Jump to content

Steel Beasts vs Combat Mission t-72 visibility test


dbsapp
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I don't think it's the low bushes that are the issue.....It looks to me like the commander's cupola of the tank on the right may be obscured by low branches. 

Either way it sucks that an issue like that ruins a PBEM game for you, that always leaves a bitter taste.....However I think the balance of evidence presented in this and other threads deomonstrates that broadly there isn't an inexplicable or game breaking issue with spotting in CM:CW.

Would it be possible for you to replay the turns using Target Armour Arcs as an experiment? 

 

No obstruction.

CM-Cold-War-2021-10-16-15-16-15-16.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, zmoney said:

@dbsapp did you try the CM test with a cover arc on the t-72? I wonder if that would help. I get what Capt is saying, the game isn’t meant to simulate a range. The crew is scanning all around instead of seeing what’s at the end of their nose. Maybe the cover arc will be different result.

Targeting arcs do not increase chance of spotting inside the zone of the arc beyond:

1. Their effect on unit facing.

2. In the case of turreted vehicles, their ability to set different facings for turret vs. hull crew.

They are fire control orders, not spotting orders, and in fact these can be and often are contradictory purposes.  How spotting works in game by default: the 90 degree arc toward the unit’s front has the highest probability of spotting enemies, the 90 degree arc to the left and right has less and the 90 degree arc to the rear has the least.   If targeting order arcs were to increase spotting in their highlighted zone, they must necessarily decrease spotting outside (otherwise it is obligatory micromanagement the player is forced to use constantly because you would only gain an advantage with nothing lost).  However, decreasing spotting outside the area of the arc is not necessarily what I want.  I may be giving the order for control of range of engagement only, I may be trying to prevent an HE chucker from throwing HE at enemy that are close to friendlies, etc.  I certainly don’t want my unit to decrease their awareness outside the arc in those circumstances.  And arguably it is tactically stupid to do so in any circumstance beyond the default “weighting” of awareness toward the frontal arc.  It is imagining the battlefield as a range with pop-up targets.  “Don’t pay any attention to your flanks” is not an order I ever imagine being given on an actual battlefield.

3 hours ago, dbsapp said:

No, I didn't.

I guess different approaches could be used, including leveling up t72 from Regular to Veteran. 

But basically it doesn't matter when the system has that serious flaws.

Does anybody really enjoy a wargame that " isn’t meant to simulate a range. The crew is scanning all around instead of seeing what’s at the end of their nose"?

See above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

T64 # 100000000 sits in position for around 10 turns. Something pops up, a platoon of tanks. No spot. Okay, let's move up 2 meters and open up. Now I have three points of visibility at 3 different heights from my T64.

Lets see what happens:

Contact spotted (Not by t64) at 1:12:14.

CM-Cold-War-2021-10-16-15-41-44-79.png

CM-Cold-War-2021-10-16-15-41-48-12.png

(Only able to hit the tank on the right before moving up 2 meters)

CM-Cold-War-2021-10-16-15-42-14-66.png

Adjusting position and opening up:

CM-Cold-War-2021-10-16-15-43-28-03.pngCM-Cold-War-2021-10-16-15-43-30-25.png

CM-Cold-War-2021-10-16-15-43-32-09.png

CM-Cold-War-2021-10-16-15-43-42-08.png

CM-Cold-War-2021-10-16-15-43-50-30.png

CM-Cold-War-2021-10-16-15-43-51-33.png

After 1 turn (1:11:00):

CM-Cold-War-2021-10-16-15-44-56-28.png

CM-Cold-War-2021-10-16-15-44-58-48.png

Are these "Veteran" crews playing cards? What's good?

 

Edited by Artkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing to keep in mind is that CM is modeling spotting under combat conditions.

I feel like the issue may be that people have an inflated idea of how well humans perform under combat conditions. It's why everyone thinks that Stormtroopers are bad marksmen (when by all accounts they are actually pretty amazing marksmen). It's why my mother is harshly critical of military leaders who made famous historical blunders (and I have to keep pointing out "actually you probably would have made the same mistake or worse", or "based on what they knew at the time, that was actually the right call"). And it's why CM players are constantly complaining about the spotting mechanics.

Your intuition is telling you that you would be able to do better in the same situation. But the truth is that your intuition is a big fat liar. Our threat-response systems evolved to keep us alive as hunter-gatherers. Not to make us effective modern combat soldiers. It assumes we have already identified the threat (which is why we tend to get tunnel vision, making it difficult to spot new threats). It assumes that we are either going to run away, or fight the threat off with either our bare hands or a rudimentary tool like a pointed stick (or a particularly sharp mango). Neither of which requires clear thinking or the ability to shoot accurately. Your body is putting all of its resources into the functions it thinks it needs (the ability to run fast or fight hard), and is pulling resources away from the functions it doesn't think it needs (including but not limited to your situational awareness, your ability to think clearly, and the concentration you need to line up accurate shots).

