Troops Breaking

[Voxman]

I find the troops break much to easily in CMBB anyone else find this ?

[zukkov]

i don't call it breaking, i call it delayed bravery....

[Sigurd]

It has been already discussed on several good threads, one of them was called "infantry too brittle?" IIRC

[L4Pilot]

Here's some comments I wrote up without having read any of the other brittle infantry threads, so they are "independent" as much as any can be. If they reinforce what is being said, well, so be it. And if they go against current sentiment, well at least they provide grist for the grog-mill.

Thoughts on Infantry Behavior in CMBB

A note: all the effects I'm referring to here have been observed with "medium" quality troops: regular, veteran and green, but principally regular. I'm not referring to conscripts here

Propensity to break and rout

Troops break and rout too soon. If a unit is taking fire, they should become cautious. With lots of fire they should be pinned or panic. And stay that way. For a long time. My guess is that MOST units are cautious, pinned, or panicked when they are under fire - means you move slower, fire less and respond slower to orders. But in CMBB units move quickly from cautious and pinned to broken and routed. Sometimes with not much fire for very long. In one game I'm playing over 50% of an assault force (regular quality, in command, with heavy support) routed trying to cross 60 m of ground.

Leaving foxholes

I'm concerned with the speed with which troops will abandon improved positions. My conception of the foxholes presented in CMBB is of a depression deep enough to shield the occupants from small arms fire and shrapnel. If you are firing, you will be slightly exposed to both of the above. If not, then you will be almost impervious. So unless an HE shell actually lands in the foxhole, or explodes over it, the troops inside are going to be ok other than concussion effects.

The ONLY safe place to be when HE is going off in a foxhole. Everybody knows that except conscripts. In CMBB, regular troops run away into open terrain, routed when 1 shell goes off nearby. Would YOU move from where you can't get hurt to someplace you can get hurt? I can understand being pinned or panicked IN the foxhole with a lot of HE nearby, but troops leave the protection of emplacements. That's not realistic in my opinion.

To put it another way, why don't half-track crews run for it when lots of rifle squads are shooting at them and lots of HE going off nearby? Because inside is safer. Same thing with a foxhole.

I think the effect seen in CMBB should be that if a unit reaches Pinned status, they should be secure in a foxhole except from very nearby direct fire and direct hits by high arc HE (like mortars and grenades).

Efficacy of withdraw order

I've always thought of a Withdraw order as a "Get us out of here, Sarge!" order. Troops that might not obey an order to advance, will gladly obey an order to withdraw if it gets them out of a bad situation. If anything, their morale should IMPROVE, because they are getting out of a situation where they knew or thought they knew, they were going to die,

Certainly when a withdraw order is given, some confusion and disorganization is going to be generated with that unit for a time. But with the too quick progression from Panic to Broken to Rout, withdrawing troops invariably rout.

IMO, troops given a withdraw order should go no further than Panic (not to broken or routed) status until they reach the destination of the withdraw order. And troops of all morale levels (or maybe all but routed) should accept a withdraw order. Which might fix the Dance of Death problem.

If they're still taking significant fire when they get to the assigned "rally point" (the destination of the withdraw order), that's a different story.

Inappropriately revealing themselves (No snickers please)

I've had infantry pop up from hiding when a Brummbar entered their covered fire arc. They didn't shoot at the Brummbar, of course, they knew they couldn't hurt it. Of course they got the bejeezus pounded out of them. What were they doing? Waving? If they are smart enough to know not to shoot at something they can't damage, they should know not to stop hiding.

Fanaticism

From accounts from BOTH sides, the individual Russian soldier was very brave. Maybe his leaders were not so good, but the soldier was frequently very brave (and afraid of the NKVD). I read this more from German reports than Russian ones. Yet in the games I'm playing regardless of year, or type of battle, I'm seeing more than 50% of the Russian troops (and I don't mean conscripts) Break and Rout! Where's the fanatic, tenacious defense and superhuman bravery I've heard so much about? CMBB shows the difference in optics, difference in training, why not the difference in bravery?

What I'm learning

Every game is a teaching tool. I was looking forward to CM BB to learn about a theater I am mostly unfamiliar with, done by a game company I respect and that has more familiarity with the subject than I do.

