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

[SelfLoadingRifle]

Best place to be in a mortar barrage?

In the NAAFI of course.

SLR

[lookeylou]

What would Jesus do?

don't get upset when your men don't want to move next time lol OR when so many buy the farm

[DavidFields]

Sadly CMx1 gave people a false sense of what real world artillery is capable of.

I think this is what I am struggling with. Mortars and artillery seem so much more important in CMBN that CM1, or CC, or ASL, or Squad/Panzer Leader, that I am puzzled. Game engines are different, but I didn't expect such a large change in what I thought were WW2 tactics.

I am willing to agree to CMBN being correct. I already knew that an overwhelming number of the WW2 casualties were from artillery. I had sort of thought that most of those artillery casualties were outside the scope of CM: crushing barrages which would be not be interesting to portray. I am willing to believe that certain engagements, especially infantry directly causing casualties, has been overmodeled in the past. And that the mortars, which I had always thought as sort of nuisance, "keep their head down", type of weapons, where undermodeled.

Is that correct?

[gunnergoz]

I wish I had a penny for every WW2 memoir I read that remarked on the lethality and ubiquity of mortars.

[Magpie_Oz]

Artillery is always a tricky one, I think in general the statement that artillery is the biggest killer comes form the effect that arty has on attacking forces, where the infantry are by necessity exposed and can be torn apart by the full effect of arty in all its forms.

In the bocage mortars were particularly effective as the close country reduced their range disadvantage when compared with field guns and their high arcs allowed them to rain shells into the tiny fields without danger to friendly troops (shells from a field gun on a flatter trajectory passing over their heads may hit the trees). The Germans were particularly adept at quickly brining down a mortar barrage to break up attacks.

I have seen it quoted that a 25lbr shell would need to land within 4 feet of a trench if it was to cause casualties. Also consider the tonnage of shells rained on Betio in the Tarawa assault by the US Marines. Days of bombardment by battleships and cruisers that was largely ineffectual. The "crushing bombardments" were more about how much effect the noise etc had on the morale of the defenders rather than physical casualties.

Arty in the attack is more about keeping their heads down and in the bunker while your assault troops close in, as well as isolating the forward troops by blocking the movements of reserve troops.

[Offshoot]

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.

Does this abstraction apply to the entire tile that the foxholes sit on or just to the foxholes themselves? I haven't mastered getting even all three men of a team to go into the foxholes with face so it would be nice to think that the guy scurrying around up top is still getting some protection.

[Battlefront.com]

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.

Of course that was the ideal. I don't doubt it wasn't completely alien to Normandy. But remember, the Germans never intended to fight in this terrain. They were supposed to defeat the Allies on the beaches or make quick work out of them soon after. That didn't happen. Which means, for the most part, the positions they did have were of the hasty type. To effectively cover the amount of fighting positions they made over the course of the campaign would have required forests worth of trees for overhead cover. And the tools and time to process them into useable materials.

Again, for sure this sort of hardening did happen, but usually those were the areas that were wiped out by massive artillery strikes prior to an attack.

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.

I don't agree with that conclusion. Most of the pictures of positions I've seen are either superficial scrapes in the ground or narrow 1-2 man pits with no overhead cover. Being right up against the Hedgerow did, however, largely shield them from an artillery burst on the opposite side. That is true for CM as well.

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?

That would be the wrong thing to do, based on my experiences with the game (and with tactics in general). Combined arms warfare is not about catering your entire defenses based on a singular possible enemy action. There is no safe place from artillery, only more and less safe places. So why neuter your entire defensive plan on the off chance someone might drop some well spotted rounds on ALL of your positions?

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).

Yup, that's the plan.

Steve

[RockinHarry]

To me it rather seems you declare the "hasty" type of entrenchments as the rule for all of the CM game series (all TOWs), not just CMBN. So it´s factually a "design decision", to focus on battle situations, where any defender simply lacked the time, to "improve" a hasty defence into a better one.

"Improving positions" was rather a step by step process, where it took few hours to scrape a sufficiently deep FH, improve LOF (removing some terrain obstructions) and have basic means of camouflage applied.

Depending on terrain to be defended, individual 2 men FHs could then be connected by "crouching trenches", just deep enough for individuals crouching between positions in concealment (rather than in cover). At the same time and if material is available, "construction" of "Unterschlupfe" (enlarged foxhole, with enlarged part covered) would begun.

Material available: Trees, fence poles, remains of houses/barns (scavenging), horsecarts, anything doing the purpose, including just digging a sufficiently large hideout into/under appropiate terrain (bocage). Using "expedients" was the norm and much less the "ideal" of having men (+ engineers) and material well organised for the purposes and in time.

Off course not each fighting position got attention for further improving, even if time and material was available. Particular important sectors and positions got priority, the more if allied artillery superiority had to be taken into account. Lethality of HE air- and treebursts were known since ???

Time factor: Few hours upto full day (night) to "construct" basic means of overhead cover, sufficient for the purpose. Basically, if a soldier is not engaged in a firefight, he can be safely assumed to be busy improving positions a further step. Doesn´t just count for a defender, but for an attacker (improving jump off/assembly positions) as well. It´s also not of concern, what germans and allies planned strategically in Normandy, as the nature of the terrain dictated the overall slow progress on tactical level. This and the "cautious" nature of most of allied attacks, gave germans almost always sufficient time to "dig in" and prepare positions at least vs. most dangerous allied weaponry (artillery & tanks).

While the "ideal" would be to have all fighting positions improved with individual "dugouts", there surely would be a focus in terrain, that has lots of trees nearby, no matter if it´s just a clump of trees, an orchard or true forest, to have basic safety vs. tree bursts. Otherwise, if you can´t effectively defend a particular terrain, you´d rather spare it. That´s the case in CMBN (and all of CMX1), where defending in terrain that contains a minimal number of trees is rather suicidal, no matter if in FH or trenches, when it comes to treebursts. What counts the majority of shells falling on the enemy side of a bocage, if a single shell falling on friendly side, exploding as treeburst, kills half the defenders, due to lack of protection? And if it´s not lack of protection, it´s maybe the behaviour of soldiers not really taking "full cover", when set on "hide" in their FH/trenches? Can´t tell.

In CMBN (and all of CMX1 series), it appears to be assumed, that all reconnaissance and any larger artillery preparations had been finished before the actual battle starts. This works well to a point, where an attacker is left with rather few on call artillery assets, both forces starting (less than) few hundred meters apart and with the defending forces assumed to be in an already "punished" state. That means, any defenders that survived to this point, leaving shelters/dugouts and man fighting positions to fend of the enemy ground attack.

Most of CMX1 (and the few CMBN demo) "battle situations" I know, give an attacker plenty of artillery and the defender just few means to protect from it, during the course of a battle. That just due to the plain absence of basements, dugouts or covered foxholes. The defender has to endure any additional "on call" attacker artillery strike without proper cover available nearby, if one assumes there should be any. So at last it appears to me rather a balancing issue or setting the "initial situation" of a particular battle to something more realistic IMO.

I keep voting for "covered" foxholes and trenches, as well as later implementation of true dugouts and basements, as option to not keep vast numbers of battle situations furtherly neglected in CMBN (and all of CMX1 series). They´re just to give additional "protection", not necessarily (underground) fighting positions, which surely are way beyond reasonable coding efforts in the foreseeable future. I could also imagine seeing abstractions, like the "sewer movement" in CMBB, where units are "loaded" invisibly into a feature not directly portrayed on the 3D battlefield.

While one can maybe sell most players now, that Normandy fighting doesn´t require "hardened positions" to give a "realistic" play experience, things will surely change, when it comes to the Bulge modules and the eastern front at the latest.

[RockinHarry]

From "St-Lo (7 July - 19 July 1944) American Forces in Action Series"

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/compoundobject/collection/p4013coll8/id/3078/rec/2

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Excerpt from "INFANTRY WEAPONS

(Observation and persona1 experiences of

the ordnance Officer, 2d infantry Division.)"

"In order to illustrate these principles, I will

describe several operations of the Second Infantry

Division in the ETO, starting with operations in the

hedgerows of Normandy, south of Omaha Beach.

The German paratroops were occupying a well-

organized defensive position. The front line positions were so well

concealed that it was impossible to detect

individual positions from as close as 25 yards to the front.

The Germans had burrowed into the hedgerows in

such a way that, although they could fire to the front

or to the flanks, the earth of the hedgerows gave

them almost complete protection from fragments of artillery

or mortar shells so long as they stayed in their positions.

Prolonged artillery preparations affected their nerves,

but wounded few men."

http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/p124201coll2/id/397/rec/26

[LongLeftFlank]

Of course that was the ideal. I don't doubt it wasn't completely alien to Normandy. But remember, the Germans never intended to fight in this terrain. They were supposed to defeat the Allies on the beaches or make quick work out of them soon after. That didn't happen. Which means, for the most part, the positions they did have were of the hasty type. To effectively cover the amount of fighting positions they made over the course of the campaign would have required forests worth of trees for overhead cover. And the tools and time to process them into useable materials.

Again, for sure this sort of hardening did happen, but usually those were the areas that were wiped out by massive artillery strikes prior to an attack.

I don't agree with that conclusion. Most of the pictures of positions I've seen are either superficial scrapes in the ground or narrow 1-2 man pits with no overhead cover.

Steve, I am respectfully calling sophistry on the above statements.

If you couldn't find a workable way to program in overhead cover for entrenchments but have it on your future to do list, please just come out and say so [EDIT: you did at the end, kind of]. We love the game and will forgive you.

But trying to rationalize away such a ubiquitous feature of WWII, and especially the bocage battles as you have above is.... simply unworthy of you.

WWII infantry (whose training still derived in large part from the lessons of WWI) were instructed -- and needed very little prompting -- to dig holes to protect themselves from firepower, especially artillery. Faced with the prospect of massive enemy firepower, they don't throw up their hands in despair as you suggest above, they just dig deeper. That's the only tool they have, and guess what? it works, well, even against horrific bombardments! There are virtually no instances (none in fact that I am aware of) of German prepared positions being "wiped out by massive artillery strikes prior to an attack" -- but maybe you can cite some for me.

The Wehrmacht, especially, had had ~18 months of ferocious defensive fighting against numerically and FP superior opponents in Russia and Italy in which to become masters at preparing multiple belts of well-camouflaged and hardened defensive positions, backed by pakfronts and artillery; this was true of all first line units and didn't require specialized engineers. The German ability to seal off enemy breakthroughs with battered forces, using a combination of limited counterattacks and harassing fire, accompanied by ultra-rapid creation of new fortified lines, continued to astonish and frustrate their enemies all the way to the end of the war.

When already in contact with the enemy, it's simply shallow scrapes as you suggest. Given some LOS cover, or cover of darkness, they dig deeper holes and trenches, and sandbag the firing ports. And when given 12-24 hours to prepare a position without being directly observed, at minimum the OPs and key MG positions are roofed and sandbagged over (you don't need "forests" -- just a lattice of saplings with sandbags or plain old dirt on top) and fields of fire are cleared. With some help from Pioneers, AT gun pits and sniper positions start getting roofed over as well, and mines and wire show up.

Now I for one greatly appreciate the effort BFC put in to provide FOW entrenchments for CMBN, in spite of the considerable programming difficulties. And I'm willing to accept that overhead cover for non-vehicles and non-buildings is not straightforward to model as it sounds.

But the lack of "hardened positions" other than bunkers -- including both entrenchments and buildings -- remains a significant missing feature and cannot be waved away as peripheral on any of the grounds you have cited.

[MikeyD]

I understand US tankers had to guard their tanks at night because ever-resourceful infantry were known to steal the driver's floor escape hatch to use as foxhole covers. That might be somewhat difficult to represent accurately in the game, though.

[LongLeftFlank]

Trying to be constructive and seeing what can be done with this capable game engine, I came up with the following "hardened" German squad position built into a hedgerow

The infantry fighting position is a sandbag wall and immediately behind it is a wedge-shaped (===V===) chunk of bocage, creating 2 access points. Behind the hedgerow is a trench leading to a wooden bunker that is sunk 2 meters below the default level, adding to its shell resistance. The bunker is basically a dugout since the firing slit has no LOS to anything. Once the American barrage lifts, the landser can emerge and move to their firing position. If the Amis take the forward position, the Germans can resist from the trench.

[RockinHarry]

Trying to be constructive and seeing what can be done with this capable game engine, I came up with the following "hardened" German squad position built into a hedgerow

The infantry fighting position is a sandbag wall and immediately behind it is a wedge-shaped (===V===) chunk of bocage, creating 2 access points. Behind the hedgerow is a trench leading to a wooden bunker that is sunk 2 meters below the default level, adding to its shell resistance. The bunker is basically a dugout since the firing slit has no LOS to anything. Once the American barrage lifts, the landser can emerge and move to their firing position. If the Amis take the forward position, the Germans can resist from the trench.

