HistoryLover

Mord, if this forum needs devotion to be allowed to present the allmighty developers a problem with their products I have purchased, then I suggest you rethink if this is an adequate culture to handle problems of paying customers. The first responses I received were: 1. Nothing. 2. Then extreme arrogance by a certain poster. Nevertheless I followed the suggestion and did as demanded. 3. The answer was again ignorance. After I called it, then suddenly an answer occured: 4. That the test was worthless. But since my arguments could not be ignored, because the test is - contrary to the claims - too good to be ignored, nor is it "worthless", the company itself finally shows up and wants to play the parental guardian? They better play parental guardian for some of their beta-testers and not at customers doing the beta-tester's work. If you or Vanir Ausf B find that's ok, if you or any other customers are treated that way, and that you must present everything in a bootlicking manner and not drop a word of criticism, although you do the developer a big flavor, it's ok. But I am not such a character and I turn away demands for devotion. I have done BFC as customer a flavor. I was treated bad by their beta tester. They owe me an apology.

Good luck with that attitude to play the teacher to customers and to demand from them begging for improvements as bootlickers. To say it more clearly: the core model of a core aspect of this game is probably flawed! If this is not severe enough to come down from the high horse, then I don't know what else must happen. I choose the language for the kind of ignorance I think is necessary, and I don't need YOU or any other self proclaimed teacher here to tell me what he believes is adequate or not. Was this clear enough?

Ahem, the bogged tanks are not the hull down ones. The test is very conservative, because it gives the tanks in the open this disadvantage (hopefully no one expects a tank with damaged motor and tracks to perform any better than the undamaged version) AND with the additional disadvantage that they need to turn the turret. Therefore the hd tanks in my test are at a clear advantage and nevertheless they are slaughtered. I'm surprised that you don't see, that this test is the proove that at least the PzIV hd model delivers obvious wrong results. My tests were to proove that the results are NOT plausible to say the least. It should be the testers that recongize such things, shouldn't they? This is not a false grenade count, this is the core of tank combat modelling. I find it strange that customers are attacked for not spoon feeding the errors instead of being thanked for their input on things the testers and developers have not recognized. Maybe a word on statistics and probabilities and that my samples were too few. If the statistics model needs 100, or even only 50 iterations of TANK duels to get a meaningful representation in the probability curve, then IMO it would be already extremely flawed. Also from a gameplay perspective, because no player wants to lose three battles in a row due to 3-sigma events and then to win three in a row because the distribution hits at the other extreme. My examples indicate, that it's very easy possible to lose a company of perfectly hd PzIV against a company in the open. As engineer I don't need any more tests to see that this is extremely flawed. Tanks are a scarce resource (also for the player) and therefore it is important that the probability distribution is quite narrow and based on hard factors. If the game would need 50 or 100 iterations of tank duels to get any meaningful representation, then IMO the probability distribution would be waaay too wide and the random factors would outweigh the hard factors. Instead of attacking customers not being able to spoon feed the developers, the discussion maybe should focus on which results deem plausible in such a situation? Instead of excusing all results with a quite universal excuse, that the player just needs to play 20 battles to see OVERALL how realistic everything is and that everything was fine. The limits of simulations are always determined by the expected real world results. The results determine if the model works, not the model itself. Without any hard numbers from the developer the model must deliver, it's also not possible for the developer to set the influence of the random factors and therefore the probability curve accordingly. Do not attack the messenger.

I have posted the numbers of spotted tanks in the first minute. Maybe you don't know the importance of spotting first in the game, but I can assure you, it is of utmost importance. If you can't see already with these numbers, that the model doesn't work, then I'm sorry. But my "worthless" test showed even more: that the used model obviously is so extremely flawed, that it also does not reflect the hit probability depending on the SIZE of the target in - at least - a plausible range. Btw, how comes that you super-tester in all the years have not recognized that tank duels are like throwing dices? After these discoveries, if I were a beta tester, I would be less arrogant and very humble.

I hope you are correct.

Altipueri, I'm not paid by Battlefront, it is me who pays them as customer. I believe I have presented enough facts that they should look at it. But so far I don't even know, if they looked at this thread. All I have is a feedback from a betatester who demanded a certain test which I did and since then nothing was heard again from him. Btw, the testfile I provided was also not checked by them yet (0 downloads). I will definately not invest more time.

I must be stupid to proove everyone the secret to win all tank battles, but without exposing it, it probably will never be corrected. 1500 m PzIV H vs Pz IV H Hull down tanks: This time the poor hull down tanks are buttoned down. Tanks without cover: showing the rear to the HD tanks, with cover arcs torwards the enemy; at the begin they turn their turrets torwards the enemy. 1. run, 15 tanks each side: ----enemy tanks spotted after 1 minute---------tanks lost----result HD:--------------3--------------------------------9+1+0----10 Without cover:---5--------------------------------4----------4 2. run, 15 tanks each side: ----enemy tanks spotted after 1 minute---------tanks lost----result HD:--------------1------------------------------8+3+2-------11 Without cover:----7------------------------------2------------2 Observations: The tanks in the open can turn their turrets, the hd tanks are blind. The tanks in the open can even shoot several times, the hd tanks do not see it. Conclusion: Reducing the hitable area of 70-90% has a minimum effect on the success. If you want to win a tank duel, make the enemy tank button down. Do not be afraid if he is hd. You can attack a buttoned down hd tank from the open and all chances are, that you will win. If you use two or three against one with that "tactic", victory is almost guaranteed. No need for maneuvering. And this is true even over a distance of 1500 m, where spreading of the 75/L48 gun should benefit the tank with the smaller hitable area even more. From gaming experience I knew that something was off, but that it's that extreme, surprises even me.

1500 m PzIV h, hulldown VS PzIV in the open, bogged, cover arc, turret at the beginning showing into the wrong direction and when the test starts, the turret turns torwards the enemy Since it takes much time, I only made two runs. 1st run (each side 15 tanks) --------------enemy spotted after 1 minute --- 2 minutes---friendly dead after 10 min. Pz IV uncovered-----------8------------------------2-------------7 Pz IV hd-------------------7------------------------3-------------6 (5+1+2) (5 destroyed, 1 heavy damaged in safety, 2 no damage in safety) Spotting results in detail: Pz IV uncovered, turning turret: 14 18 24 27 35 46 55 60 69 89 Unspotted: 5 tanks Pz IV hulldown: 1 7 10 15 16 34 42 64 87 93 Unspotted: 5 tanks. 2nd run: --------------enemy spotted after 1 minute --- 2 minutes---friendly dead after 10 min. Pz IV uncovered-----------5------------------------3-------------7 Pz IV hd-------------------6------------------------3-------------7 (6+1+1) Spotting results in detail: Pz IV uncovered, turning turret: 9 9 26 31 31 66 92 104 252 266 357 Unspotted: 4 tanks Pz IV hd: 8 10 11 36 41 51 60 82 96 330 Unspotted: 5 tanks The uncovered tanks, although they needed to turn their turrets 180°, were spotting even more of the hulldown tanks than vice versa. And the HD tanks were not hit less often than the uncovered ones. Test scenario for download: http://s3.amazonaws.com/cmmods-zips.greenasjade.net/CMBN/Test_1500m_PzIVH_hd-PzIVH-ca.btt

Wow, thanks!

Badger Dog, would you say it is correct, that a buttoned down tank, moving in the field, is almost blind (to see small objects farther away)? (because the shaked observer's head moves chaotically against the optics? I imagine it's the same as when looking through binocs while driving with a car. But much worse. I remember that a veteran long time ago told me, that therefore tanks do not move all at the same time, when a threat is expected. For example, two are standing still in overwatch position, one is moving. I also read, that a tank in combat either moves at high speed, or is standing still. Would fit to the above thesis. Your opinion?

Badger Dog, very insightful and appreciated. Thanks.

Ian Leslie, this is also my main concern but to narrow the problem down, we must exclude as many variables as possible. So if only the TCs remain for spotting and the hd TC cannot see a big silhoutte faster and better than the free standing TC the hd object, then this is more indicative where to look. And it maybe already narrows it down to the main problem. The spotting ability of the TCs.

I hope I will find time to test more on the weekend, especially the suggestions you made. If I place the tank with the rear to the enemy, will it not turn around once it spots the enemy tank? Must the tank be immobilized to prevent that?

