Tarquelne
-
Posts
1,045 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tarquelne
-
-
now adding some posts
-
-
Perhaps if one were to try the tech support forum?
-
Don't forget to state just what it applies to. Some of us are having trouble pinning down just what your position is.Originally posted by redwolf:I'll have to give Mikeydz scenario a decent review, it is obviously pretty decisive here if it applies.
-
Actually, the fact that he's backed so far off from his origional position to "it's the moddeling" is a tacit admission of error. He's retreated. Vamoosed. Elvis has left the building. Daddy don't live here no more - he no longer argues that it's a "bug."No, I am not trying to gloat here. I am trying to prevent Redwolf from jumping onto some other "bug" that becomes an exercise in futility after the first couple of pages. So far he has only admitted to making one tactical error.Of course, if one really _is_ trying to "prove who has a bigger pennis" then a tacit admission is seldom enough.
I also think it worth noting that redwolf did try to leave the thread with what he thought was the necessary information and bow out. However someone implied that he was doing something intellectually dishonest, and so he came back, thus, much of the "futility". As my mother would say, "It takes two to tango."
(Hmmm... of course, if he's gone there can't be any genital comparisons, can there?)
-
Huh. And here I was thinking I'd just set it up to see what was true.Then the accusations morphed, eventually, to claim that the ISU would survive better if it stayed put for just one shot and then retreated. Tarqulene's test was specifically set up to show this.
Could you explain just how the test wasn't "blind" enough? For future reference, if nothing else.I don't mean this as a slam, it i just that the test was not conducted "blindly" enough.
I followed the routine you described, except for "c", and with the addition of recording whether or not the ISU fired before or after the retreat began. Which is fortunate, if you think about it, because that's one of the 3 situations I wanted to compare.
And please, be careful - a few people in this thread _have_ been slammed for seeming to distrust results presented by others, for what was characterized as attempts to discredit a contradictory source of information rather than accept that a mistake - no matter how insignficant - had been made. I wouldn't want Steve coming after you, Steve.
[ December 03, 2002, 04:19 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
This was both AFV's using the Hunt command, and not in quite the same position as your saves. It was to see what happens if they played "chicken". (The answer is the ISU retreats, then dies.)Tarqulene posted December 01, 2002 06:34 PM:0 dead Panzer, 2 dead ISU
There were 3 "tests", 2 with 20 trials/turns in each, 1 with 10.Tarqulene posted December 02, 2002 07:26 PM:
7 dead Panzer, 3 dead ISU
(posting is not entirely clear to me)
Test 1: Only includes trials in which the ISU fires before retreating.
Test 2: Only includes trials in which the ISU retreats before firing or doesn't fire at all.
Test 3: Only includes trials in which the ISU doesn't retreat.
In test 1 the ISU's survived most often (and killed the most Panzers.) In test 3 the ISUs died the most often. (By the end of 1 turn, there would have been more kills if I'd gone on to another turn. And I think the ISU's got lucky.) In test 2 the ISUs survived more often than the "no retreat" ISU's, but less often than the fire-then-retreat ISUs.
I think the above makes perfect sense. (Though I suspect both AFV's got lucky in the number of kills.) When the ISU fires it has a pretty decent chance of eliminating the panzer outright - no return fire. So it's best bet is to either fire quickly and retreat, or just retreat. Hanging around is bad - the panzer's ROF kicks in. (I stopped the third test at 10 tirals because it after that many runs the ISU had already died more times than in either of the 20 trial tests.)
I've run the test quite a few times, btw, and overall it's been fairly close to 50/50 - the 7/3 split was by far the most dramatic I've seen.
My conclusion was that the ISUs are _not_ chosing the optimal survival strategy when they retreat before firing. They're not doing the "smart" thing. However, I do think they're acting realistically. Soldiers don't often use the "optimal survival strategy", esp. since they had no handy hit-chance/kill-chance LOS tool.
[ December 03, 2002, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
20 trials in which the ISU-122 fired _before_ it started to Reverse, or didn't Reverse at all. The ISU KOed or disabled the PzIV 7 times, and was itself KOed or disabled only 3 times.
In 20 trials in which the ISU Reversed before firing (or Reversed and never fired) it was destroyed 4 times.
In 10 trials in which the ISU _didn't_ Reverse at all lead to the ISU being destroyed or disabled 1/2 the time.
[ December 02, 2002, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
I think that highlights the variability of these "tests" - I've _never_ seen that, and the ISU tends to do pretty well in my tests. Doing tests like this is often the best way we can try to figure out what's going on, but we should remember that they're still very crude instruments.The ISU also had a tendency to fire it's rounds into the crest of the ridge, especially as it was backing off when firing, which is to be expected.The answers to all my questions have come out due to the tests, though - I think I've got a handle on why the ISU retreats, why it sometimes doesn't, and why the PzIV doesn't retreat.
Hmm... in the hopes of getting things back on track:
The ISU has a pretty decent chance of destroying the PzIV in one shot. However, the longer the ISU stays visible the more likely it is that the PzIV will destroy it. Finally, while the odds for both vehicle getting a kill rise over time, the odds for the PzIV are going up faster. Ideally, the ISU should pause just long enough in sight of the PzIV to fire one shot and then retreat. That'd give it that ~1/4 chance of destroying the PzIV while exposing it to less than ~1/4 odds of being destroyed. However, due to less-than-perfect communication (or calculation) among the crew a real-life ISU would sometimes retreat before taking it's shot. The ISU in the game sometimes retreats before taking it's shot. The PzIV, OTOH, isn't served well by moving. It can't get out of LOS before the ISU takes it's shot (if it's shooting), and moving would lower it's chances of getting several good hits in on the ISU. Therefore, the game is being realistic when the ISU sometimes retreats while the PzIV doesn't, and not demonstrating a bug.
Eh?
-
/sarcasm mode on/Unfortunately a pattern is emerging about how Redwolf operates (using this and previous threads):/snip/
3. Makes factually incorrect statements and gross generalizations to reinforce his beliefs.
/snip/
4. Makes counter arguments for only those arguments he thinks he can counter... This behavior is called "dodging".
/snip/
7. And finally, never ever admit that he makes false statements....
...Accusing one person of lying
A. (added by me) Sometimes attributes beliefs to the wrong poster
Gosh! We're lucky that Redwolf is the only one here who does those things!
/sarcasm mode off/
Seriously, redwolf's unique flaw (other than _maybe_ the things I snipped - though most were simply variations of "fixated" or already included points) is that he's extremely tenacious in the face of being wrong. Personally, I'm only tenacious when I know I'm right.
Oops, got sarcastic (or mocking?... ironic?... lets go with "ironic") again without notification.
Is this the point where we start a thread enumerating everyone elses flaws, or drop the subject?
[ December 02, 2002, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
But how unrealistic is that? A crew of cyborgs (well designed cyborgs, at least) would both calculate all the odds correctly and be in perfect communication. The driver/commander would know that the gunner was about to take a shot, and know that the shot was worth pausing for (or not)... balancing risk with possible gain.No. Not when it begins backing up before the first shot, and then either gets no shot off at all, or shoots on the move, surely missing.But - according to the Russian Battlefield web site, very few of the ISU-122 crews were 'borgs. (And it seems doubtfull that the full-metal-jacket crews ever even made it to the front at all before the war ended.)
Anyway... the point being that while the observed behavior is not ideal*, neither were AFV crews.
*Since the ISU does different things on different run-throughs of the same turn it _must_ sometimes be making the "wrong" choice - the one with the lowest overall odds for success.
-
I just had the PzIV and the ISU "Hunt" each other in 5 test-turns. The ISU always retreated, the PzIV never retreated.... and the PzIV KO'd the ISU twice and Shocked it once. No damage to the PzIV.
BTW - This is after I removed the PzIV's Morale +1 HQ.
If the "bug" only seems to appear with certain vehicle matchups, redwolf, it might be because the bug is really a difference of opinion (or experience, or knoweldge - whatever) with regard to how effective the vehicles are against each other. In the case of this matchup the ISU's retreat and the PzIV's non-retreat seems reasonable to me. The fact that the PzIV never seems to retreat is odd, given the 50/50 split in some of my tests, but I doubt I ran the "test" enough times to discover a trend.
But I did discover that the hit and kill chance calculations are far more sensitive than I'd thought - the angle of the PzIV's hull can easily change the hit chance by ~5%, for example. Given past experiences, I think it more likely that there's some factor influencing the contest that I'm not aware of, but that the TacAI is taking into account. The PzIV and the ISU under consideration know their business, IMO.
How about another matchup with results you think questionable, redwolf? Esp. if it shows a Russian unit retreating and a German one holding fast.
-
Looks like you posted the same time I did.... If _I_ were in the ISU I'd consider retreating. Hmm... I have something to try...So, given the hit probablities and kill chances I just screenshotted about, tell me again why is it so desireable for the the ISU to pull back about 1/3rd of the times
It it didn't have to rotate in order to move away, it might. And I wonder if the AI is more likely to retreat a unit that was just in motion.and why never for the Pz IV?
[ December 01, 2002, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
Isn't it unusual for a "bug" to show up only occasionally - _excatly_ the same situation, just some different random numbers.So I have 4 out of 20 times that the bug is shown, or 20%.
I was able to coax the ISU into a hull-down position at the end of the turn (took quite a few tries, what with the frequent retreats), so I could check the hit and kill chances at that point.
PzIV vrs. ISU - 29% hit, Fair kill
ISU vrs. PzIV - 27% hit, Excellent kill
That looks pretty iffy for the ISU to me, given that the odds of a 1 shot kill are close to 1/4 (treating "excellent" as "100 % kill", which is of course optimistic) and the odds of the PzIV connecting with it's second shot before the ISU gets a second shot are good.
I really doesn't look like a "bug" to me, redwolf. At most, I think you could argue that BFC made the self-preservation tropism too strong.
Not a bug, at least based on this one test. Do you have a scenario you could easily edit to try and give the ISU a slightly less worthy opponent?
BTW - Characterizing the matchup as a "late war tank destroyer vrs. a mid-war tank" might be throwing you off a bit. I think it's more accurate to think of it as a "unit with good gun and armor vrs. a unit with a better gun and poor armor." The 75mm gun and good optics on the PzIV make it something more than a generic "mid war tank". (And I wonder if similar thinking ("huge Russian beasts backing away from puny PzIVs")isn't behind the thinking that the Soviet tanks are "cowardly.")
I'll see if I can get an ISU-122 to retreat from a clearly inferior foe...
-
Right.There must be others interested in the early war, though. Right? -
Sounds like what you want are AARs (After Action Report), perferably with pictures, eh? The first link has links to multiple AARs - I haven't checked 'em out. (Except I remember the last one - it has pictures.) The remaining three links are all to AARs with pictures. (One of 'em is for CMBO AARs, but that should be close enough.)Well sometimes it helps to see how it is in the game, rather then just reading the manual, which I did read.I don't know of any CMBB "saved game" or "movie phase" AARs, which would allow you to follow along within the game.
http://homepage.mac.com/cjbehm/CMBB%20AARs.html
http://home.online.no/~andhess/cm/
http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=001677
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/ab1/aar.html
Searching for "AAR" should turn up more.
-
Ok, on the negative side, I'll have to admit that I actually looked in this topic again. Say it was a mistake?... no offer no explaination, maybe no one will think about it. And I wouldn't be contributing anything to the discussion, just mooching a scenario. Of course, how much more "contributing" could the topic stand?I will send the scenario to anyone who wants to play it from the German side. See for yourself if proper tactics can do what is claimed impossible.On the plus side, I could get a "historical attack" against a Kursk Hedgehog from rune... Hmm...
Hi, rune. My name is Bill. I'd like a copy of the scenario. You can send it to Tarquelne's e-mail - tarquelne@neo.rr.com (also in profile.)
I promise to play it from the German side.
-
Is the quote I want in that long post? Oh, man, it is.... OK:
Heartily agree with that. After reading this thread I went and played "The Balka". Then I reviewed it at the Depot - my "overall" score was 6.6, dragged down by the "Replayability" category. How long is AK's "To Do" list? Maybe he could add "Consider discounting "Briefing" and "Replayability" by 50% in score formula." to the back of the third page, or something.I utterly reject "replayability" as a factor of the same importance as "balance" or "map design,"
I hope so, because otherwise I'm not getting nearly as much fun out of playing the game as some people. And I try, I really try./the scores/ are at this point hideously inflated
[ November 25, 2002, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
You broke the code! Yes, all the posts in the last couple days were vield threats and criticisms of your personal hygine: All the people thought you'd insulted God, but are too cowardly to challenge you openly.You think that I insulted God or something!! -
If it's realistic for an HMG to become Ex. from player ordered Sneaking after a few turns it's realistic for an HMG to become Ex. from auto-Sneaking too. So, if by "command overwrite rate" you mean the unit's habit of changing Move orders to Sneak when at Alerted-or-worse then I think key is just the command overwrite, not a combination of factors.It is not a coherent design, and the reason is not a single one of the supression rate, of the exhaustion rate or of the command overwrite rate, but a combination thereof.[/QB]Given my druthers I would like to see some more flexibility in HMG behavior under fire. Let them Advance, say, like a squad in that they are more willing to go forward at a higher-than-Sneaking pace while under fire. Or give them the Run option - If cover is 15m away and the incoming fire is sporadic it could easily be worth the risk, esp. if you might be able to move out of LOS of something nasty. ("Hey, look, is that an ISU-122? I havn't seen one of those before.")
But since the Sneak movement rate is so slow for HMGs the best option under the current system seems to be to have them Hide if cover isn't extremely close: While it does seem to be true that a CMBB HMG under fire is an HMG that is very nearly immobile, it doesn't have to be an Exhausted, immobile HMG. Sneak-until-Ex. isn'tinevitable.
-
Or change the manual.1. Make the "sneak threshold" worse-than-alerted. It's even supported by the manual (Alerted = "not yet adversely affected by it").It does look like the HMGs may be treated more harshly than squads - a squad can Advance while Shaken, for example. Oh well, now that the game-mechanism seems to have been Pinned we can go to the
part of the discussion and focus on realism tweaks, if necessary. Maybe the current system is as good as CMBB can get, practically speaking, maybe not. Maybe we can talk about Running HMGs again.argue forever about how units should behave when things go wrong
I'll gratefully leave that to the HW grogs - I just do what my Sgt. tells me.
-
Since you ask, it's at Alerted or worse, not worse-than-altered, that causes a HMG to use Sneak rather than Move. At least sometimes - it's what I noticed happening in every case, and I just double checked.OK, did I miss anything?Questions, and speculation:
What would a real HMG crew do if under fire, in the open, and felt they needed to get to cover (ie - Hiding in place isn't, for whatever reason, an option)? I'm guessing they'd abandon the heavy stuff, scoot over to cover in a reasonably quick, non-exhausting manner (like a normal, non-HW squad) and then go get the abandoned equipment when it was reasonably safe to do so. Eh? If so, then the "problem" ("problem" = less than ideal simulation) might be that re-manning weapons isn't an option in CM (yet... we'll see what the next engine brings us).
A suggestion and... er, looks like more of the above:
Panicked HMG crews can Run... Would it be possible (and we all know that in this context that also means "practical", right?
) to allow Alerted or Cautious HW crews to Run? Still a highly fatiguing activity, but it might be a better option than slooowly Sneaking. OTOH, I am perfectly willing to accept "You choices are Hide/stay-in-place or Sneak when your HWs are under fire." Assuming that I'm correct about the behavior of real HW crews (at least, in so far as Sneak and stay-in-place not being their only options) then this is a case of CM not corresponding perfectly with reality. But I don't see it as being worse than most other imperfects we know exist in the game.
[ November 24, 2002, 11:32 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]
-
http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=000575
is a thread in which this has been discussed before. (Searched under "waypoint system" - it was the first return.) It answers all the questions you've asked so far. (No one asked your exact questions, IIRC, but the answers are in there.)
-
Thanks, I just downloaded your stupid mod.
PBEM lock-up
in Combat Mission Archive #4 (2002)
Posted
to make you think - just for a moment - that maybe you're not "uninteresting". You squib.
[ December 03, 2002, 05:12 AM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]