CMBB Command Needed: Assault Vehicle

[ASL Veteran]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bastables:

Could you give me listing of the success of German 'Magnetic' charges because from what I've read they were quite ineffective.

[ 01-02-2002: Message edited by: Bastables ]<hr></blockquote>

Naturally trying to prove something like that is nearly impossible - and almost pointless to try. Basically, even if one were to produce statistics for destroyed tanks and compare that to the means by which they were destroyed you would probably come out with the majority being destroyed by gunfire. So, the naysayer would say "see, look at how ineffective close combat is - everything is destroyed by guns". Naturally that isn't taking into account the circumstances in which each vehicle was destroyed - if the tank was not subjected to infantry close assault then the destruction of the vehicle by gunfire is no reflection of how effective infantry assault was.

No, you would have to have an accounting of all vehicles were specifically assaulted by infantry and then you would have to know how many of these attacks were successful. I'm guessing that such an accounting does not exist. In fact, I would wager that even if you could gather a collection of personal accounts about infantry assaults on vehicles the majority of those recorded would be of the successful variety.

At any rate, this is just a red herring anyway, since the problem is not 'how' successful an infantry assault is on armor, but rather the 'mechanics' of how such an assault is carried out in CMBO / CMBB. In CMBO, you can plot a way point for an infantry unit that is adjacent to an enemy vehicle. You then have to hope and pray that the vehicle is still going to be there when your squad runs out to that spot. As it was pointed out above, the unit runs to a spot on the map without the specific intent to attack the vehicle. If the vehicle moves - even ten meters - your squad is left hanging out in the open. We aren't even talking about a vehicle moving across the map - all it has to do is move ten meters and your attempt is a total failure (and you can write that squad off). That is what people are trying to address. I really don't understand why there is such strong resistance to such a simple request.

Even if someone claims that this would cause a squad to run across the map chasing an AFV then you just wouldn't have to use the command since you could always just plot a waypoint next to the vehicle like you do now. Just use the command when you feel it would be appropriate to do so. If you never think it would be appropriate - don't use it.

I have attempted to close assault tanks numerous times in CMBO - and this problem really does make getting into position to assault a tank extrememely difficult (if nearly impossible). Infantry have Bazookas in 1944, but what are you going to do in 41 or 42?

[Bastables]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Naturally trying to prove something like that is nearly impossible - and almost pointless to try. Basically, even if one were to produce statistics for destroyed tanks and compare that to the means by which they were destroyed you would probably come out with the majority being destroyed by gunfire. So, the naysayer would say "see, look at how ineffective close combat is - everything is destroyed by guns". Naturally that isn't taking into account the circumstances in which each vehicle was destroyed - if the tank was not subjected to infantry close assault then the destruction of the vehicle by gunfire is no reflection of how effective infantry assault was.

No, you would have to have an accounting of all vehicles were specifically assaulted by infantry and then you would have to know how many of these attacks were successful. I'm guessing that such an accounting does not exist. In fact, I would wager that even if you could gather a collection of personal accounts about infantry assaults on vehicles the majority of those recorded would be of the successful variety.

At any rate, this is just a red herring anyway, since the problem is not 'how' successful an infantry assault is on armor, but rather the 'mechanics' of how such an assault is carried out in CMBO / CMBB. In CMBO, you can plot a way point for an infantry unit that is adjacent to an enemy vehicle. You then have to hope and pray that the vehicle is still going to be there when your squad runs out to that spot. As it was pointed out above, the unit runs to a spot on the map without the specific intent to attack the vehicle. If the vehicle moves - even ten meters - your squad is left hanging out in the open. We aren't even talking about a vehicle moving across the map - all it has to do is move ten meters and your attempt is a total failure (and you can write that squad off). That is what people are trying to address. I really don't understand why there is such strong resistance to such a simple request.

Even if someone claims that this would cause a squad to run across the map chasing an AFV then you just wouldn't have to use the command since you could always just plot a waypoint next to the vehicle like you do now. Just use the command when you feel it would be appropriate to do so. If you never think it would be appropriate - don't use it.

I have attempted to close assault tanks numerous times in CMBO - and this problem really does make getting into position to assault a tank extrememely difficult (if nearly impossible). Infantry have Bazookas in 1944, but what are you going to do in 41 or 42?<hr></blockquote>

So because thus far there is no actual evidence of the sterling success of the magnetic mine its should be assumed that they were successful? To the extent that total production of the most important Hafthohlladung 3 magnetic mine extended to 553,900 during its entire production run vs. at its highest 1.3 million Panzerfaust 60 being produced in December 1944. (Taken from M.Hofbauer Site http://www.geocities.com/pizzatest/panzerfaust.htm#intro ).

No Problem with an assaulted vehicle command, just problems with the apparent belief that close assaulting was a preferred method for killing tanks as opposed to a last ditch affair.

I think you'll find that the biggest problem with the T-34 from an infantry point of view was that the standard German infantry Kompanie of '41 '42 had no effective means of combating it. In that the PaK's that they were issued the 3,7cm and 5cm were ineffective, odd the gun again.

[ASL Veteran]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bastables:

So because thus far there is no actual evidence of the sterling success of the magnetic mine its should be assumed that they were successful? To the extent that total production of the most important Hafthohlladung 3 magnetic mine extended to 553,900 during its entire production run vs. at its highest 1.3 million Panzerfaust 60 being produced in December 1944. (Taken from M.Hofbauer Site http://www.geocities.com/pizzatest/panzerfaust.htm#intro ).

No Problem with an assaulted vehicle command, just problems with the apparent belief that close assaulting was a preferred method for killing tanks as opposed to a last ditch affair.

I think you'll find that the biggest problem with the T-34 from an infantry point of view was that the standard German infantry Kompanie of '41 '42 had no effective means of combating it. In that the PaK's that they were issued the 3,7cm and 5cm were ineffective, odd the gun again.<hr></blockquote>

I never stated whether I believed infantry assault vs vehicles was effective or not. The context within which I stated that most personal accounts would be successful is that those would be the most likely to be recorded. Your interpretation of my stance shows that you have already made up your mind about the effectiveness of infantry assault - even when you admit that the evidence is probably lacking either for or against. I have already stated why your destroyed vehicle statistics are lacking since you must only take statistics for actual infantry assaults in order to determine their effectiveness. Otherwise you are only comparing the likelyhood of destruction by one means vs another means.

In case this is confusing, let me make it clear what I am stating. If it were possible to take a statistical sample of say - 10 destroyed tanks and find that 8 out of 10 were destroyed by gunfire and the other two were destroyed by infantry assault one might argue that infantry assault wasn't an effective means of engaging armor (which is what you are attempting to show now with your website). However, what if we knew that a total of only two infantry assaults ever took place on those 10 vehicles? In that case, infantry assault in the two instances when it occurred was 100% effective since 2 out of the 10 vehicles were destroyed by infantry assault out of two assaults attempted.

You see, by the time I am trying to attack a tank using infantry assault - the number of tanks destroyed by gunfire is meaningless since I am not firing a gun at the tank - I am attacking it using infantry assault. We are already beyond a comparison of the method of destruction. Therefore, only the success rate of infantry assaults is meaningful to my specific method of attack.

This also makes your production figures for Panzerfausts and Magnetic mines rather frivolous too - it doesn't matter how many of them were produced. The only thing that matters is how many of them worked when the opportunity to use them arrived. If you can show a statistic for number of Panzerfausts fired and number of Panzerfausts that hit - perhaps that would be useful. Total number produced? I would venture to say that the majority were probably not even used.

Oh, and nobody is arguing that close assault is a 'preferred' method either. We just want to be able to do it properly when the opportunity arises.

[Bastables]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

I never stated whether I believed infantry assault vs vehicles was effective or not. The context within which I stated that most personal accounts would be successful is that those would be the most likely to be recorded. Your interpretation of my stance shows that you have already made up your mind about the effectiveness of infantry assault - even when you admit that the evidence is probably lacking either for or against. I have already stated why your destroyed vehicle statistics are lacking since you must only take statistics for actual infantry assaults in order to determine their effectiveness. Otherwise you are only comparing the likelyhood of destruction by one means vs another means.

In case this is confusing, let me make it clear what I am stating. If it were possible to take a statistical sample of say - 10 destroyed tanks and find that 8 out of 10 were destroyed by gunfire and the other two were destroyed by infantry assault one might argue that infantry assault wasn't an effective means of engaging armor (which is what you are attempting to show now with your website). However, what if we knew that a total of only two infantry assaults ever took place on those 10 vehicles? In that case, infantry assault in the two instances when it occurred was 100% effective since 2 out of the 10 vehicles were destroyed by infantry assault out of two assaults attempted.

You see, by the time I am trying to attack a tank using infantry assault - the number of tanks destroyed by gunfire is meaningless since I am not firing a gun at the tank - I am attacking it using infantry assault. We are already beyond a comparison of the method of destruction. Therefore, only the success rate of infantry assaults is meaningful to my specific method of attack.

This also makes your production figures for Panzerfausts and Magnetic mines rather frivolous too - it doesn't matter how many of them were produced. The only thing that matters is how many of them worked when the opportunity to use them arrived. If you can show a statistic for number of Panzerfausts fired and number of Panzerfausts that hit - perhaps that would be useful. Total number produced? I would venture to say that the majority were probably not even used.

Oh, and nobody is arguing that close assault is a 'preferred' method either. We just want to be able to do it properly when the opportunity arises.<hr></blockquote>

Production figures are an indication of what the Heer wanted granted it's hazy when seen in the light of the MP 44 example, and your quite correct on the number of panzerfausts used vs afvs it seems that most of them were used as super handgranades. But It still stands that the Hafthohlladung series was seen as a poor weapon when compared with the panzerfausts. Again I stand by the thesis that successful close assaults were not a big killer of AFVs relative to gun kills and/or mechanical defects/lack of fuel.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Bastables:

Production figures are an indication of what the Heer wanted granted it's hazy when seen in the light of the MP 44 example, and your quite correct on the number of panzerfausts used vs afvs it seems that most of them were used as super handgranades.

If the infantry AT assets were of no consequence why did all the armies develop measures to counter close assault by infantry ? One of the prime missions of the Soviet tankrider infantry was to act as dedicated body guards to the tanks against infantry close assaults.

Even these days a commander of a superpotent M1A1 would not even dream of outrunning his infantry cover.

But It still stands that the Hafthohlladung series was seen as a poor weapon when compared with the panzerfausts.

You should take a look at

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust.htm

There you will find such interesting factoids like the Hohlhaftladung penetration capability (140mm). Not too shabby IMO when compared to the Pzfaust penetration capability.

Again I stand by the thesis that successful close assaults were not a big killer of AFVs relative to gun kills and/or mechanical defects/lack of fuel.

Some stats:

http://www.geocities.com/Augusta/8172/panzerfaust4.htm#destr

Four (4) months worth of data from early 1944 which would indeed indicate the infantry AT measures were not effective. Only the number of known kills vs known causes leave as much as 50% of the kills unattributed to a clear cause.

There is stats available on the winterwar.com site but it is on the blink. IIRC the numbers were something like 900+ kills attributed to artillery, 400+ to mines and satchel charges and 300+ listed as "burned" (which I take it would mean Molotov coctails).

While statistically the close assault kills were not perhaps significant you can not forget the fact that each and every army actively sought to diminish the risk of enemy infantry getting too close to the armour.

A team of tanks against a team of infantry is at a disadvantage. For all their firepower the tanks are blind, slow and cumbersome, lets face it - dead meat, in the face of determined and competent infantry opposition. A lone behemoth can well withstand an attack by an entire infantry division fielding only can openers and angry hedgehogs. But sooner or later the tank will run out of ammo and fuel, the crew will get tired or demoralized.

Contrary to popular beliefs not all infantry will not run like jack rabits or sit by idly and get lined up to be killed by the illustrious and fabeled tanks. Weapons like the Molotov, satchel charge or the Hohlhaftladung are desperate measures. But they are countermeasures nevertheless and with a bit of skill, courage and luck you stand a change of killing a tank with them. The only downside is you are likely to get killed using them as you have to expose yourself and count coup.

[Bastables]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

. But they are countermeasures nevertheless and with a bit of skill, courage and luck you stand a change of killing a tank with them. The only downside is you are likely to get killed using them as you have to expose yourself and count coup.[/QB]<hr></blockquote>

My understanding as well.

