Close Assault order (yes, I did a search...)

[willmontgomery]

I read all previous posts I could find about close assaults, and I accept the current state of things with respect to infantry assaulting AFVs.

And I am sure I am thinking about CM2 here rather than a patch to CM1.

All that said, I think the game would be improved by a "close assault" or "pursue and engage" type order for infantry vs. infantry. I don't know how many times I have faced the following situation:

Squads chewed up (casualties, depleted ammo)in the early fighting are pulled out of the line and reassigned escort duty for friendly AFVs. Of course everyone knows how a single enemy 'zook, 'schreck, or PIAT team can ruin your whole day, so when one is detected the escorts want to stamp it out ASAP. That's what they're there for, and they're well-suited to do it. Out in the open (where the AT team would have to be suicidal to go) this has not been a problem, because the escorts don't have to get particularly close to shoot the AT team down like a couple of dogs. But in woods, the results turn into an absolute farce:

1) My guys run at the team, the team runs at my guys, they exchange places.

2) My guys run at the team, the team relocates, my guys get to the team's former location and stop. Lather, rinse, repeat.

This is not fun, it is silly. Of course if the AT team should happen to break contact, then OK. And obviously my opponent could be wily enough to run my pursuers into an ambush, so if I am going to give chase I have to be prepared to accept that risk. But right now it's really silly how difficult and awkward it is for faster, more numerous rifle troops to close with and kill or capture infiltrating AT teams. Just to clarify, I am not talking about detection. I am talking about "you know the AT team is there, it's targeting your tank -- the tank the escorts have been solemnly pledged to protect -- and they're reduced to running around like idiots".

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

"C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre."

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by willmontgomery:

This is not fun, it is silly... ...the tank the escorts have been solemnly pledged to protect -- and they're reduced to running around like idiots".

I think a search for "hunt command" or "AI scripting" or some such might be enlightening.

As things stand now you'll need to get a little creative with how and where you string together your move/sneak commands.

I've seen AT teams get toasted in the woods a number of times, and they also can ellude pursuit pretty well.

Might be just one of those war/reality things though. You got an forests within a drive form where you're at? Ever do any hunting? Forests offer pretty darn good cover and concealment you know.

[Jeff Heidman]

This problem is even more apparent for the AT team hunting the AFV, especially if it is just a squad or half-squad with some fausts.

It is very annoying that you ahve to "guess" where the AFV is going to go, even when your squad has them in sight. It would certainly be nice to be able to tell a squad to try to get close and shoot that big giant metal box, when said big giant metal box is in plain view.

Right now there is no way to jsut tell the unit to get closer to its target no matter where the target goes.

Jeff Heidman

[Juardis]

What can I say Will other than I agree completely. IIRC, it's on the list for possible inclusion in CM2.

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

Jeff Abbott

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

...Right now there is no way to jsut tell the unit to get closer to its target no matter where the target goes.

Jeff Heidman

That's true, and that kind of feature truly cuts both ways. Imagine the posts when your Panzergrenadiers go merely across an Anti-personel minefield following some AFV, or are lured into some other interesting prediciment. Sounds fun if you think about it.

If you are watching something move, how do you predict wher it *will* go. You'd have to say, the object is traveling at this direction at this speed and to intercept go to X. But, what happens when the object changes direction, and/or speed? Ah, a sub-routine... Not to mention, what happens if you've lost LOS? Another sub-routine?. And what happens when some other oddity occurs?

Lot's of challenges to making that sort of behavior look & feel rational. Not that it's undesirable to achieve, just thinking it would be murderous to program.

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

Use "move". Don't use "run". Run means "don't shoot until you get here". Move is slow enough for a longish engagement time as you pass an enemy unit, and the men can fire. Works for me...