winMBT low percentile hits

[Weasel]

I noticed that in the DOS version of MBT very low percentile shots (under 20%) seemed to have a very high hit average, whereas 55% shots don't. This also seems to be occurring in winMBT too.

Is this correct or is it a coding error; and if so can it be fixed?

[FJ_MD]

Mmmmhhh in a game that I just finished I received lot of AA fire with 1-3% of hitting probability, and believe it or not, not a single airplane was damaged!


In another game, enemy ATGM infantry with 99% of hitting probability against my APCs and tanks have always hit, reducing my forces to an horde of crews running like hell! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[inff]

I have noticed this also!
Please fix it...

[Weasel]

Glad I am not the only one, this feature of the game really annoys me.

[Shadowcougar]

I haven't noticed that. I find the hits in a game seem to even out the % of hit/miss.

OF course I have had the battle when I had a Cav tank plt fire at a on coming T-62 12 times and miss all of those shots. also had a hit at 4000 meters also.

[kevin]

I thought that I had once noticed this, but concluded it was a psychological thing. I think we are more likely to remember a 55% miss than a hit, as well as remembering a 20% hit more than a miss, because those things go against our expectations.

I guess the only way to double check is to get a mechanical counter and do an experiment.

[Uncle_Joe]

I also see most 40-50% chances as a near auto-hit. I cant understand how 5 out of 6 shots that supposedly have a 40-ish percent chance to hit are scoring.

I see this quite consistantly too. Like the rest of you, I figured it was just me too. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[PDF]

Noticed the same thing :40-55% chance hits one time ou of 4, whereas 15-20% ones hit half the time. Weird ...

[Pavel]

I have noticed that T-62 tanks with a %1-3 chance to hit are taking my drones out at 1200+ meters regularly. Last battle I played I lost 8 drones to T-62s within 10 or less hexes of entering play.

This accurcy of the tank MGs has kept me from usinging any AC but drones.

Pavel

[Weasel]

So is there anyway for the gamers to fix this problem in a later release?

[Starmyth]

Is Kevin really offering to do a statistical analysis for us?

[PlasmaKrab]

You can do one yourself, should be no big deal, only some work...

Create a test unit with lotsa shots, quite uneffective weapon, note the accuracy value, unit viz, stabilisator, .
Create a map on which you put several of these with standardized M/E ratings, face them with many heavily-armored unarmed target units, which you place at different ranges.

Then have a bout of firing and note for each shot the given PK and if it hit or not.

When you have the data, sort by probability and look at what you get. Again and again http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Yeah, that is tiresome, and I guess you can get a automated way to do it...

Anyway I don't think you will come up with anything surprising, but if you have 50 hours to spend... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Starmyth]

Maybe someday. If I get really really bored.

[loktarr]

In order to avoid you some boring and long experiments, I'll give some useful informations:
1) Given percentiles are main weapon ones -> try to kill a drone with T-62 main gun, 1-3% seems like elite gunner in your T-62, with machingun it's pretty better....
2)The given percentile depends only on units. Explanation: take two M1A1 one with a 20 experience the other with 120. at the same distance of each deploy a T-62. Given percentile should be the same... Try the fire and you will see. Experience is only tested after you decided to fire at the unit, not before...
if that's true, it will explain everything, but it may have changed between SPMBT 3.01 and WinMBT...

[kevin]

Starmyth,

noooooooo. sorry I don't have the time for that. As usual my friends loktarr and plasmakrab seem to be 'over engineering' a test. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/tongue.gif You don't need to set up special scenarios.

Set up an excel sheet, or a scratch piece of paper. Set up 100 columns and then divide each of those into a fired / hit column (total of 200.) The next time you play SP, keep track of the estimated % and place a tick mark mark in the correct fired column. If it hits, put a mark in the hit column. After 100 fired ticks, you ought to have an idea if SP is estimating coreect hit %'s.

[nosrac]

how about an "regular" egyptian squad droppin israeli paras at 400m b/c they moved 1 hex(50 m)!!!!!!
chickens with no heads i guess. movement penalty is too harsh and unrealistic. small arms fire= a bunch of snipers. too much emphasis on "kills" and not enough on supression.

[DRG]

nosrac said:
how about an "regular" egyptian squad droppin israeli paras at 400m b/c they moved 1 hex(50 m)!!!!!!
chickens with no heads i guess. movement penalty is too harsh and unrealistic. small arms fire= a bunch of snipers. too much emphasis on "kills" and not enough on supression.



Sometimes I REALLY wonder if I'm playing the same game as some of you people. The "movement penalty" is NOT "too harsh" and small arms fire does not equal "a bunch of snipers". If you move against an enemy force that is unsurpressed expect to take casualties if you are moving in the open in the desert. Surpression IS the key and if you don't do it expect casualties when moving in the open even if it is only one hex and your opponent is a ""regular" egyptian squad" What....?? a "regular" egyptian squad isn't supposed to be able to hit Isreali paras?

Don

[nosrac]

imho, at 400m in battlefield conditions. pretty tough. if a squad moves 1 hex and is truly tactical(tactical...using cover, keeping low...crawling???) at 400m even in open desert i find it hard to believe that at this distance anyone except a sniper could consistantly score kills(supression yes)
400m...4 football fields!!!long way!

btw...not to nitpick game. i absolutly love it. thanks for everything yall have done. truly remarkable.

[Arralen]

Uuuooh ... hitting someone ducking along in 400m with an AK-47 ?!
Do they use original Sowjet guns with scopes and match ammo?

"Universally accepted" effective range of the AK-47 is 300m !
( US Army Field Manual 100-2-3 - The Soviet Army; Troops Organisation and Equipment published in June 1991.)

[PlasmaKrab]

Sorry Kevin, I wasn't meaning that you were doing it, I don't even knkow where Starmyth found the info, so Iwasn't sure you wouldn't either...

Either case I was just indicating that he could do it himself, same way as you explained, only with better standardisation... Not necessarily useful though.

But if you want to have statistically useful results, you ought to allow for many shots for each PK %. One each won't do.

[loktarr]

Maybe your Israelis were not hitten by the only AK-47, there are also support weapons in a squad...
And are PKM and other light machinguns firing at 300m only?
Poor Egyptians, if they don't have any support weapon in their squads... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[nosrac]

are you guys saying it is normal for ANY infantry squad(not just poor egypitans..blah..blah..) to score kills on tacticly moving infantry(small arms, 50m hex,9-10 men) at 300-400 meters???
machine gun,ak,m16,rpg.. whatever the hell weapon they choose. is that right?if that is the case fine with me. that is very impressive. effective range means what? supression,kills?so if im in a squad, creeping(cover) down a road some unsupressed 65 exp. squad can drop two men at 300-400m with a pk b/c i can't see him???????!!!!!!!i did not realize how accurate modern weapons were. i am not in the military and don't have battlefield exp so this is a definate learning cruve for me. thanks.
chuck

[loktarr]

That's not a problem of modern weapon or not, BTW during WW2, german MG-42 could fire at an aim at 800m (reported from a guy that was on eastern front)...

[Exel]

Given a situation where an infantry squad fires at another infantry squad 400 meters away with everything they've got (assault rifles as well as MGs), then I see nothing spectacular in them getting one or two kills. You certainly can't snipe with an AK to 400 meters, but if you get enough bullets in the area, some of them are bound to hit your target.

[DRG]

Exel said:
Given a situation where an infantry squad fires at another infantry squad 400 meters away with everything they've got (assault rifles as well as MGs), then I see nothing spectacular in them getting one or two kills. You certainly can't snipe with an AK to 400 meters, but if you get enough bullets in the area, some of them are bound to hit your target.




Exactly. As well this is NOT something that happens all the time in the game OR in reality and those 2 "kills" are not "kills" they are casualties and "Casualties" means a man is removed from the fighting and that can cover anything from and outright kill to a case of "battle fatigue"

One "problem" we have always had is the number generator sometimes, in certain conditions, generates too many high or low end results in a row just as if you were playing an old board game with dice and seem to be cursed or charmed by rolling snake eyes or box cars more than is "normal" it's one of the quirks of the game and it's also one of the things that allows the game to simulate the fact that in combat, you can do everything right and by the book but if the other guys gets lucky all the training in the world won't help you and sometimes even Egyptian conscripts can score effectively against high trained Israeli Paras. S**t Happens

Don

[nosrac]

thanks to all for helpful comments. i guess i also need to remember that each turn(pulse) is 3-5 min. a lot of lead can fly in that time frame. just curious. i've read that the ai performs best with a batillion size force when attacking. is that correct? thanks again.

[Weasel]

Effective range for the C7 (M16 if you are American) is maximum 300 meters with the scope. Optimal range is 200 meters. Effective fire is "FIRE THAT WILL CAUSE CASUALTIES IF APPROPRIATE ACTION IS NOT TAKEN".

Since the AK is a looser built weapon and thus not as accurate, I would say it's maximum effective range is 200 meters, optimal 100 meters.

[Weasel]

here is another example: My T72 fires at another T72, my shot % is 69% and I miss. He returns fire (having to traverse etc) and gets a 16% chance to hit...AND KILLS ME.

All I can do is let out a big sigh. So can this be fixed or what?

[PlasmaKrab]

Red light syndrom, anyone?

You have to understand that all these percentile figures are, is a probability. If you have 76% PK, you still have one chance in 4 to miss it. If the other guy has 16% PK, he still has one chance in 7 to hit. And that's it.
Additionally the result of a first "dice roll" has no influence on the following, apart from the weapons on one unit going more accurate with every shot on the same target. Not because you have been unlucky once will the game hand you better dice out!
The game probability engine can be unfair, well, too bad, nature can as well!
By the way, I for one consider myself quite lucky with this probability engine. I am no rabid hex gamer, and maybe I have to remind some that many of the modern "wider-public" computer strategy games don't have one...

There is nothing to be fixed in this case, except maybe for the very human habit of always seeing the odds against oneself and not accepting the effects of random influences as, well, random... You see, destiny against you and so on...

As Don said above, the game's dice roller sometimes tends to stick in rows, so you can be VERY lucky or unlucky for some amount of time going. Well, as they say, [censored] happens!

Now if your 99% PK missiles keep overshooting again and again, that is where you have a problem.

[loktarr]

Since the AK is a looser built weapon and thus not as accurate, I would say it's maximum effective range is 200 meters, optimal 100 meters.


MG-42 was also a looser built weapon and I never heard allied veterans saying it was not accurate...
In fact from some experiments (serious ones, I mean), the AK-47 is more accurate at great ranges because of the weight of the bullet (7,62mm), but it's not the same for the AK-74, as it is a 5,45mm bullet...

[PlasmaKrab]

What is the actual, precise formula for gun accuracy?

All rifles tend to have an accuracy of 1, and when you shift to MGs or sniper rifles it bounces up to 20+...

I understand the factors like fast response, no time to aim, guys manning several weapons at once etc., but shouldn't some rifles be pulled up a bit so the quality difference can really be on accuracy, without having to tweak the range?

Or has this theme already been discussed and buried? I should think it has... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Arralen]

Actually, the MG-42 used heavy, speedy 7,92x57mm ammo ("8x57IS") with very flat trajectory (755-800 m/s, 3.600 - 5.000 J, effective range 800m with bipod, 3000-3500m on mounting).

The AK-47 uses slow 7,62x39mm bullet (710m/s, 2,010 J, effective range 300m).

Ak-74 uses high-velocity lightweight 5.45x39mm bullet (velocity: ~900 m/s, energy: ~1,350 J, effective range of around 400m because of flatter trajectory, the sights are zeroed for 300m)

[loktarr]

I didn't read that for the AKs, but you seem to got really precise informations so, it must be true...

[Arralen]

ammo performance
Those you can easily look up - Google will tell you a bunch of reliable sites which come up with congruent info.

effective range
A target is in effective range, if you can actually expect the weapon to have effect reliably (not random hits only).

For the AK-47 it's just the case that @400m you'll have to point it a little bit much "at the sky" rather than at the target, and the slow bullet is prone to wind drift etc. or to miss just because the target moved away. So you simply can't hit a target reliably at that range. Therefore it is generally attributed with an effective range of 300m.

The AK-74 is attributed with an effective range of 400m because of the faster bullet. It is also said that the small projectile has low stopping power, as it seems to simply go right through without breaking up (as the soft-core fullme tal jacket NATO 5,56 from M16 does). This would result in a lower HEkill factor, gamewise !?

The MG-43 @ 3000m is a little bit different, as this surely isn't aimed, but plugging area fire. Using a heavy tripod, the MG is "converted" into a HMG. Traverse in every direction can be limited seperatly, therefore a "kill zone" can be set up beforehand and later "sprayed" with bullets.
Direct fire using the tripod and attached scope is possible up to 1600m or something, IIRC from the time I had to fiddle around with it's successor MG-3 http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Weasel]

Sorry, but I disagree with you on this one. I am convinced that it is messed up coding in the game from the DOS version and it still exists in winMBT. Here is another lovely prime example that just happened about 5 minutes ago:

BMP 1 that has not moved in 4 turns fire at an immobilized LUCHS. Main gun 33%, MISSED. Missile 34% chance MISSED. MG 45% MISSED (why such low %, especially with the missile?). LUCHS returns fire 25% KILLS (1 shot 1 kill). Move in a ZSU 23-4 to take him out; 34% chance MISSED, LUCHS returns fire 24% KILLS (2 shots, 2 kills). Move in another ZSU 23-4 SAME RESULTS (3 shots, 3 kills). Then move another BMP down a road and come across a partial (3 men routed) sqd. BMP stops from 100 yards and opens fire, NO EFFECT. Routed sqd (22% chance) turn into supermen and kill the BMP. Move up a T62 AND THE SAME RESULTS! So in one turn I lost 6 vehicles all to 1 shot 1 kill with no % above 25% (explain that?). I was so frustrated and afraid to move that I didn't even finish my turn, I just ended it and sent it back to my opponent.

In my opinion this is a real flaw in the MBT series, and not matter how you explain it, it just doesn't make sense.

[Marek_Tucan]

@Arralen:

Yep, true. Our Sa. vz. 58 rifle, also using 7.62x39mm ammo, has sights marked up to 800 meters, but the maximal effective range is considered 400meters at best.


@Weasel:

In such situations I tell to myself "sh1t happens"... I was also frustrated in an hotseat game where enemy BMP-2's were massacring my ATGM teams with 3% kills, but I have also seen this on my side.

Btw Ias for the infantry casaulties I tend to play with inf toughness set for 200 points each side.

[scJazz]

You know depending on the design of the random number generator it might be reasonable to save and close the game re-open and continue play when you see a string of annoyingly low probability hits. For some of the possible design methods for the random number generator this will reinitialize randomSeed() and give you a whole set of pseudorandom numbers. Of course the random number generator might be designed in such a way that it would take a full restart of the computer to reinitialize randomSeed() or it may never be possible to reinitialize randomSeed().

[Weasel]

I am doing this as it seems like a good idea. I ran a test against the computer AI and what I noticed is that the hits are realistic when playing the AI; 25% misses 75% of the time etc. In a PBEM game I have only been able to log 17 shots so far, but this is what I have:
4% 1H (HIT)
8% 1H
22% 1H
24% 3H
25% 3H
30% 2H
31% 1M (MISS)
33% 1M
34% 1H
35% 1H
53% 1H

Not too many misses after 17 shots is there? I will keep updating this. For this experiment I am only counting main guns, missiles, and a/c shots.

