Infantry in buildings just won't die.. (and now they won't run away either..)

[JoMac]

On 11/10/2020 at 11:10 AM, holoween said:

They didn't toughen up their morale they simply disabled retreating from buildings making them deathtraps against competent opponents.

And now those Deathtrap Houses are like Bunkers against Attackers...Every House will need to be cleared, causing even more unnecessary and unrealistic casualties for both sides...So, who needs Moral Checks anyways...Sigh. 

[Zveroboy1]

I don't get the deathtrap thing.

Deathtrap for the AI defending in the house? Isn't it is better for the AI to be inside than two action squares away in the open facing the wrong way half the time? Because as Bulletpoint said they never pulled back into cover before unless there was some cover conveniently located behind the building which happens sometimes but it is just an accident.

Now in cover or not, you will have to deal with the defenders in any case. So they will most likely die in both cases. And they will die a lot more easily in the open. If they pulled back to a second position in cover, you would also have to deal with them and kill them too. So you mean unnecessary casualties for the attacker really which sounds a bit odd to me. Because if the AI could perform a pull back to a secondary fighting position in good cover which is lets face it not easy even for a human, then it would be harder to root out and you would end up with more casualties for the attacker, not less.

The only way you would have less casualties is if they either withdrew a long way or surrendered.

For a human player it is a only a deathtrap if you decide to stay. Or you guys mean if you catch HE fire in the middle of a turn before you can manually order the withdrawal?

Edited November 22, 2020 by Zveroboy1

[Vergeltungswaffe]

2 hours ago, IICptMillerII said:

Shooting at a house for a whole day is literally historically accurate. Why do you think the US had to roll in 155mm self propelled guns to blast buildings at point blank range occupied by the enemy? Or the Soviets who had to create giant armored beheamoths to assist them with leveling buildings in urban warfare, fighting against Germans with no fall back orders who would refuse to give up the city block? Because you cannot shoot an enemy off of a position, especially in urban warfare. This is as true today as it was in 1944. I have no idea where the idea came from that all you have to do is fire a handful of rounds at an enemy position and they will just run away, but it is just flat out not true. 

No artificial intelligence is self aware enough to be able to realistically displace itself constantly, seeking new and better cover with all of the considerations that come into play. So the argument that the previous behavior was correct but just not properly implimented is a non starter. BFC is too small a company to develop an AI that would literally change the face of artificial intelligence. A human opponent remains the only true way to get the most accurate experience, but then again that assumes the person you play against knows what the hell they are doing. Many do not. 

Green troops with low motivation should absolutely stay in place. No one, regardless of training, is dumb enough to decide "hey, there are thousands of rounds flying around right above my head. Better run out into the open in the middle of it all cause that is the safer move!" It is completely nonsensical. Further, poorly trained troops are much less likely to be well trained enough to realize that they need to shoot, move and communicate in a firefight, let alone have enough training to actually pull it off.

Realistically, the behavior makes no sense. From a technical standpoint, it is not possible. 

/thread

 

[holoween]

3 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

And now those Deathtrap Houses are like Bunkers against Attackers...Every House will need to be cleared, causing even more unnecessary and unrealistic casualties for both sides...So, who needs Moral Checks anyways...Sigh. 

If youre taking heavy casualties while clearing buildings youre doing it wrong.

 

 

3 hours ago, Zveroboy1 said:

For a human player it is a only a deathtrap if you decide to stay. Or you guys mean if you catch HE fire in the middle of a turn before you can manually order the withdrawal?

Being pinned cancels your movement orders with the only excepton being the retreat command. Since they disabled the retreat command for buildings you now have no way of extracting pinned units from buildings. 

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, holoween said:

Being pinned cancels your movement orders with the only excepton being the retreat command. Since they disabled the retreat command for buildings you now have no way of extracting pinned units from buildings. 

I think this might be a misunderstanding.

The only thing the retreat command does is to automatically place a FAST movement order. The only reason it's there is for convenience in realtime play where you can bind it to a hotkey to quickly order retreats.

If your team is so pinned that this command doesn't work, you won't be able to do it manually, and vice versa.

So, in the case of teams in builings, now that the retreat command doesn't work, you can still order the movement manually. If your team is able to, they will retreat.

Edited November 22, 2020 by Bulletpoint

[Bozowans]

On 11/21/2020 at 9:19 PM, IICptMillerII said:

Shooting at a house for a whole day is literally historically accurate. Why do you think the US had to roll in 155mm self propelled guns to blast buildings at point blank range occupied by the enemy? Or the Soviets who had to create giant armored beheamoths to assist them with leveling buildings in urban warfare, fighting against Germans with no fall back orders who would refuse to give up the city block? Because you cannot shoot an enemy off of a position, especially in urban warfare. This is as true today as it was in 1944. I have no idea where the idea came from that all you have to do is fire a handful of rounds at an enemy position and they will just run away, but it is just flat out not true. 

No artificial intelligence is self aware enough to be able to realistically displace itself constantly, seeking new and better cover with all of the considerations that come into play. So the argument that the previous behavior was correct but just not properly implimented is a non starter. BFC is too small a company to develop an AI that would literally change the face of artificial intelligence. A human opponent remains the only true way to get the most accurate experience, but then again that assumes the person you play against knows what the hell they are doing. Many do not. 

Green troops with low motivation should absolutely stay in place. No one, regardless of training, is dumb enough to decide "hey, there are thousands of rounds flying around right above my head. Better run out into the open in the middle of it all cause that is the safer move!" It is completely nonsensical. Further, poorly trained troops are much less likely to be well trained enough to realize that they need to shoot, move and communicate in a firefight, let alone have enough training to actually pull it off.

Realistically, the behavior makes no sense. From a technical standpoint, it is not possible. 

I agree with this 100%. The way you could just sit back and shoot enemies off of hard cover before was silly. In real life it could take hours just to clear out a single apartment building. 

I'm reminded of the book The Forgotten Soldier by Guy Sajer. He remembered spending much of his time in combat cowering in a terrified, delusional stupor at the bottom of his hole, unable to react or do anything except lie there while the bullets and explosions crashed around outside. He wrote that a lot of his memories of combat were just a blur because of it.

Green or conscript troops should certainly not be running around all over the place whenever they get shot at. I never liked how so many of the battles in Shock Force 2 consisted of the western forces shooting the poor hapless Syrians in the back as they ran away from their positions over and over. Every battle would end in a slaughter. I've always wanted the AI in CM to be more likely to cower and surrender, and less likely to run away. Now it seems I've gotten my wish.

If I put myself in the shoes of a Syrian conscript, handed a rifle, thrown into a hole in the ground and then told to fend off the invading army of a foreign superpower, I would probably not want to be running around outside. I imagine I would probably be like Sajer, cowering in the bottom of my hole soiling myself until enemy troops got close enough for me to throw my hands up and surrender.

One of the first scenarios I played with the new patch was a CMSF2 scenario where you're British light infantry attacking a battalion of poor quality Syrian conscripts in a small town. Their poor quality made them easy to suppress with just small arms fire, and since they weren't running away, it made them easy to capture. Most of the scenario involved my slow, exhausted British troops lumbering from building to building in the extreme heat rounding up large groups of prisoners as they went along. I ended up taking more than 100 prisoners overall, more than any other CM scenario I've ever played. It felt very realistic honestly, kinda like what I imagine a lot of the early Iraq War to have been like, with US troops moving from position to position, and after some token resistance, rounding up groups of Iraqi prisoners as they went along.

[Lethaface]

I also like the new behavior with regards to troops in good cover being harder to dislodge (especially without large calibre HE).

The AI can still retreat from positions, depending on the AI plan. I played some missions of the Road to Montebourg (revised) campaign recently (with new behavior) and it actually had some defenses retreating from their line of bocage after I had entered it. 
They had offered good resistance but were suppressed over time by a tank platoon and infantry, allowing me to bound move up to their hedge on the flank and cross inside it. Suppressive fire was kept up until my infantry got to their hedge, this was necessary to stop the defenders thinking it was safe enough to sit up again. Although I have never actually fought in the bocage ;-), it seems much more realistic compared to AI troops leaving their good cover after a bit of suppression.

Like others said, previously the AI would fall back without retreat orders and troops would just either be running through the open to nowhere specific or take position right behind the place they fell back from (usually a lesser position than they had fall back from).

Of course it won't be perfect and in some cases the new behavior might have some downsides. Playing against another human fixes almost all of these things though

Edited November 23, 2020 by Lethaface

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Lethaface said:

I also like the new behavior with regards to troops in good cover being harder to dislodge (especially without large calibre HE).

You can still kill infantry in buildings quite reliably with 37mm HE though.

[Lethaface]

56 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

You can still kill infantry in buildings quite reliably with 37mm HE though.

Yeah perhaps 'large calibre' wasn't the right wording, as also autocannon (20mm+) and quad .50s are also quite capable (still). Although certain buildings are sturdier than others.

Without such heavy weapons it is much harder to effectively defeat dug-in troops. Of course suppression with flanking does work, but not every piece of terrain allows the defenders to get flanked easily.

[Falaise]

On 11/22/2020 at 4:19 AM, IICptMillerII said:

Shooting at a house for a whole day is literally historically accurate. Why do you think the US had to roll in 155mm self propelled guns to blast buildings at point blank range occupied by the enemy? Or the Soviets who had to create giant armored beheamoths to assist them with leveling buildings in urban warfare, fighting against Germans with no fall back orders who would refuse to give up the city block? Because you cannot shoot an enemy off of a position, especially in urban warfare. This is as true today as it was in 1944. I have no idea where the idea came from that all you have to do is fire a handful of rounds at an enemy position and they will just run away, but it is just flat out not true. 

No artificial intelligence is self aware enough to be able to realistically displace itself constantly, seeking new and better cover with all of the considerations that come into play. So the argument that the previous behavior was correct but just not properly implimented is a non starter. BFC is too small a company to develop an AI that would literally change the face of artificial intelligence. A human opponent remains the only true way to get the most accurate experience, but then again that assumes the person you play against knows what the hell they are doing. Many do not. 

Green troops with low motivation should absolutely stay in place. No one, regardless of training, is dumb enough to decide "hey, there are thousands of rounds flying around right above my head. Better run out into the open in the middle of it all cause that is the safer move!" It is completely nonsensical. Further, poorly trained troops are much less likely to be well trained enough to realize that they need to shoot, move and communicate in a firefight, let alone have enough training to actually pull it off.

Realistically, the behavior makes no sense. From a technical standpoint, it is not possible. 

While I was reading the wikipedia francophone about the 2nd battle of Fallujah:

“ We cite the case of one (or more) man who continued to fire at the American military when the building from which he was firing had suffered two air raids and had received 35 artillery rounds of 155 mm, 10 tank rounds. of 120 mm as well as 30,000 projectiles fired by small arms. His action blocked the advance of a company of 150 Marines for an entire day”  [Centre de doctrine d’emploi des forces, op cit.,p60.] 

It should perhaps be avoided that the game does not stick too much to reality or it will be necessary to provide for an extension of time and numerous dumps

[Bulletpoint]

2 minutes ago, Falaise said:

While I was reading the wikipedia francophone about the 2nd battle of Fallujah:

 

“ We cite the case of one (or more) man who continued to fire at the American military when the building from which he was firing had suffered two air raids and had received 35 artillery rounds of 155 mm, 10 tank rounds. of 120 mm as well as 30,000 projectiles fired by small arms. His action blocked the advance of a company of 150 Marines for an entire day”  [Centre de doctrine d’emploi des forces, op cit.,p60.] 

