Why Are Men In Buildings So Easily Spotted?

[Col Deadmarsh]

Don't be silly. Of course you don't area fire into any building any more than you would area fire at every single action spot of bocage or heavy woods.

Ok, but this underscores my point. Since troops in the game wouldn't do the same thing, you would issue a hunt order into a building if you didn't think troops were in there, but weren't 100% sure.

But a few others on here seem to suggest firing on every building before entering which makes no sense to me. Sure, if there's only a couple buildings around, but if it's a village or town, there isn't the time to do that. Plus, you give away your position.

[GreenAsJade]

Meanwhile, this thread got way off the original topic, which remains a really good question: why are men who are _in_ buildings so easy to spot from the outside?

(Somehow we got onto how to get into the building in the first place, which is a different question!)

GaJ

[JoMac]

JadeAsGreen,

Yeah, but half the Threads started on most Forums end-up going-off Topic anyways, so....

I also don't see much of a problem getting spotted in Buildings at ranges, especially if using Hunt or Slow, as mentioned in above posts.

However, if you know the enemy is in same Village as you are, and just a couple buildings away, you minus well use Fast or Quick into an adjacent building ( cause your going to get spotted anyways ), and just let the AI do the blazing away.

[JoMac]

Ok, but this underscores my point. Since troops in the game wouldn't do the same thing, you would issue a hunt order into a building if you didn't think troops were in there, but weren't 100% sure.

But a few others on here seem to suggest firing on every building before entering which makes no sense to me. Sure, if there's only a couple buildings around, but if it's a village or town, there isn't the time to do that. Plus, you give away your position.

I agree, that firing into every building makes no sense, especially in Villages or Towns, as you don't have the time or will end-up running out of ammo.

Unfortunately, with the Game Mechanics of CM you almost have to fire on every building before entering, or face dire consequences.

[YankeeDog]

Meanwhile, this thread got way off the original topic, which remains a really good question: why are men who are _in_ buildings so easy to spot from the outside?

(Somehow we got onto how to get into the building in the first place, which is a different question!)

GaJ

Actually, it's stayed quite on point.

Think about it. If people here are complaining that they have to "fire into every building", just in case there are enemy inside, then infantry inside buildings actually aren't very easy to spot from outside, are they?

If infantry inside buildings were easy to spot from the outside, area fire preceding entry would be unnecessary; all you'd have to do is move units into the general proximity of a building and they would spot any infantry inside and engage directly.

Clearly, this does not happen for most people most of the time, ergo infantry inside buildings are not easy to spot, at least as a general rule.

(Parenthetically, once again I do not agree that the game system requires you have to "fire into every building." If you are doing this, you are being tactically unimaginative. You only area fire at buildings that (a) you need to enter or clear and ( you think have a decent chance of containing enemy units. This will only be a fraction of the buildings on an urban map. Yes, sometimes you will guess wrong and one of your units will get wiped out entering a building that you thought would be unoccupied. This is the nature of urban combat and is perfectly realistic. Urban combat is a meat grinder; it chews up infantry at a frightening rate. Again, read up on the combat in e.g., Aachen, Stalingrad, Fallujah to understand why this is the case.)

[womble]

If it's not worth suppressing the bejazus out of the building, it's not worth going into it. So don't.

The reason we're debating how to beat the guys in the building rather than why troops in buildings are "so easy to spot" is because they're only "easy to spot" if they're moving around incautiously, which is, let's face it, a desirable state of affairs. If they're Hunting or Slowing, they're basically invisible until they shoot. You can sneak into buildings across an alley from another occupied building and get enough bodies in place to "unleash hell" on the poor, unsuspecting schlubs across the way. Even if your troops are only Regular and they're Vets or better. Try that at Move, Quick or Fast and you'll be shot to dogmeat.

[Col Deadmarsh]

The reason we're debating how to beat the guys in the building rather than why troops in buildings are "so easy to spot" is because they're only "easy to spot" if they're moving around incautiously, which is, let's face it, a desirable state of affairs. If they're Hunting or Slowing, they're basically invisible until they shoot. .

See...I don't agree with this.

I have an opponent right now who marched a sniper and what look to be an arty observer to the top of a tower. After the sniper shot at one of my guys, I not only spotted the sniper but was somehow able to also see the observer in the tower too at 700+ meters away, even though he obviously wasn't firing.

This is the kind of example I'm talking about. Why would I be able to see anyone else in that building but the person who is shooting?

[Bulletpoint]

See...I don't agree with this.

I have an opponent right now who marched a sniper and what look to be an arty observer to the top of a tower. After the sniper shot at one of my guys, I not only spotted the sniper but was somehow able to also see the observer in the tower too at 700+ meters away, even though he obviously wasn't firing.

This is the kind of example I'm talking about. Why would I be able to see anyone else in that building but the person who is shooting?

Maybe he gave the location away? In real life, I suppose that would be a plausible explanation.

About the game, I think it works like this:

Sniper is nearly invisible until he shoots. Each time he fires, there's a risk he's spotted.

Once he's spotted, the enemy gets "general infantry contact" on that location.

This enemy contact marker gives a big boost to the chance of spotting any infantry close to that position.

Therefore, a couple of moments later, the arty spotters are also revealed.

[Sailor Malan2]

Also, hazard a guess as to what the job of an arty observer is? I don't know about you, but being in a position to observe at least gives a chance that I can be observed (especially if someone firing nearby attracts attention. It can be easier to spot someone in a building than in (say) a field of crops in RL. Buildings don't move, do have sharp edges etc. People move and break sharp edges so attract attention. A clump of bushes moves in the breeze, is irregular etc. Far better than in a window of a building (even back a little in the room) is under some bushes in the garden...

[YankeeDog]

See...I don't agree with this.

I have an opponent right now who marched a sniper and what look to be an arty observer to the top of a tower. After the sniper shot at one of my guys, I not only spotted the sniper but was somehow able to also see the observer in the tower too at 700+ meters away, even though he obviously wasn't firing.

This is the kind of example I'm talking about. Why would I be able to see anyone else in that building but the person who is shooting?

First of all, upper stories of towers and other very tall buildings are BAD places to hide. A unit in such a position is usually visible to a broad swath of the battlefield, so even if the chance of any specific observer spotting a unit in such a position is very low, there are likely to be many observers, and chances of someone spotting the unit may therefore actually be fairly high.

Stationing an actively engaging sniper and an FO in the same building was also a very bad idea. Once the sniper started shooting, this drew the focus of your units towards the building and that's probably why the FO got spotted. The game does track specifically where units' attention is focused, and a unit in close proximity to another unit that's firing or otherwise drawing attention to itself is much more likely to be spotted, even if it is not firing or otherwise actively engaging.

As Sailor intimates, the game also assumes that an FO who is in the process of calling in an artillery strike has a lower "stealth factor" and is more likely to be spotted. He has to be heads-up, in a window (if positioned in a building), observing terrain for landmarks, searching for spotting rounds, etc. WWII-era radios also often didn't work very well from building interiors (esp. in buildings of stone and/or steel construction), so the radio op. might have to stick the antenna out a window or similar to maintain a good signal. Antenna sticking out of a window would be a dead giveaway.

So overall, I think the situation you describe is quite believable. The tall tower was a really obvious "hiding place" that could be seen from many places. The sniper firing from building drew focus. For the FO to do his job, he had to be in a window looking through binos etc., and therefore got spotted fairly easily once enemy units were looking at that specific building.

[Tarquelne]

I've been playing a lot of infantry-heavy scenarios set in towns lately. Well ... "a lot" for me. I haven't thought the troops too visible.

As for entering buildings: I've sworn off using Hunt: Sneak for buildings that might be occupied (or when I'm, like, sneaking), or Quick if I think the building suppressed.

Sneak seems to work as an "assault" mode. IME, at least, 'truppen have been pretty quick with the grenades and guns.

Back when I sometimes kept squads together I'd occasionally use Assault. I should try it again sometime.

[Pelican Pal]

Check out the men who spotted the unit. If they are all visually unaided riflemen it does seem like an odd situation.

However, most US and German squads will have a couple pairs of binoculars and a possibly a scoped rifle, and any armor will have a scopes through which to view targets. With these visual aids it isn't unusual to spot active men once attention is brought to their position.

It is really easy to forget how much a scope or pair of binos can help you see something in the distance when you are just flying around the game map. But most squads will have at least a few items that will help them improve their long range vision. If you happen to have one of the Arma games installed you could easily setup a little editor scenario to help you visuallize the benefits of binoculars and scopes.

As far as spotting moving men in a building. I suspect it is largely because most people use quick or faster commands to move around. Eight or more men running quickly though a house will be pretty easy to spot.

Frankly I think the game would be really improved by a movement command that combined hunt, quick, and assault into a sort of move quickly but stay low and be prepared for combat command. There isn't a reason that a squad of men can't run quickly though a house without being spotted. We just don't have a command to represent that. All of our movement commands are of pretty extreme types of movement. A nice inbetween would be helpful.

[poesel]

Frankly I think the game would be really improved by a movement command that combined hunt, quick, and assault into a sort of move quickly but stay low and be prepared for combat command. There isn't a reason that a squad of men can't run quickly though a house without being spotted. We just don't have a command to represent that. All of our movement commands are of pretty extreme types of movement. A nice inbetween would be helpful.

I wish we could separate movement type and reaction to enemy in our orders. Currently it is baked together. 'run cautiously' or 'crawl reckless' are not possible.

Hope we will get something like that eventually.

[Sailor Malan2]

I wish we could separate movement type and reaction to enemy in our orders. Currently it is baked together. 'run cautiously' or 'crawl reckless' are not possible.

Hope we will get something like that eventually.

You have got to explain how you run cautiously! Or crawl recklessly for that matter!

Run cautiously is 'move fast but take account of incoming fire', (because to run you have to be upright and move fast - i.e. not crouched behind cover). This is called 'Quick'.

In your language, 'run recklessly' is 'Fast'

Cant help you with crawl recklessly, but the closest is probably short 'Quick' moves (one or 2 APs with 10 sec pauses between each)

[Pelican Pal]

It is very possible to run cautiously. It won't be as quick as a flat out run but you can do it.

You are doubled over and your eyes are watching to your front and scan left and right of you. You put cover or concealment between you and where you suspect enemies are and try to maintain a piece of cover nearby that you can dive into.

[YankeeDog]

It is very possible to run cautiously. It won't be as quick as a flat out run but you can do it.

You are doubled over and your eyes are watching to your front and scan left and right of you. You put cover or concealment between you and where you suspect enemies are and try to maintain a piece of cover nearby that you can dive into.

And what leads you to think that this is not what our pixeltruppen are already assumed to be doing on "Quick?"

At the CM scale, with contact imminent and/or already happening, I would submit that soldiers would probably "running cautiously" or whatever you want to call it pretty much any time they were running.

Regardless, "running cautiously" aka QUICK would still be substantially less stealthy than "walking cautiously" aka HUNT, which in turn would be less stealthy than "crawling cautiously" aka SLOW.

[Pelican Pal]

And what leads you to think that this is not what our pixeltruppen are already assumed to be doing on "Quick?"

CM models thing 1:1. Even if you allow for some amount of fudging (which there is) the actual stance and location a soldier takes does matter. The vulnerability of men in half-tracks is a solid example of that.

At the CM scale, with contact imminent and/or already happening, I would submit that soldiers would probably "running cautiously" or whatever you want to call it pretty much any time they were running.

But they are not. Or to put it differently. CM's hard coded movement commands do a poor job of replicating intelligent movement. This is largely an issue of SOPs so we are probably **** out of luck when it comes to a solution being found.

Regardless, "running cautiously" aka QUICK would still be substantially less stealthy than "walking cautiously" aka HUNT, which in turn would be less stealthy than "crawling cautiously" aka SLOW.

[womble]

Hunt is a very practical movement speed but it is essentially useless in a huge number of situations because any battlefield action will stop the movement.

One way of mitigating this that isn't obvious is to put a Target Arc on the unit that excludes the parts of the battlefield they're not interested in (as far as is practicable with a wedge or circle...), then they'll only react (i.e. come to a halt) to spots (tentative or otherwise) within their TA, or fire which they think is impinging on them.

Doesn't remove the other disadvantage of "Hunt", which is its extremely fatiguing nature, but does make it a lot more practical to use when your pTruppen don't hit the dirt at every suggestion of an empty vehicle 1000m away in an open field on the other side of the valley...

[sburke]

It is amazing how many things folks can find wrong in a game that is an absolute dream come true. The expression "he could screw up a wet dream" comes to mind. I know I know "how would BF ever improve the game without feedback" . Whatever.

[YankeeDog]

CM models thing 1:1. Even if you allow for some amount of fudging (which there is) the actual stance and location a soldier takes does matter. The vulnerability of men in half-tracks is a solid example of that.

Units traversing via the Mk. 1 Foot are not treated the same as men in a vehicle such as a halftrack. Men on foot get a "terrain save" based on the abstracted small-scale cover of the ground they are currently occupying. Men in or on vehicles do not.

While CMx2 is 1:1 representation, do not fall into the trap of of assuming that it is therefore 100% WYSIWYG.

Try this: QUICK an infantry team across ground that offers some decent cover but little concealment, such as rocky ground or heavy woods tile (NOT trees, just heavy woods ground cover). Toss some fire at this team of moderate intensity. Say an LMG ~200m away or a couple of 75mm HE rounds.

If the game was designed to represent units on QUICK as simply running at full upright, parade ground double time style, you'd expect an MG 200m away to turn them into dogmeat within a few bursts. Small ground cover like rocky ground or some logs and tree stumps would make little difference, because they'd be upright and therefore mostly exposed.

But this isn't what happens in the game. Units on QUICK running through cover actually have a pretty decent chance of avoiding hits from modest intensity small arms fire, and even fairly close proximity HE. I've seen teams on QUICK avoid casualties entirely from 81mm mortar bursts <20m away, and not infrequently which most certainly should not happen I they're supposed to be jogging full upright, with little or no regard to cover.

So overall, I think it's fairly clear based on what actually happens in gameplay that infantry on QUICK are abstractly assumed to be taking fairly decent advantage of cover -- running hunched over, keeping objects like trees and bushes between themselves and likely enemy etc. Not as good as HUNT of course, but fairly decent.

The issue of SOPs and whether more should be added to the game is a whole other can of worms. For a long time, I was of the opinion that the game would be greatly improved by the addition of an extensive SOP system. Now I'm not so sure. Among other things, it's very difficult to teach the computer player to effectively use SOPs, so unless BFC was willing to simply allow the computer opponent to become a pushover, adding an extensive SOP system would require a lot of AI coding and debug time.

[slysniper]

It is amazing how many things folks can find wrong in a game that is an absolute dream come true. The expression "he could screw up a wet dream" comes to mind. I know I know "how would BF ever improve the game without feedback" . Whatever.

I get tired of folks saying things are wrong with the game where as it is them and their lack of ability to learn to play the game well and just cannot come to grips with that and thinks it must be the programming that is lacking since they cannot manage to control their units worth a crap.

Yes, there is always room for improvement in the game. But boy there is much more room for somehow teaching players to actually learn how to use the features they already have.

[Pelican Pal]

Units traversing via the Mk. 1 Foot are not treated the same as men in a vehicle such as a halftrack. Men on foot get a "terrain save" based on the abstracted small-scale cover of the ground they are currently occupying. Men in or on vehicles do not.

Yes, I am familiar with the "saving throw" system. I used to play Warhammer 40k extensively and am very familiar with the mechanic. However, the important thing here is that a 75% saving throw is still worse than no saving throw. Once again the most important factor is straight up not being hit. No saving throw means no danger of being killed at all. Which is obviously the best choice.

The issue of SOPs and whether more should be added to the game is a whole other can of worms. For a long time, I was of the opinion that the game would be greatly improved by the addition of an extensive SOP system. Now I'm not so sure. Among other things, it's very difficult to teach the computer player to effectively use SOPs, so unless BFC was willing to simply allow the computer opponent to become a pushover, adding an extensive SOP system would require a lot of AI coding and debug time.

I strongly disagree with you here. It isn't important that the AI be able to adequately match player capabilities. They currently can't and should not be expected to match human capabilities. All the AI needs to do is to put up a show of competency. That is it. We just need it to appear intelligent, to appear to give a challenge, to appear competent. It will never, or at least, never in our lifetimes be better than humans. So what is the harm in an SOP system that allows us some basic commands based on engagements that are occuring? It will give the player some more commands with which to navigate the battlefiend and come out with them feeling more in control of their units than would otherwise be possible.

[Sailor Malan2]

But they are not. Or to put it differently. CM's hard coded movement commands do a poor job of replicating intelligent movement. This is largely an issue of SOPs so we are probably **** out of luck when it comes to a solution being found.

Why do you say they are not? The manual states that units on quick are moving at the jog, and slightly emphasizing speed over awareness, cohesion and cover. What is it your troops are doing (or not doing)?

The keys to moving under fire are:

a) don't do it if the fire is accurate and intense. Sporadic rifle fire from 300m is not the same as multiple automatic weapons from 100m. Moving towards an unsuppressed firer is high risk.

short moves from cover to cover, with pauses (let the firing stop, and ideally the firer start firing elsewhere). Two sections (well separated) alternating is far better than 1

I used to make the above mistakes all the time. Get fire superiority and suppress the h&** out of the firer (and not just for a partial turn), then move.

[Sailor Malan2]

And back to the debate on how to enter buildings. The conversation seems to swing between 'distant' sightings, and what is the best way to actually enter a building if you suspect there are enemy actually in there.

I think distant sightings has been covered. As for close sightings, there are also two issues - the potential of enemy actually inside, and the issue that once you move in, the troops become visible to the building opposite, and they themselves are spotted and fired at from close range by unsuppressed stationary troops (that one is read as 'shot to pieces'!).

To deal with the two separately - if you dont know whether the building is occupied (or think it isn't), you need to get some targets and fire power close to it... so a quick move way point just outside the door will usually provoke any fire. You MUST have other units on overwatch to then overwhelm them. You might lose some of the entry team, but hopefully the building cannot have many in, or you would have spotted them earlier.

I plot entry with a HUNT, thus they stop when fired on (single AP, so they dont get stopped by other fire too soon. They then wont rush straight to the enemy side of the building and get shot.

If you know the building is occupied, suppress it. Then some more, then some more again! Usually the occupants will leave or die/cower. When you haven't had fire for a turn (or better, 2) fast move into the building since that gives least time for them to recover once you stop the area fire on the building. This might get the assault team shot by the newly revealed enemy in the next building, but you needed to take the first building, right? If not, you should have worked round to get fires on all buildings nearby.

In summary, making the enemy bug out and strolling in is far better than debating which move type to use when assaulting. I rarely assault these days (too much of a lottery). And I don't mean the movement order, I mean I rarely enter buildings where enemy is/might be.

My favourite enemy building is one with an MG, half a dozen SMGs and some rifles all firing flat out at it!

[Michael Emrys]

Doesn't remove the other disadvantage of "Hunt", which is its extremely fatiguing nature...

Which is why I seldom use it at all and then only for short distances when I suspect that contact is extremely imminent. Otherwise, I prefer to use Quick in short dashes with 10-15 second pauses to watch and listen and also to catch their breath. Those pauses would also allow them to provide covering fire while another team is moving.

Michael