Moving under fire - tips?

[CCIP]

Again, lots of great advice which I put to action right away! I actually decided to try different approaches in the same scenario, and quick + pause on short legs vs. assault on longer legs seemed to produce much better results. I guess I'll try assault with short legs next and see if that works - though I guess splitting teams has more or less the same effect. It seemed like offsetting my legs in slight zig-zags relative to the enemy line of fire also helped throw off their aim. And I am definitely starting to see how the pauses are helpful at mitigating my spotting problems - it seems like a team that's paused for a few seconds has a better chance of detecting an enemy than one that's continuously walking slowly. So I'll keep at it! Had a really good run today, although it was with unusually high-quality troops. 

And yeah, as far as the troop quality vs. casualties discussion, I am also a very conservative player - in fact I almost always preferred playing defense in CM, which is why this is a bit of a learning process for me. I think a lot of the "pushing despite unrealistic casualties" has to do with scenario design and very narrow goals for success. Good scenarios and especially good campaigns give reasons to avoid that all-or-nothing mindset when it comes to attacking. That's also kind of why I miss the old "operations" from CMx1, since those forced me to think ahead a little and not push past what my troops could realistically sustain. 

[Michael Emrys]

55 minutes ago, CCIP said:

I think a lot of the "pushing despite unrealistic casualties" has to do with scenario design and very narrow goals for success.

Amen. I think I am starting to see more scenarios that give points for force preservation. If so, I hope that is a trend that continues. I think in the past there were too many scenarios created in a "win at any cost" mind set. At the present time Quick Battles still apparently make no provision for winning points for force preservation, so it falls on the player to use a little discretion in pursuing his goals.

Michael

[[MyIS] Buffpuff]

49 minutes ago, CCIP said:

Again, lots of great advice which I put to action right away! I actually decided to try different approaches in the same scenario, and quick + pause on short legs vs. assault on longer legs seemed to produce much better results. I guess I'll try assault with short legs next and see if that works - though I guess splitting teams has more or less the same effect. It seemed like offsetting my legs in slight zig-zags relative to the enemy line of fire also helped throw off their aim. And I am definitely starting to see how the pauses are helpful at mitigating my spotting problems - it seems like a team that's paused for a few seconds has a better chance of detecting an enemy than one that's continuously walking slowly. So I'll keep at it! Had a really good run today, although it was with unusually high-quality troops. 

And yeah, as far as the troop quality vs. casualties discussion, I am also a very conservative player - in fact I almost always preferred playing defense in CM, which is why this is a bit of a learning process for me. I think a lot of the "pushing despite unrealistic casualties" has to do with scenario design and very narrow goals for success. Good scenarios and especially good campaigns give reasons to avoid that all-or-nothing mindset when it comes to attacking. That's also kind of why I miss the old "operations" from CMx1, since those forced me to think ahead a little and not push past what my troops could realistically sustain. 

Good to see you're making some progress. Keep at it. The pauses really do make a difference.

 

As to conservative play I can relate. Before stumbling upon splitting and pausing squads I played a very conservative game. And I played that way because of past experiences of taking losses on a constant basis. Thinking that any movement would cause my untimely death I'd only move up scouts and hope for the best. That takes a lot of time and before I knew it I felt the clock was running out and I'm nowhere near my objective. Rabbit blood enters and I take big risks to make up for it. The results: Lots of dead frindlies. 

 

I'll take a page from Jon S here and say that a good scenario presents the player with a problem and the means to solve that problem. The whole against all odds scenario, though very challenging, is more frustrating for me because of high casualties and usually a very restrictive way to play to win. I'm currently designing a campaign that reinforces a lot of what we've been talking about in this thread. Inspired by my lessons learned and what I considered, a lack of novice level campaigns, I plunged in. Hopefully I'll stick with it as I'm currently finishing the first scenario. 

[womble]

For my money, Assault isn't worth the convenience when compared to splitting squads. Split squads give other advantages over using Assault, in terms of weapons allocation and isolation of suppression effects.

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, womble said:

For my money, Assault isn't worth the convenience when compared to splitting squads. Split squads give other advantages over using Assault, in terms of weapons allocation and isolation of suppression effects.

I find myself using the assault command more and more actually. I have a kind of irrational preference for keeping the squad together, and I don't like it when I have a big group of teams from all squads mixed up. Even though as far as I know, there are no game mechanics penalty for doing so, as long as all teams are still in contact with the platoon leader.

Edited April 28, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[A Canadian Cat]

8 hours ago, womble said:

 using Assault, in terms of ... isolation of suppression effects.

This came up a little while ago in the back rooms.  We testers were assured that any suppression effect on a team does not directly effect the other teams.  Suppression is tracked man for man so if the lead team executing an assault command starts taking fire and become suppressed the support team is not effected by that directly.  Obviously the UI for the squad calculates and over all suppression amount but each team member still has their suppression level and effects tracked separately.  Don't forget that if the assault team is taking effective fire it is also very possible for the support team to be *also* taking effective fire but that is not due to any shared suppression effects.

[A Canadian Cat]

6 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Even though as far as I know, there are no game mechanics penalty for doing so, as long as all teams are still in contact with the platoon leader.

Mostly correct but there is a factor that varies with nationality.  The Soviets for example do experience a morale hit of some kind (I believe it is more of when bad things happen they feel it faster rather than an as soon as they get split they suffer).  This was their way of allowing us to still split off elements of a Soviet squad even though their doctrine was to *not* fight that way.

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, IanL said:

We testers were assured that any suppression effect on a team does not directly effect the other teams.  Suppression is tracked man for man so if the lead team executing an assault command starts taking fire and become suppressed the support team is not effected by that directly.  Obviously the UI for the squad calculates and over all suppression amount but each team member still has their suppression level and effects tracked separately.

Interesting, thanks.

 

1 hour ago, IanL said:

Mostly correct but there is a factor that varies with nationality.  The Soviets for example do experience a morale hit of some kind (I believe it is more of when bad things happen they feel it faster rather than an as soon as they get split they suffer).  This was their way of allowing us to still split off elements of a Soviet squad even though their doctrine was to *not* fight that way.

Also interesting.

I've noticed that when I split a US or British squad with +2 leadership, the resulting teams wil each also have +2 leadership, even when far from the squad leader. I find this strange, as you'd think green recruits would be fine as long as their leader is close, but pretty lost once they lost contact with him.

[womble]

3 hours ago, IanL said:

This came up a little while ago in the back rooms.  We testers were assured that any suppression effect on a team does not directly effect the other teams.  Suppression is tracked man for man so if the lead team executing an assault command starts taking fire and become suppressed the support team is not effected by that directly.  Obviously the UI for the squad calculates and over all suppression amount but each team member still has their suppression level and effects tracked separately.  Don't forget that if the assault team is taking effective fire it is also very possible for the support team to be *also* taking effective fire but that is not due to any shared suppression effects.

Interesting. How about morale effects? It's a long time since I came to the conclusion that losing a man from team A doesn't affect the B team as much if the squad is split as it does if they're combined, even if the two split teams happen to be spatially proximate...

[womble]

59 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I've noticed that when I split a US or British squad with +2 leadership, the resulting teams wil each also have +2 leadership, even when far from the squad leader. I find this strange, as you'd think green recruits would be fine as long as their leader is close, but pretty lost once they lost contact with him.

My understanding is that if there's an Asst in charge of the team, he'll have the same leadership rating as the Leader of the "parent" squad. So if it's a 2-team squad in a "modern" (as opposed to Italian) western (as opposed to Russian) army, you'll generally not see a hit on leadership on the split squads. "C" teams (scout or AT, usually) though, split off from 3-team squads, will usually have lower Leadership ratings. Similarly, the Leadership rating of a team will usually decrease if the Leader or Asst is hit, because Leadership is a "best rating in element" stat (rather than an average across the whole element like Experience and Morale are), and there's less backup in a team than there is in an unsplit squad (where the Asst's rating will be used if the Ldr is a casualty). As I remember it, Russian squads don't often have Asst leaders, so splitting will pretty much always drop one element's Leadership rating, as well as imposing the "rule-based" penalty for operating counter to doctrine.

And of course Italians can't split their squads at all, because they're actually already split!

[Bulletpoint]

1 minute ago, womble said:

My understanding is that if there's an Asst in charge of the team, he'll have the same leadership rating as the Leader of the "parent" squad. So if it's a 2-team squad in a "modern" (as opposed to Italian) western (as opposed to Russian) army, you'll generally not see a hit on leadership on the split squads. "C" teams (scout or AT, usually) though, split off from 3-team squads, will usually have lower Leadership ratings.

That would make good sense. But I believe I remember that even the C team will get the +2 leadership though. Will pay extra attention to it going forward.

[A Canadian Cat]

48 minutes ago, womble said:

Interesting. How about morale effects? It's a long time since I came to the conclusion that losing a man from team A doesn't affect the B team as much if the squad is split as it does if they're combined, even if the two split teams happen to be spatially proximate...

