Do tank pivot speeds need quickening up?

[Macisle]

...There is always a "but this other thing is more important" type of response and it really adds nothing to the discussion.

Except that AFVs are still currently overpowered in terms of their situation awareness while infantry and ATGs are underpowered in their ability to use terrain and react to armor movement. And, as you've acknowledged, ATG rotation speeds are actually more in need of a speed-up than AFV's.

So, if you increase AFV rotation without addressing ATG rotation, along with the ability of infantry to use terrain, you have thrown the game into a state of imbalance that does not currently exist--which is likely the reason for the current AFV rotation speeds in the first place.

Other than reminding people of that, my comment adds nothing to the discussion.

[Odin]

Yes AT gun turning speeds need to be much quicker. But surely this could be done at the same time tank turning speeds are improved? As for infantry's use of terrain would this not be a case of weakening armour's spotting ability or improving infantry's ability to conceal themselves. Would making these changes be more complicated than just altering some stats (no doubt it is )?

[Macisle]

Yes AT gun turning speeds need to be much quicker. But surely this could be done at the same time tank turning speeds are improved? As for infantry's use of terrain would this not be a case of weakening armour's spotting ability or improving infantry's ability to conceal themselves. Would making these changes be more complicated than just altering some stats (no doubt it is )?

If everything can be done at the same time, then I'm all for it. If only one could be done--I'd say do ATGs first, actually.

As we discuss this, we just have to be mindful that more puzzle pieces may be in play than we might think. I doubt BF sat down and said, "Hey, let's make all these awesome, realistic models, but let's make 'em rotate like, REALLY slow!"

I want realistic rotation speeds, too. I just don't want the game to be thrown out of balance in order to achieve it.

[Odin]

How about this for two suggestions:

Perfect world:

1. Alter all tank turning speeds to match their real life counterparts, and make variable depending the terrain.

2. Improve AT gun rotation speed.

3. Decrease tank crew spotting capability (especially where tanks are buttoned and use a gradient scale dependent on the crew's experience).

Realistic world with resource constraints:

1. Cut 'on the spot' 90 degree tank pivot speeds to 10-11 seconds and 'on the move' to 5-7 seconds. If tanks with dual gearing (eg Panther, Churchill, Tiger) could be given quicker pivot speeds all the better. Tanks like the Sherman which have problems traversing in tight spaces are kept as they are with current traverse times.

2. Improve AT gun rotation speed.

3. Decrease tank crew spotting capability (especially where tanks are buttoned and use a gradient scale dependent on the crew's experience)

[Vinnart]

Since different vehicles have different turning rating in its stats, it would be interesting to test how a "red" rating compares to the other color ratings orange to green. Anyone test this comparing timing doing 90 degree turn? This is what would be most important to me knowing that there is a difference in game for the color rating given.

[Odin]

[quote=Odin;1509526

[Erwin]

"3. Decrease tank crew spotting capability (especially where tanks are buttoned and use a gradient scale dependent on the crew's experience)."

IIRC BF has done a rough fix where the tank can't react to infantry for a longer period of time... hopefully giving the same effect as above. (I guess there may be programming issue re "spotting capability" changes??)

The slow rotation speeds of tanks is odd when we have so many video of tanks rotating very quickly when they have to. Not all RL tank combat is in the worst conditions, which seems to be the argument for slow rotation. Sure, there may be risk of throwing a track, but in an emergency...?

[JasonC]

Odin - I agree with the list. Yes I'd like to see vehicle rotation sped up, I'd like to see ATG rotation sped up, I'd also like to see gun movement over ground sped up (it was much easier in real life that it is depicted in CM, admittedly usually for short movements). And I would like to see spotting ability reduced and made more range dependent - in the sense that fast reactions are believable at 50 meters that are much less believable at 500 meters.

It is true there is not great difficulty in seeing some of these things at 500 meters, when you spend a minute looking for them. But what is missing is how scarce *attention bandwidth* is in combat. People are looking at one thing or at another, not at everything in their field of vision. They are focused on one range rather than another, they are performing urgent tasks in panic and at high levels of adrenaline that are not limited to casually scanning the landscape for enemies, their mental attention span is not unlimited, everything is very loud, everything is very dangerous and urgent, everyone is shouting at everyone else, etc, etc.

Those are the real world reasons that reactions are not immediate and automatic in real combat. I understand that they cannot be supercomputer simulated in every detail. But it is the usual story - if you get five things dead on and leave out two others that in real life interact with those five heavily, you don't make a more realistic simulation. You just stress the parts you left out and reveal how important they actual are, to real outcomes.

That is progress if you like, bully. But progress up a slope that needs those uncovered issues addressed to arrive at realism and believe-ability.

In the specific case under discussion, there is a huge difference in the spotting ability of a tank for a new threat not where the gun is currently laid, when the tank is actually shooting, than when it isn't. There is a huge difference in the spotting ability for a moving vehicle within 10 degrees of a current target, and anything stationary with 90 degrees or more of radial separation from a current target, plus a difference in range of hundreds of meters. The tank just isn't going to spot anything like the latter, rapidly, 9 times out of 10. In 2-3 minutes maybe.

This is why real world firefights between tanks are often more lopsided than they are in CM, where exchanges are more common, or domination by gun and armor specs. In the real deal, the single most important question was simply who got the bounce on whom - who fired first, or got the best position before the first trigger pull of the heavy AT fire. Ace tankers speak of the difficulty of picking up even a firing ATG at medium range. Companies bounce other companies and destroy half of them without loss, before the surprised even get a shot off. This doesn't happen in CM. The bounced react way too perfectly, way too fast.

If the only thing fixed were that vehicles rotate in a few seconds, and they retain their godlike awareness and infinite bandwidth, it will make that unreality starker, not lessen it. I entirely agree with you that the present situation unfairly benefits turreted AFVs over both turretless AFVs and towed guns. But just faster rotation will unfairly benefit the bounced over the bouncer, and make gun and armor spec more important than tactics, yet again - unrealistically, on both counts.

[Amizaur]

I agree that tanks should be able to turn more quickly in some situations (good driver, flat and relatively hard ground). But the turn speed in game may be good representation of average turn speed in various situations and different conditions.

On the other hand, if the turn speed was made quicker, modeling the max possible turning speed, then the tanks would be turning so fast (maximum technically possible) nearly all the time in game, making them too maneuverable, and too quickly

reacting for threats from the sides and rear ect. Making ambushes, flanking enemy armour and attacking from the side would be pointless, if enemy tanks could just pivot in place in 2-3 seconds and face us frontally, on equal terms.

Even now, when I ambush enemy tanks from the side, they react and turn their turrets so quickly, that I have advantage of only one salvo fired int their sides, after that their guns are aiming at me and their hulls are half-way rotated. Taken by surprise, they turn and engage me before I'm able to fire the second salvo.

Imagine how would it look if tanks were turning even more quickly - they would just rotate hulls in 3s and face me absolutely frontally before I'm able to reload and fire second salvo.

The tanks COULD turn a bit more quickly, if the time they REACT to spotted threats is inreased and randomised. They should not start turning the same milisecond they spot the threat !! The time should vary (based on crew quality and just randomly) between half a second to whole few seconds. Read some war diares to see how much misunderstanding, communication problems (even within the crew), doing wrong things (because of stress), doing things wrong (same reason) ect ect ect happened. Not all the crews and not all the time reacted perfectly, without any delay or error.

The actual turn speed should also be randomised somewhat (each time a tank turns), reflecting the deferences in terrain, driver quality, random reaction time ect.

[Odin]

I agree that tanks should be able to turn more quickly in some situations (good driver, flat and relatively hard ground). But the turn speed in game may be good representation of average turn speed in various situations and different conditions.

I think the numerous pieces of evidence presented through the thread shows it isn't a fair reflection. None more so that the WWI Mk 1 turning in churned up ground in less than half the time WWII tanks do in CM.

Jason - Both tank crew awareness and turning speed need adjusting. That said, and as noted tanks still have a 'godlike' ability with their turret speed at the moment. If they spot infantry, the infantry is shoot up almost instantly and it is immaterial as to whether the tank has spun its chassis around. Personally I don't think tanks spot AT guns much more easily than they might when unbuttoned (although I accept it may need adjustment). Many a time I have fired a couple or more shots at a tank with an AT gun before it or other tanks near by spot my AT gun. On a couple of other occasions I have had AT guns in wooded areas on a hide command 300-500m in front of a tank in the hope the tank will present its flank, and the tanks haven't spotted the gun for 4-5 minutes (unfortunately the tank didn't present its flank before eventually spotting the AT guns!). I know the above is only anecdotal, but it is my experience with the game.

By all means lets look at spotting. When buttoned I'd agree tanks have an advantage they wuld be unlikely to enjoy in real life, but personally I don't think their spotting ability is too off when tanks are unbuttoned. Although again anecdotal, on countless other occasions enemy infantry has been positioned in undergrowth 200-500m in front of my unbuttoned armour and its taken a nearby infantry team to spot the enemy. Only then through 'borg' spotting do I put an area fire on the enemy infantry from my tank.

