On busting bunkers and other things...

[Dean Robb]

While getting very frustrated playing Betio this evening, a few...issues...came up.

1. Bunker busting by tanks/guns. In no way should a bunker/pillbox/cave/gun emplacement EVER get penetration w/o damage hits. The hit is going to seriously damage the structural integrity of the bunker if it's above ground and hit the back of the bunker if it's IN the ground (like a cave). ESPECIALLY there shouldn't be any thru-and-thrus against wooden bunkers! Kinetic energy alone should do some damage. Even concrete will spall and hurt the guys inside. And what do you suppose the chances are of a 75mm shell ricocheting off a wooden or concrete bunker are?

2. I noticed that my Marines were bailing out of their amphibs at the first ping of an enemy bullet - whether the round damaged the 'phib or not. I also noticed that there would be frequent heavy casualties to the troops...with no damage to the 'phib. Not quite logical...if the round hits the 'phib but bounces, how are 6-8 troops per platoon being killed?

3. I really don't care for the way spotted units can "disappear" until you select a unit that can spot it. For example, you engage an enemy from multiple angles in turn 5 and in turn 6 the enemy has disappeared...until you click on whatever unit has the best LOS. IMO, once an enemy is spotted, it should stay on the map until NONE of my units has LOS to it. Tonight I had a Japanese unit "disappear", even though I had 3 unsuppressed platoons adjacent to it. Since they had all engaged the JA platoon, when it was gone the next turn I assumed it was killed off. Imagine my surprise when I moved a 4th unit past and the "invisible" JA unit decimated it. With 3 units adjacent to it, I really don't think it should have disappeared.

4. Why do the hasty improvements infantry units make go away when they move?

5. Flame weapons need to have their to-hit chance and damage vs fixed fortification increased. Flamethrowers are not fired weapons in the sense that you pull the trigger and the round is gone...they're hoses of flame you can walk onto target. It's pretty aggravating to use a whole lot of flamethrower "shots" and still not hit a non-moving bunker. Some occasional misses, yes; but hitting should be the rule. And when you do hit, there shouldn't be a "no effect" rating (except maybe rarely) ESPECIALLY against a wooden fortification!

On the entire subject of bunkers, I'm thinking that they need a look at. IMO they're just too strong right now. With an average platoon only having a 10-15% chance of killing in an assault; guns ricocheting or passing thru; and flamethrowers not splashing through the firing slits...how the hell do you kill them? Yes, they should be strongpoints; but as was proved numerous times in WWII, they aren't impregnable.

OK...so I'm pretty ticked at the Betio scenario...but that doesn't invalidate my observations..

[Arralen]

Originally posted by Dean Robb:

1. Bunker busting by tanks/guns. In no way should a bunker/pillbox/cave/gun emplacement EVER get penetration w/o damage hits. The hit is going to seriously damage the structural integrity of the bunker if it's above ground and hit the back of the bunker if it's IN the ground (like a cave). ESPECIALLY there shouldn't be any thru-and-thrus against wooden bunkers! Kinetic energy alone should do some damage. Even concrete will spall and hurt the guys inside. And what do you suppose the chances are of a 75mm shell ricocheting off a wooden or concrete bunker are?


Agree with you on this one !


2. I noticed that my Marines were bailing out of their amphibs at the first ping of an enemy bullet - whether the round damaged the 'phib or not. I also noticed that there would be frequent heavy casualties to the troops...with no damage to the 'phib. Not quite logical...if the round hits the 'phib but bounces, how are 6-8 troops per platoon being killed?


Maybe the prog can't distinguish if the troops are carried INSIDE the APC or riding ON a AFV .. and with the later the casualties should be heavy !


3. I really don't care for the way spotted units can "disappear" until you select a unit that can spot it. For example, you engage an enemy from multiple angles in turn 5 and in turn 6 the enemy has disappeared...until you click on whatever unit has the best LOS. IMO, once an enemy is spotted, it should stay on the map until NONE of my units has LOS to it.

