Weapon tests for Combat Mission

[Kraut]

Of curiosity and to improve my Combat Mission skills I have started a series of testing.

At first I have tested the rifles used in CMFI and studied how many shots per minute are fired (area fire, no suppression) and
how the experience would increase higher rate of fire.

Test settings:
CMFI v.2.10,
Area fire (distance 95m) for 10 minutes (Kar. 98k and No.1 MkIII*) and 9 minutes (Carcano M1891) and 7 minutes (M1 Garand).


note: in the first minute the rate of fire has been higher, because the rifle had already been fully loaded.
Also please keep in mind that there is a variance given, I got slightly different result as I double check my test.
I assume (I do not know for sure), that this given variance simulates quite realistic a delay caused by reloading problems, soldiers is distracted, gives or receives new orders or informations, takes time for spotting, et cetera... .

Soldiers with higher experience are shooting significant more rounds per minute. The biggest increases at each levels are until the experience reaches the regular level experienced soldiers.
(In my opinion realistic).

 

[Anschlag]

It’s frightening how much more volume of fire the Garand gives the US, compared to the 98k.

Have you tried to do a test comparing effectiveness at different ranges? That would (in my opinion) be the next logical step. Thanks for posting this.

 

[Kraut]

It’s frightening how much more volume of fire the Garand gives the US, compared to the 98k.

Have you tried to do a test comparing effectiveness at different ranges? That would (in my opinion) be the next logical step. Thanks for posting this.

To know the influence of different ranges would be very interesting and important! I haven't tested it, but I am interested to find out.

Next test:
Amount of round fired at 390m with German MG's.
Test settings:
CMFI v.2.10,
Area fire (distance 390m) all MG's had fired for 10 minutes and the total amount of rounds has been divided by 10.

note: in the first minute the rate of fire has been higher, because the MG had already been fully loaded.
Also please keep in mind that there is a variance given, I got slightly different result as I double check my test.
I assume (I do not know for sure), that this given variance simulates quite realistic a delay caused by reloading problems, soldiers is distracted, gives or receives new order or informations, takes time for spotting, et cetera... .

Interesting to know is also that the time before each MG has started to fire (aiming time) has been from circa 3 (Veteran-Elite) til 6 seconds (Conscript).
If an enemy squad for example would cross fast running a street 400m away, the aiming time would make a difference.

 

[Anschlag]

Nice! Interesting comparison.

 

[MeatEtr]

Awesome job dude! Looking forward to more testing, especially the difference in tank performance.

 

[Kraut]

Awesome job dude! Looking forward to more testing, especially the difference in tank performance.

Thank you! The Tank duel test site is already ready. There I can test 10 tanks duel simultaneously to reduce the variance of the results. I will run this 5 or 10 times the same setting (distance and tank type)



Next test:
Amount of round fired at 390m with Italian MG's.
Test settings:
CMFI v.2.10,
Area fire (distance 390m) all MG's had fired for 10 minutes and the total amount of rounds has been divided by 10.

note: in the first minute the rate of fire has been higher, because the MG had already been fully loaded.
Also please keep in mind that there is a variance given, I got slightly different result as I double check my test.
I assume (I do not know for sure), that this given variance simulates quite realistic a delay caused by reloading problems, soldiers is distracted, gives or receives new order or informations, takes time for spotting, et cetera... .

 

[Anschlag]

Quite the difference from the German MGs...

 

[Bulletpoint]

Thanks for testing. I'm always interested in this kind of stuff

Your findings match well with my general impression that most of the gains from experience are from constript to veteran level. After that, you hit diminishing returns.

The MGs seem to benefit more from crack and elite troops. I wonder if that's because the reload time plays a larger factor.

Also, there's an oddity in the HMG34 table. A small increase from regular to veteran, but then a big increase from veteran to crack level. I wonder if you mixed up the two results?

 

[Kraut]

Thanks for testing. I'm always interested in this kind of stuff

Your findings match well with my general impression that most of the gains from experience are from constript to veteran level. After that, you hit diminishing returns.

The MGs seem to benefit more from crack and elite troops. I wonder if that's because the reload time plays a larger factor.

Also, there's an oddity in the HMG34 table. A small increase from regular to veteran, but then a big increase from veteran to crack level. I wonder if you mixed up the two results?

That there is something mixed upped that has also been my first idea, I then had retested it three time and all test are around the "normal" deviation, which I have experienced before in my tests.
Maybe it is an anomaly in the game engine, or I am making constantly a testing mistake in this case.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Another question this test raises is why experience helps so much more with the garand than the other rifles. Elite garand shooter is nearly 50pct faster than a conscript. The other rifles only see a 20-25 pct increase from conscript to elite.

 

[Anschlag]

Before drawing any conclusion about that I’d like to see what happens with other automatic rifles and maybe even smgs. I have an idea, but I’d like more data.

 

[Kraut]

Before drawing any conclusion about that I’d like to see what happens with other automatic rifles and maybe even smgs. I have an idea, but I’d like more data.

More data would be great to compare. I haven't yet tested only one more: the British Vickers. I will do more test in the next days.


Next test:
Amount of round fired at 390m with British MG
Test settings:
CMFI v.2.10,
Area fire (distance 390m) all MG's had fired for 10 minutes and the total amount of rounds has been divided by 10.

note: in the first minute the rate of fire has been higher, because the MG had already been fully loaded.
Also please keep in mind that there is a variance given, I got slightly different result as I double check my test.
I assume (I do not know for sure), that this given variance simulates quite realistic a delay caused by reloading problems, soldiers is distracted, gives or receives new order or informations, takes time for spotting, et cetera... .

 

[Kraut]

Test settings:
CMFI v.2.10,
Area fire (distance 95m) for 10 minutes.

note: in the first minute the rate of fire has been higher, because the weapon had already been fully loaded.
Also please keep in mind that there is a variance given, I got slightly different result as I double check my test.
I assume (I do not know for sure), that this given variance simulates quite realistic a delay caused by reloading problems, soldiers is distracted, gives or receives new order or informations, takes time for spotting, et cetera... .

 

[Bulletpoint]

Seems all automatic weapons benefit much more from experience. I'm guessing it has to do with reload being more of a factor.

I can't remember right now, but do bolt action rifles display "reloading" in the soldier status each time they cycle the rifle?

If it doesn't then maybe the engine doesn't give bolt actions the full benefit of experience. Because clearly an elite soldier would work the bolt much faster than a conscript.

@Anschlag What say you, Bud? You had a theory...

 

[Kraut]

@Bulletpoint and @Anschlag
In my infantry weapons test the main factor is so far as I can tell the "aiming time". I tested it with German MG's and it has been 3 vs 6 seconds until the first shot. My suspicion is that this makes the different, especially with high fire rate weapons. I assume (I have not tested) that the aiming time difference (in %) before the first shot and between the shots is the same.

I could need help by the testing, or double-checking, there is so much that could be tested, or maybe already had been tested, also if someone has the weird desire to spent his time running for hours tests.

First tank duel test
CMFI v.2.10
at 500m and 1500m, 5 sets are 10x 1 versus 1 tank duels - each tank can due to terrain obstacles only shot the one opposing tank, tanks opened upped, hotseat modus to avoid any possible singleplayers penalties (skill level) and to open all tanks up, frontal side versus frontal side.


Note: the only draw has occurred as both tank destroyed each other at the same moment.
In total it have been 100 duels PanzerIVH early versus M4A1 Sherman early and 100 duels Panzer VA Panther early versus M4A1 Sherman early.

 

[Bulletpoint]

@Bulletpoint and @Anschlag

First tank duel test
CMFI v.2.10
at 500m and 1500m, 5 sets are 10x 1 versus 1 tank duels - each tank can due to terrain obstacles only shot the one opposing tank, tanks opened upped, hotseat modus to avoid any possible singleplayers penalties (skill level) and to open all tanks up, frontal side versus frontal side.

View attachment 18664
Note: the only draw has occurred as both tank destroyed each other at the same moment.
In total it have been 100 duels PanzerIVH early versus M4A1 Sherman early and 100 duels Panzer VA Panther early versus M4A1 Sherman early.

Thanks for sharing your findings.

Two observations:

I'm surprised that the PzIV has a slight edge over the Sherman. I had expected the Sherman to do better. The PzIV is in my opinion a very poor tank in CM.

A second surprise was that you get almost the same results no matter if you test at 500m or 1500m. I thought the PzIV would do a lot better at long range, where the better gun would have an effect (higher velocity - easier to hit at range).

Also, it seems your test dispels the idea that "German optics are superior".

 

[holoween]

Tbh the tank vs tank duels should be done in 2 seperate ways. Once with both sides sitting in the open and once with both sides in hulldown positions.

 

[Anschlag]

Long long ago there was a test done by Bil and another player comparing the Sherman and PzIV. This is pretty consistent with those results to no surprise at all.

Given there are multiple variables (armour slope, armour thickness, optics, gun) I don’t see how one can conclude anything that isn’t an assessment of the vehicle as a whole. Different data would be required to make any such determination.

Thank you for conducting these tests!

 

[holoween]

Given there are multiple variables (armour slope, armour thickness, optics, gun) I don’t see how one can conclude anything that isn’t an assessment of the vehicle as a whole. Different data would be required to make any such determination.

To give an example from SF2 Leo2a6 beats any abrams while both are in hulldown while loosing when both are in the open. So generally testing hulldown for tanks seems to me a reasonable thing to do.

 

[Kraut]

Thanks for sharing your findings.

Two observations:

I'm surprised that the PzIV has a slight edge over the Sherman. I had expected the Sherman to do better. The PzIV is in my opinion a very poor tank in CM.

A second surprise was that you get almost the same results no matter if you test at 500m or 1500m. I thought the PzIV would do a lot better at long range, where the better gun would have an effect (higher velocity - easier to hit at range).

Also, it seems your test dispels the idea that "German optics are superior".

I also had been surprised that in my test there had been no difference between 500m and 1500m. But this was only one test with the Panzer IVH, maybe an other variant of the PanzerIV would perform better. I am no expert on the PanzerIV, but I know that the Developers are meticulously trying to get every tank and his variants accurate into the game. Maybe an other later PanzerIV variant would have performed better at long distance.

Tbh the tank vs tank duels should be done in 2 seperate ways. Once with both sides sitting in the open and once with both sides in hulldown positions.

That is a good idea. If I will find time I am going to produce a comparative test with the tanks in hull down.

Long long ago there was a test done by Bil and another player comparing the Sherman and PzIV. This is pretty consistent with those results to no surprise at all.

Given there are multiple variables (armour slope, armour thickness, optics, gun) I don’t see how one can conclude anything that isn’t an assessment of the vehicle as a whole. Different data would be required to make any such determination.

Thank you for conducting these tests!

Do you know where they did publish their tests? With Bil you mean @Bil Hardenberger?