Dynamic probability in computer games sucks

[['nzn]]

Dynamic probability in computer games sucks, need to change it in CM someway sometimes!

Im sure all of you ever noticed that peculiarity of the program's decision making - the probability of a positive result unrealisticly rises after a series of attempts. Can I call it digital dynamic probability count?

It is very annoying and can bug alot sometimes. For example ---

If you get AN ELITE STUG with 20 AP rounds and it has alredy fired 5 rounds at a very hard target.... like a T34 moving fast 600m away behind a crest staying in hulldown and disappearing from time to time.... and all those rounds had hit the dirt because the probability of a hit was very low.... then if it finally hits the turret for, say, a partial penetration will the tank be dead? My experience with the game says: ABSOLUTELY!

The reason is that the game "keeps in mind" that the STUG is too expensive to be ineffective and even in an "impossible to kill" situation the game will drastically raise the probability of bailing out even after some accidental ricochets.

ANOTHER EXAMPLE ---

And very bright one (double i'd say)!

I was moving my 6 T34M43's in a succession in a row immidiately one by one and 2 (TWO!) of them got bogged in an open ground, nothing like trees or rocks was even close. Yes, the weather was damp but its not the reason for 2 T34's to bog at A HIGHER OPEN GROUND at one place, one right after another.

The reason is multiple attempts to pass one map tile.

Then what happened next is also interesting ---

My opponent flanked me with a TigerI. Not to just loose the 2 immobile ones i moved another 2 of their comrades back there to shoot at the beast simultaneously. The Tiger drove at them boldly (my opponent was not aware of the delegation ) and my boys were first to aim and shoot at the front of it from ~120m - FOUR SHOTS AT ONCE - NO PENETRATIONS - 2 RICOCHETS, GUN DAMAGE, TRACK DAMAGE - BAIL OUT!

Multiple attempts. Again.

ANOTHER THING of this kind happened to me recently.

My two rifle squads attacked a TigerI with only hand granades. The tank was standing less then 20m away from the forest and my opponent wouldnt move it for some reason i dont know (was experimenting as well? ).

They were throwing it at him unstoppably for two minutes, most of the granades landed on the ground nearby.. yet in the end of the second turn the beast suddenly exploded as hell - KABOOM! Everybody's applause!

Funny thing also was that after such a monstrous explosion the crew bailed out intact - its another good example of dynamic probability! I mean game decided that tank loss is enough for the situation and that i have been lucky enough alredy to give me any tankers' lives plus

In real life such things happen NOT because you try N-times, but just because it can happen, and it can happen any time equally. In computer games it is always the matter of numbers and you can feel it and thats really sad i think..

In reality if you CAN hit something and know how to do it then the possibility stays the same.. well maybe it increases from 1st to around 3rd time or something like that but never increases after, its absurd.

__________________________

PS.

OFF TOPIC BUT IMPORTANT! Its a well known fact that the soviet 76mm gun COULD PENETRATE and RATHER FREQUENTLY WOULD PENETRATE a Tiger's fromt armor from up to 500 meters.

Otherwise how could they win at Prokhorovka and generally at Kursk can you explain it to me? They didnt have 85mm's there.. Dont tell of "driving accidents" at that battlefield and shturmoviks over it, it gives only SOME percent of dead Tigers!

In CMBB such a penetration is impossible even from 150 meters. And even from behind. I dont understand why..

Seems that it has been given 100% improbability!!!

AND EVEN OLD GOOD VERY MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS NEVER HELP!

__________________________

PPS.

If to speak of any propositions from me ---

I would like to see this dynamic probability count turned off, it would be more realistic if the probability was counted alone for EVERY granade throw and shot. The engine should stop considering the situation.

Yet it would be great to be able to order ones units to aim longer to raise the chance manually this way.. You kind of trade time (and take the connected risk) for higher hit probability. At least it will simulate real life's need to aim better to hit!

