This is unacceptable.

[Michael Emrys]

If that was the case BP shouldn't the Sherman crew have been equally unable to see the Panther?

Not necessarily. Where foliage is concerned, spotting distances and chances are not usually reciprocal. That is to say, a human eyeball directly behind some foliage can usually manage to spot an object some distance away in the open, when the unit in the open cannot spot the unit immediately behind the foliage. It's just the way the eye works, as I have proven many a time out in the real world.

Now whether in this particular case the Sherman "should" have been spotted sooner can't be determined from the data you have presented so far. As has been mentioned above, there are many factors that determine spotting and they are all probabilistic, and it looks like they all added up in this case to delayed spotting. So far, I can't declare this to be too unrealistic although it is a rather extreme case.

Michael

[Boomkow]

It sounds to me like the tree "force field" affects more than tank shells hitting trees. This has been an issue for an extremely long time. Tanks repeatedly hitting the tree between themselves and the target. In fact, if some tank crew thinks parking their tank behind a tree is a good idea then their spotting should be atrocious. Trust me, an 88 AP shell would blow through a tree and the fragments would be extra projectiles.

[Michael Emrys]

Trust me, an 88 AP shell would blow through a tree and the fragments would be extra projectiles.

Well, yeah. The lack of damage to trees and other natural features that have been struck by medium and large caliber shells has been an irritation since the beginning of CM. Just one of those things we've had to live with. Fortunately not too many of those and they are mostly not too critical. This one does annoy me from time to time though.

Michael

[5th SS Div Wiking]

Ah, Cpt Miller. Of course, it's all me and nothing to do with a game deficiency. It's a "tantrum". Much lol.

Ian, it's all very well saying all the things you have said, and applied to an 'edge' scenario (as somebody described it) I'd be in full agreement. But this is about as far from that kind of scenario as one could get. The crew drove the Panther straight at the Sherman until approx. 30m away, noticed and took other stuff under fire but didn't spot the lethal threat right under their nose. No, I've not crewed a tank in combat but I've read more RL accounts from guys who did than I can count and I've seen my own share of non-armoured agg. That kind of fubar might happen once in a blue moon, to one messed up person, but not to three members of the same, veteran, crew at the same time. But it's just a game? Yes, it is. But if that's the best the game can do it's not worth £75 of my money. I expect more. The same kind of more other game-developers are able to deliver. Flakey at the edges but not in a bang-on, head-to-head, in-the-face, 30m stare-down. Not when it's now obvious it's happening as a norm, in all battles, to numerous units. That just sucks every single last drop of suspension-of-disbelief right out of the virtual bottle.

My guess is it's just numbers in a table. So rachet those numbers up (or down) a few hundred percent, until what's in the video above can't happen, ever again. If it makes crews too hot? Better than dumb as HS in my opinion.   

Edited January 18, 2016 by 5th SS Div Wiking

[AttorneyAtWar]

Ah, Cpt Miller. Of course, it's all me and nothing to do with a game deficiency. It's a "tantrum". Much lol.

Ian, it's all very well saying all the things you have said, and applied to an 'edge' scenario (as somebody described it) I'd be in full agreement. But this is about as far from that kind of scenario as one could get. The crew drove the Panther straight at the Sherman until approx. 30m away, noticed and took other stuff under fire but didn't spot the lethal threat right under their nose. No, I've not crewed a tank in combat but I've read more RL accounts from guys who did than I can count and I've seen my own share of non-armoured agg. That kind of fubar might happen once in a blue moon, to one messed up person, but not to three members of the same, veteran, crew at the same time. But it's just a game? Yes, it is. But if that's the best the game can do it's not worth £75 of my money. I expect more. The same kind of more other game-developers are able to deliver. Flakey at the edges but not in a bang-on, head-to-head, in-the-face, 30m stare-down. Not when it's now obvious it's happening as a norm, in all battles, to numerous units. That just sucks every single last drop of suspension-of-disbelief right out of the virtual bottle.

My guess is it's just numbers in a table. So rachet those numbers up (or down) a few hundred percent, until what's in the video above can't happen, ever again. If it makes crews too hot? Better than dumb as HS in my opinion.   

This kind of thing is not happening as the "norm" stop trying to conflate the issue to fit what you think, most of the people here responding have been playing this game far longer than you and can probably count on one or two hands the amount of times this kind of thing happens. If you have read so many memoirs and battle reports from that time period than surely at least one taught you that war is hell and anything can happen. Chalk it up to that and move on, if not I guess you can ask for a refund after one "event" but I wouldn't put my money on it.

Edited January 18, 2016 by Raptorx7

[5th SS Div Wiking]

Should have mentioned I emailed support a couple of hours ago and requested a refund, with a link to this thread. Just waiting for a reply.

Guys, I'm sure a lot of you would/will defend CM no matter what somebody brought up. And if you enjoy it the way it is, good luck to you. I have no intention or desire to put you off the game (why would I). But neither will I be told I should enjoy it, no matter what. I know this flaw, or call it what you will, is common; I just couldn't properly put my finger on it until I saw what's in the video. I thought my tanks were being taken out through holes in hedges (which itself would be bad enough). Now I reckon the more common culprit is invisible tanks that my veteran and crack crews can't spot, due to the way spotting is coded. I've never played WoT but I imagine the experience I've had with this might be somewhat similar. But WoT is free, CM isn't. Very expensive actually, which is fine if the customer feels he got what he thought he was paying for. The somewhat dated graphics, they're fine. I'd rather have grog-like realism. But the video I've posted shows a serious deficiency in that department and I'm not prepared to shrug my shoulders and accept a £75 coaster. I don't think I'm being unreasonable. Not that that is anything to do with why I posted the video, that was more of a reaction to a very WTF?! moment.

I'm sure BF will have no desire in keeping such an unhappy customer, it's not like I just got bored. Quite the contrary, I'm gutted I can't enjoy the game because if it worked to the standard I assumed it possessed I would be more than happy.

[Battlefront.com]

OK, where to start   First, let's remember that this is a game and therefore it is not a 100% accurate representation of everything in real life 100% of the time all the time.  There is no game out there that is, nor will there ever be, therefore do not expect Combat Mission to be the one and only exception.

Second, CM is trying to do more things more accurately than any other wargame out there.  There is no game out there even trying to be as realistic as CM is, not to mention being better.  That's because most game developers understand how difficult it is and how tiny the market place is.  Fortunately for our customers, we are up for the challenge.

Third, the game system has been around for 8 years now, nearly 5 in the WW2 setting.  There is no shortage of people playing our games who think they know more about everything than we do and they are not shy about expressing themselves here.  Which means all of us, customers and developers, have been through the process of examining seemingly odd bits of behavior more times than can be counted.  Sometimes there is an issue, sometimes it is merely incorrect customer perception, sometimes both.  Customers coming into the game system now usually (thankfully!) understand this and are willing to accept the possibility their initial impressions may be less than accurate or helpful.

Fourth, customers sometimes don't have a very good grasp of what real battlefield behavior is, or what their computers can handle, or what a company lacking millions of Dollars in development funds can produce.  This makes a subsequent discussion of facts more difficult.

Fifth, when a problem is pointed out we do have a very solid track record of making things better.  Sometimes we can fix the problem completely, other times it's not possible due to technical reasons that customers may/may not understand.  But we do give things a fair hearing and we definitely want to make things better for our customers.

With that said...

Based on what I see there's some variable right on the margin of triggering spotting, but not quite tipping over the edge as quickly as expected.  I think there's probably more wrong with the expectation than there is with the game itself.  Others have tried to explain this, but I've seen very little willingness to listen, ponder, and withhold judgement until more game time is racked up.  There's more effort on being unhappy than understanding.  That's not something we can fix.

