Infantry - modeled realistic?

[Scipio]

First, this is meant as constructive critic. I have no doubts that CM is still the best wargame on tactical level.

I often thought about this in my year of CM-addiction.

Infantry is displayed as one, two or three men. It represents a group of individual soldiers. This is - for several reasons - a necessary abstraction. But is it possible to spot or target them as a single unit as I can spot a vehicel?

Spotting - except in VERY open terrain, you can only assess if you face a single squad or a whole battalion. If I see 12 soldiers (for example) more or less close together, how can I know if it's a complete squad or the rests of two different squads, or even the halves of one splitted squad? In CM I see two single soldier 'icons', so I know I have two targets. Beside that, how do I know if this light MG is part of a squad or a single team close to a squad? Here are also some 'wrong spottings' possible.

Targeting - if I even don't know how many different units I see, how can I order to fire on a specific squad? IMO, the 'One Squad = One Target' system is a relic of the old 'I move - you move' wargames, it was just not possible to model it in another way. But in CM, we have the 'we move' system, all results and actions are precalculated. So wouldn't it be more realistic that I can order only the general area or direction were I see (or even assume) enemy soldiers and leave the rest to the Tac-AI? A whole squad of 10 soldiers can in princip fire on ten different targets at one time. Also, a single MG can targed a bigger area and several units at one time.

Moral - Is it realistic that a full squad changes the moral, for example it panic or break? Well, it's not necessary to model each single soldier, but maybe it would be an idea to add a third number to the unit status : one for 'good' soldiers, one for casualties, and the third for 'currently incapable' soldiers. This can represent everything from panic, lightly wounded, stunned, weapon jammed etc. In other words, currently not able to fight, but able to recover during the battle. I could still give orders to the unit til the last soldier is incapable or gone, even if the firepower and mobility is more or less influenced. That would be much more realictic then '75% of the squad is broken, so the whole squad is broken'.

Fanatic - I wonder why only better troops can get 'fanatic'. The boys from the HJ were at best 'green', but a lot of them were fanatics, and they fought very tough. It's also known that the first waves in Normandy were mostly fresh troops, cause the leaders expected that they would still continue to fight when veterans would already break.

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[The Commissar]

Good points, Scipio. I agree with you. Some of your ideas are also pretty good. I'd like to see this implemented in a future CM, or perhaps even CM:BtB if it isn't too late to make major changes to that game.

Since I don't have anything more to say, Ill just wait until the nay sayers come along.

[Scipio]

A point I've forgotten: I always notice how idiotic infantry acts when it's under fire - it really doesn't matter by what - especially in open terrain. I'm not sure if someone at BTS was in the army. The first thing they teached us in military service is this: when someone shoot at you, bring your ass in touch with mother earth, be the smallest possible target ESPECIALLY IN OPEN TERRAIN. Don't jump up and try to run for cover if you assume that the enemy is still targeting you - try to CRAWL out of enemy sight or for a better cover. If you think you can dare to run for cover, don't change your direction, just RUN.

It seems the CM drill instructors teach something else: don't get down! Turn around and go back. Be a big target, run for cover, even if the next cover is far away. The best cover are houses - once in it, the enemy only need to ruin the house to kill you etc...

Even OPEN terrain doesn't mean 'no cover', it only mean 'not much cover'. Nevertheless, a soldier flat on the ground is very difficult to spot and he has much more chances to keep alive then if he tries to break the 100m worldrecord while a couple of bad guys try to improve their hitrating with him.

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[CMplayer]

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

A point I've forgotten: I always notice how idiotic infantry acts when it's under fire -

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true. I'm looking forward to a completely revamped set of behaviours of troops under fire.

Until then I've decided to just look at it like this. When a squad starts acting like a chicken with its head cut off, I don't actually picture to myself that they ran like a pack of dogs on exactly those vectors hefore all getting KIA. I just figure they got chewed all to hell _somewhere near_ there. At this point I let the abstraction of the model take precedence over the 'movie'. This is a way to just have fun and enjoy the game as it is.

regards,

--Rett

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>CMPlayer: Until then I've decided to just look at it like this. When a squad starts acting like a chicken with its head cut off, I don't actually picture to myself that they ran like a pack of dogs on exactly those vectors hefore all getting KIA. I just figure they got chewed all to hell _somewhere near_ there. At this point I let the abstraction of the model take precedence over the 'movie'. This is a way to just have fun and enjoy the game as it is.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well said.

I agree with many of Scipio’s points, but at some point you have to accept the inherent abstractions of any wargame. “One sees for all” spotting is an example. Of course this won’t stop me bitching from time to time about infantry running around under fire like chickens with their heads chopped off

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[M Hofbauer]

A good look at some of the problems inherent in the current infantry model. Not the first look, but a good one nevertheless. And very commendable ideas to handle some of the problems and improve the model within realistic development/engine constraints.

Overall, very commendable IMHO.

Hofbauer

----------

Proud holder of the Gillette

repeatedly used single-use groomknife,

trophy for early-morning bathroom combat

[Scipio]

I guess one of the biggest 'problems' in CM is : it IS abstracted, but it don't looks abstracted.

[Moon]

Scipio - in Army you should have also learned, however, that while going prone as immediate reaction is a good thing, remaining prone and/or crawling away is not always the best choice. Many of the reactions under fire depend on the type of gun (small arms, mortars etc.) and the intensity (i.e. effect) of that fire. If it's intense and effective, you bet that the platoon leader will issue the order for a hasty retreat, and then usually either by bounds or at least with short sprints. Short exposure while running is sometimes better than lower exposure but longer time in the kill zone.

What's the relevance in CM terms? As you say yourself, many inter-squad actions in CM are abstracted. Units running might actually mean a few guys prone, giving covering fire, while others are crawling and yet others are running away. You will see more differentiation of this behaviour in CM:BB, by the way...

[Scipio]

Moon, I agree that this can be seen as an misunderstanding caused by the abstraction.

Well, maybe this can be solved by my starting post: the 'currently incapable' thing. This can also include 'soldiers lost orientation and run into the completly false direction'. Maybe the leader will be able to ralley the unit, or the soldiers return on their own later.

[Mr. Johnson--]

BTS tried to make CMBO at a certain level of complexity. They are sticking with that level for CMBB. BTS, I assume, did not want to go the way of Close Combat and model each soldier's actions. They like the higher level of command. I do to. When CMBB comes out we can have control of something like 360 tanks for one side on a map, more micromangement as the size of the forces increase is going to be insanely time consuming.

CC never wanted to think of going that big. Any game trying to model every soldier's ability and actions on the battlefield is going swamp the player in decisions.

Some people want BTS to even move the level of control higher, to telling a company commander to move his company to a spot and then the A.I. take over and control the company, move to a new position and deploy. So the gamer can step back and control larger forces without micromangement.

Not until a rebuild happens will BTS even consider changing the scale of their game.

[ 09-22-2001: Message edited by: Mr. Johnson-<THC>- ]

[Scipio]

Mr. Johnson, this is a misunderstanding. I've written in my starting post:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Well, it's not necessary to model each single soldier, but maybe it would be an idea to add a third number to the unit status : one for 'good' soldiers, one for casualties, and the third for 'currently incapable' soldiers. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just want - beside the dead/wounded - additional tear the capable from the incapable soldiers. This is NO additional micromanagement, because - you can already proof how many soldiers with which weapons you have in the unit on the 'Detailed Unit information' screen.

And even if it end up that each soldiers get a personal status flag (in program terms), it would only rise realism. Humans are individuals - even if some say that they are borg (Am I a borg queen? :cool: )

But I don't want BTS to let me command each single soldier. The CM level of control is IMO perfect.

[ 09-23-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Mikael]

Excellent suggestions. If BTS wants to improve something, it has to be the infantry. I'll also add that the Tactical AI can seem pretty dumb in close combat situations. Once I had an enemy tank get stuck in a hedge, 5-10 meters from two of my squads. IIRC they even had Panzerfausts. Well, guess what. They spent 2 minutes just firing their small arms at the tank, and taking 4 or 5 casualties in the process. A smarter AI would have either used its panzerfausts or assaulted the tank... And they were veteran troops BTW.

[Tero]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka PanzerLeader:

Excellent suggestions. If BTS wants to improve something, it has to be the infantry. I'll also add that the Tactical AI can seem pretty dumb in close combat situations. Once I had an enemy tank get stuck in a hedge, 5-10 meters from two of my squads. IIRC they even had Panzerfausts. Well, guess what. They spent 2 minutes just firing their small arms at the tank, and taking 4 or 5 casualties in the process. A smarter AI would have either used its panzerfausts or assaulted the tank... And they were veteran troops BTW.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The use of Panzerfausts is iffy at best (not to mention the rather cronic lack of luck when actually firing it). Furthermore there are times the troops refuse to fire it at armour but is quite happy to waste it away on infantry moments later (or better yet before the armour enters effective range).

There should be at least a way define target classes so that you could detail for example some squads (and AT guns) to hunt armour while others take care of the infantry.

[Scipio]

Yes, this is something I've noticed, too. If I order my Inf. to fire on a close tank, it seems to be self-evident to use a rifle grenade or Panzerfaust. If we would need an additional micromanagment, then to tell the men to use their AT weapons.

[Ben Galanti]

In general, I've found much better luck in NOT specifically targeting armor with infantry. The infantry seems more likely to fire their anti-tank weaponry if you don't give them a set target, but just get them in range.

This may be totally bogus, but it's just what it seems like to me.

Ben

[Doug Beman]

Scipio, the current model makes no distinction between the various reasons a soldier is combat-ineffective, for the very appropriate reason that it doesn't matter, in CM's scale, why a soldier is combat-ineffective. Whether he's dead, badly wounded, mentally broken, or is helping a wounded buddy, he's out of the battle. I don't see any value for players in knowing whether he's dead/wounded or what. If there is something that I'm not seeing (maybe you and your human opponents track this or something as part of your scoring?) let me know.

DjB

[Tero]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

In general, I've found much better luck in NOT specifically targeting armor with infantry. The infantry seems more likely to fire their anti-tank weaponry if you don't give them a set target, but just get them in range.

This may be totally bogus, but it's just what it seems like to me.

Ben<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As it is "one squad, one target" it is hard to get the tanks into range (which is really tough if you draw PF30) without them getting distracted by a fleeing crew or other high priority targets 100 meters behind the tank.

[Ben Galanti]

PFs can be fired at a 'non-targeted' unit. So the squad can be taregtting some other infantry unit, and it may still fire it's PFs.

Now, I'll fully admit that this is pretty rare, I can only remember it happening two or three times in all of the games I've played (at least that I've noticed).

Now, I'm not a PF expert my any means, honestly i've never had much luck with PFs. But I have gotton some kills on occasion. My problem seems to me more due to the 'borg' spotting. It's mighty tough to actually sneak up on an AFV, even if it's buttoned...

Ben

Ben

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman:

Scipio, the current model makes no distinction between the various reasons a soldier is combat-ineffective, for the very appropriate reason that it doesn't matter, in CM's scale, why a soldier is combat-ineffective. Whether he's dead, badly wounded, mentally broken, or is helping a wounded buddy, he's out of the battle. I don't see any value for players in knowing whether he's dead/wounded or what. If there is something that I'm not seeing (maybe you and your human opponents track this or something as part of your scoring?) let me know.

DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, you've indeed misunderstood the idea. I won't know what has happened to the 'KIA', you're right, it doesn't matter. From my starting post: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> ...In other words, currently not able to fight, but able to recover during the battle...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The sense is : Even if 4 men are 'killed' and 4 others are 'currently incapable', I have the rest of the squad operational. This can be very important if one of the rest has a machinegun, for example. Isn't it more realitsic as a whole squad that panics or breaks in the same second? Sometimes it's the last men standing...

[Andreas]

Scipio, I think what Doug is trying to say is that currently you get exactly what you are asking for when the counter says '5 men okay - 4 men casualties'. That could break down in one KIA, one WIA, one lying prone praying the Vater Unser, and the last one off to pick some of those nice yellow flowers yonder.

When the whole squad breaks (which can happen with no or almost no casualties) it just means they all decide together that they have an urgent appointment elsewhere.

So to an extent, what you ask for is currently modeled as I understand the system. The final screen headcount is pretty much irrelevant in that respect.

[M Hofbauer]

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

So to an extent, what you ask for is currently modeled as I understand the system. The final screen headcount is pretty much irrelevant in that respect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

no it is not irrelevant since it makes your explanation questionable

some guy who went elsewhere to pick Gänseblümchen might be incap for game purposes, but he is *not* a casualty after the battle, neither wounded nor dead, to the contrary, he shows up healthy&happy, smiling and with a bouquet of daisies.

[Gen-x87H]

After last weeks round of defeats on the old ladder I am also in the crowd that is baffled by Infantry actions.

I had HMGs that would move forward into fire even after I directed them for the 3 turns previous to move behind the hill.

Veteran American Rifle 44 units that would panic and route from Volksgrenadier Rifle fire from 200 meters. This happened when my troops were in heavy trees and his in the open. And to top it off 1 of my routed squads never even took a casualty! Full veteran squad just running away at the first sign of fighting.

That and my bad play doomed me with ease.

Frustrating to see troops running when they dont even have any casualties and are exchaging fire at 200 meters.

Gen

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

PFs can be fired at a 'non-targeted' unit. So the squad can be taregtting some other infantry unit, and it may still fire it's PFs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Horrible memories... pinning a German squad in the woods in front of the church in Chance Encounter with infantry fire, a hot firefight taking place between them, when a P'faust arcs at right angles from the Axis unit's firing line and ignites the whole friggin' church. Didn't know they could do that.

I had most of a platoon inside ready to open up from the unprotected angle... needless to say they ran like chickens with their heads cut off (RLCWTHCO?) directly into the LOS of known, oblique MGs about 50m away and died a lot.

Been much less of a church(and building)goer ever since.

Damn you JWorthing wherever you are.

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

no it is not irrelevant since it makes your explanation questionable

some guy who went elsewhere to pick Gänseblümchen might be incap for game purposes, but he is *not* a casualty after the battle, neither wounded nor dead, to the contrary, he shows up healthy&happy, smiling and with a bouquet of daisies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nonono - but it is irrelevant, because otherwise my explanation won't make sense

But really - from what I understand the end-of-game screen is an abstraction, and there should probably be a fourth category of MIA (the guys von Mellenthin talks about as showing up at the Field Kitchen sometime later).

[Scipio]

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

Scipio, I think what Doug is trying to say is that currently you get exactly what you are asking for when the counter says '5 men okay - 4 men casualties'. That could break down in one KIA, one WIA, one lying prone praying the Vater Unser, and the last one off to pick some of those nice yellow flowers yonder.

When the whole squad breaks (which can happen with no or almost no casualties) it just means they all decide together that they have an urgent appointment elsewhere.

So to an extent, what you ask for is currently modeled as I understand the system. The final screen headcount is pretty much irrelevant in that respect.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Germanboy, I know what Doug want to say, and it's not what I mean, and I never spoken about the final results.

Once again:

Status quo: the squad is displayed by two numbers, on the left side the healthy soldiers, on the right side the 'dead' soldiers. 'Dead' just means 'This soldier is away, he will not return during the battle'. This is NOT influenced by my idea. Forget the 'dead' soldiers. I only speak about the 'Healthy' soldiers (short HS). HS change their moral status always and only as group, it doesn't matter if they are 3 or 12 men. IMO, this is as unrealistic as to find 10 members with the same opinion on this board. So, instead loosing a whole squad to 'Panic' as Gen-x87H described it, I want to part the HS into 'capable' and 'currently incapable'. With 'currently incapable' I mean not 'dead'=gone for the rest of the battle, I mean able to return to 'healthy' soldiers. The status 'currently incapable' can abstract various things like:

'stunned', 'shocked', 'panic', 'broken' 'routed', 'weapon jamed', 'out for a cup of tea', 'find fresh panties', 'sewing a lost leg on' etcetera

The sense is, you have the rest of the squad available, even if the greatest part is 'dead' or 'currently incapable'. You can give orders, you can move it. Maybe you have the luck to have a MG or some SMG in the remaining part of the squad, so you have still a valuable unit.

NOW (for the first time) about the endresults: it is (very)likely that not ALL 'currently incapable' soldiers will return. I assume some of them will just disappear. Those can be seen as MIA, and MAYBE influence the endresult.