Gun accuracy...just an idea

[Phantom Rocker]

I guess accuracy is one of the most and hottest dicussed things on this board. I have no idea if it is really modeled historic or not.

Maybe it would be a good idea when the player can 'adjust' things like accuracy before each battle starts...until it 'feels' historic for him.

I guess in program terms this could be simply solved with bonus additions/substractions.

Maybe that would be also a good idea for some other things, like spotting, penetration....

I know, this wouldn't make the game more historic, bud maybe it would be good for the fun?

[Captain Wacky]

I dunno, except for a few people I think most here agree that CM his pretty damn historically accurate, and that most players want it that way. There might be some little questions along the way but overall engine and the results it produces are fairly accurate. They were some flaws and complaints when the game was first released, and BTS went back and corrected many of them with a series of patches. Now only a few remain (like the under-modelling of machine guns, whether or not they can run, and other crap like whether the bren gun had a damn tripod or not).

I think a lot of the people who think certain things are under-gunned and under-armored are basing these accusations solely on previous war games they played, which we know did not model combat near as well or with as much complexity as CM. None of us were around to see how it really happened in WWII, so who's to know? The best BTS can do is go by the mountains of statistical data they pour through.

My advice: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Phantom Rocker]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

None of us were around to see how it really happened in WWII, so who's to know?<hr></blockquote>

Ehm, yes, exactly that's what I meant.

Stats are nice, but they only give you what you want to take.

[Moon]

My main concern with this would be how to settle on something before playing a PBEM or TCP/IP game? There's a ton of "rules" to choose from already, by adding another debate about accuracy modifiers etc. it's not going to get easier...

Just my 2 cents worth.

[Scipio]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

I dunno, except for a few people I think most here agree that CM his pretty damn historically accurate, and that most players want it that way. There might be some little questions along the way but overall engine and the results it produces are fairly accurate. They were some flaws and complaints when the game was first released, and BTS went back and corrected many of them with a series of patches. Now only a few remain (like the under-modelling of machine guns, whether or not they can run, and other crap like whether the bren gun had a damn tripod or not).

I think a lot of the people who think certain things are under-gunned and under-armored are basing these accusations solely on previous war games they played, which we know did not model combat near as well or with as much complexity as CM. None of us were around to see how it really happened in WWII, so who's to know? The best BTS can do is go by the mountains of statistical data they pour through.

My advice: If it ain't broke, don't fix it.<hr></blockquote>

You're joking, right?

I saw a Wespe shooting down a fast moving Hellcat on a road!

80% of hits are penetrations, and 95% of penetrations are deadly.

Not to mention the artillery system!

Most people I played are very uncontented because of the historic unrealism - this includes an graduated WWII historian, not only ignorants like me.

I don't know if preset by players would be the best of all, but better then the status quo. It would be nice when BTS give us more informations about the way they calculate some things. Maybe they only fear that we will be disappointed when we see how simple the formulas are.

[Captain Wacky]

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

You're joking, right?

I saw a Wespe shooting down a fast moving Hellcat on a road!

80% of hits are penetrations, and 95% of penetrations are deadly.

Not to mention the artillery system!

Most people I played are very uncontented because of the historic unrealism - this includes an graduated WWII historian, not only ignorants like me.

I don't know if preset by players would be the best of all, but better then the status quo. It would be nice when BTS give us more informations about the way they calculate some things. Maybe they only fear that we will be disappointed when we see how simple the formulas are.<hr></blockquote>

I don't know where you came up with those numbers, but here's the thing: it seems like every time someone posts a thread regarding some blatant innaccuracy they've found in CM, it only takes a day or two for people like rexford and JasonC to do the proper research and come back with an answer. The vast majority of the time the answer supports the results created by the game.

Shooting a Hellcat moving on a road with a Wespe is not impossible. I believe the Wespe is a 105mm weapon, and such has a large blast radius, while the Hellcat has very thin armor. A direct hit is not required for a knockout. What you really need to do is go back and perform an experiment that produces some good data. Your complaint fails to address important variables like how oftend the Wespe kills the Hellcat, the speed of the Hellcat, if the Wespe was moving, the range to target, and a multitude of others. If you do this and find that the Wespe will kill the Hellcat 99% of the time and have accounted for all variables, then you have found an innaccuracy.

I for one highly doubt that 80% of hits are penetrations (try a vanilla Sherman shooting at a Panther) and that 95% of penetrations are deadly (sounds too high to me). But again, you need the data to back it up.

[Michael Dorosh]

CM is not an armour simulation anyway, we've had this discussion 200 thousand times. Tank on tank actions were decidedly rare for infantry battalions to be part of.

[Phantom Rocker]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

I don't know where you came up with those numbers, but here's the thing: it seems like every time someone posts a thread regarding some blatant innaccuracy they've found in CM, it only takes a day or two for people like rexford and JasonC to do the proper research and come back with an answer. The vast majority of the time the answer supports the results created by the game.<hr></blockquote>

Ho Silver! Don't turn this threat into something else. I just said : it seems that no one knows for sure. And if the expert you named were not on the battlefield in WWII, than I guess that they only interpret stats, and I alreay said something about stats.

I wonder why some people get mad when the game should offer more features.

[Captain Wacky]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Phantom Rocker:

Ho Silver! Don't turn this threat into something else. I just said : it seems that no one knows for sure. And if the expert you named were not on the battlefield in WWII, than I guess that they only interpret stats, and I alreay said something about stats.

I wonder why some people get mad when the game should offer more features.<hr></blockquote>

I'm not mad, I just think it's a feature that the game doesn't need. We already have experience modifiers and force strength modifiers that do much the same thing (especially the experience modifier).

Your argument (I think) is that CM is innaccurate because it is based only on stats. What else should we base it on? Personal accounts from WWII vets? If that happened the Tiger would be invincible and the mg42 would annihilate entire squads with a single shot. The best thing about stats and facts is that they aren't based on personal perception, something that is often very unreliable. If the Sherman's 75mm gun only penetrates X amount of armor at X degrees, no amount of WWII tankers can change that fact, even if they probably think the gun did far less than that.

You're right though, no one knows for sure. But you can get a hell of a lot closer to knowing by looking at performance stats and facts than you can by doing anything else.

[Phantom Rocker]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

I'm not mad, I just think it's a feature that the game doesn't need. We already have experience modifiers and force strength modifiers that do much the same thing (especially the experience modifier).

Your argument (I think) is that CM is innaccurate because it is based only on stats. What else should we base it on? Personal accounts from WWII vets? If that happened the Tiger would be invincible and the mg42 would annihilate entire squads with a single shot. The best thing about stats and facts is that they aren't based on personal perception, something that is often very unreliable. If the Sherman's 75mm gun only penetrates X amount of armor at X degrees, no amount of WWII tankers can change that fact, even if they probably think the gun did far less than that.

You're right though, no one knows for sure. But you can get a hell of a lot closer to knowing by looking at performance stats and facts than you can by doing anything else.<hr></blockquote>

Wasn't meant personal (mad) .

I said nothing about the accuracy and what I think about it. I just people (well, some of my opponents) think it 'feels wrong, and I just think it would be nice if we can rise or lower the gun accuracy until it 'feels' right.

Stats: Car A has a maximum speed of 20km/h, car B of 80km/h. The statistical average maximum speed is 50km/h. What does it say about realism? Nothing. Why? Because stats are only an artifical interpretation of snapshots. The problem is not only the numbers, it's the interpreter - a human being´, full of prejustice, halfknowledge, imagination and opinions. You can read very different things in stats, it depends on the result you want to find.

Facts: You should talk with O.J.Simson's lawyers about facts .

[Diceman]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Phantom Rocker:

Maybe it would be a good idea when the player can 'adjust' things like accuracy before each battle starts...until it 'feels' historic for him.

<hr></blockquote>I'm afraid such a feature would be horribly abused. One of the main features of the game is its person to person play. Steve and Charles made a conscious decision to hard code the kind of data you're talking about so that people couldn't cheat playing the game. I've seen absurd levels of cheating in online games (just try playing Diablo online) and am very happy with Combat Missions decision not to allow users to modify combat stats.

Cheers

Eric

[Leeo]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

What else should we base it on? <hr></blockquote>

Here Hear!!!! To do as suggested would be to tread dangerously upon the shores of the hypothetical.

Hypothetically, it would feel right if Sgt. Rock could wipe out whole platoons of Germans with a single M1919. Hypothetically, Sgt. Rock could lambast Tigers, Panthers, and every other armored vehicle the Wermacht could send against him with a couple of pineapples grenades. In fact (and no slam intended) it would fundamentally flaw the game to allow users to modify basic parameters upon feel rather than statistics arrived at in a scientific fashion.

Have you ever played Rumour, whereby a "fact" is whispered into the ear, and then another ear, and then another, and so on, until the original message has been lost in interpretation due to "feel?" Have you seen studies whereby many witnesses to the same incident report wildly divergent chains of events as facts? What else would you want to base a realistic wargame on, other than facts?

I believe I'm preaching to the choir here, and I mean no disrespect, but to implemment such a plan as proposed by Phantom Rocker would be a dis-service to the CM community.

Not that I'd be so fool-hardy as to think you'd pay heed to such a suggestion.

Rock On BTS!

[aka_tom_w]

ok lets put it another way

I (and I think most folks would agree) would NEVER agree to play this game against someone else via TCP/IP or PBEM even if both my game settings and his game settings could be sychronized in this new fashion that Mr. Rocker is suggesting.

I completely disagree with any suggestion that would propose "user definable stats, settings or unit specifications"

The game now largely adheres (for the most part I believe) to stats and generally accepted laws of ballistics, physics and armour penetration that can be found in Rexford's WWII armour penetration book.

Here's a hint don't propose to mess with the life blood of this game (Historical Accuracy) unless you are a hardcore grog or hold a Ph. D. in WW II armour penetration. I say this because a few folks on this forum and who have been involved in the production of this GREAT game have such respectable credentials (or should have by way of knowledge demonstrated in this forum eg. Jason Cawley).

There is no good reason to introduce user defineable specs! none! not now, not in CMBB

not ever!

-tom w

[Redwolf]

Back to the original question: adjustable values for anything game mechanics releated are generally considered a bad thing, as it fractions the player community and cause more, not less bitching.

I am pretty sure Steve once wrote he thought exactly so, too and no way of making it adjustable in CMBO.

Having said this, almost all the realism problem are not caused by wrong values, but by underdeveloped mechanisms. They cannot be repaired by a simple value change. of course, the "underdeveloping" is what brought us CMBO in the year 2000, not 2025.

Give me an example of a value you want changed, I;m pretty sure that I either not agree or give some reasoing why it is not as simple.

[Ogadai]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>

I say this because a few folks on this forum and who

have been involved in the production of this GREAT game

have such respectable credentials (or should have by

way of knowledge demonstrated in this forum eg. Jason

Cawley)

<hr></blockquote>

Errr, is this the same JasonC who tried to convince us

that the history books had miscounted the number of

Fireflys in service with 21 Army Grp? :eek:

I'd also be very carefully at believing statistical

research can fully replace imperical. Not so long ago

a link was posted to a picture of a US M4 Sherman which

had had a Japanese 37mm AT gun fire a round down its

tube. Exactly how would you quantify the likelihood of

that occuring? Human experience and the sheer

flukiness of the universe will often throw up that

sort of unlikely event.

Remember, its very easy to misuse statistics. Its even

harder to understand that they can be misused for some

people.

That doesn't mean ignore them, rather it means that you

should temper their use with some qualification, thats

all.

[Captain Wacky]

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

[qb]

I'd also be very carefully at believing statistical

research can fully replace imperical. Not so long ago

a link was posted to a picture of a US M4 Sherman which

had had a Japanese 37mm AT gun fire a round down its

tube. Exactly how would you quantify the likelihood of

that occuring? Human experience and the sheer

flukiness of the universe will often throw up that

sort of unlikely event.<hr></blockquote>

How do you qualify the likelihood of this occurring? Well, calculate the area of the front of the Sherman, say in square centimeters. Then calculate the area of the of the circle that is the Sherman's gun tube. Divide one by the other, and you have the percentage of how likely a shell is going to hit the specific frontal area in regards to the entire frontal area. Similar to calculating your chances of getting a bull's eye in darts, for example.

