hammerhead
Posts: 25
Joined: 9/26/2000 From: Shell Beach,CA,USA Status: offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Sorry - I don't have much time to respond lately, but wanted to quickly chime in here.
The M36 seems to have the wrong 90mm gun designated. THis will be fixed, but hopefully one can understand the problems trying to rate everyt weapon form every country to the level of detail we have tried to go here. 10's of thousands of data points, even if we are 99% accurate hundreds will have typos, like the M36 given weapon 64 instead of 65. I'm sure this will get fixed.
To the specific point, Please read the designers notes and look back at some of the threads on how the weapons are rated. IT is not just by using "book" penetration data.
One can't just take book numbers and compare them at ace value becasue every country had different (and sometimes multiple) definitions of "penetration" that differed in effect by 25% or more. The data I have from multiple sources indiates teh 88 had significantly better AP penetration than the M3 - an example is the www.wargamer.org/GvA data, several other sources corroborate this data. The figures used in the game are backed off form 30 degrees vertical slope at 500m to o slope at 0 meters using the same proceedure for all weapons. The result is consistant - but generally will not match any book data exactly (much of which compares apples to oranges based on differeing definitions of penetration).
The game uses a database of "book values" and two different threoretical estimators to come up with penetration. Fire control and accuracy are guesstimates. There is simply insufficient data to reliably set accuracy numbers that aren't skewed by crew proficiency, so these are often based on the original values in the game extended. FOr every instance of a gun being "accurate" are anecdotes to the contray, so barrel length and muzzle velocity are used to baseline raw gun accuracy. Using www.wargamer.org/GvA data as an example - the 88 APCBC ammo MV=1000m/sec down an L71 barrel, while the M3 APBC MV was 808 m/sec down an L52 barrel. Given that data I fudged the M3 to the HIGH side becasue I felt it was more accurate than the raw numbers gave it credit for.
There is no "ground truth" metric that can be objectively be debated, hence you have the editor to change them to your taste.
But one needs to be careful to judge context when throwing quotes around, and in the context of rating scores of weapons for many of which there is little or no data, a schem of rating values based on info common to them all must be used. That means outliers will exist, and many of those have been argued vociferously (see tiger front turret debate:-) and we change things as deemed appropriate by the OOB working group.
As to OOBs and formations one has to remeber that we are under some severe limits based on what teh game allows us to do. We can't just change EVERYTHING as teh bugs that crop back up after being stomped, and persistant "toughies" point out. SO we have to live with "inaccuracies" form strict history (which I would argue is in many ways moot becasue "book" TO&E went out the window by contact with the enemy...but we need some sort of baseline and "book" TO&E - or as close as we can come was chosen. We also have a body of scenarios with which combatibility must be maintained.
I submit given the time expended and scope of work undertaken, that the current result is about as accurate as can be had, and we will continue to improve them - a process that could easily take years as data is found and reviewed and discussed.
We welcome questions about where the stats come from, and strive to make the OOB's better, but they can never be "perfect" only interanlly more consistent...
...but I do take a bit of offense to being caste a Nazi-phile. I did all the weapon numbers and have gone out of my way sometimes to give credit to the US and UK equipment even when the raw data tended to indicate otherwise. Honest disagreements ABOUT DATA are welcome, but lets keep the snide remarks out of technical debate, eh Greg?
[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited October 17, 2000).]
quote:
Originally posted by Paul Vebber:
Sorry - I don't have much time to respond lately, but wanted to quickly chime in here.
The M36 seems to have the wrong 90mm gun designated. THis will be fixed, but hopefully one can understand the problems trying to rate everyt weapon form every country to the level of detail we have tried to go here. 10's of thousands of data points, even if we are 99% accurate hundreds will have typos, like the M36 given weapon 64 instead of 65. I'm sure this will get fixed.
To the specific point, Please read the designers notes and look back at some of the threads on how the weapons are rated. IT is not just by using "book" penetration data.
One can't just take book numbers and compare them at ace value becasue every country had different (and sometimes multiple) definitions of "penetration" that differed in effect by 25% or more. The data I have from multiple sources indiates teh 88 had significantly better AP penetration than the M3 - an example is the www.wargamer.org/GvA data, several other sources corroborate this data. The figures used in the game are backed off form 30 degrees vertical slope at 500m to o slope at 0 meters using the same proceedure for all weapons. The result is consistant - but generally will not match any book data exactly (much of which compares apples to oranges based on differeing definitions of penetration).
The game uses a database of "book values" and two different threoretical estimators to come up with penetration. Fire control and accuracy are guesstimates. There is simply insufficient data to reliably set accuracy numbers that aren't skewed by crew proficiency, so these are often based on the original values in the game extended. FOr every instance of a gun being "accurate" are anecdotes to the contray, so barrel length and muzzle velocity are used to baseline raw gun accuracy. Using www.wargamer.org/GvA data as an example - the 88 APCBC ammo MV=1000m/sec down an L71 barrel, while the M3 APBC MV was 808 m/sec down an L52 barrel. Given that data I fudged the M3 to the HIGH side becasue I felt it was more accurate than the raw numbers gave it credit for.
There is no "ground truth" metric that can be objectively be debated, hence you have the editor to change them to your taste.
But one needs to be careful to judge context when throwing quotes around, and in the context of rating scores of weapons for many of which there is little or no data, a schem of rating values based on info common to them all must be used. That means outliers will exist, and many of those have been argued vociferously (see tiger front turret debate:-) and we change things as deemed appropriate by the OOB working group.
As to OOBs and formations one has to remeber that we are under some severe limits based on what teh game allows us to do. We can't just change EVERYTHING as teh bugs that crop back up after being stomped, and persistant "toughies" point out. SO we have to live with "inaccuracies" form strict history (which I would argue is in many ways moot becasue "book" TO&E went out the window by contact with the enemy...but we need some sort of baseline and "book" TO&E - or as close as we can come was chosen. We also have a body of scenarios with which combatibility must be maintained.
I submit given the time expended and scope of work undertaken, that the current result is about as accurate as can be had, and we will continue to improve them - a process that could easily take years as data is found and reviewed and discussed.
We welcome questions about where the stats come from, and strive to make the OOB's better, but they can never be "perfect" only interanlly more consistent...
...but I do take a bit of offense to being caste a Nazi-phile. I did all the weapon numbers and have gone out of my way sometimes to give credit to the US and UK equipment even when the raw data tended to indicate otherwise. Honest disagreements ABOUT DATA are welcome, but lets keep the snide remarks out of technical debate, eh Greg?
[This message has been edited by Paul Vebber (edited October 17, 2000).]
It seems my efforts on this subject are perhaps fruitless. I am not talking about "Perfection". I am talking about getting things right as well as one can expect. I put a great deal of my own rather precious time into attempting to address ONLY ONE of the errors I see in this game. It was suggested here that I provide 'constructive ' and detailed input into these 'apparent' or percieved errors. I have done that, using as a first example obvious error regarding the M3 gun as a first test of the good will of that request. I assumed it was not just a rhetorical proposal?
I was not providing data about penetration and plate angle test varacity or type of ammo or any other technical information or test results. I was simply stating that three sources agreed on the matching power of the 90mm and the 88. The penetration value technical assessment or non technical, was not anywhere in my text. The only statemnet regarding detailed and tested performance was regarding muzzle velocity. This came from tests performed by the US Army during the war. It did not measure penetration to any angle or accuracy or any other aspect of performance. It stated that the muzzle velocity of the 90 was slightly better than the 88. That is all.
I might add that unless the US 90mm shell was far larger than the 88mm, which seems to make little sense, or the German [ don't say the "N" word ] shell was somehow far more areodynamic than the Ami shell, the laws of physics require the ranges to be somewhat the same ... not 33 percent different. I was talking about range. That is all.
It is becoming clearer to me with responses of each post that, to change the mind-set of this group may take more time and patience than I can muster.
Again, I realize the immense amount of work that goes into the process of making this game real. I have enormous respect for those who work on it day in and day out. I was only trying to correct, one by one, the detailed errors, as I thought it would improve the quality of the game. I have no axe to grind and no vendetta to pursue. And I do not wish to creat one here.
As far as 'snide' remarks... I can only say that such was not my intention. I used the term for the Germans that was used by Allied soldiers throughout the war. Apparently this has become unacceptable with this gaming group. I continue to puzzle over the favoritism and admiration most gamers seem to have for the German [don't say the "N" word] army and equipment, while being surprisingly ignorant about their own nation's soldiers and armament.
If such issues cannot be discussed here, where a game displays an SS soldier [Nazi] on its opening screen, I must say that this also puzzles me.
I spent a year living in Germany with German friends and relatives, touring in Europe, and interviewing German soldiers and SS soldiers. They all admitted that during the war they felt love and absolute support for the Fuehrer and his goals. This was not coerced. This only changed as they realized they could not win the war. If they were fooled, they were fooled as a nation, by their leaders, whom they elected.
As I have still many friends in Germany, I can say with some certainty that THEY would be concerned if people in the US failed to learn from Germany's mistakes. If calling the weapons and armies and slave labor that fed and supported them during the war a NAZI system makes anyone on this Forum upset, then I would suggest that they look into their own hearts and minds, [or simply request that I be removed from the list]or perhaps read a few more words about what course Garmany took willingly during the war and where it got them. If history must be blurred to allow some to be comfortable while playing these games, then so be it.
As for me, I have no problem enjoying the game and respecting some of the awesome weapons and excellent command system and soldiers that were produced under the Nazi regime. But my eyes are not dimmed as to how they came about. I have read hundreds of books on the subject, and had thousands of hours of talk with those who were subjected to the regime or were willing members of it.
So no more 'snide' remarks from me. It's just real difficult to read some of the complacent remarks by some.
This will be my last comment on the subject. [Whether it be by my removal from this forum or my own promise to avoid this puzzlingly uncomfortable subject.]
I will stick to writing lists of the corrections I feel need addressing in the game.
I will provide no source references unless they are requested.
I will become poitically correct and not use the "N' word.
I will be a good soldier.
------------------
"Mediocrity carries its own price."
It is my pleasure to communicate with you.
Greg - "Hammerhead"
_____________________________
"Mediocrity carries its own price."
It is my pleasure to communicate with you.
Greg - "Hammerhead"
|