Spotting still too easy!

[skelley]

Also the giun never fired a shot.

[womble]

"Try Reading my post with the download before going off.

So I have to go back and read all your posts before responding to what you write? And guess when some non-trivial difference is a typo/mistype or not. No thanks.

NOTE: placed in light forest tile!

Woo. 4 potential metres of light concealment. Maybe. IF you're lucky.

Try putting it in a light forest tile surrounded with light forest tiles.

And trees still don't give concealment. They get in the way, but if the straight line doesn't hit any tree trunks those pines are irrelevant.

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

I'm to know that? When you type that you did? FOs and other arty-calling leaders might be telepathic, but I'm not. Soooo Sorry.

[skelley]

Light fog and rain in the early morning should slow down spotting significantly. So you have to have at least a 24 square meter area of light forest tiles or more to conceal a 50mm gun? Maybe that is a game mechanic thing but IRL a crew would be able to camouflage their position better than that. Any thing that gets between the FO and the gun breaks up the shape and makes it more difficult to spot, whether it is a tree or a fence post.

A 50mm gun is only 3'5" tall so actually tall grass wouldn't be bad for concealment if the grass is 3' tall.

Maybe spotting is a nightmare to code convincingly, I don't know, that's not my profession. But in my humble position a prepared position should be much more difficult to spot unless they are firing. But oh well, guess I'll have to work around the limitations.

[womble]

Light fog and rain in the early morning should slow down spotting significantly

They should certainly be factors. How significant at 250m with binos, I couldn't say.

So you have to have at least a 24 square meter area of light forest tiles or more to conceal a 50mm gun?

Depends if you want to conceal it from all directions. If you know from where you're being observed, a patch 12m x 4m would do. At least it'd be three times better than an 8x8 patch.

Any thing that gets between the FO and the gun breaks up the shape and makes it more difficult to spot, whether it is a tree or a fence post.

I'm not disagreeing. The difference between "more difficult to spot" and "invisible" is important, though.

A 50mm gun is only 3'5" tall so actually tall grass wouldn't be bad for concealment if the grass is 3' tall.

Plonk a Pak38 in some XT grass. It sticks out a bit, but the crew stick out more. Since your test wasn't in XT grass, it's pointless to ask whether the gun was on Hide. But if such a test were to be done, I agree, I'd expect a couple of tiles of XT to be quite a good hiding spot for a Pak38 (and pretty much only a Pak38, at least from CMBN's selection of ATGs), while the crew were prone, becoming immediately obvious when they start serving the gun.

Maybe spotting is a nightmare to code convincingly...

Certainly it's asking quite a lot for every vertical "partial" concealment (trees, posts and the like) that's near the actual LOS to adjust the concealment of a target. Finding things that are "near" is computationally intense...

...in my humble [opinion] a prepared position should be much more difficult to spot unless they are firing.

The problem with simplified tests is they don't necessarily capture how the game designers intend the game to function. The example of not being in the edge/only tile of concealing terrain is a good one.

One test I'm not sure has been done is the "Difference in concealment between pre-setup and setup-on-the-fly". That might be informative.

[skelley]

How do I do a pre-setup and on the fly? My test had the gun set in position with no setup zones or AI setup so that it would remain in place. I would like some kind of camouflage bonus for defending or maybe an option to dig in guns. I'm not looking for invisible gun but certainly more concealment. For now I can use your ideas on more light forest tiles. The entire reason I usually use early morning and fog is to make spotting more difficult.

[wolf66]

This is why some long for the days of CMX1 - we could argue about a bloody tripod all day and night, but thankfully it was a given that you could hide ATGs, Shreks and what not for ambushes etc and had no bloody fanboys to tell us why it is all right to spot a veteran sniper team with normal infantry from 500 m away after mere seconds .... or that enemy tank around the corner of the building suddenly my infantry completely forgets about after 5 secs, do they not hear the bloody engine and smell the diesel ....... or german heavy MGs on tripods that shoot over their targets half the time even when they shoot at the same damn target for minutes ...... give it up skelley, you could more likely get a junkie to stop using than those fanboys to look behind the curtain .....

[ZPB II]

I guess this is what happens when you have a game with so many random elements that it resembles real life in surprising ways.

I'm happy that the games I play are full of moments where I take unseen fire from hidden ATGs, MGs, tanks and snipers for turn after turn while I'm trying to decipher where the enemy is.

If that makes me a fanboy, so be it. Atleast I'm having a lot of fun.

[sburke]

This is why some long for the days of CMX1 - we could argue about a bloody tripod all day and night, but thankfully it was a given that you could hide ATGs, Shreks and what not for ambushes etc and had no bloody fanboys to tell us why it is all right to spot a veteran sniper team with normal infantry from 500 m away after mere seconds .... or that enemy tank around the corner of the building suddenly my infantry completely forgets about after 5 secs, do they not hear the bloody engine and smell the diesel ....... or german heavy MGs on tripods that shoot over their targets half the time even when they shoot at the same damn target for minutes ...... give it up skelley, you could more likely get a junkie to stop using than those fanboys to look behind the curtain .....

sigh. Never gets old does it.

Here's the deal. You can continue to get pissed off everytime something doesn't work the way you expect, or you could come to terms with the fact it is a computer game with limitations that they all have and get on with the game. Note this does not imply at all that observation of poor behavior is not desired. Hell the game can only be improved by pointing those out. However having the behavior first checked to make sure it really is inappropriate is simply good judgement, not immediate grounds for calling folks fanboys.

Somehow I don't hear the "But it was this way in CMx1" fanboys ever start crying about why that tank that had no way of knowing about that squad in the woods is now firing on it from 1000 meters away because some lone infantry guy happened to see it. At least in CMx2 when I spring an ambush, only the folks who actually spotted my unit can return fire instead of every unit with a possible LOS.

Here is a question - Why are the folks who are adamant that CMx1 was better so willing to forgive it's inadequacies, but are completely unwilling to accept the same from CMx2?

[Michael Emrys]

Here is a question - Why are the folks who are adamant that CMx1 was better so willing to forgive it's inadequacies, but are completely unwilling to accept the same from CMx2?

And here is my answer:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1384820&postcount=28

Michael

[skelley]

To be clear...I'm not advocating a return to CMX1, but I do think some things worked well. Such as AT guns remaining hidden for longer and not Identifying units as quick. I don't think that I should know that I am shooting at B team of 1st platoon as opposed to shooting at 3 enemy soldiers on a ridge.

Overall I am pretty happy with 90% of CMX2. Its just sometimes 1 thing or another happens that takes the old element of surprise out of the game.

[Redwolf]

While it is true that trees as such don't do much for concealment, in real life most bunches of tree also do have underbrush. The major exception is garden-like kept woods for a park or for logging but that is rare, and certainly very rare in the 1940s.

Syria might have had an excuse to model things this way but in places like France and Italy it is more realistic to also automatically assume concealment from underbrush for bunches of trees.

[akd]

No it isn't, because then trees in orchards or in parkland would be assumed to be thickly under grown. "Lt Forest" and "Hvy Forest" tiles were added exactly for this reason. Trees != forest.

[Redwolf]

Here is a question - Why are the folks who are adamant that CMx1 was better so willing to forgive it's inadequacies, but are completely unwilling to accept the same from CMx2?

1) lack of cover and concealment, and incorrect spotting ability on part of moving tanks, is doing more damage to realism than the shortcomings of CMBB/CMAK, at least in a battle environment that historically was all about concealment - such as Normandy.

2) CMx2 is a lot more effort to learn, and to play, and there is no clear realism benefit for that investment. As I said earlier, CMx1 was a player time efficient game, CMx2 is not. Just following all these crazy action spot postings is extremely annoying.

3) the game closed down on the player. No unit data displayed, no details about spotting/LOS displayed, more crazy restrictions in unit selection (yes I know Steve said the latter is a bug, not intentional, but that's what we play today). No autonomous AI and underengineered scripted AI.

4) still missing features. People don't like new versions of software removing features.

5) copy protection mechanism that will make us lose the game when BFC closes doors and that requires us to go through support and beg after 5 reinstalls of your OS.

So, in summary, it isn't that CMx2 is a worse game. But for all the trouble and all the years and all the time invested by both players and developers it should be "more better" than it is.

[sburke]

1) lack of cover and concealment, and incorrect spotting ability on part of moving tanks, is doing more damage to realism than the shortcomings of CMBB/CMAK, at least in a battle environment that historically was all about concealment - such as Normandy.

I think the issue isn't so much lack as it is players assuming too much about what grants cover and concealment. As others have noted, woods do not automatically grant concealment. There are more options in CMx2 with the base tiles in conjunction with woods. Are there still times when the perception is that the given terrain should offer more concealment? Yeah probably, but it is far from a systemic issue.

2) CMx2 is a lot more effort to learn, and to play, and there is no clear realism benefit for that investment. As I said earlier, CMx1 was a player time efficient game, CMx2 is not. Just following all these crazy action spot postings is extremely annoying.

I would beg to differ there. IMHO there is far more realism in CMx2. I am not even sure what you mean by playing time efficiency. Checkers is far more "efficient" than CMx1 and there are no spotting issues whatsoever, but what has that got to do with anything? I didn't realize that was a quantifiable thing. There is no efficiency for me about CMx1 vs CMx2. One for me is a better game and it isn't about the time I invest to play.

3) the game closed down on the player. No unit data displayed, no details about spotting/LOS displayed, more crazy restrictions in unit selection (yes I know Steve said the latter is a bug, not intentional, but that's what we play today). No autonomous AI and underengineered scripted AI.

Hey when you invent a game with a better AI and the ability to run it on the average machine out there I might take this criticism seriously. Yeah we'd all like an AI comparable to playing a human, but that is not likely to happen for quite some time and sits more in Steve's example of having a freezer that would flash freeze your food. What might help those of us that don't see this as a simple thing to do would be to give us an example of a game that has this uber AI that is not something ONLY played against the AI. At least then we could understand this as feasible and not just another gripe.

As to the LOS and spotting tools, we have all been over this before. Exactly what conditions would we have for a spotting/LOS tool that are feasible given the dynamics of the game?

4) still missing features. People don't like new versions of software removing features.

This one is getting old. It's a new game they didn't "remove" anything. You of all people should understand this isn't a "new version of software". If they removed something from CMx2 version 1.10 in 2.0 that would fit the bill, but they haven't. In fact they added features. Now there were certain capabilites in CMx1 that were nice, like an armored covered arc and BF is going back and adding or improving features as they go but CMx1 and CMx2 are different games. There are certain features in each game that are wholly inappropriate for the other. This constant attempt to compare them as apples to apples just keeps ignoring what BF has to do to make things work. It also didn't help that the first CMx2 game was a modern setting which alters how useful some of those commands are as well. In addition there are new commands in version 2 that haven't existed at all before. You don't need rose tinted glasses to see that BF made a really good move switching to the x2 engine, you just have to be patient enough to allow them to flesh it out. Yeah I know, we gamers are a pretty impatient lot. Still you have to admit what we are seeing in version 2 should be changing people's perspective on where we are going and yet it would seem folks are stuck in this loop like change is not part of the process.

5) copy protection mechanism that will make us lose the game when BFC closes doors and that requires us to go through support and beg after 5 reinstalls of your OS.

The sky is not falling and most of us have never had to ask for another install. If BF (god forbid) ever has to close their doors I expect they will then present us with something to deal with this. This sounds more like looking for an excuse to criticize by finding a worse case hypothetical. You'd be better served saying what if all the BF people were in a room and a meteor struck.

So, in summary, it isn't that CMx2 is a worse game. But for all the trouble and all the years and all the time invested by both players and developers it should be "more better" than it is.

I have no idea how you come up with that evaluation. You have this propensity to make statements about where the company and the game should be and I honestly have no idea what you base any of it on. You don't provide anything other than a simple statement as if it were incontrovertible fact. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but in the end that is all it is - your opinion. In my opinion, yes I have had to be patient, but I would say BF is delivering in spades. I haven't been this excited about developments in this genre of gaming in a very very long time.

[womble]

While it is true that trees as such don't do much for concealment, in real life most bunches of tree also do have underbrush. The major exception is garden-like kept woods for a park or for logging but that is rare, and certainly very rare in the 1940s.

Not in rural Europe it wasn't. Apple orchards in Normandy, Olive groves in Sicily. At least as common in areas you want to fight over as "untamed woodland".

It's been said many times in the last year that concealment-scarcity on maps is something that map designers need to address, since there are new tools and mechanisms in place. Much good work has been done in this direction.

Syria might have had an excuse to model things this way but in places like France and Italy it is more realistic to also automatically assume concealment from underbrush for bunches of trees.

Nope. See above.

[Erwin]

"CMx1 and CMx2 are different games."

That says it all.

The fact is that for all CM2's sophistication it's more of a simulation which is a lot more like hard work than the easier but more elegant (in terms of its level of abstraction) CM1 which is more of a fun/casual game (by comparison).

It's baffling why CM2 fans can't understand that other players actually enjoy having an easier game that's fun to play and that "realism" usually takes the fun out of things.

Again, as sburke succinctly noted "CMx1 and CMx2 are different games." One can enjoy either or both for different reasons. So, play whichever you want, when you want.

