Cpl Steiner Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Hi, I've been thinking about CMx1 and how you seemed to take quite a few casualties in a typical firefight. I mean, as soon as your squads got engaged they would typically pick up a casualty or two within a minute. Then I thought, in a real-life modern setting I bet that wouldn't happen because the men would duck behind cover as soon as the incoming fire got a bit too hot and either call for backup or sit tight for a while whilst they thought of how to deal with the threat. I then thought, isn't this effectively what suppression is? The guys decide to reduce their exposure to enemy fire because they aren't under an immediate threat of being overrun and they can afford to just hunker down for a minute or two. This has really got me thinking now. If in CM:SF we have to behave like real-life US commanders and avoid heavy casualties then we should be able to tell our men to get low and in cover if things get too hot. After all, there is probably an Abrams down the road that can deal with the threat in a minute or two just so long as the men aren't under immediate threat of being overrun, so it is pointless for the men to risk their lives for no good reason. Perhaps in CM:SF, compared to CMx1, the player should be able to voluntarily suppress a few squads that are really taking some heat so as to keep casualties low. Obviously you would only do so if the guys were covered by other supporting units or if the threat was long range such as an enemy sniper. However, I think it would be realistic to have the option in an environment in which casualties are much less tolerable than in WWII. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Can't you achieve exactly this with "Hide"? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schmoly War Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Very good idea this. Being able to stay in cover without being exposed to direct fire should be an option, especially for trenches and foxholes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 What I think Cpl Steiner is talking about is on on balance psychological reason to not shoot back and maneuver, rather than on blaance physical one. Meaning, that the end result might be the same but the cause is different. The more pyschological effect doesn't require the large volumes of incoming fire that the more physical form of suppression would have. Yet in both cases the soldiers would be reluctant to do anything proactive. It's an interesting distinction, for sure. There is also a distinction between a loss of tactical initiative and that of operational or strategic. For example, Fallujah One did not stall out due tactical or even operational reasons but strategic (political) ones. The effect on the operation was the same... the US lost the initiative and the offensive stalled out. Which is why if you ask a Marine today how they feel about Fallujah One they will likely teach you a few new "creative" words to describe their thoughts on politicians getting involved in military ops. But I digress... In CMx1 there was no ability to show a difference at the tactical level. That's because Morale and Suppression were tied together. Therefore it simply wasn't possible to have fine distinctions between the two. However, operationally it was completely within the hands of the player. If too much fire was coming from a particular area, the player could always leave his forces where they were until he could figure out what to do about them. In CMx2 there is the ability to distinguish between phsyical and psychological suppressive effects because Morale and Suppression are two different things. A unit can be fully suppressed and yet not really "care" about it. The unit will simply sit tight until it feels it is prudent to hit back. On the other extreme a unit can freak out even if the suppression from fire is minimal. Of course everything inbetween is possible. But as with CMx1, operational hesitation (suppression, if you will) is up to the player and not CM. If you want to risk casualties in the face of suppressive fire, and your units' morale will handle it, then go for it. Otherwise you can hold back and see what happens. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axel Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 damn I am going to love this game! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 I'm seeing it's gonna take a while to break some old CM habits on how I handle my infantry. 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.