View Full Version : How to Sneak?
How does one make his dismounts more stealthy? I just tried to move a platoon of AT soldiers and rifle teams over difficult terrain to approach 3 dug-in T-80s from behind. I never got a shot off. All of them were immediately spotted and annihilated the instant they crossed into LOS.
What determines spotting? Does the direction a unit is facing have a lot to do with it?
Cheers
Paul
Pat Proctor
13 Oct 04, 20:17
Units DO see more poorly to the rear. Approaching from this direction will help.
Approaching in hold fire will also help. Units in hold fire expose themselves less and are harder to see. If covered terrain is available, this will help as well. Using covered and concealed routes, in wadis and depressions to get as close as possible will help as well.
Units DO see more poorly to the rear. Approaching from this direction will help.
Approaching in hold fire will also help. Units in hold fire expose themselves less and are harder to see. If covered terrain is available, this will help as well. Using covered and concealed routes, in wadis and depressions to get as close as possible will help as well.
I know what a depression is (lord only knows :laugh: ), but what exactly is a "wadi"?
Cheers
Paul
I know what a depression is (lord only knows :laugh: ), but what exactly is a "wadi"?
Cheers
Paul
A dry river or stream bed.
Dennis
Actually, the biggest difference I have found between WWII era games and modern warfare is the role of infantry. I honestly am having a hell of a time deciding when to deploy it, at what ranges, on what terrain and for what purposes.
From what I can tell, the lonely grunt faces pretty steep odds on the digital battlefield. Well, at least the poor defenceless grunt that are unlucky enough to come under my command.
Cheers
Paul
Pat Proctor
14 Oct 04, 23:34
The scenarios in ATF definite have a armor-centric focus (hence the name "Armored Task Force" :) ).
The results in more complex terrain, such as cities, much more heavily favors infantry.
Pat Proctor
15 Oct 04, 10:32
Some other tactics you might try are the use of indirect and direct fire suppression. No group of infantry, no matter how well armed, just runs up on a platoon of tanks. They suppress the target using a combination of artillery and direct fire, until they can get in range to use their direct fire weapon systems.
Also, try bounding, using one group to suppress while the other runs forward, and then alternating.
The scenarios in ATF definite have a armor-centric focus (hence the name "Armored Task Force" :) ).
The results in more complex terrain, such as cities, much more heavily favors infantry.
Ahhh, so it's not just me. Cool. I spent all last night trying to get those same T-80s (which I now know are actually 2 BMP2s and 1 T-80B) and suffering one bloody massacre after another. I tried everything from smoke to suppresion to sneaking to harsh language. All of my efforts earned me one lucky artillery strike that knocked out one of the soft skinned BMPs.
I think today I will try to approach them from the front with M1s and use that direct fire suppression method that Pat mentioned.
When attempting to suppress enemy armour what rounds are best? DPICM or HE?
Cheers
Paul
CPangracs
15 Oct 04, 12:28
Ahhh, so it's not just me. Cool. I spent all last night trying to get those same T-80s (which I now know are actually 2 BMP2s and 1 T-80B) and suffering one bloody massacre after another. I tried everything from smoke to suppresion to sneaking to harsh language. All of my efforts earned me one lucky artillery strike that knocked out one of the soft skinned BMPs.
I think today I will try to approach them from the front with M1s and use that direct fire suppression method that Pat mentioned.
When attempting to suppress enemy armour what rounds are best? DPICM or HE?
Cheers
Paul
DPICM - you may even get a few kills on those BMP's!
Units DO see more poorly to the rear. Approaching from this direction will help.
I still question whether this is true as a practical matter.
Some time ago I sent you a scenario showing two tanks approaching from opposite directions on the Iraq3 map, which is as flat and featureless as the proverbial griddle. I picked a place where there is no intervening terrain and the elevation does not vary by more than a meter.
In ATF v.1.04 both tanks became visible at practically the same instant, yellow-spot at 8K and red-spot at 4k, within a few seconds of each other. I expect any difference in time detected was due entirely to positioning inaccuracy when I made the scenario.
I just imported and ran the same scenario in RT, engine v.1.12. I found the absolute spot ranges slightly reduced, to about 7.6K and 3.8K respectively. However, both tanks to front and rear were still spotted as essentially the same time and range, again within just a few seconds of each other, at roughly 1:45 and 6:25 elapsed respectively, and as near as I can tell the exact same range.
Attached is the scenario I used for testing. It also needs the Iraq3 map and database1 DB to run on RT, of course.
--- Kevin
Ahhh, so it's not just me. Cool. I spent all last night trying to get those same T-80s (which I now know are actually 2 BMP2s and 1 T-80B) and suffering one bloody massacre after another. I tried everything from smoke to suppresion to sneaking to harsh language. All of my efforts earned me one lucky artillery strike that knocked out one of the soft skinned BMPs.
I expect you're talking about Death Valley Attack. That is one of the most thoroughly dissected ATF scenarios on this forum.
Here is one thread that discusses some in-depth hints on DVA, as well as some other miscellaneous related issues. Beware, some minor spoilers, although no pictures.
http://www.war-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2977
If you want flat-out how-to spoilers, there are two thorough AARs, one by Pat Proctor and the other by myself. My AAR is on a clone of the scenario using my alternate DB, though, while Pat's is the "stock" version.
http://www.warfarehq.com/index.php?page=after_action_reports/milsim_aar/atf_proctor_aar1.shtml
http://www.war-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6855
Good hunting,
--- Kevin
CPangracs
15 Oct 04, 16:04
I still question whether this is true as a practical matter.
Some time ago I sent you a scenario showing two tanks approaching from opposite directions on the Iraq3 map, which is as flat and featureless as the proverbial griddle. I picked a place where there is no intervening terrain and the elevation does not vary by more than a meter.
In ATF v.1.04 both tanks became visible at practically the same instant, yellow-spot at 8K and red-spot at 4k, within a few seconds of each other. I expect any difference in time detected was due entirely to positioning inaccuracy when I made the scenario.
I just imported and ran the same scenario in RT, engine v.1.12. I found the absolute difference in spot range slightly reduced, to about 7.6K and 3.8K respectively. However, both tanks to front and rear were still spotted as essentially the same time and range, again within just a few seconds of each other, and as near as I can tell the exact same range.
Attached is the scenario I used for testing. It also needs the Iraq3 map and database1 DB to run on RT, of course.
--- Kevin
A few seconds is all it takes in armored combat, even (or more pointedly) in past conflicts when it took longer to lay on a target!
I have spent quite a bit of time in armor and cav units, and I have had the honor of acting as a loader and even a gunner on M1A1's and M60A3's. Whenever we were stopped, either the TC or the loader was CONSTANTLY scanning in a 360 degree circle, and the gunner is constantly scanning his sector of fire in a "figure of eight" pattern. Take this a step further, combat actions are imminent in ATF and RT, so the TC is scanning with thermal sights almost constantly, so it wouldn't be strange for vehicles, in wide open terrain, to be spotted almost instantly from ANY direction!
This is just me talking about how things happen in the field. Also, finding a 60 ton vehicle happens MUCH easier and quicker than a 2m x 1m person!
Let's just say that using infantry to assault an area NOT considered "urban" favors the defender in just about any situation. Not far from reality, IMO. Heck, trying to attack ANY well-defended area is often very difficult and can cause a great deal of attrition without using all of the BOS at your disposal.
As for spotting distances, the distance which each vehicle scans and can identify vehicles is handled in the vehicle database, and can be adjusted as needed by owners of the game to reflect however they feel the vehicles should react. I coded the vehicles in RT to reflect accurate ranges when possible, and when I couldn't find a definitive source for it, I used a "best guess" with a similar vehicle as a model.
In addition,...whether or not a vehicle is in a hole matters in this as well, IIRC.
Curt
combat actions are imminent in ATF and RT, so the TC is scanning with thermal sights almost constantly, so it wouldn't be strange for vehicles, in wide open terrain, to be spotted almost instantly from ANY direction!
True enough. But Pat seems to genuinely believe, and on several occasions has stated explicitly, that in the game spotting is degraded to the rear aspect. In my experience playing and tinkering with the game, that is just not an accurate statement, in any terrain or visibility condition. This specific test was simply an attempt to remove variables from the question.
My point is that either the game should be made to match the statement, or vice versa.
--- Kevin
CPangracs
15 Oct 04, 16:34
True enough. But Pat seems to genuinely believe, and on several occasions has stated explicitly, that in the game spotting is degraded to the rear aspect. In my experience playing and tinkering with the game, that is just not an accurate statement, in any terrain or visibility condition. This specific test was simply an attempt to remove variables from the question.
My point is that either the game should be made to match the statement, or vice versa.
--- Kevin
Hmmm, I don't see how two tanks APPROACHING one another in open terrain can prove that visibility from the rear isn't degraded! I must be missing something.
:o
Have you compared this with a vehicle approaching another from the rear? If so, what was the difference? If it was a few seconds, then it was, indeed, degraded.
Hmmm, I don't see how two tanks APPROACHING one another in open terrain can prove that visibility from the rear isn't degraded! I must be missing something.
:o
Have you compared this with a vehicle approaching another from the rear? If so, what was the difference? If it was a few seconds, then it was, indeed, degraded.
Have you run the test scenario? I think the situation therein is pretty self-apparent.
I think any time differences are entirely due to the limits of accuracy when dragging and dropping units during scenario creation. At any rate, if two targets pop into view within a few meters of each other at 4,000 meters range both front and rear, I think it is accurate to say that there is no *practical* detection advantage when approaching from the rear.
--- Kevin
Pat Proctor
15 Oct 04, 17:16
KB,
I have taken a look at the example (and did at the time).
Sighting is actually distance based, rather than time based. To do a test, you would really have to array 15 tanks at 1 km intervals in front of and behind the sighting vehicle, all with line of site to the sighting vehicle.
If everything is running correctly, the vehicles in front of the sighting vehicle will be identified around roughly twice as far out those behind the sighting vehicle.
Sighting is actually distance based, rather than time based.
Hey guys, could you explain this a bit further? I just want to know if you mean what I think you mean. In other words, that if the spotter has LOS on the spottee and is within spotting range then it will spot. There is no increase in probability relative to the amount of time the spottee spends in the spotters field of vision.
Also, I just read through the aforementioned thread and noticed a few things that I had been seeing in my own attempts on Death Valley Attack.
I must say that I have to agree on the frailty of infantry. I have had entire platoons cut to pieces by a single T-80 with a minimum expenditure of ammo.
Anyways, I'm happy to know that I am not the only one who has suffered at the hands of this scenario.
Cheers
Paul
Sighting is actually distance based, rather than time based. To do a test, you would really have to array 15 tanks at 1 km intervals in front of and behind the sighting vehicle, all with line of site to the sighting vehicle...If everything is running correctly, the vehicles in front of the sighting vehicle will be identified around roughly twice as far out those behind the sighting vehicle.
I've modified the test scenario as you described, attached. This new scenario still shows (on my machine, at least) that it doesn't matter whether target units are in front of or behind the spotting unit. They are spotted and IDed at the same range in either case. I also tried changing the spotting unit to a dismount. This changed the absolute max spotting range, but not the front/rear behavior.
--- Kevin
I must say that I have to agree on the frailty of infantry. I have had entire platoons cut to pieces by a single T-80 with a minimum expenditure of ammo.
If you want to try different infantry assumptions, try the same scenario with my alternate DB imported. You can find conversions of the stock ATF scenarios at:
http://www.warfarehq.com/archives/showthread.php?t=302
and my alternate DB at:
http://www.warfarehq.com/archives/showthread.php?t=443
You'll find the infantry is considerably more robust and generally useful than in "original" ATF. Whether or not it is more realistic is open to argument, but the general consensus seems to have been favorable.
--- Kevin
Well, I have been trying a few different tactics on DVA and have come up with the a few observations. The first, that T-80 in the NE is murderously hard to kill. The Javelin has a hell of a time with it and the M1 needs to close to a very dangerous range to get a kill. The only good news is that I have learned an awful lot about the finer points of the game. The second, the T-80 is hard to kill...
By the way, just a question, what about this talk of suppressing AFVs using a constant barrage from a single gun? The most I could do was set an immediate fire mission and raise the number of volleys up to something like 10. That landed a shell on or near the target every minute or so which sadly was not enough to achieve any notable suppression. Am I missing something?
Cheers
Paul
p.s. kbluck, I look forward to trying out your alternate DB. I'll give it a go after I spend a bit more time learning how to play the game.
Pat Proctor
16 Oct 04, 20:30
You WILL have gaps in suppression. You have to mass both direct AND indirect fires on a target to be successful. He is dug in AND behind obstacles AND in a "keyhole" position, where you cannot engage him from the flanks, so he has a huge advantage. Use indirect fire with direct fire suppression, and "fire and maneuver" until you get close enough to kill.
Personally, I would mass about six volleys of all three batteries with DPICM and forget about killing him with direct fire! But then I'm an artilleryman :)
The Javelin has a hell of a time with it and the M1 needs to close to a very dangerous range to get a kill.
Javelin does have a hard time hitting the T-80. In general, I think that ATF underrates guided munitions considerably in terms of pH. Near max range, which is the sensible mode of employment for ATGMs, their ATF probability of hit appears shockingly low. GMs seem to be treated identically to ballistic munitions. Javelin and SACLOS ATGMs should be able to achieve hit rates >80% against motionless targets outside their minimum range, barring suppression of the gunner, but ATF models nowhere near that number.
By the way, just a question, what about this talk of suppressing AFVs using a constant barrage from a single gun?
Doesn't provide any practical benefit in the game. A single 155mm DPICM round will suppress a typical tank for about 7 seconds. This is inside the tank's fire cycle time and probably will not inhibit any actual shots the tank might take, or at most merely delay it a few seconds. A battery volley will suppress it for about 41 seconds, pretty much what you would expect from simple multiplication. So, the suppression effect seems to be purely additive. To maintain nonstop suppression, you'll need to drop 8-gun volleys on a single tank target every 50 seconds.
Direct-fire suppression, in my opinion, is broken for all practical purposes, and has been since v.1.03 of the engine. Small arms are nearly useless for suppression, even against personnel targets. Entire infantry platoons massing fire on a single personnel target will not reliably suppress it; the marker "flickers" so fast that it doesn't actually inhibit the target's return fire much, if at all. Even heavy weapons rarely suppress a target for more than a few seconds. Support by fire simply isn't nearly as rewarding tactically as it should be. Given that the behavior used to be different, I view this as a bug.
--- Kevin
CPangracs
16 Oct 04, 23:12
... :hush: ...
Hmmm, somewhat divergent views of the game. Well, I'll have a go at it myself and see what happens. I did try some direct fire suppression the other day, but got punished badly by the T-80 before my M1s could close to an effective range. I was left with the nagging sensation that I was doing something wrong. I'll have to take another stab at it.
You know, I'm not sure what was happening with the javelins. I thought they were hitting fairly reliably, but failing to penetrate (sounds like me on any given Friday night ;) ), but now that I think about it it does seem like I should have gotten at least one kill. I even managed to get one javelin team directly behind the T-80 but all three missiles either missed or did not penetrate.
The good news, however, is that my infantry was not immediately slaughtered and in fact fired quite a few shots without ever having to suffer even a single round of return fire.
Another question. Do ATGMs leave some kind of smoke trail? If you were being shot at would you be able to easily spot where the rockets were coming from or are they too fast to follow?
Man, I know way too little about modern weapon systems.
