Jump to content

Armor far too accurate...


Recommended Posts

The target aquire and fire mechanic's maybe left over from CM; Shock Force, too modern. German turrets were slow and they couldn't shoot on the move. US turrets were faster and with the gyrostabilizer they could shoot while moving. These first shot hits are too many and far too accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. With the full game, I have notice a lot of first shot misses. I don't think that anything is wrong with the accuracy.

2. German turrets were not necessarily slow. A panther could rotated its turret 360 degrees in 15-18 seconds; a Pz IV took 25 seconds, a Tiger 2 took 12 seconds.

3. US turrets were not necessarily fast - while a Sherm could rotate its turret 360 in 15 seconds, it took an M10 21/2-3 *minutes*.

4. The gyrostabilizer didn't really allow shooting on the move in the modern sense - it only stabilized the gun on the vertical axis. But it might allow faster gunlaying after stopping, since the gunner might only have to adjust laterally (assuming (a) the vertical adjustment is correct; and (B) the stabilizer wasn't disconnected, which was common.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Time for me to chime in on this debate I think.

Armoured combat in CMBN has been subject to hundreds, probably thousands of hours of play testing by dedicated, hard-core wargamers who want to help produce a top class game. Upthread Steve said that although it wasn't perfect he is happy that this aspect of the game is about right.

Nobody posting here has any first-hand experience of armoured warfare in WWII, we have got our impressions of what it was like and what was possible and what was routine from reading accounts (not all of which are either first-hand or accurate) and from playing other wargames. Some of us have read widely and some have being playing wargames for decades. However, what we each have is a subjective opinion.

Along comes the demo in which there is one scenario involving armour v armor combat. Some people see some events in that scenario which don't fit with their opinion of what would routinely happen in such combat in WWII. Suddenly all the play testing is called into question, there is even a suggestion that BF have reused unaltered code from CMSF (surely one of the most insulting comments ever seen on these boards). Come on, guys!

Since the demo came out I have probably played the game at least as much as any here (one of the joys of being retired) and I have seen just one shot from a Panther that made me think, "WTF". In war sh*t and luck happens, so one "iffy" shot out of hundreds should I shout and scream?

A few days play of, mostly, one scenario (the full version hasn't been out for 24 hours yet) is no valid basis for a judgement on whether this aspect of the game is about right or off the mark. Additionally, if after more play and testing you want to get something changed saying it feels wrong won't get you anywhere, because all you are saying is that your opinion, based on a few dozen hours of play, should trump that of the beta testers and the BF people themselves, who have a much longer and wider experience of what the game delivers.

As I know from the early days of CMBO, when I was bitching like mad about the performance of MGs in that game, if you want to shift Steve and co you need facts and a well reasoned argument and, I suggest, to show some respect to the work that the Beta Testers have put in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And have we done some tests ..... I spend the better part of 3,5 days accumulating observation data on specific issue ( Sherman vs PzIV' first-hit %'s at various ranges) given an issue Steve mentioned after Bil Hardenberger's AAR. Many, many hours were spend by beta testers looking/ comparing certain issues with Charles' programming results. Nothing is obviously the last word, but nothing also will be changed by BFC just because somebody voiced an opinion and based it solely.... on an opinion.

"This feels wrong" = only the starting point of the experiment. You better show us some empirical tests by running 'some' samples, compared against, at a minimum, some referenced historical result/data.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I ask all of you participating in this thread to act as emissaries in the hundreds of threads yet to be created on this topic :D It will help out the community as a whole to have as many people as possible recounting the previous discussions so we don't have to start from scratch each time. Here's the basic information we can provide:

No aspect of CM:BN was tested with more scrutiny, passion, and boring tabulation of "scientific tests" than gunnery (of all types). After many hundreds of tester posts (one thread was at 300+ about a SINGLE aspect of this topic) and more carefully crafted tests than I can count, we can say with great confidence that there are no systemic problems with gunnery or their effects. Some minor rough edges in specific areas here and there? Sure, I don't doubt that. But NO systemic problems.

It is very, very easy to take anecdotal game results and come to the conclusion that there's a problem. In fact, that's how all of our tester's bug posts started out with. Most of them were either completely disproven with further testing, or there was some degree of an issue that did lead to a fix/tweak. On a couple of occasions we had some really significant problems that were addressed. Two years of testing is a long time :D

Keep in mind that anything under 1000m is optimal engagement range for most tanks most of the time. Anything under 500m is near "point blank range" for all tanks. First shot hits under 1000m should be very frequent. First shot misses under 500m should be very infrequent. Well, under at least decent combat conditions with decent crews, of course.

