Close Combat

[akd]

On previous pages here I posted 16 quoted examples, of which most did not leave space for "interpretations". It´s not up to ME finding evidence, that I´M wrong. While browsing my US sources ( I left out german ones, as some here might doubt "credibility" ), I did not find a single mentioning of close/hand to hand combat been rare on 1944 western front.

So it´s rather up to you guys providing credible sources about the "hand to hand combat was rare" thesis. Good luck!

Posting anecdotes does not conversely "prove the thesis" that hand-to-hand combat was not rare. Not a single thing you have posted says anything about frequency.

[Thomm]

Some data can be gained from the German Close Combat Clasp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_Combat_Clasp

The German Wikipedia additionally writes "...das Weiße im Auge des Feindes" zu sehen, d.h. mit Nahkampfwaffen mit dem Gegner Mann gegen Mann ..." meaning that the soldier had to see the white of the eyes of the enemy and engage him with "close combat weapons" in man-on-man combat.

For 15+ days of close combat a Bronze Class was awarded.

For 30+ days of close combat a Silver Class was awarded.

For 50+ days of close combat a Gold Class was awarded.

Of the roughly 18 – 20 Million soldiers of the German Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS 36,400 received the Bronze Class, 9,500 the Silver Class and 631 the Gold Class.

I leave the statistical evaluation to others.

Best regards,

Thomm

[RockinHarry]

Not a single thing you have posted says anything about frequency.

...and yet I keep waiting for ANYTHING that proofs me wrong. Must not be true "evidences", I´d at least satisfied with something that tells and convinces me about what you guys "base" your guessworks on.

And if I´d quote 1000 "ancedotes" supporting my thesis, I´ve yet to wait for at least 1 that supports the "opposite" point of view.

Until then, I close with what I already posted above at:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1315091&postcount=87

[Wiggum]

If we take 1% of 19.000000 we get 190.000.

Close Combat Clasp was received by 46.531 soldiers.

Thats 0.25% !

But again, the description isnt so exact that one could judge if every "Nahkampftag" means Hand-to-Hand fighting...or just close combat that was fought with the MP and grenades.

So if you assume that overall maybe 1% of all Wehrmacht soldiers fought some real Hand-to-Hand you could be correct.

Did it happen ?

For sure !

Was it overall very rare ?

For sure !

[Sixxkiller]

Well this type of training is cheap and easy. Marching around with a tree gives a little teamwork training but mostly is so instructors can yell at your ass cause you were stupid enough to sign up to carry a tree around in fricken camo pants and gay haircuts.

Hand to hand combat is so said instructors can beat the **** out of you and avoid charges.

Bayonet training is so hopefully recruits they dont like or suck will impale themselves and they can get rid of them.

But if you look at it, shooting at stationary targets on the range really isnt any better than carrying a tree around. Any of you guys ever shoot at a guy that totally stood still and didnt move after he heard a shot?

[Wiggum]

But if you look at it, shooting at stationary targets on the range really isnt any better than carrying a tree around. Any of you guys ever shoot at a guy that totally stood still and didnt move after he heard a shot?

Shooting at stationary targets is done to get fit in overall shooting skills (breathing, pulling the trigger and know how to adjust your rifle on different ranges.

Then there are funny targets that move and/or are only visible for a few seconds...some real hightech stuff even the poor Bundeswehr has...

[John1966]

Ignoring animations for the moment, isn't the issue of whether HtH should be modelled (even abstractly) down to how often it would occur in the game? Like I say, it would probably come up rather a lot the way I play; it certainly did in CMx1.

I'm not sure that our playing of CMBN has got that much to do with the typical experience of a soldier in WWII. We don't play scenarios based around moving up to the front or sitting in a foxhole on a "quiet" part of the front. Scenarios tend to be where the action is; in other words our CMBN experience represents a fairly intense slice of WWII life. Not sure if I'm explaining myself very well here but I'm suggesting that HtH would be a far greater occurance than any stats/anecdotes/whatever would suggest for those whose experience was real.

"Close" combat is a regular occurance in my games. As detailed as the terrain is in CMBN, it doesn't go down to furniture in a house; it doesn't even go down to seperate rooms. So when pixeltruppen in the same building just enage each other as if they were at opposite ends of a field but with closer distances, it doesn't feel like a particulary sastifactory "simulation" in these circumstances. I'm not asking for animations of bayonet action (although it would be nice) but close combat should be moddelled in a different way. And I would have thought that modelling should take account of HtH as a factor. Even if it means that one side or the other runs away in such circumstances (morale would be a perfectly valid way of deciding things in these circumstances); a continuation of the firefight just at close range does not feel at all right. Even old ASL had a seperate way of dealing with close combat (and IIRC there was even a seperate calculation when the rules dictated that a close combat had "gone HtH" - But I'm a bit fuzzy on that).

