Slow command, spotting, and fatigue

[Wicky]

 if there is no place TO hide, then what? How does the model handle in a situation like that?

 

 

As in real life - Maybe best retreat to cover > find any better cover in any direction before you roll into a ball & get easily spotted and killed if you try and hide on a perfectly flat parking lot.  

[stealthsilent1]

As in real life - Maybe best retreat to cover > find any better cover in any direction before you roll into a ball & get easily spotted and killed if you try and hide on a perfectly flat parking lot.

maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture. Does the hide command mean the unit TRIES to hide regardless of the situation?

[stealthsilent1]

Because I keep obsessing how that it doesn't make sense to hide in a parking lot. And I keep fixating on, well why does he keep tunnel vision, and if he gets tunnel vision here, does the model hold up in other situations as well? That's what I was obsessing about all this time.

[womble]

but you're just writing off things that don't make sense to the abstraction layer.

No. I'm assuming that Steve and Charles and Phil have actually got a clue and the things you think don't make sense actually do because you're wrong about how they're working. If you star with the assumption that everything you can't see being done is being done ass-backwards, then yes, abstraction makes no sense. Since that would make the game nonsense, I choose to take the view that it is, for example, possible to creep about while being pretty aware of who's in the vicinity, especially since I have, personally, done that very thing, and achieved surprise on the person I was stalking (this was a LARP which is, IMO, about as "real" as a MILES-equipped training exercise). The abstraction layer exists to cover the things that cannot be explicitly modelled. You have to trust it or you won't be satisfied with the game. That means trusting BFC to know their stuff. Which shouldn't be too hard.

That's Exactly what I said in my hiding post. That when they hide, doesn't it help to know where the guys are around you, instead of hiding without looking. Maybe the mechanics aren't important, but the results are, especially if they don't make sense in the bigger picture. I don't see the bigger picture, I'm just tripping along in the dark, but I want to see it.

Whatever. I'm done with you. You want to assume it's all broken go right ahead. Enjoy yourself. If you can.

[Migo441]

I think everyone agrees it's curious to Hide in the middle of a large open stretch of pavement.  This brings to mind the venerable joke:

 

Patient:  "Doctor, it hurts when I do this."

 

Doctor:  "Then don't do that!"
 

Are you confused that the game lets you issue the command in these circumstances or what happens when you issue the command?  Part of Hide is reduced spotting chances OF the unit and part is reduced spotting chances BY the unit.  Simply, the unit is spending more time with their face(s) in the ground and less time heads up and looking around.

But another related aspect is reduced vulnerability to incoming fire.  You might want to place a unit on Hide without worrying about any spotting aspects whatsoever, i.e., if there is 81mm mortar fire landing in any proximity, guys hugging the ground will relatively safer than guys in a typical heads up posture.

Edited January 7, 2015 by Migo441

[A Canadian Cat]

Let’s try it another way. Don't use the hide command. There all good:D

Hiding means stay out of sight. Yes, you are right in an open paved area it is hard to figure out what that means. Definitely do *not* use hide there because the behaviour will be odd - as you noted. But we need the hide command because it is the only way to get your guys to keep their heads down behind a low wall or in a fox hole during an artillery barrage.

Just remember, when hiding your men spend their time trying to hide and they do not spend time trying to spot or fight. If you think of that way you can see that there are very few places that you need to use the hide command. In fact, the only time I use it is if my men get caught in an artillery strike. If you get a unit to hide in a fox hole during an artillery strike they will have a good chance to come out of it unharmed (unless they get it directly). Similarly for buildings. If you hide a unit next a low wall during an artillery strike only rounds landing on one side of the wall are likely to harm them. Heck during an artillery barrage if you guys are caught in a paved area go ahead give them a hide command, at least they will not kneel or stand up or even look up. Yes, that actually matters.

There you have use for the hide command. Keep it simple - being under an artillery barrage is the only time to use hide. Never use it for anything else. I am not joking.

Your men will always try to find some kind of cover if it is available. They will do the right thing you don't need to tell them to be careful. That is not what the hide command is for.

[stealthsilent1]

No. I'm assuming that Steve and Charles and Phil have actually got a clue and the things you think don't make sense actually do because you're wrong about how they're working. If you star with the assumption that everything you can't see being done is being done ass-backwards, then yes, abstraction makes no sense. Since that would make the game nonsense, I choose to take the view that it is, for example, possible to creep about while being pretty aware of who's in the vicinity, especially since I have, personally, done that very thing, and achieved surprise on the person I was stalking (this was a LARP which is, IMO, about as "real" as a MILES-equipped training exercise). The abstraction layer exists to cover the things that cannot be explicitly modelled. You have to trust it or you won't be satisfied with the game. That means trusting BFC to know their stuff. Which shouldn't be too hard.Whatever. I'm done with you. You want to assume it's all broken go right ahead. Enjoy yourself. If you can.

calm down, it's no big deal, we are just talking. No I have a very narrow minded head right now, but yea. Be is doing a good job, but that doesn't mean I can't criticize. I mean of course I have to see things from my perspective, but I'm arguing over whether the hide command's hindered perceptiveness is a good model. I like talking about these thins, I'm probably wrong on 80% of what I'm saying, but I have a small point somewhere.

[stealthsilent1]

Let’s try it another way. Don't use the hide command. There all good:DHiding means stay out of sight. Yes, you are right in an open paved area it is hard to figure out what that means. Definitely do *not* use hide there because the behaviour will be odd - as you noted. But we need the hide command because it is the only way to get your guys to keep their heads down behind a low wall or in a fox hole during an artillery barrage.Just remember, when hiding your men spend their time trying to hide and they do not spend time trying to spot or fight. If you think of that way you can see that there are very few places that you need to use the hide command. In fact, the only time I use it is if my men get caught in an artillery strike. If you get a unit to hide in a fox hole during an artillery strike they will have a good chance to come out of it unharmed (unless they get it directly). Similarly for buildings. If you hide a unit next a low wall during an artillery strike only rounds landing on one side of the wall are likely to harm them. Heck during an artillery barrage if you guys are caught in a paved area go ahead give them a hide command, at least they will not kneel or stand up or even look up. Yes, that actually matters.There you have use for the hide command. Keep it simple - being under an artillery barrage is the only time to use hide. Never use it for anything else. I am not joking.Your men will always try to find some kind of cover if it is available. They will do the right thing you don't need to tell them to be careful. That is not what the hide command is for.

OK. You make 100% sense, now I get it. It doesn't model everything, but it's useful sometimes. Now only if we could tweet the settings so that the hide command would make situational sense. Like the hide command could mean different things in different environments. Thanks for explaining now.

[Baneman]

maybe I'm just not seeing the big picture. Does the hide command mean the unit TRIES to hide regardless of the situation?

 

YES !

 

It's a computer game. It can't make judgements about things like that.

 

The command is binary. Hide = hug ground as best you can, spinoff effect = don't see so good., Not-Hide = look around.

 

The command is just a tool. YOU decide when to use it, knowing its effects.

[cool breeze]

it does model something, it models them keeping their heads down or hiding in a bathtub or whatever instead of peaking over bushes and ledges and windows.  Its simple.  I can hide in a building or a can observe from a building.  Both ways I will be harder to spot that walking down the street or just standing or lying (hiding) in the gutter.    But the same they are not.  I will be much easier to see if I am looking out the window trying to figure out what's going on than if I am hiding in a bathtub occasionally peaking out of a mouse hole.  The cover arc keeps them from shooting, the hide command keeps the from looking (mostly).  because LOS is a two way street.

 

 

> and about that strange hiding in the flat parking lot idea.  the only way I can see to "hide" in a empty parking lot would be to cover oneself in trash, whish would degrade your spotting abilities.  the other way is if it has the cement blocks.  You'd lie behind the cement blocks whether hiding or not.  but hide means get extra concealed and try to stay that way, which would mean you don't peak over the cement wheel blocks as much.  so they can only see your backpack and legs and the top of your head instead of your whole face or  at least the eye half of it.  not much of an improvement in the hiding department, which is why its a bad idea..  now if there are cars to hide in or behind its a different story and hiding instead of observing will make you much harder to find. 

Edited January 7, 2015 by cool breeze

[stealthsilent1]

YES !

 

It's a computer game. It can't make judgements about things like that.

 

The command is binary. Hide = hug ground as best you can, spinoff effect = don't see so good., Not-Hide = look around.

 

The command is just a tool. YOU decide when to use it, knowing its effects.

yea maybe YOU don't understand how programming works, sure you got the initial function to say, do this, but you can make it more situation specific, by saying, okay if you're on this type of terrain, do this. And it could be more complicated, they could add depth to the command, but now I understand what the command really is, but I'm saying you can change the command so it would make more sense.

[stealthsilent1]

it does model something, it models them keeping their heads down or hiding in a bathtub or whatever instead of peaking over bushes and ledges and windows.  Its simple.  I can hide in a building or a can observe from a building.  Both ways I will be harder to spot that walking down the street or just standing or lying (hiding) in the gutter.    But the same they are not.  I will be much easier to see if I am looking out the window trying to figure out what's going on than if I am hiding in a bathtub occasionally peaking out of a mouse hole.  The cover arc keeps them from shooting, the hide command keeps the from looking (mostly).  because LOS is a two way street.

 

 

> and about that strange hiding in the flat parking lot idea.  the only way I can see to "hide" in a empty parking lot would be to cover oneself in trash, whish would degrade your spotting abilities.  the other way is if it has the cement blocks.  You'd lie behind the cement blocks whether hiding or not.  but hide means get extra concealed and try to stay that way, which would mean you don't peak over the cement wheel blocks as much.  so they can only see your backpack and legs and the top of your head instead of your whole face or  at least the eye half of it.  not much of an improvement in the hiding department, which is why its a bad idea..  now if there are cars to hide in or behind its a different story and hiding instead of observing will make you much harder to find.

ok, the abstraction principle for things that can't be simulated in the game is too vague, it could be argued both ways. I just don't see a reason, (in some situations) why the unit has to lose his ability to see clearly while trying to hide. It doesn't work for all situations, like if you are hiding in a building and hide in a bathtub, that makes perfect sense, but I feel that you are trying to come up with reasons why the hide command removes situational awareness in each scenario, it could be that way, but it doesn't have to be that way. It's just really subjective of what a person would do to "hide." For example imagine the parking lot example, there is no cover, or maybe some imaginary cover, (trash or trash cans, or a lots of used condoms lying on the floor, which can be used bunched up together to make a improvised guille suit), I don't see a reason why he has to cover his eyes, or block his sight in anyway. But the whole hiding principle is a good principle, and is a good tool, but I think it could be better. Because it could be argued both ways for why it would and would not work, and be reasonable.

Ps, the condom example was a stupid joke.

[Jargotn]

"Hiding while at the same time trying to do spotting" is what soldiers in CM are doing when they are not hiding. On the battlefield you try to expose yourself as little as possible.

"Hiding" is our command to tell the pixeltruppen to keep their heads down, no matter what.

[stealthsilent1]

"Hiding while at the same time trying to do spotting" is what soldiers in CM are doing when they are not hiding. On the battlefield you try to expose yourself as little as possible.

"Hiding" is our command to tell the pixeltruppen to keep their heads down, no matter what.

well put, you've summarized all that we said. I forgot where my point was on arguing why hide could be better, does it have to do with the thermal, because those make it really hard to hide.

[Baneman]

yea maybe YOU don't understand how programming works, sure you got the initial function to say, do this, but you can make it more situation specific, by saying, okay if you're on this type of terrain, do this. And it could be more complicated, they could add depth to the command, but now I understand what the command really is, but I'm saying you can change the command so it would make more sense.

 

I'm not telling you what it could do ( in a perfect world ), I'm just telling you what it does do in this one.

 

Play the game and enjoy it before rethinking all the features

[Michael Emrys]

...the hiding command needs to be accuate to dictate the whole game in every scenario. Like the law of gravity.

 

Maybe in Valhalla. In this world, I don't think you will ever find a piece of software that will work perfectly in every possible situation. This includes the "software" of doctrine and training that period armies used in the real war. Yes, you do not possess perfect control over your p-troops to get them to do what you want them to do every time. But guess what, neither did the real-life leaders and commanders. In fact, we have considerably more control than our real-life equivalents who just had to trust that the behavior of their units would at least approximate their operational and tactical vision.

 

Is any of this starting to sink in yet? The world wonders...

 

Michael

[Jock Tamson]

ok, the abstraction principle for things that can't be simulated in the game is too vague, it could be argued both ways. I just don't see a reason, (in some situations) why the unit has to lose his ability to see clearly while trying to hide. It doesn't work for all situations, like if you are hiding in a building and hide in a bathtub, that makes perfect sense, but I feel that you are trying to come up with reasons why the hide command removes situational awareness in each scenario, it could be that way, but it doesn't have to be that way. It's just really subjective of what a person would do to "hide." For example imagine the parking lot example, there is no cover, or maybe some imaginary cover, (trash or trash cans, or a lots of used condoms lying on the floor, which can be used bunched up together to make a improvised guille suit), I don't see a reason why he has to cover his eyes, or block his sight in anyway. But the whole hiding principle is a good principle, and is a good tool, but I think it could be better. Because it could be argued both ways for why it would and would not work, and be reasonable.

Ps, the condom example was a stupid joke.

 

 

Quite simply, it is a tactical game which offers the player tactical  choices.  It is not a simulation.  Therefore if you use the Hide command, in all circumstances your troops will try to keep their heads down at the expense of situational awareness.  That is the tactical choice you have.  It is further modified by choosing what type of terrain to hide them in.

 

Because it is a wargame, this changes the "numbers".

 

In simple terms, troops lying down in grass may have a concealment value of "7", with a full spottng value, or if they hide they may have a concealment value of "10" with a smaller spotting value.  That is how wargames work.

 

Now, what you are asking for is that the the change to the spotting value that is invoked by hiding can be modified by the terrain in which the hiding unit is hiding.  I think if you start to consider this in detail, it is too much, and not worth the CPU calculations:

 

Should units hiding in buildings have their spotting modified by less, or more than units hiding in trees?  What if the unit is in a tall building?  What if the unit is in a tree tile that also has thick vegetation?  What if it has thin vegetation? etc

 

PS - "ghillie", from the Gaelic.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Jock Tamson