Jump to content
weapon2010

Infantry Breaking to Easily in 4.0?

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:

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.

Unless what they are doing is bugging out. One of two things might be happening here. One is that the squad panics and they just want to get the hell out of here. The other possibility is that the squad leader ordered them to bug out. Either way the squad s not acting under your control a this point. This may mean they are not dong what you consider to be the sensible thing. Instead they are acting as they see fit according to their interpretation of the situation, not yours!

Is that annoying? Yes.But perhaps not necessarily unrealistic depending on what else might be going on. Whatever cover the squad might be in how close is the enemy? How much fire are hey putting down range? How suppressed is the target unit (look at that little triangle. It is questions like this that also need to be carefully considered.

 

Edited by LUCASWILLEN05

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For purposes of this debate, figuring out what's going on involves comparing 3.0 and 4.0.  I'd love for BTS to acknowledge that they've made a change for specific reasons or that something unintended has slipped in.

My sense of something being off comes from things like squads inside a stone church taking rifle fire (not even Bren fire) and running out the door to be killed in the street.  Yes, the squad in question was pretty beaten up, but my strong sense is that in 3.0 and earlier they would have cowered in place in the church (making them immune to aimed fire) rather than running outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can definitely say in 3.0 that infantry would run from buildings under even 81 mm fire. It was a frustrating item in trying to design Frosty Welcome for the Market Garden module so as noted prior actual testing is the only thing BF has ever listened to. Anecdotal info doesn't get a response.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Holman said:

For purposes of this debate, figuring out what's going on involves comparing 3.0 and 4.0.  I'd love for BTS to acknowledge that they've made a change for specific reasons or that something unintended has slipped in.

My sense of something being off comes from things like squads inside a stone church taking rifle fire (not even Bren fire) and running out the door to be killed in the street.  Yes, the squad in question was pretty beaten up, but my strong sense is that in 3.0 and earlier they would have cowered in place in the church (making them immune to aimed fire) rather than running outside.

Fair enough to want BF to provide some reasoning for he change. However, you yourself do admit the squad was as you say "pretty beaten up" From that I would infer that morale and suppression was pretty bad. Maybe the squad in fact panicked. When people panic in dangerous situations i is not unknown for hem to do stupid things that get them killed. Such people are not in a state of mind to do he sensible thing - in that particular case to remain in he cover of that church. They just panicked and wanted to get out of there. What do you think is the psychological state most likely to get you killed in a fire or a stampede, You panic, make the wrong choice and you probably die

 https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/extreme-fear/201011/caught-in-stampede-what-would-you-do

Going back to what I said n an earlier post in situations like this these particular soldiers are no longer under your control and will act according to their perceptions of events around them. Not your perception as he overall battlegroup commander. OK so those guys panicked and got killed. That, and I do not wish to be callous, means a few more sad letters to write. Right now however you have a battle to win.

I think you are over obsessing about one incident here. Now a unit that panics might actually run away more often whereas before they might have cowered in place. I can live with that even of they do something dumb in a blind panic and that gets them killed That can be what happens sometimes and again what they actually do might well depend on other circumstances or even chance:-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a tough subject.

1. Yes, as per the notes, a change in behavior was made from v3 to v4. Or, rather, a "tweak" to behavior. The same behavior was still in the code, it just seems that it gets triggered at a different moment.

2. BFC has never changed anything just because of stories, anecdotes, or mass pleadings. There has to be repeatable evidence, which clearly shows erroneous behavior. If it is not minor, then it will be fixed/patched as soon as possible. (In my experience.) The crux is the presentation of evidence. One squad running out of foxholes does not an argument make.

3. The "behind the curtain" effects which make this game so special, involve morale, leadership, reaction to incoming fire, etc. These are precisely the issues which are directly attributable to, or responsible for, this type of behavior. If it were just a question of the rate of fire of an MG42 being off, it'd be easy to point to the "problem" and then reference the "fix". This running from HE is very complex. Sometimes it's right, sometimes (to our all-seeing-eyes) it seems wrong.

First, repeatable instances of behavior need to be created. Then, it needs to be shown how this is "wrong". Easy to say, hard to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

Fair enough to want BF to provide some reasoning for he change. However, you yourself do admit the squad was as you say "pretty beaten up" From that I would infer that morale and suppression was pretty bad. Maybe the squad in fact panicked. When people panic in dangerous situations i is not unknown for hem to do stupid things that get them killed. Such people are not in a state of mind to do he sensible thing - in that particular case to remain in he cover of that church. They just panicked and wanted to get out of there. What do you think is the psychological state most likely to get you killed in a fire or a stampede, You panic, make the wrong choice and you probably die

 https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/extreme-fear/201011/caught-in-stampede-what-would-you-do

Going back to what I said n an earlier post in situations like this these particular soldiers are no longer under your control and will act according to their perceptions of events around them. Not your perception as he overall battlegroup commander. OK so those guys panicked and got killed. That, and I do not wish to be callous, means a few more sad letters to write. Right now however you have a battle to win.

I think you are over obsessing about one incident here. Now a unit that panics might actually run away more often whereas before they might have cowered in place. I can live with that even of they do something dumb in a blind panic and that gets them killed That can be what happens sometimes and again what they actually do might well depend on other circumstances or even chance:-)

I feel like this discussion is going in circles, but I need to add that, while I gave one example above, it was only one example among many I've seen.  I'm not basing my sense of the 3.0/4.0 difference on that one instance alone.  That one merely illustrates the larger pattern.

Once again, the problem is not squads panicking or that their behavior is out of the player's hands when they do; the problem is what the game has them do when they do panic.  In about ten or twelve games under 4.0 I've seen multiple instances of infantry bolting into the open when they would have cowered in place under 3.0.  I believe the older behavior is more realistic, and in 4.0 blindly running upright into the open out of cover has become unrealistically common.

I love the degree to which the TacAI is the heart of CM, which is why I want it to be the best and most realistic it can be.  I trust that BTS is aware enough of these sorts of complaints to look into them.  I'd be very happy to hear that that's the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Holman said:

I feel like this discussion is going in circles, but I need to add that, while I gave one example above, it was only one example among many I've seen.  I'm not basing my sense of the 3.0/4.0 difference on that one instance alone.  That one merely illustrates the larger pattern.

Once again, the problem is not squads panicking or that their behavior is out of the player's hands when they do; the problem is what the game has them do when they do panic.  In about ten or twelve games under 4.0 I've seen multiple instances of infantry bolting into the open when they would have cowered in place under 3.0.  I believe the older behavior is more realistic, and in 4.0 blindly running upright into the open out of cover has become unrealistically common.

I love the degree to which the TacAI is the heart of CM, which is why I want it to be the best and most realistic it can be.  I trust that BTS is aware enough of these sorts of complaints to look into them.  I'd be very happy to hear that that's the case.

As c3k noted above, anecdotal information and complaints even if heard won't produce a response. Hell we complain about stuff all the time. The only thing that will produce change is repeatable data examples.  Even in this thread there isn't agreement on the behavior being off or what it should be. I know I have my own opinion, but it is no more valid than anyone else's who might completely disagree with me. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I know.  I wish I had the time to do repeatable tests.  I might even learn that I'm wrong, which would be reassuring about the game.

I hope I haven't come off as a whiner.  I genuinely trust BTS to get things right, and I greatly admire their design vision. It's just that I've never before had this strong sense that something changed to make the game less realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Holman said:

I feel like this discussion is going in circles, but I need to add that, while I gave one example above, it was only one example among many I've seen.  I'm not basing my sense of the 3.0/4.0 difference on that one instance alone.  That one merely illustrates the larger pattern.

Once again, the problem is not squads panicking or that their behavior is out of the player's hands when they do; the problem is what the game has them do when they do panic.  In about ten or twelve games under 4.0 I've seen multiple instances of infantry bolting into the open when they would have cowered in place under 3.0.  I believe the older behavior is more realistic, and in 4.0 blindly running upright into the open out of cover has become unrealistically common.

I love the degree to which the TacAI is the heart of CM, which is why I want it to be the best and most realistic it can be.  I trust that BTS is aware enough of these sorts of complaints to look into them.  I'd be very happy to hear that that's the case.

