Human Wave BUG ?

[PeterX]

One gathers that the following commands were designed for closing with the enemy: Advance, Assault, Human wave. Especially the latter two.

Question: why bother with the other movement commands- like Move or Fast- at all? In return for a little fatigue you get more determined, resilient soldiers. This is particulary bewildering in the case of the Human Wave command.

Cons: only one waypoint. Pros: much faster than Move, morale boost, counter fire capability. And in the case of HW, the 'fatigue' is negligible; it doesn't kick until after 200m (verified). I'll never 'Move' my muzhiks again. Or should I?

Signed,

Perplexed

[ November 02, 2002, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by PeterX:

Question: why bother with the other movement commands- like Move or Fast- at all?

Stealth.

[Cameroon]

All three of those moves are a lot less globally applicable when the terrain is bad (wet or worse) and/or the troops are less than fit.

As for specific drawbacks I've seen...

Human wave has a longer command delay and I think the morale boost is minor and only good "at the beginning". And, of course, you can only use one waypoint.

Assault is not "just a little" fatiguing Again has only one waypoint. I think it has a longer command delay, too.

Advance I use instead of Move when I'm in contact or soon will be. There's no morale boost with Advance that I know of, but it (or Assault) are almost required when under fire. Works for me And I think it tires your troops only slightly less than Run. I can't remember the manual exactly on this one.

As for the pros for Move. Well, it isn't fatiguing over any type of terrain or fitness. It is also quiet like the CMBO-style sneak. I don't think it's exactly like it, but it isn't as noisey as Advance/Assault and of course HW is loud

Anyway, those are my opinions. I use move when a unit is not in contact, and won't be, unless I need to use run

[PeterX]

Cameroon posted:

Human wave has a longer command delay and I think the morale boost is minor and only good "at the beginning". And, of course, you can only use one waypoint.

Sorry, Cameroon, I still think HW is preferable to Move in nearly every situation. Despite, the initial C&C delay, you'll get to your destination a lot faster. Plus, you get the other benefits. Prove me wrong.

Additonally, we have the spectre of GAMEY ABUSE. When out of enemy LOS, you'll have the -unrealistic- incentive of bringing up the grunts to the MLR with HW. It appears the solution = increase fatigue for this command.

[ November 02, 2002, 08:39 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Bullethead]

PeterX said:

Question: why bother with the other movement commands- like Move or Fast- at all? In return for a little fatigue you get more determined, resilient soldiers. This is particulary bewildering in the case of the Human Wave command.

A place for everything and everything in its place. There's more to the morale effects of movement orders than you think, for example. It seems that each movement order is assumed to be used only in certain situations, and those situations put the troops in certain mental states. I call it "attitude". This attitude isn't a morale bonus or penalty, but troops with a given attitude react to the same battlefield events differently from others with different attitudes. You'll see what I mean below.

Also, not all the new moves are available to all troops. So sometimes you have to use MOVE when you'd rather use ADVANCE.

MOVE:

</font>

• What it Means: Troops route-marching, just diddybopping along.</font>
• Use: Moving troops not expected to be shot at this turn in a way that conserves energy and maintains noise discipline. Example: moving from LOD to the phaseline where you expect to start taking fire.</font>
• Advantages: Relatively fast (faster than ADVANCE, for instance) but still nonfatiguing and relatively quiet.</font>
• Disadvantages: Troops have a "we're safe right now" attitude, so incoming fire is something of a shock to them. They quickly run for cover even if they never show up as "panicked" or worse. But then again, you're not supposed to use this when troops will probably get shot at.
  </font>

FAST</font>

• What it means: Troops running full speed, ignoring all other considerations.</font>
• Use: Quickly shifting troops you don't expect to get shot at this turn. Example: moving a reserve platoon to head-off a flanking move you spotted earlier than your opponent intended.</font>
• Advantages: Fastest infantry move available.</font>
• Disadvantages: Extremely vulnerable to fire due to total avoidance of cover (you can run fast if you go through all the bushes). Extremely reduced spotting ability. Rather fatiguing but less so than ASSAULT. Can cause loss of some ammo for heavy weapons teams.
  </font>

