Annoying, unbelievable tank spotting

[ridethe415]

I attempt to sneak a schreck team behind a Sherman, who is being distracted, evidently not enough, in his front by other infantry.

Note the turrent FACING THE FRONT

The shreck team gets that uneasy feeling in their stomachs because for some unknown reason, during the crashing dunn of battle, the tank commander decides to rotate his turret to his rear.

It's just his sixth sense, he can't really SEE anyone behind him...RIGHT?

OMG...is he really firing at....

"Gott!!" [Honest, that's what they mumbled]

%$@$#@. [Me, verbatim...]

How can this possibly happen? The shreck team is wearing CAMO fer crying outloud, were hunting...etc etc.

[wolf66]

Don't worry, womble will just pull some weird explanation for this out of his behind soon ........................ these "incidents" are the reason for me to question the spotting abilities of tanks in CMX2 and the whole concept of ambushes is lost in CMX2 .... IMO

[Aragorn2002]

Hmmm, that can't be right.

[noob]

Try setting up the same situation, then run it, say, twenty times, and see if the same thing happens each time. You might be experiencing an outlier result, like losing to a one outer in a Texas Hold'em hand.

(In poker, a one outer is where your opponent has only one card in the deck that will give them the winning hand).

[Oddball_E8]

It is entirely possible that the commander was looking for threats whilst the rest of the crew is busy attacking those infantry (since the commander doesn't need to keep an eye on that).

But I do agree that tanks tend to spot infantry a bit too easily. (on the other hand, in a recent urban battle I was in, I quick moved an entire squad of brittish soldiers within one square of a buttoned Panther tank without it noticing it (to the left, slightly to the rear) and proceeded to take it out with grenades. So It certainly is possible that this incident is purely a one outer like noob said)

[Bernie]

Well "ridethe" my two cents. The p.s. team is not behind concealment, they are in front of it. Nothing conceals them in this situation. Thats how the game works, keep troops behind concealment and they will do just fine most times.

[verulam]

Only two days ago whilst playing a QB a squad of Panzer Grenadiers emerged from a building behind a Sherman in the same square and destroyed it with a Panzer Faust from behind. The accompanying infantry then mowed them down. Concealment is all.

[sypox]

Most tank crews could get a 360 view from their vehicle. Rotating periscopes was common and later advanced optics and turret prisms was introduced.

However, spotting a 2 men tank hunting party during battle was not easy.

[womble]

How can this possibly happen? The shreck team is wearing CAMO fer crying outloud, were hunting...etc etc.

Don't worry, womble will just pull some weird explanation for this out of his behind soon...

I don't need to pull any wierd explanations out of anywhere, since all that's asked is "how can it be possible". Nothing wierd needed, as others have said. Does it happen too often? Couldn't say; don't have any numbers on either how often it happens in the game, nor how often it would have happened in comparable situations IRL. I know that I've had plenty of situations where tanks have been completely unable to see targets that their accompanying infantry were able to acquire, and that's with all the tank's eyes bearing on the problem. Spotting, it seems to me, might well be too lumpy, with a too high "minimum chance" of seeing things, which would go some way to explaining the sorts of behaviours we do see in-game.

IMO

Everyone's got one.

[lordhedgwich]

I have had strange things like this happen to me too. I claim the AI cheats sometimes. Normally its when i have a tank engaging another tank and i have a 2nd tank coming behind the currently engaged tank and somehow it knows and turns its turret around and kills me :mad:

[ridethe415]

Well "ridethe" my two cents. The p.s. team is not behind concealment, they are in front of it. Nothing conceals them in this situation. Thats how the game works, keep troops behind concealment and they will do just fine most times.

True, but they had approached the tank by slowly advancing up a slope, [which you can't really see in the screen shots] pausing, slowly moving. I was trying to have them view the tank while just below the crest of the small hill. I THOUGHT I was doing everything right. Plus, did the Sherman really have to use it's main gun? Wouldn't the coax be enough?

[Bernie]

...did the Sherman really have to use it's main gun? Wouldn't the coax be enough?

Yes maybe so. But given the threat that these handheld weapons are against Tanks, you had probably also blasted them with your main. This is the way this game works. Maybe you should have run your team up to LOS instead of sneaking? l know l have done that sometimes.

[Sublime]

Don't worry, womble will just pull some weird explanation for this out of his behind soon ........................ these "incidents" are the reason for me to question the spotting abilities of tanks in CMX2 and the whole concept of ambushes is lost in CMX2 .... IMO

I dont see why you have a hard-on for Womble. He's ok, very knowledgable. I've noticed he can come off smart @$$ed sometimes, but I think thats just because he's British, I notice the same in our Kiwis. Not that Im not just a downright American @$$hole. I dont think its intentional though at all, and he's always been fair to me. Instead of downing him for his prolific posting I think we should commend him, he replies to most rational posts, and not with say 20 links about UFOs or Black Projects (i.e. nukes driven by Jews thinking theyre escaping the clutches of the SS in 1943..)

As far as ambushes they're not broken. You cannot do many things you could in real life, but CM is a constant work in progress and positive changes are constantly made. It is what it is.

[ridethe415]

Yes maybe so. But given the threat that these handheld weapons are against Tanks, you had probably also blasted them with your main.

I find it hard to believe that the TC would be able to discern what weapons these guys are holding. They hadn't fired the schreck yet so I imagine he just saw to guys sitting there.

[womble]

I find it hard to believe that the TC would be able to discern what weapons these guys are holding. They hadn't fired the schreck yet so I imagine he just saw to guys sitting there.

And fired his main gun just in case they had a Shreck. It's not like HE is any use if the tank gets KOed. The TacAI knows that HE has a better chance of a fast suppress and a far better chance of an outright kill than the (single coax) MG. Even with the new MG modelling, I'll warrant. A quick kill means the TC can get his gun pointing forward again, while wishing he could tear the infantry a new one for not keeping up and keeping his flanks clean of MANPAT ticks.

Sometimes HE at infantry targets makes little sense (single trooper, 800m away for e.g.) but in this case, it makes entirely sufficient sense.

[Oddball_E8]

I find it hard to believe that the TC would be able to discern what weapons these guys are holding. They hadn't fired the schreck yet so I imagine he just saw to guys sitting there.

Yes, he couldn't possiby have noticed that tiny little thing... I mean, its only about the same size as a full grown man...

[Erwin]

I have repeatedly experienced that CM2 buttoned tanks spot infantry easily in the dark with smoke drifting around. There is something that clearly needs fixing. Not sure why it's controversial.

[noob]

I have repeatedly experienced that CM2 buttoned tanks spot infantry easily in the dark with smoke drifting around. There is something that clearly needs fixing. Not sure why it's controversial.

To fix a problem, you need to be able to prove it's a problem. So someone needs to run a test that proves there is something wrong with the tank spotting, otherwise any evidence put forward is just anecdotal, which is useless.

[poesel]

AFAIK there are two things which are not (yet?) simulated by CM:

1) that spotters are 'occupied' by threats from others directions

2) what is behind units that are spotted

CM checks if there is LOS between the units, considers concealment, units status etc.. and then you have a contact or not. There is no limit on how many units one unit can spot at the same time and units do not concentrate on one threat and go blind on others.

Then CM does not consider what is behind a unit. E.g. if you are prone and look horizontally at infantry standing on a street directly before a forest then in RL these guys would be quite hard to make out. For CM OTOH they have no concealment because the are standing in the open on a piece of tarmac.

(this is how I guess(!) it works)

Simulating this costs processor time and this is probably the reason why it's not in CM. So sometimes you spot things or not and it's a real wtf moment. Going by the sheer number of checks the system does per minute the thing works fine. But the outliers that go through are usually making you bite into the keyboard.

[ridethe415]

AFAIK there are two things which are not (yet?) simulated by CM:

1) that spotters are 'occupied' by threats from others directions

2) what is behind units that are spotted

This is my main point. Previously to this event there were panthers in front of these shermans and they had engaged each other. I would think the panthers would be the larger, higher priority threat.

I realize that a good TC would be on constant alert, observing 360 degrees. But...I just found it too easy for the TC to spot the shreck.

[A Canadian Cat]

To fix a problem, you need to be able to prove it's a problem. So someone needs to run a test that proves there is something wrong with the tank spotting, otherwise any evidence put forward is just anecdotal, which is useless.

Well anecdotal is useless for a full analysis but anecdotal is useful to help you determine *what* to test or what would be *worth* investigating. I know BFC is a small out fit and lots of user testing happens. I have to say I would like to see some more official BFC testing being done for anecdotal things like this the come up often.

This example of tanks spotting things behind them when they are busy with threats in front of them has come up a few times. I think it would be good if BFC made an official statement or had someone run a test and show us that things are OK and that we should just morn our poor AT team and keep trying. Or they might discover that they are not happy with the out come and decide to change it.

I suppose someone here could start the ball rolling but I guess my problem is I have no extra time right now so it will not be me - this time.

[Michael Emrys]

...Womble. He's ok, very knowledgable.

True, and mostly seems to be a good guy. But he still can't spell 'weird' correctly.

Michael

[JonS]

Yeah, he spells it wierdly. So?

[Michael Emrys]

Then CM does not consider what is behind a unit.

If true, this is a point worthy of consideration. In real life, even some kind of complex backdrop behind one will delay being spotted, compared to being silhouetted against a bright skyline.

Michael

[JasonC]

"There is no limit on how many units one unit can spot at the same time and units do not concentrate on one threat and go blind on others"

So, we got rid of the "borg" and replaced it with the "fly", with 1000 eyes pointing in all directions, it would seem... And yes this is unrealistic, and a problem. No the TC would not have been looking that way, not with the entire platoon engaged to its front and actively firing. He might have been scanning beyond the targets the gunner was shooting, but for other targets to that front, to get the gunner his next "mark" as soon as he hosed the last. That is the TCs job in fighting the tank in that situation. Current target - gunner; next target - TC.