Does the stealth bonus really do anything?

[tecumseh]

Since I started playing CM I've gone to great lengths to put guns in command of HQ units with stealth bonuses. It is awful being fired on by an enemy gun and not knowing where it is, and I figured this is the kind of thing that is helped by the stealth bonus. For this reason I considered the stealth bonus even more important to guns than the morale bonus. Stupid me.

I just read the manual again and realised I was wrong. Firing guns being spotted has nothing to do with the stealth bonus. In one place the manual says the stealth bonus "...increases the chance of remaining unspotted in ambush and while sneaking." In another place it "...increases the chance of remaining unspotted while hiding." :confused:

I did some tests and sure enough firing guns are spotted the same with or without the bonus. Hiding guns are very rarely spotted without them firing first anyway, so keeping them in stealth bonus seems like a waste of time.

I then tried to do some tests with sneaking units with stealth vs sneaking units without stealth being spotted. I used 2 platoons sneaking towards hiding panzershrecks in scattered trees and again in woods. In both cases the platoons were spotted at the same time, though one had stealth +2 and the other had no bonus.

I've done a few other tests and found the stealth bonus to be largely a waste of time. I very rarely use the "ambush" command, and my hiding units are virtually never spotted without me choosing to unhide them or setting them targets. I have tested units under stealth and units not under stealth in a variety of identical situations in hotseat and can honestly see no real advantage.

So my question is, am I mad? Or do other players agree?

[Psyched]

I largely agree with your findings. I've run my own tests (you probably thought I was too lazy to do that, didn't you Tec? ) and what I've found is that the stealth bonus is most helpful in LIGHT cover.

For instance, if a unit is already in good cover (woods or building), then the added stealth bonus adds little benefit.

Instead, I ran a test where an AT gun was hiding in scattered trees as a tank advanced towards it. The AT gun not under a stealth HQ was seen fairly early and got off only one shot to the frontal armor. However, when I repeated the exact same approach with the AT gun under a +2 stealth HQ, he was not spotted and was able to wait long enough to get off a couple of flank shots.

So, maybe, the lighter the cover, the more important the stealth command can be.

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Psyched:

Instead, I ran a test where an AT gun was hiding in scattered trees as a tank advanced towards it. The AT gun not under a stealth HQ was seen fairly early and got off only one shot to the frontal armor. However, when I repeated the exact same approach with the AT gun under a +2 stealth HQ, he was not spotted and was able to wait long enough to get off a couple of flank shots.

So you mean the first gun was spotted while hiding? Or are you saying that once the guns started firing one took longer to be spotted (targeted) than the other?

If it's the former i agree, but i rarely have hiding guns spotted before they fire becasue i prefer rough and woods.

If its the later then that is different from my test results :confused:

i don't think you are lazy dude, you replied in 5 minutes

[Silvio Manuel]

Stealth bonus does make a difference if your troops are hiding and targeting an Ambush point (I know, you don't use them)...esp. if the troops are low quality. It just lets the enemy walk that much further into your firesack.

Ambush points are great for fire control, allowing you to stay hidden longer (not giving the enemy the Intel he needs, and maybe more importantly you won't waste Ammo so quickly.

[ June 22, 2002, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[Psyched]

Originally posted by tecumseh:

So you mean the first gun was spotted while hiding? Or are you saying that once the guns started firing one took longer to be spotted (targeted) than the other?

I think the effect was that the AT gun was able to hold its fire longer, thus keeping it hidden longer and allowing a much more effective fire burst.

I, too, hardly ever use ambushes. I don't know if it's because I'm hardly ever defending or if I'm just unsophisticated---probably the latter.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Psyched:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tecumseh:

So you mean the first gun was spotted while hiding? Or are you saying that once the guns started firing one took longer to be spotted (targeted) than the other?

I think the effect was that the AT gun was able to hold its fire longer, thus keeping it hidden longer and allowing a much more effective fire burst.

I, too, hardly ever use ambushes. I don't know if it's because I'm hardly ever defending or if I'm just unsophisticated---probably the latter. </font>

[Psyched]

[PiggDogg]

Silvio,

Quite interesting use of the 1 meter ambush command. I shall try these in the future whenever I get AT guns (which is seldomly). Thanks

Cheers, Richard :cool:

[tecumseh]

So a platoon with good LOS, under a stealth bonus, kneeling, and targeting an ambush marker right in front of it, will work like "hold fire" - it will spot well because its not hiding, but it will not give it's location away by firing. Thanks Silvio, I hadn't thought of that.

But because the platoon is not hiding, the stealth bonus will not make the platoon harder to spot, so they would have to be in woods or a building - behind a wall would not work for example.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by tecumseh:

So a platoon with good LOS, under a stealth bonus, kneeling, and targeting an ambush marker right in front of it, will work like "hold fire" - it will spot well because its not hiding, but it will not give it's location away by firing. Thanks Silvio, I hadn't thought of that.

