Login

russian armor

OKW troops compared to SU/UKF/USF

15 Feb 2018, 22:04 PM
#1
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518

In this post I will show you the links to an comparison series between OKW and Allied troops done by an mate of mine and me.

OKW vs UKF :

http://steamcommunity.com/app/231430/discussions/0/1621726179565006830/ (Part I)

http://steamcommunity.com/app/231430/discussions/0/1621726179565658074/ (Part II)

OKW vs SU :

http://steamcommunity.com/app/231430/discussions/0/2595630410189594674/ (Part III)

http://steamcommunity.com/app/231430/discussions/0/2595630410193227906/ (Part IV)

OKW vs USF :

http://steamcommunity.com/app/231430/discussions/0/1693785035806468254/ (Part V)

And before anyone does mention it . I am well aware that those tests may be influenced by RNG and to prevent RNG influenced results I did every test (exept tank test with an clear one) at least twice (if they both hadn't the same or around the same outcome I did it 3 ... 4 ... 5 times (till I could see which case is more likely to happen) . Of course that does not eliminate the RNG factor but it should keep him as small as possible.

15 Feb 2018, 22:29 PM
#2
avatar of Leo251

Posts: 311

Good job man. Thanks.
16 Feb 2018, 01:19 AM
#3
avatar of Tiger Baron

Posts: 3145 | Subs: 2

I have a stupid question, why not both Axis/German Armies vs the Allies, and not only the OKW?

What is the particular reason as to why you only compared OKW infantry to other Allied infantry and not both Wehr and OKW infantry?

Is it to be used as an argument that the OKW are underperforming or something?

Because more often than not the Wehr infantry have been said to be underperforming because of their small numbers.

And just for the record, I'm not attacking you or anything, I'm just wondering of your intentions with these tests you've conducted, that's all.
16 Feb 2018, 08:17 AM
#4
avatar of CombatWombat

Posts: 98

I do applaud and encourage people to do tests however, one needs to be clear about the purpose of the tests in order to define the test conditions.

Is it matter of interest tests or are you investigating cost effectiveness in comparison to other factions? Why are you testing certain units match ups and not others?

I have two major criticisms though;

You don't give enough information about each test such as: are the units being microed, did they use abilities, what variation was there between tests, etc.

Second, you don't appear to be taking range into consideration. Various unit have different effective ranges and perform poorly at other ranges, eg what would happen if you performed volks vs IS test at medium and close ranges?

Also how on earth can a firefly beat a KT in a one on one slug match or Cromwell reliably beat an OKW P4?!
16 Feb 2018, 09:28 AM
#5
avatar of insaneHoshi

Posts: 911

Dont show the community balance team.

They might again think volks and obers are a bit underpowered and nerf them again.

/shitpost

On topic looks like you skiped obers with lmgs vs bren and double bren.

Also it would have been nice to see single vs double brens vs OKW troops.
16 Feb 2018, 09:42 AM
#6
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1

I do applaud and encourage people to do tests however, one needs to be clear about the purpose of the tests in order to define the test conditions.

Actually no one can simply contact a test and then see how one can use those results.

Especially since OP draw no conclusion from his tests.
16 Feb 2018, 11:23 AM
#7
avatar of CombatWombat

Posts: 98

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Feb 2018, 09:42 AMVipper

Actually no one can simply contact a test and then see how one can use those results.

Especially since OP draw no conclusion from his tests.


Are you suggesting that unit tests are worthless?

All manner of tests are useful to some degree or another, with the accuracy and value of results being dependent on conditions defined.

Tests in a vacuum obviously don't reflect the complex interactions of an actual game but various bits of information will aid your tactical decision making. You might also discover things you never knew as well.

If you referring to testing for sake of unit balance, that's another story and far more complex.

OP did go to the effort to run a whole stack of tests and then post it to the balance forum and it would be nice to know why he went to all that effort. Matter of interest, generate balance discuss, got bored?

In science the why is just as important as the how, as it difficult to come to the right conclusion without asking the right questions.
16 Feb 2018, 11:46 AM
#8
avatar of BartonPL

Posts: 2807 | Subs: 6

congratz on initiative on this... "project"? but i guess you failed hard with this because you need more testing, just because you simulated one fight or so doesn't mean it will always happen, at least 5 of these fights must happen for proper conclusions, so get back to work!
16 Feb 2018, 12:03 PM
#9
avatar of Vipper

Posts: 13496 | Subs: 1


Are you suggesting that unit tests are worthless?
...

No I am saying that one can:
either form a theory and then check its validity with appropriate test

or one can perform test and then see if he can form a theory based on the results.

Both are solid scientific approaches.

In the end of the day ,if you do not like the test contacted, run your own set of the test with the parameters you like so then other can come and criticize your work.
16 Feb 2018, 12:10 PM
#10
avatar of CombatWombat

Posts: 98

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Feb 2018, 12:03 PMVipper

No I am saying that one can:
either form a theory and then check its validity with appropriate test

or one can perform test and then see if he can form a theory based on the results.

