Scipio Posted May 11, 2002 Share Posted May 11, 2002 This issue has been discussed so often that it is hard to find something with the search function, but maybe somebody knows already: Has BTS ever told on which sources there calculations for gun accuracy are build on, or the results they achieve? I think they must have compared (as good as possible) the in-game results with battlefield or at least shooting range results - I would be really interested in this material. THX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K_Tiger Posted May 11, 2002 Share Posted May 11, 2002 As i know, there is only muzzle velocity, weather effects, troop quality and the level of crew moral or something involved, may a bit of luck factor is also there but this isnt the question. No spezial tank perfomance!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted May 11, 2002 Author Share Posted May 11, 2002 Yes, I know wish factors are involved - but I mean the sources they used to proof their results - I assume they have done this!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted May 11, 2002 Share Posted May 11, 2002 Classical mechanics is their proof... Is that good, or do we need quantum mechanics ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sailor Malan Posted May 11, 2002 Share Posted May 11, 2002 I really think you need to do some searches here, because this has been discussed a lot. BTS will not (IIRC) give much more away than they already have. The gun modelling will be 'tweaked' for CMBB , what ever that means. The last thread on the subject was http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024503 BTS may not say more, but I have just discovered a couple of interesting pages http://salts.britwar.co.uk/salt6.htm http://salts.britwar.co.uk/salt5.htm What is your issue with the accuracy modelling? (Too accurate, or not enough?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted May 11, 2002 Share Posted May 11, 2002 You're really asking about the sources?? The long lost lore of a forgotten time? Oh boy, don't you know that the process in obtaining these data involved satanistic rituals in moonless nights with Steve and Charles in WW2 gear and a couple of local virgins? And you call yourself grogs... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted May 12, 2002 Share Posted May 12, 2002 actually, i think bts had ww2 staged so they could get the source of their game data first hand. therefore any results from the actual war that don't match the game are obviously inaccurate and should be stricken from the history books... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted May 12, 2002 Author Share Posted May 12, 2002 Tanaka, this is not only a question of simple physics. Even in the controlled conditions of a weapon lab is it difficult to achieve the same results for several shots, cause so many factors are important. So desregarding how the accuracy & damage calculation works - it is nonsense if the results are not compared with the results in reality - at least within acceptable limits. Sailor Malan, I knew this page already, thx anyway. To answer you question, (not only) in my personal opinion is both the accuracy and the damage significantly to high, in many ways. First shot hit probability, hit propability on the move and/or on moving targets, damage caused by hits, damage caused by small calibers...just to name a few. But the point is - I can find a legion of sources - mostly eye-witnesses - which makes me believe that I'm mostly right - also the Britwar datas seem to imply this, but this is unimportant if BTS has based there system on completly different and maybe better sources, so their model is maybe absolutly correct. I know it is only of very limited sense to compare two different games. When I take - for example and because of the same tactical size level - a look on SPWAW, I notice that both accuracy and damage is much lower then in CM - the SPWAW calculation thingy is surely much more abstracted. However, at least the casualties should be equal or at least similar, if both programmers have based the results on real-world results. This is not the case here, so I wonder what is closer to reality. The sources BTS used to compare their model with reality are not abdicable for this. So - in princip - all accuracy and damge discussions are useless, cause we have nothing to seriously compare, except the things we have read somewhere and all we what believe we can imply from them. So we can even discuss religion - well, sometimes it sounds like that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted May 12, 2002 Share Posted May 12, 2002 Originally posted by Scipio: … this is not only a question of simple physics. Even in the controlled conditions of a weapon lab is it difficult to achieve the same results for several shots, cause so many factors are important That is why we have Weibull statistics… basically we can assure that a certain % of the shoots will behave inside a certain pattern. So disregarding how the accuracy & damage calculation works - it is nonsense if the results are not compared with the results in reality - at least within acceptable limits. Almost all major differences between the game model and the “old sailor” histories have been analyzed on this forum and justified… basically if you have any fact (not an history) that proves the model wrong, bring it on, this board enjoys a good discussion. Evidently, the model has a random factor inside of it (this is not a game of chess), we like when that 88L71 gun fires a 50 m shot on a rear of stooped M4A2 and it fails… (the gunner could be thinking if god really exists on that split second or he might have had a little ..hmm… problem in his pants…we will never know ). What we might say is that this random factor applies well for mid rage confrontation, but not too well for short ranges (ie. How can a non-suppressed soldier fail a 5 m shoot on a stooped AFV? ), but even this as not been proven… remember we keep in our memory longer the odd things (close range missed shots) then the “normal” things (the hits). [ May 12, 2002, 04:14 PM: Message edited by: Tanaka ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted May 12, 2002 Author Share Posted May 12, 2002 Tanaka, all this is known. Of course there is a % of - from the logic viewpoint - 100% save hits that miss anyway. But of course we also all know Murphys law. And of course I have no facts to prove if the model is wrong or not - that's why I ask for the BTS facts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted May 12, 2002 Share Posted May 12, 2002 Originally posted by Scipio: ... But of course we also all know Murphys law. Peter Analysis is one book I’ve read with joy.. Murphy’s law is the responsible for any defeat I’ve had or will have in a PBEM or TCPIP CM game And of course I have no facts to prove if the model is wrong or not - that's why I ask for the BTS facts! [/QB]A few war material “sick” people are behind this game, even without know them personally, I would put my hands in the fire for their effort (Have in mind that I’m only speaking about the gun fire model… including armor) Now, not every thing is perfect and if there is something wrong, and there is, it has only one of these 2 reasons: 1-Too difficult/demanding to implement… 2-They missed it, or they don’t know about it… About 1 there is not much we can do, 2 is a possibility… 2, the best way is to find the so-called “error” in the gun fire game engine, prove them wrong (or enlighten) with a fact… They will never do the opposite, gives us their know-how (the formulas) and say :” Here are the formulas, what do you all think of them ?” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted May 12, 2002 Share Posted May 12, 2002 Hi, When you ask about the damage model I guess you also are including the armour penetration model. I have worked with WW 2 armour penetration equations, on and off, for many years and am also familiar with the equations quoted in text books written by the staff at the Royal College of Military Science, Charles knows what he is doing. I have a copy of the paper Charles based his equations on. The armour penetration figures in CMBO are correct, in my view. Charles has quite a challenge confronting him in CMBB. The Soviet AP rounds of the time were very different from the German and Western Allies rounds modelled in CMBO. However, I am confident Charles will have cracked the problem. Will be very interesting to see what he comes up with. Rexford’s book on the subject is also stunning stuff. For information on WW 2 armour penetration figures the Rexford book is the place to look. If you have not got it, get Rexford’s email address from one of his posts and ask him if it is still available. All good fun, All the best, Kip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted May 13, 2002 Author Share Posted May 13, 2002 Originally posted by Tanaka: They will never do the opposite, gives us their know-how (the formulas) and say :” Here are the formulas, what do you all think of them ?” Yes - this is very unkind, isn't it??? Kip Indeed I must noticed that the penetration model always works against me!!! Seriously, I have not so much problems with the pentration then with the damage caused by it. I guess this is a problem of the very limited damage model. Maybe this will be solved in CM:BB anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 Originally posted by Scipio: ...I have not so much problems with the pentration then with the damage caused by it. I guess this is a problem of the very limited damage model...Taking completely out soft vehicle damage model for obvious reasons, I came to four main possible sources of your discredit 1-Tanking out a catastrophic situation as an explosion or a fire (this last one is not that uncommon)… You want to know how in a battlefield you manage to know that a tank is abandoned or knocked out by a single shot at a certain distance ?! (Hmm… this is more for FOW and not for gun fire/damage model, but anyway…) 2-Using an extreme situation as an example… You can’t see how a 88mm AP round that penetrates the armor and “hits” only air inside a light/poor armored tank and after that exits on the other side, has as a result that the vehicle is abandoned, even with “only” that “apparent” damage ?! 3-You want to know why a light armored vehicles is abandoned after “only” “four” or “five” .50 AP bullets go through its side armor ?! 4-Tanking out the “hit or not” and the “penetration or not” calculations made by the game and after a careful statistic study of your part … You think/are sure you came to the conclusion that the game determines randomly the damage result (no serious damage; armor flaking; a crew casualty; abandoned; KO) ?! So, wish one is ? 2 is ok still, 3 is too much work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted May 14, 2002 Author Share Posted May 14, 2002 Originally posted by Tanaka: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Scipio: ...I have not so much problems with the pentration then with the damage caused by it. I guess this is a problem of the very limited damage model...Taking completely out soft vehicle damage model for obvious reasons, I came to four main possible sources of your discredit 1-Tanking out a catastrophic situation as an explosion or a fire (this last one is not that uncommon)… You want to know how in a battlefield you manage to know that a tank is abandoned or knocked out by a single shot at a certain distance ?! (Hmm… this is more for FOW and not for gun fire/damage model, but anyway…) 2-Using an extreme situation as an example… You can’t see how a 88mm AP round that penetrates the armor and “hits” only air inside a light/poor armored tank and after that exits on the other side, has as a result that the vehicle is abandoned, even with “only” that “apparent” damage ?! 3-You want to know why a light armored vehicles is abandoned after “only” “four” or “five” .50 AP bullets go through its side armor ?! 4-Tanking out the “hit or not” and the “penetration or not” calculations made by the game and after a careful statistic study of your part … You think/are sure you came to the conclusion that the game determines randomly the damage result (no serious damage; armor flaking; a crew casualty; abandoned; KO) ?! So, wish one is ? 2 is ok still, 3 is too much work </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 Originally posted by ParaBellum: Oh boy, don't you know that the process in obtaining these data involved satanistic rituals in moonless nights with Steve and Charles in WW2 gear and a couple of local virgins? Matt lives in Cinncinati, and Dan is in Oz, so I wouldn't exactly consider them local, but everything else is correct. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted May 14, 2002 Share Posted May 14, 2002 Hi, Scipio wrote, “Well, maybe it is even a problem of the general concept of CM, and also of the way how it is - and often must be played. Win on all costs - the typical CM battle - was not that typical in reality, despite the imaginations of some Führers. Typical CM casualties (within 30min) all the time would be a military desaster. Attacks are usually not started within an hour on completly unknown forces. 'Combined arms' doesn't mean that all branches storm over the battlefield like wild horses.” In general terms, I very much agree with what Scipio says. However, this is not the fault of BTS, but the fault of the “players” of CM. If you model both moral, and importantly, weapon lethality accurately you will always end up with unrealistically heavy casualties. This is true in all high quality simulations. The reason is that the players of simulations are far more ruthless with their virtual soldiers than real world commanders would be with real soldiers. The US Army is well aware of this problem with simulations and there is no perfect solution. The only answer is to heavily penalize casualties, but there is a limit to the circumstances in which this can be realistically done. In CMMC we have had some success in this, but not total success. Operations are a partial answer. All the best, Kip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted May 14, 2002 Author Share Posted May 14, 2002 Originally posted by kipanderson: ...Operations are a partial answer. All the best, Kip.Yes...I had a similar thought. Not operations like we have them now, more something like: - open battle (no turn limit); would of course make necessary that the end is decided on something else. - 'break battle to regroup/resupply' - command; could open a lot of interesting possibilities. A limit of breaks would be of course sensefull. I guess in princip this is very similar to an operation, just without moving the viewable map and without a fixed number of turns per battle. [ May 14, 2002, 04:15 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted May 15, 2002 Share Posted May 15, 2002 Originally posted by Scipio: 1) - is solve in CM:BB with extreme FOW (AFAIK), thanks god It is interesting you talk about EFOW, it is one of my "fears" regarding CMBB Right now, we can have the odd situation of hiding infantry entirely miss a 4 m away on the “open” terrain passing by APC or Light AFV… It just remains a sound contact all the time, you just fell the need to scream “open the eyes, don’t fight with them closed !” When this happens the funny (not so) part is that the sound