Aircraft pilots - using crystal ball?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Colonel von Blitz -> Aircraft pilots - using crystal ball?? (5/13/2001 5:48:00 PM)

I tried to hide a couple platoons of SS-troops in a dense forest with their Opel Blitz trucks. In next turn I saw four trucks burning and half of my platoon wiped out. How is it possible for aircraft pilots to see INSIDE the forest and kill those trucks with a devastating accuracy (~50%). Shouldn't the hit percentage be severely limited or shouldn't the target acquisition be made A LOT harder or almost impossible for pilots if target is INSIDE a forest. I believe that germans hid their panzers in the forests during daylight after the D-Day just because that was the only place to be "safe" from allied JaBos... Comments? Colonel von Blitz [ May 13, 2001: Message edited by: Colonel von Blitz ]



Gen. Maczek -> (5/13/2001 10:08:00 PM)

Also applicable to Arnhem, and the Ardennes Offensive. I agree completely, have just had a similar experience playing as the Soviets. Hid my armour in a dense wood, on the flank of the Germans main thrust, (would have sent a whole column to hell had this worked) but got slaughtered by Stukas before I had a chance to attack. The column had passed me without detecting a thing...The weather and visibilty were poor too, so the experience was rather annoying. Regards. Gen. Maczek --------------- "God bless General Montgomery" Gen. Sosabowski C.O. Independent Polish Parachute Brigade



jamiep1 -> (5/13/2001 10:28:00 PM)

I had a panzer hiding in smoke near (a couple of hexes) a destroyed panzer and an allied plane aim on the destroyed tank then veer off & k.o. my hidey-hole tank!!! Disconcerting but funny! Oh well, as Patton would of said, if I knew that pilot, I would give him a medal. Still fun as hell & enjoying every minute of it. :)



Colonel von Blitz -> (5/15/2001 5:00:00 PM)

Matrix staff? Anything you could do about this issue? Colonel von Blitz



toundra -> (5/15/2001 5:25:00 PM)

agree!!! Its like cheating artillery firing on well hidden/non moving troops... btw AA guns accuracy is a lil bit to high while playing japs i shouted down 6 planes in a row!!!!



skukko -> (5/15/2001 5:42:00 PM)

Planes are still mostly truck-hunters. Use thick smoke to hide. And use decoys in open area. where planes see them from distances. Their accurary has been lowered, you just had real bad luck. AAs accurary has also been lowered. Japs had good luck. I've been testing planes alot in scenarios that I do for my camp. I like JABOs, they add rock'n'roll and randomise the game. Even thou its me who is taking the shots mostly :D In pbems they are very dangerous, so I use Ju-88s as one drop-bombers, also Me-109 with one bomb and Mgs is nice toy. ( As a german player...)Stukas would be nice but they don't hit. Odd... mosh



Colonel von Blitz -> (5/15/2001 6:18:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by skukko: Planes are still mostly truck-hunters. Use thick smoke to hide. And use decoys in open area. where planes see them from distances. Their accurary has been lowered, you just had real bad luck.
I know tricks to counter the problem, like there are tricks to prevent thieves from taking your wallet in the mall. Point here is that the problem still exists. What's the point trying to hide, cover and build ambushes if 'eye of the god' pilots will see everything even though they'd attack some open terrain decoy? I don't want make pilots blind but I'd like to see that units are in relative safety in areas they were 'safe' in real life. No doubt about that several Panzers were destroyed in the forests too though... Colonel von Blitz [ May 15, 2001: Message edited by: Colonel von Blitz ]



lnp4668 -> (5/15/2001 6:53:00 PM)

Well, during the second battle of Stalingrad campaign in v5.1, I ordered 2 of my Stukas to attack a building full of infantry (ran out of armored targets). One decided to bomb an empty ravine and the other refuse to drop any bomb at all. Guess my pilots are blind in this case :D



Paul Vebber -> (5/15/2001 7:51:00 PM)

The detection chances are a lot lower in a woods or smoke as people have siad. From what playtesters are saying its less likely to have air attack into cover, but not a magic shiled. SInce each unit is diced for for spotting if you had 8 or 10 trucks in the woods, odds are one would be spotted. If you target a woods you think has a bunch of infantry in it, just random luck will lead to casualties even if teh planes don;t see anything. What is your solution? Can't make units in cover invulnerable to attack? THis gets to the whole problem in all game sof "what one unit knows everyunit knows" and teh player can immediately take advantage of. THis is part fo teh reason the killing effect of artilery and bombs is artificailly low, to keep such units form be completely dominating becasue the play "knows too much". In pbem if your opponent sees your trucks go in to a woods, despite not knowing exactly where they are in the woods and sends planes to bomb the woods, should the strikes automatically be ineffective? aborted? ITs teh same problem with artillery... We are stuck withhte basic design constraints of the game engine and we have worked with in these constraints to improve things. We can't turn the game into something its not, we can only make it somewhat better than it was.



Colonel von Blitz -> (5/16/2001 1:18:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: What is your solution? Can't make units in cover invulnerable to attack? THis gets to the whole problem in all game sof "what one unit knows everyunit knows" and teh player can immediately take advantage of. THis is part fo teh reason the killing effect of artilery and bombs is artificailly low, to keep such units form be completely dominating becasue the play "knows too much". In pbem if your opponent sees your trucks go in to a woods, despite not knowing exactly where they are in the woods and sends planes to bomb the woods, should the strikes automatically be ineffective? aborted? ITs teh same problem with artillery...
Of course the main problem is that player knows too much, but that doesn't explain why pilots can target trucks and tanks in woods with so deadly accuracy. Your explanation gave me the impression that because player knows too much, it's ok for pilots to see too much. I'd understand that there may occur lucky shots, when pilots strafe the area where it has been *reported* to be enemy units but how in the h**l pilots target a truck in a dense (10 - 20 meter high) forest, when flying 400+ km/h?? My solution is this: tanks etc. vehicles in forest shouldn't be made invulnerable to enemy (or friendly in this case) fire, but to make target acquisition for aircraft nearly impossible. Pilots could still strafe the area player pointed and some occasional lucky shots should cause damage and losses. But having Stormoviks firing in forest with +50% accuracy, now that is ridiculous IMHO. Does my idea sound impossible or ridiculous? :) Colonel von Blitz [ May 15, 2001: Message edited by: Colonel von Blitz ]



Paul Vebber -> (5/16/2001 1:55:00 AM)

How many woods hexes together would warrent this effect. Right now a woods hex is a woods hex, its much less likely to be seen in a woods, but like I said on the other thread, lets say it it s 10% and you have 10 tucks near by the target area, odds are the plane will see one of them. Now this also means that a single olive tree out in the desert makes a tank only visible 10% of the time! If we could add multiple types of woods then we could make a distinction between a "forest" and a copse of trees out in the middle of a steppe that would do precious little to conceal a tank. So the spotting chances have to be moderated somewhat - the solution of making units in a woods hex nearly impossible to attack would lead to a 'panzerbush' syndrone in the extreme as players stack vehicles around a clump of birch like Curly Howard trying to hide behind a lamp pole... Not so simple! We are stuck with the limitations of a single sort of woods hex and no way to define to the game the forest for the trees! [ May 15, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



Larry Holt -> (5/16/2001 2:03:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Colonel von Blitz: I tried to hide a couple platoons of SS-troops in a dense forest with their Opel Blitz trucks. In next turn I saw four trucks burning and half of my platoon wiped out. How is it possible for aircraft pilots to see INSIDE the forest and kill those trucks with a devastating accuracy (~50%). Shouldn't the hit percentage be severely limited or shouldn't the target acquisition be made A LOT harder or almost impossible for pilots if target is INSIDE a forest.
There are two issues here; 1) see inside the forest: Paul V. has already addressed this. 2)devastating accuracy/hit percentage be severely limited: When the pilot sees any target and drops his bombs, they will have an effect on all units in the impact area, sen or unseen. Depending upon the type of bomb fuse, the bombs can detonate in the tree tops scattering shrapnel more effectively than from a ground burst. I've read where the Germans used mortar rounds set to burst in the tree tops very effectively against the Americans. So, no the effect should not be lessened as an area fire weapon (bombs/arty) does not depend upon sighting a point target.



Colonel von Blitz -> (5/16/2001 2:09:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: How many woods hexes together would warrent this effect. Right now a woods hex is a woods hex, its much less likely to be seen in a woods, but like I said on the other thread, lets say it it s 10% and you have 10 tucks near by the target area, odds are teh plane will see one of them. Now this also means that a single olive tree out in the desert makes a tank only visible 10% of the time! If we could ad multiple types of woods then we could make a distinction between a "forset" and a copse fo trees out in teh middle of a steppe that would do precious little to conceal a tank. So teh spotting chances have to be moderated somewhat - the solution of making units in a woods hex nearly impossible to attack would lead to a 'panzerbush' syndrone in teh exreem as players stack vehilces around a clump of birch like Curly Howard trying to hide behinde a lamp pole...
Forest is a forest...single palm tree is single palm tree. Of course there is a problem when the issue is thought in that perspective. But I fail to see the logic in current situation: because limitation of small birches and single trees, forests do not block visibility enough at the moment. You used a metaphor here, so do I: at the moment it is like finding needle from a haystack in 9 times out of 10. About 'Panzerbush' syndrome...well, wasn't this the case after June 1944 among German forces, to hide panzers in forests?(not behind single trees though :D ) When thinking about problems and compromises: at the moment, the bias is in the other end...now players use air strikes to wipe out several panzers in places they should be in relative safety. Not fun either. Of course this does not bother allied players... ;) Colonel von Blitz [ May 15, 2001: Message edited by: Colonel von Blitz ]



