Improved Anti-tank gun behavior in CM2

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Rett,

The problem is that there is no inherent system in CM that allows coordination, or pooling if you will, of chaotic events like this. Each spotting attempt is done in its own unique milisecond. The game engine has no way of comprehending the concept of qeueing up spotting requests as you suggest.

It would in fact be very difficult to program since the natural chaos of the system (which is a good thing) means that there is no way to identify when a spotting chance starts and stops. Instead, it is a continous event that knows no beginning or end, and is unaffected by the number of chances or what those chances are trying to identify. It would be very difficult to have the system keep this flexibility and natural chaos, yet make it more deliberate at the same time. They are basically incompatable means to an end.

And it still doesn't fix the core problem, which is Absolute Spotting vs. Relative Spotting. So what you describe, if it could work, might reduce the chance of spotting in extreme circumstances, but once spotted the same end result would happen as it does now. And that is too many units knowing exactly where to shoot in too short a period of time.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Rett,

The problem is that there is no inherent system in CM that allows coordination, or pooling if you will, of chaotic events like this. Each spotting attempt is done in its own unique milisecond. The game engine has no way of comprehending the concept of qeueing up spotting requests as you suggest.

It would in fact be very difficult to program since the natural chaos of the system (which is a good thing) means that there is no way to identify when a spotting chance starts and stops. Instead, it is a continous event that knows no beginning or end, and is unaffected by the number of chances or what those chances are trying to identify. It would be very difficult to have the system keep this flexibility and natural chaos, yet make it more deliberate at the same time. They are basically incompatable means to an end.

And it still doesn't fix the core problem, which is Absolute Spotting vs. Relative Spotting. So what you describe, if it could work, might reduce the chance of spotting in extreme circumstances, but once spotted the same end result would happen as it does now. And that is too many units knowing exactly where to shoot in too short a period of time.

Steve

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

there is no way to identify when a spotting chance starts and stops. Instead, it is a continous event that knows no beginning or end, and is unaffected by the number of chances or what those chances are trying to identify. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That sounds really interesting. You've

got a cool job. Well, thanks anyway. I'll

be buying the game in any case.

--Rett

[Claymore]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Renaud:

A tactic I use in AT ambushes is to use some light artillery (typically mortars) to cause all the intended targets to button up a minute or so before you spring the AT ambush. This makes a huge difference in how long your AT guns last. It's practically a requirement for me now. Of course infantry eyes are a problem so I try never to open up when I know a horde of infantry can see the AT gun.

Ren<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent Renaud...now just let the mortars perform dual duty. At the beginning of the turn you request your ATGs to fire, switch the mortar fire to SMOKE, or let your ATGs fire for one round with HE from the mortars and then switch to SMOKE. Sometimes I SMOKE the ATG instead.

Once LOS is broken you can either HIDE and hope you haven't been seen or move back into cover. This is where setting up right on the edge of the woods is not a good thing. If you setup farther back in the woods at the "edge" of visibility, then moving back will break all LOS to your ATG.

Obviously your results may vary.

cheers

Murray

[Jeff Duquette]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As the CM spotting system currently works, a unit "spots" another on that triggers a "flag" which mean all units can see it. This is the typical way spotting is done and is what we call the Absolute Spotting system. There is no way to randomize this other than putting in some retargeting delays (which we have done) so that when unit A spots Target it doesn't mean that unit B imediately acts on that information. But there this work

around can not be extended too much or there will be negative side effects.

The Relative Spotting system works the other way around. Instead of the Target saying "hi, I am the target. Someone spotted me, so bring it on!!" the individual units keep their own unique list of what they spotted or didnt (and using CM's system, the degree spotted). This means that there is no inherent broadcasting of spotting information since each unit can only see what is on its own list. When we implement this system (after CMBB) there will be a information "hand off" based on a bunch of factors like C&C so there will be a chance of passing on learned information to other units. Obviously, with WWII technology this will be limited at best.

When the player gets into the Orders Phase he will NOT be able to order a direct fire mission for a unit unless the target is in fact already on its "spotting list". The player will NOT be able to override this. Indirect Fire and Area Fire are impossible to prevent being used by the player. Although

we might be able to reduce the effectiveness of such actions (i.e. firing blind into the woods won't be as effective as if the target were spotted by that unit).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting. Thanks for the design insights.

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Jeff Duquette ]

[CMplayer]

New very surprising test results!!!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

One other point: ATGs get exponentially harder to spot if placed deep within woods, just at point where they can barley see out.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just ran a test of this and the result

does not confirm it.

I did the same test as the 800 meters

battle in my earlier post, but moved

the two 88's back into the woods so that

their unit bases were on the tile border

to the next tile inwards into the forest.

This cut their chances to score a hit on

the tanks by about one third, according

to the targetting lines, and did not

result in their being spotted any less

quickly.

The final results were much worse than

putting them at the edge of the woods:

Kills per fight out of 10 shermans:

1,1,2,3,0 averaging 1.4 kills/fight

or .7 kills/gun

Compare this to 4,2,1,5,2 when they

were set up on the edge of the forest

giving 1.5 kills/gun.

regards,

--Rett

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[aka_tom_w]

This is a GREAT discusion

Many thanks to Steve for his comments and responses.

Very interesting.

I don't have a real strong opinion on this one but I do agree with those here who suggest it would be nice it AT guns were a little harder to spot or a little more difficult to knock out, they seem a little overly "brittle" or "fragile" in the game, but the current system does work better than any other game I have ever played. !

Thanks again Steve!

-tom w

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

oops

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Wolfe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

When the player gets into the Orders Phase he will NOT be able to order a direct fire mission for a unit unless the target is in fact already on its "spotting list". The player will NOT be able to override this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Should we start a pool for day and time when we see the first "I can see the unit why can't I target it?" post?

BTW, any thoughts on adding a target list or other way of indicating which friendly units can target which enemy units? Like a 'Show Targets' key that highlights the enemy bases that can be targeted by that unit. Cycling through the 'N' key or using point-and-click with the LOS line will likely get tedious. This feature could even be useful for CM2!

- Chris

[JasonC]

Here is an idea to impliment some sort of diminishing returns to many eyes looking with minimal changes in coding and procedure. Instead of using a one-bit 0-1 flag for spotted or not, use 4 bits with states 0-15. The first bit records spotted or not, same as today. The other 8 states are available to impliment diminishing returns.

Whenever a spotting attempt is made on the unit, this 0-7 "looked at" flag is incremented by 1, unless it is already at "7". Every n seconds, reduce the "looked at" flag by 1. When resolving spotting chances, a unit with the "looked at" flag at "7" is very hard to see, a unit with the flag at 6 is hard to see, a unit with the flag at 0 is spotted normally, with the flag at 1 is a little harder, etc. Perhaps the spotting chance is allowed to double all told with 7 eyes, instead of rising 7-fold.

A unit that is not spotted by the first 7 attempts will remain hidden. Every "n" seconds the counter will reduce and one of the spots will get an improved chance, at the "6" setting before going up again. All other spotters will be trying to see the unit at a "7" setting.

If you like, you can easily reduce the flag for conditions like "unit fires" or "unit moves", and even alter the amount of the reduction for the speed of the movement, etc. This will give a high chance of spotting the target all over again, when a triggering event occurs (e.g. unit fires again), until 7 failures have "blown it" and the chance falls again.

For what it is worth...

[Wolfe]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I don't have a real strong opinion on this one but I do agree with those here who suggest it would be nice it AT guns were a little harder to spot or a little more difficult to knock out, they seem a little overly "brittle" or "fragile" in the game, but the current system does work better than any other game I have ever played. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Although I have zero evidence or statistics or any way to quantify it, I have to agree that Inf guns and AT guns in particular seem overly easy to spot. The same I feel is true of bunkers and pillboxes. Certainly the lack of relative spotting hurts a lot, but even in mano-a-mano situations guns seem to stick out like sore thumbs. I admit my 'feeling' may be completely wrong, but I'd love to see a tweak or two to this. Even using a platoon commander with good stealth is only marginally helpful. Could be I have unrealistic expectations; I dunno, but I'd still love to see a change.

Would also like to see bunkers and MG pillboxes that are sitting in woods that can be incorrectly IDed as just a plain-jane MG team. Receiving fire from a densely forested hill, you wouldn't necessarily know whether it's just a well-hidden MG or a much harder to kill pillbox. Nasty surprises are always fun.

And while I'm at it, any chance Zook/PIAT/Schreck teams would automatically re-hide after firing if there's no other AFV targets in the immediate area?

And in night scenarios, how about if you lose contact with an enemy unit, you have to go through the trouble of re-IDing the unit when it comes back into LOS?

And ... and ... and ...

Ok, I'll stop now.

- Chris

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

[Battlefront.com]

JasonC:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Here is an idea to impliment some sort of diminishing returns to many eyes looking with minimal changes in coding and procedure. Instead of using a one-bit 0-1 flag for spotted or not, use 4 bits with states 0-15. The first bit records spotted or not, same as today. The other 8 states are available to impliment diminishing returns. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the sake of simplicity I didn't describe this part of the system, but it is in fact already a parto of spotting. Except the system used is more flexible than your suggestion since there is no hard number (just increased % chance) for being spotted and we use it as the basis for determining partial spotting levels (i.e. Sound Contact, etc.).

The higher quality spottings get more "hits" than lower ones, which ratchet up the level of spotting on a unit. So you can have 10 units "spotting" a target and still only have a Sound Contact rating, yet one unit can come right come upon a previously hidden and get full spotting information right away.

We are likely to keep the existing spotting system when we rewrite the engine since it actually works very well. The big difference is, as I said earlier, that each unit will keep track of what it spotted instead of what units have been globally spotted.

Steve

[Stalin's Organ]

I'd like to point ouot that it doesn't always happen like this at all.

I reently had a 20mm FLAK (I think) open up on 2 half squads of mine. They never saw it and both were destroyed with the help of some infantry.

I moved a Sherman up during the fight but it never saw it either, so ended up area firing at teh "sound contact". Then it got knocked out - now this was at 500m with a front turret hit - a 20mm doesn't do that, and my opponent gleefully reminded me of that fact!

This was only a minor flanking attack, so there were no other troops observing, but it just goes to show.........

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

I'd like to point ouot that it doesn't always happen like this at all.

I reently had a 20mm FLAK (I think) open up on 2 half squads of mine. They never saw it and both were destroyed with the help of some infantry.

I moved a Sherman up during the fight but it never saw it either, so ended up area firing at teh "sound contact". Then it got knocked out - now this was at 500m with a front turret hit - a 20mm doesn't do that, and my opponent gleefully reminded me of that fact!

This was only a minor flanking attack, so there were no other troops observing, but it just goes to show.........<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have had a similiar experience as the Allies with something that fired bursts of 20mm at me. I still don't know what it is or was and I never ID'd it and it just kept firing and I lost a Stuart and a squad.

Sometimes somethings can be damn near impossible to spot and all you do is hear them and get a sound contact and a dead tank (on your end).

-tom w

[PantherGunner]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Warren Peace:

The bigger the target, the greater the chance that a near miss is going to cause problems. Many times what I see happening is that the AT gun doesn't get knocked out, directly, but instead gets hammered so much that the crew buggers off or remains unable to return fire (Pinned) until something does actually finish it off.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve,

Talking about AT crews buggering off..are there plans for the ability to "re-crew" abandoned guns? Thanks for all the responses.

[Tero]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

This is a GREAT discusion

I don't have a real strong opinion on this one but I do agree with those here who suggest it would be nice it AT guns were a little harder to spot or a little more difficult to knock out, they seem a little overly "brittle" or "fragile" in the game, but the current system does work better than any other game I have ever played. !

-tom w

[ 06-27-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that them being seemingly too brittle or fragile is the due to fact that if the crew gets suppressed or takes even one lousy casualty (be it when a man cuts his finger on his knife while he is picking his nails while under fire) leave the gun and it stays abandoned eventhough the crew is fully capable and even willing to fight on.

Perhaps it would be better to alter the programme so that they can reman the gun. It would be realistic to allow regualr infantry units to man abandoned guns, even enemy guns.

Boosting the gun crew morale so that the gun is not abandoned as easily could be an option too. And if possible they could be even made to perform some repairs on the gun in an effort to make it work if the gun is hit but it is repairable. Depending how the damage is modelled.

[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Big Ron]

My understanding of how to use AT guns is as follows. The gun is positioned so that only one or two tanks will ever be seeen at a given time (and can therefore potentially see the gun). Gun takes out tanks hopefully with one shot each maybe more dependant on conditions and range. From the moment the third shot is fired (an arbitrary judgement on my part) the AT gun has sixty seconds to get hooked up to its transport and moving before the enemy artillery hits. Provision must therefore always be made for the guns escape, usually to the rear of the covered position you placed it in. Of you go to the next ambush point, rinse and repeat! You all seem convinced that AT guns should sit there and take it. You may know more about the history of this than I but I always assume that only a few shots (I normally say 3 maximum) will be fired before spotting occurs.

[Big Ron]

Just to add to thew above. I do still loose guns (this applies to infantry guns as well) but over half survive to ambush again.

(Apologies for atrocious spelling, my boss keeps wandering past so I'm typing v. fast)

[Fangorn]

German flak guns are master of concealment, they are very hard to spot when placed wisely. I would love to see what a 37mm flak could do with some tungsten rounds...

[Warren Peace]

I have been doing some more experimenting with my 88 set up and have found some things that really help make them more effective.

I added to my set up a platoon commander with +2 stealth, +2 combat, and +2morale. The gun was now made veteran. Against this I had 6 sherman III. Map was 400meters wide, about 1600 long. Farmland, no forests, gentle hills.

The gun and command team where placed in a wheat field on the far end of the map. The tanks came into view the second turn at about 1400 meters. The gun wiped out all six tanks between 1400 and 1000 meters. The first four were destroyed without a shot being returned. The last two where engaging the gun, but the crew did not panic and finished them off. This felt quite realistic. (Imagine the commander as Von Lucke!)

When I played the British The AI wiped all six of my tanks out and I did not even see the gun until the end of the game!

The upshot is a stealthy commander can make a huge difference!

[robo]

I think that absolute spotting is really the only way to go. The problem with relative spotting is that the game would have very inconsistent gameplay since the player already has absolute spotting once a minute when plotting orders. You'd have alternating relative (during the turn) and absolute spotting in the game. No, I think that absolute spotting, unfortunately, is a requirement for a game of this type. It's a side effect of the unrealistic control a player has over his forces.

[Gen-x87H]

I was playing the mission All or Nothing last night and when the allies attempted to run acorss the bridge I opened up with the 20MM flak gun on a hill about 700meters away. They had tanks ect... but the gun was in scattered trees. It took them 4 turns to finally find the thing.

Gen

[PzKpfw 1]

I just set up a 2000pt 30 turn QB with an UK assault vs Reg Ge Rifle Co's backed up by 6 PAK 40 AT guns & 4 75mm Inf guns & 2 81mm spotters & 1 120mm spotter & 4 Hvy MG42 teams. The terrain was farmland with rolling hills mixed with heavy woods, roads & a few houses. .

I set the PAK 40's up with 2 covering the most open areas with LOS to 700ms in some areas & the others backin up the Inf with varying los's from 485ms to 185ms in some placements.

Basicly all PAK 40's except 2 were placed in areas with limited LOS. Anyway due to useing the terrain, 1 Pak 40 I set up in the woods covering a road crossing & blocked by an house, took out all the UK tanks hitting the left flank from 100 - 140ms the PAK 40 killed 2 Fireflys, a Stuart & a Sherman IV & killed 5 Inf. The Pak 40 was finaly taken out by a mass brit Inf charge that ran the gauntles of Ge inf & an MG42 to get to the gun.

The 2 PAK 40 I set up on the far right flank with the LR LOS I kept hidden till the UK armor had exposed oit's side armor while traveling thru an clearing between the woods & a pond, at 280ms I unhid the 2 PAK & they wiped out the Right flanks Armor killing 2 Firefly's & 2 cromwells & over 5 Bren carriers. With me loseing 1 PAK to UK Arty which cost the spotter his life as he was killed by the fire of an PAK 40, 75mm Inf gun & an MG42 right after the PAK 40 was hit.

The 75mm Inf guns also took out nunerous Bren carriers that wandered into LOS with 1 getting 4 with its 4 SC rounds. My Arty Spotters who I had given the best LOS positions devestated the initial attack on the right as I laid 81mm & 120mm HE on the exposed & grouped UK inf, & kept adjusting the mortar fire until the attack was broken & i ran outa ammo.

All & all iut was an perfect defense scenerio with the terrain favoring my forces. I know this has little todo with the % to spot AT guns but it does show what AT guns can do when placement was defined by the terrain advantages.

One question I have concerning CM2 is will camoflauge be simulated both the Germans & Soviet's extensively camo'd their AT guns, TD's, tanks etc, will we have some form of algorythem to simulate foilage, meshing or other measures taken to conceal our AT etc, assests that will degrade spotting routines.

Regards, John Waters

[ 06-28-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Juardis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by robo:

I think that absolute spotting is really the only way to go. The problem with relative spotting is that the game would have very inconsistent gameplay since the player already has absolute spotting once a minute when plotting orders. You'd have alternating relative (during the turn) and absolute spotting in the game. No, I think that absolute spotting, unfortunately, is a requirement for a game of this type. It's a side effect of the unrealistic control a player has over his forces.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reread Steve's response again. He said you CANNOT target something YOU see unless that target is already on the units' spotted list. I for one appreciate how this will work and am looking forward to seeing it implemented.

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Warren Peace:

The upshot is a stealthy commander can make a huge difference!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the deciding factor in this case

was the long range at which you engaged,

rather than the stealthy commander.

If the commander helped, it was rather

with the morale bonus.

regards,

--Rett