Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Command Ops: Battles From The Bulge takes the highly acclaimed Airborne Assault engine back to the West Front for the crucial engagements during the Ardennes Offensive. Test your command skills in the fiery crucible of Airborne Assault’s “pausable continuous time” uber-realistic game engine. It's up to you to develop the strategy, issue the orders, set the pace, and try to win the laurels of victory in the cold, shadowy Ardennes.
Command Ops: Highway to the Reich brings us to the setting of one of the most epic and controversial battles of World War II: Operation Market-Garden, covering every major engagement along Hell’s Highway, from the surprise capture of Joe’s Bridge by the Irish Guards a week before the offensive to the final battles on “The Island” south of Arnhem.

Moderators: Arjuna, Panther Paul

ZBrisk
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 12:33 am

Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by ZBrisk »

Finally got around to buying the game. It's great, but there are a couple things bugging me so far.

Ping pong units in CotA were annoying. It was so hard to close in or do any damage to the enemy with direct fire because retreats were too common and retreating/routing enemies would often slip through seemingly impenetrable lines. In BFTB, the pendulum has swung too far the other way.

See this infantry company surrendering to a few mortar halftracks 700m away, past the other side of a village+woods:

Image

All too often I see a unit surrendering when they have:
  • One enemy unit in sight several hundred meters away that may not be causing any casualties, firing, or even capable of doing damage. I've seen a full tank company surrender to a unit with no AT because of one airstrike.
  • A bunch of friendlies close by that are doing fine.
  • Plenty of ammo and supplies.
  • Plenty of room to retreat to. Not surrounded at all.
I'm no expert, but didn't surrenders generally occur when a unit was either surrounded or being overrun? Sometimes I see it during the latter...but usually it's after the unit has routed, yet still has some random enemy in sight somewhere. The main problem seems to be that units can no longer rout again (or rarely do?) once they are in "rout recovery", which is bad since they often choose to recover in stupid spots. Even if they choose a good spot, you'd think they could just run again when there's plenty of routes to rout through.

Come to think of it, CotA had this too. It just didn't come up much thanks to frequent retreats. I saw an entire regimental supply base surrender to a single Matilda tank they ran into. One has to wonder how that's even possible...


Another improvement over CotA I noticed is that infantry actually run out of ammo now. But once again, it's overadjusted.

Units in BFTB will go very quickly from full or near full ammo to completely out when engaging up close. I understand that close-in fighting can and should expend ammo pretty quickly, but units should act more frugal the more their stocks diminish. There needs to be a point where they stop firing for suppression and only fire with good chance of kill. The shift to being completely depleted of every bullet is too sudden. Maybe make it so that they automatically switch to low ROF/aggro as their ammo runs low, or something.
ZBrisk
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 12:33 am

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by ZBrisk »

Also, the deal with fatigue? According to the manual:
Whenever units are stationary and either resting, defending or waiting, their fatigue will reduce. Resting troops recover fastest.

Well, I checked my division HQ which has done nothing for two days other than sit in one spot with a defend order and...it's gone up to 89% fatigue?!
User avatar
Arjuna
Posts: 17768
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by Arjuna »

Our bad but the manual is wrong. It doesn't reflect the change we made for BFTB. To clarify below is the code segment relating to fatigue adjustment.

if( recentlyEngaged )
{
// so accrue at above the standard rate - extra stress
theAdjustment = kStandardFatigueAccrualRate * pf(1.5);
}
else if( taskType == kRestTask &&
deploymentStatus >= kDeployed )
{
if( isNight )
{
// then recover at the full rate
theAdjustment = - ( kStandardFatigueRecoveryRate * pf(1.0) );
}
else
{
// then it takes a little longer to recover
theAdjustment = - ( kStandardFatigueRecoveryRate * pf(0.75) );
}
}
else if( taskType == kConstructBridgeTask &&
isConstructing )
{
// so accrue at the standard rate
theAdjustment = kStandardFatigueAccrualRate * pf(1.0);
}
else if( taskType == kAssaultTask )
{
// so accrue at above the standard rate - extra stress
theAdjustment = kStandardFatigueAccrualRate * pf(1.25);
}
else
{
metre unitRadius = theSubject->GetUnitRadius();
ScenSide* theSide = theSubject->GetSide();
MapLoc subjectLoc = theSubject->GetLocation();
metre rangeToNearestEnemy = theSide->DetermineClosestEnemyRange( subjectLoc, 3000 + unitRadius );
// Note that DetermineClosestEnemyRange() will return the range passed in if no enemy found

