Suggestion for Tiring Status.

[weapon2010]

Currently the status of a soldiers state of tiredness starts at rested, then deteriorates to ready, then tiring,then tired to fatigued and finally exhausted.My suggestion would be to replace "tiring" with "recovering" when their status is going in the positive direction toward rested.Very minor, but a little more helpful in determing their status.

[Oddball_E8]

An easier "fix" would be to rename tiring to winded.

That way it works in both directions.

But yeah, I do agree that tiring is wierd when going from tired to ready.

[womble]

I don't think having the engine track previous states is worth the effort. Changing the name ought to be pretty easy and could remove the cognitive disconnect for much less effort by Charles and Phil.

[Erik Springelkamp]

A minor related remark:

When troops need to move a large distance, the Move command is pretty slow, but Quick will tire them in a few turns. When you want them to move as fast as possible without getting them tired, you have to micromanage, moving them Quick, then when they are tiring, back to Move, and when they recover walking they can go Quick for a while again.

So isn't Move a little too slow on a tactical field? We don't need to march 20 kilometres in Combat Mission, movement always has a purpose, there is always too little time, in practice we would always like to Move as fast as the physical condition allows without tiring. So up a hill Move would be slower than on flat land, and units that are not fresh would move a little slower.

On the other hand, formations would disperse that way, with heavy weapons trailing and leaders getting in front.

[Erwin]

Yeah, I very, very rarely ever have a use for MOVE as it's supposed to be moving in safe rear areas only (I guess in a vulnerable "road march column").

For recon units I generally use a combination of HUNT and QUICK with 15-30 second rest stop waypoints in between.

(I rarely use FAST. Only when I worry about incoming arty. I don't see much speed difference between QUICK and FAST over short distances, but the troops sure tire quicker on FAST.)

MOVE could be more useful as a "strategic move" order on larger maps. Maybe it should automatically enable troops to move as quickly as possible between waypoints without getting worse than "tiring" - eg: move QUICK with automatic rest stops when needed. That way one wouldn't have to monitor the troops, just set waypoints and forget.

[mjkerner]

I wouldn't mind a faster Move, but at least it isn't as dangerous as I first thought. If fired on, they'll automatically change to Quick or Fast, or stop and drop, depending on circumstances.

[Childress]

I rarely use FAST. Only when I worry about incoming arty. I don't see much speed difference between QUICK and FAST over short distances, but the troops sure tire quicker on FAST.

With Fast you get noticeable acceleration over the first 50 meters (+ or-) compared to Quick. After that they even out with the augmented penalty applied to Fast as you pointed out. Move is practically mandatory when scaling vertical terrain. You also get better spotting than using Quick.

I'm pretty OK with the movement modes as is with one exception: the extra fatigue cost for heavily laden units , though present, may be too mild. There's little incentive NOT to load 'em up with ammo.

[DaddyO]

I rarely use FAST. Only when I worry about incoming arty.

FAST can also be very useful when traversing short distances where the troops are vulnerable. For example, you troops are in a wooded area bisected by a road down which the enemy has line of sight, and you want to get across the road. You MOVE or QUICK to the edge of the woods, then FAST across to the wooded edge on the other side of the road.

[Felix_45]

I would love to have a "Move Quick" command where your troops automatically slow down before they get tired. I hate micro managing between "quick" and "pause" when I have to move my men quickly over a long trek.

[Erik Springelkamp]

MOVE could be more useful as a "strategic move" order on larger maps. Maybe it should automatically enable troops to move as quickly as possible between waypoints without getting worse than "tiring" - eg: move QUICK with automatic rest stops when needed. That way one wouldn't have to monitor the troops, just set waypoints and forget.

They don't have to stop to rest. Just walking (MOVE) they will recover, and at least continue to advance. In reality when you are tired from running, you recover better when you just walk, unless you are exhausted, then you just want to drop down. I think this is more or less simulated in the game.

[mjkerner]

I would love to have a "Move Quick" command where your troops automatically slow down before they get tired. I hate micro managing between "quick" and "pause" when I have to move my men quickly over a long trek.

Hello Herr Klopek! I believe we met on the battlefield at FGM...you trounced me.

A"Move Quick" command would be a nice addition.

[A Canadian Cat]

They don't have to stop to rest. Just walking (MOVE) they will recover, and at least continue to advance. In reality when you are tired from running, you recover better when you just walk, unless you are exhausted, then you just want to drop down. I think this is more or less simulated in the game.

That sounds interesting. I will have to try that. I have been pausing units when the start tiring or get tired.

[YankeeDog]

Yes; at least squad infantry will gradually recover stamina while on MOVE. Not sure if this is also true of heavy weapons teams or not.

MOVE also becomes more useful when you're sending units through difficult terrain. Even squad infantry tires out pretty quickly on QUICK through heavy woods, marsh, etc. So if you're bushwhacking and enemy contact is unlikely, MOVE is often the wiser choice.

It takes for freakin' ever to MOVE through heavy woods or marsh, but anyone who has ever tried to travel any distance "off trail" in heavy wilderness will tell you this isn't necessarily unrealistic. Bushwhacking is slow and tiring...

[Felix_45]

Hello Herr Klopek! I believe we met on the battlefield at FGM...you trounced me.

A"Move Quick" command would be a nice addition.

Hello my friend how are you? I don't recall the "trouncing" but do remember squeaking out a narrow victory in a very hard fought and violent battles. They were fun to play.

For those interested to watch an AAR of me vs. MJ just click on my youtube channel link. It's the 4 part series.

[mjkerner]

Hello my friend how are you? I don't recall the "trouncing" but do remember squeaking out a narrow victory in a very hard fought and violent battles. They were fun to play.

For those interested to watch an AAR of me vs. MJ just click on my youtube channel link. It's the 4 part series.

No sh*t!? I didn't know it was out there. Is this the one where my bunker sunk into the earth at the start, trapping one of my MG teams in it for the duration? Man, that was my first head to head game ever, and in my defense, I've learned a whole lot since regarding the placement of AT assets.

Edit: Yup, that's the one. Again, my apologies for not knowing the accepted rules at the time and laying a barrage on your set-up zone! :-)

[UKMule]

Yeah, I very, very rarely ever have a use for MOVE as it's supposed to be moving in safe rear areas only (I guess in a vulnerable "road march column").

For recon units I generally use a combination of HUNT and QUICK with 15-30 second rest stop waypoints in between.

(I rarely use FAST. Only when I worry about incoming arty. I don't see much speed difference between QUICK and FAST over short distances, but the troops sure tire quicker on FAST.)

MOVE could be more useful as a "strategic move" order on larger maps. Maybe it should automatically enable troops to move as quickly as possible between waypoints without getting worse than "tiring" - eg: move QUICK with automatic rest stops when needed. That way one wouldn't have to monitor the troops, just set waypoints and forget.

Totally agree.

[Erwin]

"There's little incentive NOT to load 'em up with ammo."

+1 - It bothers me that I can load a 2-man team with a couple thousand rounds plus other stuff and it doesn't seem to have much effect on movement. (Not as much as one would expect.)

"I would love to have a "Move Quick" command where your troops automatically slow down before they get tired. I hate micro managing between "quick" and "pause" when I have to move my men quickly over a long trek."

THIS!

[Rossmeister]

I think the move command is pretty useful, really. Put yourself in the boots of a rifleman.. You simply can't run all the time, or switch between running and keeping your weapon up. The combo quick+hunt is incredibly tiring in real life, and it should be in CM as well.

Moving doesn't really take all that long if you think about it. Maybe it takes a couple of minutes, or 5-10 minutes to reach the next tactical position within a couple of hundred yards. This is realistic and it happens all the time in my games. Spending everything from five to twenty minutes planning one turn might break verisimilitude, but keep time and distance in mind when you move troops.

If you do this, your troops will be fresh when you actually have to make a run for it, or initiate attack drills. Many times you will find yourself with fatigued troops when you are on the attack anyways, but war is hell, gentlemen.

This is also why you MUST scout ahead. While one doesn't want to lose precious pixeltruppen, it is simply the purpose when on scout duty to find the enemy. More often than not, this results in getting fired at. If you scout successfully, you will reveal enemy positions (which might be closer or further away then you anticipated), and THEN your other units must be able to react quicky, by running to firing positions and engaging the enemy.

Also, remember that infantry has an EXCELLENT advantage over tracked units. They can move at relatively similar speed over ALL sorts of terrain. The only limiting factor is stamina. Take care not to exhaust your troops, and they will almost certainly get anywhere in time.

It might be boring to advance slowly, but it is much safer. When on the MOVE, it is your job to ensure tactical formations that provide lead units with cover.

Yet another reason to use the move command more (combined with HUNT it's faster than you think) is that you have more stamina left to use the SLOW command, which is a lifesaver in CM.

[womble]

I would like a "Cautious Quick" that, while having no greater awareness of threats than Quick does, places more priority on seeking cover/hitting the deck when the unit comes under fire than Quick does. I'm not asking for them to have the same situational awareness of troops with Hunt orders, just that they not be so desparate to reach the next AS before they go to ground when they're under fire.

[Erwin]

The reason I would like a variant on the "MOVE" command that is not as vulnerable as MOVE and is "as fast as possible without getting tired" is that as CM2 maps get larger, and huge scenarios like we enjoyed in CM1 become more common, one will have to spend 5+ turns just moving from one side of the battlefield to the other (assuming no transports) as we currently do in CM1 games.

It would be helpful to be able to "set an order and forget" knowing that the troops will move as quickly as possible without getting "tired" and take appropriate action if they get strafed, or run into unexpected enemy while supposed safe behind their own lines.

Now that CM2 is working well as a game, am focused on making gameplay easier and more efficient - reducing the number of clicks and micromanagement currently required to do boring things (eg: selectable waypoints/lines, movement issues as above and ammo acquiring etc...).

[Whiterider]

I´ve been doing some movement tests with a scout team (three soldiers) in plains. Obviously other units (ie ammo bearers or machine guns) move slower.

Slow: 20 metres per minute (1,2 km/h)

Move: 60 metres per minute (3.6 km/h)

Hunt: 70 metres per minute (4,2 km/h)

Quick: 140 metres per minute (8,4 km/h)

Fast: 150 metres per minute (9 km/h)

My opinion:

1-There is a very short gap between quick and fast and no proportion in fatigue consumption between them.

2-I think hunt movement should be slower (perhaps 3 km/h) than normal movement, after all you´re moving carefully.

3-Quick movement should be around 6,5 km/h with half fatigue consumption than fast movement (9 km/h). This is more realistic and avoid micromanagements.

[womble]

Slow: 20 metres per minute (2 km/h)

Move: 60 metres per minute (6 km/h)

Hunt: 70 metres per minute (7 km/h)

Quick: 140 metres per minute (14 km/h)

Fast: 150 metres per minute (15 km/h)

One thing you're missing is that Fast doesn't actually move at "Fast" pace for an entire minute. After a very short time period, less than a minute, the unit drops to the same speed as Quick, and becomes "Tired". Fast is for very short moves, such as crossing a road or a garden, not a field. It's extremely difficult to see how fast your pTruppen actually move while they're running "Fast", but I'd estimate they're going 50% faster than Quick.

Thus, while:

1-There is a very short gap between quick and fast and no proportion in fatigue consumption between them.

...is true for a whole minute, the disproportionate fatigue cost of Fast is predicated on its use for less than a minute. Sprinting really winds you. Fast is a situational movement mode, not one you use for eating large distances.

2-I think hunt movement should be slower (perhaps 5 km/h) than normal movement, after all you´re moving carefully.

When you're scuttling about in CQB, you're moving a fair bit faster than walking pace. Seems fine to me.

I´m not sure if 6 km/h is the "normal" movement for a soldier carrying weapons, munition and equipment. Maybe better 5 km/h?

On an operational scale, perhaps, but it's a poor squaddie who can't yomp at 4 mph in battle gear for an hour and be fit to fight at the end of it.

3-Quick movement should be 10 km/h with half fatigue consumption than fast movement (15 km/h). This is more realistic and avoid micromanagements.

Again, you're missing the point of Fast. You're also trying to impose long term average speeds on a system that preserves the average by enforcing rests.

[Childress]

1-There is a very short gap between quick and fast and no proportion in fatigue consumption between them.

I recall that Fast is significantly quicker for the first few dozen meters. Like racing across the street. If you got 'em on Fast for a full minute you're doing something wrong.

[Whiterider]

One thing you're missing is that Fast doesn't actually move at "Fast" pace for an entire minute. After a very short time period, less than a minute, the unit drops to the same speed as Quick, and becomes "Tired". Fast is for very short moves, such as crossing a road or a garden, not a field. It's extremely difficult to see how fast your pTruppen actually move while they're running "Fast", but I'd estimate they're going 50% faster than Quick.

The scout run the test during one minute without getting tired. Other units get tired before the minute ends. I can´t understand why a soldier get tired so easily moving 150 m/minute and not so moving 140 m/minute. :confused:

[silverstars]

I would also like to see slow be a little more lenient on it's fatigue penalties. I know that crawling on your belly is pretty damn tiring, but slow can also model crawling on hands and knees or just trying to be as quiet and stealthy as possible, and I would like my scouts on the forward edge to not be exhausted just crossing a hedgerow-lined road.