Why are we firing rifles at tanks?

[gunnergoz]

v1.01 has the willingness of SMG/Carbine guys to fire at more distant targets toned down a bit. They were a little too eager in v1.00.

Steve

Thank you Steve, V1.01 sounds like it is going to be chock-full-o-nuts.

[Wengart]

If you can't figure out which orders to issue to achieve that effect, you need to read the manual again. Hint: covered arcs and/or hide and/or target and/or pause and/or quick and/or move and/or face.

Wishing it so, don't make it so. In CMx1 there were covered-arcs, and covered-armour-arcs. The first targetted everything, the second targeted only armour. There were no covered-everything-EXCEPT-armour-arcs.

My point was if I set a cover arc at 100M and a tank rolled into the arc my infantry would fire upon it. Since my plan was to engage and then quickly fallback (most likely because of a preponderance of enemy indirect fire assets) I would be forced to give up the position with nothing to show for it.

Ah, It's been quite sometime since I've played CMx1 (upwards of 3 or 4 years at this point. I don't ever recall my infantry giving away their positions to tanks. At least not enough for me to remember it.

[DaveDash]

My point was if I set a cover arc at 100M and a tank rolled into the arc my infantry would fire upon it. Since my plan was to engage and then quickly fallback (most likely because of a preponderance of enemy indirect fire assets) I would be forced to give up the position with nothing to show for it.

Ah, It's been quite sometime since I've played CMx1 (upwards of 3 or 4 years at this point. I don't ever recall my infantry giving away their positions to tanks. At least not enough for me to remember it.

Infantry does not engage buttoned tanks. So, your infantry might knock out optics, or the TC, and the tank may retreat.

This is WW2, men did extremely brave things in the face of insurmountable odds. From our modern perspective it may seem like suicide.

However, if that tank is rolling towards your position you're in grave danger anyway - much more danger if the tank has situational awareness. As it's been pointed out numerous times in this thread, infantry didn't sit idle and let tanks roll up to their position. If you specifically require them to do this, then issue them a hide order and manually control who they shoot at.

If anything the only change that should be made is that infantry should be a targeting priority for other infantry instead of tanks.

Those of us who have played CMSF against tanks with modern optics, fire control systems, etc have learnt to deal with enemy armour to a degree of lethality well beyond CMBN. We don't set up our infantry in the tops of buildings or at the tops of hills. We don't set up our infantry without covered arcs or hide orders. Learn, Adapt.

[Wengart]

For preservation and concealment purposes they shouldn't be within LOS/LOF of enemy armor at all. If you've got infantry within rifle range of an unbuttoned Panther simply hoping for the best then you made a significant tactical error somewhere. If you want them to hide then order them to 'hide'. Better still, tell them to bug out of their present positions before they're killed and hide behind a very large building.

This isn't quite the black and white issue you make it sound like. Most maps have quite a bit of cover/concealement. This could be in the form of houses or better yet the ever present Bocage. I could have a platoon of infantry 75M, maybe closer, from an unbottuned Panther, and as long as they were behind Bocage not only are they proof from quite a bit of direct fire, but that Panther isn't going to be spotting them.

now once those troops tried to peg the TC that's a different story, but until that time they're going to be quite safe. Hell they could stay there to ambush advancing infantry and then bug out the next turn, chances are they won't be too much worse off for the wear.

Even a house will prevent them from being spotted, although it won't protect them from fire the same way Bocage would.

[Wengart]

Infantry does not engage buttoned tanks. So, your infantry might knock out optics, or the TC, and the tank may retreat.

This is WW2, men did extremely brave things in the face of insurmountable odds. From our modern perspective it may seem suicide.

However, if that tank is rolling towards your position you're in grave danger anyway - much more danger if the tank has situational awareness. As it's been pointed out numerous times in this thread, infantry didn't sit idle and let tanks roll up to their position.

If anything the only change that should be made is that infantry should be a targeting priority for other infantry instead of tanks.

Yes, I'm aware that they do not engaged buttoned tanks.

My point is engaging unbuttoned tanks it tantamount to suicide currently. If my men had never fired they would all still be alive and hiding in houses and behind bocage.

Everyone is telling me if an unbuttoned tank is rolling towards my men they would do well to button it, because they'll be in much more danger otherwise. However, in game this just doesn't play out. Infantry open up far too often from concealed positions where any number of tanks would not spot them had they not opened fire.

[RockinHarry]

If the terrain allows, I´d try to assign snipers, small MG teams, or generally teams no larger than 2-3 men to take the duty of harassing enemy tank crews from covered/concealed positions. Preferably have them somewhat seperated (farther away, keyholed) from those friendly units, that you want to fight enemy infantry only.

So the point is actually to adapt a forces engagement tactics (fire plan) to prevent unwanted shooting at "wrong" targets".

[DaveDash]

Yes, I'm aware that they do not engaged buttoned tanks.

My point is engaging unbuttoned tanks it tantamount to suicide currently. If my men had never fired they would all still be alive and hiding in houses and behind bocage.

Everyone is telling me if an unbuttoned tank is rolling towards my men they would do well to button it, because they'll be in much more danger otherwise. However, in game this just doesn't play out. Infantry open up far too often from concealed positions where any number of tanks would not spot them had they not opened fire.

Landing on the beaches of Omaha was also suicide. Going into the Adrennes forest as part of the 101st was suicide. Men still did it. See my point about modern perspectives.

If you want them to hide, tell them to hide.

Also you really seem to be struggling with the concept that they are better off engaging a tank approaching their position that sitting still doing nothing. Covered Arcs solve your other problem of infantry engaging too early. It's tactical suicide to have defenders in exposed positions anyway, so that is YOUR mistake and not a game flaw. Like I said in my earlier post, when defending, put infantry in keyholed positions or reverse slope positions. If three tanks can shoot at your infantry YOU have done something terribly wrong.

[Rocky Balboa]

Yes, I'm aware that they do not engaged buttoned tanks.

My point is engaging unbuttoned tanks it tantamount to suicide currently. If my men had never fired they would all still be alive and hiding in houses and behind bocage.

Everyone is telling me if an unbuttoned tank is rolling towards my men they would do well to button it, because they'll be in much more danger otherwise. However, in game this just doesn't play out. Infantry open up far too often from concealed positions where any number of tanks would not spot them had they not opened fire.

Here's something to try when this happens:

Lets say your squad is behind a hedgerow and a Panther is in the open 100M from your position and your doggies open up on it. First of all you should have a bazooka and a 100m shot is worth taking because you might immobilize or even damage the gun or better yet make the crew dismount.

After firing for 30 seconds to a minute, split off your AT team if you have one, and disengage 1 action spot behind the bocage, this will cause the Panther to lose sight of your squad. Now move the squad in one direction Parallel to the headgerow (25M-50M) and your AT team in the opposite direction but maybe a little farther so he can get a flank shot on the Panther.

Now have your squad move back up to the bocage and engage the Panther, Give the AT team a slight pause so that the squad can start firing and distract the Panther. Now move the AT team up to the bocage and if you've timed it correctly you may have a decent flank shot with your AT team.

If this doesn't work rinse and repeat but keep changing positions so the Panther has to take time to reacquire the target. Remeber your doggies are squishy but they are more mobile than the kitty.

If your in this position and you have no AT assets then run like heck and curse the scenario maker for making a mission where your faced with armor but have no AT assets. you can even send him a PM and tell him what you think of his scenario.

If its a QB and you forgot to purchase any AT assets then you have no one to blame but yourself ...

Okay I guess that about covers it.

[Battlefront.com]

We are looking into this as there may be some tweaks needed. The overall concept of the behavior is, however, sound. Some early tests shows in one situation 100% buttoning of tanks within a few seconds, 33% chance of causing a TC casualty. That was at "point blank" range for the tanks, but about 150m or so from the infantry.

Let's just keep in mind that at 500m an unbuttoned TC with binoculars can do a LOT of damage to infantry. A lot. The infantry TacAI doesn't try to engage unbuttoned tanks reliably until about 350m, which is getting close to the tank being practically on top of the infantry. If you haven't started to engage a tank by that range you have to wonder about what would be going through your little infantry's minds

Realistically there should come a time when a tank is so close that merely pointing it's gun in the direction of an infantry unit should have a chance of causing it to Panic and run for the rear. But that would be extremely hard to pull off realistically (i.e. without gamey abuses and unrealistic results on balance). Therefore, part of the issue here is that infantry in real life wouldn't stick around to either fire at the tank or get butchered by it.

Steve

[JG11Preusse]

Landing on the beaches of Omaha was also suicide. Going into the Adrennes forest as part of the 101st was suicide. Men still did it. See my point about modern perspectives.

If you want them to hide, tell them to hide.

Also you really seem to be struggling with the concept that they are better off engaging a tank approaching their position that sitting still doing nothing. Covered Arcs solve your other problem of infantry engaging too early. It's tactical suicide to have defenders in exposed positions anyway, so that is YOUR mistake and not a game flaw. Like I said in my earlier post, when defending, put infantry in keyholed positions or reverse slope positions. If three tanks can shoot at your infantry YOU have done something terribly wrong.

a "hold fire" button will help much more.

when i want to moving around a spot with tank/tanks with a at-spoldier to engage from behind or from the side, i dont want to hide, i want to move. but when i move this soldier he sometimes decides to shoot with rifle at the tank.

[Wengart]

Here's something to try when this happens:

Lets say your squad is behind a hedgerow and a Panther is in the open 100M from your position and your doggies open up on it. First of all you should have a bazooka and a 100m shot is worth taking because you might immobilize or even damage the gun or better yet make the crew dismount.

After firing for 30 seconds to a minute, split off your AT team if you have one, and disengage 1 action spot behind the bocage, this will cause the Panther to lose sight of your squad. Now move the squad in one direction Parallel to the headgerow (25M-50M) and your AT team in the opposite direction but maybe a little farther so he can get a flank shot on the Panther.

Now have your squad move back up to the bocage and engage the Panther, Give the AT team a slight pause so that the squad can start firing and distract the Panther. Now move the AT team up to the bocage and if you've timed it correctly you may have a decent flank shot with your AT team.

If this doesn't work rinse and repeat but keep changing positions so the Panther has to take time to reacquire the target. Remeber your doggies are squishy but they are more mobile than the kitty.

If your in this position and you have no AT assets then run like heck and curse the scenario maker for making a mission where your faced with armor but have no AT assets. you can even send him a PM and tell him what you think of his scenario.

If its a QB and you forgot to purchase any AT assets then you have no one to blame but yourself ...

Okay I guess that about covers it.

I've never had this issue while playing as the Americans. Probably because their usually well equipped and the Germans have a scarcity of armor. This is a much larger issue when you're trying to do a defense in depth and your only credible AT assets are two PAK40s (Busting the Bocage).

And to be clear I'm not talking about any specific tactical situation.

[Wengart]

Landing on the beaches of Omaha was also suicide. Going into the Adrennes forest as part of the 101st was suicide. Men still did it. See my point about modern perspectives.

If you want them to hide, tell them to hide.

Also you really seem to be struggling with the concept that they are better off engaging a tank approaching their position that sitting still doing nothing. Covered Arcs solve your other problem of infantry engaging too early. It's tactical suicide to have defenders in exposed positions anyway, so that is YOUR mistake and not a game flaw. Like I said in my earlier post, when defending, put infantry in keyholed positions or reverse slope positions. If three tanks can shoot at your infantry YOU have done something terribly wrong.

I'm not even talking about perspective. I'm talking about verifiable in-game results.

Men in concealed cover (Bocage and houses predominately) open up on tanks that pose no threat to them, until they begin to fire. Sure if the troops are in an open field, and a tank rolls up on them shooting is probably an okay idea. However, for troops in concealed positions it is not the "better" decision for them to make.

I'm also assuming you don't play many scenarios that take place in thick bocage. When you have a field 100-150 M wide maybe 50-100 long its not unusual for a platoon of tanks to roll in with supporting infantry following behind. The bocage itself is, for the most part, proof from direct HE fire, the real issue is revealing your position to indirect fire. In these cases I want my infantry to engage enemy infantry, but not the exposed TCs who will not spot them. Giving them a short cover arc does nothing to help me.

Those of us who have played CMSF against tanks with modern optics, fire control systems, etc have learnt to deal with enemy armour to a degree of lethality well beyond CMBN. We don't set up our infantry in the tops of buildings or at the tops of hills. We don't set up our infantry without covered arcs or hide orders. Learn, Adapt.

I'm also really glad your speaking for "us". I too have played CM:SF, for two years in fact, and am familiar with the modern battlefield as represented in CM:SF.

To be completely clear. I am not talking about men in exposed positions. I'm talking about men in concealed position that often offer good amounts of cover. I am emphatically not talking about troops on the "tops of buildings or at the tops of hills"

Right now I could put a hedgerow under observation, roll a unbuttoned tank into the field, wait for them to try to shoot Mr. TC, spot the defenders, and proceed to destroy them with indirect fire.

[Wengart]

We are looking into this as there may be some tweaks needed. The overall concept of the behavior is, however, sound. Some early tests shows in one situation 100% buttoning of tanks within a few seconds, 33% chance of causing a TC casualty. That was at "point blank" range for the tanks, but about 150m or so from the infantry.

Let's just keep in mind that at 500m an unbuttoned TC with binoculars can do a LOT of damage to infantry. A lot. The infantry TacAI doesn't try to engage unbuttoned tanks reliably until about 350m, which is getting close to the tank being practically on top of the infantry. If you haven't started to engage a tank by that range you have to wonder about what would be going through your little infantry's minds

Realistically there should come a time when a tank is so close that merely pointing it's gun in the direction of an infantry unit should have a chance of causing it to Panic and run for the rear. But that would be extremely hard to pull off realistically (i.e. without gamey abuses and unrealistic results on balance). Therefore, part of the issue here is that infantry in real life wouldn't stick around to either fire at the tank or get butchered by it.

