I Hope This Is a Bug and Not a Dumb Design Decision

[Amizaur]

Then the current state of "shooting accuracy while moving or paused movement" has a room for improvement. You think current state is good, I think it's bad, we'll both agree that it can be better.

[Pak40]

This world

Can you pause an admin command ("split squad, but not for another 15 seconds")?

Can you pause a target command ("Shoot at that, but not for another 45 seconds)?

Can you pause a movement command ("move over there, but not for 5 seconds)?

Do you understand the distinction between the past and the future?

I couldn't. But now that you've told me ... doesn't that completely undo the thrust of your argument? You want the game to model stress and confusion, but without applying any penalties ... huh? :confused:

... and that completely undoes the point of your example. If there is no penalty to modify, what is the point in having a distinction between conscript and crack.

But it's about pauses in the middle of a move, as well. In case you hadn't noticed, a pause in the middle of a movement string occurs before subsequent move orders. Just to, you know, set you straight

OK, Jon. Let's cut all the BS that you and I are going through and get straight to the point of the thread: Do you believe, that there is currently a bug in CMBN that seriously lowers the accuracy of an armored vehicle when a pause order is issued to it? A simple yes or no will do.

[Steiner14]

Don't feed the trolls!

[Sgt Joch]

OK, Jon. Let's cut all the BS that you and I are going through and get straight to the point of the thread: Do you believe, that there is currently a bug in CMBN that seriously lowers the accuracy of an armored vehicle when a pause order is issued to it? A simple yes or no will do.

stop playing forum games, the issue is more complex than that.

I agree 100% with JonS on this, if the only choice is between the current buggy implementation or NO PENALTY WHATSOEVER, than I vote for the current system.

However, you guys are getting worked up for nothing, Charles is on the case and will no doubt come up with something none of us have thought of.

[Doug Williams]

This thread has gone off the deep end.

OP pointed out a flaw in the way the game works. A BFC employee saw and acknowledged it.

Most of the rest is just mildly entertaining forum pecking order jockeying.

[Offshoot]

Given that the test involved the 'Move' order specifically and not a generalised state of moving, has this been tested with other orders such as Hunt, Reverse, and Fast? Any debate about appropriate penalties aside, this would be useful to know for when playing.

[Vanir Ausf B]

My bold, a lot of other verbiage redacted.

Are you sure that paused accuracy is EQUAL to moving accuracy?

No, it's an assumption, albeit a reasonable one IMO. Testing accuracy when actually moving would be far more time intensive than the tests I did (which took a couple of hours).

[Vanir Ausf B]

Given that the test involved the 'Move' order specifically and not a generalised state of moving, has this been tested with other orders such as Hunt, Reverse, and Fast? Any debate about appropriate penalties aside, this would be useful to know for when playing.

I may do that this weekend. If anyone wants to do their own, the save game and scenario files are in the Dropbox in the original post.

[Sgt Joch]

I may do that this weekend. If anyone wants to do their own, the save game and scenario files are in the Dropbox in the original post.

I am sure whatever tests you run will be most entertaining to read.

[Vinnart]

As far as testing on this goes so far we know the inaccuracy penalty applies to a tank when it has been given an indefinite pause with a move order when it has not moved at all. Which we seem to agree doesn’t seem right since it is no different than a tank that also has been stationary. This leads to the follow up questions where no testing has been done as far as I know.

Does this apply to incremental pauses as well? My guess is probably yes in that the coding is treating all pauses the same, and might be rather involved in differentiating different times with different accuracy penalties.

How long does a tank need to be stationary to be at max accuracy? Any answer here would be speculation as I doubt anyone here has experienced being a WW2 tank gunner. Is it 5 sec for crack? 20 sec? 1 min? 5 min for green?

Is the indefinite, and timed pause penalty applying to infantry as well in the same manner?

With the assumption that the penalty applies to all pauses regardless of indefinite, or incremental this could change how one uses units quite a bit. Should one no long split teams with quick hops with timed pauses like Lt. Col. Paulson uses in his Armchair general vids when advancing, or do I get better accuracy if I use assault as there is no pause command involved?

Vanir’s test raises more questions than it answers in regard to how players will use pauses in the future.

The indefinite pause followed by move orders is a valuable tool for those who RT. One uses it so they can think about, and plot the moves before the unit actually moves. It is also used for coordinated attacks.

In WEGO I would say I use the indefinite pause most to have a unit hold up if I have plotted a bunch of orders instead of canceling and having to issue move orders again.

