Hold Fire Command

[Winged Hussar]

In several ambush type scenario's I have been frustrated that even with the hide command units will not hold their fire:mad:. There need's to be a actual hold fire command which allows your units to observe without firing. Also this would be useful in doing a recee on enemy forces as at the moment once your within rifle range scout squads will engage the enemy which is pointless and just causes friendly casualties.

[stikkypixie]

In several ambush type scenario's I have been frustrated that even with the hide command units will not hold their fire:mad:. There need's to be a actual hold fire command which allows your units to observe without firing. Also this would be useful in doing a recee on enemy forces as at the moment once your within rifle range scout squads will engage the enemy which is pointless and just causes friendly casualties.

Use a small covered arc.

[Winged Hussar]

Thanks for the suggestion i will use that in future battles . However if you want to get a whole platoon to hold it's fire do you still have to set covered arcs to each sub unit rather than selecting the whole platoon and set them to hold fire. I still think the command should be considered for future combat mission games.

[Frankster65]

Thanks for the suggestion i will use that in future battles . However if you want to get a whole platoon to hold it's fire do you still have to set covered arcs to each sub unit rather than selecting the whole platoon and set them to hold fire. I still think the command should be considered for future combat mission games.

All you have to do is double click on the platoon leader team and the whole platoon will be highlighted. Set covered arc for the platoon leader team and the whole platoon has the same cover arc for each sub unit. The same principle goes for company wide cover arcs all way up to battalion.

[Erwin]

The ability to set covered arcs for a whole formation at the same time is a great time-saver and improvement over the CM1 games.

The odd thing is why BF took away the ability to set a 180 degree arc with a simple command, but replaced it with the ability to do a 360 degree arc. I used to use 180 degrees a lot, so setting that is now time consuming. I wish they had simple commands for both.

[Tiresias]

The ability to set covered arcs for a whole formation at the same time is a great time-saver and improvement over the CM1 games.

The odd thing is why BF took away the ability to set a 180 degree arc with a simple command, but replaced it with the ability to do a 360 degree arc. I used to use 180 degrees a lot, so setting that is now time consuming. I wish they had simple commands for both.

Dunno if I'm remembering this correctly, but the problem with CM1's 180 degree cover arcs, while great in principle, was that they didn't apply once a unit changed facing. The 360 option nails this, with the alternative of a more specific setting if you're setting an ambush in a particular area, etc.

[Erwin]

Not sure what you mean T. Once any arc is set, it remains covering the same degrees no matter what the unit does or moves - just like in the CM1 games.

AFAIK units in CM2 games spot quite well (better than in CM1?) without arcs, and the primary reason to use em in CM2 is for ambushes and to keep armor turrets pointed towards the greatest threat as the vehicle moves.

However, I think there is evidence that units will spot better/faster if all the men are pointing/looking in the same direction either via an arc, or with the FACE command.

I found that especially in urban settings like the amazing RESCUE OF JOKER 3 scenario for example, covered arcs are a liability as the enemy could be all around you. In that instance the only use of the 360 degree arc is to keep the radius small so that your units don't waste ammo.

[Frankster65]

However, I think there is evidence that units will spot better/faster if all the men are pointing/looking in the same direction either via an arc, or with the FACE command.

I found that especially in urban settings like the amazing RESCUE OF JOKER 3 scenario for example, covered arcs are a liability as the enemy could be all around you. In that instance the only use of the 360 degree arc is to keep the radius small so that your units don't waste ammo.

You are correct Erwin. One thing people should remember is that when you do put a 360 cover arc on a unit, its soldiers divide up that 360 amongst themselves for watching. You will sometimes see one or two troopers turn and look in opposite directions from the core of the unit. It will thus take the unit as a whole longer to spot something due to they trying to cover every conceivable angle. If you put a cover arc at say 45 degrees left, all troops in that unit are looking in that direction and thus if something shows up in that area, they will be spotted sooner rather than later because of the unit focus. Anything else outside that arc will be spotted (if at all) at a much slower rate.

A face command makes sure all troops in the unit are facing one direction and thus focussing along that angle which gives better, faster sighting times and reaction times for weapon discharge at the expense of sighting times and reaction times from different angles not covered.

[Erwin]

If you have a covered arc that is (say) 100m in radius, we agree that any unspotted enemy within that covered arc will be spotted sooner.

However, will enemy units that are "within the arc itself" but FURTHER AWAY than 100m also be spotted faster?

[Frankster65]

However, will enemy units that are "within the arc itself" but FURTHER AWAY than 100m also be spotted faster?

I would hazard to guess that they would be spotted sooner because your units are indeed facing in that direction and focussing in that direction. The cover arc is then just preventing them from firing on the unit spotted until the enemy unit comes within the actual cover arc.

I think you have to treat the cover arcs as first; direction with which units are facing and focussing eyes and second; whether they fire on the unit spotted depending on that unit being within actual arc.

This is my best guess of course.

[Erwin]

Yes, without the detailed knowledge of the game system like we had in CM1, nearly everything in CM2 is a guess.

Sometimes, I think they've fudged everything and we're only under the illusion that due to CM2's greater complexity that it must be "more realistic."

[Frankster65]

Sometimes, I think they've fudged everything and we're only under the illusion that due to CM2's greater complexity that it must be "more realistic."

I wouldn't be that cynical. Every game creates an illusion one way or another. We must all remember to use the word "realistic" carefully when talking of these games we love to play. They are games that strive for simulation and will not do well in some things while doing well in others. I've played BF games for a long time (CM series) and I trust their judgement and professionalism with respect to their software giving me an enjoyable wargaming experience. Remember that these guys are wargamers themselves, they are not trying to create a poor wargaming experience. Goodness knows theyv'e given me years of enjoyment playing a hobby I've been playing since I was a kid.

[Erwin]

I completely agree that verisimilitude is the goal. But, I can't understand why so little detailed info is provided re gun penetration and armor stats, or optimal ranges for weapons etc.

To me that would enhance the game enjoyment as one would get the feeling, however illusory, that one knows what one is doing. I continue to miss the info windows available in CM1.

As I have played CM1 for over 10/11 years now, I sorta can figure most things out in CM2. But, am baffled at how a newbie (non milpro)can make sense of CM2 games unless they've been "trained" on CM1.