Should soldiers surrender more easily + should there be higher numbers of wounded

[Vinnart]

I personally think the game models surrendering, and amount of wounded just fine.

[Odin]

I can understand it if people wouldn't want it altering. But if Battlefront did decide to make surrendering easier could they just make it more likely that soldiers who are broken are more likely to surrender when they come under fire rather then fleeing (which is pretty much the standard practice at the moment)?

[YankeeDog]

I can understand it if people wouldn't want it altering. But if Battlefront did decide to make surrendering easier could they just make it more likely that soldiers who are broken are more likely to surrender when they come under fire rather then fleeing (which is pretty much the standard practice at the moment)?

Unfortunately, not that simple. Simply making broken soldiers more likely to surrender rather than flee could lead to undesired effects like units surrendering after being hit with heavy artillery, even if they aren't currently under direct threat from any visible and nearby enemy forces. This kind of thing might perhaps be realistic as an outlier -- under some conditions, badly broken and low-morale units might leave positions and seek out enemy to surrender to. But I certainly don't think this sort of thing should happen regularly on the CM battlefield.

It's a tricky thing. Ideally, the AI for "broken" units needs to "know" when it doesn't have a good route of escape, and if there isn't a good route of escape, it should be much more likely to surrender than flee. But this always going to be tricky "fuzzy logic" programming problem.

So while it may be true that the game could use some tweaks in this area, it's important to recognize that any adjustments to surrender behavior are not going to be as simple as just changing a numerical value or two; it will require careful adjustment of logic routines, and playtesting.

[Childress]

Absolutely. Unfortunately the AI doesn't have the capacity to grasp that sort of context.

Yep, mass surrenders, done properly,would impose situational complexities and entail mind blowing programming challenges. BFC may tweak the logic here or there but a handful of POWS at a time may be the best we can get. A game that would really benefit from surrenders en masse would be Shock Force with its first versus third world setting. Those Arabs have been known to surrender in impressive numbers.

[cool breeze]

Check this out. There already is mass surrendering in the game you just gotta have bad troops and get overrun. I recently got overran so bad by the AI in a quick battle that I had more troops surrender than get hurt. I have a save of my fields of guys surrendering to the SS. They were the lowest quality Canadian Infantry i could buy (so i could get the most). One platoon did it because it was stuck in a hedge box but tons more were doing it all over.

[sburke]

Check this out. There already is mass surrendering in the game you just gotta have bad troops and get overrun. I recently got overran so bad by the AI in a quick battle that I had more troops surrender than get hurt. I have a save of my fields of guys surrendering to the SS. They were the lowest quality Canadian Infantry i could buy (so i could get the most). One platoon did it because it was stuck in a hedge box but tons more were doing it all over.

Good point. A lot of us form perceptions based on troop quality that doesn't reflect the kind of troops who would typically mass surrender. Trying to fight a battle with the real run of the mill average folks new to combat (ie green, unmotivated or unfit troops) will yield different results and probably a whole other set of tactics. It can be a real eye opener and maybe get you thinking about the tactics you use. Do they really work or am I just getting by because my infantry won't break?

[Bradley Dick]

I just had an AT gun hold out for a good ten minutes under heavy fire and grenades while I was praying for a surrender. I couldn't bypass it for fear of some Audie Murphy type dude standing up among his dead comrades to smoke my tanks as they rumbled by but he was a stubborn bastard for sure.

[Dave85]

I have often found the last member of an AT crew to be virtually invincible to point blank smg fire and grenades

[Brindlewolf]

I have often found the last member of an AT crew to be virtually invincible to point blank smg fire and grenades

Yeah this is one of the annoying things in the game.Using half your arty to take an AT gun down,finding it still alive and manned by Capt Scarlett with a light saber sticking out of his ass.Totally indestructable and negating the possiblity of moving your tanks forward.

You can be whispering in his ear and filling him with lead and he just won't die for quite a number of turns.

[sburke]

Yeah this is one of the annoying things in the game.Using half your arty to take an AT gun down,finding it still alive and manned by Capt Scarlett with a light saber sticking out of his ass.Totally indestructable and negating the possiblity of moving your tanks forward.

You can be whispering in his ear and filling him with lead and he just won't die for quite a number of turns.

I thought we had already decided that AT guns were far too vulnerable and could never live up to the tactical tales we have heard of them... get with the program soldier.

[slysniper]

I thought we had already decided that AT guns were far too vulnerable and could never live up to the tactical tales we have heard of them... get with the program soldier.

Exactly, what I was thinking

That is one thing that has improved so much, at times AT guns can be a real death threat now. They have improved so much as to being hard to take out at times. (which should be the case)

But many have pointed out that they are still flawed and there should be additional improvements.

So if anything, as time goes on, they might become even harder to remove, then we will wonder why we wanted arty toned down.