I saw something similar in a recent game, where my hulldown Panzer IV 70 was unable to spot Shermans advancing towards it at various ranges.
Very interesting data, but there are some odd things about these numbers... Sometimes, spotting ability seems to increase with distance, and sometimes, looking straight ahead spots worse than looking off at an angle, whereas the overall picture is that the tank spots better the more the target is located in front of it.
Are these oddities statistical artifacts? I'd think with 10,000 test runs the confidence level would be very high.
I respectfully declare that you are a madman.There are lots of possible scenarios that can come up, so I try to keep everything as simple as possible to be able to compare different vehicles under identical conditions.
Spotting test setup:
The result is a diagram with % probabilities of spotting a Pz IVH in the first spotting event of the game, like this:
- One spotting vehicle in a central position on the map - either buttoned up or opened up, depending on what I want to test. Regular, no leadership/motivation modifiers
- 49 target vehicles at 12 through 6 o'clock positions, 200 to 1400 meters in 200 m intervals. Pz IVH (late), buttoned up. Regular, no leadership/motivation modifiers
- Everyone has tight cover arcs to prevent shooting
- Register the first spotting event in the game (occurs in the first 7 seconds) from the perspective of the spotter. Record which target vehicles were spotted as "solid" contacts (tentative contacts do not count)
- Repeat 10,000 times
Gun accuracy test setup:
The result are % probabilities of hitting a Pz IVH with the first shot and the second shot at different ranges, like this:
- 10 target vehicles - Pz IVH (late), dismounted so that they cannot do silly things like run away or shoot back
- 10 firing vehicles. Regular, no leadership/motivation modifiers. Placed at the start of the test to the desired distance (400-1400 m; at 200 m the hit probability is usually ~100%)
- Tight cover arcs until everyone in the line sees their target - then change cover arcs for everyone to open fire at the target
- Register the number of hits with the first shot
- Register the number of hits with the second shot; if the first shot has obliterated the target and the second shot is not taken, count it automatically as a hit, too
- Repeat until 10,000 second shots are taken
Please tell me you are automating this somehow?
C
ChuckDyke
Guest
Like snipers, their rifles bring the targets a lot closer. The first thing you notice when you look through a scope is that you can't hit a thing off-hand at 500 meters you need a rest. He becomes only a sniper when you see 'crack or elite' in Combat Mission. Next time I have a STUG I look at his level Veteran or above. I did competitive shooting and a $1000 Hammerli (1980 price) didn't make you win a trophy. You need the training to make it a worthwhile investment. That is my opinion in the game you don't want green troops handling top-notch equipment.
B
BornGinger
Guest
Against anything it can kill if it gets close enough without the magical spotting of the enemy tank crew we sometimes experience.
C
ChuckDyke
Guest
I am waiting for the Stugs in River of Blood FB. But some relative spotting is taking place. Doesn't make sense with infantry.
Advance and short-term objectives are 2 touch objectives.
Contact by the Scout Half-Track.
The Infantry Platoon on the right is ordered to attack their 'Sound-Contact'.
The American unit inside the foxhole breaks. But this is not noticed by the attackers! But by the 3rd squad some distance away.
The Scout of the 1st Squad with a cover-arc over the foxhole 76 meters away was unaware.
1st squad never made full contact and neither did the Pzr 4 with a veteran commander. Lesson don't try to make predictions about who will spot something. See what my Stugs will do ✌
Advance and short-term objectives are 2 touch objectives.
Contact by the Scout Half-Track.
The Infantry Platoon on the right is ordered to attack their 'Sound-Contact'.
The American unit inside the foxhole breaks. But this is not noticed by the attackers! But by the 3rd squad some distance away.
The Scout of the 1st Squad with a cover-arc over the foxhole 76 meters away was unaware.
1st squad never made full contact and neither did the Pzr 4 with a veteran commander. Lesson don't try to make predictions about who will spot something. See what my Stugs will do ✌
Good - someone is reading the numbers
I am quite confident it is statistics. I ran one setup (Panther A mid) twice to see what kind of variation I get, and it is substantial - especially in the low probability zones to the sides and to the rear. Keeping in mind that 0.1% is just 10 successful spotting events - out of 10,000 - and in practical game terms the difference it makes is negligible.
For this reason I think the diagrams are useful for basic orientation (tank X is spotting to the side better than tank Y), but the exact figures should be quoted with care. Instead I have introduced this spotting rating, which considers all results in the 12 and 1 o'clock positions together. The two diagrams below give me spotting rating 109/39 and 110/39 (open up/button up), so the match is not perfect even then.
What is not statistics is the number in the red circle. I get this anomaly for every buttoned up test I make. As if 2 o'clock at 1200 meters was some kind of a blind spot.
I am not as mad as you thinkI respectfully declare that you are a madman.
Yes, it is automated, and it requires little personal time/effort on my part.
C
ChuckDyke
Guest
Yes, Stugs got exceptionally good optics but not on their sides. You can just see the satchel pack on the right of the MG Shield. Heroes of the Soviet Union.
