Hull-down spotting disadvantage

[kulik]

Hello,

I've just noticed an interesting pattern. For obvious reasons, I always position my vehicles in hull-down position. I noticed that enemy vehicles are much much better at spotting, even moving vehicles without cover are spotting my unbuttoned stationary hull-down tanks first.

I don't have much insight of how the CM engine works in this matter, but, could it be that in the hull-down vehicles, the crew sitting in the hull has obscured vision, thus not spotting at all? And, that the penalty for spotting hull-down vehicle doesn't over weights the natural penalty - that only the turret crew of those spots?

It may be the usual frustration bias, but my last game, cats chasing dogs scenario, got me really thinking about this.

[akd]

AFAIK, there is no penalty for spotting a hull-down vehicle, but that is based on pretty limited testing.

[Bil Hardenberger]

My experience with hull down has been the opposite to yours kulik. Hull down, at least in my experience, gives too large an advantage to ignore. I have had tanks in hull down positions decimate enemy armor and never be spotted.

Maybe you had a run of bad luck.. or maybe there is a spotting disadvantage for your ACs due to having fewer men in the turret.. who knows.

[kulik]

AFAIK, there is no penalty for spotting a hull-down vehicle, but that is based on pretty limited testing.

My limited testing implies the same. (I'm aware of what Battlefront thinks about pooltest, nevertheless, one of such set events in motion which eventuated into the adored "machine gun patch".)

On a 1 km long shooting range I've put two panthers against a sherman. One panther perfectly hull-down, one exposed.

As expected, all different kinds of outcomes seem to happen- exposed panther spots sherman, sherman spots exposed panther, hull-down panther spots sherman, and - quite frequently - sherman spots hull-down panther first, like this:

As a matter of fact, sherman spoted hull-down panther more frequently than the one exposed, but I'd ran only like dozen of tests.

I may do some statistic on this, but preliminary, it seems that being hull-down does very little, if anything at all, in terms of spotting and being spotted.

[Tux]

I think some sort of graphical representation of where each crew member is looking would really help here. If we saw a narrow arc (which the player could toggle on/off like movement paths, etc.), similar in appearance to the 'covered-arcs' which we can designate by ourselves, moving to represent the search/viewing behaviour of each crew member of the selected unit it would give an invaluable insight into how spotting results such as the one in the post above occur. Different coloured arcs could indicate how much magnification (if any) was currently enhancing the unit's view due to use of optics, etc.

My point is that the result in the above post seems ridiculous at first glance but may be wholly reasonable, if only we had some way of knowing that the gunner and commander both happened to scan the forward arc from left to right and therefore spot (and understandably focus on) the hull-down Panther first, without noticing the second one because they hadn't yet really searched that area.

I think this kind of feature would cut down massively on the number of complaints from players about in-game spotting behaviour. It could also improve in-game immersion as you 'see' your tank crew frantically search for the enemy pinging AT rounds off their hull but, unfortunately, fall agonisingly short of looking in exactly the right spot...

Good-bye "broken spotting", hello "unlucky but perfectly believable series of events"?

[YankeeDog]

I encourage anyone who is interested to run game tests. You can learn a lot about how the game works this way, and you might just discover something that needs tweaking. It's certainly happened before that someone has run a good set of tests, posted results here on the forum, and improvements to the game have been made as a result.

HOWEVER, these is a very important 1st rule to running game tests:

It's very important that to set up the test so there is ONE and ONLY one variable. Basic scientific method rules apply here.

So if it's hull down vs. "hull up" spotting you want to test, don't use Panthers & Shermans in the tests, as this adds another variable into the mix -- type of tanks. Instead, use the same type of tank. So e.g, you could set up a test to see how well a hull-down Sherman spots a certain target vs. how well a hull up Sherman spots exactly the same target at exactly the same range under exactly the same conditions. One variable: Hull Down vs. Hull Up. Nothing else changes.

The spotting target can be whatever you want it to be, as long as it's the same for both the hull-down and hull-up runs: another Sherman, a Panther, your mother's dirty underwear, whatever...

