When I assault a bunker, the crew comes out fighting?

[womble]

.30-06 actually destroying bunkers (no KO'ing) is indeed strange Ammo cookoffs sound like an explanation, apart from bunkers not having any ammo available?

These bunkers did have ammo available, but are destructible even if that ammo has been nicked by a sneaky spare scout team. Though they weren't so sneaky by the time they'd loaded up with 7.5k x 7.92mm, 2.5k x 9mm and half a thousand 7.92k, I'll warrant.

Did you try any tests with anything else than a scout team, for example a full squad?

Nope. Just sounds like more fish in the barrel to me. Plus more chances of a grenade on someone's LBE being blamed for destroying the bunker.

[Lethaface]

Those are some heavy hauling scouts hehe.

[Lethaface]

I was indeed incorrect about the ammo. There are even visible crates of m

Just fired up a single amateur test myself. Two bunkers full with pz grenadiers against 8 m1917A1's separated by 300 meters of open terrain. The yanks won with just a few casualties. One bunker got emptied out, the other was burning after a couple of minutes. However it was 'knocked out', not 'destroyed'.

After 100+ penetrations I guess there is a chance for the ammo to brew up, all ammo being tracer rounds

[c3k]

Interesting and non-intuitive...

[womble]

However it was 'knocked out', not 'destroyed'.

That's usually a distinction between which side is looking at it: the owner sees it as "destroyed", whereas the side that did the harm sees it as 'knocked out". At least that's my rough-and-ready approximation; I've not noticed any exceptions, but I've not really been looking.

After 100+ penetrations I guess there is a chance for the ammo to brew up, all ammo being tracer rounds

Aye, that'd be fair enough, but once the ammo's been run off with by some giggling fool of a Scout team?

[Lethaface]

That's usually a distinction between which side is looking at it: the owner sees it as "destroyed", whereas the side that did the harm sees it as 'knocked out". At least that's my rough-and-ready approximation; I've not noticed any exceptions, but I've not really been looking.

Aye, that'd be fair enough, but once the ammo's been run off with by some giggling fool of a Scout team?

I based my conclusions on the END Mission screen (knocked out), somehow I presumed that the status of equipment is the same for all sides in the END mission screen?. Could be true that enemy tanks/bunkers never show 'destroyed', haven't been looking that close either to be honest. Threw in a second test before I moved on and it resulted in a similar outcome. Game was over after 7 minutes, 1 bunker empty 1 ko'ed although this time not burning.

[akd]

I've just run a test where one of the 14 bunkers was Destroyed within six (count them: six) seconds of the start including the time it took for the MGs to spot, Aim and begin firing. And that was after I'd loaded the ammo onto a spare team during set up and carted it out of harm's way. So basically, a big empty box made of 2' thick concrete was made useless as shelter, and uninhabitable by a couple of dozen rounds. Preposterous. Even if there is a technical "pseudo-explanation". This isn't some isolated one-in-a-million thing. Sure, I'm running some pretty fierce fire at the bunkers in these tests, but all that's doing is shortening the interval so I don't have to exhaust one MG's ammo store to do it.

Occupied or abandoned bunkers? If the bunkers are empty, you may be running into the code that makes abandoned vehicles more likely to transition to KO'd when taking non-critical penetrations. If occupied, please post a save and I'll try to report it, as it sounds like something changed to increase the likelyhood of KO via rifle-caliber fire.

[womble]

I based my conclusions on the END Mission screen (knocked out), somehow I presumed that the status of equipment is the same for all sides in the END mission screen?

I'm sure it is. I was basing my statements on looking at both sides in a hot seat game, as they were destroyed.

[womble]

Occupied or abandoned bunkers? If the bunkers are empty, you may be running into the code that makes abandoned vehicles more likely to transition to KO'd when taking non-critical penetrations. If occupied, please post a save and I'll try to report it, as it sounds like something changed to increase the likelyhood of KO via rifle-caliber fire.

Occupied. Turns out that one in the first test I thought was empty was only empty because its occupants had all been killed in the first minute and I hadn't noticed, with the "status at the end showing when you go back to the beginning" thing. Even with Conscript, Poor Morale, -2 Leadership and no C2, the Scout teams knew enough to stay in the bunkers til they were destroyed

I'll post up the scenario, and if you want, the turn I've still got sitting there, with all the bunkers dead after 14 minutes. Or would you rather I run to the half way point from the beginning again? Let me know and I'll happily run through the turns again. 75 HMGs firing takes a surprisingly long time to calculate

Edit. Apparently I quit that run-through. I'll re-run a couple of turns and save the replays. Let me know what information is the most useful.

[womble]

The scenario should be available at:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/79012974/The%20firing%20range%20-%20bunkers%20vs%20HMGs.btt

[womble]

Hm. Can I take it that the presence or otherwise of ammo in the bunker has no effect on whether it's destructible by small arms fire? Cos it's a PITA to empty the blasted things before I get started on this runthrough.

[womble]

I've put the first three turns of a new test up: Conscript, Poor, -2 Scout teams, ammo left in the bunkers. Hotseat game Passwords are blank for both sides.

Turn 1 (2 dead bunkers)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/79012974/Bunkers%20vs%20HMGs%20-%20German%20001replay.bts

Turn 2 (2 more, for a total of 4)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/79012974/Bunkers%20vs%20HMGs%20-%20German%20002replay.bts

Turn 3 (7 total dead bunkers - looks like the halflife might be shortened by the ammo storage...)

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/79012974/Bunkers%20vs%20HMGs%20-%20German%20003replay.bts

Hopefully those 4 files should show up any little buglets.

[Lethaface]

See Wonble, just like in "The road to Nijmegen", determination and resolute action leads to decisive results!

[Bulletpoint]

I cannot verify your findings about concrete bunkers being knocked out by small arms fire.

In my playthrough of the Omaha scenario, I had the bunkers under continual tank fire for around 30 turns. Casualties in the bunkers were very few (I knocked out ONE bunker in those 30 turns), and caused by the rare lucky HE-shot going through the view slit.

After HE ammo was exhausted, I kept shooting with machineguns, both from the tanks and from squads, and got loads and loads of "penetrations". These caused no casualties however.

Possibly you get those results because of the flat terrain of your test map. The bunkers on Omaha are placed higher than the beach.

However, I alsy tried against the single bunker that is placed closer to the water line, and results were the same with that one.. It's still higher than the actual beach though.

[womble]

I cannot verify your findings about concrete bunkers being knocked out by small arms fire.

Possibly you get those results because of the flat terrain of your test map.

Perhaps. That's entirely reasonable, after all; the bullets which enter the slit will mostly be ricocheting off the ceiling into the back wall lined with sandbags, and the shooters will be harder targets. A similar phenomenon makes targets in upper storeys of buildings more difficult to neutralise.

Flat ground is the only reasonable default test situation though. And produces unreasonable results.

Lethaface: what are you on about?

[Bulletpoint]

Perhaps. That's entirely reasonable, after all; the bullets which enter the slit will mostly be ricocheting off the ceiling into the back wall lined with sandbags, and the shooters will be harder targets. A similar phenomenon makes targets in upper storeys of buildings more difficult to neutralise.

Flat ground is the only reasonable default test situation though. And produces unreasonable results.

In addition, I suspect that you are able to knock out bunkers with small arms because once you cause a casualty, unexperienced troops will tend to at least withdraw a bit, even if they are not all that shaken up.

Withdrawing while in a bunker leads to the bunker being "knocked out", since it is not possible to re-enter.

Reason why I don't see that in the Omaha mission is because the bunker crews are elite, and will not be suppressed, and even if they are, they stay put.

[Lethaface]

Perhaps. That's entirely reasonable, after all; the bullets which enter the slit will mostly be ricocheting off the ceiling into the back wall lined with sandbags, and the shooters will be harder targets. A similar phenomenon makes targets in upper storeys of buildings more difficult to neutralise.

Flat ground is the only reasonable default test situation though. And produces unreasonable results.

Lethaface: what are you on about?

Just a joke with a reference to the other thread; anyway appreciate your testing work!

[womble]

In addition, I suspect that you are able to knock out bunkers with small arms because once you cause a casualty, unexperienced troops will tend to at least withdraw a bit, even if they are not all that shaken up.

Happens just the same with elite fanatic +2 leader crews too. And on bunkers that haven't taken any casualties or even a "wound". Just ran the first minute of such a test and three bunkers were destroyed at the end of the first minute. Only one of those had sustained a casualty, and none of them had more than a few bits of yellow in their suppression meter.

Withdrawing while in a bunker leads to the bunker being "knocked out", since it is not possible to re-enter.

Which is still nonsense. Especially if there haven't been any casualties in the bunker. It's also not what seems to happen if you watch the "action status" text in the bottom left. The one that got broke first in this case was "Destroyed" before the casualty, and it was 13 seconds after the destruction that the crew's status changed from Spotting to Exiting. Unlike troops under fire in the open, the "Bunker vehicle" passengers don't creep around or Cower, even when Pinned. Bailing everyone from a jeep or truck or tank doesn't leave it at "Destroyed". Even if they bail on their own initiative before the vehicle has been wrecked (like sensible pTruppen). Bunkers are vehicles, not crewed weapons.

With the Conscript occupants, they were pretty much all in Panic state from about 15s in. Panic-ing troops run about like headless chickens, but these bunker crews knew enough to stay in their hidey holes for many minutes.

Even if you've hit upon the reason, it's nonsense.

[Bulletpoint]

Even if you've hit upon the reason, it's nonsense.

I assume you mean that it's nonsense the way bunkers work in this game, rather than what I said being nonsense - as I just theorised about how the game engine works, on the basis of your findings.

And if so, we both agree that bunkers could do with an overhaul.

I really like the way most things in the game works, and I hope to see Battlefront continue to improve, tweak and expand the engine.

[womble]

I assume you mean that it's nonsense the way bunkers work in this game, rather than what I said being nonsense - as I just theorised about how the game engine works, on the basis of your findings.

You have, indeed grasped my meaning and intent The results the game produces are nonsense, not your analysis (though I think it flawed, per my argument).

And if so, we both agree that bunkers could do with an overhaul.

AKD's response makes me optimisitic that it's mostly a bug in this case, rather than a design issue (like the terrain mesh things in another thread). I remain puzzled as to why wooden bunkers show no hit text, and concrete bunkers show "Penetration" the whole time (not "Hit opening - Penetration" or whatever it is you get on open top vehicles and hatch hits). The "tracers" mostly going right through the structure, rather than ricocheting off seems evidence to me that there's some sort of shortcut being used (like they don't give actual line-plane intersection cover as walls and buildings do, cos they, the bunkers, are treated as vehicles, just a mahoosive "terrain save" bonus), and if that sort of approximation can be rooted out (especially where it has failings), that can only be an improvement in the whole scheme of modelling for fact not effect.

I really like the way most things in the game works, and I hope to see Battlefront continue to improve, tweak and expand the engine.

I have no doubt whatsoever that they will. Whether they work on this sort of thing, we'll just have to wait and see

[Bulletpoint]

I remain puzzled as to why wooden bunkers show no hit text, and concrete bunkers show "Penetration" the whole time (not "Hit opening - Penetration" or whatever it is you get on open top vehicles and hatch hits).

I have a hypothesis about that as well. When you look at a concrete bunker, you notice that it has quite a large primary vision slit, which in turn has a smaller slit, and so on in a stair-stepping pattern, until the final, narrow firing slit.

I am sure we all know these 'stairs' are meant to prevent bullets deflecting into the bunker, while still giving the occupants a wide field of view.

However, I think that the game might use the outer dimensions of the bunker for determining if a shot has penetrated or not. If so, then all shots hitting these 'staircases' will count as penetrations, as the bullet has indeed passed beyond the outer limits of the bunker. But in fact these shots do not penetrate the actual bunker wall.

So, in computer-speak: There seem to be two separate collision meshes, one for the outer limits of a vehicle/bunker, and another one for its internal, critical components. In the bunker, these two meshes seem to be adjusted wrong, making the game think that the bunker has been penetrated when it has in fact not.

But some of the penetrations are valid. Those are the ones that hit right in the actual opening. Their messages of "penetration" are masked between all the others though.

Well, it's all conjecture on my part. A technical guy from Battlefront would be needed to say if I'm right or wrong..