Bud Backer Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 In a recent game I spotted an enemy tank with one of my own at some distance and he popped smoke immediately. I assume that it's because of my laser rangefinder. Can I spot something, but not have it get a laser warning by using a circular target arc that is shorter range? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 In a recent game I spotted an enemy tank with one of my own at some distance and he popped smoke immediately. I assume that it's because of my laser rangefinder. Can I spot something, but not have it get a laser warning by using a circular target arc that is shorter range? That would probably work. Lasing is part of the aiming process. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 That would probably work. Lasing is part of the aiming process. That's my assumption too, I just didn't know if the game took that into account, or would lase but not fire. Thanks. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) What an intriguing question and promising answer! I freely admit the notion of using a shorter than the target arc to suppress lasing never crossed my mind. Yet, since the guns are so flat shooting, out to fairly appreciable range, battle sight setting ought, in theory, to work. Regards, John Kettler Edited March 6, 2015 by John Kettler 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xIGuNDoCIx Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) In a recent game I spotted an enemy tank with one of my own at some distance and he popped smoke immediately. I assume that it's because of my laser rangefinder. Can I spot something, but not have it get a laser warning by using a circular target arc that is shorter range? Interesting concept/tactic. My only concern would be that your enemy may be able to see/spot you as well and chances are that he may take a shot at you. At least with lasing you (most of the time) cause the AI/player to pop smoke and immediately retreat. That's what happened during the first turn of our game where my Abrams got the laser warning, he then smoked and backed up off that hill. The following turn I decided it was best not to go up there anymore as you apparently have/had eyes on it. If you hadn't lased him could you have kept eyes on him the following turns, probably, but there is a good chance I might have seen you as well and decided to take a shot at you while you just sit there. I guess it comes down to how confident you feel your unit can remain sitting there without taking any action. It would work best with Fire Support/Observation/Recon vehicles and not main line battle units like MBT/IFV/APCs. Just my opinion though. Edited March 6, 2015 by xIGuNDoCIx 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 What an intriguing question and promising answer! I freely admit the notion of using a shorter than the target arc to suppress lasing never crossed my mind. Yet, since the guns are so flat shooting, out to fairly appreciable range, battle sight setting ought, in theory, to work. Regards, John Kettler Yeah, I was trying to think outside of the box. Just because we see something, a real tank commander would not lase it until he actually wanted to shoot, because you don't really want your enemy to know you've seen them. So if this works, it would be awesome! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 Interesting concept/tactic. My only concern would be that your enemy may be able to see/spot you as well and chances are that he may take a shot at you. At least with lasing you (most of the time) cause the AI/player to pop smoke and immediately retreat. That's what happened during the first turn of our game where my Abrams got the laser warning, he then smoked and backed up off that hill. The following turn I decided it was best not to go up there anymore as you apparently have/had eyes on it. If you hadn't lased him could you have kept eyes on him the following turns, probably, but there is a good chance I might have seen you as well and decided to take a shot at you while you just sit there. I guess it comes down to how confident you feel your unit can remain sitting there without taking any action. It would work best with Fire Support/Observation/Recon vehicles and not main line battle units like MBT/IFV/APCs. Just my opinion though. All good points. I realized the risk was that I may not shoot when I can, and if I"m spotted by my enemy (you! grrrrr!) that I could be in trouble. However... The tactic I suggest might be more effective in situations where I'm stationary, and my enemy is moving, and therefore having (hopefully) less chance of seeing me than I of seeing him. In any case, having the option to lase or not lase is good to have. I like choices. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I might suggest if you want that type of detailed control you also try Steel Beasts. You might be able to get that to work there. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted March 7, 2015 Author Share Posted March 7, 2015 I might suggest if you want that type of detailed control you also try Steel Beasts. You might be able to get that to work there. Thanks for the suggestion. I've got all the games I have time for, but I've heard good thing about Steel Beasts. Nice to have someone confirm them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GAZ NZ Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Can units all carry lasers? then spam enemy tanks with "the laser" Tanks run away with fake lock ons. Dr Evil would love that one. Boom thats a tanks effectiveness out the window 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xIGuNDoCIx Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Thanks for the suggestion. I've got all the games I have time for, but I've heard good thing about Steel Beasts. Nice to have someone confirm them. Yeah SB is a steep investment but so worth every penny! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Thanks for the suggestion. I've got all the games I have time for, but I've heard good thing about Steel Beasts. Nice to have someone confirm them. Yeah, but if you are worried about this level of detail, you might be investing time and money in the wrong game for what you are trying to do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 Can units all carry lasers?then spam enemy tanks with "the laser"Tanks run away with fake lock ons.Dr Evil would love that one.Boom thats a tanks effectiveness out the windowAs has been said half a dozen times in different threads: the designators that laser warning systems react to are bulky and expensive things. If you'd rather have a spoofing laser than your Javelin control unit or a few RPGs, then maybe it would be possible. But wouldn't you rather have the ability to actually reduce the numbers of the enemy vehicles for good rather than make them "a bit worried until their smoke runs out". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted March 7, 2015 Share Posted March 7, 2015 I saw an event in my last game where a T-90AM got the drop on my M1 at 400 meters (ambush).... it lased it warning my M1 and enabling it to turn the turret slightly before the russian round hit, saving the tank. It then proceeded to fire back and kill the T-90AM. Without lasing, at that range, there would have been no difference in accuracy and the T-90AM would have killed my tank and survived. Its not as much an issue for the US tanks since they almost fire at the same time they lase and anyway will likely kill the enemy tank even if the russian reacts and presents its thickest armor. No lasing at battlesight range would be more realistic since I bet crews would quickly learn (if its not part of their training already) to avoid it at battlesight ranges, 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Kulin Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I have a related question about lasing. How do you get infantry units to lase a target for something else? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) I have a related question about lasing. How do you get infantry units to lase a target for something else? You take a laser designator equipped unit (JTAC, air controller, FO, recon, etc.) and call either precision artillery for Russians/Ukrainians or air strikes. Otherwise there isn't buddy-lasing implemented in game. Edited March 8, 2015 by Apocal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A co Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 But how does the commander know it's outside the range of his covered arc, unless he uses the laser rangefinder to make sure he shouldn't use the laser rangefinder? Just kidding... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) As just a thought, if we really wanted to work in battlesighting, perhaps there could be a chance at shorter range, tied to troop quality that the tank wouldn't lase and would just fire without ranging the target. Tying it to troop quality would be important as green crews likely wouldn't have the experience or confidence to take that sort of intiative, while a crack crew knows exactly what a tank at 1200 meters vs 1500 meters looks like, and that they need to lead it about 20 mils judging from how fast it's going. It'd still be a variable, a crack crew might not be confident at this particular target, or a regular crew might be in the "zone" for that shot. Lower than regular just strikes me as doubtful. Too new at tanking to really have a feel for it, or the experience to futz with estimating range while someone is drawing down on them. Edited March 8, 2015 by panzersaurkrautwerfer 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Yeah i agree panzer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Battlesighting and "lasing off" were discussed during development, the concepts being close to what panzersaurkrautwerfer wrote. They didn't make it into the base game but I have a strong feeling it's not a dead topic 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzersaurkrautwerfer Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Battlesighting and "lasing off" were discussed during development, the concepts being close to what panzersaurkrautwerfer wrote. They didn't make it into the base game but I have a strong feeling it's not a dead topic Clearly this is why Battlefront should hire me as a consultant and pay me lots of money to make obvious statements and use words I might not actually know the definition of. Synergize those primary assets! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sulman Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 In SB Pro PE your computer TC shouts 'battlesight, tank!' if he sees something within battlesight range. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 Battlesighting and "lasing off" were discussed during development, the concepts being close to what panzersaurkrautwerfer wrote. They didn't make it into the base game but I have a strong feeling it's not a dead topic I very much hope that we will somehow get the ability to 1) disable lasers and 2) disable the "pop smoke & retreat after beeing lased" behaviour. Sometimes i am happy that my tanks retreat wehen they get lased, but sometimes i would be happier if they continued to move until they reach the cover 3 secs away. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bud Backer Posted March 8, 2015 Author Share Posted March 8, 2015 (edited) I very much hope that we will somehow get the ability to 1) disable lasers and 2) disable the "pop smoke & retreat after beeing lased" behaviour. Sometimes i am happy that my tanks retreat wehen they get lased, but sometimes i would be happier if they continued to move until they reach the cover 3 secs away.This. And probably simpler to code that developing complex AI parameters and decision tree with behaviour modifiers based on morale and experience. Not that I'd not appreciate that too. Just would like to shut off the RF on occasion. Edited March 8, 2015 by Bud_B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thewood1 Posted March 8, 2015 Share Posted March 8, 2015 I suspect the main problem is getting the AI to know when to lase and not. You as the human player will have a lot of options not available to the AI opponent. That will require the bulk of the resource. 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.