Cheers
Paul
CPangracs
17 Oct 04, 10:15
Hmmm, somewhat divergent views of the game. Well, I'll have a go at it myself and see what happens. I did try some direct fire suppression the other day, but got punished badly by the T-80 before my M1s could close to an effective range. I was left with the nagging sensation that I was doing something wrong. I'll have to take another stab at it.
You know, I'm not sure what was happening with the javelins. I thought they were hitting fairly reliably, but failing to penetrate (sounds like me on any given Friday night ;) ), but now that I think about it it does seem like I should have gotten at least one kill. I even managed to get one javelin team directly behind the T-80 but all three missiles either missed or did not penetrate.
The good news, however, is that my infantry was not immediately slaughtered and in fact fired quite a few shots without ever having to suffer even a single round of return fire.
Another question. Do ATGMs leave some kind of smoke trail? If you were being shot at would you be able to easily spot where the rockets were coming from or are they too fast to follow?
Man, I know way too little about modern weapon systems.
Cheers
Paul
So, you are discovering the intricacies of modern warfare, and that sometimes,...no, ALL the time, the best laid plans go to crap when the bullets start flying!
Perhaps it would add to your experience if you read-up on the Javelin and the other systems in the game. Beleive it or not it is NOT the ATGM savior people thought it once was, and a hit isn't guaranteed every time, and every hit isn't a guaranteed kill!
Anyway, part of the game is about learning the tactics and weapons, and it is fully customixzable to suit your own preferences! You want the Javelin to hit and kill every time? Copy the original database and inherent database files, save them with a new name, make the necessary adjustments to all of the vehicles you want affected in the database for each weapon system you want to adjust, go to the scenario bulder and import the database you made for the scenario and save with a new scenario name and,...voila! Of course, you must own the full game for this, but it's fairly straightforward. If you want help on how to do it, let me know.
As for divergent philosophies on the game, It's almost like watching a Bush/Kerry debate!;) Well, the developer is an active duty Field Artillery Officer with 10 years of current experience who works at the National Training Center, and saw a need for a more accurate simulation that would also be fun to play. The person voicing a differing opinion, well, isn't. The developer has worked hard to develop the game far beyond what it was originally, within the confines of the programming language and in response to many requests from many lovers of the game,...the person with the opposing view on the issue hasn't. The developer has created a game engine currently being used by one of the leading aerospace companies (Lockheed Martin) to help test its Close Support Aircraft of the future, as well as by other contractors for various applications,...the other person hasn't. One has a track record of responding to the community which supports his game as best he can and as quickly as possible, the other one,...well, you get my point.
It's up to you to decide what you like or don't like about the game, let it be known here or directly to the developer, and most likely you'll get a timely response and a fix. You must realize, though, that the developer does this out of his love for the game and for the community at large, and must also balance the time it would take to do certain things with the cost in time and developer dollars. Also, if he makes some changes or additions to the game for one of his other contracts, it does not necessarily mean it will make it into the "civilian" version of the game, but you can bet Pat Proctor will fight to get it there if at all possible.
The absolute best thing about the ATF engine is its flexibility. This fact alone allows you to create a game to share with others or play for your own satisfaction! Awesome stuff!
Hope you continue to enjoy the myriad challenges of modern/future warfare, and maybe a few from half a century ago!, and keep your eye out for new releases covering particular time periods by other designers like myself, who have taken a love for the game a step further to develop a full commercial game to be enjoyed by wargamers young and old!
Curt
You're new here, so I'll fill you in on the Hatfield-McCoy thing going on here. Curt would like me to shut up, because I am obviously unqualified to comment because he has designed content for a game and I haven't. (So far as he is aware, anyway.)
