Auto-sneak-exhaustion not improved in 1.01

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Now, I expect this will conclude your curiosity concerning my lunch.

Thank you for your interest in this topic. I hope it has helped you all understand our modeling of the Sneak command.

Sure. If I had to eat a sandwich like that, I'd be on my hands and knees too.

Eden

[Mace]

Originally posted by rune:

And for everyone else. I created a huge infantry battle of a historical attack against one of the Hedgehogs at Kursk. The Germans attack a fortified position across OPEN ground. Amazinly, in the play tests, the Germans do make it through barbwire and other surprises and took the hedgehog.

I actually played a QB against the AI last night.

It ended up being a Panzer Grenadier Assault against entrenched Soviets across open space.

I managed to get quite a large victory against the Soviets and had none of the problems that have been discussed here.

I think this is because:

i) I ensured my regular infantry were well forward of my support troops at all time (so that they could deal with any potential threat to my support troops)

ii) If any support troops were suppressed while relocating, I would cancel thier movement and manage them carefully until they returned to normal operational efficiency. Once this happened I re-applied their movement orders.

Hence I would suggest that some of the problems discussed here may be due to inproper use of support troops (ie having them well forward, or in isolated positions where they couldn't themselves receive mutual support).

Mace

[Mace]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Let me take a few seconds here to address the "sandwitch" issue. It is not relevant to this discussion, but it was relevant to a nice aftertaste burp. And burps are very much like bursts of small arms fire, which of course is what makes units drop and Sneak all the time. So I suppose this is indeed related and therefore won't clutter up this discussion.

Burps are very much like small arms fire bursts?

*ponders*

In that case what does farts represent?

Mace

[Battlefront.com]

In that case what does farts represent?

Depends. For example, I know I guy that the Iraq Weapons Inspectors should pay a visit to when they are done

Steve

[Holien]

Hmmmm,

I guess a hard day at the office for some people around these parts...

I can see the points that people are making about using the right approach to the game and that should minimise this from happening (or for it to happen not at all).

I can see that Redwolf was just pointing something out he had seen and was trying to see if anyone else had seen it.

I can see now that this has been explored fully and things are on the edge of going below the good taste line. Indeed for some it has perhaps already passed that.

I shall slowly back out before anyone else Burps or Farts in here as I do not want to suffer the effects of chemical warfare and be stuck crawling in a room with you lot because I have taken a bit of suppression.

15 turns would be too long....

H

[ November 28, 2002, 03:22 AM: Message edited by: Holien ]

[Mace]

Originally posted by Holien:

I can see now that this has been explored fully and things are on the edge of going below the good taste line.

This is 'enlightened conversation' and high 'kulture' for me.

Mace

[Fly Pusher]

I'm not sure if this has been raised already and appologies if it has already been answered. But....

During a recent PBEM QB I had a HMG panic due to a barrage falling nearby and sneak off into the barrage taking casualties as a result.

OK, so **** happens and I'm not complaining that they sneaked 20m in three turns and were then exhaused for the next 28 turns.

However the thing that struck me as being particularly strange was that the HMG abandonded a trench to embark on its sneak through the woods.

I have never been, and hopefully will never be, in a situation similar to my pixel troops but somehow it strikes me as odd that one would leave a prepared defensive position even under such extreme conditions. Furthermore even if one team member totally freaked out and decided to make a run for it out of the trench and into the barrage I would seriously doubt that the rest of the team would pack up their weapon and follow him !

So my question is - are teams 'sticky' enough to sit tight when they are already in good cover ?

And yes, I know that panic makes people do crazy things and that game engine limitations make it essential that HMG teams do not abandon their weapons.

[ November 28, 2002, 03:55 AM: Message edited by: Fly Pusher ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by JonS:

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Tero:

The thing is you can not get the Sneak part without the Crawl part.

