I love CM....but I hate it when.......

[Lanzfeld]

I had the most enjoyable beta demo game of CM in my life this morning. I was the Germans in Riesberg and I tried some new tactics. What a blast! I had a sherman run right past a hidden SMG squad and didnt see them (Sherman was buttoned). The SMG squad fired a panzerfaust at a range of about 50m. I froze the playback at that moment while the panzerfaust was in the air. It was perfect! I lined up the camera and saw that the Faust was going to hit the turret. Okay...play! I was right!!!! It hit the turret and went right through!!! Miss?!?!?! YUP. UGGGGGGG!!! I know that the graphical representation of the tank doesnt really show where the tank is but that was a letdown. And yes...I had realistic size on. I thought I read that one of the selling points of the 3D battlefield was that if part of a tank was exposed around a building or such...you could hit it?? Not true in the example above. Bummer. What I am wondering is at what point is a tank exposed? Is it like the "HULL DOWN" meathod? The tank is or it is not hulldown, there is no in between. Am I making sense here? Are there points on the tank that must be exposed for me to hit it?...or if I can see part of it..I can hit it.(??)

[Mark IV]

Dunno, but I whacked the 5th Sherman in CE this AM and still have all 3 StuGs, Game Turn 12.

Gonna be some heartache tonight...

Isn't it strange that blasting things, and blasting them well, can help you leave for work in the morning with a song in your heart?

[This message has been edited by Mark IV (edited 04-28-2000).]

[Guest tom w]

I might say simple:

the 6 sided demon got you (this a reference to what my friend

Brad calls the dice when he rolls poorly, which is all the time)

Perhaps you fired that Faust at 50 meters and the dice rolled snake eys on you...

Maybe there is a 1 in 12 (1 in 100, 1 in what ever) chance that

Hienz Oberman (faust trigger man) is a REALLY lousy shot.

I think the game models hits and misses very well.

from what I understand from your description, you missed,

just bad luck nothing more I would say.

no?

-tom w

[Guest tom w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

Isn't it strange that blasting things, and blasting them well, can help you leave for work in the morning with a song in your heart?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So true!

Are you playing the AI or is some poor PBEM opponent about

ready to surrender?

- tom w

[Guest Big Time Software]

50m at a moving target is not a sure hit. 50m at a stationary target isn't even a sure hit. These things weren't that accurate. Figure, the Germans made hundreds of thousands of these things, yet the number of tanks they actually knocked out was somewhat small. I read a figure at some point, and the percentage of tank kills by PFs was pretty low.

Steve

[Mark IV]

No, just the AI. But I was "trying something" again and this is one of the ones that worked. Getting a little better at tank micro-tactics, I guess (got 'em all with the 75s, no schrecks).

Gotta start PBEMing soon.

[Guest tom w]

the game "feels" really different when there is Human "artificial"

intellegence behind the moves.

I Played SS_PanzerLeader a few times and he really likes to

lay the smoke on heavy.

The AI does not use smoke the way SSPL does I can tell you that

much.

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

No, just the AI. But I was "trying something" again and this is one of the ones that worked. Getting a little better at tank micro-tactics, I guess (got 'em all with the 75s, no schrecks).

Gotta start PBEMing soon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Mark IV]

I have always been a smoke fan. I don't use it much against the AI because I try for worst case scenarios, trying not to anticipate what I already know, etc.

With the Amis 0 for 5 in tanks I wouldn't usually play it out, but I became irritated with some arrogant infantry and wish to gel them before terminating this particular scenario. Sometimes you just get caught up in the emotions.

[Lanzfeld]

No....I dont think I am expressing my problem very well. I'm not upset that the faust missed....I'm mad because the actual graphic of the faust HIT the turret and went through it and landed on the other side in a harmlesss explosion. You see what I'm saying? Like the turret was a ghost that the faust passed through.......

[Guest tom w]

ok but isn't that just a matter of perspective?

does it look like it went right through the

turrent from all camera angles?

whether you actually see it go through the turret or

not its still a "miss" isn't it?

does that makes sense?

I understand that you are saying you saw the

projectile go right through the turrent,

oh well, it missed?

can we just fall back on the "oh well its just

beta demo" theory that we are all just play testing

what, very likely will be, a VERY good game when

it comes out next month?

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lanzfeld:

No....I dont think I am expressing my problem very well. I'm not upset that the faust missed....I'm mad because the actual graphic of the faust HIT the turret and went through it and landed on the other side in a harmlesss explosion. You see what I'm saying? Like the turret was a ghost that the faust passed through.......<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Fionn]

1. Every smoke round you lay is another HE round lost which could be ripping your enemy apart (I'm an aggressive player and I think I've only used smoke in two PBEM games ever ( and one of those was vehicle-laid smoke) ).

2. I remember just this issue coming up during testing (along with loud complaints from me when an Allied tank I felt I should have killed lived).

basically it goes something like this.

a) The maths behind hit calculations is really damn complex ( if a tank is 50 metres away and moving at a 15 degree offset from you it is MUCH easier to hit than a tank at the same range and speed moving at a 45 degree offset. Check it out sometime.)

the graphical representation of things in CM is sometimes "averaged out" a bit to help keep the stress off the CPU.

c) One result of this is that it is sometimes possible for the enemy to fire a shot which sails over your tank BUT due to averaging of the parabolic arc etc etc the shot APPEARS to travel at a slightly lower altitude than it really is travelling at and thus misses.

This is only a problem for AT rounds with very low velocities, such as bazookas, hollow charge rounds, fausts and schrecks. You won't see this happen with a 75l/70 since it doesn't have a pronounced arc.

Charles explained this all to me when I complained about it but it was a long time ago so I may have gotten a few details wrong but basically the thing is that you are seeing the result of some graphical averaging and NOT a faulty to hit calculation.

For the full detailed explanation you'd have to ask him. What I've said is probably 99% right though.. I just know I've forgotten some of the details in the 4 or 5 months since I complained about this happening to me .

FWIW I've seen this 3 times in the past 5 months so it isn't exactly common .

[Black Sabot]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

No, just the AI. But I was "trying something" again and this is one of the ones that worked. Getting a little better at tank micro-tactics, I guess (got 'em all with the 75s, no schrecks).

Gotta start PBEMing soon.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Want to try your new tactics in a PBEM game? Send me your set-up

[Kevin Peltz]

Sometimes you can get a hit and still be mad...in CE I foolishly moved beyond my infantry support and got hit in the turret from about 15m by a Panzerschreck. There was a penetration, but no damage or injuries. This Sherman went on to destroy two StuGs and survived the battle intact. My brother, whom I was playing, almost had a coronary over this...

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm mad because the actual graphic of the faust HIT the turret and went through it and landed on the other side in a harmlesss explosion. You see what I'm saying?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, not really You missed, and that is all that really matters. The graphical representation has absolutely nothing to do with anything when you get right down to it. If you replayed that turn with the vehicle graphics turned off (Control-V) the results would be exactly the same, just as if the scale of the vehicle was Realistic or super huge.

Where the round visually appears to go or not go doesn't matter, so there is really nothing to get "mad" about. CM calculated a miss and then plotted a trajectory for the round to land. For the sake of allowing CM to run well CPU wise, this calculation doesn't pay close attention to where the vehicle is or isn't.

Steve

[iggi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>with the vehicle graphics turned off (Control-V)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It's shift V.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Whoops Yeah Shift-V

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 04-28-2000).]

[Guest Ol' Blood & Guts]

Well, I hate to go against Steve, but I'm with Lanzfeld on this one. You mean to tell me that at "realistic" scaling, you can't accurately visually judge where a unit is?

Doesn't this go against CM's accurate 3D positioning, LOS, and all that stuff?

This seems to spark a memory of mine when I played CE once. I had one of my Shermans hiding behind one of the small houses at the crossroads, clearly out of LOS from the StuG that shot him. Yes, shot him.

So with this in mind, how do we accurately judge if a tank is hull down, hidden, or whatever if we can't rely on visual representation at the "realistic" scale?

------------------

"Fear is the path to the Dark Side.

Fear leads to anger.

Anger leads to hate.

Hate leads to suffering."

--Jedi Master Yoda

[This message has been edited by Ol' Blood & Guts (edited 04-29-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

You guys are totally missing the point. I didn't say ANYTHING about the position of the unit being not representative, did I? I said the shot doesn't care one fig about where the GRAPHIC of the target is. HUGE difference.

The equation that tracks the PF shot decides if the weapon is going to hit the target or not. If not, then it decides what kind of miss it is going to be (long, short, off to the left, right, whatever). Then the shot leaves the squad and lands wherever. The graphical represention of the vehicle doesn't matter even one tiny, itty, bit because the result of the miss is already predetermined. And that is why when Lanzfeld got "mad" at the PF round visually going through the Sherman, I say it doesn't matter at all. Zero. Nada. This contradictory information has zero impact on the game. Zero. Nada.

The calculations necessary to ensure that the shot graphic doesn't intersect the graphic of the target it just missed is NOT worth the hit to the CPU. If there were no real world limitations to what we could do, we would certainly have the PF round do a clean visual miss of its target 100% of the time instead of most of the time, but it isn't possible nor is it necessary.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Doesn't this go against CM's accurate 3D positioning, LOS, and all that stuff?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, it CM must merely conform to a little something called the reality of what a home computer is capable of doing If you actually think about it, everything in CM is visually abstracted to some degree or another. Just like a tree graphic doesn't represent an actualy tree, and a figure doesn't represent an actual man, a vehicle's graphic is simply a visual representation of the code based form.

Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Just because CM isn't perfect, doesn't mean that there is an inherent flaw that undermines the whole game. There is absolutely accurate positioning, angles, and all of at. The graphics just aren't 100% representative 100% of the time in 100% of the situations.

In general the graphical representation of nearly everything in the game is abstracted to some degree. It has to be that way, no matter what anybody wants to think. There is no physical way that any CPU out there could simulate a mm for mm world. Well, none that any of us would use. So a certain degree of abstraction is absolutely necessary. This is not new news either. There must be a few hundred posts about this. In fact, there was a thread just this week about LOS and this issue was brought up.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So with this in mind, how do we accurately judge if a tank is hull down, hidden, or whatever if we can't rely on visual representation at the "realistic" scale?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In general the graphical represenation of the world of CM, which includes vehicles, is plenty fine for judging whatever it is you need to judge. That is why you don't have *dozens* of "what the F!" incidents every turn of every game. If CM's graphical environment didn't work in any significant way that is exactly what would happen since almost all decisions are based on the graphics alone (for the most part). And I *never* use Realisitic Scale either (+2 normally), which should underscore how you don't need to have a mm by mm understanding of the position of each unit.

When you get into situations where there is some room to doubt, use the LOS tool. That is what it is there for. In fact, I use the LOS tool and my eyeball to clear things up without ever changing to Realistic Scale.

Honestly, I think this is a mountain being made out of a tiny molehill And even if it were a mountain (which it is not) there are only two choices open to us as developers:

1. Accept the limitation imposed by reality and make the best system possible given that reality.

2. Make the same game everybody else has been making for the last 40 years.

Thems the choices

Steve

[iggi]

I agree with Steve on this one. This is the best system out there. Besides we are all on a level playing field.

One question though. In last defense, I lined up the tiger, 2stuggs and 3 halftracks. I switched to the overhead view(5). I selected the tiger that I had placed at one end of the line of vehicles. I pressed "L" to check LOS. I ran the LOS line through the row of axis vehicles. The LOS never got blocked. Strange I thought. I switched the vehicles around using the halftrack as a starting point. Again there was no LOS block through the friendly vehicles.

Do vehicles block LOS?

[iggi]

Lining up the vehicles again, I put an infantry unit next to the tank. Checked LOS through the vehicles. LOS not blocked. I had the infantry unit hide. Still LOS not blocked through the line of vehicles. I had an infantry unit crawl next to the tank.Still no LOS block through the row of vehicles. Why no LOS block?

[Lanzfeld]

Steve,

Thanks for the logical explanation of what happened with the PF. That is what I was looking for. As far as "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", I called the thread "I love CM....but hate it when...." because I, in no way, think that CM is destroyed by this abstraction. I guess I should have used the word baffeled instead of mad in my original post. Your explanation of the reason why we see what we see makes perfect sense now. The PF was calculated to miss the tank, no matter what tank it was. If it had been a Stug size tank with a lower "graphical representation" then the PF would not have touched the graphic. End result: Still a miss. Ahhhh...I get it. Back to bliss.....and the big calander next to my puter countin' down the days......

Lanzfeld

[Lt Bull]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

.....CM calculated a miss and then plotted a trajectory for the round to land. For the sake of allowing CM to run well CPU wise, this calculation doesn't pay close attention to where the vehicle is or isn't.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...this has kinda surprised me...so when CM does it's number crunching for aimed projectile fire, it first determines, using some algorithm, the result BEFORE actually sending the projectile from the gun barrel...in this sense, the trajectory you see in the game is not that of a true virtual 3D object that will hit whatever is in its path (cf. to a say a true 3D shooter where it all happens in "real time" and it is possible to dodge bullets say AFTER they are fired)

I was under the impression that the projectile trajectory was predetermined/calculated FIRST without knowledge of whether a hit will be achieved (based on aiming conditions, gunner skill, shell used, muzzle velocity, any relative motion factors such as if the tank is moving etc), sent on its merry way towards the intended target out of the barrel without knowing WHAT (if anything) it will hit UNTIL it actually completes it trajectory....in this sense it is a true projectile flying through a 3D environment that will hit whatever happens to be in its path...the intended target, dirt, colateral target, building...whatever...if the virtual 3D object is in space (like the polygon that makes up a tank, house), then it will impact and cause damage.

How then is it determined whether the projectile will hit anything else (and cause "colateral" damage?...is this also predetermined?...strange because if it is, then what does the algorithm consider potential colateral damage targets?...I would assume an "if-then" type of algorithm would be used where the game first computes whether a hit will be made...if it calcs that a it will be a miss, then some other algorithm must be used to determine if any colateral damage is going to be caused...it must then determine what potential colateral targets are about...this sounds awfully complex...any info available how this aspect of projectile fire is accounted for?

Lt. Bull

[Fionn]

I still think that people should just realise that:

1. The maths is what hit and miss calculations are based on and

2. the graphical representations are averaged a bit so that ur computer can play CM and you don't have to buy a Cray 2 to play it.

When a shell hits an object the ricochet calculation is done.. I think Matt or one of the other testers had a US AP round bounce off a Panther and into a HT and brew the HT up and I had a shell ricochet off the same tank twice and, in the process, get turned through about 140 degrees and actually travel BACK towards the tank which fired it hehe

[Black Sabot]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:

[b

you don't have to buy a Cray 2 to play it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WHAT?!!!...You don't have to....You mean i didn't need to spend...Aww %$#*&@!!!, now you tell me

[Guest tom w]

this if/then scenario you have proposed is not new....

20 years ago there was an AH game called Tobruk

it simulated WWII tank battles in Africa

Simply put it was a 2D board game in a flat 2D dessert

each tank was represented as a counter

each round was recorded and kept track off.

LOS in the dessert was not really a problem

when a AFV was targeted its range in hexes was determined

and three things happened.

the round was fired, based on the range a roll

of the dice 2 - 6 sided) determined if the round

hit or not

next another roll of the dice determined where it

struck the target AFV

next another roll of the dice determined the the extend

of the damage.

so you could get a hit

then get an upper hull location

then get a NO damage or ricoche result

this was all done with hit table and charts

to simulate every move and every round

for every turn

Every vehicle type had its own hit table

to determine hits or misses on targets

at varying distances and hit tables to

determine damage to the vehicle when

hit from varying guns on varying AFV's

and It was SLOW

(and I recall, etched in my memory that a crappy old

British Stuart tank with a tiny 37 calibre main

gun had to roll snake eyes IF it got a hit on a Panzer IIIj

(king of the hill in that period)

just to get the glory of a Track hit to immbolize the damn

thing, a k-kill form any distance other than very close

or the rear was out of the question)

did any one else ever play Tobruk?

now the computer CPU crunches all the math for us

thats what the blue line is when the turn is being crunched

the CPU is looking up hit tables and rolling dice like CRAZY!

then after the turn is crunched you get to see a

1 minute movie, an average visual representation, of all

the math that just went on behind the scenes when the

turn was crunched.

Steve, BTS?

How about I share all those Tobruk hit table stats with you?

- tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lt Bull:

How then is it determined whether the projectile will hit anything else (and cause "colateral" damage?...is this also predetermined?...strange because if it is, then what does the algorithm consider potential colateral damage targets?...I would assume an "if-then" type of algorithm would be used where the game first computes whether a hit will be made...if it calcs that a it will be a miss, then some other algorithm must be used to determine if any colateral damage is going to be caused...it must then determine what potential colateral targets are about...this sounds awfully complex...any info available how this aspect of projectile fire is accounted for?

Lt. Bull<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>