Kat Johnston Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Well, as you probably know, one of the great strengths of BFC is that if you create a test that shows that a TC is as exposed as an in the open infantry man they will have a look at the game. They will act if you can show - with a repeatable test - that something is wrong. I wasn't bothered, but I'm gonna have to try it now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat Johnston Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 Okay... I did some quick testing, and the results were interesting. Didn't get round to TC vs. infantry, but tried US versus British tanks for vulnerability. Short version is British TCs do appear to be much more vulnerable. For the test, I set up five firing lanes separated from each other by high berms. At one end I placed five tanks (all uniform spec., regular, normal, absolutely average) At the other end I placed five squads of fusiliers (all uniform spec.) To start with I used US M4(Mid) tanks and placed the fusiliers at 600 yards. I played as Allied, in real time, and used short cover arcs to allow the fusiliers to fire at the tanks without return fire. At 600 yards the fusiliers did not fire, and the tanks had difficulty spotting them. Tried again at 500 yards, the fusiliers did not fire, but the tanks spotted them quickly. At 400 yards, the fusiliers did not fire. At 300 yards, the fusiliers fired their squad machine gun only. At 200 yards, the fusiliers fired their squad machine gun only. At 100 yards, the fusiliers fired all their weapons. With this in mind I ran the test at 100 yards. From five run throughs: First: 1 KIA Second: 0 KIA Third: 1 KIA Fourth: 0 KIA Fifth: 0 KIA Next I ran the same test with British Sherman Is (which should be pretty similar to the M4 except for the .50 cal). First: 3 KIA Second: 4 KIA Third: 4 KIA Fourth: 5 KIA Fifth: 5 KIA Well, that wasn't extensive, but it was pretty damn suspicious. Obviously bears more testing (I haven't time tonight) but looks like I was wrong to think that the British TCs aren't more vulnerable - they are, in spades, in mostly identical tanks. Is the HMG providing excellent cover to the US TCs, maybe? I'll do some more tomorrow but hope some of you will give this a look! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted March 26, 2012 Share Posted March 26, 2012 I was surprised noone had mentioned exactly that sooner - I think the .50 cal provides a good amount of cover to the US tank commanders - enough that I think it'd catch quite a few bullets - especially to AI that aims at the center of a tank CO's body.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Okay... I did some quick testing, and the results were interesting. Didn't get round to TC vs. infantry, but tried US versus British tanks for vulnerability. Short version is British TCs do appear to be much more vulnerable. For the test, I set up five firing lanes separated from each other by high berms. At one end I placed five tanks (all uniform spec., regular, normal, absolutely average) At the other end I placed five squads of fusiliers (all uniform spec.) To start with I used US M4(Mid) tanks and placed the fusiliers at 600 yards. I played as Allied, in real time, and used short cover arcs to allow the fusiliers to fire at the tanks without return fire. At 600 yards the fusiliers did not fire, and the tanks had difficulty spotting them. Tried again at 500 yards, the fusiliers did not fire, but the tanks spotted them quickly. At 400 yards, the fusiliers did not fire. At 300 yards, the fusiliers fired their squad machine gun only. At 200 yards, the fusiliers fired their squad machine gun only. At 100 yards, the fusiliers fired all their weapons. With this in mind I ran the test at 100 yards. From five run throughs: First: 1 KIA Second: 0 KIA Third: 1 KIA Fourth: 0 KIA Fifth: 0 KIA Next I ran the same test with British Sherman Is (which should be pretty similar to the M4 except for the .50 cal). First: 3 KIA Second: 4 KIA Third: 4 KIA Fourth: 5 KIA Fifth: 5 KIA Well, that wasn't extensive, but it was pretty damn suspicious. Obviously bears more testing (I haven't time tonight) but looks like I was wrong to think that the British TCs aren't more vulnerable - they are, in spades, in mostly identical tanks. Is the HMG providing excellent cover to the US TCs, maybe? I'll do some more tomorrow but hope some of you will give this a look! Good proof that a American is so much smarter than his British counterpart:) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 If a Amarican could use proper grammar and talk proper he'd be on ta something... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herr_oberst Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Perhaps it's the deterrent effect of the 50 cal -- "if I miss, he's gonna hose us down with that thing..." or just those ugly Brit helmets/berets beg to be knocked off... /joking off for those too slow on the uptake... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Franko Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I wonder if BF models "loudness." by that I mean that tanks on the move are LOUD. I doubt that a TC can even hear the first few rounds zipping by his head over the din of noise. He probably never even hear the shots that kill or wound him. Remember, we are above the ground watching the action, not down in the dirt with the noise. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 So after absorbing all these rounds what state will the 50 cal be in to "hose" anything? Perhaps the US tank commander was modelled on Chuck Norris and ours on Kenneth Williams? Ohhh I saaaay, don't you go pointing that big gun at me! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat Johnston Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 I ran more tests with some different vehicles: British Sherman V - from 25 tanks, 17 commanders killed. Canadian Sherman V - from 25 tanks, 22 commanders killed. Polish Sherman V - from 25 tanks, 19 commanders killed. US M4A3(105)(mid) - from 25 tanks, 12 commanders killed. Compared to these from before: British Sherman I - from 25 tanks, 21 commanders killed. US M4(mid) - from 25 tanks, 2 commanders killed. The Commonwealth/Polish tanks have no top MG. The M4A3(105)(mid) has a .50 cal, but it's on a rear mount. The M4(mid) and most other US tanks have a .50cal MG. These results show that even when the MG is not present, there is still a discrepancy between the Commonwealth/Polish tanks and the US ones. Looking at the models, the US TCs crouch very low down in the turret (whether or not they have an MG); only their heads are above the edge of the hatch. The CW/Polish TCs stand with more of their upper body above the hatch. This would seem to be enough to explain all the results. It looks like a fairly straightforward case of needing to have the CW/Polish TCs stand a little lower and show the same caution as their US counterparts... or raise the US ones. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpabrams Posted March 27, 2012 Author Share Posted March 27, 2012 Ha! I was right credit me another bug, not just a rant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Looking interesting - I think you are on to something. Can you run those tests four more times and see if things stay the same? I know from experience that the numbers can vary quite a bit from run to run. A while back I did some bogging tests and ran 15 tanks over various ground types. Some runs four or five tanks were immobilized in others runs it was ten or twelve. In the end I ran those 15 tank tests five times and still felt like I should do it more to be sure I had good averages. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 It's probably just another example of the well-known pro-usa bias lol. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat Johnston Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Can you run those tests four more times and see if things stay the same? I know from experience that the numbers can vary quite a bit from run to run. A while back I did some bogging tests and ran 15 tanks over various ground types. Some runs four or five tanks were immobilized in others runs it was ten or twelve. In the end I ran those 15 tank tests five times and still felt like I should do it more to be sure I had good averages. Yes, I hear you. I increased the field to 10 tanks at a time and ran 10 tests for each of three types: US M4(Mid) - from 100 tanks, 23 commanders killed. British Sherman I - from 100 tanks, 85 commanders killed. US M4(105)(Mid) - from 100 tanks, 43 commanders killed. The M4(Mid) and Sherman I are more or less identical apart from the British tank doesn't have the MG. Both have a split hatch for the commander. The M4(105)(Mid) has a cupola and the MG is moved to the back. (Unfortunately there are no US Shermans that I could find with a split hatch and the MG at the back.) From looking at the models, the British Sherman II seems to have the commander in a slightly lower position than other British Sherman marks, so I'll try them next. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Excellent... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Perhaps if all us Brits sent an apology for burning down some obscure building in 1812 the Colonials at BF will stop persecuting our armoured chappies! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Clearly those commanders haven't deployed their Mk.IIa*, Mug, Enamelled, Tea, Armoured, 1 Pint. If they were holding that, while peering out of their turret hatches they'd be nearly invincible. Everyone knows that a 1-pint armoured tea mug, when deployed correctly in alternating positions between the chest and face, offers far more protection than a 50-cal HMG. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vark Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Don't also forget the lucky cigarette case, beloved by the Commando War Stories and other boys magazines. "ARGH" "Crikey Captain! Are you ok?" "Yes, just a bit winded, luckily that 88mm shell hit my cigarette case. Those Huns are going to pay for this." Have some lead back squareheads, courtesy of my trusted 30cal Browning!" Dakadakadaka "Aieee! Argh!" "Gott in himmel, the Tommy is indestructable, our shells just bounce off his mug of tea and breast pocket!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kat Johnston Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 ...and this is starting to bore me, but I said I'd do it so just for the record, looks like Sherman IIs aren't much better: British Sherman II, from 100 tanks, 80 commanders killed. Also for the record, I've been using "killed" to mean "there is no commander active in the tank", strictly speaking I guess they could be badly wounded. And I've not taken account of lightly wounded TCs either, which happens occasionally - but as I've not taken account of them in all the tests and as they're not frequent I think we can discount that as the main results are so conclusive. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil stanbridge Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I've just played an enormous scenario - colossal crack, on Warrior mode. Absolutely stunning battle but I have noticed the AI targetting commanders more and more. I lost quite a few until I started to group all my vehicles and automatically button them as soon as I entered any built up areas. I must admit, although I am losing lots of commanders to small arms I am not seeing any infantry assaults with grenades like I did pre-patch. I realise this isn't anything scientific but it's interesting all the same. What I'm saying is that although commanders are much more vulnerable out of the hatch so to speak the tanks themselves appear less vulnerable in close quarters. I think the commanders to small arms could perhaps be toned down a tad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Perhaps if all us Brits sent an apology for burning down some obscure building in 1812 the Colonials at BF will stop persecuting our armoured chappies! LOL I'll have you know that we Canadians take credit for that - yes I know it was members of the British regulars that did the deed. We still try to take credit for it;) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 What distubs me is the apparent large discrepancy between killed tank commanders of Commonwealth tanks compared with American ones of virtually the same type (i.e. Shermans). I'm sorry, the presence of a 50cal. HMG mount doesn't remotely explain the large discrepancy. Regards KR 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 It's probably just another example of the well-known pro-usa bias lol. Which is a bunch of nonsense, and you know it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killkess Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 It would realy be interisting to know how the german commanders fit into the data. Anyone has tried that? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoolaman Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I am nearly certain it is a 3d model problem. Look how much further the commanders stick out in the new models. 3d exposure is a vulnerability in the game (and real life) only the guys in the game don't duck. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Hence the "lol" Luke... Lighten up bro... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.