Infantry Problem: Running Out In The Open While Under Fire

[Col Deadmarsh]

Are you seeing what I'm seeing? I'm playing a scenario now where some Russian Partisians were pinned down by my halftracks. It stayed that way for a few turns, but then instead of crawling or moving away to get deeper into cover, they turned and ran back towards their side of the map which turned out to be right in the open of my halftracks.

Is this some kind of engine problem where the units can't be programmed to use appropriate cover to do so...or better yet, just sneak away in the opposite direction of incoming fire?

Are other people seeing this type of behavior from their men and why is this happening?

[Dschugaschwili]

Looks to me like you routed them. Routed troops always run towards a friendly map edge. If that's the direction the enemy is coming from, bad luck. (Or bad scenario design if you already started "behind" them)

Dschugaschwili

[JaegerMeister]

I think there is still a problem with the infantry 'panic' behaviour. I've just played 'DirectiveNo3' scenario and i had German infantry in a factory/rubble complex. They came under fire from 2+ squads of russian infantry who were out in the open at 30-40m. Now i can understand them getting pinned and maybe also panicking (despite other friendly units in there alongside them), but this squad of 9 men (1 kia) decided to leave the protection of the factory/rubble and run out into the open ground to get to some other cover about 100m back. They got shot to pieces and wiped out!

I think a tweak needs doing to make units more inclined to stay in very good defensive terrain even if pinned/panicked. Who would run out in the open knowing its certain death, rather than keeping your head down in good cover, hoping your adjacent buddies would come to your rescue?!

I keep seeing this behaviour in CMBB and it doesn't seem logical.

[CavalryMan]

Oh dear! Hasn't this been done before Here And here and in passing in a number of other places.

I regret that my brain imploded before I could read it all but I do recall that the friendly edge of the map does carry weight when units decide where to run and that BFC et al have concluded that the fundamental algorithms are as good as they can get given the current game engine and the lack of a unit's memory.

[Thin Red Line]

They are panicked and have one only idea in mind : get out of here ! Such behaviour is common in real war

[JaegerMeister]

yeah, yeah its been talked about plenty, but i dont see why BFC cant apply a modifier to the panic routine that says 'if in terrain of excellent defensive nature' then only rout if 'x' is rolled/level of panic reached'. In much the same way as there are in built modifiers for the terrain features with respect to casualties being more likely in say 'scattered trees' as opposed to a factory building.

I dont know, but i'm presuming there are 'modifiers' in the code for 'panic' affected by volume of fire receiving/terrain location etc?

This is not a rant, just an enquiry born out of frustration, where men leave potentially important strongpoints (deployment-wise)to be gunned down in the open!

[Dschugaschwili]

I don't know what you expect, but "routed" is the highest possible panic level in CM. Troops that reach this state will try to run to the rear (usually the nearest friendly map edge). And they will usually not start running for their lives before they are "routed".

Of course, the volume of fire, the cover they have and the presence of HQs will determine your troops' morale, so units in cover will usually panic later than units on open ground.

I can't find anything seriously unrealistic in this behaviour.

Dschugaschwili

[Engel]

Originally posted by Thin Red Line:

They are panicked and have one only idea in mind : get out of here ! Such behaviour is common in real war

But highly unlikely to to occur in whole squads of experienced infantry to the extent it does in the game. In such cases, it would be better to mark the panicked squad members off as casualties instead of making the whole squad run like headless chickens all over the place (and having them all end up casualties).

[Thin Red Line]

Originally posted by Engel:

But highly unlikely to to occur in whole squads of experienced infantry to the extent it does in the game. In such cases, it would be better to mark the panicked squad members off as casualties instead of making the whole squad run like headless chickens all over the place (and having them all end up casualties).

Casualties in game are an abstraction. What you describe is already depicted in the game by the casualties in the squad. So if over 9 men only 1 is panicking you'll have 8 men OK, 1 casualty. At least this is how i understand the manual on the subject.

[ November 29, 2002, 09:40 AM: Message edited by: Thin Red Line ]

[JaegerMeister]

So, sorry if i'm misinterpreting 'Thin red..' but if thats the case, why do the whole squad run out from cover to get slaughtered in the open, when they have no chance of reaching 'safe' terrain.

Maybe a modifier to say 'if no good cover available within 10?m' then stay put ??..might help. This may all be wasted breath/typing but if BFC can logically throw in these modifiers, it cant but help ? We're not asking for Uber-soldiers but realism/logic, and if modifiers/code can sort that, then why not try?

[Thin Red Line]

JaegerMeister,

i'm not pretending of course that the game engine is perfect but i don't think irrational reactions should be completely ruled out.

What was the result of their action ? Is the unit eliminated ?

