Back to the topic : Doubts in CM

[Andrew H.]

WRT the 88, remember that it became most feared in the desert against the (mostly) British. This -- 1940-42 -- is much earlier than the time shown in CMBO, which made the 88 relatively more powerful, for a lot of reasons. Here are a few:

(1) During most of the North African fighting, there was nothing approaching the size or effectiveness of the 88 in any tank.

(2) For this reason, it was easier for the 88 to stand off and pick off tanks -- they simply couldn't hit it at that range with their smaller guns (artillery was still a danger, of course).

(3) Many of the early, common british guns did not fire HE. The 2-pounder did not, and it was one of the most common tank guns during most of the desert fighting

(4) It is more common to find long lines of sight in a desert environment.

(5) British had poor infantry-tank coordination throughout much of the desert fighting; tanks were often treated as cavalry and had a tendency to "charge" when it appeared that the Germans were retreating. The charge often led to a line of AT guns.

So, putting this all together, the 88 developed its reputation in a situation with long lines of sight against tanks with small guns which were not accurate at long range, and even if the tanks had the range, most of them could do no damage because they only had solid shot (meaning that they basically have to close to MG range). Throw in a lack of infantry support and you have the making of the 88's reputation.

Which was quite deserved, and it is still a formidible weapon which was still effective in 1944. But there's no way it could have lived up to its fearsome reputation by the time of CMBO because so many things had changed.

It is true, of course, that relative spotting would make AT guns more effective in a lot of situations, and it is also true that these weapons were often fired from carefully concealed prepared positions which are also not in CM. But these are sort of minor points compared to the others.

Oh, also 88s tended to be used in (I believe 4 gun, may have been 6) batteries; you can multiply the effectiveness of the guns if you have 4 of them, assuming terrain with good LOS and the ability to make use of the LOS while placing the guns in supporting positions.

[Scipio]

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

OK, now test this out. First, you need a cite to account for your claim of the accuracy of the 88 (version whatever). Like: Johnson and Hammersmith said this in this book. Maybe your cite will be no good, maybe it will be good, but we need to see it to see how you figured out that third shot hits where norm at x meters range.

Then you can use CM to test your theory. Line up a bunch of Shermans with no ammo on one side of the board, and bog them in swamp. Line up a bunch of 88s on the other. Put them in level 4 trenches so they cannot shoot at each other. Make sure you have at least twenty guns and twenty targets. Play a first turn 5 times, and figure out in those 100 gun/turns what your average hit rate is. Compare with your citation (and for giggles save your file so others can play with it also by varying range, etc).

Now, if they are different, come up with a theory on why they are different, and present your theory. Expect to defend your source, your test model, and your findings, but if you have done it right it should be no problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check this for the data:

The 8,8

Test results will follow

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I think that the M2HB should definately be abandoned like a mortar, but an MG42? It is not that heavy to grab and run. Neither is the 1919.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if they are not that heavy to grab and run, then why are they not allowed to run in CM? Seriously, I suppose it would be more the ammo slowing them down rather than the gun itself, but if you abandon the ammo, for game purposes, they might as well have dumped the gun, cuz the unit is now useless.

[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Berlichtingen]

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

...that leaves us with the minefields...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What specifically is your problem with minefields? They seem to work correctly to me

[Slapdragon]

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

What specifically is your problem with minefields? They seem to work correctly to me<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you note my request on the previous page for some back up to the "feeling" that something is wrong with the game, I think most of this is just that, feelings. Nothing is really wrong with mines except they are a bit abstracted and do not work like they do in the movies.

[Scipio]

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

What specifically is your problem with minefields? They seem to work correctly to me<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I refered to my former threat. My doubt was, why does a vehicel not trigger off mines in an AP minefield? Maybe it wouldn't be damaged (exept jeeps, maybe trucks), but the minefield would be uncovered.

[Scipio]

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

If you note my request on the previous page for some back up to the "feeling" that something is wrong with the game, I think most of this is just that, feelings. Nothing is really wrong with mines except they are a bit abstracted and do not work like they do in the movies.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mr. Slapdragon, Sir, does this mean that it's not allowed to request and discuss something?

[Slapdragon]

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

Mr. Slapdragon, Sir, does this mean that it's not allowed to request and discuss something?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course not, but your vague feeling that the 88 is wrong is just that, a vague feeling with no support in reality of demonstration that the game is like that. Throwing out "I think that machinguns should have wings and be paisley colored" is cool and all, but it is worth pointing out that it is a worthless suggestion. Rather than spending a lot of time explaining why something works the way it does, it is just better to ask you to come up with a good reason why you think it is broken supported by a few facts. If you cannot come up with them (like the 88 thread) it save a lot of time and effort on people's part.

