tecumseh

Thanks Agua I have tested sneaking , hiding and firing with and without the stealth command, but i have not tried other types of movement (mainly because the manual says stealth relates to sneaking). I will try your test when i get a chance. If a unit running through woods under stealth is harder to spot than a unit running without stealth, then that *is* a big benefit. Why didn't they put this in the manual? :eek:

I would be very interested if someone could describe a test they had done which illustrated the effect of the stealth bonus directly (not using the ambush command). An example would be to divide the map into two identical areas except one had a stealth bonus and one didin't, and then the stealth side is shown to have a consistent advantage. I have yet to find one like this! an example of my tests: wide map (N-S) split into 10 "lanes" by tall trees. At each Axis (E) end of a lane are two hidden guns (flak & 50mm). All 20 guns line up N-S. Every two lanes tests a different terrain type. The first lane has +2 stealth, the second lane has +0 stealth. For example Lane 1 is woods with stealth, Lane 2 is woods without stealth, Lane 3 is rough with stealth etc... From the W roll 3 tanks and infantry per lane. The guns wait a turn hidden and on the second turn I unhide them and they start firing. What happens? All 4 guns in the two "open" lanes are spotted even when hiding. All other guns are not spotted in the first turn. On the second turn when they start firing I cannot see any difference between the time it takes to spot the guns in the stealth lane to the time it takes to spot the guns in the non-stealth lane, for each terrain type. I tested a few different ranges, and also with foxholes (open guns no longer spotted). Still no difference. Scattered trees guns are spotted at close range in turn one, but both lanes at the same time. Therefore (ignoring the use of the ambush command), I can see no use in the stealth bonus for guns. I have done similar tests for infantry. I can only find one advantage for the stealth bonus that is measurable: units targeting an ambush marker are less likely to shoot at something else under stealthy command. That is it. Give me leadership and moral bonuses any day.

I think I play differently than everybody else...I must be very impatient...because I never have hiding units firing or spotted before I choose to unhide them. This is probably why the stealth bonus seems useless to me. I think I will practice holding fire and ambushes more, and then probably the value of the stealth bonus will dawn on me. patience daniel son thanks folks! [ June 23, 2002, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

So a platoon with good LOS, under a stealth bonus, kneeling, and targeting an ambush marker right in front of it, will work like "hold fire" - it will spot well because its not hiding, but it will not give it's location away by firing. Thanks Silvio, I hadn't thought of that. But because the platoon is not hiding, the stealth bonus will not make the platoon harder to spot, so they would have to be in woods or a building - behind a wall would not work for example.

So you mean the first gun was spotted while hiding? Or are you saying that once the guns started firing one took longer to be spotted (targeted) than the other? If it's the former i agree, but i rarely have hiding guns spotted before they fire becasue i prefer rough and woods. If its the later then that is different from my test results :confused: i don't think you are lazy dude, you replied in 5 minutes

Since I started playing CM I've gone to great lengths to put guns in command of HQ units with stealth bonuses. It is awful being fired on by an enemy gun and not knowing where it is, and I figured this is the kind of thing that is helped by the stealth bonus. For this reason I considered the stealth bonus even more important to guns than the morale bonus. Stupid me. I just read the manual again and realised I was wrong. Firing guns being spotted has nothing to do with the stealth bonus. In one place the manual says the stealth bonus "...increases the chance of remaining unspotted in ambush and while sneaking." In another place it "...increases the chance of remaining unspotted while hiding." :confused: I did some tests and sure enough firing guns are spotted the same with or without the bonus. Hiding guns are very rarely spotted without them firing first anyway, so keeping them in stealth bonus seems like a waste of time. I then tried to do some tests with sneaking units with stealth vs sneaking units without stealth being spotted. I used 2 platoons sneaking towards hiding panzershrecks in scattered trees and again in woods. In both cases the platoons were spotted at the same time, though one had stealth +2 and the other had no bonus. I've done a few other tests and found the stealth bonus to be largely a waste of time. I very rarely use the "ambush" command, and my hiding units are virtually never spotted without me choosing to unhide them or setting them targets. I have tested units under stealth and units not under stealth in a variety of identical situations in hotseat and can honestly see no real advantage. So my question is, am I mad? Or do other players agree?

Well the problem is that such a unit would fire on anything it thought it could do damage to, which is often not what you want. What would be great is "hold fire" which means "stay alert and use your freakin eyes, but don't shoot". Those two behaviours are modeled, but not together in the same order! Short range units (flamethrower, shrek) can be kept unhidden as lookouts. HMGs sure can't. redwolf - yes I agree proper testing should be done, and i can help. I too came from playing tacops and I was initially frustrated by CM commands. Now i like the eccentricity of it all. Sneaking - i think under good command and morale, a sneaking unit will not fire unless fired on. I have tested this, and under a commander with a +command bonus a platoon will sneak right through hiding enemy shreks in woods, regardless of how many waypoints there are. They will spot them, target them, but hold fire. However I'm sure a sneaking unit CAN fire first, just like a unit ordered to move will not move sometimes, or a hiding unit will open fire early sometimes. But if they do fire first, they are ignoring your order.