What is going on in this situation, as best I can tell, is the Panther has poor LOS to the Sherman's location due to the fact the tank is buttoned, there's a dead PzIV partially blocking LOS, and range is just outside of the accelerated spotting cycle.  Since the latter may not be known to people, I'll explain.

Line of Sight and Line of Fire checks are the most computationally expensive part of any 3D game because they involve a lot of CPU cycles on a very constant basis.  For spotting to work there must be a LOS check, for targeting there must be a LOF check (in most games it's one in the same, but that's not realistic).  In a FPS game there's maybe 64 "agents" requesting LOS/LOF checks, in CM it's potentially thousands.  Therefore, LOS/LOF checks have to be rationed to some extent or the game simply will not be able to run. 

The further units are apart from each other, the less critical a few seconds is and therefore generally nobody notices this.  However, at close ranges seconds can matter and so there is a greater chance that a delayed LOS/LOF check will have a negative outcome.   Not guaranteed, just a greater chance than say at 4000m.  To compensate for this when units get fairly close to each other (I forget how close) they are given LOS/LOF checks more frequently.  Because it's still not done in miliseconds there's still a chance things might not quite go as should be expected in real life.

Bottomline... there is no bug.  At best there is a case where a really weak LOS/LOF circumstance is probably weighting things to the disadvantage of the Panther for a few seconds.  Because this is a knife fight situation those few seconds do matter.  Or would matter had the Sherman been able to capitalize on the situation.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Guys, I'm sure a lot of you would/will defend CM no matter what somebody brought up

My experience is customers only defend us when there is a reason to defend against unreasonable or misinformed opinions stated as fact.  Otherwise they push for fixes, sometimes very hard.  If you had more patience maybe you would have discovered that. But no, you have managed to convince yourself in a very short time, without debate, that your initial impression is 100% infallible and there's no reason to reexamine it.

I'm sure BF will have no desire in keeping such an unhappy customer, it's not like I just got bored. Quite the contrary, I'm gutted I can't enjoy the game because if it worked to the standard I assumed it possessed I would be more than happy.

Combat Mission is by far the most realistic tactical wargame that has ever been made.  If you insist on something closer to perfection, I advise you to give up now and direct your energies to something else because you'll never get what you have pictured in your head.  It has never existed, it doesn't exist now, and I can pretty much promise you it never will exist at any price in the future. Why waste time and energy looking for something that doesn't exist?

Steve

Edited January 18, 2016 by Battlefront.com

[womble]

If that was the case BP shouldn't the Sherman crew have been equally unable to see the Panther?

No, because the eyeballs that matter on the Sherman are in different positions to the eyeballs that matter on the Panther. LOS from point to point is reciprocal, but LOS between vehicles doesn't go from and to the same points.

You might be doing something consistently if it's happening every time, but there is also the possibility that you're doing something different each time which is fouling you up. It might even be a map bug specific to that tree next to that building on that map and your general approach encourages the TacAI to put the Sherman there every time.

Well here's the thing Womble...if I can't drive a veteran-crewed Panther directly towards a Sherman approx. 30m away and not have the crew spot it and kill it, I don't want the game. And I take everything you say about the imperfections of computer games but this particular issue belongs in the nineties, not 2016. No wonder the 2nd SS were performing like greenhorns in the big battle I re-played five times. And god-help the actual greenhorns! Lol.

So, you bought a game that covers a period you have some interest in, in the greatest detail and precision of any game on the market, and when you expose its inevitable imperfections, you abandon it. For what alternative, pray? Enlighten us with your knowledge of the challenges of programming such detail in a 3D environment; tell Charles and Phil what they're doing wrong. Please.

Oh, and blaming the game's flaws for poor performance (when other people seem to be able to get perfectly adequate victories) is pretty cheap.

 

Edit: And why on earth would you ever want to drive a Panther to within 30m of a Sherman, not to mention a building which could contain a PIAT or bazooka, without putting some infantry in that position first? Not doing that would solve this whole LOS problem. This isn't some mickey mouse Android game where tanks have to get within half a dozen vehicle lengths to engage.

Edited January 18, 2016 by womble

[5th SS Div Wiking]

I was fully aware I haven't given the game as much time as you would be entitled to ask of me, but at the exact same time of thinking it I also considered that to not request a refund immediately would cast a suspicion on one made somewhat later. In that case the point raised would likely have been something along the lines of "Why did you wait so long to raise an issue? Admit it, you've played the hell out of it and just got bored!" Lol. Damned if I did, damned if I didn't.

I get everything you say about the CPU demands, it all makes perfect sense. So, in that context, maybe I did expect too much. It doesn't feel like I did; the idea of a tank driving straight at another tank, up to extremely close range, and not seeing it, despite being pounded by its gun, that kind of flies counter to pretty much everything I've experienced in (better funded, admittedly) other top-shelf games (yes, your game has a rep for top shelf).

So it comes down to not being right or wrong, it just is what it is. But that being what it is, I can't enjoy it. The idea that that sort of deficiency (to be found in any game, as you say) is going on all the time, I'd end up pulling my hair out. Lol. To put it in a nutshell, I can't abide the thought that all my tanks are being crewed by half-blind idiots (effectively speaking). And, to be perfectly frank, if the virtual SS can't whup some serious ass I don't hold out any hopes for beating the AI with the Heer. Lol.

[Wicky]

Sorry mate didn't see you...

[snarre]

tjust had to ask , do you expecting that ss status giving a man super vision or strenght in game ? or in real life ? . second thing, tjust play game more and get ower that situation what happend. There is nou perfect battles in real life or in games. Other users all ready explainet up on this tred why mayby this gind rare thing happened.

[MikeyD]

I looked at the clip. What's the problem again?  A Sherman in some trees shielded by a burning tank nails a buttoned Panther a couple times before getting blasted. Newbie former quick-draw shooter players do have a history of freaking out a bit when they first touch CM. Run-and-shoot doesn't work very well in this game. When you get to knife fight ranges with buttoned tanks, smoke, trees and buildings involved its turns into chaos.

[5th SS Div Wiking]

No, because the eyeballs that matter on the Sherman are in different positions to the eyeballs that matter on the Panther. LOS from point to point is reciprocal, but LOS between vehicles doesn't go from and to the same points.

You might be doing something consistently if it's happening every time, but there is also the possibility that you're doing something different each time which is fouling you up. It might even be a map bug specific to that tree next to that building on that map and your general approach encourages the TacAI to put the Sherman there every time.

So, you bought a game that covers a period you have some interest in, in the greatest detail and precision of any game on the market, and when you expose its inevitable imperfections, you abandon it. For what alternative, pray? Enlighten us with your knowledge of the challenges of programming such detail in a 3D environment; tell Charles and Phil what they're doing wrong. Please.

Oh, and blaming the game's flaws for poor performance (when other people seem to be able to get perfectly adequate victories) is pretty cheap.

 

Edit: And why on earth would you ever want to drive a Panther to within 30m of a Sherman, not to mention a building which could contain a PIAT or bazooka, without putting some infantry in that position first? Not doing that would solve this whole LOS problem. This isn't some mickey mouse Android game where tanks have to get within half a dozen vehicle lengths to engage.

Well, I don't much enjoy micro-management for starters (a huge bone of contention between me and one of my brothers). I'd have my turn done and have time to go for dinner while he fed each of his soldiers with a spoon, took them to the khazi afterwards and then polished their asses for them. Lollol!  Being a realism nut I tend to give the orders and rely on my minions to do an adequate job. "No, don't go in there like that, you fool, that's what the Volksturm are for. Dumkopf!" You probably can't imagine the state I got into when the half-track towing the 75mm PaK decided to leave the road, go into a woods, lose the 75mm and end up where I told it to go without its gun. It took me five minutes to find the bloody thing (I thought a bug had vanished it). That's kind of what happens with my orders, they're probably too sweeping. But when I do get right in, close and personal, that's just inviting a bigger headache, because then I get to see the stupidity magnified (like the Panther not seeing the Sherman). I did send my infantry in, but I refer you back to the micro-management...I don't go clicking through all my units each turn and swing the mouse around to see everything they can see. Is it normal to do that? I'd lose my mind!

Other games...RO Darkest Hour, I'm a bit of a whizz in a tank. Cliffs of Dover, one of the premier aces of the LW, or so Hermann tells me. Lol. Driving games, I suck. CM too apparently.

[weapon2010]

Yes, you've nailed it.CM sucks.lol

[IICptMillerII]

 

Edit: And why on earth would you ever want to drive a Panther to within 30m of a Sherman, not to mention a building which could contain a PIAT or bazooka, without putting some infantry in that position first? Not doing that would solve this whole LOS problem. This isn't some mickey mouse Android game where tanks have to get within half a dozen vehicle lengths to engage.

This. If you want to have a constructive argument, lets talk about this, shall we? What in the hell were tanks doing so close to an enemy tank with no infantry support? I think that this right here is the actual issue. Oh wait...

And, to be perfectly frank, if the virtual SS can't whup some serious ass I don't hold out any hopes for beating the AI with the Heer. Lol.

aaaand there it is. This isn't about a perceived faulty game mechanic or bug. Its not about learning the game or tactics or their implementation. Its the classic flawed and historically incorrect argument that the Germans/SS gear/men/weapons/tanks/etc were "better" than everyone else. "How did my Ubermensch SS not see the filthy untermensch Ami's?!?!?! Clearly CM does not take into account the fact that the Germans were far superior in every aspect, physiologically, intellectually, everything!"

If you bought CM hoping to indulge in your "superior WWII German everything" fetish than you came to the wrong place. 

No, I've not crewed a tank in combat but I've read more RL accounts from guys who did than I can count and I've seen my own share of non-armoured agg.

 I'm sure you have read every first, second and third hand account of German tankers in WWII, and to keep it "unbiased" you read Belton Cooper's "Death Traps" to round out the Allied experience. 

[5th SS Div Wiking]

Yes, you've nailed it.CM sucks.lol

No, I meant that apparently I suck at CM.

[AttorneyAtWar]

"And, to be perfectly frank, if the virtual SS can't whup some serious ass I don't hold out any hopes for beating the AI with the Heer. Lol."

Oh I see the problem now, the much "vaunted and "elite" SS couldn't destroy a lousy American sherman, well this definitely isn't the game you're looking for I'm afraid.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2016 by Raptorx7

[5th SS Div Wiking]

This. If you want to have a constructive argument, lets talk about this, shall we? What in the hell were tanks doing so close to an enemy tank with no infantry support? I think that this right here is the actual issue. Oh wait...

aaaand there it is. This isn't about a perceived faulty game mechanic or bug. Its not about learning the game or tactics or their implementation. Its the classic flawed and historically incorrect argument that the Germans/SS gear/men/weapons/tanks/etc were "better" than everyone else. "How did my Ubermensch SS not see the filthy untermensch Ami's?!?!?! Clearly CM does not take into account the fact that the Germans were far superior in every aspect, physiologically, intellectually, everything!"

If you bought CM hoping to indulge in your "superior WWII German everything" fetish than you came to the wrong place. 

 

 I'm sure you have read every first, second and third hand account of German tankers in WWII, and to keep it "unbiased" you read Belton Cooper's "Death Traps" to round out the Allied experience. 

 

Sorry CptMiller, you'll have to try that anti-SS rhetoric on somebody else, I'm very familiar with it and treat it with the derision it deserves. Maybe if you'd been there you'd have an excuse to hate (fear) them, but you weren't so you don't. Anymore than you have an excuse to project it onto me or anyone else. They're sprites on a screen, buffed accordingly. And, just in case it had slipped your attention, the battle in question had no SS in it.

[snarre]

i had to say this now , its seems like all SS tags using person seems to thinking and acting same way. dosen mather is it Ro ost , RO 2 or any other game. 

[weapon2010]

No, I meant that apparently I suck at CM.

ok I think there is hope for you, that's the most rational thing you have stated.Most people start out sucking, and badly, It takes a good 25 games to start understanding and grasping what is going on and how to play well.

[IICptMillerII]

Sorry CptMiller, you'll have to try that anti-SS rhetoric on somebody else, I'm very familiar with it and treat it with the derision it deserves. Maybe if you'd been there you'd have an excuse to hate (fear) them, but you weren't so you don't. Anymore than you have an excuse to project it onto me or anyone else. They're sprites on a screen, buffed accordingly. And, just in case it had slipped your attention, the battle in question had no SS in it.

The only people who 'feared' the SS were the women, children, old men, Jews, other dissenters or those deemed unfit or sub human, and POWs who were murdered by them.

You were the one who brought up the SS in the first place, might I remind you: 

And, to be perfectly frank, if the virtual SS can't whup some serious ass I don't hold out any hopes for beating the AI with the Heer. Lol.

And you're right, I was not in Russia, or France, or the many other places unfortunate enough to have to deal with the SS. That does not take away from the many atrocities committed by the SS, or the fact that the SS were generally less apt at combat than their peers in the Heer, with a few notable exceptions. 

[5th SS Div Wiking]

ok I think there is hope for you, that's the most rational thing you have stated.Most people start out sucking, and badly, It takes a good 25 games to start understanding and grasping what is going on and how to play well.

I used to beat the AI tolerably well the few years ago I last played it. I still have the Italian front in a folder with the licence number (all the others I bought are long vanished). It was the MP WEGO de-syncing issue that killed it for us then.

As for the SS thing, I really cannot be assed to get into a debate about it. My GF (Danish) fought with the Wiking, hence my interest. And he wasn't involved in any atrocities, he simply hated the communists. And kicked their asses.

[IICptMillerII]

As for the SS thing, I really cannot be assed to get into a debate about it. My GF (Danish) fought with the Wiking, hence my interest. And he wasn't involved in any atrocities, he simply hated the communists. And kicked their asses.

Fair enough. I completely understand the interest, especially due to the familial connection. The SS grew larger and larger towards the end of the war and got a lot of the cool toys developed by the Germans in abundance (relatively) so I can understand the interest. I would be lying if I said I was not interested myself. I also harbor no love for communists, so there is something I'm sure we can agree on. 

As I and others here have said, people are more than willing to discuss tips and techniques of playing the game, and if there is a perceived bug than the devs are more than willing to address the issue, as Steve has done with this. I'm not sure what the refund policy is with Battlefront, if there is a limited time refund window or something like that, but I would urge you to reconsider and maybe stick around for a while and see if you can't learn the ropes a bit. The community is more than willing to assist, as long as the discussions remain constructive. 

[5th SS Div Wiking]

Steve's already being a stand-up guy so that side of things is sorted (refund). I appreciate the offers of help but this isn't about me not knowing how the game works, I was simply expecting too much intelligence from the AI. Yes, it could kind of be fudged around but there would be no enjoyment in it. It's probably a significant character-flaw but I do get quite irate when I see a veteran (or better) crew behaving like they've just caned a sack of peyote between them and getting their tank shot full of holes by some bunch of regulars in a bean-tin. And always that nagging suspicion that a tank on the other side of the map understood the magic of multiple tree-lines and bushes and hedges better than me and spotted the tank I'd hidden in a crater. With a house on top of it. Lol.

I lack the zen is what it is.