Lackluster documentation

[Kaunitz]

Oh boy. Now that I'm planning my first H2H CM:BS game, I tried to take a more detailed look at the capabilities of all those units. I admit that I don't have a lot of knowledge about modern warfare, but still: I can't even google most of the stuff I'm searching for. CM:BS desperately needs a better documentation for the units' capabilities. The game manual is lacking in many aspects: 

• For many ATGMs, you can't even find how they work 
• You don't get to know what kind of smoke vehicles pop (and in which pattern), [it would be perfect if the manual gave you info on how many minutes the smoke grenade will be "active"/emitting smoke, whether it degrades/blocks IR/thermal imaging, whether it is fired defensively (close) or aggressively (farther out in front), how many charges the smoke grenade launcher has]
• You don't get to know the spotting devices for most vehicles (and infantrymen). In the game UI, you often only get to see an "IR" entry in the damage section, or - for infantry units - some night vision devices in the equipment section - But what does this actually mean? How does the game handle spotting devices? Magnifiers of all kinds, night vision/rest light, night vision/infrared, thermal imaging? Does the game differentiate those and how? And does it matter where those devices are (gunner/loader/commander/driver positions)? And where the devices are located on the vehicle (locations of periscopes, vision slits, etc). Similar questions arise for infantry: we don't get to know how capable the spotting device is (if the game even differentiates several levels here...?) and, e.g., if it makes a difference if a soldier wears googles or is equipped with a night vision scope on his weapon. Generally speaking, spotting is such an obscure topic in all CM titles, but in CM:BS, it matters even more in WWII titles, due to all the available technology. Right now, the manual does not explain how all that technology is represented in the game. 

If anyone has some knowledge he would like to share, I'd be very thankfull!  But ideally, it should be ingame info, not "real world" info. I primarily want to know how weapons and other equipment works in the game, not in the real world. The lack of documentation limits the fun I get out of the game, since I can't really understand what's going on on the battlefield. Questions like this one pop up all the time: "Was that just bad luck or did I miss some important technical advantage of the enemy vehicle?"

PS: By the way, I also think it would be very nice (in all CM titles) if the manual listed the standard [regular/normal/fi/0] point costs for a unit.

PS1: The BMP-2 (Ukraine) has just 2 crew members? The commander seems to be missing, or is that intended? If the commander is missing, does this degrade the spotting capabilities of the vehicle? (the commander's position has the best spotting devices according to the internet...)

Edited September 21, 2018 by Kaunitz

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Oh boy. Now that I'm planning my first H2H CM:BS game, I tried to take a more detailed look at the capabilities of all those units.

The manual really does not cover that at all. I don't think it really needs to or should. Experience the game and read reliable sorces to learn that.

2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

 

• For many ATGMs, you can't even find how they work 

There are a lot of different ways that individual models work.

2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

•  
• You don't get to know the spotting devices for most vehicles (and infantrymen). In the game UI,.  <snip>(gunner/loader/commander/driver positions)? And where the devices are located on the vehicle 

Yikes that's a lot of detail that would take a lot is space and work to document.

 

2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

If anyone has some knowledge he would like to share, I'd be very thankfull!  But ideally, it should be ingame info, not "real world" info. I primarily want to know how weapons and other equipment works in the game, not in the real world. 

Some of us can answer some questions but but no one knows everything. Since the game stimulates the real world down to the type and location of vision sensors there should be little difference. You *are* asking for detailed documentation about real world equipment.

2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

PS: By the way, I also think it would be very nice (in all CM titles) if the manual listed the standard [regular/normal/fi/0] point costs for a unit.

Meh, might be nice but just use the qb purchase screen. And single vehicles have a different cost from that of a formation. Which number would you like?

2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

PS1: The BMP-2 (Ukraine) has just 2 crew members? The commander seems to be missing, or is that intended? If the commander is missing, does this degrade the spotting capabilities of the vehicle? (the commander's position has the best spotting devices according to the internet...)

Correct. The squad commander sits in that chair when they are on board (actually in the game the highest ranking member of the first unit on board). When the squad is mounted the squad leader is labeled commander. Yes, that significantly increaes the ability for the vehicle to spot. Some people have argued that the commander or at least the platoon commander should stay in the vehicle but then there are command issues for the ground forces. BFC chose to keep the leaders with the dismounts. One thing you can do is split a scout team off from the squad and remont them.

[Erwin]

36 minutes ago, IanL said:

ideally, it should be ingame info, not "real world" info. I primarily want to know how weapons and other equipment works in the game, not in the real world. 

I understand what you are getting at.  Having played a lot of CMBS and the other titles, there are situations where using RL tactics works.  However there are other situations where one has to play vs the game system (or AI) to get a desired result. 

Am not sure why there isn't more info regarding how individual weapons systems works - the manual sometimes doesn't give range info or other valuable guide re how to use the system to best advantage.  But, probably a detailed manual could end up as big as a bible. 

One simply has to play the game a lot and gain experience.  One ends up knowing more than one used to about weapons systems and tactics.  But, always be cognizant that being great at playing the CM2 family of games doesn't mean one is in any way prepared to take over a RL command.  

[Michael Emrys]

56 minutes ago, Erwin said:

But, always be cognizant that being great at playing the CM2 family of games doesn't mean one is in any way prepared to take over a RL command.  

Right. Ninety-nine percent of what it takes to be a good leader never enters the game at all, mainly because most player would find it tedious as hell, and after all, we play for entertainment.

Michael

[sburke]

The problem for CM is I am not sure a manual sized to not be the encyclopedia britannica would cover it. Hell after playing since CMSF I am still learning things. Even if they had a manual covering everything I don’t know that I could commit the time to reading it, but yeah there are many moments I wish something did exist when I have a specific issue. 

Which is where Ian’s thread comes in handy. 

 

[Combatintman]

This is a pretty good one stop shop for kit specifications:

https://publicintelligence.net/us-army-worldwide-equipment-guide/

[Kaunitz]

8 hours ago, sburke said:

The problem for CM is I am not sure a manual sized to not be the encyclopedia britannica would cover it. Hell after playing since CMSF I am still learning things. Even if they had a manual covering everything I don’t know that I could commit the time to reading it, but yeah there are many moments I wish something did exist when I have a specific issue. 

Which is where Ian’s thread comes in handy. 

 

Thanks for the link to Ian's compilation! I didn't know about it. Some very usefull stuff!

I do think that the very basics should be explained somewhere. Playing the game should be about tactics, not figuring out where your units' dead angles are or being unsure about whether you have "reliable" eyes on an area or not. Right now, I really don't know how reliable my observation is - I can search on google what kind of equipment my vehicle has, but then I still don't know if and how that piece of equipment is modeled in the game. Other questions arise when the damage model shots that my IR is "damaged". What does this mean? All devices on all seats? 

----------------------------

About the BMP: It seems to work differently? I have an Ukrainian mechanized platoon (mounted in 3 BMP-2s). Two of the vehicles (1st, 3rd) only have 2 crew-slots (indicated by the blue dots) and never get a commander, even if the squad is in the vehicle. One vehicle (2nd) shows 3 crew-slots (at the cost of one passenger-slot) and always has a commander, regardless of whether a squad is in the vehicle or not. 

---------------------

Abotu point costs: It should show the "out of formation" point costs. It should give you some basic idea about the value of the asset (and the rarity) - also, "in formation" point costs don't differ that much. 

[BTR]

38 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

About the BMP: It seems to work differently? I have an Ukrainian mechanized platoon (mounted in 3 BMP-2s). Two of the vehicles (1st, 3rd) only have 2 crew-slots (indicated by the blue dots) and never get a commander, even if the squad is in the vehicle. One vehicle (2nd) shows 3 crew-slots (at the cost of one passenger-slot) and always has a commander, regardless of whether a squad is in the vehicle or not.

This is a correct implementation of BMP platoon organization. Platoon 2IC never leaves the second vehicle while platoon leader dismounts from the first BMP while the third BMP has infantry squad leader share a vehicle CO role when mounted but also dismounts in combat. I'm not sure Ukraine uses this system though, but we surely do (at least did) over here. 

[Kaunitz]

39 minutes ago, BTR said:

This is a correct implementation of BMP platoon organization. Platoon 2IC never leaves the second vehicle while platoon leader dismounts from the first BMP while the third BMP has infantry squad leader share a vehicle CO role when mounted but also dismounts in combat. I'm not sure Ukraine uses this system though, but we surely do (at least did) over here. 

The problem is: the 1st and 2nd vehicle never get a filled commander slot, even if the respective squads are in the vehicle. So presumably (nobody knows how it really works...) the best spotting devices of those two BMPs are never crewed/active and the right side of the turret is horribly blind against close targets? Maybe it doesn't work like this at all  and everything is more abstract. But in any case I think we should be allowed to know!

Edited September 22, 2018 by Kaunitz

[BTR]

3 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

The problem is: the 1st and 2nd vehicle never get a filled commander slot, even if the respective squads are in the vehicle. So presumably (nobody knows how it really works...) the best spotting devices of those two BMPs are never crewed/active and the right side of the turret is horribly blind against close targets? Maybe it doesn't work like this at all  and everything is more abstract. But in any case I think we should be allowed to know!

Crew and infantry are handled as entirely separate classes I think, so they can't cross over and thus the commander position remains empty. Just one of the many approximations in the way transports and dismounts work. To many the ambiguity of the systems in CMx2 is a large part of the charm. After all, figuring things out for yourself is the only freedom anyone really has.

[MikeyD]

I'm not sure how written documentation could inform you which vehicles have lousy situational awareness because of rudimentary optics and badly thought out crew workload. That's something you learn by doing. I'm reminded of T34/76 in CMRT, the commander/gunner position switching back and forth between roles. Its awkward in the game because its awkward in real life.

BFC would need to produce manuals the size of the encyclopedia Britannica to provide sufficient documentation. Google had taken over that job long ago. If BFC provided detailed write-ups on everything players would only argue over the details based on what they found on Google. So let Google have the field.  Pop-up windows giving (limited) weapons specs would be on the 'nice to have' list (BFC isn't against them on principle) but after playing the game for a week a player would already have a 'seat-of-the-pant' feel for what their weapons are capable of. Don't expect pistols to pierce the walls of large buildings or M72 LAWs to knock out MBTs. You learn as you go. Just recently I was in a scenario using M3A3 Bradley CFV recce vehicles. The infantry recce team dismounted and left the commander's seat vacant. Oh! Okay, I think I knew about that but had forgotten.

[Kaunitz]

The game really can't be as complicated as many of you seem to suggest? I don't buy "you learn by experience" / "you have to develop a feeling for how things work" / "it's exactly as in real life" advice. The game is an abstraction and it can't be so complicated to provide some basic info on vehicle spotting capabilities (e.g. for each crew position: the arc (°) of LOS/kind of LOS (day/rest light/infra red/thermal imaging) / strength of LOS over distance). This is basic info, I don't think I should have to spend days in the editor trying to set up situations to figure out how vehicles spot.

I don't want to sound rude, but can any of the "experienced" guys here who have already developed the "feeling" tell me how spotting of the BMP-2 works in the game? An example would really help me out. To make it even more precise: What are the effects of the lack of the commander in the BMP-2, if any? Is the spotting just somehow degraded in all directions? Or is the representation very detailed, ie. do the three vision slits of the command seat (turret/right) remain unoccupied/inactive, including the 1PZ-3 day anti aircraft 4xmagnifier sight, the TKN-3B binocular (4.74x day, 4x night), the OU-3GA2 infra red searchlight, the TNP-165A designator? If so, what are the effects? In this case, would you be stuck with the gunner's weaker spotting devices (the driver just has ordinary vision slits)? Can anyone say something on this with certainty? 

Also, what is the effect of having my "IR" (infra red) system damaged? Provided that the game is based on a very detailed representation (per crew seat), are the spotting devices of all seats affected/degraded?

Does the game differentiate between rest light / infra red / thermal imaging? 

Please don't get me wrong. I love the CM series, and I really appreciate all the detail. But in the modern titles, so many technical details are obscure. Neither can you find the technical details in the UI, nor do you get an explanation what kind of devices the game differentiates and how they work. It really prevents me from enjoying the modern titles as much as I could. 

Edited September 22, 2018 by Kaunitz

[BTR]

I'm not one of those "experienced" guys, but I'll give it a shot based on my observations and experience. 

Quote

 What are the effects of the lack of the commander in the BMP-2, if any?

I've not been observing BMP-2 behavior, but I've spent some time looking after BMP-3's. Every position occupied in a vehicle gives more acute spotting. This can be noticed in three stages, with just two men crewing BMP-3, with three men crewing BMP-3 and with additional two MG gunners on the front. I presume this is the same for BMP-2 crewing. 

Quote

Also, what is the effect of having my "IR" (infra red) system damaged?

Less spotting power at night conditions. I'm not sure if it also affect night-time accuracy. 

Quote

Does the game differentiate between rest light / infra red / thermal imaging? 

Yes. Different thermal generations are even handled with spotting acuteness, but I'm not sure about the other two. 

[sburke]

36 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

The game really can't be as complicated as many of you seem to suggest? 

Yes, yes it can.  And consider how many vehicles there are across all the families.  Do you really expect Steve or Charles to stop to write a manual for all that info?

Here is a very small example of what can happen in game and the kinds of questions a player could ask, but BF could most assuredly not answer.  Testing out a scenario for CMSF2.  In this very very minor moment in a larger battle a 2 man scout team from a LAV is on a hillside.  An enemy team of 5 guys comes running past the crest of the hill.  The team guns down the 2 they can see.  The remaining 3 are cowering but eventually get up the nerve to fire upon my guys.  The scouts are suppressed, but not injured.  Suddenly the Sgt leaps to his feet and charges the enemy blazing away with his rifle as the enemy fires back only meters away.  The Sgt pauses to toss a grenade which takes out one of the 3 and suppresses the others.  His side kick then stands as well and opens fire with his rifle.  The Sgt meanwhile has apparently emptied his clip and rather than stop to reload he pulls his pistol.  One of the two remaining enemy makes a run for it and escapes.  The final moment the Sgt shoots the last remaining enemy with his pistol.

Now I could ask how does the TAC AI perform, under what conditions will an NCO on his own charge an enemy, when will he decide to use a grenade?  If he empties the clip of his rifle will he stop to reload or pull his side arm?  What effect will that have on other members of his team?  You could say well those are TAC AI reactions not specific Vehicle capabilities that have to be hard coded and therefore could be on a manual specifying the various LOS and Optical resources.  CM is not going to be a technical manual that covers the dozens of vehicles and their variants to the degree you are asking.  It just is not feasible.  In the above example BF had to program in the POSSIBILITY of the above event occurring, but the number of possible interactions makes it pointless to try and figure the chances of it happening.

Here is what I know of the BMP-2 from playing CM.  It sucks.  It is a battlefield taxi to get your troops into position while protecting them from some arty and small arms fire.  If you ask anymore of it than that, you are screwed.  About the only thing I will use it for is to area fire places to help suppress the enemy hoping something else doesn't kill it.  From Wiki I learned this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-2

The commander's 1PZ-3 sight is specifically designed for anti-aircraft operation and combined with the high maximum elevation of 74 degrees, it allows the 30 mm cannon to be used effectively against helicopters and slow flying aircraft. The turret traverse and elevation are powered and it can traverse 360 degrees in 10.28 seconds and elevate through 74 degrees in 12.33 seconds.

Reloading the BMP-2's 30 mm cannon can be somewhat problematic, and can take up to two hours, even if the ammunition is prepared. Additionally, the cannon is normally only used on the slow rate of fire, otherwise fumes from the weapon would build up in the turret faster than the extractor fan can remove them

 

So yeah it sucks

 

[Kinophile]

Wow that's limited. Autocratic "communism" really knew how to screw the little guy. 

[Kaunitz]

23 hours ago, sburke said:

*snip*

 

I would seperate these two things. For me, how the TAC AI behaves is something  different from how it spots. The tech for those modern vehicles differs on such a wide scale that you can't really tell whether you have some halfway reliable eyeballs on a certain area or not. That's all I'm asking for, really. I do want to know if my vehicle's sight ends after 200 meters during night time or whether it can watch an area at a distance of 500 meters. I think you have to agree that such information is vital. How good a vehicle can spot has a great influence on how you can use it. If you guys can figure this out quickly, I applaud you. But I can't get my head around most of those abbreviations that google gives me when I search for the abbreviation of my vehicle. And some sites are in Russian...

Maybe there is a link between the commander's seat in the BMP being unoccupied and its bad spotting?

 

23 hours ago, BTR said:

I'm not one of those "experienced" guys, but I'll give it a shot based on my observations and experience. 

I've not been observing BMP-2 behavior, but I've spent some time looking after BMP-3's. Every position occupied in a vehicle gives more acute spotting. This can be noticed in three stages, with just two men crewing BMP-3, with three men crewing BMP-3 and with additional two MG gunners on the front. I presume this is the same for BMP-2 crewing. 

Less spotting power at night conditions. I'm not sure if it also affect night-time accuracy. 

Yes. Different thermal generations are even handled with spotting acuteness, but I'm not sure about the other two. 

Thanks. May I ask how you tested the BMP-3 sighting? Maybe I can recreate the test and check out a few selected vehicles and try to draw some conclusions from it. Also interesting to know that the game does differentiate thermal generations. Is that documented somewhere?

Edited September 23, 2018 by Kaunitz

[BTR]

2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

Thanks. May I ask how you tested the BMP-3 sighting? Maybe I can recreate the test and check out a few selected vehicles and try to draw some conclusions from it. 

Not in any particular test environment, but just though campaigns and PBEMs that involved them. I don't exactly know what test can be set up to test the exact spotting variation.  

Quote

Also interesting to know that the game does differentiate thermal generations. Is that documented somewhere?

It's not documented anywhere to my knowledge other than by the fact that M1A2s will out-spot any opponents with mechanically scanned thermal matrices (T-90A, T-72B3, T-90M). 

Edited September 23, 2018 by BTR

[sburke]

5 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

If you guys can figure this out quickly, I applaud you. But I can't get my head around most of those abbreviations that google gives me when I search for the abbreviation of my vehicle. And some sites are in Russian...

Maybe there is a link between the commander's seat in the BMP being unoccupied and its bad spotting?

Heh heh quickly?  Hell no.  There is definitely a connection between the seat being unoccupied and bad spotting.  Spotting is very specific in CM - so much so that a bug that had the Tiger commander seated facing the wrong way lead to horrible spotting for that unit until it was uncovered.

What I was alluding to more was there is just way too much information I could possibly want in this game.  More than I could actually digest.  I gave up a long time ago on trying to know various vehicle armor thicknesses, penetration values of weapons and just fall back on what I generally know.  I don't disagree that having that information is not just useful but critical sometimes.  A BMP commander should generally know under what conditions it will have x distance of visibility. My problem is you could tell me that today and in a month when I pop open a CMBS scenario I am not sure I am gonna remember and I certainly don't want to have to open the manual every time I play a game - mostly because it kills the immersion for me.  So as usual I fall back to -  BMPs spot like the old lady in My Cousin Vinny who needed new glasses.

I am definitely not saying that should be your approach.  We all have our own way of playing CM.  What I am saying is I don't really expect to see from BF anytime soon a manual that would be to the level of depth a lot of players would like.  It would be a tremendous time sink.

[MikeyD]

In wartime the end-users of military equipment do not tend to be hobbyist/specialists on the subject.
Just because you're a T-72M commander doesn't mean you know the manganese content of the steel your tank was built with. AT4, M72 LAW and Panzerfaust each come with written instructions in how-to-use in cartoon form pasted on the weapon, including arrows indicating which direction it fires in. Because the end-users aren't all experts.
My point is 'fog of war' is a big part of simulating warfare. Sometimes you're just not sure exactly how your weapon/vehicle/optics stacks up against the enemy's. That's something only experience will teach you.

[Kaunitz]

12 hours ago, BTR said:

Not in any particular test environment, but just though campaigns and PBEMs that involved them. I don't exactly know what test can be set up to test the exact spotting variation.  

It's not documented anywhere to my knowledge other than by the fact that M1A2s will out-spot any opponents with mechanically scanned thermal matrices (T-90A, T-72B3, T-90M). 

Thanks. I will conduct a few night time tests with various vehicles once I've finished my H2H game. 

9 hours ago, sburke said:

Heh heh quickly?  Hell no.  There is definitely a connection between the seat being unoccupied and bad spotting.  Spotting is very specific in CM - so much so that a bug that had the Tiger commander seated facing the wrong way lead to horrible spotting for that unit until it was uncovered.

What I was alluding to more was there is just way too much information I could possibly want in this game.  More than I could actually digest.  I gave up a long time ago on trying to know various vehicle armor thicknesses, penetration values of weapons and just fall back on what I generally know.  I don't disagree that having that information is not just useful but critical sometimes.  A BMP commander should generally know under what conditions it will have x distance of visibility. My problem is you could tell me that today and in a month when I pop open a CMBS scenario I am not sure I am gonna remember and I certainly don't want to have to open the manual every time I play a game - mostly because it kills the immersion for me.  So as usual I fall back to -  BMPs spot like the old lady in My Cousin Vinny who needed new glasses.

I am definitely not saying that should be your approach.  We all have our own way of playing CM.  What I am saying is I don't really expect to see from BF anytime soon a manual that would be to the level of depth a lot of players would like.  It would be a tremendous time sink.

sburke, I generally agree with you. I don't like it either, but in the modern titles I do think that looking up in the manual is necessary to a certain extent. Because, as mentioned, the differences in spotting capabilities can be huge as so much technical stuff is involved, which is not visible in the game. The game's UI doesn't even tell you the kind of spotting device your vehicle has (day/rest light/IR/thermal generations). I would really prefer that information to be available in the game itself (I'm not a fan of looking up stuff in the manual either), but if it's just available in the manual then okay. But right now, it isn't even available in the manual. You can't tell other than by testing and "experience"/"feeling". That's not adequate for the high tech stuff you get in modern vehicles.

I want to know whether my vehicle spots like this or like this or like this:

Right now you can only tell if you happen to be lucky enough to find your vehicle's spotting devices on the internet, understand its capabilities, and then hope that the devs used the same source and that the device is not linked to some crew-slot that is currently unoccupied or inactive due to damage to your "IR" subsystem. I can't understand how anyone could argue that this would be too much info for the player. The lack of info on spotting devices feels as if you're given a vehicle with a large gun, but you don't get to know whether it fires HE or AP ammo and how much ammo you have left and whether the muzzle points to the rear of front of the vehicle (but at least you could test that easily in the editor...). The availability of this basic gun-information doesn't break the game either. Quite the contrary is true - it makes the game better. 

5 hours ago, MikeyD said:

In wartime the end-users of military equipment do not tend to be hobbyist/specialists on the subject.
Just because you're a T-72M commander doesn't mean you know the manganese content of the steel your tank was built with. AT4, M72 LAW and Panzerfaust each come with written instructions in how-to-use in cartoon form pasted on the weapon, including arrows indicating which direction it fires in. Because the end-users aren't all experts.
My point is 'fog of war' is a big part of simulating warfare. Sometimes you're just not sure exactly how your weapon/vehicle/optics stacks up against the enemy's. That's something only experience will teach you.

Totally agree. But again, it's not about how the tac AI reacts and fires weapons. I'm mainly concerned about spotting (the weapons are quite easy to understand compared to spotting tech...). And from my point of view, spotting/information is something that tends to get organized on a higher level. If you're a platoon commander and have the task to observe an area, you won't position your vehicles in a spot where they can't see that area. It's not about knowing "exactly" how well my vehicles can spot, it's about "can I observe that area half-way reliably or not at all"? It's about very, very basic knowledge about the base spotting ranges of spotting devices. As mentioned, many different kinds of spotting devices with a very wide range of quality are hidden behind and obscured by a single "IR" entry in the system-damage-tab. In the same vein, as spotting distances increase due to magnifiers, I guess that knowing the spotting angles is much more crucial than in WWII titles.

But I have to agree that it's not exclusively but primarily an issue in night operations. I guess most people prefer daylight scenarios?

Edited September 24, 2018 by Kaunitz

[Hapless]

If you really want to know what your units can see from what position and how fast they're likely to spot, just open the map up in the editor, recreate the exact circumstances, save as a scenario and then play it through a few times. You don't have to redo the entire force, just the relevant units. Then you can test it to death.

