CMx1 to CMx2 recipe

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[gibsonm]

Well since “ATGM Ambush” was written and published with the initial release (pre improved LOS, etc.) I don’t doubt that it, like probably all scenarios published to date, would need to be tweaked to take advantage of changes in the engine since they were created.

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by JasonC:

The scenario was ATGM ambush

Guys, this scenario was basically set up as a test range for ATGMs and Martin included it on teh CD as it was a bit of fun. I only put in a *very* basic AI in order to get the units to move forward, nothign more, and I have done no testing with it at all since the ELOS system was put in place. Bottom line...please dont use it as any sort of reference scenario, there are much better scenarios out there by people considering more familiar with the editor.

That being said I just gave it a run through with 1.08 and I think maybe you were rather unlucky in your run through Jason. I took out two of the M2s with the sole AT-4 that has LOS down the valley without him being spotted (the other AT-4 appears to have no LOS now since the including of the ELOS system). After killing the first two he spotted the last and fired but missed, as which point the M2 returned fire killing two of the team and causing the third to retreat. The M2 then moved forward into sight of one of the SPG teams whom opened fire. The M2 began to retreat but was immobilized by the second hit with the crew bailing by the third.

Dan

[ April 06, 2008, 06:14 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[JasonC]

Adam - no, Kwaj wasn't an issue of deep coral caves, the positions were not elaborate blasted tunnels, they were just coconut log and sandbag bunkers. Half or more of the defenders were KOed by the prep, but half isn't remotely all. If you like, you can consider cases like Caen or the Lehr bombing, similar results. Plenty of shock and stun, plenty of attriting and disorganization, no annhilation, and the attackers still take losses and need infantry to reduce each remaining position, to get through.

As for the comment that serious fortifications are "not applicable", why? There are bunkers in CMSF, are there not? One problem is having only pre-located terrain mod forms of cover, when easily half their point is being hard to locate.

But more generally, the defects of abandoning focus on effect are on parade here. You imagine the situation you literally believe in from a CMSF session is truly typical because you see it depicted on the screen, and then you only ask whether that situation resolves correctly. Its not being typical, and why it isn't, has already been passed by.

Too abstract. You see a squad in a building that you guess should be mud brick, and an Abrams outside that can see it. The Abrams fires 120mm HE into the building, and nukes half the squad with the first shot, and the rest with two more. Sounds about right, you think.

Now up a level, 4 M-1s each do the same every 2-3 minutes for a 10-15 minute firefight. A company in urban terrain cover has just been nuked by a single tank platoon, without aid (I exaggerate slightly for clarity, bear with me). Is it still right, because the initial relation, 120mm HE vs. mudbrick equals casualties, is right? No. Is someone maintaining it is wrong, committed to the proposition, 120mm HE bounces off mudbrick buildings? No.

What is the game showing that doesn't really happen, and what really happens that it doesn't show? One, when you spot one man you spot the whole squad he is a part of. You know just where to put HE to hurt them all. You not only know there are more men there than the one you saw in a global sense, you know their center of mass that instant.

Would you really see anyone? Half the times you units do, probably not. If you did, would it imply there was anyone else within 20 meters, or 50? It would not.

Next, what really happens that the game does not depict. Those buildings have cellars. When they are expecting shells, men are in them, not in the most exposed fighting positions. "But then they aren't effective in combat". Hardly, and they may switch twice per minute. They are not actually anchored to a player designated action point with a ball and chain.

There are slit trenches out back, on in the floor, or under it. They have tops 18 inches wide and they are 3-4 feet deep. When a man gets in one, you could collapse the building and his only worry would be can he dig out? You could drop a 155mm barrage of 40 shells all around him, and have only a 1-2% chance of hurting him. (You'd stun him though, regardless - that's fine. Wouldn't hear so good either...)

The thing you see on the screen that isn't real, is all the downside of units are depicted, but the upside of being an amorphous cloud is not. Which is that a typical well placed 120mm shell, if truly well placed, might kill or wound 1-2 men. And area fire would more likely blow up empty building. With the ratio of the second to the first likely to run about 10 to 1, not 50-50 or all aimed. The result is that M-1 platoon, in real life, might dump a full HE load into a sector of town, and take out only a one or two dozen men - not 180. It would not clear the town. Even leveling the buildings one after another would not clear the town, because men would survive (under, in some cases) each, and reoccupy the rubble of the past bits.

The real tactical effect of a platoon of M-1s ready to throw HE would be to intimidate defending men into "back" positions, not to annihilate them by whole city blocks. Escalation dominance locally, not a substitute for all other arms.

Javelins are even worse, in the sense that they won't do as much as you see, aren't hitting men as bunched, and at 100k a pop aren't being fired so liberally.

The old CMx1 system had the abstraction of "exposure". It wasn't perfect - among other things, it increased the ammo expenditure used per casualty caused too much, since the effect of cover is as much to prevent fire, as to intercept rounds fired anyway. But it had the merit that it effectively showed only 1-3 men in each squad at a time, when they were in good cover.

You can get the right answer by some design for effect abstraction at the bottom - only let the HE shot "nuke" a few men at a time if the cover is good, because the rest aren't literally right there and aren't literally as well located as the guys that were spotted, and aren't literally is as little cover (which is why some were spotted and others were not), etc. Or, you have to tone down the spotting by gobs and gobs, and report single man IDs instead of squads all over the place, and in the wrong locations, too.

Imagine every spotting report you received was a sound contact within 100 meters of the real unit. Now blast away with your M-1s at the reported positions. Not so uber anymore, are they? That is much closer to the real relationship, firing at clouds of unlocated men in cover.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[JasonC]

On Kwaj, fair enough, I am going mostly by the after action report that few of the positions were elaborately prepared, most were hasty, etc.

On 100m, I am assuming you have lots of spots. The point is they would all overlap and run into each other. You would not realistically even know that 5 sound reports mean there are at least 5 different "units" (whatever those are) in the area. But you certainly wouldn't know from each guy spotted, whether he is a scout for a squad a building back, or a rear guard for a unit that left three minutes ago, or one of eight there right now, or the left flank of a squad spread over four building toward the right, or...

You get the idea. The individual man spots do not come with unit IDs and numbers and locations attached. You get many of them, and don't know anything about what they mean about where anyone else might be. The number and the small arms noise level tells you the appoximate size of the whole formation you are in contact with. And that is really about it. For the rest, you only have the fleeting glimpses themselves, and they are old info within 20 seconds.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Omenowl]

I don't think this game has invalidated the infantry by any means. The vision of armor is poor and infantry with anti-tank weapons are absolutely devestating. Anything that confines movement and has places where infantry can hide makes unsupported armor suicide.

Better maps are what is needed to make infantry more valuable. Same could be said for CMBO. I can do a flat piece of ground or at least LOS of up to 1000 meters in either CMSF and CMBO and in either case armor dominates.

[Battlefront.com]

Adam1,

I'm totally at a loss as to why there is opposition to this.

Because all games have an optimal scale and going outside of it produces problems that in turn have to be addressed. It is what we call "design creep" and it must be avoided more than anything else because it gets us into an endless cycle of distraction or leaves things in a way that isn't good.

JasonC's point about the effects of one side micromanaging the Hell out of his forces and the other is something that most CMx1 guys know about first hand. The split squad feature in CMx1 was not handled very well and it is one of the primary reasons we are very reluctant to go down that road again.

It is not true that the game already has what you are wanting. The US MOUT Squad has 3 Teams because that is what it has in the real world. A regular US Squad only has 2 Teams because that is what it has in the real world. A Syrian Squad (with the exception of SF) only had a single Team. Therefore, the game correctly models this reality as the default. Any argument to undermine this reality will be "opposed", as you put it.

Splitting Squads is possible to some extent depending on what type of Squad it is. Teams are not sub-dividable. Therefore, you can split a US Rifle Squad up into two Teams, but no more than that. We are not going to change this.

BTW, it is true that the soldiers bunch up within an Action Spot more than they probably would in most situations in real life. That is why effects from things like shells and grenades are "dumbed down" to counter balance the density. I've been over that particular point a bunch of times now and, at one point, even provided exact data about how this is handled. I don't recall what it is but someone good at SEARCH might dig it up.

