Lt Bull

The assuming bit is this: That there is "information carried and passed between 1st and 4th Bn in the situation described. I would expect it to go the other way as well, if 4th Bn had spotted something, then that something would "appear" to 1st Bn HQ/units, probably at the same time. As a game mechanic goes, it is all quite cool and well, but what does that really mean in game terms? Practically (apart from Bil's idea on how it could be used with self imposed rules), how does, for example, a 4th Bn unit "knowing" the approximate location of an enemy unit that a 1st Bn has spotted really affect any unit from 4th Bn then spotting the same enemy unit? What difference would it make to the time it may take a 4th Bn unit to spot the enemy unit (given it was within LOS) if it had this "shared information" compared to if it had no information on the enemy unit? If it takes say 60 sec to spot without this information, does it take 60, 50, 40, 30, 20, 10, 5 etc seconds to spot if it did have this information? Has any real reduction in "spotting speed" ever really been properly confirmed/tested? We would only really know this from conducting specific tests and not from casual observation from playing games. Probably the next line of testing.

OK, I was considering the differences between Elite and Iron as discussed here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/116617-suggestion-for-a-better-iron-difficulty/page-2#entry1555904 That's what I thought, so you are just "assuming" that if you move the 1st Bn XO "close enough" to 4th Bn then (eventually) something happens and information is apparently "communicated"/"shared" with them?

Wow, nice intriguing thread and nice testing. C2 in CM has always been a grey area for me to understand. This concept of "spot and report back" via establishment of C2 is new to me. I had no idea that there was even C2 horizontally between two battalions that don't even share the same on map "boss" HQ. So how exactly do you know that in the example you have give, that the 2nC unit of 1st Bn you sent over to 4th Bn "was communicating" to 4th Bn the report of the Marder? There is no C2 indicator except with it's own HQ boss right? I also never knew C2 ceased (at least with infantry units) when they moved?!!? I thought I would have picked up on this a long time ago. PS: I had actually started doing some C2 tests some time ago because I realised that, for any situation, C2 may or may not exist depending on whether the game is played in "Iron" mode or "Elite" mode at least (ie. In Iron mode C2 is more likely not to exist). This is something that I have definitely not seen really mentioned as common knowledge. The implications of this literally mean that the same scenario played in Iron mode may not play out the same in Elite mode. A scenario played in Iron mode will typically mean more units will be out of C2 than if played in Elite mode (or lower). May be worth asking what Skill level you are testing at.

If by your first sentence you mean at least a better explanation/documentation/understanding of LOS spotting mechanics and how they play out in all 13 of the weather conditions and all the multitude of possible combinations you can have of those with the time of day (eg. day, dusk, night, dawn) and date, then yes I would agree. I think the existing "LOS tool" should be a good enough tool for players to use if it is clearly understood what it can and cannot indicate. However, what is missing when you play or even design a scenario (unlike many other wargames) is a clear understanding for what "the maximum spotting range" is within the scenario. It is probably something that should be listed/stated in the scenario (I would perhaps vary during dusk/dawn scenarios of course).

