Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >>

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

- 8/30/2000 8:36:00 PM

Hans

Posts: 36
Joined: 6/29/2000
From: Hamburg, Germany
Status: offline

Hi, Paul. By offering the savegame with the gun/rifle-bug I didn�t mean "here, fix this". I just though that, if You are having trouble finding bugs in the source code, a save with a reproduceable bug/feature might be of help. Thanks for the great work. Hans

_____________________________

dulce et decorum est pro patria mori.

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 31

- 8/30/2000 9:07:00 PM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

Actually, Paul, I have cranked down the spotting percentages. That so many people feel a need to adjust this is perhaps indicative of a dissatisfaction with the default ability? Well, no matter. You seem to be saying that even misses are assumed to be close enough to do damange. If so, we've found the problem. Where I come from a miss that hits is called, well, a hit. Thus, you seem to be saying that some guns just cannot miss against soft targets. Which is what Venger's complaining about.

_____________________________

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 32

- 8/30/2000 10:34:00 PM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

I tried to explain this in several threads now. The "hit percentage" is a misnomer when applied to soft targets. This is a "problem" the game has always had. There IS NO "hit or miss" when it comes to infantry - there is only "effect" and "no effect" - scaled between the extremes of "wipe the unit out" and "nothing much happens". Casualties and suppression are the measure of shades of grey in between. The "firepower" of the weapon is multiplied by the "hit chance" (and modifiers for cover, movement, experience, leader skill, firing, etc) - so a low hit chance is supposed to equal a lower chance for an effect. EVERY direct fire shot at a unit (or indirect shot in the hex) causes suppression. Even misses at hard targets can cause a point or 2 of suppression. Its meant to be a "continuum of effect" not a black and white "hit or no hit". Again that is an underlying design tenent of the game system! One can argue its validity, but its something too intrinsic to the game to change. Disagreeing with an assumption fundamental to the game is not the same as a "bug". The CEP for a large caliber direct fire shot at a point target is such that it is rare for the target not be vulnerable to an effect from the shell, the danger zone from such rounds are larger than 1 hex. So how you define a "hit" is problematic. Is a "hit" a round that destroys the gun outright? (for an AT gun or the like the "to hit" chance is used to see if that happens - which can). Is a hit a shell that lands near enough to suppress the target to a certain degree? Casualties were routinely caused from shrapnel from rounds that land a considerable distance away, yet troops survived shells landing nearly on top of them because of pure luck. So what makes a shot a "hit"? Yes some geometries mean a shot that is fired up hill and misses, may in reality go flying past into the next county. So one might be able to define what is NOT a hit, but those cases are fairly rare. The game just can't deal with that. I'm not sure what caused the "always cause 1 casualty" in version 2.3 We have tweaked with the code a lot since then and it doesn't seem to do that anymore. The hit chance you are shown IS the "final". The problem is that vs infantry the variable should say "effect modifier" or something instead of "hit chance". There is NO "to-hit" roll when atttacking a soft target. That is the misunderstanding. Maybe someday we may make a change to the message reports, but it isn't high on our list. This is a case, like armor penetration, where the game is doing things that are not easily communicated in the existing message struture. In some cases "messages" orignaly meant for debugging by the design team are left in becasue the playtesters liked them. I have only seen occasional complaints about the spotting defaults. Actually I get more comments that folks think things are too hard to spot, rather than two easy. It depends alot on your playing skill. As you get better, its probably good to turn it down some to have more of a challange. We can never please everybody with a single choice of default settings. The defaults are chosen for a combination of playability and realism. We give you the flexibility to configure the game to your liking in a great many areas. If you can find a combination that you think is appropriate, then we have done what we set out to do. We are limited to MODIFYING the engine that is there, so many of these issues require a different game with a different underlying set of assumptions about things. But that would not be Steel Panthers...

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 33

- 8/31/2000 5:52:00 AM

Venger

Posts: 51
Joined: 7/31/2000
From: Home of the 90mm M46, keeper of the Can O'Whoopass
Status: offline

I get the whole percentage isn't everything argument, I just fail to see why all guns over a certain size automatically generate a casualty. An SU-122 should not generate a free casualty when moving 15mph firing at an entrenched gun position from 4500 feet. The to hit is right - generating such a low angle shot to land at that distance is highly improbable at ground level, even more so at an opponent on a crest, where a miss doesn't generate blast effect but rather results in a shell landing several thousand feet behind the target. At 4500 ft, at a gun height of what, say 10 feet, the angle for a shot of relative flat trajectory means that an angle off the guns axis of well under a degree (.127) is needed to plant that round at the feet of the gun crew. Missing will not likely cause it to create a puff of dirt Hollywood style to the left or right, but more likely well in front or behind. Even if we assume it lands somewhere within 150 feet, a gun crew, entrenched and sandbagged, is unlikely to take a casualty from anything besides a very close detonation. But that's what happens, regardless, from SU-122's. A modern day Soviet tank would be lucky to hit water if it fell out of a boat, but the SU-122's can't miss my gun emplacements. Just an annoyance in an otherwise excellent game, the only game that I've played other than Civ/Civ2 that has that "just one more turn" addictive value... Venger

_____________________________

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 34

- 8/31/2000 10:59:00 PM

BA Evans

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: USA
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Venger: I get the whole percentage isn't everything argument, I just fail to see why all guns over a certain size automatically generate a casualty. Venger

Have you seen Paul's latest post, Venger? This may help you. Paul> I'm not sure what caused the "always cause 1 casualty" in version 2.3 We have tweaked with the code a lot since then and it doesn't seem to do that anymore.< It is obvious that the design team knows about this problem and they think it is fixed in version 3. Let's wait until version 3 is out. BA Evans

_____________________________

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 35

- 9/1/2000 4:14:00 AM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

Well, if you look at all of Paul's posts he's said, essentially, "Well, it's supposed to do that, and besides, it doesn't do it any more." Which is a bit puzzling, but I'm willing to wait and see how V3 plays out. Least people think that I'm being unduly hard on the game and the design team I will say that part of the reason I come down pretty hard on relatively minor problems is that the game is otherwise so excellent that what would be a small problem in a lesser game is quite vexing in this one. The game handles most things so well it's frustrating to come across something that doesn't seem to be handled well. And I have to give Matrix a thumbs up for how they handle criticism on the forums. A few awkward issues seem to be ignored, but overall the design team has been very upfront in admitting when there's a problem and working to get it fixed. This is a far cry from some game companies, not to name any names , where anyone who has the nerve to mention what they think might be a bug will be mocked and savaged, their posts deleted, and they may well find themselves locked out of the board if they persist in trying to point out that there might be a problem. Keep up the good work, guys. We may bitch and moan, but that's what grognards do, right?

_____________________________

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 36

- 9/1/2000 4:57:00 AM

Rover

Posts: 79
Joined: 5/29/2000
Status: offline

Can't help but add this having just read through the thread. In the Mice vs. Marshals scenario I noticed something interesting. About turn two or three I ended up with four PIVF2's on the road going into the town on the German right and a fifth tank one hex off to the left of the road. On the Soviet turn the tank company cruises down the hill on the other side of town and my four tanks on the road take their OP fire through the town and don't manage to kill anything (no surprise here due to distance). Now the odd part is on my turn (German) it starts with my four tanks on the road showing around a 25% hit chance average- good so far. I start by moving my fifth tank on to the road to fire at the Soviets (third position out of five in the row of tanks) and it takes Soviet OP fire which misses. Since everything is focused on the fifth tank I just moved I start firing off the other tanks going from 25% to over 50% estimated hit chance and out of twelve shots among them not a single kill in the group of eight to ten T34's on the other side of town. Then, I finish with the fifth tank that had to move a hex to get on the road to shoot and get two kills with three shots never showing a chance of better than 15%. Since I save when I start every turn I went back and played the same series twice more with the result of once the fifth tank got two and once it got one but the other four tanks effectively sitting and not moving never got a kill out of now 36 shots of 25% to 50%+ probability. Took a look to see if Wittman was in the fifth tank but it didn't seem to have any special experience or morale. I guess I'm wondering if something that moves slightly gets a better actual hit calc result than something sitting completely still.

_____________________________

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 37

- 9/1/2000 5:21:00 AM

BA Evans

Posts: 250
Joined: 5/25/2000
From: USA
Status: offline

Well, if it isn't a problem anymore........

_____________________________

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 38

- 9/1/2000 6:34:00 AM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

I explained why the "automatic kill" might seem to happening in the old version, and then verified that it did not seem to be happening in the new version...not sure what else I can say... Strange runs of luck and repeatability have been problems with SP. Sometimes these "stuck" variables or repeating loops seem to occur. If this has been an issue we've been "dodging" its becasue we haven't been able to pin it down specifically.

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 39

- 9/1/2000 8:13:00 AM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

Actually, Paul, the issue I had in mind was the US .50 caliber AAMGs always firing along with the main armament out to their maximum range. Always. Irrespective of crew experience. But no one else's MGs show the same behavior. It's been commented on several times, but never gotten an 'official' response.

_____________________________

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 40

- 9/1/2000 8:27:00 PM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

Only because I haven't had time to look into it...only so many hours in a day:-) There should be no difference between .50cals or any country. They are typically AAMGs so if the TC is unbuttoned, they do generally shoot at what the MA does, more so than other MGs becasue of their range.

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 41

- 9/2/2000 6:57:00 AM

Kev

Posts: 25
Joined: 3/29/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by orc4hire: Kev, They're vulnerable to meteorites, food poisoning, and social diseases too. That doesn't make it reasonable to assume that a single artillery shell landing up to _50 yards_ away will _always_ cause casualties to dug in troops. These aren't low yield nuclear devices we're talking about here.

First why assume it is 50 yards away - this is direct fire aimed at them (not arty), so you are talking a lot closer than 50 yards and secondly have you seen the sort of blast 105/155 shells actually put out in real life?

_____________________________

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 42

- 9/2/2000 10:40:00 AM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

Kev, Read my and Venger's posts on how a shell that misses by a small amount may detonate a long ways away. And why assume that a first shot against a well concealed target several hundred yards away _can't_ land more than a few meters away? (Okay, so the game _does_ assume that. Not an assumption I agree with, but as I've said before I'm willing to see how version 3 works with it. Though apparently some people would prefer to keep arguing about it.) I'm familiar with the blast radius of artillery shells. Are you familiar with how well protected against artillery troops in a prepared position are? Here's an item posted to GEnie several years ago that I thought worth saving: ***** First Science Fiction & Fantas Category 26, Topic 16 Message 511 Sun Sep 18, 1994 T.TELENKO [MilTech Bard] at 18:02 EDT From: Juha Veijalainen Subject: Indirect fire: an example Message-ID: Date: Thu, 15 Sep 1994 16:37:28 GMT From Juha Veijalainen Following information is from the Finnish Army newspaper Ruotuvaki (15/94) In August -94 Finnish Army tested the effect of indirect fire against a fortified platoon base. Size of the base was not specified, but lets assume 150 m x 100 metres. Base had several different types of fortifications: simple foxholes, steel plated covered foxholes, various types of dug in bunkers, and machine gun nests protected by baskets filled with rocks (UN -forces use). Target area also had five vehicles and a number of obsolete artillery pieces. Video cameras had been dug in and pressure sensors monitored various bunkers and foxholes. First volley of 70 152mm shells did not do much damage. Shells were set to explode in the ground. Second volley of 130 120mm mortar shells left marks on all above the ground structures (shells were set to explode on impact). Most of the vehicles on the ground could have been fixed; usually only change of tires and fuel tank was required. On the last day of the exercise 9 fire units (83 tubes) shot 1000 shells in five minutes (this probably had 120mm mortars, 122mm/152mm/155mm artillery). Everything above the ground was decimated. Protective vests and 'old' steel helmets were penetrated, new composite helmets were not penetrated. Fortifications and bunkers were not badly damaged; some bunker doors and trenches had damage because of very close hits. It was determined (from the pressure sensors?) that bunkers/fortifications would have protected the men. -------------------------------------------------------- Juha Veijalainen Helsinki, Finland tel. +358 40 500 4402 ** Mielipiteet omiani / Opinions are personal / Facts are suspect ** --- * RM 1.3 01808 * ------------ ***** Note that it took 1000 shells in the space of 1 SP turn to do serious damage to the position.

