Andrew Kulin

My experience with the modern CM titles is that movement into LOS of the enemy usually leads to a quick death. Particularly as to regards with Soviets movement. On defensive scenarios I set up and/or move my Soviet/Syrian units into positions (hull down, inside tree lines, etc.) before the NATO side arrives on scene if I can. Did not realize that (or forgot it).

Thank you for this post. Interesting way to do it and I think I will attempt something similar at my end. My take on your histogram plots are: The M60 partial spots the T72 within 1 minute half the test (n=27/50) and within 90 seconds in almost four-fifths of the test (n=39/50) The T72 managed about 40% partial spots within 60 seconds (n=21/50), and about 60% within 90 seconds (n=29/50). No issue with either of these, seems reasonable to me. Both vehicles convert partial spots into confirmed spots generally within 60 seconds after making the partial spot. What I found odd in the data is the longer tail for the partial spotting of the T72 vs. M60. The M60 was at 100% partial spotting success by 210 seconds (3:20 minutes), whereas the T72 was at 80% with the remaining spots taking essentially up to about 6 minutes, plus that almost 700 second outlier. I am wondering if you assign any significance to the lack of a long tail with the M60 results? I guess a similar question could be asked of the data pertaining to converting a partial spot to a full spot. Again I see a longer tail with the T72 results than the M60. Were the tanks buttoned up or unbuttoned when you ran your tests? I did not see reference to that in your post. My frustrations lay in the perceived poor spotting when my tanks were unbuttoned. I am fully expectant that the western technology related to spotting (thermals, night vision, lasers etc.) would be superior to Soviet equivalents, so I am not surprised in buttoned up spotting is superior on the American side. And it is the reason why I had my vehicles, sitting inside the tree line waiting in ambush to try and improve the odds of spotting the American forces that were advancing on my positions. And as a statistician, which I presume you are as I think you stated you have a PhD and did this sort of thing for a living (at least that is how I interpreted your posts), if I had say a half-dozen vehicles with eyes on the area where my opponent's Bradleys and M1 were moving through open field, on a clear sunny day, would you expect it to be statistically reasonable that all my vehicles had the same poor (tail end of the distribution) spotting success? As in not a single one seeing a single enemy vehicle within 5+ minutes of game time.

I'd be interested in learning how the organizers will be able to sort through that and get rid of the people who did not respond at all. But it could be difficult determining who of the people with zero points were frustrated in not receiving turns from their ghost opponents, unless they had been active in this forum, or communicated directly with the organizers, about their situation. I believe in the next round, you are matched up against an opponent with a similar score. So I am guessing 1 vs. 2, 3 vs. 4, etc.

Please explain then how an unbuttoned T72 Tank commander can't see anything in front of him in broad daylight. While buttoned up T34's can. Sorry folks, but if I can see farm equipment moving about in fields while I am driving on the highway (you guys can do that too, no?), then surely a tank commander, laying in wait, in an unbuttoned tank, should be able to spot large moving vehicles in open fields on a sunny day? That is part of the issue I originally raised, and perhaps the most frustrating part.

This has happened to me and my regular playing partner 3 out of 4 times we have agreed to ceasefires playing CMCW with PBEM+. After the second person agrees to the ceasefire, all of the game files disappear from both of our computers. And neither of us has access to scoring. It happened with a couple of games about a month ago that we were playing and my partner asked for a ceasefire in both. After I agreed to the ceasefires in both games he e-mailed me to say that both games had disappeared entirely on his system. He asked me to resend. Unfortunately I could not. No saved files on my system, and from my side, I could see the send files from me to him listed in PBEM+, but could obviously not do anything with them. So we thought this could be a bug, and decided we'd run a test and start up a couple of small matches, run them for a turn or two and then request ceasefires. One match in CMCW, and the other with CMSF2 (which we both had, and was also set up with PBEM+ so we wanted to see if it was a game engine thing). In any event, both these cease-fires worked out and we both got game results. So did not report anything. A couple of days ago we found ourselves in the same situation with CMCW. Two games underway, my partner calls for cease-fires in both. Me be leery if this, I make the effort to make a save game file of both turns before I send them back to him. Just in case. As it turns out, we got our results for the smaller match which we only went in about 10-15 minutes of game play (the scenario was pretty stupidly unbalanced). But for the larger scenario, that we had invested something approaching 90 minutes of game time on, we lost everything. All files lost on his PC. The specific save files I went to the trouble of saving before sending were also disappeared. All I could see on my side was the file I sent to him, unplayable by me. I would be interested to hear if anyone else has experienced something like this. We have only seen this in CMCW, but honestly, I have not been playing much of the other CM titles lately, except for a couple of mirror games in the CMSF2 tournament. And I have told my tournament opponent about this and we are not going to risk a cease-fire in either of our two matches. Just in case.

