Retreating is Very Difficult

[byzantine1990]

I had a situation today where two infantry platoons were defending in a forest and I wanted to pull them back. I give the order to move and they get destroyed in one turn because they are saddled with the "move" stance/debuff(seems like they take triple damage). Instead, I just kept the units on hold and they survived for 4-5 turns.

It seems like under this system I should never retreat any units that are spotted by an enemy because they will have the "move" debuff from issued order to actual movement (which can be a very long time).

Am I missing something?

[Huskalator]

Agree. Also I always have my units SOP on relocate "never" because they always get into big trouble when relocating. They take weird paths that often get them into more trouble or like you said just get destroyed. I'd rather have them stand and fight or drive on out of trouble.

I think there should be a special movement stance, especially for recon units, that represents breaking contact that protects those units from getting wrecked like if they were driving like onto an objective.

[actrade]

Agree 100%. I have no idea how the relocate function works under the hood, but I have units that are set to "relocate when" only after taking losses that relocate after wiping out an enemy unit with no losses, then relocating anyway from a very strong position. No idea why.

[byzantine1990]

I was hoping that it was user error.

It would be cool if there was IF/THEN commands. If this unit takes direct fire it will scoot to this position etc.

[WildCatNL]

Relocating (called Scooting in the game) is a tough one to get right, especially given the delay between the decision to exit the hex to 'somewhere better', and the time the movement to 'somewhere better' starts. (That delay is actually shorter than a normal orders transition from Hold/Screen to Movevement, but still a delay). The actual scoot to "somewhere better" might turn out not be to a better place if the enemy closes in rapidly.

Feel free to post screen shots of "bad calls" (and screen shots of what you consider "good calls"). What we'll need in those screen shots is the active SOP for the unit doing the scoot, and nearby units (including its HQ) and nearby threats in view. It will help us to improve the game.

One tip wrt relocations: also pay attention to the stand-off range. You can use the stand-off range to make the unit start the scoot when threats are still at a significant distance, improving your odds of mounting up the dismounts and moving out of the hex without being at a disadvantage.
Second, the stand-off range also is a trigger for a scoot.

William

[cbelva]

If you try to retreat in the face of the enemy, you will get hit hard. It is best to retreat before the enemy can bring the full weight of their fire on you. If you do have to pull out, you better use lots of smoke and fire on the enemy while you are moving back. This was true in Red Storm and is true in Southern Storm.

[byzantine1990]

Relocating (called Scooting in the game) is a tough one to get right, especially given the delay between the decision to exit the hex to 'somewhere better', and the time the movement to 'somewhere better' starts. (That delay is actually shorter than a normal orders transition from Hold/Screen to Movevement, but still a delay). The actual scoot to "somewhere better" might turn out not be to a better place if the enemy closes in rapidly.

Feel free to post screen shots of "bad calls" (and screen shots of what you consider "good calls"). What we'll need in those screen shots is the active SOP for the unit doing the scoot, and nearby units (including its HQ) and nearby threats in view. It will help us to improve the game.

One tip wrt relocations: also pay attention to the stand-off range. You can use the stand-off range to make the unit start the scoot when threats are still at a significant distance, improving your odds of mounting up the dismounts and moving out of the hex without being at a disadvantage.
Second, the stand-off range also is a trigger for a scoot.

William

Thank you for your reply. May I ask what is the reasoning for giving units the "Move" stance during the delay from order to movement? Does this represent units getting out of their defensive positions to prepare for movement? Just seems a bit ridiculous when the order delay can be close to 30 minutes.

[WABAC]

I didn't expect retreat to be any easier in the new system than it was in the old system.

I seldom send non-recon units anywhere without the expectation of losing them. But if I want to try and get them out, then smoke, and more smoke.

Follow William's advice on standoff for the recon. And don't put the recon on hold.

But be careful with units you want to hold something. They'll bugger out at the worst possible time.

Still leaning the ins and outs of the new SOP.

[vicousvic]

In my experience there is a lot of settings you have to change from the default SOP in order to make your main line battle units do, what you want them to and you need to have them ALL changed.
An important one - besides standoff hexes, casualties accepted and the like seems tactical initiative: you have to reduce that to zero in order to have them make a stand.

All this can easily make the difference of loosing or winning a scenario in my experience and i have posted that already as way to intricate and complicate for the average player to find out. Different SOPs for different unit types being a possible solution in my view.

[WABAC]

In my experience there is a lot of settings you have to change from the default SOP in order to make your main line battle units do, what you want them to and you need to have them ALL changed.
An important one - besides standoff hexes, casualties accepted and the like seems tactical initiative: you have to reduce that to zero in order to have them make a stand.

