WynnterGreen

This bug is a real pain...... it doesn't only ruin games. I've got maps that I've never released because in play testing the bug appears and effectively destroys it as an Attack Map.

I have a map that I'm play testing at the moment; When it starts in Quick Battle I still get the Attacker Reversed into the Defenders Position Bug. Still no fix for this? Or is there something in the map settings that can be tweaked?

Yes.... this is the nub of the problem. I'm sorry I entertained the discussion re SOP. It's not the issue, and has nothing to do with the AI behaviour I'm trying to address at all. Nor does whether it's 'happening to them or me' have anything to do with it. It's a matter of realistic AI behaviour. The issue is tanks, specifically gunners, ceasing their AI routine and not taking a shot [unrealistically] due to the fact that they stop a progression from aiming to firing the instant the 'magic shield' of smoke or dust obscures the target. There should be a window, albeit brief, where the gunner can safely assume the target is still in the area where the smoke is and engage through it. At the moment this isn't the case. The same is true of targets in buildings. The gunner should have a short window where engagement continues rather than stop firing due to smoke and, or, the target unit cowering. What I'd like to see is, like infantry, the gunner given the ability as part of the AI routine to target the last known position of the enemy prior to obscuration or loss of contact. I'll set up a test range and trying to recreate the situation I'm describing.

Again we're talking about very short, but crucial brackets of time, with relatively low volumes of fire. It's about an AI routine for Amour that currently makes a snap decision not to fire the moment obscuration happens, rather than firing where the enemy obviously is.

SOP for the tank making the hit, or SOP for the tank being hit? You do realize what I'm talking about is an AI bracket of something probably less than five seconds??? Why would you pop smoke and displace when you're the tank that's made the hit and just about to squeeze off another round into a target you've got dialed in? The issue here is the gunner standing down and not firing at a known target in a known position seconds after smoke, or some other miscellaneous factor intervenes, rather than firing where the tank was 2 seconds ago.

Currently infantry units will continue to fire for a short period of time on the last known enemy location when direct line of sight is lost. This is good and logical. I'd like to see something similar instituted for Armour. On quite a few occasions I've witnessed a gunner make a good hit on a enemy tank, the loader does his job, the gunner is aiming the next round when smoke popped by the still stationary opposing vehicle briefly obscures the silhouette. Half a second from firing at an obvious and dialed in target, the gunner immediately stands down and waits to get positive line of site again, giving the panicked crew opposite time to recover and reverse away. I'd like to see tanks fire a speculative round through the last known location of enemy vehicles in this kind of situation. The same is true of tanks engaging infantry in buildings. As soon as contact is lost, quite often due to dust and smoke being thrown up by impacting rounds, tankers will disengage and give the enemy a chance to get away when another round of HE on the last known location followed by several bursts of MG is probably more appropriate.

Yep..... any of the suggestions, colour change instead of shape, or a distinct border as an identifier for teams would work for me. Getting an on map representation is what's important.

Cycling through units isn't the issue. It's having to constantly peer at the Chain of Command panel to identify which Teams make up each Squad that's the problem. It's about maintaining unit cohesion and C2. Currently there's a lack of any visual clue on the map to connect each element. When you have a lot of split units in a given area and no easy way to identify which unit they belong to it becomes a micro management pain in the ass.

The Problem: Finding the Squad a Team has been detached from among other detached units. Currently one of the biggest time wasters for me in Combat Mission [especially in larger games with many detached units] is having to click through detached Teams while reading Chain of Command in the Unit Info Panel in order to identify which Squad the detachment belongs to. This cumbersome procedure is required because there's currently no way to identify 'on the map' which Squad the Team has been detached from. Double clicking an Icon doesn't help, because the lowest level at which this feature functions is the Platoon. [ie, double clicking any Squad or detachment highlights the entire parent Platoon] The problem is compounded with Squad types that can be split into three detachments. Place two split Squads, each with three detachments in fairly close proximity and quite quickly you have unit management, cohesion and C2 problems that can't be remedied by looking at the map alone. Proposed Solution: When you select a Team the Icon of any other Team in the units Squad identifies itself via an 'Icon' change.

As a result of this incident Germany switched to a No-Huddle Offense.

Excellent news indeed. I wasn't really suggesting the PAK43 should be getting wheeled around much, at 3600kg as compared to a PAK38s 830kg, it's a behemoth. It was more just for interest sake. Although there's 'all hands on deck' in the first PAK40 image, I think the others show that maneuvering was still a realistic option for the guns crew. Which it sounds like you've taken into account in the adjustments you've announced. Also just for interest, a Russian 45mm. Brit 2pounder

Yeah, 'can' and 'want to' are different things. I've seen video of a PAK43 being manhandled too, can't locate it at the moment, but here's a still. They were moving it reasonably well considering the number of crew, but it was only a few seconds of footage, and I suspect it wasn't going much further than a few meters further forward. You can also see in this image of a seperate occasion, they've got plenty of manpower for the push.

German troops moving a 7.5 cm PaK 40 anti-tank gun across a muddy road in Northern France, Oct 1943 German paratroopers moving a 7.5 cm PaK 40 gun into position in muddy terrain, Italy, 23 Feb 1945 Finnish forces manhandle a 7.5 cm Pak 40 into position, somewhere on the Eastern Front. Somewhat related, Marine Artillery on Okinawa.

In part the issue with that scene is the fact that we don't have particularly fine control over final positioning due to the nature of Action Squares. If I'd had better control of the deployment, it would have finished the move with the barrel just cresting the hill [Which I would consider quite achievable], rather than the whole gun perched on top as illustrated. I didn't have that minutia of control, but it suffices for an example. With the attendant children passing up ammunition in exchange for cigarettes.

Here's a couple of quick examples of the sort of movement I believe ATGs need to be capable of. Short distance movements while deployed. In the Urban example, it currently takes a PAK38, eight and a half minutes to turn the corner and be prepared to fire. Or a PAK36, six minutes, forty fives seconds for the same action. In the second example, the gun has to move into the firing position, once there it has to spend two minutes twenty seconds deploying before it can take a shot. To me it seams reasonable that the gun should be able to be pushed into position ready to fire. I think ATGs need to be able to make the moves illustrated while deployed, so the gun can transition from a cover to a firing position in an effective way. While they may not be the most versatile asset in the field, they were certainly capable of that kind of handling. The same is true of the situation in reverse. The gun should be able to be pulled off the crest into defilade without having to sit completely exposed for four and a half minutes while it packs up and then another minute for the gun to move one action square off the ridge. Also, I'm pretty sure we need this.

It's purely conjecture of course, but I actually suspect that peoples general opinion of ATGs as game assets has become so low that they're largely just ignored. Unless, as you mentioned, they're preloaded into a scenario. Which is a shame, because they do have a role and should be able to function effectively within the limits of that role. On the odd occasion ATGs do get used, I think most people have pretty low expectations of how they'll perform, so aren't surprised when they fail. I believe I only ever made the statement that ATGs aren't a viable option in the form we currently find them, largely due to a set of compounding issues that [yes, severely] effect their performance and survivability. I stand by that, because I think it's A: correct, B: the general consensus. The tactical implications of being able to move a deployed AT Gun into and out of covered positions are really quite significant in my opinion. The issue is a pet peeve, and I think someone had to push the barrow to hopefully instigate a change for the better in this area. However let me make it clear, the 'current state of the game' is fantastic. Combat Mission is brilliant and you have a great deal to be proud of. I'll also say; I'm really thankful that you jump in and hammer out the issues, even if it's to disagree, because at least 'we as a community' are aware that you're taking notice.

Pointing out a bunch of reasons why ATGs are limited as compared to their real world counterparts and making a statement that they're not currently a viable option in the game because of those limitations it is hardly 'extreme'. Nor am I a voice in the wilderness on the subject, not that the number of people who hold a position necessarily aquaints to it's veracity. That's yet to be seen. I don't see how pointing out current shortcomings equates to not being satisfied with hypothetical improvements. I haven't asked for anything unrealistic or given any indication that I expect 'magical improvements'. The reeneactor stuff was merely a tool for comparison. No one ever suggested that what the reenactors did should be translated 1 to 1 into the game. It was evidence, where evidence is scarce, of a disconnect between what can be physically done in the real world and what we see performed in the game environment. To that end,it served it's purpose.

That's a good question, why is it important? As far as I can recall, there hasn't been a single post in this entire thread that has disputed the fact that ATGs have a narrow range conditions in which they do well. What's disputed is the ability, or lack of ability, of ATGs in game to perform routine tasks, as they were performed by the real thing, and how that effects their survivability. I have no problem with the perspective that reenactors are generally working with 'best possible conditions' not under fire etc. But I still fail to see how you could realistically argue that taking four minutes to do in game [on the same manicured lawn terrain], what the reneactors do in thirty seconds is anywhere near an accurate portrayal of capability. Certainly take what's evidenced by the reenactors aand worsen it, double it, it would still be a MASSIVE improvement. Actually I'd argue that you're missing the two most critical factors that effect ATGs. 4 Pack up and deployment speeds 5 Moving while deployed. Being able to manhandle a gun from a cover position into a firing position and from a firing position to cover, or secondary, position is critical to their survivability, and ' entirely realistic.'.

While I can't see the benefit of being hundreds on meters from the asset, I do get what you're saying about 'gamey' effects that decrewing AT Guns might have. And I'm not necessarily saying that allowing them to decrew IS the answer, or even necessarily part of the answer​. I​t's just one of a combination of issues ​I initially identified​ regarding AT Guns that ​may be contributing to ​reduce their effectiveness. In reality I think being able to move while deployed​,​ and better movement speeds and turning rates generally would ​'​probably​'​ suffice as a fix for AT Guns. From further reading of the Towed Tank Destroyer manual, I'm even more convinced that AT Guns up to Pak40 caliber need the capability to be manhandled quickly from 'Cover Positions' into 'Firing Positions'. Or from 'Primary Firing Positions' to 'Secondary'. ​It's a shame we've got to eleven pages without any input from BattleFront.​

My historical knowledge on the subject isn't in depth enough to know the reality and details. Can I get confirmation from others that crews of weapons of this type were expected to stay at their gun rather than seek the protection of obvious adjacent shelter when artillery is falling, or clearly imminent? Was it doctrine to do so, even if it was unessessarily endangering the crew to keep them in position? Was it doctrine, but not followed strictly in practice due to the realities of combat as opposed to training? Was the gun really the first consideration on the line? Or staying alive??? I'm interested to hear more. I imagine reality was quite unlike doctrine or training manuals, and that crews regularly took shelter in positions other than directly at their Guns to avoid artillery. Educate me.

So if an AT Gun is set up in a hedgerow next to an old stone building, you think it's more realistic that the guns commander would insist that his crew sit out in the open while mortars fall, rather than move five meters inside the building to wait out the barrage??? Personally I find it exceeding difficult to believe that either doctrine or sanity prescribe sitting in the open when hard cover is close by. An AT crew panicking and abandoning their gun against your wishes is already modeled in Combat Mission. You can also order your AT Gunners to abandon their gun. However, you can't order your team away from the gun to take shelter, then have them recrew it some short time later. There may be excellent coding and technical reasons why this is the case, but does it make 'game play' sense? Not at all. The problem with AT Guns and Mortars isn't the Mortars accuracy. It's two compounding problems. The first is the players 'Gods Eye' View. When an AT asset is identified, the player instantly has the capability to direct any on map mortars or Forward Observers into positions where they can target the gun. The player can spend as much time as they need in the WEGO environment scanning the terrain for a perfect location and then instantly (in game time) direct the mortar team to the most advantageous position. This instant ability to react clashes directly with the second problem. The AT Guns inability to move while deployed, and unrealistically slow movement while relocating. A Pak40 is literally pinned in place for four minutes and fourty seconds while it packs up. Then, when it is packed, it moves with glacial slowness compared to its real world counterpart. The gun could potentially be saved from death by mortar by rolling it a mere action square or two back into the forest behind it's deployment position, something small and medium guns should DEFINITELY be able to do. However, due to their current unrealistic immobility, they're just a juicy static target. John Kettler provided an excellent link to U.S. doctrinal employment of ATGs earlier in the thread. It describes guns having several prepared positions that they should / could be relocated to, given certain circumstances. Currently, these real world tactics are impossible because of the artificial constraints imposed on ATGs. And because of those limitations, survivability and usefulness is greatly reduced.

Sure womble, they're 'a bit' gimped, whatever you like. Let's move on to arguing over if they're 'somewhat, unfit for purpose' in your next message ok???? It's not about being impressed, it's about providing evidence which supports a viewpoint. You may have better evidence, if so, share it, if not we use the evidence available. Who cares???? They weren't obsolete because they couldn't be moved after they were deployed, or because they took four minutes to move ten meters down the road and about face. Of course proper use will effect their survivability. But that's never been in question, and doesn't have anything to do with the limitations I've outlined. As far as I can tell, it's completely irrelevant to the issues I've raised. The fact that it's 'poor form' to allow your AT asset to be attacked from the flank, has nothing to do with how well the gun mimics real life capability when it happens. You shouldn't let your Sherman be attacked from the flank either. Does that mean it's ok to unrealistically limit it's ability to respond? We're talking about a group of tasks that ATGs were able to perform effectively in real life, which they currently can't in the game. Those limitations significantly effect their performance, survivability and usefulness. You're right, the Gods Eye has many and varied impacts in game. But the fact that it currently seems to have a particularly problematic effect on ATGs is an argument FOR fixing their current inflexibility and limitations, not against. Absolutely right, knocking out the asset should be, and I believe is, modeled. That doesn't mean the squishies shouldn't be able to be elsewhere while it happens, or that being able to decrew doesn't increase their overall survivability. Something they desperately need. Perhaps being able to move while deployed would be enough, who knows. What I do know is that ATGs need some love.

You have humbled me sir...... a marvel for one as young and virile as yourself, you deserve beer and a sammich'.

No, the whole asset turns until the target is with the traverse of the gun, at which point it aims and fires. When you set up the same test as in my post above, except you place the Sherman within the firing arc of the AT Guns so that no turning is required, you get the same: Acquiring Target / Firing times as in the test where the asset needs to turn. So there's no, under the hood, blending of the two tasks which isn't discernible to the player that I can see.

Actually, there's plenty to see here. I just ran a test. Combat Mission: Pak 36 with unobstructed line of sight to a Sherman at 200m range and 90° facing to the the deployed Pak. Regular crew, unpinned, no incoming fire, within CC. Sherman Spotted / Turning: 0 to 27 Seconds. Acquiring Target / Firing: 28 to 34 Seconds. Pak 38 Target at 90° facing. Sherman Spotted / Turning: 0 to 51 Seconds. Acquiring Target / Firing: 52 to 56 Seconds. Pak 40 Target at 90° facing. Sherman Spotted / Turning: 0 to 57 Seconds. Acquiring Target / Firing: 58 to 62 Seconds. Compare that to the mobility we see from the Pak 36 and 38 in the footage. The Reenactment Pak 36 team turns the gun 180° degrees, moves, turns 180° degrees again, deploys and simulates breaching a round in exactly the same time it takes the Pak 36 in Game to turn 90°, PRIOR to 'Acquiring Target'. Still think it's 'right on'?