The general muissunderstanding in CM

[Scipio]

In all the discussions about armor penetration, gun accuracy and whatever else the people seem to forget a simple thing. CM isn't what it looks like. What we see is not what happens. Everything is only abstracted.

If CM would use 2d maps and generic unitsymbols, but the same internal calculations, a lot of the discussions would never start. But the truth is, CM works like a 2d tactical game, the 3d movie is only the interpretation of the results. It's like the way we see a colour : we see for example 'red'. 'Red' doesn't exist in reality. There is only a specific electromagnetic frequenz that our eys are able to perceive and our brain interprets as the colour 'red'.

In CM, we see for example a gun that fires 5 times per turn. Now we read somewhere 'this gun can fire 15 times per minute' and we start a flame war about the gun ROF. If we would see the same in a 2d game, we check a units table and read 'gun xyz can attack 5 times per turn' and 'the unit can cause 10 damage points to this target unit', we are contented. But CM works the same way. The 'XYZ gun' don't fires 5 rounds a turn, it has 5 attacks per turn...

Well - after the genial 'we move' technique that BTS has developed and the outstanding 3d invironment, this is be the next big challenge for BTS: make CM 'real' - show us what really happens. Death to abstractions!!!

[Andreas]

What do you mean? It's not real? Say it isn't so!!!!

[aka_tom_w]

WHAT!!!??

Its nothing more than Smoke and Mirrors?!

I want my money BACK!!

-tom w

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Nope, Scipio, a tank firing 5 times in CM represents a real tank firing 5 times !

There's NO abstraction to AP combat : turret rotates, gunners load and aim, and BOOM, the shell fly, hit (or not) the target, penetration is compared to armor according to angle, this is a VERY "realistic" approach...even if some things aren't there, such as target movement after shell flies off (ending with shells passing through walls and hitting their targets ! )

It's NOT true for HE and Inf fire - there are here some abstractions, the "FP" and values for example - the game doesn't track each bullet.

But CM is not ASL with its "abstract" RoF (which were 1-2 shots per 2 minutes !),

I really think you're wrong on this one, man !

[aka_tom_w]

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

In all the discussions about armor penetration, gun accuracy and whatever else the people seem to forget a simple thing. CM isn't what it looks like. What we see is not what happens. Everything is only abstracted.

snip

this is be the next big challenge for BTS: make CM 'real' - show us what really happens. Death to abstractions!!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi

My understanding of the game is that the armour penetration model is NOT abstract in any way.

Every round of AP and T and C and HE (and S) is accounted for in the tank.

Every time a round from a anti tank gun, inf gun, or AVF main weapon fires there is a clear and specific calculation that determines EXACTLY what will become of that round and that shot. So no, I do not agree the the armour penetration model is abstracted at all.

Now MG and HMG fire and small arms fire seems to be alot more abstracted so you may have an issue there. BUT not when it comes to tank battles.

-tom w

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO:

...I really think you're wrong on this one, man !<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you ever seen a dud? No?

[aka_tom_w]

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

Have you ever seen a dud? No?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a VERY good point

I have lobbied for duds to be modeled but the official BTS party line is that there is no accurate official or historical record on which to base the accuracy of the Dud rate.

I have pointed to the old 2D board game Tobruk and suggested strongly that the dud rate for EVERY weapon in that game was modeled.

The BTS reply is that they MUST of"guessed" at their Dud rates and BTS would not do that.

I would really like to see the dud rate of all ammo modeled in CMBB, but I don't think it is on "the list".

-tom w

[Andreas]

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

Have you ever seen a dud? No?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Any suggestion on how prevalent these should be, e.g. for US vs. German?

And matter of fact, I have. I would class US 76mm breaking up as a dud. Was in the beta.

[ParaBellum]

I always knew it!

... full of sound and fury, signifying nothing...

[Scipio]

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

Any suggestion on how prevalent these should be, e.g. for US vs. German?

And matter of fact, I have. I would class US 76mm breaking up as a dud. Was in the beta.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Breaking shells are breaking shells, not duds. It still happens. And 'I would class ... as ...' is a 100% abstraction

Anyway, maybe I haven't expressed my thoughts right - yes, there is some calculation for single (gun) shots. But it's still abstraction. Gun xyz has for example a 50% chance to hit a tank on 1500m. It fires 5 shots per turn. In reality, each shot goes usually closer to the target. In CM it does not. A number of shells hit, the others go somewhere else. Maybe shot one 10m away from the target, shot two 100m, shot three hits, shot four 50m away. It's absolutly unrealistic - a gun that has hit once will hit the target with a VERY high chance again. It only make sense if you see it as abstraction. A specific % will be hits, the rest not.

[M Hofbauer]

if the game showed it's intestines to us it would look much less enjoyable.

for example, the tanks as used in the armor model would be square boxes that resemble more the generic grey sound-spotted ?-tank instead of the mult-facetted way they really looked and how they are visually modeled.

[ElGuapo]

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

And matter of fact, I have. I would class US 76mm breaking up as a dud. Was in the beta.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right. I remember specifically replaying a bit of a turn where a shell broke up into 5 different pieces off the turret of a King Tiger. It was entirely too pretty and looked like it could have shredded nearby troops. Little details like that keep popping up and making sure this game will never leave my HD.

[aka_tom_w]

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

Breaking shells are breaking shells, not duds. It still happens. And 'I would class ... as ...' is a 100% abstraction

Anyway, maybe I haven't expressed my thoughts right - yes, there is some calculation for single (gun) shots. But it's still abstraction. Gun xyz has for example a 50% chance to hit a tank on 1500m. It fires 5 shots per turn. In reality, each shot goes usually closer to the target. In CM it does not. A number of shells hit, the others go somewhere else. Maybe shot one 10m away from the target, shot two 100m, shot three hits, shot four 50m away. It's absolutly unrealistic - a gun that has hit once will hit the target with a VERY high chance again. It only make sense if you see it as abstraction. A specific % will be hits, the rest not.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree with that too.

There is a targeting aquistion bonus modeled in the game.

Every shot on a target has a greater chance of hitting the target than the shot before.

you may not actually see the shots getting closer to the target, but the chance to hit goes up after every missed shot and I don't think you could really call that an abstraction? Could you?

-tom w

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

if the game showed it's intestines to us it would look much less enjoyable.

for example, the tanks as used in the armor model would be square boxes that resemble more the generic grey sound-spotted ?-tank instead of the mult-facetted way they really looked and how they are visually modeled.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I don't want to see the 'reality' like Neo did in 'Matrix' . I mean, it would be really great if the abstractions are replaced with more reality. To use then gun-example again - shot one 100m to far, shot two 50m to short, shot three hits, what describes (raw) how gun targeting works in reality. (To explain: the biggest aiming problem is always the unknown distance to target). Some misunderstandings can be simply avoided with more differenced messages. For example the damage a hit causes on one of my tanks.

[JunoReactor]

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

It's like the way we see a colour : we see for example 'red'. 'Red' doesn't exist in reality. There is only a specific electromagnetic frequenz that our eys are able to perceive and our brain interprets as the colour 'red'.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Scipio, sorry to break this to you, but if one was to proceed along your line of skepticism those wavelenghts that we associate with color are 'abstractions' too.

In other words, they are nothing but a representation of 'reality,' albeit from a very serious discourse that we as humans started with the scientific revolution - science is a philosophy, a definition of reality; not reality in and for itself.

Thus your argument is quite moot.

[Scipio]

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

I disagree with that too.

There is a targeting aquistion bonus modeled in the game.

Every shot on a target has a greater chance of hitting the target than the shot before.

you may not actually see the shots getting closer to the target, but the chance to hit goes up after every missed shot and I don't think you could really call that an abstraction? Could you?

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I started a threat about that some time ago, and I run several tests about it. If there is a bonus, I wasn't able to verify it.

I wouldn't call it an abstraction - I would call it 'not modeled' and only named 'abstarction'.

