Roaming instead of hearing

[SlapHappy]

It seems to me from playing CMSF since it's introduction that squad "hearing" is not modelled. Instead the TAC AI seems to trigger entirely off of cues it receives via LOS. Even at very close range, infantry units don't seem to respond to potential threats if, for any reason, there is a legitimate blockage of LOS. This can lead to some interesting outcomes when troops are maneuvering around each other within spitting distance, especially around buildings.

To compensate somewhat, it does seem like they do have at least a margin of "eyes in the back of their heads" at least in some situations I've noticed. Perhaps BFC could verify how this actually works.

This can lead to problems with LOS for AI squads which are defending from stationary positions, especially in buildings. They can't hear the AFV moving just on the other side of the building from them, and since it is out of LOS, no response from the team.

I propose this could be alleviated somewhat by allowing a couple of squad members to randomly patrol into the immediately adjoined action spots under TAC AI control when the unit is stationary (again, especially in buildings). This would at least allow a probability that a soldier might ascertain a nearby threat that would normally fall outside the squad LOS and enable the rest of the unit to act accordingly to engage (or avoid) it. When I say "patrol", I don't mean wander off 50-100 meters away, just the adjoining action spots. I was encouraged that this behavior might be fairly easily codeable since it was recently added that soldiers can give buddy aid to wounded comrades in adjoining action spots.

I can try to explain further what I am talking about here if it is unclear from my description.......

[SlapHappy]

Add to the thought above the "roamer" may not necessarily enter another action spot in rather small buildings, but may simply change facing towards another area of a room or building if that satisfies the demand for establishing a new LOS vector.

[-Pv-]

Increased awareness not strictly tied to individual LOS would seem to be needed.

I can see though that how the squad reacts to the awareness could be tricky. Does a hide become unhidden giving themselves away necessarily? Does a normal stance become a hide, thus if the enemy stumbles onto them the defenders are unprepared to defend? Do the defenders run to avoid when they might be able to decisively win? Is the player then dependent on this added awareness to make decisions on changing the stance of a squad or back them up?

-Pv-

[Wengart]

In Normandy, will units react to sound?

[zwobot]

Steve explained something about this in the Questions about the question marks thread.

At one point he said, question marks represent all sorts of contacts be it sound or sight. You can read his post here.

Thus one can assume that TacAI should hear things and react to it?

[Flanker15]

I've never seen any kind of sound spotting in CM:SF (never ever!).

I even tested it a couple of times, had a tank fire it's gun and drive around next to a tall wall but the infantry on the other side didn't get any "?" or contacts.

[SlapHappy]

I was hoping to have Steve chime in on this, but I guess he's bogged down in the bogging thread.

[stikkypixie]

I'll do a Thomm a bump this baby right up.

[Holman]

Here's a tangentially related question. Having never been under fire (but having fired a few guns), I don't know the answer.

Shouldn't heavy combat impair soldiers' hearing? I don't mean long-term hearing damage, but just the sound of lots of guns (and maybe nearby armor) firing around you limiting your immediate ability to hear orders, threats, and anything at all.

It seems to me that (in an insanely realistic simulation anyway) soldiers who are under fire or who have been under fire recently shouldn't be able to count on their ears for much. Is it possible to hear, for instance, even an earpiece radio with a machine gun chattering away next to you? Does dulled hearing persist for some time after lots of firing?

Just wondering.

[SlapHappy]

A well-timed bump while Steve is perusing the board...

[SlapHappy]

Here's a tangentially related question. Having never been under fire (but having fired a few guns), I don't know the answer.

Shouldn't heavy combat impair soldiers' hearing? I don't mean long-term hearing damage, but just the sound of lots of guns (and maybe nearby armor) firing around you limiting your immediate ability to hear orders, threats, and anything at all.

It seems to me that (in an insanely realistic simulation anyway) soldiers who are under fire or who have been under fire recently shouldn't be able to count on their ears for much. Is it possible to hear, for instance, even an earpiece radio with a machine gun chattering away next to you? Does dulled hearing persist for some time after lots of firing?

Just wondering.

Yes, under duress our hearing "compresses" in an attempt to protect the tympanic membrane from damage. Also, I believe US troops actually wear hearing protection in field exercises if not actual combat. And certainly, loud external noises could cover up some nearby activity...gunfire, explosions, etc.

However, examples like Flanker noted tend to shift my thinking towards the idea that infantry are inherently stone deaf.

[hoolaman]

There is no spotting outside of LOS, so no pure sound spotting like in CM1, but I believe noise is factored into the odds of spotting something as long as it IS in LOS.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Here's a tangentially related question. Having never been under fire (but having fired a few guns), I don't know the answer.

Shouldn't heavy combat impair soldiers' hearing? I don't mean long-term hearing damage, but just the sound of lots of guns (and maybe nearby armor) firing around you limiting your immediate ability to hear orders, threats, and anything at all.

It seems to me that (in an insanely realistic simulation anyway) soldiers who are under fire or who have been under fire recently shouldn't be able to count on their ears for much. Is it possible to hear, for instance, even an earpiece radio with a machine gun chattering away next to you? Does dulled hearing persist for some time after lots of firing?

Just wondering.

Sometimes yes; sometimes no. Completely situation dependent and there is no overall answer. Variables include surprise to the encounter vs anticipation; proximity and decibels of the sound; and some other things.

Ear protection is a standard, but there are different types with varying degrees of effectiveness. My favorite was a type that was able to block the harmful DBs from weapons fire, while making it possible to hear vocal commands, I got them through supply and couldn't tell you the name. Trouble with comms is fairly normal, but a few "Say again, over"s usually fixes it.

Hearing problems can persist, or they may not. I have pretty bad hearing damage from qualification ranges, but never noticed any problems after actual shooting, so as with most things, your mileage may vary.

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry for the delay. Yeah, got bogged down in the bogging thread

We're taking a fresh look at non-confirmed target identification for CM: Normandy. One thing on our list is misidentification. A much loved feature we didn't have time to implement for CM:SF, though we felt it wasn't as important there since the range of possible hardware of a particular type was either limited or not very relevant.

Sound contacts are something we aren't sure what to do with. In CMx1 they were far, far too easy to get compared to real world. Here's all the reasons why sound contacts don't happen:

1. Depending on circumstances units may be completely unable to make sense, or even hear, noises beyond a certain range. Battle noises, terrain makeup, topography, weather, etc. all play a role in real life.

2. Too much noise "clutter". Noise tends to cancel out noise, depending on strength, wavelength, etc. Individuals who are firing weapons, or are significantly close to those firing weapons, have a very limited range of sounds they can hear and the distance they can be detected. If there are friendly vehicles idling nearby, enemy vehicles on the opposite side of those vehicles won't likely be heard. Wind whipping through trees pretty much eliminates noises such as soldiers walking, at least while the wind is gusting. Fellow soldiers shouting and running about causes confusion and uncertainty about what similar sounds belong to. Etc.

3. All sorts of physiological things can happen to reduce hearing. Direct stress on the ears, such as nearby firing, and general stress to the body, especially adrenaline, reduce hearing capabilities. The latter is because when the body gets really excited there is a biological low level flight/fight response which causes the brain to focus on getting the body to do things like run and physically attack at the expense of hearing, smelling, peripheral vision, and fine motor control. There was a really cool study done about this relating to police officers discharging their weapons during the course of duty. Our brains are pretty smart

So what this all means is we're not quite sure what to do about sound contacts going forward. Whatever we do it won't be as broad and uncontrolled as CMx1. At least I hope not.

Steve

[SlapHappy]

Yep, I can very well see how this notion of sound contacts can be a difficult one to work out. For instances of the tank gun firing on the other side of the wall a few yards away....any creature with a pair of protuberances on either side of their head is going to be able to get a localization on that "event". However, the case of the enemy squad maneuvering around your building location can bring up any number of variables: Can they hear you and know that you are there? Thus, attempting to make sure you don't hear them? What is their movement type? Rapid or stealthy? Is your group or theirs firing weapons, etc.

Fully realizing this, my original thought was that it was just too much to explore within reason. Thus, I visualized a squad of men who being deaf, and knowing they are deaf, attempt to utilize "roaming eyes" to compensate for their lack of auditory capabilities. Expanding their LOS capabilities to compensate for lack of audio cues. Not as realistic, but still giving some enhanced battlefield awareness.

[c3k]

SlapHappy, excellent post. Yes, I think "roaming eyes" would be a useful addition to unit situational awareness. Of course, a tweak or two always gets debated. I'd think if the unit is not under immediate fire, that the last guy in the squad/team would be assigned to scan their six. However, once the bullets start flying at them, or they are given a target, that level of "roaming eyes" should be dropped. All eyes on the target.

In a related vein, hearing on the battlefield was critically important to the generals of the US Civil War. Identifying the location, proximity, type of troops engaged, flow of the battle, and prognosis were done, frequently, by the general's ability to hear what was happening. There is a famous battle, near 7 Pines (?) (my memory is lapsing on the exact date and location, but near the base of the Williamsburg, VA peninsula), which was famous for Lee's paralysis. Many eyewitnesses commented on the strange acoustics which had the CSA HQ located in a dead zone. Moving away by several dozen yards in any direction produced a huge increase in the sound of the battle. The lack of sound was important in how the CSA conducted their ops, to their detriment.

Regards,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

I'm not sure how "roaming eyes" is different than the way the game works now. A 9 man squad, for example, consists of 9 individuals attempting to spot things that are around them. Realistically I don't see any room for improvement here in terms of behavior because if they can see the enemy then it doesn't matter if they can hear it.

c3k,

Sound definitely is important. But there are many differences between post 19th Century warfare and pre 19th Century. The primary differences are unit organization and mobility.

Back in the Civil War days formations consisted of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of men basically marching together simultaneously. Such groups made a lot of noise and had to undergo significant reorganization before being able to conduct offensive operations. So you could hear them, get a sense of size, direction, and even unit composition *and* potentially act on that information.

Compare this to WW2 when you have groups as small as 7 men operating against your positions from fairly short distances. Opportunity to accumulate data, evaluate it, then act is greatly reduced. When you read accounts of actual combat (as opposed to pre-battle positioning) there is generally very little mention of auditory clues as to what was going on.

The most common (besides engine noises) is when the enemy units are up close. US units, for example, were seen by Germans as being excessively noisy because of heavy reliance on shouting to control unit actions. But all this generally did was establish where the enemy infantry might be, but not much else. Certainly it would be rare to figure out "there is 2 Squads in that house" by audio clues alone. More likely it would be "there is some infantry in that house, probably not more than a squad because the house is small and the enemy doesn't usually bunch too many guys up in one spot at one time".

Again, we're still evaluating our options. One thing I will say is I don't want us to repeat the CMx1 modeling of audio clues for the CMx2 engine. I think that would be a mistake.

Steve

[c3k]

Steve,

I certainly didn't intend that Civil War anecdote to be construed into ANYTHING related to CM; it was just an interesting tidbit about sound and its importance in warfare.

Back to CMSF: I think there is room for improvement in how a 9 man squad spots things around them. I'd have to run some tests (loaded statement, that!), but, it is my belief that right now all 9 men orient themselves towards the front. As they move, they all face forwards. Emphasis on "all" and "forwards". I know that there is some variability, but it is minor.

Given a possible center of field of view being 1 of 360 degrees, the pie wedge graphic on the base for each man is centered very closely to that of all other men. Especially true when moving. Not so true when a move ends in a building with no facing order. In that case an all-around position is taken up. I do not know if the pie wedge graphic defines that individual's field of view. However, I NEVER see the last man sweeping behind the team.

For the sake of argument, CMSF models all men slaved to a very similar field of view. "Roaming Eyes" would enhance the ability to spot enemy by having flankers and tail-end-charlies looking away from the primary axis of movement. With a FACE command, flankers should skew outwards, splitting the difference such that the the rightmost flank holder has the leftmost part of his field of view parallel to the FACE command. Vice versa for the left side flanker. Some numbers....

FACE aimed to the east, 090 degrees. Assume each man's field of view is 30 degrees. The left most man should center his view at an angle of 075 degrees. That way his scan encompasses 060 through 090. The far right guy should center on 105, scanning 090 to 120 degrees.

Without a FACE command, given a squad moving to the east, 090 degrees, point should face 090, scanning 075 to 105. Overlay scans from there. Last man checks rear.

These would not be fixed areas, but rather what they come back to after scanning around them. Letting their eyes roam...call it "roaming eyes".

"Head on a swivel, men, head on swivel..."

This ignores any kind of sound algorithm. What it does is builds on the strength of CMSF's spotting routine. It would allow small units a more accurate and timely view of their immediate battlespace.

Perhaps some tests are in order...

Thanks,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

We don't simulate actual eyeballs in sockets, so the way the 3D representations means nothing. The way the game works is similar to CMx1 in the sense that units have situational awareness all around them based on circumstances. The difference is that there are more LOS checks from more points (including heights, which CMx1 didn't have) done with more fidelity. FACE simply tells the unit where to focus most of its attention.

So again, I don't know what there is to improve since it's already doing it What could improve is simply increasing the frequency of spotting checks. That's simply a function of computing power needing to increase quite a bit more before there can be substantially more checks. CMx1 had serious limitations in terms of frequency of spotting checks as well, despite them being vastly more simpler than what CMx2 has. We love proving that we can gobble up CPU cycles as fast as chip makers can give them to us

Steve

[akd]

I'm not sure how "roaming eyes" is different than the way the game works now. A 9 man squad, for example, consists of 9 individuals attempting to spot things that are around them. Realistically I don't see any room for improvement here in terms of behavior because if they can see the enemy then it doesn't matter if they can hear it.

c3k,

Sound definitely is important. But there are many differences between post 19th Century warfare and pre 19th Century. The primary differences are unit organization and mobility.

Back in the Civil War days formations consisted of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of men basically marching together simultaneously. Such groups made a lot of noise and had to undergo significant reorganization before being able to conduct offensive operations. So you could hear them, get a sense of size, direction, and even unit composition *and* potentially act on that information.

Compare this to WW2 when you have groups as small as 7 men operating against your positions from fairly short distances. Opportunity to accumulate data, evaluate it, then act is greatly reduced. When you read accounts of actual combat (as opposed to pre-battle positioning) there is generally very little mention of auditory clues as to what was going on.

The most common (besides engine noises) is when the enemy units are up close. US units, for example, were seen by Germans as being excessively noisy because of heavy reliance on shouting to control unit actions. But all this generally did was establish where the enemy infantry might be, but not much else. Certainly it would be rare to figure out "there is 2 Squads in that house" by audio clues alone. More likely it would be "there is some infantry in that house, probably not more than a squad because the house is small and the enemy doesn't usually bunch too many guys up in one spot at one time".

Again, we're still evaluating our options. One thing I will say is I don't want us to repeat the CMx1 modeling of audio clues for the CMx2 engine. I think that would be a mistake.

Steve

This is certainly true, but the setting of the first CMx2 WWII module places a premium on sound contacts. Often compared to jungle warfare, bocage fighting brought units into very close contact while at the same time largely blocking LOS. Having pre-registered the terrain, the Germans frequently called in mortars based on sound contacts alone. They even had specialized platoons assigned to the infantry tasked with mapping US positions using sound contacts alone.

One particular circumstance we have already discussed is when engineers would be brought forward to prep a hedgerow for demolition. The noise involved in breaking through the tangle of stone and roots at the base of the hedgerow inevitably drew German attention, and the time required meant that mortars would often be called down on their heads before they could complete the task.

And as you noted, the Germans observed that the lack of noise discipline in American units prevented them from using infiltration tactics at even the smallest unit level, where as the Germans would attempt infiltrations with company-sized units and even armor. Following an attack by "Das Reich" and the 266th ID, one American officer observed: "The noise discipline of the tank crews and accompanying infantry was superior. No talking, shouting, or any sound except machine gun or cannon fire and starting of motors carried over 100 yards." (AGF Report 17-IV from ETO 30 July 1944, prepared by Col. C. R. Coates)

We don't simulate actual eyeballs in sockets, so the way the 3D representations means nothing. The way the game works is similar to CMx1 in the sense that units have situational awareness all around them based on circumstances. The difference is that there are more LOS checks from more points (including heights, which CMx1 didn't have) done with more fidelity. FACE simply tells the unit where to focus most of its attention.

So again, I don't know what there is to improve since it's already doing it What could improve is simply increasing the frequency of spotting checks. That's simply a function of computing power needing to increase quite a bit more before there can be substantially more checks. CMx1 had serious limitations in terms of frequency of spotting checks as well, despite them being vastly more simpler than what CMx2 has. We love proving that we can gobble up CPU cycles as fast as chip makers can give them to us

Steve

Is this true in structures, i.e. if a team is against one wall of a house facing out, do they have some awareness of happenings beyond the opposite wall?

[Sgt Joch]

The most common (besides engine noises) is when the enemy units are up close. US units, for example, were seen by Germans as being excessively noisy because of heavy reliance on shouting to control unit actions. But all this generally did was establish where the enemy infantry might be, but not much else.

It would be neat if US units were easier to spot to due to too much verbal commands as opposed to German units. I supposed this might also depend on unit training. In "Band of Brothers", US paratroopers were shown as using hand signals when enemy troops were around, although this might be artistic license.

As an aside, regarding the US civil war, although the large napoleonic style battles did occur and this is still a popular image, small unit tactics very quickly took on a modern flavor with small group of men operating on their own and using terrain as cover to fire at the enemy.

Going back even farther, I am currently reading "Fusiliers", a fascinating book about the British Army in the American Insurrection of 1775-81. Although, the British used european tactics in '75, suffering frightful casualties at Bunker Hill, they quickly developped quite modern tactics with light troops fighting in small groups, using flexible formations and taking advantage of the terrain. They even developped lightweight, less cumbersome uniforms more adapted to the north american battlefield.

Everyone remembers Washington crossing the Delaware in dec. '76, but the British and Insurgents fought a no holds barred Guerilla/anti-Guerilla campaign in the winter of '77 which matches the ferocity of the ww2 Ostfront, Vietnam or Afghanistan, with much the same results.

I am now up to dec. '80, Cornwallis has pacified South Carolina and is planning a counter-insurgency campaign in North carolina...I can't wait to find out what happens...

[Battlefront.com]

Sgt. Joch,

It would be neat if US units were easier to spot to due to too much verbal commands as opposed to German units.

Not going to happen because we purposefully avoid putting in "national bias". A lot of German officers said they thought the Americans couldn't fight their way out of a paper bag, so once you start down this road it's a bit of a problem finding the place to stop

Yup, there were plenty of small unit actions in the Civil War and before. Sharpshooters also became a force to be reckoned with too. But the sort of battle c3k was describing, where a commander would sit on a hill and give a listen, is definitely not that sort of thing.

Note also that the more experienced and better led CW units understood noise discipline and took steps to quiet things down. So even for larger battles it wasn't a foregone conclusion that the enemy was going to be completely aware of what was going on and where to a reasonable degree of accuracy.

But American Civil War is definitely not an on-topic subject an isn't really relevant other than point out that noise can be useful to troops on the ground.

Steve

[c3k]

Grrrr, HOW is this thread focused on the Civil War??? Oh, it's "Steve" dragging it off topic. Enough of that. Let's talk about CM games. If this guy Steve can't do _that_ maybe we need a moderator...

Um, where was I? Oh yes, spotting behavior. Thanks for reminding me that there is some ability to spot other than where the individual is facing. However, isn't it true that the odds of seeing something outside of the individual's facing is GREATLY reduced? What I am interpreting this thread to mean is that an improvement in spotting outside of the facing would be an, er, improvement to the game.

"Head on a swivel."

Have the men look around...more...and further over...and see stuff that's there.

Is that possible?

Thanks,

Ken

[JonS]

Smell. You guys are all ignoring it.

What about using smell to 'spot' the enemy?

[Aacooper]

Back in Cmx1 days, people on this forum said the Germans had better small unit cohesion because they were always talking to each other, making a lot of noise.

Here's someone from the famous Easy Co, 101st Airborne:

"One night, he was on patrol, with orders to shoot anyone he saw. He froze at the sound of a person moving in the darkness, but figured the noise wasn't big enough for German troops."

In "Against The Panzers", talking about the Arnaville, crossing (page 60, has "Prf. John Yezzi, in another machine gun squad, was riddling the ranks of counterattacking Germans who advanced firing their machine pistols and rifle grenades even as they yelled "Kamerad" in an obvious ruse."

Also, page 26, the battle for St. Barthelmy, says "They could even hear the German officers shouting to their men, but the murky fog prevented them from seeing anything."

There's also the German tactic in the Bulge of yelling and making noise to scare away outnumber US defenders.

So, I suppose Battlefront is right not to have any national modifiers.