Has the "SNEAK" command changed?

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Lord Dreaman wrote:

> infantry should have a modified hunt command to stop and engage infantry.

The Sneak command used to be a 'move stealthily' order, but it was changed to more of a 'move to contact' order. In other words, try using the Sneak command.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is this true???

Since when?

I have not played more than a game or two with the v24 patch but I have yet to notice a difference.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[David Aitken]

Big Time Software wrote:

> posted 06-07-2000 01:35 AM

> The 'sneak' command sort of works like move-to-contact, but not quite - currently.

> However I just made some slight changes that make it work much more like that now. These changes will be part of the v1.01 patch.

> Charles

Relevant thread:

Movement To Contact Order?

[Guest Scott Clinton]

In other words...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Sneak command used to be a 'move stealthily' order, but it was changed to more of a 'move to contact' order. In other words, try using the Sneak command.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...is not really correct.

The "SNEAK" command has not changed in over six months! And is nothing like a "Move To Contact" order as has been requested since the original Beta demo.

The way it works now (and for the last six months) is still very much the same old “SNEAK” command. Very useful, and necessary but not a substitute for “Move To Contact”.

For how it really works see this relevant thread: STOP!

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[David Aitken]

And a "move to contact" order, like the "scout" command which has been requested for vehicles, is just another device which people want to save them from having to use proper tactics. The key is, these are not reliable commands, because they depend on the units in question actually spotting the enemy, which they cannot do well while they are moving. The answer is to use the "sneak" (in the case of infantry) or "hunt" (in the case of armour) commands over short distances, and allow your units time to stop and look around, instead of running them headlong towards the enemy and expecting them to avoid imminent destruction.

David

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And a "move to contact" order, like the "scout" command which has been requested for vehicles, is just another device which people want to save them from having to use proper tactics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am truly sorry, but the only responce to this is... Bull****.

You forget that LOS in heavy woods is VERY, VERY short. And the game forces 60 second turns upon us (out of neccessity).

So, your 'solution' of "moving short distances" will require that your men spend half of thier time doing nothing for fear of having them literally walk past/through the enemy.

When a simple command to stop and engage the first enemy when seen could solve this situation.

Nobody said a "Move To Contact" command for infantry will fix every thing but it should keep opposing units from LITERALLY walking past each other at <10m with neither firing a shot.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[David Aitken]

Scott Clinton wrote:

> So, your 'solution' of "moving short distances" will require that your men spend half of thier time doing nothing for fear of having them literally walk past/through the enemy.

That's the nature of the situation. Try and convince me that given a "move to contact" command, SOP will not become "plot move for squad straight through forest and wait until they run into enemy". That's not a snobbish remark – if something works for you, I'm delighted. But such a procedure would be unrealistic and inadvisable, and therefore should not have lines of code devoted to it in CM.

I mentioned today in another thread that I'd learned the virtue of patience, from the misfortunes of those who are less patient and cautious than myself. Fighting in dense woodland or in the city is laborious and time-consuming. It is quite normal to find yourself suddenly amongst the enemy. There are ways to avoid this, and a "move to contact" command is a poor substitute for method and caution.

David

[Runyan99]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

That's the nature of the situation. Try and convince me that given a "move to contact" command, SOP will not become "plot move for squad straight through forest and wait until they run into enemy". That's not a snobbish remark – if something works for you, I'm delighted. But such a procedure would be unrealistic and inadvisable, and therefore should not have lines of code devoted to it in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I vote for the move to contact command. I don't see why it is unrealistic at all. In fact "Take your platoon through those woods until you contact the enemy!" sounds exactly like a command a captain might give. (Whether or not that would be a smart captain I will leave up to debate).

A move to contact command probably WILL become a "plot move for squad straight through forest and wait until they run into enemy" command, but I think that given the inflexibilities of the current Move command, the 60 second turn, and a game with a limited number of turns, we could use a break on this point.

For me it boils down to this: Sometimes I want my guys to move forward no matter what, firing on the move if need be. But I also want a command where the guys will move forward, but hit the dirt when fired on. I don't think that is unreasonable or unrealistic at all.

It drives me crazy when I give a short Move command (maybe even 10 meters in city or rubble terrrain) and the guys march forward and take casualties from a previously undiscovered MG or enemy squad. STOP!!!

Mr. Aitken apparently recommends three seperate 3 meter Move orders, but I don't have time for that in a 30 turn scenario, and I reject that solution.