 

It should perhaps be avoided that the game does not stick too much to reality or it will be necessary to provide for an extension of time and numerous dumps

 

I sort of think they might not have been very good at aiming, because I can't imagine many buildings that would not be pulverised by that kind of barrage.

[Falaise]

 

I admit that I also a doubt that's why I added the references !!

But thinking that it depends on the size of the building and that the buildings were heavily fitted out and armored in fallujah

[Bulletpoint]

2 minutes ago, Falaise said:

 

I admit that I also a doubt that's why I added the references !!

But thinking that it depends on the size of the building and that the buildings were heavily fitted out and armored in fallujah

Could also simply be that they had tunnels and kept sending in new suicide candidates to man the ruins.

[FlemFire]

6 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Yeah perhaps 'large calibre' wasn't the right wording, as also autocannon (20mm+) and quad .50s are also quite capable (still). Although certain buildings are sturdier than others.

Without such heavy weapons it is much harder to effectively defeat dug-in troops. Of course suppression with flanking does work, but not every piece of terrain allows the defenders to get flanked easily.

 

Smoke is very powerful for such occasions, though make sure to track the wind direction and deploy it accordingly.

[Lethaface]

28 minutes ago, Khalerick said:

 

Smoke is very powerful for such occasions, though make sure to track the wind direction and deploy it accordingly.

Indeed! smoke can make all the difference and quite some units have smoke rounds availabe, from infantry to vehicles and mortars/artillery.

[chuckdyke]

Use the Snipers Logbook aka DOPE Data Of Personal Equipment. See what works and what doesn't. First the buildings in Combat Mission are hypothetical. Real buildings have more rooms and even cellars some soldiers in real life, line the walls with sandbags and even dig trenches. Binh Ba Vietnam the drill 105 mm Centurions breach the walls of dwelling with HE followed with Cannister after a section will approach the building. 51 years later in Combat Mission try to do the same with 120 mm Abrams no HE and Cannister that was frustrating lol. It is a game if I see an Bradley outside with a squad debussing I will hide. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Area target them with your squad HE weapons or use a Javelin, just like the real guys do:

 

[bf5213]

So I had my own issue with this on the CMFI scenario The Battle for Borgo Cascino. This stone/concrete block building with a squad on the 2nd floor. Now usually infantry in buildings is not a problem if you have something decent to hit them with, however this map is infantry only with only a few bazooka, 60mm mortars and two 30 cal MG.

I have took a few pictures of the building and its location with infantry inside.

The squad inside can see at pretty much every angle and can shoot at a distance of 50-100m depending on where it is looking once the enemy get close enough above the hill. The enemy squad is equipped with MG42, few MP40 and rifles.

I understand how to suppress a building and make the enemy inside pinned but no matter what tactics I used the enemy were able to withstand an assault from multiple sides while being fired upon.

Effectiveness rating -  1 (bad) - 2 (poor) - 3 (balance) - 4 (good) - 5 (excellent)

Standard infantry weapons - 1 (bad) - Minimal suppression, no damage to infantry inside, lack of building penetration

Bazooka (distance medium) - 1 (bad) - Fired 4-5 rockets into building, no damage to infantry inside

30 cal machine gun (distance far) - 2 (poor) - Minor suppression effect but not enough to pin enemy, no damage to infantry inside, lack of building penetration
30 cal machine gun (distance medium/close) - 3 (balance) - Good suppression, some infantry killed or wounded, can pin enemy squad but able to recover quickly. (Note: Friendly mg team took heavy casualties from enemy squad due to distance)

60mm mortar - 1 (bad) - No suppression, no damage to infantry inside. Even direct hits to the building caused no enemy casualties

Smoke + Infantry assault - 1 (bad) - Enemy squad is able to locate and engage friendly infantry (Note: possibly due to the 2nd floor advantage position?) Suffered heavy losses during assault. Multiple directions attempted while suppressive fire is targetting building.

Building > Building infantry firefight (distance medium) - 1 (bad) - Minimal suppression, no damage to infantry inside, lack of building penetration on enemy building. (Note: friendly infantry took heavy casualties vs superior building defence)

 

Anyone care to suggest how this situation can be dealt with effectively because I certainly wasn't able to do so without losing a lot of man power? I can't exactly bypass the building either because it is part of the objective I really want!

Edited December 7, 2020 by bf5213
format

[Pelican Pal]

30 minutes ago, bf5213 said:

Anyone care to suggest how this situation can be dealt with effectively because I certainly wasn't able to do so without losing a lot of man power? I can't exactly bypass the building either because it is part of the objective I really want!

If you have enough forces maybe combine a long distance .30 cal with other suppressing fires that allow you to bring a .30 cal MMG in closer?

 

On 11/21/2020 at 11:06 PM, JoMc67 said:

And now those Deathtrap Houses are like Bunkers against Attackers...Every House will need to be cleared, causing even more unnecessary and unrealistic casualties for both sides...So, who needs Moral Checks anyways...Sigh. 

I'm playing a QB currently and my men aren't leaving buildings but they are surrendering. I suspect often players use motivation/experience that is higher than it usually was creating these sort of "fight to the end" situations.

[Erwin]

You have any SMOKE so as to close in?

[Freyberg]

4 hours ago, bf5213 said:

Anyone care to suggest how this situation can be dealt with effectively because I certainly wasn't able to do so without losing a lot of man power? I can't exactly bypass the building either because it is part of the objective I really want!

You're facing a very small German force. The wind is gentle from the West (your friendly edge), which makes it perfect for blocking a flank with smoke (you can choose when to do this, you don't have much smoke, but whether you use it in your initial approach or when you're assaulting, it will help).

I'd come in from the South, fast, until you have defilade from the elevation on the hills. MG42s are lethal at long range, so move as quick as you can. You'll take some casualties, but if you choose your approach based on the topography, you should be able to minimise exposure at range.

Once in the lea of the hills, you have a lot of room to move. The steep angle of the hills makes it possible to isolate one or two buildings at a time, and you have a TRP, so you can use mortar fire to suppress any massed enemy (and there aren't many of them to mass).

Then, taking it bit by bit, using the terrain to allow you to concentrate on one position (one or two buildings) at a time, get in quite close (150-200m) and pour on the Garand fire as well the MMGs (area fire, but save a few squads or teams to pick out visible targets). You should be able to manoeuvre some assault teams in close, again using the slope of the terrain for cover.

Don't occupy any buildings until you have moved up enough men to occupy them in force - clear them from the outside, using the building as cover from enemy fire from other buildings.

The force ratio is all in your favour. Just make sure you throw everything you can at each target in turn - a platoon of Garands, at the right range, is way more than a match for an MG42.

And be patient, manoeuvre your assault teams with 'hunt' and 'slow', use the crops and vines for concealment. Your optimum range is just outside 100m, where the Garand has good accuracy, you can spot the enemy, but German SMGs are inaccurate. Wait until you think each pocket of Jerries is dead before you bring the assault teams in close. And as you bring the assault teams up, slowly bring some of the fire elements up too, a good 50m or more behind them.

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2020 by Freyberg

[JoMac]

After some more Play Testing I think it now seems ALL COVER has been bumped up, and not just buildings...Once any type of Quality Troops (doesn't matter if Green, or negative Motivation/Leadership) get behind any COVER (maybe including Open Terrain) they tend to stay and Love You Long-Time. 

Also, the final deciding factor of said Enemy Units to Surrender or leave cover is to get within 0 to few Action-Spots (more effectively while they are Suppressed and or have taken heavy casualties). 

