PzcK vs CMBB

[Mobius]

The way to handle the fire at effective range is to fire at what you feel is effective range.  Put the units on Defend>Hold>All and wait until the target is within killing range.  Now we do know too much because we can compare the gun statistics to the target's protection but most experienced crews knew the general range at which their guns could deal with the enemy.  Also, the gun can be put on Defend>Hold>Good Shot or something like that.  This is when there is better than a 50% chance to hit.

But let's say the order Fire at effective penetration range were an order.  And suppose it were given to a hiding platoon of UK tanks 3 of which are 75mm Shermans and one is a 17pdr firefly.  Now if just one tank fires at a goup of Panthers or Tigers which one do you think every German gun will be trained on the next phase?

When we played miniatures my British friend would fire his 75mm Shermans at the same time as he opened up his 17pdr Firefly claiming fire at all firing Shermans must be distributed randomly.

[thewood1]

But not all firing units are the same.  In an infantry battle effective range of an MG is not the same as a rifle as a mortar, etc.  That is why company commanders in defense set up range markers.  So all fire can be effective.   Unless suppression is the main point.   But even ad hoc, it was pretty common practice to tell soldiers to hold fire until a certain landmark.  Whether based on weapons, unit experience, coordination of fire it was common.  It is still common today and part of doctrine in defense.  It is still common practice for commanders to set fields of fire as well.
 
I would suggest playing a little more CMBB to see how easy and yet effective this little tool can be.  It is something that would eliminate a lot of micromanagement in defense.  And guess what, it is optional to use it.  If someone can to it better without it.  CMBB basically defaults to fire at effective range unless told to hold.  Any good player can beat someone that refused use CAs.  One of the main ways to beat them is make them use ammo.  The other way is to make them expose their position too early or too late in the 60 second turn.
 
One thing I keep see you talk about is player intervention.  It is still 40 seconds of AI running everything, whether its from human commands or not.  That is on 33% shorter than CMBB.  A lot happens in 40 seconds.  I was asking Erik about an ambush situation today where the P4 passed out LOS in about 15 - 20 seconds.  But I had to hold the SU76 because he kept shooting at an infantry target 500 meters away.  With a CA for armor only, it would have gotten a good flank shot in before getting brewed.
 
As to the firefly/sherman example, what they typically did is leave the firefly back in overwatch and the Shermans moved up to engage.  Also, a good platoon commander wouldn't just say fire at effective range whan firing on multiple panzers with different units, unless he was trying to attrit them at long range.  They would do what I just described or would wait until all guns were able to effectively engage.
 
btw, that reminds of a question I hadn't asked but meant to.  Are there any mixed platoons in PCK.  I have tried looking through the data and didn't see any.

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: thewood1

btw, that reminds of a question I hadn't asked but meant to.  Are there any mixed platoons in PCK.  I have tried looking through the data and didn't see any.

I think I read a msg from Erik somewhere that they would like to incorporate mixed platoons in a future release. I t might have been in the command control thread

An by the way, I agree with your comments about covered arc and covered armor arc. These are RL orders a platoon commander would give fire zones, and would give ranges if he thought it necessary (although getting troops to follow them is another bag of worms). I think they would be a good addtion to a future release, or at least something to consider.

Rick

[thewood1]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

The reason why I argue with you, thewood, is because you don't express a lot of concern for command structure.  You say you want orders, but you want to give them to every unit as you see fit.  That isn't the order system of PCK.  It's the very "flexibility" you are demanding that I oppose.  Open your mind to the way of PCK.  Try to improve on its principles without losing the more rigid command structure that is its strength.

Can we start with the fact I think the platoon command structure is good. If you agree I believe that then we can move on to other parts of the conversation.

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: Mobius
But let's say the order Fire at effective penetration range were an order. And suppose it were given to a hiding platoon of UK tanks 3 of which are 75mm Shermans and one is a 17pdr firefly. Now if just one tank fires at a goup of Panthers or Tigers which one do you think every German gun will be trained on the next phase?

You mean like in real life? Guess why they repainted all those 17-pounder gun barrels with funny colours on the underside, or camouflaged them with chicken wire?

Well, once they were spotted, anyway. I take your point but surely there are ways around that in the code, no?

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
I would suggest playing a little more CMBB to see how easy and yet effective this little tool can be.  It is something that would eliminate a lot of micromanagement in defense.  And guess what, it is optional to use it.  If someone can to it better without it.  CMBB basically defaults to fire at effective range unless told to hold.  Any good player can beat someone that refused use CAs.  One of the main ways to beat them is make them use ammo.  The other way is to make them expose their position too early or too late in the 60 second turn.