Steve

[Secondbrooks]

Full of Spoilers about Trident Valley-mission

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

I've been trying to play Trident Valley mission tweaked to have Syrian SF company and reservist AT-platoon having SPGs and AT-3s, instead of mechaniced company.

I don't know am i actually doing something wrong (well this should be from-the-book-ambush), but if my SF platoon (3 RPG-29s) can take out just one Bradley from platoon during ambush at less than 100 meters away and after that withness as rest of Bradley platoon first takes out all my At-specialists, and then kills rest of platoon if they open fire with their small arms (situation lasting about 2-3 minutes while SF platoon loosing most it's men)... I'm not much very pleased.

Situation is following. My ambush is set into Villages (platoon per village) which opponent is trying to take villages with bradley paltoon per villge+Company leading elements to village in middle. Whole platoon is able to open fire to spot where Bradley-platoon's infantry will disembark. Bradleys are comming one by one (but in haste tempo), my guys takes out the first one, but next ones (not visible at point when first one is being engaged and destoryed) arrives and immediatly starts to slaugther my AT-guys. Some AT-guys may be able to fire their second rocket and hit next Bradley but usually not resulting severe damage to Bradleys. Third and eventually forth Bradley arrives and my platoon has lost all AT-specialists, this happens in less than 30 seconds from opening fire.

If averagely only one of my three ambushing platoons can demolish whole Bradley platoon, while rest of fights result one derstroyed + 1 minorly damaged Bradley + some men dead, i'm prone to think that something smells bad. My gear is good, RPG-29 is beast, SF are veteran and well led and reservists are good too. I'm inside buildings, have very consentrated firepower (whole paltoon) to area where enemy will come (one-by-one). But yet i've lost.

Bonus:

My additional SPG's were having flankfiringpositions, in good AT-spirit, overwatching village in middle (which had Bradley platoon + Company's leading elements) was not other case. My SPG's could use all their ammo (about 8 HEATs+tandems + 4 HE) to single Bradley causing mobilitykill usually.

Any thoughts anyone to what i should do? I'm not manifesting against Bradleys resitance to beating, but to reason that my ambush which should have most of good cards on it's side gets mostly wiped out in short amount of time, usually tide of fight has turned against me (AT-men lying in their blood, while rest are not taking AT-wepon from him) in about than 30 seconds from first rocket hitting first Bradley.

EDIT: When talking about fight i'm meaning seperate fights (3) at each village.

Has to admit that i think that CMSF is vehicle focused/favoring game (which makes me sad), infantry can do things in reality that is not reasonable to put in CMSF, like things which JasonC told. While vehicles mostly can do just things which are in CMSF. Possible problem might we less visible if vehicles could take just 1-2 AT-round into their skin. The thing i usually preach for in some other games-related forums: if AT-guy can't work like in reality than vehicle shouldn't work and resist like in reality... I'm asshole who takes side of poor and misunderstood AT-guy.

[ April 06, 2008, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[Battlefront.com]

I don't think armor is unrealistically "über" in CMx2. Often it is superior to infantry and heavy weapons, but hey... that's the way it is in real life these days. Well, at least if you're the Syrians and playing with typical equipment instead of the high end stuff. What I mean by that is the weapons systems JasonC used against the Bradleys are in some cases 40 years old. Look at WWII and anything within a couple of years of each other might be a match, but anything outside of that wasn't really much to write home about (anybody want to be a Pak36 vs. a T-34/85?).

If one really wants to test out how "über" armor may, or may not be, I suggest playing Blue on Blue. I'd take a dug in US Rifle Platoon with Javelins vs. an Abrams Platoon any day of the week

As for JasonC's comments about ID'ing infantry:

On 100m, I am assuming you have lots of spots. The point is they would all overlap and run into each other. You would not realistically even know that 5 sound reports mean there are at least 5 different "units" (whatever those are) in the area. But you certainly wouldn't know from each guy spotted, whether he is a scout for a squad a building back, or a rear guard for a unit that left three minutes ago, or one of eight there right now, or the left flank of a squad spread over four building toward the right, or...

This is true, and it is as true for CMx1 as it is for CMx2 or any other wargame for that matter. The reason is simply that game systems, be they computer or boardgame, do not lend themselves well to such an extreme amount of FoW.

This isn't just about what we code and show on the screen, it's about what the player has in his mind because he is "God" and can see far more in one glance than any real world soldier or commander ever could. On top of that, no real world counterpart has the ability to pause the action and assess what is going on.

So, to be fair to CMx2... this is a bugger of a problem that is not unique to it and likely won't get better any time soon. Honestly, I'm not sure most gamers would want it to get "better" either since gamers LIKE having the hard definitions to go by rather than having little-to know visualization of the organization.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Drusus]

The problem with squads that can't be splitted is that this forces the whole squad in one action spot. That is, one well placed HE shell will likely kill most of them, or that they will all be suppressed when fired upon with small arms.

For example in the Finnish army it is SOP to have spacing of 5 meters between each men when moving, and in fighting it is about 10 meters and then a pair of men. (The Finnish system is all about "fighter pairs".) That means that there should not be more than 2 men per action spot, when CMSF would put all of them in one spot!

If there can't be a TacAI solution to this (and I find it hard to see how there could be an effective TacAI solution) then it would seem best to have teams even for Syrians.

A possible solution would be something like this. If you issue a move order to your squad, then you could either move the whole squad as it is now, or alternatively do a alt-click (or something) with the following effect: The first click would place move order for team 1. Then the following 2 clicks would tell where you want the teams 2 and 3 to go, with the restriction that the locations must be 50m of team 1.

The idea is that you don't actually split up the squad, but you still do tell the teams where you want them. This way it is easy to restrict the misuse of squad splitting but on the other hand you can do something to the one action spot per squad restriction.

Or how hard would it be to have teams being over 50m of team 1 lose a lot of morale and maybe lose C&C. This would also restrict the misuse of squad splitting to minimal while still allowing some spacing between men.

There are of course more reasons to have some sort of squad splitting. For example when you are trying to kill an enemy tank, you have to order the whole squad in LOS (and LOF, of course) of the enemy tank to use the RPG of the squad. The end result is more often than not that you will lose the whole squad when the enemy spots the fired RPG, with the whole squad being within 5m of the firer... Is this the SOP in Syrian army?

[ChrisND]

This is my largest infantry concern as well. The dismounts bunch up like a bunch of cherries on their first FTX.

That, and how infantry entering a room insist on getting to their "spot" before returning fire, even if they have to run around a red guy (!).

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Adam1:

In that case then, I'd rather have the old abstracted squads back. Full squads definitely don't cut it yet, even though the new firearms model is really neat.

There are certainly two possible routes here:

a) revert to CMx1 squad representation,

improve the CMx2 model.

Personally, I would go with option .

All those wanting back the CMx1 system imply that the CMx2 system cannot evolve into something that will meet most requirements most of the time. That is an awfully pessimistic viewpoint! It is also not a correct one, IMHO. Think back to the switch from the old LOS system to ELOS! Suddenly we got almost shooter-like LOS fidelity!

Let Charles throw some more man-months at the engine and see what happens! After all, he should have that time while the content for the Marines module is created.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Cpl Steiner]

Drusus,

I think you are mistaken that unsplit squads are forced to occupy a single action spot. A squad of two or more teams will usually take up 2 or more action spots - even Syrian squads that can't be manually split.

Steve,

You've said on a number of occasions that US squads can split because their TOE says they are made up of 2 or 3 fireteams but that Syrian squads can't split because their TOE is less flexible.

However, despite there being no formal fireteam structure within a Syrian squad, surely in real life the squad leader would be allowed to utilise the men under his command in ad-hoc teams at his own discretion? The mere fact that the squad includes a support weapon would imply that Syrian squad leaders understand the concept of fire and manoeuvre elements just as well as the next man.

To my mind, using the TOE alone and basing everything on that seems unreal. I'm sure a Syrian squad leader would understand the idea of splitting up his men to cover two directions at once, such as two sides of a building.

Personally I don't think it would detract from the realism of the game if Syrian squads consisted of 2 "unofficial" teams - one containing all support weapons (LMG, RPG) and another containing just riflemen.

[Omenowl]

If you want squads to "split up" when it is not part of their TOE then I would recommend using a distance limitation. Squad components would be unable to move further than X action spots away.

I honestly see this being more hassle than it is worth. CMSF is about company engagements rather than being a squad leader so micromanaging squads seems to go into the wrong unrealistic direction.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:

You've said on a number of occasions that US squads can split because their TOE says they are made up of 2 or 3 fireteams but that Syrian squads can't split because their TOE is less flexible.

However, despite there being no formal fireteam structure within a Syrian squad, surely in real life the squad leader would be allowed to utilise the men under his command in ad-hoc teams at his own discretion? The mere fact that the squad includes a support weapon would imply that Syrian squad leaders understand the concept of fire and manoeuvre elements just as well as the next man.

To my mind, using the TOE alone and basing everything on that seems unreal. I'm sure a Syrian squad leader would understand the idea of splitting up his men to cover two directions at once, such as two sides of a building.

i strongly suspect that not only does the Syrian squad leader understand the above, but he is also trained to do so. he would give separate orders for LMG and RPG based "teams" without any need to "split up" the squad. at least that's how Finns do it.

EDIT: BTW, this is TOE for basic Finnish squad:

Jaeger Squad

1. Squad Leader

2. 1st Pair

- Machinegunner

- Rifleman

3. 2nd Pair

- Rifleman (with AT weapon)

- Rifleman

4. 3rd Pair

- Rifleman

- Rifleman (assistant leader)

would the above mean that in CMSF the seven man strong Finnish jaeger squad would split into 4 units, as that's the official TOE? certainly not.

[ April 07, 2008, 06:34 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

[Splinty]

Syrian NCOs aren't trained and grown like their Western counterparts. They're chosen for their reliability and toughness like in the old Soviet system. A typical Syrian NCO has the same training and experience as one of his squaddies, hell he probably was drafted in the same round of call-ups!

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by JasonC:

If there is one place I'd really like to see the effects of per shot modeling, it would be snipers that can actually hit things. I don't see it, ....

and

Originally posted by JasonC:

Adam, on sniper effectiveness, you might simply post your result.

Jason I did not make playtesting notes, but in the "Rescue of baker 1-1" scenario I played Sunday I had a sniper team that was quite effective. For example I recall watching them catch a Syrian command team in the open and they just shot the heck out of them. Again, I was just playing the game, not testing so sorry - no records.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Splinty:

Syrian NCOs aren't trained and grown like their Western counterparts. They're chosen for their reliability and toughness like in the old Soviet system. A typical Syrian NCO has the same training and experience as one of his squaddies, hell he probably was drafted in the same round of call-ups!

compare to Finns: glorious 6 months of training. smallest tactical unit is company. defense and attack starts at range of 100 meters. fire from hip when running. attack tanks with molotov cocktails. if enemy gets into your trench (heh) use axe. bounding overwatch is done on scale of two men (one man shoots the other dashes). such innate Western tactical & doctrinal superiority.

EDIT:

(image from official Squad Leader's Manual, printed in 1996)

[ April 07, 2008, 07:54 AM: Message edited by: undead reindeer cavalry ]

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Adam1:

In that case then, I'd rather have the old abstracted squads back. Full squads definitely don't cut it yet, even though the new firearms model is really neat.

There are certainly two possible routes here:

a) revert to CMx1 squad representation,

improve the CMx2 model.

Personally, I would go with option .

All those wanting back the CMx1 system imply that the CMx2 system cannot evolve into something that will meet most requirements most of the time. That is an awfully pessimistic viewpoint! It is also not a correct one, IMHO. Think back to the switch from the old LOS system to ELOS! Suddenly we got almost shooter-like LOS fidelity!

Let Charles throw some more man-months at the engine and see what happens! After all, he should have that time while the content for the Marines module is created.

Best regards,

Thomm </font>