jbmtintin Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 "Speed difference between Fast and Quick moves is slightly increased." Does that mean soldiers are tired less quickly on Quick moves? It would be more realistic I think, because you can run a long time if you are not sprinting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 "Speed difference between Fast and Quick moves is slightly increased." Does that mean soldiers are tired less quickly on Quick moves? It would be more realistic I think, because you can run a long time if you are not sprinting. It seems that way to me. You can "quick" quite a distance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Fast is now *slightly* more rapid than Quick. But there's still not enough payoff, IMO, to using Fast except on the rarest of occasions. I think these commands need more differentiation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Jack Ripper Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Fast is now *slightly* more rapid than Quick. But there's still not enough payoff, IMO, to using Fast except on the rarest of occasions. I think these commands need more differentiation. I agree, the way I had always seen it Fast = Sprint and Quick = Run. However, I have not seen too much of a difference between the two. I think I'll make a little foot race to see the difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 "fast" does pay off now, i think its worth it to use now for me at least. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I tested this out because I was curious too. Do you know who benefits from 'Fast' being upped? Combatants! They aren't weighted down by body armor. Out of a Fast running Combatantant team, one or two would usually be able to sprint ahead like they was at a track meet. I actually had some difficulty tiring anybody 'Quick" running them inside of 400m. These soldiers must eat their Wheaties. Besides speed, one advantage I found in 'Fast' awhiile ago is the soldiers are liable to act on it immediately - they throw caution to the wind and start running. Under 'Quick" they seem more liable to go to ground if fired on. I imagine while my guys are 'Fast' running they're waving their hands in the air screaming "We're all gonna diiiiie!!!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I QUICK move the pixeltroopers virtually all the time. As pointed out by Mikey this mode seems amazingly fatigue resistant. MOVE doesn't get much use- what's the point? FAST? Maybe for dashing across a hotly contested street from one building to another. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tyrspawn Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I QUICK move the pixeltroopers virtually all the time. As pointed out by Mikey this mode seems amazingly fatigue resistant. MOVE doesn't get much use- what's the point? FAST? Maybe for dashing across a hotly contested street from one building to another. I think fast is for emergencies - it makes sense if you really think about it. Fast means sprint. Quick means jog. If you think about it in terms of MPH... sprinting isn't that much faster than jogging, but it's still useful if you need every ounce of speed to get someone out of the way. I use fast to get people into cover when they are zeroed in with artillery, also to move between buildings when I know it would be too deadly to assault so I just hope to move quickly into the next building before the enemy elements can inflict any casualties. As far as move is concerned... I don't know.... I use it when I want to stagger the arrival times of vehicles, and that is useful. For example, quick move the tanks in, move in the mechanized elements, this way the tanks get contact first. When it comes to infantry... hard to say. In theory I thought that it would make them respond to enemy contact better, have better accuracy and lower casualty rates, less silhouetting (more stealth), but in reality I don't think it actually does anything useful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 I QUICK move the pixeltroopers virtually all the time. As pointed out by Mikey this mode seems amazingly fatigue resistant. MOVE doesn't get much use- what's the point? FAST? Maybe for dashing across a hotly contested street from one building to another. I honestly can't remember the last time I used the Move order, kind of a waste. Would like to see another hunt order, perhaps Hunt Tank or Hunt AT. Annoying having my tanks or AFVs unable to use the hunt order because a single crewman triggers it to end. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Funny thing is, one suspects MOVE is the most common mode of locomotion in real battles especially in a desert environment. But I haven't detected any advantages in using it in CMSF. One grasped the pros and cons of the movement commands in CM1 because they were clearly delineated- if memory serves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 From what I have seen it is also impossible to get the AI to use "move" rate in any of the possible order sets (or "hunt" for that matter). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbmtintin Posted November 14, 2009 Author Share Posted November 14, 2009 For sure, "Move" order should change: like "hunt" maybe, but soldiers don't stop and fire until they are taken under fire, and they become tired less quickly, of course (why is it so tiring to "hunt" ???). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 MOVE isn't completely useless IMO. Walking instead of running reduces your troops chances of being observed by enemy units at long distances. At much shorter ranges it's a waste of time. FAST is great for crossing roads and getting into cover or getting from one building to another especially when combined with SMOKE deployment. BTW, have any of you noticed that your troops tire much more rapidly when they're moving through long grass and wheat in v1.21? Sometimes MOVE is better when moving through large patches of terrain like this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Good points about the 'Move' order, and the lack of its use! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 FAST is great for crossing roads and getting into cover or getting from one building to another especially when combined with SMOKE deployment. OK, but in most situations FAST fails the cost/benefit test. You get a (very) short burst of speed off the line compared to QUICK at the expense of *vastly* higher fatigue accrual and loss of situational awareness. Over a distance FAST defaults to QUICK anyway and the troopers cover a roughly equal amount of territory- but the FAST dudes are Exhausted. SLOW is very punitive in terms of fatigue but at least you get STEALTH. You get the feeling that the effects of speed, ambient temperature and weapon load are muted, or nearly non-existent, when using QUICK and the visual differences with FAST, which I picture more as an intense 40 yard dash than a sprint, appear barely perceptible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonWebb Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 The pixeltrudden to not fire on the move on "Fast" and they do on quick. That is one of the major differences. And now since there is certainly a higher fatigue issue in difficult terrain with "quick", i've already found myself using "move" more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVulture Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 The pixeltrudden to not fire on the move on "Fast" and they do on quick. That is one of the major differences. And now since there is certainly a higher fatigue issue in difficult terrain with "quick", i've already found myself using "move" more. It would make 'move' more useful. Playing it ain't half hot mum, with the weakened troops who are meant to tire quickly to simulate the hot conditions, it is still faster to move around with quick and then wait until troops get back to 'rested' than to use 'move'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 BTW, have any of you noticed that your troops tire much more rapidly when they're moving through long grass and wheat in v1.21? Sometimes MOVE is better when moving through large patches of terrain like this. I've been playing your new scenario and I've found I have to use move or else my men are tired by the time they go a relatively short distance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 I actually had some difficulty tiring anybody 'Quick" running them inside of 400m. These soldiers must eat their Wheaties. Same here. I question whether the fittest member of this forum could do 400m at a brisk jog in full kit- forget the heavy weapons- and in 115 degree heat without serious repercussions on his intermediate term capabilities. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Consulting 'real' soldiers on this topic, they've replied "A 500m jog? Sure, no problem". I'll have to take their word for it. I guess that's the difference between 'healthy' people and those of us who spend all our time playing computer games :Dspare 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Consulting 'real' soldiers on this topic, they've replied "A 500m jog? Sure, no problem". I'll have to take their word for it. I guess that's the difference between 'healthy' people and those of us who spend all our time playing computer games :Dspare Yeah, i know soldiers who jog 25km with 10kg in the backpack and a 6kg rifle in the hands... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryujin Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 OK, but in most situations FAST fails the cost/benefit test. You get a (very) short burst of speed off the line compared to QUICK at the expense of *vastly* higher fatigue accrual and loss of situational awareness. Over a distance FAST defaults to QUICK anyway and the troopers cover a roughly equal amount of territory- but the FAST dudes are Exhausted. SLOW is very punitive in terms of fatigue but at least you get STEALTH. You get the feeling that the effects of speed, ambient temperature and weapon load are muted, or nearly non-existent, when using QUICK and the visual differences with FAST, which I picture more as an intense 40 yard dash than a sprint, appear barely perceptible. The fast could possibly be a little faster, but the main thing as I think someone else might have mentioned, is the ability to give a fast move order to pinned US squad with a good leader and have them get up and haul *** under heavy fire. Great for those moments when if it would be better if your squad was somewhere not in the LOS of that tank... sort of a "get there ASAP no matter what" order. I never tried that with the Syrians though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Yeah, i know soldiers who jog 25km with 10kg in the backpack and a 6kg rifle in the hands... And under under fire? And in the desert? And how do you rationalize the fact that in CMSF a squad in FAST mode will arrive at the 400m mark utterly spent and the QUICK guys arrive 3 seconds later as fresh as if they just made a trip to the refrigerador? CM1's movement modes had, IIRC, meaningful, graduated trade-offs. You used each one of them. This represents the kind of smart programming that makes a game engrossing. More so than tracking the trajectory of every single bullet, IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 After doing some tests i think there is something wrong with fast/quick. I have two sniper teams, one gets the order to move FAST to a point 50m away. The other one gets a QUICK order. The FAST team arrives 2 sec. ahead of the QUICK team but is out of breath. The QUICK guys are not even sweating... I think FAST should be nearly double as fast as QUICK, FAST should be a "run or die" command. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Agreed, Wiggum (or is it Chief Wiggum?). This needs to be addressed. Either make QUICK more tiring or FAST, well, faster. A propos of the MOVE command: this one could be useful within the game if a *major* spotting advantage accrued to it. The manual is vague on the subject, mentioning better situational 'awareness'. 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.