[Phantom Rocker]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

How do you qualify the likelihood of this occurring? Well, calculate the area of the front of the Sherman, say in square centimeters. Then calculate the area of the of the circle that is the Sherman's gun tube. Divide one by the other, and you have the percentage of how likely a shell is going to hit the specific frontal area in regards to the entire frontal area. Similar to calculating your chances of getting a bull's eye in darts, for example.<hr></blockquote>

What I said...an interpreter take some facts and stats and read what he want to read from them. You trapped yourself when you try to logicaly explain this event. Reflect this in stats, you will find out that this has happened (example) 5 times in the whole human history. For a statistican would this mean: it is something so unlikly that it has (statisticaly) not happened.

Weather forecasting is completly based on facts and stats. Does it work? Often, but not always. The reason is simple, weather is to complex to be precalculated. The smallest events can change the data on which the forescast is based on, and you have rain instead of sunshine. If a shrapnell had taken a minimal different way in 1915 and killed Adolf on the West Front, the complete history of the 20th century would be different.

To come back to CM: the likelihood of events is (in program terms) expressed in %. Always. It can not be programed different. My idea was to manual adjust this. If you don't like it, don't use it. If you play PBEM, where is the problem that the program report this numbers to your opponent, together with all other settings of the battle?

Well, maybe this would indeed open pandoras box. So I follow the suggestion that was made earlier by someone else: BTS should publish the used formulas. Then we can see how they interpred stats, which physical models they are based on and which parameters has been ignored. Why are they kept secret?

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Phantom Rocker:

BTS should publish the used formulas. Then we can see how they interpred stats, which physical models they are based on and which parameters has been ignored. Why are they kept secret?<hr></blockquote>

Uh, because BTS has a business, and as such these formulae are their intellectual property, and a good part of the value of their business? They are not a public research laboratory funded by taxes, last time I checked.

As for Scipio's point - I would also like to know where the 80%/95% figure comes from? I have my suspicion that it is a dark and smelly place, but I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise.

[Phantom Rocker]

To give an example from CM.

I placed a 57mm AT 60m away from a King Tiger, the KT shows his front side.

The hit propability is 99%, the chance for a kill is 'none'. Of course there is always the small chance for a hit through the gun or more likely through the drivers view slit. Let me assume that this is been considered. How high does the programer see the chance for an unlikely hit?

***

Now I rise the terrain, the gun is now on the top of a cliff, 60 meters higher then the KT (map contours set to 'steep', 12 levels difference)

The distance to target is now nearly correct shown as 84m, the hit probality 98% and the chance for a kill is still 'none'. So it seems that CM completly ignores the vertical difference - let us assume the gun is so positioned that it can fire in that angle, it has a very high chance for a top penetration. If you now test this, the 57mm produced indeed only frontal hits, no top hits. And it was regulary killed by the KTs (mostly with MG, sometimes with the main gun - BTW, what is the vertical limit for the KT gun? (I really don't know).

Well, this should not reflect the CM realism, the test is of course unrealistic. The result wouldn't be influenced by any presetting I have proposed. It should only show that the program can only do what the programer want it to do, and how results are influenced by the used (or ignored) parameters.

So, back again to stats and facts: if you want to compare reality and Combat Mission, you must first know which facts has been used and how they are reflected in program formulas. Any discussion based on CM shoot results, and you may run them as often as you want, is only of limited sense if you don't know the basic formulas.

It's like Newton's rules for gravity - they are basically right, but no modern physician would base his calculations on them and ignore Einstein's relativity.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

Uh, because BTS has a business, and as such these formulae are their intellectual property, and a good part of the value of their business? They are not a public research laboratory funded by taxes, last time I checked.<hr></blockquote>

I guess he doesn't meant to publish the source code...but before you program a calculation you must have a mathematical formula.

I don't believe that this formulas make CM so unique that they must be secret. Other companys like Talon (Campaign Series) show them in the manual, too.

[Ben Galanti]

Its been noted already that CM does not account for top hits when firing from above... Which explains the results you are seeing.

Ben

[aka_tom_w]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

Its been noted already that CM does not account for top hits when firing from above... Which explains the results you are seeing.

Ben<hr></blockquote>

BUT firing an AT weapon from an elevated position will negate slope effects.

There was another thread here where someone documented that a hetzer could be more easily killed with an AT gun from an elevated position because the slope effect of the frontal armour was negated by the higher angle of fire.

AND and this is the big part

The game was designed with this very thing you are bitching about in mind. Mr Rocker if you play wargames with the intention of minimizing every mathimatical risk and maximizing every mathimatical advantage or opportunity, (the min maxer)try think of this game and the game mechanics as intentionally lying to you or deceiveing you with the intention of adding a sense of the FOG of WAR, the mechanism and math and algorythms and formulae are LARGELY "under the hood" AND they are that way to intentionally encourage the player to play the game by getting a FEEL for how THIS game works. One thing about this concept..... IT WORKS and if you play hard enough and long enough you will undoubtably find consistancy in your results.These results in this game can then be fairly predictable. The results you complain about may not "feel" right to you (and to be sure this issue, has come ALL the time since the game was introduced in its beta demo release) but they are consistant and predicatable.

AND these is all the things that have ALREADY been fixed as a result of suggestions and input from the players who love this game. (see below)

Now the development phase is OVER so there will be no additional changes

Please read this official BTS README before further posting:

Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord

v1.12 UPDATE PATCH - Macintosh

February 6, 2001

www.battlefront.com

This is the version 1.12 update for "Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord". It updates versions 1.0 through 1.11. Please follow these instructions:

1. Move the "Graphics 13" and "Sound Effects 11" files into the "Data" folder (inside your Combat Mission folder). If it overwrites an older file of the same name, that's OK (although if you are playing with "mods" you might want to save a copy of your current "Graphics 13" first).

2. Drag the other three files/folders (Combat Mission, OpenPlay Modules (folder), and OpenPlayLib) into your Combat Mission folder.

3. OPTIONAL: Several game scenarios have been updated. You may wish to move the five files from inside the "Revised Scenarios" folder into the "Scenarios" folder (which is in your Combat Mission folder). Note: Don't move the "Revised Scenarios" folder itself, move its *contents* into the "Scenarios" folder.

4. OPTIONAL: If you are having problems with the graphics in Combat Mission (especially if you don't see any of the white game text on a black background) you may want to install Apple's OpenGL 1.2.1 which is included with this update patch. If you are not currently experiencing any graphical problems, you may want to skip this step.

5. Read the INTERNET PLAY READ ME file to learn how to play Combat Mission live over the Internet.

You're all done! Below is the list of changes made.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

v1.12 2/6/2001

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* Tanks use better hull-rotation logic.

* Gun accuracy is somewhat higher at long range.

* Firing ordnance while moving is less accurate than before.

* Quick Battles have a new "unrestricted" force type.

* Pillboxes have slightly better 'reaction time' and are slightly less easier to spot at long range. It is also somewhat harder to hit their firing slits from longer ranges.

* Smoke usage logic tweaked.

* 20mm gun in Lynx cannot fire on aircraft.

* If both sides have global morale below 25%, a battle will end immediately with an enforced cease-fire.

* Fixed a bug (introduced in v1.1) where simultaneous cease-fire requests by both players in play by email could lead to a crash.

* Fixed a bug so that the computer will never place antitank mines in woods.

* Fixed a bug that made hotseat mutual cease-fires activate one turn later than they should.

* Fixed a bug that could cause a game previously (partly) played as PBEM, but subsequently reloaded as TCP/IP to "lose" minefields and barbed wire.

* Fixed a bug that made the TacAI hesitant to give targeting orders to the rearward-firing Archer.

* Fixed a bug that occasionally showed FOs having a "label" showing JAM.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

v1.11 1/12/2001

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* Fixed a bug that allowed tungsten rounds to be overly effective against highly-sloped armor.

* Data changes:

- Sherman Jumbo speed, turret rotation, and some armor values lowered.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

v1.1 12/23/2000

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* TCP/IP play has been implemented (i.e. "live" Internet play). The game can also run as a "spawn", meaning that you do not need the CD-ROM in the drive, but you will be restricted to joining TCP/IP games only. SEE THE "INTERNET PLAY READ ME" file for more detailed instructions.

* If both sides have global morale below 15%, a battle will end immediately with an enforced cease-fire.

* Quick Battles:

- Ratio of attacker to defender points has been reduced slightly for Attack and Assault scenarios.

- Fortifications are cheaper to purchase.

- Automatic unit purchaser does a better job of using up (nearly) all available points.

- Force proportion limits modified slightly (main change is that attackers have a higher limit on support points than before).

* Armored vehicles are smarter about rotating their hulls to bring their main weapons to bear faster, however vehicles rotate 'in place' more slowly now.

* Vehicles in hunt mode are more likely to stop moving in order to engage "lesser" enemy vehicles than before.

* Allied tanks and guns are more likely to fire tungsten rounds when available.

* Infantry TacAI is less likely to seek cover when it would require moving closer to the enemy to reach that cover. Also, infantry (sometimes) retreats from buildings being blasted by heavy weapons that are in danger of collapse.

* Fixed a bug that incorrectly counted the number of knocked out vehicles and crewmember casualties during Operations.

* A bug that incorrectly identified (or failed to identify) vehicles as hull-down when the mouse was pointing at them has been fixed.

* Forward Observers no longer cancel a bombardment on a building that is blasted to rubble (though any other unit using area fire still does).

* Enemy units targeting an ambush marker are no longer displayed as doing so.

* Vehicle top speed over open ground reduced somewhat, especially for jeeps. And all wheeled vehicles are slightly more likely to bog down in bad terrain.

* Vehicles, especially those with only a few crewmen, have greater difficulty spotting enemies when moving. The difficulty is proportional to speed and ruggedness of terrain.

* Vehicles can more readily spot other vehicles at greater ranges (3000+ m) in clear weather with clear line of sight.

* Vehicle sound contacts are not shown rotating their turrets.

* When faced with a threat, unarmored vehicles will sometimes seek shelter at a new destination chosen by the TacAI even when ordered to move fast or in reverse.

* Fixed a bug that caused tanks to 'fear' pillboxes even when they were out of its firing arc.

* Hull down display when drawing LOS line also indicates "bow MG blocked" when appropriate.

* Mortars gain target acquisition a bit more slowly now, and their point values have been lowered slightly. They are also somewhat less effective at hitting vehicles.

* Gunnery accuracy equations modified slightly to permit greater accuracy at point-blank ranges.

* Fixed a bug that prevented Churchill AVREs from killing a pillbox form the side.

* Vehicles which are targeting ambush markers, and are directly hit by anything other than small-arms fire, will cancel their ambush orders and react to the attack normally.

* Crews that bail from a knocked out vehicle have "low" ammo and are often panicked or worse.

* Fixed a bug that caused events happening past the normal 60 seconds of action sometimes to be "undone" by rewinding and fast-forwarding past them.

* Fixed a bug that caused the battle number not to advance when both players in an operation agreed to a cease fire.

* Fixed a bug that often caused airplanes not to show up in Operations.

* Rough terrain tiles now abut so that they block vehicular traffic along shared edges.

* A letter 'c' after the armor slope display indicates that a vehicle has a curved gun mantlet, so the actual slope can vary depending on where the shell strikes. (Example: Panther tank).

* Fixed a bug that allowed game saves to be done before the battle was even underway.

* Passengers no longer immediately jump off a vehicle that bogs down unless the vehicle becomes permanently immobilized.

* You can no longer trace line of sight (LOS) from a Target Reference Point (TRP) during setup.

* Vehicles which use up their last round of ammunition are quicker to cancel targeting.

* TacAI does a better job weighing the importance of hull-down status when choosing targets.

* Fixed a TacAI bug in the logic that causes vehicles use the coaxial MG instead of the main gun (to conserve ammo when the MG is nearly as effective anyway). The bug sometimes made the vehicle switch to the coaxial MG when it should not have.

* Forward Observers' targets are never shown to the enemy, even in action playback.

* Bug fix for group-moves of mixed tanks and infantry, to ensure that FAST/RUN and MOVE orders are carried out appropriately.

* Pillboxes:

- Acquire targets a bit faster than other guns (it's assumed that they've pre-ranged to landmarks).

- Carry a little more 'weight' when calculating the new position of the front lines in operations.

* Bug fix that makes the 'setup' between campaign battles work out the same no matter how many times you reload the play-by-email file.

* Bug fix so operations don't have empty white (Allied) or black (Axis) setup zones.

* Bug fix: passengers disembarking out of sight of the enemy are no longer 'seen' as doing so by the enemy. A spot marker does not appear for the disembarked unit.

* Fixed a bug that made vehicles moving in reverse immune to bogging down or striking minefields.

* When placing cursor over an unidentified enemy infantry unit, your tank will be shown as "hull down" (if it is hull down) just in *case* the enemy unit is an antitank unit.

* AI is less likely to fire off-map artillery smoke missions when overall visibility is poor.

* M3A1 Halftrack, M3A1 Scout Car, and M5A1 Halftrack are not forced to remain buttoned up after suffering only one crew casualty.

* Split squads rejoin when within 10m of one another, not 15m as before.

* Fixed bug so you cannot get TRP bonus when adjusting fire, unless you are within 20m of TRP (was 100m due to bug).

* Vehicles can only do a 'hide' order if they do not currently have movement orders.

* Popup menus are not obscured by text-input fields.

* Fixed a bug that sometimes slightly overloaded tank ammo between battles in operations.

* Texture fix on Stuart V.

* Fixed it so sound contacts right on the edge of listening range don't flutter in and out of contact, which made them 'bounce around'.

* If the user enters illegal characters in the name of a saved game, they are converted to spaces, avoiding an error in Windows or MacOS.

* Fixed a bug that sometimes made target selection "jump" very quickly between different targets.

* Fixed a bug that caused the TacAI sometimes not to regard foxholes as "sufficient" cover.

* Fixed a bug that sometimes caused vehicles to stop on the map edge instead of exiting.

* Data changes:

- MG Jeep cannot carry passengers.

- PzIV silhouette reduced.

- Firefly's turret rotation speed is medium. Point value is reduced before September 1944 to reflect that no High Explosive (HE) ammo is carried.

- 17pdr gun no longer has shatter-prone armor-piercing ammo (so penetration is increased).

- Marder III armor changed.

- Sherman Jumbo's speed and some armor values lowered.

- Muzzle velocity slightly lowered on some German vehicle-mounted 75mm guns.

- HEAT/Shaped-charge penetration values changed for some German weapons: 75mm howitzer, 75mm recoilless, 75mm L/24, 105mm howitzer, 105mm recoilless, 150mm gun, 150mm infantry gun

- More AT guns, PIATs, and carriers added to British infantry battalion TO&E.

- Vehicle point values adjusted slightly.

- British M5 Halftrack added.

- Puppchen is available on all dates.

- British Carriers now have smoke mortars.

- British rifle battalion may have MG platoon attached or not.

- Polish may use the Cromwell, but not the Stuart, Sherman II/IIA/IIC, or Sherman III tanks.

- Canadians may not use Sherman II/IIA/IIC or Churchill (exc. Crocodile) tanks.

- M3A1 Scout Car and Humber Scout Cars are able to cross hedges.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

v1.05 8/24/2000

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* Units will NOT switch away from an ambush marker target just because they have been spotted by the enemy.

* Units area-targeting a building which collapses and has no visible surviving enemy troops in the resulting rubble will cancel their area target.

* Buildings and bridges are labeled with "damage" or "heavy damage" when they've taken over 50% damage and the "Warning Labels" option is on. Additionally, they're listed with a '*' attached, like "light building*", or a '**' for heavy damage.

* JPz IV and JPz IV/70 now have a bow MG, but it's somewhat less effective at short (under 100m) range than a 'standard' bow MG due to its simplified and somewhat underprotected mounting.

* T8 Recon vehicle now first available in December 1944 (same time as arrival of M24 Chaffee).

* Fixed a bug introduced in v1.04 that made some units with normally large ammo loads, in scenarios created with v1.03 or earlier, have ammo loads above 65000.

* Roads are never considered "slopes", in order to make mapbuilding easier and avoid the problem of vehicles not being able to traverse *roads* on steep grades.

* When a unit's last movement order is "rotate", and it tries to move through impassable terrain, the TacAI is no longer confused about the intended endpoint of the movement path if a new movement path must be calculated (bug fix).

* Victory flags in a meeting engagement quick battle are more centered (to avoid giving one player too much of an advantage).

* In previous versions, the TacAI was less likely to fire vehicle heavy weapons at bailed crews, but it wasn't as inhibited about wanting to fire the coax MG at them, which still caused the turret-swiveling-away-from-real-threats problem. So the coax MG has been "toned down" vs. crews like the main weapon (bug fix).

* TacAI code for a tank swiveling its turret back to a forward position when it has no target is smarter. It will do so as default behavior except for a 2-3 minute period after the tank has targeted an enemy which had anti-armor capability and the tank is not moving or rotating (i.e. moving or rotating the tank will cause the turret to swivel back to forward even if the last target was an anti-armor threat).

* Large guns like the 88mm AT are allowed to use the rotation order (this was a bug).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

v1.04 8/17/2000

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* Play-by-email format has changed. Both players must use v1.04 to be compatible. IMPORTANT: Upgrading to v1.04 part way through a scenario or play-by-email is NOT recommended, due to a change in the way artillery ammunition is tracked (see below).

* Scenarios created by v1.04 cannot be loaded by PREVIOUS versions of Combat Mission.

* Artillery Forward Observers (FOs) track their ammunition by individual shells rather than by fire missions. So this will make it look at first like they now have 4 times as much ammo, but they really don't. Spotting rounds now count against ammo usage. Older scenarios are dynamically updated when loaded to account for this change.

* Tanks are less likely to target a new, not-highly-threating unit which, to engage, would require significant turret or hull rotation away from a recent, important threat.

* Tanks with no target do not automatically return turrets to face forward unless they are moving or hull-rotating.

* Enemy units must be closer before full identification can be obtained.

* Mortars now have a more difficult time tracking moving targets.

* TacAI is quicker to move open-top vehicles away from mortar attack, and to recognize .50cal MGs as threats to light armor.

* Armor penetration capability for high-explosive (HE) rounds fired from high-velocity cannon has been toned down.

* Tiger tank now models the varying thickness of its mantlet armor (up to 200mm in places).

* Armor penetrations by MG bullets and small AP shells are somewhat less likely to knock out the target (no change for 75mm and up). And crews of struck vehicles are less likely to bail out when no serious damage has been suffered.

* MG fire against vehicles is now less effective (i.e. less accurate) if the firer or target is moving.

* Reinforcements are placed better around entrance locations.

* Small-caliber shells that enter a pillbox's firing slit are less likely to knock out the whole pillbox.

* Vehicles with rear-facing guns (not including mortars) may not 'hunt'.

* Bailed-out crews are never eligible for exit points.

* Units are a little smarter about finding the "right" cover to move to when they come under fire or panic.

* British 2-inch mortar is now able to run for short distances (like Panzerschreck), but ammo load reduced from 22 to 20.

* Vehicles in hunt mode, whose guns are damaged, will stop movement and consider evasive action.

* Very small changes made to vehicle unit point cost based on top armor thickness.

* When one side surrenders, any prisoners it still has on the map are automatically uncaptured.

* Slight modifications made to the firepower ratings for MP44, MP40, Thompson SMG, and Sten SMG.

* Captured units cannot set off mines. And the code that checks for captured units escaping has been extended to allow units to escape (sometimes) even when enemy guards are nearby, provided that nearby friendly forces have a significant local superiority.

* Bug fix makes passengers free to disembark and re-embark on assault boats without problems during battle setup phase and scenario editing.

* Bug fix: there is no longer a problem with quick battles when the starting player chooses "human chosen" units and the other player has "auto pick", with the first player's setup phase being skipped.

* Bocage blocks LOS less severely, provided the spotter or target is adjacent to the bocage (bug fix).

* Sometimes very small reinforcement groups (e.g. one or two units) under computer control had a tendency to sit still and not get involved in the battle. This is fixed.

* The No-Man's-Land Size setting for Operations no longer changes from 0 to 400 when saving/loading the file (bug fix).

* Area fire target lines disappear automatically when a unit is out of ammo.

* Movement paths created by the TacAI don't "hug" road edges so much.

* AI bug fixed so it does a better job 'defending' against an enemy exit edge, even if the AI is the attacking force.

* Vehicles with limited AP ammo were sometimes overly cautious about using it (e.g. SPW 250/9). This has been remedied.

* Canadians have use of 40mm Bofors AA gun.

* M3A1 scout car has 3 crewmen (driver and 2 gunners).

* M3A1 halftrack, M5 halftrack, and M3A1 scout car can still fire one MG after suffering one crew casualty.

* Two-man vehicles that suffer a crew casualty will only display only one crewman now (bug fix).

* Recoilless rifles are placed better (graphically) upon transporting vehicles (bug fix).

* When a vehicle towing a gun is knocked out, the gun is not visually 'trapped under' the vehicle (bug fix).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

v1.03 7/26/2000

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* Play-by-email format has changed. Both players must use v1.03 to be compatible.

* Infantry moving in the open is more vulnerable to casualties than before.

* Small-arms units, especially MGs, fire more rapidly at units that are moving in the open.

* Top-mount MG range increased for: Stuart, T8, PSW 234/3

* Vickers MG is available to British and Polish paratroops.

* Running units spot enemies more poorly.

* Mortar shell top armor penetration capability reduced slightly.

* The 'front line' in Operations does not tend to shift quite as much in the attacker's favor as it did before.

* v1.01 made pillboxes just a little bit too resistant to artillery. This resistance has been toned down slightly.

* Fog of War 'preference' is remembered properly.

* Unit point values have been tweaked, especially small recoilless weapons. Vehicles with veteran or better experience also cost more.

* Quick Battles

- Max length is now 60 turns.

- Troop quality, weather, and time of day can be set to "random".

- The automatic force chooser can now pick Conscript (on Low quality setting), and Crack and Elite troops (on High quality setting).

- Allow a slightly greater portion of points to be spent on artillery.

- In a 2-player Quick Battle, a reminder window appears to both players if there is a handicap in force size.

- Attacker-to-defender ratio in points is slightly reduced.

* TacAI (esp. for tanks) is less 'distracted' by targets of lesser importance.

* Vehicle reinforcements are more likely to be placed on a road, if one is (very) nearby.

* Operations have always been able to end when one side is "pushed off" their own map edge, but the algorithm which determines when this has occurred is more forgiving now, and allows the force to be "squeezed" up closer against that map edge before force-ending the operation.

* FOs are no longer automatically fully resupplied between battles in an operation.

* Foxholes dug in Tall Pines terrain were treated (in part) as if they were dug in the open. This is now fixed.

* Vehicles that button up or turn away are less likely to lose visual contact with their *current* target.

* One can no longer change a rotation waypoint to a movement waypoint, therefore circumventing command delay.

* Computer player is smarter about exiting units for points (when allowed by scenario).

* Grenade and demo charge attacks against armored vehicles can no longer cause collateral damage to friendly units.

* Random map generator no longer creates "spiky" hills.

* Silhouette rating for M24 Chaffee reduced.

* Bailed crews now have poor visual spotting ability.

