Cameroon
-
Posts
889 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Cameroon
-
-
Heh, maybe I'll get it across sometime if I say it enoughOriginally posted by zukkov:sorry, when i read the first few threads i just started the test. seemed like there was too much thinkin' and not enough action. anyway, i didn't manually target. then i went back and manually targeted and did notice that the human forces did fire faster and actually got a draw in one of the tests...
What you were seeing wasn't an advantage that the AI got. In many of the tests, when we didn't manually target the enemy, we left it up to the TacAI. The computer player, however, was not leaving it up to the TacAI. It was selecting targets in the "orders" phase.
So our choice not to select a target, and the computer's choice to select a target, caused a difference in the "targeting" time during the turn. Since the computer player started off with targets chosen, it got a 2 or 3 second advantage
When you selected the target, you noticed that your 1st shot fire times were right in line with the computer player's.And I apologize if you'd figured that out, it just seems like this fact has been overlooked repeatedly in this thread and its just "one of those things" where I feel like I've got to say "but wait!"
-
Anyone wishing to use my updated scenario for testing, here it is.
-
Here's the test I ran, I'll leave the relative merits up to the rest to debate for a bit before I make any more comments
Pz VA (early) vs Pz VA (early, captured), 742m, no FOW, regular crews, immobilized on rough terrain. The soviets had no ammo, the germans had nothing but HE and AP. To-hit: 50%, kill fair. Each tank had only one target, they were separated by raised terrain (they on level 7 with level 10 ridges between). There were ten shooters/targets. Thus this test was run 10 times for 100 shots. Only first shot stats were recorded.
First, I ran 100 firings with the AI firing at the de-clawed Soviets. Hits: 55, Misses 45
Then, I ran 100 firings with "me" firing at the de-clawed Soviets. Hits; 49, Misses 51. I hit the "N" key for the target.
Those look pretty close to the advertised 50% to-hit chance with the Target/LOS tool. So I'm comfortable that the AI isn't getting any bonuses.
When the AI was firing, the shots would go off in the first 5 seconds. The same occured when I fired. The time results would not be the same had I let the TacAI select the target. Again, I see no bonus given to the AI.
This has been my point all along. A lot of the misleading results (such as faster shot) are due entirely to the fact that the "plotting AI" picks a target during its "orders" phase. Just like we could do. The "AI's" TacAI is not getting an edge in acquiring targets.
Pascal DI FOLCO, no I got it when I realized what they were doing.
I used identical units and units that couldn't fire back to test the first shot hit percentage. That was the original remark that WP made, that there was an "enhancement" for the first shot for the AI. I believe that my results and tests indicate that this is not true.[ October 30, 2002, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]
-
That works for me. It will probably quiet some of the detractors who want one more thing to pick at tooOriginally posted by Maastrictian:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cameroon:
Ok, I see what you're saying, but I still believe that using the same vehicle will result in more 'sound' results. Controlling as many variables as possible
. If you have time to make the scenario I'll run it until the cows come home, and I hope others will too.I'd encourage you to:
1) Use as many tanks as possible. On the order of 50.
2) Make sure none of them have smoke or T or any other "special" ammo.
3) Put all of them in rough ground so they don't move.
4) Remove any flags so those aren't influencing the battle somehow
5) Use T-34s as they don't have smoke dischargers.
6) Add a bunch of units away from the battle so global morale plays a minimal role. Pillboxes are good as they have very few polygons.
If you need hosting space, or a mirror I can put it up on my site. E-mail it to me at dinosaur@noct.net.
--Chris</font>
-
For anyone who wishes to run my test scenario, here it is.
It is designed to be used in the testing of 1st shot statistics. I am ignoring the aspect of multiple shots because, with vehicles that are so likely to kill one another, the first shot is very important. Furthermore, the contention of this thread is such that the "1st shot" of the AI was "enhanced."
Personally I feel that the various tests haven't been rigorous enough
So here goes for more stats recording. Please, I'm not knocking anyone on this either. I just think not enough variables were controlled with the others. -
It actually will not matter because we are looking how the AI and a human perform in the exact same situation. We could look at T-26s vs. King Tigers and still get comparable results.Originally posted by Maastrictian:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cameroon:
One flaw that I see in the majority of these test scenarios (I commented on it above, but in an edit so it may be missed), is that the German vehicles have better optics.
That's why captured vehicles should be used.
(ok, ok, we couldn't. Really both tanks have to be able to kill each other to get meaningful results.)
--Chris</font>
-
Maybe I'm missing the point, but I thought only German vehicles had different types of optics modeled, and the other nationalities (even using captured equipment) only had the same "standard" level of optics. So, a German Panther will have better optics than a Russian captured Panther. True?Originally posted by Ace Pilot:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cameroon:
One flaw that I see in the majority of these test scenarios (I commented on it above, but in an edit so it may be missed), is that the German vehicles have better optics.
That's why captured vehicles should be used.
[Edited to practice my spelling skills.]</font>
-
I agree that it would be much better if the same scenario were run. However, as I said, I can't agree that using Stugs vs T-34s is a good study. The Stugs have both an optics and, I think, a silhouette advantage. I think both of those are serious issues. I can put my scenario up in a few minutes if people want to run it.Originally posted by Maastrictian:I also, am quite studiously not claiming anything
In fact, based on the 176 test I've run I'd say any difference is pretty small, if present at all.Warren -- try right clicking on the link I gave and choosing "save as". That works for me at least.
Cameroon -- You are welcome to do whatever tests you want and post the results, but I think we wil all get farther if we all concentrate on using the same testing scenario, varrying only by the targeting orders we give. That way we can combine all our results and see what we get, rather than having 20 different tests testing different things none of which is significant by itself.
I strongly agree with Madmatt's comment that we need more than 100 tests to get anywhere, preferably, in my mind, more than 1000. I can perform that many, but it will take me a week. It will be much quicker if everyone simply runs my scenario once or twice.
(note, I'm not at all hung up about whose scenario gets run. Its just that I'm the only one whose posted a scenario for others to run at this point.)
--Chris
-
One flaw that I see in the majority of these test scenarios (I commented on it above, but in an edit so it may be missed), is that the German vehicles have better optics.
That's why captured vehicles should be used.
-
Perhaps this is intended to show hesitance to fire on a friendly vehicle? Would be interesting to see if the discrepancy is present and reversed in a T-34 v. T-34 matchup.Originally posted by Offwhite:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cameroon:
However, I did notice something interesting. When I allowed the Soviet TacAI to choose the target (as I did in all the tests), it took them about 5 seconds to acquire in clear terrain over 742 meters. The German side, however, when I let the TacAI target, took about 10 seconds to acquire.
Those were consistent. The Soviet's TacAI would acquire the German tank before the German's first shot. However, the German TacAI would not acquire the Soviet tank until after the first shot by the Soviets and sometimes not until after the second shot.
Edit:
From L. Tankersley's p. 4 test with T-34s:
Uh-oh, here's something new to test...</font>Trial 1 (human as Axis, no manual orders)At T=0, all AI tanks were immediately targetting human tanks (red targetting lines). At T=2, 3 human tanks were targetting. At T=4, 7 human tanks were targetting. At T=5, 3 of the AI tanks had fired. At T=6, all ten AI tanks had fired, and only one human-controlled tank had fired (all were targetting).
Trial 2 (human as Axis, manual orders)
From the start, all tanks were targetting. At T=4, 4 of the human-controlled tanks had fired. At T=5, all ten human tanks had fired, as had 4 AI tanks. At T=6, all tanks had fired.
Trial 3 (human as Allied, no manual orders)
At T=2, 3 human tanks were targetting. At T=4, 9 human tanks were targetting, and 4 AI tanks had fired. At T=5, all ten AI tanks had fired. Human controlled tanks didn't begin firing until T=7, and some fired as late as T=10 (a few were knocked out before firing).
Trial 4 (human as Allied, manual orders)
At T=4, five AI tanks fired. At T=5, all ten AI tanks had fired, and 2 human tanks had fired. At T=7, all human tanks had fired.
-
Heh, actually Ren, I'm arguing that it is not and that all the results merely point out a flaw in the way the tests have been conducted. If you look at L.Tankersley's test, his confirms my point if you realize that the "what do I do this turn AI" is not just sitting around idly but is plotting the target order while we (the human) said "eh, let the TacAI take care of it".Originally posted by Renaud:Chief Wiggum says, "whoa whoa, slow down egghead!"
So let me get this straight...the tac AI on the Strat AI player side is getting a statistically significant higher kill ratio, when pitted against the tac AI on the Human player side.
So can anyone translate this into my expected extra losses due to the AI advantage in, say, the "Whitmann in the East" kursk tank-brawl scenario? That would be my idea of 'significant' information.
Ren
-
To both Maastrictian and L.Tankersley,
I would urge you to reconsider your opinion that the AI is getting any help what-so-ever, via a "bug" or a cheat. I believe it is definitely NOT getting help.
During the computer thinking phase, it is plotting targetting orders. Thus we see the AI fire first IF we leave OUR target choice to the TacAI. You see, the TacAI isn't choosing the target for the AI's side, the AI's "what do I do this turn" AI is doing that.
That is why, when we give a manual targeting order, the discrepancy goes away. Or when we do a hotseat game, since we can leave it all up to the TacAI.
-
Hold on, before everyone goes accusing the AI, pause for a second
I also started running tests. One tank vs one tank and recorded the results (33 trials so far). Since it was 1 v 1, I paid attention to more details. 742 meters, Pz VA (early) vs Pz VA (early, captured). Neither had T rounds. I recorded first shot stats, not first kill. Both had a 50% chance to hit and a fair chance to kill. No FOW, regular crews, 1943. Immobilized on rough.
The first 20 trials I ran as the Soviet side, AI on the other. The second (13 so far) trials as the Germans, AI on the other.
The AI shot first, every time. Why? Because I did not choose a target BUT the StratAI did during the computer "thinking" phase. So, while I relied upon the TacAI to make my targeting choices, the computer would pick its target.
So this would likely explain why we see the AI "get an advantage" in tests where A) we don't choose the target and
we're looking at first shot statistics. With guns that can kill on the first shot in many cases, or cause morale effects that delay the reply shot, then we'll see an inordinate amount of kills by vehicles on the AI side, even when testing total vehicles destroyed. By NOT choosing a target, we give the AI an advantage. So we have to eliminate that from our tests.So, the AI isn't cheating, it does pick the target during the "thinking" phase, however. So, the way to elimnate this from the testing is to either have only one tank firing, AI "controlled" for one set of trials and human for a second set or have one v one where you set the target during your plotting phase. Or use a hot seat game and leave it all up to the TacAI.
I won't give my results because until I do the test to not allow the AI's StratAI to muddy the waters, it doesn't give clean results.
However, I did notice something interesting. When I allowed the Soviet TacAI to choose the target (as I did in all the tests), it took them about 5 seconds to acquire in clear terrain over 742 meters. The German side, however, when I let the TacAI target, took about 10 seconds to acquire.
Those were consistent. The Soviet's TacAI would acquire the German tank before the German's first shot. However, the German TacAI would not acquire the Soviet tank until after the first shot by the Soviets and sometimes not until after the second shot.
[Edit]
I intend to follow my own advice and redo the test to eliminate the "advantage" the AI gets from a human "do nothing" approach during turn calc. My hypothesis is that the AI is not cheating at all here.
[ October 30, 2002, 03:19 PM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]
-
Well, just to keep you from going crazy, I've seen these kinds of things, though rarely, before too. I haven't bothered to report them 'cause I figured it had to be a shared kill type thing.
Though, if it is being counted twice for points, then that could actually be a problem.
-
It really has been discussed almost to death
I think the majority find that the modeling of infantry is now much more accurate than from CMBO or what other wargames depicted.Personally, I don't have problems with breaking/routing infantry unless they are just plain being overwhelmed (or, like an ISU-152 fires at them
). I grant that I play mostly vs the AI and against a human I may well have more difficulty.However, be that as it may, if I support my infantry I don't have a problem. Before we get the "too brittle!" bandwagon again, try adjusting tactics to support your infantry and suppress the enemy more. This is a rather large departure from CMBO's tactics, because infantry was much too willing to take fire. I've never played the CC games, but I've not heard opinions on this board that it was more accurate with its infantry models.
One certain way to run into morale problems is to try charging at a MG, especially across open ground.
-
Well, I think in CM terms, "gun hit" includes all sorts of things that would make the gun unusable. The turret jamming, partial penetrations mucking up the elevation mechanism, maybe even optics being wiped out. It's more then just the barrel getting dinged.Originally posted by Ben Galanti:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Henri:
While we're at it, aren't there too many gun hits? I remember reading that it had been toned down compared to CMBO, but it seems to me that there are still too many (I would guess one out of five "kills". Scuza me if this has been discussed before, but with a full page of new messages every hour...
Henri
That being said, I have no idea whether this happens to much in CMBB. It does seem toned down to me from CMBO, but I would think figuring out what a "realistic" number for this is would be difficult...
Ben</font>
-
Just because we have LOTS of available parameters doesn't mean we should leave them all random or pay no attention to their settings
Some combinations are just not much fun to play. But that doesn't mean that I set my fitness to "Fit" every time. If I'm going to play unfit troops, then I might set the quality to High (or at least Regular
) or change other settings.What it comes down to is that we are given a TON of choices and it is up to use to use those choices to play a QB we want to play. Yup, you definitely can create horribly unbalanced games if you set things that way (or leave everything random, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't). So, glory in the options but make sure you don't pick things you hate
Personally I don't have any "hard and fast" settings except one, trees. I almost always set that to at least moderate.
-
Edited 'cause my comment was pointless after Redwolf posted while I was posting.
[ October 30, 2002, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]
-
I really hope that BFC chooses to go with platform independence via OpenGL rather than some DX variant.
Remember, this game is built just as much for Macs as for Windows. Heck, we might get triply lucky if they go with OpenGL by getting a Linux version too (hey, it could happen).