// if you're moving about ( taking cover etc )
if( deploymentStatus < kDeployed )
{
// so accrue at the standard rate
theAdjustment = kStandardFatigueAccrualRate * pf(1.0);
}
else // deployed or better
{
if( isNight )
{
// if no enemy nearby,
if( rangeToNearestEnemy >= 1500 + unitRadius )
{
// then recover but at a faster rate
theAdjustment = - ( kStandardFatigueRecoveryRate * pf(0.5) );
}
else // enemy is nearby
{
// then recover but at a slow rate
theAdjustment = - ( kStandardFatigueRecoveryRate * pf(0.25) );
}
}
else // daytime
{
// if no enemy nearby,
if( rangeToNearestEnemy >= 3000 + unitRadius )
{
// so accrue at a lesser rate
theAdjustment = kStandardFatigueAccrualRate * pf(0.25);
}
else // enemy is nearby
{
// so accrue at the normal defend rate = half the std rate
theAdjustment = kStandardFatigueAccrualRate * pf(0.5);
}
}
}
}


The key point to note is that you accrue fatigue while defending during the day or whenever you are recently engaged. You only recover while defending at night if deployed and not engaged and the amount of recovery is half that if resting and only a quarter if enemy nearby.
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com
User avatar
Arjuna
Posts: 17768
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by Arjuna »

BTW for the second patch we will be reducing the modifier applied to accrual if recently engaged from 150% to 125%. Sililarly we'll reduce the accrual rate for assaulting forces from 1.25 to 1.15 ( though these will be at 1.25 if engaged ). That should help reduce some of the more noticable exhaustion. We'll test this and may tweak some other aspects if required.
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com
User avatar
Arjuna
Posts: 17768
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by Arjuna »

I just checked the surrender code and confirmed that the enemy nearby radius is set to 500m ( from forward edge oif friendly perimeter to forward edge of nemy perimeter ). It only applies to the unit's list of visible enemy. However, the visible enemy list may not have been updated yet for the routing unit's current location - ie it may still reflect the situation from where it started to rout. Do you have a saved game just prior to this surrender? If so please email it to me at support[at]panthergames[dot]com. I'll then be able to confirm that hypothesis and respond accordingly. Thanks.
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com
ZBrisk
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 12:33 am

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by ZBrisk »

That div HQ was dug in the same spot, never engaged, and set to normal rest setting. They recovered most fatigue overnight with a rest order though.

About the long-range surrender, I agree that's probably what happened there. I don't have a save of that instance, but will send any similar occurrences.
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by Lieste »

500m from the front edge - of a 250 strong unit in mob formation is 700m from perimeter to routing unit centre... which is a huge distance...

After a few hours fighting, I'm regularly seeing 3/4 of enemy front line forces surrendered - really if they had routed well to the rear and then were collected into an improvised reserve formation that would be more in keeping with how a shattered and broken force acts than mass surrenders of non surrounded troops.

Problems:
Initial rout distance/direction is often poorly chosen. Frequently the distance is barely outside the nominal 500m, and the routing rout heads towards or alongside the attacking unit, rather than 'away' - if necessary the rout route should be a dog-leg to get away first, then retreat to the rally point - If the local position is untenable then each unit could be made to abandon it and head 'towards the rear' - moving to and along roads/villages/junctions until they rally - like the columns of broken troops heading back to St Vith ahead of the German advances - collecting and rallying a shattered Bn force should take a considerable time, and the AI should allow for this, rather than just throwing the unit back into action without repairing the morale damage - his surviving units seem to 'flash' between routed, ok and routed condition in a single combat pulse when they see new enemy forces - if they are that weak, then they have no business still in the front line.

