Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy Video AAR 2, The Quick Battle

[scottie]

Tyrspawn , two things noticed from both video AARs to date is that you dont tend to use

(1: cover arcs)

Do you prefer to shoot on sight no matter what the distance ... i assume to slow down the advance ?

I think i would probably have tried to HIDE until they were just a few meters prior to crossing then unleash everything into a pre-defined kill zone that had minimal cover .... for better or worse

(2: hide when arty was falling in the first instance.)

When the pre-bombardment started you didnt appear to HIDE , i.e again i would have stated out of sight as long as possible (understanding that relative spotting would have meant it was difficult to track the advance).

Maybe your experience with the software means you know these tactics are not as effective as CMx1. What are your thoughts ?

Thank you for any comments.

Scott

[ClarkWGriswold]

Let's not have this thread devolve into a ping challenge.

I thought this had already been settled?

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94641

[para]

Looking for tips her...when the sand bags were set up on the right flank would most of the players on here have moved their infantry back to asafe distance expecting a bombardment. Then re-occupied them once the arty stopped? Or is a bombardment of the town what most players would of expected?

actually that leads me to another question..if as was stated that the attacker gets info on the defenders positions then even withdrawing your infantry to the rear of the foxholes/sandbags may not work either...

[Baneman]

I would have expected the bombardment of the town, but I would also have kept most of my men back ( maybe left a spotter team in the foxholes ) to reoccupy after any possible pre-bombardment of that flank.

I assume that this is pretty standard amongst CMx1 players, maybe CMSF guys aren't so used to it ( different tactics in modern warfare ? )

[para]

I would have expected the bombardment of the town, but I would also have kept most of my men back ( maybe left a spotter team in the foxholes ) to reoccupy after any possible pre-bombardment of that flank.

I assume that this is pretty standard amongst CMx1 players, maybe CMSF guys aren't so used to it ( different tactics in modern warfare ? )

I am terrible at tactics., that's why i am asking, cheers. What about the attacker getting pre setup defender info though. Doesn't that negate that stategy?

[tyrspawn]

Tyrspawn , two things noticed from both video AARs to date is that you dont tend to use

(1: cover arcs)

Do you prefer to shoot on sight no matter what the distance ... i assume to slow down the advance ?

I think i would probably have tried to HIDE until they were just a few meters prior to crossing then unleash everything into a pre-defined kill zone that had minimal cover .... for better or worse

(2: hide when arty was falling in the first instance.)

When the pre-bombardment started you didnt appear to HIDE , i.e again i would have stated out of sight as long as possible (understanding that relative spotting would have meant it was difficult to track the advance).

Maybe your experience with the software means you know these tactics are not as effective as CMx1. What are your thoughts ?

Thank you for any comments.

Scott

I did use hide.

I also don't try to "game" the system - I find that whatever you would do realistically is reflected in the game.

[ClarkWGriswold]

I would have expected the bombardment of the town...

I hope that at least a few of the missions have a requirement that the attacker not destroy certain buildings. In CMx1 anything smaller than a village was begging to be turned to rubble because, other than a bit of time and some ammo usage, there was no downside to leveling everything. In the real world it's quite possible that the German commander would want most or all of the buildings left standing following the attack, for their own use later. Most quick battles (and even scenarios) in CMx1 felt as though the war ended when the battle was over. Hopefully the more flexible objectives of CMx2 can make for more realistic scenarios that take into account the bigger picture.

[Comandante]

I hope that at least a few of the missions have a requirement that the attacker not destroy certain buildings. In CMx1 anything smaller than a village was begging to be turned to rubble because, other than a bit of time and some ammo usage, there was no downside to leveling everything. In the real world it's quite possible that the German commander would want most or all of the buildings left standing following the attack, for their own use later. Most quick battles (and even scenarios) in CMx1 felt as though the war ended when the battle was over. Hopefully the more flexible objectives of CMx2 can make for more realistic scenarios that take into account the bigger picture.