Both are solid scientific approaches.

In the end of the day ,if you do not like the test contacted, run your own set of the test with the parameters you like so then other can come and criticize your work.


Ah I see and yes I agree completely.
16 Feb 2018, 12:51 PM
#11
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Feb 2018, 09:42 AMVipper

Actually no one can simply contact a test and then see how one can use those results.

Especially since OP draw no conclusion from his tests.


In addition to this, one or two repetitions will never warrant reliable result and unless you repeat the test 50-100 times for each case, you do not have a valid result, but pure RNG error margin.
16 Feb 2018, 14:24 PM
#12
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518

I have a stupid question, why not both Axis/German Armies vs the Allies, and not only the OKW?

What is the particular reason as to why you only compared OKW infantry to other Allied infantry and not both Wehr and OKW infantry?

Is it to be used as an argument that the OKW are underperforming or something?

Because more often than not the Wehr infantry have been said to be underperforming because of their small numbers.

And just for the record, I'm not attacking you or anything, I'm just wondering of your intentions with these tests you've conducted, that's all.


Ostheer may be following (if I have the time).And the main reasons for making this comparisions were:
- Countering those "Unit X from OKW is OP nerf plz" threads on steam .
- Showing that some OKW units are underperfoming
- Giving other players some kind of advice which units should be used to counter allied units and which better not
16 Feb 2018, 14:34 PM
#13
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518

I do applaud and encourage people to do tests however, one needs to be clear about the purpose of the tests in order to define the test conditions.

Is it matter of interest tests or are you investigating cost effectiveness in comparison to other factions? Why are you testing certain units match ups and not others?

I have two major criticisms though;

You don't give enough information about each test such as: are the units being microed, did they use abilities, what variation was there between tests, etc.

Second, you don't appear to be taking range into consideration. Various unit have different effective ranges and perform poorly at other ranges, eg what would happen if you performed volks vs IS test at medium and close ranges?

Also how on earth can a firefly beat a KT in a one on one slug match or Cromwell reliably beat an OKW P4?!


Units were never microed (except KT vs Firefly (but I wrote "NOTE: Unlike the previous comparison this was a battle in which both tanks were allowed to move" next to the screenshot)and no abilities were used (except when it is stated so (like KT vs Firefly "Sherman Firefly with Rockets")).
"Second, you don't appear to be taking range into consideration."
Some tests were done in different ranges . But you are right most were only done on one range .
16 Feb 2018, 14:39 PM
#14
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518

congratz on initiative on this... "project"? but i guess you failed hard with this because you need more testing, just because you simulated one fight or so doesn't mean it will always happen, at least 5 of these fights must happen for proper conclusions, so get back to work!


Like I already said :
I did every test (exept tank test with an clear one) at least twice (if they both hadn't the same or around the same outcome I did it 3 ... 4 ... 5 times (till I could see which case is more likely to happen) . Of course that does not eliminate the RNG factor but it should keep him as small as possible.
16 Feb 2018, 16:16 PM
#15
avatar of MarkedRaptor

Posts: 320

You could mathmatically come to the same conclusion just by looking at riflemen and volks dps. Aka riflemen do more dps mid-close range then volks. Seems you put the volks at a position where they would lose.

You know what really bothers me? For your "tests" it's like you went out of your way to put allied infantry (UKF, USF) at their more effective ranges.

In fact, as someone in the comments pointed out, he replicated the test of Volks vs Conscripts and had the exact opposite results where volks won at each range which brings said tests into question. RNG is a bitch sometimes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YAD8hGK3W5A
16 Feb 2018, 17:19 PM
#16
avatar of mr.matrix300

Posts: 518

You could mathmatically come to the same conclusion just by looking at riflemen and volks dps. Aka riflemen do more dps mid-close range then volks. Seems you put the volks at a position where they would lose.

You know what really bothers me? For your "tests" it's like you went out of your way to put allied infantry (UKF, USF) at their more effective ranges.

In fact, as someone in the comments pointed out, he replicated the test of Volks vs Conscripts and had the exact opposite results where volks won at each range which brings said tests into question. RNG is a bitch sometimes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=YAD8hGK3W5A


The range has nothing to do with me choosing the more effective range for the allied troops . The range is more or less random choosed (in some cases just random,in others I wanted to cover every range or I choose the range in which both troops perform the best). Of course there are some "unfair" comparisons like Sturmpioneers vs Royal Engineers on mid range but those were not choosen to make the winning units (in this case the Sturmpionners)
look more stronger than they actually are .
And ofc is RNG a bitch sometimes and that's why I did nearly every test at least 2 times (doesn't eliminate the RNG factor but makes him at least smaller)
16 Feb 2018, 17:24 PM
#17
avatar of Katitof

Posts: 17914 | Subs: 8


The range is more or less random choosed (in some cases just random,in others I wanted to cover every range or I choose the range in which both troops perform the best).


