Infantry "fallback" and "disengage" - how?

[Lt Bull]

I was hoping I might have had some questions answered at a related thread Withdraw and die! so I will start up a new thread on it anyway.

Players wanting to conduct a "fall back defence" using infantry in CM are at a very bad disadvantage, as distinct from issuing the "OMFG, lets get the hell out of here!" panic-style order that the "withdraw" command is. In a way, it is like trying to use armour without a "reverse" command. I do realise that "realistically" disengaging the enemy is not a simple process, especially if the enemy are more numerous/powerful/overwhelming etc, but it is a very important skill which I would imagine is routinely practiced by military units as a matter of course. It would involve quite a bit of co-ordination and teamwork, with cover fire, leapfrogging in reverse.

The other thread indicates that some people have resorted to using the "advance"/"assault" commands to "disengage"/"fallback" thinking that the cohesive bonuses from using those commands may offset, somewhat, the effect of having morale reducing fire directed at their backs, instead of choosing the faster "move" or "withdraw" commands.

Ultimately, I really want to know if a "fall back" command, as distinct to the "withdraw" command has ever been considered for use in CM. Just because a unit needs to "disengage" or "fallback" from an enemy unit doesn't necessarily mean that it has to loose cohesion, morale to the degree that occurs when using the "withdraw" command, or if the player used any other command ("move", "run", "advance" etc) which would invariably expose the unit to fire from the rear.

In an engagement of some kind, it is not always that the inferior, beaten and pinned down force is the one that wants to "fallback" or "disengage". In CM at the moment, it seems whoever wants to disengage is basically asking for a rout or loss of control regardless of how well the battle might be going for them. This should not always be the case.

I would image the command to possibly have the following features:

1) units would incur a considerable time delay simulating organisation/co-ordination/planning prior to fallback

2) might possibly only be available to units that are within CnC of a HQ unit

3) fallback speed would possibly be somewhere between that of "assault" and "advance" perhaps.

4) the unit would have it's effective firepower reduced to some amount, perhaps to 30%.

5) units will suffer exhaustion at a rate possibly between that suffered with "advance" and "assault" commands

6) the units morale tolerance level and cohesion would reduce by some amount relative to if it remained stationary and in cover facing the enemy fire, but not to a point where it is anywhere as bad as if it had issued a "withdraw" command with its back turned to the enemy.

7) you would see the CM infantry men back-pedalling, firing occasionally, facing the enemy, but moving backwards away from the enemy.

Can anyone (BTS? ) fill me in on this if it has been raised/discussed/debated/refuted/considered/attempted/dismissed before by BTS. It seems now, that some people are "bastardising" the "assault" and "advance" command for want of a more suitable command.

Lt Bull

[ December 05, 2002, 07:50 PM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[Terrapin]

Originally posted by Lt Bull:

It seems now, that some people are "bastardising" the "assault" and "advance" command for want of a more suitable command.

Huh? They're only LABELS, what difference does it make what it's called? It's up to the user. It's "an "Advance" in a different direction".

Otherwise, your recommendation for the attributes of "Withdraw" sound exactly like Advance/Assault, only with a speed "somewhere between them", but with slightly less "Withdraw" penalty. How is this more than 2% different than Advance and Assault?

As for the animation difference, it IS an abstraction of combat. Keep two platoons around to provide cover for one, or split the squad.

[Lt Bull]

They are not just LABELS when my guys get up, turn their back to the enemy and start moving away giving the enemy a free shot without any return fire at all. CM infantry can only return fire in the direction that they are facing. Using "assualt" or "advance" in a direction opposite from that of the enemy fire exposes them to the most vulnerable rear flank fire and effectively ends all fire at them from the unit.

I do not believe the animation with regards to which direction the unit is facing is an abstraction when it comes to recieving enemy fire/returning fire. The direction a unit physically faces on the map relative to the direction of enemy fire is important regardless of what it is doing (just like it is for armour).

Think of the command as a "reverse" for infantry. The whole point of a "fallback" command would be to prevent an infantry unit from exposing it's (most vulnerable) rear flank to the enemy, which, in most of my experiences is just a means of a quick panic/rout.

I may have some recollection of a CMBO thread ages ago that may have also answered this kind of post with "use the rest of the platoon for cover fire".

Lt Bull

[ December 05, 2002, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[Lt Bull]

Anyone else want to share their thoughts on this one?

Lt Bull

[Redwolf]

The advance command when done away from the enemy is supposed to do exactly that.

Didn't test myself, didn't have to retreat infantry in CMBB yet

[ December 06, 2002, 10:13 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[tiborhead]

I think a withdraw command would only be effective if the enemy was still quite some distance away from the withdrawing squad. Any bonus a withdraw command would have to unit cohesion should be reduced if said squad is in close contact with the enemy. At least, that's the way I see it. If you use "move" or "advance" to disengage the enemy at moderate range, it should prove to be effective. Although, I've never really tried it myself.

[Olle Petersson]

Lt Bull, I support your suggestions!

- I don't think preparations would take long, but be a simple order.

- The only addition by me would be the abstracted use of smoke handgrenades to (partially) cover the retreat.

Another issue that can be debated is whether it's "right" to shoot at fleeing troops (as is favoured by the tac-AI now).

I don't mean "right" from an ethical view, but from a tactical/strategic POV; spend ammo on beaten enemies, or save it for the fresh ones popping up next minute?

Perhaps the tac-AI could reduce ROF (and firepower?) when attacking fleeing troops, unless the player specifically targeted the fleers.

If so, then withdrawing would be less suicidal even without special preparations.

Cheers

Olle

[PeterX]

If you employ the ASSAULT command, when retreating, the squad will turn around, face the enemy, and begin firing at the end of their plot.

Haven't tried this with ADVANCE.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by PeterX:

If you employ the ASSAULT command, when retreating, the squad will turn around, face the enemy, and begin firing at the end of their plot.

Haven't tried this with ADVANCE.

Does the new Strategy Guide cover this in any way?

Retreat/Withdraw while firing at the attacker seems like it still has some "issues"? :confused:

I have to admit I have never needed to use withdraw. (Mostly because I am cold hearted and I let them stay and die, you know.. "Hold to the last man" usually while the rest of the inf that can, stay, they either just plain break or I order them to 'Run AWAY!' ). But it would be nice to know how it works so you can get your inf to walk backwards and fire forwards? :confused: .Perhaps tht is just not possible in CMBB?

oh well

I can't wait to get my strategy guide!!

-tom w

[ December 14, 2002, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[PeterX]

Does the new Strategy Guide cover this in any way?

Retreat/Withdraw while firing at the attacker seems like it still has some "issues"?

No, I noticed this on my own.

Maybe we 've all seen too many Audie Murphy/John Wayne movies; I'm thinking that the kind of activity we're envisioning is less common than we realize. Tho it's certainly easier to picture if the subject is wielding a PPsH instead of a K98.

Mmmm, our unit is outnumbered and being fired upon. What do I do? A)back up slowly, offering a full target, and blasting away with my carbine or B)Get low and slink away or C)Turn my back and hightail outta there. I'd say 'B' or 'C'. Hopefully, 'B'. Not 'A'. Just common sense, IMO.

OT: Wondering if anyone remember a great National Lampoon cover from 20 yrs ago: We're in the jungle. There's a mock photo of Liberace, in mercenary gear brandishing a submachine gun, bandoliers across his exposed manly chest, and a babe-alicious blonde in each arm. He's winking roguishly at the photographer. Title: Liberace, the Untold Story. Cracks me up just thinking about it!

[ December 14, 2002, 10:14 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[CombinedArms]

I'm not saying I can read Steve's mind, but my guess is that the feeling at BTS was that "withdraw" in CMBO was a little too effective. I used it constantly in CMBO, since it was an instant way to get your infantry out of trouble and it had relatively few bad consequences. As long as you made sure to have covered lines of retreat--so they didn't take fire once out of the original hot spot--there were few morale penalties. Your men would get out 95% of the time with few or no losses and in good fighting shape, ready to hold the next line of defense.

I'll readily concede that it all worked a little too well.

--I'm wondering if the new CMBB mode doesn't slightly overcompensate in terms of the delay it imposes on departure and the severe morale hit it imposes on the withdrawing troops. In CMBO I would use the withdraw order frequently, sometimes in situations that weren't dire at all, but simply to quickly relocate my troops. In CMBB I'm wondering if there are ANY situations sufficiently dire to encourage use of the withdraw command? If the withdrawing troops are going to break anyway, and thereafter get killed by the enemy attackers as they wallow on the ground, routed, why not just let them stand and fight. In its current form, withdraw spells death if the enemy is close behind, or troops broken and useless for at least the next several turns if the enemy is distant. So why use it?

For now I'm using the advance command to bug out when that's possible. Otherwise, they stand where they are and die. I think a case could be made for a withdraw command that worked a little less well than it does in CMBO but a little better than it currently does in CMBB.

[ December 14, 2002, 10:10 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[PeterX]

If the withdrawing troops are going to break anyway, and thereafter get killed by the enemy attackers, why not just let them stand and fight.

Because if they stand there and die you'll lose a lot of points and, perhaps, the battle. :cool:

[CombinedArms]

I decided I needed to test my assertions and I think I've been overstating the problems with withdraw in CMBB. From the tests I've done so far, withdrawal is pretty prompt and the morale hit isn't really so severe. I did two tests.

In the first test, the Allies had no weapons--just a jeep hidden behind three bands of woods-- and the Axis had six platoons ranging in experience through all the stages from conscript to elite. All the units were put in a triple band of scattered trees, in command, and given a withdraw order. I didn't control for the morale bonuses of the HQs but I noticed on setup that all the HQ had at least +1 for morale (the regulars had +2). I decided to go with it anyway and gave each platoon a 200 meter withdraw order, and within a few seconds everyone was running. A few of the squads were panicked at the start, but they all got down to alerted or shaken at worst by the end of the turn. They'd all run nearly 200 meters and were tiring but not tired. This seemed so good that I thought I'd better make the conditions harder.

This time I set up six Maxim in the woods, placing one about 100m from each squad. The Maxim's fire could penetrate partway into the three bands of scattered trees, but not go all the way through--once the unit was through the trees it would no longer be under fire. I also edited out the morale bonuses from each HQ. This time the units took some MG fire, and there was more panic among the squads, varying with their experience, as they first began to bug out.

Panic happened but was less common with Elite and crack units, whereas all but one of the conscript and green units panicked at first. But once actually out of fire most of the green and conscript units reverted to a non panic state rather quickly. They stopped running early in turn two, when they reached the limit of the withdraw order at 200m, and by turn three all units in even the conscript and green platoons were back to normal. None had the permanent red dot.

So, under the conditions I've described above for orderly withdrawal of CMBO troops--i.e. in command and with covered lines of retreat--I must confess that CMBB troops are doing much better than I expected. My conclusion--its funny how often we've all had to concede this--is that BTS seems to have gotten it right after all. I'm just going to have to experiment in real game conditions to see if I can make it work for me.

[ December 14, 2002, 11:14 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Rick614]

I have been watching Band of Brothers which is think is excellent and have been thinking about this very topic. In the Crossroads episode when they attack the Germans on the dike they establish a fallback position and after picking off a few Germans use it when they realize they are up against a superior force.

I realized disengaging is something I have problems with. In one minute things can really go to hell and by then it is impossible to disengage. I think an order to fallback to a certain position in the face of superior forces where the move is pre plannd would indeed add to the game. I can see people bitching "my veteran troops fell back too quickly" but just don't use the order then if you want them to hold at all cost. Naturally you would expect veteran troops to fall back in a more orderly and successful manner whick would be preferable to "my green troops didn't have the sense to get out of there and were wiped out."

[ December 15, 2002, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: Rick614 ]

[Lt Bull]

I think watching BoB may have even made me consider the topic of this thread. (BTW, for all you Aussies out there, I just bought the boxed set of BoB on DVD for A$75. +10hrs, 6 discs, bonus features, my best DVD buy ever! :eek: )

Originally posted by redwolf:

The advance command when done away from the enemy is supposed to do exactly that.

Redwolf, can you or anyone else (BTS?) please verify this?

My big issue with using the "advance"/"assualt" command like that is that it makes the unit turn its back to enemy fire and effectively stops all outgoing fire. Unless somehow the facing of the unit is ignored when using the "advance"/"assualt" command (I doubt it), I cant see how this can work or act as a substitue for the kind of command I am looking for.

Lt Bull

[ December 15, 2002, 03:43 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[Maj Soshtokovich]

Hi,

If you would like to go to the Tactics section of the BB Forum I am sure you would find some extra neterial to help. ( I know since I posted it a few days ago < smug expression here>.

Disengaging is one of the hardest actions of a unit/ force/ army. I suggest a look at a military handbook ( German) will help some. To save you some time :

- PLAN for such an event

- have a SOLUTION

The main ones seem to be 1) smoke 2) more FP .

In realation to "2" do not solve it on a 1-1 basis make it look like Terminator is firing into the " offending enemy" . 3 x 81mm mortars on target+ 2 mg's should be enough. Tanks with high load outs in mmg's work wonders.

In essence- plan.

Good luck.

the Major.

[Lt Bull]

Maj Soshtokovich,

I agree with all you have had to say here and at the tips forum on disengaging. However, I still do not think the issue at hand has been directly addressed.

