Claymore

Getting a touch lonely here... It seems I have the knack of starting threads that BFC doesn't respond to. Dialing Mr.Peabody's way-back machine back to 2002, I had the exact same question for BFC with regards to the CMx1 engine... I said: SOP platoon formations of AFVs extended over fairly short distances. AAR's from the Ostfront mirror just this effect. A few rounds required to strike the first target and then consumptions verging on a single round per successive target. Steve said: Yes, and this makes sense. Unfortunately, each unit does not remember the range and relative positions of everything it shoots. Accuracy does improve vs. a single target with successive shots, but once contact with that unit is broken the benefit ends. Why is this significant factor not simulated? The simple reason is that it is a lot more complex than it might appear. At least from a simulation standpoint. Charles looked into coding up such behavior and found it to be very difficult to do with the existing engine (even back in CMBO development). Therefore he passed on doing more with this. Thankfully most situations would not benefit from this information retention. Range estimations are next to useless (in practical terms) if the situation changes even slightly. The most favorable situation is one stationary shooter vs. several closely spaced, stationary targets all within LOS. This situation does not come up that often in regular games, and therefore is (by and large) not an issue. However, that is not an excuse to say this is an unimportant feature. Quite the contrary, we regret not having it coded into the game, even if we still feel it was the right decision to make. And that means this will very likely (almost certainly) simulated with the engine rewrite along with a much more detailed accounting of gunner issues instead of the more abstracted factors we have in there now. Back to 2011 now... "and this means this will very likely (almost certainly) simulated with the engine rewrite" Has the rewrite addressed this issue?

Sweeping together a number of questions I have into one thread 1. Grenade types - are both the fragmentation and concussion versions modeled in CMBN? The US and Germans certainly used both during the CMBN timeframe. The range of the German offensive concussive grenades was about twice (30m) that of the allied fragmentation weapons, while the lethality zone was about half(7m radius). Are the actual types book kept separately in CMBN or is there an "averaged" grenade model employed by the CMx2 engine? With the level of detail applied to so many other weapon systems I hope that these are not treated as afterthoughts. 2. The Panzerfaust (Model 30 until 09/1944) was rightly feared by both armour and infantry during the Normandy campaign. Although there were no fragmentation warheads until later in the war, the Faust'30 carried 800g (TNT:RDX @ 50:50). For a commonly used weapon this charge weighed many times more than that carried in the TOC fragmentation grenades [uS Mk2 (57g TNT or black powder), UK Mills (85g Amatol)) Even the German concussive Model 43 grenade carried only 170g [Nipolit- approx equal mix of NC/DEGN/PETN]. I shudder to think how much the guy using the Faust had his bells rung when this thing went off only 30m away. With the grenades SOP was "chuck and cover", but the deliberate action of aiming and likely watching the Faust fly its trajectory meant the user was viscerally tied to the explosion. How is does CMBN model the anti-personnel/blast effects of the Faust'30? 3. Can allied soldiers pick up discarded/dropped Panzerfaust weapons and use them themselves? I've heard/seen anecdotal reports where allied soldiers did just that [e.g. ] and that the Americans later even taught the soldiers how to use them [e.g. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3v8yXpNPDpc&feature=related] Cheers MRD

A bump to keep it off page 3. I'm persistent if nothing else

It happened in both real life and CMx1. One of my fondest memories from CMBO was when Fionn Kelly and I were engaged in an AAR being published on the old CombatMissionHQ website. He had a PzIV(70) parked at the end of a long road bordered on both sides by woods, completely stalling me. Then a miracle! A lowly 60mm mortar round immobilized the bastage. Unfortunately the game wound down after soon after that and I was unable to crush his forces, drive them before me, and hear the lamentation his women. Cheers MRD

Dropping in to agree. When working in the CMSF timeframe the weapons platforms of the modern era did not require consideration of range finding. In the WWII timeframe however crew quality should be a major consideration when calculating hit percentages. That's why I also want to take this chance to remind the BF gods that my thread regarding LOS and range recalculations is feeling mighty lonely. Cheers MRD

Shameless bump

This is similar to the new thread I started yesterday regarding LOS and range calculations. If we were running this in CMx1 the reversing Sherman could easily be reacquired within a second or two but the Axis tank would have no "memory" of his previous misses. The hit probability for the fourth shot would then be the same as the first shot. Has this been changed in CMx2? Cheers MRD

In the CMx1 days there were many times when a gun or tank would be engaging an opposing tank and just momentarily break LOS (e.g. going behind a building etc...) just for a second or two. Unfortunately in CMx1 this would reset the "range finding clock" for the gun and when the target reappeared the range finding process would recommence from the beginning with no memory of shorts or longs. At longer ranges (>700m) this became useful tactic for players who wanted to make a dash across open terrain. Is this addressed in CMBN?

