Questions about WWII infantry for CMx2

[JonS]

would paratroopers be included in the game or are they considered SF cause they are an extension of the Army and have special training?

Paratroopers I would expect to be included at some point.

Parachuting, on the other hand, I'd expect to be included never.

[flammenwerfer]

Alternate (fallback) foxholes will also likely work the same way they did in CMx1, which is that each unit is allowed to designate a second foxhole position.

So both the intrinsic defending unit foxholes and fallbacks will be visible from the start! Not to mention all trenches and pillboxes.

That is terrible news.

Going to lay down, now..

[Lanzfeld]

At least with fallback foxholes available the attacker wont know which foxholes are occupied and which are empty.

[Canada Guy]

Is there a possibility of creating FOW for the terrain itself. If my units do not see what is over that ridge, the area is blacked out. An example would be the "Command & Conquer" games where you do not see the terrain until a unit sees the terrain. It would solve the problems of the trenches/foxholes being seen as nothing that was not in a LOS of a unit would be blacked out.

I am sure that this has also been discussed ad naseum and there are problems that this also would introduce but would it be hard to add to the game engine?

Problems like would your units only see the set up area for unit placement? Would the defender see the entire map but the attacker would only see his set up area or perhaps 50 meters past the set-up area.

It would make purchasing intel units much more pressing though as you would want to know as much as possible of an area before you attacked it.

[hcrof]

Just a suggestion which might be obviously wrong but I thought I would give it a shot

Seeing as 'foxholes' in CMSF are practically invisible (I have a hard time seeing them with a unit in them, on open ground), why not have the texture/graphic as a spottable unit? So the foxhole is easy to see for the defender but is still almost invisible to the attacker. As well as this, you could have a 'sandbag' object to provide additional cover or fortify houses which is spottable. Along that theme, the edges of a foxhole could have a 'rim' of raised earth and camoflage that works like the sandbags. Are placable objects that dont break the terrain mesh but provide cover possible?

[flammenwerfer]

At least with fallback foxholes available the attacker wont know which foxholes are occupied and which are empty.

Gamey. Gamey. Gamey!

[Preybyemail]

I think being able to see trenches and foxholes your enemy has made SUCKS. There were no U.A.V's in WW2. I can understand knowing where a trench or a foxhole is with satalites or U.A.V's. But knowing that in a WW2 game is just gamey as hell.

CMx1 had it right. You should only know the most scant details of the battlefield from a grunts on the ground perspective. A trench should be hidden till spotted, and a fox hole should be hard as hell to see until someone pops up and starts firing.

What possible reason would you do that for? So your enemy can just arty the hell out of any pre planned defense?

[Steiner14]

Here's another idea about foxholes (trenches):

What about separating the visual representation of foxholes from the object "foxhole"? To be more precise: creating a new class "visible foxhole" (inherited from vehicle class) and instantiate a "visible foxhole" object for each "map foxhole" as VEHICLE object.

Now: Foxhole (MapObject class)

Then: MapFoxhole (MapObject class) & VisibleFoxhole (Vehicle class)

Additionally the original map-object "map foxhole" is made invisible without any texture. And the new foxhole object, the "visible foxhole", is created for the visual representation only and is created as a special vehicle object, i.e. without height and unmovable.

Therefore for the visibility of foxholes the rules of vehicles would apply: fully visible to the friendly player, while for the opponent's side, they stay invisible until adequate LOS is established.

[akd]

Runaway,

CMx2 already has, and supports, bunkers that can be optionally occupied. Currently we limit a Bunker to holding no more than a single Squad. We're not planning on changing that since it would be more difficult than it's worth to do. If you're making a scenario that is supposed to shield x number of units, then simply provide them with enough bunkers to hide in.

Note also that we don't intend on supporting special case stuff found on the beaches of Normandy. That was our philosophy with CMBO and it continues to be with CM: Normandy. Simulating the action on the beaches is almost a simulation in and of itself.

Steve

So we end up in the funny situation where permanent concrete bunkers must be treated as vehicles so they can remain hidden until spotted, but a two-man foxhole is a "structure" (i.e. part of the map) that is always visible and can be entered by either side. I'd almost rather have more realistic bunkers that behave like structures even if they are visible on turn one. The "immobilized tank" bunkers are really awkward, especially as their position is often known anyways because they deform the terrain. Treating bunkers as vehicles causes lots of problems, and I don't really see what problems they solve, other than spotting (but I'm sure I'm missing something).

That aside, perhaps it would be possible for a few of the more common larger German defensive fortifications of the type not specific to beach defenses to be included as structures placeable in the editor?

Also, you might want to go back and read that full thread. There are some...well...inconsistent statements within that thread and between this thread and that one. Consequently your position is not entirely clear. In particular, I gather from the previous thread the fortification spotting issue is not so important for the CMSF setting, but that it was still a top priority to find a solution for WWII (i.e. there is some hope), but here you state that you concluded years ago that it was totally impossible.

Is this still a top priority, or shall we abandon all hope here?

p.s. I know the squeaky (or rude and abrasive wheel) wheel gets the grease, but were there no ideas of any value in my previous post? Is it entirely impossible to have any "map" element (structure/terrain/object) invisible to the opposing side?

Gamey. Gamey. Gamey!

Heh, I look forward to the multiplayer games where the defender's chief tactical dilemma is where to put their troops other than in their foxholes.

[Redwolf]

Here's another idea about foxholes (trenches):

What about separating the visual representation of foxholes from the object "foxhole"? To be more precise: creating a new class "visible foxhole" (inherited from vehicle class) and instantiate a "visible foxhole" object for each "map foxhole" as VEHICLE object.

Now: Foxhole (MapObject class)

Then: MapFoxhole (MapObject class) & VisibleFoxhole (Vehicle class)

Additionally the original map-object "map foxhole" is made invisible without any texture. And the new foxhole object, the "visible foxhole", is created for the visual representation only and is created as a special vehicle object, i.e. without height and unmovable.

Therefore for the visibility of foxholes the rules of vehicles would apply: fully visible to the friendly player, while for the opponent's side, they stay invisible until adequate LOS is established.

The problem is the hole in the 3D ground - or lack of it.

"Carpet-style" foxholes and trenches like CMx1 had make this a no-brainer.

But Steve made it clear that not only he wants the actual 3D hole in the ground for looks reasons, right now it is the only way to get correct combat mechanics out of the CMx2 engine (it use 3D based cover, not some "exposure" value that you can just change on the fly).

ETA: bunkers are easier since they are on top of the ground terrain 3D model. It is the "cut" into the 3D model that is expensive, and very messy if you want to show one side a cut and the other maybe a cut or maybe not, depending on spotting.

[Lanzfeld]

Well getting away from foxholes and trenches...

What about vehicle smoke, ATGM (ATG) launch smoke, and muzzle flashes that give away the enemies exact position when nobody is in LOS? These dont deal with the lay of the land so can we fix these for CM:N?

[BFCElvis]

What Steve should say a little more directly instead of waffling around implying that people expect to watch the actual progress of digging is that there'll be no setup placed foxholes (or trenches) either.

You know what? You got a 2fer here. You managed to insult Steve and Cid in the same sentence. Well done, sir.

After thinking about it for a bit Cids idea isn't a bad one. Do I want to sit in 1 hour battle and watch people dig? No, of course not. But what about a large and long battle? Battalion vs battalion? 3 or 4 hour monster (I don't remember offhand what they high end of the time scale is supposed to be)? You have one company take patch of woods and another taking a village. After the woods have been secured you are able to issue dig in orders to protect the area and cover the flanks while another company moves to another objective. You're not sitting there watching the guys dig in. It is just what they are doing while you are engaged with other portions of your task force. An epic battle like that would be something between single battle-CMx1esque operation-CMx2 campaign.

Not something you would want to do in one RT sitdown but sounds like fun via PBEM.

[Battlefront.com]

I realize I misspoke a few pages back about the "automatic" placement of foxholes under your troops. The desired behavior, and the one that I believe will be in CM: Normandy, is that automatically the defending forces may receive 1-2 foxhole "sets" per Team (i.e. more than one physical foxhole for the whole Team) for certain type of defensive setups. The foxholes will appear under the Teams when the game starts. However, the player has the option to have them not in their foxholes. This means that the player can opt to NOT have their guys in foxholes at the start of the game.

What I'm not sure about is what the default will be... all in foxholes and the player has to opt out, or all not in foxholes and the player has to opt in. Either way the player will have a choice, I'm just not sure which way would be the better default.

Bunkers, and other forms of defense, are inherently above ground. Foxholes and trenches are inherently below ground. The problem we have is that, for a variety of reasons, once the terrain mesh is setup at the beginning of the game it's difficult to modify it. These reasons have already been listed in this thread and in other similar discussions.

A perfect example of this is the Bunkers. A bunker sitting on a flat piece of ground will not be noticeable to the enemy until the enemy sees it. But if it is in the side of a hill, the section of the hill that must be removed from the underlying mesh must be there from the start. So even if the bunker isn't visible, the footprint around it is. Bunker on, bunker off... no problem because the terrain mesh is already deformed around it.

Having terrain be "fogged" doesn't work. It would mean that you could never issue any Commands (Movement or Combat) into the "fog" because you can't see the terrain underneath it. It creates a number of other gameplay related problems which, most likely, would allow one side (probably the defender) to do something really gamey. Plus, I don't think most people would like the feel it brings to the game.

Lanzfeld,

Yes

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Elvis,

After thinking about it for a bit Cids idea isn't a bad one.

I agree. I just don't want to spend our always limited, and overbooked, time catering to things which we feel are outside of CM's scope. Increasing the scope is quite possible, but "scope creep" is a dangerous thing to start in on. As I said earlier, if it doesn't cost time to put something in that people want, and we don't think it will have a negative impact on the game as a whole, then we'll put it in. Digging in on the fly probably is something that would require technical changes from Charles. Probably no big deal in and of itself, but we have about 10 years' worth of "no big deal" suggestions already

Steve

[SlapHappy]

If you're feeling generous, are there any "big deal" changes that you are implementing in CM Normandy that change the way we see the game now?

Or maybe just the biggest shift you can think of?

[Battlefront.com]

hcrof,

Seeing as 'foxholes' in CMSF are practically invisible (I have a hard time seeing them with a unit in them, on open ground), why not have the texture/graphic as a spottable unit? So the foxhole is easy to see for the defender but is still almost invisible to the attacker.

I know the answer to this one, for sure, because I asked Charles about this very thing a long time ago Charles rejected the idea because the texture is part of the mesh, therefore it can't be shown/hidden depending on spotting information even if terrain were spottable (which it currently isn't). And having two separate "views" of the world, one for Player A and one for Player B, would require a huge increase in the RAM footprint, so that's a no-no as well.

As well as this, you could have a 'sandbag' object to provide additional cover or fortify houses which is spottable. Along that theme, the edges of a foxhole could have a 'rim' of raised earth and camoflage that works like the sandbags. Are placable objects that dont break the terrain mesh but provide cover possible?

Ah!! I'm glad you mentioned this because I totally forgot! Heavy Weapons are an exception to just about everything I've said. Heavy Weapons will be in "above ground" reinforced positions. The details of that design haven't been done yet, and they're mostly up to Charles based on technical considerations, so I can't comment on the specifics yet. But the bottomline is that the Heavy Weapons in reinforced positions will have FoW.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

SlapHappy,

If you're feeling generous, are there any "big deal" changes that you are implementing in CM Normandy that change the way we see the game now?

See the game? Definitely the terrain. Temperate European terrain requires a lot of changes and additions (some subtractions too, obviously). Bridges, water, hedgerows, differently configured buildings, etc. are all must-haves.

Although I've said it elsewhere already (i.e. it's not a new announcement), the Hedgerows will be deformable and not allow units to magically go through them. That means if you want to get through a hedgerow, you'd better have a tank with a hedgerow cutter on it. IIRC the US Army found that even large amounts of explosives didn't work very well, but I'll double check that when we get to it. Having engineers be able to breach hedgerows is a no-brainer from a code standpoint since they can already breach walls.

While the above feature doesn't have much to compare against in CM:SF, it does have something to compare against in CMBO. It should make a huge difference in hedgerow combat compared to CMBO.

Or maybe just the biggest shift you can think of?

From a game standpoint, and not a gameplay standpoint, it's probably going to be the new QuickBattle system.

Steve

[SlapHappy]

It'll be interesting to see the effect the lack of heavy weapons and the return of the good 'ol SMG will make in squad combat. I bet we will see some up close and personal action.........

[akd]

Steve, my understanding is not that explosives were ineffective, but inefficient when placed against a hedgerow. Tons of charges would be required to breach the successive lines of hedgerows faced by a company, unless smaller charges could be placed inside the hedgerows, but that was difficult for engineers to accomplish quickly under combat conditions. A solution was found in welding pipes to a Sherman to gouge holes in the hedgerows for charges, followed by cutting devices so the tanks could (in relative stealth) plow through on their own:

The search for a solution to the armored mobility problem typifies the problem-solving processes that took place throughout First Army. Tank units discovered that Shermans could drive over the top of smaller hedgerows. Negotiating larger hedgerows was a hazardous, if not impossible, task and exposed the tanks' thin underbellies to antitank fire. The first attempts at penetrating the hedgerows involved the use of specially equipped "dozer" tanks. These tanks were a relatively new invention in 1944 and consisted of M-4 Shermans equipped with a blade similar to those on commercial bulldozers. Dozer tanks normally removed obstacles or improved defensive positions. Early experience in Normandy showed that a dozer tank could push its way through the most formidable hedgerow. Dozer tanks could also widen natural gaps in hedgerows that were too narrow for Shermans to drive through.23

However, there were too few dozer tanks in First Army to support large-scale operations on wide frontages. A tank battalion was usually equipped with only four dozer tanks. These tanks were too few in number to support divisional attacks effectively where each infantry regiment might encounter dozens of hedgerows. To alleviate the situation, armor leaders recommended that one tank in each armor platoon be equipped with a blade device. First Army made frantic efforts to increase the number of its dozer tanks. In July 1944, First Army requisitioned 278 dozer blades. However, units could not sit idly by while waiting for supply channels to produce the badly needed dozer blades. Weeks might pass before enough dozer tanks became available to allow widespread armor operations through the hedgerows.24

The urgency of the situation resulted in the development of improvised methods that allowed tanks to maneuver in the Bocage. The first field-expedient solution to the mobility problem came from the 747th Tank Battalion assigned to Major General Charles H. Gerhardt's 29th Infantry Division. The 747th was not equipped with dozer tanks, so instead of trying to drive directly over the hedgerows, someone suggested that demolitions be used to blow gaps in the hedgerows. After experimentation, the tankers discovered that demolitions could indeed breach the hedgerows. Two 24-pound explosive charges placed eight feet apart and eighteen inches above ground level blew a sizable hole in a hedgerow. On 24 June, engineer squads from the 29th Division's 121st Engineer Combat Battalion emplaced demolition charges on hedgerows during a limited attack by elements of the 747th Tank Battalion and the 115th Infantry. The attackers discovered that the 24-pound charges did not always create a hole large enough for the Shermans. After the attack, the engineers decided to increase the size of the explosive charges from twenty-four to fifty pounds. They hoped the increased charges would consistently blow breaches large enough to accommodate the attacking tanks.25

However, several problems resulted from increasing the size and weight of the explosive charges. The commander of the 121st Engineer Combat Battalion, Lieutenant Colonel Robert R. Ploger, conducted an informal study of the logistics involved in supporting a tank attack with fifty-pound explosive charges. Ploger assumed that in a typical attack, a tank company moving a distance of one and one-half miles through the Bocage would encounter thirty-four separate hedgerows. As a result, each tank company needed seventeen tons of explosives. Demolitions were not readily available in such quantities, and the problems involved in the transport and emplacement of enough explosives seemed insurmountable. Apparently, other techniques were needed to breach the hedgerows.26

The engineers then suggested that the explosives be buried within the hedgerow embankments. Burying the charges would greatly increase the efficiency of the demolitions, allow the use of smaller charges, and alleviate problems associated with availability, transport, and emplacement. Unfortunately, other conditions prevented the burying of explosive charges. Digging holes large and deep enough for the explosives in earthen embankments covered with vines and filled with roots proved too laborious. During an attack, digging holes and emplacing charges would simply take too long. Since an attack could proceed only as fast as charges were emplaced and detonated, slowmoving American attacks would allow the Germans to coordinate their hedgerow defense better. Engineers and infantrymen would also be dangerously exposed to German mortar fire while planting demolitions. Though technically feasible, burying explosives by hand was a procedure both too difficult and tactically unwise.27

Determined to find a way to get through the hedgerows, the tankers and engineers finally developed an effective technique for using explosives. In a conference between officers of the 747th Tank Battalion and Lieutenant Colonel Ploger, someone suggested that the tanks be equipped with a mechanical device to gouge holes in the hedgerows for the explosives. After some experimentation, the tankers finally equipped an M-4 Sherman with two pieces of commercial pipe, each four feet long and six and one-half inches in diameter. The tankers welded the pipes onto the front side of the Sherman's final drive assemblies and reinforced the weld with angle irons. Shermans so equipped simply rammed into a hedgerow embankment and then backed away leaving two sizable holes for the explosives. Ploger's engineers also learned to pack the demolitions into expended 105-mm artillery shell casings, thereby greatly increasing the efficiency of the charges. The engineers found that two charges of only fifteen pounds each could blow a gap large enough for a Sherman tank. Placing explosives in shell casings also made the transport and handling of charges much easier. The method proved so successful that the 747th outfitted numerous tanks with the pipe devices.28

Several factors soon led to an even better method of breaching the hedgerows. The tankers discovered that demolitions took away the element of surprise during attacks. An explosion alerted the Germans that a tank would soon appear through the hedgerows. The detonation clearly marked where the tank would appear, thus forming an aiming point for German machine-gun and antitank fires. A method that did not use explosives would increase the effectiveness of American attacks by restoring the element of surprise.29

During experiments to test the feasibility of the pipe devices, the tankers of the 747th discovered that a Sherman equipped with pipes could sometimes plough its own way through smaller hedgerows. Unfortunately, the maneuver frequently bent the pipes or tore them loose from the tank. After observing that tanks with pipes could penetrate some hedgerows on their own, First Lieutenant Charles B. Green of the 747th designed a strong bumper device for use in plowing through the hedgerows. Made from salvaged railroad tracks, the new tank bumper proved strong enough to tear through almost any hedgerow. After proving successful in combat, maintenance teams welded the bumper onto many of the 747th's Shermans.30

By late June, many units throughout First Army had developed a variety of means to breach the hedgerows. The 83d Infantry Division in VII Corps used two 25-pound explosive charges. Engineers packed the explosives in a sandbag, buried them by hand two feet into the hedgerow embankment, and then tamped the hole full of dirt to increase the effectiveness of the charge. Other units copied the techniques developed in the 29th Division. The 703d Tank Battalion, attached to the 4th Infantry Division in VII Corps, adopted the 747th's hedgerowbusting techniques and found them "highly successful." In VIII Corps, the 79th Infantry Division also developed another type of hedgerow cutter for use on its Sherman tanks.31

Soldiers of the 2d Armored Division's 102d Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron invented the hedgerow device that gained the widest publicity. During a discussion between some of the 102d's officers and enlisted men, someone suggested that they get "saw teeth," put them on their tanks, and cut through the hedgerows. Many of the troops laughed at the suggestion, but Sergeant Curtis G. Culin took the idea to heart. Culin designed and supervised the construction of a hedgerow cutting device made from scrap iron pulled from a German roadblock. Testing showed that the device allowed a Sherman to cut easily through the hedgerows. Because the hedgerow cutter's blades made a tank resemble a large pachyderm with tusks, troops called the device a "rhinoceros," and Shermans equipped with Culin's invention became known as "rhino" tanks. Though the most famous of the hedgerow-reducing devices, Culin's "rhinoceros" was only one of many such contrivances invented and employed throughout First Army.32

