Treeburst155

WineCape, Hi, Charl! Good to see you posting around the various BFC forums. I'm just seeing what kind of interest I have in a CMBO tourney here. I'll be in touch with you via email within the next few days. We haven't chatted lately. Kingfish, I will send you a copy of the Nabla Scoring System manual when it is completed. Nabla is going to put it into pdf format, add graphs and formulae,etc.. It will be a team effort. I'm going to send him the first draft sometime late tomorrow. IOW, tomorrow is the day I'm going to ignore the forum and get it done. Kanonier and U8led, Great to have you two pros still interested in CMBO. So far we have some stiff competition in the mix with The_Capt, Jim L, Holien, Kanonier, U8led, and Combined Arms. Did I forget anyone? We also have some interested newbies. I'll be watching this thread. Nothing is going to happen real soon however. Treeburst155 out. [ November 01, 2002, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

It seems to me the BFC guys have tweaked the CMBB views in a way that favors those who like to get down in the action frequently. In CMBO I used mostly views 4 and 5. In CMBB it's 3,4, and 6. They gave us an additional view level, but you almost HAVE to use it. I gotta say though I love that sidescrolling by mouse. When I switch to CMBO I keep trying to do it now. Treeburst155 out.

Interesting results here from the human controlled Russian side. The Russians got off the first and only shot 9 times. Close calls going to the Russians as described above in the other test occurred 5 times. German first and only shots occurred only 1 time! The remaining 5 trials resulted in virtually simultaneous fire. If I had to choose who fired first I would give it to the Russians 3-2 for these "simultaneous" shots. We're talking a tenth of a second here I think. The interesting thing is that the Germans only got off the first and only round ONE TIME when the human switched to the Russian side. Compare this to the 14 times the Germans got off the ONLY shot while the human was playing the Germans. The poor AI is getting cheated bad here! Apparently, where the human goes, is where the majority of first shots will go, at least when the human manually targets. OK, statisticians, how many samples do I need from each side for this one. Treeburst155 out. [ November 01, 2002, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Whe Gets The First Shot? Test #1 The Test: 1 Captured T-34/85 faces off against 1 Russian crewed T-34/85 at 200 meters. Both crews are veterans. Both are unbuttoned. Time is June '44 in hopes that a Russian vet is as good as a German vet by then. The hit chance is 87% for both (Kill Good). Human German player manually targets Russian vehicle. The German armor fired first 18 out of 20 times. In the two instances where the Russians fired first, the Germans still managed to get off a round. They were just a half second or so behind the Russians. In four of the 18 German "firsts", the Russians managed to get off a round a fraction of a second later (before dying). This preliminary test would seem to show that a manually targetting human gets a quicker response than the AI, given the same vehicles and crew quality on both sides. Other possible causes for the lopsided results: Russian vets may not be as quick as German vets, even in June '44. The German SIDE may have a quicker response time regardless of whether it is AI or human controlled, and regardless of what vehicle is used (the same vehicle for both sides, of course). The captured armor may not be the exact same vehicle as the Russian armor. The penetration charts are different. Perhaps the ROF is also different due to German improvements. This may tie in with the possible quicker response time for the German SIDE mentioned above. Not enough samples? This one is REALLY lopsided, but maybe things would level out with a bigger sample. Now to test with the Russian side under human control. Treeburst155 out. [ November 01, 2002, 01:26 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Inexorably the gap closes as we approach the truth. The AI cannot keep up it's artificially high percentage. On the other hand, the artificially low human percentage continues to rise with even moderately good showings in a given round. Even an extremely good showing by the AI would be just a hiccup with this many shots behind us. The percentages will continue to converge IMO. Human first round hit percentage after 1,800 rounds: 35.11% AI first round hit percentage after 1,800 rounds: 36.94% The difference: 1.83 percentage points I am now satisfied that the AI does not have an advantage over a human when it comes to the probability of a first round HIT against a sitting duck target given the EXACT same situation. Treeburst155 out. [ October 31, 2002, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

The gap continues to close. After 1,600 shots the AI first shot HIT percentage is: 37.06% The human is continuing to improve with 34.94% after 1,600 rounds. The gap: 2.12 Treeburst155 out.

How about this to test time to first shot: Helpless targets at 200 meters so hit % is high. Veteran crews, again for hit percentage. Let the AI fire (20 lanes), and record the second in which the first detailed armor hit appears. Then, I will play the firing side and see if there is a difference. Of course this will have to be repeated many, many times. Differences of less than a second might be difficult to notice if they do not span two distinct seconds of the turn. BTW, my current first round HIT test already includes only one AP round per firing vehicle. I'm still not quite satisfied yet with my test. I'll move on to a "time to shoot" test after I'm finished with this one. Treeburst155 out.

Do T34-85 mods affect first round hit percentage? I'll have to test that next. Both the human and the AI managed to raise their first round HIT percentage in the latest round; but the gap was still closed ever so slightly by the human. Human first round HIT percentage after 1,400 shots: 34.86% AI first round HIT percentage after 1,400 shots: 37.57% Percentage difference after 1,400 shots: 2.71 Treeburst155 out.

Mike, I'm counting the number of detailed armor hit messages. The last messages appear towards the end of the 7th second. The first ones disappear late in the 9th second. By counting the messages at all three points I can be sure of the hit count. Probably checking the 8th second would be good enough, but I look at 7 and 9 too. Also, I've checked dozens of times to make sure all rounds were fired by the 7th second. That is definitely the case. I've also run dozens of turns to completion to see if there were ever any late hits. It never happened. It's actually quite easy to count the hits, especially with all the practice I'm getting. _______________________________________________ The human continues to chip away at the AI lead with another strong performance. Is the AI folding under pressure, or is the human bearing down?! After 1,200 shots the human first shot HIT percentage is 34.75% (up from 34.2) The AI slips just a bit with a first round hit percentage of 37.5% (down from 37.6) after 1,200 shots. The percentage difference is now only 2.75, after 1,200 shots. Treeburst155 out. [ October 31, 2002, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

You are right, Combined Arms. The gap is too small to be trusted with ONLY 1,000 rounds fired. I shall press on to the truth! Geez, I just love blue collar statistics. BTW, the worst human performance was 60/200. The best was 77/200. Worst AI performance 70/200, the best was 82/200. Treeburst155 out.

Surprising development!! The human turns in his best performance yet. Not only that, the AI has its worst round! After 1,000 shots, the AI first round HIT percentage is 37.6% The human first round hit percentage after 1,000 shots is up to 34.2% The percentage difference is now only 3.4! Clearly, the AI and I will have to each fire 500 more times. Maybe even 1,000 more times. Treeburst155 out. [ October 31, 2002, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

After 800 shots the human player improves his first round hit percentage to 33.125%, and closes the gap just a hair. The AI, after 800 shots has a first round hit percentage of 38.25% The all important percentage difference is now 5.125 in favor of the AI. Since the gap WILL be very near 5% after 1,000 trials, I think I should run the test another 500 times in order to put all doubts to rest. I want my margin of error to be very small since we only see a 5% difference anyway. Treeburst155 out.

Yeah, Steve, we're just checking for a possible oddity somewhere deep in that beautiful program. Nobody is doubting the integrity of BFC. It's all in fun. If we come up with results that interest Charles, then we're helping. If not, we're having fun anyway. The AI, after 600 shots, has a first round hit percentage of 38.0% I, after 600 shots, have a first round hit percentage of 32.67% The AIs lead has been reduced to 5.33% With each group of 200 shots it becomes more and more unlikely that the percentages will change significantly; but I'm still not convinced they are accurate enough. Treeburst155 out.

My time is valuable, but the truth is priceless to me. I must know. After 400 shots the AI has a first round hit percentage of 39.5% I, after 400 shots have a first round hit percentage of 33.25% The gap after 400 trials is now 6.25% in favor of the AI. Treeburst155 out.

My 4.5% difference in HIT percentage is not enough to be significant with only 200 trials. It just can't be. Even a margin of error of 2% or so would be too much. It's only logical to me that, the more times I test, the closer I will get to the TRUE percentages. If I flip a coin 10 times, odds are I will come up heads 50% of the time; BUT, this may very well not prove out until I flip the coin several hundred times. The more I flip, the closer my results will be to 50%. Empirical data is the key, especially if you don't know statistics. Treeburst155 out.

Playing the firing Germans in my test above 200 times, I scored 73 first round hits. Letting the AI play the firing Germans there were 82 first round hits out of 200 tests. With 20% of the tests completed, the AI is leading in first round HIT percentage 41% to 36.5%. Inconclusive at this point IMO. If the gap doesn't close by the time I've tested 1,000 times, it might be worth it to do it an additional 1,000 times. At that point maybe the statisticians can say if we have something here. Isn't there some "90% confidence in your figures" point you eventually reach? I mean, a point where your margin of error is very small due to the high number of trials? If there is a 70% chance of an event occurring and you test it a couple thousand times, it's going to happen very close to 70% of the time, right? Treeburst155 out. [ October 31, 2002, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

The question I will attempt to answer: Will the AI achieve a first round HIT more often than I do when we both play the same side in the exact same situation, AND I manually target the enemy? The Test: 20 isolated firing lanes two more isolated areas filled with 2,500 pts. of troops for each side to cut down on possible morale issues. Firing vehicle is captured T-34 (1941 model) loaded with one AP round only and regular German crews. Target vehicle is Russian T-34 (1941 model) with ZERO ammo and regular crews, facing 180 degrees away from the Germans (showing their rear) and buttoned up. Target and firing vehicle are limited to 20 meter square by water to front and rear, and woods to the sides. Range is 742 meters. Fog of War = NONE I will play the firing Germans 50 times, giving 1000 isolated tests. I will record the HITS achieved. I will then play the exact same turn from the Russian "target" side 50 times, giving no orders, and record the AIs HITS against the targets. The Tac AI will have full control of my Russian units. Note: By facing the Russian target vehicles away from the firing units, and buttoning them up, I'm hoping the Russian strat AI does not "see" the German vehicles and therefore won't give any orders while it is "thinking". IOW, I want the strat AI to play the Russian side exactly as I do. EDIT: With 20 firing lanes it will be difficult to count the hits (detailed armor hits). I must either count them, or look for evidence of a hit after the mad minute. Does a vehicle have to be hit to cause the crew to bail, or become broken or routed? Perhaps simply being without ammo, and without an escape is enough to cause these things. I need to run the movie enough times to actually count all the hits. BTW, all hits are first round hits since there is only one round in the firing vehicle. EDIT 2: OK, I figured out how to count the hits easily. Running tests now. Finally. BTW, it does appear a vehicle has to be hit to cause the crew to break, rout, or bail. At least in my test. Treeburst155 out. [ October 31, 2002, 03:43 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Interesting....a Soviet T-34 (1941 model) does not penetrate armor as well as a CAPTURED Soviet T-34 (1941 model) according to the charts. Everything else in the info screen is exactly the same. Just the penetration charts are different. Oh well, not to get sidetracked. BTW, I've very carefully avoided the cast turret T-34 since there is no captured units of this type available to the Germans. Continuing with the test setup. Treeburst155 out.

I have read the entire thread. I will test this 1,000 times. Empirical data is what we need. No fancy stuff. Let this blue collar geek handle this once and for all with brute force. I will devise my own test because that is the only fun part of this thing. Since I've read the whole thread, I'm aware of the pitfalls in setting up the test. Before I run the actual time consuming test I will describe it in detail right here so people can point out any flaws in it that I may not have thought of. Great thread, eggheads!! We shall get to the bottom of this once and for all. Treeburst155 out.

Here's what I think we should do. First we find a fourth person, preferably from a Nordic country, who is NOT playing in the ROW II Finals. Then I will generate a schedule for you guys, and you will play the ROW Finals scenarios. I currently have eleven groups of four playing the ROW II scenarios. The Nordic Champs would just make up another group. You will be scored using the full Nabla system since we will have enough results to obtain good median scores. The high score among you four is declared the Nordic Champ and wins the South African wines generously provided by WineCape. IOW, we start the playoffs over with a replacement. Luckily we have scenarios, so we can do this. COGUST!!!! This is all your fault. Treeburst155 out.

Another idea is to just edit existing scenarios enough so that we have brand new scenarios. IOW, only the map would be the same. Would they be balanced? Who cares? We have the Nabla System. I've read enough feedback about scenarios now that I'm fairly certain I could put together some fun fictional ones. The only problem is time. Take now, for instance. I'm supposed to be writing a manual for the Nabla Scoring System. Treeburst155 out.

This thread was a good idea. There's lots of feedback here for our esteemed scenario designers at Boots & Tracks. Holien, We do not need to play Another Day since I would NOT go for the second flag. Maybe if the back flag was a large VL the Allied player would be more motivated to push on. Treeburst155 out.

Very interesting, Kunstler. I hadn't thought of how the briefings might influence play for the more honorable, less gamey players such as yourself. I would of course ignore orders if I thought they interfered with my REAL goal of scoring maximum points. I also wouldn't worry about being a good sport by initiating ill-advised action just to make the game more interesting. As soon as I hit a point in the scenario where I feel I cannot improve my score, I'm ready for a ceasefire. That could be very early in the scenario or not at all. Briefings probably should contain a sentence like this: Press on to the crossroads unless you feel resistance is too heavy. Don't be a hero. Your real "orders" are dictated by the size and location of the flags, and your estimate of the casualty ratio that will occur if you move on a VL. In "Another Day" that far VL (Allied view) is only worth 100 points. You can't lose many more guys than your opponent while taking the flag if it is to pay off in the end. Thanks for bringing the briefings into the discussion. They are indeed important. Treeburst155 out.

Oh, I see. Redwolf is just saying that infantry movement does not take as long as it used to due to players plotting less waypoints, and also because units become exhausted from sneaking away from enemy fire. It simply takes less time to give orders to infantry later in the game than was common for the same size CMBO battle. Orders phases progress quicker, which relates to the original topic of this thread. Treeburst155 out.

Newbs, newbs, newbs everywhere. It's a wonderful thing actually, for everybody who likes CM. Welcome newbies!! In the words of Peng, "Die-A-Lot Now"; just as we all have, time after time on the CM battlefield. Treeburst155 out.