Gameplay Suggestion: Reduce RNG

[Protosszocker]

Sherman tanks were expected to have an accuracy of above 80% on the first shot in combat situations at 1000m with follow on shots being almost guaranteed hits. It is silly to assume that people who have spent months training on a platform can't hit the broad side of a barn.

"The 'first shot hit' really should read 'first aimed shot when a ranging round has been fired' and your target is standing still. If I remember correctly crews were warned that fire at a moving target over 1000 mtrs was a waste of ammo and for certain Wittmann fired at and missed a Cromwell tank when it was less that 100 ft from him and both tanks were static.
It might be wise to remember they manufactured millions of 88mm AP rounds and that a Tiger did not return from a mission with 80 hits registered.
In the desert (wide open spaces with a direct line of sight) the 88mm Flak claimed 1 tank hit for every 11 rounds fired at normal range and 20+ at long range. Note the word 'claimed' rather than 'confirmed hit'.
For all those in awe of the German specs for the 88mm gun-remember on paper the US 76mm gun could penetrate a Panther glacis!"

I see it more like this guy from this forum:http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126321
sure in training and in knowledge of the distance you know how to hit. but in combat in known territory on moving targets you even have to identify with weakspots and so on its much harder. Though after the first shot it gets easier. But Rng was still big in ww2

 

[Boxman]

"The 'first shot hit' really should read 'first aimed shot when a ranging round has been fired' and your target is standing still. If I remember correctly crews were warned that fire at a moving target over 1000 mtrs was a waste of ammo and for certain Wittmann fired at and missed a Cromwell tank when it was less that 100 ft from him and both tanks were static.
It might be wise to remember they manufactured millions of 88mm AP rounds and that a Tiger did not return from a mission with 80 hits registered.
In the desert (wide open spaces with a direct line of sight) the 88mm Flak claimed 1 tank hit for every 11 rounds fired at normal range and 20+ at long range. Note the word 'claimed' rather than 'confirmed hit'.
For all those in awe of the German specs for the 88mm gun-remember on paper the US 76mm gun could penetrate a Panther glacis!"

I see it more like this guy from this forum:http://www.armchairgeneral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=126321
sure in training and in knowledge of the distance you know how to hit. but in combat in known territory on moving targets you even have to identify with weakspots and so on its much harder. Though after the first shot it gets easier. But Rng was still big in ww2

No, according to WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery the first shot fired at a target at 1000m should hit, no ranging round needed.

 

[Katsuki126]

Sherman tanks were expected to have an accuracy of above 80% on the first shot in combat situations at 1000m with follow on shots being almost guaranteed hits. It is silly to assume that people who have spent months training on a platform can't hit the broad side of a barn.

No, according to WWII Ballistics: Armor and Gunnery the first shot fired at a target at 1000m should hit, no ranging round needed.

Have you ever been in a situation where you know that a single bad decision can cause your death ? That death can come from anywhere ? If you did think about it.

Training and real battle is wholly different, you expect a lot in training so that soldiers don't feel lost on the battlefield, but they will seriously underperform compared to training. Sometimes they will also outperform, because no one now how one react during a battle before fighting it. It is not machine but men that kill and die. They have feelings and emotions and can't be reduce to numbers on a spreadsheet. Men are unpredictable. In a battle where danger rules, where death is omnipresent, there are even more.

 

[gbem]

with this version of armor tanks would be useless. And the accuracy also isnt that unrealistic. Hitting the first hit isnt that easy . even though we could talk about a +1 acc buff for a long time (20-30 sec) stationary at gun or a better hiding chance for them. But still its not like at guns back than were modern weapons with rangefinder and stuff.

i suggested an armor system rework to that closer to storm of the west.. a mod where armor is still very important..... accuracy is even moreso unrealistic..... boxman is right on this one... the first shot should have 80% chance to hit..... that was tested via stadiametric rangefinding against a static 2x2.5m target...

 

[gbem]

Have you ever been in a situation where you know that a single bad decision can cause your death ? That death can come from anywhere ? If you did think about it.

Training and real battle is wholly different, you expect a lot in training so that soldiers don't feel lost on the battlefield, but they will seriously underperform compared to training. Sometimes they will also outperform, because no one now how one react during a battle before fighting it. It is not machine but men that kill and die. They have feelings and emotions and can't be reduce to numbers on a spreadsheet. Men are unpredictable. In a battle where danger rules, where death is omnipresent, there are even more.

exactly why i suggested 50% chance to hit instead of the realistic 80% figure.... to model that "unpredictability" on the battlefield..... regardless the accuracy displayed as of the moment is worse than bullcrap...

 

[Razzmann]

All these layers of RNG truly make the game a lot of fun

 

[gbem]

All these layers of RNG truly make the game a lot of fun

do i sense a layer of sarcasm in that azzman? esp since ive mostly seen u stream wargame instead of steel div XD

 

[Katsuki126]

exactly why i suggested 50% chance to hit instead of the realistic 80% figure.... to model that "unpredictability" on the battlefield..... regardless the accuracy displayed as of the moment is worse than bullcrap...

Then it is only a matter of tweaking numbers to achieve the historical result. I'm fine by the current situation.

 

[Drang]

And now we're quoting training manuals as if they have any bearing on combat probabilities.

Oh my sides.

 

[gbem]

Mmkay since balancing around empirically measured values is apparently illogical lets just balance it around numbers "i feel" is correct.... maybe you should ask the crystal ball for its opinion aswell... or better yet lets ask the ouija board :v

 

[Drang]

Empiricaly measured values that are not from combat scenarios; i.e. not relevant ones. Rather, use relevant information - combat reports.

All weapon accuracy would need massively buffing, if we take your idea of using firing-range probabilities to calculate combat hit chances

 

[Protosszocker]

Mmkay since balancing around empirically measured values is apparently illogical lets just balance it around numbers "i feel" is correct.... maybe you should ask the crystal ball for its opinion aswell... or better yet lets ask the ouija board :v

You know about the researches of the US army about how many soldiers actually aim on target in Vietnam and WW2 right? Shooting on a metal plate is different from aiming on a tank with 5 human beings inside. i bet with you those guys also aimed bad on purpose some times. Test under perfect circumstancers are so far from combat as are feelings about how it was. Battle reports and statistics (like 11 shots for 1 confirmed hit) are things you have to use.

 

[gbem]

You know about the researches of the US army about how many soldiers actually aim on target in Vietnam and WW2 right? Shooting on a metal plate is different from aiming on a tank with 5 human beings inside. i bet with you those guys also aimed bad on purpose some times. Test under perfect circumstancers are so far from combat as are feelings about how it was. Battle reports and statistics (like 11 shots for 1 confirmed hit) are things you have to use.

11 shots for 1 confirmed hit is taken from what statistic? and is it infantry guns or tank guns? so far i have not seen a good statistic on the accuracy of tanks in tank vs tank combat....

 

[Ulatersk]

Empiricaly measured values that are not from combat scenarios; i.e. not relevant ones. Rather, use relevant information - combat reports.

All weapon accuracy would need massively buffing, if we take your idea of using firing-range probabilities to calculate combat hit chances

Ive been trying to tell him that about 3 times now.

 

[gbem]

Ive been trying to tell him that about 3 times now.

present evidence for your case please.... i havent found a single iteration of "11 rounds to kill a tank" statistic so far....

 

[Claremont Waltz]

This argument is so dumb it makes my brain hurt.

Eugen have already established that realism can be tossed on the altar of game play with stuff like artillery and tank ranges and the existence of combat operational hs129 b3, m22 lolcust, xylophone, not to mention every jagdpanther in Normandy has been provided to the 352 while 3AD doesn't get its attached m10s. As a result, it really doesn't matter whether or not you can find a sekrit dokument somewhere that supports your particular brand of stupid on this topic.

So construct an argument that shows how units whiffing harder than a bunch of toddlers playing tball is good game play or find a nice hole and stuff your keyboard in it.

 

[Nebelwerfer 42]

you mean park your AT gun with a command unit wait for the target to close in to 600 meters and miss like a bitch? that shit has happened multiple times and RNG like that is completely unrealistic... especially considering the frequency of its occurence...

with RNG there is no "sweet spot".. only frustration as your stuff misses fairly reliably at even half the engagement range.... that shit used to happen in earlier iterations of wargame but does NOT happen in wargame red dragon.... RD was made alot more competitive and simply better right after the accuracy buff

realistically speaking accuracy should be at least 80% at 1000m but since thats too much id settle for at least 50% with accuracy being almost 100% within 600 meters ESPECIALLY during an ambush

Even the low caliber 5 accuracy AT guns will regularly hit at 600m, and if they miss, they simply reload far faster than the enemy tank can acquire them, and put in another shot that is basically guaranteed to hit. That's the sweet spot I'm talking about.

