Hilts Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Is there a tip to prevent crew members of an ATG opening up on an unbuttoned tank with small arms fire before firing the main weapon? I had an ATG concealed behind cover. An enemy tank comes into view at pace. Four of the crew frantically change the facing of the gun to get a shot off. Meanwhile fifth member decides to open up with rifle fire at the tank commander but only manages to cause the tank to come to an abrupt halt and then open fire, knocking out my gun with one shot!.....:mad: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 yet another issue which has been much discussed. not sure if there's a work around for it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 If the issue is the tank appearing on a bearing that means the gun has to rotate, a covered arc (of whatever range) that only allows fire on targets the gun is already nearly pointing at might help you achieve some control. You'd then put a seriously short covered arc pointing at the newly-appeared target so the gun faces where it needs to, and then cancel the covered arc so gun and small arms open up at the same time. It's a bit of a clunky workaround, of course, since, especially in WeGo, you may well not have the leisure to spend an entire minute just turning the gun. Depending on the motivation of the crew, you might find that putting a cover arc that falls just short of the tank might mean the small arms users wouldn't fire on it but the AT element would, once it was pointed that way. Bit hit and miss, that though, I reckon. I don't even know that a Cover Armour arc (coming in v2.0 - maybe by the end of the year!) would help much, as the target is still Armour, and the element as a whole is restrained by the same considerations. Unless Cover Armour means the non-AT elements simply don't fire at all. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Is it possible to take their ammo away in the Editor ? That would be a potential workaround for scenario designers at least ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amizaur Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Not possible in current editor. It's not possible to give no ammo at all to any unit. And not possible to edit specifically how much of what kinds of ammo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Depending on distance, it was doctrine to fire on tanks with small arms to make them button up. So this problem, if indeed it's a problem, could be problematical to 'fix'. BF has adjusted this behavior already but Steve is on record as refusing to eliminate it all completely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Depending on distance, it was doctrine to fire on tanks with small arms to make them button up. So this problem, if indeed it's a problem, could be problematical to 'fix'. BF has adjusted this behavior already but Steve is on record as refusing to eliminate it all completely. Getting a tank to button up IRL caused a drastic drop in the tanks ability to spot and respond so it was a good doctrine. In this game the tank still has uncanny spotting ablity even when buttoned up at medium or short range. At 1000m or so it spotting ability is drastically reduced, as it should be, and probably what a buttoned tank at short range should have. Makes me wonder at the axiom of never commit a tank with out an infantry cover. Dosent seem to matter in this game. Try putting a box on your head with a small slit in the front and on the sides and none in the back. Kinda what it must have been like. Can you imagine IRL a crew member spotting a threat to the side of the tank and communicating this to the commander and the commander verifying it and getting the gunner to respond to it in 10seconds. If tanks were made in the game as blind as they were IRL then they would likely be too vulnerable for the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Getting a tank to button up IRL caused a drastic drop in the tanks ability to spot and respond so it was a good doctrine. In this game the tank still has uncanny spotting ablity even when buttoned up at medium or short range. ... Agreed, it's not such a good idea in game. Also ATG's are (apparently) much less camouflaged in game, so instead of the RL behaviour of "button and be more vulnerable", the tank goes "Aha, there you are. Die ATG scum !" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amizaur Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Getting a tank buttoned should not be done by ATG crew !!! The ATG has to remain camuflaged to survive. It's good to button the tank but it should be done by other troops - it's even better if the tank pays attention to those other tropps, because it would increase chances of the ATG gun tu suprise it. It's VERY bad if the tank pays attention to the ATG gun itself, before it fires a shot. The crews of AT assets and also teams like HQ, spotters, should be excluded from the routine that orders them to shoot at unbuttoned tanks! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Getting a tank buttoned should not be done by ATG crew !!! The ATG has to remain camuflaged to survive. It's good to button the tank but it should be done by other troops - it's even better if the tank pays attention to those other tropps, because it would increase chances of the ATG gun tu suprise it. It's VERY bad if the tank pays attention to the ATG gun itself, before it fires a shot. The crews of AT assets and also teams like HQ, spotters, should be excluded from the routine that orders them to shoot at unbuttoned tanks! Hmm not so sure about that. There are some assumptions there about decisions the TAC AI should make like - don't shoot if I have someone else who can shoot. Did you actually place any security detachments around to cover that option? If you had the TC would have buttoned up and your gun crew wouldn't have seen that as an option anymore. If you didn't then you are asking for an AI routine because you didn't actually take in to account that your AT gun might need some assistance. Don't sweat it, I think almost everyone here makes that error. First off I have had very good fortune having my guys shoot at any unbuttoned TC they see. Occasionally I hit them, but more often I just cause them to button up and fairly frequently make them panick a bit. Second AT gun placement is almost an art. They should not be that close that your guys should be induced to use small arms, or they should be in a position they can only be approached from one direction. Failure to do that is simply poor placement (yeah I realize sometimes you don't have any good options, but having to make a poor choice, does not somehow make it better) and frankly do your guys KNOW they haven't been spotted, and if they have wouldn't shooting the TC make sense? At a minimum you can hope to spook the tank and buy your guys time. The last point about if they have been spotted or not is kind of important. The player in god mode can kind of digest things better than some pixeltruppen on the ground. If you are that close would you want to simply assume you have not been spotted and hope you have time to orient the gun, or should you try some action that may buy you time? If your guy had actually shot the TC and the tank had panicked and backed off, would you be upset? The gist of all this? Make a point of forcing any tank approachng your lines to button up. whether that be a few rounds from an MG, a few mortar rounds or what have you, but keeping them buttoned up should be your plan from the start. If it becomes a request for an AI routine to stop your guys from doing what might actually make sense sometimes, then maybe the fault lies with the commander. I can safely say that because my pixeltruppen are pointing out my failings all the time with their cute little casualty spots..... As to folks talking about uber spotting tanks. Ask Broadsword about the two flaming Shermans in this field in our current battle - no I can't take full credit. I just give a command to go to X spot. From there the TAC AI takes over. This is in a battlefield with artillery bursts going off, infantry accompanying the tanks, smoke etc. They were still unable to prevent two different Shreck teams from doing their job. AT guns are more difficult, mostly cause you have very little flexibility. If anything I almost feel the AT teams are too good. Well when I am on the receiving end anyway. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amizaur Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 No, just DON'T SHOOT AT ALL if you are crew of AT-gun. It would be more historical IMO. If they can shoot at the tank without being noticed, in most cases it's better to do it with bigger gun and hole the tank, than with a small gun and hole tank commander only. After being destroyed, they would have even greater reduced spotting ability, than after being forced to button. Infantry tries to button the tanks because for most of time it's the only thing they can do. If you are eqipped with a big AT gun - you can just use it ! Risking being noticed to button a tank (or even kill the commander) would not pay 90% of the time IMO. There is a lot of simplifications in this game. Like the lack of tank gun elevation limits. I hear people saying it's justified because making it realistic would be worse in practice. Here's the same. If you believe (doesn't matter at the moment, if it's right ot not) that making ALL soldiers trying to shoot at unbuttoned tanks is realistic, even AT teams and crews of AT guns, then anyway it causes a lot of unhistorical and frustrating outcomes, and firing at tanks should be modified IN GAME in a way, that crews of AT assets doesn't fire at unbuttoned tanks - staying hidden as well as they can - at least untill they are spotted/targeted. Just becase - as you said - TACAI is limited, we should exclude it completly. The game would play much better then. P.S. Soldiers in the field often knew if they were spotted or not. Quite often camuflaged tanks or AT-guns stayed hidden waiting untill the enemy tank comes closer, or shows it's side. But if they saw, that enemy tank stopped and rotates it's turret at them, they didn't wait any longer and fired immediately ! Same for infantry - if an infantryman is unleashing a magazine of his rifle at a nearby tank, trying to button it or to damage or supress, but suddenly he sees that the tank rotates it's turret and points the big tube in his direction, any sane person would stop shooting and hit the dirt behind a cover. But other teams, that are NOT targeted by the big rotating tube at the moment, can continue shooting quite safely (at least if they are outside arc of the bow gunner). This kind of "inteligence" is real and it CAN be simulated in game. If a team is targeting a tank, and the tank points it's barrel at them, the team should go to "hide". They can unhide when the tank rotates it's barrel elsewhere. Any AT gun or tank in an ambush if it sees a tank outside it's arc, waits. But if the moving tank suddenly rotates it's turret at them - the hiding AT gun should open fire immediately. It's possible to program such behaviors, it's not easy and they need lot of conditions and should be well tested, but entirely possible. If only information like "where the enemy gun is pointing" is available (from programmer's point of view) for the unit in question. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee_Vincent Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Nice post, agree 100% 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 No, just DON'T SHOOT AT ALL if you are crew of AT-gun. It would be more historical IMO. If they can shoot at the tank without being noticed, in most cases it's better to do it with bigger gun and hole the tank, than with a small gun and hole tank commander only. After being destroyed, they would have even greater reduced spotting ability, than after being forced to button. Infantry tries to button the tanks because for most of time it's the only thing they can do. If you are eqipped with a big AT gun - you can just use it ! Risking being noticed to button a tank (or even kill the commander) would not pay 90% of the time IMO. I am not sure how that makes it more historical. In the situation you are in, it actually is one of the few things they can do because the AT gun was positioned poorly. There is a lot of simplifications in this game. Like the lack of tank gun elevation limits. I hear people saying it's justified because making it realistic would be worse in practice. Here's the same. If you believe (doesn't matter at the moment, if it's right ot not) that making ALL soldiers trying to shoot at unbuttoned tanks is realistic, even AT teams and crews of AT guns, then anyway it causes a lot of unhistorical and frustrating outcomes, and firing at tanks should be modified IN GAME in a way, that crews of AT assets doesn't fire at unbuttoned tanks - staying hidden as well as they can - at least untill they are spotted/targeted. Just becase - as you said - TACAI is limited, we should exclude it completly. The game would play much better then. Actually what I said is you should make it a point to force enemy armor to be buttoned up, then your AT gun crew wouldn't be faced with the dilemma. IE they should have supporting arms. And I absolutely disagree about the TAC AI. It for me is one of the high points of the game. Having absolute control over every single decision they make? Nah not for me, then it really is just an arcade game. (and there would be no single player mode.) P.S. Soldiers in the field often knew if they were spotted or not. Quite often camuflaged tanks or AT-guns stayed hidden waiting untill the enemy tank comes closer, or shows it's side. But if they saw, that enemy tank stopped and rotates it's turret at them, they didn't wait any longer and fired immediately ! Same for infantry - if an infantryman is unleashing a magazine of his rifle at a nearby tank, trying to button it or to damage or supress, but suddenly he sees that the tank rotates it's turret and points the big tube in his direction, any sane person would stop shooting and hit the dirt behind a cover. But other teams, that are NOT targeted by the big rotating tube at the moment, can continue shooting quite safely (at least if they are outside arc of the bow gunner). This kind of "inteligence" is real and it CAN be simulated in game. If a team is targeting a tank, and the tank points it's barrel at them, the team should go to "hide". They can unhide when the tank rotates it's barrel elsewhere. Any AT gun or tank in an ambush if it sees a tank outside it's arc, waits. But if the moving tank suddenly rotates it's turret at them - the hiding AT gun should open fire immediately. It's possible to program such behaviors, it's not easy and they need lot of conditions and should be well tested, but entirely possible. If only information like "where the enemy gun is pointing" is available (from programmer's point of view) for the unit in question. Where the gun is pointing leaves a lot of ground. So everything in a 30 degree arc from where the gun is pointing now hides? Seriously? See this is why I really shy away from folks wanting to always tweak the AI. It is only a slight exaggeration to say they NEVER think out the implications. I give you credit for at least noting it may not be easy. I would suggest it would not only not be easy, but would in fact be excessively difficult and most likely result in other bad behavior. Having just finished Koskimaki's trilogy on the 101st Airborne, the range of reactions soldiers in combat were capable of makes it pretty foolish to categorize their behavior in a given set of conditions to always be logical or identical. I do realize to some folks it sounds like I am just justifying something you view as bad behavior in the game. Really sorry if it comes off that way, but the uncertainty of reaction on the part of my pixeltruppen really is one of the things I most enjoy. I tell them what I would like them to do and then I hope they do it. If you have seen any of the AAR postings I have done, you can note those are really the moments I enjoy most and I have seen the TAC AI do some pretty cool stuff. The price of that is sometimes they do dumb ass stuff, but that is to me what brings the game something closer to reality. Stories of soldiers in combat are full of stuff like that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 ...... Did you actually place any security detachments around to cover that option? If you had the TC would have buttoned up and your gun crew wouldn't have seen that as an option anymore. ...... Second AT gun placement is almost an art. They should not be that close that your guys should be induced to use small arms, or they should be in a position they can only be approached from one direction. .... At a minimum you can hope to spook the tank and buy your guys time. You say they should not be that close that your guys use small arms, BUT, in bocage environments, this is frequently going to occur. Similarly, "security detachments" may have the same problem in seeing it early enough. In my (limited) experience, even normal infantry "shooting tanks to button them up and hopefully kill/wound the TC" pretty much always has the effect of waving a big "Here I Am!" sign to the tank which blasts them away with an HE round in short order. ( I don't think I've ever killed a TC as such, so maybe they're less likely to do that if you get really lucky ). I put it to you that the occasions on which the ATG would have been better off peppering the target with small arms before letting him have it with an AT round are a much much smaller number than not doing so. So having the ATG crews NOT shoot at armour with small arms would be a better option more often - which is good enough for most of us, I think - and wouldn't require a Cray for the AI routine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 You say they should not be that close that your guys use small arms, BUT, in bocage environments, this is frequently going to occur. Similarly, "security detachments" may have the same problem in seeing it early enough. In my (limited) experience, even normal infantry "shooting tanks to button them up and hopefully kill/wound the TC" pretty much always has the effect of waving a big "Here I Am!" sign to the tank which blasts them away with an HE round in short order. ( I don't think I've ever killed a TC as such, so maybe they're less likely to do that if you get really lucky ). I put it to you that the occasions on which the ATG would have been better off peppering the target with small arms before letting him have it with an AT round are a much much smaller number than not doing so. So having the ATG crews NOT shoot at armour with small arms would be a better option more often - which is good enough for most of us, I think - and wouldn't require a Cray for the AI routine. Well I did say that sometimes you don't get a choice for a good position and I get it that those times suck. However a change in behavior for that specific incident is going to carry implications that personally I feel will end up being more negative than positive. Just my crappy cheap two cents worth. I totally agree it is preferable to fire the AT gun rather than the rifle, however I don't think that is really the crux of the question. The AT gun had been outflanked. We can only assume whether it would ever have gotten a shot off, maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't. If the tank did end up spotting it first and nailing it, then the fact that it was spotted sooner by the rifle fire is really irrelevant. We just do not know. If it turns out that it would have been spotted anyway, then the ONLY thing that makes sense is either you shoot the dang rifle, or you run away. As to the effect of firing on TCs. I have an entire AAR of turns in my sig of a battle with Broadsword and you can judge for yourself how effective or not it can be. I think I nailed 4 TCs in that game alone and the effect was such that my Shreck teams pretty much were able to fire at will and reload at their leisure. Rarely were they spotted by the tank crews. Now I do have to admit, I did not post my AT guns towards the front. Artillery would have killed them early. I posted them to my rear as a last line of defense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artofwar Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Target Light page 84 of manual of course this is for having a tank fire only MG at say a unit perhaps they could do a Target Hard or Heavy so that an anti tank would only fire at hard targets ... Because it is incorperated into tanks allowing light fire perhaps it could be done with anti tank guns using the same type of Computer Language to program it in... ??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 To me , one of the few game changing problems is the robotic appearing tank spotting and response ablilities. It isn't TTL and this has been posted by several experienced ex-tankers. BF refuses to change it and the only reason that I can think of is because it would unbalance the game. Maybe we should be happy with it the way it is and realize that this is a game and not a sim. Still a great game that is miles ahead of any competitor. This appears to happen only at close to mid ranges but at long ranges, 800m to 1000m or further it appears to me to be more as it should be, based of course on my limited knowledge of the subject. I have been working on some huge scenarios with long ranges and the difference is very obvious during testing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilts Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 Perhaps at this point I should clarify what actually happened because one or two incorrect assumptions are being made. Firstly and most importantly the ATG was not in the process of being outflanked. The tank was moving at speed across the ATG LOF from left to right at about a range of 100 yards. The gun had spotted the tank and was busy tracking it with the barrel. It may be that as the tank was moving so fast a shot from the ATG would not have been possible before the tank became obscured from view again. It was perfectly obvious that the tank had not spotted the gun at this stage. Then the crew member opens fire with his rifle. The tank stops and immediately zeroes in on the gun and destroys it. Amizaur is completely correct. It would have been far better to just let the tank go by and then take out the next one. This is what ATG's are supposed to do, isn't it? In this instance there was absolutely no reason to try and take out the TC with small arms fire and as Baneman has pointed out, it doesn't make much difference anyway. In my opinion it's just another one of those silly and frustrating little incidents that prevent a good game from being a great game! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 It was perfectly obvious that the tank had not spotted the gun at this stage. Then the crew member opens fire with his rifle. The tank stops and immediately zeroes in on the gun and destroys it. Amizaur is completely correct. It would have been far better to just let the tank go by and then take out the next one. Kind of hellish to code such behavior, don't you think? Maybe the upcoming Armor Arc will alleviate these issues. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CM1fan Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Wouldn't the crew of an AT gun have a fair idea of how visible they and their gun are to an approaching enemy? They can see what sort of terrain they're in. Obviously they can see their gun and how exposed it is. In most situations a member of the crew could walk a short distance in the expected direction of enemy approach, turn around, and see right away whether or not the gun is well concealed. I'm not very skilled in moving my viewpoint on the map and then TC head height above the ground to get a good idea about how visible my units are. As enemy units approach my positions, the AI can tell immediately whether my units are visible. How can I check this myself? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 I'm not very skilled in moving my viewpoint on the map and then TC head height above the ground to get a good idea about how visible my units are. As enemy units approach my positions, the AI can tell immediately whether my units are visible. How can I check this myself? One way is to select a friendly unit of each of the vehicle and infantry type and plonk down some waypoints out where you expect the bad guys to be coming from. You should be able to get some idea of targetability from selecting those waypoints and Target-ing towards your ambushing unit. It's by no means foolproof, because, even in the most basic analysis, you can't select every point the enemy might have reason to observe from. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgie Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 100yards is very close quarters for an ATG, that is bazooka range, so if a tank crew member were looking out his slit or periscope in the correct direction then the gun was sure to be spotted, its the reaction time that is too short and the accuracy for so short a reaction time that I have a doubt about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 Doesn't the upcoming upgrade include armor covered arcs as it was in the CM1 ancient days? So, this problem should be solved by that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hilts Posted July 1, 2012 Author Share Posted July 1, 2012 It had become necessary to hastily set up the ATG from a limbered state, in a nearby clump of trees. I admit, it wasn't the best camouflage you will ever see and I am not too concerned about whether it may have been spotted or not. The point is why did the crew give the gun's position away by opening fire at 100 yards with a rifle? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted July 1, 2012 Share Posted July 1, 2012 The point is why did the crew give the gun's position away by opening fire at 100 yards with a rifle? He's not listening to us, Erwin. 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.