Moving under fire - tips?

[A Canadian Cat]

Yep - two old guys eh?

Sorry for going a bit OT there.

[[MyIS] Buffpuff]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

 

 

+1. I know I have told this story before but I'll be the boring old guy - I remember when I was first playing CMBN H2H I was constantly getting beat up.  Finally I decided to "win" the tank battle and spend 4/5 of my points on Panthers and just a small amount of infantry.  Well it worked.  Or it looked like it was going to work.  I won the tank battle with tanks to spare.  My opponent then proceeded to show my how it is really done and sliced and diced my remaining tanks who by now had nearly no infantry left to support them.  I still lost.

Sounds like an interesting read but with 8,000 posts I'm not feeling searching your past posts. Link for story or by all means...Reminisce!!!

[A Canadian Cat]

Oh no I just told it much like that before. There is no AAR, there is no screen shot. Heck it was even before I kept a win loss record. I am glad you are not going to search for the last time I told it. You might catch my exaggerating

[Badger73]

4 hours ago, [MyIS] Buffpuff said:

While I don't have any military background I'll count 19 years of law enforcement as it relates to firing while moving. Flat out running while trying to shoot is just awful. You'll be lucky to hit the paper target at all on a full sprint. A quick paced walk towards the target is much more feasible. Staying on target is easier but you're not going to have tight grouping at all unless you REALLY practice this. I can see suppression working at that pace since really the object is to keep the target's head down. Add stress and fatigue to this and the shot grouping becomes even more erratic. But back to your point. A solid suppression is often necessary to known enemy positions. Finding the right balance there can be tricky as well as I've had times where I've thought I had some good suppression going (2 or 3 squads target light with a tank using a target briefly for 15-30 seconds) and advanced an assault squad up only to have that squad mowed down by what I had been trying to suppress. So on that note I would say use any and all efforts to suppress a known target before closing in for the kill and if at all possible, move in from the flank with that assault squad. Once you clear out that area give your support assets some time to move up. Those assault squads have binoculars and while you're waiting for support to catch up they can be scouting what's ahead of you (out in the open).

 

Troop quality can be a factor. Green troops can be pretty brittle so I don't expect much from them but they're great for scouting ahead of your main force. For me (and I'm sure other player's will say the same) the biggest difference when it comes to movement/advancing is splitting up your squads. The US forces excel in this area and your typical rifle squad breaks down into 3 separate squads (an assault 4 man squad with the binoculars, a Thompson SMG, 3 M1 Garands and probably the lion's share of grenades, a base of fire unit with 4 M1 Garands and 1 BAR unit, and then if you're lucky another 3 man team with 2 M1 Garands and 1 BAR unit). There are some rifle squads that come with a 5 man Garand team when you split it. I sometimes split that into a 2 man scouting team just to simply see if it draws enemy fire. Barring those I typically use the assault squad to scout (since they have the binoculars and are typically much better at close range fighting since chances are if the enemy is not shooting at you from long distance it will be the hidden squad in a forest, hedge, etc. that ruins your day).

 

One thing I have really learned to respect is infantry recon. Towards the end of a battle I get rabbit blood in me and in my effort to force a surrender or gobble what looks like an easy kill I'll do something stupid and move up a tank without a proper infantry screen. The results are, more often than not, a dead or damaged tank. Tanks are sexy, artillery is deadly, but show me a player who handles his infantry really well and I'll show you someone who is more than likely going to win.

I suspect that your law enforcement experience does not include indirect fire nor close air support . ..

Artillery support is the infantry's best friend but slow to show up when you need it.  Either plan well ahead or allow for time to adjust fires.  Light mortars with direct Line Of Sight are fast and effective.  Smoke ("pop smoke") or fire support rounds are always handy.  The enemy can only shoot what they see.  Smoke blocks their vision.  Incoming artillery suppresses their observation. 

Your other points about Recon and splitting squads are spot on.

[[MyIS] Buffpuff]

50 minutes ago, Badger73 said:

I suspect that your law enforcement experience does not include indirect fire nor close air support . ..

 

You would be correct in that assessment but there are certainly some areas that I patrolled where a tactical nuclear strike to obliterate it from the face of the Earth would be just fine by me. I was very fortunate in my career to never use deadly force. I came extremely close a few times but I'd like to think the Man upstairs played a big part in keeping me safe and maybe for some sanity on the other parties as well. Now tasing...Hooboy I pulled that trigger so many times I could do that use of force report blindfolded. LOL!

[CCIP]

Again, thanks for the advice all  Your experience is much appreciated!

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.

My one main discovery tonight has been to keep my finger off the "i" button and use "move" for virtually all movements regardless of where I am, and actually it's paid off so far. I think I was often avoiding it because the "move" animation for infantry is a bit silly and relaxed-looking. The one big difference I'm starting to realize is the scale of the spotting/spotted penalty on troops that are running - probably also something that's been tweaked in patches. Running troops seem to be practically deaf and blind now, and unless the enemy is heavily suppressed (i.e. has been fired on in the past minute or less), they will always be fired on first. 

You're very right about running while firing, Buffpuff - I meant more along the lines of walking/advancing while firing. I think the old CMx1 games had the "Advance" command which worked roughly like that and was my go-to for moving in the open. It was my impression that this was one of the tactics that ended up getting adopted against the Germans in the bocage, because they were trained to wait until the Americans stopped firing, started running, or ducked down in the open, at which point they would open up with everything they had. If the Americans didn't stop firing, they would stay in cover and would often end up getting overrun. That said, it might be more of a troop quality issue for me. I noticed that when playing scenarios with higher-quality troops like Airborne or Rangers, I had much better chances of overrunning German positions.

Edited April 26, 2016 by CCIP

[Bulletpoint]

7 hours ago, CCIP said:

My one main discovery tonight has been to keep my finger off the "i" button and use "move" for virtually all movements regardless of where I am, and actually it's paid off so far. I think I was often avoiding it because the "move" animation for infantry is a bit silly and relaxed-looking. The one big difference I'm starting to realize is the scale of the spotting/spotted penalty on troops that are running - probably also something that's been tweaked in patches. Running troops seem to be practically deaf and blind now, and unless the enemy is heavily suppressed (i.e. has been fired on in the past minute or less), they will always be fired on first. 

The move command also is extremely slow. Try to move like you would in real life, short dashes at full speed from cover to cover.

[womble]

I almost never use Move if there's any other option (gun crews don't go any other speed f'rex) in NWE... It's a different matter in the stamina-sapping hills and heat of Sicily, but on level or gently sloping ground, Quick with halts will get you there faster than Move. Moving troops shouldn't be having to reply to incoming fire, or spot for themselves. Static troops will always have an advantage over moving troops, even ones that are just walking. I have made the AI and human opponents suffer for moving too slowly, either with arty barrages dropped on 'em or by getting to vantage points before them. 

[[MyIS] Buffpuff]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

The move command also is extremely slow. Try to move like you would in real life, short dashes at full speed from cover to cover.

I agree with the move speed. I think the only time I use that command is bringing up the reserve forces to previously spots of cover (usually 200-300m behind my main force). 85 percent of the time it's quick movements between 50-200m with multiple 5 or 10 second pauses (except for the BAR squads/Platoon leader that I normally give a 15 sec pause unless speed is of essence). 5 percent fast dashes from cover to cover when going into known combat. 5 percent hunt for when I'm doing a move to contact phase. 4 percent for slow that's usually at the end of a quick move just to get into a nice covered position while trying not to draw attention to my units (again unless speed is of essence). And the 1 percent for the moving up the reserve or the important HQ's (regiment, company).

[[MyIS] Buffpuff]

5 minutes ago, womble said:

I almost never use Move if there's any other option (gun crews don't go any other speed f'rex) in NWE... It's a different matter in the stamina-sapping hills and heat of Sicily, but on level or gently sloping ground, Quick with halts will get you there faster than Move. Moving troops shouldn't be having to reply to incoming fire, or spot for themselves. Static troops will always have an advantage over moving troops, even ones that are just walking. I have made the AI and human opponents suffer for moving too slowly, either with arty barrages dropped on 'em or by getting to vantage points before them. 

That's an area I could use some major improvement in as far as predicting where an enemy will be say in 4 minutes time for an artillery barrage to do some serious damage. More often than not I typically miss the mark by about 100-150m and hit a place that had a good concentration of troops 2 minutes before but stragglers are the only thing close. I hate wasting artillery. If only Slim would get off his duff and make a video about artillery deployment. LOL!

[rocketman]

16 hours ago, womble said:

Yeah, firing from the hip while charging and yelling war cries is Sgt Rock mythology. It's entirely possible to give troops pause orders for 10-15s at each of several waypoints on an advance, with Target Briefly (Area, usually) orders to keep up a volume of fire while maintaining a general advance. Just giving troops a single movement leg across an open area isn't going to succeed unless there is a static fire base doing the suppressing while your maneuver element is exposed.

I was surprised when reading the "Juno Trilogy" by Mark Zuehlke, the amount of accounts that units "fired from the hip" when assaulting a position or advancing over dangerous ground. I assume you won't basically hit anything, but maybe it had enough suppressive power to keep the enemy's heads down. Especially if they are green troops. Maybe it also functions to boost morale when charging forward - to feel powerful and less vulnerable.

[womble]

49 minutes ago, [MyIS] Buffpuff said:

That's an area I could use some major improvement in as far as predicting where an enemy will be say in 4 minutes time for an artillery barrage to do some serious damage. More often than not I typically miss the mark by about 100-150m and hit a place that had a good concentration of troops 2 minutes before but stragglers are the only thing close. I hate wasting artillery. If only Slim would get off his duff and make a video about artillery deployment. LOL!

Well, the point I was trying to make was that it is significantly easier to predict where a glimpsed element travelling at "Move" speed will be in a few minutes than it is to predict where an element travelling Quick will be. 

It gets easier still if you can pin 'em down with MG fire, or get the HE sent downrange by on-board light mortars with a spot on the slowbies...

Interestingly, in chatting with a veteran about counterinsurgency fighting, he said the bandits used to hit with mortars first, and then follow up with MG fire. Presumably because they didn't have enough mortar ammo to be sure of finishing off the patrol they were ambushing once they hit the dirt, so they wanted the bombs to be blasting at standing targets.

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, rocketman said:

I was surprised when reading the "Juno Trilogy" by Mark Zuehlke, the amount of accounts that units "fired from the hip" when assaulting a position or advancing over dangerous ground. I assume you won't basically hit anything, but maybe it had enough suppressive power to keep the enemy's heads down. Especially if they are green troops. Maybe it also functions to boost morale when charging forward - to feel powerful and less vulnerable.

Real life suppressive fire needs way less bullets than in the game. Spraying an area wildly with fire while running won't hit anything, but just a bullet or two passing by will keep many heads down - unless you're up against motivated veterans.

I guess it's also a matter of distance to target. In close terrain, I suppose you could hit something with your tommy gun while running, not by aiming but simply by spraying bullets in the general direction. With our modern "western" concept of war, I think we sometimes forget how brutal and desperate some of the engagements in WW2 were.

"We" obviously not including the very well read people on this forum.

[Michael Emrys]

19 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

If you are running across a field in one go, the enemy will fire off bullet after bullet, and refine their aim with each shot. Eventually they will hit. If you do short movement legs with a pause (5-10 seconds I think), the enemy will "forget" their aim when your guys drop out of sight, and the moment your guys get up again, the enemy will have to restart his aiming process.

Oh yeah, I failed to mention this even though I discovered it soon after BN came out. I find it even works sometimes at closer ranges of <100m. Works even better if you can provide the enemy unit with some distraction. Which is one more reason why I split squads in order to have at least one team resting (and maybe providing cover fire) while another is on the move.

[Michael Emrys]

4 hours ago, womble said:

It's a different matter in the stamina-sapping hills and heat of Sicily...

Or in snow, especially deep snow in heavy forests. I've started using Move or a combination of alternating Move with Quick in the Ardennes. Otherwise, my soldiers get tired really fast and take forever to recover. The only exception is when I am moving them to a position where I intend for them to be observing, in which case they are going to be static for several turns anyway.

Michael

[user1000]

In the bocage I watched a vet on youtube say that they went along  the side of the hedgerow to get to there goal instead of taking the field to get to the next hedgerow they just followed right along side of it for fear of the MG watching the fields. The only problem with that is roads did the same thing..

Edited April 26, 2016 by user1000

[IICptMillerII]

First off, this is a great thread. Lots of good information!

On 4/25/2016 at 2:41 PM, Larsen said:

<snip> I really don't like the way LOS is implemented in CMx2. Each soldier in the unit can spot and be spotted but cannot be targeted individually.

