Tanks destroyed when they seem fine (and some general whining)?

[ClarkWGriswold]

I'm currently playing my first 1.10 game (patch only, I don't have Commonwealth) and am getting a bit frustrated. Firstly, my PzIVs are stationary and getting beat to the punch by moving Allied tanks. How a moving tank is spotting and firing first when my tanks are stationary is beyond me. Not only that, but the rounds are hitting dead-on, even firing on the move (I thought that was supposed to be fixed?). Adding insult to injury, my tanks seem to be "destroyed" even when they seem perfectly fine.

Exhibit 1:

The Sherman in the distance fired on the move and hit me. I never got a shot off. But the really strange thing is that the Damage tab shows all green, but the tank itself says "destroyed". Also, the tank is destroyed but all the crew are fine and they remain inside for the remainder of the turn (several seconds).

The next turn the Sherman fires again, killing three crew members. The radio and optics are both damaged, but the tank still says "destroyed". As far as damage goes, this thing should still be operational. In fact, I could hear the engine running in game.

After the second shot the crew finally bailed out and ran. Is it my imagination or is this different than how the 1.01 version worked? It's been a while since I last played, but I don't recall apparently undamaged tanks being destroyed before.

Exhibit 2:

I have a PzIV sitting still, open cupola, with a perfect view down the road. The enemy brings a Sherman forward and my infantry manage to kill the commander. The Sherman panics and begins backing between buildings while popping smoke. He comes out from between the buildings *right in front* of my tank, only about 230 meters away. He's reversing, turning, popping smoke, and the commander is dead. He STILL gets off the first shot and scores a direct hit, while my tank that is sitting there waiting in perfect position does nothing. WTF!?

Notice the burning Sherman in the background? Same exact thing. My Panzer was sitting still in basically this same spot. The Sherman was advancing right down the middle of the street. Again, the Sherman fired first and hit on the move. I just lucked out and took no damage, and my return shot killed him.

Both of these Panzers are regular troops, no penalties (fit, fine leadership, etc). They're both in command. My guess is that my opponents troops are Veterans or better. But even if this is the case (I can't confirm until the game is over), this is not the behavior that I would expect. Even at very short distances like this, no tank with a dead commander and a panicked crew should be able to get a perfect shot while firing on the move. If this had happened once I would have chalked it up to bad luck. Twice, I began to suspect a problem. But three times in the span of four turns? Something smells fishy.

[winkelried]

as i understood from previous discussions "firing on the move" isn't real firing on the move. it seems that the stop required to get a targeted shot off is abstracted, but taken into account. but the graphical representation of the vehicle doesn't actually stop.

[akd]

as i understood from previous discussions "firing on the move" isn't real firing on the move. it seems that the stop required to get a targeted shot off is abstracted, but taken into account. but the graphical representation of the vehicle doesn't actually stop.

I don't believe that is correct or was ever stated as such. Accuracy firing on the move in the game is nowhere near what could be achieved with a short halt to shoot.

[xian]

Tank crews do seem to be made of stern stuff - It might be better if crews went into a 'Shaken' state for a few seconds when losing a crew member - a bit like the 'Shocked' tanks in Cmx1.

[dieseltaylor]

Not a good set of results for realism in the game. The IV's having the drop should be getting the shot off first.

[Sgt Schultz]

Did the PzIV have a covered arc set down the street? If, so ignore the rest.

I know you shouldn't "need" one in that situation, but the engine doesn't "know" the terrain is constricted. The crew is looking in windows to check out the naked ladies dressing or something, because their response time decreases with size of arc.

Been there, done that, got the blood-stained Tshirt.

Engine limitations are a fact of life. Use the tools they give us to alleviate the trials and tribulations.

[Lanzfeld]

But shouldn't the sherman crew also suffer from not having a covered arc? How the hell did that Panzer IV not get the first shot off?

[YankeeDog]

As I just noted in another thread, you really need to re-run situations multiple times before drawing any conclusions.

There's a lot of randomness in the spotting modelling in CMBN. So first it would be good to establish that this wasn't simply the 1 in 1000 time that a fly flew into the face of the PzIV tc and distracted him just at the moment the Sherman first showed up.

But the fact that you had two very similar back-to-back incidents where the moving Shermans spotted and fired first with the PzIV sitting in the same spot does seem suspicious... certainly I've had no problem ambushing Shermans with PzIVs in my own games, so I think it's unlikely that this is a generic problem with PzIV spotting ability.

