brittle 4.0 infantry

[slysniper]

Now that it has been out for a little while, what do you think of the infantry traits in the 4.0 version of the game programming.

After playing all these years, there is no question as to how they are now cowards and chickens compared to the earlier version of the game.

Of course, there is a group of players that have been asking for that for some time (not me in that group). demanding that they should not be so heroic as they were playing in the game.

I am not sure how I feel about the present way it plays, It sure is easy to stop a attack if you can get enough of a first volley in, because the enemy will now run for the hills if you do. But you still might see your men break and run also, even on the winning end of a fire fight.

 

I don't know, but I am starting to miss the possible hero's of old battles, because they might be rare to find in this version of the engine.

 

[user1000]

It's the skill level, trying playing with a veteran team in quick battle they are really good fighters. Most US airborne are veterans. More than ever in the Normandy game opposed to blitzkrieg, there are many US green infantry soldiers. On the US side, a lot of soldier in the first few months of the war in normandy were inexperienced having never fought with a live enemy , their training was nothing like fighting in the bocage. Germans had been fighting with French and with Russians by this time so they had a lot more actual combat experience. The German 352nd Inf division for example, where many of it's vets came from fighting at Kursk

Edited February 16, 2017 by user1000

[weta_nz]

I have noticed the change and I know what you mean slysniper. However at the other end of the spectrum - my guys have made it back to safety without been really rattled a few times when ambushed. In the past they probably would have been totally destroyed or rattled after I've ordered them into another ambush. :). I guess it's going to take time to get used to it. I've only limited time playing but I do think the new 4.0 tac AI rewards better tactics.  E.g If you suppress properly you will be able to make gains and with potentially fewer casualties if a enemy pops up unexpectedly.  Maybe scenario designers will adjust to compensate for the differences as they/we get experience with 4.0

[Michael Emrys]

I haven't had much in the way of problems with the new behaviors. I would suggest a possible tweak though in that instead of running away, they would simply cower more and be unresponsive to orders until whatever suppression they are experiencing wears off. In other words, more teeth in the Pinned state.

Michael

[IICptMillerII]

I like the new changes overall and think they are a more accurate reflection of reality. If a squad is being pinned down by a machine gun, they are much more likely to break contact whenever possible than just sit there and continue to get clobbered. One thing I noticed before the 4.0 upgrade was units being pinned down by a machine gun would go to ground, and when the enemy machine gun stopped firing at them (presumably because it was engaging due to line of sight, rather than a target command) and the squad regained its wits, they would get up off the ground and become visible again. Many times this would lead to a casualty. This could happen over and over again, either to the AI or an unwatchful player, leading to an unrealistic accumulation of casualties to a single unit. 

Also, units tend to only break contact when they are faced with overwhelming firepower, such as HE and machine gun fire from a tank. A threat that a squad not equipped with any AT assets is powerless against. Same goes for a team that stumbles into a machine gun nest. Instead of just diving to the ground and staying there, unable to return effective fire to harm the enemy, they now leave said situation. Again I think this is more realistic and representative of what actually occurs in combat. 

My one criticism of the new system is that sometimes when the units displace, they choose poor routes that take them through enemy fire, or across dangerously exposed ground. In urban settings, sometimes they flee towards the enemy, or flee to buildings that are occupied by the enemy, or are worse off than the building they left. Also, units in buildings under artillery fire tend to flee more often than I think they should. After all it is generally safer to be inside than out in the open while under bombardment, but currently pixeltruppen seem to disregard this and break for it once the shells start landing. 

5 hours ago, user1000 said:

On the US side, a lot of soldier in the first few months of the war in normandy were inexperienced having never fought with a live enemy , their training was nothing like fighting in the bocage.

This is an over-simplification of the situation pushed by many British historians who wrote about Normandy after the war. The idea that US units who went to Normandy were untrained/poorly trained/generally green is not true. Most units spent at least 9 months rigorously training for the invasion. Some units, such as the 101st Airborne, trained two full years before being shipped to England. Others who staged and trained in England for many months were battle hardened divisions, such as the 82nd, and 1st Infantry division. Even divisions that had not yet seen combat (29th ID comes to mind here) were rigorously trained (using the experience and lessons learned from years of war in North Africa and Sicily/Italy) specifically for the invasion of Normandy. 

The descriptions for what qualifies 'Green' and 'Regular' troops come straight from the CM manual:

"Green: draftees with little training and some combat experience or reservists with some training and no combat experience. Green can also represent professional soldiers whose training is substandard in comparison to another force."

