CM screen real estate

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Hi Jeff,

Documenting stuff like this has no end. Where do you draw the line before the interface is hopelessly cluttered with information that isn't very usefull from a practical standpoint? Someone could easily say we should document all sorts of stuff, but the more we do the more CM turns into a spreadsheet and the less of a reflection on the imperfect nature of warfare and command decisions.

The only reason we include the penetration charts is because it really does matter in some situations and, most importantly, can not be picked up intuitively (unless you have a Jagdtiger which means you can kill anything at any range ). Therefore the penetration charts are an exception.

An accuracy table like you described isn't very usefull. First of all, it is pretty obvious that the closer the target is the greater the chance that you will hit it. And that if you hit it the damage will be the same pretty much no matter the distance.

The other reason this info is largely useless is that your guys will shoot when they think they have a decent chance of hitting. Why do you need to know what the chance is above and beyond what is displayed when you target a particular unit? I have been playing CM since it was started and I have never ever felt this information was even remotely necessary.

In general CM is designed to be played intuitively. A guy with a Panzerfaust was not given a chart telling him the basic hit chance at various ranges. Intuition and experience were all he had. And that is the way players should go about things. To diminish this is to reduce the quality of the game's simulation as well as its ease of use.

Steve

P.S. Also note that after 55,000 posts and tens of thousands of games played by thousands of people, this is the first time someone has asked for such an accuracy chart. If such a thing were needed I *know* we would have heard about it a long time ago

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-13-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess I cannot help but disagree on a number of issues.

First, I think knowing what the intrinsic capabilities of your weapons are is extremely useful, and by no means a waste of information. Certainly knowing the effective range of your wepons is just as important as knowing whether or not you have a shot at penetrating that hetzer frontally, or whether you need to maneuver for a side shot. Again, I am not asking ofr some kind of god-knowledge, just the basic knowledge anyone who has used the weapon would have. Sure, once I play the game a few times, I will get a feel for this. But why should someone who is new at the game have a disadvatage that has nothing to do with tactics versus someone who has played?

Second - The reason the info is useful is because it influences not whether or not your guy will shoot (which is largely out of your habds), but how to deploy him, which is primarily exactly what games of this nature are trying to reflect.

Third - I think you are completely missing the point with this. A guy using a PAnzerfaust may not have been given a chart telling him what chance he has to hit at ranges, but it is absolutely certain that his platoon leader or Co CO. knew at what range his weapon was effective, in addition to what its absolute max range was. If that info is not important for a Panzerfaust, why was it included for squads personal weapons? I am essentially asking for precisely the same thing.

Lastly, the comment that because no-one has said anything before it must not be an issue is kind of funny, since the response to my previous question about optics was "We already talked about that, go look it up." What si the poiunt of this board if anything new is dismissed out of hand, and anything old is also dismissed out of hand? It does not matter whether 1 or 10,000 people have mentioned it, my point stands on its own merits, not on whether or not it is popular or otherwise noticed.

I am not asking for more stuff cluttering up the screen. Just a little more info in the unit details screen. How is that such a horrendous concept?

Correct me if I am mistaken, but I thought CM was a squad level tactical wargame. All I am asking for is the info necessary to properly deply my weapons. You do not claim that it is unnecessary for me to know what the efective range of my SMG squad is, so why is it unnecessary for me to know what the effective range of my Bazooka squad is?

Really, I like the game. This is not personal. I cannot believe the level of animosity I have experienced for simply leveling what I think is some constructive criticism.

Jeff

[Jeff Heidman]

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

I can understand why this table might be helpful if there actual was a hit chance that could be narrowed down to a couple of percentage points. However, because of the many variables CM calculates, a table like this would probably look like this:

Panzerfaust-100

Range-------------Hit Chance

0-30m --------------1-100%

30-60m -------------1-100%

60-90m -------------1-100%

90-100m ------------1-100%

If there was one table which stated the range of a Panzerfaust that accounted for all the variables in CM it would not be very helpful which is why there is none and should be none.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, that would be relevant if I asked for a table stating the range of a Panzerfaust that took into account all the variables involved, but since I did not, I fail to see your point. I am simply asking for a table that takes only one variable into account, namely range, and which would be common knowledge for anyone using the weapon.

Jeff

[Maus]

Jeff,

Please do not take offense to this because none is intended. That being said I think BTS and others have made themselves abundantly clear. IMO, the type of chart you seek is not in the game because the game is designed to play intuitively. This means that if one does not know and understand the proper tactics and/or historical equipment performance enough to apply them effectively in the game, one needs to learn them by playing. Learning through doing, trying and failing make lessons learned distinct, clear and nearly unforgettable.

Cheers!

maus

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Well...

I for one remember information of this type being asked for before several times before. And by at least three other people (none of which were me, btw).

But I think Steve's point is that they are trying to make the player focus on higher command issues (company level?). So, CM uses the players access to information (or lack of), as a method to shift the focus 'up' and away from individual weapon systems and individual squads/troopers...and this is one example of where they drew the line.

I am not saying whether I agree with this philosophy or not...this is just my own take on the whole "More information please argument".

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 06-14-2000).]

[Flix]

Well, I can tell you that the maximum effective range of a Panzershreck is at least 203 meters (ask my Sgt. Smith).

As for some kind of static table showing effectiveness of a given weapon at different ranges: Have you ever tried nailing a Sherman with a Conscript Panzershreck Team vs. a Veteran Panzershreck Team (regardless of the range)? A static table would make a sweeping generalization, if you will, that the weapon in question was always being operated by people with the exact same experience, training, frame of mind and in the same environment against targets that had all of the same traits.

If you are wanting absolutely basic manufacture specs. on effective range and accurancy (as shown in laboratory tests) , do what I did, research. I've noticed something I haven't seen a lot in other wargames, technical detail. If you look at some kind of "Official Jane's Guide to All Weapons Used in WWII" type of reference, you'll most likely be surprised at what a good companion it will be to Combat Mission. These guys spent years on research for this game.

I hope this helps, I also hope I didn't come on to strong. We welcome all of those interested in this milestone of computer wargaming know as "Combat Mission". I hope to hear lots more from you.

Flix

[This message has been edited by Flix (edited 06-14-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Flix (edited 06-14-2000).]

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Jeff,

Please do not take offense to this because none is intended. That being said I think BTS and others have made themselves abundantly clear. IMO, the type of chart you seek is not in the game because the game is designed to play intuitively.

<snip>

Cheers!

maus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No offense taken at all.

My point is that this type of info [b}is in the game already! It exists for some weapons, but not for all. All I mentioned was that it would be nice if it existed for all weapons.

Jeff

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Well, I can tell you that the maximum effective range of a Panzershreck is at least 203 meters (ask my Sgt. Smith).

As for some kind of static table showing effectiveness of a given weapon at different ranges: Have you ever tried nailing a Sherman with a Conscript Panzershreck Team vs. a Veteran Panzershreck Team (regardless of the range)? A static table would make a sweeping generalization, if you will, that the weapon in question was always being operated by people with the exact same experience, training, frame of mind and in the same environment against targets that had all of the same traits.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that would be fine. A sweeping generalization (just like what is now portrayed for a squads or teams weapons) would be perfectly acceptable. At least I have not seen anyone complaing about it with the personal weapons tables. I can certainly accept the idea that while my refernce table for the bazooka says one thing, Private Joe, fresh out of boot, and shaking like a leaf, may not have much chance of getting the most out of his weapon.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

If you are wanting absolutely basic manufacture specs. on effective range and accurancy (as shown in laboratory tests) , do what I did, research. I've noticed something I haven't seen a lot in other wargames, technical detail. If you look at some kind of "Official Jane's Guide to All Weapons Used in WWII" type of reference, you'll most likely be surprised at what a good companion it will be to Combat Mission. These guys spent years on research for this game.

I hope this helps, I also hope I didn't come on to strong. We welcome all of those interested in this milestone of computer wargaming know as "Combat Mission". I hope to hear lots more from you.

Flix

[This message has been edited by Flix (edited 06-14-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Flix (edited 06-14-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Flix, this was certianly the most useful post I have seen so far on the subject. I can certainly do as you suggest, and, in fact, probably have most of that info already available to me. The only issue is that it would be nice to have the same info the designers used. As I am certain you are aware, since you seem to have done some research yourself, there is often serious discrepancies in the perceived effectiveness of weapons between sources. For example, the sources I have seen list the max range of the PanzerSchreck as 250m, but the max effective range as 80-100m. As a wargamer, I would like to know what BTS decided to go with, so I can adjust my game accordingly. Basically, when it comes to wargames, one must accept that barring a unit/weapon editor (which would be a bad idea for a game like CM, IMO), one must accept whatever "reality" the designers decide on. I just want to know which reality they went with.

Like others have said, I will figure this out pretty quickly anyway. But then, I would have also figured out pretty quickly that a SMG squad has much more short ranged firepower than a rifle squad. Still does not mean I do not appreciate getting that knowledge in a straight up format, since it is knowledge any commander would certainly have access to as a matter of course.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 06-14-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 06-14-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Lastly, the comment that because no-one has said anything before it must not be an issue is kind of funny, since the response to my previous question about optics was "We already talked about that, go look it up." What si the poiunt of this board if anything new is dismissed out of hand, and anything old is also dismissed out of hand? It does not matter whether 1 or 10,000 people have mentioned it, my point stands on its own merits, not on whether or not it is popular or otherwise noticed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff, that was me who posted that, and I am sorry if you think that is dismissive or in any way intended to flame you. While you are right that you have a point here, all I am pointing out is that it has be discussed, at quite some length IIRC. There is no point in rehashing all the arguments when all you need to do is to search. You registered to the board yesterday, and it is most likely that the thread has passed you by, seeing that was discussed months ago. The point of this board IMO is to discuss things, as we have done over your points. But if that discussion has already occured, it is just common courtesy to go and look it up and see whether your points have been addressed. If they haven't, you should raise them and I am sure they will be addressed. My suspicion would be that they most likely have been addressed. That is what I wanted to point you towards. I am on a low-quality 33.6k modem connection, so there is no way I am going to do the search for you.

As far as logos go, the choice is between the BTS logo and blank space, b/c of people who have to play the game in low-res mode. You prefer the blank space, me and some others seem to prefer the logo, or accept BTS's desire to put a mark on their product, as many producers do.

As for the hit-probability, it seems I misunderstood you. Sorry about that. The replies to your inquiry raise some interesting question for me, too. I so far did not think that the number you want in that screen actually existed in a meaningful way, because it is affected by any number of factors, among these are:

- weather (fog/rain/sunshine)

- experience of the weapon crew

- current state of the weapon crew (suppressed, panicked etc.)

- speed and size of target

Therefore I would have thought that some info like this is dynamic to a degree that you either can not use the generalised info you ask for, or that it changes every five seconds, so there is not much of a point to put it in. Steve's response now makes me doubt that impression I had, maybe there could be some clarification on this.

Comparing the data you ask for to the data you get e.g. for an SMG squad is fallacious IMO, b/c the fire-power of the squad does only depend to a very small degree on the hit probability, and much more on the amount of lead put in the air, in my understanding.

Please understand that none of this is intended as a flame, and I am sorry if I sounded a bit harsh in my first posts. And welcome to the board.

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

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Really, I like the game. This is not personal. I cannot believe the level of animosity I have experienced for simply leveling what I think is some constructive criticism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know why you find this discussion hostile. It isn't intended to be. But you are making some rather strongly voiced opinions about things that other people strongly disagree with. So far in this thread I think neither side has been any more forcefull than the other.

As for the "look it up" suggestion you are seeing from people is just that. Some of the things newer members bring up have been discussed before at great length. Searching for those threads is not a blow off, but a reasonable suggestion to save people (especially us) time answering what is probably the same question with the same answers. I find nothing unreasonable or hostile about doing some quick research into the topic if it is really important to the person asking.

Scott, what you are talking about (IIRC) goes far beyond the scope of what Jeff is bringing up here. I recall some individuals wanting pretty much everything documented in one form or another, and that is a whole 'nother discussion

The point is that there is no chart, at all, that has anything to do with accuracy or effectiveness in the way you are talking about. Firepower and penetration, yes, but accuracy no. There are so many factors to consider that using a rough, and intuitive, max range is x, I am shooting at x/2, so accuracy is probably 50%. I see no reason why this has to be programmed in and the room found to display it.

As for the intuitiveness of CM, yes... the more intuitive or well learned player will best a newbie. And that is the way it should be. I also think it is a great part of the appeal of the game. What isn't displayed in the game is also often discussed in the 180pg manual or here on this BBS.

Bottom line is that adding charts/tables to anything in CM will meet with vigorous resistnace from us. We have thought about these issues for 3 years of development and added things that seemed necessary and left out those that were not important. We might disagree on where to draw that line, but it has to be drawn. My earlier point is that this is a slippery slope. Someone might just as easily ask for a chart that tells them how effective a particular unit is at a given Experience level vs. the same unit type at a different one. Or friendly vs. enemy unit in the same regard. This is what I meant. There are litterally dozens of "why can't you just add this" cases to be made, and if we didn't pick and choose very, very carefully CM would indeed be a 3D spreadsheet program.

The fact that so very few people have voiced opinions in favor of such information is telling. We know this crowd VERY well. When there is a wide spread feeling of "need" we hear about it over and over again until we either find a solution or we make a good enough case that we at least agree to disagree. But one thing that we have heard very few calls for is more statistical data. In fact, hardly any over the last 8 months. Intially, as Scott pointed out, there were a handfull of people asking for this stuff, but I think most of it was driven by expectations and habits from other games. CM is different on purpose and that is why it is what it is.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Therefore I would have thought that some info like this is dynamic to a degree that you either can not use the generalised info you ask for, or that it changes every five seconds, so there is not much of a point to put it in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Andreas - your impression is correct. If we included a "hit % chart" in CM for various weapons it would do more harm than good, by the implication that the numbers are constant (or nearly so) and apply to all or even most situations - which they certainly do not.

An earlier post in this thread said, half-seriously, that such a chart would look something like "0-20m 1-100%, 20-40m 1-100%, etc.". This is actually not altogether far from the truth! If a pinned-down conscript Panzerschreck team, under fire, with one casualty already, firing through heavy woods during a snowstorm at night, at a tiny jeep speeding down a paved road at 50 miles per hour is one end of the spectrum, and an elite team, unspotted and undisturbed, firing at the broad side of a stationary M26 Pershing heavy tank in clear terrain on a bright sunny day is the other - even if both examples are firing at the same range(s) - you will see enormous variations in the chance of scoring a hit. The difference is so great that it makes the idea of creating a single set of numbers to describe the weapon's accuracy virtually meaningless to the point of absurdity. And to put the range of chances would be little better, as the range of values is so great (e.g. "1-100%").

The point here is that a hit-% chart would be inherently grossly misleading.

If one really wants to know the chance to hit, just drag a targeting or LOS line to the target and the % is displayed.

No commanders in the field were ever given hit-% charts for various ranges of their weapons. Few such charts even existed in weapons laboratories! And when they did, it was for firing under perfect laboratory (i.e. noncombat) conditions, and bear little relevance to accuracy during battle.

Charles

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-14-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Andreas - your impression is correct. If we included a "hit % chart" in CM for various weapons it would do more harm than good, by the implication that the numbers are constant (or nearly so) and apply to all or even most situations - which they certainly do not. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Charles, thanks for the answer - that was exactly what I thought from the way the game handles.

The other point raised here, that such charts would help new players: play against the AI, then play again. After you have done that, play again, and again, and again. Once you feel confident, play PBEMs against people who are better than you are. That is the way you learn CM. I learned it this way, and my impression is that others do it the same way. I can not find anything wrong with that. In fact, if I had to learn it by staring at tables, I would not play it. I did that long enough in table-top RPG, and I know how much we quibbled with those tables.

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

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

[Jeff Heidman]

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

Andreas - your impression is correct. If we included a "hit % chart" in CM for various weapons it would do more harm than good, by the implication that the numbers are constant (or nearly so) and apply to all or even most situations - which they certainly do not.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How is it the case that this implication exists for what I want, but (apparently) does not exist for teh info that is already there? There is no such implication at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

An earlier post in this thread said, half-seriously, that such a chart would look something like "0-20m 1-100%, 20-40m 1-100%, etc.". This is actually not altogether far from the truth!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I addressed before, it is actually very far from the truth. In fact it is a strawman. The chart in question would have precisely ONE variable, range. Just like the charts that are currently available.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

If a pinned-down conscript Panzerschreck team, under fire, with one casualty already, firing through heavy woods during a snowstorm at night, at a tiny jeep speeding down a paved road at 50 miles per hour is one end of the spectrum, and an elite team, unspotted and undisturbed, firing at the broad side of a stationary M26 Pershing heavy tank in clear terrain on a bright sunny day is the other - even if both examples are firing at the same range(s) - you will see enormous variations in the chance of scoring a hit. The difference is so great that it makes the idea of creating a single set of numbers to describe the weapon's accuracy virtually meaningless to the point of absurdity.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If that is the case, then it must also be the case that your game is already absurd, since it does precisly that very thing for both squad weapon firepower and penetration figures. Personally, I do not find your system absurd at all. I am smart enough to realize that range charts are jsut that, range charts, and that those numbers generally represent ideal circumstances that can be modified by any number of other factors.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

And to put the range of chances would be little better, as the range of values is so great (e.g. "1-100%").

The point here is that a hit-% chart would be inherently grossly misleading.

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-14-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It cannot, by definition, be any more grossly misleading than any other effectiveness chart you haveincluded in the game, for exactly the reasons you have cited. Not a single point made does not equally and precisely apply to the firepower effectiveness figures already given, or the penetration values for main guns already given. Not a single one.

If it is inherently misleading to let the player know what the general effective range of a LATW is, then it must also be inherently misleading to let the player know what the potential firepower of his SMG squad at some range is. The two are almost exactly analagous. One deals with a subset of the other is all, since the SMG FP implicitly includes teh odds of hitting in addition to the effectiveness of the hit.

Anyway, it is clear that this is pointless at best. I understand that not everything can be done, and I can accept a simple statement to that effect.

You cannot have it both ways. Providing information for one type of weapon and not another cannot be justified based on the arguments given. Saying that letting the player know the effectiveness curve of a panzerfaust (for example) at range would be misleading, while giving the exact same information for a BAR is illogical.

The only reason I thought of this is playing A Chance enounter as the German and thinking "Gee, I wonder if my Schreck has even a chance of ambushing a Sherman coming over that hill in front of him?" The game says that the max range is 225m, but in reality, and in the game, there is almost no chance to get a hit at that range, so my poor Schreck got toasted. Had I known that the odds of getting a hit at 200m were extremely slim, I would have put him somewhere else. That is all. Had the issue been whether or not my SMG squad could effectively ambush an enemy infantry unit, there would ahve been no question, I would have checked the unit detail box, seen what the effective range was, and acted accordingly. How is this differnt? Can someone explain that to me without resorting to a strawman argument?

Jeff Heidman

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

Can someone explain that to me without resorting to a strawman argument?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is very convenient to just label everything other people tell you as 'strawman argument, and I am sure you will do so with what I am writing, but never mind.

I think you are still under a completely false impression of how hits are worked out in the game. The firepower you refer to in the SMG squad window is not a hit probability. That is calculated in each individual case, depending on the exposure of the target. It is a theoretical value that is there as a guidance for the player. In that, it is comparable to the armour penetration info given to you in the Schreck window.

The hit table you want is a meaningless construct. If your Schreck is out and about in the open, in blazing sunshine, attacking an immobilised Sherman with gun damage to all its weapons and no infantry support, they may well hit at 200m, depending on their experience. If the same team tries that feat while under fire, maybe having taken a casualty, in a snowstorm, I think it is rather unlikely that they hit.

It is the same with an US Rifle 44 squad. Yes they can bring a firepower of 209 at 40m to bear. But what if they are suppressed, what if the target is covered to 85%, what if they have already broken once, what if they have a snowstorm, what if they are green? All these factors affect it. The 209 figure is only a guidance, and it is the same sort of guidance as the range and armour penetration of the Schreck. It is not the end-all. That is calculated in each individual case.

I really fail to see how you can not understand that or dismiss it as a strawman argument. You are comparing apples and oranges in your argument.

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

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

[Ron]

Another point here, the player has no control over when a squad fires it's 'faust. That is handled by the TacAI, so any additional information, apart from the - 30, 60, 100, is pointless. As the player you must simply maneuver your squads as the situation dictates and leave the rest to the game.

What's the effective range for a 'shreck team? Well that varies considerably as has been stated already. I have had conscript teams miss all their shots at less than 40m. In a current pbem game a 'shreck team took out 3 of my Shermans at around 150m with 3 consecutive shots. There are no hard numbers to go by as the best range. Playing the game will give you the most useful information.

Ron

[Maus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

The only reason I thought of this is playing A Chance enounter as the German and thinking "Gee, I wonder if my Schreck has even a chance of ambushing a Sherman coming over that hill in front of him?" The game says that the max range is 225m, but in reality, and in the game, there is almost no chance to get a hit at that range, so my poor Schreck got toasted. Had I known that the odds of getting a hit at 200m were extremely slim, I would have put him somewhere else. That is all. Had the issue been whether or not my SMG squad could effectively ambush an enemy infantry unit, there would ahve been no question, I would have checked the unit detail box, seen what the effective range was, and acted accordingly. How is this differnt? Can someone explain that to me without resorting to a strawman argument?

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeff,

You are asking for a generic "to hit" table. What is given is a generic damage/penetration table. What is given has nothing to do with probability to hit. As Germanboy said you are trying to compare apples and oranges. It seems to me that BTS made a design decision not to include a "to hit" table and leave this type of info up to intuitive discovery by the user.

If I am correct about BTS design decision, then your experience in CE with the 'shreck is just what they wanted for a user who does not know the historical practicalities of various weapon system. Live and learn I guess....errrr, maybe lose and learn.

[aka_tom_w]

I think I hear the forest echoing again....

shhh.....

I think it hear saying things like, "you have to learn that by experience..."

and

"Play against the AI it is a good teacher, but not the best opponent"

and....

shh

"the game was designed that way to inspire you to play MORE to learn how it work in different conditions"

what else is the forest echoing?

-tom w

P.S this post is a reference to an earlier thread about some now long forgotten heavy machine gun mobile transport class issue, thingy....

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Guest Germanboy]

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

what else is the forest echoing?

-tom w

P.S this post is a reference to an earlier thread about some now long forgotten heavy machine gun mobile transport class issue, thingy....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Glad to see that my grandmother's wise cracking has finally served some purpose...

Tom, you are not referring to the Nike sponsorship of HMG team racing in the Wehrmacht by any chance? Allegedly, Nike's slogan 'Just do it' was what set Adolf off towards Russia.

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

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>How is it the case that this implication exists for what I want, but (apparently) does not exist for teh info that is already there? There is no such implication at all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If a chart is presented in a game, you feel that there is no implication that the data is "correct"? I think that is a rather strange opinion.

There is an implied-correctness for the data which is already presented in CM. The difference between that example and the one you suggest is that the data already presented in CM does not vary to anywhere near the degree of what you want to see. Armor penetration does vary (and our chart says so) but generally within about +/- 15%. That's a manageable range. But to-hit probabilities vary far more than this. We would literally have to put entries like "4%-93%" into such a table.

Would you find "4%-93%" to be even remotely informative? I would not.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As I addressed before, it is actually very far from the truth. In fact it is a strawman. The chart in question would have precisely ONE variable, range. Just like the charts that are currently available.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is not a strawman at all. It is what the table you ask for would actually look like. Maybe it's not the way you wish the real world to work, but that's the way it is.

You are clearly confused about what it means for a chart to have "one variable". You seem to think that the to-hit equations are something like: hit_chance = 0.7 / range. Or something similarly trivial.

Let me assure you that this is not the case. The to-hit calculation function is one of many variables. Not one. Many.

In other words, the "first variable" (the domain of the function, for you mathematically inclined types) is range to target. From this you want to compute a to-hit value. And that requires the computation of a function of many variables - so many, in fact, that the resulting range of values is so wide that it's literally going to be like "4-93%" for any given range to target, and therefore quite uninformative and useless.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If that is the case, then it must also be the case that your game is already absurd, since it does precisly that very thing for both squad weapon firepower and penetration figures.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I assume that the "very thing" you refer to here is the presentation of "end result" information about weapon performance, like a "to hit" rating. You are incorrect that firepower and penetration data presented in CM do this. See below.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It cannot, by definition, be any more grossly misleading than any other effectiveness chart you haveincluded in the game<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry but you are quite mistaken. As explained above, the other information provided with the game is of a more predictable and less variable character. This is fundamentally different from the to-hit calculations, and is a prime reason why no such to-hit chart is supplied. This is a crucial point which you fail to understand.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not a single point made does not equally and precisely apply to the firepower effectiveness figures already given, or the penetration values for main guns already given. Not a single one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again you misunderstand and your analogy does not hold.

Consider that the firepower values say nothing about how likely they are to cause a casualty. In other words, they do not tell you the end result. But the end result is exactly what you are asking for with regards to the to-hit values. A correct analogy is to compare firepower values to, say, muzzle velocity values (muzzle velocity is a large component of accuracy). In other words, an initial value that is constant and predictable. So your analogy is completely wrong. If we have to-hit charts, then by your reasoning we'd have to supply firepower-to-casualty charts too, and those would be just as pointless and useless as the to-hit chart you want because of the large number of variables used in those equations along with widely variant results.

As for penetration numbers: they simply do not vary with the myriad of conditions that the to-hit values do. One can present a chart of penetration values that have a useful meaning. There is variance, but it's manageably low. This is not true for to-hit values.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If it is inherently misleading to let the player know what the general effective range of a LATW is, then it must also be inherently misleading to let the player know what the potential firepower of his SMG squad at some range is. The two are almost exactly analagous.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry but they're not analogous at all. See my previous paragraph. One is initial, measurable data and the other is subject to the myriad vagaries of the situation at hand. They are not even remotely analogous.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Saying that letting the player know the effectiveness curve of a panzerfaust (for example) at range would be misleading, while giving the exact same information for a BAR is illogical.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It would be illogical if we actually did that. Fortunately we don't.

We never give an "effectivenes curve" for the BAR at all. We show initial firepower data. Whether or not a given firepower value is "effective" depends on scores of other variables. A rating of "50" might be great against a standing target in the open, but virtually worthless against a unit dug into heavy woods. Do you understand?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The game says that the max range is 225m, but in reality, and in the game, there is almost no chance to get a hit at that range, so my poor Schreck got toasted. Had I known that the odds of getting a hit at 200m were extremely slim, I would have put him somewhere else.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And now you know. Isn't experience a wonderful thing?

Charles

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

As I addressed before, it is actually very far from the truth. In fact it is a strawman. The chart in question would have precisely ONE variable, range. Just like the charts that are currently available.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strictly the speaking, the chart would still be massively multi-variate, but with only one independent variable - range - and all other variables fixed. This would still leave BTS with the problem of selecting a fixed value for each variable: Ambient light, humidity, wind strength and direction, level of enemy suppressive fire, troop experience, troop morale, and I could go on and on. Such a table's relevance to any particular combat situation is likely to be low.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> It cannot, by definition, be any more grossly misleading than any other effectiveness chart you haveincluded in the game, for exactly the reasons you have cited. Not a single point made does not equally and precisely apply to the firepower effectiveness figures already given, or the penetration values for main guns already given. Not a single one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's been pointed out by others in the thread, although perhaps not explicitly, so I'll do it here. The small arms firepower strength table is almost exactly analogous to armor penetration, in that they describe the likely damage/suppression of a squad from a given distance. It says nothing about likely to hit values, but rather tells one the weight of metal that a squad can pour out at different ranges. Otherwise, an MG42 would have a lower value at 250 mtrs than a K98, since a single shot rifle is far more accurate over such a range than an MG.

[edited for a silly typo]

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

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[This message has been edited by Hakko Ichiu (edited 06-14-2000).]

[Ted]

I think I can understand what Jeff is saying only from the point of view of a game setup-ambush using a faust/schreck/bazooka. At what distance does the accuracy of such a weapon start rolling off to a point where the unit using it should move closer to a target/ambush marker. I’ve never needed this information myself but if I had it I’d probably use it.

[Jeff Heidman]

OK,I give up. Everyone is correct. Actually letting the player have information that every single user of a weapon would learn in the first hour of training on a weapon is clearly a terribly bad idea. I do not know what I was thinking.

I am sure it was the case that the average user of a bazooka or Piat in WW2 had absolutely no idea what range his weapon was effective at, and he was forced to learn as he went. You have convinced me that when Recruit Fred got issued his shiny new Bazooka, and he asked, "So, what range can this thing be expected to hit something at?", his instructors told him to shut up, because the myriad of variables involved made it impossible to quantify in any meaningful manner what range the weapon had. Could be 20m, could be 500m. Who could say? Just get out there and try it, and see what happens.

I have no idea what my TOW instructors were thinking when they had me memorize effective engagement ranges. Surely they should have realized that unless I memorized every possible variable involved in hitting a moving T-72 at 2000m, then the knowledge that my weapon could conssitently hit one at the range under some circumstances was, essentially, useless, and maybe even misleading!

If nothing else, I am certainly done posting on this subject. Sorry to imply that CM was anything other than perfection incarnate.

Jeff Heidman

[billcarey]

Jeff: If you REALLY want a to hit table for a weapon you can make it in about a second. Play a hotseat game. Have everything run off the map except a sherman and a ATG. Have the ATG Kill (but not brew) the sherman. Move your schreck to 200m. Look at the chance to hit the abandoned tank. Move 10m closer, look again. Repeat for whatever increment you want and write down. This might even be something you would want to post to the board... (of course it is of dubious use since nothing will be shooting the schreck, and I've seen some really lucky/good teams too...)

It's not a hard procedure that would only need to be done once per unit you want info on...

- Bill

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

I am sure it was the case that the average user of a bazooka or Piat in WW2 had absolutely no idea what range his weapon was effective at, and he was forced to learn as he went. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

225m for the Panzerschreck

200m for the Bazooka

30m for the Panzerfaust 30

60m for the Panzerfaust 60

100m for the Panzerfaust 100

- it is all in the weapon info screen in the game.

And you know what, I am sure the PIAT info will be given there as well once the game comes out.

You are most welcome, it was a pleasure to answer that question for you.

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

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

edited b/c i was feeling generous.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 06-14-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Mr. Heidman has decided to respond to logic with bitterness and sarcasm. That's a shame.

In closing I would like to reiterate Steve's earlier suggestion that, for a weapon such as a bazooka or panzerschreck, simply looking at the maximum allowed range (200m and 225m respectively) and dividing it by two gives a rough estimate of the "effective" range of the weapon. And this is borne out in game play.

In fact, this is about the extent of knowledge that "Recruit Fred" (from Mr. Heidman's example) would generally receive as an average soldier in WW2. In fact, some recruits were given wrong information (e.g. "Private, this bazooka can take out a Tiger from any direction - no problem!"). Things were usually not so precise in those days, and that's another reason why veteran troops were so effective - they had battlefield experience with their weapons.

Charles

[aka_tom_w]

If I might add one more thing on this one.

As the commander you DO get a VERY accurate distance to target when using the targeting tool and at that time you get a chance to hit

value if I'm not mistaken.

My point here is that those zook or shreck teams in WW II did not have laser range finders and in all of the myriad of conditions which this game has coded variables for, you has the player/commander just have to learn by experience what works and what doesn't and when it comes to real world tactics I think this aspect of learning things the hard way is modeled extremely well. (But don't get me started on LOS thru AFV's )

Jeff, I for one would be interested in a PBEM game with you, preferably double blind when the release version arrives. Many here might disagree with you because we have become "converted" by the CM mind control algorythyms and given enough time and playing enough games of CM (more fun against challenging human opponents) we hope you too will see the light of the designed intention of the way the game gives up its secrets to those who play it to death.

(Its really just a clever ploy to make you play the game MORE and MORE as it is very clear to me that the more times you play both sides of EVERY available scenario the more you will get a good feel for the game and zooks and schrecks in particular)

(that Mind Control thing is of course all in jest, but this game really does make me want to play it MORE and MORE and PBEM human opponents are the MOST fun).

Thanks for all the posts to everyone.

Now let's all be commrades and start PBEM games against each other

-tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jeff Heidman:

If nothing else, I am certainly done posting on this subject. Sorry to imply that CM was anything other than perfection incarnate.

Jeff Heidman<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-14-2000).]