Men are tired too easily?

[Quenaelin]

Sorry, I was wrong with this advance command, I didn't actually knew that dash can mean "syöksyä" as well as "pikapyrähdys".

I am really serius about this tiring problem. This game isn't so realistic and fun to play anymore, now when troops are so damn easily getting tired and exthausted, when running, advancing and assaulting. This game is getting more and more like somekind of Sims in War game, where you have to micromanage everything your troops do. I would like to have straitgh forward command like CMB0 run command was, where you don't have to calculate how tired your troops get when they are dashing about 60-70 meter, and you can shoot as well. In CMB0 they were tired only after couple of hunders meters, I think that is more realistic what real soldier can do.

I don't speak for other Finns, I just speak for myself and which are my impressions of this new game.

[ November 14, 2002, 02:12 AM: Message edited by: Quenaelin ]

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by wwb_99:

So, next turn, change that sneak waypoint into an advance and get em the hell out of the way. Or just halt them and return fire.

This absolute aversion to the move command is kind of funny to me.

Alot of men can die in fifty nine seconds. If that was your only Pioneer squad... Ah well.

"Absolute aversion" doesn't strike me as very fair, there, wwb. Insofar as you may be addressing me, why Move is eighty five percent of my infantry motion. And it's *only* eighty five because I use alot of deliberate Sneaking. Yes, I actually choose to Sneak alot, pause for thirty seconds every turn, but it can get me somewhere good unannounced pretty often.

Anyhow... I'm clocking out of this whole Sneak and Cover Arc thing. Like I said, I ranted when I got the demo about Sneaking being Crawling, (not because I owned CMBO, which I don't), and here we are many moons later... I posted that in Citadel the Arc thing didn't seem to be a sufficient description for an Ambush, now here we are many moons later, the thread next door talking about the same thing (among other things)...

What's the point. None of this stuff is going into the patch, and I guess we who advocate that SOPs are the direction in which this program needs to grow have made our point sufficiently. I have the feeling that the patch is what we're getting for a couple years...

[ Lurking ]

Eden

[Brian Rock]

Eden - take it easy, please, this is a friendly discussion.

I'm not sure where the idea that Move was "a lah de dah walk to Starbucks" came from. Probably a rhetorical flourish that was taken too literally.

By the time troops are on the CM map they are expecting contact, and in this context Move means "I don't expect to get shot in the next 60 seconds". I only use Move when my troops are out of LOS - eg behind a hill or woods. If I'm in a hurry I use Fast.

Now if I think if the enemy might be able to see me - more to the point, might be able to shoot at me - I generally use Move to Contact.

Once I've seen the enemy or strongly suspect they are lying in ambush I use Advance, with rests at the end of each Advance. I rarely have a problem with tired troops, certainly not one that isn't fixed with resting a turn or two (some special units are the exception, and worth addressing).

Given the way I play - YMMV - I don't need a Move Until Under Fire. If I can see the enemy I presume they (or their unspotted buddies) are capable of firing on me and use Advance, or occasionally Sneak. I figure haul ass or get down, but don't stand and dawdle.

In any case a Move Until Under Fire order seems a bit dubious to me in the field. I am sceptical that IRL troops will advance in LOS of the enemy without using cover. It seems to be putting a wee too much trust in the enemy to behave nicely.

Now the problems with Sneaking as opposed to Moving is a different issue. I don't disagree that it might be too tiring, or that the issue about reactions when coming under fire are worth reviewing.

And finally I haven't accused anybody who has a problem with the current system of whining, and find calling people whiners unhelpful. If you don't like it you don't like it, and you're entitled to express your opinion. Or to lurk if you so choose.

[Quenaelin]

I am cursing myself not to trying this demo out more carefully. I just checked that tank AI was better than before in one mission, in other mission there was russians advancing, I thought of well they get tired so easily becouse they are unfit soldiers, so I didn't tried this game well enough to notice this tiredness problem.

[ November 14, 2002, 03:19 AM: Message edited by: Quenaelin ]

[jKMkIII]

I don't see troops tiring as problem. It is so long when I was in army so can't remember how long distance it took to get tired.. and I remember that we used advance in basic training to get everywhere, even to dinner And right now is not in mood to grab 15kg stuff and go running and crawling in forest

What I do when expecting enemy to pop up any time is to have for example 2 platoons advancing first. Then some distance behid them is third platoon and support element, they all walk. If they get too much behind they might even run little bit. Then might have fourth platoon in further back and when I decide where I want to get them I can use even run because they are so far away from enemy.