Is the PBEM+ server currently down? I am getting red error box: "Could not connect to FQDN Server. Please ensure that you have a working internet connection." I have internet otherwise I could not have posted this message.

Wow. I'm an engineer and I did not even understand that. But all things being equal, who would have higher probability of spotting? Crew in a moving tank spotting a stationary vehicle located just inside a forest, or a crew in a stationary vehicle spotting a moving vehicle out in the open? h and r would be essentially the same (tanks about same size respectively). I would assume the k term for complexity (however that is calculated) would be smaller for a stationary, hidden target compared against a moving unhidden target (and note, our eyes are attracted to motion - so moving things should be modeled with higher potential to be spotted). Presumably the area being searched is the same across all units so however that is accounted for in the equation should be a wash for both sides. And not that I expect it to be modeled such in the game, in the case of the Soviet tanks sitting in ambush positions near edge of woods, eyes should be forward, not needing to do 360 degree scans like probably would be the case for the moving units.

Yes the replacement of injured killed crew members is an oddity. Just had this happen in CMCW with a moving American Jeep. Nearinstant replacement of the dead driver while the Jeep continued to race forward. Think how easy it is to change places with the driver if you were sitting in the passenger seat of your vehicle while you both remain inside the vehicle. Now imagine the driver has been killed and you want to take their place in the driver seat.

Huh? They are trained to not look for tanks? Just sit back, enjoy the birds and butterflies rather than waste their time looking for threats, and only start to look for enemy when one of their friends goes BOOM? Because getting in the second shot is the better approach?

I agree with this in the sense that more eyes passing on information effectively should certainly help in spotting. The issue at hand however is that a single tank, on its own, with supposedly modern sensor capabilities, and crewmen with their own eyeballs, including an unbuttoned TC, should, while hidden unmoving in a treeline, be able to spot moving vehicles, out in the open, during daylight hours in a reasonable amount of time. They are not. In the one battle, I would have had around 6 vehicles (T72s, BMPs) with eyes on an open field with moving Abrams and Bradleys and TOWs and not spotting a single one over many minutes of battle. But the American forces are picking off my vehicles with alarming frequency. I read in earlier posts that this enhanced spotting capability is because American force doctrine is having their TCs unbuttoned and that buttoning them up will bring their spotting ability down. If that is the case, then surely unbuttoning Soviet vehicles should do same, no? If BFC is using something like a random number generator in spotting, with a rule along the lines of if RND() > XXX % then vehicle is spotted (Where XXX = a number between 0.000 and 1.000 (0 - 100%)) then I would suggest that they revisit whatever cutoff value they have set for the Soviets because it is too low. I presume that the checking done every 7 seconds or whatever it is in game time is done against every unit (tank, IFV, squad, gun, etc.) within LOS of the Soviet tank/IFV. Which would mean every such unit fails the spotting test say 9 times/minute. Statistically that is one hell of a lot of spotting fails, especially when you now multiply that by multiple Soviet vehicles also all drawing blanks on the same turn, and over many turns thereafter. Yet soviet infantry in the area are able to spot enemy vehicles in a reasonable time frame. So what is the difference in spotting mechanics of enemy vehicles used by Soviet infantry vs. Soviet vehicles? Is that something that can be fixed?

We are now currently both tied for 4th place after 4 minutes of game play in each battle. Ian's Syrians just put a world of hurt to my US forces in the last turn. Attached is our current scoring. Very odd to say the least.

The scoring system sure behaves oddly. Like for my two games so far: Game 1: turn 1 - no shots fired - me up 3 -1 (??) turn 2 - I take out Striker, nothing for him - 3 - 1 for me (makes sense) turn 3 - I take out a second Striker, he wounds one soldier - 3 -1 for him (??) Game 2: 3 turns, no shots fired other than some arrant spotting rounds hitting empty desert - Game shows 0 - 0 after 3 turns. So that could make sense if tournament gives out interim 0 - 0 scores for ties Then I look at Lethaface scores. He finishes up one game. Shows 700 - 0 in Game2, with Game 1 )ongoing) something like 42- 26. Next day scores in his games are like 642 - 587 (Game 2) and 587 - 642 (Game 1) for an overall tie (I do not recall the exact scores but I do recall they were opposites and added up equally) Next day his Game 2 score is 2000 - 69 and Game 1 is 1228 - 476 Tournament scoring is certainly a mystery. I bet it is driving BFC Elvis nuts.

I think if there was a way to get your opponent's e-mail that would be a good first step. I had a ghost player in the first beta tournament (CMCW) and it was frustrating. Could not contact them in any way to find out what was going on. Even tried looking up their names on the Battlefront, Matrix, Slitherine forums but no luck. Mainly, if I recall correctly, there were no ways to look up a forum member by name on any of the forums in order to check out their profiles and DM or email them.

Not sure if this applies in this case, but my regular PBEM opponent and I had a couple of CMCW games where he asked for and initiated a ceasefire. When I obliged, the games completely disappeared from his side (seems like they were erased) and neither of us got to see an AAR Screen. I can still see the outgoing game files unplayable by me on my computer. Thought it might be a bug and we tried to replicate by opening up two small games (one each in CMCW and CMSF2) that we immediately cease fired, but those two worked out (AARs were sent). With the two games that remain in limbo, the cease fires were separated by a couple of week in real time, so we had figured it wasn't some sort of short-term server glitch or whatever it is that causes some of the funny turn management stuff we see on occasion.

I have found PBEM+ to be a bit quirky with CM Games (mostly playing CMCW so far with it). As in playing a turn, plotting moves and sending off turn with no apparent errors, and then seeing my same turn (playable by me) still in the "inbox". Asking opponent, they did not get turn, so redoing it, up to 3 or 4 times before opponent gets turn at his end. and then sometimes the same thing, so I redo my turns, and then I get auto e-mail notification from Slitherine pointing out I have resent the turn more than once. When turn finally goes through the turn number on my screen changes +1 and I can see the turn, but no longer play it. That is my experience with normal PBEM games, but my limited experience with the tournaments is the turn disappears altogether from your view once you send it.

Just got back home. Pasted your hotkeys file into the directory (where none existed). Works perfectly. Thanks.

How does the interim scoring (3 - 1 system) work if there is a tie in a turn (e.g., zero casualties)?

Not sure what you mean by this, I presume adding 20 year newer spotting tech to a 1940s era tank improved its ability to spot. Which would come back to something I brought up in an earlier reply of mine. 1944 buttoned T34 tanks spotting King Tigers out in the open daylight in a couple of minutes at 1500 m ranges. 1982 buttoned/unbuttoned T72s unable to spot similar sized tanks out in the open at ranges <= 1500 m. That seems broken to me. Both examples from CM2 series games, with same game engine.

Can we get a vehicle pack with T34s so that the Russian player can at least take shots at, and presumably kill, NATO IFVs?

I totally agree. I want to be surprised. But it is what it is.

Thanks - I will try that.

I fully recognize that M1s and Bradleys have the spotting advantage. But what I am having a hard time with is my Soviet vehicles parked just inside tree lines looking over open fields in mid daylight with great visibility (evidenced by blue target lines over a large area), on a defensive mission, unable to even see the unsuspecting M1s, M2s as they are advancing in a large group. I pulled out CMRT (Gog/Magog) scenario and I have buttoned T34s able to spot stationary Tiger tanks from at least 1500 m in open fields. July 1944 technology - optics/observation slits, Binocs, eyeballs doing what I would reasonably expect in being able to eventually spot big hunks of metal in a field during daylight (as in a minute or two) vs. 1981ish Soviet tanks not being able to replicate that on a large group of moving targets. At all. Just does not seem reasonable to me. But they seem to have no issue spotting infantry soldiers in a reasonable time frame under the same conditions (even when blocked from view by an invisible M1 tank). Not asking that Soviet AFVs be able to spot other AFVs instantly, but certainly they should be able to so after some period of time, especially when said enemy tanks are moving over open ground, and even firing their main weapons. But 5 - 10 minutes or more with no sightings? That's a tough one to swallow. Thanks for replies. I won't belabor the point as it seems to have been settled long ago in other discussions.

