Retreats

[fleischer]

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but don't units retreat way too soon? I'm playing the 'Tanks at Platamon' scenario, and I'm having difficulties making my companies stay in their trenches. To illustrate:

http://www.filedump.net/dumped/cotaoddr ... 312102.jpg

Here my battalion is defending along the hillside in trenches with max aggro and casualties. They should be in an ideal defensive position, but still two companies decide to retreat after just *spotting* the enemy krad battalion two kilometres away. No casualties, barely any suppression, but still they retreat. How come?

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: fleischer

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but don't units retreat way too soon? I'm playing the 'Tanks at Platamon' scenario, and I'm having difficulties making my companies stay in their trenches. To illustrate:

http://www.filedump.net/dumped/cotaoddr ... 312102.jpg

Here my battalion is defending along the hillside in trenches with max aggro and casualties. They should be in an ideal defensive position, but still two companies decide to retreat after just *spotting* the enemy krad battalion two kilometres away. No casualties, barely any suppression, but still they retreat. How come?

Hi fleisher,

Welcome to the forum.

I don't know exactly what your gaming background is, so I'll address your question from a wargaming perspective.

What you're seeing is units failing a morale check. There are variables and modifiers that influence unit behavior, but it's all really just a function of the game doing some math, generating a random number and applying the result. Within the context of the game, you can expect poor quality units with poor leaders to exhibit this kind of behavior more frequently than those with better values.

An anecdote...

During Operation Battleaxe (1941), Italian units that had were assigned to several positions along the Egyptian frontier simply melted away when they learned that a UK/CW offensive was underway, and armour headed toward them. In some cases, they fled their positions before they even caught sight of the enemy. Let's just be grateful that's not modeled in CotA! [;)]

PoE (aka ivanmoe)

[fleischer]

Prince of E.,

Thank you for the welcome.

The units in question are not poor quality, they don't have particularly bad leaders and they do not face armor but a krad battalion of about the same size as themselves.

I realize the game is doing math and generating random numbers, but my question was rather how sound the results of those calculations were in this particular case.

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: fleischer

I realize the game is doing math and generating random numbers, but my question was rather how sound the results of those calculations were in this particular case.

Welcome.

In general, the values on the screenshot wouldn't let me think that they'd tend to retreat easily. Morale is average-good, cohesion is close to 100%.
But in this case, you have to consider that company's position and the layout of the terrain:

Basically the whole Krad Bn fires at that particular NZ Coy, as the unit's original/assigned position (i guess it's still attached to the Bn HQ) was right on the hill, you might notice the elevation. If the Coy didn't have the time to dig in, or even better, to fortify their position, the fire from the approaching German units will have quite some impact. The rest of the NZ Bn is just right behind the elevation, so my guess is that the Germans either can't see these units, or they don't have a clear line of fire, so they focus on the retreating unit.

You can verify this by using the "LOS" tool or the "LOS Area" tool.

[simovitch]

Check the experience - those units are as green as a leaf and this is the first time under fire!

Best not to put those guys in harms way. As I recall the Allies can exit in this scenario so may be best to move them south so they can exit with as many (live) men as possible.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: fleischer

I realize the game is doing math and generating random numbers, but my question was rather how sound the results of those calculations were in this particular case.

Welcome.

In general, the values on the screenshot wouldn't let me think that they'd tend to retreat easily. Morale is average-good, cohesion is close to 100%.
But in this case, you have to consider that company's position and the layout of the terrain:

Basically the whole Krad Bn fires at that particular NZ Coy, as the unit's original/assigned position (i guess it's still attached to the Bn HQ) was right on the hill, you might notice the elevation. If the Coy didn't have the time to dig in, or even better, to fortify their position, the fire from the approaching German units will have quite some impact. The rest of the NZ Bn is just right behind the elevation, so my guess is that the Germans either can't see these units, or they don't have a clear line of fire, so they focus on the retreating unit.

I fired up the scenario in question, and took the Allied side. The two NZ companies that retreat are the ones that are exposed. If the player simply lets the game run, they will retreat. If the player doesn't advance another unit forward, the Allies are left blind. Not long thereafter, German units will begin to appear immediately to the Allied front, having approached unobserved. Beyond being the focus of the motorcycle battalions fire, I believe that the Allied units may be reacting to the attention that they are getting from the Panzer company, a threat for which they have NO effective response. Panzer panic, perhaps?

[GoodGuy]

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
...... a threat for which they have NO effective response. Panzer panic, perhaps?

That's interesting. I wonder if the engine is actually able to render that. The NZ Bn (maybe this Coy too) should have at least some "makeshift" AT bombs, I remember seeing that in the estabs. So, unless they had run outta makeshift charges, they should not retreat right away, in case the engine considers availability of (corresponding) weapons. I rather suspect the exposed position.

On the other hand, I had a tank unit in a scenario (which I played for my AAR I posted here, in the AAR thread) that had to dance with parts of the RTR (Royal Tank Regiment), but it had no AP ammo left (but plenty of HE). The tank unit kept retreating over and over, without any casualties, for the most part (4 Pz IV left), but the British tanks couldn't crack them with their low calibre guns... they got shred to pieces by either AT guns or british artillery later on, though.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: GoodGuy

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
...... a threat for which they have NO effective response. Panzer panic, perhaps?

That's interesting. I wonder if the engine is actually able to render that. The NZ Bn (maybe this Coy too) should have at least some "makeshift" AT bombs, I remember seeing that in the estabs. So, unless they had run outta makeshift charges, they should not retreat right away, in case the engine considers availability of (corresponding) weapons. I rather suspect the exposed position.

I dunno, but if it can't then let's request it as an upgrade! [;)]

Seriously, though, this is one of the best things about these games. There's absolutely no point in conducting a frontal assault with armour against quality infantry in AA. Eventually, you may be able to wipe them out, but you'll suffer a prohibitive level of casualties in the process. I can't think of any other computer gaming system that better depicts the desirability of maneuver over attrition than these little jewels.

[fleischer]

I tried upping the experience of the NZ battalion to 'veteran' in the scenario maker. The same thing happens:

http://www.filedump.net/dumped/cotaoddr ... 372911.jpg

Also, the same thing happens if I remove the enemy Lt Pz Coy, but then they hold for an extra 15-60 minutes or so before retreating:

http://www.filedump.net/dumped/cotaoddr ... 375827.jpg

3 runs for each of those experiments, all with about the same result.

This does not seem to be, in a significant degree, related to any of the unit's or commander's attributes, or the light panzers(they wouldn't be able to do much damage with their small calibre guns anyway, since my guys are entrenched in terrain with excellent cover).

What buggers me most with this, is that once they have retreated, it takes about 15 minutes before they decide to march right back into their original positions again, even though whatever made them retreat in the first place cannot have become less threatening at this point, but rather much more threatening, since the enemy forces usually manage to advance another kilometer in that time. So the "Oh gawd, here comes something we can't handle, let's get out of here!"-perspective really doesn't make much sense. All they achieve by doing that nonsensical retreat, is losing their entrenchment status and exposing themselves to enemy mortar fire.

[Arjuna]

fleicher,

Sorry for not chiming in here earlier, but I'm head down, tail up trying to finish off BFTB at the moment. Congratulations on using the ScenMaker to adjust the parameters of the units and conduct those tests - good stuff. I would really need a saved game to step through the code and determine why they retreat. But I would rather beg off doing so at this moment as I fear a lot of customers looking forward to getting their hand on BFTB would not take too kindly to me delaying its release. Once we sign off on BFTB ( hopefully at the end of July ) I can look into this.

I might add that in BFTB you will be able to set a task option to Retake Position. Unchecking this option will see any retreating units defend in place rather than attempt to re-occupy their previous position. We have also overhauled the rout code for BFTB eliminating what some referred to as the "dance of death" and we have allowed retreats over rivers which in COTA was not allowed ( not that these are affecting the condition you are experiencing ).

In the interim I recommend you try other scenarios and let me know what you think of them re the retreat behaviour.

All the best.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: fleischer

What buggers me most with this, is that once they have retreated, it takes about 15 minutes before they decide to march right back into their original positions again, even though whatever made them retreat in the first place cannot have become less threatening at this point, but rather much more threatening, since the enemy forces usually manage to advance another kilometer in that time. So the "Oh gawd, here comes something we can't handle, let's get out of here!"-perspective really doesn't make much sense. All they achieve by doing that nonsensical retreat, is losing their entrenchment status and exposing themselves to enemy mortar fire.

I realize that it's just a reinforced motorcycle battalion, but the Axis OOB has a lot of HE to put down on those two Allied units.

After the unit retreats (or routs), it rallies and then returns to its assigned position.

I agree that it's not a good situation for the unit, but company commanders get ordered into lousy positions all the time.

If you don't want them shot up, have you considered moving the unit to the reverse slope of the ridge where they're located?

Likewise, moving a unit into the fortification terrain will provide you with both good observation and better protection from Axis fire.

[fleischer]

Arjuna,

No problemo. I realize I'm a bit late with my criticism here

As for other scenarios, the problem, as I see it, is less pronounced, but is still there. The thing about this scenario is that you have a very static defence, whereas in most other scenarios, at least the ones I've played, the emphasis is more on mobile defence structures, maneuvering and delaying, so one does not notice one or two units making odd retreats once in a while, and it really doesn't matter that much in the 'big picture'.

What I'm really missing is some sort of way of telling my units how much they should sacrifice/risk by staying put, or how much blood the given defend order is worth. I realize moral and the company commander's judgement will have the final word on that, but it would be nice, and realistic I think, to be able to tell him what I expect from him. As I understand it, the 'losses' level only determines when the 'Unit x has exceeded its casualty threshold'-message pops up, and the 'aggro' level only at what range the defending unit should start firing?

Anyways, perhaps I could bug you some more with this once BFTB is out, or perhaps I will be happy with how retreats work in that game

Keep up the good work.

- fleischer

[GoodGuy]

I can't comment on the number-crunching under COTA's hood (reg. retreat routines), but I'd still rather see the early retreat caused by the environment.

While the particular COTA map doesn't include the gap between the ruins at the coast and the castle to the left (there's a chance that it's a manmade gap, as that's a part of "New Platamon" nowadays), the map's geol./topogr. features indicate that this is anything than ideal terrain for a defensive position. While the hills are (partially heavily) wooded nowadays, the map indicates that the area at and around the hills is pretty rough terrain, containing rocky elevations and zero woods. The hills provide a good view down to the valley for the defenders, but make it easy for the attackers to shell it with heavy weapons, at the same time.

Like PoE pointed out, the approaching enemy has plenty of HE and medium/long range weapons and he has vehicles (the enemy, not PoE .... j/k, couldn't resist lol [;)]) - where some are armored.

Also, the terrain modifiers will put penalties on your troops, as in real life the terrain (depicted on the game map) wouldn't allow for the creation of sophisticated trench lines like on let's say hilly heath terrain in Europe.

This is the mission area:

[simovitch]

fleischer, what happens when you order the Bn HQ to defend, in-situ, with max aggro, rof, and losses, and give them a facing toward the enemy? the subordinates shouldn't try to retake their position with in-situ formation.

I'm able to stand fast, sometimes on into the next day. What formation where you using with defend?

Also unclick the "rest after bombard" if you want those mortars to continue support.

[GoodGuy]

The same hills viewed from the North:



So, you should detach these 2 Coys, and then order in-situ formation for each of the companies, as well as for the Bn HQ. In-situ means that they will stop/hold at the current position, and they will start to dig in.
A little hint: On scenario start, you should inspect the fortification status of all of your units. If their positions are already "fortified" you should consider keeping them in these valuable positions. If their status is just "dug in", you can move one or another unit to a more favorable position.

As Simo pointed out, it's usually rather easy to defend the tunnel at least for a day. I use to be able to hold it for prolly a bit more than a day, sometimes until the end of the next day.
The trick here might be to put the unit on your left flank just behind the ridge, to reduce exposure to enemy fire.

Setting RoF (Rate of Fire), Aggro and Losses to Max will make them engage earlier and disengage/retreat later as compared to the standard settings (High Aggro, normal ROF and low Losses), so this will give them more punch for the defend task.

