Can troops in Bunkers Surrender?

[rtdood]

Hi Everyone,

I'm currently creating a small battle map scenario where a company have to attack a couple of Bunkers. After several runs of playing, I've noticed the defending troops inside the Bunkers, while show all the usual signs of being suppressed (shaken, cowering etc), never surrender and always get shot up when exiting the Bunker Shelter.   

I'm aware that the platoon leaders have an effect, as well as close proximity of supporting troops towards the decision calculations regarding surrender of troops. However, in the scenario I've made sure platoon leaders are not within sight or earshot and likewise there are no supporting troops immediately nearby. Likewise, the troops in the Bunker Shelter are all green and therefore more susceptible to surrender (I don't want them as conscript though for balance purposes).

I have checked on forum here and am aware that there are some issues/bugs with Bunkers, particularly with exiting, so I'm guessing the inability for troops to surrender within a bunker is down to this also?  

Ideally I'd rather have them surrender rather than fight to the death (as the latter is currently the case) due to me wanting not all my platoons shot up at ridiculous angles (from the sides and front of the bunkers on the approach)

Thanks in advance for any help  

 

[MOS:96B2P]

I'm just taking a guess here......... Bunkers are treated like vehicles in many ways.  Troops in a vehicle will not surrender while they are inside the vehicle so maybe this behavior carries over to bunkers also?  I'm sure somebody will be along with a more definitive answer for you.  

[RockinHarry]

I'm just taking a guess here......... Bunkers are treated like vehicles in many ways.  Troops in a vehicle will not surrender while they are inside the vehicle so maybe this behavior carries over to bunkers also?  I'm sure somebody will be along with a more definitive answer for you.  

Yup, that basically is it. You get all the behavior from normal vehicles, which is bailing out when morale breaks (while being immobile by default), no surrender, exiting and moving into the action spot, just like when troops are jumping overboard from a vehicle and such. That´s sort of a halfway functioning compromise, unless BFC finds a way better solution, which personally I hope that´ll soon be the case.

I´m toying with bunkers very much and beside inability for infantry units to surrender inside (+ no wounded/buddy aid, no cowering), they function in most of the standard situations fairly well. You can shoot up bunkers with a realistic amount of big HE/AP through the aperture, making them "inoperable", not truely inhabitable, so that they could be used as shelter vs. artillery again, for any side entering them. That´s high on my personal wishlist (neutral structure). They´re also pretty vulnerable to assaults with flamethrowers, particularly through the aperture, as well as close assaults overall, particularly from rear side and door.

For affecting a pillbox defender I´d rather toy with morale settings (below normal) and less with experience, as I think beeing in a pillbox yields some invisible positive morale modifier. At least you can make them bail out and possibly surrender quicker AFTER exiting, when surrounded by enemy units in close proximity. That´s from my experience so far.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I've never seen any bunkers bailing out because of incoming fire. They seem to only bail out when you start throwing grenades (close assaulting).

For some reason, these grenades never kill the troops inside, and they come out guns blazing. Your troops start to shoot back as soon as the enemy starts the exiting process, but your shots are wasted, because the enemy are protected by the bunker walls until they "physically" exit.

So, because of this design flaw (?) when the enemy finally appear outside the bunker, your troops will be caught reloading, and so they often take a lot of casualties where they shouldn't really. Because in real life, people don't start shooting blindly at a wall because they magically sense that the enemy will come out in a moment, they wait at shoot at the actual soldiers when they appear in the doorway.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[rocketman]

I actually think I've seem troops in bunkers surrender - but it is very rare. While making my Assault on Merville battery I think I saw it. Maybe there is a difference between AT bunkers (that I used) and MG bunkers?

[rtdood]

Thank you all for the replies.

Its certainly the case they do only seem to bail out when under closer assault by infantry. However I may have had them take casualties from grenades when they are still in the Bunker (though its never been more than 1 and several grenades were lunched at once, prompting a quick exit command. However it may have been a millisecond of the exit command that explains the casualty perhaps?  I think on only one of my re-runs did one solider exit once everyone else in the shelter was either dead or wounded (but the shelter itself was still operational). I'll have to accept that the odds for surrender lie outside of the shelter once they have bailed, assuming the player choses not to shoot them immediately up upon exit, thus giving them a chance.

Hopefully in the future BF will give the option for troops within Bunkers to surrender without exiting once they have taken sufficient casualties/damage. Maybe getting bunkers to be treated more like buildings, rather than like vehicles?  

