Move command

[Scipio]

What the sense of the 'move' command? It might be just a personal issue but a) if I want to move troops, I usually use 'hunt' , maybe combined with a cover command, or I use quick, sometimes, but rarely I use fast. 'Move' is even slower as 'hunt' and troops are less attentiv anyway. Bad on 'hunt' is just that all further movement commands are canceled as soon as an enemy comes in viewrange. I think the CMx1 'hunt' was the better solution.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

You yourself describe the use of Move.

It's for travelling long distances without tiring troops. If you aren't expecting combat, this will make your units be useful once they get where you need them.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Yeah, I only use "Move" when I know my troops are moving through a safe area and I want to prevent them from becoming fatigued. Never use Move if you're expecting contact.

[phil stanbridge]

I tend not to use it 'that' much because I find it too slow. I tend to use small bursts of FAST or QUICK generally especially when there are ATGM's on the map - as it tends to spread my men out more. I only use hunt if I know there are enemy threats nearby. I don't know how you can use hunt most of the time! It would drive me mad.

[c3k]

FWIW, I consider "move" to really mean "saunter". It is slow, the troops are VERY vulnerable, but they don't tire. My SOP is to use "quick" with dedicated pauses at locations offering cover.

"Hunt" is only for the point element when contact is expected, but the enemy's location is unknown, and I can afford to let the point element be destroyed ("Hunt" freezes them upon contact; the last thing you want is your troops to stop in place when they're being fired upon.).

[Jonny(FGM)]

the last thing you want is your troops to stop in place when they're being fired upon.).

not sure i agree with you there. They make themselves a smaller target when they hit the dirt, and 9/10 times i find the fire stops when they stop moving

Generally i use hunt a lot, with quick for when there are too many contacts around that hunt stops working.

[dan/california]

I still say they need to completely rework the movement commands so that there is a separation between speed and the way troops respond to contact. Sometimes you want quick movement but hunt behavior, to state the most obvious case. Continuing to move into a kill zone you didn't know was there is the worst case scenario.

The ideal situation would be to more or less copy the SOP screen from TacOps 4 to give the player a great deal more control of how troops respond to contact. It would also give scenario designers at least a few conditional triggers to adjust the AI responses with.

[dan/california]

BF's own website has screens on its TacOps page. [http://www.battlefront.com/products/tacops4/images/sop.jpg]

[c3k]

I agree that speed and response could be differentiated a bit more. Although, thinking about it, ANY troops in a combat zone should be ready with just a few responses, be that freeze, run back, run forward, fire, don't fire.

In my dream world, as I've posted over the years, the movement orders should be color coded to equate to some objective speed. For example, SLOW would be red, meaning less than 1 m/s. Keep going through the rainbow until FAST (for infantry) would be, say, green meaning, say, 10 m/s. Now, click on that vehicle. Yes, that's the one, over in my dream world. Hmm, its SLOW order is red? Well, that means it's able to crawl along at 1 m/s. What? MOVE is green? Well yes; MOVE for a vehicle is the same as FAST for infantry. All I need to do is match the COLOR of the movement order and disparate units can maintain equivalent speeds. Simple, yes? (Of course FAST for an M1 would be violet, say anything above 25 m/s.)

Ken

[dan/california]

A move command for vehicles that told it to match the selected infantry unit would be a lot simpler.

[hoolaman]

The animation for move looks like the guys are just kicking a can down the street, which is misleading I think.

MOVE is supposed to be more like the old advance command from CMx1, a combat march which allows good response to incoming fire.

I use it a lot because it is never tiring but not in built-up areas or taking fire. I don't think your troops are much more vulnerable compared to QUICK though (aside from the obvious of less time spent exposed), in CMSF if you are not prone or behind some cover you are taking casualties.

[Jonny(FGM)]

MOVE is supposed to be more like the old advance command from CMx1, a combat march which allows good response to incoming fire.

.

Advance - tactical move when advancing under fire in view of

the enemy. This assumes dashing from cover to cover, using

covering and suppressive fire and movement by bounds.

Infantry - This is the standard “move from A to B” command usually

used in situations where enemy contact is not expected or

is unlikely. It is fairly slow, maintains unit cohesion, pretty good

all-round awareness (but no anticipation of imminent contact),

and is not tiring to infantry. Usually units that come under fire

while executing a Move Command stop or change their movement

order and take evasive action, and there is a high chance

that they will return fire and look for cover

They don't sound much alike according to the manuals. I think that the old advance command was trying to abstract what we see on a 1:1 basis with the assault command.

It would be nice to hear something authoritative on this

[hoolaman]

CMAK had Assault, CMSF equivalent - Assault

CMAK had Move to Contact - CMSF equivalent - Hunt - (even though the stopping on contact is not the same).

CMAK had Run CMSF equivalent is FAST.

CMAK had Advance, CMSF is Move or Quick depending on how tired you want to get and how much time you want to spend exposed.

There is more micromanagement in CMSF if you want to dash from cover to cover and provide covering fire, you have to do it yourself.

[Paper Tiger]

I never use MOVE once I have gotten into contact with enemy units. However, when approaching suspected enemy positions, it is slightly better than QUICK or FAST with respect to units spotting and returning fire. The HUNT command is better when playing in RT as your units go to ground very quickly (a good thing) and lose LoS to the units that fired on them causing them to go to ground (a good thing too as they won't come under any further fire). However, in WEGo, you have to wait until the turn ends before you can get your troops to do anything useful.

BTW, dan/california, SLOW for vehicles with QUICK for Infantry keeps them more or less together quite nicely. I know a dedicated command would be much better but you're talking about a significant change to the UI and, apparantly, that requires a LOT of coding.

[Michael Emrys]

The ideal situation would be to more or less copy the SOP screen from TacOps 4 to give the player a great deal more control of how troops respond to contact. It would also give scenario designers at least a few conditional triggers to adjust the AI responses with.

I told them that a dozen years ago. I forget the reason that was not adopted, but I personally suspect it was mostly Not Invented Here.

Michael

[LongLeftFlank]

Minor point here, but I do hope the animations for the HUNT command in CM:N are changed to have the squaddies carrying their weapons ready at hip height, not looking down the sights SWAT-team style.

You just don't do that for more than a few seconds at a time holding a WWII era rifle. And it would look extremely out of place in a WWII setting.