Infantry "fallback" and "disengage" - how?

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by CavalryMan:

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.

CavalryMan,

Sure, in "real life" they would not all just get up and walk/run/dash backwards. The forward facing of the unit while moving in reverse would be just an abstraction of what would really be happeneing within the unit:

ie. some guys facing the front, cover firing while others move back, then they stop, face the enemy and fire, while the others now dash back. Leap frog in reverse kind of tactics and probably very similar to "advance" but in reverse. Movement by bounds as BTS describe in the manual.

The point about maintainig a forward facing for this command "in the game" would be to allow the unit to return fire and NOT be subjected to the huge morale killer of recieving fire to their rear side. It would still graphically represent that the unit is falling back as opposed to turning their backs and running for their lives.

In a way, you can even think that moving away from an enemy (ie increasing the range between you and the enemy and reducing the firepower upon you in the process) may even be easier than "advancing" towards the enemy where the range is decreasing and the firepower only gets more effective with each step forward. What is harder? Facing the enemy and moving forward to the next cover, or moving away from the enemy to cover further back. Turning your back to enemy fire must be damn terrorfying though. It would be interesting to hear from anyone who has actually been involved in these types of combat situations.

Originally posted by BTS:

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.

Steve, I fully understand there will be no changes or additions in CMBB. I am not asking for it to be included, as much as I would think it a great addition. I am simply discussing the merits of including/excluding such a command (in CMBB or in future releases) and interested in hearing what others have to say.

Lt Bull

[ December 17, 2002, 06:13 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[Battlefront.com]

KR,

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.

You mean "too dmaned well" As Lt Bull expanded upon, Withdraw was always supposed to be a "HOLY MOTHER OF GOD MEN!! GET OUT NOW!!!" sort of order. It works like that now is working as it should (perhaps too well for some). What Lt Bull is talking about is an Advance order in reverse. The two are quite different from each other.

While both CMBO and CMBB had Withdraw, neither had a "Fallback" order. This brings me back to my previous comments. If such an order were so critical, why hasn't it been pushed to the forefront like so many other feature requests?

Berli,

Smoke grenades are not nearly common enough to add that

Unfortunately, games like ASL made it seem like popping smoke was a common tactic in WWII. It wasn't even for the US, which I would guess made more smoke grenades than any other nation.

Lt Bull,

Turning your back to enemy fire must be damn terrorfying though.

I should think in one sense it would be just as difficult as going forward into fire, and on the other hand easier. At least if you are moving away from enemy fire your objective offers safety. This means more certainty of safety and less chance of injury/death. Advancing towards enemy fire increases uncertainty with each step even if the chance of getting killed is equal.

At CM's level attacking and retreating are both very difficult assignments, but for slightly different reasons. Both risk your men's lives, both introduce uncertainty about the "strategic" picture. However, when on the attack you have the initiative and therefore (in theory) more options. Worst case you can call it quits and go on the defensive. When pulling back you are handing initiative over to the other side. If the enemy already had the initiative, it becomes a compounding factor.

This is why it is critical to NOT wait until the last minute to pull back. Otherwise you risk being overrun, which is probably the worst possible situation a force can ever find itself in. EVEN if it survives, it will generally be beat up and incapable of doing much more than withdrawing from the battle.

Both advancing and withdrawing require good cover, luck, and coordination for optimal results. Additionally, for withdrawing the amount of distance also helps out a lot in most circumstances, since it is generally easier and less risky to pull back when there is a 100m + buffer between you and the enemy. Again, this is why waiting to the last minute is not a good idea. If the enemy is within grenade throwing distance, you are in for a rough ride.

Getting back to Lt Bull's main point...

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

Again, I disagree. I don't think a Fallback order would do much to change the results of a withdrawing action in either game. The point of moving away from the enemy is to get out of LOS as quickly as possible. In general this is possible because a) you know where the enemy is and you most likely advanced through some sort of covering terrain to get to where you are (offensive withdrawal) OR positioned your forces to have good escape routes (defensive withdrawal).

Therefore, the limited chances of shooting back, the reduced firepower, and the practical time exposed make a Fallback order not all that usefull. Also, targeting is abstracted in CM to be in "bursts" so it is often the case that you can move without a single enemy unit having the chance to fire at you even though they see you running. Especially if that enemy is being hit by covering fire from other units and/or is not the best quality.

And that is it in a nutshell. A Fallback order was not included because in practical terms it wouldn't do very much. Since we have a practical limit on how many orders we can have in the game, it wasn't included in either game. And for both games the requests for such an order can be pretty much found in the two threads started up this week

Steve, I fully understand there will be no changes or additions in CMBB.

Good. Just wanted to make sure that everybody understands our position

I am not asking for it to be included, as much as I would think it a great addition.

I am sure you do, but I am sure that it wouldn't change the gameplay enough to justify its inclusion. From player experience in CMBO it was clear that the most problems experienced were on the attack, and therefore that is where we put the focus of new orders. Many have moaned about the fact that there are so many options to choose from, and a bunch of threads confirm player confusion over the choices, so I can safely say that we were 100% to not include no additional orders no matter what they might be.

I am simply discussing the merits of including/excluding such a command (in CMBB or in future releases) and interested in hearing what others have to say.

And there is nothing wrong with that That is why I am here too.

Steve

[Fionn]

Typically most players seek to disengage their combat maneuvre elements far too late in the engagement and any and all negative sequelae resulting from said attempted disengagement can be traced to leaving it too late.

In short effective disengagement requires one or more of the following:#

1. Any enemy who is too scared or too slow to follow you closely and decisively engage you or

2. An enemy who is too far away to decisively engage you and who can advance no more quickly than you can withdraw.

In the vast majority of cases I've seen players are attempting to "disengage" when the enemy enjoys both firepower and moral ( in terms of morale and momentum) superiority AND is at relatively close quarters. In such circumstances in real life troops who tried to "run for it" often got killed en masse, just as happens in CM.

If you want to disengage succesfully you either need to disengage early OR support the disengagement with massed fires/threatening maneuvres designed to slow/divert the enemy from following one's disengagement.

What you see happening in CM is what used to happen in real life IMO. Soldiers have always known that one can inflict massive casualties once the enemy attempts to disengage IF you can turn that disengagement into a rout. CM is no different IMO.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Fionn:

(snip)

What you see happening in CM is what used to happen in real life IMO. Soldiers have always known that one can inflict massive casualties once the enemy attempts to disengage IF you can turn that disengagement into a rout. CM is no different IMO.

OK

That sounds about right.

-tom w

[ December 18, 2002, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Lt Bull]

Fionn,

I agree with much of what you say, but still there is no option in the game that simulates an organised body of soldiers “falling back", giving up ground to the enemy, moving away from the enemy, while providing their own "token" covering fire in the process and without having to turn their backs to the enemy (in a CM unit facing seems and all that implies).

Obviously allowing ANY enemy to come too close will make disengagement harder no matter how you want to go about it (or what CM commands you have at your disposal).

I guess the whole point is that once a CM infantry unit turns it's back to the enemy it has basically resigned itself to getting panicked and effectively ends any contribution whatsoever that unit has to the battle. One of the most dangerous and frustrating times in CM for a unit to "disengage" is during the time right when the unit stops ALL firing, stand up, pivots 180deg on the spot while taking fire from everyone in range, and then runs away from the enemy presenting a clear DEADLY free shot at its rear and all that goes with being fired on from the rear. This is a MAJOR penalty for what in "real life" the unit would in real life be trying to conduct: a unit based manoeuvre equivalent/similar to a CM "advance in reverse", given the situation.

Just remember that the BEST current CM commands to try to conduct a unit based "fallback" or "fighting withdrawal" is to use the "move" or "run" command in CMBO and "move", "run", "advance" or "assault" in CMBB. We can probably discount the "move" and "assault" commands because they are too slow.

Given that "run" command is used, it is EQUIVALENT to exactly run away from the enemy at maximum speed with your back turned, with the MINIMAL consideration for cover, not firing one round back and in a manner that subjects the unit to the highest exposure rating possible for that unit in it's current terrain.

FACT: At the unit level within CM, you can not present the enemy with any better a target to shoot at than when you turn your back and run. It simply can NOT get any better for the enemy even if you tried! Best of everything. No return fire, maximum exposure possible resulting in a good chance of casualties, and firing on the unit’s rear which is likely to break the unit regardless of how many casualties you get.

All this for what? For just trying to basically "advance" away from the enemy. Just because a unit in CM wants to move in a direction away from the enemy, it must expose itself to the enemy in a manner which maximises the effectiveness of all fire upon it? A bit harsh don't you think just because you want to give up some yards to the enemy or where you want to move to a position that just happens to be away from the enemy. Hell, it might even be SAFER to be advancing TOWARDS the enemy!! But this is ALL you get if you ever try to disengage a unit from the enemy in CM.

Originally posted by Fionn:

What you see happening in CM is what used to happen in real life IMO.

This is NOT what a "real life" unit level "disengage"/"fighting withdrawal" kind of command would entail and why I think an inclusion of such a command into a game like CM would be appropriate. They would in no way expose themselves to the same level of danger for conducting such a manoeuvre in "real life" than what we presently see in CM when a unit simply wants to move in ANY WAY for what ever reason away from the enemy (EXCEPTION: The "withdraw" command is probably well modelled for what it is trying to model)

We have heard some people have been using "advance" or even "assault" as opposed to "run" to "disengage" from the enemy, for want of a better command. Perhaps this might reduce the unit’s exposure at the expense of giving the enemy MORE time to shoot them freely in the back. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I also may add that the number of casualties in a typical CM fight has been shown to be rather higher than in similar “real life” situations. This is for a number of reasons. Perhaps one of the contributing factors is the difficulty a defending player has in conducting ANY sort of "fighting withdrawal" at the unit level, so they end up letting the unit die where they initially placed them. They know that once they turn their back, it is basically game over. Shoot me in the back for free while I am running! I can’t give you a better target! So leave em where they are. At least they can shoot back and perhaps take out a few before getting wiped out themselves.

Originally posted by BTS:

And for both games the requests for such an order can be pretty much found in the two threads started up this week

I must say that I had been considering this since CMBO was released, and it seems the "Withdrawal and DIE!" thread seemed like a good opportunity to put it to discussion. It can be hard to know what is missing if you never had it in the first place.

Lt Bull

[Battlefront.com]

Lt Bull,

Unfortunately, when we get into threads like this the one (or two) people strongly advocating for something tend to... how shall I put this... "embelish and overstate" the seriousness of NOT putting in such a feature. I'm seeing this again here Here is a primo example:

I guess the whole point is that once a CM infantry unit turns it's back to the enemy it has basically resigned itself to getting panicked and effectively ends any contribution whatsoever that unit has to the battle.

This is seriously overstated and completely inaccurate. In short, it is a bunch of Bull LT What you said is PROBABLY true for an average to poor unit, in the open, being shot at, and without adequate covering fire. But even then... it is not certain that the unit will become a write off.

And here is another one...

FACT: At the unit level within CM, you can not present the enemy with any better a target to shoot at than when you turn your back and run. It simply can NOT get any better for the enemy even if you tried! Best of everything. No return fire, maximum exposure possible resulting in a good chance of casualties, and firing on the unit’s rear which is likely to break the unit regardless of how many casualties you get.

"Maximum exposure possible" is not true at all, unless you are talking about a unit out in the open. When a unit turns around in cover it still receives a bonus for that cover. But yes, the unit pulling back will not even offer up token outgoing fire, but like I said before this is not something that will likely change the fate of the unit. And turing around... guys have to turn around at SOME point in order to pull back. Soldiers do not sprint backwards to better cover.

So what is really missing?

1. Token covering fire that is not likely to do much.

2. A reduction of unit brittleness to simulate planning on exposing one's ass

These are not tremendous problems.

I also may add that the number of casualties in a typical CM fight has been shown to be rather higher than in similar “real life” situations. This is for a number of reasons. Perhaps one of the contributing factors is the difficulty a defending player has in conducting ANY sort of "fighting withdrawal" at the unit level, so they end up letting the unit die where they initially placed them.

Strongly disagree. The greater casualties in CMBB come from the fact that uncaring Human and AI players are not even 1/10000th as concerned about their troops' well being as the real soldiers were. The bulk of the remaining casualty problem is caused by bad tactics, such as disengaging after it is too late.

But you are right... I do think a lot of players find withdrawing difficult so they let their units die in place. I also think people put armor in rather stupid spots until they get killed for the same reasons. Good tactics in difficult circumstances are not easy. However, this has nothing to do with what you are talking about. Having a Fallback order would NOT help such people.

It can be hard to know what is missing if you never had it in the first place.

Not at all. People eventually figured out that something was wrong with advancing under fire in CMBO. It turned out that 99% of them were wrong about what was actually causing the problem, but that was OK. Once we saw the abuses taking place we were able to figure it out and fix it. Move to Contact was also a hugely requested feature (or as it was often called, "Hunt For Infantry"). Again, people identified the need and then articulated it.

But here we are three years after CMBO's Beta Demo was released, and still no mass call to fix a "major" problem that has been with the game since the preAlpha days. If this were such a huge, gaping hole in reality there would have been an uproar about this back in CMBO days. Of this I am 110% certain. Therefore, at best, it is a minor gap inbetween reality and game system. Since we are not going to make a change in CMBB, and the new engine will be entirely different in terms of execution of orders, I think it would be best to just "let it go". It might be interesting to spar back and forth on this issue, but ultimately it isn't productive. Well, unless people keep the discussion focused on how to make propper fighting withdrawals. That would probably be helpful to many.

Steve

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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.

Microsoft is on record for stating that the reason for the lack of security in MS operating systems is the fact the customers did not demand it in the past.

The Withdraw command is the commnad designed for such situations, and it of course is not to be used lightly.

With one very distinct disadvantage: you can only use it to move in one general direction.

I still do not undertand the reasoning why it is allowed to be directed only at the friendly base line egde of the map.

Lets assume you are conducting an envelopment and all of a sudden you need to pull the force back to the side in a hurry. In a totally FUBAR situation your attacking force is basically dead meat as they will only Widraw towards the defenders positions you have been enveloping and any other mode of movement is ineffective, too slow or otherwise plain suicidal.

For other situations, combos of existing orders works quite well. What combos? Totally depends on the situation. No one combo fits all.

Perhaps. I still do not like the idea I have to order my men to cease laying a suppressive fire, turn their back at the enemy and move away from them. Having them use bounding overwatch when attacking is easy. Having them use bounding overwatch when pulling back is almost suicidal, what with all the command delays.

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 think there would be howls of discontent if the the tanks could not reverse and they would have to resort to using the advance command in the appropriate direction.

Or more to the point: why is there now a shoot'n scoot order for armour but no equivalent for infantry ?

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.

Getting in a jam is not anybodys bussiness but the players. But the issue is not that. The issue is the lack of proper tools to conduct a widrawal.

[aka_tom_w]

It "sort of" sounds like some people in this thread are suggesting that the thing that is missing in CMBB is the order that says (like in the movies) "withdraw carefully by walking backwards in crouching position and continue to lay down supressive fire toward the enemy".

,

If that is what some folks here are asking for, how do we know that and advance or assault order in one direction WITH a "area fire" order in the opposite direction doesn't do exactly that?

OK, sure, in the game we see the little pixel soldiers turn their backs and go the other way but do they continue to fire in the direction they were ordered to (back at the enemy) as they "advance" in the direction they were ordered to "withdraw" to?? (I honestly don't know as I have not tested or witnessed this so I am asking??)

:confused:

I must admit I have never really had a problem with this aspect of the game BUT I am enjoying reading this thread like a good article or a fine novel because Steve and Fionn are posting it.

I must admit I do miss a contribution from Redwolf on this issue !

(in fun)

-tom w

[ December 19, 2002, 07:33 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Fionn]

"Perhaps one of the contributing factors is the difficulty a defending player has in conducting ANY sort of "fighting withdrawal" at the unit level, so they end up letting the unit die where they initially placed them. They know that once they turn their back, it is basically game over."

Hmm, I doubt that most of my opponents would agree with the above. My favoured defence is a gradual retreat through an outpost line, a forward defence line, a swept zone, then my MLR and then my final fallback positions ( with supporting fire from my support weapons line). At the very least I usually withdraw my infantry from 3 seperate fully-formed defensive positions ( not counting the innumerable ambush positions held by squads, half-platoons and platoon-sized units which also must fall back once the ambush is completed or unnecessary/impractical). The distance from my outpost line to my MLR is usually on the order of one kilometre and I would count myself VERY unlucky to lose more than 1/3 of advance force and/or fail to inflict less than a 3 or 4 to 1 exchange ratio. In essence I often win the CM battle before I have to reach my MLR and call no the fire of the 2/3rds of my force sitting there.

Either my copy of CM is decisively different than yours or you are bugging out far, far too late.

The best advice re: bugging out is that you SHOULD HAVE bugged out 2-3 turns before it becomes obvious that you need to bug out. IF it becomes obvious that you should bug out then you are probably already too late to do so. Anticipation is the key to success on the virtual field of battle.

Of course humanity being what it is it is easier to seek solutions elsewhere than it is to say "damn, I need to change what I do so I get better results". That isn't an attack it is simply what I think you need to do to improve and it is something all the good players do continuously.

[ December 19, 2002, 09:45 AM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I must admit I do miss a contribution from Redwolf on this issue !

(in fun)

"fu..." what?

Seriously, I like this aspect of CMBB just fine.

The only nitpick would be movement in a zigzagged trench system. If one MG area-fires on one part of the trench system, then movement 50 meters around that point (probably more) is seriously hampered. That means that if you build a trench system with ways to the rear then you will not be able to use that even under moderate fire elsewhere on the trench, behind several corners. The MG seems to have a fixed radius of effect on enemy soldiers no matter what, CMBB doesn't seem to take the zigzagging into account.

But then, I usually do not put soldiers into my trenches anyway

[Matias]

Oooh! Oooh! I want to learn more about *how* to effectively make a fighting withdrawl in CMBB!

Actually that's why I came into this thread, but until Fionn's post I haven't been getting much. Here's what I extract (pun intended sorry) from his post.

Multiple withdrawls from multiple points of resistence in one battle are common for him, over a distance of 1km (!).

His screening / recon force which does most of the withdrawing is about 1/3 of his avalible forces.

He's maintaining an even line as he withdraws since he's willing to abandon ambushes before triggered.

Now my questions! What kind of forces are suitible for this? Infantry and afv if covered retreat routes are avalible? Do you bring mortars and HMGs in support?

How much do you withdraw at one bound? 50? 100m? 200m? I assume it would work best like a travelling overwatch in reverse, move two squads back to covering fire and pull a single one out at the end? How much distance to keep between squads ideally (obvious modified by sight lines)?

