Hull-down spotting disadvantage

[Battlefront.com]

A test that someone could try, that I see as having some value, is this...

Create a map that is at least 100m larger than Vanir's test range. Drop 100m's worth of one end of the map by at least 4 elevation points. On the opposite side create a hull down position for one of the same types of tanks that Vanir tested with. Obviously have it face the depressed area Add another tank from Vanir's test to the same side as the hull down tank. Put this on the map at the edge of the depression on the same plane as the hull down tank. In Deploy Forces check to make sure that the hull down tank is REALLY hull down. If it isn't, change the conditions so that it is. Delete the "friendly" target tank and purchase the same type of tank for the enemy side.

Once done you can be assured that the conditions are correct to test for hull down effects. You can now do one of at least two tests:

1. Have the target tank positioned on the same plane as the hull down tank and test for two non-moving tanks.

2. Put the target tank in the depression and have it drive straight at the hull down tank. This will test the relative effects of a hull down tank vs. a moving tank out in the open. The depression gives the target tank time to get up to speed before both are exposed to each other.

You can try all sorts of variations with this, including buttoning and unbuttoning, removing the hull down position, adding some intermediate terrain to retard LOS, etc.

Steve

[altipueri]

I love the idea of a series of gunfight at OK Corral tank duels. Start at opposite ends of a billiard table and see who draws first as they drive slowly towards one another.

If you did Panther vs Panther you could try sort to out good commanders from less good.

[Dadekster]

These tests reinforce my belief that anytime when I need to move and I have more than one AFV that at least one other should be on overwatch preferably with the AC on.

[Battlefront.com]

These tests reinforce my belief that anytime when I need to move and I have more than one AFV that at least one other should be on overwatch preferably with the AC on.

Not surprisingly, that's what the tank tactics manuals stress

Steve

[cool breeze]

Hey Steve,

the game is totally broken, BFC fix or do somefink

All,

Maybe some of these hulldown tests are being confounded by having the tanks hull down to the ground where the enemy tank is, not theenemy tanks turret which is substantially higher? Sorry I didnt just look at the test maps to see, and I understand that they are probably usually the same, and that you probably need somekind of los to the action spot with the enemy tank to get the spotting check... right? Is it possible to have two tanks spot each other from squares with no los hull down reverse slope or anything? wait thats kinda what the reverse slope thing is right? seeing the target but not the ground its on? its brave of anyone to take on testing things in such a complex enviroment...

great thread and of course game thanks everyone! Im glad the testers can get back to the new games for now

Sam

[Vanir Ausf B]

From past discussions you probably are aware that we don't put much stock in the "much-hearlded German optics" position

Hmm, I may have to spend some time with the search engine to refresh my memory But I was not aware that the BFC position is that they were irrelevant (if indeed that is what you mean). I think that would be unfortunate. While I would not be in favor of any sort of across the board German optics bonus in all situations I think they did make a difference in some circumstances. Interviews with participants in the festivities suggest they did not feel the differences were irrelevant at all.

German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy.

-- Brigadier General J. H. Collier, 2nd US Armored Division

The matter of tank gun sights has caused us much concern. I have looked through and worked with sights in German Mk V and VI tanks as well as our own. I find that the German sight has more magnifying power and clearness than our own, which is a big advantage to a gunner.

-- Lt. Col. Wilson M. Hawkins, 3rd Battalion, 67th Armored Regiment

"We always noted the high quality of the Zeiss gun-sight optics. They maintained that high quality till the end of the war. We had nothing like that. The gun-sights themselves were more convenient than ours. We had a triangle in the crosshairs and hairlines left and right. They had corrections for wind, distance, and so on."

-- V.P. Bryukhov, as quoted in T-34 In action

Seems fine to me. The Panther is a significantly larger tank and therefore is relatively easier to spot than the smaller Sherman or PzIV. At least in this instance where the three tanks in question have effectively the same spotting capabilities.

Apparently I was not as clear about the test parameters as I thought. The larger size of the Panther tank was not a factor in this test since none of the tanks were timed while spotting Panthers. All tanks were timed while spotting Sherman 76s exclusively, including the Sherman 76 itself.

If we assume for the sake of argument that there was no significant difference in the quality of German and Allied optics we are still left with the fact that there are significant differences in the sights on the Sherman 76, Panzer IV and Panther A.

Gunner's sights

Sherman 76

M71D telescopic sight. 5x magnification, 13° FOV

M4A1 periscope with a built-in M47A2 telescope. 1.44 X magnification, 9° FOV

Panzer IV H

T.Z.F.5f telescopic sight. 2.5x magnification, 25° FOV

Panther A late

T.Z.F.12a articulated telescopic sight. Selectable dual magnification. 2.5x with 28° FOV or 5x with 14° FOV

So it does not appear that the physical differences between the Sherman and Panzer IV sights make any significant difference in long range spotting between the two. The Panther's sight seems to make it slightly worse for some reason. Or perhaps there is some other cause of the Panther's problem, but given the tightly controlled test conditions I don't know what that could be.

In any event, we have been told that sights are "fully modeled" in the game. But the question I have is: fully modeled to do what, exactly?

The other thing to keep in mind is that this sort of test doesn't offer much useful information.

I suppose that depends on whether or not you feel that knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the units under your command is useful. Knowing if a particular type of tank is unusually good or bad at spotting in certain circumstances may influence what tactics are used. I think that sort of knowledge is very useful.

[Battlefront.com]

Hmm, I may have to spend some time with the search engine to refresh my memory But I was not aware that the BFC position is that they were irrelevant (if indeed that is what you mean).

Er... no, I didn't say or mean that. What I said is that we don't buy into the hype that the German optics were some magical gift from the gods and everything else was crap. We did an exhaustive study about this way back in the CMx1 days and it was "peer reviewed" here.

In short, it's not a simplistic topic just to talk about the gun sights alone, but the gun sights actually are a small part of a tank's capability of spotting things. The sights were not used to spot tanks, but rather to see things that were already spotted and to shoot at them effectively. So it absolutely does not follow that if Tank A has the best gun sight in the world that it also spots faster than any tank in the world.

So you have to keep in mind that spotting and gunnery are two entirely different subjects, even if there is some overlap between the two.

Apparently I was not as clear about the test parameters as I thought. The larger size of the Panther tank was not a factor in this test since none of the tanks were timed while spotting Panthers. All tanks were timed while spotting Sherman 76s exclusively, including the Sherman 76 itself.

Ah, that is different.

So it does not appear that the physical differences between the Sherman and Panzer IV sights make any significant difference in long range spotting between the two. The Panther's sight seems to make it slightly worse for some reason. Or perhaps there is some other cause of the Panther's problem, but given the tightly controlled test conditions I don't know what that could be.

Yup, and I can't comment based on your one set of observations.

In any event, we have been told that sights are "fully modeled" in the game. But the question I have is: fully modeled to do what, exactly?

They are individual rated and taken into consideration for spotting, along with other things such as copulas, number of eyeballs, etc.

I suppose that depends on whether or not you feel that knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the units under your command is useful.

At some point the details become minutia and are no longer important. The Panther has many other qualities that make it a "better" tank than a Sherman. And in battles those qualities seem to come through just fine. That's what is needed.

Knowing if a particular type of tank is unusually good or bad at spotting in certain circumstances may influence what tactics are used. I think that sort of knowledge is very useful.

I don't Or at least I don't think it's any more useful to know than many other qualities that we don't show in detail. Too much information in the game spoils the game part. The goal of the game is to give people a reasonable reflection of historical reality and let them experience it without excessive hand holding or reams of stats. That's been our philosophy since the beginning and it will continue to be well into the future.

We do plan, at some point, to have a Unitpedia. Maybe v4.0 will have it, I don't know. It's a huge effort and we have to balance it with all the other things people want to see in the game. For the most part players appear to be quite happy to just play and enjoy, not get distracted by a perceived need that it's important to have hard data in order to effectively play the game.

I've said this from the time of CMBO Beta Demo... the CM player who has a good overview of history and tactics, who plays intuitive, who doesn't think it's possible to leverage every small detail... that's the player type that crushes people in the tournaments.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, this is a small example of why we don't buy into the "German stuff is superior" nonsense:

The gunner's sights in the Sherman were better than those in the Panther, consisting of an M4A1 periscope in the roof with a built-in M47A2 telescope,

And here it is in context:

http://books.google.com/books?id=sSyEFsJwyqAC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=M4A1+periscope+with+a+built-in+M47A2+telescope&source=bl&ots=PrG54bc886&sig=zFChCwswkvV967168ct-yeQe9Ok&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8MzZUpm4DZfNsQSD_oDADw&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA

Note that Zaloga says the gunner is basically "blind" and points to the Sherman gunner's periscope being superior for spotting in context. There's lots of stuff out there which knocks holes in the long held belief in German technological superiority. And even some great stuff that tries to figure out WHY that myth got started.

In short, the early war Allied tanks had some pretty bad optics (and few with cupolas!). This was improved upon and by the end of the war, thanks in part to declining German production standards, could even be considered superior. Even the Soviets managed to wind up with decent optics by the end of the war.

Which is to say some of the German superiority myth is, as myths often are, based on something real. It's just that the context is often lost and the tidbit of truth grows to be something that no longer reflects reality very well.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

The sights were not used to spot tanks, but rather to see things that were already spotted and to shoot at them effectively. So it absolutely does not follow that if Tank A has the best gun sight in the world that it also spots faster than any tank in the world.

So you have to keep in mind that spotting and gunnery are two entirely different subjects, even if there is some overlap between the two.

They are individual rated and taken into consideration for spotting, along with other things such as copulas, number of eyeballs, etc.

So are sights used for spotting or are they not used for spotting? My test results suggest "not", at least not in that circumstance.

It is true that sights have as much or more effect on gunnery than on spotting. In fact some of the characteristics of German sights have nothing at all to do with spotting and everything to do with increasing first shot accuracy. Do they do that in the game? There is no way to know without being told since I don't believe it is possible to test it in a way that differentiates between accuracy due to sights and accuracy from characteristics of the gun.

IIRC, in the CMx1 games sights were modeled as only affecting spotting so I have been under the assumption that the same is true in CMx2 absent any indication to the contrary.

I don't Or at least I don't think it's any more useful to know than many other qualities that we don't show in detail. Too much information in the game spoils the game part. The goal of the game is to give people a reasonable reflection of historical reality and let them experience it without excessive hand holding or reams of stats. That's been our philosophy since the beginning and it will continue to be well into the future.

I suppose my philosophy is more the opposite. I think the player should be given every bit of information that could possibly be useful, which he can then take or leave as much of it as he wishes. I would no more expect the player to use his units intuitively as I would a real life tank commander to be told to not sweat the details, but fight the tank intuitively. Because in the game the player more-or-less is the tank commander.

We do plan, at some point, to have a Unitpedia. Maybe v4.0 will have it, I don't know.

That would be good.

I've said this from the time of CMBO Beta Demo... the CM player who has a good overview of history and tactics, who plays intuitive, who doesn't think it's possible to leverage every small detail... that's the player type that crushes people in the tournaments.

One problem with playing intuitively is that it assumes the players' intuition matches reality as it is presented in the game. When there is a mismatch the player is left puzzling over results that don't make sense to him.

BTW, this is a small example of why we don't buy into the "German stuff is superior" nonsense:

I own that book and recommend it. But I don't like Zaloga's blanket characterization. "Better" at what, exactly. Everything? It may well have been of benefit to situational awareness while moving (and it was while moving that Zaloga meant the German gunner was "blind"), although when I recently posed that question to a former Sherman 76 gunner he threw cold water on the notion. The Sherman did have a much quicker target hand-off from the commander to the gunner, which may have been in part due to the secondary gunner's periscope sight on the Sherman but was probably more because of the ability of the Sherman tank commander to override the turret power traverse controls, a feature German tanks lacked.

[Battlefront.com]

So are sights used for spotting or are they not used for spotting? My test results suggest "not", at least not in that circumstance.

If you read too much into a test, you can conclude all kinds of things Your test doesn't show anything other than the aggregate spotting result. Since only the aggregate result has value, that's all that's needed.

It is true that sights have as much or more effect on gunnery than on spotting. In fact some of the characteristics of German sights have nothing at all to do with spotting and everything to do with increasing first shot accuracy. Do they do that in the game?

Sure they do.

There is no way to know without being told since I don't believe it is possible to test it in a way that differentiates between accuracy due to sights and accuracy from characteristics of the gun.

Correct, and that is exactly as it should be. The same is true for any WW2 era tests or 1st hand accounts. The sights and the gun are, in effect, the same thing. If the tank loses one it can't use the other. Therefore, it is utterly unimportant to differentiate the two when looking at the end results.

IIRC, in the CMx1 games sights were modeled as only affecting spotting so I have been under the assumption that the same is true in CMx2 absent any indication to the contrary.

To the best of my recollection that's not true. I'm positive crew size, presence of a cupola, and other factors mattered for spotting. For sure soft factors, such as crew quality, counted. What definitely wasn't calculated were individual crew members spotting because there was no concept of the individual.

I suppose my philosophy is more the opposite. I think the player should be given every bit of information that could possibly be useful, which he can then take or leave as much of it as he wishes.

The game would be unplayable with that philosophy. Without it the game is 100% playable. Or have you found CM impossible to use over the last 2-3 years of play? I thought not

I would no more expect the player to use his units intuitively as I would a real life tank commander to be told to not sweat the details, but fight the tank intuitively. Because in the game the player more-or-less is the tank commander.

While true in one sense, the reality is that you (as the player) know more about the length and breadth of WW2 tanks than the people who were fighting the actual war. How many books do you have on your shelf? Whatever that count is, subtract one (for a tank manual) and the result is how much more information you have than they had.

That would be good.

It sure would be, however a lot of other "good" things have been going in instead. It's been far more important to do things like add new game features and improve the old than it has been to show more data. Not only is that what gamers want, it's what they would rather pay for.

One problem with playing intuitively is that it assumes the players' intuition matches reality as it is presented in the game. When there is a mismatch the player is left puzzling over results that don't make sense to him.

I give even our newbie players more credit than that. In fact, a newbie player who can't figure out through gameplay that a Panther is better than a Sherman at most ranges is also a player who is not going to be aided by a bunch of icons and text describing various aspects of the vehicle.

I own that book and recommend it. But I don't like Zaloga's blanket characterization.

Ehm. And yet you're comfortable with making blanket statements about superior German optics?

Since you have the book you know that, overall, Zaloga views the Panther as overall a "better" tank. That despite his views on the Sherman's optics quality.

"Better" at what, exactly. Everything? It may well have been of benefit to situational awareness while moving (and it was while moving that Zaloga meant the German gunner was "blind"), although when I recently posed that question to a former Sherman 76 gunner he threw cold water on the notion.

He also thinks *all* tanks should spot less well in *all* situations. His argument is not to make the Sherman spot worse, it's to make all vehicles spot worse.

As I said, we've long ago had the discussions about optics in depth and in public. The threads are all archived on this Forum. Though there's a lot of them, so I have no idea where to direct you if you want to check them out. Generally speaking, the conclusions were that early German optics and tank design features were superior to just about all others. But as the war went on the German designs didn't improve as fast as their adversaries. The gap was, therefore, closed in many areas.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

First of all, Steve, I just want to say that I appreciate you taking time to discuss this. Even if I disagree with most of what you are saying

I'm going to answer your comments somewhat out of order for reasons that will become apparent.

The game would be unplayable with that philosophy. Without it the game is 100% playable.

The game would only be unplayable if the information is forced on the player or somehow made mandatory. I don't recall anyone complaining back in the CMx1 days that the data window interfered with gameplay, or that the more detailed game mechanics information in the manual (more on that later) blew their minds.

While true in one sense, the reality is that you (as the player) know more about the length and breadth of WW2 tanks than the people who were fighting the actual war. How many books do you have on your shelf? Whatever that count is, subtract one (for a tank manual) and the result is how much more information you have than they had.

While this is undoubtedly true in general I'm pretty sure they would know quite a lot about the particular tank they were using. But this is really besides the point. Wargames are a sub-genre of strategy games, and part of the fun of strategy games is making decisions, seeing the results of those decisions and then applying the lessons learned in the hopes of making better decisions in the future. But in order to interpret results we need to understand the rules of the game. Otherwise we don't know if our failures are due to tactical mistakes, bad luck, or assumptions about game mechanics that may not be accurate. So yes, real tank crews know much less about opposing tanks than us wargamers, and I am sure many of them died having no idea why. That is one reason real wars are typically less fun than wargames

I give even our newbie players more credit than that. In fact, a newbie player who can't figure out through gameplay that a Panther is better than a Sherman at most ranges is also a player who is not going to be aided by a bunch of icons and text describing various aspects of the vehicle.

Well, sure. Because a Panther has a much more powerful gun and better armor. But not every German tank has a clear-cut armor/gun advantage over every Allied tank. In the other now-locked hull down thread one player, who is not a newbie at all, was openly mystified that in a large all armor battle on a big map his Panzer IVs were getting spotted first at long range by opposing Shermans on a consistent basis. He had assumed that German optics would give his tanks a spotting advantage at long range and intuitively played to that advantage. He didn't know if his poor results were due to bad luck or incorrect assumptions about game mechanics. It turns out that it was probably both of those things, but it took hours of testing to answer the question.

Ehm. And yet you're comfortable with making blanket statements about superior German optics?

Technically, I did not make any blanket statements about superior German optics. I quoted several people with first-hand experience in the matter who were making blanket statements about superior German optics

To the best of my recollection that's not true. I'm positive crew size, presence of a cupola, and other factors mattered for spotting. For sure soft factors, such as crew quality, counted. What definitely wasn't calculated were individual crew members spotting because there was no concept of the individual.

I became curious about this, dug out my old CMBB manual, and found the section on "Gunney Optics". Yes, there is an entire section explaining how gunnery optics function in that game, nearly two pages long. By contrast, I just did a word search on "optics" in the CMBN manual, the Commonwealth manual, the Market-Garden manual, the 2.11 engine manual, and there is virtually nothing about optics in any of them aside from brief mentioning in a few unit descriptions.

I have to say, reading this for the first time in 10 years has been a revelation. I've forgotten a lot. I'm going to quote most of it and comment on parts. I'm sure you still have a copy still kicking around somewhere, but not everyone reading this does.

Effects Of Optics

Good magnification allows for better spotting and gunfire accuracy at long range...

Ok Steve, I admit it: you were right, I was wrong. Savor it

... except in low-light conditions where the greater need for light of high-magnification optics becomes a hindrance, reducing their effectiveness relative to low-power lens.

Wider field of view allows for quicker target acquisition and tracking, which allows the gun to be aimed (and fired) faster.

Limited field of view can cause difficulty tracking moving targets at close range.

Hot temperatures reduce optical performance, especially for German equipment. The reduction is less for more experienced crews.

Extremely cold temperature reduces performance of "standard" optics, especially for inexperienced crews.

Extremely cold temperature increases performance of German optics, especially for experienced crews.

This is really an amazing level of detail, especially in a 10-year old game. I would be thrilled if the same fidelity to realism is present in CMBN. Too bad we have no way of knowing.

There are seven types of optics in the game. Note that nations other than Germany exclusively use "standard" optics.

Ah, so the German optics actually did get special treatment, even after the peer reviewed study (and who "peer reviewed" it anyways? John Tiller, Gary Grigsby and Norm Koger? )

Standard: Mediocre quality and magnification, normal field of view. Not listed in the data window.

Narrow: Cheaper (by German standards) optics of generally good quality but limited field of view. Often used by lightly-armored self-propelled guns. Crew must be regular or better to use without penalties.

Good: Typical good-quality general-purpose German optics, mostly used by tanks. Crew must be green or better to use without penalties.

Binocular: Same as "Good" but allows use of two eyes, for better depth perception. Used by early Tigers and Panthers. Crew must be green or better to use without penalties.

Long-Range: High magnification German optics, with limited field of view, used by assault guns and tank destroyers. Crew must be regular or better to use without penalties.

Interesting. Anybody else noticing a pattern here?

Very Long-Range: Extreme magnification power. Used only by late-model Jagdpanther. Crew must be veteran or better to use without penalties.

Dual-Magnification: Can switch between two different magnification levels, to optimize both spotting and tracking. Used by late-model Panthers. Crew must be veteran or better to use without penalties.

Hold on a sec. Were we not just discussing a test I did that featured Panther A late tanks that exhibited relatively poor spotting performance that has so far gone unexplained? Why, yes, I think we were.

All of the tanks in that test had Regular crews.

Is it possible that, like in CMx1, German armored vehicles require crews to be of a certain experience level to take advantage of their advanced optics, and suffer penalties when they fall short?* If that is the case it sounds like something that may be kinda-sorta important to know. Or these days does that fall under the category of "minutia" that is "no longer important"?

*Which would be impressively realistic, by-the-way.

[altipueri]

Ouch. Petard. Hoist.

These are the silhouette figures taken from CMBO equipment guide.

Sherman 100

Panther 118

PanzerIV 92

Some others:

King Tiger 135

JagdPanther 120

Tiger 120

Nashhorn 110

Hellcat 85

Stug IIIG 82

PSW 234/3 80

Wespe 80

Lynx 74

Stuart 73

Panzer IV/70 70

Hetzer 65

[Pandur]

Is it possible that, like in CMx1, German armored vehicles require crews to be of a certain experience level to take advantage of their advanced optics, and suffer penalties when they fall short?

likely,... if my memory does not totaly fail me i recall information from CMSF that certain modern sights in coalition vehicles and most ATGM´s needed a certain crew expirience level or they get penalys. so its entirely possible for CMBN to have this.

[Jock Tamson]

The game would be unplayable with that philosophy.

There is a difference between overwhelming the player with information during gameplay, and making the information available.

Having the information available, and knowing that the stats are used in game, adds massively to the immersion and draws the player in.

