Nonsense.....

[WriterJWA]

I certainly hope the developers patch in a method for reducing wire obstacles with wire cutters, grenades, or indirect fire when engineers are not given to the player in a scenario. This whole forced "hey-diddle-diddle-straight-up-the-middle into defender-chosen avenues of approach because you don't have engineers" nonsense is gamey and, quite frankly, indicative of either a lack of research of basic infantry skills (even for WWII. See: WWI) or just general apathy for a crucial piece of realism.

Here's a question.... how is Battlefront going to handle the Siegfried Line? Will I need engineers for ever single scenario and be forced to "Pickett's Charge" pillboxes when I don't?

Sorry, I know I'm being harsh ... but it's a bit of a wiiiide oversight.

[JonS]

I certainly hope the developers patch in a method for reducing wire obstacles with ... indirect fire when engineers are not given to the player in a scenario.

This is already in, dick.

Sorry, I know I'm being harsh ... but it's a bit of a wiiiide oversight.

Yeah, what he said

[FragerZ]

This is already in, dick.

Hey now, no need to start name-calling.

[WriterJWA]

This is already in, dick.

Yeah, what he said

I'll skip the name-calling and just ask: If it's in, how does one use it? I've attempted to breach wire-obstacles with infantry and indirect fire ... and can't.

[MikeyD]

It was assumed when people were demanding to see barbed wire back in CMSF that they wanted it in as an actual obstacle and not just eye candy. What's the point of making the effort to code it up if infantry can then flow through like water through a strainer?

[FragerZ]

I don't think you can, unless you get a vehicle to roll over it. It's more of a scenario design issue. If the author wanted you to be able to go outside of the beaten patch, he would have given you breach teams.

[WriterJWA]

It was assumed when people were demanding to see barbed wire back in CMSF that they wanted it in as an actual obstacle and not just eye candy. What's the point of making the effort to code it up if infantry can then flow through like water through a strainer?

I guess what I would hope for is that infantry would have to stop at the obstacle and spend time using wire cutters. Perhaps indirect fire of lesser calibers and grenades could have a diminished chance of breaching a wire obstacle, or it takes more to do so, than a well-placed breaching charge would, which would fit with reality. The obstacle would still be that and would still pose a threat.

Believe it or not, however, infantrymen are and were trained to breach obstacles.....

[JonS]

I'll skip the name-calling

It's a bit late to be getting precious now.

how does one use it?

Point artillery, shoot. Same as any other target.

[Ranger33]

I think infantry should at least be able to slowly cross barbed wire, and maybe a few suffer injuries (turn from green to yellow) just like tanks running over stuff. Seems like a fair compromise to me.

[RockinHarry]

For german infantry, wire cutters were plentyful, not just for the engineer types. Think there was at least one a squad, with more in the HQ sections.

Think that´s not the issue, giving CMBN infantry bits of obstacle clearing capabilities, but as is almost always the case, ...how to tell the AI to applicate?

For clearing paths through mines, we have "mark mines". Theoretically something similar can be implemented for "marking wire", where at last soldiers can slip through slowly in single file, beeing quite vulnerable to enemy fire during the preocess.

Btw, ...does the AI use the "mark mines" command? :confused:

Maybe it´s also assumed in the game, that cutting through a standard single AS wire obstacle, takes too long for beeing within scope and time frame of CMBN engagements?

One disadvantage of blowing through wire (breach teams) with explosives, is that it´s not a silent process and thus can not be concealed from the enemy.

[Holien]

Believe it or not, however, infantrymen are and were trained to breach obstacles.....

Just wait until you try to get through low bocage....

It would seem it is a compromise and it might add weight to having some terrain features that take longer to get through and expose the men more if they choose that route.

This could perhaps be applied to Barb Wire and Low Bocage?

Anyway as it stands you can't and you will have to live with it and accept it as part of the game.

People get a bit itchy if you start making wide sweeping statements....

Really as the way it stands at the moment we are in he hands of the scenario designers and I hope via the forum the message will get through and also via the forum the good scenarios will float to the top and allow players to enjoy the game to the max while minimising these slight annoyances...

[winkelried]

One disadvantage of blowing through wire (breach teams) with explosives, is that it´s not a silent process and thus can not be concealed from the enemy.

