Faith in the game.

Faith in the game. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Flashpoint Campaigns Series

Message

MaxDamage -> Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 11:19:09 AM)
Sometimes i just cant have faith in this game. Lets take a simple example. 9 veteran chieftains vs 10 regular t80bv. armor 25 vs 35 ap 29/42 vs 38/37/47 no reactive armor vs reactive armor level 2 etc Now, these tanks cost nearly the same with ~74 vs ~84 cost. Chieftain's cost due to the thermals i guess. If you try a test game with these two forces going against each other, chieftains always wil with 2-9 tanks remaining alive. (both sides 100% ready at the beginning) I find this hard to believe. There is a generation gap between chieftain and t80. For some reason soviets are gifted with low morale and bad training, too.

Lowlaner2012 -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 12:19:14 PM)
Hi Maxdamage... I believe these results are ok, due to the superior veteran crew rating and the thermal imaging system, plus the fact that reactive armor is not very effective at stopping apds rounds mean the Chieftains have the advantage in a fight with the T-80bvs... What were the parameters of the test? Terrain, distance etc. Cheers

battlerbritain -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 12:28:38 PM)
I'm doing something similar with a simple scenario of a T-80 Regiment attacking an M-1IP tank Co, 1985. Terrain is near Hunfeld with M1s defending some villages with T-80s approaching over hills about 4km away. Terrain between villages and hills fairly flat and there's a couple of VP locations behind the M-1s. I know the M-1s will lose, I just want to see how the AI plays it on both sides and what the losses are. So far if the AI plays the T-80s I've had it lose up to 75 tanks before all M1s are taken out, or about 1:4.5 loss rate. Playing as human controller and holding back, reducing exposure, the T-80s have had results of between 1:1 and 1:4 losses, ie x1 M1 to x4 T-80s. I think the key is reducing exposure time. Early days but interesting experiment never the less.

Tazak -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 12:43:19 PM)
there is no such thing as a simple example....what results were you expecting?? what was the situation: weather conditions - TI would give the Chieftains a first spotting ability in poor weather was it a meeting engagement or attack/defend how much readiness was lost by each side before the engagement you mention the chieftains have TI - this makes them the Mk11 upgraded versions which included the stillbrew composite armour upgrade (denoted by ACA4 in the data files) and TOGS gunnery system (which was used in the challenger 1) combined with a 120mm main gun makes them capable of destroying the latest (at the time) soviet tanks, the stillbrew and TOGS would in effect reduce any generation gap. The morale and training differences are down the scenario creator but it is generally accepted that NATO forces have higher levels mainly due to the soviets using a conscript army stationed in poor conditions with limited training and equipment vs the NATO mainly volunteer armies with better training

MaxDamage -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 12:59:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Tazak there is no such thing as a simple example....what results were you expecting?? what was the situation: weather conditions - TI would give the Chieftains a first spotting ability in poor weather was it a meeting engagement or attack/defend how much readiness was lost by each side before the engagement you mention the chieftains have TI - this makes them the Mk11 upgraded versions which included the stillbrew composite armour upgrade (denoted by ACA4 in the data files) and TOGS gunnery system (which was used in the challenger 1) combined with a 120mm main gun makes them capable of destroying the latest (at the time) soviet tanks, the stillbrew and TOGS would in effect reduce any generation gap. The morale and training differences are down the scenario creator but it is generally accepted that NATO forces have higher levels mainly due to the soviets using a conscript army stationed in poor conditions with limited training and equipment vs the NATO mainly volunteer armies with better training It is a meeting engagement in absolutely even terms and at ANY range from 1000 to 3000m the result is no diffirent. And it is a very simple example where an obsolete tank beats a modern tank 9/10. Stillbrew is steel+rubber combination designed to protect against t62 ammo. it is 100% inadequate for 1985 year technologies. It is impossible for a chieftain 11 to be a better tank then a t80bv it is just nonsense im not buying it. I also cant agree that the training levels and morale levels should be like that this seems like an ideological dogma we have better training and morale. And this is my problem with the game its just a turkey shoot.

