"Spotting - probabilistic or deterministic?" Topic

Interested in preferences for spotting rules in WW2 sets. Do you prefer probabilistic spotting rules where you roll dice or some other random generator to spot units within a defined range band or a deterministic system where you spot infantry in cover at up to xx range and beyond that range they remain unspotted? Do you think the extra "realism"/fog of war/uncertainty of the probabilistic model is worth the extra complexity?

Deterministic is much faster. The system in Battlefront:WW2 is a good example. Simple, fast and works well. By contrast, Command Decision involves seemingly endless dice rolling.

Agreed. It takes time and is something else to remember, but it does obviate the artificiality of the rules. Like weapon ranges. If archery range is 400 paces you can stand at 401 paces and be totally immune. Not something you could guarantee in real life.
Didn't CD go to deterministic? Either with CDIII or ToB? Can't say for sure as haven't played them.

Probabilistic for me. But with a deterministic element at quite close range.

Yes, Command Decision:Test of Battle (CD:ToB or CDIV) did switch to deterministic spotting.
Deterministic spotting is very useful when a game has a lot of units, and keeping track of who sees what is difficult. Deterministic spotting is also easier for convention games, especially when the players do not know each other or when the gaming session has a time limit.
Probability spotting is likely more realistic, though difficult to manage in a game. This is my preferred method to use in blind games

I don't think spotting rules add a lot to a game. They are designed in part to counter the "600 foot general" and to reflect the importance of situational awareness. So to do it well it should really be variable. Range and target size matter, as does the troop quality of both sides. Vets are sneakier and better at spotting for example. In the end you get a lot of dice rolling just to see if you can do more dice rolling.

I generally prefer to make it part of the combat procedure. Some "misses" are really "didn't see anything."

This topic always makes me think of my favorite passage from Band of Brothers (the book, unfortunately didn;t make it into the movie)
Sir, that tree wasn't there yesterday

It's not worth all the game time to dice for this.

Randomised spotting is far more realistic but adds to playing time. I use deterministic as it suits the high density games I enjoy.

A very neat compromise was in TAC:WW2, which two deterministic ranges, detected and located. Detected units could only be engaged with area fire, however, if a unit made a quality check, detected units were treated as located. So better quality units could (often) locate targets better than poor quality ones. Effect determined by company, not per unit, so it was quick to resolve.

If you want to use randomised spotting, integrating it into the combat rolls a quick way of resolving it. There was a Panzerblitz variant which did that.

Probability spotting is likely more realistic, though difficult to manage in a game. This is my preferred method to use in blind games

It is tricky. I am attracted to probabilistic method, but it can add a lot of time to game play.

Range and target size matter, as does the troop quality of both sides. Vets are sneakier and better at spotting for example. In the end you get a lot of dice rolling just to see if you can do more dice rolling.

Agreed, although just how much complexity a game can stand varies. However when it comes to building it all into the firing mechanism you can end up with a load of modifiers and complexity which defeats the object.

I am not sure what is so complicated. You could do something like this:

Not as sloppy, but wrap some range measurements around a hexagonal stick – dowel or curtain pull rod from the store. Then when you need to spot, roll a d6 and compare with the rolled side up.

In this example, I have green, average, and expert spotters (maybe someone with good equipment or better training). So greenies spot only in the green band, average in the green and yellow, and expert in the whole ryg.

Note that the ranges are not linearly progressive, nor do they change at the same rate. You can implement a lot of variability into a simple device (well, it's kind of a table wrapped around a stick). And 1-6 the result gets better as the rolled number is higher. So you could have a bonus or penalty for weather (or pre-scouting, intelligence, leadership, whatever) on your weather die sitting next to the board.

You don't have to get that complex (though the complexity is outside the game – a design principle I like) No matter how funky you make the bands and how many variations you consider, the in game is simple. You could even have different sticks for different sides.

If you wanted to, you could just make the sides of the hex prism about 1/2", and just roll the stick. You would need some space for that, maybe like a little ramp or half-pipe that you drop it on.

You could even just go with a flat, two-sided ruler, and roll "high" or "low".

The effects of combat stress need to be considered.

Field of vision narrows. Observer fixates on looking ahead. The refusal to process the unexpected (both self-observed and reported by others).

Obviously we'll trained, fresh troops with good morale will observe more effectively than others.

The complication is that troops are much harder to spot than guns which are much harder than vehicles, and spotting range also depends on cover, light, and whether the target is firing. You would need a whole bunch of sticks to take that into account. The table in Battlefront:WW2 takes all that into account in a quick and elegant way. You can only spot dug in troops close up, but if they fire, they become a suspected target and can be shot at or have indirect fire sent in their direction.

Deterministic. Random just takes up too much time and seems to add surprsingly little. Much more important is how observation interacts with the game turn, moving and firing mechanics.

The table in Battlefront:WW2 takes all that into account in a quick and elegant way.

Can you expand a bit on how it works?

You would need a whole bunch of sticks to take that into account.

So … one two-sided meter stick with three lines, one for each target type and the modifier is for terrain type, not weather.

Maybe a 1m triangular rod for a little more variability.

Battlefront WW2 has a table which gives basic spotting distances for:
Large Vehicle
Medium vehicle/Large Gun
Small vehicle/medium gun
Troops/Small gun
The table gives distances for in the open, Sparse cover, or dense cover
Then there are modifiers for suppressed or disordered spotter, spotter moving fast, improved target cover, obscured by smoke, target moving or firing, spotter being a FOO or recon, spotter being high up.
Those move the basic distance up and down on a modified distance scale.
It is much faster than it sounds. vehicle and gun size are shown on the unit cards.
For instance, a medium vehicle is spotted in the open at 40", but if the spotter is disordered and the target is behind smoke you move down two slots on the distance table, and now you need to be within 10". if the vehicle were moving you would go up one to 20" and so on.

groundscale is 1" to 40 metres. So 10" is 400 metres.

This is from some US Army manuals:

There are many situations where a defender can be completely hidden until you are almost on top of them as they pop up to shoot. A well-prepared ambush (emplaced weapons, trenches, etc) is going to be hard to detect if concealed in the woods, buildings, or other covers. Once spotted, a unit should mark it with smoke or tracers. Recon by fire can draw out the defender too.

Wolfhag

So we compromise, deterministic at the start of the game. We assume in position typically for defenders. For them spotting is not allowed till automatic at 10m. This applies to men and vehicles.
However shooting is an automatic spot within some range, except occasional sniper fire.
Stuff that has moved since game start, probabilistic on situation, troop quality and if somebody has already seen it shoot or move.
Spotting everything from day one leads folk to keep rolling on one elment till its spotted, Many moons ago got Phil Barker to avoid this by only 1 element per bound can spot any 1 enemy element.

It does help out system that vehicles especially have a deterministic field of view, buttoned and unbuttoned so out of arc fire cannot be detected. That means vehicles need to potentially spread there individual observation arcs to get wide coverage, why we need to have tank turrets that turn. Groups of more than 2 men have 360 vision but may only spot 1 element at a time.
It is all compromise and so no one answer will fit all.

There are various anecdotes about folk not being spotted untill very close range. In a game of Lazer tag we missed a guy 6 ft away and there were 3 of us.

On a tactical maneuver one night I was hiding in a bush by the road observing the vehicle's movement. A column of OpFor infantry came towards me on the same side of the road. A vehicle approached and they all jumped to the side of the road to hide. One guy jumped almost on top of me with his hand inches away from my face but I did move and he was facing away from me. They then went up and left never detecting me.

I don't know how you'd simulate that in a game.

Wolfhag

I don't know how you'd simulate that in a game.

00 on a D100 roll? :-)

Thre seems to be sufficent anecdotal eveidence that not being spotted at around 6 ft is not uncommon. The statistics canot be acertained as there is no consistent reporting. That there are several repors, some to me by chaps on excersize that it is not very rare (1/1000 or less proability). Certainly Wolfhags data says 50m is a reasonable value.

Anechdotal eveidence above does indicate as expected that it is not wildly unreasonable given a fair bit of Anechdotal eveidence.

So a deterministic value of 50m as in the US manula would not be an unreasonable deterministic value. Its a game design issue to some extent, if you want to vary that on a case by case basis, depending on a more precise definition of the positiuon of thr observed and perhaps troop quality postentially of the observer and the Observed.

I suspect there is no 1 size fits all solution. Certainly for us a detreministic in part approach speeded up play and eleiminated rules needed to control excessive attaemps at spotting at long didtances. However in combat type situations some proabalistic detection seems to us to correlate better with the accounts we have read. It's a tricky subject were the need for speed of play which is in of itself a key in geting a credible game, with the benerfits of a more detailed and slower to resolve system.

Somebody's grandad had a tale that he spotted a guy very close to him and congratulated him on his skill. It took him aback when the whole platoon then stood up very close to him.