Amizaur

It's good to watch a few such videos, to realise what level of performance (off road speed, maneuvering) one can realistically expect from each tank. In case of the Tiger - it's a heavy tank. It's engine is struggling on high rpm to push it cross-country. It can accelerate to quite good speed, but it takes time. Any maneuvering (other than gentle turn) requires slowing down, carefull operating with gears and throttle, the engine is working hard then. The KT would be even slower. Same engine, more weight. The Panther acceleration and maneuverability is really in another league , much better, with the engine less strained. I would like to see in game tank performance similar, like on those videos of preserved running examples. Yes, the WW2 drivers could treat their machines a bit more rough, than museums drivers do, but we can have an overall idea of each machine's "technical" level of performance.

I like this performance - number of casualites, supression, haftruck behaviours. I even like the "odd" outcomes when the halftruck moved forward, and the one when the infantry abandoned perfectly working vehicle only to die outside it from concentrated MG fire. Things like this happens sometimes because out of stress or panic or poor training.

sburke - the wire is a BUG and when they find the source of the bug (probably they found already) - they will fix it. The problem with the Kingtiger is fixable by applying a more reasonable value for tank turning performance. A current value was probably put then by mistake - just like the wrong Tiger I front armor value, that was there before last patch. How much time can it take to put there another smaller value ? Then betatesters have to check, if the "new" KT is still working, running, only turning slower - like it should, probably slower than both Tiger I and PzIV - and that's all. Is it really so time-consuming that you'd like to save this time for other issues ? If the total time the programmers can spend on the upcoming patch is few hours, then saving half an hour (that fixing the KT turning performance would probably take) is worth considering.... In the other case, I believe, it would be a well-spent half an hour.

(warning: personal opinion below) Any person having some knowledge and experience in programming, knows that such behaviour is quite simple thing to code - IF only the programmer has al the needed "tools" available for him in the game engine/code. The problem may be, if (because of the engine design) there is lack of some possibilities (commands, variables) or information (some specific info about other units, some specific info about own unit) available for programmer. For example, part of code that is "tank" has no easy way of "checking" some info about another unit. Or there is no needed variable. Then a coder have to either modify some higher functions (maybe even core of the game engine) which is always risky, or develop clever workarounds which takes time. I hope that such fundamental variables like "moving state", "aiming", "loaded", "speed", "engaging a target" and commands like "stop" are so common and easily available that there will be no problem with coding such a sequence into the unit's behaviour - like building construction from already available blocks. Testing should be also relatively straightforward. Adding a new feature - this is completly different story. Lot's of new code to write, test, fix, test again. Coding a new behaviour for infantry - (like using the windows to get into buildings) would also probably mean lot of coding, testing, and also making new animations, that is also lot of work. But modyfying behaviour of tanks should be much more easy. I did such things years ago with behaviours of torpedos and missiles in some simulation game - fixing bugs, and trying to make them them more smart (modes of operations, guidance, sensors, target selection, ECCM), and make them behaving more like real ones (trajectory, speed, maneuverability, range ect). I've also seen the code of the AI routines in some other tank game. There is usually lot of room for improvement, for coding more "smart" and realistic behaviours of AI without adding very much lines, only some smart conditions, randomisers, enchancing existing routines. But there are always limits of what can be done easily - to make more, one has to make greater changes to the code of the game itself... I hope that regarding to improvements in CMBN tanks the BF coders are still on the "easy" side, andy many things in tank behaviour can be improved quite easily, just enchancing the original, basic behaviour code.

Is engine the limited so much, that implementing in a patch "firing from short halts" is impossible ? Just make the tank - moving with "move" or "slow" command, maybe also "quick" (but not on "fast") to stop when it "wants" to fire at a target. Let it run untill the gun is loaded, then make it stop, aim, fire, and move it again untill it reloads. It should reload 2-3x slower while on the move with "quick comand", and 1.5-2x slower with "move" command. After it reloads and the gun is ready, a halt order is given, after the tank comes to stop - the gunner aims quickly and fires (gunners already are aiming quickly...), then it accelerates again untill the gun is reloaded. It doesn't sound hard to make such algorithm from programming point of view. It's only combination of existing commands and behaviours depending on already existing in the game conditions. It would be also good to block pivoting hull rotation of a stopped tank when the tank aims and shoots. In reality, in 99% of cases there was absolute priority of aiming and firing over positioning the hull, the drivers were strictly ordered to not interfere with the process of aiming and shooting of the main gun. Only the commander could order to abort firing and - for example - move on or back up or rotate instead of firing a loaded gun. So - if the gunner rotated the gun on target and tank is in "aiming" state, please stop the rotation! After it fired, the driver can continue to rotate the hull. ( Randomly, once in 10 cases the driver could ignore it and continue rotating - simulating insubordination or poor training or panic ). I have lost quite few tanks (mainly Fireflys) which, after stopping and rotating it's turret at the target that was to side - then it couln't fire at it because the hull continuously rotated and interfered with the aiming procedure, aborting the shot several times. After 10-15 seconds of such pivoting and aiming without a shot, my tank - nearly rotated - was killed by the enemy which finally spotted him, rotated it's turret and fired . It happened more than once.

Maybe he didn't mean at all the KT 3D model - maybe he asked if they fixed King Tiger's maneuverabilty (turning speed) that currently is FAR superior than any other tank in the game . And other things like that which could be tuned down a bit for such overweighted vehicle (top speed, cross-country performance ect)

Armor cover arc may not fix ity. But the BF can fix it anyway. Just like it will probably fix using small arms by second member of AT team. It's just right thing to do, and I bet they realised that already. It's just small fix, call it optimisation, there is lot of such fixes and fine tuning in patches. I want to believe this problem is on their list.

No, just DON'T SHOOT AT ALL if you are crew of AT-gun. It would be more historical IMO. If they can shoot at the tank without being noticed, in most cases it's better to do it with bigger gun and hole the tank, than with a small gun and hole tank commander only. After being destroyed, they would have even greater reduced spotting ability, than after being forced to button. Infantry tries to button the tanks because for most of time it's the only thing they can do. If you are eqipped with a big AT gun - you can just use it ! Risking being noticed to button a tank (or even kill the commander) would not pay 90% of the time IMO. There is a lot of simplifications in this game. Like the lack of tank gun elevation limits. I hear people saying it's justified because making it realistic would be worse in practice. Here's the same. If you believe (doesn't matter at the moment, if it's right ot not) that making ALL soldiers trying to shoot at unbuttoned tanks is realistic, even AT teams and crews of AT guns, then anyway it causes a lot of unhistorical and frustrating outcomes, and firing at tanks should be modified IN GAME in a way, that crews of AT assets doesn't fire at unbuttoned tanks - staying hidden as well as they can - at least untill they are spotted/targeted. Just becase - as you said - TACAI is limited, we should exclude it completly. The game would play much better then. P.S. Soldiers in the field often knew if they were spotted or not. Quite often camuflaged tanks or AT-guns stayed hidden waiting untill the enemy tank comes closer, or shows it's side. But if they saw, that enemy tank stopped and rotates it's turret at them, they didn't wait any longer and fired immediately ! Same for infantry - if an infantryman is unleashing a magazine of his rifle at a nearby tank, trying to button it or to damage or supress, but suddenly he sees that the tank rotates it's turret and points the big tube in his direction, any sane person would stop shooting and hit the dirt behind a cover. But other teams, that are NOT targeted by the big rotating tube at the moment, can continue shooting quite safely (at least if they are outside arc of the bow gunner). This kind of "inteligence" is real and it CAN be simulated in game. If a team is targeting a tank, and the tank points it's barrel at them, the team should go to "hide". They can unhide when the tank rotates it's barrel elsewhere. Any AT gun or tank in an ambush if it sees a tank outside it's arc, waits. But if the moving tank suddenly rotates it's turret at them - the hiding AT gun should open fire immediately. It's possible to program such behaviors, it's not easy and they need lot of conditions and should be well tested, but entirely possible. If only information like "where the enemy gun is pointing" is available (from programmer's point of view) for the unit in question.

