permanent666 Posted January 23, 2013 Author Share Posted January 23, 2013 here you are: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/66690360/Bloody%20Omaha%20commandphase.bts https://dl.dropbox.com/u/66690360/Bloody%20Omaha2.btt (scenario saved with 2.0) https://dl.dropbox.com/u/66690360/Bloody%20Omaha1-1.btt (original scenario) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 here you are: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/66690360/Bloody%20Omaha%20commandphase.bts https://dl.dropbox.com/u/66690360/Bloody%20Omaha2.btt (scenario saved with 2.0) https://dl.dropbox.com/u/66690360/Bloody%20Omaha1-1.btt (original scenario) Thanks for the saves. I see the problem in your replay save, but oddly loading the command phase save from before and playing from there does not show the problem (I think the fortifications are spotted too quickly, but they are definitely revealed in increments, not all at once). However, I started the scenario over on my own, skipped through to turn 15 and saw the same problem (every fortification within LOS of the tanks appears to be instantly revealed during the first second of the turn replay). Definitely something off, but need to narrow it down more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 There may need to be some tweaking, but first we have to establish a baseline of what is the average spotting distance of fighting positions. If you look at field manuals, you see that infantrymen go to great length to hide their positions, including making them nearly invisible from the enemy's line of advance, relying instead on 'keyholing" and interlocking fields of fire from other positions to cover their front, i.e.: If you setup foxholes in game using the same principles, they are much harder to spot. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 If you setup foxholes in game using the same principles, they are much harder to spot. No they are not. The above screenshots spot them in the middle of what should be concealment, in fact the ones in the screenshot are entirely concealed without keyholes for shooting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 No they are not. The above screenshots spot them in the middle of what should be concealment, in fact the ones in the screenshot are entirely concealed without keyholes for shooting. you really have no clue what I am talking about, do you? I can suggest some very basic material on RL defensive positions, if you wish. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 you really have no clue what I am talking about, do you? I can suggest some very basic material on RL defensive positions, if you wish. I think he's referring to the in game screen shots and not the field manual examples that you posted. :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 you really have no clue what I am talking about, do you? I can suggest some very basic material on RL defensive positions, if you wish. Awaiting your screenshots of how your model positions don't get spotted in a situation similar to the screenshots already posted. ETA: or maybe I misunderstood and ASL Vet is right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Camoflagued fortifications (and camouflague of stationary positions in general) could be abstracted by camo nets a players could buy and then put onto the same action spot as the fortification or something else he wants to be hard to spot. They would give a similar camoflague bonus as wooden terrain but without limiting the field of view of the units inside. I think that could be pretty cool. Just a random thought i had. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Here you go. Open terrain, US troops are 150 meters from 4 german positions/foxholes. The only obstacle is a 1 meter berm in front of each position. The front of each German position is protected by enfilade fire from the other three. Standard by the book defensive position. Do you see the foxholes? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Cool info! Thanks, Sgt Joch! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Do you see the foxholes? Doesn't matter because you can see the berms. But yeah, fortifications that are not in LOS at all won't be spotted. I think the question is how quickly should fortifications that are within LOS but partially obscured or placed in tiles that should should provide good concealment be seen, especially given that the 3D size of the fortifications significantly exceeds what would be typical in the real world. There is also the issue that was highlighted in the Omaha save posted, which appears to be a situational bug of some sort that complicates the question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
permanent666 Posted January 25, 2013 Author Share Posted January 25, 2013 Doesn't matter because you can see the berms. But yeah, fortifications that are not in LOS at all won't be spotted. I think the question is how quickly should fortifications that are within LOS but partially obscured or placed in tiles that should should provide good concealment be seen, especially given that the 3D size of the fortifications significantly exceeds what would be typical in the real world. There is also the issue that was highlighted in the Omaha save posted, which appears to be a situational bug of some sort that complicates the question. btw this bug was also noticeable in the second mission of courage and fortitude i think foxhole spotting is quite ok now - maybe terrain should have more influence on visibility what worries me more is trench spotting as shown in my first screenshot 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 I think the question is how quickly should fortifications that are within LOS but partially obscured or placed in tiles that should should provide good concealment be seen, especially given that the 3D size of the fortifications significantly exceeds what would be typical in the real world. Agreed, but again it is a question of comparing apples with apples. Fortifications do not have an inherent cloaking device. You look at RL tactical situations where fortifications were very hard to spot and you see the defenders went out of their way to achieve that result. btw, a 1 meter high berm very much blends in with the terrain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinOrLose Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 While they fix spotting can they also fix cover. A soldier hiding in the bottom of a trench/foxhole should not be able to be hit by small arms fire from the same or lower elevation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 One last point on this. Standard late war German defensive doctrine. Note that the "Battle Zone" where the main trench lines/strongpoints/HMGs were setup was supposed to be on the reverse slope so it is out of LOF/LOS of the attackers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted January 25, 2013 Share Posted January 25, 2013 Sure, but "standard late-war German defenses" were also supposed to be well-camouflaged against observation, particularly from ground level to the front of the position. Somewhere I have some good material on this... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 ok did the same test with trenches and they are spotted from great distances regardless of terrain. i even put the spotting units on the same height level as the trenches here you can see the result after one minute in heavy forest: I tried to replicate your test, but on a map with heavy undergrowth & trees, none of my troops can spot any trenches until they are within 30 meters. I presume your map has the forest undergrowth, but no trees? That would explain the spotting distances. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
permanent666 Posted January 26, 2013 Author Share Posted January 26, 2013 I tried to replicate your test, but on a map with heavy undergrowth & trees, none of my troops can spot any trenches until they are within 30 meters. I presume your map has the forest undergrowth, but no trees? That would explain the spotting distances. ok i thought maybe you are right and my test was a bit artificial. so i put the trenches in a treeline. the distance in the first minute was about 600 meters. They could not spot the trenches. so i let the us troops run 100 meters. after they reached their destination they could spot not all but maybe half of the trenches. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RT North Dakota Posted January 26, 2013 Share Posted January 26, 2013 ok i thought maybe you are right and my test was a bit artificial. so i put the trenches in a treeline. the distance in the first minute was about 600 meters. They could not spot the trenches. so i let the us troops run 100 meters. after they reached their destination they could spot not all but maybe half of the trenches. Assuming even a modicum of skill on the part of those constructing the fortifications, they should not be visible until you are almost on top of them. Clearly such items in open ground and/or on forward slopes will be a lot easier to see. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
permanent666 Posted February 19, 2013 Author Share Posted February 19, 2013 did you notice any difference in fortification spotting. I did a quick test and it seems that spotting trenches is as easy as it was before. I was using the test map from the screenshot above. Edit: Just tested the omaha map and I got the same result as above. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 it seems that spotting trenches is as easy as it was before. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killkess Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Uh, someone can verify this? Where is he test scenario? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
permanent666 Posted February 19, 2013 Author Share Posted February 19, 2013 Uh, someone can verify this? Where is he test scenario? it is on my harddrive and here is a download link: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/66690360/1111spottemp.btt just advance 100 meters with the us troops and the trenches will show up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
permanent666 Posted February 20, 2013 Author Share Posted February 20, 2013 so no official comment on this one - maybe spotting of fortifications works as intended 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted February 20, 2013 Share Posted February 20, 2013 2.01 was just a quick fix. There are plans to look at this issue more in depth in the future. 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.