[Graaf Spee]

When the 'pursue and assault'-order was brought up before Steve gave a few reasons for not including it. One that has stuck in my mind is that if you can give an order to pursue someone then the other one must have a 'move away from pursuers'-order. If I remember correctly the previous dicussion was about infantry vs infantry but I think it also would applies to infantry and tanks. It makes sense to me but maybe it's not relevant anymore with the tank morale in CMBB.

Regarding close assaulting AFVs. I'm not sure the time scale of CM is a good measure of how (un)effective they where. If the average CM-battle is 30-60 min the time in which your squads (after killing the escorting infantry) have to assault the tank is probably not more than 5-10 minutes. From what I've read (sorry, no sources...) just the time for your assaulting squads to move into good postions could take half an hour. But you are still able to take out a tank if you are (very) lucky, but that usually depends more on your opponents inability to use tanks effective.

Thoughts?

/Kristian

[Scipio]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bastables:

... But It still stands that the Hafthohlladung series was seen as a poor weapon when compared with the panzerfausts. Again I stand by the thesis that successful close assaults were not a big killer of AFVs relative to gun kills and/or mechanical defects/lack of fuel.<hr></blockquote>

The HHL is in my source (German, Panzerabwehrwaffen) described as very succesfull. I guess you missed some facts.

a) The HHL is a defensive weapon, cause the soldier must get in touch with the tank. In early war the Germans were mostly in advance, the need for this weapon was limited. Anyway, it was one of the few available AT weapons for the infantry in early war.

In the later war, the Germans had the Schreck and especially the Faust, a very cheap, easy to use and effective weapon, so the HHL was simply obsolete.

c) AFAIK - but not 100% sure - the Germans had production problems because of the lack of the magnetic components.

Graaf Spee, AFAIK a tank already retreats when he notice close enemy infantry. And we are talking about a defensive tactic - this means, the AT troop waits somewhere in an ambush for his chance, but he won't move over the map and search a tank to destroy.

[CMplayer]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Graaf Spee:

From what I've read (sorry, no sources...) just the time for your assaulting squads to move into good postions could take half an hour.

<hr></blockquote>

This argument doesn't really apply to CM because there are already so many ways in which time is compressed to make the game more playable.

[Bastables]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Scipio:

The HHL is in my source (German, Panzerabwehrwaffen) described as very succesfull. I guess you missed some facts.

<hr></blockquote>

There are no facts Pertaining to the objective success of the HHL series. All it states is that they were successful that on the page is unsubstantiated. Unless due to the google translation I’ve ‘missed something’.

[Tero]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bastables:

There are no facts Pertaining to the objective success of the HHL series. All it states is that they were successful that on the page is unsubstantiated. Unless due to the google translation I’ve ‘missed something’.<hr></blockquote>

"Die HHL 3 kam an allen Fronten zum Einsatz und wurde mit großem Erfolg gegen Kampfpanzer aller Art eingesetzt."

My high school German makes me think this means: The HHL3 was used in all fronts and it performed with huge success against all kinds of combat tanks.

Or something to that effect.

[Bastables]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

"Die HHL 3 kam an allen Fronten zum Einsatz und wurde mit großem Erfolg gegen Kampfpanzer aller Art eingesetzt."

My high school German makes me think this means: The HHL3 was used in all fronts and it performed with huge success against all kinds of combat tanks.

Or something to that effect. <hr></blockquote>

Better than my Google, dam thing does silly things with syntax.

[Andreas]

The translation by tero is correct.

[Andreas]

Checking on Scipio's reference site, and on Lexikon der Wehrmacht unearthes the following:

1. The HHL3 may or may not have been successful (we have to take the word of the guy writing Scipio's reference text for it), but it certainly was superseded by the Panzerfaust, which to me indicates that it was not a loved design, since it was dropped quite quickly once something better came along.

2. For a discussion of German infantry combat vs. tanks in the early years in the GPW, the HHL 3 is a red herring. Production started in 1942, with 8,500, peaked in 1943, with 358,400, and ended in 1944 with 187,000 units. 59,000 units were left in the arsenals in March 1945.

3. Production figures in total are 553,900 HHL3, vs. 8,245,300 Panzerfaust of all types. Assuming production started in November 1942, over the 29 months this would give us a consumption/wastage rate of 17,000 units per month. To compare, for the Panzerfaust (of all types) this figure would be ~305,000. Just to give you an impression of availability, and likelyhood to see one or the other in the frontline.

