Marders & Bocage

[WinOrLose]

I have only noticed it with the marder.

However if the marder is stationary in cover in an ambush position and can see but not shoot the sherman then why can the sherman shoot the marder?

[winkelried]

I have only noticed it with the marder.

However if the marder is stationary in cover in an ambush position and can see but not shoot the sherman then why can the sherman shoot the marder?

This seems quite logical to me:

The IDing is done by the commander which (usually) is also the highest point of the tank or TD.

Firing is done by the tank/TD with the gun, which is somewhat lower than the commander and parts of the hull/turret.

The enemy fires at the hull which in turn is again higher than the gun.

So it is logical, that an enemy tank can be IDd without the own tank being able to shoot from behind an obstacle. And the own tank can be shot at without being able to return fire if the obstacle is lower than the hull above the gun and the gun is below the obstacle.

Now it seems to me that there is still some erroneous behaviour of the Marder IIIM since he IDs, can be fired at, but cannot fire in some positions even when the StuG III which has a lower level gun (IMHO) can fire in these positions.

[dieseltaylor]

Incidentally there were many Marder 1, on different chassis, but this is the commonest on the Lorraine chassis.

Seems spotting from a Marder 1 should be very good but the amount of traverse and the length of the gun/hull would make it painful to position. However compared to a Stug .......

There is a marked likeness to the Marder IIIM so I would not have thought there should be any difference in tactical use. Though the IIIM was a better fighting vehicle compared to the earlier Marders

[WinOrLose]

This seems quite logical to me:

The IDing is done by the commander which (usually) is also the highest point of the tank or TD.

Firing is done by the tank/TD with the gun, which is somewhat lower than the commander and parts of the hull/turret.

The enemy fires at the hull which in turn is again higher than the gun.

So it is logical, that an enemy tank can be IDd without the own tank being able to shoot from behind an obstacle. And the own tank can be shot at without being able to return fire if the obstacle is lower than the hull above the gun and the gun is below the obstacle.

Now it seems to me that there is still some erroneous behaviour of the Marder IIIM since he IDs, can be fired at, but cannot fire in some positions even when the StuG III which has a lower level gun (IMHO) can fire in these positions.

So even greater reason not to use the marder in bocage terrain. You cant kill the enemy but can be killed yourself.

I am also playing the "keep calm and carry on" scenerio in a PBEM and in that you get a pair of marders. One of them has managed to fire through the bocage though I did have to position it half a dozen times to do so.

So it seems a bit hit and miss (more miss) so I dont think I will use them in heavy bocage maps.

[Erwin]

Not sure why this is still being discussed. We found out the reason for strange LOS/firing behavior ages ago.

The real question is whether it's practical to program in some sort of order that makes the weapon system, whether a gun, MG or vehicle attempt to move so that the gunner CAN see the target and fire.

This was one of the advantages of CM1. If you could see it you could shoot at it. Not sure what is added to gameplay pleasure in CM2 now that we have crewmembers seeing targets but we don't know which ones (eg: is it the gunner or the irrelevant third ammo carrier), so we never know if our weapons system can actually fire at the target until our unit arrives at its destination and our frustration commences.

Meanwhile, as so often happens to enhance the general irritation, the target's gunner may see us and easily prang our own unit.

[Broadsword56]

This was one of the advantages of CM1. If you could see it you could shoot at it. Not sure what is added to gameplay pleasure in CM2 now that we have crewmembers seeing targets but we don't know which ones (eg: is it the gunner or the irrelevant third ammo carrier), so we never know if our weapons system can actually fire at the target until our unit arrives at its destination and our frustration commences.

Depends on whether you want a pure game, or something more closely approaching (but certainly never matching) the confusion, uncertainty, and the sheer dirty bloody unfairness of war.

I like anything that prevents micromanaging "A action" + "B situation" = "C result" types of thinking. No one in real life or on a real battlefield necessarily knows precisely what they'll be able to see from a place they haven't moved to yet. And once they get there, they might have to slide over or duck down or go a bit further to see what they wanted to see from that spot. A minor frustration for the player, IMHO, at a larger gain in friction and FOW by the sheer virtue of preventing me from making my units do exactly what I want, when I want, where I want.

[poesel]

I like anything that prevents micromanaging "A action" + "B situation" = "C result" types of thinking. No one in real life or on a real battlefield necessarily knows precisely what they'll be able to see from a place they haven't moved to yet.

I'm with you until here.

And once they get there, they might have to slide over or duck down or go a bit further to see what they wanted to see from that spot.

This. Yes, sometimes you are just not in the right spot. And then the third loader tells the TC that there's a tank just behind the corner and the TC moves the tank a bit so his gunner gets LOS.

In WEGO this can last a minute. And then you move the tank and it takes another minute and you are still not in the right spot.

This is just frustrating and should not happen.

[Erwin]

Wot poesel said...

In RL, the crews would move things around until they COULD shoot at the target.

In CM2 it is usually a lesson in futility - esp in WEGO as you spend several minutes trying this facing, that facing, moving a bit over there, moving in the other direction, moving into the bocage, away from the bocage...

It's all terribly silly and the antithesis of realism. Meanwhile you can simply back a loaded truck into "impassible" bocage and unload your passengers on the other side via teleportation.

So, puleeeze don't yapper about "realism." It's a game, it's game, it's a game... And a very good game that I enjoy.

But, let's not read stuff into it re realism that isn't really there.

[womble]

It's all terribly silly and the antithesis of realism. Meanwhile you can simply back a loaded truck into "impassible" bocage and unload your passengers on the other side via teleportation.

Now, that's a bug. Different class of problem entirely.