Glubokii Boy Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 hello SPOILER ALERT ! I'm currently playing the german campaign...mission 2... In this mission i have been given 2 tank platoons,some engineers and scout teams to attack the american possiton... I'm sure the enemy will have a number of AT-guns so i keep my armour to the rear to start with and will try to find them with my infantry... NO PROBLEM AT ALL... Only after a few minutes i have located 4 enemy AT-guns (all of them as it would turn out)...All of them have been spotted from more than 500 meters away...2 of them even by buttoned up tanks...I don't think any of them have fired a single round. The americans have had atleast some time to prepare their possitions (all units in foxholes and the AT-guns behind sandbags) The AT-guns are of small caliber two 37mm and two 57mm... Should they not be camoflaged enough to avoid (instant) detection from beyond 500 meters (by buttoned up tanks even) ? I use my tanks and mortar to take them out before they have contributed to the enemy defence in any way. I was thinking...maybe in the future we could have 2 versions of each AT-gun...one CAMOFLAGED and one NOT... The CAMOFLAGED one being much harder to detect... The NOT CAMOFLAGED representeing hastely deployed weapons. this easy spotting of the AT-guns is lowering the FUN-factor i think (still very good and fun game though)... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Should they not be camoflaged enough to avoid (instant) detection from beyond 500 meters (by buttoned up tanks even) ? That entirely depends on where they're placed. I've had pre-placed 50mm ATG empty their entire AP and HE ammo allocation and not take any incoming fire, which suggests they weren't spotted. The targets were all under 500m away, but the gun was behind bocage. ATGs do get a camo bonus if they don't move, but it has to have something to work with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 ATGs do get a camo bonus if they don't move, but it has to have something to work with. Yes...i understand that...The terrain here is fairly open but there are bushes and trees around The 37mm and 57 mm are quite small weapons aren't they ? They ought to be fairly simple to 'hide' beside a bush or some trees or camoflage with some branches or a camo-net for example... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amizaur Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Of course that if there are some nice bushes available that you can hide your AT gun in, then there is no need for additional camouflage. Even without additional camouflage, the gun will be hard enough to spot. Wit camuflage, it would be even harder. But if the crew had to somehow set up their gun in area where there is no good natural cover, they would make their best to camuflage the gun SOMEHOW. This is where the camuflaged gun model is needed most - where there is no good natural cover. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 Of course that if there are some nice bushes available that you can hide your AT gun in, then there is no need for additional camouflage. Even without additional camouflage, the gun will be hard enough to spot. Wit camuflage, it would be even harder. But if the crew had to somehow set up their gun in area where there is no good natural cover, they would make their best to camuflage the gun SOMEHOW. This is where the camuflaged gun model is needed most - where there is no good natural cover. I agree with this ! In this battle i mentioned the americans have hade some time to prepare their possition...The guns ought to be camoflaged 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 ATGs do get a camo bonus if they don't move, Do you have a source for this information? I ask because I have not been able to find mention of this feature in the manual nor have I seen it stated on the forums by any official source i.e. Steve. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I have had the exact opposite experience while playing. So many times I have cursed how is it possible that two 57mm guns can shoot at my Tiger for dozens of times before I get something other than a vague sound contact. Dry ground gets kicked up a lot especially if the gun is dug-in and the barrel is closer to the ground. It would take a lot of water to bind it and even then the wet spot can look different. I also have this feeling that canister rounds get spotted more easily (as would make sense.) I've spotted 37mm guns in foxholes under some trees after they fired only a few shots of canister. Who would have guessed a big flying cloud of metal shards would register in peripheral vision. The simulated chaos is why I love CM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Do you have a source for this information? I ask because I have not been able to find mention of this feature in the manual nor have I seen it stated on the forums by any official source i.e. Steve. p88 of the CMBN manual. First "handwritten note": Note: anti-tank guns that are deployed in the Setup Phase and do not move or rotate are harder for the enemy to spot! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 It occurs to me that the guns in the OP may perhaps have had to rotate, thus negating the spotting modifier. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 It occurs to me that the guns in the OP may perhaps have had to rotate, thus negating the spotting modifier. That might very well have been the case but 'sneaky' aiming of the gun is not very likely to reveal their possiton (in RL). If the gun had to be rotated 180 degrees or something then maybe that would make sence but in this example i'm pretty sure that the guns already face towards the open ground in the valley (where my visible tanks where). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 p88 of the CMBN manual. First "handwritten note": Ah thanks for that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 That might very well have been the case but 'sneaky' aiming of the gun is not very likely to reveal their possiton (in RL). If the gun had to be rotated 180 degrees or something then maybe that would make sence but in this example i'm pretty sure that the guns already face towards the open ground in the valley (where my visible tanks where). Yeah, I'm pretty sure that "rotating" enough to lose the benefit would be more than "sneaky aiming". I'm guessing it'd have to be more along the lines of having to re-Face because the trunion traverse wouldn't bring the target to bear. Not having FI I can't go look, I'm afraid; it was just a possiblility. In the end though, we've already got camouflaged ATGs. Every gun is assumed to be so, if the conditions are right. What you're actually arguing for is a change in how that's implemented, and you may well have a point, but I don't know how you're going to be able to go about convincing BFC of that. Ah thanks for that. You're welcome. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 In the end though, we've already got camouflaged ATGs. Every gun is assumed to be so, if the conditions are right. Still...Its not a rare ocation to be able to find them 'supriceingly easy' both in CMBN an CMFI...I agree though that sometimes they are much more difficult to spot. What i'm proposing then is an option to have 'normaly camoflaged' and 'FULLY camoflaged' options for the guns. Deploying them as 'fully camoflaged' would be avaliable only in the setup face of the battle. Like Amizaur mentioned...Atleast in CMFI good-, natural hidingplaces might be hard to find...In such a situation a FULLY camoflaged gun would be nice to have... Taking this example with the second battle in the german capaign in CMFI... The primary (and maybe most fun) task i had set for myself was to... Locate and destroy- or locate and suppres the enemy AT-assets with my infantry before moving my armour forward...Looking forward to some difficult infantry manuvering to be able to find them... This part of the mission never happened...I found them all almost instantly while doing close to nothing...No intresting infantry fighting or reconacense needed...This FUN ! part of the mission did not happen... I think that 'fully' camoflaged gun would be a big plus... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skelley Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Most units are too easily spotted still 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 IIRC AFVs that don't move also get the camo bonus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 What i'm proposing then is an option to have 'normaly camoflaged' and 'FULLY camoflaged' options for the guns. Deploying them as 'fully camoflaged' would be avaliable only in the setup face of the battle. And what you're missing is that nobody would deploy an ATG in the setup phase in any other mode than "Fully camouflaged". Which is why every gun deployed in the setup phase gets a "fully camouflaged" spotting modifier. Already. Same as all infantry seek cover when static so you don't have to terminate every move order with Hide (which has freed up Hide to do something subtly different). It just doesn't work as well as you think it should when the "hiding place" is "next to a bush on some rocky dirt" (I exaggerate a bit). So you would like BFC to modify the modifier. There's no point asking for an extra option, because it's already coded to give you that extra option without you having to do anything, and at no cost. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 +1 to the idea of a camouflaged model of an AT gun (even if the way it's implemented in the engine stays the same). It just would look a lot better and add realism/immersion, especially since we can't have the guns actually appear below ground level when dug in. At least a built-in covering of cammo net, etc., would let our imaginations better perceive the gun to be dig in and hidden, etc. You could just basically have a model of a foliage-covered cammo net, staked to the ground and sandbagged, with just the muzzle of the gun poking out. It would be dark inside and you wouldn't need to see the crew -- they could just be abstracted and represented man-for-man in the GUI. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted August 7, 2012 Author Share Posted August 7, 2012 And what you're missing is that nobody would deploy an ATG in the setup phase in any other mode than "Fully camouflaged". Which is why every gun deployed in the setup phase gets a "fully camouflaged" spotting modifier. Already. Same as all infantry seek cover when static so you don't have to terminate every move order with Hide (which has freed up Hide to do something subtly different). It just doesn't work as well as you think it should when the "hiding place" is "next to a bush on some rocky dirt" (I exaggerate a bit). So you would like BFC to modify the modifier. There's no point asking for an extra option, because it's already coded to give you that extra option without you having to do anything, and at no cost. I might have explained what i mean in a wrong way...My idea is more like this...Fully camoflaged or not is not something every player should be allowed to choose for every gun without a cost...In QBs the prise for a FULLY camoflaged gun would be substantionally higher (requiring the player to think twice if they really need it or would a regular gun be sufficent allowing them to spend their points on other equipment...) The greatest benefit to having 2 options for the guns would however be that the scenario designers would be able to choose witch of the two would fit best in any given situation... - A scenario with a prepared defensive possition would probably do better with FULLY camoflaged guns - A meeting scenario or 'hasty defence' might be better of with a REGULARLY camoflaged gun... About the modifier...I'm sorry...i don't think that its working very well right now...The guns that are deployed during setup and that have remained stationary are also to easy to spot (my oppinion). The difference right now is not big enough. What i'm suggesting with my idea is that the difference in the chans of being spotted should be greater than it is now... Reguraly camoflaged guns...cheap, risk of being spotted (like it is) Fully camoflaged guns...more expensive, risk of being spotted (much less so) Broadsword56s idea for a 'design' sounds good to me... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I might have explained what i mean in a wrong way...My idea is more like this...Fully camoflaged or not is not something every player should be allowed to choose for every gun without a cost...In QBs the prise for a FULLY camoflaged gun would be substantionally higher (requiring the player to think twice if they really need it or would a regular gun be sufficent allowing them to spend their points on other equipment...) Well, yeah, you could do it that way. The thing is, I'm not so sure that that is consistent with how BFC prices equipment in the game. Maybe it is, but it looks kinda like a gray area to me. Maybe a better way to go about it would be to make prepared positions work better than they do now, including making them a lot less visible. That would leave the player the option of buying a prepared position for his guns or what have you at an extra cost. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted August 8, 2012 Author Share Posted August 8, 2012 Well, yeah, you could do it that way. The thing is, I'm not so sure that that is consistent with how BFC prices equipment in the game. Maybe it is, but it looks kinda like a gray area to me. Maybe a better way to go about it would be to make prepared positions work better than they do now, including making them a lot less visible. That would leave the player the option of buying a prepared position for his guns or what have you at an extra cost. Michael That sounds even better ! This would require more work though i think...but i would not object. I'm no programer but i think that the only thing needed to be done with my proposal would be to: - INCREASE the 'stealth modifier' for the guns in the FULLY CAMOFLAGED version vs the REGULARELY CAMOFLAGED version. - Add new graphics for the FULLY CAMOFLAGED guns. This would only fix the spotting 'problem' with the AT-guns offcourse as oposed to your suggestion that would make a broader improvment (my oppinion)... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted August 8, 2012 Author Share Posted August 8, 2012 And also... I think that the 'stealth modifier' difference between different size guns might be to insignificant to... I would like the 'tiny' 37mm AT-gun to be much more stealthy than the big 88s for example...(i guess they are but i wish the difference was more noticebel)... In the afore mentioned battle i played both 37mm guns where spotted very quickly despite having line of sight to them obstructed by a number of trees (one being spotted by a buttoned-up tank from 500+ meters through a wooded area)... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrailApe Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 The experience level of the crew must be the major factor here - a badly trained crew would give the position away more quickly by their actions - movement, noise etc. Even the set up of the gun - for example hiding any spoil from digging - must be effected by the training of the crew. Could this be why some guns are spotted more easily than they should be? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted August 8, 2012 Author Share Posted August 8, 2012 The experience level of the crew must be the major factor here - a badly trained crew would give the position away more quickly by their actions - movement, noise etc. Even the set up of the gun - for example hiding any spoil from digging - must be effected by the training of the crew. Could this be why some guns are spotted more easily than they should be? Hello, TrailApe... That could possibly be the reason...just checked the game... 2 guncrews where GREEN and 2 REGULAR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrailApe Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Yeah RepsolCBR, We all expect CM to portray the environment in a realistic way, and believe me, there is nothing realistic about young bored men lying stock still for considerable periods in all kinds of weathers – unless they are sufficiently motivated or trained, so why should our pixel truppen be any different? In the ideal world CM would give us different animations for the different levels of experience and motivation. The green gun crew would start fidgeting after two minutes, after five minutes they would be standing up searching their pockets for cigarettes, in ten minutes one would get up and take a pee against the nearest tree, with fifteen minutes gone they are all standing up and throwing dried dung at each other and just generally larking about. The ‘elite’ gun crew would freeze like partridge chicks when a buzzard is overhead – perhaps blinking one in a while and would maintain 100% efficiency throughout. (after the battle the elite crewould then move across to the remains of the green crew and nick their kit and ciggies) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glubokii Boy Posted August 8, 2012 Author Share Posted August 8, 2012 The green gun crew would start fidgeting after two minutes, after five minutes they would be standing up searching their pockets for cigarettes, in ten minutes one would get up and take a pee against the nearest tree, with fifteen minutes gone they are all standing up and throwing dried dung at each other and just generally larking about. The ‘elite’ gun crew would freeze like partridge chicks when a buzzard is overhead – perhaps blinking one in a while and would maintain 100% efficiency throughout. (after the battle the elite crewould then move across to the remains of the green crew and nick their kit and ciggies) This sure sounds familuar... Many years ago when i did my military service (swedish army) i guess my unit would qualify for the GREEN catigory... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.