Colonel von Blitz -> (5/16/2001 2:14:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Larry Holt: [QUOTE]2)devastating accuracy/hit percentage be severely limited: When the pilot sees any target and drops his bombs, they will have an effect on all units in the impact area, sen or unseen. Depending upon the type of bomb fuse, the bombs can detonate in the tree tops scattering shrapnel more effectively than from a ground burst. I've read where the Germans used mortar rounds set to burst in the tree tops very effectively against the Americans. So, no the effect should not be lessened as an area fire weapon (bombs/arty) does not depend upon sighting a point target.
With bombs this is true, yes. How about cannons and machine guns? Is it effective fire to spray bullets in the forests? Yes, they may hit but they're likely to miss. So where does that +50% hit chace come from? Colonel von Blitz



Paul Vebber -> (5/16/2001 3:41:00 AM)

You miss the point - that game only has one type of woods terrain - we are not talkikng about logic, but but we are stuck with in the game - I say again a hex with a woods symbol in it has no idea it is surrounded by trackless desert - or miles of other trees! I doubt very much that tanks on any front confronted by significant open ground would feel very safe in a 50m copse of a few trees. You assume that game know that a woods hex is part of larger forest. My point is that it doesn't and would take redesigning the terrain system to make it so. We can't do that so we are left giving a single detection value to a woods hex whether it is part of a primordial rain forest or a single tree.
quote:

About 'Panzerbush' syndrome...well, wasn't this the case after June 1944 among German forces, to hide panzers in forests?(not behind single trees though )
Well, given that there is no difference IN THE GAME between the two situations, I ask the question again, do you want tanks to be invulnerable to air attack in a single hex woods in the middle of the steppe, or do you want a group of trucks, observed to enter a wooded area, and having ground attack aircraft cueued to strike them, have a chance fair chance of being seen? IF we had three or four different types of woods, we could make distinctions between towering Pines and mere shrubbery - right now they are all "woods" plain and simple. You can say - that is stupid, how can you only have one type of woods? Well, good point, but that is what SP has had all along and we have to live with it now. You also confuse the operational and tactical, teh Germans use of cover to avoid Jabos was done at an operational level, to avoid interdiction aricraft. To my knowledge it was not particularly effect to hide in local woods to avoid a strike directed in against them, where there wasn't time for the extensive camoflage and deception ops used for operational avoidance of interdiction. These are 2 very different circumstances you are confusing here. [ May 15, 2001: Message edited by: Paul Vebber ]



bravo.john -> (5/16/2001 11:33:00 AM)

Rather than redesign the whole terrain system, surely you can check what terrain is in adjacent hexes. Give a bonus to avoid detection for every adjacent woods hex. Units in a 50m wood on an open plain would be pretty exposed. Units in the center hex of a 150m+ wood would be well hidden compared to units on the edges of that same wood.



Colonel von Blitz -> (5/16/2001 2:37:00 PM)

quote:

You miss the point - that game only has one type of woods terrain - we are not talkikng about logic, but but we are stuck with in the game - I say again a hex with a woods symbol in it has no idea it is surrounded by trackless desert - or miles of other trees! I doubt very much that tanks on any front confronted by significant open ground would feel very safe in a 50m copse of a few trees.
Strange, I've always assumed that one 50 meter wooded hex is representing small forest or a part of larger forest. The idea that 50 meters of woods would actually be two appletrees and one currant bush, that has never even crossed my mind ;) ;) ;)
quote:

You assume that game know that a woods hex is part of larger forest. My point is that it doesn't and would take redesigning the terrain system to make it so. We can't do that so we are left giving a single detection value to a woods hex whether it is part of a primordial rain forest or a single tree.
Another proposition: how about treating single trees as clear terrain? I mean, why trying to represent single trees in the game as woods hex with current game engine and this way ruin the potential cover real forest would offer? Let's just say that there are single trees here and there but you won't see them in the game as they are actually clear terrain. This way you could increase the cover forest offers and you would also get the poor cover that single trees offer. I's see that as a win-win situation ;)
quote:

