Spotting still too easy!

[skelley]

I will check but I believe they had LOS without having to pop there heads up. I will also run it playing both sides at once to see what they are doing when they get spotted. Either way there has to be a way to remove some of the, "what ya see is what ya get," aspects for hidden units. Maybe even a new command "keep your head down."

Actually I was using the Assault command so they would have had time to break out the binoculars but spotting a hidden unit would be very difficult. They may not have ghillie suits on but their uniforms blend in pretty good from that distance. At 500m they would be tiny specs to the human eye and the guys with binoculars have to scan the whole horizon. Although there is a sniper about 30m away from the spotter. Maybe he is drawing attention?

[Michael Emrys]

Spotting never seemed to be an issue for us with binocs, and I didn't find it too difficult unless it was a heavy sea state.

HOWEVER - that is on the ocean with professional sea-legs.

Correct me if you think I have it wrong, but wasn't it also true that most of the time the motion, even if it was fairly radical, was also pretty regular and possible to anticipate and compensate for? Whereas, as you say, the motion of a vehicle traveling over open ground is apt to be highly irregular, impossible to anticipate, and virtually impossible to compensate for.

I can't imagine how hard it would be in a tank with a rough suspension, going over bumps and dips and things, and being jostled around constantly. I would probably put the binocs down and just use my eyes unless I was on a flat road or something.

My assumption is that that is exactly what the TC did. If he wanted to take a scan with the binocs, he would order the driver to halt. (Of course, if he was savvy, he would not do that in the open if that could be avoided, but only after he had moved into at least a hull-down position. )

Michael

[eltorrente]

Correct me if you think I have it wrong, but wasn't it also true that most of the time the motion, even if it was fairly radical, was also pretty regular and possible to anticipate and compensate for? Whereas, as you say, the motion of a vehicle traveling over open ground is apt to be highly irregular, impossible to anticipate, and virtually impossible to compensate for.

Yes, exactly. I think that's really the essence of "sea legs" - sailors get so used to it that you naturally compensate and your body mostly knows what's coming next without thinking about it.

Bouncing around in a tank would be anything but normal and no way you could anticipate the uneven and random bumps and stuff. The jostling about would, of course, be much sharper and more severe, also.

[Paper Tiger]

Bouncing around in a tank would be anything but normal and no way you could anticipate the uneven and random bumps and stuff. The jostling about would, of course, be much sharper and more severe, also.

I just can't imagine any sane gunner pressing his face up against his periscope while the tank was driving. Seems like a very fast way to lose an eye. And if the tank had a gyroscope fitted, he'd probably be trying to avoid getting his skull smashed open by the gun. When the tank is stationary, the tank crew can benefit from his optics bonus.

[Lee_Vincent]

Remember reading 'Steel Inferno' by Michael Reynolds, about I SS Panzer Corps in Normandy. Over and over he described the German panzers as adopting 'ambush positions' in woods etc and shooting advancing allied tank attacks to pieces for minimal losses, without being comprehensively spotted, eg Operation Goodwood.

[stikkypixie]

I did some "test" tests () to see what can be influencing factors and here some observations on the infantry squad spotting the sniper:

- The spotting time can vary a lot

- Successful spotting is probably influenced by the aim of the sniper

- Snipers that hit their mark, or that make the infantry squad duck for cover are not spotted easily

- Snipers that fail hit suppress their targets, i.e. the squad doesn't cancel its HUNT command, can be spotted almost immediately in the extreme cases

This done with the rocky+brush tile. And again it seems logical to me. I don't have the time right now to do full testing, but this should be kept in consideration I think.

[Vinnart]

Here are tips for not being spotted:

Terrain has SO much to do with it.

HIDE improves not being able to be seen.

COVER ARC improves not being able to be seen. Want to recon like a pro? Use tiny arcs and use terrain.

Also, higher experience levels, binoculars, and officers spot quickest.

[stikkypixie]

Ok, had some time to run some tests.

Here is the setup:

- Conditions are default.

- Axis: ONLY 1 regular (across the board) sniper team on a rocky + brush tile

- Allied: ONLY 1 regular (across the board) rifle squad HUNTING across 680m of grass towards the sniper team

- If the rifle squad hit the ground, I left them there.

- No cover arcs for either squads.

- I noted the time of the first shot, the time of spotting a <?> and the time for spotting the sniper

- 10 tests until I got bored

* On average it took 00:01:12 (HH:MM:SS) to get a <?> and 00:01:48 to get a full identification

* There some deviation on the spotting times: 00:01:45 for <?> contacts and 00:02:01 for

full contact

* The minimum to spot was 12 seconds and the maximum time was over 6 minutes

Although the sample size is quite small, I don't see evidence of spotting being too quickly. The brush and the rocky terrain hardly give any concealment, yet it took on average 1 minute and 48 seconds to spot a sniper. At about 20 seconds per shot, this means that the sniper team could unload 5 rounds before being spotted by a 11 man squad.

I'll try with a higher concealment tile later .

[dieseltaylor]

12 seconds is very quick I would think. Regardless of that if the variance is 12 seconds to over 360 seconds is that not rather ball breaking? Incidentally it helps if you enter the commonest scores so:

12233444556612233555 =71/20 gives an average of 3.5 but the commonest time is 5

if we have the series to play with we can see if it is actually

1616161616 the average is 70/10 and the average time is 3.5 but that will never occur

I was never taught stats but I know its great for messing things up

[Erwin]

"Use tiny arcs..." Haven't we been told many times that in CM2, the arc is not about improving spotting but for limiting fire.

(I still use arcs like you, but thought it just a CM1 habit I can't break.)

[skelley]

I believe that a ? is spotting it. Until they implement false contacts like in CMX1 it will remain a spotting incident. I have yet to see a ? where the unit actually wasn't located except when moving.

Was 00:01:12 from the time of the first shot or just the start of the test? Sometimes I have had the sniper just not open up for a minute or 2. I set up a test giving 700+ meters between sniper and squad and I didn't see the sniper fire until they were about 600m away.

Are you using the heavy rock from CMFI?

I agree with dieseltaylor. Maybe we need the median times or maybe throw out the outliers.

[skelley]

Just ran a test to check gun spotting speed. Scenario pits an American FO vs. a German 50mm AT gun. 7:10 am, light rain and fog. 250m separate them with pine trees in between. The gun is placed on a light forest tile with pine trees.

Start - Spot Times are as follows. 29 seconds, 31 seconds, 8 seconds, 24, seconds, 32, seconds, 2, seconds, 29, seconds, 51 seconds, 74 seconds and 210 seconds.\

here is the file if anybody wants to test

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/96889540/spotting%20gun%20test.btt

[stikkypixie]

12 seconds is very quick I would think. Regardless of that if the variance is 12 seconds to over 360 seconds is that not rather ball breaking? Incidentally it helps if you enter the commonest scores so:

12233444556612233555 =71/20 gives an average of 3.5 but the commonest time is 5

if we have the series to play with we can see if it is actually

1616161616 the average is 70/10 and the average time is 3.5 but that will never occur

I was never taught stats but I know its great for messing things up

What is a ball breaking about a large variance? There are so many factors involved even in such a simple setup, that you cannot control all of them. That is why I'm planning to run some more to get a better feel, time permitting of course.

By the way, if you see a series like 1616161616 (and if there are no other constraints) and you think 3.5 will never occur, you might be in for a surprise .

The average gives you an indication for what to expect if no other information is available, and even if only 1's and 6's are allowed, this still gives you useful information in the sense that it's 50/50 chance.

[stikkypixie]

I believe that a ? is spotting it. Until they implement false contacts like in CMX1 it will remain a spotting incident. I have yet to see a ? where the unit actually wasn't located except when moving.

Was 00:01:12 from the time of the first shot or just the start of the test? Sometimes I have had the sniper just not open up for a minute or 2. I set up a test giving 700+ meters between sniper and squad and I didn't see the sniper fire until they were about 600m away.

Are you using the heavy rock from CMFI?

I agree with dieseltaylor. Maybe we need the median times or maybe throw out the outliers.

Are you HUNTING your rilfe squad towards the sniper?

There weren't false contacts in CMx1 either, you had false sounds contacts and those a in CMx2 as well. A <?> means that it "knows" a unit is there, but it cannot spot it yet. You can get <?> by being in C2 with other units which then pass the information on to you, without you even having LOS to the target.

So spotting times, is when you can actually identify the unit.

The times I've given, are times from the first shot. I'm using CMBN (cause I don't have the fancy new toy yet).

[womble]

C'mon now.. seeing the lens flare isn't what is going on here. Give the guys a facing order and make them look the other way and it's not gonna make them suddenly invisible.

Of course it isn't. The spotting engine, however perfect or flawed isn't modelling optical aberrations, it's a probabilistic abstraction. "Something", whether it be "lens flare" or dust cloud, or a greenhorn, scared ****less conscript given a scoped rifle because he's got good range scores in basic, doing something daft like skylining himself, has given away the element's position.

I'm pretty sure the system compares spotter's experience, possibly leadership with the spottee's corresponding characteristics, applies modifiers for range, vision gear, terrain types in the LOS, weather, info provided by neighbours and through the TO etc and "rolls dice". The detail level is that it rolls the dice for every combination of observer and observed.

Saturating the area with experienced observers looking (with binos) for tyros trying to hide will increase the chance of the hiders being found. It's worth remembering that foliage has to be on the LOS to count; scattered bushes won't hide an element from something that can see between the bushes.

My personal opinion is that it is, indeed, too easy to spot some elements. I look forward to seeing any tests that people can devise.

Edit: It's also worth noting that being in a lone (or the front) terrain tile will give, on average, a third of the concealment of being in a terrain tile one further back. In the edge of a patch you only get half a tile's concealment value. Sitting one row in you get one and a half tiles' worth. On average.

[Steiner14]

I want to add that I also had the situations, where spotting seemed to be too slow: e.g. a vehicle driving into hulldown position over a crest, open street in front and with an AFV on it, distance ~150 m. It wasn't spotted for several seconds (only the "?" was shown).

At the beginning of the next turn i ordered area-fire on the real spot (the vehicle was in LOS and ID'd by other units) and immediately after the shot it became spotted.

While this can all be discussed, one thing IMO still is way off ("elite"-level):

The detailed IDing of the unit's. Certain info IMO should only become available after the white in the eyes can be seen, and some info not at all (open to discussion after they surrendered).

I'm wondering what makes it so difficult that the IDing can't be reduced much more?

[ZPB II]

I have been playing some small combined arms quick battles in hotseat mode against myself. The more I play them the more I learn about how the spotting in this game works. I am convinced that most of the time it feels right.

I haven't been keeping any statistics about spotting, but damn, it's really hard to beat yourself. It's a lot of fun and unsurprisingly usually ends up in a draw with a lot of dead pixeltruppen. I highly recommend it if you want to improve your playing skills!

[skelley]

Are you HUNTING your rilfe squad towards the sniper?

There weren't false contacts in CMx1 either, you had false sounds contacts and those a in CMx2 as well. A <?> means that it "knows" a unit is there, but it cannot spot it yet. You can get <?> by being in C2 with other units which then pass the information on to you, without you even having LOS to the target.

So spotting times, is when you can actually identify the unit.

The times I've given, are times from the first shot. I'm using CMBN (cause I don't have the fancy new toy yet).

Originally playing the game I used the assault command. I played like this many times trying to get the opening of the battle right in the scenario design. The testing I did after was with the hunt command. I didn't see a noticeable difference between the 2.

Sound contacts are what is missing in CMX2. I guess I consider a sound contact that is in the wrong tile a false contact. You are talking about IDing not spotting. Spotting is knowing somebody is that specific terrain tile. Knowing his unit and or type is IDing. I think IDing should not be as quick as it happens as well. I would much more prefer that it never IDed enemy units until you pass over their bodies. My guess is, troops more often knew the general area somebody was firing from rather than the specific area through sound contacts (at the beginning of the engagement).

[Steiner14]

I haven't been keeping any statistics about spotting, but damn, it's really hard to beat yourself. It's a lot of fun and unsurprisingly usually ends up in a draw with a lot of dead pixeltruppen. I highly recommend it if you want to improve your playing skills!

You definately should play against humans. This improves it the most. And is the most fun.

[ZPB II]

You definately should play against humans. This improves it the most. And is the most fun.

I do play against humans, it's just that TCP/IP is still quite laggy and PBEM can be excruciatingly slow.

But playing hotseat vastly improved my perception of how spotting works, when I should expect to spot enemies, what areas I can assume are safe from unspotted enemies, how sound contacts work etc.

[Vinnart]

I have been playing some small combined arms quick battles in hotseat mode against myself. The more I play them the more I learn about how the spotting in this game works. I am convinced that most of the time it feels right.

I haven't been keeping any statistics about spotting, but damn, it's really hard to beat yourself. It's a lot of fun and unsurprisingly usually ends up in a draw with a lot of dead pixeltruppen. I highly recommend it if you want to improve your playing skills!

I agree completely. One will learn exactly what Zebulon Pleasure Beast II states as my expereince in playing myself hotseat draws the same conclusions. The spotting seams right to me, and as stated you will learn much about this game from doing tests such as this. Also, one can learn much from making test maps. The easiest way is to put an enemy in a corner surrounded by high walls, so you can move friendly units around to test with. I did one not long ago to learn more about track damage going through obsticles. From my test I know SO much more about it. Usually what I find is the game is modeled right. For intance in regard to the "track damage" test I did I my thoughts were the track damage was too fragile, but after testing I have concluded it is modled fine. Same with spotting. With so many aspects of this game there are MANY variables that come into play that give different outcomes. Learning these subtles makes all the difference in understanding the complexity of the game.

[skelley]

Try my gun test Vinnart. 250m with trees, XT grass, early morning, light rain, fog, no shots fired by the gun. It was spotted in 32 seconds or less most of the time. One of the 10 tests it was spotted in 2 seconds and another 8. Guns are supposed to have some stealth built in to it but I have never witnessed guns remaining hidden from infantry for very long. I for one miss the good old days of having panzershrecks remain hidden as infantry pass by and pop up and take out my tank. I have never been able to design a scenario that does this. We may just have to agree to disagree.

[womble]

Try my gun test Vinnart. 250m with trees, XT grass, early morning, light rain, fog, no shots fired by the gun. It was spotted in 32 seconds or less most of the time. One of the 10 tests it was spotted in 2 seconds and another 8. Guns are supposed to have some stealth built in to it but I have never witnessed guns remaining hidden from infantry for very long. I for one miss the good old days of having panzershrecks remain hidden as infantry pass by and pop up and take out my tank. I have never been able to design a scenario that does this. We may just have to agree to disagree.

If you put the suckers in grass, then it's no surprise at all that they're spotted. Even long grass isn't as tall as a a gun shield; you need a cornfield for that height of concealment. XT grass doesn't even hide the kneeling crew very well. For the very smallest ATG in CMBN (Pak38), the grass might be tall enough to give enough concealment for the "hasn't moved" camo bonus to make a difference for the gun, so giving the crew Hide orders (so they mostly lie down and are actually hidden by the grass) might make a massive difference. For anything bigger, though, trying to hide in a flat grass field by putting a camo net over the gun would just make an obvious hump in a field, easily spottable at 250m as not being natural, at which point

comes into play. Once the crew stop lying down and start servicing their weapon, though, they should get spotted quick-sharp. Frankly, this is obvious from eyeballing a test scenario deployment.

For the umpty-billionth time:

Trees

don't

conceal

units

placed

underneath

them.

Trees are sticks with balls of foliage. The foliage can get in the way if there are elevation differences. The trunks can spoil some LOF, but don't really hinder LOS, AFAICT (the subtended angles are too small; if the driver can't see your ATG/team/tank cos of the trunk, the bow gunner will be able to). But just having your elements under some trees makes not the blindest bit of difference to units at the same elevation. You need Forest (Light or Heavy) ground types.

[Frankster65]

You know what would be nice? If someone (who knows, maybe even me) would put together some sort of PDF manual on terrain in CMBN/CMFI and give us its strengths and weaknesses in terms hiding units, movement speeds on units, etc. That would be a pretty cool thing.

[skelley]

If you put the suckers in grass, then it's no surprise at all that they're spotted. Even long grass isn't as tall as a a gun shield; you need a cornfield for that height of concealment. XT grass doesn't even hide the kneeling crew very well. For the very smallest ATG in CMBN (Pak38), the grass might be tall enough to give enough concealment for the "hasn't moved" camo bonus to make a difference for the gun, so giving the crew Hide orders (so they mostly lie down and are actually hidden by the grass) might make a massive difference. For anything bigger, though, trying to hide in a flat grass field by putting a camo net over the gun would just make an obvious hump in a field, easily spottable at 250m as not being natural, at which point

comes into play. Once the crew stop lying down and start servicing their weapon, though, they should get spotted quick-sharp. Frankly, this is obvious from eyeballing a test scenario deployment.

For the umpty-billionth time:

Trees

don't

conceal

units

placed

underneath

them.

Trees are sticks with balls of foliage. The foliage can get in the way if there are elevation differences. The trunks can spoil some LOF, but don't really hinder LOS, AFAICT (the subtended angles are too small; if the driver can't see your ATG/team/tank cos of the trunk, the bow gunner will be able to). But just having your elements under some trees makes not the blindest bit of difference to units at the same elevation. You need Forest (Light or Heavy) ground types.

"Try Reading my post with the download before going off. Here is what I wrote!

"Just ran a test to check gun spotting speed. Scenario pits an American FO vs. a German 50mm AT gun. 7:10 am, light rain and fog. 250m separate them with pine trees in between. The gun is placed on a light forest tile with pine trees.

Start - Spot Times are as follows. 29 seconds, 31 seconds, 8 seconds, 24, seconds, 32, seconds, 2, seconds, 29, seconds, 51 seconds, 74 seconds and 210 seconds."

NOTE: placed in light forest tile! I believe you can't place a gun in heavy forest for some reason. You didn't even mention the fog or rain or early morning light. Download the file see for yourself. I'll post it again.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/96889540/sp...gun%20test.btt

BTW...not stupid enough to place a gun in tall grass.