Sherman performance... again.

[sburke]

$10, really? We have gotten to be such tightwads we are gonna bicker whether a major upgrade is worth $10? LOL

Man I feel for you guys when you have real major investments in your life and you gotta deal with all the BS that goes with them.

Hell I'll spend $10 on a lunch that will likely be crappy anyway.

[dieseltaylor]

I have other things I can enjoy like table-tennis, going out, reading, stocks & shares, and playing boardgames so my return on my $100 is pretty bad currently. You sell me a realistic game that isn't then I am going to be more wary about giving you more money when you claim it is now sorted.

If I played only against the AI it is not a big deal but if I am playing a human and the results hinge on strange spotting for armour and ludicrous hits on firing whilst moving I get peeved. Now I am really glad that there are many people who are enjoying the game for what it is currently. I and two friends who all bought it togther when it came out - I reckon neither of the other two bother looking in here and between the two of us who play its probaly avearging a few hours per month. So for us anyway its been a bust so far - pray to God it is improved with V2.

[slysniper]

I have other things I can enjoy like table-tennis, going out, reading, stocks & shares, and playing boardgames so my return on my $100 is pretty bad currently. You sell me a realistic game that isn't then I am going to be more wary about giving you more money when you claim it is now sorted.

you better go back to your other interest, because I can promise you it is not changing enough to become realistic if you presently do not think it is realistic enough.

I think the problem might lie in the fact that for some playing competatively against someone else, that any game mechanics that throws in chance actions where units are dieing to things you cannot control is the issue. So no matter what the designer does, I am not sure you will be happy with the game. because in general, they are designing it more and more to take away your god like control over the unit and that as a player you must accept your units actions whether good or bad. They want the player to focus on tactics , not micro managing each unit and getting perfect results.

Gone are the days that I can gareentee myself moving three units into place will gareentee me that all three will spot and fire on one unit I know is around the corner or bend. That I can expect that 2 of them 3 units will survive after I overwhelm the enemy unit with firepower.

That was wargaming in the past, but not all that real either. Now I have to approach that same challenge with more realistic methods.

[John Kettler]

"In any battle, some must fall." Forget who said that.

"Next to a battle lost, the greatest misery is a battle won." Duke of Wellington

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." Ferdinand Foche

Regards,

John Kettler

[Baneman]

...

I think the problem might lie in the fact that for some playing competitively against someone else, that any game mechanics that throws in chance actions where units are dieing to things you cannot control is the issue. So no matter what the designer does, I am not sure you will be happy with the game. because in general, they are designing it more and more to take away your god like control over the unit and that as a player you must accept your units actions whether good or bad. They want the player to focus on tactics , not micro managing each unit and getting perfect results.

...

I just want to add that despite my harping on the spotting issues, I am really enjoying the game. I just hope it gets better by (hopefully they can be) these somewhat irrealistic things being fixed/improved.

It's not so much a case of having a problem with lacking god-like control over units - I actually like the fact that when I don't give my infantry specific fire commands, they choose better targets than I would have.

But, as an example, if you're defending a location and the defence hinges on covering say, a road, the problem for the attacker is to avoid the obvious attack route and circumvent the defence, probably finding a weak point, taking it, thereby flanking the unit(s) covering the road and forcing them to pull back, opening the road to exploit the breakthrough etc.

But if all the attacker has to do is send a tank down the road, not get seen and destroy the unit(s) interdicting the road, then applying real life tactics goes out the window, the defender is probably p***ed, the attacker has an easy time of it and the game probably becomes boring.

Granted, the chance of not being seen trundling down a road in full view of the enemy is probably not 100%, but currently it seems like a good bet which for me is

[sburke]

But if all the attacker has to do is send a tank down the road, not get seen and destroy the unit(s) interdicting the road, then applying real life tactics goes out the window, the defender is probably p***ed, the attacker has an easy time of it and the game probably becomes boring.

Granted, the chance of not being seen trundling down a road in full view of the enemy is probably not 100%, but currently it seems like a good bet which for me is

Broadsword and I did not find this to be the normal case. I think Broadsword and I both found that if we pulled into the roadway if there is a vehicle already waiting, they would shoot first.

Here is a whole Bttn vs Bttn AAR and not one incident I recall where the moving vehicle got off first shot unless it moved up behind a hedgerow.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=104104

[slysniper]

Baneman, my last comments were directed to dieseltaylor. But does apply to anyone that get so upset with how the results of combat in the game might affect them now.

I actually agree with sbuke that most of the time in game play, I get the results that seem correct when I guard roads and such. But it also normally depends on multi units watching the road, units with concealed locations and arcs that allow them to not fire before I am ready. So I agree, cannot think of many situatuions where good tactics have not prevailed in game play. But I can think of some. It is always a factor when you are in a match where you have only a few units. Then the situation might be you only have one tank that can cover a road from enemy use. The terrain is not able to give you a hide, which is common since you only have one unit, so you want him located so he can see down the length of the road. Now we are in the perfect situation where it takes only one enemy tank to pull out on that road and it comes down to who spots who first. Needless to say, I have had the moving tank either spot while moving or after stopping and get the first shot off without the defending tank see anything. I know the irritation, I know the non-logic to it. but i still can accept the fact when it happens. I just place a story line in my head, the tank crew was tired, half asleep and not alert. Sad to say, these type of things do affect the crazy stuff that does happen in real life.

So having the game throw me crap does not feel all that un-real. But i would prefer to have my troops not miss seeing 15 ton tanks moving down a road. or do i want to see moving tanks spot while they are bouncing across terrain and see units that should be receiving decent concealment. So room for improvement. but does not stop the fun or the level of competition it presently gives.

[Baneman]

But i would prefer to have my troops not miss seeing 15 ton tanks moving down a road. or do i want to see moving tanks spot while they are bouncing across terrain and see units that should be receiving decent concealment. So room for improvement. but does not stop the fun or the level of competition it presently gives.

And I agree with all your conclusions

[sburke]

Actually there were 2 incidents in our battle where a moving vehicle got the drop on a stationary one despite moving in the relative open. In both situations however the stationary vehicle was buttoned up and facing the wrong way.

[A Canadian Cat]

<snip>

I cannot understand where they can complain with the cost for the software of the game if they are using it. lets see. I have spent approx $100.00 dollors for CMBN and its first mod. I probably spend a minimun of 12 hours a week playing this game, so that would be 60 weeks x 12 = 720 hours of entertainment. So at that price it is costing me 14 cents a hour for that entertainment. <snip>

Would you guys stop doing this kind of arithmetic - Steve reads these posts you know.

[sburke]

Well he didn't include all the incurred costs. Divorce settlements, therapy for CM AA. (Hi my name is sburke and I am a CMaholic). Lost jobs, the electrical costs etc etc...it is actually a really frightfully expensive hobby.

[Redwolf]

But i would prefer to have my troops not miss seeing 15 ton tanks moving down a road. or do i want to see moving tanks spot while they are bouncing across terrain and see units that should be receiving decent concealment. So room for improvement. but does not stop the fun or the level of competition it presently gives.

Right. What we are looking at here is a little more than simply not penalizing moving vehicles as much as they should, doing that for the benefit of the AI is an OK reason.

But it doesn't mix well with other misbehavior of the game, namely infantry not picking up pink elephants right next to them. And while it is one thing to make moving tanks aim better it is a bad thing if it gets combined with unrealistic ability to spot things from inside.

(I think the reason for both might be that height of observer is taken into account in unintuitive ways?)

[Fūrinkazan]

Hi guys,

Quiet agree with you on spotting.

As i said on another thread, i had a Stug unbutonned under trees, on the left on the enemy supposed progression (250/300 m)

A first Sherman comes and is destroyed, so i go .

Then a second one, buttoned, descending a small hill. It spotted first, shot first on the move full speed, and killed my stug with one round, and i go :mad:. More, after battle i checked and the crew was green inexperimented.

I had also issues with tanks hunters that can't spot a tank firing on another squad at less than 10 m.

It does not happen a lot, i think but it's still frustrating. Maybe some improvement on tank spotting on the move (and spotting infantry while buttoned) is needed, it's quiet logical that an immobile tank with open hatch can spot better than one moving fast buttoned. Also maybe for firing on the move.

Now i understand that BFC cannot change everything, it takes lot of time and testing so they must be sure that there is a real problem.

I think that they have the will to improve the game, but the process is long, and certainly too long for us, players. But i think they try to listen our demands the best they can.

For the price of the upgrade, i think it's fair, and i hope they will make an offer for the next CMBN module (if i understood well, it will need version 2.0).

The last patch was huge improvement for me. I'll wait and see what happens with CMFI....

Regards

[Chek]

Well he didn't include all the incurred costs. Divorce settlements, therapy for CM AA. (Hi my name is sburke and I am a CMaholic). Lost jobs, the electrical costs etc etc...it is actually a really frightfully expensive hobby.

Hobby...Hobby!

This isn't a hobby,this is an attitude,a world of dead zones and cover arcs.A place of well timed artillery strikes(well sometimes),beaten zones,area fire and Cooking off brewed up tanks.

A commitment to panic stricken pixel truppen running to and fro that you desperately struggle to bring under control.

This is a lifestyle.

