Jump to content

RobZ

Members
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    RobZ reacted to Probus in Battlefront Poll Updated   
    4. Expansion of Combat Mission Games to VE-Day on Both Fronts: 1944-1945
    End-of-war module that includes Brits, crossing the Rhine and the Ruhr pocket
    A siege of Budapest for Hungarians
    Battle for Berlin
    (East vs West, 1945, 46)
  2. Upvote
    RobZ reacted to Probus in Battlefront Poll Updated   
    10. Enhanced Modding Support
    add units
    equipment
    functionality
    ingame OOB editor
  3. Upvote
    RobZ reacted to Probus in Battlefront Poll Updated   
    9. One Engine - CMx3
    game performance improvments, graphics improvements, ray tracing, intermediate distance bitmaps
    additional editor features, dynamic operational campaigns
    additional gameplay features, coop, LoS tool, visible aircraft
  4. Upvote
    RobZ reacted to Erwin in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    This and other LOS/LOF phenomena are issues that we learn to "play around" but is a related item that needs to be looked at eventually.
  5. Upvote
    RobZ reacted to Bulletpoint in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    I love the WeGo system, but part of it is also because the turn based mode forces players to either let their tank sit for a full minute and get pummelled, hoping to get a spot and a shot off during that time, or to guess how many seconds are needed to spot and shoot - which is impossible to estimate, since so many variables are at play.
    So you end up with tanks staying up too long, taking too many hits, or you have your tank reverse back in cover just before it was about to shoot.
    In real life (or playing real-time mode), the tank crew decides what is the optimal time to spot, shoot, and scoot.
    This is not an attack on the WeGo mode, but just some reflections.
  6. Upvote
    RobZ reacted to Bulletpoint in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    FWIW I don't see it as just a lab experiment. It's a situation that happens in pretty much every WeGo game involving at least one Panther tank.
  7. Like
    RobZ got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    @Battlefront.com just fyi, the panther in my tests were regular in all of them. So it was a regular panther vs 3 elite Sherman's.
    I see what you are saying with the overall result, but what is the overall result? Is it battle result or just engagement result? The fact that you won't change anything about this center aiming at this time was a response I expected tbh, but it's worth bringing the issue to light. It's not a fundamental flaw, it's not a big issue either, it's a rather minor one, but an issue none the less. But this tacAI habit is exploitable. The results might be correct as it stands cus everyone is playing how it's intended. You might call the panther test a "lab experiment" but it's a combat scenario that can actually happen in a real game, is it then still an experiment? I know from now on that I have a much greater chance of success by standing in the open with a panther if im forced to brawl front to front with the enemy. I can take this exploit even further if I have a damaged panther as well. I run the damaged panther into the open, enemies will start plinking and zeroing their guns to that damaged panther, then I drive forward my fully working panther and the enemy will very likely start hitting the front hull right away cus they are zeroed to that range. That means its even more unlikely they will hit the lower glacis or front turret so my win rate chance goes up even higher. I should not be confident that the enemy doesn't hit a weak spot, but with the current aiming I am pretty confident. If I use this tactic every time I know I'm gonna get shot at, my panthers survival rates will go up by a lot. This can almost be called a "200IQ play" cus essentially you use the enemies habits to your own advantage, but it shouldn't be like that. If this game was very popular and had proper multiplayer, this for sure would be used for people's advantage, just like dropping artillery in your enemies spawn on turn 1.
    I will say again this is not a huge issue and doesn't break the game, but it is exploitable and requires changes to be fixed. If we need to wait for the next CM engine for this fix then I guess that's fine, aslong as it happens at some point.
  8. Upvote
    RobZ got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    Test results
    Tests done in a more "natural" map instead of flat ground. Shermans are at 900,1030 and 1050m. All shermans are placed in light forest with trees. Shermans are of variant M4A3(76)W. Panther is of variant Panther G mid.
    20 tests done with panther hull down, 20 tests with panther open ground. At test start the panther will drive to its correct position so it is not exposed at the start, all shermans stationary. Disregard the forward observers, they are behind terrain and does not see anything. At this range and angle the shermans can penetrate the lower glacis and the front turret, only the upper hull plate is immune.
    Skill: regular, normal, 0 for all tanks

    The map.

    Panther hull down/open from sherman's perspective (one of them).

    Panthers perspective.
     
    Results:
    Panther in hull down position:
    4/20 times success; 20% win rate
    failures:
    12 times by main gun destroyed: 4 times muzzle hit, 2 times barrel hit, rest are mantlet/weapon mount hits. Rest of failures is crew dismount and tank destroyed.
    Panther on open ground:
    11/20 times success; 55% win rate
    1 success had the panther immobilized by lower glacis penetration, engine destroyed
    failures:
    4 times by main gun destroyed: 1 time muzzle hit, rest mantlet/weapon mount.
    1 time destroyed after +50 hits, crew panicked earlier, but the tank was still operational
    rest is lower glacis or weapon mount tank destroyed
     
    So after all that i did another 10 tests in each position with shermans all beeing elite crew to see what happend
    Panther in hull down position vs 3 elite shermans: 0% win rate
    Panther on open ground vs 3 elite shermans: 40% win rate
     
    I got many pictures from the different successes and failures, but i dont want to clutter the post, but in general this is why the panther wins open ground scenarios:

    The AI will always aim for the upper hull plate, which is the only place they can't penetrate. This is the aiming issue im talking about, the AI aims for the exact same location every single shot and will never deviate at all unless terrain forces them to. Once they are zeroed in, there is almost no hits to the turret or lower glacis at all, these lower glacis hits was two of the first shots fired. The panther won in the scenario that picture is taken from.
  9. Upvote
    RobZ got a reaction from Bufo in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    It's clear to me after reading the responses that very few in this discussion actually understand what the issue is. I'm not saying tacAI should not aim for center mass, I have already stated earlier that this is exactly what they should do. But the issue is their aiming precision, not the gun accuracy. If we put a laser pointer in the tacAI gunner optics, that laser would point constantly on a 1x1 CM square on the targets center mass. That is the issue.  If we did the same with a human, that laser would be very many places on the target, still center mass, but not exact pixel perfect center mass. This is what makes the AI too accurate, and this is the issue I have been talking about all along.
    The hull down statistics is more or less a response to the "hull down myth", which we see doesn't hold up in all cases. And part of the reason for this is the perfect aiming of the tacAI that makes the overall hit zone very tiny and locked to a spesific area, in this case the upper hull.
    @Saint_Fullers post is infact supporting me on this. They aim center mass cus they are not precise enough to aim for spesific areas, yet the tacAI in this game is so precise they can consistently hit the ball machine gun mount if the game told them to aim there.
    For the "advanced calculations" required to make the AI aim different places is an odd response, the game already handles this stuff with zeroing shots. It doesn't even need any advanced calculations, just make the AI have a random offset from the pixel perfect center mass point, so they aim more spread out, but still center mass.
    I already Agree on many of the more obvious and logical points you guys bring up as that's not the issue I'm pointing out.
     
  10. Upvote
    RobZ reacted to Bulletpoint in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    If I played real-time mode, that's what I would do. But I play in turn based mode, so I have to find a balance between the chance to spot and hit the enemy tank and my own tank's survivability. For Shermans, that means hull down - for Panthers, it means hull up. At least that's my take on it.
  11. Upvote
    RobZ reacted to sid_burn in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    The problem is that the size of CMX2 maps, as @Erwin (among others) has pointed out elsewhere, often doesn’t allow this. The maps are often designed to encourage really small engagements with little room for maneuver.  So repositioning often isn’t a choice. It depends heavily on the scenario and map designer. 
  12. Upvote
    RobZ reacted to com-intern in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    yea as a player this is something to keep in mind. I think the most obvious decision from a wego perspective:

    * Attempting shoot and scoot Hulldown
    * Before a major engagement has occurred (ambush position) Hulldown
    * Once you are/are likely to be in a shoot out open ground (preferably keyholed)

