[Stwa]

Hi all,

A new mod project for LSA has started with modern combat as its subject.  

I wanted to do this thread to try and generate some excitement about the mod. Even though the screenies you see here will be from CCMT, it wont be hard to imagine a similar experience with LSA, since the mod will use RSR maps.

Also, I invite anyone to post in the thread as we go along, especially if you have some neat stuff regarding the topic  

Point Blank Tanking

[Stwa]

Early on, I never used CCMT for all out tank combat. Only recently, did I start building operations and missions to support this kind of warfare.

To be sure, even a 1 KM map, just doesn't do modern tank combat justice. I am pretty sure, no one plays single player on the 1 x 4 KM maps that are available for CCMT. But even so, a 1 KM map is too small, as the ranges of anti-tank cannons far exceed this map size.

Besides that, vehicle shoot outs just seem to involve too much luck to make them interesting to most wargamers. The main problem occurs when tanks open fire on one another, just after you hit "Begin".

Nevertheless, I have found, just like in CC4, an obstructed or close terrain map, makes the map size much less important. Instead of using Shermans and Panthers, you will be using Abrams and T-80s, and the outcomes will be just as variable.  

Add anti-tank missiles, and the missions re-kindle some interest, as the outcomes no longer seem to be just about luck, but due more to the modern weapons.

[Stwa]

To get some foundation, I think we should look at just a few battlegroups.  

Now, these battlegroups, are pure fantasy, but I think they mirror what CC gamers usually think of, when they apply a column approach to developing any battlegroup.

Usually, a gamer, tries to structure some infantry (a semblence of a platoon), and then support that with tanks. Forever and a day, I would usually limit the number of tanks to no more than 3, and more practically 2. I would do the same for the AI.

But some of you may of had different ideas, and if so, please feel free to show them here.

In the following example I am using 5 tanks, and for that reason, I have decided to not use Victory Locations when I build the mission. I will explain in more detail later.

[Stwa]

A more modern approach, might use a Mechanized Battlegroup. It can still seem somewhat ficticious due to the 15 team limitation, but the main take away here , is the exclusive use of anti-tank missles.

The newer weapons need to be distinguished from ordinary propelled grenades (rocket or otherwise). The explosive, just via its additional velocity, allow penatration of various armors, an experiment finally culminating in the discovery that an explosive might not be necessary. For instance, a high velocity hard metal projectile might be suffiecient by itself.

So, just compare the following battlegroup with the one shown above. You can easily see the difference. The main fun with CCMT, for me, has always been the complete freedom to develop any battlegroup I desired, and then apply it in various situations to determine which force mix was really surperior to another.

So with these two battlegroups in mind, part of the fun, will be this determination. Which battlegroup is surperior.  

[Stwa]

As a control for these experiments, an OPFOR battlegroup has been developed along the traditional lines. I have shown T-55s as the tank component, but these could range up to the T-80, and the experiment will remain valid.

A more European look to OPFOR, might indeed supply later model tanks, and regular infantry, as opposed to the Jihadies shown here. But please realize, that OPFOR can also produce its version of a Modern Mechanized Battlegroup. We are just going to save that for much later in the thread if we get to it at all.

[Stwa]

To be sure, a proper test environment, would involve many battles, and perhaps dozens of maps, to really get a good feel for the capabilities of each force mix prototype. A term I conjured up a while back, since battelgroup seems to imply a usage of only one event.

Here, the force prototype, will be tried, in a variety of circumstances, with maps of different sizes and various levels of obstructed terrain, and differeing enemy battlegroups, which in this case will provide heavy tanks from T-55s to T-80s.

But to get started, the first test battle, was on one of the airport maps. These maps are basically flat, with just a few structures.

I used the Mechanized Battlegroup, since everyone has probably already had experience with the more Traditional Battlegroup.

And the results  

The OPFOR battlegroup (at least the tanks), were destroyed in just a few seconds. Probably less than 10.

The scene was more than just a vehicle shootout, since every ARMY team was equiped with an anti-tank weapon of some kind.

Also, just a reminder, the OPFOR infantry teams do have a pair of RPG's with them, and 1 Bradely IFV was damaged and another immobilized.

In all reality, the OPFOR infantry teams pose a larger threat, since they are harder to kill than the vehicles, and they do possess RPGs as mentioned before. This is a theme that will re-occur as we go on to other maps, so its worth mentioning here.

Also, on all of the tests, I constructed missions that do not use Victory Locations. In so doing CCMT will generally spread the AI tanks out in their deployment zone, and the tanks will not get a wild hair and try to crash a Locations, because there are none.

[Stwa]

The above test is necessary to create the proper foundation for subsequent tests, because it reminds us of all that is wrong with vehicle combat in CC.

Not to mention that the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, is not really thought of as a tank, per se.

In the battle, the vehicles started firing immdiately after the game's start. Visibility was not obstructed in any significant way, as the structures assoiciated with the airport, were of little hinderance.

A second test, using a larger 1 KM Airport map, produces more or less the same result.

When you think about it, vehicle combat isn't really Close Combat. It is Long Combat, and not alltogether that much fun for a lot of gamers.

There are other issues too regarding the map size. The open aspects of the terrain (i.e. the airport), makes one wonder how enemy tanks could approach this closely, without being detected, or fired upon in the process.

So just this procedural issue, leaves one with the feeling that this combat, could not really occur in real life. Not a huge problem, but one many purist might find unacceptable.

The CFV Recon Teams attributed to some of the OPFOR losses, so I have revised a better Battlegroup going forward as follows.  

[Stwa]

For the next series of tests, I decided to move from mostly open Facility style maps to Coastal maps. Generally speaking these maps offer few if any terrain obstructions.

Howerver, there are a few excpetions, where ridges intervene and deny instant visibility of the entire map to either side.

I also decided to "upgrade" the OPFOR forces to T-62s, and regular infantry.  

[Stwa]

For the Coastal map tests, I decided to impose a significant restriction to the combat.  

I decided that I would not move any of the Human Player (ARMY) forces, and simply let the teams sit where they were initially deployed.

It is not as bold as it sounds, because I knew the AI (OPFOR) would move his teams onto the ridge in the center of the map, and from there ARMY forces would pick them off one at a time.

And that is precisely what happend. I repeated the test 3 times, with basically identical results in all three. Once again, despite fielding T-62s, the OPFOR heavy tanks were all destroyed.

In none of the tests was a Bradley actually destroyed, yet there were several damaged and immobilized in one particular test.

Enemy RPG fire from their infantry teams was basically inaccurate and therefore ineffective at these ranges.

[pvt_Grunt]

It is a long running problem, CC really works best as an infantry game. Tanks are an important part, but it is mostly an infantry game.
Many modders (well, all of us really) are fascinated by tanks and want to include as many different vehicles as possible.
Sometimes this includes artillery like the M7 Priest which really doesnt fit into Close Combat as they were never front line vehicles.
There were times when they became front line vehicles, but it is because the front line came to them! That is why they are included in CC4.
As you say, modern warfare is NOT close combat, the goal is to stay as far away from the enemy as possible!
CCMT is an anomaly in the CC world as it is NOT WW2.
Modern tank warfare is beyond the scale and scope of the CC engine, and it will always be difficult to implement.
Still, it's always good to watch the limits get pushed, so go for it!

[Stwa]

Thanks for the encouragement, and I find your commentary dead on.  

With pvt_Grunt's remarks it might be a good time to check in with the Main Battle Tank tests, and see how things are going.

It shouldn't come as any great surprise, but the M1 Abrams, at least in this game, simply dominates the Russian Heavy tanks. The main reason for this is the rate of fire for the various anti-tank guns involved.

It just takes the Russian tanks a very long time to reload, compared to the M1 Abrams. I have checked this data against other games like CCM and RTB, and values are the same.

I know, some mods, have revised the data to even things out a little.

Nevertheless, it is very possible for a T-80 to take out the M1, and/or damage and immobilize them.  But overall, after many tests, the M1 wins out most of the time.

While using these more traditional battlegroups, enemy RPG teams don't pose the same threat they do against the IFV's, even though an RPG can at least immobilize the M1.

[southern_land]

Meanwhile in the real world there is stuff like cover that means a tank gun can't necessarily range out to 4 klicks

this map taken at random WSW of Sarajevo  16... count them, 16 lines of cover in 1002 meters

[Stwa]

As everyone has probably figured out, it is my intention to walk us through maps of varying terrain, beginning with the maps that present the least amount of obsturction.

In the end, we will get to forested maps, and urban maps, and as we go along, everyone will get a good feeling how that affects the "Game World" of CC.

But since the subject of the "Real World" has come up, I decided to link to the following video. This video is a must for Bradley fans, and please remember, the topic of this thread is Point Blank Tanking - A Modern Approach.

One would probably enjoy the whole series of these videos, and this one in particular should really fire you up for some modern tanking. I know it fired me up.


Link

[Stwa]

If you haven't seen them already, I suggest you check out the entire Desert Storm set (i.e. parts 1 - 6).

One of the things that really struck me, was the enormity of the Iraqi static tank defense. 90 KM wide and 10 KM deep. The immense ranges, and sheer number of tanks for this battle, is surely what pvt_Grunt was referring to when he said  

Modern tank warfare is beyond the scale and scope of the CC engine, and it will always be difficult to implement.


But that is the "Real World", and we are here, in the "Game World" of CC. Here we have tank dueling and in this thread, we have kicked that up a knotch.

But as all CC gamers already know, when tanks are appended to our mainly infantry forces, the battle always breaks down into 2 distinct phases.

This generally applies even if there is only 1 tank on each side or 5 tanks on each side as we have in most of these examples.

Phase 1 is the destruction of the enemy tanks and  

Phase 2 is mopping up the enemy infantry.

What characterises these battles, and the ones have I shown up to now, is that Phase 2 can present far more danger to an attacker than Phase 1.

While it can be shown that Phase 1 can be won by both the Bradley and the Abrams, the Abrams is far more capable in Phase 2. You probably don't need a college degree to figure that out.

[southern_land]

Meanwhile back in the real world again
"Yugoslav wars SloveniaDuring the Ten-Day War, the Yugoslav People's Army (YPA) attempted to regain control over border crossings, airports and other strategic positions in Slovenia. The Slovenian Territorial Defence had no armoured units of its own, as such YPA M-84s were commonly used to break through barricades. The YPA lost some 20 M-84s to insurgent tactics. Slovenia inherited all the M-84s within its territory, once the ceasefire and Slovenia's independence was accepted.

CroatiaThe M-84 saw action in the Battle of Vukovar, where the YPA deployed large columns of main battle tanks without the support of the infantry. Tanks and APC's found themselves extremely exposed and suffered significant losses. The Croatian Army captured about 50 M-84 MBTs from Yugoslav Peoples Army during the Battle of the Barracks.

BosniaDuring the Bosnian War, M-84s saw little action; the mainstay of all 3 warring parties was the T-55. At the beginning of war, YPA units located in Bosnia and Herzegovina had passed their equipment to the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS). The VRS had several dozen M-84s with the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina managing to capture only three M-84s. A number of M-84 tanks were used during the Siege of Sarajevo, as well during smaller localized conflicts. The number of M-84 tanks destroyed during the Bosnian war is unknown"


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6ITtxpDWe4   Look cover closer than the horizon  and more  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avzG9lLJ03k&feature=related

and  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gx1lnIfVLaA&feature=related   13:18 and 22:07 for destroyed tanks in confined areas... ie Close combat

[pvt_Grunt]

Hi Shane
I feel are trying to contradict me (or maybe STWA), but I think we are on the same page.
I said "Tanks are an important part, but it is mostly an infantry game. "
By this I meant, tanks are important, but they CAN be destroyed by clever infantry (with the right weapons) as long as the ranges are close (close combat)
A tank only game of close combat would play out quickly and be rather unstisfiying.

You said "13:18 and 22:07 for destroyed tanks in confined areas... ie Close combat"  
I agree entirely - taking armoured vehicles into urban areas is risky, in computer games games (the only warfare experience I have, lucky me) they MUST be suppored by infantry or else it is suicide.

So, I'll restate my position - An open flat map (like a desert storm scenario) is a tankfest, the infantry would not survive. In order to have a fun game the tanks need to be restricted like the 2 AFV rule or else the maps need to have LOTS of cover, like a town map or hilly / wooded terain to balance the tanks effectiveness.

Cheers  - G

[Stwa]

BTW, I encourage "Real World" anecdotal reports on this topic. So, if anyone want's to join in, please do.

I think Shane, just wants to jump ahead to forested and urban terrain now, and I will get there eventually, but will proceed apace, with less obstructed terrains first.

Remember, I like to gear most of these discusssions to noobs, and try my best to keep the points simple, and I do feel like we can all agree that  

Modern tank warfare is beyond the scale and scope of the CC engine, and it will always be difficult to implement.

Of course you can represrent up to 15 tanks per side, but the battles will be more or less ungratifying, depending on the size and difficulty of the terrain. And as I mentioned early on, sometimes pure tank battles have a ficticious quality to them, which is bad for gamers that are desperately trying to see some realism in their game/sim.

[Stwa]

So recapping the objectives of this thread.

1. We wanted to determine if a Modern Mechanized Force Prototype was superior to the Traditional Infantry Prototype, supported by Main Battle Tanks.
2. We have identified two distinct phases in game battles when infantry forces are supported by tanks. Phase 1: the destruction of the enemy tanks, and Phase 2: mopping up the enemy infantry.

And then so far, we have ascertained, that the Abrams holds some advantage over the Bradley in Phase 2.

That ascertation can be challenged, in the "Real World" and the "Game World", as different map sizes with varying terrain features are brought to bear.

With that in mind, this topic attempts to explore these concepts through the "Game Lens" of Close Combat.  

[Stwa]

So far we have examined rather unobstructed terrain, like the facility, coastal, and desert terrains.

A few had an intervening ridge somewhere on the map, and this is important when using vehicles.

When designing the mission you can arrange deployment zones on either side of the ridge. Therefore, enemy forces cannot sight one another immediately after the game begins, and vehicles will not open fire accordingly.

Apart from that, the ridge helps to reinforce the idea that no matter how small the map, the enemy forces could (in real life), actually approach each other to these smaller ranges or distances.  

If you recall the desert terrain on page 1, the ridges don't always have to run straight through the center of the map, to make the vehicle combat seem more credible.  

[Stwa]

But what about unobstructed maps, that have no intervening ridge, like the Airport map, presented on page 1.

I you recall, on that map, Phase 1 was accomplished in seconds, probably less than 10. ARMY Bradleys knocked out OPFOR T-55s with ease.

However Phase 2, supplies another more sinister albeit unrealistic problem: If the map is flat, and small enough, where OPFOR infantry forces are also within range of the ARMY vehicles when the game begins, the Bradley will be more vulnerable to RPG and hand held ATM weapons, fired during Phase 1 and Phase 2.

In fact, OPFOR insurgent forces alone, bearing RPGs, could easily disable, or perhaps destroy every Bradley Vehicle simply from taking prone positions in the sand at the runway areas of the Airport.

A quick glance at the Map Info for the mission helps to identify the basic issue.