Feature request, skirmish/assault.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I will start with the usual comments that I will remain just as big a fan of CM with or without my request being accepted. I have followed CM since there were 200 posts on the forum and believe it lived up to the hype in very way.

However, and there always is a "however", in the "best of all possible worlds" I would like to see a feature added that in effect was there 80%-90% but was then removed by a patch.

What I would like to see is an infantry movement command which in the UK we would call "skirmish" but you may call "assault" in the US, I am not sure.

This is what I mean by skirmish.

1) Troops move with great caution, slowly making use of all available cover. In reality they would be stopping for short periods and then rushing forward. A form of bounding movement.

2) The troops in a squad would be separated by 7-10 paces, but not necessarily in the horizontal plane.

3) The squad would have a high propensity to engage targets.

4) The squad would have a high determination to reach the point it was commanded to move to, but of course within the usual morale limits.

This is largely what "Sneak" was before it became "movement to contact". Presently it is possible to come close to reproducing "skirmish" but you have to micro-manage the movement. The great thing about "sneak" as it was, and "hunt" for AFVs as it still is,is that it enables you to play the game at the platoon level. You do not "have to" play it at the squad level. This is possible because of the stunningly high quality of the TacAI. When I give a platoon of tanks the hunt command I know what follows will be realistic, I am not forced to micro-manage things unless I wish to or there is some crisis. This was the case with the "sneak" command until the patch changed things. When I first got the game I set up a number of scenarios to test the game. I was stunned by the result, I realised CM was really a simulation in the true meaning of the word. I could give a platoon the sneak command and unless there was a crisis I could by confident the TacAI would handle things. The fact that I would sometimes have to spend 5-10 turns reoganising after some crisis I liked as I felt it accurately represented the need to give "command time" to a given company or platoon. The problem now is that you cannot play the infantry game at the hands off platoon level the way you can tanks with the use of the hunt command.

I would not like to see the "sneak" command returned to what it was as clearly there was a demand from others for "sneak" to mean movement to contact, also clearly that is what Charles and Steve believe it should be and they are the boss. What I would like to see is a "skirmish" movement command added, in the perfect world. This would restore the infantry battle in CM to a true platoon level for those that wish to play at that level, as is the case with tanks.

Thanks for your time,

all the best,

Kip.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Clearly I am missing something here. What is it that you specifically cannot do with the Sneak command? I personally have not noted any change of behavior, but I could have possibly just not have ever used it in the manner that you did. I would be interested to know what's going on.

Michael

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I probably did not make clear that what I am after is a command that does everything that "sneak" does but with a higher amount of determination to reach the location the squad or platoon was commanded to sneak to. In one of the patches, it may be three or four, Charles stated that "sneak" has been changed to be more like "movement to contact". That when a unit is fired on it is likely to stop in cover and just return fire, it will not press on as before. I took him at his word and have not really used sneak much since. I used to use it almost always when in contact because units seemed to me to behave as if they were "skirmishing" and would press on while returning fire. I have not seen the numbers behind the "move" and "sneak" commands but take it the "move" command assumes less effort to make full use of cover. This is not the way men would move when assaulting an enemy village or tree line. They would move causiously, making full use of cover, return fire (in theory anyway)and press on to the objective within the normal limits of morale. This what I am looking for and currently neither move nor sneak really cover it given the changes Charles made to the sneak command.

All the best,

Kip.

[Keith]

I disagree with your request for a new feature. The behavior that you described can be commanded by the player through the proper timing of movement commands. Bounding movement, also known as fire and movement, can be achieved by alternating the movement of squads and platoons. Such planning marks the difference between a good player and an average player. In short, the behavior you want is currently in the system.

[M Hofbauer]

Keith,

does that mean you are voting for the removal of the hunt command?

because according to your reasoning, it is superfluous, as nearly the same effect can be achieved using the method you prescribe for the infantry hunt mode.

-------------

"Im off to NZ police collage" (GAZ_NZ)

[This message has been edited by M Hofbauer (edited 09-15-2000).]

[jshandorf]

I geuss I have had the same "problem" of sorts. Currently you can "press on" to an object and yet have your troops fight using cover and what not.

If you tell them to "Move" they just move on to the waypoint. If they encounter resistance they return fire but continue to move without seeking cover.

