Why has concealment changed so much?

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Battlefront.com]

To answer the question... CMx1 consists of three games only 1/2 of one is in a similar terrain environment to CM:SF, which is (obviously) a single game. So there is no such thing as a direct comparison between all three CMx1 games and CM:SF since even within CMx1 the results are different depending on the environment.

Beyond that, for all intents and purposes CMx1 and CMx2 share nothing directly in common with each other in terms of game guts. The two simulations are so different from each other at the lowest level isn't as if we could copy what was done before and paste it into the new system.

As always, I can't comment on vaguely described situations because there's just too many factors to consider. For all I know something is broken, but for all I know the description is leaving out critical information which explains why things are fine the way they are.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[MikeyD]

Off the top of my head I'd assume a green unit might take longer to spot, but on the Blue side you don't see many green units. You were probably working with veterans or higher? 320m is not a particularly great distance, especially on open terrain. Simple tactics, a 7.62 mg should probably be laying down fire from twice that range just to improve its survivability. Even a stubby little M4 carbine would be able to fire on it. It sounds more like CMAK was having problems, not CMSF.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[MikeyD]

Why would you have to stop and turn, again? I cross many a busy intersection at a run every day without losing my ability to see down the street I'm crossing. Still sounds like CMx1 is the game with the problem.

[Battlefront.com]

I agree with MikeyD that 9 to 13 experienced soldiers wouldn't have to all stop before even one of them spotted the muzzle flash and sound in that open of an environment. As MikeyD suggests, when you're out walking or driving, see how much you can notice around you without having to stop and rotate. 20 seconds, actually, is quite a long time BTW. To test this out yourself, have a watch handy when doing your real world testing and notice how long it feels.

So I can't say for sure if there are any problems or not with either of the game systems. However, I would say that based on Adam's description I don't think the behavior he saw is unreasonable.

Now, having said that... lately parts of the Taliban have become indistinguishable from AQ in terms of tactics. But the bulk of the Taliban is still a more-or-less traditional militia style armed opposition.

Steve

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[ChrisND]

If I am out running 90 degrees from a machine gun "entrenched" in bushes with some trees in front, and it starts shooting bursts, I know I am not going to localize the thing in 20 seconds flat.

I don't really see how this is unreasonable, unless they now need to model soldiers turning their heads to please you. Because we all know know that real people just look straight forward like they have massive bolts in their necks fixing them in place. Apparently the soldiers are supposed to be deaf as well.

That's how CMAK works, btw.

What does CMAK have to do with CMSF? Who cares?

[panzermartin]

I like the fact that now you can use every inch of the terrain for cover/concealment, unlike CMx1 where tree bases were mandatory as advance routes and defensive positions. I cant remember playing anything less than moderate/heavy trees. However trees in CMSF are a bit confusing in cover/concealment because of the 1:1 modelling. I cant figure LOS and concealment easily and this must be the only part I miss abstractions. Sometimes, when playing RT it is difficult to be down there and ensure your troops are behind the right tree. Is some kind of underbrush effect modelled in woods or tree crowns are exactly "what you see is what you get"?

[undead reindeer cavalry]

probably be laying down fire from twice that range just to improve its survivability.

back when i still played the game i made some tests with this stuff. if i recall correctly a PKM on a tripod didn't even pin enemy soldiers who were just walking up straight at ranges around what you are suggesting (640 meters).

i am pleased to hear that this stuff has been fixed.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

I agree with MikeyD that 9 to 13 experienced soldiers wouldn't have to all stop before even one of them spotted the muzzle flash and sound in that open of an environment.

does CMx2 really simulate stuff like "an open evironment", or is it just two points and the line between them? would it really matter if the edge of the map was all covered by trees (on the sides, not between the squad & the MG) and there were a couple of buildings at other locations on the map?

As MikeyD suggests, when you're out walking or driving, see how much you can notice around you without having to stop and rotate. 20 seconds, actually, is quite a long time BTW. To test this out yourself, have a watch handy when doing your real world testing and notice how long it feels.

there have been a good number of studies made & papers written about spotting. 20 seconds is about the time it takes for a tank in overwatch to spot an enemy tank at 2000 meters.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

I don't really see how this is unreasonable, unless they now need to model soldiers turning their heads to please you. Because we all know know that real people just look straight forward like they have massive bolts in their necks fixing them in place. Apparently the soldiers are supposed to be deaf as well.

human eye has accuracy of around 1/60th of a degree. you need to stop and do some active scanning to detect a tiny flash between bushes and trees some 320 meters away. as a bonus you are also taking MG fire.

hearing a MG fire somewhere on your right is nowhere close to actually correctly locating its position.

[HetzerII]

What does CMAK have to do with CMSF? Who cares?

It might be like this: Battlefront is the company behind CMAK. They decided to simulate small arms fire in CMAK in a specific way and now in CMSF they decided to simulate it a different way. Since neither small arms nor the human ability to spot has improved much since WWII, it is a valid question to ask why. I can also remember some topics about this back in CMBB-times... there the "common sense" was that small arms fire is quiet hard to see at all from some distance and due to the natural ambience also not accuratly detectable by ear.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNYJ2lpbzgo&feature=related

Imagine some bushes and trees at the position... how hard it would be to spot quickly... not to speak about the enemy fire you receive.

[ChrisND]

It might be like this: Battlefront is the company behind CMAK. They decided to simulate small arms fire in CMAK in a specific way and now in CMSF they decided to simulate it a different way. Since neither small arms nor the human ability to spot has improved much since WWII, it is a valid question to ask why. I can also remember some topics about this back in CMBB-times... there the "common sense" was that small arms fire is quiet hard to see at all from some distance and due to the natural ambience also not accuratly detectable by ear.

This has the same wrong premise as any other post that compares CMSF to CMAK, and it is so ingrained that no one even notices it: CMAK is not necessarily correct, and since the two have nothing in common code-wise, the comparison is completely meaningless. Using CMAK as a baseline only means something if the game was Modern Day CMAK. It isn't.

[ChrisND]

human eye has accuracy of around 1/60th of a degree. you need to stop and do some active scanning to detect a tiny flash between bushes and trees some 320 meters away. as a bonus you are also taking MG fire.

hearing a MG fire somewhere on your right is nowhere close to actually correctly locating its position.

20 seconds is a long time. If it was 5 seconds or 10 seconds, I would singing a different tune.

I think a problem here is the instant ID. We need a "?" marker that the AI will actually react to and area fire against. That way the AI pixeltruppen know that SOMETHING is firing at them "from that area", and they can return fire, even if an exact ID is not found.

[HetzerII]

CMAK is not necessarily correct, and since the two have nothing in common code-wise, the comparison is completely meaningless.

I didnt said that CMAK is the correct one... but its not hard to see that there is a huge difference in how small-arms-fire and its detection is simulated in both games.

Using CMAK as a baseline only means something if the game was Modern Day CMAK. It isn't.

Were is the big difference in small-arms-fire from 1945 to 2010? Are weapons now noisier, with bigger muzzle flashes and some flashlights installed? Or are our ears and eyes much better than back half a century?

Regardless of CMAK... watch the video and tell me that you would easily spot this MG3 from 300 meters, not to speak about bushes or trees.

[ChrisND]

I didnt said that CMAK is the correct one... but its not hard to see that there is a huge difference in how small-arms-fire and its detection is simulated in both games.

Yes.

Were is the big difference in small-arms-fire from 1945 to 2010? Are weapons now noisier, with bigger muzzle flashes and some flashlights installed? Or are our ears and eyes much better than back half a century?

Here we are again with using CMAK as a baseline. Please go back and actually read my last post. I'll repeat: comparisons between the two meaningless.

Regardless of CMAK... watch the video and tell me that you would easily spot this MG3 from 300 meters, not to speak about bushes or trees.

I've had actual MGs shoot at me, I don't need to watch a You-Tube video.

[HetzerII]

I've had actual MGs shoot at me, I don't need to watch a You-Tube video.

Hm... would you please tell the whole story?

Here we are again with using CMAK as a baseline. Please go back and actually read my last post. I'll repeat: comparisons between the two meaningless.

So whats the point? We have the same phenomen simulated by two different programms. I dont take CMAK as a baseline... i just want to compare what i see. And what i see are two completely different things. So since we speak about the same thing in two games.... only one can have it right. Since Battlefront had its reason (you can look up the discussions in CMBB and CMAK-Forum) for simulating phenomen a in game x the way they did... whats the reason for simulating phenomen a in game y a completly different way?

For me youre awnsers about taking CMAK as baseline is a kind off deflection since this can end any discussion. Some kind off silver-bullet for ending argues....

[Battlefront.com]

Adam,

Honestly... you guys strike me as unable to think sometimes.

Really? Would it surprise you to know that I have the same opinion of you sometimes? For example, who said I was talking about cars? I was talking about the ability to observer things while on the move without stopping. When I'm driving at 80mph I'm able to see all kinds of details off to my sides if I either happen to look or have a cause to look.

I'll ask again... do you think it is necessary for 9 to 13 soldiers to stop dead in their tracks to observe something that is not dead ahead? Do you think that 20 seconds is really a short period of time when there is a reason to be focused on identifying something specific? Especially with so many eyes and ears available for pinpointing the source?

Ali-Baba,

I like the fact that now you can use every inch of the terrain for cover/concealment, unlike CMx1 where tree bases were mandatory as advance routes and defensive positions. I cant remember playing anything less than moderate/heavy trees. However trees in CMSF are a bit confusing in cover/concealment because of the 1:1 modelling. I cant figure LOS and concealment easily and this must be the only part I miss abstractions.

I agree that the finer terrain resolution can make it more difficult to grasp what the terrain is all about because there is, literally, more information for the player to process. Not only that, but the terrain is not cut up into a fairly range of huge 20x20m simplified chunks of terrain like in CMx1. But I for one am very happy to give up the CMx1 system for the greater variety and richness of the terrain in CMx2. Sure, many people don't see the desert as the most exciting environment from a terrain perspective, but it still is a rich one. CM: Normandy will be an even richer one.

Sometimes, when playing RT it is difficult to be down there and ensure your troops are behind the right tree. Is some kind of underbrush effect modelled in woods or tree crowns are exactly "what you see is what you get"?

Soldier placement is largely handled by the TacAI so all you need to do is move them to what looks to be a bunch of trees and they will use them as effectively as they can. The trees are 1:1 modeled and there is very little generically abstracted micro terrain associated with any piece of CMx2 terrain, unlike CMx1 which was entirely abstracted. This means that in CMx2 trees without brush around it are trees without brush around it, trees with brush around it are trees with brush around it. So yes, it's pretty much what you see is what you get.

URC,

does CMx2 really simulate stuff like "an open evironment", or is it just two points and the line between them? would it really matter if the edge of the map was all covered by trees (on the sides, not between the squad & the MG) and there were a couple of buildings at other locations on the map?

As in real life, the only thing that matters for a unit being targeted and the unit shooting at it is the path between the two. It doesn't matter if there's a thick forest 50m off to the right and a dense village 50m off to the left. Therefore, CM of any flavor doesn't care about that either when examining two units in an exchange of fire. Now, characterizing combat within a map the totality of the terrain matters more than a specific line between two points. But what we're talking about here is fire between two points. The example Adam laid out is about as open as it can get.

there have been a good number of studies made & papers written about spotting. 20 seconds is about the time it takes for a tank in overwatch to spot an enemy tank at 2000 meters.

That doesn't surprise me. 2000m (1.5 miles) is a pretty long distance for the eye to see things without the aid of optics and/or optimal conditions.

human eye has accuracy of around 1/60th of a degree. you need to stop and do some active scanning to detect a tiny flash between bushes and trees some 320 meters away. as a bonus you are also taking MG fire.

How much of a chance do you think a single, trained and experienced soldier, would have of spotting a MG firing at him over a period of 20 seconds when the terrain is fairly open and cover is not all that good? Let's just say 1 in 10. If he was alone this wouldn't be good odds, but if you have 10 men then statistically speaking the chances of spotting are almost a sure bet. Correct? OK, well... let's say it's 1 in 20 and you have 10 men, you're now talking about at least a 50/50 chance of spotting the MG, right?

This is the thing people have to keep in mind... each soldier in the game has its own chance of spotting something. Once spotted that information is passed around depending on conditions. The information within a unit is passed along instantaneously, some delay to neighboring units, more delay going up the chain of command, even more delay coming down the chain.

Spotting all comes down to probability. Do we have everything weighted correctly now? I can't say for sure that we do, which is why I left that possibility open in my first response. However, just because that possibility exists I don't think immediately jumping to the conclusion that it is has much value. Perception is often proven incorrect or at least not as correct as some would think. I'm not sure Adam really wanted to have an open minded discussion of this point since his follow ups appear to indicate that he's already made up his mind.

HetzerII,

It might be like this: Battlefront is the company behind CMAK. They decided to simulate small arms fire in CMAK in a specific way and now in CMSF they decided to simulate it a different way. Since neither small arms nor the human ability to spot has improved much since WWII, it is a valid question to ask why. I can also remember some topics about this back in CMBB-times... there the "common sense" was that small arms fire is quiet hard to see at all from some distance and due to the natural ambience also not accuratly detectable by ear.

In general I agree that spotting hasn't become that much easier and the weapons used now-a-days aren't that much easier to spot than in WW2. But conditions are still very important and it's better to compare the conditions seen in the game to real life rather than conditions from one game to another. We objected just as much to people comparing CMBO's handing of things to ASL/SL or Steel Panthers just as much as we object to people comparing CM:SF to CMAK. It's not a good way to go about things.

Imagine some bushes and trees at the position... how hard it would be to spot quickly... not to speak about the enemy fire you receive.

Be careful about drawing any conclusions from tiny, very low resolution and poorly compressed videos for anything like this discussion. If you look at combat video you'll see things like "friendly" soldiers pouring very accurate fire on a specific point, yet there's no indication of any reason for them to shoot there because the space they're shooting at occupies about a dozen blurry pixels. So either they are shooting blind or the viewer is denied seeing the same thing that the soldiers can see. I suggest it's the latter

Normal Dude,

This has the same wrong premise as any other post that compares CMSF to CMAK, and it is so ingrained that no one even notices it: CMAK is not necessarily correct, and since the two have nothing in common code-wise, the comparison is completely meaningless. Using CMAK as a baseline only means something if the game was Modern Day CMAK. It isn't.

Generally I agree with this. It is also possible that we had it wrong with CMAK and finally got things right in CM:SF. Just because someone likes the results in CMAK more than CM:SF doesn't mean CMAK is correct and CM:SF is wrong.

One thing that is different is we have people on this Forum, and within our testing group, that have experienced situations like this in real life (either in a combat zone or in training) in arid environments. I'm more concerned about what they think is reasonable or not than I am anything other single source. And as stated above, CMAK isn't a source

Steve

[Skinnedpuppy]

Are weapons now noisier, with bigger muzzle flashes and some flashlights installed?

No but optics have certainly improved since WW2 and personnel now carry night vision.

I would expect an improvement in detection of threats from this alone.

You may argue the Mk 1 eyeball is the same as ever, but I would expect training in modern forces to use this more effectively (I may be wrong here). Armies in WW2 were generally conscripted civilians; modern forces are in the main dedicated professionals.

[ChrisND]

Sorry Hetzer, the wording of your post suggested that CMAK was the baseline and correct.

So since we speak about the same thing in two games.... only one can have it right.

Wrong. They can both be wrong.

Since Battlefront had its reason (you can look up the discussions in CMBB and CMAK-Forum) for simulating phenomen a in game x the way they did... whats the reason for simulating phenomen a in game y a completly different way?

Well, off the top of my head there is the difference between having the three stooges and 1:1 representation.

For me youre awnsers about taking CMAK as baseline is a kind off deflection since this can end any discussion. Some kind off silver-bullet for ending argues....

No, and I'm not even really sure how you came to that conclusion.

[stikkypixie]

Don't forget, if people were shooting at me, I would start to pay real close attention to where those people might be.

[Battlefront.com]

Normal Dude,

Well, off the top of my head there is the difference between having the three stooges and 1:1 representation.

Yup. As I said before, from a basic game mechanics (i.e. the code itself) standpoint there is almost nothing the same between CMx1 and CMx2. Some stuff from CMx1 was cribbed to make some stuff in CMx2, where appropriate, but it was few and far inbetween. Plus, even if we copied some bits of CMx1 code over line of code by line of code, the interdependence of factors means that unless we copied it *all* over there would likely be differences. Like I said, we copied almost none of it over.

Steve