Tank v. tank spotting.. (what a ***** mess)

[Warts 'n' all]

2 hours ago, SDG said:

 BUT under certain conditions a unit should become spotted regardless of chance 

You seem to be forgetting that LOS does not equal LOF. Judging by your screenshots, your unbuttoned commanders can see the Shermans. But, their eyes are obviously somewhat higher than the gunner's sights, and therefore it is quite possible that you have no LOF. In a situation like this, it might have paid you to give your armour Target Arcs and slow movement commands up to the hedgerow across the road, rather than having two rows of hedges in front of you. Of course, whether this would have helped can only be tested if you provide save files to your fellow forumites.

[Vacillator]

On 2/23/2024 at 11:02 PM, MikeyD said:

I randomly picked the German town of Linnich

Any reason why Mikey?

On 2/23/2024 at 11:02 PM, MikeyD said:

Oh, and I just checked. That 'Erosclub' in the lower right corner of the overhead is indeed a strip joint.

Oh, I see.

Edited February 25 by Vacillator

[Anthony P.]

Frankly, the community can be somewhat gatekeep-y when spotting troubles are brought up, sometimes resorting to Olympics levels of mental gymnastics to justify why fairly plain to see issues "actually make sense".

But a save file is necessary to help make sense of this @SDG. It looks strange based on your pics, but there could still be factors which really do explain it satisfactorily. Looking at the pics though I can see that at least one crew is Green. Most American crews are at Veteran skill in FB, that's a significant advantage right there already.

Edited February 25 by Anthony P.

[Warts 'n' all]

55 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

Frankly, the community can be somewhat gatekeep-y when spotting troubles are brought up, 

...   

[Anthony P.]

1 hour ago, Warts 'n' all said:

...   

I'll decline the cigarette while we're waiting for the firing squad. They're bad for the health, you know.

Edited February 25 by Anthony P.

[Warts 'n' all]

3 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

I'll decline the cigarette while we're waiting for the firing squad. They're bad for the health, you know.

They most certainly are. Give me a quart of Elizabeth's "Whitehall Brain Buster Ale" any day.

[Vacillator]

3 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

the firing squad

The firing squad?  Bear in mind you're talking to someone who was beheaded after he died.  Isn't that right @Warts 'n' all?

[Warts 'n' all]

9 hours ago, Vacillator said:

The firing squad?  Bear in mind you're talking to someone who was beheaded after he died.  Isn't that right @Warts 'n' all?

Yeah, and I still have the spike sticking out of me bonce to prove it.

 

[Vacillator]

It's amazing how you can still take a selfie though .

[Anthony P.]

3 hours ago, Vacillator said:

It's amazing how you can still take a selfie though .

The OG selfie stick?

[Warts 'n' all]

3 hours ago, Vacillator said:

It's amazing how you can still take a selfie though .

Hahahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahaha. For those times when LOL just doesn't cut it.

[Lethaface]

Spotting can definitely be finnicky at times, but overall I'm glad there's no guaranteed spots. It would probably improve some situations but undo much of what makes CM spotting great (compared to other games).

I deal with it knowing that the enemy has to deal with it as well.

[Centurian52]

I think there are a number of problems here.

1. The graphical representation of the terrain is far from perfect, so there is not a 1 to 1 relation between the battlefield you are seeing and the battlefield your pixeltruppen are seeing (though if you want to have a slightly better idea of what your pixeltruppen are seeing, it helps to turn off all of the icons). 

2. People tend to lack direct experience with trying to spot similar objects under similar conditions to our pixeltruppen. They generally don't live out in the countryside. Those that do live out in the countryside tend not to spend their time looking for people hundreds of meters away wearing dull clothing, or looking for vehicles hundreds of meters away with dull paint schemes. Even fewer people have any experience with scanning the countryside for dull colored people or vehicles hundreds of meters away through periscopes or vision slits. Hapless actually has a great video demonstrating this last point. At about the one minute mark he gives an excellent demonstration of how difficult it is to see out of a BMP-2 using Steel Beasts (playing any vehicle based game which limits you (or which gives you the option of limiting yourself) to viewing the world through the vehicle's internal optics, such as Steel Beasts or Enlisted, will instantly make you much more forgiving towards the spotting ability of your tank crewmen).

3. People routinely underestimate how much more difficult tasks, which are very simple out of combat, become under combat conditions. Not only spotting, but also marksmanship and basic decision-making all suffer severely under combat conditions. It's easier to provide numbers for marksmanship than it is for spotting, but hopefully this is enough to illustrate how strong of an effect combat can have on normally simple tasks. The book War Games: The Psychology of Combat, by Leo Murray, claimed that soldiers are about 1/6th as effective with their fire in real combat compared to realistic exercises* (I've lost my copy so I can't provide the exact quote and page number). Keeping in mind that accuracy in realistic exercises is already much less than accuracy on a shooting range, where soldiers are firing at fixed targets at known distances from stable positions. In the Napoleonic era (because I have access to better data than for more modern eras), an accuracy test of assorted smoothbore muskets resulted in one hit for every 4-5 rounds fired (21%-28% hits) at a target roughly the size of an infantry company placed 320 yards away from the shooter, while in real combat somewhere between 200 and 500 rounds tended to be fired for every 1 casualty inflicted (459 rounds for every French casualty at Vittoria according to R. Henegan, 224 rounds for every British casualty at Hougoumont according to Mark Adkin). That's a difference of 40-100:1 between a shooting range and combat. Again, I'm using marksmanship because it's easier to provide data for it than it is for spotting (and because I'm always happy for any excuse to pull out any data that I happen to be keeping in my back pocket), but it's still very relevant because many of the factors that make hitting targets more difficult in a realistic exercise compared to a shooting range, and in real combat compared to a realistic exercise, will also make spotting more difficult.

4. Last, and probably least, maybe the spotting system in Combat Mission isn't quite perfect.

*I should mention that the book never specified how much of the estimated sixfold reduction in fire effectiveness was a reduction in the accuracy of the fire, and how much of it was a reduction in the volume of fire (because soldiers were more suppressed by the cracking of real bullets).

Edited March 1 by Centurian52

[Vacillator]

1 hour ago, Centurian52 said:

Those that do live out in the countryside tend not to spend their time looking for people hundreds of meters away wearing dull clothing

Perhaps I'm an odd one out.  I do live in the countryside and do spend my time 'spotting' other people when I'm out.  No I'm not the phantom flasher, I have two crazy (well mostly barky, so not so bad) dogs and I like to be on top of the 'approaching dogs/people/horses/farm animals' intel.

I also spot (or sound contact) tractors, but in my mind I'm imagining they're T34s .  Of course I always carry a Panzerfaust just in case.

[Erwin]

5 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

Keeping in mind that accuracy in realistic exercises is already much less than accuracy on a shooting range, where soldiers are firing at fixed targets at known distances from stable positions.

I found: "...statistical studies typically come up with 20,000–100,000 rounds expended per casualty caused by a unit."

[Centurian52]

34 minutes ago, Erwin said:

I found: "...statistical studies typically come up with 20,000–100,000 rounds expended per casualty caused by a unit."

At the risk of straying too far off topic, I believe those higher estimates have been called into question. They apparently include some very dubious categories of "expended" rounds, such as rounds fired outside of combat. Modern rounds-fired-per-casualty rates are probably higher than Napoleonic rates, since modern troops are more dispersed, in duller uniforms, with better cover, and have adopted fire tactics other than destructive fire aimed at identified targets (recon by fire, suppressive fire). But even so I believe the most plausible estimates are still in the low thousands. The huge uncertainty over modern rounds to casualty rates is why I went with Napoleonic figures.

Actually I believe CM Pro can track the ammunition of various calibers expended over a battle, so it would be interesting to hear from anyone who's played CM Pro how Combat Mission rounds to casualty rates compare with the real world estimates.

Edited March 1 by Centurian52

[Erwin]

14 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

I believe the most plausible estimates are still in the low thousands.

Even if that is correct, that is an amazing ratio.  I wonder if there are statistics for how many tons of HE (arty/air) is required to kill one trooper.  With the advent of precision weapons one would think that has gone down a lot.  

[Warts 'n' all]

Of course, not being able to bring your gun to bear will also reduce ammo usage. The 400 year old says, in a desperate attempt to move this thread back on topic, whilst we wait for the OP to provide a save game.

Exits stage right humming a tune by Diana Ross ---------------------------------------------->

Edited March 2 by Warts 'n' all

[Thewood1]

I'm always surprised at the low number of players that bring saves to discussions about bugs and issues.  CM is built on saves.  It saves EVERY turn.  

[Ultradave]

I've been in a M60 tank buttoned up and I can say spotting anything is hard. It helps when the other guy fires   Muzzle blasts and smoke puffs make things easier. But just seeing things tucked in a treeline? That's really difficult. Sights improve, for sure, with the development of thermals, but thinking more of the TC or driver being able to see and ID things out the ports? That was hard.

Never been in a WW2 era tank, even in a museum, but I can't believe it was better. It's probably STILL just as hard today. Just a lot easier to hit and kill something once you do locate it.

Dave

Edited March 2 by Ultradave

[Anthony P.]

On 3/1/2024 at 10:25 PM, Erwin said:

I found: "...statistical studies typically come up with 20,000–100,000 rounds expended per casualty caused by a unit."

Correct or not, the underlying phenomena touches on my idea of creating 100% reliable snipers through manipulating statistics: everyone will be sent to simply fire millions upon millions of rounds at empty desert on the firing range. That way, statistically, having fired all of the shots that would miss for loads of casualties inflicted, several hundreds or even thousands of the shots they might fire in combat will be just the ones which statistically would hit.

That's a correct employment of statistics, right?

Edited March 4 by Anthony P.

[MikeyD]

Ammo expenditure got so bad with the introduction of the assault rife that the Pentagon tried to limit the M4 carbine to either single shot or 3 round bursts. No full auto feature (M4 in CMSF2). They later backtracked and put full auto back (M4A1 in CMBS) more as a morale booster to the infantry than for any real utility.

Some years ago I tried a gameplay experiment. I played a scenario without 'eye of God' elevated view, no rewind, no flying over the map, no moving beyond my own forward line of contact, no floating icons, the camera only looking over the shoulder of one of the grunts on the ground. The game suddenly became very much more challenging. You find yourself cowering behind a wall as the earth shakes around you from incoming artillery. You hear tanks but see nothing unless you dare to look up and expose yourself. The enemy is seen in fleeting glimpses. Played as a FPS game instead of a tabletop game CM becomes brutal. I don't have the self restraint to play the game like that exclusively but I do try to avoid overlooking the map like an omniscient being as much as possible.

[Centurian52]

On 3/2/2024 at 2:28 PM, MikeyD said:

Some years ago I tried a gameplay experiment. I played a scenario without 'eye of God' elevated view, no rewind, no flying over the map, no moving beyond my own forward line of contact, no floating icons, the camera only looking over the shoulder of one of the grunts on the ground. The game suddenly became very much more challenging. You find yourself cowering behind a wall as the earth shakes around you from incoming artillery. You hear tanks but see nothing unless you dare to look up and expose yourself. The enemy is seen in fleeting glimpses. Played as a FPS game instead of a tabletop game CM becomes brutal. I don't have the self restraint to play the game like that exclusively but I do try to avoid overlooking the map like an omniscient being as much as possible.

I can highly recommend this approach to viewing battles. I play with the icons turned on with an overhead view while I'm seriously reviewing the action and giving out orders. But I save every turn specifically so that I can go back and view a whole battle for the spectacle (bit cumbersome doing it that way, so it sure would be nice if we got a full battle replay feature someday, but I'm pretty sure Steve has shot that idea down). And when I'm reviewing a finished battle for the spectacle the icons, landmarks, and objectives are off, the trees are on, and I stick to ground level. It really is a very different way to view the action. The one downside is that now most mainstream Hollywood war movies just can't hold my interest anymore.

[Ultradave]

36 minutes ago, Centurian52 said:

I can highly recommend this approach to viewing battles. I play with the icons turned on with an overhead view while I'm seriously reviewing the action and giving out orders. But I save every turn specifically so that I can go back and view a whole battle for the spectacle (bit cumbersome doing it that way, so it sure would be nice if we got a full battle replay feature someday, but I'm pretty sure Steve has shot that idea down). And when I'm reviewing a finished battle for the spectacle the icons, landmarks, and objectives are off, the trees are on, and I stick to ground level. It really is a very different way to view the action. The one downside is that now most mainstream Hollywood war movies just can't hold my interest anymore.

I remember one scenario from CM1 where you (if I remember right), the British airborne troopers dropped into Normandy and trying to assemble and take a few houses. You were only allowed to use view 1 - the eye level view - and just tab switch between each unit. It was HARD. Lots of view blocks, so it was really difficult to form up or even determine where the objective was compared to you. I thought it simulated the confusion of the first period after the airborne drops pretty well, minus actual bullets flying at you.

Dave

[Centurian52]

On 3/2/2024 at 8:38 AM, Ultradave said:

Never been in a WW2 era tank, even in a museum, but I can't believe it was better. It's probably STILL just as hard today. Just a lot easier to hit and kill something once you do locate it.

I have never been inside an actual tank. So all of this is based on watching episodes of The Chieftain's Hatch, and playing Steel Beasts, Enlisted, and another game that I can't quite remember (games which restrict/can restrict the player's view to the internal optics of the tank). But, based on that admittedly limited and entirely virtual experience I believe the quality of the internal optics of most WW2 tanks was probably about on par with the M60A1. That requires some qualification. WW2 tank optics come in two flavors. There are the interwar designs that mostly relied on vision slits (mostly forward-facing, but sometimes there's a side or rear-facing vision slit). And there are the designs which came out either during the war or shortly before the war which used periscopes (often rotatable) and which gave the TC a cupola with full 360 degree periscopes/vision ports.

The prewar designs with mostly forward-facing vision slits have atrociously worse visibility than the M60A1. It is impossible to see anything that isn't inside a very narrow arc to your direct front without sticking your head out of the tank. These feel practically impossible to operate without being turned out most of the time. The designs with periscopes and a 360 degree cupola have pretty much identical visibility to the M60A1. My impression is that WW2 seems to have more or less perfected the periscope and cupola, and there really wasn't much more to be done to improve visibility until passive night sights and thermal optics came along in the 70s and 80s (and now apparently external cameras and large CCTV screens).

Visibility with periscopes and a cupola is still objectively bad, but it feels like amazing visibility compared to vision slits (visibility is much better if you turn out, but it's possible to operate while buttoned up). Unlocking the Panzer 3, after spending a while playing with the Panzer 2, in Enlisted was a huge eye opener. It felt like a massive upgrade, and not because the armor and gun were better. The armor and gun were better, but those felt like very minor improvements compared to the huge leap in situational awareness. The jump from vision slits to periscopes and cupolas felt almost as big as the jump from periscopes and cupolas to thermals and CCTV.

Edited March 4 by Centurian52