the all-seeing über air-support of CMBB i *edited* quite annoying

[Oddball_E8]

i was playing an operation of my own design and have several german units hiding in trenches and foxholes in tall pines and they are now getting strafed quite successfully by reg and grn IL3 aircraft... they are hitting units deep in the woods that have been hiding since the start of the game and not fired a shot... both the ones in trenches (wich i can understand somewhat... trenches are visible, but are the units inside?) and in foxholes (not too obvious to me)... now this is really p*ssing me off! i mean... they should be quite hard to spot... even during the winter (pines keep their "foliage" during winter and should provide good cover)... my theory is that since tall pines dont give as good "visual" cover as woods since the branches grow further up on the trees and there isnt much undergrowth this is transferred to the aircraft aswell, but it really shouldnt since from above a pineforest is not very revealing... i should know cos ive seen them... i live right near pine forests and know how they look (these are wild ones too so now "urbanisation" there) both from below (been there) and above (seen loads of pics of this area taken from planes) and i actually had trouble spotting whole buildings much less scattered infantry... BTS please fix or somthing!

[SgtMuhammed]

Maybe one of your guys forgot to Em-nu his rank and it is glinting in the sun.

Air does seem to be able to spot the strangest things. I had an instance where they bombed a bunch of guys hiding in a wheatfield while ignoring a line of dug in tanks in the open.

[xerxes]

Airpower seems to operate on a keep looking until you find something and then bomb that principle. Airpower seems to be able to find hidden infantry if that's all that's available.

I really think this is a bug in the airpower spotting routines. It unfortunetly brings out the gamey but necessary technique of leaving something of low value out in the open for the airpower to hit.

[Oddball_E8]

well i guess ill take some comfort in the fact that they strafed some of their own infantry in the open... but it sucks when they knock out almost an entire platoon with support and a gun in one go because they can see hidden troops in trenches deep inside the forests...

[Michael Emrys]

Trenches are very visible from the air unless great care has been taken to camouflage them. The same is true of foxholes, though less so. The problem is twofold: the spoil from the excavation is nearly always a different color from the ground nearby and also of a different brightness. This is even more dramatically the case with snow on the ground. Also, shadows form inside them that tend to give them away unless the sun is directly overhead.

All these effects can be countered, but it takes training and experience to get it right, as well as the right materials on hand and the time to employ them.

Having them under trees would make them a lot harder to pick up, but once a trace had been spotted, a flight of attackers would probably plaster the entire woods. If it looks like they are definitely targetting units, then I'd say you might have a legitimate gripe.

Michael

[ August 15, 2003, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[Ligur]

I'm playing a PBEM where I defend vs a German armored assault. My pride and joy was a PAK-front with several guns hidden in trenches and woods, with expertly deployed overlapping fields of fire and overall clever deployment to cover the field. Surely the German armor would be eliminated by such fearsome firepower targeted at them at my leisure.

However during the first 5 minutes of the game some pretty light (only autocannon equipped) German aircraft appeared and promptly took out 5 of my 8 hidden guns before I had spotted even the first armored unit. My tanks and infantry were left alone but don't stand a chance without my AT-assets.

You can imagine the going hasn't been easy since then... AT-guns are very good when you can suddenly mass fire on a single heavy tank from concealed positions or take potshots at lighter armor from cover. Now I haven't been able to use that edge, and seriously, a single medium AT-Gun doesn't have much say vs a Tiger or two.

So, is this normal or a fluke?

Next time when I'm on the attack, I'll be sure to pick some cheap aircraft if available and try this type of tactic if this spotting behaviour is normal.

[Runyan99]

Oddball, I feel your pain.

I just started a scenario where I have trench positions in woods terrain. The game had just started, and all units in the trenches were hiding and had not fired a shot. I did this specifically so that they could not be spotted by enemy planes.

Stukas came in and bombed two different positions to great effect. I was quite suprised, because I did not think that they were going to be spotted, since the trenches were in the woods.

As far as targeting specific units, this seems to be the case here. Both times, the Stukas attacked the best AT guns that I have on the map. I doubt this was random, but was instead the enemy air magically locating the exact location of my most valuable assets.

Now, I am no expert on the subject, but I have been in a low flying plane before, and flown over a generally wooded area. I found it difficult to locate houses. I imagine trenches *might* be visible to the trained eye, but in wooded terrain this still has to be pretty tough. Trenches in the open would obviously stand out like a sore thumb.

It seems that aerial spotting is a little too keen in CMBB.

If I had to guess, I would say that the game engine is seeing a unit in 'trench' terrain, and not a unit in a trench in woods. That is to say, I do not think I am getting an in-game bonus for the woods terrain.

In the future, I will not put anything I do not want bombed inside trenches.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Runyan99:

It seems that aerial spotting is a little too keen in CMBB.

The anecdotal evidence is mounting up...somewhat.

In the future, I will not put anything I do not want bombed inside trenches.

You know, a good test for this, if somebody want to run one, would be to have a map with plenty of woods. Set up some high value targets like guns and some infantry, one-third of each in trenches, one-third in foxholes, and one-third not dug in at all. All of them under the trees. Make the map big enough so that they aren't grouped together. Give the other side a fair number of planes and see what they go after. Keep an accurate and detailed score and run the test a minimum of 20 times (preferably 100 or more depending on how ambitious you are).

Michael

[SirReal]

Ok, some tests reveals that aerial spotting is indeed broken. Hopefully it will be fixed in CMAK.

</font>

• Aircraft can see whether a trench is occupied or not. An empty trench won't get targeted; a trench with a hiding AT gun will. This means that aircraft targets units, not entrenchments.</font>
• An aircraft is able to spot a flamethrower team sitting still in woods, unless they are actively hiding. Also applies to squads and HMGs, and everything bigger than that. No trenches or foxholes are needed for the spotting to occur.</font>

I think this needs to be addressed, unless BFC can produce accounts of fighters spotting and strafing two-man teams sitting still deep in the woods.

[Edited to tell Emrys that this is the result of some ten test runs, totalling 80 Pe bombers making some 200 attack runs.]

/SirReal

[ August 15, 2003, 07:03 PM: Message edited by: SirReal ]

[Oddball_E8]

well i remember reading in CMBO already that moving tanks and vehicles into scattered trees or to the edge of roads in woods would make it more difficult for airplanes to target them, but i noticed that it didnt seem to affect them at all... tried (in CMBO) hiding my tanks (yes.. HIDING) in scattered trees and keeping some low-value vehicles as diversions in open terrain, but the tanks were always targeted... but since i didnt use airsupport that much i didnt gripe about it... now i do...

[Michael Emrys]

SirReal:

Your tests are very suggestive that there is indeed a problem. The only thing that holds me back from saying that they are conclusive is that, as you say, you only ran them ten times. It's a known fact that in CM it is possible to have a series of unlikely events. I recall one apparent problem that turned up last year and people were running literally hundreds of trials. The first couple hundred or so made it look like the problem was really there. It was only after several hundred more had been run that the true picture emerged.

Statistics and chance are like that.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

First of all, I generally agree that there is something funky about aerial spotting. Based on my play expereince, I agree with xerxes that this seems to have something to do with a "must target something" aspect of the model.

I almost never see Air Assets targeting small infantry teams and the like if there are vehicles and tanks around, but if there is nothing this 'juicy' around, it seems very likely to go after some hapless (and often well hidden) infantry unit.

However, it is important to keep in mind that there are all sorts of funky things about aerial spotting that the game doesn't presently model, but might help or hurt a pilot's ability to locate and attack a ground target.

For example, under some conditions, such as fresh snowfall, even foot tracks across open ground a very easily visible from the air. While it might be difficult to spot infantry in a stand of pine trees, a bunch of foot tracks leading in to the trees would give him a pretty darn good idea of where to look. Conversely, a tank parked on the shady side of a building can be extremely difficult to spot from the air, but is easily picked out in CM.

As such, some unlikely air attacks can be excused as being the result of terrain and movement factors not presently modeled. I do agree that the model could use some revamping overall, though.

IMHO, Air Assets should be handled more like Corps or Army level Artillery assets. While 'roving' Tactical Air that simply wandered around looking for something to shoot at was certainly used by all the major combatants at one point or another during the war, especially close to the front line it seems to me that it was much more common to give a flight of FBs a specific target, like a village, length of ridgeline, or stretch of road.

Ideally, then, I'd like to see a new kind of Tac Air in the game in addition to the present 'roving' units. This type of air support would be targettable like ground artillery, but with the following changes:

(1) Very long delay time, as in a half hour or more, so it would be only useful as pre-planned barrage, or maybe in very long scenarios.

(2) Even when 'pre-planned', Tac Air should have a considerable random factor as to when it arrives. The one exception might be for Air attacks scheduled by the attacker to arrive on turn one - this would reflect situations where the attack was planned begin immediately after the air attack. The defender probably shouldn't be eligible for this 'turn one guaranteed arrival' to prevent gamey attacks on the Attacker in the setup zone. In order to do this IRL, the defender would have to know exactly when the attack was coming, a rare thing.

(3) Tac Air Arty should not be eligible for TRP time/accuracy bonus. Planes waiting 'on stack' to attack pre-designated ground coordinates didn't really happen until Vietnam.

(4) Tac Air Arty should have a wider area of effect than typical arty - more like rocket arty in terms of 'target zone'

(5) Tac Air Artillery should be 'smart' to a degree - it should search for visible enemy units within the assigned target area. If it sees something, it should bomb/strafe it. Friendly units in the 'target zone' should be nearly as likely as the enemy to get attention. Overall chance of spotting ground units should probably be less than it is now, though.

(6) If no enemy is visible in the target area when the Tac Air arrives, it should attack areas of good cover in the target area, starting first with trenches and other visible fortifications, and then working down through buildings and woods, etc.

(7) Tac air arty should probably usually only be available in units of at least two planes, and depending on nationality possibly as high as 4-6 planes. Only vary rarely were solo planes sent out on attack missions.

Overall, this strikes me as much closer to the way Tac Air support was actually used by most combatants during most of the war. Such an asset would be very powerful in CM, so it should be expensive, but I don't think it would be any more game unbalancing than, say, 240mm artillery, which can also completely dominate a game with a bit of lucky targetting.

Besides, it would be fun to play scenarios involving a Staffel of Stukas working over an enemy-held town before sending your Panzers in, or whatever. So long as the defender had enough points to make up for losses to the initial air attack, I think I would be great fun, and entirely realistic.

Who knows, maybe something like this will show up for CMX2. . .

Cheers,

YD

[xerxes]

I've had planes target my infantry that was deep (3 tiles) into woods (full foliage). Sorry, there is no way in real life that could possibly happen. I was rather stunned when it happened.

[SirReal]

Originally posted by xerxes:

I've had planes target my infantry that was deep (3 tiles) into woods (full foliage). Sorry, there is no way in real life that could possibly happen. I was rather stunned when it happened.

Yes, this is what I'm seeing too.

It doesn't really matter if we see this behaviour ten times out of a thousand; it shouldn't even happen once in a thousand.

My beef with it is that the air doesn't target what it probably should: Empty trenches. And that it targets what it reasonably couldn't: Two men sitting still inside a huge wood. (And no; there's no snow, and we all know that even if it were, CMBB doesn't model tracks left in the snow.)

It's not until the advent of thermal imaging that aerial hunting for individuals inside deep forests becomes feasible. I think that's outside the reasonable timeframe for a WW2 simulator.

/SirReal

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

IMHO, Air Assets should be handled more like Corps or Army level Artillery assets. While 'roving' Tactical Air that simply wandered around looking for something to shoot at was certainly used by all the major combatants at one point or another during the war, especially close to the front line it seems to me that it was much more common to give a flight of FBs a specific target, like a village, length of ridgeline, or stretch of road.

Ideally, then, I'd like to see a new kind of Tac Air in the game in addition to the present 'roving' units. This type of air support would be targettable like ground artillery, but with the following changes:

(1) Very long delay time, as in a half hour or more, so it would be only useful as pre-planned barrage, or maybe in very long scenarios.

(2) Even when 'pre-planned', Tac Air should have a considerable random factor as to when it arrives. The one exception might be for Air attacks scheduled by the attacker to arrive on turn one - this would reflect situations where the attack was planned begin immediately after the air attack. The defender probably shouldn't be eligible for this 'turn one guaranteed arrival' to prevent gamey attacks on the Attacker in the setup zone. In order to do this IRL, the defender would have to know exactly when the attack was coming, a rare thing.

(3) Tac Air Arty should not be eligible for TRP time/accuracy bonus. Planes waiting 'on stack' to attack pre-designated ground coordinates didn't really happen until Vietnam.

(4) Tac Air Arty should have a wider area of effect than typical arty - more like rocket arty in terms of 'target zone'

(5) Tac Air Artillery should be 'smart' to a degree - it should search for visible enemy units within the assigned target area. If it sees something, it should bomb/strafe it. Friendly units in the 'target zone' should be nearly as likely as the enemy to get attention. Overall chance of spotting ground units should probably be less than it is now, though.

(6) If no enemy is visible in the target area when the Tac Air arrives, it should attack areas of good cover in the target area, starting first with trenches and other visible fortifications, and then working down through buildings and woods, etc.

(7) Tac air arty should probably usually only be available in units of at least two planes, and depending on nationality possibly as high as 4-6 planes. Only vary rarely were solo planes sent out on attack missions.

Overall, this strikes me as much closer to the way Tac Air support was actually used by most combatants during most of the war. Such an asset would be very powerful in CM, so it should be expensive, but I don't think it would be any more game unbalancing than, say, 240mm artillery, which can also completely dominate a game with a bit of lucky targetting.

I agree with nearly all of your points. You may recall there was a lengthy discussion a year or so ago on this topic and I and others made almost identical suggestions. Doesn't hurt to bring it up again.

Besides, it would be fun to play scenarios involving a Staffel of Stukas working over an enemy-held town before sending your Panzers in, or whatever.

I tried this in the first QB I played in BB and the damn Stukas bombed an important group of my own units. At that point I aborted the battle. I think now I know what I might have done wrong and maybe I will try it again one of these days. But it would be better after incorporating some of the suggested improvements.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

Yes. I absolutely agree that these are unrealistic results. I think the problem is that Tac Air is handled too much like a ground unit, and not enough like artillery.

I don't think the TacAI is capable of 'area fire' (the StratAI is, but the StratAI only functions as the computer player, and so does not directly control units' actions). As a result, in order for an air unit to attack at all, it has to target a unit of some sort. Since you can't target trenches (except by area fire), Air Assets can't attack them when they're empty.

Long term, the solution is defintely some sort of system that allows air assets to attack terrain features, rather than just units. Personally, I think the player should have some limited control over what area of the map is targeted by air support.

Basically, I think Tac Air should behave like slightly 'smart' artillery - if it happens to see an enemy unit in its assigned target area, it will hit it, and it tends to try to hit denser areas of cover.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I don't think the TacAI is capable of 'area fire' (the StratAI is, but the StratAI only functions as the computer player, and so does not directly control units' actions). As a result, in order for an air unit to attack at all, it has to target a unit of some sort. Since you can't target trenches (except by area fire), Air Assets can't attack them when they're empty.

Interesting interpretation. I think you may be right.

Long term, the solution is defintely some sort of system that allows air assets to attack terrain features, rather than just units. Personally, I think the player should have some limited control over what area of the map is targeted by air support.

One of the suggestions that came out of last year's discussion was that an area for attack should be designated in one of two ways:

Either the player places a marker on the map and the attackers will bomb/strafe within a stated radius of it;

OR

The player outlines an area of the map and the attackers will try to stay within it.

There will always be some chance that the attackers will bomb/strafe outside their designated strike area. This can vary with weather, experience of the pilots, type of plane, and other factors.

The attackers will prioritize targets in a certain order. The default priority would be:

AAA assets.

Vehicles of any type.

Guns of any type.

Personnel units.

The player can set his own priorities. For instance, he could order a strike against a designated building or terrain feature.

This is just a bare skeleton and should by no means be taken for a final schema, but maybe it gives the idea.

Michael

[ August 16, 2003, 08:33 AM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Deliberate assaults were usually preceded by some sort of reconnaissance, information from such was usually shared with supporting arms - engineers, artillery, armour, and air.

Perhaps scenario designers need more flexibility and ability to script out conditions - ie footprints in the snow, hasty defence, no recce beforehand, etc.

[SgtMuhammed]

Like an earlier discussion I am beginning to wonder how much the abstracting in the game lends itself to seemingly strange results. We don't see footprints in the snow but maybe the program does. We don't see that one frightened solder fire off a burst when supposed to be in cover but the program does.

I don't know if these things are actually happening but it is well known that there is a good deal of abstraction in the game.

One thing that pilots have noticed throughout aerial combat is that when people on the ground look up at low flying aircraft their faces stand out like a neon sign, even in what you would think was pretty good cover. Again this could be a random factor build into the program that doesn't readily show itself on the screen.

BTW, the U.S., at least, did have the practice of stacking aircraft on call to support advancing ground forces. They started it at about the time of the Normandy breakout.

One thing about AI targeting. I think it prioritizes on the basis of threat and value. While an empty trench is easy to see it is no threat, and since it cannot be destroyed, no point value so it is not shot at. Trucks, on the other hand, present no threat but have a point value. Without more valuable targets they will be targeted.

I agree that there are some pretty quirky things about the aerial spotting process but I have really begun to wonder how much difference there is between what we can see and what is really happening.