slysniper

I have wondered about that, but it sounds like it might be that detailed. Yes that is impressive

This is great news, Now I need to find a battle to play where there is street fighting and see how hard it will be to clear bldgs. It was a piece of cake before

In my test, where the shermans are firing away, most rounds were bouncing off at a 1000, thus when I was still getting penetrations once in awhile I started to wonder if it was APdS rounds making the kills. I likely could find that out to verify it for myself, but I will not be doing 500 test samples of it:)

Thanks for the reply, Phil Yes I agree that my view is simplistic. But let me put it in perspective on how I see things. I work in an engineering Firm, which we design structures. I can promise you, that the formulas are just as complex in our programs as they are within yours. The point I want to share though is this. We start with a base of design, we know our loads, we know our forces, and we know how we want the structure to react. We know what we want the finished product to do. We do not delve into the complicated math the machines now does unless we see results that do not come close to a basic desired concepts of the design we were anticipating. When we see unusual results, we then investigate the calcs. To see what is causing the unexpected results. Most of the times it is an error or incorrect selection of a factor. So in my world, I would expect you to have set certain goals as to how the end results of the game would react. At times I think it appears to me it’s more of here is the imputed math and the formula’s that we believe will give correct ballistics and the results are what they will be without having any base plan as to what they should match. So I just point out things that appear wrong, figuring that. Hey, have you noticed this might not be reacting as to the concept you want for your game. Only you know or can check if the math is correct and that the output is what you want. Since I know neither you anticipated end results desired or the way you are programming the game to do what it does. All the testing in the world on our end is worthless unless there is direction as to what BF wants looked into and feels that testing could help in making possible adjustments to. People are not going to test away on aspects of the game if they feel BF could care less about how the game is presently acting and respond as such. This example, you have someone that points out that special ammo should likely have a poor hit ratio because of flight issues with the round. OK, you point out the game has a variance for that, there should be a difference. His limited test shows otherwise, so you inform him that the testing needs to be much more intense and looked at as to if it is giving good results. Nothing wrong with that. But if I see no change at all, even in the limited test. I would say. Your efforts might be showing something there that we might need to address in the game. But I need you to do more testing to help show that there is indeed a flaw in what we would like to see the game preform at. Giving guidance as to what BF would expect the variance might be. Getting help for free, takes working with people. Treating their efforts as nothing is not going to lead to much positive help. I personally would love to get the super pistol killers toned down within the game. But I will not waste my time, unless I felt that my testing was going to help you, that I was doing it in a way that would be of value to you and that you would actually look at it and have a known goal as to what we thought should be getting portrayed within the game. I test presently for my own enjoyment as to know what to expect when I play the game and to have a good feel on how I want to play it. I will never be throwing hours of my life away in vain efforts without directions that make it worth the effort. I would not expect any other user to do so either. But I would also likely be very helpful if I had direction on what testing could be done to make possible corrections to things BF wanted looked into if it could improve the game.

new player, I would expect he has a unit selected and is seeing the action from another unit that does not see the tank. or if he does have his vision correct on settings. Then he is moving into the enemy line of site and getting blasted before his men in the tank do spot the enemy tanks. Big learning curve for NOOB's

I am glad I was too busy at work to see this thread today. What I get out of all this is, they seem to not know what their own game is programmed to do, so asking if this is what is intended cannot be answered because they are not sure. They are going to look into it only if you test it to a point to prove that in fact what appears commonly happening, is happening. They do not have the time to run the testing, that makes sence, but should they not know if its programmed to have a varience. If they just answer the question, then we can look for ways as to why we might not be seeing it. Your test shows no varience between the ammo type, all we want to know, does the game have one. I have just placed this game back down to the level of nothing more than a game, I need to forget about it as to trying to be a realistic model. If they cannot tell what the intended results should be without someone else testing it within the game. Then making adjustments must be a nightmare for them. How do you adjust a formula unless you know what the intended results should be. But you never hear them tell you that. Like we intended the tanks to have a accuracy level of 80% on judging ranges at approx. 1000m. then that increasing by 10% with each shot until range is known. I think I found the game will allow me to kill King Tigers out to 1000m from the front with Ammo that likely should not be hitting often at that range but does within the game. Is that historically correct, depends on who you ask, but it appears it does not matter because it is not changing. So on them few rare occasions where it happens within the game and people wonder, let them. I just hope I am the one killing the beast. History is twisted all the time anyway, each generation writes their own version of it. So I will write mine own and stop expecting the game to be the same. This game will write its version (which my favorite at the moment is them sharp shooting pistols hitting at 100m) makes the tanks super ability pale in comparison. Dont, worry Phil, no more comments from me for awhile about any unrealistic traits the game might have. I dont want to hurt sales or image

Well, I just had another event tonight as to how crazy it is presently. Halftrack pulls to 75 m of one left crewman with a pistol, He aims and within 6 shots takes out the MGunner. The Mg, gave him a couple of burst in reply. And missed of course. That is my pistol hero's, BF your more than welcome to look into this at any time.

Well, keepin mind, if you are playing Wego PBEM, that AI will take over a unit very often, thus you will see that tank doing the same thing and not be able to do nothing about it til that next minute mark

ouch, I do not need to run test to know the game just in general does not reflect these numbers.

Oh, what Grass mod are you using, That has to be the issue

Very Nice, now lets see you do it, when you do it, then we know the adverage guy can. Actually, watching that, whoever that was, he is very good. look at his stance and how he is holding the pistol, how steady he is. This guy is a professional pistol marksman, so I am not totally suprized. But you cannot use someone like that to compare with the typical soldier of 70 years ago. It is like trying to compare a modern Sniper to a req. rifle man of that era.

So at that range it appears it went from a little better than a 1-3 to almost a 1-4 rate of hits, not bad since they more than doubled the number of rounds shot. as for our test, could compare it to a rifle test, not much for the pistols which is the main concern.

WHEN I HEAR THE WORD SLOW, IT DRIVES ME CRAZY. Yes, to most of what has been said before, but it does not need to be slow. You move a 2-3 man scouting team out on quick unless you expect contact, then it is on hunt, if you want to spend the time. then with the rest of the units you have them in overwatch, once the scouts verifies the next objective is clear. As quick as possible move your units up to take that point. Then start the process over. Speed is good, it does not give the defender time to adjust. But you need to do it at a low risk. When done correctly, you are only risking your scouts. Make sure to send enough scouts to verify all ambush locations. Because you might find a good player that might have the brains to let the scouts go unmolested and wait for the main force, But most of the time, even real players do not do that. It cracks me up how slow some are playing, not only does it give me time to understand what forces I am up against and where they are headed. But I have plenty of time to move up reserves set ambush points, harass the enemy, then pull back the front line troops to the new reinforced defensive line and then lay some heavy fire power on the fools that are afraid to push their attacks. Speed is still very important, one needs to learn how to do it safely or at least at a risk they can afford and still win.

sent you a email

I dont think you will like the answer, but another test to focus on that will likely prove your special ammo was the ammo doing the penetrations. But I did not verify that, it requires you to sit and watch the tank firing and check which ammo was used at the time of penetration. I do know they did fire APDS, since the counts changed, but did not verify they were the kills. Now when I ran the 500m test, I did see that it was the APDS in general, so I have a hard time beleiving the normal ammo managed the kills at 1000m when it was not doing much at 500m So your concerns are likely justified, but I will let you prove that issue, but you likely have one.

I remember playing this battle you made, More than once I recall. I found it after reading something about the battle. Enjoyed it so much. So glad to hear you are trying to take it on again in this format. I think it will prove to be even harder of a mission in this version of the game.

Ok, I retrack my statement about them tankers being superhuman right from the second they exit the tank. so they are possibly that also. Plus the test of hitting a man in 12 shots at 100m is waaaaaaay too good. The sad thing is, are we going to get BF to look into and adjust this.

NICE COMMENTS I would have to look back to see what the test results were, when I tested the game, but they were very poor, and I think I ran most of the test at 400m but BF has pointed out multible times how they are not Snipers in the game, so your comments about how the normal weapon reacts in just a few rounds would be the type of situation which would be what the game represents.

please have her train the sharp shooters in the game that cannot seem to be able to do that. BF will not adjust their numbers, really do not know what it takes to get them to review units as to how they perform in the game compared to real life. But you sure do not see many hits from snipers in the game at that range. Pity

It is not on the list as to being changed, but is tanks having a harder time spotting infantry now or not. I am playing a campaign in CW now and the first thing I noticed was spotting of my tanks to infantry. Cannot tell if any changes have been made. So I guess not from looking at this list.

There you go, with a little time, I am sure some more scenario's will come from the community. Plus nothing wrong with learning how to make your own, it is not all that hard, just need time to do it.

1500m next, but that will likely be it for my testing. Lets see, in all the years of playing the game, Which I only like playing scenarios, not a QB fan at all. I can count on my hand the tank duels that I have had at them ranges (well that is not completely true, I have to forget all the CMBB games), and out of them I only recall one where I had fireflies vs Tiger I's, not Tiger II"s in CMAK days.

That is not kind. No, it sure will not feel his wish list for Airborne action, But it was the first one I played, fun little battle, quick and not so easy. The scenarios in general look better made this time around.

bump, yes, I want comments

OK, time to post next test new test range 1000m this time, One King Tiger vs 5 Fireflies on real time , Warrior setting. Veteran crews except for the KTiger, I gave him a crack unit. Results I played the German, which was I was Micro managing his shots. Shermans killed -Tiger killed 2-0 KT damaged gun, pulled out of action 1-0 abandoned good tank 2-0 abandoned good tank 5-0 1-0 kt damaged gun, pulled out of action 0-1 first 2 enemy shots penetrated and he was dead 3-0 lost 2 crew men and pulled out of action 1-0 KT damaged gun and then abandoned 0-1 lost weapon control then killed 5-0 total 20 fireflies lost, Two King Tigers lost, 3 abandoned, 3 pulled out of action remember the first test was total 23 fireflies lost, 7 King Tigers lost So really, not much better results other than the King Tiger is not getting rightout killed as much anymore, but still, I would have lost 5 to victory points and 3 more would have to leave the action. I can see them results because I expect damage, but full penetrations are still coming pretty often. I will say at least the shermans are having a little problem with hitting their first few shots at this range, where as the KTiger seems to hardly ever miss, but I did not keep them Stats. Old Test was simply, One King Tiger vs 5 Fireflies at over 500 Meters apart. on real time , Warrior setting. Veteran crews except for the Tiger, I gave him a crack unit. Results If I played the German, which was I was Micro managing his shots. Shermans killed -Tiger killed 1-1 5-0 5-0 5-0 1-1 total 17 fireflies lost, Two King Tigers Playing the allied side, Which I had to do nothing. ( only the King Tiger did stupid things when the AI manages it.) 3-1 1-1 1-1 0-1 1-1 Total 6 fireflies lost, 5 King Tigers