spotting changes in 1.11

[Paper Tiger]

Hi Pete

I don't have any problems squaring those two statements as to me CMSF really is just a game. I have no idea if Area Fire is used so prolifically in real life by real world militaries but it has been a part of small unit tactical wargames since the first Squad Leader title. And, since it's a game, I use the tools the game provides for me to do the job without any qualms about killing someone's virtual granny along the way.:eek:

I also happen to play this game almost exclusively as the Syrian side (although that's 100% definitely going to change when I get that Brit module) and I suspect their soldiers would have slightly less qualms about 'reconning' a suspected enemy occupied building with a 115mm shell from a T-62 than their US counterparts would.

I believe that it's 100% impossible to spot someone hiding in a house when you're outside looking in and that person doesn't want to be seen. If I open my front door and scan my neighbours houses, sometimes I can see a glow of a tv screen and a shadow as someone passes between the tv and me. But otherwise, I can't see anything and it won't matter how long I watch, I won't see anything unless they come out or go to the window and look out. And they're not trying to hide from me. So I really don't see how this would be any easier in a battle torn city environment. I suspect you wouldn't see so many tv screens glowing for starters. And as for them looking out, the game heavily abstracts the interior of houses, there are no rooms and there's no furniture. It's actually quite easy to see out of a building without being spotted as long as the light level outside is higher than it is inside. Just think about it, it's the same reason why we don't get to see all those beautiful women living in our neighbourhood naked. We definitely want to, but it's not going to happen unless they want it to happen too.

[Battlefront.com]

Let's try to keep things separate. There's a HUGE difference between a unit on a roof and one inside of a building in terms of concealment.

Peter Panzer,

I suppose I come at this from the opposite angle. Given that the game goes to length to take into account elevation when modeling various levels of LOS (prone, kneeling, standing, etc.) when I see an onscreen representation of a person standing I say to myself, yep, that guy is standing - not crouching, squatting or practicing his Lotus posture.

Yes, this is correct. It's not millimeter for millimeter perfect (we'd need super computers to run that!), but stance and relative elevations matter and are represented visually as one would expect.

How do you square this...

Quote:

The chances are extremely likely that it's just a family cowering in there. A curtain just twitched? "Open Fire with everything boys!" when it might be some kid or her granny peeping out?

...with this?

Quote:

BTW, the 'Recon by fire' bit is how I do it in the game. With v1.11, it works really well too and gives me some measure of initiative.

If we are recreating MOUT with a semblance of realism and concern for simulated ROE's, wouldn't my request for the ability to possibly ID targets in structures be more apt than your tactic of hammering the structure with ordnance to gain "...some measure of initiative."

There is no disconnect. There is absolutely nothing we can do, from a game perspective, to limit "recon by fire". We've had this discussion since CMBO Beta Demo What is different from CMx1 and CMx2 is that the scenario author can put in disincentives for players doing that by giving victory points to the other side. There's not much we can do beyond that.

Now, as far as possibly IDing targets within buildings... you SHOULD be able to do that if you just sit around and wait for them to do something. There should be a possibility for them to reveal themselves, but it's not likely going to come quickly.

See, I don't want to have to level the virtual apartment row as a premptive measure every time because that's the only way the game allows me to "draw first." I want my little guys to be able to at least have a chance to preemptively observe and ID targets as reasonably as possible as is conducted in real world operations. I have included some excerpts from various sources you may find interesting below.

Two common elements with those quotes you posted... occupation duty and rooftops. The former is important because those US soldiers were likely sitting around without any other concern other than keeping a sharp eye out for enemy activity. That's a different setting than what we simulate, which is why we've said since before CM:SF shipped that we don't claim to simulate COIN Ops very well. As for rooftops, as I said above these should be very different than inside of buildings. If that's consistently not the case, then there is a problem.

Steve

[Taki]

Quoting Pete`s Posting. That is what im trying to say.

I dont want to have fancy Super High Tec Dream World Spotting Utilitys. But there have to be some chance for Troops looking long enough onto some sector of the Map (with our limited timeframe there must some exaggeration onto the time they are looking onto some sector, we just have 2h ingame that must be bout 4h realtime).

I still cant see what your (Paper TIger, Steves) arguing will change facing the Question of realism:

So what is the US Military doing (and we surly dont have in the Game) to spot enemys hiding?

