those bugs/irrealistic things which ruin CMBN...

[BadgerDog]

Standing by, willing and able ...

Sorry, I'm not a programmer, computer buff or game designer, so I can't work with scenario design module myself...

I can however, participate and add an experience factor from an M4 point of view, if that's useful to anyone.

Regards,

Doug

Anyone help by providing a simple scenario where I can swap units and test the apparently disproportionate and perfect "first round" hits I've been experiencing?

Thanks ..

Regards,

Doug

[Fūrinkazan]

Anyone help by providing a simple scenario where I can swap units and test the apparently disproportionate and perfect "first round" hits I've been experiencing?

Thanks ..

Regards,

Doug

I can provide you with my test map : 1000 m long and one regular Panther facing a Sherman.

I did another test today with more winds.

after 10 battles the Panther had 3 first shot/hit

the Sherman 1

I don't know if you had the time to read the tables provided in the link above, but i can explain you how i did my test.

according to tables, when the distance is already known by the gunner :

on range at 1000 m they have 100 % hit

on practice 97 % if i remember well

They say, of course, that in combat the first hit rate is much lower, but that an average gunner can hit with that accuracy after watching the result of it's first shot. So i would expect much lower first hit, and most of the time 2 or 3 shots to hit the target.

In my two tests the Panther had first hit 6 times on 20 "battles"

it took 2 rounds 10 times and 3 rounds 4 times

for the Sherman 75 :

1 time on 20 first shot/hit

13 times it took 2 shots

5 times 3 shots

1 time 4 shots

so the Panther can achieve :

first hit 30 % of the time

2 rounds for a hit 50 %

3 rounds 20 %

Sherman :

first hit 5 %

two rounds 65 %

3 rounds 25 %

4 rounds 5 %

of course, it would take a lot of time and test to have real stats, but i think this gives an idea of what we can expect. I must say that 6 times the Sherman was shooting, missing and was destroyed before hitting the target so it think that we can expect more 3 shots for a hit.

I think, according to the tables, that we have a much lower first hit probability for the Panther : 30 % in "combat" in the game against 100 range/ practice. and most of the time it takes 2 rounds for the average gunner to hit the target, so it seems realistic.

this should be lower if the target is moving and if there is cover and in game conditions.

so what do you think of those results ?

May i ask you a few other questions ?

- The maps we use are sometimes small and tank fighting is close, 400 m or less. I think that at that distance we should see more first hit, what do you think ? Maybe it's because of short range and small maps that we perceive that there is too much first hit ?

I used to play the Close Combat game and the maps were something like 300/ 400m and if i remember well, there was also many first hits.

- I think that hit probability on the move for WWII tanks should be almost zero, did you had the opportunity to shoot on the move and was it accurate ?

- I tried a test with strong wind coming from the flank. i did not see much difference in the game but did not test enough for conclusion. So, does the wind have a big influence when shooting at 1000 m ?

I don't know if, in the game, rain, fog, wind affect much accuracy or not, and also if panicking crews have a much lower accuracy. Just like for destroyed optics, i think that it would be nice to have more infos.

If you want to test for yourself i can give you my map or make a bigger for you. In fact it's quiet easy in the editor to have a flat test map, that's another story to make a realistic map, and i must say that i'm not good in this. I also think that testing is sometime interresting but too much test is very boring.

[BadgerDog]

I can provide you with my test map : 1000 m long and one regular Panther facing a Sherman.

That's very gracious of you... thank you ...

If there could be some hills between the two opposing vehicles (blocking sight), then I could also test various engagement distances?

I assume I can take the scenario and substitute starting positions and swap vehicle types?

Regards,

Doug

[Fūrinkazan]

If you want to change distance and vehicle type, i guess it would be better if i can do a QB test map.

I will try to make a 2000 m flat map with different deployment zone at 2000 m 1500 m 1000 m etc...

My advice would be to play in hot seat so you can control both tanks.

I think that for testing the Sherman it could be usefull to have a Panther with no crew ( the crew would dismount and the tank cannot return fire).

If you don't mind waiting, i will try this this week-end and if it works i will send it to you.

I tested today a duel at 560 m

For the Panther first shot it 80 % of the time

For the Sherman 70 % (Only 10 battles test)

In practice,with the best conditions, under 1000 m we can expect 97 % hit with Panther if we consider that the crew knows the distance.

during combat in the game, we can say that the crew did a good estimation of the distance 30 % of the time and the result was a first shot/ hit.

At 560 m, we can say that they estimate the distance well 80 % of the time.

Maybe this is to high, and if we consider that at short range it's worse, maybe this can be the reason of your impression of too much accuracy all the time. I don't know if this is correct or not, but i think there is a huge difference between the shots at 1000 m and 560 m for both tank. I did not test under 500 m but i think that we can expect first shot/hit almost 100 % of the time on a fix target.

I noticed that the APCR ammo is much less accurate than the APCBC (in practice on the tables : 97 % at 1000 m for APCBC against 56 % with APCR), maybe another reason for the difference between your experience and the game.

If someone has other datas, or tables maybe we could make a better comparison between the game and real life.

[BadgerDog]

If you don't mind waiting, i will try this this week-end and if it works i will send it to you.

Thanks...

That would be fine .... appreciate it ..

Regards,

Doug

[c3k]

Furinkazan,

As someone who's done a LOT of testing for accuracy, let me make a recommendation.

1. If you want to compare accuracy between Panther and Sherman, you need to use the same target. Having a Sherman fire at a Panther, and a Panther fire at a Sherman, only gives apple to orange comparison. (You can change which side is the enemy by going into the "Mission" drop-down menu in the editor.)

2. Ensure the tanks have identical "soft" factors.

3. To facilitate getting a statistically meaningful number of tests, I've found running 20 test lanes at a time to be useful. Regardless, doing it one at a time can eat up a few days. Days which aren't used to PLAY are days that are lost forever.

Ken

[Fūrinkazan]

Furinkazan,

As someone who's done a LOT of testing for accuracy, let me make a recommendation.

1. If you want to compare accuracy between Panther and Sherman, you need to use the same target. Having a Sherman fire at a Panther, and a Panther fire at a Sherman, only gives apple to orange comparison. (You can change which side is the enemy by going into the "Mission" drop-down menu in the editor.)

2. Ensure the tanks have identical "soft" factors.

3. To facilitate getting a statistically meaningful number of tests, I've found running 20 test lanes at a time to be useful. Regardless, doing it one at a time can eat up a few days. Days which aren't used to PLAY are days that are lost forever.

Ken

Thanks for your advice.

I usually don 't make tests, i did it only twice for cmx 1 series ( i wanted to test the accuarcy of 88 mm at long range and the efficiency of the JU87 equipped with 37 mm AT Gun). For cmx 2 engine i tested Snipers and Hmgs because i thought that something needed to be changed for those units.

In fact, in this case i wanted to know if first shot/hit was real or not, and i was interrested by the opinion of BadgerDog, because nothing can replace real life experience. I did not wanted to make a comparison between Sherman and Panther.

In fact i think that many people here made a lot of tests and better than me.

Since you did a lot of testing i would like to have your opinion about tank accuracy. Do you think that there are too much first hit in the game ?

I did not test at shorter range but my guess is that under 500 m on a flat map we have lot of chances to see 100 % first hit. I don't know what to think about it. Under 500 m is short distance so it would make sense, and shorter distance (200 m 100 m) is, i think point blank range for tanks. So is it realistic or not i don't know.

By soft factor do you mean crew experience, command etc... ?

I tested with regular crews with no bonus, flat map without wind.

To BadgerDog

I will work on the map this week-end and i'll post here when it's finished.

[Fūrinkazan]

Hi, BadgerDog

As i promised i have just posted on the repository 3 maps for tank testing. In the zip file you'll find also 2 Qb maps.

All you have to do is to place them in your qb folder.

The 3 tests maps will appear when you choose meeting engagement.

the first is 2000 m long and flat with multi deployment zone.

the second and third are about 600 m and 1500 m with trees and elevation.

If you want to test : take a qb and choose the map, play in hot seat (no ai plan). you can choose the type of vehicle and put them on the map at different range. Hope it will help you.

While playing with the editor, i decided it would be more interresting to have battle maps. So i tried to make 2 little bocage maps that you'll find if you choose attack qb scenario. I did 3 or more ai plans for attacker and defender and support plan also for both. I did not have enough time to test my maps, only a few time both, but it seems to work.

Of course they are far from perfect, so, if some people would like to play with them and give some advices or critics, it would be nice since i would like to make more maps and maybe scenarios in the future.

The maps will be on the repository soon i hope, i posted them a few minutes ago...

Have fun

[BadgerDog]

Hi, BadgerDog

As i promised i have just posted on the repository 3 maps for tank testing. In the zip file you'll find also 2 Qb maps.

All you have to do is to place them in your qb folder.

Thank you ..

I'll watch for them ...

Regards,

Doug

[Paul AU]

Here is the OP:

>> Gentlemen from Battlefront,

When i heard about Combat Mission Battle for Normandy, i was expecting great things with this new opus. A few games after, like many veterans of the Combat Mission series, i feel something like a bad felling about this game. A feeling of deception, of mess-up. Why ?

Because of many bugs and irrealistic things that ruin the interest of the game. Here is a list :

- Artillery (even light mortars) is too powerful. 2 rounds of an artillery barrage are enough to destroy half an army or at least, reduce drastically a platoon to a few men harmless group. With this problem, it is difficult to manage a strategy or having a real fight with guns, AT, etc. Everything is destroyed after a barrage. Artillery power must be decreased for at least 30 % of its current efficiency (and accuracy in the same way). The artillery problem is the main problem of this list.

- Path-finding is poor and players have to manage units one by one to obtain proper movements.

- No possibility to select armour cover arc or infantry arc as we could in CMx1.

- Unexpected point of impact on armoured vehicles (for example, hit on left flank when the shooting enemy is on the right side…)

- A.P. shells kills infantry as easily as H.E. shells. I hope it is a bug. For example, a 57mm caliber American A.T. gun shot against a building with men in it. 4 of them died with one shot!!! I thought A. P. had no explosive ability…

- No delay to execute an order whatever the unit’s level is. So, why should we spend points to buy crack or veteran unit? No matter with CMBN.

- units are sometimes very difficult to place on terrain at some strategic points or to give them the best concealment as possible (for example behind sandbags).

- Troops covered in buildings are too much vulnerable under enemy fire (light or armoured).

- Same icon when an enemy is spotted. No matter if it is a tank or a soldier. I mean than soldiers should be able to identify at least if there is a tank or men in front of them. But when the enemy is spotted, we know immediately what kind of unit it is. Is it a new "fog of war" style ?

- Armoured vehicle’s shots and gun‘s shots are too accurate à too many “one shot, one kill”

- During assault against a building, friendly units continue firing on building to cover, with a risk of casualties on assaulting troops.

- What exactly soldiers do with the order "to hide"? Where do they hide? Does this order really mean something?

- A.I. manages troop’s behaviour in a strange way and not with appropriate action. Sometimes, they fire with their gun on a tank, sometimes they did not shot with their bazooka on a tank, and more other stupid things like this.

- Armoured spot enemy infantry too easily.

Of course, there are probably other problems, but those are enough to make me stop playing this game. Unless a patch fix these problems, there is no chance than i continue playing it or i than i buy the adding modules. I think i will continue Combat Mission x1. This one, at least, has been programmed seriously. CMBN is the perfect example of a game which has been thinking only for graphics effects. No matter with realism or playability.

Regards.

JC-CM>>

Everything in it is valid.

[BadgerDog]

e maps and maybe scenarios in the future.

The maps will be on the repository soon i hope, i posted them a few minutes ago...

Still haven't appeared?

Am I looking in the right place? :confused:

Perhaps email them to me at badger@milsurps.com

Thank you ..

Regards,

Doug

[Fūrinkazan]

Hi BadgerDog

It's on the repository, here is the link :

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1728

you can find also the link in the CM Normandy Maps and Mods on the forum : it's called New file at the Repository: 2 Qb maps 3 tests maps (2012-02-05)

You'll find 3 maps for test : put them in your quick battle folder and choose meeting engagement.

I made 2 quick battle maps that you can use if you choose attack scenario in a quick battle.

I'd like to make other maps, but this time i'll take more time to have better ai plan and bigger maps. If i'm not too bad at this, i will maybe make scenarios, but i'm still learning.

Hope this will help you, Fūrinkazan.

[Blutch]

Here is the OP:

>>

- units are sometimes very difficult to place on terrain at some strategic points or to give them the best concealment as possible (for example behind sandbags).

- Troops covered in buildings are too much vulnerable under enemy fire (light or armoured).

- Same icon when an enemy is spotted. No matter if it is a tank or a soldier. I mean than soldiers should be able to identify at least if there is a tank or men in front of them. But when the enemy is spotted, we know immediately what kind of unit it is. Is it a new "fog of war" style ?

- Armoured vehicle’s shots and gun‘s shots are too accurate à too many “one shot, one kill”

- During assault against a building, friendly units continue firing on building to cover, with a risk of casualties on assaulting troops.

- What exactly soldiers do with the order "to hide"? Where do they hide? Does this order really mean something?

I agree with you.

Furthermore, if you come to France, you will see that lot's houses have cellar and basement. I think it is often useful, especially during a bombardment !!

[BadgerDog]

You'll find 3 maps for test : put them in your quick battle folder and choose meeting engagement.

I made 2 quick battle maps that you can use if you choose attack scenario in a quick battle.

I'd like to make other maps, but this time i'll take more time to have better ai plan and bigger maps. If i'm not too bad at this, i will maybe make scenarios, but i'm still learning.

Hope this will help you, Fūrinkazan.

Thanks... got them ...

Do you mean put the 5 BTT files in my Quick Battle Maps folder, or my Scenarios folder?

Regards,

Doug

[Fūrinkazan]

Yes you just have to put the .btt files in your Quick Battle Maps folder.

you have 3 tests maps. To use them start a quick battle,choose a meeting engagement. Your should see in the choice of maps the 3 tests maps.

For better control : choose both camp equipement yourself and play in hot seat so you can see what is happening and replay the action. You can choose also German against German or US against US. You can change also the weather and conditions (night, wind etc...) before you play the battle just like in any other quick battle in the menu in the beginning.

First map is 2000 m flat with different start positions.

The 2 others have some small hills and trees to have different possibilities.

The tests maps are called test tank 01 02 03.

I made 2 other small maps: attk bocage small 01 and02 than you can use if you choose quick battle and then attack scenario.

[Warmachine113]

Can you imagine qhat we could do if you guys or whatever fan of cmbb could modify the base game with mods..Use as example Battlefield 1942..Operation Flashpoint...etc.

Dont use the argument ''Oh if we could implement ourselves TONS of graphical,weapons etc content BF wouldnt sell their expansions..''...I know they are shooters but the base applies...Those game mainly sold out because of their modding capacities..And Bohemia interactive at the OFP time wasnt as big as it is now...Look at the community now..

We could simply change the core game to our likings and code it etc..Not all but more than sound and bitmap mods..I aint a coder myself but I am sure some of us here are..Anyways I was thinking about that whitout any toughts of this happening..

[SlowMotion]

Currently tank and vehicle AI have this defense idea that when they spot a threat or get actually hit by enemy firing dangerous enough, they try to reverse and save themselves. But this "drive to safety" doesn't happen when they are hit by mortar projectiles. So currently it's quite easy to immobilize tanks this way.

SO: Should tanks move if the crew thinks they are a spot target of indirect fire?

I've thought about the same thing when the target is a squad, but maybe it would be more difficult for unprotected soldiers to move.

[xian]

SO: Should tanks move if the crew thinks they are a spot target of indirect fire?

The question is - which way?

[SlowMotion]

Out of the danger way... which isn't always backwards, BTW

[Sarge]

didn't want to start a whole NEW thread, and it's probably been mentioned before, but-

i'm towing an ATG with truck... now where to set it up for maximum use? well, unless i have another unit somewhere in the vicinity, or, actually set the gun up - i can't TELL! there is no feature to simply "VIEW" - of course trucks can't use "target light" to test, ok.. and the crew is in a covered back end, but shouldn't someone be able to have an idea that "yeah, HERE, this is a good spot" ?? am i wrong?

2) i have a mortar setup, and in comm with Plt HQ/radio. the Plt HQ can see the target..and am using small arms on the target... but when i attempt to call for indirect, i get a "No LOS" message!? why?

3) why when an 81mm is down to 1 smoke round won't it fire? or if its because its a smoke round, why not allow the call for a smoke round?

i have more questions...but i don't want to kidnap the thread and maybe this isn't the place to ask? feel free to move it if so required.

thanks!

[LukeFF]

Can you imagine qhat we could do if you guys or whatever fan of cmbb could modify the base game with mods..Use as example Battlefield 1942..Operation Flashpoint...etc.

Dont use the argument ''Oh if we could implement ourselves TONS of graphical,weapons etc content BF wouldnt sell their expansions..''...I know they are shooters but the base applies...Those game mainly sold out because of their modding capacities..And Bohemia interactive at the OFP time wasnt as big as it is now...Look at the community now..

We could simply change the core game to our likings and code it etc..Not all but more than sound and bitmap mods..I aint a coder myself but I am sure some of us here are..Anyways I was thinking about that whitout any toughts of this happening..

Yes, and watch the community fracture into innumerable factions. Seen it over and over again.

[Sarge]

Yes, and watch the community fracture into innumerable factions. Seen it over and over again.

agree agree agree~!

the only way to prevent that is having 1 source, and a patch that all install.

once things are 'open' you have all different versions, and none compatible.

[Warmachine113]

Yeah maybe...but still...Can you guys remember the 1942 mod Forgotten hope...THe community was twice as strong as the original game.We could have mods that just visually enchance alot graphically the game but still playable online ...or a huge weapon pack that all users would install...

[Warmachine113]

Oh and yeah....going to the bathroom in real time games...is kinda hard...no pause button( know its a known thing but well..lol)

[Ranger33]

Extensive modding works if the game is created with it in mind. See for example the Total War series, Mount and Blade, Operation Flashpoint/ArmA. All of these let you easily switch from one mod to another or back to vanilla.

Valve pretty much made their fortune by embracing the mod scene of Half-Life. People would buy the game just so they could play Counter-Strike or Day of Defeat.