I wasn't necessarily aware that Dropbox required you to have an account for you to download from it. I have made it available here as well http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=04030429642546351112 Thanks to your question, I checked to see if the blue line creep was only happening in the Scenario Editor Deploy Units screen. Well it definitely is also occurring when you load up the scenario to play and give orders for the first turn. It does not happen after the first turn is processed however but something just as bizarre and unexpected does. You will find that between each turn the maximum range to which the blue (and grey) LOS line extends to will vary by up to several hundred metres each turn. This seems to be related to the other observation I had made early regarding the initial maximum range to which the blue (and grey) LOS line extends out when you reload the scenario and check the LOS range (see post #64). Well then those people who do that bitching have not really thought about what kind of things really need to be modeled in the game to provide something approaching a realistic simulation of night/low visibility LOS dynamics. Not modelling/accounting for illumination from burning wrecks/objects/flares etc and all the things that go with that is the elephant in the room (well it's not in the room but you know what I mean). Yes, unfortunately the "illumination" you see graphically seems to be just that, pretty graphics that have no effect on the games LOS mechanics, which by rights really should be clearly stated in the manual. To play a night scenario with burning wrecks lighting up an area having no effect on the ability to spot nearby units is really an all out immersion killer for me. Have trouble understanding how others can kid themselves that night time scenarios are anything but a very poor mans way of playing CM. I can live with playing scenarios that end just on late dusk or start on early down because typically the low light conditions feature for only a shorter amount of time, but once the game is "dominated" and dictated by the low light conditions, the immersion killing begins. It is worth considering just how the game probably deals with trying to simulate the full range of light and visibility conditions available in the Scenario Editor. We know that the general level of "ambient light" is derived from the time of day and date set in the scenario editor. By "ambient light" I am really referring to the light cast on the map by the sun (either directly or indirectly bouncing of clouds like in dusk/dawn situations) of the sun light reflected off the moon. I would think the games LOS mechanics would just assign a number from say 100 (sun directly overhead) to 0 (moonless night). The game might then look at the Weather setting (Clear, Hazy, Thick Haze, Overcast, Light Rain, Heavy Rain etc) for the scenario which would then act as some kind of modifier on top of the global "ambient light" setting. In CMRT there are actually 13 different selections for Weather. I could imagine that perhaps that these settings are "multi variable" settings, in that they may have one parameter that affects the overall global "ambient light" setting (eg. they effectively reduce the overall ambient light that would otherwise be cast on the map such as Overcast) and another parameter that affects the ability for light to penetrate through the air (eg. does the air contain elements that affect the passage of light, for example fog, haze, rain etc). These parameters again would probably have some number/factor assigned to it. There might be another variable at play however because we have 13 weather conditions which really is quite a lot to consider when you consider that last parameter (how clear the air is) essentially is the main thing that differentiates them all (unless some of them of course are just "cosmetic" graphical settings). The game would then have to take all those variables in to account and somehow determine the maximum spotting range to spot "a unit" (stationary or moving), the maximum spotting range to spot "a unit firing" (stationary or moving) and the probabilities of spotting any one of those units at a given range. Keep in mind that the combinations of conditions we are talking about could well be in the hundreds (even thousands) depending on how the game was designed. I appreciate that it could get quite messy especially when there are so many different combinations available. With so many extreme combinations available, it is understandable that in these extreme cases, odd and unexpected LOS behaviors may occur especially if they weren't specifically tested for during the LOS model validation process.

Kind of confused as to what you are suggesting here. For a start I thought the normal procedure for non-inner sanctum BFC posters who believe there may be an issue with the game is to first post it up here at the forums for "peer review" so that they can at least establish that "it is not just them" and the problem can be duplicated by other players (hence the posting of saved files with instructions on how to test and requests for feedback). The issue then seems to have to pass the scrutiny/filter of one of the never really too impressed BFC inner sanctum members who seem to be more interested in denying here is a problem than actually wanting to know if there is a problem. If it can't get past them within the context of open discussion in a public forum, how can you expect the issue to be taken seriously by the helpdesk? Only after it seems the discussion has snowballed/escalated/generated more interest/views/weeks-months pass (I really don't know what it is) will the inner sanctum appear to reluctantly "cave" and suggest a helpdesk ticket be formally raised. Is that not the normally accepted process? If not, please advise what is. It also is quite courteous and informative to keep fellow gamers informed of any potential issues with the game by posting any issues here initially. Isn't that part of the reason why we have these forums? I certainly don't come here to read just how awesome and fun and perfect CM is. Stick to normal light conditions. Tried and results are essentially as you say. Can you please now do the same and let me know if you get the same results with the "blue lien creep" and random max visibility? (see post #64) PS: Could make it easier for people to run the test by issuing all the move orders to the 16 drivers and saving the game as a "save as" rather than a fresh scenario so that all they need to do is load and process the turn with exactly the same orders. Yes that would be good. There is clearly something at least massively misunderstood about LOS mechanics in at last degraded visibility/low light conditions in this game. Certainly having no real documentation to reference/check against is a key contributing factor. At worst there is something not working as expected. Have you read post #64? Have you tried reloading the same night/fog scenario a few times and checked the (if it can be trusted) max visibility range by using the Fire "LOS tool"? Up to 1000m difference each time. And what about "blue line creep"? Yeah, now try imagining ordering a company/battalion to engage the enemy in similar conditions. Could you imagine if you were driving a tank instead in combat? How would you even know where you are going? Seriously, why are we even bothering to consider validating CM LOS mechanics (let alone combat) under the context of the most extremely degraded visibility/light conditions? It's ridiculous to even think CM comes anything close to doing even a reasonable job of simulating combat engagements (not that they probably even happened!) under these conditions as it does in the more normal/standard day/clear visibility conditions. Incredible. The inappropriateness of this comment has already been well explained by the poster it was directed towards. What are you trying to say? I would be happy if BFC just came out and said that they are removing all extreme low light/visibility conditions from the scenario editor and instead focused their attention on improving the LOS mechanics in the more normal light/visibility conditions. Judging by how light/time/conditions can be defined in the Scenario Editor, it just seems that BFC have tried to model LOS and visibility in a way that incorporates quite a few variables that best work and function under normal light conditions. It seems the accuracy/function of the modelling seems to dramatically fail and have unusual results the further the light/visibility conditions degrade. FWIW, there are so many things the CM engine DOESN'T even do that are KEY to even getting close to providing a realistic experience of WW2 night combat. Without modelling the range of illumination sources that you would find under realistic low light/night conditions the whole exercise becomes kind of farcical. eg. light from burning vehicles structures, illumination flares. Not to mention how these sources of light can actually further impair vision depending on the position and facing of a unit relative to the light source. It really is just too complex, why bother. If you are going to do something, do it right and do it well. It seems the current LOS engine comes no where near to what it needs to be. Save ourselves the trouble of caring, and let BFC focus on more important stuff.

I'm sorry if I am confusing you. For want of a shorter term, I mean the targeting line that gets created when you click on a unit and select the "Fire" order. It strictly speaking is not an LOS Tool (I believe) but is meant to be used as such. Haven't check in CMFI or CMBN but I can only assume it is the same engine/mechanics. Is simple to test. I you have downloaded/tested what I have highlighted, I would appreciate it if you let us know about it here. Same goes with the BFC inner sanctum as i believe I read (but can't seem to now find) a post that indicated some LOS issue was found while looking at something else.

In case it isn't clear from this thread, it seems the CM LOS mechanics progressively become unrealistic and inconsistent the more the scenario visibility conditions become worse. My advice is to simply avoid all low visibility scenarios like the one you just played. It has already been shown that even in scenarios where the LOS tool extends out to 40m, units will only spot non-firing units if they move and happen to literally come in to physical contact with each other. Isn't this screenshot enough to make any player looking to play a realistic wargame delete any low visibility battle from their scenario folder? (for those who are new to the thread, yes there actually is a T-34 in the middle there, see post #47 for save file to check for yourself). PS: if it really was that dark and visibility was that bad, what the heck are they doing even trying to engage the enemy, let alone knowing where to walk? They may as well all be blindfolded. It is also incredible that there has been no comment on the "something not right here" (bug?) observations made when using the LOS tool in "low light" scenario conditions as described in detail with supporting evidence/files in posts #50, #58 and #64. One observation was the "blue line creep"...in low visibility conditions, when checking LOS with the LOS tool say across flat open ground, regardless of what the max LOS range is indicated initially, it is possible to have this LOS tool show clear LOS extending the whole length of even the largest maps. The other is that opening and reloading the same night scenario can result in situations where the maximum LOS first reported can vary by at least 1000m. Have yet to know if either of these are CM working as intended.

More testing has reveal more oddities. I thought I was going loony (excuse this other pun). Two things going on here: Load up the following scenario file either as a battle playing as Germans or in the Scenario Editor/"Deploy Axis Units". https://www.dropbox.com/s/0d6ub5j8wg2v7mn/NIGHT%20LOS%20CHECK.btt?dl=0 Select the single man sniper team at the end of the map. Drag a LOS line away from him along the map until it changes to the dark blue/pink line (indicating No Line of Sight). Note the maximum range at which this line is light blue (has clear LOS) Drag the line no just a few meters beyond this maximum range so that it shows the dark blue/pink line (indicating No Line of Sight). Wait a few seconds. This line will soon turn blue indicating LOS Repeat and it will be possible to have the game report clear LOS to spots anywhere on the map which originally indicated no LOS. This is the "blue line creep" I observed occurring. Close and reload the scenario. Repeat the LOS test and note the initial maximum LOS range without trying to get the blue line to creep. This initial maximum range may be significantly different from when you originally loaded the scenario. eg. 2925m, 2145m, 3107m, 2854m etc. Close and reload the scenario to check again if no difference was detected. It seems to be somewhat random each time you load the map after closing it down. Are these intended features of the game?

