Matrix Games Forums

Why does vehicular movement at 'fastest' rate fatigue a unit more quickly than movement at 'normal' rate? I can see why this should be true for foot or horse drawn units but don't see why lorried infantry, say, should suffer a penalty (other than vehicle breakdown). I would have thought vehicular movement would be mainly determined by terrain. The lines I'm thinking along are that vehicular units would have two movement rates - one determined by the difficulty of the terrain and another slower one if it doesn't want to outstrip its footslogging escorting infantry.

Any thoughts?

tim

Tim,

IMO fast movement should only represent strategic movement (ie. enemy contact NOT likely or expected), while normal speed should represent tactical movement (ie. enemy contact likely or expected). So, while terrain should absolutely contribute to the effects (and the speed attained), really, it is the amount of concentration and coordination involved in moving large masses of troops that is the biggest factor.

Now whether a unit moving strategically will actually fatigue faster than one moving tactically... I would have to say that actually the opposite is the case. Both will contribute some fatigue, but a unit moving in convoy at fast speeds (behind the lines - woe to them if they get caught by enemy fire) will tire much more slowly than a unit moving much more slowly, more deliberately, and in bounds (ie. "normal" or tactically - slower, but MUCH safer).

After that rant I guess I have to agree with you that this is something that should be looked at closer.

Bil

I can think of 2 explanations.

First one is that the slower pace gives is not actually driving slower, but has more stops for recovery (eating, stretching the legs).

Second one is, actually it depends on the verhicle you are using. For trucks the speed would not make much difference. But using tracked means of transport, driving longer stretches, and driving faster, makes for a very tiring experience. I know of research in the early '80's about the shape soldiers would be in when arriving at the German battlefields-to-be when driving from the assembly area's in the Netherlands in tracked verhicles. Conclusion: not so good. And this was over a modern highway (But before the use of rubber blocks on the track. In fact the question was if those rubber blocks would make a big difference. If they did, those large transporters could be ditched. They did make a serious difference, but not so much that driving the heavier tracks to the battlefield was recommended).

(A 3th explanation would be that the developers took the easy way, and made the tiring factor the same for all kind of traveling. But we don't really believe that, do we???)


Bertram

The gossip that some people try and spread. I don't know... [;)]

Given that our maps are at best 40 x 30km, we do not simulate strategic movement. All movement is deemed tactical. Now I can vouch from personal experience that force marching, tactically, both on foot and when mounted is very tiring. Remember that when moving tactically a motorised force will move in bounds and may from time to time dismount a section to clear a defile. While for foot units the main fatiguing factor is physical, for motorised/mech units it's stress.

Come on guys, haven't you been in a military convoy that was trying to travel at top speed? It's bad enough in trucks, and in AFVs by the end of the trip you just want to get the hell out of there!

These vehicles do not have the suspension of your average passenger car, nor the ease of control, especially not at speed. They are tiring to drive and tiring to be in, and the faster you go the harder they are to control and the more the passengers have to struggle just to stay on board.

Regards
33

Dave/Steve

Thanks for the clarification - but I still stand by the British army adage that a third-class ride is better than a first-class walk! Keep up the good work - looking forward to Normandy.

Tim

Tim,

Very true [:)] But remember we do fatigue walking units much faster than motorised ones as a standard.