And 80% accuracy at 1000m? Seriously? Tank battles should have only lasted a few hours then in WW2, not days!

 

[Protosszocker]

Even the low caliber 5 accuracy AT guns will regularly hit at 600m, and if they miss, they simply reload far faster than the enemy tank can acquire them, and put in another shot that is basically guaranteed to hit. That's the sweet spot I'm talking about.

And 80% accuracy at 1000m? Seriously? Tank battles should have only lasted a few hours then in WW2, not days!

yeah and germans would have won Kursk easily

 

[Claremont Waltz]

Germans would have lost battle of kursk even if their tank accuracy was 100% at that range because they lacked the resources (manpower, fuel, ammunition, spare parts, replacement tanks and vehicles, etc) to push any distance whatsoever into enemy rear. They'd have run aground on their own logistical failures, then been swept away by the enormous soviet counterattack waiting patiently in the rear for their inevitable failure.

Wars are won at strategic and operational levels, not tactical. Inability to comprehend that reality post Bismark is why germans lost all wars since 1870, and why British have always cleaned up when it comes to warfighting despite their atrocious food, worse style and frequent tactical ineptitude (18th century delusions to the contrary notwithstanding).

 

[gbem]

This argument is so dumb it makes my brain hurt.

Eugen have already established that realism can be tossed on the altar of game play with stuff like artillery and tank ranges and the existence of combat operational hs129 b3, m22 lolcust, xylophone, not to mention every jagdpanther in Normandy has been provided to the 352 while 3AD doesn't get its attached m10s. As a result, it really doesn't matter whether or not you can find a sekrit dokument somewhere that supports your particular brand of stupid on this topic.

So construct an argument that shows how units whiffing harder than a bunch of toddlers playing tball is good game play or find a nice hole and stuff your keyboard in it.

ohh really? soo you really think huge amounts of RNG is good for gameplay? and apparently punishing good tactics and maneuvering is now considered a smart idea?... maybe you should get checked and see who really has that brand of stupid....

and lastly my original argument was about gameplay not realism.... did you bother to read my earlier posts or do you lack the attention span to do so?

regardless realism isnt the main concern here... its gameplay...it is frustrating...simply frustrating on how powerful RNG is ingame...
is it fun to miss shots fired by unsuppressed tanks at 600m? bcz 50%/40% chance to hit depending on the gun
is it fun to have a well prepared and well setup AT gun or tank ambush miss because RNG wants to screw you?
is it fun to have an AT gun lined up with a 72% chance to pen and bounce because RNG says fuck me?
is it fun to have a your m4a1 sherman die to a gerlich at 900m simply because he had 2% chance to kill you and simply got lucky?
i dont think so.... and i dont think its good for the playerbase either... its simply frustrating....

the thing is other people simply brought up the realism topic again and again and i had to rebut in order to defend my point....

case in point.....

anyways if you want to argue about rng and its detriment/enhancement of gameplay feel free to do so...you would be the first one to do so with an argument stronger than "i like it this way"... lets just tone down on the insults and keep this civil.....

Even the low caliber 5 accuracy AT guns will regularly hit at 600m, and if they miss, they simply reload far faster than the enemy tank can acquire them, and put in another shot that is basically guaranteed to hit. That's the sweet spot I'm talking about.

And 80% accuracy at 1000m? Seriously? Tank battles should have only lasted a few hours then in WW2, not days!

thats 80% accuracy for an unstressed unit at 1000m.... accuracy drops to atrocious levels with incoming enemy fire.. of course morale is modeled ingame... but accuracy is still ridiculously bad game wise

5 acc at 600m is 53% chance to hit.... which translates to missing approximately half of your shots at 600m.... that is atrociously bad especially for a gun aiming for the broadside of a slow moving tank...





and lastly i still havent seen that 11 shot per tank statistic yet..... we have to argue on evidence not on feelings and the best evidence we got is a range statistic.... and therefore we have to base on it and modify it to optimize gameplay...