Is Mis-ID In CMBN?

[Mad Russian]

I've not seen anywhere that shows any mis-identification going on in CMBN.

Did it make it into the game or not?

Good Hunting.

MR

 

[thewood]

I have yet to see it. FOW looks exactly the same as in CMSF.

I played one of the demo scenarios and a Sherman ID'ed an HQ unit and MG unit from 800m. Went directly from ? to know exactly what the units were. I don't think the German units were even firing.

 

[Mad Russian]

Well a huge issue for those looking forward to CMBN was that FINALLY another game would have mis-Id'd tanks back. PCO doesn't use it since on the Eastern Front there was little of that. For the most part the mis-IDing of tanks was an American thing. That's mostly because of the foilage and cammo put on German tanks to keep them from being hit from the air. Which we all know was BS because no German tank was ever knocked out by Allied Tactical Airforces. We know that because the Army did studies.....but they forgot to ask the Germans....anyway.....

Mis-ID was a HUGE issue for many old CMx1 players and I was wondering if it made it in the game.

Good Hunting.

MR

 

[thewood]

I bet it was as big an issue in Russia, just not detailed the same as in the US. You can't tell me that Russians had super eyesight to tell a squad from a team at 800m.

 

[Mad Russian]

No, but the mis-ID was with Tiger tanks.

An infantry target is an infantry target; is an infantry target; so to speak. Mis-ID'ing a Tiger tank is much different.

The Russians only mis-ID'ed a Tiger tank for about 10 seconds, if that long.

The Americans on the other hand were in tight terrain. The German tanks were covered in camouflage, most times without clear LOS to them. Plus, no matter what kind of gun the Germans fired with it killed the Shermans. They were just nervous and it's understandable to err on the side of caution.

Good Hunting.

MR

 

[Tanker]

Which we all know was BS because no German tank was ever knocked out by Allied Tactical Airforces. We know that because the Army did studies.....but they forgot to ask the Germans....anyway.....

Good Hunting.

MR

Oh come on MR. Not even one German tank was knocked out by Allied TacAir, ever? I wish you would cite that study because I can't find it by searching. I can however find many accounts of tanks knocked out by rockets, bombs and believe it or not .50 caliber rounds. I would be interested in seeing a post war study of it though.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

MR exaggerates for effect; he's just not as good as JasonC when he does it.

I also have to believe that mis-IDs were occasionally a problem on the Eastern Front. We just don't know about it because there are comparatively fewer first hand accounts in English, compared to U.S. Army tanker stories.

On the whole, though, he's more or less correct when he says that the role of tac air has been exaggerated in the popular culture/popular media, and mis-IDs are probably more important in the context of the west - though I would still think a Soviet 45mm ATG crew would face hard choices when faced with a blur at 800m and the decision of engaging, not knowing if it was a PzKpfw III or a PzKpfw VI.

 

[Mad Russian]

Tanker, that was a joke. The US Army did a study after the Battle of Normandy was over where they PROVED that the US Army and not the Tac Airforces knocked out almost all the German tanks.

There was of course a very large percentage of those tanks knocked out to "unknown sources". I'm leery of any study done by the group wanting to prove a point.

Good Hunting.

MR

 

[Mad Russian]

Two things about mis-ID on the Eastern Front MD:

1) The terrain would allow for positive ID much easier.

2) You don't engage what you can't ID.

And there you have it.

Good Hunting.

MR

 

[ERutins]

I'm sure there was mis-ID on the Eastern Front as well, though perhaps not as much due to terrain, but it's true that it hasn't been highlighted as an issue as much as on the Western Front. The difference in sources probably does play a big role in that and perhaps it's also more significant record-wise which German tank you're fighting when you're a less expendable US or UK or Canadian tank crew. Just thinking about the amount of training many Soviet tank crews received and the large variety of German vehicles and armor, I have to think that mis-ID was a fairly regular occurrence, but that many didn't last long enough to comment on it. The more standardized Soviet equipment probably resulted in fewer mis-IDs going the other way. That would be my guess. We would like to get mis-ID in Panzer Command in the future. Distance, terrain, weather/light conditions, and experience of spotting units would likely be the biggest factors in such an implementation.

Regards,

- Erik

 

[mOBIUS]

Mis-IDing for a computer game will probably be gamey no matter how its implemented. That is because all units are not going to mis-ID the same. So you have relative spotting. Click on one unit and he sees a Tiger. Click on another he sees a MK IV. Click on a third and he sees a MK III. Nowyou click on the map and get the aggregate (Borg) view and the case is resolved it is a Tiger. So all that computer work has just gone into a waste of a few clicks.

 

[Tanker]

Tanker, that was a joke. The US Army did a study after the Battle of Normandy was over where they PROVED that the US Army and not the Tac Airforces knocked out almost all the German tanks.

There was of course a very large percentage of those tanks knocked out to "unknown sources". I'm leery of any study done by the group wanting to prove a point.

Good Hunting.

MR

Well I fell for that joke hook, line and sinker. I read something last night about a report from Eisenhower that says something on the order of 89 tanks destroyed by tac air at Mortain. No more detail was mentioned and he could have been relying on pilot reports, which were notoriously optimistic in all air forces.

 

[ERutins]

Mis-IDing for a computer game will probably be gamey no matter how its implemented. That is because all units are not going to mis-ID the same. So you have relative spotting. Click on one unit and he sees a Tiger. Click on another he sees a MK IV. Click on a third and he sees a MK III. Nowyou click on the map and get the aggregate (Borg) view and the case is resolved it is a Tiger. So all that computer work has just gone into a waste of a few clicks.

Agreed, relative spotting is one of the main reasons we haven't tackled Mis-ID yet. I'd think it would have to be a Mis-ID for all or a majority of spotting units for it to survive to the aggregate information view.

Regards,

- Erik

 

[junk2drive]

In the USA we mis ID everything as a Tiger. Problem solved. :laugh:

 

[dalem]

For me, one of the reasons to play a game like this on the PC is the FOW element. Barring an umpired game the PC will always be the best place to go to for game FOW, and the gradual step up from "?" to "TANK, somewhere" to "PzVIE, here" is one of the coolest elements in CMx1.

I don't hate borg spotting like some do, and and certainly not as much as Steve does. Presented with the option of "borg spotting and high FOW" and "relative spotting and lower FOW" I would have definitely chosen the former, but it's not my game design. I would have approached the problem from a direction of limiting what a unit can engage vs. what it can spot.

And on another topic, did anyone else think it a bit odd that Steve could make a mistake about what's included in the demo? A particular vehicle being in or out seems possible to me, but whether or not the brand-new QB interface is in or out? Really? Seems a little out-of-touch to me.

-dale

 

[junk2drive]

Someone probably pointed out that if you could do QB in the demo, why would you buy the game? Just QB for a long time. Maybe Steve planned on it being in, then took it out.

 

[thewood]

I am not sure it's all about mis-ID...that might be a mis-nomer. It's about lack of ID. You can debate all day about how much mis-IDing went on. But it's mostly about not getting enough of an ID to do anything useful with or make a bad decision. That was really what was going on in CM1 and not going in CM2.

 

[dalem]

Someone probably pointed out that if you could do QB in the demo, why would you buy the game? Just QB for a long time. Maybe Steve planned on it being in, then took it out.

Sure, but maybe he should have remembered that and not (apparently) have mis-spoken. That's my only point. Seems odd.

-dale