I don't know if I should cry or laugh. So a beta tester suggests that a second sight is enough to be able to spot the turret of a not moving hd tank BEFORE the hull down tank commander can spot a huge 2,7 m high tank silhouette in the open. Good to see, the discovered problems are taken seriously. :mad:

Bil Hardenberger, the problem is that hd gives only a mini advantage. This in reality HUUUUGE advantage can be compensated in the game simply with a second tank. I have not finished these tests, but my first tries suggest, that it is even enough to force the hull down tank to button down to eliminate his already tiny advantage.

bisu, it's not a CM mantra, it is very basic tank tactics. If, then the mantra was, that CMx2 delivers engineered results and is like a simulation and not like "awful" CMx1, based on plausible results with random numbers. I always had the feeling, that the performance of tanks under real world optimum conditions is worse, than simply putting them into the open or among trees and wait for the enemy to move into sight no matter if he was hull down. When I played "Wittman's Demise" things became outright absurd an it was the trigger for me to make my own test without even knowing first that this thread exists: I placed my Tigers and PzIV in the open and my opponent who tried to attack from hull down positions was spotted earlier and had no chance. My impression from playing what the most effective tank tactics are are supported by these tests: If the enemy is placed hull down, this is no, or even MY advantage: Make his tank button with long range infantry fire or mortars. Then move in two or three tanks. It's not important to be hull down. You can just drive on a street. Just make sure you do not drive unnessesarily deep into enemy's LOS. You don't need a blue line. Just stop where you get the "partial hull down" or "reverse slope" indication with the cursor. Your unbuttoned tanks in the open will overall spot the enemy earlierand shoot earlier. And since they are more, they shoot more often. Thanks to the "zooming in" algorithm per tank they will hit earlier, mostly depending on crew quality, even while being fully exposed. Edit: After writing this, suddenly my memories came back, when I played CMx2 the very first time (CMBN, didn't buy SF). The tank duels did feel extremely strange, unnatural and binary compared to CMx1. And wasn't there a problem, that the tanks could hit even while they were moving? Now I see these things in a very different light. :mad:

You overestimate your importance.

And therefore such "precious" crew leaders are shot by martial court? Not everything in life is about $$$ my friend. It's about the danger and damage a captured gun can inflict.

The M4A1 vs PzIV results I have suggest that it's not an eyeballcount problem. But it's a good idea to exclude this parameter.

Sure. But it will take until Friday.

In my humble opinion it would be cool if scenario designers could assign foxholes to guns which could only be placed one or two action spots away (or if they could be bought as upgrade option in QBs). In general I think the whole gun placement offers room for improvement. Instead of placing the gun on the surface, which looks good but has a lot of realism related disadvantages, I would like scenario designers being able to give the player the option to dig in the gun. To achieve this, the action spot where the gun is placed, would sink the gun into the ground without changing the topography at all. In this AS also the crew of the gun would sink into the earth and so the whole action spot could simulate a pit. No foxholes on top of the ground. Ofcourse the sinking into the ground could be visually supported by a texture, like it was done in CMx1. Additionally I would like if scenario designers get the possibility to add a concealment bonus being effective until either the gun opens fire, is turned a certain angle or is moved. I think guns need more than one tweak.

No interest in discussing these alarming test numbers?

When artillery is falling you would run 50 m or order others to do so? :eek: First it was wished that crews can leave their guns without restrictions. If it is now seen as unrealistic then we are a step further. While being at the gun it must be decided if it is disabled (plus ammo blown up or taken with the crew). If the player could disable the gun retroactively this would remove the main reason for not leaving the gun: being not able to come back and disable it. I have the impression the severity of leaving a heavy wepon like an intact ATG behind is not fully recognized. And btw it doesn't matter if the intention was different: the behaviour has to be that way, that it can not fall into the enemy's hands intact. That means that leaving the gun intact means that the leader takes it as acceptable risk, that he will not be able to return and disable it and that it falls into the enemy's hands intact. Even this behaviour would be irresponsible. And last but not least: the survival of the crew is less important than to deny an intact gun falling into the hands of the enemy.

50 m is not close. 5 m is close.

Archijerej, what makes you believe, from the fact of artillery being supressed, that the crews had ran away from their guns and that they were not in cover at their guns?