Move to Contact

[Ardem]

I love using this command in heavy terrained area but, I wish it could be enhanced in CMx2

I would like the command to be more like hunt with armour, where it stops firefights and if the enemy retreats or moves of instead of waiting they could move forward again.

Also I dislike the fact that your units stop even if it sees a crew on the other side of the map that will have no impact on you, I would prefer move to contact to have a arc attached to it, this will allow you to keep moving till an enemy is within that arc.

Infantry although has target selection does not have the ai attached to it as much as the armoured units have, so I think they need a little bit of loving

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Ardem:

Also I dislike the fact that your units stop even if it sees a crew on the other side of the map that will have no impact on you, I would prefer move to contact to have a arc attached to it, this will allow you to keep moving till an enemy is within that arc.

But this works already, doesn't it?

[Bigduke6]

It does, but that doesn't help you if there's an enemy crew/section close, and a real threat further away. Until you waste the crew/section, your troops won't do movement to contact.

[pad152]

Think Tacops with Cmx2 Graphics, all the command and options you could ever want.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

It does, but that doesn't help you if there's an enemy crew/section close, and a real threat further away. Until you waste the crew/section, your troops won't do movement to contact.

Well, then you waste that crew/section, like they would have done IRL. That's different from the original complaint by Ardem, though, which was about a crew faraway. For such cases, you can set move to contact in conjunction with cover arc/armor arc, and the unit only stops when something shows up within the arc.

[pad152]

Well, then you waste that crew/section, like they would have done IRL. That's different from the original complaint by Ardem, though, which was about a crew faraway. For such cases, you can set move to contact in conjunction with cover arc/armor arc, and the unit only stops when something shows up within the arc.

And what happens when the enemy not in your arc shows up?

[Battlefront.com]

Currently, in CMx1, the Move to Contact attempts to not stop for stuff that isn't important. However, because of Absolute Spotting this is really tough to do. With Relative Spotting it becomes MUCH easier. Now the chances of that Squad knowing that there is a crew 1000m away is about nil, so it can't possibly screw up the Move to Contact behavior.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

...it can't possibly screw up...

Foolproof, eh? Aren't you forgetting what a dedicated bunch of fools we are? The only thing more assured of finding a flaw or weakness in any system is an average two-year-old.

Michael

[Bigduke6]

I disagree. There are plenty of historical cases of mechanized attack ignoring the infantry they are overunning, neither shooting them nor accepting their surrender, but just pushing on with the advance.

As it is, a single crew in decent morale condition can prevent a company of tanks from performing movement to contact, if the company of tanks can see the crew. If the crew is in a trench the delay can last more than a turn. If the defender is clever and willing to sacrifice crews or section, he can draw out the process for several turns at a time by sequentially exposing a section for identification and destruction, and thus freezing units attempting to go forward on "move to contact" in place.

A rare but nevertheless absurd version of this is when the crew of an destroyed AT gun in a trench or sandbag position has just as much delaying effect on enemy tanks, than the same AT gun when it was still functional.

I would love to see a movement to contact that worked for armor vehicles only, i.e., the moment they see enemy vehicles they stop, period. The tanks just ignore infantry.

As it is the solution is hunt, but it is not a perfect solution if you are trying to keep your tanks together - once the enemy vehicle is destroyed your friendly vehicles continue hunting willy-nilly, and willy-nilly doesn't generally produced concentrated AT fires.

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

It does, but that doesn't help you if there's an enemy crew/section close, and a real threat further away. Until you waste the crew/section, your troops won't do movement to contact.

Well, then you waste that crew/section, like they would have done IRL. That's different from the original complaint by Ardem, though, which was about a crew faraway. For such cases, you can set move to contact in conjunction with cover arc/armor arc, and the unit only stops when something shows up within the arc. </font>

[Drusus]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

I would love to see a movement to contact that worked for armor vehicles only, i.e., the moment they see enemy vehicles they stop, period. The tanks just ignore infantry.

I would like to see a command where armor only stops to fight when they see something that is a threat to them. Be it bazooka, ATG or enemy vehicle.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

With Relative Spotting it becomes MUCH easier ...

... for units with a "Move to Contact" order to run into ambushes that had previously been revealed by absolute spotting,

Best regards,

Thomm

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Drusus:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

I would love to see a movement to contact that worked for armor vehicles only, i.e., the moment they see enemy vehicles they stop, period. The tanks just ignore infantry.

I would like to see a command where armor only stops to fight when they see something that is a threat to them. Be it bazooka, ATG or enemy vehicle. </font>

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Drusus:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

I would love to see a movement to contact that worked for armor vehicles only, i.e., the moment they see enemy vehicles they stop, period. The tanks just ignore infantry.

I would like to see a command where armor only stops to fight when they see something that is a threat to them. Be it bazooka, ATG or enemy vehicle. </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Drusus:

I would like to see a command where armor only stops to fight when they see something that is a threat to them. Be it bazooka, ATG or enemy vehicle.

Well, duh.

'Cover Armor' command w/Move to Contact, or just Hunt, does that.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

I disagree. There are plenty of historical cases of mechanized attack ignoring the infantry they are overunning, neither shooting them nor accepting their surrender, but just pushing on with the advance.

Then give a fast move command. Solved.

[tar]

I agree. Those overrunning mechanized units were clearly not operating under move to contact orders.

[mrpwase]

Basically, the solution proposed by Steve seems to be what we're looking for. >_>

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, it gets even better. It is now possible for a unit with a Move to Contact order to not fire. Instead it can creep along, spot something, and be quiet so that it can observe instead of announce to everbody where you are. As with CMx1, the Move to Contact command works best in dense terrain. It gives you a chance to see the other guy before he sees you. In open terrain all it really does is avoid getting closer to the enemy before you figure out what to do.

And yes, Thomm is correct... in CMx2 ambushes should be a lot easier to acheive. Part of the whole "slower pace" I've talked about before. The more uncertainty a commander has, the more hesitation and deliberate action instead of instant and hasty moves. And that is a good thing. More tension!

Steve

[vincere]

does slower pace = more turns and longer average game? Or would answering that be too direct to count as a bone.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

It is now possible for a unit with a Move to Contact order to not fire. Instead it can creep along, spot something, and be quiet so that it can observe instead of announce to everbody where you are.

This sounds like a return of the original Sneak command as it was in CMBO. If so, that can only be counted as a Good Thing.

Michael

[Bigduke6]

:confused: And what if I want my tank to stop and shoot at a new threat, or another infantry target, instead of driving deeper into an ambush?

That solves the problem for my opponent, sure. But not me.

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bigduke6:

I disagree. There are plenty of historical cases of mechanized attack ignoring the infantry they are overunning, neither shooting them nor accepting their surrender, but just pushing on with the advance.

Then give a fast move command. Solved. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

And what if I want my tank to stop and shoot at a new threat, or another infantry target, instead of driving deeper into an ambush?

Easy... don't tell your guys to hold their fire. Yup, it is optional. But Fast will still not be modifiable into a speedier Move to Conatact. In fact, we never thought of having such a command because we've never found any realistic reason to include it. AFVs and trucks, bounding along at top speed, can't spot diddly squat. They WILL run into an ambush if they don't slow down to smell the roses. The only advantage of going fast is to get out of the kill zone before you're killed. This is why convoys in Iraq drive 50-60mph... it isn't for the fun of it (accident deaths in Iraq are massive compared to normal ops).

Good God Dorosh... I forgot all about the Sneak order. Wow, there is a blast from the past.

Slower play comes from the combo of new features, especially Relative Spotting, not from an artificial construct like longer turn time. I don't want to recover that ground again, but basically think in real world terms. The more uncertain you are of something, the less likely you will do it or at least the more you will hesitate before doing it. That is CMx2. CMx1 you had extremely high levels of awareness and therefore uncertainty was pretty much over and done with after first substantial contact. Not to say at the tactical level CMx1 had little uncertainty, I am saying at the higher levels of thinking.

Steve

[vincere]

Slower play comes from the combo of new features, especially Relative Spotting, not from an artificial construct like longer turn time. I don't want to recover that ground again, but basically think in real world terms. The more uncertain you are of something, the less likely you will do it or at least the more you will hesitate before doing it. That is CMx2. CMx1 you had extremely high levels of awareness and therefore uncertainty was pretty much over and done with after first substantial contact. Not to say at the tactical level CMx1 had little uncertainty, I am saying at the higher levels of thinking.

I think I see what you're getting at. Only spot one or two soldiers will still leaves you tinking are they part of a squad? If so where's the LMG, and the othersl. If that's what you're getting at, the signifcance of relative spotting has finnally been bashed into my head.

Thanks Steve.

[Battlefront.com]

Not exactly, but that's sorta the idea. The main thing to keep in mind that in CMx1, thanks to Absolute Spotting, enemy units were spotted far too easily. It just wasn't possible to crank back the outlier stuff without harming the things that really needed to be spotted. With Relative Spotting we have a lot more flexibility to work with variables so that crew at 1000m isn't spotted but the tank at 200m is.

Then of course there is the whole thing about "well, these guys can see that enemy and shoot at it, but these guys can't." Makes it a lot harder to acheive your objectives if you can't use every asset on the map whenever it has LOS and range, no matter if it should know of the target or not. Harder objectives equals slower place of progress. The combat itself should still be just as intense. More so, I think, because of the greater levels of uncertainty.

Think about it this way... would Doom/Quake (or Marathon2!) been nearly as intense if you knew where all the bad guys were 2-3 rooms away before you go there? Not just that they were in there, mind you, but lurking behind that staircase or hiding in a little alcove? No. And that is a similar thing with CMx2 in terms of the tension that comes from knowing that you don't know.

Steve

[jeffsmith]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Makes it a lot harder to acheive your objectives if you can't use every asset on the map whenever it has LOS and range, no matter if it should know of the target or not.

Steve

A Quick Question

(that I probably should know the answer to, but don't)

If a friendly unit has LOS to a potential enemy target

what are some of the factors why it wouldn't be able to target it