dieseltaylor Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Siffo was exploring a spotting thread andin a test with a Sherman And A Panther 1000 metres aaprt these were the resulys of 50 tests Sherman spotted Panther after / Panther spotted Sherman after / Faster 00:01 00:33 S 01:00 00:27 P 00:13 00:59 S 00:08 00:41 S 00:10 00:14 S 01:00 00:02 P 01:00 00:22 P 00:06 00:24 S 00:09 00:27 S 01:00 00:49 P 00:34 01:00 S 01:00 00:33 P 00:02 01:00 S 00:04 00:28 S 00:02 00:25 S 00:11 00:12 S 00:38 00:40 S 00:42 00:10 P 00:16 00:23 S 01:00 00:03 P 01:00 00:07 P 00:10 00:14 S 01:00 00:07 P 00:13 00:18 S 00:09 00:35 S 01:00 00:59 P 01:00 00:22 P 01:00 00:16 P 00:05 00:02 P 00:23 00:53 S 00:01 00:16 S 01:00 00:08 P 01:00 01:00 00:51 00:34 P 00:13 00:41 S 01:00 00:01 P 00:02 01:00 S 01:00 00:18 P 00:21 00:12 P 00:30 00:42 S 00:49 00:15 P 01:00 00:52 P 00:18 00:25 S 00:27 00:02 P 00:32 00:23 P 00:22 00:07 P 00:26 00:51 S 01:00 00:23 P 00:49 00:10 P 00:25 00:24 P results: Panther spotted sherman faster: 26 times (52%) Sherman spotted Panther faster: 23 times (46%) 1 draw (no ones can see the other for one minute) hm looks like my 3 tests before this one are now revised... with about 50 testing runs the panther even overcome the sherman... I wonder why my 3 tests before this one all favored the sherman ? I was tempted to graph it to see if there were interesting points. The first point is almost irrlevant to the graphing and that is the huge disparity in tank spotting times. Same tanks and crews can take anywhere from 1 second to over a minute to spot the target tank. Whilst arguably this is realistic I am left with the uncomfortable feeling that it is a big big variable and if I were running a tournament this kind of randomness could translate into some lopsided results given tanks potency and relatively few in game. And does this effect translate to all scenarios also so comparing scores against the AI is moot? For that matter scenario balancing must be fairly nightmare. One thousand metres is a fair distance so if I learn how to design test beds I might get a chance to try 500 metres. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Take these results, add the very high hit-probability and - voila - tank tactics are useless... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siffo998 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Take these results, add the very high hit-probability and - voila - tank tactics are useless... funny to see how many people obviously are very concerned that tank warfare ingame is broken... for me my results satisfied me because they proofed (at least to me) what i had expected...the panther has an slight advantage (at least 50/50 chance) over the sherman in spotting. The high randomness in spotting isnt that unexpected like dieseltaylor already said... if you ever played a ww2 tank sim like steel fury 1942 you can surely comprehend this randomness. Till now i`ve played various tank battle situations ingame and recently did a lot armor only quick battles and i can absolutely say that tank tactics are not at all useless. Also i can not comprehend what you mean with very high-hit probability...if you correspond to the hitting probability while moving than i will second that...but i havent experienced it very i often during game and never it was a real game breaking problem also it will be fixed in 1.01. the tank hitting probability for standing tanks are absolutely realistic in my opinion. (1000m is not really a distance when it comes to late ww2 tank warfare and a tank like the panther, with a veteran crew, in training conditions, should have a nearly 100% hitting chance, when he has got a clear view) Also i`ve experienced during my quick battle plays that tanker experience and motivation etc. is very valuable. I´ve seen a regular tank crew missing a tank sized target at 1000m four times and more... on the other side a veteran or higher tanker with good motivation and command etc. is a absolutely deadly weapon also at higher ranges. and this is an absolutely reasonable result in my opinion. All i want to say after all that flaming like in the disappointed in cmbn thread is that bfc did an absolutely amazing job with cmbn and this game is eating my spare time like no other... And future patches and modules will make it even better and better. nonetheless i support dieseltaylor when he wants to test the spotting times even further...because our report of bugs and flaws will only improve cmbn... Also undead reindeer cavalry had some nice ideas when it comes to test this spotting stuff. but he still owns me a explanation to how he gets this spotting per second results out of my spotting results (sorry undead but my school years with probability calculation are long gone... cheers 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I guess the variables, in game are huge, as they represent the huge amount of variables in real life. Will the Allies, with mono-colour schemes have an advantage whilst moving and the Germans, with multi schemes, an advantage whilst stationary. Will their be a simulation of the direction of the sun or that the commander is sweating so his eyes keep tearing up, oh and the platoon Sergeant is stuggling with conjunctivitis and has trouble with bright light. What about grease smears or dust on the optics not forgetting the effects of shadow or the natural blind spot or glare of bending down to talk to the gunner to see if the co-ax is still playing up. Not forgetting the psychological effects of stress on our vision systems and ability to process information (the New Scientist has had some very interesting articles on this). It's a game and it simulates that in the real world some crews could not see objects right in front of them, or took time to engage them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wego McPbem Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Agreed Vark. CM has always been a game where luck and random factors play a big part just like the combat it attempts to simulate. Wouldn't be the same if everything played out exactly the same every time. And I would have thought that the high hit probability in the game at the moment makes tank tactics more important if anything. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 The variables are a reflection of real life. Real life is random. Your lifespan depends as much on luck as on skill. In WW2, tanks generally fought unbuttoned, so the "spotter" is a human being using his "MKI eyeball" spotting device, which means depending on a host of variables from visibility, eyesight, alertness, movement, to whether he ate something that did not agree with him or whether he got chewed out by his commander, he may spot a AFV 3,000 meters away or miss one 50 meters away. I am reminded of an anecdote told by Gabby Gabreski, who was the top WW2 U.S. fighter ace in Europe, of his first time in a dogfight. He was trying to spot enemy planes when he saw one of his wingmates frantically pointing to his right, he looked over and realized he had been flying almost directly behind a German fighter about 200 meters away. He said it looked as big as a house and he could not figure out afterwards how he could have missed it. In the test results posted by DT, the Panther spots the Sherman first half the time and the Sherman spots the Panther first the other half. What exactly do you expect? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I'd be really interested to see the results with tanks not facing torwards each other, but one 45, 90 or even 180 degree turned away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 In the test results posted by DT, the Panther spots the Sherman first half the time and the Sherman spots the Panther first the other half. What exactly do you expect? Well in a sense nothing. I see what siffo's figures reveal but if I were to hypothesise my feeling that the gunner with a 2.5 scope - which is pretty darn wide at 1000 metres would spot first over an M1 eyeball. However there are other things to consider such as how many crewman can actually view per tank. And are they assisted or hampered. Anyway returning to graphing and now bear in mind how the test is structured. This is important. When a tank spots another tank it fires about 20-30 seconds later so this gets interesting as you would expect the target tank to then notice it was under fire - this reducing the potential spotting time for the target. I am not meant to be doing this sort of work as we are on holiday. And with V1.01 in the offing who knows whether this will make this work redundant. Does a halftrack spot aswell as a tank at 1000 metres , what happens if it is sideways on etetc etc. However from the point of view of running a tournament I still feel the huge basic variability could be a problem. BTW as for quoting anecdote for an example I am sure BF does not approve of that : ) I suspect it is remembered because it was the oddity not the norm. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 Anyway I have a bit more time available. If you look at the list the average for the two sides spotting it is 33 for the Shermans and 27 for the Panthers which seems quite sane. However in over a third of the results the Sherman never spotted the Panther at all. In fact both tanks had a result, in consecutive tests where they had 58 seconds under observation and at a guess at least two shots fired at them but still remained oblivious of the enemy tank . Anyway if you strip out the non-spotting results 1020 seconds the average spotting time is around 19 seconds. Do the same for the Panther and the average and the average drops to 24 seconds. But then averages are funny things and as it happens the Panther will spot a Sherman more often than the other way around in a minute at 1000 metres. Perhaps though stopping the test at 60 seconds does make a distortion in terms of real life but is quite important in game terms for orders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted July 13, 2011 Share Posted July 13, 2011 BTW as for quoting anecdote for an example I am sure BF does not approve of that : ) I suspect it is remembered because it was the oddity not the norm. True, but it seemed the appropriate time to use it. At the other extreme, you have the lookouts on the IJN Takanami spotting U.S. Heavy/Light cruisers at 15,000 meters on a black moonless night at the Battle of Tassafaronga using only their MKI eyeball and excellent japanese binoculars. It does show that spotting ability is highly subjective, it is not a question of what the eye sees, but what the mind perceives. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted July 13, 2011 Author Share Posted July 13, 2011 The night sky was moonless with between 2 miles (3 km) and 7 miles (11 km) of visibility. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tassafaronga Interesting to compare the Wikipedia with the hyperwar http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/USN-CN-Tassafaronga/index.html This from a fan site : Stunningly, RAdm. Carleton H. Wright, the task force commander, had delayed granting Fletcher’s Comdr. William M. Cole permission to open fire; then, when the battle thereafter went badly wrong, he took Cole as scapegoat and had him relieved of command on 11 December. Not until half a century later did Capt. Russell S. Crenshaw, Jr., in his book The Battle of Tassafaronga, identify the real causes of failure at Tassafaronga and pointedly vindicate Comdr. Cole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.