[BigJim]

Heh heh if you want to watch the computer "get stuck" on low to hit numbers play the second campaigne where you have to make a river crossing and kill tons of tanks on the the other side after you have over come the "buried tanks" on the shore line and all the mines. I have played this one twice and every time I play the AI gets consistant hits and kills at anywhere from 3% to not more than 30% chance to hit. It ALWAYS gets low to hit kills on "key" equipment LOL this has been the rap of Steel Panthers since it first came out 10 years ago and not much has changed. Air Power is also poorly done "friendly fire" is the rule NOT the exception in this game (unless of course the AI is using it then it seems to behave correctly). I have had friendly aircraft divert 15 hexes to hit my own troops.

[DRG]

BigJim said:
Heh heh if you want to watch the computer "get stuck" on low to hit numbers play the second campaigne where you have to make a river crossing and kill tons of tanks on the the other side after you have over come the "buried tanks" on the shore line and all the mines. I have played this one twice and every time I play the AI gets consistant hits and kills at anywhere from 3% to not more than 30% chance to hit. It ALWAYS gets low to hit kills on "key" equipment LOL this has been the rap of Steel Panthers since it first came out 10 years ago and not much has changed. Air Power is also poorly done "friendly fire" is the rule NOT the exception in this game (unless of course the AI is using it then it seems to behave correctly). I have had friendly aircraft divert 15 hexes to hit my own troops.



Then you really do not have a clue how to play this game. I suspect the AI beats you a lot. It's more than obvious from the posts you've been making. I have seen this complaint before and surprise, surprise when I call in an airstike it hit's the target I aim at because I target it correctly. Use the HQ or a FO, don't bring the strike in over terrain that obscures the target on the aircrafts run in and DO NOT target the aircrafts path through smoke or through enemy AA or SAMS as that throws off the aim as well. I almost NEVER get a blue on blue targeting airstrikes and anyone who does simple isn'ts doing it correctly. As for your allegation that the AI gets higher to hit % than the human play it is, to be blunt, total crap. There it N*O*T* *H* I* N* G in the code that gives the AI ANY kind of advantage over the human player like that.

You don't like the game and it seems you've had a "problem" with SP since it was released and you don't seem to enjoy any kind of challenging scenario or campaign so I really wonder why you bother

Don

[Shadowcougar]

BigJim said:
Heh heh if you want to watch the computer "get stuck" on low to hit numbers play the second campaigne where you have to make a river crossing and kill tons of tanks on the the other side after you have over come the "buried tanks" on the shore line and all the mines. I have played this one twice and every time I play the AI gets consistant hits and kills at anywhere from 3% to not more than 30% chance to hit. It ALWAYS gets low to hit kills on "key" equipment LOL this has been the rap of Steel Panthers since it first came out 10 years ago and not much has changed. Air Power is also poorly done "friendly fire" is the rule NOT the exception in this game (unless of course the AI is using it then it seems to behave correctly). I have had friendly aircraft divert 15 hexes to hit my own troops.



Big Jim The Air Force just hates you and that is why you get bombed http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Like Don said, you just need to target correctly and follow the advice he gave you. Have found that out several years ago.

Forget once recently and go bombed by a B-52 and that hurt http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/shock.gif

[RVPERTVS]

Hey Don, what do you mean by "I almost NEVER get a blue on blue targeting airstrikes and anyone who does simple isn'ts doing it correctly"

By "blue on blue" you mean aircraft hitting targets from the same team or what?

I really don´t understand what BigJim means, I´ve been playing this game for nearly 3 months now since I begin with the dos V (I´m such a rookie) and I use air support a lot and so far I haven´t experience friendly aircraft fire.

By the way, I got my CD 3 days ago and everything is running correctly down here..great game¡¡¡, it is all I play. Congratulations.

[FJ_MD]

Blue on blue is synonymous of friendly fire. In this case it is intended when your aircraft come in and strafe and bomb your own units.

[Marek_Tucan]

Yes, Blue on Blue is a Friendly Fire and I got it in my long time SP playing just VERY few times. I take care after my first amicide incident when back in good old SP1 a Thunderbolt hit Sherman with 5inch rockets. The Sherman survived but since that time I take care.

OTOH I have seen many friendly fire incident on AI side, recenty in a large battle Czechoslovakia-Egypt in 1986 IIRC, Egypt got 8 F-16's, 3 of them have attacked one T-72 (and only suppressed it), 2 others have attacked other T-72 (and suppressed it), one attacked Egyptian T-62 (and missed), other two went massacring Egyptian APC's http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Alpha]

yup, the AI also does friendly fire, i play against soviets and it seems they have enough troops to waste, since their arty mostly targets portions of own troops hehe.

[Weasel]

Ok, I ran a test in winmbt against human opponents counting the number of times a tank's main gun fires and hits/misses, or a missile hits/misses. Here is what I got after 200 shots, H=hit, M=miss

3% 1H
4% 1H 1M
5% 2M
7% 1M
8% 1H 1M
9% 2M
11% 1M
12% 1H 2M
14% 3H 4M
15% 1M
16% 3H 4M
17% 2H 1M
18% 3M
19% 2M
20% 2H 3M
21% 4H 1M
22% 2H 2M
23% 2H 4M
24% 5H 3M
25% 5H 3M
26% 2H 4M
27% 1H 4M
28% 3M
29% 3H 2M
30% 2H 6M
31% 1H 2M
32% 2H 1M
33% 6M
34% 1H 4M
35% 1H 1M
36% 1H 2M
37% 1M
38% 1M
40% 3H
41% 1H 3M
42% 4H 3M
43% 3M
44% 2H 1M
45% 2M
47% 2H 1M
48% 1M
49% 1H
50% 2M
51% 1H 2M
52% 1H
53% 1H 1M
54% 2H
55% 2M
56% 1M
57% 1H
60% 1H 1M
61% 2M
63% 1H 5M
64% 1M
66% 1H
67% 2H
68% 1H
71% 1H 1M
73% 3H
74% 1H
75% 2H 1M
76% 1H
78% 1H
79% 2H
85% 1H
90% 1H
91% 1H
93% 1H
94% 2H 1M
99% 4H

As you can see from above the majority of % to hit in winMBT are below 50% yet you still have about a 61% to hit. Now I am no scientist and I don't know how much value the above table is, but it seems to me that if you have a low % shot take it as the odds seem pretty good that the round will strike home.

[narwan]

Some quick math based on your table shows that the average hit percentage per shot for those at 20% or lower is 12%.

14 out of 42 shots were hits though giving a 33%.

Are your scores based on the % shown in the 'target' screen or the listed percentages on screen when actually firing?

[Weasel]

The % are the final % shown when the shot is fired.

[Weasel]

So was this ever looked at? Just wondering as the game continues to kill at incredible low odds (just lost 5 M18s to 25% chances or less from long range). BTW Narwan, I am not sure of your math, but my math of 20% or less shots shows that out of a total of 42 shots fired, 14 hit or 33%, shouldn't this max out a 20%? And if you go to 25% then 32 hit out of 73 shots, or 44%.

[Wdll]

No.
20% is for each hit, not for all your hits added together.

[rfisher]

The lucky shots trouble me too.
I'll be honest here, I am a cheat! I always save my games at the begining of a turn, and if I loose something important to a 1% shot, or if my last milan round fails to hit the enemies last tank, despite a 99% hit chance, I simply load the turn up again. It is because to do otherwise makes the previous two hours of playing feel pointless, if everything else was done right.
I am torn though, because I do see that there should be wild cards, and a 1% chance to hit, is still a very real chance. In games terms however, I sometimes think I want some things to be more concrete.
I sometimes wish you could have a 'fluke cut-off' point ie below 10% to hit, will always miss and above 90% will always hit. That sort of thing.
Or an optional firing button that instead of firing each shot seperately, it would fire all 'at once' and guarantee your odds ie if you have 6 shots and a 50% hit chance you would always get 3 hits.

[Marek_Tucan]

Statistics don't work that way, you may fire 6 shots at 50% and still come off with 0 hits IRL http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif It's as tossing the coin, you can get a short-term sequence of same results, however in the long run they tend to even out.

[rfisher]

Sorry, you miss my point. I'm talking about deliberately suspending that short term 'real life' chance in favour of the long run results.
This is because I 'get' nothing from winning or losing a battle when the lucky shots might affect the final result.
The very facts and figures used in SPMBT surely come from 'long-run' results, so sometimes, it would be nice to actually get those results.

[hoplitis]

rfisher,
I understand
I disagree
http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Wdll]

If you fire a milan at an enemy tank with very low % and hit it and destroy it, do you reload because it "shouldn't" hit it?

Saying that you cheat (or "cheat") to get favourable results in shots/battles and then saying you have a problem with low percentile hits, is...lame to put it nicely.

[Sniper23]

I personaly find that low hit %[1-5%]to hit more then say 20%

[Marek_Tucan]

I'd say that the low % hits are more "visible" - ie you take 90% hitting as something ordinary, but notice each hit at 2% ...

[Sniper23]

Marek_Tucan said:
I'd say that the low % hits are more "visible" - ie you take 90% hitting as something ordinary, but notice each hit at 2% ...



that makes sence,i will try to run a test tonght battle and see what the results are.

[rfisher]

Wdll said:
If you fire a milan at an enemy tank with very low % and hit it and destroy it, do you reload because it "shouldn't" hit it?

No I don't, as I'm a cheat.

Saying that you cheat (or "cheat") to get favourable results in shots/battles and then saying you have a problem with low percentile hits, is...lame to put it nicely.



And you're right, it is lame, but let me explain myself.
Its clear that most of you guys are very serious about this game and its subject and are very knowledgable on how to fight battles, what to fight them with etc.
I, on the other hand am an idiot on these matters, but am trying to learn. Lucky shots (weather in my favour or not) can give a battle such a radically different outcome that it is hard to discern weather a tactic I'm trying has worked or failed.
Doing my little reloading cheat, has shown me numerous times that you can do exactly the same thing the second time round, and the results can be the complete polar opposite to what happened the first time.
This is fine, but you can surely see how it is difficult to learn from?

[Wdll]

If you need to redo/load something to make your plan work, then perhaps your plan isn't the best as it is. Try to avoid getting hit.

I understand you, but the only way to learn the game is by losing, big.

[Marek_Tucan]

Your plan should be robust enough so that few lucky hits don't upset it and at the same time flexible enough to change direction when losses are too high. Unfortunately, as all of us, you have to lose big time before winning big time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

[narwan]

Marek_Tucan said:
Unfortunately, as all of us, you have to lose big time before winning big time http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif



I never lost big time! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

@rfisher:
If you want to know the important lesson here it is that a plan that can be thwarted by a single or even two or three lucky hits by the enemy (or bad luck misses from your troops) in a short time is a bad plan. You need some redundancy in your approach. Lucky hits and misses WILL happen and should happen.

[hoplitis]

Ok guys! Give the man some breathing space here! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
Yes reloading is a standard way to improve your knowledge, tactics and gaming style. One word of advise though. There are some great scenarios & campaigns in the game. Don't "waste" them in the "learning phase". They're so much fun to play when you have "settled" on your game style and play them """honestly""". What I'm saying is if you think you need more "training" don't do it with the scenarios that appeal to you. Manage your future enjoyment!!! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/cool.gif

[Marek_Tucan]

Good training is also PBEM against someone experienced (if you don't mind you'd get destroyed in the process) http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif But as he'll be mercilessly killing your units, you will see how he prepares his luck.

[Wdll]

True, just be careful to not kick his ***, during a whole battle or against a unit or two of his or he might start thinking you cheat.

[hoplitis]

The only "compassionate" PBEM opponent would be your mother, provided she had some recent victories so her motherely instincts can resurface. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[rfisher]

Hmmm, I'd better be clear: I only cheat against the computer!
I've never played a PBEM game let alone cheated in one, honest! (Can you do the reloading cheat thing in PBEM games?)

Anyway, I'd like to flog this one to death for those of you not yet bored of my dumb comments, as the extremes of the lucky shots still trouble me. By extremes, I mean the shots that hit with a 1% chance, as well as the shots that miss with a 99% chance.
This appears to be a deliberate decision that there are no absolutes, and it is fair enough, but I feel that even a 1 in 100 chance is too generous in many cases.
As an extreme example, a tank with an unstabilised gun is bouncing along a rough road, full tilt and taking pot shots at a sniper. With the best intentions of the gunner,the sniper is still far less than 1% of the total area that the gun might be pointing at when the trigger is pulled (even allowing for an area effect weapon, there is a lot of sky for the shell to sail off into), so a 1% hit chance is exceedingly generous, yet as long as the target is in range, this is what the game gives it.
And I see a lot of 1% to hit chances in the games I play.

So I think that the real reason we feel we witness an excess of low probability hits, is not just because they are memorable, though that is undoubtable a large part of it, but rather it is because there is an excess of low probabilty targets being offered as viable, when really they should be counted as targets at less than 1% chance of hitting and therefore be ineligible as a target.

I've got other statistical queries, but I should probably receive my beasting for this post first.

Be gentle.

[Wdll]

I am not sure about that. For example in the greek borders every year there are deaths of illegal immigrants, drug carriers etc trying to pass through the borders and in at least a couple of cases each year there will be a misfire from a dropped gun (greek border patrol) that managed to kill a few of them on the opposite ridge or something. The chances of that happening must be under 1% too, but it happens.

[PanzerBob]

Personally I think percentages are fine, but they only tell part of the story on the battlefield. The Fog of War plays into these things on a regular basis, certainly one of the strengths of the game. The only time I might belabour a percentage is when I'm down to my last rounds. In training high scores on the range are measure of proficiency, and the hope is the more one becomes an extension the weapon better the chance the weapon will do what it was designed to do.

[Sniper23]

I personally think that strategy,morale,and training is more inportant then woieing about the percentages.

once played a game{one of my firsts in mbt]the enemy was getting lucky all over the place but thank to strategy,training,and morale i was able to pull of a draw

spelling sucks!

the battlefield is were it all comes together or fall's apart[as i leard last week]

[hoplitis]

BTW, and to return to the subject, the primary "cheat or not" test would include multiple shots with the same "to-hit" probability. "Sampling" the whole probability range... well it takes some more "advanced" statistics.
I mean, after all, the question is if a "reported" 3% hit probability is statistically 3% also. Right?

[DRG]

The initial hit probability displayed in the game you see before you fire is the basic, unmodified chance of a hit. (call it the units WAG ) It is only after a unit fires that the factors such as experience, morale, leadership, weapon accuracy etc etc get factored in.

Then there are always random numbers tossed in. If the game didn't use random numbers to simulate that all things in life and especially combat is not simply 1+1=2 the game would be boring and predictable. Sometimes you do get lucky, sometimes no matter how well prepared you are S**T HAPPENS and that is why those intial to -hit probabilities should be taken as a rough guidelines only.

Also, the to-hit percentage is based in the weapon in slot 1 only so if you have a squad with a rifle in slot one and a Inf AT weapon in slot four and your aiming at a tank you're not getting the Inf AT weapons probability and, as I mentioned above , your not getting the morale, experience etc ( and random ) factors. Those only get calculated once you "pull the trigger"

Don