The "sneak" command: Does it work for you?

[Guest Heinz 25th PzReg]

Hi all

I have been playing around with the "sneak" command, and I have some comments. I though there were some changes made to this command some time ago. The intention was to make this command like a "move-to-contact" type command. And I really thought that this change had taken place. But after using this command for a while, I am sure that something is wrong here.

Ok, here is a situation:

I order one of my infantry squads to sneak through a forest looking for the enemy. I expect them to stop and fire on the enemy as soon as they spot them. As the turn starts, my squad spot an enemy infantry squad in the forest. But do they open fire? NO!!! What do they do? They keep on sneaking up on the enemy squad until the enemy squad opens fire and kills my squad!! Wow, is that great or what?

I have made this observation many many times, and I think this might need some further tweaking. What I really want is a "movement-to-contact" command for my infantry.

What do you guys think?

Regards,

Heinz

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

"To subdue your enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Visit my AAR site:

home.online.no/~andhess/cm/

[Reaper]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heinz 25th PzReg:

What do you guys think?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey,

Well, in my experience Sneak works very well. The issue you are experiencing is that your unit does its best to follow its orders as given. When it was sneaking it does not know the enemy can see it back (necessarily) so it continues to try to complete its orders. Usually my units will return fire in that type of situation, but not always. You are better off just using Move orders when contact with the enemy is imminent. Use Sneak when you already have the enemy's attention and you are trying to get around his flanks, etc... I also use Sneak in buildings to avoid detection while I set up ambushes.

Good luck.

Reaper

[Stuka]

Heinz, what patch are you using? I experienced this with V1.01/V1.02 but now with V1.05 "Sneak" seems to work just fine.

It actually comes in very handy in a situation where I might move troops noisely through woods etc using "run" or "move", then use "sneak" to move position away, hopefully my opponent still sees contact symbols where I have just been and will expend his arty on that area then move troops in on a mop up mission only to get creamed from the flanks by my fresh and unharmed troops

It doesn't always work that well but when it does, boy is my opponent surprised

[Keith]

Just thought I would throw in my .02. I prefer to use the sneak command in dense woods, ESPECIALLY if contact is immenent. I have found Sneaking soldiers are much likely to stop and shoot. Also you potentially have the element of suprise. Use move or run in the woods when you need to get somewhere quicly.

[Guest tero]

I have found that Sneak for infantry and Hunt for vehicles work best if you order them to move "just a tiny amount" at a time (yes, I am an avid Fast Show fan ;-D).

My experience is these orders are carried out using the "move first, shoot second" principle. Depending on the distance to the way point the focus of the moving unit/vehicle seems to be rather restricted to a tunnel vision like cone that directs them sometimes to disregard clear and present danger not directly in their path.

According to some sources spotting is not handeled in the individual unit level but in the formation level. Could there be instances when they spot the treath but a command unit in CC does not so the contact is disregarded with disasterous results ?

[Guest Scott Clinton]

AFAIK units using "SNEAK" will not stop or return fire UNLESS they are spotted by the enemy. I have always assumed that the only way to tell if you have been spotted by the enemy is when you take fire...thus 'sneaking' units will not stop or fire unless they take fire first.

Units using the "MOVE" order will keep moving and return fire on the move as best they can unless they are "PINNED", "ROUTED", etc.

I too would dearly love to have a 'Hunt' order for infantry...

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

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

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-15-2000).]

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton:

AFAIK units using "SNEAK" will not stop or return fire UNLESS they are spotted by the enemy.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they are being fired upon, it should be safe to assume that they have been spotted...

Henri

[Bullethead]

My experience is that with the 1.05 patch, Sneak works the best for moving in close proximity to the enemy. It is the best at allowing the squad to keep up a good fire while moving cautiously from cover to cover. Also, it seems to be the best for advancing to contact when you know the enemy is very close but not presently in LOS (deep woods, etc). The Sneaking squads will stop moving and fire when they get a target more often than using Move. This isn't always the case. Sometimes a squad will Sneak along ignoring targets and get massacred. But the majority of the time, I get what I want. For the rest, c'est la guerre

It's my understanding that of all the movement commands, Sneak has the most emphasis on shooting. Yes, the squad will try to complete the ordered move to the next waypoint, but this seems to have a lower priority than with Move. If you give a Move order in the above situations, the squad will almost always keep moving to the waypoint regardless of enemy action, and may not shoot back at all. With Sneak OTOH, next turn I usually find the Sneak's waypoint unreached.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[Guest Heinz 25th PzReg]

Thank you all for responding

I thought BTS tried to improve this with the 1.03 patch or something. The intention was to change the sneak command into more of a "movement-to-contact" command.

BTS, what is your thoughts on this issue? Are you satisfied with how the sneak command works, or are you planning to modify it further?

Regards,

Heinz

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

"To subdue your enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Visit my AAR site:

home.online.no/~andhess/cm/

[jshandorf]

Hmm.. Seems like we have a couple of topics discussing this.

Here is all I would like to see.

I REALLY like the current sneak command but I would like to see the unit continue on with it's sneak if they are NOT taking fire anymore. i.e. THe enemy runs away or is killed.

Jeff

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It's my understanding that of all the movement commands, Sneak has the most emphasis on shooting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmm...AFAIK it is the opposite. It has always been my understanding that units using the "SNEAK" command are not supposed to fire at all, unless they are spotted (hence they are trying to 'sneak up' on the enemy) whereas units using the "MOVE" command will fire on units as soon as they can and remain moving. "SNEAK" does provide more cover while they are moveing (at a slower movement rate) however.

Another aspect is that as far as I can tell both 'sneaking' and 'moving' units will ONLY return fire to units that are in thier front arc.

What exactly constitutes the 'front arc' I don't know. But, I can tell you that I have had units both "MOVE" and "SNEAK" for 30+ seconds in cover...taking fire the entire time from enemy units in full LOS that were no more than 40-50 degrees from strait ahead all the while never returning the fire.

So, my guess is that the 'front arc' is 45 degrees and anything outside of that is ignored WHILE the unit is moving...now if the unit stops because of intense fire (a different event altogether) it will freely turn toward the enemy and return fire from my exper.

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

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

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 09-15-2000).]

[patboivin]

I mostly just use sneak and hide for HQ units, I very rarely use Sneak.

I Move, then I Hide. Then I wait.

Or I Crawl, if I don't want to attract too much attention.

But I'm going by the words, I don't necessarily go by what the AI actually does.

I wish there was a way to tell troops to do the two following things automatically:

In low visibility: Sneak ahead carefully, but as soon as you see something drop to the ground and hide.

For Recon: Sneak ahead carefully, but as soon as you see something sneak back, now I have a marker on the map.

Those are the only two things I would like to see. Saying you can plan it using combinations of Move, Crawl and Hide doesn't really wash, because the point of these movements is to move one way, but as soon as there is contact do something specific.

[Guest Der Unbekannte Jäger]

This is just a very minor thought but perhaps a small little bit of programming could be made available to us? That way with a few simple "if, what, when , then etc" commands we could personalize how our units move and react? Perhaps you could form "tactics" for the units to follow depending on the circumstances? For example... you could tell your infantry that if they are moving and spot a tank to immediatly find cover and hide. Or maybe your Panzerfausts/Bazookas to hunker down and not fire at an enemy armor unit untill it has exposed a flank or rear portion to the unit? Just a few thoughts.

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

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Der Unbekannte Jäger:

...with a few simple "if, what, when , then etc" commands we could personalize how our units move and react? Perhaps you could form "tactics" for the units to follow depending on the circumstances?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This kind of SOP command has been suggested, requested, and begged for many times. So far BTS has adamantly refused. I won't attempt to judge their motives.

Michael

[Guest tero]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

This kind of SOP command has been suggested, requested, and begged for many times. So far BTS has adamantly refused. I won't attempt to judge their motives.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They have to draw the line somewhere. But sometimes the line seems the get drawn in VERY arbirary places. In PS NHL99 I used to play Chicago and my pals complained that there must have been a Chicago fan in the programming team because in real life they sucked while in the game they could performed miracles. The same trend is evident in every game.

Not that I am complaining about the fact that in CM (like in M1TP1 or any number of games) the American/Allied forces SEEM to have been given edges that were not historically there (like Ami infantry getting the rifle grenades while the Germans are denied) but I do have to admit that at times the "Allies rule" and "Who won the war again ?" attitude IS seeping through very strongly. Perhaps these modifications were deemed necessary to make the game timeframe of 20 to 60 minutes work on a more equal or balanced terms in gameplay. But some of the design decisions are too far from the historical facts to make the game too unbalanced in favour of the Allies (the ultra brittle matlet of the Tiger a case in point that springs to mind).

The SOP orders issuing would be outstanding but I think it would thrown a curveball (or a monkey wrench) on the TacAI.

[Guest Heinz 25th PzReg]

BTS, please answer these questions:

Are you satisfied with how the sneak command works? Are you planning to modify it further?

Thx!

Regards,

Heinz

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

"To subdue your enemy without fighting is the supreme excellence." - Sun Tzu, The Art of War

Visit my AAR site:

home.online.no/~andhess/cm/