Whats up with the extreme lack of radios?

[Oddball_E8]

At least on the german side...

most of the times when i play a quickbattle i get one unit with a radio... meaning my mortars (of witch i usually get ample) are more or less useless...

last time i just quit since my (albeit very small) force had one HQ unit with a radio, and 4 mortars...

and 5-6 halftracks and 1 armored car (none of witch were equipped with radios)

how am i supposed to use my mortars indirectly when only one unit has a radio?

surely the mortar HQ units had radios to communicate with the rest of the company/battalion?

[Magpie_Oz]

This link http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM7-24.PDF

Gives a good run down on the comms in a division. If you can be bothered you can work out how many radios would be to hand.

[YankeeDog]

Germans had trouble providing enough man-portable radios, and also the dry cell batteries to power the radios, for much of the war. From what I've read, having only one working portable radio per leg infantry Company was not uncommon.

This said, I would expect that what extra radios they did have, would be allotted to the support formations first... perhaps this is something that needs to be tweaked, at least for QBs force selections.

CMBN is also currently missing any representation of wire connections between forward OPs and on-map mortars, something that was done fairly often to compensate for the lack of wireless, especially on defense.

[Oddball_E8]

my main problem with this is that on-map mortars are more or less useless in scenarios where only a small force is present since there are one or no radios in the entire chain of command...

[RockinHarry]

German Cpy (and higher) HQ, as well as forward observers can be assumed to have radios at best, realistically.

The odd thing with CMBN C2, ist that neither wire comms, nor messengers/runners are simulated, as basically this was standard comm means in german (infantry) army. Just having radio, voice and hand signal, tells just half the story, the more if there´s no command delay, unlike in CMX1. Guess this all was left out, due to the real time mode, introduced since CMSF.

[YankeeDog]

German Cpy (and higher) HQ, as well as forward observers can be assumed to have radios at best, realistically.

The odd thing with CMBN C2, ist that neither wire comms, nor messengers/runners are simulated, as basically this was standard comm means in german (infantry) army. Just having radio, voice and hand signal, tells just half the story, the more if there´s no command delay, unlike in CMX1. Guess this all was left out, due to the real time mode, introduced since CMSF.

I think runners are assumed to be there abstractly, both from the fact that the player can see and react to everything he can see, and also, if you watch carefully, you see that spotting information propagates through an entire force, even to units with a "broken" C2 chain. It just does so much more slowly, and you only get the faint "?" contacts.

I can't imagine calling in and adjusting indirect mortar fire using runners over any distance would be very timely or effective, unless it was a case where the target was pre-registered, and CMBN has TRP to model this.

Wire communications is another matter; I would like to eventually see some way of modeling a forward OP position with a wire connection to the Company CO a couple of hundred meters back, for example.

[Sgt Joch]

from p. 99-100 of the manual:

But radios were expensive and (compared to today) rare. While the US forces made a deliberate effort to try to provide radios usually at least down to the platoon level, many German formations only possess a radio for the main Company HQ, or have one reserved for specialized Forward Observers.

Players will probably learn quickly that paying attention to where the radios are on the Normandy battlefield is going to provide a crucial element on the road to victory. Without a radio nearby, that group of on-map mortars is pretty much limited to only firing at targets within sight. Without a radio, that platoon commander who loses sight of his Company CO is effectively out of the loop with higher ups.

Below the company level communications were mostly by voice and sight. Because the effective range is so much less than a radio, Platoon HQs have to remain quite close to their assigned units in order to control them. A Rifle Platoon, for example, would usually advance in a way that most, if not all, of the attached squads and weapons teams could see or hear the Platoon Leader’s commands.

Weapons type platoons were often asked to operate over larger distances than infantry type platoons. Since radios were not usually available, the solutionwas to add intermediate Section HQs between the Platoon HQ and the weaponsunder its command. Their job was to extend the range of the Platoon HQ by acting as a relay point for communications.

[MOSwas71331]

On defense, particularly when the defending force has been in the area for some time, they would have established ways in addition to radio to control indirect fire. Laid wire is an obvious possibility, and, if it's not severed by the attacker's prep fire, enables precise fire control. ["Left 200, drop 50"] TRPs visible to a defending unit which has flares, colored smoke, or colored panels would give less precise, but still useful, control. [A prearranged "On a red star cluster, fire for effect on TRP 1" or whichever TRP seems closest to the signaler.]

On attack or in a meeting engagement, a moving force can lay wire as it advances, and it could also have registered TRPs on prominent terrain features. Again, intact wire would enable precise control, and flares, smoke, or panels at least would enable at fire on a TRP.

None of WWII comms were completely dependable (radio and sound powered phones could be hard to hear even in the absence of other noise), but they did provide some capabilities. [i'm sure there were instances of "shell the hill when I wave my arms."]

As to how this could be done in CMBN terms, wire could work just like radio. And, for backup, perhaps leaders could have a Signal action with the set meaning "fire for effect on TRP nearest to me."

[YankeeDog]

You can already order fire on a TRP without observation, so there's no adjustment needed there, really. You can just pretend some forward OP is shooting off a flare or popping a smoke grenade or whatever you like to initiate the barrage.

Wire communications is another matter.... mostly, wire coms would act like radios stuck in one place (or perhaps able to move only slowly as they lay wire behind them), but there are other issues to consider, such as the aforementioned issue of what happens when artillery falls on or near the wire run. While I understand why BFC decided not to tackle this yet, I do hope they find time to deal with it soon, and definitely before revisiting the East Front.

[RockinHarry]

I think runners are assumed to be there abstractly, both from the fact that the player can see and react to everything he can see, and also, if you watch carefully, you see that spotting information propagates through an entire force, even to units with a "broken" C2 chain. It just does so much more slowly, and you only get the faint "?" contacts.

I can't imagine calling in and adjusting indirect mortar fire using runners over any distance would be very timely or effective, unless it was a case where the target was pre-registered, and CMBN has TRP to model this.

Wire communications is another matter; I would like to eventually see some way of modeling a forward OP position with a wire connection to the Company CO a couple of hundred meters back, for example.

I´ve previously thought of that as well and basically came to the conclusion, that there´s no real use for runners, even in an abstracted manner in this game (for your mentioned resaons).

Agree with wire comms.

At the same time, it´s both a good and a bad thing of having no command delays, as in CMX1. I´d consider this "borg reaction", but it´s surely more fun to play, as having longish command delays. Mixed bag...

[Bimmer]

Since wire comms were obviously most useful for defenders or in static positions, I wonder if fortifications could be made to include "radios" simulating field telephones, or at least offer the option of purchasing fortifications so equipped. Not perfect, certainly, but it might offer a reasonable work-around.

[Magpie_Oz]

You can certainly use telephones in the attack, just lots of running about winding out and in wire!

Of course 2 MAJOR issues for including phones are

1. Breaking the line with all the various things that can break it from enemy soldiers to wayward tanks

2. Fixing said breaks.

[Vark]

Always laugh when people extoll the flexibility of German units, they always seem to refer to Panzer forces and never the Leg infantry who had few radios. Osprey has a good book on WWII infantry communications equipment and the German kit is often described as technically advanced but unreliable and two fragile (often two piece radios). Am a little surprised 251's are not given radios as I though they came fitted as standard (a real advantage of armoured infantry which was not really modelled with CM1, given the Borg spotting)

[Gryphonne]

Always laugh when people extoll the flexibility of German units, they always seem to refer to Panzer forces and never the Leg infantry who had few radios. Osprey has a good book on WWII infantry communications equipment and the German kit is often described as technically advanced but unreliable and two fragile (often two piece radios). Am a little surprised 251's are not given radios as I though they came fitted as standard (a real advantage of armoured infantry which was not really modelled with CM1, given the Borg spotting)

The radios in 251/1s are modelled, but you need dismounts to occupy the radio station as the driver and gunner are obviously busy with other stuff. I had my mortar HQ (no radio) occupy one 251/2 (radio) so that it had radio contact with a platoon leader calling in the 251/2s 81mm mortar.

And what is this with Germans having a shortage of radios? In my game I see every German platoon leader with a radio?!

[Battlefront.com]

If you use the units the way they were used in real life, the limitations on radios shouldn't matter until casualties start to enter into the picture. Keep your organic formations together, as they would be in real life, and you should be fine. Trying to act like CM:SF or CMx1, for that matter, will create hardships because that sort of flexibility simply doesn't exist.

There's a reason that trillions of Dollars have been spent on communications equipment and technologies since WW2 Americans realized the importance of simple, basic, reliable (for the day) radio communications devices far more than any other nation fighting in WW2. Better still, Americans hate industrial complexity and saying no to purchase orders, so they also engineered the devices to be easily produced. The Germans never fully appreciated this lesson even at the very end of the war. It is a major philosophical difference between the American and German approach to war. Interestingly, though, the American philosophy since WW2 has attempted (with pretty good success, actually) to incorporate the German tendency towards "wonder weapons" into it's mass production mentality. Exxxxxxxxpensive and unsustainable as it might be

We have a plan for explicit wire device simulation. However, it is a VERY complicated concept to carry out realistically in the game and therefore it was shelved for Normandy. Basically, the problem is to do it "right" we have to include all kinds of features which simulate the limitations of wire based devices. Otherwise we wind up with radios on a much grander scale, and that would make the overall simulation less realistic.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

Thanks for the info, Steve.

I do think it's an interesting idea to consider adding a "radio bunker" to the game, representing dugouts equipped with a radio. Perhaps this could be based of the current radio functionality with vehicles?

[MOSwas71331]

I understand you can fire on a TRP you can't see, but, there's little point in doing that if the TRP isn't on or near something of obvious value to your opponent. When the TRP is someplace I expect my opponent to move through or occupy, I don't want to shell it until my opponent's forces get there. If my leader with comms can see the TRP, he can call in fire on my behalf.

In the situation with which this discussion started, I thought the TRPs were in open fields with nothing in view of the mortars. Even if I can fire into the field, what's the point?

In the demo's "training" scenario, the US mortars seem worthless, because they can't see anything and I can't get a leader with a radio into a position to see anything and talk to another leader with a radio left near the mortars.

[YankeeDog]

In the demo's "training" scenario, the US mortars seem worthless, because they can't see anything and I can't get a leader with a radio into a position to see anything and talk to another leader with a radio left near the mortars.

In the demo? Do you mean the "Road to Berlin" scenario? That's the one marked "training", IIRC.

Once all of your reinforcements arrive, you have a Heavy Weapons plt. HQ with a radio, a Company HQ with a radio, and two Rifle Platoon HQs with radios in that scenario; it's very easy to set up a fire call to the 60mm mortars in that one... did three separate support calls over radio when I played that scenario. I kept the mortars back in the courtyard of the farm by the start area, set up the HW Pt. HQ in the house next to them, and then called in fire from my Plt. HQs. Worked like a charm. IIRC, the 60mm mortars netted about 18 enemy infantry casualties, and helped KO 2 HMGs and an ATG (the coup de grace to these weapons was delivered by other units, but it's the mortars that did the initial suppression, and gave me the opportunity to maneuver on them).

[MikeyD]

When selecting forces to play there's always the temptation to delete those 'useless' command half-tracks in favor of units that have real teeth. But its very handy to be able to park a 250/3 HT close by your mortar team so they get use of the radio. Especially for Germans who aren't exactly awash in spare radio units.

[Blackcat]

I understand you can fire on a TRP you can't see, but, there's little point in doing that if the TRP isn't on or near something of obvious value to your opponent. When the TRP is someplace I expect my opponent to move through or occupy, I don't want to shell it until my opponent's forces get there. If my leader with comms can see the TRP, he can call in fire on my behalf.

In the situation with which this discussion started, I thought the TRPs were in open fields with nothing in view of the mortars. Even if I can fire into the field, what's the point?

In the demo's "training" scenario, the US mortars seem worthless, because they can't see anything and I can't get a leader with a radio into a position to see anything and talk to another leader with a radio left near the mortars.

Where you place a TRP is up to you and how you read the battlefield. You don't need an HQ to have sight of the TRP anyone will do. Then once you know it is worth firing a barrage, select any HQ or FOO and call it down. Easy-peasy.

P.S. Firing on TRPs doesn't incur the same delay penalties as normal indirect fire.

[Sgt Schultz]

For German QB purchases, it may help to buy one Halftrack per platoon or unit that does not have an organic radio.

Place the HQ in the halftrack, and as long as the halftrack has not moved in a while, you have radio contact. I have noticed that once a halftrack with a radio and HQ in it moves, all radio-equipped units not in LOS lose C2 with that HQ until the halftrack stops and settles in again.

I am assuming that I am both not seeing things, and this models the inability to use radios on the move.

-

[Blackcat]

... In the demo's "training" scenario, the US mortars seem worthless, because they can't see anything and I can't get a leader with a radio into a position to see anything and talk to another leader with a radio left near the mortars.

The key word here is "Seem" as in "seem useless". They ain't far from it. What might be adrift is your tactical thinking.

[Vark]

If you are going to simulate field phones with wire will we be able to simulate the German (borrowed from the Finns) tactic of having MFC trail exactly 200m behind advancing friendly troops, when in woods? As soon as the lead platoons made contact the MFC would call down a barrage adding 200m to the range, teams of soldiers were used to make sure the wire didn not snag and was as straight as possible.

Field phones will have to be simualted in the Eastern Front modules otherwise the Russians in defence will be too heavily penalised or given an unrealistic amount of radios in their TO&E. Oh, and hope the trench problem is sorted by then as well, I suggest going back to SF deformable terrain for the Eastern front as trench systems were rarely a surprise for the attacker, as it would allow proper relocation of reserves, even under heavy fire.

[MOSwas71331]

I'm glad to learn that my placement of the mortars and the heavy weapons platoon leader matches yours -- except I placed that platoon leader a lot nearer the mortars as I had no confidence his voice would carry that far.

However, I'm still unable to advance anybody, much less a platoon leader with a radio, into a position from which he (or they) can get more than a glimpse of any Germans. As I said in another post, the BEST I've been able to accomplish (in six tries of the scenario!) is to advance 6 men from a 12 man squad into a clump of trees near the edge of a field, and the cost of that advance was the other 6 men of the squad AND the two Shermans which fired smoke to cover them. [some of my riflemen must have seen at least German muzzle flashes, because the squad racked up a few German casualties. My Shermans MAY have seen some Germans, but their return fire didn't hit any.]

I wasn't a great player of CMBO-CMBB-CMAK, but I never did this badly with any scenario from those games. And win or lose, I enjoyed playing them; both the free trial scenarios and, later (when I had the funds) the full games. In contrast, CMBN has been total frustration.

[MOSwas71331]

When I posted the previous message, it was the last message in the thread. A few others came in while I was preparing the message, and I'd like to make it clear for whom the message was intended.