Very simply, sometimes covering ground is the most important thing, and other times safety is the primary concern. Two orders are needed.

[Ezmartini]

I don't think the sneak command should be changed, but a hunt command be added. I use sneak many times when move uncontacted from scattered tree to scattered tree. The move to contact command should be separate.

[Guest Pillar]

Mr. Aitken,

The issue is not spotting ability. Most would agree with you that moving infantry spot less than still ones.

However, IF the infantry spots the enemy - REGARDLESS of whether they are moving or not - they should have the option to stop and fire, just as they would in real life.

A simple SOP order for contact could solve the problem without doing anything gamey.

Contact Option:

1)Fire and Keep moving

2)Don't Fire, Keep moving

3)Fire, Stop

4)Don't Fire, Stop (Scouts)

Tie this in with a simple speed of movement selection and you have yourself a powerful yet simple interface for communicating movement procedure.

I don't see how this could possibly be a gamey issue. The only real issue here, is whether it's worth it for Steve and Charles to code it in before CM2, and that is up to them.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 12-26-2000).]

[David Aitken]

Runyan99 wrote:

> In fact "Take your platoon through those woods until you contact the enemy!" sounds exactly like a command a captain might give.

Indeed, but the orders you give in CM affect not just what your men do, but the way they do it. In reality, after being given the aforementioned order, the platoon would conduct their advance using the appropriate method, which is not encompassed by the order. It's this kind of method which is up to you to execute in CM.

> But I also want a command where the guys will move forward, but hit the dirt when fired on.

This is exactly what the Sneak command does.

> It drives me crazy when I give a short Move command (maybe even 10 meters in city or rubble terrrain) and the guys march forward and take casualties from a previously undiscovered MG or enemy squad. STOP!!!

Have you used the Sneak command at all?

> Mr. Aitken apparently recommends three seperate 3 meter Move orders, but I don't have time for that in a 30 turn scenario, and I reject that solution.

If that's the only solution you can see, maybe you need to work on your tactics. Use the flipping Sneak command, that's what it's there for. Try leapfrogging two squads, which will double your speed. Battle is all about teamwork – the greater the co-ordination of your forces, the more successful you will be, and that applies to CM as it does to reality.

Pillar wrote:

> The issue is not spotting ability. Most would agree with you that moving infantry spot less than still ones.

I think it is very much an issue of spotting ability. You can't fight the enemy unless you know where they are. The proposed "move to contact" command is totally dependent on contact being made, ie. the enemy being seen. In that respect, the two aspects of the command are mutually disagreeable. The speed of establishing contact is reduced while moving – a squad is unlikely to notice the enemy until they have already opened fire.

> However, IF the infantry spots the enemy - REGARDLESS of whether they are moving or not - they should have the option to stop and fire, just as they would in real life.

In specific circumstances this might be realistic. But the effect of programming it into the game would be completely different. With the Sneak command, a squad will stop because they have run into the enemy and are being fired upon. With a "move to contact" command, a squad will stop and fire at any enemy soldiers it catches a glimpse of at any distance, not just those which present a threat to it. In many cases this may be disastrous, as advancing squads draw attention from enemy units they need not have worried about.

In my opinion, the Sneak command properly applied is perfect for advancing through low-visibility terrain. A "move to contact" order would likely prove little more useful than Sneak at best, and have the nasty side-effect of drawing unwanted attention unnecessarily.

David

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That's the nature of the situation. Try and convince me that given a "move to contact" command, SOP will not become "plot move for squad straight through forest and wait until they run into enemy". That's not a snobbish remark – if something works for you, I'm delighted. But such a procedure would be unrealistic and inadvisable, and therefore should not have lines of code devoted to it in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are you talking about? You really have lost me. Or are you trying to suggest that ordering a squad or half-squad to move through a heavily forested or urban landscape with orders to take cover and fire on the first enemy they see is unrealistic?!? How so?

More to the point how is this more 'gamey' than having you squad/team move for 15-30 seconds...stop and hide...move for 15-30 seconds...stop and hide...etc. etc. all so you don't risk walking right past an enemy "SNEAKING" in the other direction! This is NOT done for 'stealth' so don't confuse yourself. No, this is done so that the AI does not walk opposing units through/past each other at point blank range without anybody firing.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>> However, IF the infantry spots the enemy - REGARDLESS of whether they are moving or not - they should have the option to stop and fire, just as they would in real life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly...If a tank can do it why can't infantry? Think about it, it really is that simple IMO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In specific circumstances this might be realistic. But the effect of programming it into the game would be completely different. With the Sneak command, a squad will stop because they have run into the enemy and are being fired upon. With a "move to contact" command, a squad will stop and fire at any enemy soldiers it catches a glimpse of at any distance, not just those which present a threat to it. In many cases this may be disastrous, as advancing squads draw attention from enemy units they need not have worried about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what?!? This argument is a classic "Strawman", really a classic.

In many situations using the SNEAK or MOVE or FAST or any command already in the game CAN be "disastrous". I say again: "So what?"

It is up to the player to pick the right tool for the job. But if the right tool is not available in the game, 'making do' with the only tool you have does not make it the right one for the job.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In my opinion, the Sneak command properly applied is perfect for advancing through low-visibility terrain. A "move to contact" order would likely prove little more useful than Sneak at best, and have the nasty side-effect of drawing unwanted attention unnecessarily.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In many situations using "SNEAK" will always be the best command. Just as "MOVE" is the right command for armor in many situations. But many other situations the "SNEAK" command fails miserably and will always fail as the game is currently coded. We need a command that allows infantry to use maximum cover while moving (slowly of course) AND them to stop and fire on the enemy (just as armor has a "HUNT" command).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I don't see how this could possibly be a gamey issue. The only real issue here, is whether it's worth it for Steve and Charles to code it in before CM2, and that is up to them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There you people go again interjecting reality into a good debate! God, I hate it when people do that.

But, seriously, I expect this to be too big a change for CM. I would happy to know that it will be in CM2.

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Pillar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

I think it is very much an issue of spotting ability. You can't fight the enemy unless you know where they are. The proposed "move to contact" command is totally dependent on contact being made, ie. the enemy being seen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is true. But the command itself has nothing to do with spotting. There are many situations where infantry spot the enemy before fire takes place, ESPECIALLY if both parties are moving.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

In that respect, the two aspects of the command are mutually disagreeable. The speed of establishing contact is reduced while moving – a squad is unlikely to notice the enemy until they have already opened fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hardly. This isn't like two contradictory physics principles, where only one can be true. This is fluid situational awareness and movement in warfare. There are MANY situations where you spot the enemy before any fire takes place.

Currently, it is very difficult game-wise to conduct stealthy scouting in because of the movement orders structure.

For CM2, a structure similar to that which I proposed above would be an excellent tool for player control. After all, there are really only two parameters to deal with:

How do I move?

What do I do upon contact, or reaching my destination?

[David Aitken]

Scott Clinton wrote:

> What are you talking about? You really have lost me.

Try and do a bit of lateral thinking, please.

> Or are you trying to suggest that ordering a squad or half-squad to move through a heavily forested or urban landscape with orders to take cover and fire on the first enemy they see is unrealistic?!? How so?

Refer to Runyan99's comments and my response.

> More to the point how is this more 'gamey' than having you squad/team move for 15-30 seconds...stop and hide...move for 15-30 seconds...stop and hide...etc. etc. all so you don't risk walking right past an enemy "SNEAKING" in the other direction!

Because what you describe is not gamey. Put yourself in that situation. Would you rather advance through a forest, with twigs crunching under your feet and the undergrowth rustling by, expecting to run into the enemy at any moment but just trudging on regardless – or would you stop every so often and just look and listen for a short while before resuming your advance?

> Exactly...If a tank can do it why can't infantry? Think about it, it really is that simple IMO.

I have thought about it, and I don't think the issues are comparable. Tanks need to stop and fire as soon as they spot an adversary, because they are deadly across the entire battlefield and one shot can kill. Infantry need not worry about enemy infantry unless they're close by, and at long range it takes a long time to do any damage, so there's no point in stopping and firing the second contact is made.

> In many situations using the SNEAK or MOVE or FAST or any command already in the game CAN be "disastrous". I say again: "So what?"

The "move to contact" order is a special issue, because it has different effects in different circumstances. Move and Fast Move are simple, and Sneak is a straightforward "move and avoid enemy contact if possible, by being stealthy and holding fire except in an emergency". "Move to contact", however, is to say "advance and if you see the enemy, stop and shoot". Do you mean shoot at the enemy if they appear in front of your nose, or if you see them in the distance? Do you want your men to advance carefully through dense terrain and shoot if they're threatened, or march into battle and open up on the first target they see? The intention is ambiguous, and when you consider that the ultimate purpose is to move, these side-effect could easily render the command useless.

> It is up to the player to pick the right tool for the job. But if the right tool is not available in the game, 'making do' with the only tool you have does not make it the right one for the job.

If that is so, then the game should have every conceivable order programmed in. That is obviously impractical, and as such, making inventive use of the available commands is the way to go. If this were not the intention, then BTS would not have allowed you to combine numerous different commands in a single order.

> But many other situations the "SNEAK" command fails miserably and will always fail as the game is currently coded.

Any command will fail miserably unless you use it properly.

David

[Guest Pillar]

David,

Are you against the idea of modifying the commands as they are now or are you just pointing out some shortcomings?

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pillar:

A simple SOP order for contact could solve the problem without doing anything gamey.

Contact Option:

1)Fire and Keep moving

2)Don't Fire, Keep moving

3)Fire, Stop

4)Don't Fire, Stop (Scouts)

Tie this in with a simple speed of movement selection and you have yourself a powerful yet simple interface for communicating movement procedure.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perfect! I like this!

Michael

[Guest Pillar]

Thanks, maybe they'll make me a beta tester now.

[Binkie]

This is becoming a hot issue again and I would REALLY like to hear an official line from Steve or Charles as to whether or not an honest-to-god stop on contact order is under consideration for infantry.

I'm sure there is a fair amount of coding and tweaking that would need to be done to implement this, and I'm sure this addition could break all kinds of other stuff, requiring another round of testing. But for those of us looking for this order (including me), give us a sign, BTS!

Should we just live with the current situation and move on, or is this a possibility before CM2?

[TeAcH]

I vote FOR a Move To Contact option or some other like implementation.

DAVID A, leave us alone. You dont have to code it, now do you? Stop arguing for the sake of arguing and open your eyes to the truth.

Simply put, YOU ARE WRONG.

You were wrong before when you and I had a disagreement over the continuous firing at rubble after a house collapsed bug and you lost. BTS decided it needed a tweak.

Nite

TeAcH

[Jarmo]

I'd really really want the hunt for infantry.

I dont want my men continuing to walk on after they discover an enemy ambush ahead.

And don't tell the only reasonable way to advance is to sneak 5 meters a minute.

That'd be the way I'd do it if I had 2-3 hours time to take my objectives, but I'm

usually on a tight schedule.

It's tough **** being a pointman in my company, but that's the way it is.

Advance until you meet the enemy, then hit the dirt and wait for backup.

And I'm not asking this to get help for my incompetent tactics, I do well enough.

I'm asking this to get rid of one terribly gamey part of this masterpiece.

[Guest Seimerst]

<reading with great interest> What strikes me about this thread is that at the heart it is about "control". A player wants his units to execute his orders. At one end of the spectrum is the "chaos of war" theory and at the other end is "micro-management of robots". I fall into the chaos camp. One element of CM that sets it apart from the rest is that, based on the units experience and morale, it may or may not do exactly as you ordered. That is, for me at least, a great advance in realism. However, it is worth exploring the concept of have a more "refined" set of commands to give so that the range of possible actions that a unit might do in a given order is reduced.

Good thread for thought.

[David Aitken]

Pillar wrote:

> There are many situations where infantry spot the enemy before fire takes place, ESPECIALLY if both parties are moving.

I'm sure, but in how many of these situations is the enemy a serious threat? Opposing squads might spot each other across an open field, but that's not a big problem. The only contentious situation I've heard of is where two squads Sneak past each other in woodland. The chances of this happening would be greatly reduced if people allowed their men to stop and look around, as I keep saying, instead of just marching them straight towards the enemy and waiting for contact. The more you stop, the greater the chance that the enemy will walk into you.

> This isn't like two contradictory physics principles, where only one can be true. This is fluid situational awareness and movement in warfare. There are MANY situations where you spot the enemy before any fire takes place.

I wouldn't argue with that, but again, most of the time this isn't an issue. It is an issue in woods, in which situation spotting takes longer, and if the enemy is waiting for you they'll have seen you and opened fire before you see them, whereupon the Sneak command would work its magic.

> Currently, it is very difficult game-wise to conduct stealthy scouting in because of the movement orders structure.

I totally disagree. Just because there isn't a command labelled "Scout" doesn't mean it's difficult to scout. With that philosophy, again, you would need every conceivable order programmed in.

> Are you against the idea of modifying the commands as they are now or are you just pointing out some shortcomings?

