Spotting still too easy!

[skelley]

LLF's experiences mirror my own. The only way I have found to counter this is giving the enemy lots and lots of troops.

[LongLeftFlank]

And -3- the game engine. LLF is trying to replicate an operation which the game was not designed to simulate. At least on that scale and with that unique vegetation.

Technically true, but also a red herring really, since in high summer the temperate regions of Europe offer numerous vegetated areas every bid as lush and impenetrable as most jungle (and most "jungle" isn't triple canopy rainforest -- depends on rainfall and season). I was just in very dry Tuscany, and took careful note of the density of the vegetation adjoining backroads, tracks and fields; plenty dense and tall enough to hide a tank in many places.

Look guys, at <200 meters, with a TC out, I could buy a tank fairly promptly spotting a solid manmade object like a bunker that's shooting and taking other fire, even when camouflaged. The TC lights him up with the .50 for the gunner, fine. But at 400+, rapidly picking out 2 men 16m back in Heavy Forest, trees and bocage firing single shot rifles at somebody else? While the tank is also moving through difficult ground? That's just too much!

I took away the bunkers. It now takes the tanks about a minute on average to start lighting up -- very accurately, including main gun shots -- the unfortified infantry targets in Heavy Forest and bocage cover. Forget Pacific, a tweak is needed here.

In the meantime, I'm giving strong consideration to setting my scenarios in ahistorically Foggy conditions. Wondering if there's a way to switch off or alpha channel away the visual artifacts....

[Offshoot]

The "flow" of the game would be very slow and difficult. (Given a map with plenty of concealment.)

Okay, CM:HS is an extreme, but it shows how bad a game it could be if invisibility (or camo abilities near that) were used. Put that next to CMBN/CMFI's spotting model.

If perfection is somewhere between these two extremes, is it better to approach from the too easy side and get closer, or from the too hard side and work closer?

(Hint: this _is_ a game!)

Spotting does seem too easy right now. But, and this is the hard part, how do we quantify what makes it too easy? Given that, how would we quantify what it should be, once we've defined what it is?

Spotting ability sounds like an ideal function to incorporate into the difficulty modes - easy at one end, hard at the other. Even better, give it a slider of its own

[skelley]

LongLeftFlank... In my experience fog doesn't do much to tone down spotting just makes it so you can't see as far. Maybe 250m-300m.

[LongLeftFlank]

Yeah, just found that out playtesting in a Heavy Haze. Oh well, I'm compensating by pushing back the arrival time of the tanks. Just need to keep it in mind when laying out the defenses.

[Vinnart]

I am playing “School of hard knocks” mission from the “Courage and Fortitude” campaign in CMBN right now, and can say spotting has not been easy at all. It is misty, and my infantry did not see any AT guns till they opened up on tanks. They are behind sanbags in the open. Very hard mission with very hard spotting.

[Paper Tiger]

The other moral? If spotting is too hard, it stops being fun.

I don't doubt that the game would cease to be playable were spotting routines to be altered so drastically as to make spotting very hard. Nobody is asking for anything like that.

Steiner's summary is pretty much what I suggested elsewhere too, , Namely that camouflaged units are harder to spot before they open fire, that units in cover, particularly foxholes and trenches receive more benefit from their cover against HE, and that, in general, HE effects against infantry were tone down just a tad to benefit the AI opponent. And that there is a greater penalty to spotting for units that are moving, especially using QUICK and FAST Movement.

I also think that the binocular bonus to spotting is too generous. Yes, bins are great for examining an area in greater detail but I doubt very much that anyone uses them when they're moving or just stopped for a short period at a waypoint.

[skelley]

How many games into the campaign is that vinnart? I will try to play it tomorrow.

[Paper Tiger]

It is misty, and my infantry did not see any AT guns till they opened up on tanks.

That mission also starts at 6:30 in the morning, low light conditions, so, coupled with the Mist and overcast skies, it's much harder to spot non-moving units.

[skelley]

Does anybody know whether atmospheric conditions degrade spotting or just the distance that units can see?