How do you know you've harried an enemy long enough to withdraw? Number of turns? Number of opponents? It seems once you're taking heavy casualties its too late!

Inquiring newbies want to know! Thanks!

[Redwolf]

A few screenshots of such a defense in CMBB would be most welcome, indeed.

[Fionn]

Well, I am far from typical around here as re: what forces I commit to specific roles so be prepared.

Forward forces, roughly 1/3rd of your infantry, all of your extraordinary forces ( snipers etc) all but your reserve armour, all but your reserve artillery.

It isn't linear by any means but I do generally withdraw one flank if the other has retreated 300 or 400 metres beyond it ( danger of the enemy cutting sideways and cutting off the flank). Of course sometimes I just reinforce the extended defensive flank with my armoured vehicles and infantry and conduct a spoiling attack into the exposed enemy's advanced flank catching his reserves in the flank as they move and not only causing carnage but also screwing up his whole assault timetable... by delaying the reserves you gain a few extra turns to bleed his forward elements before they can be reinforced by his main body. If you work this right his forward echelon may be bled so white you can counter-attack, crush it and meet his main body several hundred metres beyond where his advance echelon got over-run ( and get to conduct another fighting withdrawal over ground you've already abandoned once). Ideally you can both gain "extra depth" for your fighting withdrawal by fighting over the same ground twice and also strip the enemy main body of a forward/anti-ambush element which your opponent will find difficult to re-integrate into his main body when it hits your MLR (code-speak for you'll make his main punch weaker).

No mortars and HMGs. They slow you down. This is ALL about light infantry fighting. Infantry vs infantry, infantry vs tanks etc. Your tanks exist only to pick off the odd enemy vehicle which tries to engage ur forces from long-range and out in the open ( or to fire from ambush).

How large are the rearwards bounds? Depends on the terrain. Sometimes as little as 20 metres, sometimes as much as 200 metres. All depends on the terrain. The only golden rule is you need to retreat enough to break LOS and get enough time to turn around, catch ur breath and set up a new ambush. Anything less is just suicide.

If u try to retreat too far the enemy support weapons and heavy weapons will get you. If not far enough then the enemy infantry will over-run u before u get organised. Picking the right bound and distance is where the art occurs in the Art of War.

I personally don't use "travelling overwatch" in that way. I cover my retreat with either support and/or heavy weapons OR by working several ambush maneuvre units in concert with eachother so that any attempt to maneuvre against one retreating unit will run into ambushes from several other units.

How do you know u've harried an enemy long enough to withdraw? Simple, after AT MOST 90 seconds of an ambush it is time to withdraw. 50% of your killing occurs in the first 30 seconds, 25% in the next 60 seconds and the last 25% occurs in ALL of the time between the 90th second and the end of the battle. If you begin an ambush on the 1st second of a turn then I'd have no hesitation ordering the unit to retreat early on in the next turn.

The exception to that is, of course, poor quality Soviet forces. There you will have to buy your ambushing force some extra time to retreat by opening up with long-range supporting fire from HMGs etc and, possibly, artillery-delivered HE and smoke missions.

Once you are taking moderate casualties ( defined as anything more than those expected from long-range harrassing fires) then it is almost always too late to withdraw UNLESS you are going to do so aided by the arrival of strong new forces or the intervention of extraordinary forces ( arty-delivered smoke etc)

And lastly but not leastly ALWAYS look to counter-attack. It doesn't have to be a local counter-attack either, it can be an entire flank just launching at your opponent all of a sudden. Nothing scares the **** out of an opponent more than the feeling that they truly don't know what the hell u are going to do next and that they could be advancing one minute, pushing you back nicely only to be attacked by a company of Siberians and T34s the next.

If you beat your opponent ( and by this I mean his mind) he will defeat his own on-field forces for you. Remember you don't actually win the majority of your battles. Your OPPONENTS LOSE THEM!!! You just happen to avoid "losing" until after they have already lost. I know a lot of people never get their head around that but it is nonetheless true. I, for example, very rarely have to beat my opponents on the CM virtual battlefield. Most of the time they beat themselves for me.

And before you ask, yeah, lots of people will tell you this is absolute BS etc but if it was good enough for Sun Bin and Vo Nguyen Giap then it is good enough for you

P.s. Redwolf, you know I amn't doing any AARs etc anymore . Hell, I haven't posted here for about 2 months until yesterday. In any case it happened in real life and since CMBB is closer to real life than CMBO it is, IMO, even easier to do than it ever was in CMBO ( thankfully).

[ December 19, 2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Fionn ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Fionn:

P.s. Redwolf, you know I amn't doing any AARs etc anymore . Hell, I haven't posted here for about 2 months until yesterday. In any case it happened in real life and since CMBB is closer to real life than CMBO it is, IMO, even easier to do than it ever was in CMBO ( thankfully).

Just to make it clear, I didn't know you don't do AARs anymore, and my request was not to push something with you in special.

I just would like to see somebody's CMBB defense where he manages to retreat one defense line and get enough fighting power back into safety to do something useful after they occupy the next line. I don't say there's something wrong with the game (apart fromt he trench nitpick), I am curious how to do that.

So far on usual CMBB maps I have only been able to retract infantry (no heavy weapons, of course) that I set up in positions primarily intended to be used for one volley only. That would be fine, but the effect of this volley is rather neglectable and overall it didn't seem worth the trouble and risk.

I say "on usual CMBB maps" because if you have vertical wood-"fingers" extending from your MLR all is fine. But the usal maps have open ground "traps" all over the place, so you must cross it with absolutely minimal enemy fire.

[Olle Petersson]

I'd like some deeper discussion about the effect/SOP when shooting at retreating troops.

Simple setup:

A rifle platoon is hastily dug in near (inside) a treeline, with excellent field of fire across some >400m of open ground that any attacking enemies will have to cross. The force of the enemy in the local area is unknown.

A platoon of enemies is seen advancing cautiously, slowly closing the distance.

When the nearest enemy is about 150m away, the entire defending platoon open fire, a high rate of aimed small arms fire. They instantly pin the attackers, and inflict some casualties.

The attackers start shooting back, but soon realise the hopeless situation and try to run away.

As a defender, what do you do in that situation?

a) Take a few cheap pot-shots before ceasing fire and prepare to engage the next, larger, wave of attackers, that might appear soon.

Continue to spend lots of ammo until no enemy is seen moving within range, hoping that no new enemies will show up.

In CM most/all defenders seem to default to alternative .

Personally I find alternative a) to be a more sensible default unless the player has specified a fleeing unit as target.

If my point makes sense, then making defenders less aggressive against retreating units would solve all "problems" without adding new orders or reducing realism.

Cheers

Olle

[Fionn]

As a defender in that situation you should kick yourself for weeks for wasting a great opportunity to KILL ( instead of slightly discomfit) a key enemy maneuvre unit. Why on earth did you open fire at 150 metres? It is difficult to kill people at that range. No, killing like sex is a close-range and dirty business .

Problems with what you did:

1. You opened fire far too early.

2. You seemed relatively with less than the total anihilation of your opponent.

3. You exposed your entire platoon to enemy arty fire etc for very little gain.

No, instead you should have ambushed the enemy at a range of approximately 20 metres. At that range you should have wiped out almost all of his force in less than 60 seconds. Then you should retreat to your next ambush position. Why? Simple, dead men can't harrass your retreat ( the guys you ambushed are dead) and by retreating quickly you can prevent the enemy from dropping arty all over you are rushing new forces to the sector to pin and annihilate you.

Your "defence" is very static and just asking to be overwhelmed by massed indirect fires/strong support weapon fire. I bet you lose a LOT of people to firestrikes when facing a competent Soviet player. Why don't you try to HIT and FADE. When you hit hit harder and when you fade fade more quickly and more completely and your CM games will change almost beyond recognition. That's a guarantee but of course it is tough to actually bring about change.

[Battlefront.com]

I'll second what Fionn is saying about the mistake of opening up too soon OR opening up with too much of your force. I think some people think "ah, the shooting has begun!" and unHide all their units and start a big shooting war.

If the defender only exposes a minimal percentage of his force to deal with early probes from the enemy, then you get a more tit-for-tat type arrangement. The defender lays waste to a particular percentage of the enemy while at the same time only exposing a similar percentage.

It is also advisable to not open up with your immobile assets until you are sure they can do the greatest good. For example, I recently played a game as defender. I had a 45mm AT Pillbox. I saw some Armored Cars that were at about 400m and stationary. They weren't causing me too much trouble, but they were annoying me. So I had the pillbox open up on them thinking that I had probably seen all the enemy's forces at that point. Wrong

The next turn three StuGs came out of the woods at 500m and started smacking my pillbox with fire. Unfortunately for me, he got a pretty lucky shot and eliminated my pillbox without it doing any good (the ACs managed to pull back because my gunner kept missing ).

Now... what if I had kept my pillbox quite until the last minute? I probably would have got some flank shots on the StuGs. Might not have hit any of them, but it would have been a better situation for me on the whole.

What does this have to do with withdrawing? Well, by screwing up one of my key AT assets my forward infantry on that flank found themselves at the mercy of three StuGs supporting a greater number of enemy infantry. So when I opened up small arms fire I was imediately punished. And there wasn't a damned thing I could do about it. They also had shots on my retreat routes, so all I could do was hunker down in the patch of Tall Pines and basically die. Most of that platoon did in fact die, but my brave men took out a rather large number of infantry (IIRC 1:1, which is not bad for Greens and Conscripts vs. Regs and Vets!).

Withdrawing is a complex and dangerous maneuver. It is also highly prone to "flukes", both good and bad. The less margin of error you allow yourself, the greater the chance is that things won't go so well for yourself.

Steve

[Redwolf]

I'd still like to see screenshots or maybe even savegame/PBEM moves.

What Fionn says makes perfect sense. But it depens on specific terrain features being present very much.

You need:

- extending woods or other cover into the defensive zone, so that retreat is not with too much open ground

- you need two of these at least, because you hold down the people threatening your retreating flank from the other flank

- and the attacker needs to be forced to come into effective range. On the typical CMBB map I don't see how the attacker is forced to move all units of the forward portion of his force within "annihilation range"

The term "annihilation range" is probably best for describing what Fionn does. He needs to find a way to completely eliminate the forward force, everybody within range, to do this. In WW2 this probably requires SMGs, and that's where the 20m come from.

In TacOps the whole thing is much easier. The modern weapons are more deadly by several orders of magnitude and it is realistic to kill every vehicle in sight with the first volley, from a distance where the surviving now dismounted infantry does not interfer with your fallback.

Before people get me wrong just again, I do not think the CMBB model or commands have a problem. I just wonder how often you'll get a combat situation (terrain, forces) where you can do this dual-fallback mechanism in CMBB.

[Fionn]

Redwolf,

It is the responsibility of the commander to use the terrain to his advantage. It IS possible to conduct the same basic fallback in open terrain with very little cover as it is in very close terrain with very limited LOS. Basic tactics do not become unworkable simply because the terrain changes. Sure you may have to buy a bit more smoke in open terrain or a few more HMGs for long-range suppressing fire ( since the LOS is long) etc but the BASIC tactic is still sound.

Of course that statement comes from the philosophical point of view wherein I think basic tactics determine who wins and the basics ALWAYS apply. It is in the application of those sound basics that people screw up and then they tend to assume that the reason they lose is cause the basics don't apply in this "special circumstance". as opposed to just realising that they just need to improve their own command of the APPLICATION of those basics in all terrain.

As to your "annihilation range" comment. The thing about SMGs is, IMO, highly misleading. A rifle does more damage at 20 metres than 100 metres, so does an SMG, so does an LMG etc. BASIC tactics do not rely on a given weapons type or mix they apply in ALL circumstances. Letting people lose to a squad armed only with rifles and then springing an ambush at minimal range is a SOUND BASIC TACTIC. THAT is why it works. It has little to do with what the squad is armed with. Perhaps an SMG-armed squad will kill everyone while a rifle-armed squad might only kill half and panic the rest but that still doesn't change the fact that either squad type will:

a) do MORE damage at 20 metres than 100metres and

a panicked enemy squad will still allow ur squad to break contact and fall back to the next prepared position.

Far, far too many people are concerned with how to wield such and such a weapon and such and such a squad type and fail to see that there's no point focusing on the niceties of exploiting extraordinary faculties of certain units when they are failing to fully utilise the BASIC faculties of these units because their basic tactical doctrine is either faulty or less than comprehensively applied. That is as true nowadays as it was when CMBO was around and yet people still haven't come to terms with it.

" He needs to find a way to completely eliminate the forward force, everybody within range, to do this"

Nope, I don't. I just need to accomplish the two things I listed a couple of messages above.

As to some other points:

" You need:

- extending woods or other cover into the defensive zone, so that retreat is not with too much open ground"

Incorrect. You need to break contact with the enemy. That is done by breaking LOS. Ditches, small changes in elevation, an intervening intervisibility line etc can all do that. I don't need woods or cover. I just need to break LOS and I don't need woods or cover to do that.

" - you need two of these at least, because you hold down the people threatening your retreating flank from the other flank"

Incorrect.

A) You don't need two patches of woods or cover for the reasons given above and

you only have to prevent the enemy from flanking you. You do not need to physically bar this way. You can bar it psychologically ( make the enemy BELIEVE an ambush awaits him there so he won't risk triggering it) or you can bar it by use of long-range fire from support weapons OR the THREAT of direct or indirect fires... If the enemy believes you can move some tanks up to bring fire to bear on an infantry-led outflanking move then unless he is SURE he can succesfully engage your tanks he is unlikely to try to outflank you.

Most CM players I see are very uni-dimensional. They think of denying the enemy use of a piece of terrain by physically occupying that terrain. This forces them to buy a LOT of forces and penny-parcel them out into small pockets, each pocket occupying one "key" piece of terrain ( whether it is key or not is often highly debatable) instead of using many maneuvre-based and/or non-tangible means to deny the enemy use of given avenues of attack without necessarily physically blocking those avenues of attack. Why not seek to utilise the more indirect means to defend against outflanking? They often work out much more cheaply and are often much more flexible than physically blocking the enemy's path with a significant portion of your force.

