dbsapp
-
Posts
592 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by dbsapp
-
-
12 hours ago, The_Capt said:
But in the spirit of making the game better (which we have all agreed is your true motivation here)...we don't really know.
I like that we have a fair conversation.
I'll think over what tests could be made to deepen our understanding and improve CM experience for everybody.
-
@The_Capt Can you please continue the phrase "t72 in the above-mentioned .btt scenario can't spot enemy tank in the open field during daylight at the distance of 2 km that is straight ahead of it because..."
Without going into generalisation about "spotting is hard", "thermals", "Soviet doctrine" etc.
Just concrete explanation of this particular case.
Thank you.
-
9 hours ago, Combatintman said:
Ok ... so are those results consistent with what you are seeing in CMCW?
Yes, I found that M60's behavior in CMCW is much more consistent with Steel Beast test, which is in stark contrast to T-72 behavior.
I ran several M60 test in CMCW swapping M60, who now became a hunter, and t72, who became a prey (well, has always been in fact).
On average it took about 1 minute for M60 to spot t72 and destroy it (the fastest result was 30 seconds which is very close to Steel Beast, the longest about 2 minutes).
In all tests M60 killed t72.
The start:
The end:
The conclusion: where as there are some differences in M60 behavior between CMCW and Steel Beasts it's in more or less acceptable range. At least in both games the tank acts as expected when it has clear sight on the target and advantageous position.
It is T-72 behavior in CMCW that produces heavy divergence from Steel Beast.
-
19 minutes ago, Combatintman said:
Yes that is what I am suggesting - and when you have done so how do those results compare with the CMCW test? If you are trying to assert that SB models tank engagements between T-72s and M-60s better than CMCW does then I think it is a valid test.
Upon your request I made a quick test in Steel Beasts.
Now the tables have turned. M60 became a hunter.
The interior, just for curiosity:
The famous and much discussed thermal sight is to the right. Optics sight is at the front. That's what M60 gunners sees:
The result was quite predictable. M60 was fast to spot the enemy and destroy (4 seconds faster then t72 in the first test).
-
2 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Target! Tank! 2000m!
At 9 minutes and 15 seconds we have a firm contact:
Interestingly the cheating bloody Yank has opened up.....I deliberately set both tanks to be buttoned up when I built this test scenario.
Seven seconds later we have a firing solution and a round is sent downrange:
Causing us to loose the target in our own muzzle blast a few seconds later:
How will it all end? How much time will I waste testing this? The tension is palpable!
Hmm.... I've done several tests and they all ended with t72 being destroyed. The longest wait time was 5 min
-
2 minutes ago, Artkin said:
You should just look at my turns.... most of my units were in position first in fantastic overwatch positions. And they were outspotted every single time. The game magically just turn a huge turn in my favor, but not after my tanks had about 15 hits to their turrets each.
I had 2 tanks move to contact the entire game so far. The rest of my tank "engagements" had been stationary.
And you know what?
This scenario is one of the best for Soviets in CMCW!
You should try Soviet campaign to understand how blind they actually are. It's really ridiculous.
-
@The_Capt I thought you could do better... I mean without all those "complete and utter amateur BS" and "CM Karen" references which shows that you are emotional and have nothing to offer except your anger.
10 minutes ago, The_Capt said:Oh, so we are supposed to give out proprietary information just to prove to you that the game works...wow, you really are the CM Karen.
Oh, that is the royal argument that I was waiting for! The information is classified, therefore we won't show it to you! Yeah, sure, I believe your word
This argument is very funny being juxtaposed to your permanent claim that I have to show "real life data". Apparently, I must buy several tanks somewhere and film them fighting to please you
:
15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:If you can come forward with some form of RL data that backs up your position it would be a start but you seem to insist that you can employ one simulation in the assessment of another simulations RL performance
You are citing no other sources, nor have you provided any RL experience that would back that
15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:"Common reference point - reality" and you have not posted a single RL source in this whole diatribe. What reality, the one in your head?
You made several references to my education. I don't know about you, but I've studied logic in University. One of the first things they told us was "If A=B" and "B=C" then "A=C".
You know, both games (A and B ) claim to capture reality (C). So it's perfectly fine to make the comparison.
21 minutes ago, The_Capt said:A human brain, otherwise why model it for the player? Anything that links back to a human brain is going to have an advantage, at least for now.
It may be surprising, but I hoped that CM also simulates human behavior. SB does so. If it's not human in CM then who is it? Dog? Cat? Small green alien? Judging by the actions of t72 crew in my test mission all variants are possible.
-
Just now, Combatintman said:
So you don't know ... someone 'guaranteed' something on another thread today that proved to be untrue when they tested it.
I beg your pardon...
Do you want me to the test in SB when M60 would be the shooter and t72 would turn his side in him, do I understand you correctly? It can be easily done.
-
Just now, Sgt.Squarehead said:
I'm currently testing this (T-72 'Ural' vs M60A1 at 2km).....It is quite possibly the most boring thing I've ever done! They are both utterly bloody myopic!
In my current run the M60 spotteed the T-72 first, fired a couple of rounds, then lost the target in its own muzzle blast, it hasn't fired again since.
The T-72 seems to have noticed the big cloud of dust on the horizon and apparently suspects there is a tank behind it (tentative contact).....Cunning these Russian lads!
Watching paint dry!
-
Just now, zmoney said:
Well use the cover arc and see. I understand what you are conveying and agree it should see right away. But it’s hard to explain what I’m trying to say. I believe the code is such that the game isn’t expecting to be on the range. It thinks it’s constantly in combat and scanning for close threats first working it’s way out. Just a guess and maybe not expressing myself correctly.
I think I understand what you are trying to say.
But it doesn't feel right as whole. When I'm playing the game I'm constantly stumble upon the cases when my tanks don't see something that is very apparent.
That feeling of discontent made me to make this test.
-
1 minute ago, holoween said:
The game does simulate the tank scanning because thats what they would do and animating the turrets rather than abstracting it is simply beyond the scope.
Probably it does.
But we don't know how. Apparently it produces very strange results.
-
Just now, MOS:96B2P said:
+1. What @Sgt.Squarehead said above is probably a large part of the problem. I'm not sure if its a bug or engine limitation but it is shared across all nationalities. If you want to lobby Battlefront to model telescopic sights I'm with you, my friend. We can add unconventional forces with demo charges and modern mine plows to the list.
It's in our gaming interest to have the simulation as realistic as possible and our small community as united as possible.
Absolutely agree with you
-
Just now, zmoney said:
@dbsapp did you try the CM test with a cover arc on the t-72? I wonder if that would help. I get what Capt is saying, the game isn’t meant to simulate a range. The crew is scanning all around instead of seeing what’s at the end of their nose. Maybe the cover arc will be different result.
No, I didn't.
I guess different approaches could be used, including leveling up t72 from Regular to Veteran.
But basically it doesn't matter when the system has that serious flaws.
Does anybody really enjoy a wargame that " isn’t meant to simulate a range. The crew is scanning all around instead of seeing what’s at the end of their nose"?
-
1 minute ago, Combatintman said:
How did you do swapping the test around to see how the M-60's AI did in SB?
I didn't, but I'm absolutely positive that M60 will execute T72 in front of it very fast.
-
4 minutes ago, Bufo said:
I remember reading this but don't know where, can anybody point me to that thread? (where this YT video was linked)
17 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:Here is a great video from Hapless that does a great job of demonstrating one of many points when it comes to vehicle optics.
Apparently now it's not great at all to compare CM to SB
-
4 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:
those conversations are increasingly hard to have on the forums.
As Oscar Wilde said, "Arguments are to be avoided: they are always vulgar and often convincing".
6 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:The problem here is that no answer will be good enough.
Yeah, I also know that it can't be explained in proper way.
8 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:The fact is, if someone thinks that CM is so fundamentally broken, then fine. Play Steel Beasts.
I like CM, I Iike CMCW. I want them to develop and become better.
I'm really puzzles why some people treat any suggestions or any bug-catching as an personal insult. I really don't want to hurt anybody's feelings, acting in good faith and hope for constructive discussion that will help to improve the game.
-
20 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Which Russian tanks? When? Under what circumstances?
I was talking in general.
-
16 minutes ago, The_Capt said:
Ok, this is not even close to "scientific" and the fact that some might actually think that is 1) a poor reflection on the modern education system and 2) frightening based on what we have been living through for the last 18 months.
There is no need to make it personal.
19 minutes ago, The_Capt said:Based on this "study" SB could be just as inaccurate as CMCW is claimed to be as none of this is linked back to RL data.
Can we look at the "RL data" that was used to make spotting system in CMCW the way that it is now? The thing is we don't know how spotting actually works in CMCW (beyond some vaguely phrased description). Nor we have any kind of real life data to support that your understanding is accurate.
23 minutes ago, The_Capt said:The OP is in effect using one simulation (SB) to try and prove that another simulation (CMCW)
Well, @Haplessdid Youtube video recently using Steel Beasts to show how hard is to spot things from AFV. This video was highly acclaimed and received good reviews, it was even used to show me that I don't understand how tank spotting works. But apparently now it is wrong to compare CM and Steel Beasts.
But Steel Beasts and CM do have something in common. Both of them claim to be not just games, but simulators, e.g. they portray reality as close as they can. As you rightly said they both are used in military training. I don't compare Tetris to Diablo 2. I compare two AFV and ground troops tactics simulator. They both have common reference point - reality.
30 minutes ago, The_Capt said:First off there is TACAI in CM where SB has a human brain that not only set up the test (so knows there is a tank out there) but is specifically pointed at where it knows there is a tank. Take SB, create a 360 field and then don't tell the human subject where the threat is, or that there is a threat at all...now time how long it takes for that human to see a threat at 2km? Still likely be faster because it is a human brain in a totally different simulation.
What you are saying, I'm afraid, shows that you absolutely have no idea how Steel Beasts works. Vehicles in SB also have AI and spotting mechanics. As I said, 2 games have a lot in common, with Steel Beasts having tactical and personal - simulating crew members - layer that is lacking in CM.
34 minutes ago, The_Capt said:The issue here is actually "simulated individual buttoned up spotting".
The issue here is quite obvious.
Both mission are created with ideal conditions - flat earth, daylight, the target is directly ahead.
In Steel Beasts tank behaves very natural. It is pointed in the direction of the target from the very start, so it takes crew only 2 second to see tank in the clear daylight in front of them. Basically, it's the only thing that is there, nothing attracts their attention except of it.
What happens in CMCW is absolutely counterintuitive and unexplainable. The tank also pointed in the direction of the target, it's flat earth, no obstacles, no smoke, nothing distracts the crew... But minute after minute goes by and nothing is happening. Why? How can you explain it? Are they sleeping? Are they arguing with each other? Why don't they look at their optics and see the first thing that is right in front of them - the enemy tank.
I would like to hear your explanation of this particular situation.
-
30 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:
Going back to the original point.....IIRC @Aquila-SmartWargames made a good video, highlighting the unique features that Battlefront built into their model of the 9P157-2, but annoyingly I can't find it.
If they hated the Russians so much why would they bother to do all that?
Irritatingly their excellent model of the 9P157-2 is marred by a bug shared by, AFAIK, all of the ATGM vehicles in the game.....The current inability to model telescopic launchers & sights. I'm absoulutely confident that Battlefront can and will fix this (and may have already done so in their work on CM:Pro).
@dbsapp I perceived the same bias as you do when I started playing CM:BS, but after some (occasionally heated) discussions hereabouts I've come to the conclusion that there is no intentional bias & no tricks under the surface.
The game engine has its quirks and these can produce effects that can seem uncannily like an Abrams deploying a cloaking device etc. but this isn't the result of a deliberate policy, far from it.....In my experience Battlefront have done everything possible to iron out every bug that we have demonstrated to exist and I know that they continue to do exactly the same thing right now.
PS - @Battlefront.com Can I have my Uncon Breach Teams now?
I guess it's much more simple than that.
It stems from the game design philosophy, e.g. how they percieve the world they create. The underlying proposition is that Russian AFV are inferior comparing to the Western.
In game they have some sort if index or indexes that determines spotting abilities.
They conceptually decided that - let's say - Russian AFV's spotting should be 40% of US. For example, Abrams has 100 spotting points and t90 - 40 points.
You may say that it's more complicated, that CM simulates different systems and subststems, which may be is true, but the baseline is that everything has some sort of quantative measurement.
In the end it leads to some buggy consequences, like Russian tanks are blind beyond 2 km range in CMCW.
-
47 minutes ago, Sandokan said:
Hi there!
I recently bought a new PC. It works fine with CMSF2 apart a little thing.
Some written stuff looks kind of smudged.
Attached files with a pair of examples.
Any idea? Thanks in advance.
Sometimes it automatically changes to motherboard video chipset instead of video card.
It looks like it happened to you.
Go to video card settings and ensure that Combat Mission runs on it, not on motherboard.
-
It doesn't require any additional evidence to understand that optics of Soviet tanks in late Cold war period could easily detect targets at 2 km distance during daylight under perfect weather conditions.
In fact everybody can spot tank at 2 km in the open field using cheapest binoculars, not to mention tank optics that costs dozens or hundreds thousands in USD.
-
3 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:
In my test all 10 T72s spotted all 10 targets in the times listed.
Ok, let's pretend that my test doesn't exist.
Let's substitute it with a suitable test that allegedly provides results that is in line with requested opinion.
Don't forget that my test provides comparison and control variable, e.g.Steel Beasts.
That's how science work: if one experiment refutes theory, the theory is considered to be refuted, even if other tests allegedly prove it.
-
32 minutes ago, MikeyD said:
Results have varied wildly as I tested-out different tank types in the scenarios.
20 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:I would never claim there is no room for improvement in CMCW spotting or any other CM spotting but pitting thermal sights (M60 TTS) against normal daylight sights is apples to oranges
I would like to ask directly:
Why in CMCW t72 can't spot target under perfect conditions that is precisely in his gunner sight?
-
10 hours ago, zmoney said:
I doubt very much that BFC hates Russia some much they made a game just to beat the hell outta some Ruskies
I doubt it as well and don't mean that there is some kind of consipiracy.
What I'm saying is that game model needs improvement and could be improved.
Steel Beasts vs Combat Mission t-72 visibility test
in Combat Mission Cold War
Posted
Great to hear that, I'll be pleased as well