So, based on this info (which I have not verified elsewhere), the German infantry did not have HHL3s available to deal with the T-34 that their Heeresanklopfgeraet (aka 3,7cm PAK) could not dispatch in December 1941.

[Mr. Johnson--]

ASL Vet is right.

There is no reason we should be tossing our infantry out in the open to die because the tank moved a few meters. When we want those infantry to sacrific themselves taken out that damn tank.

it would be really nice. Otherwise BTS is telling us that we need 2 platoons minimum to go after a tank, placing a platoon everywhere a tank could go in 60 secs.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Andreas:

1. The HHL3 may or may not have been successful (we have to take the word of the guy writing Scipio's reference text for it), but it certainly was superseded by the Panzerfaust, which to me indicates that it was not a loved design, since it was dropped quite quickly once something better came along.

Concur. "Run up to the tank and stick the HHL on it my arse".

Even the überFinns turned the HHL down. Mainly because the improvement over the satchel charge and the Molotov were marginal at best when it came to tactical employment. You could at least throw the satchel charge and the Molotov from a distance whereas you had to count coup to apply the HHL. Not something you would want to do when facing hordes of tankodesantniki armed with SMG's.

While the tech spec of the HHL3 were impressive enough I'd imagine any soldier would go for a stand off weapon if it was available.

2. For a discussion of German infantry combat vs. tanks in the early years in the GPW, the HHL 3 is a red herring.

Concur. But after early 1942 it was present.

3. Production figures in total are 553,900 HHL3, vs. 8,245,300 Panzerfaust of all types. Assuming production started in November 1942, over the 29 months this would give us a consumption/wastage rate of 17,000 units per month. To compare, for the Panzerfaust (of all types) this figure would be ~305,000. Just to give you an impression of availability, and likelyhood to see one or the other in the frontline.

If there is to be special tank killer teams in the OOB in CMBB then I think they should get these rather than the regular infantry squads.

So, based on this info (which I have not verified elsewhere), the German infantry did not have HHL3s available to deal with the T-34 that their Heeresanklopfgeraet (aka 3,7cm PAK) could not dispatch in December 1941.

Then the only real solution is to model the empty champagne bottle instead.

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by tero:

Concur. But after early 1942 it was present<hr></blockquote>

Err, the production numbers from LdW say that 8,500 were produced in 1942. I believe this would have been a pilot run, and mass production taking off in the last few months. Then you have to get it to the front. I somehow doubt that they would have reached the front in significant numbers before late Jan 1943 at the earliest.

[Scipio]

Well, beside all facts and/or rumours about the HHL : it was not the only infantry AT weapon. I guess we turned this dicussion into the wrong direction, cause the idea was an 'Assualt Vehicel' command. This can be done in many ways and with many weapons. 'Molotow Cocktails' and 'Geballte Ladungen' (grenade bundle) were AFAIK common on both sides, or even the 'Private Ryan' method (if this was realistic), jump on the tank, open the hatch and throw a grenade into it.

We just give the command, and the squad attacks the tank with everything that's available. This has been done at the front, it was known to be risky, and that's why the German had a Special Badge for the Single Handed Destruction of a Tank.

Why not just alter the normal attack command? Just something like this: when I order an infantry unit to target a vehicel (or maybe even any other target) a request pops up like 'Attempt destruction yes/no', so we can directly order if we just want to shoot the tank with rifles, so it must just close the hatches, or if we want to try to destroy it, so the troop attacks with everything available until the tank is detroyed, out of range or the squad is out.

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: Scipio ]</p>

[Keith]

This "Assault Vehicle" idea is bad because:

1) Infantry teams already assault vehicles if they are not supressed and are adjacent to a vehicle.

2) Ridiculous anti-historical results are likely. I can just see a bunch of squads getting mowed down trying to follow a tank around a map.

3) BTS is going to release the game in this quarter so the chance of getting in new features is exactly 0%

4) I would never use the command.

5) Gross micromanagement

6) See #3 above

7) See #3 above

8) See #3 above

9) Well, I think you get the picture...

