Enfors Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 I think this has been discussed to some extent before, but I don't think there's ever been any official BTS response to it (atleast I couldn't find one). The only thing I really miss in CM is a close assault command, which causes your troops to advance on their target, and to FOLLOW the target if it moves. Last night I assaulted a StuGIII with a platoon of infantry from 200m. When my infantry reached the StuGIII it reversed away for obvious reasons. So in the next turn I again ordered my platoon to "Run" towards the StuGIII's new position. The only problem was that as soon as my platoon started moving towards the StuGIII it moved off to the side about 100m, which resulted in my infantry assaulting an empty spot. This continued for another 10 (!) rounds before I finally managed to surround it and get a track hit which immobilized it (all I had was ordinary grenades, no rifle grenades or anti-tank weapons). Now I know I should have used troops better suited to the task of assaulting a AFV. But the point remains: no matter what kind of unit I want to assault with, and no matter what kind of unit is the target of the assault, I still want the assaulting unit(s) to FOLLOW the target if it moves. That is what I want a "close assault" command for. Being a programmer myself, I realise this might not be as easy to implement as it seems, considering the new order would have a destination waypoint that _moved_ during the turn, something which currently does not exist in CM AFAIK. You also have to consider the possibility that the target of the close assault command moves into its friendlies' kill zone, and thereby "luring" the assaulting units to follow it to certain death. But I'd appreciate some kind of official word on this matter. Thanks in advance. -Enfors- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forever Babra Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 I've had that experience and it is certainly frustrating. On the other hand, the thought of infantry chasing an AFV which is aware of them is faintly absurd. Close assaults against AFVs ought really to be an ambush sort of thing. ------------------ Massada Lo Tipol Shenit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Hmm, I don't think that would be a realistic command at all 'Lieutenant, take your platoon and chase that Stug over there. If he bugs out, follow him to Berlin if necessary, I want to see that bugger dead!' Also, for reasons of running somewhere you may not want to run, I would never use it. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mika Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Originally posted by Germanboy: Hmm, I don't think that would be a realistic command at all 'Lieutenant, take your platoon and chase that Stug over there. If he bugs out, follow him to Berlin if necessary, I want to see that bugger dead!' Also, for reasons of running somewhere you may not want to run, I would never use it. But realistic command would be "Lieutenant, take your platoon and take out that Stug over there." If it runs to Berlin, it's atleast out of combat Also, that could be useful against other targets too, like machineguns which sometimes manage to crawl into cover even if you charge at them. Also I've noticed that in some occasions the infantry seems to choose it's own path and run right past the enemy only to stop and slowly rotate towards it. While the enemy of course keeps shooting them -- MS. -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enfors Posted January 23, 2001 Author Share Posted January 23, 2001 Just like Mika stated above, this command could also be used against infantry. I've often ordered my infantry to charge a lone squad, only to discover that the squad moves 20 metres sideways over the crest of a hill, leaving my charging infantry sitting exposed in an empty spot for the remainder of the turn. With the proposed "close assault" command, the assaulting infantry would simply follow the target over the crest. This would seem perfectly realistic to me. The current behaviour on the other hand, seems very unrealistic. -Enfors- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coralsaw Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 The purpose of assaulting is generally to capture important ground, rather than destroy the enemy per se. Destroying the enemy is usually sought if the enemy is encircled, making it difficult for him to escape. If you occupy strategic ground, then the enemy has to come back and get it, which puts him in a worse position. I have never missed an assault command personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quenaelin Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Follow would be good command to implement, it could be used with own units too. It is often hard to move road collumns when you don't know exactly how fast everybody is moving, if you could use follow command everything would be much easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enfors Posted January 23, 2001 Author Share Posted January 23, 2001 I've considered that point, Coralsaw, and I agree for the most part that assaulting is meant for capturing important ground, not for killing enemy units. But ponder this scenario: You're playing a small-scale scenario defending a town with infantry. All your 'zooks are either dead or out of ammo, and the enemy still has a halftrack / light tank / jeep inside the town. Then wouldn't it make sense to assault that vehichle with a platoon, with the aim of ending up close enough for grenade attack? In this case the aim of the assault is NOT to capture key terrain. I really do want to kill the vehicle - I don't want it to leave the town and attack my platoon from long range. In this case, a "close assault" command would be very useful. And no, my units won't end up chasing the vechile all the way to Berlin unless I want them to, I can always cancel the assault during the next orders phase. -Enfors- [This message has been edited by Enfors (edited 01-23-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goofy Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 The logic of the command (Assault!) makes sense in lot's of situations, not being privy to the programing codes (and not being able to understand them if I was!) means that this is the best way to bring it to the attention of BTS. They might be able to explain why it's a possibility/ impossibility. The Follow order would be handy but it really seems unnecessary in that if you give a column the same movement order they essentially do that. Sure there's a lot of stop and go and shuffling around but a Follow order would do the same thing. That's why commanders are constantly yelling to "Keep your intervals!" The nightmare would be to give a vehicle column a Follow order and then see the "lead" vehicle knocked out and everyone sit and wait for a turn taking fire while waiting for the orders to Follow someone new. My pet wish is for Command Tanks!!! They issue orders without the standard 13 sec delay! Give them some sort of designator that they are Cmd. tanks (ahh to be able to add aerials to .bmp files!) so they can draw that "special attention" just like all the other officers! Don't think this will happen but hey, just thought I'd add it to my wishes. ------------------ Your mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries! [This message has been edited by Goofy (edited 01-23-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coralsaw Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Originally posted by Enfors: You're playing a small-scale scenario defending a town with infantry. All your 'zooks are either dead or out of ammo, and the enemy still has a halftrack / light tank / jeep inside the town. Then wouldn't it make sense to assault that vehichle with a platoon, with the aim of ending up close enough for grenade attack? In this case the aim of the assault is NOT to capture key terrain. I really do want to kill the vehicle - I don't want it to leave the town and attack my platoon from long range. I don't think realistically one should expect to chase a HT on foot, and kill it. One can sneak a squad around to encircle it, or split the platoon to envelop it. BTW, the jeep can be killed by SMGs and small arms fire as far as 200 ms away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quenaelin Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 When you give follow command and if one vehicle is knocked out then other one is coming leader like in real life. And vehicles should be able to keep their spacing also. But maybe this kind of AI is too much to ask for, one minute is so short time that you can always change your direction easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Col Deadmarsh Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 I agree that a close assault command should be added to one's options. I've only played a small amount of games but in almost every one I find myself trying to attack either a piece of armor or an AT team with infantry, only to find that the enemy has moved during the turn and my infantry is now standing in a vulnerable spot. If you order your infantry to assault something, it should follow that target at least for 10-20m if it moves to carry out the orders. ------------------ Youth is wasted on the young. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueFalcon Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 The only problem I have with the idea of a "Chase" command is that you don't want to follow an enemy. Say this command is implemented and you attack a unit (whatever it is). Say you are the defender and you know you are about to be overrun and you know they want you dead. Just set up a rear gaurd. Fall back and allow them to give chase into the kill zone. No fun for attacker if set up right. I personally don't see the use of a chase command for this reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annalist Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 There really is a need for a PURSUE type command for all the reasons stated above. As for it not being fun for the attacker if they follow into an ambush, hey, its a real life tactic that real infantry (I been one) uses. Its normal when assaulting a position to pursue the fleeing enemy for some distance past the objective in order for supporting units (MG, covering squads, mortars) to move up to the captured terrain. In addition, put yourself in the units place, if you assaulted a location killed everyone but one guy on a MG team wouldn't you run his sorry ass down before he could set up again and shoot at you again? I think I would. Now, normally, you should only use this against prepared positions, buildings, etc. or against a unit hunkering down under suppressive fire. Assaulting and pursuing a unit on the move is just stupid...but hey, if you wanna do it, it just cleans out the gene pool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Originally posted by Annalist: Assaulting and pursuing a unit on the move is just stupid...but hey, if you wanna do it, it just cleans out the gene pool. Annalist - if there was any space in my sig, I would put that in there. As for the pursue command - I don't think that is something you need really. If you handle the platoon as a unit you can give the orders yourself, e.g. A and B Squad assault the foxholes, get in there and rout Opfor out. C Squad and HQ follow up (give them a PAUSE command at the beginning of the turn) and push through. That way you leapfrog and you have your pursuit. In all honesty I have rarely seen a breaking squad/HMG/Mortar/crew get away, most of them are cut down immediately when they break, or early in the next turn when you follow them. And as you say - don't try this at home or with tanks. That would be totally unrealistic. Coralsaw is right IMO - if you have to resort to the 'Chase the Stug' tactic, you have made a bad mistake beforehand. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 I could certainly have used the command a few times. It's surprisingly annoying to assault an empty space where the tank was supposed to be. Only, my brain keeps transmitting the image of my platoon chasing a calmly reversing Sherman. 3 MG's spanking my poor infantry for the long long turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BIG DD Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 some thing that every one is forgeting regarding infantry chasing tanks ; they are hell of alot faster than a infantry squad....and what would probably happen is that the tank would keep moving untill it broke contact and have your squad of troops running all over the friggin map......like dog chasing a car.. or even better,this feature addition could be used to bait your troops and mow em down.... i think in the end it would prove less helpful to have this command..if u really think about it ------------------ MAKE IT SHORT AND SWEET THEN GET THE F#$K OUT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 The main argument against the Assault command seems to be that it could be used to do something stupid. I don't see how that's much of an argument. Any command could be used stupidly. As for programming difficulty, a follow command is already present in CM. It's called Embark. To do an Assault, BTS can use the Embark code when an infantry unit moves onto an enemy unit. It looks like units calculate their paths several times per turn already, to account for obstructions that appear. Given the current level of path recalculation, I don't see how a moving target point would be terribly complicated. As for its usefulness, I can think of many places where it would be handy. Suppose that my men are out of ammo, and the enemy is panicked and fleeing. Or suppose that I have a squad out of ammo, and I see a vulnerable HQ. Or suppose an armored car or halftrack is probing the village or forest I'm defending, and I want to take it out with infantry. In crowded conditions, the armored car might have a tough time getting away. I also like the idea of using a similar command to have vehicles on a road follow each other politely instead of snarling up and trying to pass each other. In terms of interface, this command could work just like Embark: You just aim the end of your Run or Move command on the unit to be followed. The only tricky part would be distinguishing between an order to follow the unit that is currently in the foxhole, versus an order to get into the foxhole and stay there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polar Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 You should have assaulted with two squads so the tank would reverse into an ambush. Geez, haven't the velociraptors taught us ANYTHING?! Joe ------------------ "I had no shoes and I cried, then I met a man who had no socks." - Fred Mertz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annalist Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 I can see the need for the command. I'll have to try the "Embark" trick, didn't know it existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 I think a 'close assault' command would be a nice addition. Something that went along the lines of maybe 'targeting' an enemy vehicle / infantry unit with the 'close assault' command and then having the unit conducting that attack attempt to stay within 10 meters of the target for the duration of the command. The command could automatically cancel if the 'target' of the close assault moved more than 30 to 40 meters from the units conducting the assault. The automatic cancellation would prevent the 'close assault' command from becoming a 'pursue all the way to Berlin' command by only allowing the command to be selected when your troops are in close proximity to the target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk-vfa201 Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 It looks on all these threads that one crucial point is forgotten: each turn is one minute, anything that happens or is described in these topics would last easily 10 turns. Any of these commands would have a meaning for a much longer time for each turns. Nothing can really happen that cannot be taken care of with the order list at hand. Pause for example is used so not to put your forces in a situation that could rapidly change in the very first seconds of a turn. Doing this will put at useless risk any unit, armored or not. For example, you do not crest a hill with a tank at the beginning of a turn with a HUNT command. You give it a pause and make so that the hunt is executed in the last seconds so to counteract in the subsequent turn. Same thing for infantry. It is all Time management and Time for Execution Management. If you know you may assault a position reachable in 10 seconds you simply do NOT issue the command at the beginning of a turn, you give it a pause until it reads - say 45 secs - and THEN assault. This gives you plenty of time in the subsequent turn to counteract ANY incumbent new situation. Fellas, all your points and scenario are OK but lack the notion of managing the time to execute an order. You have to do that otherwise you will usually find yourself in the horrible position of watchiung your units die in those 50 seconds you cannot account for because your unit has completed your order in the first ten seconds. Many of these "BTS add this command" try to solve a problem - Time Management for Order Execution - asking BTS to have the AI do it in your place. It is tantamount to ask BTS to add a "Fight for x many turns" command and simply sit back and watch the movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk-vfa201 Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Originally posted by Annalist: I can see the need for the command. I'll have to try the "Embark" trick, didn't know it existed. Annalist, it is not a trick. It is part of the regular movements for units if toward a vahicle/armor with transport features. May I suggest to at least browse once the manual? It explains in many areas how to best use CM and avoid to be surprised by things that are explainde in detail in the manual. PS This is not a bashing, it is a friendly suggestiob. The manual IS a valuable tool in CM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 Originally posted by Leonidas: The main argument against the Assault command seems to be that it could be used to do something stupid. I don't see how that's much of an argument. Any command could be used stupidly. Not quite - one is that it would lead to unrealistic use of infantry (chasing tanks) which is not to be encouraged, the other bit is that you can in fact order your units to close-assault positions, as I described. Leapfrog, overwatch, it is all in there, ready for you to use. So there is not really a need for it IMO. And in that case I rather have BTS work on more pressing issues. YMMV. ------------------ Andreas Der Kessel Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted January 23, 2001 Share Posted January 23, 2001 I have a general problem with assault in the game. For example I want to attack a house I believe to be enemy occupied. I send a squad with 'RUN' order. Well, maybe the enemy is hidden, usual infantry tactic is to throw a few handgrenates before they enter the building...but what did they now? They enter the house, notice a MG and get killed. Or I see a tank close enough for an infantry attack, but have only handgrenades left. So, I order them to run and target the tank...and hope they understand that they should assault that damned tank. A real assault order would clear this. And BTW - I'm missing close AT weapons like Hafthohlladung, Panzerwurfmine, Geballte Ladung... they were all very usual. ------------------ Keine Gefangenen! http://www.scipiobase.de/cm_mods.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts