'detailed' armor hits too vague sometimes

[CMplayer]

My Stug gets hit by a bazooka. I can

hear it, but I don't see where it came

from (despite having infantry forward)

Well, the 'detailed' armor hit says 'side

penetration'.

WHICH SIDE!!!!!????????? I Don't see a hole

on the Stug. Can I find this out any way?

By replaying the film and seeing which way

the Stug jiggles maybe?

I mean, I'd really like to get an indicator

on where that bazooka might be located, and

a hole in the side ought to be pretty

noticable, both to the surviving crew

members and the infantry around there.

Sorry if this has been nitpicked about

before, I really do promise to start using

search before posting, as I notice people

often mention doing.

regards,

--Rett

[Spook]

You won't see a "hole", because to show one would require an added graphic texture file for EACH vehicle model's surface of ALL vehicles.

Or, to have a "hole overlay" would require added programming to place this over the texture of the vehicle surface that was penetrated.

Furthermore, as you have discovered, all penetrations do not necessarily mean a knocked-out vehicle.

A sure sign to see if a tank-class vehicle is knocked out (barring those that are burning) is to see if the gun barrel has dropped down. Or click on the vehicle to see if it is "abandoned."

On most occasions anyway, if you are trying to find out what knocked out an enemy vehicle, watching replays several times from different camera angles will reveal both the killing projectile and where it came from.

[This message has been edited by Spook (edited 01-16-2001).]

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CMplayer:

My Stug gets hit by a bazooka. I can

hear it, but I don't see where it came

from (despite having infantry forward)

Well, the 'detailed' armor hit says 'side

penetration'.

WHICH SIDE!!!!!????????? I Don't see a hole

on the Stug. Can I find this out any way?

By replaying the film and seeing which way

the Stug jiggles maybe?

I mean, I'd really like to get an indicator

on where that bazooka might be located, and

a hole in the side ought to be pretty

noticable, both to the surviving crew

members and the infantry around there.

Sorry if this has been nitpicked about

before, I really do promise to start using

search before posting, as I notice people

often mention doing.

regards,

--Rett<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It could be Just good FOW

Yes in Real Life™ a noticable hole would be present in the side of the Stug.

At this point the fact that detailed armour hits do not say which side got hit is in my opinion just another element of FOW.

I think one of the best features of this game is the "Holy Crap Where the Hell did that come from Factor" when you get hit and KO'd and HAVE NO idea where that came from.

That's one of the BEST parts of this game.

The "Holy Crap Where the Hell did that come from Factor" was coined some time ago by some one here whose name I can't remember. but I will credit them (whoever they are) with the orignal phrase and quote.

-tom w

[Yarb]

One of the things I try to remind myself of is the context of the game.

We know that we could look at tank and figure out where the hole is and from that deduce where the killing shot came from. However the odds of being able to do that (while under fire) and get useful information back to the commander so that he could act on it in the next few turns (minutes) is rather unlikely.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Yarb:

One of the things I try to remind myself of is the context of the game.

We know that we could look at tank and figure out where the hole is and from that deduce where the killing shot came from. However the odds of being able to do that (while under fire) and get useful information back to the commander so that he could act on it in the next few turns (minutes) is rather unlikely.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with Yarb on this one. Good Point!

this "which side has the hole in it" issue is not really a big deal the grand scheme of things in my opinion. Its just More FOW.

thanks

-tom w

[Maximus]

Yeah, the vagueness of the hits at times is just another form of FOW. Now when you can't see the projectile is another form of FOW in which in that case, you don't know where the killing shot came from. AFVs will at times know who's shotting at them and that is represented by a yellow line while having that vehicle selected. If there is not yellow line and your vehicle gets hit, that is just another example of FOW.

------------------

"Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII

"Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII

[Guest Offwhite]

If your infantry are unengaged and didn't spot the bazooka when it fired, then it's probably not very close to them... Knowing where it's not is a step toward knowing where it is. The AI likes to open up at long range with hand-held AT weapons, so I'd look for likely positions out to 200m. If you're playing a human, perhaps he was hiding and all your boys walked/drove past him?

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

It could be Just good FOW

Yes in Real Life™ a noticable hole would be present in the side of the Stug.

At this point the fact that detailed armour hits do not say which side got hit is in my opinion just another element of FOW.

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well then why do the armor hits bother

to say 'front' penetration, 'rear'

penetration, 'top' penetration ? All of

these give information about where the

projectile might have come from. Why

should the sides be singled out for

extra-vague treatment? It's inconsistent.

That kind of inconsistency needs to be

ironed out in a game, not just explained

away as extra FOW, IMHO. Besides, one

of the things that makes FOW interesting

is the process of trying to gather

information to overcome it. Gathering

information from the dispersion of shellholes, or the sides on which an AFV

is hit is realistic and adds a new

dimension to the game don't you think?

As for getting the information back to

the commander, so that it can be useful,

I disagree that that need be so difficult.

I remember reading about the XXX corps

breakout at the beginning of Market

Garden. They had all kinds of intelligence

guys right up behind the lead platoon

of tanks. It was _very important_ to

localize the AT guns and they were ready

to use every means to figure it out,

including interrogating freshly caught

German prisoners right on the spot. (They ended up putting a German infantryman up

on one of the tanks and had him direct the fire, as you guys all have read about, I'm

sure).

That's why I think prisoners taken early

enough in a CM game should be able to

reveal concealed firing positions, btw.

It would increase the number of types

of 'sub objectives' you can give your

troops, and add a new, and realistic, possibility for info gathering. Fun

huh? But that's another post.

Info gathering by knowing whether the

penetration was on the left side or

the right side really deserves to be

in this fine game. Fog of war is one

thing, but there need to be ways for

the observant to figure out what's going

on besides just sending more guys out

to draw fire.

regards,

--Rett

[CMplayer]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Offwhite:

If your infantry are unengaged and didn't spot the bazooka when it fired, then it's probably not very close to them... Knowing where it's not is a step toward knowing where it is. The AI likes to open up at long range with hand-held AT weapons, so I'd look for likely positions out to 200m. If you're playing a human, perhaps he was hiding and all your boys walked/drove past him?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting tips; thx for posting this.

regards,

--Rett

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Spook:

You won't see a "hole", because to show one would require an added graphic texture file for EACH vehicle model's surface of ALL vehicles.

Or, to have a "hole overlay" would require added programming to place this over the texture of the vehicle surface that was penetrated.

Makes sense.

All I am actually asking for is that

the 'detailed armor hit' specifies _left_

or _right_ side penetration, instead

of just saying 'side' penetration. To

see what I mean, imagine how people would

react if it vaguely said, 'front or maybe

rear penetration', 'top penetration or

maybe bottom penetration from a mine'.

Saying 'side' penetration is the same:

'right or maybe left side penetration'.

Like nobody there has eyes or half a brain

to see where the hole is. Soldiers that

stupid are soldiers soon to die. It isn't

fog of war anymore, it's stoned haze of

war.

On most occasions anyway, if you are trying to find out what knocked out an enemy vehicle, watching replays several times from different camera angles will reveal both the killing projectile and where it came from.

Not it the unit firing is unobserved as

was the case here. FOW is interesting to

the degree that there are realistic and

interesting ways of overcoming it. There

are already many of these in CM, but the

richer and more varied the information

gathering environment of the game, the

better it will be. Specifying left or

right side penetration would be one such

way of making the game _sharper_.

thx for replying,

regards,

--Rett

[This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 01-16-2001).]

[Sergei]

But shouldn't the game in such case stop telltaling if the shell hit front or rear? It's not giving any more away to tell if it hit the left or the right side of hull or turret. Of course, if the tank exploded, there might not be anybody left to tell the commander what was penetrated. And any graphics don't help if Sherman's turret would have blown into air and made double-Immelman before landing so perfectly that the judges gave it full 10 for artistic vision and technical implementation.

So, the real question would be: is the Detailed Hit option realistic at all? Maybe not. Does it add to playability? Yes, and I think that's more important here. After all, if you know that the shell hit the left side of your turret, you still have almost 180 degrees to cover (as it could have comen in almost a straight angle, ricocheting of course) and a distance of 10-3000+ metres. It's not very helpful yet. Just my two pennies.