Icecold Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) 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 February 21, 2015 by Icecold 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokossovski Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monterce Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pelican Pal Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 The reason I avoid walking in any sort of combat situation is that your men react to fire very poorly and tend to take more casualties than they really needed to. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wee Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 Excellent post Icecold, I real life too, I don't know not even single one rifleman, who likes to run all the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icecold Posted February 21, 2015 Author Share Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) 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 February 21, 2015 by Icecold 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wee Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 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... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammersix Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 In real life, leaders below about brigade who don't want to be fragged lead from the front. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icecold Posted February 21, 2015 Author Share Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) 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 February 21, 2015 by Icecold 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I belive the "hunt" command was originally designed for WW2 tanks and hull down position research. Maybe it's time to revisit the command. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 (edited) 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 February 21, 2015 by sburke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 To the best of my knowledge the dust raised by vehicles is no longer visible to the enemy. Unlike CM1. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) 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 February 22, 2015 by MikeyD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulman Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 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.[47]" Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 (edited) 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 February 22, 2015 by Childress 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.