Improved Spotting: Muzzle Flash!

[CarlWAW]

I think the spotting system works surprisingly well, except in one situation. Sadly this situation is probably the most important one: when guns open fire.

Since I saw the movie about the "Wittmann's Demise"-scenario the shown battle scenes have been staying on my mind because they gave me for the first time ever an incredible insight how important the muzzle flash must have been to spot a gun. Two scenes from the video that portray exceptionally well the importance of muzzle flashes: @ 5:00 and 7:50: Wittmann's Demise movie

The further the distance and worse the vision, the more important the muzzle flash seems to stand out to spot a threat nevertheless. Maybe the unit can't even be seen, but the flash!

 

Currently the muzzle flash seems to be ignored. The best way to spot a gun is to have eyes as close as possible on it. This leads to the IMO quite gamey but hugely successful procedure, to scout ahead with infantry for tanks. Because the spotting distance to the gun does matter much more and the muzzle-flash effect does have no effect, while in reality can be seen from very far away. The worse the visibility, the worse the capability to spot the unit itself, the more important the muzzle flash becomes and stands out (woods, cover, night, haze, distance).

 

Are there discussions or plans to improve spotting in this regard? Honestly I do not like the gamey necessessity to have infantry "sensors" as far as possible ahead of tanks - instead tanks being able to spot muzzle flashes even from far distances very well on their own very much anymore.

IMO hidden and camouflaged AT-guns can be spotted too easily: getting enemy units close enough is the main factor. But if the muzzle flash would be modelled, hidden and camouflaged guns could receive a much higher concealment bonus, therefore becoming extremely hard to spot even when passing by a few meters, but without the negative effect to become too hard to spot once they open fire.

[Wiggum15]

^Many things can be spotted way to easy in CMx2.

You already named hidden AT-Guns but also infantry generally especially while firing from concealed positions.

[CarlWAW]

Good point.

Maybe modelling muzzle flashes could even be applied to infantry units?

[A Canadian Cat]

That's quite the conclusion you jumped to there. Considering how well units that don't shoot stay hidden and how much quicker units that are firing get spotted I am pretty sure muzzel flashes *are* taken into account.

[Warts 'n' all]

"Many things can be spotted ...  "    Not by my bloody troops they can't.

[CarlWAW]

That's quite the conclusion you jumped to there. Considering how well units that don't shoot stay hidden and how much quicker units that are firing get spotted I am pretty sure muzzel flashes *are* taken into account.

Did you read the first post at all before posting?

[poesel]

Muzzle flashes are not ignored. Set up a tank battle in the night. Without firing you can sit in close proximity and you won't spot anyone. The fire a shot and this tank will be nearly immediately spotted by the other tanks. Wait a bit and the tank will vanish again. Just as it should.

If that mechanism works correctly in all other circumstances is a different matter. But the function is in the game.

[CarlWAW]

Muzzle flashes are not ignored. Set up a tank battle in the night. Without firing you can sit in close proximity and you won't spot anyone. The fire a shot and this tank will be nearly immediately spotted by the other tanks. Wait a bit and the tank will vanish again. Just as it should.

If that mechanism works correctly in all other circumstances is a different matter. But the function is in the game.

 

In the starting post I think I clearly described the problem I see and I presented certain concrete examples. I even offered a video example with some extreme examples to everyone who wants to see can see the huge impact a muzzle flash SHOULD have on spotting.

The fact that in game spotting chances go up, if a unit opens fire IMO is NO indication that the muzzle flash effect is modelled at all. How do you come to that conclusion? It just means that the spotting chance goes up, if a unit shoots. Nothing else.

If the muzzle flash was modelled, how is it possible, that guns firing at 1000 m distance are much worse to spot than guns firing at 300 m, if the muzzle flash is clearly visible from both distances? IME spotting is working proportionally to distance. Therefore nothing works better than getting eyes as close as possible. If muzzle flashes would be modelled, that would dramatically change, as soon a gun is fired: it would become potentially visible from much further distances and potentially could even be spotted beyond normal LOS because of the light intensity if the flash.

And before the next strawman is raised I want to make clear: no, I don't mean units should be spotted immediately. But if a muzzle flash was spotted, then at least a unit marker at the potential location should appear almost instantly for the unit which saw the flash.

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2015 by CarlWAW

[A Canadian Cat]

Did you read the first post at all before posting?

???? Yep I was responding to it. I read it again. I just think you are out in left field on this. 

[ASL Veteran]

 

 

The fact that in game spotting chances go up, if a unit opens fire IMO is NO indication that the muzzle flash effect is modelled at all. How do you come to that conclusion? It just means that the spotting chance goes up, if a unit shoots. Nothing else.

If the muzzle flash was modelled, how is it possible, that guns firing at 1000 m distance are much worse to spot than guns firing at 300 m, if the muzzle flash is clearly visible from both distances? IME spotting is working proportionally to distance. Therefore nothing works better than getting eyes as close as possible. If muzzle flashes would be modelled, that would dramatically change, as soon a gun is fired: it would become potentially visible from much further distances and potentially could even be spotted beyond normal LOS because of the light intensity if the flash.

And before the next strawman is raised I want to make clear: no, I don't mean units should be spotted immediately. But if a muzzle flash was spotted, then at least a unit marker at the potential location should appear almost instantly for the unit which saw the flash.

 

 

 

If you agree that the spotting goes up when a unit fires and you don't think that muzzle flash is the reason why, then it would be helpful if you could tell us what reason would you attribute the increased spotting chance to?  It can't be dust because the increase is noticeable in limited visibility conditions.  I'm also not sure taking a position that a gun firing at 1000m should have an equal chance of being spotted to a gun firing at 300m is a very .... well defensible position to take.  It isn't as though a weapon firing is the equivalent of a flare going off.  Muzzle flashes only last a fraction of a second and In normal daylight conditions they are barely, if at all, noticeable.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Muzzle flash is absolutely factored in.

The contention that difficulty in seeing muzzle flash should not scale with distance is unsupported and IMO completely wrong.

Thread is ridiculous.

In reality the ease with which muzzle flash could be seen varied between nations. The Germans used "flashless" powder that made their guns quite hard to spot when firing. This is not modeled in CM and is a possible area for improvement.

[Odin]

 

The fact that in game spotting chances go up, if a unit opens fire IMO is NO indication that the muzzle flash effect is modelled at all. How do you come to that conclusion? It just means that the spotting chance goes up, if a unit shoots. Nothing else.

Your conclusions are incorrect. Muzzle flashes are modelled, if you fire a gun in CM2 - particularly a high calibre one - it will make a huge difference to your opponent's ability to spot the unit that fired. This is the case for both good and bad visibility conditions. Just to emphasise the point, I played a night time scenario recently in hot seat mode (so I got to see what was happening on both sides), and the only way enemy tanks could be spotted at anything over 60-70m  was if a tank fired. Once the tank fired, the other side's tanks with LOS would spot the muzzle flash and have visual contact on the vehicle that fired for 10 seconds or so, before losing the visual contact again. There was no other reason for obtaining such VCs other than muzzle flash, and the same results happened consistantly. As for daytime conditions, its basic CM knowledge not to give away your AT gun positions by opening up on infantry. If they do, they will be spotted very quickly, so best to have them on target armour arcs and wait for enemy armour.

Try it for yourself, and you'll be plesently surprised.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Odin

[Michael Emrys]

This is the case for both good and bad visibility conditions. Just to emphasise the point, I played a night time scenario recently in hot seat mode (so I got to see what was happening on both sides), and the only way enemy tanks could be spotted at anything over 60-70m  was if a tank fired. Once the tank fired, the other side's tanks with LOS would spot the muzzle flash and have visual contact on the vehicle that fired for 10 seconds or so, before losing the visual contact again. There was no other reason for obtaining such VCs other than muzzle flash...

Muzzle report? Not as precise as spotting a muzzle flash, but big guns—and especially late war tanks—made a hell of a bang when they went off. That should narrow down the possible locations of the firing unit quite a bit. I guess what I am saying is that the whole spotting issue is terribly complicated and not the exclusive result of any single factor.

Michael

[Odin]

Muzzle report? Not as precise as spotting a muzzle flash, but big guns—and especially late war tanks—made a hell of a bang when they went off. That should narrow down the possible locations of the firing unit quite a bit. I guess what I am saying is that the whole spotting issue is terribly complicated and not the exclusive result of any single factor.

Michael

To be clear, the vehicle firing was immediately spotted. Sure the sound of the gun would have drawn attention, but this would not allow enemy units to spot and target the tank that fired and gave away its position.

[A Canadian Cat]

Thread is ridiculous

Yep

Perhaps things are a bit different out in left field.  

 

[CarlWAW]

???? Yep I was responding to it. I read it again. I just think you are out in left field on this. 

   Thread is ridiculous.

 

Yep

Perhaps things are a bit different out in left field.  

 

Do you guys think you are something special?

[CarlWAW]

If you agree that the spotting goes up when a unit fires and you don't think that muzzle flash is the reason why, then it would be helpful if you could tell us what reason would you attribute the increased spotting chance to?  It can't be dust because the increase is noticeable in limited visibility conditions.  I'm also not sure taking a position that a gun firing at 1000m should have an equal chance of being spotted to a gun firing at 300m is a very .... well defensible position to take.  It isn't as though a weapon firing is the equivalent of a flare going off.  Muzzle flashes only last a fraction of a second and In normal daylight conditions they are barely, if at all, noticeable.

ASL Veteran,

I think in the case of muzzle flash things gladly are not too hard to nail down: the flash is immediately reflected in the graphics and reaches every unit's eyes with the speed of light. So if a flash is shown and if it creates a reaction, then the reaction function must be highly correlated to the flash event.

I did some testing and here is the (for me not really surprising) result:

Edited December 20, 2015 by CarlWAW

[ASL Veteran]

That's all very interesting Carl, but you haven't addressed the question.  This is what you said above

"The fact that in game spotting chances go up, if a unit opens fire IMO is NO indication that the muzzle flash effect is modelled at all"

If you believe that there is no correlation between muzzle flash and spotting, and if you agree as "fact" that spotting chances increase when a weapon is fired then you need to identify what you think is causing the increase in spotting.  Have you tried any spotting tests under low visibility conditions?  

[CarlWAW]

Asl Vet.,

please no distractions. Don't you find it interesting that there seems to be no correlation between the flash and the spotting of these units?

[Nine-Oh]

I would assume that the flash is a factor as to why a unit is spotted faster, it simply takes a while after the flash occurs  for the unit to be located. A muzzle flash lasts a fraction of time meaning that it would probably be difficult to instantly pinpoint the source at longer distances or during midday.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Nine-Oh

[poesel]

I have changed my mind and agree with Carl. Although his choice of words is a bit inappropriate.

If I get this right then the logic is as follows (all else being equal):
- the chance for spotting a theoretical gun with no sound but flash would be affected lightly by distance
- the chance for spotting a theoretical gun with sound but no flash would be affected heavily by distance

Given that IME that the most predominant factor for spotting is distance one could assume that detection by sound weighs far more than by flash. I guess what BFC does here is to lump both together into one factor that fits for most situations. This is supported by the non-simulation of flashless powder. If there were two different factors BFC could and would have done this right from the start. That they didn't is either because it is too expensive to simulate or they didn't have the necessary data to do it right.

 

[A Canadian Cat]

I would assume that the flash is a factor as to why a unit is spotted faster, it simply takes a while after the flash occurs  for the unit to be located. A muzzle flash lasts a fraction of time meaning that it would probably be difficult to instantly pinpoint the source at longer distances or during midday.

Absolutly spot on. Just because someone saw a flash does not mean they will instantly spot what caused the flash. And the further away it is the harder it will be to spot it even after you are looking in the right place.

Not to mention not everyone will seen each flash especially when it is far a way. Those people who expext perfect sspotting from  their perfect pixel troops (tm) are totally out to lunch and this is just another example in a long line of examples of unreasonable exptations.

[A Canadian Cat]

Do you guys think you are something special?

Nope

[ASL Veteran]

Asl Vet.,

please no distractions. Don't you find it interesting that there seems to be no correlation between the flash and the spotting of these units?

No I don't.  For one thing your test was in daylight and flash isn't going to have much of an effect during situations where visibility is not limited.  If flash has no effect during daylight then I wouldn't be surprised at all.  For another thing, if you have already stated that it is a fact that spotting is increased when a unit fires and you have already ruled out flash then I simply want to know what you think is the cause of the increased spotting.  It is a very simple question and if you continue to avoid addressing it then I have to assume that you are unserious.  If you believe it is sound then that can be tested easily enough by placing a tall wall between the spotting unit and the firing unit so that they can't see each other. 

[ASL Veteran]

I have changed my mind and agree with Carl. Although his choice of words is a bit inappropriate.

If I get this right then the logic is as follows (all else being equal):
- the chance for spotting a theoretical gun with no sound but flash would be affected lightly by distance
- the chance for spotting a theoretical gun with sound but no flash would be affected heavily by distance

Given that IME that the most predominant factor for spotting is distance one could assume that detection by sound weighs far more than by flash. I guess what BFC does here is to lump both together into one factor that fits for most situations. This is supported by the non-simulation of flashless powder. If there were two different factors BFC could and would have done this right from the start. That they didn't is either because it is too expensive to simulate or they didn't have the necessary data to do it right.

 

Flashless and Smokeless powder can be known easily enough.  All you need to know is the chemical composition of the various gunpowders used by the forces involved.  You can then make your case.  The US and British navies were using flashless powders after WW1 but even with flashless powder the muzzle flash is not eliminated entirely and apparently there were storage issues.  Even modern NATO weapons have muzzle flash and I can't believe that German gunpowder technology from WW2 is superior to what is used in NATO weapons today.