holoween

So you dont want to accept a simple duel between them which is reasonable. But you also dont want to accept looking at the vehicles individual stats that they derive their cost from to compare them Can you please lay out how you would want a comparison because to me it looks like you just dont want to compare because the conclusion is too obvious. Ive yet to see you put forward a coherent argument why the price should be at the point where it is. The player experience im referring to coms from players consistently playing HvH QBs and Turnaments. I have yet to hear anyone consider the Stug to be deserving of the price it has no matter how you try to compare.

From this picture guess which costs 190 and which 299.

When their formula spits out prices that are at odds with all player experience then it might be worth finding out what is causing that discrepancy. Sure Only in pure penetration. HE is at best equal, it has far less ammo and is limited by not having a turret. Until the sherman goes hulldown and then the sherman is smaller. Sure but even then the only time the stug comes out on top is if you compare short, long range tank duels. Its not exactly loaded when all you could come up with to countere have been the points you mentioned above. Those even if taken at face value dont make the stug 50% more valuable.

But quick battles are supposed to give a roughly fair fight.

Id argue that that in itself is quite a significant failing though probably not easy to fix( if its even possible).

A weapons ability to supress is directly corelated to its ability to inflict casualties. basically a function of how many rounds per unit of time youre able to get on target with the target being small for a casualty and somewhat larger for supression. Or differently put: how much a weapon supresses depends on how much the supressed thinks hes going to die when sticking up his head. In regards to mg42s accuracy id say its quite underestimated. To give a point of reference with an mg3 firing single rounds im getting a group size about 2-3 times that of a g36. For bursts up to 3 rounds the group size again doubles for the mg3. And since its something that will come up i personally found the slow rate of the mg5 to be far less pleasant to shoot and couldnt get better groups with it even tough these were new weapons compared to 40year old mg3s which saw heavy usage. Note that this obviously reflects my own skills with those weapons and others might differ but the general trend for accuracy holds true.

Once you notice it it becomes very obvious and in the modern titles id say it matter more. Just ran a test with a german tank btl and information about a hostile tank was at the btls hq before it was at the platoonmates tank which is simply impossible irl given how the radios are set up. It still got there in a minute but it should have only taken a few seconds.

It doesnt model properly who sits on what radio. The information simply flows up the command chain and back down. It doesnt model things like an entire platoon being on the same net so as soon as information gets transmitted over the platoon net it should reach everyone but ingame it only reaches the platoon leader. So while low level recon assets do help quite a bit of information sharing is simply not correct.

Agreed: But then you realize all militaries have different doctrine on how exactly to deal with this which also changes with time and CM doesnt(as far as i can tell) model any of that. Its just a generic system.

I think youre misjudging the risks and chances. No modder in their right mind is going to redo work you already did. More likely them masing their mods on games with all modules and packs forcing anyone wanting to use them to actually buy all of them. They are also far more likely to cover timeframes and areas youre simply not going to be able to make games on due to time/cost constrains. So anyone with a special interest in those would buy a CM game without being interested in the game itself. Id personally get it if it just allows any combination of units and maps from any previously purchased game just so i can play SF2 units on good maps. But i might be an exception there.

The backup sight from Leo2 is comparable to the main sight of T72. Seems reasonable to me. It is a backup sight so no point massively overbuilding it. Plot the results on a graph and youll see a pattern. So far with with 60 tests under 3 different conditions i can certainle see a trend emerging. It isnt broken. For the most part it works great. Run 4 tanks without command links and see if they have worse results. The time between no contact to any contact at all should be exactly the same between 4 tanks in and out of C2. Only if there is a noticable differece is there a chance platoons working together is modeled.

Id say thats just a fallacy that has been proven invalid quite often. Just because there is free stuff doesnt mean it competes with you. They still need to buy your games to play the mods and having more content makes it far more attractive to actually purchase the game at all. And while some might not buy as many games and modules that is offset by others buying it at all. I have personally bought several games specifically because of mods and know several others who did the same. Ive also bought CM basegames and expansions to take part in campaigns and turnaments so extra content does certainly generate sales. But obviously its not my risk so easy to say you should allow it.

delete pls

Not bad spotting doesnt push the soviet player to play soviet doctrine. Lanchesters square law does that plenty. Look at any tank attack and youll see that they all look practically the same. Currently the Americans do Soviet style attacks better than the soviets because they actually see their targets. It may very well be that soviets tanks were worse at spotting but im not convinced that was inherent to their vehicles rather than the training level. You could also blame it on doctrine and have a modifier for it for each nationality but that would be difficult to find out, model and leads to strange results like M1A1 being more comparable to a loe1 than a leo2 https://mcoepublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/library/ebooks/Canadian Army Trophy Book_2018.pdf see page 240

With a controlled test environment you can remove any influence apart from spotting ability. Youre getting low confidence with the results from the few tests and the variance means the average spotting time isnt immediately relevant ingame but as a comparison it certainly works. That is easy to do: make a scenario to test it and simply run the scenario as often as you want to get as much data as you want.

https://mcoepublic.blob.core.usgovcloudapi.net/library/ebooks/Canadian Army Trophy Book_2018.pdf Thats the best i could find regarding ranges at the CAT. Up to 2000m The traverse is going to be better for the t72. the Leo2s backup is very slow so usually its brought roughly on target by the driver neutral steering before doing anything more if the commander sees something on the flanks. The T72 optics at least have 9° fov which should make them comparable. How clear they are i cant tell. https://imgur.com/a/JrioHHQ Ths document gives a nice overview on early cold war tanks stats. The t72 fits right in there so should probably be on a similar capability scale as far as spotting goes. And crew quality is a seperate stat so soviet standards being lower should be reflected by the crews being lower veterancy rather than the equipment being made worse. Are you removing outliers? At 10 rounds at 1000m i already have one taking 177s to spot and one taking 255 yet im not seeing such results for your tests. Or each tank has x chance to spot each cycle and you have 4 tanks therefore dropping the expected time to spot for any of them. Were discussing sights before laser range finders in case of the t72 or without them active in the Leo2s case. Also for spotting the FCS and laser are irrelevant.

Currently in place so Leopard2. Though the measure im applying is the one for Emergency use so no electric turet drive and only an 8x magnified backup sight. Targets are nicely illustrated here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235040314_Canadian_Army_Trophy_Analysis It does make a difference though. If units spot others in the open and in broken terrain similarly the distinction starts to matter less than it probably should. At least from the technical specifications i cant see any reason why they should perform worse. And since crew performance is a seperate stat that should have by far the largest impact. For the technical comparison i can send you some documents. I havent sat inside a T72 yet so i cant say it exactly but for a Leopard2 even just using the backup sight it should be far lower if its in an open field.

Ive looked at your pbem files and your troops did spot ok.

How else are you going to gather ingame data? How do you do that because all the testing ive done so far points towards them having quite a bit of trouble spotting at that range.

So i just used your scenario to get some data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18Ma_-1Wl273jK9zck8gmlmqj1FPw2uQGNvbe90ZwuVI/edit#gid=0 I gave the m60 a short firing arc because the test isnt about comparing t72 to m60 yet. At this point its a simple test to see how long the t72 takes to spot. Ill replace the t72 with an m60 and a t64 later to get the comparison between them. Also a 1000m experiment. Things that i noticed: - Some of the crews are legally blind. A third of them took over two minutes to get a contact. Who let those guys into tanks? - Only two would qualify as per german tank gunnery standards and then only when applying emergency mode times. (normal ones are 15s from target presentation to target hit and emergency with the backup sight and controlls its 30s) Id assume 60° for such a caslulation (basically gunner from 11 to 1) but thats variable. Working as a platoon generally each tank would have even less space to cover. CM doesnt see to differentiate between cluttered and clean environment. A tank sitting somewuere between the buildings of a village should be much harder to spot than one sitting in the open but this doesnt appear to be the case. Id love to see which ones. None of its technical data suggests it should be worse than any contemporories. I wouldt take the gulf wars results as an indicator that t72 had bad visibility. Thats more a case for how much thermals outperform non thermals in bad visibility conditions. In broken up terrain or bad weather id agree but the test was in clear weather and open and flat ground. And even then the times are quite long for a fully exposed tank.

can you send me the pbem turn and the pw and ill take a closer look as soon as i get some time (1-2 hours from now)

Yes all three can see but: This is the area they have to scan at the very least probably more. 30s from them being able to theoretically spot it to engaging it is ok considering the situation. TC is more busy reestablishing comms as he currently has none and the driver while not obstructed in the view has adifficult time spotting. And the gunner has to scan a fairly large area so its quite possible he scanned past the target once especially considering hes nervous, the area he has to scan is busy and es only a regular.

This is perfectly normal. The enemy is moving forwards so no its not giving away much by moving and your tank has to cover and spot in quite busy ground. The crew is also nervous and has no contacts to anyone so it becomes quite easy to miss something. This is a great example of CM doing exactly what it should

Hes not looking at you you have time.

They arent very strange. In most situations the system works ok. Basically only the cases where it should be exceedingly easy or hard to spot dont quite get as far as they shouldd. because animating the turret turn rather than simply calculate as if works far better since the spotting works in distinct rounds every few seconds so simply getting an area that was scanned and calculating the los like that works well for the scale.