Infantry Breaking to Easily in 4.0?

[weapon2010]

  Since 4.0 I've noticed infantry breaking and running way in suppression conditions which would not cause that reaction in 3.0, has anyone else experienced this?Is this the way BF wants it?or is it being tweaked.I have seen entire platoons just run away all together and have never seen this in 3.0.

[Holman]

Others have noticed what seems like a fairly dramatic change in infantry resilience under 4.0.

Here are two active threads on it.  (There may be more.)

Has 4.0 made the stock campaigns unplayable?

How can I prevent infantry running away?

 

Edited May 1, 2017 by Holman

[LongLeftFlank]

Cheers for the links.

I agree that infantry should not normally be 'bailing out' of perfectly good foxholes. My theory is that it's because CM fortifications are a type of vehicle, so infantry apply passenger "bail out" logic instead of more sensibly hunkering down in place.

OTOH, I generally approve of making non-Fanatic infantry somewhat more 'brittle' to encourage (pour encourager!) players and scenario designers to employ more realistic tactics, such as multiple waves, rather than continuing to push initial assault troops forward like chessmen, with the reinforcements "snowballing" on.

Once the initial wave guys have started to hit "Rattled", they should only be ordered forward again in extreme need, and doing that should indeed bear a risk of panic and rout -- not necessarily headlong flight but going to ground and staying there. Husbanding ones forces should be more than just body count and remaining ammo. 

Even elite troops will rarely be gung ho to keep pushing inland once they've scaled the cliffs and spiked the guns per their original orders, even if the opportunity presents itself. Yes, of course there are often exceptions to that, but they're almost never within the ability of formation commanders to direct.

My two pesos....

[weapon2010]

13 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

I agree that infantry should not normally be 'bailing out' of perfectly good foxholes.

I am not talking about foxholes.I am talking about a normal Ifantry attack.

[LongLeftFlank]

Ah, got it, apologies. I was referring to related issues in the links.

So in 4.0 you've observed whole platoons breaking and fleeing together? Even subunits that are less hard hit, with fewer casualties and Pins?

[Glubokii Boy]

47 minutes ago, LongLeftFlank said:

 

OTOH, I generally approve of making non-Fanatic infantry somewhat more 'brittle' to encourage (pour encourager!) players and scenario designers to employ more realistic tactics, such as multiple waves, rather than continuing to push initial assault troops forward like chessmen, with the reinforcements "snowballing" on.

Once the initial wave guys have started to hit "Rattled", they should only be ordered forward again in extreme need, and doing that should indeed bear a risk of panic and rout -- not necessarily headlong flight but going to ground and staying there. Husbanding ones forces should be more than just body count and remaining ammo. 

 

 

The 16 AI group limitation we currently have makes designing AI attacks that is recembling a human controlled attack somewhat tricky. We may simply not have enough AI groups avaliable to do things like well executed continues wave attack that is succesfully supported by AFVs and suppressing heavy weapon possitions.

I guess that the real scenario designing pros might be able to do it.

But it is tricky imo.

[snake_eye]

Playing recently V4.00  "baraque de Fraiture" RT Elite on the German side I got a minor victory. some might think, thatI should be able to avoid as much as I Remember it ( having designed the scenatrio) the US defence, but that did not work the way I figured it should. First the US A. I fought very well and I have not seen any German routed.. However under extreme firing and or shelling, They at one point moved a little farther back.  I ordered them to assault after few minutes and they did not relinquish it.

During the making of the scenario and other testing, I was rather surprised and upset to be unable to have a US flame thrower team using it. However with V4.00  it worked above all I could have imagined. I just had a team of 6 PZ GR moved into a house at the edge of the village and I was Pretty proud of having a foot into the village. I was already moving another squad toward the next house, when I saw a tongue of flame licking the Gr taken house. All 6 were immediately casualties. The US team was somewhere, but I was unable to have a LOS on them. I just discovered them in the AAR screen, having being shot by enfilading firing from the left during a subsequent German advance. THAT and other scenarios testing with V4.00 make me think IMHO that the changes of behaviour that might have been seen, are mostly in accordance with the way some troopers would react under fire, depending of its level.

Cheer

 

 

 

[JoMac]

4 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Ah, got it, apologies. I was referring to related issues in the links.

So in 4.0 you've observed whole platoons breaking and fleeing together? Even subunits that are less hard hit, with fewer casualties and Pins?

Hey LLF, Don't mind him to much as we get aittle frustrated at times with v4.0...Your a Good long standing member here, and way back during the Talon Soft 'East & West Front' days...Now, Matrix Games, John Tillers 'Campaign Series'. 

Edited May 1, 2017 by JoMc67

[weapon2010]

 Mind me very much, amd Im not frustrated, Im simply asking am I making a valid point In that the Infantry seems "softer" in 4.0?I only have a small sampling to engine 4, but this is what I have noticed.

[Michael Emrys]

11 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

...not necessarily headlong flight but going to ground and staying there.

This is pretty much what I advocate in many situations, especially for the attacker. Again, it depends on many variables such as current morale state, experience and leadership (including that of their commander), and the quality of the cover of the ground they are on.

Michael

[LongLeftFlank]

KING HENRY V:  Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more. 

ANCIENT PISTOL:  Not 'til I've had a 'fag and a brew-up, mate.

[banned]

10 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

Hey LLF, Don't mind him to much as we get aittle frustrated at times with v4.0...Your a Good long standing member here, and way back during the Talon Soft 'East & West Front' days...Now, Matrix Games, John Tillers 'Campaign Series'. 

cool story

Edited May 2, 2017 by MANoWAR.U51

[LongLeftFlank]

2 hours ago, MANoWAR.U51 said:

cool story

Wish someone would share it with me then. ?

I am not now and never have been in the gaming business. I have designed CMSF and occasionally CMBN scenarios and mash-up mods sporadically as a hobbyist. I indeed played the Talonsoft games back in the day, but never did any design work. No experience with Matrix.

Of course I also have no memory of what happens during the nights of the full moon.... 

[banned]

3 hours ago, LongLeftFlank said:

Of course I also have no memory of what happens during the nights of the full moon.... 

or you got a Doppelganger.

[rampantone]

I as well notice infantry breaking very easily. Mind you I havent played for 3 years or so, the v3 and v4 upgrades are new to me. 

It has become a nuissance telling a 50. Cal team to stay in position, veteran with +1 leadership espicially when it is the only weapon stopping our company from being overrun. Perfect C2C and the gun is under minimal suppression.

Not only that, but have action squares been gimped? Unlike previous versions when I send Infantry to do a task it feels like im limited to two choices because they go anywhere I order them in a reasonable manner. None of this was an issue pre V3.

Would be nice to PLAY a game then spend all my time reissuing orders to competent soldiers to hold the line. Maybe, fire a shot?

Edited May 14, 2017 by rampantone

[weapon2010]

my troops are "running away" in situations they wouldnt have in pre version 4, is this something BF is aware of?is it intentional for version 4?

[Kuderian]

 

3 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

my troops are "running away" in situations they wouldnt have in pre version 4, is this something BF is aware of?is it intentional for version 4?

I think the below  V4 addition is the main reason for the changes in troop behaviour. Soldiers now, I think differentiate HE fire from non-HE  fire, all things being equal.

V4.0 Manual quote;

The TacAI that runs soldiers and vehicles will more proactively, and reactively,
attempt to avoid incoming HE fire. Two classic examples are that the AI will
attempt to avoid being wiped out by incoming artillery barrages and direct tank
fire

Edited May 14, 2017 by Kuderian
comprehension

[weapon2010]

ok that makes sense, so I think what Im seeing is an undesirable side effect, I think it needs to be looked at

[Holman]

But, as many have reported, soldiers are leaving cover far more often than before even when under rifle or MG fire, not HE.

[slysniper]

Well, until some of you show information of what is happening in the game that is so unrealistic and put it out there for review, we really have nothing. Some testing  showing results as to how the game is presently flawed.

I did not like the changes at first either, but I have not been seeing anything that is all that unusual either, believe me, I want to. But I have not seen that unit are breaking after only a few rounds fired at them for any unrealistic reason. ( well, not true, I have seen it, but they have either been moving or are in open terrain. Both of which deserves heading for cover when you receive incoming.)

 

 

 

[Holman]

I really feel like I'm seeing units flee cover by running when they used to cower in place.  It's not that they're not "tough" enough; it's that they run into the open when they used to (realistically, IMHO) hug the ground until they collected themselves.  I'm seeing this in response to fire from other infantry squads, not incoming artillery.

I haven't done systematic tests, but this is my impression after about ten PBEM games under 4.0.  I believe I was an active enough player under 3.0 to notice a significant and valid difference.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

On 5/2/2017 at 1:59 AM, weapon2010 said:

 Mind me very much, amd Im not frustrated, Im simply asking am I making a valid point In that the Infantry seems "softer" in 4.0?I only have a small sampling to engine 4, but this is what I have noticed.

Maybe morale responses of infantry are "softer" in 4.0. Maybe it has gone too far for you to have an enjoyable game now that you are is able to use your old tactics as effectively as you once did. Maybe however he results are more realistic - if you do something that would b dumb in the real world you pay some of the real world costs of your decisions except obviously nobody dies and there are no real world widows and orphans. Perhaps, instead of criticizing 4.0 we need to consider and adapt our tactics,

I am not saying there is a difference. Rather hat this difference might actually be a good thing in that it forces us to consider better tactics based on those of the real world. Should we even have put our squad in the position where i is perhaps unsupported by other units on overwatch? Should we instead have detached a scout team from that squad and sent hem to recon possible  enemy positions while keeping the rest  of the squad back in cover. Maybe we need to be putting greater emphasis on issues like this as a real squad or platoon leader might have to.

If 4.0 forces us to think more along lines like that then perhaps that s no bad thing. If infantry are "softer" and act more like a real unit under particularly negative his could actually be a closer simulation of reality - in which case maybe the tactics we have been using are unrealistic, not the simulation..If that is the case then try different tactics more like those a real world commander might employ.Let the game/simulation teach you.Just a thought :-)

[LUCASWILLEN05]

10 hours ago, Holman said:

I really feel like I'm seeing units flee cover by running when they used to cower in place.  It's not that they're not "tough" enough; it's that they run into the open when they used to (realistically, IMHO) hug the ground until they collected themselves.  I'm seeing this in response to fire from other infantry squads, not incoming artillery.

I haven't done systematic tests, but this is my impression after about ten PBEM games under 4.0.  I believe I was an active enough player under 3.0 to notice a significant and valid difference.

Maybe this could be because he unit in question is too close to the enemy and are thus under much more accurate fire. Remember firepower does not just kill. It suppresses - has a morale effect and maybe the impact on morale is greater under heavy close range small arms fire - which will tend o be moe accurate. Even if the fire does not kill or wound it still is going to have a significant psychological impact.Take a look at that little suppression triangle. Maybe that is why the squad is bugging out

[Holman]

Well, my comparison is between 3.0 and 4.0, and I feel sure I can see a difference.  Units in buildings and trenches are bugging out into the open under the same conditions that used to cause them to hug the floor.

The problem isn't that they're being suppressed.  It's that they're more likely to stand up and totally expose themselves when suppressed.

 

[weapon2010]

yes my opinion is that the natural human reaction to bombs blowing up around  soldiers in a building or trench  would be to hug the ground, curl up, hide, and not move.Different terrain types might/should produce a different effect, like running away.