'Sneaking' when receiving incoming fire

[Ex Bellator]

I just want to throw this out for discussion amongst the great and the good of this forum, so it should result in the shortest thread ever Kick these ideas into the ground grogs...

What do we think of troops who are moving automatically going to the 'Sneak' order when the lead starts flying nearby? So far I am coming to the conclusion that it may not be best proceedure, especially when trying to move with Weakened or Unfit troops.

We've probably all seen our pixel men squirming around in the middle of nowhere trying to Sneak to the nearest bit of terrain, even if it's 50m away. This quickly Exhausts them and moves them virtually no distance at all anyway.

The problem is exacerbated with Weakened and Unfit troops, who have to Walk virtually everywhere to preserve their little energy for the one 20m dash that they are capable of. A bit of nearby fire and a consequent short Sneaking session can wreck them for a very long period afterward.

I would like to suggest that troops who receive incoming fire simply go to ground and stay frozen on the ground with their faces in the mud until your next orders phase. Unless they have the balls to stand up and return fire, or move on, of course. It seems like resonable behaviour for the terror stricken, until you can attempt to tell them what to do again.

On a lesser but related note I'd also like suggest that Sneaking may result in too much fatigue accruing too quickly. I think I would class myself as Unfit but hope that a 1 minute crawl wouldn't do me in for the next quarter of an hour. Heck I'll try it now, and hope no-one is watching...

[Edit] Too much to hope that I'd get thru that lot without a typo I suppose

[ October 21, 2002, 03:25 PM: Message edited by: Rex_Bellator ]

[JunoReactor]

I guess the orthodox answer to your question would be "try that again with x kilos of gear on your shoulders, after having marched 30 miles in the past two days." But I dont know.

In either case, it seems reasonable to me that tacAI would plot new orders for men under fire in clear ground to sneak towards the nearest cover. It somehow looks realistic to see such small unit movements that happens out of its own accord, much like a real platoon HQ would momentarily lose c&c over its subordinate squads while the squads disperse for cover. The game allows you to try to overcome this: but to that you must first cancel the sneak orders plotted by the tacAI and therefore suffer a penalized command delay, adjusted for the experience level of the units. Just another way to integrate something as intangible as experience into the gameplay, as opposed to it being represented solely by higher hit chance, acurracy, etc.

[xerxes]

The behavior seems rather realistic to me.

1. Take fire, hit the dirt.

2. Try to crawl out of the fire zone before the lead finds you.

Being able to replot units in this condition is more questionable. Of course, your replot often doesn't stick since the squad is likely to go right back to "Save my behind" mode.

[PeterX]

Doesn't anyone find that sometimes it's worthwhile to let them crawl around rather than cancelling the sneak commands and redirecting them forward?

[SaTyR]

Originally posted by PeterX:

Doesn't anyone find that sometimes it's worthwhile to let them crawl around rather than cancelling the sneak commands and redirecting them forward?

I do. Sometimes a new, previously un-spotted enemy unit starts firing (HMG, IG, FO spotted artillery) and I let the poor sods crawl where they wan't to. They ARE under fire from a previously un-spotted, dangerous enemy. I'd crawl to the nearest cover if I we're in the same situation.

OTOH, if I'm firing supressive fire against enemy HMGs, IGs and such, I usually replot the movement commands, even when under enemy fire. The same for crossing short patches of terrain where the enemy CAN fire and then getting into cover. The enemy may get a few shots here and there, but that ain't a reason to seek the nearest cover, crawling BACK to where they came (TOTALLY supressing enemies in foxholes takes TIME and firepower, which one might not have, how ever good the plan is/was). Run poor bastards RUN ! Run for your lives (literally) !

[Boo Radley]

Instead of sneaking, I'd like my men to hit the dirt and stay there until the next orders phase. Crawling around aimlessly (which is pretty much what they do) exhausting themselves doesn't make sense.

[Panzer Leader]

I think I liked sneak better in CMBO. In fact, in the two years I played that game, I probably only 'crawled' a hanful of times, and a stone fence was involved each time. Now I am forced to! But the quick exhaustion - that is the killer for me.

[Halberdier]

The only time that I don't like the unit to Sneak is when on roads or other 'kill me' uncovered terrain when cover is nearby. The unit should Run to cover immediately then Sneak.

Perhaps constripts would run around in circles for a couple secs before seeking cover?

[Commander]

It doesn't bother me. Once a unit become combat ineffective in CMBB I just quit counting on it as a viable unit. If it makes it to cover and recovers then I will use it, otherwise its a "dead man crawling".

[Switch_Back]

I dont not have much problem with the infantry going to "sneak" when under fire, I have more of a problem when they are next to some viable cover so sometimes go in the opposite direction.

An example of a recent problem I had was approaching a house in "advance" almost as soon as the platoon was about to reach the stone wall outside the house, a bloody MG42 opens fire and lets rip on them, so what do they do, NO they dont crawl behind the wall where its safe, insted they decide to crawl back into OPEN country

can someone plzz sympathize lol

[ October 21, 2002, 06:11 PM: Message edited by: Switch_Back ]

[Ben Galanti]

This is something that has always bugged me, even in CMBO. I hope it gets revisted for the rewrite.

Basically, infantry always head for the terrain with the highest cover value, but don't consider getting out of LOS as an option. So, they'll head for a far away clump of trees instead of hiding behind a nearby wall or hill.

Now, oddly, it seems that AFVs will generally try to break LOS when faced with a bigger threat. I wish the infantry would consider that as well...

Ben

[akdavis]

My only problem is that I often have units take fire, start sneaking for cover, then exhaust themselves out in the open and just sit there till they route. Many instances where they'd be better of using some sort of movement that involved sprinting and dropping to the ground until they got into cover. Perhaps "withdraw" or some sort of reverse "advance?" But then there are other times when I'm very glad they get their little lego asses down in the dirt.

[Michael Dorosh]

DOWN CRAWL OBSERVE FIRE

This was the mantra of the Battle Drill courses in the UK during WW II; soldiers were trained to instinctively drop, crawl to cover, and return fire. In the British and Canadian armies, anyway. And when I saw instinctively, I mean this was literally drilled into them, on the parade square initially, and later in field exercises.

I don't know what the Russian or German battle drills were, but it seems reasonable.

Having said that, I share your frustration at having to order them to do something different - I usually yell at them to get up and RUN!!!!

(Maybe that too, is realistic?)

[Michael Emrys]

Getting down is fine, but trying to do the Australian crawl without the lubricating benefit of water is...well, let's just call it dumb and be done with it.

Michael

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

DOWN CRAWL OBSERVE FIRE

True, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't

> DOWN

> CRAWL-120m-BECAUSE-YOU-JUST-HAPPEN-TO-BE-IN-OPEN-GROUND-AND-THATS-WHERE-THE-NEAREST-TREES-ARE*

> GET-SO-SHAGGED-THAT-YOU-CAN'T-DO-ANYTHING-EXCEPT-GASP-FOR-AIR

> RECOVER-FOR-10-TO-15-MINUTES

> WONDER-WHERE-YOUR-MATES-GOT-TO-WHILE-YOU-WERE-HAVING-A-BREATHER

> OBSERVE

> FIRE

It seems that BFC haven't told the AI that 'open ground isn't really flat and featureless, but contains numerous dips and hollows that can be used by troops', to paraphrase from the manual.

Regards

JonS

* This is happening to me in a Op I'm playing at the moment

[ October 21, 2002, 10:04 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

DOWN CRAWL OBSERVE FIRE

This was the mantra of the Battle Drill courses in the UK during WW II; soldiers were trained to instinctively drop, crawl to cover, and return fire. In the British and Canadian armies, anyway. And when I saw instinctively, I mean this was literally drilled into them, on the parade square initially, and later in field exercises.

[snips]

"Dash, down, crawl, return fire" when I did it (1978-82), with the unofficial variation "Dash, down, crawl, whinge" for signallers, stressing the point that you should get out a partial contact report ("CONTACT, wait, out") as soon as contact happened, not later.

The "dash" bit means that you didn't just hit the deck if there was better cover within a few steps; and you tried to make sure there was always good cover within a few steps. Another of the things drilled into your head was to think, all the time you were walking, where you would take cover if you were shot at now. Or now. Or how about now?

The "crawl" bit is pretty short, especially if you're in the gun group (you can kitten-crawl with a Bren in front of you, but you don't want to). The point of it was to observe and shoot somewhere other than the spot you went to ground.

The length of the "dash" or the "crawl" would be only a few paces, which is pretty insignificant on the CM scale of things. The sort of "cover" that you would be looking for would quite likely be the accidents of terrain that are below the resolution of CM's terrain modelling -- individual tussocks of grass would be sufficient to hide behind.

Another thing to remember is that this is the usual "Action on meeting effective enemy fire", so it is really only applicable for the advance to contact. In other circumstances, you would do different things. Once in contact, you might need to move regardless of casualties. Night ambush drill (changed in about 1980, IIRC) was not to take cover, but to make an immediate assault into the ambush (the thinking here being that there was no future taking cover in the ambush killing zone, and you might as well take some of them with you). Conversely, for recce patrols, the action on contact might be simply to leg it back to the last RV.

Some people might think it would be nice to be able to specify "actions on contact" for units (assault if within 50m, halt and return fire, run awaaay) but I think that it would tend to turn CM into a "command game", and something other than the game we know and love.

All the best,

John.

[Panzer76]

I have no problem with my troops want to crwal to cover, what I do think is a "bit over the top" is the rate they are exhasuted when they sneak. Now, there are practically 3 ways to make a unit combat ineffective.

1. Through cas.

2. Broken

3. Exhausted

Especially regarding HMG etc. When my troops hits the floor in the beginning of the turn, and the next turn I have next to worthless units due to their exhaustion... I get a bit annoyed...

Yes, yes, I know, use smoke, bla bla bla, but sometimes it will happen. My poit is that the troops get exhausted too fast when "sneaking".

[Michael Dorosh]

Jon and John, I'm forced to agree - just played a game with a German platoon HQ coming under fire - in front of him 10 metres away is a gully (terrain square 5 metres lower), behind him 50 metres are scattered trees.

The threat is to the front.

What does he do?

Yep - crawls the 50 metres, taking fire all the time, when a dash forward would have done it.

Perhaps one of the "contact drills" should be "continue running to last waypoint if distance to waypoint < distance to other available cover"?

[JonS]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Perhaps one of the "contact drills" should be "continue running to last waypoint if distance to waypoint < distance to other available cover"?

I'm not really advocating contact drills, and I don't think John was either (unless I misread the disclaimer at the end of his post). What I am advocating - I think - is that units under effective* enemy fire go to ground and stay there. BFC have repeatedly said that 'open ground' tiles aren't to be visualised as a rugby field, and that there is plenty of cover out there if you know what to look for. This certainly ties in with what I know, what John talked about, and probably what you, Mike, have experienced in training.

The only one who doesn't seem to know this, apparently, is the AI. It will do everything in its power to keep moving and get to the nearest clump of trees (or brush, or houses, etc.), when staying put would be the best reaction. This can be seen with off-board arty fire especially - going into a treeline is the worst choice, but its also the one the AI will consistently pick.

Regards

JonS

* Obligatory Grog Bit: the definition of 'effective' is a bit hazy, and doesn't necessarily include taking casualties. But it is more than the first rounds that come whizzing your way.

[von Lucke]

The TacAI's somewhat arbitrary choice of which terrain was best to seek cover in was debated at length in CMBO. I think the general concensus was that it was sometimes annoying, occasionally fatal, but it could be worked with.

In CMBB, as several have mentioned, the kicker is the "low crawl 'til exhausted" effect. In CMBO a shaken unit would bolt for cover, which would usually get it out of the line of fire. CMBB's low crawl won't get yr troops anywhere but the aid station. (Ok, if yr lucky, the enemy might see yr troops go from a positive ID to an "Unknown" marker).

I have a double problem with the new sneak-is-crawl order. Not only does it cause exhaustion way too quickly, but it makes actually sneaking fairly useless: You have to know exactly where the enemy is before you sneak up on him --- which usually means he knows where you are too. And then sneaking is so slow, and so tiring, that the target is usually within effective small arms range before you even start. I almost never use it anymore.

My suggestion is to seperate the two commands again (Crawl and Sneak), and to lower the exhaustion factor. As for units under fire, perhaps a longer dash for cover is in order before they hit the dirt?

[TSword]

Rex Belator,

I go with you, it's very annoying especially in wide open terrain. I had units with 150 m sneak lines, extremely tiring.

In real i bet 90% of people just hit the dirt and stay put (Many combat records i've read indicate it's about this direction). If a unit panics it may go mad and do sneak or run into disaster, but a unit in command won't do that most of time.

Another bad habit is units always are going for concealed terraintiles, this again is extremely bad in open terrain where sometimes unbelievable numbers of units cramp a terrain tile offering somewhat better concealment. Again, units should adhere more to their commands when not panicked and accept brush and steppe as concealed terrain and not going for that patch of tree 200 m away.

Greets

Daniel

[PeterX]

I have a double problem with the new sneak-is-crawl order. Not only does it cause exhaustion way too quickly, but it makes actually sneaking fairly useless: You have to know exactly where the enemy is before you sneak up on him --- which usually means he knows where you are too. And then sneaking is so slow, and so tiring, that the target is usually within effective small arms range before you even start. I almost never use it anymore.

I disagree. SNEAK is an excellent tool. Especially on offense.

POSSIBLE SPOILER*

*

*

*

*

Try Borisovka Station. You charge the German line with tanks loaded with infantry through wheat fields. Just before the village you drop off the surviving grunts and they CRAWL through the standing wheat till they get to edge. Then they assault the LOD. It's an effective technique.

I use SNEAK for the last 10 meters or so of an advance when I know roughly where the enemy's LOD begins. Especially in woods or even steppe. The men will arrive undetected and fresh as daisies.

As far as the behavior of infantry under fire. Well, Steve apparently received a lot of expert advice on that subject. He feels it's realistic as is.

[ October 22, 2002, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[TSword]

Peterx,

Of course i use sneak a lot, but that's by purpose.

What we are talking about is the behaviour under fire, which in the current almost 100 % ocurrence is wrong and absolutely no lifesafer.

An example: i have a squad in a brush tile surrounded by nothing then steppe or open ground 200 m around. My squad opens fire on an enemy and receives return fire. If this squad now just drops/hides it will be out of sight for most enemy units, BUT when crawling in the open will attract additional fire due to movement. So it's not a good idea to crawl out into the open toward a piece of wood 200 m away (and even less so if that terrain tile is toward the enemy). No unit not panicked would do so in real, or atleast only a minor part and certainly decreasing with experience.

This behaviour spoils almost every open-map scenario for human vs human play, since you only need some HMG positioned around such camo offering terrain tiles out of LOS by a meter or two and you can slaughter heaps of infs seaking concealment. This is also true for fights vs. AI of course. It really spoils the game to some extent !

Greets

Daniel

[ October 22, 2002, 10:09 AM: Message edited by: TSword ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by JonS:

[snips]

I'm not really advocating contact drills, and I don't think John was either (unless I misread the disclaimer at the end of his post).

Quite right.

Originally posted by JonS:

What I am advocating - I think - is that units under effective* enemy fire go to ground and stay there. BFC have repeatedly said that 'open ground' tiles aren't to be visualised as a rugby field, and that there is plenty of cover out there if you know what to look for. This certainly ties in with what I know, what John talked about, and probably what you, Mike, have experienced in training.

Yup. In fact so far we are in such lamentably vigorous agreement that I probably wouldn't have bothered posting if I'd read your post first instead of wrestling with BT over a dropped ADSL connection.

I wonder if it is worth considering a general revision to the decidedly Squad-Leaderish way CM models the effects of, and reactions to, bullet fire. I for one find it rather unconvincing that infantry sections (squads) in low morale states and under intense fire will abandon good cover, including foxholes and trenches, apparently preferring to put their heads up and attempt to run through heavy fire. I would have thought it more likely that they would have remained in the bottom of their holes until they either recovered, or enemy infantry either killed them or took their surrender.

It's not clear to me (after a couple of quick tests) whether troops with their heads down in trenches take casualties from bullet fire in CM, but it seems that they do in slit trenches (foxholes). It seems to me that bullet weapons should be completely incapable of inflicting further casualties on people who are at the bottom of holes in the ground; I suspect that, once people have gone to ground and are making no attempt to return fire or observe, it would be remarkably hard to hit them in any kind of covering terrain, and not easy in what passes for open ground.

The WRG 1925-50 miniatures rules (and the WRG do more research and thinking about their rules than most rules-writers) are interesting in that they give small-arms or MG fire no chance at all of eliminating personnel elements in HOLD mode (that is, not moving, not firing) above 25 metres (which one might consider to be grenade range, so it is no longer bullet fire). I suspect that CM would be even better if it adopted a similar approach.

Originally posted by JonS:

* Obligatory Grog Bit: the definition of 'effective' is a bit hazy, and doesn't necessarily include taking casualties. But it is more than the first rounds that come whizzing your way.

This was a favourite question to instructor NCOs. The canonical answer was something like "Fire is effective when casualties occur, or would occur if movement were to be continued". So, if you had a casualty, then the fire was, by definition, effective. This left you with your own betting man's instinct as to when a casualty was just about to occur; it was generally regarded as better to take cover five seconds before the first man got hit rather than five seconds after.

Which reminds me of the story about the ship that, reportedly, joined the wrong end of the reviewing line at the Spithead Royal Review one year. The Commodore in charge of the reviewing line had already signalled that the first ship in line would cheer ship when the signal to cheer ship was made. Subsequent ships in the line were instructed to cheer ship at intervals of 30 seconds, which had been calculated to match the progress of the Royal yacht along the reviewing line. When Captain Hopeless-Twytte moored ahead of the first ship in the line, he was favoured with the signal "You are to cheer ship 30 seconds before the signal to cheer ship is made".

All the best,

John.

[Bruno Weiss]

Me own opinion is, troops tire unrealisticly fast when sneaking/crawling.