UPDATE: The "blue line creep" apparently doesn't occur on all first/last quarter moon nights apparently. The date I had when I first observed it was a last quarter moon date (12 July 1944). When I checked the following first quarter moon date (28 July 1944), the "blue line creep" didn't occur and in fact the Max Effective range reported was a steady 399m (cf: at least 2845m during last quarter moon on 12 July 1944). PS: I just check the following last quarter moon date after 12 July 1944 lands on the 11 August 1944. Checking LOS on that date the blue line is solid at 3107m (cf. 2854m). Is CM basing the moon phases on something other than what is being reported here: http://www.calendar-12.com/moon_calendar/1944/august

LOL! I didn't think so, but certainly doesn't stop me from wondering/tinkering with the scenario editor to do a few tests. The first thing that is apparent is just how varied the Max Effective spotting range is (I don't know if sburke was using official BFC terminology for it however, I don't think it is appropriate but I will use it) if you just change the DATE at which a night battle occurs!! I had to consult this page to tell me what the different phases of the moon were back in 1944: http://www.calendar-12.com/moon_calendar/1944/june I then picked days when there was a full moon (100% moon illuminated) and when there was a new moon (0% of moon illuminated), entered them in to the editor and checked what the LOS told me the Max Effective spotting range was. I was surprised by the results. All tests checked from infantry unit on flat grass terrain, "Clear" weather, at 00:00 hrs. On a full moon, the Max Effective spotting range was at least as long as the longest map I could make (which was 4160m in length)! On a new moon, the Max Effective spotting range was 399m! FYI, the scenario we were looking at had a date of 25th June 1944, which according to the website corresponds to what is known as a "waxing crescent" with 22% of the moon illuminated. When I checked the Max Effective spotting range for the 25th June 1944 under similar time and weather conditions, the Max Effective spotting range is also 399m. I decided to check this range during a first or last quarter when the moon was essentially 50% illuminated. Now when I went to check the Max Effective spotting range this time around, i noticed something EXTREMELY odd. It appears that if you drag out the blue LOS line to what first appears to be it's maximum value, then continue to hold it just beyond the point it goes from light blue to darkblue/pink for a few more seconds, the line eventual changes to be light blue at ranges it first showed to be blue/pink! You can do this indefinitely it seems so that the Max Effective range indicated is 100s of metres (I didn't test any further) further from the first spot it reported as appearing to be the maximum range value. Anyway, if I take the first spot where the range appears to be at a maximum, it appears to be around 2845m. I did not know or expect that checking LOS with the LOS tool (at least under these conditions) is a dynamic time dependent activity. I think I should ask here before doing any further tests if this "blue line creep" is expected/intended behavior, or is it a "b" word?

OK, I can see what you were trying to say NOW, but I think you lost me back at post #18. "The Max effective LOS is 40 meters. In other words it is pitch dark, pitch pitch dark, like moonless horror movie evil monster dark. Now that max effective distance is once you know something is there at all. So you have an extremely poor visibility scenario to begin with". This made no sense to me at all given what I was experiencing when I was checking things out in the scenario. It didn't sound like you were telling us anything we didn't already know. "The Max effective LOS is 40 meters. In other words it is pitch dark, pitch pitch dark"....without explaining in detail what you meant by Max effective LOS, I took it as just the range you can spot anything, so how could you call 40m the darkest when it seemed it could have even been 30m, 20m 0m. The phrase "Once you know something is there"? What does that mean? It is so inappropriate and ambiguous in terms of explaining and understanding what the heck was actually going on with the LOS/spotting in that scenario. If you had said something like: "There are two spotting ranges that need to be understood in this and any other CM scenario: 1. The range to spot non-firing units (what I will call something like Max Functional range, this can not be checked in a game other than by experience) 2. The range to spot firing units (what you called Max Effective range, this is what the LOS tool indicates) This scenario just happens to have the Max Effective range operating at 40m and the Functional range at 0m." ...then I would have understood and avoided the confusion. And if you had somehow explained how this night scenario (unlike the majority of others people have probably played) was made to achieve these truly extreme conditions (eg. the date and time set in the scenario editor must have corresponded to a moonless night, combined with a mist weather setting = ), it would have made even more sense to those who were comparing this scenario with experiences with other, less "extreme" darkness night scenario they may have played where these "must be in same AS to spot" conditions not only never existed, but just sound unrealistic anyway. I hope you understand that not being precise and clear discussing an issue as subtle and as poorly understood/documented as this leads to further misunderstanding and confusion.

You were discussing things in what seemed to be more subjective and general terms without revealing further insight in to the situation. When using the LOS tool, it was established that 40m appeared to be the max visibility range, which, despite being considerably low and "extreme" compared to a dawn/day battle, is still not as extreme as a 30m, 20m, 10m or even 0m night battle.. Yes, technically the 40m max visibility range for that scenario was correct, but it was only later revealed that it was only for spotting units that are firing their weapons. Never was this rather important bit of information ever mentioned anywhere. Neither was the fact that indeed the effective non-combat spotting range was actually 0m (or close enough to it). I get what you were trying to say, I hope you understand why it was making no sense without shedding more light (excuse the pun) on what actually was going on with that scenario. PS: I must add that in the above scenario in question, spotting range to non-firing infantry was also 0m. This discussion definitely has revealed a little bit more about how the CM LOS mechanics must work, how the scenario parameters can affect things and to the fact that it all is rather very poorly documented and understood by players at least. I have already mentioned my surprise at the variety of weather conditions that can be selected for a battle. There are 13 for CMRT and CMBN, and 17 for CMFI (it has 4 extra relating to snow conditions). Now one can imagine that somehow, each one of these conditions could have their own unique way of affecting the LOS/spotting mechanics in the game. Perhaps there are more than one parameter relating to each condition (eg. max range spotting moving infantry, max range spotting infantry firing etc). At this stage here, only an exhaustive test would be able to reveal quantitatively how each one of these conditions may affect the LOS/spotting mechanics. Either way, the more conditions and the more parameters associated to each condition there are, the more complex things get, especially when these all then need to interact with the time of day/date conditions. It seems clear that the game treats firing and non-firing units differently as far as maximum spotting range goes. According to this scenarios conditions, the maximum spotting range as reported by the LOS tool seemed to be only applicable to units that were firing. Only when actually playing the scenario would a player ever know the range at which they could actually spot a non-firing unit, which really makes no sense/is totally unhelpful from a scenario designing point of view. To save us all from further exhaustive testing, it would be good to know from BFC under what conditions the LOS tool can be used to indicate maximum spotting range of no-firing units as opposed to firing units. I think all/most of us thought it was for non-firing units. We also know that the game treats moving and non-moving units differently as far as spotting, as well as the different types (sizes etc) of units. However in this scenario under these conditions none of those things seemed to matter. Spotting range of moving non-firing units of all types was 0m. I can be certain of this: given all the condition variables and possible combinations of these with the time of day/date settings, it is not surprising that some of the more "exotic"/less common combinations result in bizarre/unexpected/undesirable LOS/spotting behavior, which is what might still be happening here (if in fact IanL says a bug of some kind might have been discovered). Has anyone done any of the exhaustive LOS/spotting testing needed to fully understand what difference each of the 17 weather variables has on say the maximum range to which the light blue firing line extends out along flat open ground during midday of say 1st May 1944 in Sicily? Or the average time it takes to spot a Sherman tank in open ground at this maximum range? etc??? PS: I have just noticed that under the Description tab in the Scenario Editor, there is a field that can be manually selected called "Daylight" with options Day, Night, Dusk, Dawn. I think however that these are independent to the actually Year/Month/Day/Hour/ Minute settings under the Data tab. Ideally the "Daylight" parameter should be driven by the time of day in the Data tab and not be independent, otherwise it is possible to make a scenario that may be described as a Night battle when in fact it is a day battle.

I finally got around to extracting this battle from the campaign file. I certainly have learnt a bit more about this battle/map and the effect of weather/night conditions and their effect on visibility as a consequence by opening it up in the Scenario Editor and doing some tests. Much to my surprise, it appears that this battle was designed with scenario parameter conditions that effectively result in units not being able to spot each other unless they physically occupy the same AS (ie, are touching each other) or are able to trace unblocked LOS to an AS occupied by a unit which is firing it's weapon within the "apparent" maximum visibility range of 40m. In other words, non combat visibility is actually reduced to effectively 0 m! For those of you who have not played around with the Scenario Editor before or are not fully aware of all the parameters that contribute to visibility behavior in a CM battle (I wasn't), here are the full range of setting for this battle: The main factors here affecting visibility appear to be the time of day (of course), the date/year (I think I recall someone mentioning CM actually does simulate moon phases/sunset/sunrise cycles) and the weather. Given all these factors somehow probably interact and most likely determine the actual turn-by-turn LOS mechanics, I would really like to know if the affect of each of these weather conditions on visibility at any given date at any given time is even fully quantifiably understood by BFC, let alone players. Nothing of the sort is mentioned in the manual. I would never have thought a CM scenario would have ever been created to have these incredibly extreme in game conditions. For many reasons I shouldn't have to point out, unless somehow certain death was the other option, I can't think of any other circumstances that would compel any combat unit to be mobile and engage the enemy when effective visibility has been reduced to zero. If anyone else can provide any examples to the contrary, I would be interested to hear them (no illumination assistance at all). If indeed a pitch black battle is what one really does want to simulate in CM, I would say that doing so would result int he most unrealistic simulation of battle you could get in CM and that is not even considering combat LOS issues like ones mentioned in this thread. It seems that perhaps what is more unrealistic and more to the point here is the fact that we are assessing a scenario/situation where units are trying to engage each other in what I would consider unrealistic conditions. Because I try to avoid these kind of night time battles for the reasons mentioned, I never was sure if the graphical night time illumination effects from burning wrecks actually affected the LOS/illumination/spotting of other units around it or whether it was just cosmetic. As I kind of expected, I have now confirmed to myself that it is indeed just cosmetic. I understand how complex it would be to model otherwise. CM has a long way to go if it ever wants to seriously model low visibility/dark combat. My suggestion, don't bother.

I again am astounded by this thread and some of comments found within. I too was starting to think the silence in this thread, in light of what is being illustrated, was deafening. I am totally with fry30 on not really liking to play scenarios where the the visibility conditions are reduced because I too don't think the CMx2 LOS engine handles it well (consistently) either. I have enough trouble when it is clear conditions. As a matter of fact, unless I have been missing out on something, I have always wondered why things like time of day/visibility conitions and maximum visibility range isn't just explicitly listed somewhere (I would have expected in the Conditions tab) in a scenario. PS: without going to the scenario editor how do you find that out once you are in a scenario (given the scenario briefing notes offer no clue either)? I noticed last I checked that only two other people besides myself have downloaded the sample saved game to see for themselves. I've made things even easier for anyone to check things out themselves in case they think this is all exaggerated and made up. I have provided a link to save file which you can just drop in your Save folder and open up and see for yourself. https://www.dropbox.com/s/3k9r1zlzbwv3c5p/Extreme%20but%20totally%20understandable%20LOS.bts?dl=0 You will be presented with the following situation when you open up the file: As some of you think would be totally plausible and realistic, a T-34 tank actually does exist in the AS being surrounded by what is almost half the available troops the Germans have in this battle. It will remain forever unspotted (unless units actually enter the AS and physically tough the tank) despite elsewhere on the map infantry being spotted at close to the maximum spotting range of 40m. I couldn't save a screenshot with it showing but if you try checking LOS/LOF to, across and through this AS you will see that it will always be solid light blue for the 40m range of maximum visibility it seems this scenario has. I really do recommend you check it out yourself and come back here and comment on whether you thin, at he very least, that perhaps something is not quite right. Good to hear a fellow engineer chiming in to express pretty much basic engineering logic, approach and reasoning here when it comes to designing or understanding any "system" or black box system, which is what CM or any other game basically is for us mere mortals. If the specifications are, in this case, the modelling of realistic LOS conditions in this low light/visibility scenario, then the test of the system is to simply expect realistic output from it. Internally it can be as simple or as complex as you like, influenced in part by what you are attempting to model and by the particular decisions taken by the designer during development. The K.I.S.S. pathway however is always desired even when tackling inherently complex design challenges, of which LOS mechanics under any light conditions is. If it does what it is meant to do, it's typically favorable to another that does the same but is more complex. Is the above situation realistic and consistent with the rest of the scenario/game? Why some are trying to claim it is and suggest it doesn't even warrant further investigation is beyond me. FWIW, I really don't have any interest in BFC spending any time or effort doing anything at all to "fix" things so that when I open/play this particular scenario, such apparently unrealistic LOS situations don't occur. I have already mentioned I don't really like/play low light/visibility scenarios in CM (though this battle is part of The Cross of Iron campaign which I have started) and would be happy enough if BFC dropped all extreme low light/visibility modelling from the game completely and focus on other things. However, if this thread has highlighted a hereto unknown quirk in the LOS mechanic which has undue influence outside of this very example, (similar to what was uncoverd in the "hulldown disadvantage" thread linked on this page), then I would hope something becomes of it. sburke, where is that extreme visibility conditions thread you mention?

