Gazmaps

I'm wondering where your getting 6 x2m from? Id expect the frontal aspect of an 88mm Flak to be approx 2m x 2m (if a gunshield is attached which they seem to be in the game). Are you referring to the barrel length when you say 6m? 1. I'm guessing the barrel is approx 400mm diameter where it leaves the gun shield - then likely tapers out to the "pointy end" i.e business end of the weapon and I suspect is maybe 200mm in diameter. So in other words about 4m of the gun (assuming a 6m barrel length is less than 1/2m wide). Not sure if your used to looking at things 1000m away - but picking out small log sized objects is not that easy - of course this is more difficult if its in a tree line - you typically have no obvious silhouette and will "not be skylined" 2. . Point 1 above is a pretty redundant exercise however - as if you are placing an AT gun that is view able side on to the enemy - which is what your suggesting using 6m x 2m - your either in defilade or in the process of being flanked - which is a pretty ****ty position for an AT gun to be in - What Im getting at, is you need to assume the gun is face on to the enemy - not been approached from the flank - because why would you not have your main armament pointing at the enemy's direction in such a context???? Id argue the only reason is your been flanked. Actually I have a Toyata Surf - its slightly greenish in color and probably not far off 2m x 2m if viewed from a frontal aspect. When I'm back in my home country Ill place it on the edge of a vegetated area (it will either be pine or native broad leaf "bush") and Ill take a photo from a 1km away. Ill hold a ruler up so you can see how long that wood line measures when seen from the observers point of view - this can then be scaled on your screen. I suspect you be surprised at how hard it would be to pick out this out. then on Sailors behalf you can have a "Break". I hope the grogs find this attempt for a real world exercise interesting - especially if we can convey the real world perception to the virtual.... Ill try and get as Hi Res as I can - looks like that's going to be 1/2 meg. Sometimes I feel some on this forum get lost to much in the digital world and forget what the real world is actually like. My error - it was my initial assumption that the foxholes and trenches provide cover to the gun - but your correct - however the crew should still be considered in cover (ie they should be in the foxholes - which sometimes they seem to do and sometimes not. As you mentioned this is a slight distraction from the main issue - which is concealment. I didnt test the trenches without the guns. I only reran the test with trenches because you guys had pointed out my error in assuming foxholes would provide "cover". I did not test exhaustively - but typically the trench was seen first then the gun after - so it seemed to me the observer is focused to the area by spotting the trench and then "seemed" to spot the gun quicker - but I didnt really track or analyze the results in detail- it answered my curiosity on what trenches did for concealment - not much they just give the game away quicker:) - even out to 1000m. I didnt really push this because this is then getting into the other discussion you refer to - ie the concealment of field fortifications (trenches, foxholes, pill boxes) simulated in the game. I guess this depends on the assumptions made when modelling them ie is it a "hasty" defense or has their been enough time to fully camo, remove spoil etc.. I suspect its assumed a hastily dug trench. This then would interact with your concealment bonuses for AT guns - ie if you assume a trench for an AT gun digs the gun into the ground then this will lower the aspect of the gun and if properly camo'd will make it harder to detect. However I suspect it is not currently modeled for the concealment bonus of the AT gun to be combined with an additional bonus if placed on a Trench (ie to represent that gun being dug in) - I could see how this would be hard to model - hopefully one for future updates - but getting so Grogy - I guess the developers have to weight the benefit vs the cost??? You can only model so much and have to prioritize what you do model - like the whole tactical - movement of ammo load outs for AT guns - but well leave that to the other thread.

Actually I'd argue foxholes do provide cover and the idea of putting them in the wood line gives them concealment. So they have cover and concealment +++++ i reran ran the tests as Rocking Harry suggested by creating 1m depressions using the ditch locking. this meant the 88s went from been detected then spotted from instantly to about 30 secs instead though I only did a handful of individual tests. i found putting them behind bocage kept the concealed for roughly 3 mins.

