Program Development Suggestions.....

[BadgerDog]

Some constructive thoughts (I hope) for the BTC development team.

1. I can only speak for Sherman (M4A2E8) tactics, but the SOP for crew commanders of this era was to dismount with binos and "foot recce" blind corners, defiles, "belly up" crests and other obstacles that presented a potential threat to their vehicle. For example, instead of sticking their bow around a corner, or cresting a ridge onto unknown terrain, the CC would dismount his AFV, then walk, crawl, run to a position of observation with a view around or over the obstacle or terrain feature. He presented a very small and difficult target for the enemy to see and once he thought it was clear, he would hand signal his vehicle around through the obstacle, then re-mount.

2. Stuck and bogged vehicles. This event is very realistic and used to happen to us a lot. However, what is missing is the use of the "winch" that was attached to one in four ( our particular Troop formation) of Shermans, plus almost every one of our A and B echelon vehicles was winch equipped. We would approach the bogged Sherman, attach the winch hook to the "winch eyelets" built into the Sherman's hull in various paces, then simply pull her out. If the Sherman with the winch was the "bogged" critter, you could often get yourself out by looping the extended winch chain around a local tree and pulling yourself out of the mud. If there was no solid tree or obstacle within about 50 meters, then you'd drive another Sherman up and attach onto it as a surrogate tree.

I guess my point is that both of these capabilities would seem to be relatively easy to implement with the existing program code routines. We can now embark/disembark infantry, so being able to do this as a tank CC would seem relatively simple. Also, we can embark/disembark towed guns right now, so I assume that same code could be used to implement a "winching" simulation to un-bog vehicles.

Anyway, nothing mission critical about having to add these kinds of things, but after having played the game for a while, they seemed to be a few ideas that would help increase realism and enjoyment of the product.

In any event, thanks again to BTC for providing me with hours of terrific enjoyment playing PBEM against some really gracious and tactically talented CMBB players. My only regret is that I didn't discover this software a lot sooner when CMBO was released.

Regards,

Badger

Qualifed on Sherman (M4A2E8) & Centurion

Group 3 Gunner (RCAC)

Group 2 Driver Mechanic Tracked (RCAC)

Group 2 Signaler (RCAC)

CC and Trooper Leader Instructor

[BadgerDog]

Another thought after playing the game some more ...........

CMBB currently employs a "hull down" move command and with the odd exception, it seems to work fine most of the time.

The "hull down" command was not something that was used in isolation by Sherman Crew Commanders. It was a two step process. First the CC would direct the driver forward into a "turret down" position, for purposes of a halt and scan (always right to left) SOP, observing for enemy positions, but also choosing his next forward fire position.

Why? In simple terms, there's absolutely no point in exposing your turret and master weapon to any kind of incoming fire when it isn't necessary, plus it's very hard for the "bad guys" to spot a small personal silhouette at distance. It isn’t necessary to come up in a "hull down" unless there's something to engage, so why not just stay "turret down" scanning the ground in front through your binos. Once the CC assessed the threat as minimal and had chosen his next bound (fire position), he would command his driver forward with "driver advance slow" and come up in a "hull down", then signal his wingman to leapfrog forward (reverse jockey first!) so he can assume a "turret down" to begin his scan in a similar manner. Using this technique, there was always one Sherman with a ready-to-fire "hull down" and the other was either protected in a "turret down", or in motion to his next fire position. Of course, all of this assumes that the terrain is not featureless and affords the CC the luxury of being able to assume a "turret down" at all.

It seems to me that it wouldn't be that difficult for CMBB to add a "turret down" command to the movement orders menu, using the same LOS code that's now employed for "hull down". I hope that's not an over simplification of how it could be done.

Thanks for listening....

Regards,

Badger

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by BadgerDog:

[snips] First the CC would direct the driver forward into a "turret down" position, for purposes of a halt and scan (always right to left)

Why always right to left?

I can recall being taught that it was supposedly more effective to scan the other way to the "natural" one, but I'm afraid I can't recall which way was supposed to be "natural".

Originally posted by BadgerDog:

It seems to me that it wouldn't be that difficult for CMBB to add a "turret down" command to the movement orders menu, using the same LOS code that's now employed for "hull down". [snips]

Excellent idea!

I can already hear the howls of protest if the revision permitted "semi-indirect" fire...

The earlier idea of allowing crew to dismount for recce is IMHO indispensable if the next version of CM is to give recce vehicles their full value. Assuming that the detached observer remains in some sense "tethered" to the vehicle, it occurs to me that generally similar code might be useable to permit sections to extrude a point man to a distance of, say, 25m. This would save a lot of unconvincing pottering about with half-squads to achieve the same effect.

Some of these things might be limited to only certain levels of experience, in the way covered arcs and the "advance to contact" command now are. In particular, I suspect that the bar for semi-indirect shooting could be set quite high.

All the best,

John.

[jwxspoon]

This is good stuff! Thanks for your input!

jw

[BadgerDog]

Hi John....

As I was taught, albeit over 35 years ago...

Here is something I wrote for another game I enjoy....

SOP (Tactics) - Observation and Scanning Terrain

The general overriding principles of scanning terrain are first, be stationary in the prone position (on your belly) if possible and second, be concealed and occupying the highest ground that permits the greatest viewing distance. Once in position, you do a quick scan forward, taking in your entire viewing angle looking for anything obvious that you should immediately react to. Pay particular attention to and make a mental note of any "dead ground" in front of you. Dead ground are areas where the terrain is depressed (i.e. gulleys, ravines and wide ditches etc), where the enemy may easily conceal himself, or suddenly appear in front of you as they move forward and rise up out of those depressions. If through your "Quick Scan" everything looks quiet and normal, then you mentally divide your forward viewing angle into three distinct areas consisting of foreground, middle distance and horizon. Once that's done, you begin a detailed and very slow scan of the foreground (greatest threat) area, shifting when complete to the middle distance area and finally, moving your scan to the far horizon. Pretend your eyes on your monitor (using your mouse as well) are like a typewriter carriage in motion, except reversed. Always begin your scan from RIGHT TO LEFT, moving across the designated area (foreground, middle distance, horizon), then as you reach the end of each area, do a "carriage return" and shift your eyes back to the right side of the next area, commencing your detailed RIGHT TO LEFT scan all over again.

Why RIGHT TO LEFT? Quite simply, we are conditioned as children and taught to read with a more normal LEFT TO RIGHT eye movement. Our eye motion and associated muscles get very comfortable moving in this direction and it creates very smooth movements through image transitions with few pauses. Unfortunately, this muscle and mind conditioning also creates an environment where it's easy for the eye to be lazy and miss something when scanning in this more learned mode. However, if you scan RIGHT TO LEFT, you'll find it far more awkward for your eye and mind coordination to get lazy, plus there's a tendency for your eyes to stop and pause more often to focus on what you're seeing. The result is that you might identify things that you'd easily miss when scanning in the more natural and conditioned LEFT TO RIGHT mode. Next time you're outside with real life terrain, test out this phenomenon and I think you'll get a clear idea as to how this works. It also works with your eyes on your computer screen and with your mouse movement in a similar, but less pronounced fashion.

Thanks for the feedback...

Regards,

Badger

[BadgerDog]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

The earlier idea of allowing crew to dismount for recce is IMHO indispensable if the next version of CM is to give recce vehicles their full value. Assuming that the detached observer remains in some sense "tethered" to the vehicle, it occurs to me that generally similar code might be useable to permit sections to extrude a point man to a distance of, say, 25m. This would save a lot of unconvincing pottering about with half-squads to achieve the same effect.

Actually, the tethering comment is excellent and brought back another memory of the "foot recce" dismount drill. As a Sherman CC , we would dismount from the tank while tethered back to our primary N-19 radio set (originally built for the Russian model Sherman and ours still had Russian markings), via a long 50-75 foot "mic" extension cable. The idea was to be able to check over or around the obstacle and be able to send a "contact report" immediately without having to re-mount, plus you could toggle the "mic" over to Intercom and command the driver to move forward past the obstacle as you walked ahead. Unfortunately, it may seem odd, but these extensions were in short supply and often we only had one in a troop of 4 Sherman's.

I won't tell you how many times they got tangled up in the front drive sprocket, destroying the extension and yanking the headphones off the CC, or almost choked the CC to death when it hung up as he jumped off the front left or right fender skirt of the vehicle.

Regards,

Badger

[BadgerDog]

My apologies for the thread drift, but I thought this might be of interest to some of the real grognards on these boards.

I was just looking in an old album and found a pictures of my first few days as a fresh young Sherman Crew Commander. Although it's not caught on camera (lucky for me), I can still remember my very first round and the moment as if it was yesterday. I was standing in cupola ring, top half of my body exposed, targeting the gunner on an old Sherman wreck down range at approximately 1200 yards. When the 76mm went off, it spun me around in the turret, blew my beret off, singed (burnt) my eyebrows and hair and I choked on the cordite fumes that rose up from inside the turret. The instructor on the back deck (WWII Sherman and Korean War vet) leaned over and hollered in my ear, "don't you wish you had joined the infantry now?" ....

For those that want to see what it looks like when a 76mm fires AP........

It should be noted for posterity that we missed!!!

Sherman M4A2E8 First Day's Shoot (May 1964)

Sherman M4A2E8 Second Day's Shoot (May 1964)

Note the effect of the muzzle brake on the back blast ..........

Regards,

Badger

Edit: Changed post images to links for convenience of slower connections.

[ May 19, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]

[Edward Windsor]

Great suggestions and nice pix.

[BadgerDog]

Another brief comment about low range engagements for consideration in the next generation of Combat Mission.

One of two point blank misses at 67 meters

As I said, I can ONLY speak to the sighting telescope mounted in the M4A2E8 Sherman (76mm) that I qualified on. It was a circa early 50's critter with a reticule pattern in the sight,. This sight had NO magnification capability. It had the vertical bar down the center with horizontal lines for range (marked on each line in yards) that became increasingly tighter together as the range decreased. It also had additional horizontal markings for lateral displacement and fire correction that were graduated in mils. I believe there's 6400 mils in 360 degrees. There was a hand traverse wheel (gunner's right hand) marked with mils also for the same fine corrections so that we could look down and move the gun laterally without having to look through telescope. There was a small black cross for engaging at targets under 1,000 yards and zeroing the master weapon to adjust for parallax. We zeroed the actual gun at 1,000 yards to the telescope's cross by bore sighting (literally looking down the barrel through an open breach) with pieces of "thread" taped to the end of the barrel in a cross pattern. Why zero for parallax at under 1,000 yards. Well, remember the type of armored warfare and equipment of that era. Although CMBB deals with the generally more open terrain of Russia, a period map study for Northern Europe (see footnote) concluded that the average range that a tank could see another tank from any random point was 322 yards. The probability that a tank could see 1000 yards at any random point in Northern Europe was less than .05 (less than 5%). It was concluded that tank engagements in Europe was controlled by the terrain - thus limiting tank engagement ranges to less than 800 yards. In fact, the actual range that most encounters took place was 330 yards.

So, what’s my point? Well, in simple terms.... missing at 67 meters not once, but twice is almost physically impossible in real life. In real life, the target literally fills the entire sighting telescope so the gunner doesn’t even have to aim. Note: The AP shell crater located behind the T-34 relative to the LOS. I assume that this purely represents the graphics "artist license" that's taken within the game, but still something needs to be re-examined in relation to the physics and trajectory detail at these very low ranges. I have noticed that the many of the up close engagements of tanks within CMBB tend to be a bit gamey like this example, but it's still a fantastic piece of entertainment software and I love every minute of it.

Regards,

Badger

Footnote:

Information kindly provided by Charles Lemons, the curator of the Patton Museum.

"This information comes from The Range and Angular Distribution of A.P. Hits on Tanks, Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground MD, December 1951 (Project TB3-1224B, Memorandum Report # 590)

This study was an analysis of the range and angular distribution of casualties and hits on tanks in WW II (NW Europe). It notes number of reported tank losses for 1st US Army, 3rd US Army, and the reports from the British Army.

Mean engagement range for Allied tanks vs German tanks was 701 yards. 1st Army mean range was 760 yds 3rd Army mean range was 615 yds British 2nd Army mean range was 644 yds

According to the charts 87% of all engagements resulting in casualties were at more than 200 yds, 65% was greater than 400 yds. However, only 2% were at ranges greater than 2000 yds.

It was noted in the report that the range at which most encounters took place was 330 yds - or half the average range. It also noted that most hits were on the front of the hull or turret for US Vehicles, but only for little more than 1/3 of the British tanks was this true.

Several things were concluded during the study:

1. Four of the five engagements between single tanks went to the tank that fired first.

2. One half of all casualties were caused by a single hit and the average number of hits per casualty was less than two.

3. German weapons could penetrate Allied armor, in most cases, out to 2000 yds, whereas Allied guns could perforate German armor only out to about 800 yds.

A Map study was also included for Northern Europe and it concluded that the average range that a tank could see another tank from any random point was 322 yards. The probability that a tank could see 1000 yards at any random point in Northern Europe was less than .05 (less than 5%). It was concluded that tank engagements in Europe was controlled by the terrain - thus limiting tank engagement ranges.

