M1A1TC Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Review the 1.08 patch here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 Review the 1.08 patch here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 Review the 1.08 patch here 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Is incremental. Whats not to like Thanks BF.C 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Is incremental. Whats not to like Thanks BF.C 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Carrot Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Is incremental. Whats not to like Thanks BF.C 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 OK, I'll bite: the FAST command continues to be about as useful as the Pope's pudenda. QUICK, will get a unit the same distance minus the fatigue. FAST troops may have less situational awareness but should this effect speed in protected, non-fire zones? Am I alone in thinking that this small stuff is more important than tweaking the 'shatter gap'? (/kvetch off) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 OK, I'll bite: the FAST command continues to be about as useful as the Pope's pudenda. QUICK, will get a unit the same distance minus the fatigue. FAST troops may have less situational awareness but should this effect speed in protected, non-fire zones? Am I alone in thinking that this small stuff is more important than tweaking the 'shatter gap'? (/kvetch off) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 OK, I'll bite: the FAST command continues to be about as useful as the Pope's pudenda. QUICK, will get a unit the same distance minus the fatigue. FAST troops may have less situational awareness but should this effect speed in protected, non-fire zones? Am I alone in thinking that this small stuff is more important than tweaking the 'shatter gap'? (/kvetch off) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 My thoughts? Woo Hoo! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 My thoughts? Woo Hoo! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 My thoughts? Woo Hoo! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Originally posted by Childress: OK, I'll bite: the FAST command continues to be about as useful as the Pope's pudenda. QUICK, will get a unit the same distance minus the fatigue. FAST troops may have less situational awareness but should this effect speed in protected, non-fire zones? Am I alone in thinking that this small stuff is more important than tweaking the 'shatter gap'? (/kvetch off) No, you're not alone. I'm also a bit confused as to how the FAST command is useful WRT infantry. . . with vehicles, it is somewhat useful when you want to, for example, make an all-out dash from defilade to defilade. But as you note, for Infantry, the speed gained by using FAST over QUICK is minimal, and it is substantially more tiring than QUICK. What's that good for? Or maybe I'm missing something. Is there some advantage to FAST that I am unaware of? Or maybe other factors like encumbrance come into play here? Is FAST substantially faster than QUICK for, say, an insurgent with only his AK-47 and a few clips, but not so much for a US Soldier weighed down with lots of body armor and gear? I haven't experimented with all this stuff yet. . . But it is a minor issue for me, because MOVE, QUICK, HUNT, and SLOW fit the bill for what I'm trying to do with infantry the vast majority of the time in CMSF. Eventually, though, IMHO, it would be nice for FAST to be changed to something more useful. The two possibilities I see: (a) A steady jog -- same speed as QUICK -- but without much attention to cover, spotting and formation. Therefore, less tiring than QUICK. This would be useful for rapid repositionings of infantry when contact is not expected. MOVE is fine when you're got plenty of time as it is very efficient. But it's pretty freaking slow. . . some kind of "double time" march would be useful occasionally. or ( An all-out dash, with little attention to using cover or keeping formation. As tiring as it is now, but noticably faster than QUICK. Useful when it's critical to cover that 20-50m before the arty comes down, or whatever. Like I said, this is a minor issue for me, but it would be an appreciated improvement nonetheless. Maybe next patch. . . I look forward to trying out 1.08. Unfortunately, probably not until Sunday for me due to work commitments. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Originally posted by Childress: OK, I'll bite: the FAST command continues to be about as useful as the Pope's pudenda. QUICK, will get a unit the same distance minus the fatigue. FAST troops may have less situational awareness but should this effect speed in protected, non-fire zones? Am I alone in thinking that this small stuff is more important than tweaking the 'shatter gap'? (/kvetch off) No, you're not alone. I'm also a bit confused as to how the FAST command is useful WRT infantry. . . with vehicles, it is somewhat useful when you want to, for example, make an all-out dash from defilade to defilade. But as you note, for Infantry, the speed gained by using FAST over QUICK is minimal, and it is substantially more tiring than QUICK. What's that good for? Or maybe I'm missing something. Is there some advantage to FAST that I am unaware of? Or maybe other factors like encumbrance come into play here? Is FAST substantially faster than QUICK for, say, an insurgent with only his AK-47 and a few clips, but not so much for a US Soldier weighed down with lots of body armor and gear? I haven't experimented with all this stuff yet. . . But it is a minor issue for me, because MOVE, QUICK, HUNT, and SLOW fit the bill for what I'm trying to do with infantry the vast majority of the time in CMSF. Eventually, though, IMHO, it would be nice for FAST to be changed to something more useful. The two possibilities I see: (a) A steady jog -- same speed as QUICK -- but without much attention to cover, spotting and formation. Therefore, less tiring than QUICK. This would be useful for rapid repositionings of infantry when contact is not expected. MOVE is fine when you're got plenty of time as it is very efficient. But it's pretty freaking slow. . . some kind of "double time" march would be useful occasionally. or ( An all-out dash, with little attention to using cover or keeping formation. As tiring as it is now, but noticably faster than QUICK. Useful when it's critical to cover that 20-50m before the arty comes down, or whatever. Like I said, this is a minor issue for me, but it would be an appreciated improvement nonetheless. Maybe next patch. . . I look forward to trying out 1.08. Unfortunately, probably not until Sunday for me due to work commitments. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Originally posted by Childress: OK, I'll bite: the FAST command continues to be about as useful as the Pope's pudenda. QUICK, will get a unit the same distance minus the fatigue. FAST troops may have less situational awareness but should this effect speed in protected, non-fire zones? Am I alone in thinking that this small stuff is more important than tweaking the 'shatter gap'? (/kvetch off) No, you're not alone. I'm also a bit confused as to how the FAST command is useful WRT infantry. . . with vehicles, it is somewhat useful when you want to, for example, make an all-out dash from defilade to defilade. But as you note, for Infantry, the speed gained by using FAST over QUICK is minimal, and it is substantially more tiring than QUICK. What's that good for? Or maybe I'm missing something. Is there some advantage to FAST that I am unaware of? Or maybe other factors like encumbrance come into play here? Is FAST substantially faster than QUICK for, say, an insurgent with only his AK-47 and a few clips, but not so much for a US Soldier weighed down with lots of body armor and gear? I haven't experimented with all this stuff yet. . . But it is a minor issue for me, because MOVE, QUICK, HUNT, and SLOW fit the bill for what I'm trying to do with infantry the vast majority of the time in CMSF. Eventually, though, IMHO, it would be nice for FAST to be changed to something more useful. The two possibilities I see: (a) A steady jog -- same speed as QUICK -- but without much attention to cover, spotting and formation. Therefore, less tiring than QUICK. This would be useful for rapid repositionings of infantry when contact is not expected. MOVE is fine when you're got plenty of time as it is very efficient. But it's pretty freaking slow. . . some kind of "double time" march would be useful occasionally. or ( An all-out dash, with little attention to using cover or keeping formation. As tiring as it is now, but noticably faster than QUICK. Useful when it's critical to cover that 20-50m before the arty comes down, or whatever. Like I said, this is a minor issue for me, but it would be an appreciated improvement nonetheless. Maybe next patch. . . I look forward to trying out 1.08. Unfortunately, probably not until Sunday for me due to work commitments. Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Remember U.S. is carrying 40 pounds(?) of body armor so Fast and Quick speeds probably wouldn't really be all that different. I don't think Fast and Quick commands really refer to speed so much as intentions. I tend to use Quick when i'm trying to get from point A to point B. I use Fast when I'm just trying to get away from point A! With Fast they'll immediately drop whatever they're doing and bug on out the back door. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Remember U.S. is carrying 40 pounds(?) of body armor so Fast and Quick speeds probably wouldn't really be all that different. I don't think Fast and Quick commands really refer to speed so much as intentions. I tend to use Quick when i'm trying to get from point A to point B. I use Fast when I'm just trying to get away from point A! With Fast they'll immediately drop whatever they're doing and bug on out the back door. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Remember U.S. is carrying 40 pounds(?) of body armor so Fast and Quick speeds probably wouldn't really be all that different. I don't think Fast and Quick commands really refer to speed so much as intentions. I tend to use Quick when i'm trying to get from point A to point B. I use Fast when I'm just trying to get away from point A! With Fast they'll immediately drop whatever they're doing and bug on out the back door. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean F. Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Holy Crap! There's a 1.08 patch ?!? Uh, I gotta go... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean F. Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Holy Crap! There's a 1.08 patch ?!? Uh, I gotta go... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean F. Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Holy Crap! There's a 1.08 patch ?!? Uh, I gotta go... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 So FAST is more about the amount of time it takes the the unit gets up and get moving, rather than the actual speed at which it moves? IOW, units on FAST don't take time to set up traveling formation, but just "bug out", while units on QUICK organize themselves for a few seconds before they actually start moving? If so, I can see some utility to this. I just hadn't noticed the difference yet. . . so many things to learn! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 So FAST is more about the amount of time it takes the the unit gets up and get moving, rather than the actual speed at which it moves? IOW, units on FAST don't take time to set up traveling formation, but just "bug out", while units on QUICK organize themselves for a few seconds before they actually start moving? If so, I can see some utility to this. I just hadn't noticed the difference yet. . . so many things to learn! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 So FAST is more about the amount of time it takes the the unit gets up and get moving, rather than the actual speed at which it moves? IOW, units on FAST don't take time to set up traveling formation, but just "bug out", while units on QUICK organize themselves for a few seconds before they actually start moving? If so, I can see some utility to this. I just hadn't noticed the difference yet. . . so many things to learn! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Originally posted by MikeyD: Remember U.S. is carrying 40 pounds(?) of body armor so Fast and Quick speeds probably wouldn't really be all that different. I don't think Fast and Quick commands really refer to speed so much as intentions. I tend to use Quick when i'm trying to get from point A to point B. I use Fast when I'm just trying to get away from point A! With Fast they'll immediately drop whatever they're doing and bug on out the back door.This is pure hearsay on your part. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.