Infantry Command: Hunt

[Leonidas]

My attacking infantry are marching through the forest, trying to flush out the defending infantry. They are at Move speed, because they are expecting contact soon. They are packed close together, so they are all in command. Early in the turn, they discover enemy infantry. A firefight breaks out. But they've got a Move command for the turn, so they fire at the enemy while walking, marching deeper into the enemy infantry during the turn, and exposing themselves to more defending squads.

Does this bother anyone else? I think infantry should have a Hunt command, where they will stop moving when they have a target in effective range. Or perhaps this should be default behavior for the Move command.

I know that suggestions for more refined commands are generally shot down in the name of realism by the opponents of micromanagement, but is anyone willing to say that this would be unrealistic? To me, the unrealistic part is when the infantry walks casually through enemy fire until told to stop. Realism would be infantry that stop and fire at the enemy on contact, unless they are specifically ordered to Run forward into the enemy position.

[Abbott]

Sneak

[Guest Rommel22]

........SNEAK.........

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

Rommel22s Kampfgruppe site:

http://rommel22diarys.homestead.com/MyPage1.html

"I saw 5 Germans walking down the side of the road, so I followed them for a few yard to get closer. Then I shot them! Later that day I found out the war has been over for a few weeks." - someone

[PeterNZer]

Sneak results in the infantry moving till shot at, then stopping, then (hopefully) firring back. Doesn't really equate to a hunt command..

PeterNZ

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

- Official owner of the sig files of Dalem, Croda and JeffShandorf -

Der Kessel scenario design group

Combat Vision movies

[CombinedArms]

**************SNEAK!!!

Or, spelling it out in a sentence, sneak is, in effect, the Hunt command for infantry. Sneak and Run seem to me the two basic infantry commands, with Move only when your REALLY not expecting contact and Crawl only for very short distances under very intense fire--since it's quite tiring and seems to make troops disinclined to fire. (Actually, HIDE is also quite important, but isn't specifically a movement command.)

My sense is that Sneak and Move are about equal in speed. Anybody know?

[Leonidas]

Sneak = Slow

I haven't tested it, but my impression is that Sneak is much slower than Move. Every time I've used it, my troops start moving so slowly that they rarely make it to the fighting within the time constraints. And Crawl is slower still. In terms of realism, why should infantry have to move so slowly in order to stop and fire on enemy contact?

I'll run a test tonight and put some numbers to it, unless someone already has that info on hand.

[Kingfish]

One problem with sneak is that, unless fired upon, they will continue sneaking. So if they encounter an enemy MG team, mortar or FO that is walking by they will ignore them, even though in real life they would just blow them away. The same holds true for two opposing squads sneaking towards each other. They can literally walk thru each others formation without shooting.

[Dirtweasle]

Though the sneak command AI routine has I believe evolved somewhat, it is not the same or equivelent to hunt. Actually quite the contrary. Units sneaking are more likely than not to ignore enemy units and continue sneaking. Using several tiny MOVE // SNEAK commands strung together kind of give the unit a chance to fire and then sneak on to the next point though.

There have been numerous threads going over this, (and other command tweaks) I tend to agree that some sort of hunt for infantry units would be nice.

[Dr. Brian]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

Does this bother anyone else?

Yep. It bothers the hell out of me. And a SNEAK command is NOT the answer, because as already mentioned, you continue to sneak by the enemy once you found him.

There should be some sort of move until fired at command, IMO.

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

Doc

God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is!

[Head Mahone]

I agree, we need an infantry HUNT command....

-Head

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

"I don't need my junkie friends all knockin' at my door. I just wanna do an old time waltz with a buxom Irish whore!"

-Shane MacGowan

[David Aitken]

Not a new idea...

Has the "SNEAK" command changed?

[This message has been edited by David Aitken (edited 03-13-2001).]

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

Does this bother anyone else?

It would bother me, which is why, when contact is imminent, I only give my doggies short movement commands. Ordering them to move only as far as they can presently see ensures that they will not go beyond any enemy units they encounter. Giving one squad a 15 or 30 second pause also tends to ensure that they will be in a good position to shoot at any enemy units the lead squad flushes up.

Why is that so hard?

Michael

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

It would bother me, which is why, when contact is imminent, I only give my doggies short movement commands.

. . .

Why is that so hard?