Hello all, I found this thread on AT guns very interesting. I believe that those arguments - "AT guns are under modelled in the game" have strong merit. In summary; battlefront have accepted previously that AT guns have been under modelled and made changes, namely by adding the ability to move guns without packup. I would suggest (as have others in this thread) that the following factors are still under modelled in the game; 1. AT / Inf gun movement speeds 2. AT / Inf gun pack up and deployment times 3. AT / Inf gun rotation speed 4. . AT / Inf gun concealment. I will just focus on issues 1-3 at this time. In addressing issue 1. Below are a number of links which show live footage of the movement of AT guns. Most are short snippets from longer pieces of film - as it is hard to get footage solely of AT gun deployment. It is mainly operational WW2 based film. I have also added in a link to gun run competition conducted by the New Zealand Artillery Regiment in May 2016. To address issue number 1 would proposed the following; a. increase the movement speed to say 24m / min. b. add in the modelling of fatigue to gun crews - so as to see crews progressively become exhausted from say 0 to 100m depending on size of the gun. c. remove the need for the crew to rotate the gun in a given direction before movement begins or; d. model gun rotation and traverse separately. Perhaps model the gun as a tank ie with a movement and rotation speeds (modelled as the tanks hull) and a separate traverse speed (modelled as say a tank turret). In addressing issue 2. The gun run video shown below show a deployment time of 1min after a manual move for a 105mm gun. This is much quicker than current modelled times as used in the game even accounting for factors such as fatigue, fog of war etc... Im assuming (and Id love for Battlefront to let me know if the assumption is correct) that the pack up and deployment time are likely based on preparation for carriage on a prime mover of some description. They still seem to long to me but its very hard to find any sources or footage of guns being deployed. however the following US army publication for the 57mm AT guns does go thru the actions required; https://archive.org/stream/FM23-75_1944#page/n1/mode/2up 57mm AT Gun manual Page 27 - Start of Gun Deployment actions These actions do not I think line up with current pack up and deployment times. In short - not sure how to address Issue 2 - other than the times seem to long - particularly for the medium sized guns. In addressing issue 3. just looking at the video link below I suspect rotation speed is heavily under modelled in the game. My assumption is that currently AT guns have to traverse to track and engage a target - regardless of how far they have to traverse - when in reality I suspect if the target is outside the guns traverse, the crew would manually rotate the entire gun (as opposed to traversing the gun barrel). I suspect the traverse speed is likely not far off - it appears rotation of the gun for targets outside the traverse limits is not modelled . So to address the rotation issue ; a. model gun rotation and traverse separately. Perhaps model the gun as a tank ie with a movement and rotation speeds (modelled as the tanks hull) and a separate traverse speed (modelled as say a tank turret). - which as per above would also help with modelling of gun movement. Some have mentioned movement of ammunition. I think this is detracting from the wider issues. A the end of the day this a simulation, a model. And a very good one. One that give me hours of enjoyment. My motivation is to see it become as good a representation of reality - so I can feel like a real tactical genius - and destroy all my opponents with a wide variety of semi - real world tactics:)!!!!!! Some things in a model have to be abstracted. I think ammo portage is one of them. this limitation should not be used as a justification to under model more important aspects of the simulation - such as gun movement and rotation speeds. Tactical logistics (as opposed to operational and strategic) is still logistics and gladly left out of the game, mostly - though I do think the use of ammo bearers is pretty good and appropriate for a tactical level simulation. I think maybe tweaking the use of ammo bearers or increasing the number of ammo bearers could help alleviate this issue. In reality I suspect gun crews would have ammo dumped 20-100m away with potential secondary gun positions sprinkled around the ammo dump. I'd also be surprised if gun crews didn't have hand carts - weather form the army supply system or acquired by other means. Anyway cheers and see the links below; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdnlWUNoq6U 16 Field Regiment (NZ Artillery) - 105-mm L119 Hamel Light Gun (approx 1900kg) Note this is approx 500kg heavier (25%) than the Pak40. Also of note is that the red / brown team - get their gun into position at approx the 20sec mark in the video. They seem to have it prepared and ready to fire in approx 60s - this being a 105mm gun, which Im assuming takes longer than an AT gun to deploy for firing. This was an actual military event - with actual army gun crews. I suspect the drill carried out for gun runs is in line with actual combat drills - because military's always like training this and doing it in competitive environments like the above. (the point I'm making these are not re-enactors - who I by the way actually place some weight on when discussing subjects such as modelling WW2 gun movement speeds, concealment and pack up times - but actual military professionals, likely performing actual combat drills- in a very close to operational manner. I'm not sure how far they have pushed these guns - but expect it to be 200m or over. The ground is not ideal - it is wet and likely soft as this was done just this Autumn in NZ) Below are links to a some WW2 (mostly operational footage from what I can tell, of a mix of German AT guns being moved by hand) - they typically all have in common movement quicker than 8m / min!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=592ZXOuG7yE Looks like a Pak40 undergoing a tactical movement - using manpower only... (starts from the 1:10) mark. Note broken ground - fast movement - gun is camo'd. Looks like this is actual battlefield footage. Gun is being man handled by 4 soldiers - potentially two more on the limbs that are out of camera shot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5c3o8RJPlfc Looks like another Pak40 being man handled into position (starts from 9:11) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9yecemugWo Lots of tactical movement of the Pak36 by hand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz4VD7m8X74 Tactical movement of Pak 38 or Pak 40 by hand - 4 to 5 man crew (starts from 2:40)

I've just posted the test setup in the CMBN forum, Essentially US FO squads. AT guns placed on edge of Light Woods (with 2 x Trees from foliage placed in all actions squares as well) I think many of the responces regarding keyholing are quite valid as well as setting back maybe to the second action square in the woodline - however will depend on how thee trees fall (if placed with foliage) Though my intuition tells me a prepared and camouflaged gun even the size of an 88 would be hard to spot at 1000m if placed on the edge of a treeline.

Hello, I ran some tests on the 88mm Flak, 88m Pak 43 and 75mm AT guns. Both 88 variety are spotted out past 1000m - but remain hidden past 1500m. The 88mm Pak43 remain hidden for marginally longer than the 88mm Flaks. I have just rerun the tests on suggestions trenches are more appropriate than foxholes. Havent really quantified the impact - but seems trenches are more quickly spotted even out to 1000m. I also placed H/T in the test as well. The Half Tracks and the 88mm Flaks appear to be spotted at about the same speed at the same ranges. Hence their doe snot seem much difference between spotting of Flak88 and H/T. - Youd think a concealed AT gun would be better concealed and dug in? AT Gun Concealment Tests Game Settings 2 player Hotseat, Iron Setting Map Settings 1200m wide by 1600m Deep Map Target End of map - Light Forest with 2 x Trees (Foliage) - approx 5 action spots deep Firing lines marked with dirt at intervals running across width if map. Tall Walls dividing Firing Lines complete length of map. No change to Ground Tiles outside of firing lines and target areas Unit Settings All Observers are US FO Squads (3 man squad with one set of Binos) All Targets and Observers set to Regular, Fit, High, 0 leadership bonus All targets places in foxholes in Action spot on edge of woodland area - so in cover. All Targets set to hide. Note: both tests run about 3 or 4 times - results in the same ball park most times - though with some oddities like a Pak 43 not being spotted at all at 450m on one occasion - maybe reposistoning of gun to or observer at start up that blocked LOS behind Trees?... 1st Run of Spotting tests (This was run twice with similar main pattern observable on both runs) Test run for 10mins. 450m - 2 x 88mm Flak - 1st Contact 3 sec, 2nd Contact 22 Sec, 1st Full Id 29 Sec, 2nd Full Id 58 Sec 450m - 2 x 20mm Light Flak - No Contacts or Spots for 10mins 1052m - 2 x 88mm Flak - 1st Contact 20 sec, 1st Full Id 35 Sec, 2nd Full Id 40 Sec 1052m - 2 x 20mm Light Flak - No Contacts or Spots for 10mins 1650m - 2 x 88mm Flak - No Contacts or Spots for 10mins 1650m - 2 x 20mm Light Flak - No Contacts or Spots for 10mins Control Group (Clear Gnd no trees) 450m - 1 x 88mm Flak - 1st Full Id 2 Sec 1052m - 1 x 88mm Flak - 1st Full Id 4 Sec Conclusions 88mm Flaks receive no major concealment bonus upto at least 1000m. Some bonus applied to being in concealment - but all 88mm Flaks will be detected upto at least 1000m in under 60 secs even if in concealed position. 2nd Run of Spotting tests (Same as first run but testing 75mm AT and 88mm AT (not Flak)) 450m - 2 x Pak 43/41 88mm AT - 1st Full Id 9 Sec, 2nd Contact 2min35Sec, 2nd Full Id 2min41Sec 450m - 2 x 75mm AT - No Contacts or Spots for 15mins 1052m - 2 x Pak 43/41 88mm AT - 1st Full Id 4min34Sec, 2nd Gun not identified or detected after 15min - Possible observe LOS blocked by trees) 1052m - 2 x 75mm AT - No Contacts or Spots for 15mins 1650m - 2 x Pak 43/41 88mm AT - No Contacts or Spots for 15mins 1650m - 2 x 75mm AT - No Contacts or Spots for 15mins Conclusions 88mm AT guns recieve higher concealment bonus than 88mm flaks, while 75mm AT guns appear to have far superior concealment bonus Hello, I Have some observations from CMBN games that if the community is in agreement will be corrected in CMFB. Ive really enjoyed CM - particularly in Huge Maps and scenarios and love playing with a wide range of units and tactics. Ive experimented a lot lately with H/ T and AT guns. Ive noted the common thread on H / T gunners but will not comment except to add that I think H/T gunners will not engage targets at ranges > 200m very often. They do not appear to area fire out past 300m or so. They also do not seem to spot well and when they do spot and engage, tend to have low volume of fire (but I ve not tested or looked into this in detail - just basic observations from a number of H2H games). I think the observations on AT guns will be more relevant to CMFB - due to the larger maps and nature of the units and terrain it is set in. While playing with AT guns (notably 88mm Flak - I had 4 in one particular game) I found them to be easily detectable and destroyed out past 1000m by my Human opponent (who was also slightly disappointed by this - but art'yd them anyway :)) They where placed in light woods with foliage cover and in foxholes. I ran some tests - which Ill post in the CMBN section. Untill getting to between 1000 and 1600m 88mm Flak guns get little concealment bonus (even if in concealment and hiding) 88mm (Pak 43 AT Guns) get a slightly improved bonus but will also typically be identified within 2mins up to 1000m 75mm AT Guns and 20mm Flaks remained concealed at ranges starting at 450m (did not test at shorter ranges) So my questions / assumptions are; 1. Im assuming this has likely not been changed in CMFB? 2. I believe the larger AT guns should get some better concealment bonus. What do other players think? 3. If agreed what in reality would have been real life ranges these heavy AT guns could remain concealed? I would think a lot closer in than 1000m - especially if in concealing terrain such as woods. 4. Should spotting times be increased as well as reduction in spotting range? Now - both 88mm variants are big boys - but 1000m - especially if dug in and camouflaged is a long way to be spotted. https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7428/9939582803_9db6f87bc9_b.jpg http://i1.wp.com/www.defensemedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/PaK-431.jpg Spotting Tests for Heavy AT Guns as follows

Good point - it is a big gun shield but I would suggest if dug in and concealed - 1000m is still a long way to detect the gun. especially if say placed in a wood line. I'd suggest that not accounting the above, the point would still stand regarding the 88mm pak 43, which has a much lower silhouette. I thought the foxholes protected the crew? Do trenches protect the gun and the crew?

Hello all Ive really enjoyed CM - particulary in Huge Maps and scenarios and love playing with a wide range of units and tactics. Ive experimented a lot lately with H/ T and AT guns. Ive noted the common thread on H / T gunners but will not comment except to add that I think H/T gunners will not engage targets at ranges > 200m very often. They do not appear to area fire out past 300m or so. They also do not seem to spot well and when they do spot and engage, tend to have low volume of fire strange for a mounted mg (but I ve not tested or looked into this in detail - just basic observations from a number of H2H games). I think the observations on AT guns will be more relevant to CMFB - due to the larger maps and nature of the units and terrain it is set in. While playing with AT guns (noteably 88mm Flak - I had 4 in one particular game) I found them to be easily detectable and destroyed out past 1000m by my Human opponent (who was also slightly disappointed by this - but art'yd them anyway :)) They where placed in light woods with foliage cover and in foxholes. I ran some tests - which Ill post in the CMBN section. Untill getting to between 1000 and 1600m 88mm Flak guns get little concealment bonus (even if in concealment and hiding and not yet having opened fire) 88mm (Pak 43 AT Guns) get a slightly improved bonus but will also typically be identified within 2mins up to 1000m 75mm AT Guns and 20mm Flaks remianed concealed at ranges starting at 450m (did not test at shorter ranges) So my questions / assumptions are; 1. Im assuming this has likely not been changed in CMFB? 2. I believe the larger AT guns should get some better concealment bonus. What do other players think? 3. If agreed what in reality would have been real life ranges these heavy AT guns could remain concelaled? I would think a lot closer in than 1000m - especially if in concealing terain such as woods. 4. SHould spotting times be increased as well as reduction in spotting range? 5. What's the chances of this getting into the first patch? Now - both 88mm variants are big boys - but 1000m - especially if dug in and camoflauged is a long way to be spotted. https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7428/9939582803_9db6f87bc9_b.jpg http://i1.wp.com/www.defensemedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/PaK-431.jpg I love how the games have gradually been improved over the years - namely AT guns and MGs from community feedback, so be interested what the community thinks about this.

Hello, just like to say identified an annoying bug. I know this may effect some people and not others but thought it worth mentioning. being playing a huge battle on wyntetgrens 3 rivers bend map. We have about 23000 pts on the board and the first game still loaded,up and worked well. the oppo was then keen for the mirror - so I set up the same except I set to iron instead of elite. Now all works fine untill you deploy forces - which know has massive lag - so bad it's pretty much unworkable. did loads of,testing to get to this Conclusion. Seems setting to iron has this effect. I have downloaded 10gb all in one setup file and reinstalling using this just ensure my installation was ok. The bug appears to be repeatable on winter greens map. So the iron / elite setting seems to have some funny inter relationships with game performance just thought it's worth mentioning to the devs. if more info needed happy to provide it. ps Also to the devs, be great to turn off / toggle setup zones in deployment phase. With massive maps (especially with axis) the red setup zones just kill your ability analyse the terrain. So be good to toggle on / off like with objectives. This is really notable when you say have a 80% of a massive map with a setup!zone. pps great game system as well - well done. Had yrs of fun with it

I think this a problem with realism vs fun vs abstraction. At the moment I think Battlefront have hit at the levels of max detail and had to abstractly model the behaviour of the AT guns. They either cant or havent rated it higher priority to allow more detailed use of AT guns as desricribed in the above threads ie emergency 10m moves etc... In my opinion though the abstraction is to constained, meaning the pack up times reduce the flexibility, survivability and "fun" of using AT guns. I would rather the abstraction is less constrained ie shorter pack up times. I admit this would be unrealistic as well but would add more "fun" and tactical flexibility to the use of AT (and Inf Guns). This would be "my" preferred option untill they have time to better model more realistic and less abstracted use of AT guns. I think the movemnt speed of AT guns is slow enough to limit there use in a realistic way. You cant move them that far at short notice. However shorter packup times would allow tactical movment and add to the realism of a quick displacement using a prime mover. As it is now once they are exposed its fight to the death. The long pack up times mean even if you have smoke or covering fire they are unlikely to be able to complete their packup let alone move before been destroyed by Artillery fire or succesfully winning the engagement. Playing devils advocate though, from a current PBEM game it is teaching me that a defence based purely on AT guns is not a good idea against a skilled opponent and that really a mix of AT guns and mobile tank destroyers or tanks is the better way forward - thus the limitations in the current abstraction, force (or reward) a more balanced play style using combined arms. However I dont find this as much "fun". Personnely I feel a 1-2min pack up time (1min for small 36 - 50mm guns, 2 for anything bigger) would allow for more creative use and tactical flexibility. I think the the current 4-6mon pack up times for the larger guns should be reserved for the 88mm and bigger variety. I think this would move the abstaction closer towards real life use of towed guns. Keep the current non-prime mover movement speeds the same. Cheers