If enemy infantry is still moving (often the case when supported by artillery and enemy infantry is rendered ineffective) the 500m is rapidly closed, but subsequent routs are still only to the similar distances so they seldom recover to any significant result before being overrun again.

500m is far outside the effective ranges of most units... I'm not sure how well it would play out, but if units in rout/rout recovery status displaced when pressed at effective weapon range (but could be suppressed/pinned by fires) and surrendered at 100m I think casualty figures would look better in the AAR... and more importantly I think that forcing the surrender of significant portions of his force would be harder - right now they surrender as I exploit from the initial break-in (or first defensive clash) without any significant fighting - the AI's only effective counter is artillery to break-up/rout my advancing troops..
However it might even be worth considering the formal surrender of subunits (of Regt/Bn sizes when isolated, low on supplies and in a poor morale state)

Can we have surrendered accounted for separately from combat casualties:
Allied - KIA/WIA 250 MIA 3750 is very different from Allied KIA 4000 even if the effect on the scenario is the same - it allows comparison of weapons effectiveness separately from ending tactical position...

TMO
Posts: 247
Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:34 pm
Location: Bristol, UK

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by TMO »

Lieste
After a few hours fighting, I'm regularly seeing 3/4 of enemy front line forces surrendered - really if they had routed well to the rear and then were collected into an improvised reserve formation that would be more in keeping with how a shattered and broken force acts than mass surrenders of non surrounded troops.

It seems to me that unit surrender probably currently comprises surrender in the true term and/or that a unit has ceased to be combat effective for the remainder of the scenario. Maybe a distinction between the two should be made in the reported intel - just a thought.

Regards

Tim
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by Lieste »

Unit surrender is currently when the last man leaving the unit is due to surrender - he collects his white hankie, switches off the lights that is the end..
Alternative 'losses' include destroyed - where the last man standing is KIA/WIA before he can surrender, or disbanded - where the residual strength of an ineffective unit is absorbed into a nearby/similar unit.

Simply eliminating the stub-units (except by destruction or formal disbandment/incorporation) leads to the situation where the attacker solves almost all his problems - any 'new' units met are fresh and deserve a full attack.

If 75% of the front line companies are still scattered throughout the rear-areas in villages, not capable of real functioning, calling artillery etc in section and platoon strength remnants - and these may surrender or re-position when approached, you complicate the attacker's choices - formally attacking each village will be overkill, but attempting to just drive through a potentially effective position may be dangerous.

To work, the owning player would have to lose control of the remnants too though - a transfer (either temporary or permanent) to a third (static?) force that you only have partial intelligence of/from (much delayed or incomplete) and minimal/no direct control of might work to represent the 'loss' of these units as combat effectives. Orders need only be hold-in-situ, and "retreat to here" with minimal tolerance for losses and minimal aggression - units near supplies, or capable HQ units for long enough could 'rally' back into the main force, either as units, or as 'replacements' for existing units by disbandment.

Just some ideas - but a lot of scenarios end up with 'the empty map' except for very deadly artillery and the HQ and Base units supplying them - in a way that seems improbable.
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by Lieste »

So the 'destroyed' unit has different states in effect...

ie.

Actual State:
Original Strength 200
KIA/WIA 65
Surrenders 15
Incorporated into nearby combat unit 20
Scattered/Combat Ineffective 100

American 'Knowledge':
KIA/WIA/MIA 180
Incorporated into nearby combat units 20
Unit 'destroyed'/'disbanded'/'surrendered'

German 'Knowledge':
KIA/MIA/POW 80 (assuming perfect intelligence on KIA/WIA caused earlier in actions)
Remaining strength 120 (but of doubtful effectiveness from prisoner interrogation/abandoned equipment collected)
Unit 'ineffective'

The opposition player's and the 'true' picture are closer here, but may overstate the residual effectivness (which forces some caution on this side if it believes the current strength estimate, or encourages over-optimism where subsequent poor showings by these remnants may be mistaken for a general 'rot' of the opposing subsequent defence lines).
The controlling player's impression, and that modelled in game currently shows the 'effective' forces, but misses the friction caused on an attacker by many 'fragments' of unknown composition and quality encountered en-route.

IMO both of these are important (and allow a 'correct' rendering of actual casualties, plus a 'correct' rendering of effective strengths, which are different).

Obviously, it could be that intelligence assessments are wrong too, and miss many casualties, or prisoner interrogation could report a unit destroyed based on the impression gained from one sub-unit.

I must also say that I am a fan of FOW for the friendly side too - with delayed reporting of position/contacts/strengths. (I do find the difficulty in locating enemy artillery for CB work a bit trying at times though... there should be flash/sound location equipment and RDF equipment at various levels tasked with doing just that...)
User avatar
Arjuna
Posts: 17768
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by Arjuna »

Point of clarification. A unit will display the surrender light whenever a portion of its personnel surrender. A unit can surrender one or two personnel at a time and still leave many personnel in the unit. A unit can surrender some personnel many times throughout the scenario. So it's not a case of the remaining personnel all surrendering at once.

I will reduce the nearby enemy threat range from 500m to 300m and see what a difference that makes.
Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by Lieste »

The individuals surrender when the surrender light is on - dribbles at a time.

The unit surrenders when the last man to leave has a white flag - but not if 99% of the unit surrenders, then the AI disbands the survivor, or if the last few men are hit by effective fire.



ZBrisk
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 12:33 am

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by ZBrisk »

Okay, I've just played through "Assault on Sauer" as Axis.

Here are a bunch of weird things that happened. I can send saves for any of these on request:

Image

Not sure if this counts as over 500m, but it's still silly. From 7:42-9:20 the whole unit slowly surrenders while just sitting right there in the middle of the open because of "rout recovery".

Image

This allied mortar platoon, due to artillery fire, surrendered when the nearist Axis unit was 900m away and out of sight.

Image

This allied unit surrendered to an Axis unit...which was also routed! I don't think that should be possible. Other Axis units shown here were out of sight.

Image

This Hetzer company was assaulting with no losses. Then a couple got destroyed in an airstrike, so they routed and one surrendered. Maybe you could say the crew abandoned it, but that still seems sketchy.

Image

That company of 9 Shermans ran into this dug-in German infantry company in the middle of the woods...at night. The infantry fired off all 10 of their faust and schreck ammo with no luck. They got fired on, routed to the location seen here, and started surrendering despite not taking one casualty. All 105 men surrendered while in "rout recovery" there.

This is not only an example of routing/surrender issues, but also how useless infantry is. Tanks should not be able to barge through a defended forest at night without losses.

Image

That same tank company makes another unit surrender which could've simply run into the woods a little. At this point I'm wondering how those 9 tanks can manage a trail of ~200 German prisoners behind them.

Image

6 Hetzers have spent all their AP ammo (~60 total) on the Shermans from 250m and still no kills. The routed infantry company seen here started surrendering again 2 minutes after this screenshot, despite being 200m deep in the woods while the Shermans were engaged.

Image

How are those Shermans hidden? How did they dig in while engaged with Hetzers? How can tanks dig in in such a short time anyway?

Image

The Shermans then proceeded to move onto the helpless Hetzers and rout them. I sent an infantry battalion to close assault from behind but once again, infantry AT proves useless.

Image

The Hetzer company kept getting resupplied, but for some reason never received AP ammo until day 6.

Image

This company was routed from artillery fire while attacking that village earlier. Two hours later they start surrendering because they decided to recover right there and that little AT platoon just came into view.

Image

Panzerschrecks = useless
Okay apparently those guys were resting when the screenshot was taken, but they were firing and assaulting too.

Image

This Sherman company just rushed through that SE forest trail right on top of an infantry batallion with impunity.

Image

Note how all fausts and schrecks have been used to no avail.

Image

Finally, I got to beat some Shermans! The only reason I could, though, is because they were routed by an airstrike. All I had to do was move up any unit to them and make them surrender while in recovery.

Image

Picture says it all. Infantry AT is useless.

Image

Once the Hetzers were finally resupplied with AP, I sent them against a company of 15 Stuarts. Again, all ammo is spent without any kills.

Image

Why did they decide to refuel just before exiting, and why did that take hours?

Total units destroyed on both sides were:
35 surrendered
17 disbanded
1 destroyed by fire

Even assuming that all the disbandings were more from casualties than surrender (which they weren't), that's way too much surrendering.

Lieste said most of what I wanted to say. Reducing max range to 300m is a good start, but the main issue is that units don't rout far enough and often get stuck in recovery. Maybe some restrictions are in order too, so you can't have hundreds of men surrender to a tiny unit...

I remember reading somewhere (yeah yeah weightless phrase, deal with it) that surrenders by individual soldiers were very risky and uncommon. Weren't the vast majority of POWs taken from organized surrenders of large units, like 6th army at Stalingrad?

BTW, I noted a few other things:
  • German machine guns don't seem to have any armor penetration. Historically they were notorious for swiss-cheesing American halftracks out to ~300m.
  • Panzerschrecks have AP and HE ammo. I thought there was only the same HEAT rocket for both roles?
  • Airstrikes have become fairly effective since CotA. Nice.
  • Intel works much better too. No more going straight from 'vague' to 'excellent'.
User avatar
Deathtreader
Posts: 1058
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:49 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada.

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by Deathtreader »

Hi ZBrisk,

Those are some very interesting observations you've made. I'll be keeping a much closer eye on routing and resupply etc. In general I too have noticed that U.S. armour seems way overpowered in comparison to that of the Germans. I just finished replaying Dinant -Do or Die -- this time as the Axis -- and the armour and anti-armour values for 10 to 14 Shermans were as much as half again those of 9 to 12 Panthers. Why is this?? Values were obtained at the end of the game where intel is excellent for all opforce units. I also had a co. of Shemans a take out most of a Panzerjager battalion singlehandedly when all units were in the open and on their way somewhere alse but I didn't think that a Sherman's 75mm tank gun would be that lethal vs a mix of Jagdpanzers and Jagdpanthers in a more or less head on collision type of engagement.
Perhaps the Shermans values are too high?? I don't know what the answer is............ they just seem too uber to me.

Rob.[:)]
So we're at war with the Russkies eh?? I suppose we really ought to invade or something. (Lonnnng pause while studying the map)
Hmmmm... big place ain't it??
- Sir Harry Flashman (1854)
gabeeg
Posts: 292
Joined: Wed Nov 18, 2009 9:20 pm

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by gabeeg »

ZBrisk,
&nbsp;
&nbsp;&nbsp; Those are some excellent and clear explanations.&nbsp; Thanks for posting them up for us users and fans of BftB.&nbsp; Hopefully this will assist the Panther team in making improvements to this great game.
Kind Regards,

Harry
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by Lieste »

The Shermans are a mix of Jumbo, 76(w), 75 and 105mm. This means an effective parity with Panthers, and some trouble still for Tiger II units (as Jumbo are (cough) optimistic).

They are all equipped with 50 cal AAMG, which is what accounts for the high AArm values... for tank v tank fighting this is irrelevant, except at very close ranges where he can suppress the axis faster.

Equally the British 'Shermans' are a mix of Firefly VC and Sherman 75mm, and Cromwells are a mix of Challenger and Cromwell IV vehicles.

Numbers play a big role too - Shermans tend to hang about in Regt strength - around 50 assorted vehicles, while Germans are lucky to get more than a few companies in the same place.. say 30 vehicles at most... this opens up flanking opportunities and the short life of the German vehicles.

With Light armour, the high recon value makes short range ambushes problematic - even in woods or BUA I was having to survive retreat/rout checks before having PzFaust in range. Tanks, proper, are much more likely to succumb if unescorted.
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by Lieste »

Some very odd decisions by the AI - a force containing two platoons of infantry, a 'specialist AT platoon' with 'modern' RPG7 class weapons and HQ was 'bumped' by a company of Shermans - a brief exchange of fire, one WIA/KIA in the AT platoon, and two dead Shermans - both forces rout out of sight.

No further losses to either side from immediate routing, and the AT is seen to enter retreat recovery, morale slightly down on starting value but still 'high' on both sides.

A minute or two later the AT platoon is reported as destroyed (disbanded), but no other units had taken losses needing these 'replacements' and the AT firepower and range of this was about double that of the line Companies.

The next sortie by the Armour saw it rout about 200 m away from the infantry on contact (no firing) and all the remaining vehicles were lost just sitting in plain sight.

The original aim, to expend 'only' the PzFaust and PzSchreck AP from the modified Grenadiers, or to see if the previously unresponsive RPG7 resupply would function both foiled...
User avatar
Arjuna
Posts: 17768
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Canberra, Australia
Contact:

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by Arjuna »

ZBrisk,

Thanks for taking the time and effort to post your observations.

I have chacked the code again. A few preliminary comments.

Re your first example. A whole company of the British 4 Para Bde surrendered to German AT guns that were 700m away from it. It was in the middle of a open field and realised that it would be slaughtered by the long range guns. Looks very similar to the situation in your first example, only the boot is on the other foot.

Re second Example. Again that mortar unit would be within the range after allowing fwd edges. However, it would only surrender if the enemy was visible. Note that the enemy unit is on a hill and would be able top see over much of the woods. Perhaps you could use the LOS tool and draw it directly onto the mortar unit. If this still does not indicate a valid LOS, then send me a saved game.

Re third Example. Enemy retreating and routing units are ignored. Your second example occurs because of the non routing German unit to the east. Remember that the current 500m range is from fwd edge to fwd edge, so could be on average 800m centre to centre.

Re fourth example. Yes there are many, nay heaps of accounts of tank crew abandoning their AFVs just before, during and after an airstrike. Remember this relative to the aircraft they are virtually stationery and few AFVs top armour could withstand 20 or 30mm cannon fire. So it's no surprise that panic sets in and the guys flee.

Re panzerfaust effectiveness and/or Sherman invincibility. I'll look into this. Can you please email me your saves for these examples, in particular the one with the inf units surrounding the enemy armoured unit. Thanks.

Re resupply talking hours. Well yes it does. In fact from the example the despatch was very quick, some 16 minutes after the request. The issue is obviously with the supply run itself. I would need save taken before the request to check out why. It may be that it has deemed it too hostile and is returning to base or has been destroyed en route.

Once again thanks for the feedback.[:)]


Dave "Arjuna" O'Connor
www.panthergames.com
Lieste
Posts: 1823
Joined: Sat Nov 01, 2008 10:50 am

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by Lieste »

re the PzFaust/PzSchreck thing - it is possible that they had previously expended them and had not replaced them during resupply.

It might only be that they were assumed to be there prior to the attack? I'm seeing no resupply to Grenadier Companies which have the PzSchreck on Estab.
ZBrisk
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun May 16, 2010 12:33 am

RE: Too much surrendering and ammo loss?

Post by ZBrisk »

Examples 1 & 4: Agreed. But...
Lemme restate that my problem with surrendering isn't so much about distance. It's that units are just too vulnerable to surrendering in rout recovery. One of the examples in my last post shows how I exploited this to make a Sherman company surrender long after they got airstriked (airstruck?). Same thing happened here.

Some tank crews bailing out in the immediate aftermath of an aistrike makes sense, but the whole company surrendering to just any enemy unit that wanders by an hour later doesn't. Same goes for any type of unit. Sure, routed units should surrender if they're pinned down and hopeless like that 4th Para example you mentioned, but I see units stuck in rout recovery surrendering even when they're not being fired on. This seems to be the main thing inflating surrender rates in BFTB.

Example 2: LoS doesn't seem to reach it at time of surrender. Will send.
Example 3: Not sure about LoS here. I take it that the unit footprints count? Then yes.

Re resupply:
Do you mean the Hetzers not recieving AP shells or the refueling? If the former, they did get resupplied quickly, just not with AP for some reason.

If the latter, I haven't seen 'refueling' in these games before, so I didn't realize it meant "fuel on the way". I was just annoyed that those Hetzers decided to stop there a few hours before the battle ended. Is it gamey to exit an ineffective unit? Maybe, but the scenario objectives work that way.

Also, I was wrong about the Hetzers. Turns out they started with 15 instead of 60 AP shells before fighting those Shermans. Still, you'd think they could kill at least one...
Post Reply

Return to “Command Ops Series”