Wow, thanks for necro-raising this thread. I somehow missed this intriguing thread back when. It is of great interest to me as I have long questioned some of the CMx2 spotting/LOS/LOF modelling behaviors and even recall discussions on hulldown tanks similar to this in CMx1 days. Now I haven't quite finished reading all the posts (just around half) and processed all the findings and conclusions, but with all the testing and speculation, it occurred to me that there is a very simple tweak that can be made to almost any and all of these tests that will definitely give a better insight to the contributions of the upper hull spotting crew (mainly the commander, gunner, loader) and the lower hull crew (driver, hull MGer/ radio operator) to spotting under the various conditions: in open, partial hull down, hulldown. From what I understand (sorry just read first half posts, scanned the rest), no tests have been done which places the tanks in their respective positions but instead of always having the front of the two opposing tanks face each other (which is always the h case in these tests), you mix it up with these combinations: - hull front facing enemy, turret rotated facing away from enemy - hull front facing away from enemy, turret facing towards the enemy This way you can eliminate the spotting contributions from any of the hull mounted crewmen and that of the gunner completely. I understand that the tank commander can actually still spot to the rear but it is limited. I really think testing under these conditions will shed some new light on understanding what is going on. So now, you can place your two tanks opposite each other, one in open (hull facing rear, turret facing front) and the other in hulldown (can even have hull facing rear, but turret facing front) and compare the results with that of the same situation but hull and turret facing each other and determine exactly what the spotting bonus contribute by the hull crew is. If those who conducted the tests in the first place have saved files of those tests which they can send me, I would be happy to save myself the effort of setting up the tests from scratch and running a set of tests possibly concurrently with others. PS: Also thought about setting up tests where you have an incomplete crew to get more specific results. I can't remember if crew move to fill the roles of their comrades though. Still, worth a look as tests involving selective crew could potentially yield some interesting results.

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

What is so extreme about this case? Why are other units being spotted when they are not in the same AS? What cant be any less harder than trying to spot a tank at point blank range even if it is "dark"? It's a night battle with the LOS tool indicating max visibility range is 40m, you have literally 19 good order infantry and a tank forming a 16mx16m square around and surrounding a position where a T-34 tank exists, all in flat open terrain and the T-34 tank literally remains invisible to all no matter how long you wait? (well I think if they don't spot in under 5min they never going to spot it). The only thing here that is extreme is an imagination that makes you think this is an extreme case (relative to this or any other night battle) and that this does not seem to warrant further investigation and explanation. Besides the situation of having your units actually occupying the AS itself, I can't think of situation in this night battle where the chances/difficulty of spotting an enemy (in this case a massive tank at point blank range) could be any more less extreme! It has already mentioned that this is a save from the "Cross of Iron" campaign. Download the save file which has been provided, load up the game and have some fun trying to spot that T-34. Some things worth keeping in mind: - We talk about the player units inability to spot. Realise that this must also apply to the CPU controlled T-34 tank (which is fully crewed) because it is not firing back. - I suspect the T-34 tank may actually be immobilised because when I have actually entered the AS and spotted it I have never seen it move/rotate hull (I know the TacAI can try doing that sometimes) A few things to perhaps consider: - I understand that units in CM battles that do not move from their starting position get a concealment bonus. Perhaps this unit is one of those but somehow the bonus applied is excessive (however, you still need to wonder why the T-34 isn't spotting the units that surround it) - It is possible to extract this map/battle from the campaign and save it as a single scenario. It may be worth trying to play this as a hotseat to see if more can be revealed about this situation. - Perhaps the campaign designer might know something we don't about this map/situation eg. what the actual conditions are. - I have already reported a situation in the first battle of this same campaign where I had a ATG stop firing at a tank target in the open 150m away despite being in good order with ammo. Related? BTW, there is nothing wrong with testing a sim with very simple straight forwards basic tests to check it's fidelity against their real life counterpart situations and expectations in the hope of exposing flaws that somehow were overlooked. I believe this one of them.

