Odin Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 Proof, if more was needed. Here is a video of a WWI MK1 tank pivoting in mud far quicker than WWII tanks do in CM in good conditions. If that can't make people see the light then I don't know what will. 1 minute 38 seconds into the video BOOM! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 understood. No actually I don't have a position. All I am trying to say is that to sway BF's position one would need to be able to show in practice under battlefield conditions that would be an expected norm. Video clips of that would I think have a different impact. Modern video of drivers on a course or video clips from movies will not do the trick. I know getting that documentary evidence is likely very hard and I expect that is a good part of the reason that their stance has not changed. I recall a fairly long thread on the turning radius of the Tiger and King Tiger and if I recall it correctly that did lead to some changes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 Here's a thought maybe tanks are just as likely to bog in mud if they take 5 seconds to pivot 90 degrees or 25 seconds? The mind 'boggles' That aside isn't the WWI MK1 video good enough to be deemed evidence for your rather high standards? Plus you seem to think pretty poorly of the average WWII tank driver. I think most would consider themselves up to the standard of a modern day amateur tank driver - even those used by museums are often volunteers rather than professional tankers. You could always penalise green and conscript crews in the game increasing their chances of bogging (I would be surprised if the game doesn't already do this). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 That tanks turn slower in CM than in real life is not really debatable, nor is the fact unknown to BFC. Keep in mind that most of these videos show tanks turning while in motion, which tends to be quicker than while at a stop. The driver can anticipate the turn ahead of time to select the proper gear, the engine is already at high RPM and the forward momentum helps start the turn quickly. Compare that to a situation where the commander of a Stug spots an enemy bazooka team off to the side of his motionless vehicle. First he has to issue an order to the driver over the internal intercom system to turn the vehicle in that direction. Assuming the driver is ready to react immediately to this unexpected order he may still have to shift gears. All of this would probably take less time than tanks can turn in CM now and perhaps there is room for some adjustment, but making them turn exactly as fast as real life without making other adjustments in the game would not be a good idea. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 All of this would probably take less time than tanks can turn in CM now and perhaps there is room for some adjustment, but making them turn exactly as fast as real life without making other adjustments in the game would not be a good idea. This is why I've suggested shortening a 90 degree pivot to 10-11 seconds instead of the 25 it currently takes. Although this is still longer than it would take in real life, it would take into account the other actions which might need to be processed by a tank crew. The clip showing the speed with which the WWI MK1 turns in churned up mud illustrates that the current turn times are too far off reality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Also keep in mind that because all vehicles in CM can pivot in place, which in reality only AFVs with neutral steer-capable transmissions could do, tanks are able to turn in places that should not even be possible, such as narrow streets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin Posted March 11, 2014 Author Share Posted March 11, 2014 I hate myself for going on like a stuck record but I'm goign to do it anyway and again I would point you to the MK1 video which which shows it pivoting on the spot for large portions of its turn. Did the Mk1 really have a more advanced transmission system than any WW2 tank? If so would it be worth BF splitting vehicles into 'neutral' and 'non-neutral' steer transmission for 4.0? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Surely it must be possible to programme in delayed reactions (accounting for TC orders voiced, understood, executed) followed by 'accurate' or slightly-slower-than-apparent-on-YouTube rotation (pick your poison). Different experience levels could then be modelled easily enough as improved reaction time, while green crews might react more slowly but then try to rotate too fast, risking a thrown track. Then isn't that 'job done'? Why are we hung up on abstraction of a process which seems fairly straightforward? I'd honestly be interested to learn how I'm oversimplifying here (I'm pretty confident I am). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 To add to the above, threats spotted by anyone other than the TC would take slightly longer to react to as the crew member must, presumably, first inform the TC and allow him to decide on a reaction to their info? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonC Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Yes they should be able to pivot faster. But they should *know* they have to pivot a *lot* slower. Situational awareness in real tanks is way, way below what we routinely see in CM. It is much harder to know what is going on, to pick the items to focus on out of everything that might be seen 360 degrees around the tank, and select a course of action to address the most salient problem. Real tankers screw up such things all day long. And take their sweet time making up their minds which way to screw them up. The least realistic thing in CM armor combat is not how slowly the tanks rotate, but how borg-fast they know everything and make godlike perfect decisions instantly, about what to do about them... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Yes they should be able to pivot faster. But they should *know* they have to pivot a *lot* slower. Situational awareness in real tanks is way, way below what we routinely see in CM. It is much harder to know what is going on, to pick the items to focus on out of everything that might be seen 360 degrees around the tank, and select a course of action to address the most salient problem. Real tankers screw up such things all day long. And take their sweet time making up their minds which way to screw them up. The least realistic thing in CM armor combat is not how slowly the tanks rotate, but how borg-fast they know everything and make godlike perfect decisions instantly, about what to do about them... I'm willing to excuse this insofar as the entire game happens on a faster timescale than realistic combat does. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skwabie Posted March 11, 2014 Share Posted March 11, 2014 Yes they should be able to pivot faster. But they should *know* they have to pivot a *lot* slower. Situational awareness in real tanks is way, way below what we routinely see in CM. It is much harder to know what is going on, to pick the items to focus on out of everything that might be seen 360 degrees around the tank, and select a course of action to address the most salient problem. Real tankers screw up such things all day long. And take their sweet time making up their minds which way to screw them up. The least realistic thing in CM armor combat is not how slowly the tanks rotate, but how borg-fast they know everything and make godlike perfect decisions instantly, about what to do about them... Right... And at the rate this is going, tanks are gonna be rolling steel bunkers and nothing else, since they can't see anything, can't shoot straight and can't even properly turn to face a threat. Actually why don't we have them roll for 50 meters and bog down, since they are also too mechanically complex to handle and maintain in a sound tactical manner. How's about having all the infantry march up in a line and acting as human meat shield instead... Extremities aside aren't what you're saying applicable to all AI in CM and not just the tank crews? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin Posted March 12, 2014 Author Share Posted March 12, 2014 The least realistic thing in CM armor combat is not how slowly the tanks rotate, but how borg-fast they know everything and make godlike perfect decisions instantly, about what to do about them... That maybe so, but when a tank can spin its turret 90 degrees in 3 seconds while an assault gun takes 25 to turn, assault guns are unfairly hampered. Surely the better way to solve this would be to slow down decision making or situational awareness for green, conscript, and even regular crews (although I don't think it is unreasonably fast for veteran crews at the moment given that under combat conditions speed is a crucial element of survival). In my experience I always think veteran or higher experience infantry are worth the extra purchase points. But I'm unsure if veteran or higher tank crews are that superior to lower quality units. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 That maybe so, but when a tank can spin its turret 90 degrees in 3 seconds while an assault gun takes 25 to turn, assault guns are unfairly hampered. Unfair? Pretty sure real assault guns would lose out if it came to racing against a turreted tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin Posted March 12, 2014 Author Share Posted March 12, 2014 Apocal you misunderstand my point. Sure 3 seconds is likely to be too fast for an assault gun to turn 90 degrees on the spot in all but very good conditions (and given the commander would need to tell the driver to turn). But taking 25 seconds?... too long IMO. I go back to forwarding my 10-11 second compromise. Using this compromise a turret turning still beats a tank chassis turning hands down. But at the moment a tank can turn its turret 90 degrees and could probably get off 3 shots before an assault gun can get off its first traversing 90 degrees. Given the pivot speeds in the videos show WWII tank chassis could turn far quicker than their CM2 counterparts, this is why I think assault guns are particularly disadvantaged by the current situation. Looking at the video evidence on the spot 90 degree pivoting could be sped up to 10-11 seconds, while pivoting on the move could be sped up to 5-7 seconds, and there would be little danger of the CM models being faster than their real life counterparts, even taking into account abstracted information such as TC orders. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I hate myself for going on like a stuck record but I'm goign to do it anyway and again I would point you to the MK1 video which which shows it pivoting on the spot for large portions of its turn. Did the Mk1 really have a more advanced transmission system than any WW2 tank? If so would it be worth BF splitting vehicles into 'neutral' and 'non-neutral' steer transmission for 4.0? When I say pivot in place I mean literally in place as they do in the game, not locking one track then swinging the tank around on that track. AFVs with neutral or regenerative steering can move the tracks on each side of the vehicle in opposite directions. AFAIK the Chruchhill was the first tank to have this feature. All German Big Cats had it. Off the top of my head I'm not aware off any other WW2-era tanks that did. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin Posted March 12, 2014 Author Share Posted March 12, 2014 That's one sexy beast of a turn. I don't think the panthers used this method of turning in the videos I've linked - nice to know they had in the locker though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vergeltungswaffe Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 It would be great if they could pivot, etc, more realistically, but as JasonC said, it would need to be linked with them being much more unaware. Realism would be far more frustrating than anything AFV's do in game now, but I'd love it. Don't recall the book but there's a classic picture of a bunch of knocked out T-34s and they are facing every which way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Isn't ATG rotation speed more of an issue? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I argued the case for neutral steering in my #140. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=107179&highlight=neutral+steering&page=14 Steve says that pivoting won't be changed and explains why. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=107179&highlight=neutral+steering&page=16 "In short... if we sped up rotation speed, without doing anything else, AFVs would start to look like terminators with near instant, precise responses to threats which would benefit from rotation." (More comments to and fro) Steve says here that neutral steering isn't going to be addressed, either. His #159. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1442552&highlight=neutral+steering#post1442552 Am hazy regarding the details, but BFC subsequently toned down the incredible (synonym for ahistorical, technically impossible, etc.) capabilities AFVs previously enjoyed, particularly while operating in MOUT. In turn, coupled with the ability to fire bazookas, Panzerfausts and Panzerschrecks from buildings, Close Assault once again became viable, with the overall result that Infantry was restored to its rightful place on the battlefield. Thus, to largely parrot Steve's turn of phrase, BFC has done that something else. Therefore, it may now be time to consider afresh the issue of pivoting. There may be other factors still militating against my notion, though. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 It would be interesting to find out which tanks wouldn't allow for running one track forward and the other back. The BIG one is Sherman. Sherman had a minimum turning circle of something around 62-70 feet, depending on the model. I had stats on Panther turning circle somewhere around here. Off the top of my head I think the turning circle they gave was the same number as the track ground contact length, around 4 meters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 MikeyD, What do you think, speaking unofficially of course, about my suggestion BFC revisit tank pivoting rates, with or without neutral steering? Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 I belive it would be nice to have different turning speeds depending on the vehicle, yet it's quite hard to find all the data for all the vehicles in game. Other than that, I think the turning speeds are adjusted for game reasons and I support that, the actual turning speeds in game pose a higher difficulty when it comes to tank manouvers. So, in conclusion I'll be happy if nothing is changed at all. Thanks John for posting that reference to official battlefront position about this matter. Clear and simple. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted March 12, 2014 Share Posted March 12, 2014 Isn't ATG rotation speed more of an issue? Yes it is, but it doesn't make this less of an issue. I know you didn't mean anything by the comment, but I see this kind of argument popping up on different forums when complaints/points are raised. There is always a "but this other thing is more important" type of response and it really adds nothing to the discussion. It implies that nothing else should be fixed until the absolutely most important problem is fixed (and that is always a matter of opinion as to which one is the most important). So yeah, ATG's need faster rotation speed too. But this isn't a discussion about that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Odin Posted March 12, 2014 Author Share Posted March 12, 2014 John thanks for the link to your previous post I hadn't seen it before. I agree with the arguments you presented which to me are well reasoned. Shame BF don't seem to agree but hayho. Maybe I misread Steve's response, but in one post he seems to suggest only British tanks, the tiger and panther are signficantly disadvantaged at the moment. I think the stug and Mk1 videos suggest otherwise. As they show whether using neutral turning or not they can still turn on a very tight radius, which I consider as good as on the spot for purposes of the game, (and much faster than the stug currently does). I quite agree with you John that awareness should be addressed. To me its seems that they are trying to fix one issue (terminator spotting as Steve put it) by introducing another (slowing tank turning speed down to unrealistic levels). And you can't get away from the argument that a tank can still act like a 'terminator' by spinning its turret in a couple seconds while assault guns are harshly treated taking 25 seconds to spin 90 degrees. So trying to argue that slowing tank chassis pivoting to their current unrealistic levels is a reasonable counterbalance to their unrealistic spotting ability has little logic IMO. Even with cars I feel the game poorly represents their ability to manoeuvre in tight spots. I totally understand that game AI doesn't let drivers make effective u-turns as they would in real life. But why penalise them by making a jeep take a turn to spin 180 degrees. I think most drivers could make a u-turn in 15-30 seconds. Especially with the motivation of bullets flying over your head! Like you John, I have a great deal of love for the game as it is, but that doesn't mean we don't want it to improve. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.