Steven482 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I noticed that when hiding my troops, their ability to retain C2 communication link diminishes. As much as they are also less frequently spotting, I was wondering if it really is worth it to hide most troops that do not see any action/threats. If a units is relatively far to the back of the battlefield, even though in poor terrain, how much does it gain if he is hiding against the possibility to be spotted vs. the reduced comm link? I prefer green comms above stealth in most cases. Steven 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Troops with "HIDE" orders are face in the dirt, not looking around. So, even with covered arcs, a hiding unit may well not ambush approaching enemy, and often said enemy can walk right on top of them and kill the hiding troops. HIDE is helpful to reduce casualties from arty barrage, and for when you really don't want them spotted. But, they won't be good at spotting anything else either. So, re your question, it all depends on the situation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newlife Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Some terrain encourages soldiers to stand, namely most steep terrain. I lost a bunch of guys because they were standing in a deep ditch. I thought the ditch would protect them (and maybe it did) but I had to order them to hide to get them to go to ground and up their survival rate. Ambush, scouting, and most other time I don't have them hide. (I'm still learning the CM2 engine so take that for what its worth) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven482 Posted October 12, 2012 Author Share Posted October 12, 2012 HIDE is helpful to reduce casualties from arty barrage... I did not know that. Why would it be better to hide vs. Arty Barrage? Because the really lie flat on the ground in their little ditches? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simast Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I did not know that. Why would it be better to hide vs. Arty Barrage? Because the really lie flat on the ground in their little ditches? HE artillery is based on projectile fragments hitting nearby troops. So it makes sense to lie down to evade casualties rather than stay in standing/prone position. Please correct me if I am wrong 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Simast is correct. And if a unit is in an action square containing foxholes, they won't completely occupy the foxholes and get the full benefit of them unless they're in HIDE status. Look closely and you'll see that when you tell them to HIDE, their bodies disappear and you just see the tops of their heads inside each foxhole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 HE artillery is based on projectile fragments hitting nearby troops. So it makes sense to lie down to evade casualties rather than stay in standing/prone position. Please correct me if I am wrong Correct but with exceptions. Airbursts and treebursts should pretty much negate the advantage of lying down. But I don't know if the game takes that into account. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger123 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I think that an order such as "ambush" would be useful- If it maintained (increased) Spotting,cover arcs and a degree of protection. and a lot of concealment. "Hide" is intuitively the command to give, but it is too restrictive. Ambush would be given mainly to Inf AT eg PIAT/Panzerfaust/schreck. or AT guns (and inf) lying in wait of the enemy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I get the impression that the default inf stance is "taking appropriate cover while keeping a look-out" and is hence the default desired position for an ambush. ie: Everyone lying down in whatever cover is available while one guy keeps a look-out. HIDE on the other hand is complete cowering, everyone hugging the ground for dear life with their faces in the dirt. The question is could an actual AMBUSH command do/give any advantage over what the default stance position provides? It does sometimes seem that units in default stance are too easily spotted by moving/advancing enemy units. But, if they are in HIDE position the enemy can literally walk over them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I think that an order such as "ambush" would be useful- If it maintained (increased) Spotting,cover arcs and a degree of protection. and a lot of concealment. "Hide" is intuitively the command to give, but it is too restrictive. Ambush would be given mainly to Inf AT eg PIAT/Panzerfaust/schreck. or AT guns (and inf) lying in wait of the enemy. You'd be right, if you weren't ignoring the fact that troops already default to "hiding as best they can while retaining situational awareness". What magic wand would you wave to make some chaps behind a stretch of Bocage (who are trying not to be seen) still be able to see, but suddenly be harder to see themselves? What you're asking for is nonsense based on a misunderstanding of what your pTruppen are actually doing. They are not (except where there are some wrinkles in behaviour in specific terrain, like steep slopes/ditches) just standing there waiting to be seen/shot. They are already doing what you're asking for in this putative "Ambush" command. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I agree with Womble, but per my previous post as I observed in my own games it does sometimes seem that units in default position are too easily seen by advancing troops and tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammenwerfer Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 As others have said, the problem is units will not unhide, even when they are in mortal danger; I've had hiding troops shot execution style in the back. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Since Combat Mission does not have SOPs. it's up to the player to stay alert to the situation and decide when to manually "unhide" units. The TacAI is good, and infantry do have some survival instincts, but the TacAI is limited in certain respects (and this is one of them). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammenwerfer Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I play PBEM so this is usually not an option...In CM1 units had an inherent SOP to unhide for self preservation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 What magic wand would you wave to make some chaps behind a stretch of Bocage (who are trying not to be seen) still be able to see, but suddenly be harder to see themselves? I cant speak for tiger123, but were I to wave my magic wand the result would be that only one member of the team or squad would be keeping lookout while the rest kept their faces in the dirt. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 "only one member of the team or squad would be keeping lookout while the rest kept their faces in the dirt." That seems to be what the graphics show for the default (non-HIDE) posture. But, we don't know if that is an accurate interpretation of what the computer AI is actually doing/"seeing". And for PBEM and us WEGO players, we most often are unable to UNHIDE at the right moment. The question is whether units that HIDE are harder to spot than the default. If they are, then that's an argument for an AMBUSH command. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 That seems to be what the graphics show for the default (non-HIDE) posture. But, we don't know if that is an accurate interpretation of what the computer AI is actually doing/"seeing". Except that if they are behind a low wall, bocage or other cover that cannot be seen over from a prone position they completely lose situational awareness in that direction. This is what needs to be remedied, if not with a new command then alternatively a modification to the Hide command so that one squad/team member will automatically remain "kneeling" if they are adjacent to such cover and have a covered arc in that direction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 "only one member of the team or squad would be keeping lookout while the rest kept their faces in the dirt." That seems to be what the graphics show for the default (non-HIDE) posture. Hmmm. I'm not so sure. Haven't been specifically watching for this (will do so in the future), but seems like most of the time when my troops aren't moving, they are most likely to be kneeling. The only time a majority seem to go full prone is if someone is shooting back, and then only if they can maintain LOF in that position. Of course, when cowering—which seems to happen a lot—they aren't kneeling. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Hmmm. I'm not so sure. Haven't been specifically watching for this (will do so in the future), but seems like most of the time when my troops aren't moving, they are most likely to be kneeling. The only time a majority seem to go full prone is if someone is shooting back, and then only if they can maintain LOF in that position. Of course, when cowering—which seems to happen a lot—they aren't kneeling. Michael I think you're probably seeing an artefact of the combination of "sensible tactics" (i.e. keeping behind cover/concealment) and the default "everyone spotting" posture of the element. If you leave troops stationary in the open, with "good" LOS in the direction they're Facing, I think they'll tend to go prone, with probably the "Leader" kneeling up for a better look, but if (as is probably wise) your troops are only ever stationary behind cover, they'll probably feel the need to come up to kneeling to be able to see past whatever they're hiding behind. You can see that every member of a team is, by default, "Spotting" in the bottom left corner (when they aren't otherwise engaged). Even Hiding teams have one or more of their troops pop their heads up for a "Spot" occasionally. But given the reciprocality of LOS, any concealment advantage gained by reducing the number of heads exposed in order to spot will accrue a proportional loss of spotting ability. So an "Ambush" command with one guy "up" will still miss some of the opportunities/dangers that Hiding ones would. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 I think you're probably seeing an artefact of the combination of "sensible tactics" (i.e. keeping behind cover/concealment) and the default "everyone spotting" posture of the element. If you leave troops stationary in the open, with "good" LOS in the direction they're Facing, I think they'll tend to go prone, with probably the "Leader" kneeling up for a better look, but if (as is probably wise) your troops are only ever stationary behind cover, they'll probably feel the need to come up to kneeling to be able to see past whatever they're hiding behind. You can see that every member of a team is, by default, "Spotting" in the bottom left corner (when they aren't otherwise engaged). I think you are correct, including your explanation of why they would or would not kneel. I notice that troops go prone more in FI than they seem to in BN, and I attribute that to more knee high/hip high cover/concealment in the latter. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger123 Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 To Womble. I am sure that you are more at ease with the game mechanics than I am. Having said that what proof do you have to substantiate your understanding of Troop behaviour/spotting ?.Being a novice at CMN I could do with help. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 The question remains whether there needs to be a middle situational order between the default and HIDE. I have "felt" that non-hiding troops are too easily seen by moving attackers - even buttoned tanks, whereas it can be suicide to HIDE (even with a covered arc) when in close proximity to enemy inf. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Except that if they are behind a low wall, bocage or other cover that cannot be seen over from a prone position they completely lose situational awareness in that direction. This is what needs to be remedied, if not with a new command then alternatively a modification to the Hide command so that one squad/team member will automatically remain "kneeling" if they are adjacent to such cover and have a covered arc in that direction. That sounds good but would impose more animation labor on the part of the (two) coders. Maybe an in command, non-hiding HQ or other affiliated unit like an attached team could be empowered to act as a trigger. Womble mentions that even Hiding troops will still spot- at a lower rate- but minus a blue LOS line to the approaching enemy ambushing troops will not spring into action when an arc is breached. Unlike CMx1. So springing an ambush requires, in may circumstances, intervention on the part of the player. OK in real time but clunky in WEGO. This is, imo, one of the several issues, including mortar quirks, setup times and and- arguably- under-modeled MG fire which currently gives a decided edge to the offensive side in CM2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 To Womble. I am sure that you are more at ease with the game mechanics than I am. Having said that what proof do you have to substantiate your understanding of Troop behaviour/spotting ?.Being a novice at CMN I could do with help. I don't have any "proof" that I can hand you. Just watch what your troops do, and I believe you'll come to the same conclusions that I have. You can see at any given time what "action" the members of a selected element are taking (Spotting, Cowering, Reloading, Aiming, Moving, Firing and the rest, including my favourite, the rare Planning) in the bottom left of the screen. You can hover your mouse over the weapon silhouette of any team member, and that pTruppe's green "base" will pulse, and their entry in the bottom left corner will be visually distinguished. So you can see what posture the trooper is in while taking that action. Compare that with the terrain they're in and the terrain they're trying to see through/past/over and you'll be able to draw your own conclusions. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 ... springing an ambush requires, in may circumstances, intervention on the part of the player. OK in real time but clunky in WEGO. In WeGo, it's not that big an issue for most ambushes. It's rare that you don't know that an ambush possibility is potentially going to occur in the next minute (I'm not saying you always have warning in the prior minute, but you mostly do), so you can take the Hide order off the ambush actuators in the order phase. This will make them a bit more spottable, but they'll be ambushing a moving unit which, especially if it's infantry, has a greatly reduced chance of spotting them (and vehicles have a slightly reduced chance, plus one of the crew is Driving rather than Spotting*) in the upcoming minute. Less-directly affected units might be more likely get a spot on the ambshers once they're un-Hide-ed, but those units are more likely to be further away, and if the ambush positions are that exposed that some distant unit will insta-spot and insta-suppress the ambushers when they un-Hide, the Hide order probably wouldn't have stopped the ambush victims from spotting their intended murderers in the first place (assuming their player gave them some static time in order to have a chance to). In most cases, if you're relying on Hide to make an ambush work, it's probably not a very good ambush, and you're probably going to lose the ambushers to other assets once it's sprung. Having a special "ambush" order for the, I believe, rare cases where a viable ambush could be transformed into sure thing by the existence of that order would be overkill, IMO. I love the idea of "trigger units", but think they're probably unnecessary. * Or is this the reason for the moving vehicle spotting disadvantage, recently observed in tests? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.