Michael

That's easy:

1) Because it's slow, the attacker is under a clock, and I like to keep my men moving to avoid artillery.

2) Because it's unrealistic, and therefore makes suspension of disbelief more difficult.

[Pak40]

Leonidas,

Considering that you were in the woods, if you would used the sneak command, then your troops would have done exactly what you wanted to them do: stop and return fire.

In the open the sneak command wont work as well because your squad needs a close and dangerous threat in order to cancel the sneak command.

This is a case of knowing which command to use in the right situation. Something all CM players will learn as they gain more experience. Also, as Michael Emrys pointed out before me, use movement commands in smaller increments, especially when your units can't see far. I think it's part of the fun of learning the game, although you and others seem to view it as a nuisance.

Anyway, a HUNT command for infantry would be useless anyway. Here's three reasons why:

1) In sparse or open areas, your units would not get far at all because they would stop at any sight of enemy infantry and return fire, no matter how far away. Since, in most battles, any one enemy unit can see literally several or dozens of enemy infantry, this command ensures that your unit would not move far at all. This would really be bad if your unit is in the open when enemy infantry is sighted.

2) As stated above, the sneak command does what you want in dense forrest because any threat that your unit meets will be considered close and dangerous. Your unit will most likely stop and return fire. It wont resume it's movement like a HUNT command but that's probably a good thing since it may take several turns to kill the enemy units.

3) Use of smaller movement lengths as well as moving units by leaps and bounds are great methods of ensuring that you dont run or move past enemy infantry.

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

That's easy:

1) Because it's slow, the attacker is under a clock, and I like to keep my men moving to avoid artillery.

2) Because it's unrealistic, and therefore makes suspension of disbelief more difficult.

Yes, it is slow and the attacker is under the clock. But show me a bunch of infantry constantly on the move through dense forest and I'll show you a bunch of dead infantry. I assume you've hear of "stop, look, and listen". Well, it's good to apply that in CM.

One of the most common mistakes I've seen my PBEM and TCP/IP opponents make is to rush things when they think they don't have much time. They don't take the time to sneak and comb the battlefield. Because they tend to rush in the early part of the battle, then I either can set a great ambush or discover their plan of attack. But the opponents who take their time and sneak up as far as they can before their attack are the hardest to defeat.

Short movement commands Unrealistic?? Not in dense forrest! When you can't see more than 20 meters in any direction, it's a good idea not to tell your men to march a 100 meters ahead before the next set of orders is issued. Besides, moving by leaps and bounds(leapfrogging) is a common (and realistic) combat tactic. Quick short movements while other teams provide cover fire, then your cover fire teams move up.

But usually, I keep a platoon tightly packed while sneaking the entire platoon through a forrest. This ensures that the entire platoon stops and returns fire upon enemy contact. Hopefully the platoon will come across one enemy squad at a time, giving me a 3 to 1 advantage.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

That's easy:

1) Because it's slow, the attacker is under a clock...

So? Put some more time on the clock. It's not like you can't do that, you know.

...and I like to keep my men moving to avoid artillery.

If your men don't get spotted, likely they won't get artillery dropped on them. At least not any accurate artillery.

2) Because it's unrealistic, and therefore makes suspension of disbelief more difficult.

Where do you get these ideas? I mean it is really staggering how you manage to combine so much misinformation with so much assurance. The style of movement that I described to you is exactly how troops moved under those circumstances...at least the smart ones who wanted to stay alive.

Look, it's not as if you have to spend the whole game moving in 20 meter bounds. You generally know in this game that the enemy is usually at least 100 meters from your starting line, often more. Secondly, if I have any open space to cross, I rush my troops across those while giving them overwatch from other friendlies. Then if you enter any woods that are likely to harbor enemy troops, you start moving in those 20 meter bounds I described until you make contact. If it is in a urban setting, you move from house to house, again utilizing overwatch.

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 03-14-2001).]

[Jarmo]

This has been gone through a few times already, too bad I couldn't find anything worth mentioning (I really suck at searching for some reason). Do I remember that BTS mentioned it's on the list, or is it just my wishful thinking.

Anyway, we obviously need an infantry hunt command. I really can't see why everybody doesn't agree.

[Hurricane]

Another vote for the infantry hunt command. Should also apply to MG:s and mortars.

