Bulletpoint

Thanks for the correction.

Yes I think you're right. But it seems like it's a job that would benefit from having more cores, since every single LOS check is independent of the others, so each core could just chug away at the problem, not having to wait for the other cores. In any case, doing LOS checks is not the only thing going on behind the scenes, so I'm not saying having more cores would magically solve things. Amdahl's Law and all that. But I think the engine could already do it, with a bit smaller map sizes. Currently, I think the max size is 8x8km. So going down to 4x4km would mean 1/4 the number of squares. Then each square could be divided into four. From the computer's point of view, I think that would be the same. Going for 4m squares would mean having squads split into smaller teams too, I suppose. So there'd be more independent actors on the field, meaning more AI work too...

Very likely, since most modern computers now have processors with four cores.

I'm in the "Lifeline" mission.. Fifth battle. He's in a separate team from the Platoon HQ. It's called HQ support. He's marked with "Asst."

By the way, does the speed of a tank affect how likely it is to get spotted? I only knew it affected the distance it can be heard...

No worries, I don't see you as being argumentative. I get what you're saying and it makes sense. At the end of the day, what I would like is to have a better understanding of the visibility, so that I would be able to plan ahead better - "when I take this position, I will be able to put tanks on this lille hill, and then they'll have a reasonable chance of spotting enemy armour on the other side of the valley". Not asking for certainty, just a general idea would be great. So, if I had something like a rule that if it's misty and the LOS tool gives blue line till 1000m, that means I'll have a chance of a spot at up to 800m. That's 80 pct of max. Maybe for fog it would be 50%? When I play, I try to work towards that kind of understanding, but I find it challenging.

It's that "somewhat" I'd like to quantify a bit better. Maybe not as a complete chart, but more as a couple of rules of thumb. I know it depends on many variables, but that's not to say there can't be some general guidelines worked out... One thing that keeps boggling me is how much of an impact moving and firing has. It seems a moving tank has a huge extra risk to get spotted. Higher than if it's stationary and fires. If one tank is stationary and an enemy tank moves into LOF, the moving tank will very likely be spotted quite quickly, even at long ranges, in bad weather, and even if it moves up a hill and directly into hull-down position. But again, it's just based on my experience and "feel" for the game. Maybe when I retire I will sit down and test it all out, but as I'm only 38, that hopefully will be a while yet

Does anyone have a document that shows the effects of the different weather conditions on maximum spotting distance, chance to spot, possibly mortar accuracy, etc? Sometimes, the scenario designer will do a helpful note in the briefing, saying "It's late afternoon and foggy. Max LOS is about 200m". That's very useful info, but maybe somebody compiled it into a handy chart? (I know it depends on light levels too, but some basic standardised info based on, say, 1st of August at noon, would be nice...) Made up this example of what I'd like to find: Fog Decreased spotting chance from 50m Max distance to spot stationary vehicle, 120m Max distance to spot firing vehicle, 180m Max distance to spot moving vehicle, 200m Max distance for area fire, 300m And yes, I realise it probably doesn't exist and I'll have to make it, myself

Well they don't show up as in command, and the command lines indicate no C2. I know some German platoons don't have a second in command, but these ones have. Ostensibly. It's the KG Knittel mission.

Currently playing the Peiper campaign, and in one scenario I have some SS Pz. Aufklärung platoons. One of the platoon leaders just kicked the bucket, and I expected the Assistant leader in the HQ Support Team to take over. But it doesn't seem to happen. Is it supposed to? The HQ Support Team has three guys and the leader is marked with "Asst"

Maybe it depends on the target then. Sometimes infantry on open ground will sit up, or stand up, sometimes they will be prone. Never really figured out if there was any logic behind it, or if it's random. But if your targets randomly go prone sometimes, that could make them much harder to spot. Also, did you starndardise the vegetation? The default ground has a random mix of short and long grass, and some weeds.

What did you think of my theory about the way individual troops decide to place themselves at the hedgerow, sometimes going prone and blocking their own view?

They definitely spot worse, but it depends on the vehicle. Some of them are completely blind in certain directions, if they don't have view ports/periscopes.

We agree, but I was talking about buttoned vehicles. If we start giving infantry a negative modifier, but we don't touch the vehicles, then relatively speaking that will boost vehicles relative to the infantry. Not saying it would ruin the game, but it would change the balance.

It probably wouldn't be that difficult to add an extra fatigue factor to the spotting/accuracy calculations, from a programming viewpoint. But finding the right values and playtesting and re-balancing everything might take a lot of time. For example, vehicles would suddenly become much better at spotting, relative to infantry, because the crew would always count as fully rested. So the basic spotting ability of fully rested infantry would have to be increased from what it is now. Or you could decrease spotting for all vehicles, which would then have other side effects... I think it would be a very nice addition to simulate fatigue better though. Would put more emphasis on using transport to keep troops fresh, and to give squads a break once in a while. I used to do that when I started playing, but now I realised there's little point to that.

Are there any modern games with such a disclaimer?

Thanks for doing these tests and posting the results here. About the sometimes extremely long times to spot, I'm wondering if it could have to do with the way individual soldiers will decide to take up position on the hedgerow? Sometimes, a couple of team members will decided to go prone at a hedgerow, which means their LOS is completely blocked in that direction (when using tall bocage -small bocage doesn't have this problem). If a team is small, as is the case with LMG teams and snipers, having one guy blind takes away a lot of the spotting power of that team. Especially if it's the guy with the binoculars.

Yes but if they don't receive the spotting info on time, they will arrive and be sitting ducks for a long time before they spot anything... especially since a moving tank is nearly guaranteed to get spotted. In real life, there's a commanding officer to coordinate these things. He knows there are enemy tanks out there somewhere. But he also knows whether or not they have been spotted yet, and whether or not his TDs have been made aware of their position. He can hold them back until he is positive that they got the necessary info to move in and strike. True, but the graphics of CM are extremely limited compared to real life, and in the end you are only one player with one brain and one set of eyes. In real life, each soldier spots individually, and the combined info flows to the commander. In CM, we play different levels of command simultaneously, and the icons are an abstraction of the way situational awareness flows in a real combat situation. But I agree with you that in many ways, we get too much info. And me posting here is not trying to say your wish is stupid, on the contrary I think it's interesting thinking about game modes that limit the situational awareness further. Just trying to add a couple of other perspectives on it.

I understand your wish for a more 'player limited' gamespace, but at the same time, those icons also tell you about the awareness level of your own units. By hiding the enemy icons, you would not be able to know when spotting information on enemy armour has trickled from your advance scouts to your tank destroyers.

Another option is to keep your tanks in cover while using the decoy infantry to make the Panthers turn their turrets (or even the whole tank), then engage with your Shermans. The Panther turret side is so weak that it can get knocked out by even a rifle grenade (if you're lucky). That means you don't need to make it turn very much before the angle is sufficient to penetrate it with the 75mm gun on the Sherman.

Haven't played the scenario, but here's what I would try: Scout ahead with infantry in the darkness to pick up contact markers for the enemy tanks. Move Shermans as close as possible to the Panther positions, making sure the enemy is in hull down position compared to you. This will make your tanks aim for the turret, and at close range they will be nearly sure to hit. Start area firing with a decoy infantry unit to make the Panthers spot and engage, revealing themselves. Hopefully your Shermans will then return fire, and they should have a chance to penetrate the Panther front turret if you're closer than 300m and hit it straight on.

My clue, again from reading this forum, is that Battlefront is aware that there are problems, but that they can't do anything about them, because they are driver related. As I understand it, they argue that the graphics card companies such as Nvidia do not implement OpenGL well in their new drivers. Probably because OpenGL is not very used any more in mainstream gaming. By the way, here's an article I came across, where they compare a modern game (the new Civilization VI) running on OpenGL on a Mac and DirectX on a Windows PC: "In our tests, the game only achieved about 22 frames per second during an internal benchmark at 1,620 x 1,050 resolution, on medium settings. We ran the benchmark on a 15-inch MacBook Pro with an AMD Radeon Pro 455 graphics card while running in MacOS. The same system hit 66 FPS when we ran the same benchmark on Windows 10." https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/why-mac-gaming-is-still-dead/ By the way, I'm not posting this to belittle mac users, nor to praise PC gaming. I hope Mac users can continue to play the game, too.

It's not. The engine first roamed the land back in the days of the dinosaurs when openGL was the normal thing to use for a game. Driver support for OpenGL is waning, but CM is stuck using it. From what I read on this board, it's because the developers don't have the resources to switch engines. In my experience, no. It runs, but not well. Lots of glitches with shading and shadows flickering on and off. Textures regularly seem to get reloaded (?), leading to temporary freezes. Performance is usually "playable" but varies from smoth to very sluggish. In short, don't expect miracles in CM from newer hardware.

John, have you ever heard of chroma-keying? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_key

I also much prefer to play defence. Because it's something the game can't really do well in single-player, and because I really love playing mind games with my opponent