Do units tire out to quickly when using slow?

[Sailor Malan2]

Also, the whole premise of this thread is a little odd. If scenarios are tested and balanced, the effects like slow move fatigue build up are covered. If your troops are tiring too fast, you are being excessively cautious maybe. 

As to whether it is realistic I am with the "yes" camp... Admittedly I am not in the first flush of youth but I did some outdoor lazer combat a few months ago. Forget short rushes, low crawl is HARD! Even short lateral shuffles to avoid popping up where I went down take it out of you! 16 m of crawl is a reasonable distance.

and as someone said, all tired means is "can't run". Just pause to catch your breath.

Oh, and Hunt too tiring? Do it in bounds! Alternate 2 sections scout teams so one rests. Or if you haven't got a second, hunt the scouts about 50 m, rest while support quick moves to say 10 or 20m behind, rinse and repeat. The hunt team should get a really good spot session while recovering as well.

[Bulletpoint]

18 minutes ago, Sailor Malan2 said:

and as someone said, all tired means is "can't run"

I'm often wondering if there are other penalties as well? Accuracy or morale penalties?

[Michael Emrys]

25 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm often wondering if there are other penalties as well? Accuracy or morale penalties?

Yeah, I raised that question soon after BN came out. My unsupported opinion is that it would be realistic if it did have some effect on those things. Just how much might be a controversial matter. But controversy is one of the things we are here for, right?

Michael

[Redmarkus]

On 28/04/2016 at 3:05 PM, Duckman said:

I think games in general underestimate the effects of crawling. It is very tiresome, and even more so with gear and weapons over uneven terrain. So kudos to CM on that issue.

While on the subject, I think games also tend to underestimate the effect of mud and especially for leg infantry. Simply crossing a muddy field with gear is tiring and very, very slow.

+1 (I had 10 years infantry service). Crawling with combat gear is extremely tiring. You have to lug a heavy WW2 weapon along with you, ammo, water etc, while wearing a helmet. The ground is muddy, stony, painful to cross. Roots and brush keep snagging your gear, PLUS you're scared. You can't breath properly. You're under all kinds of stress.

Mud is horrible. Great clumps of it stick to your boots. Your feet weight a ton and pulling them out of the mud, especially when weighed down by your gear, makes each step hell. The two times I just wanted to die:

- While carrying a roll of barbed wire up a steep hill, plus all my normal gear.

- At 2am one morning while sitting in a flooded foxhole in winter conditions.

I would have welcomed a firefight, just to take my mind off my pain!

If anything, CM understates the difficulties posed by terrain, simply to keep the game interesting. If it was fully realistic, we would have 4-5 hours of moving our troops through mud and forests, followed by 30 minutes of actual combat before they either prevailed or pulled back a bit to dig in for 2-3 hours.

Edited May 2, 2016 by Redmarkus

[Redmarkus]

I do find it odd that 'Hunt' is so tiring though. The point man feels the pressure, but those behind him actually get lots of rest spells while he checks out the terrain ahead, does his listening drills, inspects the trail for mines and boobytraps, etc.

[Redmarkus]

2 hours ago, Sailor Malan2 said:

Also, the whole premise of this thread is a little odd. If scenarios are tested and balanced, the effects like slow move fatigue build up are covered. If your troops are tiring too fast, you are being excessively cautious maybe.

That would only be true if the scenario offers only one 'correct' tactical solution. If I opt to move through woodland instead of riding on the tanks down a road, then my troops will tire more quickly, but that doesn't make moving through the woods 'wrong'.

[Bulletpoint]

2 hours ago, Redmarkus said:

I do find it odd that 'Hunt' is so tiring though. The point man feels the pressure, but those behind him actually get lots of rest spells while he checks out the terrain ahead, does his listening drills, inspects the trail for mines and boobytraps, etc.

To recreate that in the game, you can send out a scout team using 'hunt', while the rest of the squad follows using 'move'.

But I don't think the hunt command tires troops much really. At least not in Normandy. Maybe it was changed for CMFB.

[Redmarkus]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

To recreate that in the game, you can send out a scout team using 'hunt', while the rest of the squad follows using 'move'.

But I don't think the hunt command tires troops much really. At least not in Normandy. Maybe it was changed for CMFB.

I think it does tire them more in CMFB - at least that's my impression.

Yes, I do exactly that - scouts out.

[arjuna_r]

As someone with poor upper body strength and ex Army Reserves, I maintain that crawling any distance is virtually impossible  

Also that 'fast' move option is a bit of a fantasy in my opinion.

[MOS:96B2P]

6 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm often wondering if there are other penalties as well? Accuracy or morale penalties?

This is an interesting question that I have also thought about.  I am currently in a PBEM (Blitz's April scenario of the month) Forest of Wild Beasts.  Huge map, lots of infantry and no transport.  So my interest in this has been renewed due to the tactical problems in the scenario.  If I can find the time I should probably do a few experiments on this before I find the answers the hard way.  

I have noticed the fit conditions go from: Rested, Ready, Tiring, Tired, Fatigued and Exhausted.  

At Fatigued Quick will automatically change to Move.  I have also noticed automatic pauses with Hunt but have never had a unit change to another movement command from Hunt, but just take a Pause.  Slow the unit seems to keep moving, never pausing, changing command or stopping even when exhausted.  It would be interesting to know how well they will fight in this exhausted condition.  The OpFor commander may help me test this ..................      

[Doc844]

Speaking from experience, with a full combat load out, belt buckle crawling and leoperad crawling are ball busters plain and simple.  Being uber fit does help but only for a little while.  After crawling a relatively short distance you WILL be trying to suck air into your tortured lungs from every orifice you possess and more than likely swearing profusely at who or whatever is forcing you to endure this torture.

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, Doc844 said:

Speaking from experience, with a full combat load out, belt buckle crawling and leoperad crawling are ball busters plain and simple.  Being uber fit does help but only for a little while.  After crawling a relatively short distance you WILL be trying to suck air into your tortured lungs from every orifice you possess and more than likely swearing profusely at who or whatever is forcing you to endure this torture.

I don't doubt it's exhausting, but doesn't modern British infantry àlso carry more gear than their ww2 counterparts, including a fragmentation vest and bigger backpack?

[Sailor Malan2]

9 hours ago, Redmarkus said:

That would only be true if the scenario offers only one 'correct' tactical solution. If I opt to move through woodland instead of riding on the tanks down a road, then my troops will tire more quickly, but that doesn't make moving through the woods 'wrong'.

Ah - there we disagree. Either your method works or it is the wrong one. Only exception is if something totally against the odds occurs that wouldn't happen 9 times out of 10 or something. Scenarios should be open to multiple approaches, but not all approaches.

[Michael Emrys]

29 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I don't doubt it's exhausting, but doesn't modern British infantry àlso carry more gear than their ww2 counterparts, including a fragmentation vest and bigger backpack?

But I suspect that on average they are bigger and better fed than their grandfathers who were growing up during the Great Depression and may not have had access to healthy diets or even what we would consider a normal caloric intake.

Michael

[Bulletpoint]

1 minute ago, Michael Emrys said:

But I suspect that on average they are bigger and better fed than their grandfathers who were growing up during the Great Depression and may not have had access to healthy diets or even what we would consider a normal caloric intake.

Michael

Fair point. Also probably more fit, being professional soldiers rather than conscripts.

[Michael Emrys]

1 minute ago, Bulletpoint said:

Fair point. Also probably more fit, being professional soldiers rather than conscripts.

Very much more fit. Some years ago I came across a statistic on the number of mean who had been called up but then rejected for service simply because they couldn't pass the initial physicals. The exact number has vanished from my memory, but I do recall being mildly shocked due to the Army's chronic shortage of personnel and somewhat liberalized qualifications.

Michael

[womble]

The infantryman's load hasn't changed much \since the time of Ceasar's Mules. WWII gropos didn't have to wear a ballistic vest and plate carrier, but their steel pots were heavier, and their rifles. Their actual equipment was heavier too, and much more prone to waterlogging (and thence getting even heavier) than modern LBE, foul weather gear and battledress. In the end, the more "stuff" (bullets, mostly) you can practicably carry into battle, the better, and if some element of your kit gets lighter, you'll compensate by adding another mag or grenade or SAW belt, or AT rocket (or MRE), and if you're roughly as fit as your great grandfather was (and Basic is a great leveller - most of the 19 year olds hitting the beaches on D-Day were probably comparable in fitness to most of the squaddies in most modern armies), you'll end up lugging the same battle load in the end.

[Baneman]

While my experience is not combat related and thus lacks all of those "extra gear" and "sleep deprivation" considerations, I have crawled** extensively during caving expeditions and I feel that troops should perhaps reach at least 1 more AS than they do before becoming Tired.
Speed seems ok taking into account the extra equipment and fear etc.

** : low crawling  often in as little as 20- 25 cm

 

[Erwin]

Hey Ian...  I made it to London finally.  Will be in around for a month or two if you're have time to get together.

[LukeFF]

5 hours ago, Erwin said:

Hey Ian...  I made it to London finally.  Will be in around for a month or two if you're have time to get together.

Umm...stay on topic, please. 

[Erwin]

Ooops.  Sorry, I forget this isn't WEBOB.

[shift8]

On 4/25/2016 at 3:27 PM, Raptorx7 said:

I decided to put this topic here but it would obviously work in any of the other CM game forums.

Ive started to use slow quite a bit more as I become better and more patient with the game, the problem is most troops "tire out" after moving only two action squares, its a bit annoying and I am wondering if anyone feels the same way. Does CM model units carrying lighter weapons or less ammo tiring out slower when crawling?

Of course anyone can jump in with real world experience and prove me completely wrong here!

There is nothing wrong with the speed at which the tire. Try doing a low crawl, even with no gear, and you will tire VERY fast. 

To make this clear: in Army basic training drill instructors use the low crawl as punishment on occasion. In addition, during the last phase of basic you have to do a relatively long low crawl under wire with live ammunition being fired overhead and it can be very tiring. 

[Doc844]

I would say that in game it's probably the recovery rate that is wrong, they take ages to recover when in reality you will recover in a minute or 2.  However I would say this is done for balancing reasons otherwise you could just crawl every where.

[A Canadian Cat]

5 hours ago, Doc844 said:

I would say that in game it's probably the recovery rate that is wrong, they take ages to recover when in reality you will recover in a minute or 2.  However I would say this is done for balancing reasons otherwise you could just crawl every where.

I feel like recovery from Tired to Ready is less than two minutes.   Fatigued and exhausted should take longer to recover from - IMHO.  Honestly my rule of thumb for handling infantry is when they are tiring see if there is a convenient place for them to rest a bit but keep going if not.  Tired: start planning to give them a rest and avoid pressing too much unless their safety is threatened.  Fatigued: no more movement except to nearest cover and even that should have been covered by SOP for Tired.  Exhausted: I have utterly failed them and they stop right there.

[Warts 'n' all]

It has always struck me that the recovery rate seems to be spot on. I try and avoid letting my troops get "Tired" by limiting my use of "Slow" to just one or two AS maximum. The only troops I ever see "Fatigued" are routing AFV crews.