How realistic is CM?
Henri H. Arsenault
into a discussion about whetehr such and such a game belongs in this
forum. So in the interest of generating some discussion, I would like to
start a discussion, inspired by a message from Giftzwerg in the CM TCP
thread about how realistic (or unrealistic) is Combat Mission.
I wouldn't raise a question like this on the BTS forum, where it would be
the equivalent of yelling "God does not exist and the Pope is a sodomist!"
at a Papal audience, but I believe that it is a very legitimate question
(the one about realism in CM). While people are nitpicking on the BTS
forum about "gamey" tactics like using armored cars for deep recon, the
total realism of the game is taken as a given by the keepers of the flame,
assuming that any such recognized faults are bugs in the program that will
be corrected as soon as possible.
So for the sake of argument, I beg to differ. To start the discussion, let
me mention a few glaring factors (in no particular order and for the
moment without proof) that mar the realism of this otherwise fine game. I
realize that this kind of discussion can get pretty hot, so I would beg
the participants to avoid personal attacks and to attack only the issues.
1) Artillery is more than 10 times more efficient to disable tanks than it
was in real life during WW2.
2)In meeting engagements, both sides were not usually on opposite sides of
a victory flag on a hill with equal forces making a rush to see who can
best position his forces near the top for the ensuing battle. This is
ALWAYS the case in Quick Battle meeting engagements.
3) In WW2, combatants were not usually arrayed in parallel lines with the
option of deploying their forces as they saw fit within zones of
deployment.
3) The one-minute orders phase and the absence of standard operation
orders makes realistic recon totally impossible: units cannot be told to
go out and recon, and to scoot away if fired upon. I have never seen a
recon unit survive the first few minutes of a scenario when used for a
recon mission.
4) Total absence of air recon is very unrealistic; in Normandy the Allies
used air recon extensively, but in the game, recon usually consists of
bumping into the enemy.
5) Like most if not all wargames, the victory-flag-oriented nature of the
game guarantees that most if not all battles end up as slugfests; if
"house rules" such as those supported by most on the BTS forum are
enforced preventing "gamey" tactics such as map-edge-hugging, maneuver
warfare, which was the daily bread of most competent German commanders,
goes from very difficult to totally impossible to use in the game.
6) In WW2, it was generally recognized that an assault against a prepared
defender required at least a 3:1 advantage. In assault scenarios, the
attacker is given something like a 25% advantage in purchase points. Now
the absence of pillboxes, barbed wire and other defensive aids can perhaps
reduce the odds somewhat, but no commander in his right mind in WW2 would
attack a prepared opponent with odds like this except as a spoiling
attack.
7) Smoke is much more scarce than it was in reality; in every pbem I play
as the attacker, I find my infantry advancing over open terrain against
enemy machineguns and infantry without any cover whatsoever.
8) Combat in WW2 usually consisted of finding enemy weaknesses and hitting
them hard; CM-style equally-matched battles did occur, but they were far
from being the norm.
9) The effect of air power (available only to the Allies) is much too
random; in one pbem as the Allies where the total German force consisted
of five tanks sitting in the open on a hill, my Jabo failed to even dent a
single German tank, but in another where I was the Germans, the Allied
Jabo immobilized two tanks, gun-damaged another, and immobilized or killed
five halftracks. In the former, the Jabo was unrealistically inefficient,
and in the latter, he was much too efficient.
OK, I could go on, but I leave the field open to others. I could have a
lot more to say about some of the issues mentioned, but first I would like
to hear other opinions. Finally, note that a few of the factors mentioned
could be corrected by programming, but that most could not.
Henri
Laurent Favre
>
> 2)In meeting engagements, both sides were not usually on opposite sides of
> a victory flag on a hill with equal forces making a rush to see who can
> best position his forces near the top for the ensuing battle. This is
> ALWAYS the case in Quick Battle meeting engagements.
>
>
> 3) The one-minute orders phase and the absence of standard operation
> orders makes realistic recon totally impossible: units cannot be told to
> go out and recon, and to scoot away if fired upon. I have never seen a
> recon unit survive the first few minutes of a scenario when used for a
> recon mission.
>
2) Quick battle system is obviously destined to another public than player
in search of realistic scenarios. But the scenario editor and the other
features give such scenarios.
3) one solution is to progress very slowly, by giving a pause order of 30
secondes to recon units: the exposure to enemy fire will be shorter before
giving another order.
Good luck, Henri, for the thread destiny....
Laurent Favre
"Laurent Favre" <lfa...@cybercable.fr> a écrit dans le message news:
8rcq29$21nk$1...@news5.isdnet.net...
> >
>
> 2) Quick battle system is obviously destined to another public than player
> in search of realistic scenarios. But the scenario editor and the other
> features give such scenarios.
>
> 3) one solution is to progress very slowly, by giving a pause order of 30
> secondes to recon units: the exposure to enemy fire will be shorter before
> giving another order.
>
>
> Good luck, Henri, for the thread destiny....
>
>
3) I forgot to add this solution seems IMHO a good representation of a
recon mission: advance, stop, look and hear, advance again...
Fionn Kelly
>me mention a few glaring factors (in no particular order and for the
>moment without proof) that mar the realism of this otherwise fine game. I
>realize that this kind of discussion can get pretty hot, so I would beg
>the participants to avoid personal attacks and to attack only the issues.
Good points for discussion. Some I agree with some I don't so here
goes...
>1) Artillery is more than 10 times more efficient to disable tanks than it
>was in real life during WW2.
Sources, facts and figures? I know you have them I'm only asking so we
can actually debate facts and figures concretely and not in some
nebulous vacuum.
>2)In meeting engagements, both sides were not usually on opposite sides of
>a victory flag on a hill with equal forces making a rush to see who can
>best position his forces near the top for the ensuing battle. This is
>ALWAYS the case in Quick Battle meeting engagements.
Agreed. That is why I use the map generator in the scenario editor to
make my battles. It allows complete freedom of setup, force ratios etc
and allows the creation of the kinds of complicated battles you want.
the DYO generator is just for making simple, quick battles.
>3) In WW2, combatants were not usually arrayed in parallel lines with the
>option of deploying their forces as they saw fit within zones of
>deployment.
Well, there was a no-man's land zone and behind that opponents were
relatively free to deploy as they wanted.. I don't see much of a
problem here as I can't think of a solution which would be better than
the current system?
>3) The one-minute orders phase and the absence of standard operation
>orders makes realistic recon totally impossible: units cannot be told to
>go out and recon, and to scoot away if fired upon. I have never seen a
>recon unit survive the first few minutes of a scenario when used for a
>recon mission.
Good point. I'd like to see SOPs myself... I think that giving SOPs so
the player can "tailor" the TacAI on a unit by unit basis would result
in a greater depth of tactical expression being allowed. This would
create a deeper, more complex and more rewarding game ( also more
realistic).
>4) Total absence of air recon is very unrealistic; in Normandy the Allies
>used air recon extensively, but in the game, recon usually consists of
>bumping into the enemy.
The Allies used air recon strategically and not tactically. They
didn't fly over the battlefield alerting platoons and companies to
enemy movements as they happened. The radios for such communication
were extremely specialised and weren't available widely enough for
such co-ordination to be common.
If you're talking about strategic air recon then that's an interesting
idea actually. ( Can be gotten around by mentioning enemy dispositions
in the briefing text)
>5) Like most if not all wargames, the victory-flag-oriented nature of the
>game guarantees that most if not all battles end up as slugfests; if
>"house rules" such as those supported by most on the BTS forum are
>enforced preventing "gamey" tactics such as map-edge-hugging, maneuver
>warfare, which was the daily bread of most competent German commanders,
>goes from very difficult to totally impossible to use in the game.
Mine don't end up in slugfests and I PBEM a lot. I think you must be
playing the wrong people. Of course I generally go into PBEMs with
both players agreeing that the flags are only there to provide extra
points to make a draw less likely and that our objectives are to
simply anihilate the enemy.
>6) In WW2, it was generally recognized that an assault against a prepared
>defender required at least a 3:1 advantage. In assault scenarios, the
>attacker is given something like a 25% advantage in purchase points. Now
>the absence of pillboxes, barbed wire and other defensive aids can perhaps
>reduce the odds somewhat, but no commander in his right mind in WW2 would
>attack a prepared opponent with odds like this except as a spoiling
>attack.
Complicated.. Basically those 3:1 odds were overall odds. By the time
you actually count units in contact at the spearpoint the odds would
be far less. In CM if one guy had 3 times as many men as another it'd
be a massacre.
>7) Smoke is much more scarce than it was in reality; in every pbem I play
>as the attacker, I find my infantry advancing over open terrain against
>enemy machineguns and infantry without any cover whatsoever.
Huh? You do know you can fire smoke from your mortars and arty right?
I've seen entire battlefields blanketted in smoke so I don't know what
you're talking about. Also, facts and figures please.... I have a
feeling you may be thinking smoke was more common than it really was.
Read up on Goodwood or Market-Garden or Cobra and check out how much
smoke was used during those battles. I think you'll be surprised.
>8) Combat in WW2 usually consisted of finding enemy weaknesses and hitting
>them hard; CM-style equally-matched battles did occur, but they were far
>from being the norm.
They ONLY occur if you ONLY use the DYO... Why not d/l some
user-created scenarios or use the map generator to make some up for
you? You can get mismatched forces in those.
>9) The effect of air power (available only to the Allies) is much too
>random; in one pbem as the Allies where the total German force consisted
>of five tanks sitting in the open on a hill, my Jabo failed to even dent a
>single German tank, but in another where I was the Germans, the Allied
>Jabo immobilized two tanks, gun-damaged another, and immobilized or killed
>five halftracks. In the former, the Jabo was unrealistically inefficient,
>and in the latter, he was much too efficient.
Ok, again a couple of points:
1. Air power available only to the Allies???? Umm, the Germans have
air power available too Henri.
Henri, is this someone impersonating you? I've noted a couple of
pretty basic errors in this post which are unlike you. Maybe you are
tired or something but....
2. As someone who knows about statistics I'm sure you know that two
outliers do not a strong case about median efficiency make.
You know better than to mention just two cases and draw the kind of
comment you did and you know it ;).
As someone who has played with jabos a lot I think they are "just
right"... Sometimes they are utterly devastating but, if the target is
camouflaged or they are under fire they can often be utterly useless.
Just like in real life really.
I think this is a good discussion to have but I don't want it to be
based on false assumptions about things... Also, if something is wrong
do you have a better solution? Definitely many things aren't perfect
but they are usually that way cause no tester or coder could figure
out a better way to have them operate. So, if you find something to
bitch about try to suggest a solution too ok? If it is good and would
work I'll put it forward.
Fionn
Martin Rapier
<arseno-0310...@descartes.phy.ulaval.ca>...
{snip}
As someone who has only played the demo of CM, but has been wargaming WW2
for 30 years now...
> 1) Artillery is more than 10 times more efficient to disable tanks than
it
> was in real life during WW2.
This sounds a bit extreme, although personally I find artillery underrated
as a means of removing enemy armour in many WW2 games, so it is refreshing
to have one which goes the other way. IRL it was used quite frequently as
an anti-tank weapon, although in rather larger concentrations than seem to
be represented in the game (as in a whole regiment of guns versus a couple
of SPGs).
I've lumped the next lot together....
> 2)In meeting engagements, both sides were not usually on opposite sides
of
> 3) In WW2, combatants were not usually arrayed in parallel lines with the
> 5) Like most if not all wargames, the victory-flag-oriented nature of the
> game guarantees that most if not all battles end up as slugfests; if
> 6) In WW2, it was generally recognized that an assault against a prepared
> defender required at least a 3:1 advantage. In assault scenarios, the
> attacker is given something like a 25% advantage in purchase points. Now
> 8) Combat in WW2 usually consisted of finding enemy weaknesses and
hitting
> them hard; CM-style equally-matched battles did occur, but they were far
These are not so much problems with the mechanisms of the game as with game
scenarios. None of these situations are terribly realistic, however they
are the sort of thing which competitive minded wargamers seem to expect.
Personally I prefer games which have realistically appropriate force ratios
and densities, but they are often a bit few and far between! Whilst it is
good fun to run a game at the club where the British have a reinforced
rifle company and the Germans have a single lonely squad of
Panzergrenadiers, I'm not sure this sort of thing would appeal to many
gamers.
Next lot....
> 3) The one-minute orders phase and the absence of standard operation
> orders makes realistic recon totally impossible: units cannot be told to
> 4) Total absence of air recon is very unrealistic; in Normandy the Allies
Recon is always a tricky one in wargames, TacOps SOPs would go a long way
to alleviate this problem though, or at least some sort of 'mode' a unit
can be in - aggressive, probe, defend etc. The mechanisms used in the
strategic game of 'Across the Rhine' worked quite well for this sort of
thing and go some way to making the TacAI respond in a more appropriate
manner.
> 7) Smoke is much more scarce than it was in reality; in every pbem I play
My personal opinion is that smoke is usually far to readily available in
wargames at a low level in the command structure (from platoon & company
mortars for example) whilst sadly neglected in the enormous preparatory
barrage (which is also frequently mysteriously not there).
