Frustration with CMCW - Russian side

[Vanir Ausf B]

Perhaps there should be an option to disable the RNG and make all spotting checks 100% successful, LOS permitting. I would not use it but I suspect there is a vocal minority of users who would.

[Artkin]

5 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Perhaps there should be an option to disable the RNG and make all spotting checks 100% successful, LOS permitting. I would not use it but I suspect there is a vocal minority of users who would.

Nobody here is being ridiculous so what's up with this?

Both of us know this would never happen for the public release. But it would help troubleshooting. 

Edited May 13, 2023 by Artkin

[Vanir Ausf B]

10 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Nobody here is being ridiculous so what's up with this?

Pages of claims about the spotting performance of various vehicles, but with no data backing it up. I wouldn't call it ridiculous but I would call it useless.

[Artkin]

13 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Pages of claims about the spotting performance of various vehicles, but with no data backing it up. I wouldn't call it ridiculous but I would call it useless.

So instead of sharing an opinion or a personal experience within the game you contribute with that. Something ridiculous. 

Good job. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

I did share an opinion. You just didn't like it. Too bad.

Personal experience? Well, I have actually done some testing in the past. Nothing extensive, but enough to suggest that the differences in spotting between M60 and T-62 are in the 10-20% range, at least under the testing conditions...

... which would be reasonable given the real-world differences I have documented (albeit for T-72):

 

15 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Good job. 

Thank you. I agree

[Artkin]

31 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I did share an opinion. You just didn't like it. Too bad.

Personal experience? Well, I have actually done some testing in the past. Nothing extensive, but enough to suggest that the differences in spotting between M60 and T-62 are in the 10-20% range, at least under the testing conditions...

... which would be reasonable given the real-world differences I have documented (albeit for T-72):

 

Thank you. I agree

An opinion about the issue? Nope. 

I'll check out your posts when I get home. T-62 wasn't the subject of our conversation so I assume your test is what we call "useless". 

[Vanir Ausf B]

10 minutes ago, Artkin said:

An opinion about the issue? Nope. 

I'll check out your posts when I get home. T-62 wasn't the subject of our conversation so I assume your test is what we call "useless". 

Well, there is no reason to assume a T-62 has any better spotting than a T-72.

If you don't like my data, get your own. Otherwise, good luck with your rant.

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Artkin said:

But we're making a comparison to other vehicles. So this post is sort of completely redundant. 

Well not really.  The point is that spotting in a button vehicle in combat conditions is much harder than the average Sunday driver.  As to the two separate vehicles, sure it is anecdotally possible that a T34 will spot where a T72 did not but this is not a reliable data set to draw anything from.  We have run a lot of spotting tests Will a lot of vehicles and every time we do, posting excel sheet results we wind up with the same conclusion - CM spotting may not be perfect but it is also pretty accurate and consistent.

Then someone comes along and has an experienced where “CM spotting is broken” and we do this all over again.  Then people will toss different vehicles into the mix without any context - what was the T34 spotting?  Under what conditions?  We have had this same discussion about a thousand times in the last 23 years.  

How is that for redundancy?  

[Vanir Ausf B]

I just ran a better test than the one I did a few years back, since that one was at 150 meters. This one is a more typical 800 meters. T-72A vs M60A1 RISE+. It unsurprisingly shows a larger difference in spotting, although  not massively. The biggest difference was in the number and magnitude of outliers produced. A quirk of the CM spotting system is that it can produce huge outliers from time to time, which probably account for most of the "my tank is totally blind!" anecdotes. For example, the median spotting time for T-72 was 36.5 seconds but the single longest time recorded was 270 seconds. Because of that the average changes a lot depending on if you include outliers or exclude them, although the median doesn't change much.

n=50

Outliers excluded median

• M60: 27.5 seconds
• T-72: 34 seconds

Outliers excluded average

• M60: 26.9 seconds
• T-72: 39 seconds

Outliers included median

• M60: 29 seconds
• T-72: 36.5 seconds

Outliers included average

• M60: 29.8 seconds
• T-72: 53.7 seconds

 

What does this tell us? Nothing we didn't already know, frankly. But #1, and perhaps most importantly, CM spotting is highly variable and the result of any given encounter is usually a function of the situation combined with sheer dumb luck rather than the vehicle characteristics. For example, the fastest spot time for the T-72 was 8 seconds and the longest spot time for the M60 was 101 seconds. Second, while the difference in spotting ability in identical situations is around 21-23% most of the time the M60 is more consistent and therefore less likely to throw out an extreme result.

Edited May 14, 2023 by Vanir Ausf B

[Artkin]

"

Please explain then how an unbuttoned T72 Tank commander can't see anything in front of him in broad daylight.  While buttoned up T34's can.

Sorry folks, but if I can see farm equipment moving about in fields while I am driving on the highway (you guys can do that too, no?), then surely a tank commander, laying in wait, in an unbuttoned tank, should be able to spot large moving vehicles in open fields on a sunny day?  That is part of the issue I originally raised, and perhaps the most frustrating part."

 

2 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Well not really.  The point is that spotting in a button vehicle in combat conditions is much harder than the average Sunday driver.  As to the two separate vehicles, sure it is anecdotally possible that a T34 will spot where a T72 did not but this is not a reliable data set to draw anything from.  We have run a lot of spotting tests Will a lot of vehicles and every time we do, posting excel sheet results we wind up with the same conclusion - CM spotting may not be perfect but it is also pretty accurate and consistent.

Then someone comes along and has an experienced where “CM spotting is broken” and we do this all over again.  Then people will toss different vehicles into the mix without any context - what was the T34 spotting?  Under what conditions?  We have had this same discussion about a thousand times in the last 23 years.  

How is that for redundancy?  

Yes really.

At what point in the OP's post do you see "buttoned"? Nobody is arguing that spotting buttoned up is easier than being in a car. It's kind of unbelievable that anyone would have argue that. I certainly wouldn't believe anybody is that brainless.

I disagree about consistency. I've had T-64s in plain sight completely miss behemoth M60's or M-150s directly in front of them within 250m. This has happened so often that I believe something is wrong, or something strange is going on. It happened most often to me when my tanks were behind low hedges.

I haven't had issues with the T-72 personally. I never noticed it to have an issues with spotting. I find merit in the OP's post after my experience with the T-64's. Whether it's right or wrong, I don't know.

I rarely play with heavy cats. Tigers and panthers are pretty big but I would say they're close to even with the M60s in terms of dimensions. Tigers probably being a bit bigger but not too far off. T-34/85's have no issues spotting any sort of panzers either way despite their size differences.

It's been a while since I've really delved in CMCW - partly because I feel there are issues that need to be sorted and also from lack of fun time.

It's pretty redundant. You sort of looked right over what the OP was saying, and then said something completely irrelevant.

[Artkin]

10 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I just ran a better test than the one I did a few years back, since that one was at 150 meters. This one is a more typical 800 meters. T-72A vs M60A1 RISE+. It unsurprisingly shows a larger difference in spotting, although  not massively. The biggest difference was in the number and magnitude of outliers produced. A quirk of the CM spotting system is that it can produce huge outliers from time to time, which probably account for most of the "my tank is totally blind!" anecdotes. For example, the median spotting time for T-72 was 36.5 seconds but the single longest time recorded was 270 seconds. Because of that the average changes a lot depending on if you include outliers or exclude them, although the median doesn't change much.

n=50

Outliers excluded median

• M60: 27.5 seconds
• T-72: 34 seconds

Outliers excluded average

• M60: 26.9 seconds
• T-72: 39 seconds

Outliers included median

• M60: 29 seconds
• T-72: 36.5 seconds

Outliers included average

• M60: 29.8 seconds
• T-72: 53.7 seconds

 

What does this tell us? Nothing we didn't already know, frankly. But #1, and perhaps most importantly, CM spotting is highly variable and the result of any given encounter is usually a function of the situation combined with sheer dumb luck rather than the vehicle characteristics. For example, the fastest spot time for the T-72 was 8 seconds and the longest spot time for the M60 was 101 seconds. Second, while the difference in spotting ability in identical situations is around 21-23% most of the time the M60 is more consistent and therefore less likely to throw out an extreme result.

This seems pretty normal to me. I've previously noted (Besides my last post here) that on-map stuff like low hedges or grass seems to make my tanks blind. I've ran straight tests and they gave a reasonable result. Real world (In CM) seems to produce different results more often. As an experienced player it does seem like things are off more often than they should be.

