jpmcrowley Posted January 8, 2000 Share Posted January 8, 2000 A Happy New Year to all. Whilst awaiting the arrival of the gold demo I have been examining various facets of CM to try and get a better understanding of the underlying mechanics of the game. To that end I set up some movement trials using the SE scenario and came up with some surprising results. Basically three tanks (both US and German) and three squads were set out on the scenario set up line and given the following movement orders; Squad A and tank A: Run\move fast Squad B and tank B: Move\move Squad C and Tank C: Run\hunt All tanks were unbuttoned and identical; squads had platoon leader in CC. The movement paths were across open ground and for a greater distance than the units could cover in a single turn. As this was turn one, there would be no enemy interference. At the end of the turn the “infantry squads” were in the order that one would expect; “the run squad” was in the lead by about 50 metres and the “move squad” ahead of the “sneak squad” by about 25 metres. What was surprising was that the “run squad” was ahead of the “move fast tank” by about 40 metres. Although a tank’s cross-country performance was no way near that of its maximum road speed, I would have thought that it would match that of heavily laden infantry. More surprisingly the lead tank at the end of the turn was the “hunt tank”, marginally ahead of the “fast tank” and some 40 metres ahead of the “move tank”. This experiment was carried out a number of times and the results were near enough identical each time. My interpretation of the hunt command, from both the readme in the demo and searching this forum, is of a slow, cautious movement allowing for rapid deployment to engage enemy targets. This experiment seemed to indicate almost the exact opposite and on the face of it would seem to make fast and normal movement modes redundant. Perhaps I have misunderstood something, or perhaps this apparent glitch has already been amended. If not then something appears to be not quite right. (I am not claiming that the tests were exhaustive by any means, but I did do quite a lot of them). I would be interested to hear any comments. Cheers Jim Ps Please note change of E-mail address; previous user name, jim crowley.( I suppose that I'll be registered as a junior member now; boo hiss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 8, 2000 Share Posted January 8, 2000 I don't know what you did Jim but I would think you may have ordered the Fast Move tank through some trees OR that it got bogged momentarily during the turn since I've never seen what you are describing Since it happened multiple times I'd guess you ran a tank through some scattered trees without realising it. Is this possible? To summarise.. Fast is "as quick as you can" movement. Move = walking pace. Hunt = slightly slower than move and stops to engage targets. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Hough Posted January 8, 2000 Share Posted January 8, 2000 Um, no... out of curiosity, I tried this myself, in the back of the German setup area in chance encounter. there was one small dip in the ground along the path, but no trees. The 'fast' stug and the 'hunt' stug were moving at the same speed. Perhaps this has changed since the demo, but I interpret the orders as: fast- normal tank speed hunt-normal tank speed, but stopping to engage enemies move- slowing down to move at the same speed as the infantry. -John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 8, 2000 Share Posted January 8, 2000 Ok, I'm stumped.. I'll try this in the full version.. expect an answer in a few minutes. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 8, 2000 Share Posted January 8, 2000 Ok, 1 minute of movement over flat, dry ground. 3 StuG III Gs.. 1 told to move fast, 1 Move and 1 hunt. Results: Fast move = 200 metres travelled. Move = 80 metres travelled. Hunt = 110 metres travelled. This is the first time I've noticed this... I always thought Hunt moved at the same speed or slightly less than move. I tested this with other vehicles (Panthers, Tigers etc) and while the distances travelled were different the ratios F:M:H 10:4:5.5 were the same. The 5.5 may have been a 6 though as it was in between 5.5 and 6. I'm not sure what this means and I guess you'd have to ask Steve or Charles what the rationale here is. Steve is away for a while so don't expect an official answer soon.. I'll ask Charles though as this is something I'd like to see the answer/rationale for myself. Jim, John, well spotted and presented. I hadn't noticed that one at all. ------------------ ___________ 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 9, 2000 Share Posted January 9, 2000 While not an official answer, what it boils down to (at least as far as I understand) is that MOVE is an "aritificial" speed that has nothing to do with the capabilities of the vehicle. It's intended to give the vehicle the same speed as infantry. MOVE is the same speed for ALL vehicles in the game. FAST is the max. speed for a vehicle, as stated in its data, and influenced by the terrain. However, even a fast moving vehicle will slow down to take curves etc. HUNT allows the vehicle to go at "average" speed, depending on its data, and is almost always faster than MOVE, but way slower than FAST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TOBRUK Posted January 9, 2000 Share Posted January 9, 2000 In case it's relevant; in one CE game I had 2 Shermans, which were directed over clear open ground, get "bogged down," one of them for the entire rest of the game. To me the ground appeared to have no obstacles, and certainly wasn't in trees, but for some reason the AI thought it did. Apparently the AI can make distinctions not readily apparent to us. I have wondered if this is to 'equalize' the game play since I was winning over the AI at that point. Such surprises do, of course, happen in reality, especially in war, so perhaps it's not an unreasonable inclusion in the AI perogatives. Perhaps the experiments you folks have done (which were commendable) should be done on 'roadways' to provide a predetermined and reliable surface. Just a thought [This message has been edited by TOBRUK (edited 01-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted January 9, 2000 Share Posted January 9, 2000 Tobruk, Check those weather conditions in CE my friend. Its DAMP (like after a spring rain shower) and that means there could very well be spots of thick gooey mud (or small little sink holes etc...) Thats why your Shermans got bogged down. One was able to get out ok the other probably threw a track trying to do the same. I am playing a German Assualt currently that takes place at night in snow and a good 20% of my armored attack force has been bogged temporarily at one point or the other. Some of these are now showing as immobile which means they are stuck for the remainder of the game. Let me tell you, this gives you a whole new appreciation of dealing which a dyanamic situation. One more thing, the game does not do ANY on the fly play balancing. It will never suddenly handicap you or itself in order to make things more fair..NEVER! It's war, it aint meant to be fair.. Madmatt out ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! combathq.thegamers.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 9, 2000 Share Posted January 9, 2000 I just tried a similar test, using the Lat Defence scenario (so the ground isn't damp, and the majority of the move is on a paved road). The vehicle: StuG Fast: 239m part of the move was cross country Move: 72m Hunt: 122m This indicates to me that Fast is full speed, Move is infantry speed and Hunt is standard speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpmcrowley Posted January 9, 2000 Author Share Posted January 9, 2000 I think what this shows is the necessity of having very full and detailed descriptions of all game functions in the manual. As this forum has shown, there is a huge amount of information "hidden" within the game system but not necessarly accessible during play. In order for players to make reasoned and accurate decisions they must, therefore, be aware of how everything works, not in general terms but in very specific game terms. Cheers Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkEzra Posted January 9, 2000 Share Posted January 9, 2000 Since "Move" equals infantry walking speed an accurate phrase should be used...Say "Foot Speed" for vehicles and "Walking" for Infantry units. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SS_PanzerLeader Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 LOL Funny I dont drive my car at "foot speed" ------------------ SS_PanzerLeader....out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lindan Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 They try something with Panthers, Tigers, King Tigers, in assault scenarios, at night, with or without snow, in self made scenarios and they TELL US! Life is definitely NOT fair. *eg* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Balaban Posted January 10, 2000 Share Posted January 10, 2000 Do not forget in HUNT mode the tank will stop to fire its main gun provided it has acquired a target. I have not been in the army but watched lost of war movies and always when tanks are moving with infantry they both are going at the same speed. Footspeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpmcrowley Posted January 12, 2000 Author Share Posted January 12, 2000 Just wondering if there has been any further info. in regard to my original query? Sorry to be picky but the Beta demo documentation quite clearly states that both ‘move’ and ‘hunt’ are “normal walking speed”, the primary difference being increased interest in target acquisition. This now appears not to be the case, at least in application. Vehicles are definitely moving faster in ‘hunt’ mode but do they have a higher interest in engaging enemy targets or not? This is, IMO, pretty fundamental stuff and while I appreciate that some folk choose to interpret what is happening in their own way (and not just with movement orders but also with ‘hide’ and other orders) I really feel that fuller and, dare I say it, more accurate descriptions are going to be required, especially in the manual. For the moment though I really would like to know about the ‘hunt/move’ thing. Cheers Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted January 12, 2000 Share Posted January 12, 2000 Jim, read my answer above. That's pretty close I'd say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 12, 2000 Share Posted January 12, 2000 Jim, The above answers from Fionn and Martin are basically correct. The Beta Demo documentation contains a wee error in its description, in that Hunt is a tad faster than Move. However, Hunt is a flat speed for all vehicles just as Move is, not variable based on the vehicle like Fast is. As for engaging targets, the main purpose of Hunt is to encourage the vehicle to stop and shoot rather than to keep moving and/or firing on the move. The Move order will do this less frequently, Fast will never stop to shoot but might fire on the move. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpmcrowley Posted January 13, 2000 Author Share Posted January 13, 2000 Steve, Moon, thanks for the explanation. I hear what you are saying but, welll……… Why would a vehicle, that you really want to stop and engage targets, move faster than one which has that as a lesser priority. Surely it would tend to move more slowly, to allow for easier and quicker target acquisition. I find this fairly confusing and not very intuitive; personally I find the idea of faster speed/ less targeting to be easier to grasp and more logical. Just my twopence worth Cheers Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Offwhite Posted January 13, 2000 Share Posted January 13, 2000 I don't know what real-world armor doctrine is (or was in the 1940's), so I can't speak to the realism of Hunting faster than Moving. In practice, though, I like it - if I want my tank to go someplace NOW, I tell him to move fast. If I want him to go someplace with infantry support, or go someplace that isn't too far away (nor exposed to enemy fire), I use the Move command. But if I want my tank to move up until he spots a target, then engage it, I want him to do it fairly quickly, since he'll get more shots this turn, and since I've probably got other units that could be exposed to whatever the tank is shooting at. Also, a decent speed in Hunt is nice when you use the Hunt-Reverse-Hunt-Reverse combination from a sheltered position (so the tank is out of the line of fire while reloading). [This message has been edited by Offwhite (edited 01-13-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 13, 2000 Share Posted January 13, 2000 OffWhite, BINGO. That is what we were thinking when we designed it. Jim, if "Hunt" went at sub "foot speed" you would most likely never use the command. It would be too slow to use for general movement (say, a phalanx in an open field) and in close fighting. Here is a case for you to ponder. When I send a recon vehicle down a windy wooded road I do so using Hunt. That way the vehicle goes forward at a decent clip, but can be counted on to stop when it runs into trouble. Move, on the other hand, goes at about the same speed but it might not stop right off the bat. The difference is likely to be life or death. But if Hunt went SLOWLY down the road, at like 1-2mph, I wouldn't use it because it would be too slow. Just food for thought Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpmcrowley Posted January 14, 2000 Author Share Posted January 14, 2000 Steve yes,I can go along with that- makes more sense now. I was looking at it from a different perspective which was obviously not quite right. In my defence, Fionn also had the wrong end of the stick, from his earlier comments, so I was in good company. With the risk of being repetitious, that manual is really going to have to have full and detailed descriptions of all the orders (as well as pretty much everything else) so as to prevent this sort of incorrect conclusion being reached. Cheers Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted January 14, 2000 Share Posted January 14, 2000 Damn straight Jim... I hadn't twigged to the difference. Now I've been using it in battles and it is making a lot more sense to me now and improving my co-ordination even more. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts