theike Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 When one attacks, the defender allways knowes he will get attacked. So the defender can when first turn starts pre-counter the attacker. This takes away the surprice of each attack. What i was thinking bout is something that might be done for the new CM. A simpel order to hold all moves for (probably a defender) one till first contact is made (sound ore sight, that way a, say, attacker can make the first moves, and maybe get some surprice in, avoiding contact for some turns but still close in allready. A senario command like this might put in some new tactical options. like stealth and ore maybe even decoying. Think about it. It really makes sense. (well to me it does))) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RSColonel_131st Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 I'm confused...you mean in the editor? In normal game, a hide order with a covered arc will do exactly what you say here. The defender will let the attacker get close and then start shootin... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 But then that would take away an option that real commanders have in real situations. It is always possible for the defender to counter attack but it is not always wise to do so. If you want to give up your good defensive positions and turn the fight into a meeting engagement with me enjoying numerical superiority (as the attacker usually does) then bring it on. Just because an option is availible doesn't mean it has to be used. Your suggestion would also limit people who like to conduct an active defense with lots of patrols and moving ambushes. Again presenting a set of restrictions that don't exist in RL. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doodlebug Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 I think I see the point of the suggested command. The defender can be up and running, and across, the battlefield just as quickly as the attacker. To be fair attacks were made without warning the defenders in the sector to be ready to repel an attack but as players we know who's attacking and who's defending and even the start time of the engagement and the rough length of the action. I can see the reality of padlocking the defenders until something is spotted and then releasing them to move to meet the threat. As for limiting players who play active defences that seems reasonable. Are you saying that they conduct all those active sweeps and patrols day in and day out on their sector or rather strangely crank up the troops just at the right time? The defence actually has a massive advantage in this respect. In reality the first inkling of trouble might be assault troops hitting the gun lines and HQ's after infiltrating the front line. Edited for bad speling and punctuatio.n [ January 01, 2003, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Doodlebug ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Armies that practice active defenses do patrol day in and day out. There is not point in having the doctrine if you are only going to use it if you know an attack is coming. I was OPFOR here in Germany and when we fought the Germans they patroled constantly. Even U.S. units send out patrols when on the defensive (not as much as the Germans though. I swear sometimes they must have left their MLR empty so they could have guys running through the woods). The whole point of patroling is to warn of a coming attack and to prevent enemy recon from finding the MLR. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doodlebug Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Originally posted by Sgtgoody: Armies that practice active defenses do patrol day in and day out. There is not point in having the doctrine if you are only going to use it if you know an attack is coming. I was OPFOR here in Germany and when we fought the Germans they patroled constantly. Even U.S. units send out patrols when on the defensive (not as much as the Germans though. I swear sometimes they must have left their MLR empty so they could have guys running through the woods). The whole point of patroling is to warn of a coming attack and to prevent enemy recon from finding the MLR.Fair comment but what about the fact that troops constantly on the highest state of alert pretty quickly aren't? There is a law of diminishing return working here. One alert and people behave correctly. 100 and "it's just a false alarm". I think that troops like most people want the quiet life and get sloppy in the procedures. just because there's a doctrine doesn't mean it will be followed. I think that there's a genuinely good point buried in here somewhere and that an option of padlocking the defence till attacked is a possibility to recreate certian situations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertram Posted January 1, 2003 Share Posted January 1, 2003 Though not a solution for QB's where one side is supposed to be surprised, in scenario's you can simulate this by paslocking the defenders in their setup (or part of them) and allowing the attacker to set up real close to defenders positions. The troops wont be sleeping, or just in their underpants (mod anyone?), but you can put them seriously out of balance (like the most troops in their barracks, of of to one side waiting for their chow (wasn't that a SL scenario? Wake up at....?) Bertram 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-E Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 I'm waiting for the "If he's eating pizza, assault with all available forces, if he's drinking tea, hot, Earl Grey, advance & anihilate with 25% of available forces" command. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theike Posted January 2, 2003 Author Share Posted January 2, 2003 In senarios there are indeed some ways to make the gameplay more lively and real...though in QB, another option like the 'Dugin, Not-Dugin' one could make things more interesting. And for senarios, surely, its just the same. For one more option to base one of the many ways of battling on is a world of difference to us players. And if u choose the option mobile defence u might still, on another occasion, want to choose to attack (the ai) trying to outcon him by stealthly avoiding first contact till the latest minute. There are surely alot of pro's and con's to all options. And i know going for realism isnt allways enhansing the excitement of the gameplay... But. [ January 01, 2003, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: theike ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted January 2, 2003 Share Posted January 2, 2003 Don't you think it is more exciting though to enter a fight knowing that your opponent could do anything? There is nothing to prevent the attacker from sneaking up on the defender as long as you do it how it is really done by making use of terrain or weather or light. Sneaking a few infantry is doable but if you want to infiltrate an entire company or vehicles you had better be darn good. Just like in RL. One must also take into account the types of battles that CM normally simulates. These are battles on active fronts or during ongoing operations. It would be more unrealistic to expect to find troops totally unprepared than it would to find then at heightened alert levels. Plus it is possible to simulate the effects of long periods of over alertness by adjusting the fatigue levels. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.