I am talking about the command at an individual squad level, as opposed to a platoon + support level (or higher).

Imagine if there was no "assault", "advance", "move to contact" or "human wave" commands in CMBB and we were having this discussion about "how to assault/advance units" in CMBB. We would be simply using the CMBO "fast" and "move" commands to accomplish the same thing and saying "use leapfrog tactics with the platoons, put down suppressing fire, some smoke etc". Basically the same as what you are saying but in an attacking sense.

Alternatively, imagine if there was no "reverse" for vehicles coded in CM because either it was too hard to code, had been overlooked or not considered necessary and the question was raised, "How do you disengage a tank once it got itself in a fire fight?". Again, we would offer the same kind of answer: "Use distracting covering fire, put down suppressing fire, some smoke etc".

All these "solutions" require other units, implying that the command at the individual unit level does not exist (for some reason).

Perhaps a rephrase of the question may redirect the focus of on what this thread is about. Why is there no specific infantry unit command in CM specifically relating to "disengagement"/"fallback" of any kind? Do we agree it is an otherwise "fundamental" and specific kind of command issued to squad sized units in "real life"? With CMBB, we have seen the emergence of 4 new specialised movement commands to "engage" the enemy: "assault", "advance", "human wave" and "move to contact". We all performed these commands in CMBO using tactics similar to what Maj Soshtokovich has outlined using combinations of "move", "run", "sneak" or "crawl". In BTS's effort to enhance the game at the individual infantry unit level, they decided to create the new specific set of "engagement" commands that can be issued to individual units. Given this specialisation, I don't see it to be so surprising why I am discussing the merits of inclusion/omission of a "disengage" type of command at the individual infantry unit level in CM.

Lt Bull

[Frunze]

The real problem is not "give us a new command", it's what tactics to use to successfully fall back. Including where to set your infantry up in the first place (possibly the biggest question), what range to engage, how long to fight before bugging out, what route to fall back along, where to, what your other units are doing as far as smoke, suppressive fire, and distraction in order to give them a chance to get out alive, and probably a bunch of other things.

If anybody's solved these problems yet, they haven't told the rest of us how, or else I missed it. But I betcha it can be done.

[Maj Soshtokovich]

Ahhh,

Lt Bull I now see your point. There is no BB role for disengaging though there are new roles for attacking ( Human Wave etc..). In my opinion a good point.

I don't have an answer on that.

As to the " method of disengaging" it is rather presumptuous to say " work it out". It will be DIFFERENT every time ( even different depending on the year quite possably: Don't have BB data to check right now).

There are probably some ratio's though that could be worked out as to how to PIN the enemy so that he stops firing at your troops.

This would depend on ( for HE) rate of fire and amount of total firepower

Rate of fire is best illustrated by AFV mg's and the Whirlewind, also multiple mortars on the same target area. Call it the " multiplier effect". ( Set up 2 Pz IV at 200m from 2 platoons in a forrest watch how long it takes for them to rout).

Total firepower is just the addition of "fire efeects" on an area in a given time this includes everything including OBA as well as possably leader ratings ( esp: command bonus).

I don't have the answer to the above but a few test maps and forces ( time to use the scenario editor) and experimenting should do the job.

I would welcome any good tables anyone works out on this. NB: Rememeber good morale HQ's and cover will efefct results.

Good luck

The Major

[Battlefront.com]

Guys,

Note: no matter what, we are *not* adding another order. Period. As we have said major work on CMBB is complete and not subject to change. Adding an order, or even significantly changing the behavior of an existing one, is fundamental and absolutely out of the question.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is. In theory we could probably add a dozen more orders to infantry alone, but at some point it becomes too specialized and overwhelming. We think the current array of orders is in danger of hitting both of these negative marks if we added even one more order to the mix.

It is interesting to note that CM's engine has now been in hands of a rather large group of players for three years. If this was an issue of paramount importance, we would know about it. Move to Contact, Assault, and Advance were all born from user feedback. We saw no such push to have a "Fallback" order, and I for one think that is more than a little relevant.

I think the number one problem here is that people are trying to pull back too late. In other words, the situation is already total FUBAR and the player wants an order to make up for his mistakes (or surprise, which is a type of mistake). The Withdraw command is the commnad designed for such situations, and it of course is not to be used lightly. For other situations, combos of existing orders works quite well. What combos? Totally depends on the situation. No one combo fits all.

Would it be nice to have a Reverse Advance type order, with a bit of hasty, fractional covering fire? Sure. But is it necessary? If it was there would be dozens of threads with hundreds of posts on this Forum specifying and documenting the need for this command. The feedback isn't there, so either it isn't really necessary OR the bulk of the 11,000 registered users on this Forum have missed something major.