 

This is not true. You can target any spotted enemy with the unit that is spotting it. For instance, lets say you have a squad of 12 in the woods. 2 of the men can see a single enemy soldier, but the rest of the squad has no line of sight. Using the target or target light command, you can tell the entire squad to engage the spotted enemy. The men who see the enemy will engage and the ones who can't will hold in place and scan their sectors. Further, if that single enemy soldier is part of a larger unit, but the rest of his larger unit has not been spotted, he can still be engaged. While every system can continue to be improved, I think the current spotting mechanics are exceptionally good and realistic. And whenever anything rather silly happens (like two adversaries lying in front of each other and not seeing each other even though it looks like they should) I always remind myself that the visuals are a little abstract, meaning that there is generally a reason the two soldiers cannot see each other. The player cannot see what that reason is. Also remember that humans are hardly infallible. Add on the fact that in combat everyone is fatigued, stressed to the limit, hungry and thirsty, and generally miserable, you can begin to understand how these seemingly simple mistakes are made. I'm just amazed (and glad) that CM is able to so realistically simulate this behavior. 

 

I would like to quickly point out another part of CM that fascinates me. The discussion about how to move infantry around. Many have different approaches. Some like to move quickly in bounds, others like to take it slow. The cool part is that both methods work, and have their benefits and drawbacks. This is much like it is in real life. Different units have different SOPs to fit their capabilities, just as different commanders have different techniques. The end goal is always the same, but the route taken is vastly different. I find it fascinating that CM is able to simulate this. Think about any other strategy game out there. Generally speaking there are set ways of doing things because the game mechanics limit the player. Compare CM infantry combat to say, Star Craft and you understand my point. Not hating on Star Craft at all, just pointing out the fundamental differences in the way the two games are able to be played. 

Essentially, you can give two players the exact same force set up and mission, but each battle will play out very differently. There are many 'right' ways to do things. 'Wrong' things tend to be more universal. For instance, charging across an open field into the guns of the enemy without proper fire support is always a recipe for disaster. For me, I always try to look at a specific situation and identify what not to do first, and then go from there. 

 

I do have a question however. I've always struggled with troop experience levels. I understand the manual definitions, but I'm unsure exactly how they should be applied. Take Easy Company on D-Day. Should they be set to 'Green' because they have not yet seen combat? This seems wrong to me. While its true that their baptism by fire was D-Day, I would not consider them to be an overall 'Green' unit as far as the game mechanics are concerned. The years of training (which was to a tougher degree than regular infantry) and their combat record on D-Day and beyond lead me to believe that 'Veteran' is a more appropriate starting point. Another example is regular US infantry during the Normandy campaign, such as those in the Road to Montebourg campaign. Again, its true that for most of the units involved, it was their first time seeing combat. However, in the game 'Green' quality troops seem to represent a unit with the bare minimal training (and the manual terminology supports this) whereas the divisions first deployed to Normandy trained for the invasion exclusively for upwards of 9 months. 'Green' seems too harsh to me. 'Regular' seems more appropriate. 

The manual seems to support my understanding. Here is the definition of 'Regular' copied from the manual: "professional soldiers who went through extensive, quality training programs, but lack combat experience. Or, Regular can represent troops that received mediocre training that have a fair amount of combat experience."

However it seems the community disagrees with this, as evidenced by the Road to Montebourg units being reduced to 'Green' as well as many stock scenarios having 'Green' units as well. Anyone care to share some insight on this?

[CCIP]

17 hours ago, [MyIS] Buffpuff said:

I agree with the move speed. I think the only time I use that command is bringing up the reserve forces to previously spots of cover (usually 200-300m behind my main force). 85 percent of the time it's quick movements between 50-200m with multiple 5 or 10 second pauses (except for the BAR squads/Platoon leader that I normally give a 15 sec pause unless speed is of essence). 5 percent fast dashes from cover to cover when going into known combat. 5 percent hunt for when I'm doing a move to contact phase. 4 percent for slow that's usually at the end of a quick move just to get into a nice covered position while trying not to draw attention to my units (again unless speed is of essence). And the 1 percent for the moving up the reserve or the important HQ's (regiment, company).