_____________________________

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 43

- 9/3/2000 10:23:00 AM

Kev

Posts: 25
Joined: 3/29/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by orc4hire: [B]Kev, Read my and Venger's posts on how a shell that misses by a small amount may detonate a long ways away. Not in the case of direct fire unless you specify a reverse slope. Following information is from the Finnish Army newspaper Ruotuvaki (15/94) In August -94 Finnish Army tested the effect of indirect fire against a fortified platoon base. Irrelevant - indirect fire not direct fire. Size of the base was not specified, but lets assume 150 m x 100 metres. Why assume this? Also their results do not match those found in combat - Arty is not totally ineffective against dug in troops, ask the Germans about their experiences. Remember that in SP WaW a casualty is not neccessarily dead or physically wounded - he is out of the battle.

_____________________________

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 44

- 9/4/2000 12:52:00 PM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

>Not in the case of direct fire unless you >specify a reverse slope. Well, any case where the target is higher than the shooter, and doesn't have a backstop... or where the elevation is the same. Try thowing a rock at a can on a fence some time. If the rock goes over the fence without hitting the can and stops dead in mid air no more than a foot away, then I'll buy your argument... and eat both can and rock. >Irrelevant - indirect fire not direct fire Oh, really? I hadn't realized that the burst radius of direct fire artillery was greater than that of indirect fire. Thanks for pointing that out for me. >Why assume this? You would have to ask the person who assumed it. Do you have information which contradicts the assumption? >Also their results do not match those found >in combat - Arty is not totally ineffective >against dug in troops, ask the Germans about >their experiences I suppose you'd have to take that up with the Finnish Army, not me. I would point out, though, that while indirect fire certainly isn't totally ineffective against dug in troops, the ratio is a _long, long, long_ way from 1 shell = 1 casualty. However you define a casualty. The British dropped 1.6 million shells on the Germans over the course of 6 days at the Somme, and didn't even knock down the barbed wire. Oh, but wait, that was indirect fire. Well, let's see... there was an incident at Antietam where a Union gun had let its elevation screw run down and was furiously firing shot after shot over the heads of the advancing Confederates until the brigade commander (an old artillery officer) noticed and jumped off his horse to spin the elevation screw back up, sending the next shot directly into the Confederate ranks. And now you tell me it couldn't possibly have happened. Well, damn. It was a good story.

_____________________________

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 45

- 9/4/2000 10:27:00 PM

Paul Vebber

Posts: 11430
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Portsmouth RI
Status: offline

Guys - good info has been related in this thread, but the bug is dead and the "1 shot = 1 kill" bug is buried. Feel free to argue design philosophy of the game's artillery routines if you want, but lets not get nasty...

