Jump to content
Battlefront is now Slitherine ×

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 128
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

We don't. It doesn't happen that often (or last very long when it does, usually, if it's been prepped properly) and the work involved in generating the animations wasn't deemed worth the effort, if I remember the statements from Steve et al correctly.

Posted
We don't. It doesn't happen that often (or last very long when it does, usually, if it's been prepped properly) and the work involved in generating the animations wasn't deemed worth the effort, if I remember the statements from Steve et al correctly.

Hand to hand combat did not happen very often?? :confused:

Ok...leaving that aside for the more civilized western front for now, but what could have happened more realistically in the video shown above?

The (played by AI) US GI´s were to assault the german strongpoint in the mids of the forest and finally succeded. Would they prepare for that, fixing bayonets beforehand?

I ordered the german crew from the shelter to disembark, but I (they) wasn´t aware, the Gi´s were already in the trenches before the bunker.

Both sides were pretty surprised to find each other eye to eye, so what could have happened realistically? I´d say the germans would have raised hands instantly, even when considering they´re veterans and in OK status. Beeing decimated, cut off and obviously surrounded in this death trap leaves not much of an option.

The US GIs having the advantage of semi automatic rifles, the germans have not and when in the mids of the enemy would not find much of an oportunity to operate their bolt action rifles quick enough. So they either surrender, run for their lives, or...engage in hand to hand combat. The video shows 2 germans pitted vs 5 GIs in closest proximity (with maybe a dozen more nearby), so at last I´d promote the remaining german soldier the iron cross and golden close combat badge...posthumously. :D

Posted

From Wikipedia:

During the Korean War, Lewis L. Millett led soldiers of the US Army's 27th Infantry Regiment in taking out a machine gun position with bayonets. Millett was awarded the Medal of Honor for this action. This was the last bayonet charge by the US Army.

Posted
Hand to hand combat did not happen very often?? :confused:

It certainly doesn't happen in every scenario I've played. Most of the time a position is neutralised by fire before anyone has to enter it. Most of the time. And of the remaining times, a good quantity could "satisfyingly" be considered to have been concluded by fire (house clearances, I'm thinking of, for the most part). Most of the time when I've advanced one squad onto the position of another squad, it's been to accept their surrender.

...what could have happened more realistically in the video shown above?

Yes, sometimes really close combat does occur in the game that really, in an ideal world would be played out by articulated AI hand-to-hand combat with accurate mapping of polygon intersections to see whether a bayonet thrust or shovel swing hit home, just like ranged combat is resolved. But the resources that would have to be devoted to that would then not be available to model other situations which

In

Battlefront's

Assessment

happen far more frequently and have greater impact on the game and its play than the relatively rare cases of interpenetrating opposed squads both in good enough order to actually engage in bayonet work.

Would they prepare for that, fixing bayonets beforehand?

No, they'd prepare for it by making sure the enemy were suppressed to pin point and lob grenades in on the poor cowering Jerries. Most of the time.

Both sides were pretty surprised to find each other eye to eye, so what could have happened realistically? I´d say the germans would have raised hands instantly, even when considering they´re veterans and in OK status. Beeing decimated, cut off and obviously surrounded in this death trap leaves not much of an option.

The US GIs having the advantage of semi automatic rifles, the germans have not and when in the mids of the enemy would not find much of an oportunity to operate their bolt action rifles quick enough. So they either surrender, run for their lives, or...engage in hand to hand combat. The video shows 2 germans pitted vs 5 GIs in closest proximity (with maybe a dozen more nearby), so at last I´d promote the remaining german soldier the iron cross and golden close combat badge...posthumously. :D

IIRC, actual close combat is abstracted and then represented by the game as an odd-looking close range firefight. Ain't it great that there's some variability and the Veterans got over their surprise first and mostly turned the tables on the enemy (which they probably wouldn't if you hadn't taken the initiative and had them sortie).

What do you want to happen? Every time what you expect (the surrender scenario you mention)? Or is it just the animation you want to see? BFC aren't a megabuck-chucking design studio and have to prioritise where their art bucks go. They don't think the animation of melee combat is as important as other things.

Posted

in cmbo it was represented by the troops leaning backwards with a funny punch sound..If its the same period we should have some close combat fight still...

ANNND!!...damn would it be awesome to bayonet some soldiers lol...with good animations..I would do bayonet charges just for the fun of it...and eventually get mowed down..

My sergent used to tell us in the forces...

''Bayonet training??...pfff guys youll never make it this close with all the automatic weapons...youll die well before that..''

Still...I took some classes on my time.

Posted

I just browsed (again) my large collection of WW2 western front ebooks with "bayonet" keyword and found it mentioned often enough in relation to close combat situations, that I wouldn´t say it were rare occurances. Germans probably used it more often than US did, not for the lack of nuts, but rather for their superiority in close range and general firepower. It´s maybe not quite a popular topic to discuss in combat reports, when it´s just enough to tell.."we went into german positions and slaughtered them", but do not give details about how they actually did it.

"close combat is abstracted and then represented by the game as an odd-looking close range firefight"

No idea about that and not a professional abstraction IMO. If again it´s a lack of animation sequences, then just reuse an existing one, add a "stab enemy sound" (similar to CMX1), done. Way more convincing than point blank shoot outs.

It´s not a game breaker, yet a nice to have. :cool:

Edit: Found a nice little example from "The Lorraine Campaign" (page 95):

"The Congressional Medal of Honor was awarded to 2d Lt. Edgar H. Lloyd for leading his men through a deadly cross fire, knocking out the first German machine gunner he met with his fist, and killing the crew with a hand

grenade. In this fight Lieutenant Lloyd personally accounted for five machine guns. Sgt. William B. Humphrey was awarded the DSC for action that took place at the same time when he killed numerous German machine gunners with bayonet and grenades."

I think those occurances were pretty rare. ...or not?

Posted

Oooh, I'd love to have better close range animations and the sound of ringing steel as bayonets clash with bayonets. :)

One of my books, no doubt deeply covered in dust at the moment, included a large amount of US Civil War battle wound analysis. The number of dead and wounded with bayonet wounds was incredibly small. Now, you'll say, "Yeah, but that was then, and this is, um, later." Take it for what it's worth. I'd've thought the proportion of bayonet casualties would be far higher than it was. The number who survived bayoneting was lower than expected.

The thrust of the report (okay, that was a poor pun) was that only one side or the other would have the courage to want to close with the enemy to bayonet them at that moment in time. (Suppression, a poor position, etc., would play into that morale state at that moment.) The side that did not want to plunge a bayonet into their opponent would, upon seeing men determined and actively trying to impale them, would flee before being impaled. Usually. If they did not, they died. Usually. Obviously, this analysis stuck in my mind. (Oh, that was a weak pun. But I tried.)

What's the point? (Oops, I did it again.) Bayoneting an enemy was extremely rare in the US Civil War, a conflict which saw the bayonet as a much more useful weapon then it was in WWII. If it was that rare in the US Civil War, how many times did someone actually get stabbed with a bayonet in WWII?

I'd still like hand-to-hand combat to simulated in a better manner in CMBN. That way a night-time trench raid would really be something to behold.

Posted
I just browsed (again) my large collection of WW2 western front ebooks with "bayonet" keyword and found it mentioned often enough in relation to close combat situations, that I wouldn´t say it were rare occurances.

Nobody's saying it never happened. Yes it did, obviously, and those occurrences were notable enough to be recorded. Ancedotes make lousy evidence for frequency of a particular thing happening, because if it's rare it's more likely to stick in the memory.

How often does this sort of close range action occur in a CMBN game? I have lost count how many houses I've assaulted, but I can remember the two times there actually turned out to be an enemy willing to fight left in the house. Adding close combat animations would probably have occupied a grand total of 250pTruppen-seconds (3 Truppen a side for 40s, roughly, twice) out of the million or more pTruppen-seconds that have elapsed while playing the game. And those didn't look near as odd in the particular situations in which they occurred as the fight you show outside the bunker.

While it would be massively cool to have good animations, I am doubtful whether some 'generic' animations would add anything very often and they might look hinky enough to detract. And doing it "properly" would take a lot of resources. For quite small returns.

Posted

"Charging or attacking with bayonet" was just one example of various possible when speaking of "close combat", so no need to stick at it. It could be using fist, rifle butt, entrenching tool, knive or ...fixed bayonets.

I do not know the WW2 training regulations for the US, but I have most for germans of that period. I do not want to go into details now, but close combat was not constantly trained without purpose.

And we´re still speaking of WW2, not CW, Korea, Vietnam or Iraque.

CMBN game mechanics can´t be taken as measure for occurances of close combat situations. I think it´s purposely modelled this way, maybe a leftover from CMSF, where shooting out an inferior enemy from its positions was the normal precedure.

For now, I´m not unhappy for lack of close combat modelling and as said, it´s not a game breaker but would be a nice to have in further modules.

Posted
Oooh, I'd love to have better close range animations and the sound of ringing steel as bayonets clash with bayonets. :) .... I'd still like hand-to-hand combat to simulated in a better manner in CMBN. That way a night-time trench raid would really be something to behold.

I would also like close combat to be simulated or abstracted but this is one of those things that BF will never add to CMx2. Sometimes I wish some super rich patron would come forth and fund expanded development for CMx2. That way we could possibly get some features that BF deems too rare/anecdotal to spend development time and money on. Also, maybe a full scale Eastern Front pack instead of only Bagration.

Posted

Edit: Found a nice little example from "The Lorraine Campaign" (page 95):

"The Congressional Medal of Honor was awarded to 2d Lt. Edgar H. Lloyd for leading his men through a deadly cross fire, knocking out the first German machine gunner he met with his fist, and killing the crew with a hand

grenade. In this fight Lieutenant Lloyd personally accounted for five machine guns. Sgt. William B. Humphrey was awarded the DSC for action that took place at the same time when he killed numerous German machine gunners with bayonet and grenades."

I think those occurances were pretty rare. ...or not?

Yes, totally rare.

And as always...dont believe anything you read ! ;)

Especially during such extrem situations (combat !), the human perception is really limited (tunnel vision ect.).

There are many historians for example who highly doubt the very high numbers of claimed kills by some fighter ace's.

Running in berserker modus and taking out "numerous MG gunners with bayonet and grenades (and fist !)" is something i just would rate as "really rare isolated case"...at most.

The way CM simulates the close-combat stuff, simply by abstraction is ok.

90% + of the soldiers would not be very keen to fighting with knifes and fists...thats why they would do everything to avoid such situations and simply rout the enemy with fire from everything they had.

Posted

Didn´t really mean it that serious with single "heroic" actions to be taken as general close combat methods of the majority of infantry fighting forces. :D

Surely depends upon terrain to be fought over, which is numerous, forest and urban fighting just to name a few. Most combat reports do not go much into details, when telling of close combat occurances, which also needs some definition. Included can be anything from close range fire fights, grenade throwing and actual hand to hand combat.

Excerpt from CSI BATTLEBOOK_11-B, FORET de GREMECEY-FOREST, page 4:

On 26 September, the Germans launched a deliberate attack to penetrate 35th ID sector and re-take Nancy. By the 28th, the Germans had established a foothold in the Foret; all three regiments from 35th ID were engaged. A US counterattack on the 29th was defeated, and heavy close combat raged throughout the day and night.

How to interpret?

Posted

"Close Combat" and "Hand to Hand Combat" are different. In one situation you are close. In the other, you are closer. :) I think "close combat" usually refers to anything where the average pull of a trigger can get a hit. You see them and they see you and you're both well within the range trained at on the firing range. That could be 10' to 100'. In open ground that could even be 100 yards. Within the perceived effective range of everyone's primary weapon.

That's my perception, when I read these accounts. Think about it: how many men were involved and what were their casualties? Now, how close do you need to be to ensure 100% casualties? If the actual casualties were less than 100%, then the range was probably greater than what's needed to ensure 100% casualties. (That range would vary, based on cover/concealment.)

Close combat could be room-clearing; it could be firing across the village street at one another; it could mean anything.

Ken

Posted

CMBN game mechanics can´t be taken as measure for occurances of close combat situations.

Perhaps not, though I think you're wrong. However, they can be used as a metric for whether the development effort required would be effectively expended. Even if real life firefights always ended with a knifing, if it doesn't happen in the game, there's no point having an animation for it. Of course the reality isn't that extreme, but I don't think the lines are as yet close to crossing. Though it's definitely on the 'would be nice' list, but probably after incidental vegetation fires, a better way of doing fortifications and many other priorities, at least for my money.

I wonder if there'd be more melees in game if there was a good animation generation system... :)

Posted
IIRC, actual close combat is abstracted and then represented by the game as an odd-looking close range firefight.

Is that definitely right? I must admit that I was under the impression that there was no "close combat" (as such) modelled at all and that I was watching just normal shooting happening at close range. I may have been under the wrong impression, of course; that's just what I assumed was happening.

I think regarding the rarity of these events, a lot of it is down to playing style. Although I find my pixeltruppen in rooms with the enemy far less often than occurred in CMx1, it is certainy something that happens at least once in most games I play. Or so it seems. I certainly don't regard it as "rare". I mean, in the absence of flamethrowers, it seems a fairly valid way of getting small numbers of troops removed from strongpoints. It doesn't really occur to me to keep shooting until they're all dead or routed. Keep them supressed and then go in and finish them off. Not necessarily with bayonets but certainly with weapons that are better suited to close quarters fighting such as grenades, pistols and SMGs. This is why I've always accepted it as "OK" to just have these very short range firefights but, in all, honesty, I'd rather it was abstracted (regardless of what appears to be going on on-screen).

Of course, like everyone else, I find that a building (or whatever) is far more likely to be empty by the time I get there than used to be the case but it certainly still happens. At some point we are going to be getting that Eastern Front version and the idea of Stalingrad without hand-to-hand fighting is rather like Normandy without the bocage. ;) So, all-in-all, I'd rather close combat was something that was actually modelled (regardless of animations) even if it is abstracted.

Posted

Hopefully further down the line we get some animation. Especially for the East front title as a scenario set in Stalingrad would I'm sure have a fair bit of close combat.

Still it's something I can live without for now.

Posted

Nasty to think of hand to hand combat as a reality.

I had my taste of an account albeit second hand from one of the guys at my work. His friend not long back fron Afghanistan had to take matters 'in hand' with an entrenching tool when he was caught short in a building in Helmand - dread to think of what that must have been like.

My point is: even with todays weapons where a missile can take the 3rd exit off the roundabout do a sharp right and then take out the guy at the kebab stand, hand to hand combat will occur. It's one of the facts of war - nasty.

I did like the b*tch slap noises that CMBB used to make though.:o) Wouldn't mind a bit of slap and tickle in CMBN.

Skimbo

Posted

WW1 had loads of hand to hand combat...Germans with their sharpend spades and the British with their knockers (wooden bat with nails in the end), both required trench raiding tools...

Posted
WW1 had loads of hand to hand combat...Germans with their sharpend spades and the British with their knockers (wooden bat with nails in the end), both required trench raiding tools...

By saying "loads of", what exactly do you mean ?

Sure there was some Trench raiding going on, but i never have seen any report about how common hand-to-hand combat really was in WW1.

The mass bayonet charges and all...the result will maybe similar to the one mentioned by c3k about the US Civil War.

Posted
I would also like close combat to be simulated or abstracted but this is one of those things that BF will never add to CMx2. Sometimes I wish some super rich patron would come forth and fund expanded development for CMx2. That way we could possibly get some features that BF deems too rare/anecdotal to spend development time and money on. Also, maybe a full scale Eastern Front pack instead of only Bagration.

Haha wow what are the odds, someone else in Aiken playing CM :P

Posted
By saying "loads of", what exactly do you mean ?

Sure there was some Trench raiding going on, but i never have seen any report about how common hand-to-hand combat really was in WW1.

The mass bayonet charges and all...the result will maybe similar to the one mentioned by c3k about the US Civil War.

Wasn´t the majority of WW1 static western front combat sort of "trench raiding"? Imagine what soldiers had available when storming opposing trenches. Those who survived defenders MG fire, defensive barrages, overcame wire ect., had nothing but bolt action rifles, sidearms and hand grenades. I could well imagine what happened in the trenches, without digging my reference materials.

Reports? One needs mostly to dig "low level" reports (company, platoon, single soldier accounts ect.) as the high level ones wouldn´t give much of "micro detail" on HOW units accomplished their missions.

Even if digging high level reports on WW2 eastern front combat, one would come to the conclusion, that close-, hand to hand combat was a rare occurance, not to speak of WW2 western front.

Amongst horrors of war, hand to hand combat surely was one of the most horrible ones and I could imagine various reasons for that it wasn´t reported about much, not considering that it´s more of unwanted micro detail in AARs on any level.

Some here say, close-, hand to hand combat, was a rare occurance.

I counter with, it was daily bread and butter for most frontline units.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...