Huntarr Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 After my battle at the Airfield with the Syrian Spec Forces I was convinced no one ever surrendered or routed. In that scenario it may be the case of their fanaticism is so high, they want a Jihad. Thinking back now I understand why the Regulars pulled out after our air strike. I then was lead to the High Point Low Point scenario where Syrian regulars and reserves were engaged by a Recon unit followed up by a Stryker Plt. I took an overwatch position on the Left Ridge line and started hammering the valley with 2 Brad Cav Scouts. I saw 2 members of an HQ unit pop and exclamation marker over their heads then a couple of seconds later they vanished. :eek: They were not injured or killed out right. They were immediately removed from the list of the unit. The casualties were listed. These guys just bugged out. :confused: So it would appear that units don’t run back to the rear like CMx1. When someone Routes they just disappear. I can live with this. I have to admit got tired of gunning down routing troops in the old days. [ August 04, 2007, 04:33 AM: Message edited by: Huntarr ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 Sweeet. Good job spotting that. Can anyone from BFC confirm this actually happens? The obvious question then, is: if my troops rout, will they just disappear? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 I have to admit got tired of gunning down routing troops in the old days. i liked that the pursuit after an succesfull attack was verr pleasent. and unlike the AI, a human player could sometimes still do something with them after some turns. maybe not start a glorious counterattack but hurt some few more troops or get someone pinned or so... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted August 3, 2007 Author Share Posted August 3, 2007 During After :eek: [ October 08, 2007, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: Huntarr ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 nonono thats really not nice, troops are now unbelivable hard to panic, and if they do, they vanish. thats quiet abstract again, i say. i liked how CMx1 handled it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stryker Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 Good catch. It's interesting that certain things (like this) have been abstracted, while other things (like modeling every bullet and ricochet) are not. Not sure, but it seems almost backwards to me... :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 Originally posted by Pandur: nonono thats really not nice, troops are now unbelivable hard to panic, and if they do, they vanish. thats quiet abstract again, i say. i liked how CMx1 handled it IMO it is quite unrealistic how it is handled in CMx1 - although not bad abstracted. It just works. But panicking soldiers do not jump up into the bullet shower and run. They eat dirt, they crawl torwards the next corner and don't move. So the way CMSF seems to handle it, seems a very good step forward to me. The only negative side effect i see, is that disappearing units can't be taken as prisoners (in CMx1 it works very well to encircle units and force them to surrender - does not only reduce the duration of the fight, spares ammo and lives, but gives additional points, too; that seems not to be possible anymore, is it?). [ August 03, 2007, 04:09 PM: Message edited by: Steiner14 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 whats more realistic !? people runing away or vanishing into thin air!? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 Vanishing as abstraction imo is more realistic, because nobody runs away in reality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 Of course routed infantry flee. I would agree it wasn't handled perfectly in CMx1, but I would be very surprised if vanishing were designed behaviour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted August 3, 2007 Author Share Posted August 3, 2007 Not designed behaviour? Clearly that is what happened. The software didn't just "decide" to make them vanish, it was written that way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Linuss Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 You havn't seen people surrender yet? That's how I win every single mission I've played so far.. the enemy surrenders. I thought it was the norm? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sirocco Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 When something happens it's not necessarily designed to happen like that. If that is designed behaviour, well, I will be disappointed, as I said previously. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted August 3, 2007 Author Share Posted August 3, 2007 We are not talking about the scenario ending with surrender, we are talking about routing of individual troops. [ August 03, 2007, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Huntarr ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stryker Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 Originally posted by Steiner14: Vanishing as abstraction imo is more realistic, because nobody runs away in reality. Then what exactly is the vanishing an abstraction of? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 Originally posted by Steiner14: ... nobody runs away in reality. Is that the voice of experience, or are you just making stuff up? [ August 03, 2007, 05:41 PM: Message edited by: JonS ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 abstraction imo is more realistic you dont really mean that!? you abstract things cause you cant display em realsitic. sure, maybe a squad wont stand up and just start to ran in the open, but in urban regions this would fit. also in CMx1 they just ran that way after beeing "routed" wich is, in my eyes, a state where you have extreme fear for your live in the place you are now and take the chance for a run above anything(well beside suicide). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted August 3, 2007 Share Posted August 3, 2007 The abstraction in the old system was that the squad stayed together even as it routed. That was squad leader talking, not any sort of realism. When men actually decide to bug out, they melt away to the rear and are not seen again that day. They do not remain in the same physical location as the rest of the squad that continues the mission. At the one to one level, you would have to split the unit and have all the routers run their own way. Which would rapidly become completely silly. I think the new behavior is vastly more realistic than the old, frankly. It still reflects a limitation, even under 1 to 1 positioning, that the whole unit has a core position and is the "game-real" entity. I would not want to try to command "squads" whose members were at 5 locations spread over 400 meters in 4 different morale states... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roter Stern Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 Good eye! I've seen the exclamation mark one as well, but playing Real Time, i could not rewind to examine the effect. Also notice how in the first screenshot it even lists the status of the 3 members, presumably the ones with the exclamation marks, as "Routing" ... very interesting 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brent Pollock Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 I finally saw it last night during a QB - I am all for it for the same reason JasonC stated. Took me a few replays of the "tape" to get the gist of what had happened. Now the question that remains for me (even after searching through the manual) is how these guys are counted for the victroy section, which breaks things down into KIA, wounded and MIA (if memory serves). I am guessing that the routed guys are the MIA, rather than that category representing the unfortunate ones that were vapourised by an explosion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caesar Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 I too have seen this - more than once actually. I assumed that they had died. I looked away for a moment and they were gone (stupid realtime!). The unit remained in place but was now a few men short. Considering that they are handling them as individuals I suppose that the disappearing is as good as they can realistically do now. It would be good to have them displayed as a fleeing animation for a short while to give you time to see it happening and make them disappear as soon as they get X distance from the rest of the squad or the point that they started fleeing from. I would like to see this reflected in the final score too. They differentiate between the dead and wounded, another category 'Broken' and 'Surrendered' would be good. I still think that the troops are too brave though. They seem inordinately tough compared with the old CM. This might be a perception problem though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted August 4, 2007 Author Share Posted August 4, 2007 Originally posted by JasonC: The abstraction in the old system was that the squad stayed together even as it routed. That was squad leader talking, not any sort of realism. When men actually decide to bug out, they melt away to the rear and are not seen again that day. They do not remain in the same physical location as the rest of the squad that continues the mission. At the one to one level, you would have to split the unit and have all the routers run their own way. Which would rapidly become completely silly. I think the new behavior is vastly more realistic than the old, frankly. It still reflects a limitation, even under 1 to 1 positioning, that the whole unit has a core position and is the "game-real" entity. I would not want to try to command "squads" whose members were at 5 locations spread over 400 meters in 4 different morale states... Exactly my thoughts. Well said Jason Side note WEGO RULZ! That is my watching every position and enjoying the spectical that is CMSF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jomni Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 Maybe those people routing will account for the ones labeled as missing. They don't want to face the pistol of the General for running. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huh? Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 I finally saw some being routed today. At first I thought that the exclamation point that appears above their head doesn't show in the wego replay, but instead it appears inside the bodies of those about to bolt. Looking at the photos above, I guess it's just troops mounted in vehicles that have it inside the bodies during the replay. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 hm, i still find it somewhat cheep that you see the exclamation mark wich automaticly tells you "this location is clear" or at least that there are just a few, nearly paniced guys left. well, its not perfect, but i buy it(or i bought it allready). 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.