I'm sorry but those arc thingys just ruined it for me. I couldn't take the game seriously after finding those.

To handle the "fire when near the tree" type order in PCK there should be a Defend spot point. Like an artillery spot. This is placed within a certain range of the unit and anything within 100m or so of the spot or coming between the spot and the unit is taken under fire.
If you remember Squad Leader this would be bore sighted. (If one is going to have an arc it would have to be limited to the actual physical limits of the gun sight.)
And maybe someway to ignore certain type targets.

[76mm]

This range and arc thing is really wierd. I can't imagine anything in real life such precision would be a model of. Just how are these soldiers going to judge an angle?

I find your reaction to covered arcs (quoted, and in the post above) really puzzling. Real soldiers use these things all the time, indeed, devising a "range card" is one of the highest priority tasks for a platoon leader when setting up a defense. As stated repeatedly, the "arc" part is just a game mechanic. What really happens is this:
1) Platoon leaders assign sectors of fire based on land marks ("you cover from the left edge of that treeline to that building with the white roof").
2) Certain weapons, such as MGs, use stakes implanted immediately in front of their positions to delineate their firing sectors.

Range is dealt with in a similar manner ("don't fire until the enemy crosses that road"), based on the platoon leader's estimate of the range based on the ground and a map analysis.

At least from my experience in a modern US tank company, this is basic stuff; I suspect it was the same in WWII (or WWI, for that matter). The arcs are just an elegant means of accomplishing the same end. Why do you think it's unrealistic?

[thewood1]

I didn't see the defense spot thing.  How do I access it.
 
I don't see how that is different than the arc, just that the arc is more flexible.  Unlike SL leads people to believe, boresighting, especially for machine guns, is for an area not a spot.  That area varies depending LOS, range, flank coverage, etc.  The spot thing seems rather arbritary.
 
The arc in a defensive coverage would be the equivalent of being assigned a field of fire with range markers.  But it also represents less formal mechanisms like "you cover between those two buildings if anything comes in there".

[Erik Rutins]

Lots to catch up on here - one quick comment...

Since Kharkov doesn't have "shared spotting" covered arcs are not that hard to setup within the existing rules, especially for non-infantry. Units that are not infantry only spot in their front 180 degree arc when stationary, front 90 when moving. So first, point them where you want them to see - they will only fire at what they can see themselves. Second, issue a Defend -> Hold Fire -> Good Shot order. This means they will only open fire if they have a target close enough that they're pretty darn sure they can hit it. This will usually limit them to only near threats or those that are exposed and offering particularly good opportunity shots.

Regards,

- Erik

[thewood1]

So there is no chance armor will see a unit coming up behind it?

edited for mistake

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: thewood1
So there is no chance armor will see a unit coming up behind it?

Not unless you change its facing. Mind you, we're thinking of adding a small rear-sighting ability based on a suggestion someone posted pre-release, but right now the rear 180 is a big blind spot. Stationary infantry can on the other hand see a full 360.

Regards,

- Erik

[thewood1]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

This range and arc thing is really wierd. I can't imagine anything in real life such precision would be a model of. Just how are these soldiers going to judge an angle?

I find your reaction to covered arcs (quoted, and in the post above) really puzzling. Real soldiers use these things all the time, indeed, devising a "range card" is one of the highest priority tasks for a platoon leader when setting up a defense. As stated repeatedly, the "arc" part is just a game mechanic. What really happens is this:
1) Platoon leaders assign sectors of fire based on land marks ("you cover from the left edge of that treeline to that building with the white roof").
2) Certain weapons, such as MGs, use stakes implanted immediately in front of their positions to delineate their firing sectors.

Range is dealt with in a similar manner ("don't fire until the enemy crosses that road"), based on the platoon leader's estimate of the range based on the ground and a map analysis.

At least from my experience in a modern US tank company, this is basic stuff; I suspect it was the same in WWII (or WWI, for that matter). The arcs are just an elegant means of accomplishing the same end. Why do you think it's unrealistic?

I think one of the issues is SL's use of terms like boresighting. It was the same thing when CM came out. A lot of people take SL/ASL as gospel, not realizing some liberties were taken with terminology and process. It was easier to write the rules that way.

If you want some education on the covered arcs and why they were implemented research some of the old BFC CM forums. There were military historians, current military, regular historians, SL grogs, etc. debating and discussing how best to implement a mechanism that became the arcs. There were many SL rules experts there talking about how SL did it as well as people with actual military experience debating how accurate the term boresighting was.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

This range and arc thing is really wierd. I can't imagine anything in real life such precision would be a model of. Just how are these soldiers going to judge an angle?

I find your reaction to covered arcs (quoted, and in the post above) really puzzling. Real soldiers use these things all the time, indeed, devising a "range card" is one of the highest priority tasks for a platoon leader when setting up a defense. As stated repeatedly, the "arc" part is just a game mechanic. What really happens is this:
1) Platoon leaders assign sectors of fire based on land marks ("you cover from the left edge of that treeline to that building with the white roof").
2) Certain weapons, such as MGs, use stakes implanted immediately in front of their positions to delineate their firing sectors.

You must of been reading manuals again.[:)] Yes the sectors are assigned each tank. But it takes time to co-ordinate the plan. Often it is written down first and distributed to the platoons and then to the TCs. I just don't see it being something that could be done on the fly with any precision. And then without landmarks. It has prompted me to read the M1 tank manual again and I will post what it says about sectors and TRPs. TRPs are what might have been bore-sighted back in the old days.

Then again the M1 and M60 manuals that indicate sectors are cold war tactics. No actual WW2 combat books I've read have anything of the sorts.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
Sure it's (cover arc) a "precise exageration" of a real order - which would be "engage up to 500m, and watch the 9-12 quarter before the hill".
Covered arc is the technical gizmo that allows such a complex order to be given , note that the tac AI will sometimes override the order and engage outside.successfully in CM, maybe with "too much preciseness". There's nothing to even give a firing max range in PzC (like when I want an AT gun to open fire when it will be effective only).
Call me CM fanboi if you want but I never saw anything more ingenious in any game.

I was reading a book by a tank gunner and it told of the difficulty in judging precise ranges over 400 meters. They basically have to go by size of the tank and the number of mils it measures in their sights. Then do some quick math. Trying to sight to a range on flat land would be very difficult and prone to error.
This bring into question the ranges such as 1000yds or 1500yd stated in any AAR report unless attested to by AT or tank gunner or trained artillery observer.

This is also a very valid reason that most WWII tank combat took place at 400 meters or less. Some gunners were capable of extremely good shooting. Some guns were capable of making long shots because of their flat trajectory or their very good optics.

Good Hunting.

MR

[bardolph]

ORIGINAL: 76mm

This range and arc thing is really wierd. I can't imagine anything in real life such precision would be a model of. Just how are these soldiers going to judge an angle?

I find your reaction to covered arcs (quoted, and in the post above) really puzzling. Real soldiers use these things all the time, indeed, devising a "range card" is one of the highest priority tasks for a platoon leader when setting up a defense. As stated repeatedly, the "arc" part is just a game mechanic. What really happens is this:
1) Platoon leaders assign sectors of fire based on land marks ("you cover from the left edge of that treeline to that building with the white roof").
2) Certain weapons, such as MGs, use stakes implanted immediately in front of their positions to delineate their firing sectors.

Range is dealt with in a similar manner ("don't fire until the enemy crosses that road"), based on the platoon leader's estimate of the range based on the ground and a map analysis.

At least from my experience in a modern US tank company, this is basic stuff; I suspect it was the same in WWII (or WWI, for that matter). The arcs are just an elegant means of accomplishing the same end. Why do you think it's unrealistic?

This range and arc thing is really wierd. I can't imagine anything in real life such precision would be a model of.

Thanks 76mm, I was just going to post the same thing...I've probably got a range card or two around here somewhere lol.

The problem here seems to be a failure to understand what computer simulations are capable of versus what real command is like.
In the military you generally issue commands one level down, and are usually aware of the location of elements two levels down. So a company commander gives orders to his platoon leaders and has a rough idea of where their squads are.

The problem with simulating this in a computer game using current computer technology is there isn't an AI out there that is as smart as the human leaders and soldiers a real company commmander has working for him.
Ideally, you would issue an order to your platoon leader, and the platoon AI would have enough sense to put units in useful places looking in useful directions, and the squad AI would take it even further.

So you unfortunately need to be able to play the parts of each level of command yourself. Or you get things like issuing an order to defend a treeline and half the platoon wanders out into the open. The only way to prevent this currently is to allow the player to manage each squad... and as Thewood1 said the platoon order system as implemented seems to cause the player to fight the program, not the battle. Ideally, I would like to be able to select a platoon, draw an area on the map, and have the platoon take up the appropriate positions and stance there.

I have long wished for a game that would let me play a given command level and have the computer take care of all the decisions under(and over) that level. A true command simulation. But it ain't gonna happen any time soon. The Take Command series or the Panther Games series are the closest I have seen so far. Or multiplayer map games, which leads me to...

My current favorite game system is the reprint of Von Reisswitz's 1824 Kriegsspiel. You need a lot of players, and a lot of umpires to make it work but there is nothing more educational than trying to run a battle based on garbled reports and glimpses of the enemy through the smoke and haze and woods and hills. You think not knowing where the enemy is is fog of war, try not knowing where most of your own troops actually are half of the time. A quote from a chap that played in a game recently

I had a completely new insight into what being a general is all about…..Mostly confusion and blamelaying

If this could be replicated in a computer game I would need nothing more gaming wise. But again, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

[thewood1]

POA2 is the only computer game I have see that sinulates friendly FOW.  It is one of the most interesting games to play.  It comes closest to simulation of command of any wargame out there.  It had very long teething problems.  CMSF tries to do it, but it is somewhat anemic.

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Mobius
Yes the sectors are assigned each tank. But it takes time to co-ordinate the plan. Often it is written down first and distributed to the platoons and then to the TCs. I just don't see it being something that could be done on the fly with any precision. And then without landmarks.

Yes, it takes time, but I don't know what you mean by "on the fly"--this is one of the first things to be done setting up a defensive position, so would be realistic in a defense depicted in PCK. If by "on the fly" you mean on the attack, I agree, in this case you would typically tell your TCs before moving out which direction they should cover by reference to the "clock" ("every tank scan between 11:00 and 13:00" or "Tank #4, watch the right flank by keeping the main gun at 15:00"). Or if there is a suspected enemy position, you can order tanks to watch that specific spot as you move forward or overwatch. Again, the arc captures these practices very well.

Having them orient on a point as I understand PCK does it obviously means that that you can't use the "clock" method. This isn't necessarily the end of the world, but I'm really mainly posting to say that I think the arc method worked very well, and was realistic.

All of this is obviously based on modern (or late-eighties anyway!) practice, and things might have been different in WWII, although I seriously doubt it. I am pretty sure that I've seen sketches of WWII range cards in some of the books I've read, but not certain...

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: bardolph
In the military you generally issue commands one level down, and are usually aware of the location of elements two levels down. So a company commander gives orders to his platoon leaders and has a rough idea of where their squads are.

Very true. Besides being usually aware of the location two levels down the combat power two levels down. This is what I saw quoted on the Global Securiy site.

ORIGINAL: bardolph
My current favorite game system is the reprint of Von Reisswitz's 1824 Kriegsspiel. You need a lot of players, and a lot of umpires to make it work but there is nothing more educational than trying to run a battle based on garbled reports and glimpses of the enemy through the smoke and haze and woods and hills. You think not knowing where the enemy is is fog of war, try not knowing where most of your own troops actually are half of the time. A quote from a chap that played in a game recently

I had a completely new insight into what being a general is all about…..Mostly confusion and blamelaying

If this could be replicated in a computer game I would need nothing more gaming wise. But again, it ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

This is the experience people get when playing table top games with a number of other players. After the first few moves the battle plan gets forgotten or mis-understood and things go much differently than planned. That is why I suggested playing the games with a number of other people on the same side. Controlling parts of the same platoon or even just different whole platoons. They would get a different perspective of what being a company commander is all about.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Rick
And as I play more I find myself actually giving fewer orders than I did in CMBB, I think. Mainly minor adjusments to alignment, like as wood says, lining up in woods line. Sometimes targeting if I have a specific need.

This is the same experience I've had, honestly. I recognize there are some instances where the current orders model leads to more work, but for me overall over the course of a scenario it leads to less.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: PDiFolco
I agree, the problems with the platoon commands are not that frequent, but due to the relative inflexibility of the system, several "special" cases have to be handled with more or less fake/gamey methods, such as running in place. It's not a game breaker but it's an inconvenience, a more open/flexible system would handle it better.

Ok, if you agree that these are special cases where the system is not ideal, then let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let me pose this question to you: If you were suddenly today the lead designer for the next Panzer Command game, how would you make the orders more open/flexible without losing the point to them, which is to try to limit commands to what could be realistically communicated every 40-80 seconds in the midst of a battle?

And while that's rare to have widely separated inf squads, what about tanks and transports ? Platoon default move orders to move everyone 200m right ahead (or to the left), make not much sense when the units are 200m apart and always have to be cancelled and redone. I'd still prefer to do it only once per unit properly (and even in CM you could give a PzC like platoon move order by double clicking on the HQ, set the order and target, so it's not even an unique time saving feature).

You should not normally have your platoon elements separated by 200 meters on most of these maps. Perhaps on a wide open steppe map that would make sense, but with the unit concentrations we have per km, I find spacing of about 50m between makes a lot more sense.

Regards,

- Erik