A large proportion of the towns and villages of Normandy were completely devastated in 1944 by artillery and air bombardments. The only restriction in-game should be on the German side due to supply and equipment shortages, IMO.

[WillyPete2171]

I noticed that all machine guns have the same burst length every time. I wonder if the released game will have varying lengths of bursts. Not really a big deal for me, but it would be nice to hear a longer and meaner rip of a MG 42 for example rather than the quick zip zip zip over and over again.

I wonder if this has been brought up before for machine guns or for any other automatic weapon.

[ClarkWGriswold]

I am terrible at tactics., that's why i am asking, cheers. What about the attacker getting pre setup defender info though. Doesn't that negate that stategy?

It sounds as though the attacker doesn't get ALL of the info about your forces, but rather they get to see what is visible from their setup area. I think this is a big improvement over CMx1. If you put troops out in the open, you can expect them to be seen by the enemy. I highly doubt that the German AI could see the Americans in the treeline (though possible, since they were fairly far forward and not hidden), but it's an obvious spot to put infantry and would have likely been shelled by a human player at the first hint that there was infantry dug in there.

[Boche]

It sounds as though the attacker doesn't get ALL of the info about your forces, but rather they get to see what is visible from their setup area. I think this is a big improvement over CMx1. If you put troops out in the open, you can expect them to be seen by the enemy. I highly doubt that the German AI could see the Americans in the treeline (though possible, since they were fairly far forward and not hidden), but it's an obvious spot to put infantry and would have likely been shelled by a human player at the first hint that there was infantry dug in there.

Its all I think to do with the INTEL system, little "?" symbols that simulate contacts. the attacker should atelast get a few to simulate maybe a previous recon or atleast some idea of where the enemy is... seeins as defending is always easier than attacking

[Nidan1]

The "ping" is in the game, but only heard if the camera is very close.

Also a particular rifle's report will sound differently depending if you are firing or being fired upon.

The distintive clip ejection sound of the M-1 was in CMAK, I would hope it made it to the new game.

[para]

It sounds as though the attacker doesn't get ALL of the info about your forces, but rather they get to see what is visible from their setup area. I think this is a big improvement over CMx1. If you put troops out in the open, you can expect them to be seen by the enemy. I highly doubt that the German AI could see the Americans in the treeline (though possible, since they were fairly far forward and not hidden), but it's an obvious spot to put infantry and would have likely been shelled by a human player at the first hint that there was infantry dug in there.

i see, so because he could see quite far from his positions upto the german likely entrance point. Then the attacker would have got a fair bit info straight away about his positions? So if i was to place my infantry quite far back from the trees, then there is a possiblity that i could race back in to that tree line with little or no casualties.

[LeeW]

Its all I think to do with the INTEL system, little "?" symbols that simulate contacts. the attacker should atelast get a few to simulate maybe a previous recon or atleast some idea of where the enemy is... seeins as defending is always easier than attacking

Don't forget that there were trucks moving the AT guns into position. That would have made for some sound contacts in that area one would think.

[Chad Harrison]

I thought this had already been settled?

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94641

Yeah, me too. But I never heard any *ping* with all the Garands firing. So I thought I would ask. Sounds like you just need to be close. Will pay closer attention to the video.

Great little feature by the way. Just something about that *ping*.

[dieseltaylor]

I noticed that all machine guns have the same burst length every time. I wonder if the released game will have varying lengths of bursts. Not really a big deal for me, but it would be nice to hear a longer and meaner rip of a MG 42 for example rather than the quick zip zip zip over and over again.

I wonder if this has been brought up before for machine guns or for any other automatic weapon.

And the fequency of jamming. And the replacement of barrels. The early CM did make them rather generic other than in FP. This was a disservice to the Allied water-cooled HMG.s that could fire much longer bursts but at a lower rate per minute.

