Hull-down spotting disadvantage

[Dadekster]

Again, there's a difference between individual crew training and formation training. The game only simulates individual crew capabilities. You, the player, are providing 100% of the formation based experience. The two things should never be confused.

I have some personal experience related to the difference. Many years ago we were in negotiations with the US Army's TRADOC AT missile systems group. As they put it, their crews had the best training and simulators (very fun too ). They could be relied upon to effectively engage anything they got into their view. However, the training of NCOs and officers necessary to get the crews in to those positions was not very good. Mostly because military budget cuts had dramatically curtailed large scale training maneuvers. Battalion staffs did exercises on computers and map tables, crews did training in simulators and classrooms. They weren't out in the field together with combined arms groups in the real world. There's a big difference between an elevation line on a map and a viable firing position in reality.

Anyway, my point here is that Panzer Brigades largely suffered from adequately trained crews led by inadequately trained officers. Mostly because there was no established doctrine about how to use these units to their best advantages while at the same time avoiding their weaknesses. If they had a few more months to train in realistic conditions I'm sure they would have performed a lot better than they did even if crew quality didn't change one iota. They would have performed even better still if they weren't tossed into combat by senior officers who hadn't a clue what to do with them.

Steve

Reminds me of the AAR's we would do after each battle. Everyone involved in the Company would attend from CPT down to the driver's and go over what went right and what went wrong. Sometimes you'd get to attend the Squadron level AAR, amazing learning experiences. Now I hear it's all this asymmetrical warfare. No more A10's spoofing as SU25's providing CAS above or battalion level maneuver warfare out in the desert. Course it wasn't money I think this time, more just what we are facing. For some reason Shock Force doesn't hold much appeal to me though? Anyway, sorry got reminiscing there again.

[BletchleyGeek]

Anyway, my point here is that Panzer Brigades largely suffered from adequately trained crews led by inadequately trained officers. Mostly because there was no established doctrine about how to use these units to their best advantages while at the same time avoiding their weaknesses. If they had a few more months to train in realistic conditions I'm sure they would have performed a lot better than they did even if crew quality didn't change one iota. They would have performed even better still if they weren't tossed into combat by senior officers who hadn't a clue what to do with them.

I'm with Kensal regarding the personnel training being a 'mixed bag', but I 100% agree with rest of what you say here. My take is that Panzer Brigades attempted to make virtue out of necessity, very much as the Red Army did when it was decided to drop the concept of Tank Division in favour of Tank Brigades in 1941. I agree that neither were the most effective of concepts.

In any case, this was a discussion about hull-down and spotting

[kensal]

Again, there's a difference between individual crew training and formation training. The game only simulates individual crew capabilities. You, the player, are providing 100% of the formation based experience. The two things should never be confused.

I have some personal experience related to the difference. Many years ago we were in negotiations with the US Army's TRADOC AT missile systems group. As they put it, their crews had the best training and simulators (very fun too ). They could be relied upon to effectively engage anything they got into their view. However, the training of NCOs and officers necessary to get the crews in to those positions was not very good. Mostly because military budget cuts had dramatically curtailed large scale training maneuvers. Battalion staffs did exercises on computers and map tables, crews did training in simulators and classrooms. They weren't out in the field together with combined arms groups in the real world. There's a big difference between an elevation line on a map and a viable firing position in reality.

Anyway, my point here is that Panzer Brigades largely suffered from adequately trained crews led by inadequately trained officers. Mostly because there was no established doctrine about how to use these units to their best advantages while at the same time avoiding their weaknesses. If they had a few more months to train in realistic conditions I'm sure they would have performed a lot better than they did even if crew quality didn't change one iota. They would have performed even better still if they weren't tossed into combat by senior officers who hadn't a clue what to do with them.

Steve

Yep ok, I understand the distinction in what you say and how that relates to the game mechanics

[Battlefront.com]

Reminds me of the AAR's we would do after each battle. Everyone involved in the Company would attend from CPT down to the driver's and go over what went right and what went wrong. Sometimes you'd get to attend the Squadron level AAR, amazing learning experiences. Now I hear it's all this asymmetrical warfare. No more A10's spoofing as SU25's providing CAS above or battalion level maneuver warfare out in the desert. Course it wasn't money I think this time, more just what we are facing. For some reason Shock Force doesn't hold much appeal to me though? Anyway, sorry got reminiscing there again.

