Artillery spotters still being ID'ed too easily?

[Moon]

Sure, email it to me - martin@battlefront.com

Martin

[Moon]

While waiting for your file, I have in the meantime run a couple of tests myself. Flat open map, a combo of spotters mounted/dismounted at various distances, one scenario with a StuG, the other with a conscript unfit HQ. Frankly all seems to work well. Before sending me your file, Soddball, please do me a favor and run another test, this time giving a rotate order to the observing unit, so that it changes its facing towards those enemy unit(s) that have not been spotted/ID'd. Then tell me what you'll see.

Martin

[dieseltaylor]

Could the order they are spotted be a reflection on the size of the object? Trucks and halt-tracks then jeeps ..... the infantry guys are not going to be that big.

I agree it is a little offputting to have correct i.d's at range but then if I saw a truck up within shooting range I would kill it quick on the basis it can tow unpleasant a/t guns and carry a suad or spotters - a very good reason for clocking them. In reality I know that they are not carrying supplies but in Russia I would assume they are this close to the front bringing ammo,food or reinforcements -- all vey good reasons for a quick death.

As T34's are pants at killing Stugs I would'nt necessarily get too upset at going for the light stuff first.

{You do not say if the units are moving which would make them even more visible at range}

[dalem]

Call me simple, but I still don't get how anything can see into a canvas-topped truck.

-dale

[SirReal]

Well, I think the spotting and information dissemination parts of the CM series of games needs a bit of work.

Borg spotting is well documented elsewhere, so I won't touch information dissemination.

Spotting is a bit strange, still. I don't think it's realistic that a 25mm AA gun firing continuosly turns up as a non-located "Gun?" marker for -minutes-, while a squad of soldiers popping off the odd round will be spotted in the first minute, and under direct fire seconds later.

/SirReal

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Moon:

While waiting for your file, I have in the meantime run a couple of tests myself. Flat open map, a combo of spotters mounted/dismounted at various distances, one scenario with a StuG, the other with a conscript unfit HQ. Frankly all seems to work well. Before sending me your file, Soddball, please do me a favor and run another test, this time giving a rotate order to the observing unit, so that it changes its facing towards those enemy unit(s) that have not been spotted/ID'd. Then tell me what you'll see.

Martin

What do you mean by "all seems to work well"? Your definition of working well appears to be "perfoms to specification", with which I will agree. The game is running as it should.

My dispute is that the game should not be running like this. A conscript platoon HQ should not be successfully identifying artillery spotters in the back of trucks at 2km.

Incidentally, I added another two trucks, one containing an infantry squad, another containing a machine gun. Guess what? At 2km range, the machine gun in the truck was successfully identified, the infantry squad appears as 'infantry?'

Test scenario emailed over to you for you to see.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by dalem:

Call me simple, but I still don't get how anything can see into a canvas-topped truck.

-dale

Can I agree with you and call you simple?

[Soddball]

I've added some extras to this test scenario.

Each unit type has four 'states'. It is either on foot, in a jeep, in a truck, or in a halftrack.

The unit types are (all Russian):

82mm Mortar Spotter (Radio)

Dshk 12.7mm MG

50mm Mortar

Rifle Squad

There are two trucks with no units in as a 'control' and on the map are also a Platoon HQ (because you have to have it to include the rifle sqauds) and a sharpshooter.

At just on 2km range, the support weapons and mortar spotters are identified, but the infantry isn't. Odd.

Anyone wants this scenario to try the test for themselves, email me. Run it hotseat, on Extreme Fog of War.

[Kingfish]

Soddball,

If possible please re-run it again, only this time include an infantry squad (or team if squad is to big) into the same truck as the spotter. I am curious as to whether the additional men inside the vehicle would 'mask' the spotter.

Thanks

[Moon]

Soddball, at first it was the StuG who targetted a truck with FO out in the distance while a T-34 was near, then - after I replied to that - it was a conscript HQ spotting an FO on a truck in the distance, but not an FO walking closer by. And now - again after I replied - it's just the ability of an HQ with binos to spot and ID an FO on the back of a truck. So what is it now that you have a problem with? It seems that you're running away faster than I can catch up...

I have replied to the previous points - it boils down to this: situational awareness is never perfect (in real life, and in the game - it's coded that way). Spotting depends on the facing of the unit observing. If you ran the test I mentioned above you would have seen that as you rotate your unit, according to its facing enemy units are spotted and ID'd during the action phase. In my test an FO at 500m off to one side was not even spotted until I rotated the HQ in to face it - then it was spotted and ID'd immediately during the action phase.

Now for the new twist you've just added - can a conscript HQ with binoculars ID an FO loaded on a truck that is moving 2km away? In my opinion it can. The experience status has nothing to do with how a unit is able to see, and identifying what a bunch of antennas mean is easier than identifying the exact type of an enemy vehicle.

However, the test I setup only allowed such an ID after the unit in question was moving, and no ID was achieved on an FO team in a halftrack. Moving objects like trucks attract attention, and once you focus with a pair of binoculars on it, I am quite confident that you would be able to see the FO team, because it's not just two guys with a pair of binoculars - even radio spotters are hauling a bunch of equipment with them.

Having said that, could there be a bug that the moving status of the transport vehicle is incorrectly applied to the passenger, thus making it easier to spot than it should be? Maybe, I'll ask Charles to check the code when he has a minute, but since the results do not seem utterly unrealistic to me as they seem to be to you I won't be surprised if there is no such bug.

Dalem, trucks are considered open vehicles in CM.

Just saw your follow up post - teams with heavy equipment that is not easy to conceal (mortars, MGs, etc. and it includes FOs as well) are ID'd before regular rifle squads. Maybe I misunderstand your problem (and it's a new one again you are introducing, would you please sit still for a minute ), but it seems logical to me.

Martin

[JonS]

Moon:

Soddball, at first it was the StuG who targetted a truck with FO out in the distance while a T-34 was near, then - after I replied to that - it was a conscript HQ spotting an FO on a truck in the distance, but not an FO walking closer by. And now - again after I replied - it's just the ability of an HQ with binos to spot and ID an FO on the back of a truck. So what is it now that you have a problem with? It seems that you're running away faster than I can catch up...

His concern seems consistent to me - FOs are too easy to id. All the changes you mention above are simply variations on that theme.

Originally posted by Moon:

... can a conscript HQ with binoculars ID an FO loaded on a truck that is moving 2km away? In my opinion it can. The experience status has nothing to do with how a unit is able to see, and identifying what a bunch of antennas mean is easier than identifying the exact type of an enemy vehicle. ...

Several points:

1) shouldn't the experience have quite a lot to do with it though? Private Snooks with two weeks of training and on his first day on the frontline wouldn't be able to make any sense of what he saw, while crusty old Sgt Rock how has been fighting since the very beginning should be able to take a quick look and say "aha, that groupd moving just behind those guys will be the platoon HQ, and those guys siting stationary on the edge of the woods are prbably a support weapon of some type. IOW, IMHO, id'ing should be tied to experience.

2) would the FO's really have their aerials up in the back of the truck? And even if they did, at a range of 2km how different would they look than, say, a Bn HQ?

3) Even with binos, can you even see an antennae at 2km?

I don't really have a problem with spotting units in the back of vehicles (though it is a bit weird when you get an 'infantry sounds' spotting at long range in the middle of a mechanised group - damn that spotter must have some good hearing!), but id'ing the type of unit seems a little weird.

From Sodds test results it seems as if all support weapons - as a class - are easier to id than any other unit type. As a general rule that makes sense, but the application of that general rule to some specific cases (which Sodd has highlighted) does seem a little off. IMO.

Moon:

... Moving objects like trucks attract attention, and once you focus with a pair of binoculars on it, I am quite confident that you would be able to see the FO team, because it's not just two guys with a pair of binoculars - even radio spotters are hauling a bunch of equipment with them.

Not that much equipment, and no more than several other unit types. The closest example would be a Bn HQ. Also - I would be very surprised if you could count the number of men (beyond a generic 'a few' or 'lots) on the back of a truck when looking through binos, let alone id any packed up equipment stowed on the floor.

Regards

JonS

[ July 10, 2003, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Moon]

JonS, just to make sure that there is no misunderstanding - ID'ing IS tied to experience. What I was saying is that ID'ing an FO is a lot easier than ID'ing the type and model of a particular vehicle/tank.

I used aerials as an example, no clue where they'd put them once in the truck. The game engine itself recognizes an FO team as "heavily equipped" ("radio" less so than "wire"), and hence as more easily ID'able out of a mass of regular rifle squads.

It seems to me that unlike you (and me) Soddball isn't happy with the general rule, but if I misunderstood that then there is no point for a debate, because in such a variable environment as CM is you will always find specific cases for which the "general rules" (i.e. engine) are more or less suited.

Martin

EDIT: Typo...

[ July 10, 2003, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Moon ]

[Moon]

After rereading what I wrote above I think I might have to elaborate on the last sentence. For example - of course a few guys with a radio could be anything, as you say a Battalion HQ for example. But by the same token 12 guys with rifles do not necessarily have to be a squad Yet somehow the game has to tell you, the player, what it is that you see.

Would it make a big difference if you would see "HQ?" before the full ID? I bet most of the guys on this forum would learn quickly how to correctly ID the proper unit no matter what it says on the screen. Yet in real life often you wouldn't be able to tell the difference until after you captured or killed and searched somebody. I don't know if having a bunch of "Inf?" or "HQ?" or "???" units running around on the map until after you get the AAR screen would be more of a help or an obstacle to the game...

Martin

[JonS]

Originally posted by Moon:

JonS, just to make sure that there is no misunderstanding - ID'ing IS tied to experience. What I was saying is that ID'ing an FO is a lot easier than ID'ing the type and model of a particular vehicle/tank.

Yeah, after re-reading your post again very carefully, that was the sense I got, but it wasn't too clear

I used aerials as an example, no clue where they'd put them once in the truck.

hehe - either they are up, in which case the FO should be able to operate normally (which in CMBB they can't) or they should be down, in which case they should be very difficult to id (which in CMBB they aren't) At the moment we have a mix of the worst aspect of both (can't fire, easy to spot)

The game engine itself recognizes an FO team as "heavily equipped" ("radio" less so than "wire"), and hence as more easily ID'able out of a mass of regular rifle squads.

Right - I wonder if this is one of the limitations of having a discrete squad-based model. To an enemy observer it would be extremely hard - nay impossible - to seperate out who was in which squad of a group of guys in the back of a truck, let alone determine the specific role of each squad. But in CM all units are determined to discrete all the time, so it is obvious and clear how many squads are in a truck, or advancing across a field, etc.

Regards

JonS

[JonS]

Originally posted by Moon:

Would it make a big difference if you would see "HQ?" before the full ID? I bet most of the guys on this forum would learn quickly how to correctly ID the proper unit no matter what it says on the screen. Yet in real life often you wouldn't be able to tell the difference until after you captured or killed and searched somebody. I don't know if having a bunch of "Inf?" or "HQ?" or "???" units running around on the map until after you get the AAR screen would be more of a help or an obstacle to the game...

I've been thinking about that. You could leave it up to the player, maybe. Let them work it out based on the way the enemy player has their squads behave. I gave a couple of examples previously about support weapons staying stil in cover, and HQs hanging back a bit behind their squads. Similarly, the first units advancing across an open field in extended line are likely to be regular squads (or half squads) rather than the Bn HQ and his FO. etc. Also useful would be observations on the type of fire that a unit generates (for example, how often do you personally id a unit as being an MG due to the tat-tat-tat sound, and then are left waiting for the engine to sort itself out and update the info displayed?)

But, I think to make this work tolerably well the player would need to have some control over the information that is displayed on spotted units. So, in the MG example above, the player could manually change the 'inf?' tag to 'mg?', etc. Otherwise all you have is, as you say, a mass of 'inf?' 'HQ?' and '???' tags, and a mental image that you kind of hope stays intact until the next time you receive a PBEM turn.

Gameyness could creep in (eg, sending AT teams forward in the first wave, making them look like regular inf teams), and it would require a fairly high degree of concentration and observation from the players, but as an FOW option I doubt it would be impossible or impractical to play with.

Regards

JonS

[dalem]

Originally posted by Moon:

Dalem, trucks are considered open vehicles in CM.

Thanks!

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Soddball:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:

Call me simple, but I still don't get how anything can see into a canvas-topped truck.

-dale

Can I agree with you and call you simple? </font>

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:

2) would the FO's really have their aerials up in the back of the truck? And even if they did, at a range of 2km how different would they look than, say, a Bn HQ?

This one's been bugging me too. I think your observations in another post further down the page are especially cogent.

3) Even with binos, can you even see an antennae at 2km?

Not a chance. With ordinary field glasses you'd be hard pressed to spot them at half that distance even on a clear day in good light, let alone in dusty or other limitied visibility conditions.

Michael

[illo]

Originally posted by Moon:

And we stand by what we have sworn. The TacAI is exactly the same for the computer player as for the human player. HQ tanks are *slightly* favored for targetting, as are FO's. It's those big antennas on the tanks and the guys sticking out giving flag signals and/or the guys with the large rolls of wire and the scissor type binoculars that give it away

Martin

And whats giving away their crack status?

I bet they cant see ritterkreutz from 2000m.

[Wicky]

Has anyone tried 'hiding' the mounted spotter, squad or team whilst in the truck?

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Wicky:

Has anyone tried 'hiding' the mounted spotter, squad or team whilst in the truck?

Yes, and you can't "hide" them

[Soddball]

What alerted me to the problem was a scenario I was playtesting, where a StuG targetted an arty spotter in a truck 2km away rather than a T34/85 500m away which was firing on it. I have since carried out further tests. I picked a platoon HQ because vehicles such as trucks, jeeps and halftracks will back away from a StuG, even hidden in trees, and I needed the test units to advance rather than back away.

Since that initial observation, I have broadened my investigation to cover other bases and I believe that a number of units are affected by this, and that the key is the ability to spot and identify a unit on the back of a truck.

This is the problem. Mortars, MGs and spotters (and possibly other units but I haven't tested) are ID'ed way too easily at long range. Let's say I have two trucks. In one truck I have a split squad with 6 men in, one of which is carrying an LMG-42. In the other truck I have a 6-man HMG-42 squad. Why is the MG-42 squad identified at 2km range and the split infantry squad identified at 400m range? There is no logic here. The same applies for artillery spotters. How can arty spotters be so swiftly identified? Why is it possible to identify a mortar unit, or a MG unit, or an artillery spotter using only a pair of binoculars at such a long range?

The issue is that, quite simply, identification of units on trucks is too easy. Yes, they are exposed - but not much more so than a unit on the back of a tank, or a unit in a jeep.

I suggest that you also look at why it is possible for a unit to 'spot' "Infantry Sounds?" in the back of an enclosed halftrack at 2km range, because my interpretation of a halftrack was that the rear section was enclosed. It shouldn't be possible for a unit to spot that there is anything inside the halftrack except at very close range.

If anyone has any pictures they can post of radio artillery spotters from WW2, it would be much appreciated.

[Moon]

In my tests units in halftracks are not spotted at 2km, highest distance I got was below 1000m. As you know HTs are not fully enclosed, and HQ units have binoculars. FOs on jeeps were identified basically the same as on trucks (and units on the back of a tank would be identified probably even quicker, haven't tested).

Like I said, heavy equipment teams correspond to the same spotting rules in CM, the logic being simply that heavy equipment (like mortar tubes, MGs, radios and accessory equipment) is quite visible (and it's way more difficult to move stealthily with such heavy equipment). For more on this (also with regard to game mechanics, i.e. how to display information to the player), see the previous posts. Until we get individual soldiers displayed the identification of "units" will remain a "gamey" part. You might not agree with this and that's ok, but the game is consistant in this respect.

Martin

[Dave H]

Soddball, I never thought I would say these words about you, but I think you may be on to something. My worst example of spotting was the exact opposite of the long-range X-ray vision you're talking about here. In a PBEM versus Keke, my Russian infantry battalion actually eliminated one of his uber-Finn infantry units. One of my squads ended up standing directly on the Finn body icon, and still the only ID they could get was "Infantry?" Before anyone asks, the Russian squad was regular, in command, and not even under fire. I guess I should have been glad my Russians were able to tell there were no wheels attached. Otherwise they might have mistaken the Finns for a truck.

So we have Germans successfully identifying Forward Observers, mortars, and HMGs in the back of a truck or inside a halftrack at 1,500 to 2,000 meters, and a regular Russian squad unable to identify an eliminated Finn unit at 0 meters. Peculiar. :confused:

[Keke]

Dave, you fool, the bodies were so badly mutilated they were not identifiable anymore. :mad:

Edited for :mad:

[ July 11, 2003, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: Keke ]