[JonS]

It's baffling why CM2 fans can't understand that other players actually enjoy having an easier game that's fun to play and that "realism" usually takes the fun out of things.

It's probably for the same reason that CM1 fans can't understand that other players actually enjoy having an better game that's fun to play and that "realism" makes the fun.

[dieseltaylor]

I think the issue isn't so much lack as it is players assuming too much about what grants cover and concealment. As others have noted, woods do not automatically grant concealment. There are more options in CMx2 with the base tiles in conjunction with woods. Are there still times when the perception is that the given terrain should offer more concealment? Yeah probably, but it is far from a systemic issue.

Sburke

Is it just possible that BF might have provided some guidance on spotting limitations /advantages in the manual? Page 72 does not address the importance of the underlayer at all which means other than beta-testers every one is going from scratch. Why the secrecy if it is fundamental?

More to the point the guide for map building is equally uncommunicative as to the importance of the underlying terrain.

So much as it appears the players are to blame for being stupid in making assumptions it would appear that BF have colluded or compounded the frustration. I would be interested in a rational explanation why it is better to leave the map designers and the new players in a state of ignorance when releasing a new game.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I like the CMx2 engine, but my feelings on the CMx2 games are mixed. 1-1 infantry is a huge step forward, but somewhat ironically I find infantry to be relatively weaker vs. other branches of the army (artillery and armor) than their cartoonishly abstracted ancestors in CMx1.

It's also hard not to notice that the CMx2 QB options are rudimentary compared to CMx1's and basic features like AAA and fire are still not in after 5 years. So yes, it's fun and overall I prefer CMx2 but I kinda sorta understand what CMx1 fans are talking about.

[sburke]

"CMx1 and CMx2 are different games."

That says it all.

The fact is that for all CM2's sophistication it's more of a simulation which is a lot more like hard work than the easier but more elegant (in terms of its level of abstraction) CM1 which is more of a fun/casual game (by comparison).

It's baffling why CM2 fans can't understand that other players actually enjoy having an easier game that's fun to play and that "realism" usually takes the fun out of things.

Again, as sburke succinctly noted "CMx1 and CMx2 are different games." One can enjoy either or both for different reasons. So, play whichever you want, when you want.

You may not be referring to me so I am not responding with that perspective in mind. It isn't that I can't understand why someone might prefer CMx1 over CMx2. As we both said, they are different games and it would actually be surprising to find some who didn't prefer CMx1. What I don't understand is the criticisms that get laid on CMx2 as if CMx1 somehow wasn't full of it's own flaws.

As an example, let's talk about all the concern about spotting. For myself the primary reason for not going back to CMx1 is borg spotting. For me that has become a huge immersion killer and makes all the claimed spotting issues in CMx2 pale by comparison. Yes there are times when I have run into oddities that show up in CMx2. They aren't as often as one might expect from the forum chatter, but yeah they happen. Borg spotting in CMx1 however is a constant not an occasional flaw. For me the impact in game play is simply overwhelming. The tactical battle becomes so much more simplified that it takes away from my ability to plan a battle to truly take advantage of terrain. Some people feel that tanks in CMx2 uber spot, well how about tanks in CMx1 that immediately spot anything anyone else sees in their LOS. It is hard to take those criticisms seriously under those conditions.

As a simpler game that takes less effort, yeah I can see why some might want to play CMx1 games. For me however it is all the extra meat of how things work in CMx2 that aren't a chore, they are EXACTLY why I prefer it. To each his own though. For those who prefer CMx1, all power to you. You don't need a reason, you can just like it cause you like it. However those who claim it is more consistently reliable and therefore realistic.. well sorry I don't buy that one.

[skelley]

Both games have their positives and negatives...both are thoroughly enjoyable. Hell i played well over 400 tcp/ip games of Cmx1 and loved every game...that I won.

Borg spotting was a major problem in CMX1, but remaining hidden is a problem in CMX2. I am not speaking of my units remaining hidden, I am concerned about designing scenarios where the AI units stay hidden and ambush units they are designed to destroy. I think (for what it's worth) that a little more abstraction would benefit CMX2.

That being said I hope this thread doesn't get bogged down in the usual CMX1 vs. CMX2 arguments that don't move the ball down the field. My main goal with this thread is to be able to design scenarios that add the surprise and tension that I was able to achieve with CMX1. I worked around things in CMX1... I'm sure I can do the same with the new engine. My thanks to Womble for the advice on more light forest tiles to conceal guns. I realize the engine is more complex but I hope progress can be made toward making spotting more difficult, which in "my experience" has been too easy. When you spot the enemy too easily it makes battles too "anti-septic." Spot a gun...launch some mortars....move in the armor.

