Cover Armour Arc & the Ambuscade

[Blackcat]

Since the release of CMBN there have been a fair number of people on here bemoaning the lack of a "Cover Armour Arc" and commenting on the difficulty of setting up an effective ambush. Now, I took one look at the inital release of CMSF and fled in horror only to come back after the the Brit Module was released (version 1.21, from memory) but I was failry sure that these issues in CMx2 had been addressed before. So this morning I went off on a rummage through the CMSF forum in search of enlightenment.

Before getting into what I found let me say a couple of things. First, my Google-fu is weak and there may well be posts that I didn't find because of my poor powers. Second, it was heartwarming to see so many names that are familiar to us from today's threads posting, often about the same issues, three or four years ago. OK, so what did I find?

The issue of using a combination of Hide + Target Arc to set up an ambush and it not working very well was mentioned as long ago as July 2007. If my fading memory serves wasn't that about the time CMx2 was released? So this is not a new issue, it has just never been resolved.

As regards target arcs I unearthed the following interesting snippet:

"Arcs are a double edged sword. They are there to limit your unit's distractions so it can focus on something very specific. For something general Arcs are a bad idea and should be avoided. The best use for Arcs are for defensive purposes or small scale, somewhat predictable assaults. Especially in urban areas. For a wide ranging tank maneuver it might be difficult to use Arcs effectively."

Steve, of Battlefront, 26 December 2009

Not terribly specific, but for players new to CMx2 it does, perhaps, provide an hint as to how BF regard the target arc command. On then to cover armour arcs.

I found a fair number of posts along the lines of, "WTF! We had these in CMx1 and they were jolly useful. So why have they disappeared in CMx2?" Where I struggled was finding an direct response from BF. However, I did turn up these two little gems:

"The request [for cover armour arcs] has been duly noted and is going to happen at some point. However, I don't know when that will be. AI has to be written to get this to work correctly, which is why we haven't put it in yet. Back in CMBB days it took a long time to get the balance of factors to work correctly with each other."

Steve

1st December 2010

"Cover Armor Arc is a feature we definitely want in the game. However, it's pretty involved and therefore we aren't promising it for Normandy. What I can say, though, is there are some other things we are planning on implementing that will make this feature more desirable and viable. But again, I can't say when that larger change will come into CM, even though I can say that I know it will. Sooner rather than later."

Steve

14 January 2010

So, gents, there is no point in bleating any further on this issue. BF will be implementing "cover armour" arcs as soon as they can. It might be in a patch, or a module for CMBN, or we may have to live with it until the Bulge game, at least. My money is on the latter, but it ain't going to happen soon.

[womble]

Cover arcs are best thought of as restrictions to a unit's RoE. If you're using them to "wait til you see the whites of their eyes", that's probably the intended use. If you're using them to 'keep a weather eye out on that farmhouse' it's probably not.

Hide isn't good for ambushes. I find Hide is mostly good for making an element keep its stupid head down in situations where without it, they'll try and spot or shoot over the cover that's keeping them alive in spite of withering incoming fire. Kind of a 'voluntary suppression'

[Blackcat]

I wouldn't argue with any of that. Setting up an effective ambush, particularly an ambush of armour and especially in WEGO, does seem to be something the game doesn't really cater for. It will be able to do so at some point in the future, but if there is a way of doing it in CMx2 nobody seems to have found it. Which, I think, is a bit of a bugger.

There was also some talk in a couple of the threads here that using an arc improves spotting within it by decreases the ability to spot outside of it. That was certainly the consenus on the CMSF board and is, possibly, supported by Steve's comment quoted above.

[gunnergoz]

The main benefit I find in arcs is to limit the range at which the unit will engage the enemy, thus keeping it concealed as long as possible. This is especially useful for HQ's and moving mortar squads which you don't want getting into firefights with some enemy unit on the next hill that hasn't spotted them yet.

As far as the covered arc helping to "focus" a units attention in a given direction, my experience is spotty, so much so that I find it more efficient to let units pick their own targets most of the time rather than risk defining an arc only to find an enemy unit just outside the arc getting the drop on my guys, who are basically suffering from tunnel vision thanks to the cover arc command.

The best ambushes, I find, are those where I simply site the ambusher in the best possible spot and point him in the most likely direction of fire, then let the unit act on its own initiative. Though he will open up on any target he sees, the game leads with armor often enough that this is what will be under the crosshairs first. Not always, but many times. It would be nice to specify whether the preferred ambush target is to be infantry or armor though, that I agree with. It would permit us to optimize the ambush for the ambusher, so to speak.

By the way on ambush sites, I find it best to not give the ambusher a lot of choices about where to shoot. If you site them carefully between buildings or bocage or whatever, their field of view will be automatically restricted to a narrow arc by definition. This aids in concealment and also focuses the unit safely. Putting a would-be ambusher out where he can be seen from multiple possible enemy approach angles is just asking to be shellacked. He needs to be placed where he is more likely to see the enemy first and not vice versa.

[WineCape]

BF will be implementing "cover armour" arcs as soon as they can. It might be in a patch, or a module for CMBN, or we may have to live with it until the Bulge game, at least. My money is on the latter, but it ain't going to happen soon.

Ehh, no, as to prevent any false hope: BFC is on record they will not look at Armor Arcs before the "next major release, and not until then", which will be the Battle for the Bulge series. Set you sights on that, as a possibility, not earlier, as you did note with your monetary notes in your last sentence.

[Blackcat]

Gunnergoz,

Everything you say makes perfect sense. There are just two problems.

Firstly, the AI might commonly lead with his armour, though I haven't yet played enough to confirm this (doesn't it depend on the designer's plan?), but PBEM opponents don't. If pushing forward with a two man scout unit triggers ATG fire, or fire from a carefully placed infantry AT team then that is what a lot of players are going to do and running an effective defence against armour will be much much harder.

Secondly, whilst I totally agree with your ideas on keyholing ATGs and the like, if one does use a short covered arc to avoid firing on low value units then in WEGO the high value unit can be across the field of fire and back into dead ground before the player can react.

Neither of these issues are impossible to deal with. For example, one could use MG's to take down the scouts and fields of fire from ATGs set up in depth. However, sometimes there aren't the resources available. An elegant and realistic ("Hans, you see any infantry, just let them pass. Your job is to go after the armour") solution was available in a different game. It will be good if BF find the time to implement it in this one, I think we might have to wait until the Bulge though.

[Blackcat]

Ehh, no, as to prevent any false hope: BFC is on record they will not look at Armor Arcs before the "next major release, and not until then", which will be the Battle for the Bulge series. Set you sights on that, as a possibility, not earlier, as you did note with your monetary notes in your last sentence.

Thanks, Mr. Cape. I was being a bit optimistic in my reading of Steve's "Sooner rather than later". Nevermind, we can now stop thinking about it for Normandy and just try and find other ways of effectively doing what we want to achieve.

[womble]

Gunnergoz,

Everything you say makes perfect sense. There are just two problems.

Firstly, the AI might commonly lead with his armour, though I haven't yet played enough to confirm this (doesn't it depend on the designer's plan?), but PBEM opponents don't. If pushing forward with a two man scout unit triggers ATG fire, or fire from a carefully placed infantry AT team then that is what a lot of players are going to do and running an effective defence against armour will be much much harder.

I suppose the counter to leading with infantry is to set the cover arc short enough to be a "self-defense only" range (when the infantry are about to see the ATG, or thereabouts, say), and only manually allow the unit to fire at longer range when you know a high-value asset will be an available target.

Secondly, whilst I totally agree with your ideas on keyholing ATGs and the like, if one does use a short covered arc to avoid firing on low value units then in WEGO the high value unit can be across the field of fire and back into dead ground before the player can react.

In some ways, it's either a terrain keyhole or a short range arc that's needed. But yes, a 'Cover Armour' arc would be very welcome.

Neither of these issues are impossible to deal with. For example, one could use MG's to take down the scouts and fields of fire from ATGs set up in depth. However, sometimes there aren't the resources available. An elegant and realistic ("Hans, you see any infantry, just let them pass. Your job is to go after the armour") solution was available in a different game. It will be good if BF find the time to implement it in this one, I think we might have to wait until the Bulge though.

[TheBlackHand]

Does this mean my zooks/schrecks will open up on infantry when I expect them to wait for armor? Because that is something that would really, really pi$$ me off.

[Vinnart]

9 times at of 10 I am issuing arcs just to get the turret to point a certain way. I generaly draw from a top down camera position a large 180 degree arc. This gets it the direction I want, and not much fear of ignoring something outside the arc. The biggest disapointment is having to look at the neon yellow battlfield when unit is selected.

[gunnergoz]

Does this mean my zooks/schrecks will open up on infantry when I expect them to wait for armor? Because that is something that would really, really pi$$ me off.

Depends on the situation. If you really want to conserve their ammo and not let them use it to lob HE at the infantry opposing them, give them a limited firing arc. Better yet, hide them until some armor comes along.

[nachinus]

I could live w/o target armour arc if the 'Hide' command was more useful as an 'Ambush' tool, and the AI for ATG, AT teams and infantry in general would make a better threat assesment and hold and direct their fire to maximize effect when needed.

In fact, I'd very much prefer this than having to micromanage my defences/ambushes every single time.

I've written this before: the Close Combat series 'Hide' command was really useful. The guys knew when to hold their fire and when to ambush, targeting armor first, and I used it with good effect. No need for micromanagement.

[TheBlackHand]

If you really want to conserve their ammo and not let them use it to lob HE at the infantry opposing them, give them a limited firing arc. Better yet, hide them until some armor comes along.

This sounds like a very frustrating situation. For example I want to be able to tell my zookers to "open up on any armor that comes within 50 yards" no more, no less. A simple, real-world command that any commander would give and any intelligent AT solider would most-likely know to follow without that command. In your scenario, I can see my zookers just sitting there while the broadside of a Tiger passes within ten feet. (I don't plan on playing real-time.)

Not good. Not realistic. Not immersive. The opposite of all that, actually.

Not the sort of micro-management that I look forward to employing.

[YankeeDog]

Depends on the situation. If you really want to conserve their ammo and not let them use it to lob HE at the infantry opposing them, give them a limited firing arc. Better yet, hide them until some armor comes along.

The problem with this, especially for WEGO (though it is definitely an issue in RT as well) is that smart players will limit the time they expose of their armor, specifically to avoid giving enemy AT assets the time to bracket and get a hit.

Say you're defending as Germans. You have a typical defensive setup, including some MG42s, some mortars, and some PaKs.

You've set up you your MGs and mortars to cover the ground in front of your PaK front, and largely have the enemy infantry pinned down; there is no immediate danger of the PaKs being overrun -- the American infantry is still a good 400m away from the ATGs.

So, knowing that it's very likely there are some PaKs or other AT assets around, American player begins playing Tophat & Lowsky with some Shermans, popping them up just long enough to get a shot or two off at the MG & mortar locations, and then reversing them back into defilade (easily done in CMx2 via the use of Pause & Area Target orders at a waypoint). In this way, as long as he has some time. The American player can pick off the MG nests, one by one. Only extremely well protected infantry positions remain combat effective after more than one or two 75mm HE hits.

Presented with this situation, it is VERY hard to get the AT guns to stay hidden, and open up at the tanks only, which is exactly what they should be doing. Any Cover Arc you set for an AT gun will likely encompass some of the enemy infantry in front of the tanks as well, and the AT guns will happily open up on this infantry, even with AP shells if that's all they have.

It's a problem. If a Cover Armor Arc can't be easily added to the game in its current state, then I suggest the best solution is to adjust the TacAI so that AT guns and other assets whose purpose is predominantly AT won't open up on infantry and soft-skinned vehicles unless (a) specifically ordered to via a Target order, or ( if the AT asset is in danger of being overrun and "self preservation" kicks in. In the case of the latter, I'd say that if the enemy infantry comes within about 200m, and AT gun should probably open up on them, but I'm open to debate on exact range cut-off for any self-preservation behavior.

Not ideal solutions, but better than the present situation, I think.