Do attackers have an advantage

[A Canadian Cat]

Yeah, it was in the thread where we investigated the bug where indirect firing guns will just fire into terrain obstacles in their path, and continue to do so forever. Which is still happening.

Again, I don't think so. I was just watching a Sherman that I gave an area fire order at a trench work. Its first round hit a tree between it and the trench. The second round went long. Third round was short but hit part of the trench closer to the tank and the last round of the turn was pretty much where I asked. This tank is on the edge of a wood firing over a lower area into a heavily treed hill with the trench works on it.

I was watching impressed that the AI did such a good job figuring out the shot.

[Blackcat]

Again, I don't think so. I was just watching a Sherman that I gave an area fire order at a trench work. Its first round hit a tree between it and the trench. The second round went long. Third round was short but hit part of the trench closer to the tank and the last round of the turn was pretty much where I asked. This tank is on the edge of a wood firing over a lower area into a heavily treed hill with the trench works on it.

I was watching impressed that the AI did such a good job figuring out the shot.

Fine. The problem is that the gunners in most tanks are idiots with the memory of goldfish. So having found the range you would expect the gunner to put next set of rounds on target. You are likely to be disappointed, chances are he will again fire into a tree, go long, go short and so on and so forth. This in my experience has been a problem with CM since day 1. So many times I have seen one of my tanks fire over then under (fine so far) then even more under (wtf!) and then a hit followed by another under or over. There is nothing that can be done about this, it is built into the game that all tank gunners are morons who never watch where the last round went and treat each new shot as an adventure.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Units given area fire orders target the action spots surrounding the target spot as well. This is by design and I'm sure BFC could change it if there was a public outcry for it.

[Redwolf]

Again, I don't think so. I was just watching a Sherman that I gave an area fire order at a trench work. Its first round hit a tree between it and the trench. The second round went long. Third round was short but hit part of the trench closer to the tank and the last round of the turn was pretty much where I asked. This tank is on the edge of a wood firing over a lower area into a heavily treed hill with the trench works on it.

I was watching impressed that the AI did such a good job figuring out the shot.

The problem specifically applies to fire from indirect spotting only.

[A Canadian Cat]

The problem specifically applies to fire from indirect spotting only.

Ooops I missed that "indirect". Sorry about that.

[womble]

Fine. The problem is that the gunners in most tanks are idiots with the memory of goldfish. So having found the range you would expect the gunner to put next set of rounds on target. You are likely to be disappointed, chances are he will again fire into a tree, go long, go short and so on and so forth.

That doesn't match what I see. Once they've got it dialled in, my tankers shooting from the halt seem to hit stationary targets far more often than they hit with first shots.

One thing that might skew perceptions is the historical bug that means that Paused vehicles shoot with all the penalties of moving vehicles. I'd expect that to include the "lack of memory", since the engine would assume the moving platform would make remembering the previous shot's characteristics irrelevant. I think they've fixed it for GL.

[Blackcat]

Dang, Mr. Womble! From what you say I seem to have a different version of the code and have always had going back to CMBO. I cannot relate how many times my tank gunners have missed, firing short or long and them adjusted their aim to fire even longer or shorter, even when they do manage to hit the next round seems as likely to miss as the first.

I wonder how BF do it. Distribute the GBG (Goldfish-Brained Gunner) version of their software, that is. Is it done at random? Perhaps every nth customer gets it and I have just been unlucky in collecting the GBG edition in CMBO, CMBB, CMAK and so on. Perhaps they pick on a customer and sit cackling evilly as they dispatch his frustration-loaded purchase - its the sort of thing I could imagine Madmatt doing if he were still around. I suppose I could just be an unlucky, and bad, player who disproportionately notices things when they go wrong, but that seems unlikely.

[A Canadian Cat]

I wonder how BF do it. Distribute the GBG (Goldfish-Brained Gunner) version of their software, that is. Is it done at random?

<snip>

I suppose I could just be an unlucky, and bad, player who disproportionately notices things when they go wrong, but that seems unlikely.

LOL good theory I like it

It is probably just observation bias - it sucks when it happens so you remember it more. People do not remember the other multiple times their gunner did a good job.

For example I just had two Sherman tanks go head to head against a German 75mm HT. Seriously two Shermans facing a 75mm HT facing them (not sure on the range but way under 1000m). I don't know about you but I was expecting a burning HT and two totally happy Shermans at the end of the minute. After the first minute that is *not* what happened. Both Sherman gunners missed multiple times and the HT scored two direct hits on one of the Sherman tanks. I was pulling my hair out. Those gunners could not hit the broad side of a barn. Thankfully the tank was not seriously damaged.

I moved both tanks forward through the smoke to try again - I just could not accept that HT driving off. The second minute my gunners did not disappoint. They did not miss a single round and hit that HT five times before they stopped firing. Yeah it is destroyed. Probably a goner after the first hit but I think my gunners were embarrassed and needed to prove themselves.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I cannot relate how many times my tank gunners have missed, firing short or long and them adjusted their aim to fire even longer or shorter, even when they do manage to hit the next round seems as likely to miss as the first.

I originally thought you were referring to area fire, but if you are saying this is typically what happens when directly targeting enemy units then I'm afraid the ghost of Madmatt is indeed haunting your computer. Accuracy after first hit is easily testable and has been tested many times. One example shows Sherman 75s scoring 27 consecutive hits on Panthers at 500 meters. Misses after the first hit are rare. If you are firing through trees then yes, sometimes following rounds will hit them. And there is the paused-with-move-order bug Womble mentioned which will presumably be fixed.

[womble]

Dang, Mr. Womble! From what you say I seem to have a different version of the code and have always had going back to CMBO. I cannot relate how many times my tank gunners have missed, firing short or long and them adjusted their aim to fire even longer or shorter, even when they do manage to hit the next round seems as likely to miss as the first.

...I suppose I could just be an unlucky, and bad, player who disproportionately notices things when they go wrong, but that seems unlikely.

No need for the first of those two, which I'm sure you're not, for the third to be the natural state of affairs. Everyone suffers from observer bias. Oh, and I'm saying nothing whatsoever about anything prior to CMBN 1.11, so any memories of previous versions will be swinging your personal "bias-o-meter" towards thinking subsequent shots don't improve accuracy, if, indeed that was the case with those older versions.

As I suggested in my earlier post, there might also be potential reasons for shots to actually be evenly variable in accuracy when they will, in other circumstances, trend towards every-time hits: shooting while paused is one; picking edge limit shots through foliage (which players will seek) might be another (shots hitting trees one time and not another might well be adding you your personal "short shot counter").

Until such time as there are tabulated results, your and my anecdotes are just that. Replication of results is the heart of the empirical method of advancement of knowledge.

[simmox]

in general i reckon its pretty even steven.

the players have more input into the result imo,some maps can nullify the defense somewhat and vice verse.

i generally have preview enabled,so its a mind game really,which is what i love most about the QB.

i think fortifications need some more consideration on their values,bit too dear imo.

trenches and sandbags are mainly decoys for my mind,but,on the right map they can be of use,but id rather mines or just extra troops instead.

i can live(just) with the fortifications as they are.

however,my biggest whinge is AT guns,everyone knows the complaints about these,so i wont bother rehashing.but,it would be a game changer if they were more dangerous.

im getting close to 300 games played so far,and my interest isnt waining yet.

alot of these battles are attack/defend,and i can handle myself from both sides generally speaking.

i havent tried a probe from memory,which i shall do shortly,for me the standard *attack* seems fairly conclusive for a good fight.

regardless,a good opponent on a good map,is gonna be a good game,who ever wins.

[womble]

in general i reckon its pretty even steven.

the players have more input into the result imo,some maps can nullify the defense somewhat and vice verse.

i generally have preview enabled,so its a mind game really,which is what i love most about the QB.

i think fortifications need some more consideration on their values,bit too dear imo.

trenches and sandbags are mainly decoys for my mind,but,on the right map they can be of use,but id rather mines or just extra troops instead.

i can live(just) with the fortifications as they are.

however,my biggest whinge is AT guns,everyone knows the complaints about these,so i wont bother rehashing.but,it would be a game changer if they were more dangerous.

im getting close to 300 games played so far,and my interest isnt waining yet.

alot of these battles are attack/defend,and i can handle myself from both sides generally speaking.

i havent tried a probe from memory,which i shall do shortly,for me the standard *attack* seems fairly conclusive for a good fight.

regardless,a good opponent on a good map,is gonna be a good game,who ever wins.

Ar, here's another consideration: the attacker in realtime games is going to need a larger force advantage than the attacker in a WeGo game. I could be wrong, but it was the "300 games played" that made me think of the RTers.

[cool breeze]

My opponent and I play RT attacks and meeting engagements, and I agree that real time makes it harder for the attacker. We always give our attacker plus 10 percent points and even so I don't think either of us feels the attacker has the easier job. If I'm a little tired I don't wanna even think about trying to organize an assault but reacting as the defender doesn't seem to hard. Even so I think its a rare attack we play where the attack actually caps all the objectives completely. However if it was turn based it would be a much different story. I use tons of target briefly orders when I attack turn based and those make the number advantage (especially at point of contact) really tell.

Another thought, its weird how real time and turn based are each more realistic in there own way. On the one hand my guys move around with each other and stay in command better/ more realistically when I play turn based because I take the time to keep them together in their platoons, move around more coordinated, area fire, and such, basically give all the impute that the different lvls in the chain of command are going to add. But on the other hand the over all effect of playing it turn based and trying to use all your guys in more careful realistic way, its an overall too effective force and the high lvl of efficiency can make it less realistic. Like its realistic to have to platoons have the higher lvl of coordination from wego, but the way that gives the whole force that high lvl of coordination isn't as realistic. But when you play real time you might not move your guys around as realistically, youll have more out of command squads randomly running to the right place at the right time, and generally forget your leaders out of the action and mix your squads up and spread them out too much, but the over all effect of this uncoordinated makeshift scrabble scramble attack has its own realistic flavor that Wego cant get.

[Blackcat]

"...the attacker in realtime games is going to need a larger force advantage than the attacker in a WeGo game."

Back in the days when CMSF was the game de jure, I remember posting that games played in real time played differently than games played in WEGO mode and scenarios should be labelled as to which style they were designed for. I was beaten-up in no small measure by posters on these boards for spouting such heresy. I was also soundly thrashed on here (CMBN forum) for suggesting that MG behaviour and effect were still way out of kilter. Since then MGs in the game have been seriously tweaked and the WEGO/Realtime difference in play is becoming mainstream view.

I acknowledge that I am a bad player (seriously, Mr. Womble, I am, take me on in a PBEM if you don't believe me), but I take comfort from the fact that eventually on the big issues I get proved correct (maybe, in a few years, my Goldfish-Brained Gunners will have become a distant memory).

[Michael Emrys]

...I take comfort from the fact that eventually on the big issues I get proved correct...

If I may inject a personal note, that is a feeling I am well familiar with. The problem throughout my life has been that by the time other people begin noticing the thing I tried to get them to see years earlier, they had long forgotten that I was the pest that tried so hard to get them to see it. Hence my (controversial) sig. It no doubt annoyed a slew of people, but it also got them to notice that I was right far more often than not (since they were examining me in hopes of finding instances where I wasn't right, which of course they would announce with great glee and a maximum amount of drum beating and fanfare).

Michael

[Blackcat]

Mr. Emrys, once again you are correct, and, as I said at the time, I deplore your decision to remove your old signature line. You should restore it so that it can act as a beacon of hope for those who, for sensible reasons, dare to think of crossing the orthodoxy of the CM forums.