Annoying, unbelievable tank spotting

[poesel]

For example, I keep coming back to your own testing of tanks spotting tanks vs. spotting infantry. I think almost everyone would agree that a Sherman tank sitting in an open field should be more easily spotted than a squad of infantry in the same field, but your test suggests this is not so in the game.

The test was not about the quality of spotting. It was about quantity and direction.

The setup had no concealment whatsoever so everyone and everything was super easy to spot. Making assumptions about the quality of spotting from these results would IMHO be wrong.

What it shows is that you can't overwhelm a unit with spotting information. Maybe the spotting (or better: the IDing) chances should decrease after each subsequently spotted enemy (sorted by likelyhood of spotting). Dunno how that would eat into CPU time.

[poesel]

For a good test you first need a hypothesis. What is the expected outcome for, say, this situation:

1) buttoned M4A1 under fire from 20mm gun, non-firing panzerschreck team in high grass 50m to the back

2) same, team 50m to one side

3) same as 1), no 20mm

4) same as 2), no 20mm

5-8) same as 1-4) but low grass

Everyone, regular, +0, flat ground, sunny midday

So how many seconds (or never) until the tank spots the team? What do you think?

No takers? Ken? How could one make a test with no gauge to apply to the result?

[A Canadian Cat]

No takers? Ken? How could one make a test with no gauge to apply to the result?

And this is, I think, the biggest obstacle here. We can create tests and tweak variables all week long but not of it matters if we cannot tell which out come is expected and which is a surprise.

In other words nothing will change (if it needs changing) if we just show how spotting works in game, if we do not also have an argument about how what we are seeing in game is correct or incorrect.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The test was not about the quality of spotting. It was about quantity and direction.

The setup had no concealment whatsoever so everyone and everything was super easy to spot. Making assumptions about the quality of spotting from these results would IMHO be wrong.

Any test of how long it takes to spot a unit in LOS is going to be a measure of how difficult or easy it is to spot that type of unit, even if that was not the intended purpose of the test. Comparing the number spotted in two test runs each featuring a different unit type will be a comparison of the relative difficulty of spotting those unit types, assuming all other factor are held constant. That there was no concealment is perfect since you wouldn't want any unless you were trying to test concealment.

[c3k]

No takers? Ken? How could one make a test with no gauge to apply to the result?

Gah, no quote within a quote.

Okay, your #1, tank under fire by a 20mm to the front, with a panzerschreck team to the side.

Most would say that the tank's attention is totally focused on the 20mm, so the 'schreck probably is never spotted.

Refining that, a grog checks the tank manual and finds that the TC's duty explicitly tells him to scan while under fire, so that raises the specter of the TC using his cupola to spot the 'schreck.

Next, we look at the terrain the 'schreck is in. What is the chance of an unpinned, single man, to spot it? Now, let's reduce that for a TC under fire in a tank with reduced vision. Say, 25% (or less) chance compared to the unpinned observer.

Now, let's look a what REALLY happens.

The 20mm shells don't penetrate, but to protect their rotating periscopes, the driver and hull gunner rotate them 90^ to the side. What else are you going to do but look through them if you don't have a target? Hey, now you've got a crewman STARING at the 'schreck location.

Meanwhile, the TC's vision ports in the cupola get smashed by the 20mm, so all he has to look at is the back side views from the cupola. Now more of his attention is focused on the 'schreck.

The TC's point of view is what, 7 or 8 feet above the ground.

Does that help? Is it better than an observer kneeling?

That's just your first condition. See how I twisted your assumption?

I'd test your first condition. See what happens. Don't start with a conclusion. Then change ONE part; what do you expect to change with the outcome? It is relative. You cannot say "condition A should have result A". You CAN say "condition A gives result A; if I change the condition to A+B, I expect result A+B".

Now, how often to I expect a schreck team behind a tank to be spotted? Well, I have no rational basis to offer a quantitative number. I do expect it to be somewhat less than how often a schreck team in front of the tank gets spotted.

Ken

[herr_oberst]

ENSURE that no result will affect another unit. E.g., lane 2 team being killed does not have a morale penalty felt by lane 28. (Units in the same formation share morale, instaneously, without regard to LOS, etc.)

Oh wonderful, so we have been playing with quantum entangled morale all along?

[c3k]

^^^

Yes, like how a twin just knows. Or a spouse wakes up, with the certainty and dread of the death or injury of the other. Your pixeltruppen were birthed in the heart of your cpu: they are, indeed, entangled at the quantum level. Spooky, no?

(This is just evident within squads, I believe. I will often purchase many battalions and strip out everyone, just to be sure.)

[poesel]

The 20mm shells don't penetrate, but to protect their rotating periscopes, the driver and hull gunner rotate them 90^ to the side. What else are you going to do but look through them if you don't have a target? Hey, now you've got a crewman STARING at the 'schreck location.

Do they really do that in the game? I've never seen such behaviour.

But a good point - let's change the setup:

1) fanatic crews with a tight , directed CA so no turret rotating

2) exchange the 20mm with a Tiger (fanatic, tight CA) - that should be enough of a threat and the degradation of optics doesn't play a role any more.

I'd test your first condition. See what happens. Don't start with a conclusion. Then change ONE part; what do you expect to change with the outcome? It is relative. You cannot say "condition A should have result A". You CAN say "condition A gives result A; if I change the condition to A+B, I expect result A+B".

The purpose of the test is to find out if tanks spot too often or not. A comparison will not help achieve this unless we have an anchor. If A<B and B<C and we know the value of B we can say something about A and C, too. If we don't know B then everything just hangs in the air and there is no result.

We are running in circles here. If I made a perfect test and ran it 10.000 times and it would yield that at 50m a Schreck is spotted in 34,2% of the cases after one minute. So, what now? Is that too high or too low? Shrug. No effect and a lot of time wasted.

OTOH we have lots of people playing this game and from the subset of those who also write here I can't remember anyone complaining that his tanks are blind and should be spotting better. Yes, anecdotal evidence but hey: that is anything we will ever get because there is no hard data we can test against.

[c3k]

Why have a threat? Just a tight covered arc should perform the same function.

As to circles, well, if youve run a test an determined that the schreck is spotted 34.2%, that's great. Then, in your next test with a tank with no cupola, the spotting goes to 50%, well, then you've found an anomoly.

If you test a 12 man team, instead of a tank, and they spot the schreck 11% (whereas the tank spotted it 34.2%) then you've found an anomoly.

Just the raw number (34.2% in your example) is not worthless. It is, however, not very valuable without something to compare it to.

[poesel]

Now we are arguing in circles.

I don't think there is something wrong with a special model of tank - it is more that tanks in general seem to spot infantry too well. Especially on those occasions when the tank crew should be occupied elsewhere. So a comparison between tanks will not yield a result.

Hmm, ok two questions:

1) do you expect a spotting % difference to the back between a tank that is under threat from the front to one that is not?

2) if the tank would be replaced by a 5 man infantry team on a 2m high hill - would that be a valid test? If in this test the tank would come out equal or better than the infantry would that be an argument that tanks spot too good?

[ASL Veteran]

Now we are arguing in circles.

I don't think there is something wrong with a special model of tank - it is more that tanks in general seem to spot infantry too well.

Unfortunately that's not quantifiable. In order to quantify that you would have to have some sort of a statistical data base of actual instances under actual battlefield conditions where infantry were spotted by tank crewmen and when they weren't spotted. Obviously that data set doesn't exist and pursuing that angle would be a fools errand. Even if you could convince some current military personnel to conduct some sort of testing with their equipment to establish a baseline there are so many variables in play that establishing a meaningful baseline would be next to impossible.

However, a comparison between different tanks within the game is quantifiable within the game environment. Differences between tank designs and crew awareness are somewhat more quantifiable because you can definitely compare what devices or crew arrangements different tanks had and then compare the ability of those tanks to spot different things within the game environment. Once you compare those results you should be able to draw some conclusions about how different tank vision devices compare to each other.

[c3k]

Now we are arguing in circles.

I don't think there is something wrong with a special model of tank - it is more that tanks in general seem to spot infantry too well. Especially on those occasions when the tank crew should be occupied elsewhere. So a comparison between tanks will not yield a result.

Hmm, ok two questions:

1) do you expect a spotting % difference to the back between a tank that is under threat from the front to one that is not?

2) if the tank would be replaced by a 5 man infantry team on a 2m high hill - would that be a valid test? If in this test the tank would come out equal or better than the infantry would that be an argument that tanks spot too good?

2) Yes. If unpinned, etc.

[76mm]

Unfortunately that's not quantifiable. In order to quantify that you would have to have some sort of a statistical data base of actual instances under actual battlefield conditions where infantry were spotted by tank crewmen and when they weren't spotted. Obviously that data set doesn't exist and pursuing that angle would be a fools errand.

Sorry, I completely disagree. Much of what is in this game is not quantifiable--leadership, spotting, morale, suppression, MG fire, etc. Where are your data sets for all of that? And yet somehow they've built these features into the game and try to get them right. At some point we have to rely on common sense. Sure, thorough testing should be done, but if such testing shows that, say, armor crewmen engaged to the front spot targets to the rear as quickly as targets to the front, etc, I'd say we have a problem regardless of the lack of "data".

[akd]

1) do you expect a spotting % difference to the back between a tank that is under threat from the front to one that is not?

I would not expect this as the default behavior is to concentrate spotting in the forward arc. Since there is no way to order a tank to distribute spotting in all directions when not under threat, there is nothing to compare to. The tank will always behave as if there is a much greater likelihood of additional targets appearing in the direction of current facing, and in the vast majority of circumstances the current facing will be the current threat direction.

[ASL Veteran]

Sorry, I completely disagree. Much of what is in this game is not quantifiable--leadership, spotting, morale, suppression, MG fire, etc. Where are your data sets for all of that? And yet somehow they've built these features into the game and try to get them right. At some point we have to rely on common sense. Sure, thorough testing should be done, but if such testing shows that, say, armor crewmen engaged to the front spot targets to the rear as quickly as targets to the front, etc, I'd say we have a problem regardless of the lack of "data".

The MG fire was quantifiable. There are Field Manuals that specify rates of fire for specific applications. For example, there is a specified rate of fire in terms of rounds per minute for Rapid Fire and for Sustained Fire and before the "MG Fix" it was clear that MG modelling in CM didn't match the specified rates of fire that was present in the field manuals. That's why the change was made, not because people on the forums were crying about it.

As far as soft factors go, yes its true that some common sense has to be applied. However, because something like that is not quantifiable its not possible to compare such items to what is present in the 'Real World' so why should the developer alter what is in the game just because someone on the forums says 'hey, that isn't right!' The game developer's opinion is just as valid as your opinion so you aren't going to make any headway in a discussion about opinions. However, if you focus your testing of soft factors to what is present in the game environment then you might get somewhere. I'll make this really simple for you so that everyone can understand my point. I think that most people would agree that a tank is more easily spotted than an infantryman if both are sitting in an open field. Common sense tells you that. Is that set of circumstances true in the game? Test it and find out.

Trying to say 'hey, its just common sense that a tank won't spot a Panzershrek team that has moved into position behind it' isn't going to get you anywhere. I can think of several reasons why that team might have been spotted. If you guys want to continue pursuing that path then you aren't ever going to get the changes that you desire.

I will leave you with this though - there is one thing about tanks that seemingly nobody has noticed and it has a huge impact on spotting. It becomes most obvious when tanks are firing at unrealistic elevations - and no I'm not talking about gun elevation limits. Think about it.

[A Canadian Cat]

I'll make this really simple for you so that everyone can understand my point. I think that most people would agree that a tank is more easily spotted than an infantryman if both are sitting in an open field. Common sense tells you that. Is that set of circumstances true in the game? Test it and find out.

Trying to say 'hey, its just common sense that a tank won't spot a Panzershrek team that has moved into position behind it' isn't going to get you anywhere. I can think of several reasons why that team might have been spotted. If you guys want to continue pursuing that path then you aren't ever going to get the changes that you desire.

Well I agree that we are going to have trouble convincing the BFC team that x, y or z percentage chance of spotting 1, 2, 3 or more guys behind a tank is a problem because of what you just said, I disagree that running a test comparing a tank spotting infantry and infantry spotting a tank would help us. I have never seen any evidence that there something ary there. My experience says that infantry generally have no trouble spotting tanks and tanks don't always spot infantry. The issue is how much of a difference is there and how much of a difference should there be and how much it should vary from in front and behind a tank.

I guess it would be worth considering how well a tank spots an infantry team from the front compared to how well they spot one behind them. That might lead to something interesting.

I will leave you with this though - there is one thing about tanks that seemingly nobody has noticed and it has a huge impact on spotting. It becomes most obvious when tanks are firing at unrealistic elevations - and no I'm not talking about gun elevation limits. Think about it.

I'm not sure why you are keeping your thoughts here a secret nor do I see value in your claim that you noticed something no one else did. I am sure you are a creative genius but genius is only relevant if it is shared.

Are you by chance wondering if tanks should be able to spot things high up in buildings from the street.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I think that most people would agree that a tank is more easily spotted than an infantryman if both are sitting in an open field. Common sense tells you that. Is that set of circumstances true in the game? Test it and find out.

I suggested doing exactly this several pages ago, but for some reason no one seemed to think much of it. :confused:

[ASL Veteran]

I'm not sure why you are keeping your thoughts here a secret nor do I see value in your claim that you noticed something no one else did. I am sure you are a creative genius but genius is only relevant if it is shared.

Are you by chance wondering if tanks should be able to spot things high up in buildings from the street.

I already have a platform to make my case and the case has already been made and so far rejected. I view the fact that, to my knowledge, nobody out here has made this observation as being indicative of the level of rigor that is being applied to the spotting testing that is being done.

[76mm]

The MG fire was quantifiable. There are Field Manuals that specify rates of fire for specific applications. For example, there is a specified rate of fire in terms of rounds per minute for Rapid Fire and for Sustained Fire and before the "MG Fix" it was clear that MG modelling in CM didn't match the specified rates of fire that was present in the field manuals. That's why the change was made, not because people on the forums were crying about it.

i have not gone back to review the old threads complaining about MGs< but do you seriously think that the only problem was rat of fire?? I recall that other issues were just as, if not more, important, such as aiming and suppressive effect, which are hardly quantifiable.

[ASL Veteran]

i have not gone back to review the old threads complaining about MGs< but do you seriously think that the only problem was rat of fire?? I recall that other issues were just as, if not more, important, such as aiming and suppressive effect, which are hardly quantifiable.

How do you know that any other factors were altered independent of the rate of fire? Do you seriously think that an increase in the rate of fire in and of itself would have no effect on suppression? Besides - I'm not sure what your point is .... if your goal is to prove that your opinion is good enough to change an in game behavior then by all means keep on giving everyone your opinions. This forum is an excellent place for everyone to shoot the breeze.

[sburke]

I'm not sure why you are keeping your thoughts here a secret nor do I see value in your claim that you noticed something no one else did. I am sure you are a creative genius but genius is only relevant if it is shared.

Are you by chance wondering if tanks should be able to spot things high up in buildings from the street.

Maybe to change the subject?

A buttoned up tank should not be able to see up.

Unless of course it was fitted with that device I invented and unsuccessfully tried to sell to the military- the AA vision block.

[bisu]

I suggested doing exactly this several pages ago, but for some reason no one seemed to think much of it. :confused:

Well, I thought about it for some time and then I ran a quick test.

Hypothesis: Undistracted buttonned Sherman tanks spotting to the rear spot tanks better than infantry.

Methods: Map with well separated lines (available at the Repository).

1. tank vs inf:

Seven german vet FO teams (3 soldiers) hiding in the open field with no concealment (Target Line on the map). Seven M4 Sherman identical regular tanks buttonned standing 100m in the front of the FO teams (with their backs directed towards FO's).

2. tank vs tank:

The same M4 tanks. Instead of FO's now 7 identical Mark IV tanks with tight CA's at the Target Line (again 100 m distance).

Results:

1. tank vs inf:

minute 1: no FO spotted by tanks (1 question mark - see link).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/8kzse6jfzbia00d/inf%20vs%20tanks%201%20min.jpg

minute 2: no change.

minute 3 no change.

2. tank vs tank:

minute 1: two Mark IV spotted and engaged by shermans (see link)

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6fxgda7486y6pjw/tanks%20vs%20tanks%201%20min.jpg

minute 2: +2 Mark IV's spotted.

minute 3: +2 Mark IV's spotted.

Conclusions:

Hypothesis confirmed.

Additional remarks:

Striking for me was that:

1. No infantry was spotted by tanks during 3 consecutive minutes at 100 m even without concealment.

2. In some cases it took the Shermans as long as 3 mins to spot a tank in the open only 100m behind..

I also did a complimentary tank vs inf test using the setup from the Methods but this time I ordered infantry to crawl perpendiculary to the tanks (the distance remained unchanged). As expected the spotting improved:

1st minute: 2 inf spotted and engaged.

2nd minute: +2

3rd minute:+1.

This also seems correct.

Comments are welcome:)

[akd]

How do you know that any other factors were altered independent of the rate of fire? Do you seriously think that an increase in the rate of fire in and of itself would have no effect on suppression?

I'm pretty sure it has been publicly stated that aiming and suppressive effect were also changed, but regardless, both areas did see improvements. Specifically, spread between bursts was somewhat reduced and suppressive effect for small arms fire was increased, especially for units moving toward the source of fire.

[76mm]

Do you seriously think that an increase in the rate of fire in and of itself would have no effect on suppression?

No I don't, but I didn't say that I did...

OK, and you can keep believing that the only relevant factors in this game are those that can be quantified with a ROF chart or similar hard data sets.

[poesel]

Hypothesis: Undistracted buttonned Sherman tanks spotting to the rear spot tanks better than infantry.

...

1. tank vs inf:

Seven german vet FO teams (3 soldiers) hiding in the open field with no concealment

....

2. tank vs tank:

The same M4 tanks. Instead of FO's now 7 identical Mark IV tanks with tight CA's at the

The question here is IMHO more if tanks spot infantry better or worse than infantry spotting infantry.

I was going to suggest not to use FOs because of the binos but: are buttoned TCs have an equivalent of binoculars or not? This is an interesting question because that decides if the replacement infantry gets one or not.