Armor far too accurate...

[Wiggum]

...but that does not explain the "insanely unrealistic spotting" of tanks against infantry that some of use complain about.

[WineCape]

...but that does not explain the "insanely unrealistic spotting" of tanks against infantry that some of use complain about.

We have our hands full wrt test scenarios, designed, and in the process being designed, to investigate possible issues spotted/reported on the forums.

Since your issue(s) might impact on various other factors/parameters in the game, it is not always easy to narrow down and identify the issue just on your reported observation. If you can devise a test scenario (not a save movie file) showcasing your encountered issue(s), then your possible issue will carry more weight and will make our workload easier to prioritize it as a bug or a statistical outlier.

Once you are satisfied that the issue reared its head as you've witnessed, please forward your scenario test file to me and I will have a look at it personally (PM in profile). This will also allow me to scrutinize the parameters you have set for your test scenario before I report it and will make it that easier for Charles to decide if it is hairy bug or not.

In the absence of such a test scenario, you either have to wait until we look at it -- if at all if only a very small minority reports this same issue as it might be an outlier result, given other priorities on my/BFC's ToDo list.

Regards.

[LemoN]

I'm not really worried about the spotting capability of tanks as it is, remember that while they have very limited view they also have some incredible optics that will enable them to detect movement far easier in a spot they just happen to look at.

The one thing I'm quite worried about is infantry spotting of tanks at 10m and closer. I've repeatedly had the issue that unsuppressed unhurt (veteran) infantry failed to spot a tank just a couple of meters away in their direct view only to be annihilated by the tank a few seconds later. I know that the "eyes" of each guy are modeled in CMx2, the question is is sound, smell and vibrations modelled taken into account? You know, the stuff that lets you know that there's a tank just behind that wall even if you can't see it. Or the stuff that lets you know there's a tank in plain vew 5 meters in front of you.

[Battlefront.com]

Sound contacts were not present in CM:SF/CM:A, but are now a part of the CMx2 engine with CM:BN.

Close in spotting is intentionally (sometimes) and unintentionally (other times) less sensitive than it would appear it should be. The intentional part is that there's a lot of distractions for any one individual soldier and those distractions can cause obvious things to go unnoticed for a few critical seconds. Think of driving a car and texting at the same time (I hope none of you are idiotic enough to do that ). There could be a donkey wearing a party hat sitting in the road right in front of you and you'd not see it because you weren't actually looking right down the road. Even though you should be

The unintentional part comes from a need to restrict how many times soldiers check for new things. In real life it's theoretically done every millisecond (see above), but that would crush people's computers. So we have to check only every few seconds without prompting, more frequently when conditions warrant more checks. Sometimes this produces a little bit of lag that, theoretically (see above again), shouldn't happen.

We had this problem with CMx1 as well, though we were doing far fewer checks, far less regularly, because the computers of the day couldn't handle nearly what they can now.

Steve

[LemoN]

While I agree that humans can often be distracted and not notice really obvious thing (like two entirely different persons wearing similar clothes changing places and people not noticing it), but I can't think of any situation (unless I'm listening to REALLY loud music on my mp3 player ) where I wouldn't notice a 35 ton steel beast rumble into view. At last not for more that 1 minute.

I can already imagine Wehrmacht soldiers walking around with a gramophone on their shoulders gangsta style listing to "Vor der Kaserne" at 100db.

[Federico]

Hi, Was playing the Daevon training Campaign. I had played CMSF but anyway I wanted to do the training. On the fire drill mission I Fast move the Shermans to make flank shots to the Tiger and Panther tanks that are at the back. Each of the Shermans was able to hit the tanks at least 3 times before arrive at destination. This should not happen right?

Or am I wrong.

Thanks and thanks for the game BFC. Taking aside small details It rocks

[LemuelG]

I played the Huzzar! scenario, and a Panther OHK'd a laterally moving jeep at 1300m (allowances for short term memory fail please), it was a pretty good shot, I didn't feel anything 'wrong' with it.

I watched the trajectory of the shell over and over and it was uncanny how little it dipped even at ranges well over 1km, it's no secret the Panther possessed a superior gun - combined with an experienced crew who may have fired it thousands of times it's gonna be devastating.

