Jump to content
shift8

Follow up shot with Tanks

Recommended Posts

 I stated what I think it should be. Twice now. Perhaps even thrice......Im not going to say it again. Please stop asking questions you could have answered for yourself by reading the thread. At this point all you are doing is asking increasingly redundant things instead of actually offering an opinion. 

 

1000m....really? 

Edited by shift8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2016 at 5:59 PM, ASL Veteran said:

  Try to keep things in perspective and you will do a lot better in the game. 

Great way to foster discussion...:rolleyes:

I'm quite tempted to be patronizing as well towards someone who talks like this, but I'll be the bigger man this time. Its clear you don't have much more to add to this discussion than "there's too many variables!"

The hand-waving isn't without merit, there are infinite amounts of variables, but the problem is very clearly reproduceable. We've seen several videos now from the same user. I'm more thinking out loud here, but I wonder if:

1) The weird delay in firing a targeting solution in infantile situations; is it a result of the artificial delay given to tanks from Market-Garden onwards (re: Delay to facilitate close infantry attacks)? This is worth exploring, because it would seem to me an oversight that this artificial delay for point-blank target acquisition would apply to enemy AFVs. It also may unfortunately be a necessary sacrifice to facilitate this feature.

2) Gun Depression is barely tangential to this conversation, and seems a rather bald way of hand-waving what has been a hitherto legitimately presented issue. We have an example of a tank on a relatively flat surface coming up on the rear and flank of another tank and not being able to pound off a quick succession of shots. Given that tanks are crewed by humans, and you don't need to be a Terminator to acquire and re-acquire a target at those ranges, the lack of rapid fire seems weird. 

2a) Increasing crew panic is a great idea, and one possible solution. 

2b) Taking a serious second look at rates of fire in different situations is an equally proper suggestion, and worthy of being taken seriously, not open derision and deflection.

For a bunch of people who proclaim to be die-hard fans of the series, there seems to be a hugely defensive attitude towards any observation that may be construed as negative. Shift8 is clearly trying to better a game he has a passion for; nothing wrong with that. I also don't see whining or anything that implies a lack of skill. He's put his money where his mouth is twice with video evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, shift8 said:

 I stated what I think it should be. Twice now. Perhaps even thrice......Im not going to say it again. Please stop asking questions you could have answered for yourself by reading the thread. At this point all you are doing is asking increasingly redundant things instead of actually offering an opinion. 

 

1000m....really? 

Yes, really.  I am not attacking you so I don't know why you are getting defensive.  I am trying to establish some things and the information scattered in the thread is incomplete.  There are two sets of data that we are discussing.  We are discussing the shift8 set of data and we are discussing the 'game' data.  Simply saying 'I said it before' doesn't mean anything within the context of what I'm trying to do here.  Besides, it would have taken you less time to simply type it again than it did for you to complain about my question.  Why do you think asking about what you think the time should be for 1000 meters is a stupid question or an attack upon you?  If you think that the game data is incorrect then you must have some way of formulating what should be correct and if your method is better then you should be able to identify what the correct rate of fire should be at all ranges not just whatever range you feel like discussing at this particular point in time.  By demonstrating that you can answer a simple question of 'what should the time between shots be at 1500 meters' then that demonstrates that you have at least some sort of an educated opinion of what the correct answer should be.  Did you serve in an armored unit?  Did your father?  Do you know anyone who operated a tank?  Do you have any Field Manuals that you are referencing?  What is the basis of your data set?  This is not an attack.  This is establishing facts and the basis of your level of knowledge on the subject being discussed.  If you can't tell us what the correct rate of fire should be at 1500 meters then someone reading this thread might be justified in assuming that you don't actually have a method that can be applied consistently in all situations and that you may possibly not have the appropriate knowledge base to comment on whether something is correct or not.  Maybe you do though - I don't know.  How can we determine if your objection is a good one if you can't fill in all of the blanks and compare that to what is in the game now?  If you know that the rate of fire is too slow at 50 meters then you should also know if the rate of fire at 1000 meters is accurate or not.  So I'm asking you - is the rate of fire for tanks at 1000 meters accurate in the game or not?  If so, just say yes it is.  If not then just say what you think it should be.  I don't know why that would be so objectionable.  Let's just establish a few baselines for comparison. 

Is there any change in the rate of fire for tanks at different ranges in the game?  Don't you think that would be important to know?  If the rate of fire is 8 seconds per shot at every range then perhaps there is a code limitation within the game such that your request for an increased rate of fire at close range may not be possible from a code standpoint.  Aren't you at least curious to know whether or not it is even possible for your request to be implemented in the game at all?  So I'm asking you - is the rate of fire in the game consistent at all ranges or is it different at different ranges?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

For a bunch of people who proclaim to be die-hard fans of the series, there seems to be a hugely defensive attitude towards any observation that may be construed as negative. Shift8 is clearly trying to better a game he has a passion for; nothing wrong with that. I also don't see whining or anything that implies a lack of skill. He's put his money where his mouth is twice with video evidence.

We all want to improve the game.  Let's just try to do it in a rational and consistent way.  I don't know why you are so offended.  If you know what all the correct answers are then just state them and we can proceed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

 I don't know why you are so offended.  If you know what all the correct answers are then just state them and we can proceed.

The lack of self-awareness is actually quite impressive. Or perhaps there's a touch of irony here that you're going for?

Shame, this thread was generating some good discussion too. I don't see much more point in weighing in if this patronizing tone is all  we'll encounter. I never claimed to have all the answers, but it certainly appears that you have nothing but rather dubious questions; I'm not precisely sure why Shift8's military experience or lack thereof is relevant given his attempt at providing game data. To satisfy your curiosity though; he's currently serving, and I'm a former service member. I in particular got to exercise with armoured units on a handful of occasions; there's nothing to suggest mid-caliber and high velocity weaponry cannot be fired rapidly in situations where a solution has already been acquired or is self-evident: re point blank engagements.

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

The lack of self-awareness is actually quite impressive. Or perhaps there's a touch of irony here that you're going for?

Shame, this thread was generating some good discussion too. I don't see much more point in weighing in if this patronizing tone is all  we'll encounter. I never claimed to have all the answers, but it certainly appears that you have nothing but rather dubious questions; I'm not precisely sure why Shift8's military experience or lack thereof is relevant given his attempt at providing game data. To satisfy your curiosity though; he's currently serving, and I'm a former service member. I in particular got to exercise with armoured units on a handful of occasions; there's nothing to suggest mid-caliber and high velocity weaponry cannot be fired rapidly in situations where a solution has already been acquired or is self-evident: re point blank engagements.

Okay, good.  So are you willing to comment on what the appropriate time between shots would be for an engagement at 1000 meters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

Yes, really.  I am not attacking you so I don't know why you are getting defensive.  I am trying to establish some things and the information scattered in the thread is incomplete.  There are two sets of data that we are discussing.  We are discussing the shift8 set of data and we are discussing the 'game' data.  Simply saying 'I said it before' doesn't mean anything within the context of what I'm trying to do here.  Besides, it would have taken you less time to simply type it again than it did for you to complain about my question.  Why do you think asking about what you think the time should be for 1000 meters is a stupid question or an attack upon you?  If you think that the game data is incorrect then you must have some way of formulating what should be correct and if your method is better then you should be able to identify what the correct rate of fire should be at all ranges not just whatever range you feel like discussing at this particular point in time.  By demonstrating that you can answer a simple question of 'what should the time between shots be at 1500 meters' then that demonstrates that you have at least some sort of an educated opinion of what the correct answer should be.  Did you serve in an armored unit?  Did your father?  Do you know anyone who operated a tank?  Do you have any Field Manuals that you are referencing?  What is the basis of your data set?  This is not an attack.  This is establishing facts and the basis of your level of knowledge on the subject being discussed.  If you can't tell us what the correct rate of fire should be at 1500 meters then someone reading this thread might be justified in assuming that you don't actually have a method that can be applied consistently in all situations and that you may possibly not have the appropriate knowledge base to comment on whether something is correct or not.  Maybe you do though - I don't know.  How can we determine if your objection is a good one if you can't fill in all of the blanks and compare that to what is in the game now?  If you know that the rate of fire is too slow at 50 meters then you should also know if the rate of fire at 1000 meters is accurate or not.  So I'm asking you - is the rate of fire for tanks at 1000 meters accurate in the game or not?  If so, just say yes it is.  If not then just say what you think it should be.  I don't know why that would be so objectionable.  Let's just establish a few baselines for comparison. 

