Vanir Ausf B

I mean that there is no reason to put yourself at a spotting disadvantage by going completely hull down when you can get a large amount of cover while still remaining hull up enough for the driver and radio operator to help spot. Does going all the way hull down give an even larger cover advantage? Maybe, but I doubt it's enough more to make it worth the spotting penalty. Well most tanks certainly can. I have no idea about AT guns.

I just posted something to that effect in the other hull down thread (how did we end up with two of them anyways?) But since you brought up anecdotal examples I should make a couple of points: 1) In any "real" in-game situation hull down status is likely to be only one of several factors influencing spotting. 2) There is a very large element of randomness in CMx2 spotting, to the extent that in any encounter who spots who first will often come down to dumb luck. To illustrate how much variation there is even in tightly controlled test situations here is the raw data from my last hull down spotting test. Spot times for fully hull down tanks (grey target line) in seconds (84.5 seconds average) 221 63 58 40 35 47 28 65 39 20 16 56 325 70 30 258 81 45 110 105 93 47 53 98 57 30 250 24 219 44 56 33 86 30 30 112 9 24 21 160 24 146 40 154 55 409 36 43 87 102 16 20 11 47 175 175 78 105 105 13 16 250 26 Spot time for tanks in the open in seconds (57.4 seconds average) 11 35 52 18 31 193 19 92 101 53 5 8 15 24 48 127 142 8 17 3 64 18 106 32 35 83 64 46 27 25 138 25 50 43 17 268 15 9 97 69 17 79 131 37 6 52 159 114 61 32 18 48 52 60 138 37 43 47 27 43 38 56 91

While I think most of us have accepted that there is only so far you can go with realism before you are digging foxholes in your back yard, I think the game can and should be realistic enough to reflect real world tactics. Otherwise we might as well be playing Company of Heroes or StarCraft. BFC seems to feel the same way. Read my sig I did some very quick and dirty testing on first shot accuracy vs. tanks in various degrees of hull down. These are very small sample sizes, mind you, but the difference in results is large enough to be suggestive. 54 shots for each test. First shot only. All tanks are M4A3 wet 76mm EDIT: Range is 400 meters. vs. tanks in the open: Hits: 45 Misses:9 vs. partial hull down behind 1 meter berm Hits: 44 Misses: 10 vs. hull down behind 2 meter berm (blue target line from hull down tanks) Hits:15 Misses: 39 A 1 meter berm really covers only a small amount of the frontal area of a tall tank like the Sherman so it's not surprising there was little difference in that situation. But the 2 meter test proves that you can get a very significant cover advantage without sacrificing spotting ability. So I think the rule of thumb for in-game tactics at the moment is to get your tanks as hull down as you can while still maintaining a blue target line to any areas likely to contain enemy units. Partial hull down is good. Full hull down is bad. I'm sure there is room for improvement here and hopefully BFC looks into it, but that is where we stand for now.

Assuming you get a cover advantage while still having a blue line, yes.

In light of this I re-ran the test without the wall. I got the hull down tanks to be completely hull down -- to the point that the driver and RO have no LOS -- by slightly lowering the elevation of the tanks behind the berm. Seconds to spot enemy tanks: Hull down total: 5321 Hull down average: 84.5 In the open total: 3619 In the open average: 57.4 The tanks in the open spotted faster than when the hull down tanks were behind a wall, but not quite as fast as when they were behind the berm with a blue line in the first test. I'm not sure if this is random variation or if there is a small concealment bonus for being totally hull down. The hull down tanks spotted better than they did from behind the wall but still much worse than the tanks in the open.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. It is my understanding that the Sherman gunner had 2 sights available to him: the direct-sight telescope M70F with 3x magnification and 13° field of view, and a periscope for observation. It is the observation periscope I was asking about because I have read that it enabled a quicker target hand-off from the commander to the gunner than with single sight vehicles such as the Panther. ... Aside from his periscope gun sight ( which is excellent), the gunner has no other type of observation device. He is therefore practically blind,* one of the greatest shortcomings of the Panther. * The gunsight with two magnification stages is remarkably clear and has its field of view clear in the center. The gunsight enables observation of a target and shells out to over 3000 meters. Once the commander has located a target, it takes between 20 and 30 seconds until the gunner can open fire. This data, which is significantly greater than that of the Sherman, stems from the absence of a periscope for the gunner. http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/ EDIT: Steven Zaloga says the gunners sight on the 76mm Shermans was M71D, which had 5x magnification and 13° FOV. The gunner's roof-mounted periscope was an M4A1 periscope with a built-in M47A2 telescope (which had 1.44 X magnification and 9° FOV). "The unitary periscope was an advantage since it allowed the gunner to maintain situational awareness while the tank was traveling by observing the terrain and looking for targets; the Panther gunner was essentially blind until the tank halted. The periscope sight contained an aiming telescope, but against precision targets such as an enemy tank the Sherman gunner would switch to the M71D telescope."

Hey Badgerdog, did the Shermans you use have the original sights? My understanding is that the gunner could use his periscope to scan around independent of where the gun was pointing. Is that correct and what were the limits as to how far it could be turned?

