Running - any use on open terrain?

[Monwar]

I 'run' a lot, rather than 'advance', due to the speed. But in a recent PBEM turn I have had several casualties during a relatively short run when hidden enemy infantry fired upon me.

Question : Is running worth it when you are near the objective and run the risk of being fired upon?

[[MyIS] Buffpuff]

If you know that you'll be fired upon or strongly suspect that you'll be fired upon then I would say "advance" is a more appropriate command as this is a compromise between running and walking and your infantry may suffer less casualties. Not a guarantee by any means but the premise behind "advance" is that your infantry squad is moving from cover to cover even when technically advancing over open ground. The problem with running is your units tire more quickly, your units are less likely to spot a unit firing upon it, and in my experience are quicker to be panicked when running. About the only time I use run when I think I'll have contact is to run away from an artillery barage where the risks of being panicked by running outweigh the risks of staying put and eating an artillery round.

[MikeyD]

If you've got a lot of men vs a single distant enemy mg supressing, you could try a mass run to the next piece of cover under the theory that he won't be able to target everyone at once. For me that usually means something like 5 squads making it to the next cover and 2-3 squads crawling on their bellies back to the start line. (In CMBB I guess the equivalent would be "Human Wave"?) If you assault or attack you may get them all across but exhaust them in the process. If you walk them you may find everybody supressed halfway across.

[Monwar]

Does running tire the infantry more than advancing?

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Monwar:

Does running tire the infantry more than advancing?

On a given distance, advancing is more tiring.

Gruß

Joachim

[Falcon988]

I find running to be a good across open ground when you're going from cover to cover over a SHORT distance. I do not want my squad to stop and engage the enemy in the open, it's preferable for them to just get out of there as quickly as possible. You do not, however, want to use the Run command against enemy opposition. That will definately cause you enormous casualties. During movements where I'm not sure where the enemy is I always use the advance or Move to contact commands.

Generally though I dislike the Advance command during combat. I notice that, like Run, the men move too quickly and suffer needless casualties. When my men are under heavy fire I always use the Assault command over short distances. The manual will tell you to only use it for that "final attack" over a 20m or so range. And 20 meters is indeed a good stopping point when you're issuing waypoints. But I have found that using the Assault command in place of Advance, while definately more time consuming since you need to stop & rest more, STRONGLY cuts back on casualties.

Most notably during a skirmish in Crete one of my Australian platoons was ambushed by Fallshirmjagers in the woods. I ordered one of them to advance and they took 5 - 7 casualties. The squad I experimented with, by giving the Assault command, didn't lose a single man while performing the same maneuver.

[dieseltaylor]

Interesting post Falcon. I have never seen actual testing on this command before - I think this will be very useful. Thanks