I want to start off by sharing text from a couple of recent e-mails I sent to a regular opponent while playing CMCW with PBEM++, with me as the Russian player in both of these separate scenarios. I think it will be clear from the text what I am driving at, and I wonder if this is something others are experiencing, and if this is something the development team needs to address. Scenario: Unhoook the Leash BTW, in our current CM match, it is frustrating playing Ivan. Hidden in trees with LOS to open ground, but cannot spot large moving vehicles in the open. I can spot a deer 500 m off to my side at tree line in dusk conditions with peripheral vision while driving on highway at 80-100 kmh but my guys sitting still looking right at tanks cannot see them. And they are equipped additionally with sensors??? And your guys, while on the move, can see my non-moving stuff and take them out with one shot. Case in point, your second M1 to be immobilized. By HE. Why, you might ask? Because my T72 was firing at the infantry "behind" the tank. The tank, which, could not at all be seen by my tank. But the infantry "behind" the tank? Totally visible. Scenario: A Beautiful Morning (from Scenario Depot) Meanwhile in our other game, you are not going to believe this. I took out a tank with an ATGM. Which one might naturally assume is the unbelievable aspect based on my experience with Russian sensor systems. And in a way, those systems did not disappoint. But here is what happened. I was checking LOS last turn and my IFV could see your four beautifully lined up tanks. By see, I mean the light blue line was present all in that area as I was using the target command to check LOS. But actually see the four tanks. No. Of course not. In doing this I must have accidentally issued a target command, at a point beyond all your tanks. Think of an area fire command. So the bugger launches an ATGM as area fire. Has not spotted a single tank. The ATGM just happens to hit and blow up your tank, because it happened to be in the way. My IFV still cannot see the flaming, smoking, mass of twisted steel by the way. Which of course, is par for the course. I think I may have discovered a way to actually get Russian BMPs to fire ATGMs at high value targets. Can't be any worse than what happens normally. It seems to me that the game (CMCW at least) has a flaw in how Russian IFVs and Tanks locate (see) enemy IFVs and Tanks. In both these games, what is not mentioned in my e-mails to my opponent, is that while my armored vehicles cannot see enemy vehicles, infantry units can spot the enemy vehicles pretty reasonably. And in some cases my infantry are sitting next to one of my tanks or BMPs, and the infantry squad or HQ, can see tanks rolling across open fields, but the tank or BMP positioned next to the infantry cannot, even though using targeting command for both units (infantry, BMP/tank) shows a blue line over a large swath of area all around the enemy vehicles. And consider that my infantry, depending on stance, are much lower to the ground (say 1 to 6 feet above ground for eyeballs/binocs) compared to the sensor equipped vehicle, which must be sitting say 8-12 feet or more above ground. I now try to open up all my fighting vehicles in the hope that the commander/gunner sitting at the top of the vehicle. I fully appreciate that US sensor systems might be better quality than Soviet sensors (though I am not sure if that is how it was during CMCW's time frame), which to me would provide advantages such as being able to pick out targets further distances than Soviet forces at night or under darker conditions, or being able to see through smoke better than Soviet forces etc. But is seems the way CMCW is currently being modeled, the Soviet vehicles are essentially blind to US vehicles much of the time. It is like the sensors/optics on these vehicles are painted over/closed and hinder rather than enhance siting of enemy vehicles, but not of infantry. And even unbuttoning vehicles does not appear to improve chances of siting enemy armor, on the move, in the open no less. So a commander in a cupola, presumably with binocs cannot see the enemy armor, but infantry/HQs on the ground with or without binocs can. So wondering if anyone else is noticing this and if this is something the development team should look into.

No rush on my end. I scored a quality opponent so I have no worries about any of that happening to me in round 1. Too bad the system cannot award 1,000 points to someone whose opponent disappeared, or that one of you guys cannot go into the oppenent's game file at or just before end of tournament round and surrender.

What happens if your opponent decides to surrender or not finish the game? Or never shows up?