Hunt vs. slow commands for the vehicles

[Ivanov]

Can anybody tell me if "slow" command has any advantage over "hunt" if it comes to the vehicles? I understand that in case of the infantry, slow would mean that they would basically crawl , so they become less exposed. But in case of the vehicles I never use slow because hunt makes them more responsive to the potential threats.

Similarly - why use quick if you can use fast? In case of infantry quick is more sustainable but what about the vehicles?

[gnarly]

@Ivanov, does Hunt not ensure the vehicle will stop when spotting the enemy and engage, whereas Slow means they will continue moving forward to their next waypoint?

[Ivanov]

I'm not sure about that in case of modern vehicles with cannon stabilization, that can fire on the move. But yes, I think with the hunt command they most likely will stop the movement, which I think in most of the cases is much better for the survivability.

[John Kettler]

Ivanov,

If you have ATGMs on any kind of vehicle, only Hunt will give you the opportunity to fire. Hunt models a hyper vigilant state, with the priority on finding and dealing with the enemy. The unit is wired to stop immediately if it detects the foe. If you go to the GDF you can read how Hunt kept my Bradley alive and allowed it to clobber what was shooting at it. Slow will preclude ATGM firing altogether. The Russians did have for a time, and in unknown quantity, the ability to fire ATGMs on the move, in the form of the doubtless super expensive IT-1 Drakon.
 

Regards,

John Kettler

Edited September 2, 2016 by John Kettler

[Ivanov]

OK, but in what situations do you use "slow"? If I expect enemy contact, I want my guys to be super vigilant an fire before the enemy does because otherwise they'll die, so in those situations I use "hunt". If I don't expect enemy contact, I want my troops to get as fast as possible from point A to point B, so I never use slow. The slow command seems redundant to me in case of the vehicles.

Similarly, why use "quick" instead of "fast"? Intuitively I was using quick because I thought that with the "fast" command the vehicle was prone to damage it's track or that the driver would suffer from the fatigue, but it seems never to happen. So if I need speed, I just give "fast" command. I also thought that I may need to increase and decrease the speed gradually like in a real car with manual gear stick, but it seems that I can go directly from move to fast and the vehicle would be fine.

BTW, I've never seem the vehicle crews to suffer from the fatigue.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Ivanov

[Jotte]

Slow is useful for negotiating difficult terrain with less risk of bogging/break downs.

[Ivanov]

4 minutes ago, TJT said:

Slow is useful for negotiating difficult terrain with less risk of bogging/break downs.

Good point, thank you.

[rocketman]

I use slow if there are enemy units that I don't want to bother too much about that would cause a "hunting" vehicle to stop.

[MOS:96B2P]

12 hours ago, Ivanov said:

Can anybody tell me if "slow" command has any advantage over "hunt" if it comes to the vehicles?  <Snip> 

Similarly - why use quick if you can use fast? In case of infantry quick is more sustainable but what about the vehicles?

I mostly use Fast.  The vehicle will adjust to a lower speed, on it's own, when it enters certain terrain tiles (light forest etc.) or when it crushes something (fence, wall etc.).  It will then go back to Fast.  Also of interest - Tanks will shoot on Fast and Quick if they spot OpFor. 

3 hours ago, TJT said:

Slow is useful for negotiating difficult terrain with less risk of bogging/break downs.

Speed does not seem to make any difference in bogging / immobilization.  Depending on the tactical situation Slow may be useful for keeping pace with dismounted infantry and according to the game engine manual 3.01 page 46 Slow makes vehicle less likely to appear as a sound contact.    

Edited September 2, 2016 by MOS:96B2P

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I use slow when working close with infantry.  If you set the infantry to use one of the "keep moving" sort of commands, and then set the tank for slow, they keep pretty good cohesion, and the tanks stay close enough to support the infantry pretty well.  

[A Canadian Cat]

22 minutes ago, panzersaurkrautwerfer said:

I use slow when working close with infantry.  If you set the infantry to use one of the "keep moving" sort of commands, and then set the tank for slow, they keep pretty good cohesion, and the tanks stay close enough to support the infantry pretty well.  

Yes!

Picking something other than fast as a speed can also let you coordinate convoys (or any other type of coordinated movement) better.  If you have a tank leading the way with a fast move I usually give my wheeled vehicles quick moves so they stay in their place in the queue.

Also in CMBS giving fast orders tells the crew "this movement leg is important and it is generally safer to complete than abandon and make up your own plans".  This means that two tanks moving in the open between tree lines that get lasered; the one with quick orders will stop, pop smoke and pull back while the one with fast orders will likely decide that completing the fast move is the better thing to do.  This allows you to have the AFVs rush between cover and not have them abandoning your orders in the middle of an open field.

[Ivanov]

Thank you for all the input. It seems to me that slow is more relevant in WW2 titles, for example in case of ignoring spotted enemy units. In CMBS if you see the enemy in most of the cases you can kill him, so hunt seems to me more useful. What about the noise levels? Is there any difference between slow and hunt and quick vs fast?

[Erwin]

My only thought is that video of RL tanks in the ME at least, seem to move slow when entering new territory - presumably relying on their speed of target acquisition.  They only moved fast when doing convoy down a road to try and mitigate IED danger.

[womble]

An additional nugget of info: Hunt-ordered elements will ignore spotted enemy that they have been directed not to fire on. So if you give a partial Target Arc, spotted (or tentative contacts with) enemy of any kind outside that segment will not cause the element to halt, and any unit with a Target Armour Arc will ignore infantry contacts or spots for the purposes of deciding whether to halt their Hunt. Incoming fire will still cause the Hunter to halt, though.

I think, again, this is more relevant for keeping your WW2-era tank-hunting elements from being spooked by distant infantry, given that it's potential suicide for even MBTs to blanket "ignore" infantry at almost any spottable range in the C21st time period. 

[Ivanov]

13 minutes ago, womble said:

An additional nugget of info: Hunt-ordered elements will ignore spotted enemy that they have been directed not to fire on. So if you give a partial Target Arc, spotted (or tentative contacts with) enemy of any kind outside that segment will not cause the element to halt, and any unit with a Target Armour Arc will ignore infantry contacts or spots for the purposes of deciding whether to halt their Hunt. Incoming fire will still cause the Hunter to halt, though.

I think, again, this is more relevant for keeping your WW2-era tank-hunting elements from being spooked by distant infantry, given that it's potential suicide for even MBTs to blanket "ignore" infantry at almost any spottable range in the C21st time period. 

+1

[VladimirTarasov]

Quick question regarding heavy forest tiles, how are tanks not able to move through them, is it too soft/muddy?? 

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Heavy forest means the tree density is quite high and despite what you might see in the movies, tankers really don't want to try to push over/through trees.  Easy to get bellied up on a stump or do all sorts of mayhem to the vehicle. 

[VladimirTarasov]

2 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Heavy forest means the tree density is quite high and despite what you might see in the movies, tankers really don't want to try to push over/through trees.  Easy to get bellied up on a stump or do all sorts of mayhem to the vehicle. 

I understand the tree part, some map had the heavy forest tile when there were no trees and it ended total defeat. So I was wondering what it was for. 

[Ivanov]

Another thing - based on your experience gents, is the tank more likely reverse and launch smoke when targeted, while executing hunt or slow command?

[A Canadian Cat]

@Ivanov I don think either of those speeds makes a difference regarding that decision. Fast will make it much less likely. That's the only one that changes things.

[sburke]

7 hours ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Heavy forest means the tree density is quite high and despite what you might see in the movies, tankers really don't want to try to push over/through trees.  Easy to get bellied up on a stump or do all sorts of mayhem to the vehicle. 

Exactly.  Trees themselves aren't really the control medium.  While driving through tiles with a lot of trees may slow a vehicle, they won't stop it.  The underlying ground tiles are what determine if it is passable or not.  They also have a larger determination on how well infantry will be spotted.

 

 

[cool breeze]

I use slow for vehicles mostly to keep pace with my infantry, but there is rare rare CM quirk that gives one other reason to use it.  CM models the suspension rock of an accelerating tank (probably over models),  Im pretty sure Ive seen the sudden stop of a hunt move ending make the barrel drop at just the wrong time and the shot went low.

Edited September 7, 2016 by cool breeze

[A Canadian Cat]

Yep, that can happen.  I have even seen it result in friendly fire casulties (this was going over an obstacle just as the gunner was firing so the round hit only a few tens of meters in front of the tank).

[Erwin]

That shouldn't happen in RL surely.  Aren't the barrels gyroscopically leveled?

[Jotte]

On 2016-09-02 at 3:50 PM, MOS:96B2P said:

I mostly use Fast.  The vehicle will adjust to a lower speed, on it's own, when it enters certain terrain tiles (light forest etc.) or when it crushes something (fence, wall etc.).  It will then go back to Fast.  Also of interest - Tanks will shoot on Fast and Quick if they spot OpFor. 

Speed does not seem to make any difference in bogging / immobilization.  Depending on the tactical situation Slow may be useful for keeping pace with dismounted infantry and according to the game engine manual 3.01 page 46 Slow makes vehicle less likely to appear as a sound contact.    

Your right, it doesnt say anything about risks of bogging etcon the wiki either, I must have made a conclusion from this (below) that might not nessissarily be true 

Wiki:

Note: new players tend to make a number of common mistakes when ordering around vehicles. Here are couple of tips (all are obvious when you think about how people drive vehicles in the real world):

• when maneuvering in difficult terrain with many obstacles (such as densly packed urban areas with narrow streets etc.), use Slow movements
• when setting waypoints for your vehicles, avoid sharp turns. If your movement command creates a 90 degree turn, the vehicle has to slow down or even stop in order to make the turn. By setting 2 or 3 waypoints instead at less steep angles, the vehicle will be able to move much quicker.
• if moving in a convoy, make sure to space out the intervals between vehicles sufficiently, and increase the distances the faster you want them to go! Have you ever tried driving at 50 mph with only a couple of meters of distance to the car in front of you? Not recommended!
• pay attention to impassable terrain between the starting point and destination when plotting movement commands. Vehicles will attempt to complete your orders and if faced with impassable terrain, may take a drastic deviation from the course you had intended for them. If you move through difficult terrain, use Slow Movements and set several waypoints closer together. Plotting one waypoint across half the map is inviting disaster.

http://combatmission.wikia.com/wiki/Move_command