slug88
-
Posts
349 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by slug88
-
-
I'm sure you don't have an agenda here, and neither do I. In fact when I ran the first test I noticed that leader casualties were almost double soldier casualties, and I was thinking that you may be completely right. But my results speak for themselves, from 20 minutes of combat soldiers are actually more likely to die. And for each screenshot you post like the above, I could easily post a counter screen. And I bet I could get all the ones I need from a single scenario, too. And I can also recount various instances in which AT specialists and leaders outlasted the rest of the squad. I have seen it happen many times.
My point is, if your experience leads you to believe this is really an issue, the only way to convince anyone else is with statistics. Hard data. 4 out of 4 times is not statistically significant, and doesn't even warrant mentioning.
-
Alright, I've run a test in the following way. I've created a flat map, roughly 300m x 300m. Along two opposing ends I have evenly spaced out two identical, opposing Stryker rifle platoons (without their weapons teams or vehicles). Playing in turn based, basic difficulty, I let them shoot at eachother for two minutes. At the end, I count up all casualties from both sides, categorizing them in the following way:
Leaders: squad leaders, team leaders, platoon commander (total 40 men)
Specialists: marksmen, AT, forward observer (total 28 men)
Regular: soldiers, radiomen (total 52 men))
I repeated the test 10 times, which is equivalent to 20 minutes of continous firing. Following are the casualties, where the first number is total men, and the second the percentage from that category:
_____L_____________S___________R
1. 7(17.5%)_____3(10.7%)_____4(7.7%)
2. 8(20.0%)_____2(7.1%)______12(23.1%)
3. 7(17.5%)_____2(7.1%)______12(23.1%)
4. 9(22.5%)_____3(10.7%)_____11(21.2%)
5. 6(15.0%)_____5(17.9%)_____10(19.2%)
6. 7(17.5%)_____4(14.3%)_____9(17.3%)
7. 7(17.5%)_____7(25.0%)_____13(25.0%)
8. 3(7.5&)______1(3.6%)______12(23.1%)
9. 9(22.5%)_____5(17.9%)_____10(19.2%)
10. 9(22.5%)____8(28.6%)_____8(15.4%)
Average:
L - 7.2 +/- 1.7 (18% +/- 4%)
S - 4.0 +/- 2.1 (14.2% +/- 7.7%)
R - 10.1 +/- 2.5 (19.4% +/- 4.8%)
So, from 20 minutes of battle between 120 men with effectively unlimited ammo, we see that regular soldiers were actually *more* likely to die than either leaders or specialists (but of course they are all easily within a standard deviation of eachother). Of course it's not conclusive unless you run it 100 or 1000 times, but I think the burden of proof lies on you in this instance. Anecdotes aren't proof, and neither are screenshots when you cherry pick the ones that support your hypothesis.
For referance, here is the map I used for the test:
http://hep-www.colorado.edu/~oleinik/casualtyTest.btt
[ May 13, 2008, 01:35 PM: Message edited by: slug88 ]
-
I've made a simple blue-on-blue scenario to test this. In a little bit I'll report back with my results.
-
Sorry, but I think it's psychological. Consider that we have 1-to-1 representation, which means that individual bullets (and presumably pieces of shrapnel from explosions) are tracked as well as individual soldiers. So for leaders and specialists to be singled out, they would actually have to program the tac-ai specifically for the purpose of making those units more careless. As with any sort of ai programming, this would be a not at all straightforward task. So, unless they went through a great deal of effort to introduce this one unrealistic annoyance just to spite the player, it's psychological.
Also, for what it's worth, I can recall many instances in which leaders outlast the majority of their squads in my battles. In fact, in my current game, I had a squad get blown up by a T-72. Every man was killed, except for the squad leader, who was injured.
-
Yes, I am also curious if a beam-riding missile could be detected. Where with traditional laser guidance, a target is painted and a missile guides itself towards the bright spot on said target, beam riding missiles instead use rear mounted detectors to try to stay inside a broader, (presumabely) lower intensity beam that is pointed at the target. Would the latter guidance beam set off a laser detector?
-
This one looks like it'll be a lot of fun. And with the map size and the amount of units, I can imagine it'll feel like playing an entire campaign in a 2-hr timespan. Definitely look forward to trying it out, but it might take a little time to build up the courage to embark on such a massive undertaking
. -
FMB, I'd love to help out, though I can't garauntee prompt feedback due to time constraints. I'd probably be playing at a pace of 1.5 scenarios per week. So if you'd like, you can reach me at:
gleb dot oleinik at gmail dot com
-
Trees *are* destructable in the game. I've seen it happen many times. And they even have a very nice progressive damage model, with different graphics for different levels of damage. Try setting up a simple map to test it for yourself, it's rather neat. Of course, I completely agree that they take far too much firepower to actually become destroyed. Usually takes 3-4 direct hits from a high end ATGM in my experience.