"Regular: 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."

(Pg 98, CM manual v4.0)

US soldiers in Normandy (those without prior combat experience, such as the 29th ID) should be 'Regular' troops. As you can see for yourself, the manual clearly states that this veterancy level applies to soldiers who are well trained but have not seen combat. 

 

There was another thread here on this forum that covered this topic in more detail, but as I understand it the reason many US soldiers (and Commonwealth and Germans for that matter) were set to 'Green' veterancy is because the mission designers thought it produced more realistic infantry behavior, not because US troops were actually minimally trained soldiers who lacked combat experience. In fact, now that 4.0 is out, many of these missions may need a quick revisit to change some soft factors based on the way the engine currently works as opposed to how it worked when the missions were originally made. 

Edited February 16, 2017 by IICptMillerII

[Michael Emrys]

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

In fact, now that 4.0 is out, many of these missions may need a quick revisit to change some soft factors based on the way the engine currently works as opposed to how it worked when the missions were originally made.

I've noticed that when purchasing units for a QB I more frequently use the Good quality setting whereas before I went with Typical.

Michael

[Hardradi]

4 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

My one criticism of the new system is that sometimes when the units displace, they choose poor routes that take them through enemy fire, or across dangerously exposed ground. In urban settings, sometimes they flee towards the enemy, or flee to buildings that are occupied by the enemy, or are worse off than the building they left. Also, units in buildings under artillery fire tend to flee more often than I think they should. After all it is generally safer to be inside than out in the open while under bombardment, but currently pixeltruppen seem to disregard this and break for it once the shells start landing. 

I don't have the experience of some of the players here but I too have noticed this. There have been some cringe worthy moments as my soldiers route to "safer" ground in v4.0.

 

[slysniper]

Some good comments here as to plus and minuses of the changes.

I guess the comments about troops routing  and not always finding a good route to do it on and the comment about leaving buildings during arty strikes are maybe two of the best as for why at times I do not like the new settings as to their behavior.

But then at times having them get out of trouble quickly can be a saving grace and allows them to quickly recover and not take the losses as they once did when they would not move from a spot under enemy fire.

So as mentioned, I am torn as to if I think it is better or not. Sometimes, it seems more realistic and other times it seems less. Not sure as of yet if this aspect is a improvement.

 

As for troop quality and how it is a factor, well I cannot speak directly on that. Yes, no question as to better troops doing a better job of not breaking. But since I am one that don't like Qb's or one that seeks to play elite troops all the time. My observations are going on more as a whole, not on certain types of units. Most of my battles are scenarios, and in general , there is a mix of unit levels. So far, I have yet to see any unit hold its ground under any amount of moderate fire against it. But with that comment, I think I will go and find a battle with a focus on higher level units and see if I still notice the difference in how the units react in combat now.

For sure, the one thing that it is doing is making me modify my tactics once again. As I learn to anticipate the likely results of what my troops will do or not do in coming situations.

[user1000]

6 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

This is an over-simplification of the situation pushed by many British historians who wrote about Normandy after the war. The idea that US units who went to Normandy were untrained/poorly trained/generally green is not true. Most units spent at least 9 months rigorously training for the invasion. Some units, such as the 101st Airborne, trained two full years before being shipped to England. Others who staged and trained in England for many months were battle hardened divisions, such as the 82nd, and 1st Infantry division. Even divisions that had not yet seen combat (29th ID comes to mind here) were rigorously trained (using the experience and lessons learned from years of war in North Africa and Sicily/Italy) specifically for the invasion of Normandy. 

 

Not true man. The Germans had been there since 1940.. No training could prepare them for the bocage country. Look man, you basically had kids right out of highschool versus veteran German soldiers, that had been fighting  and gaining experience against the Soviets long before the normandy landings. Take a look at the officer deaths on the first couple of weeks after landing very high, some instance whole units had to be replaced. The education costs lives in that area.

Edited February 16, 2017 by user1000

[Jock Tamson]

I think the bugging out behaviour, in urban environments in particular, is probably the most frustrating.  I would prefer more nuance - sometimes crawling out of the back edge of buildings rather than the full on dash out into the open across the street and line of fire.