If close combat situations never occurred in my games then fair enough; it's too rare to bother. But that just isn't my experience of the game. If the parameters of the (realistic) game design mean that this situation keeps coming up then it needs to be modelled even if RL evidence suggests that it is occurring too frequently to be historically accurate.

[Wiggum]

@ John1966

Again, we are mostly talking about hand-to-hand combat here.

Stabbing, punching and biting.

Only because you see alot "close" combat (~ less then 50m), that does not mean that your pixel soldiers are fighting with knifes and bayonets.

[John1966]

@ John1966

Again, we are mostly talking about hand-to-hand combat here.

Stabbing, punching and biting.

Only because you see alot "close" combat (~ less then 50m), that does not mean that your pixel soldiers are fighting with knifes and bayonets.

Well obviously not, as HtH isn't modelled.

But I'm also saying that "close" combat isn't modelled; it's just the same as firefights at a distance but at closer range. If opposing pixeltruppen are occupying the same building then there ought to be some other mechanism involved. I realise that BFC talk about "what you see is what you get" but in reality there would be multiple rooms on any given floor of these buildings. There would be furniture. And, of course, on occasion, there would be HtH.

I seem to recall in the designer notes of the original Squad Leader, it pointed out that when two units reached the end of a close combat phase with neither being eliminated (in which case they were "locked" together until the next CC phase), it didn't necessarily mean they were all grappling on the floor with knives at each other's throats; it could mean a number of things. The example it went on to give was that soldiers might be waiting in silence trying to hear the enemy in the next room.

The point is that "close combat" (<40m in SL terms) was treated differently to the normal firefights at distance as there are other factors to take into account. Not just HtH encounters (although they should not be ruled out), but secondary weapons, the micro-terrain (a term I just made up but I guess you know what I mean) and (as has been pointed out many times in this thread) the peculiar morale outcomes that might occur in such circumstances; surrendering and/or running away. Probably some other things too. As far as I'm aware (and if anyone knows different, please say), none of this is taken into account. It is simply a normal firefight at close range.

[RockinHarry]

If we take 1% of 19.000000 we get 190.000.

Close Combat Clasp was received by 46.531 soldiers.

Thats 0.25% !

But again, the description isnt so exact that one could judge if every "Nahkampftag" means Hand-to-Hand fighting...or just close combat that was fought with the MP and grenades.

So if you assume that overall maybe 1% of all Wehrmacht soldiers fought some real Hand-to-Hand you could be correct.

Did it happen ?

For sure !

Was it overall very rare ?

For sure !

surely not rare for the cases I posted at http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1315091&postcount=87

what do you disagree with there?

If statistics speak of 20 Million Wehrmacht soldiers counted vs. close combat clasp recipients, then this means...Wehrmacht. It´s army, airforce and sea forces combined during all of WW2, not actual frontline troops, which is the fighting parts of the army. I don´t care if close combat makes 1% or 10% or anything of overall losses. If conditions apply, then close combat as well as hand to hand combat oportunities rise considerably. That´s what I like to be portrayed in the game. I don´t care at last if pixeltruppen close combatants beat each other with rifle butts, stab with bayonet, punch with fists, mow with SMG,...or run away or surrender.

[Broadsword56]

It might seem reasonable to ask for the close-quarters bayoneting, fisticuffs, etc., to be animated and represented in CMBN if it happened IRL. But IMHO this issue is similar to the one about fire not being represented in the game: Did it happen? Of course. Was it frequent? Maybe or maybe not. But should it be in the game? That's a separate question that depends on whether the cost of adding it is worth the supposed benefit. The benefit would be eye-candy and something "cool to see" that is typical in other mainstream WWII games. The cost might be a prohibitive amount of design and coding and animating work that would be better used on other parts of the game. And even if it were added, it carries a big risk of unintended consequences for gameplay -- something that could seriously unbalance or break the realism of the way the game plays right now. Real troops in the WWII era valued their own lives and NEVER wanted to come anywhere near bayonet, knife, or fistfighting range of the enemy, and would do anything to kill at longer range to avoid it. If it did happen, if was accidental when troops blundered into and surprised each other. But if it were in the game, players with no motivation to spare troops' lives would unrealistically send their units into close quarters fights just to enjoy the spectacle. CMBN battles could soon degenerate into rugby scrums or scenes out of medieval warfare, 18th Century bayonet charges, etc. And every time I played I'd have to worry that my opponent would send some fanatical SS guys with brass knuckles jumping out of the next hedgerow. No thanks.

[akd]

Ignoring animations for the moment, isn't the issue of whether HtH should be modelled (even abstractly) down to how often it would occur in the game? Like I say, it would probably come up rather a lot the way I play; it certainly did in CMx1.

There is no question as to whether or not it should be modeled. The only question is how high in the long list of features that BFC wants in the game it should be placed.

edit: as Broadsword says above.

[John1966]

It might seem reasonable to ask for the close-quarters bayoneting, fisticuffs, etc., to be animated and represented in CMBN if it happened IRL. But IMHO this issue is similar to the one about fire not being represented in the game: Did it happen? Of course. Was it frequent? Maybe or maybe not. But should it be in the game? That's a separate question that depends on whether the cost of adding it is worth the supposed benefit. The benefit would be eye-candy and something "cool to see" that is typical in other mainstream WWII games.

Actually, I don't really care about the eye candy very much.

I'd just like to see close combat (of which HtH is just a part) modelled in a little more detail as, in my experience, it happens quite frequently.

I'd be quite happy with an abstraction. Save all that cool stuff for the kids games. I could even live with the old "punchy noise" (although on second thoughts...)

In fact, when I first posted in this thread it was because someone (I forget who) suggested that it was, in fact, modelled; it was just that it shown graphically it as a close range firefight. I just wondered if this was correct (as there would be no obvious way of telling). I have a feeling that it is not actually right, unfortunately.

[sburke]

And every time I played I'd have to worry that my opponent would send some fanatical SS guys with brass knuckles jumping out of the next hedgerow. No thanks.

How did you figure out my plan? I really need to work on Opsec.

[Erwin]

If CM modeled kickboxing, we'd be arguing about whether one side was using the correct style for their school of martial arts, so plz no...

[Vark]

One of my former students fathers was ex army, he was searching a compound in Helmand Province and was stabbed by an insurgent hiding in one of the houses. Unable to use his weapon he pulled the knife out and turned it on the insurgent, killing him. The experience was so traumatic that it was one of the decisive factors that led to him leaving the army. I did not want to intrude too much by asking groggy questions and had a professional obligation to concentrate on the academic progress of his son but he seemed to suggest that the experience was, although not common, not as rare as some posters seem to think it is, in modern warfare.

The bayonet, on a rifle, is just another incarnation of the tried and tested spear, a weapon whose lethality and effectiveness is still much underated. With only rudimentary training it will butcher an opponent who has no skill, hence the bayonet practice to teach some simple attack/defence moves and build a small but crucial bank of muscle memories, that may save/take a life

Finally, as sBurke says, read acounts of the fights for the mountains surrounding Port Stanley, in the Falklands War, especially The battle of Tumbledown, before being so dismissive of the frequency of hand to hand combat. It seems some posters are unsettled by thoughts of throat biting, eye gouging and gutting that did occur, when the conditions allowed or demanded it. The spades carried by the soldiers in Stalingrad were not just for digging, or was that all propaganda?

[sburke]

Finally, as sBurke says, read acounts of the fights for the mountains surrounding Port Stanley, in the Falklands War, especially The battle of Tumbledown, before being so dismissive of the frequency of hand to hand combat. It seems some posters are unsettled by thoughts of throat biting, eye gouging and gutting that did occur, when the conditions allowed or demanded it. The spades carried by the soldiers in Stalingrad were not just for digging, or was that all propaganda?

LOL that wasn't me! I don't know squat about the fighting at port Stanley other than maybe one book that mostly concentrated on the naval/air power engagement.

I just finished Clay Pigeons of St Lo however and in that I think there were 2 incidents in the entire book on HTH fighting. One where a captured American FO kills a German captor with a knife to escape (not exactly the kind of situation we are looking to have CMBN represent) and the second where the troops have a rumor that a Sgt killed a German with his bare hands. The Sgt himself says no, he used a grenade. That is all for 30 days of continuous hard fighting in the struggle to take St Lo.

Normandie front with a lot of first person perspective from the 352nd ID is similar. I don't think I read even one incident of anyone doing HTH combat.

Personally I think we are getting into more a situation where in CMBN we have a lot more close quarters fighting than you would see historically just as we accept casualty levels much higher than normal because it is a game you are out to win. Our game behavior becomes divorced from reality and causes us to look for features in CMBN that conform to our game behavior not actual combat behavior. That isn't an argument for or against having the feature but more a reflection that the discussion we are having about how often or not HTH fighting would occur in real life has little to do with the context of the game feature request.

[Sgt Schultz]

I would say that adjacent tile/same tile Melee combat could do with some tweaks. Nothing to do with how often close combat did or did not occur. As stated above, we tend to see the sharp end of the stick every minute we play, so statistical analysis won't work.

If two or more units enter into close combat...

Highest rate of fire possible, including grenade use.

NO reloading.

"Swinging Rifle" animation added for random units within Melee tile. Combine jumping over fence with running with rifle... I bet it is in there somewhere for upper torso action.

Abstracted HtH wounds/kills per tick.

Units disengage/surrender very quickly with increased morale penalties once the tide turns.

[Vark]

Sorry Magpie Oz for thinking you were sburke. A nice training film on YouTube (I have the book it's based on).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41261SjNhCc

[Wiggum]

If statistics speak of 20 Million Wehrmacht soldiers counted vs. close combat clasp recipients, then this means...Wehrmacht. It´s army, airforce and sea forces combined during all of WW2, not actual frontline troops, which is the fighting parts of the army. I don´t care if close combat makes 1% or 10% or anything of overall losses. If conditions apply, then close combat as well as hand to hand combat oportunities rise considerably. That´s what I like to be portrayed in the game. I don´t care at last if pixeltruppen close combatants beat each other with rifle butts, stab with bayonet, punch with fists, mow with SMG,...or run away or surrender.

I see you are correct on that one...thats what they call a "Milchmädchenrechnung" in germany...

[John1966]

I would say that adjacent tile/same tile Melee combat could do with some tweaks. Nothing to do with how often close combat did or did not occur. As stated above, we tend to see the sharp end of the stick every minute we play, so statistical analysis won't work.

If two or more units enter into close combat...

Highest rate of fire possible, including grenade use.

NO reloading.

"Swinging Rifle" animation added for random units within Melee tile. Combine jumping over fence with running with rifle... I bet it is in there somewhere for upper torso action.

Abstracted HtH wounds/kills per tick.

Units disengage/surrender very quickly with increased morale penalties once the tide turns.

Yep, I'd agree with all that.

Could live without the rifle swing animation though.

Incidentally, as many have pointed out that the tendency of many would be to run away/surrender when finding themselves in this kind of situation, then surely it would be better to model that behaviour as the final point of Sgt Schultz's post suggests? No idea how morale operates exactly but surely a morale "check" (if that's the right terminology for how the game works) when units find themselves occupying the same tile as the enemy would not only model what people are suggesting but reduce the need for HtH modelling itself?

And I do get the difference between "close combat" and "hand to hand" - The latter just being a possible component of the former.

[Magpie_Oz]

Sorry Magpie Oz for thinking you were sburke.

You do me a great honour Sir !

[Broadsword56]

I would say that adjacent tile/same tile Melee combat could do with some tweaks. Nothing to do with how often close combat did or did not occur. As stated above, we tend to see the sharp end of the stick every minute we play, so statistical analysis won't work.

If two or more units enter into close combat...

Highest rate of fire possible, including grenade use.

NO reloading.

"Swinging Rifle" animation added for random units within Melee tile. Combine jumping over fence with running with rifle... I bet it is in there somewhere for upper torso action.

Abstracted HtH wounds/kills per tick.

Units disengage/surrender very quickly with increased morale penalties once the tide turns.

+1 to this -- and to John1966's suggestion of a quick "morale check" before/after the actual fighting, so there's a good chance that some units would just become unnerved and break/surrender at the sight of enemy right next to them.

This would also addr4ess my concern about players abusing hand-to-hand combat or seeking it out -- because there's every possibility that your own troops would crack or surrender and it's too much of a gamble, with the possibility of a good unit becoming immediately panicked or broken.

I'm afraid the fence-jumping animation might end up looking too much like a karate kick or something -- actually, I'd go more with something subtle like the existing "Hunt" animation -- that wary-but-aggressive crouch-like stance -- and have the men alternate between aiming their weapons and thrusting them out in a bayoneting motion.

[Thomm]

I have already pre-selected some material for the motion capture department:

Best regards,

Thomm

[John1966]

+1 to this -- and to John1966's suggestion of a quick "morale check" before/after the actual fighting, so there's a good chance that some units would just become unnerved and break/surrender at the sight of enemy right next to them.

This would also addr4ess my concern about players abusing hand-to-hand combat or seeking it out -- because there's every possibility that your own troops would crack or surrender and it's too much of a gamble, with the possibility of a good unit becoming immediately panicked or broken.

Just thinking aloud but I'd have thought the morale of those seeking out close combat (the attackers) would be slightly better than those who'd just spent the last ten minutes laying down fire (the defenders) to ensure that the enemy got nowhere near them. Unless, of course, it was an ambush situation, in which case the situation would be reversed. I suppose the modelling would need to take into account who had the "initiative" in such situations...

As I say, just a thought.