Open field combat

[Alex1812]

As for my there is one main problem in game engine. The problem is that any vehicles (not depend on side) very vulnerable in open terrain and overprotected in cities and forest. In this case it is impossible to fight in open terrain because you lost all your troops very quick. It is contrary to the real situation in which the open terrain is the main battlefield area

[Lowlaner2012]

Hi Alex is that not what its like in real life? Urban terrain gives a lot of cover as do forest etc, moving across open terrain on the modern battlefield with its thermal imaging and modern sensors not masked by hills or using good cover is extremely deadly and risky... its not just redstorm that shows this CM black sea shows that this is the case as well...

When I am playing I try to use the terrain or smoke to mask the movement of my forces when having to move across open ground, also the different type of movement orders help, deliberate is safer while hasty prioritizes speed over cover....

[Pawsy]

<vehicles (not depend on side) very vulnerable in open terrain and overprotected in cities and forest>

thats the reality, I keep my forces there and mask them from direct fire so that I get the flank shot. Another common mistake is putting units on top of or moving over hills. I use terrain to mask my moves. This may not be the shortest route.

You use terrain, defence, or obstacles to block, delay or turn the enemy in to a killing area of your choice.

[Alex1812]

In reality (ww2 and modern wars) tanks almost never fight in forest. Also in many situations they suffered heavy losses in urban terrain. But in the game we have contrary results - great protection in urban, normal fight in forest and impossible combat in open ground

[Mad Russian]

I would agree with this overall. The situation you describe is a bit oversimplified but the end deduction is correct I think.

I would say that the game engine reverses the situation we are used to seeing for two reasons.

1) If you can see it you can kill it. So, open ground now becomes the place to die and not to fight.

2) LOS is both cities and forest isn't functional IMO. You should in most cases in either of those terrains be able to see only in the location you are in. Infantry in the same location in the game gives a good account of itself. It doesn't give a good account of itself when the tanks see them at distance and pound them to pieces.

This is something that will be looked at in 2.1.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Lowlaner2012]

Alex have not seen this in the game are you talking about tanks in close combat in urban terrain (in the same or the adjacent hex) or tanks on the edge of a town firing at tanks approaching through open terrain?

I remember a pbem game where I was playing the Soviets against a WG force, I got desperate and attacked with tanks into a city that had German infantry in it, they massacred my tanks with Fausts and milans... I had no tanks left in the town when the WG infantry had finished with them..

Surely tanks dug in right on the edge of a town should be able to see the open ground beyond?

To me its bad tactics to advance across open ground that that you suspect may be observable to the enemy with no cover or smoke to mask the movement...

From what I have seen in my games units including tanks and infantry deep in city's/towns can only see there own hex and the adjecent hex, is that not how it should be?

So MR are you saying that even after all these patches the game has elements that do not function correctly?

I would really appreciate a screen shot and description as I am not understanding the problem here... thanks

[Zipuli]

Let me disagree.

Armoured vehicles in open are targets in modern combat, where modern ATGMs and FCSs deny the advantage of movement and speed that was very much still there during WW2. I think the game simulates this rather well. Armoured vehicles fighting out from cover against armoured vehicles in open make the open a killing zone. This is realistic. Vehicles use the cover (buildings, woods, small hills) to expose themselves only to fire, and then move back to cover and relocate. The other party in the open does not have this advantage, but is exposed all the time.

In all post-WW2 armoured battles in the open, result has been one of the 2:
1) Both sides suffer huge losses, because the forces are somewhat equally matched
2) One side suffers huge losses, because the other side has technological AND air superiority
- until the other party is routed...

In my experience (from evently matched 2-sided live-simulation excercises in the field) Red Storm simulates it quite well actually. In case the sides are even somewhat evently matched, using terrain for cover instead of "daring dash" in the open will give a huge advantage.

But I do agree that unsupported tanks are too effective inside urban areas vs. infantry. But if the infantry is unprepared (no time to plan and set up ambushes, dig-in etc. like the case is 99% of time in Red Storm), they should not be able to slaughter even unsupported modern tanks, if they move in numbers. Maybe in Groznyi it worked, because the tanks were not equipped with thermal sights, and the tank crews were rather low quality. In Baghdad it didn't, even though all but tankers said entering Baghdad with armour only would be suicide.

