Spotting issues (This IS crazy)

[Pete Wenman]

carrying on from above as the formatting is all over the place.

 

As to how troops operate in zero visibility conditions - it's hard, slow and dangerous work. Ken walked off a cliff - just think about the mind set that has a body of men walking in those conditions in unfamiliar terrain. 

I can recall putting my rifle on the ground at my feet in order to dig a shell scrape in total darkness. I dug the scrape by feel, and then spent the next 10-15 minutes searching with my hands for the rifle. No light of any kind was allowed and so I just had to keep on feeling where I thought it should be until I found it. Situational awareness in these conditions is very low and based on sound and touch.  Add fog, tree cover to the mix and yes you will bump into an enemy vehicle and not know it is there. Take a step back and you have lost it again. Do you want to fight in these conditions or maybe think that discretion is the greater part of valour, when you can't see friend or foe.

P

[JoMac]

18 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I agree that the countryside can get really dark, but if it's so dark that you can drive straight into an enemy Panzer, how are you able to drive your vehicle anywhere at all? How are soldiers able to move about the terrain? Not giving you any snark here, it just seems odd to me that we are able to play battles and maneuver with zero visibility.

I know vehicles had blinded headlights to avoid being seen from the air, but I assume they would be seen from the ground. Especially from the front.

Also, why is it so dark around dawn and dusk? I would expect that sort of darkness in the middle of the night, not around sunrise/sunset.

I think, Bulletpoint, is basically saying; If it's so dark out that if Units can't move without bumping into each other, then they have no business moving at all, let alone any form of combat...So, he (and some players) is frustrated as to why we are we able to play a Scenario at all under these conditions if it's going to give us these unrealistic results.

Ofcourse, Steve is basically saying; Well, the Game has it's limitations (that are being improved over time), and if you couple that with problematic Night/Bad Weather Conditions in RL, then the Game will give you these interesting situations...Just Deal with it, and carry-on.

Now, in RL a unit is situationally aware every second, and able to adjust accordingly with some confusion mixed in depending on Night/Weather, etc...The AI awareness is every few seconds (1-2 spotting cycles), and Units using Fast/Quick moves will inherently and unrealistically bump into each (instead of spotting/combat several meters away) more then we would like to see.

I wonder if this would work better if units were given a slower movement order (move or Hunt) under Night/Bad Weather conditions so the AI has a better chance to react per spotting cycle and not bump/run into each other ?

Now, I would like like to see friendly Units stop a certain distance away from enemy Units they haven't seen yet  (Stop, what's that in front of us)...Basically, using the Friendly Vehicle spacing situation (friendly vehicles keep a certain spacing from each other before moving again) and applying it to the enemy as well...a patch for Friendly and Enemy minimum Spacing ?

Joe

Edited January 8, 2017 by JoMc67

[Wicky]

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Yes, but we are talking dawn and dusk settings. This discussion seems to be going in circles

Game spotting cycles aren't continuously carried out by the microsecond, add the degraded night time / predawn / un streetlamped visibility and it will lead to occasions where forces will stumble surprisingly into each other - heck as even most car drivers motorcyclists & cyclists will attest it happens at times even in broad daylight!...

 

Edited January 8, 2017 by Wicky

[Vanir Ausf B]

8 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

If it's not pitch black, then why are vehicles bumping into each other or running over infantry without being spotted?

In my experience they aren't. Spotting ranges 30 minutes prior to sunrise are several hundred meters. But as Wicky pointed out, those sorts of things very occasionally happen in broad daylight because of spotting cycles. It's not necessarily related to darkness.

Also, when you refer to dawn/dusk settings do you mean scenarios or QBs? Priorto the last patch the time of day settings in the QB option screen were messed up in Final Blitzkrieg (e.g. "dusk" games were starting 90 minutes after sunset). 

 

[JonS]

13 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

he (and some players) is frustrated as to why we are we able to play a Scenario at all under these conditions if it's going to give us these unrealistic results.

You are ABLE to play under those conditions, but you can also chose NOT to play under those conditions if that is your preference.

Just like you can play a QB with a battalion of King Tigers vs a company of Stuarts on a big flat map ... or not. It's your choice.

in RL a unit is situationally aware every second

ROFL. That is just flat out not true, to put it politely.

Edited January 9, 2017 by JonS

[JonS]

19 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Did WW2 soldiers have some kind of very dim flashlight that would illuminate just enough to navigate on foot, but not be seen from a distance?

That's a terrible idea.

You're much better off using your eyesight as much as you can (which might not be very much at all, although peripheral vision stays pretty functional even in very low light) but relying on your other senses - especially hearing. And going slow. Really, really slow.

If you want some examples of battalion and brigade attacks conducted in the dark, have a look here: http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Tobr-c13.html (and the chapters either side of that one)

If you want an example of a corps attack conducted at night, see: Op TOTALISE

[Rinaldi]

Re: Keeping organized in the night

Who said it was that easy? Getting lost at night was and is a common occurance for military units even on administrative marches. In WWII an entire infantry battalion could be marching single file literally holding onto the rucksack of the man in front of him; if the guides got it wrong, you're going to be out of position.

Given that otherwise ably led and competent units on both sides could find themselves on the wrong hill or town in broad daylight, I have no idea how that impacts what @Vanir Ausf B and myself said earlier in the topic. (1) Just because it says 50m visibility, doesn't mean it will be, (2) motor columns passing one another in the middle of the night wasn't just typical, it was frequent, esp. when battles 'opened up' and front lines were just pretty crayons on situational maps.

23 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

... he (and some players) is frustrated as to why we are we able to play a Scenario at all under these conditions if it's going to give us these unrealistic results.

 

Now you know how that thug Peiper felt and how the Americans thrown into the breach, unsure and unaware of anything going on, felt. The results are far from 'unrealistic' they are pretty much a perfect representation of the fighting conditions.

Again and not to sound harsh, but people are finding frustration where they could otherwise find oppurtunity. The low visibility in that scenario makes infiltrating the better part of your Kompanie and its Panzers if you're fast enough into firing positions without ever being seen. What's more frustrating: losing a handful of men when you bump into vulnerable halftracks, or watching your entire KG get annihlated from across the river by 76mm and HMG fire?

Forest for the trees, etc etc. The Stavelot scenarios were expertly constructed and one of the best showcases of CMs dynamic weather and lighting. Also very true to the actual battles. I think its a bit base to simply write it off as mindless groping in the dark from the first 15 to 30 minutes of the scenario.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Rinaldi
Spelling

[umlaut]

On 7/1/2017 at 11:18 PM, JonS said:

You've never heard the phrase "it's always darkest just before dawn"?

Yes, it's quite obvious. Because at that moment the lights have been out for the longest time.

[cool breeze]

Yup all the light has had longest to fly away   Now to be honest I always thought the expression was a metaphorical one that had nothing to do with lighting but referred to ones darkest (as in hardest) hour before the moment of triumph or whatever. 

[TheForwardObserver]

I don't have any problems with the way night-time is depicted in-game.  I wouldn't change anything (save adding illumination shells to the arty options).  Night-time can be pretty dark.  

That being said, no, the darkest part of night is not just before dawn, and yes, filters, blackout/brownout shields (and slits) were used on flashlights (torches) and headlights in WW2.

[JonS]

1 hour ago, TheForwardObserver said:

 yes, filters, blackout/brownout shields were used on flashlights in WW2.

I very much doubt that battalions maneuvered in the dark by having 1,000 guys swinging their torches around to see where they were going

[TheForwardObserver]

5 minutes ago, JonS said:

I very much doubt that battalions maneuvered in the dark by having 1,000 guys swinging their torches around to see where they were going

Obviously they would have had rules/SOPs and training to dictate when/how filters/flashlights/headlights were used-- just like armies do now.  Common sense about enemy presence and training would have governed how those devices were used.  For that matter, nearly every flashlight issued to troops in world war 2 was designed to be clipped onto load bearing gear for the express purpose of illuminating a soldier's path without the soldier having to use his hands.

[Artemis258]

1 hour ago, JonS said:

I very much doubt that battalions maneuvered in the dark by having 1,000 guys swinging their torches around to see where they were going

Depends how many flammenwerfer you take

[JonS]

3 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:

For that matter, nearly every flashlight issued to troops in world war 2 was designed to be clipped onto load bearing gear for the express purpose of illuminating a soldier's path without the soldier having to use his hands.

I bet it wasn't.

Source: me. I've done a lot of walking and navigating by night. A torch is crucial if you're attempting to read something up close (like a map, orders, or the dial sight of an indirect fire weapon, or find that thing you just dropped) but wildly counter-productive if you're trying to see something at a distance or take in an area (like, moving across the surface of the earth). Having a thousand guys randomly waving their torches around would be utterly hopeless.

1 hour ago, Artemis258 said:

Depends how many flammenwerfer you take

Edited January 10, 2017 by JonS

[TheForwardObserver]

24 minutes ago, JonS said:

I bet it wasn't.

Source: me. I've done a lot of walking and navigating by night. A torch is crucial if you're attempting to read something up close (like a map, orders, or the dial sight of an indirect fire weapon, or find that thing you just dropped) but wildly counter-productive if you're trying to see something at a distance or take in an area (like, moving across the surface of the earth). Having a thousand guys randomly waving their torches around would be utterly hopeless.

What are you on about?

You've gone from quoting florence and the machines lyrics like they're scientific facts to denying the existence of slits in shields/filters for lights to drawing a cartoonish image of a battalion bumbling through an attack with no concept of light discipline to insisting that flashlights aren't used to see at night and I don't know what you're trying to get at.

Edited January 10, 2017 by TheForwardObserver

[JonS]

Quote

nearly every flashlight issued to troops in world war 2 was ... for the express purpose of illuminating a soldier's path

Edited January 10, 2017 by JonS

[herr_oberst]

On 1/5/2017 at 9:28 AM, c3k said:

(Blackout conditions: most modern westerners have rarely, if ever, really been in blackout conditions. I have. The "can't see your hand in front of your face" type. I walked right off a 40 foot cliff. (Survival school...the evasion portion. Yes, I evaded. Ow.))

Yup, Philmont Scout Ranch, outside Cimmaron, New Mexico, 23 miles from Base Camp up in a valley. Overcast night, and ZERO ambient light. One of the other adult leaders got up in the middle of the night for a constitutional and turned left instead of right. Couple of steps and smack into a pine tree trunk. Some very un-Scoutish words ensued, waking those nearby.

[TheForwardObserver]

@JonS If your concern [your new concern, bearing in mind goal post shifting and straw man creation] is that the flashlights/torches with filters/slits [that you weren't aware of apparently until now], weren't designed with the reason I've stated in mind but rather for the extremely selective conditions which you've specified than that is a matter of you either never being instructed on how or when to use one of these super duper advanced devices, how to manage risk, or you never participating in a night time movement. Apparently it isn't readily obvious to you that if you're dulling or masking light, you're doing so because of the assumption that you need to be able to see but you also don't want the enemy to see you super well mmmk, not because you enjoy different shades of light, or because it's easier to pick up things when you have the green filter on. If your issue is a failure to understand what I'm saying than right on man, sometimes I'm unclear, I can break it down for you barney style;  

In situations with low light, sometimes its good to have artificial light.  Artificial light was invented before WW2.  Light can be filtered, dulled, and vectored.  This was known in WW2.  These techniques can provide varying degrees of protection from observation that full beam white light can't . Soldiers, both mounted and dismounted, even those with no need to read maps, still had the need to see at night and were issued flashlights/torches with filters.  There are an endless number of reasons you might want to see in the dark (yep, even if the enemy is around).  Likewise, vehicles had this powerful technology , and it was how vehicles did things like driving at night  where one might otherwise not be able to see their own hand.  There were other reasons too, Identification of groups of soldiers during night time movement (1st platoon runs green filters, 2nd platoon blue, third platoon flat white.  You can even create different colors with multiple filters, do you remember your colo(u)r wheel, what does red and blue make?  Violet!!!, OK Headquarters, you get violet!!).  End of the day there is one common sense rule to when and how light is used; If that light being on is likely to get you or your buddies killed because of one of a million possible ways, it probably won't be on.  If it likely won't get you or your buddies killed, than it will be on.  Where you've gotten this notion that whether a movement is an assault or something is magically the one factor in determining whether flashlights/headlights filters/slits were used and how is beyond me, but I can understand the need to keep shifting goal posts.  You go ahead and be the guy that gets lost on the way to the battle because torches are only for seeing maps and picking things up.  

Are we done here?  Because as much as I'd love to read more snark about the other blanket assumptions you've developed with regards to how light is used in tactical environments from your walking and navigating at night the issue is really an elementary one and it boggles my mind that I've had to say anything at all.  I'd really prefer to go back to being mostly polite and letting the non-sense that has nothing to do with fire-support go unchallenged.