[edited because i made a confusion beetween routed and eliminated]

[ November 29, 2002, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Thin Red Line ]

[leakyD]

Though i agree the engine could use some tweaking (no simulation is perfect (it is, after all, a *simulation*), irratonal behavior under fire would seem to be quite common.

not sure? next chance you get, have some friends take a few shots at you w/ a .22 and see how you feel. a little uncomfortable, maybe?

now up the anty for seasoned troops and a high volume of incoming fire, and i'll bet no matter where they are, once theirs nerves are shot, all concept of "thinking clearing" is right out the window.

hell, i've seen guys lock up (y'know, freeze, with that chick-out-of-the-egg look, all bug-eyed 'n 'stuff) during *training* ...with blanks! these were men in my squad...men i was supposed to trust my life with. can't imagine what those same guys would have done under real fire. i'm glad i didn't have to find out!

so, yeah it would be nice for our little pixel troops to do the "right thing" (this game can be *quite* frustrating!). unfortunately, combat is not pretty.

[GJK]

It's been a few years, but in SL, for broken/routed units, wasn't it something like:

1. Must seek cover in woods or bldg by;

2. Moving no nearer known enemy positions;

3. Nor by moving in the open in the LOS of a known enemy unit;

4. Else they stay put (or was it they were effectively destroyed?)

Something like that. Would be nice if BFC could incorporate that programming into the game, or at least in the engine rewrite for the next gen.

[xerxes]

It might be more realistic for squads in such a situation to be more likely to simply surrender. From the description they are already toasted, it's just a matter of how it goes down.

[JaegerMeister]

Oh dear, this threads getting long, i can see Matt or someone going 'oh you bl**dy infantry whiners again'...

Thin-red...the result of their action,was they were annilihated to a man by running out in open.

Xerxes..considering they were in a factory, in CC, with another squad less than 10m away, and the enemy shooting at them was in the open..dont you think they stood a better (even if slim) chance of loosing off all they had at the enemy/or cowering hoping for help, rather than going for the 'certain death' option? Surrender would be logical if a)this wasn't the eastern front, and b)the factors mentioned above.

GJK's getting on the right track.

Like i said earlier, i'm not really upset by any of this, just raising the point for discussion/logic hoping it may make a BFC guy go 'hey, maybe we could add that modifier'...ya never know!

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by leakyD:

Though i agree the engine could use some tweaking (no simulation is perfect (it is, after all, a *simulation*), irratonal behavior under fire would seem to be quite common.

not sure? [snips]

I don't think anyone is disputing that people do things in combat that, with the assitance of mature reflection in calm surroundings with a glass of port to hand, might not seem terribly rational.

That isn't the point, though; the point is whether standing up and running is the way people actually do behave in combat. I must say that I don't think it is anything like as common as either Squad Leader or CM would have us believe. Certainly I don't read about it in battle accounts anything like as much as the act of simply freezing and refusing to move, and this is what commentators like Marshall, Holmes, Griffith and Ellis seem to emphasise.

Hal Moore's after-action report for the Ia Drang Valley says of the VC he was fighting that that "He is much more afraid of napalm and white phosphorous than HE. He goes to ground under HE fire. Under napalm and WP, he often gets up and runs around in disorder, and presents a better target for small arms, VT and HE."

If panicked infantry simply stayed in place until an active enemy came within some specified distance, then surrendered, I think I would find the game more convincing, and I think infantry would become still more indispensible, as AFVs could not clear woods as they can now by shooting them up and relying on the troops in the woods running out like driven pheasants.

All the best,

John.

[Col Deadmarsh]

I don't know how to code a single line of C++ if that's what they're using for this game but I'd really appreciate it if BTS could explain in layman's terms why a solution hasn't been figured out for this.

The scenario I was playing was "A Deadly Affair."

***************SPOILER**************

When I came upon the partisians in the forest, opposite of the town I was headed toward, I brought my halftracks over to get rid of them and found it quite easy to do so. After being pinned by the mg's for a couple of turns, they decided their best bet was to run back towards town, right in front of the 4 halftracks who were shooting at them.

The better alternative would've been to sneak away through the woods in the other direction--towards my side of the screen.

So, why is this not possible? Why can't it be coded to have infantry units stick to this cover to get away, headed away from the danger? It seems so simple. I'm sure it's not that easy to code for some reason but how can their only option be: Run away from cover, out into the open towards the unit that is firing from you? How can the only option these guys have in this situation be the worst one of all?

Can BTS please explain why this is? Is this indirectly related to the Shooting Gallery Bug which causes infantry units to go back and forth in open terrain before they are all gunned down to nothing?

[TSword]

Don't know if it helps, but i have the impression that if the last command was advance the units don't panic easily. My squads are rock steady when in advance mode. I use advance always when my units are shot at or it's very likely they will, makes a huge difference. One can even cover relatively big distances (100 m+) when giving a pause command at each turn (20 sec.) I use the command up to exhausted state and still they don't panic so easily as with all the other commands.

Greets

Daniel

[kevsharr]

I don't know if this is out of the context of this topic but on the topic of irrational behavior I read in Eric Hammel's 72 hour's about the battle for Betio in the Tarawa atoll of five marines in a foxehole that was under fire from a sniper,one by one they each stuck their head's up only to be killed,certainly the action's of victim #5 has to border on the irrational if any action warrent's such a discription.I would'nt have stuck my head up after seeing my four comrades each die in consequitive order,not till I got some support at least!