But because the platoon is not hiding, the stealth bonus will not make the platoon harder to spot, so they would have to be in woods or a building - behind a wall would not work for example.

Yeah, I think you still have to give the whole Platoon the Hide command. Couple that w/ the nearby Ambush target, and enemy troops might possibly PASS you without your boys opening up...possibly. At any rate, it surely increases their fire control.

[tecumseh]

I think I play differently than everybody else...I must be very impatient...because I never have hiding units firing or spotted before I choose to unhide them. This is probably why the stealth bonus seems useless to me. I think I will practice holding fire and ambushes more, and then probably the value of the stealth bonus will dawn on me.

patience daniel son

thanks folks!

[ June 23, 2002, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: tecumseh ]

[YankeeDog]

I was under the impression that the stealth bonus works both ways - that is, it not only helps units stay hidden/unspotted, but it also helps improve a unit's ability to spot enemy units.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, though. . .

[Psyched]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I was under the impression that the stealth bonus works both ways - that is, it not only helps units stay hidden/unspotted, but it also helps improve a unit's ability to spot enemy units.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, though. . .

I don't think so, YD.

I'm playing a PBEM right now where I have a bazooka acting as an FO hiding in a patch of woods. He had clear LOS to an enemy squad (pretty blue line and all) who was also in woods cover, but the identification was only "? infantry".

It wasn't until I gave the bazooka the "unhide" order that he could correctly ID the squad. That sure made it look like hiding REDUCED the spotting ability of the bazooka team.

This is an important point, because if you're trying to kill an AFV with a zook or a schreck, fo example, IMHO if you choose to hide then:

1) You're less easily spotted

2) You are able to hold fire longer, perhaps resulting in a better shot

BUT

3) Your spotting ability is reduced

4) Your reaction time after sighting an enemy unit seems prolonged---i.e., a 3-4 second delay to unhide before firing.

I don't know if all this is TRUE or not, it's just the impression I've gotten through play experience.

Perhaps more veteran CM players can redirect me on this one if needed.

[YankeeDog]

I think you misunderstood my post, Psyched.

My impression (perhaps wrong) is that having units under command of a unit with a "stealth" bonus improves their spotting ability - that is, they are more likely to spot and enemy unit that is hiding or otherwise difficult to spot, or they are more likely to full ID a unit.

In other words, in you bazooka example, if the zook had been under command of an HQ with +2 stealth, you might have been able to fully ID the tank without unhiding, while a zook under command of an HQ without stealth bonus would not be able to do so.

Again, I don't know if this is actually true. I though I had read it in the manual somewhere, but I could be wrong. If I have time later, I'll go see if I can look up the answer.

Cheers,

YD

[Agua]

re: remaining hidden after firing of towed guns - I do not know, HOWEVER, I did a set of tests about a year ago and the stealth bonus DOES definitely have an effect which varies with terrain at least with regard to infantry. If you look up my member # in search in the "tips and tricks" forum, the thread *might* be styled "crawl?" or something like that. But in any event, as I recalled, "sneak" and stealth bonus, whatever, makes no difference if your troops are in open terrain: they will be seen within the limits of visibility. However, there is a marked difference as to when a unit becomes visible in various terrain types dependent upon the presence of a stealth bonus. As with every other type of result computation in this game, it is not a static result but appears to be more a probability based thing within a range of possible values.

[tecumseh]

I would be very interested if someone could describe a test they had done which illustrated the effect of the stealth bonus directly (not using the ambush command). An example would be to divide the map into two identical areas except one had a stealth bonus and one didin't, and then the stealth side is shown to have a consistent advantage. I have yet to find one like this!

an example of my tests:

wide map (N-S) split into 10 "lanes" by tall trees. At each Axis (E) end of a lane are two hidden guns (flak & 50mm). All 20 guns line up N-S. Every two lanes tests a different terrain type. The first lane has +2 stealth, the second lane has +0 stealth. For example Lane 1 is woods with stealth, Lane 2 is woods without stealth, Lane 3 is rough with stealth etc...

From the W roll 3 tanks and infantry per lane. The guns wait a turn hidden and on the second turn I unhide them and they start firing. What happens?

All 4 guns in the two "open" lanes are spotted even when hiding. All other guns are not spotted in the first turn. On the second turn when they start firing I cannot see any difference between the time it takes to spot the guns in the stealth lane to the time it takes to spot the guns in the non-stealth lane, for each terrain type.

I tested a few different ranges, and also with foxholes (open guns no longer spotted). Still no difference. Scattered trees guns are spotted at close range in turn one, but both lanes at the same time.

Therefore (ignoring the use of the ambush command), I can see no use in the stealth bonus for guns.

I have done similar tests for infantry. I can only find one advantage for the stealth bonus that is measurable:

units targeting an ambush marker are less likely to shoot at something else under stealthy command.

That is it. Give me leadership and moral bonuses any day.

[Psyched]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I think you misunderstood my post, Psyched.

My impression (perhaps wrong) is that having units under command of a unit with a "stealth" bonus improves their spotting ability - that is, they are more likely to spot and enemy unit that is hiding or otherwise difficult to spot, or they are more likely to full ID a unit.

In other words, in you bazooka example, if the zook had been under command of an HQ with +2 stealth, you might have been able to fully ID the tank without unhiding, while a zook under command of an HQ without stealth bonus would not be able to do so.

Again, I don't know if this is actually true. I though I had read it in the manual somewhere, but I could be wrong. If I have time later, I'll go see if I can look up the answer.

Cheers,

YD

I understand what you're saying now, TD.

It's never been my impression (and Lord knows how often my impressions can be wrong) that a Stealth bonus helps a unit to spot other units.

I did flip through the manual (which I hate doing) for any clues.

STEALTH is defined as "increases the chances of remaining unspotted in ambush and while sneaking".

Interesting how it does not mention that the STEALTH bonus has that same effect on units that are HIDING, although it is my impression that it does.

Under AMBUSH, it says that "The STEALTH leadership ability helps to keep troops from being jumpy, especially if the units under command are green or conscript".

Under the SPOTTING section, it reads that "SNEAKING...allows for a reasonable degree of spotting". (as opposed to HIDING or CRAWLING).

So there is nothing in the manual to indicate that the STEALTH command helps with spotting ability, except maybe when you're sneaking at the same time.

But, I'm quick to add, we all know how 98% of CMBO is NOT in the manual. If more experienced members feel that STEALTH does add to spotting ability, then I certainly defer to that.

[Agua]

Originally posted by tecumseh:

units targeting an ambush marker are less likely to shoot at something else under stealthy command.

Well, the test I referred to in my previous post (as a matter of fact, I searched for it and cannot find the thread anywhere) compared two sets of troops in strips of "woods", "scattered trees", "brush", "open", etc., while sneaking, walking, running, crawling, and there was definitely a benefit gained through the use of an HQ with a stealth bonus (and an independent benefit from "sneak" alone, without the bonus of a HQ) as to the distance a unit could approach an enemy unit before being spotted. Again, when in open terrain, it made no difference: the only limitation on spotting was the visibility distance.

[tecumseh]

Thanks Agua

I have tested sneaking , hiding and firing with and without the stealth command, but i have not tried other types of movement (mainly because the manual says stealth relates to sneaking). I will try your test when i get a chance. If a unit running through woods under stealth is harder to spot than a unit running without stealth, then that *is* a big benefit.

Why didn't they put this in the manual? :eek:

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by tecumseh:

If a unit running through woods under stealth is harder to spot than a unit running without stealth, then that *is* a big benefit.

Why didn't they put this in the manual? :eek:

Because it's not true? Think about it for a minute. If troops are running, they have abandoned all attempts at stealth.

Most things in CM make sense once you understand what's going on.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

My impression (perhaps wrong) is that having units under command of a unit with a "stealth" bonus improves their spotting ability...

There is no reason to suppose this might be the case. Stealth only effects how easily your own units are spotted when employing this bonus. So far as I know, there has never been any mention of any bonus increasing the spotting ability of units. And if there were, I would expect it to more likely be included in the Combat bonus.

Michael

[Agua]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by tecumseh:

If a unit running through woods under stealth is harder to spot than a unit running without stealth, then that *is* a big benefit.

Why didn't they put this in the manual? :eek:

Because it's not true? Think about it for a minute. If troops are running, they have abandoned all attempts at stealth.

Most things in CM make sense once you understand what's going on.

Michael</font>

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I've thought about it for a lot more than a minute

When I say "in stealth' I mean under a HQ unit with a stealth bonus. Agua says infantry moving/running in decent cover under a stealth bonus are harder to spot than infantry moving/running in decent cover without a stealth bonus. If this is true, it is NOT in the manual. I am going to test this for myself tonight - but until then i assume Agua is correct.

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

Stealth only effects how easily your own units are spotted when employing this bonus

Is this correct, and under what conditions? That is the point of this thread.

For example "any unit under a stealth bonus is harder to spot" is wrong. But i thought that for nearly 2 years

[Agua]

okay, checked it one more time to be certain. I lost the original setup so I created a long strip of woods, 100 meters wide, emptied all ammo from each regular heer squad and their respective HQ units. US regular commander sat at the front end of the woods on a high rise (all ammo removed as well). All units padlocked. The two german units were ordered to "run" straight through the woods toward the observation point at the end. One heer squad HQ given +2 stealth bonus, other HQ no bonus. Running, the squad with the non-stealth bonus HQ was spotted earlier than the squad with the +2 HQ.