ADVANCE</font>

• What it Means: Troops advancing by leapfrogging rushes of small sub-groups of the unit. For squads, it would be fireteam/section rushes, with one shooting while the other moves. Troops make use of available subtile-scale cover.</font>
• Uses: Closing with the enemy from the point of taking fire up to within about 20m or so. Also for crossing open areas further away that are under enemy observation and possible interdiction by MGs or HE.</font>
• Advantages: While there is no morale bonus per se, troops have a "here we go" attitude so incoming fire is not a shock to them, at least in reasonable doses. So instead of running for cover they keep on going up to a point. Troops take less casualties from the same fire than MOVING troops.</font>
• Disadvantages: Slower than MOVE and causes fatigue relatively early, about the same as using FAST. Can't be used by conscripts, heavy weapons, or green troops out of C&C.
  </font>

ASSAULT</font>

• What it Means: Troops advancing by individual rushes, "I'm up, he sees me, I'm down" stuff, while the rest of the unit fires.</font>
• Use: Getting across those last 20m or so into bayonet range.</font>
• Advantages: Actual morale bonus instead of just attitude, more fire put out while moving than any other order, troops use subtile-scale cover very well.</font>
• Disadvantages: Extremely fatiguing (moreso than FAST) and very slow. Can't be used by conscripts, heavy weapons, green troops out of C&C, tired units, or units that have already freaked and rallied. Because of the last 2, it's hard to ADVANCE across long distances and then ASSAULT.
  </font>

HUMAN WAVE</font>

• What it Means: Troops walk (MOVE) and then run (FAST) towards the objective, totally ignoring cover and not doing much shooting, but yelling loudly.</font>
• Use: Conscript version of ADVANCE and ASSAULT combined. Can be used by other troops but shouldn't be due to severe disadvantages.</font>
• Advantages: Only way to get conscripts to move under fire. Small morale bonus.</font>
• Disadvantages: Lack of significant suppressive fire on the move combined with all the vulnerabilities of MOVE and FAST, so troops die a lot and the morale bonus isn't enough to make up the difference. Often results in the complete disorganization of entire force committed to attack as squads freak at different points along the advance and run for cover in different directions, removing themselves from C&C. Because game engine converts player's single waypoint into 2 waypoints, the panicked troops that recover often have a FAST waypoint remaining, so utterly exhaust themselves trying to run several hundred meters. Can't be used by non-Russians, heavy weapons, units not in C&C, and exhausted units.
  </font>

So why use MOVE? Well, if you don't need to move under fire, there's no need to accept the fatigue you get from ADVANCE. Plus you cover ground faster. Besides, how else do you get heavy weapons around the map?

Why use HUMAN WAVE? If you have a choice, I have no idea. Units committed to HUMAN WAVES are almost always done for the game. Even if they don't get slaughtered, they will usually be so disorganized that it'll take you the rest of the game to sort them out again.

[ November 02, 2002, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: Bullethead ]

[PeterX]

Very informative, BH. Your well organized points are helpful. Some of this info, however, could only deduced through intuition. For example, there's nothing in the manual, IIRC, re the 'noisy' characteristics of the Human Wave command.

I still don't understood why I should not be bringing up my Soviets, out of the enemy's sight, to the front line via HW. They won't be receiving fire, so that's not a problem. Nor will command disorganization occur. They'll simply arrive quicker at the front. ?.

[Bullethead]

PeterX said:

there's nothing in the manual, IIRC, re the 'noisy' characteristics of the Human Wave command.

Don't you hear the troops yelling? That's got to have some game effect.

I still don't understood why I should not be bringing up my Soviets, out of the enemy's sight, to the front line via HW.

Because they go FAST for some of the distance and get tired. The effect is magnified in hot and cold weather, muddy or snowy ground, and with troops in less than top condition. So when you finally get your troops up to where you need them, they may not have much juice left. IMHO, it's usually better to take slightly more time but have the troops arrive with full tanks. You need all their stamina to ADVANCE in the combat zone.

[Foxbat]

Movement command, BUG?

I use the movement command all the time, this must be a BUG. After all it always gets my men to their destination, without fatigue, multiple waypoints, and no noticeable command delay. I use it all the time! I think it is a bug and BFC should increase fatigue for this command!

[/irony]

Every command has advantadges and disadvantadges, but I certainly don't see any 'gamey' advantadge in using an awkward command like Human Wave to move your troops if you like that.

And certainly calling everything a BUG, or demanding specific tweaks must be made based on your limited experience* and your style of playing isn't very helpfull. Let's see if there is even one other gamer who shares your complaint before making demands.

* compared to say the experience of the entire Beta testing team combined.

[ November 03, 2002, 09:02 AM: Message edited by: Foxbat ]

[Foxbat]

Bullethead> I think you should post thatin the FAQ thread.

[Soddball]

Would you mind if I stole it for the FAQ thread bullethead?

[Bullethead]

Originally posted by Soddball:

Would you mind if I stole it for the FAQ thread bullethead?

Sure, go ahead.

[Sigurd]

Bullethead, perhaps you could add a paragraph for "move to contact". There was a big thread a week ago about the "move" in CMBB being like the "sneak" in CMBO. You don't semm to stress the "discretion" part of the move command (if there finally is one...)

[Bullethead]

Sigurd said:

Bullethead, perhaps you could add a paragraph for "move to contact".

OK, but MtC doesn't really fit in with the above. FAST, MOVE, ADVANCE, ASSAULT, and HUMAN WAVE are all combat-related. Either you're moving stuff around to gain an advantageous position while you have the chance, or you're closing with the enemy to kill him. MtC does neither, so it isn't really amenable to the same sort of format I used before.

Furthermore, IMHO MtC has a legitimate use only in very limited circumstances. Otherwise, it's only useful for those who habitually rely on "gamey recon" and exploit Borg Spotting. Therefore, I don't understand why BTS put it in the game.

Like the manual says, MtC has the troops moving slowly carefully, exploiting the available cover. When they spot an enemy, or when they receive fire, they stop moving and will likely shoot. Thus, MtC is different from regular MOVE in terms of attitude (the troops are expecting contact) and effect when meeting the enemy (MtC troops stop, MOVEing troops keep going). I also think MtC is slower and quieter than MOVE.

Stopping on contact can cause problems if it leaves you in open ground in daylight. So you should NEVER use MtC to cross open ground of any sort. OTOH, at night, in the woods, or in thick fog, where you don't see the enemy until you're already in grenade range, it's often best just to blaze away and hope for the best. Continuing to move in these situations reduces your firepower and increases your vulnerability to what is already the max firepower the enemy can put out. So MtC is an improvement over CMBO's options in these low-viz situations.

HOWEVER, when you combine MtC with another new CMBB feature, tank-hunter teams, you have a recipe for gamey recon. Tank-hunter teams see way more use as scouts than as AT weapons, at least for the attacker. I mean, look at all the incentives. Probably the defending AFVs are on the far side of grunt defensive lines so it's highly unlikely that the THTs will ever get into effective range. And THTs used as scouts only risk 2 men instead of 4-5, and you don't have to split any squads. Finally, with the MtC command, maybe the scouts won't die afterall, while the player reaps the benefits of the Borg Spotting.

[aka_tom_w]

bump

[Thermopylae]

Or maybe the tank hunters will be pinned by a quick burst of MG fire? I think mass of men plays a part in morale...

[Dschugaschwili]

Bullethead, are you sure that advance and assault are slower than move? I was under the impression that squads are equally fast under those three commands.

Dschugaschwili

[edit] They do get slower once they are tired though. [/edit]

[ November 04, 2002, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Dschugaschwili ]

[flamingknives]

MtC is pretty useful in Urban areas - advance betwen houses then MtC through them limits getting jumped while doing so. IMHO, of course.

[Bullethead]

Dschugaschwili said:

[QB]Bullethead, are you sure that advance and assault are slower than move? I was under the impression that squads are equally fast under those three commands.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

Furthermore, IMHO MtC has a legitimate use only in very limited circumstances. Otherwise, it's only useful for those who habitually rely on "gamey recon" and exploit Borg Spotting. Therefore, I don't understand why BTS put it in the game.

Stopping on contact can cause problems if it leaves you in open ground in daylight. So you should NEVER use MtC to cross open ground of any sort. OTOH, at night, in the woods, or in thick fog, where you don't see the enemy until you're already in grenade range, it's often best just to blaze away and hope for the best. Continuing to move in these situations reduces your firepower and increases your vulnerability to what is already the max firepower the enemy can put out. So MtC is an improvement over CMBO's options in these low-viz situations.

HOWEVER, when you combine MtC with another new CMBB feature, tank-hunter teams, you have a recipe for gamey recon. Tank-hunter teams see way more use as scouts than as AT weapons, at least for the attacker. I mean, look at all the incentives. Probably the defending AFVs are on the far side of grunt defensive lines so it's highly unlikely that the THTs will ever get into effective range. And THTs used as scouts only risk 2 men instead of 4-5, and you don't have to split any squads. Finally, with the MtC command, maybe the scouts won't die afterall, while the player reaps the benefits of the Borg Spotting.

1) Move to Contact over open ground isn't that horrible...esp. w/ hide at the end, it seems easier to hide in low-concealment terrain now.

2) re: tank hunters, they are expensive for only two men...something like = to 5 men in some normal squads. so if they get killed, they are still hurting your score a bit, and since they only have 2 men they are likely to rout if they take a casualty.

3) re: borg spotting, what is a fair or non-borg spotting methodology to you? Everyone has to play by the same imperfect spotting rules.

[WWB]

And nothing puts a stop to a recon cloud o half squads and tank hunters like a nice screen of LMG teams. Really does a number on unsupported recon assets.

WWB

[Bullethead]

Silvio Manuel said:

1) Move to Contact over open ground isn't that horrible...esp. w/ hide at the end, it seems easier to hide in low-concealment terrain now.

To each his own.

2) re: tank hunters, they are expensive for only two men...something like = to 5 men in some normal squads. so if they get killed, they are still hurting your score a bit, and since they only have 2 men they are likely to rout if they take a casualty.

However, THTs seem inherently stealthy and less likely to be seen and draw fire than normal grunts. I believe this is the main reason for their relatively high cost per man, considering they often don't have anything that regular squads don't have.

Then look at these prices (June 1943, regular German infantry). Recon platoon = 88, THT = 11, Sharpshooter = 22. If you wanted to buy some grunts just for scouting, the THT seems the best bang for the buck. Stealthy, 2 guys instead of 1, and so cheap you can get 8 of them for the price of a recon platoon, which only gives you a max of 7 scouts.

The absolute point cost isn't the only factor to consider anyway. The main benefit of scouting with THTs is that you don't cripple one of your squads. I mean, if you use 1/2squads, the scouting 1/2squad often gets hosed, and the effect is that one of your full squads got hosed because it's only got 1/2 its men left anyway. And a full squad is way more effective in an infantry firefight than a 1/2squad.

3) re: borg spotting, what is a fair or non-borg spotting methodology to you? Everyone has to play by the same imperfect spotting rules.

There isn't any way around the borg spotting. However, I don't think using THTs for scouting is legit because that wasn't their intended role. Further, systematic scouting of the map is beyond the scope of a CM battle--that would already have been done in real life. So I think putting 1/2squads or sharpshooters (often used as scouts) just a bit ahead of the main body, as ambush protection, is about the most you should do.

[xerxes]

Move to Contact is a critical command. It's the best soldier perserving move command. HWing and finding out that a HMG has a clear LOS is rather painful. The morale boost actually hurts because it keeps your men up and moving so they can get mowed down more efficiently. Unless I know what's out there I prefer MtC or even sneak.

You can get awfully close sneaking with a double "?" leader in command. I've gotten literally on top of an enemy unit using sneak without being spotted.

[Amedeo]

Re: tank hunters.

Personally, I don't think they're gamey as a recon asset, at least for the Soviet.

IN fact those little, sneaky, SMG armed teams reminds me of the typical radzvedchiki.

Moreover they're not so heavy on AT weaponry (sigh!), and the few MCs or ATGs they carry can be typically accounted for the attitude by elite troops to carry some extra "gadget".

(If they were armed with captured magnetic mines or Panzerfaust/Panzerschreck type weapons, I'll agree on their 'gameyness', but this is not the case).

Regards,

Amedeo

P.S. Suggestion for scenario designers: to model Red Army scouts in late war scenarios buy AT teams and sharpshooters from the Airborne Troops' menu. They'll come with the typical two-piece camouflage coverall, and no one will be able to distinguish them from ordinary riflemen since they have no A/B troops insigna or branch colour visible.