contacts spots the hiding infantry in woods 1st!!! My fear is just that with EFOW, this problem happens more often… 3-... a knocked out armored vehicel offers no cover - this must be surely changed). That is a game engine limitation (also a user hardware one), and I’m almost sure it wont be solved for CMBB, maybe only for the engine rewrite… when we are both grandfathers Saying that, I’m not worried about KO vehicles not blocking the LOS… the most limiting situation is the “not KO” ones, not blocking the LOS. Right as the system stands, its one of the limitation it has on its superb AFV game engine… In real live a line formation of AFVs (mainly used for travel by road and not for combat) is very limitative in terms of firepower for 12 o’clock arc fire… In CM no… it’s one of the best formations, as the back of the line AFVs have a bigger chance of not being spotted (remember, no relative spotting), and they all managed to fire 12 o’clock . Of course the terrain plays a major role in this limitation… it can downplay it (hills) or “help” it (plains with narrow ”paths”). Another factor with this one is the battle sise of course… more points there are, more AFV can be bought, bigger the chance of a “ line” of AFVs Conclusion… always play with hills and don’t go very high in the points 4)... Randomly - what a hard word... It has a random factor in it… has the AFVs interiors are not modeled in CM I think the ammo dimensions and ammo type play a major role on the equation that determines the type of damage. Maybe the speed of the gun that fires it and the type of vehicle on the receiving end play a role too… Having in mind I didn’t do any “study” around this… I’m under the impression a PIAT penetration will almost always result in a vehicle being abandoned… An APCs has a big chance of being abandoned when hit by an AP round… A penetrating HE round (light armored vehicles) has a big chance of resulting in a catastrophic KO (fire). and so on... This is getting long, just to finish… This abandoned/KO difference is not that important in a “normal” regular QB… That’s why we have MC (in likes of the CMMC or the General forum one), as they increase the “reality level” that the battles of CM are played and this is very important… For instances, right now I mostly only play with “usuals” and on MC battles… No operation or campaign system BTS can produce in CMBB will ever be on the level of a good MC… unless of course BTS “sponsor” an MC… wish they more or less do with CMMC right now. One thing that would be good in CMBB and onwards would be a built in “GM” friendly battle system … Well, what is that ?… You GMs think on that [ May 15, 2002, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Tanaka ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scipio Posted May 15, 2002 Author Share Posted May 15, 2002 CMMC??? Have I missed something BTW, I guess the real problem of the damage model is, ~95% of all penetrations end with the biggest possible damage. A also have no hard facts on that, but it sounds to me like the wet dream of every AT-weapon builder. [ May 15, 2002, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tanaka Posted May 15, 2002 Share Posted May 15, 2002 Originally posted by Scipio: CMMC??? Have I missed something I’ve this game pretty much since it come out and I only played 3 or 4 time against the AI, all other more then 160 games have been played against human opponents by PBEM or TCPIP. So have in mind that for me CM is not a solo experience and I pretty much have seen all kind of “gamey/dirty/bug” treks… so the answer is MC So this “CMMC” is a CM meta campaign where the player can play on the role of a Bn commander to other more higher hierarchic military positions… Where does CM come in? As you may have guessed, CM is the battle solver of the MC. The CMMC site is here: http://www.combatmission.com/ Look in the CM Meta campaign section (under the chat section). There is also another MC here in the general forum… I’m on the beginning of the rules understandment of this one, but at 1st site, it is different and the strong points/limitations of this one are not the same of the CMMC. CMMC is a more a military conflict simulation… General forum MC is more a 2 small country at war simulation… BTW, I guess the real problem of the damage model is, ~95% of all penetrations end with the biggest possible damage. A also have no hard facts on that, but it sounds to me like the wet dream of every AT-weapon builder.I’m the opposite, I’m under the idea on the real live, “95%” of the armor penetrations result in a vehicle being unfit for combat for the next 60 min Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 15, 2002 Share Posted May 15, 2002 Originally posted by Kingfish: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ParaBellum: Oh boy, don't you know that the process in obtaining these data involved satanistic rituals in moonless nights with Steve and Charles in WW2 gear and a couple of local virgins? Matt lives in Cinncinati, and Dan is in Oz, so I wouldn't exactly consider them local, but everything else is correct.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts