Suggestions for infantry tactical options

[bob7654]

If this has been suggested before or is out of place, I apologize.

Now, I've found the available infantry commands to be extremely limiting when trying to move your troops in the combat zone. The main problems are that 1: units under fire have a tendency to drop for cover where there is no cover (streets, etc.) even if cover is only a few yards away; and 2: units are always in a mixed suppressing/aimed fire mode. This has led to many "stare down" games where neither side is willing to commit its troops to an offensive, even when one side is quite superior in numbers.

Two suggestions:

1. Introduce a SPRINT command. Units in SPRINT move as as fast as RUN, but exhaust after 50 yards. In return, they receive a hefty morale bonus.

2. Introduce two stance settings for infantry.

Stance REGULAR: Infantry uses the usual mix of offense and defense.

Stance OFFENSIVE: Infantry forgoes defense for a higher rate of fire, better spotting, and quicker reaction time to enemy movement (morale stays unchanged).

This should make infantry combat and maneuver under fire more flexible by making it more difficult for the inferior defending side to pop up out of their defenses and mow down the charge before being suppressed by covering fire.

Keep in mind:

1. Suppress

2. Outmaneuver

3. Break

4. Kill

the enemy.

It'd be great if the game could accomodate the standard infantry approach more realistically.

As ingenious as the tank combat is, infantry combat has the tendency to become quite stale.

Hope this can be fixed in a patch.

Have fun.

[ March 11, 2005, 08:45 AM: Message edited by: bob7654 ]

[Wicky]

BFC have said no more patches for CM series - They are going full steam ahead with the new CMX series for late 2005.

Check the CMAK forum for threads relating to 'bones' about game simulation features.

[YankeeDog]

BFC has repeatedly stated that there will be no more pactches for the original CM series; they have move on to working on the new engine.

As for your proposals, the whole maneuver vs. firepower issue has been debated ad infinitum, and different people have different opinions. A search will turn up some interesting reading.

However, I think a plurality (if not a majority) of the opinions stated on the board were that the difficulty of maneuvering under even modest fire in CMBB & CMAK (as opposed to CMBO, where it was much easier to maneuver infantry under fire) is about right.

Personally, while I, like verybody else, do have my pet peeves about the infantry modeling around the edges, overall things seem about right in this particular area. In general, I think the historical record of infantry combat in WWII shows that relatively small groups of defenders in decent cover were usually able to hold off significantly larger groups of attackers. There's always exceptions -- defenders that break under relatively light fire for morale or poor leadership reasons and the like -- but in general, it took quite a lot of supressive fire to manage a successful infantry assault.

As for "staleness," that's in the eye of the beholder. Personally, I find it quite an enjoyable challenge to arrange sufficient suppressive fire and make a good infantry assault on a prepared position. I actually prefer primarily, or even exclusively infantry fights in CMBB & CMAK.

Incidentally, the "stare down" situation you mention was also quite common IRL.

Cheers,

YD

[bob7654]

Hi, thanks for the quick answers. Didn't even know that they are working on CMx2.

As for infantry combat, I am quite satisfied with the general AI of troops and how they handle suppressing fire; it just gets a bit awkward at close quarter house to house fighting when trying to make the last 10 yards.

Thanks again, and since CMx2 is on it's way, never mind this post.

[ March 11, 2005, 09:16 AM: Message edited by: bob7654 ]

[YankeeDog]

FWIW, I do agree that close-quarters fighting is one of the weaker areas of the current infantry combat modeling.

I'm definitely hoping there will be some improvements in this area with CMX2.

Cheers,

YD

[bob7654]

Well, while I'm at it why not get my other strange ideas off my chest (some (all) most likely have been discussed already, but I don't have the time to read through a million threads). So this is just for the heck of it.

1. Add a movie function, allowing to save and watch the whole battle in one piece in God mode after its conclusion.

2. Panzer General style campaigns (I love landing in Savannah with my King Tigers ). I know CM has a philosophy of realism, so it ain't gonna happen.

3. CMx2 should have deteriorating armor. If 5 guns with 90mm penetrating power pummel a turret with 100mm thickness, that thing is going to fall apart pretty quickly. (Even large HE charges can crack a tank's armor making it more vulnerable to the next AP hit)

4. 20/30/37mm (etc.) HE guns seem underpowered. When a 20mm quad flak fires a full HE salvo into a small/medium building it will most likely evaporate. According to some anecdotes from the History Channel, Germans did exactly that on occasion on the eastern front. 50cals also seem underpowered against lightly fortified positions.