However that outlier included average is pretty large. A M60 is an enormous target and at 800m it should stick out like nothing else.

[Artkin]

25 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

For example, the median spotting time for T-72 was 36.5 seconds but the single longest time recorded was 270 seconds.

For example, the fastest spot time for the T-72 was 8 seconds and the longest spot time for the M60 was 101 seconds.

This alone should be a WTF when we are talking about the frontal arc at 800m where both the sights and the gun are (probably) pre-ranged for this distance.

[Vanir Ausf B]

1 hour ago, Artkin said:

It's been a while since I've really delved in CMCW - partly because I feel there are issues that need to be sorted and also from lack of fun time.

It isn't particular to T-64s or Cold War. I have done a lot more testing in CMBN and have seen very rare examples of tanks taking nearly 10 minutes to spot another tank at 1000 meters.

One of these days I may suggest to Battlefront that they tone down the variance a little, but I doubt it's going to change dramatically and I don't know if it should given the real variability of human behavior and performance.

[Artkin]

13 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

It isn't particular to T-64s or Cold War. I have done a lot more testing in CMBN and have seen very rare examples of tanks taking nearly 10 minutes to spot another tank at 1000 meters.

One of these days I may suggest to Battlefront that they tone down the variance a little, but I doubt it's going to change dramatically and I don't know if it should given the real variability of human behavior and performance.

This does appear to be the issue in question. It's believable in ww2 titles where the guns got bigger very quickly. I doubt optics kept pace. For the CW setting... this is prime engagement range. 

The variance would be okay if the same effect happened to US tanks. There's a massive difference in your testing... almost 300% between the longest US/Soviet spotting times. It really shouldnt make a difference in this time period using daysights at the range of 800m when spotting large vehicles on a flat range. 

The variance is a good thing to an extent, but the real issue is the Soviets lagging behind the US. 

Thanks for the test. Late night for me. 

[The_Capt]

On 5/10/2023 at 7:52 PM, Artkin said:

Yep once I picked up CMCW I noted how t-34/85s spot better than the cold war tanks. 

I even went bezerk complaining about the ridiculous spotting. 

So I believe the term you are looking for is superfluous: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/superfluous

Not “redundant”; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redundancy_(linguistics)

You are also pivoting on your premise to simply be argumentative, or at least that is how it appears.  I thought I was “redundant” because you were all discussing spotting between different vehicles.  Now it is buttoned/unbuttoned.  This is an old-school Internet forum ploy of niggling as opposed to actually presenting any facts to support your position - attack everyone else’s without any real logical framework.

So the OP, sounding like a new guy, came on the forum and declared “CM spotting is broken!”  We have seen this post perhaps a thousand times in 20+ years.  The post is an emotional one and that is fair.  Invariably some old timers jump in and try to help out.  VAB just did and posted some controlled test results that show what we have also known for years - CM spotting has pretty reasonable means but wide outliers.  The outliers represent the effects of warfare on human cognition and perception.  I have done dozens of these tests myself, as have many others.

And then we get old timers who just want to grind some old axes and be rude.  They are not here to solve anything, nor do they put in the actual work to demonstrate their position, because if they did they would get the same results as VAB.  They invariably play Reddit games etc until things peter out.

But you are correct, we were talking about unbuttoned…even worse for spotting in some circumstances.  You see here in the back room of CM we have more than few combat veterans that know exactly what it is like to have someone try and kill them on a daily basis.  If one is unbuttoned, unlike the Sunday driver, you are exposed to the environment and specifically to having severe trauma projected onto your head and upper body.  The human reflex to this is to look around quickly…furtively and anxiously.  This means that one’s concentration is not great and depending on the situation a spotting outlier is likely going to happen.  Ivan missed the big tank in the field because he was too busy looking for the sniper in the trees.

So here is what you can do to be helpful beyond simply being rude and attacking everyone in some weird strategy to make your point.  Go run a series of controlled tests - different vehicles, buttoned/unbuttoned etc and them come back and we can look at them.  I would suggest you start with trying to replicate the conditions the OP posted at the start and see where they take you.  

