danielh Posted July 24, 2000 Share Posted July 24, 2000 Outset: Spotter in big light building in second floor standing very near the wall to the enemy (was there before the enemy approached). The Spotter gets engagend over 800 m (no joke) by an MG of a Halftrack. With my troops even a sharpshooter would never engage over such a distance. The timeset is dawn/dusk. Placing a spotter in a building means, as one can expect from real world behaviour, that he places his glasses in a way that only they are visible for some time at a window. Btw that house is one of around 15 possible in that town. When will it happen that a tank is engaged by a pistol over 1000 m and destroyed (hitting the slits..) ?? Version is 1.01 Greets Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
howardb Posted July 24, 2000 Share Posted July 24, 2000 Chill Daniel That's probably just what happened, you got unlucky and triggered off a 1-1000 odds that the enemy would get a reflection in his binoculars. Never happened to me yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Simon Posted July 24, 2000 Share Posted July 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by danielh: Outset: Spotter in big light building in second floor standing very near the wall to the enemy (was there before the enemy approached). The Spotter gets engagend over 800 m (no joke) by an MG of a Halftrack. With my troops even a sharpshooter would never engage over such a distance. The timeset is dawn/dusk. Greets Daniel<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm in my experience Dawn/Dusk means a 200/250 yard max visibility for everything perhaps you're mistaken about the time? Allied HT's should have .50 cals with an effective range of 1500+ meters and maximum range of 2500+ meters. That said I agree that some forms of infantry are entirely too easy to spot, and even more ... um... "easy feeling" to HIT when in most types of cover. I would think a person's forehead and Binoc's would have an negligable chance to be spotted peering out of a window 7 or 8 football fields distant. Along similar lines I think Woods are too hard to see OUT of and a bit too easy to see into. One of the problems might be that cover seems to be treated the same regardless if it's hard physical cover or soft sight blocking/interfering cover. Crops and brush don't stop projectiles but are easy to hide in... Walls, Bocage, buildings and entrenchments should block shots AND various amounts of LOS. As it stands I often see Infantry behind a wall run for the "cover" of nearby woods. As can be seen on my web page (URL in sig), CM's projectile modeling is somewhat abstracted, so unfortunately walls and earthen ridges (and I assume buildings) don't neccessarilly keep a shot from landing where it can't possibly land. ------------------ Simon http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/ammodump/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted July 24, 2000 Share Posted July 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon: As can be seen on my web page (URL in sig), CM's projectile modeling is somewhat abstracted, so unfortunately walls and earthen ridges (and I assume buildings) don't neccessarilly keep a shot from landing where it can't possibly land. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well no, qouting the manual pg 14 'while the mathmatical 3d battlefield under the hood is extreamely detailed, the graphical representation of it had to be simplified.' and 'combat mission is not using the on-screen pixels to determine combat results. The 3d graphics are determined by the internal algorithems, not vice-versa.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juardis Posted July 24, 2000 Share Posted July 24, 2000 based on my experience, CM projectile modeling, at least from on board mortars, IS abstracted. I have yet to hit the side of a building when either firing too close to one or targeting a unit hugging a building. Mathematically speaking, one of the two would have had to happen in my experiences. ------------------ Jeff Abbott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted July 24, 2000 Share Posted July 24, 2000 If I saw a reflection at that distance and under those circumstances I would very much engage it and the exact weapon to use would be a fifty cal. It's hardly a one and a thousand chance that one would spot a refelction particularly with the sun low in the horizon it is much greater. I ahve seen it occur often enough out at NTC or JRTC among other places. However I do agree in general that spotters seem easy to spot. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Simon Posted July 24, 2000 Share Posted July 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los: among other places. However I do agree in general that spotters seem easy to spot. Los<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Maybe they should be called spotables ------------------ Simon http://members.tripod.com/~sjuncal/ammodump/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PvK Posted July 24, 2000 Share Posted July 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon: ... That said I agree that some forms of infantry are entirely too easy to spot, and even more ... um... "easy feeling" to HIT when in most types of cover. I would think a person's forehead and Binoc's would have an negligable chance to be spotted peering out of a window 7 or 8 football fields distant.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I quite agree. In the real world, in most situations where there is some cover, it is very easy for a human on foot to find complete cover very quickly, and to peek out from cover and get a very good view with very little exposure, especially with some range between then and the enemy, and if the enemy doesn't have a good height advantage. If a man in a building does draw fire, they can generally take complete cover immediately. Spotting a glint in a window at 1000m may occur, but usually it will not be from enemy binoculars, and especially a moving halftrack-mounted MG gunner will have no way of knowing which glints are goggles and which are porcelain vases or clocks or pitchers or wine glasses or mirrors or framed pictures or whatever. So if the standard operating procedure is to fire at all glints, there'll be a lot of area fire, but the firers will probably have no idea which glint was an enemy except on a remote chance, IMO. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Along similar lines I think Woods are too hard to see OUT of and a bit too easy to see into. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I quite agree, too, at least for real woods with decent foliage. In reality, it can be near impossible to see someone in good woods at any range, yet quite possible to see out of it. In the game, I've had units on foot in woods that claimed they couldn't see an enemy tank several hundred meters away, but then the tank proceeded to fire at them, causing casualties. Most woods I've seen also afford abundant opportunities for taking complete cover from most direct fire, besides the fact that outside enemies probably can't see anyone inside the woods. PvK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielh Posted July 25, 2000 Author Share Posted July 25, 2000 Simon ! ROFL that cured my pains a bit "Spotables", just great !! Suggest that for the 1.0.4 patch !! Good suggestions by the others, thank you ! The out/in wood LOS i didn't really proofed directly but it's quite obvious when playing the game. (I've read the WWI-Biographic book by Erwin Rommel, he became a battallion-leader at the end of WWI, the books describes a lot of his battles fought in WWI in different theaters (french, russian, italian). Often they did unexpected flanking manouvers by sneaking up at unexpected spots through ravines or similars, a thing clearly impossible with combat mission.., a superb book for each infantry-leader btw, written by one of the genius military leaders). Greets Daniel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts