Jump to content

I Hope This Is a Bug and Not a Dumb Design Decision


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

so, even though I agreed to abide by the groupthink of the "community", you want to continue the discussion to prove that your position is more "realistic". ok, should be fun.

It was you that challenged me to justify my stance. So now you get what you asked for.

ok, so this is where you come up with totally hypothetical situations which would justify a move order+60 second pause.

Yeaahh. Totally hypothetical situations that I ran into multiple times in the game I just finished. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of hypothetical.

yes, I am sure these situations happen frequently.:)

As a matter of fact, yes, they do. Just because you don't take full advantage of all the tactical tools the game gives you doesn't mean no one else does.

tank is bogged and is moving its tracks front and back to get out of the mud/soft ground. Do you really think it will fire as accurately as a fully stationary tank?

Are you really suggesting that a bogged tank engaging a target would not pause it's unbogging efforts? I find that hard to believe.

-A stationary tank ("mr. stationary tank") has been in position for 20 minutes and knows every nook and cranny of the field it is covering;

a)-two enemy tanks appear moving quickly across the field, one accidentally cuts off the second. The second tank pauses, sees mr. stationary tank and fires at the same time as mr. stationary tank; or

This situation is simulated with a TRP.

B)-an enemy tank appears with a fast order to the middle of the field where it pauses for 10 seconds before it moves away. During the pause it spots mr. stationary tank and fires at the same time as mr. stationary tank;

In both cases, mr. stationary tank pretty much knows the exact range to pausing tank while pausing tank is just shooting in its direction. Do you really think both tanks will fire with the same degree of accuracy?

Probably not. But it will be much closer to "stationary" accuracy than it will be to "actually moving" accuracy.

Agreed. Is that really a reason to have no penalty whatsoever?

As I said in my response to Jon, if BFC wants to penalize tanks that fire after moving to a much lesser degree than tanks actually moving I will not object. But it needs to be done in a consistent way.

you order your tank to hurry up and get off that one last shot before it moves in 5 seconds. You don't think it will affect their accuracy?;) Agreed it is not perfect, but what makes more sense, no penalty to cover the few situations where it is not warranted or a penalty to cover the vast majority of cases where it does.

Who is driving the tank, the gunner or the driver? You have it backwards. It is the majority of cases that should have no penalty. And even in those cases it should be a penalty much less than firing while actually moving.

I presume we all know the constraints of game design, especially with a niche game. We have to deal with the game as it is, not as we would wish it to be in an utopian future.

You can justify anything by making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vanir and Sgt JOch,

Would you seriously be having this kind of conversation face to face? Remember that communication is 93% body language, emotion and all the other powerful communicators that are absent in text. The words are only 7% of the message.

Chalk it up to miscommunication and let it go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably not. But it will be much closer to "stationary" accuracy than it will be to "actually moving" accuracy.

As I said in my response to Jon, if BFC wants to penalize tanks that fire after moving to a much lesser degree than tanks actually moving I will not object. But it needs to be done in a consistent way.

Agreed.

so we all agree some form of penalty is more realistic than no penalty. :)

p.s. - nice find btw. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vanir and Sgt JOch,

Would you seriously be having this kind of conversation face to face? Remember that communication is 93% body language, emotion and all the other powerful communicators that are absent in text. The words are only 7% of the message.

Chalk it up to miscommunication and let it go.

hey, these little debates are half the fun around here. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

understood, but when would anyone use a move order + indefinite pause in a 60 second turn?

I really think you're missing the point. A still tank = a still tank. The accuracy should be the same regardless of a pause order being placed or not.

A common tactic is to pause a tank for 10 or 20 seconds, then issue a move order. The accuracy during that pause should be the same as if the unit just sat still with no orders whatsoever.

