Sherman performance... again.

[Baneman]

This has been one of my frustrations with the game as well and that is that weapons fire doesn't appear to produce at least a sound contact giving a general direction.

I have witnessed this specifically with night battles where I have scouts forward of a patrol with the patrol following maybe 50 to 100 meters behind. The scouts are fired upon and possibly killed or pinned but the follow on squad has no idea where the fire came from because there is no sound contact.

And you'd think the muzzle flashes would produce the same effect as a sound contact in a night battle. Irl, it would be more precise than a sound contact.

[Fūrinkazan]

That's the result of a probablisitic, rather than deterministic, model. There are not a few people who see the variability of outcomes as a feature, not a bug.

I agree on this, variability is important in the game. The problem is if those things happen a lot or not.

I would make a distinction between adjustement and a bug.

It seems that hmgs team do not respect the delay to deploy for exemple, i would call this a bug since it was designed like this. They should respect the time to dismount the weapon.

An adjustment is different. It's like moving up or down a cursor.

In the case of my Stug, i think it was bad luck. 99% of the time, i don't see irrealistic results.

But it seems that infantry is spotted by tanks to easily sometimes, that there are some spotting adjustment needed.

BFC did those adjustment in the past : they put down the cursor, probability, for tanks while moving, to hit something.

The problem is that it is difficult to estimate if it's bad luck or over/under estimation of something.

Maybe, and i insist on "maybe", as we see multiple incident it seems, they should put down the cursor on spotting ability of tanks moving, especially when button up for exemple. I think that buttoned up tanks should have a huge disadvantage in combat.

i've been reading this on a recent article about tactics and doctrine of Israelian tankers during the Kippour war :

They had tank commanders unbuttoned while Arabs used the soviet doctrine of fighting with close hatch. Israelian had heavy losses in tank commanders but according to a US army study, an open hatch tank is twice more efficient in combat than the one with closed hatch.

In the same article :

Israelian estimated that if you fight 1 against 2 and shoot first you have more chances to win than if you fight with a force of 5 against 1 but you shoot last. First shot is very important and spotting is capital when it comes to tank combat.

More, Israelians discover that with the flat trajectory of their APDS rounds up to 1600 m they did not have to know the exact position of target. They abandonned the procedure of estimation of the distance of target, including with rangefinder and prefer fast fire. They prefer visual estimation of distances and lot of training. The average delay between target spotting and fire is 12 seconds.

One little story :

When i was playing CMBO, i played the Villers Bocage scenario. I played it many times to try different tactics.

Once, i advanced very confident in the power of Wittmann's Tiger. After a few meters, BANG !!, the tank was hit. Then the crew bailed out and they were captured. They were hit by a Stuart. The 37 mm round went through the driver sights, killing him in a first shot. This was the end of Wittmann's career .

Happened only once, but this is why i love this game.

[JonS]

Irl, it would be more precise than a sound contact.

Depth perception is very hard at night.

[Baneman]

Depth perception is very hard at night.

Agreed, but direction would be more precise since the flashes would be seen. Sound contacts would be more "over there" ( and depth errors could still apply ).

[Fūrinkazan]

It's out of subject but did some of you watched the last tactical video of Lt. Col. (ret) Jeffrey Paulding ?

I'm downloading it because i loved the first ones, they were very interresting.

See is comment on the game :

"All the work Battlefront did on the infantry AI in the Combat Mission Shock Force series is what makes Battle for Normandy such a great combat simulator.":)

For those who think the game is broken, i think that the opinion of a professional who played also CMBB highly valuable.

That's when i read this that i really don't regret the support on BFC simulations since CMBO.

And i think that in the future, with future patch and new game engine will be greater :).

[dieseltaylor]

What results? I see only anecdotes.

I would bother to gain the data for you if I knew something might be done with it. If you are saying - indirectly - there is no change in spotting in Version 2 the testing on this version would be worth doing. If there is a tweak in Version 2 than any testing now by any number of players wuld be a complete waste of energy.

I realise that BF have no costs involved in the testing but perhaps some sort of confirmation would be helpful in this matter.

[JonS]

Agreed, but direction would be more precise since the flashes would be seen. Sound contacts would be more "over there" ( and depth errors could still apply ).

Sure, and given that range errors overwhelmingly consume the largest portion of any error budget, it becomes a bit of a stretch to say that spotting at night is "more precise" in any meaningful way.