True, but that 8 seconds does include the time spent deciding to go alphabetically, after all the crew members got stuck trying to go at once. [ June 19, 2002, 02:57 AM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

In another test i just did it confirms hiding units do have worse spotting ability. Eg. Hiding infantry see a "Stuart?" while non-hiding infantry in exactly the same situation see a confirmed "M8 Greyhound". Both my tests make hiding seem less useful than i thought They also show how having a "hold fire" command would make a lot of sense. EDIT - or i could have read the manual - thanks silvio [ June 18, 2002, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

Put it this way: don't you think it is weird that redwolf - who has played and studied this game for a while - doesn't think a hiding unit is harder to spot (than a unit with no orders and not firing)? I agree with you Psyched, but I'm not 100% convinced. I think it is worth testing thoroughly. And yeah, i know I was not addressing your intial post ...i wouldn't be surprised if hiding units having a limited spotting ability was NOT modelled in CM. But i don't know....yet EDIT - a quick test suggests that in open ground redwolf is right, hiding infantry units are as easily spotted as non-firing, non-hiding infantry units. I'll test other situations soon. [ June 18, 2002, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

I think hiding does make a unit harder to spot. I am thinking of the moment when you fire at a unit and it "takes cover" or is 'pinned" and you can no longer see it. I think when an infantry unit is shown lying down - for whatever reason - it is harder to spot.

Did that 11.3 psi for the hetzer come from memory? That would be impressive. Me, I can remember all the faces of minor actors and what movies they were in, but i have been known to forget my own age...

Thanks Silvio. I would still like a redwolf tactics article on this sort of thing...what he picks in rain and fog, tactics for advancing at night in mud. Basically, things that work when its not clear and dry. I like redwolf's advice because its not abstract ("infantry rule the battlefield" "Soviet doctrine is best"), but practical. And its advanced...someone like me who has been playing CM for years still learns things i am a tactics slut. [ June 12, 2002, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

Hey redwolf, i don't know if you take requests or not, but... Maybe on this forum or for your next TH article you could delve into what units perform well in what landscape/conditions and which ones don't, and strategies around that. For example I had NO idea about mud and hetzers. I guess I could do lots of tests, but I trust you more

I am sure it will come down to a match between Swamp and Wreck. Ghost will drop out because he is bored. Fionn will drop out because he gets offended by something.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: Ummm (T) rounds are less effective against heavy slope than standard AP rounds<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> (edited because my maths was wrong ) [ 09-09-2001: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

When you brag in public KJ, its best to get things right...saves embarassment <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: Unfortunity for him his moves were all too obvious and he has lost an M8 and the Jumbo to a well postioned Lang.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Obvious? Is that as obvious as it was to me that you would push your two IV/70s forward? Your "well positioned lang" is now a smoking husk, as is the lang next to it. The previous turn your IV/70 shrugged off two 76mm T rounds from fairly close range, and luckly waxed the 76 Jumbo before the 3rd shot could hit. I fail to see how this is "well postioned". Just a tank duel that went your way. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> My guess is at this point I'll be fighting mainly M8's for the rest of the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well you guessed wrong. Now you know. Keep up the winning commentary KJ - you really sound like the smart player you think you are. tec

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: Nice of you to take such an active interest in my win/loss record tecumseh, you looking for a date or something? I'm not a cheap drunk by the way<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Er, one loss to "pete"? dude, you are the most interesting thing about this forum, so yeah i take an active interest. You're also from my hometown, and i plan to beat you. I'm in training now, getting a kiwi flag in the TH top ten (#13 currently), but anytime you've got a free PBEM slot let me know...tho I've got about 8 games going now and its screwing with my life, so i'm sweet to wait a while. tec

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KiwiJoe: Yup Treeburst is right, Ive won over a 100 games with only 4 losses<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In one of your other threads you claimed only 3 losses, and then you were beaten twice by catnip. That makes 5.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: Somebody beat him, please.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yeah no problem. KJ, when you're ready. tec

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by YankeeDog: I am also interested in the question of how to assault a building when HE is NOT an option<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, i guess i have never done this. i've never played an infantry-only game, so the only situation i would attempt this would be a desperate flag-rush on a building where the flag was big and the building was probably not defended by more than a single platoon, and i needed the points. In that case i'm not sure what i would do. I think your technique sounds bloody good. It particulary avoids the issue of charging too many people into a already-populated building, which is suicide. i think it's main competition is the strategy of charging 2 (small or 3 (large full squads to the front wall, with a delayed charge of more squads to fill the rest of the building. The advantage of this is more firepower against enemies on the back wall. Oh yeah, i do think you should always run. this idea of run to building, sneak inside sounds crazy to me. Sneak does not mean "shoot well". it means "try and stay unspotted and don't shoot until it is absolutely required". Running CM soldiers shoot very well, so use this advantage. (They don't spot so well, but with absolute spotting this isn't so important.) someone should run some tests...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by xerxes: Then again, I haven't run extensive tests<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A while back i ran tests on guns, not infantry, but i assume the modelling is similar. Against non-VT arty the best spots were in rough and behind a wall (half the blasts then have no/little effect coz they're on the other side of it). The worst spot was in heavy trees, as xerxes said. i can't remember much of a difference between scattered trees and open, but i would wager scattered trees are better... Not many treebursts and enough cover to make groundbursts must less effective maybe? Against VT arty being out in the open = dead. As a general rule i move any infantry being hit by arty. One reason is because that means my enemy knows where they are (or has guessed correctly) so keeping them there gives him an advantage anyway. [ 09-03-2001: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ben Galanti: The speed problem with having vehicles block LOS would not be in displaying the movies, it would be in generating them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And in the orders phase. When targeting or using the LOS tool every vehicle's dynamic location would have to be considered. i think maybe this is where the real problem is.