Combat Mission Final Blitzkrieg

[Michael Dorosh]

Here are some additional thoughts, no doubt disjointed:

http://thetacticalwargamer.blogspot.ca/2016/04/tank-commander-exposure-in-combat.html

[sandman2575]

MD....you're opening sentence asks an excellent question. I wonder what real life statstics there are for numbers of TC's who were killed while exposed. A significant number, an insignificant number? Enquiring minds want to know.....!!

With thanks to MD for the very interesting blog discussion --

It surely would be nice to know some statistical data on these issues -- yet my own (by now deeply ingrained) impression, borne out by considerable trial and error, is that TCs are killed or seriously injured (and thus removed from subsequent missions in a campaign) at much too high a rate -- if CM's rate were historical, how on earth would TCs gain veterancy?  In a company of tanks, should half of the TCs be eliminated after several missions? That strikes me as high, but I've absolutely had that kind of rate of attrition in CM campaigns.

I'm very conservative with having TCs unbutton -- I usually err on the side of 'staying buttoned up' even in situations where it really should be relatively safe to unbutton, i.e. several hundred meters behind frontline fighting. From the research MD cites, it seems like TCs were not so super-cautious about unbuttoning, for good reasons (the enhanced visibility and situational awareness that comes from being unbuttoned). The photo of the Sherman TC externally manning his .50 cal is a perfect illustration -- in CM, that guy would survive all of 60 seconds exposed like that. He'd have a gigantic virtual bulls-eye plastered on him, and the AI would doubtless make him pay.

Look, if a TC is unbuttoned, surveying the battlefield, and his tank suddenly takes a HEAT round from some unnoticed enemy tank 1KM away, and gets killed -- I have no problem with that -- that seems a perfectly legitimate outcome and I have no doubt a reasonable share of ww2 TCs met their end in similar fashion. What drives me crazy is the succeptibility of TCs to getting picked off by small arms fire from several hundred meters distant. This is by no means an uncommon occurrence in CM. It happens much too frequently.

[Rayfer]

Here are some additional thoughts, no doubt disjointed:

http://thetacticalwargamer.blogspot.ca/2016/04/tank-commander-exposure-in-combat.html

The initial quote from a German WW2 TC primer clearly states: When the enemy was near and in combat situations the turret hatch was battened down, and the commander observed the battlefield through small episcopes set into the cupola surface.  This is almost always the case in the Red Thunder games I've played. The article goes on to quote other sources that aren't as supportive of staying buttoned up.

[jomni]

Maybe it's just US and Commonwealth practice?

[Michael Dorosh]

Maybe it's just US and Commonwealth practice?

There do appear to be major differences between British, German and American practice. It may be related to the relative availability of vision cupolas in German tanks, for one. If the American 4th AD was putting MGs on their cupolas and blasting away, it is certainly also different from British practice where MGs were largely deleted from the turrets, but commanders were still expected to have heads out of hatches. The Sherman I, III and V didn't, IIRC, have vision blocks on their commander cupolas.

[Michael Dorosh]

PzKpfw IVH cupola



Sherman Vc with 17-pounder.

[Redwolf]

He was talking about the balancing act, but at the same time being fairly dismissive of anyone who seemed to tink it was in an issue.  How much discussion from Steve went on AFTER a pretty solid test was done.  Instead of arguing for 5-6 pages of the thread, why wouldn't Steve just take the test and run it.  Instead of picking apart someone's test, just be a real developer and run the test.

I provided savegames for CM problems since about 2001 or so. I even did PBEM against myself to get a file that had the random numbers already rolled. Pain in the ass.  None of the clowns over there ever so much as ran it.  It is all theorizing over there. Not only about what reality was like, but also about what the game engine does, exactly. Many of the forum regulars just don't know and never ran specific isolated tests. It has always been reasonably common for Charles to simply wipe out a bug without comment that Steve previously defended as realistic, intended behavior for years.

[MengJiao]

I agree.... Can a TC get plinked from 600m? Sure. But it shouldn't be easy or the norm. The MG almost instantly opening fire , absent other targets, feels OK to me. I'm probably going out on an unpopular limb but the AI having a MG locked, loaded and looking for something to shoot at....especially something in it's LOS already but without something worth shooting at, seems like a good game AI default. It's the effectiveness that I question.

In the above example.  You blast away with a vehicle cannon at some infantry. 

I'm not seeing the problem as much.  Maybe real time makes a difference somehow?

I've had some unusual collisions with infantry lately.  A US infantry platoon ran into 4 German 37mm semi-armored flak vehicles.  The infantry knocked out one (the vehicle has an open top so maybe a rifle grenade got them), but the platoon was like 80% wiped out in about 3 minutes.  In other news, some Shermans lost commanders (2 out of 6) in an encounter at close range along a road in a forest.  So from what I've seen the game gives reasonable results for infantry fire on vehicles.
That supposes they the tank sees you. If you have even moderate concealment, I would expect the get a lot of lead in the air before a tank targets me and starts laying down some hell-storm. Which is how the game plays.

Killing a TC as soon as it opens up?.............

[Con]

I sense that this thread will soon restore my belief in evolution as we progress through the five stages of Battlefront Combat Mission Grief and loss :)

Step one - Discussion of the new game can border on the irrational happiness meter - DENIAL of the impending flame war
Step Two - Natural occurring question organically grown from an observation in the game with spirited point and counter point - BARGANING and general showing off your grogginess
Step Three - The DEPRESSION of learning that your wife/cat/mailman and anyone within earshot is rolling their eyes at you as you stridently explain that game is wrong leading too
Step Four - Vilification of Battlefronts EDM/Customer Skills/lack of business acumen/personal hygiene and ANGER at everyone who has not agreed with everything I have typed in the manifesto around this topic (excess wearing out of CAPS key is common here).
Step Five - Finally transition to Its just a game and relax as we ACCEPT that paying the mortgage might be more of a priority than for example what is the thickness the Hetzer front glacial plate (but dont get me started on which MMG was better)

[Sir Slash]

Hello. My name is Slash and I am currently between Step 3 and Step 4 of the 5 Step Combat Mission Program. It feels so much better to talk to others with the same problem I have. Just STOP STARING AT ME. 

[TacticalWargames]

Due to illness over the weekend I couldn't get the CMFB review finished. However I'm all done and it now requires my man Clayton, a self confessed grammar nazi to tear his hair out as he reads through my review and fixing the many issues he finds. Once done it shall be published on the TW blog. I'll post here with a link to the review once it goes up.

[Michael Dorosh]

Very interesting MD...thanks for posting. I had no idea this sort of analysis was done, no less available, in such detail.

I think John D. Salt used to do some research into these reports. He used to post at Battlefront but I've seen him more recently at THE MINIATURES PAGE - some good discussions on history at TMP on occasion.

[sandman2575]

MD -- did you see Tim Stone refer to your discussion in RPS's latest Flare Path?  Under "U is for unbuttoning"

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/04/22/the-flare-path-topical-titbits-2/

O0

[Michael Dorosh]

MD -- did you see Tim Stone refer to your discussion in RPS's latest Flare Path?  Under "U is for unbuttoning"

https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2016/04/22/the-flare-path-topical-titbits-2/

O0

I didn't....thanks for the tip.  O0

[Cyrano]

#1:  Great to see this sort of analysis still being stirred up by CM.  Makes me remember the "old days" of the early Naughties.

#2:  I'm now more and more convinced of my prediction that CMFB will draw in a more regular audience than BS.  Not only this kind of discussion (which is awesome), but the first tournament at the Blitz filled up very quickly.  WWII is still the game of choice for most -- or at least it has a bigger audience.  I think this is especially true since we've returned to an AO where it's U.S.-v-Germany, full on footy war!