Spotting in game version 1.06

[flamingknives]

Sometimes the game is reporting things that seem odd but are entirely plausible. There are times when you suddenly see the old woman or the young girl, or the wineglass or the two faces.

How many tanks in this picture? (borrowed from Soldier Magazine)

[thewood]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

FM 3-22.1, Chapter 6, sections 1 to 3.

What is this supposed to be an answer to? Or did you bump your keyboard?

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by SlowMotion:

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

If WW2 fighter pilot "scanning" was noteworthy, doesn't that indicate that people, ordinarily, do not "scan" very much? Possibly because it is energy intensive and distracting?

I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't energy intensive. I got my idea of how it might be done in tanks/armored vehicles from WW2 air battles. If you know how this spotting is really done *when encountering enemy is expected*, please let me know. </font>

[SlowMotion]

For those who are interested, here's a link I found:

Bradley gunnery, 23MB

I'll take a look at this in more detail later, but I must quote a bit from the beginning of chapter 6.1:

Ground Search Techniques, All Bradleys:

(1) Rapid Scan.

(2) Slow (50-Meter) Scan.

list continues...

So maybe this WW2 aviation stuff wasn't that bad a guess after all.

[ February 18, 2008, 02:15 PM: Message edited by: SlowMotion ]

[Omenowl]

I do think that is something I missed from CMx1 is the ability to misidentify and also the placement of units. Right now you know either 100% or just a question mark. I miss the greater fog of war from CMx1

[Taki]

i Quote to dursus cause thats put into words better then i could say in English: "The solution is simple. Spotting of units whose information has been relayed to the spotting unit should be much faster. Also, the player should have some more knowledge of the information relayed to the unit."

Thats what i have seen too. The Spotting Times should be shortened extremly when i got Exact Recon pos of the Enemy. The C2 System of giving away Infos seems most of the Time too fast (When i read Ambush Alley and what Confusion they had on th Radio) but often falls too short. In CMx1 you could gain more Value out of good Recon Work.

You get me a bit wrong here Steven but i guess i didnt explain it so well.

On the one Hand its to unpredictable because it dont follow what should be logical right. Like having C2 Command and Recon Units spotted the vec it still takes a Tank to long to spot the Enemy (like 15sec or so). Time is shorter but still too long.

On the other Hand there arent so much uncommon things happening caused by Detail in CMx1. Okay the enemy had a Tiger you had no Cannon wich could penetrate it. But there where so much things that could happen that you can beat it.

Like heavy Snow, good Recon to Spot him first flank it and take it out, Armour Weak Spots, INternal Armour flaking and other things.

In CMx2 things are "unpredictable". With some solid sanity what usually should work in RL isnt working in CMx2. And on the other Hand its too predictable in terms of "nothing uncommon is happening. M1(Tiger) is always winning T-72 @ any Range.

Hope that expresses my thoughts more then the Last Post. With some Tweaking and fixing and going more in detail i guess the Sim is getting even better. Hope for more patches to come.

Sry for my bad English.

Greetz from Germany

Taki

[Peach Operations]

Er... got me confused here. In CMx2 you can not only tell a unit to target something it can't see, but it can track that target (depending on tactical circumstances) until it is seen and then fire at it immediately. In CMx1 the TacAI had no "memory" so when something went out of LOS it was "out of sight, out of mind". In CMx2 the TacAI has a memory, however if another target comes into LOS it may switch from the unseen target to the seen one, depending on circumstances.

Someone help me out here -- how do I tell a unit to target an enemy it cannot see? I can try to click on the ? icon, but since the enemy is out of LOS, nothing happens..

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by shadowgamer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Er... got me confused here. In CMx2 you can not only tell a unit to target something it can't see, but it can track that target (depending on tactical circumstances) until it is seen and then fire at it immediately. In CMx1 the TacAI had no "memory" so when something went out of LOS it was "out of sight, out of mind". In CMx2 the TacAI has a memory, however if another target comes into LOS it may switch from the unseen target to the seen one, depending on circumstances.

Someone help me out here -- how do I tell a unit to target an enemy it cannot see? I can try to click on the ? icon, but since the enemy is out of LOS, nothing happens.. </font>

[Peach Operations]

BTW, to those who say you can't shoot and scoot -- I've been able to make it work with either side, sort of, in real time play. Sometimes they find their targets and engage right away, sometimes not. You do have to use unbuttoned vehicles if playing the Syrian side, and smoke screws everything up (which is understandable).

Still, it'd be really helpful if you could just give a shoot-and-scoot order as in CMx1, and maybe allow the unit to spot faster when in the shoot position (since they're likely to be focused on finding the target at that point). It'd also simplify things, especially for turn-based games.

But the biggest thing about shoot-and-scoot, IMO, is that the AI player won't do it. You'd think it'd be doable -- after all, they can already have a vehicle back out of view when facing superior firepower; the only thing remaining is to get the enemy to back out while reloading, and to come back when a round is ready to fire.

[Paper Tiger]

stikkypixie

-Someone help me out here -- how do I tell a unit to target an enemy it cannot see? I can try to click on the ? icon, but since the enemy is out of LOS, nothing happens.. -

That's shared information. One unit sees the enemy unit and passes the info along to another unit. First it 'sees' a '?' icon and then, as info improves it knows it's a tank, infantry squad etc. then, you can target it but it won't actually be able to fire because it can't see it, it just knows 100% that it's there.

I actually watched this happen this morning. I had an ATGM team positioned on the flank of a hill. On the other side of the valley, there was an infantry platoon hidden and they could see a stationary T-55. After a couple of minutes, the ATGM team first saw a'?' icon and then the tank icon so I targetted it but it couldn't fire because the target was out of LoS.

[SlowMotion]

I wonder if this works the same way for both blue and red units? I tried with T-55 and T-72 (2001) tanks. One tank spotted and another tank that couldn't see the enemy waited for info. The ?-icon appeared quite quickly, but it never changed to show more accurate info. Is it that Syrians don't have equipment to get more accurate spotting info?

Is it possible some how to give target command succesfully to an enemy unit that one hasn't spotted yet?

Now it seems spotting info is only transfered to units with predefined c2 connections. Wouldn't it be possible that if some friendly infantry unit has spotted enemy position and a tank commander is close enough and unbuttoned, target info could be transfered to this tank simply by voice?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Lethaface:

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

I don't see why people drag that to an inter-vehicle communication issue. Two tanks a couple hundred meters away directly ahead that the gunner doesn't see with turret straight ahead? Not possible.

That is a Real Life (how unkown it might be to some of us ) situation.

What Steve argues is that the visibility system isn't build upon those situations. It isnt build for group spotting. To tune that down a bit; Mr. Redwolf walks in a forest. Right in front of him, @25,4 meters, is a tree. 0,7 meters to the right is another tree. Luckily for Mr. Redwolf his eyes allow him to spot both trees at the same time. </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Some more thoughts...

No simulation is perfect, for one ore more reasons. Sometimes it is purely development time, sometimes it is computing resource needs, other times it is because the effect isn't really all that important. The more time it takes, the more resources needed to run it, and the less important it is... the less reason to simulate it.

The completely artificial case of units starting out, at short range, in plain view of each other, as if transported there by Scotty himself, falls into this category. There is no justifiable realistic situation that needs special coding to handle this sort of thing, therefore we aren't going to cater to it. It would involve programming time (which is always in short supply) and tons of extra CPU cycles, which would be better used for any number of other game improvements (at the very least to simply draw the graphics faster). And for what? For nothing important

As I've said, doing artificial tests like this isn't a bad thing as long as people don't focus on them too much outside of the context of the full game. If it can be shown that there is some sort of regular negative spotting issue within the game then sure... let's all take a look at it. But it needs to be looked at within the context of the game because without that context we're not likely to pin down the problem.

There are so many variables at work it's usually helpful to move towards an abstract test situation AFTER a specific situation is found to be suspect. In other words, during gameplay something odd is noted happening regularly, there is a suspicion as to what that element (or combo of elements) is, then a test scenario is designed to potentially prove or disprove the hypothesis. Context still needs to be kept in mind, of course.

Bottom line... the only problem uncovered by Slow Motion's test is that a completely unrealistic situation isn't handled well. Conclusion... as long as situations like this don't come up in the game, then there is effectively no problem. Simple logic

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

The gunner in the tank in the first post has no other place to view than through his gunsights.

Wrong I've already explained this to you how this is not true, but obviously you do not wish to take my word for it. So I'll throw the question out to vehicle gunners...

What % of time do you think you spend with your eyes screwed into the gunner's sights in a combat type environment (either simulated or actual)?

The reality is it is physically and psychologically impossible to do the same thing 100% of the time. The only situation where this comes close is when a command is given for specific attention for a VERY short period of time, like a minute or two. After that physical and psychological issues kick in and the chance of optimal behavior drops off depending on various factors.

More generally, I want to say that we have always struggled to convince gamers that optimal behavior in real life warfare is almost an exception rather than a rule. There are, however, lots of factors that influence how close to optimal the behavior may be.

The best example I can give you guys is the summary of probably 1000 threads and a total of 300,000 posts on German tank gunnery from CMBO More often than not gamers took the position that something like a Tiger could never miss when commanded by a competent crew. This simply wasn't the case in real life and we had the data to back it up. Not only that, any argument that is based on "always perfect" is about as easy to debunk as it is for Brittany Spears to go into rehab Perfection is something that reality takes a very dim view of!

What this means is that our simulations are based more on what is likely rather than what is optimal. Optimal behavior is still possible, but depending on the circumstances it is more or less likely to happen in a given game situation. Artificial tests, as I've already explained, are a different matter as the simulation is not explicitly designed to cater to such things.

One CM:SF example is intel sharing. In theory the US has a system that instantly moves information around the battlespace. In reality it falls far short of that for a number of reasons:

1. People are too busy with the situation to report it in a meaningful manner or to report it at all. At least for some period of time.

2. Even the high tech equipment of the US forces today are prone to failure. Radios are interfered with by terrain when in theory they shouldn't be, GPS signals are lost and have to be reestablished, batteries die and can't be immediately replaced, the device may be "stuck" in a pouch and effort made to free it up, so on and so forth. There is a reason why a Brigade of the 101st Airborne bought 50 different types of squad radios for their time in Mosul in 2003... they had to find one that worked in Mosul and not some other spot

3. Even with high tech reporting devices, the accuracy of the information is still dependent on the person actually inputing the data. This can vary from perfect to horribly incorrect.

So on and so forth. All that aside, the flawed reality of the US' supposedly perfect system is MUCH better than the flawed reality of the Syrian capability. Meaning a Syrian commander would gladly exchange his best day of communications for one of the US' average days' experience (perhaps even the US' worst!). Everything is relative!

Steve

[SlowMotion]

Redwolf:

"pilot doesn't normally do unless asked to"

Do you mean aircraft pilot (not a tank crew member like tank commander or driver)?

When I mentioned scanning I mostly meant the tests I did after my first post - those where one or more crew members are not totally inside a tank/vehicle and thus can easily look around them.

[SlowMotion]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

No simulation is perfect, for one ore more reasons. Sometimes it is purely development time, sometimes it is computing resource needs, other times it is because the effect isn't really all that important.

I was well aware of computing resources being limited. I didn't do these tests to find problems in spotting, but to figure out more about how it actually works. So I posted some of my results because I thought other people might *think* things work differently than how they really do in the game. And I've learnt new things about this game's spotting and C2 myself as well.

The completely artificial case of units starting out, at short range, in plain view of each other, as if transported there by Scotty himself, falls into this category. There is no justifiable realistic situation that needs special coding to handle this sort of thing, therefore we aren't going to cater to it.

Well the spotting unit didn't start from the spotting place. I tried to simulate Shoot and Scoot, so first it was always behind a bank. Then I moved it on top of this bank and stopped so it could spot.

[Battlefront.com]

Someone in the previous page mentioned he missed the "misidentifications" as found in CMx1. That was an innovation that we brought to wargaming and, unfortunately, had to abandon due to the complexity of the CM:SF engine.

Remember in CMx1 the visual representation had no impact on the simulation itself. We could have shown a VW Bug and had it behave exactly like a King Tiger if we wanted to. Not so in CM:SF where the 3D representation is directly tied into the game system itself. Therefore, if we show a VW Bug it will, in large part, behave like a VW Bug.

However, just last week Charles and I think we figured out a good compromise solution. One that requires minimal code changes but requires a little more "suspension of disbelief" of the player. If this works it is possible that misidentifications may be back into the game for the WW2 release.

Steve

[Lethaface]

Logical reason leads me to think there is a random factor in CMSF spotting. Thats what can explain the example given by SlowMotion. Now in this particular case this randomnisation leads to strange results. Getting rid of it wouldn't be in anyone's interest IMHO. Over the future I hope certain refinements (multipliers or subtractors (whatever u call the opposite) in specific situations can be made so that spotting can be made even more realistic in more situations. There are plenty of other game components which could need development which I would prefer having upgraded. Spotting generally works fine in my opinion. Sometimes it will seem a unit is blind or another unit is spotting like a hawk, for me its not really game braking since 1.06. To conclude my opinion; Spotting works way better since 1.06 and I'm satisfied for the moment. Offcourse tweaks can be made in the future to improve it further.

[Mord]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

However, just last week Charles and I think we figured out a good compromise solution. One that requires minimal code changes but requires a little more "suspension of disbelief" of the player. If this works it is possible that misidentifications may be back into the game for the WW2 release.

Steve

That's GREAT news!

I was thinking along the lines of a question mark (like we have now) with a written description after it...such as; ? Panther, ? Sherman, ? Mg Team...is it anything like this or better?

I'd be fine with that if we can't have the 3D generic tank icon or what not.

Mord.

[Battlefront.com]

SlowMotion,

I want to make sure that you, and everybody else reading this thread, knows that there was nothing wrong with the test you made or why you made it. As you say, things like this can be very informative in their own way and therefore have some value. The key thing, though, is "in their own way" part of that statement

From years and years of experience I know that I have to immediately put a test like this into context or people will go off on tangents that are counter productive to understanding how the game and/or real warfare works. So as long as people conduct tests with the understanding that they must be kept in context then everything is okeydokey.

Air crew fatigue was one of the main problems with long missions in WWII. Everybody, be it a pilot or a wast gunner in a bomber, would have a sector of sky to watch over. The theory was that there would be at least one pair of eyes on every patch of the sky at all times. It was also the theory that this would matter In reality eyes get tired, guys sit down and start looking at the rivets holding the plexiglas in place, checking a map for a course correction, or even falling asleep. On top of that, an enemy coming out of the sun was not as likely to be spotted even if someone was trying to keep an eye on that sector of the sky. Therefore, even in a highly controlled environment where looking for things is their primary job most of the time, physical and psychological issues come into play and knock the optimal behavior down to some extent.

BTW, this is why training standards are generally impossible to live up to. Humans try to reach the goals set for them, but deep down we all know that we aren't going to reach them. Therefore, we come to our own personal conclusions about what is an acceptable average result and generally try to keep to that. Generally the lower the expectations, the lower the actual result. Setting expectations too high isn't good either.

Steve

[MikeyD]

"Humans try to reach the goals set for them, but deep down we all know that we aren't going to reach them."

Ah, its me & highschool all over again

[SlowMotion]

Steve: ok, any comment on things I asked at 10:24?

[bodkin]

If you remember what the spotting was like in the earlier versions of CMSF, an enemy squad would be 100% identified in a building 500 metres away, with you knowing how many members in the squad and what weapons they were carrying. I'd rather CMSF err on the side of caution and take a bit longer to identify than ever go back to that.

[Drusus]

I still do think there is something wrong with the spotting of vehicles.

I can understand that vehicle crews might be doing something else and thus miss obvious units. I also can understand that it gives too much control if the player can force the unit to spot actively to the right area because of god vision. And I do understand that information that should in theory be relayed isn't relayed.

But the combination of all these puts the player in a frustrating situation. There is no way to force the relay of information about the enemy vehicle nor to make the vehicle crew to spot the right area. The only option the player has is to just trust that he will spot the enemy first.

It would be so helpful if there was something that the player could do in these situations. But there isn't. I don't know what is realistic in these situations, but I would imagine that if an infantry platoon's attack was halted because of enemy vehicle, they just might tell the supporting MGS that they need support, and there is a vehicle at a certain spot. Now if the MGS doesn't spot the vehicle because the gunner was changing the CD when going over the crest in this situation it doesn't feel right.

There sometimes appears question marks. If I have understood correctly, these are because of relayed information. I don't see this affecting the spotting much. If the information was relayed, I think it should also show what type of unit there is (is it tank or infantry, atleast). Spotting of vehicles in these situations should be a lot better.

I do feel that in general vehicles should spot a bit better to the frontal sector.

[Darkmath]

To quote the initial tests from Slowmotion.

Tested with unbuttoned commander and those 4 tanks within 20 meters. Took this same about 20 seconds again. Maybe a bit more.

While taking 15 seconds to spot all tank one y one with randomization at 300 metres is understandable, it's not credible at all that the same duration happens for units as close as 20 metres!!! Even if you couldn't get visual contact , you still have sound contact.

Duration is the same for whatever distance.

If it could NOT be right for a such simple situation, how can it be better for more complex more realistic situation we're talking about?

I am interested in spotting results for Blue units too.