Bug: Trench not enough protection, infantry in open not suppressed easily enough.

[kipanderson]

Not some major crash issue, but tweaks needed.

Hi,

I built a training scenario to test my infantry skills.

Syrian mechanised platoon, less their AFVs, in trenches defending against US Stryker company less their AFVs. Near open terrain. Frontal assault. I played the Syrians and simply un-Hid them when the US infantry were about 250m away.

Result: Syrians wiped out with 35 odd casualties, US forces 16 casualties and took the trenches.

In CMBB the defenders would have been able hold off the attackers until they ran out of ammunition. I know, I trained for CMBB on many such scenarios. The problem is two fold. Trenches do not offer enough protection, and probably most importantly, infantry in the open are not suppressed easily enough. When compared to CMBB.

The attacking infantry manoeuvred and fired very well, great to watch. But should have more often been forced to hit the ground and been pinned. At three to one, over open ground, an infantry attack should have been stalled.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[KNac]

Which was each unit experience?

Also remember US markmanship, optics and infantry armor are better. Don't know for squad vs. squad firepower, but quite possible US has stronger firepower too.

[Roter Stern]

Try having a Syrian Spec Ops unit defend in the same scenario, I'm sure you'll find the results to be quite different.

On the other side of the spectrum, I'm really getting pissed off with the Guerrilla troops not being able to spot anything short of a tank at over 300m, let alone do any real damage :mad:

[molotov_billy]

Might want to try this one as red vs red, same units on both sides.

[kipanderson]

KNac,

In CMSF we cannot check the firepower figures as in CMX1… so hard to tell.

But BFC will be able to. Defensive fire, suppression looked less than in CMBB, more like CMBO.

Anyway… should be easily checked by BFC.

All the best,

Kip.

[thewood]

One of my first posts after relaese was that US troops keep on coming. It is difficult to suppress them. I have planned on testing various troop parameters to see what the effect is, but all parameters being equal, US troops look like supermen. Dare I say Hamster-Uber

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Red v Red is a good idea... will try it.

All the best,

Kip.

[metalbrew]

Kip,

How about replaying the battle with Syrians vs Syrians. My guess is that situation would be more revealing of the game itself.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Well I took the advise and did a Red v Red. Very different result… you guys were correct .

The attacking force was easily stopped. The difference is that the US forces Assault… fire a lot while they leap-frog forward. The Syrians when they attack fire hugely less. Thus do not suppress the defenders, thus suffer more casualties.

Firing while in the attack is what matters.

Happy endings.

All the best,

Kip.

[Londoner]

Not sure what game you're playing Kip! Suppression or not, for me infantry in the open get whacked pretty damn quickly. Hell for that matter infantry in buildings get whacked pretty darn quickly.

[Secondbrooks]

Us has allkinds of nice optics installed to their rifles. Those things affects much on firepower of unit, surely this is modelled in CM:SF also.

I'm throwing wild guess that US squad has about twice as high firepower than Syrian squad (without experience checks), because of their optics. So basically syrian platoon was facing TWO companies of US troops.

Also. Experience has heavy impact. Just tried to attack with green-level troops and despite covered attackroute against small enemy force, my men didn't have much change. They took few casualities and after that i wasn't able to command them for a long time. My plan failed utterly as i expected them to act like veterans :mad:

EDIT: Oh. Yopu found answer... Good.

Why Syrians can't leap frog? Is it, for real (i mean in the real life) out from their combat drills? Well SF troops are be able... Or is it dependant of experience? I don't remeber (and my memory is terrible).

[ August 12, 2007, 12:07 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[metalbrew]

I suspect a lot of damage is absorbed by US body armor. Put a platoon of Syrian SF (they also have body armor) in the trench and I'd bet the US company is stopped.

Sure there's a lot of variables but I'm playing a hunch.

[track]

Is it possible to try this U.S. vs. U.S. too? Would be interesting. Don't have SF installed atm.

[dan/california]

I would also guess that 250 meters is to far out to unhide the Syrians in this scenario. RPGs, which such a big piece of the Syrian firepower are not going to be fully effective at that range.

[Pandur]

I would also guess that 250 meters is to far out to unhide the Syrians in this scenario.

you will find that its nearly impossible to hide infantry in trench when enemys are closer than 300m with vehicles maybe.

i said it often befor but it seems they can look around corners, wich obviously also works to look downwards into trenches from far away.

i find one of the biggest power of the syrians in the smal tactical area is suprise and fireing first(logicale their wasted if US has this advantages ) but when you fail to hide and get yourself spotted from far away its done with that...

i tried that in a 400*400 map Hotseat with a trench line along the map edge. after some turns every hidden unit is spotted, identified, and can be fired upon and killed in their trench also with regular projectil weapons(not just 40mm or bigger HE´s).

thats good to get the AI a bit "easier" as opposition but in mutiplayer i can imagine that to be even much more annoying.

anyways...noone else seems to dislike that so lets see...

[thelmia]

Originally posted by metalbrew:

I suspect a lot of damage is absorbed by US body armor. Put a platoon of Syrian SF (they also have body armor) in the trench and I'd bet the US company is stopped.

Sure there's a lot of variables but I'm playing a hunch.

I was going to ask about body armor. A real test would be to also run the same scenario with the US forces dug in and the Syrians attacking and see if they take significantly fewer casualties. Then you can see what the effects of trenches are.

Hiding outside doesn't seem to work very well. I can only hide indefinately in buildings.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Trenched do seem to offer very little protection.

This probably still needs to be looked at.

Will try more tests.

All the best,

Kip.

[jomni]

The trench in my opinion is just normal terrain that blocks line of sight and movement. No added protection is given to it's occupant. (No protection value is applied to battle calculations)

[track]

What? Can these be? How about other terrain features (buildings, woods etc.)? Maybe there are other interesting results as well.

Just occured to me that if the game follows bullets' flight paths like in real life. Then the LOS is the most important factor. Maybe there is no old style abstract terrain factor anymore?

[ August 13, 2007, 01:22 AM: Message edited by: track ]

[jomni]

Originally posted by track:

What? Can these be? How about other terrain features (buildings, woods etc.)? Maybe there are other interesting results as well.

Just occured to me that if the game follows bullets' flight paths like in real life. Then the LOS is the most important factor. Maybe there is no old style abstract terrain factor anymore?

Same observation here. Someone has pointed out that trees and brushes are useless cover.

[track]

Same observation here. Someone has pointed out that trees and brushes are useless cover.

Well this points strongly to the direction that combat is resolved on basis of LOS calculations. Wonder if there is any kind of material protection values or is it entirely black and white (can be hit/can't be hit).

[Pandur]

i guess, it makes "some" difference as steve said that you soliers are asumed to use cover and stuff better than you would think by seeing on screen.

so i think it still matters wich tile they are on and wich properties it has.

[dischord]

Edit: NM...

[jep]

Originally posted by Secondbrooks:

Us has allkinds of nice optics installed to their rifles. Those things affects much on firepower of unit, surely this is modelled in CM:SF also.

Sorry but this is blatantly wrong. When somebody shoots at that distance nice optic does not give you anything. To put it simple, US troops should not be able to defeat syrian troops. It does not matter how well trained participants are (better training does not help when your opponent do nothing but shoot you from covered position). Infact US soldiers should promptly refuse to even consider assault like this. Also, bigger firepower (Javelins etc.) does not help when your troops cannot use those weapons.

Originally posted by Secondbrooks:

Experience has heavy impact. Just tried to attack with green-level troops and despite covered attackroute against small enemy force, my men didn't have much change. They took few casualities and after that i wasn't able to command them for a long time. My plan failed utterly as i expected them to act like veterans

Really, experience should be modelled better. No country would train militia if they would not work. If nothing else, they should be given experience bonus because it is easy to defend. I think same goes with optical sights.

[jep]

Double post.