[IICptMillerII]

1 hour ago, user1000 said:

Not true man. The Germans had been there since 1940.. No training could prepare them for the bocage country. Look man, you basically had kids right out of highschool versus veteran German soldiers, that had been fighting  and gaining experience against the Soviets long before the normandy landings. Take a look at the officer deaths on the first couple of weeks after landing very high, some instance whole units had to be replaced. The education costs lives in that area.

Yes, the bocage country did lend a massive advantage to the defender. But thats about where it stops. 

First off, many of the German units defending the Normandy section of the Atlantic Wall were of very poor quality. Many were Osttruppen, men from the Eastern front forced to fight for the Germans. They were meagerly equipped and poorly trained. They were occupation troops, nothing more. Many of the regular German units in the area were also of either depleted strength or ability, or both. There is a reason they were posted to backwater garrison duty, and not off at the front fighting. Plus, the best of the German coastal defense forces were all in Calais where the Germans believed the inevitable invasion would come. The best German units did not arrive in the fighting for Normandy until July or later, with units such as the Panzer Lehr and others forming the best of what the German army had to offer in mid 1944. 

The reason the Germans were able to put up such resistance in Normandy is not because they were highly trained veterans. This is a myth. The reason the Germans were able to put up such heavy resistance in Normandy was due to the terrain. Ask anyone with military experience and they will tell you; "terrain dictates." You do not need a highly trained veteran soldier to defend narrow killing fields. You just need a guy with a machine gun, which is what the Germans did have a lot of in Normandy, and plenty of other places in WWII. Yes, there were elite German units in Normandy, like the 6th fallschirmjager division, but you will note that not only did they fail to prevent the fall of St Lo to the 29th ID (a supposedly weak and poorly trained force of high schoolers) but they were nearly completely annihilated in the process. Many other German units suffered the same fate. The 352nd Grenadier division, also opposing the 29th ID and defending from Omaha to St Lo, where also nearly annihilated. In fact they were so bloodied that the 352nd Grenadiers was disbanded and reformed as the 352nd Volksgrenadiers for the Battle of the Bulge.

Casualty rates for the US were quite high, but that is entirely to do with the nature of the terrain they were fighting through and how much it benefited the defenders. Poor tactics/training was NOT the reason for the high casualty rates. Again, this myth has been debunked many times over now. In fact, if anything US soldiers showed great tactical flexibility and ingenuity. From developing various ways to cut through bocage, to developing entire doctrine on the fly on how to attack through bocage country, the Normandy campaign is many times cited as an example of how well Americans can adapt to new and strange battles and problems. 

During both WWI and WWII officers in line units suffered much higher casualties proportionally than their enlisted counterparts did. This is generally true for all major armies engaged. (Besides the Soviets, as I do not know about their officer casualty rates) These high casualty rates among officers was a constant throughout the war, not just in Normandy. 

I already mentioned that a lot of the units on garrison coastal duty in Normandy were not the best that the German army had to offer, or were sent there to train and refit after suffering heavy losses somewhere else in the war. So no, many of them were not long term veterans of the Eastern front, or the fall of France in 1940. Besides if they were all made up of veterans who had been fighting since 1939, then their combat efficiency would actually be WORSE. Soldiers peak in their battlefield ability (if they survive long enough to) and then begin a rather drastic decrease the longer they are forced to stay on the battlefield, on a timescale of months and years, not individual battles. The British 7th Armored Division, the famed Desert Rats, are a prime example of this. They had been fighting the war all over since 1940, but by 1944 they were so combat ineffective that they were taken off the line (after their poor performance in operation Goodwood) and broken up. This is because they had passed their peak, and had been on the battlefield for far too long without adequate rest and recuperation. Every nation suffered from this as the war dragged on, especially the Germans. All of this is to say that just because a unit has been fighting since the first panzers rolled into Poland DOES NOT make them an extremely good, combat efficient unit, and if anything it degrades their overall combat capability. 

 

Oh and for the record, no, highschoolers did NOT make up the majority of the units who landed at Normandy or who continued the fight across France. The average age of a US soldier in WWII was 25, not 17-18. Yes, many 17-18 (and in some cases even younger than that) fought and died on the Allied side, but it was not the average. Plus, even if they were all highschoolers, they had years of training before hitting the beaches of Normandy. So either way you cut it, they were not "fresh out of high school."

Edited February 16, 2017 by IICptMillerII

[John Kettler]

Apropos of the GI in combat, I strongly commend to your attention the excellent (and frequently horrifying) The Deadly Brotherhood: The American Soldier in World War II. It's by John C. McManus and is one of the most significant and important books I've read on the war. If you read it, I believe you'll emerge with a whole new perspective on the combat grunt's end of things. It got great reviews and richly deserved them.

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited February 16, 2017 by John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

58 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

I already mentioned that a lot of the units on garrison coastal duty in Normandy were not the best that the German army had to offer, or were sent there to train and refit after suffering heavy losses somewhere else in the war. So no, many of them were not long term veterans of the Eastern front, or the fall of France in 1940.

And there was another factor: In order to try to get the Atlantic Wall completed in time, Rommel had the divisional soldiers engaged in building obstacles and laying mines. They had very little time or energy to do much military training.

Michael

[Rinaldi]

2 hours ago, user1000 said:

Not true man. The Germans had been there since 1940.. No training could prepare them for the bocage country. Look man, you basically had kids right out of highschool versus veteran German soldiers, that had been fighting  and gaining experience against the Soviets long before the normandy landings. Take a look at the officer deaths on the first couple of weeks after landing very high, some instance whole units had to be replaced. The education costs lives in that area.

Good God where do we even begin with this? Max Hastings, is that you?

1) Most of the units facing Allied landings on D-Actual had next to no experience on the Eastern Front and those that did were normally cadred (re: 1.SS NCOs and Junior Officers placed with the otherwise green 12.SS) a practice common to all belligerents that helped give practical touches to otherwise abstract training. Most of the German units were as 'inexperienced' as the Allies landing across from them - the 12.SS and the 3rd Canadian Infantry divisions were going into battle for the first time and both were able to beat the absolute tar out of one another. This is what happens when you have two well trained and motivated units battle with one another, irrespective of terrain or experience.

1a) The statement 'nothing could prepare them for bocage country' works both ways - the Germans had planned to stop the Allies anywhere but in the bocage country. Without delving into the Rommel-Rundstedt debate in great detail, needless to say niether of them expected or prepared to fight in broken country. One wanted to defeat them on the beaches, the other wanted to destroy them in the interior. Niether plan worked. The compromise between them worked even less. The Germans had all the advantadges of the defender multiplied so much more so - and for all their veterancy and 'offensive spirit' when they rode into the bocage in the counterattack they suffered as poorly if not more so than the Allies. If anything, late operations like Luttich suggest that, offensively, the Germans learned very few lessons in tactical approaches to attacking in bocage.

2) The Americans had been fighting and gaining experience against the Germans since well before the Normandy landings as well...the statement that Kasserine was the best thing to ever have happened to the US Army isn't hyperbole.

3) Officer deaths for the Germans were equally atrocious - they lost several general officers before the end of the first week of fighting alone. The erosion of experience based on Junior officer deaths is a dubious claim at best - men promoted from the ranks had practical experience in bocage fighting and often learned hard lessons from the deaths and injuries of their predecessors.

----

On topic now:

I agree with IICptMillerII. The increase in self preservation is a welcome benefit - and I've found it no easier to exploit. The AI rarely make poor choices, and its better than their previous habit of fleeing an arbitrary amount of meters to go face down in a field. At least now they seek new, feasible cover. To punish them breaking positions you still have to maneuver. Overall, its a vast improvement. My current match has a lot of poorly motivated, poorly trained enemy troops who have clung to positions for much longer than the doomsayers suggest they would with 4.0 AI, and those that did fall back, fell back right across the street, into new cover. Where they then menaced me all over again. Top marks, frankly. Much more entertaining than walking into a building to see 9 corpses heaped in a corner from HE fire.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Rinaldi

[user1000]

Yeap uhuh, and that's why they didn't weld the culin cutter until after hardship in the bocage, or sink into the bottom of the water from heavy gear. Things like this they sure knew all about in training huh.

Edited February 16, 2017 by user1000

[Rinaldi]

wew lad

[IICptMillerII]

15 minutes ago, user1000 said:

or sink into the bottom of the water from heavy gear. Things like this they sure knew all about in training huh.

So no sailor in any navy has ever drowned? Oh wait, many sailors in many navies have drowned? How can this be?!?!?! Didn't they realize they were on a ship, in a profession in which it is possible that at some point they could get wet, or even submerged in water? How can this be?

Seriously, your statement is silly. Yes men drowned on the beaches. So did paratroopers who landed in flooded fields. Germans starved to death at Stalingrad despite having been at war with the Soviets for over a year at that point. Hadn't they learned the importance of food? I can go on and on but I won't as its not worth my time. 

For the record, the soldiers who landed on the beaches did have flotation devices on. Some failed to function, others were damaged by battle, and yet others were not enough to help the men who had too much equipment weighing them down. Paratroopers also wore live preservers in case the plane went down over the channel, and again these were prone to all the possibilities of failure. 

Sure, no one can know all the eventualities of war, or regular life for that matter, but to propose that those who lead the invasion were utterly unaware/incompetent to the extreme is pure stupidity. No one on a strategic level blunders into or through these things, despite how historians sometimes wish to portray the affairs of warfare to add some dramatic spice to their texts. 

By all means contribute something worthy of discussion, but spare us your overly absurd two sentence statements. 

19 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

wew lad

wew lad indeed

 

 

[user1000]

Getting back at op, I think of it as a fun challenge to try and control the green horns. Although I see how it can be pretty frustrating.

Edited February 17, 2017 by user1000

[JoMac]

On Thursday, February 16, 2017 at 1:26 AM, IICptMillerII said:

My one criticism of the new system is that sometimes when the units displace, they choose poor routes that take them through enemy fire, or across dangerously exposed ground. In urban settings, sometimes they flee towards the enemy, or flee to buildings that are occupied by the enemy, or are worse off than the building they left. Also, units in buildings under artillery fire tend to flee more often than I think they should. After all it is generally safer to be inside than out in the open while under bombardment, but currently pixeltruppen seem to disregard this and break for it once the shells start landing. 

I agree with Cpt Miller, and as a whole also like the new changes in v4, especially the AI evade with fall backs under heavy Small Arms or direct HE (thou, I still have some reservations)...However, in saying that I also don't think a platoon/Company that is suppose to hold a Town/City/Foxholes/Trenches is going to evade that quickly and in most cases in same turn under an Arty Strike (unless said Unit is receiving several turns of it and finally breaks due to Moral).

Evade is different from Breaking due to Moral loss...Units in Open or light cover should Evade fairly easily to find more appropriate cover, but troops in Heavy Cover generally wont evade, but rather eventually Break due to Moral loss (or if player decides to use the red button evade order in the UI).                                                                                                                                     

So, if BF can tweak it so that there is something like two catagories; One catagory is for Open (open or light cover) that will use Evade, and other catagory is for Moderate to Heavy Cover that will need to use actual Moral loss to drive troops out of cover. This I think will make the system work alittle better.

And, like Cpt. Miller I'm experimenting with higher Quality Troops to compensate for the above until I'm satisfied.

Joe

 

Edited February 17, 2017 by JoMc67

[IICptMillerII]

A little trick I discovered back in V3:

Any unit you want to hold its ground, give it an indefinite pause command. This essentially prevents them from running/evading, even if they're taking direct HE fire. The downside here is that if you give a unit a pause command and then it becomes very obvious that they should fall back, you have to wait until the next command phase to do so. It also obviously doesn't apply to the AI, so if you're having an issue of enemy troops breaking and running, there isn't anything you can do about it. 

It is a nice stop-gap though. I've found it to be very useful to use on units that I need to stay in position for their own safety, such as trenches and foxholes. Buildings too to a lesser extent. 

I'm sure we will see further tweaks to the TacAI as we move forward, and as I already said I think that the new features are by and large improvements over the old system. 

[A Canadian Cat]

Sounds interesting. Do you need to give them a move command and the pause or is just the pause all by itself enough?

[MOS:96B2P]

39 minutes ago, IanL said:

Sounds interesting. Do you need to give them a move command and the pause or is just the pause all by itself enough?

If the troops are stationary that turn you can use the instant Pause command a permanently Pause them.  If they move during the turn and you assign the Pause to a waypoint then you have to use the Special Pause command and give the Pause in increments.  The following turn you can go back and permanently Pause them with the instant command.     

[IICptMillerII]

1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:

If the troops are stationary that turn you can use the instant Pause command a permanently Pause them.  If they move during the turn and you assign the Pause to a waypoint then you have to use the Special Pause command and give the Pause in increments.  The following turn you can go back and permanently Pause them with the instant command.     

This perfectly sums it up!

[kulik242]

I have yet to play V4, but as for breaking under fire for all CMx2 games, I hate how the soldiers break "stand up-wait-slowly pivot to desired direction-wait-run". I get that what I see is not 1:1 what's happening, but I always scream on my screen seeing this.