A number of minor other changes was also made, and the British army officially adopted Vickers Mark I gun in 1912. This was an excellent weapon, extremely durable and capable of tremendous amount of firepower. With proper handling, it could sustain a rate of fire of 10 thousands rounds per hour, an do that for hours, if not days, providing a necessary supply of belted ammunition, spare barrels (barrels were changed after each 10 000 rounds) and cooling water. In fact, it was not unusual for many Vickers guns to fire as much as 100 000 rounds during just one of many continuous battles of the World War one. These guns were heavy, but this was less of a problem during stationary defensive battles in trenches of WW1; what was more important, these guns were reliable and durable, and troops had a great confidence in their Vickers guns.Without much changes, Vickers machine guns survived through 1920s and 1930s and again were used with great effect during the World War two.In fact, Vickers machine guns were among the longest-living 'first generation' machine guns, as these were declared obsolete by British Army only in late 1960s. Royal Marines, who knew how to use good guns,despite of age, kept some Vickers guns in stock as late as 1980s.Finally, it was replaced by the lighter and much more modern (although less potent in terms of sustained firepower) L7 / FN MAG GPMG.

http://world.guns.ru/machine/brit/vickers-mk-e.html

and in the same place you can read about the MG 34 and the MG42. Neither having the continual fire capacity of the water-cooled HMG's. In game terms you would expect there to be a difference in use, particularly when the Allies were attacking and suppressive fire was required by them for hedgerows/villages, woods.

The Germans , concious of the extremely high rate of fire and supply may well be going very much to short lethal bursts of fire,

http://world.guns.ru/machine/de/mg-42-and-mg-3-e.html

[umlaut]

I'm making a WeGo video next.

Great. Getting better all the time: This latest VAAR was very good, especially because you kept the camera much more at ground level and thus gave us (me, at least) a much better feel for what great immersion this game seems to hold. And WEGO is my kind of game.

One tiny request for the next VAAR, though: Could you please tone down the clean sound of the game? Especially at the end of the VAAR when the fighting got hectic I wasn´t able to hear half of your voice over.

Looking forward to the next one (even though I hope BFC will make it redundant by releasing the game tomorrow ;-))

Cheers

[Dadekster88]

Outstanding videos and thanks to tyrspawn for doing them. I usually always wait to play a demo before buying anything as I've learned lessons the hard way, but these have convinced me that I'm pretty safe in pre-ordering on this one.

I literally winced the whole first minute as that initial barrage came in on that platoon by the way. That was just brutal and tough luck losing your AT gun in the process.

[WillyPete2171]

In game terms you would expect there to be a difference in use, particularly when the Allies were attacking and suppressive fire was required by them for hedgerows/villages, woods.

The Germans , concious of the extremely high rate of fire and supply may well be going very much to short lethal bursts of fire,

http://world.guns.ru/machine/de/mg-42-and-mg-3-e.html

[Vencini]

Second AAR 0:36:51 min “The Tiger. The tigers are arrived…(nervous laugh) Bad news to me because I have nothing to do…”. :-D

German side, you think the same thing in CMBB but when you see a Russian KV. My question is: Is there any allied tank (in CMBN) who produce this psychological effect on german troops?

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=276&Itemid=460

Thanks and great job.

[ChrisND]

My question is: Is there any allied tank (in CMBN) who produce this psychological effect on german troops?

Any Allied tank when then the Germans just have infantry.

[Nidan1]

Probably not, but an unlimited supply of Shermans can ruin your day as well.

[swamp_rat]

Thanks for posting the VAAR, looking forward to my down load link becoming active :>

Loved the action of the German infantry jumping over the wire fence.

[Broadsword56]

I noticed that all machine guns have the same burst length every time. I wonder if the released game will have varying lengths of bursts. Not really a big deal for me, but it would be nice to hear a longer and meaner rip of a MG 42 for example rather than the quick zip zip zip over and over again.

I wonder if this has been brought up before for machine guns or for any other automatic weapon.

It might be nice, but it wouldn't be authentic. MG42 gunners were specifically trained to fire in short bursts (hence the "burp" nickname), to conserve ammo, because the rate of fire of the MG42 was so fast that it devoured ammo.

[tyrspawn]

Just finished recording the WeGo vid, will encode overnight and hopefully have it ready for tomorrow. It's the most intense video so far.