Withdraw and die!

[PeterX]

Steve posted:

Using Assault or Advance in reverse is not all that gamey. Units are more open to Panic and casualties than they would going forward because they are more vulnerable from the rear

I've noticed that when using ASSAULT for retreating the units will turn around 180 degrees at the end of their plot and begin firing.

Some posters are forgetting that one of the essential purposes of retreat is PRESERVING their forces in game terms. Even if panicked or routed, the player is still saving the points that may decide victory in a close match. Their combat viability for the rest of the battle matters but their ultmate score value counts as well; better 7 rattled and unresponding grenadiers in that wood square in the rear than 9 dead ones. So withdrawing makes sense on two levels.

[ December 03, 2002, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[demoss]

The act of pulling back or withdrawing in military terms is a controlled action involving LGMs covering and then moving in bounds with the rifle teams. Gernades are used while in range and smoke should be used as well.

I don't believe laser guided munitions were available in the 1940s. You're really just arguing semantics, though. Call it what you like - it's a "Get out of Dodge" command which happens to be called "Withdraw" on the command menu.

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by demoss:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> The act of pulling back or withdrawing in military terms is a controlled action involving LGMs covering and then moving in bounds with the rifle teams. Gernades are used while in range and smoke should be used as well.

I don't believe laser guided munitions were available in the 1940s. You're really just arguing semantics, though. Call it what you like - it's a "Get out of Dodge" command which happens to be called "Withdraw" on the command menu.</font>

[Redwolf]

Did anybody try to leave the LMG half of a squad in place and retreat the other (retreat somehow safe, not using withdraw)?

[Cull]

that the withdraw command will always have a very high probablity to panic or worse your units

Is that true? I seem to remember reading (could it have been the manual?) that the withdraw command would have a chance of causing adverse morale. I know I have used it a few times, and maybe had 50/50 results. Obviously, not exactly hard data here.

So Steve (or anyone else in-the-know), where does this command fall on the scale between "Holy crap! Run for your lives!!!" and "Fall back in some semblance of order!"?

I also tend to use the "backwards advance" to withdraw, figuring I'll take my chances with the guys hopping from cover to cover vs. blindly running for their lives.

[ December 03, 2002, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: Jack Arilliac ]

[White Phosphorus]

It is the player’s job to withdraw his troops in an orderly manner. Breaking off the engagement is one of the most difficult maneuvers. Making the TacAI handle it wouldn't make any sense. Might as well make the computer play the game.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Jack Arilliac:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />that the withdraw command will always have a very high probablity to panic or worse your units

Is that true?</font>

[PiggDogg]

Guys,

I am one of those people who will use "withdraw" without hesitation when the situation impels my guys. The situation which impel my guys is having individual squads badly out firepowered by small arms or big arms , that is direct or indirect HE.

However, one must remember the following when placing one's troops:

'if at all possible', one should place his infantry in good cover with a well covered retreat route and a well covered retreat destination. :eek:

Sometimes, this is more easily said than done. However, this tenent should be adhered to as much as possible.

Certainly, if one's guys are in the open without a covered retreat route when a 'withdraw' situation occurs, they might possibly be dead or nearly so. Indeed, This is one of the factors that makes attacking so hard and the attacker's casualties high.

Cheers, Richard

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Jack Arilliac:

So Steve (or anyone else in-the-know), where does this command fall on the scale between "Holy crap! Run for your lives!!!" and "Fall back in some semblance of order!"?

This is, of course, not the first time we've been over this ground, and having followed the last discussion on it, I am pretty confident that the official answer is 'HC, R for you Ls' vastly more than it is 'Semblance of Order'.

I also tend to use the "backwards advance" to withdraw, figuring I'll take my chances with the guys hopping from cover to cover vs. blindly running for their lives.

Yes, I also have used 'Advance in the opposite direction' with complete success. [PS Forgot to mention that 'Advance in O.D.' was officially blessed here awhile ago too, that use being an intended one]

The thing this thread could really help with would be to flush out the meaning of 'ASSAULT in the opposite direction'. I've never even considered that one until recently people have posted saying they do this, but ISTR official explications of 'Assault' as having facets which only make sense when... well when assaulting, of course. So that idea has me piqued. It would be a tough one to test, too.

Oh, I also recall that yes, Withdraw does have a definite peril of panicking to it. Better panicked in the back than dead in the front, which fits with the 'Get out of dodge without Delay' meaning after all.

Eden

[ December 04, 2002, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: Eden Smallwood ]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I didn't say I am actually happy with the probablity of panic/route on CMBB's route command. But I figured from now on it's better I talk about what the game does, not what I think it should do. I reserve the right to post a disclaimer like this from time to time, though

Cheers

Ban him!

Burn him at a stake!

He's a witch I tell you, a witch!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Regards

Jim R.

[Battlefront.com]

Eden,

I am pretty confident that the official answer is 'HC, R for you Ls' vastly more than it is 'Semblance of Order'.

It tends more to be a more harsh and not well thought out command. This is why there is no delay. There is no planning on who is to start falling back, followed by who, followed by who... how far the leaps should be... what kind of covering fire should be laid down, etc. This is what The_Capt is talking about, which is not what the Withdraw command simulates.

However, if the unit is in good shape and with decent Experience, it should be able to Get Out Of Dodge without flipping out. Rattle the unit's cage, cause it a casualty, etc. and the chance of Panic increases much more than if the unit was doing anything else.

There is a fine line between even a careful retreat and a rout. As various military thinkers have stated, disengaging from the enemy intact and cohesive is the most difficult battlefield challenge for a unit (of any size, IMHO).

Yes, I also have used 'Advance in the opposite direction' with complete success.

Correct. Advance is moving in small Leaps and Bounds so as to take advantage of cover while still moving forward at a good clip.

'ASSAULT in the opposite direction'. I've never even considered that one until recently people have posted saying they do this, but ISTR official explications of 'Assault' as having facets which only make sense when... well when assaulting, of course. So that idea has me piqued. It would be a tough one to test, too.

Assault is like Advance, but with more intensity. Therefore, it is a slower and more draining order. Some units aren't even capable of doing it at all, or in a given situation. Therefore, it is generally a less viable choice than Advance for the kind of situation being discussed here. Assault does make the unit more "robust" though.

Both Assault and Advance do have C&C delays, which of course Withdraw doesn't. As others have stated, when seconds count, better to risk having them rattled than staying put long enough to die.

Steve

[Soddball]

I like the idea of the "run away! run away!" Monty Python thing best. Any chance you could recode it so we hear that WAV when they withdraw?

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

"Run" also does a good job of getting you fast out of somewhere... The command delay is longer but you'll less less panic spreading, and it's faster and less tiring than Advance or Assault

If your troops retreat under fire in the open, whatever the order they'll end up dead :eek: !

The idea is to provide cover to the withdrawing troops and preferably have a somewhat safe route towards another position...

[Mies]

Parabellum wrote:

"Vorwärts Kameraden, wir müssen zurück!"

Yep that is my strategy too. Covered by some supporting squads or vehicles, this seems to work out better that withdrawing.

Mies

[Lt Bull]

Nice thread about something I have considered as well. I was actually thinking of starting a new thread, but I am hoping I can get an answer here before this one dies off.

I don't think I can remember ever having this verified or not (however I naturally play the game as if I am 100% sure that it is anyway) and it is just one of those things I would like to have cleared up:

Does the direction in which a non-vehicular unit face relative to incoming fire affect the morale of the unit ie. is a unit more likely to suffer a morale hit (leading to panic/break/rout) purely due to the fact that fire is incoming from the rear (or sides) as opposed to the front?

I am VERY cautious about using the "withdraw" command mainly because I have a fear of what I have thought is a DOUBLE danger that occurs in it's use.

1) The danger as described in the manual of increasing the chances of panic during the retreat as a direct function of the "withdraw" command being issued.

2) Additional morale hits simply due the fact that the unit is now exposing it's rear (hehe, this can sound funny) to enemy fire (can also add 'while running' as opposed to stationary)

Are people 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 had they decided to choose the faster "move" or "withdraw" commands?