Think of the max settings as an order like "do not give away one inch to the enemy". In turn, if you pick min. or low aggro settings (along with max losses) they will disengage or "withdraw" (task) quickly, so that you can control a regrouping procedure BEFORE they retreat. For both, you might want to keep an eye on the losses of individual units AND use the "THREAT" tool, to get an idea whether an entire enemy Bn is picking on your Coy or not.

[Prince of Eckmühl]

ORIGINAL: fleischer

Arjuna,

No problemo. I realize I'm a bit late with my criticism here

As for other scenarios, the problem, as I see it, is less pronounced, but is still there. The thing about this scenario is that you have a very static defence, whereas in most other scenarios, at least the ones I've played, the emphasis is more on mobile defence structures, maneuvering and delaying, so one does not notice one or two units making odd retreats once in a while, and it really doesn't matter that much in the 'big picture'.

What I'm really missing is some sort of way of telling my units how much they should sacrifice/risk by staying put, or how much blood the given defend order is worth. I realize moral and the company commander's judgement will have the final word on that, but it would be nice, and realistic I think, to be able to tell him what I expect from him. As I understand it, the 'losses' level only determines when the 'Unit x has exceeded its casualty threshold'-message pops up, and the 'aggro' level only at what range the defending unit should start firing?

Anyways, perhaps I could bug you some more with this once BFTB is out, or perhaps I will be happy with how retreats work in that game

Keep up the good work.

- fleischer

Hi fleischer,

A quick disclaimer...

I'm really not associated with Panther Games in any way. I own all the games that they've thus far published, but that's pretty much the extent of my ties to the developer, apart from Arjuna and Simovitch helping me build maps and scenarios, that is. Those facts established, I want to quickly address where I'm coming from. You are clearly a reasonable person with reasonable expectations of how these games ought to play. So, all that I can do is encourage you to play the game, a lot, and keep an open mind.

I've played perhaps sixty hours in the last week, mostly re-running a scenario that I designed to simulate Operation Battleaxe on the Egyptian/Libyan Frontier. One of these days the scenario will be finished and I'll make it available for download and play as best I can. When that day comes, I'm fairly certain that I'll catch a boatload of **** because of some design decisions that I made regarding fortifications and other terrain objects that will greatly advantage defenders.

I've played this darn scenario a bunch and it's almost where I want it, which is to say that there are positions that I want to hold out for a day, or two, when properly garrisoned. They have names like Halfaya Pass and Point 208. I know that they will frustrate players, but that's not the point. Like yourself, I just want stuff to behave the way that I think that it should.

Out in the desert, life is nasty, poor, brutish and short. I'm a wargamer, and I've come to accept, as a fan of the Airborne Assault family of games, that things aren't always easy or predicatable. My greatest frustration when I'm playing my scenarios is that every G-D enemy company or battery that my columns approach seems to be more akin to the "snipe detachment" than that NZ company that keeps letting you down. And that's just the way that the game plays, at least in my experience. [:)]

Hang in there!

[Arjuna]

Just to clarify that "Aggro" does affect retreats. A little background. In determining the effective morale threshold we factor in a lot of the unit and commander effectiveness ratings. Aggro get a big slice of this. So setting the aggro level to high or max will not only have them engage more but will help them hold their ground ( but it also means they may pay a high price for that ).

[fleischer]

I've tried playing with the Aggro level, but it does not seem to affect that initial retreat when the enemy is 1-2 kilometers away to any significant degree. In close combat it makes a big difference - the C company defending Panteleemon stand fast for hours under constant fire, even when the enemy advances right up next to it. But even here I feel they're not sacrificing or risking enough, given that my order is set to MAX - shouldn't that be like a 'Führer-order'; "hold your positions, no matter what the costs are"? In real life such 'extreme' orders would usually be a bad idea, and usually more 'moderate' orders would be better, but in COTA I feel it's always best to set everything to the extreme setting(except perhaps for the ammo level), and I rarely feel penalized for that - at least this goes for company/battalion orders.

Ok, enough pondering for now - I'm going on vacation [8D] Thanks for all the replies

- fleischer