Culin's device soon got the attention of the chain of command within 2d Armored Division and V Corps. On 14 July, General Bradley attended a demonstration of Culin's hedgerow cutter. Bradley watched as Shermans mounting the hedgerow device plowed through the hedgerows "as though they were pasteboard, throwing the bushes and brush into the air." Very impressed by the demonstration, Bradley ordered the chief of First Army's Ordnance Section to supervise the construction and installation of as many of the hedgerow cutters as possible.33

First Army Ordnance assembled welders and welding equipment within the beachhead and from the rear areas in England to assist with the project. Welding teams used scrap metal from German beach obstacles to construct most of the hedgerow cutters. In a prodigious effort between 14-25 July, the First Army Ordnance Section produced over 500 hedgerow cutters and distributed them to subordinate commands for installation. By late July, 60 percent of First Army's Shermans mounted the hedgerow-cutting devices.34

http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/doubler/doubler.asp

Will units in defense be able to dig-in to hedgerows? If so, will this suffer the same problem as foxholes/trenches? (i.e. will the attacker be able to identify which hedgerows have been fortified at battle start?)

[bodkin]

I realize I misspoke a few pages back about the "automatic" placement of foxholes under your troops. The desired behavior, and the one that I believe will be in CM: Normandy, is that automatically the defending forces may receive 1-2 foxhole "sets" per Team (i.e. more than one physical foxhole for the whole Team) for certain type of defensive setups. The foxholes will appear under the Teams when the game starts. However, the player has the option to have them not in their foxholes. This means that the player can opt to NOT have their guys in foxholes at the start of the game.

Steve

Sorry if this is obvious, but just to clarify this, the scenario designer would still have control whether foxholes are included or not, yes?

[Michael Emrys]

Re hedgerows:

IIRC the US Army found that even large amounts of explosives didn't work very well...

According to the excellent discussion of this topic in Closing With the Enemy, the explosives worked well enough in the actual clearing of an opening in the hedgerow. I think there were two problems with that method though. One was that it took a bit more time, which would tend to put the German defenders on the alert when the actual breach was made. Secondly, IIRC there was a shortage of the necessary explosives in Normandy at that time. I recall reading that latter point (somewhere besides the previously cited text) with some disbelief, but it could be true. Logistics all through the campaign were marked by a degree of confusion as to what was needed when. Like most armies in most campaigns.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Ah, I see that akd has beaten me to the punch. That is precisely the text that I had in mind.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

Excellent read, thanks! OK, so my dusty memory was partially correct... practically speaking, the explosives didn't work without the aid of a vehicle (which was probably not all that common, by the sounds of it). So it looks like hedgerow cutters only.

As for more details about hedgerow fighting... I'll have to bow out for the moment. I'm actually in the process of finishing up the terrain design doc for Charles and I've not got any feedback from Charles about what is, or isn't, possible relating to this (and other) terrain issues. Trenches, Foxholes, and other placeable stuff has already been designed and agreed to months ago, so that's something I can talk about with some certainty at the moment even though there are some details yet to be worked out. Until things are coded, tested, and tweaked there always are

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Bodkin,

Sorry if this is obvious, but just to clarify this, the scenario designer would still have control whether foxholes are included or not, yes?

Yes. Like now and with CMx1, it's dependent upon the type of stance the defender is assigned. Since that's pretty much the only thing that the stance determines, for premade scenarios that is, the designer can change that quite freely without messing up other aspects.

Michael Emrys,

My copy of Closing with the Enemy (great book) could probably do with a re-reading sometime soon. It was a great source of information back in CMBO days, that's for sure. I also have all the FMs that we sell on our website that haven't had their spines cracked in a few years, as well as dozens of other relevant books. I've not had time to brush up on some of the finer historically linked features yet, instead spending most of my time on the "no brainer" stuff which don't need me to reread a shelfload of books

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

...practically speaking, the explosives didn't work without the aid of a vehicle (which was probably not all that common, by the sounds of it). So it looks like hedgerow cutters only.

Yeah, I don't think it would be worth your while to mess around with that other stuff at this stage (maybe in another ten years).

Should I turn in my Grog Society membership card now, do you think?

:D:D

Michael