The "debate" about CMBB's Infantry Modeling

[aka_tom_w]

Please try to stay focused on being positive and constructive.

We should all take note that the V1.1 (v 1.01?) patch has NOT been released and for all we know they are still testing it and tweaking it. Maybe some of the ideas and suggestions from this thread could directly impact the changes in the next patch??

Some of the issues mentioned in this thread are on the "will be tweaked" list they have previously released in the "things fixed in the next patch" list.

We should all understand that there is only so much they can do when there are clear limitations in the game engine like the fact that units CANNOT (at this time) have any memory, this means certian things to certain people here.

In my own personal opinion CMBB does indeed present new challenges. It is more challenging to play and you could see that in the demo scenario's where all the infantry units that came underfire in the open immediatly hit the dirt. This surprised many people as it is very different from CMBO. If you think CMBB is bad can't we agree that the way MGs and HMGs are modeled in CMBO is WORSE :confused: ??

I am VERY glad CMBB is selling well and I hope the first patch will be so well received it will help sales (I'm not sure how, but I am trying to be optimistic)

I really like the fact that infantry units go to ground when fired upon in the open, this WAY better than running with some degree of impunity through HMG fire because they were "too hard to hit because they were running thus providing cover"

No doubt about it CMBO is more like a video game and it did have more instant gratification and it did have a larger fun factor because it moved faster BUT I have come to love those cover arcs and I REALLY enjoy the fact that SUPRESSION in CMBB actually MEANS something to the effective execution of your tactical plan on the battlefield.

I like CMBB, I like the new challenge it presents and I am very confident that it can be tweaked, (with in the limits of the current game engine) to be more realistic and more fun to play than it is now.

If we stay positive and constructive here maybe we can all have some small impact on the next patch. Can we come to some agreement and consensus as to what exactly is a change to the code that would make the game MORE realistic. I doubt anything will be added changed or deleted simply for the sake or making the game more fun or appeasing the complainers so lets stick to Steve's original request and focus on positive ways to discuss this issue.

And lets not forget Steve seems to have a sense of humour about this:

"For example, Human Wave was not just put into the game because it sounds cool, Assault and Advance were not created just to make the menu longer, and Run was not robbed of its invincible characteristics because we think it is fun to screw with people's heads.The array of orders in CMBB are there for reasons. Like tools, each order has its +/- sides and optimal uses. Trying to use a hammer to unscrew something will not produce good results, no matter what."

Steve

THANKS Steve!!

-tom w

[ November 19, 2002, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[skelley]

I guess I'll throw my two cents in. I think the infantry model is very good and that the small tweaks will make it even better. I think the people who are having trouble need to start playing a lot of TCP games with experienced players and then try to do what they do. Then at the end of the game start asking questions about how the did this or that. Most people will answer your questions.

I think that another part of this argument is whether or not you used the terrain correctly. Trying to assault an area that can be supported from every enemy position on the map is always gonna end in disaster. Choose a spot to attack that can only be defended by the area you are attacking (ie. no other enemy position can shoot you while you assault..). Also don't advance from 150m away. Advance forward 25 meters(from cover to cover) at a time while using support weapons for suppression. Even if everything goes right you are still gonna have some squads that break off from the assault. I figure I have done a pretty good job if I get 3/4s or even 1/2 my units to complete the assault.

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by SuperSulo:

The_Capt, read my follow up regarding that pic. They were in rocky terrain, with "decent cover and concealment", in a foxhole, not open ground. The enemy were alot further away when the HMG panicked, that's the end battle pic. As for "bring fire to bear", that's pretty difficult to do when you're all out of ammo. I had even used up my all my AT shells.

As for being where they shouldn't have been in the first place, well, HQ thought my poor reinforced company of 221 men should defend this flat, open, steppe against 1571 fanatic soviets... And I thought that this rocky ground would be better than on the open steppe.

My tactics may stink, but please don't blame my tactics this time, in the end I handle the assignment pretty well, if I may say so myself. 893 enemy casualties, 225 KIA. I suffered 10 casualties, 3 KIA.

I also didn't blame the table or anything , I just provided some info on panicked units moving towards the enemy.

Heh..well conscripts out of ammo...I think you should count yourself lucky they didn't just surrender.

Rockey terrain in RL is hell btw. Bullets richocette and shatter making life living hell if you get caught there..but that is another story.

MGs are designed to be placed in enfilade positions if you can find them of course. Stuck in a lone foxhole, even in rockey terrain is asking for trouble.

The Dance of Death is a pain but hey they ARE panicking, which by definition means they are not quite in control of themselves in the situation. Jumping out of foxholes and trying to run is in fact not an unrealistic reaction.

Can CMBB do some tweaking? Yes I think they can and will. For example, I think the Red Light of Cowardice comes on way to easily. I can understand momentary loss of control but squads rattle a little too easily.

I would encourage everyone who thinks CMBB is broken to run some comparison tests. Take a coy and run it thru a defile with MG pillboxes covering said defile in a crossfire. Run the Coy thru open ground. Do this in CMBO and CMBB and tell me which is the most realistic.

You can do the same with tanks. I think you will find that the performance in CMBB balances out the game. Armour/Infantry cooperation is now critical. I can remember pls rushing my tanks in CMBO and actaully getting thru to kill. In CMBB a pl of tanks will stop a Coy cold...8 MGs and Guns should be able to do that.

What gets me is when people come on the forum and whine about CMBB being broken because their pl couldn't rush a Tiger over 300m of open ground!

In the end it is not about one feature or a combination of features it is about realitic results. There weren't realitic results in CMBO re:MGs and counter inf weapon systems. CMBB goes much futher to producing what we should be seeing.

Here is one for you. An 150mm arty shell has a 300m kill radius and 1000m danger radius. Do some test to see if anyone reacts to a 150mm shell at 300m in CMBB..they won't because shrapnel is not modeled Reality is even tougher than what CMBB is doing, although I think at that point it won't be a very fun game.

[Kraut]

Hmmm ... i have found if i use "tactics" then the game works very very well. Hell it works marvelous!

These "tactics" include buying only tanks and armored vehicles and a few infantry just to watch them panic and run away (it is so much fun!).

I am blatently flawless fundamentalistic ubermenshenrealistic! Right? What utter BS ...

I have played at least ten CMBB games against human opponents, and numerous more against the AI. Each and every time i try to go even remotely heavy on the infantry the gameplay just flat out sucks. Even when my opponent and i restrict tanks it all comes down to your armored vehicles. One MG bunker and a few AT guns will hold off whole armies. It's redicuous.

So now need to read miles and miles of posts to get advice on how to use infantry because i can't rely on them to return fire? I am also too damn stupid to use the new commands? More BS! Woooop di du dei!

I just got done playing a solid tcp/ip game with CMBO and it was great! Infantry actually returned fire instead of running away! You could count on your infantry to perform. Infantry were actually able to move up to a treeline and create a base of fire to let another platoon advance. You think you can do this in CMBB? Hah! A few bursts from an enemy MG will send a whole damn platoon running for home.

Noone can tell me that this infantry is worth a damn. No matter how fundanmentally functions flabberheiner they are.

Kraut

[Abbott]

I have played at least ten CMBB games against human opponents, and numerous more against the AI. Each and every time i try to go even remotely heavy on the infantry the gameplay just flat out sucks. Even when my opponent and i restrict tanks it all comes down to your armored vehicles. One MG bunker and a few AT guns will hold off whole armies. It's redicuous.

Defending with a couple anti-guns and MG bunkers is a ridiculous win? It’s all about tanks? I think I would find you a pretty easy opponent in PBEM play.

Hey Snarker, want to tell them about my defense you overran with your armor/infantry in our PBEM game? Snarker had a Souma a MK III , a StugB and a few platoons of infantry. I lost 4 anti-tank guns, a 76mm armed bunker and a MG bunker to Snarker’s attack. I had a good map to defend and good fire lanes. Guess what happened next? I was able to counter attack his troops with two platoons of infantry and take back two of the lost flags for a slight win.

CMBB is all about tactics. Infantry is much deadlier in CMBB when employed well then it was in CMBO. However if you rush your attack you will most likely die. Move, move to contact, run and advance are commands I use in every game with my infantry. I never have problems with them tiring because I plan a turn or two of rest for the advancing infantry teams into their attacks.

A tactic I have found that works very well while attacking is to “move” inside of clumps of woods then “advance” across the open areas into the next clump. Use “move” again while your troops are inside the woods, which will recover an exhaustion level or two. This prepares the infantry units if the Advance or Assault command is needed again. Move-to-contact or Advance is substituted for move when I am unsure if the cover I am moving through is occupied.

[Battlefront.com]

Kraut,

So now need to read miles and miles of posts to get advice on how to use infantry because i can't rely on them to return fire? I am also too damn stupid to use the new commands?

Apparently your reading comprehension also needs a bit of an improvement, along with your tactics.

I just got done playing a solid tcp/ip game with CMBO and it was great! Infantry actually returned fire instead of running away! You could count on your infantry to perform. Infantry were actually able to move up to a treeline and create a base of fire to let another platoon advance. You think you can do this in CMBB? Hah!

So you think the majority of people here who say they can do all this, and more, are lying? They must be because they are saying exactly the opposite from you. Well, except for the few that clearly use unrealistic tactics. Just a question... do you play in tournies by chance?

A few bursts from an enemy MG will send a whole damn platoon running for home.

True, unless you use good tactics. Apparently you think rushing a MG, like in CMBO, is a realistic tactic. I think we have covered this already

Noone can tell me that this infantry is worth a damn.

OK, instead I will just say that your tactics suck

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Abbott,

A tactic I have found that works very well while attacking is to “move” inside of clumps of woods then “advance” across the open areas into the next clump.

Yup, works like a charm. Advance is designed for movement under fire only. Assault is used for closing with a known enemy. Move is the main method for getting your guys to either of these positions. The Move order does not lose its relevance once the enemy is spotted.

Also, for multistory street battles try this tactic...

Use Assault to push one (or more) squad into the first floor while one (or more) squad covers its entry. If the Assaulting squad engages in combat send a covering squad into the 1st floor using Advance. This should clear out the 1st floor and leave at least one squad in decent shape to use Assault on the 2nd floor within a turn or two. If no combat is seen on the first floor, wait a turn (or two, depending on the unit) and Assault the 2nd floor without moving another unit in. After 2nd floor is cleared out, and 1st is still known to be secured, use Move to get the squad back down to street level again.

The concept here is to use the Assault command for the initial attacking force, Advance for follow ups. The logic is that Assault packs a super punch but can really wear a unit out fast. By alternating the units using Assault you can keep the tempo of the battle turned up a notch without getting your troops needlessly run down.

Steve

[ November 20, 2002, 12:54 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[imported_Hiram Sedai]

I hope none of my PBEM opponents will read that last little nugget. I will beat them senseless now!

Mooo hahahah!

[Franko]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Abbott,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />A tactic I have found that works very well while attacking is to “move” inside of clumps of woods then “advance” across the open areas into the next clump.

Yup, works like a charm. Advance is designed for movement under fire only. Assault is used for closing with a known enemy. Move is the main method for getting your guys to either of these positions. The Move order does not lose its relevance once the enemy is spotted.

Also, for multistory street battles try this tactic...

Use Assault to push one (or more) squad into the first floor while one (or more) squad covers its entry. If the Assaulting squad engages in combat send a covering squad into the 1st floor using Advance. This should clear out the 1st floor and leave at least one squad in decent shape to use Assault on the 2nd floor within a turn or two. If no combat is seen on the first floor, wait a turn (or two, depending on the unit) and Assault the 2nd floor without moving another unit in. After 2nd floor is cleared out, and 1st is still known to be secured, use Move to get the squad back down to street level again.

The concept here is to use the Assault command for the initial attacking force, Advance for follow ups. The logic is that Assault packs a super punch but can really wear a unit out fast. By alternating the units using Assault you can keep the tempo of the battle turned up a notch without getting your troops needlessly run down.

Steve</font>

[KG_SSpoom]

I really like the CMBB infantry model.

The only thing that I would consider tweaking

would be auto-sneaking path finding.

This game is in my eyes a huge

Improvement over CMBO.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

the engine rewrite will address this issue as part of a larger shift towards SOPs

Eden

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by dalem:

One of the most frustrating things for me when I play, now that suppression is so key (as it should be), is to see one of my squads or MG teams that is in command, not under fire, and with a clear LOS to an enemy MG team within 50-200m or so that is hosing my troops (for instance), just sitting there.

Yes. What is most painful is to see an enemy appear and eradicate my advancing platoon, while my back platoon does nothing, or continues to do area fire nearby, (but not close enough!).

In this game suppressing the enemy is absolutely mandatory, or you know what happens and we have this thread. Ok, fine. But then please help my *troops* understood that too. Conceptually, I wish I could insert *one* line to the function determining whether my troops pull the trigger or not:

Boolean ShouldIFireAtThatEnemy( EnemyType* thatNME ) {

if ( thatNME->IsKillingMyFriendsRightNowOrDidLastTurn() )

then return YES; // End of story!

// code as it "exists" now follows here

}

Eden

[dalem]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

Yes. What is most painful is to see an enemy appear and eradicate my advancing platoon, while my back platoon does nothing, .

I agree with you agreeing with me. This is the basis of one of my original posts describing my personal distress - I understood the new style of play necessary, but the game wasn't providing me with good, consistant feedback while I tried to teach myself. Hence my deep frustration.

-dale

[Thin Red Line]

Battelfront,

Please forward me my Functions Flawlessly Group membership Card.

Not earlier than this morning, in a PBEM turn i've seen a regular infantry squad under 88mm gun fire cancelling its open ground move orders and intelligently sneaking to the closest building.

I've won games against human opponents with green infantry succesfully assaulting entrenched ennemy at night, with appropriate support and covering fire, without panicking at all.

If sometimes my infantry is caught under heavy fire and reacts erratically in terror, i usually blame myself, not the game.

I like CMBB's infantry modelling. More realistic, more enjoyable.

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Abbott:

A tactic I have found that works very well while attacking is to “move” inside of clumps of woods then “advance” across the open areas into the next clump. [/QB]

OK. Understood that. But what happens when you run out of clumps? It's the advance across the open I have trouble with. What when the next cover is a full turn (or more) away? And no, I won't accept the supression, suppression, suppression line. I normally have 50-75% of my troops doing that when the lead elements advance. I normally wait till the troops are rested before going. What am I missing?

[Abbott]

Originally posted by Doodlebug:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Abbott:

A tactic I have found that works very well while attacking is to “move” inside of clumps of woods then “advance” across the open areas into the next clump.

OK. Understood that. But what happens when you run out of clumps? It's the advance across the open I have trouble with. What when the next cover is a full turn (or more) away? And no, I won't accept the supression, suppression, suppression line. I normally have 50-75% of my troops doing that when the lead elements advance. I normally wait till the troops are rested before going. What am I missing?[/QB]</font>

[Quenaelin]

I am certainly in the group of who thinks this game needs little bit tweaking, but otherwise this game is the best strategy game there is.

When running, advancing or assaulting immediate penalty should not be fast tiredness of your infantry, that is coming much later when you move long enough, but immediate penalty should be huge losses and panicking when running under fire and

really great loss of ammunition when assaulting and advancing, only crawling should be extremely tiring movement method, I am in this group who

thinks crawling (sneaking) tiredness should not be changed much, it is already good in CMBB. My explanation is that when I was in the army it was much much tiring to crawl for cover than run or sneak for cover.

Running can be done in different speeds so you could run easily long times without rest, even with battle gear on, when not under fire and when you are under fire you ofcourse get tired faster and penalty should be panicking easily and getting killed very easily, in CMBB there is only modeled this underfire running, there should be option to run longer when not under fire.

Crawling or (sneaking in CMBB) will be most exthausting movement but also safest movement method. So you will save your life when you are crawling but it will exhaust you very fast, but bullets don't hit you so easily when you are crawling.

Sneaking should be slow hiding movement and if enemy isn't aware that you are there you could suprise enemy, some paratroopers and partisans should get bonuses for this movement method. There is no such movement option anymore in CMBB?

Advancing cover to cover movement should be very tiring when moving under fire and in difficult conditions.

Assault is done in medium or fast running speed so you can fire your weapon at the target or close enough to target to when trying to suppress enemy, so penalty is that you expend your ammo too fast and getting tired easily.

All these movement methods should be very tiring when moving under fire, but not so tiring when not under fire.

[Nabla]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

This and the above MG team example are direct results of units having no memory. It is not possible for a unit to remain wedded to something without seriously negative side effects.

Here is how the TacAI works now...

