Hull-down spotting disadvantage

[altipueri]

Free beer for Vanir.

[Dadekster]

The more feedback I get in regards to decisions I need to make for units the happier I am, assuming it is within realistic reasons.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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.

Thanks for the update, Steve. Good news for sure.

Is there any word on the optics issue(s), e.g. questions about if they affect spotting (magnification, field of view, ect.), the half-blind Jagdpanther, and so forth?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Free beer for Vanir.

Mmmmm, beeeeer

[Battlefront.com]

Nothing specific about the optics, other than the quirky results seen in tests were likely the result of the bugs. In other words, take all the research that's gone into this question and toss all of it out the window. The very nature of the problem means that all data accumulated thus far is unreliable. There is no easy way to know which parts of it are reliable nor to what degree since the bugs were somewhat random and highly case sensitive.

Which is to say that the various tests done, especially two in particular done by beta testers, were extremely valuable in that they helped uncover the problems. But now that the problems have been uncovered, the tests hold no further value for discussion.

Steve

[Dadekster]

When can we see the fruits of these labors if I may ask?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Nothing specific about the optics, other than the quirky results seen in tests were likely the result of the bugs. In other words, take all the research that's gone into this question and toss all of it out the window. The very nature of the problem means that all data accumulated thus far is unreliable. There is no easy way to know which parts of it are reliable nor to what degree since the bugs were somewhat random and highly case sensitive.

So optics remains a black box for the time being.

And it appears that I will be re-running the long range spotting comparisons after the next patch. *sigh*

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

You're welcome

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, thanks for your role in getting the ball started. In hindsight there's been some hints of problems over the years, but now we know why dots weren't connected. When something works most of the time in most situations it's easy to say when something works oddly once that it's just a fluke.

Though what you did, though helpful, wasn't what got the problems identified. AKD, C3K, and Sgt Joch dove in head first to produce the sorts of stuff we needed to isolate what was going on. In fact, there's 16 forum pages of tests and discussions. Not that this makes anybody better than anybody else, I just want to make sure that credit is spread around as it should be

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

When you mentioned there were 2 beta testers in particular I assumed it was AKD and c3k since they had both requested I send them files for review. I also want to extend my thanks to them. I know what a massive time sink that sort of thing is. Not to mention the mind-numbing tedium. :eek:

Oh and thanks to Sgt Joch, as well. It's good to know he does something other than give me a hard time on the forum.

[Sgt Joch]

Oh and thanks to Sgt Joch, as well. It's good to know he does something other than give me a hard time on the forum.

Don't take it personally, I give everyone a hard time.

[A Canadian Cat]

This is brilliant - thank you.

Again, we need to differentiate between sweeping generalizations and specific circumstances.

Set expectations - good.

1. Players will find it easier for "Very Tall" tanks, such as Panthers, King Tigers, Jagdpanther, etc. to achieve Hull Down status than before....

2. Thanks that are fully Hull Down may find themselves able to spot enemy tanks faster than they were able to before. ...

3. Target Command feedback, text and/or line colors, will better reflect the reality of the given situation being checked. ...

Thanks for the details - those are good outcomes.

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.

While it is good that we will have the information we need to make the best decisions. Don't forget "**** happens".

[Lee]

I assume that this was tested after the initial fixes were put in place.  Where might that thread be?  Very curious as to the results, and thanks for any help. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes, it was tested. The thread containing the results is in a forum not publicly accessible.

[Lee]

Oh, I would have thought at least the unofficial version of the discussion among players of how the game plays after the fixes would have taken place in the regular forum, since there seemed to be a lot of interest.  Any idea what the general opinion of the end result was? 

 

And by the way, a huge thanks to those who noticed this problem and ran tons of tests to show there was, in fact, something wrong, and to narrow it down so a better idea could be gotten as to where to look for the source of the problem(s) in the game.  And thanks to Charles for taking the time and tracking down the offending parties in the game and terminating them with extreme prejudice. 

And also a thanks to Steve, who has had about a million technical discussions (often involving, shall we say, heated debates...) on various CM games since the series first came out, and is always eager to make it a better more accurate wargame to have fun with and learn from.  BTS is always first class on game support, true fellow wargamers, couldn't ask for better.

Also, I want to say it's nice to see such discussions.  Reminds me of the early days of CM, where the forum was filled with threads discussing all sorts of fine details about WW2 tanks, infantry, guns, artillery and combat in general. Some of the most intelligent, educated, enthusiastic, interesting (and civil) talks one might hope for on the topic, and it's good to see more such things on the forum at this time. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

Oh, I would have thought at least the unofficial version of the discussion among players of how the game plays after the fixes would have taken place in the regular forum, since there seemed to be a lot of interest. Any idea what the general opinion of the end result was?

I think this thread is all there is. Since people tend to start new discussions about things that are not working as expected rather than things that are, it's a good sign

[Lt Bull]

Wow, thanks for necro-raising this thread.  I somehow missed this intriguing thread back when.  It is of great interest to me as I have long questioned some of the CMx2 spotting/LOS/LOF modelling behaviors and even recall discussions on hulldown tanks similar to this in CMx1 days.

 

Now I haven't quite finished reading all the posts (just around half) and processed all the findings and conclusions, but with all the testing and speculation, it occurred to me that there is a very simple tweak that can be made to almost any and all of these tests that will definitely give a better insight to the contributions of the upper hull spotting crew (mainly the commander, gunner, loader) and the lower hull crew (driver, hull MGer/ radio operator) to spotting under the various conditions: in open, partial hull down, hulldown.

 

From what I understand (sorry just read first half posts, scanned the rest), no tests have been done which places the tanks in their respective positions but instead of always having the front of the two opposing tanks face each other (which is always the h case in these tests), you mix it up with these combinations:

 

- hull front facing enemy, turret rotated facing away from enemy

- hull front facing away from enemy, turret facing towards the enemy

 

This way you can eliminate the spotting contributions from any of the hull mounted crewmen and that of the gunner completely.  I understand that the tank commander can actually still spot to the rear but it is limited.

 

I really think testing under these conditions will shed some new light on understanding what is going on.

 

So now, you can place your two tanks opposite each other, one in open (hull facing rear, turret facing front) and the other in hulldown (can even have hull facing rear, but turret facing front) and compare the results with that of the same situation but hull and turret facing each other and determine exactly what the spotting bonus contribute by the hull crew is.

 

If those who conducted the tests in the first place have saved files of those tests which they can send me, I would be happy to save myself the effort of setting up the tests from scratch and running a set of tests possibly concurrently with others.

 

PS:  Also thought about setting up tests where you have an incomplete crew to get more specific results.  I can't remember if crew move to fill the roles of their comrades though. Still, worth a look as tests involving selective crew could potentially yield some interesting results.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Lt Bull

[Vanir Ausf B]

If those who conducted the tests in the first place have saved files of those tests which they can send me, I would be happy to save myself the effort of setting up the tests from scratch and running a set of tests possibly concurrently with others.

 

Here's one that I used:

 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/buz71ecdkexzxbh/Spotting%20hull%20down%20for%20realz.btt?dl=0

[Lee]

Vanir:  Hehe, that is true, so I suppose it is a good sign that the hull down simulation is quite a bit improved now. =)  Was there any follow-up discussion related to the optics quality issue?

 

I hope everyone has a Blessed Good Friday and Easter Sunday. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

Was there any follow-up discussion related to the optics quality issue?

Regarding the Jagdpanther specifically, yes, but not really anything outside of that context.