[Mord]

This is why some long for the days of CMX1 - we could argue about a bloody tripod all day and night, but thankfully it was a given that you could hide ATGs, Shreks and what not for ambushes etc and had no bloody fanboys to tell us why it is all right to spot a veteran sniper team with normal infantry from 500 m away after mere seconds .... or that enemy tank around the corner of the building suddenly my infantry completely forgets about after 5 secs, do they not hear the bloody engine and smell the diesel ....... or german heavy MGs on tripods that shoot over their targets half the time even when they shoot at the same damn target for minutes ...... give it up skelley, you could more likely get a junkie to stop using than those fanboys to look behind the curtain .....

The only thing worse than a CMX2 "fanboy" are the CMX1 "fanboys"...who forget all the foot stamping, tantrum throwing and bitching that went on during the glory days of the infallible, perfection that was CMBO, CMBB and CMAK. It was paradise on earth.

LOL yeah, you could hide ATGs for one shot then EVERY single unit on the map that could draw a LOS to it, killed it five seconds after it got a round off. AT guns were only second in life expectancy to flame throwers. I don't long for that at all.

But anyway, there's nothing the matter with pointing stuff out that's wrong or perceived wrong. That's how the game gets better. BUT if you "long" for those days, what's stopping you from loading up CMX1 and playing? Life will be bliss and the only fanboys you'll have to deal with will be the one in the mirror.

Mord.

[JonS]

What was it called? "The sunburst of death"?

[sburke]

Sburke

Is it just possible that BF might have provided some guidance on spotting limitations /advantages in the manual? Page 72 does not address the importance of the underlayer at all which means other than beta-testers every one is going from scratch. Why the secrecy if it is fundamental?

More to the point the guide for map building is equally uncommunicative as to the importance of the underlying terrain.

So much as it appears the players are to blame for being stupid in making assumptions it would appear that BF have colluded or compounded the frustration. I would be interested in a rational explanation why it is better to leave the map designers and the new players in a state of ignorance when releasing a new game.

Sorry, as far as I know there isn't some secret pool of knowledge the Beta testers share only amongst themselves...or maybe as a noob tester they aren't sharing with me...rat bastards probably are withholding..

I don't think it is a matter of leaving folks in a deliberate state of ignorance. There are 32 types of base tiles and 8 foliage types and that doesn't include the hedge variants. I don't think anyone expects a listing of all the variations and potential effect on concealment. there has to be some amount of expectation already - on page 29 of the CMBN manual

COVER AND CONCEALMENT

A word on these two terms, as the distinction is very important. Cover comprises obstacles or terrain that will physically stop enemy fire. A bunker, a trench line, or being behind a hill are good examples of cover. A unit inside cover will be harder to hit for the enemy. Concealment only prevents a unit or soldier from being spotted by the enemy; concealment provides no or very little protection from projectiles. Laying prone in a wheat field or hiding in bushes are good examples of concealment.

While granted that is pretty sparse for such an important topic I think they made it pretty clear that you need to think about the effect of different terrain and provided specific examples. While it might be nice to have some kind of chart that lists all the terrain types and some kind of scale it can also be impacted by the unit doing the spotting as well possibly by the unit in the terrain trying to hide. Net result is I think folks are looking for a simple answer when there really isn't one. On the other hand trees are just that, trees. Without a decent base tile they are no different than the ones you see in your local park. How much concealment do you think they provide? I used to go to a park in PA called Tyler Arboreteum. They had this one area that was all a more recent planting and even being an area that no one was manicuring, you could see right through the whole dang thing. The base tile is what provides for underbrush. I can't say I know BF's thinking on this, but I am guessing they figured folks understood the difference.

On the other hand it wouldn't take long to set up a simple test to see all the possible variations and where they have a more explicit impact if one is so inclined. I don't. I just play the game on feel and most of the time it seems to work for me. I went through the same learning curve as everyone else and some things I am still struggling to get a handle on. Wheatfields in particular are one of those things that make my hair stand on end. Sending my troops into one has me muttering the same things that you are calling out to the screen in those crappy horror films knowing the murderer is just behind the door.

[skelley]

Some guidance on terrain benefits couldn't hurt. I was pretty annoyed with the heavy rock terrain with shrubs, when enemy spotters in hide mode were spotted in under 3 minutes...over and over. I thought by the look of the tile it would be fairly easy to hide 3 guys in it. There are so many variables that make it hard to decipher what really is happening and why.