What's wrong here?

[Hensworth]

SPOILER ALERT (Hornet's nest)

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

I played 'Hornet's nest' against a human opponent and killed all his AFV's (+/- 20, including the ones that weren't T-34s, but I forget what they were) with my first batch of 4 Nashorns. Didn't try anything special, just put them in hull down and let them blaze away at their leisure. Usually they would get a hit on the 2nd or 3rd shot, sometimes the first.

Didn't seem to matter much whether the T-34s were stationary and shooting back (when they did, they were missing by a mile) or scampering for cover and not returning fire.

It seemed like a suitably impossible task for my opponent to achieve anything against those big, accurate guns.

There have been other instances where I have been impressed by the 88, notably the Flak version. One of the biggest advantages is that a hit is usually a kill.

Don't forget that superior optics require regular and in some cases veteran and above crews to be taken advantage of. If the crew doesn't meet these requirements, their chance of hitting something actually suffers. This may or may not account for some of Redwolf's statistics.

[ June 19, 2003, 03:12 PM: Message edited by: Sgt_Kelly ]

[Ligur]

Originally posted by Gpig:

SPOILER ALERT!

.

Heh, yeah. My CRACK kingTiger in "Maxdorf" kept missing those t-34/85's that came on the map at the 1500m range.

Got one of them, but after I'd used up almost 20 rnds of AP. Then I just put up a covered arc at the 1000m mark and waited.

Those t-34's wouldn't even come out to play! They'd peek out of the woods, then scurry back into cover.

My Tiger never had to fire another shot! Just his presence alone saved the day. Held back 8 (?) of them t-34/85s.

Gpig

Same sad experience, my KT wasted about 10 rounds of precious AP ammo before I drove it to within 600 meters.

So King Tigers were practically unable to hit large targets from 800 or 900 meters? This came as a surprise. My hit % from 900m was something close to 25%. Hmm. Wow. At 600m it turned into 50%, an acceptable rate IMO.

Only after that my crack KT started hitting, albeit with scary accuracy. It disposed 9 T34/85s in rapid succession, keeping all of them totally out of action at Maxdorf itself. My HTs just drove in there, took all the flags and spat out grenadiers who fortified the closest heavy buildgins. REALLY FUN. I left the last flag alone as in the end more T34s poured in. My KT couldn't have destroyed all of them even with every round knocking out something... Well, more late war realism but doesn't make for the most fun scenario ever.

That scenario was terrible, definetly not for human vs AI. Minutes of driving around, realistic but ultimately superbly boring force compositions.

[MikeyD]

undead reindeer cavalry writes:

"does the hit % get higher the longer i wait before i shoot the target?"

Waiting doesn't help much UNLESS the enemy is approaching . Hit % gets higher at shorter ranges... or at least it should.

"will my tanks be any harder to detect if they just sit quietly without firing?" Yes, they're harder to spot in low light conditions (dawn/dusk/overcast) bad weather and of course at night. But I wouldn't count on it. Nothing like having your PzIV, which is sitting placidly on a hillside, suddenly erupt in flames from a first round kill from an unseen IS-2! Cover arcs and hide is a two edged sword. It may make you less visible, but it may also make you less likely to respond to unexpected threats.

My best advice is to always keep your armor under cover and let the infantry (or any other less vital unit) spot/scout for you. That way you can surprise your opponent instead of the other way around.

About difficultly getting a nice long LOS for you big guns in most scenarios, you're not the first to mention this. But terrain features are terrain features. I recall seeing a U.S. Army map of South Vietnam from during the war that had half the country blacked out as a 'no-go' area for armor. Short range scenarios people complain because they can't maximize the advantage of their big guns, very large maps people complain because all they get is long range misses or ricochettes for ten turns in a row! Ping! Ping! Ping!

[ June 19, 2003, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[flamingknives]

Actually no, I partly goofed by comparing to the T-34 gun to come up with the 8% hit chance.

