c3k

Umm...so you agree that the curves in the graphs are about right?

I'm offended that I need to have a computer to play this game. That's not "fair". I should be able to buy the disk and not need anything else.

Geometric vs. Arithmetic loss of accuracy with range: It makes sense. Bullets drop in a ballistic trajectory which is geometric. E.g. (spurious example), a round may drop 2" at 200 yards, 6" at 300 yards, and 16" at 400 yards. JasonC talks about MOA (angular error, therefore "arithmetic" wrt range), but it is beyond that. In combat situations without optics, the "regular" CM troops should show a significant drop in accuracy at about the same rate he bullets' trajectories drop. It is hard to calculate a 41" drop vs. a 31" drop, and then aim for that. Shrug. It is FAR easier to be on target when you know the range and have a calibrated sight with which you can adjust the reticle to compensate for the drop. (Ladder type rear sights are far different. Better than a notch, but far worse than adjustable optics.) I like what the graphs show and how they show it.

Migo, Nice, but, as we all know, it takes HALF a million rounds for any test to be considered even halfway meaningful. Seriously: this looks very good. I haven't re-read it, but your numbers and graphs are a solid reference for any work moving forward from here. Very nice. Thanks for doing this. Ken

This sounds...intriguing. Are you able to give some high-level overviews of how this game layer will interface with cm, or is it too soon for that?

Dude!? You're walking on a TRAIL?!? Sheesh, why not just order them to frag themselves? Some woods can look VERY good. I always know that entering woods is like entering a building: if there's any enemy in there, my point man WILL die.

...or runners. Or carrier pigeons. It can be regarded as a gameplay balance since you cannot tell the radioman to hang back a minute and only come forward when signalled.

Woot! A "shallanj" has been offerred! Will the gauntlet be returned? As far as casualties go, remember your truck drivers: if they're like mine, they're fairly begging for a chance to get in the fight! Nice aar. Very well done preliminary analysis. It has led to a good battlefield outcome...thus far. Ken

Recognize that not everyone shares your sentiment. Perhaps the General Forum would be best?

Perfect! Thanks for linking that. Ken

Folks, A while ago, a kind gent linked to a graphic of comparative WWII casualties. It used colored "stick men" in tall columns to show relative casualties. I thought I'd bookmarked it, but I can't find it. I'd appreciate a link to it. Thanks, Ken

Lt Bull, Excellent (and useful) write up! This is how bugs get squashed. Thanks for your detailed work. Ken

Rough cut on graphics cards and CM: Yeah, Nvidia is a bit better than an equally powerful AMD card. AMD cards use more power than equivalent Nvidia cards (and produce more heat as an obvious corollary). AMD cards cost less than an equivalent Nvidia card. The biggest issue on the horizon is DX12. Apparently, AMD's latest generation is better at DX12 than Nvidia. (The see-saw will tip, etc.) If ALL you care about is CM, then Nvidia. In MOST cases, I'd still recommend Nvidia. (I've built and run over a dozen rigs for my own use, and switch back and forth from brands. I'm not a "fanboy" of either party. My only bias is towards greater gpu memory. I'll pay for the 4Gb model over the same model in 2Gb, every time. Others may disagree.) So, once you determine the brand, then you need to determine how much card you want. The biggest factor in that will be your screen resolution and your budget. CM is not a big stressor on cards. You can run a lot of CM on less card than it'd take with some of the first-person shooters which are out there. Ken

Thanks!

Alt-T The denstiy depends upon what you're used to. A lot of the western European forests are really just tree gardens. (IMO) They've been so heavily controlled and managed that they have more in common with gardens than forests. OTH, I've been in primordial woods which are also very open. The age of the woods makes a big difference in their density. A freshly cut zone (several year) will have riotous growth. Mature woods will have "winners" which have choked out the "losers". It'll have large, mature, trees spaced equidistant, with little to no undergrowth. The winners keep the sunlight for themselves. The edges of woods still have the fight going on, so there should be very dense growth in the ~30m zone on the edges of woods. That's where I'd put triple trees. Ken

The type of secondary and tertiary costs calculations lead to any number of bizarre results. I could mention how the electricity used for my computers is produced by spinning electromagnetic generators. The increased physical resistance of the increased electrical production produces torque. That torque is transferred to the Earth via the generator's foundation. That force, coupled with the rest of the increased production, is mostly located in the northern hemisphere. This unbalanced force on a rotating sphere is helping to counteract the Earth's gradual slowing rotation. By playing CM, I am saving the Earth. (And getting a bargain for the cost of entertainment, to boot.) Ken

My bold. I think that -may- be part of it. As well, I think recoil is not being weighted enough, if at all. Call it "muzzle rise" if you prefer. (Something to note: Tigers were phenomenally stable firing platforms. The gunner sight barely moved when the cannon fired. Compare that to tanks which "bounce" when they shoot. Shot sensing, repeatable shots, and consistent aimpoints are possible with one, but not the other. All IRL, not in-game. In-game, there does not seem to be a benefit to having a stable firing platform.) Regardless of what mechanism we think is modeled or not, the ONLY arguments which will hold water are those which are, forgive the pun, water-tight. What is needed is real-world effectiveness data and then in-game data under the same conditions. Then, it must be convincingly shown that IT MATTERS. That's the big one, by the way. If it doesn't matter...most of the time...in the game, then nothing that is shown will mean anything. Ken

Against a moving target, which is better? Smg's stream of lead (with impacts giving adjustment feedback to the shooter), or one shot rifles? If a rifle misses, it misses. An smg can get the stream of lead to walk into the target. Just an example...

Foxholes and wheat: this is off topic. Wheat and foxholes cannot be compared (yet, that is happening). What SHOULD happen is units in wheat and units in foxholes IN wheat should be compared. More, later...

I, too, don't like the full-auto accuracy we're seeing with smg's out past 100m. However, as useful as this test is, it does not compare a German rifle squad to a Soviet smg squad. It shows what the two can do when going toe to toe. The next test would/should replace the Soviet smg squad with a German rifle squad (engaging the same target the Soviet smg squad has). As mentioned by me, and tested by Sgt. Joch, the apparent ineffectiveness of the foxholes when compared to wheat was just chaff. It was the lack of LOS to the targets which stopped the firing. (Another test condition would be to Area Target an occupied zone and see whether the smg's edge out bolt actions. Shrug.) Not liking results is not a valid reasoning which will lead to change. What should it be? How much should the muzzle climb, etc? How many of the test casualties were caused by the first round fired in a burst? What about effects which lead to increasing effectiveness? E.g., once the target is pinned, they don't shoot back, the firing unit gains superiority and racks up greater kills. The suppression is heavily weighted (IME) to incoming firepower: of course smg units will pin a target faster than a bolt-action unit. This does not mean the smg unit has "greater" accuracy. They have greater williingness to shoot. Etc. This is a great first look and shows what needs to be examined. Ken

Pre-laser era, a lot of tanks got .50's bolted to their main guns to act as spotting rounds. Fire the .50: if it hits the target, so will the main gun. No need to worry about all that fancy crap, just shoot. I could see a .50 impact causing a tank in the open to bail. (Well, it would be understandable.)

^^^ Perhaps concealment means less firing? Therefore, cover is not a factor in the comparison between the two target types?

Great screenshot. The lack of penetration is...interesting.

Migo, Great stuff...but. I've been reading and I'm confused. If your targets can fire back at the shooters, then you've introduced a massive level of instability into the test. Fanatic targets, with tight covered arcs, would prevent any shoot backs. FWIW. Light wounds: yeah, I'd count them. You're hitting targets. (Or, don't count them: Red/brown casualties mean you've hit a smaller target.) I'm following this, but am a little confused wrt the targets. Keep the target totally consistent in order to have an apples to apples comparison. Ken

The benefit of plotting FAST is that, once the pesky riders have been stripped off by enemy action (by definition, if they are being stripped off by enemy fire, the tank IS in an enemy fire zone), then the tank will zoom forward out of the fire zone. Minor, but a benefit.