Jump to content

Rokko

Members
  • Content count

    753
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Rokko

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I intend to do so, I just wanted to wait if someone reports any bugs or issues before doing so. No not really. The format for campaign files is pretty simple, it's basically just a bunch of files glued together, so all you have to do is find the glue. As I said Scenario (and savegame files) are much more complex and involve some sort of compression or decryption mechanism. I'm sure some reverse engineering expert could figure it out, but probably not me Not sure what you mean. You can extract scenario files from campaigns. You can open these files in the regular scenario editor then and alter whatever you like (or whatever can be altered with the editor). Repacking these (altered) scenario files back into a campaign files requires a little more input unfortunately, unless you don't mind losing the campaign briefing text/images.
  2. Hello, I had pretty much given up on CM back in 2016 for various reasons and mostly lost interest in anything CM related as well. The announcment of CMSF2 has brought me back somewhat and, coincidentally, I am currently learning a new programming language. So I decided to write a little application I had wanted to write even way back then, which can extract scenarios from campaign files so you can look at them in the editor or edit them. Mad Mike's ScAnCaDe is a great tool for parsing scenario files, extracting campaigns and visualizing scenario and campaign metadata. However, it does not work with the 'legacy' CM games Shock Force 1 and Afghanistan. Also, who knows if Mad Mike is still around to update it anymore for future versions. He did a great job deciphering the various campaign file formats that have existed throughout CM's lifetime and much of what I did is based on his groundwork (which involves a lot of staring at hundreds of rows of bytecode and figuring out which bytes stand for which variables), so credit where credit is due. And while according to the devs you should be able to play any old campaign in CMSF2 out of the box, now you can also extract the scenario files from these campaigns and update them to the new engine standards, even if the original creators are now longer around. I decided to focus on the extraction part and didn't bother with any of the metadata listing and visualizing. The tool should be able to extract any campaign file from any CM game so far and should also work with CMSF2 once it's released. I originally wanted to extract every bit of information required to also recompile the campaign from the extracted data without any further input, but that proved to be more difficult than I anticipated because some of that information is compressed or decrypted within the campaign files and I have not found a way yet how to extract that. This includes the campaign victory/loss texts and the complete core units and campaign briefing data. Maybe I will manage to add this at a later point. For now the scenario extraction works really well however, but I need some feedback from others. I don't have any CM games installed currently besides Shock Force and thus have only been able to thorougly test the CMSF stock campaign as well as many campaigns downloaded from the Scenario Depot. So if anyone finds a campaign that does not work, make sure to post or send me the error log file that should be created. Usage of the application is as simple as it can be, just put the .exe file in a directory that contains any number of campaign files and start the executable. uncam-0.9.zip
  3. Rokko

    v1.01 Patch is here!

