Odin

It'd be interesting to know what proportion players prefer wego over real time. It's been sometime since I've played realtime. But if you could rewind I think I'd have to give it a go again.

I wish I could but my love for action replay is too strong

Agreed, a lot of what is going on there is bad TacAI, which is why I suggest an easy fix would be to stop tanks rotating their hulls to fire at infantry. The situation in the video is exacerbated by the slow and unrealistic speed with which the hull pivots. If the tiger chassis turned at its real life speed, or something closer to it, the enemy crew would have been shot up by the end of the turn and I could have turned the tank to face forward at the start of the next. As it is I've got to leave the tank to its own devices for a part of the next turn (eg 15-20 second pause command before a move command to correct its hull position) and hope the tank takes out the crew in that time. Even just giving the tank a covered armoured arc to stop it targeting the crew will not make it face in the direction of enemy armour (I can't give it a 'face' command at the same time).

The all seeing turreted terminator... Or maybe not. On a serious note, I don't think the tiger's actions make for a reasonable counter balance to their 'terminator' ability which many have argued tanks possess (I don't agree with that assertion when unbuttoned). In this particular incident, the tank crew which the tiger was attempting to target fired at least 5 pistol shots before the TC spotted them and they were within 70 metres of 4 unbuttoned tanks, and only two saw the crew (and one only temporarily when the crew got up). Does that really make for an unrealistic spotting ability? A number of naysayers argue that tanks have a spotting advantage and can see infantry at long range when they shouldn't be able to. However, arguing a slow chassis traverse makes for a good counterbalance has little logic when at long range it is less likely a tank would have to traverse the hull of the tank to fire. I gave up recording at the end of the turn, and I expect the tiger to take at least another 10 seconds before it gets a shot off. Moments like the one in the video ruin the immersion of the game and don't seem like the most complicated of things to fix. Thankfully they don't happen that often, but when you need to push an attack through with little infantry support (as is the case in this video) armour will inevitably come into close contact with enemy soldiers and {<NJ actions like this will almost inevitably take place. In addition to speeding up chassis traversing speeds, might it be an idea that it is coded into the game that tanks with turrets don't bother to swing their hulls round to fire at infantry? More often than not, it gets them into more trouble than it solves. In this incident traversing the hull has considerably slowed the tank's actions and I know enemy armour is close by and I will have a good chance of losing the tank as a result of its O+>@? actions. I'll finish by saying, it cannot be doubted that BF make admirable efforts to meticulously recreate tanks' armour and AT capabilities. But why does mobility come a distant second?

I can recommend the The Few Good Men. I joined it not long ago and found plenty of players to play PBEM. Forum members are also very friendly and helpful

I think the numerous pieces of evidence presented through the thread shows it isn't a fair reflection. None more so that the WWI Mk 1 turning in churned up ground in less than half the time WWII tanks do in CM. Jason - Both tank crew awareness and turning speed need adjusting. That said, and as noted tanks still have a 'godlike' ability with their turret speed at the moment. If they spot infantry, the infantry is shoot up almost instantly and it is immaterial as to whether the tank has spun its chassis around. Personally I don't think tanks spot AT guns much more easily than they might when unbuttoned (although I accept it may need adjustment). Many a time I have fired a couple or more shots at a tank with an AT gun before it or other tanks near by spot my AT gun. On a couple of other occasions I have had AT guns in wooded areas on a hide command 300-500m in front of a tank in the hope the tank will present its flank, and the tanks haven't spotted the gun for 4-5 minutes (unfortunately the tank didn't present its flank before eventually spotting the AT guns!). I know the above is only anecdotal, but it is my experience with the game. By all means lets look at spotting. When buttoned I'd agree tanks have an advantage they wuld be unlikely to enjoy in real life, but personally I don't think their spotting ability is too off when tanks are unbuttoned. Although again anecdotal, on countless other occasions enemy infantry has been positioned in undergrowth 200-500m in front of my unbuttoned armour and its taken a nearby infantry team to spot the enemy. Only then through 'borg' spotting do I put an area fire on the enemy infantry from my tank. What is beyond doubt is that the slow turning speed harshly penalises assault guns, make manoeuvring slow and often unrealistic, and does nothing to stop turreted vehicles 'terminator' style spotting and annihilation of infantry when buttoned.

[quote=Odin;1509526

How about this for two suggestions: Perfect world: 1. Alter all tank turning speeds to match their real life counterparts, and make variable depending the terrain. 2. Improve AT gun rotation speed. 3. Decrease tank crew spotting capability (especially where tanks are buttoned and use a gradient scale dependent on the crew's experience). Realistic world with resource constraints: 1. Cut 'on the spot' 90 degree tank pivot speeds to 10-11 seconds and 'on the move' to 5-7 seconds. If tanks with dual gearing (eg Panther, Churchill, Tiger) could be given quicker pivot speeds all the better. Tanks like the Sherman which have problems traversing in tight spaces are kept as they are with current traverse times. 2. Improve AT gun rotation speed. 3. Decrease tank crew spotting capability (especially where tanks are buttoned and use a gradient scale dependent on the crew's experience)

Yes AT gun turning speeds need to be much quicker. But surely this could be done at the same time tank turning speeds are improved? As for infantry's use of terrain would this not be a case of weakening armour's spotting ability or improving infantry's ability to conceal themselves. Would making these changes be more complicated than just altering some stats (no doubt it is )?

John thanks for the link to your previous post I hadn't seen it before. I agree with the arguments you presented which to me are well reasoned. Shame BF don't seem to agree but hayho. Maybe I misread Steve's response, but in one post he seems to suggest only British tanks, the tiger and panther are signficantly disadvantaged at the moment. I think the stug and Mk1 videos suggest otherwise. As they show whether using neutral turning or not they can still turn on a very tight radius, which I consider as good as on the spot for purposes of the game, (and much faster than the stug currently does). I quite agree with you John that awareness should be addressed. To me its seems that they are trying to fix one issue (terminator spotting as Steve put it) by introducing another (slowing tank turning speed down to unrealistic levels). And you can't get away from the argument that a tank can still act like a 'terminator' by spinning its turret in a couple seconds while assault guns are harshly treated taking 25 seconds to spin 90 degrees. So trying to argue that slowing tank chassis pivoting to their current unrealistic levels is a reasonable counterbalance to their unrealistic spotting ability has little logic IMO. Even with cars I feel the game poorly represents their ability to manoeuvre in tight spots. I totally understand that game AI doesn't let drivers make effective u-turns as they would in real life. But why penalise them by making a jeep take a turn to spin 180 degrees. I think most drivers could make a u-turn in 15-30 seconds. Especially with the motivation of bullets flying over your head! Like you John, I have a great deal of love for the game as it is, but that doesn't mean we don't want it to improve.

I think it could have turned out very differently with a few AT mines laid on the road up to GELB and/or a 75MM AT gun in the woods a GELB. This would have represented your left flank's insurance policy. If Bill had lost his t-34s storming up the road to GELB his cumbersome assault guns would probably have come unstuck and subsequently so would his infantry without armoured support. Dare I say it, it might have been worth sacrificing your 120mm mortars for extra AT support. Either way though, you put up a good fight and it was a close battle until it unravelled after Bill took your tanks out with a brilliant piece of stalking. EDIT: Just read Bill's response, looks like he was thinking the same thing. Nice to know I'm in good company!

That's one sexy beast of a turn. I don't think the panthers used this method of turning in the videos I've linked - nice to know they had in the locker though.

Apocal you misunderstand my point. Sure 3 seconds is likely to be too fast for an assault gun to turn 90 degrees on the spot in all but very good conditions (and given the commander would need to tell the driver to turn). But taking 25 seconds?... too long IMO. I go back to forwarding my 10-11 second compromise. Using this compromise a turret turning still beats a tank chassis turning hands down. But at the moment a tank can turn its turret 90 degrees and could probably get off 3 shots before an assault gun can get off its first traversing 90 degrees. Given the pivot speeds in the videos show WWII tank chassis could turn far quicker than their CM2 counterparts, this is why I think assault guns are particularly disadvantaged by the current situation. Looking at the video evidence on the spot 90 degree pivoting could be sped up to 10-11 seconds, while pivoting on the move could be sped up to 5-7 seconds, and there would be little danger of the CM models being faster than their real life counterparts, even taking into account abstracted information such as TC orders.

That maybe so, but when a tank can spin its turret 90 degrees in 3 seconds while an assault gun takes 25 to turn, assault guns are unfairly hampered. Surely the better way to solve this would be to slow down decision making or situational awareness for green, conscript, and even regular crews (although I don't think it is unreasonably fast for veteran crews at the moment given that under combat conditions speed is a crucial element of survival). In my experience I always think veteran or higher experience infantry are worth the extra purchase points. But I'm unsure if veteran or higher tank crews are that superior to lower quality units.

I hate myself for going on like a stuck record but I'm goign to do it anyway and again I would point you to the MK1 video which which shows it pivoting on the spot for large portions of its turn. Did the Mk1 really have a more advanced transmission system than any WW2 tank? If so would it be worth BF splitting vehicles into 'neutral' and 'non-neutral' steer transmission for 4.0?

This is why I've suggested shortening a 90 degree pivot to 10-11 seconds instead of the 25 it currently takes. Although this is still longer than it would take in real life, it would take into account the other actions which might need to be processed by a tank crew. The clip showing the speed with which the WWI MK1 turns in churned up mud illustrates that the current turn times are too far off reality.

Here's a thought maybe tanks are just as likely to bog in mud if they take 5 seconds to pivot 90 degrees or 25 seconds? The mind 'boggles' That aside isn't the WWI MK1 video good enough to be deemed evidence for your rather high standards? Plus you seem to think pretty poorly of the average WWII tank driver. I think most would consider themselves up to the standard of a modern day amateur tank driver - even those used by museums are often volunteers rather than professional tankers. You could always penalise green and conscript crews in the game increasing their chances of bogging (I would be surprised if the game doesn't already do this).

Proof, if more was needed. Here is a video of a WWI MK1 tank pivoting in mud far quicker than WWII tanks do in CM in good conditions. If that can't make people see the light then I don't know what will. 1 minute 38 seconds into the video BOOM!

The video of the first tank is in snow. Ground under snow is mostly, although I accept not always, frozen - therefore reflecting real life conditions. In the second video I was not referring to the tiger, but the t-34 85 about 2min 57 secs into the video. Your defence seems to be based on the idea that tanks should be penalised across all terrain under the pretext that in the very worst conditions they could not pivot as quick as they do in the videos. But in reality tankers tried to avoid poor terrain for the very reason that it would greatly increase the chances of bogging. Therefore, penailsing armour to take 25 seconds to turn 90 degrees is IMO is harsh and even in muddy conditions inaccurate. All I can do is present the evidence I find, and up until now every video I've seen of a WWII tank turning on the spot shows it turning faster than it does in CM.

@sburke As the videos above show, tanks turning far quicker than the game replicates - in relatively poor conditions. Plus aren't the above videos (and the other videos presented previously) stronger evidence than anything the "don't changers" have so far been able to offer, which up until has only been based on conjecture rather than any video evidence of WWII armour pivot speeds.

To me that argument doesn't stack up. I think if danger is spotted in real life a tank crew will react as fast as possible and if that means turing in 3-4 seconds then they would do that. Again I would suggest even if you take a conservative view and slash the current pivot speed in half, which would take it down to 10-11 seconds to turn 90 degrees, the bazooka team would still have an advantage and be able to get a shot off. Also in the game I find if a tank spots a bazooka team it just rotates its turret, which takes a 2-3 seconds, and shoots the zook team up. In comparison assault guns are harshly penalised taking around 25 seconds to turn, despite the fact in reality they would be able to turn the whole tank round far quicker than they currently do.

Check out this T-34 pretty much doing donuts in the snow T-34 85 spinning 180 degrees in muddy conditions in around 8 seconds - 2mins 57 secs into video: All the evidence I've seen suggests the current turning speeds are inaccurate when compared to real life counterparts

Given CMBN and CMRT are set during the summer wouldn't the conditions in the video be more accurate compared to what you suggest. Even if you take a conservative view and speed up pivoting to half what it takes now, say to 10-12 seconds for a 90 degree turn, I think it would be more accurate for boggy conditions than the 25 seconds it currently takes. Now I just need to find videos of WWII armour turning in mud, anyone know of a Youtube video or two?

+1 .....

It would be interesting to find out which tanks wouldn't allow for running one track forward and the other back. Note in the videos of the panther and stug, both the panthers and stug rotate by breaking with one track (rather than putting it into reverse) and driving with the other, and both vehicles get far quicker pivot times than their CM counterparts.