Gustav Line Beta AAR Round Two PEANUT GALLERY

[dieseltaylor]

No one comments on the fact Bil lost two halftracks or his TD took several hits without him ever spotting the source.

I may have if I had been reading his AAR.

It doesn't really raise my eyebrows the MG bunker did not spot his infantry in the tall grass at 1km+. Is CM problem free here - no, probably not, but my experience the spotting is generally very realistic with some randomness thrown in. Isolated that may not appear so but in the end it is good in my opinion. It definitely does not negate the system as some seem to suggest based on their anecdotes.

DO you think is BF said C2 increases spotting likelihood by around 100% [?whatever] that would actually help people get a grip about the system rather than a gripe??

You say the spotting appears accurate enough however for those players with no actual experience of spotting troops/tanks at range in RL this is just underlines the sort of learning curve we are on. If my two opponents were available I might, with enough games, get a degree of confidence and understanding .

I will start enough thread on whether modern spotting is significantly better than in WW2!

[slysniper]

slysniper

I get the feeling that a casual player, particularly if they do not read the forums, has a monumental learning curve?

Incidentally you mention not spotting firing tanks without giving a concept of range - also we know the Allies had a smoky propellant. Perhaps you could flesh out your experience.

Well, the game is becoming something that is not suited for the casual player - thus the reason we still have many that wish for the CMX1 type game done somehow with updated graphics. And really it was not a simple game, but it was compared to this engine. It just goes back to either you like the complexity or you dont of the latest engine.

As for spotting, i was refering more to infantry. I can remember a time our squad being ambushed by a platoon and they were not 50 yards away in desert scrub type terrain and not being able to spot one enemy soildier for at least 20-30 seconds and thinking, if this was real, I be dead for sure.

I recall another where they were approx 75 yards away in a tree line and could not see anyone at all for minutes except when someone jumped up and moved to a new location. Once they dropped they would again disapear in the shadows. A third time was sitting in a horseshoe shaped ambush on a mountain ridge line at night with cloudy skies overwatching a approach that was a few hundred meters with almost no vegetation, wide open and clear.

Did see them move out into the open but once they started attacking, was amazed how hard it was to spot them because of the darkness, it was hard to make anyone out until they were within 50 yards of our location.

As for armor, no, I think the game is wrong as to how it spots, but that is not saying it is totally bad. But any moving armor should pop up and be seen very, quickly. I think the game does pretty good at that now but is still slow at times. but it is the none moving armor that gives the most inconsistant results, if located in terrain and it has some distance, terrain that can mask and conceal its shape, that is when the game does not ring true. It spots enemy units at great distances without much effort at times, through concealment that would not be liking to do in real life.

Then on the other hand it might have a tank right in the open 100-200 yards away and it does not show up with eyes right on the area, again not always, but at times. But in R.l. you would see it 99.9% of the time.

Then there is the 20 to 30 yard distance where there is some cover and your unit still cannot spot the enemy tank for long periods of time. Again a task that likely would only take seconds in most situation in R.L.

So that aspect of the game just does not feel correct to exsperence, but trying to understand how they programmed the game to work. i think i understand why it does not do that correctly or likey will not with the present approach within the game.

Now I only remember once not spotting Real armor that was within plain view of us.

They were mobile arty units that were in a valley below our location that started firing a practice mission, we were in mountain terrain, so the sound was bouncing off the hills and making it hard to determine where the sound was truely coming from. I recall taking a few minutes to spot them and we did have Bino's with us. They were likely 2000 yards from our location but blended in nicely with the ground behind them. Once located, they were easy to spot with the naked eye. But it showed me how the human eye looks for shape , color and outline and movement. if these are not present. you can hide even pretty large objects

[dieseltaylor]

Thanks slysniper that is really interesting stuff. Funnily enough Ron was saying it was pretty realistic but for non-military people with no experience of these matters that sort of emphasises the learning problem.

Anyway I am just going to start a thread on whether modern military are much superior to WW2 in spotting with superior optics laser rthermal ... I have no idea what the modern army uses.

[GerryCMBB]

This is the way I see it now. It seems it has great potential to be a training tool for the military.

Gerry

Well, the game is becoming something that is not suited for the casual player ....

[A Canadian Cat]

I don't think we can answer that without the specific map and turn situations. It could be down to pTruppe experience levels, or just spotting expectations at range with no vision aids. Or because the spotter went prone at the wrong time. The stealth half tracks are a bit of a puzzle.

Oh, that is true. We might have to wait until the game ends and get some of those details plus the thoughts from the players.