It also noted that in only 3 of 85 cases cited were the tanks actually engaging the gun that knocked them out. It also noted that in only 3% of the cases were the tanks able to return fire before becoming a casualty."

[ May 19, 2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]

[Grisha]

Great input, Badger!

[Sergei]

Originally posted by BadgerDog:

So, what’s my point? Well, in simple terms.... missing at 67 meters not once, but twice is almost physically impossible in real life.

I know that in CM, it being a game with all kinds of random modifiers, tanks do miss in cases where they obviously should not. As I don't know how hits are calculated, it is hard to tell why it is so. But in this situation, I'd pay attention to that there's one woods tile inbetween and another partly, which may affect the aim (probably not this way, though).

Oh, I just realized there's scattered trees as well.

[ March 12, 2003, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Sergei ]

[demoss]

So, what’s my point? Well, in simple terms.... missing at 67 meters not once, but twice is almost physically impossible in real life.

Not when there are trees in the way. Looks to me like you barely had LOS.

[Battlefront.com]

BadgerDog,

Thanks for your input and observations from real life. Every little bit helps. Even stuff from Charles at Patton Museum Seriously, Charles was kind enough to take us on a "backlot" tour of the Patton Museum's holdings, which are about 2-3 times greater than what the public can see.

Anyhoo...

Keep in mind that CM is not a tank simulator. It simulates tanks in great detail, but it also has to simulate hundreds of other non-tank related things too. On top of that, this is a game and it will succeed or fail based on how easy/fun it is to play. What does this mean? It means that we have to concentrate on getting the "big" stuff right and ignore everything that is not critical importance.

For example, scanning left/right or right/left is almost completely irrelevant, but TCs or drivers being able to scout outside of the vehicle is not. However, the latter is something that is very difficult to simulate for a host of reasons and therefore was skipped in order to free up time to do the other critical things that the game could not be released without. WIth each new release we hope to add more and more of these details as we go along.

Having TC/Driver dismounted scouting is one thing we would really like to add. For CMBO/CMBB it really isn't all that important to have because the player already has horribly unrealistic abilities to scan terrain and the battlefield already, so finer control is not necessarily going to make the game more realistic. However, with the new engine we will take a lot of this away from the player and therefore the importance of dismounted scouting will take on (possibly) new importance. Therefore, it is very much on the table for consideration.

As for why your tank missed at such short range... in combat conditions we feel *anything* is possible. Other infantry, artillery, and tanker soldiers have reinforced this belief we have that the "impossible" does in fact happen fairly frequently.

In specific terms of the miss you pointed out... it was most likely due to the scattered trees interfering with the shot. Also, if the T-34 was moving that too adds an unfavorable variable. We also consider that not all crews are going to do the right thing 100% of the time in 100% of the situations. For example, your PzIV's commander might have called for fire at the wrong moment, or perhaps the gun wasn't boresighted correct, etc.

I had an opportunity to use the US Army's SIMNET M1 tank simulator. In theory we were not supposed to miss, but we did because of some equipment damage we were not aware of. Also, we had a situation in one battle where Charles (gunner) kept accidentally overriding my (TC) gunner settings Obviously the latter would not be something a Regular crew would screw up, but my point simply is that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In combat, it is incorrect to assume that all chains are equally strong.

Steve

[Gpig]

I think that was my favourite thread of ALL TIME!!

Sigh.

I think I'll go have a nap, now.

Gpig

[BadgerDog]

Hi Steve...

Thanks for the feedback.... much appreciated....

I guess I'm failing to completely understand the nature of the graphics representations in CMBB. I have always assumed from reading threads here that what we see on our monitors during "moves", were only approximations of what the actual program code was using for the physics to calculate the results. A good example of this is the 75mm round crater from the shot the stationary PZ IV just took at the stationary T-34. You'll notice that where it appears is physically impossible based upon the relative positions of both vehicles, the LOS and trajectory of a round at that distance and angle. However, I have also always assumed that if you have a valid LOS, that the gunners of opposing vehicles are able to view each other clearly. So, regardless of whether the screen image shows scattered trees or forests that appear to block their view, this representation was probably as inaccurate as the 75mm shell crater appears to be. I guess those rules don't always hold true, as was the case here.

Having said that, I guess the only point I was trying to make was that if the LOS is correct, then THIS IMAGE is what a typical gunner might be viewing though his sighting telescope at 67 meters in real life. The assumption is a clear "no aim" shot and the first guy to get the round off should be the winner.

