Spotting at Higher Difficulties

[db_zero]

How accurate is it? I'm in a h2h quick battle and see a King Tiger in the distance. I know in real life grunts would often report MarkIVs as Tigers.

If it is a Tiger2. That could be trouble.

[akd]

There is no misidentification of types in the game. A contact is either suspected ("?" icon) or positively ID'd (visible).

[db_zero]

Well that takes care of that. Didn't think he'd buy one, but didn't set rules to forbid it. It is raining, but not sure if will impede the beast.

It would appear that engaging from the front is futile and the sides dicey. Bazookas will be as effective as spit wads unless they get lucky and destroy the treads....

[A co]

Well, at least it means your opponent has less of everything else than you do, because he must have spent a lot on the KT. If the terrain is not too open you can take advantage of that.

I think you have to look at 'ground condition' rather than current weather to see if he's going to risk bogging. The rain will definitely hurt your ability to blind him with smoke though.

[Baneman]

Take a shot then hide all your armour.

Murphy's Law dictates that you will damage his main gun and then the rest of his army will be helpless.

And he will hate you forever

[sburke]

Well that takes care of that. Didn't think he'd buy one, but didn't set rules to forbid it. It is raining, but not sure if will impede the beast.

It would appear that engaging from the front is futile and the sides dicey. Bazookas will be as effective as spit wads unless they get lucky and destroy the treads....

Armor is not so invulnerable as it used to be. If you get a chance, close assault the beast. I think you will find the results surprising and your opponent cursing you for using cheap infantry to kill his expensive tiger. smoke can get you close enough. JonS managed to get two of my tigers in a pbem even before the recent changes in infantry vs armor behavior.

[db_zero]

Armor is not so invulnerable as it used to be. If you get a chance, close assault the beast. I think you will find the results surprising and your opponent cursing you for using cheap infantry to kill his expensive tiger. smoke can get you close enough. JonS managed to get two of my tigers in a pbem even before the recent changes in infantry vs armor behavior.

There is a nice little town in the center of the map and some light woods surrounding it, It appears my crafty opponent is content to keep the King Tiger on the outskirts of the town and snipe away with the long barreled 88mm.

I have played against the AI and close assaulted a Tiger I, but the hand grenades my infantry tossed didn't do much but attract attention. This was with the latest patches and MG module.

Not sure if they were paras with demo charges if it would have made a difference.

[sburke]

There is a nice little town in the center of the map and some light woods surrounding it, It appears my crafty opponent is content to keep the King Tiger on the outskirts of the town and snipe away with the long barreled 88mm.

I have played against the AI and close assaulted a Tiger I, but the hand grenades my infantry tossed didn't do much but attract attention. This was with the latest patches and MG module.

Not sure if they were paras with demo charges if it would have made a difference.

Heh heh, keep at it and run your bazooka teams close as you are close assaulting it. I have managed it using only grenades, but it may take a few.

[db_zero]

Heh heh, keep at it and run your bazooka teams close as you are close assaulting it. I have managed it using only grenades, but it may take a few.

Before the futile close assault with hand grenades a bazooka team got off a couple of shots at the Tiger I at close range and hit the beast in the side. No noticeable effect and the Tiger dispatched the intrepid bazooka team. It wasn't at a 90 degree angle the bazooka HEAT round hit so it may have affected the penetration.

I may have noticed a couple of other things-this was against a Tiger I. It appeared that at spitting distance the Tigers main armament has some difficulty depressing low enough to engage. I also think, but can't be sure the Tiger I has some sort of close anti infantry defense mechanism. IIRC they had a grenade system that could be triggered remotely to combat infantry close assault.

I'm not sure if that was also used against my close assaulting infantry, but I did see some dispatched with something unusual when they tried to close assault.

In any event the Tiger parked next to some woods and my infantry heaved grenades to no effect then retreated to the cover of the woods.

In my current game I'm dealing with a Tiger II.

I may have to setup a QB to test out what I'm against...

[AttorneyAtWar]

Before the futile close assault with hand grenades a bazooka team got off a couple of shots at the Tiger I at close range and hit the beast in the side. No noticeable effect and the Tiger dispatched the intrepid bazooka team. It wasn't at a 90 degree angle the bazooka HEAT round hit so it may have affected the penetration.

I may have noticed a couple of other things-this was against a Tiger I. It appeared that at spitting distance the Tigers main armament has some difficulty depressing low enough to engage. I also think, but can't be sure the Tiger I has some sort of close anti infantry defense mechanism. IIRC they had a grenade system that could be triggered remotely to combat infantry close assault.

I'm not sure if that was also used against my close assaulting infantry, but I did see some dispatched with something unusual when they tried to close assault.

In any event the Tiger parked next to some woods and my infantry heaved grenades to no effect then retreated to the cover of the woods.

In my current game I'm dealing with a Tiger II.

I may have to setup a QB to test out what I'm against...

Yeah that strange grenade system is the Nahverteidigungswaffe, it is the smoke dischargers you see on the side of some German tanks. Those can either launch smoke or launch HE grenades to defend against close assaults.

[db_zero]

Well I just setup a QB and ran a few turn some initial observations.

The King Tiger II does indeed have a close defense grenade system. It used it on a bazooka team that took a point blank shot at spitting distance at the Tigers rear at a perfect 90 degree angle. The bazooka round penetrated the upper rear armor but did not knock out the Tiger. The KT's close defense grenade system dispatched the bazooka team.

An accompanying AT rifle grenade team heaved grenades at the rear top engine section to no effect.

The King Tiger which was right next to a building managed to rotate the turret counterclockwise. This would have been impossible at its current position as the long barrel would have been obstructed by the building. This is a flaw/bug.

I sent a engineer team to rush the Tiger and gave it a target command. They managed to toss a demo charge that landed on the engine grill and kaboom the Tiger is dead and the crew bailed.

I'm sure the Tiger crew will die, but who knows, maybe they'll go Chuck Norris on me and kill a bunch of my troops.

1 King Tiger down. I more left to kill....

[db_zero]

Yes indeed. I just ran the next turn and the King Tiger crew did go Chuck Norris on me. 5 Engineers facing them, covered by 2 me in a house facing the Tiger and the Tiger crew kills 3 of the engineers and is on their way back to Berlin untouched

[sburke]

good luck, nice to make folks have to really really think about whether that extra expense is justified on the battleground they are facing. I love the new behavior. It really gives much better performance for reflecting why armor was so handicapped in close terrain.

hey the tiger is dead, keep you eye on the ball LOL

[John Kettler]

akd,

Didn't we have the ID ambiguity before in CMx1? If so, why would such a great feature have been removed? While we're on such matters, didn't sound contacts jump around in CMx1 before gradually stabilizing?

Raptorx7

Tut! Tut! While you're technically correct regarding the German close in defense weapon, the CM types who've been here since the CMBO Demo know the true name of the device. Naverboogie! For an explanation, please see my Post #10 in this highly informative thread.

https://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=109470

Regards,

John Kettler

[db_zero]

The second Tiger just died. A bazooka team hit it on the side in the lower section. Crew bailed and died in a hail of gunfire.

Keep them at distance and supported by infantry and they should be fine. I'll have to try out some Shermans and see how they fare.

[akd]

akd,

Didn't we have the ID ambiguity before in CMx1? If so, why would such a great feature have been removed?

Sure, but we also had tanks that were not objects in the game world, just points with a 3D graphic shown.

[Dadekster]

What happens when two squads see it? One being green and thinking that it's a Tiger and the other being veteran and knowing it's just a Pz IV? Only way I can see this being somewhat useful is if the green squad takes some sort of morale hit as a result perhaps but that sounds complicated etc.

Same thing with sound. I'd love to see it jump around based on experience level but I have no idea how it's done in the game as is tbh. Do the more 'ears' on it solidify the location and is experience of the unit taken into account? Or is it just how fast is the contact moving and how close is the hearing unit plus how fast they are moving themselves determine it? I thought that was how it was done iirc.

[Vanir Ausf B]

From my experience sound contacts are like any other un-solidified contact in that their location is not randomized, but rather almost always at the actual location of the enemy unit. The exception is for moving sound contacts. Since the location data is updated every few seconds rather than continuously the contact may trail behind the actual unit location by a short distance, typically no more than an action spot or two.

[Freyberg]

Close assault is often effective, and gun damage is quite frequent.

[Dadekster]

Yeah that's pretty much my experience as well since the sound contact (typically a vehicle) will then pop out from behind concealment right on target with how it was moving prior. Be nice to see inexperienced units give a wider variance on things though which imo would be accurate. Counting on a green unit to give you pinpoint and accurate intel should come with a possible repercussion if you do it to much. A good example would be hearing an infantry sound contact pop up ahead of you and in anticipation of contact you begin deploying your HMG and set an arc with the sound contact smack in the middle. Three minutes later you make a visual confirmation except it is about 100 meters off to the right of where your arc stops. Intel/ligence isn't always.

[LukeFF]

What happens when two squads see it? One being green and thinking that it's a Tiger and the other being veteran and knowing it's just a Pz IV?

What are you going on about? Tank mis-identification is not in the game.

[Dadekster]

What are you going on about? Tank mis-identification is not in the game.

Sorry about that...was in response to John Kettler last post a page back regarding possible ID ambiguity in CM1. I believe we had Borg spotting then so it was maybe possible then but now with spotting the way it is I was speculating how mis-identification could be handled. You see everything your units do and if two units see the same thing but perceive it to be something different how would the game engine go about resolving it?

[John Kettler]

Dadekster,

Here is a useful short presentation on acoustic detection of military targets. As you can see from Noise Analysis Process: Paper 1 et seq., environmental conditions directly affect sound detectability. Note that these include no combat noise, (which varies wildly in azimuth, frequency and intensity) whatsoever and by no means reflect the well reported weather extremes which so often attend combat.

http://impact.asu.edu/cse535fa07/Paper%20Presentation/slides/swaroop.pdf

Acoustic detection and fairly quick localization of a single tank, on a crisp, clear day on a flat plain with a few trees blocking LOS are one thing, but finding and IDing a specific tank, amid many, in an environment with multiple reverberating sound surfaces, varying heights, intermittent target defilade, artillery both outgoing and incoming, maybe bombs falling and the throb (a TBM Avenger's engine throb, for example, is low and strong, even from hundreds of yard away) and roar of aircraft overhead, to name but some, constitute a different matter altogether.

Without taking more than a quick pass at the technical issues I just raised, I feel safe in asserting that the BFC human hearing based sound detection and localization model is generous beyond words to the player doing the acoustic detection and localization.

Sound travels upward well (if you don't believe it, live in an upstairs apartment next to the street, especially when something with a siren on goes by), propagates farther in cold air than hot, is muted by rain, is dampened and distorted by fog, which is often a highly discontinuous medium. And city fighting is something vastly worse because the numerous surfaces are generally hard, thus acoustically reflective, and the more damaged they are, the more directions any given sound striking them can go, further confounding efforts to localize and ID. Buildings on both sides of the street also act as acoustic waveguides, channeling sound up and down them like artificial canyons.

The above presumes no one has eyeballs on the target, just ears.

Regards,

John Kettler

[A Canadian Cat]

Didn't we have the ID ambiguity before in CMx1? If so, why would such a great feature have been removed?

You are thinking like they used the CM1x code as a starting point for the new work on CM2x. The feature was not removed from CM2x games it was never implemented in them. It would be a nice feature and was often fun in CM1 games. I am not really loosing sleep over it not being there though.

While we're on such matters, didn't sound contacts jump around in CMx1 before gradually stabilizing?

Yes, and they do bounce around in new new games too. Plus, they are often not very close either.

[Dadekster]

Dadekster,

Here is a useful short presentation on acoustic detection of military targets. As you can see from Noise Analysis Process: Paper 1 et seq., environmental conditions directly affect sound detectability. Note that these include no combat noise, (which varies wildly in azimuth, frequency and intensity) whatsoever and by no means reflect the well reported weather extremes which so often attend combat.

http://impact.asu.edu/cse535fa07/Paper%20Presentation/slides/swaroop.pdf

Acoustic detection and fairly quick localization of a single tank, on a crisp, clear day on a flat plain with a few trees blocking LOS are one thing, but finding and IDing a specific tank, amid many, in an environment with multiple reverberating sound surfaces, varying heights, intermittent target defilade, artillery both outgoing and incoming, maybe bombs falling and the throb (a TBM Avenger's engine throb, for example, is low and strong, even from hundreds of yard away) and roar of aircraft overhead, to name but some, constitute a different matter altogether.

Without taking more than a quick pass at the technical issues I just raised, I feel safe in asserting that the BFC human hearing based sound detection and localization model is generous beyond words to the player doing the acoustic detection and localization.

Sound travels upward well (if you don't believe it, live in an upstairs apartment next to the street, especially when something with a siren on goes by), propagates farther in cold air than hot, is muted by rain, is dampened and distorted by fog, which is often a highly discontinuous medium. And city fighting is something vastly worse because the numerous surfaces are generally hard, thus acoustically reflective, and the more damaged they are, the more directions any given sound striking them can go, further confounding efforts to localize and ID. Buildings on both sides of the street also act as acoustic waveguides, channeling sound up and down them like artificial canyons.

The above presumes no one has eyeballs on the target, just ears.

Regards,

John Kettler

You are preaching to the choir on this topic my friend. Trust me I am well versed in trying to track down a sound contact. As I said before I'd be happy to see more variance on how sound contacts are handled as well as target ID'ing but the game is perfectly fine the way it does stuff now. I'm sure it's like #2,351 on their list of things to look at one day.