Jump to content

Frustration with CMCW - Russian side


Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, Butschi said:

It doesn't work like that. Imagine CM to be a board game. Every turn you get to roll a die (the normal 6 sided one) and if it shows a 6 you spot the enemy tank. On average it will take your tank 6 turns to spot the tank but 16% of the time or so it will take 10 turns or more. Of course, if you roll 2 dice per turn, the probability that it takes you 10 turns or more to spot is lower. But also the average is lower, so you effectively make spotting easier. To mitigate that you can use dice with more sides but then the probability that you need more than 10 turns increases again...

Remember, though, that, contrary to real life, your Pixeltruppen never misidentify one of their own as an enemy. So, if not requiring a positive ID, blue on blue kills should be a thing, too. (And I think that would be awesome! The chaos, the drama!)

Actually blue vs blue does happen with infantry at darker times of the day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Artkin said:

Actually blue vs blue does happen with infantry at darker times of the day

But rarely and only in specific circumstances, I seem to remember. So that doesn't really count, I think. I mean, in reality these things happen in broad daylight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you reduced the spotting chance you ought to still have a smoother/closer to the average result with more rolls? That might mean that there are longer spotting times but you'd end up with fewer outliers which seems to be part of the complaint if I'm understanding it correctly. A player has an intuited expectation and occasionally they are getting a result outside of that. More rolls would do a better job of teaching players what to expect since the results would be more consistent.

 

1 hour ago, Butschi said:

Remember, though, that, contrary to real life, your Pixeltruppen never misidentify one of their own as an enemy. So, if not requiring a positive ID, blue on blue kills should be a thing, too. (And I think that would be awesome! The chaos, the drama!)

The game is handling both sides under the same rules so you aren't really advantaging anyone in this sequence. Well technically you would be advantaging units with poorer spotting but in the same way the game is currently advantaging units with better spotting. Someone is coming out ahead in an unrealistic fashion and its a compromise in either direction.

You really can't properly model the fear of friendly fire without a lot of micro adjustments per scenario. Your force doing a night reconnaissance mission would likely have your models holding fire to avoid FF while a scenario where your force is the first line of defense against a prepared enemy assault would be far less worried about anyone coming at them from the enemy lines.

 

 

 

Edited by Pelican Pal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Artkin said:

So I ran a very quick test with sturms at 2km. They did well and spotted tanks almost instantly. Now, I put them inside "Tree A" and their spotting quickly suffers. They have good LOS and are unable to spot the tanks after 3 minutes. This is exactly how I had them set up when the "blob of us vehicles" was coming toward me. Since the shturms sights are low to the ground I didn't expect Tree A to have such a debilitating effect on spotting.

At the end of the range there are 3 pattons facing opposite my three shturms (I've yet to turn the pattons around and see what they see). one patton was killed already, you can see the smoke. This shturm has good LOS but is unable to see the pattons. I'll continue running the test scenario and see what happens. It's been a few minutes since I've restarted it and the shturms failed to see a single patton this time.

Flat grass tests only tell so much, IMO. And what you see apparently isn't what you get, still.

tree-A.png

When have you seen a forest that didn't have a shedload of undergrowth and bushes?

We *know* that there is undergrowth modeled and abstracted away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Grey_Fox said:

When have you seen a forest that didn't have a shedload of undergrowth and bushes?

We *know* that there is undergrowth modeled and abstracted away.

Maybe abstract the spotting ability of vehicles hidden within a treeline (say within 3 m of the edge (pick a reasonable distance)) such that for some forward arc (say 60 degrees, +/-30 degrees from its facing) making it as good as spotting, or almost as good, as spotting in the open, with the thinking that the tankers will pick out a location that provides them with a decent forward field of view in the direction they perceive the threat to be coming from (which would be the way I am facing) while providing them concealment.  All other directions keep as is, with branches, underbrush, etc. imposing the spotting penalty that may or may not already be in place for being in the trees.  And in a further abstraction, though not penalizing the forward spotting abilities of vehicles hiding along the treeline, do not make them easier to spot than presently, the abstraction there being the tank crews camouflaging their vehicles with cut brush and stuff without hindering their spotting ability by doing so.

All fine and dandy for me to say, with no knowledge of the abilities of the code and its ability to do anything like this or other things being suggested, but if lying in ambush on the defensive, that is what I would expect my forces to do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, AlexUK said:

It does seem like a problem to me. Isn’t it advised tactically to place your armour within the tree line when setting up ambush positions? If CM current setup means this is penalised then it would be a problem. Intuitively you would expect the opposite to occur. The ambusher spots the moving target in open ground much easier and the ambushed having a very hard time spotting the stationary, in shadow, and partially concealed by foliage ambusher. 

Trees in action spots between units can block or degrade LOS but trees in the same action spot as the unit(s) never do, as far as I can tell. So your tank can see fine out of a tree line so long as it is on the edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grey_Fox said:

We *know* that there is undergrowth modeled and abstracted away.

There are specific forest tiles along with undergrowth and bush placeables. I'm fairly certain that trees by themselves don't confer any undergrowth abstraction. You need to combine them with a grown tile or other placeable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/18/2023 at 1:55 AM, Vanir Ausf B said:

Trees in action spots between units can block or degrade LOS but trees in the same action spot as the unit(s) never do, as far as I can tell. So your tank can see fine out of a tree line so long as it is on the edge.

This is also the way I think it works, but if I understand Artkin's post correctly, his vehicle's spotting is being penalised for being inside a tree square and looking out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

This is also the way I think it works, but if I understand Artkin's post correctly, his vehicle's spotting is being penalised for being inside a tree square and looking out?

From the screenshot provided it looked to me like the vehicle was not on the edge of the trees. But it's hard to say for sure from that angle and he didn't specify.

Edited by Vanir Ausf B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2023 at 11:13 PM, Butschi said:

Buttoned up.

Why do you think this is odd? It's really more like a too small sample size. I'm not claiming that what I say is exactly true - in fact, back at university I'd have been flogged for making such bold statements with so little data. :D I did a "simulation", meaning, "made a dice roll", i.e. I generated a random number, repeatedly, until it was < 0.01 or 0.02, respectively. That is about the order of magnitude (very roughly! I don't know the exact values!) for the spotting probability in the scenario I described (0.02, or 2% for the "simulated" M60). I repeated this 50 times for each "tank". The result looked like this:

hBQ9fLy.png

Different histogram but same phenomenon. Long tail for orange and seemingly no tail for blue. Now, exactly same parameters and setup but 5000 "experiments" for each tank.

FgUo17j.png

Here you see that both have long tails, and if I were to repeat the experiment a million times each, you would probably see that both get events out to 700. Only that orange gets way, way, way more of them. Just by having 1% instead of 2% probability for each dice roll.

Wish I was the statistics expert, I'm a particle physicist and some statistical data analysis was part of my PhD and later in my job. But in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, I guess. 😉 What you describe may be unlikely (though that depends on what the actual parameters governing this situation are) but remember this: There are thousands of players out there making thousand upon thousands of dice rolls each day. The probability that someone observes such a situation (and then makes a frustrated post on the forums) is actually not that small.

Well sometimes universities or other organizations are too strict with protocol ;-). I remember during one training I was enrolled in years ago there was a guy from Switzerland following the training as well (he worked for the WIPO) and he told us that in his work/organization people were only allowed to say/propose something in a meeting if they have a degree in the subject. I guess I was rather 'flabbergasted' about that bureaucratic reality. We/I live in a different world fortunately.

Anyway I don't think that you need to run your tests for 1.000.000 of times, as you already did you can with a large degree of certainty predict what will happen when you enlarge n. There is a very slight chance of these probabilities not being subject to a 'normal distribution' and will show wild different behavior if enlarging the sample size beyond certainty of 2 standard deviations.

After all, the data is produced by an algorithm. I neither made statistics my profession but the subject was certainly touched upon during my time in school/university and apart from not enjoying to memorize formula's or using SPSS to make pointless (uni stuff lol) ANOVA / T analysis to prove you got the point, I was/am quite interested in the subject of chance/probabilities and statistics.

Seems to me you have 'enough' understanding of the subject (not surprising given your profession ;-)) to present your findings with a bit more certainty.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/16/2023 at 11:13 PM, Butschi said:

Buttoned up.

Why do you think this is odd? It's really more like a too small sample size. I'm not claiming that what I say is exactly true - in fact, back at university I'd have been flogged for making such bold statements with so little data. :D I did a "simulation", meaning, "made a dice roll", i.e. I generated a random number, repeatedly, until it was < 0.01 or 0.02, respectively. That is about the order of magnitude (very roughly! I don't know the exact values!) for the spotting probability in the scenario I described (0.02, or 2% for the "simulated" M60). I repeated this 50 times for each "tank". The result looked like this:

hBQ9fLy.png

Different histogram but same phenomenon. Long tail for orange and seemingly no tail for blue. Now, exactly same parameters and setup but 5000 "experiments" for each tank.

FgUo17j.png

Here you see that both have long tails, and if I were to repeat the experiment a million times each, you would probably see that both get events out to 700. Only that orange gets way, way, way more of them. Just by having 1% instead of 2% probability for each dice roll.

Wish I was the statistics expert, I'm a particle physicist and some statistical data analysis was part of my PhD and later in my job. But in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king, I guess. 😉 What you describe may be unlikely (though that depends on what the actual parameters governing this situation are) but remember this: There are thousands of players out there making thousand upon thousands of dice rolls each day. The probability that someone observes such a situation (and then makes a frustrated post on the forums) is actually not that small.

Well sometimes universities or other organizations are too strict with protocol ;-). I remember during one training I was enrolled in years ago there was a guy from Switzerland following the training as well (he worked for the WIPO) and he told us that in his work/organization people were only allowed to say/propose something in a meeting if they have a degree in the subject. I guess I was rather 'flabbergasted' about that bureaucratic reality. We/I live in a different world fortunately.

Anyway I don't think that you need to run your tests for 1.000.000 of times, as you already did you can with a large degree of certainty predict what will happen when you enlarge n. There is a very slight chance of these probabilities not being subject to a 'normal distribution' and will show wild different behavior if enlarging the sample size beyond certainty of 2 standard deviations.

After all, the (underlying) data is produced by an algorithm (CM), it's not the quantum universe you are trying to predict here. I neither made statistics my profession but the subject was certainly touched upon during my time in school/university and apart from not enjoying to memorize formula's or using SPSS to make pointless (uni stuff lol) ANOVA / T analysis to prove you got the point, I was/am quite interested in the subject of chance/probabilities and statistics.

Seems to me you have 'enough' understanding of the subject (not surprising given your profession ;-)) to present your findings with a bit more certainty.

 

Edited by Lethaface
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2023 at 8:10 PM, Butschi said:

But rarely and only in specific circumstances, I seem to remember. So that doesn't really count, I think. I mean, in reality these things happen in broad daylight.

☝️

To give a rl example of an incident that happened early this year in a simulator exercise.

a company of l2a6 is defending. the far left platoon starts getting targets at 3500m and engages. suddenly one tank turns its turret and puts five rounds into a tank of the center platoon only barely being stopped before also shooting the company commanders tank.

The tc had seen a thermal signature and immediately brought the gun over without checking what he was looking at and the gunner didnt realize he was looking at a leo2 and fired even though he knew there were friendlies there, the tank was pointing and engaging in the wrong direction, only 1000m away and was in the open easily identifiable.

If this happened to anyone in cm theyd riot yet it happened irl.

So while cm has issues with the spotting model rl can be much weirder.

Edited by holoween
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, holoween said:

☝️

To give a rl example of an incident that happened early this year in a simulator exercise.

a company of l2a6 is defending. the far left platoon starts getting targets at 3500m and engages. suddenly one tank turns its turret and puts five rounds into a tank of the center platoon only barely being stopped before also shooting the company commanders tank.

The tc had seen a thermal signature and immediately brought the gun over without checking what he was looking at and the gunner didnt realize he was looking at a leo2 and fired even though he knew there were friendlies there, the tank was pointing and engaging in the wrong direction, only 1000m away and was in the open easily identifiable.

If this happened to anyone in cm theyd riot yet it happened irl.

So while cm has issues with the spotting model rl can be much weirder.

Great example of why you can't get too bent over spotting oddities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, holoween said:

☝️

To give a rl example of an incident that happened early this year in a simulator exercise.

a company of l2a6 is defending. the far left platoon starts getting targets at 3500m and engages. suddenly one tank turns its turret and puts five rounds into a tank of the center platoon only barely being stopped before also shooting the company commanders tank.

The tc had seen a thermal signature and immediately brought the gun over without checking what he was looking at and the gunner didnt realize he was looking at a leo2 and fired even though he knew there were friendlies there, the tank was pointing and engaging in the wrong direction, only 1000m away and was in the open easily identifiable.

If this happened to anyone in cm theyd riot yet it happened irl.

So while cm has issues with the spotting model rl can be much weirder.

Exactly and outstanding example.  And here you are talking about modern MBTs on a training scenario.  Sitting in a comfy chair in squeaky slippers it is easy to wonder what in the sweet seven hells is going on when something like this happens.  In real life it is so easy to get confused distracted and generally messed up.

This is what makes CM work so well, they managed to bottle chaos just enough.  And warfare is all about managing chaos.

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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...