OK . . . Crawl of Death Needs Fix

[the Fighting Seabee]

I was taught, and practiced often, the way to react during an ambush.

Far ambush: > 50 ft.

Response: Keep moving if in convoy, take cover and return fire if boots are on the ground.

Near ambush: < 50 ft.

Response: Immediately and without hesitation, get out of the kill zone by charging the enemy. Charging means you let out your war cry, shoot on fully automatic, throw grenades, bite, kick, stab, rip out eyes, and overrun the attackers. It may sound crazy, but it's you and your men's best shot at survival.

Maybe if a veteran or better squad gets pinned by an enemy within two 8 meter squares, they charge. That would be interesting.

[ChrisND]

I have seen the "run for it" behavior a few times. Usually it is just that blasted crawl of death.

The crawl-of-death-by-proxy really needs to go (or maybe it's a bug? I honestly don't know). If a Syrian squad halfway across the map doesn't even have a radio to be in contact with Plt. CO and the CO gets pounded, there's no reason why they should be crawling as well.

[ChrisND]

I have seen the "run for it" behavior a few times. Usually it is just that blasted crawl of death.

The crawl-of-death-by-proxy really needs to go (or maybe it's a bug? I honestly don't know). If a Syrian squad halfway across the map doesn't even have a radio to be in contact with Plt. CO and the CO gets pounded, there's no reason why they should be crawling as well.

[ChrisND]

I have seen the "run for it" behavior a few times. Usually it is just that blasted crawl of death.

The crawl-of-death-by-proxy really needs to go (or maybe it's a bug? I honestly don't know). If a Syrian squad halfway across the map doesn't even have a radio to be in contact with Plt. CO and the CO gets pounded, there's no reason why they should be crawling as well.

[Speedy]

Whenever this happens to me I just give my overwatching squads orders to lay down suppressing fire on the bad guys.

Once the bad guys are suppressed I then give my squad new quick/fast orders. As soon as they stop getting shot at they normally respond pretty quickly.

When attacking I always try to have a minimum of 2 squads overwatching for each squad advancing.

[Speedy]

Whenever this happens to me I just give my overwatching squads orders to lay down suppressing fire on the bad guys.

Once the bad guys are suppressed I then give my squad new quick/fast orders. As soon as they stop getting shot at they normally respond pretty quickly.

When attacking I always try to have a minimum of 2 squads overwatching for each squad advancing.

[Speedy]

Whenever this happens to me I just give my overwatching squads orders to lay down suppressing fire on the bad guys.

Once the bad guys are suppressed I then give my squad new quick/fast orders. As soon as they stop getting shot at they normally respond pretty quickly.

When attacking I always try to have a minimum of 2 squads overwatching for each squad advancing.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, it's on the very short high priority list. It's a tough, thorny issue for us to deal with because it's highly unlikely that people will be pleased with whatever we come out with even when it's doing exactly what it should do As was pointed out, CMx1 had similar problems and for similar reasons we didn't do much to address it. However, this time around I think we should. Hence it being on the "short list" of things to get integrated into the game.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, it's on the very short high priority list. It's a tough, thorny issue for us to deal with because it's highly unlikely that people will be pleased with whatever we come out with even when it's doing exactly what it should do As was pointed out, CMx1 had similar problems and for similar reasons we didn't do much to address it. However, this time around I think we should. Hence it being on the "short list" of things to get integrated into the game.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, it's on the very short high priority list. It's a tough, thorny issue for us to deal with because it's highly unlikely that people will be pleased with whatever we come out with even when it's doing exactly what it should do As was pointed out, CMx1 had similar problems and for similar reasons we didn't do much to address it. However, this time around I think we should. Hence it being on the "short list" of things to get integrated into the game.

Steve

[Field Marshal Blücher]

That's great to hear, Steve. Thanks a lot!

-FMB

[Field Marshal Blücher]

That's great to hear, Steve. Thanks a lot!

-FMB

[Field Marshal Blücher]

That's great to hear, Steve. Thanks a lot!

-FMB

[Mishga]

Some Scots troops in Iraq were ambushed so they fixed bayonets and charged. Killed and wounded over 30 assailants with gunfire and bayonet if I recall.

The ambush was very close. I am sure an account of this action is available on wiki. Maybe that's where I read it in the first place.

[Mishga]

Some Scots troops in Iraq were ambushed so they fixed bayonets and charged. Killed and wounded over 30 assailants with gunfire and bayonet if I recall.

The ambush was very close. I am sure an account of this action is available on wiki. Maybe that's where I read it in the first place.

[Mishga]

Some Scots troops in Iraq were ambushed so they fixed bayonets and charged. Killed and wounded over 30 assailants with gunfire and bayonet if I recall.

The ambush was very close. I am sure an account of this action is available on wiki. Maybe that's where I read it in the first place.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Is one really better than another (not a rhetorical question)? I'd be very interested to hear from any Afgan/Iraq vets that might have some first or second hand stories about it.

Basically what The Fighting Seabee said. There is a third option, and that is to halt, dismount, and defend the position. This is usually only effect when combined with numerical and fire superiority and close air support of some kind.

Generally, if contact is close, attacking is the best option, psychologically and generally speaking, they're not expecting it.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Is one really better than another (not a rhetorical question)? I'd be very interested to hear from any Afgan/Iraq vets that might have some first or second hand stories about it.

Basically what The Fighting Seabee said. There is a third option, and that is to halt, dismount, and defend the position. This is usually only effect when combined with numerical and fire superiority and close air support of some kind.

Generally, if contact is close, attacking is the best option, psychologically and generally speaking, they're not expecting it.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Is one really better than another (not a rhetorical question)? I'd be very interested to hear from any Afgan/Iraq vets that might have some first or second hand stories about it.

Basically what The Fighting Seabee said. There is a third option, and that is to halt, dismount, and defend the position. This is usually only effect when combined with numerical and fire superiority and close air support of some kind.

Generally, if contact is close, attacking is the best option, psychologically and generally speaking, they're not expecting it.

[Combatintman]

Bayonets in Iraq link here - members of 1 PWRR BG in Al Amarah:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article456052.ece?token=null&offset=0

[Combatintman]

Bayonets in Iraq link here - members of 1 PWRR BG in Al Amarah:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article456052.ece?token=null&offset=0

[Combatintman]

Bayonets in Iraq link here - members of 1 PWRR BG in Al Amarah:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article456052.ece?token=null&offset=0