[Dave H]

['nzn], you're absolutely right. It's a travesty that this game works the way it does. I suggest we switch to a more realistic WW2 computer game (simulator). Can you tell me what that is? :confused: :confused:

There aren't going to be major changes in the game engine until CM2 or whatever the rewrite is called these days. CMAK will be using basically the same programming as CMBB. If this game behavior is unacceptable to you, well, there's always Tetris.

[['nzn]]

Ah? Didi i really say its inacceptable??

Where you saw that?

I say it should be better SOMETIME

[Screeny]

tjee again some one who lost and blames BFC for it that his inmense tactical talents were not showing themself?

[Dave H]

Originally posted by ['nzn]:

Ah? Didi i really say its inacceptable??

Where you saw that?

I say it should be better SOMETIME

When you said "Dynamic probability in computer games sucks", and then went on to give examples of that behavior in CMBB, I assumed that meant it was unacceptable to you. My apologies if I misinterpreted your post.

I suspect that when the new game engine is released, there will still be complaints. If BFC managed to develop a perfectly 3-D holodeck, where we could play Combat Mission in perfect virtual reality, someone would still gripe when their tank gets hit or when their tank bogs. I also suspect the men in the actual tanks felt about the same way when something went wrong. The "Why Me?" syndrome.

[thewood]

Can this thread be looked long enough for me to get a beer and some snacks and then unlocked when I get back? I don't want to miss a thing.

Nevermind...I already hear the grogs stirring.

[Madmatt]

You are wrong about just about everything you say. The code does no such calculations. What you assume goes against every single design element we have in the game. The calculations are all about reality, mathematics, ballistics and quantifiable environmental factors. We don't fudge number calculations just 'because'.

You are making some very sweeping statements about what you don't know derived from VERY anecdotal observations which are flawed. You would be advised to refrain from doing that repeatedly on this forum as it is not looked on favorably.

In your first example, the StuG probably scored a hit against such a difficult target. because they WERE an Elite crew. Units also gain target acquisition bonuses after the first shoot for re-engaging the target repeatedly. This represents shell impact bracketing and corrections by the gunner.

You said "The reason is that the game "keeps in mind" that the STUG is too expensive to be ineffective and even in an "impossible to kill" situation the game will drastically raise the probability of bailing out even after some accidental ricochets."

That is totally wrong. The code does no such thing. The value of any given unit is inconscequential to any calculations that go on with regard to it.

If a crew senses that they are being hit repeatedly, even if the result is non penetrating ricochets they may panic and either pull out or in some circumstances bail out, of course depending on what sort of tank they are in, they might just shrug off the ricochets and continue to fight with no adverse effect.

You next example was "I was moving my 6 T34M43's in a succession in a row immediately one by one and 2 (TWO!) of them got bogged in an open ground, nothing like trees or rocks was even close. Yes, the weather was damp but its not the reason for 2 T34's to bog at A HIGHER OPEN GROUND at one place, one right after another.

The reason is multiple attempts to pass one map tile."

Again you are wrong. The game keeps track of each vehicles condition and chance of bogging separate from any other vehicle. The chance of a single vehicle in your situation bogging has no relationship on how many vehicles there are. Of course this means that the more vehicles that cross poor terrain the more bogs that are *likely* to occur.

If the chance is high, you will see more vehicles bogging. That's just how stats and %'s work.

Third example:

My two rifle squads attacked a TigerI with only hand grenades. The tank was standing less then 20m away from the forest and my opponent wouldn't move it for some reason I don't know (was experimenting as well? ).

They were throwing it at him unstoppably for two minutes, most of the grenades landed on the ground nearby.. yet in the end of the second turn the beast suddenly exploded as hell - KABOOM! Everybody's applause!

When squads are within about 40 meters of a tank they are actually close assaulting the unit. This represents much more than just lobbing grenades, although that is how it is depicted visually. The Tiger crew probably assumed they were sitting ducks and tried to bail out due to a successful close assault which rendered the tank out of action.