_____________________________

http://www.matrixgames.com/images/sig-logo-02.gif

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 46

- 9/5/2000 8:07:00 AM

Kev

Posts: 25
Joined: 3/29/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by orc4hire: >Not in the case of direct fire unless you >specify a reverse slope. Well, any case where the target is higher than the shooter, and doesn't have a backstop... or where the elevation is the same. Try thowing a rock at a can on a fence some time. If the rock goes over the fence without hitting the can and stops dead in mid air no more than a foot away, then I'll buy your argument... and eat both can and rock. Start chewing - with a large HE weapon you would aim slightly low in your scenario just as you do with an MG. That's the difference between HE and AP (your "rock") - a more honest example than yours would be "try throwing hand grenades at a row of cans on a fence" (the squad) - you dont need to actually hit a can, just land it near a can. How did they taste? >Irrelevant - indirect fire not direct fire Oh, really? I hadn't realized that the burst radius of direct fire artillery was greater than that of indirect fire. Thanks for pointing that out for me. You also hadn't realised that Direct fire comes in from a different direction and is aimed AT a target rather than randomly distributed had you? >Why assume this? You would have to ask the person who assumed it. Do you have information which contradicts the assumption? No, but that in no way suggests that it is a reasonable assumption, so I will ask again - why assume this? >Also their results do not match those found >in combat - Arty is not totally ineffective >against dug in troops, ask the Germans about >their experiences I suppose you'd have to take that up with the Finnish Army, not me. Then stop using them as an example if you do not understand the test. I would point out, though, that while indirect fire certainly isn't totally ineffective against dug in troops, the ratio is a _long, long, long_ way from 1 shell = 1 casualty. Why do you keep coming back to INDIRECT fire - the issue is LARGE CALIBER HE DIRECTLY FIRED AT A SEEN TARGET. there was an incident at Antietam where a Union gun had let its elevation screw run down and was furiously firing shot after shot over the heads of the advancing Confederates until the brigade commander (an old artillery officer) noticed and jumped off his horse to spin the elevation screw back up, sending the next shot directly into the Confederate ranks. And now you tell me it couldn't possibly have happened. Well, damn. It was a good story.

Great I stand totally corrected - in the next game of SPWaW when I encounter Union and Confederate forces I will keep it in mind... Particularly given the advent of smokeless powder and the ability of the guy firing the gun to directly observe his fall of shot. Or is it just possible that you are grabbing at straws so badly that you must go back to the US civil war to find a poor example that doesn't really fit the issue?

_____________________________

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 47

- 9/5/2000 12:02:00 PM

orc4hire

Posts: 149
Joined: 7/31/2000
Status: offline

Kev, You're being insulting now just for the sake of being insulting, and Paul has asked us to cool down so I will not answer your spurious insults in detail, but only say that your argument is reduced to "rounds can't go long because the firer doesn't want them too and being HE they will spontaneously detonate rather than go past the target." Perhaps that is even true in your world. But I will not waste any more precious pixels trying to communicate with you.

_____________________________

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 48

- 9/5/2000 1:48:00 PM

Mike Wood

Posts: 2095
Joined: 3/29/2000
From: Oakland, California
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by Venger: Just beat the snot out of some more Russians, but had a VERY annoying result that cannot be explained... I was defending and had several entrenched 90mm and 76mm guns in various positions. Of course the Russians came at me with T34/85, IS-2, KV1, and ISU-122. My guns open up, and do well. Except... For some reason, every time the freaking ISU-122's fire, they get a casualty. EVERY TIME. Unit's entrenched, no matter, 1 casualty. 2 percent hit chance, no matter, 1 casualty. 30 hexes, no matter, 1 casualty. Needless to say this caused me great consternation, so much so I was forced to destroy all those ISU-122's... Still, why on earth is that happening? It makes zero sense. The other tanks opened up with their 75 and 85's, and with 2% chance... 1 suppression. But those 122 get a free casualty. It bites. Anyone else notice or have an explanation? Thanks, Venger

_____________________________

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 49

- 9/6/2000 10:23:00 AM

Kev

Posts: 25
Joined: 3/29/2000
Status: offline

quote:

Originally posted by orc4hire: Kev, You're being insulting now just for the sake of being insulting, and Paul has asked us to cool down so I will not answer your spurious insults in detail, but only say that your argument is reduced to "rounds can't go long because the firer doesn't want them too and being HE they will spontaneously detonate rather than go past the target." Perhaps that is even true in your world. But I will not waste any more precious pixels trying to communicate with you.

HE rounds don't go long because the firer is trained to fire them slightly short (because they are HE) and adjust them closer to the target. I also like the "I will throw a few insults in, act surprised when the tone of the reply is not polite, so I will have one more shot whilst pretending that I am not continuing the argument and run" It is the act of a moral coward - if you choose to argue (let alone be insulting) at least have the guts to do so honestly and not end with a whiney little snipe and "run away". Feel free to reply - I will not in future.

_____________________________

(in reply to Venger)

Post #: 50