Well the 50 and 75mm German guns usually have less than 30 rounds all told no where near 92. 4-5mins sounds about right to hook upto a prime mover. Actually just moving the gun itself shouldnt require 5mins of packing up. Another issue is the lack of concealment AT guns seem to have. They seem to easily spotted when actually any gun crew would be camo'ing them as best as they can.

Yep Ive had a similar issue with my last couple of games where in the setup phase the guns in the right place (tucked against the side of a buidling with sandbags to the front) then come the first turn it seems to be displaced half into the building with limited lines of fire. I have found however that I can move the AT to a neighbouring square, move back into the original posistion and it will align up where it should be again. I have another issue with AT guns in that the pack up time is to long. I think it should be the same as the deploiyment time. It would make the AT guns much more survivable and usuable in the game. 4min packup times are just to long.

I had a PBEM game and a Priest knocked out my Tiger. I thought it was going to be one sided and it was just the not the way I expected. The Priests in game do have HEAT rounds and yes they can take out Heavy Tanks. It was a front on shot at probally 100m The disadvantage to the priest is no turret and slow turning rate. So can be outmanouvered by tanks. I didnt think it would penetrate a Tiger so approached from head on. Now I know better.

Ive tried a few differant options and none of them seem to provide extra heavy weapons ammo. Ive purchased the formations but that doesnt seem to provide extra heavy weapons Ammo (Mtrs and AT / Inf Guns). This includes the ammo bearers and vehicles if you purchase vehicles in a formation. Vehicles purchased in a formation do seem to supply 9mm and 7.62mm rounds; this includes the Kubewagon, H/T and Opel. I havent tried anything for the US forces yet so only familiar with the Germman. - Would be geat if thi could be added as an option in the Quick Battle Unit selection panel. I think it is available in the scenario editor though. PS. H/T also provide 1 x PanzerFaust as well

A possible bug with AT guns. If limbered upto a prime mover once deployed they seem to stay stuck as limbered up and will not fire (but will however move). Ive tested this on the US 57mm AT and one of the German Field guns. I did a little test on defence visibility. I found that trenches remain concealed much better than sandbags and foxholes. In woods you need to be ontop of the trenches usually before you see them. The sandbags are generally spotted faily early as are the foxholes this makes providing cover for the AT difficult as the sandbags seem to be fairly easy to spot and will give away the posistion. Ideally need to increase concealment of sandbags (so can be used to provide cover for AT guns or create a new emplacement defence). Some other points: -Cannot change orientation (face) of wire obstacles, trencehes and hedgehogs though you can for sandbags. -Cannot see Field of view/fire for bunkers -Need cover armour arcs so they dont keep firing of at infantry (although I havent see this yet myself). -I think all the emplacements and field defences are to expensive. It removes the incentive to use them as you generally cant buy enough to be effective from what Ive seen (mainly in quick battles, so could probally be alleviated by a good scenario designer) Though Im not whining. The game is excellent.

Ill just start by saying this is a fantastic product. Not sure if this is the right place but some suggested improvements (most of wihc I think are from CM x 1); 1. Need "Show all Targets" (same as show all movement paths) Option. Was in CM x 1 but not in this and it would be really useful. 2. Troops should aquire weapons from friend and foe casualties. ie I have a bailed out tank crew which I used in a firefight. They perform well with there pistols and 1 x SMG but run out of ammo. I move them over to an eliminated enemy squad but they do not scavenge weapons and you cannot "aquire". In sure I remeber squads in Cm X 1 scavenging captured weapons. Im not bitching as I think this game is excellent and more than worth $55. However since I know you guys love to improve overtime I'd just like to get my 5 cents in. Cheers and thanks for the excellent game.