CMplayer Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 According to all the oral history out there on the web, infantry has an uncanny ability to squeeze into every little dip in the ground when taking cover from, e.g. MG fire. So there reasonably ought to be a big difference between the effect of small arms fire on units which are prone in open ground, and those which are standing/walking/running. Is this the case? There also ought to be a pretty large difference between pavement and open ground. Once everyone (or the lucky ones) have found an old tractor wheel or something to hide behind, further MG fire would mostly have suppressive effect. The reason I'm asking this, is to try to figure out how a game could better model troops pinned in open ground. Green troops could lie out there for what seemed like hours in real life, but in CM after a few seconds they run away screaming like teenagers in a slasher movie. What I would like to see is something like this: You are ordering the pinned guys to make a dash for cover, say a wall 40 meters ahead. They are nervy, and there is quite a long command delay to get them to do it, but finally (perhaps with the help of a good NCO) they are suddenly galvanized and they GO FOR IT! That means that, even if they are 'cautious', that they won't always freak halfway there and run off screaming with their hands up in the air if someone gets hit on the way. They have rallied _under fire_, in the open, in a way you never see in CM, afaik. The problem seems to be that the level of suppression of a unit is the same as its level of panic in CM. The game should perhaps make a lot more use of the 'taking cover' state, where their heads are down, but they are essentially 'ok'. Suppression ought to be separated from their psychological state (in order to be able to model a great deal more suppression, without overusing the panic effects). It would be cool to see troops pull themselves together long enough to make a rush forward to cover, even though they have been under suppressive fire for quite some time. One of the reasons they do this could be that they are desperate, and another could be simply that, even in open ground, the individual guys, lying prone, are fairly well defiladed from that MG. If they stay there forever they will eventually get hit, but they have time to gather their wits and make a decision about how to get out of there. Are suppression and killing power separate factors in the game? If so, perhaps MG's should have a great deal more suppressive power, with higher killing power against units that are moving (in all forms of cover). This is one heck of a can of worms, and I realize that I have more questions than answers. But as far as I'm concerned, as much as I love this game, there still seems to be a lot of rethinking to do. I realize there won't be an engine rewrite, but I just find these kinds of questions interesting. --Rett [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted July 5, 2001 Author Share Posted July 5, 2001 According to all the oral history out there on the web, infantry has an uncanny ability to squeeze into every little dip in the ground when taking cover from, e.g. MG fire. So there reasonably ought to be a big difference between the effect of small arms fire on units which are prone in open ground, and those which are standing/walking/running. Is this the case? There also ought to be a pretty large difference between pavement and open ground. Once everyone (or the lucky ones) have found an old tractor wheel or something to hide behind, further MG fire would mostly have suppressive effect. The reason I'm asking this, is to try to figure out how a game could better model troops pinned in open ground. Green troops could lie out there for what seemed like hours in real life, but in CM after a few seconds they run away screaming like teenagers in a slasher movie. What I would like to see is something like this: You are ordering the pinned guys to make a dash for cover, say a wall 40 meters ahead. They are nervy, and there is quite a long command delay to get them to do it, but finally (perhaps with the help of a good NCO) they are suddenly galvanized and they GO FOR IT! That means that, even if they are 'cautious', that they won't always freak halfway there and run off screaming with their hands up in the air if someone gets hit on the way. They have rallied _under fire_, in the open, in a way you never see in CM, afaik. The problem seems to be that the level of suppression of a unit is the same as its level of panic in CM. The game should perhaps make a lot more use of the 'taking cover' state, where their heads are down, but they are essentially 'ok'. Suppression ought to be separated from their psychological state (in order to be able to model a great deal more suppression, without overusing the panic effects). It would be cool to see troops pull themselves together long enough to make a rush forward to cover, even though they have been under suppressive fire for quite some time. One of the reasons they do this could be that they are desperate, and another could be simply that, even in open ground, the individual guys, lying prone, are fairly well defiladed from that MG. If they stay there forever they will eventually get hit, but they have time to gather their wits and make a decision about how to get out of there. Are suppression and killing power separate factors in the game? If so, perhaps MG's should have a great deal more suppressive power, with higher killing power against units that are moving (in all forms of cover). This is one heck of a can of worms, and I realize that I have more questions than answers. But as far as I'm concerned, as much as I love this game, there still seems to be a lot of rethinking to do. I realize there won't be an engine rewrite, but I just find these kinds of questions interesting. --Rett [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PondScum Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 Using the current code, the troops in your example will run to that wall of their own accord once they start to panic, assuming that it's the best cover around. But then of course everyone complains that the stupid troops panicked towards the MGs and got cut to shreds... the programmers are in a lose-lose situation here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PondScum Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 Using the current code, the troops in your example will run to that wall of their own accord once they start to panic, assuming that it's the best cover around. But then of course everyone complains that the stupid troops panicked towards the MGs and got cut to shreds... the programmers are in a lose-lose situation here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted July 5, 2001 Author Share Posted July 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PondScum: Using the current code, the troops in your example will run to that wall of their own accord once they start to panic, assuming that it's the best cover around. But then of course everyone complains that the stupid troops panicked towards the MGs and got cut to shreds... the programmers are in a lose-lose situation here <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, they don't seem to understand the value of being behind a wall when taking cover. They just see themselves as in open ground. (or am I wrong?) Your second