Jump to content

Dissapointed by CMBN


Recommended Posts

Tanks do seem too accurate getting too many first rd hits around 1000 meters

You are talking about CMBN, yes? I ask because my tank gunners seem unable to hit anything on the first, second or third round. For example , I am currently playing the final mission in the Road to Montebourg campaign and I have a stationary 76mm Sherman firing on a Stug III - he has missed it at least ten times, so far. Maybe I should play the game you are playing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 303
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here's an idea:

Instead of vague anecdotes like

"My Sherman scored a hit on the move"

"Tanks on the move hit too easily"

"His Sherman toasted my Panther from the front"

Which generally end with " - this game is broken", how about some save games, or even some statistical analysis? Tanks on the move hit too much - well what is too much? How often do they hit, at which ranges? On which surfaces?

I remember a game back in CMBO days where a Cromwell Support tank, moving fast down a road, bullseyed a Hetzer at about 500m at about 90 degrees to the line of travel. By the quality of evidence presented thus far this would mean that CMBO was as broken as CMBN. However, statistically speaking, I only saw it happen once in many hundreds of game hours, so it was actually insignificant.

The quantity of people saying that moving tanks are too accurate does mean that it probably is something to look into (you can do some of the statistics by the forum traffic) but it cannot progress unless some tests are done. If you have seen some unusual behaviour, then you can help* by running a few tests. A couple of documented tests by a few users quickly stacks up.

* If you want to help. You don't have to, but I get the feeling that some people would rather bleat and whine and moan rather than help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an idea:

Instead of vague anecdotes like

"My Sherman scored a hit on the move"

"Tanks on the move hit too easily"

"His Sherman toasted my Panther from the front"

Which generally end with " - this game is broken", how about some save games, or even some statistical analysis? Tanks on the move hit too much - well what is too much? How often do they hit, at which ranges? On which surfaces?

I remember a game back in CMBO days where a Cromwell Support tank, moving fast down a road, bullseyed a Hetzer at about 500m at about 90 degrees to the line of travel. By the quality of evidence presented thus far this would mean that CMBO was as broken as CMBN. However, statistically speaking, I only saw it happen once in many hundreds of game hours, so it was actually insignificant.

The quantity of people saying that moving tanks are too accurate does mean that it probably is something to look into (you can do some of the statistics by the forum traffic) but it cannot progress unless some tests are done. If you have seen some unusual behaviour, then you can help* by running a few tests. A couple of documented tests by a few users quickly stacks up.

* If you want to help. You don't have to, but I get the feeling that some people would rather bleat and whine and moan rather than help.

oh you mean something like this: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98346

tests have been run... and the tanks are way too accurate on the move.

especially since the doctrine of the time was to stop-and-fire... not fire on the move (despite what you might have seen in propaganda movies of the time)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit surprised that this firing on the move thing got past the beta testing or did BFC just decide to release knowing there was a problem? The gyro wasn't very good on the Sherman. Until the 80's firing on the move was not preferred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought that's the sort of thing you'd mean. One thing I'd like to see in the future is the option for a scenario designer to give a points value for the player, rather than a fixed OOB.

This does seem to be more the model of CMMC conceptually. Close Combat while an interesting game devoted it's programming energy if you will in a different direction. While it was interesting to tailor your task force based on the segment of the map you were going to fight on, it isn't an apples to apples comparison to what a "Campaign" is in CM.

You can concievably do this, but you need to develop it as an adjunct. Basically something like the campaign Noob is working on. It is not however something you could really do against the AI. It really only is achievable for a HTH based campaign and only done well if you have someone managing that campaign willing to do all that back end work.

Trying to have a scenario designer create AI plans facing any concievable type of opponent and apply them correctly is just a bit more I think than we can expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit surprised that this firing on the move thing got past the beta testing or did BFC just decide to release knowing there was a problem?

It didn't. Discussions and testing of movement effects on gunnery and spotting were ongoing before release and continue now. It's just a more complicated problem than it seems, involving not just accuracy modifiers, but also the actual physical movement of the tank in the game world and AI behavior.

However, the OP's "proof" that accuracy while moving is flawed is itself worthless. Sherman crews were OK'd to fire on the move at targets less than 600m with the stabilizer, so two instances of a Sherman hitting a target at 400m are really not a problem taken on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It didn't. Discussions and testing of movement effects on gunnery and spotting were ongoing before release and continue now. It's just a more complicated problem than it seems, involving not just accuracy modifiers, but also the actual physical movement of the tank in the game world and AI behavior.

However, the OP's "proof" that accuracy while moving is flawed is itself worthless. Sherman crews were OK'd to fire on the move at targets less than 600m with the stabilizer, so two instances of a Sherman hitting a target at 400m are really not a problem taken on their own.

Well. OK'ed to fire on the move is one thing hitting something is quite another. Speed, type of ground, range, target movement, angle off... all make this a very complex problem. I'm sure some differential equations will fix it right up, LOL.... even WW II ships had problems hitting targets in rough seas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It didn't. Discussions and testing of movement effects on gunnery and spotting were ongoing before release and continue now. It's just a more complicated problem than it seems, involving not just accuracy modifiers, but also the actual physical movement of the tank in the game world and AI behavior.

However, the OP's "proof" that accuracy while moving is flawed is itself worthless. Sherman crews were OK'd to fire on the move at targets less than 600m with the stabilizer, so two instances of a Sherman hitting a target at 400m are really not a problem taken on their own.

SO you mean all our p******g around has been a waste of time because you and the other playtesters and BF knew it was nerfed and were working to sort it out. Good to know.

Incidentally is it not customary to have beta-testers with a tag so we know who actually knows what is going on as opposed to just Joe Soap.?

As for the firing on the move at under 600yards can you direct me to the manual as it would be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh you mean something like this: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98346

tests have been run... and the tanks are way too accurate on the move.

especially since the doctrine of the time was to stop-and-fire... not fire on the move (despite what you might have seen in propaganda movies of the time)

I think I saw that one. More tests would be better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO you mean all our p******g around has been a waste of time because you and the other playtesters and BF knew it was nerfed and were working to sort it out. Good to know.

Incidentally is it not customary to have beta-testers with a tag so we know who actually knows what is going on as opposed to just Joe Soap.?

As for the firing on the move at under 600yards can you direct me to the manual as it would be interesting.

Actually what makes our p*****g around a waste of time is we rarely take the time to truly test a first impression nor try to understand the complexity of what is being modelled and instead assume hey I saw this one time not work right so fix it.

The statements from BFC on this have indicated that there are certain things they have difficulty modelling the way they'd like without making the AI to weak an adversary. So you'd prefer they wait until it is all A1 perfect? I can live with the issues uncovered so far especially knowing BFC continues to work to improve the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO you mean all our p******g around has been a waste of time because you and the other playtesters and BF knew it was nerfed and were working to sort it out. Good to know.

As stated by akd, it was an ongoing discussion during testing pre-release. Charles did tweak some code due the testers reporting that firing on the move was too accurate. If memory serves, it was pre-release/Beta 29. Here was the data presented to Charles after said tweak:

Tests were conducted at 800m (I still have the parameters for those who care). PzIV(H)'s vs M4A3's. The conclusion, after running over +/-350 tests, regular experience, tanks facing one another head-on (smaller target), with the MOVE command plotted on all non-stationery tanks, tarred road/flat surface, ideal weather conditions, unbuttoned tanks, were as follows:

-- GERMAN Mobile tankers, shooting @ USA stationery tanks = 95,7% misses

-- GERMAN Stationery tankers, shooting @ USA moving tanks = 52,1% misses

-- USA Mobile tankers, shooting @ GERMAN stationery = 85,7% misses

-- USA Stationery tankers, shooting @ GERMAN moving tanks = 53% misses

Further observation during the beta was also as follows:

-- Moving tank ROF is roughly half the firing rate of a non-moving vehicle (mobile vs stationery shots attempted)

-- Noted if a stationery tank fires @ moving target, the vast majority of firing results were initial misses (up 3x misses) before a hit was registered for the stationery tank.

-- Tests clearly shows a moving tank has roughly a 5-15% chance of hitting a stationery head-on Sherman/Mk IV 800m away

--The odds indicate a stationery tank has roughly a 50% chance of hitting a moving, head-on Sherman/Mk IV 800m away

As can be seen, the above specific test was not done with both sets of tankers moving and firing. Does it need further tweaking for this specific instance? Is the current miss % too low for the above specific test and needs further tweaking. If both sets of tankers are moving and firing, we should expect even a higher % misses ceterus paribus. Charles have the answers and the means to effect it one way or the other, or to keep it the same. Nothing was nerfed DieselTaylor.

As regard to a manual, I have this interesting titbit:

FM 17-12 presents some interesting advice on the use of the Sherman gyro stabilizer:

"FIRING WHILE MOVING"

"Firing with the 75mm gun while moving is inaccurate and causes an uneconomical expenditure of ammunition. Do it only in an emergency and at ranges of 600 yards or less."

Even with a gyro stabilizer 600 yards is about it, and misses are expected. The 600 yard range may be based on a reasonable hit probability given the initial range estimation (which may contain some error), and the small angle errors that will occur with a stabilizer.

"Firing while moving requires close teamwork between driver and gunner. Drive at a constant speed: acceleration and decleration upset the action of the stabilizer. Drive in a straight line, otherwise the gun yaws as the tank turns. When going over rough terrain, do not fight the gun (attempting to keep it on target by spinning the elevating handwheel) but wait until a constant speed and regained and the action of the stabilizer has smoothed out."

"The stabilizer will not lay the gun. It merely tends to keep the gun where it has been laid: that is, it eliminates extremely jerky movements caused by the movement of the tank. Even with a stabilizer, the gun does not hold constantly on the target. Watch the swing of the gun through the target and fire as the proper sight setting crosses the target."

Furthermore, from TK-525 Operation & Maintenance of the Gyro-Stabilizer. Chassis Group, Tank Department, The Armored School, Ft. Knox, KY. (2-16-44-500)

-The gyro stabilizer took at least 5 minutes to spin up before it could be engaged.

-Once it was spun up, the gyro stabilizer could not be left running for extended periods of time because of wear and tear on the system.

-Before the gyro stabilizer could be used at all, it had to be calibrated. This process took a trained gun crew about 20 minutes to accomplish.

-Calibration of the gyro stabilizer had to be performed at least daily, and more often under conditions in which temperatures were very low, very hot, when they changed much during the day.

-Fine tuning the calibration could be done only when the main gun was fired.

-Depending on many variables, fine tuning might require the discharge of one to three rounds on average.

-Once the gyro-stabilizer was fine tuned for HE rounds, for example, it had to be retuned to use a round of different weight like shot or smoke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Incidentally is it not customary to have beta-testers with a tag so we know who actually knows what is going on as opposed to just Joe Soap.?

I belive Steve stated back when they added the Beta Tester tag option to the forum that it was up to the individual Beta Tester; they could have the tag added to their profile, or not.

Frankly, with the level of respect and decorum I often see here, it's not surprising to me at all that many of them choose to not put the label on their profile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well. OK'ed to fire on the move is one thing hitting something is quite another. Speed, type of ground, range, target movement, angle off... all make this a very complex problem. I'm sure some differential equations will fix it right up, LOL.... even WW II ships had problems hitting targets in rough seas.

Of course it is complex. That is why one or two instances of a hit at 400m is useless data and can't be used to make any point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO you mean all our p******g around has been a waste of time

Isn't "p******g around", by its very definition, a waste of time? Instead of running around snipe hunting you could've been having fun blowing things up. How do you want to see it, as firing on the move being 'broken' or halting to fire being 'abstracted'. Same thing, the difference between the glass being half empty and glass being half full. I recall grousers awhile ago complaining that the game wasn't half as abstracted enough, it was too literal for their tastes. Maybe the game's reached the "uncanny valley", that place in the virtual world where realism had reached the point where any remaining abstractions are inordinately jarring.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe the game's reached the "uncanny valley", that place in the virtual world where realism had reached the point where any remaining abstractions are inordinately jarring.

"You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension - a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into the CM Zone"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the detail Wine Cape.

I ran some tests with a zig-zagging Sherman at fast on normal terrain versus a stationary MkIV and the Sherman was occasionally nailing the MkIV with first time shots at 1000 metres whilst moving. ANd then adding a couple more as it travelled on. The actual set-up I got from another player who also reported high hit rates whilst moving at 1000 metres - I did zig-zag because that should be more diifficult for the Sherman gunner.

However learning it was to be sorted I have never written it up though I have a few tests saved.

The details you have from the manual seem the same as mine regarding emergency use. The information about the gyro-stabiliser is highly interesting and having read it I can see why the British were not very keen on using it.

SO as I understand it the fire on move has been tweaked and is/is not to be tweaked again?

MikeyD - I have just finished my fifth PBEM.,am adding to a little CM wiki, and running a little mini-competiton with 10 players, checked a film AAR for typos language, and looked at two scenarios for typos etc, so I am not really doing much looking at the system myself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't given an option to change my title, so I'm not trying to hide anything. :)
There is a suspicion that you would have changed it to "Junior Member" akd. Trying to fool us with your retirement age, senhor senior?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi ketonur, first of all, thee is no better game of this type. Second, everything you mentioned is/has been worked on in the patch. Third, the game is not crap, see point one since no other person out group of people have ever been able to engineer anything as close. Do my advice is to keep your panties on and wait for the patch. Then, when you find another problem, kindly post it and BFC WILL lok into it. Also, try out Barkmanns Corner and tell me how well your super-shermans hold out. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When ever I see a sporting event in less than ideal weather conditions, I just think both sides are playing on the same field and there should be no advantage.

So, when playing the less than perfect CMBN just remember your opponent is playing the same game with the same less than perfect CMBN.

And by patch 1.03 or the Market Garden module it should be nearing perfection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. A player will normally get a Battalion sized force for a campaign. Each mission is a company-sized engagement so players can select through a Battalion worth of equipment to field during each mission.

As much as I love CC, and I really do - whether you're talking CCIII or CCV it's campaign-system is pretty terrible and overly gamey, I see no reason to have anything like it in this game. Force pool? I'd rather just get the whole battalion on an extra-large field.

Not to say that some things couldn't be lifted - every soldier should have a name and I should be able to see it in my squad-list; in fact, make the squad-list a little more like the CC version. Which reminds me, the GUI should be collapsible, and capable of only displaying only the info you desire - maybe you only want the squad-list displayed, for instance, all else will be hidden until the player recalls it. Also, soldier-outlines (like CC, you can choose whether they display cover, suppression, morale - whatever); gamey, but dispenses with most of the need for a giant block of info taking up half the screen. And medals for over-achievers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you think it's "too accurate" to hit 1000m targets with first round ? The natural spread of most tank guns is not that big on such distance. The main source of inaccuracy and errors on 1000m range are errors in range estimation, the precision of aiming, and possibly misalligned sights (or sights that are not well maintained and not properly adjusted). If a tank has a competent, calm gunner that aims precisely, takes his time, if they also have a well maintained and adjusted sight, and if they estimated the range correctly, then there is no reason they shouldn't hit the target with the first round with very high probability. No matter is it's a Panther of 75mm Sherman, the guns are quite accurate if the range is known.

If their range estimation is wrong, then they are quite likely to miss (chances depends on the gun, 75L70 or 88L71 are still less likely to miss than 75L40), but they should hit the target with second round and each round after that.

Only because I am always at 'Regular' or 'Veteran.' However right after posting that I went back and played a saved QB and my stationary Panther this time had 3 misses at 1142m on moving Shrtmans (their flanks) then got one. My other pzs were IVs and they were not yet shooting as the 2 were in a different location. Certainly I've seen the % figures firing on a range for the 75L70 but battlefield creates its own problems for the crew.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as far as I know, moving tanks in WW II couldn't hit squat. Maybe I'll do some tests. I would imagine that the hit percentage moving against a hard target should be under 10% at anything over a couple hundred yards. I used to play this game called Tobruk and that was nice flat desert. If I remember the rules correctly, you couldn't even shoot the main weapon when you were moving and MG fire was reduced by half or something like that.

And, yes, yes, I know, just because a game says it's like that doesn't mean it's true, but I will say that that was very good game and very detailed for armored combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...