Joeri

During a game against the AI I noticed after the game had finished that the AI had put 3 AT minefield in wood (or tall pines). Obvious this is a very stupid thing to do. I think this is some sort of mix-up between AP and AT mines. It was a pretty good location for AP mines. Anyone experienced something similar? Joeri

Maybe it has something to do with that fact that it fires shaped charges (the ones indicated with 'c') for busting through bunkers. So it's not a normal HE shell which would leave a big crater. Joeri

I saw this to in v1.1b A Sherman(105) reversed through a gap between a roadblock and some trees. I had a minefield there so it was kind of a gamey exploitation of another bug on the part of the AI Actually the AI didn't know the minefield was there so it must have been coincidence. I watched this pretty closely because I was annoyed the minefield didn't go of. Joeri

Did you check if the vehicle targeting the one in the open had LOS to the area in front of the target. If that is so it should never report it as hull down. By the way I have seen several instances in v1.1 where there was non-reciprocal hull down (not involving walls) so something is fixed. Joeri [This message has been edited by Joeri (edited 12-13-2000).]

Pak40, That's a tactic I also use quite often in defensive battles (splitting squads to double number of foxholes). Something to consider when using this tactic is to make sure that the attacker does not benefit from your forward foxholes when you abandon them. They often make excellent firing positions for the support weapons of the attacking side. Joeri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It's my understanding that with "Move" your men are more likely to stop and return fire than with "Sneak". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> It was my understanding that with sneak your units stop and return fire. While with move they continue moving. Since the intermediate sneak order I give is only very short, it is necessary for the unit to stop. If they do not stop they will again start running. Sometimes I also include portions of 'move' in the sequence (mostly when traveling through woods). In that case I use move/sneak instead of run/sneak. Again with very small portions of sneak. Depending on the circumstances I also use the sneak for larger distances when expecting contact. I find this method very useful to plan ahead a sequence of orders for a number of turns for my scouting units (of course they can be chanced in between turns if things happen). Joeri

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Joeri, you presented the test criteria as it appears above; this is what I took issue with. What you actually did I had no further idea, but it was reasonable to assume your tank constant had not changed from the 8 tanks you used in the test immediately prior, so I assumed your error was one of math (you clearly gave the function "8 times 8" as equal to "56 tanks") and not a common typo. My confusion does not seem unwarranted. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You are absolutely right. I made a mistake which caused your confusion. Only the mistake was not in the 56 but in the 8 times 8, hence my comment. About your other comments (more tests, standard deviation). I just want to know some relevant info to better judge situations in games. For example: - If I mine a road can I be absolutely certain that nothing is coming through or only 60% sure. - Is it useful to put 2 minefields on top of each other or does this change nothing and is it just a waste. - I know my opponent has mined this area do I order my inf. through it anyway or go through another area where I know he has a couple of MG's. That sort of things. I'm not really interested in knowing the exact details just the relevant info for playing. Besides statistics never was one of my favorite subjects. However, feel free to use my results for a nice statistical analyses Joeri [This message has been edited by Joeri (edited 12-06-2000).]

Oops, Tris you were partly right. I did make a mistake but it were not 64 test it were 56 but I did the test only 7 times in stead of 8. Hmm, let me think 7*8 = 56 correct? I don't think it's necessary to do more test because these tests made it pretty clear that both minefields work independent of each other. Therefore, the two test (single and double minefield) can be put together to calculate the chance for a single minefield to detonate. However this involves some statistics I can't reproduce without looking it up first. I did it the simple way: single minefield gives 63% chance double minefield gives 82% chance. This is (1-sqrt(1-0.82))*100% = 58% chance per minefield (assuming they work independent). So combining the results would give somewhere between 58% and 63% chance. Lets make it 61%. This is the chance based on a total of 128 single test and 56 double tests so its quite a large number of tests imo. If anyone can do the exact calculation of the chance based on the test results, I would be interested to read it. Joeri

Hi, Continuing my quest to understand the inner workings of CM I did some tests on mine detonation chances. Both for AT mines and AP mines. What I am interested in is the chance of a minefield detonating, the effect this has and also the effect of stacking two minefields on top of each other (does this increase the chance of detonation and how). Here are the results for those interested. -------------------------------------------- AT mines Setup Flat dry open terrain. 16 minefield in a row. 16 M4 shermans just in front of the mines. I Fast moved the tanks over there minefield and I recorded either: no detonation (N), immobilization (I) or kill (K). Did this for 128 tanks (8 times 16). I also stacked 2 minefields on top of each other and did the same test only with 56 tanks (8 times 8). Results: single minefield: total 128 N 47 I 35 K 46 double minefield: total 56 N 10 I 24 K 22 Discussion For the detonation chance of a tank driving over a minefield, this comes down to 63% ((35+46)/128*100%). For a double minefield this would in theory result in a chance of (1.0-(1.0-0.63)^2) * 100% = 86% chance ( lost anyone). The experiment gives a 82% chance which is close enough in my opinion to conclude that both minefields work independent. Including the double minefield result the chance would be approx 60% per minefield. Once detonated a M4 Sherman has approx 46% chance of an immobilization only. I didn't check if some tanks did set of a mine and survived it without getting immobilized because ... well I didn't want to spent too much time on it. --------------------------------------------- AP mines Setup Flat dry open terrain. 16 minefield in a row. 4 platoons facing the minefields 4 * (3 squads + 1 hq) 12 man squads (US rifle) run the platoons over the minefield. Recorded the results of the hq separate to see if number of man has anything to do with it. I recorded the number of detonations (det) and also the number of casualties (cas). I did this for 6 times. so 6 * 4 * 3 = 72 squads and 6 * 4 * 1 = 24 hq's Results For the 12 man squads Total 72 det 69 cas 162 For the 4 man hq's Total 24 det 23 cas 40 Discussion It seems like the chance of a detonation is independent on the nr. of men walking over the mine 96% for squads as well as hq's. This could be a coincidence because of the high chance and the low nr. of tests (especially with hq's). Average casualties number for a squad detonating a minefield is 2.3 and 1.7 for a hq. Casualties ranged between 1 and 6 for 12 man squads. Note that sometimes the squads cause multiple detonations when travelling through the minefield. I counted this as one detonation and I took the total number of casualties. I also tried this with double minefields but that got kind of complex. They detonated separately both causing casualties and often routing the squads who would than redetonate the first minefield or others which were next to them. From the things I observed from this test it seems that the two minefield work independent just like the AT mines. By the way, double minefield are very effective against squads (half dead, rest routed). -------------------------------------------- In contradiction to the results of my bogging experiments the mine results were pretty close to my expectations. Except of course the no-mine-detonation-bug-when-reversing which I previously reported in another thread. Kind of boring results actually , Joeri [This message has been edited by Joeri (edited 12-05-2000).] [This message has been edited by Joeri (edited 12-05-2000).]

Bruno, I never did any tests looking either at unbogging techniques or at verhicle weight. So unless I'm missing some other tests, these are not in contradiction to your experience. Actually I thought it was clear to everyone that heavier (read more ground pressure) vehicles have a higher bogging chance. About the unbogging techniques. Someone from BTS posted somewhere that you best do nothing while bogged and let the crew sort it out. By the way, unbogging chance is approx 75% (according to my test) so seeing all your vehicles unbog is not so unlikely. Unless you have had a very high number of occurences. I used to do the same trick (stopping and reversing) and it worked often(in approx. 75% of the time ). About the higher lower ground. My test did not show any chance in bogging chance for elevation levels. I didn't test inclination. By the way it's not that difficult to test yourself. Just put up a bunch of tanks in the scenario editor and make high and low ground and run them around. Joeri [This message has been edited by Joeri (edited 12-04-2000).]

After my last tcp game I can also confirm that the Daimler won't use it's MG. Bump... Joeri

Hi, Civilization (great game) Civilization II (great sequal) X-Com Combat Mission Joeri

Thanks Charles, That was exactly the response I was hoping for Joeri

Something which might be related. I noticed a Stuart not opening up on infantry in the open (distance<100m). Only fired main gun, not MG. The Stuart was firing on the inf. for at least two turns. I also had some shermans (E8, and Jumbo's) who did use there MG's from farther away. Joeri

I did report the bogging issue to madmatt some time ago. Did not additionally report the mine issue. I thought the subject of this thread would catch there attention Joeri