Shreck team needs an mp40

[A Canadian Cat]

Oh I understand that you disagree. You have made that quite clear. And you have valid points too. I can certainly see where you are coming from. Hopefully when Steve et al spend time tweaking this aspect of the game they will bring it closer to what you want to see. Although, given that you want total freedom to fire these weapons where ever and whenever, you probably will not be happy with whatever tweaks they make.

I just happen to

1. agree with Steve on this and
   
2. don't think it is fair to let

   I don't know where or how it was established that they were not routinely fired from inside buildings

   stand on its own when you are well aware that there are valid points for the other side of this argument as well.
   

[Vanir Ausf B]

Although, given that you want total freedom to fire these weapons where ever and whenever, you probably will not be happy with whatever tweaks they make.

Having total freedom to fire these weapons where ever and whenever is much preferable and more realistic than what we have now. That does not mean that it is the ideal or most realistic solution, just better than the status quo, and relatively easy to implement.

I believe my statement stands that there has been no establishment that these weapons were not routinely fired from buildings. The evidence presented that they were not boils down to a training manual that cautions against it, but allows for it if the circumstances warrant. Against that we have direct video evidence that circumstances warrant fairly often in urban combat. I certainly have not seen even one video of anyone running out into the middle of a street to fire at a tank. The overwhelming number of actual engagements that I have seen have been from the interior of buildings.

3:50 RPG fired from building

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0BmSEhYQ_A

Recoilless rifle fired from building twice

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJHyM7Rgs_g

6:13 RPG fired from building

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jn1NWU3nGQc

10:05 RPG fired from building

So while I acknowledge that there are valid points on both sides I do not think they are equally weighted against one another at all.

[sburke]

I certainly have not seen even one video of anyone running out into the middle of a street to fire at a tank. The overwhelming number of actual engagements that I have seen have been from the interior of buildings.

Guess you missed that one on the Shock Force forum. Too bad as it was funny as hell.

Back to the issue. We can continue to complain and look for options that so far BF has adamantly disagreed with - or we can look for alternatives. I still feel that urban combat can be portrayed differently if the time is taken to create a good urban map. Map making in CM has as much impact on the feel of your battle as almost everything else combined.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I prefer to take a holistic approach I agree that the map has a huge impact on how urban combat plays out. I just think it's unfortunate that it's been put upon map makers to work around an issue that shouldn't be there and doesn't have to be there. So I probably am going to continue to complain about it whenever the subject comes up, even if some people get annoyed by it. Something about squeaky wheels and grease...

[Michael Emrys]

Something about squeaky wheels and grease...

Just be careful you don't drown in your own grease.

Michael

[Georgie]

What it boils down to to me is that there isn't really anything a map maker can do except to make the towns all single story to offset the fact that the tanks can shoot straight up and provide hidey holes for the tube guys in the middle of the street to offset the fact that the game won't allow the tube guy to launch a rocket from a building. Both which would be much more unrealistic than the tube guy being able to fire his rockets from a building to off set the tanks being able to shoot straight up. This would make the urban fighting fun. Right now it simply isn't. In fact it is frustrating. I am really perplexed as to why this condition still exists after several years of complaining by the players. I avoid any scenario that involves urban fighting.

[Tarquelne]

Having total freedom to fire these weapons where ever and whenever is much preferable and more realistic than what we have now.

I agree. I think the certainty with which tanks can often operate within CMx2 urban environments is the heart of the problem. Given the lack of clutter and the clean LoS common on CM maps absolutely ruling-out buildings as a rocket site means tank-safeing an area is vastly simpler.

The general lack of clutter and clean lines of sight in cities may be the fundamental cause of the problem, but AT-rocket/building issue aggravates it a great deal. OTOH, allowing the rockets to be fired from within buildings - at least occasionally - would encourage far more realistic tactics without putting such a huge burden on map makers.

[Childress]

... to off set the tanks being able to shoot straight up.