Sneak on the other hand implies the troops are moving at a slow quiet pace looking for contact. If they take fire they stop, seek cover and return fire.

It would be nice to have a command that if they take fire they take cover and return fire but, if they stop taking fire they continue to "sneak" towards the waypoint.

So basically what happens is that say for instance you have a line of infantry sneaking up on a forest line. Lets say that there is a MG squad in the tree line. That MG squad opens up on one of your squads. That squad then stops, seeks cover, and returns fire. Meanwhile all your other squads continue to sneak towards the target ALSO firing on the MG squad. Lets say the MG squad switches targets to some other squad. That new squad then stops, seeks cover, and continues to return fire. MEANWHILE the previous squad that was taking fire gets up and continues to move on the objective and also fire on the MG squad.

The reason this would be useful is that you can move your troops to an waypoint and if they encounter resistance and destroy it in the same turn they will then get up and continue on to their waypoint. Currently the units that engaged, the now destroyed target, just sit there until you can give them orders again to sneak forward again.

Does this makes sense?

Jeff

[Hamstersss]

I agree that a command like this would be useful, as well as realistic. Micromanagement of troop movement is not fun (For me) nor is it realistic.

"Anderson, move Jackson's squad up 30 yards, turn him left, sneak up another 5 yards, run 3 yards, move into the scrub for 5 yards, crawl to the woods 10 yards away, turn right, and run for the pines. Now, MacPherson's squad needs to..."

As opposed to:

"Anderson, assault that hill!"

I know, a little exaggerated, but it illustrates the point.

------------------

Did someone compare this to the Ealing comedies? I've shot people for less.

-David Edelstein

[Bullethead]

OK, I'm confused . To try to sort this out, I will begin by stating what I think each of the various movement commands do at present (1.05). If these are wrong, tell me.

Sneak: Slow movement of whole squad abstracting individuals moving cover to cover with some degree of stealth. If the squad encounters the enemy, emphasis becomes firing as much as possible. Squad will usually still move, but probably not very far. IIRC, in prior versions Sneak had much less emphasis on shooting.

Move: Slightly faster movement of whole squad abstracting fireteam rushes from cover to cover. It is NOT just standing up and walking. Still fairly good at avoiding casualties during movement, but not quite as good at this as Sneak. If the enemy is encountered, squad will continue moving as ordered and may or may not fire. Usually does, but not as much as with Sneak.

Fast: Balls-out running with thought for neither cover nor returning fire. Covers ground rapidly but at high risk, plus causes fatigue.

Crawl: Very slow movement seeking to gain the maximum use of any cover along path. Emphasis is on moving and fire is not returned.

So, it seems to me we have a command for all occasions. With Fast and Crawl, you sacrifice firepower for extreme speed and extreme defense, respectively. Sneak and Move, OTOH, are compromises giving different proportions of fire, movement, and cover. Sneak has less movement but more fire and cover, while Move has less fire and cover but more motion. Which you use depends on the situation, and that requires using proper tactics.

Now, looking at Jeff's example of the troops moving across the field.... I don't this example is a good reason to change any of the above commands, because it does not appear to illustrate correct tactics. Instead of moving the entire force across the field at once, there should instead be units left behind in overwatch to cover the advance. So when the MG unmasks, the overwatching units start suppressing it while the rest continue their advance.

To do this, give the advancing elements Move orders and just face the overwatchers in the right direction. When the advancing units complete their Move, they will be in grenade range of the MG. Once the treeline is secured, the advancers pause in a hasty perimeter while the overwatchers come across.

Moving an entire force across an open field at once is risky in real life. Of course, it's faster than the bounding overwatch, so there's one of those terrible, life-or-death trade-offs commanders have to make 24/7. But the point is, if you decide to move everybody at once and take fire in the open, you should be at a disadvantage, as you are in real life. Thus, I don't think changing how commands work to make this situation easier is a good idea.

------------------

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[David Aitken]

Is skirmishing a tactic you'd expect Second World War line troops to employ? To return fire and press on regardless would require a lot of training and a lot of guts.

Anyway, when sneaking troops encounter the enemy, does their 'sneak' command disappear? Will they never resume their advance unless ordered?

David

------------------

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Its clear from this thread and others on the subject of the "sneak" command that there are a lot of people that feel it needs a tweak. The problem is that we want to tweak it in different directions. I would like to see it tweaked in such a way that a platoon given the command sneak has a high propensity to acquire targets and fire on them but then moves on with determination towards its objective. Others would like the opposite, they would like it to become out and out "movement to contact".

Tweaking the sneak command in such a way that it becomes a genuine "movement to contact" and then adding a skirmish command to the list would keep everyone, or most people happy.

I feel I should add that I do not want to take away any ones ability to micro-manage the assault of a given platoon. However I know from the quality of the TacAI that Charles and Steve could give us the option of playing the game from the platoon level by adding the skirmish/assualt command, like hunt for tanks. Only "having to" micro-manage if there was a crisis and things went wrong, say due to an artillery strike on the assaulting platoon.

All the best,

Kip.

[jshandorf]

Bullethead,

I agree moving across an open field is dangerous without overwatch but the same problem can be illustrated with moving through cover.

For example: (this one actually happened to me)

I had a couple of platoons moving through a very large scattered trees. There was a smoke screen to thier left covering thier movement from an enemy MG squad in the distance. Upon the "sneak" advance the entire force encountered a single mortar squad. About 3 squads stopped and quickly killed the mortar team. The remainder of the force kept just moving on. They never actually stopped sneaking. The units that did engage the mortar stayed in the position they took up when they killed the mortar team. Meanwhile the rest of the 2 platoons moved on with out them and into the heavier forest cover about 30 meters off.

Meanwhile by the end of the turn the smoke screen drops enough so that the enemy MG sqquad can now fire on those 3 squads that stayed in position.

Next turn I had to re-order them to move out to catch up with the rest of the platoons. BUT they now took MG fire.

Therefore it would have been nice for the squads to CONTINUE along with thier sneak orders AFTER the enemy mortar team was destroyed.

It is the same as the hunt command. A tank will hunt. When it engages a target anfd kills it it moves on with its hunt order.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-15-2000).]

[David Aitken]

kipanderson wrote:

> The problem is that we want to tweak it in different directions.

I think this is a good reason to leave it the way it is. Having a command for every different possible kind of movement is just going to make the game unnecessarily confusing. Five different movement orders (Move, Run, Sneak, Crawl, Withdraw) is quite enough.

David

------------------

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 09-15-2000).]

[kipanderson]

hi,

just to answer David's question, would I expect WW2 troops to skirmish?

The answer is yes I would, at least that is what they would be trying to do in all armies.

Even the Soviets in their after action reports on the fighting in 1941 make it clear that what they are after is skirmishing. The Soviet infantry manual of November 1942 covering the squad to the company is as close as you can get to pure skirmishing, given the ground it covers. The German squad manual is also pure skirmishing, as were all the British "battle drills".

The extent to which troops actually fired when advancing is open to debate but some of the latest research takes the view that the SA Marshall view that troops actually fired very little was over stated.

All the best,

Kip.

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

kipanderson wrote:

> The problem is that we want to tweak it in different directions.

I think this is a good reason to leave it the way it is. Having a command for every different possible kind of movement is just going to make the game unnecessarily confusing. Five different movement orders (Move, Run, Sneak, Crawl, Withdraw) is quite enough.

David

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

David,

I am not suggesting a new movement order. I am just saying that it would be nice for the sneaking unit to continue with it's sneak order when it is NOT being fired upon. I think that makes sense.

Jeff

[Malmvig]

I think that the proper word would be Engage not Skirmish. Have yo played to much SB lately? I agree with your point of view however. When playing CM, I sometimes want to put my mobile scout units to some use. Therefore I set a couble of waypoints around every obstracle in the scouts path to the rear end of enemy lines. What I had hoped for but don't get is, that when these units gets into throuble they redraw to a safe place as soon as they realise they are outnumbered. The Sneak command cannot be used effectivly with mobile scout units because performing scout missions also relys on speed. You want to learn about the enemy territory and his positions before he can deploy his units. But you also want your mobile scouts to be alive long enough to collect this information. In CM you always need to make a decision whatever you want to move you scouts fast or, you want to move them safe. Put a waypoint too far ahead and they are toasted.

------------------

Malmvig

I'am not leaving either

[Bullethead]

Malmvig said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In CM you always need to make a decision whatever you want to move you scouts fast or, you want to move them safe.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that's how it is in real life . The faster something moves, the more likely it is to catch the eye or make noise. So I don't see this as a problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I had hoped for but don't get is, that when these units gets into throuble they redraw to a safe place as soon as they realise they are outnumbered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I see it, the decision on whether to fight or flee is left to you, the player. Scouts ALWAYS get into trouble--that's the whole reason you send them out there in the first place. They die so that others (the majority of your force) may live. Also, when you get ambushed, running away is almost always a bad idea. Usually, your only hope is to try to shoot back as hard as you can. Units in the game are assumed to know this, having gone to virtual bootcamp. Thus, it would be unrealistic for them to act otherwise.

Also, what you want here is for the AI to make some rather complex tactical decisions and generate new movement orders for the unit on the spot based on the results of these decisions. I don't know if such a thing is possible. CM obviously already does something similar with a 1-on-1 basis, such as a Sherman popping smoke and retreating when it sees a Panther. But that's a lot simpler a situation than having some random team/squad out scouting and meeting whatever happens to be there. There would be no hard and fast, or at least easily discernable, rules for the AI to apply.

Plus, even if this was possible to code, it would create another problem. How would the AI know your unit, drawn from the ranks of your entire force, is a "scout" as opposed to a line troop? If the AI was changed so that grunts always retreated when faced with superior numbers, then how would you ever be able to deliberately order such actions when you need them like you do in every battle?

Jeff said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>it would have been nice for the squads to CONTINUE along with thier sneak orders AFTER the enemy mortar team was destroyed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, you got a point here. It seems to me that once the shooting stops, the would-be Sneakers have something similar to the normal new-orders delay before they start moving again. The Sneak order is still in effect from the previous turn, they're just not doing it immediately. HOWEVER, IMHO this is very realistic.

Think about it from the perspective of the troops. You've just been in a firefight. You might have taken casualties that need bandaging. You for sure have to reload. And you REALLY want to make sure those other bastards are really all dead or gone before you get up and start moving again. This all takes some time.

------------------

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[David Aitken]

jshandorf wrote:

> I am not suggesting a new movement order.

I was addressing kip's comments...

kipanderson wrote:

> Tweaking the sneak command in such a way that it becomes a genuine "movement to contact" and then adding a skirmish command to the list would keep everyone, or most people happy.

David

------------------

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[Malmvig]

Your right but I didn't formulate my answer as good as I want it to be. There is a word for aggresive reconnaissance (Oh my why haven't you got an english term for that, all that french spelling make hurt my keyboard) - recon! Thats it! Aggresive recon is when you are sending a force to perform recon activity. Their prime task is to get in contact with the enemy and if it's weak enemy, smash through. However - if the enemy are strong, retreate back to defensive positions and wait for backup. This behaveour is also called Engage. That really what it's all about: Strong armored units performing recon mission to round up the enemy force so it can feel the hammer of arty or hwy tanks. Not all scout missions at nature needed to be weak in force. It depends all about whom playing their cards.

What really matters is - did the aposing forces had this kind of Aggresive recon as doctrine back in WWII?

Enough of this - back to CM. What would be peferrable is a way to instruct your unit to move fast and get into contact with the enemy, if the enemy is stong - fall back. It's quite simple. What I really think this thread is all about is to simplify micromanagement.

In my opionion it is not my first priority for the wishlist for CM2 but together with an extended command list it would sure be handy to have near by. Taking that into consideration I agree with the originally poster of this subject.

------------------

Malmvig

I'am not leaving either

[Bullethead]

Malmvig said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not all scout missions at nature needed to be weak in force.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, now you're talking a totally different situation, like at least a full platoon. You want this group of units to act in concert in some automatic way based on all the variables in the tactical situation.

I don't think this is something CM can do. I have seen no real evidence of a collective AI that can control a whole platoon as a signle entity, as opposed to controlling each sub-unit individually. The AI seems to only deal with individual units. If that particular unit gets in trouble, it will run away and leave all its buddies hanging.

------------------

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Malmvig:

...did the aposing forces had this kind of Aggresive recon as doctrine back in WWII?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Germans certainly did. The recon battalions of the Panzer and Panzer Grenadier divisions were armed to the teeth and intent on bloody murder. Among the Alllies, the SAS, though much more lightly armed, were also very aggressive.

Michael