ft. brick wall with a sliding metal gate. We had brought along one of our M1117s that day. When it came time to go the M1117 had a little difficulty fitting through the entrance, the vehicle itself made it through just barely, but just as it was almost all the way out, the 5 gallon jerry can racks on the back corner rubbed against the metal gate and took down a 10' x 10' section of wall! This was caused by a couple of empty sheetmetal sticking out maybe 6" from the side of the vehicle. The section of wall that fell over was pretty much intact afterwards, but the mortar was crumbled like dried out bread.

[Battlefront.com]

So Splinty, did the driver say "ooops!" or something a little more colorful?

Steve

[Bigduke6]

Not ignoring it, simply don't have anything new to add [smile] Buildings in that part of the world aren't all that tough. Comparing the average poorly constructed Middle Eastern home to one in Germany is a very bad idea. Germany has something called "building codes" while in the Middle East (and just about everywhere else but the "developed" nations) they just have "buildings" [big Grin]

My opinion, that's not quite right Steve. The poor people have bricks piled on bricks, and not much else. The middle class, rich people, and governments can have perfectly adquate buildings, to include cinder blocks. The wealthier buildings tend to be overbuilt even by German standards, due to cheap materials and labor. Thicker walls = cooller, after all.

Don't forget than in any case, in the absence of modern building materials, and the presence of cheap labour and brick/mortar, frequently the solution is multiple layers of brick, and double-layer brick interior walls are quite common. Not only for the cool, but just to support the roof. Roofing tile is heavy and if your only support is unreinforced brick walls, the only solution really is don't go too high, make plenty of interior walls, and keep all walls thick.

This is not to say any hovel will resist a .50 AP, of course not. But personally, I think you are underrating the physical amount of masonry that can go into even a simple building in the region.

And that's not taking into account the (I think) very interesting question of brick quality. Brick or other building materials in poorer countries are not fired as hard and as long, and as a result they often are softer than the brick you find in a developed country. I've seen it, you can break them apart in your hands sometimes.

This makes them easier to pull down a wall of such bricks with the odd corner of a poorly-driven military vehicle, but IMO a bullet should have more trouble getting through a brick wall that tends to crumble if you poke it, than one that is rigid. Sandbags vs. steel plate, essentially.

Me, I think the game in its current build doesn't give enough cover for being in a building, but I'm not clear whether that's an small arms accuracy issue or a building cover interpetation issue. That said, a CMSF building ought IMO to offer cover only for a limited time, hammer it and it's going to come apart faster than a typical German building.

FWIW. You will do as you do of course.

[Battlefront.com]

Sure, I agree there is a big difference between a poorly constructed slum, middle class, and upper class building. However, in Syria, what percentage of the structures would fit into each category?

The problem for us is the usual one... how finely do we split hairs? The building types are all considered to be of one type of construction. Same with free standing walls. Obviously in a real world environment there is going to be a large amount of variation, even within a single structure or stretch of wall. We have to compensate for this by having "chance" added to the equation so there is some variety. Unfortunately, the downside of this approach is that there is a generalized effect instead of "this building here should behave like x, that building like y". We'll probably work this into the game over time, though.

Steve

[flamingknives]

Well, there's alway the FM as a guide:

TYPE OF BUILDING/FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE (%)

30-inch Stone / 1%

8- to 10-inch Reinforced Concrete / 6.9%

12- to 24-inch Brick / 63%

6-inch Wood / 16%

14-inch Steel and Concrete (Heavy Clad) / 2%

7-inch Steel and Concrete (Light Clad) / 12%

[Battlefront.com]

Hey, that's pretty neat stuff! I take it that is for Europe?

BTW, Charles did up the resistance of buildings to incoming small arms fire slightly. It's a tricky thing because upping it too much makes houses like bunkers, having it too low makes them like cardboard. But that "just right" spot inbetween is not clear cut and there can always be an argument to go more in one direction or the other.

Steve

[vincere]

BTW, Charles did up the resistance of buildings to incoming small arms fire slightly.

Was that for 1.5 or 1.6? :confused:

[flamingknives]

Steve,

It's part of Chapter 7, FM 3-06.11, fighting in Urban areas.

The table is worldwide distribution of buildings.

I got it from the Reimer Digital Library,

Found here:

http://www.adtdl.army.mil/

Click the link for the RDL, switch the list to "Official Departmental Publications", then pick and choose as you like.

Going back to walls, I just spotted the data for 25mm HEI-T (table7-13), and it requires 10 rounds to make a loophole in a 3 inch brick wall, which seems unlikely, but there you go.

[Wiggum]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Wiggum,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So, what does Battlefront say to the discussion here ?

I hope they dont ignore it...

Not ignoring it, simply don't have anything new to add Buildings in that part of the world aren't all that tough. Comparing the average poorly constructed Middle Eastern home to one in Germany is a very bad idea. Germany has something called "building codes" while in the Middle East (and just about everywhere else but the "developed" nations) they just have "buildings"

And what about Squad splitting ?

I think every Squad should have the ability to split into a "Anti Tank" one and a "Attack" one.

Squads that in real life can are able to in CM:SF. Those that are doctrinally tied together as a single entity do not have that ability. We are not making any changes to that.

Steve </font>

[Secondbrooks]

More i cast critical eye to CMSF more i find it to please me. I tend to think that battlefront has things somewhat in right order (i don't have the ultimate knowledge in this subject ) . Those few LOS issues with grain and such bit bothers me, but there might be problem with me and how i see things: 3 bushes for 8x8 meters ain't much, forexample.

[Battlefront.com]

Wiggum,

do you think that CMSF simulate the cover that a building give correct at the moment ?

I think it is fairly close, but I don't think tweaks one way or the other are outside reality. The new tweaks are coming in v1.06.

Im sure (and im not alone) that the cover that houses, trenches woods ect. give in CMSF are not correct. Now, is that a small arms accuracy problem ? Or a Cover simulation Problem ? Or a lethality problem ?

There is no one single magic answer to these various things. Overall the modeling in v1.05 is pretty close to reality. If you do stupid things you will get punished very, very badly. If you do smart things you will be rewarded. There are plenty of guys who can play a dense urban battle and come away with probably fewer casualties in real life. Those are the guys who know how to pace themselves and use good tactics. The others are likely to get slaughtered.

With the changes in v1.06, and probably more tweaks in future releases, we don't expect people to see a huge difference. If you got slaughtered when playing v1.05, you'll probably get slaughtered in v1.06

...something is wrong at the moment, and i hope you will find out what and change it to make CMSF more realistic.

Realism is not a known quantity. There are too many variables in the real world. Many CM:SF players, who have been in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, have said they don't see major problems with the way the game is right now. I'm not saying it means it's perfect, but it clearly shows that it is closer to reality than some people (perhaps you) think it is.

Why (are they totally stupid ? ) should a Syrian Mitia Squad not be able to split a AT Team and get this on the roofe to fire at a Enemy Tank ?

Well, to answer your first question... yes, it is quite probable that they are "stupid". Good tactics and training takes a lot of time and effort. This is not something most Syrian units have the benefit of. If you want to have chaotic units, use the Unconventionals. They fight without rules and suffer the consequences of it.

At the moment you must move your hole squad into the danger zone...than you take 10 dead when the tank fire back.

It is absolutly unrealistic than lower quality sqauds cannot split...every idiots con do this...

But idiots usually don't do smart things

The military training states that the AT element is not a separate "maneuver element". Therefore the more we allow it to be used independently, the less realistic the game becomes. It is as simple as that. You don't have to agree with us, but unless your argument is based on something other than your own personal opinion... I suggest that our position is the stronger one.

Remember that there is a reason that the Syrians (and Soviet structures) have separate AT units. Units that are already on their own. Obviously they do recognize that there is a need for separate AT elements. But the RPG that is with the Squad is NOT supposed to be that element. It is there to support the Squad, not to run around on its own. That's a fact of Soviet doctrine which the Syrians use. It doesn't matter if the reasons for this make sense to you or not. To many, Soviet doctrine has never made sense

Steve

[Wiggum]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Wiggum,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />do you think that CMSF simulate the cover that a building give correct at the moment ?

I think it is fairly close, but I don't think tweaks one way or the other are outside reality. The new tweaks are coming in v1.06.

Im sure (and im not alone) that the cover that houses, trenches woods ect. give in CMSF are not correct. Now, is that a small arms accuracy problem ? Or a Cover simulation Problem ? Or a lethality problem ?

There is no one single magic answer to these various things. Overall the modeling in v1.05 is pretty close to reality. If you do stupid things you will get punished very, very badly. If you do smart things you will be rewarded. There are plenty of guys who can play a dense urban battle and come away with probably fewer casualties in real life. Those are the guys who know how to pace themselves and use good tactics. The others are likely to get slaughtered.

With the changes in v1.06, and probably more tweaks in future releases, we don't expect people to see a huge difference. If you got slaughtered when playing v1.05, you'll probably get slaughtered in v1.06

...something is wrong at the moment, and i hope you will find out what and change it to make CMSF more realistic.

Realism is not a known quantity. There are too many variables in the real world. Many CM:SF players, who have been in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, have said they don't see major problems with the way the game is right now. I'm not saying it means it's perfect, but it clearly shows that it is closer to reality than some people (perhaps you) think it is.

Why (are they totally stupid ? ) should a Syrian Mitia Squad not be able to split a AT Team and get this on the roofe to fire at a Enemy Tank ?

Well, to answer your first question... yes, it is quite probable that they are "stupid". Good tactics and training takes a lot of time and effort. This is not something most Syrian units have the benefit of. If you want to have chaotic units, use the Unconventionals. They fight without rules and suffer the consequences of it.

At the moment you must move your hole squad into the danger zone...than you take 10 dead when the tank fire back.

It is absolutly unrealistic than lower quality sqauds cannot split...every idiots con do this...

But idiots usually don't do smart things

The military training states that the AT element is not a separate "maneuver element". Therefore the more we allow it to be used independently, the less realistic the game becomes. It is as simple as that. You don't have to agree with us, but unless your argument is based on something other than your own personal opinion... I suggest that our position is the stronger one.

Remember that there is a reason that the Syrians (and Soviet structures) have separate AT units. Units that are already on their own. Obviously they do recognize that there is a need for separate AT elements. But the RPG that is with the Squad is NOT supposed to be that element. It is there to support the Squad, not to run around on its own. That's a fact of Soviet doctrine which the Syrians use. It doesn't matter if the reasons for this make sense to you or not. To many, Soviet doctrine has never made sense

Steve </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Wiggum,

You assume everybody who dont agree with you about the "cover, accuracy and lethality" in CMSF that he uses "bad tactics"...i know thats easier for you....

Well, I could say it is easier for gamers to blame the game instead of their abilities In fact, that is a standard problem with gamers. The difficulty is trying to figure out which gamers are actually playing poorly and getting "bad results" and which ones are playing correctly and getting "bad results". It's never an easy thing.

When gamers can indicate areas where there are problems, then back them up in a discussion, we will make changes. We've made plenty of them already. But someone saying "I get slaughtered, therefore the game is broken" do not have credibility.

And im sure there are many who see major problems.

I have not seen any combat veterans tell us we have things dramatically wrong. If they did, I would listen to them and try to find out which areas specifically need to change. Since I have not seen such feedback, but have seen the opposite, I think your position is not very good.

You should not underrate humans.

You should not overestimate them I have seen more than a few AARs from Iraq and Afghanistan (the closest two examples we have to draw from) that indicate that small unit tactics of the enemy forces are terrible. That is not surprising since small unit tactics are extremely difficult to get right.

Maybe they dont fight strictly after the "doctrine". To dont bring 10 men into the danger zone if 2 men can do the same has nothing to do with training or doctrine...thats just a human decision.

It is more likely that either all of them would stay out of danger or all of them would go into it. Individual bravery at this level is possible, of course, but it is probably the exception to the rule.

As I already said, it is indeed unrealistic for the RPG guy within a Syrian military unit to remain with the rest of the unit 100% of the time in 100% of all circumstances. However, if we allow the RPG guy, or any other individual (the same logic applies to any soldier, right?), to break away on his own... how do we stop the Human player from abusing reality and making things LESS realistic than they are now?

There is one thing we have learned in all the years of making wargames... if you give players the ability to do something unrealistic, they will. And therefore, we have to balance choices and side with the feature that gives us a better balance of realism. Often times this is not perfect, we agree, but there is no such thing as perfection in a game. There are competing issues that have to be paid attention to and sometimes they must override legitimate arguments because the alternative will be far worse. This is one of those examples.

Maybe i expect to much from CMSF...

If you are expecting CMSF to match your personal perceptions, without a concern for looking at other arguments that contradict yours, then yes... you are expecting too much. We have a long history of changing game functions and data when it is shown that there is specific room for improvement. We also have a long history of not changing things because someone complains that they can't play the game successfully. Combat Mission has always been a simulation. You get out of it what you put into it. So far you have not justified your arguments, therefore other than the changes we have already implemented in v1.06 I do not see any more coming at this moment.

Steve

[stikkypixie]

But Steve, how are we supposed to fit a MG section into their transport. Right now you can only transport 4 Syrian MG squad and you have to leave the command squad behind...

[Battlefront.com]

stikkypixie,

That's one of the Weapons companies, yes? If so, which one? I can take a look into that. That's a completely different situation The Syrians do have a lack of vehicles to get the job done right in some cases. The Heavy Weapons Companies are generally defensive in nature so I'm guessing that they would either shuttle the units or would have them hitchhike with some other unit's transport (they do have some centralized motor pool vehicles in some units).

Having said all of that, we have had to make some compromises to suit the game as a game. For example, technically speaking the Bradley infantry is chopped up in horrible ways because no one vehicle is large enough to carry everybody. So there are complicated drills to recombine after dismounting. This would be such a royal PITA for the player to have to deal with manually, and there is little hope of us getting TacAI good enough to handle it automatically, that we allow Bradleys to be overfilled more than they usually would be. This is also something we've had to do for just about all other vehicles in the game, especially Syrian APC/IFVs.

Another thing we had to fudge is that the HQs often times are split up amongst several vehicles. The Leader in one, the Assistant Leader in another, the FO in yet another, etc. Again, having people micromanage individuals is not only a boring chore, but it opens the door to unrealistic uses of those individuals. So for both the sake of player sanity and overall realism, we precombine them and make sure they fit in their vehicles.

NOTE... we had to do a lot of this in CMx1 too. More so, I think. Unfortunately militaries do not keep good game mechanics in mind when they develop doctrine and vehicles

Steve