Jump to content

Drifter Man

Members
  • Content Count

    81
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Drifter Man last won the day on August 27

Drifter Man had the most liked content!

About Drifter Man

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Interesting and agree that it's good that this has changed. I'd say that in many cases a deflected round would not be in a fit state to explode. I though a bit about the naval information I mentioned - it doesn't apply here. Naval AP shell fuses were less sensitive to acceleration because of the way naval armor was built up, with lighter armored decks specifically designed to set off the fuse prematurely, before the projectile reaches the ship's vitals. AFV armor is different, with only one thick plate (hopefully) strong enough to defeat the projectile. But that's getting a little of
  2. Good point, but I think it would explode. I don't know much about AT gun ammunition but I've read a bit about naval guns - I understand that an AP would have a fuse that is less sensitive to acceleration than a HE. So it would not explode when passing through a thin plate, but when hitting the ground I imagine it would see enough acceleration to set off the filler. It's the effect of the subsequent explosion in CMBN that I find hard to accept.
  3. That's a possible explanation for the difference. I don't have great references for ammunition but apparently U.S. 57mm guns had both solid shot and APHE, whereas British had only solid shot. The game isn't clear about what is what, calling both just AP. I would just recommend that BFC check if the numbers for the AP effect and blast radius against soft targets if it is what they intended. Even without extensive testing - and I can do some serious testing when it comes to it 🙂 - I can see they are of the same order as HE. And for the players, keep this in mind for next time when your
  4. I have no issue with AP rounds producing casualties among infantry, but they should be less effective, not more effective, than HE - otherwise there would be no point in having HE in the first place. In addition, the effect should be consistent across all guns. There is no reason for the U.S. 57mm AP to be this effective, while the British 6pdr AP, fired by essentially the same weapon, has little effect against infantry. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/urhq87zg150h03v/atg%20test.bts Under the link above you can find a (hopefully) more convincing test setup with the following guns
  5. Following a report by Nemesis from the Few Good Men Forum (https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/new-ladder-report-submitted.31582/), who mentioned that his men got badly shot up by U.S. 57mm guns firing AP, I set up a simple test scenario to confirm: 57mm HE has surprisingly strong effect for its size, but at least it is HE 57mm AP kills infantry far and wide - it looks more like a medium-caliber HE round than a solid shot or an AP shell with a small filling charge. See the linked file save (hotseat mode, no passwords). Germans have cover arcs so they don't shoot b
  6. Yes, I'm testing not just the weapon like that guy, but the whole man + weapon "system", which is an abstraction of the game - all pixel soldiers with certain experience are mostly likely equal in CM, but, for example, how do I decide on the experience of the person who aims and shoots the gun in a real-world test? About wind, interesting point but I don't know. All tests were run with no wind. In addition, the sample size was still too small to capture subtle differences of a few % that I would expect from wind.
  7. This was perhaps the most unexpected result for me. It looks like something is wrong with this gun. At least it doesn't matter much because this weapon is rare. I don't have any real-world testing data and the answer would depend on the setup of the real-world test. I imagine that it most cases it involves someone shooting from a known distance at a target of a given size. At the end the hits of the target are counted. The problem with recreating this setup is that I can't define a target of some fixed size in the game and then count hits. Troops take cover and stand up again. Jeeps ar
  8. I think this is already implemented - try opening a QB setup and buying some troops with "Typical" settings. You'll find that e.g. paratroopers, SS, some mechanized units often have better quality than common, run-of-the-mill leg infantry - it can be experience or motivation or both. And that's great and it can be used to set a house rule that all units must be purchased with "typical" quality, which, of course, requires honesty on part of the players. The only issue is that it tends to reinforce the imbalance I was talking about: high quality troops tend to have better "value for money".
  9. I agree, having a sensible set of house rules helps fix the problem. I'd still love to have a more balanced pricing system that wouldn't make me feel like I'm shooting myself in the leg whenever I pick underdog infantry. But even underdog infantry can beat an elite team bristling with automatics. It's still a great game.
  10. I should probably work on my presentation because I don't think that's what the results say At close range they reduced kills by 85%. At long range by 55%. So they work at all ranges but at close ranges they actually work much better. However, this may simply be because they work better when their occupants are cowering, which is more likely to occur when fired at from close range than from long range.
  11. Yeah I can assure you I read v4.03 the release notes very carefully to see if the work I've done is still relevant but I don't think there were big (if any) changes to the effectiveness of weapons. There were substantial changes, though, in v4.02 vs 4.0. Apart from SMGs having been toned down (yes, possibly still too deadly at long ranges) and B.A.R. and Bren firing full auto above 150 m, spotting of infantry was made much more difficult. In v4.0 I could run tests with MGs at 600 m and everything was fine - now they lose the contact as soon as the target takes cover. Right - the
  12. A while back I reported on a series of tests of SMG's, rifles and machineguns in CMBN 4.00: Basically it is about measuring the number of kills per unit time achieved by a single soldier with the tested weapon against a standard target, a group of 4 soldiers in foxholes, again and again, under the same condition. It attracted some interest, so I returned to the project 2 years later and did everything more thoroughly in CMBN 4.02. The tests were automated with python, which allowed me to do lots of test runs - each result represents an average of more than 500 runs. It quickly got out o
  13. This one deserves an update. In the end it turned out that it is not a matter of position/LOS of the soldier in question, but instead that it is a feature that gives some German LMG gunners an assisting soldier who does not fire his weapon, except perhaps when the squad is on the move or when the gunner has become a casualty. This soldier keeps his rifle on his back and stands next to the gunner. I observed this with panzergrenadier and aufklarung units having two LMG's per squad - but I'm not saying it is necessarily limited to these. In the case of panzergrenadiers, the assisting s
  14. Amazing. This just shows how good Combat Mission is, and how it is more than just a game. Keep up the good work - on all fronts!
  15. True... and often I give an area target order to a unit (usually MG or AFV) for a target it can barely see - only for it to spend an entire turn in an aiming/firing/waiting cycle without actually firing a shot. One should only go for targets that are clearly in sight, but one also wants to keep own units out of harm's way, so these things inevitably happen.
×
×
  • Create New...