Bizarre Spotting behaviour is ruining the experience for us

[Freyberg]

In terms of example (1), was the tank immobilised? Because I've noticed that once a tank is immobilised, infantry will cease to close-assault it.

[Ashez]

I have a feeling that it is too hard for vehicles to spot other vehicles. Many times I experienced being shot at the open-several times in row, even at short range, and still unable to see the enemy. I also can't see any noticeable impact of using target arc (if there is any).

[womble]

I also can't see any noticeable impact of using target arc (if there is any).

There isn't. TA only makes sure that some eyes have that area as their direction of view. Most units try and maintain 360 degree situational awareness anyway, so it really only makes a difference when it points a turret in a direction that it wouldn't normally be looking, so that crew who wouldn't normally be able to see much "to the side" now can, and better magnified optics is available for careful scrutiny at long range which otherwise possibly wouldn't have been.

[sburke]

I had an almost identical experience as the op with the same scenario which is uncanny.

I had a stug (unbuttoned, no cover arc) sitting stationary on a road pointed straight at a gap in some bocage, distance would be 10-15 metres. During the turn I tracked a Sherman move over the field towards to the gap with audio.

It moved into the gap, rotated its turret and took out my stug. The only time it became visible was when it fired by which point it was right in the middle of the gap. It must have taken a good 5 seconds to move dead centre in the gap so im baffled to know how it seen me long enough to take a shot and yet it was invisible to my stug.

It was the most ridiculous and immersive killing moment ive had playing cm. I just cant think of any logical reason how this could've happened in real life.

I know its only a game but this really did show up how poor the los mechanics can be in certain situations.

I still have the pbem turn, I would be interested to hear what a dev or anyone else would make of it after having a look.

gawd I just watched it. I am not sure if I'd have just stared at my screen slack jawed at how poorly that StuG crew performed or whether I'd have immediately started cursing them.

The only thing I can say about it is having two units approach at knife fighting distance is probably going to produce more of these simply because a second or two difference in spotting is all it takes. That is not saying being 100 meters back would necessarily change things, but I expect you'd see it more rarely. I checked lighting conditions, hearing those crickets made me wonder how dark it is supposed to be, but LOS extends out to at least 200 meters. It did give me a thought on something I do want to check, but at the moment it is just a thought.

I'll pass it on to the powers that be, but just to set expectations - despite everything you hear about the jetsetting life of beta testers cavorting about the globe on BF funded junkets visiting various battlefields with personalized guides, exotic food and great err companions or is that great food and exotic companions.. never mind not important. It is all true, HOWEVER that does not mean we can speak to the brain in the jar. Hell I am convinced Steve made him up so he can blame him for all the unpopular decisions. Like this

As for the zig-zag roads, unfortunately that is going to remain with CMx2 until the day we make our last CMx2 game. The underlying system would require too many massive structural changes to allow for smooth roads at anything less than 45 increments. I know this for sure because at the top of my list for Upgrade 3.0 was getting rid of zig-zags and both Charles and Phil said "not a chance".

Steve

Steve has lately spent quite a bit of time discussing LOS concerns, spotting, action squares and processing power. The short of it is increasing spotting cycles which at first glance SEEMS like it might have made a difference here is not in the cards. However there may be other things at work here in how the cycles relate that perhaps could be looked at. Either way it is beyond my pay grade. I'll pass it on and maybe something can be done or maybe Steve will come back and say that "Charles and Phil said no."

All in fun Steve, don't make me do that spotting test please. Oh and when do we start the junket trips to the Ardennes. I could use some good beer.

[sburke]

so the thought was - I wonder if movement has anything to do with spotting and can I exploit a possible relationship - yeah I wanted to see if I could pull off something gamey

I set up 5 lanes duplicating your set up and then recreated the scenario conditions- approx. 7am, Aug 1st 1944. I ran it multiple times for different movement speeds etc. It didn't end well for the Shermans. I could not re create your events at all.

That doesn't bode well for responses from the powers that be, if I can't recreate it then it is by definition an extreme outlier. I am sure that isn't helping you much and it probably only further adds to the misery of the Puma going up as well. Yeah I saw that

Bad day for the Reich.

[zmoney]

ChappyCanuck: Regular players make posts like yours quite often. And we get shouted down regularly with the same excuses for the game engine as above. And that's understandable if we are not military professionals and don't know how things are in RL

However, one would have hoped that when military officers make a post like this, they DO know what RL is like and their opinions would get more respect.

Erwin, this response is hilarious, because you used to be the one shouting people down when a concern was raised. In fact you did it to me in the CMSF forum a couple years back, so why now the change of heart? I always thought you were a turd for how you responded to my post (which wasn't offensive by the way).