Remember, it is at about 1500m where the German tanks start to really pull away from the average Allied tank in terms of performance. Which is one reason why the Germans didn't do as well in Normandy as they would have liked. The terrain was unfavorable for long distance engagements, so one of the best advantages of the Germans was neutralized through natural factors.

Armor is another interesting thing. Although the Sherman 75 is made fun of by most wargamers, at sub 1000m ranges it's more than a match for anything the Germans have *other* than the Panther, Tigers, Jagdpanther, and Jagdtiger. Even then, if the Sherman gets a flank shot even the "big cats" can fall pretty quickly. On the other hand, the later model Shermans in the game are actually pretty good defensively against tanks armed with various forms of Pak40/KwK L/43. Not so good against the bigger guns ;) These theories have been tested hard against battlefield results (including a great British survey of 40+ knocked out Shermans) and found to be well simulated in the game.

Hope that helps!

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers Steve - I think many of us in this thread were beginning to come around to the "there's not much wrong with the accuracy" side.

However, the thread has given rise to concerns over the move-and-shoot issue - can you give us any more info about that please ?

I ( and several others it seems ) was always under the impression that this was unlikely for WWII era AFV's - at least with the main gun.

Happy to be disabused if my perception is incorrect, but it's being brought up because we don't really know for sure ( I'm sure you guys have read and studied a lot more on the subject than [some of] us )

Edit : D*mn you, Gryphonne ! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cheers Steve - I think many of us in this thread were beginning to come around to the "there's not much wrong with the accuracy" side.

However, the thread has given rise to concerns over the move-and-shoot issue - can you give us any more info about that please ?

I ( and several others it seems ) was always under the impression that this was unlikely for WWII era AFV's - at least with the main gun.

Happy to be disabused if my perception is incorrect, but it's being brought up because we don't really know for sure ( I'm sure you guys have read and studied a lot more on the subject than [some of] us )

Edit : D*mn you, Gryphonne ! :D

Getting a little slow there are we? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feared there might be a problem of instant Spotting/Reaction with CM:BN, and agree with few of the posters above...

For me, the main problem is not the 'Hit Chance' per say ( as flight characteristics have been taken care of ), but rather the spotting and total reaction time for everything leading up for that possible shot, and BF may need to tweak it abit more.

For even Unbuttoned Armored or Field Piece crews, you still need to scan the battlefield, locate a target, and finally give orders to engage. This to me should take several seconds to accomplish, and longer if buttoned ( depending on crew quality, range, and other factors ).

We don't know how BF handles is spotting/reaction times, but some examples below could apply:

- Observer: If just stationary for the first minute, then use base line seconds to spot/react to target. Minus seconds off baseline if he is stationary for more then a minute.

- Target: if stationary then add to baseline seconds to spot, but if moving then minus.

- Target Cover: If stationary then add to baseline seconds, but if moving then minus.

- Crew quality ( plus or minus off baseline seconds to spot/react depending on quality ).

There may be several other items to consider, but this gives you a few examples to consider.

Also keep in mind, that its actually harder to hit something at close range that has just moved in your sights...A quick shot tends to take place over a timed shot.

Basically, spotting is the main point to consider and how the AI handles it...Firing the shot itself is the easier point.

In regards to CMx1...

Yes, in many cases the 'Hit Chance' does seem low as shots are generally taken even if there is only a 1-5% percent chance of a hit ( in RL, shots that are below a 10-25% would probably not be taken in the first place ). However, due to the fast spotting and borg spotting the results tends to be the same.

Joe

I totally agree with you Joe. The Ultrafast Spotting and Targeting was one of the Points i didnt even liked in the CMSF Super Abrahms. Track&Engage was too fast even in an M1 CMSF.

Hope they do something about the Times from Seeing a Target to Shooting it.

I just seen the same Things in Game. io Played over 500Hours and more CMBB and Tanks wherent that fast in Spot&Fire&Kill like in Cmbb or CMBO. It feels more like CMSF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keep in mind that anything under 1000m is optimal engagement range for most tanks most of the time. Anything under 500m is near "point blank range" for all tanks. First shot hits under 1000m should be very frequent. First shot misses under 500m should be very infrequent. Well, under at least decent combat conditions with decent crews, of course.

Steve

Then Cmx1 was wrong? I had way longer Reaction Times with similar Panther in Cmx1 and much lesser Accuracy on Moving Tagerts, Hull Down Targets and on 800m

I dont want to be Rude or say that "You are wrong blah" but isnt it strange that People start playing the Demo and come here bevore they find that Threat here and see similar Results?

I started my Threat about exactly the Same Topic 2 Days bevore i found that Threat here.

