Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • Battlefront.com

      Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips   12/27/2016

      Hi all! Now that Upgrade 4 is out and about in large quantities we have now discovered a few SNAFUs that happen out in the scary, real world that is home computing.  Fortunately the rate of problems is extremely small and so far most are easily worked around.  We've identified a few issues that have similar causes which we have clear instructions for work arounds here they are: 1.  CMRT Windows customers need to re-license their original key.  This is a result of improvements to the licensing system which CMBN, CMBS, and CMFB are already using.  To do this launch CMRT with the Upgrade and the first time enter your Engine 4 key.  Exit and then use the "Activate New Products" shortcut in your CMRT folder, then enter your Engine 3 license key.  That should do the trick. 2.  CMRT and CMBN MacOS customers have a similar situation as #2, however the "Activate New Products" is inside the Documents folder in their respective CM folders.  For CMBN you have to go through the process described above for each of your license keys.  There is no special order to follow. 3.  For CMBS and CMFB customers, you need to use the Activate New Products shortcut and enter your Upgrade 4 key.  If you launch the game and see a screen that says "LICENSE FAILURE: Base Game 4.0 is required." that is an indication you haven't yet gone through that procedure.  Provided you had a properly functioning copy before installing the Upgrade, that should be all you need to do.  If in the future you have to install from scratch on a new system you'll need to do the same procedure for both your original license key and your Upgrade 4.0 key. 4.  There's always a weird one and here it is.  A few Windows users are not getting "Activate New Products" shortcuts created during installation.  Apparently anti-virus software is preventing the installer from doing its job.  This might not be a problem right now, but it will prove to be an issue at some point in the future.  The solution is to create your own shortcut using the following steps: Disable your anti-virus software before you do anything. Go to your Desktop, right click on the Desktop itself, select NEW->SHORTCUT, use BROWSE to locate the CM EXE that you are trying to fix. The location is then written out. After it type in a single space and then paste this:

      -showui

      Click NEXT and give your new Shortcut a name (doesn't matter what). Confirm that and you're done. Double click on the new Shortcut and you should be prompted to license whatever it is you need to license. At this time we have not identified any issues that have not been worked around.  Let's hope it stays that way Steve
    • Battlefront.com

      Forum Reorganization   10/12/2017

      We've reorganized our Combat Mission Forums to reflect the fact that most of you are now running Engine 4 and that means you're all using the same basic code.  Because of that, there's no good reason to have the discussion about Combat Mission spread out over 5 separate sets of Forums.  There is now one General Discussion area with Tech Support and Scenario/Mod Tips sub forums.  The Family specific Tech Support Forums have been moved to a new CM2 Archives area and frozen in place. You might also notice we dropped the "x" from distinguishing between the first generation of CM games and the second.  The "x" was reluctantly adopted back in 2005 or so because at the time we had the original three CM games on European store shelves entitled CM1, CM2, and CM3 (CMBO, CMBB, and CMAK).  We didn't want to cause confusion so we added the "x".  Time has moved on and we have to, so the "x" is now gone from our public vocabulary as it has been from our private vocabulary for quite a while already.  Side note, Charles *NEVER* used the "x" so now we're all speaking the same language as him.  Which is important since he is the one programming them

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Drifter Man said:

First of all, some more notes:

  • there is no discernible difference in MP44 and Sten effectiveness whether it is fired by a Leader or a Soldier. I am showing Leader data only.
  • similarly, there is no conclusive evidence that Sten Mk II and Mk IV are any different. I am showing Sten Mk II data only.
  • MP44, Bren and B.A.R. switch from full auto to semi-auto fire above 150 meters, so there is a step change in the results between 120 and 160 meters where I ran the tests
  • the statistics may still not be good enough for weapons achieving few kills at long distances, so the results for rifles at the edge of their range are indicative rather than accurate.

Firepower

First note: the vertical axis is in log scale, otherwise the drop in firepower with distance would drown out all detail. I'll post the excel file so you can make any graphs you want.

Bolt-action rifles are at the bottom, Lee-Enfield appears to be superior to Kar 98K. Semi-auto rifles are better, both M1 Garand and Gewehr 43 are on the same level together with the MP44 (when fired in semi-auto mode). All SMGs are better than all rifles over their entire range up to 200 m. MP40 and Sten have very similar performance, Thompson is the most powerful SMG. MP44 is less powerful than SMGs but is in the same league with them until the 150 m mark. Bren and B.A.R. are generally in the league with SMGs as well but, of course, keep going beyond 200 m. The B.A.R. is inferior to the Bren, apparently due to its smaller magazine, and therefore lower average rate of fire. MG42 beats everything by a wide margin except the sniper rifle. The scoped rifle benefits much less from closing the range than the other weapons.

XvVrOsI.png

The only problem from my perspective is that SMGs keep their high performance out to 200 m. Their firepower does not fall much with distance in the outer part of their range, and as we will see, their accuracy (on "bodies per round" basis) is constant or even rises between 120 and 200 m.

VVHI1N6.png

[more to come]

 

Wow, these are excellent tests.

They reflect quite well what I always thought does not feel right in the game. A modern assault rifle like the MP44 should be combining the best of machine pistols and rifles, but the model in the game does not reflect that.

I think Red Thunder begs for these tests. The PPSH models seem totally off (how can such a machine pistol be more efficient than highly accurate rifles and the german assault rifle?).

Edited by CarlWAW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Erwin said:

"Most of us *do* want to see things get better / fixed."

Of course we do.  But there is so much.  Need to prioritize what can be accomplished with available resources is what am saying.  Worrying about such detail is akin to worrying about how many rivets are on the underside of the Pz Mk xyzv4.

Why does it matter to you in the end? BFC ultimately decides how to spend their time and resources on improving the game. The data presented by @Drifter Man is based on good, solid observations - the sort of thing that makes the game better. 

Edited by LukeFF

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, CarlWAW said:

I think Red Thunder begs for these tests. The PPSH models seem totally off (how can such a machine pistol be more efficient than highly accurate rifles and the german assault rifle?).

Why not? Trajectory was flat enough to hit full height targets (running soldier) up to 300-350 metres. If you aim in head with sight set on "2", you hit legs. 0,5 m height targets - up to 200 metres. Actually 230-240 metres, but there was no such sight, only 100 and 200.

Edited by DMS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, Erwin said:

Lots of things need to be improved.  This doesn't improve anything.  It simply puts yet more items for people to complain about and on BF's "to do" list - and they are probably overloaded as it is.  Have to be cognizant of priorities.  The game will never be perfect, there will always be compromises.  In terms of creating a fun and rewarding wargame experience, verisimilitude is much more important than getting technical physics aspects accurate.  

Would you argue the same thing about flight simulations, such as IL2, DCS, Steel Beasts etc? CM leans more towards being a simulation  than others depicting tactical land combat on the same level.

Sure, all of these are games and of course allowances, compromises and unrealistic elements are included and indeed necessary to make them more playable and enjoyable. But for some of us, the small details are an important, interesting and fun aspect. Witness passionate discussions on IL2 forums about topics like whether the German 20mm cannon shells are a bit underpowered, if the engine on the FW190 on the Russian Front has been de-rated, to extend engine life, too much in the game; or in DCS about such things as perhaps the field-of-view of the seeker on the AIM-9L or whatever is too small :D

Like you say, the game will never be perfect, but it is fun trying is it not? :)

 

Edited by Lee Vincent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fascinating - and useful! Thank you for taking the considerable time to do it.

It would be wonderful to see something similar for modern weapons in CMBS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
Quote

Why not? Trajectory was flat enough to hit full height targets (running soldier) up to 300-350 metres. If you aim in head with sight set on "2", you hit legs. 0,5 m height targets - up to 200 metres. Actually 230-240 metres, but there was no such sight, only 100 and 200.

@DMS

I guess thats the reason why today every army uses PPSHs and machine pistols and not assault rifles? ;)

 

Explain to me one thing, if the PPSH (or other machine pistols) was modelled correctly:

Battle for Berlin, the Russians:

Total operational dominance? Check.

Air superiority? Check.

Outnumbered the defender operationally and on the tactical level by multitudes? Check.

More than enough artillery? Check.

 

All that remains, to prevent a total wipeout of the defender and have a walk in the park, is at the tactical level things could go wrong.

And here comes CM's machine pistol model into play: lets assume the model was correct. So the side which has more machine pistols, has a huge advantage. That's what CM shows. Correct?

 

If the machine pistol model in CM was correct, that a squad equipped with them is quite easily capable to wipe out any other infantry within 50 meters without machine pistols, how is it possible, that the Russians suffered MUCH HIGHER LOSSES at the tactical level despite their CM-modelled PPSHs? Were the German Volkssturm and Hitlerjugend superhuman? I don't think so.

 

Let's have a look at the numbers: from roughly 34 million men and women in the Russian Army 84% (eightyfour!) fell, were wounded or captured! 84%!

Can anyone imagine Eisenhower, Patton or any other western commander, presenting himself as glorious victor, his army and his doctrine superior to all others, like the Russian commanders did, if an Eisenhower or Patton would have lost more than 80% of their men? Unimaginable. From a military standpoint IMO the numbers reflect a total disaster.

While German eastern front fighters reported, that the Russian Army in 1944 was more capable than in 1942, one thing didn't change: the Russians EVEN AT THE END suffered much heavier losses against outnumbered and undersupplied Germans. Even in the battle for Berlin, where the Germans lacked almost everything, the Russians bleeded out like a bucket with holes.

How is it possible, to suffer higher losses than the defender under the mentioned circumstances, if the CM machine pistol model was correct?

You can't get the real world results in CM, even if you try, as soon as machine pistols are involved.

 

Another argument that shows, that something is off with CM's machine pistol model:

If the model was correct, why were machine pistols abandoned all over the world for assault rifles?

The simple answer: the PPSH/machine pistol model in CM currently is not reflecting reality.

If I would guess, I'd say that machine pistols are WAAAY to deadly. They should be good for supressing only (and quickly running out of ammo, which I think is modelled correctly). But they should be awful for hitting anything further away than a few meters.

Shooting more bullets into one direction does not make the bullets hit better! Therefore the HANDLING of automatic weapons is significant. How good are they to get more than one bullet on the target (and also hit with single shots)?

THAT's why assault rifles are so much better than machine pistols!

CM does not seem to model that.

 

That brings up my third argument:

Btw it's also the reason, why the MG42 was such an incredible weapon for that time. Not because of the rounds it fires, which everybody focuses on, but because it gets the rounds on the target! Even more with the great tripod. With the tripod it is almost an insult to compare it to a Maxim! Nobody can aim with a Maxim and get a few bullets on a target - but even rookies can shoot with a MG42! It's like night and day.

I guess the difference is as big as machine pistols to assault rifles.

Quality of weapons does matter.

Edited by CarlWAW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man. What @Drifter Man has done is well put together and a good analysis. Let's not spend any more time talking about the silly opinions of erwin. It you look back at his posts you will see him complain bitterly over other things that *he* thinks are wrong with the game. That and a flip flop back and forth on issues too. Just ignore him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IanL said:

Oh man. What @Drifter Man has done is well put together and a good analysis. Let's not spend any more time talking about the silly opinions of erwin. It you look back at his posts you will see him complain bitterly over other things that *he* thinks are wrong with the game. That and a flip flop back and forth on issues too. Just ignore him.

Did someone just bring up my name...Oh never mind, your referring to Erwin :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, CarlWAW said:

@DMS

I guess thats the reason why today every army uses PPSHs and machine pistols and not assault rifles? ;)

 

Explain to me one thing, if the PPSH (or other machine pistols) was modelled correctly:

Battle for Berlin, the Russians:

Total operational dominance? Check.

Air superiority? Check.

Outnumbered the defender operationally and on the tactical level by multitudes? Check.

More than enough artillery? Check.

 

All that remains, to prevent a total wipeout of the defender and have a walk in the park, is at the tactical level things could go wrong.

And here comes CM's machine pistol model into play: lets assume the model was correct. So the side which has more machine pistols, has a huge advantage. That's what CM shows. Correct?

 

If the machine pistol model in CM was correct, that a squad equipped with them is quite easily capable to wipe out any other infantry within 50 meters without machine pistols, how is it possible, that the Russians suffered MUCH HIGHER LOSSES at the tactical level despite their CM-modelled PPSHs? Were the German Volkssturm and Hitlerjugend superhuman? I don't think so.

 

Let's have a look at the numbers: from roughly 34 million men and women in the Russian Army 84% (eightyfour!) fell, were wounded or captured! 84%!

Can anyone imagine Eisenhower, Patton or any other western commander, presenting himself as glorious victor, his army and his doctrine superior to all others, like the Russian commanders did, if an Eisenhower or Patton would have lost more than 80% of their men? Unimaginable. From a military standpoint IMO the numbers reflect a total disaster.

While German eastern front fighters reported, that the Russian Army in 1944 was more capable than in 1942, one thing didn't change: the Russians EVEN AT THE END suffered much heavier losses against outnumbered and undersupplied Germans. Even in the battle for Berlin, where the Germans lacked almost everything, the Russians bleeded out like a bucket with holes.

How is it possible, to suffer higher losses than the defender under the mentioned circumstances, if the CM machine pistol model was correct?

You can't get the real world results in CM, even if you try, as soon as machine pistols are involved.

 

Another argument that shows, that something is off with CM's machine pistol model:

If the model was correct, why were machine pistols abandoned all over the world for assault rifles?

The simple answer: the PPSH/machine pistol model in CM currently is not reflecting reality.

If I would guess, I'd say that machine pistols are WAAAY to deadly. They should be good for supressing only (and quickly running out of ammo, which I think is modelled correctly). But they should be awful for hitting anything further away than a few meters.

Shooting more bullets into one direction does not make the bullets hit better! Therefore the HANDLING of automatic weapons is significant. How good are they to get more than one bullet on the target (and also hit with single shots)?

THAT's why assault rifles are so much better than machine pistols!

CM does not seem to model that.

 

That brings up my third argument:

Btw it's also the reason, why the MG42 was such an incredible weapon for that time. Not because of the rounds it fires, which everybody focuses on, but because it gets the rounds on the target! Even more with the great tripod. With the tripod it is almost an insult to compare it to a Maxim! Nobody can aim with a Maxim and get a few bullets on a target - but even rookies can shoot with a MG42! It's like night and day.

I guess the difference is as big as machine pistols to assault rifles.

Quality of weapons does matter.

I can agree with some aspects of this, but other parts of your Statement are not quite right...I'm sure others will chime in shortly for discussion.

*On a side Note*....Damn, Carl, your starting to sound like me at times.

 

Edited by JoMc67

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, IanL said:

Oh man. What @Drifter Man has done is well put together and a good analysis. Let's not spend any more time talking about the silly opinions of erwin. It you look back at his posts you will see him complain bitterly over other things that *he* thinks are wrong with the game. That and a flip flop back and forth on issues too. Just ignore him.

There are so many major things that one could complain about like the LOS and UI issues.  But what has become apparent is that when certain people complain about THEIR issues, they feel that they should be taken seriously - as in the above.  But, when others of us point out other inconsistencies and issues that we believe should be looked at, somehow we are somehow not in the "same privileged club" and therefore our comments are not to be taken seriously.  We end up with the incongruity of a player who hasn't bothered to even play a full campaign to conclusion, so hasn't even taken the trouble to experience or understand the full features of CM2, making snarky comments about people who make comments that he disagrees with. 

The technique is always the same.  Turn an opinion one doesn't like into a personal attack - thus admitting that you lost the argument.  All in an effort to suppress alternative views.  (Then those types of people are surprised when in a secret vote Trump gets elected.)

