Troop Behavior At Night [minor Cheneux spoilers]

[L.Tankersley]

I started the Cheneux scenario, which takes place at night. Visibility is a bit over 50m. I moved my forces up into the area of the first enemy strongpoint. A couple of my units moved too far forward and were wiped out (refusing to fire back because they were "sneaking" ). The next turn, I ordered several units to move up into range of the strongpoint and stop there, behind hedges. During the turn execution, the entire platoon moved up to the hedge and then ran pell-mell into the teeth of enemy fire. One platoon gone. I didn't order them to do this, and I'm wondering why they did it.

2 possibilities come to my mind: First, maybe when they came under fire they decided that the cover of the building occupied by the enemy would be safer than the hedge so they ran towards the better cover (getting massacred in the process). Second, at night these units (many of which are crack or elite) just want to charge the enemy whenever they see them, and ran to their deaths with a battle-cry on their lips.

BTW, the next turn I ordered another platoon to move to the same basic position behind the hedge, and they also charged the enemy position headlong. A few of them survived (like 4 men). Any feedback on why they do this? If they're looking for safety, wouldn't it make more sense to run back into the darkness rather than right into the teeth of the enemy fire? And if they're being aggressive, I think they're being _too_ aggressive - if I want a Pickett's Charge-style affair, I'm capable of ordering it my own self.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[paullus]

Night Combat is a pain in the butt. I tried paintball at night once, and believe me, I will never do it again. You can't see anything, sounds are distorted, and conditions could not be worse for combat.

I'm sure that your troopers might have thought they were running to safety, but as in all combats, you never know what is around the next corner, especially if you can't see more than 10ft in front of you.

[Fionn]

Hedges offer virtually no cover whatsoever.

At night if you put a platoon behind a hedge 40 metres from the enemy and they stay put you'll be lucky if anyone survives more than 30 seconds of enemy fire.

At night you want your men to be in one of two poses.

1. In houses firing at the enemy or on overwatch.

2. Charging as quickly as possible over open ground.

3. If you can't be in houses then woods and tall pines are good enough but pretty much you should ALWAYS gravitate towards houses.

I've just finished a scenario in which I killed over 150 Elite SS troops for the loss of less than 70 of my own ( Vets and Crack) simply because I stayed in houses more than my opponent did AND when he did move he had his halt-positions in scattered trees and woods ( which resulted in me massacring them).

[L.Tankersley]

Understand hedges only offer concealment, which is of somewhat limited additional benefit at night. I'd love to be in buildings -- sadly they all seem to be enemy-held at the moment.

My thinking was to use a significant firepower advantage (2+ platoons firing on what is probably 1 platoon or less) to suppress the defenders and then storm the building with a third platoon. Unfortunately, the guys tasked with doing the suppressing instead just ran toward the enemy building piecemeal and died. Clearly a better-coordinated charge would have more success (although casualties will probably be high anyway).

My real question is what is motivating this behavior on the part of the TacAI? My impression is that it's more self-preservation rather than aggression (seeking better cover) but when this leads you to charge at the cover occupied by the enemy it seems a bit foolish. (I could chalk it up to disorientation, however, I guess.) Just trying to understand what's going on under the hood so I can improve my technique.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[Bullethead]

Tankersley said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>During the turn execution, the entire platoon moved up to the hedge and then ran pell-mell into the teeth of enemy fire. One platoon gone. I didn't order them to do this, and I'm wondering why they did it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have been playing this scenario PBEM. When I first saw this problem, I posted up about it. See the thread "Fanatics at Night". But BTS never responded.

Anyway, I believe the problem here is that both sides have the highest fanaticism rating, which is 50%. This is a severe problem at night or other situations with greatly reduced visibility. The problem is that fanatics apparently are hardwired to charge into close combat if they are attacked at close range, such as the 50m viz range in this scenario.

So say you have a platoon sneaking forward. The point squad comes into view of 1 enemy unit and takes fire. It goes berserk and charges the enemy unit. On the way, it comes into view of all near-by enemy units, who quickly gun your squad down with their huge, point-blank firepower ratings.

While this is going on, the other squads in the platoon are still sneaking and so are left far behind and still invisible. By the time the 1st squad is hosed, another squad has come into view of some enemy unit and is also fired on. It also goes berserk, with the same result. Repeat as needed for the whole platoon.

So there are 2 issues here. One, I think the 50% fanatic thing seems to be innacurate. I my experience, it's closer to 80-90% berserkers at this level. Two, I think the fanaticism thing should be tweaked to take into account situational modifiers such as reduced visibility. I realize this will no doubt be as much of a problem as similar AI tweaks to keep troops from running during shelling, but it needs doing for this type of battle.

The alternative, which I urge all scenario designers to use unless and until fanaticism is patched, is to NOT use fanaticism in low-visibility scenarios. In such cases, it's a significant penalty instead of an advantage.

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

-Bullethead

It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

[Fionn]

Tankersley,

The reason your troops run like that is since they are getting ZERO protection from sitting behind a hedge. A hedge in CM is really just a few low bushes ( no protection at all really).

Basically the TacAI takes over and says " Will I stay here in the open being fired on by the enemy 30 metres away OR should I try to find cover?" It, understandably seeks cover.

As for why they charge FORWARD... Hmm, I've played numerous night cityfighting scenarios and haven't ever once seen this. I advance very methodically and ruthlessly though so maybe your fighting is just more confused than my typical city night-fight?

If I was you I would just make sure that ANY advance in a city has FULLY protected flanks and can't be brought under fire from the flanks. If the enemy is directly in front of you and isolated your men will do well. If they are isolated, taking fire from multiple directions, scared ****less at night and unable to see more than 20 metres in front of them then they are liable to do stupid things .

Cityfighting is an art. Night cityfighting is extremely demanding and is IMO the crown jewel in an infantry commander's skillset.

[chrisl]

I have to disagree strenuously with Bullethead. I'm just going into turn 18 of Cheneux as the amis against a live opponent. I lost one half squad to a psychotic charge down the barrel of an LMG42 team, and had an mmg charge the remnants of a flak gun that it had silenced. I think that a few other charges occured under control of the AI, but they eliminated their victims, not my paratroopers. All the other foolish charges were under my orders, although a crew from a toasted vehicle retreated in fear into a house occupied by concealed Germans.

*******Moderate Spoilers Below*******

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

I had nearly all the squads in C&C nearly all the time. This may have helped avoid the psycho charges. I also generally advanced with a single half-squad 40-50 m ahead of the line to draw fire, and the rest of the platoon spread out (with cover/concealment as available) ready for covering fire.

Fionn- the hedges mostly worked pretty well for me. There aren't a whole lot of houses until you're into the town, and I advanced through the hedges in front faster than I could bring in the smoke to cover the advance. My biggest problem was that the advance kept getting ahead of the smoke order (because the defenders got clobbered), and every time I moved it even a little it went back to 2 minutes.

When I foolishly tried to sneak line abreast across the open into Cheneux I had a platoon decimated, and I lost the better part of another platoon trying to advance along the left bank of the river to the first house past Brutet's when I was unpleasantly surprised by a Panther with deadly accurate MG fire. As JWorthing is about to discover, my remaining Jackson just toasted all three of his remaining vehicles (two Panthers and a Wirblewind) in about 30 seconds.

So far I have to say that I do better on assaults in limited visibility than I do when there are open lines of sight (ask grunto). Theres a lot more room to maneuver in back if the defender can only see 50 m.

[This message has been edited by chrisl (edited 07-07-2000).]

[L.Tankersley]

Fionn, I understand hedges provide concealment, not cover. But this isn't a city -- the nearest other building to the one in question is over a hundred meters away. It's got open ground all around it except for the numerous hedges (and a bit of woods off to the side, but to get to the woods you have to move through open ground in front of the building anyway). It might be possible to skirt the riverbank and assault through the trees, but I'm not all that concerned with the details of this particular tactical problem; I just want to understand why my guys ran TOWARD the enemy that was killing them so I can take steps to prevent it in the future. There were no live sighted German units anywhere nearby other than those in the building or immediately around it, so I don't think the situation was all that confused. Also, the units charging weren't panicked or routed (not at the beginning of their impromptu charge, anyway). It was more like "oh, look, the enemy. CHARGE!" Bang bang bang, thud thud thud.

One idea that comes to mind just now is perhaps my guys misidentified the US troops behind them as German and fled away from them. I don't remember seeing any friendly fire, though. Bullethead's hypothesis about fanatic units liking to charge is interesting, but I have no evidence (other than this one incident) to support it. It would be nice to get a confirmation as to whether or not this effect is in the code or not.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[chrisl]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley:

Bullethead's hypothesis about fanatic units liking to charge is interesting, but I have no evidence (other than this one incident) to support it. It would be nice to get a confirmation as to whether or not this effect is in the code or not.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that the units I saw charging were charging as Bullethead suggested, I just think that the numbers aren't nearly as bad as he does. The one half-squad made a beeline from concealment straight at an MG position that was blasting away, the other that weirded me out was an MMG charging Brutet's house after decomissioning a flak gun in front of it. Fortunately all the Germs were down on the embankment to ambush my elite platoon that was moving along the bank. The MG turned out to provide useful support.

[Guest Michael emrys]

I've had the same problem playing the Brits in Fionn's Red Devils scenario. Trying to sneak through the village at night, my men get spotted, take fire, charge the source, and often as not get cut down. As Paras, they are Elite troops and I suspect this kind of behavior has been programmed into them. I'd like them to be a tad more circumspect and less aggressive. If they would hit the dirt and return fire until the Germans in the house are suppressed and *then* charge, it might work better. Might reflect the behavior of real life troops better too.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 07-08-2000).]

[Bullethead]

SPOILER WARNING

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think that the units I saw charging were charging as Bullethead suggested, I just think that the numbers aren't nearly as bad as he does.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm doing this PBEM against Oddball who sometimes lurks here. The game is still in progress so I can't tell you the total US casualties this berserker behavior has caused, but I have seen the charges and can count the bodies of eliminated US units in and in front of my positions.

My conservative estimate is that fanatic berserking accounted for 2 full platoons of US troops, plus some bazooka teams, in the first 8-10 turns around Brutet's House. Several other US squads/teams have suffered the same fate on the US left in the area between the hedgerows. Thus it has gone through 15 turns.

Now, however, the shoe is on the other foot. In our last turn, 4 separate German units went berserk, charging OUT OF good defensive positions and into the open killing fields.

Obviously, your mileage is varying. And sometimes the Dark Gods have their little jokes with probability. As I understand fanaticism, each individual unit has some chance of being fanatic, with the highest setting being 50%. So if this setting is used in this scenario, on the average 1/2 your guys are going to go nuts. But 1/2 the time, more than 1/2 your guys will be berserkers, and the other 1/2 of the time less than 1/2 will be.

So it seems we've drawn opposite ends of the spectrum. In my game, I'd say close to 3/4 of the troops have been berserkers. You're seeing it rarely. Both are possible IF (as I believe) each squad's chance is independent of the others.

Still, having 1/2 of your guys go crazy in this type of battle is a big problem. This is why I urge scenario designers to be very careful with fanaticism until all its effects are known.

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

-Bullethead

It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman

[Formerly Babra]

This problem prompted me to post the need for rally points.

[chrisl]

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

SPOILER WARNING

So it seems we've drawn opposite ends of the spectrum. In my game, I'd say close to 3/4 of the troops have been berserkers. You're seeing it rarely. Both are possible IF (as I believe) each squad's chance is independent of the others.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's enought squads in that scenario that only in very rare instances should you see anything other than 50-50 (plus or minus a little). I suspect there's some situation dependence on when they charge, and you're seeing that situation more than me.

