Squad fomations

[slysniper]

I have to admit I am just not seeing this. In a current QB I am playing, I ordered several squads to advance using Quick, and they are well spread out both left to right and front to back. When they reach the end of their movement they are still spread. And these are green troops; I would expect veterans to do even better. I haven't tried using Move, but ISTR in the training scenarios they did march in files then. If you are using Quick and they are running in line, it must be because movement is restricted on the causeway and they can't do otherwise.

Michael

I almost use nothing but Quick as a movement option while playing, unless it is hunt or slow, (I find fast and move both very undesirable to my troops, They are agood way to die)

Yes at times they manage to get spread out and it does not appear so bad, but at other times, maybe when they are all tired or something, it is a big joke.

I just brought it up, becasue I see it as a major way to make the infantry even better. I did not want to post it in a thread with 50 other concepts players have requested to be added.

[slysniper]

It does seem less than desirable huh? Unfortunately for the guys asked to do the job, that's exactly how it played in reality (La Fiere causeway, June 9th 1000 jump-off). And yeah, it got pretty hot.

I knew exactly what battle you were recreating, I did scenarios on that battle I think in CMAK. The Americans paid a very heavy price to cross that bit of ground. I hope you will try and protray the different attacks that were attempted.

Anyway, hope you make it available to the forum, it is a interesting bit of history.

[LemuelG]

I knew exactly what battle you were recreating, I did scenarios on that battle I think in CMAK. The Americans paid a very heavy price to cross that bit of ground. I hope you will try and protray the different attacks that were attempted.

Yeah, I've been eating & drinking this battle for a few weeks now, the La Fiere map (I eventually decided to do Chef du Pont separately ) is currently 2.5 square kilometers; combat elements on both sides for the day of the American assault are > regimental size and fire-support is at a divisional scale.

There are navigable flooded fields and swamp, a sunken road from the railway embankment (for the attempted infiltration on the night of the 9th), "Timmes' orchard" and "Grey Castle" are included - the map terminates on the high ground on the eastern outskirts of Amfreville, and about 1km west of St Mere Eglise. If it is ever finished I will be sure to share it

[Bradley Dick]

I think maybe the jogging column formation that the troops take from time to time might be related to hedgerows. Has anyone tried to move troops across unobstructed open ground to see if they're moving in a more suitable formation?

Maybe our troops just aren't up to standard on D&C, completely unable to go from line to column and back to line under fire.

[womble]

I almost use nothing but Quick as a movement option while playing, unless it is hunt or slow, (I find fast and move both very undesirable to my troops, They are agood way to die)

I agree with you on 'Move'. The parameters of that should be changed to some combination that would actually be useful: the situational awareness of 'Quick', perhaps, combined with a reduced profile for incoming and the speed of 'Hunt', for an fatigue cost of less than Slow.

'Fast', though, has its uses. Dashing across potentially-covered open areas. Just now I had a section cross a road at Quick, when I meant it to do that but Fast, like all the other teams and sections I'd sent across without taking fire. They ate a 'Shreck round for 2 casualties, just as the last guys were a metre from cover. Used judiciously, it doesn't ruin your troops.

[slysniper]

I agree with you on 'Move'. The parameters of that should be changed to some combination that would actually be useful: the situational awareness of 'Quick', perhaps, combined with a reduced profile for incoming and the speed of 'Hunt', for an fatigue cost of less than Slow.

'Fast', though, has its uses. Dashing across potentially-covered open areas. Just now I had a section cross a road at Quick, when I meant it to do that but Fast, like all the other teams and sections I'd sent across without taking fire. They ate a 'Shreck round for 2 casualties, just as the last guys were a metre from cover. Used judiciously, it doesn't ruin your troops.

I agree, fast is useful in dash situations, but they are rare.

[Childress]

I agree with you on 'Move'. The parameters of that should be changed to some combination that would actually be useful

Doesn't the manual say that Moving troops spot better than Quick troops?

[Michael Emrys]

Has anyone tried to move troops across unobstructed open ground to see if they're moving in a more suitable formation?

As reported earlier in this thread, I did and they do.

Michael

[womble]

Doesn't the manual say that Moving troops spot better than Quick troops?

From the manual:

Move

It is fairly slow, but it 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.

Example - use Move to change floors in a friendly occupied and previously cleared building when speed is not important. Use Move to drive down a road not

expecting enemy contact.

Quick

This movement type slightly emphasizes speed

over cover, cohesion and awareness...

Example - this command is best used to shift positions quickly when speed is

important but when the area to move through is covered and not under immediate

enemy view and fire

From those descriptions, I wouldn't want to use Move if there's any chance at all of an enemy being spotted. I gather from readingother threads hereabouts that Move doesn't even offer a fatigue advantage over long distances, since a Quick moving element allowed to recover will achieve location and usable Fatigue status faster than a Move moving one will get to the location.

Watching the animations emphasises that 'Move' is a non-combat action.

[Michael Emrys]

Watching the animations emphasises that 'Move' is a non-combat action.

I think so too. Move is for marching down the road when the shooting is still miles away. It's the way to go for covering long distances and time is not an urgent factor. I rarely use it and usually only if the troops are protected from fire by distance or some kind of terrain feature, like a hill.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

I gather from readingother threads hereabouts that Move doesn't even offer a fatigue advantage over long distances, since a Quick moving element allowed to recover will achieve location and usable Fatigue status faster than a Move moving one will get to the location.

Watching the animations emphasises that 'Move' is a non-combat action.

This is the major reason why I've wished they would modify the Move order for infantry ever since CMSF came out; it's of very limited use in the CM context. I think it would be better if it were retooled to represent more of a "quick march" order -- faster speed than the current Move order, (though maybe not quite as fast as Quick), but still emphasizing movement efficiency and unit cohesion over situational awareness and cover. In exchange for the improved speed, perhaps it should cause some fatigue (unlike the current Move), but this would be significant only over very long distance moves, which are uncommon in the CM context. This would make it much more useful for doing things like moving infantry reinforcements up to a final assembly point prior to engaging them on larger maps, which IMHO is what a "Move" order should be designed for. Right now, as noted, Move is so slow that it's actually more efficient in the long run to use Quick with rest pause(s) if the movement is long enough that the unit may hit "Tiring" before it reaches its final destination. This is workable, but kind of a PITA.

As it is, Move is almost painfully slow. I have a hard time imagining infantry using such a slow, leisurely march any time combat was imminent. If I wanted to order my infantry Company in a 20k road march in full pack and have them be reasonably fresh when they arrived at their destination, the Move order would be perfect. But this not likely to be something I will need to do in a CM scenario...

[hoolaman]

I think maybe the jogging column formation that the troops take from time to time might be related to hedgerows. Has anyone tried to move troops across unobstructed open ground to see if they're moving in a more suitable formation?

Maybe our troops just aren't up to standard on D&C, completely unable to go from line to column and back to line under fire.

Yes an obstruction with a bottleneck seems to greatly exaggerate what is a legitimate problem.

The map squares are used for infantry pathing and troops will tend to rooute through the centre of each tile and it is very easy to get them strung out in a very tight column which can have serious game effects when automatic weapons open up on them.

The best way to prevent this though is to simply use more waypoints. Troops will always touch base and stop in their team formations at a waypoint to regroup.

[Childress]

This is the major reason why I've wished they would modify the Move order for infantry ever since CMSF came out; it's of very limited use in the CM context.

Sort of agree, they do seem to spot somewhat better. I was one of those who lobbied for more differentiation among movement speeds in CMSF. For example, increasing the onset of fatigue- a bit- when using Quick (esp for heavy weapon teams), making that option a logical mid-point between Move and Fast. But the Gods were deaf.