A unit goes bumbling along following the player's orders to the letter. It will continue to do so unless it receives some sort of negative stimulus bad enough to make the unit disregard the player's orders (this is a very complex decision making process and is highly situationally dependent).

The unit is now instructed by the TacAI to perform some sort of evasive action, either controlled or in Panic. Let us say it is to go in Panic from open terrain to a patch of woods 20m to the left.

The unit starts to go to the left, but a turn later receives enough fire that the TacAI decides the unit is in trouble. Depending on where the unit is, its condition, the nature/direction of the enemy fire, proximity to known enemy units, etc. the TacAI will make a decision about what to do. Often it will choose the same exact course of action already being embarked upon. However, it might not.

The TacAI makes a new decision completely and utterly in ignorance of the decision/s that came before it. It has zero concept of what the TacAI previous ordered it to do, not to mention what the player originally intended. This means the TacAI has zero concept that the unit was moving towards that patch of woods, nor the reason for it. The TacAI always thinks in the NOW and never in the PAST or FUTURE. That is what I mean by it has no memory.

[snip]

No folks, until we can afford the computing time, RAM, and file space we can't allow a unit to have memory. And until a unit has memory, there isn't much we can do. Fortunately, the new engine will be written for hardware that can afford this overhead and so it is in the plan to introduce this sort of "smarts" into the TacAI.

This would seem to me as a very good explanation of what people have seen.

But regarding RAM and file space problems, isn't it still true that the system now already has some sort of short-term memory? Consider a unit which has been ordered, either by the TacAI or by the player, to advance to location X. Obviously during the computation of the action phase there is knowledge in the system (in memory, in PBEM file) that the unit is trying to advance to location X. Otherwise the action phase could not be computed, and the information could not be retained for the next round (for orders which are not completed during that turn).

So if during the computation of the action phase the unit receives a strong negative stimulus, which makes it abandon its current order, it already has knowledge of what it was trying to do at that time.

If my logic above has been correct, then the TacAI knows its current order when it chooses the evasive action. This first-order short-term memory could be used in making the decision.

Well, maybe the main difference in the above is the definition of what memory is. But let me continue.

Let's say we add a very small amount of memory, say three bits for each unit, implementing a counter (0-7). This counter would contain the number of times the TacAI has taken evasive action since the last human order. It would be reset whenever the human would give an order to the unit.

Together with knowledge of the last order, this counter could be used to implement the idea of "don't tend run around in circles when the sh*t hits the fan". The TacAI could be designed to retain its current order with an increasing probability when the counter is high. Or the direction of sneak or run could be computed as a weighted sum of current direction and suggested new direction, where the weight of the current direction would increase with the counter.

Hack? Yes. Side effects? Well, if the counter would be high, and the unit would run into certain death, it would tend to underestimate the seriousness of the new threat. Unless the probability / weighting functions would also include a seriousness factor... Complex, definitely, but what wouldn't already be complex in this fantastic game?

But the main point is that there is already some memory, and a teeny weeny bit of additional capacity might improve the situation. We've seen before that Charles is capable of doing small miracles.

[ November 20, 2002, 05:51 AM: Message edited by: Nabla ]

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by Abbott:

You can not ask your troops to do the impossible in CMBB and expect it to work. Now and then we all get away with it. However that is because it is a game.[/QB]

I hate to say it but that's true. Doesn't make for much of a game in some situations if the QB terrain has been unkind though.

You say run or advance? I thought running was pretty much a no-no under fire and you should use advance?

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by Abbott:

No smoke assets?, unable to cross it with advance or run and you are unable to provide sufficient suppressive fire assets, then don’t do it. Simple really. It is called real tactics.

Short and to the point.

Worth to be written in capital letters at the beginning of the chapter for us former CMBO-players - at least for me.

With this in mind, the few remaining problems don't bother me that much anymore.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Well, let's try to be short and un-whining :

BFC, do you recognize that the Sneak O Death IS a poor implementation of panicky men trying to ... survive ?

The examples given here are IMHO quite consistent. Even if the games are played by monkeys :eek: this is NO excuse for this AI behavior !

Maybe it is really hard to make it better, as long as TacAI has some memory (current engine, but that is another story (not having a solution vs recognizing a problem..)

[Schoerner]

Pascal,

Steve explained it in depth already and he also explained that they did what they could do about it with the current engine.

I think at a certain point we should stop to shake?/scatter? salt into open wounds.

[Cpt Kernow]

DoodleBug.

Said:

OK. Understood that. But what happens when you run out of clumps? It's the advance across the open I have trouble with. What when the next cover is a full turn (or more) away? And no, I won't accept the supression, suppression, suppression line. I normally have 50-75% of my troops doing that when the lead elements advance. I normally wait till the troops are rested before going. What am I missing?

Doodlebug.

If I encounterd this tactical problem this is what I would attempt to do. Im not saying its the answer or anything like that Im just stating what I would do in that position and you can take from it what you like and leave what you dont.

1.Ok, I have reached the end of cover and now must advance over open ground with no smoke assets. This a real hard tactical problem in this game as in real life.

2.OK must not think that I must advance straight away on the next turn, I will advance when I am ready and I have all supporting elements in place.

3.Ok. Must locate fire bases of the enemy that I must supress. How to do this? A:Recon by fire, HE likely areas for enemy emplacements, HE sound contacts, HE unit markers. B:(Optional)Send forward split sacrificial squad to make enemy commit his fire bases and thus reveal them.C:Advance vehicles as far as possible towarsds enemy lines. Vehicles make the best recon, even if you lose some to AT guns/Enemy AFV etc IF you neutralize these then recon just got a lot easier. If you are attacking it is likely you have superiority in AFV, vehicles.

4.Ok have revealed enemy positions.Must have patience . If I am attacking is likely that I have fire superiority in my avenue of advance.Grind down enemy fire bases, look at the turn counter, estimate how long you can stay in cover, stay there for as long as possible, win the firefight.

5.OK time is short I must advance now. Not all enemy positions are neutralized but hopefully I have reduced them. All support/suppresion weapons are in place,MG's mortars etc. Now this is where we part ways as I suspect you have probably done all of the above.You say you use 50-75% of your troops for suppresion whilst the rest advance. In my opinion (This is just my opinion) that is to many. The 25% of troops you are advancing just became bullet magnets for what remains of the enemy fire base. I would when I deem time is pressing advance at least 75% of my men with (aprox) 15% of this a feinted advance towards different cover to draw fire from my main thrust.

Thats what I would attempt to do and getting all that together is what comprises alot of my enjoyment of this game. There are no gaurentees this will work, could and does end in total disaster sometimes.

I would judge success as being:

Whole squad with leader arrives in advanced to cover: WOW!

2/3 Squad arrives with leader:Great.

1/3 Squad arrives with leader:Acceptable.

Of course multiply this accros your entire advancing force.

Of course what arrives in cover must immediatly go into suppresing the enemy to give those men caught in the open a chance to recover and (sneak maybe) those vital last few yards.

What will realy fxxk you up is if the enemy controls the ground you are advncing into and has managed to keep men concealed there which promptly spring up as your men approach cover and well things get pretty ugly prety quickly.

OK, so thats what I would attempt to do. Some advances will fail. I find the hardest advances are those at long range from the enemy as he is able to fire on you without being spotted. In my opinion it is the change in spotting mixed with harder MG's that has made life harder for infantry not some mistake in the panicked sneak scripting for the TACAI. Again thats only my opinion and is no more valid or less valid than anyone elses.

[ November 20, 2002, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Cpt Kernow ]

[Doodlebug]

Thank you Cap'n.

Some subtle points in there. Some (the majority) I thought I was doing anyway. The bits I'm not I'll try.

Appreciate the response.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

Pascal,

Steve explained it in depth already and he also explained that they did what they could do about it with the current engine.

I think at a certain point we should stop to shake?/scatter? salt into open wounds.

No salt intended, maybe I missed stg in this long thread, but :

* the original BFC post did not recognize there was any problem,

* and the discussion thereafter was on "why it is not possible to have memories in the TacAI" preventing the Sneaky Circling ...

IMHO there IS a problem here and there MAY be solutions within current engine limitations : CMBO troops did not have this behavior, and rather died in place, but that CAN be better than the current system in certain cases...

It also seems that the biggest problems are with "uncrewed suppport weapons" (MGs, Schrecks, ...) that can't "abandon" their weapon and tire easily/can't run.

Maybe these should just stay put in place ?