Joachim

oops Dschugaschwili. You're faster... I have no idea what you're doing there, but the result (if it's right) is great. Is this the prove for: if you miss the center of hull up , there's a chance to hit the tanks outer part. If you miss the center of a hull down you hit nothing. right? </font>

Pyewacket assumed a certain hit on a hull up tank. The turret is 1/3 of the hull up tank. For a hull down tank, the turret is 3/4 while the visible upper hull is 1/4, so it is 1/9 of the total tank thus we have 1/3 plus 1/9 = 4/9 of total. oops... a hull down tank has only 4/9 visible compared to a hull up tank. Somehow I guestimated at 1/2... it's getting late over here Short version: If you hit a target of size 9 with a probability of 100%, why should you hit a target of size 4 with only 1/3 probability? First guestimate would be you hit it with at least a prob of 4/9. Long version: For a uniform distribution, if 4/9 of a tank are visible, the probability to hit those 4/9 should be at least 4/9 if before we had a hit prob of 100%. So for a distribution which puts higher probability on a small area, this should hold, too, if we select a "good" aim point aka center of the 2d normal distribution. If the prob to hit the turrret for a hull down tank is less than those 4/9, the aim point is chosen poorly (-> bad gunner). If the aim point is chosen well, we have at least a prob of 4/9 to hit the tank. The example for a hull-down tank gets: hit prob upper hull >= 1/4 upper hull * 4/9 = 1/9 hit prob turret >= 3/4 turret * 4/9 = 1/3 And we hit the turret at least as often as before... Gruß Joachim

Though Thor presents some interesting points, I have to point out that Jens/pyewacket's model does not fit to Dschugaschwilis assumption. e is fully visible The 1/3 factor actually states that hitting the upper parts of the tank in hull down-mode is 1/3 while the tanks is still half exposed. Not very convincing: As the Bell curve modelling the hit prob is dependent on distance, gun type, ammo etc. and we will assume the classic "ceteris paribus" approach, the "bell" we move across the picture of the tank is the same in both cases. The perfect aim point will maximize the volume of the bell over the upper parts of the tank, and thus at least increase the hit probability for those parts - which was 1/2 in the hull up example. So to get a hit prob of 1/3 for a hull down tank, one hat to use a less than optimal hit point. This might make sense when aiming for weak points, but CM does not model aiming for weak points. Aiming for center of mass, however, will at least increase the hit prob for a compact target. Thus we can assume that D's sentence holds for a gunner with basic training. @pyewacket: A good approx for the hit porb is given in CM when you target the tank - see referenced thread in CMAK forum above. Gruß Joachim

And I blame it all on Andreas... I was ready to meet him in Cologne to speed up things, but he cancelled his trip. Gruß Joachim

"However, I recommend a long, thoughtful game with a friend." Sounds familiar? ...and in between we have a real life and some girls that want ... our attention. Gruß Joachim

Wow! It's not even 9 AM here yet and it's already becoming a great day. =) Kitty </font>

Wow! It's not even 9 AM here yet and it's already becoming a great day. =) Kitty </font>

The test for CMAK are here

In 2d the mathematical model is much more complicated and much harder to understand, mostly because the standard deviations are usually different for both dimensions and the shape of the target area is a problem, too. But the hit chance still goes down when you move the target away from the aim point in a straight line, so the model is still valid for our purposes. Dschugaschwili </font>

Now stands at... Top Posters Michael Dorosh - 13236 posts Michael Emrys - 10602 posts CMplayer - 6420 posts Soddball - 5190 posts Boo Radley - 4104 posts </font>

Ahhh, my enemy's enemy showing up. Seems he has some other unfinished business. BTW: What happened to that link? Gruß Joachim

Not to mention that this simple model has the drawback of being one-dimensional... but it delivers the message. Project the visible parts of a tank on a (huge ) piece of paper. Form a bell from the function of a two-dimensional normal distribution modelling the hit porb. Yes, this looks like a real bell put on the paper Now the likelihood to hit the tank is the volume of that bell that is above the outlines of the tank in relation to the volume that is outside the boundaries of the tank. The likelihood to hit a certain part is the relation of the volume above that part in relation to the rest. The center of the bell is the aim point. Gruß Joachim

On what? Maybe this quote from above will help you a bit... I asked Andreas to actually do something in another battle, where we have only 111 turns left and he did not fire a single shot yet. If his troops are half as good as he claims, they should start wasting some ammo and not hide in their holes like the cowards they are. It would be very unsporting to only taunt my enemy's enemy and not taunt my enemy's enemy's enemy. Oh, I forgot - it was you who always tries to avoid being fair, wasn't it? So you might not understand the concept due to missing practice. Gruß Joachim </font>

Proper scouting in 50 viz is tough... expect your scouts getting slaughtered while overwatch is out of sight... or in the kill zone if too close. Results in dead scouts, sound contacts only, and if the defender withdraws quickly, you know nothing despite some dead scouts. With proper spacing you lack the necessary attacker odds if the defender chooses to fight it out. If you converge piecemeal, you are dead. Converging itself risks lots of friendly fire. Best for attacking at night is to be the strategic attacker but tactical defender. IE try to break thru in a small corridor, leave listening posts on your trail, cutting the defenders forces in half and force the defender to move (best thru territory unobserved by him)... then he has exactly the same problems as you. Gruß Joachim

The sound of distant shots is enough to make men take cover. Any moving shadow at max viz might be the enemy. Any contact will be on short ranges, with high firepower. Would you want to stroll along with a SMG-heavy squad 50m away? Even if they are friendlies - do they know you are friendly? It is just like moving along a city street... but without any support. Attacking at 50m viz is tough. Same goes for your counterattacks - if you ever need any Night fighting saw the highest kill stats for squads I ever had (vs the AI): 100+ per squad for a whole plt... and I started with 40% ammo. Night combat is deadly in CM... so the pixeltruppen should be afraid of it! Gruß Joachim

Tests regarding this in the thread I mentioned above suggest that hull down tanks receive more turret hits. Data posted on the hit probabilities support that claim. Under certain conditions a PzIV lasts longer when hull up. Gruß Joachim

Now if they would measure the length of all postings instead of the numbers... Gruß Joachim

If you move him, make sure he is not the only unit moving in the area. Pack him with the second wave or the main body if you use many scouts. Guess who's that loner moving onto that hill... Gruß Joachim

No, I am talking about an enemy tank that your tanks cannot see, but they can see a point few meters from it. So you fire at that point with HE ammo, hoping that the blasts will damage the gun or tracks. Not very effective though, out of 20-25 tanks I destroyed only 2 have been damaged that way. </font>

Thought that a combat bonus für ATGs or IGs increases their to-hit-chance, their ROF and reduces setup time, as they act one or two exp. levels up. For mortars, this should result in a closer shot pattern and a higher ROF - but I never checked for that. The decision to put Co HQs to the rear or behind the frontline troops depends on circumstances. But if you have Plt HQs from wpns plts, it is usually better to use them in the rear or in command of hvy wpns following the advance and use the Co HQ for rallying only. If just behind the advance, the Co HQ is a good reserve group - paired with a few "4th" squads, pioneer teams or any squad falling behind. Gruß Joachim [ February 17, 2004, 10:22 AM: Message edited by: Joachim ]

Statistics are never flawed. There are just many people who read only half of them.... </font>

Statistics are never flawed. There are just many people who read only half of them.... Wait... 13999 posts left... Gruß Joachim

10046... and I bet ME is adding some more as of now... </font>