Infantry movement

[VladimirTarasov]

Been playing CMBS with addiction, Great game overall. I have to say about something that doesn't have to be in the game but would be a great extra. When I was serving in the army, We would run with heavy gear in training, Usually with 30-40 KGs for about 2-3KM sometimes more, Over time we would get use to it and be able to do it. But I am seeing soldiers in the game get tired after a short run. Sure you can say where I served was a elite but it definitely isn't special forces. 

 

Other things I am a bit edgy on is the infantry being so packed up together while moving, Of course these aren't huge problems I am still quite satisfied with this game. But these are just small adjustments that would make this game better. Also another problem is usually when I am playing with Ukrainian and Russian infantry they have to shoot alot to hit a target at even 70 meters, Where as in our training basic shooting was at a way higher standard. But I usually dont have accuracy problems with US troops, In-game. 

[sburke]

when you say run, what exactly do you mean?  My perspective on run (admittedly based on ASL game movement options) is a full out dash - an attempt to get across a street without getting shot.  I run a few times a week for around 4 miles each time.  I am betting at a full out dash, I'd be lucky to last halfway around the block- without carrying anything.

[RockinHarry]

I´d assume "run" would be the "quick" movement ingame, which is sort of jogging, as opposed to "fast", which is run as fast as you can short distances. No idea, if "fit" elite units ingame tire less at longer ranges, as regulars and fit. Weak and unfit goes the other way round.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Just some guesses:

1. Running in kit is different from moving tactically in kit.  I've done a fair share of running in "battle rattle" but most training events of that sort are conducted on surfaces conducive to supporting a guy running, vs assaulting across "off road." I had a platoon of quite in shape scouts when I went to NTC (we accomplished several 2 KM+ runs, and had done assault course type PT), and even with fairly moderate loads (weapon, body armor with only front/back plates, water source), they were about done assaulting up a fairly small hill.  Same deal with moving in MOUT, it's a lot of going over and around stuff at rapid pace, wearing gear that's about as well ventilated as a plastic bag, and doing it in a lowered posture.  Also the air is absolutely full of crap (smoke, dust etc).

 

It's really not the optimal environment for human performance.  I would suggest your training was not so much to really get you to go 2-3 KM in full kit, but instead get you in reliable shape to accomplish 400-500 meter movements at a pace intended to help you build that endurance and cardio.

 

2. The tight grouping is from my understanding a limitation of the way the game manages infantry.  A wider spread would be optimal, but I'd settle for slightly boosted surviability (sort of abstracting in smarter infantry placement).

 

3. In regards to rifle marksmanship, there were some really awesome studies out of Iraq in regards to training accuracy vs actual performance.  In general it found only the very top percentile of shooters reliably hit targets at even modest ranges, while folks with the 50%-80% percentile type scores struggled to hit much of anything reliably/outside of close quarters.  Personal firearms, at least from my own conclusions are only really optimal killing weapons against exposed unaware targets, or in the close quarters type assault.

 

I would argue however in the case of US vs RU/UKR accuracy of fires, the abject proliferation of small arms optics during the day, and IR lasers at night for the US makes for at least a noticeable improvement, and is likely part of why USF tend to hit a bit more often.

[VladimirTarasov]

Just some guesses:

1. Running in kit is different from moving tactically in kit.  I've done a fair share of running in "battle rattle" but most training events of that sort are conducted on surfaces conducive to supporting a guy running, vs assaulting across "off road." I had a platoon of quite in shape scouts when I went to NTC (we accomplished several 2 KM+ runs, and had done assault course type PT), and even with fairly moderate loads (weapon, body armor with only front/back plates, water source), they were about done assaulting up a fairly small hill.  Same deal with moving in MOUT, it's a lot of going over and around stuff at rapid pace, wearing gear that's about as well ventilated as a plastic bag, and doing it in a lowered posture.  Also the air is absolutely full of crap (smoke, dust etc).

 

It's really not the optimal environment for human performance.  I would suggest your training was not so much to really get you to go 2-3 KM in full kit, but instead get you in reliable shape to accomplish 400-500 meter movements at a pace intended to help you build that endurance and cardio.

 

2. The tight grouping is from my understanding a limitation of the way the game manages infantry.  A wider spread would be optimal, but I'd settle for slightly boosted surviability (sort of abstracting in smarter infantry placement).

 

3. In regards to rifle marksmanship, there were some really awesome studies out of Iraq in regards to training accuracy vs actual performance.  In general it found only the very top percentile of shooters reliably hit targets at even modest ranges, while folks with the 50%-80% percentile type scores struggled to hit much of anything reliably/outside of close quarters.  Personal firearms, at least from my own conclusions are only really optimal killing weapons against exposed unaware targets, or in the close quarters type assault.

 

I would argue however in the case of US vs RU/UKR accuracy of fires, the abject proliferation of small arms optics during the day, and IR lasers at night for the US makes for at least a noticeable improvement, and is likely part of why USF tend to hit a bit more often.

Fair enough   But my problem with the units tiring out is that they get tired just at a run to a location without the need to you know fight the battle just get to the location. And you are right about the firing accuracy I might have over looked that fact, But there were special techniques taught to us shooting from long ranges, Usually told to pull the trigger in burst form from right leg, And the bullets would usually hit the leg up to the torso. But of course this isn't real life but a game, But I would look forward to it in future updates or future games to make infantry battle more realistic. 

[Boche]

Modern Infantry is really just too heavy. We do our share of hikes and long distance movements in full gear sure, but we dont wear any plates during training (our plates are way heavier than US ones). With (our) plates in my flak vest I wouldnt be able to acomplish much after a while, and forget about when we start assaulting an objective.

[IronCat60]

As far as the quick movement goes also consider these troops are not fresh from the barracks but have been in the field for a while. Meals consist of combat rations and sleep is on and off in shifts and usually done in less than comfortable conditions. Also stress on the body and mind from everyday duties and the unknown factors (will I get hit, will I suffer if I do, where is the enemy). All this contributes to the degradation of the soldiers performance levels. 

 

For the firearms accuracy, the AK series of rifles are designed more for volume of fire, not accuracy. This can be identified by the fact that the first position for the selector lever from safe is automatic fire. The M-16 series is designed with the opposite in mind. The first position for the selector lever from safe is semi-automatic fire. M-16 sights are aperture and post, more conductive to accurate shooting. The AK series is a notch and post, more conductive to orientation of the weapon. The AK series has a larger bolt assembly and as that mass moves back and forth it throws the balance of the weapon off. The M-16 series has a smaller bolt assembly that does not do this. When I mention AK series I mean both calibers as the overall design and internal parts are nearly identical. For the M-16 series this covers the M-4 Carbine as well, as it has the same overall design and internal parts of this series of rifles and it has the capability to be issued with iron sights that are indicative of all M-16 rifles. 

 

Now as for me, when I joined the military we were issued the M-16 (no forward assist for the bolt) and the three prong flash suppressor and "toad sticker" bayonet. By the time my career came to an end we had the M-16A2. A rugged accurate and reliable rifle and it finally had a decent bayonet. To me the M-4 Carbine is foreign and like collecting toy accessories. Collect all five hand guards! Trade 'em with your friends! See if you can be tops in the "rifle envy" contest!

 

And don't get me started on that 9mm joke of a pistol we now have. ;-)   

[womble]

Understand that "Tired" just means their legs are unable to drive them at a sprint.

 

You can spread your troops out by splitting squads, but there is a game restriction based on the Action Spot mechanic, and the effects of HE have been dialled back a little to compensate somewhat for slightly over-tight bunching.

 

Combat shooting emphatically does not equate to range shooting. In-game it's strongly affected by the Experience level of the troops involved. I would imagine that in general, in scenarios etc, the Americans have a higher median Experience level, since they're an all-volunteer professional army, whereas the Ukr and RF forces are at least partially comprised of conscripts. I'd imagine the US troops have more optics on their weapons, more commonly, too, and in poor light their vision gear is better. All of which combine to make the Americans more accurate more of the time.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

It would be nice to have a function that lets you select squad/fire team formation including an option t spread out more

[RockinHarry]

It would be nice to have a function that lets you select squad/fire team formation including an option t spread out more

Also high on my wishlist. I figured that the game handles teams of 4 soldiers max per action spot the best. Individual soldiers appear to have less pathing problems and stumble less upon their feet and such. Beside formation SOPs, it would be nice to make custom teams and not just the preselected options (AT, assault, scout and split in half). The squad leader with his binocs in german squads was normally tightly associated to the lMG gunner and directed his fire, helping with observation or overtaking the lMG personally. Now splitting a (german) squad, usually divides the squad leader and binocs from the lMG gunner, which puts him at a slight disadvantage, when it comes to engaging the enemy beyond the 300m mark (rifle range). I´d also would like to see an option for the assault command, when splitting squads is not desired, to choose the team that goes first into the assault. I oftenly see the support team with lMG go first, which too oftenly is not what I desire. So here again it would come handy, if the squad leader remains with the lMG gunner and the 2 ammunition guys and let the remaining squad assault move first.

Edited August 6, 2015 by RockinHarry

[VladimirTarasov]

As far as the quick movement goes also consider these troops are not fresh from the barracks but have been in the field for a while. Meals consist of combat rations and sleep is on and off in shifts and usually done in less than comfortable conditions. Also stress on the body and mind from everyday duties and the unknown factors (will I get hit, will I suffer if I do, where is the enemy). All this contributes to the degradation of the soldiers performance levels. 

 

For the firearms accuracy, the AK series of rifles are designed more for volume of fire, not accuracy. This can be identified by the fact that the first position for the selector lever from safe is automatic fire. The M-16 series is designed with the opposite in mind. The first position for the selector lever from safe is semi-automatic fire. M-16 sights are aperture and post, more conductive to accurate shooting. The AK series is a notch and post, more conductive to orientation of the weapon. The AK series has a larger bolt assembly and as that mass moves back and forth it throws the balance of the weapon off. The M-16 series has a smaller bolt assembly that does not do this. When I mention AK series I mean both calibers as the overall design and internal parts are nearly identical. For the M-16 series this covers the M-4 Carbine as well, as it has the same overall design and internal parts of this series of rifles and it has the capability to be issued with iron sights that are indicative of all M-16 rifles. 

 

Now as for me, when I joined the military we were issued the M-16 (no forward assist for the bolt) and the three prong flash suppressor and "toad sticker" bayonet. By the time my career came to an end we had the M-16A2. A rugged accurate and reliable rifle and it finally had a decent bayonet. To me the M-4 Carbine is foreign and like collecting toy accessories. Collect all five hand guards! Trade 'em with your friends! See if you can be tops in the "rifle envy" contest!

 

And don't get me started on that 9mm joke of a pistol we now have. ;-)   

I guess you would be right if we were talking about the standard AK-74 vs the M16A4, But for a while now Russian soldiers have been issued AK-74Ms which fix the problems you have stated of the AK, But the standard AK-74 isn't that bad either, Not as accurate in the MMs as the M16A2 but not far off either. Anyways lets not turn this into AK vs M16 war 

 

about the 9mm, I think 9mm handgun isn't a joke, Maybe you can sell it out on the battlefield somewhere and make some extra bucks 

[A Canadian Cat]

...I am seeing soldiers in the game get tired after a short run. ...

 

Lots of discussion about this so I'll just add soldiers who are Rested, Read, Tiring and Tired can all jog just fine.  So the time it takes to get to the level of "I just cannot keep running" is much longer than just Rested and Ready.

 

Other things I am a bit edgy on is the infantry being so packed up together while moving...

Some control over formations would be nice.  One thing you can do now is use several short move orders rather than one long one.  Since the squad forms up and spread out at each way point if you have a few way points along the path the teams spread out at each stop so the bunching up is restricted to members of a team.  Whereas if you have one long move order the whole squad can end up in a line after a while.

[IronCat60]

Yes Vladimir I can agree with you about not starting a AK - M-16 war. Kalashnikov was a brilliant man, I admire his work and salute the life he led. He designed a rifle that has come to be a legend in it's own right. Mozambique has a AK on their flag! No other firearm in the world has earned that status.

 

During my career I put a lot of rounds through just about every type of AK they make. And yes I agree, I was surprised by the AK-74's performance. I could maintain semi-auto fire on target even on the combat course which has variable moving targets. The overall feel of the rifle was the same yet it seemed much more manageable with the weight of the weapon being more comfortable and balanced. When they changed calibers on the AK thus reducing recoil it was a good improvement on a great rifle.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Re: Spreading Troops

 

I'd like it if the AI "read" the terrain it was crossing and figured out a good dispersal.  Given that it's effectively tile based terrain, the AI could be given cues for what sort of spread it needs for each flavor of tile.  While it wouldn't be "easy" it doesn't seem outside the capability of the current generation of programming to accomplish (assuming availability of time and resources).

 

Re: Movement of troops

 

Other folks have also added a lot of things worth noting, the troops in the mission are likely as "fresh" as someone who's been living on combat rations, sleeping in the back of an IFV on the move and likely spent all the previous day running around while being shot at.  Further again it's not "tired" in the sense they're done, it's tired in the sense that they need a breather.

 

 

 

 

Modern Infantry is really just too heavy. We do our share of hikes and long distance movements in full gear sure, but we dont wear any plates during training (our plates are way heavier than US ones). With (our) plates in my flak vest I wouldnt be able to acomplish much after a while, and forget about when we start assaulting an objective.

 

Agreed.  We still wore our front/back plates, but usually omitted the side plates and some of the add-on "soft" type armor in training for conventional conflicts.  Even at that the endurance of even very fit infantry guys is pretty short, and it's practically non-existent in chemical weapons protective posture.  

 

It's not that they can't RUN it's that they can't run with 60-80+ lbs of kit over bad terrain.  The ROKA dudes we trained with handled it much better, but their average soldier only carried a personal weapon, helmet, 3-4 magazines (I think the small magazine count was because that was the ammo they were issued for the lane vs a combat thing) and their uniform (they'd also have been in a world of suck in a firefight as far as injuries go though).  

 

Re: Gats

 

The standard method of engagement at long-medium range for the US is simply to aim center mass and fire individual aimed shots.  The short range is what we call "controlled pairs" (semi-auto two shots) also fired center of mass.  Firing at legs and letting the muzzle ride walk targets on is cool, but in practice spotting that much of an enemy infantryman is rare (common in veterans accounts is never seeing a "live" enemy.  It's not for lack of contact, but often the firing is at muzzle flashes, vague outlines or movement, so seeing a full color toe to head enemy soldier is usually not accomplished while he's alive), so aiming for the middle of the largest part of what you can see is optimal. 

 

In terms of rifle sights, "iron" sights are not frequently employed in US use.  They're trained on and nearly all rifles have them equipped, however the M68 CCO is effectively standard for all troops at this point.  The big difference with it is that once properly zeroed you don't have to align the rear and front sight elements, you just get the red dot onto the target and go (the reflected aim point is "zeroed" to the bore of the rifle, so it'll move based on how you view the optic, but will continue to reflect the point of aim).  

 

The ACOG style optics are also very common in infantry units.  They're not issued at a 1:1 ratio, and your mileage varies (some units may have nearly 80-90%, while others might only have them issued to their DRM), but they're certainly not rare.

 

These are both marked improvements over firing with iron sights though, while to me is why it's irrelevant if the US troops were operating the M-74A1 (invented by Mike Kalasheson) and the Russians using the AK-16M (designed by Eugen Stonerikov), the difference is more in the sighting tools and the employment of the weapons system, than the bullet launcher itself.

 

In terms of M4s and their accessories, the common widgets mounted on a US Army platform are:

 

1. Optic (M68, ACOG, and we're allowed to mount our own optics)

2. PEQ-15 (Laser, mostly used to allow night firing)

 

And that's about it.  Forward grips are not uncommon (I had one that flicked out into a bipod.  I never used it for shooting, but it was handy to let you set the rifle down without getting it in the dust), and some units really liked having flashlights in Iraq (in an urban fight the ambient light often made NODs less helpful, but having a light to flick on before entering a dark house was useful).  You had "geardos" in most units that would buy all the various widgets to tack onto their weapon (my favorite being an ACOG with a baby red dot optic on top of it) but the common M4 in service use isn't tarted up much.  I like the M16 more than the M4, but it's simply because the M16's fixed buttstock better fits my body structure than the M4 does.  On the other hand the M4 was a lot handier going through the cramped confines of Iraqi houses, or if you're crammed like spam in the back of an MRAP/M2 or whatever.

 

In regards to pistols, part of the reason the M4's rate of issue exploded was it became apparent just how limited a pistol was in terms of actual utility.  Regardless of M1911 or M9, they are more or less the knife at a gun fight if the enemy has anything more than a pistol themselves.  They're still highly sought after downrange as they're easier to manage (you must have a weapon and magazine on you at all times, so it's easier to go get lunch with your M9 than your M4), and I preferred to qualify on my M9 vs a rifle post-Iraq because a pistol range is pretty easy to get through in a hurry, while a rifle range is usually most of your work day (and the novelty of firing an assault rifle wears off after the first 200-300 rounds).

[Vinnart]

I don't recommend using FAST much unless it short distances, and they must go at a full sprint. I hardly ever have guys in the "yellow" or "Red" in fitness status.

Here are the differences, and some suggestion to keep troops fresh. All of this is in the manual with my own takes on it from experience.

 

FAST: Full out sprint. Even without heavy load one would be winded going balls out for 50-100m. Imagine one in a 50m race, and that is the speed. Troops usually will not stop to fire on FAST. Use ONLY when ABSOLUTELY necessary, like running across a street, or any short open area they must cross. Spotting is poor. Energy expenditure is rapid.

 

QUICK: This is Jogging pace run like is done in standard PT. This, fit troops can sustain much longer and is the speed all soldiers have trained in full gear in running exercises at times. (Even more fun in full MOP4 gear ). Even with this running speed one will tire with heavy load if done too long. A good thing to do is have more way points with a few second rest, then move on, but always try to time these stops in cover when possible. QUICK should be used much more than FAST. Troops will stop and fire periodically at closer ranges, so if you want this quick is good, but if you do not want them to stop at all like crossing a street give FAST instead. Spotting is better than FAST.

 

MOVE: Walking speed. Use when ever possible. This seems to give the AI the most flexibility to make its own decision as units will often switch to a different speed on their own depending on conditions. Units spot better than QUICK, and this will conserve the most energy.

 

HUNT: Walking speed, but at a higher state of alertness. Units crouch in a more stealthy posture, head on a swivel. As we all know the unit will stop when contact is made. Do not use this if you do not want the unit to possibly stop. Units spot better than MOVE, but the higher alert state uses more energy than MOVE so give pause breaks if they need to go a long distance, or tough terrain.

 

SLOW: Low crawl speed. Best concealment, but poorest spotting. About the same in tiring a troop as FAST so it should be done short distances and with lots or rests waypoints with pause if they need to go some distance. Of all the movements this is the only one that seems it tires units too quickly especially at some shorter distances in my opinion, but it has been about 25 yrs since I last low crawled so I don't remember how fatiguing it was. 

 

Another good thing is: If a unit can be transported for any distance moves do it. It saves energy.

 

ENERGY: It is amazing how all combat has the same principles, whether it is with guns, or it is hand to hand. When i used to train Brazilian Jujitsu the instructor would always stress conserving energy while having your opponent expend his. Conserve energy as much as you can and use it in spurts or you won't be able to go the distance. Every time i would try to out muscle my opponent and not follow this advice I would run out of gas, and mean total body complete exhaustion. I have never done anything so physically exhausting than a Jujitsu match against a good opponent except a few times with the military. The principles of energy are universal even in CM

Edited August 6, 2015 by Vinnart

[VladimirTarasov]

 Panzersaurkrautwerfer, Center mass aiming is of course standard training, But they found from experiences in Chechnya and Afghanistan, Burst shooting like that if it doesn't hit him it will make him run for cover, And it is of course better to hit the target with multiple rounds. But shooting single fire is also a effective firing for long range too, Actually I would prefer the single fire over it but depending on certain situations using the recoil to get multiple hits would come in handy.

 

 

Yes Vladimir I can agree with you about not starting a AK - M-16 war. Kalashnikov was a brilliant man, I admire his work and salute the life he led. He designed a rifle that has come to be a legend in it's own right. Mozambique has a AK on their flag! No other firearm in the world has earned that status.

 

During my career I put a lot of rounds through just about every type of AK they make. And yes I agree, I was surprised by the AK-74's performance. I could maintain semi-auto fire on target even on the combat course which has variable moving targets. The overall feel of the rifle was the same yet it seemed much more manageable with the weight of the weapon being more comfortable and balanced. When they changed calibers on the AK thus reducing recoil it was a good improvement on a great rifle.

 

Thanks for sharing your experience, We had a M4 in our storage, I think it was taken from the Georgian military, I didn't get to shoot it but I liked the overall sleek design of it. 

Edited August 6, 2015 by VladimirTarasov

[Red Rage]

I think that adding a feature of stacking and saturating buildings with grenades prior to breaching when using "Assault", regardless of any level of contact ID, will improve infantry movement/combat significantly. Atm, breaching is like rolling the dice with anything but elite US squads (which are capable of instantly suppressing with insane concentrated firepower even if fired upon first at any range), instead of a fairly logical and methodical activity that it actually is. The only way to currently conduct FIBUA with minimal casualties is to have armor pound a structure until one of the walls collapses, then pound it some more and then move the infantry in, which is not always viable on busy city maps due to time limits (plus the loaded-to--the-brim-with-ammo infantry hardly gets any work beyond occupying). 

 

"Attach" command would be freaking cool as well - i.e., "attached" squad stacks up behind armor using it a shield while the vehicle matches the speed of the infantry. Both becoming "one" synced unit, with movement orders done through infantry and fire orders done individually. If armor gets smoked, then your infantry does't turn into BBQ and still have a nice bit of protection to survive the initial contact. Basically an automated coordination feature. 

Edited August 7, 2015 by Red Rage

[womble]

Some contrarain opinions on Vinnart's analysis:

 

Move: unless your troops are either massively overloaded or working in really difficult terrain, don't use this movement mode. By the time Move-ing troops have arrived at their destination, an element sent the same route at Quick will have recovered to Rested and moved on. So they'll have spent a while static, observing and being able to lay down fire if that was the intention at the destination, in other words, they reach "useful" positions more quickly, and their fatigue state won't hinder their operations there. If you're trying to avoid "Tired", Quick with recovery breaks so the troops never get into Tired is still faster than Slow. Except, so far, in Italy.

 

Slow movement doesn't have the worst spotting. That's Fast. Slow troops actually have excellent situational awareness. Their ability to see far is often compromised by their posture, since terrain that blocks sight from prone is more common than that which blocks sight from kneeling or standing, but within the distance they can draw LOS, they will spot and stop to engage more readily than Move, Quick or Fast; I find it like a low-profile Hunt without the "flinching at shadows" .

 

A top tip for Hunt is to give the Hunting element a Target Arc which only covers the area and/or target type they're interested in hunting in. They will not (generally; self-preservation, as always, can trump) halt simply for spotting enemy that are not included in the arc that they've permission to fire in. So you can have a tank Hunt for armour by giving it a "whole map" Armour TA, and it won't stop its Hunt just for infantry contacts, or you can give a house-clearing team an ordinary TA that just covers the house they're entering, and they won't stop just for spotting the tank way over yonder that's much more interested in the armour duel. All such units will still stop for incoming fire (it having right of way, an' all) no matter its source.

 

Assault, Vinnart didn't address:

 

Assault is a badly named movement mode. It should be called "Bounding" or something, because it has little or nothing to do with what players generally conceive "Assault" to mean. It is a very, very long way from being an "automated position-taking" movement mode. It just moves the teams of the squad via bounding overwatch with one moving team at a time. It is, essentially, a shortcut to reduce micromanagement, most useful in RealTime games. Using it on its own to assault into a defended building is a mistake, if only because you'll end up with the entire squad sardined into a space that's too small for it.

 

 

I think that adding a feature of stacking and saturating buildings with grenades prior to breaching when using "Assault", regardless of any level of contact ID, will improve infantry movement/combat significantly. Atm, breaching is like rolling the dice with anything but elite US squads (which are capable of instantly suppressing with insane concentrated firepower even if fired upon first at any range), instead of a fairly logical and methodical activity that it actually is. The only way to currently conduct FIBUA with minimal casualties is to have armor pound a structure until one of the walls collapses, then pound it some more and then move the infantry in, which is not always viable on busy city maps due to time limits (plus the loaded-to--the-brim-with-ammo infantry hardly gets any work beyond occupying). 

