aka_tom_w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: Tom, I am not simply referring to the crew experience levels. I am referring to something that both Jeff Duquette (sp?) and I have come to the same conclusion about (oh so many months ago). I will not repeat that conclusion now though since it is a ... sensitive issue. You can check through the old threads if you want to know what I am referring to.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Oh.. OK sorry I will try to read up on the issue you were refering to, my appologies I thought you were just complaining about the experience level "fudge factor". I do think I recall reading somewhere that you and Jeff D had a bone to pick with something like that. I will try to look it up. Would you be refering to this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=014915&p=5 Another Golden Oldie! that was a GOOD one! Thanks for the polite response post, pointing out my misunderstanding -tom w [ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

That sounds like it would make the game look more "polished". Good ideas -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stephen Smith: As a real-world comparison- modern M1A1 tanks have essentially 'gyrostabilizers' on them. In training, we fired 'on the move', but 'on the move' meant 'driving approximately 15 mph along a straight gravel road. It did NOT mean driving cross country (even in a field!) or driving in any environment where there is much up and down motion, nor driving very fast. I don't believe it would be possible to fire modern M1A1s while 'on the move' in any but these very limited circumstances (i.e. relatively flat terrain, relatively low speed), for two reasons 1) it would be hard to keep the cross hairs on the target, and 2) it would be hard for the crew to keep themselves still enough to even look through the optics well enough to aim (the gunner would be thrown around the inside of the vehicle too much). And unless 1940's technology was much better than 1990's technology, I suspect the ability to fire on the move under any but very rare circumstances, even with a highly trained crew and a gyrostabilizer, is grossly overrated. And- I just read a book on Kursk which quoted a german gunner as saying the ideal range for engagements was about 800 meters. So what ranges should we expect in CM2? I would think about the same as in CMBO. While the optics and penetration of main guns may have allowed extremely high ranges (2000, 3000 meters in incredibly rare, extreme cases), I suspect that due to real-world terrain, actual engagements were probably conducted, 95% of the time, 0-1000 meters or so. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is one of the BEST posts in this thread on this topic. I hope this post and particularily this sentence: "As a real-world comparison-modern M1A1 tanks have essentially 'gyrostabilizers' on them. In training, we fired 'on the move', but 'on the move' meant 'driving approximately 15 mph along a straight gravel road. It did NOT mean driving cross country (even in a field!) or driving in any environment where there is much up and down motion, nor driving very fast." ..complete with REAL world actual firing on the move experience in a M1A1, will be considered when it is determined how ANY of the tanks or vehicles in CMBB are permitted to fire while on the FAST move. I don't believe for a minute that firing on the FAST move is an "abstration for stoping and firing and then moving fast again" the units don't do that, they speed across the open country side at 55- 65 mph and they shoot, and they can target and get hits while doing so. The hunt move works GREAT, the unit slowly advances, finds a target, stops, aims and fires at the target until it is destroyed or the turn ends and it gets new orders. THIS order works very well. BUT in CMBB I hope there is some new way to model the result and accuracy of shots fired while on the FAST move. -tom w [ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran: Dang, Steve lives out where there are dirt roads?? :eek: I didn't know such a thing still existed!! Optics aside, I am of the opinion that if dispersion, trajectory analysis, and test range data are not included in the basic accuracy 'model' then the accuracy numbers are already being pulled out of your ... ummm ... shorts . I don't necessarily support the opinion that an optics bonus should be given to certain armored vehicles or nationalities, but I can certainly see the POV that would say "if your basic accuracy model is already being pulled out of your shorts, then what difference does it make if you pull one more modifier out of your shorts?" Put me in the Rexford camp of accuracy determination. :cool:<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Um... I would like to comment on the crew level experience "fudge factor". I seems sort of unfair to Steve and Charles to lump all targeting and accuracy statistics into the catch all of "if your basic accuracy model is already being pulled out of your shorts".... The crew experience "fudge factor" is a much needed and obvious feature in the game. Its out there for all to see, we can test it and see the difference in the "chance to hit" percentages in the same situation for all 6 crew level experiences. I really don't think it is fair to characterize those six crew experience levels as a " your basic accuracy model is already being pulled out of your shorts" I understand that for every round fired a complicated math equation which factors in hard data about the historical velocity, accuracy and penetrating power of every main weapon in the game is modeled in the form of an equation or algorythm (as Charles prefers to refer to it), which determines the outcome of EVERY single round fired telling us, if the round hits or does not hit, where it hits if it hits and what the result of that hit or miss is. I think it is now in CMBO v1.12 a VERY fine armour penetration model. BUT it is modified by a six layerd crew experience level "fudge factor" that shows us that Elite crews can do things faster, better and more accurately than then a conscript crew. I think this works well in the game as it is now. I think the chance to hit accuracy model in CMBO works very