A Canadian Cat

I don't think is advisable to be operating a Browning Automatic Rifle while drunk. Is that how you wiped out those comrades?

No worries - thick skin here and all. At least most of the time. I seriously question that. The M1 gunner is not facing backwards or anything. What make you think that the T72 and T90 have better visibility than the M1 in any situation? Serious question. I have no tank experience my "knowledge" is only from what tankers have told me. So far none of them have made the case that a T72 or T90 would have better situational awareness at any range compared to an M1. What do you base that on? The US tankers that have commented here have repeatedly commented that they recognize that the Iraq crew training was not nearly as good as top tier Russian tankers. I have never seen anything that led me to believe that the technical capabilities of a T72 were under estimated, by BFC, due to performance of a battle group in any war. Sound good. Honestly I have a few closeted concerns about spotting - mostly in close though - not the situations you are talking about. But if you want to do some investigations then I suggest you combine some of what I was talking about earlier: creating multiple test lanes (creating separate lanes - with one tank per lane and use actual terrain of 20-30m high hills to separate the lanes) and what @c3k talked about (having the test vehicles all spotting exactly the same vehicle). If you want to add in having the spotting target firing then don't use trucks some some AFV. Then you can run the test with T90s spotting (say BMP3s) and then M1s spotting the same thing and then do it again but with the T90s spotting firing BMP3s and then M1s spotting firing BMP3s. Then you probably will want to do same at different ranges. I the work goes on and on Before you get too involved though I suggest you pick one distance and one vehicle to try it out and share the test design first. Trust me that last thing you want to do is create 10 scenarios and run 1000+ runs only to find out some smart ass like me or @c3k (way more likely it will be @c3k cause he is the most experienced at this) poke a whole in the plan and blow up all that work. Been there done that - it makes you . Way better to get feed back on one setup with some small number of iterations - just for discussion - before pulling the trigger on a tone of variations and iterations. I also recommend you start a new thread for it since this one has a lot of stuff going on and will distract people from what you are up to.

I was going to say the same but then I realized there is actually a difference. With a cover arc the order is cover this area and *ignore* all else. With a separate turret facing command that@Artkin is suggesting the crew could still target something on their left if the turret command had them facing the turret to the right. Having the turret face the right would mean they could spot threats easier on their right and react to target them faster too but it does not prevent them from reacting to things on their left. Subtle but important difference - sometimes. So question: what happens if you give a tank a series of way points to move along a road and then give a facing command to the left at one of those way points? I am not in front of my gaming computer so I cannot try it. Could it do what @Artkin wants?

It's right here: http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/BattleForNormandy/Campaigns/The Road to Nijmegen.html That generated graph is a bit tough to read though but if you look for the scenario in the table below it you can find what you want (the graph is generated from the data in the table).

In addition there would be rights issues - can BFC actually release an updated game without getting the rights back? No idea - also no interest but that could change. Originally I had no interest in CMSF but all this talk and some of the scenario you guys are making makes me pause. I think once it is updated I'll be there.

Ah no way man: crews do talk to each other that is definitely modelled. It could be as simple as once one crew spots something there is a set time for the rest of the crew to be clued in. I honestly do not now how it works under the cover but there is no question that the crew is treated separately for where they are looking and with what assistance and therefore they "communicate" what they see with each other and react accordingly. Totaly agree with you there. Roger that.

I take it you mean to throw at things since there is a blast command for wrecking walls etc. Would be totally cool.

OK wow interesting. I have never done testing to determine what casualty rates are like for ordnance X. My tests have been about spotting, chance for track damage running over obstacles, chance to hit a target on the first shot. Those are not deterministic and have plenty of variance. The appropriate sample size for confidence of an average has to vary based on the variability of the event. Clearly if the game only gives you one result ever time you don't need to repeat it. But I can tell you there is plenty in this game that does not repeat the same every time. So a sample size of 20 is not really enough. <spoiler> I totally get what you are saying about too much information causes crack in the immersion. Mine is the realization that the icons above the enemy are not centred on the visible soldiers but on the entire team. Which means you can get an idea of the enemy team size and location. I try to not look too closely. </spoiler>

No dare needed - go for it. That has not been my experience. The last time I was doing a bunch of tests the first run of ten had what turned out to be three outliers (back luck) in it. If I had stopped at 10 my numbers would have been off. There is plenty of logic and straight physics in the game but there is also subtle randomness mixed in. You could be at least partially right that long strings of outlilers (bad luck) are less likely than in real life but I don't think showing the data would to mess with enjoyment. Of course we could be seeing the same thing and I'm concluding that it is not a big deal but you are bothered by it. That's possible too.

I don't think the override capability is modelled in the game. I'm not sure but I don't think it is. If the tank commander is out in the fresh are contemplating life then they cannot use the override - at least according to the description of the feature posted: That means for the "automatic turn the turret to face the spotted target" the TC has to be using his in tank sight because the system is tied to what direction it is pointing. So, in this case, to use that system the TC would have to drop down into the tank move his sight to find the target he just saw when he was outside and then trigger it. I think it would be faster to just tell the gunner.

bummer. I wish I could - I have never played it.

I'm not Ken but 20 is low enough that two or three outliers (and there are outliers - by design) could effect the average. 2000 is really a lot of testing and doesn't really change the measured value. 200 is a bit arbitrary in one sense but we have to pick a number that is high enough to avoid unluckily hitting a few outliers messing the average but low enough that humans can do the work. Again not Ken but I don't think he really meant that one T90 will get no help from its platoon mate spotting something I think he just meant that the M1's system is lots faster. I personally no nothing about the specifics of that system but I do know that T90s and everyone else in game *does* get spotting help from other units in command. That is a big factor. Not only that but we remember when luck tipped against us much more than the other way. That sometimes causes us to feel like its not just luck.

I was counting on that See and you came up with thoughts that I didn't eve have. I knew you would offer better advice. LOL just about lost my coffee. I said I wasn't going to poke more fun but I knew ken would LOL yes it does but not as much as finding a crew's tank under fire. I remember that "remount this battalion of Sherman tank crews while this platoon of PzIVs shoots at you" challenge you posted. I said to my self - that will be easy I accept that challenge. Yeah, I failed - big.

Yes, but if something is incorrect then that work is worth doing. Nicely phrased.

Oh yes anecdotal stories are how things get started. Without those you don't know where to investigate next. So to be clear @Sgt.Squarehead's testing is worthless it is just not enough to convince BFC to make changes. He is showing there is a difference and since he feels it feels wrong then it is worth investigating. In order to make changes there have to be a clear demonstration of what the difference is and that it is wrong. Defining if a difference is write or wrong is difficult enough even with good stats from a good test. Without that... Yes, believe it or not putting your foot in these waters is a good thing and is very much appreciated by BFC and volunteer testers.

That does sound wrong. Tell us about how your test is designed please.

I still have not read @Sophist_13's links but the confined vs unconfined explosion question was one that I had. Thanks for those additional thoughts.

I'll try the explanation as to why again. @c3k does this one better than me. Here is the problem with the test broken down: 1) we know that the M1 has better visibility than the T90: Therefore the M1s will spot the T90s faster. 2) we know that the fire control system in the M1 is faster than the T90: So the M1s will acquire their spotted target faster 3) we know that the M1 can shrug off a hit or two (at long ranges anyway) and the T90 will only shrug off a hit once and a while: Which means T90s are more likely to die on a first hit Please note I am *not* saying the T90 is a bad tank. There are three or four top tier tanks in the world and the T90 is one of them. I am just talking about comparing the M1 to the T90 since that is germane to your test. So the problem with your many to many test is those three points cause a cascade the favours the M1 and running that test over and over and stating it is wrong that the M1 should always win and therefore it means that the T90s are not spotting well enough is not valid. The point you have been making is that you feel the T90 is spotting worse than you think it should. So you should test point 1 above. Heck many would say forget the M1 start with T90s spotting T90s and see if the numbers seem right. Then compare that the the M1. Eliminate the target acquisition and the armour projection / projectile properties. Focus on spotting. If you think that other things are wrong then test for those. Separatly. The game works by simulating real life capabilities and then seeing in scenarios how the equipment and commanders perform. It does not work by saying X M1s should win 70% of the time vs Y T90s and therefore we tweak the game parameters to get that.

Excellent thank you. OK I will review that and put together a comparison test and see what the powers that be think about it. Unless you feel like giving it ago? Something like comparing RPO, vs 40mm grenades vs 155mm artillery. Ideally we would want a repeatable test where one round of each lands on a similarly spaced squad. I'm thinking as I write now that could be setup. I am already not sure how a single 40mm grenade could be fired. So, perhaps a different design. Or perhaps the 40mm should not be part of the comparison. I'm going to have to think about that. If you do decide to take a crack at this I recommend starting another thread since this one has a lot of topics swirling around and testing something should be more focused. Understood. I actually agree that having more options would be nice. This kind of thing might come in a module I'm no expert so I'll say only two things. 1) some second line equipment (eg T64B1) may very well make it into a module. The current game is focused first tier forces and they had to put some kind of box around what was in and what was out. 2) others suffer from a problem where they are official equipment and some number were purchased but are not in large scale use. If I recall correctly the PPG 30 is in that category. I seem to remember reading on here that the RPG 22 was actually given to front line units in significant numbers while the 30 was not. That specific example is from my memory but I now that was behind more than one decision about what was in and what was out. Yeah, its way more grey than black and white. In a night fight that usually helps the US forces even more. So, well done.

Well, thanks but I'm not perfect by any means and I have let my frustrations show through many times. I am trying to do better but see I already crossed the line I was hoping not to this morning with my snowflake comment. I should apologize for that to @The Steppenwulf because that was out of line. See the problem is that I could not resist the irony of our (and older) generations criticizing the younger generation for being soft and entitled when I read so much on here that seems like our generation is just as soft and entitled too with phrases like " paying premium prices for CM games" and the idea that such and such is obviously broken. I should not have singled out @The Steppenwulf because many do it. And it was totally counter productive, which I pledged to avoid. It was just so tempting and I thought it was clever but it was wrong. Sorry.

Right, it wasn't meant to. This thread was about a power balance, that was what I was referring to.The failure to spot firing enemy tanks is something that would be worth investigating, clearly that is something you want to work on my comment about points was simply address in the power imbalance. I think we can say that an M1 will perform better than a single T90 and a Bradley will perform better than a single BMP 3 or that a T90 will out perform a T64. There seems to be at least a perception that quick battles are harder to win as the Russians the way to fix that problem is not to make the T90 more powerful or the M1 less powerful because the game is supposed to reflect the real life capabilities of those tanks. The solution, to a QB balance problem, would be to tweak the point values in quick battles. Having said that if there are also spotting, shooting or armour protection problems with any of those vehicles then the should be looked at as well. But not from a balance perspective but from a is the game simulation reflecting real life or not. Two (or more) separate things.

Yes I am trying to help and be straight with people. Sorry if my frustration is showing through. I have been around these forums for a while and I have seen this pattern repeated: people complain about how their favourite piece of kit is not uber enough, how such and such is hampered and under performing or how some perceived defect in spotting cost them the game. More than 99 times out of 100 it's just sour grapes or a lack of understanding of how things work in the real world. However the odd time there are real issues and the people on these forums are the ones that find them. We need to keep doing that. Finding those few gems of oops that's not right out of all the chaff is hard. We have seen it play out time and time again on the forums. Many times it leads to frustrated players who remain unsatisfied, sometimes it leads to arguments and hurt feelings and occasionally it ends with the game better. I'm going to do my best to ignore the first minimize the second and maximize the last. But I'm not perfect so who knows... Real commanders have to deal with the limitations ofreal equipment and the imperfections of humans all the time. The good ones recognize their equipment's and personnel's limits and strengths and try to place their forces in the best possible situation they can. That is what is so fun about these games. Like I used to tell my kids when I was coaching: we are here to win but if you cannot have fun when you give your best effort but still loose, you are in wrong game and its time to find something else to play. Thank you for that. I am trying to skip being snarky and focus instead on engaging with people that want to actually show they have found an issue. So, you are correct I am *not* trying to be rude but I have to admit I am being a bit dismissive but in a good way . If the snowflakes here can't handle the heat they shouldn't be commanding forces in battle - even pretend forces . Yes, BFC does believe that the behaviour reflects reality. I don't have an official explanation but as far as I can tell the performance it is based on assessments from professionals who work hard to set their personal biases aside and perform honest assessments of performance from multiple sources. No one can be perfect but they try.

No he is correct it is a very poor test. What we want is statistics on how long it takes units to spot each other. So isloated lanes and cover arcs so they don't shoot and time how long it takes tanks to spot. Generate statistically rellevant numbers and then decide if it makes sense.

I will take this opportunity to say well done @Mad Mike he correctly blocked up the main road so a rapid advance was impossible and slowed me down at ever bocage line while withdrawing most of his force intact while giving me a bloody nose each time. At least that's what it felt like to me.

So I said we are done but @Mad Mike and I have exchanged more turns after this. Like I said I was not keeping a running total of casulties and only noticed I was "done" as I was writing this up and thinking to my self after writing up that artillery strike that I should check my casualty levels. Regardless of what happens with the campaign discussion I'll post the remaining turns and any more we decide to do...