AT Guns: Problems and How to Solve Them?

[Dadekster]

Well I can attest to that the sound of approaching armor even in the relative open can be hard to pinpoint sometimes and that's before you start second guessing yourself. I guess part of the problem is this whole satellite view of the battlefield. Would love to see wind effect the chance of judging how close or how far away the sound is.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't think vehicles make an audible noise when not spotted, unless they are firing.

[poesel]

I don't think vehicles make an audible noise when not spotted, unless they are firing.

Yes, you are right. And it is an interesting question why they don't.

I guess it was a deliberate decision by BFC to make weapon fire (and fence/wall crushing) hearable without spotting and movement sound not. The reason may be that weapon fire is usually directed at you sou you usually should hear it.

The problem of course is the excellent sound simulation combined with the free camera. You can move your virtual ears anywhere on the map and the sound system accurately plays the sounds as you would hear them at that point. Of course there are in 'reality' no ears (=troops) at that point that could hear what the camera hears. Thus the problem with the accurate sonar spotting of invisible shooters.

Fixing that seems difficult. Mainly because the result may be quite weird in some cases. Imagine you have an artillery barrage falling but your next troops are a 1km away from the impact point. Now you move the camera to that point and the shells falling around you just create a small rumble or even nothing at all. I guess that would weird out all but the sound grogs.

Or you make an exception for that since they are your own shells so you can always spot them. Hmmm...

Ok, sorry for that meandering train of thought.

I think it might work if the game would dampen the sounds of unspotted sound sources by a factor depending on the closest listener.

Creating a look up map for this purpose wouldn't be a terrible hit on CPU since AS granularity is more than enough. Also units don't move that fast so update frequency is low (and those who do move fast don't hear anything anyway).

A subtle improvement by all means.

[Dadekster]

Maybe we should steer this back to the OT? Audio effects probably deserves its own thread unless it happens to involve finding AT guns.

[Vanir Ausf B]

... which it does.

[Dadekster]

Yeahhhh, probably shouldn't have added that last bit to the last sentence. We have wandered a bit from the things in the OT though.

[John Kettler]

Hmm. Let's see. We have unbridled ears roaming the battlefield at will, suffering no audio signal strength drop as a function of range, no apparent issues with sound reverberation leading to false direction sensing, no difficulties separating out the desired weapon report no matter how stupendous the combat roar and, best of all, TCs on an active battlefield, with the radio going in at least one ear, probably both, are able to first hear, then localize one particular weapon firing when immersed in both fighting compartment noise and external engine racket.

Given the above, is it any wonder it's so easy to wipe out an ATG far more quickly than was historically possible? At the very least, and I have no idea whether it's feasible, I'd like to see the roaming ears nailed down to the listening unit. That alone would go a long way toward aiding ATG survivability. Of course, there's no such defense available against Bil Hardenberger's early version of CSI's laser shotline reconstruction--while under fire!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Baneman]

What you say, John, is the price we pay for the wargamers' god-view of the battlefield.

It's not so bad if you restrict yourself to only listening from your own units' positions. It's a choice each gamer has to make for themselves as to how far you take your own "gamey" behaviour.

The move and traverse speeds of AT guns though, I too would like to see addressed.

The not-able-to-reverse (without the laborious 180 turn) is my own particular peeve with them and has been since day1 of CMBN.

When it came out I had hoped that that problem ( which was in CMx1 ) would have been addressed, but alas...

I still think that solving the problem of vehicle towing and then making AT guns "vehicles" would be the quickest way to resolve the bail-and-recrewing issue as well as variable speeds and a reverse gear - but that's just my opinion and I know that - particularly on these forums - talk is cheap

If they could have done it easily, I'm sure they would have.

[bisu]

If they could have done it easily, I'm sure they would have.

Unfortunately it seems BTF treat the ATG issue as unimportant or low priority..

Even though Steve is currently quite active elsewhere in this forum he hasn't chimed in yet to comment..

I hope he will eventually do.

[Baneman]

Unfortunately it seems BTF treat the ATG issue as unimportant or low priority..

Even though Steve is currently quite active elsewhere in this forum he hasn't chimed in yet to comment..

I hope he will eventually do.

Agree, although I was more referring to the crewing/re-crewing and moving backwards options with my comment.

I would have thought that the movement and/or traverse speed thing would be fairly easy to adjust. I'd certainly settle for that in the near future. ( he says in hope... )

[Battlefront.com]

OK, read 90% of this thread to get me caught up.