well with the possible exception of how incredibly accurate the some vehicles are while firing on the FAST move across rough open country side. (But I have mentioned this in a previous thread.) -tom w [ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] [ 06-22-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The current accuracy model is almost completely based on the real world physics of the gun system. Meaning, a gun fires as if optics are assumed to be "adequate". It is our strong opinion that optics, while certainly important, were only moderately responsible for getting the shell on target. If the optics were at least "good enough" then the gun would fire fairly true (depending on gun, range, etc of course!). Speed of target aqusition is something that optics do have an impact on, perhaps significant one, but this is seperate from the gun itself. Same is true for observing shotfall and other things like that. So the gun system itself is the most important element in this whole puzle by far. Thanks, Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with this part for SURE! "Speed of target aqusition is something that optics do have an impact on, perhaps significant one," Thats sounds about right to me, and to some still undetermined degree, the Germans in CMBB should be granted some long range spotting and targeting bonus, (especially for the 88 mm). "Same is true for observing shotfall and other things like that." This is also relevant in that some optics bonus for sighting and spotting the shot fall in this case should be in the form of a bonus applied to long range shots fired after a first shot miss, suggesting that high quality optics (both binoculars and range finding optics in the gun site its self) will have an impact on the chance to hit of the subsquent rounds fired, this of course suggests that the crew, if they have enough experience, (Say it only applies to Vet and higher crews) will be more accurate on their subsquent shots, with an increased chance to hit percentage modeled. So Yes.. Target aquisition at long range should be improved with an optics bonus and accuracy of every shot after the first miss at long range should be improved in modeling the optics bonus. Now of course the BIG question is HOW BIG is the Optics Bonus and exactly which units get it and Why? -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Hi Tom, {snip} Again, until we can see some sort of decent study about dud rates it will not go in. Not even a half-assed guess. There is just too much of a possible margin of error here to mess around with it blindly. If someone can dig up a source, we are all ears (or eyes in this case ). Steve [ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK, it was just a friendly suggestion to add a little something new to CMBB. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Slapdragon: I do, however, want to point out now that this may tip into flame war, that I have the deepest respect for John Waters and www_Tom on this subject. This subject may soon spiral down as people begin to take stab at other people rather than arguing facts and issue, but I think Tom and John have a number of valid points that have been maturely and well argued.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Honestly.... So far I think there is not all that much to fight about. I'm just a computer geek (with no military experience) with a passion for photography and optics, nothing more. Steve is open minded about looking to the optics issue, John and Slapdragon are both wise and have provided new and valuable insight and information on the issue. So far there is nothing to really argue about because we all "seem" to agree it will be VERY hard to model any optics bonus in any historically accurate way and do it equitably based on "chance to hit" probabilities for different weapons. I REALLY don't think there is any thing to argue about here because so far we have not got our hands on anything really reliable like an actual source of data on optics and how to model it in CMBB that we can actually debate. In short I think we all agree this optics issue is a tough one and we should all try our best to help Steve and Charles out anyway we can. (I sort of think we have been doing mostly that so far ) -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I agree, an across the board dud rate would be fair if it were in the right ballpark (which we don't know either ). But I also agree that if it were as low as 2%... what would the point be? Since most AFVs don't fire probably even 50% of their ammo, and miss probably 60-80% of the time, a 2% chance of failure would hardly come up at all. Sure, I guess it would be cool to see a dud every once and a while, so it is worth thinking about. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I mentioned it because somehow there is enough hard data to model the frequency of MG jams (which is a VERY cool feature). I don't think I have ever seen anyone post suggesting they jam too frequently or too infrequently. MG jams introduce another "sort of" realistic "**** happens" factor to the battle and it really adds to the game. I guess one of the problems with any possible or proposed dud rate is you would never actually know if the round was (a) not fired or ( simply missed. Mostly I was suggesting like a dud rate that would effect mortar rounds and arty as it sort of just doesn't feel right that every round that drops from the sky explodes? Sure I guess I do believe that about 1 in 100 rounds that drop should spare the lives of those it was about to kill, given a 10 percent dud rate, and that 9 out of 10 of the rounds that fell were going to miss anyway.I would propose that if a rate of "dud" was determined that such a frequency (say 1 in 10-15-20?) would show up on the battlefield as a NEW graphic which would result in a shell or round stuck half in the ground that did not cause a crater or explosion. OK the rounds did not really end up half in the ground half out but one simple graphic for all forms of arty and mortar round to replace the crater it would have made should suffice. I think some form of dud rate added to the game would be "cool" in the same way MG jams are realistic. But thats just my opinion -tom w

The TV blurb says: "Strategists evaluate the success of Allied tanks in the Normandy invasion" History Channel in Canada Just thought some of you might be interested. I have seen some other episodes of this series and what I have seen so far have been well done. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: For the same reason we aren't going to slap on some sort of invented bonus for German optics, we aren't going to invent a dud rate for just the German shells. [snip] Until we can have a good comprehensive picture of duds... they will not be a part of Combat Mission. This is not Combat Urban Legand after all Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Steve Thanks for your comments. "This is not Combat Urban Legand after all " Good to see you have not lost your sense of humour! -tom w

just for the record here EVERY weapon in Tobruk had a dud rate. I did not single out the German 81 mm mortatr because it was German, I mentioned it because I suspected it would be in CM2. What about something as simple as a 10% dud rate across the board for all Mortars and Arty, Simple yes, historically accurate and backed up with reliable research and Data HARDLY! (I just took a guess.) I highly doubt my 10% dud rate Wild Assed Guess will make it into the game. I know BTS does not work that way and that's why we all play CMBO! The point is if Avalon Hill could, and did, model the Dud rate in Tobruk in 1975, there "should" be some info in the references they cite that could be useful and historicaly accurate, OR We could just as easily jump to the conclusion that ALL they did was GUESS as well? -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Or give the player the ability to type in his own notes with regards to each unit type, sort of an electronic notebook, where he could keep track of what works and what doesn't, or historical info he has tracked down himself.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's a GREAT idea Make it like an open Data base Not like hard coded into the ballistics engine or the game engine, all that data is already there in the game we just can't see it... BUT Just like Graphics mods there could be a user definable data base that is left blank and filled in later by all of us users and players of CM2 with notes and stats, those stats and notes would be for the sake of interest an entertainment (and have no actual value in the game) I know they will tell us we ALREADY have all that info avaialable when we click RETURN on a unit so I'm not sure how else to make the interface so it would be any better than it is now. I was largely asking for DUDS to be modeled as now in CMBO EVERY single round never misfires, there are NO arty duds and every Mortar round and every HE round that is fired goes off, maybe some should be duds? (But there is still plenty of opportunity to miss in this game so that is not a problem) -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by coe: Hmmm, hunt seems to be the tank is moving a bit slow, stops and shoots and moves on What about fast hunt? That is the tank is going along fast, (also its ability to spot is much poorer) but when it does find a target it stops and shoots. Of course one would assume that the first shot would be far less likely to hit than in a regular hunt mode.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Actually no that is the problem If the unit in question is a Greyhound and if it is stopped and it has spotted its target, if you give it a Fast move order it will continue to aim and it will Fire on the FAST move (without Stopping) and it is surprisingly accurate. If the unit is out of Los but it has been identified by another friendly unit, you can target that unit then make a quick Dash (from cover to cover) with the Greyhound on FAST move and it will shoot while going FAST the sec the LOS is clear, without stopping even though it had no LOS when it started its fast move. Allied units like the Greyhound and the Hellcat shoot WITHOUT stopping on the Fast move and they get WAY more hits than I would consider realistically possible, while firing on the fast move. That was the point of the original post in this thread. -tom w [ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi I have in my hands the Manual for Tobruk, it is IMHO a very well researched AH game of a similiar time period and scale as (single units and tanks) as CMBB. I mention this because the Research alledgedly conducted by AH (and they do credit their sources) indicated that they had enough info in 1975 to model the dud rate of weapons. now this may be build into CMBO and already taken into account. But here is what the Stats in the Tobruk manual say: Lets pick the German 81 mm Mortar that is SURE to be in CMBB Name ........ 8 cm Granatwerfer Weight in Action ....... 125 pounds Crew ....... 6 men Ammo in use ....... HE and Smoke CEP (indirect Fire)... 7-42 meters ROF ....... 12 rpm Ammo Dud rate ....... 15% HE Round Leathal Radius ...... 7.5 meters Comments: VERY effective weapon usually attached to infantry company in half platoon of three weapons. Longer range than British 3 inch" Every weapon in the Desert in Tobruk is covered in this much detail. Its a GREAT manual! -tom w [ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] [ 06-21-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

This old Thread IS JUST Full of this kind of info I'm not sure how many folks here REALLY care about this stuff, but this is a good page from the long thread with images posted by Jeff D of what gun sites in German tanks look like from inside the game Panzer Elite: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=011342&p=17 take a look (thanks Jeff thats a Real treat for us Mac users that can't play PE) -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rexford: Does the opposition to German optics quality input into game mechanisms sound a little like a fear that the panzers will fight more effectively?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> HELL NO! We would not want that " sound a little like a fear that the panzers will fight more effectively?" Next thing you know we'll be labeled Nazi sympathizers and German tank superiority worshipping sycophants. (Just joking!) I think Slapdragon's post captures the spirit of the debate quite well. But what I would like to know is where can we find reliable accurate historical data on WWII gunnery optics, the last time this came up in GREAT optics debate for the inclusion of superior German gunnery optics to be modeled in CMBO, I thought we all (or at Least BTS and Steve) came to the conclusion that no such reliable source or research or data on optics in WWII tank gunnery could be found? But lets keep looking anyway -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tero: Can you provide your source ? Every account I have read states that the Allied tankers disengaged the stabilizer because when it was malfuctioning it would jam the gun at the set elevation (which never happens in CM ) and/or to facilitate reloading and that they were as a rule, if not ordered, then exhorted to stop for firing to increase the chance of hitting the target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good point, that is also my understanding of the actual realworld, historical use of the things. They were largely disengaged by the crews as they were a nuisance (mostly). Or so I have read? -tom w

WOW its looks great but why don't you throw some barbwire in there as well? I thought those beaches were littered with miles of barb wire strung all over the place? Beautiful job it looks great! -tom w

bump for the benefit of the prime time evening crowd in the EST -tom w

WOW GREAT Thanks to Steve and BTS for keeping an open mind about optics in CM2. Everything I've read so far inspires major confidence. Keep up the good work! AND Well.... Yes I still prefer to play the Allies, and will likely prefer the Russians in CM2 but I REALLY do believe the Germans had better optics and I hope that good solid research will reveal a palatable way to model this advantage for some German weapons in the game that deserve to be recognized for their exceptional accuracy at long range (The 88mm of course comes to mind first). I may not post to this thread much because I know nothing about Russian optics but I read every post and am Thrilled that Steve is reading and posting! -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99: Well, a truly modern game in the current sense would probably not be too much fun. But a game set in the 1970s or 1980 would be alot more fun. While modern weapons systems would be avaliable, they would not be the insanely deadly modern generation of tools. The microchip had not yet completely revolutionized warfare. Not to mention that the soviets had a 3 to 1 superiority on the old IGB. Plus you can do that whole NATO-Pact thing. And there the fighting would be on ground not too dissimilar to CMBO, meaning good ol' restricted sightlines, etc. I can see the first scenario now: Last Defense Re-Revisited: The 3rd ACR has to hold off the soviet horde until the air cav arrives! Can it be done? WWB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think Flashpoint 1985 has that one just about covered. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stephen Smith: As a real-world comparison- modern M1A1 tanks have essentially 'gyrostabilizers' on them. In training, we fired 'on the move', but 'on the move' meant 'driving approximately 15 mph along a straight gravel road. It did NOT mean driving cross country (even in a field!) or driving in any environment where there is much up and down motion, nor driving very fast. I don't believe it would be possible to fire modern M1A1s while 'on the move' in any but these very limited circumstances (i.e. relatively flat terrain, relatively low speed), for two reasons 1) it would be hard to keep the cross hairs on the target, and 2) it would be hard for the crew to keep themselves still enough to even look through the optics well enough to aim (the gunner would be thrown around the inside of the vehicle too much). And unless 1940's technology was much better than 1990's technology, I suspect the ability to fire on the move under any but very rare circumstances, even with a highly trained crew and a gyrostabilizer, is grossly overrated. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Great Point! Thanks a welcome post from someone with real tank firing experience! Here's the problem: In CMBO Hellcats and Greyhounds can move VERY fast, and they can, and do, fire on the FAST move and IMHO they get way more hits, even first shot hits while on the fast move than is realistically possible and these two units don't have gryostabilizers. Would anyone reading this thread object to the suggestion that tanks in CM2 should not be able to fire on the the fast move? If they can fire on the fast move then their accuracy should be LOW, like real LOW, like in the single digits no matter what the range (like a 1-9% chance of a hit at the best of times). The issue here is more about how firing on the move will be handled in CM2 than how things work in CMBO. Any further comments? -tom w

HooRAY!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B: I wasn't suggesting the gyro didn't work or makes no difference. I simply meant that you often see people talk about getting frequent hits while on the move in reference to vehicles that have no gyro (such as the Greyhound in the first post in this thread). [ 06-20-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> No question about that Vanir I did refer to the gyrostabillizer "flamefest" in the opening post, but I should have stated that I knew the Greyhound did not sport the gyrostabilizer, I meant it just "sort of" feels like something like that is modeled because the Greyhound and the Hellcat (again no gyrostabilizer) seem to have surprising GOOD accuracy on the fast move. AND yes these units should not be confused with the Sherms and Stuarts with the gyrostabilizers modeled which also seem highly accurate on the fast move. Good point. -tom w