Vehicular Movement Speed Penalties

[Erwin]

I recall discussion that it does not matter what speed one orders vehicles to move - they will automatically slow down to move at an "appropriate speed" - ie like when crossing fences etc.  It sounds like that one could simply order vehicles to move FAST at all times since they will slow down automatically as needed.   That was good to know as I was wasting much time putting in waypoints with SLOW moves every time a vehicles would have to cross a fence or bush, or even RR tracks.

However, there has also been discussion that one should drive SLOW over some terrain -  like marshy ground to reduce % of bogging/immobilizing.  Any clarification on "safe" vehicular movement orders would be welcomed.

 

Edited October 20, 2019 by Erwin

[Bulletpoint]

Use FAST all the time, unless you need to HUNT.

17 hours ago, Erwin said:

However, there has also been discussion that one should drive SLOW over some terrain -  like marshy ground to reduce % of bogging/immobilizing.  Any clarification on "safe" vehicular movement orders would be welcomed.

This is one of the evergreen myths of Combat Mission. A bit like that the idea that the world is flat, some people keep believing it no matter how much evidence is presented against it

So full speed ahead.

[domfluff]

The other reason not to Fast move vehicles are similar to why you don't Fast move troops all the time - movement speed is inversely proportionate to how well they spot, and how willing they are to stop and fight.

Hunt is a good go-to, but isn't the only other option - Hunt will mean they will stop at first contact, even if that contact is a random enemy crew man that pops up in the distance, which can (for example) mean your armour grinds to a halt somewhere exposed and vulnerable.

I think the vehicle move order I use the least is "Quick". I make a lot of use of Slow, Move, Fast, Hunt, and especially Hull Down.

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Use FAST all the time, unless you need to HUNT.

This is one of the evergreen myths of Combat Mission. A bit like that the idea that the world is flat, some people keep believing it no matter how much evidence is presented against it

So full speed ahead.

Ok, which is the myth? 

1)  That one may as well drive FAST everywhere cos it won't affect probability of damage or bogging? 

2)  Or, that one should drive "more carefully" thru obstacles and over soft ground?

[Bulletpoint]

25 minutes ago, Erwin said:

Ok, which is the myth? 

1)  That one may as well drive FAST everywhere cos it won't affect probability of damage or bogging? 

2)  Or, that one should drive "more carefully" thru obstacles and over soft ground?

The myth is the bit I underlined: That one should drive SLOW over some terrain -  like marshy ground to reduce % of bogging/immobilizing.

[Erwin]

Ok good.  It saves a LOT of time not having to make so many extra waypoints just to change the speed of vehicles that demolish fences, walls and hedges or when going over soft ground.  

What about when one accidentally has one track on the road and the other goes over soft ground?  Have experienced much bogging in that situation.  Maybe in that situation the AI does not adapt and slow.  

[MikeyD]

Please note that driving over walls, fences and railroad tracks tends to damage your tracks, which then places a speed penalty on your vehicle. No more 'fast move' if your tracks are damaged. Plus the damage is accumulative, do it too many times and you're liable to find yourself immobilized.

[Michael Emrys]

8 hours ago, domfluff said:

Hunt is a good go-to, but isn't the only other option - Hunt will mean they will stop at first contact, even if that contact is a random enemy crew man that pops up in the distance, which can (for example) mean your armour grinds to a halt somewhere exposed and vulnerable.

I use SLOW a lot instead of HUNT in situations where I don't want the vehicle to come to a complete halt for the entire rest of the turn. They seem to spot and shoot about as well as if they come to a complete halt, and they don't become completely sitting ducks.

Michael

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Plus the damage is accumulative, do it too many times and you're liable to find yourself immobilized.

My point was that many times one MUST do the above, and it's a waste of time to carefully plot SLOW waypoints in an effort to reduce damage.  One may as well plot FAST regardless of terrain that the unit has to cross (assuming there is no way around the obstacle).

[MikeyD]

In the real world if you're not careful going over a stone wall you may find yourself hung up on the wall with both tracks off the ground, or maybe even with a thrown track. For wire fences the last thing you'd want is for a quarter mile of barbed wire and wooden stake to be wrapped around your drive sprocket. Tanks can be rather fragile if you don't take care.

In the game its advisable to follow 'best practices' as though it was the real world regardless of what the game engine is coded for.

 

Edited October 21, 2019 by MikeyD

[Dynaman216]

I have noticed that fast moving vehicles turn more haphazardly.  So in a town or such moving at move is better then moving at fast, they appear to make the turns better.

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, MikeyD said:

In the game its advisable to follow 'best practices' as though it was the real world regardless of what the game engine is coded for.

Yes, but it's a major PITA to have to make dozens of extra waypoints just to pretend that it matters that the vehicle is supposed to slow down over an obstacle.  The fact is that in the game speed doesn't matter re inflicting track damage or bogging, so one can save a lot of aggravation by keeping to one speed when making waypoints. 

Yes, there are other reasons for going at different speeds in the game, but that is not the point of the question.  Playing with multiple companies of vehicles, one will soon get fed up with changing speeds at multiple waypoints.

[Bulletpoint]

16 hours ago, Erwin said:

Ok good.  It saves a LOT of time not having to make so many extra waypoints just to change the speed of vehicles that demolish fences, walls and hedges or when going over soft ground.  

What about when one accidentally has one track on the road and the other goes over soft ground?  Have experienced much bogging in that situation.  Maybe in that situation the AI does not adapt and slow.  

The risk of bogging from terrain comes only from the type of terrain you pass over, not from the speed of the vehicle. So if you want to avoid getting bogged at roadsides, you must plot in a thousand waypoints to stay on the zig-zag road. That's one of the major issues with these games, I find. Especially playing bigger battles, moving columns of vehicles up to the front.

[Erwin]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

you must plot in a thousand waypoints to stay on the zig-zag road. That's one of the major issues with these games, I find. Especially playing bigger battles, moving columns of vehicles up to the front.

Yes, agreed.  Another example of annoying waste of time clicking: 

When moving a company or two of turreted tanks into enemy territory, one wants to have covered arcs changing at each waypoint to optimize coverage of areas of suspected enemies.  Doing that in CM1 was a 1 click requirement to make a 180 degree arc in any direction.  CM2 requires one to choose the arc and make it "manually" - taking much longer.  When you have to do that for a couple dozen vehicles and a half dozen or so waypoints, that is major PITA waste of time - similar to having to issue orders for 2+ companies of vehicles to follow a twisting road.

That's why at least the requirement to change speeds not being needed is very welcome.  The AI adapts speed to the terrain as it should since CM2 is not supposed to be a first person POV tank driving sim.  This is an xnt feature that saves more time for the fun stuff.

 

Edited October 22, 2019 by Erwin

[General Jack Ripper]

My rule of thumb is to move 'Quick' unless there's some compelling reason to do anything else.

I'll often find myself changing other speeds back to 'Quick' while muttering to myself, "There's no reason I can't move quickly, vehicles don't get tired."

[Erwin]

I used to use QUICK.  But, now I figure if the vehicle doesn't need to use SLOW, MOVE or HUNT for any purpose, one may as well move FAST.  If I was in a vulnerable target, that seems like RL.

[MikeyD]

If you're travelling along a secure route that the enemy could not have eyes on then go as fast as you want. If you're trying to cross killing ground then you've got decisions to make.
Awhile ago I was tinkering with an old CMSF2 huge map night scenario for fun. Originally the Red AI side would rush headlong towards my side and get slaughtered. I tried adjusting the AI so the Red side cautiously leap-frogged from position to position providing overwatch to the moving unit, with time between movement orders for them to sit and surveil ahead of them. That altered AI plan beat the pants off me. It went from blindly barreling in my direction to getting kills against me the full width of the map.

 

[Michael Emrys]

9 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Awhile ago I was tinkering with an old CMSF2 huge map night scenario for fun. Originally the Red AI side would rush headlong towards my side and get slaughtered. I tried adjusting the AI so the Red side cautiously leap-frogged from position to position providing overwatch to the moving unit, with time between movement orders for them to sit and surveil ahead of them. That altered AI plan beat the pants off me. It went from blindly barreling in my direction to getting kills against me the full width of the map.

Okay, so just to be clear for the sake of players less astute (like me), these changes were made in the editor, right?

Michael

[MOS:96B2P]

On 10/26/2019 at 9:45 PM, Michael Emrys said:

Okay, so just to be clear for the sake of players less astute (like me), these changes were made in the editor, right?

Michael

Yes.  He is talking about adjusting AI plans in the Editor for a scenario.