AI spotting cheat ?

[treadgrease]

Newbie to this game, though not to wargaming.

Problem: seems like at guns are basically useless, as they are unrealistically spotted right away, to easily. A problem in most games, to be sure.

Did a test against buttoned tanks only, had them in open, in woods, and in woods in trenches. No difference.

Are my assumptions correct, or what am I missing ?

Just sure seems the ai tanks can spot at guns much to easily, and once one ai tank spots them, seems like every tank on the field has an instant radio message about it <g>

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by treadgrease:

Did a test against buttoned tanks only, had them in open, in woods, and in woods in trenches. No difference.

Do you have them hiding? Cover arcs? Did the guns fire at all? My guns can hide pretty much forever as long as there in cover and no infantry is close by.

Originally posted by treadgrease:

..once one ai tank spots them, seems like every tank on the field has an instant radio message about it

A.K.A. Borg spotting. We all hate it and there's not much you can do about it. It's considered a valid flaw in the CM games.

[treadgrease]

Originally posted by MeatEtr:

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

Did a test against buttoned tanks only, had them in open, in woods, and in woods in trenches. No difference.

Do you have them hiding? Cover arcs? Did the guns fire at all? My guns can hide pretty much forever as long as there in cover and no infantry is close by.

Originally posted by treadgrease:

..once one ai tank spots them, seems like every tank on the field has an instant radio message about it

A.K.A. Borg spotting. We all hate it and there's not much you can do about it. It's considered a valid flaw in the CM games. </font>

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by treadgrease:

Haven't tried hiding. Have tried arcs. Guns fired once or twice, then eliminated from 600 - 1000 yds away. Five tests, after first noticing it in Dorosh's GD scenario "Untraining at Ledz" (or something like that)

But sounds like hiding them, unhiding when time to shoot would not make a difference ?

Keep in mind too, when you do decide to actually fire the guns, it will be much harder to keep them hidden after doing so, but it is possible. The AI tanks will expose themselves again. But obviously that ain't gonna work against another human player, he'll just do area fire on the gun.

Also, IMHO, another valid flaw in the CM games is the spotting ability of tanks. I think most would agree. It's just way too good, especially for buttoned up tanks.

[treadgrease]

Originally posted by MeatEtr:

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

Haven't tried hiding. Have tried arcs. Guns fired once or twice, then eliminated from 600 - 1000 yds away. Five tests, after first noticing it in Dorosh's GD scenario "Untraining at Ledz" (or something like that)

But sounds like hiding them, unhiding when time to shoot would not make a difference ?

Keep in mind too, when you do decide to actually fire the guns, it will be much harder to keep them hidden after doing so, but it is possible. The AI tanks will expose themselves again. But obviously that ain't gonna work against another human player, he'll just do area fire on the gun.

Also, IMHO, another valid flaw in the CM games is the spotting ability of tanks. I think most would agree. It's just way too good, especially for buttoned up tanks. </font>

[Akula2]

My experience is that smaller calibre guns are harder to spot also. For instance the 88s seem to bark pretty loud and their size is comperable to maybe a small tank or at least a tankette.

Trenches don't seem to help the spotting issue for me either. It seems like the trench at least gets revealed even if the units in it haven't yet.

On the other hand, trenches are excellent cover even if they seem to degrade concealment. (at least thats how it seems to me)

When defending I almost always put my guns in trenches when they're available to me.

I do what these guys are saying. I put a real short covered arc on my guns so they don't fire at the first fleeting target that comes inside their maximum range.

When I have a target I'll set another covered arc (often a blue one) to limit his field of fire. Guns seem to rotate to face the centre of their covered arcs so be careful. I don't hide them without reason though. I do rotate them quite a bit once I get a hint of the enemy. (that fleeting glimpse that I didnt waste a round on) I rotate them to where I think that target will show up and present a good shot for me. This makes for quicker kills and possibly multiple kills vs the Borgs. A premptive narrow-ish arc can be used in this case too.

On the rare occasion, usually when attacking I'll make covered arcs so narrow as to encompass a single defending unit. This way I can conserve some ammo be deselecting him during my orders phase and be ensured that he's still a priority. It's a supressive fire thing that works best with HMGs vs pesky guns in trenches. It keeps their heads down whilst my armor does it's thing.

Of course a HQ with a stealth bonus helps a lot too. The guns experience may or may not help. Doesnt seem so for me though.

If you quickly eliminate your target and are a decent distance off, you may try a new very short covered arc and hiding in the hopes the enemy only got a sound contact. Like Meateatr said though, a human will rarely be fooled by this.

Small guns have their merit when it comes to sound.

This is all just based on my observations from playing. Some or all of it may be totally wrong.

[ October 31, 2004, 02:48 PM: Message edited by: Akula2 ]

[treadgrease]

Originally posted by Akula2:

My experience is that smaller calibre guns are harder to spot also. For instance the 88s seem to bark pretty loud and their size is comperable to maybe a small tank or at least a tankette.

Trenches don't seem to help the spotting issue for me either. It seems like the trench at least gets revealed even if the units in it haven't yet.

On the other hand, trenches are excellent cover even if they seem to degrade concealment. (at least thats how it seems to me)

When defending I almost always put my guns in trenches when they're available to me.

I do what these guys are saying. I put a real short covered arc on my guns so they don't fire at the first fleeting target that comes inside their maximum range.

When I have a target I'll set another covered arc (often a blue one) to limit his field of fire. Guns seem to rotate to face the centre of their covered arcs so be careful. I don't hide them without reason though. I do rotate them quite a bit once I get a hint of the enemy. (that fleeting glimpse that I didnt waste a round on) I rotate them to where I think that target will show up and present a good shot for me. This makes for quicker kills and possibly multiple kills vs the Borgs. A premptive narrow-ish arc can be used in this case too.

On the rare occasion, usually when attacking I'll make covered arcs so narrow as to encompass a single defending unit. This way I can conserve some ammo be deselecting him during my orders phase and be ensured that he's still a priority. It's a supressive fire thing that works best with HMGs vs pesky guns in trenches. It keeps their heads down whilst my armor does it's thing.

Of course a HQ with a stealth bonus helps a lot too. The guns experience may or may not help. Doesnt seem so for me though.

If you quickly eliminate your target and are a decent distance off, you may try a new very short covered arc and hiding in the hopes the enemy only got a sound contact. Like Meateatr said though, a human will rarely be fooled by this.

Small guns have their merit when it comes to sound.

This is all just based on my observations from playing. Some or all of it may be totally wrong.

k, thanks. Thats the rub though; what good is an at gun that historically was routinely used(i.e., not even thier max range) for much longer range encounters than the arcs suggested ?

I mean, that was their whole advantage, besides small size; ability to close with the enemy before it was right on top of them.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding you; what arc ranges are you thinking of ?

I.e., for a 75 and 88 mm pak.

[Akula2]

I guess your arc depends what you expect to be facing and what your gun is. It's often best to get a good idea of what armor is out there before letting the gun fire.

In a current AK pbem I'm defending as American against a German assault. I bought 76mm ATGs.

I stifled their fire and it wasn't long before I spied a column of assault guns. (towed guns too)

Anyhow, my guns were good out past 500m. When I determined where he'd prolly pop out of his rabbit hole, I rotated the guns to that spot and set a narrowish arc somewhere over 500m. The terrain dictated it's shape.

My initial stifling arc was 5m.

Had I spied a couple of Tigers instead of StuGs, I'd have had to come up with something more creative. Maybe I'd have had to hope they'd pass within 100m of my guns without spotting the trenches they are in. Not likely, but hey ... what's a guy ta do. For sure, I'd be regretting that I didnt buy 90mm AA guns.

I managed 2 kills against his StuGs with one gun inside one movie. Not bad. I guess it was just under 500m.

My gun is surely gonna perish though. He's too good. Infantry is close and already putting down supressive fire. I'm certain his mortars are on their way up.

Still, a good trade.

88 Pak/Flak is great at great distances against almost any AFV as far as I know. They still bark like a Glock 19 though. Though never buy em, when I'm given them in a scenario I try to use them at the greatest distance possible.

Same tactics apply though. Ambush. Kill quick and move.

Move him if possible after he eliminates a threat. Didnt they do that in real life? If they did they probably did it cause they could measure their life expectency in a matter of minutes.

Smaller guns are easier to move too.

I don't hold with guns as the ideal offensive weapon. They can work and did in real life, but if they worked so well why did they encase them in steel, put em on tracks and rename 'em panzers.

I contend they're ambushers. Even the light skin non-turret Tank Destroyers are ambushers imo.

[treadgrease]

Originally posted by Akula2:

I guess your arc depends what you expect to be facing and what your gun is. It's often best to get a good idea of what armor is out there before letting the gun fire.

In a current AK pbem I'm defending as American against a German assault. I bought 76mm ATGs.

I stifled their fire and it wasn't long before I spied a column of assault guns. (towed guns too)

Anyhow, my guns were good out past 500m. When I determined where he'd prolly pop out of his rabbit hole, I rotated the guns to that spot and set a narrowish arc somewhere over 500m. The terrain dictated it's shape.

My initial stifling arc was 5m.

Had I spied a couple of Tigers instead of StuGs, I'd have had to come up with something more creative. Maybe I'd have had to hope they'd pass within 100m of my guns without spotting the trenches they are in. Not likely, but hey ... what's a guy ta do. For sure, I'd be regretting that I didnt buy 90mm AA guns.

I managed 2 kills against his StuGs with one gun inside one movie. Not bad. I guess it was just under 500m.

My gun is surely gonna perish though. He's too good. Infantry is close and already putting down supressive fire. I'm certain his mortars are on their way up.

Still, a good trade.

88 Pak/Flak is great at great distances against almost any AFV as far as I know. They still bark like a Glock 19 though. Though never buy em, when I'm given them in a scenario I try to use them at the greatest distance possible.

Same tactics apply though. Ambush. Kill quick and move.

Move him if possible after he eliminates a threat. Didnt they do that in real life? If they did they probably did it cause they could measure their life expectency in a matter of minutes.

Smaller guns are easier to move too.

I don't hold with guns as the ideal offensive weapon. They can work and did in real life, but if they worked so well why did they encase them in steel, put em on tracks and rename 'em panzers.

I contend they're ambushers. Even the light skin non-turret Tank Destroyers are ambushers imo.

Thanks, gave me some ideas to try here.

Oh, and I was actually meaning at guns in the defense. Like you said, they're made for ambushes imo.

Anyway, going back to the scenario I first noticed this at (mainly because its one of the first I've played <g>), I just can't believe a buttoned up tank crew could spot any at gun in woods/trench (added a trench for a test) at half a mile or more.

Hell, irl, it would be hard for an unbuttoned crew, even a tc standing in the turret, unless he happened to be looking at exactly the right spot beforehand, at the above distances, imo, and even then....

But I think I'll mess around a bit. Moving a 75 mm and up at gun will give the boys a good workout anyway <g>

[Akula2]

Ageed, they do spot far too well ... particularly buttoned up.

Have fun and cheers.

-Robert

[treadgrease]

Originally posted by Akula2:

Ageed, they do spot far too well ... particularly buttoned up.

Have fun and cheers.

-Robert

Thanks Robert........you a sub fan too ?

[Akula2]

Aye.

I made the mistake of Reading Red Storm Rising and Hunt. After that I consumed everything by both Clancy and Bond.

That led me directly to the Harpoon paper and pencil game. I had already been playing Squad Leader since it hit the market.

My interest ebb and flow. I played a number of both Naval and ground games on both the computer and tabletop.

I had my grog phases with both also, exploring the "what ifs" and being enamored with big cats.

ASL was always a staple in my diet as is (now)casual reading. I'm certain CM has taken it's place completely.

I'll be buying Dangerous Waters. I enjoyed it's predecessor very much.

[treadgrease]

Originally posted by Akula2:

Aye.

I made the mistake of Reading Red Storm Rising and Hunt. After that I consumed everything by both Clancy and Bond.