[rocketman]

As far as I'm concerned, how bunkers are treated in game could do with an overhaul - see the thread "Titanium Bunker" over at CMFI-forum.

[sburke]

It is my feeble recollection that essentially bunkers are run by vehicle mechanics so I think the answer is they probably can't surrender until forced to exit. I know I have never seen them surrender while still occupying the bunker.  

[Bulletpoint]

I actually think I've seem troops in bunkers surrender - but it is very rare. While making my Assault on Merville battery I think I saw it. Maybe there is a difference between AT bunkers (that I used) and MG bunkers?

I think what happens is that the moment the enemy decides to "bail out" of the bunker, they turn from vehicle crew into infantry, and thus become eligible for surrendering. And they may surrender before actually making it out of the bunker. So while it seems like it's the bunker surrendering, it's more like the bailed out crew surrendering before they have the chance to physically exit. Just like tank crews that bail out can later surrender, but it's not the actual tank that does it.. But in any case, the end result is pretty much the same.

Edited October 7, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[rocketman]

I think what happens is that the moment the enemy decides to "bail out" of the bunker, they turn from vehicle crew into infantry, and thus become eligible for surrendering. And they may surrender before actually making it out of the bunker. So while it seems like it's the bunker surrendering, it's more like the bailed out crew surrendering before they have the chance to physically exit. Just like tank crews that bail out can later surrender, but it's not the actual tank that does it.. But in any case, the end result is pretty much the same.

This might very well be the case. Sounds reasonable.

[RockinHarry]

I put it high on my wishlist, surrendering capability of vehicle crews! May they be from bunkers or something with wheels attached to them. Not every vehicle is a "Fury" and it´s more likely that a crew surrounded at close range by the enemy and got its vehicle ambushed and immobilized, is very likely to surrender, instead of just rushing out, guns blazing and more than likely to be killed. "Waffen Grenadiers" and very high morale crews exluded maybe. Same for pillboxes. From my extensive reading about the Siegfried line campaign, only a minority of german bunker crews fought to the death and when coming out alive in the face of the enemy, it was more with hands up and white flag wavering.

[RockinHarry]

A bit OT and likely has been discussed before, but from some testing in a WIP mission of mine just yesterday, I encountered some sort of "mass surrender" of german troops, that I haven´t seen before. I was tinkering with soft factors of troops, that were to defend from pillboxes, as well as faked pillbox buildings (sunken 1 story buildings with one front window and one door) and always found them still resisting and fighting way too good, despite during battle they were constantly rattled (or below), due to given low morale and experience settings. When I thought about leader rating and its function, I started to give a number of troops negative leader ratings (-1, -2) and during game play then found this beeing a major multiplier to a units likelyhood to surrender in appropiate conditions. Actually it´s quite clear that the leader ratings have some obvious positive effects, including the ability to rally troops from shaken morale, when in the + range, but with this particular effect rather reversed when in the minus range. So it´s not just a minus rated leader more unable to rally troops in general, it´s also way more likely he´ll trigger a surrender. I actually noticed this before, when after a leader loss (one who had a 0 or + leader rating), he was replaced by a minus rated leader and gots his unit affected very badly. But I´d given it not the deserved attention, when I was in the middle of a battle and focused more on troops in good combat order. Now when working on self made missions, I take leader ratings and particularly the negative ones more into consideration, when I need forces or parts of them perform more likely in various ways.

In the mentioned WIP mission I had 9 germans (from 3 different squads/teams) surrendered in a late single game turn and it would´ve been 13 or 14, if they hadn´t been killed in the last exchange of bullets. (rough end game ratio was something like 1:1:1, KIA, WIA, MIA) Highest number I´ve seen in any battle so far. The -1 and -2 leader ratings made the difference for green and low morale troops not to fight to the last man and bullet, when there´s no route of escape otherwise.

 

[womble]

That's interesting Harry. Are you experimenting (and finding this effect) with the "lowest level" of Leadership (squad, team) or are you seeing this effect when HQ units have low values? Or both?

I'm guessing you're talking about squad leaders rather than platoon leaders, since most of the troops I've seen running about like headless chickens and not surrendering even though it was their only option (they weren't standing and fighting) have been well out of C2.

[MOS:96B2P]

<Snip> So it´s not just a minus rated leader more unable to rally troops in general, it´s also way more likely he´ll trigger a surrender.  (rough end game ratio was something like 1:1:1, KIA, WIA, MIA) Highest number I´ve seen in any battle so far. <Snip>  

Interesting information thanks for sharing.  Another example of how C2 effects the troops and ultimately influences the outcome of battles.  I often struggle to keep the platoon leader close enough to the front to keep the the leading fire teams in C2 and at the same time try not to get the platoon leader and his RTO KIA'd.  Can be a difficult balancing act..............        

[RockinHarry]

That's interesting Harry. Are you experimenting (and finding this effect) with the "lowest level" of Leadership (squad, team) or are you seeing this effect when HQ units have low values? Or both?

I'm guessing you're talking about squad leaders rather than platoon leaders, since most of the troops I've seen running about like headless chickens and not surrendering even though it was their only option (they weren't standing and fighting) have been well out of C2.

Leaders in question were from normal infantry squads and (attached) HMG teams, all out of COC of the Plt. HQ, which was positioned further back with no direct influence (Plt. defence on extended front). Squad/team leaders were not all "-" by default and some were created during the battle by normal leader combat loss. I also remember those leaders were not left over assistant leaders, but those created from the ranks. In the mentioned situation it was just the case, that the heavily pressured german units had only "-" ones left. Other "triggering" factors surely were "rattled", "shaken" and also "panic" status, the inability to escape anywhere since there was enemy all around in close combat range and maybe that the surrendering units could watch each other ...surrender. Two surrendering units were in the same AS, while the third was in LOS, about 50m away. All in the same game turn and IIRC within a time frame of 10-20 seconds.

I keep testing this situation over again, as anyway it´s the base of a mission WIP. I´d also like finding out, if battle created leaders draw their abilities from their units experience levels generally. In example, if a veteran unit is more likely to create a "+" leader, than a green or conscript one, that might possibly create more "0" or "-" types. Would make some sense, although the die rolls can be assumed to leave some space for "talents" or "failures".

It generally makes some sense if a squad leader whose one responsibility is "rallying" his soldiers from bad morale state, not just can be unable to rally (always assuming it´s just a die roll anyway), but due to the "-" modifier can even have a worsening effect, which in worst case would be the surrendering of the whole unit, or at least parts of it. Need to check what  "-" leaders in higher HQ (Coy & Bn) would generally do to their subordinates and if there´s noticable effects in morale and performance generally. To me it´s much of concern setting up a valuable AI opponent in my self made missions and to see if leader quality along the COC (as long as COC is maintained), carries over to various subordinates and creates varied performance within the given frame of the battle plans.

[womble]

Aye, that's about what I thought you were saying. Just seeking additional clarity

It would be interesting indeed to know what affects the degree of gracefulness of degradation of command quality. Leadership and Experience both make some sense as contributors.

[Bulletpoint]

@RockinHarry From your testing, what is your impression of the effects of squad Leadership compared to Motivation? Are there some overlaps, or are they two completely different things?

I was thinking maybe Motivation is basically the same as Leadership, but "built into" the unit, whereas Leadership only gives the bonus as long as the leader himself is alive.

So, having a +1 Motivation squad would always be better than to have a +1 Leadership squad, if all other factors were equal...

 

Edited October 12, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[RockinHarry]

Unfortunately I couldn´t repeat the above mentioned results in another test battle, although the battle itself and particular situations that normally apply for surrender of troops, where almost the same. I kept every leader changes watched during the course of the game and again it was mostly "-" leader left overs, when related units were depleted and surrounded. With one exception (single soldier straggler, routed away), there were no other surrenders this time. I also noticed even the -2 leaders did successfull rally attempts (panic -> shaken, ect.) and these cases were also not that rare. So this second test play attempt rather suggests, that surrendering is more a random occasion as I thought.  There´s numerous more test plays necessary to draw any reasonable conclusions it seems...

Some strange thing I noticed is that the overall Bn.HQ (and the XO unit), which I had deleted from the roster, still shows a green light in the COC info panel (left hand bottom corner) for every onmap unit. In other words, the highest active HQ in the german onmap force is a Coy HQ, with one reinforced Infantry Platoon as organic sub formation. Also the green COC light goes on and off for different units and at different times during the game. Anybody has an idea?  If an invisible and physically non existent superior HQ maintains a COC link to every subordinate unit, no matter if it even has a radio or not, what "influence" would this ghost HQ have, with regard to its soft factors?

[Bulletpoint]

 I also noticed even the -2 leaders did successfull rally attempts (panic -> shaken, ect.) and these cases were also not that rare.

I think troops can rally themselves, without any leader, but it just takes longer. Maybe they even rally faster on their own than when they have a -2 leader nearby.

[RockinHarry]

@RockinHarry From your testing, what is your impression of the effects of squad Leadership compared to Motivation? Are there some overlaps, or are they two completely different things?

I was thinking maybe Motivation is basically the same as Leadership, but "built into" the unit, whereas Leadership only gives the bonus as long as the leader himself is alive.

So, having a +1 Motivation squad would always be better than to have a +1 Leadership squad, if all other factors were equal...

 

I´ve again read some through the V3.0 GM and comparing with my experiences, it´s still hard to make some rules of thump, with all that many variables. As I understand the leadership rating work, it applies by die rolls with either chance of success or not. A 0 leader won´t do much, either positively or negatively, so his squad/team members are mostly left to their inherent soft factors, with all that variables coming into play affecting performance. A + leader has a "chance" to let his unit perform generally better, while a - leader could even possible ruin a veteran units performance...randomly. The + and - ratings are a bias towards a certain possible skill check outcome, but a final effect could also be just nothing. If I´d the choice, I´d possibly rather go with a veteran unit (or high motivation unit generally) and a bad leader, as opposed to green and conscript (or low motivation), with a good leader. In the latter case the unit is probably way more dependent on his leader and when this one gets incapacitated, you can only hope its replacement will not be a - leader. At last you can´t depend reliably on any units soft factors or leader ratings, as every game situation will have different variables and random dice rolls involved. All IMHO.

[RockinHarry]

I think troops can rally themselves, without any leader, but it just takes longer. Maybe they even rally faster on their own than when they have a -2 leader nearby.

I´ve seen single soldiers (not leader attributed), who were the only left overs from their unit self rallying and it could be that rally attempts generally are not always dependent on a leader, as you say. Hard to tell from just watching what´s going on on the battlefield.

[MOS:96B2P]

<Snip>  Also the green COC light goes on and off for different units and at different times during the game. Anybody has an idea?  <Snip> 

In the WWII titles if a HQ unit is moving by foot it will drop out of C2 even if it has a radio.  They can't operate the radio while moving.  When they stop moving the C2 chain is re-established.  Maybe foot movement is causing the COC light to go on and off? In the below screenshots I did not mark the COC lights, only the C2 area, but the COC lights are red during foot movement in WWII titles and CMSF but green in CMBS. 

 

 

       

[RockinHarry]

In the WWII titles if a HQ unit is moving by foot it will drop out of C2 even if it has a radio.  They can't operate the radio while moving.  When they stop moving the C2 chain is re-established.  Maybe foot movement is causing the COC light to go on and off? In the below screenshots I did not mark the COC lights, only the C2 area, but the COC lights are red during foot movement in WWII titles and CMSF but green in CMBS.      

Yap, I know. But that´s not the problem (IF it´s a problem at all). For my self made battle I purchased a Grenadier Bn and then deleted the Bn HQ and its XO unit, as well as other sub formations from the ORBAT (activated units), just leaving a Coy HQ and 1 reinforced Plt. for game play. Despite the Bn HQ deleted, it still is shown as green lit COC link in any its sub units COC info panel, when the game is started and played. It means not just any radio equipped sub HQ has this COC link, but any other unit without radio AND not in COC to immediate superior HQ as well. In example that one isolated HMG team, not in contact with its Plt HQ (or Coy HQ alternativeley), has an active (green) COC link to Bn. HQ

I assume that in order for the COC feature to work properly in CMX2, there´s always a sort of Bn HQ type maintained in the data base, even if that particular HQ is not anymore part of the onmap game play ORBAT, as mentioned above. The COC connection light, green or red, rather seems to indicate something different in the game. One possibility could be that the light turning green, or red again, is that it maybe indicates information passed up and down the COC, although it´s not quite obvious what kind of information would be passed in this case.

So here´s the roster in unit editor with deleted 3rd BN HQ

Example team (among remaining units) that maintains infrequent COC link to deleted 3rd Bn HQ

 

[A Canadian Cat]

The example team's screen is telling you that it is out of  contact with the company HQ but that the company HQ is still in contact with the off map battalion HQ.

[RockinHarry]

The example team's screen is telling you that it is out of  contact with the company HQ but that the company HQ is still in contact with the off map battalion HQ.

That would make some sense. But not that the Coy HQ has a link to a non existent Bn. HQ. Unless as mentioned, the game needs the highest echelon HQ in order for the whole COC system to work, even if there is no actual HQ of that type in the ORBAT. Sort of abstraction then.