Jump to content
Icecold

Walking is king

Recommended Posts

I've noticed in AAR vids that many people do not use walk very often.

 

Walking is a very good way not to be seen.

 

I've walked recon units and FOs to locations in full view of the enemy and reached ideal locations

without being spotted.

 

When I quick move to a building, I walk to an elevated floor and setup. Only if the enemy is very close do I become spotted and invariably not even then.

 

Also walking around leaves your troops rested and ready for assaults or fast running.

 

I don't know how many times I've seen experienced players assault a position with tired forces and have them smacked.

 

If you plan to assault, rest your men. Too many times, people are in a hurry to engage. Condition is a very important part of the game and is seemingly ignored by many.

 

Also, C&C is also ignored by many. Its very important. I see players either move their command units to dangerous positions, leading from the front. This is American Civil War stuff. Think about moving command up to a safe, close position in relation to their troops. Try not to include them in the attack.

 

If you have to move them up for observation purposes, move your troops up first, wait a bit for spotting, then if its safe, move the command up slowly to a good observation spot.

 

Just a few thoughts.

Edited by Icecold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All very good points.

 

I've generally avoided walking out of fear that units in that state are especially vulnerable to incoming fire.  Not really sure if that was a feature from CM x1 edition games, or, really, if it was ever true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about the C2 stuff. My Ukranian soldiers become rattled as soon as they lose a man and broken when they lose more. I was wondering if it's because of their ''lower'' quality or my officers being too far away. I'll have to check it out. 

You sure make good points. In black sea I think the best word to describe the way you should be playing is ''slowly''. As soon as I become impatient and rush a bit I start to lose a lot of men, but everytime I take my time and play carefully everything goes well.

I'll look into the fatigue and the ability to assault.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The alternative to 'walking' is 'assaulting' across unnecessarily great distances. The perfect way to split your squads at the most inconvenient times, and rapidly tire your men while covering ground no more quickly than a walking pace would have.  ;)  :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Move for infantry and Slow for vehicles are underutilized modes. The faster you go the less you spot and they more likely you are to get spotted. The CM1 series had the useful Move to Contact option. But the current Move still has its uses,.especially for forming up tanks when time isn't pressing. In the earlier CMs vehicles raised dust that was visible to the enemy. One assumes that's now abstracted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Move for infantry and Slow for vehicles are underutilized modes. The faster you go the less you spot and they more likely you are to get spotted. The CM1 series had the useful Move to Contact option. But the current Move still has its uses,.especially for forming up tanks when time isn't pressing. In the earlier CMs vehicles raised dust that was visible to the enemy. One assumes that's now abstracted.

 

Yes, I agree.

I find the 'hunt' command frustrating. Vehicles and infantry stop, sometimes not where

you want them to be. I've noticed no improvements in my casualties whether walking or

hunting infantry, though it is useful for vehicles if you already know where an enemy

is. With hunting infantry, I'd like to see 'hunt' automatically turn into 'evade' to

best cover IF they take casualties. That would tend to be more realistic, at least for

good quality troops.

Considering that hunting is tiring, move becomes more favorable for infantry.

Edited by Icecold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, I've mowed down entire platoons of troops (an entire company, in one case, and yes, it was HvH) that were "Move"-ing when I first spotted them, either by close ambush or long range tank fire, or even mortars, when the opponent Moves across large areas of open ground in places I can get eyes, but not DF HE or MGs to bear, so I would strongly contest that it gives any significant concealment advantage in the open. And the ambushes were often only possible because I Quicked my troops to the cover and got there before the Move-ing enemy did. To misquote Jeb Stuart: "Git thar fustest with the mostest."

I'll have to test whether it's a satisfactory replacement for Slow in urban combat.

The parameters vary, with terrain steepness and troops loads (so might change in favour of Move a bit in BS, with the body armour and munitions loads the boys are expected to tote), but in general, on non-mountainous terrain, Quick will get you where you want to go and back to Rested once you get there faster than Move-ing there. If someone's troops are caught needing to Fast and being unable to because they're Tired, they wouldn't have been there at all if they'd Moved to get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aah... How terrible typos and grammar errors I've made in my previous post. I wrote it before my first cup of coffee, I think...

Didn't notice. lol

 

On the other hand, I've mowed down entire platoons of troops (an entire company, in one case, and yes, it was HvH) that were "Move"-ing when I first spotted them, either by close ambush or long range tank fire, or even mortars, when the opponent Moves across large areas of open ground in places I can get eyes, but not DF HE or MGs to bear, so I would strongly contest that it gives any significant concealment advantage in the open. And the ambushes were often only possible because I Quicked my troops to the cover and got there before the Move-ing enemy did. To misquote Jeb Stuart: "Git thar fustest with the mostest."

I'll have to test whether it's a satisfactory replacement for Slow in urban combat.

The parameters vary, with terrain steepness and troops loads (so might change in favour of Move a bit in BS, with the body armour and munitions loads the boys are expected to tote), but in general, on non-mountainous terrain, Quick will get you where you want to go and back to Rested once you get there faster than Move-ing there. If someone's troops are caught needing to Fast and being unable to because they're Tired, they wouldn't have been there at all if they'd Moved to get there.

 

As I recall, Jeb Stuart was on the losing side, and was often not there when he was needed most!

 

Yes, and I've mowed down entire platoons moving quickly, they didn't see it comin' :;

 

I was specifically talking about the AI opponent and not on a windy dirt track in scrub in close ambush. In that case, I used split off scouts or scouts. But

 

it works if your a hundred + metres away.and its the AI and the units are small i.e., recon or FOs. I wouldn't try it with a platoon!!!

 

Horses for courses???

Edited by Icecold

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There used to be a Hunt and Move to Contact command in CM1.  Hunt would stop, fire until to target, and then keep moving.  Move to Contact acted like Hunt does today.  There was significant call for these commands to be put into CM2.  Never happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't notice. lol

As I recall, Jeb Stuart was on the losing side, and was often not there when he was needed most!

Yes, and I've mowed down entire platoons moving quickly, they didn't see it comin' :;

I was specifically talking about the AI opponent and not on a windy dirt track in scrub in close ambush. In that case, I used split off scouts or scouts. But

it works if your a hundred + metres away.and its the AI and the units are small i.e., recon or FOs. I wouldn't try it with a platoon!!!

Horses for courses???

This is one instance where you do have to be really clear regarding play mode. Fighting the AI is a terrible way to learn how to fight a human opponent. It teaches you all the wrong things. Edited by sburke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aah... How terrible typos and grammar errors I've made in my previous post. I wrote it before my first cup of coffee, I think...

 

On the old boards you had a grace period- a minute or so- to correct these things before getting hit with the 'Edited' tag. The current system is so.... unfair. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really doesn't make any difference, IME. I've spotted human- and AI-controlled troops walking at very long range. The AI will spot your troops just as well as if a human was driving. It just might not fire on them. And can you explain how "not having any troops in a position to take advantage of the enemy's sloth" is better than "having some tired troops available to shoot the slowpokes, pin them or make them use Fast so they're Tired too"? Just because someone was a poor exponent of the principles he espoused doesn't invalidate the principle.

Have you run extensive tests to show that Move-speed troops are harder to spot in identical circumstances than Quick-moving troops? Cuz my experience is that they're upright, moving and therefore just as visible.

I'm not saying that Quick-moving troops are much more likely to survive an ambush, just that they're less likely to be in a useful position in time. If it takes 10 minutes of Move to get somewhere, troops that move at Quick will have been recovered to Rested for a couple of minutes or so by the time their Moveing comrades catch up and will be two minutes into getting a good picture of what they can see from their established positions. In that two minutes, they could have moved on, or started the firefight you were setting up, if the opportunity arose. The marchers couldn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In real life, leaders below about brigade who don't want to be fragged lead from the front.

 

lol wat?

 

 

Move for infantry and Slow for vehicles are underutilized modes. The faster you go the less you spot and they more likely you are to get spotted. The CM1 series had the useful Move to Contact option. But the current Move still has its uses,.especially for forming up tanks when time isn't pressing. In the earlier CMs vehicles raised dust that was visible to the enemy. One assumes that's now abstracted.

