How does the game simulate tank gunnery?

[Maximus]

Correct, Charles. I was mearly explaining how some CC fans get turned-off from CM due to just having that turn-based "term" in the description. As you can see how I explained that having the turns is just like pausing a realtime game to give better commands and then the tac-AI takes over during the movie to do things for you that you would have to do in a real-time game anyway. In a way, it works waay better than real-time anyway. Why worry about issuing stances and targets when the AI can do them for you, sort of thing?

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

"I for one, am pretty damn close to Genius"--Ol' Blood & Maximus

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Well, back to the topic of the thread...

I read Sabot's post twice and unless I missed his point, I think he is saying (suggesting?) that the 'extra' gunnery detail in CM (as opposed to CC) is superfluous.

I disagree. I have also seen several other tankers post here (and several other places) that disagree. (I am not a tanker, btw)

Sabot lists three areas that SHOULD be covered...and then seems to suggest that they are not needed (at least at this scale for a WW2 game).

Am I missing something?

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

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 06-17-2000).]

[Blackhorse]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scott Clinton:

I read Sabot's post twice and unless I missed his point, I think he is saying (suggesting?) that the 'extra' gunnery detail in CM (as opposed to CC) is superfluous. Am I missing something?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scott,

I didn't take it that way at all. I read it to mean that many various external factors influence tank accuracy, and that CM players shouldn't be surprised or flabbergasted when their tanks miss at seemingly guaranteed hit ranges.

Allons

[Sabot]

****Yes, Blackhorse. Thats exactly what I was trying to say. Closest I ever came to WWII style gunnery was in the gulf. Somehow a piece of sand or something interfered with the mechanism that changes the electronic signals of the gunner's power control handles from electric signals to hydraulic power. Everytime I grabbed the caddilacs the turret would buck and the retical would shake. I had to shoot in Emergency mode (No laser, no Stabilization, no lead, no cant, ect...) for the rest of the day til the mechanics fixed it that night. Stop, line up the shot through the Aux sight(a ballistic sight not unlike the WWII sights), and lay the main gun with manual cranking. It didnt affect me so much cause we werent recieving return fire. But it did make my asshole tight when it happened.

****Calling the gunnery in WWII games such as CM a "Crap Shoot" was the wrong analogy I guess. I believe that the main ingedient of laying steel on target is gunner skill. And the skill of the crew in boresighting and zeroing the main gun. Many a target has been hit by correcting using manual aim-off. Something few modern gunners are trained well in, but I imagin Veteran WWII gunners were well versed in.

****Someone stated earlier in this thread that rounds would not disperse enough at such short ranges (300m). I never took a maingun shot at under 500m. But the important thing to remember when talking about this is : A Mil is a Meter at 1000 meters. What this means is if your sights are 1 mil off (and they get this way even in properly boresighted modern tanks due to thermal bending {ask an M1 tanker about MRS update and you will start an argument}...you will miss a target ranged at 1000m by 1 meter. So at 500m with a 1 mil error, the round will disperse 50cm from the aiming point.

****Like Blackhorse (11th ACR?) said...There are so many factors of accuracy that cant be modeled exactly by the games, that when you miss for seemingly no reason, you have to chalk it up to one of the error factors of the tank gun error budget. Or Gremlins!

[Murx]

One thing on accuracy...

I would like to see a command like 'aimed targeting' maybe always used with ambush. So the gunner/crew takes extratime to aim and gains accuracy.

As far as I played my tanks mostly do snapshots - they just fire as fast as possible, but in combination of camouflage tanks & guns can efficiently ambush and take longer time to properly aim.

And for optics & stuff - maybe a kind of 'quality of material' could help. It's different if your tank is fresh from the line (and not a Monday piece of crap...), had this tank for 1/2 year and now it exactly or it had three major overhauls caused by damage/upgrades and is haunted by ghosts (( )etc.

Some tanks in WWII had rangefinders and with maps up to 4 Km maybe the better equipment on both sides could be included. Especially on the rangefinder systems from WWII there is surely enough information to find on which tanks they were.

Just my 2 Euro

murx

[This message has been edited by Murx (edited 06-17-2000).]

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Okay, thanks for the clarification and I don't think too many folks would disagree.

AFAIK, the one of the largest factors in whether a round hits or misses in CM is crew quality. I would expect that at ranges <500m crew quality would be the #1 variable for CM.

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

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

[CrapGame]

Sabot,

Outstanding posts. Thanks. I have learned a lot from them. Personally, I hope you stick around here. It gives us non-military folks (read as Armchair Generals) some more first hand information. I enjoy the fact that your posts point out that the Abrams are not infallible to the notorious Gremlins getting into their systems.

Also, CC2 and CC3 RealRed are still on my PC. Thanks Ron Gretz.

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

CrapGame out

[aka_tom_w]

OK I re-kindled this thread because of this post:

"Scott C

Member posted 06-17-2000 01:14 PM            

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

I just finished a game of CE vs. the AI. AI was Germans with +75% forces. They only got 4 StuGs, though they did end up with a grand total of 15 infantry platoons. I nailed 3 of the StuGs for the loss of 1 Sherman. The final (buttoned!) StuG came into sight right at the end of a turn. During the orders phase, I check LOS for all my (unbuttoned!) Shermans. Range is about 250m. All 4 are hull down with at least 60% hit chance and OK to Good kill chance. The results after one turn: Shermans fire 10 shots. Closest miss ~20m. StuG fires 4 shots, brewing 4 Shermans."

tom w continues:

I find it highly improbably (although clearly not impossible in the game) that one StuG would have four first shot hits in 1 minute.

and four Shermans would miss all attempts to hit. I'm not the least concerned about how the result of the hit is modeled. I would say richottetes and penetrations without result and KO's are modeled extremely well, but this my point....

Again it is my opinion that there are too many first shot hits and WAY too many third shot misses (in clear LOS at 250- 300 meteres, both target and gun stationary) and I think that a 1 in 5 (20%) chance of a miss after the first two consecutive "ranging" shots that miss, is too high a chance to miss on the third shot. I had been proposing a 90-95% chance to hit on the third shot in the clear at 300 meters after two first shot misses.

Hi Sabot,

I would be curious to hear what your opinion of the above example is. I have never played CC but I love RTS game and think Age of Empires is fun and challenging, so I'm in no way knocking CC. I'm just curious as to how it works and how tank gunnery in that game is modeled (no flaming here just wondering) and how the above 4 first shot hits from a turretless StuG in under one minute appeals to your sense of what it may have actually been like in the REALITY of WW II tank duals?

Sabot, thanks for your insight..

(and welcome )

-tom w

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

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

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tom, it is just statistical luck/bad luck. Accuracy is increased for every shot on target. That means in the same circumstances the 3rd shot always has as much of a chance of hitting as another's 3rd shot, and both have a much greater chance of hitting over another's 1st shot. There really is no room to argue against this since it is funamental probability at work here, nothing more. So what you see is statistically correct even if your mind says that it is wrong. While there are plenty of things in CM where opinions have some validity, when we are talking about straight probability math wins out every time.

Steve

[Jeff Heidman]

On a related note, is the fact that the Stugs are non-turreted come into the equation as far as their chance to hit a target they have to move the entire vehicle to line up with?

How does the need to move the turret or rotate the vehicle to get the gun on target affect hit probablities?

Jeff

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jeff,

Time. The time it takes to get a bead on the target is the only significant factor involved. A turreted vehicle, even if traversing is slow, has an edge (huge sometimes) on the StuG when trying to engage an enemy target while on the move. Think of it this way... if an enemy vehicle comes straight at a stationary Stug or turreted tank (gun facing forward) they basically have the same ability to fire at the enemy vehicle right away. But if the enemy vehicle comes from a 45 degree angle the StuG is going to have to reposition its hull FIRST, then aquire the target, then fire. A turreted tank does not have to do this no matter what angle the enemy vehicle comes at it (though it sometimes is wise). Also, a tank can realign its hull and turret independently, thus bringing the gun to the target faster still if it uses the principles of counter rotation.

There are a bunch of long threads on the StuG, including several discussions about the pros and cons of the vehicle. Overall it is a deadly bugger if used correctly, but if it isn't... dead meat.

Steve

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Hi there,

just happened to me. Stationary Stug, 2 moving Shermans, one stationary.

Result: 1 Stug alive 3 Sherman kaputt.

Stug commander has dinner tonite at ReichStag with Adolph in person!

I was really impressed. In total Stug fire 5 shots: all, I mean ALL hit their targets. Two Shermans were first damaged then finished.

Stug hit once: ricochet.

Lady luck was with the Germans this time.

[Mikeydz]

Ok, to hopefully put some semi concrete numbers to this debate, I ran a "Real World" in game test to try and get some rough numbers as far as hit percentages, and to see if there is a noticeable increase in % in relation to number of shots on same target.

Experiment settings

Scenario: CE

Test Firing Vehicle: Sherman (75) w/reg crew

Target Vehicles: 3 Stugs

Target Range: Approx 350 meters

Setup: I arranged the 3 Stugs facing the german edge of the map. I moved the Sherman into a hull down position at the ridgeline overlooking the German stating area. I moved all other German units into hiding in the main wooded area. The Sherman gained LOS on the 1st Stug at the end of the turn. I then saved the game at this point.

At an approx. range of 350 meters to all 3 Stugs, the Hit chance indicated for the Sherman was 60%.

Using this saved game position, I reloaded and logged all fire from the Sherman until I had 100 1st Shot attempts. Here are the results.

100 1st Shots

53 1st Shot Hits

53% 1st Shot Hits

From these 100 shots resulted in 49 2nd Shot attempts...

49 2nd Shots

33 2nd Shot Hits

67.3% 2nd Shot Hits

From these 49 2nd Shots, resulted in 20 3rd Shots.

20 3rd Shots

17 3rd Shot Hits

85% 3rd Shot Hits

And from these 20, 5 4th Shots resulted.

5 4th Shots

5 4th Shot Hits

100% 4th Shot Hits

Note, that I was tracking hits, not kills. For example, if the 1st shot hit, but did not kill the stug (ricochet, not damaging penetration, track hit, ect), the AI would continue firing at the same target, so if the 2nd shot also hit, I would count the both hits respectively.

The conclusions I draw from this is that

A... There obviously IS an increase in hit chance when firing is continued on the same target.

B... Having to fire more than 3 times on a target would be rare, and accountable to bad luck.

Hopefully this will satisfy Tom that the 3rd and following shots, under ideal conditions, will have high hit chances. But remember that these numbers were generated with ideal conditions for the Sherman, which was not under any fire from the enemy, at tanks that were pretty much sitting ducks. DON'T expect that "firing range" numbers like these would or should apply in combat conditions.

BTW, BTS.... would this test, plus my famous "Rate of Fire vs. Unit Experiance" test get me a better shot at the CM2 Beta...

[CoolColJ]

WOw - you must have some spare time

good research though

Might have to try something like this for infantry

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

Check out my CM mods, Music and artwork

www.geocities.com/coolcolj

[SheWolf]

misplaced post

[This message has been edited by SheWolf (edited 06-18-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

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

ck.

Hopefully this will satisfy Tom that the 3rd and following shots, under ideal conditions, will have high hit chances. But remember that these numbers were generated with ideal conditions for the Sherman, which was not under any fire from the enemy, at tanks that were pretty much sitting ducks. DON'T expect that "firing range" numbers like these would or should apply in combat conditions.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

WOW thanks Mikeydz for the research, I never had any doubt that each shot was more likely to hit than the one before it.

And Thanks Steve for your prompt and informative reply.

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

Tom, it is just statistical luck/bad luck.

...... So what you see is statistically correct even if your mind says that it is wrong. While there are plenty of things in CM where opinions have some validity, when we are talking about straight probability math wins out every time.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no doubt that the odds/chance to hit increase from the first shot to second shot to the third shot. No doubt at all about that as posted. I think Mikeydz's test was very informative. And I thank him for posting the results of his test.

What did we learn, the game when targeting told him there was a 60% chance to hit, we see 53 shots out of 100 hit. OK

Again I would just like to state my opinion, I understand that Steve says my opinion is not a factor here because the results are generated by math. I hope it OK to disagree on this one here. I understand that every third shot, no matter who or what side fires it has the same increased chance to hit. As reported by Charles though the chance to hit on the third shot is only in the 80% range and as we can see from Mikeydz's well documented research there is an 85% chance to hit on the third shot and 100% chance to hit on the forth shot.

My suggestion here is that the math/calculation/algorythym/game (whatever) should be tweaked to calculate more third shot hits in the 90% -99% hit probably range, to balance out how many times a first shot hit comes up.

(I also feel the math models too many first shot hits) I'm happy to see there were only 53 first shot hits out of 100 when the "odds" said 60%.

It is my opinion that the MATH models too many first shot hits and too it models too many third shot misses, so I'm saying change the math. I really do love this game and I'm pretty sure my lone opinion on this matter will not result in any tweaking of the math or algorythyms, so mostly I'm just posting again so that I'm not misunderstood.

I STILL LOVE this game

I figure I should have read about this somewhere and since I don't have the manual yet can I ask if experience of the tank crew gives any added "chance" to hit probability in the algorythym that determines the hit result when, say a vertran crew or a green crew targets the main gun? It would be interesting to know what modifier applies to a green crew and what modifier applies to a veteran crew if there is one.

Since I don't have my game yet, I think someone mentioned earlier that in light of anything else to do some of us might treat the Demo like a fly we just caught and want to dissect by "pulling the wings of the little bugger" and seeing what else could be dismembered to figure out what makes it fly.

Hopefully this is understood by all to be in the best interest of the game and mostly because we are all dying to get our hands on the real thing so we can actually PLAY it.

Many thanks for all your patience BTS.

Thanks for all the reply posts to this forum Steve and Charles.

And Mikeydz, GREAT research! thanks

And never forget LUCK, is a huge factor in tank duals.....

-tom w

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

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

[Sergei]

I myself have served in crew of an old fashioned, 1950's legacy, recoilless AT gun. With the little peacetime exercise I had with it, I would like to bring a couple of issues we had trouble with.

On sunny days the whole thing could get very hot, and after a couple of shots the breach was so hot that keeping a shell in the bore for a minute heated the explosive so much that the shell was guaranteed to fly higher than expected. In winter conditions there would be the other end, a cold shell could fall too short.

Sometimes we had otherwise prime conditions but had to shoot several shots at the target without hitting it. Then the gunner noticed that the sight had tilted slightly, resulting in inaccuracy. He was a good gunner and usually hit with first or second shot, but he just had forgotten to check the sight. A human error! And the calibration could have shifted anyway.

These kinds of things can't be properly modelled in a wargame, so it's not wrong to have some randomness in game to compensate.

[Renaud]

Thanks to Sabot for his obviously informed posts. My knowledge is a fraction of his but enough to verify he knows of what he speaks.

However, that won't prevent me from an extended clarification of an important point!

quote:

'****Someone stated earlier in this thread that rounds would not disperse enough at such short ranges (300m). I never took a maingun shot at under 500m. But the important thing to remember when talking about this is : A Mil is a Meter at 1000 meters. What this means is if your sights are 1 mil off (and they get this way even in properly boresighted modern tanks due to thermal bending {ask an M1 tanker about MRS update and you will start an argument}...you will miss a target ranged at 1000m by 1 meter. So at 500m with a 1 mil error, the round will disperse 50cm from the aiming point.'

The someone sabot refers to here is probably me. You will find my post on the first page. I believe Sabot has reinforced my point regarding the lack of need for aim-off at short ranges in CM (under 500m) when using high velocity guns. Trajectories of high velocity guns are practically flat at these short ranges, allowing you to aim centermass every time. In this case a several-mil aiming error (assuming semi-decent boresight) will still result in a hit on some part of the vehicle. In fact you could miss the centerpoint by quite a lot or have a big boresight error, but at short range you are still going to hit some part of your typically large ww2 mbt. So, to my mind the significant determinants of steel on steel will be crew quality and condition and who reacts and lays on first. The finer points of modern gunnery need not be simulated to achieve a realistic feel. If i'm not mistaken this is the major point Sabot has been trying to make in prior posts. I stand by my original statement that at short range you can lay centermass and get a hit. The correction from prior shots at such short ranges will usually not be possible, making mathematically increasing chances of hits on successive shots unlikely if based on correction for fall of shot. I don't disagree with increasing chances of hits for other reasons however, such as providing the gunner with time to get calm and really aim centermass. NEVER hitting is also a real possibility, if your gunner has gone mental on you or the sights have been knocked hugely off kilter...but we won't go there.

In my post I did imply some dumb things like tube droop may affect ww2 short range shots (NOT). Basically I was too lazy to go back and edit a rather hastily written post, so thanks to Sabot for not picking me apart on those. You just never know who will turn up here!

One final thing to Sabot: my God how can any tanker not love this game???

Ren

oh i forgot to mention how great that experiment by Mikeydz was. He should definitely be a beta tester. Keep in mind since stugIII armor effectiveness vs the sherman short 75 is not factored out, the numbers will be (any statisticians here?) different depending on target armor. If the test could be repeated vs something killed with almost every hit, such as a halftrack, the numbers would more purely reflect the actual hit %% and increases of %% chance on subsequent shots.

[This message has been edited by Renaud (edited 06-18-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My suggestion here is that the math/calculation/algorythym/game (whatever) should be tweaked to calculate more third shot hits in the 90% -99% hit probably range, to balance out how many times a first shot hit comes up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This runs counter to everything I have researched about tank and gunnery combat in WW2. 90-99% hit probability, even at relatively close range and for the 3rd shot, for a crew of only average skill is too high. On a calm firing range, sure. But the chance of human error under fire alone is far too great to allow such near-perfection, not to mention inconsistency in shell manufacture, bore wear, heating problems, mechanical difficulties, sighting problems like improperly calibrated equipment or from dust kicked up by previous shots, etc. Just the other day I was reading an account of a Sherman tank whose commander told the gunner "Target tank, 800 yards, open fire!" So he did. The shell sailed over the target. "700 yards!" shouted the commander. That shell flew overhead as well. "600 yards!" again, overshot. "500! JESUS!!" Overshot again. Finally they hit the German tank at something like 350 yards. The German tank was not moving during the whole affair - it was simply a gross misjudgement of the range. This factor alone is enough to keep hit probabilities a lot lower than you suggest.

Tom, on what data are you basing your desire to see 3rd-shot hit probabilities in the 90-99% range? I wonder if, in the entire history of warfare, any action of any type in the heat of battle has ever been known to have a 99% success rate. I don't think even greenhorn buckass privates straight out of bootcamp can be relied upon to poop their pants that consistently.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I believe Sabot has reinforced my point regarding the lack of need for aim-off at short ranges in CM (under 500m) when using high velocity guns. Trajectories of high velocity guns are practically flat at these short ranges, allowing you to aim centermass every time. In this case a several-mil aiming error (assuming semi-decent boresight) will still result in a hit on some part of the vehicle. In fact you could miss the centerpoint by quite a lot or have a big boresight error, but at short range you are still going to hit some part of your typically large ww2 mbt.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ren - I think you'll find this to be largely true in CM. You've probably already noticed this, but I'll say it here just for the sake of clarity: the stats taken by Mikeydz above were from Sherman 75mm guns, which are (IMO) "medium velocity" guns, not high-velocity like the Panther 75mm or Tiger's 88. Even at only 500m, a Sherman's shell will drop, from gravity, about 4 to 5 meters. That's roughly twice the height of a StuG. So there's definitely no direct-aiming going on there.

The shot drop for a German 88mm L/71 at that range would only be about 1 to 1.5 meters (sorry I'm just doing rough calculations in my head) and Ren's observations are more appropriate to that weapon; of course CM would also show much better hit percentages for an 88 than we saw in Mikeydz's examples with the Shermans, so CM is consistent on that score.

But do keep in mind things like human error and mechanical problems. These are quite common on the WW2 battlefield, so actual performance in the heat of battle is still likely to be lower than "expected" results.

Charles

[Doug Beman]

Charles, this may have been covered elsewhere and I missed it, but you mentioned "low-v" vs "high-v" guns. Does CM model any effect on shot accuracy imparted by higher or lower velocity?

Again, sorry if this has been covered. Also, it's nice to see you posting, now that the game is actually shipping you have time for that now eh?

DjB

ps I should have asked permission to drive myself to your warehouse Saturday morning. It wouldn't have been more than a 6 hour drive

[aka_tom_w]

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

But do keep in mind things like human error and mechanical problems. These are quite common on the WW2 battlefield, so actual performance in the heat of battle is still likely to be lower than "expected" results.

Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Charles, I will freely admit that my position regarding 90 -99% hit odds for the third shot is unsupported by any real world data or experience. Thank-you for clarifying your position. I will admit that my desire for 90 -99% third round fired hit odds in the heat of battle fired by an average crew is too high. Given what you have stated about the reality of all the reasons why they could miss, it seems the game works very well. I would however make the suggetion at this point that there seems, to me at least, to be an alarming amount of first shot hits. Although in the test Mikeydz ran, 53% seemed pretty realistic. I would like to see first shot hits under those circumstances at les than 50% for al the same reasons you have suggested third shot hits should not be in the 90 -99% range.

But again I fully admit my opinion is not supported by the same kind of research and experience you folks have put into the game, so I could be just spouting another unsupported and unrealistic opinion with regard to first shot hit frequency as well.

I think the game models the result of the hit EXTREMELY well ( ricochetes and penetrations and the Gun hits and immobolized results like that).

May I ask again if crew level/skill is factored in to the "to hit" algorythyms?

Is it also factored into the result of the hit part of the algorythym? I'm suggesting a vertran crew may have a better chance to target something vital like the turret ring or main gun or may be more likely to brew up a tank by hitting a more vulnerable location in the tank's armour? (OK, I admit now I am probaly getting too picky)

Are there tank crews of differing levels of

skill and experience. (I think there are but I can't remember).

Does the game model the fact that a veteran crew is more likely to be more accurate?

What are the varying levels of crew skill?

Green?

Regular?

Veteran?

Fantical?

is that correct?

Again thanks for all the replies and posts.

I only ask this because I CAN'T wait for my own copy.

Hopefully it will be here later this week and you'll never hear from me again !! (too busy playing and designing scenario's of course)

(don't count on it though, I think I'm as addicted to posting on this board as I am playing the damn game!)

Charles, thanks for the insight and all the posts in reply to how tank gunnery works in this game I do truly appreciate them all.

- tom w

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

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

[Mikeydz]

Thanks guys for the compliments on my tests.

Main point to consider about my numbers is that the sample size I used is on the small side. Had I sampled 1000 1st shots instead of 100, I'm sure the 53% hit rate would have edged up closer to the 60% indicated by CM. On that same note, take the 4th shot % with a grain of salt. I'm sure that it is possible that a 4th shot can miss. but considering that in the hour and a half it took me to run the numbers, I only got to a 4th shot attempt 5 times, I didn't have the time to generate enough of those to generate anything close to an accurate number.

I'm pretty sure that no matter how many shot attempts you take on target X, you'll never get a 100% chance of a kill. BTS can correct me if I'm wrong, but more than likely a point of diminishing returns is coded in. In other words, (pulling numbers out of thin air here...) you may get a 15% increase in your base to hit chance from the 1st to the 2nd shot. If you miss with the 2nd, the 3rd shot may only pump up the base an additional 5%. And if that shot missed, all additional shot would be based on that 3rd shot hit percentage.

In all practical matters, though this is all mostly academic. Chances are that if you havent killed your opponent tank by the third shot, you will either...

A. lose LOS because your opponent moved or poped smoke, or otherwise got away.

or

B. be dead because you opponent killed you because of your poor luck in trying to kill him.

BTW. I'm sure I could recreate the test with one of the veteran Sherman, if you want Tom...

Mikey

[THumpre]

Thanks Sabot for the very informative thread. Hope you stick around awhile and give us the benefit of your experience.

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

No matter where you go, there you are.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Doug - yes CM models the gun's muzzle velocity. More specifically, it calculates how long it takes for the shell to reach the target (including deceleration from air resistance) and therefore how much it "drops" due to gravity. Lower muzzle velocity and longer range means longer flight time, which means more shot drop which means less accuracy. Check the "full data screen" (click on a tank and press ENTER) and you'll see the muzzle velocity of the main gun in there. Sherman 75 is (IIRC) 619 m/sec. You can't see it in the demo but the King Tiger's long 88mm is (IIRC) 1,018 m/sec. This makes a big difference in accuracy.

Tom - yes crew skill plays a very large part in the accuracy calculations. Conscript tankers will miss point blank shots at the Mk. I "Barn Door". And experienced crews are also a lot faster. They'll get two shots off for every one that their green counterparts fire. So they bracket faster and... boom. Target gone!

Experience levels are: Conscript, Green, Regular, Veteran, Crack, Elite.

Mikeydz - correct, there is never a literal 100% chance of a hit in CM. Nothing is for certain!

Charles

[aka_tom_w]

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

Tom - yes crew skill plays a very large part in the accuracy calculations. Conscript tankers will miss point blank shots at the Mk. I "Barn Door". And experienced crews are also a lot faster. They'll get two shots off for every one that their green counterparts fire. So they bracket faster and... boom. Target gone!

Experience levels are: Conscript, Green, Regular, Veteran, Crack, Elite.

Mikeydz - correct, there is never a literal 100% chance of a hit in CM. Nothing is for certain!

Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well OK!

Now I get it.

I have a feeling an elite crew in a heavy german tank is going to make short order of most other allied tanks. I can really see where crew skill in tanks could easily tip the balance of a scenario. Again thanks for your most recent post Charles. I can't wait to play scenario's with elite crews on BOTH sides, that should be entertaining and prove deadly and bloody.

I can just see Elite SS crews in some of those late war heavy German tanks proving to be VERY difficult beasts to take down.

I CAN"T WAIT!

Bring on the GAME!

-tom w

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

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