But it seems lately you have been doing some complaining which I find ironic seeing how you used to talk down to people who raised concerns before.

[Battlefront.com]

I just read this whole thread. My thoughts...

Yup, it never is a good thing when the game does something in a way that you think is wrong. Sometimes that belief is itself flawed, either through ignorance of real world mechanics or through misapplication of how the game works. Other times the game does indeed do something truly wrong.

One of the most frustrating things we have to do is sort through all the misinformed outrage to find the occasional nugget of a real problem. It also sucks that we have to wade through variations on the theme of overstatement and exaggeration. Hyperbole doesn't help get to the bottom of a particular concern.

We have recently adjusted some code for spotting behaviors that are, in particular, related to hull down situations. There's some exceptionally long threads about that here on the public forum and more you can't see in the Beta area. The upshot is in SOME situations, particularly in extreme situations (like a "knife fight"), the current code you're using offers the non-hull down vehicle a better chance at first spotting. In such situations who sees who first likely means they win the exchange since accuracy at close ranges is effectively 100% first shot hit and most vehicles can't take a hit at that range and survive. For a tank with crappy spotting capabilities this likely wouldn't show up, but when you're talking about one with excellent spotting capabilities (like a Sherman with copula) it could tip the balance.

So without seeing any of the situations discussed here, I'd guess that if there was something wrong it had to do with with the subsystems that were reworked. It will be made available with the next Upgrade.

Steve

[Erwin]

"you did it to me in the CMSF forum a couple years back..."

Please send me my errant post to you as I have no recall of it or you at all. If I was in some way rude to you I will be happy to apologize.

My recollection is that in the past some people have been incredibly defensive and rude to anyone who raised concerns on these forums. I say "in the past" since the civility of discussion and posts here has improved markedly.

The only strange thing is when people resort to personal attacks rather than dealing with the issue being discussed. That always means that they have nothing to add to the discussion, can't argue the point, and have lost the argument.

[c3k]

Real life spotting can be very erratic, even for two observers adjacent to one another. A quick example...

I was walking down the street with my wife when I noticed a young lady approaching, texting as she walked. Her heels elegantly shaped her tanned calves, blending into thighs which could only have been formed by hours of bareback horseriding. The flouncy white miniskirt emphasised the athletic proportions of her buttocks, tapering into a waist which only highlighted the swell of her bosom. Her breasts were magnificent specimens, showcasing the wonders of fluid dynamics and oscillating properties. She had the face of an angel, enshrined by titian hair moving in the wind. As she passed, her perfume was a perfect balance of spring and sexuality.

My wife seemed oblivious. I immediately thought of the situation outlined by the OP.

I looked at my wife and asked, "Did you see that young woman?"

"Who?", was her response.

Obviously, her LOS check was different than mine. We had passed within inches of the young ladyand my wife never noticed.

Of course, my wife may not be the best example to use. Her powers of observation seem to be a bit weak. In fact, that evening, despite having said earlier in the day that we had some steaks in the fridge, she said there was just the one for her dinner. I had to get fast food.

[sburke]

Yeah I imagine that sudden declaration that the bed size had somehow changed and you'd need to sleep on the couch was also an interesting example on how two people could see the same object and draw completely different conclusions on it's dimensions etc.

And I'll bet you saw none of this coming whereas she clearly saw a string of apparently unrelated events coming in sequence.

So how was the couch?

[c3k]

Lumpy. As usual.

[Freyberg]

Problem:

...2. My panther, on one side of a bocage line, sound spotted an approaching Sherman on the other side of the bocage line, travelling down the road. My panther was near a gap in the bocage. The crew was opened up, armour arc sighted through the gap, and non-moving. Good bye Sherman, right? Well the high silhouetted, noisy Sherman that was moving across the gap, stopped (invisible to my waiting crew) engaged, and destroyed my panther. WTF?

IIRC, BFC recently 'fudged' the behaviour of tanks, making them slower to respond to threats at close quarters, to make up for armour being overly deadly against infantry in close assault. This change doesn't just affect responding to infantry (who are now quite lethal in close assault if they can get up close enough), but also to other tanks at very close range.

Could this be what is happening?

[sburke]

Problem:

IIRC, BFC recently 'fudged' the behaviour of tanks, making them slower to respond to threats at close quarters, to make up for armour being overly deadly against infantry in close assault. This change doesn't just affect responding to infantry (who are now quite lethal in close assault if they can get up close enough), but also to other tanks at very close range.

Could this be what is happening?

Not from anything I have seen. When I tried to duplicate a similar situation that @lofty12 had all I ended up with was dozens of flaming Shermans. It was almost as horrific as ChrisND firing up a couiple platoons of Infantry with Flamethrowers.