Accuracy While Firing On the Move (OR FAST) in CMBO

[aka_tom_w]

OK

I've read both the replies by Slapdragon and Germanboy.

I do believe the game, (Both CMBO and CMBB) should be as historically accurate as possible, based on the best available research.

If Russian tankers did indeed fire on the fast move and that is well documented then my plea for "no firing on the fast move" is clearly misplaced and in error.

HOWEVER, I strongly believe the high degree of accuracy that some Allied tanks in CMBO display with their uncanny ability to fire AP and HVAP while on the FAST move and IMHO the number of times that they get hits on other tanks just seems to be to be unrealistically high.

If tanks in CMBB fire on the fast move the chance of a hit against another AFV should be remote, How remote? what are the odds? Perhaps we can discuss that further.

Thanks for the replies.

-tom w

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[zahl]

In my experience, non-gyroed tanks are very inaccurate on the move. Eg. there is a very dramatic difference between a stationary and a fast moving Hellcat. Try lining up a dozen German tanks with no ammo and drive past them at maximum speed (100-300m distance). You will typically score something like 10-15% hits. Now keep the Hellcat stationary and fire at 300m. Around 70% of the shots will hit. I am assuming a regular crew in this example.

This inaccuracy of moving vehicles is so obvious and recurring that it really makes me wonder how you came up with an opposite view.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi all,

Well, I decided to do some tests instead of rellying upon people's strong, but relatively unsupported, opinions. I conducted a simple test to at least see some statistical relationship between various different aspects of gunnery using Halt and Fast.

I used 5 Regular Hellcats vs. 5 Regular Panthers. The choice was made because, supposedly, the Hellcat has the biggest "fire on the move" bonus of all vehicles in the game since it is both fast and has the gyro installed (even though, for the 100th time, the gyro only adds a tiny bonus). The Panther was chosen because it can stand up to Hellcat fire, to some degree, but is also not overly large like a King Tiger or Jagdtiger. The test was conducted at three ranges (roughly 250m, 1000m, and 2000m) in perfect conditions (flat, uniform terrain in clear weather) against stationary, non armed targets. All Hellcats started out in a dug out so they would aquire targets only after they had acheived "full speed". Sharpshooters were positioned to ensure enemy tanks were spotted from the get-go.

For Fast tests I took a batch of 5 Hellcats from one range group, plotted their movement orders, and plotted Fast moves using Group Move towards the right most extreme edge of the map. This allowed for turret rotation and also minimized range reduction as the movement was more lateral than forward. I repeated this test five times. For Hunt tests I did the same thing, except I ploted the Hellcats straight forward.

The results were quite interesting, and (IMHO) run contrary to the assumptions that some have made here. Some basic findings:

Short Range - Hunt tanks were 7 times more likely to acheive a 1st shot hit, 3 times more likely to hit over all. Highest % chance of hitting while moving was 1 in 3 (33%), highest for Hunt tanks was over 9 in 10 (93%). Lowest % chance of hitting for Fast (13%), which was five times lower than Hunt (64%).

Medium Range - Hunt tanks were almost 15 times more likely to score a hit than one moving Fast. No Fast Hellcat scored a first shot hit, while first shot hits for Hunt tanks were about 1 in 5. TacAI was not as likely to have Fast moving tanks fire. In fact, generally one tank each test did not fire at all.

Long Range - TacAI found that 2500m was not an effective range to engage, so no Hellcats fired at all, however the Hunt ones did tend to stop and await further orders.

What conclusions can we make from this? That anybody who thinks that Fast yields the same, or even better, results as firing from a halted position should take another look at their tactics. I found nothing in this test, or in 2 years of use of the game, to suggest that firing on the move is unrealistically easy to hit.

Now, if someone wants to duplicate this situation using stationary Allied tanks and on the move German ones, or to swap in Move instead of Hunt, fine. I personally expect the numbers for German tanks to be BETTER than the Hellcats simply because the German guns are more accurate. But I don't have time to do another set of tests. Heck, I didn't have time to do this set either

Steve

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Andreas]

Thanks for taking the time Steve. That should lay some things to rest. Also nicely shows what good testing and comprehensible explanations look like.

Now back to dealing with CMBB - shoo!

[zahl]

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

The choice was made because, supposedly, the Hellcat has the biggest "fire on the move" bonus of all vehicles in the game since it is both fast and has the gyro installed<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the Hellcat has the gyro installed, why is it not shown on the unit info screen?

[Slapdragon]

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

If the Hellcat has the gyro installed, why is it not shown on the unit info screen?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe that is a mistake. It does not have a gyrostabiliser.

[Battlefront.com]

Whoops! My mistake. Shows that I shouldn't trust what I read here without double checking it in the game first But I don't expect this makes a difference. As I have said over and over again, the gyro does not aid on the move firing accuracy very much. It might ratchet up the numbers a few % points, but that is about it. Judging by the HUGE gaps between halted and Fast movement firing, it really doesn't add up to much.

Steve

[Slapdragon]

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

Whoops! My mistake. Shows that I shouldn't trust what I read here without double checking it in the game first But I don't expect this makes a difference. As I have said over and over again, the gyro does not aid on the move firing accuracy very much. It might ratchet up the numbers a few % points, but that is about it. Judging by the HUGE gaps between halted and Fast movement firing, it really doesn't add up to much.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not such a bad mistake, I have a Zaolga book that in its first edition distinctly said that the M18 had a gyro. Then I duck into one for sale in Florida in "mint" condition, and no gyro. In addition, no linkage for one even if it had ever had one.

[Spook]

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

Now, if someone wants to duplicate this situation using stationary Allied tanks and on the move German ones, or to swap in Move instead of Hunt, fine. I personally expect the numbers for German tanks to be BETTER than the Hellcats simply because the German guns are more accurate. But I don't have time to do another set of tests. Heck, I didn't have time to do this set either

Steve

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

...which infers that maybe you just made up the numbers instead, if you didn't have the time!

Sorry, Steve, couldn't resist the tease. Anyway, though, your tabulations are appreciated. I certainly know from my own experience, in trying to explain things to higher management, how tables and figures can USUALLY help people to finally "see" or to frame the issue in their heads.

[zahl]

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

As I have said over and over again, the gyro does not aid on the move firing accuracy very much. It might ratchet up the numbers a few % points, but that is about it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Judging by all I've seen playing this magnificent game, I can't agree with that notion. Easy Eight Sherman appears to be

significantly more accurate on the move than the Hellcat. Something like in excess of 2x. Too bad you chose the wrong vehicle in your test.

[Battlefront.com]

Zahl,

I can assure you that 2x is way out of the ballpark. Charles is out right now so I can't get an exact number from him, but it is certainly not even close to that high. IIRC the Aberdeen report pegged the figure at about a 30% accuracy increase with gyro while moving compared to no gyro while moving. As I said, we downplayed the number. You are welcome to do some statistical tests if you like

As for the Hellcat being the "wrong" choice, only if the test was designed to show the capabilities of the gyro. However, the test was not designed to do this at all. Instead, it was designed to show people that the perception that firing on the move comes without penalty is not grounded in reality. I could have chosen any turreted vehicle to demonstrate this.

Steve

[Rother]

Steve

I still think the chance to hit on the move is way too high. Here's a real world test for you. Take a spotting scope, binos, or rifle scope and mount it solidly to a vehicle (the Weasel would work great). Now drive somewhere and try to look through the scope but please get someone else to drive. It's much worse in a turret I can assure you. The gun moving on a tank isn't the problem. The problem is trying to look through magnified optics on the move.

Rother

[aka_tom_w]

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

Hi all,

Well, I decided to do some tests instead of rellying upon people's strong, but relatively unsupported,

opinions. I conducted a simple test to at least see some statistical relationship between various different

aspects of gunnery using Halt and Fast.

Steve

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Steve

Thanks for the Reply

Now where is that "Great Big Cup of Shut-up!" I was looking for

The "strong, but relatively unsupported, opinions" reference sounded like it may have been directed at some of my more highly opinionated posts.

To be honest, I was posting about my CMBO experience with the Hellcat in the 250-500 meter range while driving fast. I don't disagree with your numbers or your test or the test methodolgy at all. I did not suggest the Hellcat benifited from the Gyrostabilizer, I was just VERY impressed that the range between 13% and 33% accuracy while on the fast move would be realistically acheivable, Perhaps it was. I hope I did not suggest (in my zeal, I may have) that tanks (the Hellcat Specifically) fire as well on the fast move as they do when not moving. It is clear that tanks that are moving have a lower chance to hit percentage, I would never dispute that. I am just plain amazed that the Hellcat, while moving fast over open ground, can achieve an accuracy rating at 250 meters as high as 1 hit in every three shots fired (33%) !!. :eek:

Perhaps this is historically accurate and realistic.

