Close assault command

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Scipio: RUN is not a good command for doing those things, it is a good command to RUN toward a spot in the map. Period.

When units run they are caring much less of enemy troops, covering under fire, doing whatever reasonable is under fire. They are told to RUN and they do run. That's all. Never expect a unit to behave coherently under fire when engaged into RUNning from spot A to spot B: you are telling your unit that that is the main priority: reaching spot B in the fastest way at all costs! Not a very effective way for doing otehr things.

RUN ning is good from cover to cover WHEN you know you are not running into enemy position, otherwise you are getting easily killed. Again, the manual explains that as well.

To assault a house, you might want to RUN toward the house (if you knwo you are not going to face heavy counter fire) but stopping short of the house, then SNEAK in. Running inside if enemy units are present equals to suicide.

You should also have area fire by your attacking unit, pause before starting to move, then act as stated above.

Much better: have the action covered with Area Fire by some other units to keep enemy - if present - on their toes. Not doing this practically equals to suicide.

Again: think and act as if you weer there: If enemy is hiding inside the house would you run like a viking and enter the house hoping to freeze the enemy by your very act of presence? I doubt it.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Scipio:

And BTW - I'm missing close AT weapons like Hafthohlladung, Panzerwurfmine, Geballte Ladung... they were all very usual.

They are modeled, AFAIK - when your men throw grenades at a tank in close assaults, they are using that kind of stuff.

As for the assault on a house - try this:

run up to the house, but then put a waypoint right outside the wall, and move in. That way your unit will spot any units in the house more quickly and engage them. Works for me. Remember that house interiors are abstracted, which is the reason why it takes a moment until any unit inside is spotted after one of your units entered. That models the time to search the house, AFAIK. Combine that with running (worst spotting) and you ask for trouble.

So in closing - I believe it was a mistake you made in handling your units, and not a flaw in the modeling. Not meant as a flame, just an observation. I would welcome comment how others assault houses.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Scipio:

And BTW - I'm missing close AT weapons like Hafthohlladung, Panzerwurfmine, Geballte Ladung... they were all very usual.

Not 1944/45 Western front, the Panzerfaust made them obsolete. The fact that they were not effective 1943/44 in the eastern front was the reason that production was canceled in 1943 for the Hafthohlladung ( 553,900 produced ) and Panzerwurfmine ( 203,800 produced ).

[This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-23-2001).]

[Col Deadmarsh]

Germanboy said:

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.

What more pressing issues? CM2? Isn't CM2 going to be modeled on this game? Therefore, any improvements made in this game goes into the next installment.

I can understand why people would not want their squad to follow a tank around till either 1)The squad dies or 2)The tank dies. What we are suggesting is that the close assault order would make it possible *as an option* for your squad to make the adjustment when they find that their target has moved away a few meters.

What I would add is that with the Close Assault command, your men would be able to follow the enemy infantry or armor for another 10-20m, if:

<UL TYPE=SQUARE><LI> they are not being shot at by the enemy

or<LI> if there is sufficient cover for them to do so and not completely jeopardize their lives.

This would accomplish their objective of rushing the target, be it a half-track or a panicky mg squad, etc. and not find themselves standing alone where their target should've been.

Let's imagine in real life, a HQ unit orders a squad of soldiers to attack a half track. Now, the soldier in command would probably say something like, "Jones, you and Merriweather run around to the half-track's left flank while we keep the infantry at bay. If you can get close enough, take it out with grenades or whatever you got. Just don't break the perimeter of the woods."

What he wouldn't say is, "Jones, you and Merriweather flank that half track on it's left. But if it moves, don't move with it. Just stand there like a bunch of idiots till it sees you and guts you with its machine gun."

The Close Assault command would give your soldiers the option of reacting to the enemy while remaining somewhat safe (there is no enemy firing at them, or there is cover for them while moving). This would allow you to rush a weak or important target while making every effort to carry out the order while not making it a suicide mission for your men.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Col Deadmarsh]

BUMP

[Rick]

I've seen the need for a command of this type. I certainly wouldn't want to chase a tank around, but I've seen situations where a tank has infantry on three sides but they're all too far away to assault. Thus you try to get them close enough to take it out (because it's tearing up another unit) using any of the move command. Then, the vehicle moves and the three squads are left standing around accomplishing nothing. This is especially aggravating when your troops have now moved into a vulnerable spot, and even more so when the afore-mentioned tank is the only combat effective unit that your enemy has.

Like many other issues discussed I see this as a definite possibility for improvement, but not sure that we've nailed down the best way to improve it.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

What more pressing issues? CM2? Isn't CM2 going to be modeled on this game? Therefore, any improvements made in this game goes into the next installment.

Yes CM2 - new tiles, new modeling of city combat, new AFVs that need to be coded in, ski units, research on Lord knows what, much longer engagement ranges that should still be playable, new squad types etc.pp. All needs to be coded and AFAIK Charles is doing the majority of coding. Doing marginal improvements like this one forever (somebody will come up with another interesting addition next week I am sure) is the best way to drive BTS either mad or bankrupt. And a marginal improvement it is - some people have requested it, others (not just me) have said they don't see the need for it.

There also has been no suggestion being made here how this should be implemented, e.g. to avoid the 'follow to Berlin' effect.

Also - can you just imagine the howl of 'BTS please fix or do somefink' if it is being used incorrectly by people who don't bother to pick up the manual.

In closing - I am not sure it is needed. Even if you could convince BTS that it was needed, so far all of the supporters of the command have failed to make more than vague suggestions as to how it should work. Does not look promising to me for it to get in, since I can imagine the major coding work behind it. Comparing it to the embark command is really stretching it, BTW.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Juardis]

A close assault command is needed. The only good argument against putting one is is the difficulty in coding.

To the realism camp. As it is now, if you want to close assault anything you have to run up to it then do something. Whether the "it" is a tank in the open field or a MG nest in some woods, the point is you have to get there fast and do something fast lest ye be killed. It is much more unrealistic with the way it is coded now to issue the run command if they're going to stop in empty space. With a close assault command, you follow you're target, which is much more realistic. Furthermore, you cannot tell me that issuing an assault command is not realistic. How were pill boxes taken out? With assualts. How were MG nests taken out? With assualts. How were buildings taken? With assaults. The current list of commands works fine if the enemy cooperates and stays put. If all you want is to take terrain, the current list of commands works well. But if you want to eliminate the enemy, and they don't stay still while you run up to them, then you need an order that will tell your assaulters to continue until they're dead (or you cancel the order). I agree that the current list of commands works well 75% of the time, it's the other 25% of the time that needs help.

As for waiting until the end of turn before issuing the command, that too is not ideal. Yes, it will give you time to retract your orders if you find out they were bad. But if you find out they were good then it gives the enemy time to counteract your orders. To close assault, you first have to get where your going then you have to wait while the assault is being executed. If you get there at the end of the turn but you're waiting for the assault to take place between 60 sec turns, you have just given the enemy an opportunity to react where he otherwise might not have.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Philistine]

To the extent that a "close assault" command is deemed useful (For CM2)--something I'm seesawing about--how about this type of limitation to stop the "chase to Berlin" syndrome:

Make the close assault only last for one turn. That is, the command will not carry over (as movement commands now do) if they can not be fully executed in one turn.

What this would act as is to run towards the target, if the target moves, follow the target, and when you get to a predetermined "close assault range", fire. If this could not all be accomplished in one turn either because the target moved, or you were too far away at the beginning, it would effectively be a "run" command based on the location of the target.

Thus, the most you can be out of position is one turn's running distance. (I'm assuming this would only be an infantry command).

I can see a number of potential coding problems (do you use an "intercept" course or reach your original & then change; at what range to you begin the assault, how does the unit react to fire from the targeted unit, and is it different than from fire from other units, etc.) but as a conceptual "command", it seems (at least on its face) to make some sense.

Any thoughts?

--Philistine

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Juardis:

With a close assault command, you follow you're target, which is much more realistic. Furthermore, you cannot tell me that issuing an assault command is not realistic. How were pill boxes taken out? With assualts. How were MG nests taken out? With assualts. How were buildings taken? With assaults.

