Snipers (the trained specialist sort) - branch topic from "Clarity"

[Conscript Bagger]

Fionn said

OTOH there IS a case to be made for starting a whole new thread arguing for the inclusion of SNIPERS (proper) in CM:BB in ADDITION to sharpshooters.

So did snipers also operate within enemy lines during battles, so as to justify being represented separately for CM battles? Or could that role still be represented with a Crack or Elite sharpshooter unit?

Anyway, here are my embryonic thoughts on how snipers (the "real" kind) might be treated: Like fighter-bombers, they would be purchased as a "presence" and not a unit the player controls. The AI would place and control the sniper (within a setup zone, maybe the enemy's setup zone in a QB, or the author's choice in a scenario) and would remain hidden from both sides until revealing himself through fire or movement (or they stumble on him). It would also seem that the friendly player shouldn't receive spotting info from the sniper (again, like FB's).

Your thoughts?

[Doodlebug]

Interesting observation about treating snipers proper as a "presence" on the battlefield. Reading "With British snipers to the Reich" makes me agree with that analogy. Working in an area, the purpose of the sniper teams was to make above ground movement difficult and dangerous and thereby induce a suppressing effect on the defenders. Having gained the ascendancy in a sector the ability of other troops to observe, infiltrate or conduct aggressive patrol activity is enhanced. I would support the assertion that the purchase of the sniper team as an asset to hinder movement and kill the unwary or reckless is actually a sensible way forward while retaining the use of on table sharpshooters. My only reservation about treating the sniper in this way would be the difficulty in coding the game AI.

[Jagdratt]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

Anyway, here are my embryonic thoughts on how snipers (the "real" kind) might be treated: Like fighter-bombers, they would be purchased as a "presence" and not a unit the player controls. The AI would place and control the sniper (within a setup zone, maybe the enemy's setup zone in a QB, or the author's choice in a scenario) and would remain hidden from both sides until revealing himself through fire or movement (or they stumble on him). It would also seem that the friendly player shouldn't receive spotting info from the sniper (again, like FB's).

Your thoughts?[/QB]

I think that's a very clever suggestion. I would suggest that the AI controlled sniper would become visible when it was 'in contact' with the player's forces. This would likely happen as a result of an advance by the player controlled forces into 'no persons' land' or areas previously controlled by the enemy .

At that point, the sniper would revert to player control with abilities closely related to those of a sharp shooter. IMHO, this would reflect the concept that the sniper's ability to further infiltrate enemy lines was degraded by the active combat zone.

Although I would never claim to have computer programming expertise, I think the fighter bomber AI analogy is quite apt. Since the player could not see what the sniper was or wasn't targetting, we wouldn't be able to complain about the sniper's effectiveness or lack thereof. Ignorance might be bliss.

That's my 2 cents worth - sadly worth substantially less in US dollars...

[Tarquelne]

I like the idea, FWthatsW.

A near variation would be applying the Sniper just before the map appears. (ie, after force selection for a QB). CMBB will have the ability to apply pre-game losses to each side, right? (What's that feature called?)

Well, the Sniper could be a factor in those pre-game losses. If the other side has a Sniper(s) then it'd be much more likely (or just "possible")to loose a Company or Bat. commander, for example. I'm sure those who know more about Snipers could come up with a realistic Targets list.

[Michael Dorosh]

This is what ASL did with regards to snipers, no? It has its merits.

On the other hand, I'll quote my one post from that thread:

ISN'T THE REAL point to be made the fact that snipers in real life operated in two man teams?

The "snipers" in CMBO are sharpshooters, by that definition.

The Commonwealth did not have "sharpshooters" per se, but put their snipers into a special platoon called the Scout and Sniper platoon. They worked in two man teams - one man with a spotting scope, the other with a special Lee Enfield called the No. 4 Mk I (T) - it had more than just a scope, it came with a special sling (an American Garand sling in most cases), had a wooden cheek piece, and was tested in the factory for accuracy.

The spotter picked out likely targets, and the sniper killed them.

When not sniping, the platoon was a kind of dedicated recce element for the battalion.

The snipers in CM are nothing like that. To be realistically modelled, they should be given superb spotting ability and come in two man teams.

That being the case, there is a role for an "onboard" sniper - give him well above average spotting ability. He can set up and detect enemy troops at great distances, count the men in a squad, etc. Might be better to wait until relative spotting is perfected in the rewrite, but then again, this kind of intel gathering is usually done before battle commences - so the abstract method of snipers might be the way to go to.

ASL would assign a sniper value to each side, affecting the likelihood of sniper attacks. The neat thing about CM is that you could keep that number hidden from the enemy.

Would you want to include a "sniper check" command?

[ June 17, 2002, 07:44 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Das Reich]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

Fionn said

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />OTOH there IS a case to be made for starting a whole new thread arguing for the inclusion of SNIPERS (proper) in CM:BB in ADDITION to sharpshooters.

So did snipers also operate within enemy lines during battles, so as to justify being represented separately for CM battles? Or could that role still be represented with a Crack or Elite sharpshooter unit?

Anyway, here are my embryonic thoughts on how snipers (the "real" kind) might be treated: Like fighter-bombers, they would be purchased as a "presence" and not a unit the player controls. The AI would place and control the sniper (within a setup zone, maybe the enemy's setup zone in a QB, or the author's choice in a scenario) and would remain hidden from both sides until revealing himself through fire or movement (or they stumble on him). It would also seem that the friendly player shouldn't receive spotting info from the sniper (again, like FB's).

Your thoughts?</font>

[Michael Emrys]

Offwhite gets an A for creative and original thinking on this problem.

Michael

[Conscript Bagger]

Wow, it appears I have fulfilled my purpose in life Seriously, thanks for the positive responses; I'm surprised it hasn't been suggested before (though maybe it's because sniper discussions have been taboo for a while).

Doodlebug - I agree, the AI's ability to handle the sniper is a point of question. I'm not sure which of the three(?) AIs in the game would do this. However, the AI does control sharpshooters in human vs. computer games, which could be a starting point for sniper-control code.

Jagdratt - Right now, I'm inclined to worry that having the sniper revert to player control once "discovered" is potentially gamey. Having the AI control the sniper throughout the game maintains his independence from the regular command structure (IOW, the player), which seems more like the way I've seen snipers described as operating by board members who know a lot about them. If the higher-ups have gone to the trouble of assigning an elite sniper to a given sector, I doubt they want every Lt. Tom, Dick, or Harry coming along and giving him new orders. I can't see snipers being too eager to leave their carefully concealed position to join an infantry attack, either. Or am I reading too much into the "sniper mystique"?

Michael - yes, ASL's SAN was the basis of this idea, since it's another example of a sniper operating independently of player control. I hadn't ever considered a sniper check as part of the system; in fact, I never played enough ASL to even remember the details of the check. Do you think it would be a good inclusion? And relative spotting (or the lack thereof at present) is the reason I suggested NOT providing spotting info from the sniper - certainly not during the battle, anyway.

I do like the idea of maybe getting a peek at enemy units that set up in view of the sniper, although it raises the question of how long before Turn 1 they actually moved into position, and would the sniper have had time to assess and report the threat? Maybe only let the sniper report dug-in units and fortifications, and assume that AFVs, etc. have arrived too recently?

[Michael Dorosh]

My comments on "sniper checks" were purposefully vague - I think the player would like the ability to locate and eliminate snipers, whether on board or off, but of course that too would present realism problems. I recall the sniper check in ASL was pretty vague also; I think a targetted unit could try and reduce the enemy's SAN - I am too lazy to check the rulebook. It would not work that way in CM, but I am fairly certain it shouldn't, anyway.

[JonS]

Given the recon role of Snipers™ (capitalised and bolded to indicate card carrying, snake eating variety. Also, he's a bad ass, and might hurt me if I don't show him some respect), perhaps a useful adjunct to the pre-game casualties suggested by Tarqulene, perhaps also have all units within LOS of the Snipers™ area of activity (as determined during setup) show on the map as generic nationality markers - little ones for infantry, large ones for vehicles. No other info is revealed - not types, sizes, quality, nothing.

This would simulate the Sniper™ reporting back before the game commences, and gives the 'owning' player an idea of where the enemy main effort may lie, etc.

And once the game starts, the Sniper™ ... just disappears. His entire role is before the battle commences. In game sniping can be handled as is currently done by the sharpshooters (not capitilised, since this represents Joe Sixpack, and he just 'ain't worth it).

Unsure how this impacts on coding, but I feel it is conceptually similar to the pre-game fireplan being introduced for artillery in CM:BB.

This would potentially be a very powerful 'piece', but that can be addressed through pricing, rarity, and good scenario design. Oh - and perhaps making a maximum of one per side available, and none available in MEs.

Editted to add: and also balanced by a possibility that the team is captured/eliminated before being able to report back and any points spent on it are therefore 'wasted' - like an air-strike that goes astray.

Regards

JonS

[ June 18, 2002, 12:27 AM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Jagdratt]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

Jagdratt - Right now, I'm inclined to worry that having the sniper revert to player control once "discovered" is potentially gamey. Having the AI control the sniper throughout the game maintains his independence from the regular command structure (IOW, the player), which seems more like the way I've seen snipers described as operating by board members who know a lot about them. If the higher-ups have gone to the trouble of assigning an elite sniper to a given sector, I doubt they want every Lt. Tom, Dick, or Harry coming along and giving him new orders. I can't see snipers being too eager to leave their carefully concealed position to join an infantry attack, either. Or am I reading too much into the "sniper mystique"?

[/QB]

I agree with what you're saying - my suggestion is that the sniper cease being a conceptual unit once 'regular' forces were within communication range. By that, I'm suggesting voice contact.

At that point the sniper would become a playable unit with capabilities very nearly those of an elite sharp shooter. Some limited transfer of intelligence - what he'd seen prior to regaining contact with the player's forces - would take place.

I suggest this as sort of a hybrid that isn't a playable unit - and thus susceptable to historically inaccurate scouting due to spotting limitations - and a mysterious ethereal like apparition whose presence/influence/effectiveness would become something of a spiritual discussion.

[Durbish]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

Wow, it appears I have fulfilled my purpose in life

Slick idea. What are the countermeasures?

I do like the idea of maybe getting a peek at enemy units that set up in view of the sniper, although it raises the question of how long before Turn 1 they actually moved into position, and would the sniper have had time to assess and report the threat? Maybe only let the sniper report dug-in units and fortifications, and assume that AFVs, etc. have arrived too recently?

How about a spot command for binocular equipped units not otherwise engaged allowing the player to scan a specific area or unit?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Durbish:

How about a spot command for binocular equipped units not otherwise engaged allowing the player to scan a specific area or unit?

Probably too powerful until relative spotting can be implemented.

Also, who would you give binocs/field glasses too? Most German officers and many NCOs had them. Gun captains usually had them, including heavy MG teams. FOs had them. I think their issuance in the various Allied armies was kind of irregular. Thing is, they could get lost or broken. They could also get scavenged; German binocs were highly prized as useful war trophies.

Michael

[ June 18, 2002, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Would you differentiate between 6 x 30 Ziess or Dienstglas binos and the more powerful ones that were also issued? What about spotting scopes....

[Michael Emrys]

And a special modifier if their lens paper has gotten soggy.

Michael

[Durbish]

Um, well, I, uh... Yes yes of course.

I think having covered arcs will suffice nicely, no need for additional spotting command.

Thinking about the sniper presence again. There would have to be some way to combat the presence. Also with presumably larger maps for east front perhaps zones of control would come in to play. Such a presence would have to be adjusted for dense terrain.

I am not trying to be negative on the idea, just trying to help flush it out more.

[Conscript Bagger]

I'm just as happy to let my troops spot on their own, and let the borg effect show me whatever they see. When relative spotting happens, then there might be more use for extra spotting commands (binoculars, etc.).

Good point about "ZOC" considerations; you don't want to shell out the points for a sniper and the AI sets him up 20m from an enemy SMG platoon. There would probably have to be a minimum distance requirement for his initial position, with variations due to terrain, like you said.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Durbish:

There would have to be some way to combat the presence.

Invoke the Force.

Michael