Jump to content

Drifter Man

Members
  • Posts

    194
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by Drifter Man

  1. Not much harder that the standard spotting and gun accuracy tests. One would just need to carefully remove the optics without breaking anything else, probably using an air attack. Unfortunately, with my backup laptop out of order, I had to put all testing on hold. It would be interesting to know the answer.
  2. Yes, and the direction of the wind does not appear to matter. The mortar was about 400-500 meters to the left from the target below if my memory serves.
  3. Thanks everyone, I enjoyed sharing and discussing this stuff here. I believe that this time, the will of the man outlasted the will of the machine. It played thousands of hours of CM.
  4. The latest - and last - update of spotting ability, with German tank destroyers and assault guns added. No big surprises there. It is the last update because my old computer started complaining loudly about the ordeal I've been putting it through. I still want to squeeze a few more miles out of my old friend, so I promised him no more CM testing.
  5. I have just tested out a few modes in CMRT and confirmed the save problem in: Single-player real-time (scenario) Single-player turn-based (scenario) Two-player hotseat (QB, scenario) Anything that goes into the Saved Games folder. There is no warning message. The player does not learn about the failed save until he tries to load it. In two-player PBEM, when attempting to save a new PBEM file for you opponent under a file name that already exists, the following message appears: Email save failed. '[name of the file, without extension]' could not be created in the Outgoing Email directory. Try again? Clicking 'Yes' allows me to change the file name and save successfully. Clicking 'No' returns me to the main menu. I suppose this is normal behavior of PBEM - it happens in CMBN and CMFI, too.
  6. I have the same problem in my CMRT (non Steam, obviously). When saving, I must specify a unique file name, otherwise the game fails to overwrite the old file, and nothing is saved.
  7. Yes - I don't know about tank gun ballistics, I just know that a Pz IV shooting at another, fully exposed Pz IV at 600 meters misses about 68% of its first shots in CM. If the target being hull down changed that to, say, 80%, we would see it in the results - the hull down tank would retain its advantage even when spotting is taken out of the equation. We would see that even if the 3rd and subsequent shots are sure hits. But we don't see that. However, it is not a direct proof that the hull down tank is not less likely to hit. It is just implied by two series of tests that measured something different. I would have to measure the probability of hitting a hull down target directly.
  8. In CM, this is actually not true - a shot fired at 600 m is not a sure hit. Below is a printout of my gun accuracy tests for the Pz IV, with Regular crew, no modifiers, target Pz IVH fully exposed on flat ground. The probability of hitting with the first shot is around 32% (highlighted). Therefore, there is room for the hull down position to make a difference in the chance of hitting. But that's apparently not happening. MAIN GUN DATA PzKpfw.IV Panzer IVG (late) - 75mm L/43 KwK40 [CMBN v4.03] Range (m) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Time to first shot (s) 3.3 4.7 5.9 6.4 6.6 7.0 7.1 Time to second shot (s) 8.6 10.4 11.3 12.0 12.2 12.9 13.1 First shot hit chance 77.8% 29.9% 15.0% 8.6% 5.8% 4.3% Second shot hit chance 75.8% 52.1% 36.8% 27.1% 21.4% Panzer IVH (late) - 75mm L/48 KwK40 [CMBN v4.03] Range (m) 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Time to first shot (s) 3.4 5.1 6.0 6.8 7.1 7.3 7.2 Time to second shot (s) 8.9 10.5 11.2 11.5 12.3 12.5 13.1 First shot hit chance 81.3% 31.7% 16.0% 9.6% 6.1% 4.1% Second shot hit chance 78.4% 53.6% 39.3% 28.6% 21.7% Panzer IVG (late) - 75mm L/43 KwK40 [CMBN v4.03] First shot trials 10000 13000 11000 11000 11000 11000 First shot hits 7779 3892 1646 951 642 475 First shot hit chance 77.8% 29.9% 15.0% 8.6% 5.8% 4.3% Second shot trials 10797 10144 10560 10709 10831 Second shot hits 7649 4877 3603 2685 2184 Second shots not taken 2203 856 440 291 169 Second shot hit chance 75.8% 52.1% 36.8% 27.1% 21.4% Accuracy rating 96 Panzer IVH (late) - 75mm L/48 KwK40 [CMBN v4.03] First shot trials 10000 13000 11000 11000 11000 11000 First shot hits 8128 4120 1760 1054 674 454 First shot hit chance 81.3% 31.7% 16.0% 9.6% 6.1% 4.1% Second shot trials 10497 10016 10469 10703 10819 Second shot hits 7684 4916 3793 2853 2211 Second shots not taken 2503 984 531 297 181 Second shot hit chance 78.4% 53.6% 39.3% 28.6% 21.7% Accuracy rating 100 I agree that it would be interesting, but I decided not to dedicate computer time to this. With fewer hits I would probably need to test for much longer to get good statistics. But at some point I might test the probability of the first shot hitting a hull down tank at different ranges and compare.
  9. I ran my usual 1000 trials with one Pz IV in partial hull down position vs one Pz IV in full hull down position. Regular, no modifiers, 600 m, crew hatches open. In the first round, neither side had a contact, so both spotting and shooting accuracy would determine who wins. The result was 39:57 - the hull down tank had a significant advantage. In the second round, I used target arcs to prevent both tanks from shooting until both had full contact on each other. Therefore, they would start shooting almost simultaneously and only the shooting accuracy (and protection) would determine who wins. The result was 56:47. I repeated this run with another 1000 trials, the second result was 54:50. The average of all 2000 trials was then 55:49. The hull down tank has a slight disadvantage. It might be due to the poorer protection offered to the hull down Pz IV by the turret armor vs upper hull. I see no indication that a hull down tank is harder to hit at this range than a more exposed vehicle. I think it is in agreement with @Pelican Pal's findings.
  10. I think this is an interesting find, whether it is "actionable" or not. It is good to know if hull down makes you harder to hit - and survive, if your turret armor is weaker than the hull. It is difficult to apply the idea "relocate to a non-HD position once spotted". Too much happens in one minute of the action phase - in one minute the duel may already be decided. Besides, once the fight is on, I'd rather sit and shoot than maneuver under fire. But everyone can make their own conclusion from what you found out. I'll see if I can confirm.
  11. Nah, you can't derail this thread with just one bulletpoint I don't expect any surprises about their spotting, either. It is unfortunate that they don't come up more often in QBs - German armored cars in general - they are interesting vehicles. Too expensive. Stuarts can do more for less.
  12. I've never thought about it that way, but I think I've seen similar things happen - I doubt they are specific to AA guns vs Puma, it is more likely that they apply to all crewed weapons vs AFVs. I agree that units see the crew and not the gun - when the crew take cover and vanish from sight, the unit is unable to spot the gun itself and loses a target to shoot at. I also think that the AI tries to choose the weapon that "makes most sense" to it in a given situation. When the crew is up and vulnerable, it may be worth a HE. Once they take cover, the AFV will use MG to keep them suppressed, although we might prefer using more HE to blast the gun out of existence before it gets the chance to shoot back. My tests won't help here. I will only tell you how well the Puma can spot compared to other AFVs.
  13. The first part is to control the game. If you know programs like AutoClicker that let you specify a sequence of mouse clicks and repeat it... you can program something similar with python, which has tools that allow you to emulate keystrokes and mouse clicks (PyAutoGUI). So, I have a loop that clicks in various places on the screen, pressing the buttons I need in the right sequence and with the right time delays in between, like a human would. The second part is to process what is happening on the screen. For this I save a screenshot (by having Fraps running in the background and by emulating an F10 press). Again, python has tools (PIL) to load an image file and, for example, look at individual pixel values. I know where to expect the tank unit icons that have been spotted. If there is a bunch of black pixels nearby, it means that there is a solid contact on an enemy unit in that position. No black pixels = it is either a tentative contact or nothing. The screenshot taking part is quite inefficient - I would prefer reading the pixels right off the screen, without saving anything to the disk. But I haven't found any library that would do that with CM. They just return the main menu screen, same as when you use printscreen in the game. I have no idea how the magic works inside those libraries I linked to. I just have some basic understanding of how to use them. I hope some of those words make sense
  14. Yes - German heavy armored cars are on the list. I used the PSW 234/2 in a QB recently, by the way. We had loose rarity and main gun limit to max. 50 mm, in CMBN. Interesting vehicles, worked okay for me.
  15. Not dedication, just automation. It's about 200 lines of code.
  16. Sorry, I forgot to answer this question. 10,000 trials for each spotting test - that means loading the test save 10,000 times, calculate the action phase, let run for up to 7 seconds (until the first spotting action) and collect data of which enemy tanks (in which position) were spotted. 1000 trials for the duels.
  17. I found our discussion of this around this post: @IanL subsequently confirmed that this is how TRPs work due to a design limitation. They can be used even by units that have moved from their initial position.
  18. Thanks - the credit should really go to my old backup laptop, which has managed to run CM practically 24/7 for months on end. Lenovo rules.
  19. TRPs seem to work in a 50m radius for artillery. I don't know whether this applies to non-artillery units as well, but I assume it does. They work even after the unit has moved, including on-map artillery. I have been able to call missions on TRPs with on-map mortars that have moved from their initial positions. I have no explanation for the information on the page @Erwin linked to other than that it might be for CM1. In CM1, units that have moved from their initial setup positions lost the ability to use TRPs.
  20. I doubt that the author of the test would deliberately subvert his setup in that way Nevertheless, I have seen no indication that the target arcs improve spotting* or hit accuracy. See point 4 in my initial post in this thread. They just restrict the area in which the unit will engage targets, that's all. *other than as a result of the unit turning in the direction of the target...
  21. Yep, very interesting. I've been zeroing in on-map mortars on occasions but never thought about using it with tanks. It is a double edged sword - you tell your opponent that your tank is there. And you don't want to be busy zeroing in while the enemy tanks show up! But it is useful to know e.g. that if an enemy tank fired at a certain spot (at your infantry maybe) you shouldn't appear with your tank near that spot. It is also interesting that the tank can zero in using the MG. This probably shouldn't work in real life as the MG rounds have a very different trajectory.
×
×
  • Create New...