[dieseltaylor]

but direction would be more precise since the flashes would be seen

Baneman

Sure, and given that range errors overwhelmingly consume the largest portion of any error budget, it becomes a bit of a stretch to say that spotting at night is "more precise" in any meaningful way.

JonS

Knowing from which direction fire is coming from does not a firefight make. So your information on range error is helpful it is not the relevant to the point made by Banemen that you quoted.

PS Baneman's post:

And you'd think the muzzle flashes would produce the same effect as a sound contact in a night battle. Irl, it would be more precise than a sound contact

[Chek]

As per the video posted at the start of the thread,that looks like a nice shoot and scoot move by the Sherman crew(the battalion CO no less)whilst the Panzer IV is parked in the middle of the road.

The sherman advances looking for a threat to it's front as it has reasonable concealment on it's flanks.Meanwhile the exposed Panzer IV is scanning over a large arc from which a threat could emerge at any moment.

If I wanted to watch an area for possible armor I'd use a scout.I generally don't bring my armor forward untill I have something for them to specifically attend to and when I do I don't leave them sitting still for anything longer than 10-15 seconds unless of course I'm sure there are no immediate threats.

I would've endeavoured to have that Pz IV in cover and once a target had exposed itself popped out with a specific arc,a 10 or 15sec pause than back into cover.If both you and your opponent are doing this then the tanks kinda neutralize each other and the Infantry can get on with their job or attempt to get their AT weapons into range.But of course you would then ensure that your tanks are protected by your Infantry to prevent this from happening and so on and so on it goes.Of course in amongst this rock,paper,scissors approach people are dying and screaming for their mothers and giving momentos to their mates to take home and give to their loved ones and there's body parts all over the place or soon to be and no one wants to get caught inside a burning tank and roast alive(knew a WW2 vet who couldn't stand the smell of roast pork),you know pure and utter chaos on a scale that just can't be comprehended.

If I'd been playing the Germans I'd be kicking myself at leaving my Tanks exposed(which wouldn't be the first time)and congratulating my opponent on a well executed move.

BTW PT love your campaigns,great stuff.

[JonS]

JonS

Knowing from which direction fire is coming from does not a firefight make. So your information on range error is helpful it is not the relevant to the point made by Banemen that you quoted.

You being you, I can see how you would think that.

[dieseltaylor]

Thank you JonS, you so rarely compliment other posters. Sometimes I think people find your replies a tad brusque and perhaps it is a lesson to us all that you don't have to agree with a guy but still be can positive on the contributions people make.

[sand digger]

........................................

Now testing this might prove a issue. But in general, for the time frame and battle sim that should be potrayed. The stationary armor in the game should have a huge spotting advantage over moving armor and it does not.

Personnally, I think moving armor should just have their spotting ability greatly reduced to all forms of targets and I think it would improve the game to a much more realistic general results as to how combat should play out.

..........................................

Could not agree more in fact it is a game breaker for me, can't see the point in playing a game like this if it does not play somewhere near reality. The thing is the reality of spotting from a moving vehicle can be done anytime when driving around in a car, it aint some super wonderful military experience thing. Also wonder how things like this are not picked up in testing, no I don't want a testing job thanks, there are other calls on my time

[slysniper]

Now that the next release of the game has come out, maybe a little testing is in order.

But I still have issues with what I can test that would make any inpact.

First, the designer has told us that to give the AI the ability to fight when on offence. It must have the ability to fire on the move, since it cannot stop, fire and then start moving again. So since the AI rules and ours are the same, when we order units they also have that ability.

So he wants it to spot, fire and continue moving. we have to assume it is protraying . moving, stop, spotting, fire, then movement again.

(never have liked this decision, but I dont know what factors he is up against to get the game to play well either)

So that part of the programming is not changing soon, so my case for not being able to spot enemy units on the move is not going to happen.

So that leaves being able to spot moving objects more easily. Which could be tested and which could be adjusted if it appears to be lacking.

That testing should not be all that hard to see what is going on presently, with spotting moving to non-moving targets and get a feel for how long it takes. Exspecially when it is that elephant right in front of your noise situation.

[George MC]

Also wonder how things like this are not picked up in testing, no I don't want a testing job thanks, there are other calls on my time

Don't think a job was on the table.