I find I spend quite some time manouvering my machine guns and mortars to find the right spot at a hill or in between woods to get a good LOS to the enemy. It would be much easier to just order them to hunt foward up the hill or through the woods than moving them 10 meters and then find out they still are not in LOS.

[Mattias]

Wanting “hunt” commands for infantry and hull down search orders for armour, while at the same time bashing the bad tacAI seems a little backward to me.

Further “automation” places greater emphasis on the tacAI and leads to, actually, less control for the players. I for one would certainly feel more constricted (at first) with “thinking” soldier than I do with the current, hmm, “impulse” driven ones.

In my, equally subjective, view there is no need for a hunt command for infantry, nor would a hull down hunt command for armour help me.

Having personal experience of leading an infantry platoon in all types of terrain I feel that CM, as it stands now, gives me much greater control than I ever had in real life.

As for hull downs, I never seem to have any trouble finding the position I want, if it’s there. As the CM engine only recognises “one” hull down state it is very generous when it comes to awarding it.

I’m not saying this to be provocative but rather to make clear a different standpoint, without any particular thoughts on which is “better”.

However, If one is to go by BTS “ladder” of steps that has to be fulfilled for adding a feature I would say that these discussed here would fall through on, lack of necessity and potentially problematic implementation. The issues of realism aside that is.

Instead of trying to shape the game into ones personal dream world from the start, I suggest going along for a while and submit, totally, to the current build.

Since it is built on fixed parameter and extremely predictable results (the randomness itself being confined to a predictable range of results after all) it really isn’t that hard to get under the skin of this game.

Then start talking about improvements.

M.

[Vanir]

Originally posted by Pak40:

1) In sparse or open areas, your units would not get far at all because they would stop at any sight of enemy infantry and return fire, no matter how far away. Since, in most battles, any one enemy unit can see literally several or dozens of enemy infantry, this command ensures that your unit would not move far at all. This would really be bad if your unit is in the open when enemy infantry is sighted.

I will just say that what Pak40 said above is what BTS has said is one of the main reasons there is no hunt command for infantry.

A little more info from the link David posted:

Steve:

We have talked about a "Move to Contact" command several times very recently. We understand that there is, in fact, a need for such a command. We are also painfully aware that it is NOT easy to implement quickly or correctly.

Sure, we could toss in an order that is labled "Move to Contact" very easily, but I can promise you that nobody would be even remotely happy with it. So unhappy that the player wouldn't use it but would instead spend his valuable gaming time bitching about it on this BBS

The main problem is that a whole lot of TacAI programming, testing, tweaking, testing, tweaking, testing, tweaking, etc. is needed for this order to work correctly. It is a huge undertaking. Anybody that has been here and seen discussions about targeting, the Hunt order, when to do evasive moves, etc. should know that this is not an easy thing to implement.

Since there are fairly adequate work arounds in the game as is, the "Move to Contact" order is not a high priority for us. It will not be programmed into CM until we rewrite the game engine. If it were easier to do than that, or there were less important things on The List, it would already be in the game.

Unless we do a crud load of TacAI programming, followed by repeated cycles of testing and tweaking, it will in fact "cause as much trouble as it prevents". Probably cause even MORE trouble.

You guys, unless you were Beta testers, have NO idea how hard it was to get (say) tank targeting behavior to the place it is today. I can't even guess at how many man hours were spent on this one feature before releasing the Beta Demo even, not to mention 1.0 or the most recent 1.1 patch. We spent the time on this because it is critical and there is very little chance that the player can work around logic errors. Move to Contact is not nearly as necessary, but it would probably involve a similar amount of effort to make it work even "OK". So for this reason alone, it isn't going to happen any time soon.

There is more. Click on the link in David's post.

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

What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

[Hurricane]

Still it feels a bit strange. Consider this situation:

Company commander: Sherman! Move up that hill and engage any threatening target as soon as you see one.

Sherman: Yes, sir!

Company commander: MG team! Move 10 meters uphill, then do whatever you like but don´t move an inch. I´ll give you new orders in exactly one minute.

MG team (after 20 seconds): Ok, now we are here but can´t see ****. He should have told us to move 5 meters further. I´ll guess we´ll just wait here, then.

[Robert Olesen]

Here's a case I just encountered where a hunt command would have been useful:

My bazooka team was at night closing on the flank of a SP gun, which was protected by infantry. My team was not detected by the infantry when I ordered it to close, and there was a small hump in the ground between them. I targeted the tank (out of sight at that moment) and used Sneak to delay detection by the enemy infantry (some of them might well be able to see the team before it got a LOS on the gun). When the team got a LOS to the gun, it continued moving for a little while before setting up for the shot. They were fired at and broken before they could get a shot off. A hunt order may not have changed things, but it would have been the natural choice if it had been available.

[FriendlyFire]

Has this board already discussed to death something like the following? (and if so, can you point me at the discussion?)

For CM2, add the concept of "stop moving if you get LOS to this target".

The player would plot a movement order, and could then select the LOS target (either a unit or a point) with the current LOS tool. In interface terms this would work just the same way as, right now, you can plot movement orders and also give the unit a target. I'm not sure if this should be an option for all move orders, or only for e.g. tanks hunting and infantry moving. Playtesting needed!

Arguments in favor:

1. I think that implementation would be simple - during the normal LOS checks that units undertake continuously ("can I see anything new to shoot at?"), every unit acting under "move-to-LOS" checks whether the LOS target is visible. If it is, the unit stops and cancels the move order. If the unit reaches the end of its move without achieving LOS, tough luck - it stops regardless.

2. The normal TacAI can override move-to-LOS, just as it does right now when units have to react to new threats in the middle of the turn.

3. Move-to-LOS solves the current "tank platoon, move forwards 20m, and oh, if you happen to see any armor during that time, stop and shoot it, ok?". The commander could use the much more realistic "tank platoon, move forwards 30m, but STOP when you can just see the house that enemy armor is hiding behind, so that you can ambush them as soon as they come out".

4. Move-to-LOS solves the "MG team, move 30m up the hill. Ooops, was the crest only 26m away? Sorry, you're now on the forward slope and under heavy fire from the entire valley" problem. The commander could use the much more realistic "MG team, move 30m up the hill but STOP when you can see the opposite ridge".

5. Move-to-LOS solves the "infantry squad, move 15m towards the edge of the treeline. Ooops, you've got there and you're still 1m away from being able to see the open ground beyond? Sorry, you'll have to stop and let those onrushing infantry reach the treeline after all" problem. A commander could use the much more realistic "infantry squad, move 20m towards the edge of the treeline, but STOP when you can see that patch of open ground 100m beyond".

6. Move-to-LOS gives the player a whole new set of decision problems - am I choosing the right LOS target? If I move to get LOS of the opposite ridge, will I be visible from the valley floor? Choices, choices

Arguments against:

1. It adds another command modifier.

2. It adds a new sort of targetting line on the battlefield view.

3. It makes the learning curve a bit steeper - my suspicion is that anyone who could use move-to-LOS well would kick the butt of anyone who didn't use it.

4. I'm not sure how well the AI opponent could use it. On the one hand, the AI already seems damn good at finding keyhole placement for its units, so its achieving the same effect already. On the other hand, move-to-LOS would redress that balance in favor of the player, making the AI even easier to beat

So how about it? Move-to-LOS. You know it makes sense!

[This message has been edited by FriendlyFire (edited 03-14-2001).]

[Leonidas]

Note: I ran some experiments last night on Move vs. Sneak. Sneak is 2/3rds the speed of Move, and only slightly faster than Crawl.

Originally posted by Mattias:

Wanting “hunt” commands for infantry and hull down search orders for armour, while at the same time bashing the bad tacAI seems a little backward to me.

Further “automation” places greater emphasis on the tacAI and leads to, actually, less control for the players.

. . .

Having personal experience of leading an infantry platoon in all types of terrain I feel that CM, as it stands now, gives me much greater control than I ever had in real life.

M.

Let me try to change the structure of the argument. The issue is not control, but rather the amount of detail you can put in your orders. It's always possible that your orders won't be followed, or that they'll be interpreted incorrectly. In that sense, I'm not suggesting more control. In fact, it would probably be more realistic (though maybe less fun) to have less control - longer command delays, less response from units under fire, etc.

But in those precious moments when the orders are actually followed, the content of the orders should be more detailed.

I'm confused by your assertion that more commands would lead to greater emphasis on the TacAI. Wouldn't it be the other way around? The more detail the player gets in giving commands, the more decisionmaking he is doing and the less there is for the TacAI to do.

To put it from another perspective, if something goes wrong for the player now, he looks at his four movement commands and concludes that he must have given the right order, so the problem must be the TacAI's fault. But imagine that the player has a dozen options. Now he's not so sure who to blame. Maybe if he had given a different order, things would have gone better. When you push the decisionmaking onto the player with more complex commands, you also push the blame for mistakes onto him.

You say you've led an infantry platoon, so I'm sincerely interested in the realism question: Didn't you give your men detailed briefings before battle? Didn't they have detailed SOPs on how to deal with enemy contact? Or did you give them merely a waypoint and a speed, and assume they'd figure the rest out on their own? Remember, we're not talking about control, but instead the content of the orders you gave.

[Mattias]

Leo,

If I have understood your ideas correctly, you are proposing to introduce a new type of movement order for infantry. One that would essentially be, move until contact.

Now, as far as I can see the parameters deciding the behaviour of your “hunting” squad would have to be pre-set and then executed by the tacAI according to some kind of engagement formula. This is what I mean with increasing automation. To me it seems that you are requesting that the tacAI solve even more complex problems by asking for hunt commands, hull down moves etc.

Alternatively a more detailed decision making process in the hands of the player would require an altered interface of some kind. We would have to be able to access the behavioural routines and alter the tacAI using some kind of order/SOP template. The opportunity fire tables for some of Talonsoft’s games springs to mind.

Personally I don’t feel a great need for any of these…

The one minute turn is short, very short. In my reality, co-ordinated action does not take place in such a short time span unless it was previously initiated (like a deliberate attack), or we are talking about small elite units (not really CM scale).

The kind of reflex action that take place when two fighting forces unexpectedly stumble on each other is almost never decisive as far as I have been able to see. They touch, bounce, (more or less) regroups and either engages or withdraws.

In CM I have amazing powers when it comes to directing my squads. Not until the day we get telepathic links will a platoon commander be able to direct his men with such precision. This in my opinion, more than makes up for the lacking “mind control”. When the short turn is over you have the chance to device an incredibly complex counter stroke that will be initiated within a few seconds.

To put it from another perspective, if something goes wrong for the player now, he looks at his four movement commands and concludes that he must have given the right order, so the problem must be the TacAI's fault. But imagine that the player has a dozen options. Now he's not so sure who to blame. Maybe if he had given a different order, things would have gone better. When you push the decisionmaking onto the player with more complex commands, you also push the blame for mistakes onto him.

Eh, I never feel the need to blame the tacAI when things go awry…

I know how it behaves in most situations and what kind of capabilities the units have. I know how the terrain works, how far I can see through terrain etc. When something happens it is my fault and my fault only, I have simply failed to use the units as intended in CM.

This might all sound provocative to some but in my book, the infantry squad in CM is no more (or less) a mystery than a knight in a chess game. It can do a number of things, and other things it cannot do.

Once you start using it the way it should be used in CM you won’t have any troubles. If they fail, you did something wrong or your opponent did something even better.

You say you've led an infantry platoon, so I'm sincerely interested in the realism question: Didn't you give your men detailed briefings before battle? Didn't they have detailed SOPs on how to deal with enemy contact? Or did you give them merely a waypoint and a speed, and assume they'd figure the rest out on their own? Remember, we're not talking about control, but instead the content of the orders you gave.

Yes before action there was a briefing and yes the men and commanders where taught standard procedures for certain situations. However, the details change according to mission and terrain and would therefore be very hard to implement into CM, for the reasons I have mentioned above.

For example; The platoon is advancing through covered terrain, lets say a forest, and the right “wing” comes into contact with some kind of enemy units. The way I would want the men to behave would be entirely dependent on the mission, the terrain and the general situation. This would altogether be too complex to ask of the tacAI to handle and too cumbersome for the player.

In fact, I consider the “sneak” move, turn end, and then a deliberate order for next turn the most natural way to handle “random” meetings. If my men faces a direct threat (takes fire) they will stop and engage.

The normal “reflex” reaction to sudden enemy presence would be to get out of sight while alerting the rest of the squad, as discreetly as possible. The response time for the whole platoon is definitely longer than what few seconds remains of the turn.

But even to get the tacAI to go prone at the right time seems very complicated.

M.

[This message has been edited by Mattias (edited 03-14-2001).]