With CMBB, the overall impressions I have are that significant numbers, frequently a majority, of troops on both sides break and rout. Soldiers of all experience levels frequently lave foxholes when exposed to small arms fire and nearby HE.

Russian soldiers are not tenacious on defense.

That's not what my previous impressions of the Eastern Front were, except occasionally in the earliest days of Barbarossa.

Now I'm going for MY foxhole, and no amount of small arms fire or nearby HE is going to make me come out.

[Cameroon]

It really has been discussed almost to death I think the majority find that the modeling of infantry is now much more accurate than from CMBO or what other wargames depicted.

Personally, I don't have problems with breaking/routing infantry unless they are just plain being overwhelmed (or, like an ISU-152 fires at them ). I grant that I play mostly vs the AI and against a human I may well have more difficulty.

However, be that as it may, if I support my infantry I don't have a problem. Before we get the "too brittle!" bandwagon again, try adjusting tactics to support your infantry and suppress the enemy more. This is a rather large departure from CMBO's tactics, because infantry was much too willing to take fire. I've never played the CC games, but I've not heard opinions on this board that it was more accurate with its infantry models.

One certain way to run into morale problems is to try charging at a MG, especially across open ground.

[Tarquelne]

Before this weekend I was undecided. While it's pretty obvious that infantry is more "brittle" in CMBB than in CMBO (either because of changes to the infantry or changes to the rest of the game, or both) is it _too brittle_?

Now I can't say I think they're too brittle. I played a few infantry heavy battles, to try to get the hang of covering fire and the new movement commands. Lo and behold... The number of broken, routed, etc. troops dropped precipitously after the 3rd or 4th game.

At this point, based my vast experience watching war movies (and a few other things, I suppose) the game's handleing of infantry feels realistic to me.

Infantry turns tail far easier than in CMBO - yes. CMBB unrealistic - I don't think so.

Be wary of comparisons to CMBO, and be comfortable with the new features/realities of CMBB before becoming too commited on this issue.*

I could be wrong, of course - it's been a few years since the last time and I guess I'm due - but currently I'm in the "BFC Fanboy" camp on this issue.

*I hereby explicitly deny assuming that any specific preivous poster of opposing viewpoint has either drawn too heavily upon CMBO when making comparisons, or doesn't know how to use CMBBs new features or appreciate the game engine.

[energy76]

Well, I'm not "commited" to my viewpoint on this, but based on the little playing I've done in this game, the infantry routs too easily. I don't have a problem with more effective machine gun fire; I don't have a problem with infantry hitting the dirt, or even panicing; I've got a problem when a squad becomes broken when they take a casualty from machine gun fire. I've got a problem when a squad does dumb things like turn back when they are 10 meters from cover to crawl back in the open.

I mean come on, these guys are soldiers; soldiers fight. They see men die. That's the way it was. And no, I've never been under fire. But I'm not a trained soldier. These guys were trained to do this kind of stuff.

Basically, I'm with Winterhawk, at least for now. The CMBB soldiers are often downright cowards. Realisitic? Maybe. But I bet the system would be better off it was for less easy to break and rout. I'll repeat, getting pinned is fine with me. Even panicing when coming under fire. But breaking just because you came under machine gun fire? Seems to me a squad a that's regular or above would be able to handle it...as I said, I've not played a whole lot so my opinion could change. But for now, I'm with Winterhawk. I think 'realistic' is somewhere between BO and BB.

[SaTyR]

I see the "Withdraw" order as a "Let's get the hell out of here" order, where there is no organized withdrawal (they´re not firing for example) but a general rout. The "sarge" is not telling them to withdraw but to run as fast as they can (IMHO). So troops "withdrawing" and breaking (to routed or broken status) seem alright to me.

Not all soviet soldiers were that fanatic or tenacious. Early into the war they surrendered in droves (not saying they weren't brave). It was mainly circumstances that "made" troops fanatic. So I can understand fanatic defenders in Stalingrad, but not in a normal QB on some rural backwater, hillbilly town.

You didn't state what kind of fire were your troops under when they broke on the 60m dash. I've seen a single armored car stop a platoon advancing from over 300m. Those MG's are nasty, they drive back and rout troops so fast (which seems OK to me, I wouldn't cross open terrain even crawling on the ground when a vehicle mounted MG is firing... Seen one of those in "action" [it was an exercise only] and they're pretty darn accurate). Caught out in the open (maybe running even, not advancing ?), with fire pouring down from everywhere (MG, on-board mtr, IG ?), I don't wonder the troops brake/rout easily. Maybe they should, when again in cover and not receiving fire, rally to panic/pinned status faster ? Troops in cover can withstand a great deal of punishment, seen it happen numerous times. Again, circumstances make the heroes and the "cowards"

Leaving entrenched positions is a problem as is the "popping out of hiding just to say good morning to the Ubertank". Hopefully they will both be addressed soon.

Just my thoughts...

[pistolgrip]

I do agree that the soldiers can be quite brittle in terms of their spiritual resistance to oncoming bullets. Though my experience is also that under close leadership broken troops can recover and resume action. Of course when these thing happen, an attack is slowed down by the need of the platoon leader to stay in close proximity to the shaken or even broken soldiers. Give em a minute or so rest and observe their status. As soon as they may have recovered, give em an easy task, such as facing the enemy or let em move 10 yards forward and hide. In brief, keep your hens together and remain patient, also under fire.

[lucero1148]

Personally I think the morale factors are quite accurate. When people panick they do weird things . Period. So if a regular squad panicks at the sight of a single casualty that's very realistic, their being soldiers doesn't prevent them from being human (computer generated or not). If the troops are well trained they will carry on and fight and ignore losses until a critical mass of combat stress is reached. Then they will also panick and look for a way out of their situation.

all best

Patrick

[Bruno Weiss]

My experience thus far, to my thinking, is that there is what I'd label a "slight" tendency for troops to break a little much. In addition, I'm not real fond of how long it takes in many cases to rally them back. Though again, I hesitate to mess with the overall effect.

[Snarker]

I often wish my CM men would stay and fight longer. Then I sit back and ponder what is wiser in the face of superior firepower - beat feet or stand and die?

I now find my attack / defense must be coordinated and fields of fire must support each other, or the situation rapidly becomes a race for the rear echelon...

The same holds true for my opponent, so that evens out.

What's really needed is more ammo so I can give cover and still have enough lead left to move down the longer maps. Maybe the next incarnation of the engine will allow for in-game resupply of some kind.

[Engel]

One problem is that when a unit gets under fire, it's either the whole unit that breaks, or none of them, and that they don't really act in any sane manner (leaving good cover for worse, heading back over open ground though cover is nearer at front) and are incapable of returning fire, even at reduced firepower, which would simulate the effects of at least someone in the squad being able to keep a cool head (even if only to help the squad to escape or get into cover).

If the TacAI was smarter, or allowed at least some control over panicked, broken and routed troops, such at least being able to affect their destination to some degree to help to keep them from turning into suicide squads.

I don't know if the frequency of breaking units is realistic or not, and accuse me of being gamey if you like, but there's the gameplay aspect that has to be taken into account when you want to have fun playing and not just grit your teeth simulating. Let's say you start playing a scenario, and the enemy drops an artillery barrage into your troops during the first few turns, making half of them break, panic and rout (+ casualties) and knocking out and breaking half your tanks as well; do you continue to play, knowing that there's no way to win the scenario with half your troops hiding in the bushes, or redo from start?

Making troop morale adjustable variable? Might be a good solution, so those that want to can play with reduced chance of breaking (for example, halving the current chance; there would still be plenty of breaking and routing), and those that want to have a more simulationary approach can play at current normal setting.

[StellarRat]

I think the troops might still be a little braver than "real life". How many bullets flying around you would stop you from doing something? My answer is one bullet or even someone pointing gun at me without shooting.

[Engel]

Originally posted by StellarRat:

My answer is one bullet or even someone pointing gun at me without shooting.

You're not in war, are you? A soldier fighting in a war often has no choice and has to act if he wishes to have a chance of survival; the enemy MG gunner certainly won't give you any quarter just because you are scared. Freezing or panicking in the middle of combat is one of the best ways of getting killed, and soldiers that have lived long enough to survive a few combats know this.

[Eden Smallwood]

Yes it's been said before, but as a noobie who is therefore somewhat objective, (having no clue which camp is right!), I haven't yet felt that what I'm calling Winterhawks Conjecture was really put to rest.

L4Pilot has some fresh views and good points, I think. Especially the Withdrawal order- if it's true that CMBB's Withdraw means "Drop your gun, poop your pants and run" then it would be nice to have the other, more orderly kind.

One of Engel's points might be summed up by saying, "Why is it all or nothing?". Seems reasonable, right? So how's this: If the unit is panicked, let me give him an order anyway. There is a *chance* that the unit will succeed in following it. The more panicked, the lesser the chance. The more butt-saving, the better the chance.

Eden

[Wisbech_lad]

Put me in the “feels more realistic camp”

60m of open ground, when you are humping full kit is a LONG way. Especially when under fire

Reading accounts of the Falklands war (an almost entirely infantry campaign) the thing that strikes me most about the UK infantry assaults was how long they took, how much ammo was used, and how low the casualties were (on both sides) The assaulting soldiers did move forward very carefully, making use of all cover. Company/ Bn level actions took hours, not 20-30 minutes. Modern infantry (well, since the invention of modern infantry tactics on the Western Front in 1918) does seem to spend most of its time on its face, in the dirt, or spraying area fire to make the other side be on its face in the dirt. Only the last 10-20m is with bayonets fixed and screaming.

So CMBB does seem more realistic (i.e. slower) than CMBO. I am “training” myself by playing 600-700 pt attacks against AI reinforced dug in infantry companies. Without a T34/KV battering ram (i.e. using infantry only) it is a real accomplishment (for me) to take half the flags. It now takes a platoon to take out a squad. Some thoughts:

Covering fire, you can never have enough. 2/3 firing to 1/3 moving seems to be the consensus

Don’t forget Human Wave, the morale boost really helps getting nervous troops across into the next patch of cover.

I now take real notice of command modifiers. A +2 morale or combat makes a very big difference.

Soviet Recon C squads. 63 ammo points of plinking. Send them out to find the enemy, plink away at them. Then assault with normal infantry. Remember, low ammo effects both sides (gamey tactic..?)

[L4Pilot]

Unfortunately I don't have nearly as much time as I would like to think, test, and post about CMBB.

My comments regarding routing were not meant to be conclusive, but observational. The troops involved were 5 platoons of regulars, in command, using area fire to attempt to suppress defenders, advancing from smoke into cover, into an area subject to a Katyusha barrage a few minutes before and 120mm mortar fire just before, with armor attempting to provide HE support against defenders not in the immediate attack area (with some success). So an attempt, at least, at a coordinated assault.

I've also seen similar results by attacking German troops.

I'd love to test the withdraw command to see if the troops actually run faster than the fast command. My impresion of the withdraw command is that it gives a delay reduction but not a speed increase. A delay reduction because it is easier to organize and communicate ("Fall back! Fall back!), and more likely to be obeyed quickly without lengthy "persuasion" (swearing, shouting, butt-kicking) on the part of the non-coms.

Another thing I wish I had the time to test was the effect of posture on casualties and on perceived (by the target unit) firepower. When a unit "goes to ground" as a result of incoming fire, say in open terrain, does it continue taking casualties at the same rate as it did when it was upright and moving? Or is the number of casualties per unit of incoming firepower per unit of time reduced because they are more difficult targets?

A seperate question, more important to the breaking and routing question, does a change in posture change the speed of progression from OK to Panic to Routed? When a unit goes prone from incoming fire, does it FEEL safer in the new lower mobility, lower exposure posture? Or does it continue to say "Oh! we're in open terrain, receiving X amount of fire, we will continue to progress towards reduced levels of morale at the same rate as when we were standing up" ?

If the latter is the case, it could explain the "run, drop, panic, and rout" syndrome observed. In other words, is infantry losing the ability to move out of incoming fire (into, say, covering terrain) when they change posture, but continuing to progress to reduced states of morale based on the firepower and the terrain but not posture?