Re testing the issue with this whole thread is anecdotal evidence. I've noticed similar events for sure but I'm playing a very large scenario (open ground etc) lot's of tank vs tank and so far moving AFVs are spotted and engaged first by stationary AFVs. Thta's the norm. I'll keep an eye out for outliers though.

[womble]

Fair enough, but consider the following :

- Enemy tank rolls into view, I shoot, I miss. He shoots, he kills.

That's the sort of variability that wargamers have lived with since the beginning. You had a chance, but it didn't pan out for you.

But

- Enemy tank rolls into view. I see nothing. He shoots, he kills.

That makes you feel that you lost through blind luck ie. you never had a chance. It leads to frustration with the game and less hardcore players ( lets face it, we on the forum are generally long-term wargamers ) may just give up saying "what's the point ? Nothing I do gives me a chance."

No one quits a wargame because they made a bad diceroll, but when you don't get to roll the dice at all, it's a different feeling.

Yes you did. You rolled the spotting dice and failed. Tabletop wargames rulesets have been doing this since at least the early 80s. Fail to acquire that target? Can't shoot at it. Just because you don't get to see the dice roll doesn't mean they aren't being rolled.

Having just spent a week in Normandy, I reckon pretty much all concealment values need to be tweaked up a lot. That old forest is dense, and you can't see other people the other side of a hedgerow from 8m, even if you know they're there, they don't care if you see them and they're wearing civies, not battledress/camo. And forget about seeing into buildings from across the square.

[Baneman]

First, the designer has told us that to give the AI the ability to fight when on offence. It must have the ability to fire on the move, since it cannot stop, fire and then start moving again. So since the AI rules and ours are the same, when we order units they also have that ability.

I'm surprised to hear this - AI tanks in CM1 could stop, shoot and move again.

I know CMBN is a new engine, but tanks were 1:1 represented in CM1 too and the AI must use at least similar code.

...Having just spent a week in Normandy, I reckon pretty much all concealment values need to be tweaked up a lot. That old forest is dense, and you can't see other people the other side of a hedgerow from 8m, even if you know they're there, they don't care if you see them and they're wearing civies, not battledress/camo. And forget about seeing into buildings from across the square.

I have absolutely NO problem with concealment and difficulty spotting things in trees, houses, bushes etc.

I only get concerned when vehicles ( typically tanks ) don't get spotted moving on roads ( and the spotting unit is on the same road, looking directly at it ie. not through trees along the side etc. ) or across completely open fields.

[Paper Tiger]

Unfortunately, we don't really know how the spotting mechanism works in the game. I suspect it works something like this though.

The game creates a LOS map while the mission is setting up that contains info on spotting from each action spot to every other action spot on the map.

When a unit occupies an action spot, the LOS map is consulted and it is determined which enemy units are currently 'observable' from that location. If that check proves true, then there comes a series of drs for each 'pair' of eyes currently in that action spot. It might be a squad of 13 soldiers but only two are in a position to see the enemy unit and so two spotting drs are made.

There are probably a number of modifiers to each spotting dr. I'd suspect that experience, condition and leadership all contribute significantly to this. Further, the unit's movement status should play a part in it too as well as facing/covered arc etc. The enemy units' situation will play a factor too: behind concealment terrain, moving, firing. So the game ends up with a % to spot dr and one is made for each spotter.

If it really does work in this fashion, I'd suggest that the negative modifiers for spotting while the spotting units is moving and the target's positive modifier for moving be raised so that moving units are disadvantaged when spotting. The faster the movement, the higher the penatly. A unit using FAST movement should be almost useless at spotting.

This would also explain why a tank with 5 crewmen gets to spot tank hunter teams and ATGs more frequently that they should be able to in the game. There are five spotting drs, one of them probably benefitting from some OPTICS bonus whereas the infantry gus don't get that bonus.

[Redwolf]

I'm surprised to hear this - AI tanks in CM1 could stop, shoot and move again.

Yeah but that was with the lemming AI which simply crawled forward without further plan or planning.

If you have an AI with a plan you need to follow the plan. If all vehicles are always in CMx1 "hunt" mode that won't work, as you can delay movement of the enemy indefinitely simply by showing units.

Not that I don't like that autonomous AI in CMx1. It was pretty useful if you just gave it more units. The plan-only AI in CMx2 can turn play to goo quickly if you are unlucky or the scenario designer sucked (and you can't tell without playing the scenario).

I still maintain that the better ability to shoot out of movement wouldn't be that bad if the other problems didn't come on top.

[A Canadian Cat]

AI tanks in CM1 could stop, shoot and move again.

This is incorrect. Steve (and others) have chimed in that the CM1x tanks did *not* move stop shoot, move stop shoot. They fired on the fly just like the CM2 tanks do. I did not search for the post where Steve cleared that up but I have read it. And I have played my share of CM1x games - no stopping and shooting while moving that I can recall. Unless I ordered it with the Shoot and Scoot command.

One of the many wonderful tricks our minds play on us:)

[dieseltaylor]

Having just spent a week in Normandy, I reckon pretty much all concealment values need to be tweaked up a lot. That old forest is dense, and you can't see other people the other side of a hedgerow from 8m, even if you know they're there, they don't care if you see them and they're wearing civies, not battledress/camo. And forget about seeing into buildings from across the square.

In the last century wood was the plastics of our age and I am reasonably convinced that most French woodland would have been tended. Pigs feeding on acorns, chestnuts as food , hazel for coppicing, timber for building, for clogs and for chemicals. Particularly during the war where wood was both fuel and car fuel.

It is noticeable when looking at some scenarios where the designer hasn't the foggiest about 1940s Norman countryside and towns. But then rather than investigate they just think their imagination will suffice. The nice thing is the good maps look really outstanding : )

[Redwolf]

This is incorrect. Steve (and others) have chimed in that the CM1x tanks did *not* move stop shoot, move stop shoot. They fired on the fly just like the CM2 tanks do. I did not search for the post where Steve cleared that up but I have read it. And I have played my share of CM1x games - no stopping and shooting while moving that I can recall. Unless I ordered it with the Shoot and Scoot command.

One of the many wonderful tricks our minds play on us:)

This isn't quite accurate. The CMx1 programmed opponent would frequently halt the whole advance to fire at enemy defenses. It would not simply drive all the way to the objectives.

But the point still stands, CMx1 also had the unrealistic advantage of shooting on the move and would by default do it unless the whole advance stopped. It would not stop just to shoot and then drive on, much less practice vehicles covering each other with fire and movement.

[womble]

In the last century wood was the plastics of our age and I am reasonably convinced that most French woodland would have been tended.

Given how far some of that woodland is from anyone who'd tend it, I'd tend (oh-ho-ho ) to disagree. France is a lot more sparsely populated than I'm used to in the UK. Yes, more wood would have been being cut, but I don't see your average Paysan clearing the edges of his copse every summer just to be tidy. They'd cut a path, and the interior would be relatively clear because of the dense canopy, but the edges would be for the most part "au naturel" in the summer. Even brushwood cutting would get done as the leaves fell and the sap stopped rising, with the growing season done, rather than in the height of summer heat when there's hay to be gotten in (and calvados to sip in the shade of the orchard ).

The other aspect of cover from woodland (wild stuff, not orchards) is how dashed dark it is under the eaves of the woods that don't have shrubs filling in their side elevations. AIUI, shade isn't accounted for in the concealment values of trees.

[sand digger]

Bear in mind that the value you're talking about is a chance to spot. Regardless of how good one guy's is compared to another, there is - by definition - a chance that the nearly-blind guy will spot something before his more well endowed mate does.

What is your point? Of course there is, as you say, a chance. The sensible real world point seems to be that such a chance would be extremely remote and unlikely to be experienced.

Someone raises a legitimate concern the solution to which may benefit all us reality types and you typically respond in a negative dismissive tone. You need an attitude adjustment, badly.

[JonS]

What is your point?

anecdote != data

The sensible real world point seems to be that such a chance would be extremely remote and unlikely to be experienced.

"extremely remote and unlikely" != zero

[Baneman]

This is incorrect. Steve (and others) have chimed in that the CM1x tanks did *not* move stop shoot, move stop shoot. They fired on the fly just like the CM2 tanks do. I did not search for the post where Steve cleared that up but I have read it. And I have played my share of CM1x games - no stopping and shooting while moving that I can recall. Unless I ordered it with the Shoot and Scoot command.

One of the many wonderful tricks our minds play on us:)

Sorry, miscommunication, I was thinking of the TacAI controlled tanks to which the player had given "Hunt" commands, not the AI AI.