Prediction: BF is in the process of addressing of gun elevation- and depression- restrictions and will have a rough and ready fix in time for the Market Garden module and Arnhem. Perhaps only for the Human player and not providing discrete values for every single vehicle. But something.

Doesn't World of Tanks simulate gun elevation? Of course that's easier to to do in an exclusively MP environment...

[sburke]

What it boils down to to me is that there isn't really anything a map maker can do except to make the towns all single story to offset the fact that the tanks can shoot straight up and provide hidey holes for the tube guys in the middle of the street to offset the fact that the game won't allow the tube guy to launch a rocket from a building.

Actually that isn't at all true and I hope to be able to demonstrate that soon. The real issue from my perspective is a lack of creativity and attention to detail in urban maps. Would I like a bit more flexibility for AT teams? Absolutley but trying to factor into the engine the state of the walls of a building for an AT team to be able to use their weaponry sounds fraught with overhead and having them be able to use them universally a seperate issue which I am not qualified to venture an opinion on.

I honestly hope to change your opinion on urban combat, will there still be circumstances that frustrate you, probably likely. However I think the situiation is not hopeless and I accept the challenge to prove that there is room for improvement in the current incarnation of the engine.

[poesel]

Prediction: BF is in the process of addressing of gun elevation- and depression- restrictions and will have a rough and ready fix in time for the Market Garden module and Arnhem. Perhaps only for the Human player and not providing discrete values for every single vehicle. But something.

BFC has stated several times that the problem is not limiting elevation but to get the AI to cope with the limitation. Think about it - it's not trivial.

[Georgie]

Actually that isn't at all true and I hope to be able to demonstrate that soon. The real issue from my perspective is a lack of creativity and attention to detail in urban maps. Would I like a bit more flexibility for AT teams? Absolutley but trying to factor into the engine the state of the walls of a building for an AT team to be able to use their weaponry sounds fraught with overhead and having them be able to use them universally a seperate issue which I am not qualified to venture an opinion on.

I honestly hope to change your opinion on urban combat, will there still be circumstances that frustrate you, probably likely. However I think the situiation is not hopeless and I accept the challenge to prove that there is room for improvement in the current incarnation of the engine.

Hello sburke, I hope you can too. Urban combat was a blast, no pun intended, in CM1. I hope you can make it so with CM2.

[womble]

...the fact that the tanks can shoot straight up...

Red herring, much?

If you've let a tank get to that kind of position, your opponent has screwed up, and you've screwed up worse. Or you've already lost. It's going to make a difference to the overall outcome so rarely that it's entirely marginal.

Far worse is that a tank can't shoot at the front of a building in the same street from 50-100 yards away because the other buildings in the street obscure the centre of the floor they're aiming at. If that doesn't even out the elevation freedoms, nothing will.

[Georgie]

Red herring, much?

Far worse is that a tank can't shoot at the front of a building in the same street from 50-100 yards away because the other buildings in the street obscure the centre of the floor they're aiming at. If that doesn't even out the elevation freedoms, nothing will.

If I remember correctly a tank can fire at an enemy in a building where the action spot is blocked but can't area fire at the obscured building. But now that you brought it up, to me its just one more problem with urban fighting that screws up an urban scenario. No way around it till BF figures out a way to make things work the way they should. Why is shooting straight up a red herring?

[Childress]

BFC has stated several times that the problem is not limiting elevation but to get the AI to cope with the limitation. Think about it - it's not trivial.

Right. Which is why the qualification of Human player was suggested in my post. BF evidently feels that runs counter to their design philosophy. Even though, to the best of my knowledge, the AI cannot Area Fire or generate Cover Arcs or spontaneously divide into teams.

[poesel]

Right. Which is why the qualification of Human player was suggested in my post. BF evidently feels that runs counter to their design philosophy. Even though, to the best of my knowledge, the AI cannot Area Fire or generate Cover Arcs or spontaneously divide into teams.

Ah, sorry. Missed that. I wouldn't mind if those limitations where only for humans. Which is easy to say because I never play against the AI.

