Concealment considerations

[athlete]

Well, being a freak as it relates to operational research, I've now (3 months or so into my CM life) am starting to experiment with the question of "when is unit 'x' going to be seen by unit 'y' under 'z' conditions.

I've found that one of my tactical planning limitations is the ability to predict when my unit is going to be seen, such that I can conceal ambushers, and/or properly set up overlapping fields of fire based on predicted points of first contact.

So, I built a flat map that has one of every type of terrain during mid-day in the summer in 4x4 squares and placed a 'hiding' AT gun in the 'least deep' tile of every terrain type, then had an enemy inf march toward each, logging when visual contact was made.

My intention is to over time collect this data for every scenerio so that I know what I can count on.

Following the above model, the following factors will be tried (this will take a while methinks).

Conditions: Time of day, weather, season

Units: Each combination of 'hider' and 'seeker'

Unit states: Movement (hider and seeker), hiding/not hiding

Position: Depth within terrain type.

1. Anyone know if unit skill affects thier ability to spot? If so I'll add this factor.

2. Anyone know if differences in relative elevation have an impact? Not as it relates to obstacles, but as it relates to terrain type.

2. Am I missing anything

3. Has anyone already done this work?

I saw a thread wherein somebody had posted '% exposed' but I'm not sure what insight this gives unless someone can tell me how to translate that into a distance at which it can be seen...

I'm hoping that I won't have to do every combination, that using the silouette values etc...that I'll be able to do some regression calcs to predictively determine what the results will be, and then confirm it through a couple of confirmation runs.

Any feedback (short of, "holy you're anal!") would be appreciated.

[ May 02, 2005, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: athlete ]

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Not to add too much work for you, but I suspect that there is a random chance event thrown in there also. In some of my own hotseat testing of scenarios, I've had some hiding infantry be spotted while others less than 10m away in the same terrain were able to remain hidden.

[Boo Radley]

Were your AT assets hidden or unhidden? Did they have cover arcs? Were they under an officer with "Stealth" skills?

Putting them in trenches will help conceal them, too.

[Other Means]

The spotting unit having binoculars has the greatest effect. You can check this in the unit properties.

Also, I've got the impression it's the number of eyes watching has a cumulative effect, which makes the calculation very much more difficult than your test could ascertain. I think it's worth while, but maybe with a HMG as the spotter as these have enhanced spotting and supply the long range pinning fire.

Then if you like, you could try with a Company CO, then the CO having combat bonuses etc. Or with 2 HMG's to see if the range is longer etc.

I'd be interested in the result if you go through with this.

[YankeeDog]

Do a search for posts on this issue by Redwolf; IIRC he did some pretty extensive tests on these issues a while back.

Some of the answers will surprise some of you. . .

[athlete]

Thanks for the feedback

[JasonC]

Other factors that matter are (1) exact facing of the spotter(s) and of course (2) whether the spott-ee is firing. When a sound contact becomes a full ID is often a crucial question, for instance. And some shooters are much stealthier than others (snipers, MGs, ATRs, the smallest PAK).

[athlete]

(changed name of thread...really no cover conversation here...only concealment)

JasonC, yeah, I agree...for my purposes, at this point, I'm most interested in the worst case scenerio...so the bit of testing I've done so far has been 'hide'the AT Gun JUST inside the terrain, and have a Platoon HQ and a rifle squad walk shoulder to shoulder straight at it.

I don't expect to get a perfect, or even perfectly repeatable result, but I want a guideline that gives me, okay, an inf is going to spot an AT gun in scattered trees at about 120yards, in woods at about 40, in wheat about 80...something like that...if it's 80, or 70, or 90, I can live with a range like that...but right now I don't have any data other than anecdotals like, 'well scattered trees is better than brush'.

Once the firing stops, I'm willing to accept for now that pretty much everything within LOS is likely to know where it is...again, worst case...once I've established worst-case/typical, I'll look at things like snipers shooting etc...but first macro, then micro.

By the way, I can't find that thread by Redwolf...can anyone help in that regard?

[MikeyD]

I did a 'LOS in summer wheat' test for an infantry platoon a loooong time ago. I can't recall the hard numbers, but the percentage visible number did drop off in a few big steps the farther back you went. You had to get a platoon pretty deep into the wheat before they were 100% concealed. I recall I had to use an enemy 'regular' bazooka man with no binoculars for spotting because units with binocs would skew the results.

[Brent Pollock]

...except that the trench will be spotted well before the gun, and will likely attract mortar fire & smoke.

Originally posted by Boo Radley:

Putting them in trenches will help conceal them, too.

[Soddball]

Guns targetted on a unit will remain hidden for a period of time - the greater the 'concealment factors', the longer the time.

However, guns 'area targetting' appear in the correct location almost instantly, even at extreme ranges (4km+).

[Micheal Wittman]

I myself still have a problem after 3 years of playing, with how the game interface portrays concealment. I have lost sooo many units due to not figuring out the absraction of concealment, by assuming a unit is hiddin from certain enemy units. For me it's about using or misusing,the game machanics, by assuming due to the conditions or not, that a unit is concealed.

I look back on how the "Close Combat" series dealt with concealment matters too.

What happens for me is a "Lost In Translastion"

thing, where I know what I want my units to be

doing or not doing, but half my losses are from

not translating that through the game interface. I find this thread interesting because I have thought about this for sometime now..

CheerZ!

[athlete]

Might be a dumb question, but where is the %concealed number coming from in your testing?

[Gpig]

Also, Redwold (ISTR) had a warning for anyone who delves deeply into this line of investigation.

You may find the fun of playing CM ruined for you, after you discover the "little man behind the curtain."

Gpig

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Gpig:

Also, Redwold (ISTR) had a warning for anyone who delves deeply into this line of investigation.

You may find the fun of playing CM ruined for you, after you discover the "little man behind the curtain."

Gpig

Which is not the same as discovering the "little man in the boat", which would make anyone's day.

[Gpig]

The gods do not deduct from a man's alloted span the hours spent conversing with the little man in the boat.

-HEFNERian proverb

[Bonxa]

IIRC Redwolfs conclusion was that you can look at this a little bit but don't do it thoroughly or you'll ruin alot of the CM experience .

When you have played for a while you get the hang of it anyhow. Good things to know is that tree help alot less when there are no leaves on them (duh) and that foxholes and the like are easily spotted in the open. I've been bitten by the last one when area fire starts to pour in before I even see the oncoming enemy. This was in a snowstorm!! Maybe weather only affects the visibility of units and not foxholes?

Well, don't dig to deep or you might ruin alot for all those who read this thread.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Gpig:

The gods do not deduct from a man's alloted span the hours spent conversing with the little man in the boat.

-HEFNERian proverb

I'm going to live forever

[junk2drive]

"tree help alot less when there are no leaves "

BO and BB have fall trees, AK does not. Made me wonder if the engine is the same for all three in that respect, or if AK has LOS the same from July 43 to Dec 44.

[imported_no_one]

There is a forum called MZO.

There is(was)a poster there called POS(poor old spike).He has written some very informative post's on this subject.It seems to be exactly what you are looking for.

I agree with other's that there are randomizing factor's,but to each his own.

Edit to add:

All of his post's on the subject have a thread title of "Can he see me,X",and can be found in the strategy section.Thats all I am doing,find them yourself....

[ May 17, 2005, 03:04 PM: Message edited by: no_one ]

[Dave H]

Originally posted by no_one:

There is(was)a poster there called POS(poor old spike).

Poor Old Spike. There's a name from out of the past. He used to post here and was banned under several identities. Apparently he immersed himself totally in Combat Mission, to the exclusion of everything else. He would have 25 or 30 PBEMs going at once. The ladder players grew disgusted with his, um, abrasive personality pretty quickly. So did the forum moderators.

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Dave H:

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

There is(was)a poster there called POS(poor old spike).

Poor Old Spike. There's a name from out of the past. He used to post here and was banned under several identities. Apparently he immersed himself totally in Combat Mission, to the exclusion of everything else. He would have 25 or 30 PBEMs going at once. The ladder players grew disgusted with his, um, abrasive personality pretty quickly. So did the forum moderators. </font>