Jump to content

Problems in CMBN V3.11


Recommended Posts

Hey everyone!

This is a thread which deals with some problems and bugs I mentioned in another thread. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120091-operation-tumbleweed/page-3

 

As it started quite a discussion I try now to migrate the discussion to this thread.

Thus the other thread isn't hijacked by off-topic discussions anymore and people know where to look if they want to re-read about this topic.

 

Here is my original post:

 

Posted 21 July 2015 - 08:57 PM

Oh no, not ANOTHER new Release.

Who is supposed to play through all this content? I am not even through all the game content of CMBN, and I own it for about two years.

 

Haven't they got enough to do?

I mean, have you looked at CMBN in its V3.11 state?

Pretty skewed if you ask me. Infantry movement behaviour is all I say.

 

They should keep ironing the older titles instead of releasing a plethora of unripe new installments that differ only marginally in gameplay...

 

 

Just my 2 cents.

Olf

 

And here are my key arguments when I say Battlefront should keep maintaining older titles.

 

Posted 25 July 2015 - 07:18 PM

 

The bugs I am referring to are the following:
 
Fisrt of all the movement system is skewed - troops tend to bunch up way more than in earlier versions. You can spread out a whole platoon 200 yards wide and give them parallel movement orders and you have them all bunched up in one thick line after 30 seconds. Nice when enemy artillery is present...
 
Secondly the Panthers (and some other vehicles) hit and damage registration is still bugged. This was present already in version 2.12. The vehicles won't get destroyed before receiving 3-6 partial and solid penetrations (by 57, 75mm, 76mm guns) even in areas which hold ammo and fuel. Just recently a Wespe 105mm SP gun received about 6 direct hits from 3 Churchills without showing any sign of reduced combat readiness. In this match I have one enemy Panther destroyed (5 solid penetrations needed) and 3 active (between 1 to 4 penetrations each). Just one is unscathed.
Remember our match with your invincible Tigers. How many PIAT hits did they recieve with very little damage?
 
Thirdly the spotting system acts really weird at times. You pile up all the spotting advantages on your side and the enemy still spots and shoots first. Just had a match (EDIT: in the CMRT Demo) where my Stug III with an unbuttoned veteran crew looked straight at a T-34/85 through some trees and bushes. The T-34 was at an 30° angel, buttoned and with regular crew. Guess who shot first and killed the Stug? This is really no single incident, with vehicles staring straight at other vehicles 150 yards away in the open, and no identification happening.
 
That is about it.
 
 
I will upload some pictures as references soon.
 
So lets discuss! :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

my only comments would be to

1.not make work on the engine mutually exclusive to new releases.  BF needs a revenue stream, without that they aren't going to work on anything.

2. BF is already committed to maintaining the older titles so as things get fixed they get retrofitted to older titles.  It may take time, but it does happen. 

3. Be prepared for the s**t storm from folks who are already asking for more content.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1.not make work on the engine mutually exclusive to new releases.  BF needs a revenue stream, without that they aren't going to work on anything.

3. Be prepared for the s**t storm from folks who are already asking for more content.  ;)

 

 

to 1) I just want to bring this to BFs attention because, maybe some of the issues are due to the V.3.0 migration and can be easily fixed.

to 3) Already waaay into the discussion, just have a look at the posted link. Not too much poo-flying as of now, which I appreciate :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Note also that the engine work necessary for the new release (Bulge) would seem to be far smaller in scope than the other, graphical and model capability work that needs to be done. Thus work on the next version of the engine (which will roll out to all the old game families BN-and-onwards) will be able to start sooner.

 

You're also forgetting that every new family except BS has come associated with significant changes to the engine (and even BS had some new stuff needed for the setting): BN had all the things for temperate fighting; FI had v2 with interface and graphics updates; RT had v3 with all sorts of new goodies that are in place for all the other families now. Just because your pet peeves haven't been addressed doesn't mean the engine hasn't been being worked on and all those changes ported into old titles. A new release provides the influx of funds that BFC needs to improve its engine, and their remarkable policy of backporting improvements to games which, for any other software house, would have been abandonware years ago means you can have those upgrades for the measly price of ten bucks.

 

We don't know what, if any, family will be released along with v4; perhaps it'll be a standalone upgrade available to all existing families, though I doubt it, even if the $50 for everyone to upgrade all the families is starting to be comparable to the income from selling a new family base product.

 

Be aware that generating new scenarios, 3-D models and TO&E is, without denigrating the work done by those fine folk who toil on those aspects, technically trivial compared to improving things like TacAI pathing, internal damage models and making spotting conform to all your expectations, and changing the engine is work which can be done by only two people in the entire world. The various elements are also, to some degree, independent of each other. Work can go on in parallel, and potentially be released separately. See the new Battle Pack, which required little or no input from Charles and PhilC.

 

Like you, I haven't even nearly completed all the FI and BN content that I have. Which is why I haven't put buying RT or BS or even the upgrade to v3 for FI high enough on my spending priorities yet to get ahold of them. But I have got all the engine improvements made available by the release of RT in my BN. The great thing about the BFC pricing model is you don't have to buy anything until you want to, and you'll still get the benefits of any work done in the future.

 

TLDR: you're working from a mistaken viewpoint. BFC do maintain older titles, so this whole thread starts with a false premise based on misinformation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really get why you guys jump at me like you do?

Do you think I totally ignore all the great things Battlefront has come up with?

Do you think I don't see all the improvements?

Of course I do.

 

For example I was really eager to see nice little hit decals on my tanks in CMBN and thus was really hyped when the V3.0 upgrade came out.

But after playing a while I noticed the aforementioned flaws and have been waiting for a fix ever since.

Considering the last Patch for CMBN came out in November 2014 I got to the conclusion that there is no support for a looong while, if ever.

Same was my impression for CMSH - I have been waiting for a V2.0 and now V3.0 upgrade for one and a half years.

 

Now I am in the situation that CMBN is on the edge of unplayable for me and I can't buy any of the other titles for various reasons.

When I heard BF is making a title about the Bulge I decided to finally say something.

 

That is the whole story.

 

 

 

Just for an example:

This is what I am referring to in my first statement as botched pathing behaviour:

 

Botched%20Movement%20030_zpscprp2fak.jpg

Clusterf**k 1

 

Botched%20Movement%20002small_zpst3ma3i9

Clusterf**k 2

 

This happened with the port to V3.0. It is so dominant that it is hardly possible to use a workaround. You have to place waypoint as close as 20yards/meters apart to avoid it. And this slows movement down, as the troops use to pause for a moment at waypoints, when they get seperated.

 

 

 

Best regards

Olf

Edited by DasMorbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really get why you guys jump at me like you do?

 

So, no offence but what are you talking about?  No one is jumping on you - we are saying we either don't see the same problems or we don't get what you are saying.  You are frustrated - we get that but do not forget that those who are responding with questions play this game a lot and we are not having the same frustrations.  So, either:

  • our expectations do not match yours,
  • you are doing it wrong (yeah, just you cause you are the one who is frustrated :) ),
  • or there is a bug you are hitting that few other people are

Add some examples and tests and then people will tell you what is wrong with your expectations or the game :)  But don't take that as jumping on you either.

 

Like this one...

 

This is what I am referring to in my first statement as botched pathing behaviour:

<snip>pictures</snip>

This happened with the port to V3.0. It is so dominant that it is hardly possible to use a workaround. You have to place waypoint as close as 20yards/meters apart to avoid it. And this slows movement down, as the troops use to pause for a moment at waypoints, when they get seperated.

OK now we are talking.  This I can work with.

 

First: Are you sure that this was any better in the older versions?  I always remember long movement orders causing long cogna lines and bunching up when going through obstacles.  Seriously I noticed no difference with this behaviour over the years.  Now mind you I have stopped using long movement orders like that for the most part and only do it occasionally.  If you (or any one else) can show that there was a significant change between 1.0 or 2.0 and 3.0 then go for it and I'll log it even but frankly I'll be shocked if that is the case.  Create a QB in 1.x and save the game with movement orders like your example above and run it a bunch to times and then take the save and move it over to 3.0 and see if it really is different.

 

I do not play that way any more.  Even when I am trying to get guys to cover as much ground as possible in safe areas I do not use move orders that long.  The best way to prevent that conga line is to use shorter movement orders and be happy with your men getting there a little slower.  Personally I give them built in additional pauses so they arrive at their destination fresh and ready.  Tired = bad.  Not only that I also offset their movement so that in a platoon a squad is still while others move.  That is safer in case of surprises but it also helps to limit the congestion at choke points.  In less safe areas I change the pauses so only one squad is moving at any given time.  Short movement orders like 24 - 32m in safe areas and 16m in non safe areas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question - in the first pic - are you saying they all started out positioned laterally with respect to each other ?

