von manstein nearly broke thru at the south though but yeah... an army marches on its stomach.... or in this case petrol... or diesel...
Gameplay Suggestion: Reduce RNG
- Thread starter gbem
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
von manstein nearly broke thru at the south though but yeah... an army marches on its stomach.... or in this case petrol... or diesel...
Panzer-Abteilung 502:
24-30 June 1944 - 27 Soviet tanks and AFVs claimed
Ammunition Expediture - 1079 88 mm AP rounds
4-27 July 1944 - 85 Soviet tanks and AFV claimed
Ammunition Expediture - 555 88 mm AP rounds
StuG battalions on eastern front :
December 1943/May 1944 - 1899 Soviet AFV claimed destroyed and 132 disabled
Ammunition Expediture - 51 595 AP rounds
Namely 11 rounds per tank claimed is relevant to the records of Flak batteries used in Northern Africa in 1942.
I really have no idea what accuracy do you expect when you fire at a 6x3 meter target moving at 10-15 km, 800-1000 meters away, while your projectile will travel anywhere from 1-3 seconds to the target, and you might even have some light cross-wind.
Wont be 90% hit probability, wont be 80%, or 70%.
Of course, reality might be different.
- claims are rarely accurate
- range plays a role
- there are quite a few records of StuGs, Tigers or even M18s and normal tanks using AP shells against hardened targets like pillboxes and fortified structures.
But still, ammo fired per tank claimed is still staggering.
I had some issues with RNG in this game. I played a match once, our team was slowly pushed out by axis, but no matter what we were going to win and we did won. What frustrated me to a point of screaming and swearing at everything is the fact that at first I placed my 2 vet 76mm gun with leader in an ambush and tried to fire at Panther from 400m, and missed. Then I repeated the same thing but with another 2vet 76mm gun with another commander but in another place and my gun missed again at the approximately the same range. I did nothing wrong, I've lured the enemy into a trap two times in a row, he did a mistake and yet the game punishes me for doing everything right. And worse, then my teammate destroyed that panther with his unvetted gun from a larger distance at first shot.
I realy do prefer wargame system, you still have lots and lots of RNG but unlike SD, you have a tiny bit of reliability - HP. You can back your tank back and repair if RNG screwed you, it's still a loss of territory for you and unit is out of play for some time, but you aren't completley screwed and certainly game isn't punishing you for doing everything right, you have your small escape route.
But I think nothing can be done with RNG in this game. You, me and anyone else who dislikes the amount of RNG have to get over it.
I realy do prefer wargame system, you still have lots and lots of RNG but unlike SD, you have a tiny bit of reliability - HP. You can back your tank back and repair if RNG screwed you, it's still a loss of territory for you and unit is out of play for some time, but you aren't completley screwed and certainly game isn't punishing you for doing everything right, you have your small escape route.
But I think nothing can be done with RNG in this game. You, me and anyone else who dislikes the amount of RNG have to get over it.
here`s the thing though... thats just ammo expenditure.... we dont know if they could have been 2 or 3 tanks/AT guns firing at the same target 2-3 even 5 times... it is standard doctrine to keep shooting at the target until it catches fire or explodes.... it could be that the first or second rounds hit but only the 5th managed to set it on fire... playing a bit of combat mission sort of demonstrates my point to a degree....
we also dont know whether or not said tank tanks have been moving or static or the targets were moving or static hell we dont even know what theyre firing at... it could just be a dummy target... or a pillbox... the british in particular fire on the move to suppress their targets.... this affects ammo consumption greatly
and lastly we dont know the range of engagement... accuracy drops considerably at 2000m and engagements in the eastern front happened at extremely long ranges... more data is required to extrapolate from this statistic
Last edited:
Pointless. It's too much of a change and it won't solve the core problem - lack of reliability. And increasing accuracy all over the table paired with your penetration suggestion will make things even worse then they are now. As I've said, system, while can be frustrating as hell, is fine as long as most of the players are ok with it, so get over it and play. The only issue is veterancy which is another topic.
War is a game of chance. War is just like gambling, you gamble with your life, materials, country and future. If your AT gun misses, you rolled low. There is RNG in everything in life and the only two absolutes that exist are death and taxes. Your two star vet 76mm should've killed the tank, but that was not the plan.
Did you jiggle a screwdriver into your brain? What part of this line confused you, the part where I didn't misspell every damn word and capitalize with all the accuracy of a crack addict trying to brush their teeth?
I mean I get that I didn't hit your quota of thirty periods per character, but surely even you can figure out that the word you can be plural, right?
PS: citing realism as an argument for anything mechanical whatsoever in a game is literally almost as dumb as maglans.
This is the game, not real life war, stop bringing this argument, or I'll start speaking about seriously underepresented logistics despite how important logistics are in muh real life war. And games are for escapism, not for being simillar to real life. Again, the game should promote right decisions, not otherwise. Mb I am a bit overexaggregating, as situations I've described above in the thread are rare, but these situations still leave pretty bad impression and a feeling of unfairness.
If the game wasn't promoting the right decision, your AT gun in the bush would've been spotted by whatever tank you were ambushing - without recon. What I am saying is, however you figured the chance to hit in your mind or what was being shown to you, still had a chance to fail and it did. That seems to be why you are here making this statement about RNG. I just pointed out that there are no absolutes and having the jump on a tank with an AT gun is one of them. Just like real war, just like this game - RNG exists.
Here is the flip side. Should there be any mistake that can't be recovered from? Like a Panther surviving an ambush? What about a plane flying over an AA network that manages to escape?
Finding out what your exact expectation is for an "even" or "suitable" outcome is something that should be defined pretty clearly - and with detailed math in my opinion. Because without it, the only thing people seem to argue about RNG with is the grey area that most of the game exists in, dispersion, stress, chance to hit, chance to penetrate, chance to see. Beyond having an ambush fail to a very random situation and thus having a "broken game" for it.
Here is the flip side. Should there be any mistake that can't be recovered from? Like a Panther surviving an ambush? What about a plane flying over an AA network that manages to escape?
Finding out what your exact expectation is for an "even" or "suitable" outcome is something that should be defined pretty clearly - and with detailed math in my opinion. Because without it, the only thing people seem to argue about RNG with is the grey area that most of the game exists in, dispersion, stress, chance to hit, chance to penetrate, chance to see. Beyond having an ambush fail to a very random situation and thus having a "broken game" for it.
Last edited:
man you know that 1000 m ingame are also not 1000 m in rl? right? all the arty had much longer range than displayed in game and so on. So you have to take 1000 m ingame more like 2000m in rl
@roirraw
I haven't said the game is broken nor that RNG have to be removed. Idealy, I want to have one absolute, like HP in wargame, which made it possible to calculate the worst possible outcome of the engagement (excluding the loss of a unit): for example, two tanks are facing each other. In wargame I know how much damage they will deal to each other, and I can be certain of only one thing, that my tank will stay alive even if RNG favours my opponent this time.
It's the ideal tho, realisticaly speaking I think that current damage system fine as long as most players are fine with it. I personaly have a smal degree of disdain for any person who think that system like the one in SD has anything good to it in a game, but this time it is me who has to get over it, as well as our OP.
I haven't said the game is broken nor that RNG have to be removed. Idealy, I want to have one absolute, like HP in wargame, which made it possible to calculate the worst possible outcome of the engagement (excluding the loss of a unit): for example, two tanks are facing each other. In wargame I know how much damage they will deal to each other, and I can be certain of only one thing, that my tank will stay alive even if RNG favours my opponent this time.
It's the ideal tho, realisticaly speaking I think that current damage system fine as long as most players are fine with it. I personaly have a smal degree of disdain for any person who think that system like the one in SD has anything good to it in a game, but this time it is me who has to get over it, as well as our OP.
No, it wasnt a "standard doctrine" to fire at something until it catches on fire.
No, its completely irrelevant, as its still a huge number of shells fired per one tank claimed. Where claims could still be divided by two, and it would be optimistic.
Most tanks were knocked-out by 1-2 hits, and burned as well.
Of course they were firing at pill boxes in 44, because they were totally on the offensive.
Germans fired from the short-stop exclusively.
Range_______75mm gun_____88mm gun
100-200_______10.0%_________4.0%
200-400_______26.1%________14.0%
400-600_______33.5%________18.0%
600-800_______14.5%________31.2%
800-1000_______7.0%________13.5%
1000-1200______4.5%_________8.5%
1200-1400______3.6%_________7.6%
1400-1600______0.4%_________2.0%
1600-1800______0.4%_________0.7%
1800-2000______0.0%_________0.5%
Soviet tanks and assault guns knocked-out during 1943-1944, from Red army handbook.
What does ammunition consumption have to do with the hit probabilitiy????
They might be shooting even if no target is in sight or if vision is not clear....lot of smoke etc.
They might be shooting even if no target is in sight or if vision is not clear....lot of smoke etc.
Last edited:
Shermans didn't fire 2km out (although m10 indirect fire could probably get that far) , engineers can't throw satchels 200m and panzerfausts domt travel 300m.
Oh and all the pen chances are configured around a 1:1 relationship between game and real world units of measurement.
you know if you could act your age instead of like a 4 yr old child with an attention span to boot... you would have read these
and an older quote to backup my point
now what say you?
You know if you throw insults around criticizing one side alone with a flurry of childish insults without criticizing the other for even starting the realism argument in the first place implies potential bias in your views... i made such an assumption in belief that you have read my original statements and were arguing in both the context of realism and gameplay... but apparently you never bothered to read them and i guess thats a mistake in my part to assume you have...
and ffs drop down on the insults and act civil... this pointless banter is but tiresome