Spotting abilities of occupied troops

[SlapHappy]

Just watching the Band of Brothers scene where they assaulted the Brecourt 105 positions and realized that the pre-maneuvering the paratroopers did prior to the assault would most likely have been impossible without being spotted in the CMSF engine - Despite the fact that most of the German troops were occupied or distracted with their fire orders.

Right now it seems like spotting is absolute even in cases where the enemies situational awareness might not be particularly high (ie., they are facing in the wrong direction, occupied with some task). I made a test situation once where a group of Syrians were occupied firing at a threat from inside a building out of some windows. From several yards behind them I moved a squad of US troops around a corner and into POTENTIAL LOS. By this I mean the building had rear-facing windows, so it was possible to spot through those. This spotting not only occurred, it occurred almost instantaneously, despite the fact the Syrians in the building were quite occupied with the threat to their front. Is this level of awareness likely? Especially when enemy movements are likely to be masked by heavy gunfire?

Keep in mind the troops moving around the corner were still some 50 meters away from the Syrians. Despite this, almost instantaneous awareness by the AI. Just doesn't seem likely to me.

[Paper Tiger]

I'm not testing the WW2 title so I can't say for sure but what you're probably seeing is due to Syria's very arid terrain which doesn't seem to offer much concealment. However, I've seen screenshots of the latest build and trust me, the Normandy temperate terrain LOOKS massively different from the Syrian terrain and I'm pretty sure the concealment it offers is significantly higher too. But you'll have to wait for a WW2 tester or BFC to confirm this. I'm WAY too busy with NATO to dip into it right now.

[SlapHappy]

Well, I'm not really referring to terrain here....although in the WWII case it could be a mitigating factor, certainly.

I'm talking about situational factors where an individual or group might be able to momentarily or continuously establish a LOS, but because of mitigating circumstances do not immediately do so.

For instance if a 3-man mortar crew is facing in the opposite direction of a half-squad that crawls over a rise directly behind them at say, fifty meters. That mortar crew is busily executing an indirect fire order to their own front. It would be very likely that the mortar crew would be totally unaware of the presence of that enemy group until they opened fire. Yet, under typical spotting circumstances in the current CMSF engine, the half-squad would be spotted the moment half a torso of one man broke the slope line.

Does that make more sense?

[Jonny(FGM)]

made a test situation once where a group of Syrians were occupied firing at a threat from inside a building out of some windows. From several yards behind them I moved a squad of US troops around a corner and into POTENTIAL LOS.

Was the syrian unit the only red unit in los of the us troops?

i'd say run more tests but it just seems there are too many variables to control for

[SlapHappy]

They were the only RED units in the whole test.

[Jonny(FGM)]

I think a test needs to be run to see if troops approaching a "busy" squad from behind gets spotted any later than approaching a "free" squad. And then you could test the difference of spotting from the front and the back, side and front, etc etc etc.

my gut instincts say that busy troops have a spotting disadvantage in CMSF, but perhaps we need BF to confirm this.

[LongLeftFlank]

Infiltration has been a key tool in the arsenal of outgunned armies throughout history. The German, Japanese and Russian armies, as well as partisans and Allied special forces (e.g. Rangers) were adept at reversing or at least rendering far more tenuous any daytime enemy terrain gains using night infiltration attacks up to a division in size (but more frequently platoon-battalion scale). The critical feature is ability to locate and use subtle terrain undulations and patches of dense cover to get through enemy front lines undetected.

In fact, from 1944 Italy through the end of the war this was the primary German method of infantry counterattack.

Alas, utter inability to use infiltration tactics (i.e. move without being quickly spotted and pinned) was a hallmark of CMx1. Borg spotting is partly to blame, but the 20x20m terrain blocks also contributed (hard to create a tiny rivulet or irrigation ditch).

The jury is out on CMSF since modern night vision tech makes this kind of tactic highly challenging (though not impossible) in barren desert terrain, but hopefully spotting will be generally harder in CMN.

Infiltration attacks will also be challenging for CM because they're necessarily slowwwww, which doesn't suit the twitchy pace of many gamers.

Sorry about the disjointed ramblings -- I have a 3 year old tugging at me.

[SlapHappy]

I think it has more to do with an "eyes in the back of their head" modeling system than it does with terrain. I'm not saying you should be able to walk up behind a group of enemy and tap them on the shoulder.....but there has to be some middle ground, surely.

[Secondbrooks]

Infiltration has been a key tool in the arsenal of outgunned armies throughout history. The German, Japanese and Russian armies, as well as partisans and Allied special forces (e.g. Rangers) were adept at reversing or at least rendering far more tenuous any daytime enemy terrain gains using night infiltration attacks up to a division in size (but more frequently platoon-battalion scale). The critical feature is ability to locate and use subtle terrain undulations and patches of dense cover to get through enemy front lines undetected.

In fact, from 1944 Italy through the end of the war this was the primary German method of infantry counterattack.

Alas, utter inability to use infiltration tactics (i.e. move without being quickly spotted and pinned) was a hallmark of CMx1. Borg spotting is partly to blame, but the 20x20m terrain blocks also contributed (hard to create a tiny rivulet or irrigation ditch).

The jury is out on CMSF since modern night vision tech makes this kind of tactic highly challenging (though not impossible) in barren desert terrain, but hopefully spotting will be generally harder in CMN.

Infiltration attacks will also be challenging for CM because they're necessarily slowwwww, which doesn't suit the twitchy pace of many gamers.

Sorry about the disjointed ramblings -- I have a 3 year old tugging at me.

True. CMSF's battlespace is often so limited and setup-positions and most importantly timeline don't enable use of infiltration tactics if not designed so by scenario editor (give ability to set units into rear and flank areas of enemy). Sure there are scenarios with that in mind and CMSF could show infiltration tactics work pretty well. On platoon/squad level i've used them plenty along other action in CMSF: are they just flanking or infiltration is question to be asked.

Another problem in CMSF is that there isn't morale system to really utilize gains which one can get from using such ways... Or atleast i'm not awarer that morale system would be that sophisticated. Infiltration tactics highly depends on the fact that they can cause chaos and fear. And ofcourse they depends on fact that enemy haven't been prepared for them. Nowdays i'm rather sure that most armies does train their units to prepare to defend all directions and infiltration tactics are in training programs of all units (whether they have readiness/will to use it or not).

As a example: I've been playing Medieval 2 Total War and in there if you get to flank areas of your opponent it will suffer major morale setback and as a result whole field army might crumble... Surely it's mostly about heavy cavalry flanking and hitting rear part of echelon while rest of field army gets in fight of enemy's frontal elements. Not infiltration as much as typical flanking tactic. Not able to use infiltration tactics in there either In CMSF they seem to not suffer anykind of morale set back if they get enemies shooting them behind their backs. Crossfire and higher casualties as a result of drossfire is only thing to be gained from it.

[Jonny(FGM)]

i'm not sure if this got carried over into CMSF but in CMx1 if a unit was taking fire from multiple directions it had a big impact on a unit morale, in fact the best way to get a unit to surrender was to put units between it and it's friendly map edge.

now obviously this didn't affect global morale but getting troops into a rear area can still panic your opp (if it's human) and make them do something stupid.

[LongLeftFlank]

I know ASL and other wargames had a crossfire morale hit but not convinced it's needed. Maybe a crossfire might cause a unit to move less, be pnned more easily etc but if anything I'd expect them to fight harder in desperation since retreat was a less palatable option. The ballistic impacts of crossfires represent themselves in CMSF pretty well now.

[Secondbrooks]

I know ASL and other wargames had a crossfire morale hit but not convinced it's needed. Maybe a crossfire might cause a unit to move less, be pnned more easily etc but if anything I'd expect them to fight harder in desperation since retreat was a less palatable option. The ballistic impacts of crossfires represent themselves in CMSF pretty well now.

Morale hit should come in the moment when enemy is reaching flanks, has breached defenses, or forces some unit to leave it's positions. I quess most common sentence which has sent whole units to retreat is: "Enemy on our flanks!" Was it there or not. Surely if unit is already surrounded and their withdraw routs have been cut out then they might fight back even more persistently, until moment when they choose to surrender. Then again if they are left withdraw route they might be pretty eager to use it while it is still open. Which is one classic way to empty defensive positions with as little bloodshed as possible.

And naturally this would greatly impact on how CMSF plays out. I guess game would become lot less playable in common sense: More use of space and more movement, instead of using all assets to bring maximum mayhem on enemy.

And i guess AI logic is hard to design for that. When is unit feeling that it's exposed and it should start to flee? When it feels that things are going along their unit's defenseplans and is okay. And whaen it feels that it has to keep positions and try to judge between surrendering or keeping on fighting.