[A Canadian Cat]

Good question, likely no clear answers. thus the reason people complain. It is no longer a game you can master knowing if your unit will spot the enemy. No matter how many hours of play you have, the game is constantly suprising you as to if units see or do not see enemy units.

The sad thing is, it is more realistic to RL than knowing for sure that your unit will spot in certain situations, which most think is better because they only know how games in the past have done it.

True, it is quite a bit more complex than previous versions. I have a QB going now where a Sherman spotted two PzIVs and a Panther trough a key hole and KO'ed the Panther and immobilized the PzIV before being dispatched. I have moved another Sherman up close by and to me it looks like the LOS is as good but neither side has spotted each other.

But I can think of field training I had where many times I could not spot the enemy, even knowing they were out there. Sometimes even when they were firing and still not able to spot them. So maybe that is why I dont get too upset with how the game works presently.

Indeed thanks for your insight - including the other examples you gave later.

As for what was done that might be factors.

GAJ was expecting sighting enemy units at too great of a range, exspecially for infantry. I find infantry can move to well within 100 meters in grasses and not give clear identifications to the enemy.

Beyond his power was the fact he really did not have enough units to cover all the ground he needed to defend and thus spread himself out which created more problems in that his units could not work together in the command structure.

Interesting thoughts.

But beyond that, not much. His AT guns showed up easy, WTF. I am playing a battle right now where the enemy has had 6 guns all in tall grass and or wheat, and let me tell you. not one of them guns has shown up to my units spotting until after they have fired multiple shots or I have moved almost on top of them.

I agree that size matters too. I often spot those big 88s before they even fire but smaller guns not so much.

[Seedorf81]

Just seen Gaj's last posting, with his bazooka team being unable to see Bill's PzVI at 63 meters distance.

I can hardly believe that. Even if the bazooka team couldn't see the tank (maybe their eyes were full of tears because the way this battle is developing??), they bloody well could hear it. And in real life they would either get the hell out of there, or - and that was what they were trained to do - they would go (run, crawl, slither) to a position with a view on that tank and fire.

Looking at Gaj's screenshots it seems hardly possible the bazooka team couldn't see the tank.

I am asking myself: totally biased or rightly surprised?

[Seedorf81]

Oops, PzIV that is.

[ZPB II]

If I was GaJ I'd probably quit in frustration, citing broken game as the reason. Aren't they playing this battle on a early beta version? That would explain the completely illogical spotting going on...

[Vark]

Is GaJ using cover arcs? I've noticed that giving a unit a cover arc, seems to radically improve chances of spotting.

[Lanzfeld]

Is GaJ using cover arcs? I've noticed that giving a unit a cover arc, seems to radically improve chances of spotting.

No I don't think that is directly true. Only the units facing will determine spotting chances. The arc helps because you are controlling the units facing. A unit will spot the same with or without an arc if it is facing the same direction. Steve asked Charles awhile ago and that was his response.

[Vark]

Ok, really wish BF produced a guide to the rules, for CM2, especially detailing spotting.

[Erwin]

IIRC setting a directional arc will improve spotting by a "small amount". But, of course we are not told how much. I almost always use a directional arc to get every advantage I can get on principle. Wish we could get back to the "one-click" 180 degree arcs of the earlier CM as it takes time to make them now.

Spotting issues that are of major concern:

1) Stationary troops near vehicles (esp tanks) can't spot the AFV's even though they must be making a huge amount of noise (and ground vibration) whether stationary or moving. This really affects ambushes. You would think that troops hiding on one side of a wall, would know there is a tank rumbling on the other side and pop up and shoot it with AT weapons.

2) Moving units seem better at spotting stationary unit than stationary units are at spotting moving units.

As I almost always play as attacker (vs AI), this is lovely. But, in the few times I have been on defense it's "disturbing".

In terms of LOS issues, I was shocked that one can spend hours placing units like bunkers to get good Field of Views, only to find that when placed it drops into the ground thus eliminating the LOS that you planned. How on earth can a designer place bunkers effectively?

[akd]

IIRC setting a directional arc will improve spotting by a "small amount".

Only in so much as it controls the facing of the unit.

[Michael Emrys]

No I don't think that is directly true. Only the units facing will determine spotting chances. The arc helps because you are controlling the units facing. A unit will spot the same with or without an arc if it is facing the same direction. Steve asked Charles awhile ago and that was his response.

Which is one reason I rarely use CAs but frequently set the facing at the end of a unit's movement. About the only reason I use CAs—and I think they are very good for this—is to watch a certain part of the map while the unit is moving.

[womble]

The other reason to use CAs to control the facing of a unit arriving at a new position is if you don't want it to be "weapons-free". An observer generally doesn't want his security chap to be plinking away at the unit he's calling mortars on, so CAs will both point them in the right direction and inhibit their trigger-happiness. Similarly when you're trying to achieve fire superiority from buildings or behind linear obstacles, you want the element to be facing the right way, but not to let rip until you tell it to, even if it does spot the enemy.

[Erwin]

It makes sense that a directional arc will increase the spotting abilities in that direction cos all eyes are turned in that direction.

Per Womble's point, the problem with only using FACE is that I find I lose more men to them shooting at units that shoot back when they'd be better off just quietly spotting while I bring up something heavier to blast the enemy. So, a faster way to get irectional arcs - esp the greatly missed 180 degree arc would speed up play for folks who do frequently use directional arcs.

[A Canadian Cat]

Bump to help people find the right peanut gallery for the on going AAR.

Come on peanuts where are you quite for 10 days - wow.

[John Kettler]

ian.leslie,

Too late for me, I'm afraid. Inadvertently posted to the Peanut Gallery thread for the QB AAR! Therefore, I call this Attempt Deux! I originally wrote and posted it June 14, 2013.

It would appear the pundits have decamped to the main threads for the battle.

I'm very confused over the events depicted by the two combatants. GreenAsJade claims, in essence, he's bagged another Panzer IV. No pics, though, and he's made two posts recently. Bil says nothing about losing a second Panzer IV, but he did admit that GreenAsJade M-Killed one earlier as a result on a bloody Ranger close assault. Presumably, the close assault finished what I believe the bazooka began, but the issues may be completely unrelated. Despite the M-Kill, the Panzer IV crew chose to stay inside and now fights from a heavily armed turreted pillbox, a pillbox very much a thorn in the side!

And Bil's returned to his favorite sport: gleefully clubbing GreenAsJade's practically helpless "baby seals" (M6 ATGs), while pounding him with everything that'll bear.

I look forward to the participants' reportage catching up with what's really happened in this fight. It's becoming a bit surreal.

Update (Written today, June 15, 2013, as opposed to the above)

Since I wrote the above, I've gone back and carefully reviewed what Bil said and showed. He did very briefly mention the loss and presented a pic which didn't show much. So true was this that to my eye it didn't even read as tank struck fatally, given the rear over the shoulder view.

The situation wasn't much clearer on GreenAsJade's end, either. He concisely reports the kill in his #880 and provides an incredibly terse description in #886, together with a gnat-sized view of the kill in one of the pics forming part of the post. I do not understand why we didn't get to see something altogether more exciting.

Regards,

John Kettler

[dieseltaylor]

Looks like this game is about to boil up, Hoping for a single shot to penetrate both German vehicles and then a nice explosion to clear out the crews. : )

[womble]

Looks like this game is about to boil up, Hoping for a single shot to penetrate both German vehicles and then a nice explosion to clear out the crews. : )

Sadly, GaJ has reported the results of that encounter, and "no dice"... Bil's superior eyes-on-ability tells again, as he knows the "ambush" is brewing and withdraws his JPz under cover of Brumbaar area fire which blinds the squinting M10 with dust and fumes. If the M10 had arrived 30s sooner, there could have been time in the "decision cycle" for a surprise to be sprung, but in a lot of ways, popping up there at the end of the turn, so Bil had the longest time to do something about what he knew was unfortunately the worst timing. Not that it was under GaJ's control, really; just the way the cookie got cut up into 60ths.

[Michael Emrys]

I feel it must be said also that GaJ is still suffering the consequences of committing his forces piecemeal. If he had had two M10s in that attack, he might at least have drawn some blood in retribution for his loss. Three would have been even better. At pretty much every turn Bil has had superiority of observation and fire superiority and that's why he is winning.

Michael

[Baneman]

The map has also favoured Bil in that he's been able to concentrate on biting off one piece of territory at a time, each time largely out of LoS to the rest of the map.

Also, he's had leisure time. 15 minutes less to get it all done ( He's got 10 minutes to go, right ? ) and he may have had to hurry and be less careful.

[slysniper]

The map has also favoured Bil in that he's been able to concentrate on biting off one piece of territory at a time, each time largely out of LoS to the rest of the map.

Also, he's had leisure time. 15 minutes less to get it all done ( He's got 10 minutes to go, right ? ) and he may have had to hurry and be less careful.

it would need more time than that to make the game change. he could have modified the pace for 15 minutes pretty easy I think.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Man, this thread just died didn't it? Right about the time I was saying this game should have ended, interesting.