After while my 1st or 2nd platoon gets tired so I let them sit there and switch 3rd platoon to front and let them advance.

This way always have first troops advancing so enemy can't ambush them unprepared, and they are never too tired to fight.

Tools are there, just have to select right one to use. So far it has worked for me.

[Fetchez la Vache]

Yes, men tiring easily is a problem. But not in the sense that it's incorrect. You just have to manage your men with a bit more care than in CMBO. Let them rest for a turn before attempting that 150m dash across open ground. Don't use the whole turn for movement. Use that command delay to give them a breather. Only Advance in short sticks.

As I said before, I like it. For me CMBO was all about AFV's, infantry just ran behind and occupied the bits the Panzers had already routed. Now I have to spend as much time moving my landser platoons as I do finding that perfect hull-down aspect for my PzVG. Nice.

The only problem I have is my men getting exhausted due to excessive Sneaking when under fire. But it appears that is going to be somewhat adressed in the patch...

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Brian Rock:

Eden - take it easy, please, this is a friendly discussion.

Of course! Can't tell whether I've offended you, in which case I'm sorry and I plead *fatigue* from sneaking around this damn topic for months, or whether you think you've offended me, in which case I'll explain that I'm not angry. As to my last post, I think I said what I mean- what's been listed as being in the patch just feels like they're about done with it, and after all they're turning down the exhaust factor, so... we're just beating our heads here. There just aren't going to be new commands or SOPs or TC's who graduated from Sears School of Driving in the patch. Call me a pessimist.

And after all, I'd trade just about *all* that stuff to fix the HQ spotting bug...

I'm not sure where the idea that Move was "a lah de dah walk to Starbucks" came from. Probably a rhetorical flourish that was taken too literally.

OK, but now wait a minute- I've just looked in the book of all wisdom, and it is *very* terse about what the different movements are. I am almost certain that in one of these billion MoveThreads, we had Someone@BFC explain more in depth what they were, and I swear that Move distinctly had a *morale penalty* when the enemy was contacted. Which strikes me as meaning that they really aren't "ready"- maybe they're ready *today*, but just not *now*, or something.

Now if I think if the enemy might be able to see me - more to the point, might be able to shoot at me - I generally use Move to Contact.

You betray yourself here- it is exactly the point that you cannot distinguish between those five cases, (of innumerable), I listed above and "might be able to shoot at me". You're bypassing the difference between visual with an enemy who's not a real threat, and a threat right in your face.

Once I've seen the enemy or strongly suspect they are lying in ambush I use Advance, with rests at the end of each Advance.

Then you are mimicking Stop If True Danger, at the cost of time. In RL, I think your commander would think you're an idiot to put the same exact effort into Advancing through an empty forest where there *might* be someone, maybe, possibly, than when there actually *is* someone firing at you. You need to save some of that energy for when the enemy is there, right? Let's say that this command we won't get ( ) takes half as much energy as Advance. I'd really say less, like thirty percent, but we could say half. They will exercise *due caution* and cover and leapfrog and all that cautious stuff, but not with the same vigor as when an enemy is actually shooting at them!

I figure haul ass or get down, but don't stand and dawdle.

And what I (we?) is/am/be saying is neither stand and dawdel, *nor* expend so much energy that you are combat ineffective by the time you get to where you're going.

I am sceptical that IRL troops will advance in LOS of the enemy without using cover.

Right. I also am sceptical that they would not be more than happy to *bypass* those enemies such as the cases I listed above which are really combat ineffective or suppressed enemies.

It seems to be putting a wee too much trust in the enemy to behave nicely.

Ah, but I have not expressed trust in the enemy- if they become a threat, my SOP tells me to stop and deal with it under this command, *not* to attempt to get to point Bravo AT ALL COSTS.

And finally I haven't accused anybody who has a problem with the current system of whining

Ah ok- that was the Queen's "you", not you Mr Rock, less even was it referring to anyone's particular use of "whine" in this particular thread, which I don't think has occurred.

I was touching on the fact that we have, after all, been trying to figure out what Movement is missing from our Eigenvector of commands for months. Perhaps I felt that your question "where do we stop?" was heading in the wrong direction. It's something of a non-argument, similar to when Mom said "What if *everyone* did that?", which, under some circumstances, is complete logical fraud. (Mom, if you're reading this, go to bed.) Anyhow, I apologize for seeming to accuse you of being a whiner-whiner.

So... You use "Advance/Rest". *Maybe* we should have MoveButStopIfNecessary, where "Move" doesn't mean you will be shocked if a new threat *does* appear, and takes say sixty percent of the time your Advance/Rest does, takes sixty percent of the energy Advance does, and rename Move to... Schlep?

Eden

[Quenaelin]

I would liked to see more AI to put in my troops in this Combat Mission 2, but no intellegence is added when it comes to tiredness and moving my troops, they are just stupid as hell. I like to have just one command which can be used for assaulting, advancing and running so that advancing my troops will go smoothly and more playable way than in this game.

[Fetchez la Vache]

I'd like to see more commands!

I don't want a single command, I want to be able to choose from an intelligent selection in order to use the best one for the situation as I see it.

Maybe BTS should consider 2 levels of commands for the next engine? An exoteric low-level one which only provides 2-3 movement commands, and a higher-level mode which allows the full plethora of commands available?

[Quenaelin]

There could be movement selectors, which are selected before move command is given, so troops will just know how to react underfire. Some soldier would have commanded to stealthy move, and some squads are moving and stopping to contact, and some are just assaulting, and there could be selector for running as fast as you can and then stop to hold your breath and continue. But generally there would be one big movement command which could control every movement, that would be much more playable.

[Fetchez la Vache]

I don't want to sound rude but I don't think playable is what CMBB is about. It's about realism. Sudden Strike is playable (ish), CMBB is realistic (ish).

[Quenaelin]

OK, maybe I just have to sell this game then and play something else, CMB0 looked so promising combat action simulator, now CMBB seem to go towards to just another dull war strategy game. My opinion is that CMBB is going to wrong direction, I would prefer more like simulator style approach than strategy game approach.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

I am almost certain that in one of these billion MoveThreads, we had Someone@BFC explain more in depth what they were, and I swear that Move distinctly had a *morale penalty* when the enemy was contacted.

As I recall it, this statement was with regard not to the Move command but Fast. Either or both of us could be mistaken...

Once I've seen the enemy or strongly suspect they are lying in ambush I use Advance, with rests at the end of each Advance.

Then you are mimicking Stop If True Danger, at the cost of time. In RL, I think your commander would think you're an idiot to put the same exact effort into Advancing through an empty forest where there *might* be someone, maybe, possibly...

This is precisely what MtC was made for: limited LOS, possibility of stumbling onto an unsuspected enemy.

Michael

[ November 14, 2002, 07:15 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[ParaBellum]

Originally posted by Quenaelin:

OK, maybe I just have to sell this game then and play something else, CMB0 looked so promising combat action simulator, now CMBB seem to go towards to just another dull war strategy game. My opinion is that CMBB is going to wrong direction, I would prefer more like simulator style approach than strategy game approach.

Quenaelin, what are you taling about?

:confused:

Sorry, but I think you don't understand a thing what people awere trying to explain to you.

I'm out of here...

[Michael Emrys]

My take is that he just doesn't like the game and can't necessarily explain his reasons, whether because of the language barrier or some other reason.

Well, to tell the truth, CMBB just isn't going to be everybody's cup of tea and there's no need to go into shock when one comes along. CM can't be all things to all players, as I keep saying. All it really needs to do is fulfill its chosen role as well as it can.

Michael

[ParaBellum]

Michael, that's what I think, too.

I don't have a problem if someone doesn't like CM, to each his own.

I'm just a bit astonished by his stubbornness in ignoring the IMO helpful suggestions/explanations of the crowd here and simply posting again and again unsubstantiated complaints.

Honni soit qui mal y pense...

[Brian Rock]

Eden, it seems I misread the tone of your post. My error. Not the first time. Sorry.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Now if I think if the enemy might be able to see me - more to the point, might be able to shoot at me - I generally use Move to Contact.

You betray yourself here- it is exactly the point that you cannot distinguish between those five cases, (of innumerable), I listed above and "might be able to shoot at me". You're bypassing the difference between visual with an enemy who's not a real threat, and a threat right in your face.</font>

[PiggDogg]

Brian,

I re-did the scenario with third platoon, but breaking the advances into shorter bounds. Initial pace was slower (at the 20 min mark they had covered 690m versus 805m the first run); after 30 min they had travelled 1115m - only 30m more, but all units were ready except for one tired.

Thanks for the test and results. In the just above test, what were the parameters of the "shorter bounds" that you mentioned? :confused:

In BB, the lessons seems to be that walk is the way to go most of the time. Advance should be used in "short bounds" with rest.

The BB model seems and probably is much more historically correct than the BO model. If someone has overly tired troops too much of the time, they are just not doing things right.

Those 'make one's guys tired too much' people might (but they don't have to) take the offered good advise, learn, and get better at BB. Then again, they can do as they wish, not take the offered good advise, not learn, and not get better at BB.

It is a free world.

Cheers, Richard

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

As I recall it, this statement was with regard not to the Move command but Fast. Either or both of us could be mistaken...

Mmmmmm I'm *pretty* sure it was Move. I'd wager ten Emrys and tuppence on it. But as you mention it, it would make sense for it to be both Move and Fast.

This is precisely what MtC was made for: limited LOS, possibility of stumbling onto an unsuspected enemy.

And when your Tiger is in sight of a Routed Crew, your Tiger will not move with MtC.

Eden

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Brian Rock:

Eden, it seems I misread the tone of your post. My error. Not the first time. Sorry.

Pshaw. I forgive myself.

I see them all as imminent threats.

If you're going to insist that you cannot move faster and easier while in sight of a Routed Crew than while in sight of an unsurpressed HMG who is staring right at you, then I can't counter.

Balancing speed vs security is one of those wonderful dilemmas infantry leaders have to cope with.

You're leading my point away- I'm not suggesting we have an Advance which doesn't tire nor takes any more time than Move.

Would my CO think I'm an idiot for Advancing through forest if I thought there were bad guys there?

The other wall- if your claim is that you would or should expend as much energy "just in case" Mr Routed has viagra left, than when the real HMG is firing at you, then I can't counter.

if your troops are getting exhausted you're doing it wrong.

My troops are NOT getting exhausted... but yes I AM doing it wrong. I haven't stated that I have a problem with exhausted troops- I play the game as it is, but there is imho a bit of unfinished business in the movement area in the game.

Advance in stages and you can cover ground at 40% the speed of a walk, in comparative safety, and be still be rested and ready to fight.

Hmmm well I'm not sure I know what more to say... But I do know I need to go shower and get ready for work now, so I'm Withdrawing, (and I'll probably Panic, too).

Eden

[xerxes]

Just to stir the pot, I use run a great deal in CMBB. I use run probably three times as much as I use advance. I rarely use advance because I'm allergic to moving under fire.

Running has it's risks but it certainly uptempos the attack.

HT mounted infantry certainly does the same too. As long as those pesky ATR are dealt with.

[Vanir Ausf B]

This very significant change in the 1.01 patch was mentioned briefly earlier, but appears to have been missed.

* Move to Contact stops the moving unit only if a spotted enemy appears in the moving unit's covered arc (if any).

[DekeFentle]

I need to weigh in on this one folks. Personal experience has left me with a vivid memory.

On the second evening of the Gulf War despite being a member or perhaps because of that membership in a Bradley scout platoon. I was invited along with the other nine members of my section to “Dismount and determine if that enemy OP 300 meters to your front is occupied.”

The plan was to maneuver forward under covering fire from the other two sections. Without going into all the details of how we accomplished this feat I want to tell you that after moving that 300 meters I was in a state of physical exhaustion I have never before or since felt. In game terms I would say we moved to contact the first 100 meters under the cover of smoke and advanced the final 200 (perhaps less certainly not more).

I believe that we were all very fortunate that the position was abandoned prior to our arrival as our ability to take the position in the face of determined resistance was severely degraded by our physical state.

This maneuver was performed at dusk in good weather (45 F) at MOPP level 1. I carried an M16, LBE (sans canteen) with eight 30x clips, gas mask, two smoke and two fragmentation grenades. I can’t remember how much weight that was but it’s not much. I was, prior to the gulf conflict, a member of the 2/11 ARC and as such had received a high level of physical training and at the time was probably in the best shape of my life.

The adrenaline rush that you get is astounding in it’s proportion and the let down is on the same scale. I find the current model in CMBB to be both realistic and playable, albeit it requires you to carefully manage your movement to contact and assault upon the enemy positions. Having said that I acknowledge it takes longer to set up for the attack and I would not play a QB from the attackers side with less than 30+ turns.

[White Phosphorus]

I have never played CMBO, and I have absolutely no problem with the current infantry model. Even the slightest fire will make the infantry hit the ground, so using move, and even run is not a very bad idea. And how can you say that the troops tire too easily, when they do not tire at all while moving.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

And when your Tiger is in sight of a Routed Crew, your Tiger will not move with MtC.

In that case, what's to stop you giving it a Hunt command? It will ignore the routed crew but stop if it spots something that could do it serious harm.

Michael