I Hope This Is a Bug and Not a Dumb Design Decision

[Sgt Joch]

Try reading before replying next time.

try thinking before posting next time.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Keep digging...

setup except the Shermans are given a movement order going straight forward plus an indefinite pause order so that they never actually move. First 100 shots fired:

So, basically you are arguing that a tank which stops briefly while on the move should, during the few seconds while it is stopped, be as accurate as a fully stationary tank.

[Guest]

understood, but when would anyone use a move order + indefinite pause in a 60 second turn?

Phil will send it along, but my understanding is tank fire on the move is more accurate than it should be. Steve has mentioned changes they would like to make, i.e. "short halts" to improve behavior of tank fire on the move, but that would require more important changes to the TacAI. We may possibly see this in v3.

In the meantime, tanks on the move have an accuracy penalty as Vanir's tests show. Pauses are used in movement, not just voluntary pauses by a player, but involuntary pauses as vehicles pause to let other vehicles go by. Right now moving tanks have an accuracy penalty during the entire time they are moving, including pauses.

If player's feel that tank accuracy on the move is too low, we can of course, press BFC to remove the accuracy penalty during pauses.

I can definitely see (for pathfinding or other reasons) where a player or the AI might end up firing from a pause fairly often. I don't see a reason why that should be effect accuracy, and I can think of some good reasons why it shouldn't. So in this particular case (not addressing any wider shoot-and-move stuff) I think this is a bug - I suspect it was unintended behavior.

[Vanir Ausf B]

And oh by the way, I do in fact think that a tank that stops to fire should be as accurate as a fully stationary tank. Because it is a fully stationary tank. There is a reason why tank crews were trained to stop to fire. If there was no difference in accuracy why bother stopping?

IIRC, the rational behind leaving firing on the move accuracy unrealistically high was that the TacAI doesn't know how or when to stop and fire and then continue moving. It has nothing to do with stopping to fire being the same thing as firing on the move.

[Georgie]

After seeing some odd results in a recent game I decided to once again waste my time running some tests and posting the results in a forum thread that BFC will probably never read. But at least people will know how the game works and doesn't work and adjust their tactics accordingly.

First the control group: 5 Sherman 75s firing at 5 Panther As at 300 meters. I recorded the hits and misses of the first 100 shots fired.

Hits: 94

Misses: 6

Now the test group: Same setup except the Shermans are given a movement order going straight forward plus an indefinite pause order so that they never actually move. First 100 shots fired:

Hits: 31

Misses: 69

Uh-oh. It appears that when the game determines if a vehicle should receive an accuracy penalty for firing while moving, whether or not the vehicle is actually in motion at the time is irrelevant. All that matters is if the vehicle presently has a movement order.

I also did test with just a pause command with no movement order and saw the same accuracy as in the control group, so it is definitely the movement order that determines this.

This has some obvious implications for anyone using Shoot 'n Scoot or Stop 'n Pop type tactics with their tanks. Hopefully BFC fixes this. Hopefully.

Save game and scenario files: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/4cs9xeyg66gvqbo/NHGeqLiQOO

Good catch Vanir, saves all of us that use a pause and shoot from a penalty.

[Georgie]

Yes, I'm reading this. I read it last night but forgot to reply. It looks like a bug to me. I've sent it along to the appropriate folks.

Great, someone that can really do something about it is reading the "bug" threads. Very reassuring.

[Hister]

IIRC, the rational behind leaving firing on the move accuracy unrealistically high was that the TacAI doesn't know how or when to stop and fire and then continue moving. It has nothing to do with stopping to fire being the same thing as firing on the move.

I don't understand why is it so hard to program this? Target spotted, stop, fire, resume travelling. If a problem arises with the players intention to force march his tank (he does not allow he tank to stop while travelling so that it reaches final destination point as quick as possible) then such command is implemeneted and wolf is not hungry any more while the sheep is still intact...

[Vanir Ausf B]

To be honest I'm not too concerned about firing on the move accuracy since it was lowered in a patch last year. 31% at 300 meters isn't very good. Is it better than in reality? Probably, but I don't know by how much. There is also the fact that I was using Shermans with gyro stabilizers in my test. I know they were often not used by tank crews, but the game apparently considers them to be always on.

[Fizou]

Good catch Vanir. Thanks for doing tests and putting time towards discovering bugs.

[SlowMotion]

I don't understand why is it so hard to program this? Target spotted, stop, fire, resume travelling. If a problem arises with the players intention to force march his tank (he does not allow he tank to stop while travelling so that it reaches final destination point as quick as possible) then such command is implemeneted and wolf is not hungry any more while the sheep is still intact...

If you want that to look intelligent it becomes more difficult. You don't always want to stop when an enemy is spotted. So when to continue driving, when to stop and fire?

[Sgt Joch]

Keep digging...

Again you seem to have trouble understanding my point. No player will ever under any circumstance give a move order and a 60 second pause in a 60 second turn. You play the game in a way which no one would ever expect and you get an unexpected result, what else do you expect?

But since I now understand that everyone on this forum is now perfectly happy with the present accuracy of tanks firing on the move and has no problem with tanks which pause for 5 seconds being as accurate as a fully stationary tank, then I will not argue the point further. At least, it is one less series of threads that we will ever have to deal with in the future.

[Hister]

If you want that to look intelligent it becomes more difficult. You don't always want to stop when an enemy is spotted. So when to continue driving, when to stop and fire?

Good point!

[Erwin]

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought his point was that even if you pause at a waypoint for 5 or 30 seconds for an accurate shot, you won't get the accuracy you should expect.

[Sgt Joch]

Maybe I misunderstood. I thought his point was that even if you pause at a waypoint for 5 or 30 seconds for an accurate shot, you won't get the accuracy you should expect.

it is, but BFC is not going to fine tune the entire code depending on how long or why you pause. Either there is a penalty or there is'nt.

[Amizaur]

When I think about accuracy of fire on the pause, then:

1). if the tank is actually moving and then stops, there should some (gradually decreasing)

penalty to the accuracy for few seconds - reflecting the time it takes for suspension to stabilise the tank. After that time, the accuracy should be at stationary level.

The time it takes for the accuracy to change (gradually) from "moving level" to "stationary level" could depend on the speed of the tank before it stopped. I mean - if a tank moved at slow, it could take only 2 seconds after stopping to achieve maximum accuracy. If the tank moved fast, then it could be longer like 5-6 seconds to achieve full accuracy.

2). let's assume a tank is firing few shots. The first shot is not very accurate, but each shot after that increases it's accuracy (against that target). Now - each time the tank moves, the accuracy should be "reset" to the level of "first shot". So every "fire from short stop" would work like first shot. I believe it already actually works this way in CM.

P.S. Sgt Joch - there is no need to "fine tune the whole engine" - it's enough to use some simple smart alghoritm that emulates real life. Like the time it takes for suspension to stabilise the tank. Even VERY simple alghoritm (like 3 lines of code) would give MUCH better results than simple ON/OFF, or - worse yet - ALWAYS ON or ALWAYS OFF.

[Amizaur]

If you want that to look intelligent it becomes more difficult. You don't always want to stop when an enemy is spotted. So when to continue driving, when to stop and fire?

Maybe like - "Fast move - don't stop when detecting a target" and "Quick move - stop and engage after detecting a target".

Or "Quick - don't stop" and "Move - stop and engage".

Combined with "Target Arc" and "Armor Target Arc" settings this could also handle our preferences what kind of target are we interested in. I mean - should it stop to engage every target, or maybe only for armored threats and AT guns ?

Add some fuzzy logic to handle exeptions like AT team close range ect .

[JonS]

And oh by the way, I do in fact think that a tank that stops to fire should be as accurate as a fully stationary tank. Because it is a fully stationary tank. There is a reason why tank crews were trained to stop to fire. If there was no difference in accuracy why bother stopping?

Mmm, not exactly. A tank that has moved and halted will not have as good orientation to their environment as a tank that hasn't moved. Their range estimates to various locations, for example, will not be as good as for a tank that hasn't moved. Also the gunner won't be as settled, having just finished bouncing across the terrain, and will be rushed because they know their commander will want to get the vehicle moving again as quickly as possible.

More accurate than a moving tank (because the hull itself isn't bouncing across the terrain)? Yes.

As accurate as a tank without a movement order? I'm not so sure.

[Sgt Joch]

P.S. Sgt Joch - there is no need to "fine tune the whole engine" - it's enough to use some simple smart alghoritm that emulates real life. Like the time it takes for suspension to stabilise the tank. Even VERY simple alghoritm (like 3 lines of code) would give MUCH better results than simple ON/OFF, or - worse yet - ALWAYS ON or ALWAYS OFF.

What I meant is that BFC is planning to revamp the code dealing with tanks firing on the move. Steve has discussed this publicly in various threads. What we have now is a workaround until that revamp is done. BFC is not going to spend a lot of time fine tuning a workaround that will be scrapped in the near future.

[Michael Emrys]

if the tank is actually moving and then stops, there should some (gradually decreasing)

penalty to the accuracy for few seconds - reflecting the time it takes for suspension to stabilise the tank. After that time, the accuracy should be at stationary level.

I agree but for a different reason. I don't think WW II tanks spent a lot of time rocking. Can you provide proof otherwise? However, even with a stabilizer, it takes the gunner some non-infinitessimal time to lay the gun on target after the tank stops. Range was usually the best guess, and first round hits were not guaranteed.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

Again you seem to have trouble understanding my point. No player will ever under any circumstance give a move order and a 60 second pause in a 60 second turn. You play the game in a way which no one would ever expect and you get an unexpected result, what else do you expect?

it is, but BFC is not going to fine tune the entire code depending on how long or why you pause. Either there is a penalty or there is'nt.

I understand the words you are writing just fine. I disagree with almost everything you have said, and I think the position you have taken has little basis in reality or in game logic. Originally you wrote this:

So, basically you are arguing that a tank which stops briefly while on the move should, during the few seconds while it is stopped, be as accurate as a fully stationary tank.

That is based on what logic/facts?

What I am arguing has implications for a much larger number of situations than the one you have nitpicked out. And I assume the reason you nitpicked that particular situation is because it is the only one that, if you look at it squinty-eyed, kinda sorta supports the otherwise indefensible position that the way the game works presently is a good idea.

If you think that a tank that stops for 5 seconds should not be considered fully stationary then do you also think it's accuracy should be the same as if it were still moving, as it is presently? If so, that is based on what logic/facts? How long do you think a tank needs to be fully stationary before it is considered fully stationary from an accuracy standpoint? There are more pause lengths available in the game than just 5 seconds and indefinite.

Speaking of indefinite pause, you asked "when would anyone use a move order + indefinite pause in a 60 second turn?". I'm glad you asked Because I can think of 4 situations that I have used myself.

1) Tank has a long chain of move orders and spots an enemy target. You want to engage that target but you don't know how long that engagement will last and you don't want to cancel all the remaining move orders and have to re-plot them afterwards. So you give an indefinite pause.

2) Tank has a long chain of move orders and is in a convoy of vehicles. Vehicle ahead gets slowed down unexpectedly and causes a traffic jam. Instead of canceling all the move orders of every vehicle in the convoy you just give them an indefinite pause while you sort out the jam.

3) You want to micro-manage the extent to which TacAI auto-rotates the tank hull to a target, or if it will at all. Turreted vehicles paused with movement orders will not auto-rotate the hull. Maybe you know the tank is going to be hull down to the target so you don't need the hull to face it (rotating the hull pulls the main gun off-target). Maybe rotating towards the target will put impassible terrain to the rear of the tank and you want to maintain the option of a quick retreat. Maybe you want to ensure an ideal 30° horizontal angle. This is the tactical situation I was in when I first became suspicious when I saw 5 consecutive misses at a target.

4) Tank is bogged but not immobilized. This is an involuntary indefinite pause.

Then of course there is the fact that this inaccuracy when pausing movement to fire only happens if there are more movement orders after the pause. If a tank just comes to the end of its movement order and fires within 5 seconds there is no accuracy penalty. That is an inconsistency.

All of this ignores the tactical usage of pause+movement+fire that I personally use more frequently than any other: pausing to fire before the beginning of movement. If I want my tank to reposition but I see that the gunner is "Aiming" at the end of the last turn I will often give a 5 second pause before moving to get that last shot off. What logic/facts support giving a firing-while-moving accuracy penalty here?

As for the point about this all being part of BFC's fudging of firing-while-moving accuracy and that it will all be fixed in the future, I admit you have completely lost me. I don't see how that has anything to do with accuracy when pausing a move order to fire. The whole reason BFC made shooting while moving unrealistically accurate to begin with is because the TacAI doesn't know how to pause movement to fire.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Mmm, not exactly. A tank that has moved and halted will not have as good orientation to their environment as a tank that hasn't moved. Their range estimates to various locations, for example, will not be as good as for a tank that hasn't moved. Also the gunner won't be as settled, having just finished bouncing across the terrain, and will be rushed because they know their commander will want to get the vehicle moving again as quickly as possible.

More accurate than a moving tank (because the hull itself isn't bouncing across the terrain)? Yes.

As accurate as a tank without a movement order? I'm not so sure.

If BFC wants to implement a penalty to firing at the end of movement that is less than the penalty to actually moving I will not complain. But then they will have to figure out how much of a penalty exactly, and how long after movement does the penalty last? And it also needs to be done at the end of any movement order, not just when paused at the end of a movement order that precedes the beginning of another movement order.

[JasonC]

I am entirely with Vanir on this one. It's a bug, and a good catch.

[c3k]

Yes. A good catch. Well done.

[A Canadian Cat]

understood, but when would anyone use a move order + indefinite pause in a 60 second turn?

OK might be true. A much more likely scenario which I do in pretty much every single game: With a tank that is stationary give it a 30s pause along with a fire order and then move to a location with a new fire order. I would think that this bug would mean that for those first 3 or 4 shots my tanks accuracy will be reduced even though it is stationary and has not moved.

I am glad Phil has cataloged this bug.

[Sgt Joch]

I understand the words you are writing just fine. I disagree with almost everything you have said, and I think the position you have taken has little basis in reality or in game logic.

What I am arguing has implications for a much larger number of situations than the one you have nitpicked out. And I assume the reason you nitpicked that particular situation is because it is the only one that, if you look at it squinty-eyed, kinda sorta supports the otherwise indefensible position that the way the game works presently is a good idea.

If you think that a tank that stops for 5 seconds should not be considered fully stationary then do you also think it's accuracy should be the same as if it were still moving, as it is presently? If so, that is based on what logic/facts? How long do you think a tank needs to be fully stationary before it is considered fully stationary from an accuracy standpoint? There are more pause lengths available in the game than just 5 seconds and indefinite.

so, even though I agreed to abide by the groupthink of the "community", you want to continue the discussion to prove that your position is more "realistic". ok, should be fun.

first, I believe we can all agree that WW2 tanks were not designed to fire on the move with any kind of accuracy, hence the current penalty. Whether the current penalty is enough/too much is another topic.

A stationary tank will fire more accurately than a moving tank. A stationary tank will also fire more accurately the longer it is stationary, up to a point. Once a tank is in a fixed position and settled in, the commander/gunner will become familiar with the location, where tanks are more likely to pop up and estimate the likely ranges. This is not really modeled in CM unless you use TRPs.

On the other hand, a tank when it first stops in a location is at a disadvantage. It does not know the area or the ranges. This of course, affects spotting, but accuracy as well. How long this disadvantage lasts is up for debate.

Speaking of indefinite pause, you asked "when would anyone use a move order + indefinite pause in a 60 second turn?". I'm glad you asked Because I can think of 4 situations that I have used myself.

ok, so this is where you come up with totally hypothetical situations which would justify a move order+60 second pause.

1) Tank has a long chain of move orders and spots an enemy target. You want to engage that target but you don't know how long that engagement will last and you don't want to cancel all the remaining move orders and have to re-plot them afterwards. So you give an indefinite pause.

2) Tank has a long chain of move orders and is in a convoy of vehicles. Vehicle ahead gets slowed down unexpectedly and causes a traffic jam. Instead of canceling all the move orders of every vehicle in the convoy you just give them an indefinite pause while you sort out the jam.

3) You want to micro-manage the extent to which TacAI auto-rotates the tank hull to a target, or if it will at all. Turreted vehicles paused with movement orders will not auto-rotate the hull. Maybe you know the tank is going to be hull down to the target so you don't need the hull to face it (rotating the hull pulls the main gun off-target). Maybe rotating towards the target will put impassible terrain to the rear of the tank and you want to maintain the option of a quick retreat. Maybe you want to ensure an ideal 30° horizontal angle. This is the tactical situation I was in when I first became suspicious when I saw 5 consecutive misses at a target.

yes, I am sure these situations happen frequently.

4) Tank is bogged but not immobilized. This is an involuntary indefinite pause.

tank is bogged and is moving its tracks front and back to get out of the mud/soft ground. Do you really think it will fire as accurately as a fully stationary tank?

Now, lets look at much more current situations which we do see in every scenario:

-A stationary tank ("mr. stationary tank") has been in position for 20 minutes and knows every nook and cranny of the field it is covering;

a)-two enemy tanks appear moving quickly across the field, one accidentally cuts off the second. The second tank pauses, sees mr. stationary tank and fires at the same time as mr. stationary tank; or

-an enemy tank appears with a fast order to the middle of the field where it pauses for 10 seconds before it moves away. During the pause it spots mr. stationary tank and fires at the same time as mr. stationary tank;

In both cases, mr. stationary tank pretty much knows the exact range to pausing tank while pausing tank is just shooting in its direction. Do you really think both tanks will fire with the same degree of accuracy?

Then of course there is the fact that this inaccuracy when pausing movement to fire only happens if there are more movement orders after the pause. If a tank just comes to the end of its movement order and fires within 5 seconds there is no accuracy penalty. That is an inconsistency.

Agreed. Is that really a reason to have no penalty whatsoever?

All of this ignores the tactical usage of pause+movement+fire that I personally use more frequently than any other: pausing to fire before the beginning of movement. If I want my tank to reposition but I see that the gunner is "Aiming" at the end of the last turn I will often give a 5 second pause before moving to get that last shot off. What logic/facts support giving a firing-while-moving accuracy penalty here?

you order your tank to hurry up and get off that one last shot before it moves in 5 seconds. You don't think it will affect their accuracy? Agreed it is not perfect, but what makes more sense, no penalty to cover the few situations where it is not warranted or a penalty to cover the vast majority of cases where it does.

As for the point about this all being part of BFC's fudging of firing-while-moving accuracy and that it will all be fixed in the future, I admit you have completely lost me. I don't see how that has anything to do with accuracy when pausing a move order to fire. The whole reason BFC made shooting while moving unrealistically accurate to begin with is because the TacAI doesn't know how to pause movement to fire.

...and I would love a date with Charlize Theron.

I presume we all know the constraints of game design, especially with a niche game. We have to deal with the game as it is, not as we would wish it to be in an utopian future.