That alone completely invalidates whatever the point of testing was.
Inconsistent methods without enough repetitions for measurement are never going to present accurate and objective results.
16 Feb 2018, 18:13 PM
#18
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

It is very good that you have the will to perform such tests. But I think you need some help in this task. First, I would suggest learning some elementary statistics. Then you can form a statistical model and with enough repetitions (10-20 minimum) and right statistical test support your theory.

The problem with this though is that you would need to spend a lot of time just to statically prove the probabilities and distributions that are given a'priori in the game files. So maybe its just easier to go there and use some maths to calculate the distributions you need.
16 Feb 2018, 18:49 PM
#19
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

These "tests" seem oversimplified. First of all, still images with captions are a pretty poor way to convey the message. I don't distrust you by any means, but because you did it that way its impossible for us to actually confirm that's what happened, and that's kind of the whole point of trial and error.
16 Feb 2018, 18:52 PM
#20
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post16 Feb 2018, 17:24 PMKatitof


That alone completely invalidates whatever the point of testing was.
Inconsistent methods without enough repetitions for measurement are never going to present accurate and objective results.


It is very good that you have the will to perform such tests. But I think you need some help in this task. First, I would suggest learning some elementary statistics. Then you can form a statistical model and with enough repetitions (10-20 minimum) and right statistical test support your theory.

The problem with this though is that you would need to spend a lot of time just to statically prove the probabilities and distributions that are given a'priori in the game files. So maybe its just easier to go there and use some maths to calculate the distributions you need.


This.

I'll recommend if you want to make any proper analysis/test:

-There's a specific plain map for testing which has range indicators.
-5-15-25-35 More or less the 4 ranges you want to test units against each other. You could go for 0-10-etc but at 10 you are in the borderline range for point blank mechanic.
-A more realistic approach, would be to compare the performance after X amount of time, rather than waiting to see both units wipe each other. Say 30s for all units. Sitting troops or tanks till one of them dies, is not how the game plays.
0 user is browsing this thread:

SHOUT IT OUT!

No ProfanityNumber of ShoutsRefresh Shout Box
Willy Pete: And only on annihilation, and I have to let the AI live long enough...
Today, 02:04 AM
Willy Pete: Pershing is absurd, but ive still only gotten to use it against AI
Today, 02:03 AM
Lady Xenarra: WTB Pershing for Axis, that is all :lolol:
Yesterday, 13:32 PM
donofsandiego: :clap:
Yesterday, 02:34 AM
donofsandiego: Return of the chatGPT writing prompt. Lets see how shinasukac responds to these questions utilizing the Socratic Method. Maybe he will give us an interesting look into his opinions
Yesterday, 02:34 AM
Willy Pete: I havent even seen a pershing yet. Coh3 games still move too fast for it lol
Yesterday, 00:30 AM
shinasukac: kingtiger=kingjoker
Last Wednesday, 16:27 PM
Lady Xenarra: Has anyone actually used the KT much? My experience is that the match is usually over long before I get the CPs for it
Last Wednesday, 14:35 PM
Rosbone: Can someone message me the day you can look at Coh3 and not face palm yourself in disbelief that actual humans worked on it? Much appreciated.
Last Wednesday, 06:40 AM
Rosbone: The only way to feel good about Coh3 is to never look at Coh3. Once you see it, you cant unsee it.
Last Wednesday, 06:37 AM
Rosbone: Observer mode sucks, player stats pages are scatter brained mess, etc etc etc
Last Wednesday, 06:35 AM
Rosbone: It is really hard to tell people to buy the DLC with feeling like they are throwing their money down the toilet for a nearly dead game. But Big Tonks!!! Oh well, not my problem.
Last Tuesday, 18:12 PM
Rosbone: No 4v4 maps, busted menus 2 years after release, still have not fixed janky sounds people have complained about for over 2 years, etc etc.
Last Tuesday, 18:10 PM
Rosbone: And the skirmish menus are still at a BETA level. Just the largest game play mode completely ignored... again.
Last Tuesday, 18:09 PM
Willy Pete: Oh wtf. Yeah the crossing remake was in the 2v2 demo. No more 3s and 4s is a bummer tho
Last Tuesday, 16:42 PM
aerafield: What? No, he means that all the new maps are for 1v1. Though Im pretty sure they will be playable in 2v2 as well
Last Tuesday, 15:50 PM
Willy Pete: Are the maps really locked behind dlc? Surely they must be in the regular update
Last Tuesday, 15:22 PM
Rosbone: I would like to join in celebration with the 9% of Coh3 MP players who are getting ALL of the new maps. Woohoo! #3Tards
21 Feb 2025, 19:22 PM
OKSpitfire: I hope that at least one of heavies is a like-for-like reskin of the coh 2 ISU-152. I miss that thing.
21 Feb 2025, 10:23 AM
Rosbone: Buy our cool new large tanks that will never get played on the 4 new 1v1 maps added. Perfect synergy! :facepalm:
20 Feb 2025, 19:23 PM

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

316 users are online: 316 guests
10 posts in the last 24h
20 posts in the last week
55 posts in the last month
Registered members: 52094
Welcome our newest member, ScroghamMitchumRichn
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM