Detection/Magic = Experiment

[semmes]

[semmes]

Sorry, something happened up there. That's 5s after opening the hatch.

 

Well, it seems that "hiding" doesn't mean hiding -unlike Brexit means Brexit.

All infantry depolyed as hiding, nobody is moving, nobody is shooting.
Crews Green/Regular.

Bush 3 Wood/H-wood 2 or 3 trees per tile.
Combinations of tiles [Crops] [Bush] [Wood] [H-wood] [Bush/Wood/H-wood] [Bush/H-wood] [T-grass] [Dirt]

In general terms, not always the same test but funny, same results. 
Regular crews seem to be able to see 50m father away than Green.
At 100m or even 150m you are NOT hiding. (One tank commander let's call him Legolas, was able to see a sharpshooter at 200m in the rim of a heavy wood.)
It seems to be as efective to deploy in woods as in crops. (Anybody expected anything different?)
Infantry skillful enough to leave no traces when deployed in crops but they will always choose a place where they can be seen if deployed in the outer line of woods. (They need more training.)
Your'e hinding only in the 3rd line -tile- of trees. (Wondering how good is your LOS compare to a tanker outside.)

The tank is looking at you, if you move or fire it will see you even farther and farther away. (IMO).

This is after 20s

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't need more trees I need wide, wide woods. If there's any tank in sight, forget about it. 

 

 

[snarre]

newer mind there was some contact icon because i was looking first that you play it on scenario testing mode

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by snarre

[semmes]

Sorry?

[DerKommissar]

I'm curious: do more experienced troops make less noise?

[Amizaur]

I'm amazed by lack of comments after your experiment, too  :).

I would say it's definitely not right that WW2 tanks detect so easily (and quickly!) troops hiding in bushes and woods. 

[CarlWAW]

1 hour ago, Amizaur said:

I'm amazed by lack of comments after your experiment, too  :).

 

The "experts" here fill page after page discussing unimportant nuissances, but when really big flaws of the sim are discovered and raised, they lose any interest...

 

A car can work perfectly 99% of the time. But if the air-bag system does not activate when needed, then the best car with all the huge design efforts, to improve safety of the passengers, becomes the worst car because it fails in the most important situation.

 

The problem CM still has:

Spotting overall works quite well. But then it comes to the most important situations, the model does not work correctly.

Probably the most important flaw of the spotting model always becomes obvious when tanks are involved.

One example is mentioned above.

Another one - and maybe even more severe, because it prevents the player from using realistic tactics with tanks: it's not possible to use the tank commander for spotting witht he tank turret down.

 

What makes it worse:

The spotting model seems to weigh movement (of tanks) over anything else: with the following effect: if one tank moves and one stands still, the tank moving into LOS will be spotted first by the stationary tank.

Therefore in CM it works better to use smoke to move a tank into position, than to move it without blocking LOS.

 

And in reality if a a battlefield is controlled by enemy tanks/ATGs? The tanks are placed turret down and the TC is spotting - during the attack he is mostly looking for muzzle flashes (which are not modelled at all, btw).

In reality once a flash is detected the TC often also gets a sense where the enemy ATG/tank is. He instructs his gunner and the driver moves the tank hull down and the enenmy is engaged immediately.

After 2-4 shots the tank drives back into safety and changes its position and DOES NOT sit like a duck!

In CM, because of the spotting behaviour, it is better to create pressure by pure firepower and use tanks like sitting ducks because of the flawed spotting system.

 

 

[Amizaur]

 

Quote

 

"What makes it worse:

The spotting model seems to weigh movement (of tanks) over anything else: with the following effect: if one tank moves and one stands still, the tank moving into LOS will be spotted first by the stationary tank."

 

 

But this is example of how it should be. Moving ww2 tabnk should be blind almost like a bat.

Only stationary tank can use any kind of magnifing optics and spot effectively on longer distances. Also a stationary observer can easily spot any kind of movement.  So moving tank should be spotted almost immediately by stationary tank.

And a moving tank should not spot stationary tank unless at close range.  Or at least rarely spot it first.

In my games I had situations where stationary tank with narrow cover arc (I know narrow cover arc doesn't help in spotting - and it should!) was in ambush position, and moving tank that just appeared spotted it first and killed. Probably because it's spotting cycle was in advance. I was in rage every time.... 

But let's return to infantry spotting.  I think we can safely assume that (regular or better ) infantry is not dumb enough to sit exposed while ordered to hide in some bushes or trees. Especially when a tank appears and is looking in their direction. Even if a tank would spot them (sometimes), it would take a long time. Not few seconds. And a moving time should have no chances to spot them at all. 

Semmes, can you repeat the test with moving tanks ? And with stationary tanks facing to the side ?

 

Edited May 1, 2018 by Amizaur

[CarlWAW]

@Amizaur

The given example is not about spotting during driving. It is about spotting before moving.