It has been a while that I saw a pillbox, MG Nest or building leg it when they realised they were under assault. So that leaves AFVs. And there I still must say that if you have to resort to a close assault that leaves the vehicle to drive away, you have done something very wrong in the first place. The last thing you want is to follow them.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Juardis]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

It has been a while that I saw a pillbox, MG Nest or building leg it when they realised they were under assault. So that leaves AFVs. And there I still must say that if you have to resort to a close assault that leaves the vehicle to drive away, you have done something very wrong in the first place. The last thing you want is to follow them.

Andreas, you are very likely correct in that something previously went bad. But tell me when anything goes right on a battlefield. You're saying because something went bad before (either stupidity or bad luck) that I have no recourse to redress the wrong? That makes absolutely no sense to me. If I need that AFV taken out to accomplish my objectives, by God I'm going to give the order to take it out whether I screwed up earlier or not.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Juardis:

If I need that AFV taken out to accomplish my objectives, by God I'm going to give the order to take it out whether I screwed up earlier or not.

What I am arguing is that a 'follow' command will not solve your problem. Leaving aside stationary objectives, for which I am certain you don't need a command, since you can direct your infantry with the existing commands to assault (I do that all the time) now.

There is exactly one situation in which you can expect to assault an AFV with one squad with any hope of success - when it is immobilised. It should also be outside covering fire from its pals, and hopefully stuck near (or in) cover that allows you to sneak up closely. Being turretless would also help but is not a necessity. If these conditions don't exist, you can as well execute your squad yourself, IMO. Suicide mission without a hope of success irregardless of the existence of a follow command.

The story is very different when you have a platoon. Now you can split the unit, use one part to distract/button the AFV, another to flank and get into its rear, and the third to assault. What will happen is that the assaulting element (and probably the covering element) takes casualties. If the AFV retreats, it will retreat into your flanking unit. Boom - watch it go. If it does not retreat, chances are probably even that the assaulting squad will take it out. Your chances are that much higher if you have an LATW into the bargain.

All this is perfectly possible without a close-assault command, and again, I do that quite often and successfully.

A command that allows you to do away with those tactics, and simply make the units follow the retreating AFV (no matter how far), in the face of the AFV MG and gun fire just does not strike me as a sensible addition to the game. It is like a fast-forward that you can use instead of applying tactics to the problem.

Just my experience and opinion. When I did not have a clue, I tried the 'let's run up and engage tactic with one squad' a few times. Failed every time, and the absence of a follow command was not the reason.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Juardis]

Andreas, if you drop smoke to help get your one squad up close and personal with an AFV, then it can and does work. You typically get one chance as it is now because once at the spot where you're going, your squad stops and throws a grenade or demo charge or uses it's rifle grenade. After that, the TAC AI is reversing the tank. It's particularly frustrating when trying to assault a hetzer or Jadgpanzer IV. It should be possible with a high degree of success, especially when they're buttoned and there is no infantry support for them. It's not suicide. You obviously would not give the command if it was never going to work, but it can work if done properly. All we're asking for (I'm asking for) is a way to overcome the TAC AI reversing tanks out of harms way.

And if you want to chase the tank back to Berlin, what's wrong with that? If you can do it successfully, go ahead and do it. I say it's the enemies fault for not having infantry support for their tanks.

[Guest Germanboy]

Juardis - I am still not convinced it would be needed, but that is beside the point, since it is BTS you have to convince. I guess our playing styles just differ too much, making the existence or otherwise of such a command irrelevant to me. I guess I am very much the 'tidy', Monty-type commander

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[ASL Veteran]

Germanboy is correct in that this command would mostly apply to infantry assaults vs AFVs (although it could be used against enemy infantry in forested areas for example to keep them from getting out of your LOS between orders phases). The main problem is that a real squad that is close assaulting an AFV would 'see' what the AFV is doing and would react accordingly. In CM, the squad will move to where you tell them to move to, and will then remain there regardless of whether the AFV is still there or not. In CM, in order to close assault an AFV under the current 'rules' (for lack of a better term) you pretty much need to anticipate what the AFV will be doing when you are plotting the orders for your infantry. If you are off by a few meters, they will be helpless targets accomplishing nothing.

I have had numerous opportunities to close assault enemy AFVs in CM, but hesitated for fear of guessing wrong as to what the opposing player would do with his AFV. If the opportunity exists though, a command would be handy. One example, I played one of the scenarios from the CD where US Paratroopers are defending a bridge against a bunch of French tanks and some Kraut infantry. I just happened to have a Paratrooper squad hiding in some trees next to the road on the causeway. Opponent has decided to drive his tanks down the causeway with no infantry support. Tank stops a mere 20 meters away from my squad. I send my squad sneaking up to the tank, but the tank (unaware of my presence) decides to back up ten meters putting my squad on the roadside in front of the tank (rather than behind it and assaulting it). I ended up getting the tank in the end, but it was a frustrating game of guess where the tank will be next?

An assault command would eliminate the guesswork. I just order the squad to assault the tank and they do it. No guessing, just target and go. What if the tank drives off? I cancel the order in the next orders phase if I choose so I don't need to chase the tank to Berlin. Could I have done a coordinated platoon assault on the tank? No, the other squads from the platoon were located further up the causeway - this was a target of opportunity. Tank was close, I decided to take it out. Is the command limited to a few specific situations - maybe one or two of which may appear in a typical game? Yes, the command is very limited. Would it be desirable to have? Yes. Is it worth the coding effort? For me, yes. For others - no. Will BTS implement it? Probably not, but I don't really mind. Perhaps they can include something like that in the future. Lets have it added to the wish list and air our ideas.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Folks...

You might want to hop on over to this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013896.html

Now... one might wonder how it is that Steve came up with this URL, without even doing a search? Well, the simple answer is that it is noted on the CM2 Proposed Feature List, Revision 3 It has made the cut thus far, and I expect it will be implemented. However, all bets are off until it is actually put in.

Steve

[Juardis]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Folks...

You might want to hop on over to this thread:

Now... one might wonder how it is that Steve came up with this URL, without even doing a search? Well, the simple answer is that it is noted on the CM2 Proposed Feature List, Revision 3 It has made the cut thus far, and I expect it will be implemented. However, all bets are off until it is actually put in.

Steve

Thought you were going to cause a premature thread death, eh Steve?

From that thread:

"Assault Move - Slow speed, good firepower, good cover, poor concealment. Will not stop if fired upon."

No, I don't believe that is what we're talking about here in this thread. What we're talking about would be a 6th movement order. That is, move fast until within close assault range then stay within close assault range once there. If the target happens to move before you get there, adjust your route to get you close. Once there, use grenades, demo charges, rifle grenades, fausts, gammon bombs, sticks, rocks, knives, whatever it takes. That is the sole purpose of assaulting an AFV or anything else, get close and stay close. Right now there is no recourse if the AFV moves before you get there.

[Tiger]

...Then, the vehicle moves and the three squads are left standing around accomplishing nothing.

I'm sorry but I disagree. What you're saying is that if a player moves his tank, vehicle, whatever to try and get it away from nearby infantry who he is pretty sure might run up next turn and close assault him, you want a close assault command so that the infantry will continue to follow these movements so that the "victim" can not get away. If implemented this way this would not be right. God forbid you actually have to do some planning and use some foresight with your infantry and have contingencies for enemy actions.

Right now there is no recourse if the AFV moves before you get there.

Why should your opponent be punished for trying to move his unit to safety? "Gosh darn it he shoulda stayed there and not tried to get away so we can kill him easier." How dare my opponent try to take his vehicle out of immediate harms' way. This is why you use tactics for just such times when your opponent doesn't happen to follow your script.

I like the "Assault Move" concept.

JMHO,

~Tiger

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Ah... OK. Well, we don't think of this as an Assault move. More like what we call a "Follow Target" order. We have discussed this before, but I doubt it will make it into CM2. It involves a pretty good dose of TacAI coding for it to work correctly, and we don't see where we are going to have the time to do this. Opening up the TacAI for changes always results in days more of work than we expected too And yes, "days" add up quite quickly for a project this size.

Steve

[Enfors]

Thanks, Steve. Although that's not the answer I was hoping for, I'm glad I got an answer at all, so I can stop wondering.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Actually... hold off on the Negative Vibes™ man We MIGHT be able to do something like this without as much work as I thought. Well, at least it is on The List which means it could possibly make the cut. We'll just have to wait and see.

Steve

[Enfors]

Thanks, Steve. Altough that WAS the answer I was hoping for, now you've made me START wondering again! Argh!

-Enfors-