infantry abandoning trenches for (poorer) cover

[Carl Puppchen]

Hello. I am posting here because it seems less crazy than the main CMAK area.

I try not to gripe about many things because I enjoy CMAK and it is well made but one thing drives me crazy - infantry leaving TRENCHES for poorer cover when under fire.

I am playing a scenario now that is a variant on cassino and due to the rough terrain I have to setup trenches in open ground. The enemy fire is intense and when my units break they leave the comparative safety of the trench for rough or rocky terrain. I have seen troops leave trenches in open desert for brush and other crummy terrain, too.

Of course from a combat mission perspective this is insane. As any regular player knows, trenches provide AWESOME cover for soldiers - if anything, they may be over-modeled against Artillery (another thread I started a while back that got a ton of interesting posts).

My understanding of the tac AI is that when they break the soldiers go to better cover. In many instances I have seen the soldiers crawl out of their happy trench home TOWARDS the enemy for some brush or other crummy hiding place. Thus this urge to flee must even be overcoming the fact that fleeing soldiers are generally unlikely to move towards the enemy.

I don't know if this is considered 1) a bug 2) a feature and I am just dumb 3) a possible historical anomaly. Any thoughts?

[Sergei]

This has been known for and complained about for years. It's just that the TacAI is pretty much blind, thinking "ooh I must get outta here, now!" when sitting in a trench in the middle of a totally open plains. Also I think the TacAI only considers terrain types as it looks for safety - foxholes, trenches or craters it usually ignores.

[junk2drive]

Not that I like the idea, but maybe the theory is that where the unit is, is unsafe. It (the trench, foxhole, crater) has been targeted enough times to say it is no longer a defensive position. The AI thinks it better find someplace else quick. If the enemy pours on the mg fire, you can duck into the trench. But how long before the enemy dumps mortar fire in the slit.

Just a guess.

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

[...] The enemy fire is intense and when my units break they leave the comparative safety of the trench for rough or rocky terrain.

When your unit breaks, it doesn't think rationally any more. It just wants to get away. You will probably have to accept that panicing units do stupid things.

Dschugaschwili

[Yskonyn]

Imagine yourself sitting in that trench... Don't be suprised you'd be doing really weird stuff yourself too, as if you're smoking too much pot too frequently!

Like junk2drive says, ducking from MG fire is one thing, but staying put when mortar or artillery fire is pounding your foxhole or whatever you're in will make even Arnold Schwarzenegger run like hell!

[YankeeDog]

I think Duschugaschwili hit the nail on the head.

Historical combat reports are full of accounts of soldiers doing really irrational things due the the stress of being under fire, even when supposedly under protection -- I've read accounts of soldiers in the comparative safety of a concrete bunker going completely mad under heavy artillery fire, and their comrades having to hold them down to keep them from running out the door into certain death. At some point, for some people the "flight" part of the "fight or flight" reaction takes over, no matter how irrational it might be.

Eventually, though, it would be nice if the panic/break reaction on CM was a bit more random and individualized -- for example, say you have 4 men left of a rifle squad in a trench. Under heavy fire, the squad breaks, and then routs. At present, when a squad routs, all remaining members make a run for it in the same direction since the squad is considered a single "unit" for game purposes. It would be really cool if instead of running for the rear like a gaggle of geese, soldiers in a routing squad had individualized reactions. So one or two might run madly for the rear (but possibly in different directions), another might curl up in a fetal position inside the trench, and the fourth might actually keep some of his wits about him and run *along* the trench to get out of the fire zone before making for the rear.

It would also be cool if routing units sometimes randomly cast off their weapons, ammo, grenades, etc. as they tried to get away.

Also worth noting that I see the "rout stampede" behavior somewhat less often in CMAK, I think because I think the game has been tweaked so that units under heavy fire, and without a good avenue of escape, are somewhat more likely to surrender, rather than run for it. Works for me.

Cheers,

YD

[Sirocco]

This is a part of a problem the game engine has with dealing with cover. You just have to live with it until, hopefully, the new engine overcomes it and the other associated issues.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Historical combat reports are full of accounts of soldiers doing really irrational things due the the stress of being under fire, even when supposedly under protection -- I've read accounts of soldiers in the comparative safety of a concrete bunker going completely mad under heavy artillery fire, and their comrades having to hold them down to keep them from running out the door into certain death. At some point, for some people the "flight" part of the "fight or flight" reaction takes over, no matter how irrational it might be.

It is less usual, though, for the whole squad to lose their sanity at the same time. And even then, usually they run away from the enemy...

[Redwolf]

It's certainly OK that CM soldiers run back into worse cover or crawl towards the enemy.

However, the frequency of this happening and some specific circumstances are not OK, so overall I would rather have this undermodeled than as overmodeled as it currently is.

Most soliders in reality die in their trenches and foxholes when overrun. This is not the case in CM, and it distorts gameplay.

[dieseltaylor]

Redwolf

"Most soliders in reality die in their trenches and foxholes when overrun. This is not the case in CM, and it distorts gameplay."

One think that impressed me in North African games was the willingness to surrender. Lack of good cover to crawl to and hide in? If you think the oppo has you registered, crawling away to hide - forward back or sideways may still seem a good option - it may be fatal but thats war.

I do not know what sources Redwolf has but certainly for different troops and theatres I think the result is not as he says. Judging by the number of prisoners captured at least on the Western Front - and excluding Canadians and the SS I think it possibly accurate.

[Akula2]

I've always found that panicked/broken/routed units don't try for worse or better cover at all.

It seems to me that they are going for complete defilade where no enemy has a line of sight to him. They at least often have the smarts to stick to cover in their attempts.

I find this behavior very realistic.

I agree with Dschugaschwili when he says,

When your unit breaks, it doesn't think rationally any more. It just wants to get away.

[Mr. Tittles]

Instances of individuals breaking and running from trenches when under long term indirect fire should not be applied to the unit mentality of the CM morale abstraction.

It would be better if the game had units crawl along trenches away from the center of fire. To have a group of soldiers leave the trench is highly unrealistic.

Perhaps the game could split squads and send each crawling along the trench in different directions. This could abstract the effects of arty messing with unit cohesion. Small groups of soldiers could leave the trench under prolonged bombardment to simulate desperate behavior of evacuation of wounded.

Most vets knew that it was safer to be subjected to HE when under cover than risk frgaments while in the open.

Perhaps the Pinning model should have levels of pinning. Units in very good cover would go into a deeper pinned state then break being the thought.

[Redwolf]

I should have said "died or surrendered in their trenches or foxholes". Sounds better?

[Carl Puppchen]

If this applied to WW1 we would have mobs of soldiers jumping out of their fortified trenches under fire for the cover of a couple of bushes in no-mans-land We all know this didn't happen

Thanks for the thoughts so far...

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Carl Puppchen:

If this applied to WW1 we would have mobs of soldiers jumping out of their fortified trenches under fire for the cover of a couple of bushes in no-mans-land We all know this didn't happen

It did happen. But it was not the most common case.

CM discussions like this are usually spoiled by people not understanding statistics. Just because one screwup happened a few times in the real world still can make it a realism problem when modeled with much too high frequency.

And in the real world running back is safer because only a limited number of enemy can see you, but in CM thanks to absolute spotting everybody and their dog starts shooting at you, further distorting the realism.

Last but not least, bad pathfinding in CM and broken cover computation (behind ridge, behind wall) add further unrealism to the (in itself realistic if happening rarely) mechanism of running back in panic.

So, overall the game would be more realistic if most of these automatically given commands (running back, auto-sneaking etc.) would be given much rarer than they currently do, e.g. 1/5th or so. That does mean the soldier should be in control instead, if they panic they don't accept orders, if they are supressed there is huge delay. But they stay put, there are no bugus movement orders given unless in very rare circumstances.

[Carl Puppchen]

I don't understand the casual reference to statistics... in fact I understand statistics very well.

My specific comment is that it is unrealistic, in my opinion, for infantry that is broken to rout out of excellent cover terrain (trenches) for comparatively poorer cover, ESPECIALLY when it involves moving closer to the enemy. I don't think this happened very frequently AT ALL.

Now if the infantry can rout out of one location to another covered location (i.e. a building) that is a totally different deal, especially if the distance between the trench and the building is short.

But in my opinion the current moves are unrealistic.

[Dschugaschwili]

Units in panic crawl for the nearest cover in CM. Broken units in CM hit the ground and stay there. Routed units in CM run for it. And routed is the single worst morale state, two levels below panic.

Whether this state should be reached as often as it currently does or if more units should stay at broken is open for debate. But the basic behaviour pattern doesn't seem too far off to me.

Dschugaschwili

[Yskonyn]

Indeed.

Too bad these aren't values that can be altered easily in some sort of .ini file...

[securityguard]

I've always felt irrationality is too common in CM.

But what do I know? I've never been shelled in a trench. I've never been behind a berm with my squad mates getting mowed down as they ran up to me for cover.

So I just accept it. I'm sure any respecting young, green troop would do some dumb stuff if they thought it'd put them in safety.

What I do not accept is having the entire squad 'irrationalize'. In reality, no doubts about it, an 11 man squad would not 'break' all at once and run in the same direction unless it was a massive threat. It's one reason for CMX2 I'd like to see each troop modeled, even if it wasn't visually but just stasticly. Close Combat series rendered panic perfectly. Indivual men trying to perserve their own lives and persuading others too as well. CM just says "okay this squad has had enough, they're all gonna run".

Maybe having the same abstractions as now, but instead of having the entire squad icon run, have it sit and say "Pvt Johnson, Albert and Tory are routing" in some stastical way and if they don't unroute they are gone for good. Rather have that then lose them anyway or more to a dumb decision. It's really tough to model correct morale with the current system.

[ November 12, 2004, 11:23 PM: Message edited by: securityguard ]

[Macphail]

Close Combat had alot of stuff right. i think being able to see each guys actual ammo load was helpful, as well as each guys morale. scrounging for ammo was also a nice touch. too bad the soldiers in this game cant take ammo from their dead buddies.

[ November 24, 2004, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Macphail ]

[tar]

It would also be cool if routing units sometimes randomly cast off their weapons, ammo, grenades, etc. as they tried to get away.

Well, to a certain extent they do, in an abstract way. The greater casualties that routed units suffer when fired upon can be seen as men who cast off their weapons. Without weapons, they are no longer combat effective and this can be subsumed by the "casualties" mechanism.

too bad the soldiers in this game cant take ammo from their dead buddies.

But they do. That's why infantry units never completely run out of ammo. The go to Low ammo and fire infrequently. This has been explained by the creators of CM as reflecting (among other things) the scrounging of ammo from the battlefield.

[Macphail]

ok then

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by tar:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> It would also be cool if routing units sometimes randomly cast off their weapons, ammo, grenades, etc. as they tried to get away.

Well, to a certain extent they do, in an abstract way. The greater casualties that routed units suffer when fired upon can be seen as men who cast off their weapons. Without weapons, they are no longer combat effective and this can be subsumed by the "casualties" mechanism.

</font>

[CombinedArms]

The thing that really bothers me is that routed units so frequently run TOWARDS the enemy, not away from it. I don't know what the statistical likelihood of this might be in actuality, but it certainly happens far too often in CM to be plausible. It breaks the sense of realism of an otherwise highly realistic game to see all three squads of a platoon at the edge of a woods break in succession and run across the open towards the enemy when all they really have to do is fall BACK a few yards into the forest to achieve safety. If I could change one thing about the current game, it would be to eliminate this behavior.

There's obviously no solution for it with the current engine. So I'm awaiting the next generation with some eagerness and curiosity. One hopes they'll sort this out next time.

[ November 30, 2004, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Dschugaschwili]

According to BFC, routed units generally run towards a friendly map edge. So if you're playing a scenario where the designer has "reversed" the friendly map edges, or your units were attacked from behind on a "normal" map, you'll get this behaviour often. Blame it on the designer in the first case.

Dschugaschwili