As I allude to above, Assault is not an optimal way of getting into a defended building. To do what you want, you have to split your squads and manage the area target assignments of the fire support element and the actual assaulting element. The level of automation you're asking for is way beyond what the TacAI will ever do for you. There are additional factors that you need to consider when entering buildings that are way beyond the scope of what the TacAI can handle: what if there are troops on an upper storey? what fire will be brought to bear on your troops when they enter the building, from buildings that are beyond your target? Dynamic entry has been dealt with in many threads; there's a classic in the Shock Force tactics subforum. "Assaulting a building Fast and Agile", I believe it's titled.

[Red Rage]

Some contrarain opinions on Vinnart's analysis:

 

Move: unless your troops are either massively overloaded or working in really difficult terrain, don't use this movement mode. By the time Move-ing troops have arrived at their destination, an element sent the same route at Quick will have recovered to Rested and moved on. So they'll have spent a while static, observing and being able to lay down fire if that was the intention at the destination, in other words, they reach "useful" positions more quickly, and their fatigue state won't hinder their operations there. If you're trying to avoid "Tired", Quick with recovery breaks so the troops never get into Tired is still faster than Slow. Except, so far, in Italy.

 

Slow movement doesn't have the worst spotting. That's Fast. Slow troops actually have excellent situational awareness. Their ability to see far is often compromised by their posture, since terrain that blocks sight from prone is more common than that which blocks sight from kneeling or standing, but within the distance they can draw LOS, they will spot and stop to engage more readily than Move, Quick or Fast; I find it like a low-profile Hunt without the "flinching at shadows" .

 

A top tip for Hunt is to give the Hunting element a Target Arc which only covers the area and/or target type they're interested in hunting in. They will not (generally; self-preservation, as always, can trump) halt simply for spotting enemy that are not included in the arc that they've permission to fire in. So you can have a tank Hunt for armour by giving it a "whole map" Armour TA, and it won't stop its Hunt just for infantry contacts, or you can give a house-clearing team an ordinary TA that just covers the house they're entering, and they won't stop just for spotting the tank way over yonder that's much more interested in the armour duel. All such units will still stop for incoming fire (it having right of way, an' all) no matter its source.

 

Assault, Vinnart didn't address:

 

Assault is a badly named movement mode. It should be called "Bounding" or something, because it has little or nothing to do with what players generally conceive "Assault" to mean. It is a very, very long way from being an "automated position-taking" movement mode. It just moves the teams of the squad via bounding overwatch with one moving team at a time. It is, essentially, a shortcut to reduce micromanagement, most useful in RealTime games. Using it on its own to assault into a defended building is a mistake, if only because you'll end up with the entire squad sardined into a space that's too small for it.

 

 

As I allude to above, Assault is not an optimal way of getting into a defended building. To do what you want, you have to split your squads and manage the area target assignments of the fire support element and the actual assaulting element. The level of automation you're asking for is way beyond what the TacAI will ever do for you. There are additional factors that you need to consider when entering buildings that are way beyond the scope of what the TacAI can handle: what if there are troops on an upper storey? what fire will be brought to bear on your troops when they enter the building, from buildings that are beyond your target? Dynamic entry has been dealt with in many threads; there's a classic in the Shock Force tactics subforum. "Assaulting a building Fast and Agile", I believe it's titled.

It's a bit of a micro hell with squad splitting. It's still next to impossible to do a clean entry when the defenders are not completely IDed, suppressed and 70% of them are KIA. 1 or 2 guys would be lost for sure with every building. It's less of an issue with BS due to tactical parity, where huge casualty rates for both sides are plausible, but fighting durka durkas in Shock Force it drove me absolutely nuts. 

 

I'm not asking Tac AI to " think" here or keep situational awareness. Just a mechanical SOP to go crazy with grenades prior to entering the level that they are ordered  to breach, without  the need of issuing a separate "Area fire" command (which is unpredictable at close range). Whether the level is empty/occupied/has IDed contacts should be irrelevant. If there are guys on upper floors or surrounding buildings, then it should still be up to the player to figure out any contingencies. 