There are basically two issues here. One is technical capabilities, the other is gameplay expectations. I agree that there are some technical issues to address, but I don't think it will have a dramatic impact on overall ATG performance for players in general. Let me tackle that issue first.

As JasonC said several pages ago, and Womble stated well even before that, ATGs had a fairly narrow range of conditions where they shone strongly. Because CM is a game it is probable, more often than not, that as a player you'll come up short in some of the key conditions for success in any one specific game. In real life ATGs would simply not be deployed because the conditions, if it were real life, would not be good enough to warrant the risk. Another location would instead have been chosen. But if you are playing a QB and you wind up with ATGs, well... you're going to try and use them no matter what. That's not realistic to start with.

Further, ATGs needed to get bigger and bigger and bigger to combat the ever increasing thickness of AFV armor. This created a number of really negative tactical problems for the guns which, in turn, reduced the range of conditions where they would be effective even more.

These problems were recognized well before WW2 ended. The solutions were two fold:

1. Rely more and more on SP AT capabilities. The Germans, in particular, stuck ATGs on pretty much anything that could drive. The Allies were not as desperate and instead focused more on purpose built vehicles. This made a lot of sense since the guns had to be moved by motorized vehicles no matter what, so might as well make the vehicle and the gun the same thing instead of different things. Especially now that the size of the ATGs were so large that effective use without vehicles was questionable.

2. Switch emphasis for infantry based AT capabilities to rocket based weapons. Not only were they cheaper to make, but they were vastly easier to deploy and maintain at all levels. Since the Germans were under far more economic pressure than the Allies, they did this to a far greater extent. In fact, the previous AT Battalions assigned to divisions were swapped out with Panzerschrecks.

This is why ATGs basically disappeared from the battlefield after WW2, except with limited use by "3rd world" nations which received Soviet hardware. Still some utility for these weapons in places like the Golan Heights, though arguably very little.

OK, so why is this important? To make sure we're all on the same page about what to expect of ATGs after any tweaks are made. ATGs will still remain very difficult to use correctly because that's entirely realistic. Faster rotation speeds and what not will not significantly change the outcome for most people most of the time because it really boils down to the guns being in good positions at the start of the battle or bad positions. Realistically that is the single biggest factor in the real world as to ATG effectiveness.

Now for the other part...

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

There are three basic technical complaints as I see it:

1. Rotation speed

2. Pushing speed

3. Ability to take cover far from the gun

CM presumes battlefield conditions because, uhm, it is a battlefield As such take anything you see in an artificial setting and worsen it to a significant degree. Well fed, well drilled reenactors on a perfectly manicured lawn, not under enemy observation/fire, with no other concerns other than an arbitrary repositioning as quickly as possible establishes (at best) the quickest possible time to do something. It is definitely NOT what our virtual pixeltruppen should be modeled after. Instead, we should take whatever the quickest time is and worsen it.

An example of this is my very heavy log splitter. When it is on it's concrete pad I can quickly rotate it around 360 degrees. But when there's some wood chunks present I have to do all kinds of acrobatics to get it to rotate. And sometimes that puts me close to a few vertical obstacles near the edge of the pad, which create conditions for even more shenanigans. In fact, there are possible conditions that prevent me from rotating in place at all. I'd have to instead move it a few meters to another spot, then rotate, then move it back. And there's a drop off from the pad to the ground, so doing that can lead to hilarious results since the ground is steeply sloped and if slippery I could easily lose control of it (never happened, as far as any witnesses know!).

My point here is that a well executed reenactor example, in perfect conditions, doesn't take into consideration the sorts of real world "gotchas" that exist as a matter of routine. Therefore, set expectations accordingly.

Now back to my thoughts on the three requested areas for improvement:

1. Rotation speed = should be made faster, probably at least by a factor of 2x. Ideally rotation speed would be linked to surrounding terrain, but I'm not sure that's possible.

2. Pushing speed = different terrain should affect pushing speed. I've asked that this be looked into.

3. Ability to take cover far from the gun = ruled out a long time ago, though I bring it up every now and again with Charles just in case. I did a couple of months ago, in fact. The desired behavior would be to have your crews be able to take cover within a couple of Action Spots of a gun (be it a HMG or a Pak43), but no further away than that (good discussion here about why not). Unfortunately this runs into major technical obstacles which, for now, we do not feel worth spending the time overcoming.

Again, if someone currently thinks ATG/IGs are "useless" they will almost for sure continue to think this after changes are made. Why? Because the actual effectiveness of an ATG/IG is largely not determined by rotation speed and movement rates, but rather good initial positions in conditions which are favorable to ATG/IGs to start with. Tweaks here and there to various things might make them slightly more flexible, but if you've got them in the wrong place or in the wrong setting... it's not going to make that much of a difference.

