dieseltaylor

Thanks so much for your full answer. I am encouraged to know that you are on the case! : ) Your dedication is humbling. My problem, and probably for many other "testers" is we do not know what is actually factored in by BF. I recall when the game out I was wondering whether the sun had any actual effect on spotting and fooling very slightly with it as I wrestled with the spotting anomalies. The spotting was - and I am generally referring to armour to armour - was definitely bizarre. I can understand the idea that testing design can benefit from different inputs but am also wary of designing a slightly inferior wheel. Seeing how the "pros" do it would perhaps be educational as to the whys and why nots of a particular design of test and help "novices" in designing their own. P.S. Whilst I cannot claim to be a statistics guru I have a long love affair with knowledge, and especially when made easy by being provided in graphic form and have all of Mr Tufte's books - first being bought in 1987. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Tufte

Good thinking ZPBII however I was thinking that they would be releasing what they HAD been testing rather than current skunk works. Therefore users of the latest released iteration should be getting the same results as c3k AND if not that is interesting. As it stands we bodge up tests that may be open to criticism on structure.

Talking of facts why not tell us how your tests are structured? Or in fact release the test you use on spotting and find out if replicated on many machines that there is a weird bug liking a floating decimal that actually borks something. Also I think it should be explicitly stated under what version of the game testing or queries relate to. The danger of referring to early experiences or tests exists for all of us and that together with explicit confirmation of any tweaks in new game versions means we can know whether to junk earlier tests.

JS Fair point. Target overload is a problem and from poesel's test we can see the game has unrealistic ability to plot large numbers pretty accurately inside a minute. I have two ideas how perhaps to handle this: - number off from the gun positions so for instance if we say realistically the maximum number that can be spotted and placed accurately is ten then the first decision tree comes with what is currently with the direct line of sight of the gun. If you have three potential targets the next decision is which is the most dangerous and this can a fairly basic AT team head on-on is less dangerous than an AT team on your flank or rear. In the event your gun was facing broadside and you saw an AT crew close to they would be high on the threat scale. So effectively you build up a threat scale that encompasses : proximity size of target chance of them hitting you chance of you hitting them chance of serious damage In the broadside example you might have in line from the gun barrel a AT team, a 6pdr ATG, and a Sherman and on the basis of the formula you then go for the highest threat. This could be slightly randomised and moreso if their threat values were equal. It could be tweaked on the basis if facing forward and the tank has a hull MG then that alters the equation. If the threat value falls below a certain danger threshold then the turret turns to another of the noted threats to left or right and the same process is run. My theory is that a tank crew can only handle so much information in a minute and that normally this spotting will be to the front and particularly where the gunner can wreak some damage. SO counting off targets from the front quadrant comes first and if you hit ten thats is your effective limit and having thirty enemy around you becomes an irrelevancy. The second method is actually to give a maximum number of accurate spots for each crew member with visibility in the required direction. This actually could work in conjunction with the first option and is perhaps a more sophisticated model because it does allow vehicles/tanks with better visibility to make use of it. Particularly relevant to armoured cars with two drivers! It is surprising how quickly targets all-around the Tiger are spotted despite only the tank commander having all-round spotting ability. Assuming the commander can only take so much information as to where and how far enemy formations are in each minute then one would expect more detail over minutes rather than such a rapid assimilation.

Looking at this photo it strikes me that at road level it is likely to be not much wider than 10ft or 9ft or the width of a tank - there was no need for wide roads. Bearing in mind a Churchill is 20ft you can see the difficulty in squaring up to the hedge. Being at an angle is feasible but you then get into the arena of how far can the barrel be raised or lowered where there is already a fudge issue in operation. I mention the Churchill because that could swivel on its tracks unlike the US tanks. From http://www.strijdbewijs.nl/breakout/out2.htm

Make sure you now the relevant turn number and at game end get your opponents preceding turn and password [or keep it - I always keep all turns] and then run all the tests you like. If it would be more useful now you have the option of a film of the event for YouTube and/or a trusted third party is sent the relevant files and passwords. I certainly re-ran a horribly unlikely experience in V1.00 CMBN PBEM to see if a problem had been sorted or not. The vapourising tank crew syndrome where they are unfazed and unhindered in firing by corpses in the turret basket.

Thanks for the reply sburke. AH - great sleuthing. From that we see an M7 in position, loaded for bear, can miss.! : ) But yes really nice find I am well-impressed. and a linky for anyone else wanting to grab their .pdf http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/006/6-2-1/index.html http://www.history.army.mil/html/books/006/6-2-1/index.html

And curiously running on from the use of antibiotics in animals to increase catlle and pig wieght you may not be surprised totally to find other mammals like humans also gain weight. http://www.alternet.org/food/can-antibiotics-make-you-gain-weight? And the article goes on to fundamental treatment. Is it just possible that the obesity epidemic is more than just over-eating. Why some people can stay thin whilst others matching the eating habits just grow. Thought provoking.

sjburke Whilst I applaud your desire to stand up for the game, and your request for someone to repeat the action another 24 times, I think we have a fundamental problem here. I am prepared to believe that due to the way BF have chosen to design the game we have to make some allowances for the visual not matching the actual. However we are also told the shells are individually calculated and therefore pretty darn accurate. Bottom line movement and firing, and spotting all seem banjaxed. In this particular instance we are looking at something that in RL be in the millions to one against column - not because in RL it never happened that an M7 drove past a lurking enemy tank but in the fact it had a shell up the spout and was able to fire considerably off its angle of movement. AND the German tank never thought to fire. BF have really got to nail the moving tank is king nonsense. I don't give a monkey if it screws the non-stop players. Perhaps there are two games here which have been crunched together and the WEGO players have ended up with a pup. There needs to be a fundamental think on whether the game can be split so that both parties have a game that is believable not just the RTS.

That video sums up pretty much why I find it difficult to take CMX2 seriously. There is no way in hell that should have happened. As for M7 DF in passing http://carol_fus.tripod.com/army_hero_donald_boyd.html

Armoured cars with two drivers and positions not able to drive at full speed in either direction

What !! Buildings where AP is required to penetrate! The interesting thing is whether the AI will fire HE through buildings with windows and AP through the stone facades.

Sometimes your up and sometimes your down in the world : ) But all in all I think China has done better in the last 40 years than the US so in another 40 perhaps they will be the leaders in space. One thing the Chinese are good at is taking the long view of history.

Must be all the rage for journalists: 28/08/2012

My apologies.

This is does highlight one of the problems I think with CMx2 and that is that all units are at full strength were as we know this would be uncommon. In fact I believe thta where soldiers werwe a bit gunshy thye would be dropped out of the platoon for reserve as their value in combat was marginal or dangerous. Why we cannot have reduced squads I am not sure as it was a nice feature in CMx1

Whilst it seems to some that we are a unique species with our own deity for those who believe we are of the animal kingdom this, at a very fundamental level [ : ) ] shows we are part of the ecosystem. On an interesting medical matter: http://www.economist.com/node/21560523/print ...... A healthy adult human harbours some 100 trillion bacteria in his gut alone. That is ten times as many bacterial cells as he has cells descended from the sperm and egg of his parents. These bugs, moreover, are diverse. Egg and sperm provide about 23,000 different genes. The microbiome, as the body’s commensal bacteria are collectively known, is reckoned to have around 3m. Admittedly, many of those millions are variations on common themes, but equally many are not, and even the number of those that are adds something to the body’s genetic mix. And it really is a system, for evolution has aligned the interests of host and bugs. In exchange for raw materials and shelter the microbes that live in and on people feed and protect their hosts, and are thus integral to that host’s well-being. Neither wishes the other harm. In bad times, though, this alignment of interest can break down. Then, the microbiome may misbehave in ways which cause disease. ............ Another intervention, though, allows entire bacterial ecosystems to be transferred from one gut to another. This is the transplanting of a small amount of faeces. Mark Mellow of the Baptist Medical Centre in Oklahoma City uses such faecal transplants to treat infections of Clostridium difficile, a bug that causes severe diarrhoea and other symptoms, particularly among patients already in hospital. According to America’s Centres for Disease Control and Prevention, C. difficile kills 14,000 people a year in America alone. The reason is that many strains are resistant to common antibiotics. That requires wheeling out the heavy artillery of the field, drugs such as vancomycin and metronidazole. These also kill most of the patient’s gut microbiome. If they do this while not killing off the C. difficile, it can return with a vengeance. Dr Mellow has found that treating patients with an enema containing faeces from a healthy individual often does the trick. The new bugs multiply rapidly and take over the lower intestine, driving C. difficile away. Last year he and his colleagues announced they had performed this procedure on 77 patients in five hospitals, with an initial success rate of 91%. Moreover, when the seven who did not respond were given a second course of treatment, six were cured. Though faecal transplantation for C. difficile has still to undergo a formal clinical trial, with a proper control group, it looks a promising (and cheap) answer to a serious threat. Perhaps the most striking claim, however, for links between the microbiome and human health has to do with the brain. It has been known for a long time that people with autism generally have intestinal problems as well, and that these are often coupled with abnormal microbiomes. In particular, their guts are rich in species of Clostridia. This may be crucial to their condition." A long article well worth reading, it covers in passing, curing diabetes and IBS benefits ...and more.

U-Boats definitely the least safe service. However the statistic is rather bizarre in including captured. Wikipedia !!

I am not sure your remark actually relates to my comment. Perhaps if I add all of this occurred within a minute you may appreciate my feelings. I agree absolutely in RL crews did move to other tanks normally troop commanders and higher to continue the command and control aspect. I do not believe this behaviour is modelled in CMx2.

Sad business. I have to say this is much more what I expect when the TC is killed. In V1.00 I was distressed when a Sherman continued to fire and the radio operator clambered to the TC position and was similarly killed. In no way distressed the Sherman then nailed my 88mm. My feeling then and now was this was not realistic as there is no romm in the turret for dead bodies and to continue firing.

Excellent stuff. I am off on holiday and will be taking quite a bit of the CGSC stuff. for instance:

Jeep story. Unbelievable comes to mind.

http://usarmy.vo.llnwd.net/e2/c/downloads/215919.pdf See page 14 as to the US army view on hit probability under stress. BF tank crews laugh at these figures : )

JK I am surprised. In the training film series there is an example of dragging a cannon to a spot to blow up a roadblock which would have been fairly lunatic but US Army films were not necessarily going to be truthful more encouraging. Why you would encourage your trained men to investigate a village armed solely with a pistol is beyond belief. Perhaps the sporting enemy would not use grenades or SMG's or snipe at range. All the points made about stress are totally ignored so this film is no darn use other than what occurred in basic training. The actually ballistics of a pistol bullet are incredibly irrelevant compared to shaky sweaty hands and other phsyiological effects. Where is some better data? I can quote you a tank commander shooting a sniper out of his tree with his Webley but that is from his tank and close too not roaming the battlefield. But that is anecdote : )

Always the way with the historically minded ... : ) Anyway a bit more flesh about him here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/culture-obituaries/books-obituaries/9447744/Sir-John-Keegan.html