Holiday Bones, Norman Style

[Sergei]

I'm going to be really controversial here and ask if the difficulties of the bocage aren't a wee bit overblown? The word bocage is almost mythical amongst warnerds. How much of that is really deserved?

Take the area around Caen.

You can't tell me the guys attacking through those wide open fields had it any easier then the guys slogging through the bocage.

Okay, I just remembered this and wanted to discuss it some more. One thing that wasn't really mentioned is the grand tactical or operational effect of bocage. Once you forced the defenders out of one line of resistance, what would they do? Fall back to the next hedgerow, only some 70-140 meters away but out of the reach of your direct fire support weapons. And if the defenders had any spirit left in them by the time the night fell, they'd try to sneak up on you and drive you away from that day's conquests.

Meanwhile, in the less constricted terrain around Caen if you were able to dislodge the defenders, the next natural defence line could be a long way back, and your tanks would be able to pursuit without delays caused by the terrain. Usually it is this pursuit phase that finally mauls the defenders.

Bocage is like those elaborate deep fortified areas of WWI where you might be able to take the first trenches with sheer force and surprise but then carrying the attack through the second, third and fourth trench lines would be impossible. Similarly in 1942 Germans made huge leaps across the steppe in a short time, and then got caught in the streets of Stalingrad for months.

When looked as individual tactical engagements, your point is very much correct, though.

[Vark]

Don't forget the effects of the bocage on CAS, both calling in the strikes, aquiring the targets from the air and conducting basic BDA's. Also the thick foliage and high banks severely reduced the effects of shrapnel and blast from any HE weapon.

Tanks became trapped in such terrain denying them the ability to manoeuvre, and what is a tank without mobility, useless. If they did try to flank any MLR they had to be escorted by infantry and Normandy showed how basic the allies doctine was, in that respect.

It was not just the horrible terrain the Allies faced, it stripped them of their weapon superiority, in terms of close support, all but eliminated their advantage in numbers and exposed tactical failings in terms of combined operations. Not only that, it concealed the Germans lack of close support, mitigated greatly the failings of the absurd command structure the Germans operated under, playing to their Kampfgruppe ad-hoc specialities. Finally it played to the German superiority in terms of MG's, with their high rate of fire ideal for engaging the fleeting targets typical in such terrain and thie disposable anti-tank systems, that required point blank engagement ranges to be effective.

Finally, talking of MG's and the bocage, I remember the famous GI quote about how close the Germans were to them, in such terrain. "Oh we're close enough to reach through the hedgerow and put the safety on, on their spandau's".

[Secondbrooks]

Well, I just hope that CM2 Normandy comes out soon and helps me forget CM 1. CMSF just never did anything for me.

Yeah. Tell me about it. I got digital copy. A digital copy! That doesn't bring me my shoes or make me lunch.

Anyways trenches with FOW and all does sound really nice... And i'm late from work because i finally read this thread thru. Feck.

[Lets_All_Fight]

Well, I just hope that CM2 Normandy comes out soon and helps me forget CM 1. CMSF just never did anything for me.

Once they bring out the NATO pack they can skip Normandy for a year or so as far as I'm concerned - in fact they can skip it for a lot longer if they get to work on the temperate SF game. I genuinely never thought I'd enjoy a modern combat sim as much as I have and am quite happy to wear a big shiny 'Fanboi' badge to prove it.

[Chainsaw]

Im with Lets all fight here. I'm supprised over how much I love the modern setting, I even stopped reading about WWII since CMSF came out, CMSF made me lost intresst in WWII!

on the other hand that might change again when normandy comes out, who knows. but im longing more for the NATO module then Normandy

[Michael Emrys]

Don't forget the effects of the bocage on CAS, both calling in the strikes, aquiring the targets from the air and conducting basic BDA's.

Another point that has not really been touched on in this thread is that in the bocage, the two sides were so closely engaged that it pretty much neutralized the American superiority in artillery (and for the Commonwealth forces too wherever they were fighting in bocage). That's one more reason why it was so critical for them to find a way to get the tanks in to give direct fire support.

Michael

[tooz]

"Oh the site failed to inform you that players in Wisconsin get a 10 year delay for not being Wolverine fans. "--Sixxkiller

OK, I am from Philly and just live (and shiver) here. Does being an EAGLES fan lessen the wait?

I have always been drawn more to WWII than any other era. I hate to confess this, but I spend most of my playing time with Empire Total War--bugs, bad AI and all--and this is making the CM N wait bearable. Then there is Napoleon Total war coming out. I have been trying other new WWII games but nothing ever stuck like CM. I have now been more interested in other historical eras since. I guess my "nutter therapy" is going well. or is it?

[Secondbrooks]

Don't forget the effects of the bocage on CAS, both calling in the strikes, aquiring the targets from the air and conducting basic BDA's. Also the thick foliage and high banks severely reduced the effects of shrapnel and blast from any HE weapon.

Tanks became trapped in such terrain denying them the ability to manoeuvre, and what is a tank without mobility, useless. If they did try to flank any MLR they had to be escorted by infantry and Normandy showed how basic the allies doctine was, in that respect.

It was not just the horrible terrain the Allies faced, it stripped them of their weapon superiority, in terms of close support, all but eliminated their advantage in numbers and exposed tactical failings in terms of combined operations. Not only that, it concealed the Germans lack of close support, mitigated greatly the failings of the absurd command structure the Germans operated under, playing to their Kampfgruppe ad-hoc specialities. Finally it played to the German superiority in terms of MG's, with their high rate of fire ideal for engaging the fleeting targets typical in such terrain and thie disposable anti-tank systems, that required point blank engagement ranges to be effective.

Finally, talking of MG's and the bocage, I remember the famous GI quote about how close the Germans were to them, in such terrain. "Oh we're close enough to reach through the hedgerow and put the safety on, on their spandau's".

I'd expect it behave similary like MOUT in CMSF. Small combat zones which has restricted LOS/LOF outside, restricted movement of heavier weaponsystems restricted indirect firepower etc. Like Sergei said. In historical context bocages aren't that different. Stalingrad's urban areas, forest combat etc.

Personally i'd expect US small units to do rather fine in game as they have automatic rifles which does double their rate of fire compared to bolt locked rifles. I don't know what will German squads be, probably one LMG and one SMG while rest having mausers. Heck would be interesting to see how Soviet SMG squad would fare in CM: Normandy's tight bocages You have like 8-10 guys with drum magazines and foul attitude giving ugly amount of lead to short distances in short amount of time. Hmm... Steve what about some extra-features like this?

[Wiggum]

Now what about POW's ?

I need to see units surrender in a WW2 game like in CMx1...

[gunnergoz]

It's nice to be excited about a CM game again...I certainly am!

Happy New Year to all of us!

[souldierz]

Will there be a time limit in the Normandy game as well?

[MikeyD]

Well, the current game has a four hour time limit.

I haven't seen more than one or two scenario designers approach that time. Remember an extended time game means someone has to fashion extended time AI plans too. It seems much beyond 2 1/2 hours it becomes almost impossible for the designer to anticipate the course of events. This is a moot point for H2H games of course. But four hours of play is liable to exhaust the ammo supply of both sides.

[Vark]

Secondbrooks I'll see your rifles and BAR and raise you an MG-42 an MP-40, the odd MP-44 and Kar 98K's all firing smokeless ammo. Talking of the M1's effectiveness is there any data to show its superiority over the bolt action models?

What's that Secondbrooks? You'll see my MG and raise me a Platoon of M-4's a battery of 105's and a brace of P-38/47's!! But that's not fair!!

Looking forward to seeing if and how BF simulate the different tactical doctrines of the opposing infantry and will we have beaten zones for our MG's? Essential if you are to replicate the typical German defensive bocage layout. Talking of that will we have the infantry able to dig firing posts through the earthen banks? Oh and will AT guns, who have been pre-placed, have a concealment bonus? Oh and.... etc etc

[YankeeDog]

In re the M1 vs. Kar98, I'm not sure what "data" you're looking for. The Kar98 is slightly more accurate, but not enough matter in any practical way -- you'd need long ranges, telescopic sights and a good shooter to really see any difference in accuracy. In the hands of an average rifleman, either weapon scores a good, tight grouping at practical combat ranges for iron sights. And both use the same (now considered awkward and obsolete) top-loading stripper clip and internal mag design, so there's no real difference there. Theoretically, the gas-operated semi-auto mechanism of the M1 is inherently less reliable and more prone to jamming and foulage, but the M1 has to this day an excellent reputation for reliability and ruggedness so I really don't think there's any real advantage to the Kar98 there.

So chiefly, it comes down to whether you think the potential for higher ROF that the M1 has due to both semi-auto and a larger mag is any real advantage. Personally, I think very much so, as a lot of modern infantry combat is not carefully aimed shots at visible targets, but rather covering and/or suppressive fire at areas where you think the enemy might be. And this is where ROF matters. As a lesser factor, it's also a lot easier to keep proper sight picture and sight of the target between shots with a semi auto, as you don't have to break your shooting grip to cycle the bolt.

SMLE vs. M1 Garand is a little more interesting, since the SMLE has a larger mag and also has a reputation for being able to be cycled very quickly. But having fired both, I'd still take the M1, hands down. I'm sure a few Brits will disagree with me here, though...

As for the rest, no doubt the MG-34 & 42 were a tremendous advantage and I fully expect them to live up to their reputation. But I don't think the most German units had significantly more SMGs than the typical Allied unit in the summer of '44 on the West Front. Later in the war, I think this changed a bit and you start to see more and more German units carrying a high proportion of MP40s and Stg44.

[Tactical Wargamer]

Maybe for any of the Beta's.

How are the MP games. Not really interested in RT "click fests".Is there a pausable feature or variable speed rather than just real fast

I take it the only other option that will make it into ver 1.0 is PBEM or is it RT or nothing on the initial release. Thx

[gibsonm]

Maybe for any of the Beta's.

How are the MP games. Not really interested in RT "click fests".Is there a pausable feature or variable speed rather than just real fast

I take it the only other option that will make it into ver 1.0 is PBEM or is it RT or nothing on the initial release. Thx

If by "MP" (whatever that stands for apart, I presume from Military Police) you mean WEGO, that's there.

[Battlefront.com]

YankeeDog,

As for the rest, no doubt the MG-34 & 42 were a tremendous advantage and I fully expect them to live up to their reputation.

And it's real fun to see and hear them doing their thing and then move over and hear the BAR doing it's thing. That was absent in CMx1 because the weapons were all amalgamated and not individually portrayed.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

Well, to be fair, we did have sounds of the MG42, BAR, Garand, and many other small arms in CMx1. And I thought the way the x1 engine chose which sounds to play at what time did a remarkably good job of giving the *impression* of the various small arms involved in a specific small arms fight. To use a big, important sounding word, the sound modeling in CMx1 had very good verisimilitude.

But yeah, it will be really cool to see and hear it when that distinctive "RRRR-IIIP" specifically means that an MG42 is on the line, firing. And so on... ;-)

[Michael Emrys]

One other thing about the sound in x1 that struck me positively was that the sound would change in volume depending on how near or far the camera was from the source. I used that a couple of times to track down the location of a pesky enemy MG my troops couldn't seem to spot. Gamey? Perhaps. But I enjoyed it greatly when the shells began to fall on that area.

Michael

[Vark]

YankeeDog, curse you for being American and being able to fire those rifles! We here, in the UK are treated like little children, rifled, full bore guns are naughty and only the police, army and criminals are allowed to have them! I have dry fired the 98K and the Lee Enfield and could easily maintain the sight picture of the later, when working the bolt, but the 98K's was pretty cumbersome and necesitated me concentrating on it, not my sights.

I believe that doctrinally the US method was to often eschew aimed fire and concentrate on area fire. Whereas the British rifleman might be instructed who to fire at and with how many rounds the US stressed rounds all around a target area, maximising the M1's semi auto capability. The article I read also stated this is where the Americans got the reputation for being trigger happy, instead of well aimed shots at clearly defined targets the GI's were seen, by the British as haphazardly shooting. If anyone knowledgeable can comment on the accuracy of this information it would be helpful.

I would also have thought that the M1 was far more suitable in what is now known as CQB environments. Moving and snap shooting with a semi-auto must be easier than having to work a bolt action. Didn't Patton call the M1 the queen of the battlefield because of its ability to fire whilst its owner moved, ordering his riflemen to conduct marching fire?

The number of SMGs in British units steadily increased as the nature of the combat environment became all to clear. Osprey's passable book on Normandy has a very interesting plate; a photo, taken in August, of a rifle element of a section, training to attack a farmhouse, there are two Sten SMG's in the three man group.

As for sounds of MG's, Spike Milligan, one of the Goons, commented on hearing a firefight at night, in Italy. He contrasted the aggressive and impressive ripping sound of the German guns to the rather pathetic thumping of the Brens. Though a veteran told me, in Tunisia the Germans prefered the Bren, whilst on patrol and the British the MP-40. A practice that had to be discontinued given the number of blue on blue engagements at night!

[YankeeDog]

YankeeDog, curse you for being American and being able to fire those rifles! We here, in the UK are treated like little children, rifled, full bore guns are naughty and only the police, army and criminals are allowed to have them...

Wow. I hadn't realized gun control was that strict in the UK. Don't get me wrong, I think the whole 2nd amendment rights things is taken a bit too far here in the U.S., and I wouldn't mind a bit more consistent regulation of handguns especially, nationwide. But where I live in New York City, there are quite strict laws regulating handguns, and in contrast so-called "long guns" are nowhere near as regulated. So theoretically, criminals should find it much easier to get a full-bore, bolt action rifle than a handgun. And yet, while handgun shootings are not uncommon in NYC, it's been quite some time since I heard of a crime around here committed with a bolt-action rifle. So I don't see much need to regulate them.

I believe that doctrinally the US method was to often eschew aimed fire and concentrate on area fire. Whereas the British rifleman might be instructed who to fire at and with how many rounds the US stressed rounds all around a target area, maximising the M1's semi auto capability. The article I read also stated this is where the Americans got the reputation for being trigger happy, instead of well aimed shots at clearly defined targets the GI's were seen, by the British as haphazardly shooting. If anyone knowledgeable can comment on the accuracy of this information it would be helpful.

Actually, at the start of the war, in general the official doctrine of both the Brits and the US emphasized aimed fire from riflemen, and discouraged "area fire" when a target could not be definitively identified as a waste of ammo. As the war progressed, though, both moved towards recognizing the importance of "area fire" in modern combat, though I think it's a fair statement that US moved more quickly in this direction than the Brits. Arguably, the US infantry had little choice but to rely on Garand for area fire as the BAR was a very weak squad base of fire weapon. The Brits were somewhat better off in this regard with the Bren -- while the BREN is no MG42, it's still a sight better than the BAR as a SAW, so the Poms could probably afford to tell their SMLE riflemen to hold back a bit more. And as is so often the case, the practical tactics employed in the field by both GIs and Tommies in the field probably changed more quickly than the official doctrine on the books...

I would also have thought that the M1 was far more suitable in what is now known as CQB environments. Moving and snap shooting with a semi-auto must be easier than having to work a bolt action. Didn't Patton call the M1 the queen of the battlefield because of its ability to fire whilst its owner moved, ordering his riflemen to conduct marching fire?

Yes; Patton was a big fan of the M1. I don't remember specifically whether he advocated so-called Marching Fire doctrine. While being able to take multiple snap shots in quick succession is definitely an advantage of semi-auto, especially in QCB, Marching Fire is a late WWI doctrine that IMHO some US infantry tacticians clung to way too long, well into WWII.

The number of SMGs in British units steadily increased as the nature of the combat environment became all to clear. Osprey's passable book on Normandy has a very interesting plate; a photo, taken in August, of a rifle element of a section, training to attack a farmhouse, there are two Sten SMG's in the three man group.

This seems to be a common trend across nationalities, especially in any environment where engagement ranges are close. For example, in the combat around Aachen, I've read multiple accounts of American infantry "borrowing" Thompson SMGs and M3 "Grease Guns" from Tank and vehicle crews to increase short range firepower.

Cheers,

YD

[Dietrich]

Didn't Patton call the M1 the queen of the battlefield because of its ability to fire whilst its owner moved, ordering his riflemen to conduct marching fire?

I don't remember specifically whether he advocated so-called Marching Fire doctrine. While being able to take multiple snap shots in quick succession is definitely an advantage of semi-auto, especially in QCB, Marching Fire is a late WWI doctrine that IMHO some US infantry tacticians clung to way too long, well into WWII.

According to Wikipedia, Patton called the M1 "the finest battle implement ever devised".

According to World War II Infantry Tactics: Squad and Platoon by Stephen Bull (Osprey), in the section on squad-level offensive tactics:

Patton's Third Army instructions of 1944 had an even more aggressive tone, and encouraged even heavier use of fire. It was to be seen as integral to movement: "Infantry must move in order to close with the enemy. It must shoot in order to move." Moreover, "marching fire" was to be encouraged as the infantry went in, since it increased confidence and unsettled the enemy. "To halt under fire is folly. To halt under fire and not fire back is suicide. Move forward under fire."

Compare that to the same book's description (in the same section) of the tactics described in the German Ausbildungsvorschrift:

Riflemen are also enjoined to indulge in assault firing, the best method being to cant the rifle on to its left hand side at the hip, with bayonet fixed, and to let fly at just five to ten metres' range. The soldier then wades in, able to use both arms to full effect in any ensuing hand-to-hand combat with bayonet and butt.

[Lanzfeld]

Don't get me wrong, I think the whole 2nd amendment rights things is taken a bit too far here in the U.S., and I wouldn't mind a bit more consistent regulation of handguns especially, nationwide. YD

Not to start a debate but we already have over 20,000 gun laws here. More regulation is NOT the answer. Punishing those who commit the crimes IS the answer. Period.

[Battlefront.com]

YankeeDog,

Well, to be fair, we did have sounds of the MG42, BAR, Garand, and many other small arms in CMx1.

True, of course. However...

But yeah, it will be really cool to see and hear it when that distinctive "RRRR-IIIP" specifically means that an MG42 is on the line, firing. And so on... ;-)

Once you experience it yourself you'll see there's a big difference in the degree of verisimilitude.

Steve

[Cid250]

I'm just curious...

What says the maketing expert?, will be recomended to try a game launch for the 6th of June of 2010?.

Will be possible to include atleast 2 players cooperative mode if Battlefront delays a bit more the game launch to last quarter of 2010?. It's even considered cooperative play at all for the first module launch after the main game release?, or it will be a much latter thing due to implementation complexity?.

I will be very very happy if the cooperative feature is considered for the first module, but i will be also very happy if the main game release is delayed some months to include a nice QB system that considers "future" cooperative play compatibility in the design, the posibility to expand cooperative play in future modules even if we doesn't "see" the results until a latter module that enables the feature, will be a great notice about the quality of the final product.

May be it's a pain to code the new QB system, but doing it with no cooperative extensibility in mind, may be will lead to a lot of code rewrite the day that cooperative play it's considered.