CapnDarwin -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 1:00:05 PM)
Nor have we mentioned stability of weapon systems and who is moving. There are a ton of factors involved and setting up a "test" case needs to factor all of them in. Beyond that, one case will never tell the whole story. Units on the move versus well positioned defenders, even in mixed terrain will give the Defender a better chance to hit than the exposed moving attacker. Technology differences can shift that bias. We have spent a lot of time working on the combat model and it's not perfect, but it does do a good job of of hitting the outcome based on the factors at that moment. We will be more than happy to test out your test case scenario to see what is going on. Post it for us if you like. [8D]

MaxDamage -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 1:02:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Capn Darwin Nor have we mentioned stability of weapon systems and who is moving. There are a ton of factors involved and setting up a "test" case needs to factor all of them in. Beyond that, one case will never tell the whole story. Units on the move versus well positioned defenders, even in mixed terrain will give the Defender a better chance to hit than the exposed moving attacker. Technology differences can shift that bias. We have spent a lot of time working on the combat model and it's not perfect, but it does do a good job of of hitting the outcome based on the factors at that moment. We will be more than happy to test out your test case scenario to see what is going on. Post it for us if you like. [8D] Noone is moving and everyone is sitting at 20% cover terrrain in hold.

MaxDamage -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 1:03:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: battlerbritain I'm doing something similar with a simple scenario of a T-80 Regiment attacking an M-1IP tank Co, 1985. Terrain is near Hunfeld with M1s defending some villages with T-80s approaching over hills about 4km away. Terrain between villages and hills fairly flat and there's a couple of VP locations behind the M-1s. I know the M-1s will lose, I just want to see how the AI plays it on both sides and what the losses are. So far if the AI plays the T-80s I've had it lose up to 75 tanks before all M1s are taken out, or about 1:4.5 loss rate. Playing as human controller and holding back, reducing exposure, the T-80s have had results of between 1:1 and 1:4 losses, ie x1 M1 to x4 T-80s. I think the key is reducing exposure time. Early days but interesting experiment never the less. Well ofc... 1:4.5. you can make it 1:45 easy. its just a single digit of a diffirence.

CapnDarwin -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 1:08:58 PM)
Max, what range was the test? Have you tried putting both sides to the same training and morale? Are the British all in the same hex? Weather?

MaxDamage -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 1:10:39 PM)
3000m test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65R7RiC24Vo&feature=youtu.be

Mad Russian -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 1:13:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MaxDamage It is impossible for a chieftain 11 to be a better tank then a t80bv it is just nonsense im not buying it. So then, the Centurions and Super Shermans the Isreali's used in their wars vs Soviet equipment lost all their engagements and Israel is now Arab right? quote: I also cant agree that the training levels and morale levels should be like that this seems like an ideological dogma we have better training and morale. And this is my problem with the game its just a turkey shoot. Is this a custom made scenario you created? Because the scenarios I created for the game have the Soviets with reasonable training and morale levels. Overall, if you don't count the best Soviet units their training and morale would not have been high. Their front line units would have been slightly lower than NATO nations; more or less. Good Hunting. MR

MaxDamage -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 1:17:14 PM)
1000m test https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMRcHhcUwbg&feature=youtu.be How cant t80bv see the tanks at 1000m?

Mad Russian -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 1:20:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MaxDamage 1000m test How cant t80bv see the tanks at 1000m? ??? They see them. They fire and kill British tanks. Are you asking why they didn't spot at the exact same time? Good Hunting. MR

MaxDamage -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 1:23:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian quote: ORIGINAL: MaxDamage 1000m test How cant t80bv see the tanks at 1000m? ??? They see them. They fire and kill British tanks. Are you asking why they didn't spot at the exact same time? Good Hunting. MR Yes at exact same time they couldnt see them. They cant see the tanks at 1000m if they arent firing.

Mad Russian -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 1:34:34 PM)
Time to have a discussion about game design philosophy. There are various design philosophies in the world about everything. Gaming is one of those. In our little corner of gaming you have the extremes of all game to all simulation; and everything in between. We lean more to the sim side but still retain some game aspects to keep the game as fun as possible while making it as realistic as possible. Our philosophy also heavily leans on Murphy's Law. There is a chance that nothing works as intended. For weaponry that was used in combat somewhere and we could get hard data for, that was used, otherwise we reduced the manufacturers stated results. We found that virtually nothing performs as advertised. So, most of the effectiveness in the game is conjecture. An educated guess if you will. Using as much relevant data as possible to make that 'guess'. That goes for spotting units in cover, effect of whether there is a hit, the effect of the hit if you do get one, the weather, etc. In your example, the two units are not equal. The Soviet unit moves up onto a higher level into the view of a unit that is already sitting there. That is comparing apples to oranges and if the British didn't see and open fire on the moving Soviet unit first there would be a real issue. Hope this helps. Good Hunting. MR

MaxDamage -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 1:41:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian quote: ORIGINAL: MaxDamage It is impossible for a chieftain 11 to be a better tank then a t80bv it is just nonsense im not buying it. So then, the Centurions and Super Shermans the Isreali's used in their wars vs Soviet equipment lost all their engagements and Israel is now Arab right? quote: I also cant agree that the training levels and morale levels should be like that this seems like an ideological dogma we have better training and morale. And this is my problem with the game its just a turkey shoot. Is this a custom made scenario you created? Because the scenarios I created for the game have the Soviets with reasonable training and morale levels. Overall, if you don't count the best Soviet units their training and morale would not have been high. Their front line units would have been slightly lower than NATO nations; more or less. Good Hunting. MR There is a small problem with this argument. It is not arab-israeli war or anything similar. Soviets themselves were very discontent with fighting abilities of arab armies they assisted.

MaxDamage -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 1:49:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mad Russian Time to have a discussion about game design philosophy. There are various design philosophies in the world about everything. Gaming is one of those. In our little corner of gaming you have the extremes of all game to all simulation; and everything in between. We lean more to the sim side but still retain some game aspects to keep the game as fun as possible while making it as realistic as possible. Our philosophy also heavily leans on Murphy's Law. There is a chance that nothing works as intended. For weaponry that was used in combat somewhere and we could get hard data for, that was used, otherwise we reduced the manufacturers stated results. We found that virtually nothing performs as advertised. So, most of the effectiveness in the game is conjecture. An educated guess if you will. Using as much relevant data as possible to make that 'guess'. That goes for spotting units in cover, effect of whether there is a hit, the effect of the hit if you do get one, the weather, etc. In your example, the two units are not equal. The Soviet unit moves up onto a higher level into the view of a unit that is already sitting there. That is comparing apples to oranges and if the British didn't see and open fire on the moving Soviet unit first there would be a real issue. Hope this helps. Good Hunting. MR Um no. We reverse it with the soviets taking the ground a few minutes before and what we have now lol haha... this is ridiculous. You can as well label the tanks t34. They still cant see anything and still take a horsekicked from invisibility. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F0co4_mlGw&feature=youtu.be

MaxDamage -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 1:58:43 PM)
Oops i ll remake it. it was raining this time. Wait a little.

Mad Russian -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 2:00:44 PM)
You have an entire company of British tanks firing. There has never been a time in the history of the Soviet Union when their moral and training could go 1 to 1 against anyone. Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. NATO was designed to have platoons stand up to Russian companies. Use that scale in your testing. However, if you think the values are too skewed you can always adjust them in the game and create a data base yourself. Good Hunting. MR

MaxDamage -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 2:04:47 PM)
There you go. I think you guys have a serious problem with your game. It destroys realism and gameplay. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=965ROXILyrM&feature=youtu.be

CapnDarwin -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 2:31:19 PM)
The video shows a company of T80s in heavy rain popping up on a hill 1000m from 3 platoons of British tanks (with thermals) and the T80s get hammered out of the gate and there are a number of exchanges of fire before the last T80 goes down. I saw at least one British tank get hit. Tough to see on my phone. I don't see any issues with the outcome of that engagement. Could have gone a bit better for the Soviet's but getting hit that hard that fast did not give them much of a chance to deal kills.

CapnDarwin -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 3:31:56 PM)
Max, do me a favor and send me that game turn so I can run it in our debugger and see if something is going on. I can believe the one kill per British shot, what I'm not seeing well on my phone is the return shots. I would expect at that range for the Soviet shot to take down 1 to 2 tanks in the targeted platoon at this range. I need to see why the return fire looks weak. Thanks.

MaxDamage -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 3:54:57 PM)
Im sending you a rar archive with 2 files inside: .scn file with my test scenario and a .sav savegame file which only requires you to press "end turn" to see the outcome. Im not sure which exact turn save file i need to send you and im not sure if i have this exact saved turn at the moment thats why i dont send you this turn save file. Please run the savegame, it is easier for you yourself understand which turn you need. I also dont know how to send files via the forum thats why im using file hosting with a rar archive. http://www.filedropper.com/testscn also, 3 tank shots vs 10 tank shots shouldnt be equal. And the first shot bonus seems to be way way too high.

CapnDarwin -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 4:15:18 PM)
The shots aren't equal on a per shot basis, but the composite result depending on conditions can yield similar results. I'll pull down your files and look them over tonight when I get home from work. Thanks for the information.

Lowlaner2012 -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 5:09:17 PM)
Capn can you let us know when you put the turn through the debugger? Im going to play a bit tonight but Im interested in the results.. Thanks

CapnDarwin -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 6:00:36 PM)
Sure. I look to report back tomorrow afternoon (busy evening and Dev call in the morning) [8D]

Lowlaner2012 -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 6:41:38 PM)
Cheers Capn :-)

Rincovsk -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 10:42:25 PM)
Max, I see your point. I do always had that skewed feeling as well. No matter how many data is researched and collected the simulation will always have the authors bias involved and in this case obviously towards NATO. It is one point of view of how things would unfold. At the other hand the amount of effort put it by the devs to try to create a realistic what if event is tremendous and they have come up with a fantastic game. Simulate reality is always an...approximation, specially with what if situations. It is very important that you have brought your data tests here into discussion. This will only help this game to be better and better. I appreciate the care of Capn Darwin to take the time to check your comments further. This type of attention is what keeps me attached to this game. Don't give up the faith with this game. I actually indeed have my own databases for the things that I don't feel right. This is another flexible aspect that I like a lot in this game. Keep bringing your thoughts here for discussion. I agree with you on those ones. Looking forward to see Capn evaluation. Cheers

cbelva -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 11:33:41 PM)
I did some testing of the combat model this afternoon to check to see if there is any basic for the concern. I have been running tests for several years now on the combat model and so I just applied the same tests I have used over the years. Overall, I don't see a problem. I am checking for consistency when all things are relatively equal. I used the same map and position that MaxDamage used. In my test I used a company of T-80BV(m) and a plt of Chieftain Mk 11. That is really fairer for the Soviet than 3 plt of Chieftain against a lone Soviet company. In the test, with both sides having equal change of spotting and firing, the Chieftain would normally fire first and get the first kill--not unexpected. However, the Soviets would recover and take out the Chieftain plt after that. I noticed in MaxDamage scenario, besides the bad visibility for the Soviets, they were also walking into an ambush. They were moving up on a ridge where the Brits were waiting in defilade. The three British Chieftain plts were waiting on them and all three basically opened fired on the Soviets scoring hits before the Soviets could answer. I also ran some independent tests on a different map checking for how the units faired at different distances. I also ran some test with Challengers for the Brits to compare with how well the Chieftains did. The distances I used were 3000, 2000, and 1000. At all ranges the T-80BV(m) bested the Chieftains. The Challengers had the upper hand distance. As they were moved closer together, the advantage fell to the T-80s. This is all in line with what I would expect and in line with the way our combat model has shown in the past. Here the bottom line in all this. This was a war that was never fought and no one knows for sure use how these machines would have performed against each other. From day one we have had people who have disagreed with our model. That is ok, and we expect that and welcome it. Most of the complaint have been from those who believe that the Soviets were too powerful. We will never please everyone and thankfully we will never know since this war never fought.

cbelva -> RE: Faith in the game. (10/28/2016 11:46:18 PM)
Ok, I am going to walk back one of my comments. I just rewatched the video and realized the Brits were moving too, so it would not have been an ambush situation.

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

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.5761719