I admit I can be blunt. However, I learned a long time ago that being gentle about my criticism tends to get me ignored, even when I uncover serious, game-altering bugs. For example, just one of many I have unearthed, the random number issue. I mentioned it, provided a couple of test cases that showed the actual pKs were coming in *way* lower than they should have been, got some hand-waving responses from Pat that boiled down to "it works right on my test machine", and the whole thing was dropped for a few months. I brought it up again later in response to a query from a guy much like you, fought it out for a few more replies, wouldn't shut up this time, and what do you know? Turns out I *wasn't* just another whiner after all, and other people *were* having the same problem, which turned out to be hardware related, but apparently I was the only person who did the number-crunching to notice this very significant bug and hammer the issue until it got fixed. But according to Curt, since I've never designed a game (so far as he knows) I should assume the designer is always right and just shut up.
Curt is welcome to his opinion. I'd hope that I'm welcome to mine. I wish Curt could control his impulses to cast aspersions on me personally, as opposed to arguing rationally with my opinions. Although, I see by the edited post above he has, at least, taken to self-censoring his initially unhelpful remarks.
But, in the end, I'll let you be the judge of whose input on this thread was more useful to you in helping you figure out what the game is doing, and dare I say, have some fun with it.
--- Kevin
Pat Proctor
17 Oct 04, 19:50
Kevin,
You have provoked many a reaction from your observations here on the board. The one reaction you have NEVER garnered is to be ignored. ;)
Thanks for pointing out the issue. I can assure you that it IS being researched. I will let you know what I find out when I get to the bottom of it.
And, as always Pat, thanks for your attention to everybody's concerns.
--- Kevin
CPangracs
17 Oct 04, 20:07
Just for the record, I don't edit my posts for content, only misspellings, adding more appropriate smilies, or grammatical errors I don't catch before hitting the "Submit Reply" button.
;)
Curt
Just for the record, I don't edit my posts for content, only misspellings, adding more appropriate smilies, or grammatical errors I don't catch before hitting the "Submit Reply" button.
Curt may not be aware that any new posts are emailed to anybody subscribed to this thread.
--- Kevin
I finally managed to get a handle on maintaining suppression, maneuvering, using the LOS and info tool to set up attacks and controlling my infantry.
In effect, I have learned how to sneak and so will close the thread.
In the end I killed the T-80 and his two friends without taking a single casualty. I think most of my problems resulted from a simple poor choice of tactics and a complete and total ignorance of the capabilities of modern weapon systems.
This is by far the hardest tutorial I have ever played (and I'm still only halfway into the battle). I do not know him personally, but I imagine the designer to be an evil man. Evil and cruel.
Cheers
Paul
CPangracs
18 Oct 04, 08:13
Some people don't know the meaning of a wink or a smile.
Cabron - Pat is definitely an evil man - I met him at Origins, and he's 6'6", 300lbs, and he started 3 fights in a hotel bar!
Well, okay, he's not evil, and he's not that big,...okay - he didn't start any fights either, but he IS an artillery officer, which is the next best thing to being evil!
Pat Proctor
18 Oct 04, 20:45
KB, et. al.
I stand corrected. I have investigated and I now remember what happened to directional sighting. In an effort to hit the target machines (350 mHz and up), I had to make some sacrifices on computations. The code for directional modifiers to sighting were commented out to save cycles.
Unfortunately, this is not going to get implemented. I think the impact is negligible, as a vehicle with a turret just turns to face the threat and nulifies the sighting disadvantage anyway...
The code for directional modifiers to sighting were commented out to save cycles. Unfortunately, this is not going to get implemented.
That's cool, as long as we've figured out once and for all that:
The game doesn't do it.
The game isn't supposed to do it.
Case closed.
--- Kevin
CPangracs
19 Oct 04, 08:40
KB, et. al.
I stand corrected. I have investigated and I now remember what happened to directional sighting. In an effort to hit the target machines (350 mHz and up), I had to make some sacrifices on computations. The code for directional modifiers to sighting were commented out to save cycles.
Unfortunately, this is not going to get implemented. I think the impact is negligible, as a vehicle with a turret just turns to face the threat and nulifies the sighting disadvantage anyway...
Thanks for making the game accessible to people without forcing them to upgrade just for the sake of playing a video game!
:thumup:
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.