[edit]
Besides, those are technology demos, any "real" game wouldn't end up looking like that anyway
[ October 29, 2002, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]
-
Yup, this has come up on this board (I think it was here, if not it was tips & tricks prol'y).
The conjecture we came up with is that it's been a problem all along (i.e. even in CMBO), but without wind the problem is, well, not so much of a problem . And really, it only shows up with small smoke mortars.
Basically, if you play in anything stronger than breeze, you need to be aware that there will be a 10-25 second window where there is no smoke covering you. Plan accordingly.
I don't believe we ever got any comment about whether or not it would, or even could, be addressed with a patch. If you can find the thread, you'll see that there are other negatives to the "over 60 second" phenomena.
[Edit]
Wow, and there you have it. At least it's being looked at
[ October 29, 2002, 03:51 PM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]
-
For future reference, page 74-76 of the manual from BFC are the pages for movement descriptions. Advance, Assault and Human Wave are thereOriginally posted by Jev.Dk:Thank you very much. Im off to the battlefield
Jev
-
Where are the figures saying it should be 15 and not 2? I'm not saying that isn't true, but you've given me nothing to believe that it is trueOriginally posted by White Phosphorus:The reload time should be around 15 minutes, not 2.
-
Hi eyelevel,
This may sound obvious, but have you tried the "beginners" tutorial in the manual? If you have, then it might be worth checking out the "advanced" tutorial. If you do that, make sure to read this thread, it contains fixes for the printed errors. And if you've done one or both, then try a quick battle that is small and has few troops to manage. It will be easier to get the hang of things at first, and then build to larger battles.
To further address your questions, well it is hard to teach tactics via a BBS, but here's some basics
I apologize if this is basic stuff, I didn't know where to start so I figured the beginning would work.Your infantry is usually your main force. They are what allow you to take and hold terrain. Furthermore, some infantry are support units. These are units like machine guns, mortars, flamethrowers -- in CM units that are usually teams.
The basic goal is to support your infantry with your other units, support infantry like above and vehicles. What this means is that in general, you want your support units to stay behind your advancing forces BUT be able to see them. This is so that they can shoot at enemies that appear.
Also, it is very important to keep platoon's together. You probably noticed the line that goes from the Platoon HQ to other units. For squads in that platoon, the line will be black if that squad is out of command range. That's generally not a good thing, so try to keep them in command range.
So when a Quick Battle starts off and your troops are all lined up, you want to organize them into platoons and probably think about what each platoon and the support weapons are going to do.
To do so, you'll want to look at the terrain. Find the hills, the covered areas (e.g. trees, dips that the other side can't see into, buildings, etc). You'll want your forces to be in cover as much as possible (generally) to protect them from the enemy's fire. Also, you'll want to knowo what you can see from these places and identify what your enemy can use for cover.
Then you'll want to make some plans. This is when you give yourself some objectives, like being halfway to some point after so many turns, and when you think about what routes and units will be used to reach those objectives. Its probably also a good idea to think about what your enemy might be planning, doing the same things you are but from the other side (and with different units
).Once you've met the enemy, then of course your plans will likely change some, but it's important to have a general idea of what you want each "group" of units to accomplish. Anyway, you'll want to make sure to understand the different movement orders. For instance, Run is usually a risky order if your troops are under attack. You could test the movement orders by using the scenario editor to create a very basic sandbox with which to explore how the different orders work.
I hope I've not made you confused or that that was too basic. Like I said, I didn't know where to start but I figured that if you were just selecting a bunch of troops and marching them off, that maybe I should start at the beginning
As for who or what is getting killed, that's not easy for your troops to determine most of the time. Until your troops are very close to the enemy, don't expect to know anything about casualities. Plus, most infantry weapons don't have very much effect at long range. So if you are 500 meters from the enemy and firing with your infantry (besides machine guns and mortars), chances are you aren't going to be doing much
Hey, I'm also a Chris. Heh, go figure.
-
The history of Panzer Regiment GD mentions one incident of a Panther ramming a T-34, but I don't believe it was deliberate. I'll try and find the quote.</font>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by IronChef4:
So, any grogs have evidence of actual "rammings" during WW2 combat? It would be interesting to hear a first hand account or something. . .er "fink" of this nature.
we're looking at first shot statistics. With guns that can kill on the first shot in many cases, or cause morale effects that delay the reply shot, then we'll see an inordinate amount of kills by vehicles on the AI side, even when testing total vehicles destroyed. By NOT choosing a target, we give the AI an advantage. So we have to eliminate that from our tests.
AI cheats! (with real data)
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
Right now I wish I had the "shot-time" results for the 100 shots. I can promise you, however, that by T=5 ALL the vehicles had fired whether human or computer controlled. If I get ambitious, I'll redo those test with the time taken into account.
Maybe that's what I'll do tomorrow since I'd like to lay this all to rest