Wire-cutting is far from being a silent process when the wire is laid out properly. usually you would attach empty tins or other ways to make noise when the tension of the wire changes significantly. so to do the wire-cutting silently would take pretty long. if you have the time - fine.

but remember an obstacle without fire (covering MG etc) is no obstacle. in addition we usually mined wire obstacles - with anti-personnel mines and claymores.

best results in my rl experience were with bangalores (used by engineers in CMBN) or other explosives under smoke cover. artillery was always a bit an unreliable friend, since it would be difficult to get the accuracy required at the point you wanted.

in CMBN i usually rely on breach teams under smoke cover.

since obstacles are (normally) covered with fire the use of explosives is not an issue, what you need then is good suppressive fire and maybe an artillery preparation or smoke.

[RockinHarry]

Wire-cutting is far from being a silent process when the wire is laid out properly. usually you would attach empty tins or other ways to make noise when the tension of the wire changes significantly. so to do the wire-cutting silently would take pretty long. if you have the time - fine.

but remember an obstacle without fire (covering MG etc) is no obstacle. in addition we usually mined wire obstacles - with anti-personnel mines and claymores.

best results in my rl experience were with bangalores (used by engineers in CMBN) or other explosives under smoke cover. artillery was always a bit an unreliable friend, since it would be difficult to get the accuracy required at the point you wanted.

in CMBN i usually rely on breach teams under smoke cover.

since obstacles are (normally) covered with fire the use of explosives is not an issue, what you need then is good suppressive fire and maybe an artillery preparation or smoke.

Off course you´re right, although that are even finer details of obstacle tactics.

Beside suppressing any defender likely covering wire obstacles with fire, what about night time, fog and smoke?

It´s also about how elaborate one assumes a defenders position. "Simple" wire obstacles are usually laid shortly after having dug in, with more elaborate ones if time and means (incl. engineer support) available.

I´d assume the CMBN wire obstacle to be of the "elaborate" type, which only can be cut through assuming a pre game setting with wire cutting teams sent in during the night prior to an assault.

It´s maybe up to a scenario designer to have something like that considered.

[winkelried]

It´s maybe up to a scenario designer to have something like that considered.

exactly - i think that's the key point. also when deciding on which kind of force mix to allocate. when you look at the German TO&Es there are plenty of combat engineers on batallion and regimental level - but you rarely get them in a scenario or a campaign.

[winkelried]

Beside suppressing any defender likely covering wire obstacles with fire, what about night time, fog and smoke?

even with a pretty hasty defense, you would to a few things automatically:

dig your foxhole, set-up first obstacles like concertina wire (aka Dannert wire) which can be done within minutes by a single guy, lay a few mines and trip wires (maybe with booby traps). set up firing positions for your heavy MGs and LMGs with fire sectors marked (e.g. with sticks in your firing position) so you could even fire blindly into the night or smoke after hearing noise. then plan fires with TRPs. dig further, fill sandbags etc ...

[RockinHarry]

even with a pretty hasty defense, you would to a few things automatically:

dig your foxhole, set-up first obstacles like concertina wire (aka Dannert wire) which can be done within minutes by a single guy, lay a few mines and trip wires (maybe with booby traps). set up firing positions for your heavy MGs and LMGs with fire sectors marked (e.g. with sticks in your firing position) so you could even fire blindly into the night or smoke after hearing noise. then plan fires with TRPs. dig further, fill sandbags etc ...

Correct. Also worth for scenario makers (or players setting up their wire if possible) to consider, is placing wire at least outside hand grenade range of the defenders positions. This would be at least for the "hasty" squad or strongpoint defense. The more elaborate defense would also see wire to be placed farther into no mans land, but usually this involves engineer support, sufficient time and the attacker yet farther away from the MLR.

[WriterJWA]

Ok ... artillery doesn't seem to destroy wire obstacles as mentioned here..... yeah. I also know vehicles don't work, either.

This is really killing game play for me. There are two scenarios where I have to do this BS frontal assault nonsense and, naturally, it's a bloodbath. I've tried every measure of suppression possible ... nothing.

I love 95 percent of this game. But this is a bit much. It's like the developers and scenarios designers just basically said, "yeah, f--k tactics." It's rather lame for a combat tactical simulation.

Sorry... not out to troll, but I'm really getting frustrated with this. Not being able to do things any infantryman can do, such as breach wire obstacles and scale hedges that are half the height of the average man is a bit ridiculous....

[Holien]

Sorry... not out to troll, but I'm really getting frustrated with this. Not being able to do things any infantryman can do, such as breach wire obstacles and scale hedges that are half the height of the average man is a bit ridiculous....

What scenario? Place Spoiler before you post....

[sburke]

Ok ... artillery doesn't seem to destroy wire obstacles as mentioned here..... yeah. I also know vehicles don't work, either.

This is really killing game play for me. There are two scenarios where I have to do this BS frontal assault nonsense and, naturally, it's a bloodbath. I've tried every measure of suppression possible ... nothing.

I love 95 percent of this game. But this is a bit much. It's like the developers and scenarios designers just basically said, "yeah, f--k tactics." It's rather lame for a combat tactical simulation.

Sorry... not out to troll, but I'm really getting frustrated with this. Not being able to do things any infantryman can do, such as breach wire obstacles and scale hedges that are half the height of the average man is a bit ridiculous....

My advice- don't let it kill the game for you. Either don't play those scenarios or if they are not in a campaign, edit them. Some designers specifically want to create a particular situation and make you figure it out. Other times it is simply that they are looking at some other aspect and aren't looking at it the same way as you.

There are definitely some shortcomings in what you can do. Some times it is premised around the actual combat the game is intended to simulate and the actions you desire simply were not actual practrice on a scale that they feel needs to be addressed. Other times it is simply that the engine doesn't yet have the capability to reflect the desired behavior. Either way, it just isn't there right now and what is left is for you to figure out how to eliminate this as an issue for your enjoyment of the product. You bought it, it's yours to do with as you will. If you think a scenario is designed in a way you don't like- edit it. There is nothing wrong with doing so. As an example the short hedgerow issue - don't get caught up in whether or not they should be able to get over a short hedgerow. The game just doesn't allow it - period. So go edit the map and replace a few of those short hedgerows with regular hedges. There has been a lot of discussion about map creation and trying to develop maps that are closer to real world. The debate about hedgerow conditions is an onging one in this forum as is map design. There is no final answer, Normandy is real life- conditions varied greatly all over the place. Sometimes hedgerows were heavy duty obstacles. Other times maybe not so much due to a lot of possible considerations. Either way, decide for yourself what you think it should be, fix it and go back to enjoying the game.

The only caveat being, if you do edit it and go to play PBEM, make sure you discuss with your opponent what you changed.

[winkelried]

Ok ... artillery doesn't seem to destroy wire obstacles as mentioned here..... yeah. I also know vehicles don't work, either.

just did a test scenario 105er and bigger breaches wire if a direct hit occurs. tanks (M3 and M4) breach wire. Halftracks and wheeled vehicles don't.

[WriterJWA]

What scenario? Place Spoiler before you post....

SPOILERS!! *********************************************************************************

It's the ninth(?) scenario in the Road to Montebourg campaign. It's where D and E companies/502nd are required to push down to a creek, cross the creek, and take the opposite ridge where a number of pillboxes and machine gun emplacements wait in defense.

There is token infantry resistance on the ground before the creek which I have no problem suppressing and eliminating or forcing to surrender. I take very few casualties doing this. At most, I take casualties from the short German barrages when I don't advance fast enough.

Once I get to the last line of bocage before the creek ... that's where things begin falling off. The best way seems to be to advance up the left side of the map where full bocage runs all the way down the creek providing at least half the cover and concealment needed to get across. This approach, however, is blocked by the aforementioned superman wire obstacles and the scenario comes with no engineer support.

Going up the center is obviously madness as it invites fire from the whole range of guns left to right. So ... I've tried the right, which ensures that I'd only take fire from a portion of the ridge.

Unfortunately, however, the superman uncrossable mini-hedges force me to channel up toward one gap in the far bocage which is, incidentally, covered by a wooden bunker. I don't seem to have smoke rounds for the mortars and artillery and I can't naturally throw smoke grenades that far. Also, I've attempted to blast the bunker itself with 75mm and 81mm point mortar fire while suppressing the length of the back of the bocage with 60mm fire while also including a large portion of my force providing base-of-fire support from across the creek just before and during the assault across the creek. However, I'm still going up the channel and thus a single burst of German MG fire can cut down quite a few ... nevermind the overall break in morale in the assault force.

