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

It seems that my initial observation that bogging in reverse is not 100% correct. As I did the test with the minefield, on dry ground to be exact, there were two instances of tanks in reverse getting bogged in the mine field. There was no explosion so it was not an immobilization caused by a mine. One got unbogged, the other got immob. after some time. At first I thought the reverse bogging issue was resolved in v1.1b but I did a test in deep mud again and I saw no bogging for vehicles in reverse. Very strange. Joeri

Hi, Recently I did some test about bogging chances for different movement orders and terrain types (thread: statistics on bogging). In my tests it seemed that while reversing the chance of bogging is 0%. In v1.1b I started to play some with the (reduced cost) mines and noticed several times when they did not detonate. Therefore I did some tests trying to determine the detonation chance of a mine. I haven't finished those test yet but I did find that while reversing the chance of detonating a mine is again 0%. Both in v1.05 and v1.1b This seems a little more than a coincidence so my conclusion is that there is something wrong with the reverse movement code. I would appreciate it if someone from BTS could comments on this. Joeri [This message has been edited by Joeri (edited 12-03-2000).]

I like to share a trick I use for moving my recon units (mostly halfsquads) into unknown territory. I usually use the run command but I mix this with very small distances of sneak. That way when your squad comes under fire it only runs to the next sneak order and then stops and returns fire. Typically such a sneak order will be given when the squad enters a wood. The result is that your men cross the open quickly. If they come under fire they continue to the wood from where they return fire. If they do not come under fire they start running again after a very small section of sneaking. This works very good in some cases. I also use this when I'm travelling through wood. Run sneak run sneak .... Only I tend to make the run distances much shorter then in the open. By the way with a short distance of sneak I mean as short as I reasonably can put the two waypoints together (something like 1m in CM scale). Hope anyone likes this idea. Joeri [This message has been edited by Joeri (edited 11-29-2000).]

Have two squats fire at the rifle squat inside the building and run the third towards it. That way the guys in the building will not shoot at you because they are keeping there heads down. Joeri

PvK Your right about the bogging chance per turn/distance remark. I forgot to measure in my first test (terrain type) the distance that was covered by the vehicles. I did compare the distances in my second test (movement) and as I posted the distances were all equal. It seems that the people with experience driving tracked vehicles agree with the decreased bogging chance in rough terrain as modelled in CM. I guess my initial expectation was just way off and CM get it right again. Only problem left is the no-bogging in reverse issue. I contacted Madmatt about this by email and he is having a look at it. Joeri

Mr Hofbauer Of course it's not smart to advance your tanks in reverse when you expect contact. As aka_tom_w pointed out you can avoid getting bogged in your rear area by reversing. I always seem to get bogged in my rear where my tanks can do noting the rest of the game . If they get bogged while cresting a hill at least you have a nice pillbox (for as long as it lives). To answer your 'ground pressure' comment. I am aware of the importance of ground pressure in bogging chances. I used a M4 Sherman in the tests. It's ground pressure is 13.? psi. Most medium/heavy tanks have a value of 13 something so it's seems representative for most tanks. The reason I did my test was to find a way to reduce chances of bogging when you are playing. Since you cannot chance the ground pressure of your tanks during the game it has no relevance in my tests. What I wanted to know is which type of movement and which type of terrain to choose/avoid. The ground pressure of tanks is most relevant when you are in the force selection screen. If you know there will be bad ground conditions you have to choose low ground pressure tanks. I hope this clarifies the reason I did not include ground pressure in my tests. Of course I would be very interesting to know how ground pressure affects the chances in order to make a better force selection. Any volunteers? jshandorf I don't think elevation or inclination has anything to do with the chances of bogging, but of course I could be wrong. If you feel strongly about this you could do some test and prove me wrong I would sure welcome some other similar test to compare the data. Joeri

Pak40 On the movement issue. I don't think it's really relevant since it seems that in bad conditions, the specific movement order is ignored and the TacAI will always proceed in a slow movement independent of the order. So basically the TacAI already takes your driving advice About the terrain type. I agree with you that an argument could be made for a decreased the chance of bogging in scattered trees and brush compared to open terrain. It is just not what I, and I think many others expected. If it was intended to be like this I am the last to disagree. Joeri

I think you are right about reversing being gamey, but I also think it's something which is really hard to avoid. Sometimes it's just logical to reverse and where do you draw the line. I must say that I already reversed a little bit farther than I would normally have in one of my PBEM just to be on the safe side. (Bad I know, but I couldn't help it) About the v1.1 fix. I think the Beta is already out the door so it would probably be to late. Maybe a fast 1.101 Joeri

Do I understand correctly that you are saying that they move faster the second part of the course? If I make a quick calculation from your post, the HQ does the first part in 5.34 and the second part in 5.06. Those 28 sec difference are partly due to command delay. Say 8 sec for elite HQ's. Leaving 20 sec difference?? That's strange. How did you measure the distance? Did you use the terrain tiles with gridlines? Maybe it has something to do with the unit fatigue level. Of course then you would expect it the other way around. Maybe if the troops are rested they can't walk that fast because they have stiff legs. When they get warmed up (ready) they walk a little faster By the way, I do get sleep. I just don't have a social live (well, at least on tuesday and wednesday evening ) Joeri

That's funny, I did the exact same (almost) test last night as part of my bogging chances analysis. I came to the same conclusion as you (also expecting the hunt command to be slower as the move). I didn't do it as accurate as you by the way, I thought hunt and reverse were the same speed. Try it in mud (you might be surprised). I tested it to get the chances for different movement orders in bad conditions and I was quite surprised about the results. You can read about it in my previous post 'statistics on bogging' if you're interested. Joeri