Personally I have not seen a great deal of bolting out into the open though I have only installed 4.0 on CMBS at the moment. Maybe you have just been unlucky? Or maybe, as I suggested earlier maybe they have changed the program so that troops with a high level of suppression  are ,more likey to bug out

My advice to you. net time you see  somethig like the issue you describe is to take a look at the unit morale state and at the level of suppression (that little yellow triangle I have mentioned several times. What I suspect you might find is that the suppression level will be high and morale state will be bad. These two factors combined might explain why the bug out you are seeing occurs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Holman said:

Oh, I know.  I wish I had the time to do repeatable tests.  I might even learn that I'm wrong, which would be reassuring about the game.

I hope I haven't come off as a whiner.  I genuinely trust BTS to get things right, and I greatly admire their design vision. It's just that I've never before had this strong sense that something changed to make the game less realistic.

Not at all (coming off as a whiner). The problem is simply this as noted is extremely subjective. Even assuming everyone agrees the behavior changed, it still leaves the question as to whether that is good or bad. The first step is to establish a baseline of the behavior and then I think one has to depend on the veterans on the forum to understand what might be normal behavior in their experience which honestly may also be very subjective.   

I don't think you will find anyone here who feels the subject is unimportant, if anything the hope is to get it as solidly as one can on target including with different experience and morale settings.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm playing a lot of campaigns against the AI with 4.0 in CMFI, CMBS and CMRT and I'm just not seeing any new extraordinary behaviour over 3.0.

Badly panicked troops and crews have always had a bad time when they've 'broken' in an engagement under any version. If anything playing the new Russian CMBS campaign last night I was amazed at the staying power of Ukrainian infantry in fixed positions under incredible artillery and direct fire. 

If anything panic and morale is grossly overstated in CM due to the time compression factors that make the game enjoyable/playable.

On a side note I've been gaming for thirty plus years at this stage. Any system I've dabbled with - table-top, board-game or computer game - when troops break under fire and panic it is usually game over for that unit. 

Opinions - of course - are like .........  ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, sburke said:

Not at all (coming off as a whiner). The problem is simply this as noted is extremely subjective. Even assuming everyone agrees the behavior changed, it still leaves the question as to whether that is good or bad. The first step is to establish a baseline of the behavior and then I think one has to depend on the veterans on the forum to understand what might be normal behavior in their experience which honestly may also be very subjective.   

I don't think you will find anyone here who feels the subject is unimportant, if anything the hope is to get it as solidly as one can on target including with different experience and morale settings.  

On balance I personally regard it as good if a unit close to the enemy and under heavy fire bugs out in the event it breaks evn if the unit is under heavy fire. In such circumstances those guys would probably want to get out  of there o somewhere a bit safer. In a tabletop miniatures game we might have a mechanism for panic. I remember one set of Vietnam rules I played years ago. When a unit panicked you rolled a six sided dice with results someting like this:

1 - 2 Panic Fire. Unit shoots with a very hefty negative modifier at nearest enemy

3 - 4 Panic Freeze Unit remains in position and does nothing at all until rallied

5 - 6 Panic Run. Unit runs away from enemy to nearest alternative cover

Maybe there is a similar mechanic at work now in 4.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

On balance I personally regard it as good if a unit close to the enemy and under heavy fire bugs out in the event it breaks evn if the unit is under heavy fire. In such circumstances those guys would probably want to get out  of there o somewhere a bit safer. In a tabletop miniatures game we might have a mechanism for panic. I remember one set of Vietnam rules I played years ago. When a unit panicked you rolled a six sided dice with results someting like this:

1 - 2 Panic Fire. Unit shoots with a very hefty negative modifier at nearest enemy

3 - 4 Panic Freeze Unit remains in position and does nothing at all until rallied

5 - 6 Panic Run. Unit runs away from enemy to nearest alternative cover

Maybe there is a similar mechanic at work now in 4.0

In many table-top or board-games broken troops are simply removed from play completely. Broken is the same as a KIA for all intents and purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, niall78 said:

In many table-top or board-games broken troops are simply removed from play completely. Broken is the same as a KIA for all intents and purposes.

Not in all. In this case it was a set of rules entitled Free Fire Zone which are now long out of print

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well this is why we need a baseline. You made certain assumptions above - the unit is under fire and in close proximity to the enemy. That is one situation. However it is not necessarily the only one. So let's change that a bit. 

