Artillery spotters still being ID'ed too easily?

[Soddball]

Just a quick example which made me puzzled. I was playtesting a new scenario and had a radio spotter in a truck. The truck was zipping across open terrain when it was suddenly struck by a fat 75mm HE shell from a StuG over 2km away.

Because I designed the scenario, I know for certain that the closest enemy units are 1,700m away. Granted, Borg Spotting might influence this, but the StuG ignored the very visible T34/85s less than 500m away to target the spotter in a truck 2,100m away. :eek:

Fix, etc.. ;)

[Monty]

Maybe the "wonder TC" Michael Wittman was in the Stug ??

;)

Monty

[Joachim]

Just like the TacAI targetting (tank) HQs or more experienced troops (read: more expensive troops) first. Somebody said the most threatening enemy would be targetted, but tests showed that a crack AC in the rear was targetted, while regular ACs unmolestedly drove towards the ATG.

Guess those bugs have the same reason. TacAI firing routine knows the stats while it shouldn't know them.


Gruß
Joachim

[tooz]

This is just one of many perks the AI seems to give itself. I wonder if this is done to allow the AI to put up a good fight.
AI tanks are snipers, HQ tanks ALWAYS bog first--or get that all too common "Gun Damage" result. I have also noticed how AI artillery NEVER MISSES! I tried this with the Kiev op playtest (which is pretty tough!). I set my infantry to the right, the armor to the left. Yep, AI barrage hits the infantry. I then try moving things around, even keeping units well to the rear--and out of any possible line of sight. It doesn't matter, the arty always found my squads.
In another playtest, my FOs are in a locked set up. Turn two, here comes the AI arty, there goes my fire missions, and of course the broken/routed FOs sneak off the board edge.
In all consideration, I think this is just an edge given to the AI to make the games more challenging. One advantage the human player always has is that we can just quit the scenario, and start the scenario again--this time knowing where the AI has placed his troops.
I don't cheat and look at the AI OB before a scenario, but I will quit it and restart one if I'm getting clobbered and taking the heat. It is just a game--I keep telling myself this.

[Björn Eriksson]

I guess we have different AIs then, because I have seen the AI miss with artillery strikes several times. Try using the WITHDRAW command as soon as you see a spotting round falling close to your troops.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by tooz:
In all consideration, I think this is just an edge given to the AI to make the games more challenging.BFC has repeatedly sworn on a stack of C++ manuals that the AI doesn't cheat, that it plays by exactly the same rules as the human player. Whether there might be a wormhole through which information might leak unbeknownst to the designers is not for me to say. But I will point out that because of the probabilistic way things run in CM, unlikely things are quite possible. What that means in the present case is that though it might look like something is going on, all that's really happening is that your nickel came up tails four times in a row. Keep playing and you may well witness the pattern you are now seeing vanish like the Cheshire's smile.

Michael

[zukkov]

i'm with bjorn on this one. you conspiracy theorists always seem to think the ai has some cheat that gives it an advantage. there's always a tank of the grassy knoll(gnoll? nole? whatever. notice how the turret goes back and to the left.. ahem, anyway). i wonder how often the bfc crew must chuckle at some of the "observations" of the players of this fine game.

then again, maybe that's what they want me to think! :eek:

[Moon]

And we stand by what we have sworn. The TacAI is exactly the same for the computer player as for the human player. HQ tanks are *slightly* favored for targetting, as are FO's. It's those big antennas on the tanks and the guys sticking out giving flag signals and/or the guys with the large rolls of wire and the scissor type binoculars that give it away smile.gif

Martin

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Moon:
And we stand by what we have sworn. The TacAI is exactly the same for the computer player as for the human player. HQ tanks are *slightly* favored for targetting, as are FO's. It's those big antennas on the tanks and the guys sticking out giving flag signals and/or the guys with the large rolls of wire and the scissor type binoculars that give it away smile.gif

Martin I don't remember saying anything about AI cheats? My grumble is with something totally different, honest - like how a tank 2km away can spot that an infantry unit in the back of a truck is an artillery spotter.

[Redwolf]

The AI as in programmed opponent does not cheat, it is the TacAI that causes this behaviour, but it does it in identical ways for the PO and for the human player.

What happens is that when the TacAI (not the PO) spots several enemy units it makes a decision which to target. It will target the most valuable enemy unit - and here is the catch - the value of the units is magically told. The TacAI target selection is always driven by the unit price, which it is told bespite fog of war.

It is the same phaenomenon as with the planes always targetting the HQ tank. The TacAI knows the order of point value for all targets in sight of that single unit.

Again: it is not the programmed opponent who magically knows the values. It is only the tiny little TacAI decision maker for that single unit, not for the whole force and not for the player or PO. Such a unit controlled by a human player will have exactly the same advantage. The player owning the unit will never be told.

[ July 09, 2003, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Beta1]

The truck v tanks thing couldnt simply be down to kill percentages. Does a StuG have much chance of killing a T34/85 at 500m (I have no idea off the top of my head) On the other hand it will have a very good chance of KOing a truck at any range. So maybe it went for the easiest kill.

Now whether its smart for the AI to reveal its stug to kill a truck when theres lots of T34/85s around is another matter entirely

[Moon]

Originally posted by Soddball:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Moon:
And we stand by what we have sworn. The TacAI is exactly the same for the computer player as for the human player. HQ tanks are *slightly* favored for targetting, as are FO's. It's those big antennas on the tanks and the guys sticking out giving flag signals and/or the guys with the large rolls of wire and the scissor type binoculars that give it away smile.gif

Martin I don't remember saying anything about AI cheats? My grumble is with something totally different, honest - like how a tank 2km away can spot that an infantry unit in the back of a truck is an artillery spotter. </font>[/QUOTE]Binoculars? Riding on the back of a truck doesn't make the unit disappear, they (plus their equipment) are in fact probably easier to spot than when they'd be walking, as a moving truck draws attention. Riding inside a halftrack would be a different matter (and is, in the game). A truck with some antennas sticking out surely is a priority target.

Martin

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Moon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Moon:
And we stand by what we have sworn. The TacAI is exactly the same for the computer player as for the human player. HQ tanks are *slightly* favored for targetting, as are FO's. It's those big antennas on the tanks and the guys sticking out giving flag signals and/or the guys with the large rolls of wire and the scissor type binoculars that give it away smile.gif

Martin I don't remember saying anything about AI cheats? My grumble is with something totally different, honest - like how a tank 2km away can spot that an infantry unit in the back of a truck is an artillery spotter. </font>[/QUOTE]Binoculars? Riding on the back of a truck doesn't make the unit disappear, they (plus their equipment) are in fact probably easier to spot than when they'd be walking, as a moving truck draws attention. Riding inside a halftrack would be a different matter (and is, in the game). A truck with some antennas sticking out surely is a priority target.

Martin </font>[/QUOTE]Now, come on. Are you seriously telling me that a StuG commander with a T-34/85 at 500m (which, yes, can quite definitely kill the Stug - even out to 800/900m) will have time to pay attention to a truck 2km away with some people in?

Please. :rolleyes:


I wasn't happy and so I ran a quick test.

One Axis StuG faces off on an open 2km map against:

1 Radio spotter in the open

1 Radio spotter in a halftrack

1 Radio spotter in a truck

1 Radio spotter in a jeep

1 Sharpshooter in the open

1 Platoon HQ in the open

1 MG in the open

1 Mortar in the open

Turn 1:

StuG spots halftrack with 'infantry?' in

StuG spots truck with 'artillery spotter' in

StuG spots jeep with 'artillery spotter' in

At 2km? What is the guy, Captain Identify?


So, I ran another quick test with the same allied units, but this time with an Unfit Conscript Platoon HQ.

At 2km range, the conscript platoon HQ correctly identifies the arty spotter in the truck, but struggles to confirm the identity of the truck! "Oooh, is it a truck? Is it? But hell, that's an arty spotter if ever I saw one!". :eek:

Something is wrong in the state of arty spotter spotting.

[Moon]

Yes, I am telling you that. And I can come up with a host of real-life explanations for such a situation. The StuG might have never seen the T-34 at 500m because it was in a dead spot of the commander's cupola for example.

In fact, the tank TacAI has a random function "built in" to simulate the limited field of view and situational awareness, and sometimes this causes units to react to enemy threats - even if otherwise spotted - with a delay.

And an arty observer team isn't "some people", but it's people with a lot of quite bulky equipment that isn't all that easy to hide (or at least it takes preparation to do so).

In the example with the conscript HQ - I can very well imagine a conscript unit to be able to deduct what a bunch of antennas or large rolls of wire mean than to identify the type of a moving enemy vehicle they've probably never seen before.

Martin

[dalem]

Martin-

Is there anything factored into such spotting occurrences to reflect canvas topped, i.e., not open flatbed transport?

-dale

[ July 09, 2003, 01:49 PM: Message edited by: dalem ]

[Soddball]

If this is the case, then why did neither the StuG nor the Conscript HQ successfully identify the 'artillery spotter' who wasn't in a vehicle?

At 2km, the HQ successfully spotted and ID'ed the spotter in the truck.

At 1.5km, the HQ successfully spotted and ID'ed both the jeep and the spotter in the jeep.

Down to 800m the HQ failed to identify any other units, including a machine gun, a flamethrower, a mortar and (most importantly) a radio spotter with his huge flags, enormous antenna and whatnot.

However, the HQ did manage to spot "Infantry Sounds" in the back of the halftrack at 1.5km, which I found most impressive.

Something isn't right here, and I don't believe that any amount of naysaying will prove otherwise. If spotters are so visible, why are they so visible in a truck and not when walking along the ground?

Let me reiterate. These are all radio spotters - no wires, no flags.

[Shoot Me_I Explode]

Gota love those German optics hay... ;)

[mike_the_wino]

Hey Soddy, maybe your computer is punishing you for creating "Cheery Waffles", both the thread and the scenario. Lord knows I have included you in my prayers as of late. Unfortunately, no meteors have struck that block of wood perched above your torso.

[ July 09, 2003, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: mike_the_wino ]

[Moon]

Originally posted by Soddball:
If this is the case, then why did neither the StuG nor the Conscript HQ successfully identify the 'artillery spotter' who wasn't in a vehicle?

At 2km, the HQ successfully spotted and ID'ed the spotter in the truck.

At 1.5km, the HQ successfully spotted and ID'ed both the jeep and the spotter in the jeep.

Down to 800m the HQ failed to identify any other units, including a machine gun, a flamethrower, a mortar and (most importantly) a radio spotter with his huge flags, enormous antenna and whatnot.

However, the HQ did manage to spot "Infantry Sounds" in the back of the halftrack at 1.5km, which I found most impressive.

Something isn't right here, and I don't believe that any amount of naysaying will prove otherwise. If spotters are so visible, why are they so visible in a truck and not when walking along the ground?

Let me reiterate. These are all radio spotters - no wires, no flags. Does the StuG have "narrow" optics by chance? Narrow field of view does make spotting objects closer to you but outside of the viewing arc harder. Same applies basically to "high magnification optics", though less drastically.

My point is that tactical awareness on the battlefield is not absolute, and in the heat of battle things which are in plain view might go unspotted. I'll be the first one to admit that there's a bug if there is one, but so far what you are writing doesn't seem conclusive to me.

Martin

BTW, even radio spotters have a lot more equipment with them than a Vietnam style backpack radio, I'm sure you know that.

[dalem]

What about enclosed transport though?

-dale

[tooz]

This just in...Playing "The Byeli Road" with mucho tanks in deep snow (I thought that the "Christie suspension", low ground pressure, and wider tracks of the T-34 minimized the chances
of bogging). I have many five platoons of tanks. Four are bogged (three of which IMMEDIATELY became immobilized and will now sit out the rest of the scenario in comfort--out of LOS of any German unit), three of these bogged/immobilized tanks are HQ tanks. Nothing slower than out of command Russian tanks. Okay, so I am the unluckiest player in the world? Well, I think I have found a solution--I'll just drink more beer and maybe a few shots of tequila while playing. :rolleyes:
(Burp!) Ah, that's better! :D
So, to avoid the frustrations involved with out-of-command tanks I am sending these guys out to be anti-tank spotters. Ka-boom! Look there's a gun over there...Ka-boom! Look, there's another ATG over there...

[tooz]

Oh, NOW I UNDERSTAND! My HQ tanks are bogging/immobilizing on all of those snow-covered GRASSY KNOLLS!(just kidding) tongue.gif

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by tooz:
This just in...Playing "The Byeli Road" with mucho tanks in deep snow (I thought that the "Christie suspension", low ground pressure, and wider tracks of the T-34 minimized the chances
of bogging)......Well, I think I have found a solution--I'll just drink more beer and maybe a few shots of tequila while playing. :rolleyes:
(Burp!) Ah, that's better! :D Now you're on the right track....except that when I wrote the scenario, the beer was chasing bourbon.... smile.gif

The deep snow does make that one tough on the Russians. I'm thinking about changing from deep to regular snow for v2.0.

[V]

[ July 09, 2003, 08:11 PM: Message edited by: V ]

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Moon:

Does the StuG have "narrow" optics by chance? Narrow field of view does make spotting objects closer to you but outside of the viewing arc harder. Same applies basically to "high magnification optics", though less drastically.

My point is that tactical awareness on the battlefield is not absolute, and in the heat of battle things which are in plain view might go unspotted. I'll be the first one to admit that there's a bug if there is one, but so far what you are writing doesn't seem conclusive to me.

Martin

BTW, even radio spotters have a lot more equipment with them than a Vietnam style backpack radio, I'm sure you know that. StuG optics are irrelevant. I ran and reran the test with a platoon HQ, and the same occurrence cropped up. "Heat of Battle" is also irrelevant, since the same thing occurs each time.

If you want, I will email the test scenario to you. Run it Hotseat, and 'move' all the Russian units 2000m towards the flag. You'll see exactly what I described:

The Radio artillery spotter in the truck is identified first, by a long way.

The Radio artillery spotter in the jeep is identified second.

The Radio artillery spotter in the halftrack appears as "infantry sounds?" for about 1.5km

The Radio artillery spotter who is walking appears as "infantry?", the same as all the other 'infantry' units.

If this is 'how the game is supposed to work', then please could you explain how an artillery spotter is successfully ID'ed in a truck at 2km, but in a jeep (which, to the best of my knowledge, is not all sheltered and cosy) for another 500m? Furthermore, why doesn't the conscript platoon HQ successfully ID the walking spotter?

I remain unconvinced by your arguments, Moon - I believe that you are clutching at straws to explain a phenomena which simply should not occur.

[Moon]

Sure, email it to me - martin@battlefront.com

Martin

[Moon]

While waiting for your file, I have in the meantime run a couple of tests myself. Flat open map, a combo of spotters mounted/dismounted at various distances, one scenario with a StuG, the other with a conscript unfit HQ. Frankly all seems to work well. Before sending me your file, Soddball, please do me a favor and run another test, this time giving a rotate order to the observing unit, so that it changes its facing towards those enemy unit(s) that have not been spotted/ID'd. Then tell me what you'll see.

Martin

[dieseltaylor]

Could the order they are spotted be a reflection on the size of the object? Trucks and halt-tracks then jeeps ..... the infantry guys are not going to be that big.

I agree it is a little offputting to have correct i.d's at range but then if I saw a truck up within shooting range I would kill it quick on the basis it can tow unpleasant a/t guns and carry a suad or spotters - a very good reason for clocking them. In reality I know that they are not carrying supplies but in Russia I would assume they are this close to the front bringing ammo,food or reinforcements -- all vey good reasons for a quick death.

As T34's are pants at killing Stugs I would'nt necessarily get too upset at going for the light stuff first.

{You do not say if the units are moving which would make them even more visible at range}

[dalem]

Call me simple, but I still don't get how anything can see into a canvas-topped truck.

-dale

[SirReal]

Well, I think the spotting and information dissemination parts of the CM series of games needs a bit of work.

Borg spotting is well documented elsewhere, so I won't touch information dissemination.

Spotting is a bit strange, still. I don't think it's realistic that a 25mm AA gun firing continuosly turns up as a non-located "Gun?" marker for -minutes-, while a squad of soldiers popping off the odd round will be spotted in the first minute, and under direct fire seconds later.

/SirReal

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Moon:
While waiting for your file, I have in the meantime run a couple of tests myself. Flat open map, a combo of spotters mounted/dismounted at various distances, one scenario with a StuG, the other with a conscript unfit HQ. Frankly all seems to work well. Before sending me your file, Soddball, please do me a favor and run another test, this time giving a rotate order to the observing unit, so that it changes its facing towards those enemy unit(s) that have not been spotted/ID'd. Then tell me what you'll see.

Martin What do you mean by "all seems to work well"? Your definition of working well appears to be "perfoms to specification", with which I will agree. The game is running as it should.

My dispute is that the game should not be running like this. A conscript platoon HQ should not be successfully identifying artillery spotters in the back of trucks at 2km.

Incidentally, I added another two trucks, one containing an infantry squad, another containing a machine gun. Guess what? At 2km range, the machine gun in the truck was successfully identified, the infantry squad appears as 'infantry?'

Test scenario emailed over to you for you to see.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by dalem:
Call me simple, but I still don't get how anything can see into a canvas-topped truck.

-dale Can I agree with you and call you simple? ;)

[Soddball]

I've added some extras to this test scenario.

Each unit type has four 'states'. It is either on foot, in a jeep, in a truck, or in a halftrack.

The unit types are (all Russian):

82mm Mortar Spotter (Radio)

Dshk 12.7mm MG

50mm Mortar

Rifle Squad

There are two trucks with no units in as a 'control' and on the map are also a Platoon HQ (because you have to have it to include the rifle sqauds) and a sharpshooter.

At just on 2km range, the support weapons and mortar spotters are identified, but the infantry isn't. Odd.

Anyone wants this scenario to try the test for themselves, email me. Run it hotseat, on Extreme Fog of War.

[Kingfish]

Soddball,

If possible please re-run it again, only this time include an infantry squad (or team if squad is to big) into the same truck as the spotter. I am curious as to whether the additional men inside the vehicle would 'mask' the spotter.

Thanks

[Moon]

Soddball, at first it was the StuG who targetted a truck with FO out in the distance while a T-34 was near, then - after I replied to that - it was a conscript HQ spotting an FO on a truck in the distance, but not an FO walking closer by. And now - again after I replied - it's just the ability of an HQ with binos to spot and ID an FO on the back of a truck. So what is it now that you have a problem with? It seems that you're running away faster than I can catch up...

I have replied to the previous points - it boils down to this: situational awareness is never perfect (in real life, and in the game - it's coded that way). Spotting depends on the facing of the unit observing. If you ran the test I mentioned above you would have seen that as you rotate your unit, according to its facing enemy units are spotted and ID'd during the action phase. In my test an FO at 500m off to one side was not even spotted until I rotated the HQ in to face it - then it was spotted and ID'd immediately during the action phase.

Now for the new twist you've just added - can a conscript HQ with binoculars ID an FO loaded on a truck that is moving 2km away? In my opinion it can. The experience status has nothing to do with how a unit is able to see, and identifying what a bunch of antennas mean is easier than identifying the exact type of an enemy vehicle.

However, the test I setup only allowed such an ID after the unit in question was moving, and no ID was achieved on an FO team in a halftrack. Moving objects like trucks attract attention, and once you focus with a pair of binoculars on it, I am quite confident that you would be able to see the FO team, because it's not just two guys with a pair of binoculars - even radio spotters are hauling a bunch of equipment with them.

Having said that, could there be a bug that the moving status of the transport vehicle is incorrectly applied to the passenger, thus making it easier to spot than it should be? Maybe, I'll ask Charles to check the code when he has a minute, but since the results do not seem utterly unrealistic to me as they seem to be to you I won't be surprised if there is no such bug.

Dalem, trucks are considered open vehicles in CM.

Just saw your follow up post - teams with heavy equipment that is not easy to conceal (mortars, MGs, etc. and it includes FOs as well) are ID'd before regular rifle squads. Maybe I misunderstand your problem (and it's a new one again you are introducing, would you please sit still for a minute smile.gif ), but it seems logical to me.

Martin

[JonS]

Moon:
Soddball, at first it was the StuG who targetted a truck with FO out in the distance while a T-34 was near, then - after I replied to that - it was a conscript HQ spotting an FO on a truck in the distance, but not an FO walking closer by. And now - again after I replied - it's just the ability of an HQ with binos to spot and ID an FO on the back of a truck. So what is it now that you have a problem with? It seems that you're running away faster than I can catch up...His concern seems consistent to me - FOs are too easy to id. All the changes you mention above are simply variations on that theme.


Originally posted by Moon:
... can a conscript HQ with binoculars ID an FO loaded on a truck that is moving 2km away? In my opinion it can. The experience status has nothing to do with how a unit is able to see, and identifying what a bunch of antennas mean is easier than identifying the exact type of an enemy vehicle. ...Several points:

1) shouldn't the experience have quite a lot to do with it though? Private Snooks with two weeks of training and on his first day on the frontline wouldn't be able to make any sense of what he saw, while crusty old Sgt Rock how has been fighting since the very beginning should be able to take a quick look and say "aha, that groupd moving just behind those guys will be the platoon HQ, and those guys siting stationary on the edge of the woods are prbably a support weapon of some type. IOW, IMHO, id'ing should be tied to experience.

2) would the FO's really have their aerials up in the back of the truck? And even if they did, at a range of 2km how different would they look than, say, a Bn HQ?

3) Even with binos, can you even see an antennae at 2km?

I don't really have a problem with spotting units in the back of vehicles (though it is a bit weird when you get an 'infantry sounds' spotting at long range in the middle of a mechanised group - damn that spotter must have some good hearing!), but id'ing the type of unit seems a little weird.

From Sodds test results it seems as if all support weapons - as a class - are easier to id than any other unit type. As a general rule that makes sense, but the application of that general rule to some specific cases (which Sodd has highlighted) does seem a little off. IMO.

Moon:
... Moving objects like trucks attract attention, and once you focus with a pair of binoculars on it, I am quite confident that you would be able to see the FO team, because it's not just two guys with a pair of binoculars - even radio spotters are hauling a bunch of equipment with them.Not that much equipment, and no more than several other unit types. The closest example would be a Bn HQ. Also - I would be very surprised if you could count the number of men (beyond a generic 'a few' or 'lots) on the back of a truck when looking through binos, let alone id any packed up equipment stowed on the floor.

Regards
JonS

[ July 10, 2003, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Moon]

JonS, just to make sure that there is no misunderstanding - ID'ing IS tied to experience. What I was saying is that ID'ing an FO is a lot easier than ID'ing the type and model of a particular vehicle/tank.

I used aerials as an example, no clue where they'd put them once in the truck. The game engine itself recognizes an FO team as "heavily equipped" ("radio" less so than "wire"), and hence as more easily ID'able out of a mass of regular rifle squads.

It seems to me that unlike you (and me) Soddball isn't happy with the general rule, but if I misunderstood that then there is no point for a debate, because in such a variable environment as CM is you will always find specific cases for which the "general rules" (i.e. engine) are more or less suited.

Martin

EDIT: Typo...

[ July 10, 2003, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: Moon ]

[Moon]

After rereading what I wrote above I think I might have to elaborate on the last sentence. For example - of course a few guys with a radio could be anything, as you say a Battalion HQ for example. But by the same token 12 guys with rifles do not necessarily have to be a squad smile.gif Yet somehow the game has to tell you, the player, what it is that you see.

Would it make a big difference if you would see "HQ?" before the full ID? I bet most of the guys on this forum would learn quickly how to correctly ID the proper unit no matter what it says on the screen. Yet in real life often you wouldn't be able to tell the difference until after you captured or killed and searched somebody. I don't know if having a bunch of "Inf?" or "HQ?" or "???" units running around on the map until after you get the AAR screen would be more of a help or an obstacle to the game...

Martin

[JonS]

Originally posted by Moon:
JonS, just to make sure that there is no misunderstanding - ID'ing IS tied to experience. What I was saying is that ID'ing an FO is a lot easier than ID'ing the type and model of a particular vehicle/tank.Yeah, after re-reading your post again very carefully, that was the sense I got, but it wasn't too clear smile.gif

I used aerials as an example, no clue where they'd put them once in the truck. hehe - either they are up, in which case the FO should be able to operate normally (which in CMBB they can't) or they should be down, in which case they should be very difficult to id (which in CMBB they aren't) ;) At the moment we have a mix of the worst aspect of both (can't fire, easy to spot)

The game engine itself recognizes an FO team as "heavily equipped" ("radio" less so than "wire"), and hence as more easily ID'able out of a mass of regular rifle squads.Right - I wonder if this is one of the limitations of having a discrete squad-based model. To an enemy observer it would be extremely hard - nay impossible - to seperate out who was in which squad of a group of guys in the back of a truck, let alone determine the specific role of each squad. But in CM all units are determined to discrete all the time, so it is obvious and clear how many squads are in a truck, or advancing across a field, etc.

Regards
JonS

[JonS]

Originally posted by Moon:
Would it make a big difference if you would see "HQ?" before the full ID? I bet most of the guys on this forum would learn quickly how to correctly ID the proper unit no matter what it says on the screen. Yet in real life often you wouldn't be able to tell the difference until after you captured or killed and searched somebody. I don't know if having a bunch of "Inf?" or "HQ?" or "???" units running around on the map until after you get the AAR screen would be more of a help or an obstacle to the game...I've been thinking about that. You could leave it up to the player, maybe. Let them work it out based on the way the enemy player has their squads behave. I gave a couple of examples previously about support weapons staying stil in cover, and HQs hanging back a bit behind their squads. Similarly, the first units advancing across an open field in extended line are likely to be regular squads (or half squads) rather than the Bn HQ and his FO. etc. Also useful would be observations on the type of fire that a unit generates (for example, how often do you personally id a unit as being an MG due to the tat-tat-tat sound, and then are left waiting for the engine to sort itself out and update the info displayed?)

But, I think to make this work tolerably well the player would need to have some control over the information that is displayed on spotted units. So, in the MG example above, the player could manually change the 'inf?' tag to 'mg?', etc. Otherwise all you have is, as you say, a mass of 'inf?' 'HQ?' and '???' tags, and a mental image that you kind of hope stays intact until the next time you receive a PBEM turn.

Gameyness could creep in (eg, sending AT teams forward in the first wave, making them look like regular inf teams), and it would require a fairly high degree of concentration and observation from the players, but as an FOW option I doubt it would be impossible or impractical to play with.

Regards
JonS

[dalem]

Originally posted by Moon:
Dalem, trucks are considered open vehicles in CM.
Thanks!

-dale

[dalem]

Originally posted by Soddball:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:
Call me simple, but I still don't get how anything can see into a canvas-topped truck.

-dale Can I agree with you and call you simple? ;) </font>[/QUOTE]But of course! smile.gif

-dale

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by JonS:
2) would the FO's really have their aerials up in the back of the truck? And even if they did, at a range of 2km how different would they look than, say, a Bn HQ?This one's been bugging me too. I think your observations in another post further down the page are especially cogent.

3) Even with binos, can you even see an antennae at 2km?Not a chance. With ordinary field glasses you'd be hard pressed to spot them at half that distance even on a clear day in good light, let alone in dusty or other limitied visibility conditions.

Michael

[illo]

Originally posted by Moon:
And we stand by what we have sworn. The TacAI is exactly the same for the computer player as for the human player. HQ tanks are *slightly* favored for targetting, as are FO's. It's those big antennas on the tanks and the guys sticking out giving flag signals and/or the guys with the large rolls of wire and the scissor type binoculars that give it away smile.gif

Martin And whats giving away their crack status? ;)
I bet they cant see ritterkreutz from 2000m.

[Wicky]

Has anyone tried 'hiding' the mounted spotter, squad or team whilst in the truck?

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Wicky:
Has anyone tried 'hiding' the mounted spotter, squad or team whilst in the truck? Yes, and you can't "hide" them smile.gif

[Soddball]

What alerted me to the problem was a scenario I was playtesting, where a StuG targetted an arty spotter in a truck 2km away rather than a T34/85 500m away which was firing on it. I have since carried out further tests. I picked a platoon HQ because vehicles such as trucks, jeeps and halftracks will back away from a StuG, even hidden in trees, and I needed the test units to advance rather than back away.

Since that initial observation, I have broadened my investigation to cover other bases and I believe that a number of units are affected by this, and that the key is the ability to spot and identify a unit on the back of a truck.

This is the problem. Mortars, MGs and spotters (and possibly other units but I haven't tested) are ID'ed way too easily at long range. Let's say I have two trucks. In one truck I have a split squad with 6 men in, one of which is carrying an LMG-42. In the other truck I have a 6-man HMG-42 squad. Why is the MG-42 squad identified at 2km range and the split infantry squad identified at 400m range? There is no logic here. The same applies for artillery spotters. How can arty spotters be so swiftly identified? Why is it possible to identify a mortar unit, or a MG unit, or an artillery spotter using only a pair of binoculars at such a long range?

The issue is that, quite simply, identification of units on trucks is too easy. Yes, they are exposed - but not much more so than a unit on the back of a tank, or a unit in a jeep.


I suggest that you also look at why it is possible for a unit to 'spot' "Infantry Sounds?" in the back of an enclosed halftrack at 2km range, because my interpretation of a halftrack was that the rear section was enclosed. It shouldn't be possible for a unit to spot that there is anything inside the halftrack except at very close range.


If anyone has any pictures they can post of radio artillery spotters from WW2, it would be much appreciated.

[Moon]

In my tests units in halftracks are not spotted at 2km, highest distance I got was below 1000m. As you know HTs are not fully enclosed, and HQ units have binoculars. FOs on jeeps were identified basically the same as on trucks (and units on the back of a tank would be identified probably even quicker, haven't tested).

Like I said, heavy equipment teams correspond to the same spotting rules in CM, the logic being simply that heavy equipment (like mortar tubes, MGs, radios and accessory equipment) is quite visible (and it's way more difficult to move stealthily with such heavy equipment). For more on this (also with regard to game mechanics, i.e. how to display information to the player), see the previous posts. Until we get individual soldiers displayed the identification of "units" will remain a "gamey" part. You might not agree with this and that's ok, but the game is consistant in this respect.

Martin

[Dave H]

Soddball, I never thought I would say these words about you, but I think you may be on to something. My worst example of spotting was the exact opposite of the long-range X-ray vision you're talking about here. In a PBEM versus Keke, my Russian infantry battalion actually eliminated one of his uber-Finn infantry units. One of my squads ended up standing directly on the Finn body icon, and still the only ID they could get was "Infantry?" Before anyone asks, the Russian squad was regular, in command, and not even under fire. I guess I should have been glad my Russians were able to tell there were no wheels attached. Otherwise they might have mistaken the Finns for a truck. :D

So we have Germans successfully identifying Forward Observers, mortars, and HMGs in the back of a truck or inside a halftrack at 1,500 to 2,000 meters, and a regular Russian squad unable to identify an eliminated Finn unit at 0 meters. Peculiar. :confused:

[Keke]

Dave, you fool, the bodies were so badly mutilated they were not identifiable anymore. :mad:

Edited for :mad:

[ July 11, 2003, 08:46 AM: Message edited by: Keke ]

[ng cavscout]

http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/shutc/shutc.html

I don't know how to post pictures, but this website has a picture of a Soviet spotting team/command post. I hope this helps, the gear they have with them looks pretty bulky to me.

[Keke]

http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/shutc/kp.jpg

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Keke:
Dave, you fool, the bodies were so badly mutilated they were not identifiable anymore. :mad:

Edited for :mad: Oh, and I suppose your Finns swallowed their light machine gun or whatever before they died so my Russians couldn't find it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :D

[ng cavscout]

Thanks Keke, how do you do that? Forgive my ignorance.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Dave H:
Soddball, I never thought I would say these words about you, but I think you may be on to something. My worst example of spotting was the exact opposite of the long-range X-ray vision you're talking about here. In a PBEM versus Keke, my Russian infantry battalion actually eliminated one of his uber-Finn infantry units. One of my squads ended up standing directly on the Finn body icon, and still the only ID they could get was "Infantry?" Before anyone asks, the Russian squad was regular, in command, and not even under fire. I guess I should have been glad my Russians were able to tell there were no wheels attached. Otherwise they might have mistaken the Finns for a truck. :D

So we have Germans successfully identifying Forward Observers, mortars, and HMGs in the back of a truck or inside a halftrack at 1,500 to 2,000 meters, and a regular Russian squad unable to identify an eliminated Finn unit at 0 meters. Peculiar. :confused: I don't think that there is an issue related to which side you're playing. I'm sure that if I reversed the tests to have a Russian platoon HQ observing German units the results would be identical.

[Keke]

Originally posted by NG cavscout:
Thanks Keke, how do you do that? Forgive my ignorance. Copy image location (right click on a picture; with IE copy it from the properties), then use the image button in reply, and paste the picture location there.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Dave H:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Keke:
Dave, you fool, the bodies were so badly mutilated they were not identifiable anymore. :mad:

Edited for :mad: Oh, and I suppose your Finns swallowed their light machine gun or whatever before they died so my Russians couldn't find it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :D </font>[/QUOTE]They wuz mutilated as well. What 'chew thinking man? :mad:

[ng cavscout]

thanks

[Dave H]

Originally posted by NG cavscout:
http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/shutc/shutc.html

I don't know how to post pictures, but this website has a picture of a Soviet spotting team/command post. I hope this helps, the gear they have with them looks pretty bulky to me. Thanks for this link. Fascinating look at life in any army. I especially liked his remarks about the Hero of the Soviet Union award (Stalin wanted artillerymen nominated) and the incident about shooting down their own balloon. :D

This guy certainly didn't try to embellish his role in the war. He made it sound very much like a young guy just doing his job. He seems like someone I'd like to have known. :D

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Moon:
In my tests units in halftracks are not spotted at 2km, highest distance I got was below 1000m. As you know HTs are not fully enclosed, and HQ units have binoculars. FOs on jeeps were identified basically the same as on trucks (and units on the back of a tank would be identified probably even quicker, haven't tested).

Like I said, heavy equipment teams correspond to the same spotting rules in CM, the logic being simply that heavy equipment (like mortar tubes, MGs, radios and accessory equipment) is quite visible (and it's way more difficult to move stealthily with such heavy equipment). For more on this (also with regard to game mechanics, i.e. how to display information to the player), see the previous posts. Until we get individual soldiers displayed the identification of "units" will remain a "gamey" part. You might not agree with this and that's ok, but the game is consistant in this respect.

Martin Have a look at the scenario I have sent you. Units in halftracks consistently appear as "Infantry Sounds?" at ranges around 2km in this test scenario. That makes it easy to determine whether a halftrack is carrying infantry or not. I know that halftracks are not 'fully enclosed' but unless you're looking down into the halftrack, that argument is utterly irrelevant. The only way you should be able to tell whether a buttoned halftrack at 2km range has infantry inside it is to stuff a shell through it and see who jumps out. You should not be able to pick up "Infantry Sounds?" from inside!

There is a distinct difference between identification of a unit in a jeep and a unit in a truck - something on the order of 500m difference. It is significant, because even though units in both truck and jeep are 'spotted' at 2km, they aren't 'identified' in the jeep until around 1,500m.

I am well aware that CM:BB is finished, and that changes to CM:AK are unlikely, but this niggle could easily be exploited and I still remain to be convinced that it is 'realistic'.

The picture posted relates to something slightly different to what we see in CM:BB. Anyone know of any images of 'radio' spotters in WW2?

[ng cavscout]

OT, but interesting.

http://www.iremember.ru/index_e.htm

They have interviews with Soviet soldiers from many different branches. I am reading the interview with Antonina Aleksandrovna, a sniper. Very interesting site.

[Keke]

Originally posted by Soddball:

The picture posted relates to something slightly different to what we see in CM:BB. Anyone know of any images of 'radio' spotters in WW2? Finnish FO team checking coordinates for a target (1941):


http://www.sodatkuvina.cjb.net/images/Jatkosota/Rintama/41Tulenjohtoryhm%E4nTiedonkeruuta.jpg

[Redwolf]

I don't think the issue of not identifying units even at point-blak range and when they are eliminated has anything to do witht he long-range spotting.

It is a documented aspect of CMBB's extreme fog of war setting (I often prefer full FOW).

[Moon]

OK, so after trucks, jeeps, ignored T-34s and ignored walking FOs, now we're talking about halftracks.

Units in halftracks consistently appear as "Infantry Sounds?" at ranges around 2km in this test scenario.Soddball, I haven't looked at your new test scenario, but I don't think it's much different from what I have made, and I simply do not see what you say, and certainly not consistently.

http://www.gamesofwar.de/SpotFOonHT.jpg

At around 750m the FO in the HT was finally spotted as "Infantry Sounds?". Spotter is a conscript PlatoonHQ with binoculars (like in your original test, which I haven't gotten from you). The FO on the truck in the background is ID'd, the other one on the jeep is spotted as "infantry?". Distances are roughly 2000m and 2200m respectively.

Is it unrealistic that an observer with a pair of binos is able to see that "something is in that halftrack" at 750m? Certainly yes if whoever is in there would want to make sure to remain unseen; of course you can "hide" in such a vehicle. But CM isn't assuming that quite frankly, just like you can't hide an infantry squad in a cellar in the house in the game, although they could in real life.

The main thing I am concerned with at this point is if the simulation "as is" is genuine, or if we have a bug somewhere. If we do it gets fixed for CMAK, but so far I don't see one. Everything else is open for debate certainly, but pardon me while I go get some other work done.

Martin

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Moon:


OK, so after trucks, jeeps, ignored T-34s and ignored walking FOs, now we're talking about halftracks.
Well, pardon me if I investigate around the subject, rather than simply sticking to a single issue. If you're struggling, perhaps Steve or Dan would like to pop their heads in and discuss it.



Soddball, I haven't looked at your new test scenario, but I don't think it's much different from what I have made, and I simply do not see what you say, and certainly not consistently.
The reason that you don't see what I say is because you haven't looked at the test scenario. Have a look at mine, because it is very different in style from what you have there and is both more thorough and more scientific.


