Jump to content

Walls, Windows and other assorted MOUT problems


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 206
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why not simply have Syrian UNCONS have no movement restrictions? Let them run through walls of buildings and regular walls. Just limit their movement rate a bit for game balance and call it a day? Simulates an UNCONS ability to slink about and move all over the place with little hindrance. Sure it'd be nice to have a good formula to figure out how long it'll take the two guys with the RPG to move through that window, but the end result is they got out the window right?

I know BF wants a simulation of modern warfare, but until the action spots go the whole thing is still an abstraction.

-Jenrick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, you missed the original point.

The problem that we were discussing here is the lack of FoW for firing units. Sometimes, as the original poster points out, CMx2 mechanics require you to use fire against things other than enemy units.

The engine tells the opponent about this regardless of whether he has a units in sight or not.

The rest of the discussion is just a distraction. As long as the above FoW issue is in place people will argue to relax mechanisms for entering structures because that would overall lead to an improvement in realism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for deformable terrain being included in Fog Of War, unfortunately this isn't practical for us to add. It's a better thing to shoot for getting in compared to window entry points, but it's still too much work for too little gain simulation wide in our opinion. Not showing something means having to know when to change the state to being seen. There's no code to support that now and adding it isn't trivial.

Still, it is definitely something we would like to have in the game in theory, so I hope someday we will. But it's not going to be soon.

Steve

Well, it's seems - in theory - easier to do as to keep track of LOS to (most) enemy units. Explosion animations can be kept hidden if no friendly units have LOS to them. And if for example a crater is at point X, a wall is broken or a building destroyed need to be checked only once - and I also believe it would be sufficient if borg spotting is used in this case.

Pure theory, of course, of a person who don't have to hardcode this ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of this can be addressed through scenario design. It is perfectly possible to lay out a web of buildings where the doors are set up to make getting around without being seen possible.

Yep. If the defender/ambusher does not have covered routes to withdraw or move around, then either the scenario designer forgot to put them in or did it on purpose. For now, that is the work-around that must be done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I understand everything that has been said here. As is often the case, there is a general under appreciation for what is being asked of us and what the ramifications are to the game as a whole. For example, nobody has responded to this portion of what I wrote:

Let's say we did simulate another couple of dozen window types and scenario designers actually used them. How do you, the player, use them within a game? Currently AI pathing gets your guys into buildings. This has proved to be a tricky thing to for the AI to do in the past, though now it works fine. And that's with very clear entrance/exit points. How the Hell do you expect the AI to read your mind that you don't want it to go through one wall vs. another one? There's no acceptable way I can think of.

If we leave it to the TacAI it will get it wrong way too often, I can guarantee you of that. If we add specific Commands to the UI then we're going down the wrong road of overspecialization of Commands, which in turn will produce complaints about the difficulties of playing in MOUT scenarios. And that is not even taking into consideration the game penalties for going through windows that are extremely realistic and yet nearly impossible to simulate in a way that people would like.

You guys have got to remember that we can not create an open ended, 100% do as you like simulation. It's impossible. Every bit of detail has to be coded, tested, tweaked, and supported.

I often get accused of selective reasoning, but man-oh-man have I seen a lot of it in this thread :D The difference is that there's no ramifications for a player's selected reasoning because he doesn't have to do anything to make it happen (if it is even possible).

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redwolf,

Steve, you missed the original point.

The problem that we were discussing here is the lack of FoW for firing units. Sometimes, as the original poster points out, CMx2 mechanics require you to use fire against things other than enemy units.

The engine tells the opponent about this regardless of whether he has a units in sight or not.

Nope, I understood the point perfectly (I even reread the initial two pages just to make sure). Apparently you didn't understand my answer. The answer is the game system has absolutely no way of simulating FOW for terrain. A blown up section of wall is seen by both sides simultaneously because there's no way to filter that information based on LOS. And we don't expect to be able to do that for a very long time.

Scipio,

Pure theory, of course, of a person who don't have to hardcode this.

Exactly. In theory it's easy, in reality there are problems with doing this. It's not like we didn't think about these issues 4 or 5 years ago you know. It's pretty obvious stuff. If it were easy to do it would have already been done, but it isn't so don't hold your breath for it happening any time soon.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RSColonel_132st,

Steve, your choice of setting for this game gives one of two human players in PBEM a very real disadvantage. Instead of allowing the Syrian Commander to make up for the tactical shortcomings of his men trough creativity and "out-of-the-box" tactics, you force him to play by the same rules as the superior-in-firepower US Side. Yes, if the scenario is set up very loopsided or with very tight restrictions on Blue (Casuality Percentage for example) the Red Player can still win - but even then, playing is NOT fun.

In your opinion. In other thread where you obsessed (and I mean that literally) over a single scenario I don't think you read much of what people said to counter your opinions. Many people pointed out the things that can be done that you say aren't possible. That's OK... you can throw the baby out with the bathwater if you want to.

The weaker side in the current asymmetric conflicts has proven to be all but stupid. They are very creative in ways to make up for their inherent disadvantages. But whenever something like that is brought up here (like improvised tin metal sheet top cover for foxholes or trenches, to bring an example for "open warfare) your arguments are always "no, the US wouldn't do that, and thus no other army would do that".

A gross distortion of what I actually say. You've cherry picked through my counter arguments to focus on those things which you want to toss back at me and have ignored the rest because it is inconvenient. As I said above, it that's what you want to do I can't really do much about it.

I can't emphasize enough... CM:SF has never, ever, EVER been a counter-insurgency simulation. Many of the things argued for, and argued about, are based on flawed arguments based on what is going on in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. It's a similar environment, therefore there is overlap. We've provided a lot of that overlap. But to REALLY simulate COIN Ops we would need to add so many things that it makes our heads spin. CM:SF is a conventional game with an asymmetric element which is in keeping with that environment. Argue all you want about what you think CM:SF should be, however we have been extremely clear about the distinction since the very beginning.

I for one won't be buying any future modules for CMSF, and hope that CMx2 WW2 will again bring the even-sided fun that CMBB was. Blue vs. Blue and Red vs. Red is right now the only way to have a fair shot at an even-chanced PBEM game...

Again, you are entitled to your opinion but I remind you that your opinion is not shared by everybody. The other thread you were ranting on and on and on about Al Huqf had a lot of people disagreeing with you, so I'm not buying your extreme position as anything more than hubris. As someone said on the first page, you'd be better off not obsessing about this one scenario.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, back to discussing the game mechanics. This was posted by Salwon on the first page of this thread and I think it needs to be repeated:

Moving through windows is one of those things that seems like it should be there, but would lead to such a drastic increase in the complexity of the sim that it's not really feasible. If you can go through windows, why not go up a ladder to the roof, or why not rappel down from the roof? These are things the ASL guys were fighting over, but the law of diminishing returns comes in very quickly with this level of fidelity. An Uncon unit has a supreme stealth advantage - blue won't know you're there until YOU decide to make your presence known. Set up your cover arcs etc for maximum instant effect, which can be drastic, and understand that "Force Preservation" will not be a high priority for your higher command.

Exactly :D The law of diminishing returns, especially when those features lend themselves to combat ops that CM:SF is generally not designed to handle (i.e. COIN Ops), are extremely important to pay attention to. The laundry list of things people wanted added to CMx1 games was so long that we'd still be only a quarter the way through what had been proposed by 2002, not to mention suggestions made after. I often used an example, which I dubbed "Bovine MG42 Sponge" (US soldiers using cows for cover while assaulting a troublesome German MG position), to hammer this point home. We must focus on the common battlefield conditions, not the extraneous ones, because even the common stuff takes YEARS to simulate correctly. Trust me guys... you don't want us to lose our focused philosophy. It wouldn't be pretty :D

From SgtMuhammed comes another quote that bears repeating:

Unfortunately there are compromises for any game. If you think about it the fact that you have a perfect view of the map at all is quite unrealistic. You can recon the entire map without ever putting a single boot on the ground. Real commanders would kill to be able to do that.

There are discussions about many of the things mentioned here but it often seems that things that should be simple never are. Hardware limitations, programing code, and unforseen effects all conspire to send seemingly easy changes straight into the toilet.

I always find it amusing when people focus on one small subset of reality problems and argue as if the sky is falling, yet don't mention much larger and far worse (at least in some people's opinion) issues. It is therefore quite useless to argue for/against a game feature purely along the lines of realism. Without taking into account the greater context it just isn't relevant.

Now, that is not to say that we don't want to make improvements to this or that feature to make it more realistic. I would love to be able to have FOW terrain deformation. I always have, but I know it's not going to happen any time soon so I don't let it bother me. Just like I don't let it bother me that it's utterly unrealistic to be able to issue orders to each of my units and have them do pretty much exactly as I instruct. Sometimes things have to be done a certain way because they are impractical to work around and still have a game to play. We chip away at the laundry list of issues as much as we can, but at any given time the list of things left to do will continue to be measured in years.

Jenrick,

Well until they get rid of action spots the lack of friendly fire is really the only option. It's not too hard in reality to tell your SAW gunner and the rest of his fire team to put their rounds into "THAT" window to keep that UNCON sniper down while the rest of the squad goes in through the side door to grenade him out.

Actually, the problem is with TacAI. There are just too many things that the system would have to do in order to keep small arms coordination working like it does in real life. However, I agree with your second point which is that it's not that big of an abstraction the way it is now. It also equally applies to both sides. Sure, often Blue has way more firepower to put down on a target than Red would, but in real life Blue has a lot more capability for avoiding friendly fire compared to Red. So it all balances itself out.

Now, if we allowed things like Stryker MGS to pump 105mm rounds into a building, or having an airstrike come in, without causing friendly casualties... that would be a significant issue. Which is why the game doesn't shield friendly units from the effects of such weaponry.

URC,

the Syrian side will take a stand on a well prepared battlefield of his choosing. buildings are fortified and specifically have stuff like planned & prepared escape routes (including, gosh, use of ladders). tunnel and trench networks (with overhead cover) are well camoed, just as are ATGM & mortar positions (in considerable depth in battlespace) and bunkers (which are strong enough to take air strikes). the whole idea is to not be seen, achieving a surprise by appearing at unexpected location and then melting away to alternate position (or cover) within the battlespace before receiving effective fire.

Correct. That's up to the scenario designer to do. It's pretty much all possible right now, with the exception of fortified buildings. You can, however, boobytrap them using IEDs.

IMO that rebuttal became more questionable after summer 2006, when Hezbollah forces, trained & equipped by Syrians, displayed effective use of such doctrine in Lebanon against IDF. it is also worth noting how some Israeli commanders commented after the short war how they had been confused about what Syrians had been doing in Syria already for some years, but now after seeing the tactics used by Hezbollah understood what Syrians had been up to.

First off, Hezbollah is trained by Iran :D Second of all, the type of combat that the IDF ran into in Southern Lebanon is not what CM:SF is designed to simulate. That was primarily a COIN environment that was prepared years in advance. Because it was geographically small, and the attack routes of the IDF so blatantly obviously, it was possible to do. This would not be the case in Syria. I've argued all this stuff before, back then and since then, and I am very comfortable that those arguments are still more correct than incorrect. When I compare things I try for apples to apples, and not oranges to oranges.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of FOW cheats in CMSF and even excluding terrain based FOW it would be nice to clean them up.

We still have: muzzle flashes, smoke from ATGM launches, the missiles themselves, dust from vehicles, exhaust from vehicles, camera shake from vehicles, shadows under unspotted units of all sorts, trenches, and some sounds in some situations (the sound might have been fixed, not sure).

A dedicated player who really wants to win in a PBEM can scour the map and pinpoint (and I mean to the nearest cm) almost every unit. I have seen an AAR where half the discussion is about cheating to find out where the ATGM launches are coming from, and where the enemy tanks are.

A good way to stop this would be to prevent the camera moving too far from your units, but ideally all those things would not be present for enemy units that have no eyes on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think one of the biggest issues that I'm seeing with CM:SF is that certain aspects of the game are 1:1 WYSIWYG while others are as abstract as hexes and activation counters. I don't mind the later, I cut my teeth on Squad Leader and love ASL dearly. I think that BF needs to be very clear to the population here, what is meant to be an abstraction and what is meant to be 1:1 WYSIWYG. If I assume my targeting for a unit is WYSIWYG and all I'm doing is dropping rounds into the middle of wall rather then the window I want, it's a bug. I know that this is based of the action spot and is an abstraction of area fire, then it's working as designed.

Any game or simulation requires that user be familiar with the underlying rules and mechanics to make it function in a manner they desire. I think CM:SF has enough WYSIWYG elements to make most people assume the whole game is that way. A clearly outlined listing of major features/mechanics that are not WYSIWYG would help clarify a lot of that. Some very very good wargames have had very ungranular mechanics, but the big pictured worked almost perfectly. A far larger number have had exteremly detailed mechanics and simulation elements, and failed miserably as they were unplayable. CM:SF is doing fairly well in my book, but I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt on what is meant to be an abstraction and what is supposed to WYSIWYG.

-Jenrick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redwolf,

Nope, I understood the point perfectly (I even reread the initial two pages just to make sure). Apparently you didn't understand my answer. The answer is the game system has absolutely no way of simulating FOW for terrain. A blown up section of wall is seen by both sides simultaneously because there's no way to filter that information based on LOS. And we don't expect to be able to do that for a very long time.

Yes, but.

This means people shouldn't be forced to use invasive breeching when they realistically wouldn't have to. Invasive breeching in CMx2 is unrealistically radioed to the opponent, so to balance that limitation it shouldn't be required as often as it is right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The WYSIWYG features are very easy to identify:

1. LOF

2. Entrance/Exit points (vehicles, buildings, etc.)

3. Most terrain features (small rocks and tufts of grass aren't)

4. Vehicle/soldier placement within the Action Spot

5. For the most part vehicle polygons

Off the top of my head that's just about it. Now, there are a lot of things that are more WYSIWYG than not, but still contain abstractions. The best example of that is a soldier's stance.

Prone, kneeling, and standing are all shown in 1:1 and in fact do represent those particular positions. Because of Enhanced LOS these stances matter quite a bit more in 1:1 terms than they did in CMx1. However, we do not simulate things in an absolute sense. That means if you position the camera and see the top of an enemy's head poking over a berm that doesn't mean you can actually shoot and hit it. It could be that the system rules it exposed to a particular firing position (i.e. above the height of the berm) or it could rule that it isn't (i.e. below the berm). Put another way, we do NOT [heh... I had to edit that NOT in. Silly me ;)] draw LOS to a specific square mm of space on a soldier, but to its generalized position relative to the terrain and the shooting unit. 9 times out of 10 the graphics will correspond to player expectation, but it's not 100% guaranteed to do so.

Buildings are heavily abstracted in many ways, though they are far less abstracted than in the past. Doors, for example, are always presumed to be openable. The thought of trying to communicate to players which doors can/can't be opened, or how quickly, is a nightmare! Sure, we could implement it but I guarantee you that 99% of you would hate it. However, the door as choke point is absolutely simulated in WYSIWYG. If there is no door on a particular wall, you aren't getting through that wall without explosives. Compare this to CMx1 where there were graphical doors on buildings but they meant absolutely nothing.

Picking up on that last thought, CMx1 had a lot of things which appeared WYSIWYG to players, but pretty much nothing was. Things like trees looked like they mattered, until you saw vehicles driving right through them or explosions doing absolutely no damage. In CMx2 trees are individually simulated and therefore are WYSIWYG in the ways that matter (soldiers hide behind them, vehicles must avoid them, they can be destroyed, etc.).

We've been saying all along that CMx2 is still, and will always be, heavily abstracted. So will CMx3, CMx4, and whatever else we might make when we're 80 years old. There is simply no way to simulate the world in absolute 1:1 WYSIWYG detail. CMx2 is simply a less abstract system than CMx1, which was less abstract than Close Combat, which was less abstract than Steel Panthers, which was less abstract than Kampfgruppe, which was less abstract than ASL, which was less abstract than SL, which was less abstract than... just keep going on and on back like that. Everything is on a continuum. The only question a developer faces is if he's going to duplicate a position that has already been established or push things further ahead. We're not about rehashing things, obviously, or CMBO would have looked a lot like something that already existed instead of something that nobody had done before.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Redwolf,

This means people shouldn't be forced to use invasive breeching when they realistically wouldn't have to. Invasive breeching in CMx2 is unrealistically radioed to the opponent, so to balance that limitation it shouldn't be required as often as it is right now.

Well, then we go back to the way CMx1 was where breaching isn't necessary because nothing is a barrier. But then you get problems like the fact that you always have to consider a building enterable from all directions all the time, which is extremely unrealistic. Or things like hedgerows that don't need to be breach, just passed through wherever you want. Germans can't take advantage of US breaches any more than US forces can. Tall walls are impenetrable obstacles and can be counted on with 100% certainty to block enemy movement and (in many cases) LOS/LOF. Etc., etc.

Is the current system perfect? No. But it certainly is, on balance, WAY more realistic than what we had in CMx1. So on balance it is a major improvement and should be complimented for the positives it provides, not maligned for the things it doesn't.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve, here's a list of features that would primarily help the RED side and which are not present for them.

1) Uncons and Syrians without Body Armor should be easily able to get trough some windows - even if they are not in a prepared ambush point/house but moving around the city.

2) All soldiers should be able to scale some 2m+ walls without explosives.

3) Trenches and Bunkers should be invisible until spotted. There should be foxholes and also some light top cover avalable (tin metal sheets + sandbags...)

4) If you have only slow artillery assets, TRPs are essential.

5) Two man with an RPG should be able to go on the roof if the Squad leader one floor below tells them.

6) Buildings should be able to be fortified.

7) If you try to flank someone and have to break a route for it, he should not be aware of it.

That's at least 7 concrete points the Red Commander is lacking in his tactical arsenal, some of them heavily favor the US Attacker (like visible trenches).

This applies NOT to counterinsurgency, but regular MOUT and Open Ground Warfare.

Now please, show me at least 5 points from the US/Attacking side that are not present due to "abstractions". What tactics can the US player commanding a Stryker platoon and with Air Support NOT use?

If you say it's all about abstractions, and that's the way it is, then both sides should be equally disadvantages due to game mechanics. Are they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not answering for Battlefront, but:

Steve, here's a list of features that would primarily help the RED side and which are not present for them.

1) Uncons and Syrians without Body Armor should be easily able to get trough some windows - even if they are not in a prepared ambush point/house but moving around the city.

2) All soldiers should be able to scale some 2m+ walls without explosives.

3) Trenches and Bunkers should be invisible until spotted. There should be foxholes and also some light top cover avalable (tin metal sheets + sandbags...)

4) If you have only slow artillery assets, TRPs are essential.

5) Two man with an RPG should be able to go on the roof if the Squad leader one floor below tells them.

6) Buildings should be able to be fortified.

7) If you try to flank someone and have to break a route for it, he should not be aware of it.

That's at least 7 concrete points the Red Commander is lacking in his tactical arsenal, some of them heavily favor the US Attacker (like visible trenches).

Many of these Battlefront agrees with you and has already stated they will implemented sooner or later. I happen to agree with all of them except #1. Furthermore, some of the reasons why some of them (I still haven't figured out why TRPs were not in) haven't been implemented have been explained to you already, especially regarding the FOW issues.

Now please, show me at least 5 points from the US/Attacking side that are not present due to "abstractions". What tactics can the US player commanding a Stryker platoon and with Air Support NOT use?

- US night vision sucks. As far as I can tell, thermals in this game as worthless.

- US clearing occupied rooms/buildings is often pretty bad. Soldiers often run to "their spot" in the building while enemy five feet away shoots at him. There are work-arounds to "prep" the room but they are clunky.

- Spotting Red units in buildings is out of the question. As long as Red units do not fire, they are invisible in buildings, regardless of their stance and lack of hide status.

- Most useful machine gun tactics are out of the question.

- M203s cannot be used to cover dead space.

- Artillery cannot be used on a spot not in line of sight.

- The infantry formation is totally kaput. Squads and fireteams cluster in big clumps which are an RPG gunners dream come true.

- Going around corners is an all or nothing proposition. No way to peek.

- There is no way to detect mines until someone or a vehicle gets blown up. Then there is no way to clear them.

Hey, you asked...

If you are looking for a "different but equal" balance, then you will be disappointed. Blue will almost always be superior, sometimes vastly so. The scenario designer needs to compensate by lowering Blue's casualty tolerance to very low levels, and then suddenly being Blue can be a hell of a challenge. Ask my Task Force Panther beta testers. If the scenario designer wants Red to be able to move stealthily through the map, he can set it up to do so with building, wall, elevation, and door arrangements. Of course, this type of fight is not everyone's cup of tea. Until we get to World War 2 and get relatively equal armies, these are the compromises we will have to live with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I concede the point.

Well yes, then that obviously means I'm looking for that "different but equal" balance you call it. Cas Tolerances are nice to have, but during actual unfolding of a PBEM, neither the US Player nor Red Player will be aware of them very much. In the end you might have a Red victory, but you still see your units getting slaughtered like insects in the actual battle, no matter how hard you try to preserve them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I concede the point.

Well yes, then that obviously means I'm looking for that "different but equal" balance you call it. Cas Tolerances are nice to have, but during actual unfolding of a PBEM, neither the US Player nor Red Player will be aware of them very much. In the end you might have a Red victory, but you still see your units getting slaughtered like insects in the actual battle, no matter how hard you try to preserve them.

I can totally understand that this type of fight is not everyone's favorite. Like you I am very much looking forward to CM Normandy when there will be some semblance of equal forces again. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct. That's up to the scenario designer to do. It's pretty much all possible right now, with the exception of fortified buildings. You can, however, boobytrap them using IEDs.

to begin with the very fundamentals, prepared defensive positions should by default be invisible to the attacker. for example in operation Anaconda, in Afghanistan 2002, despite pre-battle concentration of very advanced surveillance equipment on a very small area, most enemy fire received by the US forces came from unexpected and undetected positions.

another fundamental is the cover given to the defender by the prepared defensive positions. for example in Lebanon individual firefights could last a good number of hours, even with the firepower asymmetry. you don't take out a defender utilizing well prepared defensive positions by just returning fire for a moment -- you need to maneuver and close in with good combined arms coordination.

First off, Hezbollah is trained by Iran :D Second of all, the type of combat that the IDF ran into in Southern Lebanon is not what CM:SF is designed to simulate. That was primarily a COIN environment that was prepared years in advance. Because it was geographically small, and the attack routes of the IDF so blatantly obviously, it was possible to do. This would not be the case in Syria. I've argued all this stuff before, back then and since then, and I am very comfortable that those arguments are still more correct than incorrect. When I compare things I try for apples to apples, and not oranges to oranges.

Hezbollah was created by Iran, but its fighters are trained both in Iran and Syria just like for example Hamas. besides, it's been reported (by Israeli military intelligence for example) that Syria has invested into "Hezbollah-style" tactics.

Lebanon wasn't really a COIN environment, except for Hezbollah firing rockets from civilian locations. the actual ground warfare was pretty much just conventional warfare (as much as a militia like Hezbollah is capable of waging it). Syrian forces committed to asymmetrical operations would almost certainly utilize MORE guerilla-like tactics than Hezbollah did, not less.

there is a good paper about the question of wether Hezbollah fought a guerilla or conventional type warfare at Strategic Studies Insitute: "The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defense Policy". that PDF is a good read for anyone interested in the conflict.

i quote it:

As we argue above, Hezbollah fighters defended positions too long, at ranges too short, and counterattacked too often, to square with a model of classical guerrilla intent. Nor did they exploit the potential of civilian intermingling in nearly the degree one would normally expect from a classical guerrilla force.

in the end Hezbollah fighters weren't that special or good. what made their tactics effective enough was, like with al Qaeda in Afghanistan, the simple decision to make the positions concealed and prepared enough. add to that effective ATGMs and such. Syrians would very likely outperform Hezbollah.

you don't need to create endless concrete bunker underground networks with tunnel passages to create the same end result. it's most of all a question of understanding the requirement for well prepared and concealed positions -- concealment & cover & dispersal instead of massing forces in open to be devoured by superior enemy firepower.

the question about enemy routes of advance in Syria is a bit moot. the enemy arrows are obviously pointing at Damascus and there aren't that many routes you can take. considering the number of Hezbollah fighters and the area they covered, key Syrian terrain could easily be covered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... In the end you might have a Red victory, but you still see your units getting slaughtered like insects in the actual battle, no matter how hard you try to preserve them.
It can also be argued that - with a good scenario design - the Blue player is disadvantaged, because he can kill as many Reds as he want to and still can't win... But as insinuated, it depends on the scenario design.

Unhidden terrain damage works also in two ways. Yes, the enemy can see that you blow a hole in a wall - and now he's forced to split his focus to cover two possible attack routes instead of one...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In CMSF, Red forces will, as RSColonel131st points out, generally take massive casualties even if they "win." But this is realistic; in most modern US "defeats," the enemy took way more casualties than we did. The only one I can think of where this isn't true was the ambush of the 507th Maintenance Company in An Nasiriyah in 2003 before the Marines moved into the city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

RSColonel_131st

Well yes, then that obviously means I'm looking for that "different but equal" balance you call it. Cas Tolerances are nice to have, but during actual unfolding of a PBEM, neither the US Player nor Red Player will be aware of them very much. In the end you might have a Red victory, but you still see your units getting slaughtered like insects in the actual battle, no matter how hard you try to preserve them.

It's pretty clear to me that you want a sort of balance that really isn't all that realistic. Red has inherent disadvantages when it comes to straight up conventional fighting. That's reality and it's a reality that we can't change, except to offer Red the capability of performing better (i.e. adjusting unit stats) than they likely would in real life.

As I've said many times before, this sort of inherent inequity can be found in CMBB all over the place. Try playing Romanians in 1944 against the Soviets, or Germans vs. Soviets in 1941. Unless there is something done to balance out the inherent weaknesses of the poorer equipped, experienced, and led units... they're going to get slaughtered. Even when you put T-34s up against Panzer IIs, the chances of 1941 Soviet infantry force taking out a German infantry force (competently led and realistically portrayed) of the same size are pretty slim. Which is one reason why many people don't like playing the early war or Axis Allies.

Most of the things you've argued for can either be argued for Blue as well or, as Normal Dude has pointed out, can be countered with a host of things which Blue should be able to do better. For example, having ladders strapped to trucks and being able to insert themselves from the top floor of a 3 story building whenever, and wherever, they feel like. There are also the standard game problems, such as in real life Blue saying "awe, to Hell with them. We'll just back off and wait for reinforcements to arrive". The list goes on and on. So it's not so much a failing of the game system as it is not being all that appealing to you. Lots of people have suggested how to get balance within the game as it is now, but you don't seem to like those suggestions. Well, each to his own ;)

Normal Dude put it best...

If you are looking for a "different but equal" balance, then you will be disappointed. Blue will almost always be superior, sometimes vastly so. The scenario designer needs to compensate by lowering Blue's casualty tolerance to very low levels, and then suddenly being Blue can be a hell of a challenge. Ask my Task Force Panther beta testers. If the scenario designer wants Red to be able to move stealthily through the map, he can set it up to do so with building, wall, elevation, and door arrangements. Of course, this type of fight is not everyone's cup of tea. Until we get to World War 2 and get relatively equal armies, these are the compromises we will have to live with.

Agreed, except that I think people forget about how loudly people bitch about "relatively equal armies" almost as much :D I fondly remember the dozens of threads that came out during CMBO's day where we would be accused of hobbling the Allies' strengths in favor of the Germans, or dismissing the German's superiorities in order to pamper the Allies. The best was that sometimes there would be two threads each taking the exact opposite position going on at the same time! Sure, I don't expect the same sort of major difference between the two sides in Normandy as we see today, but believe me there will still be arguments about one side or the other getting the short end of the stick.

URC,

to begin with the very fundamentals, prepared defensive positions should by default be invisible to the attacker. for example in operation Anaconda, in Afghanistan 2002, despite pre-battle concentration of very advanced surveillance equipment on a very small area, most enemy fire received by the US forces came from unexpected and undetected positions.

Actually, that was more of a FUBAR in communicating what was seen by remote sensors and what was given to the forces actually going in on the attack. But the point is still correct in that the force going in was extremely unprepared for what awaited it. We do recognize this problem that CM:SF currently can't simulate this sort of thing. It is on our fix list, but as I've said already it's not an easy thing to do. We've got a plan for Normandy, but that plan is not to have FOW terrain.

another fundamental is the cover given to the defender by the prepared defensive positions. for example in Lebanon individual firefights could last a good number of hours, even with the firepower asymmetry. you don't take out a defender utilizing well prepared defensive positions by just returning fire for a moment -- you need to maneuver and close in with good combined arms coordination.

This is simulated in CM:SF almost as well as it can be given the limitations of it being a game. In real life if the attacker is surprised it usually causes it to hesitate so it can come back at the defenders with a more relevant plan. That is definitely seen in CM:SF as it is right now, especially in MOUT situations where the defender can more easily cause major casualties without necessarily compromising its positions and/or the composition of its forces. But some of these the things that go on in real life are not possible in a game setting simply because of larger game issues (time compression, God View, Borg, players not wanting to be bored, lives being virtual, etc.)

Hezbollah was created by Iran, but its fighters are trained both in Iran and Syria just like for example Hamas. besides, it's been reported (by Israeli military intelligence for example) that Syria has invested into "Hezbollah-style" tactics.

There are training facilities within Syria for Hezbollah, but AFAIK the direct Syrian involvement in their training, leadership, and organization itself is not all that significant. They are, however, a major supplier of weaponry, both from its own stocks and as a conduit for things coming in from Iran.

Lebanon wasn't really a COIN environment, except for Hezbollah firing rockets from civilian locations. the actual ground warfare was pretty much just conventional warfare (as much as a militia like Hezbollah is capable of waging it).

That's not true at all. Hezbollah's defense plan was almost straight out of guerilla warfare's more classic examples. Extensive tunnel networks, weapons caches, piles of money, drugs, food/water, etc. were all carefully stockpiled and cached in key locations. Leadership was highly decentralized and information was shared using redundant, and sometimes low tech, methodologies. Most of these things were designed for sustainability and to reduce vulnerability to IDF's strengths (such as air interdiction).

there is a good paper about the question of wether Hezbollah fought a guerilla or conventional type warfare at Strategic Studies Insitute: "The 2006 Lebanon Campaign and the Future of Warfare: Implications for Army and Defense Policy". that PDF is a good read for anyone interested in the conflict.

I've downloaded it, thanks. Another good one, which I grabbed back in 2006 when still designing various game features, is the Center for Strategic and International Studies' "Preliminary “Lessons” of the Israeli-Hezbollah War " by Anthony H. Cordesman.

in the end Hezbollah fighters weren't that special or good.

Correct. Like many Arab/Muslim warfare capabilities, the theory of what it can achieve is generally far lower than what it actually is capable of doing. However, it is clear that compared to the usual opposition facing the IDF, the tactics and technical capabilities of Hezbollah were definitely far better than the IDF was ready for. In particular their use of ATGMs, both from a tactical deployment standpoint and also in terms of technical proficiency. As the Cordesman report points out, the IDF did a lot of things wrong that actually increased Hezbollah's effectiveness.

you don't need to create endless concrete bunker underground networks with tunnel passages to create the same end result. it's most of all a question of understanding the requirement for well prepared and concealed positions -- concealment & cover & dispersal instead of massing forces in open to be devoured by superior enemy firepower.

Correct, and that's entirely possible in CM:SF as it is right now.

the question about enemy routes of advance in Syria is a bit moot. the enemy arrows are obviously pointing at Damascus and there aren't that many routes you can take. considering the number of Hezbollah fighters and the area they covered, key Syrian terrain could easily be covered.

I completely disagree. Well, until the enemy actually gets to the outskirts of Damascus itself. That's when things would get very, very interesting. The terrain is highly favorable to the defender and the options for the attacker are somewhat reduced. It's akin to the battle for Fallujah, I think, in that the attacker's ability to bypass is extremely limited and therefore no matter where you make your stand the attacker is bound to encounter it. This is exactly the problem the IDF faced when going into southern Lebanon.

But anyway... I don't really understand what the point of all of this is. CM:SF allows you to conduct similar operations as Hezbollah did against Israel for the most part. And the results, when handled well by someone thinking like Red and not like Blue, can be clearly seen in the game. Likewise, if Blue plays against Red without taking these things into consideration then it will likely suffer like the IDF. Is what we have in CM:SF perfect? No, absolutely not. However, it is a pretty good simulation of the this sort of warfare and, at the very least, the only one like it out there.

Field Marshal Blücher,

In CMSF, Red forces will, as RSColonel131st points out, generally take massive casualties even if they "win." But this is realistic; in most modern US "defeats," the enemy took way more casualties than we did.

Correct. It is really foolish to think that Red should be able to fight in a particular manner without the obvious downsides that go along with those tactics. Again, it's like playing CMBB and expecting to win as the Soviets without having (on average) far greater casualties despite large numerical superiority. Or playing as the Americans and expecting that one can take out a platoon of Panthers with a platoon of Shermans without excessive friendly losses.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To go back to the original "enter via window" discussion...

In 1944 Normandy, the windows are rarely more than 4ft from the ground and almost never have bars. Any platoon in CM Normandy should be able to enter buildings this way (except of course if they insist entering via the door that is under enemy fire....)

In 201x middle east, windows with bars are common but are low and large enough to enable entry. A few rounds can easily dislodge the bars. So once again this is just a delay...

And finally, this is a current MOUT drill (at least for European units).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...