One possibility is that there might be some sort of bug where the PzIV's specific spot on that specific map is causing it to spot poorly -- there have been spotting bugs uncovered in the past linked to problems with the way terrain interacts with spotting. Hard to say for sure without re-running the turn a few times.

Certainly, if the game engine modeling is working as it should, I would not expect this result to occur as anything other than a rare outlier. But it's important to exclude the "rare outlier" possibility before moving on to further investigation.

[Sergei]

But the really strange thing is that the Damage tab shows all green, but the tank itself says "destroyed".

Systems damage is irrelevant when considering if the vehicle itself is still operational. A vehicle can be destroyed with all systems intact, or all systems could be destroyed/damaged while the vehicle itself is still (barely) operational. The 'systems' only represent a small bunch of separately modelled functions in the vehicle but there are more stuff that can get broken, and these are handled more abstractly because they don't serve any specific gameplay function.

Eg. a Jeep only has two systems, engine and wheels. If those were the only things that one needed to look after, car maintenance would be a lot more affordable!

[akd]

Did the PzIV have a covered arc set down the street? If, so ignore the rest.

I know you shouldn't "need" one in that situation, but the engine doesn't "know" the terrain is constricted. The crew is looking in windows to check out the naked ladies dressing or something, because their response time decreases with size of arc.

Been there, done that, got the blood-stained Tshirt.

Engine limitations are a fact of life. Use the tools they give us to alleviate the trials and tribulations.

Also not true. The cover arc affects spotting only insofar as it affects facing.

[honjkirsen]

I myself found it strange when i had some 17pdr AT guns hidden in a hedge covering a road coming over the crest of a hill with cover arc on, the theory being the oncoming panther (buttoned) would get blasted as it came over the crest.

Infact the AT gun never fired a shot and the panther after a few secs spotted it & no more AT gun.

Also a similar situation, AT hidden in low hedge had not fired and i kept the cover arc deliberately short so as to ensure the enemy tanks got close enough to ensure their destruction. The gun was spotted from about 300m away and the tanks opened up but did not hit/pin the gun, i deleted the arc and set the gun to engage the lead tank but it would not open fire for whatever reason, the gun got toasted along with a good section of that flank unable to defend itself without AT capabilities. any ideas?

[dieseltaylor]

Is it the design feature that the gun commander can see an area but the gun being feet lower cannot? I have seen other posters suggest that visibility is not from the cannon mouth.

[Amizaur]

So, what does really MEAN in the game, that the vehicle is in "destroyed" state ?

What it takes to destroy a vehicle ?

Tanks with all specific systems displayed as operational, full crew and the engine running fine are sometimes declared as "destroyed" and doesn't shoot anymore. What is wrong with them ? Some kind of "tank health" points are depleted by the shell damage ? Some tank system - that is modelled but not shown for us in the list of systems - is damaged ?

Also, how does being "destroyed" differ from a "knocked-out" state ?

Is a "knocked-out" tank just a tank which crew "decided" to bail-out and is not necessarily connected with any physical damage to the tank?

That would sound plausible, as crews with very high motivation seem to be much less suspectible to being "knocked-out". High-motivation crews often take several penetrations and still continue to fight inside a damaged tank, that doesn't become "knocked-out" yet.

It's rare with "Normally" motivated crews.

But in real life chances for physical damage to a tank/tank systems for sure doesn't depend on crew motivation !

So if the "knocked-out" tanks were not necessarily physically damaged - just "crews decided they "lost" and abandoned - then why can't they be re-crewed later, with the same crew ? Also, they should show just as "abandoned".

I'm not sure - can AI crew "abandon" a tank on their own in panic (can't remember if this happens) ? Or maybe only human player can order to crew to "abandon" the tank ?

Maybe tanks that are in fact still operational, but "abandoned" by panicked crews - are automatically called "knocked-out" and not re-crewable ?

So - anybody knows, what is the difference, in the game engine, between "Destroyed" and "Knocked-Out" states ?

[slysniper]

No matter what he did or did not do in this turn.

Which I agree with the fact that setting his covered arc down the street would have help maybe get the spot in first, thus a shot also.

The game engine on spotting could use some adjustment, I love the concept but the game version has a flaw. That is motion is not being penelized enough as to the ease of spotting it.

When you are looking for something that is hidden, the human mind looks for these traits. Color, shape, movement, unnatural placement.

