Doug Beman Posted January 19, 2000 Share Posted January 19, 2000 Okay, silly question maybe: do vehicles acquire targets with the same efficiency during every movement type (forget about button/unbutton status for this) OR, will a vehicle on FAST acquire targets worse than a vehicle on MOVE, etc etc. The reason I ask relates to my current method of causing a vehicle to pause in mid-turn (not that I HAVE any vehicles in my 2 current PBEM games) What I do is give the vehicle a short HUNT command, then rotate it just a little bit, then HUNT again, etc etc. This tactic causes the vehicle in question to pause briefly between HUNTs. Provided that a ROTATing vehicle acquires targets better than either MOVing or FASTing vehicles, this rotating time will give the target a brief pause. If an enemy vehicle suddenly appears in LOS, the ROTATing vehicle will target the enemy and either fire, or at least stop in place and not move into LOS of 3 more vehicles. I'm doing this because giving a straight HUNT order, IMHO, still often leads to the vehicle acquiring a target while moving; then rather than stopping right there, it moves farther and gets into LOS of 3 enemies (bad things follow) Also, does crew quality have an effect on how quickly a vehicle will stop upon acquiring an initial target? In other words, GREEN crews will roll forward quite a ways and either spoil the shot or get spotted by lots of enemies, while a better crew will stop in place more quickly. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Captain Foobar Posted January 20, 2000 Share Posted January 20, 2000 Damn, Doug. I'm gonna have to do a search for your other posts. So do you have any other insights that you'd like to share with the class? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 20, 2000 Author Share Posted January 20, 2000 I'm not sure if you wanna go picking through my ramblings, Foo. For every post like you see here, I've put up one that basically consists of: a) Monty Python references calling somebody a doodyhead c) talking about my job. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 20, 2000 Share Posted January 20, 2000 Doug, The spotting odds scale downwards from Fast to stationary. basically Fast, Hunt, Move, Stationary. Fast= the worst chance of spotting a target, Stationary = the best... That rotate thing could hurt you badly in real game with the Gold IMO. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goanna Posted January 20, 2000 Share Posted January 20, 2000 Doug, having played you in PBEM, let me add to what Fionn has provided: (Commanded by Beman) Fast, Hunt, Move, Stationary Your favourite doodyhead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted January 20, 2000 Share Posted January 20, 2000 Are you sure that order is right Fionn? I was expecting hunt to make the crew hyper-aware so surely it should go between move and stationary? If it doesn't what's the rationale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 20, 2000 Share Posted January 20, 2000 Well Move is slower than hunt SO, logically, move (where the crew is also hyper-aware) is going to be a more effective way to spot than Hunt IMO ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobb Posted January 21, 2000 Share Posted January 21, 2000 That being the case, Fionn, it seems that hunt and move as is are a little misleading and the designations should be reversed. I know that the move speed is tied to infantry moving speed and is therefore called "move". But, I would rather deal with matching "hunt" to infantry speed than deal with "hunt" not really hunting. The present "hunt" does not mean that but rather "not quiet so fast" Still all in all it can be made to work regardless. It just ups the slope on the learning curve a little. Small potatoes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 21, 2000 Share Posted January 21, 2000 Well Bobb I think the reason it is called hunt is not so much the speed but the TacAI which comes into operation then... If you swapped designations then when you ordered a tank to MOVE anywhere (currently hunt) it would STOP if it saw a threat but if you ordered it to hunt it would keep moving. That'd be very counter-intuitive IMO. It's probably best left as is IMO since either way it'll take a bit of getting used to and THIS way it is, at least, internally consistent. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bobb Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 Ok, so hunt means move moderately to contact and move means move slowly, but move regardless. Hummmm. I suppose that going much or any beyond that would clutter the interface. Still, a not totally satisfactory solution. Damned if I can think of what would improve it and still keep it simple. Thinking out loud, hunt is a given speed between points plus a tactical command to stop when a target appears. If hunt were a separate command that could be added to any speed, that might clearify the situation. Oh, well can't do anything now anyway even if it were determined disirable. Of course, Fionn your were right about the counterintuitive nature of switching the current commands. Thanx for your insights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 Bobb, One problem with doubling up commands is that Steve and Charles have made +MAJOR+ efforts to keep the interface simple. I know games with three times as many controls which don't allow you a third of the flexibility of commands when you look seriously into them. In CM every effort has been made to ensure that pretty much everything worth doing can be done by giving a single command. I think of commands in CM as being "orders of general intention".. E.g. Instead of thinking of an order as being a definite order to move precisely to such and such a spot whilst rotating the turret to maintain coverage of the left flank I suggest thinking of this as a quick order given over the radio which might go " Schreiber, move up to the back of the hill but keep an eye out for the Anmericans. " (Hunt to the base of a hill). ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goanna Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 OK, I get your point and agree Fionn, but how about Bemans other suggestion of the Move to a poition without shooting. This should definitely be a command and is one of the only severe weaknesses of the Beta Demo. I have stealth blown all the time by losers who cant just run to position w/o firing. I'm running out of SS Special Action squads to deal with them all. ------------------ desert rat wannabe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 umm, I think you'll find that most military guys would agree that if you send a platoon of guys running across a field and they see some enemy nearby they'll take a few potshots for good luck . Personally I think this is a good example of soldiers in CM doing something realistic which we're simply not used to since we're used to having automatons as soldiers in computer games. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 22, 2000 Author Share Posted January 22, 2000 I dunno Fionn. It seems awfully abtstract to rule that infantry that are running lose all fire-discipline training. Combined with that is the lowered effectiveness of small arms fire while on the move. It just nags me that you can have speed or stealth, but never both. I guess in the long run, I've played the demo so much now that I've been getting adjusted to it. I'm making my fast-movement orders much shorter where stealth is a priority and ending them with hide commands. I'd rather have them sit on their hands for the last 10 seconds of a turn than run up to 5 meters shy of their hiding place and open fire, spoiling the plan. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bamse Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 Well.... it's a great game(beta) but i too find the hunt command too be strange. And I have not found a way for Inf too jump of a tank or HT midturn without AFV full stop. What about a clickbox in the unit curtainmenu for fire at contact, stop at contact, stop to dropp of inf ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 22, 2000 Author Share Posted January 22, 2000 BTS has said that being able to give really conditional orders beyond "fire when you see a target" is overmuch control. Being able to say "move to here, stop 15 seconds or until infantry debark, then move here, stop if, shoot when" is very micromanaging. You're a company commander giving orders to platoons or squads, not watching over every soldier's shoulder to yell "shoot now!" What I've read of WW2 combat (heck, modern combat for that matter) agrees with them. If BTS, or Fionn, or whomever, comes back with evidence that infantry running flat out almost always lost their fire discipline training, then I'll just have to adjust my tactics accordingly. I'm just looking for confirmation (come on you military guys!!) that this is the case. Bamse, I don't think your vehicles have to be at a dead stop for infantry to jump off. If the tank slows enough they'll make the leap. You can use this to get infantry to jump off by moving the vehicle into scattered trees and then giving a ROTATE order. When the vehicle slows in the trees, then stops to rotate, there will hopefully be enough time for the infantry to get onto the ground and run. I've seen it happen (usually in LD, as I move some Shermans along the treeline to the right of the road and at some point the vehicle slows and the infantry jump) but it does not happen every time I've tried it. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 22, 2000 Share Posted January 22, 2000 Doug, Imagine how frustrated you'd be if your charging men wouldn't fire suppression fire ever? See, the alternative is worse AND more unrealistic IMO. The way it is now is that unless your troops are ambushing or hiding they will fire at targets of opportunity, It does work well in experienced hands.. I've just opened a serious ambush on a PBEM opponent using the beta of the game in which my guys waited until the enemy were within TWO metres in one case.. I wiped out over a platoon in under 1 minute. So, as you can see, it is possible to get guys to hold fire until extreme close range.. Unless they're given hide or ambush orders I think its fine to have them open fire at targets of opportunity. I can see people wanting an option to select Move + or - free to shoot but I amn't convinced it would be a good idea. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted January 23, 2000 Share Posted January 23, 2000 - "Alright, Private, I want you to move at 10 mph through that woods until you can get 50% exposure of the enemy moving on the other side. Do not open fire, unless you have been spotted! Questions?" - "Uhh... Sir, how do you know there is enemy on the other side of the woods?" - (looks startled) "Uh, I just know, son. I'm a vet, I know things like these! Any more smart@$$ questions?" - "Sir, how do we know we were spotted?" - "Now get the &%§$ your $&!&% moving you $&!&$§ of a §&!@§$" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 23, 2000 Author Share Posted January 23, 2000 {dodges slaps aimed at head and shoulders} Awright, awright!! I give!! From now on, no ordering men to run if I also want them to hold fire!! DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted January 25, 2000 Share Posted January 25, 2000 I went back to this thread expecting some resolution only find it was hijacked by some micromanagement obsessives Back to the main point! Maybe I have the rationale for the hunt command wrong but I would think the crew should be at least as aware as when they are Moving. I mean, they are looking for the enemy and if spotting is less efficient then the benefits of using hunt are reduced. Why is it faster than Move? I can see the rationale for keeping the interface uncluttered but why not change the speed (I actually always thought they were the same) Does it really have to be different? As it is you would seriously reconsider not using hunt if you thought it would reduce your spotting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts