Armor behavior needs to be tweaked

[Mingan]

Below is a link to a video which shows something I've encountered now many times with different armoured vehicles. It spots an enemy, decides to shoot it, turns towards it, and then decides not to shoot it, turns away, then again decides to shoot it... Cycle continues. The end result is that it won't do anything useful and only gets destroyed. Semovente in this case didn't see any other confirmed enemy but the one Sherman, and still it couldn't make the decision to shoot it to it's side.

Needless to say, it ruined my game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydgafCVNW3Q

[womble]

What you have there is a fine example of non-reciprocal LOF. You can't see it because the tree foliage is off, but I'd surmise that the low-down Semovente couldn't draw a consistent line of fire from its gun even though one of its crew could definitely see the spotted enemy. The enemy, though, has a gun higher from the ground, and can, fortunately for it, use a different path for its shell which is clear. Fortunes of War, I'm afraid.

Not a bug.

[Northman]

And the cyclic behaviour is there to simulate confusion. You just don't get it, Mingan.

[A Canadian Cat]

Interesting. I have seen that kind of thing before and thought it was a bug too. Next time I see that happening I will check the LOF vs LOS and see if it can be explained.

[sburke]

And the cyclic behaviour is there to simulate confusion. You just don't get it, Mingan.

Actually he does, he is confused

It does get frustrating, but it is simply a computer program. It can only respond to the data as it comes in. The fact that just a second before it knew you had something there doesn't help it now that for whatever reason it can't see it. For example suppose it wasn't that it's view was blocked by a tree but that the opposing vehicle backed off below LOS. It would end up doing the same thing. It can't react saying, I know that vehicle is there though I can't see it at the moment so I am gonna override the commands I have been given.

Question though, does the Semovente have a covered arc or face command? (I can't review the video here at work) The downside of those is when you are dealing with an enemy that appears outside the arc. Life gets complicated fast. I have learned that I need to be more judicious in my use of arc commands to allow my units to be more flexible. Generally learning it only after I got a unit killed..... repeatedly.

[Mingan]

The Semovente had face command active, but they did see the tank all the time. To me it seems that face command has higher priority than "turn to face enemy armor". Maybe I have to stop using face.

[womble]

The Semovente had face command active, but they did see the tank all the time. To me it seems that face command has higher priority than "turn to face enemy armor". Maybe I have to stop using face.

Well, duh! Only use Face if you've got a good reason to. Like Hide. Of course, you're often going to have a good reason with a limited traverse system like a Semovente, so you're between a rock and a hard place, trying to get it to anticipate what you know is coming, while leaving it free to react to the stuff you didn't see down the 'pike.

[Mingan]

Well, duh! Only use Face if you've got a good reason to. Like Hide. Of course, you're often going to have a good reason with a limited traverse system like a Semovente, so you're between a rock and a hard place, trying to get it to anticipate what you know is coming, while leaving it free to react to the stuff you didn't see down the 'pike.

Well yeah, that's the problem, I didn't know the Sherman was there when I issued the command. To me it would seem logical that enemy armor presence would override my face command. So maybe that's what they need to tweak..?

[womble]

Well yeah, that's the problem, I didn't know the Sherman was there when I issued the command. To me it would seem logical that enemy armor presence would override my face command. So maybe that's what they need to tweak..?

It would have if the contact was stronger/shootable. The "spotted" icon can persist for a few seconds after LOS is lost, so if it was intermittent, the Face command would override.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Mingan has a very good point. Surely the appearance of a highly threatening unit such as a Sherman should override pretty much everything and draw a suitable response to this deadly threat?

As for the previous post about the Sherman having a gun mounted higher up so that it could shoot back while the Semovente can't defies all logic. If something can fire at you then your unit should be able to fire back at it. Why can't the higher Sherman turret which has the gun mounted within it be targeted?

Talk about a lack of common sense! If that's how the game is programed then there's an obvious problem here which defies basic reality.

Regards

KR

[womble]

Mingan has a very good point. Surely the appearance of a highly threatening unit such as a Sherman should override pretty much everything and draw a suitable response to this deadly threat?

Depends on the motivation of the crew, and what they can really see. The unit in question has +2 Motivation, which makes it Fanatic or the one below that, I think, so it will cleave to its instructions come Hell or high water. You can give a Fanatic tank a short cover arc and it won't return fire even if it's getting the bejazus pounded out of it by an eminently killable target in the open just outside its arc.

As for the previous post about the Sherman having a gun mounted higher up so that it could shoot back while the Semovente can't defies all logic.

It's basic trig. The aim point of any vehicle is its centre of mass. So if it's a Sherman, the Semo will be trying to draw a bead on approximately the convenient white star on its side hull, meaning a pretty flat aim line from its low-mounted gun. If that path is intermittently occluded by waving vegetation, it will sometimes not have LOF, while possibly still being able to maintain LOS from another observer position on the tank. Consider also that the Semo has to turn its whole hull, slowly, whereas the Sherman has a fast traverse, so it can react to narrower windows of opportunity presented by those waving branches.

If something can fire at you then your unit should be able to fire back at it.

Poppycock. As a general statement, that would make concealment worthless and ambushes impossible. Edit: and your Semo would have been engaged and killed as soon as the Sherman stopped.

Why can't the higher Sherman turret which has the gun mounted within it be targeted?

If the turret were the only thing visible, it could be (as occurs when hull down targets are engaged). But if more of the tank can be seen (intermittently) the aim point will be the centre of mass.

Talk about a lack of common sense! If that's how the game is programed then there's an obvious problem here which defies basic reality.

Well, maybe, if you refuse to consider all the aspects which might bear on the problem.

What we're seeing here is the luck of the draw in engaging in wooded terrain at shortish ranges. It's also entirely possible that a lower motivation crew would have been able to ignore its Face order and remain pointed at the target for long enough for a snapshot between the branches.

[MikeyD]

I recall reading in Normandy the Germans gave their Stugs failing marks due largely to the low-mounted gun and roof mounted gunner's periscope. It seems they had to resort to peering down the open breech to make sure they weren't about to bury a round into the intervening terrain that the periscope was just managing to look over. I'd imagine Semovente 75s would have just that problem, with additional problem of the commander being almost blind when buttoned.