 

The vehicles still raise dust, I don't know if it counts for spotting purposes or indeed, if the AI even reacts to the ? contact marks moving around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To the best of my knowledge the dust raised by vehicles is no longer visible to the enemy. Unlike CM1.

 

It's visible if they have eyes on the location. Otherwise, no. And all that make sense. What's odd (though it was explained why it has to be that way for now) is that not only can a player see when a fence or hedge gets knocked down anywhere on the map, he can also hear it being crunched!

 

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About mistyping, isn't there a greyed-out 'edit' command that magically appears when you pass your cursor over it next to the lower right buttons if its your post?

 

Let me check...

 

[Edit] - I've got an edit button at least!

Edited by MikeyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's hard to know if it makes much difference. Infantry surviveability in CMBS and CMBN (less so CMSF) is down to seeing and shooting first. Even modest resistance (a single man...) can rip platoons up if they are caught on the hop, and that happens whether they're moving quickly or not. 

 

Scouts change a lot of this in CMBS. Use them everywhere; they're usually plentiful and their spotting is outstanding. If they stumble on a unit while moving they'll take a beating anyway. 

 

I have few complaints about CMBS/BN but I wish troop's reaction to fire was just a little more aggressive in terms of quickly executing a get-out-of-dodge drill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great discussion. The source of the quote wasn't "Jeb" Stuart, but LTG, CSA Nathan Bedford Forrest, cavalry commander extraordinaire who started as an enlisted man. But even the quote is wrong, as I just learned. 

 

"Forrest is often erroneously quoted as saying his strategy was to "git thar fustest with the mostest." Now often recast as "Getting there firstest with the mostest,"[45] this misquote first appeared in print in a New York Tribune article written to provide colorful comments in reaction to European interest in Civil War generals. The aphorism was addressed and corrected by aNew York Times story in 1918 to be: "Ma'am, I got there first with the most men."[46] Though a novel and succinct condensation of the military principles of mass and maneuver, Bruce Catton writes:

Do not, under any circumstances whatever, quote Forrest as saying 'fustest' and 'mostest'. He did not say it that way, and nobody who knows anything about him imagines that he did.
"

 

Regards,

 

John Kettler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great discussion. The source of the quote wasn't "Jeb" Stuart, but LTG, CSA Nathan Bedford Forrest...

[snip]

Ah, thanks for correcting my misattribution. I remembered the bit about the language having been "parochialised", but not the man who said it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really doesn't make any difference, IME. I've spotted human- and AI-controlled troops walking at very long range. The AI will spot your troops just as well as if a human was driving. It just might not fire on them. And can you explain how "not having any troops in a position to take advantage of the enemy's sloth" is better than "having some tired troops available to shoot the slowpokes, pin them or make them use Fast so they're Tired too"? Just because someone was a poor exponent of the principles he espoused doesn't invalidate the principle.

Have you run extensive tests to show that Move-speed troops are harder to spot in identical circumstances than Quick-moving troops? Cuz my experience is that they're upright, moving and therefore just as visible.

I'm not saying that Quick-moving troops are much more likely to survive an ambush, just that they're less likely to be in a useful position in time. If it takes 10 minutes of Move to get somewhere, troops that move at Quick will have been recovered to Rested for a couple of minutes or so by the time their Moveing comrades catch up and will be two minutes into getting a good picture of what they can see from their established positions. In that two minutes, they could have moved on, or started the firefight you were setting up, if the opportunity arose. The marchers couldn't.

 

Impressive post, Womble. And I don't mean the content but the feat of composing- in this tiny font- three paragraphs with zero grammatical errors and only one misspelling ('moveing') which you manfully didn't stoop to correct and thus incur the cursed 'edited' tag. Bravo, buddy.

 

Edit: Damn. There's only one 't' in 'grammatical'. ;)

Jeez...

 

2nd Edit: Softened '****!' to 'damn'.

Sorry, moderators...

Edited by Childress

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...