[Alex1812]

ORIGINAL: Zipuli

Vehicles use the cover (buildings, woods, small hills) to expose themselves only to fire, and then move back to cover and relocate

it means that rate of fire in urban or forest must be less than in open terrain. You need additional time for moving back and for new aiming after that

[Lowlaner2012]

OK I can see your point Alex, thanks for explaining that... so its not a LOS issue, its a potential ROF issue as tanks absractly move from firing position to firing position?

I wonder how hard that would be model in the game as it is an abstract...it looks like it will only be looked into for version 2.1

Do you want to put the pbem on hold?

I am very happy to carry, as it doesn't seem like a big issue to me, all I will do is doubly make sure I mask any movement behind terrain or smoke...

[Alex1812]

so, I request the new feature [:)]

vehicle rate of fire = 100 * basic vehicle rate of fire / hex cover

in this case infantry may have some additional advantage in close terrain

[Alex1812]

highlandcharge, I want to continue all my PBEM in any case

[Pawsy]

Yup I'd agree Alex1812, excpet where your dug in, your rate of fire will increase. The real problem for tanks and infantry is spotting who the hell shot at you and where from.

Remember your in a tank moving across country, your looking through a periscope, your tired, afraid, soaked to the skin (its europe it always rains), hungry, dirty and unshaven. Your NBC suit itches like hell. You have radio chatter in one ear and crew in the other. You see a blinding light to one side as one of your troop explodes. To the flank 3km away is a tree line, can you spot the turret or smoke from its main gun? The enemy tank commander has already spotted and designated the next target as the gunner makes the kill. The loader reloads, the gunner takes over, lazes or ranging machine guns the target and pulls the trigger on the joystick to fire the main gun before you can even swing the turret towards them. If your dug in or in cover all of the above applies except your not hitting your head on the damn periscope and not so disorientated and you have the best chance of spotting and killing the enemy so long as you have surprize. You can do the same on the move but unless you spot the target your stuffed. In the game, NATO with TI, has a big adavanatge in poor visibility. They can effectively see through, smoke, mist and trees and at much greater distances then the soviet tanks.

[Zipuli]

ORIGINAL: Alex1812
it means that rate of fire in urban or forest must be less than in open terrain. You need additional time for moving back and for new aiming after that

Not necessarily, you may move to position and keep blasting away...

But chances that you fire first are a lot higher, as:
- The enemy moving in the open is easy to spot, and easy to track (ATGMs, FCSs)
- You are in cover, meaning the enemy will not spot you as easily, and even when you move you are covered most of the time by buildings, trees etc. meaning you are harder to kill after you are spotted
- The moving enemy has harder time firing an accurate round (especially so with soviet equipment of the game's era, but same with even Leo 2A4s and Abrams', and in case of western tanks, loading in fast moving vehicles is not as quick as in stationary vehicle - so ROF goes down...)

All of the adverse effects for the one in the open increase as range increases. On point blank range the situation evens up.

But this is only taking into account direct fire engagements.

If the enemy in good cover is being bombarded with artillery, air strikes and smoke screens (yes, thermals see through, but driver has no thermal (the vehicle is very difficult to manouver), laser does not penetrate smoke (range must be estimated), etc.), open terrain allows you to move fast to close up with the enemy and overwhelm them with numbers. That's what the WP was planning on doing, with minimum of 3:1 superiority in numbers on operational level, and 10:1 on tactical level...

[IronMikeGolf]

ORIGINAL: Alex1812

ORIGINAL: Zipuli

Vehicles use the cover (buildings, woods, small hills) to expose themselves only to fire, and then move back to cover and relocate

it means that rate of fire in urban or forest must be less than in open terrain. You need additional time for moving back and for new aiming after that

Disagree. The target acquisition process is done independent of vehicle movement. Look up "berm drill". After shooting, when the driver is moving the vehicle to the protected position ("Cease fire. Driver move back."), the gunner either already has his next fire command ("Gunner shift left, next tank") or is scanning for his next target. A tank is going to be moving backwards at about the time a rounds impacts (range >1500 meters). Drivers often don't wait for the vehicle commander's order to move back.

The amount of time it takes to go from protected to firing positions is on the order of a few seconds at most. Looking at how many times a unit fires per minute, I don't see that rate as unreasonable for a defensive posture.

I don't know if the game engine models moving to alternate (covers the same sector of fire) or supplementary (covers a different sector of fire) firing positions. I think such movement would certainly temporarily decrease the rate of fire.

[ivanov]

There are two types of combat that need to be looked at: a close combat and combat at long distances. From my experience 90% of the combat in RS is done at long distances. In those instances, the game simulates reality quite well. In my opinion the side which is dug in and hidden in an urban or forest hex, should have a clear advantage over an enemy that is moving across the open terrain. The second issue is close combat - here in my opinion the infantry should be able to beat the unsupported tanks. The main advantages of tanks are firepower, mobility and protection and the urban terrain negates all of them. 10 well trained infantrymen, will always poses better situational awareness, than 3 tanks fighting in a city or in a forest. The same goes to the helicopters - they should be effective if they use their guided weapon systems from longer distances. Hovering over an enemy unit hidden in the city should be a recipe for a disaster.

In many computer games the tanks have their strength automatically divided by 2 or more, when they fight in the cities or in the forests. I have no idea how the RS combat formulas work, but it would seem a right way to go. The tanks that are located within the city and forests, should be affected by some penalties, if they fight without infantry support and if they are being attacked or they attack from a close distance.

[Lowlaner2012]

Katukov, If remember correctly infantry in close combat with tanks in urban or forested terrain have a much greater chance to get a flank hit on tanks with there anti-tank weapons...

like I said above, I had a urban fight with some t-80's v some German infantry+ Milan carrying Marders and they wiped me out to the last tank...

[ivanov]

ORIGINAL: highlandcharge

Katukov, If remember correctly infantry in close combat with tanks in urban or forested terrain have a much greater chance to get a flank hit on tanks with there anti-tank weapons...

like I said above, I had a urban fight with some t-80's v some German infantry+ Milan carrying Marders and they wiped me out to the last tank...

It doesn't seem to work that way. I've run some tests and attacked infantry with an unsupported tank unit. Note that the infantry is placed inside the city, not on it's edge:



subir imagenes


In each case the infantry suffered higher loses. First time it lost all 4 Marders and 2 infantry, while the tank unit suffered zero loses. The second time infantry loses were the same: all 4 Marders and 2 infantry against 2 tanks.


Infantry would have better chances to deal loses to the tanks if it was positioned on the edge of the city because it could fire longer with it's ATGM's. They are not effective in a close combat

Now my question is: are the infantry light AT weapons like RPG's, Panzerfausts or M72 LAW represented in the game? I have a feeling that they are not and this fact accounts for the weakness of infantry in a close combat against the tanks.

EDIT:

In a test where the infantry was positioned on the edge of the city, it managed to completely destroy the tank unit with Milans before the Soviets reached it's positions. So as it is now, infantry is good against the tanks in a long distance exchange of fire, not in a close combat.

[Lowlaner2012]

Hi Katukov, Im 100% sure light antitank weapons are represented in game, the range of the PzF44 used by the WG troops is 300m, as you know each hex is 500m wide, so although the T-80's may have been in the same hex they might not have been within range of the Germans Pfz44...

I wonder if we could get some input from the On target team

[ivanov]

OK, I see that they are represented:


subir fotos

So it makes the weakness of infantry in a close combat even more puzzling. Note that the urban terrain provides 90% cover, so it has to be quite densely built-up. In my test the units were fighting on the same hex over 30min so I doubt they would be 500 meters apart all the time.

[Lowlaner2012]

I notice the ammo for the PzF44 is only 3, so that gives each unit 3 chances to get a flank or rear shot on those T-80's, how many times did you run the test? could the WG units have been unlucky?

What scenario did you use to run the test?

Again it would be good if one of the OT devs could give some input