How about a platoon spread out alll in foxholes.  No enemy in proximity.  They get hit with a medium 81 mm mortar strike. Within a turn almost the entire platoon has vacated their positions and is now in the open. Would that cause you to feel differently?

that is actually a repeatable scenario and an easy one to set up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sburke said:

Well this is why we need a baseline. You made certain assumptions above - the unit is under fire and in close proximity to the enemy. That is one situation. However it is not necessarily the only one. So let's change that a bit. 

How about a platoon spread out alll in foxholes.  No enemy in proximity.  They get hit with a medium 81 mm mortar strike. Within a turn almost the entire platoon has vacated their positions and is now in the open. Would that cause you to feel differently?

that is actually a repeatable scenario and an easy one to set up. 

In the absence of information in regard of what the actual circumstances were one must make certain assumptions regardng the actual circumstances were. As you say not providing such information is unhelpful. 

Regarding your example, well if the unit panicked maybe they would still vacate their trenches and run. If howver a unit does not panic maybe it is worth you trying to top them, Success is not guarunteed. If however heir moral sate is such that you cannot control thm then there is really nothing you can do bu let the go :-(

I tnd not to worry oo much about  wha happens to individual squads

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In this game, it's very easy to see if a unit is panicked or not. It says "Panic" in the unit's morale status.

I'm assuming people are not talking about panicked troops. Because obviously when panic strikes anything can happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

In the absence of information in regard of what the actual circumstances were one must make certain assumptions regardng the actual circumstances were. As you say not providing such information is unhelpful. 

Regarding your example, well if the unit panicked maybe they would still vacate their trenches and run. If howver a unit does not panic maybe it is worth you trying to top them, Success is not guarunteed. If however heir moral sate is such that you cannot control thm then there is really nothing you can do bu let the go :-(

I tnd not to worry oo much about  wha happens to individual squads

Fair enough, that is more detail for a baseline discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

In this game, it's very easy to see if a unit is panicked or not. It says "Panic" in the unit's morale status.

I'm assuming people are not talking about panicked troops. Because obviously when panic strikes anything can happen.

At this stage I do not think we can go further without fuller details such as the level of suppression, state of morale, relevant enemy positions and how close these were to the  unit under debate. I don;t feel there is anything anyone could usefully add without such information. Otherwise we can't analyse but only guess what might have happened to cause something like this. Without such details it might be best to call a halt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3.0 to 4.0 changed, that is not a question.

The problem is, the people playing the game are not changing how they play, that is a big part of the problem. It is clear, infantry is not going to hold any position if they are in a poor moral state or getting hit by arty. Your tactics need to adjust to that fact. That can solve many a problem, if you cannot handle it, version 3.0 can be reinstalled on your machine.

I still am waiting for some of these post that show clearly for us all to understand how infantry is breaking in unrealistic situations. A few of you have describe event that sound unrealistic, but you need to provide hard evidence that we all can examine.

Believe me, I am not a fan of 4.0. but I have now played enough under the new system to see troops still hold their ground under hard situations.(high moral, good troop) I have learned to use pause as a way to keep shaken troops in place. But more importantly. I have stopped trying to put unrealistic expectation on units to stay and fight if they are shot up or if they are taken ordinance fire. I have changed my tactics and now I don't see all that running and getting shot in the back stuff in the open so much.

Is it more realistic now, I don't know, its a fine line to where is it a game of cowards or a game of super hero's.

I have seen both ends with the BF tweaks over the years.

 

Personally, I would prefer hero's over cowards in the game play.

For some reason, BF has listened to those that prefer to play with cowards and believe that it is more enjoyable to play with the game in that state. thus we all need to learn to command these wimps of men (but all for the sake of realism) or so they say anyway.

 

Or until some of you post hard evidence of good units running from unrealistic situations that we can beat BF on that the latest adjustments are trash

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, slysniper said:

For some reason, BF has listened to those that prefer to play with cowards and believe that it is more enjoyable to play with the game in that state. thus we all need to learn to command these wimps of men (but all for the sake of realism) or so they say anyway.