I am against the unnecessary modification of the game. By that I mean, broadly speaking, the addition of features requested by those who can't seem to use the available features properly, or who become upset when their units don't do exactly as they had intended.

TeAcH wrote:

> DAVID A, leave us alone. You dont have to code it, now do you? Stop arguing for the sake of arguing and open your eyes to the truth.

Good idea, cast me as the single dissenting voice trying to impose my will on the enlightenend masses.

> Simply put, YOU ARE WRONG.

Oh, good argument. Don't bother considering the facts or offering your take on the issues, just march in and claim that I don't know what I'm talking about and that'll do the trick.

> You were wrong before when you and I had a disagreement over the continuous firing at rubble after a house collapsed bug and you lost. BTS decided it needed a tweak.

No, I wasn't wrong. I argued that the issue wasn't a problem and in many cases was beneficial. BTS evidently decided to make you a happy customer, regardless of whether the tweak was necessary or not. Maybe I dislike the way it works now, but I'm not as quick to complain.

By the way, when you say I 'lost', does that mean you gain points in BTS's little black book? Do you get to redeem them later for an extra Royal Tiger in a PBEM game?

Jarmo wrote:

> I dont want my men continuing to walk on after they discover an enemy ambush ahead.

If it really is an ambush, chances are the enemy will fire, in which case the Sneak command would be perfectly adequate. But that misses the point, which is that if you allow your men to stop and look around every so often, they will have a much greater chance of (1) spotting the enemy approaching or an enemy ambush, or (2) catching the enemy coming in the opposite direction.

> And don't tell the only reasonable way to advance is to sneak 5 meters a minute. That'd be the way I'd do it if I had 2-3 hours time to take my objectives, but I'm usually on a tight schedule.

Where did you get those figures from? Just because someone suggests being more cautious doesn't mean you have to grind to a halt.

> It's tough **** being a pointman in my company, but that's the way it is. Advance until you meet the enemy, then hit the dirt and wait for backup.

I'd like to see you imposing such doctrine on real soldiers – or trying it for yourself in woodland or a demolished city.

> And I'm not asking this to get help for my incompetent tactics, I do well enough. I'm asking this to get rid of one terribly gamey part of this masterpiece.

If anything is gamey, it's the fact, as has been discussed before, that battles in CM tend to progress much quicker than they do in reality. It's exactly this kind of situation which is responsible. In reality your men wouldn't just march on until they fall over the enemy – they would advance very slowly, in woodland in particular, taking plenty of opportunities to stop and look around.

David

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 12-27-2000).]

[Henri]

I'm not sure I undersand.

Do I understand that sneaking units will only spot enemy units when they reach a waypoint? And that they will not stop moving unless fired upon? (A highly likely occurence when they meet an enemy unit in my experience.

And if two opposing units are both sneaking will they sneak right past each other waving hello as they walk by?

Assuming this is true, a move to contact order would also have its problems. What would happen if a sneaking unit spots an enemy tank on a hill 2 km away? Will it stop? How far should the enemy unit be to force a decision that contact has been made?

Seems to me that a move to contact command is not the answer, the only answer being SOP orders.Otherwise there will always be circumstances where one's units will not do what one wants.

Henri

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Seimerst:

<reading with great interest> What strikes me about this thread is that at the heart it is about "control". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would agree with this statement. FWIW, I think that David has a good point. I have rarely had the problem that whole squads got annihilated because of the current order of movement structures, because I let my platoons travel in overwatch, with a half-squad as point unit. This way you can quickly bring suppressive fire to bear on any OPFOR appearing in front of you.

I have also found little trouble in scouting ahead. I quite like having to organise this myself. What may be an issue here is that this is very time-consuming in a large-scale battle, for which CM originally was not designed (original point limit in QBs was 1,000). I can see how it becomes impractical very quickly when you have a batallion to move up.

But in general I see nothing wrong with the way it currently works. Adds a bit of spice to a game, not knowing if your troops believe enough in you as a CO to carry out your plan

TeAch, how about if you grow up a little and come back to adults arguing afterwards? Just a suggestion.

------------------

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-27-2000).]

[Gremlin]

Another vote for move to contact, preferably with Pillar's implementation.

------------------

War is cruel and you cannot refine it. --Sherman

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri:

Assuming this is true, a move to contact order would also have its problems. What would happen if a sneaking unit spots an enemy tank on a hill 2 km away? Will it stop? How far should the enemy unit be to force a decision that contact has been made?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good points.

I guess it wouldn't be quite as easy as I thought.

But still...