Clearing forest full of infantry

[Redwolf]

Redwolf - would you wear leaf armor to a gunfight? Would it matter if the other side promised to use pistols and pistol caliber carbines?

It is a matter of distances.

An ambush in the wood is so deadly because you can let the moving party advance to a point where they are virtually surrounded. An ambush team consisting of 3 men cannot do that.

A experienced moving unit of at least squad size would have at least one man substantially in front, if not using an arrowhead formation with 2 more to the sides, and distance between everybody. The result of that is that the rest of the squad would be too far away from the shooter for SMGs to kill them right there when the ambushers would be forced to open fire. They could go to ground and then it is a much more even fight.

I don't mind that CM models that moving troops get wiped out when meeting SMG units in woods. However, 3 SMG toting soldiers total is not enough for that. That's not an effective unit for an ambush.

[Melchior]

I'm not sure how consistent it was, but generally weren't forests a bad place to be when artillery fell on them? When trees were hit by shells they would splinter and contribute to fragmentation, thick enough canopies might also set off shells causing an air burst effect. Perhaps the lethality of artillery should be boosted in forests?

[Fizou]

I'm not sure how consistent it was, but generally weren't forests a bad place to be when artillery fell on them? When trees were hit by shells they would splinter and contribute to fragmentation, thick enough canopies might also set off shells causing an air burst effect. Perhaps the lethality of artillery should be boosted in forests?

It is already, airburst will happen.

[ShooterSix]

Thanks for the suggestions.

Basically I'll waste as much as ammo as I'm able to spare, suppressing possible Soviet positions, or bypass them altogether if possible.

[Andrew H.]

If you have some BA-64B's*, they can be helpful in adding some additional firepower to your troops. Button them up and put them in the action spot behind your squads/teams. Us them to area fire. Their LMG is a nice addition to the firepower of your squad, and they are proof against small arms fire. They also carry 1k+ rounds. Because they have an actual turret, you don't have to worry about the gunner being picked off like with German HTs. (They are vulnerable to sustained MG fire, but that shouldn't be a problem if they are behind the infantry and there is a lot of area fire going on).

*This is the first game, including CMBB, where I've found the BA-64 actually useful. I've been playing small battles on huge maps, and they're good for scouting, too. They are toast if another vehicle finds them - but that's true of almost any recon vehicle.

[Pelican Pal]

It is a matter of distances.

An ambush in the wood is so deadly because you can let the moving party advance to a point where they are virtually surrounded. An ambush team consisting of 3 men cannot do that.

A experienced moving unit of at least squad size would have at least one man substantially in front, if not using an arrowhead formation with 2 more to the sides, and distance between everybody. The result of that is that the rest of the squad would be too far away from the shooter for SMGs to kill them right there when the ambushers would be forced to open fire. They could go to ground and then it is a much more even fight.

I don't mind that CM models that moving troops get wiped out when meeting SMG units in woods. However, 3 SMG toting soldiers total is not enough for that. That's not an effective unit for an ambush.

It is deadly because squads in CM do not naturally have unit formations. If you send a whole squad into a woods they will moving in a tight column formations of some sort. Three russian SMGs will have anywhere from 90 to 280 rounds to fire if they are fully loaded. That is more than enough to destroy a squad as a fighting force.

The lack of a decent squad level AI really hamstrings players in close range, high lethality encounters.

edit:

Russian forests are also not the jungles of Vietnam. Most of the fighting I've done in CM:RT has been in conifer forests with a decent amount of low level brush, but there isn't the incredible density of vegetation that you would see in a jungle.

[JasonC]

It is not a matter of distances. Leaves don't stop bullets. Not even pistol caliber SMG bullets. Trees a foot in diameter maybe; but leaves, no.

[c2yeung]

Hello,

I can blow away tanks like nobody's business, but get slaughtered and frustrated when having to clear forested areas, much more so than when I had too in fortress Italy or Normandy.

Just tonight for example, I had a small forested area surrounded with tanks and APCs. They pummeled several soldiers with their HE rounds and MG fire that they luckily managed to see. I sent two fresh squads, maybe 8-10 soldiers each, into the forest on "hunt" mode. I figured it would be an easy mop up. Nine seconds of weapon fire later, both squads are killed with hardly firing a shot, and not inflicting a single casualty. I raged quit, and viewed the map. Low and behold, all the havoc was created by three battered surviving Soviet sub machine gunners. Not light MGs mind you, but there standard sub machine gunners.

What's the trick?

Sure, I understand mortaring or shelling a forested area first is ideal, but not always possible, especially when playing as the Germans. Any pointers would be appreciated.

*please note I play in real time.

I hear you. I have brought up the same subject about fighting in the woods in CMBN and practice what I have learned from other players with some success. I do find RT is much tougher. Whoever moves first dies. Usually, I would lose a few men and the survivors hunkered down. For at least a turn or 2 at least, I cannot locate the enemy, the icon without ? to area fire. So I sacrifice a few more men to hopefully make the enemy expose himself. I guess you area fire as wide as possible blindly in front of you while moving guys slowing ahead to get close. The key to me is to surround the enemy so that when they run back whichever way, your men will be waiting. Otherwise, you will be repeating the same vicious cycle of hunting them down. Area fire is very important, it can either pin them down or flush them out. It is most effective if you can cover as many sides as possible to get a clean sweep of the woods. Be prepared for a loss ratio of at least 3 to 1.

[Collingwood]

In Jason Mark's latest book 'Into Oblivion' (pages 240-255) there is a good account of the fraught attempt to clear a copse of woods approx 400m x 800m which had earlier been 'swept' but ultimately bypassed during the advance through the Don bend on August 15-18th 1942. 1. and 2. Kompanie of 305. Pionier Bataillon was given the task of mopping up the Soviets occupying the woods.

They had a very hard time of it, having to abandon an initial assault due to casualties and strong resistance that left 2. Kompanie leader shaken. "the situation was such that we all wanted to run away, but we didn't". Having mostly faced retreating or disorganised defences so far this forest clearing was these units' first real inkling that the Soviets weren't going to be a pushover.

Among POWs eventually taken were Soviet officer cadets, taken out of school to defend the area.

Playing CMRT enhances understanding of history - I found myself better able to visualize just how hard and ferocious the fighting would have been because of it.

[db_zero]

Experience plays a big role from what I've experienced in h2h play. In Devils Hill I was wary as the attacker due to past experience, but was surprised at how I was winning most of the firefights when attacking. When I looked at my unit stats. I saw just how seasoned my troops were.

I do agree with OP who mentioned the lack of tac AI when it comes to troops moving in heavely wooded area hurts as they do move in column-I posted this a while back as I had a unit that suffered badly because of this in DH.

[Peregrine]

The main reason mismatches do better than they should is the TAC AI behaviour for units that don't spot anything. Even if they are not pinned from incoming fire and taking casualties they do not shoot back even though theoretically they must "know" there is enemy right on top of them.

Weapons sounds don't register a sound contact where movement (voices?) does and even then units won't fire until they actually spot something. I would love to see weapon sounds make contact markers at closer ranges and units to actually target these even if they can't see anything. Also units area firing at contacts before than actually spot stuff would probably help too.

But without this if you play WEGO you just have to accept some ugliness and hope you don't bump into trouble just after a movie starts.

If you have a slight idea where the enemy is area fire everything (at least at first). And do not get hung up on how far you can target. Your bullets travel much further than you can see and have an impact the whole way. Already knew this from CMBN but just ran some quick tests in CMRT to check how it looks in the forest.

I separated one German straggler SQD 80 metres from two Soviet 44 SQDs. Heavy forest, dense trees. I did quite a few different things but pretty much everything works if you shoot first and keep shooting. The LOS was a bit variable still (not sure why) but about 40m. Two squads targeting at range 40m in the general direction of a target 80m distant still has a big impact. The two Soviets squads targeting light and assaulting (3 action square jumps) will have the German squad pinned and inflict casualties the first turn and probably break them the second. Remember this is targeting a square 40 metres from you intended target. It doesn't even have to be particularly straight at them either.

Once they start running you start getting actual spots or contacts and then it is just a matter of shooting with one squad and chasing with the other. This does use a lot of bullets but it pointless to conserve ammo if your guys are dying.

[JasonC]

Collingwood - oh it was not nearly as hard in real life as it is in CMx2. That is perfectly clear. In CM the men move as though they are perfectly safe until they have direct LOS, then every shot can be effective. In real life, people know where the enemy is from what has already happened and from sound, well before they have direct LOS, and move very cautiously from then out, using every bit of cover the forest affords. Those they are stalking do not have perfect situational awareness themselves, can't be looking in every direction, duck when bullets go by, etc. And bullets go by way past visual range. Suppression is deeper and more lasting, it restricts sighting a lot, etc.

The defender has an edge in woods, but not a huge one, in real combat. The moving side can pick how hard to press and thus how many people on the two sides will actually be in mutual LOS - usually picked quite low BTW - and readily breaks a new contact just by going to ground. The tactical terrors of short initial LOS are a game engine limitation, not a bit of realsim.

[poesel]

I would love to see weapon sounds make contact markers at closer ranges and units to actually target these even if they can't see anything.

+1 - long standing wish of mine. That would IMHO solve some LOS troubles.

[sburke]

+1 - long standing wish of mine. That would IMHO solve some LOS troubles.

yeah for a minute there I thought I saw this last night, but on closer examination found they had gotten line LOS and nailed the guy so quick it was hard to see (the icon was also blocked a bit by buildings so you needed the right angle to catch). Bummer as I thought that would have been so cool to see them open up on a sound contact in this particular circumstance.

[fatehunter]

Collingwood - oh it was not nearly as hard in real life as it is in CMx2. That is perfectly clear. In CM the men move as though they are perfectly safe until they have direct LOS, then every shot can be effective. In real life, people know where the enemy is from what has already happened and from sound, well before they have direct LOS, and move very cautiously from then out, using every bit of cover the forest affords. Those they are stalking do not have perfect situational awareness themselves, can't be looking in every direction, duck when bullets go by, etc. And bullets go by way past visual range. Suppression is deeper and more lasting, it restricts sighting a lot, etc.