The spotting mechanics in CM are a bit abstracted, so of course it's possible to find situations where units spot too quickly or too slowly (and of course we are more likely to complain when they spot too slowly). But I feel like they've gotten the spotting mechanics about right on average, and the outlying situations aren't so far off as to bother me to an unacceptable degree. It might be nice to refine the mechanics a bit to get rid of some of the abstractions, but that would almost require a full overhaul of the entire game since it would mean eliminating abstractions from all aspects of the game where spotting could come into play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Run @The_Capt's 'slightly dubious test' with & without Target Armour Arcs

Guess it depends on what you are testing.  The aim there was to show that collectively a group of Soviet tanks can spot very quickly at 2000m, not that 14 T72s can defeat 17 M60A1s...but apparently they can.  Spot times come up in seconds, not minutes for both sides, which tells me CM is modelling C2 impacts on spotting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, akd said:

They are fire control orders, not spotting orders, and in fact these can be and often are contradictory purposes.  How spotting works in game by default: the 90 degree arc toward the unit’s front has the highest probability of spotting enemies, the 90 degree arc to the left and right has less and the 90 degree arc to the rear has the least.   If targeting order arcs were to increase spotting in their highlighted zone, they must necessarily decrease spotting outside (otherwise it is obligatory micromanagement the player is forced to use constantly because you would only gain an advantage with nothing lost).  However, decreasing spotting outside the area of the arc is not necessarily what I want.  I may be giving the order for control of range of engagement only, I may be trying to prevent an HE chucker from throwing HE at enemy that are close to friendlies, etc.  I certainly don’t want my unit to decrease their awareness outside the arc in those circumstances.  And arguably it is tactically stupid to do so in any circumstance beyond the default “weighting” of awareness toward the frontal arc.  It is imagining the battlefield as a range with pop-up targets.  “Don’t pay any attention to your flanks” is not an order I ever imagine being given on an actual battlefield.

If that's the case it makes absolutely no bloody sense whatsoever.  :mellow:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Artkin said:

These bushes are lower than the driver's viewing port and all three crewmembers have a clean view to the target.

CM-Cold-War-2021-10-16-15-34-38-21.png

Yes all three can see but:

26 minutes ago, Artkin said:

CM-Cold-War-2021-10-16-15-16-15-16.png

This is the area they have to scan at the very least probably more.

30s from them being able to theoretically spot it to engaging it is ok considering the situation.

TC is more busy reestablishing comms as he currently has none and the driver while not obstructed in the view has adifficult time spotting. And the gunner has to scan a fairly large area so its quite possible he scanned past the target once especially considering hes nervous, the area he has to scan is busy and es only a regular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, holoween said:

Yes all three can see but:

This is the area they have to scan at the very least probably more.

30s from them being able to theoretically spot it to engaging it is ok considering the situation.

TC is more busy reestablishing comms as he currently has none and the driver while not obstructed in the view has adifficult time spotting. And the gunner has to scan a fairly large area so its quite possible he scanned past the target once especially considering hes nervous, the area he has to scan is busy and es only a regular.

There were two targets (Another M150) there actually, and the one that wasn't on the road killed that particular T64A.

Another T64A spent over a minute in a position right next to that T64 trying to kill that M150. But that got driven up on and then killed.

Edited by Artkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Spot times come up in seconds, not minutes for both sides, which tells me CM is modelling C2 impacts on spotting.

I quite agree, as I suggested in my reply to @Artkin (I'd add that in my run of your test using Target Armour Arcs, it was fractions of a second, essentially instant).

My 'slightly dubious' comment in relationship to your test was 'tongue in cheek' seeing as how poor Red were now outnumbered too!  ;)

Remember, I posted a picture of a M60 parked right next to a T-62 that it couldn't see weeks back:

A8aFASs.jpg

Q6Yvee6.jpg

But you didn't hear me yelling that M60s were broken?  :rolleyes:

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did some quick tests on a shooting range map 2400 m, day, clear weather, damp ground.

1st Round

T-72A (1980) vs M60A1 Rise Passive - Company vs Company - ( 4 -T72 Lost vs 13 M60 Lost )

2nd Round

T-72A (1980) vs M60A1 Rise Passive - Company vs Company - ( 1 T-72 Lost vs 13 M60 Lost )

3rd Round

T-72 vs M60A1 - Company vs Company - ( 11 T-72 Lost vs 7 M60 Lost )

4th Round

T-72 vs M60A1 - Company vs Company - ( 13 T-72 Lost vs 7 M60 Lost )

5th Round

T-64B vs M60A1 - Company vs Company ( 2 T-64 Lost vs 15 M60 Lost )

From my limited testing both sides spotted quickly within 5-10 seconds. Shots were fired almost at the same time, sometimes in favor of the soviet side. Seems like both sides give and take. These tests are very crude I guess but in a tank duel it feels like both sides have their own super tanks depending on what they goes up against.

Edited by ratdeath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ratdeath said:

I did some quick tests on a shooting range map 2400 m, day, clear weather, damp ground.

1st Round

T-72A (1980) vs M60A1 Rise Passive - Company vs Company - ( 4 -T72 Lost vs 13 M60 Lost )

2nd Round

T-72A (1980) vs M60A1 Rise Passive - Company vs Company - ( 1 T-72 Lost vs 13 M60 Lost )

3rd Round

T-72 vs M60A1 - Company vs Company - ( 11 T-72 Lost vs 7 M60 Lost )

4th Round

T-72 vs M60A1 - Company vs Company - ( 13 T-72 Lost vs 7 M60 Lost )

5th Round

T-64B vs M60A1 - Company vs Company ( 2 T-64 Lost vs 15 M60 Lost )

From my limited testing both sides spotted quickly within 5-10 seconds. Shots were fired almost at the same time, sometimes in favor of the soviet side. Seems like both sides give and take. These tests are very crude I guess but in a tank duel it feels like both sides have their own super tanks depending on what they goes up against.

Like I said these tests prove absolutely nothing.. Soviet tanks spot great on the flat map. Even the Shturms actually kill ****. 

But put so much as a patch of tall grass or a small hedgeline in front of a t64/shturm, and it's game over... 

Edited by Artkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ratdeath said:

From my limited testing both sides spotted quickly within 5-10 seconds. Shots were fired almost at the same time, sometimes in favor of the soviet side. Seems like both sides give and take. These tests are very crude I guess but in a tank duel it feels like both sides have their own super tanks depending on what they goes up against.

Maybe run 'em again with Target Arcs, see if they spot quicker.....In my experience they do, massively so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

In this image, the M150 appears to be several degrees below the plane of vision of the T-64A:

CM-Cold-War-2021-10-16-15-16-15-16.png

Could it be below the tanks FOV?

Nah, he always had good LOS. Even after getting blasted by the other M150. Strangely the game even says "enemy target" despite me not having a spot on the vehicle whatsoever.

I'll ask my opponent to maybe retry a turn with me if he allows it.

CM-Cold-War-2021-10-16-16-23-32-30.png

Edited by Artkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Like I said these tests prove absolutely nothing.. Soviet tanks spot great on the flat map. Even the Shturms actually kill ****. 

But put so much as a patch of tall grass or a small hedgeline in front of a t64/shturm, and it's game over... 

I put a small hedgeline and low bocage on both sides of the shooting range, also put a small +1 elevation ridge in front of the M60 tanks. The result between a company of T-64B and M60A1 was 1 T-64 lost and 14 M60 lost.

Now these shooting range tests are silly at best compared to a true QB/scenario with real terrain and what not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I quite agree, as I suggested in my reply to @Artkin (I'd add that in my run of your test using Target Armour Arcs, it was fractions of a second, essentially instant).

My 'slightly dubious' comment in relationship to your test was 'tongue in cheek' seeing as how poor Red were now outnumbered too!  ;)

Remember, I posted a picture of a M60 parked right next to a T-62 that it couldn't see weeks back:

A8aFASs.jpg

Q6Yvee6.jpg

But you didn't hear me yelling that M60s were broken?  :rolleyes:

Heh, not at all.  Well if it were accurate to the situation in Europe there should be roughly 42 T-72s up against those 17 M60s…now that would be a gunnery range test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Well if it were accurate to the situation in Europe there should be roughly 42 T-72s up against those 17 M60s…now that would be a gunnery range test.

Without some terrain to work in they're ****ed!  :o

Just today I've watched several T-72 'Urals' soak up three or more 105mm hits to their frontal array (at 2000m) and carry on largely unaffected.....Those are some tough tanks and that's before beefing them up into the T-72A.

TBH my only issue with CM:CW is that there isn't more of it.....When did you say you were releasing that module again?  ;)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, ratdeath said:

I put a small hedgeline and low bocage on both sides of the shooting range, also put a small +1 elevation ridge in front of the M60 tanks. The result between a company of T-64B and M60A1 was 1 T-64 lost and 14 M60 lost.

Now these shooting range tests are silly at best compared to a true QB/scenario with real terrain and what not.

Yeah, just tried a test too and the hedges didn't affect the vehicles much. Not really sure what's up with my scenario.

Granted they are T64A, and appear to have different optics on the turret. (Commanders?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Without some terrain to work in they're ****ed!  :o

Just today I've watched several T-72 'Urals' soak up three or more 105mm hits to their frontal array (at 2000m) and carry on largely unaffected.....Those are some tough tanks and that's before beefing them up into the T-72A.

TBH my only issue with CM:CW is that there isn't more of it.....When did you say you were releasing that module again?  ;)

As soon as we are able…working on it right now.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always assumed that spotting in CM worked like dice rolls. Like perhaps the game engine constantly draws lines in the 3D world between friendly units and enemy units at all times. If that line is intersected by another object in the 3D world, like a building or hill or a tree's "hitbox" or something, then nothing happens. If the line is not obstructed though (or partially obstructed), then the game engine gives you an X percentage chance to spot the unit at Y distance every few seconds. So like a 10% chance every few seconds to spot a unit at 2000 meters. Sometimes you get lucky and sometimes you won't, but if you have 10 tanks all lined up in view of something, chances are that one of them will spot something very quickly even though most of them won't. And then the tanks will talk to each other and share the info. 

Maybe I am terribly wrong about how all that works.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...