Spotting Cycles

[poesel]

While I was doing some testing with spotting from Tigers I stumbled upon a 7 second spotting cycle. But later I had a scenario where the cycle was much lower. So I did some more testing.

The setup is always the same: the spotting unit sits in the middle of a flat field ~360x360m in size. 12h, sunny, no wind. The 80 units to spot are evenly spread out on that field.

I used regular infantry, Shermans and Tigers.

The scenarios used are here: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/8811801/Spotting%20Tests.zip

Important: this is about when spotting happens - NOT about probabilties. Don't forget, this is an important difference.

The first columns has the spotting unit, the second the units to spot. The times are estimated times because measurement is not very exact especially for the lower numbers.

Results:

Tanks vs Inf: 7s

Tank vs Tank: 7s

Inf vs Inf: 3s

Inf vs Tank: 7s

One thing to note for infantry: every AS a unit uses gets its own offset and spotting check. Split unit thus get the same checks as unsplit ones.

The 7s for TvT is not what I had in the other test. The only thing different was that one tank was moving. Hmmm...:

Tank vs Moving Tank: 2s

Inf vs Moving Tank: 2s

And the other way round:

Moving Tank vs Inf: 2s

Moving Inf vs Tank: 2s

Aha - there we go. Moving units spot and get spotted more frequently. That they get spotted more often is obvious but the other way round is - surprising. This is probably offset by a lower spotting probability. Still strange - probably some programming reason to do so because otherwise it doesn't make sense.

So what to make of it: I don't know. Intervals are surely necessary. But the way moving units are handled seems counter intuitive.

[Ranger33]

Interesting, would like to see some further investigation.

It rarely happens, but I still sometimes get the situation where an infantry squad stares out into a street, thinking it's empty, when in reality a tank has been sitting there for several seconds and has already spotted them.

[sburke]

I had one yesterday where a Stuart was right next to a German haltrack on an open road and never did see it. I let it sit there for a full 30 seconds and then on the next turn had the Stuart unbutton. Still nothing. It could see the AT gun the Halftrack had been towing which was right next to it, but not the halftrack. The halftrack had been abandoned, but still running. Over a minute after the Stuart had pulled up next to it a Sherman coming down the road spotted the halftrack and destroyed it. (and almost hitting my own Stuart in the process, The Stuart commander was forced to button up).

For me that wasn't a "spotting cycle issue" I have no idea why but I fully expect that Stuart for some reason was incapable of ever seeing the Halftrack. I have a save so can play around with it to see if it ever does.

[c3k]

Well, I would think a moving unit CHANGES LOCATIONS and needs to have LOS checked more frequently than a stationary unit? As well, if a target is moving, the stationary units would need to poll their LOS more frequently to see if they have a shot. (By more frequently I mean in comparison to stationary units, not in absolute terms.)

Ken

[Steiner14]

Interesting. Glad that a movingTvT does have a 2s cycle only and not a 7s cycle. Now i can continue my games with a good feeling again.

[Baneman]

Well, I would think a moving unit CHANGES LOCATIONS and needs to have LOS checked more frequently than a stationary unit? As well, if a target is moving, the stationary units would need to poll their LOS more frequently to see if they have a shot. (By more frequently I mean in comparison to stationary units, not in absolute terms.)

Ken

Perhaps then the moving unit's probability to spot needs to be downgraded and/or the stationary units' upgraded.

[Offshoot]

Well, I would think a moving unit CHANGES LOCATIONS and needs to have LOS checked more frequently than a stationary unit? As well, if a target is moving, the stationary units would need to poll their LOS more frequently to see if they have a shot. (By more frequently I mean in comparison to stationary units, not in absolute terms.)

Does checking LOS use the same mechanism as spotting though? Once a unit has spotted another, I can't imagine that it would then have to 're-spot' it each polling event. Imagine a tank driving in circles around an infantry squad in the open on flat terrain that provided the squad with a 90% chance to spot a tank. If the squad had to respot the tank every 2 seconds, then, on average, the tank would disappear from site one-tenth of the time for no explicable reason. Also, wouldn't LOS need to be checked more often than every 2 seconds?

I think in the other thread there was an assumption that a unit looks at all visible ASs and then checks if a unit is spotted in each. This wouldn't explain the phenomenon where a static unit polls every two seconds against a moving unit, though, because the static unit would need to know the other unit was moving and in possible LOS before deciding to check ASs every 2 seconds rather than every 7 seconds. Perhaps instead there is a reciprocity between spotter and spotee, such that a spotted unit automatically checks to see if it spots the unit that spotted it. If that were the case, only moving units would spot every 2 seconds and it would just appear that static units poll every 2 seconds against moving units (especially in conditions like this test where spotting is apparently easy).

[slysniper]

Interesting stuff. It shows us at least some of the programing numbers. but only steve knows what changing them would do in impacting the game. Of course there must be other factors in when a unit spots besides this.

I just hope that we get Steve to do a little tweeking of the numbers.

In general it does a good job, but when it does not and we get the weird spotting results it sure is noticable. because it is hard to justify why a unit cannot see a 20 Ton tank, that should be clear for it to see.

But no matter what, i assume we might always have some unusaul spotting resuts, just by the nature of the programming.

[c3k]

Two separate issues being discussed: spotting cycles vs spotting probability.

My comment was PURELY towards cycles. Now, if we want to talk spotting probabilities, let's do so...in another thread. (Yes, I agree that some spotting is not working the way we'd expect. "We" being players. I do not speak for BF.C in any manner.)

[LarsS]

Nice test. It comes as a bit of a relief to see that a much shorter spotting cycle is used whenever moving units are involved. The other thread had me slightly worried. I mean 7 seconds is an eternity in MOUT, in thick woods and other situations where abundant cover/concealment limits engagement ranges. Especially for when vehicles are involved. A 2 second cycle, which on average means an actual delay around 1 second before units make the spotting check after they have come into LoS of each other, is perfectly reasonable and more in line with how the game "feels".

[Guest]

Interesting stuff. It shows us at least some of the programing numbers.

No, it doesn't. It shows you some numbers that might occur because of what you *think* is spotting cycles, under the situations you're measuring. You guys are attempting to quantify variables in a very large and complex system. It's admirable, but you're necessarily making a fairly vast number of assumptions.

As long as that's understood, though, carry on. It's interesting to watch you guys go over this.

but only steve knows what changing them would do in impacting the game. Of course there must be other factors in when a unit spots besides this.

Yes, there are. Heaps of them.

Also, you might be conflating Steve with Charles.

I just hope that we get Steve to do a little tweeking of the numbers.

In general it does a good job, but when it does not and we get the weird spotting results it sure is noticable. because it is hard to justify why a unit cannot see a 20 Ton tank, that should be clear for it to see.

But no matter what, i assume we might always have some unusaul spotting resuts, just by the nature of the programming.

Unusual spotting results exist in the real world, too, as has been pointed out every time this sort of thread comes up. I'm sure we'll improve spotting over time, but it's never going to be perfect (i.e. giving instant results of the sort the player thinks it should, when they want them). To make it perfect would be both unrealistic and impossible calculation-wise.

[ZPB II]

One thing to take into consideration is that as far as I know what the player sees is not the same as what your troops see. There have been examples of troops firing at something or yelling that they see a contact a long time before even a contact marker let alone a 3d model is displayed to the player.

[Vanir Ausf B]

One thing to take into consideration is that as far as I know what the player sees is not the same as what your troops see. There have been examples of troops firing at something or yelling that they see a contact a long time before even a contact marker let alone a 3d model is displayed to the player.

I'm still waiting for someone to post a save game showing this. I find the whole idea of stuff not being shown to the player bizarre.

[sburke]

No, it doesn't. It shows you some numbers that might occur because of what you *think* is spotting cycles, under the situations you're measuring. You guys are attempting to quantify variables in a very large and complex system. It's admirable, but you're necessarily making a fairly vast number of assumptions.

As long as that's understood, though, carry on. It's interesting to watch you guys go over this.

Interesting or amusing? Hey as long as you are entertained, it is worth it. You need something to get a chuckle out of whenever you emerge from that dark, dank programming cubicle. Yeah I know you guys are really all sitting in a tropical beach house with the yacht anchored off shore, but humor me.

[cool breeze]

I'm still waiting for someone to post a save game showing this. I find the whole idea of stuff not being shown to the player bizarre.

Still no save but I'll say again I'm sure I have seen it happen plenty of times.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I've seen it happen many times also, but only when continuing to fire at previously spotted units that they lose LOS to. I even set up a test to try and replicate units reacting to invisible (to the player) enemy units and couldn't make them do it.

[cool breeze]

Not finding it in your test doesn't mean it doesn't happen. I know about them continuing to shoot at enemies after they disappear for a little while, since it happens all the time and all, but I'm pretty sure I have seen what we are talking about happen many time (but much less often) too. I think it is both kinda rare and takes special circumstances or something so if you don't have whatever the special circumstances are in your test then it wont happen. Edit to add. and its a brief situation when it happens, you usually get the normal spot soon after.