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

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Just a quick word on the quality issue.

Syrian Special Forces are good… by any standards. There is book, one of these relatively recent 800 page volumes that is the standard work on Arab armies and written by some guy in the CIA ( my books are in storage so forgive for not quoting the name)…. Anyway he systematically goes through all the forces of all the major Arab armies and makes clear that Syrian Special Forces are a match for any. Including Israelis Special Forces.

Being Special Forces you can also think of them as the ultimate light infantry. At this sort of attack they should be a match for any and have a clear advantage over any “line” infantry…US or UK.

As we cannot see the fire power figures CMSF is using for different weapons narrowing down the problem is difficult. However, just from the graphics of the firing it is clear that in Assault US forces pour out hugely more, many times more fire.

Also remember in the editor we are free to set our own “quality”/experience levels. Set to the same experience levels the difference in fire while assaulting should not be as great.

So far my conclusions are that

1) Syrians of all types should fire more in Assault. (Once again. if you wish to set them as low quality just give them low experience in the editor.)

2) Protection levels for trenches need to increase.

3) US infantry in Assault need to be less lethal, probably fire less.

Currently US infantry inflicts “ten times” the casualties similar numbers of Syrian Special Forces do when attacking infantry in trenches. This is not an accurate reflection of reality. In my very prejudiced view .

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

PS I wrote a twenty page training manual on how Soviet infantry should attack over the open against German infantry using CMBB. I have watched these attacks happen, and the suppression that goes with them, dozens of times. If CMBB more or less got it right, when it comes to suppression and such, there is something odd going on with US infantry. They are too brave and too good.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

As we cannot see the fire power figures CMSF is using for different weapons narrowing down the problem is difficult. However, just from the graphics of the firing it is clear that in Assault US forces pour out hugely more, many times more fire.

Not that I disagree with your conclusions, Kip, but come on - you've been a fixture here for how many years and you honestly don't know not to draw conclusions from the in-game graphics vis-a-vis what goes on under the hood?

I note that Steve side-stepped my suggestion in the Uncanny Valley thread completely about a Designer's Notes document. I think such a thing would be of enormous benefit to people outside the parameters of a simple "how to manual", though of course a gamer's guide would be good to, and I suspect on the list of things to do in the months ahead.

[track]

Well how about making U.S. even stronger. Because:

1) They are U.S. and obviously best at everything

2) They deserve to win

3) God and country wills it

4) Insert here your own argument

[Truppenfuhrung]

I think that the last time a US Army assaulted trenches, it was during the Gulf War.

It was a one side victory...

Conclusion: Trench warfare vs. US Force is a bad idea...

[track]

Defenders carpet bombed first. Then one sided barrage of tank rounds and perhaps last a chance to drown in the trench beign buldozered under ground or alternatively try make a run for it over the open ground.

Poor bastards.

Conclusion any open normal style warfare against a supreme enemy with a total air superiority is a bad and very stupid idea.

[ August 14, 2007, 12:12 PM: Message edited by: track ]