Jump to content

Steel Beasts vs Combat Mission t-72 visibility test


dbsapp
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, Combatintman said:

So you don't know ... someone 'guaranteed' something on another thread today that proved to be untrue when they tested it.

I beg your pardon...

Do you want me to the test in SB when M60 would be the shooter and t72 would turn his side in him, do I understand you correctly? It can be easily done. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

There is no need to make it personal. 

Can we look at the "RL data" that was used to make spotting system in CMCW the way that it is now? The thing is we don't know how spotting actually works in CMCW (beyond some vaguely phrased description). Nor we have any kind of real life data to support that your understanding is accurate. 

Well, @Haplessdid Youtube video recently using Steel Beasts to show how hard is to spot things from AFV. This video was highly acclaimed and received good reviews, it was even used to show me that I don't understand how tank spotting works. But apparently now it is wrong to compare CM and Steel Beasts.

But Steel Beasts and CM do have something in common. Both of them claim to be not just games, but simulators, e.g. they portray reality as close as they can. As you rightly said they both are used in military training. I don't compare Tetris to Diablo 2. I compare two AFV and ground troops tactics simulator. They both have common reference point - reality. 

What you are saying, I'm afraid, shows that you absolutely have no idea how Steel Beasts works. Vehicles in SB also have AI and spotting mechanics. As I said, 2 games have a lot in common, with Steel Beasts having tactical and personal - simulating crew members - layer that is lacking in CM.

The issue here is quite obvious. 

Both mission are created with ideal conditions - flat earth, daylight, the target is directly ahead. 

In Steel Beasts tank behaves very natural. It is pointed in the direction of the target from the very start, so it takes crew only 2 second to see tank in the clear daylight in front of them. Basically, it's the only thing that is there, nothing attracts their attention except of it. 

What happens in CMCW is absolutely counterintuitive and unexplainable. The tank also pointed in the direction of the target, it's flat earth, no obstacles, no smoke, nothing distracts the crew... But minute after minute goes by and nothing is happening. Why? How can you explain it? Are they sleeping? Are they arguing with each other? Why don't they look at their optics and see the first thing that is right in front of them - the enemy tank. 

I would like to hear your explanation of this particular situation. 

Ok, so looks like we will be having round two just cause.

Oh, so we are supposed to give out proprietary information just to prove to you that the game works...wow, you really are the CM Karen.

My point, which you completely missed, is not that CMCW is perfectly modelling RL data, it was the fact that your "test/case study" was complete and utter amateur BS.  If you can come forward with some form of RL data that backs up your position it would be a start but you seem to insist that you can employ one simulation in the assessment of another simulations RL performance to back up your own opinion.  

"Common reference point - reality" and you have not posted a single RL source in this whole diatribe.  What reality, the one in your head?

Nope, no idea how SB works, I am sure it is a wonderful simulation.  You are showing screen grabs of gunsight imagery as demonstration of "how easy it is to see a tank at 2000ms"...so what is seeing that imagery both in screen grabs and game?  A human brain, otherwise why model it for the player?  Anything that links back to a human brain is going to have an advantage, at least for now. 

Want proof of where the human brain is:

From what I do know, SB an CM are simulating completely different levels of resolution and gameplay but "of course it makes perfect sense to use one to argue against the other".

"SB behaves very natural."  There it is again...based on what?  We have Connaught ranges about 3 km from where I live, one of the best small arms ranges we have in the military.  There is a 1000m range, not even close to 2000m.  And you know what they have over every firing lane...a big number...why?  Because it is incredibly easy at that range to shoot at the wrong target, even though it is directly in front of the shooter and they know it is there.  What possibly gives you the credibility to be able to make the judgement statement you have made?  You are citing no other sources, nor have you provided any RL experience that would back that up.

"What happens in CMCW is absolutely counterintuitive and unexplainable"...to whom?  You?  Go find 2km somewhere and see what they actually looks like.  Then imagine a tank, really small at that distance and camouflaged.  Now you do not know where it is in an arc of view, say 90 degrees.  Now look through a telescope and tell me how fast you think you could find it, identify it as a tank, identify it as an enemy tank.

I am going to cut to the chase here and nail the real problem here, your view of the "scientific process" because that is what is really broken.

"That's how science work: if one experiment refutes theory, the theory is considered to be refuted, even if other tests allegedly prove it."  This pretty much says it all.  The point of the scientific process is exploration not to win an argument.  If an experiment disproves a theory then the point is to know "why" the theory failed, so we can build a new better theory.  You do not seem interested in the least in actually exploring the issue, nope this is all about "winning" an internet argument.

The "reality" is that if you could actually assemble a coherent argument on sound RL data, then we could actually try and "make a better theory of CM".  But instead we get temper tantrums, false "studies" and a whole lot of your opinion. 

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

Probably it does. 

But we don't know how. Apparently it produces very strange results.   

They arent very strange. In most situations the system works ok. Basically only the cases where it should be exceedingly easy or hard to spot dont quite get as far as they shouldd.

12 minutes ago, Bufo said:

Why would be this outside the scope?

because animating the turret turn rather than simply calculate as if works far better since the spotting works in distinct rounds every few seconds so simply getting an area that was scanned and calculating the los like that works well for the scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Personally the US feels how it should. But the t64's legit cant see anything in front of them. Ive had M60 (A1?) on grishof spot vehicles deep in forests but my tanks are unable to spot HUGE m60s in the open. I would love to send people my save file. My entire match has been ****ed. 

Ive had better performance from t34/85. 

My post on the fgm with a few screenshots.. That was just 1/3 of the very odd spotting. 

https://thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/potential-issue-with-cmcw.33112/page-2


If I'm interpreting these screenshots correctly, then I'm not really surprised by the results here.

1) Your tanks are moving, theirs are stationary. All things being equal they should spot first. All things are definitely not equal here.

2) You have no spotting contacts for your armour. Your armour has no idea what they're rolling into, where to look or what to look for. This is fundamentally incorrect technique. Sometimes that's necessary, naturally, since desperation is a thing, but I don't get the impression this is correct here.

3) For the above, that kind of thing is why I tend to repeat things like "Shock Force teaches bad habits" - you can get away with that if you have a significant advantage in quality over your opposition, such as in Shock Force, Black Sea or some situations in the WW2 titles, but if you don't have that quality advantage - and in this situation you firmly do not - then this kind of bad practice is a lot more exposed.

4) It's hard to judge but it looks as though you're exposing a smaller number of tanks than you're rolling into - the enemy platoon in a stationary position also outnumbers you, so there are more eyes to see you than for you to see them. Even if all things were equal (and they're still not), and you weren't moving (but you were), I'd *still* expect them to spot you before you spot them.

Quite aside from arguing about the quality of the simulation here, even if we limited this to discussion in terms of the representation of game mechanics, I'm not sure these screenshots show what you think they're showing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@The_Capt I thought you could do better... I mean without all those "complete and utter amateur BS" and "CM Karen" references which shows that you are emotional and have nothing to offer except your anger.

10 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

Oh, so we are supposed to give out proprietary information just to prove to you that the game works...wow, you really are the CM Karen.

Oh, that is the royal argument that I was waiting for! The information is classified, therefore we won't show it to you! Yeah, sure, I believe your word 😀

This argument is very funny being juxtaposed to your permanent claim that I have to show "real life data". Apparently, I must buy several tanks somewhere and film them fighting to please you😆:

15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

If you can come forward with some form of RL data that backs up your position it would be a start but you seem to insist that you can employ one simulation in the assessment of another simulations RL performance 

You are citing no other sources, nor have you provided any RL experience that would back that

 

15 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

"Common reference point - reality" and you have not posted a single RL source in this whole diatribe.  What reality, the one in your head?

You made several references to my education. I don't know about you, but I've studied logic in University. One of the first things they told us was "If A=B" and "B=C" then "A=C".

You know, both games (A and B ) claim to capture reality (C). So it's perfectly fine to make the comparison. 

 

21 minutes ago, The_Capt said:

A human brain, otherwise why model it for the player?  Anything that links back to a human brain is going to have an advantage, at least for now. 

It may be surprising, but I hoped that CM also simulates human behavior. SB does so. If it's not human in CM then who is it? Dog? Cat? Small green alien? Judging by the actions of t72 crew in my test mission all variants are possible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, domfluff said:


If I'm interpreting these screenshots correctly, then I'm not really surprised by the results here.

1) Your tanks are moving, theirs are stationary. All things being equal they should spot first. All things are definitely not equal here.

2) You have no spotting contacts for your armour. Your armour has no idea what they're rolling into, where to look or what to look for. This is fundamentally incorrect technique. Sometimes that's necessary, naturally, since desperation is a thing, but I don't get the impression this is correct here.

3) For the above, that kind of thing is why I tend to repeat things like "Shock Force teaches bad habits" - you can get away with that if you have a significant advantage in quality over your opposition, such as in Shock Force, Black Sea or some situations in the WW2 titles, but if you don't have that quality advantage - and in this situation you firmly do not - then this kind of bad practice is a lot more exposed.

4) It's hard to judge but it looks as though you're exposing a smaller number of tanks than you're rolling into - the enemy platoon in a stationary position also outnumbers you, so there are more eyes to see you than for you to see them. Even if all things were equal (and they're still not), and you weren't moving (but you were), I'd *still* expect them to spot you before you spot them.

Quite aside from arguing about the quality of the simulation here, even if we limited this to discussion in terms of the representation of game mechanics, I'm not sure these screenshots show what you think they're showing.

You should just look at my turns.... most of my units were in position first in fantastic overwatch positions. And they were outspotted every single time. The game magically just turned hugely in my favor, but not after my tanks had about 15 hits to their turrets each.

I had 2 tanks move to contact the entire game so far. The rest of my tank "engagements" had been stationary.

Edited by Artkin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Artkin said:

You should just look at my turns.... most of my units were in position first in fantastic overwatch positions. And they were outspotted every single time. The game magically just turn a huge turn in my favor, but not after my tanks had about 15 hits to their turrets each.

I had 2 tanks move to contact the entire game so far. The rest of my tank "engagements" had been stationary.

And you know what?

This scenario is one of the best for Soviets in CMCW! 

You should try Soviet campaign to understand how blind they actually are. It's really ridiculous. 

Edited by dbsapp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Target!  Tank!  2000m!  :o

At 9 minutes and 15 seconds we have a firm contact:

dSIDWV1.jpg

Interestingly the cheating bloody Yank has opened up.....I deliberately set both tanks to be buttoned up when I built this test scenario.  :angry:

Seven seconds later we have a firing solution and a round is sent downrange:

hwwgzR1.jpg

Causing us to loose the target in our own muzzle blast a few seconds later:

450O7QD.jpg

How will it all end?  How much time will I waste testing this?  The tension is palpable!  :P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

I beg your pardon...

Do you want me to the test in SB when M60 would be the shooter and t72 would turn his side in him, do I understand you correctly? It can be easily done. 

Yes that is what I am suggesting - and when you have done so how do those results compare with the CMCW test?  If you are trying to assert that SB models tank engagements between T-72s and M-60s better than CMCW does then I think it is a valid test.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

Target!  Tank!  2000m!  :o

At 9 minutes and 15 seconds we have a firm contact:

dSIDWV1.jpg

Interestingly the cheating bloody Yank has opened up.....I deliberately set both tanks to be buttoned up when I built this test scenario.  :angry:

Seven seconds later we have a firing solution and a round is sent downrange:

hwwgzR1.jpg

Causing us to loose the target in our own muzzle blast a few seconds later:

450O7QD.jpg

How will it all end?  How much time will I waste testing this?  The tension is palpable!  :P

 

Hmm.... I've done several tests and they all ended with t72 being destroyed. The longest wait time was 5 min😆

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 10 minutes the M60 fired again, but again seems to have lost the target.....I have to admit that it feels like the game engine is practically on its knees begging me to intercede for the sake of my poor pixeltankers!  :D

Will report back in the event of decisive contact or the default 30 minute timer running out.....I'll also draw some conclusions, but they may not be what you expect.

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

I thought you could do better... I mean without all those "complete and utter amateur BS" and "CM Karen" references which shows that you are emotional and have nothing to offer except your anger.

Yes, I am a little ticked to be honest because someone keeps coming around looking for attention (even bad attention) without really adding anything to the game or discussion.

8 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

This argument is very funny being juxtaposed to your permanent claim that I have to show "real life data". Apparently, I must buy several tanks somewhere and film them fighting to please you

Yes, but.I.did.not.pose.an.argument.  You did.  I never once said CM is perfect in every way, nor did I make a single hypothesis...I was "peer reviewing" yours which is pretty much as described for all to see.  Now if I were to say.."hold on a minute, CMCW is modelling the M60A3 vs T72 perfectly" then, yes, I would absolutely have to demonstrate that.  In this case I need only prove that your study is flawed, which has been exceedingly easy.

11 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

You made several references to my education. I don't know about you, but I've studied logic in University. One of the first things they told us was "If A=B" and "B=C" then "A=C".

You know, both games (A and B ) claim to capture reality (C). So it's perfectly fine to make the comparison.

What?!  First year logic is what you are leaning in with?  How about the simple fact that neither A nor B equal C, that is why we call them "simulations".  Go read Plato's Republic and the Cave Allegory and perhaps we can have a conversation.  By your logic I can compare CM to Steel Divisions series as an effective approach.

15 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

It may be surprising, but I hoped that CM also simulates human behavior. SB does so. If it's not human in CM then who is it? Dog? Cat? Small green alien? Judging by the actions of t72 crew in my test mission all variants are possible.

This makes about as much sense as the rest of your argument.

Look, lets be clear before any attempts to wiggle out, create strawmen or simply scuttle away are made.  You made an argument, right at the top of this ol thread here.  You tried to prove your argument by providing data/information based on observation.  You then drew a conclusion from that and went "ha!".  

I have pretty clearly demonstrated, nicely at first, then a bit more forcefully, that your argument is utter nonsense built on a foundation of more nonsense.  You have done absolutely nothing to actually prove your original argument.  You have side-slipped, tired to make it my argument, used frankly baffling strained logic but yet have not really done much beyond that.

So in an attempt to advance things.  Here is a scenario file for you that better reflects the scale CM is meant to simulate...go ahead and hit play.  Now what is the difference between this file and yours (oh, I used M60A1s cause the A3 with thermals is simply too easy)?

 

Tank Spotting.btt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 12 mintes and 30 seconds a round ricocheted off my gun mantlet and at 12 minutes and 49 seconds we received a partial penetration to the glacis damaging the tracks and causing minor spalling/blast damage to the optics & radio antennae:

onDbCFQ.jpg

But T-72s are tough and they seem to have lost sight of us again, so the test continues (I'm on my second cup of tea).  :rolleyes:

We are at half-time:

nc4dtVD.jpg

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Combatintman said:

Yes that is what I am suggesting - and when you have done so how do those results compare with the CMCW test?  If you are trying to assert that SB models tank engagements between T-72s and M-60s better than CMCW does then I think it is a valid test.

Upon your request I made a quick test in Steel Beasts. 

Now the tables have turned. M60 became a hunter.

M60shooting-SBstart.png

The interior, just for curiosity:

 M60inter.png

The famous and much discussed thermal sight is to the right. Optics sight is at the front. That's what M60 gunners sees:

M60sight.png

The result was quite predictable. M60 was fast to spot the enemy and destroy (4 seconds faster then t72 in the first test).

t72destroyed-SB.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

In my current run the M60 spotted the T-72 first, fired a couple of rounds, then lost the target in its own muzzle blast, it hasn't fired again since.  :rolleyes:

Set the ground conditions to damp or wet to eliminate dust. Also set unit Motivation to "fanatic" and give them short covered arcs so they will never open fire (unless you want them to shoot at each other).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, dbsapp said:

Upon your request I made a quick test in Steel Beasts. 

Now the tables have turned. M60 became a hunter.

M60shooting-SBstart.png

The interior, just for curiosity:

 M60inter.png

The famous and much discussed thermal sight is to the right. Optics sight is at the front. That's what M60 gunners sees:

M60sight.png

The result was quite predictable. M60 was fast to spot the enemy and destroy (4 seconds faster then t72 in the first test).

t72destroyed-SB.png

Ok ... so are those results consistent with what you are seeing in CMCW?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At 16 minutes and 15 seconds we reacquired the target and opened up.....The first round went laughably high, the second fell just a couple of meters short: 

N9MrRXx.jpg

It sounded like we injured the M60 commander.....Serves him right for cheating!  :D

But then we lost sight of him behind the dust.  :rolleyes:

We reacquired him at 18 minutes and 50 seconds, the gunner was on the ball and fired almost immediately:

nBQqyDH.jpg

Causing us to immediately lose the target again:

NCK53bo.jpg

But there was a very satisfying clang!  :D

At 19 minutes and 2 seconds we reacquire the M60 once again, there's a neat hole in the centre of its glacis:

A7fkntE.jpg

The tank commander isn't sticking his head out any more.....Probably because most of it is splattered all over the engine deck, I suspect!  ;)

Our first round goes high, but our second finds the mark and by 19 minutes and 45 seconds it is all over.....The M60 is a blazing hulk:

JfUvYBh.jpg

There were no survivors.  :(

Because I area targeted the blazing hulk until my ammo was gone because that's what cheats (AI driven or not) deserve!  :angry:

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...