ww2steel
-
Posts
356 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by ww2steel
-
-
76 - sorry I missed your post (only 1 contact in right now).
All good points. And true, I've destroyed more Panther tanks in my tests than were actually produced. Cool thoughts about the incorrect prebrief, crappy ammo loadout or arrangement, etc. Add that to my 'Ukrainian farm boy'. I have done this against other targets than the Panther (for instance the Tiger), but nowhere near as exhaustively.
I am doing an unofficial 'Panther Ops Manual' that literally covers everything a Panther can and can't do in the game. Everything from speeds/bogging % in all terrains, artillery vulnerability, vul. to air attack, AT guns, win/loss graphs to other vehicles in different scenarios, a listing of all of the changes done to the tank that are reflected by game graphics (and a list of some that are not) and probably much more I'm forgetting right now. (I'm a professional pilot.) I thought it would be cool to come out with manuals similar to the completely exhaustive (and once a year for our FAA tests exhausting) aircraft manuals.
I know I probably won't make anything for all the time I'm putting in, but the Panther is my favorite tank, so I decided to tackle that first.
Mike
-
Yeah, I expect no patch, I just chalk it up to: Ukrainian farm boy sees big tank and fires 'super armor smasher' round. Seems plausible to me... even though I am just explaining away a bug.
Shoot, I've even told Battlefield before that I'd put $200 towards adding a Maus to the game. They need to use the multiturret 'technology' from CMAK and make an update to CMBB- like a special weapons mod for the old soviet heavies and the huge german designs. IMO the Maus has as much right to be in the game as the IS3.
Mike
-
I have discoved a more extreme case of the AI improperly firing APCR with a Panther / T-44 pairing. It was pretty obvious on this one. Here's the new thread:
Mike
-
I just ran another big test. This time between a Panther and the T-44. I first noticed this little quirk when graphing the T-34/85 against a Panther- that the AI chooses to fire APCR (tungsten) EVEN WHEN IT DOES WORSE THAN STANDARD AP. The running theory is that the AI simply chooses the best penetration numbers, and fires it, irregardless that the AP would easily penetrate and do more damage.
First, before anyone starts hollering about statistical significance this graph used 1575 pairs of these two tanks, at ranges from 100m to 2000m.
With the T-44 there is ABSOLUTELY NO RANGE WHERE IT IS ADVANTAGEOUS FOR IT TO FIRE APCR, BUT IT DOES ANYWAY. I had 5 rounds of APCR in each T-44, which they always fired at ranges up to 1500m. I took all of them away for the next series of tests and T-44 casualties DROPPED and Panther casualties INCREASED at all ranges below 1500m inclusive. It was worst at 100m where it made the Panther 12% more likely to defeat a T-44 that carried a handful of APCR. The average difference was 7%.
Intuitively it should either have no effect (not being fired) or should improve performance if it is selected to be fired. If it performs worse the AI tank commander should be leaving it in the rack… but he is not.
I can post the graph if anyone really really wants to see it, as I have the others, but it's a pain.
Is this a bug?
Mike
-
I finally finished this chart (took about 10 hours!):
Here's a cool graph showing the shatter gap of the early ammo at 300m and what appears to be another slight one at 500m for the later ammo. Interestingly, the M4s also take higher casualties with the later ammo, presumably because they are slightly more likely to continue to fight when becoming paniced instead of popping smoke.
Obviously the best effecitiveness for the Panther will be at longer ranges, and where a shatter gap is present.
This graph complies 1665 tested vehicle pairs, or 3330 tanks.
Mike
[ July 02, 2006, 01:51 PM: Message edited by: ww2steel ]
-
-
Okay- main question: why does the Sherman 76's tungsten round suck so bad? Generally the tungsten ammo gets what, a 60% increase in penetration at 100m, 0°? How come it only goes from 123 to 131mm average penetration? Is the APCBC that good, or does the tungsten just suck? I see that the tungsten is on par with the 76L42 round, so maybe the APCBC just is really good. (I see that it is on par with the 85mm.)
Next, the APCBC for the Sherman. I see that it suffers horrible shatter gap problems that seem to be slightly worse in the 43-44 ammo. (Extensive testing shows 10% less Panther casualties at 300m than 100m or 500m, all of these figures raising only about 3% with the '45 ammo.) Why is this so bad? I see that it is going faster than the 76L42 ammo. Is that the only reason, or did the Russians just make horrible ammo for the Sherman 76? (I assume the Soviets made in-house ammo, right?)
I sure could use the help of the ammo/ ballistics/ armor experts on this one.
Thanks in advance for the input,
Mike
-
Translation... he hasn't stolen CMAK yet. He's some little 14 year old 'pyrate' twerp that thinks he's smart because he can copy CDs or whatever. He doesn't realize that he's not smarter, it's just that we're old enough to get jobs and don't have to use a month's allowance to actually buy a game. Go mow some lawns or something and stop being such a looser, grow a spine and stop cheating. Anyway, hopefully Madmatt will ban him a second time. It's little comploosers like that that made me stop playing Battlefield Vietnam online.
What a tool.
14 year old and shake- that was a good laugh! That's exactly how I feel.
Mike
-
Mr. Salt is reading my mind. That's what I was working on last night and this morning. The Sherman's 76mm has a huge shatter gap with the APCBC on the '43 to '44 ammo (the Panther takes 10% fewer casualties at 300m than at 100m or 500m). This morning I am going to test the 1945 ammo to see if it does better.
The Soviets used 76mm ammo made 'in house' right? Not just US imports? If so, is the Soviet ammo the one reflected in the game?
As to the topic that I started on this thread I have determined that simply the AI chooses the wrong ammo. It selects the higher penetrateion of the APCR when the more destructive normal AP actually does better.