As far as the timed pause the uses are many.

Poor Steve and team, It’s “the attack of the Pause grogs”. Hopfully, they can get it sorted without having to have too many stiff drinks.

[c3k]

No, it's an assumption, albeit a reasonable one IMO. Testing accuracy when actually moving would be far more time intensive than the tests I did (which took a couple of hours).

I disagree. It is not reasonable to assume that the accuracy you documented with pauses is equal to the accuracy of moving vehicles. IMO.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I disagree. It is not reasonable to assume that the accuracy you documented with pauses is equal to the accuracy of moving vehicles. IMO.

*shrug* Doesn't matter. I presume Charles knows.

What we do know is that A) The accuracy penalty is massive, and It is caused by the movement order since a pause command alone has no effect on accuracy.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Good points and valid concerns.

As far as testing on this goes so far we know the inaccuracy penalty applies to a tank when it has been given an indefinite pause with a move order when it has not moved at all. Which we seem to agree doesn’t seem right since it is no different than a tank that also has been stationary. This leads to the follow up questions where no testing has been done as far as I know.

Does this apply to incremental pauses as well? My guess is probably yes in that the coding is treating all pauses the same, and might be rather involved in differentiating different times with different accuracy penalties.

How long does a tank need to be stationary to be at max accuracy? Any answer here would be speculation as I doubt anyone here has experienced being a WW2 tank gunner. Is it 5 sec for crack? 20 sec? 1 min? 5 min for green?

Is the indefinite, and timed pause penalty applying to infantry as well in the same manner?

With the assumption that the penalty applies to all pauses regardless of indefinite, or incremental this could change how one uses units quite a bit. Should one no long split teams with quick hops with timed pauses like Lt. Col. Paulson uses in his Armchair general vids when advancing, or do I get better accuracy if I use assault as there is no pause command involved?

Vanir’s test raises more questions than it answers in regard to how players will use pauses in the future.

The indefinite pause followed by move orders is a valuable tool for those who RT. One uses it so they can think about, and plot the moves before the unit actually moves. It is also used for coordinated attacks.

In WEGO I would say I use the indefinite pause most to have a unit hold up if I have plotted a bunch of orders instead of canceling and having to issue move orders again.

As far as the timed pause the uses are many.

Poor Steve and team, It’s “the attack of the Pause grogs”. Hopfully, they can get it sorted without having to have too many stiff drinks.

[Pak40]

stop playing forum games, the issue is more complex than that.

I agree 100% with JonS on this, if the only choice is between the current buggy implementation or NO PENALTY WHATSOEVER, than I vote for the current system.

Who on earth said there are only two choices?

I'm not playing forum games. I'm trying to make a serious point. Why on earth do you and Jon both think there's only two choices here? Even Phil thinks it's a bug that needs looking at. I've never suggested to get rid of the accuracy penalty for moving vehicles. It's absurd that you or anyone else for that matter, would think that's the only other option.

[Guest]

Even Phil thinks it's a bug that needs looking at.

Yeah, it seems unintentional. Whether that's true or not is known only to the intender, so to speak - Charles. So he'll make a call about it. I think it's pretty safe to say that's the final word for the moment.

On a related note, I don't think more testing is necessary in this case. You guys are welcome to try whatever you might want to, of course, but I think we've got all the info we need for this particular issue. Thanks for all the input, and I'll let you know what happens.

[Michael Emrys]

How long does a tank need to be stationary to be at max accuracy?

There is one more complicating issue that has to be considered at this point. Tanks with medium velocity guns—i.e. the majority that we are apt to encounter in these games—if firing at a new target at a range that is only the gunner's best guess, are not unlikely to miss the first shot whether the tank has just finished moving or not. If the TC can observe the fall of shot and call in corrections, the second or third was far more likely to score a hit. Higher velocity guns, say L60 or better, were less troubled by this, as has already been alluded to in this thread.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

I re-ran the test with Fast orders. I ran the test twice to double the sample size, and did a second run of the first test with Move orders to get an equal sample size there. The totals are:

Move

Hits: 66 (33%)

Misses: 134

Fast

Hits:72 (36%)

Misses: 128

Only 3 percentage points difference, and I suspect that with a larger sample size that would near zero.

This suggests two conclusions. One is that the accuracy of a unit with pause + movement commands is not the same as a unit that is actually moving. The other is that for accuracy purposes the game considers movement to be a binary state; a unit either is moving or it is not and speed is not factored in. If I had to guess I'd say the latter conclusion is the more likely one.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I tested the Cromwell Mk VII with a Move + pause. It's 75mm cannon should have virtually the same ballistic performance as the Sherman's, but it doesn't have a gyro stabilizer. I did 3 tests then went back to do 1 more test on the Sherman to get 300 hits each.

(And BTW, I noticed that I had incorrectly listed the range these tests are done at as being 300 meters. They are at 500 meters.)

Sherman

Hits: 95 (31.7%)

Misses: 205

Cromwell

Hits: 90 (30%)

Misses: 210

Nearly the same. It looks like we'll just have to wait for an explanation from Charles.

[Sgt Joch]

Vanir, I am not sure if I understand your posts. Are you saying the accurcay penalty for move+pause is less than for just move?

[Vanir Ausf B]

No. That would be impossible to say since "just move" has not been tested. All of these tests have been done while Paused indefinitely, although I may not have been consistent in labeling them as such.

[Vanir Ausf B]

There is one more complicating issue that has to be considered at this point. Tanks with medium velocity guns—i.e. the majority that we are apt to encounter in these games—if firing at a new target at a range that is only the gunner's best guess, are not unlikely to miss the first shot whether the tank has just finished moving or not. If the TC can observe the fall of shot and call in corrections, the second or third was far more likely to score a hit. Higher velocity guns, say L60 or better, were less troubled by this, as has already been alluded to in this thread.

I just realized something that I'm kicking myself for not understanding before. AKD (I think it was him) was exactly correct that the proper way to model a tank that has been in one spot long enough to quickly and accurately judge the range to a target is to give it an accuracy bonus if it doesn't move from setup (and use of TRP bonuses as well).

When a tank fires at a target in CM the first 2-3 shots are much less accurate than subsequent shots. When I tested the control group Shermans -- with no movement order -- all 6 of their misses were in the first 15 shots. The last 85+ shots fired were all hits. The early shot inaccuracy is range estimation error. So people worried that removing the Paused+movement order penalty would mean the removal of the "we just got here" accuracy penalty have nothing to worry about. That penalty is already factored in separately and would be unaffected.

We know that the Pause+movement penalty cannot be intended as a range estimation penalty because it persists after the target is hit, at which point the range is known. In fact, it never goes away no matter how many shots are fired and how many hits scored!

I'm a complete dunce for not realizing this sooner.

[akd]

It is almost certainly a movement penalty. However, accuracy may be even worse when actually moving due to physical motion of the vehicle in the 3D world.

[Amizaur]

I'm also not sure if I understand correctly the test results, Vanir

post #142 - were the tanks actually moving ? What was the range ? Was it the same like in first test, so 300m ? The conclusion is that Move order and Fast order have both the same penalty ?

post #143 - the Cromwell and Sherman were actually not moving, with move & pause order. The conclusion is that test shows no sign of any gyrostabiliser effect for Sherman, right ?

[altipueri]

If you look at page 28 of Osprey's Panther vs Sherman : Battle of the Bulge which you may get if you Google "was Sherman gyro stabiliser used"

You find some interesting stuff:

Gyro was single axis only.

Was useful for quicker laying of the gun - once the tank stopped.

Due to crew attrition wasn't much used by late 1944 in some units.

But more interesting still I think is a bit about the Sherman gunner having an additional periscope for general vision whereas the Panther gunner only had a narrow view telescopic gun sight.

As a result, it took the Panther gunner about 20 to 30 seconds to engage after instructed by the commander, whereas the Sherman engagement cycle was considerably quicker.

20 to 30 seconds - that's almost half a turn - would seem like an age if you were watching thinking - why doesn't he shoot?

Doesn't apply to ambush obviously.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm also not sure if I understand correctly the test results, Vanir

post #142 - were the tanks actually moving ? What was the range ? Was it the same like in first test, so 300m ? The conclusion is that Move order and Fast order have both the same penalty ?

post #143 - the Cromwell and Sherman were actually not moving, with move & pause order. The conclusion is that test shows no sign of any gyrostabiliser effect for Sherman, right ?

Sorry about the imprecise labeling. The tanks were not actually moving. The tests were identical to the first test except for changes to the type of movement order given in 142 (Fast+indefinite pause instead of Move+indefinite pause) and switching the Shermans for Cromwells in 143. As I mentioned earlier, I originally wrote down the incorrect range at which these tests are done. The range is 500 meters, not 300.

And yes, the results do suggest that speed of movement has no effect on accuracy, and that the gyro does nothing while in motion. But without testing the tanks when actually moving we can't say that for sure.