The sherman's spotting ability

[iggi]

In CE, the Shermans seem to spot my stuggs very fast. Is that due to the fact that the sherman is a tall tank thus exposing a small portion of it's silouette thus having a smaller chance of being spotted itself?

Not only that but the stugg crews seem to miss alot more than the shermans . Reasons?

[Black Sabot]

You're probably experiencing a run of bad luck with your Stugs.

There are countless posts that describe Stugs getting the drop on Shermans, And taking them out with the first shot.

Are you playing a hotseat / PBEM game or against the AI? I find that human opponents use the terrain to the Stugs advantage much better than the AI.

------------------

"I do like to see the arms and legs fly"

[Guest Scott Clinton]

> the sherman is a tall tank thus exposing a

> small portion of it's silouette thus having

> a smaller chance of being spotted itself?

Well, the opposite is actually true. The Sherman is a LARGE target. As a matter of fact this is one of its worst failings, it is too large and too tall. The Stug however is not only much more streamlined it is a turretless assault gun with a MUCH lower profile.

I think you may be having a bad run of luck but keep in mind if you are moving it is hard to spot the enemy while it is easier for the to spot you and that one of the Shermans has a Veteran crew (major advantage in spotting IIRCC).

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[iggi]

I played against the AI. I played as the axis. My stuggs got murdered over and over. The sherman crews are wide awake. They spot quicker, rotate faster and miss less.Result:upper hull penetration for the stugg.

I then played the allies and toasted the stuggs quite easily. My theory is that the way the sherman has a high profile allows it to expose only a bit of its top so that it spots before the low and wide stugg spots thus getting the drop on the enemy.

[iggi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>one of the Shermans has a Veteran crew (major advantage in spotting IIRCC).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That would explain alot.

The sherman might be a large target sure but imagine the sherman coming over a crest. The small turret appears first thus harder to spot than when the stugg comes over the crest.

[Guest Username:]

In CE I took on too many shermans and was in the process of getting wiped out. I was "speed" playing the game out to see how bad things would get. Anyway two shermans were buttoned up and traveling together killing off my infantry when they spotted a lone hidden squad 150 meters BEHIND them. The squad wasnt broken or panicked but hidden. They werent firing at anything so they were laying down in concealment terrain.

Seems unrealistic to me. To spot (while buttoned up) a hidden infantry behind you, that isnt firing or moving makes for an unstoppable force. How can you bushwhack armor when they spot like a artillery forward observation detachment?

Lewis

[Black Sabot]

Iggi,

Are you using the terrain to your advantage? If you're going head to head with the Shermans in the open then you're going to get lit up.

However, if you are using the little knolls and dips in the terrain to get hull down, then the Stugs have a big advantage over the Shermans

------------------

"I do like to see the arms and legs fly"

[iggi]

Black sabot..yes I am using hull down(u key) with the Stuggs.At ranges under 600 meters richoches are rare. The shermans spot too well and the stuggs miss alot. I am really getting the impression that the high German tech is nicht zo high at all. Those Shermans are the bad boys on the block.

But Black Sabot.. why don't we PBEM it? You get the lighters..er Stuggs. I'll play allies.

iggi@videotron.ca send me your turn.

[Bullethead]

iggi said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In CE, the Shermans seem to spot my stuggs very fast. Is that due to the fact that the sherman is a tall tank thus exposing a small portion of it's silouette thus having a smaller chance of being spotted itself?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that IF the Sherman was hull down, its turret is smaller than the front of a StuG so it would have a slightly smaller chance of being spotted. However, I think other variables in the situation are more significant, especially in the CE situation where it's hard for the Shermans to be hull down anyway. The main one I've found is target fixation. If the Shermans are not shooting at anything, then they can spot StuGs pretty quickly and traverse their turrets rapidly onto them. OTOH, if you expose some German grunts and let the Shermans get all fixated on nuking them, it's much easier for the StuGs to pop up and nail the Shermans.

BTW, back in the old demo, I think it was Eridani did some LOS experiments with the Shermans. The results tended to show that Shermans' eyeballs were down in the hull BELOW the guntube. The result was that Shermans really couldn't get into hull down positions. While their turrets might be above the horizon, they still couldn't shoot because the LOS from their eyeballs in the hull was still blocked. Thus, Shermans had to expose much of their upper hull to be able to shoot. I haven't yet determined if this has been fixed in the gold version.

Lewis said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Seems unrealistic to me. To spot (while buttoned up) a hidden infantry behind you, that isnt firing or moving makes for an unstoppable force. How can you bushwhack armor when they spot like a artillery forward observation detachment?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The buttoned tanks did not necessarily spot the hidden grunts behind them by themselves. Remember that there instant communication of spotting between units. So if ANY friendly unit spots a target, ALL friendly immediately know where it is and can fire at it. So I suspect the hidden grunts in this case were actually spotted by something else and the tanks just took advantage of this.

This was discussed at great length months ago. Everybody agrees it has realism problems but there's really no practical way to limit intel between units while at the same time giving the god-like player the sum total picture from all his units.

------------------

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 05-19-2000).]

[Guest Username:]

I hope there is some other advantage then to being unbuttoned. If what bullethead is saying is true, why not just button up all the time?

Lewis

PS I can see if OTHER shermans had an LOS and then the info would be shared on the platoon or company tank radio net but to have a telepathic connection to a bazooka crew is kind of streching things. Not complaining here. Just looking for CM2 improvements.

[Guest MantaRay]

OMG, I actually agree with Lewis. Playing CE a lot the last few days, no matter what I do, I still seem to lose them very rapidly due to them missing 1 or even 2 shots. I can infact get all of my Stugs to the trees on the far right hand side with infantry support, and give up the other middle VP locations.

I try to wait for them to pass going toward my controlled VP location in the trees. Then I position them in the clearing in between the trees and try to get side shots and flank shots. Much of the time the Stugs do not survive the exchange. I do usually get atleast a draw seeing how the computer cannot take the hidden VP location back, and last night I even achieved a Major Victory with a 70-27 score.

Ray

------------------

When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one."

MantaRays 5 Pages

Hardcore Gamers Daily

[Bullethead]

Lewis said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I hope there is some other advantage then to being unbuttoned. If what bullethead is saying is true, why not just button up all the time?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Seems to be 2 main advantages to being unbuttoned. First is the tank itself has a better chance to spot something. Of course, this usually just adds a layer of redundancy to your spotting chances because tanks usually don't go around by themselves.

The big advantage is reaction time. Even though an enemy unit might be spotted, it seems to takes buttoned tanks longer to target them. At the same time, buttoned tanks also seem to suffer more from target fixation than unbuttoned tanks. So, unbuttoned tanks are more likely to shoot at new targets sooner and react faster to threats that appear during the turn than buttoned tanks. Very important when getting off the 1st shot really matters.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>PS I can see if OTHER shermans had an LOS and then the info would be shared on the platoon or company tank radio net but to have a telepathic connection to a bazooka crew is kind of streching things.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, but there's no good way to model DIRECTLY such lack of inter-unit communications, at least from what Charles was saying. OTOH, the game does a pretty good job of doing this indirectly by such things as increasing target acquisition time as noted above.

------------------

-Bullethead

jtweller@delphi.com

WW2 AFV Photos: people.delphi.com/jtweller/tanks/tanks.htm

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I hope there is some other advantage then to being unbuttoned. If what bullethead is saying is true, why not just button up all the time?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bullethead's answer is correct:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The big advantage is reaction time. Even though an enemy unit might be spotted, it seems to takes buttoned tanks longer to target them. At the same time, buttoned tanks also seem to suffer more from target fixation than unbuttoned tanks. So, unbuttoned tanks are more likely to shoot at new targets sooner and react faster to threats that appear during the turn than buttoned tanks. Very important when getting off the 1st shot really matters.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Buttoned tanks get far less-frequent retargeting "opportunities". You'll notice that they are sluggish to react to new threats (though there is always a random element involved so sometimes they can be quick but not usually). And they tend to target-fixate more too.

Charles