[Vinnart]

How many games into the campaign is that vinnart? I will try to play it tomorrow.

I think it is the third mission. I have played much CM, but this mission is the toughest I have ever played. I hate static battles. Tough everything. Between the conditions, the choke point bridge, and the relentless enemy arty that just keeps coming this should have been called “Bloody Bridge”. I knocked two mortar bunkers out, and the enemy arty just keeps chewing up my force. The limited spotting has cost me 2 tanks so far since no troops saw the AT guns, and has cost me many arty rounds taking out those AT guns. I’m almost out, so it is going to be a LONG campaign.

Try this mission if you have any doubts how difficult spotting can be.

[Paper Tiger]

Try this mission if you have any doubts how difficult spotting can be.

Oh, you can make it a whole lot worse than that if you really want to. Try playing a mission in the dead of night, no moon, with Fog and Rain. That's a real laugh attack. I think the point of this thread is that spotting is too easy under normal environmental conditions and not the more extreme ones.

BTW when we get flares, we can craft much more interesting night missions than we can at the moment.

[Paper Tiger]

Does anybody know whether atmospheric conditions degrade spotting or just the distance that units can see?

Light conditions certainly do affect your ability to spot stationary units. If you play a night mission, you'll find it very hard to spot any units that are stationary. But if the open fire, then the fireworks really start. I don't know about Thick Haze or Mist/Fog though.

[womble]

I think it is the third mission.

Second, I think. Over Hill, Down Dale is the first.

I have played much CM, but this mission is the toughest I have ever played.

There are a a couple of lonnnng threads about how tough School is, and some of the rest of the campaign. It's trying to do something a bit unusual, as a campaign, and I'm not convinced it quite works.

[DavidFields]

Don't talk about School in here...or Razorback Ridge....I am hiding in the CMFI threads just to recover from the trauma of playing those scenarios (wonder how that campaign will look when converted to the new engine).

With regard to spotting, my sense is that infantry in cover is spotted more rapidly than I would expect--resulting in longer engagement distances, like 300-400 meters in good light/atmospheric conditions. "Sneaking" up on someone through the woods, other than by crawling, I have not found to be easy to do (playing Beyond Belice). This may be a reasonable compensation for the fact that we still have a "God's eye" view of the terrain and buildings--in other words, having troops wander through dense underbrush in RL could easily cause them to get lost, which is hard to simulate, and should then be discouraged.

On the other hand, one can have a tank almost on top of infantry and sometimes not be seen.

But this is, admittedly, very subjective.

[Vinnart]

There are a a couple of lonnnng threads about how tough School is, and some of the rest of the campaign. It's trying to do something a bit unusual, as a campaign, and I'm not convinced it quite works.

I think I could make it through "School” with a lot less casualties if I had approached it with more patience, and used my arty differently. I am so used to rolling over the AI that I took it too lightly. The key to that mission is extreme patience, and luck with arty.

[skelley]

Don't talk about School in here...or Razorback Ridge....I am hiding in the CMFI threads just to recover from the trauma of playing those scenarios (wonder how that campaign will look when converted to the new engine).

With regard to spotting, my sense is that infantry in cover is spotted more rapidly than I would expect--resulting in longer engagement distances, like 300-400 meters in good light/atmospheric conditions. "Sneaking" up on someone through the woods, other than by crawling, I have not found to be easy to do (playing Beyond Belice). This may be a reasonable compensation for the fact that we still have a "God's eye" view of the terrain and buildings--in other words, having troops wander through dense underbrush in RL could easily cause them to get lost, which is hard to simulate, and should then be discouraged.

On the other hand, one can have a tank almost on top of infantry and sometimes not be seen.

But this is, admittedly, very subjective.

I'm not really that concerned with my attacking forces being spotted easily. They should be fairly easy to spot. My concern is that stationary defenders are too easily spotted. As far as God's eye view.... I play with a simple rule that I can only area fire on positions with units that have had a contact or C2 contact.