And the only answer i get is: "hell yeah its difficult/impossible. you need more time etc. .....

Sorry boys. But thats not the answer isn`t it? They arent driving around with hummers and wait that there is someone pulling the trigger.

The "time argument" doesnt really count. US Troops dont conduct such large Operations with such stiff resistance in such a short time (as often stated here in the Forums). So in Game terms we needes some abstractions (havier losses due to shorter game time).

So we need some abstraction (shortener time) on the spotting too.

[handihoc]

Hi Pete

If I open my front door and scan my neighbours houses, sometimes I can see a glow of a tv screen and a shadow as someone passes between the tv and me. But otherwise, I can't see anything and it won't matter how long I watch, I won't see anything unless they come out or go to the window and look out. And they're not trying to hide from me.. . . . . . .Just think about it, it's the same reason why we don't get to see all those beautiful women living in our neighbourhood naked. We definitely want to, but it's not going to happen unless they want it to happen too.

PT, I think you shold stop there before you incriminate yourself!!

[Paper Tiger]

So what is the US Military doing (and we surly dont have in the Game) to spot enemys hiding?

Taki, do you know what? I have NO idea. I'm not a military man and I don't really spend much time thinking about these things either. I have nothing invested in this discussion and I have absolutely NO problem with the way the game handles spotting enemy units in buildings. It just seems to be realistic to me. We know that there are real life soldiers that frequent this forum and a number of them are currently in service in Iraq. I don't hear them complaining about the way the game handles this so I guess it's alright.

However, let's turn your question back to you. What do YOU think they have that's not modelled in the game? How do you think US soldiers spot Uncons in buildings? I suspect that they really do just have to wait until they give away their positions by opening fire or they do something incredibly foolish that gives their position away.

It sounds like you want the latter modelled into the game and I am operating under the impression that it already is, i.e. the scenario's civilian density setting and the quality of the Uncons you're facing. I suspect that a lot of the trouble you have believing this is because the scenarios you're playing are not very realistic, that your pixeltruppen are facing Elite/Crack experience Uncons and they're not going to give their positions away 'cos they're Elite/Crack troops. I think the vast majority of Uncons that are commonly encountered in real life would be Conscript or Green at best. You might even have to create a whole new level of suckiness in the game to represent just HOW bad some of them really are. Yeah, they can be unbelievably motivated but their experience is the factor that'll give them away.

[vincere]

I'm on my 3rd Falluja book now and they all state that often it was only when they were fired upon in a house, unfortunately usually the doorway, that they knew enemy were in there.

[Other Means]

{snip}

They arent driving around with hummers and wait that there is someone pulling the trigger.

{snip}

That's exactly what they're doing. That or going and having a look.

[DaveDash]

The problem as I see it is not nessesarily the spotting. It's the combinitation of spotting and over modelled infantry lethality.

Seriously, the lethality of small arms in this game is way over modelled, or rather, how easy it is to be seriously wounded and put out of the fight is WAY over modelled.

I've never been in combat, but I've read quite a few books about it. For example, in the book "House to House" the author goes on to state it took well over 200 rounds from the M240 to put down a militant wearing captured U.S. body armour, and take note this militant approached in the open wthout cover. Often the U.S. would have to clear buildings wth tank rounds etc and even THEN often the militia inside was still alive and kicking.

RPG's, etc, also kill to many too easily, and the accuracy is way too high. Quite often the crew inside a Stryker or whatever hit by an IED survive mostly, while in CMSF one RPG-7/IED and your entire squad is wiped out.

Given the fact it's almost impossible to spot enemies until they shoot at you, and then you almost always take heavy casualties in these cicumstances, I don't feel the game is anywhere near realistic, and the only viable tactic you can ever really use is recon by fire.

Imagine a Black Hawk Down scenario in CMSF, all your Rangers would be wiped out in seconds by highly lethal and accurate AK-47 fire from militiamen at 400m. Seriously, thats how accurate they are in this game.

If infantry lethality (especially infantry with body armour) was tweaked appropriately, the game would be a lot more fun, engaging, realistic, and allow for more tactical opportunities. Right now the way the game works is approach with the most bodies possible (in order to get the biggest spotting bonus) and blow up everything in your path that might hold the enemy.

