Hull-down spotting disadvantage

[Webs]

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.

Ah, good old WW2OL. I wrote/edited the equipment manual that came with the original game. The original stuff and updates went into a wiki eventually, but it no longer seems to be online. It was at http://wiki.wwiionline.com.

[Battlefront.com]

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.

Not even close Of course people who are missing a particular feature naturally pay attention to those posting the same requests, not necessarily so for others. It's a natural way of seeing the world. Me? I have no such luxury. I have to see and sort through thousands of requests.

Each release we have put in a couple of long standing requests. Sometimes they are something that CMx1 had, sometimes they are improvements to CMx2 specific features, and we've even put in some things that people have been requesting since CMBO Beta. Got at least one of each of those going into the next release in fact!

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?

Actually, CMBO was far more beer and pretzels than any game we've ever made. Which is partly why CMBB and CMAK sold so much less than CMBO.

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.

You misunderstand. There are gamers, there are wargamers, and then there are grognards. Each has it's own preferences as to what a game delivers. Grogs tend to favor numbers and things explained in excruciating detail. The other two groups don't. Not that they don't want more information, because they do. But I'd say mouse-over popup text for the UI we currently have would probably rank higher on the popularity chart than getting new information.

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

Time is limited. If time is spent on A then it is not spent on B. We largely spend our time where we think it does the most good. Obviously for every decision we make there's someone thinking we should have made a different decision. That's just the way it goes, so we don't mind.

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

Sure, but you were the one who made the argument that you should have similar information as a tanker, not me.

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

No doubt true. And truer for some than for others. I'll never dispute that. As I said when I started having this debate with you, it all comes down to perspective and prioritization. There's LOTS of things that have the potential to provide a "richer experience". We have to pick and choose which gets in, which by default means the other stuff doesn't. At least for now.

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.

Sure, with a game of this detail there's always stuff like that. Heck, even with CMx1, which was much more simplistic and supposedly better documented, there were always threads like that. Were you around on this Forums when Shock Force was first released? We had a religious war in the middle of serious issues regarding stability and major features. What's gone on since CMBN is a mere mumble compared to those days. Again, this is the importance of having perspective.

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".

In a perfect world, sure. We don't live in a perfect world.

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.

We're satisfied with the debates we've had in the past and the conclusions that we drew from it. And if you don't think there was a "all German optics were da bomb and all Allied optics sucked arse" group involved in that debate, you don't know the Forums very well. Meaning, there's probably not much you could present as evidence that we haven't already seen in our own studies or those in debate here.

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.

Yup, and that is the sort of thing CMx2 accurately simulates.

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.

In a perfect world, of course not. Though in this case, as enjoyable as this might be, in my view it's not very pertinent to gameplay enjoyment. For you, perhaps, which is why you don't share this opinion.

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.

Huh? OPTICS were given a specific treatment, be they German or otherwise. They play some role in some instances of spotting to some degree, specific to each vehicle and surrounding circumstances. Generally speaking the Germans have better optics than most, but not in all cases and sometimes not to a degree that matters when combined with other factors.

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

Always interested in exploring apparent oddities. Sometimes there is an explanation, sometimes not.

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.

And having a Conscript or even Green crew in one of those vehicles is unrealistic. So we could address the problem you see by simply preventing players from having the flexibility of putting poor quality crews in such vehicles.

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.

Players who think they NEED to know 99 out of 100 details frustrate themselves. They're also more likely to lose in a H2H game against an intuitive player. In fact, the more you argue that this information is critical the less credibility I give your argument. "Nice to know" is one I'd never argue with. "Would be helpful in some cases" I'd also support. But "must know in order to not be frustrated and/or enjoy the game"? Nope, that one doesn't resonate with us. At least not with this particular issue. Other issues, perhaps.

Taking your above comment, there is no case you could possibly make to me that would suggest that knowing the details of optics would make or break a purchase decision. Players buy what they're comfortable with at the best experience level they can afford. Some dial down quality and go for quantity. Some take into consideration if they are attacker or defender. Others try to out guess what the enemy will show up with. One proportionally minor detail amongst all the other details to be considered does not factor into it much.

A Panther is a better tank than a PzIV in the game as it was in real life. Knowing if the thumb toggle on a particular model of sight is or is not simulated doesn't change that. Sooooooooooooo...

While I am definitely in favor of providing more information on some of the details under the hood, I can't afford to assign any one piece of it more weight than it deserves in the bigger picture. In a perfect world there would be a Unitpedia in since Shock Force, since I had proposed something that far back. In fact I just now found a really nice set of 2008 mockups for the first draft of what became CMBN. But the world is imperfect and that means lots of great ideas aren't either feasible or even possible. Better to find joy in the things which are instead of sorrow for the things which are not.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Huh? OPTICS were given a specific treatment, be they German or otherwise. They play some role in some instances of spotting to some degree, specific to each vehicle and surrounding circumstances. Generally speaking the Germans have better optics than most, but not in all cases and sometimes not to a degree that matters when combined with other factors.

All allied optics were give a single generic rating for quality ("mediocre") and magnification. German optics were not. I didn't see any German optics rated as mediocre. Some of them had more narrow fields of view in exchange for higher magnification. But the gist of it looks to me that IF the vehicle crew was of at least the required experience level and IF the vehicle was not used in situations outside of what the optics were designed for (i.e. Jadgpanther in a knife fight) then the German optics were always considered be better than Allied optics in the same situation, with the notable exception of hot weather. That's what I mean by special treatment. If they weren't special they would have been rated as mediocre like all the rest.

Are Allied optics still generic in CMBN? I'm guessing not, but that would be an assumption. And you know what happens when you assume

And having a Conscript or even Green crew in one of those vehicles is unrealistic. So we could address the problem you see by simply preventing players from having the flexibility of putting poor quality crews in such vehicles.

This reminds me of something I forgot to ask in my last post.

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.

In practical terms what does this mean, exactly. It looks to me like you are saying that German optics performance is still influence by crew quality to a greater extent than Allied optics. Is that correct? And some German vehicles are still more sensitive to crew quality than others. Am I still warm? I'm just trying to envision how this works.

Players who think they NEED to know 99 out of 100 details frustrate themselves. They're also more likely to lose in a H2H game against an intuitive player. In fact, the more you argue that this information is critical the less credibility I give your argument. "Nice to know" is one I'd never argue with. "Would be helpful in some cases" I'd also support.

You're getting hung up on semantics. "Need", "want", "would be nice". Insert whatever qualifier you like. I've made it clear that the game isn't broken. I don't feel the need to belabor the point.

As for intuitive players being the aces of the CM multiplayer scene, I could see that being the case in real time play. I am doubtful it is true in PBEM. But I am probably biased given that I am not a particularly intuitive player and my PBEM record is... not bad

Taking your above comment, there is no case you could possibly make to me that would suggest that knowing the details of optics would make or break a purchase decision. Players buy what they're comfortable with at the best experience level they can afford. Some dial down quality and go for quantity. Some take into consideration if they are attacker or defender. Others try to out guess what the enemy will show up with. One proportionally minor detail amongst all the other details to be considered does not factor into it much.

Steve, never try to out-analyze an analytical player If I am playing Germans and going for quantity over quality, I am looking at that old CMBB manual and noticing that early model Panther optics are much less sensitive to crew quality (green required) than late model Panthers (veteran required). So the Panther D it would be. If I'm going for quality then the G starts to look more attractive.

Better to find joy in the things which are instead of sorry for the things which are not.

That sounds like a new year's resolution

[Skwabie]

Just wanna say I'm learning quite much information while reading this thread, ofc in this case spotting related. Actually... I usually learn quite a lot of new stuff in these threads, so thank you.

But I agree with Vanir, I know so little about how the game system works everytime I start it I feel like going in blind. Knowing how different it can be between things happening on a computer screen vs. the real world I don't put too much faith in my assumptions. I would love to get more info about how the game works in manuals instead of digging it up in deep threads like this.. That would motivate me to play the game more as well.

[HistoryLover]

John Kettler,

thanks, great stuff.

[altipueri]

I must say this thread had provided much more sport than actually playing the game.

This is an interesting line from post 152:

"Actually, CMBO was far more beer and pretzels than any game we've ever made. Which is partly why CMBB and CMAK sold so much less than CMBO."

[PaulMG]

Exactly why I play CMBO on occasion. Warts and all, it is more fun and less stress.

[eniced73]

I must say this thread had provided much more sport than actually playing the game.

This is an interesting line from post 152:

"Actually, CMBO was far more beer and pretzels than any game we've ever made. Which is partly why CMBB and CMAK sold so much less than CMBO."

I agree somewhat. Reading some of the discussions going off on tangents and the way people back them. Very entertaining. Good for the game though. Getting BF involved as much as they have been is a good thing. Keeps them thinking outside their box. If it was not somewhat for the ones that complain the game would stagnate to a point.

I re-read this thread last night and came to the realization that I am fine with BF not revealing everything about the game (spotting in this case). Yeah, it would be nice to know does your units spot in cycles of X seconds. But on the other hand not knowing what is going on gives the game that sense of "Oh ****" feeling when something goes awry. Sort of evens the game out somewhat between those that excel and those that are just casual players. Makes games more interesting.

As far as continuing this discussion on hull down spotting, I think you are heading down a one way street. You have to look at the basics of spotting before you even think about looking at hull down, partial hull down, or sitting in the open. How can you possible test any kind of scenario with any kind of good results without knowing the specifics of spotting? Look at Van's test where the spotting times varied from something like 20 seconds up to in the hundreds. All done on the same map with the same circumstances. Unless the spotting system is completely redone you are not going to see any kind of consistent results on these tests.

[Vanir Ausf B]

As far as continuing this discussion on hull down spotting, I think you are heading down a one way street. You have to look at the basics of spotting before you even think about looking at hull down, partial hull down, or sitting in the open. How can you possible test any kind of scenario with any kind of good results without knowing the specifics of spotting? Look at Van's test where the spotting times varied from something like 20 seconds up to in the hundreds. All done on the same map with the same circumstances. Unless the spotting system is completely redone you are not going to see any kind of consistent results on these tests.

Testing the effects of hull down is simply a means towards the end of gaining a better understanding of how spotting works, as well as empowering players to make informed tactical decisions as opposed to relying on assumptions.

Consistency in results is not necessary to measure meaningful differences. High variance simply puts those differences in perspective. If the standard deviation is much larger than the average difference between two test groups that doesn't mean the difference isn't real or doesn't matter, it just means that sheer dumb luck is the larger of the two factors.

[poesel]

Yeah, it would be nice to know does your units spot in cycles of X seconds.

It's 7 seconds (*). Did I eNICEd your day?

(*) usually - may be faster sometimes

[Dadekster]

Testing the effects of hull down is simply a means towards the end of gaining a better understanding of how spotting works, as well as empowering players to make informed tactical decisions as opposed to relying on assumptions.

Consistency in results is not necessary to measure meaningful differences. High variance simply puts those differences in perspective. If the standard deviation is much larger than the average difference between two test groups that doesn't mean the difference isn't real or doesn't matter, it just means that sheer dumb luck is the larger of the two factors.

This is why scientists make lousy soldiers.

[altipueri]

Just Nuke'em. Problem solved. Sorry, wrong enemy.

[JonS]

If the standard deviation is much larger than the average difference between two test groups that doesn't mean the difference isn't real or doesn't matter, it just means that sheer dumb luck is the larger of the two factors.

Which reminds me of an old joke ...

Three statisticians went hunting one day, and after several hours tracking some spoor they came across a grizzly on the far side of a large opening. All three raised their rifles, and the first statistician fired *bang*

"Rats, 2 yards to the left!" he said.

*bang*, the second statistician fired.

"Nuts, 2 yards to the right!" she said.

The third statistician lowered his rifle with a smile, "We got it!" he said.

[sburke]

Grizzly: "lunch!"

[Battlefront.com]

Funny, I just heard a pretty good engineer joke today.

During the French Revolution they had three people to guillotine on this particular day; a lawyer, an artist, and an engineer.

The lawyer was brought up first and his head put beneath the blade. The rope was pulled and nothing happened. Taking this as a sign that his life should be spared, they let him go.

The artist was brought up next and his head put beneath the blade. The rope was pulled and nothing happened. Taking this as a sign that his life should be spared, they let him go.

The engineer was brought up next. But before his head was put beneath the blade he said, "I see the problem. It's a bad design because it's allowed the rope has come off the pulley, which the weight of the blade cannot overcome. Here, I'll fix it for you by pushing this over a little bit and correctly lining the rope so that there's no friction on it". His head was then put beneath the blade and CHOP.

Engineers.. slaves to their habits

Steve

[BletchleyGeek]

And having a Conscript or even Green crew in one of those vehicles is unrealistic. So we could address the problem you see by simply preventing players from having the flexibility of putting poor quality crews in such vehicles.

By mid or late 1944, I wouldn't say that would be 'unrealistic', Steve. A well-documented example of poor quality crews being deployed in major operations is that of the Battle of Arracourt. And probably there are many more similar examples of such raw units being committed to action in the Eastern Front in late 1944.

I see many "juvenile" remarks deriding statistics being made here, which make an amusing read, but I think they tend to miss the point of all this experimentation and tabulation. That of getting an idea of the "timing" in one of the most important factors in tank-to-tank combat, spotting.

If having your tanks in hull-down positions entails that those tanks will require, on average, a longer time in order to spot an enemy tank, that has quite important tactical consequences. Let me go over a happening in a "CW First Clash" game I had at The Blitz with Barre (hats off to him, by the way).

That scenario depicts a meeting engagement between a Polish and a Waffen SS recon battlegroups, where the terrain consists of a quite deep forested valley dominated by rolling hills on each side. Each force has the opportunity to deploy their armour on the high-ground, overwatching parts of the valley as well as the higher-ground on the other side. The German side (this is an subjective appraisal) offered much better opportunities to deploy armour in hull-down position.

I was playing the German side and I kept my heavy armour in reserve - relatively speaking, as these were Mk IV's - while the faster, thin skinned German AFV's raced along the main routes in search of the enemy forces. My opponent met the light AFVs with a couple Cromwells, which did indeed have a field day. My opponent had those Cromwells sitting on the open, as he wasn't very afraid.

I immediately ordered three of my Pz IV's to advance along a covered route towards hull-down positions slightly to the flank of the enemy Cromwells. They got there and for when the 'contact' icon solidified into an actual tank, the Cromwells - sitting on the open - had already started firing on the hull-down Pz IV's.

That was a difference of perhaps 20 or 30 seconds, not much yet crucial, since by the time my crews were firing their first shots - and getting their shots too short or too long, as expected - the Cromwells' crews had already taken those 'off range' shots, and their next shots knocked two Mk IV's in quick succession with turret penetrations (both crews bailed out).

I wasn't aware at the time of how important could be that difference - as in allowing the enemy enough time to get a good firing solution before my troops did. In hindsight, if I had been aware of this asymmetry in spotting - which makes perfect sense now, as the Cromwells by being on the open, had more chances to spot than my Mk IV's, by having more "Eyeball Mk I sensors" available - I wouldn't have gambled on taking out the Cromwells (and putting the Mk IV's in hull-down positions, where they're surprisingly yet historically-correct vulnerable).

[eniced73]

It's 7 seconds (*). Did I eNICEd your day?

(*) usually - may be faster sometimes

Yes! You did. Actually you tested the cycle to be from 2 to 7 unless it has changed with further testing. Too bad there is not a way for you to put all your test posts on this subject in one thread (by itself without the bs). You have put up some informative information. Thanks.

Testing the effects of hull down is simply a means towards the end of gaining a better understanding of how spotting works, as well as empowering players to make informed tactical decisions as opposed to relying on assumptions.

Forgive my lack of Math skills as from your posts you are clearly versed in this subject. But when your most important variable (spotting cycle) can range from 2 to 7 seconds (verified by poes) and the actual chance of spotting said unit is basically unknown I do not see any kind of spotting tests let alone hull down ones going in any direction. Especially the end. You will be stuck in an infinite loop like Sheldon was on that one episode of 'big bang' and poes will have to draw you a loop counter with an escape to the least objectionable solution. Does not make sense, nope not again, **** spotted in 7 secs that time, hmmm, that one was 34secs, ahhh...F...it, shat happens move on.

As far as making informed tactical decisions as opposed to relying on assumptions......this is a game. Yes it is heads and tails above all when simulating combat but it is a game. If you find yourself saying I am going to move my armor into hull down position and have a nice little side shot on that enemy armor you better be ready to smash the **** out of your keyboard when it does not happen.

I am not bashing you or anyone else testing this and I read and reread all your posts on the subject as I appreciate the time you put in. You guys are much more dedicated than I am. But I do not see an ends to the means in this case. Too many unknowns.

[Vanir Ausf B]

That's fine. Rest assured there are other people who do understand the significance. That is why beta testers are investigating the issue.

[eniced73]

Oh, I do understand the significance of the issue. Everyone does. Who would not like to know what your chances are since that would help make your tactical decisions that much easier. You alone should see how little can be proved with something being wrong in the spotting whether it be in hull, partial, or in the open. You have done extensive testing on all this. Maybe the beta-testing team will share their tests with us and explain what they find?

[Battlefront.com]

I'm going to largely cut this down to I agree that more/better information display can be a good thing, but I doubt it will ever be to the degree you feel it should. This is the difference between your own feelings on what is a "want" and what is a "need". As with any personal opinion, and this definitely is, there's going to be a large area where agreement isn't possible in all instances all the time. Plus, we can't afford to go tunnel vision on any one aspect of the game. Not a path we can afford (literally) to go down. Which means improvements in game feedback will be, like everything else in the game, a series of incremental improvements.

What was in CMx1 isn't really relevant so I don't want to continue spending time on that. There is almost nothing about spotting in CMx2 that is similar to the way CMx1 spotted. The most important reason is that CMx1's "absolute" spotting system made nuances mostly pointless because an individual unit rarely had to spot on its own. CMx2's "relative" spotting system, on the other hand, means that individual spotting characteristics matter a ton. Therefore, the generalized and superficial treatment of spotting inherent in CMx1 does not exist in CMx2.

Are Allied optics still generic in CMBN? I'm guessing not, but that would be an assumption.

The specific properties for spotting go way beyond mere optics. Vision blocks, for example, are not technically optics but they are factored in. Individual optics systems are also explicitly taken into consideration in terms of magnification and field of view. Beyond that would be the clarity of view, which is a modifier to a specific part of a larger part of a bigger capability to spot. I have absolutely no idea what the modifier might be, or whether it is different based on nation. In fact, in all these years of development of CMx2 I've never thought to ask as it's never come up. And even if I did tell you, I can promise you there's no way you could use that information in a meaningful way.

In practical terms what does this mean, exactly. It looks to me like you are saying that German optics performance is still influence by crew quality to a greater extent than Allied optics. Is that correct? And some German vehicles are still more sensitive to crew quality than others. Am I still warm? I'm just trying to envision how this works.

Best of my knowledge there is no nitty gritty presumption that a specific piece of a specific part of a specific vehicle behaves explicitly different depending on crew quality. Given how arbitrary such decisions would be, since there is no such historical reference to guide us, I think it would be a mistake to do that. The exception made for CMx1 was, in effect, "gamey".

Steve, never try to out-analyze an analytical player If I am playing Germans and going for quantity over quality, I am looking at that old CMBB manual and noticing that early model Panther optics are much less sensitive to crew quality (green required) than late model Panthers (veteran required). So the Panther D it would be. If I'm going for quality then the G starts to look more attractive.

I doubt there are many like you amongst the entire customer base. And I weep for those of you who do play this way Because you will never, ever be armed with enough information to make choices like this in a way that is much better than the average gamer. That's because there is NO one right thing to choose and there is NO one certain outcome. It's all circumstantial and there's no possible way all circumstances can be accounted for.

I understand that people who feel the need to control things to this degree take comfort in exercising as much control as they are afforded... but I don't think it makes much practical difference. The battle will still be won based on tactical prowess, and as history shows stats don't predict outcome. Which is why the various Dupuy attempts failed to work.

If you win more than you lose it's because you're a good player. It's not because you've correctly sussed out the minor possible benefits of one particular type of vehicle vs. another.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Oh, I do understand the significance of the issue. Everyone does. Who would not like to know what your chances are since that would help make your tactical decisions that much easier. You alone should see how little can be proved with something being wrong in the spotting whether it be in hull, partial, or in the open. You have done extensive testing on all this. Maybe the beta-testing team will share their tests with us and explain what they find?

Well then I don't know what you're on about. The ends to the means is simply to have hull down status affect spotting as is should (however that may be). And that the optics of various vehicles are working as intended. That's all.

[Battlefront.com]

By mid or late 1944, I wouldn't say that would be 'unrealistic', Steve. A well-documented example of poor quality crews being deployed in major operations is that of the Battle of Arracourt. And probably there are many more similar examples of such raw units being committed to action in the Eastern Front in late 1944.

I don't agree. We're talking about crew training levels, not overall force wide capabilities. The Germans maintained very high standards for crews pretty much through to the end of the war. I doubt very much that the crews in Arracourt would be considered "Green" and absolutely they were not "Conscript". The factors that caused numerous operational and tactical defeats are vastly more complex than that anyway.

Plus, the units getting Jagdpanthers were generally seasoned units with seasoned crews that switched out other vehicles for the Jagdpanthers. For the most part they were not manned by entire crews straight out of bootcamp.

If having your tanks in hull-down positions entails that those tanks will require, on average, a longer time in order to spot an enemy tank, that has quite important tactical consequences

Of course, which is why we're looking into this in detail. But making fun of statisticians and engineers is not an activity that precludes addressing the problem. We can multitask

Yes! You did. Actually you tested the cycle to be from 2 to 7 unless it has changed with further testing. Too bad there is not a way for you to put all your test posts on this subject in one thread (by itself without the bs). You have put up some informative information. Thanks.

7 seconds rings a bell with me too. At least for the "standard" spotting time. As units get closer together they are capable of spotting faster than that. This was not always the case. Early in CMSF's history there were times when units could be quite close and neither one would spot the other, yet they were right in front of each other and every second counted. At some point Charles optimized spotting routines so that he could take such situations and give them accelerated spotting times without adversely impacting gameplay. The problems that once were pretty much totally went away.

But when your most important variable (spotting cycle) can range from 2 to 7 seconds (verified by poes) and the actual chance of spotting said unit is basically unknown I do not see any kind of spotting tests let alone hull down ones going in any direction.

While it is true that people can go after information that is not going to present itself, or even if it did isn't relevant, there is value in comparative analysis. If the real world expectation is for two tanks in Situation A to have a particular outcome, and the same two tanks in Situation B to have a different particular outcome, it is possible (through carefully controlled tests) to test for each and compare the results against each other. If the results are not as expected then further tests can help determine why. We're on stage two of this at the moment.

I am not bashing you or anyone else testing this and I read and reread all your posts on the subject as I appreciate the time you put in. You guys are much more dedicated than I am. But I do not see an ends to the means in this case. Too many unknowns.

A full "ends to the means" is, as you correctly states, impossible. There are way too many variables and possible situationally important factors to make anything certain. However, there does appear to be a specific case where a player has a chance of coming out worse than he should. It is a significant enough chance that we feel it's worth trying to eliminate, even if it doesn't dramatically change overall outcome in any one battle or customer base wide.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

What was in CMx1 isn't really relevant so I don't want to continue spending time on that. There is almost nothing about spotting in CMx2 that is similar to the way CMx1 spotted.

What about the differing effects of hot and cold weather on Allied and German optics? Is that still there in some way?

Best of my knowledge there is no nitty gritty presumption that a specific piece of a specific part of a specific vehicle behaves explicitly different depending on crew quality. Given how arbitrary such decisions would be, since there is no such historical reference to guide us, I think it would be a mistake to do that. The exception made for CMx1 was, in effect, "gamey".

I'm slightly disappointed. Gamey and arbitrary as it may have been it did have a basis in reality. Oh, well.

That also shoots down my theory explaining the unusually bad Panther spotting.

I doubt there are many like you amongst the entire customer base. And I weep for those of you who do play this way

Steve, it warms my heart to know you care

Because you will never, ever be armed with enough information to make choices like this in a way that is much better than the average gamer. That's because there is NO one right thing to choose and there is NO one certain outcome. It's all circumstantial and there's no possible way all circumstances can be accounted for.

I understand that people who feel the need to control things to this degree take comfort in exercising as much control as they are afforded... but I don't think it makes much practical difference. The battle will still be won based on tactical prowess, and as history shows stats don't predict outcome. Which is why the various Dupuy attempts failed to work.

If you win more than you lose it's because you're a good player. It's not because you've correctly sussed out the minor possible benefits of one particular type of vehicle vs. another.

First of all let me say that with regards to the specific example I gave, I actually agree with you. That is just min/maxing of QB points. You (or Charles?) have done a pretty good job on the QB point values. They are, generally speaking, fairly representative of battlefield utility so the opportunities to gain significant advantage are few. And in the few instances of major discrepancies *cough* US rockets *cough* house rules can take care of it. I don't do much min/maxing. Honest

There are far more important considerations than point values when deciding on force structure and you hit upon one of them: circumstance. If you know what type of terrain and weather you will be fighting in before you pick your forces (and there seems to be no way of keeping that information hidden) then you absolutely can gain significant benefit from knowing the technical characteristics of vehicles as they relate to your particular circumstances.

One example: Let's say you are the attacker in a QB and you have selected random weather and got rain. Since you are on the attack you know your forces are going to move around a lot. So you naturally give strong preference to vehicles with good soft-ground performance to minimize bogging chances in the mud. Historically the Panther was one of if not the best tank of WW2 in that category. So you take some Panthers, congratulating yourself on your in-depth knowledge of WW2 armor. Problem: Panthers in CMx2 actually are not particularly good in mud. In fact, they are no better than early to mid-model Sherman tanks, which were so bad the US went to considerable effort to improve them in that area.

Thankfully, in the case of off-road performance there already is a rating for vehicles in the UI so you should be forewarned. But the point is if that value were hidden you would probably think all your bogged Panthers were just bad luck. That's why we nee- ah, I mean "want" detailed information (I know you hate the N-word ). Because how we expect things to work in the game and how they actually do are not always the same. And even if they are we may be totally clueless how they worked in real life and could use the education.

But aside from that I don't think we are far apart in our positions. You have said repeatedly that you want us to have more information and that is music to my ears. I'm content see what the future holds. :cool:

[BletchleyGeek]

I don't agree. We're talking about crew training levels, not overall force wide capabilities. The Germans maintained very high standards for crews pretty much through to the end of the war. I doubt very much that the crews in Arracourt would be considered "Green" and absolutely they were not "Conscript". The factors that caused numerous operational and tactical defeats are vastly more complex than that anyway.

I've been looking quite a bit into Arracourt - as I'm looking into modelling that battle in an operational level engine - and I kind of agree with that assessment of yours regarding experience of crews not being a deciding factor, which was very low specifically in the Panther Battalions.

The 4th US Armoured Division was also quite raw, since they had arrived in Europe the only thing they did was to drive across Brittany and then east to the Moselle overrunning disorganized and scattered German units, but it looks to me that even that (limited) experience, allows to qualify American crews as more experienced than those of the hapless Panzer Brigades (I'm thinking of the first day in the engagement).

Indeed, what carried the day for the US armoured forces in that crucial first day was superior command & control.

Plus, the units getting Jagdpanthers were generally seasoned units with seasoned crews that switched out other vehicles for the Jagdpanthers. For the most part they were not manned by entire crews straight out of bootcamp.

I am not contesting the level of training, but the level of experience of the crews in a combat situation. And I had the organic Panther Bns in the Panzer Brigades in mind, when thinking about "raw German crews".

As I understand the soft factors in CM, "Green" corresponds with a mixture of training and experience. To what extent the lack of experience impairs the effectiveness of what crews learnt during training, or to what extent training makes for lack of experience, when those crews are under real fire, is yet another topic of discussion. Taking an "average" of both "ratings" can be a useful abstraction, but I can think of situations where the relative "weights" given to each rating can be very different when it comes to quantify likely troop effectiveness.

Of course, which is why we're looking into this in detail. But making fun of statisticians and engineers is not an activity that precludes addressing the problem. We can multitask

Fair enough

[Battlefront.com]

Quick one before heading off to bed. Roughly speaking Experience is:

Conscript = no training or experience worth mentioning

Green = minimal training and no experience or minimal experience with poor training

Regular = very good training with minimal experience or decent training with some experience

Veteran = excellent training with minimal experience or good training with quite a bit of experience

The other two are kick ass based on whatever reasons you care to think up

I suspect that the Germans at Arracourt would not qualify as Green. Their deficiencies, from a crew training standpoint, would have been with coordination and maneuver. Those are the player's responsibilities so it's unfair to knock the virtual tankers for that. Similarly, you shouldn't give the American crews a bump up because their leaders knew what they were doing.

The failing of the Panzer Brigades was that nobody had yet figured out how to use them. Even seasoned officers, of which they had many, didn't know quite what to do because the whole concept was rushed into being. And as it turns out it seems the organization itself was a big part of the problem, which is why they disappeared almost as quickly as they appeared. The fact that they were thrown into really bad combat situations for their first engagements was also not in their favor. Experienced crews and leadership wasn't the problem, it was that the units themselves were set up for failure in other ways.

While the thinking behind Pz Brigades wasn't nearly as dumb as Luftwaffe Field Divisions, it wasn't very well thought out either.

Steve