I like this sort of "expedient constructions"! Would´ve tried myself, if I had the game yet (still play the demo). How good does it work ingame? I assume the wooden bunker loads a full squad?

Beside possible problem that the AIP has no idea to use this position wisely, leaves the issue of camouflage, since the sandbags (as well as Y shaped bocage segment) are pretty treacherous to a human player. Overall looks to be a usefull approximation of the very specialized german "bocage defense". 8)

[gunnergoz]

I just had my first encounter with the wooden bunkers. Suppressed them at long range with ordinary rifle and MG fire and polished them off with bazookas and a few well-placed mortar rounds. Not as tough as I thought. But then, the guys in them were not the die hards I'll probably run into later in the campaign...

[Redwolf]

Trying to be constructive and seeing what can be done with this capable game engine, I came up with the following "hardened" German squad position built into a hedgerow

The infantry fighting position is a sandbag wall and immediately behind it is a wedge-shaped (===V===) chunk of bocage, creating 2 access points. Behind the hedgerow is a trench leading to a wooden bunker that is sunk 2 meters below the default level, adding to its shell resistance. The bunker is basically a dugout since the firing slit has no LOS to anything. Once the American barrage lifts, the landser can emerge and move to their firing position. If the Amis take the forward position, the Germans can resist from the trench.

So did you do a test run with it?

How much indirect fire take the soldiers in there compared to regular single trench or foxhole?

[j.kehoe]

1) As the photos early in the thread show, digging-in was a well-practiced skill for the Germans and, for that matter, the Americans. My father, who lead a 81-mm mortar platoon in Normandy (117th Inf Rgt, 30th Inf Division) confirmed the importance of digging-in plus the inherent protective value of the bocage. The little folding shovels were there for more than digging latrines.

2) He also said that, while mortars were not accurate, they were popular for clearing tree lines, particularly by using WP smoke as a makeshift incendiary.

[Bruce Robert]

I found this info that might be of some use in this discussion. Although I haven't had time to check sources or find confirmation from other sources. Begin Quote:

Effectiveness of fire

Evans (2001-5) lists four aims of artillery fire (Neutralising, Morale, Lethal, Material). All four happen at the same time, but the effects earlier in the list are much easier to achieve than those later in the list. For example, a 25 pounder needs to land 8 - 32 shells per hour for neutralisation (for about 10% casualties; Global Security Organisation, n.d.), but 600 shells in a 100 x 100 yard sector are required to militarily 'destroy' the target (meaning 30% casualties).

Neutralising: To prevent enemy movement and observation, and in cases of greater effect to prevent the effective use of enemy weapons. The effect only lasted during the bombardment, which meant in attack so the friendly infantry had to 'lean' on the bombardment to ensure they reached the enemy positions before the enemy realised the bombardment had stopped and reached their guns.

Morale: To produce, in addition to neutralisation, a lack of will to resist continuing for some time after the end of the bombardment.

Lethal: To kill or wound enemy personnel. Military 'destruction' was generally considered to be 30% casualties.

Material: To destroy or damage enemy equipment

Terrain significantly reduces the effect of fire (Evans, 2001-5). 'Natural' or 'average’ ground offers about 5 times as much protection to a prone soldier as an 'unnatural' level surface like a football field.

Fortifications, being man made protective terrain, not surprisingly also significantly affects the lethality of fire. Evans (2001-5) lists some interesting estimates on how vulnerability changes with the posture of the target. The following table gives the relative risk of becoming a casualty to ground-burst shells on ‘average’ ground:

Posture Risk

Standing 1

Lying 1/3

Firing from open fire trenches 1/15 - 1/50

Crouching in open fire trenches 1/25 - 1/100

In the Far East the allies found that a Japanese fortifications were resistant to anything except a direct hit from a bomb or large naval gun (Ellis, 1980). In one incident in 1944, where 684 rounds of 3.7-inch howitzer shells and 670 rounds of 25-pdr shells landed in an area 250 yards square, the Japanese suffered only two confirmed dead and minor damage on a few communication bunkers; there was no material damage on the main combat bunkers. The allies found that individual guns fired at point blank range were much more effective - the trick was getting the guns in place.

End Quote

Source: www.balagan.org.uk/war/ww2/snippet/artillery.htm Steven Thomas

[Dadekster88]

1) As the photos early in the thread show, digging-in was a well-practiced skill for the Germans and, for that matter, the Americans. My father, who lead a 81-mm mortar platoon in Normandy (117th Inf Rgt, 30th Inf Division) confirmed the importance of digging-in plus the inherent protective value of the bocage. The little folding shovels were there for more than digging latrines.

2) He also said that, while mortars were not accurate, they were popular for clearing tree lines, particularly by using WP smoke as a makeshift incendiary.

Ah yes, the e-tool. The legs best friend and a great thing to have in hand to hand combat as well.

You can only do so much digging in with an e-tool. From what I understand in the Pacific the industrious Japanese got to the point gophers were impressed with their work. The took digging in to a whole new level.

[Battlefront.com]

But trying to rationalize away such a ubiquitous feature of WWII, and especially the bocage battles as you have above is.... simply unworthy of you.

Or perhaps we just disagree with where the line should be drawn?

WWII infantry (whose training still derived in large part from the lessons of WWI) were instructed -- and needed very little prompting -- to dig holes to protect themselves from firepower, especially artillery. Faced with the prospect of massive enemy firepower, they don't throw up their hands in despair as you suggest above, they just dig deeper. That's the only tool they have, and guess what? it works, well, even against horrific bombardments! There are virtually no instances (none in fact that I am aware of) of German prepared positions being "wiped out by massive artillery strikes prior to an attack" -- but maybe you can cite some for me.

The Allies actually had very little problem clearing out known German positions with artillery. The problem the Allies had was they generally only knew what was directly in front of them and they could miss positions. Pretty much any account of an Allied offensive reads similar to this (after 5 seconds of Google searching):

In the western sector, 6 July saw the intended counterattack by the 2d SS Panzer units bog down as a result of air action. The Allied air force was also credited with hampering the German artillery in its work. The commanding general of LXXXIV Corps reported that the American artillery, guided by air observers and supported by air attacks, was not only silencing German batteries but destroying the infantry even in their dugouts.

And this:

The Seventh Army singled out for special mention the power of U. S. artillery support, which had expended ammunition at a rate five to ten times that of the German. In a brief analysis of the fighting, American commanders were credited with facility in tactical maneuver and with being quick to exploit favorable situations. East of the present battle area, on both sides of the Vire, six U. S. infantry divisions and two armored divisions were believed ready to widen the zone of attack. German losses had been heavy; one battalion of the 353d, the only full-strength division in LXXXIV Corps, had lost half its men in three days.

http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/100-13/st-lo_1.htm

This is why you hear so much "whining" from German Normandy survivors about how "unfair" the Allies were because they used artillery so much.

The Wehrmacht, especially, had had ~18 months of ferocious defensive fighting against numerically and FP superior opponents in Russia and Italy in which to become masters at preparing multiple belts of well-camouflaged and hardened defensive positions, backed by pakfronts and artillery; this was true of all first line units and didn't require specialized engineers.

You're talking about fortification belts that took months to prepare. Given enough time the Germans could have done similar things in Normandy, but instead they never managed to set up a solid defensive line that lasted more than a few days or weeks (in some spots). And all the while the Allies hammered them, causing casualties and tactical loss of ground. In fact, it could be said that the German's obsession with counter attacking precluded them from setting up an effective defensive line in France once they realized they couldn't push them back into the sea. Though I doubt such a defensive line would have held long anyway.

The German ability to seal off enemy breakthroughs with battered forces, using a combination of limited counterattacks and harassing fire, accompanied by ultra-rapid creation of new fortified lines, continued to astonish and frustrate their enemies all the way to the end of the war.

You're confusing standard defensive tactics with "hardened" defenses. When situations allowed new defensive lines could be created quickly, but they were basically there to blunt the tip of the breakthrough force long enough to conduct a counter attack. German doctrine stressed that such counter attacks had to happen within hours, days at the latest. Not the sort of timeframe for creating on-the-fly hardened positions.

When already in contact with the enemy, it's simply shallow scrapes as you suggest. Given some LOS cover, or cover of darkness, they dig deeper holes and trenches, and sandbag the firing ports. And when given 12-24 hours to prepare a position without being directly observed, at minimum the OPs and key MG positions are roofed and sandbagged over (you don't need "forests" -- just a lattice of saplings with sandbags or plain old dirt on top) and fields of fire are cleared. With some help from Pioneers, AT gun pits and sniper positions start getting roofed over as well, and mines and wire show up.

Two issues here. First, the Germans were pretty much always in contact with the Allies from the time of the landings until they were routed from France. While lines on the maps stayed steady for days, the tactical positions often did not. And when the Germans did have a chance to seriously dig in, that's when the set piece battles were mounted with massed artillery. The sorts of battles we don't simulate.

Second, I think you underestimate the resources needed to provide meaningful overhead cover for battalion sized forces. And by meaningful I mean something that's actually got a chance of making a difference. The best thing simple overhead protection does is prevent things like chunks of wood, rocks, earth, buildings, pavement, etc. from injuring the soldiers. This is something we can abstract.

Now I for one greatly appreciate the effort BFC put in to provide FOW entrenchments for CMBN, in spite of the considerable programming difficulties. And I'm willing to accept that overhead cover for non-vehicles and non-buildings is not straightforward to model as it sounds.

But the lack of "hardened positions" other than bunkers -- including both entrenchments and buildings -- remains a significant missing feature and cannot be waved away as peripheral on any of the grounds you have cited.

I don't disagree with you that it would be better to have than to not have, but I do disagree with your assumptions that it has much bearing on CM scale battles. In some ways this reminds me of the arguments that we had in CMx1 that we didn't simulate logs, sandbags, extra tracks, mattresses, etc. stuck to the sides of tanks. Some said "they did it, therefore it matters" and we disagreed.

It's amazing how much opinion counts for interpretation of historical accounts.

Steve

[Redwolf]

I dunno, Steve.

The foxholes that everybody was digging for each single night (both Germans and Americans) were specifically against harassment fire from artillery. Sure, they were useful against ground attacks, but the reason why American commanders made American soldiers dig (for the commanders ) was artillery that the Germans randomly fired into where they thought US soldiers are. And that didn't need overhead cover, the idea is to be below ground so that a hit on the ground (not a hit directly into the foxhole) has the shrapnel go over the soldier. That takes care most of the common cases, when airbursts aren't in play and no VT fuses etc.

The fortifications that are in CMBN right now are just too close to no foxhole/no trench when it comes to indirect fire effects, including from small mortars. The latter in particular is questionable - small mortars being effective against an enemy that is in foxholes that were dug for the night has no narratives supporting it.

You might want to consider discussing with Charles whether the current balance of cover-from-3D on one hand and cover-from-abstraction on the other hand is OK. Nobody wants to go back to all abstraction, but as you said no abstraction didn't work, so CMBN has light cover effects from abstracted ground tile effects. Might be worth looking at how light, exactly, that additional effect from ground tiles should be.

Same goes for concealment. The AT guns in plain sight in a trench are about the opposite of what I normally come across when I read an American describing what he thought of German gun placement in Normandy.

[RockinHarry]

Go for abstractions.

Add a further type foxhole/trench, with increased purchase cost and add an "invisible" overhead protection layer for infantry on "hide". This overhead protection layer should give 80-90% safeness from direct mortar hits (unless hit repeatedly) up to 82mm AND shrapnel from air-/tree bursts.

Otherwise, scenarios s/b balanced more in ways that attackers have much less medium to heavy artillery on call, when it comes to attack "prepared" defender positions. This would be the stage, where all preparatory bombardments have been done and the (surviving) defenders are to be assumed manning fighting positions, with none left hiding in "dugouts" (that are to be assumed "nonexistent" in CM game series), or with existing "dugouts" all destroyed.

In any other case, as defender I´d still avoid trees / forested areas (due to possible treebursts) as defense position if the attacker is to be assumed to have available any indirect fire assets.

As Longleftflank pointed out, scenario designers can opt to beef up a defense position, by adding at least a wooden bunker in adjacent actionspot. This way you have the fighting position (=bocage) AND some overhead protection nearby. Adding extra foxhole & trench is rather unnecessary, as once this sort of bocage position is flanked or endangered of beeing wiped out in close combat, the remaining defenders would rather retreat to the next rearward bocage fighting position.

[Battlefront.com]

The foxholes that everybody was digging for each single night (both Germans and Americans) were specifically against harassment fire from artillery. Sure, they were useful against ground attacks, but the reason why American commanders made American soldiers dig (for the commanders ) was artillery that the Germans randomly fired into where they thought US soldiers are. And that didn't need overhead cover, the idea is to be below ground so that a hit on the ground (not a hit directly into the foxhole) has the shrapnel go over the soldier. That takes care most of the common cases, when airbursts aren't in play and no VT fuses etc.

Right, so we're in agreement here. Getting below ground, or with a berm around you, is very good protection from artillery except for direct hits and nearby airbursts.

The fortifications that are in CMBN right now are just too close to no foxhole/no trench when it comes to indirect fire effects, including from small mortars. The latter in particular is questionable - small mortars being effective against an enemy that is in foxholes that were dug for the night has no narratives supporting it.

This is already being looked into. It is possible part of the problem is the TacAI not keeping heads down.

Same goes for concealment. The AT guns in plain sight in a trench are about the opposite of what I normally come across when I read an American describing what he thought of German gun placement in Normandy.

Trenches are not designed to protect AT Guns. You should use the Sandbag defensive works for that.

Add a further type foxhole/trench, with increased purchase cost and add an "invisible" overhead protection layer for infantry on "hide". This overhead protection layer should give 80-90% safeness from direct mortar hits (unless hit repeatedly) up to 82mm AND shrapnel from air-/tree bursts.

It's really not that simple. A foxhole or trench with significant overhead cover is now, effectively, a bunker. What's really missing in CM is the inbetween where the positions offer some limited protection from overhead sources of injury. As I stated above, rocks and debris more than shell fragments. Putting a door and some soil on top of a fighting position is not sufficient to protect against significant air burst fragments and not at all sufficient to protect against a direct hit.

Otherwise, scenarios s/b balanced more in ways that attackers have much less medium to heavy artillery on call, when it comes to attack "prepared" defender positions.

It's a matter of what the scenario is attempting to simulate. In the Demo the Bocage scenario shows how much damage artillery can do to a defender, but it also shows why the Allies still had such a tough time getting through Bocage country. There are a number of reasons for this which the scenario shows off to good effect.

One thing that's entering into this equation, I think, is player perception. I've noticed since the beginning of CM that players on the defense don't like losing men to artillery or direct fire HE. They think it's "unfair" because such fire causes casualties without any chance of retribution. You can have the best defensive plan in the world, but if the attacker has artillery (and here's a key thing...) knows how to use it in combination with other units, well... the best defensive plan can fall apart quickly. Germans in Normandy felt the same way, as their post-war memories clearly state. To them the Americans were "cowards" and "unfair", so it is not surprising to see players feel the same way.

What this means is that to some extent making a realistic depiction of artillery vs. defensive positions means players complaining about the inability to adequately defend against artillery. Which means that the worst possible thing we could have are players NOT complaining about their defensive positions' vulnerability to artillery fire. If there are no complaints then we probably have something horribly wrong within the game.

This doesn't mean we have things absolutely correct right now. There's probably room for tweaking. However, there's no way we're going to go in the wrong direction and start to make defenses unrealistically robust. It's up to the defending player to make sense of how to overcome artillery, not up to us to dumb down artillery so they can have an easier time as defenders.

Steve

[Broadsword56]

Bravo Steve, thanks for the clarifications, and I'm pleased to see you're looking into this issue for possible tweaks.

[Bruce Robert]

I would suggest that regardless of prepared positions/cover, the arty is a bit too deadly. I know that stats. are only valid on the long haul, as any single event might be on either end of the bell curve, and I haven't accumulated a large number of experiences with the game. However, there are too few rounds landing - relative to accounts I have read - versus the number of casualties caused, In general. it might be a question of accuracy rather than the damage effect of the round itself, as the few rounds sent my way seem to be dead on - pun intended - more often than not.

"Or perhaps we just disagree with where the line should be drawn?" Steve.

That may be what is going on here, a question of how much or little to best represent the actual accounts, and of course abstraction versus realism. But I still would like to see arty being more of a disruptive factor on the short term, only becoming deadlier with more long term/intense fire missions, or when you have direct/point fire on a specific target.

Thanks for listening,

Bruce

[Dadekster88]

I think artillery is spot on (pun not intended). The options of how to take cover from it is what some seem to have a problem with imo. I'd like to see more in the way of fortification options. I understand that historically in Normandy that never took place etc but then I like to do a lot of 'what if' things.