> 9) The effect of air power (available only to the Allies) is much too
> random; in one pbem as the Allies where the total German force consisted
Again, this is a tricky one as the tactical effects of airpower at the low
level represented in CM are still the subject of much debate. Current
thinking appears to be that effect of air strikes on armour in WW2 was
largely moral, in that although large numbers of vehicles were noted as
destroyed by airpower, in fact they had just been abandoned by their crews
who bailed at the first sign of enemy planes. Now that would make the
Germans scream - a plane pops up and all their tank crews bail and run for
the hills! Softskins of course got chewed up big time.
Cheers
Martin.
Henri H. Arsenault
<m.ra...@sheffield.ac.uk> wrote:
> This sounds a bit extreme, although personally I find artillery underrated
> as a means of removing enemy armour in many WW2 games, so it is refreshing
> to have one which goes the other way. IRL it was used quite frequently as
> an anti-tank weapon, although in rather larger concentrations than seem to
> be represented in the game (as in a whole regiment of guns versus a couple
> of SPGs).
>
Thanks for joining in, Martin.
According to a British study photo-reproduced in Talonsoft's West Front
manual, only about 3% of British tanks were disabled by artillery.In somce
Combat Mission scenarios, I have had over 50% of my tanks immolbilized or
suffering gun hits from artillery.
Henri
Henri H. Arsenault
(Fionn Kelly) wrote:
> Sources, facts and figures? I know you have them I'm only asking so we
> can actually debate facts and figures concretely and not in some
> nebulous vacuum.
>
It is quite legitimate to question and to ask for figures; for the
artillery, in my response to Martin, I quoted the British study according
to which only 3% of tank casualties were due to artillery.
>
> Well, there was a no-man's land zone and behind that opponents were
> relatively free to deploy as they wanted.. I don't see much of a
> problem here as I can't think of a solution which would be better than
> the current system?
>
I didn't say that there was one.
>
> The Allies used air recon strategically and not tactically. They
> didn't fly over the battlefield alerting platoons and companies to
> enemy movements as they happened. The radios for such communication
> were extremely specialised and weren't available widely enough for
> such co-ordination to be common.
>
Enemy positions (especially German ones) were regularly being spotted by
small planes, weather permitting, not to mention the recon coming from
returning attack planes. There is a question of hoiw fast such recon could
be made available to a local commander, but if one were asked to attack an
enemy, he normally would be given as much information about enemy
dispositions as possible.
> If you're talking about strategic air recon then that's an interesting
> idea actually. ( Can be gotten around by mentioning enemy dispositions
> in the briefing text)
>
This would probably be more realistic.
>
> Mine don't end up in slugfests and I PBEM a lot. I think you must be
> playing the wrong people. Of course I generally go into PBEMs with
> both players agreeing that the flags are only there to provide extra
> points to make a draw less likely and that our objectives are to
> simply anihilate the enemy.
>
Maybe it's a question of the definition of a slugfest; it's been a while
since I read your AARs, but as I remember, all of them were slugfests.
>
> Huh? You do know you can fire smoke from your mortars and arty right?
> I've seen entire battlefields blanketted in smoke so I don't know what
> you're talking about. Also, facts and figures please.... I have a
> feeling you may be thinking smoke was more common than it really was.
>
Yeah, typically 4 smoke rounds or so. It IS true that the choice of units
has a significant effect on how much smoke you get; for instance,
off-board 81 mm mortars usually have no smoke at all (as I remember),
whereas on-board 81s have a few rounds.
> Henri, is this someone impersonating you? I've noted a couple of
> pretty basic errors in this post which are unlike you. Maybe you are
> tired or something but....
Don't shoot, don't shoot, it's me!...Sure I make mistakes, and I have a
bvad memory, and I sometimes like to be provocative.
>
> You know better than to mention just two cases and draw the kind of
> comment you did and you know it ;).
>
I use what I have. People have a right to disagree, but most people on the
BTS forum agree with me on this one (which I agree proves nothing).
> I think this is a good discussion to have but I don't want it to be
> based on false assumptions about things... Also, if something is wrong
> do you have a better solution?
I don't have to. My opening statement is not a Papal encyclical and I have
stated that I expect to generate some heated discussion. I didn't say that
it was possible to make a better simulation than CM. As a matter of fact,
I am surprised that it was possible to make CM what it is in the first
place. There are underlying issues about the limitations of computer
simulations that I didn't raise in my original message, since it was
already long enough. It is not a question of can it be done better or not,
at least not in my mind.
>Definitely many things aren't perfect.
I agree, but why do you feel obliged to defend the game? The admitted
purpose of this thread is to see how well the game can stand up to
criticism, as a counter to what I consider to be an exaggerated attitude
by some about the historical quality of the game.
Henri
Henri H. Arsenault
<lfa...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
>
> 3) one solution is to progress very slowly, by giving a pause order of 30
> secondes to recon units: the exposure to enemy fire will be shorter before
> giving another order.
>
Hmmm, I haven't thought of trying that, I'll have to give it a try. The
one problem I can see is the long delay in time-limited scenarios. Given
the flag-oriented victory conditions, any serious delay in the early moves
can ensure defeat.
Henri
l_si...@my-deja.com
ars...@phy.ulaval.ca (Henri H. Arsenault) wrote:
> Thanks for joining in, Martin.
>
> According to a British study photo-reproduced in Talonsoft's West
Front
> manual, only about 3% of British tanks were disabled by artillery.
Is that 3% of tanks subjected to artillery barrages or 3% of all tank
casualties incurred during the war?
Luke
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Henri H. Arsenault
> Is that 3% of tanks subjected to artillery barrages or 3% of all tank
> casualties incurred during the war?
>
No one knows the figurs for the whole war; this study was of 333 British
tank casualties during a limited time (I don't have the reference here).
The US did a similar study, but it does not distinguish between casualties
from AT and from artillery, so it is useless for the purposes of this
discussion. As far as I know, there are no other studies.The authors of
the report believed that those figures were rather typical.In the report,
"casualty" meant prevented from participating in further battle, so it
apparently includes cases of immobilizations, at least for offensive
operations that required movement.
One should beware of anecdotal evidence which proves little if anything.
Henri
James Dusek
ars...@phy.ulaval.ca says...
> > can actually debate facts and figures concretely and not in some
> > nebulous vacuum.
> artillery, in my response to Martin, I quoted the British study according
> to which only 3% of tank casualties were due to artillery.
Are you aware that there was a big differance in artillery policy
between the U.S., Britian, Germany and Russia. I bet the numbers from the
country vary greatly. The U.S. had the tendancy to shell the crap out of
things, therefore vs the U.S. the Germans would expirance more tank
casualties vs artillery. The Germans on the other hand, had much more
effective anti-tank weapons, so they would be more inclined to use those
resources to disable tanks, than wasting artillery, unless it was a last
ditch effort.
An intresting comparison would be to see the number of German
tanks disabled by artillery, vs teh number of Allied tanks. I bet the
German tanks would have a higher % disable by arty than the U.S.
James Dusek
SR
Henri H. Arsenault wrote in message ...
>
>According to a British study photo-reproduced in Talonsoft's West
Front
>manual, only about 3% of British tanks were disabled by
>Combat Mission scenarios, I have had over 50% of my tanks
immolbilized or
>suffering gun hits from artillery.
>
>Henri
It depends how many tanks you had in total doesn't it? I mean if
you have played scenarios with only 2 tanks then one tank is 50% and
that isn't too surprising or hugely out of sync with the study
results because you have such a small sample. I get the impression
you have played a lot of quick battles (where in my experience you
don't have that many afv's to start with) and perhaps this has
skewed your view slightly. I agree that CM is not perfect but I
feel smaller scale scenarios are more prone to fluke results because
of luck and the shortage of more costly units like tanks. I haven't
noticed many tank kills by artillery because I usually move them as
soon as arty starts to land around them and I have had the AI swathe
me in smoke.
I would also like to see some SOP setup or at least the ability to
set pauses up mid turn, preferably variable (e.g. move forward to
peek over a ridge, pause 20 secs then reverse which could be useful
for tanks so you could have them move up fire one shot then shift
along a ridge or for timing halftrack movement and unloading).
SR
Holdit
Henri H. Arsenault <ars...@phy.ulaval.ca> wrote in message
news:arseno-0310...@descartes.phy.ulaval.ca...
In that case make the scenarios longer. It occurs to me too that 30 minutes
is an awfully short time in which to get your recce and your attacking done.
The problem seems to be that there is something of an attention-span problem
when it comes to longer pbem games (and presumably by extension, TCP/IP
games). I recently submitted a scenario to a site for comment. It was an
attempt to work around the unrealistic meeting engagement scenario mentioned
above, by having no troops on at start, recce troops arriving after anywhere
between 3 - 8 turns (the idea being the players recce rather than rush
because there's a good chance that your opponent has got there first), all
units should be in by move 36 and the game length would be 75 turns. I
chose that figure based on the "All or Nothing" scenario, which uses a
similarly-sized map.
The feedback I got was that it took too long for the forces to get into
action, and that the game was too long and players would probably just get
bored with it. While I'm not arguing with those observations (the
individual concerned is much more experienced than I in such matters), the
solution meant that there was a good chance that the main force would arrive
at the same time as the reconnaissance, and shortening the duration meant
that it was back to 30 minutes for the entire battle, which seems a bit
short for a scenario of that size, especially for adequate, careful
reconnaissance. Indeed maybe its the time contstraints that led to the
birth of the Jeep MG - recce - rush.
Mind you, you don't have to rush in with the other guy. I'm in move 14 of a
30 move pbem game and I've already taken some serious losses from an
opponent who has so far revealed only a fraction of his force. :-(
Ed Bruce
>
> Henri H. Arsenault wrote in message ...
> >
> >According to a British study photo-reproduced in Talonsoft's West
> Front
> >manual, only about 3% of British tanks were disabled by
> artillery.In somce
> >Combat Mission scenarios, I have had over 50% of my tanks
> immolbilized or
> >suffering gun hits from artillery.
> >
> >Henri
>
> It depends how many tanks you had in total doesn't it? I mean if
> you have played scenarios with only 2 tanks then one tank is 50% and
> that isn't too surprising or hugely out of sync with the study
> results because you have such a small sample. I get the impression
> you have played a lot of quick battles (where in my experience you
> don't have that many afv's to start with) and perhaps this has
> skewed your view slightly. I agree that CM is not perfect but I
> feel smaller scale scenarios are more prone to fluke results because
> of luck and the shortage of more costly units like tanks. I haven't
> noticed many tank kills by artillery because I usually move them as
> soon as arty starts to land around them and I have had the AI swathe
> me in smoke.
Doesn't matter how many tanks are in each scenario. If it is true that
only 3% of the tanks over time should be disabled by arty and if CM
modeled arty correctly one would expect that over several scenarios this
would be reflected correctly. Doesn't matter if I have one tank this
time and 4 the next, over the long haul only about 3% of the tanks
should be casualities from arty.
Seems to me the question to answer is 3% really a correct figure. If it
is, the next question is it true that over time one can expect CM to
model a loss of 30% instead.
--
Ed Bruce
Henri H. Arsenault
old....@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> You just never play PBEM with Alex Pavloff and his jeeps from
> Hell. Which took out 5 German Halftracks in my rear, and then just ran
> around shooting up my guys from the flank for more turns then I care
> to remember. Had to bring a tank from the fount back to deal with
> them.
>
This has been the subject of a thread over 500 messages long about "gamey"
tactics on the BTS forum where I have been the object of some abuse;
defenders of so-called "realism" including Steve of BTS claim that such
tactics with jeeps or other recon vehicles are ahistorical and exploit
"bugs" in the program and therefore should not be used. I am strongly
against such "house rules" that limit what a player can do.
Henri
Henri H. Arsenault
<sean...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> It depends how many tanks you had in total doesn't it?
In this case I had about a dozen, and more than half were put out of
action by artillery. As for small scenarios, I tend towards the larger
ones, and I have played or am playing about 10 pbem games (mostly fairly
large scenarios), so my sampling is fairly wide.
Henri
Henri H. Arsenault
du...@cscsunfl2.corp.mot.com (James Dusek) wrote:
>
> An intresting comparison would be to see the number of German
> tanks disabled by artillery, vs teh number of Allied tanks. I bet the
> German tanks would have a higher % disable by arty than the U.S.
>
Unfortunately it seems that the British study is the only one of its kind
for either side in WW2, so one can always speculate without fear of being
contradicted...
Henri
Laurent Favre
"Henri H. Arsenault" <ars...@phy.ulaval.ca> a écrit dans le message news:
arseno-0310...@descartes.phy.ulaval.ca...
>
> > If you're talking about strategic air recon then that's an interesting
> > idea actually. ( Can be gotten around by mentioning enemy dispositions
> > in the briefing text)
> >
> This would probably be more realistic.
To the air recon it could be added role of French civilians: I've found many
times example of french giving infos about emplacement of German troops.
And these infos were immediatly used. Maybe a enhancement could be to give
to Allied side in some scenario a random possibility to know more or less
precisely the position of german units even if out of LOS.
Laurent Favre
"Henri H. Arsenault" <ars...@phy.ulaval.ca> a écrit dans le message news:
arseno-0310...@descartes.phy.ulaval.ca...
Henri,
Quick battles or any system where players have a budget to buy freely their
forces is irrealistic. As such, it will be a gold mine for gamey tactics. If
you want to limit that, the solution belongs to scenario creation by giving
to players historical forces in formations respecting real TOEs.
CM is made for both highly realism scenario and - sorry - Command and
Conquer in Wego system. I'm really happy both exists because the second
attracts some players in the hobby: if gamey tactics rules, at last, all the
details about weapons, use of terrain, etc are here too. it's a very good
compromise and BTW I would be very happy to see operational wargames add
such "quick battle" to their scenarios. They're fast, fun and a good way to
learn about the game.
Adam Kippes
> To the air recon it could be added role of French civilians: I've found many
> times example of french giving infos about emplacement of German troops.
I'm sure, but in France especially, that could cut both ways.
> And these infos were immediatly used.
How about featuring summary executions?
-- AK
--
adam....@pobox.com
PGP keys available from servers
Scott D. Orr
Arsenault) wrote:
>3) The one-minute orders phase and the absence of standard operation
>orders makes realistic recon totally impossible: units cannot be told to
>go out and recon, and to scoot away if fired upon. I have never seen a
>recon unit survive the first few minutes of a scenario when used for a
>recon mission.
>
Oddly enough, the one thing that most impressed me about this game
it's the first one I've seen in which recon _did_ work--the first time
I had scout cars, they moment they saw tanks they turned tail and ran,
without taking casualties (one, which was able to, also popped smoke).
I've never seen a tactical game in which recon vehicles had _any_
charce of survival, but in CM the tactical AI at least gives them a
decent chance.
>4) Total absence of air recon is very unrealistic; in Normandy the Allies
>used air recon extensively, but in the game, recon usually consists of
>bumping into the enemy.
>
Air recon would be more important operationally or strategically, and
it would have a fairly long lead time--it should be represented by the
scenario briefings. Mind you, L-5's (and similar) _were_ used on
occasion for tactical recon in close coordination with ground forces
(such planes were owned directly by Army artillery).
>5) Like most if not all wargames, the victory-flag-oriented nature of the
>game guarantees that most if not all battles end up as slugfests; if
>"house rules" such as those supported by most on the BTS forum are
>enforced preventing "gamey" tactics such as map-edge-hugging, maneuver
>warfare, which was the daily bread of most competent German commanders,
>goes from very difficult to totally impossible to use in the game.
Slug-fests would result when a player respond to being outflanked by
trying to hold a position that's really not worth the probable
cost--the ultimate outcome is about the same (in terms of who wins),
but I think the problem here is that the threshold for auto-surrender
is set way too low.
>6) In WW2, it was generally recognized that an assault against a prepared
>defender required at least a 3:1 advantage. In assault scenarios, the
>attacker is given something like a 25% advantage in purchase points. Now
>the absence of pillboxes, barbed wire and other defensive aids can perhaps
>reduce the odds somewhat, but no commander in his right mind in WW2 would
>attack a prepared opponent with odds like this except as a spoiling
>attack.
That may be a choice of scenarios sort of thing--the attacked usually
wants 3:1, because at the tactical level at least that virtually
guarantees success. That doesn't make for an interesting battle,
though (as a result of which you get the oddball situations like the
Singling scenario).
>
>7) Smoke is much more scarce than it was in reality; in every pbem I play
>as the attacker, I find my infantry advancing over open terrain against
>enemy machineguns and infantry without any cover whatsoever.
>
Hm...all the infantry mortars carry it, all the artillery, and the
U.S. tanks--why not use it?
>8) Combat in WW2 usually consisted of finding enemy weaknesses and hitting
>them hard; CM-style equally-matched battles did occur, but they were far
>from being the norm.
Yes, but the more typical battles aren't as interesting.
>
>9) The effect of air power (available only to the Allies) is much too
>random; in one pbem as the Allies where the total German force consisted
>of five tanks sitting in the open on a hill, my Jabo failed to even dent a
>single German tank, but in another where I was the Germans, the Allied
>Jabo immobilized two tanks, gun-damaged another, and immobilized or killed
>five halftracks. In the former, the Jabo was unrealistically inefficient,
>and in the latter, he was much too efficient.
Well, my impression of historical airpower is that it _was_ a
hit-or-miss sort of thing.
Scott Orr
Laurent Favre
"Adam Kippes" <adam....@pobox.com> a écrit dans le message news:
hqikts0v3gutsd5s3...@4ax.com...
> In <8rdh5p$2ln1$1...@news5.isdnet.net>, Laurent Favre wrote:
>
> > To the air recon it could be added role of French civilians: I've found
many
> > times example of french giving infos about emplacement of German
troops.
>
> I'm sure, but in France especially, that could cut both ways.
>
Sort of feature to be let to the will of scenario designer or which could be
bought by the Allied player inquick battle in a German occupied country.
Regards,
Laurent
Laurent Favre
I remember one of the scenario of the original Squad Leader box where you
can solve the entire Stalingrad factory battle in 12 turns/minutes or so. Do
you have ever seen a tactical wargame featuring pause in advance,
refreshment of troops, and all these boring moments ? All tactical wargames
compresses time span for obvious reasons of fun and playability ( yes I
know there are some operational wargames featuring 750 turns, but...) .
"Henri H. Arsenault" <ars...@phy.ulaval.ca> a écrit dans le message news:
arseno-0310...@descartes.phy.ulaval.ca...
> In article <8rcq29$21nk$1...@news5.isdnet.net>, "Laurent Favre"
> <lfa...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
>
> >
> > 3) one solution is to progress very slowly, by giving a pause order of
30
> > secondes to recon units: the exposure to enemy fire will be shorter
before
> > giving another order.
> >
> Hmmm, I haven't thought of trying that, I'll have to give it a try. The
> one problem I can see is the long delay in time-limited scenarios. Given
> the flag-oriented victory conditions, any serious delay in the early moves
> can ensure defeat.
>
> Henri
Scott D. Orr
Arsenault) wrote:
>In article <39d9c9f8...@news.esatclear.ie>, fio...@esatclear.ie
>(Fionn Kelly) wrote:
>
>> Sources, facts and figures? I know you have them I'm only asking so we
>> can actually debate facts and figures concretely and not in some
>> nebulous vacuum.
>>
>It is quite legitimate to question and to ask for figures; for the
>artillery, in my response to Martin, I quoted the British study according
>to which only 3% of tank casualties were due to artillery.
Okay, I've only started to do PBEM (haven't played a turn yet in my
two games), but in my games against the computer, I haven't seen a
single tank casualty to artillery. Actually, I haven't seen artillery
do much at all, because it's so slow, and if you're moving it's never
going to catch up with you--this is even more true of tanks than of
infantry.
Scott Orr
mdarrach
> I wouldn't raise a question like this on the BTS forum.
Why not? Discussion, preferably heated discussion is the coin of the realm on
the internet.
> 1) Artillery is more than 10 times more efficient to disable tanks than it
> was in real life during WW2.
Limited supporting studies on both sides, but IMO you are correct Henri,
however much I would love
to see 105 VT be a tank killer. From my limited play testing the culprit
seems to be vulnerability to
blast damage not direct hits. This could be addressed by a simple fix to the
"physics" of the system.
(not knowing the architecture of the software, this last statement might need
to be tempered)
> 2)In meeting engagements, both sides were not usually on opposite sides of
> a victory flag on a hill with equal forces making a rush to see who can
> best position his forces near the top for the ensuing battle. This is
> ALWAYS the case in Quick Battle meeting engagements.
I kind of like the Fionn method of battle where a map is generated that is
acceptable to both
agents. Then the locations and objectives are handled much better. The
inclusion of dynamic
VLs also enlivens the game. Fionn and I have such VLs.
> 3) In WW2, combatants were not usually arrayed in parallel lines with the
> option of deploying their forces as they saw fit within zones of
> deployment.
See above
> 3) The one-minute orders phase and the absence of standard operation
> orders makes realistic recon totally impossible: units cannot be told to
> go out and recon, and to scoot away if fired upon. I have never seen a
> recon unit survive the first few minutes of a scenario when used for a
> recon mission.
Recon by contact and sacrifice is the rule in CM. This is not realistic.
Inclusion of other methods
of recon would be highly preferable. Reducing this to practice in software is
a big task. I wonder if we
could opt for a simple fix of including a richer selection of orders when
PBEMing (e.g Move-to-contact
Retreat Slowly...) but leaving them out of the Single Player mode. This
would mean that difficult
human concepts would not have to be programmed into CM for the TacAI.
> 4) Total absence of air recon is very unrealistic; in Normandy the Allies
> used air recon extensively, but in the game, recon usually consists of
> bumping into the enemy.
Agreed. A percentage of targets identified by air could be relayed to the
ground. The percentage
increasing as the level of commander present increases. i.e greater chance
for a Battalion
Commander to have the necessary radio kit than a Platoon Leut.
> 5) Like most if not all wargames, the victory-flag-oriented nature of the
> game guarantees that most if not all battles end up as slugfests; if
> "house rules" such as those supported by most on the BTS forum are
> enforced preventing "gamey" tactics such as map-edge-hugging, maneuver
> warfare, which was the daily bread of most competent German commanders,
> goes from very difficult to totally impossible to use in the game.
See above regarding map generation and VLs. BTS cannot write software to
distinguish
gamey tactics (e.g. map-edge hugging) from necessary maneuvers. This is
really a
non-issue for me, either my opponent and I agree to balls to the walls battle
or some
sub-set. I have had precious few problems here.
> 6) In WW2, it was generally recognized that an assault against a prepared
> defender required at least a 3:1 advantage. In assault scenarios, the
> attacker is given something like a 25% advantage in purchase points. Now
> the absence of pillboxes, barbed wire and other defensive aids can perhaps
> reduce the odds somewhat, but no commander in his right mind in WW2 would
> attack a prepared opponent with odds like this except as a spoiling
> attack.
Agreed. See above regarding map generation. Force allocation can be anything
the two players agree upon when generating a battle thusly.
> 7) Smoke is much more scarce than it was in reality; in every pbem I play
> as the attacker, I find my infantry advancing over open terrain against
> enemy machineguns and infantry without any cover whatsoever.
Off-board ammo is X units which can be consumed as either HE or Smoke.
Using "T" or "I" uses explosive rounds, using "K" makes them Smoke. WP is
the real missing factor IMO.
> 8) Combat in WW2 usually consisted of finding enemy weaknesses and hitting
> them hard; CM-style equally-matched battles did occur, but they were far
> from being the norm.
See above regarding map generation.
> Airpower
Maybe a slight tweak to its effectiveness is in order. I never use the stuff
personally since
it removes the tool from my hands and places it in a balky, easily distracted
TacAI.
(oh...by the way...none of these matters have ever come into play during
our battles, you just plain LOST LOST LOST) ;)
Cheers
Vincent Prochelo
"Scott D. Orr" wrote:
> Actually, I haven't seen artillery do much at all, because it's so slow,
Well, timing is everything, is it not? I have witnessed a very well timed,
well placed artillery strike mangle and American assault.
> and if you're moving it's never going to catch up with you--this is even
> more true of tanks than of infantry.
In the open, with tanks, its tough to hit them with arty in the open. Target
Wide is probably best here.
-V
Andy Brown
game, is not subject to the frictions of war found in real life.
I haven't played CM for months so I'll have to limit my comments to what I
saw of the Beta demo but a scenario like Riesberg which was what, 40
minutes/turns long? would probably take 10 times as long to resolve in real
life.
Consider. In real life, a squad advancing against unknown enemy comes under
fire from, say, a distant MG. It'd probably take about 5 minutes for the
squad's platoon leader to move forward to assess the situation, never mind
decide what to do about it, give the necessary orders, inform his company
commander, coordinate supporting fires etc etc. All this is done
instantaneously by the CM player during an orders phase.
The effect of this flaw in ALL games makes considerations of true realism
meaningless, IMO. For example, any talk of the availability or otherwise of
smoke rounds becomes totally skewed by the fact that the duration of
protection afforded by a unit's historical combat load of smoke rounds is
far more significant in a game than it is in real life because the game
player achieves so much more in the simulated time.
To illustrate this point, try this simple exercise. Next time you're
playing a game of CM and you have to change your initial intentions for an
advancing, say, tank company, put yourself in your company'commanders
position and write down the instructions you would give to each of the
platoons and support weapons under your command. Take as much time as you
like to make these instructions as brief as possible but be sure to include
coordination details like "1st platoon wait until 2nd platoon is in
position, then..."
Then read this out in a steady, clear voice (to reduce the chances of
misunderstanding) and time yourself doing it. You'll probably take a
minute/turn just tell your troops what you want them to do. The time taken
to arrive at that decision (learn about the situation, decide on the plan
etc), to clear up any points of confusion your subordinates may have, to let
battalion know what's going on etc is not included.
It's probably fair to say that CM simulates more facets of battle more
realistically than previous games. For true realism, however, you should
join an army! In the meantime, there is still room to narrow the gap
between game and reality but I, for one, hope it will NEVER be closed
completely :-)
Andy
Tim Chown
>This has been the subject of a thread over 500 messages long about "gamey"
>tactics on the BTS forum where I have been the object of some abuse;
>defenders of so-called "realism" including Steve of BTS claim that such
>tactics with jeeps or other recon vehicles are ahistorical and exploit
>"bugs" in the program and therefore should not be used. I am strongly
>against such "house rules" that limit what a player can do.
If you're trying to win a debate with Steve then you're a braver man
than I, Henri...
The "bug" is the weak AI/TacAI, though it is understandable. If you play
CM purely as a game, not a (realistic) simulation then you should be
allowed to do anything the rules allow. Or is there now an official
etiquette book for CM?
tim
Alex Pavloff
Arsenault) wrote:
>This has been the subject of a thread over 500 messages long about "gamey"
>tactics on the BTS forum where I have been the object of some abuse;
>defenders of so-called "realism" including Steve of BTS claim that such
>tactics with jeeps or other recon vehicles are ahistorical and exploit
>"bugs" in the program and therefore should not be used. I am strongly
>against such "house rules" that limit what a player can do.
Well, in the game in question (which I lost, BTW), it was a computer
buy-the-forces 1000pt meeting engagement on a randomly generated
village/light hills/moderate forest map. Pretty standard stuff.
I was give one Jeep MG, one M20, two 75mm Shermans, two infantry
platoons, some bazookas, and 4 halftracks.
OS got (if I recall) a Hetzer, a Panther VG, 3 infantry platoons, and
some halftracks.
The infantry went forward to occupy defensive positions, support by
the halftracks (behind a slope), and the two tanks. The Jeep and M20
were sent to recon around to see what he had and where he was going.
The "kill all the halftracks" mission only happened once they were
back there and after the rest of my forces were getting wailed on.
(75mm Shermans are...... junk!)
Personally, I think OS was more concerned about those guys in the back
than I was. Those guys have little ammo, and served mainly to
irritate the hell out of him. When he took out my 2 Shermans, OS
still had two heavy AFVs that could take out my guys at the leisure,
my efforts to smoke + bazooka them notwithstanding.
Now, in the next game, I tried using the 3 M8s that the computer gave
me to kill OS's 75mm halftracks and Pumas, but that was a non-starter,
because the coin ended up on his side, and his halftracks blew away
all my M8s and my Sherman.
Now, the obvious problem with using guys this way is that since
they're not real people, I have no problems sacrificing them, but
quite frankly, I find what's more gamey is these scenarios with the
screwy forces consisting of Sherman Jumbos and King Tigers. I
wouldn't play any CM games where I had to buy my forces unless
enforcing Fionn's "Rule of 75 or 76".
Realism (aside from technical matters) is an *extremely* subjective
thing.
--
* Alex Pavloff - alex at pavloff dot net *
* You've heard that water swirls differently *
* depending on the hemisphere -- ever tried it? *
Andy Brown
> against such "house rules" that limit what a player can do.
I tend to agree with you here, Henri. If you want a Game, this is the only
way to go.
If you want to "simulate history" or whatever you call it by agreeing
conventions to overcome unrealistic bugs in a game, almost automatically,
this suggests winning takes a back seat.
Then, halfway through the game, you realise there's something you can do
that's totally unrealistic but not covered by your house rules. How do you
play it?
At least, if everyone agrees that "if the computer lets you do it. it's
valid", everyone is singing off the same song sheet. This is one of the big
advantages computer games have over tabletop and board games: no arguing
about rules.
If a game is so flawed that you don't want to play it, don't play it.
Unfortunately, there're games like CM which come into the "If only this was
fixed, this game would be fantastic" etc. You want them to work but,
sometimes, they're really irritating.
Problem with the jeep thing, and recce by sacrifice and other gaming flaws
is usually a fundamental weakness in morale rules. SP has it, CM has it,
most computer games I've ever seen have it. Units don't test for morale
until they've been shot at. They can do any suicidal, damfool thing they
like as long as no one shoots at them! Fix that, and a lot of gamey tactics
will disappear.
Cheers,
Andy
Martin Rapier
<arseno-0310...@descartes.phy.ulaval.ca>...
> > 3) one solution is to progress very slowly, by giving a pause order of
30
> > secondes to recon units: the exposure to enemy fire will be shorter
before
> > giving another order.
> >
> Hmmm, I haven't thought of trying that, I'll have to give it a try. The
> one problem I can see is the long delay in time-limited scenarios. Given
> the flag-oriented victory conditions, any serious delay in the early
moves
> can ensure defeat.
You could try using the pause feature to make recce units operate in some
semblance of reality by having them operate in pairs advancing by bounds,
the leading one moves up to the next bit of cover or whatever in view of
the rear one. Once they get there they wait (or get blown up!) and the rear
one takes the lead advancing to the next feature in view of the stationary
element.
As you say, this may be a problem when time limits are short - after all
real recce crews spent an awful lot of time dismounted and crawling around
on their stomachs rather than motoring around at high speed in their overly
visible vehicles - another time consuming activity.
Cheers
Martin.
Martin Rapier
<arseno-0310...@descartes.phy.ulaval.ca>...
Rapier"
> > This sounds a bit extreme, although personally I find artillery
underrated
> > as a means of removing enemy armour in many WW2 games, so it is
refreshing
{snip}
> According to a British study photo-reproduced in Talonsoft's West Front
> manual, only about 3% of British tanks were disabled by artillery.In
somce
> Combat Mission scenarios, I have had over 50% of my tanks immolbilized or
> suffering gun hits from artillery.
{snip}
I read that study too - TS published it to justify the virtual
impossibility of damaging armour in the CS games (although they did
introduce a low random chance, poss 3%!, of disabling AFVs with indirect
fire).
This appears to be one of those arguments that has been going on as long
as wargaming - Hal Hock (the designer of AHGCs 'Tobruk') and John Hill
(Squad Leader) had exactly the same diasgreement - Hock made it well nigh
impossible to damage armour in Tobruk with IF, whilst in SL it is
considerably easier.
In modern artillery doctrine, the preferred round to use against armour is
cluster munitions or something similar, whilst HE is strictly for soft
targets, as the chance of obtaining a direct hit on a vehicle, especially a
moving vehicle, is rather remote. OTOH I find this hard to square with WW1
& WW2 doctrine were HE firing artillery _was_ used as a way of destroying
enemy armour. I suspect that the difference is in the volume of fire and
length of barrage, as modern artillery has to displace very quickly to
avoid counter-battery fire.
In the CS games I feel this is overdone - it is possible to call down a
barrage from several batteries of heavy naval artillery on a stack of
tanks, and when the smoke clears they are all still sitting there with
maybe one or two disabled. IRL, exactly the same thing was done to IInd SS
Panzer Corps as it formed up to counter-attack the Epsom breakthrough, and
entire companies and even battalions were oblierated (or at least seriously
damaged) in their assembly areas by heavy artillery barrages. It would seem
that in many cases the effects are partly moral - tank crews displacing to
avoid the shellfire, even though it actually has little chance of causing
damage, as well as minor damage such as track damage, misaligned sights,
exposed crew casualties etc. I'm not sure if anyone on the ng has ever been
under heavy artillery fire, but my reading indicates that it is a very
unpleasant and morale sapping experience, even sitting in a tank. During
Desert Storm there was some interesting film of some Saudi M60s(?) under
fairly light shellfire - a few rounds landed and they all started backing
away! The closest I've ever come was an IRA bomb, and that was fairly
scarey.
The treatment of artillery in PitS and Top felt 'right' to me - it was
really hard to hit moving targets, but it was possible to damage (or at
least disable) armoured units with artillery fire if they sat still and you
poured enough fire in (e.g. one or more batteries firing rapid) and players
would tend to displace if under such fire. This fits in better with my
reading of e.g. NWE where it was SOP for the allies to call in regimental
artillery strikes on small groups of German armour blocking roads and
suchlike. I feel that in WW2 games, even the mighty tanks should be scared
of artillery and not simply be able to sit it out but have some incentive
to at least move if they are able - this may require some slightly
ahistorical uprating of artillery effectiveness to fit in with time
acceleration which happens in other aspects of the game. In some boardgames
such as Panzerblitz, artillery is not that great against tanks, but en
masse it can work, which seems about right really.
Cheers
Martin.
Marko Poutiainen
> exposed crew casualties etc. I'm not sure if anyone on the ng has ever been
> under heavy artillery fire, but my reading indicates that it is a very
> unpleasant and morale sapping experience, even sitting in a tank. During
> Desert Storm there was some interesting film of some Saudi M60s(?) under
> fairly light shellfire - a few rounds landed and they all started backing
> away! The closest I've ever come was an IRA bomb, and that was fairly
> scarey.
Well, in the army we had this demonstration where some 100 gram (IIRC) TNT
charges were blown in a similar pattern to a light mortar barrage, us
being a safe distance away. This demonstration convinced me it would
definitely not be fun to be in the middle of one.
--
Marko Poutiainen | These are my principles.
m...@paju.oulu.fi | If you don't like them, I have others.
http://www.toffeeweb.org | -Groucho Marx
Henri H. Arsenault
<mdar...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote:
> Off-board ammo is X units which can be consumed as either HE or Smoke.
> Using "T" or "I" uses explosive rounds, using "K" makes them Smoke. WP is
> the real missing factor IMO.
>
Are you saying that off-board artillery can be consumed as either smoke or
HE? WOW!, did I miss something!...No wonder I never have enough smoke...
Henri
Henri H. Arsenault
wrote:
> To illustrate this point, try this simple exercise. Next time you're
> playing a game of CM and you have to change your initial intentions for an
> advancing, say, tank company, put yourself in your company'commanders
> position and write down the instructions you would give to each of the
> platoons and support weapons under your command. Take as much time as you
> like to make these instructions as brief as possible but be sure to include
> coordination details like "1st platoon wait until 2nd platoon is in
> position, then..."
>
That's why German General Balck forbade his staff to write down orders
before a battle: all orders were to be given orally and only written down
AFTER the engagement, in order to save a lot of time.
Henri
Henri H. Arsenault
<sd...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> Okay, I've only started to do PBEM (haven't played a turn yet in my
> two games), but in my games against the computer, I haven't seen a
> single tank casualty to artillery. Actually, I haven't seen artillery
> do much at all, because it's so slow, and if you're moving it's never
> going to catch up with you--this is even more true of tanks than of
> infantry.
>
As they say in French, you have lost nothing by waiting... I DO have to
say that in the case where I lost more than half of my tanks to artillery,
my opponent told me that he could see my tanks out in the open and he was
walking his artillery following them as they moved. Still, it seems to me
that artillery was much too effective in that case.
Murray, was that in our game? It was the map where you had that darn AT
gun in the town picking off my vehicles and your two Panthers and
halftracks that arrived on your right flank behind my advancing infantry.
If it was you, what caliber of artillery were you using?
Henri
Simon Appleton
you are referring to long to medium rang indirect fire. One small caveat is -
at least the last time I played - direct artillery fire was lethal at short to
medium range eg soviet artillery vs 1941 German armour. In early versions of
the game, it was great fun hunting and then charging Soviet artillery with
German armour. After a patch, it became too dangerous for the PzIIIs and I
usually spotted the artillery (usually marked by the loss of one of my tanks!),
then called down counter-battery fire.
Cheers
Simon
Martin Rapier wrote:
> exposed crew casualties etc. I'm not sure if anyone on the ng has ever been
> under heavy artillery fire, but my reading indicates that it is a very
> unpleasant and morale sapping experience, even sitting in a tank. During
> Desert Storm there was some interesting film of some Saudi M60s(?) under
> fairly light shellfire - a few rounds landed and they all started backing
> away! The closest I've ever come was an IRA bomb, and that was fairly
> scarey.
>
Fionn Kelly
>> Using "T" or "I" uses explosive rounds, using "K" makes them Smoke. WP is
>> the real missing factor IMO.
>>
>Are you saying that off-board artillery can be consumed as either smoke or
>HE? WOW!, did I miss something!...No wonder I never have enough smoke...
>
Martin Rapier
<39DB280E...@nottingham.ac.uk>...
> Martin - by CS, do you mean Campaign Series, ie West Front/East Front? I
guess
Yes, sorry, gratuitous use of abbreviations.
> you are referring to long to medium rang indirect fire. One small caveat
is -
> at least the last time I played - direct artillery fire was lethal at
short to
Yes it is - the anti-tank attack factors go up very sharply at close range
in EF/WF (which I recollect somewhat daftly applies to both direct &
indirect fire).
Cheers
Martin.
John Waters
Here's data from the British report on the examination of captured
tanks, and cause of loss where determined for each tank.
*June 6 - August 7 1944
110 tanks examined:
53 - AP shot
8 - Hollow charge
9 - Artillery, HE
1 - Mine
7 - Aircraft RP
3 - Aircraft cannon.
7 - Destroyed by crew
4 - Abandoned
18 - Uknown cause
August 8 - August 31 1944
223 Tanks examined:
24 - AP shot
1 - Hollow charge
4 - Artillery, HE
7 - Aircraft RP
1 - Aircraft Cannon
2 - Aircraft bomb
108 - Destroyed by crew
63 - Abandoned
13 - Uknown cause
December 17 1944 - January 16 1945
57 Tanks examined:
18 - AP Shot
3 - Artillery HE
1 - Aircraft bomb
3 - Possibly by Aircraft
13 - Demolished
11 - Abandoned
8 - Uknown causes
*See: Jentz Thomas L Panzer Truppen Vol 2. p.189, 190, 202.
Regards, John Waters
-----------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.
----------
SR
John Waters wrote in message <39db4104.93109034@news-server>...
Don't you think that just taking the number of artillery kills from
here is over simplifying things? After all from the June-Aug the
arty results are more like 8% and it depends how much artillery and
what calibre's/ammunition where available in the areas the actual
results were taken from. What about the abandoned/destroyed by crew
or the unknown results, could some of these have been due to damage
from artillery (with the crews finishing them off or being killed
after bailing out)?
Has anyone recorded results in CM over many games to see roughly how
effective HE is? Are the CM scenarios/QBs where people are
experiencing heavy AFV losses to HE overly artillery heavy compared
to the real situations that gave these results?
Just a few points I think we have to consider before deciding one
way or the other.
SR
ASDN
John Waters wrote in message <39db4104.93109034@news-server>...
>Here's data from the British report on the examination of captured
>tanks, and cause of loss where determined for each tank.
>*June 6 - August 7 1944
>
> 110 tanks examined:
> 9 - Artillery, HE
> [...]
John, how many of the HE loses, you cited, were due to indirect fire ? One
can expect some HE loses due to artillery direct fire.
Regards
Chris
Henri H. Arsenault
Waters) wrote:
>
> Here's data from the British report on the examination of captured
> tanks, and cause of loss where determined for each tank.
>
those data on the BTS forum where this is being discussed in a lively
manner?). The causes for some other factors like crew destruction are not
given, and a few might have been disabled by HE. In any case, these data
support the idea that less than 5% of incapacitated tanks should be
reduced to that state due to artillery.
The percentage in the game can vary widely and as I said earlier, in some
cases can aproach or exceed 50% (in my case, this was a case where
artillery was tracking the tanks). Offhand, I would say that it probably
would be better for any artillery below 105 mm in Combat Mission to have
no effect at all on medium and heavy tanks.
Henri
John Waters
>
>John, how many of the HE loses, you cited, were due to indirect fire ? One
>can expect some HE loses due to artillery direct fire.
>
>Regards
>Chris
>
Chris, the Report does not specify DF or IF only cause of loss. nor
do I believe any such data exits, concerning how many rounds were
fired , calibre etc as that would require a live fire test using Arty
vs tanks in controled conditions.
This report does allow us to generaly gauge the effect of Artillery
& aircaraft on armor in the British sectors during the periods of
heaviest fighting in the West Ie, Normandy & the Ardennes.
Fionn Kelly
>> tanks disabled by artillery, vs teh number of Allied tanks. I bet the
>> German tanks would have a higher % disable by arty than the U.S.
>>
>Unfortunately it seems that the British study is the only one of its kind
>for either side in WW2, so one can always speculate without fear of being
>contradicted...
No, there's one from the Russian Front concerning Elefants at Kursk
and the causes of their loss.
Their results show that almost the majority of Elefants lost were lost
due to artillery. I don't have the exact figures memorised but I'll
look for the article and post a URL to you.
Certainly their figures are more like 30% than 3%
Fionn Kelly
>many
>> > times example of french giving infos about emplacement of German
>troops.
>>
>> I'm sure, but in France especially, that could cut both ways.
>>
>
>Sort of feature to be let to the will of scenario designer or which could be
>bought by the Allied player inquick battle in a German occupied country.
Agreed. I think that that sort of thing though is better implemented
in the scenario briefing text than in anything else
Fionn Kelly
>
> 53 - AP shot
> 8 - Hollow charge
> 9 - Artillery, HE
> 1 - Mine
> 7 - Aircraft RP
> 3 - Aircraft cannon.
> August 8 - August 31 1944
>
> 223 Tanks examined:
>
> 24 - AP shot
> 1 - Hollow charge
> 4 - Artillery, HE
> 7 - Aircraft RP
> 1 - Aircraft Cannon
> 2 - Aircraft bomb
> December 17 1944 - January 16 1945
>
> 57 Tanks examined:
>
> 18 - AP Shot
> 3 - Artillery HE
> 1 - Aircraft bomb
> 3 - Possibly by Aircraft
So, after removing the "unknown", "abandoned" and destroyed by crew (
of which a fairly large proportion would be caused by either arty
damage, aircraft strafing or simply fuel running out we have...
145 tanks of whom 16 were destroyed by arty.. This is 11%
Now, we come onto the fact that this is relatively meaningless. What
we NEED is to find out how many tanks were destroyed in artillery
barrages vs how many survived in the same area.
As present the figures are meaningless since all this gives us is the
absolute number of losses due to arty... IF arty was only called in on
20 tanks then we would actually see that it had an 80% chance of
destroying said tank. OTOH if it was called in on 200 tanks then it is
only an 8% of destroying said tank.
The figures above prove nothing. What we need is the number of arty
strikes aimed at tanks per tank destroyed. From that we can work out
how many shells it would take to achieve one kill in a targetted area
and from there we can proceed. Unfortunately the above simply doesn't
give us any idea of how many tanks were targetted by arty,
By the same token I could give figures from an infantry division on
the Eastern front which had no panzers in support and show that it
killed 3 tanks in one day using panzerfausten, 1 using artillery and 2
using AT guns.
From these figures I could say that tanks were useless as they hadn't
killed a single enemy T34. This is, of course, absurd since the
evidence doesn't show us how many panzers were present. In reality the
only reason no kills were scored by them is because none were present.
The same reasoning applies above.
It is impossible to say how effective artillery was from the above
figures. Let's face it, if I turned around and showed that 100% of all
tank kills in an artillery regiment were caused by howitzers you
wouldn't say that howitzers were brilliant AT guns. The only reason
100% of kills were caused by howitzers was because no AT guns or tanks
were present. The figures above suffer from the same problem.
Henri H. Arsenault
(Fionn Kelly) wrote:
> Their results show that almost the majority of Elefants lost were lost
> due to artillery. I don't have the exact figures memorised but I'll
> look for the article and post a URL to you.
>
Yeah, but that might well be a total of 3 Elefants lost, one of which was
immobilized by a track hit and two of which drove over a cliff (grin).
Elefants were not, to say the least, a typical WW2 tank, and they were
probably almost impossible to kill with a frontal shot.
Henri
Laurent Favre
I disagree because in this case both players will know that. When you know
what your enemy knows, you simply move your units.
Regards,
Laurent
"Fionn Kelly" <fio...@esatclear.ie> a écrit dans le message news:
39db6d9e...@news.esatclear.ie...
John Waters
examination of cause of KO'd captured tanks tanks not a controlled
test,, its not like they had an agreement with the Germans to allow
Allied observers to travel with German Panzer formations so they
could catalog calibre & number of HE rounds it took to knock out a
German tank 8). its just a report on what killed the captured,
cataloged tanks.
Henri H. Arsenault
wrote:
>Now, we come onto the fact that this is relatively meaningless. What
>we NEED is to find out how many tanks were destroyed in artillery
>barrages vs how many survived in the same area.
>
Agreed but still the numbers are not totally meaningless, because they
give an idea overall of what the percentage of losses due to artillery
should average out to.
My impression is that the average numbers in CM are higher than
warrented by the available evidence, and the available evidence is all
that we have (in addition to even more worthless anecdotal
evidence...).
Let us say that the "studies" available show that the causes for tank
losses due to HE artillery are between 3% and 10%; then if one is
getting over 50% of one's tanks disabled in a given scenario, he is
justified in concluding that this is highly improbable. Or if CM
"experiments" show that the losses average out to about 30%, then it
shows that something is out of kilter.
Now here is another question: if the studies mentioned are worthless
to estimate tank losses due to artillery, how did BTS come up with
their probabilities for the game? Did they pull them out of a hat?
Throw dice? Count chicken bones? The fact remains that the designers
of Talonsoft's WF/EF concluded that tanks losses due to artillery were
so small as to be negligible. Was their research inferior tothat of
BTS? We are in a situation where two serious games of WW2 tactical
combat have very different probabilities for tank losses, to the
extent that they are negligible in WF and can turn the tide of battle
in CM. At least one of them is wrong. Which is it?
Henri
Fionn Kelly
>> due to artillery. I don't have the exact figures memorised but I'll
>> look for the article and post a URL to you.
>>
>Yeah, but that might well be a total of 3 Elefants lost, one of which was
>immobilized by a track hit and two of which drove over a cliff (grin).
>Elefants were not, to say the least, a typical WW2 tank, and they were
>probably almost impossible to kill with a frontal shot.
Agreed. On the other hand they just used arty against anythign bigger
than a Panzer IV on the Eastern front so the figures for an Elefant
would, at least, give us a general basis from which to say " Russians
fired a lot of arty at the big tanks and here is how many they
killed".
it isn't the type of data we need but at least it would show how many
arty kills accrued to an army which used IF vs tanks in a major way.
The Allies really didn't use IF vs tanks as much as the Russians at
all.
sgri...@carolina.rr.com
wrote:
(snip)
>
> While I do agree no real life corporal would go around behind
>enemy lines driveing a jeep at top speed while some fool stood up to
>fire the 50 cal MG. I remember seeing this game was going to work out
>all the "gamey" type of things from it. This miss this, a simple
>patch for jeeps crashing at high speeds the more turns you move them
>that way will deal with it.
Hey, man, didn't you see "The Rat Patrol"? Those jeeps are so
powerful. They blew up an entire Nazi convoy of armored cars, tanks,
trucks every week! I don't know why people think CM is so
"unrealistic" in this respect.
Grifman
Scott D. Orr
>
>Don't you think that just taking the number of artillery kills from
>here is over simplifying things? After all from the June-Aug the
>arty results are more like 8% and it depends how much artillery and
>what calibre's/ammunition where available in the areas the actual
>results were taken from. What about the abandoned/destroyed by crew
>or the unknown results, could some of these have been due to damage
>from artillery (with the crews finishing them off or being killed
>after bailing out)?
>
Some things count as a "loss" in CM wouldn't be a loss in real
life--if the crew bails out of a vehicle but then just gets back in
later, CM counts it as "destroyed", but obviously it isn't really.
Also, a study on captured tanks wouldn't include those that were
knocked out but easily repairable (or at least it would include only
those that were captured before they could be recovered).
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
<lfa...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
>Fionn,
>
>I disagree because in this case both players will know that. When you know
>what your enemy knows, you simply move your units.
>
Each player has a separate briefing, not read by the other player.
BTW, this thread would be MUCH clearer if you had replied _below_ the
quoted text rather than above.
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
<gift...@NOSPAMZ.dwp.net> wrote:
>(2) How, exactly, are we to draw any conclusions whatever without
>understanding what the original sample was? Saying "of 100 tanks killed,
>99 were killed by artillery" is utterly meaningless without knowing how
>many were fired on by artillery *to begin with*. If 1,000,000 tanks were
>fired on by artillery, and only 99 of them were killed, we draw quite a
>different conclusion about artillery as an AT weapon than we do if we
>learn that 100 tanks were fired on by the big guns and a whopping 99
>knocked out.
>
If the amount of artillery fire in a CM game is roughly the same as
the amount in real life, then, no, we don't need then to know how many
tanks were subjected to artillery fire--the percentage of total kills
due to artillery should be about the same in CM as in real life.
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
wrote:
>> That's why German General Balck forbade his staff to write down orders
>> before a battle: all orders were to be given orally and only written down
>> AFTER the engagement, in order to save a lot of time.
>
>My point was the reading out, not the writing.
>
>After taking as much time as you want to express yourself as tersely as
>possible, it still takes a CM move just to tell your subordinates what to
>do. In real life, you'd take longer because you'd be working to express
>yourself as you went along.
>
However, your subordinates would be doing a lot more on their own
(even including, in a good army, cooperating betwen units), which
would mean you'd need to issue a lot fewer orders than you do in CM.
Scott Orr
Adam Kippes
> Artillery Knockouts: 59.8% with half repairable unless burned out.
I assume this includes tanks guns and AT guns as well as field
artillery.
> Mines: 23.7% most repairable
> Bazookas: 17.0% half repairable unless burned out
> Miscellaneous 0.5%
> NOTE, the above is a bastard quote.
> Nowhere did it mention if the kills from arty were against AFVs that were
> moving, or sitting still.
> I have read, in an old issue of S & T, mid to late 70's, that against moving
> AFVs, there would approximately 1% chance per 100 rounds fired of getting a
> kill, and it would go up to 10% if stationary. Also have seemed to have read
> this somewhere else.
That seems awfully low... are you sure you don't mean a flat 1% and 10%?
-- AK
--
adam....@pobox.com
PGP keys available from servers
Adam Kippes
> Going by memory. Not what it used to be, may be in a book I have by
> Dunnigan<sp>, will look.
The reason I was asking is that the figures total 100% so if tank guns
and AT guns are not included under "artillery" they must have been small
potatoes indeed. <g>
Andy Brown
Andy Brown
or
> >HE? WOW!, did I miss something!...No wonder I never have enough smoke...
> >
> LOL> Yes. That's what everyone's saying ;).
Which, in itself, is arguably unrealistic.
Ozone
Lib Of Congress # 74-175383
In it he quotes from the US Army, in part, armor casualties in WW2 for
vehicles themselves, average:
Artillery Knockouts: 59.8% with half repairable unless burned out.
Bazookas: 17.0% half repairable unless burned out
Miscellaneous 0.5%
NOTE, the above is a bastard quote.
Nowhere did it mention if the kills from arty were against AFVs that were
moving, or sitting still.
I have read, in an old issue of S & T, mid to late 70's, that against moving
AFVs, there would approximately 1% chance per 100 rounds fired of getting a
kill, and it would go up to 10% if stationary. Also have seemed to have read
this somewhere else.
Doug
Ozone
Dunnigan<sp>, will look.
"Adam Kippes" <adam....@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:16kntsogu9qtdgvu2...@4ax.com...
>
> artillery.
>
> > Bazookas: 17.0% half repairable unless burned out
> > Miscellaneous 0.5%
>
> > NOTE, the above is a bastard quote.
> > Nowhere did it mention if the kills from arty were against AFVs that
were
> > moving, or sitting still.
> > I have read, in an old issue of S & T, mid to late 70's, that against
moving
> > AFVs, there would approximately 1% chance per 100 rounds fired of
getting a
> > kill, and it would go up to 10% if stationary. Also have seemed to have
read
> > this somewhere else.
>
>
Paul Vebber
based on period data, we can make some inferences about it form that and
other data avaoable. UK War Office reports document the following:
WO 291/399 Casualties to Churchill tanks in 25-pdr concentrations.
A trial conducted in 1943 tested proposed new tactics, whereby Churchills
would advance though concentrations of friendly 25-pdr fire, by twice
driving a squadron of Churchills through live artillery fire. It is
concluded that the worst that can happen to a Churchill in these
circumstances is immobilisation. The effect of a 25-pdr round exploding on
a Churchill is described thus:
"There is no adverse effect on the crew from a 25 pdr direct hit. Fragments
cannot penetrate the tank, and the blast is not at all uncomfortable."
WO 291/1186 The comparative performance of German anti-tank weapons
during WWII.
This report is dated 24 May 1950.
The percentage of tank losses, by cause, for different theatres is given
as follows:
Theatre (tanks) Mines ATk guns Tanks SP guns
Bazooka Other Total
NW Europe (1305) 22.1% 22.7% 14.5% 24.4% 14.2%
2.1% 100%
Italy (671) 30% 16% 12% 26%
9% 7% 100%
N Africa (1734) 19.5% 40.3% 38.2% nil
nil 2% 100%
Mean values 22.3% 29.4% 25.3% 13.5%
6.1% 3% 100%
of which destroyed 20.3% 29% 24.4% 12.7%
5.4% - 91.8%
of which damaged 2% 0.8% 0.9% 0.8%
0.7% - 5.2%
Caution is advised over the "damaged" figures because of variability in
reporting.
It is stated that tanks and SP guns should be considered together, as
war diaries often show doubt over what exactly caused a tank loss.
Percentage personnel casualties, by type of tank:
Tank type Mines ATk guns Tanks SP guns Bazooka
Sherman 24.6% 41.4% 60.5% 54.3% 44.7%
Churchill 14.7% 45% 46.7% 30% 14.7%
Stuart 34.6% 29.8% 51.7% * *
Crusader * 38.5% 41.7%
Cromwell. Valentine, Matilda, Grant 17.4% 34.4% 28.6% * *
Mean values 21.8% 40% 46.4% 48.4% 38.6%
Of which killed 4.8% 18% 21.8% 20.4% 18%
Of which wounded 17% 22% 24.6% 28% 20.6%
An asterisk indicates a sample smaller than 30. These are included in
the mean values.
The apparently greater effectiveness of mines in Italy is credited to
the differing nature of the terrain, with more defiles than found in other
theatres. It is estimated that about 2,000 German ATk mines were
planted per tank casualty inflicted.
Of note here is that "ARTILLERY" or even HE is not even a category, leading
one to the conclusion that it was not a sginificant cause of casualties.
WO 291/1321 The accuracy of predicted fire.
"It is estimated that broadly speaking an A.G.R.A. firing at 12,000
yds with all guns concentrated will deliver about 2/3rds of the shot not
very far from uniformly into an area 200 yds by 200 yds, the
remainder being scattered rather thinly beyond these limits." If one
assumes say a 4x6 m "foot print" for a tank a roundin needing to
land within 5m to have a chance to damage the target that menas a 14x16m
vulnerable area - or 224 sq m area out of 40,000 or about a .5% or
1 in 200 chance of a nartillery round landing in the vulnerable area of a
tank. If we need an actual strike, then the probability becomes
20/40,000 or 1 in 2000 rounds would actually strike a tank in the beaten
zone.
Now the nature of artillery and tank combat mean that the noise and
concussion f artillery will play havoc with both intra and inter-tank C2.
THis effect of preventing effective comms inand near teh beaten zone is teh
factor resonsible for many instances of artillery 'disrupting" tnak attacks.
The occupants of teh tnaks being unable to communicate in teh midst of a
heavy baaarrage. Thus one reads often of the "disruption" or "scattering" of
armored attacks by artillery but rarely of vehicles being actually hit.
Now what we would today call "operational fires" the massing of Brigade and
division sived arty units against armored spearheads did cause significant
actual casualties, but these are tyopically not tactical "call for fire"
situations CM deals with, but diisiona nd Corps commanders acting on recon
about concentration of enemy force well before an actual attack.
So from the British War office data, aand a litle first order analysis, an
actual hit on a tank by artillery is a VERY remote possibilty. The "effect"
of a round acting adversely is less obsure, and teh general effects of
disruption and C2 problems were endemic in even harrassing bararages.
Los
"Henri H. Arsenault" wrote:
>
> given, and a few might have been disabled by HE. In any case, these data
> support the idea that less than 5% of incapacitated tanks should be
> reduced to that state due to artillery.
The data doesn't show that at all. How many tanks actually caught in an
artuillery barrage that they don't move out of survive? How many artillery
barrages vs AT ambushes or tank battles were encountered during those periods.
It's a classic case of using data that has actually little to do with the
subject discussed to prove a point.
Los
Michael Oberly
Los-
I think artillery against tanks is a tough overstated in CM,but my
main question is light mortars-do you know of any instance where a
light(60MM or 2")mortar took out a buttoned up medium tank(say,a PzIV
G) historically?I would be interested to know if this ever happened,as
it happens more than just occasionally in the game.
Mike
>Los
>
--
Mike Oberly * Rain can't wet me,
when I have my poui in my hand. *
* Rain can't wet me,
I advancing on the foe like a roaring lion!*
Soca/Calypso fan?Check out http://www.iere.com/thebarn
Marko Poutiainen
> If the amount of artillery fire in a CM game is roughly the same as
> the amount in real life, then, no, we don't need then to know how many
> tanks were subjected to artillery fire--the percentage of total kills
> due to artillery should be about the same in CM as in real life.
This is assuming two things: 1) that indeed the number of artillery is
equal and 2) it's use as an AT weapon is equal (i.e. same percentage of
rounds used).
--
Marko Poutiainen | These are my principles.
m...@paju.oulu.fi | If you don't like them, I have others.
http://www.toffeeweb.org | -Groucho Marx
Marko Poutiainen
> Agreed but still the numbers are not totally meaningless, because they
> give an idea overall of what the percentage of losses due to artillery
> should average out to.
Sorry, Henri, but you are wrong. Factors that effect the real vs CM are
for instance: number of arty available and their use. How common were arty
bombardments vs tanks in WWII? How often do you or one of your opponents
do them?
> My impression is that the average numbers in CM are higher than
> warrented by the available evidence, and the available evidence is all
> that we have (in addition to even more worthless anecdotal
> evidence...).
Bad evidence is hardly evidence.
If you want evidence, dig up descriptions of cases where tanks were
bombarded by HE. Count number of tanks vs. tanks destroyed. If you can
find enough cases like this, you could have some evidence (not
necessarily accurate).
Laurent Favre
"Scott D. Orr" <sd...@ix.netcom.com> a écrit dans le message news:
5cents0idtqtv8eph...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 20:37:19 +0200, "Laurent Favre"
> <lfa...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
>
> >Fionn,
> >
> >I disagree because in this case both players will know that. When you
know
> >what your enemy knows, you simply move your units.
> >
> Each player has a separate briefing, not read by the other player.
>
How many players will only play one side without reading both briefings?
another house rule?
Laurent Favre
"Martin Rapier" <m.ra...@sheffield.ac.uk> a écrit dans le message news:
01c02dea$2eeaa260$f811...@ad1mer.shef.ac.uk...
> Henri H. Arsenault <ars...@phy.ulaval.ca> wrote in article
> <arseno-0310...@descartes.phy.ulaval.ca>...
> > In article <01c02d47$037fa9c0$f811...@ad1mer.shef.ac.uk>, "Martin
> Rapier"
>
> > > This sounds a bit extreme, although personally I find artillery
> underrated
> > > as a means of removing enemy armour in many WW2 games, so it is
> refreshing
> {snip}
>
> > According to a British study photo-reproduced in Talonsoft's West Front
> > manual, only about 3% of British tanks were disabled by artillery.In
> somce
> > Combat Mission scenarios, I have had over 50% of my tanks immolbilized
or
> > suffering gun hits from artillery.
> {snip}
>
Soviet issued AP rounds for both 122mm and 152mm artillery brigades used
mostly in corps or army level. Artilley was then used in emergency against
tanks, but I guess Soviet sidn't believed too much in HE rounds against
tanks.
Martin Cracauer
>1) Artillery is more than 10 times more efficient to disable tanks than it
>was in real life during WW2.
I think this is hard to tell. I remember from WW2 autobiographies
that authors describe how tanks literally flee from their waiting
position after fireing at enemy recon units to survive the unavoidable
artillery rain that follows. Especially on the Western Front of
44/45, the CM behaviour doesn't seem unrealistic to me.
I also think that the tradeoff in the game is non-obvious. If you use
your artillery to fire at tanks, you can't use it to supress
infantery. I think limiting artillery ammunition is the key here,
both to fun gameplay and to realism.
[...]
>3) The one-minute orders phase and the absence of standard operation
>orders makes realistic recon totally impossible: units cannot be told to
>go out and recon, and to scoot away if fired upon. I have never seen a
>recon unit survive the first few minutes of a scenario when used for a
>recon mission.
I agree. I would like to see a "recon" order added in another patch
and/or the Tacops scheme where you define what to do after fireing or
being fired upon.
>4) Total absence of air recon is very unrealistic; in Normandy the Allies
>used air recon extensively, but in the game, recon usually consists of
>bumping into the enemy.
Yes, but don't forget camouflage. If you offer advanced recon to the
attacker, you have to give camouflage to the defender. Remember how
many tanks NATO destroyed in Kosovo? Even today, it is hard to spot
units of the size CM uses from the air.
Otherwise, I agree to your point. CM assumes that recon did happen
before you enter the picture, but you don't get *any* information.
I would like a feature in CM that the side with air superiority enters
the game with randomly selected units already spotted, with possibly
wrong data.
>5) Like most if not all wargames, the victory-flag-oriented nature of the
>game guarantees that most if not all battles end up as slugfests; [...]
I was positivly surprised that victory in CM requires much more than
your colour on the flags. I think that CM is rather good when it
comes to prevent "gamey" tactics from becoming overwhelming.
>if
>"house rules" such as those supported by most on the BTS forum are
>enforced preventing "gamey" tactics such as map-edge-hugging, maneuver
>warfare, which was the daily bread of most competent German commanders,
>goes from very difficult to totally impossible to use in the game.
Sorry, couldn't parse that sentense.
Martin
--
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Martin Cracauer <crac...@bik-gmbh.de> http://www.bik-gmbh.de/~cracauer/
FreeBSD - where you want to go. Today. http://www.freebsd.org/
Gareth J Bellaby
interesting. Any on-line source?
Thanks
Gareth
Henri H. Arsenault
crac...@counter.bik-gmbh.de (Martin Cracauer) wrote:
>Sorry, couldn't parse that sentence.
> >if
> >"house rules" such as those supported by most on the BTS forum are
> >enforced preventing "gamey" tactics such as map-edge-hugging, maneuver
> >warfare, which was the daily bread of most competent German commanders,
> >goes from very difficult to totally impossible to use in the game.
>
There is a big discussion (over 500 messages) on the BTS forum about
whether or not it is "gamey" to use tactics that exploit the nature of CM
and that are allegedly contrary to the practice of WW2. These include
moving along map edges, using jeeps for recon, zigzagging armored cars
through enemy territory for recon, buying only super-tanks, etc. My own
position is that the game is what it is, and no one should be constrained
to play by "house rules" that inhibit creativity. I don't object to
changing the program to make it more realistic.
Henri
ASDN
John Waters wrote in message <39db62eb.101789097@news-server>...
>On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 17:26:31 +0200, "ASDN" <as...@go2.pl> wrote:
>>John, how many of the HE loses, you cited, were due to indirect fire ? One
>>can expect some HE loses due to artillery direct fire.
>Chris, the Report does not specify DF or IF only cause of loss. nor
>do I believe any such data exits, concerning how many rounds were
>fired , calibre etc as that would require a live fire test using Arty
>vs tanks in controled conditions.
I didn't want to deny your data, but to point that the AFV losses due to
barrage could be even lower than just numbers of HE loses. (Making it even
worse for CM).
Chris
Marko Poutiainen
> Not to mention the fact that the folks on the chess forums are pretty
> much silent on the "gamey" nature of castling or capturing *en
> passant*...
Er, sorry but could you explain that? Both castling and en passant are
defined in the rules, so what's so gamey about them? Castling, IIRC, was
added to the rules in the 19th century.
John Waters
>
>
>The data doesn't show that at all. How many tanks actually caught in an
>artuillery barrage that they don't move out of survive? How many artillery
>barrages vs AT ambushes or tank battles were encountered during those periods.
>It's a classic case of using data that has actually little to do with the
>subject discussed to prove a point.
>
>Los
Damn guys, the data wasn't provided to prove a point it was provided
as an study on CAUSE OF LOSS of over 300 German tanks. The kind of
detailed data you all aperently are looking for doesn't exist or I
havent stubled across it to date anyway.
.
I don't know why ppl think Arty would have that much effect on armor
anyway, its not like today where we can hit tanks with cluster & TA
munitions, etc.
Regards, John Waters
-----------
Notice: Spelling mistakes left in for people who need to correct others to make their life fulfilled.
----------
ASDN
Michael Oberly wrote in message
<39dc0c19....@news-server.columbus.rr.com>...
>I think artillery against tanks is a tough overstated in CM,but my
>main question is light mortars-do you know of any instance where a
>light(60MM or 2")mortar took out a buttoned up medium tank(say,a PzIV
>G) historically?I would be interested to know if this ever happened,as
>it happens more than just occasionally in the game.
>
The bottom line was that the 81mm and 120mm mortars can penetrate AFV top
armor (M60 & M113) but it is doubtful for 60mm mortar shell (from the long
experience of US mortar crewman). In the patch released shortly after that
discussion all HE penetration values were toned down.
Chris
Chris Wilson
> interesting. Any on-line source?
>
Yes, they have been collected by John Salt and are currently available for
public viewing as part of "Salt's Snippets" which is in turn part of the
British Wargames site http://www.britwar.co.uk/ from the way that Paul has
quoted the information I believe that the quote is a straight lift from
"Salt's Snippets" - thank you for the acknowledgement.
For information, whilst all of John Salt's old site is currently hosted on
British Wargames (whilst he gets settled into a new job) he has made the
information that he's collected freely available to be re-posted -
acknowledgements are of course much appreciated.
--
All the best,
Chris Wilson
The Wargames and Military Search Engine, http://www.britwar.co.uk/search/
The Wargames and Military Banner Exchange, http://www.britwar.co.uk/support/
Free email accounts at: http://freemail.britwar.co.uk/
Join our communities at: http://community.britwar.co.uk/
Chris Wilson
> > According to a British study photo-reproduced in Talonsoft's West Front
> > manual, only about 3% of British tanks were disabled by artillery.
Strictly speaking that's not quite right that is the inference drawn is not
quite right the report actually talks of irrecoverable losses (or uses some
other such qualifier - poor memory). In other works it makes no allowances
to tanks (AFVs) that have been disabled and then got back into action. Thus
AFVs that have lost tracks, bogies, suffered turret jams and other minor
(but debilitating) damage are not considered, neither are vehicles that have
(say) lost their turret and have been subsequently been converted to
"Kangaroos" or gun towers. Most significantly the report doesn't mention
crew casualties remembering of course that you can have the best tank in the
world but its of absolutely no use if the crew inside are concussed and
unable to fight.
> I read that study too - TS published it to justify the virtual
> impossibility of damaging armour in the CS games (although they did
> introduce a low random chance, poss 3%!, of disabling AFVs with indirect
> fire).
Part of the problem is that vehicle incapacity is often equated with
penetration, whilst most penetrative hits result in incapacity the reverse
is not the case. HESH rounds for instance whilst being a very effective AT
round never penetrate. In general terms armour can be immobilised or
rendered ineffective by standard HE (of sufficient calibre), lighter weight
AFVs can be literally thrown into the air and overturned by an HE device
exploding in its proximity even heavier weight vehicles can be tipped on
their side by HE (photographic evidence of tigers/panthers on their sides is
available). Additionally HE can cause crew concussion, track shedding,
wheels to be blown away, vision blocks to be shattered, engine covers blown
away and so forth so I would argue that there is a very good argument to say
that HE can have significant effects against armour and armoured formations.
>
> In the CS games I feel this is overdone - it is possible to call down a
> barrage from several batteries of heavy naval artillery on a stack of
> tanks, and when the smoke clears they are all still sitting there with
> maybe one or two disabled. [snip]
I'd quite agree - subject to considerations of projectile weight/payload.
But I would also point out that a hex in the CS games has 250 metre
diagonals which is quite a lot of space to hide a large number of AFVs in -
thus a low hit probability, of course there's no penalty/provision for
"overstacking" but that's another subject. <smile>
(Mentioned elsewhere in this thread) The reason that HE becomes more
effective at the shorter ranges within the CS games is that it's assumed
that at these ranges the guns are firing over open sights (I appreciate that
this isn't actually always the case) and are thus in a better position to
actually hit the targets than they would be in indirect mode, additionally
at the shorter ranges an allowance is made for the special AT rounds, HEAT,
HEAT-FS, APHE and so forth that artillery batteries were issued with for
self defence purposes.
Michael Oberly
No,I've read 'em all.but I hadn't noticed any clear resolution to
this.I'm taking out PzIV's occasionally with 60mm/2" mortars even
now,so it happens with some regularity in 1.05.Not saying it's
*common*,but should it happen at all?
>Probably you missed a whole big thread about mortars effectiveness in CM.
>The bottom line was that the 81mm and 120mm mortars can penetrate AFV top
>armor (M60 & M113) but it is doubtful for 60mm mortar shell (from the long
>experience of US mortar crewman). In the patch released shortly after that
>discussion all HE penetration values were toned down.
>
>Chris
>
>
--
Gareth J Bellaby
>
> > What was your source for these documents? They sound
> > interesting. Any on-line source?
> >
>
> Yes, they have been collected by John Salt and are currently available for
> public viewing as part of "Salt's Snippets" which is in turn part of the
> British Wargames site http://www.britwar.co.uk/
Thanks
Gareth
Miles J. Blazek, Jr.
> How many players will only play one side without reading both briefings?
> another house rule?
I have two regular opponents and we never play a scenario where any of
us have read the opponents
briefing. Just makes sense if you really want to enjoy FOW. And I
imagine most folks play this
way, because they do want as much realism as possible. Winning is fun,
but I truly believe the
surprises provided by CM with FOW are the real enjoyment of playing the
game. If you've got to
read both briefings, you may as well turn off FOW. IMHO :-)
Miles
Holdit
Giftzwerg <gift...@NOSPAMZ.dwp.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.14463d3ff...@news.giganews.com...
> Henri H. Arsenault (ars...@phy.ulaval.ca) writes;
>
> Not to mention the fact that the folks on the chess forums are pretty
> much silent on the "gamey" nature of castling or capturing *en
> passant*...
>
Castling and en passant aren't simulating any part of reality, so any
comparison is
irrelevant, surely.
Holdit
Henri H. Arsenault <ars...@phy.ulaval.ca> wrote in message
news:arseno-0510...@descartes.phy.ulaval.ca...
It seems to me that house rules are there to enhance realism rather than
inhibit creativity. Taking the
jeep reckon thread on the BTS forum as an example, contributors from the
armed forces who have done the real thing
have confirmed that the current situation allows for unrealistic behaviour
by means of the one-sees-it-all-see-it nature
of spotting, and by the fact that offroad movement is two fast for wheeled
vehicles. My memories of movement rates
for wheeled vehicles in SL/ASL seem to bear this out. In the absence of a
fix in the game, a house rule seems like a perfectly
logical solution.
I can't see why people get their knickers in such a twist about house rules
anyway. The idea behind them is that both players
agree before the game whether or not a particular rule will be enforced.
And there are enough players in both camps to ensure
that, whatever your stance, you'll be able to find an opponent who feels the
same. All in all, it seems like a bit of a storm in a teacup.
mdarrach
then
I know that it was 120mm Mortars at most. I never buy larger. If I was the
Americans then
105VT is the biggest I will get.
"Henri H. Arsenault" wrote:
> In article <3khkts0jhh0o8u7c8...@4ax.com>, Scott D. Orr
> <sd...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > Okay, I've only started to do PBEM (haven't played a turn yet in my
> > two games), but in my games against the computer, I haven't seen a
> > single tank casualty to artillery. Actually, I haven't seen artillery
> > do much at all, because it's so slow, and if you're moving it's never
> > going to catch up with you--this is even more true of tanks than of
> > infantry.
> >
> As they say in French, you have lost nothing by waiting... I DO have to
> say that in the case where I lost more than half of my tanks to artillery,
> my opponent told me that he could see my tanks out in the open and he was
> walking his artillery following them as they moved. Still, it seems to me
> that artillery was much too effective in that case.
>
> Murray, was that in our game? It was the map where you had that darn AT
> gun in the town picking off my vehicles and your two Panthers and
> halftracks that arrived on your right flank behind my advancing infantry.
> If it was you, what caliber of artillery were you using?
>
> Henri
Henri H. Arsenault
<hol...@NOSPAM.indigo.ie> wrote:
> I can't see why people get their knickers in such a twist about house rules
> anyway. The idea behind them is that both players
> agree before the game whether or not a particular rule will be enforced.
> And there are enough players in both camps to ensure
> that, whatever your stance, you'll be able to find an opponent who feels the
> same. All in all, it seems like a bit of a storm in a teacup.
The issue is not whether or not two people can agree to play by any house
rules that they agree on, but whether or not ALL players should be bound
by such rules. A number of participants in the debate including Steve of
BTS have made it clear that they are in the latter group; a number of
players have stated that they would not play against players who do not
abide by house rules, and some refer to players who refuse to play by such
rules as "finger twitch RTS players". Steve once wrote that if I didn't
agree to play following certain house rules, that I should go play some
other game like Sudden Strike.
There is another sub-issue that seems difficult to grasp by some of the
participants in the debate: that is whether or not CM is realistic enough
that such house rules really ensure conformity to WW2 realism. I have
expressed serious doubts about this (and it is the motivation for my
starting this thread).
Then there are sub-issues such as whether or not "Popsky's Army" in North
Africa (an independent part of the British Long Range Recon Force), which
was equipped only with trucks and jeeps, the latter armed with
double-barreled Vickers machineguns and an additional machinegun, put
into the question the absolute claim by some that jeeps were never used
for combat purposes in WW2.
The debate is not made any clearer by the fact that most if not all forum
messages are written off the cuff in a few minutes and often don't say
exactly what the writer intended, and are not read by the participants as
exactly what was written. In discussions like this, the subtle differences
between sentences beginning with "I wonder whether.." and "I claim
that..." are often lost in the fog.
Henri
Holdit
Henri H. Arsenault <ars...@phy.ulaval.ca> wrote in message
news:arseno-0510...@descartes.phy.ulaval.ca...
>
> The issue is not whether or not two people can agree to play by any house
> rules that they agree on, but whether or not ALL players should be bound
> by such rules. A number of participants in the debate including Steve of
> BTS have made it clear that they are in the latter group;
I don't remember that being said, but I might have missed it when things
started to get a bit boring and repetitive
on that particular subject. I don't understand, however, why BTS or anyone
else would wish to apply such
a rule in the first place. For a start, it's unenforcable. For seconds,
why would BTS want to antagonise paying
customers by dictating to them in which manner they should play?
> a number of
> players have stated that they would not play against players who do not
> abide by house rules,
That's the individual players' right. If I felt strongly enough about a
realism loophole that
could be exploited to gain an advantage that was not possible under real
life conditions then
I'd insist that my opponent abide by it too. If my opponent then decides
not to play, then that's fine too,
and we haven't wasted any of each others' time. As it happens, I haven't
insisted on any house rules yet,
mainly because I think that the use of the unrealistic tactics mentioned
carries its own danger, so in the end
it all comes out in the wash.
> and some refer to players who refuse to play by such
> rules as "finger twitch RTS players". Steve once wrote that if I didn't
> agree to play following certain house rules, that I should go play some
> other game like Sudden Strike.
I imagine what he means is that once you start exploiting kinks in the game
engine, you're no longer playing
WW2, so you might as well play any other game that dresses itself up in
1940's costume. That's generally my attitude too,
but I apply it only myself and anyone who agrees to play against me (like I
said, I know there are enough people who take
the same view). Apart from that, I don't care how anyone else plays CM;
it's none of my business. It's your game, you paid for it,
play it any way you want. :-)
>
> There is another sub-issue that seems difficult to grasp by some of the
> participants in the debate: that is whether or not CM is realistic enough
> that such house rules really ensure conformity to WW2 realism. I have
> expressed serious doubts about this (and it is the motivation for my
> starting this thread).
Well, we're never going to achieve realism unless we dig foxholes in our
gardens and shoot at each other with real
rifles. The point, as I see it, is to try as hard as possible to extract
the most realistic WW2 experience from
the tools available. The deliberate exploitation of a design limitation
that allows an advantage to be gained in
a way that would not have been possible in real life flies in the face of
that philosophy. But so what? There are
plenty of players who don't subscribe to it. Play them.
>
> Then there are sub-issues such as whether or not "Popsky's Army" in North
> Africa (an independent part of the British Long Range Recon Force), which
> was equipped only with trucks and jeeps, the latter armed with
> double-barreled Vickers machineguns and an additional machinegun, put
> into the question the absolute claim by some that jeeps were never used
> for combat purposes in WW2.
I don't recall that claim being made either. But I might have missed it
while my eyes were glazed over. :-)
Regards
Holdit
> Holdit (hol...@NOSPAM.indigo.ie) writes;
> >
> > Castling and en passant aren't simulating any part of reality, so any
> > comparison is
> > irrelevant, surely.
>
> I think you're perfectly correct, but my point is even simpler than that;
> game designers need to understand that what *is allowed* by the rules
> *will be done* by players, and if something is to be seen as somehow "not
> cricket," then changes to the rules (or programming) should be made to
> make it impossible.
>
I'm in agreement with you. But some things just aren't possible or
practical to programme in, so if players
want to add a gentleman's agreement that will close some loophole, they
should be at liberty to
do so. I would imagine that anyone making unreasonable demands of his
opponents in this regard
would automatically be penalised by a lack of people to play with.
Fionn Kelly
>give an idea overall of what the percentage of losses due to artillery
>should average out to.
No they don't... What they show is that on that front x number of
tanks were lost to arty...
To make the figures meaningful we need to get how many tanks were
knocked out vs how many tanks were targetted. Without the number
targetted being given the figures are pretty meaningless. As I've
shown I could show you locations in which 50% of tank losses were due
to arty. The truth is that neither report is worth anything since it
doesn't give us anything from which to calculate the number of tanks
destroyed by arty per tank targetted by arty.
>My impression is that the average numbers in CM are higher than
>warrented by the available evidence, and the available evidence is all
>that we have (in addition to even more worthless anecdotal
>evidence...).
Aye but when the available evidence shows that anywhere from 11% to
50some% of tank losses in a particular sector on a particular day were
due to arty that available evidence is virtually worhless.
>Let us say that the "studies" available show that the causes for tank
>losses due to HE artillery are between 3% and 10%; then if one is
>getting over 50% of one's tanks disabled in a given scenario, he is
>justified in concluding that this is highly improbable. Or if CM
>"experiments" show that the losses average out to about 30%, then it
>shows that something is out of kilter.
I'm not going to say that since your own quoted study shows 11% of
IDed kills were due to arty and the Ferdinand study shows about 50% of
kills were due to arty.
The 3% figure you quote is actually wrong. If you include ONLY IDed
causes of destruction then arty gets 11% of the tanks in your study.
>Now here is another question: if the studies mentioned are worthless
>to estimate tank losses due to artillery, how did BTS come up with
>their probabilities for the game? Did they pull them out of a hat?
No. OTOH since some people disagree with you it is simply obvious that
the testers must be mostly people who disagree with your conclusions
regarding arty.. Personally I believe that 100 rounds of 155mm arty
can take out any tank it is aimed at 100% of the time if the tank
stands still.
>Throw dice? Count chicken bones? The fact remains that the designers
>of Talonsoft's WF/EF concluded that tanks losses due to artillery were
>so small as to be negligible. Was their research inferior tothat of
>BTS?
Listen, when two or three contradictory reports surface one team
chooses to believe one, another team believes another. That's the
simple thing that happened.
We are in a situation where two serious games of WW2 tactical
>combat have very different probabilities for tank losses, to the
>extent that they are negligible in WF and can turn the tide of battle
>in CM. At least one of them is wrong. Which is it?
Well, you're speaking tos omeone who has played over 100 PBEMs and
only seen tanks killed by arty in 3 of them. In NONE of those games
was more than 1 tank killed. So, I'd hardly describe it as pivotal.
Maybe you're playing against people who simply use high-calibre arty
against tanks instead of using AT guns... That worked in real life so
I see no reason it shouldn't work now.
Fionn Kelly
>know
>> >what your enemy knows, you simply move your units.
>> >
>> Each player has a separate briefing, not read by the other player.
>>
>
>another house rule?
*sigh* Laurent,
No game can account for cheating etc on such a scale. If someone is
gonna cheat by reading both accounts before a double-blind PBEM then
you shouldn't be playing him.
Check out the Red Devils scenario briefings to see what can be
accomplished using the separate briefings.
Fionn
Fionn Kelly
>what your enemy knows, you simply move your units.
Laurent,
Nope, you're wrong my friend ;).
There is a joint briefing text and then there are private briefings
for the Allied and German forces. Simply put it in the appropriate
briefing and the enemy won't know about it.
Methinks you need to read that manual again as you seem to have missed
a few things first time around ;).
Camel
Arsenault) wrote:
>The issue is not whether or not two people can agree to play by any house
>rules that they agree on, but whether or not ALL players should be bound
>by such rules.
IIRC the "gamey" tactic (originally) in question was sending jeeps on
suicide recon runs straight into the enemy rear areas. Do you not
think this is "gamey"? Do you think it is historical?
IIRC the solution offered by BTS was to heavily reduce the spotting
abilities of a jeep going full speed, which seems reasonable to me. Do
you think it is historical for a jeep going 50mph (most likely off
road) to be spotting well?
Is this a "house rule" or is it rather a "bug fix"?
> A number of participants in the debate including Steve of
>BTS have made it clear that they are in the latter group; a number of
>players have stated that they would not play against players who do not
>abide by house rules, and some refer to players who refuse to play by such
>rules as "finger twitch RTS players".
Slapdragon wrote a piece about wargamers vs videogamers that didn't
denigrate either side.
<snip>
>Then there are sub-issues such as whether or not "Popsky's Army" in North
>Africa (an independent part of the British Long Range Recon Force), which
>was equipped only with trucks and jeeps, the latter armed with
>double-barreled Vickers machineguns and an additional machinegun, put
>into the question the absolute claim by some that jeeps were never used
>for combat purposes in WW2.
I thought the issue in question was if jeeps were sent on sure death
recon runs, sending back to HQ exact spotting info every second until
they got blown away. I don't remember anyone saying that jeeps were
never used in combat; and if that is BTS's position, why did they put
jeeps in the game?
>The debate is not made any clearer by the fact that most if not all forum
>messages are written off the cuff in a few minutes and often don't say
>exactly what the writer intended, and are not read by the participants as
>exactly what was written. In discussions like this, the subtle differences
>between sentences beginning with "I wonder whether.." and "I claim
>that..." are often lost in the fog.
I have only been reading the forum for a few weeks and I already can
sense a number of long standing grudges between posters. Seems to be a
lot of personal animosity in that forum at times. It *will* burst into
flames with just a little fuel.
Scott D. Orr
wrote:
>>Agreed but still the numbers are not totally meaningless, because they
>>give an idea overall of what the percentage of losses due to artillery
>>should average out to.
>
>No they don't... What they show is that on that front x number of
>tanks were lost to arty...
>
>To make the figures meaningful we need to get how many tanks were
>knocked out vs how many tanks were targetted. Without the number
>targetted being given the figures are pretty meaningless. As I've
>shown I could show you locations in which 50% of tank losses were due
>to arty. The truth is that neither report is worth anything since it
>doesn't give us anything from which to calculate the number of tanks
>destroyed by arty per tank targetted by arty.
>
You're asking for data that doesn't exist. When the perfect data
doesn't exist, you work with imperfect data--you don't have a choice.
For most things in the world that people worry about, our data is
imperfect--in fact, scientific standards for data (and indeed
statistics) are a relatively recent invention, but nonetheless human
knowledge accumulated before these things were invented. We must
therefore conclude that imperfect data is not "worthless".
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
<gift...@NOSPAMZ.dwp.net> wrote:
>Scott D. Orr (sd...@ix.netcom.com) writes;
>
>> >(2) How, exactly, are we to draw any conclusions whatever without
>> >understanding what the original sample was? Saying "of 100 tanks killed,
>> >99 were killed by artillery" is utterly meaningless without knowing how
>> >many were fired on by artillery *to begin with*. If 1,000,000 tanks were
>> >fired on by artillery, and only 99 of them were killed, we draw quite a
>> >different conclusion about artillery as an AT weapon than we do if we
>> >learn that 100 tanks were fired on by the big guns and a whopping 99
>> >knocked out.
>> >
>> If the amount of artillery fire in a CM game is roughly the same as
>> the amount in real life, then, no, we don't need then to know how many
>> tanks were subjected to artillery fire--the percentage of total kills
>> due to artillery should be about the same in CM as in real life.
>
>The problem with this logic is that the amount of artillery fire in a CM
>game is going to be based on the player's experiences with respect to the
>effectiveness of artillery as an antitank weapon - not the amount of
>artillery directed at tanks "in real life."
>
>If the game models artillery as very effective against tanks, then
>players will sense how well it works and use artillery against tanks more
>freely. Conversely, if the game models artillery as ineffective against
>armor, then players will stop wasting indirect fire on enemy tanks.
This particular dynamic will only magnify a difference that existed in
the first place--but the difference has to exist first for it to
happen.
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
<lfa...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
>
>"Scott D. Orr" <sd...@ix.netcom.com> a écrit dans le message news:
>5cents0idtqtv8eph...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 4 Oct 2000 20:37:19 +0200, "Laurent Favre"
>> <lfa...@cybercable.fr> wrote:
>>
>> >Fionn,
>> >
>> >I disagree because in this case both players will know that. When you
>know
>> >what your enemy knows, you simply move your units.
>> >
>> Each player has a separate briefing, not read by the other player.
>>
>
>How many players will only play one side without reading both briefings?
>another house rule?
>
"House rule"? The game only presents each player one briefing. To
read the other briefing, you have to run the scenario as if you were
going to play the other side. This is very explicitly _cheating_--you
don't need a "house rule" for this. (I would assume, of course, that
in most cases players will choose to play scenarios that neither has
played before.)
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
wrote:
>> However, your subordinates would be doing a lot more on their own
>> (even including, in a good army, cooperating betwen units), which
>> would mean you'd need to issue a lot fewer orders than you do in CM.
>
>Back to my original post. I was talking about the orders a company
>commander would give his subordinate platoons and attached specialists.
>
Yes, but he wouldn't have to give orders that are as detailed as the
ones your describing. He could just say, "1st platoon, advance 200
meters and then cover 2nd platoon's flank." All the business about
figuring out which subordinate units are going to pause where would be
handled by SOP and by the discretion of the platoon commanders.
Mind you, when a company actually made a game like this, where
subordinate commanders did their own thing, gamers screamed bloody
murder at the loss of control (this was SSG's Battlefront series).
Scott Orr
Scott D. Orr
<gift...@NOSPAMZ.dwp.net> wrote:
>Henri H. Arsenault (ars...@phy.ulaval.ca) writes;
>
>> There is a big discussion (over 500 messages) on the BTS forum about
>> whether or not it is "gamey" to use tactics that exploit the nature of CM
>> and that are allegedly contrary to the practice of WW2. These include
>> moving along map edges, using jeeps for recon, zigzagging armored cars
>> through enemy territory for recon, buying only super-tanks, etc. My own
>> position is that the game is what it is, and no one should be constrained
>> to play by "house rules" that inhibit creativity. I don't object to
>> changing the program to make it more realistic.
>
>Not to mention the fact that the folks on the chess forums are pretty
>much silent on the "gamey" nature of castling or capturing *en
>passant*...
>
>The real-world strictures against "gamey" behavior should apply - else
>the game designer should roll up his sleeves and get back to work.
I don't see why house rules wouldn't be considered part of the game
design.
Yes, all rules inhibit creativity--they also direct it (hence, we have
the linguistic stricutes of the sonnet). If the point is to play a
game that simulates WWII warfare, it's silly to draw an arbitrary
distinction between hard-coded and house rules.
Scott Orr
Dan Neely
"Old Salt" <old....@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:cc9qts071dd75urgk...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 Oct 2000 19:52:59 -0400 Plato was dumbfounded by what,
> Scott D. Orr said about, "Re: How realistic is CM?",
>
> >Mind you, when a company actually made a game like this, where
> >subordinate commanders did their own thing, gamers screamed bloody
> >murder at the loss of control (this was SSG's Battlefront series).
>
> are the best for what they do even today.
has anyother game even attempted to do that?
Andy Brown
Camel
wrote:
>
>Mind you, when a company actually made a game like this, where
>subordinate commanders did their own thing, gamers screamed bloody
>murder at the loss of control (this was SSG's Battlefront series).
>
I wonder what the gamer reaction is going to be to relative spotting
(planned for the next version of the CM engine)?
I predict flame wars unseen since jeeps killed tigers....