Bottom line here is if you haven't had good success with ATG/IGs up to this point, you should spend time figuring out what you can do differently to change the outcome. Pinning all your hopes on a magical improvement based on a change to mobility isn't a good idea.

Steve

[Other Means]

The major thing for me is the setup and pack-away speed.

Steve, I was reading the cliff notes for Counter attack at Son". In there, there is an AAR of the American units where a veteran states that a Jeep-pulled ATG came, setup by his position and knocked out a "Tiger".

He is then under a tank that parked on his foxhole for a few minutes (if that's what it felt like, it probably seconds) and when he was out the gun had packed up and gone.

Guns should be far quicker to deploy and pack up. Maybe if the ammo carriers need to setup and pack away and they take ages, as they have to shift the ammo, that would make sense?

[A Canadian Cat]

1. Rotation speed = should be made faster, probably at least by a factor of 2x. Ideally rotation speed would be linked to surrounding terrain, but I'm not sure that's possible.

2. Pushing speed = different terrain should affect pushing speed. I've asked that this be looked into.

Sounds good. Thanks for looking at this. Hopefully the packup and deploy speeds can make it on your radar too.

I get what you are saying about the use of AT guns being hard and that we should be choosing well at the beginning of the game (or more often not even using them). That makes perfect sense. Where this is biting me is when I have a large map and lots going on in the battle, I would like to move the guns to new locations as I take important ground. In this case I am moving them form one Good location to a different good location because I pushed the enemy out of the LOS of the gun and now "own" another good location for them. So changes in this area would be appreciated for those admittedly rare occasions.

[WynnterGreen]

As JasonC said several pages ago, and Womble stated well even before that, ATGs had a fairly narrow range of conditions where they shone strongly.

OK, so why is this important? To make sure we're all on the same page about what to expect of ATGs after any tweaks are made. ATGs will still remain very difficult to use correctly because that's entirely realistic.

That's a good question, why is it important?

As far as I can recall, there hasn't been a single post in this entire thread that has disputed the fact that ATGs have a narrow range conditions in which they do well.

What's disputed is the ability, or lack of ability, of ATGs in game to perform routine tasks, as they were performed by the real thing, and how that effects their survivability.

Well fed, well drilled reenactors on a perfectly manicured lawn, not under enemy observation/fire, with no other concerns other than an arbitrary repositioning as quickly as possible establishes (at best) the quickest possible time to do something. It is definitely NOT what our virtual pixeltruppen should be modeled after. Instead, we should take whatever the quickest time is and worsen it.

I have no problem with the perspective that reenactors are generally working with 'best possible conditions' not under fire etc.

But I still fail to see how you could realistically argue that taking four minutes to do in game [on the same manicured lawn terrain], what the reneactors do in thirty seconds is anywhere near an accurate portrayal of capability.

Certainly take what's evidenced by the reenactors aand worsen it, double it, it would still be a MASSIVE improvement.

There are three basic technical complaints as I see it:

1. Rotation speed

2. Pushing speed

3. Ability to take cover far from the gun

Actually I'd argue that you're missing the two most critical factors that effect ATGs.

4 Pack up and deployment speeds

5 Moving while deployed.

Being able to manhandle a gun from a cover position into a firing position and from a firing position to cover, or secondary, position is critical to their survivability, and ' entirely realistic.'.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It would be nice if AT guns could reverse so they didn't have to do 180 ° turns to hook up to a prime mover.

With regards to movement speed, terrain is everything. What allows teams of men to move large AT guns is momentum. The hard part is getting the thing going, but once it's moving keeping it moving isn't difficult as long as nothing breaks the momentum. But if you are moving over broken or -- worst of all-- muddy ground you'll never get much momentum.

My impression is that large AT guns did not move around much during battles. Between battles, sure, but once they were in place and camoed-up they usually stayed there until the attack was beaten off or they were destroyed. Maybe small AT guns were different.

[Baneman]

Always glad to hear things are being looked at, thanks.

- any chance that the "must rotate 180 degrees before moving backwards" can be looked at as well ?

- Especially if the "moving short distances while deployed" a la HMG's can be added for the smaller ( 75mm and below ? ) guns.

This would enable one to pull a gun back off a crest out of enemy LoS relatively quickly - one hopes, before the enemy mortar can setup and dial in the location.

[Dadekster]

Not all the guns are unwieldy behemoths btw. I was playing a QB a couple of days ago and I had a 7.5 cm le.IG 18, or at least I think that's what it was. That thing was a beast. Easy to move around using a halftrack on and it deployed quickly. I was able to put HE downrange quickly and effectively on troop concentrations. It reminded me of some of the old footage I've seen showing guys quickly moving small wheeled guns around to get local fire superiority on things. I also had some PAK40's and I think the deployment time for them was over 4 minutes I think? Ouch I say that in jest as I don't expect PAK40's to be anything like a pack howitzer.

[Battlefront.com]

Sounds good. Thanks for looking at this. Hopefully the packup and deploy speeds can make it on your radar too.

Yes, it will be. I just don't see that as being a major factor because...

Where this is biting me is when I have a large map and lots going on in the battle, I would like to move the guns to new locations as I take important ground.

I doubt you could find many descriptions of tactical battles where ATGs were broken down from prepared positions and moved to brand new positions, under the eyes of the enemy, within a CM battle's timeframe. So if you're having difficulty with this, it's more-or-less realistic.

That's a good question, why is it important?

As far as I can recall, there hasn't been a single post in this entire thread that has disputed the fact that ATGs have a narrow range conditions in which they do well.

You may think that, but it's not the way I see it. Your wording, in particular, indicates that you view the ATGs currently unusable due to these various issues. Because you've adopted such an extreme position I doubt your opinion will change even after we tweak some values.

I have no problem with the perspective that reenactors are generally working with 'best possible conditions' not under fire etc.

But I still fail to see how you could realistically argue that taking four minutes to do in game [on the same manicured lawn terrain], what the reneactors do in thirty seconds is anywhere near an accurate portrayal of capability.

Actually, VERY easily. There are no conditions in Combat Mission that can approach what you see by reenactors. That's because many of the conditions definitely not present with reenactors are inherently built into the game's environment. That's because CM always, always, always presumes combat conditions. Always. Even in the Editor with no enemy forces. That's because CM is not a simulation of ideal training environments.

Now, can I justify 4 minutes to do something that the reenactors can do in 30 seconds? Perhaps. Depends on the circumstances. Wet forest edge terrain might take 10 minutes instead of 30 seconds. For a Pak43 I can think of conditions which might take 2 hours with the aid of two trucks.

Having said that, when making a rough approximation of apples to apples I do see a legitimate argument that our rotation times are too penalizing. The question is what to change them to? Certainly not what the reenactors can do in perfect conditions.

Actually I'd argue that you're missing the two most critical factors that effect ATGs.

4 Pack up and deployment speeds

5 Moving while deployed.

#5 is my #2. Your #4 I don't believe makes much of a difference (see above comments to Ian and below to Vanir).

Being able to manhandle a gun from a cover position into a firing position and from a firing position to cover, or secondary, position is critical to their survivability, and ' entirely realistic.'.

Yes, but not necessarily the way you view it happening. There's a big difference between "tactical" and "operational" capabilities. In real life ATGs were likely moved only once within a typical CM battle timeframe, and that would be off map.

It would be nice if AT guns could reverse so they didn't have to do 180 ° turns to hook up to a prime mover.

That is on the list of things to examine.

With regards to movement speed, terrain is everything. What allows teams of men to move large AT guns is momentum. The hard part is getting the thing going, but once it's moving keeping it moving isn't difficult as long as nothing breaks the momentum. But if you are moving over broken or -- worst of all-- muddy ground you'll never get much momentum.

Yup. That's part of the "Pushing Speed" element I want looked at.

My impression is that large AT guns did not move around much during battles. Between battles, sure, but once they were in place and camoed-up they usually stayed there until the attack was beaten off or they were destroyed. Maybe small AT guns were different.

Your impression is accurate and it was also true for smaller AT Guns. The reason being that by the time an ATG was moved it would need to be either driven much further forward (perhaps held in reserve) or much further backwards (i.e. off map). This has nothing to do with CM and everything to do with the practicality of having them deployed meaningfully within the space and time of a typical CM battle.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, the only two times I would ever recommend people using ATG/IGs are:

1. When provided in a premade scenario

2. In a QB when you're on the defense AND you they will be useful for the map being played on.

Anything less than that ATG/IGs are highly likely to be less useful (or even useless) compared to other purchase options. Quick Battles, in general, are not viable for ATG/IGs. Changing the rotation speed, push speed, and packup times will not change this.

Steve

[Dadekster]

I can think of a 3rd reason. You are the CO and are told here is your mission and this is all we got, make it work!

Honestly though, some of my best battles have been setting everything to random and just going with it. On the flip side it can make for a horrible lopsided battle as well. I really need to find a human opponent.

[JasonC]

"Always glad to hear things are being looked at"

Seconded - sounds like Battlefront will fix or do sumfink about the important realism issues. Me happy...

[WynnterGreen]

Your wording, in particular, indicates that you view the ATGs currently unusable due to these various issues. Because you've adopted such an extreme position

Pointing out a bunch of reasons why ATGs are limited as compared to their real world counterparts and making a statement that they're not currently a viable option in the game because of those limitations it is hardly 'extreme'.

Nor am I a voice in the wilderness on the subject, not that the number of people who hold a position necessarily aquaints to it's veracity.

I doubt your opinion will change even after we tweak some values.

That's yet to be seen. I don't see how pointing out current shortcomings equates to not being satisfied with hypothetical improvements.

I haven't asked for anything unrealistic or given any indication that I expect 'magical improvements'.

I do see a legitimate argument that our rotation times are too penalizing. The question is what to change them to? Certainly not what the reenactors can do in perfect conditions.

The reeneactor stuff was merely a tool for comparison.

No one ever suggested that what the reenactors did should be translated 1 to 1 into the game.

It was evidence, where evidence is scarce, of a disconnect between what can be physically done in the real world and what we see performed in the game environment.

To that end,it served it's purpose.

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Here's period footage supporting muzzle first trundling of ATGs. This shows it being done for the Pak 36,38 and 40. Some of it is in combat, one's in snow, and several are of the action imminent sort.

Here's excellent footage of Italian SS bringing a Pak 40 into action. The gun is uncamouflaged, swiftly turned around by the trails and pushed up a steepish rock strewn path before being brought into action.

Am heartened to read you and Charles are really looking into some of the issues regarding ATGs, which may also relate to IGs as well. Thank you for taking scarce time and resources to look into these matters for us.

I find myself forced to disagree with your notions of the tactical employment of ATGs. I've clearly shown that U.S. doctrine, reflected in the pertinent FMs, was to have an alternate firing position for each towed ATG, a position to which the gun was to be moved after firing from the primary position--whether or not actual fortifications had been dug. Additionally, the U.S. field fortification drawings quite clearly show the ATG has an in battery (up and ready to shoot) and an out of battery (rolled down a prepared slope, thus out of enemy sight) location.

I've also shown that both the Germans and the Russians did the same thing and have provided a Russian combat engineering study of German field fortifications on the one end, and a clear account by a ZIS-3 gunner for the other. At times, the Germans even built a kind of underground garage in which the gun was kept, ready to be rolled out of cover, up the slope and into battery.

Nor do I necessarily agree with your notion that ATGs can't be used offensively. Rommel certainly did in the Western Desert. He'd come charging in with his armor, and, cloaked in the dust the Panzers made, he'd bring up his ATGs and deploy them. Not to mention the 88s which fought while still on their tows. The Panzers would then feign a retreat, in would rush the British, impaling themselves on the unsuspected gun line. Then, with the British formations now in shreds, the Panzers would wade back into the fray.

There's a large CMBN DAR for an ME going/done already on YT. Towed guns are in evidence and are being used offensively. The map's large enough to make it possible to move the guns to successive positions as the attack develops. The opponent is busy dealing with a crisis in another sector, so the guns are able to move up without being lit up in the process. I freely grant that if playing on a tiny or small map with little cover, an ATG, once deployed, may well be stuck there for the duration, but larger maps create the opportunity to progressively advance the guns.

As for perceived lack of utility absent prepared positions, may I refer you to the shot of a 6-pdr in a sunken Normandy lane. While the gun does appear to have some sort of camouflage on the shield, the wrapped around part isn't designed to hide on a dusty road. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that gun is in a position to kill or badly hurt anything coming up that easily blocked single lane road. Presumably, the PBI is there to prevent unkind Landser activities.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Vanir Ausf B]

Am with Childress on the general use of ATGs. They're not typically used for mobile ops in the defense and are there specifically to provide solidity to a fixed defense. This isn't to say, were the right code in place, they couldn't be used to defend from successive positions, but usually, once there, there they stay. The Russians to this day refer to their static ATGs as "Farewell the Motherland," for you either beat off the armored attack with the gun line or die at the guns. Am still trying to get BFC to model the smokeless, flashless powder the Germans used which made their weapons hard to spot when fired.

Regards,

John Kettler

.......................