Think about it, when you are hunting. any movement will draw your eyes to it in a fraction of a second, it could be a leaf falling. your sense of movement is great as long as it is anywhere within you sight and you are not moving at the same time.

The tank turning on the road is not something easily missed unless there is something else your attention is focused on or dust or smoke or something along that lines is helping hide movement, shape and color.

But the tank sitting still actually is not in much better shape since it is in full view, has buildings as a backdrop which does nothing to blend with its color or hide its shape much.

So in this situation, both tanks should be able to spot each other very quickly, but with movement. The German should at least have a 80% chance of spotting first.

I really do not think the game has much of this moddled correctly at all.

Now lets take and test a perfect condition. A tank in vegatation , tuck back in the woods, , with shadows on it and more vegatation behide it. Parked, waiting for the enemy.

It has color, that blends in, it has location to help break its outline, it is not moving, in real life it would have vegatation placed on it to try and look natural to the area around it. The enemy tank comes rolling into view, this should be a given who spots who. In the game, I do not think it is.

Now actually, I think the game might have some of these things moddled, but as alway, since they will not tell us and I just cannot test every thing til I think I know what migfht be going on, I am still not sure. But I know it is not good enough to give the advantages one would have in real life.

Of course, it does not stop me from finding shadowy wooded hiding places to fire from. I do think it helps with not be spotted first.

In the game so far, the best thing I have seen so far for spotting advantage for tanks is being behind bocage, great concealment.

[Shuter]

So, what does really MEAN in the game, that the vehicle is in "destroyed" state ?

What it takes to destroy a vehicle ?

Tanks with all specific systems displayed as operational, full crew and the engine running fine are sometimes declared as "destroyed" and doesn't shoot anymore. What is wrong with them ? Some kind of "tank health" points are depleted by the shell damage ? Some tank system - that is modelled but not shown for us in the list of systems - is damaged ?

Also, how does being "destroyed" differ from a "knocked-out" state ?

Is a "knocked-out" tank just a tank which crew "decided" to bail-out and is not necessarily connected with any physical damage to the tank?

That would sound plausible, as crews with very high motivation seem to be much less suspectible to being "knocked-out". High-motivation crews often take several penetrations and still continue to fight inside a damaged tank, that doesn't become "knocked-out" yet.

It's rare with "Normally" motivated crews.

But in real life chances for physical damage to a tank/tank systems for sure doesn't depend on crew motivation !

So if the "knocked-out" tanks were not necessarily physically damaged - just "crews decided they "lost" and abandoned - then why can't they be re-crewed later, with the same crew ? Also, they should show just as "abandoned".

I'm not sure - can AI crew "abandon" a tank on their own in panic (can't remember if this happens) ? Or maybe only human player can order to crew to "abandon" the tank ?

Maybe tanks that are in fact still operational, but "abandoned" by panicked crews - are automatically called "knocked-out" and not re-crewable ?

So - anybody knows, what is the difference, in the game engine, between "Destroyed" and "Knocked-Out" states ?

"Destroyed" means the very same as "Knocked out", the difference is that the first one is only used for firenldy vehicles, the latter- for hostile.

[MG TOW]

See this in real time battles. Where my panzer IV is "destroyed" after losing the quick draw, but the damage and dying does not occur until the shermal follows through with another shot.

I'm wondering is it the crew that is momentarily incapacitated? This is how it looks, but if so the information is not presented that way.

[black_prince]

v

I myself found it strange when i had some 17pdr AT guns hidden in a hedge covering a road coming over the crest of a hill with cover arc on, the theory being the oncoming panther (buttoned) would get blasted as it came over the crest.

Infact the AT gun never fired a shot and the panther after a few secs spotted it & no more AT gun.

I would recommend reading the thread 'ATG issues re-visited'. You'll find a lot of good tips on the use of AT

Also a similar situation, AT hidden in low hedge had not fired and i kept the cover arc deliberately short so as to ensure the enemy tanks got close enough to ensure their destruction. The gun was spotted from about 300m away and the tanks opened up but did not hit/pin the gun, i deleted the arc and set the gun to engage the lead tank but it would not open fire for whatever reason, the gun got toasted along with a good section of that flank unable to defend itself without AT capabilities. any ideas?

In the first scenario outlined above was the Panther inside the target arc? What were the respective experience levels? What angle was the Panther at relative to the gun muzzle?