5. The morale effect of HE ammo (incl. panzerfausts, etc.) against infantry within confined spaces seems too small. The concussion when the shell explodes within a room is far greater than at equal distance in the open, and when a large HE shell flies into a wall it turns it into shrapnel for anyone behind it. CM appears to treat inside and outside explosions the same way.

6. Intra-house combat seems to resolve too quickly. It looks as if they slug it out in an open space, instead of room to room. I would have expected it to take much longer to sweep an occupied building and I would expect the use of grenades and experience to play a much bigger role in determining the casualties. When intra-house fighting, the proper training becomes far more important for resolving short term casualties/kills than at long range.

[ March 11, 2005, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: bob7654 ]

[Tigrii]

Originally posted by bob7654:

1. Introduce a SPRINT command. Units in SPRINT move as as fast as RUN, but exhaust after 50 yards. In return, they receive a hefty morale bonus.

This should make infantry combat and maneuver under fire more flexible by making it more difficult for the inferior defending side to pop up out of their defenses and mow down the charge before being suppressed by covering fire.

Your proposed sprint command sounds a lot like the existing assault command in BB and AK.

Defending ambushes are a tactical, not a game problem. You don't "charge" into an unsecured area with a force that it would hurt you to lose without precautions and recon. If you do, it is only fair that you get creamed.

[bob7654]

Fair point. The purpose of an sprint command wouldn't be to run into enemies though, since the troops would be as vulnerable and won't return fire as when ordering them to run.

The purpose would be to allow them to sprint across a street from cover to cover (building to building) without stopping in the open and inviting everyone to butcher them after the first shot fired at them. Assault is too slow for this purpose.

When ordered to run a short distance from safety to safety through enemy fire I believe it's save to say that most soldiers in real life would gladly run the last few yards with bullets whizzing by and taking their chances instead of dropping in the line of fire with no cover at all. But then again, I'm no soldier.

The paragraph about charging inferior enemy positions was referring to the 2nd suggestion to give troops the ability to increase their suppressing fire capabilities in favor of defensive capabilities and ammo conservation. I'm not opposed to the defender's ability to stage abushes. I just think that the attacker doesn't have enough supression options when knowing where the defender is.

E.g. an enemy is in hiding with a coverarc in a building. I know where he is and give two MGs the order to continiously fire at the spot. I also give one nearby platoon a coverarc on the spot of the enemy. When I now send a squad running across the street to an empty building through the enemy's coverarc, he will jump up, pin down my squad in the open before being supressed. This gives distant enemy squads the time to react and chew my pinned squad into pieces. When possessing a multiple of the enemy's small arms firepower, I believe that it should be possible to put up enough lead in the air to keep his head down for a short while, or to have your troops run quickly for a brief distance without getting stupid after the first casualty, or both.

Well, I'm looking forward to seeing how they'll handle all this in CMx2!

[ March 11, 2005, 05:03 PM: Message edited by: bob7654 ]

[Wicky]

Try using squads (SMG) with Vet+ experience under HQ command with preferably morale, combat and command bonuses.

Have your MGs and as much fire support as you can muster, lay covering area fire at known positions for at least a turn or two to achieve decent suppression.

Did I say smoke?

If that doesn't work buy some big calibre HE shooting hardware/arty for maximum effect to help close in. Don't try frontal attacks if you can flank or think up alternative devious and fiendish tactics like approaching as close as possible using cover and avoiding crossing open ground like the plague.

[ March 11, 2005, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: Wicky ]

[JasonC]

Use advance for that. Advance should be your standard command for any unit that moves in any situation where it can be fired upon.

[bob7654]

*sigh*

[Blazing 88's]

Posted by bob7654:

B]3. CMx2 should have deteriorating armor. If 5 guns with 90mm penetrating power pummel a turret with 100mm thickness, that thing is going to fall apart pretty quickly. (Even large HE charges can crack a tank's armor making it more vulnerable to the next AP hit)

Sounds like a RTS Command and Conquer idea to me... C&C BOO! JMO.