Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, Howler said:

Would you you place self preservation among the move/fire pecking order. It's not like the pixeltruppen have your god's eye of the battlefield.

Morale is the main self-preservation system. Moreover each type of order generally has a built in SOP that the player is using. In this case the SOP would be to "shoot him",

MOVE: Does not prioritize shooting - when in danger men attempt to self-preserve by switching to FAST (often with disasterous results) @SimpleSimon knows what I'm talking about. IMO it makes move almost useless.

QUICK: Is the most balanced move we have  but still prioritizes moving over shooting

FAST: Is literally just sprinting somewhere

----------------------------------------

What I would like to see is a command where men would move forward and if they see someone immediately stop and shoot them before continuing forward. Which is a command we do not have currently. QUICK sometimes does it but quite often you will have men move right over an enemy to get to the waypoint before stopping to engage.

@Lethaface Yea that is what I currently do, sometimes mixed with hunt. Also using a lot of split teams. It generally works okay in open ground but playing more CM:SF right now and I'm remembering the pain of not having a good shoot first, move later command when clearing houses or trenches. I recently leveled a set of buildings and while clearing it my men ran over an enemy only for that guy to become un-pinned and kill half the squad with his PKM.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Bring back Move to Contact.

This. This is so incredibly important in any strategy game that doesn't allow direct control over troops for a player. I mean - all those movement commands include an absolute disregard for an in

I too am a cautious player and also a scenario designer.  Sometimes there are constraints on scenario lengths and for me the main one is reinforcement slot availability related to having units that do

45 minutes ago, chi-chi said:

 Yea that is what I currently do, sometimes mixed with hunt. Also using a lot of split teams. It generally works okay in open ground but playing more CM:SF right now and I'm remembering the pain of not having a good shoot first, move later command when clearing houses or trenches. I recently leveled a set of buildings and while clearing it my men ran over an enemy only for that guy to become un-pinned and kill half the squad with his PKM.

Pause works quite good with that. Perhaps I've learned to work with the commands as they are after all this time, but I think you need to give longer pauses and or hunt orders if you want to be safer from such things happening. Even if you had a command which would have your units stop upon spotting, they would still be ambushed as they didn't spot that men with the PKM?

With enough pauses to allow for hearing and observation, chances that you will be ambushed are miminized. Suppressive fires make sure to keep their heads down. Having a short pause right next to a building with a suppressed squad inside often allows to shoot them up through the windows. But yes, MOUT can still be deadly.

Remember that cover and concealment are partly abstracted so that man with the PKM may have been lying under some rubble in shock/KO, only to wake up with mouth full of dust and an enemy squad in front of his PKM ;-).

Obviously I would prefer the simulation to be more visually precise but at the same time I'm happy that microterrain etc are (abstractly) modeled. Sometimes you are going to take casualties, especially if there is no time to scout everything out on your leisure. 

Not against a command like you say but I don't think it will change much for me. I would prefer if hunt would become more snappy with regards to incoming fire, although I usually get ok results if I use hunt without a covered arc but combined with hide. Setup the covered arc after you have gone to ground. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunt prioritizes getting eyeballs on the enemy. Its a dangerous mission but someone's got to do it. I recall an old Patton line after the Cobra breakout (that I'm about to butcher) 'Drive down the road til the enemy shoots you then come back and report their location.' 😲

Link to post
Share on other sites

The squad immediately spotted him when entering the rubble and simply chose not to engage him until they had stopped moving. I'd understand if they failed to spot him but that wasn't the case. As soon as the first squad member reached their movement destination he began to turn to engage the PKM gunner but by that time the PKM gunner was already aiming at them.

I had another squad sitting maybe ~16 meters away (2 action squares) providing overwatch of the rubble and once the survivor began to fire they quickly killed him but just due to how the clearing squad piled up at the end of their waypoint the one long burst was especially deadly.


-----------------

I'm fine with the fact that the overwatch squad did not spot the cowering enemy soldier in the rubble. That makes sense.

I'm also fine with the clearing squad not seeing the cowering enemy until they were directly on top of him. That makes sense.

What I'm frustrated by is the clearing squad spotting him and then ignoring him to finish their move before attempting to engage him.

 

13 minutes ago, Lethaface said:

Not against a command like you say but I don't think it will change much for me. I would prefer if hunt would become more snappy with regards to incoming fire, although I usually get ok results if I use hunt without a covered arc but combined with hide. Setup the covered arc after you have gone to ground. 

Its the sorta command that would make micro far less intensive for me. Like yes I can make it work with Quick and a bunch of pauses and some other guys watching. But I'd really like a command that essentially told your guys "hey we plastered the **** out of this building/trenchline and we're 99% sure everyone is dead but y'all gotta go in and check the bodies to be 100%". Most of the time there arent any survivors or they stay suppressed long enough for my guys to turn and engage. But occasionally there is a survivor and he manages to recover in time to zap the clearing squad before they stop moving.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, chi-chi said:

The squad immediately spotted him when entering the rubble and simply chose not to engage him until they had stopped moving. I'd understand if they failed to spot him but that wasn't the case. As soon as the first squad member reached their movement destination he began to turn to engage the PKM gunner but by that time the PKM gunner was already aiming at them.

I had another squad sitting maybe ~16 meters away (2 action squares) providing overwatch of the rubble and once the survivor began to fire they quickly killed him but just due to how the clearing squad piled up at the end of their waypoint the one long burst was especially deadly.


-----------------

I'm fine with the fact that the overwatch squad did not spot the cowering enemy soldier in the rubble. That makes sense.

I'm also fine with the clearing squad not seeing the cowering enemy until they were directly on top of him. That makes sense.

What I'm frustrated by is the clearing squad spotting him and then ignoring him to finish their move before attempting to engage him.

 

Its the sorta command that would make micro far less intensive for me. Like yes I can make it work with Quick and a bunch of pauses and some other guys watching. But I'd really like a command that essentially told your guys "hey we plastered the **** out of this building/trenchline and we're 99% sure everyone is dead but y'all gotta go in and check the bodies to be 100%". Most of the time there arent any survivors or they stay suppressed long enough for my guys to turn and engage. But occasionally there is a survivor and he manages to recover in time to zap the clearing squad before they stop moving.

 

Sometimes things can indeed be unlucky or look unreal, but in general I'd say troops will fire on such a target on the move.
I do agree something like a 'breach & clear' command for buildings would indeed be a welcome thing for less micro. Although engineers can already do something like that, which is my preferred way of entering a building:

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Hunt prioritizes getting eyeballs on the enemy. Its a dangerous mission but someone's got to do it. I recall an old Patton line after the Cobra breakout (that I'm about to butcher) 'Drive down the road til the enemy shoots you then come back and report their location.' 😲

I thought he said "Just drive down that road until you get blown up." 

That's usually what happens in CM anyway. :D

12 hours ago, chi-chi said:

MOVE: Does not prioritize shooting - when in danger men attempt to self-preserve by switching to FAST (often with disasterous results) @SimpleSimon knows what I'm talking about. IMO it makes move almost useless.

Soldiers will certainly shoot at exposed enemies when using the Move command, as long as they are not being shot at themselves. They will stop walking and then stand there and shoot. They won't do it at really long ranges though. And at least according to the manual, soldiers are more likely to spot enemies when using Move as well. When soldiers are moving faster, they are concentrating more on where they are going and trying not to trip over things, and so are less likely to spot and engage enemies. When using Move though, they keep their heads on a swivel.

I've had situations like you described where an enemy pops up suddenly out of the rubble at close range and then my own guys walking along with the Move command suddenly quick-draw their weapons and mow him down, and then continue to calmly walk forward like nothing happened. It looks hilarious but I've seen it work.

The game really does need a "move to contact" command though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bozowans said:

And at least according to the manual, soldiers are more likely to spot enemies when using Move as well. When soldiers are moving faster, they are concentrating more on where they are going and trying not to trip over things, and so are less likely to spot and engage enemies. When using Move though, they keep their heads on a swivel.

I can't say I ever noticed any spotting benefit of using MOVE. I think there isn't one, or it's very small. I do notice my 2-man scout team spotting enemies off in the distance while the scouts are running through a wood though. So there's no real spotting penalty for QUICK moves, as far as I can see.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2020 at 8:16 PM, John1966 said:

Bring back Move to Contact.

This. This is so incredibly important in any strategy game that doesn't allow direct control over troops for a player.

I mean - all those movement commands include an absolute disregard for an incoming fire. The command can just be a "modifier" for a waypoint (like "pause" or "deploy weapon") and would mean that in between the previous waypoint and the modified one as soon as bullets start coming TAC AI deletes all waypoints and hits the dirt.

This can potentially save thousands... MILLIONS... of pixeltruppen lives all over the world!

Edited by kraze
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunt used to cause units using it to stop immediately upon taking any sort of fire.  However, it was changed by one of the patches or upgrades to be more "robust" in that squads/teams using it would no longer immediately stop upon taking shots from unspotted enemies unless that fire really raised their suppression level.