Found this pretty annoying but not worth mentioning up to now - there are other more urgend problems to address


4. Why do the hasty improvements infantry units make go away when they move?

They are not improvements in a sense of fortifications - it's just that the guys look
for the best places to seek cover in.


5. Flame weapons need to have their to-hit chance and damage vs fixed fortification increased. Flamethrowers are not fired weapons in the sense that you pull the trigger and the round is gone...they're hoses of flame you can walk onto target. It's pretty aggravating to use a whole lot of flamethrower "shots" and still not hit a non-moving bunker. Some occasional misses, yes; but hitting should be the rule. And when you do hit, there shouldn't be a "no effect" rating (except maybe rarely) ESPECIALLY against a wooden fortification!


Not pretty shure about this one .. think the firing slits are not that easy to hit .. especially if you are fired upon through them

Arralen

[Spartacus!]

Originally posted by Dean Robb:
While getting very frustrated playing Betio this evening, a few...issues...came up.

I pretty much agree with all of your points, especially #3. Enemy units were disappearing until I clicked on the unit that had LOS to it and then it reappeared. It should be visible after originally spotted until no unit has LOS to it (unless the spotting unit is out of contact, but then why would it appear to everyone once that out of contact unit is selected...) I also found bunkers to be a bit too impregnable.

[Spunkgibbon]

Originally posted by Dean Robb:
While getting very frustrated playing Betio this evening, a few...issues...came up.
(snip)
3. I really don't care for the way spotted units can "disappear" until you select a unit that can spot it. For example, you engage an enemy from multiple angles in turn 5 and in turn 6 the enemy has disappeared...until you click on whatever unit has the best LOS. IMO, once an enemy is spotted, it should stay on the map until NONE of my units has LOS to it. Tonight I had a Japanese unit "disappear", even though I had 3 unsuppressed platoons adjacent to it. Since they had all engaged the JA platoon, when it was gone the next turn I assumed it was killed off. Imagine my surprise when I moved a 4th unit past and the "invisible" JA unit decimated it. With 3 units adjacent to it, I really don't think it should have disappeared.
(more snippage)

I put this down to the enemy infantry squad laying low in the hex and trying to keep out of sight. When it's respotted by checking LOS with your own units, it basically simulates them looking around for the hiding enemy squad and spotting them.
It can be a bit frustrating at times but it means that you have to be cautious when advancing with infantry. And of course this works both ways...

What I can't explain away is when the same thing happens with larger, less mobile units such as infantry guns and AT guns.

Just my two-penn'orth,
Spunkgibbon

[victorhauser]

Of Caves and Men...

As I recall, cave defenses were extremely difficult to take out. Many (most? all?) had sharp-angled entrances specifically designed to render ineffective the kinds of attacks Dean mentioned. I suspect that other fortifications had similar features. The people who designed these things were aware of the kinds of attacks they might face and their effects.

However, contrary to Dean's opinion I believe rather that fortifications are too weak. When you consider the cost per fort, their limited fire arc, their complete lack of mobility, and the suppression needed to get their crews to bail out, they are simply not cost-effective. How many assault squads (that can move from fort to fort mind you) can you buy for the same amount of points as what was spent on the fort? Enough to do the job. Where SP:WaW turns are measured in minutes and it often took hours or even days to eliminate them, I believe that forts are likely too weak in the game.

I agree completely with Dean's complaint about troops bailing out of perfectly good APCs at the first sign of trouble and then dying in droves. This needs to be addressed and corrected please.

Having just watched "The Thin Red Line" a few days ago, I was impressed by the inability of the troops to maintain visual contact with the enemy during firefights, even at close ranges. I like the way SP:WaW requires players to be ever vigilant and to have to re-acquire contact with enemy troops in battle. This is a good thing. Note to Matrix Games: Please don't "fix" this because it's not broken. However, for players who don't want the extra hassle, I suggest adding a menu option (or maybe a hotkey?) to turn this feature off.

Just because "hasty improvements" worked 5 minutes ago, doesn't mean that they'll be useful again when a squad returns to them. However, I believe that many of the advantages of "dug in" are psychological instead of physical. It takes a different mindset to attack rather than defend. So I treat "dug-in" troops as psychologically prepared to defend at least as much as the terrain or improvements to that terrain. And the time it takes to switch from advance to defend and then dig in has as much to do with "getting my mind right boss" as anything else. But that's just my way of looking at it .

I recall reading something years ago that stated that the most feared weapon psychologically was the flamethrower and that the fear of being burned alive was disproportionately high compared to the actual number of casualties caused by flamethrowers. Indeed, I recall reading somewhere else that flamethrower operators were frequently at as much risk as their intended victims. So, I see flamethrowers more as a suppressive weapon and less an outright killer. Although make no mistake, the flamethrower could be a frightful killer under the right set of circumstances.

[sjuncal]

Originally posted by Dean Robb:
And what do you suppose the chances are of a 75mm shell ricocheting off a wooden or concrete bunker are?

At a guess I'd say quite good... I've seen .223 tracer rounds deflect at almost unbelievable angles from hitting twigs that in many cases were smaller than the actual round. Somewhat related to this, I also had
the importance of a large earthen shooting back stop illustrated after watching tracer ammo come out of the ground at 45 and even 90 degree angles into the air; only penetrating the humus ground layer a few inches. I had always been under the impression that the bullets drove safely into the ground.

The same principles are at work with a large log and a medium sized arty round: velocity, mass, angle and resistence.

4. Why do the hasty improvements infantry units make go away when they move?

This is an abstraction... "dug in" means "in cover" where as "entrenched" means what we typically think of as "dug in" but with more organized defenses.

IMO they should add a first state named "in cover" which would take a turn of not moving; followed by "dug in" (slightly improved position small fox holes, fields of fire plotted out) that takes four or five turns of no movement, and which stays there for any unit to use; 5 minutes to dig out a shallow depression behind the fallen tree what was "cover" 5 minutes ago, as an example; seems reasonable. Finally "entrenched" with large fox holes, trenches, sand bags and rudimentary strengthened positions (MG nests tactically placed with ammo, fields of fire plotted, forward positions pre-sighted).

In fact I'd really like to see them add this.
Right now "dug in" interferes with my suspension of disbelief, making it take longer while giving "in cover" a slight defensive advantage over being "on the move" would be just the trick.

5. Flame weapons need to have their to-hit chance and damage vs fixed fortification increased. Flamethrowers are not fired weapons in the sense that you pull the trigger and the round is gone...they're hoses of flame you can walk onto target. It's pretty aggravating to use a whole lot of flamethrower "shots" and still not hit a non-moving bunker. Some occasional misses, yes; but hitting should be the rule. And when you do hit, there shouldn't be a "no effect" rating (except maybe rarely) ESPECIALLY against a wooden fortification!

IMHO this is no where near as clear cut as you put it. Flame throwers are incredibly hot to opperate... Sustained bursts require:
A) the operator to expose himself to fire with a tank of flamable liquid on his back.
B) the operator to burn the crap out of his face. They singe the hair right off your face just using short bursts.
C) the operator to take the chance of a sharp wind gust endangering himself and or his squad/team mates. Note before you imagine a 180 degree change in flame direction: No I mean a sudden head wind that pushes hundreds of dregrees of heated air back into his position, causing anything from mild sweating to no one on his team/squad needing or being able to shave for a month... Ouch!

Of course this doesn't apply to flame tanks.

Also they presumably didn't build the bunkers with 6 inch pine trees, large logs take a long time to burn through. Add mounded earth and sand bags, niether of which burn well, and it's not just a matter of catching the bunker on fire. So maybe that "miss" simply caught some logs on fire... it'll take hours to burn through from that "hit", and so would be outside the scope of the battle and is thus a "miss" for all practical purposes.

Getting a shot right into the maw is also problamatic, as it requires being a few tens of yards directly in front on the bunker, which means exposure to deadly amounts of fire. Methinks hollywood style frontal assaults with a flame thrower were exceedingly rare, and even less effective.

In the end, it's a game that must have abstractions, and can't have special rules for all 5 or 6 hundred or more units... The programmers have to pick their battles. I'm sure some of the problems you point out will be among them

[This message has been edited by sjuncal (edited 06-03-2000).]

[Tommy]

3. I really don't care for the way spotted units can "disappear" until you select a unit that can spot it. For example, you engage an enemy from multiple angles in turn 5 and in turn 6 the enemy has disappeared...until you click on whatever unit has the best LOS. IMO, once an enemy is spotted, it should stay on the map until NONE of my units has LOS to it.


Playing against the Russians this weekend, trying to knockout a 76mm AT gun that kept "dissapearing". I had a FO in the woods hex with a clear LOS and 3 tanks blasting away. At the end of the prior turn I could see the AT gun, then it was gone at the start of the next turn - that meant that no tank could direct fire at the AT gun, only area fire. Clicking on every unit in the area that had LOS and had direct fired at the AT gun last turn did not pop the AT gun out of cover. Even the FO didn't work. So I fired off all my ammo as area fire and after the last tank fired the last round - clicking the FO made the AT gun appear. Of, course, I couldn't shoot at it anymore. Start of the next turn, guess what? Gone again. Is this a bug, AI cheat or "real life"?

Tom

[Paul Vebber]

We consider it "real life". The idea being that you as the player get information that the "troops" don't have. It often happened that real troops would not always be able to engage a target effectively, conflicting information has to get resolved. This is one way of showing the "fog of war" that you can't always act on the "god's -eye view" you have as a player.

If you like the "battlefield omnipotance" that your troops instantly and perfectly exchange targeting data, then turn "limited intel" off.

[Larry Holt]

Coupla comments.

Man packed flame throwers are indeed subject to blow back that can injure the operator. The coments on bunkers not burning are good also. I agree that flamethrowers are primarily supressive. While a burst may not iginte the bunker, it will be difficult to fire out or observe from the inside through the burning fuel and smoke.

I think flame tanks should be more effective as they can fire longer range, longer sustained and steadier bursts. I just saw the History Channel's Unsung Heros show and they show a US tank in the Pacific (?) sending a very steady stream of flame. It would be hard to imagine missing a target or not causing extreame supression with that flame.

It really is hard to keep the enemy, even guns in sight. Some smoke gets in your way, you blink then which big tree was that gun by? Was it the that one or that one over there?

------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

[Charles22]

I think the quick 'bailing' aspect of this game is realistic, or if nothing else is a good feature. How do you think the enemy ever captured any equipment largely intqct, if men only bailed when their tank was full of holes? I've played Gerry against the Poles quite a bit, and this bail aspect is but another reason why you should be very discriminating with your tanks, for if you charge them to wipe out five units you may not have destroyed otherwise, it may seem a good exchange, but down the road, when had that tank surivived, they wouldn't have bailed from a tank, because they would have had more experience, it's but another reason to be most meticulous with your tanks.

I think some of us wnat to look at the tanks with hindsight and want to know why a crew would bail when there was no damage. I would ask how does the crew know, instantly, that there is no damage? Also, there are other factors, though I don't know if the boys take this into consideration. For instance, the crews of a Ronson, would certainly be more edgey, and also, if such things could be determined by sound, a larger round hitting the tank would be more apt to put fear in the crew. Remember if you can tell an 88 just hit your Ronson, and didn't destroy it, that doesn't mean that the next round won't. Crews bail not only for the round that hit, but also for the round that's upcoming.

[Wild Bill]

Ecellent point, Charles. And that is what we are trying to convey. No all troops were heroes or Sgt Rock.

One can only imagine being enclosed in a steel box, sweating, cursing and waiting for that final Crunch-clang that spells horrible wounds or roasted flesh.

It would have me checking the hatches constantly to see if they worked (G)...WB

------------------
Wild Bill Wilder
Coordinator, Scenario Design
Matrix Games

[Panther]

"Crews bail not only for the round that hit, but also for the round that's upcoming."
Exelent comment I would bail if an 88 mm was firing at me and hit me once. I would consider my self lucky the first time.

[Panther]

One thing I found was that once a unit is detected by any unit on the map you can fire upon it with any other unit that has direct loss but it did not see the enemy before. Example tank lost site of an infantry unit A1. Another infantry unit several hexes away spots the unit A1. Now the tank can fire at unit A1 that it lost sight of before. Should there be some kind of a comunication check to see if the frendly units can talk to each other. This should especially aplly to units without radios. The automatic los situation should only occur if the two units (regardless of type) are in the same hex or adjacent.

[Larry Holt]

Originally posted by Panther:
... Should there be some kind of a comunication check to see if the frendly units can talk to each other. This should especially aplly to units without radios. The automatic los situation should only occur if the two units (regardless of type) are in the same hex or adjacent.

This is tricky as the second unit may not be in direct communitcation but may see the results of the first unit's fire and thus be alerted to the enemy unit. Ultimately I'd like to see some kind of % check to gain LOS when not in contact (radio or physical) with the original unit with the option to adjust this/turn it off in preferences but I realize the coding required vs. the reality gained.


------------------
An old soldier but not yet a faded one.
OK, maybe just a bit faded.

[Seth]

I think bunkers are getting less credit for being bad-ass than they deserve. I have no doubt that a round of any size could easily carom off any decently built fortification, given the right impact angle. As for a good solid hit doing no damage, I know it can happen. I've been to a small part of the Maginot Line called the Fort de Fermont. It was engaged by the Germans towards the end of the camapign, and they used an 'anti-tank gun' on it. Seeing the damage, I have no doubt that it was an 88. There is a jagged crater, possibly a foot deep and a foot and a half across, with bent reinforcing rods sticking out, in the face of the bunker. This did no real harm to the bunker whatsoever. The 88 did knock out a steel (?) MG turret on the top of the bunker before a mortar turret was able to locate and destroy it. The man in the turret was the only casualty. Admittedly, this was a pretty big bunker, maybe 12' high and 20' or so wide, but I think the same resistance to fire would apply to well-built smaller fortifications. As far as close assault by infantry, it depends on the size of the installation. I agree that most small emplacements should pretty well be toast once someone gets onto them, as long as the attackers are left umolested. Larger, more complicated systems are tougher. The Belgian forts called fire missions on themselves from neighboring forts to clear Germans off on several occasions, as they knew full well that HE fire could rain on them all day without causing major damage. Also, lots of these forts had their vulnerable spots, such as ventilation, hidden away from the actual building, or placed in armored towers where they were hard to get at. Someone else has already pointed out that most emplacements of this kind were taken in periods of time that are well beyond the scope of this game, and I agree.

[Paul Vebber]

SP, infact most tactical games assume a certain "ESP" between your troops. We tried to give a feel for the problems by having units "disappear" occasionally. menaing that in all the confusion your troops lost track of it. As has been mentioned, go see the "Thin Green Line" for some examples

THis is one of those things that needs to be coded into the game form the "ground up".

If you want more of a "fog of war" turn spotting down:-)

[Dean Robb]

Some good points...and some stuff pretty far afield . Please note, too, that I'm not 'ragging' on SP:WAW...I think it's great! But I'd like to see these issues addressed; even if it's only discussion to get a consensus on whether something should be changed or not. Constructive criticism and discussion topics here...

On the tanks/guns killing bunkers: Note that I wasn't referring to the Maginot Line, the Siefreid Line, or any other massive fortifications...I'm talking about MG bunkers, caves, etc. Things in which that 88mm round's foot deep crater would have been well through the wall. And I still can't believe (based on my Army time) that a 75mm shell fired directly and on the same plane as a wooden wall is gonna ricochet very often. If nothing else, it's kinetic energy is gonna do some damage to that log!

I think the program is treating fortification's armor as if it were sloped armor plate (ala tanks) instead of a much softer material that is significantly less likely to cause a bounce. And I still don't think you're going to see many thru-n-thru's.

On the bailouts: I'm not referring here to AT rounds slamming into my half-track. I'm referring to plain bullets bouncing off an LCVP - an armored vehicle. I just can't see many Marines bailing out of an armored amphib 200 yds from the beach, under rife/machinegun fire, just because a couple of bullets bounced. Penetrated? Sure...I'd strongly consider bailing, too. AT guns? I'm outa here! But not, methinks, a rifle bullet ricochet.

On the disappearing troops: I wasn't clear enough here: I'm not referring to enemy units that everyone has lost LOS to. I'm talking specifically about an enemy unit that at least ONE of my units can still see that no one else can, and that 'spots' the enemy the instant you click on it. If he can still see the enemy unit, then it should still be visible BEFORE I click on my spotting unit. Yup, it's hard to keep track of the bad guys in a firefight. But the player shouldn't be forced to go through all his/her units to see if any of them still have LOS to the enemy unit previously engaged. If EVERYONE lost LOS, then by all means let the bad guy disappear. But it shouldn't, IMO, disappear as long as someone can still see him.


On the flamethrowers: The hazards to the operator aren't relevant to it's hit/damage, I don't think. Add some suppression to the flaming unit if that's really a major issue. I just think that it should have a fairly high to hit chance from a unit with no/minimal suppression because it can be hosed onto target. And the damage (since SP doesn't handle accumulative damage) should be somewhat higher. Remember that this is jellied gasoline...essentially a thin napalm. The burning material sticks to what it hits (at least as I understand flamethrowers). Even if you don't get the flame stream through the firing slits, it's very likely to get pretty hot in that bunker pretty fast! Even large, damp pine logs are going to burn and if nothing else create such smoke that the folks inside can't see. I'll settle for them being noticably more suppressive .

And I'll buy off on the hasty improvements. My take was that represented the scraping of shallow trenches, building a small berm, dragging up a large rock, etc. as opposed to the full foxhole and firing stakes of "dug in".

And finally back to the bunkers: Yes, some MAJOR fortifications took considerable time to reduce. Those kinds of bastions aren't the ones modelled in SP:WAW. Here we're talking an improved machine gun nest or concrete emplacements designed to stop small arms and shrapnel, not major defenses with steel-reinforced 4' thick concrete. The lighter fortifications that tanks excelled at cleaning out and I just think that it's too hard for tanks/guns to defeat them.

[Paul Vebber]

I'll say again on disappearing units:

YOU CAN TURN IT OFF

Turn limited intel off and they won't disappear and you won't have to click around on them.

The idea is when you start your turn you don't have full info and as you move your units you get more info. Yes you can "click around" on all your unnnits but that defeats teh purpose which is to give you a feeling of teh "situation developing" as you move your units. Not perfect, but if you play be moving one platoon at a time, and then going to the next it works pretty well.

Hoepfully we can improve this, but its a start, and you can turn it off if you disagree

[Billy Yank]

Originally posted by Dean Robb:

On the bailouts: I'm not referring here to AT rounds slamming into my half-track. I'm referring to plain bullets bouncing off an LCVP - an armored vehicle. I just can't see many Marines bailing out of an armored amphib 200 yds from the beach, under rife/machinegun fire, just because a couple of bullets bounced. Penetrated? Sure...I'd strongly consider bailing, too. AT guns? I'm outa here! But not, methinks, a rifle bullet ricochet.

Wild Bill already addressed this in another thread. The LCVP was set as a vehicle that carried the troops on top instead of inside. He fixed that in his latest version of the Betio scenario.

[Charles22]

Speaking of disappearing units, I actually had one of my own units, in a very prominent conflict area get beamed up. I could scroll to that unit and see the data, but it was invisible. It had no line of sight and had no movement radius. Unfortunately I don't think I have that game saved though. This is the first time I'd seen this happen.