What is beyond doubt is that the slow turning speed harshly penalises assault guns, make manoeuvring slow and often unrealistic, and does nothing to stop turreted vehicles 'terminator' style spotting and annihilation of infantry when buttoned.

[Skwabie]

Mate of mine once said "no game is perfect unless I make it myself", maybe to a lesser extent "no spotting is perfect unless I spot it myself".

We need a first person mode. Put me in that TC's seat and.. what I see is what the tank will see.

Actually make it a 3rd option following Wego and RT. For the next 1 minute, you can jump into a particular tank or a soldier in a squad and control it, but you'll get no 2nd chances unlike wego.

I think it should be a good cure for this... "Infantry, God on the battlefield! And tanks are just another kind of targets!" mentality....

[Vanir Ausf B]

What is beyond doubt is that the slow turning speed harshly penalises assault guns, make manoeuvring slow and often unrealistic, and does nothing to stop turreted vehicles 'terminator' style spotting and annihilation of infantry when buttoned.

That brings up an interesting question: why have a turret? They add complexity, cost and vulnerability to a AVF. In game, a Panther takes 7-8 seconds to rotate its turret 90°, a Tiger tank takes twice that long.

[Alchenar]

That brings up an interesting question: why have a turret? They add complexity, cost and vulnerability to a AVF. In game, a Panther takes 7-8 seconds to rotate its turret 90°, a Tiger tank takes twice that long.

Because aiming with a turretless SPG is actually really difficult and requires intense co-ordination between the driver and gunner.

e: CM doesn't really model 'a little left, a little right, there', so slow turning speed works out as one of those 'unrealistic to be realistic' things.

[Freyberg]

CM doesn't really model 'a little left, a little right, there', so slow turning speed works out as one of those 'unrealistic to be realistic' things.

That's actually a very good point...

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

There's also the part that, generally speaking, for a given weight, the assault gun carries heavier armament than the tank chassis on which it's based. Panzer III 50mm gun, but 75mm gun as StuG III; T-34/76, but 85mm SU-85 and 122mm SU-122. There's also generally a lower vertical profile, which translates into greater survivability because of more precise aiming needed to hit, as well as better ability to use terrain to hide the lower profile assault gun.

Alchenar,

Not quite as straightforward as you might imagine, for the StuG III, as a case in point, can fire plus or minus 10 degrees off dead ahead. Where quickly pivoting the assault gun becomes important are in close range fights against crossing targets (high angular velocities) and in cramped quarters, such as cities, in which it's imperative to be able to maneuver quickly and sharply.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Macisle]

Pondering this further, I really don't think that increasing ATG rotation speed and further reducing AFV spotting ability alone will be enough to prevent "breaking" the game in terms of AFVs becoming ultra-terminators vs. infantry.

Think about how slow infantry can be and how clumsily they tend to use the terrain. So, while rotation speed and spotting could make things pretty balanced between AFVs and ATGs, our poor infantry would still often be left with their dickers in the wind. Allowing PFs, zooks, and shrecks to fire from buildings has helped, but that's not enough.

If you were really to pump up AFV/ATG rotation rates to real life levels, I think you've got to have much faster, more nimble infantry as well. Stuff like being able to peek around a corner for a very fast bazooka shot and then duck away would be necessary, along with real-world movement speeds (like VERY fast and coordinated dashes across the street).

Otherwise, you'd have to REALLY crank down AFV spotting and reaction times. So, for instance, right now that unit takes 45 seconds to turn. Okay, now it turns in 5 seconds, but must be unable to spot the infantry near it for an extra minute. Oh, wait...now how do we stop it from spotting that infantry, but not this other infantry...or tank...or...uh...man, this is getting HARD!

And that's ignoring the ability of the AFV player to spot with another unit and just have his "blind" AFV twirl around and area fire on the threatening infantry.

Again, I'm sure that BF has been through all this many times and come to the current situation as the best they can do until other areas improve first.

So, I'd put things in this order:

1. Make infantry faster (but certainly not to unrealistic levels), more nimble, and better coordinated in movement AND use of terrain.

2. Make ATGs rotate at realistic speeds.

3. Dial AFV spotting down further to more realistic levels.

4. After all that is done, increase AFV turn rates to more realistic levels.

[Oddball_E8]

That brings up an interesting question: why have a turret? They add complexity, cost and vulnerability to a AVF. In game, a Panther takes 7-8 seconds to rotate its turret 90°, a Tiger tank takes twice that long.

Many reasons.

And they asked that question when they developed the swedish S tank.

In a defensive role, there really is no deep need for a turret.

In the offensive role though, there definately is.

Speed and manouver is the name of the game and despite their name, assault guns aren't all that good at assaulting since they cannot push right up to the enemy without being severely hindered by their lack of a turret.

But, the S tank, for example, was built ground up for the defensive role.

It was a helluva tank in its day (still is if you ask me).

[acrashb]

if enemy tanks could just pivot in place in 2-3 seconds and face us frontally, on equal terms.

Get them in an "L" and turning quickly (bearing in mind that they have to spot the flank attack first) won't be much of an issue. The important adjunct to adjusting turning speed being adjusting spotting at the same time.

[Alchenar]

The S-Tank was built for combat in Sweden's densely forested hills, where a) there's likely a tree blocking your turret movement anyway and you can take a defensive position where you can predict with a good degree of accuracy where the enemy will appear because there's literally no other lines of approach.

John you are right, but that still means there needs to be a tradeoff - much faster rotation at close quarters should not be allowed to turn StuGs into monsters that can instantly acquire and range in on targets outside the gun traversal at medium-to-long range.

[Dadekster]

I don't know how much abstraction BF does with the armor regarding turning/pivoting/speed over terrain etc but in general I feel most of it just feels right when compared to how infantry is done in the game. I think there is a good balance and each has its pros and cons for what is ultimately just a game, although a very entertaining one. I honestly find it a bit pointless to debate things like how fast a tank can pivot or rotate its turret when you get to play as the all seeming Commander anyways. In the grand scheme of things with all the advantage seeing everything and controlling everything does 10 seconds really mean that much when taking this into account? To me this bit of sand in the gears is justified if that is indeed the case. Of course without debating this where would all the grogs go? In that case...carry on.

I will add that I find a bit of the OODA loop present causing a bit of the reason for some longer than expect delay...but that'd be abstraction and speculation at its finest.

[Odin]

The all seeing turreted terminator...

Or maybe not.

On a serious note, I don't think the tiger's actions make for a reasonable counter balance to their 'terminator' ability which many have argued tanks possess (I don't agree with that assertion when unbuttoned). In this particular incident, the tank crew which the tiger was attempting to target fired at least 5 pistol shots before the TC spotted them and they were within 70 metres of 4 unbuttoned tanks, and only two saw the crew (and one only temporarily when the crew got up). Does that really make for an unrealistic spotting ability?

A number of naysayers argue that tanks have a spotting advantage and can see infantry at long range when they shouldn't be able to. However, arguing a slow chassis traverse makes for a good counterbalance has little logic when at long range it is less likely a tank would have to traverse the hull of the tank to fire. I gave up recording at the end of the turn, and I expect the tiger to take at least another 10 seconds before it gets a shot off. Moments like the one in the video ruin the immersion of the game and don't seem like the most complicated of things to fix. Thankfully they don't happen that often, but when you need to push an attack through with little infantry support (as is the case in this video) armour will inevitably come into close contact with enemy soldiers and {<NJ actions like this will almost inevitably take place.

In addition to speeding up chassis traversing speeds, might it be an idea that it is coded into the game that tanks with turrets don't bother to swing their hulls round to fire at infantry? More often than not, it gets them into more trouble than it solves. In this incident traversing the hull has considerably slowed the tank's actions and I know enemy armour is close by and I will have a good chance of losing the tank as a result of its O+>@? actions.

I'll finish by saying, it cannot be doubted that BF make admirable efforts to meticulously recreate tanks' armour and AT capabilities. But why does mobility come a distant second?

[Vanir Ausf B]

What you're seeing there is just bad TacAI behavior, with the hull and turret rotation working at cross purposes. Fixing that would not be controversial.

[Dadekster]

What you're seeing there is just bad TacAI behavior, with the hull and turret rotation working at cross purposes. Fixing that would not be controversial.

Nonsense. This is obviously what is going on in this situation.

There is always a logical explanation.

[Odin]

What you're seeing there is just bad TacAI behavior, with the hull and turret rotation working at cross purposes. Fixing that would not be controversial.

Agreed, a lot of what is going on there is bad TacAI, which is why I suggest an easy fix would be to stop tanks rotating their hulls to fire at infantry. The situation in the video is exacerbated by the slow and unrealistic speed with which the hull pivots. If the tiger chassis turned at its real life speed, or something closer to it, the enemy crew would have been shot up by the end of the turn and I could have turned the tank to face forward at the start of the next.

As it is I've got to leave the tank to its own devices for a part of the next turn (eg 15-20 second pause command before a move command to correct its hull position) and hope the tank takes out the crew in that time. Even just giving the tank a covered armoured arc to stop it targeting the crew will not make it face in the direction of enemy armour (I can't give it a 'face' command at the same time).

[Skwabie]

Man... that is awfully painful. Reminds me why I only do real time, coz you can immediately issue the reverse command...