Vanir Ausf B

Those are examples of properly functioning game mechanics that accurately reflect reality. Tanks that fire before beginning to move with the same accuracy as when they are moving does not reflect reality in any way. The former push players in the direction of realistic tactics. The latter pushes players away from realistic tactics.

1st squad -- which is further away than the others -- is Pinned and rattled. Why is that significant?

So has anyone looked at this? I don't know how "significant" it is, but I don't see how it isn't a bug of some sort.

Bloody hell. You go and edit your post while I'm typing a response. Not fair Good point.

[quote=akd;1428044 ]Nonsense. It is a problem, but the subtle sort that is hard to track down, as even if you had a feeling that something is off you might never think to isolate and test that factor.

If it alters the way you play the game it is significant. I will be doing some things differently, so for me at least it is significant. Note that significant is a step or two below game-breaking.

What you are describing is simply combat stress. It is caused by being placed in mortal danger and having your fight-or-flight response triggered. It has really nothing to do with movement. Let's turn the example around. Tank A has been sitting in one spot for two hours. Tank B moves into LOS, stops and begins rotating it's turret towards Tank A. Do you really think the commander of Tank A is going to tell his gunner to "take your time"? I would think he'd be sh!tting his pants to roughly the same shade of brown as the commander of Tank B. Let's say Tank B rounds a corner and spots Tank A that has been sitting motionless for hours. Tank B is off to the side and it appears Tank A may not have spotted Tank B, or at least Tank B can see that Tank A has not started rotating towards it yet. Is there any reason the commander of Tank B would be screaming for his gunner to rush the shot? Is there someplace he has to be that he can't be 10 seconds late for? Back in the CMx1 days BFC used to bring up combat stress as a justification for the significantly lower across the board tank accuracy in those games (compared to "official" marksmanship expectations). I think it's a legitimate argument to make, but in support of a more general downgrade in accuracy, not narrowly focused, highly situational penalty we have now.

A typical firing sequence went as follows: Commander to driver: "Driver... STOP" Commander to gunner: "Gunner... TANK" Commander to loader: "Loader... AP" Commander to gunner:"Traverse left... steady on... one thousand" Gunner to commander: "Ready!" Commander to gunner: "Fire!" -- Sherman Medium Tank 1942-45, Steven Zaloga, Peter Sarson, pg 13 I know you are. I'm not sure if Jon is on board

Are you seriously suggesting that stopping to fire was a historical tactic, but stopping to fire and then continuing to move was not?

The litmus test that I use to decide if something needs to be changed is whether it forces or encourages players to use unrealistic tactics. Real WW2 tank crews specifically trained to stop, fire and then continue moving. If there was not a very significant increase in accuracy when doing this over and above simply firing on the move then the logical tactic would have been to fire on the move since stopping slows your advance and makes you an easier target. The way the game works presently offers no reason to use the historical tactic. If people want the game to assign a small penalty to newly arrived units that begins at "stopped for 1 second" and gradually decreases out to "achieved maximum possible accuracy after 20 minutes of mindfulness meditation" that is fine by me. But that should not be used to argue for the status quo. IMHO

I've run across an old thread that may explain the objective points proportioning. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98983

For a long time it drove me nuts that US soldiers in CMBN would always fire off their one AT rifle grenade before using their 3 HE grenades. Then in a recent game I saw 2 HE rifle grenades get full penetrations through the side armor of a German halftrack. I know the side armor on halftracks is pretty thin, and maybe a HE grenade would penetrate, but I have suspicions that under the hood they are all the same.

X-com ..................

Firing the main gun of a tank isn't like shooting a rifle. You don't have to control your breathing or anything like that. If, for example, the tank had already hit the target with it's previous shot the gun is already on target. Just pull the trigger and go.

Yeah, by internet forum standards this barely even qualifies as an argument lol

It was you that challenged me to justify my stance. So now you get what you asked for. Yeaahh. Totally hypothetical situations that I ran into multiple times in the game I just finished. Which is pretty much the exact opposite of hypothetical. As a matter of fact, yes, they do. Just because you don't take full advantage of all the tactical tools the game gives you doesn't mean no one else does. Are you really suggesting that a bogged tank engaging a target would not pause it's unbogging efforts? I find that hard to believe. This situation is simulated with a TRP. Probably not. But it will be much closer to "stationary" accuracy than it will be to "actually moving" accuracy. As I said in my response to Jon, if BFC wants to penalize tanks that fire after moving to a much lesser degree than tanks actually moving I will not object. But it needs to be done in a consistent way. Who is driving the tank, the gunner or the driver? You have it backwards. It is the majority of cases that should have no penalty. And even in those cases it should be a penalty much less than firing while actually moving. You can justify anything by making the perfect the enemy of the good.

Multi processor support is very unlikely. BFC has said in the past that performance gains would not be large enough to justify it. A 64-bit Windows version would be very welcome.

There may be one somewhere, but I don't recall ever seeing one. Going from memory, the only Allied vehicles presently in the game that present much frontal resistance to German guns are the Chruchhill VII and VIII. They are nearly proof against the common 75L48 and even the 88L56 on the Tiger. But the 75L70 on the Panther and the 88L71 on the KT and Jadgpanther will make short work of them. It's not rare for Sherman tanks to bounce German 75L48 rounds off their front hulls, depending on range and angle. But their turrets are hopeless. The British 17 pdr with APDS ammo is the Allies' giant slayer, but take that away and the German vehicles that render the remaining Allied guns "mostly" ineffective from the front are Panther, Jagdpanther, JPz IV late and King Tiger w/"Porsche" turret. All of these can be penetrated in one or more frontal areas at certain ranges by US 76mm APCBC and (especially) HVAP, as well as British 6 pdr APDS, but odds will typically be against it.

Excellent. Good to see a QB in an "official" AAR.

If BFC wants to implement a penalty to firing at the end of movement that is less than the penalty to actually moving I will not complain. But then they will have to figure out how much of a penalty exactly, and how long after movement does the penalty last? And it also needs to be done at the end of any movement order, not just when paused at the end of a movement order that precedes the beginning of another movement order.

I understand the words you are writing just fine. I disagree with almost everything you have said, and I think the position you have taken has little basis in reality or in game logic. Originally you wrote this: What I am arguing has implications for a much larger number of situations than the one you have nitpicked out. And I assume the reason you nitpicked that particular situation is because it is the only one that, if you look at it squinty-eyed, kinda sorta supports the otherwise indefensible position that the way the game works presently is a good idea. If you think that a tank that stops for 5 seconds should not be considered fully stationary then do you also think it's accuracy should be the same as if it were still moving, as it is presently? If so, that is based on what logic/facts? How long do you think a tank needs to be fully stationary before it is considered fully stationary from an accuracy standpoint? There are more pause lengths available in the game than just 5 seconds and indefinite. Speaking of indefinite pause, you asked "when would anyone use a move order + indefinite pause in a 60 second turn?". I'm glad you asked Because I can think of 4 situations that I have used myself. 1) Tank has a long chain of move orders and spots an enemy target. You want to engage that target but you don't know how long that engagement will last and you don't want to cancel all the remaining move orders and have to re-plot them afterwards. So you give an indefinite pause. 2) Tank has a long chain of move orders and is in a convoy of vehicles. Vehicle ahead gets slowed down unexpectedly and causes a traffic jam. Instead of canceling all the move orders of every vehicle in the convoy you just give them an indefinite pause while you sort out the jam. 3) You want to micro-manage the extent to which TacAI auto-rotates the tank hull to a target, or if it will at all. Turreted vehicles paused with movement orders will not auto-rotate the hull. Maybe you know the tank is going to be hull down to the target so you don't need the hull to face it (rotating the hull pulls the main gun off-target). Maybe rotating towards the target will put impassible terrain to the rear of the tank and you want to maintain the option of a quick retreat. Maybe you want to ensure an ideal 30° horizontal angle. This is the tactical situation I was in when I first became suspicious when I saw 5 consecutive misses at a target. 4) Tank is bogged but not immobilized. This is an involuntary indefinite pause. Then of course there is the fact that this inaccuracy when pausing movement to fire only happens if there are more movement orders after the pause. If a tank just comes to the end of its movement order and fires within 5 seconds there is no accuracy penalty. That is an inconsistency. All of this ignores the tactical usage of pause+movement+fire that I personally use more frequently than any other: pausing to fire before the beginning of movement. If I want my tank to reposition but I see that the gunner is "Aiming" at the end of the last turn I will often give a 5 second pause before moving to get that last shot off. What logic/facts support giving a firing-while-moving accuracy penalty here? As for the point about this all being part of BFC's fudging of firing-while-moving accuracy and that it will all be fixed in the future, I admit you have completely lost me. I don't see how that has anything to do with accuracy when pausing a move order to fire. The whole reason BFC made shooting while moving unrealistically accurate to begin with is because the TacAI doesn't know how to pause movement to fire.

That would be great. Thanks for your effort

To be honest I'm not too concerned about firing on the move accuracy since it was lowered in a patch last year. 31% at 300 meters isn't very good. Is it better than in reality? Probably, but I don't know by how much. There is also the fact that I was using Shermans with gyro stabilizers in my test. I know they were often not used by tank crews, but the game apparently considers them to be always on.

A means of doing this would be great. They actually do this already if they are engaging a target. I paid close attention to a 3 man team in a house during a recent game. When an enemy unit appeared to the rear of the house 2 of them ran to the other side to engage while the 3rd stayed to cover the front. I have also noticed that if LOF to a target is only available from one end of a building, men will crowd over on that side to get a shot. This seems to work better if they do not have a covered arc.

You need to have Aris mod that grass so it's more subdued. Real grass isn't neon bright like that. I know so because I read it on the forum