AT Guns: Problems and How to Solve Them?

[Redwolf]

The slow traverse and turn around bothers me no end. Especially since it's a choice, not some massive new piece of code that would have to be written.

[GerryCMBB]

I know it is only one game but remember how useless GAJ's ATGs were against Bil's moving tanks. Spotted easily, etc. They could look at those files. There have been many other complaints as well.

Also the gun having LOS but the gunner cannot fire. Not a realistic situation. One of the crew sees the tank in RL I am sure they will nudge it to the point they have LOF.

The way people defend parts of the game you would think it was their baby.

Gerry

It's quite clear that an argument that something is 'not useful' or 'not worth the points' will not move BFC to do anything.

Prove it that CM does it wrong and BFC will fix it (after enough complaining ).

[A Canadian Cat]

That's interesting. And contrary to my experience. Sandbags just seem to get spotted and attract attention, when an unsandbagged gun remains unseen. Obversely, sandbag walls don't seem to give any noticeable protection against mortars, or no more than the gun shield does: direct hits and hits behind the gun still mangle the crew. Mortars (or other arty) are the primary ATG killers, IME.

I have no idea about the spotting ease with and without the sand bags - I have never looked into it. And you are right about mortars once they start falling the sand bags only protect from half the close hits and none of the direct ones. From my experience they have worked wonders protecting the guns from direct fire.

[womble]

I have no idea about the spotting ease with and without the sand bags - I have never looked into it. And you are right about mortars once they start falling the sand bags only protect from half the close hits and none of the direct ones. From my experience they have worked wonders protecting the guns from direct fire.

I know that I've often opened up on sandbags before I've seen anything behind them... Do you find that the sandbags help reduce the suppression your crews are subjected to?

[A Canadian Cat]

I know that I've often opened up on sandbags before I've seen anything behind them... Do you find that the sandbags help reduce the suppression your crews are subjected to?

Yes, I think so. But to be honest I have not done tests so it is just my impression.

[H1nd]

Dont forget the infantry guns! Havent used them much in the game yet but if the atg's are made more mobile so should be the german 75mm infantry guns. After all they were made to support infantry assaults and there is much footage in wich they are moved short (at least 100m) distances with relative ease. Light ATG's and Infantry guns in general were used as improvised/intended assault support weapons in offensive operations cracking enemy strongpoints if there was no tank support at hand. I also think that it is very very realistic to allow atg's to relocate relatively easily in suitable terrain. Often the atg's could have several prepared firing positions quite a distance appart to allow flexible defense. Russian perfected this method during the battle of Kursk where all atg possitions were made with extra firing positions making it possible for guns to fire 360 degrees. More mobile atg's would also make the life considerably more easier for the american paras

[Doug Williams]

Today, between PBEM turns, I set up a Small attack QB....me (USA) defender vs AI (German Army), rough terrain, loose rarity, September, Holland, computer pick map.

I didn't even look at the map before picking my forces: Two platoons of infantry, two 76mm AT guns, one 40 mm Bofors, one quad 50 cal, one light machine gun, 5 foxholes, and a couple of snipers.

Setup, and away we go.....Computer picked three Jagdpanthers and a bit of infantry.

By turn seven I had achieved a total victory via the AI surrendering. The 76mm AT guns took out two of the Jagds, and I close assaulted the final one, since the closest squad didn't have a zook.

My quad 50 was out of ammo. The Bofors was knocked out in the next to last turn, but he kept the final Jagd occupied while I moved the squad up to close assault.

I put both the AT guns in foxholes on the edge of the woods.

Of course, this is just an anecdote, against the AI. Any mildly experienced human opponent would have done much better.

I don't think AT guns are useless when you are the defender.

[womble]

Dont forget the infantry guns! Havent used them much in the game yet but if the atg's are made more mobile so should be the german 75mm infantry guns. After all they were made to support infantry assaults and there is much footage in wich they are moved short (at least 100m) distances with relative ease. Light ATG's and Infantry guns in general were used as improvised/intended assault support weapons in offensive operations cracking enemy strongpoints if there was no tank support at hand. I also think that it is very very realistic to allow atg's to relocate relatively easily in suitable terrain. Often the atg's could have several prepared firing positions quite a distance appart to allow flexible defense. Russian perfected this method during the battle of Kursk where all atg possitions were made with extra firing positions making it possible for guns to fire 360 degrees. More mobile atg's would also make the life considerably more easier for the american paras

I quite like infantry guns (especially the 150mm ones ), and it's possible to get some use out of them using a prime mover if they have to displace, but for me their limitation has mostly been ammo: it hardly seems worth struggling to get them in place to fire half a dozen shells.

[WynnterGreen]

Because coding resources are finite, and they would be better spent on making changes that will actually change the general game play. Cutting deployment times for some ATGs might not take very long, but adding in a reverse movement mode for crew served weapons, the ability to move more than a jiggle while deployed, or the ability to recrew them would be serious adjustments to the architecture of the game.

It may well be the case that reworking AT Guns are't worth the man hours it would take to fix them, that's BattleFronts call.

That doesn't mean they're not 'broken'.

And by 'broken' I mean, severely hampered in ways that make them a poor choice, and dysfunctional compared to their real world counterparts.

I merely outlined the issues in hope that they might be addressed, the same way other obvious problems have been addressed after the community clamoured for change.

You think it will change ATG from useless to useful. I think you're crazy.

You think I'm crazy to think that fixing ATGs (ie, making them more closely reflect the functionality of the real thing) will substantially improve their effectiveness?

I think you're a ****** idiot if you don't think improving the key aspects outlined in the original post will make them more effective, functional and realistic.

[womble]

It may well be the case that reworking AT Guns are't worth the man hours it would take to fix them, that's BattleFronts call.

That doesn't mean they're not 'broken'.

And by 'broken' I mean, severely hampered in ways that make them a poor choice, and dysfunctional compared to their real world counterparts.

Poor choice? Yes, but that's only right and proper. They were close to obsolete as a weapon system by the end of the war. Dysfunctional? Here's where we differ: you think the differences between in-game performance and RL performance are greater than I do. You think that some tinkering with mobility will bridge that massive gulf; I don't (even though I think the gulf is smaller) think it will ever make ATGs a "top pick". Sure, they don't have all the capabilities that some RL ATGs had. But that makes them "gimped" or "handicapped", not "broken". You use overemotive exaggeration at your peril. You could argue that they're "not fit for purpose", but they're a long way from broken, as the numerous cases in which they have been effective weapon systems demonstrates.

I merely outlined the issues in hope that they might be addressed, the same way other obvious problems have been addressed after the community clamoured for change.

No, you're exaggerating the problem by using words to mean what you want them to mean, not what people generally accept they mean.

You think I'm crazy to think that fixing ATGs (ie, making them more closely reflect the functionality of the real thing) will substantially improve their effectiveness?

Substantially (as in "to a large degree")? Yes. As a loon. "Substantially" (as in "to any measurable degree")? No. They would be a bit better, but the cases where such improvements would be useful would remain edge cases and rarely seen. But that's not what you look like you're arguing, to me. "Broken" means "doesn't work" and they clearly do, if not as well as you'd like (and we still haven't cleared up why that is and probably never will).

I think you're a ****** idiot if you don't think improving the key aspects outlined in the original post will make them more effective, functional and realistic.

Glad you don't think I'm an idiot then. Because I do think that. I just don't think that it will improve their combat effectiveness and functionality anywhere near as much as it will improve the realism. And I don't think the realism suffers that much from those aspects being missing currently. Especially compared to some of the other holes in the game engine that would make vastly more difference (like not being able to shoot at something you can plainly see because you can't see the ground 4m in front of it). Of course it should be on the list, but it's nowhere near as vital as allowing ManPAT to fire from within buildings or sorting out MGs were, especially considering it requires some significant architectural change, not some tinkering and bolting on. And it's definitely not as important as fire or sorting out the AS restrictions on area fire.

[futon river crossing]

No comments from the devs then............... I'd like to see some improvements too.

I think the comments re not being able to reverse the guns and not being able to move the guns without having to wait 4 minutes are fair criticisms of the game as it stands right now. Improvements in this area would be nice.

So how about a comment from Steve: are you totally happy with ATGs as they are at the moment and see no need for improvements, or are they somewhere on a to do list.......... Inquiring minds need to know )

[Placebo]

Inquiring minds and Ned need to know

[futon river crossing]

Not anymore

[Gamer58]

I don't think anyone advocating for major changes to AT Guns is suggesting that they should be able to be raced all over the map like handbarrows.

Fatigue should take care of how far and fast they're able to move.

Terrain should take it's toll, at present it doesn't.

AT guns absolutely need a major overhaul in flexibility and maneuverability to have any relevance in Combat Mission.

Defense then relocation to an alternate position, as quoted by Childress, should be a viable tactical option.

It isn't.

Not even on a paved road with the lightest assets.

At present, AT Guns are barely more than a fixed emplacement without the benefit of a roof.

I'm going purely on memory here, but I seem to recall that part of the problem with fixing AT Guns was that they have to have the capacity to be mounted onto vehicles.

Which has put them in a grey area as far the functionality that can be applied to them.

If anyone knows more about that, I'd be interested to hear it again.

This.

AT Guns in CM suck dogs ****s.

They suck!

1. No mobility WTF?

2. No ability to reman them after making team move away during enemey mortar or arty attack

3. No ability to place them in buildings - even Close Combat back in 99 had that

4. No ability to use haystacks or other camp

THEY SUCK

[patrykd]

I fully agree the AT Guns sucks and should be quick reworked in the next patch.

[Childress]

First of all, these things need to be able to turn faster. If nothing else, fix this. Especially with light guns, I think the gun should be able to turn to engage new targets in a matter of seconds.

Yours is a common complaint. But swiveling the gun in the direction of the threat is only part of the process. The crew needs to 'acquire' the target and will spend x number of seconds doing so. That likely accounts for the delay even if not graphically depicted. This isn't the OK Corral.

So.... keeping moving, nothing to see here.

[WynnterGreen]

But that makes them "gimped" or "handicapped", not "broken". You use over emotive exaggeration at your peril. You could argue that they're "not fit for purpose"........

Womble, you seem to be unreasonably fixated with the term 'broken'.

Here's the 'in context', ​FIRST ​and ONLY time I use the term in this thread prior to your​ increasingly shrill​ response:

AT Guns are broken as a viable option because of the completely UNREALISTIC limitations in movement speed, deployment speed, ability to move while deployed, ability to mount & dismount and concealment.

A perfectly reasonable statement given that, when given the choice, people tend to avoid using them in game.

​Nor can I see anything in the statement that implies AT Guns don't function at all.

Annn​nn​nnd, here's your FIRST response:

You keep saying this, but you're completely overstating the case.

So, given that the term seems to hurt your delicate sensibilities (and ability to count), I completely retract the above statement in order to pacify the situation and issue the following redress:

AT Guns are severely "gimped", "handicapped" and "unfit for purpose" as a viable option because of the completely UNREALISTIC limitations in movement speed, deployment speed, ability to move while deployed, ability to mount & dismount and concealment.

Thus, peace is restored.

Sadly, AT Guns clearly remain dysfunctional.

[Childress]

AT Guns are severely "gimped", "handicapped" and "unfit for purpose" as a viable option because of the completely UNREALISTIC limitations in movement speed, deployment speed, ability to move while deployed, ability to mount & dismount and concealment.

Disagree with all your points, or at least the 'severely' qualifier. The mobility issue might apply to early war AT guns (

) but not to the increasingly massive pieces common after '44. Dismounting and remounting might be cool but would encourage gamey abuse. And crews did not abandon their guns lightly. Guns that haven't moved since start up are considered 'concealed'. To get the most out of AT guns you need to use them at least in pairs on a deep map.

Finally if one considers that BF likely designed sighting, turning and acquiring as a unitary process the fire delivery time is probably right on. Or close to it.

[WynnterGreen]

Disagree with all your points, or at least the 'severely' qualifier.

It's fine to disagree, and I'm interested to know why.

I've laid out the reasons I hold the perspective I do very clearly, how about you provide evidence to the contrary, rather than just a contrary position.

[1]. Movement Speed.

Currently a limbered PAK 40 will move approximately One Action Square (8 meters) per minute, regardless of whether it's being pushed along a flat highway or up a rocky incline.

The same gun, limbered, will take a full minute to make a 180 degree facing change, a feat performed by reeneactors in less than ten seconds.

A smaller Pak 36 will traverse approximately 1.5 Action Squares, (12 meters) on a flat road in one minute.

It still takes nearly a full minute to turn 180 degrees.

For comparison, video of period and reenactment AT guns being moved.

http://youtu.be/nmuY4B_W_aw

At the moment an AT Guns totally unrealistic lack of maneuverability is seriously hampering them.

[2] Deployment Speed

In a tactical game, deployment time for AT Guns should ideally be set to the period of time it takes to go from limbered to putting it's first shot down range.

In my opinion, current deployment times don't reflect any combat urgency.

I'd be interested to know which sources, if any, have been used to estimate deployment times for AT Guns?

Compare what currently happens in CM with the second video linked above.

In Game, the Pak 36 takes approximately 1 minute to turn 180 degrees.

Approximately 1 minute to travel the distance traveled by the gun in the video.

Another minute turn 180 again.

And 1 minute to deploy and take gunnery positions.

That's four minutes to achieve what the gunners in the reenactment drill in thirty seconds.

[3] Moving Deployed Guns

Small and medium caliber AT Guns can, and definitely should, be able to be moved while deployed.

Again it's opinion, but I believe the current limbered movement rates are a better approximation of what deployed movement rates should be.

Except 'facing', which should still be significantly faster.

The ability to move, albeit fairly slowly, a deployed AT Gun would greatly increase their survivability.

Especially in terms of the current situation where identified AT Guns are effortlessly destroyed by direct fire from mortars, due almost entirely to its complete inability to move while deployed.

[4] Mount and Dismount

Likewise the lack of ability to mount and Dismount the AT Gun has hamstrung it's effectiveness and usefulness.

This ability isn't as urgently needed as Movement while Deployed, or a general movement speed increase, but the ability to temporarily take cover at some point distant from the gun would greatly increase the suvivability of AT Gun crews.

Finally if one considers that BF likely designed sighting, turning and acquiring as a unitary process the fire delivery time is probably right on. Or close to it.

It currently takes a full minute to 180 degree turn a Pak 36 in Combat Mission, without acquiring a target or firing..

I provided a link above to reenactors, 180 degree turning, moving, 180 turning, unlimbering and loading a Pak 36 in preparation to target in thirty seconds.

It currently takes four minutes in CM to do the same, there's nothing 'close to it', about it.

The other video in my links above show similar things being achieved by renenactors with the Pak 38.

Without any providing evidence to the contrary, your assertion that the current process is 'right on', is absolutely absurd.

[WynnterGreen]

I think the gun should be able to turn to engage new targets in a matter of seconds.

Yours is a common complaint. But swiveling the gun in the direction of the threat is only part of the process. The crew needs to 'acquire' the target and will spend x number of seconds doing so. That likely accounts for the delay even if not graphically depicted. This isn't the OK Corral.

So.... keeping moving, nothing to see here.

Actually, there's plenty to see here.

I just ran a test.

Combat Mission:

Pak 36 with unobstructed line of sight to a Sherman at 200m range and 90° facing to the the deployed Pak.

Regular crew, unpinned, no incoming fire, within CC.

Sherman Spotted / Turning: 0 to 27 Seconds.

Acquiring Target / Firing: 28 to 34 Seconds.

Pak 38 Target at 90° facing.

Sherman Spotted / Turning: 0 to 51 Seconds.

Acquiring Target / Firing: 52 to 56 Seconds.

Pak 40 Target at 90° facing.

Sherman Spotted / Turning: 0 to 57 Seconds.

Acquiring Target / Firing: 58 to 62 Seconds.

Compare that to the mobility we see from the Pak 36 and 38 in the footage.

The Reenactment Pak 36 team turns the gun 180° degrees, moves, turns 180° degrees again, deploys and simulates breaching a round in exactly the same time it takes the Pak 36 in Game to turn 90°, PRIOR to 'Acquiring Target'.

Still think it's 'right on'?

[Childress]

Still think it's 'right on'?

I don't know. But I doubt it's something Battlefront would get wrong. Perhaps the guns spend too much time turning and too little time acquiring. That may be for ease of programming and constitutes mere chrome. Acquisition and rotation could well be occurring simultaneously, hence the perceived slowness. Fewer lines of code for the same result.

It's the end product that counts: the interval in seconds from sighting to firing. That's what needs to be tested, not traverse speed.

[WynnterGreen]

Acquisition and rotation could well be occurring simultaneously, hence the perceived slowness.

It's the end result that counts: the interval in seconds from sighting to firing. That's what needs to be tested, not traverse speed.

No, the whole asset turns until the target is with the traverse of the gun, at which point it aims and fires.

When you set up the same test as in my post above, except you place the Sherman within the firing arc of the AT Guns so that no turning is required, you get the same: Acquiring Target / Firing times as in the test where the asset needs to turn.

So there's no, under the hood, blending of the two tasks which isn't discernible to the player that I can see.

[Childress]

C'mon. Let me win this argument. The girlfriend's standing right behind me.

[WynnterGreen]

You have humbled me sir...... a marvel for one as young and virile as yourself, you deserve beer and a sammich'.

[Dadekster]

I think BF was a bit too conservative in modeling how mobile some of these guns could really be. I'd like to see them manhandled by a motived crew a bit quicker on shorter distances after which a certain distance fatigue sets in and they move much slower. Moving one of these things across asphalt is a bit different than up a slight incline in a forest so imo fatigue should play a factor. For all I know maybe they just averaged it across the board and called it good instead of getting too specific on certain guns on certain ground with certain crews etc etc and that is why we have what we have. I honestly have no idea where they came up with some of the numbers but it does seem to take too long to replicate tactical choices that should be available with some of these AT guns. I mean a target shows up behind you I'd be pretty motivated to get my gun pointed in the correct direction. Fear of dying is a great multiplier for getting it done.