It got very good armor our heroes needed 2 satchel charges!
Well, they didn't take prisoners.
Still playing it started with Airfix 60 years ago.
It got very good armor our heroes needed 2 satchel charges!
Well, they didn't take prisoners.
Still playing it started with Airfix 60 years ago.
Last edited by a moderator:
I am thinking it might be terrain playing tricks here. Did you make sure to "mow" all tall grass and weeds before doing the tests? New maps are by default populated with a random mix of short grass, and various flowers and weeds. At long ranges, this can cause blind spots. To avoid this, you can manually pave the entire map or just paint it with the shortest "golf tee" length grass.
That's right, flowers and weeds appear to slightly reduce the spotting chance. The terrain in my tests is flat, uniform Grass tiles all over, except for the bunch of buildings to hide the HQ tank.
I think the Sherman is priced more on historical purposes not so much ingame vs a German tank..Allies have an advantage because of numbers.75,000Shermans where produced and they should be cheap...The MK4 vs Stugg is another matter..Germany produce 3-4 times as many stuggs give or take than MK4s as they where easier to manufacture..I also think they are way to expensive...I am not sure where battlefront gets that from. If a MK4 is 270-80 a Stugg should be more in the 200-220 Mark as far as cost goes. It would make sense
I believe this is supposed to be handled by the rarity points system. The main points cost should just reflect the value of the asset.
The cost price needs to be balanced between the two, in any QB the allies advantage is that tanks etc are cheaper and so it should be....The rarity factor alone is not enough to reflect this
What is the point of the rarity system then, if not to reflect historical unit rarity?
It does its job, it makes the less common models harder to buy. Example how many King tigers can you buy? Considering the purchase price is a tad over a panther you can buy a lot of panthers in a huge battle battle, but one..perhaps two Kingtigers and that would put a lot of pressure for not being able to buy a ton of other stuff including some small arms weapons. So some of the more exotic stuff is out of reach in some games and its purchase will hurt you in other areas
If the rarity system is to make less common units harder to buy, and German tanks were less common than Allied tanks, wouldn't the obvious solution be to increase German tank rarity costs?
As I see it, the current way of pricing units means that a lot of the standard German vehicles like StuGs and Panzer IVs are priced out and are seen rarely, while people double down on Panthers instead, because they are better value for the points and have zero rarity.
As I see it, the current way of pricing units means that a lot of the standard German vehicles like StuGs and Panzer IVs are priced out and are seen rarely, while people double down on Panthers instead, because they are better value for the points and have zero rarity.
No I dont think so, i think the rarity is more exclusive to the national side as opposed to all armies combined..if that was the case in comparison to the Sherman every other tanks rarity would be through the roof. In the panthers case i believe at any given time only one of the panther models on offer as a zero rarity cost and same with the MK4. Generally the German stuff in general is superior hence why the higher cost i suppose. Im ok with the cost of the MK4...I buy them a lot, when doing a Medium QB or even a large times i buy them quite often over a panther as the extra change is very useful..Alot depends on what the plans are, but i agree that the Stugg is far to much. its a question that should be put to battlefront on how the cost of a stugg is justified...In fact i would also expand that to include the other tank destroyers Jagdpanzers etc as they where alot more cheaper for the germans to manufacture
I find your opinion very interesting, as you're an experienced and competitive player. I don't consider the MkIV worth the points and try my best to avoid it. At best, I consider it roughly equal to a standard Sherman. So I'm wondering what you think makes up for the more expensive German standard tanks? It used to be the German heavy tanks, but they seem nullified after the fireflies were added.
The StuG question has been asked several times over at the battlefront forums, but has been met with the usual response.
The StuG question has been asked several times over at the battlefront forums, but has been met with the usual response.
I think finding the lowest common dominator like the Sherman and benchmarking off that doesn't work for both sides nor does it reflect the historical realities. Allied stuff was cheap compared to German. If I gave you an example...Suppose both sides had 5,000points and German gear was priced the same as the equivalent allied equipment, so in effect a MK4 was what 180-200 points and so on, panther say a tad more the a Sherman 76. We’ll all things being equal the allies would get slammed dunked every time. In the overall scheme of things the German army has better equipment at its disposal than the allied...Better infantry weapons, better tanks and a good model line-up. The fact that there stuff is more expensive balances it out plus makes it more historical because that was actually the case in real life...that’s why I am ok with the cost of MK4 etc.
When I say German stuff is better, Germany is more capable of taking out allied armour without its own armour more so than the allies. The fact most German Squads carry inherent pausts, and the Panzerschrecks have no equal....the Bazooka or piat teams are no where near as good. So despite the extra cost of German tanks my point is look at all the low cost AT capabilities the Germans have that the allies cannot match which I think makes up for a lot of lost ground on armour cost...one paust kills a 200 point Sherman....how many games you played and lost a tank to a paust? so despite German armour being expensive there is generally only one way to take it out