sburke

LOL yeah really "what did you do yesterday?" "I tested to see if I was better off behind a low wall if people were shooting at me" So here is what I came up with in changing the proximity of the wall. This is with the range still split with 10 lanes having no wall behind them. Numbers are units in open wnd/dead, units behind wall wnd/dead. 1) 21/22 62/75 69 with wall 8 squares back 2) 15/15 65/82 71 with wall 6 squares back 3) 30/27 58/68 75 with wall 4 squares back 4) 31/31 49/53 33 with wall 3 squares back 5) 38/43 38/48 30 with wall 2 squares back +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Map range altered so all 20 lanes have rear wall numbers are units in open wnd/dead units behind wall wnd/dead with wall 3 squares back 1) 33/21 29/44 2) 47/40 24/28 with wall 2 squares back 1) 48/24 28/27 2) 38/27 25/33 with wall 1 square back 1) 45/37 11/17 2) 47/43 13/17 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ And now back to the original question of whether a low wall is better or worse in and of itself. All 20 lanes have no rear wall. All units are regular/normal/no leadership bonus/fit run as veteran 2 player hot seat. Numbers are units in open wnd/dead, units behind wall wnd/dead. 1) 28/20 67/76 2) 20/26 77/87 I'd have to say I am not likely to place my units behind a wall unless there are other circumstances to contribute to their security. At least not a rough stone wall. Am I really gonna go verify against other type walls....sadly yeah

In response to the suggestions that it could somehow just be a bonus modifier from an additional wall structure I ran some additional tests. The results from a single test (I have a number of things I wanted to test so only had time for a spot check) indicated that a low wall behind actually made things worse. My suspicion is it gave troops a place to break to that in actuality offered no more protection and in the process of withdrawing they exposed themselves even more. The units with a low wall behind them got cut up pretty bad. With no wall ---------wnd/dead 36/25 with low wall behind-- wnd/dead 65/73 number of casualties w/ no additional wall-56 number of casualties w/ additional wall----82 I then tried it again with a tall hedgerow figuring if it is a silhouette effect the hedgerow might create it as well With no wall ----------wnd/dead 28/33 with hedgerow behind--wnd/dead 70/71 number of casualties w/ no hedgerow-68 number of casualties w/ hedgerow----73 Next test I extended the firing range to move the large wall quite a bit back from the low wall With no wall ---------wnd/dead 21/22 with low wall behind-- wnd/dead 62/75 number of casualties w/ no additional wall-68 number of casualties w/ additional wall----69 What I think I am finding with admittedly a small sample pool is that having that large wall within a couple hexes is creating some additional bonus almost as it it is considered part of a structure. Any other material simply gives the troops a thought they can retreat to cover and they just get chopped up. Once the wall is far enough away the effect is no longer created and they behave just like the troops with no wall. I will run a couple more and see if I can tell when distance kicks in (if it does) for a change in behavior. Meanwhile all the tests with no wall, an additional low wall or a hedgerow all do show an advantage to some degree of prone troops in the open. In all of my testing the troops with simply a low wall have fared poorly against prone troops in the open and that is with approx 200 iterations.

Might want to review the battles around Arracourt and Des Champs. The results were very lopsided and not in the Panther's favor. Note they also didn't have any Firefly's.

I could, but I believe it is improbable and there does not seem to be any corroborating evidence therefore I find no reason to be equivocal about it. I could certainly be wrong and I think no one gives a rat's a** of my opinion on it, but heck that is all any of us are doing here. I will however tip my hat to your insistence on keeping an open mind.

Well I may try some other alterations to see if I can figure out if something in my tests is flawed or if I can isolate some other way what is happening. I followed your earlier notes and I think my test does comply. However I don't really have a goal other than to understand the effect. If somehow there is something going on that ends up replicating a silhouette effect, that is fine by me. I don't think my results are inaccurate from a realism standpoint, I am just trying to understand why it is producing them. I certainly don't want it taken away. Maybe HAL has become self aware and added it in.

+1 really beautiful shots.

True and if you were going to exaggerate, would an armor unit play down their losses and thereby their replacements? How would they explain that at roll call - umm those guys went for beer..... It seems highly unlikely a unit would play down their losses by that much and therefore their replacements as opposed to several days later giving an account which though not intentionally made up could be chock full of fog of war issues. Personally I am very skeptical of Barkmann's claims, but I don't know if it will ever be certifiably proven. As it stands other than his report there is as far as I know nothing to back up his claims. So you can choose to take his word or not. I choose not.

