Armor far too accurate...

[Battlefront.com]

Then Cmx1 was wrong?

Probably. I would need to see an exact situation for situation comparison, based on large statistical sampling, to say exactly what is "wrong" about CMx1. However, generally speaking CMx1 was more probability based than Cmx2. Or put another way, CMx1 was more abstract than CMx2. I'm not saying CMx2 is perfect in all ways all the time, but overall it is far more realistic than CMx1 was capable of.

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'm not saying people are wrong. I'm saying they don't have the evidence to make a claim that we're wrong. See my previous post.

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

Incorrect assumptions and observations repeated doesn't make them true. Likewise, one person could report one thing and nobody else report it, yet that one person might be correct.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

"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.

you forgot to add:

the MP aspect is useless because of the lack of tcp i/p WEGO.

[WineCape]

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-review stage, there's no case to be made. Steve

ABOVE_SHOULD_BE_FRAMED_AND_HANDED_OUT_AT_PICKETS.

---> With this on the reverse side of the placate: We're is not saying people are wrong. We're saying they don't have the evidence to make a claim that we're wrong.

[Taki]

Probably. I would need to see an exact situation for situation comparison, based on large statistical sampling, to say exactly what is "wrong" about CMx1. However, generally speaking CMx1 was more probability based than Cmx2. Or put another way, CMx1 was more abstract than CMx2. I'm not saying CMx2 is perfect in all ways all the time, but overall it is far more realistic than CMx1 was capable of.

I'm not saying people are wrong. I'm saying they don't have the evidence to make a claim that we're wrong. See my previous post.

Incorrect assumptions and observations repeated doesn't make them true. Likewise, one person could report one thing and nobody else report it, yet that one person might be correct.

Steve

I dont say you are wrong, or CMx2 is wrong or CMx1. I just see that its lots of different results to Cmx1 and thats what disturbing ppl about it. I dont have a Problem with Accuracy in Game. I trust you with it. When you say Tank xy or Gun xy has a 90% Hit Probabylity on First Shot at x Meters then be it! Dont need to mess with the Experts there.

But what about the Reaction Times of Tanks? After a Commander Spots a Unit and transfer it to his crew.

Is there any "C2" Infopassing from Commander to Gunner etc? Feels like the Tanks reacting instant after spotting?

[WineCape]

I dont say you are wrong, or CMx2 is wrong or CMx1. I just see that its lots of different results to Cmx1 and thats what disturbing ppl about it. I dont have a Problem with Accuracy in Game. I trust you with it. When you say Tank xy or Gun xy has a 90% Hit Probabylity on First Shot at x Meters then be it! Dont need to mess with the Experts there.

But what about the Reaction Times of Tanks? After a Commander Spots a Unit and transfer it to his crew.

Is there any "C2" Infopassing from Commander to Gunner etc? Feels like the Tanks reacting instant after spotting?

Taki, there may well be a problem with the shooting on the move at certain distances and/or reaction time of gunners, given the small sample and what has been reported so far. BFC/Testers will look at this issue, and try to get 'some meaningful sample' from a specially created scenario, to come to some observation/comparison/conclusion versus stationery shooting. It may well be these two hit% categories (mobile/stationery) are just too close to one another in results, given certain specific parameter conditions, and Charles will then decide what to do with the issue.

This all takes time, and we thank you (and others) for bringing this under BFC's attention. However, if only a very small % of players report this issue, it might also be an statistical outlier result, and BFC might not be inclined to look at it for now, given other pressing matters, time and priorities. PS: Note that a minority of players, reporting a specific issue, will also not be ignored out of hand.

[MikeyD]

The literature is full of stories of U.S. tankers in particular becoming 'quick-draw' experts. Three rounds on target before you could so much as take a breath 1-2-3. Of course after those first three rounds were expended things started to slow down a bit. The loader had to visit the ready racks to retrieve more ammo.

[akd]

I dont say you are wrong, or CMx2 is wrong or CMx1. I just see that its lots of different results to Cmx1 and thats what disturbing ppl about it. I dont have a Problem with Accuracy in Game. I trust you with it. When you say Tank xy or Gun xy has a 90% Hit Probabylity on First Shot at x Meters then be it! Dont need to mess with the Experts there.

But what about the Reaction Times of Tanks? After a Commander Spots a Unit and transfer it to his crew.

Is there any "C2" Infopassing from Commander to Gunner etc? Feels like the Tanks reacting instant after spotting?

Exactly. It may "feel" that way, but have you set up a test to determine if it always that way or if you are just keying in on outlier results (which will exist in a system of this complexity)?

Next you will say, "Oh, but that would be really hard to test and take a long time."

And I will say again: "exactly."

[dieseltaylor]

"And yes I think the armour is bust "

Ooh picky. Perhaps I should have recapitulated my previous postings here - actually not that many - my problem was peoples anecdotes of tanks firing and hitting on the move. In that respect I am concerned as I am lead to believe most late war tanks stopped to fire.

Just so its clear what I am not stressed about -

1. Accuracy figures are interesting but not really worth getting excited about without lots and lots of data.

2. Reaction times/spotting is an interesting area - academically.

3. Advantage of the electrical firing circuit : )

[dan/california]

Allow me to simplify this discussion. If you strategy depends on a Panther, or Tiger crew being

1) Asleep

2) Slow

3) Incompetent

4) Unwilling to send your whole Sherman platoon home in a closed coffin.

You might want to rethink it, just a little. And then use lots of smoke and artillery instead.

[GhostRider3/3]

I know I dont have near the time as the Beta testors, devs... etc. But Damn I have seen some amazing and dumbfounded things. I have seen my Vetran Panther miss targets, Put some to dust, and MG the crap out of infantry... get Hit, bail out, re-enter the tank and continue on. I have seen near misses, complete over the tank by a good country mile due to terrain, Hits that tear apart trees etc. Both Allied and Axis... All im going to say about the complainers here.... Ahh...yeah.. Is this not the best wargame out right now or what.!!

[dieseltaylor]

All im going to say about the complainers here....Is this not the best wargame out right now or what.!!

Why of course it is : ) Was there any doubt.

[Battlefront.com]

The reason we spent so much time testing this particular aspect of BN is because it is the single most complex element in the game. On top of that, it's one of the first things people focus their attention on.

Remember that the reasons why "outliers" are found described in books is because they are more interesting than all the normal stuff. One of my favorites is a US 57mm gun killing a Panther in thick fog because it aimed at the muzzle flash of the hull MG. That's all it could see. And the round it fired went straight through the aperture and killed the crew. The Americans didn't even know until after the fog lifted, they just knew the attack stalled.

Anyway, "outliers" tend to stick in people's brains and then they find their way here. What you don't find here are threads started up about mundane things. Oh, like "I had a Tiger and it killed a Sherman 500m away with its first shot". Yet those are the sorts of things that are what most people see most of the time.

Also keep in mind that the type of combat you gamers engage in was the exception in real life. Usually two forces would bump into each other and fumble around for hours, if not days, before achieving anything of significance. You guys all want to see results in about 15 minutes and you push your forces to do just that. This distorts the game results when compared to real life. Nothing unrealistic, usually, except the norm for a game is often not the norm in real combat.

Steve

[Comandante]

I am on my 8th scenario and I am finding the armour model very convincing, apart from the speed of target acquisition - Sherman drives up to a hedgerow and starts blazing away at enemy infantry in the next hedge within 2-3 seconds.

I have had numerous instances of my Shermans taking PAK hits and pulling back without being knocked out. I played the Command Post scenario in the Demo (name?) and took out both Panthers from maximum map range with my platoon of Shermans by using hull down on the low rise at their map entry point. I got a Total Victory result on the first try, playing as Iron, and only lost two tanks.

I'm not boasting, I'm just saying that it's quite possible to do this, so the game doesn't seem to be particularly flawed in this area IMHO.

The one thing I would like to see changed is the tendency of MG crews to engage armour. If I was manning the gun I can assure you the crew would be hiding!

[Battlefront.com]

One of the most interesting things to come out of CM:BN testing is that the older German 75mm AT Guns vs. the M4A3 Shermans is not what people would expect. The Sherman stands up pretty well to them under many combat situations. The stats back that up. Other Shermans... not so well Also, Panthers tend to make a mess out of a Sherman at any range. Well, as long as the Shermans don't get the drop on the Panther at fairly close range.

I can still remember CMBO days where there were HOWLS of pain from gamers saying CM was totally broken because they lost a King Tiger. "What happened?". "A SHERMAN knocked it out!". Come to find out it was flank shot at 50m or something like that

Perception and reality are often very, very far apart.

Steve

[Comandante]

One of the most interesting things to come out of CM:BN testing is that the older German 75mm AT Guns vs. the M4A3 Shermans is not what people would expect. The Sherman stands up pretty well to them under many combat situations. The stats back that up. Other Shermans... not so well Also, Panthers tend to make a mess out of a Sherman at any range. Well, as long as the Shermans don't get the drop on the Panther at fairly close range.

I can still remember CMBO days where there were HOWLS of pain from gamers saying CM was totally broken because they lost a King Tiger. "What happened?". "A SHERMAN knocked it out!". Come to find out it was flank shot at 50m or something like that

Perception and reality are often very, very far apart.

Steve

I absolutely agree. And Hollywood hasn't helped!

[Lanzfeld]

I can still remember CMBO days where there were HOWLS of pain from gamers saying CM was totally broken because they lost a King Tiger. "What happened?". "A SHERMAN knocked it out!". Come to find out it was flank shot at 50m or something like that

Perception and reality are often very, very far apart.

Steve

True. When I first tried CMBO Demo "Last Defense" as Germans I was FLOORED that a hellcat (what the hell is that?) could kill my tiger!!!

[LemoN]

I actually lost a tiger at 1200m to one single shot from a 75mm Sherman.

Armour spalling and then destroyed.

[Dietrich]

I actually lost a tiger at 1200m to one single shot from a 75mm Sherman.

Armour spalling and then destroyed.

<good-natured sarcasm> I call that the Bradley (IFV) syndrome: a fully armored vehicle takes a hit which only does slight damage to anything listed on the damage tab (i.e., it's not immobilized, hasn't had its main weapon knocked out, etc.) and which doesn't even wound any of the crew, but somehow the vehicle is thus "destroyed". </good-natured sarcasm>

Seriously, though... could it be that perhaps the Tiger wasn't "destroyed" but the crew just panicked and bailed out?

[Taki]

Two things im getting more and more disturbed in playing the Bocage is the Situational Awarness of Tanks.

I play bocage. Enemy got Rhinos. 40m Engagment Range for my 3 Infantrymen with clear Vis to target. They target the Tank wich has his Hatch closed and dont use the Panzerfaust30 but the Schiessbecher.

It hits. Turret Penetration. The Tank dont care for Shocked or MOral Loss but continue to race straight thru my Lines and didnt pull back. After 15 Seconds he found the Exact Position of the 3 Infantrymen covered in Foxholes at the Tanks 9 o clock. The Team has never been spotted bevore because its deep into my Lines and they where hiding.

After that Act of Superspotting (Hatch closed, Penetration on Turret where Commander is,9 O Clock not the Facing part of the Sherman and, at full speed) he races backward in my Line killing the 3 Men team at 80m and then Traverse his Turret on an MG Team Hiding behind Bocage at 150m! at full Speed and Hatch down and fires Superaccurate on the Run and killed the whole HMG Squad. Then he races with no Problem BACKWARDS trough a Mid-Bocage and Turn ends.

Dont know what next turn happens but that are the things that feels totally unrealistic to me:

1. Situation Awareness of the Sherman witch Hatch closed and under lots of Enemy Fire and a Penetration with AT Assets in Turret.

2. Accuracy of the Sherman on the Run under the explained Circumstances

3. Reaction Time of the Tank in General

4. Cutting Bocage with the Rhinos Back

BFC, Comments welcome. Hope you tweak that with further Patches. Tanks are the absolut killer so far driving trough enemy Lines and kill everything in Sight with Hatch down bevore the Inf can even use their AT Assets!

[WineCape]

...Cutting Bocage with the Rhinos Back..

Driving backwards w/ Rhino tanks and ploughing in this way through bocage is a known bug. It was picked up during earlier Beta testing, was apparently fixed, but somehow reared its head [buttocks] again during release. AFAIK, Battlefront is aware of this as it has been reported on the relevant beta forums.

[LemoN]

Seriously, though... could it be that perhaps the Tiger wasn't "destroyed" but the crew just panicked and bailed out?

Nope, the tank was officially destroyed and the crew didn't panic at all. They bailed out (none harmed) and sat down next to the tiger.

Also they were fanatic elites, soooo.

Also note, I'm not complaining about it since really weird things can happen in RL.

[Wiggum]

Two things im getting more and more disturbed in playing the Bocage is the Situational Awarness of Tanks.

I play bocage. Enemy got Rhinos. 40m Engagment Range for my 3 Infantrymen with clear Vis to target. They target the Tank wich has his Hatch closed and dont use the Panzerfaust30 but the Schiessbecher.

It hits. Turret Penetration. The Tank dont care for Shocked or MOral Loss but continue to race straight thru my Lines and didnt pull back. After 15 Seconds he found the Exact Position of the 3 Infantrymen covered in Foxholes at the Tanks 9 o clock. The Team has never been spotted bevore because its deep into my Lines and they where hiding.

Yeah, tanks spot infantry way to easy !

Ambushing tanks will always end in a disaster if the first shots miss because after ~20sec the tanks spot your prone infantry in the tall grass behind this wall and will give them some HE to eat.

This was maybe ok in CMSF with all those high-tech stuff inside (Intel inside ??)...

But here we have a issue with the tank spotting ability or with the concealment that the terrain offers to infantry !

I had guys running into a building 50m away from a sherman (closed hatch).

The door was on the other side so the tank could not spot them before they were inside the building. But yeah...

As they walked inside the tank fired a HE into the building killing them all.

I loaded my save game and tryed it again and let them crawl into the building this time.

No chance at all...15sec later the tank spotted prone infantry inside a (intact) building 50m away at 3 o clock of the tank.

[GSX]

After having played around with it for a few days now I dnt have a problem with the accuracy of Tanks but I've seen far too numerous insanely unrealistic spotting as described above. It's almost as if BF have forgotten to switch off CMSF tank code.

[akd]

Two things im getting more and more disturbed in playing the Bocage is the Situational Awarness of Tanks.

I play bocage. Enemy got Rhinos. 40m Engagment Range for my 3 Infantrymen with clear Vis to target. They target the Tank wich has his Hatch closed and dont use the Panzerfaust30 but the Schiessbecher.

40m is just out of engagement range for the Panzerfaust 30.

[MikeyD]

Panzerfaust 60 and Panzerfaust 100 will be much more formidable weapons when their introduction dates roll around.