sid_burn

Foliage density * random chance. Its all abstracted. Not what you see.

World War II was triggered by the Polish corridor. Gdansk was called Dantzig since the Hansa League. Their claim must seen in the perspective of the 19th and 20th century. The British 'owned' Singapore and Hong Kong and the Dutch owned Batavia today's Jakarta. The 20th century was the century that Europe imploded, I see it as a completely wasted century. Hitler belonged in an asylum seen from hindsight. The man saw active service in the trenches was gassed and probably a lot more was damaged. Nowadays we call it PTSD. 

World War 2 started because England was in a state of war if the German army didn't withdraw from Poland. It is a little rich coming from a country which colonized most of the world. Yes, you have all the right to dismiss other views as simplistic. TBH, it leaves me cold. 

You’re assuming the enemy is static when you assault. Recon continues to be useful in identifying enemy positions and assets as they get shifted around. Just not using recon units would be a waste. They can move to the flanks, do more recon, etc. 

The problem is that the size of CMX2 maps, as @Erwin (among others) has pointed out elsewhere, often doesn’t allow this. The maps are often designed to encourage really small engagements with little room for maneuver.  So repositioning often isn’t a choice. It depends heavily on the scenario and map designer. 

You don't need to put it simpler, because we already understand this quite well. Nobody here is arguing that we want to sit in one position for a long time and shrug off hits.

Given QB and scenario design you are often straight-jacketed into certain positions. Yes in reality you might have more room to maneuver and more time but there have been more than a few scenarios where the alternate positions are a stones throw away from the current position.
 
I think that would be obvious. Shermans rarely if ever have hull superiority whereas there are regularly situations where the German player will have access to tanks that can shrug off rounds. @RobZ winrate test should make it obvious why you might want to do that.




~~~~~~~

Principally from a player perspective none of this is a MUST. However, it is something to be aware of when playing the game. Its a tool you can use to your advantage. Does that mean you drive your tanks around in the open constantly? No. What sort of idiot would do that? But you should be aware of the stats and be aware that it can be advantageous to fight from the open.

~~~~~~~~
Warthunder does have maps where you engage targets 2.000+ meters with WW2 era vehicles and none of the arcade hit displays.

But principally you are talking about the arcade mode and the smaller maps. On the larger maps in the more realism oriented modes what I see more often than specific "gamer science shots" is players bracketing targets for a hit. HITTING and then repeatedly firing wherever they initially hit. Depending on the situation  that often means that you have repeated hits off the center of mass because that happens to be where the first round landed.


~~~~~~~

Overall though I don't get why some of y'all are talking as if folks want some uber pinpoint shooting on the part of the gunners?

This is exactly my point dude. The game should FIX it, not rely on its players to not "cheese" the game mechanics. You just admitted that this is an issue than can be cheesed and is "gamey" which is the exact reason I'm making this post at all. The game has to fix it, not the people playing it.

I think Saint_Fuller’s post shows a major problem in this thread, which is certain people just refusing to give due consideration to  @Bulletpoint and @RobZ’s arguments. The strawmanning legitimate criticisms of the game results in bad counter arguments that don’t address actual points made.

I think Saint_Fuller’s post shows a major problem in this thread, which is certain people just refusing to give due consideration to  @Bulletpoint and @RobZ’s arguments. The strawmanning legitimate criticisms of the game results in bad counter arguments that don’t address actual points made.

I think Saint_Fuller’s post shows a major problem in this thread, which is certain people just refusing to give due consideration to  @Bulletpoint and @RobZ’s arguments. The strawmanning legitimate criticisms of the game results in bad counter arguments that don’t address actual points made.

Kind of funny you would say that, just after you said:

Nobody here is assuming that, Mikey. Please read the thread instead of assuming basic incompetence.

You might be able to accept that the game has flaws, but some others here can't. Some people seem to defend the game to their grave and that you should just play differently or just "not get hit" in a war game. As you also point out that you want to end up on the enemy flank, that's fair cus that's the best case scenario. But not every game, plan or every unit composition is perfect so you will have scenarios where you can't do what you ideally want to, and this is where the game mechanics can play a huge part in the result.

How is having a calm discussion about how the game works "being a jerk"?
Do you think anything will improve if nobody dares to discuss the game?
If you want to be of any value in this thread, try to read the many constructive posts made by RobZ and others, where they provide data from actual tests of what happens in various situations.

I think you are misunderstanding a bit here. It's the other way around: I don't want that my Panther should be invincible when I place it on a hilltop in full view. I prefer that the game reward me for playing tactically correct and going hull down, instead of punishing me for it.

It's clear to me after reading the responses that very few in this discussion actually understand what the issue is. I'm not saying tacAI should not aim for center mass, I have already stated earlier that this is exactly what they should do. But the issue is their aiming precision, not the gun accuracy. If we put a laser pointer in the tacAI gunner optics, that laser would point constantly on a 1x1 CM square on the targets center mass. That is the issue.  If we did the same with a human, that laser would be very many places on the target, still center mass, but not exact pixel perfect center mass. This is what makes the AI too accurate, and this is the issue I have been talking about all along.
The hull down statistics is more or less a response to the "hull down myth", which we see doesn't hold up in all cases. And part of the reason for this is the perfect aiming of the tacAI that makes the overall hit zone very tiny and locked to a spesific area, in this case the upper hull.
@Saint_Fullers post is infact supporting me on this. They aim center mass cus they are not precise enough to aim for spesific areas, yet the tacAI in this game is so precise they can consistently hit the ball machine gun mount if the game told them to aim there.
For the "advanced calculations" required to make the AI aim different places is an odd response, the game already handles this stuff with zeroing shots. It doesn't even need any advanced calculations, just make the AI have a random offset from the pixel perfect center mass point, so they aim more spread out, but still center mass.
I already Agree on many of the more obvious and logical points you guys bring up as that's not the issue I'm pointing out.
 

Good explanation. Also, the tank sights might not be perfectly calibrated, so even if you did manage to line up the sight at exact centre mass, you might still be a bit off. I think this would also depend on the distance to the target.

You seem to confuse this game with reality. In reality, hull down is a good thing for any AFV. In this game, it's a bad thing for certain tanks. But play it your way.

If you didn't understand my post, there's not much more I can do to help you.
 

To understand something, it helps to read the arguments first, instead of just dismissing them as stupid.

Let me cheer you up with a joke, @Sgt.Squarehead might appreciate this joke as well:
the Russian Navy. 
 
Funny joke right? 

Exactly.  That's what Monkey King was asking about.  I get PM's regularly from PO'd people who are fed up with certain members jumping on them when they make what seems like reasonable posts that for unknown reasons seem to irritate them.
If you don't like certain posters then just put em on your IGNORE list and everyone is happy.
 

I assume you mean the US. I see no evidence that US policy makers in the White House believe there is a "threat from the east". So, sounds like you are saying that the German People agree with President Trump.

Have some more traditional 'Viking' imagery, courtesy of these fine fellows: