John Kettler Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 sburke, Andabatae redux! http://www.roman-colosseum.info/gladiators/andabatae.htm Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDW Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 Thansk sburke, i appreciate that. it is awesome having a community with people like you who truly care about the game and helping everyone figure out The Truth! I'm actually feeling slightly better - just had a turn where my tiger took a few top hits from a mortar and spotted the mortar team way far off in the trees and took one shot and took them out. My opponent may be starting a thread "unrealistic spotting by Tigers in CMFI" LOL In this same game, my opponent shot at the tiger with a zook, the zook round went arcing OVER the tiger and killed one of my panzers further back. It was an INSANE lucky shot. Good times! I actually like some random results in CM, becuase it makes the game leess chess-like. The early CMx1 tank battles felt like a chess match to me. Now, I have no friggin idea what is going to happen! Its fun, frustrating sometimes, but fun and entertaining, which is why I play - even if I'm on the losing side. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 sburke, Andabatae redux! http://www.roman-colosseum.info/gladiators/andabatae.htm Regards, John Kettler I was thinking more of the scene from Life of Brian. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darknight (DC) Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I agree! DC let's do an armor only QB, you US me German, and see what happens...? Sure....(though I still see myself losing )...set up a game, state the purchase rules and send it along. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Many a Tank battle is now decided by who spots who first. Much more than armor thickness, and how many tanks vs how many tanks. It sure does take the calculated risk out of the game at times now. Just had a htoh match today that My PzIV just nailed two Shermans in the same minute of play, all due to spotting. One moving, the other was stationary and I had adjusted my tank a few yards. So My opponant is adding his complaint about how his shermans could not but should have spotted my mark 4 sitting directly in front of them. I really think this thread comes down to learning to accept how the game handles spotting. Do I like it all the time. Nooo. Do I think it could be improved Yesssss. But so far BF has done little to improve it. There was some tweeks when they came out with the patch 1.10 for CMBN, and maybe some more when the Brits came out, Not sure about that. But we could hope for some more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Many a Tank battle is now decided by who spots who first. Much more than armor thickness, and how many tanks vs how many tanks. It sure does take the calculated risk out of the game at times now. Just had a htoh match today that My PzIV just nailed two Shermans in the same minute of play, all due to spotting. One moving, the other was stationary and I had adjusted my tank a few yards. So My opponant is adding his complaint about how his shermans could not but should have spotted my mark 4 sitting directly in front of them. I really think this thread comes down to learning to accept how the game handles spotting. Do I like it all the time. Nooo. Do I think it could be improved Yesssss. But so far BF has done little to improve it. There was some tweeks when they came out with the patch 1.10 for CMBN, and maybe some more when the Brits came out, Not sure about that. But we could hope fore some more. The problem we have is what direction should the tweaks take? This thread started with a player feeling something is borked with spotting a Sherman, meanwhile we have another player who feels just the opposite. We have some folks who feel tanks spot infantry AT assets far too easily while in a pbem game I am playing right now I have successfully killed one Tank with a PF and almost nailed a second..that's like 30m range. Same game I had a shrek team hit another tank, the gunner then got taken out so his asst crawled over, grabbed the shreck and proceeded to immobilize the same tank and was finally taken out when an infantry team tracked him down. Our situation is we have a LOT of anecdotal info based on subjective opinion, but no hard data or a scenario that allows us to reliably duplicate the effect. Without either of those BF is loathe to change anything - change what to do what? I personally think that is a good thing. IF something is borked, we should be able to prove it or reliably duplicate it, then at least BF has something to work with. As it stands now we can't even agree on what it is just a general sense that it doesn't favor us. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Our situation is we have a LOT of anecdotal info based on subjective opinion, but no hard data or a scenario that allows us to reliably duplicate the effect. We also have only subjective opinions about how spotting "should" be, and those opinions are additionally pretty woolly. Difficult to turn into hard figures for computation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 True, back to some type of testing needs to be done to show some points. But without understanding what programming is involved with the spotting to begin with. It seems a little of a waste. Now I have tested different aspects of spotting to certain things and personnally have come to a conclusion it is no where near real life in many factors, so its not going to get you the warm feeling as to it being natural. Just a few observations from my game play and testing. Motions units do not seemed affected as to spotting, they see as well as a motionless unit. Spotting a enemy unit has nothing to do with size. A unit might as well spot a grunt 200 meters away as he does a tank. or not. In other words the amout of exposure that a target shows is not a factor as to being seen. Shadows, brush and trees do not conceal correctly. If there is a slight clear section to part of the target. The AI reconizes it as a enemy unit. Even if its no more than a sq ft area of the side panel of a tank 250 meters away. Why does it work like this, because it is a math program running some type of calc. that protrays all these type of things, but really is not doing these type of things as we would in real life. Now how do you suggest what to fix when you have no clue how they have come up with something that mimics real life but does not work on concepts that function in real life as to how we see. If we had a clue as to what factors in the program can be adjusted, that would help. But if I had to guess as to a possible area that could improve spotting. Size of the target to the spotter should have a math factor in the calculations that I do not think is there. Very large items should be easy to spot, that would resolve maybe some of the issues, like tanks not seeing tanks immediately when they are out in the open. Or infantry have a hard time spotting tanks in brush and smoke and stuff. large tanks should be harder to conceal in the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 True, back to some type of testing needs to be done to show some points. But without understanding what programming is involved with the spotting to begin with. It seems a little of a waste. Now I have tested different aspects of spotting to certain things and personnally have come to a conclusion it is no where near real life in many factors, so its not going to get you the warm feeling as to it being natural. Just a few observations from my game play and testing. Motions units do not seemed affected as to spotting, they see as well as a motionless unit. Spotting a enemy unit has nothing to do with size. A unit might as well spot a grunt 200 meters away as he does a tank. or not. In other words the amout of exposure that a target shows is not a factor as to being seen. Shadows, brush and trees do not conceal correctly. If there is a slight clear section to part of the target. The AI reconizes it as a enemy unit. Even if its no more than a sq ft area of the side panel of a tank 250 meters away. Why does it work like this, because it is a math program running some type of calc. that protrays all these type of things, but really is not doing these type of things as we would in real life. Now how do you suggest what to fix when you have no clue how they have come up with something that mimics real life but does not work on concepts that function in real life as to how we see. If we had a clue as to what factors in the program can be adjusted, that would help. But if I had to guess as to a possible area that could improve spotting. Size of the target to the spotter should have a math factor in the calculations that I do not think is there. Very large items should be easy to spot, that would resolve maybe some of the issues, like tanks not seeing tanks immediately when they are out in the open. Or infantry have a hard time spotting tanks in brush and smoke and stuff. large tanks should be harder to conceal in the game. I'm far from saying ANY of these games are perfect. I have tested many facets of the game. My tests refute some of your points. There are problems with spotting not working the way we'd expect. You made some statements which are demonstrably wrong: - Units in motion do spot worse than stationary units. - Size of (or number in) a unit does affect spotting. Yeah, spotting feels like it can be improved. However, feelings are not data. Facts will be more beneficial to narrowing down what should be tweaked. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfhand Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Sure, there are times when I'm frustrated by the spotting in game. What helps me deal with it (I basically only play h2h... <when I have turns waiting>) is this: http://www.quotationspage.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9757 One of the great things about CMxX is that a re-cooking of any turn will most likely result in different outcomes across the battlefield. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I'm far from saying ANY of these games are perfect. I have tested many facets of the game. My tests refute some of your points. There are problems with spotting not working the way we'd expect. You made some statements which are demonstrably wrong: - Units in motion do spot worse than stationary units. - Size of (or number in) a unit does affect spotting. Yeah, spotting feels like it can be improved. However, feelings are not data. Facts will be more beneficial to narrowing down what should be tweaked. Ken - Units in motion do spot worse than stationary units Ok, lets restate this, since I also posted data on this when the thread was active. Yes it does affect spotting when in motion, I have made a statement that was not correct. Buuuuut. When we ran them test. The over all results was Yes the moving tank after running many test had a overall higher adverage than the motionless tank. But there was the result of how many times both the motionless vs the tank in motion spotted each other at the same time, which was pretty high. and considering that the motionless tank was in good concealment. made little sence as to reflecting good logic. So, though you are correct. I will restate that what I would like to say is Tanks in motion are not being handicapped enough and that at many instances do not show any differance at all to a motionless tank. So , as far as I am concerned, its still broken, even if there is some weird penalty that does affect the tank in motion at times. As for the size , I have not tested it to see for sure how it is impacting the results. But when there is a tank with no concealment in full view of your unit and it is not spotted in the machine sight spotting cycle, which appears to be 7 seconds at the most in certain situations. Then there is a problem. No matter how you justify it. Unless that crew is on some heavy drugs. the spotting likelehood is extreamly high. I have seen this situation at times go from 30 seconds to a minute while running test for head to head duels. So maybe you have some results that show a varience, great. Then lets get some changes to it. So that the game starts spotting tanks out in the open more consistantly. As far as I am concerned, it is not taking size into account correctly until that happens. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Many a Tank battle is now decided by who spots who first. Much more than armor thickness, and how many tanks vs how many tanks. It sure does take the calculated risk out of the game at times now. Just had a htoh match today that My PzIV just nailed two Shermans in the same minute of play, all due to spotting. One moving, the other was stationary and I had adjusted my tank a few yards. So My opponant is adding his complaint about how his shermans could not but should have spotted my mark 4 sitting directly in front of them. I really think this thread comes down to learning to accept how the game handles spotting. Do I like it all the time. Nooo. Do I think it could be improved Yesssss. But so far BF has done little to improve it. There was some tweeks when they came out with the patch 1.10 for CMBN, and maybe some more when the Brits came out, Not sure about that. But we could hope for some more. Very early on the CMSF we had a thread that started with 4 tanks moving onto 4 tanks standing behind a ridge. The 4 tanks moving in spotted the standing completely different, although the standing ones were directly next to each other. There was really no way to realistically see one and not the others. Not only did each mover spot each stander differently, each mover was different from the other movers. This was really a much better test than going 1 on 1. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I want to chime in and say that objects in motion, whether vehicles or men on foot, should get spotted much sooner on average than objects at rest. Now, obviously this is complicated by a host of variables such as lighting, obscuration, concealment, speed of the object in motion, the skills and attention of the observers, and on and on. But the human eye detects and responds to motion. All things being equal, an object in motion would get picked up in a fraction of the time or many times the distance. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 So, though you are correct. I will restate that what I would like to say is Tanks in motion are not being handicapped enough and that at many instances do not show any differance at all to a motionless tank. So , as far as I am concerned, its still broken, even if there is some weird penalty that does affect the tank in motion at times. It's really difficult to know whether that statement has any validity. There are so many factors that you may or may not have isolated. One way to test whether moving vehicles spot better or worse than stationary vehicles would be to arrange for an intervening sight blocking obstacle between two stationary tanks to be removed (by demo charge, or arty, say), so that you could compare the spotting ability of a tank static at position A to the spotting ability of a tank moving through that position. One scenario would have a the two static tanks and a wall which gets a hole blown in it, the other would have a wall with a gap in it and a tank moving to the position where the static tank was in order to observe the enemy tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poesel Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 One way to test whether moving vehicles spot better or worse than stationary vehicles would be to arrange for an intervening sight blocking obstacle between two stationary tanks to be removed (by demo charge, or arty, say), so that you could compare the spotting ability of a tank static at position A to the spotting ability of a tank moving through that position. I did such a test a while ago which gave the static tank a slight advantage: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1385369&postcount=26 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 I did such a test a while ago which gave the static tank a slight advantage: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1385369&postcount=26 Aha. I was obviously just remembering, not creating So, in the words of the Rt Hon Winston Churchill Edit: or Lord Beaverbrook (or Oscar Wilde); in either case the other party in the conversation remains anonymous, "We already know what kind of a woman you are, madam; now we're just haggling about the price." It's a matter of whether that "slight" advantage is of an appropriate degree. I suspect that, like points values, whether moving gives you a -1 or a -2 (or whatever) on your spotting roll is not up for alteration. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 To be blunt: I think spotting should be better. However, a lot of the tests presented, although interesting in themselves, have not really tested what they said they tested. It should be HARD to spot from inside a buttoned vehicle. It should be HARDER to spot from inside a moving buttoned vehicle. More on this much later... Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 It should be HARD to spot from inside a buttoned vehicle. It should be HARDER to spot from inside a moving buttoned vehicle. And it isn't in the game, at least not consistently. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 And [degraded spotting from tanks] isn't in the game 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 ...and to think, I actually clicked on that link. And then waited for SOMETHING I could relate to. My eyes! They burn! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 Cool, the perfect window of opportunity to post a random Youtube music video while rolling a relaxing jazz cigarette. Hey Ken, psst. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 My eyes! They burn! Brilliant, isn't it? ♫♪ This better be my lucky star, I'm too far gone, I've gone to far ♫♪ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZPB II Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 ♫♪ This better be my lucky star, I'm too far gone, I've gone to far ♫♪ Graargrar, that bit is way too catchy. It's really hard to sleep when you have an earworm! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Cool, the perfect window of opportunity to post a random Youtube music video while rolling a relaxing jazz cigarette. Hey Ken, psst. Oh my God, Tobias Funke landed a gig! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heinrich505 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Cool, the perfect window of opportunity to post a random Youtube music video while rolling a relaxing jazz cigarette. Hey Ken, psst. ...must...plunge....steel.....darts....into....eyes..... This was quite disturbing....but those boots....gotta have them. Heinrich505 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.