Why can't I choose my ammo?

[Talespin Jim]

An enemy tank or AFV is hiding behind a bush. I know he's there. My armored unit watched him move there. I know about what elevation the ground must be because of the terrain all around it.

Yet, if I target the ground in front of the bush and fire, my understanding, and watching what the crew reloads the gun with, it appears that it will always shoot HE (High Explosive Ammunition).

The question is, why can't I tell my tank to use AP? For that matter, why can't I tell it to use its APCR? Actually, since APCR was to only be used on tank destroyers I can kind of understand that one, maybe it should be left up to the tank commander--However, I've yet to see a tank fire APCR.

It's my understanding that the only way to tell it to fire armor piercing is to use "Target Armor". But in that case, my tank doesn't fire at all unless they actually see something in their Armor Targeting Arc, even though they know there's a tank hiding behind a bush.

Why don't we have a Target Armor command that will cause my unit to fire repeatedly with AP ammo at a target that it does not have a clear line of site to? It's just silly that a tank cannot be damaged because it is hiding behind a bush. I've even tried blasting the bush into oblivion with HE, to see if I could get a line of sight that way, to no avail.

For that matter, why don't we have a full set of commands that will always default to HE unless the unit knows it is shooting at armor, as we do now, PLUS a full set of commands for AP if the unit is carrying AP weapons and ammo? I'm finding this unrealistically limiting.

For example, why am I limited to giving my tank hunter team a 180 degree armor arc when I want to give them a 360 degree armor arc, or a 270 degree? There is a good reason why this is important. You set up your bazooka or panzershrek/faust so that the enemy armor can only approach from one general area. You know the frontal armor is too thick to damage it with a bazooka. So you need to insure a flank or rear shot. Therefore, while the enemy armor is coming at you, you don't want to shoot at it, you want to hold your fire and hide behind your obstacle until it begins to pass either to the left or to the right of you. Then you fire with a flank shot. This means you need a 270 field of fire and nothing else will do, so you can shoot at vehicles traveling any direction near you except straight at you. Or you need a button that says "Flank or Rear Shot Only."

Another thing I don't understand, is when we know the enemy is behind a bush, why do we have to target the ground in front of it? Why can't we just target the bush? That's what you would do in real life.

While I'm at it, when you create a way point and then select it so you can use the target command to check line of sight, why isn't the line drawn from the waypoint instead of the original position of the unit? And since it is so hard to figure out from the color scheme of the target line drawn, where the line of sight is actually blocked, how about having a little arrow point to the exact point where LOS is blocked?

Better yet, there is a really simple way to do away with checking LOS altogether. Instead, when you click on a unit, everything that unit can see, including terrain, could be slightly illuminated and everything it can't see could be darkened as if in the shadow of a tree, and things it can sort of see could be somewhere in between. That's what is natural for us. That's the way our mind works. You know instantly what you can see. No more drawing twenty lines from each place you can move your unit to, to see if you are setting your unit up in a good spot.

[sburke]

A lot of what you are asking for is considered by BF a level of micro management they do not want to introduce. The AI is supposed to handle much of what you are requesting as user defined actions. As to your suggestions on LOS checking, it might be worth some effort to do some searching on the forum. This is a really complicated subject with a lot of caveats to how it works and when and why some of your suggestions are simply not an option as the engine currently stands. There are reams of discussion on it.

For example, why am I limited to giving my tank hunter team a 180 degree armor arc when I want to give them a 360 degree armor arc, or a 270 degree?

Hit shift when selecting target arc- it will automatically do a full 360. That is more intended as keeping a unit to remain hidden more than establishing a target. The point of a target arc is to focus on a direction. A really large arc is kind of pointless beyond establishing a range limit which the 360 degree will do.

[Holman]

Big hurry, short answers:

--CM has always been about the TacAI having control the player doesn't have. It's possible to micromanage things up to a certain level, but there's always a point at which the player is not the soldier (or the tank commander); the TacAI is. Sometimes it's frustrating, but usually in ways that seem realistic.

--I don't feel that I often encounter the problem of a bush or a tree hiding a tank. If the tank can't be seen to be targeted, it's usually because the obstruction would block the shell and make the shot not really worth taking. Again, I can usually trust the TacAI to take a shot when the shot is good.

--Re: why targeting lines can't originate from waypoints when checking from the waypoint. The explanation offered earlier is that it would require more programming time than it is worth. Maybe someday we'll have it. In practice, the status quo implementation becomes no problem at all after you've gotten used to it.

--The final LOS display change you ask for would require radical engine changes to (IMHO) little real effect. I've played the game long enough to know intuitively what can be seen (in general) from a unit's position. The LOS tool just lets me spot check certain details or borderline cases.

--You can always give a 360 target arc. Hold SHIFT while giving the order. This is on page 50 of the manual.

[A Canadian Cat]

--Re: why targeting lines can't originate from waypoints when checking from the waypoint. The explanation offered earlier is that it would require more programming time than it is worth. Maybe someday we'll have it. In practice, the status quo implementation becomes no problem at all after you've gotten used to it.

Well I disagree - this is an issue. Figuring out what is blocking the LOS when targeting from a way point is a big fat PITA. I agree that the amount of programming effort is high enough that they keep prioritizing it lower than other work. I would accept that But I really want then to do this work one day.

--The final LOS display change you ask for would require radical engine changes to (IMHO) little real effect. I've played the game long enough to know intuitively what can be seen (in general) from a unit's position. The LOS tool just lets me spot check certain details or borderline cases.

Yeah, cool idea but wow that would be a lot of work. One thing you can do is put the camera down at the unit level and look for yourself (make sure trees and smoke are turned on or you will be sad). I made a short video about doing that you can find here:

[poesel]

I wouldn't like to have to manage the type of ammo my tanks fire. That is stuff for the AI.

Not being able to fire at a bush or even worse at higher levels of a house when you cannot target the ground AS is a limitation of the engine. IIRC that may be fixed but it is not easy.

Giving more meaning to 'target' is an interesting idea. We have the distinction between 'fast', 'quick' and 'normal' about the amount of recklessness while moving. Adding 'opportunity target' for shots where the AI thinks it has a good chance to hit/destroy may be a worthwhile addition.

Instant LOS checking everywhere would make it too easy. IIRC stated as 'won't do' by Steve.

[A Canadian Cat]

An enemy tank or AFV is hiding behind a bush. I know he's there. My armored unit watched him move there. I know about what elevation the ground must be because of the terrain all around it.

Yet, if I target the ground in front of the bush and fire, my understanding, and watching what the crew reloads the gun with, it appears that it will always shoot HE (High Explosive Ammunition).

The question is, why can't I ...? For that matter, why can't I ...?

Why don't we have a ....? It's just silly that a tank cannot be damaged because it is hiding behind a bush.

For that matter, why don't we have a full set of commands that will always default to HE unless the unit knows it is shooting at armor, as we do now, PLUS a full set of commands for AP if the unit is carrying AP weapons and ammo? I'm finding this unrealistically limiting.

Yeah, that is a lot of additional control and UI. If that is going to be done with tanks then we need to be able to order individual soldiers what weapon to use and where to shoot. I don't think I want that.

As @sburke said this is just where the level of control ends. There are times when it can be annoying but mostly I just go with it. The platoon commander does not get to direct the gunner five tanks over he just has to trust his guys will do their best. So do we.

I have some suggestions on what to do in this situation, see below, but in general this is a design philosophy for the game - where to draw the line between player control and Tac AI control and there is precious little we can do to change that. Personally I am OK with it, I made my peace - actually I like it. I like the feeling that I can directly my guys as best I can but I have to leave it up to them to get the job done.

For example, why am I limited to giving my tank hunter team a 180 degree armor arc when I want to give them a 360 degree armor arc, or a 270 degree? There is a good reason why this is important. You set up your bazooka or panzershrek/faust so that the enemy armor can only approach from one general area. You know the frontal armor is too thick to damage it with a bazooka. So you need to insure a flank or rear shot. Therefore, while the enemy armor is coming at you, you don't want to shoot at it, you want to hold your fire and hide behind your obstacle until it begins to pass either to the left or to the right of you. Then you fire with a flank shot. This means you need a 270 field of fire and nothing else will do, so you can shoot at vehicles traveling any direction near you except straight at you. Or you need a button that says "Flank or Rear Shot Only."

Humm, I think you are better off setting your ambush up so that your guys do not have LOS when the enemy is moving towards you but only have it when they get next to you. The problem with having LOS to the front of the enemy while they are moving towards you is they might spot you. To get an ambush on the side or rear of a tank I would look for places where you are covered as they come towards your position. Setting a cover arc protects them not you:)

Another thing I don't understand, is when we know the enemy is behind a bush, why do we have to target the ground in front of it? Why can't we just target the bush? That's what you would do in real life.

OK so a couple of things you can do here. As someone said if your guys cannot see the enemy tank chances are there is no good shot. The other thing to remember is that an enemy tank that has more cover than yours might be able to get a shot out of the woods before you can get one back his way so if you are in less cover than he is consider moving.

Actually don't be afraid to shooting HE at the enemy tanks. You could immobilize his tank or get lucky. I did manage to destroy a Soviet SP gun with HE when I could not see him. The other thing HE will do is kick up so much dust and smoke that you will bind him.

Also and this is critical don't aim at the bush aim behind it. If you aim behind the bush then the round has more chance to actually hit the enemy vehicle than drop in front of it.

I have a game going right now where the enemy has two tigers and a panther (probably other nasty stuff too) in the woods on a high point. After he dispatched a couple of my tanks I blasted the area with HE for several minutes with HE from many tanks. I don't expect to KO anything but they have been quiet for a while now and the smoke is still heavy. In the mean time I have several infantry units that are now in cover and I executed some repositioning of other assets to get a better LOS on their location. When the smoke clears I hope to have an advantage.

[Oddball_E8]

Here's my short-short answer: Because this is not a tank simulator.

[Talespin Jim]

Thanks guys, I appreciate all of your responses and I actually learned a lot from them. From the gist of it, me being new, it sounds like most of my problems will have solutions that come with experience. For example, right after posting this, I did just happen to figure out the idea of aiming right behind the obstacle. Unfortunately my green crew would not fire their weapon. And now I'm realizing their green-ness is more the problem than the game engine limitations. They have yet to fire their weapon by opportunity or by order, or follow an order to completion. They won't even fire smoke, but have now chosen to run out in plain view of an enemy AFV and just stop, when I was trying to tell them to cross the street. Twice they've had flank shots at the enemy who was unaware of their presence and refused to shoot over multiple tuns and orders, They're probably going to get themselves killed by stupidity,

As for you, Oddball, "Hey, kid, they haven't got you in the nut ward again?"

--I'm not trying to play a tank simulator, in fact I prefer playing with infantry at this point, it's more challenging. I used tanks as an example, but most of my questions could be used for any unit except those questions about armor piercing ammo specifically and those could apply to any anti-tank weapons. Further the questions hold true for any thinly armored vehicle as well as tanks. "Definitely an antisocial type." "Now go on, get down into your hole."

[Oddball_E8]

Don't mind me, I'm just a rambler

[Talespin Jim]

I've seen a lot of your posts Oddball. I know you are a great person and very knowledgeable. I was just having fun with you. Those quotes were all from Kelly's Heroes, but you probably know that. I'm assuming you are a fan. It's one of my all time favorite movies and Oddball has a ton of great lines. But you know that, I can tell by your signature. I kind of had to twist what I was saying to fit the quotations, so it may have seemed snippy now that I look back at it (the whole movie has a lot of snippy remarks), but that was not the way I meant it, I was just trying to make my reply funny and in character with the quotes. So sorry if it came off abrasive.

I can always fall back to my favorite excuse, "Sorry man, I'm bipolar."

[Oddball_E8]

You're bipolar?

Cool, I have AD-HD and slight aspergers.

And depressions.

And... hmm... this isn't turning into a positive post :/

[Sailor Malan2]

An enemy tank or AFV is hiding behind a bush. I know he's there. My armored unit watched him move there. I know about what elevation the ground must be because of the terrain all around it.

Yet, if I target the ground in front of the bush and fire, my understanding, and watching what the crew reloads the gun with, it appears that it will always shoot HE (High Explosive Ammunition).

The question is, why can't I tell my tank to use AP? For that matter, why can't I tell it to use its APCR? Actually, since APCR was to only be used on tank destroyers I can kind of understand that one, maybe it should be left up to the tank commander--However, I've yet to see a tank fire APCR.

It's my understanding that the only way to tell it to fire armor piercing is to use "Target Armor". But in that case, my tank doesn't fire at all unless they actually see something in their Armor Targeting Arc, even though they know there's a tank hiding behind a bush.

Why don't we have a Target Armor command that will cause my unit to fire repeatedly with AP ammo at a target that it does not have a clear line of site to? It's just silly that a tank cannot be damaged because it is hiding behind a bush. I've even tried blasting the bush into oblivion with HE, to see if I could get a line of sight that way, to no avail.

For that matter, why don't we have a full set of commands that will always default to HE unless the unit knows it is shooting at armor, as we do now, PLUS a full set of commands for AP if the unit is carrying AP weapons and ammo? I'm finding this unrealistically limiting.

For example, why am I limited to giving my tank hunter team a 180 degree armor arc when I want to give them a 360 degree armor arc, or a 270 degree? There is a good reason why this is important. You set up your bazooka or panzershrek/faust so that the enemy armor can only approach from one general area. You know the frontal armor is too thick to damage it with a bazooka. So you need to insure a flank or rear shot. Therefore, while the enemy armor is coming at you, you don't want to shoot at it, you want to hold your fire and hide behind your obstacle until it begins to pass either to the left or to the right of you. Then you fire with a flank shot. This means you need a 270 field of fire and nothing else will do, so you can shoot at vehicles traveling any direction near you except straight at you. Or you need a button that says "Flank or Rear Shot Only."

Another thing I don't understand, is when we know the enemy is behind a bush, why do we have to target the ground in front of it? Why can't we just target the bush? That's what you would do in real life.

While I'm at it, when you create a way point and then select it so you can use the target command to check line of sight, why isn't the line drawn from the waypoint instead of the original position of the unit? And since it is so hard to figure out from the color scheme of the target line drawn, where the line of sight is actually blocked, how about having a little arrow point to the exact point where LOS is blocked?

Better yet, there is a really simple way to do away with checking LOS altogether. Instead, when you click on a unit, everything that unit can see, including terrain, could be slightly illuminated and everything it can't see could be darkened as if in the shadow of a tree, and things it can sort of see could be somewhere in between. That's what is natural for us. That's the way our mind works. You know instantly what you can see. No more drawing twenty lines from each place you can move your unit to, to see if you are setting your unit up in a good spot.

There are a couple of other things I think you have yet to encounter/understand.

- The game works in Action Squares or points. These are (IIRC) 8m squares that the game engine accounts action at. Thus when you target (or move to) an area, the waypoint/target jumps to the centre of the square. Thus, targetting the ground infront of the bush may actually be effectively targeting the bush.

- LoS is caculated per firer, so any LoS tool would be an approximation. You can have one guy in a team able to see and fire, and the other not. This can be significant if the AT weapon firer is the guy who cant see...

Bazookas cant fire in buildings (backblast)

Troops panic (especially green ones). This is WAD - you are the commander of the force, not a single squad leader.

Hope his helps

[PhilM]

Well I disagree - this is an issue. Figuring out what is blocking the LOS when targeting from a way point is a big fat PITA. I agree that the amount of programming effort is high enough that they keep prioritizing it lower than other work. I would accept that But I really want then to do this work one day.

I agree with your PITA comment! It isn't always easy - and IS always more work than it should / need be - to work out what is blocking LOS when the line originates from the "wrong" place ...

But what I don't get is whether BF's apparent low prioritising of this is because it really is a big development time hog, or they just don't think it is a big issue even though it wouldn't actually take that much resource to fix?

I'm no programmer, which immediately invalidates what I'm going to say next (but yes, I'll still say it ... ): but given that the calculation IS already being done from the new waypoint location, it seems almost MORE work for the engine to then draw the line from a point of origin (i.e. current location) that is NOT the origin of the LOS result currently being calculated??? (For example, how are the LOS / no LOS portions of the line drawn from the "wrong" place currently calculated in this circumstance, when they cannot (?) result from the LOS calculation currently being performed?)

How hard can it be to substitute the waypoint location that is the origin of the current calculation into the routine that draws the line, and so use it as the origin for that also, and thus then to display accurately the results that have already been calculated?

Unless (trying to answer my own question ...) it could be related to some aspects of the LOS map and the detailed specifics (e.g. height of observer) of the LOS calculation being available in full only from the current location and unit in question, and that information is not (?) available in full for the future waypoint calculation? (So, in essence, we are getting a different / "lesser" LOS calculation from anything other than the current location?)

[John Kettler]

Sailor Malan2,

Your statement is incorrect. The bazooka, Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust can now (under 2.12) be fired from buildings--possibly at the direct expense of the firer and those nearby. You can take the shot, but it may come at a high price.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Holman]

Right. Bazookas and other rockets can be fired from inside buildings now. In fact, if you expect tanks in the street, it's best to split off your AT men and place them in a different space/floor from the rest.

[womble]

Right. Bazookas and other rockets can be fired from inside buildings now. In fact, if you expect tanks in the street, it's best to split off your AT men and place them in a different space/floor from the rest.

Particularly because the pyrotechnics at the launching end can startle and panic any troops in that space, even cause light casualties. Best to minimise the chances of that. I have seen non-AT teams elect to use their Fausts as "room clearers", under TacAI control in MOUT... did the job, but also panicked the entry team and the covering fire team so nobody ended up in the location I was assaulting, or the location I was assaulting from...

[A Canadian Cat]

Particularly because the pyrotechnics at the launching end can startle and panic any troops in that space, even cause light casualties.

Oh, and it can get worse too. I watched in horror as a two man Shrek team in a small barn (this is the half AS shed in CMRT) take a shot at a T34. The loader was killed by the back blast. Then after a few moments the gunner recovered from the initial launch and loaded and fired again. He died too. Learned my lesson there - no rocket firing in small spaces.

Best to minimise the chances of that. I have seen non-AT teams elect to use their Fausts as "room clearers", under TacAI control in MOUT... did the job, but also panicked the entry team and the covering fire team so nobody ended up in the location I was assaulting, or the location I was assaulting from...

LOL oh man that is a sad tale.

[womble]

Oh, and it can get worse too. I watched in horror as a two man Shrek team in a small barn (this is the half AS shed in CMRT) take a shot at a T34. The loader was killed by the back blast. Then after a few moments the gunner recovered from the initial launch and loaded and fired again. He died too. Learned my lesson there - no rocket firing in small spaces.

Heh. Goldfish have nothing on pTruppen, in the "short memory" stakes...

LOL oh man that is a sad tale.

I think yours wins though. At least I had two teams to come back a minute later and (re)claim the hard-won buildings. It was more funny than anything, to watch the Faust guy swap from K98 to AT and fire at about 3m range at a specific enemy, obviously spotted... The subsequent Benny Hill moment was only a temporary facepalm, and, like all friendly fire suppression seems to be, the "self preservation" requirement was only short-lived, though they did run away very fast...

[Sailor Malan2]

Sailor Malan2,

Your statement is incorrect. The bazooka, Panzerschreck and Panzerfaust can now (under 2.12) be fired from buildings--possibly at the direct expense of the firer and those nearby. You can take the shot, but it may come at a high price.

Regards,

John Kettler

Ah - yes of course, I forgot. my mistake. I've been playing Italy 1943 recently. They cant fire Bazookas from anywhere! Look, you spend years getting used to the laws of physics and then Einstein comes along:eek:

Or put another way, I am right, just not in this time zone:)

[Michael Emrys]

You're bipolar?

Cool, I have AD-HD and slight aspergers.

And depressions.

And... hmm... this isn't turning into a positive post :/

I knew it! I'm surrounded by nut cases!

:eek:

Michael

[Talespin Jim]

You're bipolar?

Cool, I have AD-HD and slight aspergers.

And depressions.

And... hmm... this isn't turning into a positive post :/

Yeah, I'm ADHD on top of the bipolar, plus diabetic, bad back, high blood pressure, high everything else, blood clots if I don't take blood thinners (rat poison), fat, bald, ugly, glasses, flat feet (I forget what else) and my wife thinks I'm faking it all to get out of mowing the lawn. I also have a twisted sense of humor, which is really a bad mix with ADHD/bipolar/pain pills/14 other drugs/general ugliness--and it doesn't go over very well at my church. I think everyone else thinks I'm a total heathen. But I really do try to fit in. I'll most likely earn the same reaction here without trying to be weird. That's why I apologized when I realized my post, that I thought was funny at the time, probably came off as snippy. So again, sorry if I offended you in any way. It was an accident, but I'll most likely do it again, though always unintentionally. Sooner or later, I offend everybody.

[sburke]

Lol god damn it Jim, get the hell out there and cut the grass!

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm ADHD on top of the bipolar, plus diabetic, bad back, high blood pressure, high everything else, blood clots if I don't take blood thinners (rat poison), fat, bald, ugly, glasses, flat feet (I forget what else) and my wife thinks I'm faking it all to get out of mowing the lawn.

Now I see why they call you "talespin".

[Michael Emrys]

...it doesn't go over very well at my church. I think everyone else thinks I'm a total heathen.

So nail a couple of their pets as sacrifices in your pagan satanist rituals and let them know that if they don't get into line, the next time it might be one of their kids. I mean, if you are really as twisted as you say, you may as well start to enjoy it.

Michael

[LukeFF]

So nail a couple of their pets as sacrifices in your pagan satanist rituals and let them know that if they don't get into line, the next time it might be one of their kids. I mean, if you are really as twisted as you say, you may as well start to enjoy it.

Michael

......