I can't say I'm a big fan of the change.  It's been annoying watching scout teams on hunt keep moving forward despite bullets kicking-up around them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got to thinking what I was expecting my troops to do when I issued the hunt Command. In my mind, they were going to slow down and look for enemy targets. If they came under fire without spotting the enemy, they would crawl along the path until they spotted a target (or died trying) and engage the target. Then get back up and hunt when the supression level let up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, chi-chi said:


....they quickly killed him but just due to how the clearing squad piled up at the end of their waypoint the one long burst was especially deadly.
 

Never send a whole squad when a fire team will do. Never send a fire team when a scout team will do. Except for travel far from the front, to establish a heavier base of fire at a particular spot, or a quick dash from cover to cover (and even then, rarely), I always break down squads. It cuts waaay down on the number of targets er, pixeltruppen, in the fuster-cluck pile-ups you describe. And I rarely notice any morale hits they are supposed to take for splitting up, unless they are really bad troops to begin with, in which case you have a whole ‘nother bunch of problems to deal with!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Myles Keogh said:

Hunt used to cause units using it to stop immediately upon taking any sort of fire.  However, it was changed by one of the patches or upgrades to be more "robust" in that squads/teams using it would no longer immediately stop upon taking shots from unspotted enemies unless that fire really raised their suppression level.

I can't say I'm a big fan of the change.  It's been annoying watching scout teams on hunt keep moving forward despite bullets kicking-up around them.

Finally someone who also noticed that this changed in some patch! I was starting to think maybe I was just imagining things..

I'm not a fan of that change either. I wish they would rewind it to how it was.

There was a time when the problem with HUNT was to keep them HUNTing. But then when they made it so a circular target arc would prevent them from stopping, I found it worked great. Until that patch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember reading a review of CMx1 many, many years ago that came up with the minor criticism that there were too many different movement commands (can't remember how many - 14 or something?). I don't know if it was taken to heart but we now have much less. This is supposed to be a good thing (or simplification of the interface).

Personally, I liked having all those different options. Apart from Move to Contact there was Advance which meant they stopped and fired.

I wish there were more. I'd like an option that's a bit faster than Move but slower than Quick. For all those times when it's quite a long way but there is some urgency involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Probus said:

I got to thinking what I was expecting my troops to do when I issued the hunt Command. In my mind, they were going to slow down and look for enemy targets. If they came under fire without spotting the enemy, they would crawl along the path until they spotted a target (or died trying) and engage the target. Then get back up and hunt when the supression level let up. 

well I'd say it's wiser to look up how a command works instead of imagining how one would expect it to work. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Probus said:

Lol!  Yep.  You got that right.  My pixeltroopen paid dearly for it.

Lol 😁

At the same time I'm all for independent thinking and in general I always depart from my own 'reference framework', but with regards to functions designed by others I try to understand their thinking behind it instead of my own 😉

I'm with @Bulletpoint and others that I preferred how the hunt command worked previously, in that I have memories of it being a bit more snappy compared to now. I still use it for 'move to contact, on steroids'. For recon teams it works great combined with hide as they won't fire when a spot comes up, without the downsides of a cover arc with hunt. With pauses, preferably in cover, and ~50m bounded waypoints.

Edited by Lethaface
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, John1966 said:

I'd like an option that's a bit faster than Move but slower than Quick. For all those times when it's quite a long way but there is some urgency involved.

Agreed but perhaps scenario designers can give us more time in such situations?  I like having a couple of hours in a scenario rather than 30 minutes, but perhaps I'm erring on the cautious side 😉 and don't like to overly work my foot soldiers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2020 at 7:51 PM, Vacilllator said:

Agreed but perhaps scenario designers can give us more time in such situations?

They could but I'm sure in real life soldiers occasionally (or quite often in fact) used movement that was faster than Move and slower than Quick. Move is a gentles stroll and Quick isn't far off Fast (although I've never raced my pixeltruppen across a field to check - bet someone has though).

They could call it "Gentle Jog", "Get a Bloody Shift on" or (my preference) "There is a War on You Know".

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/10/2020 at 7:51 PM, Vacilllator said:

Agreed but perhaps scenario designers can give us more time in such situations?  I like having a couple of hours in a scenario rather than 30 minutes, but perhaps I'm erring on the cautious side 😉 and don't like to overly work my foot soldiers.

I too am a cautious player and also a scenario designer.  Sometimes there are constraints on scenario lengths and for me the main one is reinforcement slot availability related to having units that do not appear in order to create a situation in which the AI does not surrender early.  Unfortunately, the latest reinforcement slot is at the three hour point which means that the longest viable scenario length in this situation is two hours and 30 minutes.  Nevertheless, any designer worth their salt should have done a time appreciation and tested their scenario to make adjustments as necessary.  That said, time is a factor in any tactical problem and I've played quite a few scenarios where time is tight which creates a sense of tension all of its own.  Some players like this, some don't which is why I generally try and design to my play style and give the player as much leeway in time as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I make a scenario the allotted times tend to get longer and longer as I work on it (as do the map dimensions). Scenario designers butt up against an unavoidable issue, though. That's the units running themselves out of ammo before the scenario's over. Most of my recent scenario making has been for CMRT. Russian SMG squads burn through ammo like there's no tomorrow (and Volkssturm don't come with much ammo to begin with). You can't have a SMG squad on the map for 2 1/2 hours going from engagement to engagement.

Another issue is 'cheating' by doing nothing. If you're facing an active AI a simple way to win is to sit tight until the AI has exhausted all of its movement orders and then to attack. I've cleaned up a couple old (CMSF1) scenarios that had 2 hrs on the clock but only 15 minutes of active AI orders. That means 7/8ths of your time in the scenario is hunting down stationary vehicles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I remember this thread.  I am just doing some scouting and already have a general idea of where the enemy is.  (the briefing, and playing this again)

I think Bulletpoint had made the point that they don't seem to sensitive to rounds landing round them.  And let me say the know it, since their suppression meter up is up 4 levels or so.

On the other hand, troops who are no getting shot at but report "enemy vehicles ahead seem to halt right away".

It seems that the semantics are not advance until someone spots you, but advance until you spot someone.  Of course, the problem, it is usually the stationary defender who is first to spot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, markshot said:

It seems that the semantics are not advance until someone spots you, but advance until you spot someone.

Yes, the game currently has it the wrong way around. It's either a bug or a design flaw. Thinking it's a bug since the manual says they should immediately drop down when shot at even if they don't see who's shooting at them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2020 at 1:50 PM, MikeyD said:

Whenever I make a scenario the allotted times tend to get longer and longer as I work on it (as do the map dimensions). Scenario designers butt up against an unavoidable issue, though. That's the units running themselves out of ammo before the scenario's over. Most of my recent scenario making has been for CMRT. Russian SMG squads burn through ammo like there's no tomorrow (and Volkssturm don't come with much ammo to begin with). You can't have a SMG squad on the map for 2 1/2 hours going from engagement to engagement.

Any squad armed fully with automatics has this problem though. It doesn't stand out as much in SF since we tend to have the Stryker, BMP, etc portering supplies around everyone but in theory a guy armed with an assault rifle could deplete his entire on hand stock of ammunition in seconds if all he did was mag dump. Naturally trigger discipline tends to be a bit better than that but I hold SMG and AR equipped squads to the same rule of thumb from my own experience. They have enough ammunition on hand for roughly one meeting engagement and then must be relieved for resupply. 

Quote

Another issue is 'cheating' by doing nothing. If you're facing an active AI a simple way to win is to sit tight until the AI has exhausted all of its movement orders and then to attack. I've cleaned up a couple old (CMSF1) scenarios that had 2 hrs on the clock but only 15 minutes of active AI orders. That means 7/8ths of your time in the scenario is hunting down stationary vehicles.

This sounds like the scenario designer's strategy for the AI is too limited. Only one plan considered, own-objectives are the same exact objectives as the player's and both are known to each side etc. Again, my own philosophy is that no matter what the context is, the AI must *always* have at least one plan set aside that is an attack. It can be a totally brain-dead and illogical but somewhere in there, whatever the AI and player are up too it's got to be there. If the player can always count on a passive AI, a predictable AI, or even a logical AI, the game won't be very interesting. 

Edited by SimpleSimon
Link to post
Share on other sites

Triggers help a great deal in building a reactive AI (CMSF1 was pre-triggers). Designing in 'If they approach to this point then you retreat' or 'if they reach this line you send in a flanking force'. Still, the scenario designer needs to keep constraints on player movement and scenario times in order for that to work. Sitting out the clock before attacking or circling  widely around the conflict zone to avoid triggers both defeat the AI. Sometimes making a scenario map bigger and a scenario time longer is self-defeating because you've given the player the tools to thwart your own planning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...