[semmes]

So it's "better" to move as  a cloud of smoke because they cannot see you? 

I haven't been dealing with tank vs tank that much.

 

Another funny thing is that if there are trees in front of a house I cannot shoot at the house, I cannot see it but I cannot shoot at the trees -so, hitting the house.  Let's imagine I've got a MG in front of the house and a lieutenant on my left is telling me to shoot at the trees ...because he sees the house ...forget about orders. And you can change the house for a hill with crop tiles.

I wonder if in the next improvement -of graphics- they could improved something else that graphics. (I'm coming from CMBB)

 

To Amizur:

Yes, of course I can but can't you?

Sorry, the point of my test was to see -pun not intended- if my impressions were correct. I wasn't planning a wish list just to see if I have to change how to play... and forget reality most likely.

 

Blind as a bat is highly accurate, tanks have radar in this game.

Regards.

 

The British Government may condone an inefficiently conducted campaign, it might overlook a lost battle or two, but not under any circunstances nor for any reason would tolerate an expensive campaign. D. R. Morris.

[Vanir Ausf B]

12 hours ago, Amizaur said:

I'm amazed by lack of comments after your experiment, too  :).

I would say it's definitely not right that WW2 tanks detect so easily (and quickly!) troops hiding in bushes and woods. 

In order for the test to say anything useful about spotting time the time to spot for each individual tank would need to be recorded rather than just recording the fastest time out of several dozen tanks. More generally, Combat Mission systemically undervalues cover and concealment for infantry. This has been known for more than a decade. Things have been tweaked a bit more towards reality here and there over the years but it's never going to be exactly realistic since to some degree it is a deliberate design choice (from comments made by BFC) in order to keep the length of CM battles from approaching that of real battles and because strictly realistic spotting would cripple the AI since it does not know how to identify and area fire at suspected enemy positions (which is what constitutes the majority of real world shooting).

[CarlWAW]

11 hours ago, semmes said:

So it's "better" to move as  a cloud of smoke because they cannot see you?

Yeah, it's one of my best tricks for tanks, but also one which shows how flawed the spotting model is:

Say you have an enemy tank which must be removed.

1. Make sure that the spotting info is received by your tanks, who are assigned to attack it.

2. Instead of simply moving into hull down and attacking: drop smoke in front of the attacking position.

3. Move the tank(s) into hull down position without the flawed spotting model allowing your tank to be seen immediately because of the movement.

4. Once the smoke disappears, your tank is stationary, but it has the advantage of the spotting info.

 

Whenever a tank moves the spotting system seems to put a huge "HERE I AM!"-sign on it.

But the assumption that a moving tank under any cicumstances can be spotted better than a stationary one is unjustified and therefore the model does not work - especially when it comes to the crucial aspects of only partially exposed tanks.

 

I assume the whole spotting system is based on certain basic (not always correct) assumptions, like the one described above. And they seem to play into spotting hidden or camouflaged infantry too easily, too.

Sadly, because they decided that everything must be available for realtime play, the spotting calculations must be cheap. So they can't correct the basic spotting model and use a much more sophisticated one. That's probably the reason why, after years, they couldn't solve certain spotting problems but only can tweak nuances. But the foundations of the model are severely interwoven with the realtime contraints of the engine.

 

It seems they developed CMx2 to have an engine that could be expanded and developed - but instead of having a totally flexible engine by now, they bound it on a rock called realtime and therefore need to make all calculations as cheap as possible.

Edited May 2, 2018 by CarlWAW

[Vanir Ausf B]

On 5/1/2018 at 3:33 AM, CarlWAW said:

during the attack he is mostly looking for muzzle flashes (which are not modelled at all, btw).

They are. Play a night battle in CM and it will become apparent very quickly.

[Vanir Ausf B]

4 hours ago, CarlWAW said:

But the assumption that a moving tank under any cicumstances can be spotted better than a stationary one is unjustified and therefore the model does not work -

[semmes]

They are or they are modelled at night? -muzzle flash.

 

Well... it was about "hiding" not about time. Actually more about what tanks can see, not when.

 

 systemically undervalues cover, that's like saying we did it wrong on purpose and we are not going to change it?

 it's never going to be exactly realistic, wait, it is a game? a bought a game to play a game and OMG it is a game! ( Right know I am playing veteran, not warrior because I don't want to wait for 10' for arty support, it's a game after all)

realistic spotting would cripple the AI, so you are saying that what they should do -even, have to do- is to teach area fire to the AI? sounds like a great idea, thanks.

 

The very first post was a question: can this be avoided?

No.

It is happening -so my impression was right- and there is nothing you can do about it. (Until CM98, CM7, CM10?)

Regards.

 

Il est d'usage que Dieu soit du côté des gros bataillons. Roger de Bussy-Rabutin.