That led me directly to the Harpoon paper and pencil game. I had already been playing Squad Leader since it hit the market.

My interest ebb and flow. I played a number of both Naval and ground games on both the computer and tabletop.

I had my grog phases with both also, exploring the "what ifs" and being enamored with big cats.

ASL was always a staple in my diet as is (now)casual reading. I'm certain CM has taken it's place completely.

I'll be buying Dangerous Waters. I enjoyed it's predecessor very much.

Hehe, sounds like me If you haven't yet, give Christopher Reich's books a try; I like them better than Clancy myself.

[Bone_Vulture]

One more thing about AT guns: since they are immobile, you'll need the advantage of ambush or superior numbers in order to use them efficiently.

In an ideal situation, you have set two AT guns around the opposing edges of the field, so each has a keyhole vision to the other gun's general area of fire. This way, it's likely that you'll be firing at an enemy tank simultaneously from two different angles, vastly increasing the chance of deadly hits.

Going for flank hits is the first priority of lone AT guns. Aiming at a flanking tank has three major advantages:

1) Flank of a tank much easier to hit

2) Easier to penetrate

3) Grants you more time before the tank can wheel to face you.

Use your expendable infantry or fast, light vehicles to attract the attention of enemy armor to favorable direction.

[Sergei]

The problem isn't about the individual tank's ability to spot guns. Try a test scenario with 1 gun and 1 tank. The tank will be having hard time finding where the gun is, just like it should. Especially if the crew is buttoned, if the gun is small and far away, if the gun has a leader with stealth bonus, if visibility is not perfect, and so on.

However, with more tanks and infantry in the play and with all of them having a LOS to the gun, sooner or later someone will locate the gun. And on that very second every unit knows where it is. This is called as "Borg spotting".

The best way to deal with Borg problem is to set up such narrow lanes of fire that only a portion of the enemy forces can engage your gun at a time (the keyhole that Bone Vulture mentions). Preferably only one tank at a time. It also helps to button up the crews and pinning the infantry before you open fire, as that hinders spotting.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Sergei:

The best way to deal with Borg problem is to set up such narrow lanes of fire that only a portion of the enemy forces can engage your gun at a time (the keyhole that Bone Vulture mentions). Preferably only one tank at a time. It also helps to button up the crews and pinning the infantry before you open fire, as that hinders spotting.

Continuing Sergei's advice... when you set the keyhole position for your AT gun, make sure your narrow field of fire covers terrain where enemy tanks have difficulty to maneuver. For example, narrow corridors of grass between patches of forest, vast fields of marshland or mud, and so on.

Obviously this only works on maps with very thick foliage; in more open maps enemy tanks have room to select best paths of approach, and also there's the least amount of keyhole positions. In situations like this, you might want to go for fire volume and advantage of range (and this is usually a viable option only for late war German Pak's).

Sergei made an important point about buttoning up the tanks beforehand: cupola or not, a buttoned tank is a lot more blind than an unbuttoned one. Also, tanks button up quite hastily; even scattered rifle / LMG fire at long distances is likely to cause tanks to close hatches. Using HMGs at long distance is also a practical tactic to harass the enemy's scouting infantry, further hindering his ability to borg spot.

Finally, remember that very few AT guns have the mobility to change positions after being exposed: an experienced opponent will call deadly field mortar fire on your guns the very next turn after they're exposed. This means that it's imperative that you do not show your hand before the enemy exposes its main armor force.

Any armchair commander worth his/her salt will attempt to smoke out your AT guns before sending the expensive tanks to the front. They'll send scouts and light vehicles, trying to badger you in firing and exposing your guns. So design your defense so that the AT guns have auxiliaty defenses sharing a common field of fire; like armored cars with light guns, or AT rifle teams. Keeps these auxiliary forces mobile, so that they can support AT guns across your defense line.

[treadgrease]

Ok, thanks for the tips guys. But I gotta be honest; a lot of it sounds like ways to beat the game/game flaw, much more than real life tactics.

But I'll give it a go.

[spartan1]

Thanks for some great tips guys I will put them in use as well since I had always problems in placing my AT guns. Some much problem that I was using them mainly for defencing the rear parts of my lines in case an enemy was breaking through.

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by treadgrease:

a lot of it sounds like ways to beat the game/game flaw, much more than real life tactics.

That's because this isn't real life, thankfully.

Originally posted by spartan1:

Thanks for some great tips guys I will put them in use as well since I had always problems in placing my AT guns. Some much problem that I was using them mainly for defencing the rear parts of my lines in case an enemy was breaking through.

In CM, it's rarely a good idea to have multiple layers of defense. Although this sounds brash, I'd say that attempting to evacuate your forces from the first line of defense causes too much casualties. It appears to be a better solution to have a single solid defense line that is reinforced from the rear, and locally beefed by more mobile units.

This is just my personal experience though, not common opinion.

[Moon]

Originally posted by treadgrease:

Ok, thanks for the tips guys. But I gotta be honest; a lot of it sounds like ways to beat the game/game flaw, much more than real life tactics.

But I'll give it a go.

Actually less than you think.

What IS a "game flaw" is the speed with which the exchange of information happens. Like Sergei said, the second a unit is spotted, all units on the map know of it (this is only fair when you think about it - the player would know of it as well, so the AI should, too). Therefore AT guns sometimes die "too quickly", before they are able to achieve the expected "historical death toll"

But the fact that exposing your AT gun to a lot of enemy eyes increases your chance of being spotted isn't gamey at all. Placing your AT gun defenses in defilade is very much a real life tactic, and its purpose (besides getting flank shots) IS to avoid detection as much as possible from too many eyes.

Martin

[Leopard_2]

(This was a stupid question about human opponents and unhiding certain forces, deleted since my PBEM opponent just phoned asking me the URL to this forum... )

[ November 02, 2004, 03:59 AM: Message edited by: Leopard_2 ]

[Soddball]

Extending the life of your AT gun:

Trench as opposed to foxhole - big gains in survivability.

Keep the AT gun in command radius, if possible in command of a HQ unit with Stealth bonuses, Morale and Combat bonuses are also very valuable.

Higher ability is (obviously) better - the same seems to be the case for the HQ. Crack or Veteran, supported by a Crack HQ with lots of bonuses, will live much longer.

Open ground is bad. Tall pines or woods are good.

Reverse slope! Reverse slope! Reverse slope! Shots whistle over the top or impact on the slope.

Sharpshooters or MGs to button up enemy vehicles increases the length of time it takes to spot your guns.

'Keyholing' - ensuring that the gun covers only a small area of a map. If your AT gun can see half the map, that means everyone can fire on it at the same time. Certain death beckons.

Combine all of the above.

Hope this helps.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Soddball:

Open ground is bad. Tall pines or woods are good.

Ever heard of these:

?

Some sort of brush or something might help a bit in concealment without the ill effects of tree bursts, though.

[Soddball]

We are talking AT guns vs tanks. I agree about mortars, but given a choice between an AT gun dug in a trench in trees on a reverse slope, and one in a foxhole in open ground, I know what I'd choose.

[Mr. Tittles]

The game could abstract out the borg slightly. An example is modeling the ATG as a 'small' target (smaller than they are modeled now).

Another abstraction would be to have Tanks rotate turrets/hulls slowly (regardless of actual turret speed) when buttoned up when firing at ATG. This dampens the borg gang-target that happens when an ATG opens fire. This simulates the Tanks percieving the flash but not exactlty seeing the gun. If the gun is outside the turret 'covered-arc' (lets say 60 degrees for the sake of discussion), then its extra slow.

ATG should also remain sound contacts longer and the exact position only revealed after several shots have been fired. A buttoned up tank group would then have to use area fire into likely positions.

The ATG crews should pin easily and auto-hide. This may save them from tabks that are buttoned.

Also, why not a 'shoot n hide' order for ATG? Basically take one shot and then hide.

Good abstractions can balance game limitations if applied in a wise manner.

[ November 02, 2004, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: Mr. Tittles ]