A little quirk i found.

[honjkirsen]

I set up a Qb scenario a couple of KT's v some Brit airborne, the KT detected a sniper team lying on the road directly behind & almost underneath the KT.

The KT then traverses the turret lowers its 88 then opens up with the coax mg and shoots through its own engine deck killing the sniper team, a feat i would have thought impossible, but there ya go.

:eek:

[Schrullenhaft]

Yeah, there are some limitations with the game engine and the elevation/depression of weapon systems (which don't have real-world limitations represented). Unfortunately I don't think anything like this will be addressed in the near future since it involves a significant amount of change to the game engine that may not be practicable to code up.

[Arnoldio]

There is a video somewhere on yt (some tutorial) and in the intro, guy parks the Panther on a steep slope, barrel facing the sky, yet he is still hitting a sherman in the distance. Completely weird.

I played around yesterday with an M10 vs random infantry and since it has no frontal MGs, it couldnt hit targets closer than 50m, so that is pretty realistic. Maybe they just forgot about german tanks?

[dieseltaylor]

For a claimed realistic game not coding depression /elevation in is quite shocking. The whole concept of town fighting is severely banjaxed if tanks can fire at second storey buildings whilst parked adjacent.

I am honestly surprised that there has not been more comment on this aspect.

[Lanzfeld]

Actually, tanks can fire at 6 story buildings while adjacent. Its a limitation of this software. This and the "no shoot zooks/schrecks/fausts from inside buildings" equals some very difficult city fighting for infantry vs tanks.

[c3k]

The rationale (which makes sense to me) goes something like this: Okay, your WeGo player cannot order anything for 60 seconds. The tank (OP's example) has a sniper right behind/under it. (We'll address spotting later...)

What would the TC do? He'd roar forward (or backward), the tank would hose the sniper down, then the TC would (probably) resume his prior position. Instead of trying to code that complex behavior, eliminating the dead-zone around the tank is simpler.

Additionally, there are no "micro-terrain" features shown. The realistic elevation/depression limits and associated dead-zones can be ameliorated by, for example, driving up on curb (kerb for you UK'ers). There are many more examples like that. The gist is, a driver can make many subtle, small adjustments in position and orientation to help get the guns on target. That kind of micro-management would be a nightmare in RT and impossible in WeGo.

Additionally, the programming for a TacAI would be well-nigh impossible. "Target Spotted: Target in DEAD ZONE: DEAD ZONE sub-routine: Back up? Go Forward? Get Target in KILL ZONE... Does not compute, does not compute" followed by smoke billowing out of your computer case.

The current solution is not great. The alternative is worse.

(The high-storied building up close has been with us since CMSF (CMBO?).)

The spotting issue: how does the KT know a sniper is hiding under it? THAT is a good question. KT friendly unit told him? The KT, sly veterans that they are, made believe they couldn't see him while he slithered about in the muck, but then the nailed him when they wanted? The KT crew left the belly hatch open? (Do KT's have belly hatches?) Or, it's wrong.

Ken

[Ranger33]

Wouldn't a simple fix just be to give the tanks a minimum range on their guns? That might make for an unrealistic moment if the tank is on some kind of crazy slope with a target right in front of them, but I would take that over tanks firing straight up a 6 story building or through their own engine.

[dieseltaylor]

Pardon me but does this not seem a trifle bizarre. I would think that coding circles of distance to target against height of target in building would be something a computer could calculate relatively easily. Or has this idea not been examined?

So is coding to deny tanks the ability to fire on the second storey when within 50 metres a feasible concept ?.

" can be ameliorated by, for example, driving up on curb" I can only assume you are joshing as standard curbs/kerbs are a matter of 4 inches or less and I am pretty sure most tracked vehicles would swallow that within track tension/suspension. After all shooting on the move would be very difficult if a 4" bump is sufficent to change elevation significantly.

[Lanzfeld]

I always thought that a tank should execute its "self preservation" mode if it ran into the situations above. You know, back away quickly to another position and from there, do an elevation check to see if it can defend itself. If not, back away again. Rinse, repeat.

[Erwin]

When one thinks of all the heated arguments about how realistic the game is etc., seems a bit wonky to have so many accurate/RL details such as mortars unable to fire over obstructions if deployed too close, the complex and sometimes incomprehensible C2 system, bizarre LOS issues, and then we have whoppers like this.

I love playing CM2, but it often seems like an amazing amount of programming effort has been made in certain areas to get max "realism" and then other areas are bolluxed and abstracted to the same degree that CM1 was. It begs the question as to whether it's worth making some areas of CM2 "ultra realistic" compared to CM1, if other areas are no better than CM1.

Would it not be better (and less expensive/quicker to develop) to develop/produce the whole game system so that it provides the same level of verisimilitude throughout, so players experience less WTF moments.

[YankeeDog]

As C3K notes, the problem isn't the issue of modeling the technical issue of gun depression/elevation. Steve has commented in the past that they could do this quite easily.

The problem is the challenge of programming the AI to know what to do when a units spots a target it outside of the main gun's max elevation/depression. Roll backwards? Roll forwards? Jockey a bit right or left to take advantage of a small rise or depression in order to gain additional elevation/depression? A lot depends on the small variations in terrain immediately around the tank, which is a very complex thing for a computer AI to read and interpret.

Computer player AI would have a very hard time with this. And we already have lots of player complaints about situations where a tank's main gun is blocked by a tree or whatever and the tank won't shoot at the target -- explicitly modeling gun depression/elevation limits without an AI routine to handle them would only make these situations more common.

Eventually, it would be nice to see a more detailed modeling here, and a unit AI that could cope with it. But it's important to recognize that there is no "simple fix" to this issue. Or, perhaps more accurately, there is no "simple fix" that won't cause other issues and problems.

[honjkirsen]

Thanks for the replies to my thread, i am a newb around these parts and firstly i have to say that the game itself is by far the best of its kind i have played, clearly the devs have put a lot of effort into this polished gem and i am having a great time getting pwned by the AI nevermind a human opponent. I suppose small glitches like this appear in most games and it certainly does not curtail the enjoyment of playing if anything its quite amusing to see such odd events occurring.

thanks again.

[Ranger33]

The whole thing could be solved by simply allowing all infantry AT weapons to fire from inside buildings. This was a nice compromise in CMSF that made for great urban battles, I know some of those weapons were designed for that, but some weren't and could still do it. Sending in vehicles without infantry support was suicidal, but with some good combined arms tactics, they were highly effective. In CMBN, defending urban terrain against tanks, with just infantry, is borderline impossible, especially in WeGo. Your only options are sitting your AT guys at a corner, then crossing your fingers that a tank rolls by, or running them out in the street to take a shot, which is usually suicidal.

In the name of game balance and fun, I would gladly take a small reduction in realism (bazookas/etc from indoors, which is arguable anyway) to balance out the complete disregard for the laws of physics (bullets making a 90 degree turn out the barrel of a MG).

[Childress]

This quirk- no attempt to simulate the limitations of u gun elevation- has been around since CMBO. And heavily discussed back then. As YD points out this is easily remedied for the player but not the AI. In the same way implementing an Armor Cover Arc poses no problem if all games were H2H. Getting the AI to employ it intelligently is another matter.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The whole thing could be solved by simply allowing all infantry AT weapons to fire from inside buildings. This was a nice compromise in CMSF that made for great urban battles, I know some of those weapons were designed for that, but some weren't and could still do it. Sending in vehicles without infantry support was suicidal, but with some good combined arms tactics, they were highly effective. In CMBN, defending urban terrain against tanks, with just infantry, is borderline impossible, especially in WeGo. Your only options are sitting your AT guys at a corner, then crossing your fingers that a tank rolls by, or running them out in the street to take a shot, which is usually suicidal.

In the name of game balance and fun, I would gladly take a small reduction in realism (bazookas/etc from indoors, which is arguable anyway) to balance out the complete disregard for the laws of physics (bullets making a 90 degree turn out the barrel of a MG).

+1

Of all possible fixes/changes mentioned this would be by far the easiest to implement. Heck, since it would simply be a matter of reversing an earlier change they could probably do it in the next patch.

[dieseltaylor]

I am having a problem here in that we are running a bastardised system to suit the AI whilst making in unreal for h2h players and RTS players. Mmmm!

However none of the responses mention the logic for the Ai that if it needs to fire at a higher elevation the routine checks how close it is and then retires until it can fire at the eneey on the x florr be it second or sixth.

As for infantry lurking around the tracks surely that is similarly tank retreats out of there or tries to run over the unit with tracks. First option based on hostiles known to friendlies known and the latter when plenty of friendly infantry are about. ATG's being a tad different.

I simply cannot see the AI problem being as deep as is being made out compared to the fix I have outlined. Tanks shooting vertically is unbelievable rubbish Though people refer to CM*1 having the same problem surely it is one of those things like reversing as fast as forward that should have been ironed out in CMSF.

AND at least in CMx1 the time to play against results was a lot simpler. All this added complexity but with some stunning nisses when it comes to armour modelling. I was almost crying when I saw a Churchill reverse yesterday and then rocking on its tracks when it stopped. Forty f....... tons going at 2.5 mph [RL] and rocks : (

[c3k]

Okay, what if there's enemy anti-tank weaponry which can kill my tank if I reverse? When the TacAI auto-reverses, my tank dies. I scream that BF.C can't model military tactics.

