MAUS_TD Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 I normally never retreat (orders from the fuhrer) so i dont know why all this fuss is about? i think the best way to retreat is 1 squads retreats and about 2 or 3 squads give support fire with mortars and guns or tanks. otherwise you are a goner. But like i said sooner i normally never retreat it will cost you to much, better let the enemy pay for every inch of the battlefield and let some squads be wiped out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Bull Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Let me clarify what I meant "deathwish". As far as I am concerned a paniced, routed or broken unit is as good as dead. It has ceased to become a factor in the battle. They usually run and rout across open terrain getting massacred and put themselves out of the fight. I would rather suffer higher casualties than lose control of a unit to panic/rout/broken status. So as far as I am concerned, anything that panics/routs/breaks is as good as dead. Moving away from the enemy is more risky than moving towards the enemy with regard to maintaining control. If constant suppression fire could be controlled in the tests, it would be OK to try it out. But this is dificult to do. It would result in too much situational variation. Running the tests as I have been doing, at least you know that in each case the suppression on the Russian units is zero when the units withdraw and minimal when the units advance. But this is not about supression fire. It is about considering an infantry unit in a CM situation and what happens if it decides to move TOWARDS the enemy or AWAY from the enemy when in a given combat situation. The idea of the test is to repeat the same situation over and over again until you get a decent sample size to get an idea for what is likely to occur if the unit moves TOWARDS the enemy or AWAY from the enemy. What I think CM fails to model is providing a feature in the game to differentiate between these two "real life" scenarios. 1. An infantry squad is moving forward through scatteerd trees towards known enemy positions but is not under fire. Suddenly it gets ambushed from behind by small arms fire. The unit, totally ambushed by unexpected fire to it's rear tries to maintain cohesion, but the surprise was to great and, this time, the unit breaks and runs for it's life. >>>This is modelled in CM. 2. An infantry unit facing the enemy is in scattered trees in a fire fight with an enemy infantry. Although the unit feels it is not in any real danger, they decide to pullback using the scattered trees as cover. The unit, well aware that the enemy and enemy fire is in the opposite direction to which it will be moving, prepares itself to disengage knowing full well where the enemy fire will be coming from. It DOES NOT immediately and completely stop shooting, stand up, turn around 180deg and move back through the scattered trees in a formation and mindset that enemy fire is to be expected from the direction it is now travelling in (it's own friendly lines) and any fire comign to it from the opposite direction it is advanceing in(the enemy lines) will be treated and have an impact on morale/unit cohesion as if is in case 1). >>>This is NOT modelled in CM. CM treats case 2) as if the unit was ambushed from the rear just as it was in case 1). Does anyone disagree with this? If not, then I just can't see how you can argue that the game treats disengagement of infantry from the frontlines in a satisfactory, well balanced and considered manner. Lt Bull 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Bull Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Originally posted by MAUS_TD: But like i said sooner i normally never retreat it will cost you to much, better let the enemy pay for every inch of the battlefield and let some squads be wiped out. This is exactly what CM basically FORCES you to do, hence the exagerated casualties I have mentioned earlier and "no turning back" attitude of the infantry fights. Can anyone tell me how common it was for infantry engagements of CM scale in WW2 to end up with both sides basically fighting it out till the last because of what MAUS_TD said? Not often I would think. Do not mention exceptions like Stalingrad/Arnhem etc where units were virtually physically prevented from retreat. Lt Bull 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conscript Bagger Posted July 22, 2003 Share Posted July 22, 2003 Lt. Bull, your chart seems to indicate that the Withdraw order was only executed toward the enemy. Is that correct? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Bull Posted July 23, 2003 Share Posted July 23, 2003 Originally posted by Offwhite: Lt. Bull, your chart seems to indicate that the Withdraw order was only executed toward the enemy. Is that correct? Err, it DID seem to indicate that. The order was of course given only in the direction AWAY from the enemy. I have now corrected it. Lt Bull 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Bull Posted July 24, 2003 Share Posted July 24, 2003 Just a shameless bump. Would like to hear a few more opinions about this. Andreas? What is your opinion about how CM treats situation 1) and 2) I mentioned above? Lt Bull 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 28, 2003 Share Posted July 28, 2003 Got your email. I would try to use 'sneak' to withdraw in situation 2. Have you tried that? Also, it is a different situation from the one you were testing for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Bull Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: I would try to use 'sneak' to withdraw in situation 2. Have you tried that?OK. I ran the same tests again using the SNEAK command. The results are a little bit biased in that the slow moving units needed 2-3 turns to cover the 40m to the rubble (as opposed to just the one turn in all the other tests). They therefore are subject to more rounds of fire from the enemy. I actually took records after the 3rd turn. The results do seem to indicate that using the SNEAK command away from the enemy is rather effective in getting the unit to new locations. 63% of the units SNEAKING away from the enemy made it to the target rubble waypoint, by far the best % out of all the commands I tested for. It was also the best for maintaining control of your troops. 55% of all troops were in the OK state, with 28% getting paniced/broken/routed. Because this method of movement takes 3 turns to complete, what it doesn't take into consideration is the potential for the opposing player to react on turn 2 and 3 and order an advance to take advantage of a slow moving enemy with it's "back turned" (as far as CM is concerned) in the middle of a movement command it has committed to. Sneaking towards the enemy like that looks like suicide! One of the highest casualty rates and a 48% chance of the units panicing/breaking/routing! (but remember the bias of the extra exposure to more rounds of enemy fire). I am quite surprised by these results. Originally posted by Andreas: Also, it is a different situation from the one you were testing for. Yes it is, but that is not really the point. The situation I am describing is like having the units being spotted and fired upon BEFORE they start their movement, as oppose to only being spotted/fired upon at some stage in the actual execution of the movement order. The case 2) I was describing is probably an even WORSE case to execute a movement command safely, though I would say that it would be more typical of the situations I am refering to. This case 2) situation could be tested for though. If a test could be set up that allowed all the infantry to be spotted and fired upon by the enemy before they start to their movement commands, that would be a good "simulation" of that case 2) scenario. Still, you don't disagree between that in CM, it does not differentiate between case 1) and case 2) situations, treating them all like case 1)s, as far as the effects on the moving units? Lt Bull 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted July 31, 2003 Share Posted July 31, 2003 Originally posted by Lt Bull: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas: I would try to use 'sneak' to withdraw in situation 2. Have you tried that?OK. I ran the same tests again using the SNEAK command. The results are a little bit biased in that the slow moving units needed 2-3 turns to cover the 40m to the rubble (as opposed to just the one turn in all the other tests). They therefore are subject to more rounds of fire from the enemy. I actually took records after the 3rd turn.</font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Bull Posted August 2, 2003 Share Posted August 2, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: I am not really up to brain-speed at the moment, because I don't understand the question (may also be related to the wine I had for lunch). I reread the thread, sober up, and reply. Do you agree that CM does not differentiate between 1) enemy fire against an infantry units rear like in an ambush (hence, big morale hit, chance of pinning, panicing, breaking etc) and 2)the case where an infantry unit just wants to move back/further away from the enemy fire it is receiving. Because infantry units in CM MUST face the direction they are moving in (unlike vehicles), they ALWAYS have to expose their most vulnerable rear side to the enemy (in CM terms) in order to move away from incoming enemy fire. When they do this, CM treats the fire against them as if they had been ambushed by fire to the rear, regardless if they KNOW the enemy fore is coming from that direction. This could be remedied as has been suggested in this thread to treat actual unit facing (as far as incoming fire goes) separately from the direction of movement for infantry. This concept shouldn't really be too difficult to explain. Lt Bull 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andreas Posted August 2, 2003 Share Posted August 2, 2003 Originally posted by Lt Bull: This could be remedied as has been suggested in this thread to treat actual unit facing (as far as incoming fire goes) separately from the direction of movement for infantry. This concept shouldn't really be too difficult to explain. Lt Bull No it shouldn't. So is what you are asking for a simulation of the John Wayne 'walking backward and shooting from the hip' movement, or the 'dash - drop - turn - covering fire - get up -turn - repeat' drill that I as an untrained nitwitwould assume is performed by a section retreating under fire? Basically a command that assumes that the section carries out a drill like the 'advance' and 'assault' commands now, thereby producing a section-internal overwatch that you currently can not order, except by breaking the section into teams? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Bull Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: You are very close to what I am getting at. I don't know about the John Wayne stuff, but something that will allow infantry units to move AWAY from enemy fire while not being subjected to (in CM game mechanics terms) fire from the rear as if they had been ambushed. The 'assualt' and 'advance' commands, like everything else in CM, are abstractions of more complex "real life" combat actions. Even though physically in the game you don't see the individual soldiers running from cover to cover as they advance/assualt TOWARDS the enemy, they are being modelled in the mechanics of the game as doing that, and so benefit from a number of factors as a consequence ie. better cover, better morale etc than if they were 'moving' or 'running'. The current CM abstraction of infantry "unit facing" is locked in with expected threat direction which is fine when the unit is not moving. When the unit moves, the game treats the infantry unit as EXPECTING the enemy threat direction as being in the direction of movement. We all know that in "real life" when an infantry unit wants to move AWAY from enemy fire, it IS expecting fire from the direction OPPOSITE to that in which it is moving. CM can not model this. It is that simple. That is the limitation. MAsta_KFC's original post spells it out pretty good. YankeeDog's discusison about "threat direction" is the kind of thing I am talking about. As far as this discussion goes, please keep in mind that there are two issues here. 1) Identifying and discussing a limitation of the current CM game engine which does not allow "threat direction" and movement direction to be treated separately. 2) Suggestions for how the CM(X) engine mechanics can be modified to address the limitation. I have tried to discuss 1) before engaging in 2). I believe that the limitation is clearly identified. I am sure by CMX, something could be put in place to address the limitation. Lt Bull 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 3, 2003 Share Posted August 3, 2003 Originally posted by Andreas: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Lt Bull: This could be remedied as has been suggested in this thread to treat actual unit facing (as far as incoming fire goes) separately from the direction of movement for infantry. This concept shouldn't really be too difficult to explain. Lt Bull No it shouldn't. So is what you are asking for a simulation of the John Wayne 'walking backward and shooting from the hip' movement, or the 'dash - drop - turn - covering fire - get up -turn - repeat' drill that I as an untrained nitwitwould assume is performed by a section retreating under fire? Basically a command that assumes that the section carries out a drill like the 'advance' and 'assault' commands now, thereby producing a section-internal overwatch that you currently can not order, except by breaking the section into teams? </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.