You conclusion said this "In reality if you CAN hit something and know how to do it then the possibility stays the same.. "

Oh really, so if you know HOW to fire a gun and aim properly, that means you will ALWAYS hit the target? I am sure there are several Olympic Sharpshooting teams that would like to talk to you.

It seems your vision of reality is somewhat...unique.

Madmatt

[ August 09, 2003, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: Madmatt ]

[SgtMuhammed]

Since Matt covered the technical aspects of your rantings I'll stick to your flawed sense of history. No the Russian 76 couldn't regularly penetrate the front armor of the Tiger at any range. This is the reason why they charged in to achieve close range flank and rear shots.

As for Prokorovka, there were very few Tigers actually present in the fighting and even fewer actually destroyed. Instead there were a whole bunch of missidentified Pz IV's and a Russian propaganda machine that wanted to put the best spin possible on a fight that was actually a fiasco for them.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by ['nzn]:

__________________________

PS.

OFF TOPIC BUT IMPORTANT! Its a well known fact that the soviet 76mm gun COULD PENETRATE and RATHER FREQUENTLY WOULD PENETRATE a Tiger's fromt armor from up to 500 meters.

Otherwise how could they win at Prokhorovka and generally at Kursk can you explain it to me? They didnt have 85mm's there.. Dont tell of "driving accidents" at that battlefield and shturmoviks over it, it gives only SOME percent of dead Tigers!

In CMBB such a penetration is impossible even from 150 meters. And even from behind. I dont understand why..

Seems that it has been given 100% improbability!!!

AND EVEN OLD GOOD VERY MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS NEVER HELP!

__________________________

But tests carried out at Kubinka NIIBT 25-30 April 1943 with F-34 guns versus the sides of Tigers had the 7,62cm round failing at even 200m versus RHA of only 8,2cm thickness. 7,62cm gun was judged worthless versus the front armour of the Tiger.

5th guards Tank army did not "win" at Prokhorovka, It was to have pushed back and destroyed the II SS-PZ Korps. This is hard to square with II SSPz Korps losing 17 Panzers/assault guns during Prokhorovka while suffering 2,672 casualties during the period. 5th Tank Guard losses during the period were around 14,000 men and 334 Tanks and assault guns. What 5th Guards did at great cost for themselves was to stop II SS Korp from reaching Prokorovka (2000 Zettertling), meaning that neither unit achieved its objectives.

[ August 10, 2003, 12:02 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

Well, now that the technical and historical aspects of your argument have been dealt with thoroughly, I want to comment on the psychology of the whole thing. Your analysis sounds really quite paranoid. As Madmatt observed, your conclusions are based on anecdotal evidence, but your logic reveals that you feel the programmers have gone to extra effort to introduce a flawed probability system.

Don't know if you've ever done any computer programming, especially AI stuff, but....

The "dynamic probability" that you describe and that you are justifiable opposed to would be much more difficult to program than just standard probability. Here's an example, in a situation where two tanks are facing off, the simple probability requires that the angle, armor penetration, distance, etc. be taken into account. As long as the above conditions are the same, the probability is the same.

In order to implement some sort of "dynamic probability" into the mix, additional factors like tank price, success of previous attacks/defenses by both units in possibly very different circumstances, whether the units in question bear a Hollywood-style grudge against each other, etc.

So why would BFC go to such extra efforts to make the game behave in a less realistic fashion? Just to piss you off?

Seems a little paranoid to me....

Dr. Rosenrosen

[General Bolt]

A while back there was a topic "What was the worst 60 seconds of CMBB you've experianced?". Most of the examples that ['nzn] pointed out were mild compared to the things that have happened to other players.

Take a chill pill. Its just a game.

Like the bumper sticker says: "Feces occurs".

