Vanir Ausf B
-
Posts
9,623 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
7
Posts posted by Vanir Ausf B
-
-
There is a tendency to underestimate the frequency of rare events. Rare events happen all the time, both in real life and the game. You should expect to see them often. There is nothing wrong with this as long as it isn't the same event over and over. Then there could be a problem, but even then testing would have to be done to be sure.Originally posted by illo:For me it seems there is maybe even too much of variation.
Both incidences (which have happened several times)feel just plain wrong.
A few weeks ago someone posted a documented case of a German 88 AT gun missing a Soviet tank at 50m. In real life, not the game. **** really does happen and one of the best things about CM is the fact that it reflects this. However, there are a lot of people who don't like seeing their units perform outside of what they consider the norm, and get all worked up when it costs them a game.
That's not to suggest everything in CM is 100% accurate. It's not. It's just that when you say "I saw my Panther miss twice at 20m. That should be impossible!" it doesn't really mean much.
If a round misses, where the little shot graphic hits is semi-randomly determined. Under the right circumstances you can see shots go through buildings and hills. Call it a bug if you want. It doesn't mean anything.wodasini88:Doug I base my empathic statement on my turret visibly turned toward the firefly and my gun also leveled at it. Then firing and seeing the round hit the ground on the other side firefly. Well lets see how did that get there? I dont recall ever hearing about a round coming out of a tank's barrel then magically going through the enemy tank without penetrating it...twice.
-
If you're looking for some way in which CM short changes the Tiger it can be found in the undermodeling of the shatter gap of 76mm ammo vs. the Tiger's armor (according to Rexford) and the probable over-availability of tungsten. Hopefully (probably) fixed in CMBB.
-
Actually silhouette counts for less than that, and less than I thought as well. For example, at 500m the 76L54 has a 59% first hit chance against a Tiger (120 silhouette) and a 52% first hit chance against a Pz IVH (92 silhouette). This is only a 13% difference despite a 30% difference in silhouette values.Originally posted by redwolf:A tank with silhuette 120 has a 20% (not percent point) higher chance to get hit than a silhuette 100 one, it is plain and simply linear.
EDITED for bad math.
[ April 30, 2002, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
In order to factor out the much larger size of the Tiger, you need to fire the Sherman at a target about the same size as itself. So if you use a Wirblewind instead of the Tiger (silhouette value 105 compared to the Sherman 76's 104) you get the following first hit probablities for the 76L54 vs. the 88L56:
250m
88: 75%
76: 77%
500m
88: 54%
76: 57%
1000m
88: 29%
76: 29%
1500m
88: 15%
76: 14%
2000m
88: 8%
76: 6%
As you can see the differnces at short range are really quite small. I strongly believe these numbers show that the Sherman's greater effectiveness vs. the Tiger at short range is due mostly to higher rate of fire rather than greater accuracy.
[ April 30, 2002, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
I think it also has a lot to due with the total amount of initial energy.Originally posted by redwolf:Very realistic - the heavier the projectile is, the less impact a given side wind has. I guess that is what BTS did in the patches that bumped long-range 88mm accuracy.
I should have been more clear. I am well aware that the principle is realistic, but the differences between the 50mm and 88mm at 2000m are not as large as I would have expected in my totally unscientific opinion. So it was actually the amount to which it is modeled that I was questioning.
I knew they were there, but I could have sworn I had read somewhere that the Germans made the decision to commit them against the British.Originally posted by Germanb-, er, Andreas:They did encounter Tigers in Normandy, some of them (very few even Koenigstiger variant. A number of sPzAbt were present in Normandy.
Bah. I know nothing.
[ April 30, 2002, 02:32 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
IIRC American forces did not encounter the Tiger in combat in Europe until the Ardennes offensive in December (at least in Northern Europe, they may have in Italy and they did in N Africa as well). I'm sure some grog will slap me around if I'm wrong.Originally posted by Soddball:I don't know how often Shermans and Tigers faced off at point blank range, I'm afraid, but I agree it would be useful information. Perhaps ranges were shorter in 'bocage country' early in 1944 but became longer as the allies advanced into Germany.
[ April 30, 2002, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
The comparative accuracy of guns in CM is simply a function of muzzle velocity. The gun with the higher MV will be more accurate all else being equal.Originally posted by Soddball:If you look back over my first post, you'll see that I'm testing it because my Tigers are hopeless at hitting enemy tanks when they are at close range.
I'm discovering that even when both tanks are stationary, the Tiger's 88mm gun is less accurate than the 76mm gun mounted on the Sherman. This test was done at 250m.
88L56 MV: 773 mps
76L54: 793 mps
The 76 has a higher MV and therefore is more accurate in CM. The fact that the Tiger is a bigger target than the Sherman adds to it.
CM does seem to model the fact that larger rounds are more accurate at long range than smaller rounds, even with lower initial velocity. For example, the 50mm gun experiences a greater decrease in accuracy from 100m to 2000m than the 88mm. So, the 88 should become more accurate relative to the 76 as range increases. However, the difference does not appear to become significant until ranges outside of those seen in a typical CM game. How realistic this is I don't know.
-
I hope you don't mean that literally.Originally posted by Soddball:The issue is that no Tiger should miss 6 shots at 300m when firing at a slow-moving or stationary firefly.
According to the targeting tool a veteran Tiger I has a 74% chance to hit on the first shot vs. a stationary Firefly at 300m. I don't know about vs. moving targets; you will have to run tests to get that number approximated. However, I strongly suspect you will have a hard time keeping that Firefly alive for 6 shots very often. I think you were just very unlucky.
-
I'm currious how this guy manages to be posting while "unregistered".
-
I answered this question in my first post.Originally posted by aka_tom_w:BUT then why are there command delays in CMBO?
WHY do we really want to try to keep our squads within command radius?
I answered this earlier as well.So then what has that implimentation of Simulated Relative Spotting achieved?
I can live with that.I would (again) humbly suggest that anyone who is interested in playing ALL roles and commanding ALL units (EVEN with the BTS concept of Relative Spotting) is actually condoning the "BORG-Like Swarming Units Response" (B-LSR) to an enemy threat.
I completely agree. Even the major changes being proposed here by some would only lessen the god's eye "problem" marginally. The player would still know everything all his units knew, it would just limit his ability to act on it by distancing the player from the decision making. In truth, the only way to 100% remove the god's eye issue entirely is for every unit in the game to be controled by a seperate player... or the AI. Neither will ever happen but the multi-multiplayer feature in the rewrite will be something to look forward to.Redwolf:I think that for CM, and what it tries to do, there can be no better fix that the "small" fix. That is that within one turn a spotted unit only comes under fire from units which fairly spotted it themself, not by passing the word within the turn.
Inter-turn there is few to be done because of area and indirect fire that the player may execute.
I don't see any solution to the "whole force rediction like a swarm of herrings" that wouldn't destroy CM gameplay.
Kip:
Yep.[ April 26, 2002, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
Oh, I understand completely. What you must understand is that currently in CM the player assumes the role of the MG gunner when he gives the order to fire, so there is no logical reason why he should not be able to specify an exact target unless you are going to say that the player is the platoon LT, not the sergeant or corporal leading the squad, manning the MG. This is what people mean when they talk about making CM a "command level" game: the player gives general orders to his units and lets the TacAI carry them out. This is a different type of game than CM, and one I would not like as much for reasons I and others have explained.Originally posted by aka_tom_w:Mushkin:
The hypothetical example is only showing that the PLAYER cannot target specific enemy units (But he is giving a general direction). The TACAI could. Its a subtle point but has to be understood
-
This:Originally posted by aka_tom_w:I also disagree with this. No one has said this. The units could target them. I am not sure what this is based on.
A defender has a cutoff HMG. He is out of C&C and LOS of ALL friendly units. The player wants him to target a particularly bothersome enemy squad that he fears (its a russian guards PPSH equipped unit that is getting too close). The player opens the HMG menu and selects a fire command. He draws a line but a covered arc appears instead! He can not guarantee that the HMG will select the bothersome squad because other enemy units also occupy the covered arc. Damn, he says and decides to withdraw and makes a note to keep HQs near HMGs in the future. -
Yes, I was talking abstractions. In fact, I agree with everything you said.Originally posted by Terence:Thats why this "My tank can beat up your tank" argument is kinda pointless in my book, unless its clear you want to talk total abstractions. That isn't clear yet to me.
