A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission

[LongLeftFlank]

Tree "objects" alone aren't considered "forest" for the purposes of vehicle movement (I assume calculating pathing based on every individual trees is too taxing). The way it is intended to work is to use either a "light forest" or "heavy forest" base tile where forest trees are placed. Light forest is passable to vehicles with penalties, heavy forest is impassable to vehicles. It is up to the map designer to pair the right base tile with the proper density of vegetation.

In the above example, dense forest tree "objects" are placed on a grass field base tile. As far as the AI is concerned, for movement purposes this is open grass field.

The only time you'd see mature trees standing alone is if human beings have cleared the undergrowth (e.g. parks, chateaus, orchards). Even stands of trees grown alongside fields or roads to provide windbreaks will have some brush and bushes at their feet.

For map building purposes, you would actually see "light forest" inside "heavy forest", not the reverse, and would rarely encounter "light woods" on its own. Woods are densest at their edges because light can get in and allow small trees, thickets and brush to grow. Tactically, that means that if you're deep inside the woods in summertime you probably can't see much outside, and vice versa.

Even in the "light forest" where big mature trees form a dense enough canopy to limit the height and density of ground cover, you will still get a mat of undergrowth, ferns and other low-light vegetation in summertime. This will provide some concealment and LOS restrictions for men at ground level, but not as much for vehicles. Kind of like patches of grain. The ground between the trees may be passable but hazards still exist, such as stumps, logs or boulders and patches of marshy ground disguised by a carpet of leaves.

"Heavy forest" on the other hand implies a mix of mature and not-so-mature trees with plentiful gaps that have allowed stands of saplings and thickets to grow. In summer especially, this undergrowth heavily restricts visibility at all levels. This makes this terrain functionally impassable to vehicles under battlefield conditions (they might be able to be safely guided into a concealed ambush position before battle); even if they can avoid the big trees and crush the small ones, they risk getting hung up on unseen snags.

Sorry to be pedantic about forests but heck, if people can ramble for pages about hull facing doctrine then I can ramble about terrain.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It does now seem to me the Shermans are surviving too well. Didn't we establish a head on Sherman only has a small chance of escape at that range?

[Gromit]

I think the only thing that was really established was that this is one encounter and entirely too small a sample of tank-to-tank faceoffs to be drawing any kind of conclusions from guys.

No offense, but many of you are too quick to extrapolate any perceived flaw or advantage into some kind of trend here. I say give it some more time and if things prove to be "off", then Charles will make some adjustments- it's just that simple.

[Wrath of Dagon]

OK, it does seem like the last Sherman is pointing at tank 3, but is hit by tank 4, so there is some angle there. May be also some partial penetrations? Hopefully all these hits have been analyzed and found to be correct. But may be the armor quality is also a bit high? Not saying there's actually a problem, just some concern.

[Vanir Ausf B]

OK, it does seem like the last Sherman is pointing at tank 3, but is hit by tank 4, so there is some angle there.

It does appear that when facing Pz IVs it would be beneficial to angle Shermans, if the game will let us to it.

[ZPB II]

I thought I read one of the testers saying that as a result of this battle, there were AI tweaks made that resulted in PzIVs aiming at and hitting the turret more often.

[zukkov]

originally posted by GhostRider3/3:

But buy 1944 The Germans were using the last remaning stocks of equipment and men, while the Allies were now putting out Volumes of equipment... and men.

can't remember where i read it, but i remember some german officer stating words to the effect that he knew germany had lost the war when he first saw an american supply depot.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I thought I read one of the testers saying that as a result of this battle, there were AI tweaks made that resulted in PzIVs aiming at and hitting the turret more often.

No, the AI tweak was to have the tank more likely to retreat on a non-penetrating hit.

[Vark]

Again, I will repeat my query, in a one hour battle why the armoured rush? I understand the desire to get eyes on the objective but surely once the Shermans knew that they faced an unknow armoured force they could have reverted to their primary role of infantry support. The M-10 TD's and 76mm M4 could have switched to overwatch and the 75mm M4's just hung about waiting for the lead scout elements to start calling in spot reports. You said that the approach was perfect for infantry, but have not mentioned them, are they going to be your saving grace?

I understand that an AAR is a wonderful vehicle for hindsight but in Elvis' DAR, infantry seemed to be invisible in woodland, with time to spare surely a few tank hunter teams could have attempted to get into the woods, perhaps with the help of a smoke screen? You say that you did not realsie he had chosen only tanks, fair enough, but an infantry advance might have made this clear.

As to the flat grass issue, when I tried some of the modded grass in CM1 it looked great at level one but higher elevations showed the variety of textures just repeated themselves and the effect looked as though I was fighting over a cheap carpet!

[Vanir Ausf B]

As to the flat grass issue, when I tried some of the modded grass in CM1 it looked great at level one but higher elevations showed the variety of textures just repeated themselves and the effect looked as though I was fighting over a cheap carpet!

The golf course effect. It's why gridded terrain is the best type of mod for CM games.

[Michael Emrys]

Sweet photoshop skillz

I second that. I have enough experience with PS to have an idea of how much work Bil is putting into these pics and how well he is employing his skills. Kudos!

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Sorry to be pedantic about forests but heck, if people can ramble for pages about hull facing doctrine then I can ramble about terrain.

I for one appreciate it. I've spent enough time among trees, woods, and forests that I should have been more mindful of differences. Thanks for reminding me.

One thing though, certainly in Germany and perhaps in some other parts of Western Europe at the time of the war there were managed forests of trees in various stages of maturity. These had lanes or fire breaks at regular intervals that could be exploited for movement and/or to provide clear lines of fire.

Michael

[stikkypixie]

I second that. I have enough experience with PS to have an idea of how much work Bil is putting into these pics and how well he is employing his skills. Kudos!

Michael

Well actually now that I think about, if he took two screenshots at different times without moving the camera, he can just roughly crop around the PzIVs; superimpose the images and play with opacity to get this effect.

Still a very cool way of representing tank movement though.

[LongLeftFlank]

I for one appreciate it. I've spent enough time among trees, woods, and forests that I should have been more mindful of differences. Thanks for reminding me.

One thing though, certainly in Germany and perhaps in some other parts of Western Europe at the time of the war there were managed forests of trees in various stages of maturity. These had lanes or fire breaks at regular intervals that could be exploited for movement and/or to provide clear lines of fire.

Michael

What you're thinking of would be mostly pines I think; fast-growing, hardy and tolerant of thin rocky (post-Ice Age) soils. As I mentioned a while back, the dense pine forests (taiga) that dominate the northern half of the Eurasian (and North American) landmass begin in earnest east of the Meuse (the Ardennes and Vosges). Large pine belts certainly do exist in the central massifs of France and down around Bordeaux, but in Normandy the dominant native forest is deciduous white oak.

This image was taken from a road. Once you get into the woods, visibility improves some (second image). But all the same I wouldn't fancy maneuvering a Sherman through there.

[The_Capt]

Again, I will repeat my query, in a one hour battle why the armoured rush? I understand the desire to get eyes on the objective but surely once the Shermans knew that they faced an unknow armoured force they could have reverted to their primary role of infantry support. The M-10 TD's and 76mm M4 could have switched to overwatch and the 75mm M4's just hung about waiting for the lead scout elements to start calling in spot reports. You said that the approach was perfect for infantry, but have not mentioned them, are they going to be your saving grace?

I understand that an AAR is a wonderful vehicle for hindsight but in Elvis' DAR, infantry seemed to be invisible in woodland, with time to spare surely a few tank hunter teams could have attempted to get into the woods, perhaps with the help of a smoke screen? You say that you did not realsie he had chosen only tanks, fair enough, but an infantry advance might have made this clear.

As to the flat grass issue, when I tried some of the modded grass in CM1 it looked great at level one but higher elevations showed the variety of textures just repeated themselves and the effect looked as though I was fighting over a cheap carpet!

Well that is a damn good question. To be honest the results of our first armoured engagement did taint my tactical approach. Both Bil and I had a hard time coming to grips with what we were seeing. I kept pushing with the Shermans at the end to see just how hard you can push Shermans...plus we like smashing things.

If you read my "hear the click" answer, what you layout above is exactly what I should have done or at least shaped the battlefield in order to pull Bil towards my infantry. As it was the armoured battle was pretty much over by the time my infantry show up...ah the unsyncronicity of it all!

[Vark]

Been there done that! I was once so fixated on a handful of units and what they were attacking I neglected the rest of my force (is their a term CM blindness?). Trouble was the enemy didn't, I remember looking at the map and thinking, why is my mortars sitting there and why is most of a company panicked or hiding and the clincher, why are there craters all around them....ooops! In my defence I had some Ferdinands and Sturm Panzer IV's to play with, so who needs infantry? I found the answer out all too soon!

I think it's time for Tube Guy to save the day!

[Michael Emrys]

Been there done that! I was once so fixated on a handful of units and what they were attacking I neglected the rest of my force (is their a term CM blindness?).

Not that I know of, but the Air Force talks a lot about "target fixation", which is similar.

Trouble was the enemy didn't, I remember looking at the map and thinking, why is my mortars sitting there and why is most of a company panicked or hiding and the clincher, why are there craters all around them....ooops!

Which reminds me of why I never liked Close Combat. One of the first times I tried to play it, I set my mortar to fire some suppressive fire on a building. I meant for it to fire a few shells and then pause. But I got hung up in some action on another part of the map and forgot to give it the order to stop. Next thing I noticed it had run through its entire stock of ammo, the enemy had moved so that the bulk of the shells had fallen on empty space, and I no longer had any heavy support. I HATED that game!

Michael

[LongLeftFlank]

If you read my "hear the click" answer, what you layout above is exactly what I should have done or at least shaped the battlefield in order to pull Bil towards my infantry. As it was the armoured battle was pretty much over by the time my infantry show up...ah the unsyncronicity of it all!

Able Fox Five to Able Fox. I got a target but ya gotta be patient.

[Peregrine]

As it was the armoured battle was pretty much over by the time my infantry show up...ah the unsyncronicity of it all!

Against human players I have always found that it is bad idea to show your armour until your infantry starts to have at least a little to moderate difficulty accomplishing whatever it's objective is.

Infantry spots better and while not as fast is more mobile and stealthy. It is also impossible to lose a company of infantry quickly. Conversely in a tank battle losses can mount real quickly in well under a minute.

I found that in CMBB/CMAK big QBs (meeting engagements) it was much better to have an infantry heavy force with tank support. I am interested to see if this still holds in Normandy. It didn't really hold in CMSF because sqds in the open got torn apart by the superior modern firepower but I didn't really PBEM at all to figure out what a good QB balance is.

[Vark]

My best ever, oh s**t moment, was playing a Maleme scenario on the original Steel Panthers game. My assault had suffered few casualties and my FJ's were racing for the airfield, greatly aided by the Luftwaffe (air strike in 4 minutes, jawohl!). As my lead companies leap-frogged toward an abandoned fighting position, an HE-111 appeared from the bottom of the map. Oh, think I, wonder what it's target is? I soon found out! One perfect bombing run later my two lead platoons have suffered 70% casualties and although I won handily, over half my casualties were caused by that bloody bomber.

Long left Flank, have faith, for Tube Guy has heard the cries of his fellow soldiers and as we speak is racing to save the day (perhaps Tube Guy could be modded to carry a red white and blue shield!).

[LongLeftFlank]

Long left Flank, have faith, for Tube Guy has heard the cries of his fellow soldiers and as we speak is racing to save the day (perhaps Tube Guy could be modded to carry a red white and blue shield!).

A simple umbrella will do (plus some grenades) -- Sgt Fury meets Mary Poppins. Oh, and about those panzerfuhrers using small arms from their turrets....

[Michael Emrys]

It is also impossible to lose a company of infantry quickly.

Not quite impossible. Sending them across an open field of more than 100 meters, guarded by half a dozen HMG with ample ammo, a couple of medium mortars, and a platoon of dug in infantry might do the trick. Oh, did I forget to mention the mines?

Conversely in a tank battle losses can mount real quickly in well under a minute.

That much is true enough. Military blunders with attending disasters are an option that is always on the table.

Michael

[Vark]

Michael, what a waste! Just some nice long lines of barbed wire the odd TRP and some 8 inch guns (ludicrously over modelled) When I used to get bored I'd design a scenario where a regiment of infantry were attacked by 30 odd katyusha modules, I'd then use different artillery and compare the butchers bill. I reckoned that 81mm mortars used to bounce of helmets, 76mm shrapnel struggled to penetrate both uniform and flesh, 122-150 nicely carved up the troops but 203mm shells were akin to Zeus' thunder bolts.

[Peregrine]

Not quite impossible. Sending them across an open field of more than 100 meters, guarded by half a dozen HMG with ample ammo, a couple of medium mortars, and a platoon of dug in infantry might do the trick. Oh, did I forget to mention the mines?

That much is true enough. Military blunders with attending disasters are an option that is always on the table.

Michael

I just read my own quote and I didn't quite say what I meant.

It is ALMOST (instead of also) impossible to lose a company of infantry quickly. That said a sensible human would be advancing using overwatch. I would be real disappointed and it would take a super tricky human opponent with some well laid out covered arcs for me to run a whole company into a single trap.

In the ideal situation the lead platoon would cop hell then it would be decision time.

Depending on how much fire I saw I would:

A) push with the rest of my infantry

retreat and settle in to a shootout at 200m or whatever the longest visible range is

C) retreat and move somewhere totally different

D) use arty then attack with infantry

E) bring tanks

I still think infantry in CMBB were not fragile enough (CMBO was even worse). The general point is that it is usually best to let lead with infantry.

[Battlefront.com]

What you're thinking of would be mostly pines I think; fast-growing, hardy and tolerant of thin rocky (post-Ice Age) soils.

Living on such terrain, and having almost mostly hardwoods growing around me, I know I'm not The land I live on, mange, and log is what we call a "first generation forest" since it grew back from what was once farmland. This is they type of forest that would be most common in Normandy. (BTW, fir is the preferred fast growing softwood since it yields a useable product faster than either pine or spruce)

As I mentioned a while back, the dense pine forests (taiga) that dominate the northern half of the Eurasian (and North American) landmass begin in earnest east of the Meuse (the Ardennes and Vosges). Large pine belts certainly do exist in the central massifs of France and down around Bordeaux, but in Normandy the dominant native forest is deciduous white oak.

Take a look at the Norman countryside from WW2 aerial photos and you'll see that "wild forest" was almost non existent. While hardwood species were definitely the dominant ones, they were almost exclusively existing for one of two purposes:

1. "Shelterwood" to protect crop fields. Most commonly found with other vegetation which, generally speaking, is referred to as "bocage".

2. Crop trees for local manufacturing, export, or simply for fuelwood.

A long practiced rural tradition is for a portion of a farmer's land to be "crop trees" to provide fuel and materials for his own uses. These are largely "even aged stands" and are carefully managed to maximize output. They are regularly harvested at times depending on species and intended use. The sort of picture you posted is of an unmanaged forest where old trees die off and new ones sprout up naturally. It's a completely different type of stand of trees.

Fairly even aged hardwood stands, even with minor management, tend to be left interspersed and have fairly clear understories. This is because hardwoods tend to spread their crowns wide and choke off secondary growth. Which is why a good managed stand, using current forestry practices, create regular openings so as to encourage uneven growth. My understanding of traditional European forestry practices before the 2nd half of the 20th Century is that this was not standard practice. Instead a section would be allowed to grow to a particular diameter, then the whole section would be cut down at one time just like a food crop would be.

Fairly even aged softwood stands generally are planted in rows and the lower limbs trimmed regularly. Like above, usually contiguous sections would be cleared at one time. Other times every other tree would be cut down, depending on if there was a desire for a second, larger, batch for 5-10 years later.

In neither case would the understory be allowed to go "wild" as this was perceived as counter productive to crop tree management practices. It definitely complicates harvesting and periodic maintenance activities. Plus, since pretty much all downed wood was utilized for something (even if low grade fuel) there wasn't much chance for the the accumulation of much of anything other than some branches and leaves.

NOW.... having said all that...

CM:BN allows the designer to simulate unmanaged forests by putting a Forest tile under the trees. Bil showed off one in his screenshots. These, in contrast to trees planted in open ground, are definitely a problem for vehicles.

Designers take note

Steve