We need to have something like a "Retreat" command

[SteveP]

Or "Advance to the rear" if you prefer. Allowing for the fact that it's hard to know how the new modeling for infantry will affect things in CM2, I want to point out a problem in CM now that I think might be carried over if not addressed.

It is clear that an infantry unit's morale is adversely affected when it is fired upon from its flank or rear. I cannot tell if the effect is increased as the fire moves toward the rear, but it may be as simple as any fire from 90 to 180 degrees from the target's facing will increase the morale impact by a set factor. I recently determined through testing that this also occurs when the target is moving. For example, a unit advancing laterally across the front of a firing enemy (say crossing over from one building to another directly opposite) is much more likely to panic, break or rout than a unit advancing directly toward the enemy. The same thing happens, of course, if the unit tries to move back to a rear position. Basically, by turning its back to the enemy, it has a very low probability of making it to rear cover in good order.

AFAIK, the Advance command is intended to be an abstraction of a leap-frogging movement that reduces the unit's average overall vulnerability to fire. The unit can fire while advancing, but fire isn't essential to using the Advance command successfully. If a squad is using this same leap-frogging movement to move toward the rear, it should be receiving the same, or nearly the same benefit. I would, of course, argue the same for lateral movement as well.

The problem now is that without the ability to make an orderly retreat from an exposed position, units that are out in front of a MLR have a high likelihood of never getting back, if doing so involves being under fire for any length of time.

[cassh]

Don't know how it works in other armies but what you are describing is very similar to the British Army's break contact drill - i.e. pepper-potting (fire and manoeuvre) backward in leap frogs until fully disengaged - then you leg it to your RVP. The idea as you say is to offer covering fire to your oppo as he falls back. He then opens up once he's gone firm and it is your turn to dart back.

I'm sure BFC's Steve mentioned AI SOP scripts that would allow one to set up a default reaction to say an ambush or surprise contact? This would allow player to try different doctrines - and make the game a valuable learning tool to budding tacticians. Does one assault the ambush frontally as is standard infantry doctrine - or try something different like a 100m withdrawal (break contact) and then flanking attack?

Why is tweaking with the battle drill important?

In a classic Asian type V-shaped ambush frontal assault will meet with certain annihilation - as the deeper one goes into the ambush the further one progresses into the kill zone and exposes ones flanks.

The second response of limited withdrawal, then flanking manoeuvre and assault will allow you aggressively attack the enemy whilst severely limiting their firepower - most of one arm of the v must check-fire if you are attacking them perpendicular to their kill zone, whilst the second arm can only provide limited support for similar reasons.

To be able to model break contact is sine qua non to a military simulator of modern infantry warfare; and if BFC haven't done this I'd be very surprised.

[Michael Emrys]

This is a very good point and I hope BFC is on top of it.

Michael

[juan_gigante]

I'd further like to point out that the "Withdraw" command we have now really sucks. Yeah, no command delay, but the unit is "Run"ing, which makes them very vunerable to fire, and they have an automatic chance to panic. We should have something better.

But, if I'm recalling the movement bones Steve threw us a while ago, I think that when you give a movement order, you can specify a priority - on this move, emphasize speed. On this one, send out lots of fire. On this, avoid enemy fire. I think that through smart use of those options, you should be able to fix the problem to some degree.

[SteveP]

Having given a lengthy description of the problem I see, let me add to it a more concise one:

Either a unit should be able to Advance laterally or to the rear with the same, or nearly same, level of protection from fire as when Advancing toward the enemy (because the movement drill is basically the same) -- in which case, the model needs to be changed.

Or, it is more realistic that a unit moving laterally or to the rear is going to be hosed regardless of what movement order has been given -- in which case, the model is working just fine.

[SteveP]

*Bump*

I suppose everyone on this board plays only meeting engagements.

However, I think this is a significant problem in the CM design since CMBB came out, and nothing I read in this forum convinces me it won't be a problem in CM2.

[MikeyD]

The CMx1 'Withdraw' command works as long as you don't withdraw under fire and don't go far. In other words, as the tank swings its turret towards the building your troops take the opportunity to dash out the back. The same movement in the middle of an open field being raked my mg fire doesn't exactly work.

We could make a laundry list of troop movements that aren't handled particularly well by the CMx1 AI. The ability to withdraw in a coordinated manner was not much worse than the ability to attack in a coordinated manner! But CM was always more of a 'big picture' company+ scale engagement game than squad-scale. That's why we were willing to put up with those abstracted squads. Now CMx2's got 1-1 representation and is geared towards a smaller scale (no more picking your forces by the Battalion). Less wiggle room for BFC on 'abstracted' unit reactions.

[SteveP]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

The CMx1 'Withdraw' command works as long as you don't withdraw under fire and don't go far. In other words, as the tank swings its turret towards the building your troops take the opportunity to dash out the back. The same movement in the middle of an open field being raked my mg fire doesn't exactly work.

We could make a laundry list of troop movements that aren't handled particularly well by the CMx1 AI. The ability to withdraw in a coordinated manner was not much worse than the ability to attack in a coordinated manner! But CM was always more of a 'big picture' company+ scale engagement game than squad-scale. That's why we were willing to put up with those abstracted squads. Now CMx2's got 1-1 representation and is geared towards a smaller scale (no more picking your forces by the Battalion). Less wiggle room for BFC on 'abstracted' unit reactions.

Nope, not addressing the specific point I am trying to make. I contend that using the Advance command to move back from a covered position to another covered position should work about the same as using the Advance command to move in the opposite direction. I'm looking for people to either agree with that, or to tell me that IRL a squad moving to the rear under fire was much more likely to be badly messed up than if moving in the opposite direction.

The performance of the AI is not relevant. I mentioned "abstraction" to add color to my understanding that Advancing to the rear would involve the same sort of leap-frogging movement as Advancing to the front.

[MikeyD]

What would a decent phrase be for your 'advancing to the rear' movement.. the already used "withdraw', or 'Break contact' or the more scarey 'Retreat'?

'Break contact" sounds typical close-range small unit movement. You get yourself out of the enemy's LOS, you keep their heads down so they don't follow, and you change your position on the battlefield.

"Withdraw" sounds more serious. You're maneuvering with the purpose of getting yourself and your equipment out of the fight. "Retreat" sounds even worse. You're not just getting out of the fight but gettin' out of Dodge entirely!

Backing up on the battlefield may be considered simpler than advancing - though it probably isn't in practice. Retreating implies that you'll be covering familiar ground (unless you've advanced yourself into a box), which is less taxing than advancing into the unknown.The purpose of the unit's firing would be less ambitious - when advancing you're trying to kill or route the enemy. When withdrawing all you want to do is to keep his head down and keep him from following. So breaking contact/withdrawing may somewhat require less rigorous leap-frogging technique than advancing.

Is my logic at all logical?

[Cpl Steiner]

MikeyD,

What's wrong with "fall back". This implies to me the perfect opposite of "advance".

[cassh]

Which ever term is used (fall back, withdraw, break contact) is merely semantics as they are synonyms when applied to section and platoon level engagements. It is a matter of taste for Charles, Steve et al.

Every time I've seen withdraw or fall back used in a game there is a disadvantage for doing so. My fear is whilst this is historically accurate for other periods, for modern armies versed in fire & manoeuvre the disadvantage they receive may prove disproportionate to the reality. It needs to be there, but it is a question of degree.

Their should be only a mild disadvantage for going back as to going forward by fire & manoeuvre - and this is due to one piece of basic human psychology and two factors of physical mechanics:-

Firstly, we find it easier to shoot a man in the back - see Grossman's On Killing - therefore a withdrawing enemy is more likely to take heavier fire.

Secondly, with your back to the enemy it is more difficult to detect where fire is coming from and take appropriate evasive action and cover.

Thirdly, in a similar fashion it can be difficult to relocate the enemy when you go firm and turn to face them to put down covering fire. If they have relocated whilst you where going back, it is all the more difficult to locate them again and lay down effective covering fire.

That all said, a well trained and drilled modern army handles these disadvantages very well and the drop off in performance is lessened.

[SteveP]

Not surprised that the way I titled this thread is causing some problems with understanding the issue I'm raising. That's OK. We'll work our way thru it.

I chose to focus on contrasting the ability to Advance directly forward versus Advancing directly backward, because I think this makes the issue clear. However, keep in mind that this problem exists for any movement that is anywhere from roughly 90 to 180 degrees from a firing enemy (this is why re-jiggering the Withdraw command isn't relevant).

It may be the real source of the problem is that the model makes fire from the flank or rear too devastating on morale in all cases, not just movement. This may have worked OK in CMBO, when infantry morale wasn't very brittle to begin with. With the change in behavior modeling in CMBB, the effect from flank or rear fire became too pronounced.

On the other hand, if the way the CM models the effect of flank or rear fire is reasonable in most cases, but not when the target is a unit that is moving cautiously (i.e., MTC) or moving while expecting fire (e.g. Advance), then maybe the problem can be addressed by modifying the model for those commands.

I thought a different command might be necessary because of the kind of considerations that Cassh describes -- that is, to capture the fact that there is some negative to moving laterally or to the rear when under fire. That is why I titled the thread that way.

[SteveP]

Here's the problem in a nutshell: AFVs have a reverse command, and infantry units do not. But the need is the same, because the way in which CM works (and this is still likely to the case in CM2), infantry units are more resilient to fire from the front than from the side, just like with AFVs.

[C'Rogers]

To the game engine infantry is always moving forward. Even though we know that we are moving them to the back, it still marks them the same as moving in a forward direction (unless the engine is far more complex than I have been led to believe). You can not "advance backward" is the problem, you can only advance towards or away from an enemy.

A "reverse" is probably the best option, keep facing your current direction, but move backwards. Fallback is I think the best word that descrbes this.

As a game note I think units "falling back" (if implemented the way I am conceiving) should have a slight moral penalty to incoming fire and move at a slower speed (fire, run, turn, fire, repeat).

But as Juan pointed out, with the ability to specify movement order priorities (and perhaps how the movement is carried out) this whole discussion may be moot concerning CM:SF.

[SteveP]

Originally posted by C'Rogers:

But as Juan pointed out, with the ability to specify movement order priorities (and perhaps how the movement is carried out) this whole discussion may be moot concerning CM:SF.

I guess I am missing just what the thinking here is. As I understand it, the major change is that we will be able to specify various actions for each waypoint, but that nothing will change as to what happens between waypoints (I think there may have been some players asking for BFC to add the ability to micromanage what happens between waypoints, but I'm not aware that BFC ever concurred).

Even now you can give a unit a covered arc facing the enemy which has an effect between waypoints. Giving a unit a covered arc when it is moving laterally or away from enemy fire does not appear to have much benefit, except when the unit stops (as ordered or when pinned). Then the covered arc helps to keep the morale problem from getting worse during subsequent fire. This, I'm guessing, will be the same in CM2. The only difference in CM2 will be that you can change this covered arc at each waypoint. However, this appears to be the only change -- and even then we're talking about orders that affect what happens at a waypoint, not between waypoints. For that reason, I have to assume that BFC is going to carry forward the idea of flank and rear fire having a very adverse affect on morale, including during movement

Side note: I've started thinking that this is a contributing factor -- a relatively small one maybe, but a factor nevertheless -- to the relatively high casualty rates in a CM battle. As it stands now, in many cases the best tactic is to leave forward units to their fates and hope they take a reasonable proportion of the enemy with them.