[Lee_Vincent]

I've attempted to breach wire-obstacles with infantry and indirect fire ... and can't.

Sure worked in WW1...

Definitely agree about the low hedgerows!

[Childress]

SPOILERS!! *********************************************************************************

It's the ninth(?) scenario in the Road to Montebourg campaign. It's where D and E companies/502nd are required to push down to a creek, cross the creek, and take the opposite ridge where a number of pillboxes and machine gun emplacements wait in defense.

There is token infantry resistance on the ground before the creek which I have no problem suppressing and eliminating or forcing to surrender. I take very few casualties doing this. At most, I take casualties from the short German barrages when I don't advance fast enough.

Once I get to the last line of bocage before the creek ... that's where things begin falling off. The best way seems to be to advance up the left side of the map where full bocage runs all the way down the creek providing at least half the cover and concealment needed to get across. This approach, however, is blocked by the aforementioned superman wire obstacles and the scenario comes with no engineer support.

Going up the center is obviously madness as it invites fire from the whole range of guns left to right. So ... I've tried the right, which ensures that I'd only take fire from a portion of the ridge.

Unfortunately, however, the superman uncrossable mini-hedges force me to channel up toward one gap in the far bocage which is, incidentally, covered by a wooden bunker. I don't seem to have smoke rounds for the mortars and artillery and I can't naturally throw smoke grenades that far. Also, I've attempted to blast the bunker itself with 75mm and 81mm point mortar fire while suppressing the length of the back of the bocage with 60mm fire while also including a large portion of my force providing base-of-fire support from across the creek just before and during the assault across the creek. However, I'm still going up the channel and thus a single burst of German MG fire can cut down quite a few ... nevermind the overall break in morale in the assault force.

WriterJWA, I realize your intent in typing this was to illustrate an issue/limitation you have with CMBN. But you ended up composing a great advertisement for the game. Riveting stuff!

[mjkerner]

SPOILERS!! *********************************************************************************

It's the ninth(?) scenario in the Road to Montebourg campaign.

No wonder!

But there were situations in RL like this, of course. Wait 'til Huertgen Forest scenarios get here (hopefully) with the Bulge game. But what sburke said....

[YankeeDog]

Well, I'm a little reluctant to say so given the juvenile tone of the OP, but as I have said in the past, I think it would have been a better design choice if wire obstacles were not completely impenetrable to infantry short of blowing them up or grinding a hole through them with tracks. I would much rather have wire obstacles that could be passed through, but only very slowly and at considerable exposure to enemy fire.

Overall, if I ran the circus, wire would be effectively impassable as long as covered by a decent volume of small arms or mortar fire. But wire, by itself, should not be able to completely stop infantry from moving along any given route. Combined with MGs and/or TRPs, it should be deadly. By itself, it should just be an annoyance.

I think this would give a much better impression of how wire is usually used on the typical CM-scale battlefield. Really high, thick wire obstacles that would be impassable to infantry (or nearly so) are possible, but this kind of defensive work is mostly something you'd see around permanent or semi-permanent installations, and I don't think this is the most important type of wire obstacle to represent on the CM battlefield. If we could get both a "light" and "heavy" wire obstacle, that would be great. But given the choice of one or the other, I'd rather just have "light".

But it is what it is, I don't run the circus, and it's certainly not a game killer for me. For now, I think it's best for designers to be mindful of how and where they place wire, and strongly consider including breach or other teams that have demo charges with any attacking force if there's wire on the map, to represent infantry's ability to work their way through wire on their own with a bit of effort if the wire is left uncovered by defensive fire (though explosives would not necessarily be the only option, IRL).

The low bocage thing doesn't bother me so much, so long as it's not deployed on the map as unbroken lengths without any gaps or small sections of hedge that can be moved through with a bit of effort. I do think it would have been better if the graphical representation of low bocage was about a foot higher and maybe slightly thicker as well, as the visual representation is a bit out of synch with the tactical effects. There are specific maps that I think use it incorrectly as a continuous, impassable barrier, but this is a map/scenario design criticism, not a game design issue as such.