Spotting .... again ...

[ww2steel]

I just tested CMBN v2.12 (with both modules; bought but haven't installed the massive 10gb 3.0 file), and CMBB.

 

Okay, several points:  (Yes, I know I'm contradicting myself about not arguing.)

 

1) Well, duh, the reason people keep "burbling on" about the LOS tool (a terminology hold-over from CMx1) is because it's the ONLY FRIGGIN WAY WE CAN TELL HOW FAR OUR TROOPS CAN SEE!  It isn't rendered, it isn't defined, and I can't ask my troops... wait, yes I can!  Battlefront gave me this cool little tool that started with CMBO  IIRC, 15 years ago, it goes from light blue to dark blue and pink where I can't see anymore.  Isn't that cool?!?  So nice of them to keep the tradition going all this time.

 

2) The LOS tool DID tell you that in CM games for over a decade (a reasonable *max* spotting distance).

 

3) An identical test in CMBN v2.12 done on the same date at both 1900 and 2000 give average spotting distances of a single running soldier out to a reasonable average of 202m, max spot 316, min spot 59m.  LOS indicates 390m.  I'd say it kinda correlates.

 

3.5) Why does LOS indicate different in CMBN- 2Sep 1900 CMBN 390m, CMRT 83m.  Is Ukrainian fog somehow different?  Maybe Chernobyl makes it foggier, no… wait.  Line of Sight is how far you can see or spot.  This is reduced in low light conditions.  Light fog is light for optical clarify whether it’s 1200 or 2300.  The game is clearly NOT giving visibility, because that doesn’t change day or night.  So the game is clearly, somehow, trying to give you an idea how far away your guys can identify targets of some type.

 

4) Better soldiers spot better bc of better training and discipline, not bc they don't have cataracts.  Well, usually.

 

5) In aviation (which is pretty much what modern international meteorology is based upon), fog starts at 1/2sm.  That's 805m.  As CM uses identical terminology as aviation haze, mist, fog, etc, I'd say it also correlates.

 

6) I think there is a significant difference between "light fog" and once in a lifetime I can't see someone standing in front of my car fog.

 

7) Just about everyone has seen fog.  I have routinely (in real life) landed corporate jets and airliners at 1/2sm / 1800 RVR AKA "light fog", at night (have gone lower when/ where legal).  I have routinely taken off in jets down to 500 RVR which is "heavy fog" in anyone's book.  Night is actually easier than day.  Granted, there are runway lights.  Some airlines can go even lower.  However, if the visibility at the DA was such that I could run over a T-34 during taxi, without noticing it, we all would have been dead (kidding)... or actually just gone to the alternate.  Visibility below 100m / 300' is very rare.  Personally, I compare the measurable results of professional experience combined with thousands of airports that report extremely reliable weather over an apparently once in a lifetime experience.  Maybe they should make that the title of a setting in the game- Light Fog, Fog, Heavy Fog, and “One Time with my Dad Super-Doom, Zombie Movie Fog”.  I think I'll add that to my strings file now.

 

8) CMBB Sep’44, Dusk, Fog (no light fog) gives ~190m LOS with regular initial spotting of infantry to about 100m, retention of those targets to about 200m (difficult due to Borg spotting).  Man, CMBB sure still is fun!

 

9) The general consensus is that low vis in v3.0 engine is busted.  That consensus includes CMBN v2.12 and CMBB.

 

Somebody pass me my friggin cactus,

Mike

Edited May 2, 2015 by ww2steel

[ww2steel]

There, all set for Battlefront to incorporate. 

 

Just playing around,

Mike

[Lt Bull]

That said it does sound like a very extreme example of blind pTruppen, and may, indeed, be a bug, and should be raised with the helpdesk (link on front page of the BFC site), rather than here on the forum. The fact that your tank saw more than your infantry is hinky for starters.

