Gun accuracy...just an idea

[Scipio]

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

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.<hr></blockquote>

Sire, I expect your excuse. If you are not able to take a joke without becoming personal insulting you should better leave this board.

With firendly regards

Scipio

[aka_tom_w]

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

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

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

From the README v1.12

the tiger Mantle issue was addressed:

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

So in the game it "should" be theoretically harder to penetrate now.

-tom w

[Slapdragon]

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

What a bunch of drivel. I think you need to write your own game is CM is such a flaming pile of refuse.

Besides, the game is based on facts as they are known at the time of the game, and has evolved through many chagnes almost all caused by player research. That is not just a garden list of things you are unhappy with, or who a single expert whose opinion may or may not be correct (Jentz) says one thing, or because you have not done enough research to know that one thing is true even as much as you wish it not to be.

If you can do better -- write the game. Lewis the old sod is off writing one himself somewhere, perhaps you should pick up your pen and do better?

Or perhaps you should do the detailed research Rexford does, and present it in an e-mail to the powers that be at BTS, I will give you their e-mail. Believe me, if you have anything better than a bunch of smoke blowing out your bum they will listen.

[Slapdragon]

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

Sire, I expect your excuse. If you are not able to take a joke without becoming personal insulting you should better leave this board.

With firendly regards

Scipio<hr></blockquote>

What joke, you made a silly post that bordered on the stupid, I pointed it out, you claimed it was a joke rather than saying "sorry I was wrong". Read Mike's post, more people than just I thought your post was a serious attempt at trolling. At first I just thought it was too idiotic to be serious, but there was no way to tell, and no retraction, so who knows?

Perhaps leaving the board is something that is up to BTS rather than you. And I mean it -- if Rocker is serious I will tell him exactly how to extract the information from a post, but if he not then I wont waste my time with it.

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

[Scipio]

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

What joke, you made a silly post that bordered on the stupid, I pointed it out, you claimed it was a joke rather than saying "sorry I was wrong". Read Mike's post, more people than just I thought your post was a serious attempt at trolling. At first I just thought it was too idiotic to be serious, but there was no way to tell, and no retraction, so who knows?

Perhaps leaving the board is something that is up to BTS rather than you. And I mean it -- if Rocker is serious I will tell him exactly how to extract the information from a post, but if he not then I wont waste my time with it.

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

Even if it was not a good joke, you behavior is unacceptable. I have send a note to the board admin.

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

[Redwolf]

TSword, in the following I will give you some thoughts, which you (or anyone else) will please not interpret as BTS ...kissing. I just try to outline why it is in fact pretty hard to make a good wargame, and that CMBO is already good, and that what it lacks to be better is very hard to do.

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

<hr></blockquote>

Obviously it would have been better to have a random armor quality from 85-100%. However, the game's code did not allow for that and implementing it had delayed the game. Also, rexford's book was not published when the game came out, not even when patch 1.12 came out.

BTS defaulted to the worst case, buit within historical range. Keep in mind it makes the tank cheaper.

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

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

<hr></blockquote>

As has been pointed out, the is addressed by the 100+, which meaning you failed to look up in the archives.

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

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

<hr></blockquote>

I don't know about the KT, but the Panther has been discussed to death.

BTS defaulted to the worst case, buit within historical range. Keep in mind it makes the tank cheaper.

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

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

<hr></blockquote>

Finally a good point. You fail to question the real question, however: why does it have 250 ammo for the .50cal, where tanks have seperate ammo. That is one of the few items listed here that had influence on my actual games.

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

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

<hr></blockquote>

It doesn't give you an armor hit message, are you sure it was the front?

.50cal infantry teams reach 20mm penetration at very short ranges for me, at least at a probablity I would rate as "not always", which is pretty often. You observation doesn't match mine, 30mm is pretty .50cal invulnerable for me, even point-black.

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

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

<hr></blockquote>

"Move" does not represent uninterrupted walking. Didn't you see Private Ryan?

I do not agree that squads KO the TC often, much less from 500m.

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

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).

<hr></blockquote>

You hear a tracked vehicle going in mixed terrain from 500m. At least when the spotting tank is standing. You spot any movement very easily, even when just turning your head.

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

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

<hr></blockquote>

Regular Schreck and Bazooka hit probablity on 105 silhuette tank:

100m 56% 46%

150m 30% 18%

175m 20% 10%

200m 12% 5%

220m 8% 0%

HINT: The PIAT is more accurate than the Bazooka > 100m.

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

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

<hr></blockquote>

The skirts were intended to be against AT rifles. They were found to be useful against HC hits, but I have never seen actual test results and the Germans removed most of the large skirts, leaving only skirts that are meant to protect the tracks against lighter stuss (shots and landscape features).

I agree that the skirts has few if any effect in CMBO, but I'm not sure they were much better in reality.

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

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

<hr></blockquote>

Why didn't you start on some real issues like the useless MGs?

[Roksovkiy]

Does the Armor model differentiate between cast armor and rolled homogenous armor.

Rexford said good cast armor is 10-15% less resistant than RHA armor.

Most Allied tanks used cast armor and it is not reflected in game armor ratings, without even taking bad armor into consideration. The M-26 pershing used a cast armour glacis and turret, yet it still gets 100% armor quality. It should get 90% quality at best.

The Tiger II made of rolled homogenous armor, with no hard evidence of bad quality armor, is given less resistence in the game than if it was made of cast armor.

[Madmatt]

I am not in a position to comment about the game specific issues of accuracy or weapon effectiveness as they are modeled in the game (not my field) but what I CAN comment on is the level of immaturity infecting this particular thread.

You guys are not children, so stop acting like it. I have far better things to occupy my time then having to come in here and brow beat a few individuals playing "HE SAID IT FIRST, NO HE DID, NUH UH!!!"

GROW UP or leave. Simple as that. Grow some thick skin, accept the some people dont see things the same way you do, remember that this is JUST a message forum and what other people say will have no real tangiable effect on your life and get over it.

Now stop wasting my time and work out your problems offline.

Madmatt

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

[Redwolf]

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

Does the Armor model differentiate between cast armor and rolled homogenous armor.

Rexford said good cast armor is 10-15% less resistant than RHA armor.

<hr></blockquote>

The book wasn't published at CMBO 1.0 or 1.12 release time.

And IIRC, rexford says that depends on the caliber of the firing weapon, doesn't he? That again counts for saying "nice but we are not coding in a timeless paralell universe".

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

Most Allied tanks used cast armor and it is not reflected in game armor ratings, without even taking bad armor into consideration. The M-26 pershing used a cast armour glacis and turret, yet it still gets 100% armor quality. It should get 90% quality at best.

The Tiger II made of rolled homogenous armor, with no hard evidence of bad quality armor, is given less resistence in the game than if it was made of cast armor.<hr></blockquote>

I can live with the US overestimation since I rarely shoot with anything that can not kill a Sherman anyway

However, your view on the King Tiger is oversimplified, rexford (and I think others) indicated that the front would be lower quality. And that is even based on very few (a single?) test cases.

However, the bad thing about the KT is that its sides are low armor quality which is same spurces say it shouldn't. That is significant since it enables Bazooka penatrations from the majority of side angles instead of the minority of side angles. Same for 57mm/6 pdr AT gun and many other weapons.

But again, this data was not available on CMBO 1.0 or 1.12 release time, and a speration of armor quality within one tank requires more coding.

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

[Captain Wacky]

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

After a quick search of your posts TSword, it is evident that you have been on this forum for less than a month and every single post you have made is negative and referring to something that, in your opinion, CM got wrong. I don't expect to try and convince you because I doubt you will listen. Incredibly, you seem to have a grudge against this game and even at times appear angry towards it.

CM is not perfect. No one has every claimed that it is. Everyone knows that machine guns are under-modelled, that infantry fire is too accurate when moving, etc. But it gets most things right.

What you and Rocker want to do is twiddle around with the game engine to make it suit your own ideas on what is right. Doing so is a recipe for utter disaster in a game. Not to mention the compatibility issues, how is one player supposed to know that the other guy up-gunned his Panther to fire 2000m/sec? Who would want to play a game in which every time they connect they are dealing with an entirely new set of rules?

So CM stays as it is. BTS already made hundreds of changes to suit its users, to the point that the vast, vast majority of players are completely satisfied with the game, despite its remaining innaccuracies. It is based largely on facts, like the fact that the Tiger's frontal armor is 100mm thick. You are pointing out the small percentage of things that CM gets wrong, but you make it sound like Shermans should be able to fly and Panthers can drive underwater.

Since you seem to know so much about what CM got wrong, as Slappy said, maybe you should just design your own game instead of continuing to complain about everything this game got wrong. I'm sure that would change your attitude fairly quickly.

If you want to enjoy your stay on the forum, I suggest you just accept the game for what it is and enjoy it. I would warn you though if you are planning to stay here long without changing your attitude-you are quickly becoming the loud-mouthed malcontent who no one likes and everyone ignores, and it would be best to change your ways. Constructive criticism and not bitching like you own the place is the way to go. The forum and CM can be fun if you let them. Just try, you might be surprised.

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

[Battlefront.com]

TSword wrote:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Captain Wacky talks that this game is based on facts. Really ?<hr></blockquote>

Yup, really. Your post, however, apparently was not

Combat Mission is based on facts. However, many facts do not fit the Webster's Dictionary definition. What I mean is that many things are more unknown than known, or are very much known and just as much argued over. We have tried, very hard, to wade through the plethora of unclear, but still critical, issues to make CM as realistic as possible. The rest of the game is based on facts which aren't questionable. Who could ask for more?

The question should be... "is Combat Mission a perfect representation of WWII?", not if it is based on facts or not (which it clearly is, like it or not). To this question I would answer...

No. Combat Mission is NOT a perfect representation of WWII. We have said this for 3 years now, loudly and without any shame, no matter how many people wish to think otherwise.

Combat Mission is not perfect for four main reasons, roughly in this order of impact:

1. Imperfect data to draw from. This is what I said above about "facts" often being educated guesses or contested data. We live in an imperfect world where WWII research and Combat Mission are not exempt from its reality.

2. Player control over the game environment. The game allows for things to be simulated, over and over and over again, which either might never have happened at ALL in real life or happened so rarely that there isn't good statistical sampling to draw much, if any, conclusions from. Many things people hold up as "unrealistic" are, when examimed more carefully, being compared apples to oranges with real world examples. While we do not say that everything in CM is perfect, we have had no problem tearing apart most of the "proof" put forth of gross inaccuracies because the "proof" was highly flawed or incorrectly compared to real life in ways which were highly flawed.

3. Game conventions. Putting the player in God mode, above the battlefield with perfect "borg" knowledge of the battle, is inherently unrealistic. From there flows all sorts of shortcomings and realism issues which need to be considered when making comparisions to real life. Unless we removed the player from the game and coded up the AI totally differently than it is (i.e. to behave like a human player), all sorts of "inaccuracies" will be noted. These are, however, necessary tradeoffs for there to be a game in the first place.

4. Coding time. There is only so much we can code up in a day. WWII is a MASSIVELY complicated, complex, and technical thing to simulate at this level. Even if we had 10 years to program the "perfect" simulation there would still be things left undone. Therefore, we must make choices when we code and how we code or there wouldn't be any game for any of you to discuss in the first place. This is what we like to call "reality" The trick is to make the right abstractions and best balance of features in order that the game, as a whole, does not suffer in a fundamental way YET still maintains a very high degree of realism. I think it is clear to any unbiased player of CM that we acheived that, perhaps to a degree no other has.

In short... CM has its problems. Sure. But don't harp on them too much or you will miss the thousands of things that are right with the simulation and game aspects. And if you do insist on harping on the flaws, at least get your facts straight first. Kinda makes one look like a fool when evidence of our "flaws" and lack of "facts" are supported by falwed and factually incorrect statements

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

To answer the original question...

No, we will never fully publish data/formulas we use. As Andreas said... we are not a publically funded research institution.

The reason why this is significnat is that there is no middle ground between what we have presented you guys with now and full disclosure. Anything inbetween would be utterly valueless. Especially because we will never open up the game's guts to player manipulation.

As others have said, alowing players to muck around with things (especially if they have no clue about the equations) will fracture the community we have built, confuse the issues even MORE, and generally cause a heck of a lot more fighting about a greater number of things than people currently debate.

And as someone also said... tweaking data doesn't work if the equations are thought to be flawed or incomplete. I would say that most of the debates would not only never be settled by player manipulation, but would be impossible to even attempt to correct unless the person had a full copy of the source code and a couple of years to understand it.

When cases are made for change, we listen. If the weight of the argument favors a change, we make the change. We are the gatekeepers and the standards setters. For all the problems one might see with this, it prevents many more from ever seeing the light of day. This is the best way to do things.

I followed the modifications of games like Close Combat and it made me want to toss my cookies

Steve

[Enoch]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

4. Coding time. There is only so much we can code up in a day.

Steve<hr></blockquote>

You guys wrote the code for CMBO in one day?!?!It should take about 4 hours to do the code for CMBB then. What the heck have you been doing with CMBB since the release of CMBO???

Slackers.

[Captain Wacky]

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

You guys wrote the code for CMBO in one day?!?!It should take about 4 hours to do the code for CMBB then. What the heck have you been doing with CMBB since the release of CMBO???

Slackers.<hr></blockquote>

Oh yeah? Well I heard a rumor that "BTS," "Charles," and "Steve" are really just fronts for a communist Chinese govnerment secret project to create the insidiously addictive wargame using a thousand monkeys chained and working at a thousand computers for a thousand days.

[Phantom Rocker]

Thanks for the answers, Steve.

To all others who have build an opion about me in this threat: damned, have you never read my signature?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Uh, sorry I came back to this so late. Most of TSword's latest rant was well addressed by other, Redwolf in particular but there was one that stood out:

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

Or the fact that bazooka- and british- Heat always penetrates a german tank with skirts from the side. <hr></blockquote>

This is not at all true. All vehicle skirts in CM are functional and decrease the chance of shaped-charge rounds penetrating to some extent. Based upon tests I have done the very small skirts on the Panther A decrease penetration chance by ~3%. The much larger skirts on the Pz IVH decrease it by ~30%. Neither of these numbers are likely the exact numbers used by the game, but they should be close.

[Slapdragon]

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

Uh, sorry I came back to this so late. Most of TSword's latest rant was well addressed by other, Redwolf in particular but there was one that stood out:

This is not at all true. All vehicle skirts in CM are functional and decrease the chance of shaped-charge rounds penetrating to some extent. Based upon tests I have done the very small skirts on the Panther A decrease penetration chance by ~3%. The much larger skirts on the Pz IVH decrease it by ~30%. Neither of these numbers are likely the exact numbers used by the game, but they should be close.<hr></blockquote>

Between Redwolf, Wacky, and you, it is pretty obvious quite a bit of material was pulled, to quote Andreas, from a dark smelly place.

Andreas, I am home this morbing and will send you a game turn.

[Andreas]

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

Between Redwolf, Wacky, and you, it is pretty obvious quite a bit of material was pulled, to quote Andreas, from a dark smelly place.

Andreas, I am home this morbing and will send you a game turn.<hr></blockquote>

Good stuff.

I think the guy is just a troll. Notice how he does not even bother to reply? I think he does that regularly. Goes to show the tolerance of BTS.