Also, there is still one serious spotting bug that annoys me and Im surprised it's STILL in the game. If a squad of 9 guys on a roof can see a tank, they should be able to point this out to the Javelin crew standing RIGHT next to them, and not have it go up and down the chain of command (which it quite often doesn't, leaving the Javelin team rather useless and unable to see anything due to the way spotting currently works).

[Stromb]

Hi

I've a good example of easy spotting / killing. Check screenshots in this thread, 2nd post, you'll see 2 M1 eliminating a hiding syrian observer on a roof, rather far away : http://www.cyberstratege.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2151&p=31150#p31150

And the tanks just used their machineguns ... Whatever the risk taken on this position, it seems it was a very easy shot for the gunner. The syrian unit was supposed to be hiding (and beginning ordering a small mortar attack, by the way).

[vincere]

The problem as I see it is not nessesarily the spotting. It's the combinitation of spotting and over modelled infantry lethality.

Seriously, the lethality of small arms in this game is way over modelled, or rather, how easy it is to be seriously wounded and put out of the fight is WAY over modelled.

I've never been in combat, but I've read quite a few books about it. For example, in the book "House to House" the author goes on to state it took well over 200 rounds from the M240 to put down a militant wearing captured U.S. body armour, and take note this militant approached in the open wthout cover. Often the U.S. would have to clear buildings wth tank rounds etc and even THEN often the militia inside was still alive and kicking.

RPG's, etc, also kill to many too easily, and the accuracy is way too high. Quite often the crew inside a Stryker or whatever hit by an IED survive mostly, while in CMSF one RPG-7/IED and your entire squad is wiped out.

Given the fact it's almost impossible to spot enemies until they shoot at you, and then you almost always take heavy casualties in these cicumstances, I don't feel the game is anywhere near realistic, and the only viable tactic you can ever really use is recon by fire.

Imagine a Black Hawk Down scenario in CMSF, all your Rangers would be wiped out in seconds by highly lethal and accurate AK-47 fire from militiamen at 400m. Seriously, thats how accurate they are in this game.

If infantry lethality (especially infantry with body armour) was tweaked appropriately, the game would be a lot more fun, engaging, realistic, and allow for more tactical opportunities.

My intitial thoughts on reading this is that you're spot on. However, just played a game against lower quality noncons and their leathality was much reduced. Also my squads were Regular rather that crack and that seemed to make a difference too. The RPG seems over leathal when compared to recent battle accounts. Also a balance needs to be struck between anecdotal evidence of it take lots of rounds for a kill with those that talk of single burst kills.

[Other Means]

There was a thread in the last week that stated lethality was under- modelled.

It's never going to seem perfect to everyone - currently it feels fine to me.

[Battlefront.com]

DaveDash,

The problem as I see it is not nessesarily the spotting. It's the combinitation of spotting and over modelled infantry lethality.

Heh... as OtherMeans just pointed out, there's a recent thread where someone was arguing passionately that we've undermodeled lethality. You can't both be right

Or can you?

One problem we've had since the very beginning of CM's development is very broad statements made by players without much detail to back the statements up. Since there are so many variables at work for something like lethality and accuracy, the details are extremely important to note. One major factor is Experience. You'll get very different results (on average) when facing units that are Veteran compared to Conscript. The problem is players far too often play scenarios where the Red force is unrealistically good, then compare it to real life where they are often horrible, and conclude that something is wrong. Yeah, something is wrong... the Red Force is not portrayed realistically, which then skews the results.

The other major detail is...

RPG's, etc, also kill to many too easily, and the accuracy is way too high. Quite often the crew inside a Stryker or whatever hit by an IED survive mostly, while in CMSF one RPG-7/IED and your entire squad is wiped out.

What size IED? What type of RPG-7V round? There are all sorts of variations in the game and several of them are far better than what the Iraqis are using these days.

Given the fact it's almost impossible to spot enemies until they shoot at you, and then you almost always take heavy casualties in these cicumstances, I don't feel the game is anywhere near realistic, and the only viable tactic you can ever really use is recon by fire.

Imagine a Black Hawk Down scenario in CMSF, all your Rangers would be wiped out in seconds by highly lethal and accurate AK-47 fire from militiamen at 400m. Seriously, thats how accurate they are in this game.

