Combat Mission:Battle for Normandy question

[Grim.Reaper]

Probably as good as thread as any to ask this question....when you are trying to position your troops, what is the best way to know you are putting them in a good area?  How do you know how concealed they are and/or how well the enemy might be able to detect them?  I know visually you can see their surroundings such as in woods, but sometimes I am very amazed that my troops are discovered, when I think they are concealed?  Is there some kind of indicator that I am over looking?

[IronX]

I don't think you can, nor should you really be able to, tell how well troops might be spotted by the enemy. The best thing to do is to use the Hide command where there is cover. They remain hidden as best they can until you either change the command or the enemy is really close.

[Grim.Reaper]

I don't think you can, nor should you really be able to, tell how well troops might be spotted by the enemy. The best thing to do is to use the Hide command where there is cover. They remain hidden as best they can until you either change the command or the enemy is really close.

I probably didn't state it well since your right that you can't be sure if the enemy sees you...however, is there a way to tell how much concealment your current position is providing?  I realize the enemy may or may not still see you, but would be nice to know if my teams are positioned in a spot where maximum concealment is available by trees, fences, walls, etc.  I find it hard to tell just visually since some times I think I am very well concealed, but find out later that wasn't true.

[bruce205]

Just purchased the whole thing and its really awesome as I mentioned in the Friday thread !!!

Bruce

[Yskonyn]

I don't think you can, nor should you really be able to, tell how well troops might be spotted by the enemy. The best thing to do is to use the Hide command where there is cover. They remain hidden as best they can until you either change the command or the enemy is really close.

I probably didn't state it well since your right that you can't be sure if the enemy sees you...however, is there a way to tell how much concealment your current position is providing?  I realize the enemy may or may not still see you, but would be nice to know if my teams are positioned in a spot where maximum concealment is available by trees, fences, walls, etc.  I find it hard to tell just visually since some times I think I am very well concealed, but find out later that wasn't true.

Not via an indicator like we had in CMx1.
There was much discussion about this in relation to their 1:1 modelling philosophy in the CMx2 games.
Units will use their inherent TacAI to take cover as best they can within the tile. So a tile with lots of cover and concealment (especially with a few 'flavour objects' in it like barrels or boxes) provide more means to duck behind.
Trees seem to be abstracted more; there seems to be an overal cover modifier if your unit is in one, yet the individual trees can block incoming shells and rounds.

I agree it takes getting used to and positioning units well is one of the major 'problems' a player has to solve. But indeed, you should not be able to know how well your units are concealed in an absolute way. Nor is that the intention of the devs.

Brush has better concealment than open ground and trees better cover and concealment than brush, so much is clear.
But are your units running, making them a solid sound contact even if they arent spotted by eye? Does the enemy start to area fire into the hex which he thinks your units might be, even though he has not spotted them?

[MikeGER]

I don't think you can, nor should you really be able to, tell how well troops might be spotted by the enemy. The best thing to do is to use the Hide command where there is cover. They remain hidden as best they can until you either change the command or the enemy is really close.

I probably didn't state it well since your right that you can't be sure if the enemy sees you...however, is there a way to tell how much concealment your current position is providing?  I realize the enemy may or may not still see you, but would be nice to know if my teams are positioned in a spot where maximum concealment is available by trees, fences, walls, etc.  I find it hard to tell just visually since some times I think I am very well concealed, but find out later that wasn't true.

there is a kind of approximation to 'get a clue' for a single spot i have often seen used in Lets Play vids (proably by ChrisND or Ithikial ) when finetuning an ambush or plan to moving concealed to a postion

plan a move command to the spot that you want to test, then plan a fire command and reach out to the spot where area of  approaches by the enemy might be, or already known enemy positions. The line-color gives at least the LOS information.
(the tricky part: IIRC that line got drawn from your current position , but no worry it is still calculated from the end of the planed movement point if its is still selceted and highlighted) 
 
It often used the other side of the problem around: like how far close to the border of a woodline still inside the wood, i have to place a unit so that it has barely LOS to a road where for example an ambush is about to be planed (often its just a few meters shift that provide or block the necessary LOS, even so from just onlooking at the scene on the screen you might have had the impression it has just to be the other way around with the unit placement)

If you want a 'hide command' but with more situational awareness, so your soldiers still popping up their head to spot, with  caveat: and so can be seen more likely themself then with the Hide command). place the unit and give a circular fire-arc with just 30m or so.     

[JudgeDredd]

I think that firing smoke shells is not the same as defensively popping smoke.  JD's talking about throwing the smoke some distance from the AFV using the main gun.

It's a pity there isn't a "fire briefly" equivalent for smoke shells.

But perhaps little "frustrating" things like this could be looked into. I mean, you can give multiple move commands....why not multiple fire commands.

Example...I click the Target Smoke button and I click the target area. I then do the same again...2 times, 3 times or 4 times. I might not. But if I do, I get multiple smoke shells at the places I want. If I don't, then I get one smoke shell. And ONLY do this for the smoke shells. All other target commands work as they currently do.

It may be a case of clunky UI, but I think it also manages to reflect the 'reality' of the situation. A single player giving commands to multiple sub-units will always have an advantage in being able to coordinate his own activities. His transport will always arrive exactly where he wants it to, when he wants it to, a tank 500 metres away from an infantry squad will telepathically know when the squad is advacing and needs cover fire, etc.

It could be argued that allowing greater fire control would only further give the player advantages the real life counterparts the game is portraying never had.

[/quote]
I never really buy the "real life" and "limitations" argument...at least not for everything game related.

The fact I am the "overall commander" is just an aspect of the game. I still have to micro manage the troops and I have to do that because, for the most part, the AI doesn't behave like a human. As such, things that a human would do, I would expect to have as some sort of control in the game...and if it's not there, it's an unfair limitation forced on me.

Using the "Target Smoke" as an example, I would fully expect that tank commander to pop one or two smoke shells when he comes under fire. If he's come under fire from something big or if there's a strong wind or if he missed his intended location he may even deem it prudent to fire all 5.

The important point there is I would expect him to use his "initiative". That is not in the game and therefore should be given to me. After all, although I am the "overall commander", I also take the role of each of the units commanders and would be expected to make calls based on what is happening around that platoon, no?

I would also expect the platoon that wants the cover to ask the tank (in this case sitting right next to them) to ask him to fire "a shell" or "a couple of shells" of smoke to cover their advance.

I would not expect the tank commander (unless the situation deemed it necessary) to shoot his load of smoke shells within a minute...knowing full well, he has other terrain to traverse and more "baddies" kicking around.

So I don't buy the real world limitation argument.

I will take it that there's a limitation in the interface and it's an unfair advantage because it reduces my ability to use each of those units to their full advantage by employing some common sense and initiative.

And I will also buy that the suggestions earlier are workarounds.  O0

[Yskonyn]

But you see, tank smoke shells were hardly used as concealment measures for advances. Mortal smoke was the most common.
Vehicle smoke was a last ditch effort when coming under threat to obscure the LOS of the enemy and back away with the AFV.
If you don't want to feel having Limitations posed on you, you need to go with the flow and know the actual limitations of a unit.
Same goes for popping smoke grenades with German infantry. It just wasn't viable at the time, so the game gives you a hard time if you try.

[JudgeDredd]

I can (and am) going with the limitation. I didn't know it was a limitation at the time. I wondered if there was a way to do it.

After a couple of suggestions on how to get it to work, and a suggestion that it's a limitation in the UI, these threads turn into the usual "Well, if you don't like it".

If it's a shite idea, then it's a shite idea. Hell, maybe BF didn't put it in the game because they thought about it and it was a shite idea. I really don't know. I was present at the meetings.

I would like it as an option. It's not going to be (for whatever perceived reason anyone comes up with). So I'll use the fire smoke, pause and move option, see if that works.

[Yskonyn]

 I think the way you want to employ smoke will see a much higher probability of success in Black Sea. ;)

[Pete Dero]

I can (and am) going with the limitation. I didn't know it was a limitation at the time. I wondered if there was a way to do it.

After a couple of suggestions on how to get it to work, and a suggestion that it's a limitation in the UI, these threads turn into the usual "Well, if you don't like it".

If it's a shite idea, then it's a shite idea. Hell, maybe BF didn't put it in the game because they thought about it and it was a shite idea. I really don't know. I was present at the meetings.

I would like it as an option. It's not going to be (for whatever perceived reason anyone comes up with). So I'll use the fire smoke, pause and move option, see if that works.

It is only a limitation (with workarounds available) when you play in WEGO.   If you like full control and play in real time mode the issue disappears.

I don't know how many ww2 tanks carried real smoke shells but the range of 'smoke pots' is only 50 yards so they are useless in covering your advance. 
These smoke dischargers were only used to protect the tank itself and according to reports they weren't very good at it.  In the case you needed them you better use all of them at once
to have any kind of protection and to cover your retreat.   Saving some of them for later in the campaign would not be a smart idea.

[Father Ted]

I don't know how many ww2 tanks carried real smoke shells but the range of 'smoke pots' is only 50 yards so they are useless in covering your advance. 
These smoke dischargers were only used to protect the tank itself and according to reports they weren't very good at it.  In the case you needed them you better use all of them at once
to have any kind of protection and to cover your retreat.   Saving some of them for later in the campaign would not be a smart idea.

Again, he is talking about real smoke shells.  Whether or not they were present IRL I don't know, but they are in the game and they are the issue.  Actually, I like the idea of Yskoyn's "mortal smoke" - sounds much more deadly.

[Yskonyn]

One of the secret weapons of the Wehrmacht !

damn auto correct.

[Pete Dero]

It seems (real) smoke shells were used more widely than I thought :

AMERICAN SMOKE: An Underdog Battles the Big Cats, by Michael Duplessis

1. While the Eisenhower report destroys the comparative worth of most U.S. equipment compared to German, American smoke shells get an A+.

2. American tankers used smoke aggressively and offensively. Smoke shell direct hits on panzers could blind for as long as 4 minutes. Smoke would be carried in barrel as ready round in case a threat suddenly appeared. 6 of 15 ready rack rounds could be smoke.

3. German tankers on record as stating that American smoke rounds were excellent and exceptionally accurate. The exact phrase they used is "maddeningly accurate".

4. White phosphorus is not a Sherman tank standard ammo load but was designed for M1A1 Pack Howitzer, and it could be chambered by 75mm Sherman M3 gun. WP is not listed on the gun tables in Hunnicutt's SHERMAN.[/size]


From: Belton Cooper Death Traps, The Survival of an American Armored Division in WWII"

One major engagement just south of the Paderborn airport exemplified the tragic inferiority of our tanks".

One of our columns proceeded up a slightly inclined straight road. A narrow, winding road met the straight road about half a mile from the point where our column entered it. Heavily wooded, rolling hills lay on the right side of the road, and a level, open field was on the left with woods set back about three hundred yards. The column consisted of a company of M4 Sherman tanks followed by a company of armored infantry in half-tracks. These were followed by several GMC trucks and Jeeps and three M36 tank destroyers. Suddenly, seven King Tiger tanks appeared along the crest of the forward slope on the left side. As the tanks advanced toward our column, they turned to the right into a column formation and opened fire. We had no time or room to maneuver, and the Shermans could not utilize the advantage of our gyrostabilizers. Three more King Tigers emerged from the hilly woods road to the right. Our tankers and infantrymen were faced with their worst fear: to be caught in the open by King Tiger tanks at close range, without the ability to maneuver or seek cover.

The seven King Tiger tanks on the left proceeded down the entire length of the column, then turned around and came back. At extremely close range, a hundred yards or less, they raked the column from stem to stern. Some observers said it was more like a naval engagement than land warfare. The infantry immediately took cover in the ditches on both sides of the road. One of the Sherman tanks, with a 76mm gun, broke out of the column and took cover behind a small stucco farm building to the left, just off the road in about the middle of the column. As the Tigers came down on their first pass, the Sherman crew swung their 76mm gun 180 degrees to the rear and let go at close range. The Tiger's thinner armor over the engine compartment was penetrated, and the tank started to burn. The victory for this brave crew was short-lived, however, because the Sherman was knocked out by another Tiger on its return pass.

Although the entire column was trapped, some of the veteran crews stayed cool and utilized their advantages. One of the crews of an M4 Sherman with a short-barreled 75mm M2 gun was near the middle of the column when the three King Tigers appeared on the right side. The alert tank commander immediately saw two possibilities. First, he knew that the King Tiger had a slow traverse, and it would be extremely difficult and time-consuming for him to swing the turret and elevate the gun to zero in on him. Next, our tank commander knew that an armor-piercing shot from his low-velocity 75mm would just bounce off the King Tiger.

In a split second he told his gunner to load a white phosphorus round. It struck the glacis plate right above the driver's compartment with a blaze of flames and smoke. Although there was no possibility of penetration, the shock in the tank must have been terrific. The entire faceplate in front of the turret was covered with burning particles of white phosphorus which stuck to the sides of the tank. The smoke engulfed the tank, and the fan in the engine compartment sucked the smoke inside the fighting compartment. The German crew must have thought the tank was on fire and immediately abandoned it. Although the tank suffered little damage, had the crew stayed inside they would have been overcome by the deadly fumes. The Sherman immediately turned its gun on the second tank in the column and fired white phosphorus, with the same result. Although the ingenious tank commander knocked out two King Tiger tanks (without ever getting a penetration), his tank was then knocked out by another Tiger.



It is a (small) issue in Wego mode but you can still fix it with some mixed commands.

How does a game like Graviteam Tactics use smoke shells ?  Tanks have smoke shells but I think there is no specific command to use them deliberately (ai uses them automatically in defense ?)
As far as I know you need to use artillery spotters to lay a smoke screen in this game.

[Yskonyn]

Thanks for sharing ! Very nice article, but it does reference late war situations. During the war technology had progressed tremendously and I don't think early war usage of smoke (shells) was as effective.
Perhaps we will see more effective Armor fired smoke shells in Final Blitzkrieg.