You say: well, let the TacAI take the enemy anti-tank assets into account.

I say: And now it starts to get complicated. Which is more important? Killing the upper floor infantry and risking the anti-tank fire, or staying put? Now, let's add in many more units.

(Rocking Churchill? I don't think even Mrs. Churchill achieved that result.)

[JonS]

I simply cannot see the AI problem being as deep as is being made out compared to the fix I have outlined.

I agree: I am certain that you simply cannot see that.

You know, you really should get into designing cryptographic systems. (note, especially, the third paragraph)

[Childress]

Tanks shooting vertically is unbelievable rubbish (

It's not really that bad. The situation where a tank is firing up at a 6th floor window doesn't often occur. As a matter of fact, I've never witnessed such an extreme event in game. And faced with an upper story target the tank will elevate the barrel, achieving a rather visible and convincing angle.

[John Johnston]

Elevation should be implemented for tank MGs and tanks could simply ignore infantry they can't hit. It'd still be a little odd, but not as silly as tanks firing underneath themselves.

And heck - why not give diesel's suggestion a go? AI units following a move order can be exempted until they finish the move; once the move is complete they can be free to alter position if they need to.

[JonS]

Elevation should be implemented for tank MGs and tanks could simply ignore infantry they can't hit. It'd still be a little odd, but not as silly as tanks firing underneath themselves.

And heck - why not give diesel's suggestion a go? AI units following a move order can be exempted until they finish the move; once the move is complete they can be free to alter position if they need to.

Did you go to the same design school as diesel?

once the move is complete they can be free to alter position if they need to.

What does 'free to', 'alter their position' and 'if they need to' mean, exactly, in this context? How would this putative behaviour interact with succeding AI orders? Would you be able to design and build a test scenario in the scenario editor that shows this behaviour, or are you imagining wholesale changes to the how the AI operates and is programmed by scen designers in addition to the trivial task of setting elevation limits?

Remember: BFC did not omit elevation limits because they aren't aware of them, or becase they don't know what they are. They know they exist, and they know what the +/-° are for every system in the game. The decision to omit them was an explicit and conscious decision made for entirely different reasons. Every solution you come up with has to bear that firmly in mind.

[dieseltaylor]

JonS

Remember: BFC did not omit elevation limits because they aren't aware of them, or becase they don't know what they are. They know they exist, and they know what the +/-° are for every system in the game. The decision to omit them was an explicit and conscious decision made for entirely different reasons. Every solution you come up with has to bear that firmly in mind.

Is this something you know as fact or just your opinion?

Perhaps you can help with the decision reasons if you know. And if you are aware of the inner workings please can you advise what it is that lead BF to its decision on reversing speeds for tanks?

[dieseltaylor]

JonS suggested reading -

Anyone, from the most clueless amateur to the best cryptographer, can create an algorithm that he himself can't break. It's not even hard. What is hard is creating an algorithm that no one else can break, even after years of analysis. And the only way to prove that is to subject the algorithm to years of analysis by the best cryptographers around.

I am not quite clear if he is suggesting that BF are clueless or good but as we are not talking cryptography it is moot. We are talking about a commerciall game claiming WW2 realism as its aim. Certainly infantry seems to have been exhaustively treated but the armoured side seems to be neglected with Version 1 having uber tanks with CMSF speed , ability to fire broadside whilst moving and laser sights. Which suggests that BF did not spend much time on armour behaviour.

[JonS]

Is this something you know as fact or just your opinion?

Do I know for a fact that BFC are aware that armoured vehicles have elevation and depression limits on their main armament?

Are you for reals?

I mean, seriously? Apart from this having been discussed since CMSF came out (or even earlier - was it the same in CMx1?) ... how am I supposed to take that question, or you, seriously?

Get a grip.

[dieseltaylor]

Do I know for a fact that BFC are aware that armoured vehicles have elevation and depression limits on their main armament?

Are you for reals?

I mean, seriously? Apart from this having been discussed since CMSF came out (or even earlier - was it the same in CMx1?) ... how am I supposed to take that question, or you, seriously?

Get a grip.

Your disingenuousness is remarkable . You stated that:

They know they exist, and they know what the +/-° are for every system in the game. The decision to omit them was an explicit and conscious decision made for entirely different reasons.

The decision to omit them is what I am asking you about. Either you are giving an opinion or you KNOW the decision to omit was based on entirely different reasons. SO let us know is it your opinion OR if it is a fact what were the reasons.

In passing - what was discussed in CMSF and CMx1 is surely highly irrelevant as we expect BF to improve the gaming system as time passes.