Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

Bil is definitely using his crews in a "gamey" way. There's not much we can do about this other than to hit the Morale to make them less likely to engage in combat. They are naturally not connected to the C2 chain (headphones aren't radios!) so whatever they see isn't passed along to other units unless they are VERY close (and likely spotting the same things on their own).

Have you thought about restricting the information the player has on enemy contacts that are made by friendly units out of C2? Perhaps on "Iron" difficulty, or whatever the strictest realism/difficulty setting in CMBN is, units that are out of C2 that make contact with an enemy unit would engage as they normally would, and the player could still see and control the actions of the friendly unit, but no info on enemy contacts would appear to the player until the friendly unit is back in C2. This limitation wouldn't have much of an effect on situations like Bil's sending a crew to fight another crew in the woods, other than Bil couldn't see who the friendly crew is fighting until C2 is re-established, but it would severely limit the gamey tactic of using crews or other units out of C2 to recon "distant" targets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you thought about restricting the information the player has on enemy contacts that are made by friendly units out of C2? Perhaps on "Iron" difficulty, or whatever the strictest realism/difficulty setting in CMBN is, units that are out of C2 that make contact with an enemy unit would engage as they normally would, and the player could still see and control the actions of the friendly unit, but no info on enemy contacts would appear to the player until the friendly unit is back in C2. This limitation wouldn't have much of an effect on situations like Bil's sending a crew to fight another crew in the woods, other than Bil couldn't see who the friendly crew is fighting until C2 is re-established, but it would severely limit the gamey tactic of using crews or other units out of C2 to recon "distant" targets.

Actually Alan, I would love for a player, when he loses C2 on any unit to actually lose all visual contact with that unit until he can get a unit that is in C2 in contact, visually, or otherwise back in contact with that unit (friendly FOW)

...alas, tis but a dream. But imagine the tactical repercussions and the potential chaos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Alan, I would love for a player, when he loses C2 on any unit to actually lose all visual contact with that unit until he can get a unit that is in C2 in contact, visually, or otherwise back in contact with that unit (friendly FOW)

...alas, tis but a dream. But imagine the tactical repercussions.

Would be nice, but right now the player has to make almost all decisions for units at every level. Squad/unit level decisions like find hull-down position, pop smoke, move a team to the second floor, provide suppressive fire on a building or ridgeline, etc. are not normally passed down the chain of command, yet the player currently has to make those decisions for units in CMx2 anyway. I think until there's some level of AI controlling those, it wouldn't be fair to take control away from the player if a unit is out of C2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minute 18 Part 1

When you are in any contest, you should work as if there were - to the very last minute - a chance to lose it.

Dwight D. Eisenhower

1st Platoon and Company HQ Element

With Warren’s tanks all but wiped out, there isn’t much I want to do with 1st Platoon’s lone remaining tank, nor with the Company HQ element. I am simply having Crew 3 move through the woods some, with HQ 1 in support to see if they can find Brave Tanker (last known location indicated by the blue circle in the image).

Crew 2 will do the same on the other side of the wood line.

5587331693_3927bb9ae6_b.jpg

Unfortunately Crew 3 runs into a little ambush set by Warren with at least one US crew, and one of them I believe has an M-3 (blue circle in the image below). Crew 3 panics and retreats out of danger, but not before losing their gunner.

5587331755_f9d24dfc0e_b.jpg

The US crew’s jubilation is cut short however when HQ 1 shows up:

5587331813_c5da14630e_b.jpg

Next Minute 18 – Part 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minute 18 Part 2

…the battle, sir, is not to the strong alone, it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.

Patrick Henry

2nd Platoon

On the other side of the field 2nd Platoon continues to pummel the M-10s.

Tank 3 puts another round in to the TD it killed last turn. Just making sure I suppose.

5587923830_b7fc6e4e89_b.jpg

It took two more rounds to finally dispatch that last M-10. If you are keeping score that is a total of six hits that it took to kill that bastard. I gained a new respect for the much maligned M-10 during this game.

The following images are composite images showing 1. Firing, 2. Round on the way, and 3. Impact:

5587923900_9065bddf95_b.jpg

Crew 4 from 1st Platoon was keeping an eye on the woodline and spotted two bazooka teams last turn.

Note how close both of these teams are to the edge of the woods.. if they had been farther back away from the edge I might have never seen them:

5587331941_6a640d22be_b.jpg

HQ Tank will reverse so it is not so exposed to Bazooka 1 (B1) and will target MG fire against B1 as well. Tank 3 will also lay down some MG fire on B1 to cover HQ Tank’s move. Once in place HQ Tank will attempt to get eyes on B2 and then fire on it was well.

Off screen, Tank 1, who hasn’t moved in several turns will lay down HE on B1’s position.

Tank 4 is to finish off the M-10 as we have already seen.

5587331989_1c16aab070_b.jpg

The bazookas get off four rounds, all aimed at the HQ Tank, and all of which go long.

The end is inevitable with HQ Tank and Tank 4 both teaming up on B2 after B1 was neutralized:

5587924032_90f83efae8_b.jpg

Next: ???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would be nice, but right now the player has to make almost all decisions for units at every level. Squad/unit level decisions like find hull-down position, pop smoke, move a team to the second floor, provide suppressive fire on a building or ridgeline, etc. are not normally passed down the chain of command, yet the player currently has to make those decisions for units in CMx2 anyway. I think until there's some level of AI controlling those, it wouldn't be fair to take control away from the player if a unit is out of C2.

Take this to its logical conclusion and you would have a 'game' with a very passive player.

Turn 1: this is the only turn in which you would be guaranteed complete control. The players, looking at the troops at his disposal, the terrain and the objectives, issue orders.

Rest of game: the players get some reports back, and issue new orders to groups that remain in command. The orders would be things like: "there is no enemy where you are, keep advancing until you contact" or "hold the ground, you must not let the enemy control this ridge". Everything else would be done by the AI.

What is being described here is a simulation where you more or less set the parameters at the beginning, and wait and see what happens.

Players take pleasure in advancing individual units to the enemy, putting tanks into hull-down positions, setting target arcs... etc etc, and this would be missing from such a 'game'.

Is that what you really want? I'm sure if the demand is there, somebody would make it. But probably not as popular as a game like CMBN where you have to micromanage more than is realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crew 4 from 1st Platoon was keeping an eye on the woodline and spotted two bazooka teams last turn.

Note how close both of these teams are to the edge of the woods.. if they had been farther back away from the edge I might have never seen them:

5587331941_6a640d22be_b.jpg

What's the distance between that tank crew and the bazooka teams? It doesn't look very far, and the commander has binoculars, but I'd think that unless those bazooka teams were moving (not sneaking or crawling) they'd be darn near invisible.

edit: Just want to say, your screenshots are fantastic. It's pretty easy to get a feel for the overall position of the units, while also framing the subject matter well and cutting out stuff like the interface and empty space.

edit2: I just thought about this. All of your tanks are unbuttoned, but none of them saw the bazookas. Do they all have cover arcs outside of the bazooka teams' positions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is being described here is a simulation where you more or less set the parameters at the beginning, and wait and see what happens.

...

Is that what you really want? I'm sure if the demand is there, somebody would make it. But probably not as popular as a game like CMBN where you have to micromanage more than is realistic.

A "Command" level game, as we call it, does not have have a commercially viable audience proportional to the development costs. I think even the people who SAY they want it wouldn't. OK, some would, but once it really sunk in that the game is just a passive experience almost the entire game, I think most people would tire of it and be done.

The worst part about this is the AI that would be necessary for such a game is massive. And that's just for it to be decent. Worse, people would bitch endlessly about how this or that unit did or didn't do what the player felt it should under the given circumstances.

Nope, it's a complete non-starter for us. We could put in a lot less time and effort with CoPlay (many people per side) yet have a far better end result that far more people would want to play.

Having said that, a Command Level game at a higher level is not as bad a thing to contemplate. The audience is still quite small, but if the game doesn't go down below Company or Battalion level, and the game system isn't that expensive (i.e. 2D top down) to make, it can be a viable product. People still bitch and complain about the AI though :D

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the distance between that tank crew and the bazooka teams? It doesn't look very far, and the commander has binoculars, but I'd think that unless those bazooka teams were moving (not sneaking or crawling) they'd be darn near invisible.

If you go back and look through the first AAR, they talk about the difference of being positioned right on the edge of the woods (fairly good chance of being spotted) versus being just a few meters inside the outer edge (much less of a chance of spotting). I think it was Steve who pointed out the inherent danger in setting up right on the edge of woods and forest terrain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

edit2: I just thought about this. All of your tanks are unbuttoned, but none of them saw the bazookas. Do they all have cover arcs outside of the bazooka teams' positions?

- its my understanding that covered arcs are not related to spotting in this sense. They only influence they have is by facing the observers towards a certain position, but they will spot outside the covered arc.

The danger of the covered arc is if something dangerous pops up outside of the arc. Then it is up to the AI to take evasive action.

This leads to a couple of questions that are vitally important to PBEM play:

1) Under what conditions will the AI respond to spotted enemy outside the covered arc?

2) What actions can the AI take to threats outside the covered arc?

In CMSF I've had a T72 pump rounds into an Abrams that would not respond because the T72 was outside the covered arc - but this might have been in an earlier build, and I don't have time to run a test now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said that, a Command Level game at a higher level is not as bad a thing to contemplate.

Steve

I know we as a community have gone over this subject so many times before , would it be possible to clarify what you mean by this above ?

Sorry to bring it up again , thought I understood BFs position on the Strategic Layer (i.e you would never consider it due to development v return cost) but this statement appears to contradict previous.

When you say it wouldn't go below Company-ish level, do you mean a Stategic Layer with a minimum Company level BUT you would still be able to use that Company at a Tactical Level ? (i.e use that company in CMX2).

Totally understand nothing like this is currently being considered.

Thanks

Scott

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you go back and look through the first AAR, they talk about the difference of being positioned right on the edge of the woods (fairly good chance of being spotted) versus being just a few meters inside the outer edge (much less of a chance of spotting). I think it was Steve who pointed out the inherent danger in setting up right on the edge of woods and forest terrain.

Well not much to add on my end at this point. My M10s got wiped but that was inevitable really. I was pretty happy to bag one more Pz IV so with 5 down (effectively 6 with the gun kill) I had managed to cut Bils force in half but clearly not enough.

The bazooka teams. Well to be honest we are still arguing this issue and it has been tweaked since this AAR to make them harder to spot.

I personally think they should be damn near impossible to spot until they fire in this example. These teams were moving "slow" ie crawling the last 10m or so and in reality spotting infantry under cover is one of the hardest things to do, far too easy in the case presented here, even with binos.

Distance between the AT teams and the Pz IV was about 200m, a very long shot with the bazooka. If I had pulled my last three tanks further back I could have drawn them closer and had a much better chance at evening things up but there you go...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well not much to add on my end at this point. My M10s got wiped but that was inevitable really. I was pretty happy to bag one more Pz IV so with 5 down (effectively 6 with the gun kill) I had managed to cut Bils force in half but clearly not enough.

The bazooka teams. Well to be honest we are still arguing this issue and it has been tweaked since this AAR to make them harder to spot.

I personally think they should be damn near impossible to spot until they fire in this example. These teams were moving "slow" ie crawling the last 10m or so and in reality spotting infantry under cover is one of the hardest things to do, far too easy in the case presented here, even with binos.

Distance between the AT teams and the Pz IV was about 200m, a very long shot with the bazooka. If I had pulled my last three tanks further back I could have drawn them closer and had a much better chance at evening things up but there you go...

200M ! crawling slowly ! , in a heavy wood ! Really surprised the Pz IV spotted them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scottie the panzers did not spot them until they started to fire.

Also Warren had said earlier that he had three bazooka teams and I never spotted that third team at all.

Warren the last Pz-IV you killed was the tank with the gun kill. So you only killed five. Sorry. ;)

Ah sorry :) its was the crew that spotted them , sorry , understood, that sounds much more likely. Thanks for the reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scottie the panzers did not spot them until they started to fire.

Also Warren had said earlier that he had three bazooka teams and I never spotted that third team at all.

Warren the last Pz-IV you killed was the tank with the gun kill. So you only killed five. Sorry. ;)

You sent a gunless Pz IV forward to draw fire....gamey bastage indeed. Well I suppose I am not one to talk, recrewing an immobilized Sherman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You sent a gunless Pz IV forward to draw fire....gamey bastage indeed. Well I suppose I am not one to talk, recrewing an immobilized Sherman.