 

Mind you - they all seem to have gone through what looks like a choke point, so the bunching has been exacerbated - the AI is basically now calculating a path from the choke point and path of least resistance is straight forward until some turn off.

Remember - computers are dumb - you have to tell them every little thing - so if your guys all ran through the gap, the ones with waypoints to the side don't "know" they should run back along the bocage before heading up towards it again. That's your job :)

 

If I'm misinterpreting the pic, sorry, but you need a series of about 3-4 or more to show the starting positions, the orders and the results in stages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

So, no offence but what are you talking about?  No one is jumping on you - we are saying we either don't see the same problems or we don't get what you are saying.  You are frustrated - we get that but do not forget that those who are responding with questions play this game a lot and we are not having the same frustrations.

 

I am not that much frustrated as it sounds - this referred some other more rude comments and the amount of contra I am receiving.

 

 

OK now we are talking.  This I can work with.

 

First: Are you sure that this was any better in the older versions?  I always remember long movement orders causing long cogna lines and bunching up when going through obstacles.  Seriously I noticed no difference with this behaviour over the years.  Now mind you I have stopped using long movement orders like that for the most part and only do it occasionally.  If you (or any one else) can show that there was a significant change between 1.0 or 2.0 and 3.0 then go for it and I'll log it even but frankly I'll be shocked if that is the case.  Create a QB in 1.x and save the game with movement orders like your example above and run it a bunch to times and then take the save and move it over to 3.0 and see if it really is different.

 

I do not play that way any more.  Even when I am trying to get guys to cover as much ground as possible in safe areas I do not use move orders that long.  The best way to prevent that conga line is to use shorter movement orders and be happy with your men getting there a little slower.  Personally I give them built in additional pauses so they arrive at their destination fresh and ready.  Tired = bad.  Not only that I also offset their movement so that in a platoon a squad is still while others move.  That is safer in case of surprises but it also helps to limit the congestion at choke points.  In less safe areas I change the pauses so only one squad is moving at any given time.  Short movement orders like 24 - 32m in safe areas and 16m in non safe areas.

 

About the amount of CMBN hours clocked, I have the game for at least 3 years now and have been playing near constantly with some weeks pause here and then. Before CMBN I used to play Close Combat and I consider myself a crack in wargaming tactics (wanna play me for verification?). As I have an old PC, I didn't switch to newer titels and thus stayed with CMBN all the time.

So I went through V1.0 to V3.0 steadily with my gameplay skills nothing but improving, and I haven't noticed this ever before.

 

IIRC downgrading from V3.0 to V1.0 means reinstalling. So this option gets ruled out as I am nearing my maximum activations. I could work it out but it is just too much work to fit into my real life, besides I have some PBEMs just about to start and I don't want to annoy these guys.

 

I am thinking about some tests though. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not that much frustrated as it sounds -

 

Well you did say:

 

Now I am in the situation that CMBN is on the edge of unplayable for me

earlier...

 

this referred some other more rude comments and the amount of contra I am receiving.

 

I must have missed any rude comments.  Hopefully none were from me - that was not my intention.  I should point out hyperbola like above does tend to be a bit "in your face", I personally try to keep that to a minimum.

 

About the amount of CMBN hours clocked, I have the game for at least 3 years now and have been playing near constantly with some weeks pause here and then. Before CMBN I used to play Close Combat and I consider myself a crack in wargaming tactics (wanna play me for verification?). As I have an old PC, I didn't switch to newer titels and thus stayed with CMBN all the time.

So I went through V1.0 to V3.0 steadily with my gameplay skills nothing but improving, and I haven't noticed this ever before.

 

Oh, I did not mean to go down the whip them out and see how big they route.  Let me try to rephrase my point:

 

Given the amount of hours spent by the other people who responded on this, and the other thread, who have not seen the issues you have or who have found ways to get the soldiers in game to behave satisfactorily even if you clocked tons of hours playing you should consider "what should I be doing differently?" or "why might I be the only one seeing these things?"  Instead of jumping to the conclusion that the game is broken.  I am the first to admit that there can be bugs in the game however when people see something odd the first thing they should ask is "is this expected" or "are others seeing this?"  If you begin your investigation and threads here with questions rather than declarations your threads will create better discussions.

