apex Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Just like advance, but in reverse with a small morale bonus and (reduced amount of) fire going out the other way? Always has been my biggest gripe with CMBO and now BB that you can't effectively get infantry out of a position that has become compromised without having them turn their back to the enemy, run like italians and getting routed on the way back. (Oh, search didn't turn up anything ) apex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpt Kernow Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 yes, an ordered retreat command seems like the only glaring ommision from this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 What keeps you from advancing or assaulting to the rear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: What keeps you from advancing or assaulting to the rear?I don't like turning the backs and weapons of troops to the enemy, especially in a situation that calls for retreat. If the command was implemented, I'd like ít to give the troops a slight instant morale bonus, if the unit is pinned or shaken. I don't think falling back raises the morale of troops that aren't suppressed at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: What keeps you from advancing or assaulting to the rear?CM units are much more vulnerable from the rear. This is really not the same as a falling back command where most of the unit's men would face the enemy at any point in time. I came not to like the new command structure, BTW. It already has too many commands and is still missing many. The reason for that is that CM tries to blend movement speed, forward/backward and SOP functions into combined commands. This can only leads to users demands for 20 or 30 commands, pretty much the crossproduct of speed*SOP*direction. Some use for any of these exist. If you compare that with Tacops 4.0 which has seperate SOP settings and seperate "backwards" command modifiers the CM system looks extremly clumsy. Of course I like almost everything else about CMBB, if case people didn't follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigurd Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 I totally agree with your concern, Apex. I got several times successful platoons in defense, but finally they ran out of amno and get slaughtered, because I was unable to make them fall back. In that latter case, if i tried making them advance to the rear, the result was the same : they were all dead bodies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slappy Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 I think this may underestimate the difficulty of pulling off an orderly retreat under fire in good order. This is absolutely one of the toughest things to get a unit to do in all of military maneuvering. I think that the combination of withdraw and advance in the wrong direction are a realistic pair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harv Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 If your men are getting slaughtered leaving a position you have either... A. Left them there too long B. Put them in the wrong position to begin with C. Haven't given them enough support D. All of the above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Originally posted by Harv: If your men are getting slaughtered leaving a position you have either... A. Left them there too long B. Put them in the wrong position to begin with C. Haven't given them enough support D. All of the aboveE. You lack Harv's skill of seeing two minutes into the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Harv is absolutely correct. If you want to do an orderly withdraw without sustaining massive casualties, then you must pull out while other units provide covering fire to supress the enemy. Use the Sneak or Advance command to move your troops out of line of site and then Run to deploy the withdrawing troops to new positions. Withdrawing under fire is one of the hardest things to do successfully in real life, as it is in CM. The bug out command is Withdraw. The existing command structure works perfectly. Modify your tactics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Originally posted by Slappy: I think this may underestimate the difficulty of pulling off an orderly retreat under fire in good order. This is absolutely one of the toughest things to get a unit to do in all of military maneuvering. I think that the combination of withdraw and advance in the wrong direction are a realistic pair.No. However difficult it is, it is more difficult if you just turn your back, all squadmembers and once and just walk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apex Posted October 25, 2002 Author Share Posted October 25, 2002 What keeps you from advancing or assaulting to the rear?The fact that my guys turn their backs in that case. Read the original post, "reduced amount of fire going the other way". apex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xerxes Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 The withdraw command in CMBO was FAR too powerful. Even though I used withdraw extensively in CMBO, I believe it was unrealistic. The current situation in CMBB seems MUCH more realistic to me. BTW, try sneaking away until you can break LOS and then Run. Sneak is a better command for breaking off an engagement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conscript Bagger Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Originally posted by apex: ..."reduced amount of fire going the other way".What if you split the squad and give one half an additional 10 or 20 second delay so they can provide covering fire for the half which retreats first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtweasle Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 I think that if you limited this command to regulars or better it would be very welcome. Is'nt it more realisitc to think that Greens or Conscripts would not have the training to pull this off under fire? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eden Smallwood Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: I came not to like the new command structure, BTW. It already has too many commands and is still missing many. The reason for that is that CM tries to blend movement speed, forward/backward and SOP functions into combined commands. This can only leads to users demands for 20 or 30 commands, pretty much the crossproduct of speed*SOP*direction. Some use for any of these exist. If you compare that with Tacops 4.0 which has seperate SOP settings and seperate "backwards" command modifiers the CM system looks extremly clumsy.Anytime someone else is willing to post this "whine" I'll be willing to post my agreement. Yes, Redwolf, and in fact I think your description is the best yet. ( except that it's "separate" ) Topic: I've wished for two related things- a Delay command, (waitaminnit- isn't what we're talking about called "delaying"- simply moving your front backwards. But that would be confusing?) I mean a command to Retreat-While-Firing, and second, an SOP for "Fallback to Second Position When..." The way it is now, we can't differentiate between "Comrade, defend this hole with your life" and "Comrade, when it gets really heavy, fallback to your other foxhole". File under: Panic Avoidance Eden Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: What would the logic of a morale boost be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lane Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 On Subject Withdraw and Fall back. I have a problem when I make a QB I like to play small battles and I like to set it 60 turns But my troops run out Ammo or get low around 30 turns so I try to move the troops to the rear Yes it is hard to get them to go back. Going to set my turns to around 30 and see how that works. Regards Lane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Originally posted by Berlichtingen: What would the logic of a morale boost be?The fact that they're being relieved from the face of a superior enemy force. The idea of the boost is to encourage the troops for a moment to shape up and move, instead of staying pinned. If the unit receives casualties or heavy suppression during retreat, they should react similarly as to being shot in the back (orderly retreat turns into a panicked escape). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: ...the new command structure, BTW. It already has too many commands and is still missing many. The reason for that is that CM tries to blend movement speed, forward/backward and SOP functions into combined commands. This can only leads to users demands for 20 or 30 commands, pretty much the crossproduct of speed*SOP*direction. Some use for any of these exist. If you compare that with Tacops 4.0 which has seperate SOP settings and seperate "backwards" command modifiers the CM system looks extremly clumsy.Once again I would like to voice my support for this idea. The introduction of SOPs to CM would relieve a lot of the difficulties players presently encounter. I can't think of any compelling objection to them that I've seen yet. If there are any, I'd like to hear them. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Originally posted by Michael emrys: Once again I would like to voice my support for this idea. The introduction of SOPs to CM would relieve a lot of the difficulties players presently encounter. I can't think of any compelling objection to them that I've seen yet. If there are any, I'd like to hear them. BFC once annouced they wanted it for the engine rewrite. It is important to point out that the TacOps 4.0 scheme is not perfect either. The CM system allows you to effectivly change SOPs in the middle of a path (when you change from sneak to assault), which TacOps only indirectly supports by resetting the SOP settings after use. So ideally you would blend some CM stuff back in. But if I have to choose between current CM and current TacOps I would choose TacOps. CMBB clearly has too many commands for gameplay already, but at the same time it is badly missing many. Some permanent settings independent of the waypoints are needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 25, 2002 Share Posted October 25, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: It is important to point out that the TacOps 4.0 scheme is not perfect either. The CM system allows you to effectivly change SOPs in the middle of a path (when you change from sneak to assault), which TacOps only indirectly supports by resetting the SOP settings after use.Okay, that's worth considering. So ideally you would blend some CM stuff back in. But if I have to choose between current CM and current TacOps I would choose TacOps. CMBB clearly has too many commands for gameplay already, but at the same time it is badly missing many. Some permanent settings independent of the waypoints are needed.Is it too early to begin discussion of brass tacks? Exactly what would we like to see specified as an SOP and what as integrated movement order? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts