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

[Vanir Ausf B]

If you stop accuracy will be higher than if you pause. That is, to me, a benefit.

But if you only pause, accuracy will be no different than if you kept moving. That is a penalty, and one not based on realism. Therefore the penalty should not exist.

C'mon, Vanir. You're a better player than that. I know you can construct an orders sequence to get whatever you want, whenever you want.

And if you really can't, for whatever reason, and have to leave a tank hanging out in the breeze for an extra 10 or 20 seconds? Sad biscuits. Sometimes that's life. You'll either need to accept the risk and take the chance, or play safe and forego the shot.

Of course there are ways of ensuring your tank gets to the firing position at x number of seconds before the turn ends. The most straightforward way is to give it a movement order paused for a certain time. But oh, that introduces the risk that it will unexpectedly have to engage a target during the pause, and do so with artificially reduced accuracy. Sad biscuits you say? The mere fact that something creates a risk/reward situation does not justify its existence. It needs to have a basis in reality. By your logic BFC could introduce a 5% chance that every time a King Tiger fires it's gun it will explode, thereby creating situations where the player must decide to accept the risk of firing or play it safe and forgo the shot.

But beyond that, it also forces -- or at least encourages -- the player to game the 60 second clock. That is not good.

FWIW, I don't think that expecting a high level of automated efficiency from your assets - be it tanks, artillery, or whatever - is either realistic or a useful mindset.

Which brings to mind another tactic that becomes problematic. If your tank is on a road or in-between lines of bocage you may not want the TacAI to rotate the tank hull towards a target thereby putting impassible terrain to the front and rear of the vehicle. The game gives us a way to override the TacAI in this situation, but that override is now compromised. Sad biscuits do not justify this.

If those particular rounds are really that valuable to you, then you should certainly not take those shots. You know the costs and benefits (and we all have a better understanding of them, now, thanks ), and it's up to you to decide what's more important in any given circumstance. You. The player. Playing the game and making constant cost-benefit decisions. Which is exactly the way it should be.

Yes, but as I already said, those cost benefit decisions need to be based on real tactical considerations to the extent that is feasible. In the above example, if I decide that I want to take the shots but not at the risk of leaving the tank out to dry for half the turn the logical tactic is to have the tank fire the shots while moving, because there is no benefit to stopping*. That is not realistic.

* And lets dispense with the nonsense about stopping and pausing being two distinctly different things. There are the same. The tank is no longer moving, period. Whether or not the tank is planning to resume moving in the very near future is irrelevant.

[JonS]

the logical tactic is to have the tank fire the shots while moving, because there is no benefit to stopping*. That is not realistic.

But there is. It could be the only place that you can engage the enemy from, through a keyhole between buildings or down a forest path. Or it could be that your timing is superb and you know the enemy is going to be passing a certain spot at a certain time and you want to pause a while to get in multiple shots. Or it could be that you are attacking - or withdrawing - and you need to provide fire support from a particular location, or series of locations, for a short period of time.

Those are a just a few benefits of pausing, and they're all highly realistic.

* And lets dispense with the nonsense about stopping and pausing being two distinctly different things.

Let's not. I disagree that they're the same in real life, but more pertinently they are definitely NOT the same in game. Maintaining the difference is a useful distinction.

[altipueri]

Sad biscuits. I've never heard that phrase before. Is it a bit like what we Brits would call hard cheese?

My money is on Vanir at the moment.

[JonS]

My money is on Charles. Always.

[Vanir Ausf B]

But there is. It could be the only place that you can engage the enemy from, through a keyhole between buildings or down a forest path. Or it could be that your timing is superb and you know the enemy is going to be passing a certain spot at a certain time and you want to pause a while to get in multiple shots. Or it could be that you are attacking - or withdrawing - and you need to provide fire support from a particular location, or series of locations, for a short period of time.

Those are a just a few benefits of pausing, and they're all highly realistic.

If you have no choice be but stop to even have a chance to shoot, then stopping is not a benefit, it is a requirement. In a situation where you have a choice whether to fire while moving or to fire while not moving there is no benefit to not moving, assuming you have made the choice that letting the tank stand motionless for a large chunk of the turn is an unacceptable risk. That is a realism problem.

[c3k]

To me, having not double-checked any of this, the accuracy -should- be same if a tank is paused for 60 seconds vs. being stopped for 60 seconds. The foreknowledge of a movement command in the future should not affect the accuracy.

[Steiner14]

It's hard to believe, that people can not follow Vanir's simple and logically presented arguments. I am feeling like in a absurd theatre.

[Sgt Joch]

It's hard to believe, that people can not follow Vanir's simple and logically presented arguments. I am feeling like in a absurd theatre.

It's hard to believe, that people cannot see the clear flaws in Vanir's arguments. I am feeling like we are talking to a brick wall.

[Sgt Joch]

But if you only pause, accuracy will be no different than if you kept moving. That is a penalty, and one not based on realism. Therefore the penalty should not exist.

That is an argument to have a lower penalty, not to have no penalty.

No one denies that you raise valid points and there probably is no valid reason why pausing before movement should result in an accuracy penalty. But you are using outliers to argue against a general rule.

For example, if I argue that: "there is no logical reason why I should stop at a red light at 4 am in the middle of an open field when I can see there are no other cars on the road";, I cannot go from there to: "there is no logical reason why I should stop at a red light".

(obviously an extreme example)

The fact that a penalty does not make sense in a few specific situations does not mean it is not warranted in others, for example when a moving AFV pauses during movement or immediately after it stops.

[Pak40]

In real world terms, despite what vinnart and Pak40 (and Chris69) appear to believe, WWII tank guns weren't fired by robots. They were fired by men. Men who make human mistakes and errors, especially when they’re under pressure. I interpret a pause in the middle of a string of orders to be placing the gunner - and the whole crew - under additional pressure, with the commander yelling "C'mon! C'mon! We've gotta get out of here! Get that round on the way!" Whereas *ending* movement string at a firing position (then restarting the movement next turn or whenever) is more akin to the commander saying "Ok team. Here we are, and there’s the target. Take your time and fire when ready."

Really, you're suggesting that CM should model the crew's nervousness and pressures of combat? Isn't that already handled by experience level of the crew? I.e, a conscript crew will tend to rush that shot but a veteran or crack crew will be well oiled and calmer under pressure.

Besides, you're totally missing the point. I'm not even talking about pausing in the middle of movement orders. I'm talking about a tank sitting there for a long period of time, let's say 5 minutes. According to Vanir's tests he'll have about 95% accuracy at 300m. On the sixth minute the tank is given a 30 second pause followed by a move order and all the sudden his accuracy goes down to 33%??? Obviously this is an unintended design and therefore a bug.

[JonS]

Obviously this is an unintended design and therefore a bug.

Obviously ( ) I didn't miss that point. Obviously ( ) the current behaviour is a function of either/or.

A) There is a penalty for shooting while moving. (Most people think this is a good thing.)

Pause is considered to be a movement order.

C) You have given your tank a movement order.

A+B+C) Ergo, your tank earns the shooting while moving penalty.

The option was to scratch A) so that tanks don't suffer any penalty while shooting on the move. Or not allowing moving tanks to shoot at all. The current implementation is wildly better than either of those.

Really, you're suggesting that CM should model the crew's nervousness and pressures of combat?

Well, yes. Are you suggesting that it shouldn't?

Isn't that already handled by experience level of the crew? I.e, a conscript crew will tend to rush that shot but a veteran or crack crew will be well oiled and calmer under pressure.

Sort of. The experience level is the modifier. The behaviour is what the modifier is applied to.

A Conscript team will sit in a field just as well as a Crack. But give them some thing to do, or put them under some pressure, and the crack team will do the job - or handle the pressure - better than the conscripts.

Having a time limit is one of many ways of being put under pressure.

Jon

P.S. You're repeating arguments that have already been made.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Hey, I thought you had thrown in your lot with the good guys?

That is an argument to have a lower penalty, not to have no penalty.

Perhaps. As I have stated about 7 times before in this thread, I am open to the idea, although there are others who don't see a need. In any case I did say the penalty should not exist, not that a penalty should not exist.

But if there is a penalty it should be much less severe than the present penalty, and it needs to be applied only to the end of movement, not the beginning, and it need to be applied consistently. None of these characteristics describe the status quo. But if BFC is going to continue with a one-size-fits-all general rule such as we have now, no penalty at all when motionless would be much more realistic in every conceivable situation than the status quo.

No one denies that you raise valid points and there probably is no valid reason why pausing before movement should result in an accuracy penalty. But you are using outliers to argue against a general rule.

For example, if I argue that: "there is no logical reason why I should stop at a red light at 4 am in the middle of an open field when I can see there are no other cars on the road";, I cannot go from there to: "there is no logical reason why I should stop at a red light".

(obviously an extreme example)

The fact that a penalty does not make sense in a few specific situations does not mean it is not warranted in others, for example when a moving AFV pauses during movement or immediately after it stops.

We've gone over the "hardly anyone ever does this stuff" argument before. I'm still not buying it. How often these situations crop up depends on the type of game and personal play style. I noticed the strange results that prompted me to do the tests while playing Huzzar, which is a very vehicle-heavy scenario. I personally have not used stop-fire-move type tactics much as of yet, but based on comments I have read on the forum I think there are players who use them extensively. OTOH, pausing to fire before beginning a move is something I do frequently.

But besides all that, no one has been able to put forward a justification for the status quo that has held up to scrutiny.

It's hard to believe, that people cannot see the clear flaws in Vanir's arguments. I am feeling like we are talking to a brick wall.

Admittedly, I am not an unbiased observer But I would suggest that "clear" flaws that no one has been able to demonstrate using logic/facts may not be all that clear, and may not even be flaws.

Of course, this is a long thread and it may be that we need a refresher. What holes have been punctured in by arguments, exactly? Was it when you claimed that "No player will ever under any circumstance give a move order and a 60 second pause in a 60 second turn"? Or perhaps it was when you informed us that "stopping in WW2 was a matter of hours/days not seconds as in CM"? My memory fails me

[Vanir Ausf B]

A) There is a penalty for shooting while moving. (Most people think this is a good thing.)

Pause is considered to be a movement order.

C) You have given your tank a movement order.

A+B+C) Ergo, your tank earns the shooting while moving penalty.

The option was to scratch A) so that tanks don't suffer any penalty while shooting on the move. Or not allowing moving tanks to shoot at all. The current implementation is wildly better than either of those.

No one has suggested scrapping the penalty for firing while moving. No one. What has been suggested is redefining Pause as a non-movement order, since paused vehicles aren't actually moving.

Of course, you already knew that.

[Sgt Joch]

Hey, I thought you had thrown in your lot with the good guys.

I was trying to summarize since we are going in circle.

No one and I dont think even JonS is arguing that the current system works well or should even be kept long term.

I am much more interested on where do we go from here and for that we really need to focus on what should be done to the game.

If we cant even agree on what would be the preferred outcome, which in my case is some sort of penalty for tanks moving or for a certain period after they stop, we surely wont agree on what are the best changes to make to the game.

[Sublime]

For everyones information - rereading this reminded me (Thanks Vanir) that I, (yes me) do use 1:30 pauses etc. I routinely use them for vehicles and troops as well. granted not every battle, where I do use pause every battle. But more than once in a great while as well. The command is very useful in PBEMs, especially if your opponent cant do a turn everyday. In those cases, I often forget my previous days thinking or some small detail. Sometimes I dont forget later in the battle, I just forget that time because Im stoned or whatever. This leads to short rounds, jeeps running over my own mines etc. In these situations, the over a minute pause is great. If I know im calling in arty and it'll end in the coming turn, a 1:30 pause means that in 4 days my tank will advance like I intended, whether or not i remember calling in a 'light' 1 tube strike 4 days ago or not. There are other uses as well and Im rambling. I have to side with Vanir though, any pause at all should not affect tank accuracy because the tank isnt moving. Even going from moving to a stop shouldn't affect it once the tank has stopped, as this is what they trained to do anyways.

[Michael Emrys]

To me, having not double-checked any of this, the accuracy -should- be same if a tank is paused for 60 seconds vs. being stopped for 60 seconds. The foreknowledge of a movement command in the future should not affect the accuracy.

Certainly. The question, at least in my mind, is whether accuracy is effected if a tank has just moved for twenty seconds (to pull a number out of the air for no particular reason), pauses to fire for ten seconds, and then has orders to move for the rest of the turn. The crucial factors here are what the tank was doing before it paused and how long it stays paused before firing the shot in question. What it intends to do after the pause is, as you say pretty much irrelevant.

Michael

[sburke]

I tend to disagree about eliminating a penalty. Pause (as I use it anyway in a shoot and scoot for example or a situation where I want to momentarily stop and spot anything moving down a side street and move on) would I think suffer a penalty as the crew re orients. To lose that penalty because people use pause as a placeholder seems to me to be altering the game mechanics to fit a style of play versus an actual RL situation. Now should that penalty be applied when the pause is at the beginning of a turn? Probably not, however I can more easily rationalize that as the crew focusing on moving (checking for anything loose in the compartment, communicating to whomever that they are moving out etc etc) than I could rationalize not having the penalty during my previous examples. Maybe it is just a matter of play styles that are impacted differently and maybe BF can come up with a better way of implementing a penalty for having moved versus for planning to move, but this is one of those areas that becomes a differing level of priority based on how you play... for me.....meh.

I do not typically plan moves over several turns as I have the opposite concern as sublime. I tend to forget I told a team 3 days ago to move across that field that I just discovered is under fire....

[Pak40]

A) There is a penalty for shooting while moving. (Most people think this is a good thing.)

Certainly, I agree.

Pause is considered to be a movement order.

Really? In what world? Certainly not in reality or CMBN. Oh, my bad. I guess that's why the put the Pause order on the movement tab.

C) You have given your tank a movement order.

A+B+C) Ergo, your tank earns the shooting while moving penalty.

The option was to scratch A) so that tanks don't suffer any penalty while shooting on the move. Or not allowing moving tanks to shoot at all. The current implementation is wildly better than either of those.

No, the best option is to fix the bug that causes B.

Well, yes. Are you suggesting that it shouldn't?

No, I was being facetious, in case you couldn't tell.

Sort of. The experience level is the modifier. The behaviour is what the modifier is applied to.

No, not sort of. It IS the modifier.

P.S. You're repeating arguments that have already been made.

Well, some people seem to think the argument is about pausing in the middle of a move, so I had to set them straight.

[JonS]

Really? In what world? Certainly not in reality or CMBN. Oh, my bad. I guess that's why the put the Pause order on the movement tab.

This world

Can you pause an admin command ("split squad, but not for another 15 seconds")?

Can you pause a target command ("Shoot at that, but not for another 45 seconds)?

Can you pause a movement command ("move over there, but not for 5 seconds)?

No, the best option is ...

Do you understand the distinction between the past and the future?

No, I was being facetious, in case you couldn't tell.

I couldn't. But now that you've told me ... doesn't that completely undo the thrust of your argument? You want the game to model stress and confusion, but without applying any penalties ... huh? :confused:

No, not sort of. It IS the modifier.

... and that completely undoes the point of your example. If there is no penalty to modify, what is the point in having a distinction between conscript and crack.

Well, some people seem to think the argument is about pausing in the middle of a move, so I had to set them straight.

But it's about pauses in the middle of a move, as well. In case you hadn't noticed, a pause in the middle of a movement string occurs before subsequent move orders. Just to, you know, set you straight

[Vanir Ausf B]

I tend to disagree about eliminating a penalty. Pause (as I use it anyway in a shoot and scoot for example or a situation where I want to momentarily stop and spot anything moving down a side street and move on) would I think suffer a penalty as the crew re orients. To lose that penalty because people use pause as a placeholder seems to me to be altering the game mechanics to fit a style of play versus an actual RL situation.

It may be a good idea at this point to examine why firing while moving was inaccurate for WW2 tanks. First and foremost, it was because the main gun was not stabilized*, so unless the tank was moving over perfectly flat ground any bumps or undulations would throw off the aim.

* The gyro stabilizer on the Sherman stabilized the gun in the vertical plane, when it was working.

Next is the jostling of the crew itself, which makes viewing anything out of the sights or vision blocks more difficult.

When a tank is not moving, either at the end of a movement or before the beginning of a movement, those factors are not present in any way.

It has been suggested that tanks ending a movement should have an accuracy penalty because they have not familiarized themselves with the ranges to the surrounding terrain features. That is not unreasonable. However, it has also been suggested that this is better simulated by giving an accuracy bonus to tanks that have not moved since the beginning of a battle. Another factor that has been brought up is the fact that very flat shooting tank cannons such as the Panther's 75mm did not need to know the exact range under a certain threshold, which was at least 1000 meters.

So you have 3 factors influencing firing on the move accuracy, the 2 most prominent of which are completely absent when a tank is not moving/paused. There is no possible justification for a paused tank having the same accuracy penalty as a moving one, or even close to the same.

[JonS]

There is no possible justification for a paused tank having the same accuracy penalty as a moving one, or even close to the same, ...

... unless the choice is the full movement penalty, or no penalty at all.

[Amizaur]

I start to think that JonS doesn't exist.

It's a BF company under this name, posting on forums

Every thing that is in the game, is good at present state of things. But if it turns out to be wrong and be corrected in next patch, that will be good too .

"... unless the choice is the full movement penalty, or no penalty at all."

So you believe the current state of things is THE only available solution or the best compromise ? That it CANNOT be programmed to have no penalty while paused while retaining the penalty while moving, or to have 1/5 of movement penalty when paused, or the penalty depending on the speed of movement & lenght of pause, or anything like that ? Those men coded the WHOLE GAME, and you really think they can't code better solution for such a simple problem than that?

I think it's just a bug, something that was simply omited, very easy to fix and w'll see it fixed in the next patch.

[Vanir Ausf B]

... unless the choice is the full movement penalty, or no penalty at all.

In that case, because the real world paused accuracy would be much closer to the "been here all day" accuracy than it would be to the "rocking and rolling over rough ground" accuracy the more realistic decision would be no penalty at all, and give tanks that do not move since the start of the game an accuracy bonus (if they don't have one already).

[c3k]

But if you only pause, accuracy will be no different than if you kept moving.

My bold, a lot of other verbiage redacted.

Are you sure that paused accuracy is EQUAL to moving accuracy?

[JonS]

Every thing that is in the game, is good at present state of things. But if it turns out to be wrong and be corrected in next patch, that will be good too .

I have the ability to hold complex thoughts and multiple opinions in my head simultaneously. I also have the ability to distinguish between what is, what will be, and what I wish. Furthermore, I recognise that something can be good and yet still retain the ability to improve.

Doesn't everyone?

So you believe [strawman]

No, I don't believe that at all. CM is a computer programme. BFC could add lunar landings and airdropped aliens to it, if they wanted to.