Is there any change in the rate of fire for tanks at different ranges in the game?  Don't you think that would be important to know?  If the rate of fire is 8 seconds per shot at every range then perhaps there is a code limitation within the game such that your request for an increased rate of fire at close range may not be possible from a code standpoint.  Aren't you at least curious to know whether or not it is even possible for your request to be implemented in the game at all?  So I'm asking you - is the rate of fire in the game consistent at all ranges or is it different at different ranges?   

1000m has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Im not complaining about the fire rate at 1000m am I? 

And your response here pretty much proves you are conducting an intentional derailment here. I and others already posted and discussed what the real tanks could do and how the game is currently wrong. Im not going to sit here is justify myself by playing a ring around the rosy of "who is the biggest grog in the room." If you have a contrary opinion, post your opinion and we can have a discussion about it. But this knowledge base **** is pure rubbish. Instead of actually discussing the issue at hand you are taking a back-ass ward approach to trying to discredit me instead of posting some kind of fact-based counter or support yourself. 

As to game limitations: DO YOU know? Up till now we were discussing the nature of the problem. I dont see BFC in here saying this inst possible to be fixed. And the game engine would be rather hamfisted indeed if it couldnt have alternate rates of fire at different ranges. Something I find hard to believe since the ballistics system in game is extremely complex. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, ASL Veteran said:

Okay, good.  So are you willing to comment on what the appropriate time between shots would be for an engagement at 1000 meters?

I'm not quite sure what your definition of 'point blank' is, but despite the obvious facetiousness of this question I'll bite. Once a targeting solution has been found, and presuming a stationary target (much more likely to occur on the WWII battlefield portrayed in CM, but I digress), modern crews should be able to maintain a rate of an aimed shot every four seconds; I've seen it in LEO2s and I've sure as <redacted> seen it in M1s. 

Your first reaction will be to point out modern targeting aids. Actually besides the point; despite the fact that you seem to fail to comprehend we've been discussing point blank engagements, there's ample data that shows WWII era weaponry can reach (if not maintain) similar rates of fire, especially given the lower caliber weaponry and generally more accessible placement of ammunition racks.

For example, the M3 GMC 75mm could main a comparable rate of fire. Direct your attention to pages 2 and 3 of FM 23-95. Just to show what a nice guy I am too, I'll be the first to agree that what was on paper rarely matched what occurred in practice, and that I doubt highly even a skilled crew could maintain that rate of fire, especially at range.

That's not what the discussion is about though, despite your rather tiring efforts to make it about that. If you're plugging a tank's ass or flank at point-blank range (lets say for arguments sake, and given the scale of CM, 150-200m), you're going to be pumping those rounds as fast as possible -- certainly faster than is in game. Especially given that at such ranges, follow-up shots do not require much re-calculation of a targeting solution.

Have a wonderful evening :)

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, shift8 said:

1000m has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Im not complaining about the fire rate at 1000m am I? 

And your response here pretty much proves you are conducting an intentional derailment here. I and others already posted and discussed what the real tanks could do and how the game is currently wrong. Im not going to sit here is justify myself by playing a ring around the rosy of "who is the biggest grog in the room." If you have a contrary opinion, post your opinion and we can have a discussion about it. But this knowledge base **** is pure rubbish. Instead of actually discussing the issue at hand you are taking a back-ass ward approach to trying to discredit me instead of posting some kind of fact-based counter or support yourself. 

As to game limitations: DO YOU know? Up till now we were discussing the nature of the problem. I dont see BFC in here saying this inst possible to be fixed. And the game engine would be rather hamfisted indeed if it couldnt have alternate rates of fire at different ranges. Something I find hard to believe since the ballistics system in game is extremely complex. 

No, I don't know if there are any game limitations involved.  However, I'm not the one lodging the complaint so I don't have a vested interest in the answer.  The burden of proof is squarely on the individual who wants something to change.  If you want something to change you have to prove something is wrong.  I personally would like to see an increased rate of fire at closer ranges even though you probably don't think I do.  I have actually lodged complaints in the past on older forums that I thought the Sherman's rate of fire was too low as compared to vehicles like the Tiger.  In CMBO I think the rates of fire for both the Sherman and the Tiger were identical to each other.  There is also the case of the ready rack.  How many rounds of ammunition are held in the ready rack and how many rounds are held in the hull of the tank.  Would your assessment of a higher rate of fire change if the loader was pulling rounds from the tank hull instead of the ready rack?  I don't think the game differentiates between the two but surely there would be a difference in real life? 

If you want something to change then you have to make a case for it.  That's just the way BFC operates so the more thorough you are the better chance you would have of getting something changed.  It stands to reason that if you believe that the rate of fire is too slow at short ranges that perhaps there should be noticeable differences at other ranges.  Are there?  I don't know.  Is it good information to know?  Sure it is.  If there are no changes then you may have identified a bigger problem than the one you are narrowly focusing on.  If there are differences then how big are the differences?  If we can identify what the differences are then we can probably get some idea as to where BFC stands on the subject by seeing how big the differences are.  What would be the main cause of the differences at different ranges?  Perhaps the amount of time it takes the gunner to aim?  How much time does the gunner spend aiming at different ranges?  Presumably the loading time would be the same at all ranges with the exception that there would probably be a difference between ammunition in the ready rack and ammunition in the tank hull.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ASL Veteran said:

No, I don't know if there are any game limitations involved.  However, I'm not the one lodging the complaint so I don't have a vested interest in the answer.  The burden of proof is squarely on the individual who wants something to change.  If you want something to change you have to prove something is wrong.  I personally would like to see an increased rate of fire at closer ranges even though you probably don't think I do.  I have actually lodged complaints in the past on older forums that I thought the Sherman's rate of fire was too low as compared to vehicles like the Tiger.  In CMBO I think the rates of fire for both the Sherman and the Tiger were identical to each other.  There is also the case of the ready rack.  How many rounds of ammunition are held in the ready rack and how many rounds are held in the hull of the tank.  Would your assessment of a higher rate of fire change if the loader was pulling rounds from the tank hull instead of the ready rack?  I don't think the game differentiates between the two but surely there would be a difference in real life? 

If you want something to change then you have to make a case for it.  That's just the way BFC operates so the more thorough you are the better chance you would have of getting something changed.  It stands to reason that if you believe that the rate of fire is too slow at short ranges that perhaps there should be noticeable differences at other ranges.  Are there?  I don't know.  Is it good information to know?  Sure it is.  If there are no changes then you may have identified a bigger problem than the one you are narrowly focusing on.  If there are differences then how big are the differences?  If we can identify what the differences are then we can probably get some idea as to where BFC stands on the subject by seeing how big the differences are.  What would be the main cause of the differences at different ranges?  Perhaps the amount of time it takes the gunner to aim?  How much time does the gunner spend aiming at different ranges?  Presumably the loading time would be the same at all ranges with the exception that there would probably be a difference between ammunition in the ready rack and ammunition in the tank hull.   

That is pure nonsense. In order for me to show there is something unrealistic in the game I do not have to prove every facet of the game code. Utter rubbish. Doubtless we could explore every nook and crany of every odd and end: but that doesnt meant I havent shown there is a problem. With that attitude I may as well package my OP with a patch of game code I wrote to fix it. 

 

IF BFC wants to chime in on what is and is not impossible that is another matter entirely. BUT whether or not there is some strange engine limit is besides of point of realism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup its a sticky wicket this. As previously mentioned there were deliberate compromises made to do with gun depression, and for AFVs reacting to close assault* - making them less uber - i.e. all seeing and all powerful in response etc.

*IIRC primarily from crunchies, but the code changes to allow this could be imapacting armour in close proximity with armour as well making them both more sluggish . The tricky job is differentiating from this existing AI programming tangle is what you percieve to be right and wrong, what you think and can show from evidence that it should be and in what circumstances. As a change in AI code her can have unforeseen impact somewhere unintended - hence why BF are quite conservative in implementing changes for changes sake as it can open a can of worms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wicky said:

 

*IIRC primarily from crunchies, but the code changes to allow this could be imapacting armour in close proximity with armour as well making them both more sluggish . 

As I suspected. I know almost immediately it would be a coding headache to differentiate for something like this between 'armor' and 'infantry' rather than 'enemy target.' All the video evidence just screams that its the changes introduced in Market Garden having unforseen effects.

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2016-05-31 at 7:32 PM, ASL Veteran said:

We all want to improve the game.  Let's just try to do it in a rational and consistent way.  I don't know why you are so offended.  If you know what all the correct answers are then just state them and we can proceed.

A valiant effort to bring this thread to a place that might actually yield a useful result.  You are a better man than I. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/1/2016 at 7:22 PM, shift8 said:

That is pure nonsense. In order for me to show there is something unrealistic in the game I do not have to prove every facet of the game code. Utter rubbish.

Shift8, this is not what ASL said. He said you have to prove something is wrong, he said nothing about game code. In other words, you need to find a source of data that says the the "real world" data shows X but what happening in the game is Y. We know that Sherman's M3 gun has a rate of fire of 20 rounds per minute (source: American Arsenal). However, this is in ideal test conditions and probably wasn't done in the cramped confines inside a tank, without ready rack limitations or targeting specific objects. Other "real world" data you might want to include is any proof about time to acquire target and aiming time for point blank targets. Include sources.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have Soviet test data on the M18 rates of fire with and without targeting adjustments (I'm on my phone at the moment so no numbers), and the differences are substantial, so at least in theory Shifts position is on solid ground. I'm not as certain about it's applicability to actual combat. For example, in the famous Panther vs Pershing video the time between shots for the Pershing is over 10 seconds, this despite the situation conforming to the parameters discussed in this thread. Of course that is also a sample size of one, but it does show the difficulty of accurately quantifying something as relatively simple as rate of fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30/5/2016 at 9:26 PM, ASL Veteran said:

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.

I don't see why this would be a problem, since there's no AI. Tanks will sit where you, the designer, place them. And they will go where you give them orders to go. If you design a map with very steep landscape, you must consider this when designing the AI movement plan, just like you need to take into account forest, mud, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/6/2016 at 2:15 AM, ASL Veteran said:

There is also the case of the ready rack.  How many rounds of ammunition are held in the ready rack and how many rounds are held in the hull of the tank.  Would your assessment of a higher rate of fire change if the loader was pulling rounds from the tank hull instead of the ready rack?  I don't think the game differentiates between the two but surely there would be a difference in real life? 

I'd love to see the game model this, with a little graphic to show how many rounds were stored in the rack, and how many stored in the hull at all times.

With the loader's status changing to "moving ammo" when taking out shells from storage (meaning slower reload times while he's busy with that). Not sure how much effect it would have on gameplay, so maybe not worth the effort to code, but I just love little details like that :)

Edited by Bulletpoint

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'd love to see the game model this, with a little graphic to show how many rounds were stored in the rack, and how many stored in the hull at all times.

With the loader's status changing to "moving ammo" when taking out shells from storage (meaning slower reload times while he's busy with that). Not sure how much effect it would have on gameplay, so maybe not worth the effort to code, but I just love little details like that :)

I've been playing War Thunder's ground forces and they do indeed simulate the ready rack. If you fire off a few quick rounds and then sit idle without firing for a few seconds you'll see a small circle with a +1 appear. It took me a while to realize that this was the loader replenishing the ready rack.

War Thunder is a great game to see the advantages and drawbacks of many types of tanks. It's not quite a simulation but I think it's a lot closer than WoT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I don't see why this would be a problem, since there's no AI. Tanks will sit where you, the designer, place them. And they will go where you give them orders to go. If you design a map with very steep landscape, you must consider this when designing the AI movement plan, just like you need to take into account forest, mud, etc.

ASL Veteran's point covers AI controlled AFVs.  Pretty difficult then to have AFVs engage in say urban combat if there were hard and fast gun elevation/depression limits and the onus was on the scenario designer to somehow compensate for this with even the best foresight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On June 10, 2016 at 7:08 AM, Bulletpoint said:

I'd love to see the game model this, with a little graphic to show how many rounds were stored in the rack, and how many stored in the hull at all times.

With the loader's status changing to "moving ammo" when taking out shells from storage (meaning slower reload times while he's busy with that). Not sure how much effect it would have on gameplay, so maybe not worth the effort to code, but I just love little details like that :)

It's there. Ready ammo is white in the UI. Stowed ammo is grey. (Or, that's how it is in one of the CM games, lol...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The color conventions change from game to game for some reason (in CMFB it's light green/dark green), but different colors actually denote ammo that is acquirable or not acquirable.

Share this post


Link to post
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
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...