Sure it takes a couple of minutes each time, but you get solid usable results and after doing this a few times you'll start getting your head around it.

Depends a lot on how much you want to win But it makes a lot of sense to "wargame" through all your plans this way before the game kicks off anyway to get sort out time-distance questions and, obviously, how effective units are at spotting each other from different positions.

The alternative is to rely wholly on experience... and experience is a harsh teacher because she gives the test first and the lesson afterwards.

[Kaunitz]

Yes, experience is a harsh teacher, especially as CM matches take very long to play through. And also, there is a second person involved so you don't want to screw it up for both of you by making a "silly" mistake, which was not the result of a bad plan or tactical inadequacies, but simply of a lack of information. Especially in small games (my prefered battle size), details matter.

Of course you can test out the very specific situation in the editor. But it feels a bit like cheating to me. The question is whether players could be spared this tedious effort. If only some basic information was available in the game or the manual...

Edited September 24, 2018 by Kaunitz

[Haiduk]

On 9/22/2018 at 1:07 AM, Kaunitz said:

If the commander is missing, does this degrade the spotting capabilities of the vehicle? (the commander's position has the best spotting devices according to the internet...)

BTR and sburke already have given to you full answers, I can add that platoon and squad leaders in real world have much better spotting, when found themselve outside BMP. Of course, BMP has many observation devices and combined day/night sights (one for commander, one for gunner). But its angels of view too narrow: sight BPK 2-42 for gunner and TKN-3B for comamnder are both have 10 degrees only. It symply to get out and observe battlefield with own eyes and binocular. In that time gunner can observe to with own sight, which almost the same like commander.'s  When they spot target, which need supressing with BMP weapon, they communicates with own vehicle by radio or jump to the hull and shout into the hatch: "MG nest on 10 hours!!! No! Not the bush!!! Do you see a tree some right?! Did you see! Here !!! Yebash!!!" For examle, for this purpose on the side hull of tanks there is a telephone, in order an infantry has opportunity to communicate with crew w/o radio and make targeting.  

Edited September 24, 2018 by Haiduk

[DerKommissar]

I wouldn't mind a Combat Mission Encyclopedia, like in ToW or Graviteam. So, you can read and learn about the equipment as it is presented in-game, compare them and maybe even just mess around. Or maybe give every unit in the game a more verbose unit card, like in Wargame. Where it tells you what the viewing angles and spotting modifiers you get. Maybe a cross-section of the vehicle with all its components specified?

I usually look these things up on google and expect them to work the same way in-game. So it's no biggie. Would be helpful for newer players though, especially those unfamiliar with certain equipment. There's always this:

http://combatmission.wikia.com

Really recommend this site, if any of you guys post there: thank you!

Edited September 24, 2018 by DerKommissar

[Kaunitz]

26 minutes ago, Haiduk said:

BTR and sburke already have given to you full answers, I can add that platoon and squad leaders in real world have much better spotting, when found themselve outside BMP. Of course, BMP has many observation devices and combined day/night sights (one for commander, one for gunner). But its angels of view too narrow: sight BPK 2-42 for gunner and TKN-3B for comamnder are both have 10 degrees only. It symply to get out and observe battlefield with own eyes and binocular. In that time gunner can observe to with own sight, which almost the same like commander.'s  When they spot target, which need supressing with BMP weapon, they communicates with own vehicle by radio or jump to the hull and shout into the hatch: "MG nest on 10 hours!!! No! Not the bush!!! Do you see a tree some right?! Did you see! Here !!! Yebash!!!" For examle, for this purpose on the side hull of tanks there is a telephone, in order an infantry has opportunity to communicate with crew w/o radio and make targeting.  

Thumbs up for the info! Now at least I know more about the BMP-2s spotting in the real world (it seems to suck ^^). The question remains if and how this complicated situation is represented in the game, and how you can tell. Just by looking at the vehicle, you don't know that its spotting sucks (all you can see is that it has an entry "IR optics", like 95% of all the vehicles in the game).

Edited September 24, 2018 by Kaunitz