What to do with broken units

[James Crowley]

There's no argument possible. By definition, in the context of the game, "Broken" troops will accept at least some orders.

In the face of the enemy it is. Bullets just have to come near them to Panic or Shake them again. They'll often agree to fire their weapons, sure, but as soon as there's any return fire, they'll stop. Any fire in their general vicinity, and they'll forget any movement orders you've given them.

If a VL is cleared of enemy, it's a pure game-mechanic that requires a stay-behind unit. So using an element that can't be employed for anything that involves fighting is a perfect match for the requirement, in context. If it were real life, and your unit had a series of objectives to sieze, where taking more distant objectives inherently provided security for the nearer objectives (or where providing security for the held location is better done from off the location) you wouldn't leave combat effectives, or possibly anyone to provide "rear area security".

If you're still clearing the VL, then how does a couple of broken half-teams make it significantly more difficult? They'll probably kill one of your bush-beaters before either going white flag or getting shot themselves; the criteria for "occupy" are quite clear, and you're going to have to investigate every nook and cranny for combat-effecitves anyway.

I was looking at this from the point of view of RL rather than a game.

In a current game my oppo and I are, in the last minutes, fielding a small number of broken units and crew, trying to take VLs. Most, if not all are not in C&C and I think a stuation like that is somewhat unrealistic as they would simply not be able to co-ordinate with each other.

I would like to see broken units and crew, who are not in C&C, taken out of player control in the same fashion as panicked troops, making the above scenario impossible.

While we all want a good 'game', there does come a point when you realise that what is being enacted would simply not be possible.

[winkelried]

maybe we should BFC to give us a shrink-unit: some truck with a couch where you could send in your broken troops. the shrink could then get their mental health back. i am sure this would work with most allied units.

for the germans maybe a squad of Feldjäger would be enough to bring those troops back to reason.

[womble]

I was looking at this from the point of view of RL rather than a game.

Which is a pretty pointless exercise considering that "VL"s and their "Occupy" condition are pure game constructs.

While we all want a good 'game', there does come a point when you realise that what is being enacted would simply not be possible.

Or even necessary. So being able to contest VLs with broken units is simply two game features competing for space on your "overlook" list.

[James Crowley]

Which is a pretty pointless exercise considering that "VL"s and their "Occupy" condition are pure game constructs.

Or even necessary. So being able to contest VLs with broken units is simply two game features competing for space on your "overlook" list.

No, they are not. Objectives were often given as 'take such and such, town, bridge, crossroads - VLs. And to take them you have to hold them - Occupy. No?

I've really no idea what you are trying to say here.

[JasonC]

What I do with them is collect them behind cover, spaced reasonably, and once not rattled too badly, shifted to "up" positions with view of open ground ahead of the enemy. There they overwatch, and fire if they see anything really exposed to shoot at. If "lanes" of open stretch into the enemy position and "cut it up" side to side, even better.

They don't object to shooting the enemy, only to the enemy shooting at them. So arrange for it to be a one way street, and their firepower still serves. I find that only enemy in decent cover stays stationary and unsuppressed enough to shoot back - men moving in the open are pretty much just targets.

[Rocky Balboa]

I was looking at this from the point of view of RL rather than a game.

In a current game my oppo and I are, in the last minutes, fielding a small number of broken units and crew, trying to take VLs. Most, if not all are not in C&C and I think a stuation like that is somewhat unrealistic as they would simply not be able to co-ordinate with each other.

I would like to see broken units and crew, who are not in C&C, taken out of player control in the same fashion as panicked troops, making the above scenario impossible.

While we all want a good 'game', there does come a point when you realise that what is being enacted would simply not be possible.

Panicked troops can recover to broken state ... but allowing broken troops to not move when not in C2 would be a good option for the higher difficulty settings.

I would also like to see the scenario designer be given the ability to set a casualty threshold for each side (example: 60% casualties) which when played at the higher difficulty settings would automatically issue a cease fire. To eliminate any surprises, because its hard to gauge what your casualty percentage is especially with a med to large size force, it would be necessary to have a visual cue in the UI to tell the player when they are nearing or at the threshold.

This feature would shorten games and keep players from continuing beyond what would normally be considered realistic...

[agusto]

I like those ideas of you, Rocky Balboa. +1.

This feature would shorten games and keep players from continuing beyond what would normally be considered realistic...

In should be mentioned though that there were battles where one side litteraly fought till the last man, so it would be important to keep the threshold for the automatic casualties surrender in the scenario designer hands.

It could also be considered to have a relative casualties surrender condition. Given forces of equal quality and with a 3:1 ratio for the attacker, i might try another attack with the remaining 20% of my company if i already whiped out 90% of the OPFOR. On the other hand, if i only inflicted 10% casualties upon the enemy while suffering 50% myself, continueing the attack would not be a meaningful option, so the surrender should be triggered.

[$Pec5]

+1 to Rocky's idea

[Other Means]

As Jason says, use them for supporting fire. They are your base of fire, your unbroken your manoeuvre element.

[womble]

No, they are not. Objectives were often given as 'take such and such, town, bridge, crossroads - VLs. And to take them you have to hold them - Occupy. No?

No. "Occupy" !== "hold". There are plenty of ways of holding terrain that don't involve boot one actually on that terrain. "Occupy" is a game construct necessary only because the game cannot evaluate that terrain is held out of reach of the enemy by those other means.

Take your example of a bridge: you don't need to actually sit on the bridge to hold it. Indeed, that would be a daft place to be; you'll be in the way of anyone actually wanting to cross it. You can be holding the buildings on the far side of it. Ditto the crossroads. Especially if they're near your jumpoff point, and you've got additional "take and hold" objectives that are further on, the achievement of which provides sufficient security to consider your first objectives held.

I've really no idea what you are trying to say here.

Clearer now?

[JonS]

Womble - I think "secure" is the task verb you're describing.

Occupy

Primary Definition: To Occupy- A tactical task in which a force moves onto an objective, key terrain, or other manmade or natural terrain area without opposition and controls that entire area. (Reference B, p. 267, Reference C, p. 38).

Additional Definitions:

(1) Occupation of position: Movement into and proper organization of an area to be used as a battle position (Reference A, p. 2-O-1).

(2) Occupy: To remain in an area and retain control of that area. (Reference B, p. 267).

(3) Occupy: To move to a location, organize for local security and be prepared to assume the next task (Reference D, p. O-3).

Secure

Primary Definition: To Secure - In an operational context, to gain possession of a position or terrain feature, with or without force, and to make such disposition as will prevent, as far as possible, its destruction or loss by enemy action. (Reference A p. 2-S-3)

Additional Definitions:

(1) Army - A tactical task to gain possession of a position or terrain feature, with or without force, and to deploy in a manner which prevents its destruction or loss to enemy action. (Reference B p. 268)

(2) The US Army adds a very useful supplemental to definition (1) in that: The attacking [securing] force may or may not have to physically occupy the area (Reference D, p. 1-138)

A CM "Occupy" objective is acheived by 'securing' it and having exclusive occupation. A series of 'occupy' objs can be used in CM to simulate or approximate the real-world task verb of securing a particular 'thing' (bridge, junction, building, etc) by occupying a number of other locations in dominating positions around it (high ground, choke points, etc)

Edit: don't forget about the supplemental mission verbs (includes an outstanding analysis of Op MARKET GARDEN)

[womble]

Womble - I think "secure" is the task verb you're looking for.

Maybe. I wasn't aware of looking for any such thing.

[James Crowley]

No. "Occupy" !== "hold". There are plenty of ways of holding terrain that don't involve boot one actually on that terrain. "Occupy" is a game construct necessary only because the game cannot evaluate that terrain is held out of reach of the enemy by those other means.

Take your example of a bridge: you don't need to actually sit on the bridge to hold it. Indeed, that would be a daft place to be; you'll be in the way of anyone actually wanting to cross it. You can be holding the buildings on the far side of it. Ditto the crossroads. Especially if they're near your jumpoff point, and you've got additional "take and hold" objectives that are further on, the achievement of which provides sufficient security to consider your first objectives held.

Clearer now?

Do you practice your condescending, superior attitude or does it just come naturally?

[Fed]

What I do with them is collect them behind cover, ...

They don't object to shooting the enemy, only to the enemy shooting at them. So arrange for it to be a one way street, and their firepower still serves...

Excellent idea. I'm now doing that, and they are shooting and suppressing enemy in the field. Thanks!

Unfortunately, I previously used a team of 6 to run into a building to see if enemy was there. There was no enemy, great. By for some reason, all 6 of them then ran out of the building using the far door (maybe they panicked because they heard shooting outside), and all 6 were shot down in turn. Man, that was painful. They were practically pilling up on each other as they fell. Ouch!

[womble]

Do you practice your condescending, superior attitude or does it just come naturally?

Well, it gets a fair bit of practice. Generally on people who assert that 2=3 when it obviously doesn't, and dismiss points they haven't understood as absent then resort to ad hominem attacks.

[sburke]

C'mon guys. JasonC and Rocky Balboa have both come up with some good constructive ideas. Whatever your personal rancor is right now, lighten up. This is actually turning into a decent tactical thread.

[JonS]

I thought agusto's suggestion was pretty innovative, too ...