Jump to content

Small arms casualties - tank crews


Recommended Posts

Those with concerns over this TC issue seem to be arguing this (paraphrasing): 

"In the game, infantry accuracy vs. TC's is much higher than infantry accuracy vs. soft targets at a similar distance."

 

While those responding to this complaint -- a complaint they apparently view as baseless -- are defending the in-game results with this: 

"The TC rate of loss in-game seems to be historically accurate."

 

It's possible that both positions are correct.* This may be why we have a bunch of people talking past one another. Until everyone is at least addressing the same issue, one side or the other is probably going to be unhappy with any resolution BFC comes up with.

 

*  meaning that this one 'big' issue is really just two smaller issues -- infantry being a little too inaccurate vs. soft targets, but a little too accurate vs. vehicle crew --  and each issue may very well be unavoidable due to map size limitations, gameplay balance, etc.

Edited by sttp
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I wonder if the problem (if there is one) is that when a TC unbuttons this is noticed by the AI immediately from 500 meters away. All the fire is then drawn to the TC.

Seems more realistic that an exposed TC should have to be "spotted" separately from the tank itself. I imagine the TC would just peek out trying to stay hidden as much as possible.

 

IRL you can see a tank easy enough from 200 meters away but would you be able to immediately tell if a TC was peaking out? Now put yourself in combat under fire etc. with 15 other things demanding your attention.

Would love it if we could make spotting the TC seperate from spotting the tank itself.

 

 

Edited by Lanzfeld
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lanzfeld said:

I wonder if the problem (if there is one) is that when a TC unbuttons this is noticed by the AI immediately from 500 meters away. All the fire is then drawn to the TC.

Seems more realistic that an exposed TC should have to be "spotted" separately from the tank itself. I imagine the TC would just peek out trying to stay hidden as much as possible.

 

IRL you can see a tank easy enough from 200 meters away but would you be able to immediately tell if a TC was peaking out? Now put yourself in combat under fire etc. with 15 other things demanding your attention.

Would love it if we could make spotting the TC seperate from spotting the tank itself.

 

 

Good observation. You may have something...

Link to post
Share on other sites

My gripe is the unflinching nerve of TC and half track gunners when under fire. Unbutton should mean keep spotting and firing the MG if possible, but, same as with the infantry, if there is a hail of bullet flying your way take cover in the cupola. Suppressed is better than dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just so it doesn't get lost (I did a quick scan and did not see a reference to it in page 4 and 5) - the original post is about Stug crews getting picked off when the player set the Stug to Buttoned up and the crew STILL sticks their heads out to fire the MG.  After the first guy gets picked off then another one sticks his head out too.

Getting bumped off when opened up may be a problem as well but that is not the original problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Bud Backer said:

^^This.

I also used to lose tank commanders often. Because I had my tank commanders do things I personally would never do which is stick my head out of something that puts me ten feet above the ground in plain sight of riflemen within 200 or 300m. It seem suicide to me. 

Yes.  Very often we find "feeling" is tied to a difference between wartime reality and actual game tactics.  If you do something in CM that is different from the real battlefield, then it becomes an apples to oranges comparison.  We've spent a lot of time here over the years discovering that, in the end, sometimes it is akin to the old joke:

Patient "Doctor, it hurts when I do this"

Doctor "Then don't do it"

:)

This advice is good when the player is doing something that the real world counterpart would not do, it is not good advice if the player is conforming to historical behavior and getting a result that is not consistent with history.  Which is why it is important that we sift through these discussions to find out which it is.

7 hours ago, AlexUK said:

For me a problem is the position of the commander in the turret. I would prefer to see a lower posture. I remember watching Fury - first battle with AT guns for example - that seemed more realistic to me, and would presumably reduce casualties, while sacrificing some spotting ability.

We've had detailed discussions about this in the past and we basically agree.  However, it's impractical to have three states; full unbuttoned, low profile unbuttoned, buttoned.  Since spotting is overly generous as it is (thanks in part to the Player As God problem), we feel the buttoned position is at times equal to the low profile position in terms of information gathering.  Full unbuttoned position, on the other hand, is really needed for increased situational awareness.

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

So tank commanders get shot when they are being attacked at hand grenade range? Big surprise.. But it's not the kind of situation people are talking about.

I figured this would get pointed out :)  However, my point stands.  Standard IDF tank crew training had the commanders staying exposed until being fired upon.  In the situation I quoted from, the tanks should have been buttoned and they should not have gone in without adequate infantry protection.  Therefore, the tank commanders did TWO things wrong that got themselves killed.

 

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

You present the players' argument as being ridiculous and baseless when you say "tanks shouldn't race down the street unbuttoned and without infantry support". Of course they shouldn't. Of course tank commanders are at risk, just like soldiers outside the tank are at risk. It's war, it's dangerous. Nobody says their tank commanders should be invulnerable.

Of course nobody has said that directly because that would be obviously foolish.  However, when a player loses a tank commander for realistic reasons, then asks us to prevent that casualty from happening, they are effectively arguing that we should make the tank commanders unrealistically bulletproof under at least some circumstances.  At least that is as far as the "feeling" argument in the face of logical counter arguments (which I have made many times already) can go without VETTED statistical analysis.  Or if you rather think of it this way... without the data it is "my opinion vs your opinion" situation.  That's not enough to warrant making changes to the game system.  CM is a simulation, not a collection of "feelings".

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

 But they are arguing that tank commanders are too vulnerable even at longer ranges in this game as it stands.

And yet nobody has shown any evidence to support this claim. 

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

You say there is no modifier to tweak to make vehicle crew less vulnerable. Well, there is. Just seat them lower, so they are less exposed. Gunners are currently firing their 50 cals with the iron sight at chest level. Halftrack passengers are even levitating in their seats. It's been noticed and shown on the forum over and over again, with screenshots. Yet we get a link to wikipedia saying some Shermans fell into a handgrenade ambush in Israel and for that reason everything is fine? I must say I'm puzzled.

You must be puzzled because you have either not read the last dozen posts I wrote or you did not understand them.  If you didn't read them, start with that.  If you did read them and didn't understand them, re-read them again because my points are pretty clearly laid out.

2 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Seriously gutted me :D

Long ago people complained that I used too may car analogies.  I try to make them sorry they ever mentioned it :D

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sttp said:

Those with concerns over this TC issue seem to be arguing this (paraphrasing): 

"In the game, infantry accuracy vs. TC's is much higher than infantry accuracy vs. soft targets at a similar distance."

While those responding to this complaint -- a complaint they apparently view as baseless -- are defending the in-game results with this: 

"The TC rate of loss in-game seems to be historically accurate."

Not quite correct.  It is more like:

"I have a feeling the casualty rates are too high because I don't like the results.  BFC fix or do somefink!"

and

"For all we know they might be too high, but nobody has shown us data from in the game to establish this is the case. Do that and then we can talk about if there's a problem to fix and, if so, what sort of fix is needed".

That's where this is winding up.  We CAN NOT take action based on "feeling" because we don't know if that "feeling" is correct, and if it is correct under what circumstances it is correct.  Until the "feeling" is proven and the conditions surrounding it can be isolated, there is nothing to fix.

2 hours ago, sttp said:

*  meaning that this one 'big' issue is really just two smaller issues -- infantry being a little too inaccurate vs. soft targets, but a little too accurate vs. vehicle crew --  and each issue may very well be unavoidable due to map size limitations, gameplay balance, etc.

Which underscores the need for quantitative data.  Not only does it establish a problem (if it exists) but it also allows us to figure out WHY the problem is happening.

A classic example of this is from the early days of CMBN when Tigers were coming up short in some duel situations with Shermans.  People complained that the Tiger's gun was borked, the vehicle's spotting capabilities were borked, Allied tanks were magical, etc.  Turns out that there WAS a problem, but guess what it was?  The Tiger's Tank Commander was seated backwards when buttoned, which basically blinded the Tank Commander and put all the responsibility for spotting on the Gunner and his soda straw situational awareness.

Now, what would have happened if we started randomly tweaking stuff without this test?  We would no doubt have made the problem WORSE, not better.  So tests are critical in both determining if there is/isn't a problem and what that problem (if it exists) might be.  Then we can figure out what sort of fix is needed (if it is) and then test the solution to see if it fixes the problem without causing side effects.

2 hours ago, Lanzfeld said:

I wonder if the problem (if there is one) is that when a TC unbuttons this is noticed by the AI immediately from 500 meters away. All the fire is then drawn to the TC.

Seems more realistic that an exposed TC should have to be "spotted" separately from the tank itself. I imagine the TC would just peek out trying to stay hidden as much as possible.

No, that's inaccurate.  As I said in my previous post the TC can not have three different positions and therefore we have the two extremes instead of "maximum situational awareness" and "maximum protection".  As I also said before, units inherently spot easier than their real life counterparts so it can be said that TCs are already getting the sort of information a real life commander would get for only poking out the top 2/3rds of his head.

2 hours ago, Lanzfeld said:

Would love it if we could make spotting the TC seperate from spotting the tank itself.

I believe that already happens in a sense.  But I will check.

 

1 hour ago, kulik said:

My gripe is the unflinching nerve of TC and half track gunners when under fire. Unbutton should mean keep spotting and firing the MG if possible, but, same as with the infantry, if there is a hail of bullet flying your way take cover in the cupola. Suppressed is better than dead.

Yes, and this is definitely something that is difficult to get right for all situations all the time.

47 minutes ago, Dynaman216 said:

Just so it doesn't get lost (I did a quick scan and did not see a reference to it in page 4 and 5) - the original post is about Stug crews getting picked off when the player set the Stug to Buttoned up and the crew STILL sticks their heads out to fire the MG.  After the first guy gets picked off then another one sticks his head out too.

Getting bumped off when opened up may be a problem as well but that is not the original problem.

Not to worry, I've not forgotten about this :)  I've already forwarded suggestions internally to address this specific issue.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Battlefront.com said:

Not quite correct.  It is more like:

"I have a feeling the casualty rates are too high because I don't like the results.  BFC fix or do somefink!"

and

"For all we know they might be too high, but nobody has shown us data from in the game to establish this is the case. Do that and then we can talk about if there's a problem to fix and, if so, what sort of fix is needed".

That's where this is winding up.  We CAN NOT take action based on "feeling" because we don't know if that "feeling" is correct, and if it is correct under what circumstances it is correct.  Until the "feeling" is proven and the conditions surrounding it can be isolated, there is nothing to fix.

Yep, I agree completely. Feelings and anecdotes are unreliable, so quantitative data is needed -- hard numbers on how often and how quickly TC's die in-game But there's still this problem: what is the baseline we're measuring that data against?

Players are wanting to know if  "infantry accuracy vs. TC's in-game" is really as 'off' as they sense it to be. To measure how far our newly-obtained data deviates from the norm, we need to first define what "the norm" actually is. We need some "expected rate of TC casualties" to compare our data to. And I'm just wondering what it is that people think defines that "normal" rate?

Seems simple, but really... in your opinion, do we compare our new data against "infantry accuracy vs. TC's in real life"? Or is the norm we compare our data to, instead, actually "infantry accuracy vs. other targets in-game"?

I'd imagine that both things play a role in setting player expectations. But... we can really only test the latter. The former is more subjective and anecdotal.

I really do think that the frustration of losing TCs so easily in-game is generated by how instantly hyper-accurate enemy infantry seem to become vs. newly-exposed TC's, compared to how relatively inaccurate those same infantrymen are vs. other targets. When a person loses a TC nearly instantly from a pistol at 80 meters, I can see how it might feel just very... I don't know... 'discontinuous' or incongruous or something.

BTW, as I've said, I for one am actually fine with things staying the way they are. I can see why they kinda need to be that way. But I also get where the frustration comes from, and why it is that "it happens this often in real life" doesn't truly address the psychology of this gaming issue.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quick note... Chris just ran a couple of small tests, 30 iterations each.  Conclusions?  "Feelings" are not a good tool to use for making game design decisions :)

He ran 30 tests at 200m and 300m with a single US Rifle Squad (1x SMG, 11x Garand) up against a single Panther with exposed TC under perfect/ideal conditions for the US.  Here's the basics:

300m Test = 2x WIA, 28x Buttoned.  About 50% of the US Rifle Squads did not engage at all, despite spotting the tank facing it.

200m Test = 1x WIA, 18x KIA, 11x Buttoned.  All US Rifle Squads opened fire.

Overall I don't see anything wrong with these results.  200m should be a slaughter fest under these ideal TC plinking circumstances.  If someone is taking massive TC casualties the first thing I'd do is see what the range is and if it's 200m or so then you should adjust your tactics to something that more closely resembles real life (i.e. buttoned!).  If you're over 300m and seeing your TCs dropping like flies, then set up a test scenario to replicate the conditions (as best you can) and run the test a whole bunch of times (30 minimum) to see if there's any trend.

To sum this up, here's what we're examining:

1.  Reduce the threat level before a TC will button

2.  Reduce the chances a TC will unbutton if the player has explicitly instructed it to be buttoned

3.  If the crew is under strength it will by default revert to buttoned status

We are not examining anything other than this unless someone puts forward a test, or tests, which indicate there is a problem which needs addressing.

Steve

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Quick note... Chris just ran a couple of small tests, 30 iterations each.  Conclusions?  "Feelings" are not a good tool to use for making game design decisions :)

He ran 30 tests at 200m and 300m with a single US Rifle Squad (1x SMG, 11x Garand) up against a single Panther with exposed TC under perfect/ideal conditions for the US.  Here's the basics:

300m Test = 2x WIA, 28x Buttoned.  About 50% of the US Rifle Squads did not engage at all, despite spotting the tank facing it.

200m Test = 1x WIA, 18x KIA, 11x Buttoned.  All US Rifle Squads opened fire.

Overall I don't see anything wrong with these results.  200m should be a slaughter fest under these ideal TC plinking circumstances.  If someone is taking massive TC casualties the first thing I'd do is see what the range is and if it's 200m or so then you should adjust your tactics to something that more closely resembles real life (i.e. buttoned!).  If you're over 300m and seeing your TCs dropping like flies, then set up a test scenario to replicate the conditions (as best you can) and run the test a whole bunch of times (30 minimum) to see if there's any trend.

To sum this up, here's what we're examining:

1.  Reduce the threat level before a TC will button

2.  Reduce the chances a TC will unbutton if the player has explicitly instructed it to be buttoned

3.  If the crew is under strength it will by default revert to buttoned status

We are not examining anything other than this unless someone puts forward a test, or tests, which indicate there is a problem which needs addressing.

Steve

To build off of this a bit, the main problem I'm seeing is not infantry accuracy against TCs. It is that TCs aren't always as fast as they should be in buttoning up in response to aimed small arms fire against them. Steve's numbered list, if addressed, above should go a long ways towards to addressing that. However, the moral of the story is still the same... if you drive unbuttoned tanks into small arms range, you deserve to lose your TCs. I say this as a player who loses a LOT of them, just ask anyone who watches my streams. :P 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm...at 200m, how long did it take for the infantry to spot that the TC had unbuttoned? Curious... A 6" to 8" diameter target at 200m should be hard to spot. Or, did I just add some fuel to a fire? :)

Regardless, it's good to start getting some baselines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, c3k said:

Umm...at 200m, how long did it take for the infantry to spot that the TC had unbuttoned? Curious... A 6" to 8" diameter target at 200m should be hard to spot. Or, did I just add some fuel to a fire? :)

Regardless, it's good to start getting some baselines.

With the proviso that CMx2 isn't exactly WYSIWYG, most of my TC/gunners casualties come from what look like ricochets on the sides and front of the turret rather than getting a bullet between the eyes: the turret/pedestal is a much bigger target. What is good for deflecting incoming projectiles can be very bad for people standing by.

Edited by BletchleyGeek
Redaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, c3k said:

Umm...at 200m, how long did it take for the infantry to spot that the TC had unbuttoned? Curious... A 6" to 8" diameter target at 200m should be hard to spot. Or, did I just add some fuel to a fire? :)

Regardless, it's good to start getting some baselines.

See this is exactly my point. Thank you ken. See the tank at 300 meters? No problem....even in a firefight (and then....not always). See the melon kinda peeking out the top at 300 meters? I doubt it. 

Steve or Chris......maybe test again with a mg crew....seems they are the ones always spotting TC's from 500 meters and splatting them.

steve, if there is a spotting factor for the TC seperate from the tank then I never knew this in all these years of testing and my hats off! Great detail! If there is, maybe it could be looked at for an adjustment? No hard data for you...just years of playing and a gut feeling here. Same feeling I had when I talked about burst lengths on MG's years ago! Hehe

 

Edited by Lanzfeld
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BletchleyGeek said:

With the proviso that CMx2 isn't exactly WYSIWYG, most of my TC/gunners casualties come from what look like ricochets on the sides and front of the turret rather than getting a bullet between the eyes: the turret/pedestal is a much bigger target. What is good for deflecting incoming projectiles can be very bad for people standing by.

Yup.  It's not necessary to score a direct hit it's only necessary to score a hit ;)  Plenty of ways to do that with all the metal surfaces around the TC to bounce a bullet off of.

3 hours ago, Lanzfeld said:

See this is exactly my point. Thank you ken. See the tank at 300 meters? No problem....even in a firefight (and then....not always). See the melon kinda peeking out the top at 300 meters? I doubt it. 

And I state again, the game's portraying a lot more exposure than that and I've explained (twice) why that is the way it will remain.

As for Chris' test it had OPTIMAL conditions for the infantry, so they spotted very quickly at 200m.  The optimal conditions?  Bright sun, flat ground, nothing between the tank and the Squad, nothing else for the Squad to get distracted by, tank not shooting at all, etc.  In other words, a situation that should not be frequently seen in CM.  Well, unless you drive your tanks out in the open without supporting infantry or suppressing fire.  Which again indicates bad tactics on the player's part if that's what happens.

Even with these horribly artificially optimal conditions even at 200m the infantry only achieved a roughly 60% casualty rate.  Even if we assumed the Squads only fired one shot per rifle the hit chance is about 5% per shot.  If we presume 2 shots per rifleman then it's about 2.5% per shot.  Given the optimal circumstances I don't think that's a totally unreasonable result.

Quote

Steve or Chris......maybe test again with a mg crew....seems they are the ones always spotting TC's from 500 meters and splatting them.

steve, if there is a spotting factor for the TC seperate from the tank then I never knew this in all these years of testing and my hats off! Great detail! If there is, maybe it could be looked at for an adjustment? No hard data for you...just years of playing and a gut feeling here. Same feeling I had when I talked about burst lengths on MG's years ago! Hehe

I don't know exactly how it works in game, but Chris' 300m test seems to indicate that there is some differentiation because fully 1/2 of the Squads spotted the tanks but did not open fire.  At 300m range guys with Garands should have engaged the TCs if they knew they were there.

From this website here are the straight forward, simple steps to scientific process with my own examples:

  1. Ask a Question ("I have a feeling that...")
  2. Do Background Research ("I've read a lot of accounts of real warfare and...")
  3. Construct a Hypothesis ("It seems my feeling is in conflict with historical reality because...")
  4. Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment ("I conducted a test to test my hypothesis by doing...")
  5. Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion ("My test showed...")
  6. Communicate Your Results ("I am posting my results here for review by others and further discussion")

Far too frequently we see discussions here start from #1 and skip right #6.  This discussion is a fairly good example of that :D

There's nothing wrong with "feelings" about stuff.  That is what gets this whole process started!  Unfortunately that's sometimes as far as people get with it.  As I've explained, at length, that isn't good enough.

Steve

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok here's the test I have proposed in another thread on the same topic, now with a fleshed out design for peer review ;)

Set-Up:

Terrain is open, all ground is essentially short yellow grass. No wind, temperature cool, weather clear, ground dry, time 1200

One US MG Ammo bearer team on a patch of gravel, Regular, Normal, +0. Two guys with M1 Garands and a total of 1008 rounds (should be enough in all cases)

Test 1:

100m (roughly) in front of the GIs is a German truck driver (behind a waist high stone wall) with orders never to shoot back. The driver is set at Fanatic, Elite, +0 Leadership. I know this is usually frowned upon, but this setting is only to ensure quick recovery from suppression. Since he is only there as a target I don't think there is an issue with this.

Test 2:

100m (roughly) in front of the GIs is a German Sdkfz 251/1 Ausf D with the same orders. The halftrack is likewise set to Elite, Fanatic, +0 Leadership. This setting should ensure the halftrack crew never rattles or looses its covered arc and starts shooting back. I've tried setting it to immobilzed but that only made the crew bail once the volume of fire increased.

Test procedure:

Start the game as allied with settings turn-based and Scenario Author test. After you begin each turn you can start skipping 5sec intervals while the GIs try to spot the target and eventually begin shooting. Keep the halftrack or the truck driver selected and watch for their status. Once a hit is scored (either yellow or full casualty), skip back to the exact moment the casualty occured. Now select the ammo bearers and calculate the ammo expenditure by checking their current ammo count. Remember they start with 1008 rounds. Discount any shoots that might still be in air the moment the target got hit.

Denote the results in the following way:

Number of testrun - shoots fired(Type of casualty)

Example: 04 - 54(W). This would be the fourth test and it took 54 rounds to incurr a lightly wounded (yellow) target. Use (K) to denote a kill or "red" wound.

Expected outcome:

The halftrack gunner is a much smaller target behind an armored shield (from the POV of the GIs), so one would  expect it took many more rounds to hit him than to hit the truck driver, who's upper body is exposed.

Known problems:

The truck driver will from time to time cower away out of sight, but never too long. I guess this still has some impact on the result. I haven't found a way to suppress this behaviour, but the fanatic setting makes sure he usually gets back up quickly. If anything unexpected happens (i.e. behaviour not described here), abort the test.

Here's the dropbox link to the test files (CMFB).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/q6wzc8zudsohu3r/Accuracy%20Test.zip?dl=0

Just as an example, the results of my first 5 test runs each:

vs HT:

01 - 14(K)
02 - 47(K)
03 - 08(K)
04 - 18(K)
05 - 02(K)

vs Inf:

01 - 01(K)
02 - 74(K)
03 - 60(K)
04 - 80(K)
05 - 84(K)

Edit: Following Steve's advice I haven't done more runs and posted my set up here first for discussion.

Edited by Rokko
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ChrisND said:

To build off of this a bit, the main problem I'm seeing is not infantry accuracy against TCs. It is that TCs aren't always as fast as they should be in buttoning up in response to aimed small arms fire against them.

Chris I agree 100%, as a WEGO player who has been playing a long time, my only gripe is the time it takes for the TC to button up when taking fire.  Other than that I think the game is working fine as is (except for the Stug example mentioned above).

Edited by Placebo
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lordhedgwich said:

Small arms seem to be more lethal overall in CMFB riflemen seems to be very accurate getting lots of 1 shot kills and when MGs open up seems that 2-4 guys are killed maybe its just me but it seems higher than previous titles 

Well, Yeah, CMx2 Titles have always been far to high in Small Arms Casualties...But, I digress

Anyways, in the case of CMFB the only explanation might be that you are noticing more Vet Troops (I only play Green or Conscripts in Scenarios), more Auto Weapons, less cover (less foliage in winter) or less use of Micro-Management due to snow ( your out in the open where cover or concealment use to be ), etc.

However, I wonder if BF models actual Winter Temps as far as Spotting or Shooting is concerned (haven't played enough CMFI in Winter)...Think about it, isn't it harder to spot, shoot less often, or less accurate,  when it's Cold and Windy (wearing gloves, headgear, etc).

What I try to do to reduce the Small Arms Casualty Rate is to use Conscripts or Green (in place of Reg or Vet), but with some Leader & Motivation bonuses, and use 'Weakened Status. Unfortunately, the problem arises when said Troops are hit with HE ( since they tend to take more casualties then Reg or Vet )...Oh, the Balancing Act I go through to find the right medium. 

Edited by JoMc67
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, c3k said:

Umm...at 200m, how long did it take for the infantry to spot that the TC had unbuttoned? Curious... A 6" to 8" diameter target at 200m should be hard to spot. Or, did I just add some fuel to a fire? :)

Regardless, it's good to start getting some baselines.

In my experience in CMx2, it's about 1 sec ( enough time for the Crew to take their last breath ).

That's just it, how long should it take to be spotted at that range...Me thinks a Spotting Cycle or three...But, Steve, thinks at 200 meters the Crew should be "Slaughtered" in mere seconds (I think more like 25-40 meters), and so it doesn't matter really...;)

Edited by JoMc67
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Rokko said:

 

Just as an example, the results of my first 5 test runs each:

vs HT:

01 - 14(K)
02 - 47(K)
03 - 08(K)
04 - 18(K)
05 - 02(K)

vs Inf:

01 - 01(K)
02 - 74(K)
03 - 60(K)
04 - 80(K)
05 - 84(K)

Edit: Following Steve's advice I haven't done more runs and posted my set up here first for discussion.

Thanks for taking the time to do this test. Interesting results.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to get some comments, preferably from some of the dev guys on the methodology before I waste my time actually running these tests. Five tests each is obviously way too few, but I guess a 100 each would give a good impression, so maybe some other folks can join in, do a few runs and post the results.

Also, I wonder if one should always restart the game after each run, like in completely restart the game by going back to desktop and starting up again. Sometimes I get the impression as if there are some artifacts left that are not properly cleaned up when you start another scenario or restart one. Probably I am just paranoid, but since the game is a piece of software it would be possible. Like in the second test it looks like there is some sort of progression, the number of shots is ever increasing almost. Of course this could be completely random but I have had this feeling at other times as well when doing tests.

Edited by Rokko
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Rokko said:

I'd like to get some comments, preferably from some of the dev guys on the methodology before I waste my time actually running these tests. Five tests each is obviously way too few.

Yes, I know, I just meant thanks for setting it up and writing up the methodology etc. Interesting results (so far).

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're welcome. So far it seems the results could maybe (hope that's enough caveats ;)) indicate that indeed there is something with accuracy vs personell in the open and personell in vehicles. But maybe there is something off with the methodology or maybe there even is a reason why the accuracy is higher when shooting at halftrack gunners or TCs.

Edited by Rokko
Link to post
Share on other sites

Question for ya.  the number is the number of bullets it took to hit - correct?  What does the (k) mean?

One thing to consider is elevation.  Was the solider at the same elevation as the HT gunner?  The terrain for the solider test should be adjusted so that his height as closely matches the HT gunner's height.

No, restarting the game is *not* necessary.  If you save the setup with orders etc before the "Calculating" message is shown you can go back to that save as often as you like at watch a new version of the time line unfold.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...