I don't know if that's the case or not, but I'm curious if it is.

I think what we're trying to do here is not just say whether or not we think the current behavior does or doen't feel realistic, but identify just what parts of the behavior does or does not feel right.

I'm exhausted.

[L4Pilot]

Before going further, I wanna say I strongly feel CMBB is an improvement over CMBO in how it treats infantry attacking in the face of automatic weapons fire. No question.

It's only the propensity for troops to break and run when under such fire, rather than just hug earth and crawl, or hug earth and shoot, or just hug earth, that has me furrowing my brow in puzzlement...

Oh, and as for how much fire it takes to keep somebody from doing something, I've known some ex-platoon sergeants that could be AMAZINGLY persuasive. I'm not claiming military experience here, just life experience with some people with military experience. :eek:

[ October 31, 2002, 04:21 AM: Message edited by: L4Pilot ]

[wie201]

As the recipient of L4Pilot's Katyusha barrage and 120mm mortar fire, I thought that his assault was well coordinated. After the Katyusha barrage, only ten percent of my forces were available to meet his initial assault when his troops literally appeared out of the smoke. My MGs were up front, with troops in reserve to counter-attack (all very World War One-ish)

The front line MGs had more effect than I expected. His troops dropped, a few opened fire, and after two minutes the majority were heading back. A few tried to crawl forward, but none really moved forward more than 10 meters after they dropped (if that far). His five platoons were supported by two SU-152's, and because this was a probe, my forces were not dug in, but did have some woods. Also, his forces had not received any fire up until the assault. In effect, 10 percent of my forces in unprepared positions stopped at least half (if not much more) of his forces after a heavy blasting by Arty.

It just seems that the advancing forces should have stayed pinned a little longer and tried to suppress the MGs before heading back across the field, this time without the benefit of smoke.

[Egan]

I was getting thumped every which way when trying to move infantry until I started REALLY using covering fire. it made life so much easier, also, remember to use the advance command where approriate. thats saved my grunts a couple of times as well.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Making troop morale adjustable variable? Might be a good solution, so those that want to can play with reduced chance of breaking (for example, halving the current chance; there would still be plenty of breaking and routing), and those that want to have a more simulationary approach can play at current normal setting.

Good suggestion. I wonder if it's doable in terms of time to code this in? If so, I say do it.

The fact is, this game has been changed so much that it borders on not being fun to play anymore. I'm not against this new, more realistic way of playing but what we have here is a complete turn around from what CMBO was. Am I to assume that CMBO was completely coded wrong? That's the statement that BTS is making here. "We f*cked up."

Now somebody tell me how 2 guys who spent all this time researching this stuff can come up with 2 completely opposing theories on effectiveness of fire against a soldier.

[ October 31, 2002, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Colonel_Deadmarsh ]

[Voxman]

When I made my post, a Russian squad of 11 fit regulars broke and ran away because of one gun shot from a great distance. At most, they should have laid down or sought cover not Broken and ran away!

Not realistic, unless they are Conscripts!

[Tarquelne]

Me? Sarcastic?

[ October 31, 2002, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

[snips]

The fact is, this game has been changed so much that it borders on not being fun to play anymore. I'm not against this new, more realistic way of playing but what we have here is a complete turn around from what CMBO was. Am I to assume that CMBO was completely coded wrong? That's the statement that BTS is making here. "We f*cked up."

...or you might look at it another way, and say that BTS produced a game that stood head and shoulders (and most of the thorax) above anything else available, and then made it even better. I can think of ways of (IMO) improving the modelling of infantry combat still further; that's a very far cry from saying that the current model is f***ed up.

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Now somebody tell me how 2 guys who spent all this time researching this stuff can come up with 2 completely opposing theories on effectiveness of fire against a soldier.

There aren't "2 completely opposing theories" here; the model of suppression seems to be pretty much the same in form, but re-calibrated in CM:BB so that fire has more suppressive effect (especially from MGs). I think I'm safe ion saying that simulation modellers employed professionally by the DoD in the US and the MOD in the UK have not yet come up with anything notably better than the supression model embodied in CM, and they've had decades to think about it.

All the best,

John.