Kauz Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Hello guys, did anybody had the feeling too, that nearly all turrets change their orientation quite fast (in relation what you sometimes read about the real life behaviour) and that the hull-rotation speed is quite low. Former times i always said to myself....that it is an issue to model the tank behaviour in an abstract way, because the AI can never reflect the decisions and behaviour of a real human lead tank. While i could understand and support it this way at least for the fast turret-turning speed, i had trouble to understand why the tanks need so long to turn their hull....no matter if they are driving and then rotate or standing and then rotate...it always take long. Some minutes ago i just saw again a video of a Stug III turning around on gravel/shingle....and then i thought it might be a good idea to test it on Red Thunder. I bought some ELITE StuG III (all other maximum too). I took different groundtypes: Gravel, shingel, highway, shingel road, open ground and let them drive forward different speed types and than just gave them the drive-order for driving into other direction similar to the video-baviour. One Stug i gave the order to "face" after he reached his turning point, before he drives in the before faced direction. All Stug behave the same way! The all need about 20-23 seconds to fullfill what the Stug III in the video did in about 30-50% of the time. I do not think that it is well simulated if a Elite Stug gets the order to change the orientation, that he needs about 3 times longer than in real live a more or less layman needs to do it. The scene is between 6:50 min and 7:15 in following video: It is worth considering that in a critical situation....the driver should not be that careful and slow/lame like a tommy at his tea time. Especially if you keep in mind that because of the low turret-turn speed the tanks most time more moved their hull orientation first before they adjust the turret aiming. And this especially if they wanted to optimize their armor angle in a dogfight with a enemy tank.... But what do you think? P.S.: The only thing i could imagine is that the engine is stronger in this tank than it was back in time. Some tanks in the video after this Stug seemed to take longer to turn around... But this looked more like some rookie-driving or just people who get the order to drive carefully, because they do not want to harm/stress these old precious things. P.P.S: This was not the first new time video or old war footage i saw where i got the impression that the turning speed of the vehicle is in the game is verrrry very reduced. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Search functon on forums: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=114038&highlight=turning+ratio already discussed a lot, concepts apply for all tanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kauz Posted June 8, 2014 Author Share Posted June 8, 2014 Search functon on forums: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=114038&highlight=turning+ratio already discussed a lot, concepts apply for all tanks. Answer of BF was that tanks would become like terminators against infantry, right? The problem is the spotting-ability of the tank and the fast turret-turning-speed....not the hull-turning speed. If the tank spots infantry too easy then he is able either driving away or just turning the turret and kill the infantry. The hull-turning itself is not very important for protecting the infantry...it helps not for fleeing from infantry attacks nor for killing issue (the hull-MG in this game is more or less crap---The turret-MG is the real killer) In the opposite the bad turning speed of hull is a big disadvantage (more than it should be) for all tanks which get in a flanked position, against and AT-guns and ambushs.....and for assault guns without turrets.... If you modell the spotting ability right...then you do not need to down-modell the hull-turning speed So it seems that the devs think that their tanks are spotting still too fast other threats especially in the flank....if they would not think like this they would not have needed to reduce the hull-turning speed Conclusion/Solution Suggestion: Reduce the spotting ability of tanks (especially at the flanks), increase the Hull-turning speed (about decreasing the turret-turning speed (at least a little...) we should talk another day) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 I am really not entitled to say what the devs think or thought on their systems concerning spotting and turning speed. If one has some bathroom time to spare and hop in to say what's the truth ok, otherwise the rest is all useless speculation. I'm fine with actual mechanics and wouldn't like terminators tanks, infantry already is in great disadvantage, but it all depends on the situation and conditions, so I belive a good/experienced player will know how to deal with a tank with his infantry and vice versa. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Because in the game turret/hull rotation incorporates target acquisition which is far from instantaneous. So strictly realistic rotation rates would result in, well, less realism. It's a unitary process. Separating the two elements, turning and acquisition, into discrete sequences my be a worthwhile goal for 4.0. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kauz Posted June 8, 2014 Author Share Posted June 8, 2014 ..... I'm fine with actual mechanics and wouldn't like terminators tanks, infantry already is in great disadvantage,.... That is what i try to say.... Increasing the hull-turning speed does NOT make the tank a terminator unit against infantry (because the turret is already fast and deadly--the Hull does not add real firepower) Increasing the hull-turning speed just would reduce the unrealistic advantages for flanking units and reduce the disadvantages of units without turret. For instance: After a tank spotted a flanking AT-gun the AT-gun in the game now has 2-3 times more time to fight the tanks weak flank than in real life. Or after a Stug spotted a flanking tank, the Stug need 2-3 times more time to orientate in the enemy tanks direction than in real life. time in which the tank can **** the Stug and where the stug in the opposite is not able to return fire. This leads to very different outcomes ....in tank battles.....(the battles against infantry are not affected really) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kauz Posted June 8, 2014 Author Share Posted June 8, 2014 Because in the game turret/hull rotation incorporates target acquisition which is far from instantaneous. So strictly realistic rotation rates would result in, well, less realism. It's a unitary process. Separating the two elements, turning and acquisition, into discrete sequences my be a worthwhile goal for 4.0. Well....i thought Combat Mission has a seperate spotting system....the turret and the hull only start turning after a target is acquired/spotted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Spotting and acquisition, which requires minute adjustments from the gunner, are not the same thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kauz Posted June 8, 2014 Author Share Posted June 8, 2014 Spotting and acquisition, which requires minute adjustments from the gunner, are not the same thing. i do not know how long a gunner needs to evaluate the right aiming on an enemy...depends on optics, training, skill and DISTANCE.... But what i know is that there is no need for a driver to rotate his tank 3 times slower when possible into the rough direction of the spotted enemy. Especially not if i recognize that there is a Canon pointing my weak flank.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 i do not know how long a gunner needs to evaluate the right aiming on an enemy...depends on optics, training, skill and DISTANCE.... . Yep. In that situation experience is king. The limitation inherent in BF's implementation is, imo, when you want the vehicle to change direction quickly in a non-targeting environment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kauz Posted June 8, 2014 Author Share Posted June 8, 2014 Yep. In that situation experience is king. The limitation of BF's implementation is, imo, when you want the vehicle to change direction quickly in a non-targeting situation. The tanks turn their chassis/hull/vehicle orientation in generally slow ( i do not talk about the turret) .....no matter if i gave the specific order for such a turning movement or if the TacAI is doing it by itself because it spotted a gun in this direction. That is problem..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 The tanks turn their chassis/hull/vehicle orientation in generally slow ( i do not talk about the turret) .....no matter if i gave the specific order for such a turning movement or if the TacAI is doing it by itself because it spotted a gun in this direction. That is problem..... Less of a problem than having your Shermans or Panthers turn at realistic speed and fire without delay like modern AFVs with their computer assisted targeting systems. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kauz Posted June 8, 2014 Author Share Posted June 8, 2014 Less of a problem than having your Shermans or Panthers turn at realistic speed and fire without delay like modern AFVs with their computer assisted targeting systems. Well the turrets behave exactly like this at the moment. Conclusion: -turrets are fast-turners and operate like aimbots (both: gun and turret-koax-MG) even then the tank is moving. -hull is a slow-turner and this only leads to very different outcomes when tanks/assault-guns/AT-guns fighting each other 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 Tanks in CM fire inaccurately when moving. They're close to useless. Doctrine suggests turning the hull in the direction of the threat. Are you arguing to make a point or arguing to win the argument? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kauz Posted June 8, 2014 Author Share Posted June 8, 2014 Tanks in CM fire inaccurately when moving. They're close to useless. .... It seems that you do not get what i am trying to say... The turrets, and this is well known, are able to: 1. turn fast 2. hit enemy targets with gun better then they should while moving. 3. are able to aim and hit fast infantry with their turret-coaxial-MG. To point 3: Once i had to stop an infantry attack. Within a bunch of minutes i caused 70 infantry casualties with a panther tank on shorter range (50-100 meters) and this mainly by his aimbotting turret-coaxial-machine-gun AAANNNDDD this while driving 40-50% of the time. A heavy machine gun unit in a standard game can be happy to cause 15-20 kills in the whole game. __________ Now back to the original point of the problem.... Doctrine suggests turning the hull in the direction of the threat. Yes...nobody told anything else!!!! I try to tell the whole thread that it does this too slow.....and that there is no need to turn the tank-chassis that slow...(the tanks in the game need about 3 times longer to turn their hull than in real life ...that is a problem because the tanks expose 3 times longer than necessary their weak points (for instance: the flank). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarre Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 mmm 50-100 metres are long distance to make close assault again tank, but i newe had problem do close assault if i have good cover and ewen if tanks spot them turret dosent realy turn sou fast that infantry canot do close assault. then this hull turning , its game balance because if tanks start to turn fast then we should ingrease example at gun firing speed. because in real life there is 2-3 guy whit new ammo all ready waiting to load in gun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted June 8, 2014 Share Posted June 8, 2014 i do not know how long a gunner needs to evaluate the right aiming on an enemy...depends on optics, training, skill and DISTANCE.... Varies by tank and crew, but for the Panther it was about 20 to 30 seconds. http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/ But what i know is that there is no need for a driver to rotate his tank 3 times slower when possible into the rough direction of the spotted enemy. Especially not if i recognize that there is a Canon pointing my weak flank.... Another factor not yet mentioned is that in reality terrain would often restrict turning in ways it does not in the game. For example, narrow streets or in forests. Your argument seems to be more supportive of slowing down turret rotation* than speeding up hull rotation. * BTW, turret rotation speeds in-game are actual, not artificially sped up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 While there has indeed been a great deal of discussion on hull rotation speed and its criticality to the effectiveness and combat survival of limited traverse SPs, I'd like to mention that the hull pivot rates were set before the subsequent downgrades to the ability of tanks, especially buttoned ones, to spot and engage infantry. Steve didn't want tanks, already terribly potent by both nature and player omniscience, to become Terminators--able to instantly react to any threat and kill everything in sight. Maybe it's time to take a fresh look at the pivoting issue? Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kauz Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 .... Maybe it's time to take a fresh look at the pivoting issue? .... i hope for it... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ales Dvorak Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Yep. In that situation experience is king. In music, as in everything, the disappearing moment of experience is the firmest reality. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 In music, as in everything, the disappearing moment of experience is the firmest reality. C'mon, Ales. That's easy for you to say. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Steve didn't want tanks, already terribly potent by both nature and player omniscience, to become Terminators--able to instantly react to any threat and kill everything in sight. Maybe it's time to take a fresh look at the pivoting issue? You mean speeding it up? Sentence 2 contradicts sentence 1. And I always thought of you as a master logician. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Very complex issue. Turret rotation: electric vs. hydraulic vs. manual. Some depend on engine speed. Inertial effects seem to be ignored. Slope effects (unbalanced turrets) seem ignored. Gear lash seems ignored. However, if you think that a crew could figure out how to turn their turret to align on a target, most of the above is moot. Sure, it could add flavor, but would it change effectiveness? Pivot: ground condition, suspension, track length:width ratio, drivetrain, rpms, driver skill, gear reliability, brake wear, etc., all play a part. Again, given a trained crew, wouldn't they know how to pivot? If so, would they always do a max effort pivot? If so, how often would they stall the tank or immobilize it? (Thrown track, broken link, busted final drive gear, etc.). Finally, you, the player, are far more aware than the TacAI. Some allowance has to be given there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Varies by tank and crew, but for the Panther it was about 20 to 30 seconds. http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/chieftains-hatch-french-panthers/ Interesting stuff. Didn't realize the World of Tanks site was a grog haven. Excerpt: The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories: • Superior flotation. • Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome. • The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no tell-tale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate. • The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. … • German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy. • German tanks have better sloped armor and a better silhouette than the American tanks Not a happy comparison. German officers were not quite so universal in their praise of the Panther. General Fritz Bayerlein, commander of the Panzer Lehr Division, offered this summary of the Panther after the campaign in Normandy: While the PzKpfw IV could still be used to advantage, the PzKpfw V [Panther] proved ill adapted to the terrain. The Sherman because of its maneuverability and height was good ... [the Panther was] poorly suited for hedgerow terrain because of its width. Long gun barrel and width of tank reduce maneuverability in village and forest fighting. It is very front-heavy and therefore quickly wears out the front final drives, made of low-grade steel. High silhouette. Very sensitive power-train requiring well-trained drivers. Weak side armor; tank top vulnerable to fighter-bombers. Fuel lines of porous material that allow gasoline fumes to escape into the tank interior causing a grave fire hazard. Absence of vision slits makes defense against close attack impossible. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Pivot: ground condition, suspension, track length:width ratio, drivetrain, rpms, driver skill, gear reliability, brake wear, etc., all play a part. . Not in game. Ground conditions don't seem to matter. You observe that a tank pivoting 180 degrees on road or open tile expends the same number of seconds to finish the rotation as one in an a forest or mud tile. 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.