I can't agree with this conclusion based on my own play. I am playing the same game you are and I don't usually take big casualties as Blue. And when I do, it's usually because I've done something stupid that real Blue forces would not likely have done.

Again, it's an apples to oranges comparison problem. The game doesn't restrict players from making bad decisions, therefore if the player isn't as good as the average Blue commander... then casualties will be higher, no question about it.

If infantry lethality (especially infantry with body armour) was tweaked appropriately, the game would be a lot more fun, engaging, realistic, and allow for more tactical opportunities. Right now the way the game works is approach with the most bodies possible (in order to get the biggest spotting bonus) and blow up everything in your path that might hold the enemy.

Er... what you just described is exactly what Western doctrine is all about Overwhelm the enemy with firepower, not corpses.

Also, there is still one serious spotting bug that annoys me and Im surprised it's STILL in the game. If a squad of 9 guys on a roof can see a tank, they should be able to point this out to the Javelin crew standing RIGHT next to them, and not have it go up and down the chain of command (which it quite often doesn't, leaving the Javelin team rather useless and unable to see anything due to the way spotting currently works).

Again, there's not much we can do with broad, non-specific statements like this. Units DO share information with each other laterally when they are near to each other. It's also been pointed out that Javelins are, if anything, too powerful in the game because the player's use of them isn't as restricted as they are in real life.

Bottom line here is that we can't do anything with overly general statements which are often at odds with our own conclusions as well as the general experience of gamers as seen related on this Forum. Gotta give us specifics or there's really no point in trying to have a discussion. After 10 years of such discussions we've found that more often than not, the broad generalizations are more incorrect than correct.

Now, having said that there is definitely something to say about overall lethality (both sides) being higher in CM (any one of the four releases) than in real life. We've had countless discussions about this over the years as to why it is. What it all boils down to is that this is a game and the players play it like a game, like like real life. Therefore, the results will not be directly comparable. That being said, CMx2 has several features (like Relative Spotting, RealTime, etc) that make things like "time compression" and "lethality" problems a bit better than CMx1.

Steve

[Stromb]

Hi

I've a good example of easy spotting / killing. Check screenshots in this thread, 2nd post, you'll see 2 M1 eliminating a hiding syrian observer on a roof, rather far away : http://www.cyberstratege.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=2151&p=31150#p31150

And the tanks just used their machineguns ... Whatever the risk taken on this position, it seems it was a very easy shot for the gunner. The syrian unit was supposed to be hiding (and beginning ordering a small mortar attack, by the way).

My mistake, sorry, i should have double check before posting the above message. It seems that in fact this example has nothing to do with spotting, as the other player stated that he just shoot on a place where he guessed some units could be hiding. So it's was just "bad luck" for the syrian side.

That said i agree in making spotting a bit harder.

[Dietrich]

it's the same reason why we don't get to see all those beautiful women living in our neighbourhood naked.

Maybe in your neighbourhood. There ain't a single beautiful woman living in my neighbourhood, spotted or not. (Not that I look for 'em.... =P)

stance and relative elevations matter and are represented visually as one would expect.

That's why when I give the "Deploy Weapon" command to an MG team on a rooftop, they break out the tripod and go prone, and thus the parapet is blocking their LOS/LOF. You'd think they would deploy the bipod and plant it on the parapet itself....

in the book "House to House" the author goes on to state it took well over 200 rounds from the M240 to put down a militant wearing captured U.S. body armour, and take note this militant approached in the open wthout cover.

200 rounds fired or 200 rounds hit? No matter what body armor you're wearing, getting actually hit with just ten 7.62mm rounds would put you down. Quasi-hyperbolic statements like "it took three dozen rounds to put the guy down" leave out key details like what number of those rounds fired were actual hits. It's easy to say "I burned through two whole belts of ammo before the guy stopped moving", but that doesn't give clear information.

Often the U.S. would have to clear buildings wth tank rounds etc and even THEN often the militia inside was still alive and kicking.

What gets me is when I level a building with tank rounds or artillery shells and one or more of the guys inside survive and inflict casualties on my infantry which later approach the pile of rubble that was once a structure.

* * *

Seriously, though, perhaps the my-troops-were-scanning-the-terrain-for-30-turns/minutes-and-never-spotted-any-enemy-units problem just shows that such is in the realm of dedicated recon troops lying in wait for hours at a time, waiting for the enemy to relax his vigilance, and thus is beyond the scope of CMSF?

Consider a makeshift alternative (though this is more the realm of scenario designers than players themselves): If you want your troops to have some chance of knowing where the enemy is, put a scout squad or sniper team someplace that has LOS to as much of the map as reasonably possible. This unit will simulate a recon team which has been in position for several hours, just keeping a lookout for enemy units. Then set your side's initial intelligence proportionately higher. Thus semi-faded ?'s will be present, giving your troops some idea of where the bad guys are.

[Kwazydog]

Heya Guys,

Seriously, the lethality of small arms in this game is way over modelled, or rather, how easy it is to be seriously wounded and put out of the fight is WAY over modelled.

I've never been in combat, but I've read quite a few books about it. For example, in the book "House to House" the author goes on to state it took well over 200 rounds from the M240 to put down a militant wearing captured U.S. body armour, and take note this militant approached in the open wthout cover.

Guys one thing that people have always done with the CM series is to make general assumptions on overall combat results based on their general game play, whereas CM is a perfect test bed for testing specific situations. For instance, the above can be tested reasonably closely to how it is described, and I found the results quite interesting...here is what I did.

I set up one M240 team in a building looking out across 600m of perfectly flat dirt terrain. I set up one 2 man Syrian spec forces sniper team at the other end, and gave them orders to 'quickly' zig zag towards the house. Note that I made the Syrians fanatic so that they would be encouraged to continue their suicidal run.

I ran the test 5 times with similar results, with the below being a break down of the last test.

0:15 - sniper team spotted approaching at 550m and fired upon

3:30 - sniper team takes first injury at 300m after M240 fired 175rnds

4:50 - Sniper team takes first kill at 188m after M240 fired 272rnds

I also did a second test, with the m240 team facing the Sniper team at 300m, 2 story building to building. I ran the test 3 times with similar results, and here are the results of the last...

10:00 - neither side spotted other. Sniper team ordered to fire at point between units

10:35 - M240 team aquires snipers and opens fire

13:20 - Sniper team takes 1st injury after M240 firing 110 rounds

14:15 - Sniper team takes 2nd injury after M240 firing 145 rounds

18:35 - Sniper team takes 1st kill after M240 firing 265 rounds

Now from my readings these results sound quite reasonable with regards to both spotting and small arms lethality, but if people have specific info to the contrary it would be interesting to hear. My main point here is that it is well worth testing specific situations before assuming that the engine had it wrong, as when you have 200 guys spotting and firing at 200 guys all sorts of variables come into play.

Dan

[Kwazydog]

RPG's, etc, also kill to many too easily, and the accuracy is way too high. Quite often the crew inside a Stryker or whatever hit by an IED survive mostly, while in CMSF one RPG-7/IED and your entire squad is wiped out.

Just to follow up I did an RPG vs Stryker test. The test was with regular Syrian Mech Inf RPG teams firing side on against a non-moving Stryker with full infantry squad at 200m. Below are the results...

50 RPG rounds fired

13 RPG rounds hit vehicle - of these

7 RPG rounds either did not detonate or caused no damage

5 RPG rounds detonated causing Strykers to be disabled - of these

- 1 squad exited with no injuries

- 1 squad exited with 2 injuries

- 2 squad had their air guard killed

- 1 squad took 2 kills and vehicle had 2 crew killed

1 RPG round caused catastrophic explosion killing all inside.

Again, this sounds quite reasonable to me consdering the range, troops firing and rounds used.. Note that these guys are firing regular RPG rounds, which is pretty much all that is being used in Iraq at the moment and thus are the best reference. Troops using tandam warhead or thermobaric rounds will likely see better results, and troops using RPG-29s are of course going to see better results yet again.

Dan

[Clevinger]

Hi Dan

Very interesting figures. Was there wind?

[c3k]

Whoa! Dan, how are YOU able to get exact round count figures from your M240 test? Are you guys withholding some cool developer's tools? Obviously, this game is broken until we can all get that software!

Thanks for running tests and posting the results. Nothing like data to cut through anecdotes.

With two men running at the MG team in the building: why would it take 50 meters of running for the MG team to spot them?

To put it in perspective, your 600 meter distance is equal to one and 1/2 track laps. If I am watching something at that distance, barring any LOS obstacles, I will IMMEDIATELY see 2 men running. It won't take 50 meters for me to see them. (Okay, toss in any kind of "fog of war" tweak, but still....)

Perhaps your test showed a flaw in spotting? (Building to building with no fire or movement, spotting seems right. It's the movement in the open which seems to be a bit too hard to spot.)

Thoughts?

Regards,

Ken

[Taki]

Get it! There aren`t any problems regarding with spotting, nor will there be any!

I had a hard long time to understand this after hours of indoctrination but now i really start seeing it. Not just stupid "feeling" or "witnessing" but really "seeing" the hard facts.

You get the point?

Its like talking to a wall. You dont have the hard data evaluation value you can do nothing. Even more in parts where BFC is just guessing them self.

As from one good advise here i extracted the essence: "Take it as it is, its just a game and its OUR Game. Accept it and enjoy or leave!"

[c3k]

Taki, I don't understand your post.

[flamingknives]

Just a quick pointer on spotting things at distance: Below is a picture of St. Paul's Cathedral. The spire is about 600 m from the photographer, give or take 25m.

There are people on the balcony at the top of the dome, which is nearly exactly 600 m

Looking the other way is also good.

The far bank is about 595m.

The edge of the riveside path (marked by posts and the edge of the grey tarmac) is 610m

The near edge of the river is 350m

The front of the Tate Modern is 660m

[c3k]

flamingknives,

Nice pictures and nice way of putting it in, err, perspective. Obviously the pictures do not quite show the true size of the people, however, you can easily extrapolate how easy it would be to see a pair of individuals at that distance with no other LOS hindrances or obstacles. That is the spotting conundrum: the inability of CMSF units to spot enemy units in clear ground.

Firing on, and causing casualties to, a pair of enemy at 600 meters is a totally different issue. However, I would think three or four pairs of eyeballs looking towards the enemy would spot them immediately at 600 meters.

Of course, my idea of "open ground" and the in-game simulation of "open ground" could well be quite different. If you toss some chest-high grass and minor undulations, then that "open ground" actually presents some concealment.

Note that I still think the simulation of spotting when in buildings is fine, just open ground needs tweaking.

Thanks,

Ken

[flamingknives]

I was thinking primarily about the spotting aspect.

50m is about 5-10 seconds? Basically we're talking the time it would take someone to run out of the entrance of the Tate Modern (the base of the tower) to the edge of the riverside path, where the coloured banners are. Just across the light brown bit. That picture is about 18 degrees of arc, and you'll be looking at a much wider arc, so expecting to see people running at 600 m instantaneously is a bit much.

I would also hazard that CM does not account for extremes in terrain - i.e. open and cluttered, so the spotting model is based on an average scene, where there a lots of thing to keep an eye on. A human, on a billiard table with only one item of interest, would tend to focus on one particular area and hence focus on that in particular. The pixeltruppen won't be that clever and will keep looking at everything. Plus there's the frequency of spot-checks, which can't be as often as you might like.

[c3k]

You are ignoring how exquisitely sensitive the human is to any motion. The second (or less, I'm not totally up on physiological response times, but a quick internet search reveals 17 milliseconds) a pair of men come rushing out of the location you stated, with no other distractions, they would be spotted as long as they were in the field of view. Not necessarily the location being focussed upon, but just the field of view.

That dovetails into previous comments made regarding pixeltruppen's absolute dedication to staring straigh ahead. Most soldiers would scan; does CMSF simulate this?

Agreed that 50m would take about 5-10 seconds to traverse. (A 40 meter sprint by a professional athlete takes 4+ seconds. A laden soldier would take more.) 5-10 seconds of motion in your field of view is a ludicrously long duration of time to be oblivious to that motion. My question is, "Does the lack of spotting equate to a lack of seeing?"

Thanks,

Ken

[flamingknives]

On my screen, the second picture is about 20 cm wide, so I need to be sat about 60cm away for it to be about the right size. The people outside the Tate Modern are pretty small so any movement will be equally small.