If you just compare the 76.2mm M1936 F-22 Gun and the captured 76.2mm one you come up with pratically the same hit chances, although the captured one has long-range optics and the Russian one has no special optics.

Indeed, you're quite right, like I said, I was using the figures you gave.

I ran the test myself later, and the TH chance was about the same each way (at 1400m though) despite the German gun having better optics and higher velocity shells.

Speaking of it, did anybody investigate HQ combat bonusses on AT shots in CMBB? Should be interesting and probably different for vehicles with combat-bonus HQs and infantry.

Yes, HQ combat bonus increases the hit chance of towed and infantry AT weapons. By about 10% plus or minus 5%

Vehicles cannot have HQ units with combat or stealth bonuses as purchased, BUT in an operation where the HQ vehicle is destroyed, the subordinate units can be commanded by an infantry HQ. I haven't been able to check the effect an HQ with combat bonus has in any sort of systematic way, but I think there is some kind of bonus to hit.

[SFJaykey]

If German long-range optics are only giving a 30% to-hit advantage over standard Allied optics at range, I think they are considerably undermodelled. This based on lots of personal, practical experience with optics of various types, including German and Russian optics of WWII (or shortly after) design. Just picking numbers, 50-70% seems more appropriate for shots over 1000m. (that's a 50-70% advantage over Russian optics, not a raw to-hit chance)

I have no idea how to make a quantitative analysis of this, a la Rexford, but it is just sooo much easier to aim well with optics that offer higher contrast, less flare and more magnification. There should be an even greater advantage when shooting into the sun (except vs shilouetted targets), but I don't think the CMX1 engine is up to making that distinction...hopefully CMX2 will be.

An addition to the engine that might improve modelling of armor duels would be an intermediate step between spotting and targeting: call it "target acquisition." Now, it's one thing for a TC with his head out of the hatch to spot an enemy w/ his binoculars. And another thing for the gunner to put the crosshairs on the target and pull the trigger. But in between there is an important phase during which the gunner traverses the turret and looks for the enemy in his sight, and this does not seem to be modelled in the current engine. If it were, German tanks with narrow optics might spot as well as they do now, but take longer to aim and fire the first shot at a given enemy, while having a larger to-hit bonus. The regular "good" German optics would offer advantages (over the Russian optics) in both acquistion and accuracy, but with a smaller accuracy bonus than the long-range types.

The length of the "Acquistion" delay should depend, at least, on optical field of view, optical quality, crew quality, and degree of enclosure offered by the gun/vehicle. (A Marder gunner who could just peek over the gun shield would likely acquire his target faster than a Hetzer gunner who is glued to the eyecup of his sight.) Perhaps this intermediate step could be added to the gunnery model in CMX2.

As has been said, the spotting ability of buttoned tanks, especially those w/ 2-man turrets and/or no cupola, seems to be significantly overmodelled, and this combined with borg spotting eliminates much of the German's historical advantage. Borg spotting will have to wait for CMX2, but perhaps the spotting ability of buttoned tanks can be tweaked for CMAK?

Something else which has been posted before is that unmoving vehicles in cover are just too easy to spot, especially defending vehicles that have not moved since setup (where some kind of camouflage can be assumed). IMO a hulldown or dug-in Marder that has not moved since setup, assumed to be in ambush position w/ camouflage, should be little easier to spot than a 75/76mm ATG. Perhaps future CM versions could offer an "ambush" option for AFVs at setup, which would reduce their "spotability," in exchange for a delay penalty on their first movement order.

On the issue of the accuracy of the 88L71, I have played the scenarios mentioned here and some other games where it figured, and don't think there's anything wrong with the modelling of this gun in particular. Most of the really off-base results reported here are probably the inevitable statistical anomalies, combined with the systemic flaws in the model mentioned above.

PS: Having mentioned "systemic flaws" I think it's important to restate that CM is still the best wargame, ever, by far! As always, just trying to nudge it closer to perfection, and give the good folks at BFC some selling points for CMX2...

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by SFJaykey:

Now, it's one thing for a TC with his head out of the hatch to spot an enemy w/ his binoculars.

Well, the better German optics certainly help here, a lot.

Long-range spotting of enemies is much better from vehicles with high-end optics.

Ironically, even when the vehicle is unbuttoned

And another thing for the gunner to put the crosshairs on the target and pull the trigger. But in between there is an important phase during which the gunner traverses the turret and looks for the enemy in his sight, and this does not seem to be modelled in the current engine.

In the current CM engine this is completely dominated by the turret traverse or hull traverse time. The additional small delay where is gun barrel lowers visibly might be crew-quality dependent (didn't test) but is certainly not conditionalized on optics or target visibility.

As has been said, the spotting ability of buttoned tanks, especially those w/ 2-man turrets and/or no cupola, seems to be significantly overmodelled, and this combined with borg spotting eliminates much of the German's historical advantage. Borg spotting will have to wait for CMX2, but perhaps the spotting ability of buttoned tanks can be tweaked for CMAK?

I disagree. In the scenarios menioned here it is the infantry with binoculars who spots and locates the Nashorns for the T-34, which then open fire due to absolute spotting.

Also, the T-34 are driving towards the Nashorns, so the cupola is irrelevant. The vision slits in the front of a T-34 are probably as good as an equal quality cupola if all you need is forward vision.

Something else which has been posted before is that unmoving vehicles in cover are just too easy to spot, especially defending vehicles that have not moved since setup (where some kind of camouflage can be assumed). IMO a hulldown or dug-in Marder that has not moved since setup, assumed to be in ambush position w/ camouflage, should be little easier to spot than a 75/76mm ATG. Perhaps future CM versions could offer an "ambush" option for AFVs at setup, which would reduce their "spotability," in exchange for a delay penalty on their first movement order.

I think the original intention was to give defending non-moved vehicles a camouflage bonus in CMBB, but I don't remember whether it was implemented.

In any case, the real-world camouflage would apply only in suitable terrain, and that means full-scale dense trees. Scattered trees, wheat fields, rough would all be pretty meaningsless in real life. Only a vehicle packaged completely into vegetables behind a dense woods would have any chance to stay unspotted as long as a towed gun.

However, vehicles cannot enter woods in CM, so there you go (or not).

On the issue of the accuracy of the 88L71, I have played the scenarios mentioned here and some other games where it figured, and don't think there's anything wrong with the modelling of this gun in particular. Most of the really off-base results reported here are probably the inevitable statistical anomalies, combined with the systemic flaws in the model mentioned above.

PS: Having mentioned "systemic flaws" I think it's important to restate that CM is still the best wargame, ever, by far! As always, just trying to nudge it closer to perfection, and give the good folks at BFC some selling points for CMX2...

For the aspects discussed here I think CM is doing very good given its capabilities.

The game has absolute spotting, so any scenario which is messed up by the statistics of many units versus few units all in one LOS area is not going to work well. There appears to be no obvious thing BFC did wrong in here in CMBB (as opposed to CMBO where the hit probablities of fast moving shooters against standing targets and vice versa appeared to be severely off).

And the problem of absolute spotting is generally not solvable. The new engine will push the problem, but against a human player only until the next orders phase.

[SFJaykey]

Redwolf-

re: infantry spotting for the T-34s, you're right in the context of that scenario; I was trying to extend the argument to more general situations.

re: hiding vehicles, note I specified hulldown or dug-in, where the visible profile would not be much larger than an ATG. Vehicles _can_ enter scattered trees and brush, and be camouflaged to some degree. The background matters, too: scattered trees backed up by woods, brush, or even a hill, provide better cover than scattered trees in the open, since there is no silhouette effect...wonder if background will be considered in the CMX2 spotting model?

Are vehicles easier to spot than infantry, in the same terrain? Sure, absolutely, but not so easy as in CM now, especially when hulldown, in or behind cover, in poor light, etc.

And agreed that CM as it stands does a good job now, the best anyone has to date, but there is always room for improvement too...

[Patton21]

Ill be damned gentleman, this looks like chance to me. An elite crew should know the enemy's abilities, right? Isnt an elite crew a crew that can fire their main gun the fastest, hit their targets the quickest ect...that is a an elite crew. The only thing other then elite is uber super elite super uber. My point...elite crews should win out over regular crews more then 50% of the time or their advantage is equal to that of a regular crew, and thus their eliteness is rather lame. Hull down and long range optics and great distance should have seen all the russian tanks destroyed. That was a textbook position to be in. Any thoughts to the contrary are foolish. I believe this to be a matter of chance, nothing more. my 2 cents (more like 5 dollars and 35 cents)

[Redwolf]

The best feature of an elite crew is situation awareness. That aspect is missing from CM due to absolute spotting. The Nashorn does fire fastest in this match and has a vastly superiour hit chances, in 1:1 comparision. But not superiour enough to make good for for numercial superiority if the numerical superiority can be exploited - which even green closed-up T-34s can do with absolute spotting but would be very difficult in reality.

BTW, another thing, and that would be fixable, is the TRPs. The 15-20m radius circle is way too small. Preregistered areas would cover a major chunk of a ridgeline, or substancial section of a road. The CM TRPs are only good for "I nail him when he comes around that house", but unfortunately the target aquisition when the enemy tanks becomes visible (which would have to start from scratch every time in CM but not in reality) is so slow that a T-34 at full throggle can pass the whole TRP area before the defender can shoot.

[ June 19, 2003, 09:02 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly:

Don't forget that superior optics require regular and in some cases veteran and above crews to be taken advantage of. If the crew doesn't meet these requirements, their chance of hitting something actually suffers. This may or may not account for some of Redwolf's statistics.

Elite captured 76.2mm AT gun (710 m/sec): 46%

Elite 76.2mm M1936 F-22 gun (690 m/sec): 44%

The russian one has no special optics, the German one has long-range.

Hit probablities against 1100m silhuette 93-94 MBTs.

Face it, people. The optics are for spotting, not hitting.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Only a vehicle packaged completely into vegetables...

Suddenly I have a vision of a Jagdpanther residing in a huge heap of tomatoes...

Sorry, I couldn't help it!

Michael

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:

Only a vehicle packaged completely into vegetables...

Suddenly I have a vision of a Jagdpanther residing in a huge heap of tomatoes...

Sorry, I couldn't help it!

Michael </font>

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Elite captured 76.2mm AT gun (710 m/sec): 46%

Elite 76.2mm M1936 F-22 gun (690 m/sec): 44%

The russian one has no special optics, the German one has long-range.

Hit probablities against 1100m silhuette 93-94 MBTs.

Face it, people. The optics are for spotting, not hitting.

If the hitting bonus at 1100m for long-range optics is really only ~5%, they are way undermodelled. Higher magnification is

very helpful for targeting at range, not to mention the many advantages of a sharper, higher contrast sight picture. Better optics should help significantly with both spotting and targeting.

(Emphasis on "If," based on this example: the guns are using different ammo, and perhaps other small differences are modelled as well.)

[Patton21]

Why not just use lasers and laz the target. It works for the m1a1, I think this should be put into the game as a cheat mode. This game lacks cheat codes. Maybe a little saddam running around, or a mod where US troops fight Republican gaurd units.

[MikeyD]

I vote for the game pausing and a leprechaun (in green velvet coat) with a big tape measure scampering off to measure the distance between you and the target. Both effective and historically accurate! Whitmann is well known to have had his own Leprechauns.

[flamingknives]

Tomato paste was applied in place of more expensive zimmereit on tanks operating in the mediterranean theatre.

[moneymaxx]

I just read the Tiger Fibel http://www.geocities.com/tigerfibel/tigerfibel.htm and I found some interesting information about the optics and the 88’s accuracy. Of course there might be some propaganda involved, but since it is an instruction manual it should be quite limited.

Some quotes:

“wenn du mit dem ersten Schuss nicht triffst, hast du dich verschätzt oder die Waffe nicht richtig justiert. Du bist Schuld nicht die Kanone. “Bis 2000m schiesst die 88 nämlich Fleck”

-If you don’t hit with the first shot, you have either misjudged (the distance) or you didn’t align the gun correctly*. You are to blame, not the cannon. Because up to 2000m the 88 hits exactly . *There is a whole chapter in the instructions how to align the optics with the gun but in this context it can also mean that the gunner didn’t target the objective correctly.

That means that shooting at a stationary target should result in overshoots, undershoots or hits but rarely in misses to the left or the right, IF the optics are aligned correctly. Even against small targets like ATGs more than 1200m away the tank crew is supposed to hit with the third or fourth shot. Under 1200m the tank crew should hit with the first one.

This refers to moving targets. It’s a quote from the chapter that explains shooting in front of the target to compensate the target movement, otherwise, because the target moves during the flight of the shell, the shell would miss.

“ist dein Ziel über 1200m-aufhören, denn dann verschiesst Du auf fahrende Ziele zuviel Munition”

-If your target is more than 1200m away-stop, otherwise you use too many shells on moving targets.

So if the target is moving the hit probability should drop considerably. Superior optics are fine but they don’t help much if you have to estimate the velocity of the target. I don’t know if the T-34s of the original question were moving but that would explain the low hit probability. Even a KT has the same problem. The gun is perfect, optics are superior but to find the right aim point for a moving target is extremely difficult at great distances.

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I vote for the game pausing and a leprechaun (in green velvet coat) with a big tape measure scampering off to measure the distance between you and the target. Both effective and historically accurate! Whitmann is well known to have had his own Leprechauns.

Nonsense!

From 1940 on the Germans were known to use gnomes, exclusively. They were easier to spot than leprechauns, but more reliable: the early leprechaun prototypes would desert at the sight of every rainbow. The gnomes gave the Germans a substantial advantage over the leprechaun (and elf) equipped Allies...though gnome quality declined markedly throughout the war, and the volksgnomes of 1945 were far less accurate in their ranging than the motorized panzergnomes of '41-42.

Of course, Wittman might have been using captured leprechauns...

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by moneymaxx:

.....If you don’t hit with the first shot, you have either misjudged (the distance) or you didn’t align the gun correctly*.

Another reason why crew quality affects accuracy: better crews with their superior training, experience, and discpline would be more likely to maintain their sight alignment.

And though moving targets are certainly harder to hit, better optics have advantages in this situation, too: earlier spotting gives the gunner more time to judge velocity, better reticle design helps with judgement of velocity and range, and a wider field of view makes it much easier to track a moving target.

[zukkov]

very interesting discussion. regarding camo, i'm sure i read an account of russian tanks hidden in hay stacks. they surprised and destroyed some king tigers. all i can say is, where's my hay stacks comrads!? lol...

[moneymaxx]

Originally posted by SFJaykey:

And though moving targets are certainly harder to hit, better optics have advantages in this situation, too: earlier spotting gives the gunner more time to judge velocity, better reticle design helps with judgement of velocity and range, and a wider field of view makes it much easier to track a moving target. [/QB]

You are of course correct that it makes it easier. I only wanted to say that a 88 isn't going to hit with a 70% chance a moving target that is far away, since the calculations for a moving target don't allow a lot of errors while estimating the input data.

Assuming that the gunner got the velocity and the distance perfectly right and the gun is aligned perfectly, even "pulling the trigger" at the right time is crucial. The shell leaves the gun of the Nashorn at 1018m/sec (CMBO data, getting slower while travelling but I just leave that out). It takes the shell 1.18seconds to travel 1.200meters in that time a tank moving at a speed of 30km/h from left to right travels 9,83meters. With those optimal settings the gunner has 0,75second to shoot (considering the length of a T34, 6,75m). The gunner of a Tiger has to be quicker of course since the velocity of the shell is lower, it takes the shell 1.55 seconds to travel 1200m (773m/sec CMBO data). The tank moves 12,91m, 1/2 second to shoot.