[JoMac]

2 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Ummm...Yeah, Vanir, fix or do somefink ...I think, Semmes, is on to something here

[CarlWAW]

5 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Play a night battle in CM and it will become apparent very quickly.

99% of all scenarios are during daylight my friend.

Edited May 2, 2018 by CarlWAW

[Rinaldi]

"Movement is easier to spot - this perturbs me greatly" and "talking out my behind on muzzle flashes"

Yawn. This is a heady mix of salt, hot takes, and stuff that's demonstrably incorrect. For example: if you think "moving objects being easier to spot" is somehow flawed or that "units that have a general idea of the location of an enemy spot faster and with greater ease" is also flawed, then there's really no cure for the hypertension this game has caused you. 

Edited May 2, 2018 by Rinaldi

[General Liederkranz]

14 hours ago, CarlWAW said:

Yeah, it's one of my best tricks for tanks, but also one which shows how flawed the spotting model is:

Say you have an enemy tank which must be removed.

1. Make sure that the spotting info is received by your tanks, who are assigned to attack it.

2. Instead of simply moving into hull down and attacking: drop smoke in front of the attacking position.

3. Move the tank(s) into hull down position without the flawed spotting model allowing your tank to be seen immediately because of the movement.

4. Once the smoke disappears, your tank is stationary, but it has the advantage of the spotting info.

 

Whenever a tank moves the spotting system seems to put a huge "HERE I AM!"-sign on it.

But the assumption that a moving tank under any cicumstances can be spotted better than a stationary one is unjustified and therefore the model does not work - especially when it comes to the crucial aspects of only partially exposed tanks.

 

I assume the whole spotting system is based on certain basic (not always correct) assumptions, like the one described above. And they seem to play into spotting hidden or camouflaged infantry too easily, too.

Sadly, because they decided that everything must be available for realtime play, the spotting calculations must be cheap. So they can't correct the basic spotting model and use a much more sophisticated one. That's probably the reason why, after years, they couldn't solve certain spotting problems but only can tweak nuances. But the foundations of the model are severely interwoven with the realtime contraints of the engine.

 

It seems they developed CMx2 to have an engine that could be expanded and developed - but instead of having a totally flexible engine by now, they bound it on a rock called realtime and therefore need to make all calculations as cheap as possible.

I don't see the problem here? Moving up behind smoke and hoping to spot first once the smoke clears--with a slight advantage since your crew has been told the enemy tank is there and will be looking in the right direction--seems like a valid tactic. Also a risky one, though, because they might spot you first when the smoke clears. But it's certainly better than just moving up without smoke, as I imagine it would be in real life.

[CarlWAW]

14 minutes ago, General Liederkranz said:

I don't see the problem here? Moving up behind smoke and hoping to spot first once the smoke clears--with a slight advantage since your crew has been told the enemy tank is there and will be looking in the right direction--seems like a valid tactic. Also a risky one, though, because they might spot you first when the smoke clears. But it's certainly better than just moving up without smoke, as I imagine it would be in real life.

No. Total gamey.

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

5 hours ago, CarlWAW said:

99% of all scenarios are during daylight my friend.

Um, it works during daylight too. It's just more obvious at night.

[Vanir Ausf B]

8 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

Ummm...Yeah, Vanir, fix or do somefink ...I think, Semmes, is on to something here

Ummm... I'm pretty sure I already acknowledged that. I was simply explaining why the "experts" are not reacting with shock and horror.

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/111671-vision-restricted-when-closed-down/?do=findComment&comment=1475929

Quote

Granted, spotting in general (including infantry) is overly generous because there's only so much we can do before we lose players' interests.

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/113566-spotting-ability-of-tanks/?do=findComment&comment=1508404

Quote

Spotting is probably overly generous in some situations, but it is in balance with the rest of the game more than not.

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/84426-spotting-changes-in-111/?do=findComment&comment=1102947

Quote

The truth is spotting enemies in MOUT situations is not an easy thing. If anything we are probably too generous with spotting

 

[JoMac]

Actually, Vanir, I was just Joking in regards to Semmes statement, lol...But, anyways.

Edited May 3, 2018 by JoMc67

[Vanir Ausf B]

Ah, no worries. You were too subtle for me 

[semmes]

... as long as I can shoot into the smoke. If I see smoke I see a target.

 

Syria is very nice but I'm fighting in Polish woods.

Spotting is probably overly generous in some situations,  we agree but it is in balance  we don't, kind of subjective isn't it?  with the rest of the game more than not not.

All three post: spotting is too generous and it was harder.

No worries, now I know, I just need to play in a different way, it's only buildings, trees and bushes are unimportant.

 because there's only so much we can do before we lose players' interests. Have you tried? I play this one because I don't want to play a zombie shooter.

 

The British Army always fights its battles uphill, in the pouring rain, at the junction of two map-sheets. Field Marshal Slim.