Ultimately, I really want to know if a "fall back" command, as opposed to a "withdraw" command has ever been considered for use in CM. Just because a unit needs to "disengage" from an enemy unit doesn't necessarily mean that it has to loose cohesion, morale etc.

I ask this because I think players wanting to conduct a "fall back defence" using infantry in CM are at a very bad disadvantage. In a way, it is like trying to use armour without a "reverse" command. I do realise that 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.

I would imagine that the command could be implemented like say the "advance" command, where it actually saps a decent amount of energy from the unit, and falls back at a speed possibly somewhere between that of "assault" and "advance" perhaps. The unit would have it's firepower slashed by some amount (30%?), and it's morale tolerance level reduced by some amount relative to if it were stationary in cover, but not to a point where it is anywhere as bad as if it had issued a "withdraw" command. Unit cohesion would not be as good as if the unit was to stay put, but it would not be anywhere near as bad as if had used the "withdraw" command. Obviously, you would see the CM infantry men back-pedalling, firing occasionally, facing the enemy, but moving backwards away from the enemy.

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 almost 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.

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

[Ben Galanti]

My understanding is that facing does have an effect on morale (as well as spotting for that matter). Another thing that infantry units don't like is getting fired upon from a variety of different places. Basically, being fired at from a unit in front and on each side is more of a morale hit then being fired at by those same three units from the front.

Ben

[The_Capt]

Ok I have run some test and I have to ask...Steve, guys, just what does the withdraw command simulate?

I just ran some test with Reg German troops. I simply had them withdraw, no enemy in sight or shooting at them. The average was 50% panic. No Red Light of Cowardice but that isn't far behind when in a panicked state.

Why does this command strike fear into the heart of Fit and otherwise normal troops?

I know the military withdraw claims a lot more in theory than in RL but c'mon, these guys should be able to fall back in some semblance of good order and discipline...they were alone.

I had very good success with the Assault command btw. Out of five tests with a pl only one squad went to panic and it still made it across a defile under fire after moving across and coming under fire in the first turn.

So what is this (withdraw) command suppose to do?

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Assault is ...more intensity...slower and more draining...more "robust"...

Hmmm so it's like a dark Yrgacheff French roast?

I think we've got it now, and on that robust note, it seems to me that our "extended-manual" is nearly ripened with the maturity of a fine wine, (not to be confused with a fine whine).

Thank you Steve; translation for normal people: a few lines about these issues in the manual addendum would surely help those poor pathetic newbies purchasing the game just now...

Eden

[CRSutton]

I am late getting back but thanks for the replys. I will try some of the tips offered here.

[Lt Bull]

Originally posted by White Phosphorus:

It is the player’s job to withdraw his troops in an orderly manner. Breaking off the engagement is one of the most difficult maneuvers. Making the TacAI handle it wouldn't make any sense. Might as well make the computer play the game.

So it makes sense that the TacAI now handles 4 new ways of attacking ("assualt", "advance", "human wave", "move to contact") but it wouldn't make sense to have a TacAI command for "disengage"/"fallback"? Can someone please expalin the reasoning here?

If this interests you please read this thread Infantry "fallback" and "disengage" - how?

Lt Bull

[ December 16, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by The_Capt:

/snip/ I just ran some test with Reg German troops. I simply had them withdraw, no enemy in sight or shooting at them. The average was 50% panic. No Red Light of Cowardice but that isn't far behind when in a panicked state.

Why does this command strike fear into the heart of Fit and otherwise normal troops?

I know the military withdraw claims a lot more in theory than in RL but c'mon, these guys should be able to fall back in some semblance of good order and discipline...they were alone./snip/

I'm imagining some akin to the Lt. spotting a bomb-laden Sturmovik seconds away from its firing run, and yells "Run for your lives!" and the whole Plt instantly obeying his order, and getting quite rattled b/c they don't know the source of the Lt's panic or where to go to avoid it. Ah, rationalizing.

[Battlefront.com]

Looks like there are two threads at the same time trying to cover the same ground. I'm shutting this one down and leaving the other one (noted by Lt. Bull above) open. This way we can keep discussion consolodated.

Steve