LOL... no, I sent it not to draw fire (that was an unfortunate incident) but to use its working eyes to spot. It worked wonderfully too, as I did discover (the hard way) where your M-10s were. Is that gamey? ;)

BTW I do not consider recrewing an immobilized tank gamey either... it still had a working gun so could still be a threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL... no, I sent it not to draw fire (that was an unfortunate incident) but to use its working eyes to spot. It worked wonderfully too, as I did discover (the hard way) where your M-10s were. Is that gamey? ;)

BTW I do not consider recrewing an immobilized tank gamey either... it still had a working gun so could still be a threat.

I am sure that is exactly what my poor pixel troopers thought right before the 75mm round tore thru their stationary tank.

All is fair in love, war and Combat Mission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL... no, I sent it not to draw fire (that was an unfortunate incident) but to use its working eyes to spot. It worked wonderfully too, as I did discover (the hard way) where your M-10s were. Is that gamey? ;)

BTW I do not consider recrewing an immobilized tank gamey either... it still had a working gun so could still be a threat.

Say Bil and Capt that was great! I dont think there is anything left to really Kill... and after 18min of combat.... I think the US would be bugging out about now... Ithink.

Question for both Bil and Capt.

1. Do you think the M-10 needs to be worked with a little. For a tank that only has about 9mm of Turret armor...and is capable of taking 6 75mm AP rounds? under 600m.

2. Is it possible to give at least the HQ squad of tankers a Mp40 (German) or Thompson, or M3 Submachine gun (American)? Or what are your thoughts on this. I have read numerous accounts of Crews having at least one Submachine gun, especially while scouting on where to put their tank... (Placement etc) Its not Gamy :)

3. It looked like a small fire started where the US Para's were, was it from the HE or tracer rounds?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Do you think the M-10 needs to be worked with a little. For a tank that only has about 9mm of Turret armor...and is capable of taking 6 75mm AP rounds? under 600m.

I think you're confusing the M-10 with the M-18... M-10's turret armor (except for the open top) was of a similar level to a Sherman -- front turrent armor on an M-10 is 57mm @ 45 deg, for example. Turret sides were 25mm.

M-18's armor was much thinner; it was designed more for speed than protection. Though even its turret armor wasn't as thin as 9mm. Not sure where you're getting that figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say Bil and Capt that was great! I dont think there is anything left to really Kill... and after 18min of combat.... I think the US would be bugging out about now... Ithink.

Question for both Bil and Capt.

1. Do you think the M-10 needs to be worked with a little. For a tank that only has about 9mm of Turret armor...and is capable of taking 6 75mm AP rounds? under 600m.

2. Is it possible to give at least the HQ squad of tankers a Mp40 (German) or Thompson, or M3 Submachine gun (American)? Or what are your thoughts on this. I have read numerous accounts of Crews having at least one Submachine gun, especially while scouting on where to put their tank... (Placement etc) Its not Gamy :)

3. It looked like a small fire started where the US Para's were, was it from the HE or tracer rounds?

I found the M10s to be pretty accurate. The two on the hill were first round kills. The one that took multiple hits also had two crew cas. All in all like most TDs the M10 has a nice big gun, crazy slow turret or gun traverse and very light armour (note there are exceptions like the JPz IV..beautiful piece of kit btw)

I have to check but I think Sherman crew commanders have a SMG. But remember the SMG is only effective a really short ranges (ie sub 100m) so it isn't really going to make that huge a difference if the crew runs up against an infantry squad.

Can't have been a fire as it isn't modeled (outside of burning vehicles) in CMBN...Bil?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're confusing the M-10 with the M-18... M-10's turret armor (except for the open top) was of a similar level to a Sherman -- front turrent armor on an M-10 is 57mm @ 45 deg, for example. Turret sides were 25mm.

M-18's armor was much thinner; it was designed more for speed than protection. Though even its turret armor wasn't as thin as 9mm. Not sure where you're getting that figure.

Thanks Yankee Dog.. for the life of me I always get those two mixed up. Better at German Armor.. LOL

Anyways still...6 shots less then 600m... LOL just checking the right rounds were being fired down range...

Which brings up Question #4. Does the AI select your ammo type or can the player intervene and select to fire different ammo type?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

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

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

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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

×
×
  • Create New...