To be honest, I haven't played enough with v4 to form a solid opinion on this issue (been taking a break from CM). But I know the intent was not to make a game of cowards, but to show them exhibiting a realistic interest in self preservation. For my part, I don't think that is necessarily having them break and run; going to ground and keeping their heads down while not firing their weapons is more in line with what I have read about troops in combat. But that wouldn't cover all situations either. Breaking and running—even with disastrous consequences  for the men involved—did happen sometimes, especially with poorly trained or inexperienced soldiers. So, in the game, I wouldn't be surprised to see conscript or green soldiers doing that. I would also expect to see more experienced soldiers sometimes withdrawing under fire, but I would expect to see them doing it in a more careful and disciplined way, moving from cover to cover and not simply dashing out into the open. If the player has placed them where they don't have any protected line of retreat...well, you don't have any cause to complain.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same boat here, mostly been playing the older CM:A & CM:SF, but I haven't yet seen anything that makes me wonder (unlike the T-90's apparent inability to spot tanks that are shooting at their comrades).  :rolleyes:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

To be honest, I haven't played enough with v4 to form a solid opinion on this issue (been taking a break from CM). But I know the intent was not to make a game of cowards, but to show them exhibiting a realistic interest in self preservation. For my part, I don't think that is necessarily having them break and run; going to ground and keeping their heads down while not firing their weapons is more in line with what I have read about troops in combat. But that wouldn't cover all situations either. Breaking and running—even with disastrous consequences  for the men involved—did happen sometimes, especially with poorly trained or inexperienced soldiers. So, in the game, I wouldn't be surprised to see conscript or green soldiers doing that. I would also expect to see more experienced soldiers sometimes withdrawing under fire, but I would expect to see them doing it in a more careful and disciplined way, moving from cover to cover and not simply dashing out into the open. If the player has placed them where they don't have any protected line of retreat...well, you don't have any cause to complain.

Michael

None of which reflects the behavior in question. This isn't about troops breaking and running or retreating, it is about a TAC AI response to incoming HE fire where they simply move and in moving are leaving the best position they have to weather that fire.  Back to my example a "typical" us infantry platoon takes one round of 81 mm mortar fire and moves out of their foxholes and into the open.   They don't vacate the area of fire and seek other cover, they simply climb out of their foxholes and go to ground in the open.  This is really a simple example easily set up in 10 minutes or less by anyone here interested.  I don't still have 3.0 loaded to compare behavior and am about to head out of town, but if we are still talking in circles next week I'll see if I can't set that up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

To be honest, I haven't played enough with v4 to form a solid opinion on this issue (been taking a break from CM). But I know the intent was not to make a game of cowards, but to show them exhibiting a realistic interest in self preservation. For my part, I don't think that is necessarily having them break and run; going to ground and keeping their heads down while not firing their weapons is more in line with what I have read about troops in combat. But that wouldn't cover all situations either. Breaking and running—even with disastrous consequences  for the men involved—did happen sometimes, especially with poorly trained or inexperienced soldiers. So, in the game, I wouldn't be surprised to see conscript or green soldiers doing that. I would also expect to see more experienced soldiers sometimes withdrawing under fire, but I would expect to see them doing it in a more careful and disciplined way, moving from cover to cover and not simply dashing out into the open. If the player has placed them where they don't have any protected line of retreat...well, you don't have any cause to complain.

Michael

In reality real soldiers are likely to be far more careful with their flesh and blood bodies than we are likely to b with our pixelated images:-)

That said you do identify more of the correct issues, Maybe he OP was using a poorly trained unit with low morale. Which could be much more common during the winter of 1944 - 5 on both sides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, sburke said:

None of which reflects the behavior in question. This isn't about troops breaking and running or retreating, it is about a TAC AI response to incoming HE fire where they simply move and in moving are leaving the best position they have to weather that fire.  Back to my example a "typical" us infantry platoon takes one round of 81 mm mortar fire and moves out of their foxholes and into the open.   They don't vacate the area of fire and seek other cover, they simply climb out of their foxholes and go to ground in the open.  This is really a simple example easily set up in 10 minutes or less by anyone here interested.  I don't still have 3.0 loaded to compare behavior and am about to head out of town, but if we are still talking in circles next week I'll see if I can't set that up. 

Well, this example would be a perfect one if you can show consistently that the game is doing such actions. Its pretty clear it does not should like normal behavior.

But to even try and match you, we would need more information. What troops were in them foxholes and what game were you playing.

As I have said before , we really need detailed info if we are going to make a case that there is issues with the latest adjustments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...