I suspect that the posts from real life modern day tank gunners who state the today's modern tanks would only attempt to fire on the move while traveling on a straight flat road at a about 15 mph, directly toward the target calls into question the notion that Allied Hellcat crews attempted to fire their main weapon (with a 33% accuracy rating at 250 m) while moving at top speed across open terrain.

If this is in fact actually historically accurate then I will need to go and find that "great big cup of SHUT-UP!" and down it ASAP.

As always, thanks for the post and especially thanks for the test results and the Stats and chance-to-hit accuracy data on the Hellcat.

-tom w

[ 07-25-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[tools4fools]

Did some tests on this topic the past two days.

Most has been discussed in the meantime but here are the results anyway:

Pz IVJ against Sherman M4

Test No.1

Range: 475m

10 runs with 10 tanks each (immobile) facing each other each pair separated by a line of tall pines.

M4 is given a hit chance of 38%

Pz IV is given a hit chance of 42%

First shots were about even (51% for Pz IV to 49% for M4)

In two test runs each side got once a first shot ratio of 7:3, but usually they were about even.

Kills: 65 M4 got knocked out while 49 Pz IV got knocked out.

In one test run all M4's were knocked out with a loss of only two PzIV. However this was an exception. Highest number of Pz IV knocked out was 6 with 4 M4's lost.

No Ricochets on both sides were observed.

The advantage on kills for the Pz IV might result on slightly higher accuracy of the 75mm L/48 gun.

Test No.2

Range : about 475m

10 Pz IV were immobile in the open. 10 M4 were positioned behind 4 tiles of tall pines each and moving into LOS at about 60°-80°. Again 10 runs and each pair separated by a row of tall pines, however first shots were only on nine runs counted (I simply forget to count on the first test run).

First shots were 35:55 (39% to 61%) in favour of the Pz IV.

Even if the M4's had to turn the turrets first to aim, they did reach a 50%:50% ratio of first shots on several test runs. M4's however never reached a higher first shot rate than the Pz IV's, while their rate was up to 8:2 in one test run.

87 M4 were destroyed and 17 Pz IV knocked out.

The Pz IV had much more hits on their first shots compared to the M4's.

Once in LOS with the PzIV, the M4 shot while on the move; some used smoke to hide (even if they had no smoke rounds in their ammo load). No Pz IV ever used smoke.

At least two M4 got knocked out before they even spotted the Pz IV.

Three front upper hull ricochets appeared on M4's, none on Pz IV's.

Test No. 3

Was done already except I didn't count the date yet really. Setup was as in test 2, except that the Shermans were on move fast command this time.

Results were 77 shermans ko vs 28 Pz IV ko against 87:17 in test 2 with the move command.

It seems that the move fast command did help the Sherman during test No. 3 not because of its own shoot-on-the-move capability, but on the reduced hitting capability of a Pz IV on a fast moving target.

Engagements lasted longer this test as well. First two tests it was usually 1-3 shots until one tank got knocked out. Last test (with the fast move command) had much less first shot hits on both sides and engagements lasted more like 5-6 shots.

I will try to post the accurate results of test No 3. as soon as rael life allows and there are some more (a lot more!!) tests I'm planning to do on this subject.

Overall I agree with BTS that vehicles shooting on the move score significantly less hits than stationary vehicles.

Same moment it seems that fast moving vehicles (compared to moving vehicles) are much more difficult to target and therefore get less often hit.

1:45AM here, any other testing when real life allows it.

Cheers

Marcus

****

[Battlefront.com]

Rother,

I agree that doing anything while moving is a problem compared to being stopped. No questioning that. But tanks *DID* fire on the move in WWII. This is a fact that would be rather hard to dispute. What the question should be is what degree of accuracy can be expected from a well trained crew, in optimal conditions, at point blank range against a stationary (and rather large) target. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge there is no such figures for us to tap into, so it is guess work.

Do we have it right? I honestly don't know. But if the best arguments against the way it works in CM now is to say that tanks didn't fire on the move or that CM doesn't penalize moving tanks are not very impressive.

