Follow up shot with Tanks

[ASL Veteran]

The post penetration model that the game uses could certainly use some improvement.  You will get no argument from me.  Unfortunately there doesn't appear to be any movement from BFC for any improvements to the way it is now so we are probably stuck with the way it is.

[c3k]

Great examples!

[shift8]

3 hours ago, c3k said:

Great examples!

Thanks, hopefully we can get BFC's attention on this and maybe get a fix. 

 

 

On a side note, my friend was telling me that he suspects that the slow reaction stuff they added to the tanks to reduce their effectiveness against ambushing infantry might be contributing to the general problem. 

[snarre]

if you talking about slow reaction or slow shooting in 2 nd video . tank propably taked same penalty when tank is shooting on too deep angle, where gun shouldent possible to travel, ewen in real life (too high or too low angles) .

[shift8]

1 hour ago, snarre said:

if you talking about slow reaction or slow shooting in 2 nd video . tank propably taked same penalty when tank is shooting on too deep angle, where gun shouldent possible to travel, ewen in real life (too high or too low angles) .

There was nothing about the shot in the second video that was difficult or too low. That was a easy shot a point blank range. Also, tanks do not take "penalties" in real life when aiming because they have depressed their guns. You either have sufficient depression or your don't. If you do have the depression, the shot does not become more difficult simply because you lowered the gun. 

[snarre]

yep but in game tanks aiming ewery time to center of mass, sou if other tank is too close to another tank, gun travelse go too deep angle and thats why its take penalties to how fast its shoot/ get shot out. 

[shift8]

36 minutes ago, snarre said:

yep but in game tanks aiming ewery time to center of mass, sou if other tank is too close to another tank, gun travelse go too deep angle and thats why its take penalties to how fast its shoot/ get shot out. 

If the angle was too deep you would not be able to shoot at all.....

There is not (or should not be) any penalty to aiming a point blank range. At the distance in the video the commander could have aimed the gun himself if he had the controls. Gun depression does not factor into this. This is a thing that should be apparent since the Panther clearly has no trouble shooting back, despite not facing the right direction at first. 

[snarre]

like i sayed in real life. In game you can make 2 difrend test, place tank and enemy infantry unit in same action spot/hex , tank will shoot them whit main gun ewen they are under barrel. 2nd test , place tank on deep ridge line nous to scy  and make it shoot house or any other target. tank going to shoot ewen gun travelse shoulden go that mutch down, on some point tank get shot out of barrel ( around 5-10 turn/ game minute) . Sou to thous deep anglet shots tank get time penalty. 2 nd video looks to me that gind situation. Some one ho write english beter mayby can explain this better. 


panther get shot out realy fast when sherman was taked enough distance to panther, on that point sherman was paniced because commander was shooted by small arm fire

Edited May 30, 2016 by snarre

[shift8]

25 minutes ago, snarre said:

like i sayed in real life. In game you can make 2 difrend test, place tank and enemy infantry unit in same action spot/hex , tank will shoot them whit main gun ewen they are under barrel. 2nd test , place tank on deep ridge line nous to scy  and make it shoot house or any other target. tank going to shoot ewen gun travelse shoulden go that mutch down, on some point tank get shot out of barrel ( around 5-10 turn/ game minute) . Sou to thous deep anglet shots tank get time penalty. 2 nd video looks to me that gind situation. Some one ho write english beter mayby can explain this better. 


panther get shot out realy fast when sherman was taked enough distance to panther, on that point sherman was paniced because commander was shooted by small arm fire

Ok, but that doesnt mean the result is how it should be. There was nothing about the geometry of that shot that would have prevented it IRL. If there is some kind of depression effect screwing with the gun, then it needs removed. Also, the commander taking small arms fire should not have had any effect what-so-ever on the outcome there, as the gunner could have prosecuted the engagement on his own at that point. Some small arms fire would not disrupt the gunners trigger finger, or over ride the necessity to shoot the big ass tank right in front of him. If there is some sort of gun elevation delay going on that needs removed, although I still dont see any significant depression in that engagement. 

[ASL Veteran]

2 hours ago, shift8 said:

There was nothing about the shot in the second video that was difficult or too low. That was a easy shot a point blank range. Also, tanks do not take "penalties" in real life when aiming because they have depressed their guns. You either have sufficient depression or your don't. If you do have the depression, the shot does not become more difficult simply because you lowered the gun. 

I'm not going to judge whatever shot you are discussing in the video, but in the game tanks do take penalties when the gun depression is too high or too low.  It is true that in real life the elevation or depression of the gun is either going to happen or not happen, but the game cannot code that for a variety of reasons.  For one thing the AI would not be able to cope with the inability to fire due to elevation restrictions and so you may have tanks sitting around not firing at all because they get stuck in positions where the gun elevation makes them confused.  The way it was when the game was first released there were no aiming penalties for gun elevation at all, but there were a lot of complaints about that particularly during city fights and so the gun elevation aim penalties were introduced.  There are also other things that are limited in the game such as the fact that there is no terrain grade that is passible terrain that is too steep for a vehicle to traverse, nor is there any detectable movement penalty for steep grades either.  The game has limitations and it is not a perfect reflection of reality and those limitations are present for good reasons.

[MOS:96B2P]

33 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

<Snip> the fact that there is no terrain grade that is passible terrain that is too steep for a vehicle to traverse, nor is there any detectable movement penalty for steep grades either.  <Snip> 

@ASL Veteran thanks for the info.  Not sure I followed the part above.  Are you saying a vehicle can pass no matter how steep the grade?  Something I never tested... 

[shift8]

Ok so there is a gun depression penalty. I dont know how precisely it fits into this, but one way or another a fix should occur imo for the issue this thread is about. There are probably several game mechanics contributing. Perhaps the gun elevation penalties should only be in effect when the tank is engaging infantry. It seems like that was the reason that mechanic was introduced. It seems to me that while there may be reasons for certain mechanics, that does not necessarily mean that they werent heavy handed. Or that there might not be a better solution. It certainly seems to me that something should be done, because this appears to be effecting the tank combat so that  rather silly things occur. 

Edited May 30, 2016 by shift8

[snarre]

this gind situations are wery rare , like we soo on 2 nd videoa and i expect this penalty was reason why it wend that way in this case. 

[shift8]

9 minutes ago, snarre said:

this gind situations are wery rare , like we soo on 2 nd videoa and i expect this penalty was reason why it wend that way in this case. 

They are not all that rare. Both those video happened on the same day (in the same battle even). I wasnt even looking for it, I just saw it happen and went back an filmed. Ive been noticing this for about a year now and havent said anything until now because I usually give CM the benefit of the doubt. It happens at least 20% of the time, and it the most crazy situations. It happens often enough that it can be battle changing. It affects all the tanks, but it really hurts the smaller ones since they cannot afford for their flank attacks to fail. It takes alot of proper handling to get a tank into the position and is not a small issue when a significant amount of the time the tanks at that range do not behave reasonably. Not to mention the situation itself is not all the rare, especially in the bocage. 

[snarre]

damage table and this thing is difrend subject.

Edited May 30, 2016 by snarre

[ASL Veteran]

1 hour ago, MOS:96B2P said:

@ASL Veteran thanks for the info.  Not sure I followed the part above.  Are you saying a vehicle can pass no matter how steep the grade?  Something I never tested... 

Yes, tanks in the game can negotiate grades that the equivalent real life tank could not.  Of course, if the grade is so steep in game that it creates prohibited terrain then nobody can pass, but most of the tanks represented in the game would have difficulty traversing grades that are less than that represented by prohibited terrain grade steepness.

[ASL Veteran]

1 hour ago, shift8 said:

Ok so there is a gun depression penalty. I dont know how precisely it fits into this, but one way or another a fix should occur imo for the issue this thread is about. There are probably several game mechanics contributing. Perhaps the gun elevation penalties should only be in effect when the tank is engaging infantry. It seems like that was the reason that mechanic was introduced. It seems to me that while there may be reasons for certain mechanics, that does not necessarily mean that they werent heavy handed. Or that there might not be a better solution. It certainly seems to me that something should be done, because this appears to be effecting the tank combat so that  rather silly things occur. 

Well the 'real' solution would be to code in hard restrictions where the gun cannot go beyond what is specified for each vehicle and in that case then your vehicles simply wouldn't fire at all if the gun couldn't align with the target.  It seems to me that the 'real' solution is a lot more heavy handed than the 'phony' solution of applying an aim penalty.  If you are worried about micro maneuvering your tanks to avoid the aim penalty now then imagine how hopping mad you would be if the tank didn't fire at all.  Try to keep things in perspective and you will do a lot better in the game.  In case anyone is worried, no, there is absolutely no chance that elevation limits will ever be hard coded into the game and the aim penalty is probably carved in the stone tablets located at BFC HQ.

[shift8]

5 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

Well the 'real' solution would be to code in hard restrictions where the gun cannot go beyond what is specified for each vehicle and in that case then your vehicles simply wouldn't fire at all if the gun couldn't align with the target.  It seems to me that the 'real' solution is a lot more heavy handed than the 'phony' solution of applying an aim penalty.  If you are worried about micro maneuvering your tanks to avoid the aim penalty now then imagine how hopping mad you would be if the tank didn't fire at all.  Try to keep things in perspective and you will do a lot better in the game.  In case anyone is worried, no, there is absolutely no chance that elevation limits will ever be hard coded into the game and the aim penalty is probably carved in the stone tablets located at BFC HQ.

That doesnt mean we cant have other solutions, or that the aim penalty couldnt be toned down or have conditions added to it. And I do just fine in this game thank you. The capacity on this forum for people to reduce every complaint down to "the op doesnt know how to play" is absolutely incredible. 

Not to mention that stunning mechanics and reload times would change things for the better and have nothing to do with aim penalties. AND, it has not been established that the 2nd video even involved said mechanic. 

[Wicky]

While a human player could possibly mitigate against hard coded gun depression limits etc. handling tanks with the same limits is presently too prohibiltive for the AI to accommodate - hence why it is slightly fudged to allow a semblance of combat to occur.

There's been a few threads on the gun depression issue and Steve has chimed in why it is what it is....

Edited May 30, 2016 by Wicky

[ASL Veteran]

3 hours ago, shift8 said:

That doesnt mean we cant have other solutions, or that the aim penalty couldnt be toned down or have conditions added to it. And I do just fine in this game thank you. The capacity on this forum for people to reduce every complaint down to "the op doesnt know how to play" is absolutely incredible. 

Not to mention that stunning mechanics and reload times would change things for the better and have nothing to do with aim penalties. AND, it has not been established that the 2nd video even involved said mechanic. 

I'm not disparaging your ability to play the game.  I'm merely pointing out that if you are willing to accept that the game has limitations you would increase your enjoyment factor substantially.  For example, it is doubtful that the aim penalties for elevation limitations are going to be altered so if you are willing to accept the current situation as the best solution to the issue that the game can provide then you can get more enjoyment out of the game.  If the objection to the way it works cannot be overcome then you will likely count this issue among those that are 'game breakers' for you and your game experiences will turn you into a sad panda. 

I'm not sure what is wrong with the reload times.  What reload time to you expect to be accurate?  Do you have any historical times for reload that you can reference?  If so then toss them into the discussion.  There are a lot of videos on YouTube for modern NATO gunnery exercises with what could be considered veteran or crack crews.  The weaponry is bigger in most cases but modern tank layouts are such that the difference shouldn't be overly dramatic.  From the few I've seen the in game times feel about right.  Could it be tweaked a bit?  Sure, but seat of the pants estimates about how long it takes for a tank to perform different tasks isn't going to move the ball forward any.  It's just empty complaining if you don't have any real world data or statistics to back up your assertions. 

[shift8]

Data on that was already posted on the first or second page...........

[ASL Veteran]

7 hours ago, shift8 said:

Data on that was already posted on the first or second page...........

Okay so what, exactly, do you think the time between shots should be in the game and what are the times in the game now?  Please be precise.  I, shift 8, have tested a Sherman in game and the time between shots for each crew experience level is X at range Y.  I, shift8, have studied the available evidence and data and I have concluded that these times should instead be X at each crew experience level at range Y (times listed).  Can you do that for us so that your position is clear?

[Pak40]

12 hours ago, shift8 said:

Data on that was already posted on the first or second page...........

I didn't see any posted data on tank firing rates on the previous page. Which exact post are you talking about?

 

[shift8]

10 hours ago, ASL Veteran said:

Okay so what, exactly, do you think the time between shots should be in the game and what are the times in the game now?  Please be precise.  I, shift 8, have tested a Sherman in game and the time between shots for each crew experience level is X at range Y.  I, shift8, have studied the available evidence and data and I have concluded that these times should instead be X at each crew experience level at range Y (times listed).  Can you do that for us so that your position is clear?

Yet again, already been gone over. But since you missed this: The average ROF for the sherman is about 8 seconds, at point blank. This is about 7.5 round per minute. This make the in game rate of fire about twice as long as it should be for brief shooting, especially up close and personal, when you consider that modern 120mm cannon which much heavier projectiles could do better than what is occurring in game. Other people mentioned some of the historical methods for quick shooting, and some data on ww2 gun rof. 

Have you actually read through this thread? You may want to if you are going to start make patronizing accusations on one thing or another. There was already quite a bit of back and forth on the actual reload times of tanks. Then there was some conversation on how tanks react to being penetrated irregardless of rate of fire. Then there was conversation on how long it takes for tanks to aim and generally react. 

 

And now we are seemingly the at point of the thread where meaningful conversation of the issue at hand disintegrates into deflection finger pointing at the OP's methodology. 

 

To be clear: I generally give CM the benefit of the doubt on most things. It has a ballistics system that is 99.9% accurate regarding armor penetration and its general realism and historical accuracy unmatched in gaming. However, I do not consider that carte blanch to simply make excuses for the game when it is particularly wrong. This is not a single mechanic problem. It is issue affected by several different game play mechanics that leads to some rather extreme errors of outcome. 

We can debate all day how this should be fixed etc, but this is what has been mentioned so far to contribute to the general problem.

1)Tanks shoot too slowly at close range.

2)Tanks take far too long to acquire targets and shoot at close range (for one reason or another)

3)Tanks under certain circumstances do not suffer appreciably to either mechanical or crew function after being hit once or even several times in sensitive areas. 

 

Edited May 31, 2016 by shift8

[ASL Veteran]

46 minutes ago, shift8 said:

Yet again, already been gone over. But since you missed this: The average ROF for the sherman is about 8 seconds, at point blank. This is about 7.5 round per minute. This make the in game rate of fire about twice as long as it should be for brief shooting, especially up close and personal, when you consider that modern 120mm cannon which much heavier projectiles could do better than what is occurring in game. Other people mentioned some of the historical methods for quick shooting, and some data on ww2 gun rof. 

Have you actually read through this thread? You may want to if you are going to start make patronizing accusations on one thing or another. There was already quite a bit of back and forth on the actual reload times of tanks. Then there was some conversation on how tanks react to being penetrated irregardless of rate of fire. Then there was conversation on how long it takes for tanks to aim and generally react. 

 

And now we are seemingly the at point of the thread where meaningful conversation of the issue at hand disintegrates into deflection finger pointing at the OP's methodology. 

 

To be clear: I generally give CM the benefit of the doubt on most things. It has a ballistics system that is 99.9% accurate regarding armor penetration and its general realism and historical accuracy unmatched in gaming. However, I do not consider that carte blanch to simply make excuses for the game when it is particularly wrong. This is not a single mechanic problem. It is issue affected by several different game play mechanics that leads to some rather extreme errors of outcome. 

We can debate all day how this should be fixed etc, but this is what has been mentioned so far to contribute to the general problem.

1)Tanks shoot too slowly at close range.

2)Tanks take far too long to acquire targets and shoot at close range (for one reason or another)

3)Tanks under certain circumstances do not suffer appreciably to either mechanical or crew function after being hit once or even several times in sensitive areas. 

 

Okay, so the game is about 8 seconds per shot.  Is that what it is at all ranges or is it different at different ranges.  What do you think it should be and what do you base that assessment upon?  How close is 'point blank range'?  100 meters?  200 meters?  How long do you think it should take a Sherman tank to acquire and shoot at a target a 1000 meters?