point seems to confirm what I was saying. Guys in open ground, under small arms fire, should be able to stay put longer, if they have time to take cover. Now if you put a mortar on them, or tank HE it's another story. --Rett [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted July 5, 2001 Author Share Posted July 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PondScum: Using the current code, the troops in your example will run to that wall of their own accord once they start to panic, assuming that it's the best cover around. But then of course everyone complains that the stupid troops panicked towards the MGs and got cut to shreds... the programmers are in a lose-lose situation here <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, they don't seem to understand the value of being behind a wall when taking cover. They just see themselves as in open ground. (or am I wrong?) Your second point seems to confirm what I was saying. Guys in open ground, under small arms fire, should be able to stay put longer, if they have time to take cover. Now if you put a mortar on them, or tank HE it's another story. --Rett [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer: Actually, they don't seem to understand the value of being behind a wall when taking cover. They just see themselves as in open ground. (or am I wrong?) Your second point seems to confirm what I was saying. Guys in open ground, under small arms fire, should be able to stay put longer, if they have time to take cover. Now if you put a mortar on them, or tank HE it's another story. --Rett [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How long do you think they would wait IRL for that mortar fire to start falling ? They are in the open, already under fire so it is fair to assume they have been spotted. And they know the enemy knows they know they have been spotted. I do think there should be some variation to that running to bit though. Instead of running they should also be able to use other methods of moving away from the spot. Like crawling. Now they seem to get pinned down and get more and more suppressed until they panic and flee. Ceterum censeo: something should be done to that "run to cover in the same foxhole with the enemy" quirk. Most annoying when you sneak/move troops ahead in preparation of attacking the position and the troops decide to jump the gun (and get killed) by charging ahead to take cover in the same patch of woods the enemy is in and you are about to attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer: Actually, they don't seem to understand the value of being behind a wall when taking cover. They just see themselves as in open ground. (or am I wrong?) Your second point seems to confirm what I was saying. Guys in open ground, under small arms fire, should be able to stay put longer, if they have time to take cover. Now if you put a mortar on them, or tank HE it's another story. --Rett [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> How long do you think they would wait IRL for that mortar fire to start falling ? They are in the open, already under fire so it is fair to assume they have been spotted. And they know the enemy knows they know they have been spotted. I do think there should be some variation to that running to bit though. Instead of running they should also be able to use other methods of moving away from the spot. Like crawling. Now they seem to get pinned down and get more and more suppressed until they panic and flee. Ceterum censeo: something should be done to that "run to cover in the same foxhole with the enemy" quirk. Most annoying when you sneak/move troops ahead in preparation of attacking the position and the troops decide to jump the gun (and get killed) by charging ahead to take cover in the same patch of woods the enemy is in and you are about to attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted July 5, 2001 Author Share Posted July 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Now they seem to get pinned down and get more and more suppressed until they panic and flee. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's exactly what I was writing about. I wonder if it would work well to view them as 'taking cover', i.e. to separate suppression from morale somewhat. Then you could play sarge and order them to run or crawl to the proper cover at the beginning of the next turn. --Rett [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted July 5, 2001 Author Share Posted July 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Now they seem to get pinned down and get more and more suppressed until they panic and flee. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's exactly what I was writing about. I wonder if it would work well to view them as 'taking cover', i.e. to separate suppression from morale somewhat. Then you could play sarge and order them to run or crawl to the proper cover at the beginning of the next turn. --Rett [ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 Quote from: CMplayer Member Member # 4371 posted 07-05-2001 05:58 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to all the oral history out there on the web, infantry has an uncanny ability to squeeze into every little dip in the ground when taking cover from, e.g. MG fire. So there reasonably ought to be a big difference between the effect of small arms fire on units which are prone in open ground, and those which are standing/walking/running. Is this the case? There also ought to be a pretty large difference between pavement and open ground. ____________________________________________ I have also felt that troops weren't getting any relief from being prone vs being upright either. I know for a fact as everyone else does that they should. I'm sure BTS has reasons for this but not knowing them I feel it's in error. This should be a good topic and am looking forward to getting everyones opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 Quote from: CMplayer Member Member # 4371 posted 07-05-2001 05:58 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to all the oral history out there on the web, infantry has an uncanny ability to squeeze into every little dip in the ground when taking cover from, e.g. MG fire. So there reasonably ought to be a big difference between the effect of small arms fire on units which are prone in open ground, and those which are standing/walking/running. Is this the case? There also ought to be a pretty large difference between pavement and open ground. ____________________________________________ I have also felt that troops weren't getting any relief from being prone vs being upright either. I know for a fact as everyone else does that they should. I'm sure BTS has reasons for this but not knowing them I feel it's in error. This should be a good topic and am looking forward to getting everyones opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer: That's exactly what I was writing about. I wonder if it would work well to view them as 'taking cover', i.e. to separate suppression from morale somewhat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds good to me. Especially since the better quality men you have now, the less likely they are to hit the dirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer: That's exactly what I was writing about. I wonder if it would work well to view them as 'taking cover', i.e. to separate suppression from morale somewhat. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sounds good to me. Especially since the better quality men you have now, the less likely they are to hit the dirt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: How long do you think they would wait IRL for that mortar fire to start falling ? They are in the open, already under fire so it is fair to assume they have been spotted. And they know the enemy knows they know they have been spotted. I do think there should be some variation to that running to bit though. Instead of running they should also be able to use other methods of moving away from the spot. Like crawling. Now they seem to get pinned down and get more and more suppressed until they panic and flee. Ceterum censeo: something should be done to that "run to cover in the same foxhole with the enemy" quirk. Most annoying when you sneak/move troops ahead in preparation of attacking the position and the troops decide to jump the gun (and get killed) by charging ahead to take cover in the same patch of woods the enemy is in and you are about to attack. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, this isn't necessarily unrealistic. The standard drill in most armies when ambushed is to assault the enemy position in an effort to disrupt the ambush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: How long do you think they would wait IRL for that mortar fire to start falling ? They are in the open, already under fire so it is fair to assume they have been spotted. And they know the enemy knows they know they have been spotted. I do think there should be some variation to that running to bit though. Instead of running they should also be able to use other methods of moving away from the spot. Like crawling. Now they seem to get pinned down and get more and more suppressed until they panic and flee. Ceterum censeo: something should be done to that "run to cover in the same foxhole with the enemy" quirk. Most annoying when you sneak/move troops ahead in preparation of attacking the position and the troops decide to jump the gun (and get killed) by charging ahead to take cover in the same patch of woods the enemy is in and you are about to attack. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually, this isn't necessarily unrealistic. The standard drill in most armies when ambushed is to assault the enemy position in an effort to disrupt the ambush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 I would just like to clarify, as I have seen people becoming confused before, that the state of 'taking cover' in CM is separate from troops' psychological state. Generally, troops will take cover if they are being fired on but are unable to return effective fire (eg. they are taking mortar or tank fire, or fire at night from unspotted enemy troops). This is regardless of their psychological state, from 'alerted' to 'pinned' and 'routed'. I think troops are disinclined to waste time in open ground because whether or not the enemy can see them clearly, it knows where they are; and while a dip in the ground may offer you with cover behind some grass, grass won't stop bullets, and moreover, bullets travel in an arc, and if aimed towards you, will be coming not at ground level, but from a higher and much more dangerous angle. Therefore, troops will not crawl in open ground, they will run until they reach better cover; and they will not sit in open ground while under fire. I do, however, have my reservations about troops getting up and running for cover during an artillery barrage. I have seen troops lying, or even moving, in open ground suffer no casualties from artillery landing right on top of them, while running troops further away take casualties from the same explosion. I think experience is a factor here, of course, and I think it reasonable that less experienced troops would panic and run, whereas more experienced troops would know what's best for them and hug the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted July 5, 2001 Share Posted July 5, 2001 I would just like to clarify, as I have seen people becoming confused before, that the state of 'taking cover' in CM is separate from troops' psychological state. Generally, troops will take cover if they are being fired on but are unable to return effective fire (eg. they are taking mortar or tank fire, or fire at night from unspotted enemy troops). This is regardless of their psychological state, from 'alerted' to 'pinned' and 'routed'. I think troops are disinclined to waste time in open ground because whether or not the enemy can see them clearly, it knows where they are; and while a dip in the ground may offer you with cover behind some grass, grass won't stop bullets, and moreover, bullets travel in an arc, and if aimed towards you, will be coming not at ground level, but from a higher and much more dangerous angle. Therefore, troops will not crawl in open ground, they will run until they reach better cover; and they will not sit in open ground while under fire. I do, however, have my reservations about troops getting up and running for cover during an artillery barrage. I have seen troops lying, or even moving, in open ground suffer no casualties from artillery landing right on top of them, while running troops further away take casualties from the same explosion. I think experience is a factor here, of course, and I think it reasonable that less experienced troops would panic and run, whereas more experienced troops would know what's best for them and hug the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted July 5, 2001 Author Share Posted July 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: I have seen troops lying, or even moving, in open ground suffer no casualties from artillery landing right on top of them, while running troops further away take casualties from the same explosion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You've seen this in the game or IRL ? --Rett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted July 5, 2001 Author Share Posted July 5, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken: I have seen troops lying, or even moving, in open ground suffer no casualties from artillery landing right on top of them, while running troops further away take casualties from the same explosion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You've seen this in the game or IRL ? --Rett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 What's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 What's the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: Actually, this isn't necessarily unrealistic. The standard drill in most armies when ambushed is to assault the enemy position in an effort to disrupt the ambush.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. But that does involve a certain amount of shooting at the enemy when approaching the cover, doesn't it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted July 6, 2001 Share Posted July 6, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: Actually, this isn't necessarily unrealistic. The standard drill in most armies when ambushed is to assault the enemy position in an effort to disrupt the ambush.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Agreed. But that does involve a certain amount of shooting at the enemy when approaching the cover, doesn't it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts