Withdrawal Command... What Does it Do?

[Loaf]

I was wondering what the difference is between using the "withdraw" command and just ordering a unit to run away from the enemy... The manual says that there is no command delay. Is this the only difference? Does telling your men to run rather than withdraw reduce the chance of panic?

It occured to me that the game might model the men retreating in an orderly fashion, perhaps leapfrogging with one part of a squad covering the other (like "Assault," but backwards). When I have tried using the command the withdrawing units never seem to fire at the enemy, however...

[Pzman]

With the withdraw command your men are more likely to panic. I haven't found it to be very useful, for the most part. It may depend on when you use the command. If your men are under fire they seem to panic right away. Because I haven't found it useful I don't use it so someone else may have a better point of view on its use.

[Screaming Flea]

Exhaust and Panic combo , hold the fries...

[YankeeDog]

Think of it like this:

"Withdraw" is the game equivalent of the squad NCO suddenly shouting "?!%&! Get the &^%! out of here! NOW!". I generally imagine a disorganized stampede to the rear.

Needless to say, the end result in NOT good for the squad's morale. It does, however, get everybody moving in a big hurry, which can save your little digital soldiers' bacon in some situations.

For a more organized retrograde movement under fire, try using "Advance" or "Assault" orders to the rear - these orders take more time to initiate, but units are less likely to completely panic if they take fire during the retrograde movement. Note that the game assigns a general morale penalty to a unit taking fire from the rear no matter what movement order is being used, so even units using the Assault order to move retrograde from a source of incoming fire are more likely to pin or panic than a unit Assaulting towards the source of fire.

There have been discussions as to whether this is completely realistic, and whether there should be some way to order a unit to make an "Organized Withdrawal" under fire with less of a morale penalty. Suffice it to say that breaking contact under fire is one of the more difficult infantry moves to pull off in CM. History also suggests that this is true in real life, but CM's model may make it a bit too hard, or just hard enough, depending on your personal opinion.

An example of a good time to use withdraw, rather than "Advance" or "Assault":

You have a veteran squad holding a small, heavy building. The squad is busily fending off approaching enemy infantry. The squad is giving much better than it is giving and is in good spirits when an ISU-152 comes into view and BOOM! fires of a shell at the building.

Fortunately, the first shell misses the building entirely and flies long, exploding a considerable distance away. The turn ends mercifully before the slow-reloading ISU can get another shot off.

By immediately ordering you squad to WITHDRAW from the building, you stand a good chance of getting it out before the ISU fires its next round, which likely will NOT miss. Chances are, once the squad finishes the "Withdraw order, it will be at least "pinned", or maybe worse, but it will be much better off than if it was still in that building when the shell hit, which it likely would be with an "Advance" or "Assault" order to the rear.

A couple of notes about using Withdraw:

1) It works much better with more experienced troops and/or troops under command of an HQ with a good morale bonus. Withdrawing Conscripts is often useless - the usually panic and hit the dirt after only a few meters.

2) If the unit is already under even moderate fire, it's too late - the time to use "Withdraw" is BEFORE the sh*t hits the fan.

3) Withdraw works much better if the end of the withdraw move is someplace out of immediate danger - even experienced units will need time to settle their nerves after executing an withdrawal. This takes advance planning - making sure units are placed with a good "Covered route of withdrawal" and all that.

So you only use withrdraw when it is important to get a unit moving IMMEDIATELY. And don't expect a unit to be of much use for at least a few turns after completing a withdraw order, if not the whole rest of the battle. But it's better to withdraw a unit end up with a bunch of routed soldiers than it is to leave them where they are and end up with a bunch of dead soldiers.

Dead soldiers cost you points in the final tally. Routed soldiers don't.

Cheers,

YD

[Joachim]

I second YankeeDog.

IIRC I read somewhere "Withdraw" halves the command delay. IMHO it reduces it even more, but that's not the important thing.

Except for veteran+ squads under a good HQ, who have a very small command delay anyway, withdraw is the command of choice when it comes to get out of dodge ASAP and preserve the lives - not necessarily the combat value - of your men.

Some points on improving withdraw (read: keep your men alive while running and/or in good fighting spirit).

1) The less incoming while withdrawing, the better for lives and morale. Smoke or a covered retreat route work. Supression fire on the enemy works (Overwatch helps...).

2) Make sure they retreat towards HQs with morale bonus. As they may stop and pin anywhere on their way out, it is not enough to let them run 200m to a oy HQ. The first metres are usually important!

3) In a mass retreat, it may help to sacrifice a squad in cover that does not retreat just to absorb the incoming fire. TacAI may choose to fight the most dangerous squad, not the one that is the most exposed.

Gruß

Joachim

[lcm1947]

Now that's how a reply should look. You two guys just about covered the question as good as anyone could ever even hope for. I'm impressed and have certainly learned something. I'm not the original poster but thanks for your answers guys. Now what does walk mean? Just kidding although maybe we should ask that under a different topic. Damn good answers.

[Loaf]

Very interesting responses to my question... Of course, a brilliant player like me will probably never need to withdraw... Heh heh...

It never occured to me to "Advance" or "Assault" to the rear... Duh!

I didn't know about the general morale impact of fire from the rear - but I recall one of my first big successes against "General AI" was in A Deadly Affair, when I managed to get my Mk II panzers in behind the village while the rest of my force assaulted from the front... I took a chance and rolled my tanks right through the village where they could be subject to close-range infantry attack, but as soon as the partisans started taking fire from the rear the TacAI surrendered.

I think that this is probably quite realistic. I also think the difficulties of withdrawal are realistic.

S.L.A. Marshall's famous book "Men Against Fire" describes several incidents he witnessed with the US Army in WWII where sudden unexplained movement to the rear by small groups of soldiers triggered panic-stricken routes and the near-collapse of the line. In one incident a small artillery spotting team suffered a radio failure in the heat of action and dashed away from the enemy to a command post with a field telephone... The other men in the front lines saw them running at top speed for the rear and assumed that something awful was happening and started running too - next thing you know the whole unit was in flight, leaving a gaping hole in the line!

[tools4fools]

Now I wish that there would be a "whitdraw" order for panicked or routed troops.

Those guys usually just get shot like sitting ducks as they are not moving anymore - except being shot at but then they run for about 30 meters and wait there to get massacred again...

Wouldn't it be good to have "whitdraw" command only vor panicked and routed troops that it is possible to retreat them way to the rear to safe place to keep them alive? Instead of just running around the battlefied like chickens and getting shot up?

[Joachim]

Originally posted by tools4fools:

Now I wish that there would be a "whitdraw" order for panicked or routed troops.

Those guys usually just get shot like sitting ducks as they are not moving anymore - except being shot at but then they run for about 30 meters and wait there to get massacred again...

Wouldn't it be good to have "whitdraw" command only vor panicked and routed troops that it is possible to retreat them way to the rear to safe place to keep them alive? Instead of just running around the battlefied like chickens and getting shot up?

Panicked troops don't know what to do. They do not behave rationally. They stop thinking. That's war.

It would be nice to have such a command. But not realistic.

Try not to be on the receiving end - try to create panic in the enemies ranks! Excessively overwhelming forces, unexpected situations and flanking help spread panic, thus panic is a just reward for a good maneuver - or for a poor positioning of troops if you are stricken by panic!

How gamey is it to withdraw your helpless units to a safe place when they themselves have lost situational awareness and don't know where it is safe?

Note that they usually start to panic and either cower and creep somewhere where they think they have better cover or run - and do really weird things after they got hit while running. If somebody yells "get out", he does not say "get out, and make sure you don't run there, there and there!" Usually the NCO runs as the last man, so he can't even say "follow me". And if he is worth his money, he stays with his troops after they run -even in the wrong direction!

Gruß

Joachim

[Loaf]

Although it can be frustrating to watch panicked troops doing stupid things, I think that the limits on the player's ability to control troop behavior is one of the best things about Combat Mission. If you don't take care not to put your men in impossible situations you will lose control over them and destroy their combat effectiveness. It would be easy to change the game to prevent this, but unrealistic - soldiers are not robots!

There are lots of historical examples of panic and irrational behaviour in combat. Two good WWII examples are the collapse of green US troops at Kasserine and The Battle of the Bulge - I mention these because they are very well-documented. By the same token, inexperienced US troops under a good commander (MacArthur) carried out a succesful fighting retreat under hopeless circumstances in Bataan.

The Germans, meanwhile, had highly professional officers and NCO's and rarely seem to have suffered large-scale unit collapse. I think that the clear superiority of German infantry in CMBB is likely historically accurate...

[Louie the Toad]

Regarding the "Advance to the Rear" technique, has anyone tried using a covered arc to the area of expected enemy while 'advancing to the rear' with the same unit?

Otherwise as was said, if it is several units you are moving, you do a leapfrog backward as other units cover.

LeapToad.......

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Louie the Toad:

Regarding the "Advance to the Rear" technique, has anyone tried using a covered arc to the area of expected enemy while 'advancing to the rear' with the same unit?

Otherwise as was said, if it is several units you are moving, you do a leapfrog backward as other units cover.

LeapToad.......

Yes, in fact I usually "Advance to the Rear" (a very nice oxymoron, I might add. . .) with covered arcs for the moving units.

It's hard to tell for sure, but I don't think the covered arcs have any effect of a unit's morale if they take fire. I could be wrong, here, though - it's a difficult thing to come up with a definitive test for.

There are other good reasons to set covered arcs while moving retrograde, though:

1) Units automatically change their facing to line up with the middle of a covered arc once they stop moving. Of course, you could also do this with a Rotate order at the end of the movement, but having a covered arc saves you the trouble.

2) Units with covered arcs are MORE likely to fire on enemies within the arc than are units with no covered arc at all. Since Advancing or Assaulting units do put out some fire while moving, if they have a covered arc you have a better chance of getting some fire out of of them while they are moving. Fire output from units on the move is not particularly impressive, but every little bit helps, especially when you're trying to get the hell out of an area that's gotten a little too hot for comfort. . .

3) Once a unit completes it's retrograde movement, if it hasn't panicked and has LOS to any enemy units within its covered arc, it will fire on them. This can help provide supressive fire for other, still moving units. In fact, for this reason, when Advancing or Assaulting to the rear it is sometimes better to stagger the individual squads' movements so that first one moves back while the others fire to cover its withdrawal, and then the second starts moving about the time the first has made its bound back and is in position to offer covering fire again, etc. All this takes careful plotting of movements and use of the 'pause' order, but when done properly it works really well.

So, covered arcs can help keep your units facing in the right direction, and encourage them to put out the maximum fire possible during the retrograde movement.

My one complaint about this kind of movement under fire in CM thus far:

As far as I can tell from reading training manuals, AARs and first person accounts, platoon level doctrine for most WWII armies was notto execute movement under fire by moving one squad at a time under the cover of fire from the other squads, but rather to split the platoon into a fire group composed of all of the platoon's LMGs, and maneuver teams of the platoon's rifle/SMG men.

For retrograde movement, this meant that when the platoon leader decided to break contact, he would order the LMG teams (usually a 3-man team composed of LMG gunner, Asst. Gunner, and an ammo bearer) to move first. While the LMG teams moved, the balance of the platoon would keep up as much fire as possible to cover their withdrawal.

Once the LMGs had completed their movement, they would open fire to cover the rest of the platoon's withdrawal. Notice what this does - it means that the first units sent back to the rear are the longer-ranged LMGs, which are better at offering suppressive fire to cover the rest of the platoon's movement from a greater distance. The SMGs and Rifles cover the LMGs withdrawal from the front, where they can offer move suppressive fire due to shorter range, and the LMGs cover the rest of the platoon's withdrawsal from the rear, where they can still offer good supressive fire because they are the longer-ranged weapon.

You can't do this in CM. At least, you can't do it very well - you only option to get close to this tactic is to split your squads into half squads and move the LMG half-squad first. This is generally a bad idea because of the morale penalty associated with half squads. So in CM, you're better off bounding each squad in turn, rather than bounding first your LMGs, and then your riflemen.

It's a small point, and frankly not one I lose much sleep over - the end result of CM's current system is basically the same - you move back one group at a time so the rest of the force can offer covering fire, not all as a mass.

However, eventually, I would like to see CM model this aspect of platoon-level doctrine. Sometimes, a platoon behaves as 3 (or 4) more or less equally equipped squads, which is how CM models platoon-level organization and movement. Sometimes, though, it breaks down as 3-6 LMG teams in a "fire group" and 3-4 rifle teams as a "maneuver group". There are certain advantages to using the latter platoon breakdown that don't really manifest in CM right now.

Who knows, maybe for the new engine. . .

Cheers,

YD

[tools4fools]

Originally posted by Scarhead:

It would be nice to have such a command. But not realistic.

Try not to be on the receiving end - try to create panic in the enemies ranks! Excessively overwhelming forces, unexpected situations and flanking help spread panic, thus panic is a just reward for a good maneuver - or for a poor positioning of troops if you are stricken by panic!

How gamey is it to withdraw your helpless units to a safe place when they themselves have lost situational awareness and don't know where it is safe?

Note that they usually start to panic and either cower and creep somewhere where they think they have better cover or run - and do really weird things after they got hit while running. If somebody yells "get out", he does not say "get out, and make sure you don't run there, there and there!" Usually the NCO runs as the last man, so he can't even say "follow me". And if he is worth his money, he stays with his troops after they run -even in the wrong direction!

Gruß

Joachim

I do agree most of the part with what you pointed out; however I think the transition from alerted (still somehow useful) to panicked and worse (useless) is too fast.

Troops are easily in an "alerted" condition and recover quick as well. Once panicked they are useless, but not for too long. Ok we me. Routed or broken they are really screwed up for a longer time: OK with me again.

Only thing is that for panicked troops, I think it should be possible to have a bit control about them since it's the first step into loosing control. If their commander tells tehm "Let's get out of here and over there is a good place to hide", they might still listen to this particlular. Route or broken troops which really had enough should stay out of control.

Too be the "usefull" to "useless" is too harsh.

I think it shouldn't be black and white. Therefore for "panicked" troops "retreat" as only order still available, while broken or routed stays as it is.

or somefink like that.

Dind't mean to implement gamey retreat order.

In my opinion routed and broken troops should surrender more easy as well. I mean your broken or routed troops run away, about 30 -100 meters as usual in CM (now, how realistic is that?) and then get slaughtered if attacked again. Just like sitting ducks. I think they would

a) run farther in the first place

or

surrender

Simpler said:

let panicked (or worse) troops run more far from action regardless what cover is around.

Will get back tomorrow or later today, not such a good idea to post at 4.30am after work and with a few pint later as well.

Sorry for notuseofspillchecker....

Marcus

****

[Nippy]

The Germans, meanwhile, had highly professional officers and NCO's and rarely seem to have suffered large-scale unit collapse. I think that the clear superiority of German infantry in CMBB is likely historically accurate...

In the game at least, wouldn't that have more to do with unit experence levels than nationality? Green Volksturm or late war Luftwaffe infantry don't stand up very well against Reg and Vet Soviet Guards.

[Loaf]

Originally posted by Nippy:

In the game at least, wouldn't that have more to do with unit experence levels than nationality? Green Volksturm or late war Luftwaffe infantry don't stand up very well against Reg and Vet Soviet Guards. [/QB]

I agree... although I was thinking of comparisons between regular infantry formations with some training as opposed to conscript-type forces.

However I still think that the WWII German army stood up very well to a long period of defensive warfare against overwhelming odds. Also, it took all of the Allied armies a long time to gain enough painfully aquired combat efficiency to match the level the Germans were at when the war started.

I think this is due to the German tradition of careful and realistic training of their soldiers -after all, the Prussians invented the idea of formal academic training for officers. By contrast, I have read bitter accounts of how useless much of the training undergone by Allied soldiers turned out to be in combat (this was a primary concern of S.L.A. Marshall's book mentioned by me in a post earlier in this thread).

For an interesting read on the topic, try "Soldat" by Siegfried Knappe - he started in the pre-war German army shovelling out the stables in an artillery unit and finished the war as a staff officer. There are excellent descriptions of the extensive classroom training Knappe receives as he rises though the ranks... Good depictions of the Eastern front too.

[Ligur]

Good thread, YankeeDog's response was the ultimate answer of using "withdraw" within the game.

I agree with the people who answered; I use "withdraw" when a unit is about to get annihilated and its better to have them run away and maybe fight again later or at least save the points.

In game example: Yesterday I used "withdraw" when a flag area I was holding with two SMG platoons came under fire from 120mm mortars and a gun with good LOS. I used "withdraw" to immediately remove the platoon from the flag and "only" suffered 12 casualties. I had a company HQ waiting in the area they withdrew to (pre-emptive Company HQ placement, I was expecting something like this to happen). 5 minutes later the platoons had rallied completely and I was able to use them again in an effective SMG counter-attack. Had I held them in place they would have been useless for the rest of the game due to dying or getting completely broken. If I had used "move" or "fast" or "advance" to get outta dodge the platoons would have responded too slowly, getting pinned and unable to move away from the area under fire.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Loaf:

...it took all of the Allied armies a long time to gain enough painfully aquired combat efficiency to match the level the Germans were at when the war started.

While I think your general point about the superiority of German training was well taken, I also think you go a bit too far right here. The early war Germans tend to look really good because they were up against armies that were even worse off than themselves, sometimes quite a bit worse. In Poland they made serious mistakes, but the Poles were in no position to exploit them. Had the Poles begun mobilization earlier and been able to complete it, things might have gotten...interesting. And the less said about the French the better.

The Allies took a long time to catch up with the Germans because the Germans kept improving as well, at least until the second half of 1943, say. But if you stacked the 1939 Germans against the 1944 Allies (with 1939 vintage equipment on both sides), the Germans might not come off looking so good. In fact, they might look rather silly.

Michael

[ July 05, 2003, 12:55 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[JasonC]

Don't use "assault" for retrograde movements. "Advance" is much better. Assault increases the command delay before moving, generally the last thing you want. It also tells the unit to fire more while moving, but this does not help when it isn't facing the enemy. There is little if any additional morale stiffening compared to "advance", certainly not enough to be noticable.

As for times to use "withdraw", to run from a barrage is one of the most important uses. For anything above light caliber (75, 76, 82) you really don't want to hang around taking full minutes of fire from an accurately placed fire mission.

The first few shells may pin a unit or two, which is bad. But most will get away in the time gap between one flight of shells and another, after the random fall of the first few shells didn't hit them specifically.

If instead you use a longer command delay order, what happens is another flight of shells lands while the delay is counting, drops the morale state to shaken or pinned, and thereby extends the command delay still further. When they do move they often crawl instead of getting up and seriously moving, which leaves them stuck in the barrage zone.

As for micromanaging which elements of a platoon pull back first and which cover, it is usually the wrong echelon level to fiddle with. Move your platoons as units, having them cover each other ("up a step"). Half squads cannot provide meaningful cover, and single squads can do little more than draw fire. The only time to deviate from this is when limited available cover forces you to divide a movement into two bounds, to avoid bunching up e.g. in one tile of trees.

As for panicked units withdrawing, they do it on their own if they get shot at. The general routine for panicked to routed troops is to sit still at first (hoping somebody else gets shot after they go heads down, in effect). If fired on while already in that state, they head for the nearest cover, though they try not to approach the enemy if they can help it. They keep doing this until they don't get shot anymore.

In effect, they thereby execute a sort of "random walk" out of LOS. They don't know which locations are out of LOS of all enemies - they aren't tracking such things anymore. But if they arrive at a spot no enemy can see, they don't get shot at again and therefore stay put.

It is a good idea to engage from locations where a short movement back can break LOS completely, as a general rule. It helps the panickers get out of sight of the enemy relatively quickly, which in the long run keeps them alive and speeds their rally. Naturally it also lets good order units decide whether to engage the enemy or avoid his firepower, depending on the match up you see.

[MikeyD]

My my my, I seem to be much luckier than the others at using 'withdraw' and I've found myself using it more and more often.

The trick is to not wait til all is lost before using it. Its not your troops fault if they get shot in the back following your orders! Use withdraw early-and-often and your opponent will have difficulty pinning your forces down for an assault.