The defender has an edge in woods, but not a huge one, in real combat. The moving side can pick how hard to press and thus how many people on the two sides will actually be in mutual LOS - usually picked quite low BTW - and readily breaks a new contact just by going to ground. The tactical terrors of short initial LOS are a game engine limitation, not a bit of realsim.

Really, with **** running down your legs because you thought you were going to die? not as hard in real life?

[db_zero]

I have the suspicion some have some tricks they learned the hard way but keep it under wraps and classify it as operational secrets.

That being said there are some good tips here. You'd be surprised at the bodies of your enemy you find when you advance that you never saw previously...

[Peregrine]

Doing what I did in the test above would typically result in 2-3 casualties after 1 minute. This is all before well before making visual contact. Then another 2 casualties the next.

But after this the squad is very much pinned and a much smaller target so more casualties tend not to happen until you get close enough to aim or the squad breaks cover and runs.

I also very much think assaulting is the best command as units will tend to stop and shoot more sensibly and I feel they are a little harder to suppress. Units with quick commands sometimes shoot significantly less and also may stop shooting altogether and "fast" to the next waypoint which is usually a bad move. But if you are shooting enough and you have the right ratio of guys to attack with then everything in front of you is suppressed so it shouldn't matter how much you move.

[Chek]

Whoosh whoosh fire fire. Ratatatat SMGs. Death, dying, bodies, carnage, mayhem. Well that's how my pixeltruppies see it.

Hope that was helpful

[BLSTK]

Too funny, Chuckles.

I've seen that "movie" more times than I care to admit.

[Destynova]

I have an observation here. One thing that makes fights in forests so deadly for the advancing party is that while the units don't have Borg spotting, they do instantly know when someone in a squad has been shot, and often the reaction is for everyone to assume fetal position, something that is not advisable when an enemy is just 20-30 meters in front and blazing away.

I would argue that the instant suppression that often results from a squad taking a single casualty is somewhat unrealistic as often adrenaline and tunnel vision would keep the individual members of the squad from knowing about this until after the fight. Basically Ivan on the right flank wouldn't know that Leonid on the left flank took a bullet to the face because the short view range in the forest would keep that out of view and the enemy directly to his front would take all his attention.

This brings up another point. We don't really have a good movement order for advancing and overrunning an enemy position. Assault works sometimes but since it splits up the squad it is not very useful in a forest or in other situations with limited visibility. Hunt could work, but since the squad drops dead in their tracks when they just smell an enemy or hear a bullet I feel this command could better be renamed "Probe" as that explains what it actually does better. What we could use is an "Advance" movement that puts the squad in a line abreast formation and they move forward in small 6-7m bounds with their weapons raised and ready for combat. If a member spotted an enemy he would stop and fire, other members who did not see the enemy would keep advancing until they spot the enemy whereupon they would start firing.

Do any of you think that such an movement order would make forest clearing a bit more easy and realistic?

[Michael Emrys]

Do any of you think that such an movement order would make forest clearing a bit more easy and realistic?

Yes. Could be useful in other situations as well.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

We don't really have a good movement order for advancing and overrunning an enemy position. Assault works sometimes but since it splits up the squad it is not very useful in a forest or in other situations with limited visibility. Hunt could work, but since the squad drops dead in their tracks when they just smell an enemy or hear a bullet I feel this command could better be renamed "Probe" as that explains what it actually does better. What we could use is an "Advance" movement that puts the squad in a line abreast formation and they move forward in small 6-7m bounds with their weapons raised and ready for combat. If a member spotted an enemy he would stop and fire, other members who did not see the enemy would keep advancing until they spot the enemy whereupon they would start firing.

The Move command is very similar to this. It is basically like Hunt except the men will still advance while pausing to fire.

[Michael Emrys]

The Move command is very similar to this. It is basically like Hunt except the men will still advance while pausing to fire.

I have sometimes witnessed the occasional trooper pause to fire under a Quick command as well. No idea what the actual probability of that might be, but low as I've only seen it a few times. That likely is due to most often not having a point on the movement path where they would have a clear shot at a spotted enemy though.

Michael

[Destynova]

The Move command is very similar to this. It is basically like Hunt except the men will still advance while pausing to fire.

I cant say that I have ever tried to use the move command to take enemy positions before. Usually I use it when moving my troopers up to the front line. Seeing how casually they walk in move mode I considered it suicidal to use that command in the presence of enemies. In hunt mode it actually looks like they are ready for a fight.

[Baneman]

I have sometimes witnessed the occasional trooper pause to fire under a Quick command as well. No idea what the actual probability of that might be, but low as I've only seen it a few times. That likely is due to most often not having a point on the movement path where they would have a clear shot at a spotted enemy though.

Michael

I've certainly seen ( and successfully done exactly this later to achieve the effect ) AT troopers stop and take a shot when their QUICK move ( from cover to cover ) revealed a Tank in LoS of the movement path.

It's ( for me ) a known workaround for city fighting - run from behind one building to behind the next, crossing a road down which you know there is a tank.

I've not seen it quite so often from infantry vs other infantry, but it does happen.