-
It's randomised by soldier for infantry mods.
-
What about red-on-red? Are any of the Syrian ATGM's laser guided?
-
I think any vehicle in the game whose wheels are vulnerable to small arms can be knocked out altogether by small arms, so why target the wheels? In fact the only wheeled vehicle I can think of that won't fall to small arms is the Stryker, which is equipped with run-flat tires and presumably would shrug off small arms fire to the wheels. I could be completely wrong on this, though, and would welcome correction.
-
Regarding #8, isn't that exactly what 'target light' is for?
-
Ahh, this is the most difficult mission I've ever encountered in CMSF. I had three go's at it while playing Hasrabit, and the best I've ever achieved was a draw. Also I think I've learned more about infantry tactics from this scenario than I have from any other. Anyway, fantastic scenario! (Hasrabit is great too, btw, I'm on Saudara pt2 now. Part 1 with the enemy assault at the end was incredible.)
-
Which file are you exploding? Things like music and graphics are spread across different files.
Specifically, in your data folder, there should be several 'Version***.brz' files. Each file contains different modable elements. The easiest thing to do is to simply place all the .brz's into the input folder, and extract em all in one go. Then save the extracted data so that you can work from it later on.
-
That's a round for the RPG-7. So it won't do you any good if all you've got is rifles.
-
For some reason, red forward observers don't have access to call in most airpower. You must use HQ units instead.
Yes, Mishga, so long as the mod is installed, US forces will be relying on Hinds and Migs.
-
The scenario I mentioned just now involved enemy BTR's using their main gun on buildings. I do believe that I've managed to get friendly BTR's do to the same, but I can't be absolutely certain. Regarding BMP-1's, I haven't seen them in action recently enough to say either way. BMP-2's on the other hand most definitely use their 30mm freely, whether the enemy is in a building or not.
-
I've definately seen BTR's open up with their 14.5 on troops in buildings in 1.08. In fact I just ended a game about 5 minutes ago in which this occured. In my experience the only time they're reluctant to use the main gun is with area target orders.
-
That's because one rocket comes with the CLU.
-
No, not a beta tester, check the battlefront blog!
-
I think that they're throwing the same old frag grenades they use against infantry. The only AFVs I've seen actually succumb to grenades are BMPs, BRDMs and similarily armored vehicles, which could make sense considering their vulnerability to rifle munitions. For tanks and such, the idea is probably to ruin optics and other sensitive gear, rather than knock out the vehicle entirely.
-
Anyone who's played a few scenarios as red has probably been faced with the difficult decision of how to transport their mech infantry when they won't all fit into their BMP-2s. I usually see this with weapons platoons, where either the command squad or one of the weapons sections has to walk. The problem isn't a lack of space, but the fact that each squad can only be loaded onto a single vehicle.
I propose that we have the ability to split all command squads of more than 2 men, which I believe would solve the problem for most (or all?) red platoons.
-
Very strange and deeply disturbing new bug. Only seen this happen once, in 1.08. My Strykers were distorted into some ugly old dumpster-resembling things. Frankly it was such an eyesore that I had to quit the game immediately and kick my dog out of frustration. I'm playing on best/best on an 8800GTS, with 169.21.
What gives, Battlefront??
[ May 03, 2008, 06:03 AM: Message edited by: slug88 ]
-
I've updated the mod to include two versions: one for the Russian airforce, and one for the Syrians. Also changed the overall look somewhat. Here are the new aircraft assignments:
Russian
-------
A-10 : Su-25T Frogfoot
F-15E : Su-24M2 Fencer-D
F-16CJ : MiG-29M Fulcrum-E
AH-64D : Mi-24PN Hind
OH-58D : Mi-8TVK Hip-E
Syrian
-------
A-10 : Su-22 Fitter-F
F-15E : Su-24MK Fencer-D
F-16CJ : MiG-23BN Flogger-F
AH-64D : Mi-35P Hind-F
OH-58D : Mi-17 Hip-H
Thanks, Paper Tiger! Hope you like the new version as well!
.
Casualty Question
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Read how I performed the test again. It wasn't 20 minutes of a single battle, it was 10 seperate engagements lasting two minutes each. In each engagement, there were a couple squads that had not taken casualties at all, and most had taken between one and three. So I believe it does refute your argument. However, again, I encourage you to perform your own test, for there may very well have been errors in my methodology. I am open to the possibility of you being correct; for instance, perhaps leaders and specialists as more likely to be standing or crouching when the rest are prone, and I could see this as being a programmed behavior that would lead to what you describe. However, I simply haven't seen any evidence to support it.