Hiding Units

[Redwolf]

I never really tested all of this, for two reasons:

First I wanted to do a rather complete test, with different unit qualities and all the different behaviour commands,vehicles unbuttoned and buttoned. And all that for the active and passive side of spotting. That would take considerable time. In all my hotseat testing I found that you are from a playing ability standpoint better off investing the time in PBEM moves. But of course you get a very decent advantage knowing excatly which area is guranteed to be free of x-fast-moving enemies and from being able to move like a Stealth Bomber.

Second I am annoyed by all this. It is pretty obvious to me that the CMBO scheme is pretty complex and put quite a load on the player's shoulders, for no good reason.

Besides feeling a little insulted that I have to do detective work for things that other people have in their tables in their sourcecode I also think there is a substancially mistaken tradeoff here.

In my opinion you should have seperate menues to set:

- movement speed 1, 2 or 3

- head down or not (applicable to not-moving and slow-moving units)

And the whole SOP of TacOps, for each of:

- enemy spotted

- fired on

- fired myself

- indirect fire drops around me (not in Tacops)

You have:

- stop

- reverse

- unload (vehicles with troop carrying capabilities)

- pop smoke (in combination with stop or reverse)

- button up (not in Ttacops)

Ever since I play TacOps more intensivly I find the whole waypoint and movement command structure of CMBO both too unflexible and too complicated. It is not complicated as in number of options, but it surely is in the amount of knowledge you have to gain before mastering it. The manual also does a very bad job of explaining the sneak command and the fact that waypoints are apparently very important "reconsider" marks is not mentioned at all.

So what do we have to do now? Draw zillions of waypoints to get the reconsider stuff and to be flexible in the next turn. And as if that wasn't enough time wasted, you also spend a good chunk of time trying to drag waypoints where you want it, in a very boring try-and-error way. And if you accidentially hit backspace one too often you are screwed, you don't get it back without restarting the PBEM plotting phase from scratch or from a save.

In my opinion, all that stuff is not really good in CMBO. I am interested how the more complex replotting rules in CMBB will turn out, they may make all that waypoint business worth the effort, but there is also a risk that it makes things even worse.

Guys, maybe we can continue some testing and put the collected wisdom on the thforums tactics site? I'll do my share. Maybe we should come up with a systematic plan to distribute the work over interested parties?

[Tarquelne]

Second I am annoyed by all this. It is pretty obvious to me that the CMBO scheme is pretty complex and put quite a load on the player's shoulders, for no good reason.

I agree with what you're saying, I think there is a "good reason" though. CMBO is supposed to be realistic enough that you can just imagine how things work in Real Life, and that's how it'll work in CMBO. It's supposed to be "immersive."

I don't know exactly how true that is. I do, know, however, that I've never tried to Sneak, Move, Run, or Hide in Woods, Scattered Trees, Rough, or behind Stone Walls with a group of 7-12 other heavily armed soldiers.

Knowing all the facts & figures would help a great deal... but I have to admit that it would decrese the level of "immersion" I'd feel. Woods would be less like a woods and more like a chunk of 25% Exposure terrain tiles. (Or whatever the actual figure is.)

So I really sympathize with BTS's unwillingness to lay out all these terrain and movement modifiers in numerical terms in the manual, or explain _exactly_ how all the movement types work. It's obvious that "immersiveness" is very important to BTS, and I respect that.

OTOH... _I'd_ rather know the #s.

BTS wants you to learn from experience... I'd rather RTFM. I in no way want to imply that BTS shouldn't do things the way they want - I don't want to discuss the "rightness" or "wrongness" of they way they've handled the manual... but I will download any hard figures the second I see them.

[ June 19, 2002, 11:10 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Redwolf]

I agree that BTS prefers to have people learn from experience.

But the symptoms here have these characteristics:

- highly complex, very much to learn

- but very precise, very predictable

- badly documented if at all

The stuff you would learn by spending a two-week vacation would be extremly valuable. However, it is not real world. I would prefer rewarding real-world tactics. However, since it is highly precise and predictable, you would be able to exploit them fully. A player without the knowledge would be at a serious disadvantage. A solution would be to randomize it more, so that the effect is there but can't be exploited as much as it can now.

As for splitting the screwy "combined" commands sneak, move etc. into seperate SOP and speed settings, I think BTS plans that for the next engine. I don't know whether that was supposed to apply to infantry, too.

As a datapoint: ever since I learned to do proper combined movement commands for fast and reasonably safe infantry movement I have substancially more success in CMBO games. For my taste, the bump was a little too big given the nature of the learning (game-only), compared to what I got out of applying real-world tactics. Even more so since this proper movement involves lots of waypoints with different settings, a true clickfest. And all that although I, as we have seen earlier in the thread, rather scratched the surface of infantry movement in CMBO. I only address speed and safety, but neither active nor passive spotting. I can't imagine how much strength the players who really studied this stuff get. I am not sure that is good for gameplay, neither from a reward standpoint, nor from an infantry/vehicles balance standpoint.

[ June 19, 2002, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[xerxes]

Totally agree with your points red. The behavior is relatively obscure and rewards those how discover and master the "mechanics" rather than just have good tactical sense. I think this is a negative.

As for the firing while sneaking, I've had MANY instances of sneaking units who are unspotted and not under fire open up on the OPFOR. Often when I don't want them to. This does not only occur at waypoints though it may be more likely for it to occur at that time. This is the reason I've started using the "Crawl" command which I used to never use.

I use sneak when my piat is moving through the woods to get a shot on that tiger. I use crawl if I just want him to get into position. I also use the (move)(short sneak)(fast)(short sneak) type of sequence when I want my squads to stop as soon as the enemy is spotted and engage the enemy.

[tecumseh]

Originally posted by Psyched:

then hiding a unit in a building is not only a waste of time, but is actually detrimental to the functioning of that unit!

Well the problem is that such a unit would fire on anything it thought it could do damage to, which is often not what you want. What would be great is "hold fire" which means "stay alert and use your freakin eyes, but don't shoot". Those two behaviours are modeled, but not together in the same order!

Short range units (flamethrower, shrek) can be kept unhidden as lookouts. HMGs sure can't.

redwolf - yes I agree proper testing should be done, and i can help. I too came from playing tacops and I was initially frustrated by CM commands. Now i like the eccentricity of it all.

Sneaking - i think under good command and morale, a sneaking unit will not fire unless fired on. I have tested this, and under a commander with a +command bonus a platoon will sneak right through hiding enemy shreks in woods, regardless of how many waypoints there are. They will spot them, target them, but hold fire.

However I'm sure a sneaking unit CAN fire first, just like a unit ordered to move will not move sometimes, or a hiding unit will open fire early sometimes. But if they do fire first, they are ignoring your order.

[Redwolf]

I think what CM really needs is a model of court martial...

[xerxes]

So Tec, you're just saying my guys are unruly eh? I like to think of them as having independent initiative.

I wonder if the "?" bonus helps sneaking guys be more sneaky. Would make sense if it did.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Psyched:

... hiding a unit in a building is not only a waste of time, but is actually detrimental to the functioning of that unit! :eek:

The only exception that I can think of is that sometimes stealthy units within a building can actually hide from enemy units who are in that same building.

The other exception, that I'm more used to, is the "hold fire" effect of hiding.

If not hiding the troops make them start shooting too soon, thereby revealing themselves while wasting ammo, then hiding is a better option.

Originally posted by xerxes:

I use sneak when my piat is moving through the woods to get a shot on that tiger. ...

Tried that several times to no avail;

The AT team starts out of sight to a juicy target that's under surveillance by some other unit.

I give a target order to shoot at the AFV.

I give the team order to sneak within LOS of the target.

Turn starts and the team start moving, the target line disappear. At some point the team spot the target, and the target line reappear. The team continue to move for several seconds until it reaches next waypoint, or is shot up by the AFV...

I've never had an AT team stop to fire when using sneak.

The only time I've noticed a team stop to shoot was some PIAT or Zook disembarking a Jeep (according to orders) and then under "move" command when they spotted a Panther after moving a few metres.

Cheers

Olle

[xerxes]

Wow, maybe my memory has played tricks on me. I wonder if I've been deceived by the target line that appears. I had that happen last nite but my sneaker didn't fire and I thought I'd just gotten lucky.