 

Kind of confused as to what you are suggesting here.  For a start I thought the normal procedure for non-inner sanctum BFC posters who believe there may be an issue with the game is to first post it up here at the forums for "peer review" so that they can at least establish that "it is not just them" and the problem can be duplicated by other players (hence the posting of saved files with instructions on how to test and requests for feedback).   The issue then seems to have to pass the scrutiny/filter of one of the never really too impressed BFC inner sanctum members who seem to be more interested in denying here is a problem than actually wanting to know if there is a problem.  If it can't get past them within the context of open discussion in a public forum, how can you expect the issue to be taken seriously by the helpdesk?  Only after it seems the discussion has snowballed/escalated/generated more interest/views/weeks-months pass (I really don't know what it is) will the inner sanctum appear to reluctantly "cave" and suggest a helpdesk ticket be formally raised.  Is that not the normally accepted process?  If not, please advise what is.

 

It also is quite courteous and informative to keep fellow gamers informed of any potential issues with the game by posting any issues here initially.  Isn't that part of the reason why we have these forums?  I certainly don't come here to read just how awesome and fun and perfect CM is.  Stick to normal light conditions.

 

http://ww2steel.com/temp/Spotting%20tests.btt

 

Please let me know if you have significantly different results.

 

Tried and results are essentially as you say. Can you please now do the same and let me know if you get the same results with the "blue lien creep" and random max visibility? (see post #64)

 

PS: Could make it easier for people to run the test by issuing all the move orders to the 16 drivers and saving the game as a "save as" rather than a fresh scenario so that all they need to do is load and process the turn with exactly the same orders.

 

I think that BF should say something about all this. There is no information for players, tables or some kind of % chances document as a guide, specially for those players that edit scenarios as myself. I have been playing this game for years and I think that sometimes it is ridiculous that your troops dont see a tank which is in front of them 10-15 meters away or even 2-3 meters away.

 

Yes that would be good.  There is clearly something at least massively misunderstood about LOS mechanics in at last degraded visibility/low light conditions in this game. Certainly having no real documentation to reference/check against is a key contributing factor. At worst there is something not working as expected.

 

Definitely some randomness involved but really only for how fast things get spotted.  If there is a good sight line eventually the other guy will get spotted.  The randomness factors how long that takes not weather you will or will not spot the other guy.

 

Have you read post #64?  Have you tried reloading the same night/fog scenario a few times and checked the (if it can be trusted) max visibility range by using the Fire "LOS tool"?  Up to 1000m difference each time.  And what about "blue line creep"?

 

I have to wonder whether some people have ever been outside in dense fog. I got caught in some dense fog once while driving. My passenger (dad) chose to get out and walk along the boundary line of the road, and I followed his shadowy form. That's a distance of less than 3m from me to him, and I could barely make him out, knowing he was there. I wouldn't have seen anything further away, no matter how big it was. I certainly couldn't see the boundary line on the road surface beyond the front of the car.

 

Yeah, now try imagining ordering a company/battalion to engage the enemy in similar conditions.  Could you imagine if you were driving a tank instead in combat?  How would you even know where you are going? Seriously, why are we even bothering to consider validating CM LOS mechanics (let alone combat) under the context of the most extremely degraded visibility/light conditions?  It's ridiculous to even think CM comes anything close to doing even a reasonable job of simulating combat engagements (not that they probably even happened!) under these conditions as it does in the more normal/standard day/clear visibility conditions. 

 

You keep burbling on about what sort of "LOS" the target tool gives you, but that's thoroughly misleading.

 

Incredible. The inappropriateness of this comment has already been well explained by the poster it was directed towards.  What are you trying to say?

 

I would be happy if BFC just came out and said that they are removing all extreme low light/visibility conditions from the scenario editor and instead focused their attention on improving the LOS mechanics in the more normal light/visibility conditions.  Judging by how light/time/conditions can be defined in the Scenario Editor, it just seems that BFC have tried to model LOS and visibility in a way that incorporates quite a few variables that best work and function under normal light conditions.  It seems the accuracy/function of the modelling seems to dramatically fail and have unusual results the further the light/visibility conditions degrade.

 

FWIW, there are so many things the CM engine DOESN'T even do that are KEY to even getting close to providing a realistic experience of WW2 night combat.  Without modelling the range of illumination sources that you would find under realistic low light/night conditions the whole exercise becomes kind of farcical.  eg. light from burning vehicles structures, illumination flares.  Not to mention how these sources of light can actually further impair vision depending on the position and facing of a unit relative to the light source.  It really is just too complex, why bother.  If you are going to do something, do it right and do it well. It seems the current LOS engine comes no where near to what it needs to be. Save ourselves the trouble of caring, and let BFC focus on more important stuff.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Lt Bull

[Bellaco]

I have to wonder whether some people have ever been outside in dense fog. I got caught in some dense fog once while driving. My passenger (dad) chose to get out and walk along the boundary line of the road, and I followed his shadowy form. That's a distance of less than 3m from me to him, and I could barely make him out, knowing he was there. I wouldn't have seen anything further away, no matter how big it was. I certainly couldn't see the boundary line on the road surface beyond the front of the car.

 

Of course tanks are blind in those kinds of conditions. You keep burbling on about what sort of "LOS" the target tool gives you, but that's thoroughly misleading. Oh, and Experience level of the troops affects how well they spot, with, unsurprisingly, Conscripts being the worst.

 

Womble, if I get now into a T-34 and stay as a commander (for sure I will be conscript) in this dense fog which it is possible to "recognise" enemies at 170m (LOS), I would see a Pzr IV (25 tons) before I almost have and a frontal collision. Conscripts are not blind, deaf or wrongs. In my opinion there is too much difference in spotting skills between conscripts and regulars for example. Everyone has eyes...

By the way I have been in that dense fog condition you talk about, but with that visibility, of 2-3 meters, none will fight or drive a tank, and of course none will "recognise" a enemy soldier at 170 m away of LOS, even if this is shooting, jumping and shouting. If you dont see 3 meters away, you dont see details at 170 m away. 

With this forum the game gets better, and all of us talk here to do that. We have to find errors and talk about them. If you ignore the problem then you cannot solve it.

In my opinion Lt Bull has said many truths.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Bellaco

[Apocal]

FWIW, there are so many things the CM engine DOESN'T even do that are KEY to even getting close to providing a realistic experience of WW2 night combat.  Without modelling the range of illumination sources that you would find under realistic low light/night conditions the whole exercise becomes kind of farcical.  eg. light from burning vehicles structures, illumination flares.  Not to mention how these sources of light can actually further impair vision depending on the position and facing of a unit relative to the light source.  It really is just too complex, why bother.  If you are going to do something, do it right and do it well. It seems the current LOS engine comes no where near to what it needs to be. Save ourselves the trouble of caring, and let BFC focus on more important stuff.

 

People bitch a lot more about there being no night/bad weather combat at all (example: early Close Combat games) than they do about not having illum or units spotting poorly in dense fog.

[ww2steel]

Lt Bull:  The AI is coded for the Russians.  All you should have to do is a SP game, as Germans, set a 1m arc so your guy won't fire if he sees someone, and relax.  In about 2 mins a stream of dudes will run by you mostly unspotted.  (I do it with scernario author test on, so I can see the progress.)

 

I will look for the blue line creep you are talking about.  I have a few thoughts on it, but will wait until I have tested it specifically.

 

(Edit:)  I don't do Dropbox so I didn't download, but I can't duplicate.  So far I am only seeing it remain constant.  Is this only in the editor for you, or throughout the game?  Is it always present or randomly occuring?

 

Yes, illumination would be great.  It's already rendered awesomely for visuals in CMx2.  Fires, including placable ones such as street lights (more modern, mostly CMSF/ CMBS), fires, and also toggleable building lights.  Illumination rounds and flares would be top notch. 

 

While I certainly don't want to abandon night/ low light as it is (I have always found it quite enjoyable in CM), I do wish they would fix this current bug.  Any improvements they can add I am all for and happy to support monetarily.  I just wish they'd find more people to help code these things so we could get them faster.

 

Mike

Edited May 2, 2015 by ww2steel

[Lt Bull]

 

I will look for the blue line creep you are talking about.  I have a few thoughts on it, but will wait until I have tested it specifically.

 

(Edit:)  I don't do Dropbox so I didn't download, but I can't duplicate.  So far I am only seeing it remain constant.  Is this only in the editor for you, or throughout the game?  Is it always present or randomly occuring?

 

I wasn't necessarily aware that Dropbox required you to have an account for you to download from it.  I have made it available here as well http://s000.tinyupload.com/index.php?file_id=04030429642546351112

 

Thanks to your question, I checked to see if the blue line creep was only happening in the Scenario Editor Deploy Units screen.  Well it definitely is also occurring when you load up the scenario to play and give orders for the first turn. It does not happen after the first turn is processed however but something just as bizarre and unexpected does. You will find that between each turn the maximum range to which the blue (and grey) LOS line extends to will vary by up to several hundred metres each turn.  This seems to be related to the other observation I had made early regarding the initial maximum range to which the blue (and grey) LOS line extends out when you reload the scenario and check the LOS range (see post #64).

 

People bitch a lot more about there being no night/bad weather combat at all (example: early Close Combat games) than they do about not having illum or units spotting poorly in dense fog.

 

Well then those people who do that bitching have not really thought about what kind of things really need to be modeled in the game to provide something approaching a realistic simulation of night/low visibility LOS dynamics.  Not modelling/accounting for illumination from burning wrecks/objects/flares etc and all the things that go with that is the elephant in the room (well it's not in the room but you know what I mean).

 

Yes, illumination would be great.  It's already rendered awesomely for visuals in CMx2.  Fires, including placable ones such as street lights (more modern, mostly CMSF/ CMBS), fires, and also toggleable building lights.  Illumination rounds and flares would be top notch. 

 

While I certainly don't want to abandon night/ low light as it is (I have always found it quite enjoyable in CM), I do wish they would fix this current bug.  Any improvements they can add I am all for and happy to support monetarily.  I just wish they'd find more people to help code these things so we could get them faster.

 

Yes, unfortunately the "illumination" you see graphically seems to be just that, pretty graphics that have no effect on the games LOS mechanics, which by rights really should be clearly stated in the manual.  To play a night scenario with burning wrecks lighting up an area having no effect on the ability to spot nearby units is really an all out immersion killer for me.  Have trouble understanding how others can kid themselves that night time scenarios are anything but a very poor mans way of playing CM.  I can live with playing scenarios that end just on late dusk or start on early down because typically the low light conditions feature for only a shorter amount of time, but once the game is "dominated" and dictated by the low light conditions, the immersion killing begins.

 

It is worth considering just how the game probably deals with trying to simulate the full range of light and visibility conditions available in the Scenario Editor.

 

We know that the general level of "ambient light" is derived from the time of day and date set in the scenario editor.  By "ambient light" I am really referring to the light cast on the map by the sun (either directly or indirectly bouncing of clouds like in dusk/dawn situations) of the sun light reflected off the moon.  I would think the games LOS mechanics would just assign a number from say 100 (sun directly overhead) to 0 (moonless night).

 

The game might then look at the Weather setting (Clear, Hazy, Thick Haze, Overcast, Light Rain, Heavy Rain etc) for the scenario which would then act as some kind of modifier on top of the global "ambient light" setting.  In CMRT there are actually 13 different selections for Weather. I could imagine that perhaps that these settings are "multi variable" settings, in that they may have one parameter that affects the overall global "ambient light" setting (eg. they effectively reduce the overall ambient light that would otherwise be cast on the map such as Overcast) and another parameter that affects the ability for light to penetrate through the air (eg. does the air contain elements that affect the passage of light, for example fog, haze, rain etc).  These parameters again would probably have some number/factor assigned to it.

 

There might be another variable at play however because we have 13 weather conditions which really is quite a lot to consider when you consider that last parameter (how clear the air is) essentially is the main thing that differentiates them all (unless some of them of course are just "cosmetic" graphical settings).

 

The game would then have to take all those variables in to account and somehow determine the maximum spotting range to spot "a unit" (stationary or moving), the maximum spotting range to spot "a unit firing" (stationary or moving) and the probabilities of spotting any one of those units at a given range. Keep in mind that the combinations of conditions we are talking about could well be in the hundreds (even thousands) depending on how the game was designed.  I appreciate that it could get quite messy especially when there are so many different combinations available.  With so many extreme combinations available, it is understandable that in these extreme cases, odd and unexpected LOS behaviors may occur especially if they weren't specifically tested for during the LOS model validation process.

[poesel]

I guess we can all agree on that it would be fair to ask BFC for a better representation of a units ability to spot its surrounding.

 

It has often been requested (and denied) that there should be a tool that shows all valid LOS targets for a unit. Reason was that it would make things too easy for the player.

 

But it would not be unrealistic to show all possible LOS targets irregardless of intervening terrain. Basically a circle (like a CA) with a radius of the spotting distance.

Since CM cannot graphically depict the real conditions - which would make playing impossible at bad conditions - it should still give players a good hint at what their pixeltroopers would see.

 

Definition of the the 'spotting distance': I suggest to draw the line (literally) at a 5% chance to spot a silent, standing man without cover within a minute. IMHO that is a good standard to evaluate your chances.

[Lt Bull]

I guess we can all agree on that it would be fair to ask BFC for a better representation of a units ability to spot its surrounding.

 

It has often been requested (and denied) that there should be a tool that shows all valid LOS targets for a unit. Reason was that it would make things too easy for the player.

 

If by your first sentence you mean at least a better explanation/documentation/understanding of LOS spotting mechanics and how they play out in all 13 of the weather conditions and all the multitude of possible combinations you can have of those with the time of day (eg. day, dusk, night, dawn) and date, then yes I would agree.

 

I think the existing "LOS tool" should be a good enough tool for players to use if it is clearly understood what it can and cannot indicate.  However, what is missing when you play or even design a scenario (unlike many other wargames) is a clear understanding for what "the maximum spotting range" is within the scenario.  It is probably something that should be listed/stated in the scenario (I would perhaps vary during dusk/dawn scenarios of course).

[poesel]

As I understand the LOS tool it shows the maximum distance a unit can see. That makes sense because it is the tool to plan area fire with. But it does not show the distance where you have a realistic chance to spot something.

Maybe an easier solution would be to split the light blue line in two colours (like it does when you cannot target) and have the second colour denote the spotting distance?

[Whiterider]

To my mind one of the issues is the "random check" of visibility. It´s totally absurd to make it in several circumstances (ie at close distance in clear terrain). Conscripts or veterans, soldiers have eyes. The other day one of my units couldn´t see from the top of a mountain a large group of enemy tanks and infantry approaching in clear terrain because I was a conscript. Instead, they detected my unit even though it was in a forest. 

 

 

It doesn´t matter if the game has complex formulas or amazing combat rules, because visibility affects decisively to engagements. Basically, it is needed a bit of common sense and a more complete information about the rules we are playing. 

 

Another issue I´ve detected is combat with tanks, I noticed most of them are destroyed wiht one shot. Consider Combat Mission rules should be designed according to reality, never to war movies or spectacular explosions. That´s Ok if Battlefront decide to follow this path but they shouldn´t sell it like a realistic game. Oh no.

Edited May 4, 2015 by Whiterider

[LukeFF]

Another issue I´ve detected is combat with tanks, I noticed most of them are destroyed wiht one shot. Consider Combat Mission rules should be designed according to reality, never to war movies or spectacular explosions. That´s Ok if Battlefront decide to follow this path but they shouldn´t sell it like a realistic game. Oh no.

 

The game is set at a time when pretty much any tank can engage and destroy any other tank on the battlefield. It has nothing to do with BF modeling things according to "war movies or spectacular explosions." 

[Apocal]

Another issue I´ve detected is combat with tanks, I noticed most of them are destroyed wiht one shot. Consider Combat Mission rules should be designed according to reality, never to war movies or spectacular explosions. That´s Ok if Battlefront decide to follow this path but they shouldn´t sell it like a realistic game. Oh no.

 

"Ugh, my T-34-85 with loose rounds stowed all over the turret blows up a lot when hit by a 88, this game is so unrealistic."

 

I see plenty of bounces, partial penetrations, non-fatal full penetrations, etc. in my games. I'm not going to sit up here and do a thousand test iterations to pin a number on it, but if you pushed me for a number, I'd say the typical gun vs. frontal armor takes about 2 hits on average to kill the tank. Although obviously there is going to be a huge range of cases that defy that norm, typically due to overmatching gun or armor, but it isn't anything terribly unreasonable.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Apocal

[Vanir Ausf B]

Another issue I´ve detected is combat with tanks, I noticed most of them are destroyed wiht one shot. Consider Combat Mission rules should be designed according to reality, never to war movies or spectacular explosions.

Tanks in CM are certainly not usually destroyed with one shot. One penetration, perhaps, but I don't think that is unrealistic at all.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[womble]

It totally depends on the matchup. If you always have kitties vs T-34 at close range, then the panzers are often going to hit and kill with their first shot, and that is right and proper. If you have T34-85s or JS-2 vs PzIVs, likewise. Or if you're a canny tank tactician, and always get your shots on flanks, or a poor one and continually getting ambushed. But if you're fighting PzIV vs T-34/76 at longish ranges and frontal armour, you certainly won't see "most" being destroyed with one shot, or even necessarily one penetration.

[Whiterider]

It was a combat between several T-34 and PIV. Distance: 500 metres. All tanks were destroyed with one shot, oh and from the frontal side. This is my experience against yours. I hope one day we get more information and details about the current rules, in this way nobody will be able to justify everything using the magic bullet theory.

[A Canadian Cat]

Yeah I experience the same as you and the others posting here. Oh you think that statement is incongruous and strange?  Then let me explain.  500m is close - really close.  500m is cannot miss close (OK not quite but hardly ever miss close) and not only that but everyone's AP rounds are still packing close to their maximum punch. 

 

If you are at knife fighting ranges with tanks then they *are* going to die with one hit most of the time and there are hardly going to be any misses too.

 

Get those ranges up over 1500m and you will see a big difference.  I am fighting various tank duels in The Passage right now at around 1600m and there are lots of misses, scratched paint and multiple its to kill.  Just like the other posters are reporting.

[sburke]

Let's face it, while CM is a great game with very good ballistic modeling, most of us rarely play in anything near realistic behavior. We charge tanks up close in woods combat, we rush around buildings because we know from all the Intel from our other teams that nothing threatening is nearby to try and catch that enemy vehicle from a blind side.

Net result is our tactical behavior ends up creating unrealistic results etc because the behavior doesn't even come close to how battles were really fought. Same reason our casualty figures are skewed, same reason a battle that would have taken an entire day is fought through in less than an hour etc etc

It isn't the game creating these anomalies, it is us. The game has it's own limitations, but we have folks who already face time constraints fighting through a battle. They certainly are not interested in seeing a 30 minute platoon fight suddenly be 4 hours long and inconclusive at that.

[Bulletpoint]

It isn't the game creating these anomalies, it is us. The game has it's own limitations, but we have folks who already face time constraints fighting through a battle. They certainly are not interested in seeing a 30 minute platoon fight suddenly be 4 hours long and inconclusive at that.

 

Not to be pedantic, but the game can only handle quite limited map sizes. I understand there's a technical reason for that.

 

And if map sizes were bigger, that would not necessarily mean 4-hour games. It would mostly depend on the amount of troops.

 

I would like to see a platoon+ sized battle on a huge map. With focus on scouting and moving to contact. Using halftracks like they are meant to be used, essential for transport. On small maps, I just leave them back at the starting line...

Edited May 8, 2015 by Bulletpoint

[sburke]

Not to be pedantic, but the game can only handle quite limited map sizes. I understand there's a technical reason for that.

 

And if map sizes were bigger, that would not necessarily mean 4-hour games. It would mostly depend on the amount of troops.

 

 

I am not sure what that was reference to.  I was speaking more about tactical behavior.  Even a small map with a platoon unit would in reality have run more like 4 hours.  CM is like taking a 2 hour movie and just cutting it to the action sequences and ending up with the trailer.  

[Bulletpoint]

I am not sure what that was reference to.  I was speaking more about tactical behavior.  Even a small map with a platoon unit would in reality have run more like 4 hours.  CM is like taking a 2 hour movie and just cutting it to the action sequences and ending up with the trailer.  

 

I think I meant something like it not only being the players' fault to move tanks too close to each other, but that it's also because of limited map sizes. So, some of the differences in armour and gun dimensions don't really come into play in many scenarios, because most tanks pack a big punch at close range

[Doodlebug]

...CM is like taking a 2 hour movie and just cutting it to the action sequences and ending up with the trailer.  

That is a very appropriate analogy.

[cool breeze]

I'm not sure who battlefield is paying here anymore... but I'm not necessarily surprised that one of them hasn't addressed this. I've never ran into this, because I don't like games where I can't see the enemy. Unfortunately this is because I don't think things such as haze, overcast skies, or darkness are handled very well by Combat Mission's engine. It is what it is... maybe they could slap a few more icons on the hud, but that's for another day.

 

However, it disturbs me that a major aspect of its [the game/ the company's] engine is not working correctly, albeit under such "unique" circumstances. 

 

If anything, BF could address it. Its truly absurd that that unit is not being located. Relying on this advanced spotting system leads to some really cool battle circumstances, but it also leads to some serious headaches. If anything, units within a 15 meter proximity, lets say 2-3 AS, should be automatically spotted. The only way this might be an exception, and we know the engine can handle this amazing phenomenon, is if A t-34 is sitting on the side of the road on a moonless night with very low visibility and is mistakenly believed to be a wreck or something of the like by CONSCRIPT soldiers, or otherwise compromised pxeltruppen. 

 

But don't expect anything from BF... they're still promoting/tweaking neat things like individual system damage when every AT gun/Tank in the game fires at the vehicle's center of mass. 

 

Some days I really wish Steve would go out into the desert on peyote and then come back and reappraise certain parts of this ****ing masterpiece. Some days I wish he'd have the humility to hire a small team to come in and analyze the game and its code for blemishes and omissions.

 

Its the small things that keep you pinned down, immersed in the game play.

- In CMx1 it was the chance of one of your key teams being fanatic.

-Personalizing your platoons based upon their leader's command qualities and building your attack plan accordingly wasn't just fun, it made you feel like you were commanding real men.

 

There are things that really draw this game apart from its predecessor, however:

-The chance of a ricocheted shell landing among your CO's squad. That the engine is already capable of doing stuff like this is amazing.

- The satisfaction at keeping a well maintained C&C that enables the quick transmitting of key information.

 

- If units were so able, the ability to see 45mm scratches on my Panther from a Soviet Conscript's AT gun, while noticing it's detached treads from the 45mm's Veteran battery mate. Units of different abilities should have their accuracy reflect this (I'm still talking about the big guns!) If BF is gonna model the treads, the radio, the this, the that, they should at least have the gunners attack these as necessary. (And what do we do about turret rings? I've never had a gun jam in place on a tank before.... however, I would understand if they were considered ko'd at that point for our purposes... although I would rather get them out of action and salvage them for points.) 

 So I kind of ran out of energy half way through reading this thread but wanted to post anyway.  Are people still thinking this is a bug?  Seems to me like its not really a bug, just rock bottom visibility.  I've played plenty of night battles, I think the new CMx2 spotting system does a great job with them.  But there are a lot of different levels of darkness available at night in the real world.  Their weren't a lot of big cities lighting clouds from beneath back then on the eastern front.  The game lets you play in those potential levels of zero visibility even tho its not fun and would generally have not happened.  Its hard to do a night infiltration mission when you can hardly figure out which direction the enemy line is in and you are all making tons of noise tripping and cursing and breaking things.  They would all be better served with swords than their rifles but they might get confused and cut each other up.  I have bumped into things in the dark before.  Seems reasonable to me the Ptruppen have to actually run into it to rub their hands over it to get the positive ID, till then its just a rumbling engine.  They aren't real soldiers so I don't expect them to be clever and talk amongst themselves to sort it all out. 

 

 

I posted this quote because I didn't like the idea of the automatic spotting of nearby enemy Ptruppen.  I think all the times I have guys hiding in bushes or buildings or whatever in short range of enemy guys, or when I have to move my guys right onto the enemies AS, and search around a bit to find em all, or crawling thought the smoke at short range for the rear grenade shot on the tank: all those times were great.

[76mm]

I have been kind of sympathetic towards complaints about spotting, but wanted to pass on one of my real life experiences:

I was a tank company XO during desert storm. One of my duties was to wake up long before dawn and go to each of my company's tanks to check that they were awake for "stand-to". Our tanks were parked in a circular lager in flat open desert. On really dark mornings (with no fog) I could not see the tanks from 10 meters or even 5--in fact I had to walk around with my arms out and as often as not I would feel them before I saw them, obviously these tanks were stationary. This is a completely true story, I think it can be difficult to imagine how dark it can get when you are out in the boonies away from ambient light.

[cool breeze]

Yeah, I think a lot of city folk just don't realize how dark it can get outside.  That was no mist, compared to the situation in the scenario were it is presumably dark like that plus the mist is so thick you can only make out muzzle flashes at 40 meters.

Edited May 16, 2015 by cool breeze