In any event, thanks again for producing an outstanding game. I thoroughly enjoy it and only regret that I didn't discover it sooner then the CMBB release. Many thanks to Chuck (vadr) for getting me hooked to become a Combat Mission "junkie".

If I can help out in any way for future development or releases, it would be a privilege. I hope you don’t find my comments out of line, or that anyone else doesn’t misconstrue my motives for making suggestions.

BTW, I do play Steel Beasts as a modern Tank Sim. Like CMBB, it's simply awesome as an entertainment product, even with graphics that are still at 640x480.

Regards,

Badger

[ May 19, 2003, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]

[Battlefront.com]

BadgerDog,

Thanks for the feedback.... much appreciated....

Feedback needs to be a two way street in order to work in the most effective way

I guess I'm failing to completely understand the nature of the graphics representations in CMBB. I have always assumed from reading threads here that what we see on our monitors during "moves", were only approximations of what the actual program code was using for the physics to calculate the results.

You are largely correct. The underlying calculations have nothing to do with the graphical represenations. However, the graphics do represent things (abstractly) which the calculations take into account. Which results in...

A good example of this is the 75mm round crater from the shot the stationary PZ IV just took at the stationary T-34. You'll notice that where it appears is physically impossible based upon the relative positions of both vehicles, the LOS and trajectory of a round at that distance and angle.

One of the abstractions is where a miss lands. For computation reasons (i.e. CPU horsepower) a shot is correctly calculated to determine if the round hit or missed based on the dozens of different factors at the split second the shot was fired. This also takes into account factors AFTER the shot is fired, such as shell drop, accuracy error, moving target, etc.

If a shot is determined to miss, then the game simply picks a spot to "land" the missed round. This is done with a certain degree of realism, but it can lead to situations like you pointed out where a round apparently went straight through the target and struck the ground behind it. Also keep in mind that this might look different if you put units to Realistic Scale (if you haven't already).

The bottom line is that when a round is fired we do not trace a trajectory and see what it intersects along the way. This is computationally VERY "expensive". As it is the computations are very taxing for the average CPU. Put two tanks in an open map and see how long it takes to compute a turn. Now put a dozen on each and note the difference. It is substantial! Especially when you consider the game was written to run on systems made 6 years ago

However, I have also always assumed that if you have a valid LOS, that the gunners of opposing vehicles are able to view each other clearly. So, regardless of whether the screen image shows scattered trees or forests that appear to block their view,...

LOS comes in differing degrees of quality, as it should. If I peer through a bunch of trees, I might still see a target but it will be a lot less obvious than if it was out in the open. For gunnery this might me the gunner aims for what he belives to be a side shot but in reality the tank is turned differently than he thinks, thus the shot misses.

Obviously the graphical representation of the trees is irrelevant, but what those graphics represent is very relevant.

Having said that, I guess the only point I was trying to make was that if the LOS is correct, then THIS IMAGE is what a typical gunner might be viewing though his sighting telescope at 67 meters in real life. The assumption is a clear "no aim" shot and the first guy to get the round off should be the winner.

All things being equal, you are correct. But like I said, there are any number of factors that could cause the gunner to miss in this set of circumstances. The problem I think you are having is that it isn't possible for us to show (or even directly simulate) these things. In other words, if we did simulate things to the nth degree you might see through the gunner's scope a partial target in a position you were not entirely clear about. All you know for sure is that there is an enemy tank "right there" and take your best shot. But again, if your gun isn't boresighted, and you guessed wrong where the center mass of the vehicle was, a miss would be entirely possible.

In any event, thanks again for producing an outstanding game. I thoroughly enjoy it and only regret that I didn't discover it sooner then the CMBB release.

Tahnks! There is plenty of time to catch up with the others

If I can help out in any way for future development or releases, it would be a privilege.

As we get further along in a project, we often hash out a lot of stuff here on this BBS. We use it as both a research aid as well as a sounding board for ideas. CM wouldn't be nearly as good without this sort of interaction.

I hope you don’t find my comments out of line, or that anyone else doesn’t misconstrue my motives for making suggestions.

If only everybody with 1st hand knowledge of a subject could post like you do, we would all be quite happy campers Your posting style and intentions are perfecto.

BTW, I do play Steel Beasts as a modern Tank Sim. Like CMBB, it's simply awesome as an entertainment product, even with graphics that are still at 640x480.

We have had contact with Al on and off since the game was in Alpha. We are quite happy for the success he and his team have scored with Steel Beasts. Great to know you think the same!

Steve