Possible problems, requesting comments

[smbecket]

A friend and I just finished a 65 turn PBEM game (Veteran units) and noticed several possible problems. There has been no testing to determine if they can be consistently replicated and I am not claiming they are bugs. They are just observations that did not seem correct. I am posting them to see if anyone else has had similar experiences. The list is as follows:

1. I ordered a Stummel to fire on a building and the first three rounds it fired were its last HEAT rounds; then it started using its HE. Doesn't seem logical to me that it would use its best anti-armor round on a bldg.

2. I ordered my armored infantry squads out of their tracks. After they had gone a distance from the vehicles I discovered they had not taken their panzerfausts. It seems to me the PF would be part of their basic load-out as it is their only anti-armor weapon and would be carried whenever they left the HT. Also, why is there only one per track? They carry thousands of rounds of other ammo and I find it difficult to believe they would not carry 2, 3, or more panzerfausts since they have a HT to carry them in.

3. Self preservation seems lacking. In one instance a three member HQ unit was hiding behind a low stone wall. An American unit jumped over the wall literally right next to the HQ. The men continued to "hide" and made no attempt to fight for their lives while the Americans slaughtered them. In another instance two armored cars about 100 meters apart were flanked by a Sherman. The Sherman's first round hit a tree; its second and third killed one armored car. The other AC swiveled its turret towards the tank but otherwise remained motionless. It also was killed by the tank. It seems to me that if you witnessed the demise of the other vehicle in your Section you would be a little more proactive in trying to survive such as immediately reversing or moving forward to get out of the line of fire. In another instance I ordered one of my tanks to fire at a dismounted but still operational tank. It did so and continued to do so when another tank came into view and proceeded to shoot my tank full of holes. It did not retarget to the imminent threat to its existence. The American tank had been in view the previous turn, backed out of sight and then moved forward to the same spot it occupied the turn before.

4. Vehicles with only a driver have no ready weapon and therefore can not "Target" to see LoS. Seems unrealistic that the driver can see to drive but can not check line of sight for possible threats along his movement path.

5. Crossing bridges is rather comical as the vehicles dip and bob and zigzag from side to side. The part that is not comical is the excessive time it takes to cross, rendering them far more vulnerable than they should be. My friend had several instances over a number of turns where vehicles would stop in the middle of the bridge and move no further that turn. Obviously it left the vehicles in rather vulnerable positions. The bridges and the land ends on each side were the same elevation.

6. I had a wounded Plt. HQ with -2 leadership and +1 nervous; he could not spot for artillery. Normal?

7. I had two German inf. guns, each towed by an Opel truck. Total ammo for each gun was 18 rounds. This seems very inadequate. Again, the vehicle was carrying thousands of rounds of SMG and rifle ammo but very little for its principal weapon.

8. I was trying to lay down a smoke screen with three Pz IV J tanks. Each had three smoke shells. Two would fire the smoke shells without a problem but one with a wounded TC would not. Is this normal?

There are a couple more regarding tank survivability and morale but they are more critical and I will post them in their own threads. I would be very interested in any comments regarding the above points.

[womble]

2. I ordered my armored infantry squads out of their tracks. After they had gone a distance from the vehicles I discovered they had not taken their panzerfausts.

The AT Rockets in tracks and jeeps are additional and extra. You have to grab them before you dismount. If your squad has some AT already, that won't show up as 'in' the vehicle, just in the squad's inventory. If it doesn't, they won't 'automatically' acquire the goodies from the transport.

3. Self preservation seems lacking. In one instance a three member HQ unit was hiding behind a low stone wall. An American unit jumped over the wall literally right next to the HQ. The men continued to "hide" and made no attempt to fight for their lives while the Americans slaughtered them.

Hidden troops (as in "troops with Hide orders") suffer. I think this seems to be a general rule. Hiding troops spend a lot of time staring at the dirt they're lying in and little time looking about them. Surprised at close range, they'd be pinned and suppressed before they could acquire the target, quickly becoming casualties. To my mind, when situations like that occur, there should be a greater chance of the surprised unit surrendering after taking a casualty or two.

In another instance two armored cars about 100 meters apart were flanked by a Sherman. The Sherman's first round hit a tree; its second and third killed one armored car. The other AC swiveled its turret towards the tank but otherwise remained motionless. It also was killed by the tank. It seems to me that if you witnessed the demise of the other vehicle in your Section you would be a little more proactive in trying to survive such as immediately reversing or moving forward to get out of the line of fire.

The cars were 100m apart. It's entirely possible that the second one didn't witness the demise of its section mate. Or at least didn't realise it was under threat too. I think you can put this one down to the joys of relative spotting.

In another instance I ordered one of my tanks to fire at a dismounted but still operational tank. It did so and continued to do so when another tank came into view and proceeded to shoot my tank full of holes. It did not retarget to the imminent threat to its existence.

I'd agree that sometimes the TacAI can get a bit single-minded if you give it target orders. But then I'm sure if it was a bit more flexible I'd be cursing it for firing on non-vital targets... I think there's some learning to do about when to leave the AI to target for itself (which I think, for example, it will do if a vehicle is only dismounted), so that it doesn't feel it's letting you down by shooting at a target you didn't tell it to.

5. Crossing bridges is rather comical as the vehicles dip and bob and zigzag from side to side.

One way point at the beginning of the bridge and one at the end, carefully centred on the roadbed, seems to be the only way to get sensible bridge crossing pathing.

6. I had a wounded Plt. HQ with -2 leadership and +1 nervous; he could not spot for artillery. Normal?

Was the leader dead?

7. I had two German inf. guns, each towed by an Opel truck. Total ammo for each gun was 18 rounds. This seems very inadequate. Again, the vehicle was carrying thousands of rounds of SMG and rifle ammo but very little for its principal weapon.

All trucks have spare small arms ammo on board. Very few seem to have heavy weapons ammo. There are some mortar trucks in the PanzerGrenadier TO which have mortar shells (similarly halftracks in the mechanised American formations), but towed pieces don't seem to get the same consideration. If they did, I think we'd see that only the trucks that are inherently part of the original gun section would have the extra ammo: if you added additional trucks to the section, they would not have more rounds assigned to them. And yes, 18 rounds apiece does seem pretty paltry.

[Vanir Ausf B]

IIRC there is a formation that contains vehicles with extra infantry gun ammo, but I don't remember which one.

[dieseltaylor]

I have had a veteran MP40 wielding officer miss seeing three US troopers run past his very large window at about 4 metres, open the cottage door and shoot him in the back.

And he was on a face command to hte window as I knew the troopers were on the adjacent wall. Not impressed as it was a competitive game.

[c3k]

smbecket,

Thank you for noting these oddities and posting them. I think you will get a lot more responses based on the tone you've set. No, the game isn't perfect. Having said that, I will add what I can to what has already been said. Take my comments as ADDITIONS to what is upstream.

A friend and I just finished a 65 turn PBEM game (Veteran units) and noticed several possible problems. There has been no testing to determine if they can be consistently replicated and I am not claiming they are bugs. They are just observations that did not seem correct. I am posting them to see if anyone else has had similar experiences. The list is as follows:

1. I ordered a Stummel to fire on a building and the first three rounds it fired were its last HEAT rounds; then it started using its HE. Doesn't seem logical to me that it would use its best anti-armor round on a bldg.

Agreed. This may have been noted already... Regardless, your post is prompting me to do a bit of testing on this.

2. I ordered my armored infantry squads out of their tracks. After they had gone a distance from the vehicles I discovered they had not taken their panzerfausts. It seems to me the PF would be part of their basic load-out as it is their only anti-armor weapon and would be carried whenever they left the HT. Also, why is there only one per track? They carry thousands of rounds of other ammo and I find it difficult to believe they would not carry 2, 3, or more panzerfausts since they have a HT to carry them in.

This goes into the TO&E. Do you have any sources backing up your contention that armored infantry squads should have more than 1 PzF per track? (Notice that I am not saying they should be limited to 1 PzF per track. You are finding it difficult to believe they don't have more. Sources are valuable. How many PzF were issued to armored infantry battalions per month? How many did the KStN authorize? Etc.)

3. Self preservation seems lacking. In one instance a three member HQ unit was hiding behind a low stone wall. An American unit jumped over the wall literally right next to the HQ. The men continued to "hide" and made no attempt to fight for their lives while the Americans slaughtered them. In another instance two armored cars about 100 meters apart were flanked by a Sherman. The Sherman's first round hit a tree; its second and third killed one armored car. The other AC swiveled its turret towards the tank but otherwise remained motionless. It also was killed by the tank. It seems to me that if you witnessed the demise of the other vehicle in your Section you would be a little more proactive in trying to survive such as immediately reversing or moving forward to get out of the line of fire. In another instance I ordered one of my tanks to fire at a dismounted but still operational tank. It did so and continued to do so when another tank came into view and proceeded to shoot my tank full of holes. It did not retarget to the imminent threat to its existence. The American tank had been in view the previous turn, backed out of sight and then moved forward to the same spot it occupied the turn before.

Yes, HIDING seems a bit too restrictive at times. However, did you NOT give them a self-protective covered arc just in case this happened? They were following your orders: HIDE no matter what until I release you. A covered arc would allow them to react to enemy who get too close. (How much angst would it cause when HIDING units open up at the enemy when you wanted them to stay hidden?)

Spotting explains - or could explain - the armored car.

Targeting vs. TacAI explains the tank pumping rounds into a dead tank - you had ordered it to do. If the enemy is near, do NOT restrict your tanks by giving a TARGET order. Let the TacAI do its work.

A limitation is that units do not have a memory of what just happened. That is unfortunate. So it doesn't matter that an enemy unit had just appeared there. The "?" will create awareness. Lacking any indication of an enemy unit, your unit will treat that area as non-threat. Does that make sense? (Creating a memory system for the TacAI would be great.)

4. Vehicles with only a driver have no ready weapon and therefore can not "Target" to see LoS. Seems unrealistic that the driver can see to drive but can not check line of sight for possible threats along his movement path.

True, drivers can see. However, how many truck swarms do you want to fight against as your opponent tries to find the best location for his follow-up tanks? I'm not saying this was designed as a gameplay mechanism (hey, maybe it was?), but I can understand the obvious misuse such a tool could create. If you want to check LOS, get a combat unit up there. Risk:reward. Just a persperctive you may not have thought about.

5. Crossing bridges is rather comical as the vehicles dip and bob and zigzag from side to side. The part that is not comical is the excessive time it takes to cross, rendering them far more vulnerable than they should be. My friend had several instances over a number of turns where vehicles would stop in the middle of the bridge and move no further that turn. Obviously it left the vehicles in rather vulnerable positions. The bridges and the land ends on each side were the same elevation.

Bridges seem to have some issues. I am no bridge expert, however, I have noted a difference in how units cross bridges based on EXACTLY how the crossing waypoints are plotted. ---A->--B--<-C--- "B" is Bridge center, A and C are just prior/after the bridge. If you plot only to B, then somewhere beyond, the behavior is different than if you plot only A then C. It (bridge movement) seems to need a bit more work. One of the ways I just mentioned USUALLY gets it right.

6. I had a wounded Plt. HQ with -2 leadership and +1 nervous; he could not spot for artillery. Normal?

There are too many specifics here which could cause this. Did the Plt HQ have a radio anymore? Did it have an unbroken chain of command/communications up and off the board? What were the artillery units in question? Did that Plt HQ ever have the ability to spot for artillery, even before it was wounded and nervous? The game models a lot more than just "every HQ can spot". I'm sure you're aware of this, but others may not be. The manual gives a good start on figuring out what goes into this.

7. I had two German inf. guns, each towed by an Opel truck. Total ammo for each gun was 18 rounds. This seems very inadequate. Again, the vehicle was carrying thousands of rounds of SMG and rifle ammo but very little for its principal weapon.

The Opel truck does not have a principal weapon. Granted, if a gun has a dedicated towing vehicle, it would be nice to have more ammo. MOST guns/mortars have ammo teams which accompany the gun. These teams are the "owners" of the usual extra ammo. Which guns did you have (7.5 or 15 cm?), and how did you get them (the TO&E to which they belong goes a long way to determining how much ammo they come with)?

8. I was trying to lay down a smoke screen with three Pz IV J tanks. Each had three smoke shells. Two would fire the smoke shells without a problem but one with a wounded TC would not. Is this normal?

This seems odd. I hate to ask, but are you SURE the Pz IV J with the wounded TC still had smoke shells?

There are a couple more regarding tank survivability and morale but they are more critical and I will post them in their own threads. I would be very interested in any comments regarding the above points.

Again, thanks for noting these issues.

Ken

[rune]

A tank generally if loaded will fire to clear the tube unless of unload and reload, which I think was SOP back then. It may have been a case of that, but testing it would be good to be sure.

Rune

[c3k]

(rune, I _think_ that the game does not pre-load the type of shell into weapons. It assumes a shell is loaded and at the instant of deciding to fire the type of shell is determined. A bit of Schrodinger; the shell doesn't exist until it is revealed. That prevents a hue and cry arising from ALWAYS having AP loaded when every grog knows that it should HE. Or vice versa. This has been true since CMBO.)

[YankeeDog]

My $.02, responding only to the ones where I feel like I have something to contribute:

1. The Stummel is not an anti-armor asset, it's an infantry support asset. HEAT is not necessarily exclusively for anti-armor work; it's also very effective against infantry in built up structures like buildings or bunkers; it's often more effective against infantry in this kind of cover than regular HE. So I think the Stummel crew was just using the best round for the job at hand.

2. I agree with c3k here -- lacking any definitive info on how good the supply of Pfausts was in Normandy, and how many German Armored infantry typically carried, I defer to BFC's judgment as they generally do a very good job of research. If you have access to any information showing that German units in Normandy typically had significantly more Pfausts than what is shown in-game, I'm sure BFC would love to hear it.

Issue of the exact number Pfausts aside, note that equipping them as part of the vehicle load, rather than as part of squads' starting loadout gives you more flexibility, since you can choose which unit(s) carry the Pfausts. You could, for example, designate one squad in the platoon as the Tank Hunter squad, load it up with all of the Panzerfausts, and deploy accordingly.

3. Self preservation is a funky thing... I've seen tanks retreat from fights where they clearly had the upper hand, and I've also seen units attempt to stand and fight when in my opinion they probably should have run. Clearly, there's a lot of "fuzzy logic" going on here. Morale state probably has a lot to do with it. While it may be that the "fight or flight" AI behavior could use tweaking here and there, I suggest avoiding general conclusions drawn from just one or two incidents. BFC has done a pretty good job of giving the Pixeltruppen a "mind of their own", and there's a range of behavior that may happen in any given combat situation (which is certainly realistic).

5. Bridge pathing could definitely use some work. For now, the suggestions made as to exactly how to plot orders across a bridge will help.

6. Any of a number of things could be the case here. Did the Plt HQ still have a radio? What type of battery specifically were you trying to call support for? Some higher level assets especially can require a true FO team.

[akd]

German squads (depending on the type) have a random chance of being equipped with up to 4 (I think) panzerfausts. There is no fixed number in the TO&E, and very occasionally you might "roll" a squad with no panzerfausts. The PFs in halftracks are not tied to the dismounts' TO&E and are available for anyone to acquire.

[sburke]

In another instance two armored cars about 100 meters apart were flanked by a Sherman. The Sherman's first round hit a tree; its second and third killed one armored car. The other AC swiveled its turret towards the tank but otherwise remained motionless. It also was killed by the tank. It seems to me that if you witnessed the demise of the other vehicle in your Section you would be a little more proactive in trying to survive such as immediately reversing or moving forward to get out of the line of fire.

I had posted a similar incident in another thread about relative spotting. In my case the ambushed vehicles did not spot the ambusher. The first went down immediately. The second was hit with a mobility shot. It was at that point that it was finally aware that it was recieving flanking fire, but as the crew was now suppressed and near panic all it was able to achieve before the final shot was to orient it's turret in the general direction of the attacker.

If you are able to view the game from both sides now that it is over it may be worth review. It really drives home concerns like - is the crew buttoned up or suffered any previous casualties etc. I know there has been a lot of discussion and dissension about MGs etc opening up on TCs and how effective they are or not, but from my experience forcing up a tank to button up can pay huge dividends.

[Michael Emrys]

Targeting vs. TacAI explains the tank pumping rounds into a dead tank - you had ordered it to do. If the enemy is near, do NOT restrict your tanks by giving a TARGET order. Let the TacAI do its work.

Also worth noting that the AI will pump rounds into a dead/abandoned tank until it burns or explodes.

Michael

[sburke]

Having seen my opponent recrew a Sherman on me, that isn't such a bad thing.

[ClarkWGriswold]

It's definitely a good thing. Had the OP not given his tank an explicit order to target the dismounted enemy tank, it more than likely would have taken out the active enemy tank, then dealt with the dismounted tank later when it wasn't under direct threat.

[c3k]

Regarding the following:

1. I ordered a Stummel to fire on a building and the first three rounds it fired were its last HEAT rounds; then it started using its HE. Doesn't seem logical to me that it would use its best anti-armor round on a bldg.

A quick test with 10 Stummels, unsuppressed, etc., TARGET vs. a building shows that all 10 Stummels fired all their HEAT rounds prior to firing any HE rounds. I concur that this behavior does not seem correct. It has been submitted to BF.C. (Note that submitting it does NOT mean it is in need of fixing. This merely starts the "closer look" process followed by the "examining underlaying assumptions" decision tree. ) Thanks for posting.

8. I was trying to lay down a smoke screen with three Pz IV J tanks. Each had three smoke shells. Two would fire the smoke shells without a problem but one with a wounded TC would not. Is this normal?

No, this is not normal. I just finished testing with a full-up battalion of PzIVJ's. That's 91 of them. I was able to get 15 with dead TC's. (3 had 2 casualties, 2 had wounded TC's. I stopped at that sample size.) Yes, this took hours. Every single PzIVJ, whether fully crewed, down 1, or down 2 (or with a wounded member) fired off all 3 of their smoke rounds when ordered to fire SMOKE at an area target about 400 meters away.

You may need to post more details, or better yet, a screenshot/savegame. I am willing to bet that there was some other reason why your tank did not fire its smoke shells.

Regards,

Ken

[smbecket]

I sincerely thank everyone who has posted a response to my list of possible problems. Due to your insights and questions I spent a good part of today reviewing saved game turns. It was well worth it from my perspective as I have found several errors in the information I posted (my apologies) and learned a lot about the game interface and how the game works. I should state that the infantry in the scenario was a company from an armored PG BN. The following are my responses keyed to the numbered items in my OP.

1. As far as the Stummel knew the building was empty. I was just trying to destroy a building to see how long it took, what the damage looked like, etc. I will remember YankeeDog's comment about the effectiveness of HEAT rounds against infantry in a building, however!

2. The PF issue is very interesting. No, I do not have any information on the number of them issued to units in Normandy or the rate of issue. I did go back and look at all of my squads and found that my specific reference in the OP was the one Plt. that had zero PFs. Another Plt. had one PF and the third Plt. had two PFs. So, three PFs for nine squads. akd's post indicates that I should have expected far more. However, if the allocation is completely random the number I received could have been just been the luck, or unluckiness, of the draw. I will do some more testing and keep an eye on this in the future.

3. The self preservation issue is where I assumed more than I should have. From reading a number of posts here on the forum I believed that the TAC AI was hard coded to disregard player orders whenever the self preservation of a unit was concerned. It is obvious I will have to take greater care to issue cover arcs and insure that all threats such as nearby tanks are dealt with before I worry about dismounted tanks. My opponent did manage to remount that tank and drive it away.

My OP was badly in error regarding the two ACs, however. I blame it on the fast moving combat situation and my poor notes on the action. It was very helpful, as sburke suggested, to review the action from both sides, as I was able to do. It demonstrated that you can be quite wrong in what you were sure happened! The two ACs (PSW 234/1) were 105 meters apart, facing to the NW. A Sherman M4 mid spotted them from appx. 575 meters to their right and slightly to the rear. The AC closest to the Sherman was the Plt. HQ. The other AC could not see the HQ vehicle because of three haystacks . The Sherman targetted the HQ AC first. With two main gun rounds and .50 MG fire it destroyed it. Interestingly, as soon as the HQ AC was dead the other one began to turn its turret and hull towards the tank. It was penetrated twice by .50 MG fire while the first main gun round exploded in trees in front of the tank. The second main gun round destroyed the AC. The lesson learned is if I am going to leave units still for a few turns very carefully check LoS in all directions and station them in areas with cover in as many directions as possible. It is an open question in my mind whether the second AC should have acted to move out of the area but as YankeeDog said "there is a range of behavior in any given combat situation..."

4. c3k, I understand and agree that some features can be used in a gamey fashion and perhaps this was done for that purpose but it can have serious ramifications if a vehicle that normally is left behind the area of combat is needed to pick up a unit and move it elsewhere or move it out of harms way. I would like to see this changed but it certainly is not a major issue.

5. As far as bridges are concerned the waypoint just before the bridge and the one just after the bridge, both centered, is how I always plot a crossing. I believe my friend uses the same method. I will try it with one waypoint in the center of the bridge also and see if that helps.

6. The HQ not spotting seems very easy to explain after considering the posts from womble, c3k and YankeeDog. The spotter was the last survivior of the 3rd Plt. HQ, 7th CO., PG BN. He was not the leader so the leader was dead. He was the man with the rifle. He still had the radio. The assets available to call were the two 7.5 cm inf. guns, two 81 mm on-board mortars and a 105 mm off-board howitzer. I would sum it up as above his pay grade.

7. The two 7.5 cm inf. guns were part of the PZ Aufklarung BN and came with the Opel Blitz trucks.

8. c3k, yes the tank still had three smoke shells but, unfortunately, it had a damaged main gun. I humbly apologize for putting you to all the trouble of running that test and wasting so much of your time. During the entire game I never once thought to click on the other two icons (wrench and shield) that would have showed me what they provided in the way of information. I saw the default ammo listing and never looked any further.

[ClarkWGriswold]

Glad you were able to resolve or figure out most of your issues. I think that figuring out the how's and why's of the game mechanics are often more problematic than actually developing and employing an effective strategy.

3. The self preservation issue is where I assumed more than I should have. From reading a number of posts here on the forum I believed that the TAC AI was hard coded to disregard player orders whenever the self preservation of a unit was concerned.

That is more or less true. However, hiding units receive what is, in essence, a spotting penalty. Often times they get suppressed and slaughtered before they even know they're in trouble. It seems that's what happened to some of your men. As far as the tank that was area firing, I wonder if he even saw the threat before he was shot up, or if the crew was spending most of its time and energy looking at their ordered area target. It would be interesting to know how many seconds the enemy tank was in view, without being fired upon, before your tank was destroyed. My guess is, your commander didn't spot the threat until it was far too late to take action.

[theFightingSeabee]

Good thread smbecket. Opening this type of dialog about issues with the game is very constructive. C3k is very good about paying bugs on the tester forum and bfc is very good about addressing those bugs. Thanks for the detailed descriptions if the odd things you noticed!

[MikeyD]

3. Self preservation seems lacking. In one instance a three member HQ unit was hiding behind a low stone wall.

Back in CMSF there were howls of protest over units insisting on breaking from hiding on their own. So the behavior was dialed back a bit and then were still protests. So it was dialled back some more. What you're seeing in CM:BN with 'strick' hiding protocol is the result of BFC being browbeaten on the topic in the other title. I'm not saying its ideal, I've often joked that nobody can talk themselves out of a good feature like a CM player can.