Mike
-
Yes it does.
-
Hi,
Andrew- that's actually the opposite of what's happening though. At short range if they have the tungsten ammo they are firing it even though it (for whatever reason- which was my original question) does worse than AP. They are wasting APCR when the plentiful AP does better.
Mike
-
Guess I did kind of explode there. It just seems like 80% of the time I post a real question or one of my few graphical mods somebody gives me crap. Sometimes I'm sure I just take it wrong, sometimes it's meant to be rude.
That's why I have relatively few posts and almost never do post any of the hundreds of pages of research I have done.
Just makes me upset.
Mike
-
Well, I don't know why people want to give me sh*t for doing research on the game for the community. I wonder how many people emailed Chris Hare for his Excel spreadsheets and "rolled eyes" at him for spending hours and hours in front of the editor gaining information that 90% of you use regularly when playing the game.
Maybe only 10% of you go in detailed enough to care about my research, but if you don't care just STFU! :mad: There's no need to discount my efforts just because you don't get into the game enough to care that your 85mm will do 8% (or whatever) better at 100m if it doesn't have APCR even though this is counter-intuitive.
For those of you that are interested, thanks for the helpful posts.
Mike
-
All of this is going into a 'Panther Ops Manual' that will be ready in hopefully a few months that covers everything from speeds/ terrain, vulnerability graphs such as the one below, artillery vulnerability, PAK vulnerability, anti infantry tactics, etc, etc. I am a pilot and we have these huge manuals for the aircraft and I thought it would be fun to make them for the more popular vehicles in the game.
Mike
-
An interesting idea duke. Would crack crews use AP instead of APCR and eliminate this 'wrong ammo gap'? (I doubt it though.)
And Elmar, good point. That's what I was thinking too- about loooking for the highest penetration when the AP is fine and will have a higher chance of a kill. The light armor "let's all use AP" has always annoyed me. You sit there and watch 'em put a few rounds of AP into a BA64 or whatever when a single big HE hit would either break it in half or flip it over.
Mike
-
Okay,
This is one of many graphs going into my book:
The CM part of my website (that badly needs updating!):
http://www.ww2steel.com/Combatmission.html
See how the T-34 does WORSE at 100, and a little at 300m? That's what I'm asking about. :confused:
Mike
-
Okay, thanks. I think if I missed that I really would have been confused a long time ago.
My point, again.
1) Even against the Panther, the APCR gives an 8% advantage at medium ranges. (Turret face)
2) At 100m, with BOTH APBC and APCR on board the AI fires APCR TO A DISADVANTAGE. WHEN I TAKE AWAY THE APCR IT DOES BETTER. WHY DOES THE AI FIRE APCR WHEN APBC DOES BETTER?????
The last sentence is my main point, and has now been tested by 1160 engagements. (yes, that's 2320 tanks)
Mike
-
Already done, the Tiger comes out normally.
The Panther comes out normally as well, when you take away the APCR from the T-34/85, from ranges 300m - 1000m the T-34 suffers by about 8%... except at 100m, where it gets an ADVANTAGE by me TAKING AWAY the few APCR roudns it carries. I just don't understand why if it does better firing APBC rounds why it doesn't just disregard the APCR (it stops firing APCR at the Tiger under 300m and switches to APBC only).
And yes, APBC especially does better than APCR when striking at an angle. I am using the later APBC ammo instead of earlier AP.
Mike
-
LOL, very true. If I have time I was thinking of running a few of the more common combos like this in a two on one scenario.
Mike
-
I was just alt tabbing out of my game to ask this. How can I calculate how many tests I need to do to eliminate the statistical noise down to maybe 1%, 2%, whatever?
Will someone please help me?
Thanks!
Mike
-
Don't really understand the rolling eyes...
what's that all about?
-
100m
Everything identical in all respects except ammo loadout of the T-34, regulars both sides.
Run exactly 200 times- 89% casualties (89% of the T-34s destroyed/ significantly disabled). Run more times because this figure seemed more suspect due to the rest of the graph. I have actually run 900 total engagements between these two vehicles.
Run exactly 100 times- 84% casualties when the APCR is removed.
Mike
-
Okay, I have run it 300 times...
(This is at 100m.)
T-34/85M43 with APCR (tung) vs Panther A early:
T-34 casualties = 89%.
T-34/85M43 WITHOUT APCR vs Panther A early:
T-34 casualties = 84%.
Why does the tank do better when you take away the specialized ammo? I have theories, but I want to here other peoples' before I throw mine out there. 5% isn't much, but after 300 total tests, I'd think it would be significant.
Ideas?
Thanks,
Mike
[ June 20, 2006, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: ww2steel ]
-
Well, I logged 729 kilometers in various Panther tanks today. Recorded speeds and chances of bogging/ immobilization for all unfrozed terrains including Very Dry and Deep Mud. It's 3am and I'm tired!
Mike
How computer loads out ammo...
in Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin
Posted
If anyone cares, I have figured out how the computer loads out ammo. ...yes, I get bored on my days off.
I took 220 SU122, 10 for each month august '43 through the end. It seems that once HEAT is turned 'on' that it does NOT simply pick a random whole number between a max and 0- for this vehicle it is 0 - 8. It actually does use a sort of 'bell curve'. This is kind of surprising since it is way more difficult to program, but pretty cool that they bothered. Granted that's not a very big sample size, but notice how few vehicles had 5 rounds... kind of wierd.
# of rounds / # of vehicles with this # of rounds
0 10
1 22
2 29
3 37
4 38
5 14
6 41
7 20
8 9
Anyway, it's a relatively appropriately weighted bell curve, just my sample size must be too small.
Hope someone finds this interesting!
Mike