New test results. Identical to the last test except a tall wall was placed in front of the "hull down" tanks. The wall is a bit taller than the 2 meter berm. The target line from the hull down tanks is grey and says "hull down" the entire distance to the opposing tanks. When the tanks in the open target the hull down tanks the tool also says "hull down", so unlike the mixed signs during the previous test everything is in agreement that the tanks are truly hull down. 63 iterations per side. Seconds to spot enemy tanks: Hull down total: 6077 Hull down average: 96.5 In the open total: 4182 In the open average: 66.4 1) Hull down status does give a concealment bonus. The tanks in the open took about 33% longer to spot than in the first test. 2) Hull down status is binary. For spotting purposes there is no such thing as partial hull down. You either are or you are not. To be hull down the entire hull must be down, to the point that the driver and radio operator/hull machine gunner have no LOS. 3) The LOS tool will sometimes lie to you about hull down status. If the target line is blue, you are not really hull down even if the game says you are. 4) The spotting penalty for blocking LOS from the driver and RO/mg gunner is much larger than the concealment bonus for being hull down. Hull down tanks took 95% longer to spot than in the first test. An increase in spotting time was expected, but not this large. 5) The OP was correct. All else being equal, being hull down puts you at a spotting disadvantage vs. tanks in the open. The hull down tank will be about 1/3 less likely to spot first.

Here are screenshots to illustrate those oddities I mentioned earlier. Grey target line, but partial hull down. Blue target line, but fully hull down. Hull down to target... ... or not?

Are Italian troops too easy to use and too flexible in CMFI? How about people try using Soviet troops before declaring a need for major new game features.

Never heard of it, but I did a google search on "German War Machine magazine" and it's the top link.

Concealment and cover bonuses from hull down -- if there are any -- need to be tested separately. Otherwise we don't know if tanks are surviving because they are harder to spot or harder to hit, or are just lucky. We also need control groups of identical vehicles in identical circumstances to compare to. This will allow optics and vehicle size factors to be quantified separately rather than mushed all together.

I will get to the bottom of the hull down issue in the other thread. Once we know what effect it has, if any, as well as what qualifies as hull down in the game, we will be able to isolate other factors in play such as the size of the tank and optics. But certainly, at first blush the numbers look bad for the German optics.

I'm not sure what this would accomplish that the current setup does not. I suppose if we wanted to check differing spotting ability between different unit types -- infantry vs. tank, ect. -- this would be fine, but that's not really the purpose of this test. Having them spot each other instead of a 3rd object does the same thing except with fewer iterations.

Problem is there are huge jumps in point totals when moving from one size QB to the other. The Force Adjustment gives you much more granularity.

I probably should mention the other oddity I found. When targeting the ground about 400 meters in front of the berm the target line is grey, but the tool says the tank is "partial hull down". I'm not sure how that is possible. When the target line is extended out further the target line turns blue but the hull down status changes to full "hull down".

Let's see what the next test turns up. I spotted an oddity during the last one. When targeting the tanks out in the open the targeting tool said the hull down tanks were indeed "hull down". But when the tanks out in the open targeted the hull down tanks the tool said they were "partial hull down". I don't understand why there is a discrepancy. But it could be possible that hull down status is binary, like it was in CMx1, and that in order to qualify the entire hull must be down.

I've noticed this as well. I think it happens on all bridges and I think it began with the release of Market Garden.

Sure. I'll post it up tomorrow night, hopefully.

I could go 1500 or so. Average engagement ranges in the ETO were in the 700-900 meter range so you're getting into rarefied air at that point.

The hull machine gun port is somewhat off-center, granted, but not by much. It is closer to the center than the side. But I will test at 1000 meters or more so there is significant dispersion.

Sherman M4A3 76 early hull down behind 2 meter tall berm vs Sherman M4A3 76 early in the open. Range 800 meters. 52 iterations per side. Total seconds until enemy spotted: Hull down Shermans: 2577 In the open Shermans: 2587 Average # of seconds until enemy spotted: Hull down Shermans: 49.6 In the open Shermans: 49.8 It appears the being hull down confers no concealment bonus at all. Any benefit to being hull down is entirely because of cover making the tank harder to hit. Neither does it appear that being hull down gives a spotting penalty to the hull down tank, provided all 5 crew members have LOS, as was the case in this test. The Sherman is a tall tank and at 800m distance the targeting line is blue, indicating all crew members have LOS. If you put a Panzer IV in the same position you get a grey target line at 800 meters, indicating LOS is blocked for the driver and radio operator. In that situation being hull down would presumably degrade spotting.

Whatever the reason for it, my own impression is that team leaders get hit more often regardless of where they are walking or sitting. The reason it is so irksome is that in many formations the team leader has the squad's only SMG, and since SMGs are near the bottom of the buddy aid weapon acquisition priority once the leader goes down the squad has irrevocably lost a bit chunk of its short range firepower.

I am not 100% sure about this, but I think this is only in effect while plotting indirect fire. Outside of that I think the LOS tool works the same as with other unit types.

I have asked for this a dozen times since the game was released. I've never understood why it's only allowed for one side. There's even an empty spot for it in the UI. It's like they ran out of pixels at the last minute.