By pausing for 60 seconds +, Vanir simply aquired a larger pool of data to prove his point. The point being, that for short pauses, your tank will have about 30% accuracy before moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A common tactic is to pause a tank for 10 or 20 seconds, then issue a move order. The accuracy during that pause should be the same as if the unit just sat still with no orders whatsoever.

Not really.

*radio crackle as a message from platoon HQ comes through*

Commander: "Ok guys, we're going to be here for 20 minutes or so. Settle in and get familiar with your zone."

OR

*radio crackle as a message from platoon HQ comes through*

Commander: "Guys! Stow your sh!t! Driver! Prepare to advance!"

In neither case has the tank moved, nor is it moving. Yet which do you think is more conducive to accurate shooting?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO it's quite unlikely that a real tank would make 10 second pauses every now and then to fire, because IRL things take more time than in the game. How tanks work in 2.01 IMO does not take into account all the delays that are a result from the fact that tanks are operated by crews, not single man. Every time something new needs to happen, team members communicate and then act. All this slows things down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really.

*radio crackle as a message from platoon HQ comes through*

Commander: "Ok guys, we're going to be here for 20 minutes or so. Settle in and get familiar with your zone."

OR

*radio crackle as a message from platoon HQ comes through*

Commander: "Guys! Stow your sh!t! Driver! Prepare to advance!"

In neither case has the tank moved, nor is it moving. Yet which do you think is more conducive to accurate shooting?

Firing the main gun of a tank isn't like shooting a rifle. You don't have to control your breathing or anything like that. If, for example, the tank had already hit the target with it's previous shot the gun is already on target. Just pull the trigger and go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really.

*radio crackle as a message from platoon HQ comes through*

Commander: "Ok guys, we're going to be here for 20 minutes or so. Settle in and get familiar with your zone."

OR

*radio crackle as a message from platoon HQ comes through*

Commander: "Guys! Stow your sh!t! Driver! Prepare to advance!"

In neither case has the tank moved, nor is it moving. Yet which do you think is more conducive to accurate shooting?

I don't see how either case affects the gunner.

It's the tank commander that tells the driver to move, not the platoon HQ. And it will often be the case where the tank commander actually tells his crew to "shoot and scoot", which is the whole purpose of placing the 10-20 second pause at the beginning of a turn in CM. So, if the gunner is prepared for this tactic then I don't see why there is any detriment to his aim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how either case affects the gunner.

It's the tank commander that tells the driver to move, not the platoon HQ. And it will often be the case where the tank commander actually tells his crew to "shoot and scoot", which is the whole purpose of placing the 10-20 second pause at the beginning of a turn in CM. So, if the gunner is prepared for this tactic then I don't see why there is any detriment to his aim.

I agree, unless someone can tell me the difference between not moving, and not moving. In my mind there is no difference. Stopped is stopped, and pausing should not make a difference in accuracy as it is not moving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, unless someone can tell me the difference between not moving, and not moving. In my mind there is no difference. Stopped is stopped, and pausing should not make a difference in accuracy as it is not moving.

from post #50 on page 5:

A stationary tank will fire more accurately than a moving tank. A stationary tank will also fire more accurately the longer it is stationary, up to a point. Once a tank is in a fixed position and settled in, the commander/gunner will become familiar with the location, where tanks are more likely to pop up and estimate the likely ranges. This is not really modeled in CM unless you use TRPs.

On the other hand, a tank when it first stops in a location is at a disadvantage. It does not know the area or the ranges. This of course, affects spotting, but accuracy as well. How long this disadvantage lasts is up for debate.

-A stationary tank ("mr. stationary tank") has been in position for 20 minutes and knows every nook and cranny of the field it is covering;

a)-two enemy tanks appear moving quickly across the field, one accidentally cuts off the second. The second tank pauses, sees mr. stationary tank and fires at the same time as mr. stationary tank; or

B)-an enemy tank appears with a fast order to the middle of the field where it pauses for 10 seconds before it moves away. During the pause it spots mr. stationary tank and fires at the same time as mr. stationary tank;

In both cases, mr. stationary tank pretty much knows the exact range to pausing tank while pausing tank is just shooting in its direction. Do you really think both tanks will fire with the same degree of accuracy?

In other words, a still tank may = a still tank, then again it may not. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The litmus test that I use to decide if something needs to be changed is whether it forces or encourages players to use unrealistic tactics. Real WW2 tank crews specifically trained to stop, fire and then continue moving. If there was not a very significant increase in accuracy when doing this over and above simply firing on the move then the logical tactic would have been to fire on the move since stopping slows your advance and makes you an easier target. The way the game works presently offers no reason to use the historical tactic. If people want the game to assign a small penalty to newly arrived units that begins at "stopped for 1 second" and gradually decreases out to "achieved maximum possible accuracy after 20 minutes of mindfulness meditation" that is fine by me. But that should not be used to argue for the status quo.

IMHO :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way the game works presently offers no reason to use the historical tactic.

This is not true, because paused != stopped.

Currently, if you STOP your tank, it will have improved accuracy. If you PAUSE your tank, it will not. That seems like a very strong incentive to use historical tactics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not true, because paused != stopped.

Currently, if you STOP your tank, it will have improved accuracy. If you PAUSE your tank, it will not. That seems like a very strong incentive to use historical tactics.

As Scoobie Doo would say aarrgghh?!

What does this mean - paused != stopped ?

What do you see as the difference between paused and stopped (as commands or actual RL or in game action)?

I personally have had no issue with in game behavior. I do use hunt with pauses in a shoot and scoot and haven't seen a negative effect other than when I come out to hunt and nothing is in line of fire yet. I don't know if the behavior has changed in versions, but I had a JgPzIV do that in my first AAR with Broadsword in Bois de Baugin and it bagged two Shermans in one turn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The litmus test that I use to decide if something needs to be changed is whether it forces or encourages players to use unrealistic tactics. Real WW2 tank crews specifically trained to stop, fire and then continue moving. If there was not a very significant increase in accuracy when doing this over and above simply firing on the move then the logical tactic would have been to fire on the move since stopping slows your advance and makes you an easier target. The way the game works presently offers no reason to use the historical tactic. If people want the game to assign a small penalty to newly arrived units that begins at "stopped for 1 second" and gradually decreases out to "achieved maximum possible accuracy after 20 minutes of mindfulness meditation" that is fine by me.

IMHO :D

yes, but "stopping" in WW2 was a matter of hours/days not seconds as in CM.

You look at typical German Blitzkrieg tactics, the tanks would rush through a hole in the front moving until they arrive at their objective, at which point they would setup a static defensive position and wait for the infantry to catch up. Rommel was a master of the "offensive defence", i.e. running around the British line and setting up in a critical area where the British felt obliged to attack him.

You also have to remember that a CM turn is 60 seconds. Many players seem to feel this is an eternity, but it is a blink of an eye in RL.

Jentz's "Panzertruppen" has many accounts of real life tactical encounters. German tank commanders might spend hours maneuvering their tanks to get into position for the "just right" flank shots on an enemy tank.

Fireflys were deadly, but in all encounters where they scored their best kills, the tanks had been positioned for a long time in the best spots to get flank shots on any attacking enemy.

But that should not be used to argue for the status quo.

I believe we are past that. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not true, because paused != stopped.

Currently, if you STOP your tank, it will have improved accuracy. If you PAUSE your tank, it will not. That seems like a very strong incentive to use historical tactics.

Doesn't much of this boil down to how the tank crew (gunner and commander) is modeled in-game? I would assume 1-1 representation works that way, especially considering that one incident where some tank crewman wouldn't spot things because he was looking at the turret wall... If it doesn't, disregard the following paragraph.

If a tank is pausing, it does not move. Therefore, it is a perfectly stable gun platform for the time being. Whether there is intent to move again in a discrete amount of time or not is irrelevant. What is relevant, or rather should be, is the difficulty the gunner should have in keeping the target in sight, his aim true, his estimation of range etc. correct while on the move, i.e. his spotting/tracking/gunnery abilities as well as situational awareness (which maybe correlates with the commander spotting and assigning targets to the gunner). Whether or not the tank itself has been standing still for 1 second or 60 minutes shouldn't affect that particular equation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not true, because paused != stopped.

Currently, if you STOP your tank, it will have improved accuracy. If you PAUSE your tank, it will not. That seems like a very strong incentive to use historical tactics.

Are you seriously suggesting that stopping to fire was a historical tactic, but stopping to fire and then continuing to move was not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, but "stopping" in WW2 was a matter of hours/days not seconds as in CM.

A typical firing sequence went as follows:

Commander to driver: "Driver... STOP"

Commander to gunner: "Gunner... TANK"

Commander to loader: "Loader... AP"

Commander to gunner:"Traverse left... steady on... one thousand"

Gunner to commander: "Ready!"

Commander to gunner: "Fire!"

-- Sherman Medium Tank 1942-45, Steven Zaloga, Peter Sarson, pg 13

I believe we are past that. :)

I know you are. I'm not sure if Jon is on board ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In game terms (assuming that Vanir's test is correct ... and although I haven't tested it myself I believe it is) a unit that is STOPPED has no movement orders, and it uses stationary firer accuracy (which is relatively high). A unit that is PAUSED has residual movement orders, and uses moving firer accuracy (which is relatively low).

So, if you want to emulate real-world tactics - and gain an accuracy bonus - it is conceptually straightforward: Give your tank an order to move forward to the location you want it to fire from, and end its order string there. Next orders phase (or after a suitable time interval in RT) give the tank another order string to move on again.

Yes, that requires some micromanagement. Yes, that will potentially expose your tank to more risk. But yes, that will also definitely emulate real world tactics and gain an accuracy bonus.

In real world terms, despite what vinnart and Pak40 (and Chris69) appear to believe, WWII tank guns weren't fired by robots. They were fired by men. Men who make human mistakes and errors, especially when they’re under pressure. I interpret a pause in the middle of a string of orders to be placing the gunner - and the whole crew - under additional pressure, with the commander yelling "C'mon! C'mon! We've gotta get out of here! Get that round on the way!" Whereas *ending* movement string at a firing position (then restarting the movement next turn or whenever) is more akin to the commander saying "Ok team. Here we are, and there’s the target. Take your time and fire when ready."

It's not a perfect analogue, and you could make a reasonable argument that there should be a large degree of overlap between the two. But I think that would be expecting an implausible degree of intuition from the programme - expecting that it can automagically divine what you as a player want in any given circumstance.

So it is up to you, the player, to prioritise what you want. Do you:

a) just want the tank to get where it’s going? I.e., emphasise movement almost to the exclusion of firing? Fine. You can do that. Use a string of movement orders with no pauses. The tank will keep rolling and fire at anything it sees.

B) want the tank to keep moving regardless, but include some short pauses in specific locations to engage specific targets or targets of opportunity, or briefly cover a certain gap or keyhole? I.e., emphasise movement over fire? Fine. You can do that. Use a string of movement orders with pauses at specific locations.

c) want the tank to engage a specific target or any targets of opportunity, at the cost of getting to a specific location at a specific time? I.e., emphasise fire over movement? Fine. You can do that too. Use a string of movement orders that ends at a specific location, then assign more orders once you're happy that the target(s) has been engaged satisfactorily.

Your choice. You pick the costs and benefits you want. Which is as it should be. Simples.

The sticking point seems to be that some players appear to want the benefits without bearing any costs.

(but note: this is as the game stands now. Phil has already said “It looks like a bug to me”, and that it’s being looked at. As Keynes once said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?")

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...