Is there Validity to these Observations?

[weapon2010]

With his permission, Westland from the blitz forum said I may post his opinions/obsevations regarding the latest 4.0 engine.

 

"The Panthers are a problem in CMx2. I agree.Especially for the US troops.With the Russians and British you have better chances.The problem is the unrealistic behavior of AT Guns.Because a chance to fight the Panthers are AT Guns.Only these can never be set up unnoticed.
When unloading the guns, the gun is pushed around in circles or runs in the wrong direction.That almost always happens to me.Then too far.5 minutes for a 57 mm AT gun ready for fire!
Take a look at footage from the 2nd World War, how fast a Pak cannon was put into position.That did not take a minute.
In the old CM games was such a AT gun after 2 minutes.And unnoticed!!
Then the problem with forests.In Cmx2 tank commanders see through the smallest gap in the rows of trees.Totally unrealistic.Try to spot a camouflaged tank in a dense forest 2 kilometers away.
In city battles the infantry is totally unrealistic.
I noticed that hidden units are recognized immediately.How should that work?
Example.A flame thrower unit lies hidden in the ground floor.Opposite an enemy infantry unit is running into a house.One minute later they inexplicably see my flamethrower squad and open the fire?
At first I thought that was the coincidence.But I've repeated that 20 times and gotet with all nations and different infantry units.
In 90%, the attacker immediately after 1-2 minutes always recognizes the hidden enemy in houses!!!
Imagine something in reality.You are lying hidden under the window.Noiseless.Motionless.The opponent lies 50 meters opposite in a house.After a minute he saw her anyway.How?X-ray vision?
I do not understand that in this game. That's why I reject city battles.
In the old CM games that was more realistic.There, a hidden unit was only discovered when you were very close or when it fired. "

 

Please comment.

[LukeFF]

Some yes, some no. AT guns, for instance, do have a concealment bonus if they are not moved from their positions at mission start.

[weapon2010]

1 hour ago, weapon2010 said:

Only these can never be set up unnoticed.

Then what is he referring to here?

[A Canadian Cat]

I have huge issues with the drama used in his descriptions.

It is possible some of this might be with looking at. My biggest problem is I just don't feel that way so I have zero motivation to dig into anything so open ended. In all cases I have basic questions like when you say hidden do you mean with the hide command? What footage of at guns? The propoganda reels or the parade ground drills? Panthers are a problem?  Yes and? There so many open unknowns and over the top statements I have no idea where to begin.

If anyone feels like they want to play around with the infantry spotting in buildings and provide concrete examples I might have something more interesting to say.

Honestly, much of this has been discussed before. At guns and trees have been discussed before several times.

[sburke]

Pretty much everything Ian said and my experience with infantry in buildings has been almost completely the opposite. 

[Dynaman216]

Couldn't read the first post, the formatting drove me nuts.  AT guns have done some wonky things on me however, setting one up behind a hedgerow shows a LOS except when the game starts...  Moving them a little ways, an action spot or two, should not require packing the thing up - although I grant that allowing it to move a spot or two could be abused with multiple move commands.  Individual crewmen go wandering off when changing direction.  Perhaps some of these have been fixed but I'm gun shy with AT guns (pun intended) to the point where I don't try to move them, or set them up in cover, etc...

[IICptMillerII]

The only thing that irks me about ATGs in game is that once abandoned, the crew can not re-man the gun. I'm sure there is a valid reason why this is the case though.

Everything else in the posted rant is either wrong, or an extreme exception of the regular. 

CM isn't perfect, but honestly, does anything else come close? In my opinion, no. 

[weapon2010]

1 hour ago, Dynaman216 said:

Couldn't read the first post, the formatting drove me nuts.  AT guns have done some wonky things on me however, setting one up behind a hedgerow shows a LOS except when the game starts...  Moving them a little ways, an action spot or two, should not require packing the thing up - although I grant that allowing it to move a spot or two could be abused with multiple move commands.  Individual crewmen go wandering off when changing direction.  Perhaps some of these have been fixed but I'm gun shy with AT guns (pun intended) to the point where I don't try to move them, or set them up in cover, etc...

at gun activity defenitley needs some upgrading, they seem to be much more cumbersome, clumsy in game then some of the videos I have  actually seen in documentries.

Edited December 28, 2017 by weapon2010

[weapon2010]

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

CM isn't perfect, but honestly, does anything else come close? In my opinion, no

 Correct and nope, but like I said before , the more great stuff BF gives us the more we want, and we always apply our own real world mechanical perceptions of how things should play out in our mind realistically,(and that might be next to impossible to program) BF's backbone and niche is realism, so were always striving for that perfect unattainable goal.

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by weapon2010

[DougPhresh]

Spotting in forests is tricky because iirc line of sight is 1-to-1 instead of an abstraction as in the previous engine. As in, trees actually exist as more than just a tree tile on the map. I could be wrong though.

[sburke]

2 hours ago, DougPhresh said:

Spotting in forests is tricky because iirc line of sight is 1-to-1 instead of an abstraction as in the previous engine. As in, trees actually exist as more than just a tree tile on the map. I could be wrong though.

You are correct with one small but impotant factor. The leaves. This is where I think that occasional unbelievable spot factor comes in is the visual representation is not 100% and occasionally allows for some observations that don’t seem plausible. Are they an absolute regular occurrence, no. 

[weapon2010]

 Some things are exact and some things are abstractions, I don't believe that everyone who plays this game knows which ones are and which ones arn't I know I don't. Leads to some visual confusions.

[MikeyD]

I believe it was Patton who instructed his men to NOT attempt to hide in the tree line. It offers no cover and less concealment than one would imagine. The game basically agrees with Patton's assessment that the only reliable cover is terrain features.  If you are doing something and its not working that may be in indication that you shouldn't be doing it. There's also modern war technology. If you're fighting CMBS or CMSF hidden units are subject to detection as IR hot spots, even rather deep into the tree line. Get behind a fold in the terrain, that bush won't conceal you for long.

As to spotting concealed units, a large factor is *unit quality*. The assumption is green units have less noise and movement discipline and are more easily spotted. An elite high-experience unit in contact with a high quality HQ will have the hiding ability of the Predator alien. A rattled green unit out of HQ contact is meat on the table.

I vaguely recall an early war British report coming out of North Africa on anti-tank guns. I believe it said during a battle the average AT gun will get off perhaps 6 rounds before being put out of action. The US had towed anti-tank guns by the battalion in Normandy and you can count the number tank kills by them on your fingers. There are few CM maps where AT gun placement is 'ideal'. If you're inside small arms range you're going to get shot. If they can locate your position you're going to be mortared.

[Dynaman216]

Don't get me started on tree lines, troops (real ones that is) will not setup their AT gun directly behind the largest tree in the forest...   

 

I've had the forest firing effect help and hurt me in the past, it is just a bit wonky.

[c3k]

Here's my commentary...

15 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

With his permission, Westland from the blitz forum said I may post his opinions/obsevations regarding the latest 4.0 engine.

 

"The Panthers are a problem in CMx2. I agree.Especially for the US troops. With the Russians and British you have better chances.The problem is the unrealistic behavior of AT Guns.Because a chance to fight the Panthers are AT Guns.Only these can never be set up unnoticed.

When unloading the guns, the gun is pushed around in circles or runs in the wrong direction.That almost always happens to me.Then too far.5 minutes for a 57 mm AT gun ready for fire!

Panthers were a problem. For everyone. Great flotation, excellent gunnery platform and optics and a killer gun. It seems like the point of this comment is that anti-tank guns should have a better chance against Panthers and, supposedly, other tanks. The comment seems to think that a fast setup time is the tactical key to anti-tank gun effectiveness.

If your anti-tank gun is being setup in view of the enemy tank, you're doing it wrong. They will die. As they should. It doesn't matter if they go in circles. No limbered anti-tank gun being moved across the ground in view of an enemy tank should survive. If they were a threat, then nations would build fleets of mobile anti-tank guns. Wait: they did. They're called "tanks".

Next...

15 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

Take a look at footage from the 2nd World War, how fast a Pak cannon was put into position.That did not take a minute.

In the old CM games was such a AT gun after 2 minutes.And unnoticed!!

Ahh...setup time based on film. Well, a lot of German WWII footage was filled by PK units. "Propaganda Kompanie" is not really something I'd place my tactical faith upon. Does it look cool to see the guys fly off a kubelwagen and snappily spin the towed 3.7cm gun around, push it past the cobblestones, and crouch behind it with a shell in hand? Great. Now, dig a fighting hole for it. Measure the ranges to fixed objects and create a range card. Dig shelters for the men. Stockpile ammo. Lay wire. Camouflage the entire thing. Not good.

Doing a hasty setup? Again, there's more to it than just spinning a shooting. 

Unnoticed? Well, that depends on LOS. CM1 did not use individual units. It was a fudge. 

More...

15 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

Then the problem with forests.In Cmx2 tank commanders see through the smallest gap in the rows of trees.Totally unrealistic.Try to spot a camouflaged tank in a dense forest 2 kilometers away.

A couple things. CM2 allows slight asymmetry in LOS. If a unit has trees nearby, those closest to the unit are ignored. This simulates the tank moving slightly to get a better LOS. The player cannot do this (nudge a tank 30cm to the left). So, the immediate trees don't exist for outgoing fire. They do exist for incoming. Now, seeing through 2km of woods? I've seen some oddities, but nothing like this. I think I have some experience with this game. For certain long-range LOS, the oddity is explained by the "fudge". The game allows a chance of seeing through foliage. This simulates some of the shifting and movement of leaves. Otherwise, we'd have to model each leaf. That would not work.

Sigh. Another....

15 hours ago, weapon2010 said:

In city battles the infantry is totally unrealistic.

I noticed that hidden units are recognized immediately.How should that work?
Example.A flame thrower unit lies hidden in the ground floor.Opposite an enemy infantry unit is running into a house.One minute later they inexplicably see my flamethrower squad and open the fire?
At first I thought that was the coincidence.But I've repeated that 20 times and gotet with all nations and different infantry units.
In 90%, the attacker immediately after 1-2 minutes always recognizes the hidden enemy in houses!!!
Imagine something in reality.You are lying hidden under the window.Noiseless.Motionless.The opponent lies 50 meters opposite in a house.After a minute he saw her anyway.How?X-ray vision?
I do not understand that in this game. That's why I reject city battles.
In the old CM games that was more realistic.There, a hidden unit was only discovered when you were very close or when it fired. "

 

Please comment.

I have not seen this. Did it happen to you? If so, does it happen ALL THE TIME? I have lost track of the number of pixeltruppen who I have sent to their deaths when entering a dwelling in which there were hidden enemy. (To be honest, my pixeltruppen's little lives are of such small consequence, I never count the fallen. Only the brave.) City fights are brutal. If you've really repeated this 20 times, send me the savegame. I'll look at it.

City fights are brutally bloody and, properly done, go through mountains of ammunition. 

The LOS and communications are done very well in CM2. Did you find a loophole? I don't know. Pix and/or savegame would tell. Hidden units stay hidden...if their morale stays up. If the enemy is shooting at their location, it may affect their morale and cause movement.

No game is perfect. But, I have yet to see any game come close to the level of CM2. Can it be improved? Sure. I can't wait for engine 5.

I just don't see anything in the questions/commentary you posted as being an issue. I haven't experienced them the way you've posted.

[weapon2010]

Thanks for the feedback, I will encourage Westland  to read this, he say he doesn't come on here.

[Panzerpanic]

One of my main problem is that the crew will stay calm inside the tank even when it is hit repeatedly whereas in the modern setting one they will run for their life a soon as something look at them funny. 

Even if you have strong armor, you dont know if the next shot will be the good one that will kil you.

 

Also , yes the atg move and set up time are weird , at least for me.

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, weapon2010 said:

Thanks for the feedback, I will encourage Westland  to read this, he say he doesn't come on here.

@c3k's comments were great. Several people have had this conversation with Westland at the blitz before. He seems to be set in his opinion. That was another reason I really didn't feel like going item by item through his thoughts. There are a couple of guys over at the blitz that tried CM2 and have complaints and have gone back to CM1 and that is totally fine BTW. There are a whole bunch of players over there that are happily playing CM1. I think that is great.

Spending time discussing issues that CM1 players see when they move to CM2 is OK too. Discussing the same issues with the same people who are not actually interested in listening. That I don't feel is productive.

[A Canadian Cat]

57 minutes ago, Panzerpanic said:

One of my main problem is that the crew will stay calm inside the tank even when it is hit repeatedly whereas in the modern setting one they will run for their life a soon as something look at them funny. 

Even if you have strong armor, you dont know if the next shot will be the good one that will kil you.

That is just not an accurate picture. In WW2 the crews will pop smoke and withdraw when hit. The trouble is they frequently do not survive that first hit. Couple that with the behaviour that delays said withdrawal if the crew are engaging their attacker. In the modern setting the lazer detection system triggers the withdrawal behaviour. That means tanks in the modern setting more often survive the first shot because they prevent it from happening.

The crew behaviour is essentially the same but the tech means that more modern crews stay alive to be accused of panicking while more WW2 crews die in place to be accused of stoic bravery.

57 minutes ago, Panzerpanic said:

Also , yes the atg move and set up time are weird , at least for me.

I think ken pointed out the error there. Probably the biggest problem with at guns is the move animation means the gun flips around the crew instead of the crew moving the gun. That is a limitation that is not likely going away any time soon.

[Rinaldi]

1 hour ago, IanL said:

The crew behaviour is essentially the same but the tech means that more modern crews stay alive to be accused of panicking while more WW2 crews die in place to be accused of stoic bravery.

 

I laughed - well put. 

[MikeyD]

As to Panthers, mine often have the bad luck of falling victim to a lower-front penetration from an unseen 57mm AT gun. Upper front the shell will bounce. Turret the shell will (most likely) bounce.  Lower bow? 60mm armor is not the same as 80mm. Brits fielded 6 pounder sub-caliber APDS sabot round. It was so effective they went back and reinstalled six pounders into a percentage of Churchills that had already been converted to 75mm to provide some hole-punching capability to the platoon. APSD was NATO's first line of defense for decades until they began fielding APFSDS dart rounds in the late 70s.

[Panzerpanic]

Maybe im just unlucky and i fight against and with crew that have a death wish!(ie. Panther who take 15 shot to the front while the crew is tacking a coffee brake (i guess...))

 

For the atg i can see that the movement seems funny though my problem is more with the set up time of some atg. 

Edited December 28, 2017 by Panzerpanic

[Panzerpanic]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

As to Panthers, mine often have the bad luck of falling victim to a lower-front penetration from an unseen 57mm AT gun. Upper front the shell will bounce. Turret the shell will (most likely) bounce.  Lower bow? 60mm armor is not the same as 80mm. Brits fielded 6 pounder sub-caliber APDS sabot round. It was so effective they went back and reinstalled six pounders into a percentage of Churchills that had already been converted to 75mm to provide some hole-punching capability to the platoon. APSD was NATO's first line of defense for decades until they began fielding APFSDS dart rounds in the late 70s.

For me (when it's something that can reliably bounce shell ) its always the damn barrel who goes and then i find myself with a glorified moving mg.

 

Mmmmm, that talk of the 70 make me think of a CM fulda gap...damn that would be good!

Edited December 28, 2017 by Panzerpanic

[Rinaldi]

You get all sorts with anecdotal evidence and personal opinions. They're useful but only up to a certain point. I occasionally play with a guy who has to the total opposite observation; says his tank crews get "suppressed" at the darndest things, and that not only is it unrealistic, but they should remove the chance for a crew to panic completely ("You can't suppress a tank)! Needless to say we agree to disagree on that topic.

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by Rinaldi

[IICptMillerII]

Anecdotal evidence isn’t. (Spelled out, that reads; “Anecdotal evidence IS NOT evidence.” As in it is not valid) For every example one gives about a Panthers gun being knocked out, or a lucky round penetrating the frontal armor, I can find two other examples of everything going completely right for a Panther, or any tank. 

 

As to crew panic, late in the war a lot of German tanks were soft killed. As in, they were hit with non penetrating rounds that caused the crew to panic and bail. They bailed out because they were inexperienced and didn’t know any better. CM does an exceptional job of simulating this, and morale in general. 

@c3k hit the nail on the head about ATG set up. It’s a whole lot more complicated than just pointing the gun in the right direction. And even that is easier said than done. There is a reason most modern armies abandoned the ATG promptly after WWII ended. 

(PS, always a +1 from me for mentioning CM Fulda Gap!)

Edited December 28, 2017 by IICptMillerII