Jump to content

The_Capt

Members
  • Posts

    2,392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

Everything posted by The_Capt

  1. I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of spotted cats on the CMCW battlefield. I am pretty sure we mentioned a time line of "2022" for delivery, with all the usual caveats you have come to love.
  2. Congratulations dbsapp you are now my own personal counter-misinformation project. Don't care about other trolls who come on the forum, someone else will have to deal with them, you are all mine. What does that mean, well I am going to personally fact check and then post in response to your posts like these [aside, not on things like screenshots, those were pretty cool btw]. So in the first mission of the Soviet campaign we have a Soviet MRB (BTR) in the opening push of the first morning of the war. This MRB is good but not the best in the Soviet Army, largely because they are saving those for breakout. You are facing US V Corp 11 ACR who have both M901 TOW and M60A3s (TTS) with a mix of Reg to Crack crews. A wise man once said "your ignorance of your enemy is not a game bug, it is a 'you' bug". Even with that stacked against, human players (even you) have been able to overcome this scenario. Your sole opinion (and you are entitled to it) but also totally unproven by any of the many tests that make up this very long thread - none of them actually conducted by yourself. So you don't play the US side much...interesting. Anyway, I do believe they took a run at this issue in the first patch but it is not resolved. M113 thermal/spotting is on the very top of our priority list for the next patch as this is the closest thing to "unbalanced spotting performance" that we could actually find...and you - by your own admission - did not help in this regard. Wow, so that is clearly simple troll fodder. You have totally blown any idea that you are "just trying to make the game better". You are clearly speculating and projecting intent in what looks like a smear misinformation campaign. The fact that I, and others from the core team, have repeatedly put time and effort in attempts to address the issues you raise (which we assumed was in good faith) is demonstration that we care very much. BFC has a bench exactly one person deep in core areas and they are supporting 8 game lines and an military contract. In short, it is a small indie company, sorry CM Karen if they are not hopping too fast enough. Ah here we are again at Sov mission 3, apparently "patch" means lower the challenge to the point you can beat it, which is of course our company motto. So to clarify this ham-handed shot, the Soviet Campaign has two versions. The Standard version works exactly as intended (with the exception of a Tac Air controller, which has been fixed) and has not been tweaked at wrt VPs or win conditions. Players should enjoy this one, and people have successfully beaten it. The second version, March or Die, does need tweaking. As is, it is still winnable (trust me I did the math several times) but it is too hard, to the point of being unfair. A big shout out to The_Monkey King for helping out on that one. Anyway it has been tweaked and will be updated in the next patch. And now we get to the crux, is this speculation or aspiration from someone who slanders? Regardless, I am not at liberty to divulge details but "we are doing just fine, thanks for asking". To the point that we were greenlit for the first DLC Module in record time and are working on it now. As to the patch, well it is in the works and hopefully will coincide with the Steam release, "coming soon but when it is finished".
  3. A second hypothesis and totally unfounded. Your threads (from me at least) are showing in game play, not how we designed the game in the first place. No, at no time in the game development did we go “You know the Soviets are spotting too well, we should dial it back to force players to use mass”. This supports your opinion, not reality. The reality was that BFC modelled individual vehicle behaviours based on the data they have fed into the models….and lo and behold it made sense and matched Soviet doctrine when scaled up to in game content. Now you are going to ask again “I wanna see that data” the answer is still no and you would not know what to do with it if you had it because you have not provided a shred of RL evidence that behaviours are off beyond, wait for it, your own opinion. Let me assure you (and anyone else still reading), we will not be initiating any changes based on dbsapp’s opinion. You can post it here ad infinitum and not a single change request will be submitted based on that alone. So again, start doing the work.
  4. Well I think that is your hypothesis but: - You have done nothing beyond a single SB vs CM test to try and prove it (you did repost a report first posted by John Kettler on another thread). - You have provided no clear concept of “what right would look like” beyond “I think it is bad” Every time I think we might see daylight we come right back to the fact that all of this is built solely on your opinion. That, and some weird strung together logic threads [aside, the tanks in my AAR thread were T62s, which we have not even touched]. So despite numerous people running exploratory in-game tests that refute your initial premise, we come right back to “what you think” instead of what you can prove. Here is the thing (the same thing I tell students)…your opinion does not matter. Sorry to be the one to break it to you. It is what you can prove with facts that matters here, even in game facts. The only person not running in game testing (or at least putting them up here) is the person who started the conversation in the first place. On the rest of the internet saying something a lot of times might make it true but not here, not in our little corner of it. If you seriously want to make the game better and provide constructive feedback, stop posting your opinion and actually do the work to prove your point.
  5. Well if this is corporate espionage there may be better ways to do it. Seriously, BFC has invested 15 years in this engine and unlike us their livelihoods are at stake, things that families depend on, I get why they are going to keep things close to their chests. We will just have to keep grasping at shadows…
  6. I work inside the wire and even I don't know that and BFC would not/should not just be giving that sort of info out - especially not for free. [Aside: you keep asking that question, to the point I am getting suspicious of the motives...but I am old and paranoid] I strongly suspect that they have built some sub-models under the hood that drive the engine. For example, I am think there is a ballistics model that determines projectile versus armor based on things like round speed, diameter and density versus armor thickness, angle and quality. For things like spotting, I suspect that have taken a 360 horizon and broken it up on probability curves factoring a whole bunch of things, such as light, weather, soft human factors, target size/profile and behavior. Depending on the sophistication of the models the real-world data may to be too high resolution to be any use here. For example the real world data for ballistics are not going to tell us anything without the ballistics model itself. RL performance would be great if it looked like what holoween posted or how they came up with those graphs in that CIA-sponsored document. I would be happy with examples of T72 engagements at 2km as a start. The only thing we can add is that the model is good enough for UK Mod, so there is that.
  7. Don't agree with this entirely. Nothing can be taken as definitive but we can see some trends, whether they carry through or are bumps on a much larger curve is an unknown. Some of these trends appear consistent but we are still well into abductive reasoning here, which is fine we have gone to war in RL with less. The hardest thing in not the numbers, it is the lack of RL data at this point, We can say "CM is showing trends along the following behaviors..." but we cannot really tell if they reflect RL outcomes. We could run 1000 tests sets and still not know how it links to reality. All that aside, what I am seeing as vague outline trends (taken with significant conditions) make sense to me based on what we can glean from second and third hand anecdotes [Note: John Kettler already posted that CIA doc, and I gave my concerns about it on another thread].
  8. Ok, did a test run with the T80, again a platoon - going to use platoons from here on out, it is a more accurate representation of how the game is supposed to be played as it employs the Tac C2 system, it scales nicely as demonstrated (and it is a lot faster). And so I think you are correct, looks like the T80 spots worse (about 10 seconds longer as a group): So this is comparable tests when scaled together) about a 32% increase for me, and a 28.5% increase to spotting time from yours. Not sure why this is happening, would have to unpack the difference in optics for the T80 vs T72. But what is really interesting, and probably more important from an in-game perspective is the Mean Time to Hit. The T72s took on average 56.2 seconds while the T80s are coming in at 44.5 seconds, so I would probably prefer taking my chances with the T72s to be honest. The T80s take longer to see you but then less time to kill you.
  9. Been playing this game a long time and still learning stuff about it...nice.
  10. This is fantastic stuff but who is "we"? Did someone write all this up before (very likely)? Do you have a link? I am not surprised to be honest, we have saying "amateurs talk tactics, pros talk logistics, masters talk C2...God holds the dice" and it would appear that this road is leading there.
  11. Nope, 10 random tests as they came, if you are using exactly the same conditions then we are probably talking dice rolls. Those are good documents but I am still having a hard time accepting that a tank built in 1979 has a worse backup targeting system than a Soviet tank built a decade earlier...but stranger thing have happened. That, and competition range conditions is going to work very differently than wartime tactical friction. AKD is correct, we would probably need to do 100 plus run throughs to really see the curve but these conditions are very controlled if you load and run the exact same scenario 10 times. Scan arc looks like it is definitely playing a role here...and I am wondering how it handles broken terrain now. My results of a single tank at 2000m look very much like Centurian52s with mean time to clear-spot being only 4 seconds faster for the T64. I am pretty much past the whole "spotting is broken!" thing at this point. I am not really keen on comparing SB to CM because we might find ourselves in an awkward position; SB is SB and looks like a really good game, CM is CM and is a good game. Both are wargames with different emphasis/game engines and wargamers should stick together. What I am finding interesting is Tank Platoon behavior at the moment. So when the target gets spotted, not all 4 tanks immediately spot it. Normally one does and then the rest follow up, particularly after the first tank start firing. This might give us a sense of how C2 works. Communicating a target to a friendly unit is incredibly hard to do (it is there...right there! Where is there?), we have developed a lot of procedures and tactics to do it, simplest being "follow my tracer". CM looks to have something under the hood going on but I have not pinned it down yet. I can see why UK Mod got onboard with CM Pro because if you can simulate effective tactical C2 under various conditions repeatedly, you are moving past a training support tool and entering into operational research territory.
  12. And for those still tuning in, ran a couple more tests. Lone T72 at 1000m vs M60A3 (had to dismount the A3 as it was starting to see a lot better even from the back at 1km) So interestingly, the arc length the tank has to scan (at 90 degrees for arguments sake) is half that of that at 2000m (1570m, makes sense) and its mean time to full spot drops from 85 secs to 39 secs...slightly better than half. And then back out to 2000m but I put a full platoon of T72s (4 tanks) on a line about 100m apart...very interesting. So as we can see, spot times go way down when these tanks are working together, but that is not the interesting part. The arc length at 90degrees/2000m is 3141 and 785 is about 25% of that per tank if they divide the arc up evenly (again makes sense). 21.5 seconds is 25% of the 86 seconds we saw in the original to-full-spot time for a lone tank at 2000m. Not definitive but those tricky lads at BFC appear to have linked spot time to scan distance, or at least this is a working theory.
  13. Oh that is exactly the kind of study we need on the T72, except I cannot find the range to the targets...did you? I agree on terrain effect, I suspect that is why we see a disparity between CM and SB, or more directly in CM between "open ground" (which really isn't) and pavement. I think it is a leap to say that a Leo II and T72 has the same optics (even without using the thermals) but both are using an 8x sight. Questions remain: how quickly/easily is the sight traverse? How clear are the optics? Ergonomics of the sight itself. Stability. That said crew quality definitely matter and I would say the Leo II crews were not "Regular" by Soviet standards but that is again a guess.
  14. Sorry I am not familiar with german tank gunnery standards. Which ones? Which tanks? When? Not sure, would have to test. Again CM is simulating RL, not RL, so how it creates delays of RL situations is bound to vary. You and me both, probably should have said "RL commentary" VAB posted a lengthy commentary, am seeing stuff around but no actual honest data on T72 spotting and gunnery ability...that might take a trip to library. Agree to disagree. T72 (or T64) has no thermals and is doing this thru an 8 power sight, or zero power periscopes. The time to spot "something" is less, time to identify that something with enough resolution to engage (CM does not model free-fire zones), 1 minute and 25 seconds is not crazy. I think this is the heart of the matter...how long should a T72 tank take to see, identify and start shooting at a stationary, none firing, tank 2000m away, in 1979? As I posted well back, I have tried to spot someone firing at 1500m and it probably took us at least a minute (we weren't really timing) with binos and to get sights on that target, it is the only real reference that I have but we all do have opinions I guess.
  15. That matches what BTG and I saw, so pretty consistent. You might want to check weather conditions and time of day as well. I ran tests unbuttoned and in platoons and times were much faster.
  16. Well it proves that spotting is a range of outcomes and that you are seeing similar behavior across platforms. None of it points to Soviet tanks being totally blind at 2000m, in fact in some circumstances I think we are being too generous (2 second to clear-spot?! So that one definitely landed directly on the scope.)
  17. Oh man, those two snakes have been wrestling in the jar since we invented the damn activity. Another spin is time of day, I am seeing a lot different numbers for lower light (duh) but I am starting to think sun position may matter - not sold on this yet but... Also interesting is that for the T64A in your test (and someone check my math) it looks like the time-to-"I see it. let's shoot" is also 86 sec? But with larger outliers. AKD is right, one would have to do this 100 times to get a really good sense of the curve.
  18. Interesting, so I assume you turned the M60A3 back around. This is not surprising in the least to be honest as the M60A3 has TTS which means that the T72 is a glowing dot on the horizon. It also matched some of the RL commentary VAB turned up. That plus an onboard real targeting, computer I am surprised the T72 stood a chance at that range. Absolutely and I am more and more convinced this was why Soviet doctrine was what it was. Not sure what the spotting capability of the T64 was but those results are also pretty telling, it won 8 out 10 engagements (not counting mulligan)? I am starting to wonder if it needs a nerf. Ya the unevenness we see is really how CM models tactical friction, which is highly realistic. Crew commander spills coffee on his lap, get a bug in the eye or happens to see the silhouette perfectly and the gunner is actually sober for once, all this is very realistic in warfare and every wargame models it differently, hence why I am not a huge fan of cross comparisons. As akd, just noted, at this point we are beyond spotting and really looking at engagement results.
  19. VAB, thanks for that, I think I may be starting to unpack this mystery a bit. Ok, so out of an abundance of curiosity I ran a series of ten tests on a different test set. I remembered something Steve once said about flat ground "not being flat and empty ground in CM". So even though it may look like a bald grass covered plain, in CM the numbers under the hood take into account small divots, grass clumps etc. So I tried an trick from the old days and put these tanks on pavement (see attached) and comparing to VABs original test it seems to make a significant difference. If you recall (third post on this thread) ranged from 9 sec to 443 (7min, 23 sec) for the T72 to spot at 2000m. In my test series it saw nothing nowhere near as long. So the longest for the T72 to do a (?) spot (i.e. there is something there) was 1 min and 28 seconds. Shortest was 15 secs. Longest to clear spot (I see an M60, lets kill it) was 2 min and 5 secs. Shortest was an immediate clear spot at 24 secs (gotta be honest, that one feels a little fast) The T72 won 8 out of 10 engagements but I had the M60 turned around backwards (the fact that it managed 2 wins is pretty interesting, that beast can see). With the longest time to first hit at 3:02 (but this was really crappy gunnery because they had a clear spot at 2:03). The shortest was 55 seconds. So what? Well first off we cannot look directly into the scopes of the gunner and commander in CM. I suspect that the TACAI basically scans the horizon until it "sees" something. To scan a 90 degree arc at 2000m is covering approx 3100m of scan distance (https://www.omnicalculator.com/math/arc-length, note I am not sure it works this way in RL and my math may be off), at the noted looking for a 3.6m tank...that is not something done in a few seconds. Then the TACAI has to fully identify the threat (is it a tank or a barn? It is a tank, ok whose tank?) So where does this leave this whole discussion. Well first off there does not seem to be much distance between CM and SB as originally proposed. Someone would need to do a series of AI-only test in SB to see how the numbers stack up. I also suspect that the game engines model open ground differently based on this pavement test. Some of the RL data is pointing to the T72 having visibility issues And probably should be seeing worse than the M60. Still at an average Zero to See/Start Shooting time of about 85-86 seconds at 2kms, for a last gen tank than is not bad at all. That may feel like a long time for a player with his feet up and ass in a chair, but for a crew operating a tank that is not a long time at all. Tank Spotting.btt
  20. So digging around on this (now a side hobby), does anyone know if the commanders sight on the T72 was fixed or free. I think it was fixed, which means the whole turret had to spin for target acquisition but I can't seem to find easy proof. Starting to see a trend on T72s spotting ability (about 14:24): And from wiki: "The basic T-72 design has extremely small periscope viewports, even by the constrained standards of battle tanks and the driver's field of vision is significantly reduced when his hatch is closed." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-72 This matches a lot of the western post-Cold War analysis I have heard before, but how much of that is biased is an interesting question. I don't think there is any doubt the T72 can see a target at 2kms in either game, the question is how easy it could do this in RL?
  21. I think this might go beyond "strategy" and deeper into personal philosophy. Try not coming across as a rude troll, for a start. This is our house and "no" you cannot comment on anything you like...try it and see how fast this thread gets locked up and you facing a ban. I am not a "CM homer" (seriously how that poor name got dragged through the mud us beyond me and a testament to a big problem of our time. How one of the greatest writers of all time got that name hijacked by a yellow cartoon character makes me cringe)...I am a CM "owner". Bil, myself and Cpt Miller, with BFC and some outstanding beta-testers built this floor of the house and frankly I find it offensive when someone comes here to promote an outside game while denigrating ours. I would never think of, and would condemn in the strongest terms, anyone going over to the SB forums (or any other wargame forum) and exhibit this same behavior. CM is not perfect, no wargame can ever really achieve that, but it is the best in the niche it has (my opinion) and we are going to work very hard at keeping that up. Go play SB, hell after all this talk I am getting tempted to really go try it out...it looks like a good game and I wish them all the luck the angels of heaven can spare. Wargaming is a niche market so anyone playing anything is a win for all of us working in it but, for the love of all that is good and righteous, try not to be a rude jerk about it....the internet has enough of those already.
  22. Cool, on this we can agree entirely. I would recommend that whatever you set up, do it at least 10 times to give a sense of the range of results. Also anything anyone can find that links RL examples is very good. I am not keen on comparing game engines to be honest, for a lot of reasons but if one does they need to do those multiple times as well. Then switch up the variables to try and see when it works like you think it should. Lastly, were I you, I would take a pair of binos outside and see what 2km range really looks like...it is a very long way. Anecdote time! (put your helmets on, grampa has a story) So back in Kandahar we were doing overwatch for one of our jobsites (long story there, go watch "Hyena Road" for a crappy movie version). So as they will the good old TB decided to shake things up and drove up a technical to started firing at about 800m onto the workers on the site, basically harassing fire. We are up on a big hill back from the site so that damned technical with the PKM was close to 1500m away from us....we could barely see it with the naked eye (it was a shade of red). In fact we had to follow the tracers back to the source. We ended up in this dumb MG battle with us plinking away at the max range of our GPMGs (hitting exactly sweet FA) and them continuing to make local workers scatter. It was all fun and games until the Leo 2 pulled up and then hilarity really ensued. So couple lessons, a Leo 2 can see out to 2km like an evil bastard and make something die very quickly. Three guys with binos and a GPMG have a much, much harder time of it. Not sure where a T72 sits but I am not convinced it was easy. Oh, and it has been so long that I really buried it. I have seen a T72 hit something at 2kms but it was a school, and it could do a job and half, so that really does not help...the lesson being the problem with anecdotes.
  23. Well as has been demonstrated here, repeatedly, I really don't have to do anything, apparently. See, I can come on an games forum and then compare it to another game, not owned by that company. Then I can make a bunch of unfair and misleading claims based on that outside game. Oh, then I can berate players that they don't know anything about that other game...in their own house. And then I can think that this is somehow not really rude. The only comments I have made about SB is 1) it is a different wargame [aside, there used to be rule here that other games were to be discussed in the General Forum] and comparing it to CM is apples to steam ships and 2) it clearly has a human in the loop targeting option. The screenshots in the OP opening post clearly show the player able to peer through a scope and see a target. Very interesting that it can be completely hands off, and if the OP ran AI only tests (something that he really has not claimed) then at least we are comparing AI to AI (again a little rude). Regardless according to those screenshots a human can still see and interpret what the AI is seeing very differently than CM. Now, let's talk about "backing off" for a moment. Your current angle is to come on a CM forum and promote an outside game, which you are clearly doing, this is very bad form. If you want to participate in a discussion on how to make CMCW better, welcome. But coming into another game forum to essentially advertise another is really just...well, you get the point.
×
×
  • Create New...