[Silvio Manuel]

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

No, I don't want to see the 'reality' like Neo did in 'Matrix' . I mean, it would be really great if the abstractions are replaced with more reality. To use then gun-example again - shot one 100m to far, shot two 50m to short, shot three hits, what describes (raw) how gun targeting works in reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but you don't see things such as a crew getting nervous the 1st two missed and rushing the 3rd shot, or some 1 out of 100 genuine goofball adjusting the sights/dials/whatever wrong, someone hard of hearing misinterpreting the gun crew chief's command in the loud sounds of nearby combat,etc. Luck, and having the odd gunner who is from the shallow end of the gunnery gene pool would seem to be abstracted in.

[Xavier]

I agree with Scipio. But the 'miracle' of CM is to make these abstractions so real. I think you are closest to reality when you can model correctly well known stuff (muzzle velocity, rate of fire...) and some very rare events (like dud amo for instance). but these rare events can be very frustative in term of gameplay. Playing with armors is sometimes quite a bit 'mechanical'( like a chess game). I think the new tanks moral and behaviour will be an huge improvment in CMBB.

[Enoch]

I think the acquistion modifier is pretty clear. How often do you seen a tank that has scored a hit on another tank miss with subsequent shots? I can say that I often see guns that score hits do not miss very often afterwards.

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

True, but you don't see things such as a crew getting nervous the 1st two missed and rushing the 3rd shot, or some 1 out of 100 genuine goofball adjusting the sights/dials/whatever wrong, someone hard of hearing misinterpreting the gun crew chief's command in the loud sounds of nearby combat,etc. Luck, and having the odd gunner who is from the shallow end of the gunnery gene pool would seem to be abstracted in.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's right if the gun is under fire and the battle is full running. But in a situation when the gun firse under best circumstances you will see the same results.

[Scipio]

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

I think the acquistion modifier is pretty clear. How often do you seen a tank that has scored a hit on another tank miss with subsequent shots? I can say that I often see guns that score hits do not miss very often afterwards.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And in a test I've seen an AT that has hit once than missed 17 shots in a row. Or very often 3 three missed - hit - hit - 5 missed - hit - missed etcetera.

[ 09-28-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Silvio Manuel]

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

That's right if the gun is under fire and the battle is full running. But in a situation when the gun firse under best circumstances you will see the same results.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree w/ the not-under-fire situation. However, the dumb-founded luck is still there even on the best undetected 1st-shot & subsequent shot scenario.

I agree with you that ATG accuracy is quite maddening at times. I still sweat the quality of the game though. CMBB w/ its tank morale and such should provide us with...new reasons to nitpick this (great!) game ;>

[RMC]

I don't know about the target acquisition bonus, but shot groups are bracketing are not. Lke Scipio pointed out one shot could miss by 10m and another by 100m because the game first determines whether a hit is scored and then if not it randomizes the impect location of the miss within certain constraints. It does not calculate a ballistic path for those rounds. It's the same dynamic that allows tanks that were in LOS to get shot through buildings as they move out of LOS.

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

I agree w/ the not-under-fire situation. However, the dumb-founded luck is still there even on the best undetected 1st-shot & subsequent shot scenario.

I agree with you that ATG accuracy is quite maddening at times. I still sweat the quality of the game though. CMBB w/ its tank morale and such should provide us with...new reasons to nitpick this (great!) game ;><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that it's a great game. I few minutes ago I watched an PBEM turn with two of my tanks hunting an Sherman, and sweated blood and tears. :cool:

Oh, the 4th shot of one tank hits deadly.

Maybe they should keep the 'errors' amd problems and missunderstanding. What else should we discuss here??

[Rodimzew]

The discussion of pros and cons of more accurate gun simulation is very interesting, but i propose not to change anything if the game speed will be decreased therefore. It is a big advantage of the game system, that the game turn calculation lasts not as long as in other games. Really big tank battles might be dreadful if the mentioned reality is implemented.

And however, there are reasons for a loss of accuracy, because the muzzle velocity of guns depends on air pressure, air temperature, ammunition temperature. Furthermore there are environmental effects as wind and maybe at least the gunners whisky after scoring a kill, which also reduces accuracy