Less noise, more work (I should put that on coffee mugs).  

[Artkin]

I've already spent hours recording and posting real world (CM) evidence on another thread. I've done my job a long time ago. I'm not being paid or rewarded for this so that's all you get. I do spend a lot of time working on my own passion projects within this engine so if anything, my time goes there. 

Ok not redundant, I'm pretty weak with vocabulary, but not with logic. 

You had a tanker leave his opinion on the matter in one of the old topics posted by Vanir. It should have been on the first page. 

Edited May 14, 2023 by Artkin

[The_Capt]

2 hours ago, Artkin said:

I've already spent hours recording and posting real world (CM) evidence on another thread. I've done my job a long time ago. I'm not being paid or rewarded for this so that's all you get. I do spend a lot of time working on my own passion projects within this engine so if anything, my time goes there. 

Ok not redundant, I'm pretty weak with vocabulary, but not with logic. 

You had a tanker leave his opinion on the matter in one of the old topics posted by Vanir. It should have been on the first page. 

Ah well then clearly this is nothing more than a bitter-drive by.  You are not really here to help, just resurrect old gripes. 

As to "old tanker" if you could point that one out?  As you can see, I was heavily involved in both of those posts - dbsapps (may he rest in piece) pretty much tried a lot of weird stuff to try and prove "CM spotting is broken!" and really did not get anywhere with it.  A lot of us ran extensive tests (again) and found the spotting was pretty much in line with reasonable expectation for the equipment and era - not perfect but there you go.

The major difference between you and me is that I am one of three game leads for this title and actually has a chance to get things changed, if it is merited. And I am totally open to this, we have a list of fixes and outstanding tweaks.  However, it has to based on solid data, not anecdotal drive bys.  Why?  Well because the fastest way to get caught in a CM-Karen loop is to correct one way and then be yelled at by the next person that we are doing it wrong and to go the other way.  That is a fools errand and incredible waste of time. 

I personally think that if BFC scrubbed the outliers from the game they would pull the life right out of the simulation.  War is outliers, a lot of weird stuff that everyone remembers.  They not only enhance the experience, they add to combat friction - war is chaos and a lot of the fun in playing is embracing that.

Back on topic.  VAB results are a solid representation of what we should be seeing.  A T72 did not have the same spotting abilities as an M60 - technical, ergonomic or even training and doctrine.  Given even ground an M60 should see a T72 first, they were designed to do this because the Soviets had a lot more T72s.

Edited May 14, 2023 by The_Capt

[Halmbarte]

1 hour ago, The_Capt said:

Ah well then clearly this is nothing more than a bitter-drive by.  You are not really here to help, just resurrect old gripes. 

As to "old tanker" if you could point that one out?  As you can see, I was heavily involved in both of those posts - dbsapps (may he rest in piece) pretty much tried a lot of weird stuff to try and prove "CM spotting is broken!" and really did not get anywhere with it.  A lot of run extensive tests (again) and found the spotting was pretty much in line with reasonable expectation for the equipment and era - not perfect but there you go.

The major difference between you and me is that I am one of three game leads for this title who actually has a chance to get things changed, if it is merited. And I am totally open to this, we have a list of fixes and outstanding tweaks.  However, it has to based on solid data, not anecdotal drive bys.  Why?  Well because the fastest way to get caught in a CM-Karen loop is to correct one way and then be yelled at by the next person that we are doing it wrong and to go the other way.  That is a fools errand and incredible waste of time. 

I personally think that if BFC scrubbed the outliers from the game they would pull the life right out of the simulation.  War is outliers, a lot of weird stuff that everyone remembers.  They not only enhance the experience, they add to combat friction - war is chaos and a lot of the fun in playing is embracing that.

Back on topic.  VAB results are a solid representation of what we should be seeing.  A T72 did not have the same spotting abilities as an M60 - technical, ergonomic or even training and doctrine.  Given even ground an M60 should see a T72 first, they were designed to do this because the Soviets had a lot more T72s.

If you're playing the Sov and you put your tanks in a situation where they are getting into 1:1 duels with the Americans you're doing something wrong. 

Bring a platoon or a company of tanks along instead. Or, even better, infiltrate infantry ATGM teams forward and kill them the way. The Sov has very competent infantry luggable ATGMs that will absolutely wreck pre-M1 armor. 

H

[The_Capt]

3 hours ago, Halmbarte said:

If you're playing the Sov and you put your tanks in a situation where they are getting into 1:1 duels with the Americans you're doing something wrong. 

Bring a platoon or a company of tanks along instead. Or, even better, infiltrate infantry ATGM teams forward and kill them the way. The Sov has very competent infantry luggable ATGMs that will absolutely wreck pre-M1 armor. 

H

Absolutely.  This applies to spotting as well.  We have run tests and if the Soviets have ten sets of eyes, they will spot faster than a single set.  Soviets are all about mass.  One could argue that their doctrine is the high point of the concept in a mechanized form.  They were not mindless hordes but they always used mass as their advantage.

[IdontknowhowtodoX]

15 minutes ago, Halmbarte said:

If you're playing the Sov and you put your tanks in a situation where they are getting into 1:1 duels with the Americans you're doing something wrong. 

Bring a platoon or a company of tanks along instead. Or, even better, infiltrate infantry ATGM teams forward and kill them the way. The Sov has very competent infantry luggable ATGMs that will absolutely wreck pre-M1 armor. 

H

ATGM team is not necessarily. Only BTR formation have them. It means you have to give up BMP formation. It's more than it's worth. BMP is better suited to running an attack. BTR is just car. My view is that instead of putting effort into sending ATGM teams to destroy American tanks, more effort should be put into reconnaissance and planning. Choose a manoeuvre route that will expose as few of your troops as possible. Approach US forces quickly. Get within 1,000 metres before the Americans launch enough ATGMs and rounds. This is more valuable than ATGM.

[The_Capt]

9 minutes ago, IdontknowhowtodoX said:

ATGM team is not necessarily. Only BTR formation have them. It means you have to give up BMP formation. It's more than it's worth. BMP is better suited to running an attack. BTR is just car. My view is that instead of putting effort into sending ATGM teams to destroy American tanks, more effort should be put into reconnaissance and planning. Choose a manoeuvre route that will expose as few of your troops as possible. Approach US forces quickly. Get within 1,000 metres before the Americans launch enough ATGMs and rounds. This is more valuable than ATGM.

The other area of improvement is the effect of artillery on armoured vehicles.  The current CM engine is not reflecting realities we are seeing in the war in Ukraine, I do believe a revisit is in order on just how vulnerable tanks are to heavy indirect fires.  This will have a big impact on CW as the Soviets were an artillery heavy force.

[Artkin]

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Ah well then clearly this is nothing more than a bitter-drive by.  You are not really here to help, just resurrect old gripes.

Not really bitter here, I just gave my input again so the first guy knew he wasn't alone in feeling what he was feeling.

That's kind of what you do on a forum.

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

As to "old tanker" if you could point that one out?  As you can see, I was heavily involved in both of those posts - dbsapps (may he rest in piece) pretty much tried a lot of weird stuff to try and prove "CM spotting is broken!" and really did not get anywhere with it.  A lot of us ran extensive tests (again) and found the spotting was pretty much in line with reasonable expectation for the equipment and era - not perfect but there you go.

Read closer, I never said "old tanker". I sure can point it out to you. It was pretty obvious who it was considering I told you it was on the first page. It was Holoween. RIP Dbsapps. I guess he really was here just to stir the pot.

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

The major difference between you and me is that I am one of three game leads for this title and actually has a chance to get things changed, if it is merited. And I am totally open to this, we have a list of fixes and outstanding tweaks.  However, it has to based on solid data, not anecdotal drive bys.  Why?  Well because the fastest way to get caught in a CM-Karen loop is to correct one way and then be yelled at by the next person that we are doing it wrong and to go the other way.  That is a fools errand and incredible waste of time.

You should be glad to know that I posted multiple times with my experience with the T-64's producing strange results. Considering I've played CM nearly every day for years up until that point, it should be worth considering. I did construct a flat test and I did not reproduce the results that I had in game. Why? Could have been bad luck, could have been the terrain I was fighting in (Tall grass, low hedges). I don't leave my MBT's in an open field to get picked off, that obviously doesn't work. So in my opinion a flat range test is not optimal. If I had recorded the seconds seriously, I might have gotten a result like Vanir. After all I put in, I didn't really feel like contributing more since I wasn't given much attention originally anyway.

I did some stuff elsewhere and I was rewarded with CMPE. Now that's a way to get me to do things. Throw me a bone.

If anything, it would be in your best interest to test this yourself considering this is your baby, and there have been multiple people complaining about abnormal spotting issues. I don't see anyone complaining in any of the other games besides the usual close range obliviousness of armored vehicles... which I don't find unnatural. No complaints other than CMCW's Soviet tanks from me. Never had an issue with T-55, T-62, T-72, or T-80. Just T-64A specifically.

Thanks to Vanir's test we can see that something is wrong.

4 hours ago, The_Capt said:

Back on topic.  VAB results are a solid representation of what we should be seeing.  A T72 did not have the same spotting abilities as an M60 - technical, ergonomic or even training and doctrine.  Given even ground an M60 should see a T72 first, they were designed to do this because the Soviets had a lot more T72s.

Steve already told us that there are 0 national modifiers. So training and doctrine are not plausible reasons for the 300% difference in spotting at 800m between US and Soviet MBTs. The problem is the 300%. You have a commander with a magnified sight and the gunner with a magnified sight for the T-72. 5 minutes is ridiculously long for a tank to spot another in open grass with nothing around.

You can argue that the commander is looking into the trees for a sniper, that's plausible. But to spend nearly 5 minutes not paying attention to the frontal arc when you have both a gunner and a driver with capable optics? Spotting a behemouthly sized M60? That's kind of unbelievable, and that's the problem. I'm convinced more now than ever that the outliers are the biggest issue with the soviet tanks. It would explain why you sometimes get these ridiculous results.

[Vanir Ausf B]

51 minutes ago, Artkin said:

So training and doctrine are not plausible reasons for the 300% difference in spotting at 800m between US and Soviet MBTs. The problem is the 300%.

Careful. You're comparing maximum outlier vs. maximum outlier to get that number, essentially cherry-picking the two most extreme numbers out of a 100 number data set. Using that to claim a "300% difference in spotting" is incredibly misleading. The typical difference is about 22%.

Quote

Steve already told us that there are 0 national modifiers.

Not all Soviet vehicles are worse at spotting than all US vehicles. For example the Shturm-S is very good at spotting, much better than a M60.

Quote

If anything, it would be in your best interest to test this yourself considering this is your baby, and there have been multiple people complaining about abnormal spotting issues.

I am going to reiterate that the CM spotting model has worked this way in every CM game from Shock Force 1. There is nothing "abnormal" about the spotting in CMCW compared to other CM games.

Edited May 14, 2023 by Vanir Ausf B

[The_Capt]

1 hour ago, Artkin said:

I did some stuff elsewhere and I was rewarded with CMPE. Now that's a way to get me to do things. Throw me a bone.

So if this is your idea of a sale pitch for your services someone should have told you a long time ago this is a very poor way to go about it.  Why on earth would I reward acerbic attitude and a pretty crappy attitude to just about anyone who posts something contrary to your point of view?  That is the antithesis of objective testing, and makes anything you would do suspect with respect to biases.

We have been around this tree many times and if we wish to explore it further I would definitely look in other directions.

1 hour ago, Artkin said:

If anything, it would be in your best interest to test this yourself considering this is your baby, and there have been multiple people complaining about abnormal spotting issues. I don't see anyone complaining in any of the other games besides the usual close range obliviousness of armored vehicles... which I don't find unnatural. No complaints other than CMCW's Soviet tanks from me. Never had an issue with T-55, T-62, T-72, or T-80. Just T-64A specifically.

Well if you had read the threads that VAB posted you will see that I too have done some testing in the past, quite a bit in fact.  The results always are the same - average times are reasonable, outliers exist.   The game has been this way since way back in the day.  We will keep at it, it would appear that we have finally landed on your specific gripe, the T64A (which was odd because we were talking about T72s a moment ago and it was the only tank the OP mentioned in the opening post.  So you dropped by to just let us all know that CM spotting on the T64 is broken?  The term for that is “oblique”.

1 hour ago, Artkin said:

You can argue that the commander is looking into the trees for a sniper, that's plausible. But to spend nearly 5 minutes not paying attention to the frontal arc when you have both a gunner and a driver with capable optics? Spotting a behemouthly sized M60? That's kind of unbelievable, and that's the problem.

And so we land on hyperbole.  A 5 min lag-to-spot report.  Obviously a wide outlier, I personally have never seen one and if I did I would reposition because I likely have a LOS blockage.  Now if these happened all the time maybe, and I believe they might actually be possible.  The question is what caused it.  Under normal circumstances that should not happen, so what were the circumstances?  Was it a piece of terrain, something in how the tank was positioned?  There could be a bug or it could be something the player missed, or it could be BS.

Either way, your immediately jumping on this one extreme as mainstream indicative would also ensure that you never see the inside of the CMCW Beta Team.

[Artkin]

24 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Careful. You're comparing maximum outlier vs. maximum outlier to get that number, essentially cherry-picking the two most extreme numbers out of a 100 number data set. Using that to claim a "300% difference in spotting" is incredibly misleading. The typical difference is about 22%.

I'm specifically talking about the 300% maximum difference. If crews are the same despite nationality, then the difference is surely between optics (technical) or if CM factors in ergonomics; that as well. To make a 300% difference on a flat range is astounding. If it was in cover it'd be more believable. I think the outliers are definitely what produces complaints on forums.

 

26 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Not all Soviet vehicles are worse at spotting than all US vehicles. For example the Shturm-S is very good at spotting, much better than a M60.

You're the first person I've ever heard this from. In my experience they're utterly useless at all times in CMCW and CMBS. Once I had at least a full US battalion of vehicles in a massive blob approaching a shturm platoon. Both sides had clear LOS to each other but my shturm platoon was hidden in woods with grass tiles underneath. The shturms were completely incapable of spotting the massive blob of vehicles, but instead were picked off one by one. I don't usually play with thermals so I don't think there were any TTS on the US side. I think shturms are one of the weakest spotters in all of CM.

29 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I am going to reiterate that the CM spotting model has worked this way in every CM game from Shock Force 1. There is nothing "abnormal" about the spotting in CMCW compared to other CM games.

I understand the games are running the exact same engine, but there appears to be a problem with the CW soviet tanks specifically. It's come up a bunch of times, shturm too iirc.

 

6 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

So if this is your idea of a sale pitch for your services someone should have told you a long time ago this is a very poor way to go about it.  Why on earth would I reward acerbic attitude and a pretty crappy attitude to just about anyone who posts something contrary to your point of view?  That is the antithesis of objective testing, and makes anything you would do suspect with respect to biases.

There's already evidence posted, it shows extreme outliers on a flat range test. What else is there to say? Something is wrong.

 

9 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Well if you had read the threads that VAB posted you will see that I too have done some testing in the past, quite a bit in fact.  The results always are the same - average times are reasonable, outliers exist.   The game has been this way since way back in the day.  We will keep at it, it would appear that we have finally landed on your specific gripe, the T64A (which was odd because we were talking about T72s a moment ago and it was the only tank the OP mentioned in the opening post.  So you dropped by to just let us all know that CM spotting on the T64 is broken?  The term for that is “oblique”.

You didn't post anything contrary to my point of view originally. You wrote something completely irrelevant to the point of someone, and I called you out on it. Now we are here. I'm not going to beat around the bush. I already posted about the T-64A years ago, and I posted about it here recently too. I've said (more than once) that I never noticed any abnormal behavior with the T-72. I sympathize with the OP because I too have seen abnormal spotting in CW.
 

I didn't read entirely though the thread, I stopped when I found Vanir's tests. Sorry.

12 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

And so we land on hyperbole.  A 5 min lag-to-spot report.  Obviously a wide outlier, I personally have never seen one and if I did I would reposition because I likely have a LOS blockage.  Now if these happened all the time maybe, and I believe they might actually be possible.  The question is what caused it.  Under normal circumstances that should not happen, so what were the circumstances?  Was it a piece of terrain, something in how the tank was positioned?  There could be a bug or it could be something the player missed, or it could be BS.

If you're on a flat range (I assume this is how Vanir tested it, it's the standard) there is no LOS blockage. Why not ask him?