    Essentially you are trying to make the decision on whether you will need the concealment more than the armor. Once a real fight breaks out the armor is probably preferable since getting hit is just a matter of time.
  13. Upvote
    RobZ reacted to Bulletpoint in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    Good explanation. Also, the tank sights might not be perfectly calibrated, so even if you did manage to line up the sight at exact centre mass, you might still be a bit off. I think this would also depend on the distance to the target.
  14. Like
    RobZ got a reaction from com-intern in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    This is exactly my point dude. The game should FIX it, not rely on its players to not "cheese" the game mechanics. You just admitted that this is an issue than can be cheesed and is "gamey" which is the exact reason I'm making this post at all. The game has to fix it, not the people playing it.
  15. Like
    RobZ got a reaction from Xorg_Xalargsky in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    How did you know I made it? I'm not the only RobZ in the world.
  16. Like
    RobZ got a reaction from sid_burn in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    This is exactly my point dude. The game should FIX it, not rely on its players to not "cheese" the game mechanics. You just admitted that this is an issue than can be cheesed and is "gamey" which is the exact reason I'm making this post at all. The game has to fix it, not the people playing it.
  17. Upvote
    RobZ reacted to Bulletpoint in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    Kind of funny you would say that, just after you said:
  18. Upvote
    RobZ got a reaction from AlexUK in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    It's clear to me after reading the responses that very few in this discussion actually understand what the issue is. I'm not saying tacAI should not aim for center mass, I have already stated earlier that this is exactly what they should do. But the issue is their aiming precision, not the gun accuracy. If we put a laser pointer in the tacAI gunner optics, that laser would point constantly on a 1x1 CM square on the targets center mass. That is the issue.  If we did the same with a human, that laser would be very many places on the target, still center mass, but not exact pixel perfect center mass. This is what makes the AI too accurate, and this is the issue I have been talking about all along.
    The hull down statistics is more or less a response to the "hull down myth", which we see doesn't hold up in all cases. And part of the reason for this is the perfect aiming of the tacAI that makes the overall hit zone very tiny and locked to a spesific area, in this case the upper hull.
    @Saint_Fullers post is infact supporting me on this. They aim center mass cus they are not precise enough to aim for spesific areas, yet the tacAI in this game is so precise they can consistently hit the ball machine gun mount if the game told them to aim there.
    For the "advanced calculations" required to make the AI aim different places is an odd response, the game already handles this stuff with zeroing shots. It doesn't even need any advanced calculations, just make the AI have a random offset from the pixel perfect center mass point, so they aim more spread out, but still center mass.
    I already Agree on many of the more obvious and logical points you guys bring up as that's not the issue I'm pointing out.
     
  19. Like
    RobZ got a reaction from sid_burn in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    You might be able to accept that the game has flaws, but some others here can't. Some people seem to defend the game to their grave and that you should just play differently or just "not get hit" in a war game. As you also point out that you want to end up on the enemy flank, that's fair cus that's the best case scenario. But not every game, plan or every unit composition is perfect so you will have scenarios where you can't do what you ideally want to, and this is where the game mechanics can play a huge part in the result.
  20. Like
    RobZ got a reaction from sid_burn in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    It's clear to me after reading the responses that very few in this discussion actually understand what the issue is. I'm not saying tacAI should not aim for center mass, I have already stated earlier that this is exactly what they should do. But the issue is their aiming precision, not the gun accuracy. If we put a laser pointer in the tacAI gunner optics, that laser would point constantly on a 1x1 CM square on the targets center mass. That is the issue.  If we did the same with a human, that laser would be very many places on the target, still center mass, but not exact pixel perfect center mass. This is what makes the AI too accurate, and this is the issue I have been talking about all along.
    The hull down statistics is more or less a response to the "hull down myth", which we see doesn't hold up in all cases. And part of the reason for this is the perfect aiming of the tacAI that makes the overall hit zone very tiny and locked to a spesific area, in this case the upper hull.
    @Saint_Fullers post is infact supporting me on this. They aim center mass cus they are not precise enough to aim for spesific areas, yet the tacAI in this game is so precise they can consistently hit the ball machine gun mount if the game told them to aim there.
    For the "advanced calculations" required to make the AI aim different places is an odd response, the game already handles this stuff with zeroing shots. It doesn't even need any advanced calculations, just make the AI have a random offset from the pixel perfect center mass point, so they aim more spread out, but still center mass.
    I already Agree on many of the more obvious and logical points you guys bring up as that's not the issue I'm pointing out.
     
  21. Like
    RobZ got a reaction from com-intern in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    It's clear to me after reading the responses that very few in this discussion actually understand what the issue is. I'm not saying tacAI should not aim for center mass, I have already stated earlier that this is exactly what they should do. But the issue is their aiming precision, not the gun accuracy. If we put a laser pointer in the tacAI gunner optics, that laser would point constantly on a 1x1 CM square on the targets center mass. That is the issue.  If we did the same with a human, that laser would be very many places on the target, still center mass, but not exact pixel perfect center mass. This is what makes the AI too accurate, and this is the issue I have been talking about all along.
    The hull down statistics is more or less a response to the "hull down myth", which we see doesn't hold up in all cases. And part of the reason for this is the perfect aiming of the tacAI that makes the overall hit zone very tiny and locked to a spesific area, in this case the upper hull.
    @Saint_Fullers post is infact supporting me on this. They aim center mass cus they are not precise enough to aim for spesific areas, yet the tacAI in this game is so precise they can consistently hit the ball machine gun mount if the game told them to aim there.
    For the "advanced calculations" required to make the AI aim different places is an odd response, the game already handles this stuff with zeroing shots. It doesn't even need any advanced calculations, just make the AI have a random offset from the pixel perfect center mass point, so they aim more spread out, but still center mass.
    I already Agree on many of the more obvious and logical points you guys bring up as that's not the issue I'm pointing out.
     
  22. Like
    RobZ got a reaction from Bulletpoint in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    It's clear to me after reading the responses that very few in this discussion actually understand what the issue is. I'm not saying tacAI should not aim for center mass, I have already stated earlier that this is exactly what they should do. But the issue is their aiming precision, not the gun accuracy. If we put a laser pointer in the tacAI gunner optics, that laser would point constantly on a 1x1 CM square on the targets center mass. That is the issue.  If we did the same with a human, that laser would be very many places on the target, still center mass, but not exact pixel perfect center mass. This is what makes the AI too accurate, and this is the issue I have been talking about all along.
    The hull down statistics is more or less a response to the "hull down myth", which we see doesn't hold up in all cases. And part of the reason for this is the perfect aiming of the tacAI that makes the overall hit zone very tiny and locked to a spesific area, in this case the upper hull.
    @Saint_Fullers post is infact supporting me on this. They aim center mass cus they are not precise enough to aim for spesific areas, yet the tacAI in this game is so precise they can consistently hit the ball machine gun mount if the game told them to aim there.
    For the "advanced calculations" required to make the AI aim different places is an odd response, the game already handles this stuff with zeroing shots. It doesn't even need any advanced calculations, just make the AI have a random offset from the pixel perfect center mass point, so they aim more spread out, but still center mass.
    I already Agree on many of the more obvious and logical points you guys bring up as that's not the issue I'm pointing out.
     
  23. Like
    RobZ got a reaction from SgtHatred in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    Test results
    Tests done in a more "natural" map instead of flat ground. Shermans are at 900,1030 and 1050m. All shermans are placed in light forest with trees. Shermans are of variant M4A3(76)W. Panther is of variant Panther G mid.
    20 tests done with panther hull down, 20 tests with panther open ground. At test start the panther will drive to its correct position so it is not exposed at the start, all shermans stationary. Disregard the forward observers, they are behind terrain and does not see anything. At this range and angle the shermans can penetrate the lower glacis and the front turret, only the upper hull plate is immune.
    Skill: regular, normal, 0 for all tanks

    The map.

    Panther hull down/open from sherman's perspective (one of them).

    Panthers perspective.
     
    Results:
    Panther in hull down position:
    4/20 times success; 20% win rate
    failures:
    12 times by main gun destroyed: 4 times muzzle hit, 2 times barrel hit, rest are mantlet/weapon mount hits. Rest of failures is crew dismount and tank destroyed.
    Panther on open ground:
    11/20 times success; 55% win rate
    1 success had the panther immobilized by lower glacis penetration, engine destroyed
    failures:
    4 times by main gun destroyed: 1 time muzzle hit, rest mantlet/weapon mount.
    1 time destroyed after +50 hits, crew panicked earlier, but the tank was still operational
    rest is lower glacis or weapon mount tank destroyed
     
    So after all that i did another 10 tests in each position with shermans all beeing elite crew to see what happend
    Panther in hull down position vs 3 elite shermans: 0% win rate
    Panther on open ground vs 3 elite shermans: 40% win rate
     
    I got many pictures from the different successes and failures, but i dont want to clutter the post, but in general this is why the panther wins open ground scenarios:

    The AI will always aim for the upper hull plate, which is the only place they can't penetrate. This is the aiming issue im talking about, the AI aims for the exact same location every single shot and will never deviate at all unless terrain forces them to. Once they are zeroed in, there is almost no hits to the turret or lower glacis at all, these lower glacis hits was two of the first shots fired. The panther won in the scenario that picture is taken from.
  24. Upvote
    RobZ got a reaction from sttp in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    Test results
    Tests done in a more "natural" map instead of flat ground. Shermans are at 900,1030 and 1050m. All shermans are placed in light forest with trees. Shermans are of variant M4A3(76)W. Panther is of variant Panther G mid.
    20 tests done with panther hull down, 20 tests with panther open ground. At test start the panther will drive to its correct position so it is not exposed at the start, all shermans stationary. Disregard the forward observers, they are behind terrain and does not see anything. At this range and angle the shermans can penetrate the lower glacis and the front turret, only the upper hull plate is immune.
    Skill: regular, normal, 0 for all tanks

    The map.

    Panther hull down/open from sherman's perspective (one of them).

    Panthers perspective.
     
    Results:
    Panther in hull down position:
    4/20 times success; 20% win rate
    failures:
    12 times by main gun destroyed: 4 times muzzle hit, 2 times barrel hit, rest are mantlet/weapon mount hits. Rest of failures is crew dismount and tank destroyed.
    Panther on open ground:
    11/20 times success; 55% win rate
    1 success had the panther immobilized by lower glacis penetration, engine destroyed
    failures:
    4 times by main gun destroyed: 1 time muzzle hit, rest mantlet/weapon mount.
    1 time destroyed after +50 hits, crew panicked earlier, but the tank was still operational
    rest is lower glacis or weapon mount tank destroyed
     
    So after all that i did another 10 tests in each position with shermans all beeing elite crew to see what happend
    Panther in hull down position vs 3 elite shermans: 0% win rate
    Panther on open ground vs 3 elite shermans: 40% win rate
     
    I got many pictures from the different successes and failures, but i dont want to clutter the post, but in general this is why the panther wins open ground scenarios:

    The AI will always aim for the upper hull plate, which is the only place they can't penetrate. This is the aiming issue im talking about, the AI aims for the exact same location every single shot and will never deviate at all unless terrain forces them to. Once they are zeroed in, there is almost no hits to the turret or lower glacis at all, these lower glacis hits was two of the first shots fired. The panther won in the scenario that picture is taken from.
  25. Upvote
    RobZ got a reaction from sttp in Issues with tank targeting accuracy   
    Thats what i would assume to happen, in all my tests it always takes more shots against a hull down opponent. If the game didn't reflect this then that would be very worrying, but it does that just fine as you show yourself. The point im making with hull down beeing worse for certain tanks is that they have the armor to take hits on the hull, and the AI will aim for the hull when they are on open ground and thus it increases their survivability compared to hull down. Im doing some tests as we speak and will share results soon, it shows exactly what im talking about.
×
×
  • Create New...