I also suffered very heavy casualties around Brutet's house-- I traded one of my elite platoons for one of his elite platoons (counting the bodies on the embankment) plus a couple of his vehicles. I suffered similar casualties at the next house, with less success in routing the Germs. The only obviously berserk unit in the battle over Brutet's house was the MMG. My other serious berserker was a half squad over on the left working through the hedges.

Otherwise the troops have been pretty obedient-charging on demand, laying down covering fire, etc. Are your units in C&C when they go nuts? I might have to go back and watch all the movies carefully and watch.

[kump]

Geez, I couldn't stay quiet any longer.

Where did the definition come up where fanatic means your guys go nuts?

I thought fanatic meant the troops don't panic, break, or rout and will rarely surrender? This simulates fanatical defenders and such. I did not know CM also has some code to have fanatic behave as bezerkers! I never saw that anywhere. Sure seems to be the accepted definition in this thread.

I don't think fanatic means bezerk. Just because the attackers seem to have lost their minds and charged ahead, it doesn't mean they are fanatical. Seems folks just like to use that word for "unusual behavior".

In such cases, there must be other reasons why the TacAI has your troops charge forward. I don't think fanaticism is the reason. Maybe BTS can jump in and explain, or at least validate that fanatic doesn't mean looney.

[L.Tankersley]

Fanatic ==> berserk is not stated in the manual, nor has BTS said this is one effect here on the forum AFAIK. I don't even know if the US troops in Cheneux ARE fanatic; I haven't opened the scenario in the editor to see. But it seems like a reasonable scenario design choice that they might be.

I don't know that they're actually berserk per se, but in a night scenario if they suddenly come under heavy fire at close range, and are unable to break or rout due to fanatic status, it might be that they decide that charging the enemy in good cover (e.g. a building) is the best option available. Seems reasonable, anyway - get close enough and you're in better cover, plus have a better chance of inflicting damage on the enemy. This could be an unintentional side-effect of fanatic units at night (especially when due to the terrain the attackers are not in any decent cover).

My theory is that units coming under fire in the open look for better protection to move to, but the TacAI doesn't take into account the max visibility range at night so it thinks all the open ground that is out of LOS of the enemy due to darkness is dangerous, so instead decides to charge the enemy occupying the only cover available. This, coupled with fanatics that won't panic or break, leads to the observed behavior.

I played Cheneux again, BTW, and saw more or less the same behavior -- but this time anticipating it I had platoons move in line abreast when approaching enemy positions so they would all sight the enemy at the same time rather than one at a time. Things worked out much better this time as a platoon charging as one survives much better than 3 squads charging individually.

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[chrisl]

bump-- was hoping for some comments from BTS on apparent berserk behavior. Intended or weird side effect?

[Darwin]

I seem to remember a discussion regarding ambushes and how units should be expected to react to it. From what I recall the consensus was that a typical reaction for highly trained troops would be to charge the ambushers.

Was it an ambush situation from the men on the fields perspective?

[chrisl]

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

Was it an ambush situation from the men on the fields perspective?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably-- although in the fog in the dark eveything is an ambush-- visibility is only about 50 m, so you hardly even have to hide.

[Teufel Hunden]

I ran into the same problems as L.Tankersley. I don't think the boys running at the house were being fanatic, I think they were running for the nearest cover. On the other side of the map as soon as I made contact almost everyone headed for the woods, nobody charged the units that were firing at them . These troops were in CC as were the ones that got cut down heading for the building. I even lost the HQ as they decided that the building looked like a nice place to get out of the night air. It seemed to me that nobody wanted to be out in the open if lead was flying. I can't say as I 'd blame them either but I don't think I'd be jumpin the hedge to hide in the building where the lead was coming from. So I guess the question is. Do you just charge forward at night or is there some way to create a base of fire to suppress the enemy?

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

Jason

"Casualties many; Percentage of dead not known; Combat efficiency; we are winning."

(Colonel David M. Shoup, USMC, Tarawa, 21 November 1943.)