 

There that was what I mean.  I never meant to impune your abilities or your hours spent playing.

 

As for your offer to play a game, thank you for you kind offer and there was a time when I would have said sure.  However right now I fear I have too many games on the go and some of my regular opponents are suffering a slow rate from me at the moment.  I could not possibly take on another opponent right now.

 

IIRC downgrading from V3.0 to V1.0 means reinstalling. So this option gets ruled out as I am nearing my maximum activations. I could work it out but it is just too much work to fit into my real life, besides I have some PBEMs just about to start and I don't want to annoy these guys.

 

I don't think that would be a problem  You can have two (in fact n) versions of the game installed all at once.  All of the 3.x games will share the same activation (i.e. you activate once and any additional installs are just happy).  All the 2.x games will share the same activation and similarly with the 1.x installs. I do this all the time.  At this moment I have two CMBS installs.  At one time I had four CMBN installs going (ick). 

 

So, leave your currently working install alone.  Fire up the 1.0 installer and choose a unique directory to install it too (do not use the default since it is probably where your 3.0 game is installed).  I choose C:\Programs\CMBN10 as an example.  You will need your 1.0 activation code and you can now fire up either one of the games and walk down memory lane.

 

I am thinking about some tests though. :)

 

Excellent - I am looking forward to them. Please keep in mind that there will likely be a few suggestions for changes in your testing. I do not think I have ever seen someone create a test that satisfied the experts first try before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

v3.0 has been out for, what, more than a year? Trust me, if there were any fundamental problems with it these forums would be FULL of complaints. There is no way, and I do mean no way, that there are major problems that are only known to one person and we are only hearing about them now. This is coming from 16 years of experience with you guys :D

That does not mean CM is perfect. It never has been, it never will be. And for sure some people will focus on something not working to their satisfaction and forget about the hundreds of things that are working great. This something takes on disproportionate importance in the mind of the gamer. Sometimes, with less frequency as time goes on, the player does in fact discover something that needs to be fixed. That usually requires quite a bit of discussion/debate and repeatability. It is also common to find that the "pet peeves" is either user error (not a bug) or a known limitation (not a bug). With each release the number of "this is a bug" threads which wind up proving it isn't increases. Which is a good thing :)

We fix things as we find them to be broken. We make those fixes available to all the older versions either as free patches or along with the Upgrades (or both). Therefore, it is simply factually incorrect to think that things aren't getting fixed because we are making new games. In fact, usually we find things to fix because we are making new games.

Therefore, nothing to change on our part. Well, unless someone can show that there is an actual problem with the game. We're always open to that possibility, but it has to be more than a statement made as if the case is already proven.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really get why you guys jump at me like you do?

Do you think I totally ignore all the great things Battlefront has come up with?

Do you think I don't see all the improvements?

Of course I do.

 

The problem is this:

 

 

 

 

Oh no, not ANOTHER new Release.

Who is supposed to play through all this content? I am not even through all the game content of CMBN, and I own it for about two years.

 

Haven't they got enough to do?

I mean, have you looked at CMBN in its V3.11 state?

Pretty skewed if you ask me. Infantry movement behaviour is all I say.

 

They should keep ironing the older titles instead of releasing a plethora of unripe new installments that differ only marginally in gameplay...

 

 

You have apparently assumed that they are not ironing out problems in the older titles. This is self evidently and blatantly untrue. The three "problems" you try and specifically address are your pet peeves and actually might get some love at some point. They're not new. But associated with the obviously false assertion that old titles have been abandoned, you look like a poorly-informed troll. Which doesn't encourage anyone to engage with your substansive points.

 

My viewpoint on the three issues:

 

Pathing: the AI needs some help. Players can manage it for themselves. Low priority

 

Internal damage resolution: would be a toothsome flavour change, but have little or no impact on actual game play. Low priority

 

Spotting: your expectations aren't always met. The spotting system has some limitations, corner cases and the very occasional freaky-seeming occurrence which could do with being expanded, improved and cleared up, respectively. Middling priority. But those limitations are pretty hard-wired, and the corner cases and actual freak circumstances where it doesn't work almost certainly don't match your expectations either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DasMorbo,

Regarding your pathing issues it seems to me that you need to keep in mind that path planning in this engine tries to find the "most efficient" routes for your units. And "most efficient" means "fastest". Not "cleverest" or "safest " or "insert here whatever you fancy".

No more, and no less.

To get what I think you wanted to achieve in the first screenshot, assuming your platoon started in column formation:

1) convert formation from column to line, either wheeling on its right or left flank. You might want to move your troops in column formation, in order to get to an area big enough to deploy in line.

2) issue to each element of your platoon a Move command forward.

Note that 1) is just not about finding routes, there's a non trivial spatial reasoning puzzle to solve. That's up to you to be solved with the, quite limited, tools at your disposal.

Edited by BletchleyGeek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DasMorbo,

 

1) Pathing: Your two screenshots don't show me (for whatever that matters) that there is any problem. Baneman already mentioned it: you've sent your troops through a chokepoint without trying to control the timing of their passage.

1a) The group (platoon?) is already streaming through a passage in the dense brush/undergrowth. If you wanted the platoon NOT to do so, but for squads to stay in their own "lanes", you should've given each squad an intermediate waypoint just across the belt of dense undergrowth from where they approached it.

1b) Fording a water obstacle ALWAYS causes bunching up, just like in real life. It slows men down, so men behind them will compress into them like an accordion. The places to cross are limited, so laterally offset units will merge at the ford. Just like a highway merge, bunching will occur.

 

The solution is for you to place intermediate waypoints and start using the PAUSE command at those waypoints. It's up to you to command your troops and to stagger their movements in space and time. A simple "mob, go there" group order will result in a mob moving over there.

 

 

2) Panther hit registration and penetration. Err, well, if there were something significantly wrong, I'd think that it would've been noticed by now. I'm NOT saying there isn't a possible issue, but if it were prevalent, it would've been noticed. (Look at the Shatter Gap thread for the level of detail/knowledge by the designers and players.)

 

If you think there is an issue, present some tests, or at least some screenshots. Now, having said that, I just had a pbem game turn where my 17 lber hit a Panther and got a hit on the "Hull Superstructure" (I think). There was no hit decal. I've seen the Glacis, but never a Panther Hull Superstructure. The range was a bit over 1km. Being pbem, I don't know what damage, if any, that hit caused. Lack of a hit decal and the hit label have me questioning that particular impact. So, my mind is not closed to what you say, but you need to do more than just say "it's wrong".

 

Internal damage model: I think there is room to increase the fidelity of how internal subsystems are modeled. That doesn't mean there is a "bug" with the current model. If the current model is working as designed, but you don't like it, then that means there's a desire to change the model. I have seen small rounds cause catastrophic secondary explosions, and big rounds cause no explosion. Again, what -precisely- do you think is not working correctly? (Presenting the results of some tests would really be helpful to support your supposition.)

 

 

3) Spotting system: yeah, it can be frustrating. First, you need to know how it works (apologies if you know this already). Units do not spot continuously. It is impossible, apparently, to do so with modern cpu's and still have a functioning game. Instead, each unit spots at certain intervals. It may be every 7 seconds for one unit, it may be every 2 seconds for another. Additionally, these spotting times are staggered. Not every unit's spotting "poll clock" starts at 0 when the game starts, for example. That adds a lot of randomness so you THINK they are spotting continuously.

 

Also, in-game, if a man in a tank is "reloading", he is not spotting. Etc. He has to be "spotting" to be spotting. Then toss in the spotting poll times. You can see that there is a chance for an enemy unit to get inside that spotting cycle and have asymmetric spotting behavior. This behavior resolves itself in a few seconds as the next polling cycle occurs, but that may not help if the first unit can fire before that occurs.

 

This coding model results in pretty realistic behavior...in the vast majority of all cases. I could say that your StuG got hit by an unlucky coincidence. The driver had just stalled the engine and was focused on that; the loader can't see squat; the gunner was focused on his gunsight thinking a bush at 1km was a Stalin II; the vehicle commander was on the platoon net giving a status update and was distracted by the stalled engine. They would've spotted the T34 in a few more seconds, but their distraction as a group caused their deaths.

 

What you could do, is take a savegame of the turn BEFORE IT GETS RESOLVED (the "Command Phase") and hit the "Go" button again. See if that replay results in the same outcome. Re-compute that turn about 10 times and see what happens. Please post the results.: I'm curious. (Don't recycle the same replay turn. Those results will, obviously, never change.)

 

That doesn't dismiss your StuG vs. T34 example, it just explains why it may be happening and gives a real-life explanation. Screenshots (multiple ones) would help. I have been surprised by my poor spotting in light woods, playing with only tree trunks visible, and then, when I turn the trees on, I see the leaves are closer to the ground and totally obscure the turret. Things like that matter.

 

 

 

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I too have noticed the 'big blob o' guys' movement, but it only occurs when you use a single long movement path for many units.

My rule of thumb is to plot movement waypoints every three action spots along the intended path. That works just fine in keeping your troops spaced out.

It is the responsibility of the player to ensure movements are carried out correctly, and it has been so since CMx2 came out.

You have to remember, even though the terrain looks seamless, it is actually based on a grid system with all of the inherent problems that creates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, that reflects the way it is. As you can read a few posts up that is how I handle things as well.  However I would love to see the TacAI improved and this would be one area.  I think the player will always need to be in there to get what they want - time movements to avoid too many men in a choke point or to coordinate things so that one squad is moving while another is still watching.  But I would like some day to see better movement patterns when using long movement orders so the Tac AI could avoid the one long conga line problem. I think it would look more natural all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey guys!

 

Okay, I guess I was wrong with the pathing behaviour.

I think about some testing though.

 

But to give you an impression how I came up with the idea, here are some more screenshots.

 

Botched%20Movement%20003_zpsp1ddpuv7.jpg

Green line - intended way, set with two 'quick' waypoints, one half way across the field, roughly on the green arrow the other one at the end of the field.

Red line - the way they took, there was an hMG 42 down the road, which I knew is there but not the AI (no contact icon)

 

Botched%20Movement%20004_zpsqjk1xbgf.jpg

What I don't understand is why the AI didn't choose the passage in the Bocage, which obviously was the shorter and easier way (no gate to jump over).

 

Botched%20Movement%20008_zps9yiupvwb.jpg

Result. The guys at the passageway are about to start their dash (20 seconds delay).

 

Botched%20Movement%20015_zpslbrvtodu.jpg

Waypiont of the second team. Looks like the AI sticks to roads tenaciously.

 

This is not to press my piont, but just to show you how I came to the conclusion there is something odd with the pathing.

Hope this shows you that my intention was not to troll.

Edited by DasMorbo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some pictures which are intended to highlight why I came up with the idea there might be something odd with the hit-reg/damage model.

 

weird%20Wespe%20001_zps3gafxkjs.jpg

Situation: three Churchills with 57mm and 75mm guns versus this Wespe. It took some time to score hits due to obstacles. First hit was on the muzzle brake - it kept firing for another two minutes.

 

weird%20Wespe%20005_zpsy5nn3gdg.jpg

The hit on the gun assemply did not impair its ability to fire.

 

weird%20Wespe%20010_zpsjuncnvir.jpg

These three 'deflection' hit decals come from AP rounds which actually deflected off the gun shield.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for the Panthers

 

UberPanther%20001_zpskveyjfja.jpg

 

weird%20Panther%20005_zpsxo3fo5y6.jpg

Of the seven Panthers I had knocked out in the last two games, only this succumbed to less than three solid penetrations.

 

weird%20Panther%20015_zpsm2nxfyjg.jpg

Took three PIAT hits to go KIA, while just two show. The solid penetration on the turret side didn't show any effect, I looked it up in-game.

 

weird%20Panther%20010_zps0glgqphw.jpg

Three solid, one partial AT penetrations, two solid PIAT penetrations, just 1 crew fatality.

 

weird%20Panther%20030_zps15y1lwic.jpg

This one took all this hits at 150m to catch fire.

 

weird%20Panther%20035_zpsagplauq4.jpg

This one took half the hits while still operational. The other half after it was abandoned with the engine still running.

 

I have been a scale modeller for 20 years, and the Panther was my favourite subject. So I spend many hours studying original pictures, and all I can say is they are very vulnerable to side shots. One to three penetrations were sufficent to set the vehicle afire or disable the crew in the pictures I have seen and the accounts I have read.

 

Again, just wanted to make clear I am not making this up to troll.

 

I will do some testing if I have the time left. In the moment I am at home with an illness, why I started to write about this the first place.

 

 

Regards,

Olf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great! The pix help.

 

1) Bocage pathing: That gap LOOKS like a gap...but I've been burned by "false-gap syndrome". If you set LOD to close distance, then back away, the bocage becomes a solid green line. If there is a gap in the green line, THEN there is a real gap.  I'm NOT saying that's the issue, I'm saying that has happened to me in the past. (Been awhile.) If you can post the map, or tell us what map it is, I'll tell you if that's really a gap. Yeah, it isn't then that brings up the issue of "false-gap syndrome" and the need for better 3D rendering in-game. However, if it IS a valid gap, then your pathing is at fault. A point in the middle of the field doesn't tell the AI to take the shortest path; it takes the easiest/quickest path. Your men would bunch in the bocage gap and slow down. If you wanted them to go there, then a waypoint on your side of the gap, then another on the far side (doesn't have to be right there, but can be a bit away) should work.

 

Post the map. That'll tell us for sure.

 

2) Wespe. The muzzle brake probably got a hole in it and the next shell cleared it out. ;)   The hits on the recuperator are bit more problematic, to me, and a higher-fidelity damage model would've rendered the gun inop after one more shot. Gun shield deflections? Depends on what hit it and what angle.

 

3) Panther. The PIAT is a horrible weapon to use against Panthers. The other holes look small. Solid AP shot from a 57mm? It would depend on the range. I'm curious about the crew status and subsystem damage to it. Etc.

 

The hole in the barrel should certainly cause an inop gun.

 

Thanks for the pix.

 

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some quick responses:

1. Pathing choices are based on a variety of "weights" and circumstances. Sometimes the chosen path does not make sense to the player, but some tiny variable pushed the pathing to make that decision vs. another decision. The more you play the game, the less instruction you give units, the more of these situations are going to come up. As others have suggested, when a very specific path is desired then you should help yourself by using waypoints to better direct the chosen path.

And let's not forget, people ALWAYS focus on the path choices they don't agree with. The other 1000 or so that they experience in typical game that performed as expected, for some reason, never come up in discussions :D

2. Hit decal marks and damage to the vehicle are not necessarily going to match up. The reason for that is the hit location is mathematically specific, the damage is generalized with a degree of randomness. So no, it doesn't surprise me to see something like the Wespe. The hit was registered, the location isolated for damage, and the Wespe was determined to be lucky. Unless we model every single surface area and map it to specific sub systems, then put in various structural attributes, this is as good as it's getting. Since we're not stupid enough to go down that sort of unnecessary modeling route, the existing system will not change in any major way. Which means, like pathing, occasionally something will come up that doesn't seem to make sense. Everything needs to be kept in context, and all the hits that are registered that do make sense need to be weighed against the outliers.

3. Panthers and PIAT hits. Ironically I stumbled upon an internal discussion we had about PIATs and Panthers sometime around the release of CMBN (about 4 years ago). I wasn't looking for that particular email so I only skimmed it and I don't know where it is now. Anyway, in it there was mention of a Panther taking 5 hits from PIATs and not having serious damage. Charles made a convincing argument that it wasn't unrealistic, though certainly in that case very lucky for the Panther. So I don't see a problem here.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's worth drawing the distinction between infantry pathing and vehicle pathing.

 

Infantry always looks for the easiest (fastest) route between waypoints. I find it helps to think of your pTruppen as lazy mooks who don't really have much of a self-preservation instinct until they actually come under fire. If you want them to slog along the bottom of a ditch, in the marsh, you have to give them waypoints pretty much every AS, else they'll "take the easy way out" and climb out of the ditch, jog along its lip and then back in to the waypoint you put "over yonder, but still in the ditch". The fact that you're wanting to keep them in the ditch because it gives them defilade protection from being horribly mown down by HMGs somehow escapes their poor little TacAI brains...

 

On the other hand, vehicles will generally try and stick pretty close to the track you give them for their movement between waypoints. If there's an obstacle on their line of travel (whether it was there when you plunked down the waypoint, or arrived while the vehicle was getting to its coincident location doesn't matter much), it'll "box" round it pretty close.

 

So you have two contrasting approaches to pathing to consider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good observations since, as it so happens, that's pretty much exactly what is going on :D A very long time ago both vehicles and infantry used the same pathing logic. It sucked. Neither did what people wanted far too much. Charles tried tweaking it here and there, no doubt making improvements as he did, but fundamentally players had different expectations for infantry and vehicles. And so the pathing was broken up into two distinctly different evaluation methodologies with their own weights. The complaints pretty much melted away after that, so obviously it was a good decision.

Steve

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...