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

[Steiner14]

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

Damn, why are they sitting like ducks and not moving on?!

They have shot already, sir and need to relax now.

[womble]

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

And yet, the very instant that a tank completes its movement orders, it is as accurate as it will ever get in CM. You're arguing an irrelevance.

[JonS]

And yet, the very instant that a tank completes its movement orders, it is as accurate as it will ever get in CM. You're arguing an irrelevance.

No, he's arguing a point that Vanir has already made, and with which I agree. In a perfect world accuracy of stationary tanks would increase over time from 'moving' until it was assymptotically approaching 'halted', modified by various other factors (rounds already fired on the target or other targets in a similar location, cant of hull, quality of crew, blah blah).

But we don't live in that world. As Vanir often likes to point out; don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

And Joch's also right. For example, the Fireflies (both Ken Tout's lot in the orchard and Radley-Walter's Canadians on the other flank) that destroyed Wittmann's foolish deathride had been stationary in their locations for hours (four hours? Five?) before they engaged those Tigers. That wasn't a coincidence.

[Sgt Joch]

And yet, the very instant that a tank completes its movement orders, it is as accurate as it will ever get in CM. You're arguing an irrelevance.

remember...there is no spoon...

[Sgt Joch]

And Joch's also right. For example, the Fireflies (both Ken Tout's lot in the orchard and Radley-Walter's Canadians on the other flank) that destroyed Wittmann's foolish deathride had been stationary in their locations for hours (four hours? Five?) before they engaged those Tigers. That wasn't a coincidence.

exactly, the reason why the Firefly was so deadly and accurate was due as much to the weapon as to the tactics employed.

Panthers and Tigers are easy prey when you hit them in the flank AND you already know the exact range.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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."

What you are describing is simply combat stress. It is caused by being placed in mortal danger and having your fight-or-flight response triggered. It has really nothing to do with movement.

Let's turn the example around. Tank A has been sitting in one spot for two hours. Tank B moves into LOS, stops and begins rotating it's turret towards Tank A. Do you really think the commander of Tank A is going to tell his gunner to "take your time"? I would think he'd be sh!tting his pants to roughly the same shade of brown as the commander of Tank B.

Let's say Tank B rounds a corner and spots Tank A that has been sitting motionless for hours. Tank B is off to the side and it appears Tank A may not have spotted Tank B, or at least Tank B can see that Tank A has not started rotating towards it yet. Is there any reason the commander of Tank B would be screaming for his gunner to rush the shot? Is there someplace he has to be that he can't be 10 seconds late for?

Back in the CMx1 days BFC used to bring up combat stress as a justification for the significantly lower across the board tank accuracy in those games (compared to "official" marksmanship expectations). I think it's a legitimate argument to make, but in support of a more general downgrade in accuracy, not narrowly focused, highly situational penalty we have now.

[Offshoot]

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

I'm not sure that is the case. Rather, some are arguing that the status quo (where, assuming the test is correct, moving = paused != stopped) is not correct and should perhaps be moving != paused != stopped. In this case, pausing would have costs compared to stopped.

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.

Assuming that, in-game, a tank that has stopped moving (i.e., does not have further move orders) for just 1 second is as accurate as a tank that has been stopped for much longer, scenario c could be gamed in some circumstances to have less costs than the others by making sure your end of movement and firing coincided with the end of a turn. Unfortunately, I think that the only way to overcome this would be to program accuracy as a function of time stopped, as mentioned.

[Vinnart]

Despite all I have read here on this by the hyper realism grogs to come up with logical reasons why a tank that has been given a indefinite pause order with a move order (keep in mind it has not moved at all, so it is no different than a tank with no move order) should be less accurate I’m not buying it. Hasn’t moved is no different than hasn’t moved. I’m sorry but I think some are really trying to grasp farts in the air on this one in trying to explain it as logically modeled this way intentionally especially since I am sure no one here has experience as a WWII tank gunner. I think it was not intended as that is a big difference in accuracy shown in Vanir test considering NONE of the tanks moved at all during the test.

In all fairness to Steve, and the team my guess is they never intended this inaccuracy penalty as shown in the test, nor did they ever notice it. Lots of guys here including myself have been playing CM for years and never noticed it. The important thing is that BF is aware of this now, and can look into it.

In this case my preference is to keep it simple for game play. Stopped is stopped, and moving is moving. The faster the tank is moving the more inaccurate while firing on the move.

[JonS]

Assuming that, in-game, a tank that has stopped moving (i.e., does not have further move orders) for just 1 second is as accurate as a tank that has been stopped for much longer

Yes. The game is a model of the real world, rather than actually being the real world. The model - any model - cannot faithfully handle every set of circumstances. It must make approximations and abstractions in order to come up with, overall, a credible replication of the real world.

This is one of those abstractions and approximations. In general, people don't give their tanks pause orders for no particular reason. In general pause orders are associated with movement. Etc.

In general, there are really good reasons that it's taken 18 months for this to even be noticed. Overall the game as it is now does a reasonable job of balancing the costs and benefits of moving vs firing vs firing on the move. Can this aspect of the model be better? Of course. Is it actually a significant problem now? ... *crickets* ...

[Michael Emrys]

Despite all I have read here on this by the hyper realism grogs to come up with logical reasons why a tank that has been given a indefinite pause order with a move order (keep in mind it has not moved at all, so it is no different than a tank with no move order) should be less accurate...

I don't think so. I think so far everybody agrees with you on that point. What people are arguing about is whether a tank that has moved and then paused briefly (say less than half a minute) should suffer an accuracy penalty, and if so how much? Also, should that penalty be eased as time passes?

Can you find something wrong with that line of thinking?

Michael

[Steiner14]

Tanks are there to move and not to sit like ducks and wait during combat.

A tank that is not moving after an engagement, is probably not getting much older...

And it's usually a waste of resources to use tanks like ATGs.

But what else can be expected from someone, calling Hstuf. Wittmanns heroic fight stupid...

[Vanir Ausf B]

Can this aspect of the model be better? Of course. Is it actually a significant problem now? ... *crickets* ...

If it alters the way you play the game it is significant. I will be doing some things differently, so for me at least it is significant.

Note that significant is a step or two below game-breaking.

[akd]

It is a problem, but the subtle sort that is hard to track down, as even if you had a feeling that something was off you might never think to isolate and test that specific factor, especially since it it counterintuitive. Pause orders can just as easily be associated with future movement as they can with past movement, so penalties for past movement should not be applied universally, but specifically to a situation where a tank has recently stopped moving over a significant distance regardless of whether or not paused movement is associated with the halt.

However, I don't think such a specific penalty is needed at all, as tanks halting to fire on the move will not benefit from setup position accuracy and will (or should; haven't tested) have first round accuracy applied to each first shot during a halt even if engaging the same target, assuming they move a reasonable distance.

[Vanir Ausf B]

[quote=akd;1428044

]Nonsense. It is a problem, but the subtle sort that is hard to track down, as even if you had a feeling that something is off you might never think to isolate and test that factor.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Bloody hell. You go and edit your post while I'm typing a response. Not fair

However, I don't think such a specific penalty is needed at all, as tanks halting to fire on the move will not benefit from setup position accuracy and will (or should; haven't tested) have first round accuracy applied to each first shot during a halt even if engaging the same target.

Good point.

[akd]

Sorry, posting from an ipad without keyboard and fumbling.

[Steiner14]

The advantage a stationary tank has: if the distances of certain objects were measured and IF lighting conditions allow to judge, if the appearing target is closer or further away than a reference object (behind or in front).

Against a low standing sun this can be quite difficult for a stationary observer, while a mobile observer usually can judge distances and relative positions of objects BETTER than a stationary observer.

It should also be mentioned that a high velocity, flat trajectory gun does allow less exact range estimations while still hitting the target compared to lower velocity guns with shorter barrels.

Therefore it would be ridiculous to give tanks like a Tiger with his L56 or the Panther with his L70 gun a penalty, if they had stopped quickly, as if they would need to know the range to the last 100 meters.

[JonS]

If it alters the way you play the game it is significant. I will be doing some things differently, so for me at least it is significant.

But that's trivial, because it is true of everything you learn about the game.

"Oh, hey - rifles are better at long range than pistols!"

Note to self: change play style

"Oh, hey - roads are better than mud for movement!"

Note to self: change play style

Etc.

Note that significant is a step or two below game-breaking.

Ha!

[Vanir Ausf B]

But that's trivial, because it is true of everything you learn about the game.

"Oh, hey - rifles are better at long range than pistols!"

Note to self: change play style

"Oh, hey - roads are better than mud for movement!"

Note to self: change play style

Those are examples of properly functioning game mechanics that accurately reflect reality. Tanks that fire before beginning to move with the same accuracy as when they are moving does not reflect reality in any way. The former push players in the direction of realistic tactics. The latter pushes players away from realistic tactics.

[Michael Emrys]

However, I don't think such a specific penalty is needed at all, as tanks halting to fire on the move will not benefit from setup position accuracy and will (or should; haven't tested) have first round accuracy applied to each first shot during a halt even if engaging the same target, assuming they move a reasonable distance.

That's my thinking too.

Michael

[JonS]

The latter pushes players away from realistic tactics.

That depends entirely on the player.

The engine, as it stands, it quite capable of emulating move-stop-shoot, move tactics, and provides players with the specific orders necessary to carry it out, and a accuracy benefit for doing so.

The engine also includes a known fudge of increased accuracy for shooting-while-moving to address the difficulty of having the AI coherently conduct move-stop-shoot-move tactics.

Where is the problem - what exactly is pushing you away from ordering move-stop-shot, move, or move (and shoot), or move-pause-shoot-move, depending which tactical effect you want to achieve? And, if you're not doing any of those three, what are you doing :confused:

[Sgt Joch]

However, I don't think such a specific penalty is needed at all, as tanks halting to fire on the move will not benefit from setup position accuracy and will (or should; haven't tested) have first round accuracy applied to each first shot during a halt even if engaging the same target, assuming they move a reasonable distance.

Is there such a thing? i.e. tanks/ATGs which have not moved since setup get an accuracy bonus? I thought of that, but did not remember if that was in the game or not or ever was.

Just like I seem to recall that tanks/ATGs which have not moved since setup are supposed to have a bonus against spotting to represent camouflage.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The engine, as it stands, it quite capable of emulating move-stop-shoot, move tactics, and provides players with the specific orders necessary to carry it out, and a accuracy benefit for doing so.

There is no accuracy benefit. There is an accuracy penalty.

Where is the problem - what exactly is pushing you away from ordering move-stop-shot, move, or move (and shoot), or move-pause-shoot-move, depending which tactical effect you want to achieve? And, if you're not doing any of those three, what are you doing :confused:

What is pushing me away from it? The fact that the tank has to spend the rest of the turn at whatever position it opens fire from. If that happens to be near the end of my turn, no big deal. If it will be near the start of my turn that could be a very big deal if it's in an exposed position.

What is pushing me away from ordering a tank to pause at the start of a turn to fire before beginning movement? The knowledge that those shots will be taken at the same accuracy as if the tank were actually moving.

Any more questions?

[JonS]

There is no accuracy benefit. There is an accuracy penalty.

If you stop accuracy will be higher than if you pause. That is, to me, a benefit.

What is pushing me away from it? The fact that the tank has to spend the rest of the turn at whatever position it opens fire from. If that happens to be near the end of my turn, no big deal. If it will be near the start of my turn that could be a very big deal if it's in an exposed position.

C'mon, Vanir. You're a better player than that. I know you can construct an orders sequence to get whatever you want, whenever you want.

And if you really can't, for whatever reason, and have to leave a tank hanging out in the breeze for an extra 10 or 20 seconds? Sad biscuits. Sometimes that's life. You'll either need to accept the risk and take the chance, or play safe and forego the shot.

FWIW, I don't think that expecting a high level of automated efficiency from your assets - be it tanks, artillery, or whatever - is either realistic or a useful mindset.

What is pushing me away from ordering a tank to pause at the start of a turn to fire before beginning movement? The knowledge that those shots will be taken at the same accuracy as if the tank were actually moving.

If those particular rounds are really that valuable to you, then you should certainly not take those shots. You know the costs and benefits (and we all have a better understanding of them, now, thanks ), and it's up to you to decide what's more important in any given circumstance. You. The player. Playing the game and making constant cost-benefit decisions. Which is exactly the way it should be.

[Amizaur]

Maybe a tank that is just going to start moving should be a little bit less accurate than a fully stationary and "not going anywhere soon" tank. (If this is worth to reflect this in the game, it's another question). But some of you guys seem to forget about the proportions of the things you discuss. Because the accuracy of "starting moving soon" tank should not be FIVE TIMES WORSE than for fully stationary tank !! We are talking here about difference of 6% misses and 30 percent misses FROM 300m !! Accuracy in second case is 5 times worse than the first. 70% of accuracy from 300m ? I would expect such accuracy from a tank that just stopped moving and is firing a shanpshot, not from stationary tank firing shot after the shot from the same position against same target at 300m - even if the tank is going to move soon. The difference is WAY to high to reflect the hipothetical psychological effects that a "soon we are moving" command could have on the gunner.