I want socks. They would need to be individually tracked as pairs get separated etc, but dry socks would be critical at reducing casualties in a campaign during the Bulge from frostbite, trenchfoot etc. Eventually when we get to the eastern front winter clothing in general should be tracked. and yes I am kidding.

I was referring to the tankers boots, but your point is well taken. As to shipping space. IMHO if SHAEF had really felt German armor so outclassed their own that it made offensive operations untenable, they would have sped up production and shipping of Pershings. However when you had battles like those in the Lorraine where German armor was being gutted at relatively little cost I doubt seriously the higher ups were clamoring for bigger tanks. What they really wanted and bickered terribly over was fuel.

Rats!!! No wonder I continue to lose to the AI!!

I'll bet their infantry did. lol Hands down yeah I'd agree with you that as a tank yes the Panther is superior, but the tank design reflects national priorities, state of the war etc etc. If the Allies had landed in Normandy and somehow it had become clear that they needed a better tank in order to continue to prosecute the war, then we would be debating now whether the Panther was better than the Pershing and the answer would be nope. So based on the fact that Germany had already effectively lost the war and the Sherman sufficed under then current conditions to meet Allied requirements to achieve victory you could say the Panther was a better tank, but I am not sure I understand why we care. If we needed a better tank, we would have produced it. Now I am sure the boots on the ground would have preferred the Pershing, but war is about logistics and logistics dictated we go with what was already in Europe in mass.

I am not sure I have data to support that. Here are the results of 10 additional consecutive tests. The numbers are in the open dead/wounded and behind wall dead/wounded. The final figure is the number of casualties suffered by the squads w/o the wall behind them along with the percentage of overall casualties. What I seem to be finding is there may be something else in play here that can either make the units behind the wall suffer significantly higher casualties than those in the open or significantly less. I don't think you can actually say in a simplistic sense that a wall is better or worse in and of itself. 39/35 33/51 56 66% 35/38 37/47 55 65% 33/37 31/52 53 63% 31/30 28/56 58 69% 37/39 31/48 58 73% 27/20 48/53 61 60% 31/23 50/45 67 70% 35/24 43/56 67 67% 27/28 38/42 60 75% 19/37 41/58 74 74% Totals 314/311 380/508 609 70% Proportionally it does appear units in the open suffer a high proportion of dead versus wounded, but that could simply be they are still exposed and are being hit by additional bullets versus the guys behind the wall who when wounded are falling behind cover.

I wouldn't disagree with you there. My problem is I did notice an abnormality that had come out rather quickly and every test I have run has consistently shown that effect. The degree has varied somewhat, but only slightly. I am more than happy to run a bunch more iterations, but figured if the discrepacy was so exteme it was worth providing to better minds than mine to see if maybe something in my testing is inherently flawed or not. If it is not flawed it is demonstrating a condition that may have a fundamental impact on the question of whether a wall provides as much benefit as expected based on conditions I would not have even thought to apply. If it is flawed then I am unnecessarily spinning my wheels when I could be getting back to Courage and Fortitude.

I decided to alter the test ranges to focus more directly on this issue of silhouettes. The attached test range is configured with 20 ranges all in one row. Half of the ranges have the additional wall behind the units positioned behind the wall and half are without. I then ran the test for 5 rounds. Test 1 Total casualties for those behind the wall were 34 killed 45 wounded - 79 total Total casualties for those in the open were --- 36 killed 28 wounded - 64 total Of the total casualties suffered by those behind the wall 64 of the 79 were suffered by those without the wall behind them. Test 2 Total casualties for those behind the wall were 34 killed 38 wounded - 72 total Total casualties for those in the open were --- 34 killed 34 wounded - 68 total Of the total casualties suffered by those behind the wall 48 of the 72 were suffered by those without the wall behind them. Whether or not it is actually a silhouette issue, the question of whether a wall provides additional protection seems dependent on something else here. Simply positioned behind the wall they are struggling to maintain parity. With a wall behind them they suffer significantly fewer casualties showing a very clear advantage over units in the open. (All units in the open do have a wall behind them). In the case of the squads behind the wall 50% of the units are suffering 80% of the casualties. http://dl.dropbox.com/u/30964082/Aberdeen%20Blue%20on%20Blue%20ver%202.btt

I ran the battle to the end and then hit ceasefire. It shows no German troops whatsoever. Not sure of the process you went through on troop selection but it appears as if no German troops were purchased. I could be mis understanding that completely so I wouldn't rely on me, but it is odd that it lists nothing if you just hit ceasfire. edit *Duh I guess that was your point. Sorry, the above responses seem more appropriate and more helpful.*

Sorry that wasn't really mean to be that critical, just something that has been ingrained in me for the last oh so many years to the point now that even my Japanese wife responds like that when she hears sentences ending with "at". Your English is fine and most importantly you included the save - gold as it were for explaining what your issue is.

Somehow I don't think I would have survived the encounter with my father if I'd given him that reply However I am going to have to tell him this joke now.

"Just before the at." - Ed Burke

LOL I hear ya. I had like one post to my credit prior to the announcement there would be a Normandy based CMx2 game. In no time I was a "senior" member. Glad I hit that before being listed as a senile member.

Can do, I hope these help. This is an overhead view of the full range. I have steeples to divide the long axis of the firing ranges to prevent any possible fire from the ranges behind or in front. This is the north map border with the walls added on the perimeter behind where the unit is placed. Here is a close up of the unit placement with a tall wall now behind them This is an overview of an exercise in process I have found it useful to be able to acquire a larger amount of sample data and if I am feeling a little nuts I can review each iteration individually. The last row which includes the unit close up had no wall prior. Those units as I ran the test suffered much more heavily than the units in the other two rows who always had the divider wall behind them. I ran one more test while getting these screenshots and the results were similar - The guys behind the wall: 41 dead /74 wounded The guys in the open 153 dead /130 wounded. There may be another explanation, I just have no idea what it might be. The only one that comes to mind is an issue of visibility as the wall behind them can't offer protection, if anything I would think there might be more richochet casualties. Sorry about the size of the screenshots. I was using CS3 and this slick little tool for posting images on the web, but ran into a license issue when I tried to load on the new PC I built for CMBN (yeah I was just nuts enough to do that). I am playing around with Gimp, but am very unfamiliar with it.

I started running additional tests today - some notes on my testing ground that will be important to understand. I have 3 rows of 16 firing ranges all divided by high walls. The outer portion was left open. After all why would I need to touch the map edge right? So as I am testing one thing I noticed that was also happening last night was the units on the outside map perimeter (north for the guys behind the wall, south for the guys without the wall) from sides suffered more heavily than the other units. The guys behind the low wall were on the outside edge on the north map edge and those squads would all almost routinely be in shaken or broken state after 5 minutes while the squads behind the wall in the middle and southern map edge would normally be in much better shape. I scratched my head for a minute and then thought about that army manual Broadsword posted and a chill went up my back. I then added a wall on the northern map edge. Here are the results of the 3 tests today --------wall------No Wall Test-dead--wnd--dead--wnd----Notes 1-----95---104---131--132 2-----31----74---158--151----with wall added behind Nothern squads team 3-----40----49---152--158----with wall added behind Nothern squads team There was an immediate drop in causalty rate with a wall now BEHIND them. With more units surviving the inital shooting those squads now got to add their firepower causing an increase in the casualty rate of the guys not behind the wall. There was only one conclusion I can logically make from this. These guys were silhouetted from the skyline. Will somebody at BFC tell me if you were that freakin crazy to include this? I find it almost spooky, cool but spooky. I intend to run some more tests to see if these results are consistent. If they are I learned one lesson about this game. There is a heckuva lot more under the hood than I even remotely suspected.

I had a scene recently where a scout team was next to a guy who fired off a PzShk and missed. The Sherman landed a 75 mm round right on them before I could get anyone out of there. When I looked at the scene I was looking for the PzShk guy (mostly because I was pissed he'd loosed off a round while walking at 200 meters and missed...I should have had an arc command very short on him till he got to the position I wanted him in, but how do I explain that error to my now deceased scouts who until then were successfully waiting in ambush). Couldn't find him and started to wonder- did they actually simulate him getting completely annihilated? I finally found him under one of the scouts, but for a bit there I had this particularly gruesome scene rolling around my head.

Only on May 21st and then I believe a repeat performance in the fall.

I want a voice mod added as well "NO your OTHER right!! Idiot."

Good questions both and honestly though I automatically try to be more watchful of units that are not at least regular, I really am not sure how marked the differences are under various conditions. With several variables in experience, morale, fitness and leadership bonuses there is a lot of variety to work with. I tested with all regular units, regular normal morale, fit and no leader bonuses to get as much a plain vanilla baseline as possible. I'll try to have more results with a deeper review tonight. One item I will be looking at in my testing is how influential is it as to whom in a squad is hit. For example if watching your squad commander go down affects the units status to a larger degree (which I would assume it would) then luck can also play a very important role in this testing. If a squad immediately loses a leader or a BAR guy, the impact could be such that they never get to take advantage of whatever benefits the wall might give.