[womble]

It's a bit of a micro hell with squad splitting. It's still next to impossible to do a clean entry when the defenders are not completely IDed, suppressed and 70% of them are KIA. 1 or 2 guys would be lost for sure with every building. It's less of an issue with BS due to tactical parity, where huge casualty rates for both sides are plausible, but fighting durka durkas in Shock Force it drove me absolutely nuts. 

 

I'm not asking Tac AI to " think" here or keep situational awareness. Just a mechanical SOP to go crazy with grenades prior to entering the level that they are ordered  to breach, without  the need of issuing a separate "Area fire" command (which is unpredictable at close range). Whether the level is empty/occupied/has IDed contacts should be irrelevant. If there are guys on upper floors or surrounding buildings, then it should still be up to the player to figure out any contingencies. 

Whatever. The tools are there. You want the game to do everything for you? You're playing the wrong game. Not splitting your squads in urban terrain is just asking for heavy casualties, whatever the AI does or doesn't do.

[Whiterider]

I don't recommend using FAST much unless it short distances, and they must go at a full sprint. I hardly ever have guys in the "yellow" or "Red" in fitness status.

FAST: Full out sprint. Even without heavy load one would be winded going balls out for 50-100m. Imagine one in a 50m race, and that is the speed. Troops usually will not stop to fire on FAST. Use ONLY when ABSOLUTELY necessary, like running across a street, or any short open area they must cross. Spotting is poor. Energy expenditure is rapid.

 

 

 

Totally agree. 

 

In my test a infantry squad in quick movement is able to run 177 metres/minute (10,6 km/h); the same squad in fast, 201 metres/minute (12,06 km/h). On the other hand, at the end of the round the troops that run fast are "tired", the troops that run quick are "ready". In comparison "fast movement" (i would say jogging) is not balanced and seems to me almost useless.

[Sgt Joch]

QUICK is jogging, but they will stop to shoot at spotted targets.

 

FAST is sprinting, but they will not stop to shoot.

 

my default move is QUICK, units can go a fairly long distance without tiring out. I stop them when they reach "tiring" and let them rest 1-2 turns until they are "ready". Units in CMBS are presumed to be wearing body armour and full gear which has an impact.

 

I use FAST when I want to get from point A to point B as quick as possible. For example, if you want your squad to cross a street that you suspect is covered by an enemy MG, use FAST. If you use QUICK, they may decide to stop mid-street and take a shot at the MG...

Edited August 7, 2015 by Sgt Joch

[Whiterider]

I´m talking about facts: FAST in CM is a bit faster than jogging. To run 200 metres in one minute (12 km/h) is not exactly a run four your life speed.

 

I did that test in CMBN, in CMBS the speed is even slower due to body armour.

 

Anyway, in both games there is no balance between quick and fast movement.

Edited August 7, 2015 by Whiterider

[Baneman]

As I understood it, FAST is a lot quicker than QUICK ... for the first 50-80m after which the difference tapers off.

 

So it's primary use is to rapidly cross some sort of exposed terrain.

 

That is, I seem to recall someone did some tests and made the above assertions. I'll try a test or 2 after work and see if I remembered right.

[womble]

Using Fast for a whole minute is asking someone to sprint for a minute in full body armour. In singlet and shorts, on a track, with spikes, you wouldn't expect most to get more than about 400m, and to be "Exhausted" (in game terms, i.e. can't even jog until they've caught their breath) by the end of that minute. In full body armour, with a modern (or even a WW2) infantryman's combat load, I'd be surprised if they can maintain top speed for 100m, in 15s or so. Try some shorter sprints at Fast and Quick (20, 50 or 100 metre) and you'll see a significant difference in the speed attained; they spend the rest of the minute jogging, so the average speed increase over a minute from Quick to Fast is significantly less impressive. Indeed, you can use short bursts of Fast (30-60m) without the troops becoming Tired.

 

It's a lot more complicated than "distance travelled between order phases", which gives a false impression of the running speed of the pTruppen.