Gun accuracy...just an idea

[Slapdragon]

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

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 .

<hr></blockquote>

Err, gee, do you have a copy of CM:BB already? Or are we talking about Iron Beasts or some other game.

[Phantom Rocker]

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

Err, gee, do you have a copy of CM:BB already? Or are we talking about Iron Beasts or some other game.<hr></blockquote>

He sounds like I had asked for a revision of CM:BO. I was speaking about CM2, 3, 4...

Anyway, I guess I understand that it is not a good idea that the user influence the basics.

But I still would like to know more about the calculations. That doesn't mean that BTS must publish everything detailed piece of information they have used. But things like: to calculate the chance of a hit we use: Vo, speed of target, own speed etcetera etcetera and put it together this way in a formula, using this and that bonus to reflect this and that side effect like ground condition or visibility.

Yes, gunners in reality don't know much about the physics behind a shot, but they were practical trained - and once again, comparing reality and simulation is nonsense without knowledge of the simulation basics.

[Slapdragon]

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

He sounds like I had asked for a revision of CM:BO. I was speaking about CM2, 3, 4...

Anyway, I guess I understand that it is not a good idea that the user influence the basics.

But I still would like to know more about the calculations. That doesn't mean that BTS must publish everything detailed piece of information they have used. But things like: to calculate the chance of a hit we use: Vo, speed of target, own speed etcetera etcetera and put it together this way in a formula, using this and that bonus to reflect this and that side effect like ground condition or visibility.

Yes, gunners in reality don't know much about the physics behind a shot, but they were practical trained - and once again, comparing reality and simulation is nonsense without knowledge of the simulation basics.<hr></blockquote>

Rocker, I would just e-mail BTs or do a search on the forum for the bibliography of scientific works from which CM was based. I wish I remembered the names of the works, but its been a year since I was interested enough in checking CM, and it has faded. Also rexford's book is an immense help with penetration.

You can then create a "shooting range" CM game and test the assumptions of the underlying theory against the game.

[Monty's Double]

Tom touched on this, but I think it's worth remembering what type of game we're talking about. CMBO is a computer simulation of a wargame not a boardgame. What's the difference? Boardgames rely on a precise mechanic, and players get pleasure out of pitting their wits against an opponent to see who can best exploit the mechanic. Draughts (OK, chequers if you prefer) is like this; the rules are simple and neat, people play to win, and for the pleasure of trying to outwit an opponent. Wargames have an element of this, but something else as well; they try and recreate an experience. Wargames give you a flavour of what battles in that theatre might be like. Toy soldier tabletop wagames are very limited in the amount of real-life simulation they can achive (noone wants to spend an hour working out every shot), so they use an approximation to give the "feel" of the action. So long as the rules feel right, everyone can enjoy the experience. CMBO is fantastic because the computer can handle far more calculations, so the experience is that much richer. However, because it can literally simulate so many factors, people get fooled into thinking it actually simulates real warfare. It can't becuase on top of all the statistical and calculation issues plus the anecdotal historical evidence, somebody at some point has to interpret the data. What I'm trying to say is this; if you are talking about extra features ask youself whether they would enrich the experience or just add complexity. Going back to the original suggestion, I'd suggest it would do the latter.

[Mattias]

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

[Scipio]

Phantom, it's generally senseless to discuss with people like Slappy, because they completly ignore you posts. You say :

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

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>

and he recomments you to solve your problem:

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

You can then create a "shooting range" CM game and test the assumptions of the underlying theory against the game.<hr></blockquote>

LOL

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

[Slapdragon]

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

Phantom, it's generally senseless to discuss with people like Slappy, because they completly ignore you posts. You say :

LOL

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Scipio ]<hr></blockquote>

ROTFLMAO

You idjit, read my entire post. You set me to task for not reading Rockers post, then prove your complete ignorance by grabing a sliver of my post and ignoring the part where I explained what to do before he runs a pool table test. Where you born this way, or do you live down river from a nuclear plant?

Here it is again for people fooled by this little slice of stupidity.

1) Get the sources for the model. Those sources have been discussed before.

2) Reconstruct the model based on those sources.

3) Test the source with the game simulation.

Scippy, don't ever try to follow a manual putting a pistol back together, you will likely blow yourself up by missing steps 1-8 and only reading step 9.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

But I still would like to know more about the calculations. That doesn't mean that BTS must publish everything detailed piece of information they have used. But things like: to calculate the chance of a hit we use: Vo, speed of target, own speed etcetera etcetera and put it together this way in a formula, using this and that bonus to reflect this and that side effect like ground condition or visibility.<hr></blockquote>

Phantom, by-in-large, these things are already known or have been appoximated. Read pg. 68-71 in the CM manual. That is not comprehensive, but almost all of the factors BTS uses for their armor and gun calculations are known by now. Even some of the exact percentages are known. For example, it it known that if a turreted tank is hit by a shell it has a flat 12% of striking the lower hull; weak point hits occure on 1% of hits except on tanks with shots traps where it is 10% (although I've heard some say they think it may be lower).

We will never know all of these exact numbers unless BTS publishes the formulas which they will not do, but there have been so many tests done by CM players in the 1.5 years since its release that we have a pretty good idea on most things. As someone else pointed out there has been no shortage of debate over this stuff in the past. And I'm sure there will be pages uppon pages of debate on gun accuracy in CMBB.

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Phantom, by-in-large, these things are already known or have been appoximated. Read pg. 68-71 in the CM manual. That is not comprehensive, but almost all of the factors BTS uses for their armor and gun calculations are known by now. Even some of the exact percentages are known. For example, it it known that if a turreted tank is hit by a shell it has a flat 12% of striking the lower hull; weak point hits occure on 1% of hits except on tanks with shots traps where it is 10% (although I've heard some say they think it may be lower).

We will never know all of these exact numbers unless BTS publishes the formulas which they will not do, but there have been so many tests done by CM players in the 1.5 years since its release that we have a pretty good idea on most things. As someone else pointed out there has been no shortage of debate over this stuff in the past. And I'm sure there will be pages uppon pages of debate on gun accuracy in CMBB.<hr></blockquote>

Scippy, here is a repeat of Vanir's post to help you digest it (2 reads might help you out). Note he says a similar thing to the beginning of my post. Do a search, and the sources for much of the CM model are out their.

[aka_tom_w]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Phantom, by-in-large, these things are already known or have been appoximated. Read pg. 68-71 in the CM manual. That is not comprehensive, but almost all of the factors BTS uses for their armor and gun calculations are known by now. Even some of the exact percentages are known. For example, it it known that if a turreted tank is hit by a shell it has a flat 12% of striking the lower hull; weak point hits occure on 1% of hits except on tanks with shots traps where it is 10% (although I've heard some say they think it may be lower).

We will never know all of these exact numbers unless BTS publishes the formulas which they will not do, but there have been so many tests done by CM players in the 1.5 years since its release that we have a pretty good idea on most things. As someone else pointed out there has been no shortage of debate over this stuff in the past. And I'm sure there will be pages uppon pages of debate on gun accuracy in CMBB.<hr></blockquote>

I agree with this post

most of the important underlying principles of how this game works (for instance how the winning score is calculated http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=019346 have been determined by folks here who took the time to basically retro engineer the game.

Most of what you are asking to know has sort-of been figured out by folks who have been playing the game since the beta demo.

-tom w

[Scipio]

I love to drive you mad, Slappy. You always walk into the trap.

[Redwolf]

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

I agree with this post

most of the important underlying principles of how this game works (for instance how the winning score is calculated http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=019346 have been determined by folks here who took the time to basically retro engineer the game.

Most of what you are asking to know has sort-of been figured out by folks who have been playing the game since the beta demo.

<hr></blockquote>

As the person who did this I have to jump in here and point out that I did not reverse engineer the CMBO program (like doing disassembly). The license clearly forbits that.

The score computing analysis was purely based on munching result numbers for some test battles over some breakfasts and then verifying with some new test battles.

I also like to point out that while I thought the score computing should be known (because it is important to scenario designers), I think that the exactly computation of things like global morale, local morale and flag ownership is not worth knowing and documenting it would make gameplay worse, not better.

[aka_tom_w]

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

As the person who did this I have to jump in here and point out that I did not reverse engineer the CMBO program (like doing disassembly). The license clearly forbits that.

The score computing analysis was purely based on munching result numbers for some test battles over some breakfasts and then verifying with some new test battles.

I also like to point out that while I thought the score computing should be known (because it is important to scenario designers), I think that the exactly computation of things like global morale, local morale and flag ownership is not worth knowing and documenting it would make gameplay worse, not better.<hr></blockquote>

OK

Sorry Redwolf, when you state "The score computing analysis was purely based on munching result numbers for some test battles over some breakfasts and then verifying with some new test battles" THAT is exactly what I meant when I used the term "retroengineered" nothing sinister or illegal or inappropriate in any way, just a series of trial and error tests to see how the game reacts in controled situations and draw conclusions from what is observed as the scoring outcome. Other folks including myself have done similiar tests on the CMBO simulated gunnery test range to determine accuracy results of certain weapons at certian ranges in controled conditions then publish the results. Thats all I meant when I (perhaps mistakenly) used the term retro engineered.

sorry for the confusion

thanks for the clarification.

-tom w

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

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

LOL, you boys are always so funny, I really love this board. But sometime I believe you mean it all serious...

Just imagine: The textures and unit names would be taken from a sience fiction movie, while all the rest is the same - we all would be simply happy to own one of the best computer games in the world, and give a damn about the rest .

[Slapdragon]

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

I love to drive you mad, Slappy. You always walk into the trap. <hr></blockquote>

Not mad, but I did get a huge laugh out of it! Imagine writing something false just to make someone mad, but luckily I took it as lunacy and could not stop laughing while I typed my reply.

[Michael Dorosh]

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

I love to drive you mad, Slappy. You always walk into the trap. <hr></blockquote>

You're more entertaining when you're pouting about plagiarism - or otherwise posting your own plagiarized mods to the forum with your highly amusing disclaimers proclaiming sole credit for them. Baiting persons with actual scholastic integrity is a little out of your league, isn't it?

Smiley

Smiley

Smiley etc.

[aka_tom_w]

say its NOT so

did this thread just turn into a flame war right before my eyes?

-tom w

[Redwolf]

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

did this thread just turn into a flame war right before my eyes?

<hr></blockquote>

I'm afraid it had a bad start, nobody was really talking about the original suggestion - user-tunable combat parameters (what a motherf..ing bad idea only the most d...head can have

If you want to discuss it, just open a new one, threads are unrepairable.

[Slapdragon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You're more entertaining when you're pouting about plagiarism - or otherwise posting your own plagiarized mods to the forum with your highly amusing disclaimers proclaiming sole credit for them. Baiting persons with actual scholastic integrity is a little out of your league, isn't it?

Smiley

Smiley

Smiley etc.<hr></blockquote>

Actually Mike, he does not realize I baited a trap for him by using word of more than two syllables to confuse him, causing him to post a ludicrous comment and thus "flush out the storm drains" as we would say in Carolina.

But, since most of the people he plays CM with

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

...are very uncontented because of the historic unrealism - this includes an graduated WWII historian, not only ignorants like me.<hr></blockquote>

you have to question his sanity a bit. Why play a game that is such a broken down wreck that it makes you and your friends who are graduatated WW2 historianicians uncontented?

[Scipio]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You're more entertaining when you're pouting about plagiarism - or otherwise posting your own plagiarized mods to the forum with your highly amusing disclaimers proclaiming sole credit for them. Baiting persons with actual scholastic integrity is a little out of your league, isn't it?

Smiley

Smiley

Smiley etc.<hr></blockquote>

About which plagiats are you talking in detail? I have stolen so many things from everyone all the time that I'm not sure right now...to bad that I made all the work for nothing, cause no one want to use the mods. Except me, of course.

[Slapdragon]

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

say its NOT so

did this thread just turn into a flame war right before my eyes?

-tom w<hr></blockquote>

Yes, more of a silly flame war because it started with a rather silly troll post that would have been better ignored, but the subject was not really much to begin with.

However, there is a good suggestion for Rocker of backwards engineering the game and testing the concepts against the various literature used to build the model.

[Phantom Rocker]

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

Yes, more of a silly flame war because it started with a rather silly troll post that would have been better ignored, but the subject was not really much to begin with.

However, there is a good suggestion for Rocker of backwards engineering the game and testing the concepts against the various literature used to build the model.<hr></blockquote>

You seem to know very much about getting things from backward. Can you tell me more about it?

[Slapdragon]

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

You seem to know very much about getting things from backward. Can you tell me more about it?<hr></blockquote>

If you really want to know and mean how do you check a physics model against the game, then yes I would be happy to discuss it, just e-mail me on the side. If you are stringing along with that silly sod Scipio, no.

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

[TSword]

Captain Wacky talks that this game is based on facts. Really ?

Can anyone show me the fact that with exception of PzIV G, Tiger I all german AFV's have lowered armor quality.

If you read the Post by rexford you would know that's only a fact/evidence that some late 1944 Panthers had flawed glacis plates, but it's still completely unknown how much of them and even more the effects for 75 mm and 76 mm calibres where rexfords states that those calibres wouldn't benefit largely from it.

Or the fact that the Tigermantlet has 130 mm Cast (Deeply researched by rexford again)

Or the fact that the KT turret speed is much higher than in CM (Jentz's KT books).

Or the fact that SPW251 has an ammoload of 40, the M3A1 250 ?

Or the fact that the mythical M2 can penetrate 30 mm of facehardenend RHA armor (Puma front armor) at 300 m (Not always though).

Or the amazing sniper qualities of moving squads (Those annoying 500+ m snipershots on unbuttoned crews, Flakcrews from moving squads).

Or the amazing spotting capabilities of tankcrews when unbuttoned (No problem for them to spot a tiny AFV 500 m in their rear quarter creeping up to Hulldown pos within a split second).

Or the laughable discrepancies between a bazooka- and Panzerschreck crew (The bazooka has much higher probabilty to hit beyond 100 m).

Or the fact that bazooka- and british- Heat always penetrates a german tank with skirts from the side.

So please show me the so called facts/stats on which CM is based.

I think Phantom Rocker makes a very good offer and i would like to see it materialize and many more players i know.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Just a quick point.

I have no idea how they do the “hit probability stuff” but Charles has been very open with the formula he uses for armour penetration. Indeed I have a copy of the research paper he used, on his recommendation.

Even without the paper Charles used, WW2 armour penetration equations are well understood, if you know where to look. i.e. British military text books and such. I have checked all the figures for the major AT and tank guns in CMBO and they are “very” accurate/ realistic.

Charles does have a challenge coming up with Soviet APC rounds, as they had very different characteristics to the APCBC rounds used on the western front. But Charles will crack it.

All the best,

Kip.