Tom,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The "strong, but relatively unsupported, opinions" reference sounded like it may have been directed at some of my more highly opinionated posts. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes and no. You were not the only one to go out on the edge of a limb without checking to see if it would support your weight first

My tests were designed to first and foremost get rid of the unsupported opinions I have seen in this thread. One person even said he doesn't use Hunt because Fast is just as good. Now, do you think that is a good and well reasoned evaulation of the way the game really works as opposed to how it is perceived to work? I don't, so that is why I did the tests.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I suspect that the posts from real life modern day tank gunners who state the today's modern tanks would only attempt to fire on the move while traveling on a straight flat road at a about 15 mph, directly toward the target calls into question the notion that Allied Hellcat crews attempted to fire their main weapon (with a 33% accuracy rating at 250 m) while moving at top speed across open terrain.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Tom, it is 23% accuracy vs. 76%. Or if you want to just select a single number out of the 5 tests, might I sugest the low end of 13% instead of the high end 33%? Even the worst "luck" while stationary was twice the best luck of the Fast vehicle. The gap between wrost and best was 13% to 93%. Quite a huge difference. If you were in a tank and wanted to score a kill before the enemy did, which firing option would you employ?

I understand and respect the insights that contemporary AFV crews have brought forward here, but since the history books and the veterans who fought in them talk about firing on the move... I got to side with the historical stuff and not personal conjecture. As someone said earlier, in ideal circumstances you will, at some point, get the cross hairs on the target (at short range at least). The German's experiments with autmatic firing once the cross hairs met the target show that this concept is not imaginary.

I personally don't think a seven fold reduction in the chance of a first hit (which would be CRITICAL at short range) and a three fold decrease for a hit makes firing on the move at close range a desirable choice. At normal engagement ranges the 15 fold accuracy advantage for a halted tank makes firing on the move, which had a mere 2% chance of hitting, shows that firing on the move at that range is almost a sure miss.

So... bottom line here...

The rather strong and unsubstantiated claims of firing on the move modeling flaws don't hold much water when the issue is actually looked at. If someone wants to debate the chance of hitting while on the move at point blank range, that is fine. As I said, we don't have any hard numbers to draw upon so we might have it wrong. But we are going to need to see some sort of tangiable argument laid out instead of "they should just miss or not fire at all" stuff. That way of arguing for change doesn't impress us

Steve

[Rother]

Steve

Fair enough. I do know a WW2 tanker that was on Chaffees and Stuarts in Europe from Normandy till the end. I'll be seeing him in a few weeks and will be sure to pick his brain for all his gunnery knowledge. We've only discussed the mundane and boring aspects of war and never anything technical.

Rother

[Slapdragon]

I did a test comparing two 75mm armed tanks, one with Gyros (M4) the other without (Cromwell).

Using my #3 shootinmg range map (available to anyone who wants it) I isolated 10 MkIVJs on target islands. 5 tanks moving at a "move" speed were directed to target the MkIVs, which had been spotted by jeeps. The tanks moved from behind berms into the open. This test was repeated 10 times.

The gyro equipped tank gained an 8% advantage at 400 meters, but I only did 10 runs, so I have a bit of error in there.

I have two other tests, one looking at fast versus slow turrest, which I suspect may be more important than gyros in normal games.

[zahl]

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

I can assure you that 2x is way out of the ballpark. Charles is out right now so I can't get an exact number from him, but it is certainly not even close to that high. IIRC the Aberdeen report pegged the figure at about a 30% accuracy increase with gyro while moving compared to no gyro while moving. As I said, we downplayed the number. You are welcome to do some statistical tests if you like

As for the Hellcat being the "wrong" choice, only if the test was designed to show the capabilities of the gyro. However, the test was not designed to do this at all. Instead, it was designed to show people that the perception that firing on the move comes without penalty is not grounded in reality. I could have chosen any turreted vehicle to demonstrate this.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Hellcat was the wrong choice in the sense that your test failed to refute the basic argument that "chance to hit percentages don't seem to drop very much at all for some Allied vehicles when they are on the fast move".

Various candidates were then proposed in this thread. To refute the above claim calls for the best candidate to be tested, a vehicle that is most accurate on the move. This is obviously not the Hellcat, but something that has the gyro installed.

I used the same testing methodology you described earlier to see if the Easy Eight Sherman would fare any better than the Hellcat.

First I ran the test with the five fast moving Hellcats until they had fired 300 shots at the Panthers. Average hit probability was identical to your test (69/300=23%). Then I replaced the Hellcats with E8 Shermans. Their average hit probability in identical conditions was 130/300=43%. Not exactly 2x better, but close

The firing distance was always 200-300m. E8 was 1.87x more accurate than the Hellcat, so the gyro makes a huge difference.

[aka_tom_w]

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

I understand and respect the insights that contemporary AFV crews have brought forward here, but since the history books and the veterans who fought in them talk about firing on the move... I got to side with the historical stuff and not personal conjecture. As someone said earlier, in ideal circumstances you will, at some point, get the cross hairs on the target (at short range at least). The German's experiments with autmatic firing once the cross hairs met the target show that this concept is not imaginary.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK

Great Reply thanks again

Lets talk about firing on the move, it happened in the war and it is modeled in the game.

BUT, do we have any evidence of firing at top speed? My issue (specifically) is with the ability to fire while on the fast move (at top speed, fast move being the choice you want for intstance when you want to speed up a road and get to your intended destination as quickly as possible), and still get a 13-33% chance to hit percentage at 250m

That number would be a WHOLE lot different if the tank was rolling at "MOVE" speed, which is more akin to the 15 mph quoted from tank vets, then I see can see that the historical practice of firing on the move in WWII would make sense.

The point here was really to look at Firing on the FAST move and to determine if this aspect of the game could be tweaked to make it a little more difficult to hit while on the fast move in CMBB.

None the less it has been a VERY fruitful discussion , and I thank Steve immensly for his posts, opinions and recent test data.

-tom w

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Slapdragon]

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

The Hellcat was the wrong choice in the sense that your test failed to refute the basic argument that "chance to hit percentages don't seem to drop very much at all for some Allied vehicles when they are on the fast move".

Various candidates were then proposed in this thread. To refute the above claim calls for the best candidate to be tested, a vehicle that is most accurate on the move. This is obviously not the Hellcat, but something that has the gyro installed.

I used the same testing methodology you described earlier to see if the Easy Eight Sherman would fare any better than the Hellcat.

First I ran the test with the five fast moving Hellcats until they had fired 300 shots at the Panthers. Average hit probability was identical to your test (69/300=23%). Then I replaced the Hellcats with E8 Shermans. Their average hit probability in identical conditions was 130/300=43%. Not exactly 2x better, but close

The firing distance was always 200-300m. E8 was 1.87x more accurate than the Hellcat, so the gyro makes a huge difference.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zahl, move em back a hundred meters. There seemms to be some tipping points for firing on the move, at certain points the chance seems to fall a great deal.

Needs more testing though.

[Battlefront.com]

Zahl,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The Hellcat was the wrong choice in the sense that your test failed to refute the basic argument that "chance to hit percentages don't seem to drop very much at all for some Allied vehicles when they are on the fast move".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, that is not my reading of this, or another related thread going at the moment. What I read was, basically, that firing on the move was not penalized heavily enough. In other words, a blanket statement. I could have used any vehicle for a test to at least debunk the blanket statement. That is what I did. I did not try to do a comparision between gyroed and non gyroed tanks. That is a different, more specific instance and not the general one I was seeing in this and the other thread.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>E8 was 1.87x more accurate than the Hellcat, so the gyro makes a huge difference. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but that is an eroneous conclusion to make. You are comparing Apples to Oranges here. If we had two Hellcats, one with and one without gyros, then you could have a better basis for such a conclusion. But you are comparing two different platforms.

There is a big difference between a Sherman going FAST and a Hellcat going FAST. Especially when driving at an acute angle at closer range. Basically, the Hellcats are driving too fast and that is affecting their accuracy (as it should). The Shermans move far slower and therefore their accuracy is better. This is all basic stuff without the gyro even factoring in.

I did a VERY quick test, which is statistically meaningless, but when I advanced the Hellcats and Easy 8s using MOVE, instead of FAST, direct on... the Easy 8s actually scored less hits in the same time as the Hellcat. I expect that if I did the tests a number of times the Shermans would slightly edge out the Hellcats due to the gyro, but no where near the 1.85 you came up with.

BTW, I did get a chance to check with Charles. In an example he gave me a gyro *might* increase a specific vehicle's chance of hitting from something like 10% to 14% while on the move. Subsequent shots would also be more accurate, but since vehicles on the move are exempt from "bracketing" bonuses, this does not apply to our discussion. In short, there is nothing in the code that would give a vehicle a whopping 2x (or 1.8x) increase of a chance to hit.

Steve

[Slapdragon]

10 to 14 % is in the error rate of my test which showed 8%, and the range could have effected my findings, since range appears to be a HUGE variable in the equation.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Rother,

Great that you have some 1st hand sources to check with. Be curious to know what you turn up there. Personally, I think they probably didn't fire on the move very much. As my test shows, it isn't a very good option if you want to score a hit.

Tom,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BUT, do we have any evidence of firing at top speed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If "top speed" is the practical x-country speed for the given conditions... then yes. There is at least plenty of evidence about this in the East. Not sure if it happened much in the West though. But since the orders are in the hands of the player, not the simulation, there is little we can do to change this.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>My issue (specifically) is with the ability to fire while on the fast move (at top speed, fast move being the choice you want for intstance when you want to speed up a road and get to your intended destination as quickly as possible), and still get a 13-33% chance to hit percentage at 250m<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Remember... in my test the enemy was not shooting back. For fun I gave the Panthers 20 rounds of AP each and ran the close test again. 1 dead and 1 immobilized Panther, 5 dead Hellcats. Without Panther ammo, 5 dead Panthers no dead Hellcats. Just more food for thought

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>That number would be a WHOLE lot different if the tank was rolling at "MOVE" speed, which is more akin to the 15 mph quoted from tank vets, then I see can see that the historical practice of firing on the move in WWII would make sense.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrect, and perhaps why your perception is being warped. Move = infantry walking speed. In other words, roughly 1-3 mph not 15mph. Fast is roughly 15mph, depending on the vehicle, terrain, weather, path, slope, etc. So does this change your "strong opinion" any?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The point here was really to look at Firing on the FAST move and to determine if this aspect of the game could be tweaked to make it a little more difficult to hit while on the fast move in CMBB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is always a question that is open to discussion. However, we first need to get past opinions and perceptions so we can see how things REALLY work before we go tweaking them. Personally, I think the numbers are about right. If someone can come up with some good reasons (data) why it should be dumbed down, that would be great. But "I just don't feel like it is right" is not good enough. If that is the best people can come up with, it will stay as is.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>None the less it has been a VERY fruitful discussion , and I thank Steve immensly for his posts, opinions and recent test data.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks. Hopefully this discussion will once again serve to demonstrate why it is not a good idea for us to just start changing stuff because a couple of people asked us to "do somefink"

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

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

Incorrect, and perhaps why your perception is being warped. Move = infantry walking speed. In other

words, roughly 1-3 mph not 15mph. Fast is roughly 15mph, depending on the vehicle, terrain, weather,

path, slope, etc. So does this change your "strong opinion" any?

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Steve

You may want to look into this.

I just did a REAL test

in the game What is the Speed of a Hellcat While firing on a fast move across open grass.

The Game is in meters and the speed of vehicles are in mph so bare with me here.

I clocked the Hellcat, after it got up to full speed for the uninterupted stretch of 1km (1000m)

the Hellcat can do the 1000m dash in 103 secs in game time (real time I assume) WHILE firing at a target it got off about 6-7 shots (at range of about 500m all missed, no surprise here) so what does 1 km in 103 secs mean in mph?

I would do the math like this and this could be questionable? (it is beyond questionable, EDIT, this math is WRONG, the following posts have corrected the ERROR!!)

103 secs = 1.66 minutes

1.66 minutes times 60 minutes = 99.6 kph

99.6 kph divide by 1.6 to get mph equals 62.25 mph!!!!

Please look into this, the Hellcat can and does, fire on the fast move at 62 mph in CMBO, if it can cover 1 km of open grass (no road) in 103 secs FLAT.

I would be more than HAPPY if someone would correct my math or prove my methodology wrong.

Steve, please check the speed of the Hellcat on the fast move across open grass. I think 1 km in 103 secs (1.66 minutes) is pretty damn fast!! and it is not the 15 mph on the fast move you are refering to.

The suggestion here being to add another set of chance to hit percentages to differentiate between firing at MOVE speed and firing at FAST speed, that is the suggestion for CMBB. Clearly there seems to be evidence to suggest tanks fired on the move.OK, did they do so at top speed? if so their chance to hit percentages in the game should reflect some kind of wild chance, flukly LUCK to get a hit if they are moving at FULL speed across open ground.

-tom w

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[ 07-26-2001: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Warren Peace]

Tom your math is wrong.

If it took 1.6 minutes to go 1Km then in 60 minutes the tank would go 60/1.6 or 37km/hr. (You multiplyed instead of divided.). This would be about 23mph.