Always good to go down memory lanes of people who did/do this stuff for a living In my TRADOC example it was just before 9/11 so the budgets were tight and there was no mention of asymmetric warfare. I also remember a conversation with a BN CO some years later when he asked me what good it was for BN staff to play a game like Combat Mission as a training aide. Er, to see what your decisions do to the lowest echelons of your command, and how that in turn influences the outcome of the engagement? Nah, map exercises can do that just fine!

I'm with Kensal regarding the personnel training being a 'mixed bag',

Oh, I agree too! I'd be inclined to think the weakest element was the PzGrenadiers. I doubt they had a chance to do much training with coordinated armor support ops.

In any case, this was a discussion about hull-down and spotting

Indeed

Yep ok, I understand the distinction in what you say and how that relates to the game mechanics

No problem. It's sometimes hard to remember that so much of what the game does, or doesn't do, is influenced by the great big gob of gray goo controlling it.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm starting to think there may be something seriously wrong with tank spotting. At first it was just the Panther with it's oddly crappy spotting. But then again, the Panther in CMx2 seems to be plagued with all sorts of issues.

So I tested the Jagdpanther to compare to the other results at 1200 meters. The JPanther gunner's sight is the WZF 1/4, which has 10X magnification. That's twice the magnification on the Panther and Sherman 76. It has a correspondingly narrow field of view at 9°. This vehicle was built to be a long-range sniper on the Russian steppe. So it should be in it's element at 1200 meters with the opposing tanks (Sherman 76s, like in all the other tests) directly in front of it.

# of data points: 100

Average spotting time: 225.5 seconds

95% confidence interval for actual Mean: 182.0 thru 269.0

By comparison here are the spotting times from previous tests:

M4A3w Sherman 76 early: 127.8

Panzer IV H late: 128.5

Panther A late: 139.7

So the Jagdpanther spots around 47% worse than the Panther, and about 55% worse than the Panzer IV/Sherman 76. Note that I stopped the test after only 100 data points collected (the other tests had at least 300) since at that point is was obviously must worse than other vehicles tested. In one instance a Jagd took nearly 20 minutes to spot the Sherman.

Just a reminder that these are NOT hull-down tests. All these vehicles are completely exposed in the open.

[Battlefront.com]

I'll have to see if I can find out how much the gunner's sight plays into spotting, but I suspect it isn't huge. The gunner's sight was not intended to spot new targets, it was to zero in (accurately) on identified targets. And therefore the better the gunner's sight, the better the gun performs. Which makes sense because it is a gunner's sight

In case you haven't read a tank manual, or talked to tankers, or spent time in a military tank simulator (I did, and it was fun!), here's how it is supposed to work. Roughly speaking...

Tank Commander spots a target. He calls out the location to the gunner, using various techniques ("2 o'clock, to the left of the shack, etc.") and probably submitting an estimated range. The gunner then slews the turret according to instruction and probably at this point a round is chambered or swapped as needed. The gunner then attempts to acquire the target, perhaps with more help from the TC. Once the target is identified it is confirmed to the TC and the TC gives the command to fire.

The responsibility for spotting is inherently placed on the shoulders of the TC, not the gunner or anybody else. Which is why the TC has all the best spotting equipment, not the gunner.

The Shermans, however, gave the gunner an ability to better scan for targets. Additionally the TC could rotate the turret to reduce target acquisition time by getting the gunner prepositioned as best as possible.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Those are all good points, Steve. But I do wonder how much that would have mattered at 1200 meters. From what I can gather, the Sherman gunner's observation periscope was 1X power.

[poesel]

...

The responsibility for spotting is inherently placed on the shoulders of the TC, not the gunner or anybody else. Which is why the TC has all the best spotting equipment, not the gunner.

The Shermans, however, gave the gunner an ability to better scan for targets.

...

So if I understand that correctly the Sherman gets two eyeballs from the TC and another from the gunner while the JPz gets only those two from the TC? (simplified description of course). Since number of eyeballs acts as a multiplier thats quite an advantage for the Sherman.

I ran my own little test - 9 Sherman 76 (early) vs 9 Jagdpanzer (early) @1200m, regular fanatics. Definitely not enough tests for any statistically relevance but the numbers point in the same direction as Vanir (although both tanks did worse it seems).

Numbers are seconds to spot the other tank:

JpIV

26

131

200

310

394

424

502

548

939

Sh76

7

109

170

196

202

208

226

456

496

Scenario is here:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/8811801/0%20-%20long%20range%20spotting%20Shermn76%20vs%20JgpPzIVearly.btt

[Vanir Ausf B]

There's more to it than just the Sherman gunner's access to more scopes or the TC's turret override. The Panzer IV has neither of those advantages but spots about as well as the Sherman.

[Skwabie]

hell. Someone will just have to come out and say it. Might as well be me.

National bias!

:eek:

[akd]

I wonder if the game accounts for Jagdpanther (and other StuG/Jagdpanzer TCs) scanning from below armor with scissors telescopes?

[poesel]

I forgot to add: the shootout (after spotting) ended 6:3 in favour of the Shermans. The FO teams in a separate lane never spotted each other even after 20 minutes.

[Battlefront.com]

Those are all good points, Steve. But I do wonder how much that would have mattered at 1200 meters.

That's one of the things I'm trying to find out. However, in that case you're talking about only the TC having much of an impact on spotting.

From what I can gather, the Sherman gunner's observation periscope was 1X power.

Yes, but it's more useful to have a 1x power periscope that can swivel than it is to have a more powerful one that is fixed. At least for spotting.

One thing to keep in mind is that spotting times are dependent upon the vehicle size. Which means if you want to compare spotting times you need to neutralize this value.

To do that you can have a Sherman spot a Panther G and have a Panther G also spot a Panther G. Same range, same other variables of course. This will give you the best side by side comparison of spotting values. You could also have a Sherman spot a Sherman and a Panther spot a Sherman. The point is to have the two spotting tanks try spotting the same target tank.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes, but it's more useful to have a 1x power periscope that can swivel than it is to have a more powerful one that is fixed. At least for spotting.

I would think that would be dependent on range to some degree. At some point the distance will become too great to spot anything without magnification.

You could also have a Sherman spot a Sherman and a Panther spot a Sherman. The point is to have the two spotting tanks try spotting the same target tank.

Correct. Which is exactly what I have done

[Vanir Ausf B]

I wonder if the game accounts for Jagdpanther (and other StuG/Jagdpanzer TCs) scanning from below armor with scissors telescopes?

That's a good question. It appears that in the case of the Jagdpanther the scissors telescopes were permanently affixed. They are designated SF14z Gi, which from what little information I can gather, appear to have been 10X power with 5° FOV.

Interestingly, they are not present on the Jagdpanther model in the game. Also, the gunner's telescope that should be protruding from the left side of the roof is also missing. Whether these are just errors in the model that have no effect on how it functions internally or are causing problems I do not know.

[Vanir Ausf B]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Hmm, after looking at it more closely I don't think the scissors were permanently affixed since there is a hatch that had to be opened for them to fit through. But they were standard issue equipment so would presumably have been deployed whenever the vehicle was in combat.

[Battlefront.com]

AFAIK they were removable, same as the StuGs.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Soooooo does CM assume them to be on or off? Judging from the model I would guess "off". Then again, judging from the model the gunner doesn't even have a sight.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Also, when you find out if magnification affects spotting it might be worthwhile to ask how field of view affects the same. If either one has an effect they both should since they are inversely related to each other. Whether the sight is fixed or rotatable is a big factor. As you pointed out, a big advantage of the Sherman gunner's periscope is that he can scan around with it without moving the turret. But at the same time the scissors periscope on the Jagdpanther is attached to a rotating plate.

Also, the Jagdpanther gunner does have some limited ability to scan. The main cannon can be traversed up to 14° left or right.

[Battlefront.com]

Just a quick update.

Thanks to the posts here and HUGE efforts put in by the testers (this is an understatement!) Charles managed to find a couple of inter related bugs that have been around forever and a dog's age. They weren't discovered until now because they were straight out code execution issues, not code design problems. Meaning, nasty bugs that were related to how computers work, not related to errors in simulation elements themselves.

The reason so many years went by before there was a concerted push to look into this problem is that it wasn't easy to know that there was a problem! These particular bugs produced random sized errors ranging from pretty much correct all the way to significantly wrong. Worse, the results were used by other parts of the game in a way that may or may not have produced a wrong game result that anybody would notice. Even more, sometimes it affected the game results, sometimes the UI reporting, sometimes both. Which meant feedback to the user was sometimes inconsistent with game results, making things even more difficult to track down.

In short... it was a rather complicated problem that was difficult to notice, not to mention identify.

The way we approached this was to figure out the basic issues, then continually whittle down the variables until we had something that showed a significant problem (i.e. can't be explained by random variations and luck) that was also reproducible. This wasn't helped by an unrelated issue with some vehicles having a harder time achieving Hull Down than they should have. In fact, some of the problems weren't fully uncovered until Charles tweaked a Hull Down threshold.

All in all the game did produce good results most of the time for most vehicles in most situations most of the time. However, it's impossible to say how frequently the bugs caused problems that people didn't notice OR noticed and chalked up to something else. What we do know is there was some degree of problem and it should be fixed now.

Steve

[HistoryLover]

Interesting. Hopefully this will make the outcome of tank battles more consistent to what the player believes he is doing.

Can you, for the technically interested customer, be a bit more specific about the kind of problem?

[Broadsword56]

Excellent news!

I *don't* care how you fixed it, I'm just glad you did and grateful to those who persisted with the tests and posts to get it looked at.

[Battlefront.com]

Again, we need to differentiate between sweeping generalizations and specific circumstances. For the most part the problems found would not affect most combat situations most of the time for most people. So to say that there's some massive gap between player expectations and game results would be a gross overstatement.

Having said that, there are situations where the player might have said "wow, I thought I would have spotted that dude before he spotted me" and be correct that the game should have come up with a different result. However, there are also plenty of situations where a player might think that and be incorrect because of something he wasn't aware of going on beneath the fog of war.

It's too soon to say what the net results of these fixes will actually be because we're only now getting them fixed. My guesses are this:

1. Players will find it easier for "Very Tall" tanks, such as Panthers, King Tigers, Jagdpanther, etc. to achieve Hull Down status than before. The status bestows a cover bonus which should make the vehicles harder to be spotted. Other tanks, such as PzIVs, StuGs, etc. will see no change in behavior as it was working correctly.

2. Thanks that are fully Hull Down may find themselves able to spot enemy tanks faster than they were able to before. The conditions for improvement are there, for sure, but how much of a practical effect this has on a specific situation between specific vehicles is questionable. In some cases there will be next to no change, in other cases a significant improvement. Whether this has any practical effect on outcome is absolutely impossible to state since there are so many other factors involved.

3. Target Command feedback, text and/or line colors, will better reflect the reality of the given situation being checked. As with the other notes, the information being given was usually totally correct. However in some situations there was a chance of it being wrong to some degree.

Of the above perhaps #3 is the most important in terms of influencing player behavior. If you're in a specific situation and you make a LOS check, and the result is not accurate, then you MIGHT make a decision based on the wrong information. Or might not. Or might make the right decision and still wind up on the losing end because that's just the way it turned out.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Excellent news!

I *don't* care how you fixed it, I'm just glad you did and grateful to those who persisted with the tests and posts to get it looked at.

We're looking into a group discount rate for some of our testers to receive mental health counseling. If you saw the tests they set up and tabulated you'd understand why Unfortunately this is one of those damned things which required that sort of effort. I think the long term testers will have to think back to early CMBN beta testing (i.e. 3-4 years ago) to remember such an exhausting experience.

Steve