Steve

I think you may want to look into troops in concealed positions specifically, if possible. They are often not under threat from the tank until after they begin to fire.

[JonS]

a "hold fire" button will help much more.

That is already in the game.

[Wengart]

The hide command will do it iirc, unless you give a cover arc. Otherwise a short cover arc, will do the same without the negative spotting attributes.

[JG11Preusse]

That is already in the game.

yes ? show me where please .....

[JonS]

The hide command will do it iirc, unless you give a cover arc. Otherwise a short cover arc, will do the same without the negative spotting attributes.

wot 'e sed

[JG11Preusse]

wot 'e sed

????

i explained that i want to move and hold fire while moving.

i remember that the "hide" order is something total different

[JonS]

????

i explained that i want to move and hold fire while moving.

Yes, and you have been answered, three times now.

USE AN ARC

It's in the game. What you want. It's there. Use it.

[JG11Preusse]

Yes, and you have been answered, three times now.

USE AN ARC

It's in the game. What you want. It's there. Use it.

ahhhhhhhh arc ist the "hold fire" button

nice and with so big letters

[JonS]

ahhhhhhhh arc ist the "hold fire" button

YES IT IS.

[dieseltaylor]

The cover arc command is to focus your fire in a specific area. Page 27

So Jon your interpretation is helpfully not included. And in CM*1 the arc also concentrated your spotting into that arc area. Is that true with arc in CM*2?

[Michael Emrys]

v1.01 has the willingness of SMG/Carbine guys to fire at more distant targets toned down a bit. They were a little too eager in v1.00.

That's good. I would hope that carbines would not fire at targets beyond about 100 meters unless ordered to and SMGs not fire at targets beyond 50 meters unless ordered to. They would still fire at anything ordered to. Might also want to make those ranges flexible depending on visibility conditions.

Michael

[JG11Preusse]

YES IT IS.

so it is a selfmade "hold fire button", normally used for something different

no matter, if it works

but a "real" hold-fire button will be better.

[womble]

If the terrain allows, I´d try to assign...

Bully for you. What about the poor AItruppen? They're just as dead.

Landing on the beaches of Omaha was also suicide. Going into the Adrennes forest as part of the 101st was suicide. Men still did it. See my point about modern perspectives.

It's not about 'perspectives'. Men did those things because they needed doing. Buttoning a tank at 800m doesn't. I think the game's modelling is off somewhere (the difference between buttoned and unbuttoned spotting might be insufficient; the 'player as God-officer' effect has unforseen consequences; firing from concealment is too easy to spot - I don't know where the issue is, but maybe one of these).

If you want them to hide, tell them to hide.

Again, the poor iccle AI struggles with this sort of detail.

Also you really seem to be struggling with the concept that they are better off engaging a tank approaching their position that sitting still doing nothing.

And you seem to be ignoring the fact that sitting still doing nothing might well have allowed the tank into range of infantry AT assets before the well-concealed infantry was spotted.

Covered Arcs solve your other problem of infantry engaging too early.

So would clipping the range at which infantry open up on unbuttoned tanks.

It's tactical suicide to have defenders in exposed positions anyway, so that is YOUR mistake and not a game flaw.

Where are you getting this from? You appear to be assuming that the people taking the contrary position are stupid.

Like I said in my earlier post, when defending, put infantry in keyholed positions or reverse slope positions. If three tanks can shoot at your infantry YOU have done something terribly wrong.

Sometimes. Other times, three tanks roll into a narrow field of view, and since you're keyholed, they only have the one target to fire at.

We are looking into this as there may be some tweaks needed. The overall concept of the behavior is, however, sound. Some early tests shows in one situation 100% buttoning of tanks within a few seconds, 33% chance of causing a TC casualty. That was at "point blank" range for the tanks, but about 150m or so from the infantry.

Let's just keep in mind that at 500m an unbuttoned TC with binoculars can do a LOT of damage to infantry. A lot. The infantry TacAI doesn't try to engage unbuttoned tanks reliably until about 350m...

That's not my experience recently. It's "School of Hard Knocks" and the AI troops successfully button my tanks at 800m plus to start with, and any time they unbutton thereafter, at ranges approaching 500m from the buttoning MGs.

If you haven't started to engage a tank by that range you have to wonder about what would be going through your little infantry's minds

"Just another 150m til Hans-the-Shreck can take his shot... Keep your heads down, hope he doesn't see you... Maybe Deadshot Dieter from B-Team can take the commander out with his scoped rifle..." seems reasonable to me