This ratio is actually about what I used to follow myself (even more true in CMSF, which I have had more experience in than CMBN etc.) - just that I've been finding it a bit ineffective lately, but I'll definitely have to look into using multiple legs, splitting into teams, and using pause orders to spoof enemy gunnery. I have to admit I'm still really wary of using "quick" now, because at least it feels like it comes with much heavier spotting penalties than it used to, and if I don't know where the enemy is and/or when they might fire, that usually means I first find out when half of a squad gets mowed down by an MG42 (or heck, even an MP40!). I've been taking it more slowly over my past few missions, and so far it's saved my some pain (or at least the shame of saving-reloading the game to get through a scenario!).

[Warts 'n' all]

Picking up on the first paragraph of the good Captain's excellent post above. He has the way spotting works on an individual basis dead right. And, sometimes if you you pay close attention, you will even find members of the same Squad engaging different targets from one another. I am always amazed when I see it happening. It certainly comes in very handy if the enemy are trying to outflank your men. No need to give your men a "Target" command, just sit back and enjoy the action.

[A Canadian Cat]

13 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

I do have a question however. I've always struggled with troop experience levels. I understand the manual definitions, but I'm unsure exactly how they should be applied. Take Easy Company on D-Day. Should they be set to 'Green' because they have not yet seen combat? This seems wrong to me. While its true that their baptism by fire was D-Day, I would not consider them to be an overall 'Green' unit as far as the game mechanics are concerned. The years of training (which was to a tougher degree than regular infantry) and their combat record on D-Day and beyond lead me to believe that 'Veteran' is a more appropriate starting point.

The other variable we have to control is the leadership rating.  I agree that it could be argued for a unit that has had that much training Green would be to low.  I wonder if Veteran would be a stretch though.  One thing you could do is make them Regular but with really good leadership.

 

13 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

The manual seems to support my understanding. Here is the definition of 'Regular' copied from the manual: "professional soldiers who went through extensive, quality training programs, but lack combat experience. Or, Regular can represent troops that received mediocre training that have a fair amount of combat experience."

However it seems the community disagrees with this, as evidenced by the Road to Montebourg units being reduced to 'Green' as well as many stock scenarios having 'Green' units as well. Anyone care to share some insight on this?

Yes, there is some disagreement.  Some people think the whole experience thing is inflated and leads to behaviours that exceeds what actual soldiers were capable of.  This school of thought feels that the over rating of the troops are a major reason why the casualty ratings are "too high".  Others are happy with the manual definitions and feel that the "too high" casualty ratings are due to us commanders that push way past the point where units would reconsider their actions.

 

8 hours ago, Warts 'n' all said:

Picking up on the first paragraph of the good Captain's excellent post above. He has the way spotting works on an individual basis dead right. And, sometimes if you you pay close attention, you will even find members of the same Squad engaging different targets from one another. I am always amazed when I see it happening. It certainly comes in very handy if the enemy are trying to outflank your men. No need to give your men a "Target" command, just sit back and enjoy the action.

Yes, this is big and one of the reasons I very rarely give units target commands.  They do a good job of selecting their own targets.  The target command mostly gets restricted to organizing area fire and I let the units themselves pick their own spotted targets.

[Bulletpoint]

17 minutes ago, IanL said:

Yes, this is big and one of the reasons I very rarely give units target commands.  They do a good job of selecting their own targets.  The target command mostly gets restricted to organizing area fire and I let the units themselves pick their own spotted targets.

Well, apart from against halftracks, bren carriers etc. The AI doesn't seem to know these are very vulnerable.

I was surprised the first time I realised I could drive my bren carriers around with impunity as long as the enemy doesn't have AT weapons. Despite the passengers sitting completely visible and exposed.

Edited April 27, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[[MyIS] Buffpuff]

9 hours ago, CCIP said:

This ratio is actually about what I used to follow myself (even more true in CMSF, which I have had more experience in than CMBN etc.) - just that I've been finding it a bit ineffective lately, but I'll definitely have to look into using multiple legs, splitting into teams, and using pause orders to spoof enemy gunnery. I have to admit I'm still really wary of using "quick" now, because at least it feels like it comes with much heavier spotting penalties than it used to, and if I don't know where the enemy is and/or when they might fire, that usually means I first find out when half of a squad gets mowed down by an MG42 (or heck, even an MP40!). I've been taking it more slowly over my past few missions, and so far it's saved my some pain (or at least the shame of saving-reloading the game to get through a scenario!).

If you split teams, use short distance multiple legs with pauses in between the legs, your infantry stands a good chance of spotting what may be waiting to kill you. Splitting keeps your casualty count down and allows you some great flexibility as to how to hit an enemy from multiple angles. The multiple legs with pauses when used with multiple squads is a nightmare for an enemy MG. Which target to fire at? And because he can only engage that one squad initially it sends a great big signal to the other squads "Shoot me".

 

The pause is the key here. Say on the turn you order your assault team to quick move 50 meters ahead, pause for 10 seconds, quick move another 50 meters ahead, pause for 5 seconds, quick move for 25 meters ahead, pause for 15 seconds, and then slow crawl to the destination cover spot. Because you should be moving from cover to cover you obviously don't have cover when you're moving. I look for concealment here. There's a patch of wild grass 25 meters ahead to the right. Doesn't give me a lick of cover but say that's where I've paused the element and he gets fired upon. He drops down prone into the tall grass and maybe the enemy can't see him very well now. Now you order your base of fire squad (armed with LMGs) to hang back in cover with a pause order of 30 seconds, quick move 25 meters ahead, pause for 5 seconds, quick move 50 meters ahead, pause for 10 seconds, quick move for 50 meters, pause for 10 seconds, and then slow crawl to the next cover spot away from your assault element but still able to cover that element. And with a rinse, lather repeat of say 7 more units you've just moved up an entire platoon 125 meters in about 2 turns. Because you're mixing the pauses and the stops and the starts along with the distance for the sprints imagine seeing this from an enemy perspective. 3 whole full squads coming at you versus 9 spread out staggering forces coming at you. The pauses give the covering elements to kneel and search for contacts and drop prone into hopefully some concealment if fired upon. And if your first lead off squad gets ambushed you've got advancing units who've just witnessed the carnage to be able to see the threat and in turn engage it. It's pretty damn effective unless you've just stumbled upon a larger number of enemy forces armed to the teeth. That's why a recon screen is so vital. Ideally you want to find the enemy force with the least amount of manpower. Once you've identified the threat it's time to build that fire superiority. With all those squads quick timing it to your recon screen or in a position to engage behind cover you're way ahead of the game. 

 

The spotting penalty you refer to I haven't experienced. Staggering squads with pauses gives your units time to spot versus wildly sprinting from one spot to the next. Yes it sucks when half a squad gets mowed down by a MG42 or a platoon HQ armed with some MP40s. The flip side of those units bush whacking an entire 12 man squad at one time hurts much worse. Casualties are going to happen. I try to minimize it but doing the above so when I do get whacked by an ambush, retribution is swift and deadly. There's nothing wrong with your approach to slowing it down. Jeffrey Spalding (from the Armchair General videos) said it best...Never be in a rush to die.

[Michael Emrys]

5 hours ago, IanL said:

This school of thought feels that the over rating of the troops are a major reason why the casualty ratings are "too high".  Others are happy with the manual definitions and feel that the "too high" casualty ratings are due to us commanders that push way past the point where units would reconsider their actions.

It could be both. I do have a gut intuition that infantry weapons, most especially rifle fire, are a bit (maybe as much as 20%) too effective. But I think that by far your second point is the most important reason for ahistorically high casualty figures. Bloody battles did occur, but not I think with the same frequency that they do in CM. I suspect that I am more conscientious about sparing my troops than the average CM player, but I am also sure that I in the game I push them harder than I would in real life, or that they would be willing to go. I think that if you tried the same tactics in real life that are common in game play, you would have at best a mutiny on you hands or even a fragging.

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

I think that if you tried the same tactics in real life that are common in game play, you would have at best a mutiny on you hands or even a fragging.

Or more likely your troops would surrender. I think this happens a bit too rarely in the game currently. 

[MikeyD]

When you use an 'assault' command combine SHORT waypoint distances with area fire on the enemy location (if you know where they are) to suppress incoming fire. You want your men to be up-then-down quickly, one team covering the bounding advance of the other along the way. More than once I've made the mistake of putting too much of a waypoint separation in 'assault' and the result is a split team running unprotected while the other sits idle, too far off and too out of position to do any decent overwatch.