So, with mines, what is the chance of a vehicle moving through a minefield getting blwn up, what is the historical deadliness of minefields, and why do you think these two figures are not related. Cite your work and give us any hard evidence for your feeling so we can discuss it seriously, you may have something.

May I suggest that you ask Andreas (Germanboy) in German why I am writing this. He is an excellent member of the board and a strong thinker.

[Berlichtingen]

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

I refered to my former threat. My doubt was, why does a vehicel not trigger off mines in an AP minefield? Maybe it wouldn't be damaged (exept jeeps, maybe trucks), but the minefield would be uncovered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple... just because you go through a mine field does not mean you actually hit one. Also, due to mistakes in laying them and ground conditions, may cause the mines to not detonate... particularly lighter vehicles. Another point... if a tank hits an AT mine, it is not assured that those that witness it will know it was a mine instead of some form of direct fire.

[Scipio]

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

Of course not, but your vague feeling that the 88 is wrong is just that, a vague feeling with no support in reality of demonstration that the game is like that. Throwing out "I think that machinguns should have wings and be paisley colored" is cool and all, but it is worth pointing out that it is a worthless suggestion. Rather than spending a lot of time explaining why something works the way it does, it is just better to ask you to come up with a good reason why you think it is broken supported by a few facts. If you cannot come up with them (like the 88 thread) it save a lot of time and effort on people's part.

So, with mines, what is the chance of a vehicle moving through a minefield getting blwn up, what is the historical deadliness of minefields, and why do you think these two figures are not related. Cite your work and give us any hard evidence for your feeling so we can discuss it seriously, you may have something.

May I suggest that you ask Andreas (Germanboy) in German why I am writing this. He is an excellent member of the board and a strong thinker.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This goes again off topic, but...

If you think threats like this are bull**** talking - nobody forces you to share your expensive time and valuable wisdom with an asshole like me.

The only effect it has on a mental inferior man like me is that I loose the interest to post here, cause I get sick and tired to hear always 'hey, you should know this already' or 'please run three hundred tests before you open your mouth, and don't forget to upload the blueprints' or 'read that dozen books in a foreign language to find an answer'

Please excuse that I sully this forum with my presence. I will hopefully never again feel the need to return.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

In CM, the 'later' shots doesn't show a higher tendency to hit the target then the first shot, also if the target was already hit once.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In all fairness to Scipio, he does say something here that others have pointed out as well. Namely, the fact that scoring a hit does not seem to increase the to-hit chance of later shots any more than a miss does.

Of course, this is not something unique to the 88. It's just the way the gunnery model works.

[ 07-18-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Slapdragon]

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

This goes again off topic, but...

If you think threats like this are bull**** talking - nobody forces you to share your expensive time and valuable wisdom with an asshole like me.

The only effect it has on a mental inferior man like me is that I loose the interest to post here, cause I get sick and tired to hear always 'hey, you should know this already' or 'please run three hundred tests before you open your mouth, and don't forget to upload the blueprints' or 'read that dozen books in a foreign language to find an answer'

Please excuse that I sully this forum with my presence. I will hopefully never again feel the need to return.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No need for the melodrama (I reread my posts 7 times and found no reference to bull**** or asshole), I was just saying that your posts are a bit incomplete and difficult to discuss. I was pointing this out because people do want to talk about these things, and what you bring up is not really bad, it is just that you could fill out the concepts a bit.

For example, the 88 misses a lot. Well and good, but give us a little to go on. I think my 88s miss a lot to, every time they don't get a first round kill on a Sherman. But is that just because I am frustrated, or because it is really happening. I could do a test using the editor and find out that indeed, they actually seemed to hit more frequently than evidence would suggest (which was the case with the 17 pounder -- I thought it was far less accurate in the game than it turned out to be).

No one is calling you stupid, or your ideas stupid, but remember than when you post to a semi-public forum people can and will discuss what you post, and when you present an idea maybe you shouid think it through a bit.

[WWB]

Scipio, I have seen you raise several similar threads. Maybe because you are writing in a second language, which I applaud (you really do not want to watch me butcher french here), your posts come across as rather nasty and judgemental.

For example, the term 'Errors in CM?!' connotes 'BTS screwed up and made a big mistake making CM.' You might want to try 'Remanning Guns' or somesuch.

And in an aside, I learned a long time ago not to argue with Slappie here, he is an academic whose job it is to win logical arguments we have in places like this.

I've said what I have to say, y'all can continue on.

WWB

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wwb_99:

And in an aside, I learned a long time ago not to argue with Slappie here, he is an academic whose job it is to win logical arguments we have in places like this.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not only that but he is a punctilious pain in the arse once he gets his teeth into somefink. Didn't someone start a Portuguese or Spanish thread which was distracting him and keeping him out of trouble very nicely for a while. Will someone please start it up again. No his job is not to win logical arguments. He's a proffesor of the sociology of basket weaving or somesuch and his job is to make arguments full stop because obviously your not going to generate real data with that sort of psuedo scientific mumbo jumbo. Also of course to lecture students and any other poor sucker he can practise on. And just in case you think I'm flaming him he can just be grateful I haven't mentioned his friends in Tasmania (oops).

Now Scipio most of your "problems" seem to arise from misconceptions about the comprimises which BTS had to make when creating CM and also sometimes the rationale behind them. What slappy didn't point out that may be confusing you is that in CM a miss is a miss. The closeness of the miss to the target is determined in somekind or semirandom fashion. So you can't use the fall of shot to know how close you missed by. CM tracks the shot to see if it hits but if it doesn't it sorta forgets about it. So in the game you don't really see the bracketing process although chance to hit will definitely rise with each subsequent shot at the same target. I hope I have explained it clearly. Basically it means that if you have a hit and the next shot seems to go very wide then that doesn't mean your gun crew has lost the range. It is a little misleading until you are aware of it but I guess it was a compromise to reduce processing demands.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Simon Fox:

Not only that but he is a punctilious pain in the arse once he gets his teeth into somefink. Didn't someone start a Portuguese or Spanish thread which was distracting him and keeping him out of trouble very nicely for a while. Will someone please start it up again. No his job is not to win logical arguments. He's a proffesor of the sociology of basket weaving or somesuch and his job is to make arguments full stop because obviously your not going to generate real data with that sort of psuedo scientific mumbo jumbo. Also of course to lecture students and any other poor sucker he can practise on. And just in case you think I'm flaming him he can just be grateful I haven't mentioned his friends in Tasmania (oops).

Now Scipio most of your "problems" seem to arise from misconceptions about the comprimises which BTS had to make when creating CM and also sometimes the rationale behind them. What slappy didn't point out that may be confusing you is that in CM a miss is a miss. The closeness of the miss to the target is determined in somekind or semirandom fashion. So you can't use the fall of shot to know how close you missed by. CM tracks the shot to see if it hits but if it doesn't it sorta forgets about it. So in the game you don't really see the bracketing process although chance to hit will definitely rise with each subsequent shot at the same target. I hope I have explained it clearly. Basically it means that if you have a hit and the next shot seems to go very wide then that doesn't mean your gun crew has lost the range. It is a little misleading until you are aware of it but I guess it was a compromise to reduce processing demands.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know the truth about Australians, so it is impossible to flame me. The Tasmanians told me all about Australian medical academics. What to imagine Simon, just think about Paul Hogan only chubby, with a nurse a quarter meter taller than him, and this situation at the Simon Fox memorial research center and accupuncture clinic:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> (What drug did you give the test patient nurse? Damn if I know, the one in the blue bottle. That was my ass medicine. He seemed to like it doctor. Well he is dead nurse...) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Slapdragon ]

[Scipio]

Okay,

a) please excuse me all, my extremly bad knowledge of the English language makes it often very difficult to know what I mean. I assume this, because I know how difficult it is to understand someone from the 'English speaking world' when he tries to speak German.

Slap - I know my arguments are very vague. Yes, I have the 'feeling' that the 88 and the guns in general don't shoot so accurate how they should. (I already said I will try to proof this, bud those test need some days.) To blame me for this is something that can be done by everyone. But if you want to show that my arguments are generally wrong, than you should run your own tests, and show us your results. If your only goal is to win a discussion, then you are maybe on the wrong forum, and surely in the wrong threat.

c) Anyway, some things are known about guns - (Slap, don't bore me with a question for the source of this knowledge, go and try to find a source that disproves me).

The first shot on target usually don't hit it. The most important reason for this is the unknown distance.

If they hit a (not or slow moving) target once, the chance to hit it again is MUCH higher then at the first shot. This is not correct modeled in CM. If two targets are close together (=same distance), the chance to hit the second target is much higher. The reason, if target A is hit, the distance to target B is known. This is not modeled in CM. Testresults will follow.

[Wilhammer]

About the mines...

As a child, a friend of mine's Dad was a Korean War vet, a tanker. A story that always stuck in my mind was when his tank hit a mine. Everyone bailed immediatelly fearing artillery or direct fire. They did not know it was mine field until several minutes later they noticed the driver was stuck in his hatch, unable to get out, and still alive, thus proving no direct fire was involved.

They called the engineers to confirm and remove the minefield and recover the tank.

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Wilhammer ]

[Scipio]

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

About the mines...

As a child, a friend of mine's Dad was a Korean War vet, a tanker. A story that always stuck in my mind was when his tank hit a mine. Everyone bailed immediatelly fearing artillery or direct fire. They did not know it was mine field until several minutes later they noticed the driver was stuck in his hatch, unable to get out, and still alive, thus proving no direct fire was involved.

They called the engineers to confirm and remove the minefield and recover the tank.

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Wilhammer ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So much about that. Thank you.

If it was necessary to call engineers to confirm a minefield, then I have two other questions.

a) Do infantry know that they hit a mine (maybe that depents on the type of the mine?)

How do they know the exact position of the minefield after hitting ONE mine?

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Andreas]

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

[QB]a) Do infantry know that they hit a mine (maybe that depents on the type of the mine?)

How do they know the exact position of the minefield after hitting ONE mine?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

a) Yes, because they observe it much more closely, since they are not locked in a steel cage.

they don't, they know they are in it, but they don't know the extent, shape, or whether it is all one type of mine. Endless games were played by the Afrikakorps with tin-cans, when they retreated.

According to one book I read a long time ago it worked like this: put in some mines, that stops the pursuit, when they start digging, they find very few mines, and many tin cans. After 30 yards of tin cans they decide it was just the few mines, get back in the truck, drive 50 yards, hit mines. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Kingfish]

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

a) Do infantry know that they hit a mine (maybe that depents on the type of the mine?)

[ 07-19-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but not all at once. The guy who stepped on it knows a second or two before everyone else. Also, the severed leg flying thru the air serves as a useful indicator.

[Scipio]

Okay, here are the first testresults. The numbers are the numbers of shoots that were necessary to hit the target.

All test were made hotseat, ammo for all guns: 50(a), all guns Crack.

Test 1:

8 targets in a row, all with the same distance to the gun. Do the gunners have an advantage because they know the distance to the other targets after hitting the first target?

Gun 88mm AA, Target 8 x M4 Sherman, Distance to target 2000m, chance for a hit 10% (Target were mostly killed with the first hit)

a) 3-4-2-2-3-9-1-15-4

6-5-4-3-1-7-5-3

c) 20-5-6-5-2-7-5

d) 2-5-7-5-4-6-5-5

e) 1-7-6-7-6-7-3-6-4-3

**************************************

Test 2:

When a target were hit, do the gunners have a higher chance to hit the same target again?

Gun 88mm AA, Target 1 x Churchill VII, Distance to target 2000m, chance for a hit 10% (No lethal hit on target)

a)6-4-4-8-1-1-8-1-1-2-1-2-3-8

b)2-1-3-1-8-6-1-1-1-1-1-3-3-1-4-13

c)13-2-4-3-2-2-4-1-3-4-1-1-8-1

I didn't run more tests, I guess the tendency can be seen already.

Test 1: A known distance to target doesn't seem to matter.

Test 2: Difficult to say. A series of perfect hits is broken by a series of misses. The result is better then in Test 1, but I also don't see a general rise of the hit chance.

So, now let the lynch mob go.

[Scipio]

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

a) Yes, because they observe it much more closely, since they are not locked in a steel cage.

they don't, they know they are in it, but they don't know the extent, shape, or whether it is all one type of mine. Endless games were played by the Afrikakorps with tin-cans, when they retreated.

According to one book I read a long time ago it worked like this: put in some mines, that stops the pursuit, when they start digging, they find very few mines, and many tin cans. After 30 yards of tin cans they decide it was just the few mines, get back in the truck, drive 50 yards, hit mines. Lather, rinse, repeat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aha - so I guess that's something that should be changed (point . In CM, the size and position of an uncovered minefield is know exactly - the TacAI calculate a path to bypass the minefield.

[Berlichtingen]

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

Yes, but not all at once. The guy who stepped on it knows a second or two before everyone else. Also, the severed leg flying thru the air serves as a useful indicator.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily... if the unit is under fire at the time they hit the field, they could mistake a mine for direct fire HE or even mortar fire.

[Scipio]

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

Yes, but not all at once. The guy who stepped on it knows a second or two before everyone else. Also, the severed leg flying thru the air serves as a useful indicator.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But what in dense wood or other difficult terrain? Something explodes, the victim is maybe unconscious or dead or has something else in mind then 'Ooophs, I hit a mine', his comrades maybe havn't seen what hits him...

[Kingfish]

I've got to remember to use smilies when posting. People are starting to take me seriously :eek: