Covered Arc spotting benefit - yes/no ?

[Baneman]

Ok, my question kinda got lost in the "180 arc" thread, so re-threading it in the hope that Steve or Phil are still responding

A recent post by ( I think ) a Beta-Tester, said that a Cover Arc DOES NOT provide a spotting advantage, but simply restricts engagement of enemy units to the specified area while spotting continues to be universal.

Is this, in fact, the case ?

The manual states "the target arc increases the chances that units will recognise and engage an enemy threat within the target area quickly"

This seems to imply (to me anyway) that it does confer some spotting advantage ( and I've been using it that way all this time until the recent post stating the opposite ).

It seems a strange design decision to have an "only engage targets here" command that doesn't include an emphasis on looking in that direction.

Although I realise that maybe there's a code limitation that they can't program "extra" spotting cycles in only one area ( feels like a wriggly piece of coding ).

Any chance of official clarification please ?

[Lanzfeld]

Awhile ago I believe Steve talked to Charles and it was discovered that the only spotting bonus extracted from using an arc was from the fact that the unit would face into the arc. So other then because the unit is looking in the arc direction there is no other spotting bonus.

I THINK I have that correct but maybe off.

[Erwin]

Rather an important issue, so hope we see clarification from someone who knows for sure.

[Bil Hardenberger]

I've heard people say no it doesn't effect LOS, but then I hear things like it matters which direction a unit is facing when gaining LOS... all I know is that in many games and in my first BETA AAR (link below) I used covered arcs a lot and consistently got off first, second, third shots and often the enemy tanks never did get a LOS on my tanks.

So in my opinion it does make a difference to focus the attention of your units attention on certain points on the ground with a covered arc.

But then I certainly am not an official voice so don't take my opinion as fact.

[76mm]

The manual states "the target arc increases the chances that units will recognise and engage an enemy threat within the target area quickly"

This seems to imply (to me anyway) that it does confer some spotting advantage ( and I've been using it that way all this time until the recent post stating the opposite ).

Actually, it doesn't imply it, it explicitly states it. If the only benefit is that "the unit would face into the arc", a covered arc is really no benefit at all for a stationary unit, as you could just rotate it and get the same effect. This topic was discussed rather extensively in a thread on the CMBN forum that I started several months ago, and IIRC the conclusion was the same as Baneman's.

[Wicky]

"the target arc increases the chances that units will recognise and engage an enemy threat within the target area quickly"

I think it means like a cricket batsman that it's best to face generally in the direction of the bowler

Watch the ball and keep a low backlift so you can bring the bat to bear on the ball or sumfink

[womble]

If the only benefit is that "the unit would face into the arc", a covered arc is really no benefit at all for a stationary unit, as you could just rotate it and get the same effect.

Which is exactly as it should be, since CAs are there to confine shooting, not enable spotting, it seems. The benefit of the CA over and above a Face order is that they won't shoot too early or at things on bearings they're not supposed to.

Consider, if a CA focused attention within that arc, wrt range as well, your ambushing troops with short CAs, or elements like FOs that aren't meant to be shooting at anything really, apart from in desperation, wouldn't often see anything further away than the ends of their noses, and they certainly don't have trouble with that.

[MikeyD]

I recall awhile ago in CMBN Beta there was a vexing problem with the Tiger I not spotting well from the front. It turned out the problem was with the unseen virtual tank commander sitting sideways in his seat and not facing his forward periscope. Even the old hands had to exclaim "You model things in that level of detail?" If they're modeling particular advantages and disadvantages like persicope placement overlaying it with abstracted advantages has the effect of undoing all their hard work.

[xian]

I recall awhile ago in CMBN Beta there was a vexing problem with the Tiger I not spotting well from the front. It turned out the problem was with the unseen virtual tank commander sitting sideways in his seat and not facing his forward periscope. Even the old hands had to exclaim "You model things in that level of detail?" If they're modeling particular advantages and disadvantages like persicope placement overlaying it with abstracted advantages has the effect of undoing all their hard work.

Personally, I don't think this is entirely true. If the cover arc adds a spotting modifier then it will only improve a Tiger's forward spotting by the same amount as it would any other unit. i.e a Tiger with a cover arc will still be worse at forward spotting than a Sherman with a cover arc.

[Steiner14]

If the commander of a tank is informed to expect enemy armour within eleven to one o clock it seems logical to me, that he will notice it earlier compared to no CA. The bonus should be even bigger for difficult situations, i.e. bad visibility and/or good cover for the enemy.

The smaller the arc, the higher the concentration on a smaller area to recognize the enemy.

My impression is, that narrow CAs help. Sometimes i even used a ruler, to get the orientation of my thin arcs correct, when the tanks will move and reach their expected engagement locations. Hopefully this was not a placebo all the time and the meticulous work for the dustbin.

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

IIRC BFC stated that covered arcs do not affect spotting. Having the gun pointed in the right direction helps though once you´ve spotted the enemy.

[MikeyD]

i.e a Tiger with a cover arc will still be worse at forward spotting than a Sherman with a cover arc.

Internal German documents at the time criticized Tiger (and Panther for that matter) for lacking a seperate roof periscope for the gunner like Sherman. Field commanders in their initial assessment of Tiger strongly recommended adding a gunner station persicope but no action was taken. So there's a reason why Tiger has worse forward spotting ability. It may even get worse with CMFI, early Tiger 1 lacked a loader's roof periscope as well. Fewer eyes-forward

[76mm]

Which is exactly as it should be, since CAs are there to confine shooting, not enable spotting, it seems. The benefit of the CA over and above a Face order is that they won't shoot too early or at things on bearings they're not supposed to.

Consider, if a CA focused attention within that arc, wrt range as well, your ambushing troops with short CAs, or elements like FOs that aren't meant to be shooting at anything really, apart from in desperation, wouldn't often see anything further away than the ends of their noses, and they certainly don't have trouble with that.

I wouldn't say it is exactly as it should be; IRL, if you assign covered arcs (as is frequently done), you can be assured that the relevant unit will be focusing their attention on that sector, with the knowledge that other units will be doing the same for other sectors. The result being that if something appears in the designated sector, it is more likely to be spotted quickly.

The order to fire/hold fire is a obviously a completely separate issue, even if they are treated as the same in the game.

[womble]

If the commander of a tank is informed to expect enemy armour within eleven to one o clock it seems logical to me, that he will notice it earlier compared to no CA. The bonus should be even bigger for difficult situations, i.e. bad visibility and/or good cover for the enemy.

That isn't what CAs say. They say "Don't shoot at armour outside this arc". The commander will still be looking at all his quadrants to make sure there are no infantry sneaking up on him, or actual threats (that will cause him to ignore your fire control directives) from other bearings that need addressing with main gun goodness. They pretty much explicitly do not say "expect stuff here". Consider a short circular firing arc: are you really telling your FO that he should expect enemies to be popping up within 25m all round him? No. CAs are hold fire orders with exceptions and if you consider them as such you'll see what they do.

My impression is, that narrow CAs help. Sometimes i even used a ruler, to get the orientation of my thin arcs correct, when the tanks will move and reach their expected engagement locations. Hopefully this was not a placebo all the time and the meticulous work for the dustbin.

It's certainly not wasted, since their gun will be pointed in the right direction as soon as they get there, and since it's pointed where you want them to look, the gunner's attention is directed that way, since that's the only way he can look in most tanks, I think. But you're manipulating something that's not actually designed to do what you're wanting. The fact that it can sometimes help without needing an abstraction is testament to a clever piece of design.

[womble]

I wouldn't say it is exactly as it should be; IRL, if you assign covered arcs (as is frequently done), you can be assured that the relevant unit will be focusing their attention on that sector...

No, you can be assured that their attention is as focused in that direction as it would have been if you'd put a Face order in that points them that way. In that regard, Cover Arcs offer no benefit over Facing.

If you're talking about real life, you're, I'm afraid, giving too much credit to the TacAI, which takes zero consideration of other units' activities or presence.

The order to fire/hold fire is a obviously a completely separate issue, even if they are treated as the same in the game.

You just need to get over the fact that there are limitations on what the engine can simulate and learn to manipulate those limitations. Or learn to live with the fact that the engine doesn't do what you expect.

[akd]

;1371860']IIRC BFC stated that covered arcs do not affect spotting. Having the gun pointed in the right direction helps though once you´ve spotted the enemy.

That is my understanding. However, in the case of vehicles, target arcs allow you to affect facing (and thus spotting) in certain circumstances where the "FACE" order does not have an affect (i.e. during movement), so it is incorrect to say it has no affect on spotting.

They are meant primarily as a targeting restriction tool. Personally I use them that way and have never bought into the gaming the game idea of using targeting arcs to boost spotting (again, my understanding is that they don't, but I would feel the same regardless). Spotting is already boosted in the forward arc based on the units facing, and a 90° arc (guessing on that) of enhanced focus is plenty. The idea of a "spotting" bonus because the arc of focus is less than 90° is to me absurd for most units

I use targeting arcs mostly to control engagement range while at the same time affecting facing. To a lesser degree I use them to set up ambush zones (only engage a target when it reaches this point) and to prevent collateral damage incidents when HE chuckers are supporting friendly dismounts. None of those are circumstances in which I want to trade normal observation of the battlefield for enhanced spotting of the area within the arc.

Think about it. If Ambushing units missed the approach of an enemy because their attention was focused solely on the ambush location, that would be incredibly annoying behavior.

[slysniper]

That is my understanding. However, in the case of vehicles, target arcs allow you to affect facing (and thus spotting) in certain circumstances where the "FACE" order does not have an affect (i.e. during movement), so it is incorrect to say it has no affect on spotting.

They are meant primarily as a targeting restriction tool. Personally I use them that way and have never bought into the gaming the game idea of using targeting arcs to boost spotting (again, my understanding is that they don't, but I would feel the same regardless). Spotting is already boosted in the forward arc based on the units facing, and a 90° arc (guessing on that) of enhanced focus is plenty. The idea of a "spotting" bonus because the arc of focus is less than 90° is to me absurd for most units

I use targeting arcs mostly to control engagement range while at the same time affecting facing. To a lesser degree I use them to set up ambush zones (only engage a target when it reaches this point) and to prevent collateral damage incidents when HE chuckers are supporting friendly dismounts. None of those are circumstances in which I want to trade normal observation of the battlefield for enhanced spotting of the area within the arc.

Think about it. If Ambushing units missed the approach of an enemy because their attention was focused solely on the ambush location, that would be incredibly annoying behavior.

Agree with you totally on this, I have really seen nothing that has shown me that placing a cover arc to try and get better spotting on a area works.

But I keep trying when I get units that are blind to units i need to spot.

[akd]

I found Steve's post on this:

OK, I poked Charles into giving me some more details about how things work under the hood. Turns out I got this same info from him back in May and posted it here (somewhere). Guess I should post it again:

So the "bonus" is, as I mostly remembered correctly, primarily due to the Facing of the unit and not a special bonus artificially assigned. This should clear up all questions being asked in the past page or two. Specifically:

1. The primary spotting advantage of a CA is to keep the unit from shifting it's Facing due to other tactical distractions. Meaning, if you absolutely want to make sure you keep a narrow portion of the battlefield under observation, CAs work better than non-CAs in theory. But reality means it comes down to distractions because...

2. A unit looking in the same exact direction in the same exact situation will spot exactly the same whether it has a CA or no CA (and not Hiding, obviously).

3. Units that have a 360 deg CA don't see any benefit from it other than limiting engagement range.

4. As I've said several times now, the "bonus" isn't that big of a deal. People trying to "game the system" by using CAs to increase spotting chances are wasting their time and possibly causing themselves some harm.

Hope that helps.

Steve

[Steiner14]

Thanks. CM just got more user friendly for me.

[Erwin]

Thanks akd. That will save a lot of aggravation with setting covered arcs for the sole reason of increasing spotting probabilities...

If one orders a FACE however, does that means everyone is looking in the desired direction? ie: What is the difference in spotting probabilities between a covered arc and a FACE order. Or is there no difference?

[Lanzfeld]

Ha! I was right! (see post #2)

Thanks for finding it AKD.

[Baneman]

Thanks for finding the "official word" on the matter, akd.

...

Think about it. If Ambushing units missed the approach of an enemy because their attention was focused solely on the ambush location, that would be incredibly annoying behavior.

Hehe, the incredibly annoying behaviour I have to deal with is ambushing units missing the approach of enemy IN the freakin' ambush location !!

But now I know it's a spotting problem that cannot be solved by covering the location with an arc. Oh well, less yellow on the map at least

[womble]

If one orders a FACE however, does that means everyone is looking in the desired direction? ie: What is the difference in spotting probabilities between a covered arc and a FACE order. Or is there no difference?

Any difference will be down to differences in behaviour. A turreted AFV points its turret at the midpoint of any Arc it's assigned, so there will be less eyes pointed that way than if you gave them a Face, and the hull crew were looking that way too. Some alignments of infantry wrt linear obstacles and other cover can lead to non-intuitive distribution of eyes, so a Face that gets more eyes able to see past cover to the potential spot, even if they're looking the "wrong way" might get you a better chance than if only one pTroop can get LOS. That's probably rare though.

[Michael Emrys]

A turreted AFV points its turret at the midpoint of any Arc it's assigned, so there will be less eyes pointed that way than if you gave them a Face, and the hull crew were looking that way too.

True. However, I have given tanks CAs off the center line of the vehicle when moving so that they will be pointed toward some suspicious terrain they are passing in case they start to take fire from it. I do that with the expectation that it will allow them a slightly faster response since the gun will already be pointed in that general direction.

Michael

[JonS]

If one orders a FACE however, does that means everyone is looking in the desired direction? ie: What is the difference in spotting probabilities between a covered arc and a FACE order. Or is there no difference?

That exact question is answered in the quote from Steve:

2. A unit looking in the same exact direction in the same exact situation will spot exactly the same whether it has a CA or no CA (and not Hiding, obviously).

However ... a unit that only has a FACE command will pivot to engage some crew wandering about away over at 9 o'clock (

), thus changing their area of attention and their focus. Meanwhile the unit with the CA will notice but ignore that crew, and instead stay aligned with where you wanted it to.

A mnemonic that might help:

* A unit with a FACE has ADHD.

* A unit with a CA has Aspergers.