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by GJK:

It's been a few years, but in SL, for broken/routed units, wasn't it something like:

1. Must seek cover in woods or bldg by;

2. Moving no nearer known enemy positions;

3. Nor by moving in the open in the LOS of a known enemy unit;

4. Else they stay put (or was it they were effectively destroyed?)

Something like that. Would be nice if BFC could incorporate that programming into the game, or at least in the engine rewrite for the next gen.

IIRC If a unit is forced to route and can't find a safe path, then they are forced to surrender or are eliminated for failure to route. When no quarter is in effect they will low crawl one hex if forced to route in the open. If no quarter is not in effect and you are forced to route in the open within normal range of a known enemy unit they can capture you instead through interdiction. There is no way a broken unit in ASL can 'stay put' if a known enemy unit is adjacent (within 40 meters) or if the broken squad is in open ground within normal range.

Now a squad in DM I think must always run for a woods or building assuming one exists within that squad's ability to reach said woods or building within one route phase (and not towards a 'known' enemy unit of course). If no such terrain exists and no enemy troops are adjacent then they can remain in the non woods or building hex if they want.

It has been a while though, so I may have to break out the old rule book again as a refresher.

[GJK]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

IIRC If a unit is forced to route and can't find a safe path, then they are forced to surrender or are eliminated for failure to route. When no quarter is in effect they will low crawl one hex if forced to route in the open. If no quarter is not in effect and you are forced to route in the open within normal range of a known enemy unit they can capture you instead through interdiction. There is no way a broken unit in ASL can 'stay put' if a known enemy unit is adjacent (within 40 meters) or if the broken squad is in open ground within normal range.

Now a squad in DM I think must always run for a woods or building assuming one exists within that squad's ability to reach said woods or building within one route phase (and not towards a 'known' enemy unit of course). If no such terrain exists and no enemy troops are adjacent then they can remain in the non woods or building hex if they want.

It has been a while though, so I may have to break out the old rule book again as a refresher.

So, should be easy for BFC to implement this into CMBB, right? It all sounds logical to me.

[Andreas]

What is the difference in overall game/simulation outcome terms between:

1) a unit routing, running away, and being killed in the process

2) a unit routing, cowering, and surrendering to the nearest enemy?

[Col Deadmarsh]

Surrendering to the enemy that's 50 or more meters away is ridiculous. That's not the answer here.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Andreas:

What is the difference in overall game/simulation outcome terms between:

1) a unit routing, running away, and being killed in the process

2) a unit routing, cowering, and surrendering to the nearest enemy?

The biggest difference I would expect is, as I mentioned in passing, that you could not clear any but the smallest area of cover just by shooting blindly into it and then chopping down the infantrymen occupying it as they run out (in a known direction, towards their own baseline).

Instead, you would actually have to have some trogs with fixed bayonets clear through the cover and force the cringing baddies to surrender(assuming that the enemy has to approach to close quarters before you surrender to them).

With troops in slit trenches, ISTM that this is the normal way in which you would expect a successful attack to unfold; "crump" from the intial bombardment keeps the defenders' heads down, a variable amount of fire is exchanged if the defenders recover quickly enough, the attackers win the firefight and approach the defensive position by fire and movement, and when the first fit attackers make it into the defenders' position, the defenders surrender.

This is not what I see in CM: In CM, once you have put enough fire on the defenders to win the firefight, you seem to need only a little more to persuade them to get up out of their holes into the open and try to run away. There is no need to clear them out of their holes with the bayonet.

If they spent more time lying down and less running around when panicked, infantry would presumably be harder to kill, simply because they would not expose themselves so much. I suspect that the more "inert" behaviour would also be a good deal easier to program.

All the best,

John.

[leakyD]

This is not what I see in CM: In CM, once you have put enough fire on the defenders to win the firefight, you seem to need only a little more to persuade them to get up out of their holes into the open and try to run away. There is no need to clear them out of their holes with the bayonet.

If they spent more time lying down and less running around when panicked, infantry would presumably be harder to kill, simply because they would not expose themselves so much. I suspect that the more "inert" behaviour would also be a good deal easier to program.

A valid point.

If they freeze, men may be harder to kill, but they're not necessarily a threat either (routed troops not in CinC aren't gonna do any fighting anytime soon). Seems we all can go back an forth on this a few times, with all points being valid.

Mebbe the rewrite can model *variable* behavior for routed troops. Some squads run, some freeze (and take additional casualites due to men "breaking"), some do a little of both. Maybe there's the chance for "broken" men within the squad to rally, etc. It'd be neat to see broken squads turn into split squads, w/ each team exhibiting different behavior. Now try and rally that unit without it's HQ unit! Ouch!

Hmm..that'd be more computing power, wouldn't it? dang. gonna have to upgrade.