Jump to content

Follow up shot with Tanks


Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

I am not following you here, Vanir. How would eliminating speed be beneficial? Seems to me like you'd want even more of it.

I believe he's referring to eliminating tanks' abilities to react instantly rather than requiring assumed communication between TC and driver/gunner which would add a couple of seconds of reaction time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

For example, in the video posted you'll notice the Panther begins to slew its turret towards the Sherman the instant it's hit. In CM1 there was a "crew shocked" game mechanic that would freeze crew actions for a brief time when the vehicle was penetrated but that doesn't happen in CM2. A 5-10 seconds delay (for example) would have allowed for a 3rd shot.

EDIT: Ninja'd ;)

Edited by Vanir Ausf B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

In CM1 there was a "crew shocked" game mechanic that would freeze crew actions for a brief time when the vehicle was penetrated but that doesn't happen in CM2.

Ah yes. Thanks for reminding me. I think I noticed that when BN first came out but subsequently forgot about it. You're right, getting that back on track would at least improve realism and might change gameplay in interesting ways.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

Ah yes. Thanks for reminding me. I think I noticed that when BN first came out but subsequently forgot about it. You're right, getting that back on track would at least improve realism and might change gameplay in interesting ways.

Michael

Of course you'd have to differentiate between (partial) penetrations, armour spalling and non-penetrating hits. In the WW2 titles, penetrating, non-catastrophic hits are much more common than in the modern games. And I can swear that my Panzers fire more slowly when the crew suffers from suppresion after being hit.

Edited by spawncaptain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

For example, in the video posted you'll notice the Panther begins to slew its turret towards the Sherman the instant it's hit. In CM1 there was a "crew shocked" game mechanic that would freeze crew actions for a brief time when the vehicle was penetrated but that doesn't happen in CM2. A 5-10 seconds delay (for example) would have allowed for a 3rd shot.

EDIT: Ninja'd ;)

This is the correct answer to the problem in my opinion.

We do not need tanks having super fast reload times in close situations.

 

We need tanks that have taken a hit in a state of shock for a few moments when events deserve it.

The original poster has a valid issue but it is the super fast reaction time from the enemy tank he should be focused on instead of the reload time of the first tank.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, slysniper said:

This is the correct answer to the problem in my opinion.

We do not need tanks having super fast reload times in close situations.

 

We need tanks that have taken a hit in a state of shock for a few moments when events deserve it.

The original poster has a valid issue but it is the super fast reaction time from the enemy tank he should be focused on instead of the reload time of the first tank.

 

I do agree that the general tactical issue here is multi-faceted, and that adding the stunning Vanir mentioned would do the most to alleviate the general issue. Although I dont necessarily agree that we should totally drop the reloading times thing either. Ive been doing alot of testing before and since this thread started, and the average reload speed seems to be about 8 seconds, or twice what would be possible with even much larger rounds. I think the reload time is still important because it would effect encounters where the enemy tank might not be penetrated and therefore not stunned. Imagine for example that the round in Millers video does not penetrate. It would still make sense given the engagement geometry that the Sherman get off the second, and possibly even third shots before the Panther has time to shoot the Sherman. 

It seems in general that tanks a close range act rather strangely in combat. I most of my testing so far, the Sherman will let the panther drive off 100m past the ambush point before even attempting to rotate the turret. The in game audio confirms the Sherman has seen the Tank, but he just sit there like nothing has happened. I wonder if this is being affected by the changes made to tanks some time ago to try to alter their performance against infantry at close range.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, spawncaptain said:

Of course you'd have to differentiate between (partial) penetrations, armour spalling and non-penetrating hits. In the WW2 titles, penetrating, non-catastrophic hits are much more common than in the modern games. And I can swear that my Panzers fire more slowly when the crew suffers from suppresion after being hit.

There is already distinction between those hit types. BF confirmed in a earlier thread that "hits" and "partial penetrations" are both situations where the round does not pass through the armor. Both can cause spalling, but the spalling from partials is more severe, since you have a round lodged in the armor in varying degrees. The only hit that is representative of any significant part of the round passing through the plate is the "Penetration", 

That being said, certain spalling, particularly from partial pens, could cause severe enough damage to stun the crew. After all, sometimes spalling might hit a person or the ammo etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, shift8 said:

There is already distinction between those hit types. BF confirmed in a earlier thread that "hits" and "partial penetrations" are both situations where the round does not pass through the armor. Both can cause spalling, but the spalling from partials is more severe, since you have a round lodged in the armor in varying degrees. The only hit that is representative of any significant part of the round passing through the plate is the "Penetration", 

That being said, certain spalling, particularly from partial pens, could cause severe enough damage to stun the crew. After all, sometimes spalling might hit a person or the ammo etc. 

Yeah, that's what I really meant :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is the "crew shocked" game mechanic that I mentioned but also the crew communication delay spoken of by Baneman which would not be dependent on penetrations. For a Panther tank the time between the TC spotting a target and the gunner firing at that target was typically 20-30 seconds. With the current in-game rates of fire that would allow 3 to 4 shots from the Sherman even if none of them penetrated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is a excellent example of why their should be some kind of stuffing(only when penetrated, and not 100% of the time.) effect on tanks: or at the very least a look at the engine DM. 

 

Edited by shift8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit to being surprised at the number of rear hits that Panther survived - normally a side or rear penetration is game over.

But without the Hit Text on, we can't know if it was Penetrated at all - I would think that in real life, just being hit is likely to galvanise the crew ( to either bail or fight back ).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/22/2016 at 11:54 AM, shift8 said:

I dont think there is edit there at all, the smoke is still handing in the air when it fires the second round....it is just old footage

That video is definitely edited. The smoke basically disappears when the next shot goes off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Pak40 said:

That video is definitely edited. The smoke basically disappears when the next shot goes off. 

The video by Shift8 is not cut at all. Watch the seconds in the turn tick down. You will see that they are ticking down in real time and there is no inconsistency. I'm not sure what to make of what happens in this video game mechanics wise, but it seems clear to me that Shift8 is only trying to point out an issue that he is seeing. Accusing him of some kind of Soviet level video tampering ("missing cosmonaut? what cosmonaut? was never cosmonaut!") is unfounded and rude. 

I've never experienced something like this happening in either CMFB, CMFI or CMBN having played all three. I think that there may be something not readily apparent that could explain what we are seeing. What that something is, is anyones guess. I can say with confidence that this has never been an issue for me and likely isn't a major issue affecting many people, meaning that it is likely a specific snafu or a very minor bug. The best way to get to the bottom of the issue is likely to send a save game file to the developers and see what they make of it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IICptMillerII said:

The video by Shift8 is not cut at all. Watch the seconds in the turn tick down. You will see that they are ticking down in real time and there is no inconsistency. I'm not sure what to make of what happens in this video game mechanics wise, but it seems clear to me that Shift8 is only trying to point out an issue that he is seeing. 

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about the "in game" footage. I'm talking about the the old WWII video footage that shows a sherman squeezing off 3 rounds in about 3 seconds. Shift8 thinks the video is not edited and the the tank actually shoots 3 rounds in 3 seconds. Impossible for a Sherman. The video has obviously been spliced to appear that 3 shots have been fired that quickly. The smoke is the dead giveaway.

Edited by Pak40
clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 23/5/2016 at 0:05 PM, Vanir Ausf B said:

In CM1 there was a "crew shocked" game mechanic that would freeze crew actions for a brief time when the vehicle was penetrated but that doesn't happen in CM2.

I think this would be really nice to have.

Also, when a tank is hit by a powerful shot that doesn't penetrate, there could be some shock/momentary panic effect to the crew, depending on experience and motivation levels. Especially for sudden unexpected hits from unspotted threats without even a contact marker.

Right now, it seems if you roll your tank into a field and it then gets hit by an AT gun (round bounces off) then your tank will just sit there and receive further hits until it maybe eventually spots the gun and starts to engage the target. I assume that in real life, if you suddenly take AT-fire, first step is to reverse back into cover, because you know you're now a sitting duck to the enemy; he has you square in his sights and can continue to fire away as fast as he can reload his gun, and you haven't even spotted him yet.

Even if the enemy gun is too small to pose a real threat to your tank, for all you know in the moment, it could just be luck that the first round didn't penetrate.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Pak40 said:

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about the "in game" footage. I'm talking about the the old WWII video footage that shows a sherman squeezing off 3 rounds in about 3 seconds. Shift8 thinks the video is not edited and the the tank actually shoots 3 rounds in 3 seconds. Impossible for a Sherman. The video has obviously been spliced to appear that 3 shots have been fired that quickly. The smoke is the dead giveaway.

Ah ok my apologies then. That's the second time I misunderstood which video was being referenced. I'll catch on eventually!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I think this would be really nice to have.

Also, when a tank is hit by a powerful shot that doesn't penetrate, there could be some shock/momentary panic effect to the crew, depending on experience and motivation levels. Especially for sudden unexpected hits from unspotted threats without even a contact marker.

Right now, it seems if you roll your tank into a field and it then gets hit by an AT gun (round bounces off) then your tank will just sit there and receive further hits until it maybe eventually spots the gun and starts to engage the target. I assume that in real life, if you suddenly take AT-fire, first step is to reverse back into cover, because you know you're now a sitting duck to the enemy; he has you square in his sights and can continue to fire away as fast as he can reload his gun, and you haven't even spotted him yet.

Even if the enemy gun is too small to pose a real threat to your tank, for all you know in the moment, it could just be luck that the first round didn't penetrate.

So there may be some room for nuance here, but while I agree on penetrating stuns, I would caution very very strongly against non penetrating stuns. There is already a mechanic in place to simulate crew function being eroded due to shock or simple general anxiety. Non-penetrating hits would in most cases, unless the crew is totally ultra-green, no really have much of an effect on the crew. At least not the the point of "suppressing" or "stunning" them. Tank IRL do not get "stunned" in the same sense that a pinned down infantry squad might. 

I add this caveat because I have seen what the actual in game effect is when something like that is added. In the Wargame series there were these non-pen stuns. It made the tank combat extremely silly. For example, 20mm cannon could "stun" tanks to such a degree that auto cannon fire was basically the equivalent of suppression fire on a infantry man. Tanks that were hit with non-penetrating hits from at guns or atgms or tank cannons would get "stunned" diring which time they could not return fire or aim accurately. This allowed much smaller vehicles to frontally engage tanks they should not have. 

I wont say that it should be completely disregarded, but that it should only apply to the most extreme situations: like maybe overpressure from a HE round or something (a very big one). But it certainly should not apply to simple AP hits. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I would be fine with a panic reaction to non-penetrating hits resulting in retreat or even abandonment of the tank if it were limited to crews with low motivation ratings. While it did (and still does) happen it is the exception.

That sounds about right, except for the abandonment part. Unless the tank was on fire or there had been a penetration, crews were generally reluctant to leave the safety of their armor. There was usually a lot of metal flying around out there and a guy could get hurt.

;)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

That sounds about right, except for the abandonment part. Unless the tank was on fire or there had been a penetration, crews were generally reluctant to leave the safety of their armor. There was usually a lot of metal flying around out there and a guy could get hurt.

;)

Michael

Crew reactions run the entire spectrum.  I have taken the time to collect and categorize every single tank crew reaction described in every book I own and if I recall I have more than forty or fifty personal accounts collected.  There are descriptions ranging from Soviet crews abandoning tanks that are still moving from non penetrating hits (bailing out while the tank is literally still moving), American tankers bailing out after being hit by rifle grenades, tanks withdrawing entirely from the battlefield after a penetrating hit that caused no casualties, to crews sitting in their immobilized tank all day long in an exposed position waiting for darkness to fall.  I think some general tendencies can be deduced though, and the fact is that most crews aren't going to remain in a tank that is immobilized regardless of the circumstances because an immobilized tank is a sitting duck.  As far as mobile tanks goes even a non penetrating hit will typically result in a tank repositioning while a tank that loses a crew member for any reason - including an unbuttoned commander from gunfire - will typically withdraw from the battlefield entirely.  Tank behavior in wargames is generally much more generous in terms of crew bravery than was probably the norm.  However, I don't think most players would like it if tank crews behaved in an entirely realistic way so some compromises are probably both appropriate and necessary for game play purposes.

Edited by ASL Veteran
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

However, I don't think most players would like it if tank crews behaved in an entirely realistic way so some compromises are probably both appropriate and necessary for game play purposes.

Indeed. From reading these forums we can see that some wargamers are not happy with semi realistic behaviour either. ;)

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...