Hull-Turning speed of Tanks (this case: Stug) only 30% of real life performance?

[Bennie]

While I have a slight reluctance to second-guess the experts, I think it makes more sense to continue to refine the situational awareness of tanks rather than introduce an artificial kludge - slowed rotation speed - that looks silly on screen and creates unintended consequences.

[Childress]

Hey! I just noticed! My 2000th post was followed by post #1 from a new member*. Welcome to the forum, Bennie. So your first post was a complaint. That's OK!

*And some say harmonic convergence is a myth...

[Vanir Ausf B]

While I have a slight reluctance to second-guess the experts, I think it makes more sense to continue to refine the situational awareness of tanks rather than introduce an artificial kludge - slowed rotation speed - that looks silly on screen and creates unintended consequences.

I am always in favor of improvements to game systems, but as mentioned earlier it goes beyond situational awareness. Ground conditions and obstructing terrain are key. Also, in reality not all tanks could pivot on one track. Shermans could not. Wheeled vehicles obviously could not.

[John Kettler]

Bennie,

Welcome aboard!

Childress,

I can't hear you. Why? Because now (as of your No. 27) you're on a space odyssey!

To answer your question, I do believe that pivot rates, given tank SA has been degraded, ought to be improved. As it is, the limited traverse SPs are being punished, if you would, because of a problem they didn't cause and for which the real fix lies elsewhere.

c3k and Childress,

Am surprised that, for a sim which models so much and in fine detail, that many core AFV interactions aren't factored in at all, though terrain invariably seems to be discussed in explaining why a tank dasn't pivot, by either track braking or through neutral steering, while stopped.

Kauz,

A partial solution to the pivoting issue was used by more astute players in CMx1. That was to issue short Move-Pause Turn commands to change AFV aspect relative to the threat while not taking forever to do so. Much better than dying in place.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Andrew H.]

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.).

I think that this is a really key point. If a tank can pivot very quickly, but have a 10% chance of immobilization, things get complicated quickly.

Does the player need a particular way to indicate that a turn should be executed "pivot-style"? Clearly the TacAI would need to do the same, maybe doing a pivot turn when the enemy was near, and a slow turn when it was just moving.

But this would lead to all kinds of complaints/unrealistic effects - "My Panther got immobilized doing a quick pivot to face a HT!" "Why didn't my Panther quick pivot to shoot up the infantry doing the close assault?"

When the game gets SOPs, this might be easier to deal with.

[John Kettler]

Childress,

The Chieftain's Hatch at WoT is tremendous, not least because the author is a serving UK tanker and assesses things like the Hetzer by climbing onto and in them, occupying every crew station, showing and telling his readers what's what. The French experience with the Panther post War is something I'd never seen before and is full of useful groggy insights.

Regards,

John Kettler

[poesel]

First I'd like to say I don't think that tank & turret turning is broken. I guess it is working as intended and expected.

However it is a bit surprising that BFC decided to 'design' the result instead of 'engineering' it. Which is something they are trying not to do as per Steves post here:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1227369&postcount=1

(see lower half).

I would prefer if there was a better simulation about what goes on inside a tank and leave movements at their real world levels. That would have the benefit of solving other issues like the instant dead driver replacement.

Of course this is not easy to get right especially since inner tank communication is not visible to the player except for the 'occupation' green text on the screen. But IMHO it would be a worthy thing to do not least of all because it would make the soft factors of different tank designs more apparent.

[Childress]

Summing up:all the AFVs, including trucks,in the game can neutral steer. In reality only the later German tanks-Panther, Tiger, King Tiger- and a handful of Allied tanks, the Pershing and the Churchill among them could truly pivot in place. The mainstays of the German panzer force through most of the war, Stugs, IIIs and IVs, could not. Nor the Sherman. (Correct me if I'm wrong) BF tuned down hull rotation rates in order to include the acquisition sequence, possibility of inhospitable terrain (not simulated) and the risks to the drive train (not simulated either).

[John Kettler]

Childress,

Unless I fundamentally misunderstood Steve, BFC has NOT implemented neutral steering in the game, even for those AFVs which could do so. Additionally, Steve made quite the point of describing how huge the turn radius was on the Sherman, a gripe historically recorded by the crews of same. Given these factors, I fail to see how neutral steer can be in the game, never mind in the game across the board. My understanding is that the rotation in place rates were nerfed from the get was to prevent the unholy combination of player SA, ability to react instantaneously (in RT; atypically fast in WEGO) to developments and squash threats with wild abandon. My argument is that since tank SA, especially buttoned tank SA, has been dramatically (?) degraded, then maybe now the rates can be made either historically accurate or at least improved somewhat.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Kauz]

....

My argument is that since tank SA, especially buttoned tank SA, has been dramatically (?) degraded, then maybe now the rates can be made either historically accurate or at least improved somewhat.

...

Exactly!

[c3k]

Often brought up. The neutral steer was hazardous to the German tanks. Gear metal was too weak. Metallurgical discourse to follow.

Skid steering is different than radius geared turning.

The only way to keep players and the TacAI sane was thw compromise solution of in-game pivot turning.

[Childress]

My argument is that since tank SA, especially buttoned tank SA, has been dramatically (?) degraded, then maybe now the rates can be made either historically accurate or at least improved somewhat.

John, avoid jargon and grog code. There are non-native English speakers on the forum I'm assuming SA= spatial awareness.

Doesn't your suggestion result in a Terminator tank (your term), turning and then firing with the rapidity of a M1A1 Abrams?

[Kauz]

John, avoid jargon and grog code. There are non-native English speakers on the forum I'm assuming SA= spatial awareness.

Doesn't your suggestion result in a Terminator tank (your term), turning and then firing with the rapidity of a M1A1 Abrams?

SA = spotting ability.....

at least this is what make sense...and how i interpretated it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

SA = sex appeal

[Childress]

Haha. Substituting 'sex appeal' for SA in John's post make for an hilarious read.

Sorry, John....

[John Kettler]

Childress,

The term has been used dozens of times on the Forum. SA = situational awareness, a term which is more commonly associated with aircraft pilotage, especially fighters.

As for my suggestion, if the SA of the tank properly reflects the very real multiple limits on the crew (optics, noise, internal layout, etc.), especially a buttoned one, to detect threats and react--which it assuredly didn't remotely do to the necessary level of detail before, then it should be possible to significantly improve pivot rates. US Army studies show, for example, that a buttoned tank has only 50% of the effectiveness of an unbuttoned tank. For purposes of this discussion, the term applies to TC only. The Israelis took serious TC losses in order to keep that combat edge, believing that the gain far exceeded the loss.

In my estimation, tanks have been so lethal precisely because their myriad weaknesses, in terms of everything from initial detection of something, to classification, IDing as threat, reacting to the threat, engaging the threat, assessing terminal effect, reengaging, etc., haven't been modeled. In today's parlance, the kill chain modeling is way off. Consequently, tanks perform way better in the game than they ever did historically.

If tanks and similar are reined in for entirely valid reasons, then it should be possible to have far more credible pivot rates than we presently do. Indeed, if the tank end of the problem is modeled well enough, then the overall net performance of tanks should drop, greatly reducing the frequency of historically unlikely first round hits, especially from low velocity weapons like the Sherman 75mm. In turn, this will impose a more reasonable combat tempo on the game itself.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Childress]

Consequently, tanks perform way better in the game than they ever did historically.

But your proposal, faster and more historically authentic hull rotation, would only render tanks more fearsome in game. I think you've become a victim of cognitive dissonance.

[John Kettler]

Childress,

Having stated my argument twice now, I'm starting to wonder whether I'm writing in English or whether you're being obtuse. It's as though your brain registers only the half of what I'm saying that worsens the problem with tank lethality. Let me restate my central premise, after first defining the current situation.

Current Situation

1.

For a variety of reasons previously addressed, tank lethality was dramatically higher in CMx2 than historical performance figures.

2.

This lethality was not merely the result of what I deem incorrect modeling of key dynamics of the tank kill chain, starting with noticing a something and extending thence clear through to target destruction, but also of player omniscience, coupled with the ability to respond to battlefield events at speeds far quicker than was historically possible.

3.

For these reasons, and possibly others, BFC deliberately decided to hold down pivot in place angular rates in order to keep the already fearsome tanks from becoming outright Terminators.

4. In an effort to once again make infantry viable and simulate at least some of the real world limits on tanks in combat, BFC made major adjustments in the tank's SA and reaction time, especially when the tank is buttoned. The net effect of these changes is that the tank has been considerably toned down.

My Proposal

Since the pivot rate was nerfed in order to avoid making tanks practically unstoppable, my suggestion is that BFC, having significantly degraded tank performance where it should be degraded, based on history, tech and ergonomics, may wish to improve the current pivot rates, but not so much as to a) bring the main problem back to prior levels or worsen it.

What I'm suggesting is that BFC fix, to at least some degree, what was earlier nerfed in order to avoid a serious game consequence. I believe we can make some progress toward getting limited traverse SPs and tanks to a place where they can pivot at speeds significantly faster than the present operating parameters, yet not create Terminators or Super Terminators in the process. Indeed, were further effort to be put into more detailed modeling of what really happens in the tank kill chain and how fast it happens, then we may eventually see something close to actual pivot rates, yet with the tanks still facing a formidable series of problems, the same ones they faced in combat.

Concluding, I've stated my case about as plainly as I can, given a long, ugly night last night. I hope you will carefully consider what I've said. You seem to view the concepts I've put forward as being mutually exclusionary, but I believe there is a way to get the right game results by correctly modeling tank warfare, rather than creating an in-game effect via nerfing something only secondarily, if that, related to the primary problem. If a tank, by way of behavior coding, morale state, fatigue, satiety and more, simply can't respond as fast as the player can, then player omniscience and near instantaneous response will be reduced as the high leverage factors in the overall tank lethality calculation. The overall effect should be that a tank will behave in-game close to or the same as a real WW II tank. If that happens, then the way a battle unfolds will change, op tempo will slow down, first round kills will become less likely, dictating longer engagement sequences, and the tank will last longer. No longer will a CM WW II engagement more nearly resemble Desert Storm than the WW II counterpart it's supposed to depict.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Amizaur]

I would add one more thing needed to be modelled, to achieve realistic behaviour of tanks - realistic delays for passing orders and info between crewmembers. And also realistic delays for crewmembers proceeding those orders.

It could be abstracted as random delays between target spotting by the TC (or other crewmember) and resulting reaction of the tank (it's movement, usage of weapons).