Only one thing would make me rise from my slumber CM:Normandy And I was having such a good sleep too.....

In CMx1 engine there was no "blast shielding" advantage gained by having troops on the opposite side of a hill of an explosion occurred (HE, bombs, etc...). Only the slant distance between the explosion and the squad was considered in the modeling, not the interposing terrain. Question: Outside of the current difficulties with firing passing directly through terrain, does the CMx2 engine now consider the intervening terrain in the calculations? Cheers MRD

In CMx1 engine there was no "blast shielding" advantage gained by having troops on the opposite side of a hill of an explosion occurred (HE, bombs, etc...). Only the slant distance between the explosion and the squad was considered in the modeling, not the interposing terrain. Question: Outside of the current difficulties with firing passing directly through terrain, does the CMx2 engine now consider the intervening terrain in the calculations? Cheers MRD

Sorry for a hoary old beast like me to rise from the muck and disturb you all, but I've been lurking for quite long enough.... CMSF (for me) just doesn't have it. Sorry for posting a new topic on *just* another negative post but the taste of ashes in my mouth is too strong. The necessities for BFC to improve their AI and UI dramatically for a RT implementation, and the current state of the product are bogglingly far apart. For amusement's sake I leave you with musings from another time.... [url=http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=31;t=007911;p=1#000008] Feel free to mine the archives for similar position statements and histronics. Cheers MRD

Brilliant Drink! Feck! Arse! Girls! Drink!

Oh, the old days of CMBO when infantry could roam with impunity across the battlefield. What is a poor soul to do now when any old babushka can come hobbling out of her shack and put an entire platoon of manly Aufklarung into flight at the sight of her bloomers? I’ve taken this time then to scrape the mold off my body and come out into the light of day. Yea verily I say unto you “I have played CMBB for as SHORT a time as any of you scurvy dogs and have just as much right to see my thread go whizzing off the forum front page as any of ya!” It's all obvious to most of you but I want the new people here not to get frustrated with CMBB. It's a fine fine WARgame and you need to work with it a bit, other wise seeing your troops dive to earth repeatedly get old pretty fast. So here it is…my opinions on how to make friends and influence people in the CMBB universe. Well first off, forget smashing away at H v H matches and spend a few nights with the TacAI. Although the TacAI has its share of problems in the mid- and endgames, it can serve as a useful teaching aid. Most importantly, it will teach you how not to be continuously embarrassed by your human opponents. Secondly, defending against the TacAI teaches you naught. What you’re needing is a lesson in “fire and maneuver” tactics and mowing down the TacAI troopers in a defensive battle is just too easy. Setup a 1500-2000 pt Quick Battle Attack with a 30% reduction in your attacking forces. This yields near equality in the purchase screens. For this demonstration, choose the AXIS forces and UNRESTRICTED for the computer opponent choices. Operating under the idea of learing to “walk before you run” stay away from muddy or snowy environments. For this lesson plan let’s consider a date chosen between June’41 and July ’42. This is a very interesting time for force types and there are no obviously asymmetrical Axis assets, like the Tiger tank. Instead, pick out a reinforced company of infantry and a modest caliber artillery spotter or two. Add in some SUPPORT units of a couple of HMGs and mortar tubes (or mortar HTs…booya!). Finally, a platoon of armor (Stug, PzIV, or equivalent) and a few AC and you’re all set. Lesson #1. LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION! You really need to pay MUCH more attention to the lay of the land in CMBB during the SETUP mode. You are typically faced with the following dilemma: Approaches through stretches of open terrain are to be avoided since it takes only the firepower of a few enemy forces to stall your advance. On the other hand, the TacAI is also likely to plunk down its forces in good cover that is immediately adjacent to the VLs. You may then find that the approaches through covered territory end up hitting the VLs with the thickest density of defending enemy troops. Likewise you’ll have far more difficulty in moving your crew served weapons (which are your backbone suppressive force) up to the meet the enemy with short LOSs. Pay close attention to the possibility of using “dead ground” in even slightly hilly terrain. Most times you can establish a route of march that will bring you at least half-way through No Man’s Land (NML) without exposing yourself to too much. I typically setup my two thirds of my infantry as maneuver elements with the remainder and support units (MGs and mortars) in overwatch of this initial path. Rule of thumb #1: If you can eyeball an approach that appears to have ~100m stretches of open terrain between cover, then you’ve probably found your optimum path. Rule of thumb #2: Try to keep your infantry setup locations out of LOS of the enemy. Turn 1 pre-planned artillery barrages can completely ruin your day. What you can do is place a few of your armored assets in plain sight some distance away from your infantry. The computer will usually bombard them in Turn 1 if it has a FO with LOS. Lesson #2: IT’S FIREPOWER STUPID! This is where the real improvements in CMBB come to the fore and of course the raison d’etre for this primer. We need to know how to deal with enemy firepower shutting down your troops and wresting the initiative from your hands. The answer: fight fire with MORE fire. To maneuver and win, you need to be able to overmatch the opposing forces’ firepower with your own. You must either force them to ground or eliminate them. You must maneuver your forces to achieve an overwhelming local superiority in firepower at distinct places and times of your choosing. It’s that simple. In the end then in CMBB attacks against forces of comparable quality, the “worth” of a force type lies first in its firepower, its resistance to opposing firepower and then its mobility. Adequate forces must always be on-hand such that when the enemy reveals themselves you have sufficient firepower to overwhelm them. Not in three rounds, but immediately. It’s the art of maneuver warfare, attaining an overwhelming tactical advantage in one area, at one time. This is an important lesson to perfect against the computer because humans can respond much quicker and more flexibly. If you muddle through against the TacAI and never improve your response times then you’ll be doomed against your human opponents. However, if you perfect this art then you’ll always have the initiative against your human foe. Knowing this will even free up other tactics, for example feigns become much more potent when your opponent believes that when your forces reveal themselves much destruction ensues shortly thereafter. Lesson #3. See Me?, SEE YOU!. Let’s get back to the Quick Battle now. Your forces should be advancing predominantly using the MOVE command, leapfrogging platoons across open areas. Always have your support units overwatching your route of march before crossing open terrain. Make sure that your MGs, mortars, and possibly your Panzers are emplaced to give covering fire if enemy forces reveal themselves. If you’ve planned your route march carefully and are lucky with the generated map, these open areas should only have KEYHOLED LOS to areas that the enemy may be occupying. This serves many purposes. First, it limits the number of eyes that can see and discern your approach route. Second, it limits the number of enemy