Getting a tank buttoned should not be done by ATG crew !!! The ATG has to remain camuflaged to survive. It's good to button the tank but it should be done by other troops - it's even better if the tank pays attention to those other tropps, because it would increase chances of the ATG gun tu suprise it. It's VERY bad if the tank pays attention to the ATG gun itself, before it fires a shot. The crews of AT assets and also teams like HQ, spotters, should be excluded from the routine that orders them to shoot at unbuttoned tanks!

Not possible in current editor. It's not possible to give no ammo at all to any unit. And not possible to edit specifically how much of what kinds of ammo.

Very interesting tests . I did some very similar testing and had exactly the same results and conclusions about percentage of gun hits, mantlet and front turret hits and how they change when the range is changed. A tip - try to set your target tanks at 10deg side offset, with barrels pointing at least 10deg to the side. You will get no gun hits at all . I believe that the percentage of gun/mantlet/turret hits changes, because the center of the shell spread pattern is moving (if the aiming point is different), or the spread pattern is getting wider or smaller (as the range increases or decreases) so there is a different "density" of hits on various parts of the tank. Sometimes there is a lot of shells flying trough the "gun" hitbox (target tank in full hull down, medium to close range, aiming at the shooter, so the gun of the target tank is in the center of a narrow shell hit pattern), sometimes the interesting area is on the edge of the spread pattern, or the pattern has low density, sometimes there are wirtually no shells hitting this area. Same for other areas, like front turret. In every case, we will get differen hit probabilities. Maybe a test from 2-3km would give us more or less uniform density at whole area of the tank front, so we would get "true" results for area ratio of various parts. But it would take thousands of shots to get any statistical results. Edit: my test map and target/shooter setup looked almost identical like yours - from the screenshot below .

How then the "gun aiming" optics can be possibly damaged by small cal hits to tank side armor ?

I'm very glad that cover armor arc and moveable waypoints will get into the game, among other improvements of and fine-tuning of existing features (I hope) . But what made me really positively surprised was that those improvements will be available for CMBN, not only for new titles ! That's very good news for me, as I'm not interested in every theather (mainly in Normandy and EASTERN FRONT !!) and I'm not going to buy Italy - and I will still be able to enjoy the engine and interface improvements in the game I already have. It's really great - that they don't left out players that already has bought the game. That's really something, thanks BF . I hope engine improvement patch (CMBN 2.0) will be priced reasonably, so after upgrading the game I can still afford some future modules too .

To some kind of upload/file sharing service. And you would only put the links to the files, here. For screenshots - FRAPS worked for me.

John, please save all your WEGO turns while you are playing. Best would be to save with orders given (so just before clicking "Go!") and also do second save after the replay phase (IIRC it is possible to save the replay movie). This way you could send us the save files, showing the things you talk about. You could also return to the last turn (loading the last "orders phase" save) click "go!" and try it again, or even few times, to see if the course of action is the same or different. The saves takes quite much disk space, but you may delete them after ech game, if nothing strange happened and you don't need them.

I also have noticed that the crew motivation rating is very important when it comes to abandoning vehicles. I didn't test non-penetrating hits, but casualities after penetrations. And crews with Very High or Fanatic morale often didn't bail out even after multiple penetrations. Which MAY be right - for fanatics, real problem was that those multiple penetrations done very little damage to the crew itself (casualities after low and medium-energy pentrations were very rare or not common). On the other hand, Normally motivated crews usually bailed out after 1-2 penetrations, even if nobody was killed. Sometimes after non-penetrating damaging hits. And the abandoned vehicle was marked as "destroyed" then. The result was that it was easier to "destroy" a tank with Normal crew than with Fanatic crew . It took - on average - less hits. I would suggest increasing a bit the crew casualty rate (especially after penetrations, casualty rate from spall is ok for me), and making the crews to bail out a bit easier. Shifting the effect of morale by one position down (after the change the Fanatic motivation would work like Very High works now, ect). It's possible that the first one (increasing casuality rate) would be enough, as more casualties mean more frequent bail-outs.

IMO shooting trough the bocage with tanks should be impossible in the game. Maybe possible if the tank or AT gun was positioned next to bocage in setup phase - that could simulate a prepared and camouflaged firing position (holes) made in the bocage. But not after a movement. Can't imagine how this could be done. Poking the barrel trough the bocage wall ? The optics would not see anything. And how to rotate then ?

Have no idea but the flag was superb . I live in Gdansk, we have Ireland-Spain match today on our stadium, and multiple trains with thousands of Irish and Spanish fans are going right beside my window right now .

Did he mention using wooden fences to throw tracks ? Please don't get this too serious . I have my own opinion about this model of damage and about tanks vs wooden fences and will defend it, but it's not a game breaking issue .

The graphics in CMBN are much better than in CMx1, less abstracted. If in game I see a detailed graphics of a wooded fence, so I imagine just the same type of wooden fence. If it was intended to be a solid, concrete-underpined fence with steel or concrete columns, then it would be visualised as such with graphics. There are other graphics of brick and concrete walls which are more solid obstacles. If the fence is visualised as a wooden fence, I assume it's wooden just as shown and no tank would have any trouble with driving trough it or over it.

I have a different opinion on why track damage was done this way. But will not write it, because I would be eaten alive. Going trough a wooden fence (and even some other soft obstacles) is not a risk for a tank tracks. And many times it would be more dangerous to drive around such an obstacle, getting into prepared ambush... Off-road and going trough obstacles are actually advantages of the tanks. It's not wise to drive trough EVERYTHING, possibly damaging something (not necessarily the tracks), but this is an advantage of a tank and should be used sometimes.

So going over a wooden fence or over a hedge can damage tank tracks, and this damage affects it's speed and mobility. I think it's not right and I hope it will be corrected some day, that different kinds of obstacles would do different kind/amount of damage to different kind of vehicles. Is it possible to get a yellow or orange damage from going over hedges/fences/walls ? Or only dark green ?

On-topic: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=104733

c3k, with every bit of respect but I don't understand you. I HAVE TESTED various issues in this game, making hundreds of iterations, and found how few things works. But I have a life and I don't have time/want/need to test everything I feel strange or wrong. Sometimes I just want to post my feelings - that I think something is not right. We can compare it to feelings of other players. Maybe I'm wrong, and have bad luck or selective memory. Or maybe there is something and most of players is feeling the same. Maybe SOMEONE would make a test then, out of curiosity. If I want to know something, and have no time/will to test it myself, then ys, I'm usually asking about it. Have asked about game issues many times already, some questions were answered and I was satisfied. But sometimes I's just like to say, what I think, what are my feelings. And read what other player's feelings are and what they think about it. Are there only positove opinions about the game ? Am I supposed only to write about things that are good in this game, in my opinion ? Any comment about something that - IN MY OPINION - is not right, would be criticised ? Because it would hurt the sales, or what ? Lots of people are praising this game, you don't need me here.

I didn't know a light (green) damage to tracks doesn't reduce mobility. But crossing a wooden fence should not cause even slightest damage to tracks 99.9% of the time. Of course that even SINGLE medium caliber AP hit on tracks or wheels CAN cause mobility kill. I didn't ever negate that. I only say, the chance for such one-hit mobility kill should be small. There is a lot more undercarriage area where an AP or bazooka hit would not cause any serious damage, than area of those critical parts that would cause it when hit. Cumulative damage model (with sem-random amount of damage dependant on energy of the hit, and also randomised hits on critical parts - that would make one-hit kils possible) would be a better for hits against tracks and wheels. I'm not sure how it works, would have to test it. But the feeling is, that almost any medium caliber hit on wheels or track causes mobility kill. So it definitely happens often.