[Stavka_lite]

Mr. 'nzn, As you have probably discovered that this can be a rough (and tough) crowd. I offer this advice with the best intentions and no sarcasm; Criticism of the game can be offered but only in a positive manner and I believe that yours was interpreted as somewhat "flaming" and you must have empirical data to back up you claims. I have seen several cases where MadMatt has asked for more data (game turns) for research. So, these guys are open to suggestions and take their product very seriously as they should for a product that is very well done.

Ok, I am done preaching... light me up!

[Jaws]

First I must say I don't now anything about the codes and other formulas the guys from battlefront put in the CM series. But what I do know is how things work out in real world army's. And I can tell you that things where you think this is a 100% good solution or plan, never works out as you aspect (and not just because of poor leadership). This means that if you make plan you always must make a "what if" scenario or a “backup” plan and never count on 1 or 2 units to win a battle. I think the people from Battlefront simulated these aspects very good in CMBO but even better with CMBB.

[ August 10, 2003, 11:22 AM: Message edited by: Jaws ]

[['nzn]]

Well, awfully sorry for being too rude and negative, though i thought i was speaking normally.. i REALLY LOVE this game after all

Considering me another looser - you better say it when you played with me i think. BTW i tried to pick the examples from my POSITIVE game experiense, dont you mind?

Sorry for having paranoia as well

I really diagree with olimpia snipers having problems with my statement - they often miss in the

end of their shooting series, so i dont know whats wrong about my judgement that the hit

probability is the same every shot.. but thats not the point now.

What is:

IF TO ASSUME THAT -Y O U- ALL ARE RIGHT ABOUT PROKHOROVKA, THEN I MUST ADMIT THAT NEITHER OF

CONTEMPORARY RUSSIAN MILITARY SPECIALISTS KNOWS **** ABOUT THE WWII AT EASTERN FRONT!!!

Because i say all that ive said after them telling it on TV, radio, museums, personally, at school history lessons etc, etc..

Thats really sad, i had hoped for the contrary. But of course you probably had somehow better

view from there overseas..

..because surely here are 'propaganda', 'perestroika' and all the other bad things

I shut up now, rough and tough crowd, hehe

[Bastables]

Originally posted by ['nzn]:

IF TO ASSUME THAT -Y O U- ALL ARE RIGHT ABOUT PROKHOROVKA, THEN I MUST ADMIT THAT NEITHER OF

CONTEMPORARY RUSSIAN MILITARY SPECIALISTS KNOWS **** ABOUT THE WWII AT EASTERN FRONT!!!

Because i say all that ive said after them telling it on TV, radio, museums, personally, at school history lessons etc, etc..

Thats really sad, i had hoped for the contrary. But of course you probably had somehow better

view from there overseas..

..because surely here are 'propaganda', 'perestroika' and all the other bad things

I shut up now, rough and tough crowd, hehe

The Soviet losses are taken form G.F. Krivosheyev Grif Sekretnosti Sniat Voenizdat, Moscow 1993. German ones from Zetterling who has sourced them from German wartime casualty?s records.

Apparently your current military "experts" prefer war "bedtime stories" as opposed to checking on actual losses suffered by 5th tank guard tank army and II SS-Pzkorp. Checking on the 5th tank guards losses during it?s engagement at Pk should be Childs play since even westerners such as Glantz have access to records in Moscow. Or second hand from Krivosheyev who has undertaken the most exhaustive examination and then publication of Soviet wartime losses sans wartime propaganda.

[SgtMuhammed]

Yes, it is very interesting that the official Western version was pretty much the Russian one, T34s blasting Tigers at point blank in a swirling melee, until the opening of RUSSIAN archival material. Maybe there are different archives for Russian and Western historians.

[['nzn]]

Bastables:

What you call "sans propaganda" is simply anti-soviet propaganda instead of the pro-soviet one (which you call just "propaganda" correspondingly).

Seventeen tanks lost against hundreds? My ass! Id think you are trying to joke if you didnt sound so seriously.

I also liked the "misidentified PzIV's" statement! Aha, nice try.. They did know PzIV's appearance very well by the time, didnt they?

You are obsessed there in the west with the idea of soviet all-time weakness, it appeals to you. And those new history (re-)writers just exploit your need for such info and tell you what you like to hear. There are different theories on every topic after all. You want this one, you got it.

[Panzertruppe]

Wow! I really have nothing to add...except I noticed the guy who started this topic just had his game go haywire!( See his other post).

Now thats "karma"!

[Richie]

Now Now... Perhaps we need a display of the random generator so disgruntled players can see how close they were and how lucky the opponent actually was.

Hmmmm.... Let's call these dice

Now, let's say we use two 6 sided where 7 is average, 2 is a really good roll and a 12 (lets call them box cars) means it's 'all bad news'!

With every variable action we could have the dice roll shown on the screen with the hit of a hot key. Millions of die rolls for the fella's with problems to check. Lotsa box cars? Sorry Tiger, you're just having a really bad day! :eek:

Then again you could just call it a game and say you lucked out once in a while....

Every body loses once in a while. ****e happens!

Hi MOM ?

Oh yeah... you get alot further in life with a gun and a smile than you do with just a gun.

[ August 10, 2003, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: Richie ]

[Jaws]

oops

[ August 10, 2003, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: Jaws ]

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by ['nzn]:

I also liked the "misidentified PzIV's" statement! Aha, nice try.. They did know PzIV's appearance very well by the time, didnt they?

Pz IVs were ROUTINELY misidentified as Pz VI's throughout the last three years of the war. From several hundred meters away, or even several score meters in poor light, smoke or dust (all conditions fairly common on battlefields) it's easy to do.

As for Western propaganda vs. Soviet propaganda...hey, you won the war! We all agree on that fact and that's what counts.

Michael

[['nzn]]

Michael:

I heard such sayings from the war veterans like: "Then we first saw the unusual tank silouhettes on the horison - it were Tigers!"

[PiggDogg]

'nzn,

"Then we first saw the unusual tank silouhettes on the horison - it were Tigers!"

The Tiger's and PzIVs silouhettes were not unusual.

The silouhettes of both long barreled PIVs (of which there were many &, if I am not mistaken, the single most produced type of German tank in WWII) and the PzVIs/TigerIs (of which there were not many) were quite similar at most any distance in the heat of battle.

Most front line soldiers possessed the understandable propensity to report every enemy encountered as the most potent enemy available. Note the well known stories and reports of many line grunts' (at least Western Allied) reporting of what seemed to be nearly every (but not all) enemy gun encountered, AT or arty, as being an 88. Similarly, they reported what seemed to be nearly every (but not all) enemy tank encountered as being a Tiger.

Hey, if I were some grunt slogging in the muck, being pummeled by enemy mg & mortar fire with a bit of divisional arty thrown in for good measure, I would report every enemy tank that I would ever see as a Tiger. No matter where that tank was going, it was coming at me. I only have a rifle & some grenades, and that tank is some big & nasty & could kill me. I am crapping in my pants. :eek:

Because of this understandable infantryman propensity, one must suspect that most Allied soldiers' reporting of encountering Tigers were inaccurate.

Maybe, I am wrong. But I am probably not.

Cheers, Richard

[Sergei]

I once was browsing one of those AFV books which describe the development and features of WW2 tanks. Can't remember the name, but I do remember that in the Tiger section I noticed how some photos looked different. I first thought, okay, different versions. Then I did some more checking, and realized that one of the "Tiger" photos (a big, almost full page picture) was really a Pz IV! :eek: That's like showing a picture of Catherine Zeta Jones and claiming that it's Salma Hayek!

[Michael Emrys]

But it even took you some time and study to work out the difference, right? And nobody was shooting at you.

Michael