From what I have have observed so far, it seems tank crews are extremely precise when laying their gun - I mean that there is very little inconsistency in the way of under/over rotation of turret traverse and gun elevation, I think this may be what people are referring to when they describe it as robotic?

Is human error modeled into the system in that way? I mean, goofing up, that is.. like, an elite crew traverses the turret precisely to the required angle first go, while a green crew needs a couple of cracks at it.. I haven't really had enough experience with the game to be get a sense of it yet.

[~Viajero]

... but I can't think of any situation (unless I'm listening to REALLY loud music on my mp3 player ) where I wouldn't notice a 35 ton steel beast rumble into view. At last not for more that 1 minute.

Really? Try this then:

A 35 ton steel beast rumbling into view within a few meters and miss it may be a stretch but for other less unrealistic scenarios this video makes a point!

[MattMulder]

My armor is quite historically accurate.

Some tanks miss obvious targets while on the move, and sometimes pull masterclass shots . That's ok for me

[Taki]

So are you going to look into it? Is there a Chance that in further Patches this will be fixed? It feels just plain unrealistic and i dont just refer to Cmx1.

The One thing i was so proud of the Game (and still are in many Cases) is that you have to use Real Life WW2 Tactics to make you Pixeltruppen sucseed. You face same desicions and Problems RL Commanders had.

But something feels definatly wrong when Tanks behave like that. I dont mean the Accuracy on Spots but that instant Spotting and Reacting of Tanks on Infantry that is well hidden with Hatch closet.

There where loads of ppl complaining about it.

So i ask again how you see it:

1. Is there a Problem with Tanks Spotting Abilitys Hatch closed?

2. Same with the Accuracy on the Run?

3. And with the Reaction Time of Tanks?

4. Are you going to look at it at all or is "everything allright"?

How are the chances that you change those flaws in the Future?

I have to tell you that i dont want to be rude. The Game is the Best Tactical Wargame that came out for years. CMSF wasnt my Gamestyle to play but i nearly played over 200 Hours in Singleplayer and bought every Game with CM that you brought just to support you with my Bugs. Still with some Problems in it the Game is Great and Fun. Thx to all those Years of CMSF that built the Road to CMBN.

But when you play Multiplayer and look into detail there are some things that need some overlook.

[Wiggum]

@ WineCape

I will have a look, maybe i still have the savegame, but im totally with Taki on that one !

[LemoN]

A 35 ton steel beast rumbling into view within a few meters and miss it may be a stretch but for other less unrealistic scenarios this video makes a point!

Yup, that's why I referenced to stuff like this before.

But a 35ton tank with a roaring engine certainly IS a stretch too far for this one.

[Battlefront.com]

So are you going to look into it? Is there a Chance that in further Patches this will be fixed?

Yes, we are looking into tanks vs. infantry in particular right now. If something needs to be tweaked it will be patched in.

As with everything in the game, we need to be very sure there is a problem before we change anything. The primary reason why is because there's a huge number of possible things to tweak. Unless we see a specific problem, repeated enough times to be statistically relevant, we can't possibly determine what to change or (as importantly) by how much.

It is also important to remind people that gamer perception is often very wrong. I can not count how many times we see one player say "this thing is all wrong. It's too much this way" and then another player say "I agree this thing is all wrong, but it's because it's not enough that way". Very difficult to act on user feedback like this

Steve

[JonS]

But a 35ton tank with a roaring engine certainly IS a stretch too far for this one.

I understand that, even at the best of times, battlefields tend to be quite noisy places.

Which reminds me ... I have some information at home about perceptual distortions reported by soldiers in combat. Deafness is right up there among the effects reported. I'll have to dig that out.

Edit: huh. That proved pretty easy to find

Perceptual Distortions in Combat:

* 85% Diminished sound (auditory exclusion)

* 80% Tunnel vision

four out of five people in combat don't see anything unless it is RIGHT in front of them, and even fewer hear anything.

Overlaid on that are the physiological effects of elevated heartrate (page 10). Blackburn makes the point, in Guns of Normandy that it's not surprising that so few attacks 'succeed'. What's surprising is that any of them do.

[Renaud]

Considering the thousands of hours of play testing that have gone into this thing, I'll want to play a few dozen games before venturing comments to the effect that this or that is right or wrong. Right now im only up to my 6th game. A lot of depth and experience built into this baby, you have to respect that first.

[Battlefront.com]

Considering the thousands of hours of play testing that have gone into this thing, I'll want to play a few dozen games before venturing comments to the effect that this or that is right or wrong. Right now im only up to my 6th game. A lot of depth and experience built into this baby, you have to respect that first.

HERESY!! Burn him, BURN HIM!! Oh wait... I misread your post.

Heh

Seriously, we do appreciate this. It's very, very, VERY easy to see a couple of results in the game and come to some sort of conclusion that there's something wrong. We testers do this all the time, in fact. It's the natural way to direct an examination into something. But the less specific the claim, the less likely it will turn out there is a problem to correct.

As I've said, nothing in CM:BN got more attention than gunnery and it's affect on vehicles. I will say, though, that we probably spent less time testing gunnery against soft targets. So it's not a bad idea to go back and double check some things in that area.

Steve

[Dadekster88]

I understand that, even at the best of times, battlefields tend to be quite noisy places.

Which reminds me ... I have some information at home about perceptual distortions reported by soldiers in combat. Deafness is right up there among the effects reported. I'll have to dig that out.

Edit: huh. That proved pretty easy to find

four out of five people in combat don't see anything unless it is RIGHT in front of them, and even fewer hear anything.

Overlaid on that are the physiological effects of elevated heartrate (page 10). Blackburn makes the point, in Guns of Normandy that it's not surprising that so few attacks 'succeed'. What's surprising is that any of them do.

Pretty accurate imo. Talk to any cop that has been involved in an active shooting incident and you'll learn all you want about tunnel vision. Most of them couldn't even tell you they heard the gunfire but they could swear they were able to track the bullet visually in flight. Adrenaline is an amazing thing.

[ng cavscout]

Pretty accurate imo. Talk to any cop that has been involved in an active shooting incident and you'll learn all you want about tunnel vision. Most of them couldn't even tell you they heard the gunfire but they could swear they were able to track the bullet visually in flight. Adrenaline is an amazing thing.

Auditory exclusion, tunnel vision, loss of fine motor skills, these are all documented in LEO (police) shooting incidents and is why LEO's and soldiers train so hard to build "muscle memory" and instinctive actions. Under stress you typically default to your training.

[dieseltaylor]

JonS without seeing the definitions of tunnel vision and diminished sounds its rather hard to consider the use of these self-reported items from 141 police officers.

Edit: huh. That proved pretty easy to find

Quote:

Perceptual Distortions in Combat:

* 85% Diminished sound (auditory exclusion)

* 80% Tunnel vision

four out of five people in combat don't see anything unless it is RIGHT in front of them, and even fewer hear anything.

For instance tunnel vision may not be "bad". If I am trying to pick out someone firing at me from a section of hedgerow my peripheral vision may be very unimportant to my brain and therefore it ignores the input. So yes I can report tunnel vision - is it relevant?

Diminished sound. Similar reasoning. I am trying to pick out a particular sound. Most of us have travelled in a car trying to identify an odd sound from the vehicle and guess what - you tune out whatever is on the radio or outside noise. Very logical body response and not necessarily bad.

What may be bad is if soldiers/officers are required to give detailed reports of what went on which means they are mentally being inhibited from running on total response. I really have a gut instinct that this information, though true, is actually relevant to WW2 battlefield.

Lets be honest if I knew I had to see a "health professional" and face a lot of serious paperwork if I killed someone I would be highly inhibited. If I have the OK to kill those demon Nazis I can get on with the job. [ In this current age killing the warmongering politicians actually seems a smarter more civilised idea : )]

Regarding the tactical training of US police officers, its an industry, its good to dress it up, I am sure it is effective, and the requirements on police officers to avoid collateral damage is huge. I think its a very nasty situation to be in.

[Taki]

Thx for your Reply Steve.

Hope we can get some looks on the Testing and Tweaking Progress.

[Fūrinkazan]

Hi all,

I was posting on the "my armor far too inaccurate" thread to say that in Barkmann's scenario the Panther killed 12 shermans with only one miss and and it's quiet funny to see how we have totally different opinions on the game.

I totally trust the Battlefront team for the serious search, historical and balistic, they did, and they have a long experience in doing wargames.

I 'm very satisfied by the game on that point.

I used to play Steel Panthers or Close Combat with a lot of pleasure, and tank combat was certainly not 1 % as detailed as in CM.

In those old games, tank were not detailed and i think they had pretty realistic results with also a big part on luck.

I have the same excitement that i had when CMBO came out.

When i think that i was playing 2d games i'm amazed by the details in this game.

When you started years ago with board games and figurines and dice, it's almost incredible. Younger players, who started with computer games may not have the same perception but this is the game i was dreaming of when i was a kid.

If i could change things, i would change the behaviour of tank crews. They act like infantry when the vehicle is destroyed, and i think that was a problem that was fixed in CM 1.

I also think that trees are too resistant, also in CMSF. I was area targeting

infantry with a Marder 20 mm gun . Few shots hit a small wall and destroyed it , and some hit a small tree without effect.

I think that in the first version of CMSF trees were less resistant and were destroyed by light fire like HMG. I don't know why it was changed because that was great compared to CM1.

And it's "just" the base game. I think we can expect great things with modules to come.

I'm dreaming of modified old french tanks, flamethrowers, and why not hand to hand combat abstraction...

[dieseltaylor]

HMG .303 to cut down medium size tree 450 rounds. With carefully aiming and reasonably close - say 50-100metres. : ) Howevver in game it would be random MG shots.

[Fūrinkazan]

Ok for mg shots but for 20 mm or 120 mm ?

I've been reading post about trees resisting to direct hit by heavy weapons.i saw many times trees stopping 20 mm burst or bigger round in cmsf.

Strange when you see how walls are destroyed.

do you know if developers are working on this ?

[acrashb]

For instance tunnel vision may not be "bad".

Tunnel vision / auditory exclusion is always bad. It means losing, to a minor or near-total degree, situational awareness.

Even in a one-on-one fistfight, tunnel vision can cause you to lose awareness of your opponents hands/feet (so you get surprised by a weapon), or of obstacles in your surroundings (so you trip while moving, or get your weapons - hands / feet - tangled up in something and lose the immediate use of them).

In a multi-opponent fight, loss of situational awareness means that something lethal may be coming your way while you focus on the immediate threat - so you get killed when retreat might have been the right thing to do.

Training and experience can lower stress and related effects. I don't think either can eliminate the issue.

[dieseltaylor]

Tunnel vision / auditory exclusion is always bad. It means losing, to a minor or near-total degree, situational awareness.

Your example of tunnel vision is only focussing on short range examples it seems. I have no problem of the hand to hand fight example you give but hand to hand combat was hardly typical fighting in WW2 Europe. Police actions also tend to be very personal.

I do believe evolution has pretty much selected the right traits for man so I would favour a more general theory then it is always "bad". I am sure there are techniques for improving tasks where we use the senses - such as using peripheral vision, half closing eyes etc. Or indeed checking peoples peripheral vision at the get go.

The phrase auditory exclusion sounds all-encompassing but it is actually a useful ability - as any long marries man knows : ). You can distinguish general chatter and important items and I think this must be very similar to ancient man knowing background sounds to important alert inducing noise.

I have no knowledge of modern warfars other than puff pieces on the electronic warrior with this and that comms. stuff. I do feel for the modern soldier where extraneous information may be delivered which has no immediate value. Given the research on how poorly drivers perform during and after mobile calls one does wonder if there is a flaw in the idea of supplying too much information. Possiblythe military feel that they can train out the way human brains have evolved to an acceptable level.

Anyway back to the point. If at range then I do wonder whether studies have shown heightened alert levels also provide greater spotting ability and faster processing of importnat noise cues.

Close range is a differnt kettle of fish.