" and the attacker needs to be forced to come into effective range."

Nope.

1. If an attacker wishes to advance then he MUST come into effective range at some stage and

2. If the possibility or proven presence of your ambush force prevents him from attacking in this sector then you have succeeded in narrowing his options and can refocus your reserve and AT forces on the fewer, more limited remaining avenues of approach thus improving your AT and AP firepower along those avenues of approach AND allowing you to position your reserve to respond more quickly to advances down these fewer avenues. All in all that's a pretty great thing to do and makes your eventual victory much, much more likely.

There is more to assessing who will win than looking at exchange ratios after all.

"On the typical CMBB map I don't see how the attacker is forced to move all units of the forward portion of his force within "annihilation range""

Well,

1. The screen can achieve many of its missions WITHOUT fully annihilating the entire enemy forward screen ( ie. intel-gathering, premature deployment of the main body, channelling the enemy attack etc) and

2. Two players could follow the same doctrine and achieve wildly differing results. Knowing the doctrine is one thing. Being able to apply it succesfully is another thing entirely.

Properly applied this works.

And lastly, whether it works or not depend far more on the CO and the enemy commander and far less on the forces or terrain present than you seem to think.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Fionn:

Problems with what you did:

1. You opened fire far too early.

OK, perhaps I picked a range a bit too far...

2. You seemed relatively with less than the total anihilation of your opponent.

Relatively what?

3. You exposed your entire platoon to enemy arty fire etc for very little gain.

Perhaps making the attacker a full company could take care of that?

Then you should retreat to your next ambush position.

... and get shot for cowardise and not following orders! Not an option if I'm ordered hold the ground at all costs, and no matter for the main issue.

My main issue is:

When the enemy is running away, do you spend or conserve ammo? (Given that you're not likely to get any more ammo soon.)

Cheers

Olle

[aka_tom_w]

sorry to digress......

But did someone answer this question?

"If that is what some folks here are asking for, how do we know that and advance or assault order in

one direction WITH a "area fire" order in the opposite direction doesn't do exactly that?

OK, sure, in the game we see the little pixel soldiers turn their backs and go the other way but do

they continue to fire in the direction they were ordered to (back at the enemy) as they "advance" in

the direction they were ordered to "withdraw" to?? (I honestly don't know as I have not tested or

witnessed this so I am asking??)"

Can someone address that issue?

When assaulting in one direction can you target and fire in the opposite direction?

:confused:

curious

-tom w

[Redwolf]

Screenshots

These are all sound recommendations but the core of this thread is whether the CM engine supports a movement which is suitable for a tactical retreat from a first to a second defensive line.

I have no doubt people did that, however the specific circumstances of range for first volley, position of enemy on first volley, effect of first volley, terrain between the two lines, position of supporting units (if they opend fire at all at this phase) is unanswered.

Personally I feel it is possible only under very rare circumstances in a CMBB battle. But as I said in previous postings, I don't think it's the engine's fault. It is the lack of lethality in WW2 weapons, the lack of mobility for long-and medium-range AT weapons, and the generally high quality of attackers compared to reality. A properly stacked and spaced attacking force will pin/nail the retreaters after the volley, unless the terrain is very favourable for the defender. AT the very least this requires to open fire with AT guns or tanks from further behind to bind enemy AFV fire - which people describe as not desireable. So screenshots would be most welcome.

[ December 21, 2002, 10:45 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Fionn]

Olle,

Sorry about the typo. I meant to say ""You seemed relatively HAPPY with less than". I was stating that you seemed to set your goal too low.

As re: your point about not being allowed to retreat. Umm, CM GAME mate. In the game you are allowed to conduct as skilled a tactical game as you want. IF you choose to assume there's some mad corporal with a gun to your head banning you from pursuing normal tactics then you go ahead and do that but it is not sporting to introduce the "mad corporal" factor into the midst of a discussion on how BEST to handle such a situation.

In CM games you will not lose by conducting a mobile defence. If you choose to assume the "mad corporal" factor is in play then that's your own business and any and all limitations on your freedom to maneuvre are your own problems.

Redwolf,

I find your contention that a properly stacked and spaced attacking force will pin a defender to be less than satisfactory. To pin you the attackers will either have to have masses of men at long range, moderate numbers of men at short range, a number of support weapons set up at a distance or some combination of the above.

ALL of the above are eminently counterable using either your indirect fire support, your AFVs, your support weapons or, indeed, the ambushers themselves.

You can#t just say "X will pin the defenders" as there are ALWAYS counters to X. If you can't develop or implement those counters then you are losing due a lack of tactical sophistication IMO.