    Randomly found a small bug while checking the new halftrack passenger postures: The MG in the Sdkfz 250 is a MG-34 but the menue says MG-42
  4. The removal of the wall in front of the truck driver also caused him to NEVER kneel. He is constantely prone, just like in the picture I've posted. In fact there was only one case where the truck guy started the test run in kneeling position and I aborted that one. So the only states were "normal" prone and "cowering" prone, besides being dead or wounded. So since he was prone either way and the terrain he was on was pavement I figured the benefits from cowering/ducking were minimal, i.e. almost non-existant, so it would hardly make a difference. If you tell me there is some abstraction going on that makes being in cowering state so much more beneficial in terms of protection even without any cover and on totally even ground, then I will have to reconsider the setup indeed.
  5. Oh, no I didn't count state changes, only hits. HT gunners don't have any state changes, their suppression increases but their state is always "spotting" I think. Since HT gunners don't have state changes I didn't count them for the prone truck driver either, they often went to "cowering" but only for very short amounts of time. I did differentiate between KIA (including "heavy" wounds) and WIA though. For the HT test there were 29 K's and 1 W. For the other test there were 3 W's and 27 K's.
  6. I have now run 30 tests each. Averages so far: vs HT: 10.63 vs Inf: 30.43 If you discount the 4 outliers (?) that were in the range of 100 (98, 97, 105, 100) the average is still higher at 19.63 Some of the hits against the HT gunner were clearly shield penetrations or at least hits on the shield. Still, to me this result seems wrong. I'd like to get at least 100 runs each before pushing the test to the 200m mark were shield penetrations would possibly not be an issue anymore.
  7. In my experience HT gunners never button up due to being suppressed whatever their experience/morale settings are, just like StuG MG gunners don't. The reasoning for this has explained earlier in this thread when it wasn't at all about halftracks, I just now realized I've kinda hijacked this thread But as I have explained, my hypothesis is that those issues are connected. Have I come at any point during this discussion across as unkind or agitated? If so, I wasn't aware and apologize.
  8. I am sorry but how is that not totally controlled for by only counting the shots it took? Doesn't matter how long it took, doesn't matter how many people shot, etc. Especially with the new test where it's only a single guy. Does confirm what? Do you mean it is equally flawed in your estimation? No I haven't btw, not that it matters. The real question is, how does the game handle aiming? In my understanding it is mainly based on center of visible mass. Camouflage and whatnot is not at all taken into account IIRC. And please take a look at the pictures I've posted, I don't see how anyone could get to the conclusion the prone infantry man would be easier to hit. But thats exactly the (suicidal) behaviour one has to replicate at the moment, because... ...no it plainly doesn't. A halftrack gunner will NEVER EVER refrain from staying upright. Only by being told so or by dying will he leave his post, doesn't matter what experience or motivation he has. The only exception I know if is ratteling while the vehicle is immobilised, in that case I've seen crews abandon their vehicle entirely (and getting hit while doing so).
  9. Range 100, maximum zoom in each case
  10. Ok so I've made a revised version of the test based on some of the suggestions posted here. Shooter party: The shooting party is now an MG ammo bearer team with its headcount set to 50%, so it's only one guy with a Garand. The total ammo count at the beginning is now 1000 rounds instead of 1008 for some reason! This makes things a lot easier though and you don't have to pay attention for mid-air shots. The shooter now has a stone wall in front of him. This was done to make sure he always shoots from the same stance, since in some tests I've run the shooter started and fired from the prone position and in some cases he'd start and fire from the kneeling position. The fact that the headcount is at 50% somehow gives the shooter a -1 leadership modifier, nothing I could do about that. Target party: The targets remain largely the same. They're still fanatic but their experience is set to regular. No particular reason for the change, mostly to prevent any complains on that part. The truck driver has the stone wall in front of him removed, so he's lying on the ground and can not duck out of sight. Terrain: The short yellow grass between the shooter and the target is now pavement, so there should be no significant abstracted micro-cover bonuses anymore. Everything else remains unchanged, the denotation standard is also unchanged, so here's the results of my first 10 test runs each: vs HT: 001 - 02(K) 002 - 10(K) 003 - 03(K) 004 - 22(K) 005 - 11(K) 006 - 03(K) 007 - 15(K) 008 - 05(K) 009 - 12(K) 010 - 26(K) vs Inf: 001 - 18(K) 002 - 05(K) 003 - 07(K) 004 - 98(K) 005 - 05(K) 006 - 97(K) 007 - 04(W) 008 - 17(K) 009 - 21(K) 010 - 16(K) From what I can tell Steve was right and I greatly underestimated the effect of having to zero back in on a target that has ducked out of sight before. In none of the new test runs the shooter lost his spot on the target. So far I can't establish a clear trend, the visible target area of the HT gunner is still significantly smaller than the prone truck driver. Shooting at infantry also seems to be more susceptible to outliers (the two instances were it took nearly 100 shots). https://www.dropbox.com/s/fq1hfh4xm7qoafu/Accuracy%20Test%20Revised.zip?dl=0 Edit: Almost all of the test runs for the first test (vs HT) were over in under one minute, mostly due to the HT (and its gunner) beeing spotted almost immediately. The shooting vs Inf took longer on average, up to 6 minutes I think in the two outlier cases, but spotting also took much longer on average, between 30 seconds and one minute I believe. I didn't really note those informations because I don't think they matter in this test, just FYI.
  11. This is what I was trying to migitate by having the target kneeling. My assumption was that the microcover bonus from short grass (a few centimeters high, essentially football field grass height) for a kneeling target was zero. Either way using pavement should rule out the guess work.
  12. I agree, it could improve the comparability because the visible target area from the shooter POV would be more similar for each test case, at least if we keep the kneeling target behind a wall as it is now. I am thinking of redesigning the test so, that the target is lying down all the time but also visible all the time without any concealment by the short grass (as little as that may be). In that setup a Sdkfz 251 gunner would be more similar I think
  13. Thank you for joining in on this, I see you have the same concerns as I do and your observations seem to match up nicely with my own. I had thought about removing the stone wall, the effect is that the truck driver would never kneel and always be lying down. From the POV of the Garand guys this would mean the target is smaller and thus actually more comparable to the size of the visible area of a halftrack gunner. But it would also mean that shots would be fired while the truck diver is cowering due to the (light) suppression. While cowering doesn't reduce the actually visible target area, the mere "state change" does give some "soft" protection bonuses which mean that rounds, that otherwise would be counted as hits are counted as misses. At least that's how I think it works. If the stone wall is removed, I'd also replace all the short grass with pavement or something similar thats absolutely even and does nothing to conceal a lying down target.
  14. Ok, but this test is so simple there is really not much room for prioritisations. You've repeatedly written as if there was a whole squad of 11 guys with a variety of weapons firing in this test, but it's only two guys with Garands. And my and @sttp's observations so far seem to indicate that there isn't really a change of ROF of something alike. And since we are talking about accuracy, wouldn't a higher ROF further decrease the accuracy, thus increasing the number of shots it takes to take out a high priority target. Unless there is something in the Tac-AI that makes guys shoot less accurately than they possibly could because the target is just a truck driver and they don't really want to kill him I don't see the relevance of this. How could two guys with M1s "shoot harder" at a guy because he has a flamethrower or an MG that they could at a truck driver? I agree with all of the above, there is just nothing I as a regular player can do about that while testing. I guess using a single sniper or a single Garand shooter could help to decrease the cowering due less volume of fire and suppression but not entirely rule it out. One could also abort the test once the truck driver cowers for the first time but I suppose this would make comparing the test results almost impossible. But we know that the 3D model and its position in the 3D space has an impact on hit calculations. The question here is, whether the simple state change to cowering is giving some sort of extra survivability bonus distinct from the bonus that comes from the lowered stance and thus smaller target area. If you say this is so than this idea is moot, of course. Huh, why so? Besides, the issue does not seem to be with shots hitting the shield, but with shots hitting the tiny visible area of the top of the helmet or the tiny slit where the shield is open. Again, no squad at all present. Just a two-man team of M19A4 ammo bearers with M1 Garands and alot of ammo to fire. Snipers would be an option, though, but I wanted things to be as regular as it gets. Yes I do realize there is a difference, totally. I just took offense to you claiming the difference between a bag of meat and bag of meat that ducks out of sight was as siginificant as the difference in armor protection between a truck and a Tiger Seems like a potentially sound set-up to me. Except that I don't think several firing lanes in one "scenario" are a good idea. If a guy in one lane gets hit it still affects the "global morale" and thus the events are not totally secluded from one another. It's faster to test but I think it introduces more variables into the whole thing. Would you then only consider the "Hit" events and discard all "Cower" events? So only count the shots that occured between either the scenario start or a guy getting back up and the same guy getting hit? If thats the case I'd probably prefer to abort a test once a traget ducks and restart, so the effect of improved aiming at target that has been aimed and shoot at before doesn't come into play. Edit: Regarding the Elite/Fanatic setting I want to make clear that those were only the case for the TARGETS, all shooters were Reg/Normal/+0. My assumption was that Experience/Motivation/Leadership didn't matter when being shot at, since I didn't assume more experienced guys were able to somehow dodge bullet. If you're hit you're hit, doesn't matter if you are green or elite. In some cases I've tried with lower settings for the halftrack the crew could rattle and loose its covered arc or start backing away, the elite/fanatic setting prevents that pretty reliably, at least I haven't seen it happen with those settings so far.
  15. I've actually tried this before, but truck drivers tend to carry too little ammo for these test, they too often run out off ammo before hitting anything while MG ammo bearers have more than enough. I'll check if is possible to reduce their headcounts. Overall I dont think it matters though, as long as you keep the number of shooters the same for each test.
×