Spotting .... again ...

[womble]

Given what's been said: there's no smoke; can't see the tank unless within 4-5m or so; this is persistent, then I'd say the game is working consistently. So it must be utterly frellin' stygian, or there's a wrinkle.

 

How do those marching troops do if you just leave them sat still for several minutes in the adjacent AS? Moving troops don't spot as well as stationary ones that are "Spotting", and I'd suspect that they don't accumulate any "over time" spotting bonuses, as stationary troops do. The tank crew suggests that maybe static infantry will be as blinded, since the TC would, I imagine, have been Spotting the entire time; perhaps being in a moving vehicle is also preventing him from accumulating time-based bonuses too, though.

 

Do the adjacent troops have a "tentative" contact of the tank? Does that persist once they move away having spotted it? If, after having spotted the vehicle by entering the same AS, they lose even a "?" marker, that would certainly seem to indicate some sort of glitch.

 

If you replicate the conditions in a quick little scenario (time of day, date (important because of moon phase, I gather), weather, soft factors), does the same thing happen?

Edited March 27, 2015 by womble

[Lt Bull]

Some of the responses here have been as dumbfounding as the actual issue posted!

 

 

 

[Migo441]

Well...  Womble says "working consistently" not working realistically / correctly / appropriately.

[Marc Anton]

Some of the responses here have been as dumbfounding as the actual issue posted!

 

 

Made my day 

[sburke]

Sarcasm can be funny, actually is for me most of the time. It becomes not so funny when folks seem to mis interpret to make the joke.

So again 40m is the absolute most you can do anything. If I were to area fire at a point 10 m in front of your position and was 40 m from that spot you could not return fire, that is how dark your scenario is. If you want to set parameters so extreme as that and play a scenario, have at it. Just please don't start a spotting debate as you are already setting up an extreme condition. No you can not see out to 40 meters, that is not what I said. I said, under the BEST of conditions in your scenario you can see to 40 m. Those best conditions include the unit you are trying to spot firing. You want to see that T34. Go move one of your panthers within 40 m and area fire. You'll find him. Heh heh. At least maybe your second Panther will.

[kohlenklau]

In a follow on scenario in this campaign, LT James T. Bull then disguises himself as a Soviet soldier and enters the engine compartment of the T-34 to obtain the cloaking device for his kampfgruppe!

 

[womble]

Is it a scenario or a QB? I know the phases of the moon are correctly (according to some almanac or another) modelled, so if it's overcast and dead of night and new moon, not being sure whether that hulking shape is a Panther or a T-34 isn't terribly surprising; I've been in darkness, outdoors, where that sort of uncertainty at that sort of distance is entirely comprehensible. If it's a QB, you can only specify the month, so moon phase must either be randomly assigned or arbitrarily constant. Since your pTruppen do have a "tentative contact" marker, they do know something is there, and while your average real life meatTruppe would be able to remember that it was a T-34, that it hasn't moved and is still a T-34, even if it's now pretty much just a black shadow against a black sky, so rather than the spotting being at issue, here we're looking at the shortcomings of pTruppe memory.

 

Which is a long way round of saying: "Yeah, that's sucky, and not how it'd pan out in real life, but it is an extreme case and any simulation will break down in some combinations of conditions."

[Lt Bull]

Which is a long way round of saying: "Yeah, that's sucky, and not how it'd pan out in real life, but it is an extreme case and any simulation will break down in some combinations of conditions."

 

What is so extreme about this case?  Why are other units being spotted when they are not in the same AS?  What cant be any less harder than trying to spot a tank at point blank range even if it is "dark"?

 

It's a night battle with the LOS tool indicating max visibility range is 40m, you have literally 19 good order infantry and a tank forming a 16mx16m square around and surrounding a position where a T-34 tank exists, all in flat open terrain and the T-34 tank literally remains invisible to all no matter how long you wait? (well I think if they don't spot in under 5min they never going to spot it). The only thing here that is extreme is an imagination that makes you think this is an extreme case (relative to this or any other night battle) and that this does not seem to warrant further investigation and explanation.  Besides the situation of having your units actually occupying the AS itself, I can't think of situation in this night battle where the chances/difficulty of spotting an enemy (in this case a massive tank at point blank range) could be any more less extreme!

 

It has already mentioned that this is a save from the "Cross of Iron" campaign. Download the save file which has been provided, load up the game and have some fun trying to spot that T-34.

 

Some things worth keeping in mind:

 

- We talk about the player units inability to spot.  Realise that this must also apply to the CPU controlled T-34 tank (which is fully crewed) because it is not firing back.

- I suspect the T-34 tank may actually be immobilised because when I have actually entered the AS and spotted it I have never seen it move/rotate hull (I know the TacAI can try doing that sometimes)

 

A few things to perhaps consider:

- I understand that units in CM battles that do not move from their starting position get a concealment bonus.  Perhaps this unit is one of those but somehow the bonus applied is excessive (however, you still need to wonder why the T-34 isn't spotting the units that surround it)

- It is possible to extract this map/battle from the campaign and save it as a single scenario.  It may be worth trying to play this as a hotseat to see if more can be revealed about this situation.

- Perhaps the campaign designer might know something we don't about this map/situation eg. what the actual conditions are.

- I have already reported a situation in the first battle of this same campaign where I had a ATG stop firing at a tank target in the open 150m away despite being in good order with ammo. Related? 

 

BTW, there is nothing wrong with testing a sim with very simple straight forwards basic tests to check it's fidelity against their real life counterpart situations and expectations in the hope of exposing flaws that somehow were overlooked.  I believe this one of them.

Edited March 28, 2015 by Lt Bull

[Parker Schnabel]

- I understand that units in CM battles that do not move from their starting position get a concealment bonus.  Perhaps this unit is one of those but somehow the bonus applied is excessive (however, you still need to wonder why the T-34 isn't spotting the units that surround it)

It could help if camouflaged units would show some kind of - well - camouflage.

If this tank has not moved and has such a bonus, then it could be imgined as being hidden under branches and bushes. Especially at night it could happen that one could stand beside it and believe it's a bush. It would be positive, if the behaviour was a result of that bonus. But currently the player has no indication at all, if it's a really cool feature or a bug.

[Lt Bull]

If this tank has not moved and has such a bonus, then it could be imgined as being hidden under branches and bushes. Especially at night it could happen that one could stand beside it and believe it's a bush. It would be positive, if the behaviour was a result of that bonus.

 

Even if we were to acknowledge that, how do you then explain the reason why the T-34 doesn't spot->react to all the units moving around and surrounding it?  They certainly are not "hidden under branches".

[womble]

What is so extreme about this case?  Why are other units being spotted when they are not in the same AS?  What cant be any less harder than trying to spot a tank at point blank range even if it is "dark"?

It's an extreme case becuase the visibility is about as low as it gets without the presence of obsucrants (smoke or fog). The fact that other units are spotting just fine suggests there is something about that specific location which is fudging things up. It might be a map issue.

 

It's a night battle with the LOS tool indicating max visibility range is 40m, you have literally 19 good order infantry and a tank forming a 16mx16m square around and surrounding a position where a T-34 tank exists, all in flat open terrain and the T-34 tank literally remains invisible to all no matter how long you wait? (well I think if they don't spot in under 5min they never going to spot it). The only thing here that is extreme is an imagination that makes you think this is an extreme case (relative to this or any other night battle) and that this does not seem to warrant further investigation and explanation.  Besides the situation of having your units actually occupying the AS itself, I can't think of situation in this night battle where the chances/difficulty of spotting an enemy (in this case a massive tank at point blank range) could be any more less extreme!

They could be less extreme on a clear night with no overcast where the general spotting range is greater. It's extreme in an absolute sense that the conditions could hardly be worse. It might be common in that battle, but the environment for that battle is extreme. I never said it doesn't warrant further investigation: there is something about this specific case which is screwy. But it doesn't necessarily reflect on the spotting model entirely: you're clear that other units see each other as expected.

 

 

It has already mentioned that this is a save from the "Cross of Iron" campaign. Download the save file which has been provided, load up the game and have some fun trying to spot that T-34.

I have already mentioned that I don't have RT. I totally believe what you're saying.

 

 

 

- We talk about the player units inability to spot.  Realise that this must also apply to the CPU controlled T-34 tank (which is fully crewed) because it is not firing back.

- I suspect the T-34 tank may actually be immobilised because when I have actually entered the AS and spotted it I have never seen it move/rotate hull (I know the TacAI can try doing that sometimes)

Yeah, that stood out. The T-34 can't see you either. Not even at PB range. Not even the Panther, and that would definitely have elicited a turret twitch at the very least (the infantry might have been ignored by a Target Armour Arc and high discipline. It's just an outside possibility that your Panther didn't enter a very narrow TAA, but that would be counter to what we know about AI Ambush orders, which are circular).

 

I suspect it might be unmanned. The post-ceasefire map should tell you what state the T-34 is in.

 

 

 

 

- I understand that units in CM battles that do not move from their starting position get a concealment bonus.  Perhaps this unit is one of those but somehow the bonus applied is excessive (however, you still need to wonder why the T-34 isn't spotting the units that surround it)

I believe that's a misunderstanding. The concealment bonus for not moving applies to ATGs, last time I read the manual. And as you say, if the T-34 is manned, it wouldn't be reciprocal.

 

 

- Perhaps the campaign designer might know something we don't about this map/situation eg. what the actual conditions are.

You can look at the conditions yourself. But we already know it's black as the inside of a coal cellar from the maximum LOS ranges. The expected spotting elsewhere points to a map problem.

 

 

 

BTW, there is nothing wrong with testing a sim with very simple straight forwards basic tests to check it's fidelity against their real life counterpart situations and expectations in the hope of exposing flaws that somehow were overlooked.  I believe this one of them.

Only this isn't a simple straightforward basic test. Good tests have as few variables as possible and are tightly controlled. You could set the same thing up in 2 minutes in the scenario editor and see whether it was a map artefact. That would be a way of eliminating a variable and seeing whether it's the general spotting engine that's the issue, or whether it's a more specific bug. You have elected to believe that this is some sort of flaw in a system that has been "overlooked" (rather than a random niggle); that's your choice. You could build evidence to support that.

[poesel]

Two things happen here:

 

1) the graphical representation of the situation is too bright. IRL your screen would mostly just be black with floating icons and the occasional lighting by firing. That would not be much fun to play. So you as player see much more than your soldiers. There the disconnect happens.

I have no idea how to solve that properly.

 

2) spotting is about chances (yes, there is luck in CM). In most of the cases the spotting system works really well IMHO. But in extreme conditions chances seem to get so low that it gets close to never. Night time is in so far a problem as it is a persistant condition and not temporal like smoke or distance. You will see lots of strange spotting in pitch black darkness (if the chance is >0 you might spot across the map but not see your neighbour - unprobable but possible).

Whats missing in CM (I guess) is probabilty 1 for spotting in certain circumstances like being next to a tank as infantry. That thing is so loud so you cannot miss it (well, unless someone is firing a HMG next to you or artillery rains on your head. Blanketing of sounds through other sounds is not modelled AFAIK).

Raising the bonus to spotting for very close distance would help here.

[womble]

I don't think this case is an example of 2) there, Poesel. Other units are being spotted, so the base spot chance isn't so low as to mean entire squads of infantry Spotting for minutes at a time would be statistically likely  continue to "fail to roll a 6". I think there's something squiffy about the AS, or the vehicle. I'm wondering if it's somehow because the vehicle is unmanned. Hopefully someone with RT who gives a hoot could confirm its status.

[sburke]

I give a hoot about RT, but I also don't feel it is time well spent trying to figure out spotting in a scenario that is preset with awful spotting conditions.  The scenario is set with mist at midnight June 25th 1944.  That is as much as I can determine from the briefing.

[A Canadian Cat]

What is so extreme about this case?  Why are other units being spotted when they are not in the same AS?  What cant be any less harder than trying to spot a tank at point blank range even if it is "dark"?

 

It's a night battle with the LOS tool indicating max visibility range is 40m, you have literally 19 good order infantry and a tank forming a 16mx16m square around and surrounding a position where a T-34 tank exists, all in flat open terrain and the T-34 tank literally remains invisible to all no matter how long you wait?

 

Yep, in my opinion you found a bug.

 

- We talk about the player units inability to spot.  Realise that this must also apply to the CPU controlled T-34 tank (which is fully crewed) because it is not firing back.

 

Absolutely the AI uses the same Tac AI for its unit that our do. The only difference there is no brain that can connect the dots and say "hey that makes no sense".

 

- I have already reported a situation in the first battle of this same campaign where I had a ATG stop firing at a tank target in the open 150m away despite being in good order with ammo. Related?

I really doubt it. Just personal opinion though. 

 

BTW, there is nothing wrong with testing a sim with very simple straight forwards basic tests to check it's fidelity against their real life counterpart situations and expectations in the hope of exposing flaws that somehow were overlooked.  I believe this one of them.

Very true. Clearly a defect even if you take if form the point of view of that would rarely happen it is still a bug.

A note for all those that get frustrated by spotting though: finding a bug is actually pretty rare it is much more common to find stuff that is totally fine but "you don't like"^tm which is not the same as a defect in the game.  I'm not throwing that out to detract from finding this bug but to preempt someone from saying "see its all broken" which is just nuts and sour grapes form people who did not get "perfect pixel troops"^tm and instead found their soldiers fallible.

 

Two things happen here:

1) the graphical representation of the situation is too bright. IRL your screen would mostly just be black with floating icons and the occasional lighting by firing. That would not be much fun to play. So you as player see much more than your soldiers. There the disconnect happens.

I have no idea how to solve that properly.

This is really important especially with fog and haze those are not depicted in a way that really resemble reality again to make sure you can actually play the game.

 

[fry30]

I'm not sure who battlefield is paying here anymore... but I'm not necessarily surprised that one of them hasn't addressed this. I've never ran into this, because I don't like games where I can't see the enemy. Unfortunately this is because I don't think things such as haze, overcast skies, or darkness are handled very well by Combat Mission's engine. It is what it is... maybe they could slap a few more icons on the hud, but that's for another day.
 
However, it disturbs me that a major aspect of its [the game/ the company's] engine is not working correctly, albeit under such "unique" circumstances. 
 
If anything, BF could address it. Its truly absurd that that unit is not being located. Relying on this advanced spotting system leads to some really cool battle circumstances, but it also leads to some serious headaches. If anything, units within a 15 meter proximity, lets say 2-3 AS, should be automatically spotted. The only way this might be an exception, and we know the engine can handle this amazing phenomenon, is if A t-34 is sitting on the side of the road on a moonless night with very low visibility and is mistakenly believed to be a wreck or something of the like by CONSCRIPT soldiers, or otherwise compromised pxeltruppen. 
 
But don't expect anything from BF... they're still promoting/tweaking neat things like individual system damage when every AT gun/Tank in the game fires at the vehicle's center of mass. 
 
Some days I really wish Steve would go out into the desert on peyote and then come back and reappraise certain parts of this ****ing masterpiece. Some days I wish he'd have the humility to hire a small team to come in and analyze the game and its code for blemishes and omissions.
 
Its the small things that keep you pinned down, immersed in the game play.

- In CMx1 it was the chance of one of your key teams being fanatic.
-Personalizing your platoons based upon their leader's command qualities and building your attack plan accordingly wasn't just fun, it made you feel like you were commanding real men.
 
There are things that really draw this game apart from its predecessor, however:
-The chance of a ricocheted shell landing among your CO's squad. That the engine is already capable of doing stuff like this is amazing.
- The satisfaction at keeping a well maintained C&C that enables the quick transmitting of key information.
 
- If units were so able, the ability to see 45mm scratches on my Panther from a Soviet Conscript's AT gun, while noticing it's detached treads from the 45mm's Veteran battery mate. Units of different abilities should have their accuracy reflect this (I'm still talking about the big guns!) If BF is gonna model the treads, the radio, the this, the that, they should at least have the gunners attack these as necessary. (And what do we do about turret rings? I've never had a gun jam in place on a tank before.... however, I would understand if they were considered ko'd at that point for our purposes... although I would rather get them out of action and salvage them for points.) 

[Wiggum15]

Is suspect BFC has coded the engine into a "corner" from where there is no way out without changing significant amounts of code.

Everyone who knows something about coding knows what im talking about, the engine as it is now is most like a huge pile code which they already tinkered here and there.

Every programmer knows when he gets this feeling..."**** i have no clue why this is not working"..."**** i will have to start fresh".

I suspect thats the case for the CMx2 engine, its a old rag rug.

As fry30 said, they most likely would at least need a hire a small team to come in and analyze the game and its code for blemishes and omissions.

But again, like he said..don't expect anything from BF. CMx2 is their "cash cow" (no offense !) until they can start fresh with CMx3.

[Parker Schnabel]

I'd recommend to read this thread:

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/111876-hull-down-spotting-disadvantage/

Ignorance, denial, excusions, then admitting observations of a few strange things over the years - until finally several bugs in spotting mechanism were admitted. And the fanbois have hailed - once again - a bugged functionality...

Am I the only one noticing the same in this discussion?

I have mentioned a few parameters that could give the shown results some plausibility. We have learned the camouflage effects are not present. But if they are not present, then the results that are shown are not plausible.

And when I hear the explanation that the model was way too complex to come to quick conclusions, then as an engineer I must laugh. Why? Because the engineer knows: not the complexitiy of a model has any significance if it is good, but there is ONLY one thing, that determines if a model is good: who knows the answer?

If it works as expected. That's the ONLY measurement for the quality of a model. Not it's complexity.

And this understanding of scientific engineering brings up PLAUSABILITY.

So the question is not if a customer understands the complexities of a model. What counts is, when the computer is switched on, that it works as expected. No matter if I could explain it away with hardware settings or driver problems. That's what fans want to hear, but the average customers wants that it works. The excuses are not of interest.

If camouflage effects in this case can be excluded, and switched off trees and smoke, then I miss the ability to accept, that the model in this case has a big plausability problem.

And btw, if the maker of a model does not understand, why his model behaves in a certain manner, then I always am reminded what my professor in theoretical electrical engineering teached us:

What is the best model?

A: the most simple one that works.

So maybe, if their models are too complex for them, they should reduce it to a level of complexity they are able to understand and control?

Edited April 2, 2015 by Parker Schnabel

[Baneman]

...

So maybe, if their models are too complex for them, they should reduce it to a level of complexity they are able to understand and control?

 

Meh, no, I disagree.

If the model is complex, but shows somewhat unrealistic results under extreme conditions ( Spotting is perhaps too difficult in mist, at night ), I'll still take that rather than a dumbing down of the complexity.

 

( I'm not even personally convinced that the result is off anyway - I've been out in the wilderness 200+km from any light pollution and at night it is very very dark. Add mist and I can buy that you wouldn't see a tank right in front of you. Just my opinion ).

[sburke]

Meh, no, I disagree.

If the model is complex, but shows somewhat unrealistic results under extreme conditions ( Spotting is perhaps too difficult in mist, at night ), I'll still take that rather than a dumbing down of the complexity.

 

( I'm not even personally convinced that the result is off anyway - I've been out in the wilderness 200+km from any light pollution and at night it is very very dark. Add mist and I can buy that you wouldn't see a tank right in front of you. Just my opinion ).

Exactly. It is dark with mist which seems to be forgotten in this tirade about BF being in denial. If anyone wants to put this directly to BF then open a trouble ticket. I won't because I know from prior experience what BF requires for hard info that something is wrong versus perception. I am also with Baneman that I am not convinced it is wrong based on playing around a lot with LOS in fog conditions etc. I had posted a while back for CMFI on what extreme visibility conditions did for both actual gameplay and the disconnect for the player in order to allow them to still plot movement orders. I don't see this having changed and the implementation as it is is required to allow us to even play the game.

I also am not interested in being part of one individuals ongoing axe grind with BF that causes them to be banned repeatedly and to keep reappearing under new names. (That is not the OP just to be clear)

[A Canadian Cat]

Is suspect BFC has coded the engine into a "corner" from where there is no way out without changing significant amounts of code.

 

Massive supposition there you don't know a damn thing about it - and neither do I.  I realize that you have been frustrated because you did not get "perfect pixel troops"^tm behaviour.  That is clear.  People post here frequently that spotting is broken half the time they are expecting "perfect pixel troops"^tm and get bent out of shape when they don't get it.  The other half just have it wrong and it is demonstrable that the game is correct.  The rest have found a real bug (yeah the number finding real bugs is that small).   Just because you declare it broken does not mean you are right.

 

You can make an argument that sometimes people posting get a little bit of a smack down but frankly speaking if you look closely you will notice that the get what they give.  Those that ask questions along the lines of "why did this happen" get suggestions and help and those that say "this is broke and I know why - their code sucks" get a very different response.

[Lt Bull]

I again am astounded by this thread and some of comments found within. I too was starting to think the silence in this thread, in light of what is being illustrated, was deafening.

 

I am totally with fry30 on not really liking to play scenarios where the the visibility conditions are reduced because I too don't think the CMx2 LOS engine handles it well (consistently) either. I have enough trouble when it is clear conditions. As a matter of fact, unless I have been missing out on something, I have always wondered why things like time of day/visibility conitions and maximum visibility range isn't just explicitly listed somewhere (I would have expected in the Conditions tab) in a scenario.  PS: without going to the scenario editor how do you find that out once you are in a scenario (given the scenario briefing notes offer no clue either)?

 

I noticed last I checked that only two other people besides myself have downloaded the sample saved game to see for themselves. 

 

I've made things even easier for anyone to check things out themselves in case they think this is all exaggerated and made up.  I have provided a link to save file which you can just drop in your Save folder and open up and see for yourself.  

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3k9r1zlzbwv3c5p/Extreme%20but%20totally%20understandable%20LOS.bts?dl=0

 

You will be presented with the following situation when you open up the file:

 

 

As some of you think would be totally plausible and realistic, a T-34 tank actually does exist in the AS being surrounded by what is almost half the available troops the Germans have in this battle.  It will remain forever unspotted (unless units actually enter the AS and  physically tough the tank) despite elsewhere on the map infantry being spotted at close to the maximum spotting range of 40m.

 

I couldn't save a screenshot with it showing but if you try checking LOS/LOF to, across and through this AS you will see that it will always be solid light blue for the 40m range of maximum visibility it seems this scenario has.

 

I really do recommend you check it out yourself and come back here and comment on whether you thin, at he very least, that perhaps something is not quite right.

 

 

If it works as expected. That's the ONLY measurement for the quality of a model. Not it's complexity......So the question is not if a customer understands the complexities of a model. What counts is, when the computer is switched on, that it works as expected.....my professor in theoretical electrical engineering teached taught [  ] us:

What is the best model?
A: the most simple one that works.

 

Good to hear a fellow engineer chiming in to express pretty much basic engineering logic, approach and reasoning here when it comes to designing or understanding any "system" or black box system, which is what CM or any other game basically is for us mere mortals. If the specifications are, in this case, the modelling of realistic LOS conditions in this low light/visibility scenario, then the test of the system is to simply expect realistic output from it.  Internally it can be as simple or as complex as you like, influenced in part by what you are attempting to model and by the particular decisions taken by the designer during development. The K.I.S.S. pathway however is always desired  even when tackling inherently complex design challenges, of which LOS mechanics under any light conditions is.  If it does what it is meant to do, it's typically favorable to another that does the same but is more complex.

 

Is the above situation realistic and consistent with the rest of the scenario/game? Why some are trying to claim it is and suggest it doesn't even warrant further investigation is beyond me.

 

FWIW, I really don't have any interest in BFC spending any time or effort doing anything at all to "fix" things so that when I open/play this particular scenario, such apparently unrealistic LOS situations don't occur. I have already mentioned I don't really like/play low light/visibility scenarios in CM (though this battle is part of The Cross of Iron campaign which I have started) and would be happy enough if BFC dropped all extreme low light/visibility modelling from the game completely and focus on other things.

 

However, if this thread has highlighted a hereto unknown quirk in the LOS mechanic which has undue influence outside of this very example, (similar to what was uncoverd in the "hulldown disadvantage" thread linked on this page), then I would hope something becomes of it.

 

sburke, where is that extreme visibility conditions thread you mention?

Edited April 4, 2015 by Lt Bull

[Lt Bull]

I finally got around to extracting this battle from the campaign file.  I certainly have learnt a bit more about this battle/map and the effect of weather/night conditions  and their effect on visibility as a consequence by opening it up in the Scenario Editor and doing some tests.

 

Much to my surprise, it appears that this battle was designed with scenario parameter conditions that effectively result in units not being able to spot each other unless they physically occupy the same AS (ie, are touching each other) or are able to trace unblocked LOS to an AS occupied by a unit which is firing it's weapon within the "apparent" maximum visibility range of 40m.

 

In other words, non combat visibility is actually reduced to effectively 0 m!

 

For those of you who have not played around with the Scenario Editor before or are not fully aware of all the parameters that contribute to visibility behavior in a CM battle (I wasn't), here are the full range of setting for this battle:

 

 

 

The main factors here affecting visibility appear to be the time of day (of course), the date/year (I think I recall someone mentioning CM actually does simulate moon phases/sunset/sunrise cycles) and the weather. Given all these factors somehow probably interact and most likely determine the actual turn-by-turn LOS mechanics, I would really like to know if the affect of each of these weather conditions on visibility at any given date at any given time is even fully quantifiably understood by BFC, let alone players.  Nothing of the sort is mentioned in the manual.

 

I would never have thought a CM scenario would have ever been created to have these incredibly extreme in game conditions.  For many reasons I shouldn't have to point out, unless somehow certain death was the other option, I can't think of any other circumstances that would compel any combat unit to be mobile and engage the enemy when effective visibility has been reduced to zero.  If anyone else can provide any examples to the contrary, I would be interested to hear them (no illumination assistance at all).  If indeed a pitch black battle is what one really does want to simulate in CM, I would say that doing so would result int he most unrealistic simulation of battle you could get in CM and that is not even considering combat LOS issues like ones mentioned in this thread.

 

It seems that perhaps what is more unrealistic and more to the point here is the fact that we are assessing a scenario/situation where units are trying to engage each other in what I would consider unrealistic conditions.

 

Because I try to avoid these kind of night time battles for the reasons mentioned, I never was sure if the graphical night time illumination effects from burning wrecks actually affected the LOS/illumination/spotting of other units around it or whether it was just cosmetic.  As I kind of expected, I have now confirmed to myself that it is indeed just cosmetic. I understand how complex it would be to model otherwise. CM has a long way to go if it ever wants to seriously model low visibility/dark combat.  My suggestion, don't bother.

[A Canadian Cat]

Ah, I'm not really sure what you thought would happen. I think you found a bug. Now we will have to wait and see if and when it gets fixed. It is a fine and dandy to get all engineering perfectionist on BFC but like any good engineer you have to recognize that attempting to achieve perfection just leads to nothing ever getting completed. So by way of example, looking back, that hull down spotting bug took a really long time before the fix got into our hands. Another example is the one story building entry defect. That one had an extremely high priority and it still took a while before we had the fix. Now this one is a classic example of a corner case. It might even get the "not worth fixing" treatment like @sburke suggests. Even if it does get fixed it could be a while.

At some point soon I'll package it up and make a report but I'm busy with RL most of this weekend.

[sburke]

I finally got around to extracting this battle from the campaign file.  I certainly have learnt a bit more about this battle/map and the effect of weather/night conditions  and their effect on visibility as a consequence by opening it up in the Scenario Editor and doing some tests.

 

Much to my surprise, it appears that this battle was designed with scenario parameter conditions that effectively result in units not being able to spot each other unless they physically occupy the same AS (ie, are touching each other) or are able to trace unblocked LOS to an AS occupied by a unit which is firing it's weapon within the "apparent" maximum visibility range of 40m.

 

In other words, non combat visibility is actually reduced to effectively 0 m!

Umm, that is what I have been saying for several posts now. I'm hurt you didn't believe me.  Well no not really, but you do now get what I was trying to say, perhaps I just wasn't being clear enough.  Ha that is almost a pun.