units that can impede your march. Consider then if a Maxim MG or two uncover and start laying down suppressive fire on a stretch of terrain being crossed by your troopers. The troops within the beaten area go to ground and are out of the fight for this round. If you’ve planned ahead sufficiently you should have placed your own support units with LOS through the keyhole as well, but with an overwhelming amount of firepower available. Immediately open up with all available units and suppress the hell out of the enemy units. Move your infantry into cover as they become UNPINNED, then follow up with your support units and remaining overwatch units. It’s been my experience that too much firepower is better than too little. Excessive ammo expenditure and an ensuing end game drought effective units is the counter-argument. You’ll need to play numerous games to find what amount of firepower rationing fits your style of play the best. To advance over the remaining territory, rinse, lather, repeat. Be warned however that the craftier human opponents may not be as eager to bite on those first infantry units that come within their firesack. A more patient and effective defender will allow those first tantalizing units to pass through the keyholed terrain and then unload only when the high value assets reveal themselves. Obviously the CMBB ability to cover arcs for armour and non-armour trigger events is a huge enabler of this tactic. An attacker stripped of his assets which provide his bulk suppressive fire will be unable to make any headway when he reaches your main line of defense (MLD). Sometimes though, with more open maps, you find your troops stalling out because of enemy fire coming from long range and you have too far to advance over open terrain. This is accompanied by the frustration of only having vague “Infantry Sounds” locating possible enemy forces. Ranges for this spoiling fire is typically around 500m and makes it very difficult to apply the recipe outlined above. In these cases my principle tactics are to do the following: 1. Move forward support units to any terrain that provides cover and has LOS to enemy locations. Specifically disembark any support units riding on the armor, bring up the FOs, and get your mortars emplaced for indirect fire. 2. SNEAK forward any small recon units (e.g sharpshooters or anyone with binoculars) towards enemy locations. Try to have these recon units under the command of +2 RANGE leaders so that they are not left to panic quickly if discovered and brought under fire. This is a much more patient approach that may not be practical in some cases. You’ll need to patiently wait the 4-5 turns to allow these keen eyed units to reach areas with good LOS to the enemy. I prefer to: 3. Call in a SMOKE screen on the terrain perhaps 100m in front of the suspected enemy location and plan to terminate after a one minute barrage. Note that the 4-tube mortar FOs have the best SMOKE laying properties when ammo expenditures are taken into account. Issue RUN and HIDE commands to your best MORALE/STEALTH platoon and use the delay commands such that they will take off immediately after the SMOKE screen becomes effective. The maximum distance the platoon should be ordered to traverse is approximately 200m, or whatever the ground conditions will allow for a 1.5 min smoke screen. Obviously you are hoping to terminate the move in a nice copse of trees, but don’t overlook the concealment values of STEPPE or WHEAT FIELDs. If this distance is still insufficient you can increase this length of the SMOKE screen and RUN commands accordingly. 4. The next turn UNHIDE your troopers and allow the CM spotting routines to start localizing the enemy troop locations. You should be ~300m distant now from them and was when they open fire you should be much more capable of fixing their locations. 5. Now apply as much support fire as possible on the enemy locations. AREA fire with HMGs and mortars is preferable. I’d suggest at least 3 HMGs per enemy platoon to PIN them. If you feel fairly comfortable that no ATGs are laying in ambush you may also more forward your direct fire HE assets and attempt to lay fire into suspected enemy concentrations. The MGs mounted on ACs are especially useful in these conditions, since they have high suppressive firepower. They also will typically cause ATGs to unmask themselves. SHOOT and SCOOT tactics where you repeatedly move back and forth from an area with LOS to the enemy troops is fairly effective. Note that HTs are not considered armored vehicles by the ATGs (I think) and using them for suppressive fire will not cause the ATGs to reveal themselves. I have not been impressed with the small caliber FO artillery ability to suppress entrenched REG+ infantry, especially in more open terrain. The treebursts achieved in wooded terrain assists but the inability of the CM engine to vary the artillery sheaf types inhibits your ability to suppress a distant extent of treeline. I have found instead that direct HE and on-map mortar fire spread throughout the enemy positions in AREA fire to be at least twice as effective. 6. Following enemy suppression, move the remainder of your troops up to the last staging position, typically 200-300m from a VL. Observation #1: It has been my experience that the defensive CMBB TacAI prefers to setup its ATGs near the extreme back edge of the map. Further, it places very few infantry in forward locations. This means that it is likely you’ll not meeting any enemy forces during your initial phase of movement through NML. Don’t count on this with a human however, they are much more sneaky bastages. Plan for the TacAI to put ATGs in the corners of the map, especially if there are any positions with covering terrain within 200m of the rear edge of the map. Plan to have your support elements covering these areas when you near regions with LOS to these areas. As much as I hate to admit it, you may have to motor around one of your low-cost ACs to sucker the ATG into revealing itself. Far better to lose a HT or AC than a Panzer. This can be charged to be patently attritionist in its outlook but by-in-large attacking forces did not lead with their chin (armour). ATGs performance is considerably hindered by the BORG-like sighting rules in the CM engine. As an attacker however, you must use this to your benefit and unload mightily upon any who dare impede the progress of your glorious armoured forces. This is where mortar-HTs really begin to shine now that platoon (and above) leaders can spot them for indirect fire. German 251/2s and 250/7s give the attacker massive suppressive firepower upon demand. Observation #2: Many times human and computer opponents like to move a fast tank (AC or tankette) to cover the KEYHOLE and hinder your advance. These are a little more difficult to deal with than enemy infantry or support units and may delay your advance a turn or two. There are two ways to handle this. EQUAL or LESSER OPPONENT: Gang-tackle any opponent that is equal or lesser strength than yourself. Met with a Soviet T-26? Move your platoon of 250/10 into the keyhole and mush him! The key tactic here is to maintain the pressure on your opponent by overwhelming any of his forces he feeds piecemeal into covering the KEYHOLEs. You may lose an AC or HT to him but the remaining members of the platoon will bring the exchange down to 1 for 1. Most likely however is that with 1:3 or worse odds, you will eliminate him first. INVULNERABLE OPPONENT: Typically human opponent matches will be played under some rule sets that disallow invulnerable assets (e.g. Fionn’s Rules). In our computer game however, there are no such understandings and a KV-1 can easily come trundling into view of the KEYHOLE. Here, you first need to button his ass up with HMG fire and then SMOKE him into complete oblivion. I hesitate to use valuable FO assets at this point and would much prefer to use 81mm HT mortars to obscure his LOS. Unfortunately you can only play this game a limited number of times due to a limited number of smoke rounds. That means if you are faced with a pesky enemy tank that you see will continually ruin your digestion in the turns ahead, you must break off sufficient forces from the main body and deal with it. Typically this entails maneuver tactics with your platoon of panzers to ensure a flank or rear kill shot. In the early years of the war the tank hunting infantry assets were poor at anything longer than phone-booth distances so I’d not count on them to resolve things in your favour. Last Lesson #4 There’s nothing like MAIN LINING! Woo Hoo! There’s nothing like a patient grind through NML, only to be followed up by the heady rush of storming the enemy’s main line of resistance (MLR)! As you get more experienced in CM maneuvers, you’ll find that you reach the enemy MLR as a whole without much time lost in setting up for the final assault. If things have gone swimmingly then you are with ~200m of a VL with the majority of your forces under covering terrain. You will have also chewed up a variety of enemy assets, typically MGs, IGs, and ATGs. Pressing home the attack in a timely manner is vital, especially against a human opponent. In the defense, it is at this location and time that I would typically unleash whatever remained of my artillery against my foe. It is the disruption of his timetable and retaining or maintaining the initiative that I am working towards. This is not a historically accurate way to use artillery due to the proximity of friendly troops, but it is very potent in CM. Thus, don’t allow your enemy the turns required to bring an FO’s fire down upon you. This is also the time and place where your FO assets are meant to be used. First, to smoke and obscure that intervening open terrain. Second, to suppress over a wide area, unseen infantry that lie in wait for your forces to approach. This isn’t entirely like the previous situations where the enemy is dealt with singly or in small numbers. The terrain in front of you will likely be capable of being swept with numerous enemy assets. If this is an isolated VL you will likely have overwhelming fire superiority and may choose to forgo the smoke. If you suspect that you don’t have enough assets to cover all of the enemy you are likely to face, I’d suggest planning on a turn or two of preparatory artillery and switch to smoke on the turn where you jump off for the first assault. Just like anyone I’ve setup simulations in the CMBB editor and have found a couple rules-of-thumb with which I work. 0. Enemy units are suppressed easier before they start firing at nearby targets. Kind of strange but in my limited testing once they start firing their weapons it is much harder to force them to ground. 1. For every enemy platoon within the pattern of a small caliber 4-tube artillery fall, count on only one squad in panic and another pinned in a 2 min barrage. This means you really require the fire of 3+ FOs to completely suppress an enemy if you rely on artillery alone. This is an uneconomical use of over 300pts of assets IMO and I find small caliber FO best used for SMOKE. 2. ATGs and HMGs can only be suppressed or eliminated in an economical way by HMGS, on-board mortars, and direct fire HE. This is especially true it seems if the enemy has already started firing. At +400m it requires at least two HMGs, or two on-board mortars, or one 75mm direct HE asset to suppress ATGs and HMGs. 3. Entrenched enemy infantry requires twice the number of opposing infantry units to achieve suppression by small arms firepower alone. 4. Multiply all the above by 1.5 to be completely sure that an attack will be carried off without too many ugly surprises. Hopefully at the end of all this you’ll find yourself in possession of one or more enemy VLs and in an optimal flanking position. Although CM doesn’t model the effects of rolling up a flank completely accurately it is satisfactory in most accounts. Most likely the enemy at this point will have lost most of its mobile assets in piecemeal attacks, which you have repulsed. Further, your troops will be in a kind of echeloned or wedge formation (depending on how close to the map edge the VL is), while the enemy infantry remains entrenched parallel to your next movement direction. This means of course that you will be able to defeat most of the remaining VLs in detail, one at a time. Cheers MRD

Things that go BUMP on a Monday morning. Any news BFC? The world wonders....

DirectX 8.1, No tweaks, No luck with toggling FSAA. The age old problems (many moons ago) with CMBO fog and NVidia prompted a switch to the new drivers when they came out. Just to check I have uninstalled the drivers and then reinstalled in the last few days. CMBO works fine, including the alt-Tab. Puzzling. Cheers MRD

System 1 GHz P4 1 GB RAM Win2000 Pro NVidia Quadro2 Pro with 30.82 Drivers Crashes CMBB on Alt-Tab to desktop Unhandled Exception C0000005 at Address 72d9af42 Annoying...anyone else with the same problems? any word from BFC on similar issues? Cheers MRD

Thanks Steve. Just another reason to await the engine re-write. Cheers MRD

Sorry Mike, the probability to hit a target goes up with each successive round, just like in real-life. The CM engine in CMBO modelled this faithfully as long as your "lock" didn't break, however momentarily. For example, you are tracking a AFV as it parades in front of you at 600m. You miss with the first two shots and the LOS to the enemy vehicle is lost for 1-2 seconds as it rolls behind a house. Although BFC tweaked the "stickiness" of the turret facing in CMBO and your AFV doesn't immediately begin to slew to another target when LOS is lost, you do start climbing the shot probability ladder completely from scratch. My question to BFC, responded to so far with stunning clarity is...has this been changed in CMBB? Sheesh...I mean...is it so hard to answer? Steve has been very active in other threads. Maybe its my breath? Cheer MRD

Things that go BUMP in the forum.

Hey Steve! Any chance you can respond to the "Breaking Target Lock" thread? I mean...don't you get tired of all these softballs? Cheers MRD

JDS: "A what function? I'm afraid I can't follow your banter, Biggles." Heavyside function...a step function by any other monicker JDS: "Drastic, but believable, and pretty straightforward. What I don't like about it is the "cookie-cutters" of 2 sec in time and 50m in distance, which I think can be done away with." My predjudice towards hard "constants" is from my career. In the varied and complex instruments I have delivered to my customers I have tried a number of different s/w approaches to "tuning" a system for optimum operation. The most flexible I have found involves implementing a numerical multi-variate representation of a process. The instrument performance can then be tweaked by changing the value multiplicative constants. As these constants typically appear in a separate text file independent of the compiled code, s/w modes do not imply the transfer of Mbs of mainline code. Obviously though if a new stimulus arises which cannot be adequately modeled the s/w algorithm must be changed. To enter any discussion about what is possible or probable for BFC to implement is a complete non-starter...neither you or I have even the remotest idea as to the s/w structure. But there is considerable grist in a discussion of what a possible implementation COULD look like. JDS: "A rather rich model of direct-fire gunnery might work as follows; exactly how CM's model works I have no idea. 1. Once the target has been visually acquired (skating hastily over the complications of the Night Vision Lab's optical acquisition model here) the weapon commander makes an estimate of the range to the target. This estimate will be made by drawing a random variate from the normal distribution, with the expectation being the true range and the s.d. depending on the accuracy of the range estimation method used (visual estimation, map-reading, co-ax MG, stereoscopic rangefinder, reference to measure range-marker). The estimate will be "remembered" by the weapon entity as its "range of the moment"." I agree with your premise so far. Pragmatically, Steve and BFC as a whole have truncated discussions quite abrupting by using arguements hinged on the premise that no valid historical data is available for some particular phenomenon to be modeled. As such, I predict that BFC would choose not to change their current algorithms based upon the dearth of derived or recorded information on range estimation using the above equipment. JDS: "2. Once the time for range estimation plus whichever is greater of loading and laying has elapsed, the first shot is fired. In my view there should also be a variable time for laying, loading, and firing based upon statistical models. The current CM model is rigid in its timing. JDS: "For this shot, a second normal random variate is generated, based on the ballistic properties of the gun and ammunition nature, and all the other things that go into an error budget (laying error, trunnion cant, trunnion jump, ballistic hump, blah, blah) except range estimation error. This is then applied to the aim point defined by the "range of the moment" to determine whether the shot is a hit, falls plus, or falls minus. 2a. For a really de-luxe model, a third random variate could be drawn to determine whether the round has been sensed by the firing crew. This would depend not only on where the round fell, but on the type of ammo (17-pdr APDS was notoriously hard to sense) and visibility conditions. " Couldn't agree with you more here John. Dust from the muzzle blast, for example, was such a problem that it was SOP for an AT gun commander to be displaced laterally. Discarding sabot rounds were incredibly difficult to see at distance, especially so for the 17pdr which suffered from a considerable dispersion. Allied optics had only fair quality and a limited field of view, making the job even more difficult at Ostfront distances. JDS: "3. If the result was a hit, the firing crew repeat until the target is seen to be destroyed or they find something better to do. If the result was a miss, a new correction is made, depending on whether the round fell plus or minus. The accuracy of the correction, as well as the accuracy of the initial estimate, may depend strongly on the gunner and commander's skill rating. As a first-order guess, I would say that making the magnitude of the correction proportional to miss distance would be about right for direct fire corrections. A similar process to the one described here could be used when ranging mortars or HE at long range, and there might be standardised bracketing distances laid down for this kind of shooting before FFE is started. Give me a few hours (or a day) and I'll try to have some input as to the various forces' training procedures for firing. JDS: "4. When a switch is made between two targets, the probable error in the revised range estimate is based not on the range to the target, but on the distance between old and new targets. "Short switches" between closely-clumped targets are therefore likely to be pretty accurate. SOP platoon formations of AFVs extended over fairly short distances. AAR's from the Ostfront mirror just this effect. A few rounds required to strike the first target and then consumptions verging on a single round per successive target. JDS: "Although it took a while to describe in words, this is a pretty straightforward scheme that requires only two or three random variates per shot, and needs the weapon entity to remember only one thing, namely its "range of the moment" in range. It should be pretty obvious how to adapt the method to account for errors in line as well as range. One of the possibilities such a model would simulate is the case of a gunner making a "false correction". For some high-velocity weapons that are ballistically inaccurate but relatively insensitive to errors in range, it may sometimes be prefereable to fire a repeat shot wihtout making a correction. All the best, John. Good stuff boyo. [ September 11, 2002, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Claymore ]

[/tweak ON] It seems like all the people at BFC are handling the "softball" questions these days. Lots of quick responses to stooopid Demo questions and self-congratulatory noises about the new movement orders though. [/tweak OFF] Rexford's excellent treatise on ballistics is brimming with information on the errors, and indeed John, range estimation error is at the head of the pack. 20-25% is spot on. Ok John, lets ennumerate the possiblities and keep it really simple. 1. Gun Breaks Target Lock 1.1 W/O acquiring new target 1.1.1 if Delta T < 2 seconds NO PENALTY TO PROBABILITIES (I'd even make an argument for up to 5 seconds) 1.1.2 T > 2 sec as time increases then range estimation error should increase proportionally. (if this is too difficult for the algorithms then a Heavy-Side Function at T = 2 (or 5 sec) could be applied) 1.2 Gun acquires new target 1.2.1 Target within 50m of previous target NO PENALTY 1.2.2 Target outside of 50m Range error set to maximum - back to first shot probabilitis. Cogent arguments can be made that 1.2 is impossible to implement with the current s/w engine. Hence I suggest that if a gun breaks target lock and aquires ANY new target then you devolve back to first shot probablities. Cheers MRD

Another couple of hours goes by and nothing (except one piece of dryer lint) gets posted to this thread. Blech! Nobody curious at all?? No response from BFC? Bueller? Bueller?

I realize it's been just a short time so this is a shameless self-serving bump to the top just before I knock off work. Anyone else just a little bit interested in an answer to this question? From looking at all the chatter about MODs, doodads, and demos I would have thought that questions about the gritty basics would have generated more talk. Sheesh! Moaning and whining has dominated this forum for the last couple of days people. :mad: Cheers MRD