But even then: the AI also controls the human tankers. How would they cope with not being able to shoot at a target they have LOS to? Would at least look silly and confuse players.

Another situation which I would like to add here is the immobile tank. If those would at least honour gun depression - that would make tank assaults a bit more realistic.

[Childress]

But even then: the AI also controls the human tankers. How would they cope with not being able to shoot at a target they have LOS to? Would at least look silly and confuse players.

Good point. Didn't thank of that.

[womble]

Why is shooting straight up a red herring?

Because it never happens. For a value of "never" that has any bearing on relevance.

If you've got an enemy tank outside a building where you have infantry on the 8th floor, your opponent has screwed up by not leading with their infantry, and you've screwed up by not killing the tank before then with your infantry. Either way, it's an artefact of error. A second alternative is that your infantry on the 8th floor is alone and "treed" like a racoon, at which point it doesn't much matter whether the overelevated gun gets them or they get overrun by the accompanying infantry: you're still on the losing end of the exchange, as you ought to be. As far as the end result goes, it's the same, and it started out as being an exception, and only got more so.

[Georgie]

Because it never happens. For a value of "never" that has any bearing on relevance.

If you've got an enemy tank outside a building where you have infantry on the 8th floor, your opponent has screwed up by not leading with their infantry, and you've screwed up by not killing the tank before then with your infantry. Either way, it's an artefact of error. A second alternative is that your infantry on the 8th floor is alone and "treed" like a racoon, at which point it doesn't much matter whether the overelevated gun gets them or they get overrun by the accompanying infantry: you're still on the losing end of the exchange, as you ought to be. As far as the end result goes, it's the same, and it started out as being an exception, and only got more so.

Hi womble, or a third alternative where your unit is "treed" like a racoon, your tube guy who was waiting in the back yard could sneak into the building and take out the tank thru a window. My uncle took me coon hunting when I was a kid, in the middle of the night of course, and the only thing I accomplished was to fall into a creek.

[Georgie]

Hello again womble, or a 4th alternative. If as in the real world, at least world war two, a tank cant shoot straight up then the squad or team on the 8th floor isn't in a bad situation the tank is in a bad situation since all it can do is shoot into the 1st floor if its too close and if its that close then the troops on the 8th floor drops things on the tank till it leaves. That's why in city fighting if the garrison of the city is supplied with close range anti tank weapons the tanks are at a distinct disadvantage. Of course that's in real life and I would like it if the game reflected real life city fighting a little more realistically. I think that the CM1 series reflected this balance much more truthfully.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Couldn't agree more with Georgie's post. In CMx1, AT teams could fire from within buildings but there was always the risk they would panic nad possibly rout due to the backblast or, set the building on fire in whixh case they would have to exit very quickly.

I'm not saying it was perfect but it was a reasonable simulation of what could happen. If it were me, I would allow infantry to fire Panzerfaust type weapons from within buildings in CMx2 but have the risk the unit could panic or break as a result (especially for a PF100 where the back blast would be pretty significant). I wouldn't allow the use of Bazookas or Panzerschreks within standard single storey buildings but only in large structures such as churches and factory style buildings, due to their much larger black blast using rocket propelled munitions.

Regards

KR

[womble]

Hello again womble, or a 4th alternative. If as in the real world, at least world war two, a tank cant shoot straight up then the squad or team on the 8th floor isn't in a bad situation the tank is in a bad situation since all it can do is shoot into the 1st floor if its too close and if its that close then the troops on the 8th floor drops things on the tank till it leaves. That's why in city fighting if the garrison of the city is supplied with close range anti tank weapons the tanks are at a distinct disadvantage. Of course that's in real life and I would like it if the game reflected real life city fighting a little more realistically. I think that the CM1 series reflected this balance much more truthfully.

Hi womble, or a third alternative where your unit is "treed" like a racoon, your tube guy who was waiting in the back yard could sneak into the building and take out the tank thru a window.

Or your TH/breach/pioneer team could come through a blank wall with demo charges and close assault the tank, achieving the same goal.

However, that's not relevant. Please tell me honestly how often you've seen a tank roll up to a building and shoot at its 8th storey. Then explain how it got past all the other buildings and alleyways (when is there an 8 storey building at the edge of a town?) without infantry support and without having been blown up by an AT team in an alley, or the LOS-shadow of a building. Then explain how that wasn't a monumental screwup that doesn't deserve any attention.

Just because something can happen, even if it shouldn't, doesn't mean it does with enough a) frequency and significance to be worth prioritising a fix, especially if that fix would break other things, and there even more drastic problems.

That is why tank gun elevation is a complete red herring wrt urban combat. A nul argument.

Sure, it might be good and possibly more realistic if the evidence of doctrine were taken to one side and replaced with "real life usage", but the evidence for that has been presented, and I don't remember being terribly convinced by it (since it seemed largely to be comparing modern munitions with WW2 ones, and lacked solid believable accounts of firing things like Shrecks from inside buildings without special and infrequent preparations), so I suggest you hit the stacks for more evidence if you expect BFC to be convinced.

Whining about something that doesn't occur when troops are being managed in a businesslike fashion in order to convince someone to change the status quo for play balance reasons is just wasting your time.

[Childress]

Couldn't agree more with Georgie's post. In CMx1, AT teams could fire from within buildings but there was always the risk they would panic and possibly rout due to the backblast or, set the building on fire in which case they would have to exit very quickly.

From Wikipedia:

Firing the (Panzerschreck) generated a lot of smoke both in front and behind the weapon. Because of the weapon's tube and the smoke, the German troops nicknamed it the Ofenrohr ("Stove Pipe"). This also meant that Panzerschreck teams were revealed once they fired, making them targets and, therefore, required them to shift positions after firing. This type of system also made it problematic to fire the weapon from inside closed spaces (such as bunkers or houses), filling the room with toxic smoke and revealing the firing location immediately. This was in contrast to the British PIAT's non-smoking spigot mortar system, or the Panzerfaust's short burst launch system.

[poesel]

That is why tank gun elevation is a complete red herring wrt urban combat. A nul argument.

I'd like to differ. I agree with you that shooting straight up into 8th floor is a rather seldom occurrence.

What's IMHO worse is the lack of limits to gun depression. Because that makes it easy for tanks to defend versus close assaults. And I mean VERY close assaults with grenades.

Without a limit to depression a tank can literally shoot through its own motor.

A grenade assault which does not kill the tank is the death sentence for the attacker because a tank has no blind spots where it can't shoot you.

For a certain type of battle this happens quite often. See picture.

[Lanzfeld]

I'd like to differ. I agree with you that shooting straight up into 8th floor is a rather seldom occurrence.

What's IMHO worse is the lack of limits to gun depression. Because that makes it easy for tanks to defend versus close assaults. And I mean VERY close assaults with grenades.

Without a limit to depression a tank can literally shoot through its own motor.

A grenade assault which does not kill the tank is the death sentence for the attacker because a tank has no blind spots where it can't shoot you.

For a certain type of battle this happens quite often. See picture.

This is such a great point and is the real problem with lack of elevation limits.

[Vanir Ausf B]

From Wikipedia:

Firing the (Panzerschreck) generated a lot of smoke both in front and behind the weapon. Because of the weapon's tube and the smoke, the German troops nicknamed it the Ofenrohr ("Stove Pipe"). This also meant that Panzerschreck teams were revealed once they fired, making them targets and, therefore, required them to shift positions after firing. This type of system also made it problematic to fire the weapon from inside closed spaces (such as bunkers or houses), filling the room with toxic smoke and revealing the firing location immediately. This was in contrast to the British PIAT's non-smoking spigot mortar system, or the Panzerfaust's short burst launch system.

I would think that the smoke would be even more visible when fired outside than inside a building. It certainly isn't an issue particular to being fired inside.