Oh, I see now...Think BF decided it was just easier to Hard-Code the 'Unlimited Pause'.

Edited December 8, 2020 by JoMc67

[bf5213]

16 hours ago, Pelican Pal said:

If you have enough forces maybe combine a long distance .30 cal with other suppressing fires that allow you to bring a .30 cal MMG in closer?

 

I'm playing a QB currently and my men aren't leaving buildings but they are surrendering. I suspect often players use motivation/experience that is higher than it usually was creating these sort of "fight to the end" situations.

Honestly I tried to use two 30 cals at a distance to pin the infantry inside and they might as well have been not getting shot at they didn't care one bit. It might have raised their suppression a by one or two bars but nothing amazing to keep their hands down long enough.

12 hours ago, Freyberg said:

You're facing a very small German force. The wind is gentle from the West (your friendly edge), which makes it perfect for blocking a flank with smoke (you can choose when to do this, you don't have much smoke, but whether you use it in your initial approach or when you're assaulting, it will help).

I'd come in from the South, fast, until you have defilade from the elevation on the hills. MG42s are lethal at long range, so move as quick as you can. You'll take some casualties, but if you choose your approach based on the topography, you should be able to minimise exposure at range.

Once in the lea of the hills, you have a lot of room to move. The steep angle of the hills makes it possible to isolate one or two buildings at a time, and you have a TRP, so you can use mortar fire to suppress any massed enemy (and there aren't many of them to mass).

Then, taking it bit by bit, using the terrain to allow you to concentrate on one position (one or two buildings) at a time, get in quite close (150-200m) and pour on the Garand fire as well the MMGs (area fire, but save a few squads or teams to pick out visible targets). You should be able to manoeuvre some assault teams in close, again using the slope of the terrain for cover.

Don't occupy any buildings until you have moved up enough men to occupy them in force - clear them from the outside, using the building as cover from enemy fire from other buildings.

The force ratio is all in your favour. Just make sure you throw everything you can at each target in turn - a platoon of Garands, at the right range, is way more than a match for an MG42.

And be patient, manoeuvre your assault teams with 'hunt' and 'slow', use the crops and vines for concealment. Your optimum range is just outside 100m, where the Garand has good accuracy, you can spot the enemy, but German SMGs are inaccurate. Wait until you think each pocket of Jerries is dead before you bring the assault teams in close. And as you bring the assault teams up, slowly bring some of the fire elements up too, a good 50m or more behind them.

 

 

 

I had no issues getting up close to the building I could easily get 100m out before they fired upon my infantry. I'm pretty sure they are set to fire on a cover arc so they don't open fire at long distance.

I tried with a platoon + 2 mg to try suppress the squad but they would win the direct firefight with ease. Again it comes down to suppression element and I think if you were getting shot at from a platoon + 2x mg + bazooka you would know about it. I know the bazooka can't really show accurate damage like it would to the building IRL but that must have a better effectiveness on infantry targets. Usually against brick building a bazooka is a great tool but this stone one in particular was very resistant to any fire I put on it.

Like I said I usually don't have too much issue with infantry in buildings but this one was particually difficult to budge even with a mass of small arms fire power.

[Bulletpoint]

12 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

After some more Play Testing I think it now seems ALL COVER has been bumped up, and not just buildings...Once any type of Quality Troops (doesn't matter if Green, or negative Motivation/Leadership) get behind any COVER (maybe including Open Terrain) they tend to stay

Can't say I noticed any change. Just finished a large QB and found cover from hedgerows and buildings to be normal. The only difference is that my troops didn't run away from it like headless chickens. At least not before they panicked.

[RockinHarry]

still think isolation of such a strong point and attacking/suppressing from multiple angles works the best. Once the AI is (or feels) cut off from friendlies and more importantly it´s HQ, the AI unit in question is way more likely to throw hands up. That more independent from soft factors, but low morale and minus (-) leaders does it quicker.