The game begs for an armoury of some sort where the interested player can browse the detail of the units at their leisure. See Wargame Air Land Battle, for example. Yes it's an RTS, but all the units and all their stats - the ones that are used in game - are available to the player.

[HistoryLover]

Generally speaking, the conclusions were that early German optics and tank design features were superior to just about all others. But as the war went on the German designs didn't improve as fast as their adversaries. The gap was, therefore, closed in many areas.

The Germans in 1941, already two years into war, had NOTHING comparable to the T34. At that time the T34 was undoubtedly the best tank in the world.

[sburke]

The Germans in 1941, already two years into war, had NOTHING comparable to the T34. At that time the T34 was undoubtedly the best tank in the world.

It's okay dude, we think he knows a little about that, hence the qualification. Note he did not say all (and for what it is worth the T 34 isn't the only early war tank that gave the Germans a little bit of a wake up call).

Generally speaking, the conclusions were that early German optics and tank design features were superior to just about all others. But as the war went on the German designs didn't improve as fast as their adversaries. The gap was, therefore, closed in many areas.

Steve

[HistoryLover]

Are you his nanny?

[Battlefront.com]

First of all, Steve, I just want to say that I appreciate you taking time to discuss this. Even if I disagree with most of what you are saying

Quite welcome! And it isn't so much that you're WRONG about some of your positions, it's that you've taken a narrow position and I'm taking a broader one. Which is common situation to be in on the forum. Customers inherently only have to worry about the one single issue they've decided, today at least, to focus their energies on. A game designer can never do that. Well, a successful one can't at least

The game would only be unplayable if the information is forced on the player or somehow made mandatory.

True that optional data is better than mandatory. Making a game look like a spreadsheet is absolutely unnecessary. However, there are two factors you aren't taking into consideration:

1. More average gamers, even wargamers, do have a bit of fear factor about reams of information. They either think it is necessary for them to know it to play the game or they think it is necessary for them to know to win the game against another player. This is, like it or not, a "turn off" for them. Optional or not. Perhaps not enough to damage sales too much, but certainly calls into question the value of prioritizing such features.

2. Any display of information takes some development energy. The more useful and involved the data presentation needs to be, the more energy required. That comes at a cost to other efforts.

I don't recall anyone complaining back in the CMx1 days that the data window interfered with gameplay, or that the more detailed game mechanics information in the manual (more on that later) blew their minds.

We had a slightly different audience back then and the game itself had a lot less going on. So I agree with you that the balance wasn't out of whack. And I agree with you that CMx2 could use more information in certain areas. However, CMx2 has now been out in the public's hands for nearly 7 years now. Very few people have clamored for more detailed information of the sort you're talking about, though they have been extremely vocal about all kinds of other things they want.

Put another way... more information, presented cleanly and optionally, is certainly something I support. But the lack of it is not turning people away from CM nor find their gaming experiences hollow and empty. In fact the evidence we have is exactly the opposite. Given the laundry list of things people want to see added to the game, I think we have our priorities straight.

While this is undoubtedly true in general I'm pretty sure they would know quite a lot about the particular tank they were using. But this is really besides the point. Wargames are a sub-genre of strategy games, and part of the fun of strategy games is making decisions, seeing the results of those decisions and then applying the lessons learned in the hopes of making better decisions in the future.

Agree to some extent, though if you read first hand accounts of tank gunners you'll see that they have a much less sophisticated view of the battlefield than you claim is needed by a CM player. One of my favorite accounts is from the gunner who is the only guy ever to kill a King Tiger with a Pershing. He didn't even know what he was shooting at. It wasn't until after the battle was over, the next day IIRC, that he heard what it was he KO'd.

According to your line of thinking this guy should have been able to calculate a dozen factors ahead of making the decision to shoot or not based on definite knowledge of the specific situation at hand. That's just not how it worked. Turret crews did not go into battle with their slide rulers and reference books in hand. In the case of the Pershing, he simply aimed center mass and let a round fly. He hit. He then followed it with another to make sure the first hit did the job. That was as sophisticated as it was.

Tankers generally knew little more, if not less, than you gamers know. "I am driving a Sherman 75, I must be careful of any German AT asset, be it on the ground or on a vehicle. Because pretty much any of those damned things can kill me at any reasonable range and at any angle. On the other hand, light German stuff I can kill easily pretty much no issues. Medium stuff I might have to be more careful about where I place my shots. Heavy stuff... if it is at long ranges I only have the option to run, but up close I can get flank and rear shots, so that's what I need to do".

There, you now have all the information you need to operate a Sherman 75 to the same degree as a real life Sherman tank crew

But in order to interpret results we need to understand the rules of the game. Otherwise we don't know if our failures are due to tactical mistakes, bad luck, or assumptions about game mechanics that may not be accurate.

Disagree, strongly. You do not NEED this level of detailed analysis, rather you WANT it. The game provides consistency and enough feedback to know what works and what doesn't. There have been almost no complaints about confusion of why something does or doesn't work. Since wargamers, and gamers in general, love to complain about things (even that aren't true), the lack of complaint is an indication of satisfaction. Which is good for us because gamers tend not to thank developers for doing things right.

Well, sure. Because a Panther has a much more powerful gun and better armor. But not every German tank has a clear-cut armor/gun advantage over every Allied tank. In the other now-locked hull down thread one player, who is not a newbie at all, was openly mystified that in a large all armor battle on a big map his Panzer IVs were getting spotted first at long range by opposing Shermans on a consistent basis. He had assumed that German optics would give his tanks a spotting advantage at long range and intuitively played to that advantage. He didn't know if his poor results were due to bad luck or incorrect assumptions about game mechanics. It turns out that it was probably both of those things, but it took hours of testing to answer the question.

Yup, there is probably a case to be made for just about any position one can think of. And I've already said that it wouldn't be a bad thing to have a bit more information in some places. But the player's questions were answered through discussion and now doesn't need the information any more.

Technically, I did not make any blanket statements about superior German optics. I quoted several people with first-hand experience in the matter who were making blanket statements about superior German optics

Yes, but you're the one pushing them into the discussion as evidence. I could find quotes that say all kinds of overly vague and largely inaccurate statements to quote. I could even link to a wonderfully awful US Army training film that tries to convince soldiers that the MG42's "bark is worse than it's bite", it isn't better than Allied MGs, and that they can be easily overcome. But what value does that add to a discussion on the effectiveness of a MG42?

I became curious about this, dug out my old CMBB manual, and found the section on "Gunney Optics". Yes, there is an entire section explaining how gunnery optics function in that game, nearly two pages long. By contrast, I just did a word search on "optics" in the CMBN manual, the Commonwealth manual, the Market-Garden manual, the 2.11 engine manual, and there is virtually nothing about optics in any of them aside from brief mentioning in a few unit descriptions.

Different games, different focuses, different market context. When we made CMx1 we had to go overboard to prove our "grog" credentials because at the time any game that pushed the visual envelope was viewed with massive skepticism. Since we thought the only people who would be interested in CM were the grogs, we felt we had to make sure there was no mistaking how detailed the game guts were AND how much better they were compared to contemporary games. There was also a lot less going on under the hood than CMx2 so it was easier to focus attention on a few areas of detail since there were only a few areas of detail.

CMx2 doesn't have these sorts of problems, but does have a problem (if you want to call it that) of having a LOT more going on. Even though we've doubled our staff since CMAK, we're still spread thin. Losing focus of what people need vs. what they want is a quick way to obscurity.

This is really an amazing level of detail, especially in a 10-year old game. I would be thrilled if the same fidelity to realism is present in CMBN. Too bad we have no way of knowing.

Sure you have a way of knowing. It's in there. Now you know

Seriously, I've said from the beginning that there is NOTHING in CMx1 that is done in more detail than CMx2. Absolutely nothing. And when we went to go do the subsystems for WW2 equipment, where do you think we went to first for basic information? CMx1. Unfortunately the information there was often too general to use outright with CMx2's more sophisticated sub systems, which meant a ton of additional research. But at least CMx1 gave us a place to start.

Ah, so the German optics actually did get special treatment, even after the peer reviewed study (and who "peer reviewed" it anyways? John Tiller, Gary Grigsby and Norm Koger? )

No, the German optics did not receive special treatment. They were evaluated based on their merits and, as I've said already, were found to be generally the best out there across the board. And CMx1 and CMx2 reflect that. What we did NOT do was downgrade everybody else proportionally based on the myth that if the Germans were at X level than everybody was at X-Y level. Put another way, other games would do something like:

Germans +3 Accuracy

Americans +2 Accuracy

Soviets +0 Accuracy

This would be based on myths, not facts. Instead CM does things on a case by case basis.

For technical discussions of things like optics, I consider many of our customers to be more peers than other wargame developers. Those guys you mentioned did not delve into those sorts of details. They more often than not simply went with the stereotypes or had game systems which were, on the whole, too unsophisticated to consider specific factors.

Hold on a sec. Were we not just discussing a test I did that featured Panther A late tanks that exhibited relatively poor spotting performance that has so far gone unexplained? Why, yes, I think we were.

At some point I recall having that discussion We're definitely looking into it because there could be some sort of specific glitch that needs to be fixed or a value that needs tweaking.

Is it possible that, like in CMx1, German armored vehicles require crews to be of a certain experience level to take advantage of their advanced optics, and suffer penalties when they fall short?

To the best of my knowledge we ditched specific thresholds like that. Instead we just drop off performance (generally) in such a way that the end results are the same, or better, than if there were somewhat arbitrary elements applied to specific circumstances.

BTW, more realistic would be to prevent the player from putting anything other than a Veteran crew in a Jagdpanther since it was unlikely there was anything less than that in the real war (Regular at worst). But that's not what people want so that's why we don't have that sort of thing in the game.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Are you his nanny?

No, but apparently I need to be yours. Your attitude here SUCKS. If you don't understand why I'm saying that, reread the Forum rules that you agreed to when signing up. If you can not figure out how your behavior is not in compliance with our minimal standards of civil behavior, then you will not last very long here.

We believe in the power of individual responsibility. It is totally up to you if you stay on this Forum or not. Think hard before you decide because we do view the decision as final.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The Germans in 1941, already two years into war, had NOTHING comparable to the T34.

You do understand that I'm the guy who was behind what has been considered, by many, to be the most detailed and accurate Eastern Front wargame ever made?

At that time the T34 was undoubtedly the best tank in the world.

If you had actually understood what I wrote and the context, you'd understand I wasn't speaking to overall "best" (which is a pretty useless generalization anyway). The German tanks had many elements which were totally superior to the comparable features on a T-34. The beauty, and danger, of the T-34 came from the overall effectiveness and the significantly lower production cost/time compared to the German tanks. I'd take frontal armor that couldn't be penetrated over better optics any day of the week.

BTW, this trend lasted the entire war. Soviet tanks were, feature for feature, generally inferior to German tanks. But on the whole the Soviet tanks were not massively less capable. Similar story for the Shermans, but in a different way. The big advantage was that Soviet and American tank production dwarfed that of German production. I'd rather have 30,000 "pretty darned good" tanks vs. 5000 "damned good" tanks any day.

Steve

[Jock Tamson]

Different games, different focuses, different market context. When we made CMx1 we had to go overboard to prove our "grog" credentials because at the time any game that pushed the visual envelope was viewed with massive skepticism. Since we thought the only people who would be interested in CM were the grogs, we felt we had to make sure there was no mistaking how detailed the game guts were AND how much better they were compared to contemporary games. There was also a lot less going on under the hood than CMx2 so it was easier to focus attention on a few areas of detail since there were only a few areas of detail.

CMx2 doesn't have these sorts of problems, but does have a problem (if you want to call it that) of having a LOT more going on. Even though we've doubled our staff since CMAK, we're still spread thin. Losing focus of what people need vs. what they want is a quick way to obscurity.

Sure you have a way of knowing. It's in there. Now you know

Seriously, I've said from the beginning that there is NOTHING in CMx1 that is done in more detail than CMx2. Absolutely nothing. And when we went to go do the subsystems for WW2 equipment, where do you think we went to first for basic information? CMx1. Unfortunately the information there was often too general to use outright with CMx2's more sophisticated sub systems, which meant a ton of additional research. But at least CMx1 gave us a place to start.

Steve I'm not a grog by any means, but the people who want to play these sorts of games generally want to know that there is lots going on under the hood. And they want to know what it is. And the more realistic it sounds, the better. I just don't see the harm in making the detail available - big it up!

If you look at any of the big titles that fall into the strategy genre, the most popular mods - hundreds of thousands of downloads - are realism/authentic detail mods to make up for perceived deficiencies in those areas in the base game. Fundamentally that is what appeals to that market.

[Battlefront.com]

Again, no disagreement that we could, and should, show more information than we currently do. It's all about development priorities. The good news is I think we're finally getting to the point where the Unitpedia idea is a strong competitor for our attention. It's been waiting for 8 years (yes, I wanted it for CMSF and ever since), which means it's been patiently waiting for it's turn.

As for realism mods in big games... yup, I hear you on that. Though those games are inherently vastly more simplistic and narrowly focused compared to CM. Definitely an apples and oranges comparison. Plus, I expect most get the mods because they want to play something more realistic, not because they want to look at a bunch of data. I expect the same thing would happen if CM wasn't realistic out of the box. Someone would upload a "realism mod" and people would download it even if they had no idea what the values are.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Earlier I argued from direct, close range (~6m) viewing of a 76mm Sherman on the move and watching footage of Shermans moving over various terrain that pitching was going to make spotting from the driver and bow MG periscopes all but impossible. Turns out the Germans ran some comparison tests on their bump track at Kummersdorf. The Panther hardly pitched at all on a 1 km run, the Sherman was broadly on par (at comparable velocity) to the Tiger 1 (mid range pitching), and the worst were the Panzer IV and T-34. Generally, the tanks tested tended to pitch less, not more after pitching had peaked, but velocity continued to rise. Plot's taken from an insightful demythologizing of the T-34.

Deliberately broken link lacking the usual connector. HistoryLover, I commend the post to your particular attention

http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot. /2012/07/wwii-myths-t-34-best-tank-of-war.html

And here's what Valera Potapov (who provided key military-technical input to CMBB re Russian AFVs and more) dug up on the Russian assessment of the early T-34/76 vs the Panzer III:

http://english.battlefield.ru/t-34.html

(Fair use)

"Nevertheless this plan failed. Moreover, in summer 1940 the clouds were gathering over the T-34. The point is that two Pz-III were bought in Germany and delivered to Kubinka for comparative tests. Soviet documentation does not clarify the exact modification of the Pz-III, in all cases it was named as "German T-III". The results were unfavourable for the Soviet T-34.

The T-34 was superior in terms of protection and firepower, but that's all. The Pz-III had a cosy three-man turret with a commander's cupola. Each crewman had an internal communication device at his service. In contrast, the T-34 had a very cramped two-man turret without a commander's cupola. Only the tank commander and the driver had internal communication.

The German tank had a very smooth motion and wasn't as noisy as the T-34: moving with maximum speed the Pz-III could be heard from 150-200 metres while the T-34 could be heard from 450-500 metres.

Soviet engineers were surprised by Pz-III's maximum speed. It was far superior and could run up to 69.7 km/h whereas the T-34's best result was 48.2 km/h. The BT-7, which was used as a standard model, could run on wheels at only 68.1 km/h. The report of those tests indicates that the Pz-III had better suspension, a high quality of German optics, a handy layout of ammunition and radio, and a reliable engine and transmission.

By those results the GABTU issued a summary document for Marshal G.I.Kulik, who affirmed it and ordered production of the T-34 to cease until improvements were made in all revealed defects and drawbacks. Large wrangles occurred. They've were cancelled by the personal meddling of Marshal K.E.Voroshilov: "Tank production must be continued with guaranty race of 1,000 km. Factory must develop a new tank - T-34M with improvements not only in its protection but also in running capabilities, so the new five-speed gearbox should be used."

Certainly, the T-34 series were impressive tanks. But were they the best tanks of the war? That depends on what criteria you use in making that call. As seen above, even the Russians thought their tank had major issues, many of which weren't corrected until late in the war. For example, Clark notes that at Kursk, tank radios extended only down to the Company Commander, who was directly and effectively targeted to wreck tactical command of the Tank Company. By contrast, every German tank had a transceiver fitted from the beginning of the war.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Dadekster]

Some really good stuff in this thread but enough about tank optics. What I want to see discussed next blow by blow is what every TC had around his neck when his head was out of the track

Really though...is that modeled at all? :confused: I've honestly never really looked into that much but when I think about it they are used A LOT.

[Vanir Ausf B]

1. More average gamers, even wargamers, do have a bit of fear factor about reams of information. They either think it is necessary for them to know it to play the game or they think it is necessary for them to know to win the game against another player. This is, like it or not, a "turn off" for them. Optional or not. Perhaps not enough to damage sales too much, but certainly calls into question the value of prioritizing such features.

We had a slightly different audience back then and the game itself had a lot less going on. So I agree with you that the balance wasn't out of whack. And I agree with you that CMx2 could use more information in certain areas. However, CMx2 has now been out in the public's hands for nearly 7 years now. Very few people have clamored for more detailed information of the sort you're talking about, though they have been extremely vocal about all kinds of other things they want.

I'm not sure what your definition of "very few" is, and I have not kept a forum post tally, but it has been my impression that a CMx1-style unit stats window has been one of the more popular requests.

Do you feel that the CM audience now is more of a casual beer and pretzels crowd compared to 10 years ago or more of a hard core sim bunch? It's not clear to me from your statements which way you think it has shifted. I do think from reading the forum over the last few years that there is a general feeling among old CMx1 players that CMx2 is more challenging to play, an assessment I don't disagree with.

2. Any display of information takes some development energy. The more useful and involved the data presentation needs to be, the more energy required. That comes at a cost to other efforts.

I understand that, particularly with regards to the in-game stuff. But if you're going to write a 200 page manual a couple of pages dedicated to the ins and outs of how optics are modeled in the game won't send you into chapter 11. Or if it does you were doomed anyways

Agree to some extent, though if you read first hand accounts of tank gunners you'll see that they have a much less sophisticated view of the battlefield than you claim is needed by a CM player. One of my favorite accounts is from the gunner who is the only guy ever to kill a King Tiger with a Pershing. He didn't even know what he was shooting at. It wasn't until after the battle was over, the next day IIRC, that he heard what it was he KO'd.

According to your line of thinking this guy should have been able to calculate a dozen factors ahead of making the decision to shoot or not based on definite knowledge of the specific situation at hand. That's just not how it worked.

No, that's not how it worked. But just because real combat tends to be a confusing affair doesn't mean that the ideal wargame should aim to sow a commensurate level of confusion in the player. In a similar vein it has been said that war is 99% boredom and 1% sheer terror, but I doubt anyone would want to play a wargame that lived up to that standard

There, you now have all the information you need to operate a Sherman 75 to the same degree as a real life Sherman tank crew

You do not NEED this level of detailed analysis, rather you WANT it. The game provides consistency and enough feedback to know what works and what doesn't. There have been almost no complaints about confusion of why something does or doesn't work.

No one is claiming that the game is unplayable, just that knowing more about how it works would provide a richer experience.

I don't agree that there has been almost no complaints about how or why things work. As I am writing this there is a thread on the front page asking why he can't get his on-board mortars to fire. On that subject alone I have seen many questions.

Yup, there is probably a case to be made for just about any position one can think of. And I've already said that it wouldn't be a bad thing to have a bit more information in some places. But the player's questions were answered through discussion and now doesn't need the information any more.

Be be more exact, the player's questions were answered through about 8 hours of testing on my part. I would much rather have been able to say "refer to page X in your CMBN manual".

Yes, but you're the one pushing them into the discussion as evidence. I could find quotes that say all kinds of overly vague and largely inaccurate statements to quote. I could even link to a wonderfully awful US Army training film that tries to convince soldiers that the MG42's "bark is worse than it's bite", it isn't better than Allied MGs, and that they can be easily overcome. But what value does that add to a discussion on the effectiveness of a MG42?

Yes, quotes can be dug up to support almost any position under the sun. The difference being in this case I think they are exactly right. German optics were of a higher level of quality and sophistication up until the end of the war. And I can back that up with a lot more than a few quotes if needs be.

But I will reiterate my previous point that this did not translate into a significant tactical advantage in every situation. In fact there are any number of situations in which it would make no difference at all. A King Tiger sitting in a field 100 meters away can be spotted through a beer bottle as well as a Zeiss sight.

Sure you have a way of knowing. It's in there. Now you know

Seriously, I've said from the beginning that there is NOTHING in CMx1 that is done in more detail than CMx2. Absolutely nothing. And when we went to go do the subsystems for WW2 equipment, where do you think we went to first for basic information? CMx1.

And it's great to learn some of this stuff. But you are not always available to play 20 questions, and the only reason I even thought to ask specifically about it is because I happened to read a 10 year old game manual. It shouldn't be this hard.

No, the German optics did not receive special treatment. They were evaluated based on their merits and, as I've said already, were found to be generally the best out there across the board.

Eh, "generally the best out there across the board" is pretty much what I've been saying they were all along. And of course they were given special treatment. They were the only nationality to be broken down into multiple categories rather than assigned a generic value.

At some point I recall having that discussion We're definitely looking into it because there could be some sort of specific glitch that needs to be fixed or a value that needs tweaking.

To the best of my knowledge we ditched specific thresholds like that. Instead we just drop off performance (generally) in such a way that the end results are the same, or better, than if there were somewhat arbitrary elements applied to specific circumstances.

I'm glad to hear you're looking into the Panther spotting.

But this is a good example of why these sorts of things need to be spelled out to the player in detail. Requiring gunners to be of a certain proficiency to take advantage of the German Mili–radian sight is quite realistic. But without knowing how CMBN models that I don't know how concerned I need to be about that factor if choosing forces in a QB or designing a scenario. I would bet that most CM players know very little about gunnery optics to begin with, which brings up another point: that most CM players are history buffs to some extent and look to CM as an opportunity to learn something new about WW2. Hiding information from the player frustrates that.