All this can easily make the difference of loosing or winning a scenario in my experience and i have posted that already as way to intricate and complicate for the average player to find out. Different SOPs for different unit types being a possible solution in my view.

Average players of Red Storm wanted the additional complexity.

[Huskalator]

If you try to retreat in the face of the enemy, you will get hit hard. It is best to retreat before the enemy can bring the full weight of their fire on you. If you do have to pull out, you better use lots of smoke and fire on the enemy while you are moving back. This was true in Red Storm and is true in Southern Storm.

So it is optimal in 90% of all cases to set SOP to fight to death?

[byzantine1990]

If you try to retreat in the face of the enemy, you will get hit hard. It is best to retreat before the enemy can bring the full weight of their fire on you. If you do have to pull out, you better use lots of smoke and fire on the enemy while you are moving back. This was true in Red Storm and is true in Southern Storm.

So it is optimal in 90% of all cases to set SOP to fight to death?

Might be worth experimenting more. I think when you set the SOP correctly it will scoot which is better than manually retreating (which has a 5 minute lag where you are extremely vulnerable).

I think the best solution would be an If/Then order. If a scoot is triggered it moves to a place of your choosing.

[IronMikeGolf]

"I think the best solution would be an If/Then order. If a scoot is triggered it moves to a place of your choosing."

This is a thorny problem. I understand the desire to want to control at the lowest level. I spent a lot of time in command posts battalion through division watching slow trainwrecks unfold and feeling impotent. And I was not in command. I just tracked things.

How many elements can a commander stay on top of in real time? That is called Span of Control. It's 3 or 4 maneuver elements, which end up at some point in contact with the enemy and then things get very dynamic indeed. Add a couple of supporting elements on top of that (Fires and Engineers being the main ones) and that will saturate anyone. So that really means, one level down.

The other aspect is the disconnect between te map in the command post and the reality on the ground. A good example is the LOS tool. In game, the LOS tool shows you, the commander, the LOS of any unit on the map and it matches the LOS used when shooting. Our map scale is roughly akin to 1:50000 topographic scale maps, which are commonly used at brigade and lower levels. At division level, 1:100000 is usually used.

Bear with me.

A map is an approximation of the earth's surface. The larger the scale, the worse the approximation. 1:50000 is very convenient for even below company level operations. But the elevation scale is 20 meters. One meter is enough to block LOS.

To highlight this, let me tell a story. US Army units in the States go to NTC (the National Training Center at Ft Irwin, CA) on a periodic basis. Once upon a time, each battalion commander had a rotation there. It was a career make-or-break event. Once email became a common thing (meaning lower ranks than General Officers had a .gov email addy) there was quite a bit of traffic in trading IVL overlays. Now IVL means "Intervisibility Line". What's that? It is a rise in the terrain that is less than what shows p on a 1:12500 map, which is a finer granularity than tactical units use. So, what looks flat on a map actually has a break in the LOS!

Needless to say, if you know about these, there is a tactical advantage. But, the OPFOR, who lives at NTC, knows a lot of them. The call goes out to contact your buddies and te overlay grows, Because, there is tactically significant terrain that is invisible on the "map". So, can a battalion/brigade/regiment commander really tell where a platoon should scoot to? No.

And we should not give that power to a Player.

[CheerfullyInsane]

One other thing to keep in mind, especially as the NATO player, is that you are usually far better off not trying to defend objective hexes in the first place.
As others have noted, it is very difficult to withdraw from an all-out attack.
So don't stand in the direct path of the enemy. Find open-ground kill-zones along the expected line of advance, and set up positions on the flanks. As NATO you have a massive advantage in long-range duels, so if a VP location deprives you of that advantage you're better off not holding it.

"But the game is won and lost on VP locations", I hear you cry.
Yes and no.
True, in a close game, VPs can give you the victory.
But if you can break the enemy (i.e. 70% losses), most VP locations will switch to your side anyway.
So (usually) it's better to focus on killing the enemy, rather than holding ground.

First mission of the US campaign is a very good example of this. If you try to hold every VP location with your meager nine platoons of scouts, you will quite simply be overrun. But if you ignore the VP locations, and set up killing-zones your TOWs and Cobras can decimate an attack before they even get within firing range.

[cbelva]

@CheerfullyInsane, you have hit on one of the keys to success in this game. You don't have to be on top of a VL to own it at the end of the game. If you have more units closer to the VL than the enemy, it will more than likely flip to you at games end. One of the best strategies is to set up in defensive positions around a VL and set up a kill zone as you described. Use the VL to draw the enemy into your lines of fire. If you see him before he sees you, you will win most engagements.