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

That is an amazing save file! I and Marc must just be really unlucky then because every time I load up that save (maybe 15 times now) and tried stuff, like take a 10 man veteran team and plotted a fast/quick/move or slow path through the AS where the T-34 exists, they will only ever start spotting it (sometimes only temporarily) at least after they are literally occupying the same AS as the tank and even after the troopers start diverting their movement around the "unseen" tank and begin moving past it. I have not go them to spot the tank unless at least some of the team actually occupy the same AS and would be literally touching the tank. If I create a string of way-points to form a square path around the AS with the tank in it (ie. it ends up being a 16m x 16m square path with the tank in the middle (there is a building in the way so i just make them walk back the other way) they still won't spot the tank. I have also taken one of the unbuttoned good order veteran Panthers and plotted a SLOW movement path through the AS with the T-34 in it and it will only ever start spotting the T-34 after it has diverted it's movement around the "unseen" tank by which time the T-34 is now behind it. The spotting of course disappears once the tank stops scraping the sides of the T-34 as it passes by it. Good thing it's been said there is nothing wrong here and everything working as it should. But hell I must be very unlucky with this spotting thing.

Nice pickup. Wow, odd it took this long to be reported.

Hi Christian, Nice research and referfences. If you are specifically trying to create a CM scenario/map that simulates every and all of the forms of bocage defenses no matter how common/rare they actually were (like the ones that seem to have been prevalent around Hill 192/St Lo), then I can understand that it is more difficult to do so. Yes, Hill 192/St Lo area seems to be the exception. Did it happen elsewhere? Enough for it to be modeled in CMx2? It does say hedge (not hedgerow or bocage). Can't really be sure of what exactly was going on there without further information. Love that reference BTW, cool how the pages turn too! I'm not lazy, here are the photos: From photo alone it is difficult to determine how much was dug out (vertically down or in to the hedgerow) or whether the hedgerow was thin enough anyway to punch a slit through. Looks like it was a standing position but where is the natural ground level? Again a bit hard to work out exactly what is going. In top photo, is that the defensive or attacking side of the hedgerow? No hedgerow is visible in the bottom photo. Not disagreeing or disputing your claims here at all. If I would send anyone over to France to demonstrate it would be you. Yes it would be cool to even have these more exotic bocage defenses in CM, even if they did just occur at Hill 192/St Lo.

Oh, that's too bad. Unfortunately the only thing that has value in this discussion in evidence, something you don't want to provide for some reason....arrogance? spite? If you can't discuss without presenting at least some evidence, perhaps find another thread. Here... Why did you describe it as a "simple" hole? It is not that. Do you know what the dictionary says about that adjective? http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/simple simple (adjective) 1. not involved or complicated; easy to understand or do: a simple problem Have you forgotten what this thread is about? The most typical/common/expected type of entrenchment used by Germans in the bocage of '44 and how CMx2 simulates it. It is my understanding that a typical solider does dig his own entrenchment using the equipment and tools he typically has access to, making what ends up being a typical entrenchment. If you are talking about exceptional cases (even without presenting any evidence at all), please make it clear to all that you are actually referring to the exceptions. Yeah, well the only assumption made that is mine is the size of the slot/hole. The thickness and composition of bocage is as per references already cited. Not sure what the point is of bringing up these rather conservative assumptions given nothing else has been presented. I am guessing you are suggesting something like this: You are unbelievable. Its your own head from your own ass that needs to be extracted. This thread really is about understanding how Germans typically used entrenchments in the bocage in 1944 and whether CM simulates it well enough. If you want to go and talk without evidence about perhaps the handful of instances where they get a little bit more adventurous and created defenses like you have tried to describe but I have illustrated better (I would agree that the St Lo area would be where you would find them) cool, then say that you are. Disingenuous, imposing, ridiculous and insulting? Nice. Just calm down and stop playing the wounded victim. Unbelievable some people. Probably around St Lo.

I will also throw in this other rather odd occurance that has happened twice: I have had infantry in entrenchments take casualties from Russian artillery strikes occurring 290m away! Lethal shrapnel from artillery rounds killing soldiers in trenches 290m away from the point of impact? I can not confirm the calibre of artillery.

Hello, I thought I might give the mega campaign Cross of Iron a go and have been playing the first mission. Looks like I am going to have to reload it and retry :/ Anyway, I have a Regular 75mm ATG that is now down to 4 HE and 10 AP rounds, is in good order, has been engaging tanks normally but now for some reason refuses to engage a tanks if full LOS/LOF that are in the open at ranges around 150m. Here is a link to check yourself. https://www.dropbox.com/s/vz7zp576vjnw7ze/The%20Cross%20of%20Iron%20001%20ATG%20wont%20fire.bts?dl=0 The ATG is on the left German flank. Whats up here?