Manual says "STANCE"

[CM1fan]

Page 138 of the manual says,

===== manual begins

STANCE

This option defines the basic behavior and combat posture of a unit for a given Order.

Cautious – shoot only when a clear target presents itself and don’t get too worked up when one does. This helps conserve ammo and limits how much the Group makes its presence known to the enemy.

Active – shoot early and shoot often. This is generally the best option when the Group is being tasked with assaulting a known enemy position.

Ambush – instructs the units to only open fire if the enemy closes within a specific distance. Several distance options are available, from 75m to 1000m.

Hide – just as it sounds! This instructs the Group to avoid doing anything that might attract attention, such as moving or shooting. Units that get shot may return fire, but other units in the Group will try to remain hidden.

===== manual ends

What are the commands to get your units to act in these ways? I can find the Hide command, but I can't find the others.

[YankeeDog]

Note that this is part of the "scenario editor" section of the manual -- those are parameters scenario designers can set for AI units in the scenario editor.

They do not apply to human player controlled during a battle. A human player can, however, emulate any of these AI protocols using the orders available to him.

[CM1fan]

Note that this is part of the "scenario editor" section of the manual -- those are parameters scenario designers can set for AI units in the scenario editor.

They do not apply to human player controlled during a battle. A human player can, however, emulate any of these AI protocols using the orders available to him.

Please tell me how. The only way I've found to get fire near a ?-mark is by targeting something near the ?-mark, like a building. But then the unit just fires at that target for the rest of the minute turn. (In "The Last Defense" scenario, I targeted my Tiger at a ?-mark near my end of the bridge. The Tiger fired 8 HE rounds and destroyed the bridge while doing no damage to the jeep represented by one of the ?s.)

A Target Arc might work for Ambush. Obviously, I can't tell when the AI is in Ambush stance, but it does seem to engage my approaching vehicles at better ranges than my units do with a Target Arc. The AI sets the range optimally, while I can only guess at the best range for the weapon and the situation.

I've no idea what combat command equates to the Cautious stance. Face? Or no command at all? Cautious probably should be the default stance of all units. Is it?

[YankeeDog]

It's contextual; you have to use your judgement and modify orders as the situation demands, but roughly

Cautious = Don't use Area Target orders very often -- only let units open fire on spotted enemy. If are you in a situation where you really need area fire, use Area Target Light to conserve main gun ammo. With infantry, squads consider putting 1 or 2 teams of a squad on short cover arc, or even hiding, and only engaging with part of the squad.

Active = Heavy use of area fire on recent and suspected enemy contact locations. Engage with as many teams as possible up on the line and firing.

Ambush = As you guessed, use cover arcs.

[c3k]

Area fire works by firing at the specified action spot. If you recall, each action spot is 8m square. So, have your tiger TARGET one action spot, PAUSE for 30 seconds, then reverse a few meters and at that new location give it a FACE command. That way the Tiger will only shoot for the length of the pause command (in this case, 30 seconds.) Or, have it TARGET the next action spot over from the first one when it arrives at the new location.

Area target fire will spread out across the action spot.

All the above pertains to units YOU command.

What YankeeDog was telling you was that the part of the manual you're talking about is for scenario DESIGN to set the stance for the computer controlled forces.

Capiche?

Ken

[Amizaur]

Would be helpfull, to have the "stance" available while playing WEGO... Planning a move is similar to planning a scenario - only some 1 minute scenario. But lot's of pixel truppen can die in one minute...

[c3k]

Um, it is. It's called COVERED ARC, MOVE, HIDE, PAUSE, TARGET, FAST, FACE, etc., etc.

The unit's stance is totally controlled by the player's orders. It is much more refined and granulated than the preset codes available to a designer.

[CM1fan]

Would be helpfull, to have the "stance" available while playing WEGO... Planning a move is similar to planning a scenario - only some 1 minute scenario. But lot's of pixel truppen can die in one minute...

I agree with Amizaur. Commanding our troops would be much more straightforward if we could just set unit stance, turn by turn for WeGo players and whenever RT players want to change the stance of particular units.

I see no need for setting ambush distances. I'd trust the AI to set them well for quality units and less well for units that are green or conscript or rattled or ...

Ideally, I'd prefer just to command where my units go, what their stance is, and what my indirect fire units and aircraft shoot at, and let the AI handle the rest.

[CM1fan]

Um, it is. It's called COVERED ARC, MOVE, HIDE, PAUSE, TARGET, FAST, FACE, etc., etc.

The unit's stance is totally controlled by the player's orders. It is much more refined and granulated than the preset codes available to a designer.

You may be right, but the units to which I give these orders don't seem to perform as I want and expect. And certainly not as described in the stance descriptions.

[Amizaur]

How do you make "Cautios" with avaiable orders ? Hide ? Not really. Is a unit without targeting orders "cautios" by default ?

Then how do you make an "Active" behaviour against targets not seen at the very moment (you can't target them), or against new targets that could show up during upcoming 1 minute turn ?

[JonS]

Cautious, active, etc are the sum of your orders. If you give long orders across open ground ... that's not cautious. If you give multiple short hunt legs with 20 second pauses at each one ... that's not aggressive.

But as a player you can combine multiple stances in the same turn - move fast up to the side of a building in a single long bound, then hunt around the end of it into open ground, then assault into another building across the street.

And ... that's kind of the whole point of the game. Getting those kinds of combinations of orders to work together, then layering them across multiple units to create a well choreographed attack that takes a position with minimum casualties ... that's where the skill and pleasure of CM lie. I completely fail to see why you'd want to dumb that down to a single order.

[TheVulture]

Cautious, active, etc are the sum of your orders. If you give long orders across open ground ... that's not cautious. If you give multiple short hunt legs with 20 second pauses at each one ... that's not aggressive.

But as a player you can combine multiple stances in the same turn - move fast up to the side of a building in a single long bound, then hunt around the end of it into open ground, then assault into another building across the street.

Or to put it another way, people who are asking to have the stances have got it backwards. It is not additional functionality that the AI has access to that we don't. It is a guide to the AI as to what kind of orders to plot. It is still limited to the same set of commands that we have (well, that is very strongly the impression I get - I can't swear to it 100%, not having access to the coed). The AI with cautious stance might spend more time stationary spotting, shorter cover arcs, keep units closer together, be less inclined to move in the face of distant contacts or whatever. But ultimately what the stance boils down to is what orders it choses to issue at the strat AI level - not some extra 'awareness' setting that exists at the tacAI level.

[c3k]

...I can't swear to it 100%, not having access to the coed)...

Yes, I too have found that I gain a lot more clarity when I have access to a coed.

[Amizaur]

Or to put it another way, people who are asking to have the stances have got it backwards. It is not additional functionality that the AI has access to that we don't. It is a guide to the AI as to what kind of orders to plot.

And this is a kind of answer, I can accept . Thanks for clearing this up .

[CM1fan]

That's kind of the whole point of the game. Getting those kinds of combinations of orders to work together, then layering them across multiple units to create a well choreographed attack that takes a position with minimum casualties ... that's where the skill and pleasure of CM lie. I completely fail to see why you'd want to dumb that down to a single order.

That's certainly one way to enjoy the game, but I call it micro-management. I'd prefer to control my units at a different level, giving my units paths to follow and positions to occupy and using "stance" so the AI knows what I want the units to do as the turn unfolds. I'd rather select specific targets for units only when I see my units aren't shooting at something I'd like or expect to have fired on. (Such as when I think enemy units might be in a particular building or in a patch of woods or behind a hedge. Essentially, when I, the platoon or company or battalion commander, have a hunch. Management by exception.)

[sburke]

That's certainly one way to enjoy the game, but I call it micro-management. I'd prefer to control my units at a different level, giving my units paths to follow and positions to occupy and using "stance" so the AI knows what I want the units to do as the turn unfolds. I'd rather select specific targets for units only when I see my units aren't shooting at something I'd like or expect to have fired on. (Such as when I think enemy units might be in a particular building or in a patch of woods or behind a hedge. Essentially, when I, the platoon or company or battalion commander, have a hunch. Management by exception.)

I admit to being one of those who much prefers the "micro managing" aspect. If you want to perform at a higher level of command with a "stance" capability, there are other games with an AI capability like that. They are not at this scale, are not 3D and are playable only against the AI, but I understand they do a credible job of what you are looking for.

I think to expect that in CMx2 would require that BFC actually change the nature of their focus in the game and their programming resources. Not something I nor I suspect a lot of others would like to see.

[CM1fan]

If you want to perform at a higher level of command with a "stance" capability, there are other games with an AI capability like that. They are not at this scale, are not 3D and are playable only against the AI, but I understand they do a credible job of what you are looking for.

I think to expect that in CMx2 would require that BFC actually change the nature of their focus in the game and their programming resources. Not something I nor I suspect a lot of others would like to see.

I said "different level", not "higher level". I like CM:BN's scale, and I enjoy playing against others as well as playing against the AI. I'd just enjoy CM:BN a lot more if I could get my units to perform the way "stance" gets the AI's units to perform -- the way I recall the units in CM1 performed.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'd just enjoy CM:BN a lot more if I could get my units to perform the way "stance" gets the AI's units to perform -- the way I recall the units in CM1 performed.

I don't recall CMx1 working like that at all. You controlled units in almost the exact same way as in CMBN. The only reason CMBN is more micromanagement intensive is because of the 1:1 infantry modeling.

[CM1fan]

I don't recall CMx1 working like that at all. You controlled units in almost the exact same way as in CMBN. The only reason CMBN is more micromanagement intensive is because of the 1:1 infantry modeling.

You may be correct. All I know for sure is that, with the exception of incredibly twisted paths sometimes given vehicles by the AI and discussed in many CM1 and CM:BN threads, my units in CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK acted pretty much as I expected, while my units in CM:BN don't.

I greatly enjoyed playing the CM1 games, and I believe that my former enjoyment would return if I could control directly the stance of my units in CM:BN.