The Outcome compared to Cmx1 is diffrent. Tanks are more effective in Tankcombat now. Not just the Panther.

So Question again is:"Was cmx1 wrong?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I totally agree with you Joe. The Ultrafast Spotting and Targeting was one of the Points i didnt even liked in the CMSF Super Abrahms. Track&Engage was too fast even in an M1 CMSF.

Hope they do something about the Times from Seeing a Target to Shooting it.

I just seen the same Things in Game. io Played over 500Hours and more CMBB and Tanks wherent that fast in Spot&Fire&Kill like in Cmbb or CMBO. It feels more like CMSF

I cant speak for CMSF but I agree it definitely feels much much more fast reacting and accurate than in CMx1 at least around the 500m-1000m bracket which is where I ve seen this incidents so far. And specially when it comes to firing in motion.

As mentioned before, it probably is a bit too early and obviosuly there is still not enough evidence, but sure as hell it feels differnet than CMx1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just kicked up a CMAK vs. CM:BN (At ELITE level) comparison scenario:

2 M4A3W vs. Pz VA (early) at 2000 meters (completely open terrain). Not fair but thats not the point :)

In CMAK all tanks were instantly spotted by one another. In CM:BN It varied from 8 seconds (Panther 1 seeing M4) to 30 seconds (Panter 2 seing M4, from 13 seconds (M4 seeing Panther that by that time fired) to 26 seconds (M4 2 seeing Panther).

Panther 1 needed four shots to score a hit (historical number at that range). To hit the other M4 it needed one shot (luck or ranging now being correct? You test more and find out :).

Didn´t feel wrong in this one run because in CMAK the Pantehr hit on round two.

The one truly disturbing discovery though was that the M4´s in CM:BN did not fire their guns even though they had spotted the Panthers, unless specifically ordered to do so! Nore did they visibly seek cover (there was non) or pop smoke. If this was an example of the "I cannot defeat that tank with my gun tac AI defence SOP" then it failed compared to the CMAK M4´s that started evasive manouvers, shooting smoke, popping smoke almost at once (First they fired a couple of AP rounds though).

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, in regards to CMx1, I also thought the spotting was to quick most of the time, and made things worse with the dreaded 'Borg-Spotting'. However, it did take several shots to achieve a hit, and so the end result would be about the same.

I would always let the AI handle the firing ( unless I use Area-Fire ), and I never use the targeting order at beginning of turn as I didnt want to add a hand in the already fast targeting ability of the AI.

I remember a qoute from someone here regarding CMx1 and it might be from DieselTaylor..."Things just happen to fast".

I think its important that a game should also "Feel Right" ( soft-science ) in order to achieve the results your looking for, and not just rely on the calculations alone needed in the firing process ( hard-science ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think its important that a game should also "Feel Right""

Feel right to who? Your idea of what is right may be very different to my idea which is probably different to the guy next door's idea.

Comparing CMBN with CMx1 is a mugs game, you might just as well compare it Panzer Leader or ASL. All are different games. Additionally as you well know by now, BF are never going to make a change on "it doesn't feel right".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one truly disturbing discovery though was that the M4´s in CM:BN did not fire their guns even though they had spotted the Panthers, unless specifically ordered to do so! Nore did they visibly seek cover (there was non) or pop smoke. If this was an example of the "I cannot defeat that tank with my gun tac AI defence SOP" then it failed compared to the CMAK M4´s that started evasive manouvers, shooting smoke, popping smoke almost at once (First they fired a couple of AP rounds though).

Never quoted myself before but this question begs answering. Something is definitely off here. Be it the Tac AI routine or something else but it should not play out like this.

M.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think its important that a game should also "Feel Right""

Feel right to who? Your idea of what is right may be very different to my idea which is probably different to the guy next door's idea.

Comparing CMBN with CMx1 is a mugs game, you might just as well compare it Panzer Leader or ASL. All are different games. Additionally as you well know by now, BF are never going to make a change on "it doesn't feel right".

First off and last off:

Any game is designed foremost to have that "Feel Right" notion when played out ( which happens to be the hardest part when developing a game ). A developer puts several hours into a game that not only includes Statistics/calculations ( hard science ), but more importanly how the rest of the game might be played out as a whole in RL...This includes such things such as ( soft-science ):

- How well do you incorporate Moral

- How well do you incorporate the Quality of Troops

- How well do you incorporate Fatigue

- How well do you incoroporate Reaction/spotting

- How well does Black-Cat handle losing a discussion

If you have incorporated the above ( and many more ), and "FEEL" like you've accomplished this in a game...Then hence, the game "Feels and Plays out Right".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given we are having to suspend real-life the game has to be enjoyable AND feel right. Now of course not every ones definition of enjoyable and feel right are going to coincide however a designer may reach a place where the majority of buyers are happy.

Now it is just possible : ) or in fact likely that some of the audience might need to be persuaded that what they have seen on TV or at the movies is not real warfare. We also have the fact that the records of what happened in WW2 can disagree, and given the number of instances anything that could conceivably happen probably did - twice.

So good game design has to be an art. And an art of the possible given the very real limitations of computers and players having real lives.

And yes I think the armour is bust - probably too much CMSF left in the code :) As for comparing hits from one CM WW2 to another I rather thought the underlying statistics would be the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And yes I think the armour is bust "

All those hours put in by the developers and the testers were just wasted - a key part of the game is bust. Surely if BF were an honourable company they would withdraw it from sale, or at the very least stick a health warning in it:

"Dear Potential Customer,

After many decades of man years of development we finally released CMBN. However, since some of our custoemrs have been playing for as long as a few days we now realise that we got it very wrong. If you really want to by this game you should be aware that:

The armour v armour system is broken

The artillery, particullarly the mortar fire, is fundamentally flawed

The Terrain is uncessarily complicated leading to players having to look and think

The placing of units is too simple

Purchasing of units for Qick battles is too complex

Having a full chain of command and modest C2 rules beyond platoon level is unecessary

The user interface sucks, giving too much information and not enough

And, generally, we now realise that we should have stopped at CMAK because everything we have done is a backard step in the eyes of at least one of our user base.

We apologise to those who have already purchased this game who wished they had bought soemthing else. However, we will not be giving refunds because, actually, most people who bought it take it on its merits for what it is (a whole new game and not a revamp of one 12 years old) and are thouroughly enjoying it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then Cmx1 was wrong? I had way longer Reaction Times with similar Panther in Cmx1 and much lesser Accuracy on Moving Tagerts, Hull Down Targets and on 800m

I dont want to be Rude or say that "You are wrong blah" but isnt it strange that People start playing the Demo and come here bevore they find that Threat here and see similar Results?

I started my Threat about exactly the Same Topic 2 Days bevore i found that Threat here.

The Outcome compared to Cmx1 is diffrent. Tanks are more effective in Tankcombat now. Not just the Panther.

So Question again is:"Was cmx1 wrong?"

Yes, i always felt in that regard it was. I had raised that question several times, but have always been ignored. :D Finally this has changed.

In reality there was a big difference between an average or a very good tank commander. Look how much battles RKT Wittman had survived with a StuG. That's because in reality the better commander was the one, who maneuvered the enemy out (is that correct in english?). That means, the one who estimated the range correctly and shot first, usually was the winner. In CMx1 first hit probabilites were that low, that even outmaneuvering the enemy, could easily result becoming knocked out after the third successful shoot-first engagement. Therefore in CMx1 you needed to stack two or even three tanks, that open simultaneously fire on the oponent, to get realistical results.

Now that has finally changed. :thumbsup:

We now should experience, that with CMBN a single tank, that is maneuvered well, will not only get off the first shot, but this will have the consequence it really had: it will hit with his first shot with a much higher probability (still according to unit quality, too ofcourse) and in many cases deny the enemy to even shoot back. Therefore now we can expect that good players will be able to knock out much more enemy tanks without stacking.

While in CMx1 maneuvering also played a critical role, and tank battles were already very nicely modelled, nevertheless it had to be combined with unit-stacking, to compensate for the too low first hit probability to deny the enemy tank to shoot back. IMO CMBN has entered a new dimension of simulating tank-combat. Hats off for that achievement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that can always be counted on... someone with 10 hours of gametime seems to know more than dozens of people with thousands of hours of gametime AND the guys that made the game. Love it :)

Anecdotal testing is useless for anything other than raising a question which leads to more serious, rigorous testing. This is as true for a customer as it is for a tester, or even me for that matter. What is needed is a statistically valid sample set from a scientifically valid test scenario.

Usually the first attempt at a test environment isn't right either, as some variables are included that should be excluded, or variables that are excluded which should be included. The peer-review process of any experiment is critical and here is one of the most important areas because SO OFTEN the test parameters are flawed in some significant way.

Once the test range and variables are themselves scrutinized and adjusted, a large enough sample size needs to be generated, tabulated, and analyzed. The results are then compared against real life data as best as it can be. The LAST thing that happens is conclusions are drawn.

At present, you guys are still at the beginning of step one... anecdotal observation. Until you've gone through all of the above steps, including (and MOST IMPORTANTLY) the peer-reveiew stage, there's no case to be made.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...