[Andreas]

Woops Keith, careful, people may start not liking you anymore

[JPS]

This "Assault Vehicle" idea is good because:

1) Armor (by TacAI control) already knows how to evade assaulting infantry, whereas infantry has to "guess" armor movements.

2) Ridiculous ahistorical results happen without it, i.e. infantry moves to places where a tank used to be 30 seconds ago and as a result the infantry is blasted to small pieces without even a proper attempt to cause actual damage in return.

3) BTS has a history of adding features that increase the quality of the simulation based on customer feedback - even after product releases!

4) I have already been ahistorically hurt by the lack of such command in the RoW tournament (The_Capt's heavy tanks just danced around my satchel charge equipped infantry).

5) Game commands should represent the _intentions_ of the commander (if at all possible) to reduce undue micromanagement.

6) See #3 above

7) See #3 above

8) See #3 above

9) Well, I think you get the picture...

This, of course, is IMHO

[Scipio]

Keith, your comment is bad because you first should read the rest of the discussion, so you don't need to bring up the same points again.

[Andreas]

Well, I have read the whole discussion, and I still agree with Keith.

[Shriker]

I'd just like to quasi-delurk to add my vote to adding an "assault vehicle" order that would allow me to have troops run to vehicle and close assault, regardless of whether it moves a few meters away from where it started at the beginning of that turn.

There's been more than once where I've had a squad pop out of concealment to attack a half-track or tank with grenades, etc, and then the vehicle moves 10 or 20 meters away and my men end up finishing the turn standing in the middle of nowhere, revealed and likely under fire.

I'd rather they "intercept" a moving vehicle as best they can instead.

Re: Keith's comments:

**1) Infantry teams already assault vehicles if they are not supressed and are adjacent to a vehicle.**

That's true and it can work well. However if the tank moves 20 meters (or whatever is just beyond close assault range) away from their start position then the squad cannot close attack it because they end up where the vehicle WAS at the start of the turn, not where it ended up.

**2) Ridiculous anti-historical results are likely. I can just see a bunch of squads getting mowed down trying to follow a tank around a map.**

From what little i know about actual close assaults of vehicles, many were attacked while on the move... a squad or Rambo soldier runs up and slaps a sticky bomb to the side or leaps onto the tank and drops a grenade down an open hatch or whatever. Not all tanks taken out by infantry in WW2 were standing still at the time.

You are correct that sometimes the vehicle may move too far or fast for the CM infantry to catch it - I'd imagine (based on my observations) that my squad would turn around and high tail it to cover if they came under too much fire while running to the vehicle. Either way, I'd rather that happen than what I experience now when the enemy vehicle moves a few meters from where my troops end up. I doubt most players would consider trying to close assault a half-track as it races by at high speed, but then again who knows.

**3) BTS is going to release the game in this quarter so the chance of getting in new features is exactly 0%**

Perhaps, but they did patch/upgrade CM1 over time, and this change probably wouldn't be too tough to implement. Similar to being able to order a unit to "embark" on a friendly vehicle, it may present the option to "assault" if the move cursor is over an enemy vehicle.

**4) I would never use the command.**

I probably don't use every available command in CM either, but I think this would make a good addition and obviously some people want it for good reason, imo.

**5) Gross micromanagement**

Only if you're picking your nose while implementing this 'assault vehicle' command.

Just my 2 cents. I've been frustrated with attacking troops ending up JUST out of range of a vehicle I want them to close assault and would like a way to make it work more realistically imo.

Regards,

-Steve

[Andreas]

Okay, I maybe particularly dense, but still.

Current:

Situation:

The infantry moves towards the vehicle.

Option 1: The vehicle does not spot the infantry and stays, and dies.

Option 2: The vehicle does spot the infantry, moves off, the infantry sits there gets shot at, and dies.

Future (after a 'follow vehicle' command has been coded in)

Situation:

The infantry moves towards the vehicle

Option 1: The vehicle does not spot the infantry, stays and dies

Option 2: The vehicle spots the infantry, moves off, stops after, say, 20m. The infantry follows. The vehicle observes the movement (remember, it has spotted the threat last round) and moves off another 20m. The infantry follows (in the meantime everyone and their second cousin has seen the infantry and is busy killing it a lot). The infantry dies.

What exactly is the difference, apart from that the infantry gets some exercise before dieing?