True, but again I point out... what good does sneaking around do if you are already spotted and under aimed fire? Nothing ...</font>

[Keke]

Originally posted by tero:

Beats me. Perhaps that is out of the scope of this discussion and I'm just trying to get this entire debate derailed into irrelevant issues ?

Yeah, like sandwiches, burps and farts...

[Mace]

Originally posted by Fly Pusher:

However the thing that struck me as being particularly strange was that the HMG abandonded a trench to embark on its sneak through the woods.

It happens in real life. There have been documented cases of soldiers vacating their trenches to flee during artillery strikes.

Mace

[Fly Pusher]

Originally posted by Mace:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fly Pusher:

However the thing that struck me as being particularly strange was that the HMG abandonded a trench to embark on its sneak through the woods.

It happens in real life. There have been documented cases of soldiers vacating their trenches to flee during artillery strikes.

Mace</font>

[Tero]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

But in the context of this discussion, I don't think it would make any difference even if we could allow them to sprint short distances.

Under extreme conditions it could make a difference between an utterly exhausted, immobilized and/or even a captured (1 man) HMG team and a out of breath HMG team with a few casualties.

But they would also be exposed worse to whatever fire they received. On top of that, Sprinting commits the unit to a rather risky course of action which the player is going to have very little capability to influence (in general).

True. But since the option is to have them crawl and get exhausted while being beaten into a pulp I would imagine IRL the team would either abandon the load or make a run for it carrying the bits instead of just crawling around getting exhausted without nothing to show for it.

Why will they not abandon a perfectly functioning HMG anyway when the situation could warrant it ?

With Sneak I can cancel the orders completely and leave the unit where it is, redirect it to someplace else, let it continue or put off that decision for another turn.

True. But I think the main concern is when the AI takes over.

This has zero effect once a unit is spotted, which is exactly what we are talking about in this thread. So in the context of this discussion, this would do nothing.

I'm thinking along the lines of the Sneak as a command in general here.

Or are you trying to squelch dissent by pinning this debate down with strict parameters which allow no lateral movement to explore the Sneak command and its effects in general ?

No, I think it is primarily because you are reading a book written by an FO and no historical book I have ever seen has had a similar focus.

True. But if you look at the OB of a FO teams in general are there any differences in the them in terms of small arms FP ?

My assumption here is that "all the time" did not mean every battle.

It does not. By recurring theme I meant it happened according to him when attacking in 1941, during the early static phase in early 1942 and again during the summer of 1944.

And yes, I do know that FOs for other nations were often caught up in the fighting. However, CMBB simulates this to some degree with defensive fire capabilities. But, then again you are making this discussion unfocused again so let's drop the back and forth about this, OK?

OK.

Of course not, but you are pulling things out of context and that is not helpful.

Out of context being out of the perimeters of the original premise as presented in the opening of this thread ?

Correct. And completely contrary to Redwolf's claims, the TacAI does all of these things depending on circumstances.

I must admit I have seen more crawling that I would have expected, even based on CMBO.

Sneak is a purely defensive move so I don't agree with your assessment.

So you are now allowing for example the Widraw command to be used to all directions and not just towards the "friendly" edge of the map ? Haven't tried that one out yet.

All the other commands are directed at forward movement. The is no way to get your guys pulled back in an organized fashion once the feces has actually hit the ventilation.

Again, contrary to Redwolf's claims... this is what the TacAI does. The unit first tries to shrug off the enemy fire (if very light, of course), then it tries to make it to better cover. This can be using a Run order or Sneak, depending on circumstances. If it feels that this is something it can't do, it remains in place trying to survive there instead of risking going elsewhere.

That sounds good on paper. But if they are staying in place why the heck are they getting exhausted so darned fast ?

Panicked units are a whole nother ball of wax.

Agreed.

Sneak in CMBB is roughly what CMBO Crawl used to be in terms of cover and speed.

So what parts were retained from the original Sneak command ?

Finding the kind of conditions you speak of is not out of the question, but it is far more unlikely than likely in open terrain.

This is why the Soviets opted for the fixed wheeled undercarriage for their Maxims.

Plus, you again are underestimating the problems of firing a full auto weapon on no platform.

Even a rock is a platform. You are too hung up on the Rambo scenario.

your understanding of how MGs work in non ideal circumstances is fundamentally flawed.

Admittedly my experience with MG's is limited to the modern Finnish army LMG and the Maxim. But since I have been "fortunate" enough to actually operate both in field conditions I must say I doubt your experience about firing them in ideal conditions makes your understanding of the potential of the MG's in non idel conditions any better than mine is. Firing them or actually operating in ideal conditions is not really enough to fully understanding their operation in combat conditions, let alone operating them in non ideal conditions.

You see the weight as a liability. I see it both as a liability but also as a benefit. A Maxim is a right bitch to move around but the weight of the MG makes it possible to use whatever sturdy object as a platform in an emergency when firing. All you need to have is enough clearance for the belt (and of course you know the belt goes in at the top of the box giving some clearance even when the MG is on the ground). Recoil is not a major problem because the weight of the MG keeps it under control reasonably well.

Plus, this is still irrelevant to this discussion

When going this far out, yes.

I don't have that, so I guess I'll just have to take your word for it that Finnish über MG gunners routinely strapped belts of ammo all over themselves, put their AT Toothpick behind one ear, and then marched upright into combat firing a Maxim with one hand from the hip while feeding the belt with the other hand. I stand corrected

That is the American John Rambo, not the Finnish Antti Rokka you are talking about here. Again. (Antti Rokkas RL counterpart did actually take out over 80 enemy soldiers singlehandedly with a SMG. He had an assistant gunner to fill in the magazines as he was firing them. This action was a text book example about the usefulness of crawling under fire BTW. ).

You really should get a copy of the Unknown Soldier. In case you are not aware it is about a HMG company and the author served in one during the war. The book itself is THE definitive book about WWII here in Finland.

Otherwise I must assume that you DO think it is relevant and therefore I have to respond as such.

It seems to me you have been working with coding extensively lately. You seem far more B/W oriented now than in most debates.

Yup. Just like the people who want to do SMG rushes at MGs like in CMBO are to blame for their squads being mowed down and the survivors running back panicked.

Running is good. What if they start crawling ?

If you don't think you are going to be observed, no. If you do think you are going to be observed, not chatting and clanking things won't do you any good if the enemy can actually see you moving about.

IRL the spotting is relative, not absolute.

The kind of Sneak you are talking about doesn't work if the enemy has already spotted you. Use Advance instead of Sneak more.

My understanding is there is very little stealth in the Advance mode.

True, but again I point out... what good does sneaking around do if you are already spotted and under aimed fire? Nothing. So having this command doesn't change one bit how the system functions.

Well.... getting out of sight fast does warrant hitting the deck. But why on earth would you want to continue crawling if you are already taking fire and you continue taking fire even with your bellybutton on the grass ? Wouldn't you be better off actually doing something ?

I don't agree in general, and obviously think this is yet another example of you distracting us from the discussion in this thread. Like MG team training, this is irrelevant.

As such, propably. But in your quest to steer away from micromanagement you have denied the player some very relevant options when you have made the AI pick up the most time and strenght consuming form of movement at a time when something else is clearly needed. Countermanding AI orders is of course one way of doing it but if the AI is predisposed to use Sneak when clearly other steps would be more appropriate then something is amiss.

Our testers were never told how to play the game or what to do while they were playing it. Because of that they had no idea what the "end result" was supposed to be.

Did you know what the end result should be ?

And your statement clearly indicates that you have never play tested a game.

True. I have troubleshot systems enough to spot a rigged flow of events.

But let me give you a hint... play testing is very much like what you are doing now. The difference is that a good play tester focuses in and determines what, if anything, might be wrong. They don't invent things and they don't bring up irrelevant issues. That just bogs down the whole process and makes the tester, effectively, useless to us. We don't have time to argue for argument's sake, which is something I think you quite enjoy (based on our many back and forths over the years).

I have seen no indication that there is anything significant we need to concern ourselves with. The problems brought up by Redwolf are of his own making and the results are not unreasonable. With the exception that we might need to put a cap on recovery time, but that is something no player should ever experience in a real game because it is within his ability to control it.

True to some extent. But much of this would not even come to pass if the game manual was a bit better in explaining the underlying system. You have a quite brilliant intuitive user interface but when intuition clashes with the events on the screen questions will be raised. Stuff like penetration values etc are pretty straight forward. Not being able to properly have turretless vehicles take up a hull down position is something else. Then there are these AI quirks which are the most difficult to fathom since there is very little data on the actual workings of the AI.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Fly Pusher:

Originally posted by Mace:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Fly Pusher:

However the thing that struck me as being particularly strange was that the HMG abandonded a trench to embark on its sneak through the woods.

It happens in real life. There have been documented cases of soldiers vacating their trenches to flee during artillery strikes.

Mace</font>

[PEN]

Sorry if any of this has been mentioned before, I just have to make a few comments on the HMG issue:

A HMG (HEAVY machine gun) is actually quite heavy. Not only is it heavy, it is not in any way designed to be sprinted around with. It is simply impossible.

From my own very limited experience with a HMG in the Danish army (yes, we do have one, though it is quite small and useless), a HMG is a horribly cumbersome peace of metal. It takes forever to assemble it, and it is not even enough to just put the tripod on, after that you have to secure it even more using sandbags and stuff. The recoil is really something, there is no way you would even think about firing it without proper support.

As for carrying the thing, you would have to be at least two persons to haul it along, once it has been assembled. And being 3 or 4 doesn´t help (try syncronized running in rough terrain).

In the scope of Combat Mission I would say, that a HMG is to be put up once, that´s it. Shame if it´s put in the wrong place, shame if it´s put anywhere without the propper(is that correct?) support.

The same thing applies to most mortars...

[Redwolf]

Regarding a test scenario, this would be a situation I am thinking about:

Take the Yelnia Stare scenario.

Extend map on the Russian side by a factor of two (make map twice as long), fill with similar terrain, place Russians at the end.

Give trenches to the Germans.

Make both Russians and Germans regular.

Replace T-34s with good-quality off-map artillery and give Russians more HMGs. You can make the Russians pretty strong overall.

Give Germans an additional HMG and some on-map 81mm mortars and replace 81mm FO with 75mm FO with lots of ammo.

My claims are:

- the attacker will need the MGs to pull this stunt off

- he will not be able to move them into a suitable position in CMBB if the defender seeks to exploit the auto-sneak exhaustion problem

- this is a realistic situation as it happend in real life

- it kinda resembles Mansteins approach at Perekop

To make it more like Perekop would have been, replace most of the woods cover with rocky and rough and remove the wheat. Do not replace open ground with steppe. Make weather hot. Obviously for best realism you should switch sides.

[ November 28, 2002, 09:27 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[PEN]

HMG´s are not suitable for an attack across open steppe (unless they can be placed as support weapons in the beginning of the scenario).

[Redwolf]

[ November 28, 2002, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[PEN]

In real life you would just not use HMG´s in an attack on a fortified location, unless you could place the HMG undetected (for instance during the night) to provide suppressing fire for the attacking infantry.

In CMBB you can of course march your HMG team from a to b, as long as they are undetected, if there is no suitable place for the HMG during the setupface. But they are slow, and attracts enemy fire.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by tero:

All the other commands are directed at forward movement. The is no way to get your guys pulled back in an organized fashion once the feces has actually hit the ventilation.

In response to the understandable concerns about how to 'Withdraw Without Panic', I believe that BFC has stated that "Advance" does in fact apply to the need for an orderly retreat, (for those units who are able to Advance, of course ).

ISTR it was stated a bit vaguely- an added clarification on that issue from BFC would be welcome.

Eden