-
Units pinned outside of C&C already are of marginal usefullness. Command delays of over 1 minute are common in this situation and return fire is usually ineffective.Originally posted by aka_tom_w:Pinned units out of C&C should be next to useless to the Player.
Extreme FOW is already a feature of CMBB.
Not allowing units out of C&C to target specific spotted enemy units in LOS would not make sense for the reasons Kip just outlined.
-
This is true, but ignores the fact that Russian tanks are based upon a much different design philosophy. Russian tanks are ~20 tons lighter than the M1 and have better strategic mobility. They have better anti-personel capabilities (although the M1 is getting a beehive round soon). They also cost about 1/3 as much (IIRC). Is a M1 better than a T-80U? Yes. Is it better than 3 T-80Us? Depends...Originally posted by mrcitizenkane:The M1 is a great tank. The Russians have nothing that compares to the weapon systems it has.
[ April 25, 2002, 06:08 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
IIRC Russian T-80s also use a turbine.Originally posted by Jagdratt:What sort of power plant are the Israelis using? I believe the M1 is alone in its use of a gas turbine, right?
-
I know the feeling all too wellOriginally posted by redwolf:Yes. I was posting before my first coffee and since I was out yesterday it Monday morning for me. My apologies.
No problem.
I'm sorry, if I had realized this thread was "special" I would have avoided itThis point of my posting was: what BTS was said is all for the small-scale stuff. This thread is kinda special in trying to address the larger scale problems of borgism.
Seriously, I understand what you are saying. If by "the larger scale stuff" you are refering to the god's eye view issue, I will simply restate that I do not believe there is any solution to it outside of multi-multiplayer that would not be draconian and piss people off, as you so well put it earlier. However, don't let my negativism discourage you from talking about it.[ April 23, 2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
I have no idea why you think I am implying that since I have specifically stated otherwise in my third post on page 4:Originally posted by redwolf:Your flattening of the term "relative spotting" seems to imply that there is a solution for the multi-turn event of rushing all your infantry right where enemy tanks have been spotted.
Tom, you are basically correct. Steve said it himself: "Relative Spotting is far more realistic than Absolute Spotting. But it isn't perfect since the Human is allowed to interact with all units using one shared "conciousness".Relative spotting is a significant improvement but it is not the Ultimate In Realism that some here seem to be expecting. As long as each side is controlled by a single player there is no way around the "shared conciousness/God's eye view" issue unless you are willing go give over significantly more control of your forces to the AI. BTS does not seem willing to do this and I for one am quite happy about that.
Tom, I wouldn't have a problem with this as long as you could view all spotted enemy units simultaneously as you now can, rather than only in small groups at a time. That would be a real chore.Tom:Not at all..
The player could now be faced with condradictory or conflicting info and intel as each unit he selects spots something different EVEN it is is looking at the same thing. That is what I call a fog of war enhancement
I highly doubt very many folks here are interested in what I will now call Iron Man Simulated Relative Spotting ( IMSRS-FOW the Player only sees the opposing unit while the friendly unit that spotted it is selected in view 1)
-
It solves the problem of all units automatically spotting an enemy unit as soon as one friendly unit spots it. That is the definition of absolute spotting. Under relative spotting friendly units can be in LOS of enemy units and not see them even if other friendly units can. This introduces a significant uncertainty factor into planning as the player can no longer count on a unit to engage the enemy as soon as it moves into LOS. It may take a short while to spot, a long while, or not at all. I would also bet that units in C&C with each other will be able to help each other spot to a certain extent not allowed units not in C&C with each other, which would add yet another incentive for the player to keep his units in C&C. This is all more realistic than the current model even with the player still having control over all his units. This question of whether the player will be able to manually target unspotted units with area fire, and how to prevent that if it is disallowed, will be an issue that will have to be dealt with.Originally posted by aka_tom_w:The Player still sees all, and knows all, and can direct his friendly units (which have not spotted the enemy) to fire or move in the direction of a unit that was previously spotted by a friendly unit, because the Player STILL has Absolute Spotting because he can still control every friendly unit (in C&C or NOT) and he still sees all, and KNOWS all that every friendly unit sees and knows (in C&C or NOT).
So what have we solved?
I don't have a problem with any of these features except this:Good Point and I agree with it. Since this "Grog Factor" is a very narrowly defined (and SMALL ok, tiny) market segement would it be possible to call this Fog of War setting "Extreme Groginess" FOW.? And make it the most DEMANDING on the player FOW setting?
This just makes the game more difficult to play without increasing realism. The player still has the same information available to him as he did before, he just has to click all over the place to find it. PITA.The enemy units can ONLY be viewed by the player while the player has the friendly unit selected (only in view level 1, (?) that one may be a sticky point, maybe from any view level to make the game actually FUN and playable) that originally spotted the unit.Keep in mind that CMBB already has an extreme FOW setting that may very well do much of what you suggest and then some. We'll see. I expect to see SOPs expanded significantly in the rewrite.
-
I disagree. It is entirely possible to have relative spotting and still allow the player to control all the units at once. In fact, that is what BTS plans to do, according to those old posts.Originally posted by aka_tom_w:I won't disagree with any of that except to repeat my earlier conclusion that Absolute Spotting is not really the Problem, it is in fact the solution to the problem of how do you let the Player control ALL units all at once.
-
I'm all for SOPs and extereme FOW and better TacAI(as is BTS, btw), but none of that is a substitute for the player feeling a connection between his decisions and the results in the game. Realism is not an end itself but a means to an end: enjoyment of the game (often refered to as "fun"Originally posted by aka_tom_w:I do not believe the game would ever degenerate into a bore to play if there were additional features like SOP's and a more extreme FOW setting and TAC AI that you could trust when your units were out of C&C I am sure the game would NOT be a bore to play.
). I will probably get branded a heratic for saying that, but oh well.For me, and I suspect most CM players though I can't prove it, the more decision making you take out of the player's hands and give to the AI, the more distant and less involved the player feels with the game and hence less fun. The question is where do you strike the balance? I like the balance pretty much the way it is now.
-
Heh, I know what you mean, but ironically Kip and Andreas are 2 of the groggiest grogs around here but they seem to get it.Captain Wacky:Grogs. They'll suffer through a crappy but realistic game sheerly out of some mysteriously deep sense of "duty" towards realism, but not necessarily the game itself
[ April 22, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
Tom, you are basically correct. Steve said it himself: "Relative Spotting is far more realistic than Absolute Spotting. But it isn't perfect since the Human is allowed to interact with all units using one shared "conciousness".
Relative spotting is a significant improvement but it is not the Ultimate In Realism that some here seem to be expecting. As long as each side is controlled by a single player there is no way around the "shared conciousness/God's eye view" issue unless you are willing go give over significantly more control of your forces to the AI. BTS does not seem willing to do this and I for one am quite happy about that. It could be argued that doing so would be more realistic but who cares about realism if the game is a bore to play?
[ April 22, 2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]
-
Because otherwise there is no penalty at all for being out of C&C and therefore no incentive for the player to concern himself with it. But this is inconsistent with the player being the leader of every unit, so...Originally posted by aka_tom_w:But why bother with Command Radii and leadership ratings?
Basically they fudged it as a compromise. Think about the alternatives: no command delays and no leadership bonuses are too unrealistic. On the other hand the inability to give orders to any unit out of C&C makes it too much of a "watch the AI play itself" game which hurts the fun factor. So they compromised between realism and playability even though the result is a little contradictory in concept. That is why I prefer to say the role of the player in the game is undefined rather than "the leader of every unit" although either is correct in a way.
No problem.
Seriously, I understand what you are saying. If by "the larger scale stuff" you are refering to the god's eye view issue, I will simply restate that I do not believe there is any solution to it outside of multi-multiplayer that would not be draconian and piss people off, as you so well put it earlier. However, don't let my negativism discourage you from talking about it.
Question on Machineguns...
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
MGs in CM never actually run out of ammo. Like squads they just go to "low" status and fire less frequently. If personal arms are considered to be included in the MG firepower rating then I assume the personal arms are also considered to be low on ammo at this time.
Obviously this is an abstraction. I suspect we will get more detailed modeling in the rewrite. We may even see MG crews be able to abandon the MG instead of always defending it to the death
[ May 02, 2002, 07:24 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]