Best place for an infantry platoon to be in a mortar barrage....?

[DavidFields]

Other than not under the barrage.

I have searched, but find the CMSF stuff not exactly applicable.

And since a good bit of CMBN seems to be infantry being under mortar fire:

1. In CM1, the best place for the infantry to be would be was out in the open, their faces in the dirt. This was because of tree bursts. Putting you infantry in the woods in certain situations was a rookie mistake. Still the case?

2. Your guys in CM1 with the face in the ground could likely withstand a mortar barrage from something small caliber--60mm-ish. Indeed, the vet troops would stay down, while those less experience would run and get slaughtered. Still the case? I find the small mortars more lethal in CM2, and wonder if running is not better.

3. To get your platoon's dirt faced, "hide" is the right command? Will experienced/trained do that automatically?

I am not trying to get CMBN to be CM1, I just want to understand if there is an adaptation of tactics needed--hopefully still consistent with the reality of WW2. It is possible that seeing 3 pixeltoopen turn into 2 in CM1 just did not have the same visceral effect that 4-5 dead bodies does here. It will be interesting to see if those tiny Commonwealth mortars are more than just a nuisance when they arrive.

[SlapHappy]

It's a tough call...if you "hide in place" you are definitely going to get a lot of "yellow" casualties and a one or two "dead" or "seriously injured". If the stuff is relatively on target and coming fast, best not try and get the guys up and run for it. You probably will lose control of them quickly and not be able to anyway.

If the opposing side is tossing rounds sporadically, you might want to make a FAST move for the nearest building or at least partial cover. You just might be able to get most of them out of the kill zone before too many rounds come down.

[finalcut]

Standing next to the Mortar team watching them send the rounds down range.

[Redwolf]

Other than not under the barrage.

I have searched, but find the CMSF stuff not exactly applicable.

And since a good bit of CMBN seems to be infantry being under mortar fire:

1. In CM1, the best place for the infantry to be would be was out in the open, their faces in the dirt. This was because of tree bursts. Putting you infantry in the woods in certain situations was a rookie mistake. Still the case?

2. Your guys in CM1 with the face in the ground could likely withstand a mortar barrage from something small caliber--60mm-ish. Indeed, the vet troops would stay down, while those less experience would run and get slaughtered. Still the case? I find the small mortars more lethal in CM2, and wonder if running is not better.

3. To get your platoon's dirt faced, "hide" is the right command? Will experienced/trained do that automatically?

I am not trying to get CMBN to be CM1, I just want to understand if there is an adaptation of tactics needed--hopefully still consistent with the reality of WW2. It is possible that seeing 3 pixeltoopen turn into 2 in CM1 just did not have the same visceral effect that 4-5 dead bodies does here. It will be interesting to see if those tiny Commonwealth mortars are more than just a nuisance when they arrive.

You need 3D terrain between the burst and the man. So you need to look for bumps in the ground.

IMHO one of the reasons why mortars are so devastating in CMBN so far is that people don't understand this. The terrain tile type you are in doesn't matter. If it's wood or rough or whatever it won't protect, unless there is a visible obstacle. Trees will do very little to catch shrapnel in CMBN, statistically.

[GreenAsJade]

In CMx1 the best place to be was in a trench that is not under trees.

In CM2 it's hard to tell if foxholes or trenches are helping against arty....

[gunnergoz]

Yep, run for the nearest intervening obstacle as soon as you see the spotting round, that's what I'd recommend. As for trenches, artillery works fine against them so long as it lands nearby. Air burst anti-personnel rounds work also if proximate to the trench/foxhole. So I guess you could say that trenches and foxholes work, up to a point.

[DaveDash]

Foxholes definitely help. Id probably say foxholes are the best place for infantry to be - IF they had to be hit. The best place to be of course is not where the mortars are falling (watch for spotting rounds).

[Magpie_Oz]

Standing next to the Mortar team watching them send the rounds down range.

Or just somewhere else in general

[akd]

You need 3D terrain between the burst and the man. So you need to look for bumps in the ground.

IMHO one of the reasons why mortars are so devastating in CMBN so far is that people don't understand this. The terrain tile type you are in doesn't matter. If it's wood or rough or whatever it won't protect, unless there is a visible obstacle. Trees will do very little to catch shrapnel in CMBN, statistically.

It does matter. There are abstracted micro-terrain benefits to different tiles. Even grass tiles are considered to have small dips and bumps that can provide a small increase to cover. Enough to save a squad on the receiving end of a mortar mission? No, but if you can't put 3D ground between your unit and the impact area, a "broken terrain" tile like "rocky" is a better place to be than truly open terrain like pavement or dirt lot.

[lookeylou]

nowhere..........

[Battlefront.com]

If I was earlier to this thread I would have come up with a snappy response for a smile, but I doubt it would have been better than Finalcut's. Well done

I think the answers given are about right for a generic answer. Redwolf's suggestion of getting something 3D inbetween the unit and the impact area is best. Other side of a building, behind a wall, reverse slope, etc. are good even against big stuff.

If you can't do that then you're various degrees of "screwed", depending on circumstances and what's being thrown at you. Remember, more than 70% of all casualties in WW2 were caused by "shell splinters". So it's not unreasonable to expect heavy casualties if you're caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.

For lighter stuff you might be fine out in the open. Not perfect, but not decimated either if the number of incoming rounds is reasonable. But if you're in the middle of a 155 battery Point Target you're not likely going to survive it.

Micro terrain, as AKD pointed out can save individuals but is not going to protect your units as a whole. They'll probably get chewed up if there are some direct or near direct hits.

Trees are counter intuitive cover. They are good for direct fire protection (to some degree or other), but aren't usually good cover for concentrated artillery strikes. Especially for mortars. The rounds tend to detonate in the tree canopy, showering shrapnel. This is even worse than an "air burst" in the open from later VT fuzes because of the deadly wood splinters being added to the mix. Where trees can help is if they are thick and you are near a round instead of under it. The trees can soak up some of the stuff that otherwise would have been aimed at your guys. Even better if the round actually detonates on the ground instead of the tree tops.

Buildings are also mixed blessings. Exterior hits, especially if small caliber, can be defeated by a house. But a direct hit inside can be worse than if they were outside. There's the splinter, plaster, etc. angle too. Small arms fire has the same effect. In fact, from what I understand, if you're in a building under intense fire (of any sort) you're more likely to be wounded by secondary effects rather than the direct weapon effect. Obviously conditions for this vary widely!

Foxholes and trenches provide only minimal overhead cover, but they do great if your guys hit the deck and the rounds land near them. Overhead hits, or hits when your guys are exposed, radically reduce their cover effect.

Steve

[GreenAsJade]

How abstract is the effect of shrapnel?

One could think, reading the above, that each piece is modelled, and some hit trees and some don't. Is that the case?

GaJ

[Wengart]

As AKD said there are abstracted benefits to being in cover.

I think of it as a dice roll. You have a D6 and depending on the terrain number you need to roll to survive being hit is lowered. So in open grass you might need to roll a 6, while in rocky ground you may need a 4, 5, or 6.

Disclaimer: I have only anecdotal evidence for the workings of abstracted cover, but thats how I think of it and I find its a useful way to understand the abstracted cover.

AFAIK mortars burst upward and out when hitting the ground. So if the / and \ represented shrapnel there will be more of it the higher a particular space is from the ground. So its often quite possible to survive a nearby hit while prone, because there is less shrapnel directly at ground level immediately around the blast. While standing up means that you are more likely to be hit by shrapnel.

..\\\\\\\ ///////

.......\\\\ ////

______\\//________________

In other words, its often best just to keep prone and hope a round doesn't land close if the barrage is heavy.

[user38]

Hiding behind one of those magic trees.

[RockinHarry]

It does matter. There are abstracted micro-terrain benefits to different tiles. Even grass tiles are considered to have small dips and bumps that can provide a small increase to cover. Enough to save a squad on the receiving end of a mortar mission? No, but if you can't put 3D ground between your unit and the impact area, a "broken terrain" tile like "rocky" is a better place to be than truly open terrain like pavement or dirt lot.

Realistically, "rocky" or generally hard surfaced terrain, would be even more dangerous to infantry, as it causes more shrapnel produced by rock splinters and delivered on a shallower arc just above ground level.

Is "soaking off" blast/shrapnel effects by "soft ground" modelled in CMBN?

[gunnergoz]

Some of it depends upon mortar fuzing. A superquick fuze will not bury itself into the ground and will explode almost immediately upon contact, so more of its shrapnel will fly out horizontally than if it buried itself and then exploded. The superquick fuze is what the US 60mm and 81mm mortars used for the most part. Of course, if its raining and thus muddy or there's snow or sand, some of these factors can also affect the fuze's performance.

[GI Adelscott]

Some of it depends upon mortar fuzing. A superquick fuze will not bury itself into the ground and will explode almost immediately upon contact, so more of its shrapnel will fly out horizontally than if it buried itself and then exploded. The superquick fuze is what the US 60mm and 81mm mortars used for the most part. Of course, if its raining and thus muddy or there's snow or sand, some of these factors can also affect the fuze's performance.

Well said, that's a point in this subjet. Type of terrain could be essential to determinate the mortar damage, but it seems as it have't any difference.

Hey, we are asking them such a level of detail that probably they are wonder themselves if they have done a good bussines making this game so good...

[RockinHarry]

Foxholes and trenches provide only minimal overhead cover, but they do great if your guys hit the deck and the rounds land near them. Overhead hits, or hits when your guys are exposed, radically reduce their cover effect.

Steve

I´ve played "Busting the Bocage" (from the demo), german side and I couldn´t see any benefits from having troopers on "hide" in foxholes and trenches, as there where always few guys sticking their heads up now and then, when under a mortar or artillery barrage. Can´t remember if it was just these guys getting killed/injured, when a shell lands nearby, either directly on ground, or more frequently as tree burst. So far, I didn´t notice any direct hit on the trench or foxhole, when casualties occured.

Is the ingame 3D geometry of FHs/trenches taken for shrapnel/blast effects, or is there some abtractions applied to make these more realistically sized internally? Visually, the size of trenches make more for support weapon pits, instead of "slit trenches" that connect fighting positions.

Generally, WW2 trenches are mostly from the "connection trench" type (180-200cm deep), which connect a squads or platoons individual fighting positions, which rather look like CMBN foxholes. They also may have step niches (140cm depth) for single soldiers to shoot from, when not fighting from the actual fighting positions. More elaborate trench systems may have segments covered with some logs and earth, in order to provide similar cover vs. airbursts and <80 mortar direct hits.

What is "minimal overhead cover" for foxholes? Historically there´s either "no cover" at all, or cover that protects vs. shrapnel from air-/treebursts and direct mortar hits up to ~80mm ("Unterschlupf"). Anything between is useless and rather means of camouflage or rain protection.

I´d rather prefer to have 2 types FH/trenches introduced. 1 without overhead cover and 1 with appropiate overhead cover, at greater purchase costs. The one with overhead cover then should give full benefits to (infantry) units on "hide". Graphical 3D presentation of FH/trenches does not need to change necessarily. I could imagine "hidden" soldiers to be blended out from the 3D environment and let damage (direct hit on the position) and other effects (morale?) calculate internally. "Hidden" units still can be accessed by their floating icon.

I could also imagine implementation of squad dugouts and basements this way. This would be similar to CMBB "sewer movement", although troops would stay on the spot and accessible. I´ll keep dreaming....

[Sixxkiller]

Well if you ain't movin' forward, you're already dead.

The French found this out at the start of WWII and the Germans at the end. But there is no easy answer except just don't be caught in the action spot the shells are falling on. Sadly CMx1 gave people a false sense of what real world artillery is capable of.

Artillery in this game seems to truly be a deciding factor if used with skill, which in my opinion makes this game much better. Besides if you are counting on your pixel-truppen's health to be saved by a terrain feature, well you have far more confidence than me.

[lookeylou]

yes i keep moving forward or moving as best i can. if i had to give myself an in game ranking. i'll give myself a veteran level. Not green anymore. don't know everything but been in a few battles and saw a lot of men die to mortars.So now i tell all my men to keep moving. no where is "Safe" or "better". that would mean over and over what you do would make it "safe" and "better" repeatedly. Good luck trusting a game with so many variables. LOL

[Redwolf]

As AKD said there are abstracted benefits to being in cover.

I think of it as a dice roll. You have a D6 and depending on the terrain number you need to roll to survive being hit is lowered. So in open grass you might need to roll a 6, while in rocky ground you may need a 4, 5, or 6.

The effect of this seems to be extremely limited. I gather this from previous postings and in-play subjective observation, I still refuse to go and micro-test this game.

IMHO the more pressing matter is what foxholes and trenches do. It is one thing that they don't protect large objects such as towed guns. But if they fail to protect regular infantry inside from -say- 60mm mortars that should probably get some TLC.

The question here is: if there's abstraction for some extra cover "for free" (meaning: not strictly 3D based), do foxholes and trenches get that? And lots of it? I think they should. Foxholes and trenches are human-made things that have been hand-crafted to offer protection, and by the person who will later seek projection in it. That kind of dependency chain usually ensures a certain quality to the works . Giving it some of that as a abstraction (the horror, the horror) might not be the worst thing to do.

[Battlefront.com]

There are trenches, and then there are trenches. Depends on what type of trench one is thinking about

CMx1 and CMx2 only simulate "slit trenches". These are basically enlarged foxholes, not much more than that. They are hastily dug and are not exceptionally deep. They are deeper than foxholes, so in that sense they provide more protection. But they provide less cover in other ways because a foxhole provides 360 protection while a soldier in a trench lacks lateral protection (i.e. because its open to the sides, or at least one side if at the end of a trench). Neither provide overhead protection.

What CM could use, though it isn't necessarily appropriate for Normandy's setting, is a "hardened position" type trench. This simulates components of trenches that were developed over a longer period of time, such as seen in WW1 or on certain sectors of the Eastern Front at particular times. These have provisions for overhead protection, are deeper, have firing ledges/platforms, etc. Generally speaking these types of fortifications are only possible with the aid of time or engineers.

Some might ask why we have bunkers and not the more elaborate trenches. Well, the truth is it's one of those compromises we sometimes have to make. Bunkers aren't really appropriate for CM:BN, at least, but people love 'em so we included them. The more involved trenches are also something we want to offer players. Unfortunately, there's some game engine/UI/play issues that have to be worked through and it's not been a priority for us so far. I hope we can put the time into them sooner rather than later.

Oh, and yes... there are some abstractions with the 3D representations of foxholes and trenches to account for them being graphically above ground instead of actually embedded into the mesh (like in CM:SF and CM:A). This is part of the compromises necessary to have them behave according to Fog of War rules, which makes a critical difference in terms of gameplay.

Steve

[LongLeftFlank]

Bunkers -- in the sense of 2-man hole roofed over with logs/branches/planks and a layer or two of sandbags -- are completely appropriate to Normandy, or anywhere else where infantry have an hour, a spade and a hatchet. They should give good protection against nearly any mortar stonk short of a direct hit. Not that the boys inside won't be impacted by the overpressure or stray fragments...

[Dadekster88]

Bunkers -- in the sense of 2-man hole roofed over with logs/branches/planks and a layer or two of sandbags -- are completely appropriate to Normandy, or anywhere else where infantry have an hour, a spade and a hatchet. They should give good protection against nearly any mortar stonk short of a direct hit. Not that the boys inside won't be impacted by the overpressure or stray fragments...

I agree, but you left out one thing regarding the hour, a spade and a hatchet. You forgot motivation, as in they are pretty sure in about an hour they are gonna get steamrolled and/or bombarded unless they have a decent fighting position built.

In regards to the OP the thing I've learned to do is to listen to the tell tale sound of mortars firing or impacting. I immediately pause and go to find where the *#$@ it's coming from. If they are just spotting rounds I tell the boys to run like he77 if they are clear. If they are engaged I drop everything I am doing and try to give them supporting fire and still tell them to run like he77 because ime everytime I try to just ride it out they end up taking it pretty bad. If cover is nearby such as a stone wall or a building I'll try to get them to the other side if possible as others have mentioned as having something solid between them and the area of impact is best. Turtling is deadly from what I have seen though especially if the mortar team itself has los. It comes in quick and on the spot.

[RockinHarry]

Well, no overhead cover then and well, ...no "hardened positions" in normandy. Since focus in CMBN is centered around bocage fighting, the scanned map from a book dealing with german field fortifications in WW2 maybe gives a more detailed insight:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Further explanation: A typical german hedgerow defense (self containing infantry company area of about 300 x 800m size) is shown, with faint lines representing hedgerows and double broken lines, sunken roads. Buildings were undefended, as they attracted artillery fire.

There´s numerous "dugouts" to be seen, although graphically seperated from the rifle pits, these are mostly part of the 2 men foxholes ("Schützenloch für 2 Gewehrschützen mit Unterschupf" - "Foxhole for 2 men with dugout" - literally), providing overhead cover vs. airbursts and direct mortar hits. One also sees, that the rifle pits (foxholes), as well as MG emplacements are directly situated along the hedgerows and in sunken roads, with lots of trees and orchards around (effectively substituting "connection trenches" in liaison with hedgerows providing covered/concealed movements within positions). So this can be truly considered a "hardened bocage defense position", as opposed to the "soft" one as presented in CMBN right now.

Well, foxholes and trenches do not provide overhead cover in CMBN now. Makes me conclude that the most effective "bocage defense" in CMBN is avoiding bocage and trees like the plague, or to at least use a "safe" standoff range?

I understand that for some technical reasons, it´s currently low priority implementing overhead cover in this module and not a game breaker for the majority of players, but I hope this issue is given higher priority when it comes to modules, that deal a lot with battles in forests or along fortified lines (Bulge, german frontier battles from september 1944 to february 1945).