To exist in this world one must make sacrifices,a job here,a relationship there and all this for something much higher than any noble cause,or righting the endless wrongs in a world that sees wrong as normal.

All this is...well for FUN.

[sburke]

Hobby...Hobby!

This isn't a hobby,this is an attitude,a world of dead zones and cover arcs.A place of well timed artillery strikes(well sometimes),beaten zones,area fire and Cooking off brewed up tanks.

A commitment to panic stricken pixel truppen running to and fro that you desperately struggle to bring under control.

This is a lifestyle.

To exist in this world one must make sacrifices,a job here,a relationship there and all this for something much higher than any noble cause,or righting the endless wrongs in a world that sees wrong as normal.

All this is...well for FUN.

I stand corrected.

[JonS]

It does not happen a lot' date=' I think but it's still frustrating.[/quote']

That's the result of a probablisitic, rather than deterministic, model. There are not a few people who see the variability of outcomes as a feature, not a bug.

[Baneman]

That's the result of a probablisitic, rather than deterministic, model. There are not a few people who see the variability of outcomes as a feature, not a bug.

Fair enough, but consider the following :

- Enemy tank rolls into view, I shoot, I miss. He shoots, he kills.

That's the sort of variability that wargamers have lived with since the beginning. You had a chance, but it didn't pan out for you.

But

- Enemy tank rolls into view. I see nothing. He shoots, he kills.

That makes you feel that you lost through blind luck ie. you never had a chance. It leads to frustration with the game and less hardcore players ( lets face it, we on the forum are generally long-term wargamers ) may just give up saying "what's the point ? Nothing I do gives me a chance."

No one quits a wargame because they made a bad diceroll, but when you don't get to roll the dice at all, it's a different feeling.

Anyway, we're only saying we hope it gets looked at/improved.

[eltorrente]

Yeah there is some wacky stuff that doesn't seem to make sense sometimes.

In a current PBEM, I saw a really odd spotting incident happen, just a couple turns ago:

My Stummel and an M10 fired at each other at the same time. Stummel dies, but explodes an HE shell against the M10's turret, causing the crew to duck down of course. Only a couple seconds later, the M10 crew says "enemy vehicle spotted" and starts rotating its turret and aims and fires at my Puma 1200 yards away.

My Puma had been sitting still, pointed directly at the M10 and I was just waiting for him to see him. The Puma didn't see the M10 and Stummel exchange fire, or see the explosion against its turret, but somehow the M10 saw him first. The M10 had it's side to the Puma, and the Puma had a smaller frontal profile.

The fact that it was 1200 yards away made it even more crazy.

The thing is, I don't even get too upset when this stuff happens - though I think it certainly needs looking at. It goes both ways, and it works pretty well most of the time.

They know the limitations of the spotting system better than we do, and I'm sure they'll make tweaks and fixes to it when they can. For the most part, I don't have a problem with it, but damn.. sometimes it can be pretty crazy.

[BigDork]

The thing is, I don't even get too upset when this stuff happens - though I think it certainly needs looking at. It goes both ways, and it works pretty well most of the time.

They know the limitations of the spotting system better than we do, and I'm sure they'll make tweaks and fixes to it when they can. For the most part, I don't have a problem with it, but damn.. sometimes it can be pretty crazy.

Pretty much sums up my view on it.

[slysniper]

Well, actually, these spotting actions that occur in the game happen much more than just with the armor. It happens in the infantry fighting also. Moving infantry able to see and then fire on motionless infantry waiting for them in woods or behind hedges or such. Or infantry that cannot see a tank that is less than 20 meters in front of them with no apparent sight blockage at times. But in general, it is much more accepting because its only infantry, and it might cost a man or two, but when its a AT group, you hear the complaints because they have a chance to bag a tank, but for some reason, they cannot see the thing even though its the size of a elephant right in front of them. But of course, we really notice every action to our precious Armor.

Its of the most value. So we watch every round, every move it makes. So seeing how the spotting works in the game become much more clear.

Again, it is not that I do not like the spotting in the game, I do. It adds alot to the game and does make it seem more realistic. It does add to the fates of war as to who sees and fires first normally wins a conflict. there is plenty a military paper that will back that concept and how important it is to be the side that does it.

So since the game is trying to create that type of concept within its play.

Then it best try to get that number crunching aspects of that as good as it does its armor penetration numbers.

No question, some testing should be done to see what the results show. but it does not take rocket science to understand how movement should affect spotting.

Take it from someone who has had to sit in hot fields with bugs crawling over them, less than 50 yards from 4 or 5 men trying to spot them and could sit there for a hour and not be spotted, but the second we were forced to move would be spotted in a fraction of a second.

The thing is , pretty much we all know that, we all have many life experences that tell us how sighting works. How many times have you passed a dear on the side of the road and you did not see him until the last second, because you are in a moving car, focused on the road. And there he is, big as life, in the open, just yards away and not until you are right on top of him do you see him (that is because you are the one moving and your sighting is processing all that changing terrain data.)

the game does not have this basic spotting concept right. Unless there is something in their programming that reflects moving as to its plus or minus aspects, which I kind of doubt that it does. then we will cotinue to see the same results which are just not natural, that is all.

[akd]

What results? I see only anecdotes.

[sburke]

Yeah there is some wacky stuff that doesn't seem to make sense sometimes.

In a current PBEM, I saw a really odd spotting incident happen, just a couple turns ago:

My Stummel and an M10 fired at each other at the same time. Stummel dies, but explodes an HE shell against the M10's turret, causing the crew to duck down of course. Only a couple seconds later, the M10 crew says "enemy vehicle spotted" and starts rotating its turret and aims and fires at my Puma 1200 yards away.

My Puma had been sitting still, pointed directly at the M10 and I was just waiting for him to see him. The Puma didn't see the M10 and Stummel exchange fire, or see the explosion against its turret, but somehow the M10 saw him first. The M10 had it's side to the Puma, and the Puma had a smaller frontal profile.

The fact that it was 1200 yards away made it even more crazy.

The thing is, I don't even get too upset when this stuff happens - though I think it certainly needs looking at. It goes both ways, and it works pretty well most of the time.

They know the limitations of the spotting system better than we do, and I'm sure they'll make tweaks and fixes to it when they can. For the most part, I don't have a problem with it, but damn.. sometimes it can be pretty crazy.

Without seeing your actual turns it is difficult to comment, but relative spotting and state of units can lead to a whole lotta stuff. In my first PBEM I had a JPzIV crest a hill, get the jump on a Sherman that had already been battered a bit. It then took on another Sherman that was facing a different direction buttoned up. All this while the chaos of battle roared around all.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98975&page=2

[Redwolf]

That's the result of a probablisitic, rather than deterministic, model. There are not a few people who see the variability of outcomes as a feature, not a bug.

No, since CMx1 had the same oddity coded in we have quite a sufficient sample size now.

As I said on the first page here, the plain issue at the core here can be considered a feature. Moving tanks don't get enough of a penalty when shooting at something. This helps the AI which would otherwise be at a large disadvantage. I am not sure I prefer it this way but it is some form of tradeoff.

The problem in CMx2 is that what are clear bugs (see previous page) get mixed in. Infantry can't see elephants in the room, tanks see everything magically. Combining that with too accurate shooting from the move *is* a problem.

[A Canadian Cat]

Well, actually, these spotting actions that occur in the game happen much more than just with the armor. It happens in the infantry fighting also. Moving infantry able to see and then fire on motionless infantry waiting for them in woods or behind hedges or such. <snip>

I have been reading your comments on moving and spotting and they are of course spot on. I am not sure what exactly is going on because I have yet to see moving infantry get the jump on stationary defenders.

In fact I have a friend who is trying CM2 for a second time (he rage quite on me 6 months ago because he was frustrated with spotting - I'm exaggerating but he was frustrated - really frustrated). I got him to try again - and first thing that happens is his two man scout team hunting through the woods gets spotted by my three man scout team behind some bocage, 100 rounds of MP40 amo later his guys are down and no sound contact at all visible by his guys. This is a small 200m 300m map with just a platoon sized force and the rest of his squad is 20m away from his scouts - albeit over the crest of a hill. And none of his guys have any idea where the shots are coming from.

Pretty much the opposite of what is being described here. If his guys died fast and quite I could see not having any sound contacts. But my scout team each emptied a mag, reloaded and started on the next one before the fire fight was over. If I were him I would be a little concerned that I was never going to find the enemy too.

As he said "I don't mind loosing but I would like to have some kind of chance to see where the shots are coming from".

[Rocky Balboa]

Pretty much the opposite of what is being described here. If his guys died fast and quite I could see not having any sound contacts. But my scout team each emptied a mag, reloaded and started on the next one before the fire fight was over. If I were him I would be a little concerned that I was never going to find the enemy too.

As he said "I don't mind loosing but I would like to have some kind of chance to see where the shots are coming from".

This has been one of my frustrations with the game as well and that is that weapons fire doesn't appear to produce at least a sound contact giving a general direction.

I have witnessed this specifically with night battles where I have scouts forward of a patrol with the patrol following maybe 50 to 100 meters behind. The scouts are fired upon and possibly killed or pinned but the follow on squad has no idea where the fire came from because there is no sound contact.