IMAGE SNIPPED FOR BANDWIDTH


At around 750m the FO in the HT was finally spotted as "Infantry Sounds?". Spotter is a conscript PlatoonHQ with binoculars (like in your original test, which I haven't gotten from you). The FO on the truck in the background is ID'd, the other one on the jeep is spotted as "infantry?". Distances are roughly 2000m and 2200m respectively.
So, in fact, you can confirm that spotters on trucks are correctly identified at 2km range as spotters. We both agree that this occurs. Where we disagree is that you consider it perfectly acceptable, whereas I consider it unrealistic, even risible, that identification could occur so precisely at such a range.

On to my other point, which you also seem to be struggling with:


Is it unrealistic that an observer with a pair of binos is able to see that "something is in that halftrack" at 750m? Certainly yes if whoever is in there would want to make sure to remain unseen; of course you can "hide" in such a vehicle.
I assume that you don't mean that units in CM can 'hide' in vehicles, because as we both know they can't.


But CM isn't assuming that quite frankly, just like you can't hide an infantry squad in a cellar in the house in the game, although they could in real life.
That is assuming that the house had a cellar. You're comparing apples and oranges.


The main thing I am concerned with at this point is if the simulation "as is" is genuine, or if we have a bug somewhere. If we do it gets fixed for CMAK, but so far I don't see one. Everything else is open for debate certainly, but pardon me while I go get some other work done.

MartinThe test scenario you have run shows quite clearly that there is a problem, and yet as soon as I broaden the issue to include other, relevant topics, you seem to get confused. I'm not doing this for some kind of perverse pleasure, I'm doing it because I believe that there is an issue here with unit spotting and identification. You seem to assume that there is no issue. Whilst I appreciate that the burden is on me to provide the evidence, I would be interested to learn on exactly what basis BFC decided that accurate identification of a unit on the back of a truck was historical, and why they felt that it would be possible to accurately identify a radio spotter, but not to accurately identify an infantry squad.

You can quite clearly see from Keke's posted picture that the 'spotters' look an awful lot like regular infantry. Their equipment is not twenty feet high, twelve feet wide, and painted bright orange. They are not staggering under the weight of hundreds of pounds of machinery.

Let me summarise, to try to make matters clearer. I believe that my initial observation has led to a series of other observations, all related to spotting and unit identification. These include:


1a) Unrealistic observation of certain units on the back of trucks - specifically at long ranges (2km).

1b) Support units can be identified much too easily at long ranges (2km) when on trucks. These support units include machine guns and mortars, and radio artillery spotters. Artillery spotters without radios are not affected because you can't get them in a vehicle. There is no logic here. How do I tell the difference at 2km between a split squad, one of whom is carrying an LMG-42, and a HMG-42 unit? Obviously, I can't.

1c) When compared to how easy it is to identify units in jeeps - which are also wide open and uncovered - the jeep is a far better means of hiding the identity of a unit than a truck. The logic of this is unclear.

2) Unrealistic spotting of units inside halftracks at long ranges (2km). I am not referring to when a unit appears in the halftrack. Run my test scenario, and whilst playing as Germans, view the unit properties for the halftracks. You will see "Infantry Sounds?" listed as the cargo. Unless the halftracks have recently had their armour plate replaced by chicken wire, I fail to see how it is possible to spot enemy units inside them.

These are some of the issues which I have raised, and I hope that they are now clearer to you.

[ July 11, 2003, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: Soddball ]

[Soddball]

One final point. I just extended the testing map to see what the longest range ID'ing occurs at.

The Maximum Range at which this identification occurs is 2,470m. It occurs with all units in trucks at that range. The truck is identified as a "Truck?", and the unit onboard becomes either an Infantry Squad?, Mortar?, Machine Gun?, Spotter? or whatever.

[ July 11, 2003, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: Soddball ]

[Doodlebug]

Originally posted by NG cavscout:
http://www.iremember.ru/artillerymen/shutc/shutc.html

I don't know how to post pictures, but this website has a picture of a Soviet spotting team/command post. I hope this helps, the gear they have with them looks pretty bulky to me. Don't look that bulky to me. Granted a good deal could be dug in and not visible. The most obvious thing is the range finder and that could be in use by any gun crew.

[Michael Emrys]

Sounds to me like when the spotting and ID routines were written certain simplifications were used, and now we have stumbled on a case where those simplifications break down.

[Ain't I great at stating the obvious? :D ]

Michael

[Moon]

Awesome Michael. smile.gif

Soddball, thanks for making your point(s) clearer to me. I ran your test scenario and was able to identify two possible issues - jeeps, being smaller in size, are more difficult to ID, and this seems to affect any passengers. The difference between jeeps vs. trucks isn't great (in meters), but it's there.

Secondly, I wasn't even aware that passengers are listed for halftracks in this way. Certainly doesn't make sense. I have asked Charles to look into both issues.

As for the other things you have brought up during your "quest" - I have replied to them, so I won't repeat. 1a is something we might just have to agree to disagree over. 1b isn't true because infantry squads as passengers are ID'd (as "infantry squad?") at the same ranges as support teams.

Martin

[Snarker]

Soddball, I just ID'ed and knocked off all your FO's with rubberband guns at two miles. Now leave poor Moon alone and send a turn so I can do the same for your grunts. :D

Actually a good catch, fellas. Being as my artillery usually rains down on my own guys, I'm rooting for this issue to remain as is!!! LOL

[Lt. Kije]

Just a note from real life. My Dad spent the entire duration of the European Theatre (D-Day plus 6 to VE Day) as one of those artillery spotters. For forty years I listened to him tell stories about what it was like. He said that only one time in his entire service was he singled out as a target by anything other than small arms at close range, and it sure wasn't at 2km or while riding in the back of a truck. It was at less than 1km and exceptionally exposed in his role. (I won't bore you with the details.)

Just a data point. One forward observer walked all the way across Europe without encountering even once what is common in CM.

-- Lt. Kije

(By the way, I found redwolf's summary of the TacAI's behavior spot on, and would like to note that one of the things that distinguishes a CM veteran is that he will take advantage of the TacAI's unrealistic hyper-knowledge, by not choosing targets himself. Big hint to new players. Don't try to help.)

[Lt. Kije]

- double post -

[ July 11, 2003, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Lt. Kije ]

[YankeeDog]

Well, I'm kind of late to this issue, but I'm always looking for a chance to throw my $.02 in, so here goes. . .

I think Soddball has brought up some very good points, especially with regards to the spottability of units in trucks.

I am extremely skeptical that an observer could pick out an Arty FO riding in *any* vehicle at 2km, no matter how good his bioculars or optics were.

I think it might be useful to take a more detailed look at the kind of FO radios and other equipment that supposedly differentiates them from other infantry here - there seems to be some misperception as to exactly how much they would be carrying, and how identifiable their equipment would make them at long range.

I am more familiar with US military equipment from the era than I am other major combatants, so I will stick to what I know here. This means that what I am saying is not directly applicable to Soddball's experiences and tests in CMBB, but since any major changes to the game at this point are going to be for CMAK, and not CMBB, perhaps it isn't such a bad thing to talk about US Army equipment. I would love it if some grogs familiar with other combatants' radios & c. would chime in on this.

First, radios: The most likely radio a US Army Artillery FO would be carrying from late 1943 on would be the SCR-300 - this is the famous "Walkie Talkie" backpack unit that I'm sure everyone has seen in various war movies. This unit was also the standard Company-level radio. Especially with the antenna down and the unit closed up (i.e., not transmitting or receiving) the SCR-300 looks a lot like a backpack. This is the way it would normally be carried around until needed both to protect the unit and also to conserve battery power. It's more angular than a soft-sided canvas fieldpack, but I doubt this difference could be discerned through a pair of binoculars at long range unless the subject wearing the SCR-300 was standing still and the observer had time to carefully inspect the subject. It would be easier to identify a unit carrying the SCR-300 as a 'radio unit' while the radio was being used (primarily by behavior, but also because the antenna would be up and the handset out). While fairly long when fully extended (I'm guessing almost 2 meters based on pictures), the SCR-300's antenna was not especially thick nor was it intricate or unusual in layout - it was basically like a modern car radio antenna, just somewhat thicker and longer.

I'm not sure what the US Army did for Company-level and FO radio communications before 1943. As a side note, the SCR-300 was a major advance in wireless communications technology in a number of areas, including range, signal clarity, reliability, portability, and ease of use. This should probably be reflected in CMAK by a drop in US Artillery delay times, and perhaps even general command delays, once the SCR-300 comes into service.

The US army also had the smaller BC-611 "Handie-Talkie", and I suppose this might have been used by some FO teams, but it's much shorter range (officially up to about 4.5 km, but practially speaking usually under 2km, and sometimes down to a few hundred meters depending on conditions) suggests to me that it would only be useful perhaps for battalion-level FO teams attached to nearby mortar batteries. I suppose it's possible that an FO team could move forward with a BC-611 and relay information to another team between the battery and the FO with a larger radio, though. From what I have read, the BC-611 was used mostly for itra-company communication and was also sent forward with OP teams to allow them to quickly report any observations.

There are a number of larger, at least somewhat man-portable radio sets that the US Army used in WWII. None of these that I have seen are really small enough to be carried any distance by a 2-man FO team, though, and my reading suggests that they were generally used more for battalion-level and up command posts, radios at the artillery batteries themselves, etc.

FO would, of course, have equipment other than just a radio, such a maps, binoculars, etc. All of this equipment would be carried in rather nondescript-looking cases, though and in any event I have never seen anything to suggest that US Army FO carried any observation equipment that looked dramatically different from what a Company HQ, or in many cases even a Platoon HQ would be carrying.

So, my very-long winded point: At least in the case of the US Army, FOs did *not* carry huge radios with large, easily spottable antennas sticking up, or any other equipment that would make them easily identifiable at long range. The equipment they did have was no different than that of many HQ groups. Therefore, the idea that an Arty FO could be easily identified while riding in/on a moving vehicle of any type at 2km+ range strikes me as extremely unlikely no matter how good the optics and experience level of the spotter.

In addition, at least in the case of the US Army, the vast majority of pictures I have seen of infantry being transported show the trucks with the canvas cover up. Even when the Canvas cover was down/off, the 2 1/2 ton truck had sideboards on the cargo area that would partially obscure an outside observer's view of who/what was riding in the truck. As such, *best case* scenario (for an observer) is that the observer gets a view of heads, helmets, and maybe rifle muzzles when observing passengers in a US truck. Worst case, he can't see jack unless he's looking at the truck rear-end on. In any event, I don't think heavy equipment like larger radios, MGs, or mortars, which presumably would be riding on the bed of the truck between the soldiers' legs, would really be visible at all by to a nearby oberver, let alone someone looking though binoculars 2km away unless they had a viewpoint that allowed them to look down into the bed of the truck.

It seems more likely to me that heavy equipment could be spotted in a smaller vehicle like a Jeep. There's a lot less space in a jeep, so presumably some of the team's equipment is going to be sticking up, or even lashed to the side. On another side note, I don't see how larger Heavy Weapons teams could all fit in a Jeep anyway. I used to drive a Jeep CJ-7, which is actually considerably larger than the WWII era MB Jeep, an there's no way I could have fit 6 men plus a large object like a .50 cal or a 60mm mortar, plus ammo for same, in my Jeep. Maybe if a couple of guys rode on the hood or the running boards, but this would limit speed, especially cross-country, considerably. Eventually, and hopefully for CMAK, I would like to see a reevaluation of small transport vehicles' carrying capacity, perhaps with a new 'small team' capacity category for vehicles like the Jeep and Kubelwagen.

I like the idea of IDing FOs as "HQ?"s at long ranges, since their kit is rather similar. Even better, I like the idea of having a new "Infantry Team?" spotting designation, denoting a unit that is clearly smaller and different in kit than a squad, but specifics are still unknown. At the very least this should change TacAI behavior to make it less likely to be able to (unrealistically) ID and target high-value units like FOs at very long range. The player could still conjecture a unit's exact type based on behaviour, but would take more prolonged and careful observation as to position and behaviour, which strikes me as realistic. I also think that at least truck passengers should have their status changed to "partially covered" or something like that to make them more difficult to spot and identify - in many cases, truck passengers are actually less visible than Halftrack passengers.

Cheers,

YD

[Paco QNS]

All you wanted to know about military radios:

http://www.armyradio.com

German WWII radios, see Section VII for backpack (and Section XIII):

http://www.armyradio.com/Default.htm?http&&&www.armyradio.com/publish/Articles/William_Howard_German/German_Radios.htm


and Russian Military radios, see Section III :

http://www.armyradio.com/publish/Articles/William_Howard_Russian/Russian_Mil_Radio.htm


Regards.

[kenfedoroff]

Soddy,

Good work on the spotting issue.

I am looking forward to a more realistic (in my opinion) set of parameters for the specific I.D. of Inf. units at long range (+1,000 yd), whether they are in vehicles or not.

I know Battlefront takes great pride in the realism embedded in the simulation aspect of their games, and I have no doubt they will rectify this particular spotting issue...

...And if they don't, they will have "Soddy, Forum Pitbull", chewing on them again. Of that, I have no doubt as well.

Sincerely,
Ken