I don't know what else to say, other than to advise planning withdrawals better. Have positions that allow quick disengagement from potential enemy LOS, keep HQs nearby, don't put units in positions of isolation, and above all do NOT wait until the last minute to pull back.

Steve

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

....SNIP....

Would it be nice to have a Reverse Advance type order, with a bit of hasty, fractional covering fire? Sure. But is it necessary? If it was there would be dozens of threads with hundreds of posts on this Forum specifying and documenting the need for this command. The feedback isn't there, so either it isn't really necessary OR the bulk of the 11,000 registered users on this Forum have missed something major.

Yes, but Steve have you considered the reason why there weren't numerous threads in the past requesting a specialised order to cover an organised withdrawal is because the withdraw command in CMBO simply worked so damn well. Now that the withdraw command in CMBB has been changed to such a degree that your troops frequently panic there is now a constant request for some form of modified, less morale penalising form of withdrawal.

Regards

Jim R.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

- The only addition by me would be the abstracted use of smoke handgrenades to (partially) cover the retreat.

Smoke grenades are not nearly common enough to add that. Even in the modern military, smoke grenades are not handed out like candy (unlike regular grenades). Usually only issued for special tasks (good example is if your mission is to assault pillboxes).

[Frunze]

Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann:

Yes, but Steve have you considered the reason why there weren't numerous threads in the past requesting a specialised order to cover an organised withdrawal is because the withdraw command in CMBO simply worked so damn well. Now that the withdraw command in CMBB has been changed to such a degree that your troops frequently panic there is now a constant request for some form of modified, less morale penalising form of withdrawal.

Regards

Jim R.

True. Possibly the Withdraw command now carries the increased morale penalty because it worked too well in CMBO. Possibly now it's been weakened a little too much, and the morale penalty should be reduced a little? Apparently a lot of people are having trouble falling back, nd I haven't seen any reports of anyone doing it successfully.

I'm not sure if this is needed, or if we all just haven't figured out how to do it - but it would be easier than creating a new command or a major rework of an existing one.

[CavalryMan]

Originally posted by Lt Bull:

They are not just LABELS when my guys get up, turn their back to the enemy and start moving away giving the enemy a free shot without any return fire at all. CM infantry can only return fire in the direction that they are facing. Using "assualt" or "advance" in a direction opposite from that of the enemy fire exposes them to the most vulnerable rear flank fire and effectively ends all fire at them from the unit.

<snip>

Lt Bull

I am far from an expert but it seems that what is being asked for is the ability to move/walk/run backwards whilst giving fire. Isnt that rather hard to do even for a well trained soldier? It seems that the current implementation of turning to move and then turning back is a realistic simulation.

Just my 2p worth

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by Frunze:

True. Possibly the Withdraw command now carries the increased morale penalty because it worked too well in CMBO. Possibly now it's been weakened a little too much, and the morale penalty should be reduced a little? Apparently a lot of people are having trouble falling back, nd I haven't seen any reports of anyone doing it successfully.

Frunze, I see no problem with the "withdraw" command. If bugging out your units with the minimum of delay at the fastest speed, buts at a risk of causing "panic" and "rout" in the process to escape a serious danger, then the command is modelled well.

However if you want to simply conduct an organised "fallback", you are in big trouble (especially in CMBB).

Do not get it confused with what I have earlier described as a "fallback" command. This is NOT an emergency, panic generating command. If people had been using "withdraw" in CMBO in situations where they really just wanted to "fallback", then it was co-incidental.

Originally posted by Frunze:

I'm not sure if this is needed, or if we all just haven't figured out how to do it - but it would be easier than creating a new command or a major rework of an existing one.

The "withdraw" command is NOT a "multipurpose" command and is/was never intended to be used as a subsitute for what I describe as a "fallback" kind of command. I do not think the "withdraw" command should be watered down to try to kill two birds with the one stone so to speak.

I guess I may have tried to use the CMBO version of "withdraw" on occasions I really would have prefered a maintain facing, reduced return fire, backstep, reverse, organised "fallback" type of command. I may have even used "run" at times but as far as I was concerned, turning your back to the enemy under any circumstances would most likely get the unit "paniced" or "routed" anyways. So what's the point in incuring the additional action delay penalty of a "run" command when a "withdraw" command will at least get you out faster, though still ultimately resulting in a "paniced" or "routed" unit nevrtheless.

Lt Bull