Mounted vs dismounted spotting recon

[wyskass]

I'm playing the Dutch campaign, and am wondering about use of the recon units and their capabilities as combined with equipment. I'm trying to determine whether to dismount the Recce team or not. Am I better off staying in the vehicle to use the scope, or dismounting and being able to get closer to target on foot yet losing the vehicle optic advantage.

The units consist of a 2 person recce team, showing 1 binocular and 2 thermal imagers. The other part is their Fennek vehicle with driver. Selecting the vehicle shows the driver having a thermal imager. Now the vehicle itself is described as having IR optics and a laser. 

Now the question I have, is who is "using" the vehicle optics? The driver or the passenger team? When I dismount, I lose the vehicle optics which I assume are better. What about the driver left in the vehicle? Do I gain more by being able to get closer on foot with just binoculars or staying in the vehicle further back but have better optics and sensors?

[chuckdyke]

I think you need to deploy them in this fashion. In real life it functions as a periscope but this is not modelled in the game.

[chuckdyke]

[wyskass]

11 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

I think you need to deploy them in this fashion. In real life it functions as a periscope but this is not modelled in the game.

Yes, I believe that would be modeled as the hull down position. So I always seek to position the recons units as such. This would hide the vehicle better, but with units on foot you may still be able to get closer and less risk of being seen during movement. 

Just wondering at what point does closer distance on foot outweigh the vehicle optics advantage.

[chuckdyke]

3 minutes ago, wyskass said:

Just wondering at what point does closer distance on foot outweigh the vehicle optics advantage.

The manual specifies the extendable mast so the game should model this. Hull down applies to the BMG.50 which takes the risk to be taken out. 

[Erwin]

8 hours ago, wyskass said:

Yes, I believe that would be modeled as the hull down position. So I always seek to position the recons units as such. This would hide the vehicle better, but with units on foot you may still be able to get closer and less risk of being seen during movement. 

Just wondering at what point does closer distance on foot outweigh the vehicle optics advantage.

Be aware that as CM does not model periscopes, "hull-down" means that the top of the vehicle is exposed (and can be hit and killed more easily than one would expect).  

[wyskass]

OK, I see what you mean about the hull down for this vehicle. There would need to be a periscope extension action to model it properly. So I guess will need to expose more of the vehicle than it should, to do spotting.

[zmoney]

I think it totally depends on the situation. What I do is; if still a great distance from target I’ll put them in a hull down position spotting for a minute. If they do not spot anything I’ll move them to the next recce spot position. I typically only dismount them to get to higher ground ie top of a building. Or if I know the general vicinity of enemy armor that is close. To simplify, keep’em in the Fin at great distances to maximize the spotting potential. Up close they lose the advantage so I dismount.

[wyskass]

Does it though? The empirical factor is how much visibility do the vehicle optics improve over binoculars on foot. Considering the game doesn't model periscope, the other empirical factor is how much more visible is a Fennek hull down exposure vs 2 foot soldiers. The game software for sure has hard numbers and factors for that calculation. I don't like dissecting game algorithms as a way to play, but am still wondering if there's some player consensus about spotting distances of vehicle equipment vs foot binoculars. Even real world you can estimate based on optic magnification..

[chuckdyke]

11 minutes ago, wyskass said:

some player consensus about spotting distances of vehicle equipment vs foot binoculars. Even real world you can estimate based on optic magnification..

There are thermals. In the game a Challenger spots a sniper from a building the moment it fires. Binoculars are just primitive compared with the stuff in some vehicles. Doesn't model periscope? Did you test this? There is no animation, but it doesn't mean it is not modelled. I tested the vehicle in fashion as I did above. It didn't receive any fire and it passed on the tentative contacts. But I agree a proper animation would be nice. Too many things which should reflect reality is abstract. 

[wyskass]

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

There are thermals. In the game a Challenger spots a sniper from a building the moment it fires. Binoculars are just primitive compared with the stuff in some vehicles. Doesn't model periscope? Did you test this? There is no animation, but it doesn't mean it is not modelled. I tested the vehicle in fashion as I did above. It didn't receive any fire and it passed on the tentative contacts. But I agree a proper animation would be nice. Too many things which should reflect reality is abstract. 

The reason I don't think the periscope being modeled is that there is no vehicle position to indicate that. There is hull down, which allows you to fire the MG and get shot at which seems to expose more than periscope. Going lower than that doesn't indicate any spotting ability, since all we have for LOS tool is the Target pointer which show when you can fire the gun. The periscope should be higher than the gun and so I don't see any game tool to indicate spotting as separate from gun LOS.. Am I missing something here?

I'm not concerned about the animation and abstraction is fine with me.. I just don't see in this case any indicator or action difference between exposing periscope for spotting and gun for firing which also puts you in vulnerable exposure.

So, how are you distinguishing spotting/periscope exposure vs hull down/gun exposure? It sounds like you're saying there is a difference.

And again, I realize there are qualitative differences between vehicle optics as in Fennek and more basic binoculars, but I'm trying to determine the equivalence point between observing distance capability of vehicle and being observed distance while on foot.. Vehicle Optics x Exposed visibility distance  = Binoculars x Exposed visibility distance.

Am I not wording this question clearly enough, because it's a simple question? Vehicle optics are better but you can't get as close as on foot before being seen.. But on foot you have less powerful optics, so you need to be closer to spot the same.. Where is this point? 

I know I can run experiments by setting up some test cases, but was thinking this may be known by people already to at least a usable practical degree..

Thanks,

Edited October 7, 2022 by wyskass

[chuckdyke]

10 minutes ago, wyskass said:

So, how are you distinguishing spotting/periscope exposure vs hull down/gun exposure? It sounds like you're saying there is a difference.

Tell the difference when they are actually receiving fire. Give the hide command means they turn off their engine, but the engine is not doing it either. Once I get a full contact, I reverse the vehicle. These vehicles are good spotters in the campaign. I suggest find good spots in the deployment zone and contacts soon pop up. I apologize for suggesting spoilers here. But once you move them the enemy is aware of their position. 

 

[chuckdyke]

According to the manual the sensor head is mounted on an extendable mast.

[Erwin]

Someone from BF can jump in here and let us know if there has been a patch that makes the extendable mast useful/functioning.  AFAIK from the start of CMSF2 in 2007 there is only "hull-down" which exposes the top of the vehicle - including those with masts.  Makes these ATGM vehicles much harder to use as in RL.

[Artkin]

I didn't realize that extended. It would be really nice to have the mast half-extended at the least. It would put some purpose back into recon vehicles. Currently none of the recon vehicles serve much worth at all in CM.

[zmoney]

The way to utilize thermals is to have them on their least magnified setting while scanning an unknown area. If the user sees something interesting they can zoom in and identify. Bino’s vs Thermo’s is stone age vs space age. So one should always default thermos at range because they have a massive advantage.