I would say that having a target arc of less than 300 metres for an ATG is probably asking for trouble (especially a big beast like a 17pounder). Other than being harder to spot and harder to hit (if properly sited) the ATG doesn't have any protection. When you take optics and binoculars into consideration, I imagine a 17pounder (and its crew) would be pretty easy to spot at 300 meteres-especially once it had fired. Even if it were to get the first shot off it isn't likely to survive long at that range.

I would recommend you read the thread ATG issues re-visited if you havn't yet. You'll find some good tips there on the use of anti-tank guns.

[ClarkWGriswold]

So, what does really MEAN in the game, that the vehicle is in "destroyed" state ?

What it takes to destroy a vehicle ?

Tanks with all specific systems displayed as operational, full crew and the engine running fine are sometimes declared as "destroyed" and doesn't shoot anymore. What is wrong with them ? Some kind of "tank health" points are depleted by the shell damage ? Some tank system - that is modelled but not shown for us in the list of systems - is damaged ?

This is my question as well. If all of the systems are green, the engine is running, the gun is fine, the weapon controls work, etc.... why is it destroyed?

Saw the same thing a third time in this very same game. Here my crew are bailing out of a "destroyed" tank, even though all the subsystems are green.

For those that were asking about a covered arc, I did not have a covered arc set. Steve has said multiple times that covered arcs should rarely be used, and only in certain circumstances. Since my tanks were looking straight down the road and had buildings on either side, there didn't seem to be much point in using a covered arc. The only place to look is straight ahead.

[Erwin]

For what it's worth when in an ambush situation, or if approaching a possible firing position vs a known enemy tank, I always use a tight covered arc... and it seems to work in that my unit seems to spot and shoot first.

It may only be a small increase in ability to spot, but over many such opportunities and games, I now find it's rare for my armor to get killed first.

[honjkirsen]

Cool thanks for the reply

the first scenario i describe the panther was definately inside the arc as i had drawn it out to encompass the reverse slope (the part of the road the ATG could not see) and the range was very short less than 100m i would say. The ATG had not previously fired and was hidden behind a hedge which i appreciate is not the best cover also i had drawn a LOS line prior to setup just to be sure the gun could see the point at which i wished the ambush to take place.

I cannot say for sure what the exp levels were on either side but i would have thought at that range with the ATG set to ambush it wouldn't have made much of a difference but that could be a factor. If the gun had at least fired once, missed/rico'd then i would have been happy with the result but it's just that it never fired at all with a clear view of the target & the approaching panther did not fire immediately either as it was buttoned therefor giving the ATG more time to fire first.

I just hope i can get my life back together after this!

Btw thanks for directing me to the ATG thread.

[black_prince]

You're welcome.

The experience levels can make quite a big difference. Green units in particular can take a very long time to spot and engage targets compared to units with higher experience levels. Other than that I would say you just had some pretty bad luck with that one.

[JonS]

Since my tanks were looking straight down the road and had buildings on either side, there didn't seem to be much point in using a covered arc. The only place to look is straight ahead.

The game's units don't have that concept or understanding of the world. Unless you tell them otherwise, they'll look everywhere, which in this case means they'll spend a lot of time looking at buildings and walls.

[aka_tom_w]

In the picture of the Pz IVH late where all the sub systems are green (good) the crew is Regular and they are in PANIC mode, in that example it looks like their rear aspect is exposed, so they panicked and bailed out. (I guess)

A crew can panic even if the tank and its sub systems are all fine from just one penetration as far as I am aware.

[ClarkWGriswold]

In the picture of the Pz IVH late where all the sub systems are green (good) the crew is Regular and they are in PANIC mode, in that example it looks like their rear aspect is exposed, so they panicked and bailed out. (I guess)

The crew didn't bail out because they were panicked (though they certainly were. Every one of my crews that's taken a hit has panicked so far).

A crew can panic even if the tank and its sub systems are all fine from just one penetration as far as I am aware.

I don't have a problem with that. If I were in a tank that was hit by an AT shell from 200m away, I wouldn't stick around to see if I could live through another. The problem is that the tank shows as "destroyed", yet there doesn't seem to be a thing wrong with it. How is a tank destroyed when there's no apparent damage?

[Erwin]

Clark: To stay sane while playing CM you have to make "rationalization" your friend.

In this case, the rationalization is that as far as HQ is concerned the tank is fine until stops acknowledging radio checks. Hence the delay in reporting it as destroyed.