Are you sure about that?  I thought there were tests that showed that if a squad on the other side of the map takes enough of a beating then other squads form taht platoon can actually end up becoming shaken even though the could not possibly know about what was happening to their platoon mates.

I do not have any special insight about that.

[womble]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

Are you sure about that?  I thought there were tests that showed that if a squad on the other side of the map takes enough of a beating then other squads form taht platoon can actually end up becoming shaken even though the could not possibly know about what was happening to their platoon mates.

I do not have any special insight about that.

I'm pretty sure that the splitting of a squad creates more of a "firewall" between the morale states of the split elements, making them react more like different squads do.

[MOS:96B2P]

4 hours ago, IanL said:

Are you sure about that?  I thought there were tests that showed that if a squad on the other side of the map takes enough of a beating then other squads form taht platoon can actually end up becoming shaken even though the could not possibly know about what was happening to their platoon mates.

I do not have any special insight about that.

 

3 hours ago, womble said:

I'm pretty sure that the splitting of a squad creates more of a "firewall" between the morale states of the split elements, making them react more like different squads do.

I did an experiment on squads/teams vs Assault command reference suppression and posted the results with screen shots in the below link.  I used my CMFI test map so I posted the results in the CMFI forum. 

 

 

[IICptMillerII]

19 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

 

I did an experiment on squads/teams vs Assault command reference suppression and posted the results with screen shots in the below link.  I used my CMFI test map so I posted the results in the CMFI forum. 

 

 

Great work!

As far as the rate of casualties suffered in the game, I dont think its far off from reality. I do think that those killed as compared to being wounded is very much off. Most battles, the number of men killed is far greater than the number wounded. In reality, its the other way around. I actually started a thread on this forum a year or so ago asking about this very issue. There were some good responses overall and it might be worth searching for those who are interested. 

I've come to believe that the reason there are more dead than wounded at the end of the battle is due to a gameplay mechanic. Essentially, the game punishes you for not buddy aiding. If you look at the casualties before the battle ends, you'll likely notice that most of the men who are downed are showed as wounded, not killed. However when the battle ends, a large portion of the wounded are switched to dead. I know its listed somewhere in the manual, about a certain percentage of wounded (25% I think) are converted to dead upon the end of battle. I personally do not like the mechanic, but it has no real effect on the actual simulation of combat during the battle so in the end it does not bother me much. 

 

As far as splitting vs not splitting squads, I tend to view it as situational. I tend to keep my squads as a whole until I encounter the enemy and need to split. There really isn't a downside to splitting squads (besides adding more micro) as long as you make sure they are mutually supporting one another. This principle applies from fire teams all the way up to divisions. You NEVER divide your combat power. This does not mean you can't split your squads, or have your platoons far apart. All it means is that the separated elements must be able to cover each other. As a quick note, this same idea applies to tanks as well. Tanks should generally be used in pairs as the smallest maneuver element and even then the pairs should mutually support one another. 

 

On 4/28/2016 at 2:26 AM, womble said:

For my money, Assault isn't worth the convenience when compared to splitting squads. Split squads give other advantages over using Assault, in terms of weapons allocation and isolation of suppression effects.

I tend to agree with this. I've found that, while the 'Assault' command has its uses, it is mostly misused by players (see DiplexHeated playing CM on youtube) because they misunderstand the command. Basically, people think it does a lot more than what it really does. All it does is move the squad up to wherever the waypoint is placed in small teams. Its so simplistic that there really isn't any rhyme or reason to the bounding. For example, I used it once a while ago and noticed that the first group of soldiers to move up were the base of fire soldiers in the squad. Instead of being last to move, the base of fire element was the first to take off running. Not smart. The command also does not make the squad breach and clear buildings or anything like that. If you tell a squad to 'Assault' a building, nothing special happens. The squad will just run into the building one team at a time. 

I've found that the 'Assault' command can be very useful if you are bounding teams forward while providing general covering fire or recon by fire. It works best when your men aren't taking direct enemy fire. Also, if you are looking to the 'Assault' command as a way to have your men leapfrog while using suppressing fire, you need to give the squad a 'Target' command. Using the 'Assault' command in this manner has actually been very successful for me at times, but its generally highly dependent on the specific situation at hand. 

 

Finally, I also tend to play the game very conservatively. My goal is always to minimize my own casualties while maximizing the hurt on the enemy. But this mostly comes down to the individual and what they are seeking to get out of the game. I personally treat the game like a simulator and try to play it in a realistic fashion. Others may treat it like a virtual tabletop game, where the appeal is more in seeing the units and models interacting across the map and completing battles set up in a tabletop format. Others still play it as purely recreation, in the sense that they enjoy strategy games in general and play CM because it does things differently than your standard strategy game. (Again, see DiplexHeated on youtube) I'm not bashing any of these play styles at all, just pointing them out and acknowledging that an individuals style of play is going to yield different results.

