Questions about WWII infantry for CMx2

[Ted]

...And complaint, I guess, is not necessarily the right word for it most of the time. "A strongly expressed desire to see major graphical improvements" just doesn't roll off the tongue as easily

LoL, now THAT I remember

There's no chance of hidden trenches once the game starts. That's just not going to happen, period. What I'm still hoping for is a compromise solution for the foxhole issue since, I think, it's by far the more important of the two. As I've said above, exact or near-exact knowledge of an enemy's trenches is something that is more likely than less, even in WW2. Foxholes, on the other hand, are a completely different beast in terms of the chances of foreknowledge by the attacker.

Steve

Yes I agree whole heartedly. A trench line was easily spotted but foxholes are very much a different matter.

Good luck with the foxhole compromise.

I look forward to hearing about what progress are made with them.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[flamingknives]

Organisation, small arms ballistics, cover, AI, ammo supply, artillery, infantry tactics, effects of relief and relative elevation on small arms fire and infantry behaviour, being able to move along trenches without unnecessary exposure, doors in buildings rather than enter any old way and no borg spotting.

But that's just what I think. YMMV.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Kwazydog]

There is going to be an AI in CMx2 Normandy?

The Tac AI already handles a lot of situations better than it did in CMAK in my opinion, and it will continue to be improved.

Dan

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

Your link to JasonC's post is incorrect. It just goes to the start of the thread. But I know which post you were aiming for and there's nothing in his links that are relevant.

The fact is that the more elaborate and involved a defensive system is, the greater the chance that the enemy will know about it. Even if it isn't known before the first patrols hit it, it will be known soon after. And since you can't just pick up and move an in-depth defensive system, once it's location is known then it's going to be known to whomever is assaulting it.

OBVIOUSLY not 100% of the time all the time, but more often than not. Add to that the fact that more often than not the Germans didn't defend from trenches, and the Allies effectively NEVER defended from trenches (not in the Normandy timeframe anyway), trenches are really not a big deal. Or not any more of a big deal than all kinds of other things which CM has either never simulated well or only simulated as a peripheral feature.

It is impossible for us to simulate EVERYTHING in warfare and then to do so equally well, so trenches are just one of those things that isn't perfect. Better than CMBO, which didn't have them at all, and IMHO better than CMBB/AK where by default they were completely unknown to the attacker (which is, IMHO, less realistic than always known).

What will CMx2 Normandy simulate better than CMAK did? I don't really know what the point is of this one except the looks.

Why does this keep coming out of your virtual mouth? Every time you come up with such a blanket statement people list off all the things that CMx2 does better. In fact, I can hardly think of something that CMx2 doesn't do as well, from a simulation standpoint. Even Trenches, I argue, are at least on a par with CMBB and CMAK, better than CMBO (obviously).

Sure, if you think a couple of terrain combos that span 20x20 meters is better than CMx2, then you've got a point. If buildings of different shapes, configurations, and numbers of floors aren't seen as being better than a couple of simple blocks of one or two stories... CMx2 has nothing for you. How about having morale and suppression being separate factors instead of one fudged value? I suppose you probably prefer Borg Spotting to Relative Spotting too. I suppose vastly abstracted infantry modeling of CMx1 isn't something you wanted improved? If far more accurate treatment of LOS/LOF depending on height is inferior or the same as fixed hight LOS/LOF, then CMx2 doesn't have anything more to offer. I suppose the ability to assign Target Commans on Waypoints isn't an improvement either. Detailed vehicle damage modeling, obviously that's not really all that important. More realistic C2, artillery support, ballistics modeling, and physics modeling are also of apparent little value to a wargame. And that's what the game does NOW, not to mention the new stuff that is going in, like temperate terrain, weather effects, a new QB system, etc.

Oh... why bother. You KNOW CMx2 does all this stuff better than CMx1, you just don't like it. There is NOTHING wrong with that. There is, however, something rather intellectually dishonest about having someone repeatedly tell us that details are important, get into very deep discussions about said details, then completely dismiss them as not existing. CM: Normandy might very well disappoint you Adam, which I don't have a problem with, but it won't be because it doesn't do anything better than CMBO other than graphics.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[flamingknives]

So yes to weather effects then, that's fantastic. I can't wait to see the rain in 3d.

??????

What?

[Runaway!!!]

??????

What?

LOL!!! I can hear the sound of foreheads being slaped everywhere.

[Chainsaw]

I suppose the ability to assign Target Commans on Waypoints isn't an improvement either.

Steve

Actually, now that you mention it... my personal view is that that single feature is the biggest and most loved improvement you guys have done. Oboy that changed so much in gameplay for me!

(not saying that the other improvements are of no value...)

/Thomas

[JasonC]

Look at a real hedgerow defense system, then tell me the attacker will know about all of it as soon as he encounters any piece of it.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/100-13/mp16.jpg

[SlapHappy]

Jason - Based on that map what would you expect a typical engagement in that area to look like scale-wise? Company-level? Multi-Company or even Battalion?

Just trying to get some idea of troop densities for this type of fighting historically. Even a range of possibilities would be helpful.

[Kwazydog]

Look at a real hedgerow defense system, then tell me the attacker will know about all of it as soon as he encounters any piece of it.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/100-13/mp16.jpg

Are you referring to trenches Jason? I see reference on that map to dug outs, which Im guessing to be more of a foxhole type situation, but I dont see any reference to trenches...

Dan

[c3k]

Sure, if you think a couple of terrain combos that span 20x20 meters is better than CMx2, then you've got a point. If buildings of different shapes, configurations, and numbers of floors aren't seen as being better than a couple of simple blocks of one or two stories... CMx2 has nothing for you. How about having morale and suppression being separate factors instead of one fudged value? I suppose you probably prefer Borg Spotting to Relative Spotting too. I suppose vastly abstracted infantry modeling of CMx1 isn't something you wanted improved? If far more accurate treatment of LOS/LOF depending on height is inferior or the same as fixed hight LOS/LOF, then CMx2 doesn't have anything more to offer. I suppose the ability to assign Target Commans on Waypoints isn't an improvement either. Detailed vehicle damage modeling, obviously that's not really all that important. More realistic C2, artillery support, ballistics modeling, and physics modeling are also of apparent little value to a wargame. And that's what the game does NOW, not to mention the new stuff that is going in, like temperate terrain, weather effects, a new QB system, etc.

Oh... why bother. You KNOW CMx2 does all this stuff better than CMx1, you just don't like it. There is NOTHING wrong with that. There is, however, something rather intellectually dishonest about having someone repeatedly tell us that details are important, get into very deep discussions about said details, then completely dismiss them as not existing. CM: Normandy might very well disappoint you Adam, which I don't have a problem with, but it won't be because it doesn't do anything better than CMBO other than graphics.

Steve

Quite simply, if I can't hear the "ting" as a Garand ammo clip springs out, the game will be totally ruined. Totally! How could you expect me to use realistic German tactics if I can't hear the Ami's running out of ammo? Oh, and you'd BETTER allow me to play as the Americans and let me have a player order that says "drop an extra ammo clip so the German THINKS you're out of ammo". Or else the game will be ruined!

Seriously, thanks for keeping us engaged with what's going on.

Regards,

Ken

[Michael Emrys]

Jason - Based on that map what would you expect a typical engagement in that area to look like scale-wise? Company-level? Multi-Company or even Battalion?

Just trying to get some idea of troop densities for this type of fighting historically. Even a range of possibilities would be helpful.

Looks to me like the attack would be by a battalion with two companies up and one back. Just my 2¢.

Michael

[JonS]

On 13 July, the two attacking regiments of the 35th Division again scored only limited gains. The principal reason, not realized until later advance had cleared the ground, was a German defensive system described by XIX Corps G-2 as representing a "school solution" for the enemy's problem of stopping our attack.

Just west of the hamlet of le Carillon (Map 16) the Germans had organized on a north-south nose of higher ground, between two small creeks, in a fashion not matched elsewhere on the division front. Using every advantage offered by the hedgerow terrain, they followed the principle of defense in depth. The main enemy positions began 500 yards from the northern end of the nose, on the line le Carillon-la Mare; from here, for 1000 yards to the south, the rising ground was organized as a defensive base. From it, small combat groups worked out to the north and on both flanks to prepared outpost positions; if pressed, they could retire easily to the base. The nose was only 50 to 100 feet higher than the low ground on the approaches from the north, and less than that above the draws to either side, but this was high enough to afford good observation, and enemy automatic weapons and mortars were sited to deliver effective harassing fires over a wider radius. Heavy hedgerow dikes and a few sunken roads gave the Germans opportunity for movement under cover from American artillery fire. Enemy forces in this area were estimated at about a battalion.

As it happened, German defense of this sector was further favored by the disposition of the 35th Division's attack zones. The boundary between the 137th and 320th Infantry ran through the organized strongpoint, putting the greater part of it in the 137th’s zone. The result was that while two U. S. battalions were actually involved in the battle for this sector, they were in different regiments, and neither of them was hitting the German strongpoint squarely in a way that would reveal its full strength in the early attacks. The 2d Battalion of the 137th planned its main effort down the draw to the west; the 1st Battalion, 320th Infantry operated east of le Carillon. The two units were in contact only by patrols in the rear areas, directly facing the nose.

On 13 July, the 2d Battalion of the 137th attacked south astride the stream flanking the nose on the west-G Company on the left and E on the right. Each had a platoon of heavy machine guns and a section of 81-mm mortars attached. A platoon of medium tanks was available for the battalion. Tactics consisted of putting heavy concentrations of mortar fire on suspected enemy positions, then attacking by small groups of four or five riflemen who made liberal use of grenades and grenade launchers to get behind enemy positions.

At the end of the day, Company E had made about 600 yards, reaching the east-west lane through la Mare. Company G, on the side of the creek near the rise of high ground, had much harder going and was 350 yards short of this lane at 1700. When F Company was committed to help G, it was able to advance only 200 yards and sustained such heavy casualties that it was withdrawn that night. All companies had been hampered by harassing fire from the higher ground to the southeast. On the other side of the nose, the 1st Battalion of the 320th, trying to push on south and east of le Carillon, was stopped by the severe flanking fires from enemy positions on the nose.

On 14 July, Company E of the 137th was able to get through three hedgerows against light opposition, but then struck fields bordered by sunken lanes and well defended. It continued attacking the rest of the day and advanced only one more field length. Company G managed to approach the east-west lane at which began the main enemy defensive positions and cleaned out the road intersection (Point 89), taking 60 prisoners and 9 machine guns. Finding the Germans well dug in along this line and beyond it in depth, the battalion commander decided to go back to the draw (that is, west) and attack up it, to outflank the enemy. Taking advantage of good cover in the draw, Company G managed to get up abreast of E. There it fanned eastward several hundred yards and resumed attack to the south. The company soon discovered that its maneuver had not gone far enough to envelop the enemy positions, particularly the reserve line, dug in along another east-west lane. Several times Company G almost reached this lane, only to be forced back by heavy fire from the front and left flank. The battalion commander tried a wider envelopment by sending Company F west of E and then south, but this effort netted only one field. On the other side of the nose, the 320 Infantry was making even less headway on 14 July.

The problem of cracking this German strong-point was never really solved; success on other parts of the front settled the issue during the next few days. On 14 July, in accordance with XIX Corps' order to make the main effort near the river, the 137th Infantry had put all three battalions into line. The 1st Battalion took over the center, with the 3d on its right, each supported by a platoon of medium tanks, a platoon of tank destroyers, and Division Artillery. Attacking at o800, they encountered thick mine fields and 88-mm fire, as well as zones covered by enemy machine guns. The right wing of the 137th Infantry nevertheless kept its advance rolling. The TD's, operating as assault guns, placed heavy fire on the hedgerows just in front of the infantry, knocking out 19 machine-gun emplacements and 4 mortar positions, and shaking enemy resistance. Late in the day, the 3d and 1st Battalions broke loose in a rapid advance that reached the Pont-Hebert-St-Lo highway. The regiment had suffered 125 casualties during the day's fighting, and lost 11 medium tanks. Fifty-three prisoners were taken.

This progress, and gains made the next day southeast of le Carillon (p. 102), were to undermine the enemy resistance on the center of the 35th Division's front. Though well organized and ably defended, the security of the German strongpoint near le Carillon depended on flank protection. This was compromised by breakthroughs both to left and right, leaving the Germans in a pronounced salient which would eventually be untenable.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/100-13/st-lo_3.htm#m16

[akd]

Look at a real hedgerow defense system, then tell me the attacker will know about all of it as soon as he encounters any piece of it.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/100-13/mp16.jpg

This is what I referenced earlier. The Germans dug into the hedgerows. Their defensive works in the bocage were virtually invisible to the Allies.

[SlapHappy]

A quick conversion of this map in game terms gave me 1100 m. x 1450 m. area with a frontage of two attacking battalions and roughly a battalion in defense. So a relatively moderate sized map in game terms (CMX2 engine) and a quite high number of involved troops, although we don't know from the attackers stand point in what total time scale these were committed.

Have to laugh at the "end of day" accomplishments of one company - an advance of 600 yards - that being the high water mark. The next company in line advancing only 250 yards.

If things stay the way they are now, we will have to dig out those entrenched German troops in 2 hours or less. Pretty tall order!

[Battlefront.com]

Hedgerows, of this density, should be considered more like urban environments instead of open terrain in terms of troop densities and speed of advance. As you guys have already pointed out, the situation JasonC pointed to is something that took 2x Battalions the better part of two days of heavy fighting to clean up. Which is not surprising since we all know bocage was the primary reason the Allies were way, way off their time tables and expected expenditures of men and material.

So to get back to JasonC's point...

Look at a real hedgerow defense system, then tell me the attacker will know about all of it as soon as he encounters any piece of it.

I'd never say that and certainly never have, so you're barking up the wrong tree. The scenario you pointed out is a highly organized defense which does not involve trenches, a far as I can tell. Foxholes galore, by the looks of things. Perhaps dug into the hedgerows themselves, as AKD points out.

As I've said in the earlier posts I've made, these types of positions were indeed very hard to spot. But how many of those battles in the 2 day long slug-fest were done with complete and utter ignorance of the enemy's positions? I think very few, which is partly why it took them so long to clear the place out. So even if we had no FoW with foxholes (which I hope is not the case), this would for sure not be a cakewalk for the US players as some of you guys seem to insist would be the case. Knowing where the enemy is sometimes isn't even half the battle.

Steve

[hoolaman]

A believe what you would call a dugout is more along the lines of a log bunker, but really half covered trench and half foxhole.

What about these sorts of works? Is the "vehicle" mechanism for half buried foxholes and trenches and log bunkers workable as mentioned a few pages back?

[Steiner14]

Here's another idea regarding spottable trenches (or other objects, that should not be visible from the beginning):

How about offering a second kind of object, i.e. a 2D-trench, for the problematic objects? So the scenario designers can decide, which one they prefer for the battle.

What seems very interesting to me is the positive side effect, that uncertainty could be increased dramatically. The battle starts with the reconnoitered trenches (and/or foxholes, bunkers,...), but it is possible that unknown fortifications could appear during the battle. Or not. Just like the designer needs/wants it.

[Battlefront.com]

Hoolaman,

Bunkers already are "vehicles". As I've explained before, the terrain mesh must be disturbed if they cut into the ground. It's the mesh that's the issue here, so putting something in the ground means deforming the mesh. However, it is technically possible to set the top of a bunker on a non-deformed mesh. This would mean that anybody inside would basically have ground cutting through their shoulders, since the terrain would still be there. It's an ugly work around, but we're not sure how ugly. It might not be "too ugly" to consider. It's already on the list so we'll see

Open trenches and foxholes... nope, not going to work for all the reasons already stated.

Steiner14,

As explained before, 2D trenches aren't something we are considering for a variety of reasons. Not even as an option.

Steve

[c3k]

Why not have a "vehicle" which is a flat square, oh, say about 8m x 8m, immobile, and very flat? With different skins, VERY close to the terrain skins... And the "vehicle" can park on top of the existing mesh. When LOS exists to the "vehicle" it, err, disappears. No mesh-messing; just vehicle modding...

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request