So, in the above tests, the results of how well the *Sherman* is spotting the two Panthers are potentially useful -- same spotter, so the only variable is in the spotting targets -- on Panther is hull-down, and one is not. But the results going the other way (how well the 2 Panthers are spotting the Sherman) can't be directly compared, since this adds in a second variable, (i.e., variation in tank type).

[akd]

Actually the test is fine for answering the two questions raised, assuming the two Panthers are identical in type and attributes:

1. Does being hull down offer concealment?

2. Does being hull down reduce ability to spot?

It's just drawing conclusions about relative performance between types that is problematic, e.g. you can't conclude that a hull-up Sherman spots better than a hull-down Panther since they are not spotting the same thing.

[kulik]

Akd is on the spot, for answering question 1, I would collate only the set of results when sherman spots one of those panthers first.

For answering question 2, the set of results would consist of those cases when sherman is spoted by one of the panthers first.

[YankeeDog]

@akd: Yes; exactly my point. You just managed to say it clearly and concisely.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Sherman M4A3 76 early hull down behind 2 meter tall berm vs Sherman M4A3 76 early in the open. Range 800 meters. 52 iterations per side.

Total seconds until enemy spotted:

Hull down Shermans: 2577

In the open Shermans: 2587

Average # of seconds until enemy spotted:

Hull down Shermans: 49.6

In the open Shermans: 49.8

It appears the being hull down confers no concealment bonus at all. Any benefit to being hull down is entirely because of cover making the tank harder to hit.

Neither does it appear that being hull down gives a spotting penalty to the hull down tank, provided all 5 crew members have LOS, as was the case in this test. The Sherman is a tall tank and at 800m distance the targeting line is blue, indicating all crew members have LOS. If you put a Panzer IV in the same position you get a grey target line at 800 meters, indicating LOS is blocked for the driver and radio operator. In that situation being hull down would presumably degrade spotting.

[akd]

If you put a Panzer IV in the same position you get a grey target line at 800 meters, indicating LOS is blocked for the driver and radio operator. In that situation being hull down would presumably degrade spotting.

Would be very interesting to know if that were actually the case.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Sure. I'll post it up tomorrow night, hopefully.

[bisu]

Hull down tank should be harder to spot, than the one in the open, no? Isn't here some room for impro ement?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Let's see what the next test turns up. I spotted an oddity during the last one. When targeting the tanks out in the open the targeting tool said the hull down tanks were indeed "hull down". But when the tanks out in the open targeted the hull down tanks the tool said they were "partial hull down". I don't understand why there is a discrepancy. But it could be possible that hull down status is binary, like it was in CMx1, and that in order to qualify the entire hull must be down.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I probably should mention the other oddity I found. When targeting the ground about 400 meters in front of the berm the target line is grey, but the tool says the tank is "partial hull down". I'm not sure how that is possible. When the target line is extended out further the target line turns blue but the hull down status changes to full "hull down".

[Freyberg]

Is it possible the hull-down tank is easier to spot because it's silhouetted on the skyline ?

[Michael Emrys]

May I make a suggestion, Vanir? Instead of having the two tanks attempt to spot each other, have them both attempt to spot a third object, a tank or gun or a squad. And also check to see if there is any difference for the third object to spot each tank. Except for the berm for the hull down tank, there should be no obstruction to LOS and the ranges should be identical.

Michael

[akd]

Is it possible the hull-down tank is easier to spot because it's silhouetted on the skyline ?

No, that is not a factor in the game.

[BadgerDog]

Real life...

In tank to tank training exercises, we engaged M4A2E8's with our own M4A2E8's ...

From experience, scanning ground with binos from a cupola, or standing on top of turret behind a reverse slope (turret down which is not modeled in game), spotting another "hull down" Sherman at 500 yards plus is a real challenge.

You were trained to look for "shape, surface, shadow, silhouette and movement" when looking for enemy vehicles. It was often the turret shape, or glint of optics you'd see first in a wide area scan, that brought you back into a narrow focus scan to check what you thought you'd saw. If the enemy Sherman CC had camo'd up his turret to break up the silhouette, then it was almost freakin impossible to spot a "quiet" hull down Sherman unless he moved his turret, or the driver leaned on an idling engine and blew some errant smoke (oil burn) out the back that rose up into the air.

Camo'ing the turret wasn't often done because those freakin tree pieces dried out and tended to droop, getting in the way of the optics. periscopes and cupola glass. What we did do was fasten spare track pads and other gear around the turret, which broke up silhouettes somewhat, but also would act as additional dampening of a hit in the turret by incoming rounds.

Just my two cents for what it's worth ...

Regards,

Doug

[Vanir Ausf B]

May I make a suggestion, Vanir? Instead of having the two tanks attempt to spot each other, have them both attempt to spot a third object, a tank or gun or a squad. And also check to see if there is any difference for the third object to spot each tank. Except for the berm for the hull down tank, there should be no obstruction to LOS and the ranges should be identical.

I'm not sure what this would accomplish that the current setup does not. I suppose if we wanted to check differing spotting ability between different unit types -- infantry vs. tank, ect. -- this would be fine, but that's not really the purpose of this test. Having them spot each other instead of a 3rd object does the same thing except with fewer iterations.

[Amizaur]

I think those results may suggest, that detection of enemy tank is possible if ANY part of enemy tank is visible from spotting tank's viewport - and it doesn't matter how SMALL this visible part is. It may be few inches of tank exposed, the rest being obscured by a house or a foliage, and the spotting is possible with the same probability as if whole tank was visible. Do not know how the CMx2 spotting system works, but it seems to be all-or-nothing system. Vehicle is either visible or not.

It would be better if - to give one example of diffferent system - a tank had several spotting points definied on it's body, and spotting probability was based on HOW MUCH of those spotting points are visible or how what percent of it's cross-section is visible. If all spotting points are visible, there would be full probability of spotting, if only half of spotting points visible (like in being hull-down) then spotting probability and range is reduced, if only one spotting point is visible (only small part of tank is exposed) then spotting it is much harder and possible from shorter ranges than when full vehicle is visible.

[altipueri]

I think BadgerDog's point should be well taken. It's bloody hard to spot a stationary vehicle even if you are stationary with binoculars, let alone moving (ever tried using binos moving?) or peering through a vision block.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Here are screenshots to illustrate those oddities I mentioned earlier.

Grey target line, but partial hull down.

Blue target line, but fully hull down.

Hull down to target...

... or not?

[Vanir Ausf B]

New test results. Identical to the last test except a tall wall was placed in front of the "hull down" tanks. The wall is a bit taller than the 2 meter berm. The target line from the hull down tanks is grey and says "hull down" the entire distance to the opposing tanks. When the tanks in the open target the hull down tanks the tool also says "hull down", so unlike the mixed signs during the previous test everything is in agreement that the tanks are truly hull down.

63 iterations per side.

Seconds to spot enemy tanks:

Hull down total: 6077

Hull down average: 96.5

In the open total: 4182

In the open average: 66.4

1) Hull down status does give a concealment bonus. The tanks in the open took about 33% longer to spot than in the first test.

2) Hull down status is binary. For spotting purposes there is no such thing as partial hull down. You either are or you are not. To be hull down the entire hull must be down, to the point that the driver and radio operator/hull machine gunner have no LOS.

3) The LOS tool will sometimes lie to you about hull down status. If the target line is blue, you are not really hull down even if the game says you are.

4) The spotting penalty for blocking LOS from the driver and RO/mg gunner is much larger than the concealment bonus for being hull down. Hull down tanks took 95% longer to spot than in the first test. An increase in spotting time was expected, but not this large.

5) The OP was correct. All else being equal, being hull down puts you at a spotting disadvantage vs. tanks in the open. The hull down tank will be about 1/3 less likely to spot first.

[JoMac]

This is disconcerting...You would think if your Hull-Down the Ranging Optics especially at longer ranges ( 1000+ ) would yield better probabilities in spotting vs. extra Crew members...Sigh :-(

Ranging Optics are located in the Turret or upper superstructure of Armored Vehicles and that alone should prove superior in spotting over having a couple extra hull crew members looking w/out optics ( once again, we are talking about 1000+ meters where optics are most important ). If it was under 1000 meter ranges ( more like 500-600 meters ), then this is where extra crew members looking around at shorter ranges becomes more important.

Joe