You also confuse the operational and tactical, teh Germans use of cover to avoid Jabos was done at an operational level, to avoid interdiction aricraft. To my knowledge it was not particularly effect to hide in local woods to avoid a strike directed in against them, where there wasn't time for the extensive camoflage and deception ops used for operational avoidance of interdiction. These are 2 very different circumstances you are confusing here.
I stand partially corrected. Partially because I remember reading that forests were used as a cover in tactical and unit level too, wheter this was effective or not, that I do not know. But I bet there was significant difference for pilots when compared to fire at tank in clear terrain or in a forest ;) Colonel von Blitz [ May 16, 2001: Message edited by: Colonel von Blitz ]



Mike Wood -> (5/16/2001 4:20:00 PM)

Hello... The issue of aircraft spotting ground units is a thorny one, from a coding standpoint. You will note that when visibility is high in the game you can see through one or two woods hexes, but when visibility is low, the first woods hex blocks LOS. This is because there is no variable for woods density. The visibility variable also determines woods density, that is the amount of undergrowth and proximity of the tree trunks. The season is not used as a variable, so in the winter, deciduous trees offer as much concealment as coniferous trees. Aircraft do not use the undergrowth factor for spotting. They use the density of the canopy. The canopy is also determined by the visibility. In reality, the canopy would depend on the type of trees in the hex. Aspen or birch would offer little in the way of concealment, where as oak or elm, in the correct season could offer fairly good concealment. The code problem occurs when you consider the 850 unique locations in the game and the four seasons of the year. Even then, there would be endless arguments on this forum as to the relative canopy provided by cedar against bois d' arc.
quote:

Originally posted by bravo.john: Rather than redesign the whole terrain system, surely you can check what terrain is in adjacent hexes. Give a bonus to avoid detection for every adjacent woods hex. Units in a 50m wood on an open plain would be pretty exposed. Units in the center hex of a 150m+ wood would be well hidden compared to units on the edges of that same wood.
None of the above discussion would help in the situation you present. The unit is in a tree hex and therefore gains a spotting defensive bonus. The size of the unit is also very important in the calculations, so that infantry is a lot harder to spot than trucks or tanks. This spotting defensive factor is compared to the offensive spotting factor. In the case of very highly skilled pilots, they will spot units in the woods often and conversely, pilots of low skill will seldom spot anything in the woods. Offering a greater defensive spotting bonus for units deep inside woods would only be a difference of a small degree and the player should turn down the spotting in preferences, if he feels units are spotted to often. As far as the realism of the seemingly logical notion that units at the center of a 150 meter woods being harder to spot by aircraft than those at the edge, I am not so sure of this. My experience in flying low over woods in my Cessna 150 would indicate this not to be the case. And, even if it were so, it would be only when flying from the clear side towards the woods. I can understand the frustration the original post felt, when he though he would be safe in the woods and then got bombed. Last night, in a long campaign, I was attacking across a river and found a bridge was still standing. So, I put all 10 of my KV-1 tanks on the bridge, along with all three of my companies of motorized infantry and my recon company. In a strange twist of fate, I had air parity in the region, even though it was August of 1941. So, I had 4 air strikes and troop transports available. I loaded up my parachute battalion and directed them to drop near the objectives. I was praying they could hold on until my motorized column got there to relieve them. I was little worried about the drop sites, which were very small, because the German side of the river was forested. Now, I knew that early war Soviet pilots are not great at spotting enemy ground units in the game and I did not want them to attack my paratroopers by mistake, so I plotted all 4 air strikes to occur on turn one. I also plotted my transports to leave the map by the longest route possible, in hopes that they might spot some enemy units. Although enemy anti-aircraft artillery was severe, none were ever spotted. The first air strike bombed a bunch of squirrels hiding in the woods. I believe the second strike got a badger. The third strike finally spotted some units. Specifically, my main force, all on the bridge. As the aeroplane approached, I could only hope it would bomb short. No, right on target. Bridge destroyed. Main force drowned. Not one enemy unit was spotted by 4 air strikes and 16 transports. The problem was that the Germans had very high experience, my air crews did not, and I did not target closely enough to any of their tanks to spot them from the air. So, woods hexes are sometimes of value. Bye... Michael Wood



Colonel von Blitz -> (5/16/2001 11:54:00 PM)

quote:

Originally posted by Mike Wood: My experience in flying low over woods in my Cessna 150 would indicate this not to be the case. And, even if it were so, it would be only when flying from the clear side towards the woods.
Mmm, I bet pilot saw a lot more when flying a Fieseler Storch compared to if he was flying a P-47...there is quite significant speed difference :D Colonel von Blitz



Paul Vebber -> (5/17/2001 12:17:00 AM)

The bottom line is it not going to change much at this point. The problem will have to wait to be addressed in Combat Leader or other new game... The suggestion to turn spotting down is a good one - experiment with that!



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375