* When a sound contact to an enemy vehicle is lost, the sound effect of its engine stops too.

* Units out of ammo will never be shown as 'reloading'.

* Pillbox MG ammo no longer 'wraps around' back up to 254 or 255 shots.

* Reinforcements in an operation are no longer sometimes placed in impassable terrain.

* Turret penetrations are likely to cause more crew casualties than before.

* Time penalty for adjusted artillery missions is slightly reduced.

* Captured troops don't stay panicked for unreasonable lengths of time.

* A bug which sometimes caused a unit which had just suffered a casualty, but had not fired, to say "reloading", has been fixed.

* Split squads kept split at the end of a battle during an operation no longer have problems remembering the number of casualties suffered.

* Sometimes in the scenario editor, squads split into teams would be given different squad I.D. numbers. This has been fixed.

* Deleting a split-squad team in the editor simultaneously deletes the other team as well. Also, the point values for split-squad teams are corrected, and correct data is shown for them in the cursor-hotspot info window.

* Sneaking is now more sensitive to incoming fire when it decides to stop (i.e. "advance to contact")

* Occasionally during an Operation, a vehicle knocked out in a previous battle, when hit again, could produce a 'new' crew bailing out. This is fixed.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

v1.02 6/21/2000

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* Quick Battles can have larger forces.

* Unarmored vehicles and those with rear-facing guns are smarter about when to rotate the whole vehicle (TacAI).

* Woods terrain doesn't "break" over elevation changes.

* UNSPOTTED infantry won't ever fire panzerfausts at enemy infantry.

* Heavy buildings are slightly less likely to catch fire. And firing bazookas and panzerschrecks from inside any type of building is slightly less likely to cause a fire than previously (from backblast).

* Previously, if you canceled out of the password screen and started up a new 1-player game, CM would crash. This is fixed.

* A sharpshooter's data screen lists main weapon as "sniper rifle" (was previously blank).

* Several small bugs fixed in how aerial rockets damage armored vehicles.

* U.S. Paratrooper battalion has 9 bazookas in its HQ Company, not 8.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

v1.01 6/14/2000

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* Play-by-email (PBEM) fixes:

- Both players MUST upgrade to v1.01. v1.01 cannot play PBEM with the original v1.0. This is due to bug and security fixes which changed the format of PBEM files.

- Barbed wire does not lose its ability to slow down infantry.

- Doing a normal save-game no longer causes the occasional skipping of one player's orders phase.

- Units no longer occasionally target smoke toward the map corner.

- There is no longer the occasional problem of being unable to give orders to a vehicle, seemingly for no reason.

- Reinforcements don't arrive differently upon subsequent reloads of a PBEM file.

- Vehicles no longer sometimes switch from 'destroyed' to 'abandoned'.

- Captured vehicle crew are counted properly when one side surrenders.

* TacAI fixes:

- Less fickle with targeting changes, i.e. targeting 'stickiness' increased slightly.

- Buttoned-up tanks are less likely to target low-visibility targets (like hiding infantry) at longer ranges, even when the target *is* spotted by another friendly unit.

- Less likely to fire smoke at less-important targets, especially ones that are already pinned down or panicked.

- Paths made by TacAI no longer occasionally have visually 'floating' waypoints.

- Judges 'cover' behind stone walls and bocage properly, not prematurely forcing units to abandon these positions as if they're too exposed.

* New explosion graphics (when using "high quality smoke" option)

* Camera can rotate on a 'point' rather than around a circle (SHIFT-J option).

* Units can hide during setup.

* Handicapper unit choice is more logical. Can also go to +200%.

* Player can give the AI an "experience bonus" that raises all AI units from 1 to 3 experience levels.

* Infantry "close combat" versus armored vehicles has been reworked:

- Demo charges and grenades thrown at armored vehicles now have a visible blast wave.

- Tossed demo charges vs. armored vehicles are more accurate.

- Various bug fixes

* Some computer-player tweaks, including no longer moving gun-damaged tanks into the map corner.

* Nonmoving infantry is slightly harder to spot (i.e. max range decreased a bit).

* Pillboxes are slightly harder to spot (if in cover), and can 'hide' (which helps save ammo). Also, they are now far more resistant to artillery.

* In hotseat play, uncontacted enemy vehicles' engine sounds are not audible.

* Flamethrowers stop firing once their AREA target is burning.

* Map elevation algorithm is improved, making roads run more smoothly up/down hill faces, not stair-stepped.

* Gun crews won't abandon their (functioning) guns until they're fully ROUTED (rather than BROKEN) provided they have less than 50% casualties.

* Sneaking units, when fired upon in cover, are more likely to stop and return fire rather than keep moving.

* In the action phase the rewind button would sometimes cause a building-destruction animation to play at the incorrect time. This has been fixed.

* Fanatic units are subject to panic (like normal units) when attacked by flamethrower.

* Captured (or escaped) infantry is allowed to move at run speed, regardless of initial weapon type. However, this can only happen as a result of running for cover when under attack; no captured unit may be given orders to "run".

* Smoke shells leave a small impact crater.

* When a unit kills an enemy armored vehicle, it now (usually) plays the appropriate voice sound effect.

* "Detailed armor hit text" is not shown to the enemy when a vehicle is hit by a mine or artillery outside of enemy observation.

* When repositioning a unit during setup, the colored line always turns red to indicate that a position is not allowed.

* Sound contacts are no longer indicated (to the enemy) as knocked out or destroyed even if they actually are. And if destroyed, they are not shown on the map at all. And they are never shown as being located off the map edge.

* Armored vehicles are slightly less likely to be immobilized or receive gun damage from nearby blasts (e.g. artillery).

* You can give movement orders to bogged vehicles, which they'll execute if they're able to un-bog.

* Split-squads' casualties are tallied correctly in the after-action report.

* 'Target Next' order works for vehicles with machineguns but no main gun.

* 0 vs. 0 final score is reported as a 'draw' not an Axis victory.

* Units 'notice' more quickly that an enemy unit has surrendered, and don't shoot at them just seconds after surrendering.

* Bailed vehicle crews who are less than 'fully' spotted are drawn with generic infantry uniforms.

* Infantry moves more slowly on slopes.

* Automatic force picker for Quick Battles picks fewer defensive fortifications.

* Captured guns and mortars are tallied correctly in the after action report.

* Interior graphic problem with the SPW 251/1 halftrack fixed.

* If a tank became immobilized while rotating its turret, sometimes the turret would keep spinning. This has been fixed.

* If you move a vehicle carrying passengers during setup, its passengers' command and control links are updated immediately and correctly.

* No 'reinforcements have arrived' message is shown if all of them are airplanes.

* Vehicles in 'hunt' mode are a little more likely to stop before shooting.

* Sometimes the 'hide roofs' and 'transparent buildings' options would interfere with one another. This has been fixed.

* When loading or saving a file in the editor, the dialog 'default' directory is the Saved Games directory.

* Slight problem of diagonal bocage and walls not quite matching 3D placement on map is fixed.

* No prisoner will ever be shown as "reloading".

* Some open-top armored vehicles were suffering crew casualties from nearby explosions, even when buttoned-up. This has been fixed.

* Unit editor allows U.S. Paratroops to carry up to 3 rifle grenades (was 2).

* Bazookas, panzerschrecks, and PIATs display caliber and muzzle velocity in data window.

* Sometimes reloading a 1-player game would have the wrong fog of war setting (it wasn't being reloaded properly). This is fixed.

* Sometimes shells were passing through buildings when firing at the top story. Fixed.

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]</p>

[Captain Wacky]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Phantom Rocker:

Now I rise the terrain, the gun is now on the top of a cliff, 60 meters higher then the KT (map contours set to 'steep', 12 levels difference)

The distance to target is now nearly correct shown as 84m, the hit probality 98% and the chance for a kill is still 'none'. So it seems that CM completly ignores the vertical difference - let us assume the gun is so positioned that it can fire in that angle, it has a very high chance for a top penetration. If you now test this, the 57mm produced indeed only frontal hits, no top hits. And it was regulary killed by the KTs (mostly with MG, sometimes with the main gun - BTW, what is the vertical limit for the KT gun? (I really don't know).

Well, this should not reflect the CM realism, the test is of course unrealistic. The result wouldn't be influenced by any presetting I have proposed. It should only show that the program can only do what the programer want it to do, and how results are influenced by the used (or ignored) parameters.

So, back again to stats and facts: if you want to compare reality and Combat Mission, you must first know which facts has been used and how they are reflected in program formulas. Any discussion based on CM shoot results, and you may run them as often as you want, is only of limited sense if you don't know the basic formulas.

It's like Newton's rules for gravity - they are basically right, but no modern physician would base his calculations on them and ignore Einstein's relativity.<hr></blockquote>

Like tom said, CM does take this into account. I think there's even a thread about it right now.

[Slapdragon]

The formulas for penetration are indeed important intellectual property. The reason is that in CM, the physics model is quite complex, and the research that went into the engine that drives the game, and the data that plugs into the engine, all represents time and sweat. Time and sweat is the basis for intellectual property.

Now Steve and Charles have been quite forthcoming on the source of their models and the data that drives it. The sources are out there for you to recreate their models. 50 dollars does not buy this work, only the right to use a product derivative of this work. If you want this source data, simply hire someone to rebuild it.

Now Ogadai is correct that statistical research is not the end all of research. Statistic backed by a model is better, and the imperical nature of the model is what makes the game accurate.

One of the biggest problems with these discussions is the the people who start them want to be able to change a core attribute of the game so that it feels right, then turns around and uses the "how do you know, you were not there" argument in the same breath. Well, the people that were there can't tell you the chances of hitting a tank at 500 meters with a HVAP round fired oblique from a hill. That is not data they kept in their heads even when the fighting was going on. At best they could say, "well, we could make that shot," or "heck, that would be impossible."

[Phantom Rocker]

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

BUT firing an AT weapon from an elevated position will negate slope effects.

There was another thread here where someone documented that a hetzer could be more easily killed with an AT gun from an elevated position because the slope effect of the frontal armour was negated by the higher angle of fire.

AND and this is the big part

The game was designed with this very thing you are bitching about in mind. Mr Rocker if you play wargames with the intention of minimizing every mathimatical risk and maximizing every mathimatical advantage or opportunity, (the min maxer)try think of this game and the game mechanics as intentionally lying to you or deceiveing you with the intention of adding a sense of the FOG of WAR, the mechanism and math and algorythms and formulae are LARGELY "under the hood" AND they are that way to intentionally encourage the player to play the game by getting a FEEL for how THIS game works. One thing about this concept..... IT WORKS and if you play hard enough and long enough you will undoubtably find consistancy in your results.These results in this game can then be fairly predictable. The results you complain about may not "feel" right to you (and to be sure this issue, has come ALL the time since the game was introduced in its beta demo release) but they are consistant and predicatable.

AND these is all the things that have ALREADY been fixed as a result of suggestions and input from the players who love this game. (see below)

Now the development phase is OVER so there will be no additional changes

Please read this official BTS README before further posting:

<hr></blockquote>

Tom, who is speaking about CM:BO? Please do us a favor and cut out the complete text of the 1.12 ReadMe. A simple reference is enough, and it has nothing to do with the current discussion anyway .

I said it already, but for you again: the top hit is only an example to reflect the limits of the program. I didn't take it as a specific problem.

I don't understand what you mean with 'minimizing every mathimatical risk...'. I don't want to precalculate a result. Why should I? The game gives me this calculations already when it shows the chances of hit and kill. Knowledge of the formulas does not influence the result of a die role.

I meant : only knowledge off the used parameters would give further discussions a base. Any comparison with the real world is absolutly senseless as long as we don't know how results are calculated.

I bet people will still discuss gun accuracy when Combat Mission VII is available, and it will be still senseless. How many posts do you want to read like 'Hey, my book says the weapon x kills the tanks y - why is it different in CM?' followed by 500 test runs by various people? This is waste of time as long as we know nothing about the used calculations and parameters.