Oddity

[Childress]

Am I missing something here?

I was testing foxholes versus open defence, on my set test map. Good news, the foxholes seemed to protect their German occupants. But I noticed something strange with the open terrain test. I ran it eight times and the German platoon never suffered a single casualty despite the 36 to 27 disadvantage. The Allies usually a dozen.

But when the Allies were given a cover arc including the open German platoon area they shredded them. They seem to require the cover arc to engage them. The German platoon opened right up, arc or no. Explanation?

[akd]

What was the range?

[Childress]

200m

Damn, I tried to delete this post. I just noticed that I mistakenly 'Hid' that Ami squad during the test. (face red)

On the other hand, once you're discovered, and are being fired upon by an inferior force you'd think you and your mates would get up and shoot back rather than lie there and evaporate. Eventually. Or somefink,

[xian]

I agree, there needs to be an 'ambush' command. Units don't seem to unhide and fire back even when you hide a unit and set an arc.

[Michael Emrys]

I agree, there needs to be an 'ambush' command.

An Ambush command would be nice. Leave the existing Hide as is for those times when you really want a unit to stay hidden until you unhide it, but with an ambush command they'd pop up and start shooting as soon as something entered their covered arc. Need an Armor CA to go with this too.

Michael

[Childress]

An Ambush command would be nice. Leave the existing Hide as is for those times when you really want a unit to stay hidden until you unhide it, but with an ambush command they'd pop up and start shooting as soon as something entered their covered arc.

Michael

To the best of my recollection you just described how an ambush worked in CM1. I noticed, in 1.0, that when I hid some Germs behind a low wall with a Cover Arc and the enemy walked right up, stepped over the wall and close assaulted them. In CMBB they would have sprung to life when the CA was broached.

It seems the Ambush/Hide capability now exists only in real time where the- detail minded- commander can intervene and lift the Hide order at the critical moment.

[stikkypixie]

To the best of my recollection you just described how an ambush worked in CM1. I noticed, in 1.0, that when I hid some Germs behind a low wall with a Cover Arc and the enemy walked right up, stepped over the wall and close assaulted them. In CMBB they would have sprung to life when the CA was broached.

It seems the Ambush/Hide capability now exists only in real time where the- detail minded- commander can intervene and lift the Hide order at the critical moment.

How are your guys to know just how far the enemy was, if all they can see in front of them is a wall? It still works like in CMx1, but your guys must be able to spot the enemy for them to spring the ambush.

[stoex]

You can Hide-Ambush just fine in CMBN. The only problem is that in certain situations your hiding units may not be able to see units that come into their covered arc. They can't ambush what they can't see (imagine hiding behind a stone wall yourself, now try knowing when some dude on the other side of the wall is exactly 150 ft away...difficult!). There is also perhaps an issue with self-preservation not overriding arcs in some situations, but there are ways to cope with this as well, since mostly it is just bad tactics that allow an enemy unit to wander around 'behind' or beside a friendly unit with a (too narrow?) covered arc.

[Erwin]

This is an interesting question. I thought that the ambush system worked the same as CM1. As stoex said, I wonder if the ambushers are hiding behind a wall and therefore don't see the enemy enter the covered arc zone. But, that,s kind of silly too. Crappy for us WEGO players (and another dose of kudos to CM1 in which ambushes worked great).

[Blackcat]

How are your guys to know just how far the enemy was, if all they can see in front of them is a wall? It still works like in CMx1, but your guys must be able to spot the enemy for them to spring the ambush.

Whenever I have a unit in hide mode the display tells me that at least one of them keeps sticking his head up to spot. I would have thought that this spotting task would be to look for threats/opportunities and that would mean looking over the wall. Maybe the problem here is rather more fundamental.

Since CMSF we have known that the more eyes there are looking the more will be seen. This has been demonstrated time and again and acknowledged by Steve. So a thirteen man squad is more likely to see an enemy unit that a two man recon/sniper/AT team. I have had many, many experences where a small, stationary team equiped with binos and not in hiding have failed to spot enemy infantry and even armour. Given that, I think it is entirely possible, in the game, that one man sticking his head up for a few seconds will entirely fail to see an approaching threat. So maybe, maybe, the lack of sucess in setting ambushes is due to a limitation in the spotting "rules".

[stoex]

That's precisely what I'm saying, Erwin. The combination of HIDE and a COVERED ARC order works precisely the way one would want it to, EXCEPT when the unit with the unit with the covered arc is positioned in such a way that it cannot see the whole or a part of the area covered by the arc. If an enemy enters the arc but is not visible to the unit with the arc order, it will not be fired upon. Which is totally realistic IMO.

Blackcat, the spotting limitations you mention do apply to a certain degree. Again, realistic IMO. However, units HIDING anywhere will not stick up their heads but remain prone always (as you can see when watching them in-game). Spotting is WYSIWYG in that you can't see over a wall if you don't raise your Mk 1 Eyeballs up above that wall. This is not a spotting limitation but a game convention issue. Hiding units are prone by definition, and while they do incur abstracted spotting penalties compared to prone units which are not hiding, their most severe penalty in this respect is that they are prone and ONLY prone, and CANNOT see anything which they would need to be in a different posture to see.

[stikkypixie]

Whenever I have a unit in hide mode the display tells me that at least one of them keeps sticking his head up to spot. I would have thought that this spotting task would be to look for threats/opportunities and that would mean looking over the wall. Maybe the problem here is rather more fundamental.

The game says that they stick their head up, and they *do* stick their head up, just not over the wall. Remember, there are less abstractions now, spotting is calculated from the head from the soldier to the target.

[stoex]

Well, not really, stikkypixie. The way that hiding units sometimes jiggle around a little bit, and the way the man with the binos sometimes puts them to his eyes (regardless of hiding or not), are just eye candy. They do not correspond in any way to the shifting of statuses between 'hiding' and 'spotting'. In fact, the whole graphical representation of soldier facing is only abstractedly factored into LOS checks - otherwise no CMBN unit could ever spot anything behind it, which they do, though. What CMBN soldiers certainly do not do when they are hiding, as you said, is raise their heads to the next higher level for LOS calculations, which is the eye level of a kneeling soldier, and would be necessary to see over a low wall. Whatever hiding soldiers do with their heads has no effect on how well they can spot. Being prone and hiding are the only things which influence this in terms of the soldiers themselves. Terrain, smoke and weather play roles as well, of course.

[Blackcat]

Ok, so this spotting behaviour that the game says is going on when a unit is hiding isn't really going on, or at least isn't really spotting for threats and opportunities. It is just a chap staying exactly where and how he is but opening his eyes. In which case why on earth did BF bother with coding it up in the first place?

I am struggling with this one. What I am reading here suggests that a unit which hides in a type of cover that extends beyond the height of a prone man will never see an approaching enemy. Surely I am missing something.

[stoex]

Basically, you're understanding correctly. I don't quite see why you think this is so bad though. Maybe it's just the term 'hiding' that bothers you. If you want to be behind a wall and look over it, that's not really hiding to me, but taking cover. You can't really look over a wall in real life and be really well hidden either, because you will be skylighting yourself against the background, or at least adding a very distinguishable feature to an otherwise straight wall. If you want your men too see stuff really well, don't hide them - instead, have them find a position with good cover and concealment and let them just spot from there. If you want them to hide, you really want them to avoid being seen at all costs, using every opportunity available to them. This includes NOT peeping their heads over a wall but remaining prone behind it.

In-game as well as in reality, walls are simply not the ideal place to spring ambushes from. That may be the base problem here.

[Blackcat]

Stoex,

What my "beef", if such it is, is that the game represents at least one member of a hidden team "spotting" at pretty much anytime. I think it reasonable for a player seeing that to assume that the game portrays a soldier sticking his head up for a quick look round before ducking down again. Now from you I find that is not the case. Spotting whilst hidden means, well it means nothing. So what was the point of putting it in the game in the first place?

[Childress]

Given that, I think it is entirely possible, in the game, that one man sticking his head up for a few seconds will entirely fail to see an approaching threat. So maybe, maybe, the lack of success in setting ambushes is due to a limitation in the spotting "rules".

Maybe. But in my case of the squad hiding behind the low wall- with CA- would surely have eventually 'heard' the approaching troops in time to spring the trap even if the enemy had penetrated the arc. Some tweaking in order?

[womble]

Stoex,

What my "beef", if such it is, is that the game represents at least one member of a hidden team "spotting" at pretty much anytime. I think it reasonable for a player seeing that to assume that the game portrays a soldier sticking his head up for a quick look round before ducking down again. Now from you I find that is not the case. Spotting whilst hidden means, well it means nothing. So what was the point of putting it in the game in the first place?

I think you're inferring too much. Just because they don't 'prarie dog' high enough to see over a wall doesn't mean they're not doing something different to when they're listed as Hiding. At least if a unit component is Spotting, they get a chance to see something, just not over anything much. If they were always all Hiding, there would be no chance of them seeing anything; as it is, it's just much reduced. What Stoex is referring to is that the posture of the spotter doesn't change from prone. If you're hiding in scrubby vegetation that isn't a complete block to vision, the spotter will have a 'spot chance' for stuff where all the Hiders will not.

In the specific case of "behind a wall", yes, the spotting function is likely to be irrelevant unless the enemy is past the wall, and if it's past the wall and near the unit, there's a good chance the unit will be so suppressed as to make spotting a low priority.

[Blackcat]

Womble,

As always I read your post with care and respect. It is the extent of this "praire dog" behaviour that is at the heart of my search for knowledge. It seems accepted that soldiers will not go so far as to look over a wall, how about sneeking a peak through a window? What about peering over/through/around a bush? More to the point, given the context, the berm of a bocage? Or maybe the lip of a foxhole. If in all those circumstances the answer is "No, a soldier will spot what he can see from his prone position" I truly can't see why the behaviour was coded.

[womble]

Womble,

As always I read your post with care and respect. It is the extent of this "praire dog" behaviour that is at the heart of my search for knowledge. It seems accepted that soldiers will not go so far as to look over a wall, how about sneeking a peak through a window? ...[snip]... More to the point, given the context, the berm of a bocage? Or maybe the lip of a foxhole. If in all those circumstances the answer is "No, a soldier will spot what he can see from his prone position" I truly can't see why the behaviour was coded.

I think the answer "why" lies somewhere in the fact that those are not the only locations in which infantry can hide. It's, as far as I can tell, for when there isn't anything between the unit and a potentially-spottable target which would require getting to kneeling to see over. So through/round a bush (or any vegetation), or even, perhaps, under it in te right circumstances (which is why I elided it from your list, which is, as amended, I believe, a good sample of things Hiding troops won't spot past). Troops prone in long grass can see a few metres, and see out of the long grass from further in than troops outside the grass can see in.

Urk. Sentence structure failing. Abort. Abort.

[stoex]

Blackcat,

The answer is not 'no' in all those situations. Bushes and all other types of vegetation except trees (AFAIK) are fully abstracted in terms of spotting. This means soldiers can see through bushes, crop fields, tall grass, etc. to a certain degree even when prone. They can certainly see along open ground when prone as well. I am unsure as to the exact workings concerning foxholes, trenches and bocage berms. However, the behaviour we are talking about makes sense in situations where the types of vegetation I mentioned above are the cover/concealment your troops are in while hiding.

You can, for instance, hide infantry in a wheat field or a forest and they are theoretically able to spot (albeit with penalties for being 'hiding') enemies all around them. They will also incur a concealment bonus for 'hiding', meaning the enemies will not spot them as easily as they would if they were just lying there prone without hiding.

I totally agree that hiding behaviour could use a tweak here and there, by the way. The short 'spotting' thing they do while hiding is more or less just to signify that they are attempting to spot while hiding, just that they are not very good at it in that situation because they do it a lot less than if they are not hiding.

Beat me again, womble. You and I really cross-post a lot...cheers!

[stoex]

Summarizing:

I firmly believe that a hiding soldier is only able to spot only things that he can see from a prone position. However, there seem to often be more things visible from a prone position than you think, Blackcat. Its just about where you lie down...

[Childress]

Summarizing:

I firmly believe that a hiding soldier is only able to spot only things that he can see from a prone position.

That appears to be the case. But should it? The game allows the prone soldiers to project a cover arc beyond a barrier. It also shows LOS.

Also, at a certain distance, for the sake of argument 50 meters out, sound clues enter into the calculation. Unless one believes that an enemy squad could CRAWL, completely undetected, 100 meters over open ground and, exhausted, assault the CA-endowed squad hiding behind a wall.

[womble]

That appears to be the case. But should it? The game allows the prone soldiers to project a cover arc beyond a barrier. It also shows LOS.

I recall being unable to trace LOS from a hiding/cowering unit behind a wall through the wall.

Even a standing, non-hiding unit can't actively prosecute a cover arc beyond a barrier they can't see through (like a 'high stone wall'), but the engine draws it on because if they move they maintain the arc, and because that was the design decision. I would imagine that the extra calculations in dynamically cutting out sections of arc to which the unit does not have LOS were a factor in the design decision.

Also, at a certain distance, for the sake of argument 50 meters out, sound clues enter into the calculation. Unless one believes that an enemy squad could CRAWL, completely undetected, 100 meters over open ground and, exhausted, assault the CA-endowed squad hiding behind a wall.

I believe that a squad could entirely happily approach another one that's lying behind an intact stone wall and not making any effort to look over it. To a lot closer than 50m without being heard, even without sneaking, if they are observing professional noise discipline in battlefield acoustic conditions. If they're sneaking, and know or suspect the 'target' is there, then yes, they could get the drop. 100m is a long way. It'd have to be quite quiet to hear a normal person (without voice training) shouting that far away. Hearing footfalls or equipment clinks is out of the question for most people in most conditions at that range or even half of it.

[Blackcat]

Mssrs Stoex and Womble,

Thank you, gentlemen, for taking the time to put me straight on what is actually going on in the game with my troops when they are hiding. I am obliged, particularly as I am in the middle of setting up for my first defensive PBEM - I could have gone very wrong without your corrections.