Please Put Infantry Smoke In CMx2

[Thomm]

Maybe this does not count as evidence, but in the movie "A Bridge to Far", a pillbox at the end of the Arnhem bridge is assaulted by paratroopers and, when the assault failed, smoke grenades were thrown to cover the retreat ...

Best regards,

Thomm

[YankeeDog]

I definitely agree that more for more modern timeframes (Vietnam forward, at least), there is strong evidence for the use Infantry Smoke as a tool to conceal movement.

BFC has repeatedly stated that the new engine is being built to be much more flexible so that new features can be added in as the game visits new theatres and time periods. So I think it's pretty clear they will be able to add infantry smoke to the game when and if it's warranted.

But, assuming that the initial release is WWII or earlier (which seems very likely, though not certain at this point), I doubt they will include it for the initial release, unless someone can show concrete evidence that it should be included.

Cheers,

YD

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Maybe this does not count as evidence, but in the movie "A Bridge to Far", a pillbox at the end of the Arnhem bridge is assaulted by paratroopers and, when the assault failed, smoke grenades were thrown to cover the retreat ...

Best regards,

Thomm

Yep. Hollywood movies are generally viewed as pretty weak evidence when you're trying to prove a historical point.

But it's not a bad place to start. ABTF (the book and by extension the movie) was based on history. If look at the source material used to write the book (should be a list in the index er sumfink), you might be able to find the source the author used to write this particular section of action. If the use of smoke grenades is in the original source material, then you've got a good piece of evidence.

[c3k]

All right, let's get away from all this "WWII this" and "WWII that" talk. CMx2 should be FLEXIBLE to cover a variety of periods.

Infantry smoke could be useful for modern fights; to call in air support; to smoke out tunnels; to be used as CS gas; etc.

Ken

[Tero]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Why would anyone use a smoke grenade in "close combat"?

1) To blind the enemy (tank, pillbox, bunker) before you make your move

2) Obscure his vision in order to confuse and unnerve him (It is quite amazing what a smoke grenade and a battle cry can do in favour of your rush onto the enemy, especially when it is your troops who are outnumbered 1 to 3 and not his.),

3) to conceal your numbers (see #2) and true intentions and actions (cover your retreat as well as lateral movement, bringing in reinforcements etc)

[Tero]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Hollywood movies are generally viewed as pretty weak evidence when you're trying to prove a historical point.

And you might also consider the fact that not all troops were US/CW.

[Michael Dorosh]

http://www.calgaryhighlanders.com/history/quescamb.htm

Interesting comments from a Canadian company commander on the use of Phosphorous and Smoke grenades against enemy troops in houses at the above URL; this is copied directly from a battle experience questionnaire.

Have you found any of these weapons outstandingly effective? If so, which and why?

Weapon: 77 Grenade

Chief reason(s) for Effectiveness: Clearing out deep slits and dugouts. Phosphorous and smoke work like a charm. Sometimes useful in buildings for same reason.

So smoke, while probably not used often for cover, were used to blind tanks and, at least according to Major Campbell, for literally "smoking out" soldiers from dugouts and buildings.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Tero:

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Hollywood movies are generally viewed as pretty weak evidence when you're trying to prove a historical point.

And you might also consider the fact that not all troops were US/CW.

Heh. Considering I've already talked about one group of non-US/CW troops (Germans), I think what you meant to say is "And you might also consider the fact that some troops are Finnish."

Nevertheless, point taken: When and if CMX2 does a setting involving Finns, infantry smoke is warrented. I suppose pinecones and toothpick modeling will be needed as well.

[Tero]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Heh. Considering I've already talked about one group of non-US/CW troops (Germans), I think what you meant to say is "And you might also consider the fact that some troops are Finnish."

Or "And you might also consider the fact that some troops actually used smoke grenades effectively in close combat."

Nevertheless, point taken: When and if CMX2 does a setting involving Finns, infantry smoke is warrented. I suppose pinecones and toothpick modeling will be needed as well.

But of course. And lets get some Komsomolets arty tractors thrown in for good measure so that there will be some cross country mobility for the Finnish on board arty and ordnance.

[Peter Cairns]

OKay but if we put smoke in should it be a weapon you can fire or should it just happen under the control of the TACAI.

I am still of theview that like grenades it shouldn't be simulated as an option that a player can control.

In my post on Helicopters I took the same view , that they should be tretedlike artillery not vehicles, as CM is about commanding a company not role playing 120 individual men.

Peter.

[YankeeDog]

I completely agree that, when and if included, infantry-thrown smoke grenades should be controlled by the TacAI, and not the player.

Way to much micromanagement to give control of such a thing to the player. And a PITA, too. It takes me long enough to issue all my orders for one turn in CM, without additionally having to issue orders for what type of grenades I want thrown where and when.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I am still of theview that like grenades it shouldn't be simulated as an option that a player can control.

Since smoke grenades are grenades, it's hard to argue against them being simulated like grenades.

And since I recall the time on exercise on Woodbury Common that pillock O/Cdt Johns threw an unsolicited smoke grenade that made a right bugger's muddle of a section attack I was commanding, I tend to concur with the idea of "no player control".

But since over fourteen million of the things were produced for the Wehrmacht alone, I'd like to see them in the game.

All the best,

John.

[Battlefront.com]

Cripes Dorosh, I thought you were talking about Major Mark Campbell, who is a personal friend of mine having nothing to do with CM And it wouldn't have surprised me either. One time I was looking through some pics of Canadian forces in Afghanistan, and there he was at the head of a coulmn. Funny Then I met another Candian Major, at random, who is a buddy of his. Makes me think the Canadian Army is smaller than my High School class

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, this is rather a nasty question to ask about the reason for casualties:

"Please list, in order of importance, the causes of wastage"

I'm sure the men in the trenches would have been thrilled to know that if they got killed they were considered waste.

Steve

[Joachim]

If we get more smoke, I want the ability to shoot through it (as well as thru any other concealment). Changing only one feature would unbalance the game.

Gruß

Joachim

[YankeeDog]

Excellent point. As modeling of concealment, like smoke, gets more refined, it's important to also refine the modeling of firepower and supression, so that "soft cover" doesn't become unrealistically effective.

Cheers,

YD