[[MyIS] Buffpuff]

On 4/26/2016 at 10:24 PM, CCIP said:

And yes, the "Hell in the Hedgerows" mission was definitely a wake-up call for me, although I felt like I could've won it - if I knew what I was up against better from the start, used my artillery correctly, saved mortar ammunition, laid down smoke and dealt with bunkers better. I actually managed to edge a few men into the enemy rear on the far right side, but too few to be able to overpower the remaining infantry that was outside the bunkers (and their morale was too broken to fight properly by then). I ended up taking a tactical defeat with a ceasefire, but I thought it was at least doable.

Just got finished with Hell in the Hedgerows and posted a comment on the Bunker discussion that's on-going. Frustrating mission for me. I tried smoke missions. I pounded the bunkers with mortar fire. I had 2 platoons at one time targeting a single bunker. Couldn't knock it out and I couldn't get within 200m of the enemy line (forget even crossing the stream). Nothing I did seemed to suppress or do anything with the bunkers.

[[MyIS] Buffpuff]

On 4/25/2016 at 4:43 PM, Bulletpoint said:

There's one mission I can't win though - Hell in the Hedgerows. Fortunately, you don't have to win it, you can just skip it by cease fire once you get tired of banging your head against the wall.

Banging your head against the wall with this mission is exactly the way I felt today after finishing.

[Bulletpoint]

2 minutes ago, [MyIS] Buffpuff said:

Banging your head against the wall with this mission is exactly the way I felt today after finishing.

As I wrote in the other thread too, don't let it spoil your day. In my opinion, it's one of the few poorly designed missions in an otherwise enjoyable campaign.

[[MyIS] Buffpuff]

1 minute ago, Bulletpoint said:

As I wrote in the other thread too, don't let it spoil your day. In my opinion, it's one of the few poorly designed missions in an otherwise enjoyable campaign.

Makes me want to tweak that campaign but I'm not the author...

[CCIP]

I think the only thing you can really do with the bunkers is use smoke, distract them with constant fire from all along the line, and try to sneak in a few teams with bazookas on the far right flank to take them out from behind. I got that far - but didn't manage to muster enough men to beat other surviving troops around the bunkers. 

Otherwise, I think I've made good progress these last few days. I still end up running into trouble after clearing the first enemy line and moving on to the second, but by now I can at least discount game mechanics and blame my own decisions...  Thanks again for advice!

This is how I set up my moves where I expect there might be danger now - in this case, it worked very well, resulting in only a single casualty and my troops routing the enemy. Of course, the suppression and the troops I kept back as cover also helped!

[Bulletpoint]

4 hours ago, CCIP said:

This is how I set up my moves where I expect there might be danger now - in this case, it worked very well, resulting in only a single casualty and my troops routing the enemy. Of course, the suppression and the troops I kept back as cover also helped!

In this case, you don't need to cross the field under fire. If there's LOS from your side to the enemy side, you just need to set up a strong base of fire and let them shoot it out with the enemy.

You have massive fire superiority and the range is short, so your fast-firing Garand rifles will kill or rout the enemy in no time. Then after they stop shooting back, you start crossing.

Edited April 30, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[womble]

When I'm setting up the field crossing, I try and keep the movement legs from intersecting. There's always the chance it will lead to two teams being unfortunately close together, and you just know that's when a stray mortar round will land where "X" marks the spot...

[Doc844]

On 30/04/2016 at 5:53 PM, womble said:

When I'm setting up the field crossing, I try and keep the movement legs from intersecting. There's always the chance it will lead to two teams being unfortunately close together, and you just know that's when a stray mortar round will land where "X" marks the spot...

Exactly this.  This is butt hurt.  My most recent one.  Battle of Staumont about an hour in, my far right flank are trying to break in to the building's but my poor fallshirmjagers are having a torrid time.  So  my tactical reserve, the 13th company get their orders, fast move over to the right, increase my volume of fire, panthers, hmg''s the works, and run right upto the buildings.  Works like a dream, my troops debuss and lo and behold a pesky 60mm mortar man drops a round right in the middle of a squad.   Multiple casualties.  There was gnashing of teeth and I can honestly say a girly whimper escaped my lips.

 

But that's one of the reasons why I love these games.  You can execute a manoeuvre perfectly and a random act from a lonely pixel trupp can mess up your whole day.