NON

Moon, did you try the test with CMAK yet? Did anyone else? Anxious to find out just what is going on here ...

I simply cannot reproduce this. I made a new scenario with every parameter as you specified (although this is in CMBB so no Italy). An elephant and a early and late Jagdpanther. I put out 12 Shermans anywhere from 400m to 2600m from the lumped up German tanks. Every single target shows the exact same "to hit" percentage for all vehicles. I assume you used CMAK for your test. Is it possible something got broken in a patch somewhere for CMBB, or as Glider suggested that the effects of optics does not show up in the "to hit" percentage? Any one else care to run this test?

Aren't there quite a few variables here besides the optics? I don't think there's a German AFV with a gun identical to that on any Soviet tank. Marder III's vs. T-34 is probably the closest you can get but the stats on these guns are very different. Muzzle velocity is different, barrel length is different, they use different rounds and penetration is radically different. And Marders have a silhouette rating of 85, compared to 93 for the T-34. So with all these factors compounding, how can you separate out the effect of optics? If you get the same or similar numbers that you did in your earlier test you can of course conclude that "German optics are better" but I don't think you can get much more specific than that. And it seems it's already generally accepted that German optics ARE better in CMBB The second part of your test might yield more tangible results though. And isn't "Narrow" the worst German optics? From the manual you get the impression that they're no better than "Good" with regards to accuracy and worse with regards to FOV.

Oh, and one more thing. If the "to hit" percentage reported by CMBB does not take into account certain factors like you suggest, then optics would be one of very few factors it omits. Make a scenario and toy around a bit. It's easy to see that the "to hit" percentage changes depending on target silhouette, hull down status, whether the target is moving, whether the shooter is moving, time of day, terrain/smoke partially obstructing LOS, wind , experience of crew etc. Since all these factors are taken into account it would be odd to omit only optics.

This could very well be. If so I would consider it a bit of an omission; if they're going to give precise percentages then you should be able to rely on them. Otherwise it would be better to just inform there's a "good", "fair" etc. chance to hit, as is done with the chance to kill. This would be interesting, but it would be a HUGE undertaking. I'd guess that the potential variance from optics in chance to hit is less than 10% of whatever the 'base' chance is (before optics are taken into account). For it to be statistically significant you'd have to do 30+ runs per test case at the very least (unless the variance from optics is much greater than 10%). Furthermore, since variables beyond your control would be introduced after the first shot (target turning/exploding/fleeing, dust being knocked up from a round that missed etc.) you'd probably have to limit each run to one shot only, then start the test again. Odie

Hmm, I cannot see any evidence of that. Made a scenario and put a lot of different AFV with the same gun next to each other, then placed three T-34 at different ranges. All German AFV's were at the same distance from the targets within 1m and bunched together so tightly the difference in angle is minimal. With this setup I get the following to-hit percentages for the first target at 690m: 75mm/L70: Dual Magnification Optics (Pz VG late): 63% Binocular Optics (Pz VA early): 63% Long Range Optics (Panzer IV/70 (V)): 63% 88mm/L71: Narrow Optics (Jagdpanther early): 70% Very Long Range Optics (JagdPanther late): 70% Good Optics (King Tiger): 70% 75mm/L48: Long Range Optics (StuG late): 61% Good Optics (Pz IVG): 61% For the subsequent targets at 1078m and 1406m I get the same result (same gun having same to hit percentage regardless of optics/tank), except for a 1% difference between the Jagdpanther early and King Tiger at 1078m. The 88m/L71 crews were veterans (since the manual states this level of expertise is required for very long range optics), the rest were regular. The results did not change (that is, the to-hit percentages remained the same for each AFV fitted with the same gun) no matter which temperature was selected. Do you mean that ANY type of German optics is better than all allied optics, but that the accuracy of German optics remains the same no matter the type? Or is there some other kind of scenario that would show some differences? Odie

I see what you mean, but apart from the first shot made while the opposing JagdPanther was turning to face my M18, all shots were fired directly at the front and the elevation of the two vehicles were identical or close to as well

Unfortunately that is next to impossible at ranges over 500m when playing with normal or extreme FOV

I think you've hit the nail on the head. Since the shooting went on for more than one turn, I checked the M18's target and it said that chance to kill was good, and from the stats it looks as if they assumed it was a StuG. It was in fact a Jagdpanther. So it seems the TC just goes with the guessed stats, and completely ignore what they actually see happening (the shells bouncing)

Maybe so, but the tank crew didn't know exactly what they were shooting at. And after the 6 rounds bounced, you think they'd be encouraged to at least TRY something else. Also, I think the armor has to be pretty steep (greater than 30 degrees) for tungsten not to have an advantage over AP at this distance. It wouldn't even try tungsten first? In the case in question, it didn't back away either (they had a round and a half to do so) so either way something is smelly Since it's been said that this is an old complaint, can anyone dig up BFC's explanation for this odd behavior?

In a ongoing QB ME my M18 Hellcat encountered a "Assault Gun?". The distance to the target was around 600-700m and since my M18 was camouflaged and would get the first shot at it's flank I ordered it to sit tight and let it rip. For almost two entire rounds the two gunned it out at a distance. The M18 managed to get 6 rounds off, all which connected and promptly ricochetted of the unknown assault gun, while the assault gun, having to turn and face the M18 and having a slower ROF missed twice, and then connected on the third shot,making a lovely bonfire out of the M18. Now here's the thing, the M18 was carrying no less than 6 tungsten rounds, the same amount it went to AFV heaven with. It did not once switch to tungsten, even after having witness 6 AP rounds just bounce off. Is this not somewhat ridiculous? Since CM strive first and foremost for realism, would you expect a real tank crew to sit there and bounce round after round when they knew that 1)They had 6 rounds of something that would almost certainly penetrate sitting around and 2) The opposing tank has just fired 3 shots and has us bracketed, and it's certain that whatever gun it mounts will blow us to high heaven ? The M18 falls apart if you throw bits of ripe Brie at it, and the tank crew had to know that whatever kind of assault gun they were facing they wouldn't stand a chance once the opposing gunner got his act together. I've noticed this kind of silly behavior before, but on those occasions the vehicle didn't have as many as 6 tungsten rounds and didn't have time to bounce 6 AP rounds so I let it go as just a minor annoyance. [ April 13, 2004, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: NON ]

Thanks guys! I'm playtesting the map with a PBEM buddy now. We started two simultaneous games, one with 1500 for the defender and the other with 2000, both with a 25% bonus for the attacker, and I'm sure either or both of these will be fine. It's a rather large map, an extra couple of hundred points worth of troops littered around is probably not going to have that much of an effect Odie

So this is the only way to do it then? I'll still be off by around 20% for the defender and slightly less for the attacker, hopefully it's not going to be a huge deal. Just a pity there's no way I can specify exactly the amount of points that would suit the map Odie

Thanks, but that isn't quite my problem. What I want is to set up a battle using my map where I can specify (exactly) the purchase points for each side yet still allow both player to purchase their own units. In this example I want the defender to have around 1700 points and the attacker around 3600, but if I use the map in a QB all I can choose is 1500 or 2000 for the defender, nothing in between, and neither of these values (even combined with handicap) gives me anything close to the point allocation I want for the attacker. Any way around this?

I've designed a small assault/defend type city map that I intend to use in a QB type setting. I would like for each side to be able to pick his own units, but if I do a QB you are presented with a very limited option for choosing points for each side, especially as you get to larger battles. Is there any way to specify an exact amount of purchase points for each side without also having to pick the forces? That is, can you specify purchase points more precisely when starting a QB or can you make a scenario where you only specify each sides points but let them pick their own forces? Odie