RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Close Combat Series >> Close Combat: Wacht am Rhein



Message

Moss Orleni -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/9/2008 1:00:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni

If the check is made for each element tile, that means (IIRC) each 10 pixels or each 2 meters.
So fi for Leaves & Snowy Brush, where the odds are 1/128, that would mean that for each 128 element tiles crossed, you would have one 'succesful' check (statistically speaking).
Basically, it would mean your vehicle would become immobilized after driving on average 2*128=256m... on leaves and brush ... [X(]



I didn't see an answer yet to the above, but after re-reading, the conclusion appears to be even worse: after 256m, you will be statistically certain to have one 'immobilized' result (so it's not even an average; I'm not a statistics wizard, but isn't the average 128 metres?).

I don't want to push the issue [8|], but anybody any clue if the above observation is true or what the error might be?

Cheers,
Moss



CaptRio -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/9/2008 1:24:54 PM)

Im still having my panzer immobilized on light snowy fields....I must be pretty unlucky [8|]



Mobius -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/9/2008 2:58:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni
quote:

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni
If the check is made for each element tile, that means (IIRC) each 10 pixels or each 2 meters.
So fi for Leaves & Snowy Brush, where the odds are 1/128, that would mean that for each 128 element tiles crossed, you would have one 'succesful' check (statistically speaking).
Basically, it would mean your vehicle would become immobilized after driving on average 2*128=256m... on leaves and brush ... [X(]

I didn't see an answer yet to the above, but after re-reading, the conclusion appears to be even worse: after 256m, you will be statistically certain to have one 'immobilized' result (so it's not even an average; I'm not a statistics wizard, but isn't the average 128 metres?).
I don't want to push the issue [8|], but anybody any clue if the above observation is true or what the error might be?
Cheers,
Moss

I don't know if its true about 1/128 odds but if they are it produces the folloing chance
of a loss.
Per 2 meters is : 1/128 = 0.0078125
The chance of not breaking down per 2 meters is then is:n=0.9921875,
So not breaking down after 256m or 128 tries is: n^128=0.3664....
Thus the chance of breaking down somewhere in 256m of movement would be 1-0.3664 =0.6335... or 63%.



Moss Orleni -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/9/2008 4:06:04 PM)

Thanks for that explanation Mobius. My statistics course is flashing before my eyes again [:)], it's all coming back to me [X(]

On the immobilized vehicles in Snowy Fields (I'm just thinking out loud here): isn't it true that the terrain effects are impacted by the weather on the strategic turn, ie first week mud&overcast, from 22-23rd onwards snow? If that is the case, will the snowy fields not be treated as muddy fields?

Since muddy fields have a high bog chance (fi 20/128), wouldn't that lead to quickly becoming mired? IIRC, becoming mired also leads to a chance at becoming immobilized.
This might explain what several people (including myself) are experiencing...

Cheers,

Moss



Senior Drill -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/9/2008 10:22:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

I don't know if its true about 1/128 odds but if they are it produces the folloing chance
of a loss.
Per 2 meters is : 1/128 = 0.0078125
The chance of not breaking down per 2 meters is then is:n=0.9921875,
So not breaking down after 256m or 128 tries is: n^128=0.3664....
Thus the chance of breaking down somewhere in 256m of movement would be 1-0.3664 =0.6335... or 63%.



I don't know anything of statistical computations, but it seems to me that if this cumlative counting was a correct procedure, I should have won millions from the Lotto long before now. If my tank travels just one two meter tile, it has only a 1 in 128 chance of becoming immobile. It is the same odds if I travel 128 tiles and roll the die 128 times. Each check, or die roll, is still 1 in 128 per tile. At the end of the 256m trip I only faced 1 in 128 odds of a break down. My odds did not go up though I threw the dice 128 times.

I dunno.






Moss Orleni -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/9/2008 11:17:15 PM)

I think your intuition is leading you the wrong way (I'm not a statistics expert either, so happens to me quite often as well; no offense meant [:)])
To me, the best way to think about it is by enumerating all possibilities. If you flip one coin, you have 2 possible outcomes, each with probability 1/2.
If you throw 2 coins, you have 4 different combinations: (heads, heads), (heads, tails), (tails, heads), (tails, tails), all with probabilty 1/4. So, your chance on having at least one succesful result (let's say heads) is not 1/2 but 3/4. Replace (heads, tails) by (immobilized, not immobilized) and flip the coin many times, and you'll feel that the chance at getting immobilized is way higher than the original 1/2.

Lotto is something different altogether: the chance of getting the correct 6 numbers (out of 42 balls) is something like (6/42)*(5/41)*(4/40)*(3/39)*(2/38)*(1/37)=0.00000019 and something. Conclusion: don't play lotto, it is made to take away your money [:)]

This leaves the question: if the immo check is done per element tile, immo probabilities will be significant, even for small distances travelled... even just an hour ago, my opponent again experienced the same thing: 4 vehicles immobilized in one battle (Elsenborn), one by a tree, 3 by Leaves & Brush (no kidding). Really bizarre...

Moss



Neil N -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/10/2008 1:17:56 AM)

Not bad you two self proclaimed 'non-statisticians'. While not technically a statistician or actuary, I have a BS in Math and was about 15 credits from my masters prior to deciding I couldn't afford to finish.

Moss, you nailed the math on your lotto example, but your 2-coin flip is a little off.  It is on target if you are looking at possible combinations (which your example was) where there are 4 possible combinations, and 3 of those will include a 'head'.

For straight probability, if the successful result is getting a 'head', then you look at it this way.  you have 2 possible outcomes per coin and 2 coins, so you have 4 possible outcomes.  2 of those outcomes are favorable...getting a 'head', so if you flip 2 coins, statistically the chance of you getting a 'head' is 2 in 4, or 1/2.  If the successful outcome is getting a 'head' on both coins, then the math is (Chance of getting a 'head' on coin #1) 1/2 multiplied by (Chance of getting a 'head' on coin #2) 1/2, for a total probability of 1/4...demonstrated by your combination calculation above.

Looking at the "Immobilize Chance" for leaves and brush.  There are really two things to look at, but I will only look at 1. Suppose you drove your vehicle over a section of map that only contained Leaves & Brush...which has a chance to immobilize of 1/128 or 0.78125%.  On every tile that you cross, the chance that you will become immobilized is always .78125%.  To calculate the probability that I can drive 300m (150 element tiles) over only Leaves & Brush (assuming there is nothing else acting on the chance to immobilize), it is easier to look at it in terms of 'what are the chances that I won't get immobilized?"  That is 127/128 or 99.21875% chance of not getting immobilized on each tile.  Look at it as if "what are my chances of making it without getting immobilized on tile 1, and what are my chances of not getting immbilized on tile 2, and so on. So over time (in this case 150m) there is a 30.836% chance of making it without getting immobilized (127/128 X 127/128 X 127/128....150 times).  So if you drove back and forth over this same stretch of map hundreds or thousands of times, over time you would make it without getting immobilized about 31% of the time.



Moss Orleni -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/10/2008 8:16:57 AM)


quote:

For straight probability, if the successful result is getting a 'head', then you look at it this way. you have 2 possible outcomes per coin and 2 coins, so you have 4 possible outcomes. 2 of those outcomes are favorable...getting a 'head', so if you flip 2 coins, statistically the chance of you getting a 'head' is 2 in 4, or 1/2.


At the risk of turning this thread into a math geeks gathering [:D]...

I agree with you if you're looking for one specific outcome. However, for the immo/not immo results, we're looking for the odds of 'at least one' succesful outcome, not 'exactly' one. So flipping 2 coins IMO leads to 3 possible favorable outcomes out of 4, since (heads, heads) also qualifies. Flipping 3 coins lead to even higher odds, and so and so on...
Or am I losing it here? [:)] I'd say your explanation of the Leaves&Brush thing illustrates the same thing, no? Your chances at getting an immo result are way higher than the 1 out of 128 (mentioned by Senior Drill).

Anyways, in the game, the distances travelled on immo terrain are much shorter than 250m, so I don't think this is the explanation for what several players see happening to their vehicles. But it's interesting to see that even putting your immo odds values at apparently very low numbers can quickly lead to high odds when the check is made frequently...(long stretches of the same terrain)

quote:

There are really two things to look at, but I will only look at 1.


So what's the second thing?

quote:

If the successful outcome is getting a 'head'


Getting 'head' to me would always qualify as a succesful result... and getting it two times is just plain luck...
Please don't ban me! [:-], this one was too obvious to ignore [:D]



AT_Salky -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/10/2008 3:36:35 PM)

Your right Moss.

The problem ppl experience with thorough tracks and the rate they are through, are due to the HIGH values of the chance that occurs set in WaR.
The "problem" if we so like to say is mostly due to the values set in the WaR element file,

If we take some examples to illustrate it:
-->In CC5 the chance of get imob is at its highest in terrain if u drive over a BIG tree, the chance is 5 in 128, = 3,9 % to get imob.

-->In WaR the same chance is 32 in 128 as in 25% chance to get imob...............
-->In WaR even a SMALL tree has a chance of 6 in 128 =4,68 % chance to get imob..(higher chance then hit a big tree in CC5)............
Add to that the branches etc..

Im from a nation with much tree and rough terrain, and been in army (tracked vehicles), and I can just say that the values in WaR is way way way of...
Can the team plz consider change it to more realistic values plz.

Thanx again

Stalky

(Haha miss spelled name ought to be AT_Stalky)



Andrew Williams -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/10/2008 7:17:51 PM)

See post #52 in this thread



TheReal_Pak40 -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/10/2008 8:18:47 PM)

One issue that has happened to me twice in recent battles is that the vehicle pathing AI decides it's easier to drive over a tree rather than go around it. I'm not talking about a forest or group of trees, I'm talking about a lone tree or thin line of trees that sometimes run along a road. There is plenty of enough room for tanks to go between these trees, and I always make sure I specifically place my waypoints so that the tank goes through the gaps, BUT still the path AI decides go drive over a tree and, as Stalky has stated, there's a 25% chance for immobilization.

So if the pathing AI can't be fixed, which apparently it can't be after 8 CC games, then the immobilization for trees in the open need to be lowered GREATLY to avoid this kind of injustice.



Nomada_Firefox -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/11/2008 2:02:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheReal_Pak40
One issue that has happened to me twice in recent battles is that the vehicle pathing AI decides it's easier to drive over a tree rather than go around it. I'm not talking about a forest or group of trees, I'm talking about a lone tree or thin line of trees that sometimes run along a road. There is plenty of enough room for tanks to go between these trees, and I always make sure I specifically place my waypoints so that the tank goes through the gaps, BUT still the path AI decides go drive over a tree and, as Stalky has stated, there's a 25% chance for immobilization.

So if the pathing AI can't be fixed, which apparently it can't be after 8 CC games, then the immobilization for trees in the open need to be lowered GREATLY to avoid this kind of injustice.

Many times when you see one thing on screen, it is not it on reality. If the element is bad made, vehicle will not see it like a obstacle. I think that it is the big problem from WAR game, elements and the size from things are a bit bad made.



nietsche -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/11/2008 3:05:25 AM)

What others are describing is exactly what I see. Pathing that almost seems to direct a tank into a tree or obstacle when there is a clear path available.

I suppose that the only thing I wish to add is that it does nothing for realism or gameplay to have this bad behaviour. It does create frustration.



kverdon -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/25/2008 12:42:28 AM)

The lost track / imobilized problem is making the game almost unplayable against the AI. In the last 2 battles my US force that should have been wiped out by the German Panthers was able to survive pretty much intact due to the fact that almost ALL of the AI's tanks got imobilized as they tried to go cross country to get to a VP. In one battle 3 of 5 Panthers got knocked out this way. In the last game at least 2 of them got stuck in the woods. The AI then just sits and does not attack. This is a game breaker for me so could Matrix either 1. Make a option to lower track breakage (at least for the AI) OR 2. Improve the AI Tank Pathfinding so that it sticks to good terrain or roads and not go plowing through the countryside. I'm going to have to put this away till this is fixed as its ruining the campain. [:@]


Merry Christmas,

Kevin



Andrew Williams -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/26/2008 4:19:53 AM)

The game was made by S3T

See post #52 in this thread.`



Senior Drill -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/26/2008 10:18:35 PM)

I don't get it. Andrew, that is the second time in this thread that you have refered people back to post #52 of this thread.

What is the connection to answers for the questions being asked that lie in the question posed in post #52?



Tejszd -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/26/2008 11:12:39 PM)

Senior Drill this is post #52:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Williams

quote:

well, my halftracks tend to throw tracks on these snowy branches/bushes


This will be addressed, somewhat, in the next patch.




The important point is "This will be addressed, somewhat, in the next patch."



Senior Drill -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/27/2008 1:40:31 AM)

Ah. That would be post #51.

Post #52 reads:
quote:

15 teams isn't enough for even a single company, so IMO most of mortars should stay off the map.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neil N

Look at the columns in the elements file that mention 'Protection Prone', 'Protection Low', etc. The elements do adjust the kill rating of weapons. The explosion may appear to be right on top of him, but that does not necessarily mean that the impact occurred on the same exact element tile that the soldiers 'body' is on. And don't forget that ground explosions tend to explode Up and Out. Just a few things to kick around

Hmm...
How does it exactly work? The protection ratings seem to be pretty crazy. If I'll lower the protection, will cover alone protect soldiers?


Alles, (somewhat) clar.



Andrew Williams -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (12/27/2008 1:57:53 AM)

no

that is post 53


:)



kwverdon -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (1/3/2009 11:35:43 PM)

Any idea when the patch will be available to members?  I realy want to get my campaign game going!



kojusoki1 -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (1/6/2009 1:27:51 PM)

here is the modified file, lowering the chance of being tracked (-5%) mainly

I dont want to SPAM, but maybe some of you will find it usefull (some modifications of WaR) and I will receive some feedback (what is appriciated): http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1997282



kwverdon -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (1/9/2009 3:09:25 PM)

Bump

Any news on when the patch to help fix this and the empty battlegroup bug will be available to members?



Svend Karlson -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (1/10/2009 3:26:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kojusoki1

here is the modified file, lowering the chance of being tracked (-5%) mainly

I dont want to SPAM, but maybe some of you will find it usefull (some modifications of WaR) and I will receive some feedback (what is appriciated): http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1997282


Thankyou for this. The tracking was not a problem for the armor I controlled, since I would stick to roads, but I had noticed than in several battles against Armored Allied battlegroups, most or all of their armor became immobilised moving through wooded areas.

Could you tell or explain to me which of the columns of numbers in the txt file is that identifies the chance of becoming tracked/immobilised?

What capped it for me, was when a battlegroup of mine with just one light tank destroyer entered a defensive battle against an Allied battlegroup with 7 Shermans. 3 of the Shermans were immobilised moving through terrain and this allowed me to knock out the remaining 4 and easily win the battle. If the 3 immobilised Shermans had been able to keep moving, the battle would likely have been very different.



kwverdon -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (1/12/2009 3:46:44 PM)

Bump 2

Any news on when the patch to help fix this and the empty battlegroup bug will be available to members? Some info would be nice.



kwverdon -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (1/14/2009 4:06:20 PM)

Hello?  Is this game still supported? When can we expect to see the patch?  All I want to do is play the game I payed for.  With the bugs with the AI loosing its tanks to throwing tracks and the empty battlegroup bug this is currently impossible so I think it would be appropriate for those supporting the program to give a little information to those that supported them [&:] 



Andrew Williams -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (1/15/2009 8:35:40 PM)

quote:

Is this game still supported?


Patch is still in testing.

It should be available within the next week or so.

We can't release the patch until testing is completed.

cheers



kwverdon -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (1/16/2009 4:06:11 PM)

Thanks Andrew, I'm not asking you to release an untested patch, just keep us informed on its progress.  A posting Mon / Fri on the status would help folks keep up to date.

thanks,

Kevin



advo -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (1/18/2009 5:33:54 PM)

Sorry my bad English.
 I consider, that tracks break on tanks, it is realistic enough. Moreover, I think, that it is necessary to increase chance tracks break in a wood. Bad, that tanks and vehicle can   pass 200-300 meters through a wood, having lost one of three vehicle.
 It is bad for tactics: In game CC4  realistic visibility (masking of infantry and vehicle) on distances above 50 meters is made. On SMALL distances already it is not enough realism - the tank always sees infantry and kills it. During too time infantry a little that can make against the tank. In a life on the contrary - in a wood the tank because of the bad review of crew becomes easy extraction (victim) of infantry.
That is in a real life in woods the infantry battles. To tanks to be at war in a wood it is bad. Therefore I consider it is necessary to increase chance of breakage of the tank and vehicle at driving on woods. Tanks especially panthers, tigers very dangerous opponents even in a pure floor. When they have an opportunity to not get under bombardment of guns going round dangerous sites on woods it reduces an opportunity them even more to stop.



Perturabo -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (1/18/2009 8:42:37 PM)

What tracks breaking has to do with field of view of tanks?



advo -> RE: Can be the crash tracks on vehicles removed on next patch? (1/20/2009 6:31:56 PM)

In a reality it is complex to tank to conduct fight in a wood because of limited field of view.In CC4 such problems at the tank are not present - the tank at once everything, that the infantry accompanying it sees. As a result fighting efficiency of the tank in a wood is strongly overestimated. Therefore it is necessary to limit an opportunity of movement of tanks in a wood by means of increase in risk of breakage. To limit movement only tanks it is impossible. Therefore to limit it is necessary risk of breakage of tanks and vehicle. Besides the opportunity of movement vehicle in a wood is absolutely not realistic. I am sorry for bad English.



Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.75