Edited by Erwin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ts4EVER said:

I think the effectiveness of the PPsh41 in Red Thunder compared to other smgs comes down to rate of fire and the fact that it is used en masse.

Look at the chart. The MP44 is performing even slightly worse than machine pistols...

Have you played Red Thunder? You don't feel that machine pistols are totally sniping miracles beyond 30 meters, while the assault rifle doesn't deliver a better hit rate? My impression from playing CM is exactly what these charts show. The MP44 is modelled as a (bad) machine pistol, but not as assault rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Erwin said:

There are so many major things that one could complain about like the LOS and UI issues.  But what has become apparent is that when certain people complain about THEIR issues, they feel that they should be taken seriously - as in the above.  But, when others of us point out other inconsistencies and issues that we believe should be looked at, somehow we are somehow not in the "same privileged club" and therefore our comments are not to be taken seriously.  We end up with the incongruity of a player who hasn't bothered to even play a full campaign to conclusion, so hasn't even taken the trouble to experience or understand the full features of CM2, making snarky comments about people who make comments that he disagrees with. 

The technique is always the same.  Turn an opinion one doesn't like into a personal attack - thus admitting that you lost the argument.  All in an effort to suppress alternative views.  (Then those types of people are surprised when in a secret vote Trump gets elected.)

Thou, I overall think, IanL, is generally a good guy here on the CM Forums, and most part stays neutral...Maybe he just gone a little overboard this round.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, CarlWAW said:

Look at the chart. The MP44 is performing even slightly worse than machine pistols...

Have you played Red Thunder? You don't feel that machine pistols are totally sniping miracles beyond 30 meters, while the assault rifle doesn't deliver a better hit rate? My impression from playing CM is exactly what these charts show. The MP44 is modelled as a (bad) machine pistol, but not as assault rifle.

The MP44 is so rare in Red Thunder that making a comparison is almost impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, CarlWAW said:

@DMS

I guess thats the reason why today every army uses PPSHs and machine pistols and not assault rifles? ;)

 

1) Do you know German losses during battle for Berlin? I don't.  Did someone count volksgrenadiers and remnats of different units from different branches?

2) Most of all losses were taken in 1941-1942, when USSR was close to defeat. Men were drafted from towns near frontline and were given minimum training. Units were called "rifle", but in fact it was militia. Light infantry with 2 lmgs per platoon acording to TO&E, if fact lower. Germans were in same situation in 1945, but prefered to surrender instead of taking casualties with awfull loss ratios. That's why German losses are lower.

Distribution of losses:
1941 21%
1942 30%
1943 23%
1944 18%
1945 8%

Don't forget that RKKA had to move forward from Moscow to Berlin, and Germans were the best in defence. +low mechanisation, low chances to surround Germans after succesfull breakthrough, low chances to exchange losses, taken while breakthrough.

3) Drawbacks of submachienguns are well known, low fire distance. PPSh was perfect <200 metres, but useless at >300.
Dispersion of PPSh is known. Ballistic is known. If game simulates this correctly, what is wrong? BFC should nerf PPSh because it is SMG class that should be inaccurate? :) According to PPSh manual 56x54 cm area is hit with 50% probability at 200 metres. (In short burst mode, single fire - 42x41) What I see in the game is close to that, I think. As my expirience shows, good gun and good shooter can show accuracy much better than is written in manuals. I saw photo of A4 targets with 5 shot groups, 15 cm. Not much worse than SKS or AK. All that with almost zero recoil! Last is most important. That's why PPSh is better than Stg-44 or Ak at <200 metres.

The best proof is creating of SMG platoons in every rifle company in 1943. That is not shown in the game now, it was in CMBB. Experience of SMG companies, that were created in 1941, considered succesfull. And I didn't see any document, where SMGs were critisised for low distance or low accuracy.

P.S. Sorry for bad grammatics.

Edited by DMS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so just to go off topic a bit more...JoMc67 didn't say that... that was Erwin... and, to do a bad misquote is more than enough reason for you to stop posting "weapon2010" even if it might have been a "mistake" or worse on purpose...

 

I applaud Drifter Man  for his dedication, I hiss and boo Erwin for his usual thread crapping. I take umbrage on Jon and DMS's inability to have better facts with there debate.

And while the sup/machine bullets can fly flat at over 100m... holding one steady to burst out to 100m+ is the real issue. Have any of you ever held an mp5 up to your face and shoot out to 200m... lol on any steady aim, don't even think about burst. Ya the game has an issue with this.  recoil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, kklownboy said:

lol on any steady aim, don't even think about burst. Ya the game has an issue with this.  recoil

I think you hit the nail on the head there.  If you look at automatic fire in CM, it pretty much follows a laser.  Recoil seems like it would be fairly simple to model and might deal with some of the issues here?

The Sturmgewehr already fires semi auto at long ranges, right?

This is all speculation anyway, since we know CM has a "save roll" that occurs on infantry when they're hit.  Maybe "Rock and Roll" mode has a penalty to that? Who knows?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Freyberg said:

It would be wonderful to see something similar for modern weapons in CMBS.

I hope to finish CMBN but want to wait until it gets updated, but don't plan to go do CMSF/CMBS as I don't even own these titles. But if someone wants to give it a try, I can share my tools - I have a script that runs the tests and counts casualties, so measuring "bodies per minute" mostly about setting it up and letting the computer run overnight. Unfortunately, rate of fire (ammo consumption) still has to be counted manually, which is annoying.

8 hours ago, IanL said:

Oh man. What @Drifter Man has done is well put together and a good analysis. Let's not spend any more time talking about the silly opinions of erwin. It you look back at his posts you will see him complain bitterly over other things that *he* thinks are wrong with the game. That and a flip flop back and forth on issues too. Just ignore him.

Oh that's ok - I understand his point that you don't need these numbers to enjoy the game, and respect his opinion that there may be other important things to work on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I read through the MP44 vs SMG debate, I think it's useful to show some graphs in normal rather than log scale. It gives a better idea of the absolute differences between the individual weapons. So, this is firepower and accuracy for rifles and SMGs only:

LZ22bxn.png

eMw1bhJ.png

For instance it shows clearly that the superiority of the Thompson over the other SMGs (Sten, MP40) is significant, by about 20%. It also illustrates the main question I have: As could be expected, the firepower of rifles goes to nearly nothing at their maximum range (Kar 98K and Lee Enfield will engage enemy within their target arcs up to about 320 m, Gewehr 43 and Garand up to ca 400 m, but I couldn't make all teams shoot at 400 m so 320 m is their maximum here). On the other hand, the SMGs keep their high firepower - same level as rifles at 80-120 m - out to their maximum range, where they suddenly stop.

Whatever the weapon is and however it works, wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that it's power will decrease with distance until almost zero, rather than staying high and then ending abruptly? Also, wouldn't it be reasonable that fewer kills should be achieved per round fired as distance increases? Neither of this applies to SMGs in CMBN.

1 hour ago, HerrTom said:

The Sturmgewehr already fires semi auto at long ranges, right?

Yes, it switches to semi-auto at 150 m, which you can see as a sudden increase in accuracy between 120 and 160 meters (yellow line).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Drifter Man said:

wouldn't it be reasonable to expect that it's power will decrease with distance until almost zero

I think I remember Steve saying that SMGs actually have a hard cap on distance to avoid this particular problem. When the effectiveness goes to zero, your units will waste ammunition (easy with SMGs) with little effect.  So they have a hard range cap so SMGs won't fire unless they have a chance of causing damage.  Maybe it's too much damage, though :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

...Maybe he just gone a little overboard this round.

Probably. Sometimes I just get a little frustrated with people poo pooing on good and interesting investigations saying it is a waste of time because their pet peeve is more important. Sigh. I have people like that on my ignore list so I don't get annoyed :) I do have to admit that occasionally reading Thier defence that they are the victims of what they do themselves. That is kinda funny. Anyway I am hoping this stays on topic because what @Drifter Man is doing is interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×