Jump to content

Kingtiger Mantlet and Coax MG problem, and an attempted 3D model Fix


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Whereas I'm not part of the Battlefront team, I am a beta tester. My participation is indicative of  BFC being made aware of this thread. Now, that does NOT mean that there is agreement that Skwabie's supposition that the Tiger II turret front, mantlet, or armor behind the mantlet is either too weak, missing, or otherwise mis-modeled. It does mean that there is interest to look into it. Hence my desire to find out how he performed his tests. Of interest would be the Soviet tests performed on Tiger II's, which link has been graciously provided upstream by Alchenar. The Soviet 122mm tank gun in the IS2 was quite capable of knocking out Tiger II's. The issue, to me, revolves solely upon whether the armor (and trunnion, gun, and other big pieces of metal) behind the mantlet is modeled correctly.

 

The first step would be to get real-world data on when the mantlet would be penetrated (all the way into the fighting compartment) and when it wouldn't. And then perform the same tests in-game. This will take time.

 

I do think that removing the gun hit-box gives a large advantage (too large). Weapons were hit and rendered inoperative. Hacking that out of the game process removes the one way outmatched opponents could harm the Tiger II. IMO.

 

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

About cheating, I've never played HvH nor imagine doing so in the future. If someone's actually bothering to do it, he's risking a whole lot for little to zero gain.

The real benefit of lowering the tank commander further down is reducing player micro-managing workload, far as I see. CM's tank commanders are way too insensitive to incoming small arms fire and buttons way too late. I'd even say that this is a universal problem and way more important for a fix from the developer than the armor scheme on a single tank.

Well, I agree with you that exposed crews are a issue. And for your personal use adjusting that is not a issue.

But what you have done is learned to hack the files to adjust the game to give you results that improve units abilities.

 

But you have really opened a can of worms, by giving that ability out to others. Most without the skills to do it on their own.

Because if installing the changes somehow only affects one side when playing H2H. Then even though you would never do it. I can promise you someone else will.

I have played in to many forms of competitions from sports to games to multi million dollar bids for construction jobs. It does not matter the risk , if people can cheat , a majority will if they think that they can gain a advantage. I have seen it too much to think otherwise. Weather for real world gain and risking chances for imprisonment or for nothing more than to win someone in a game with no reward at all other than that. There is many that will do it.

So it concerns me that you might be helping others down that path in a area that I have not seen any cheating at all in. Part of the reason why BF games have been so impressive to me has been the fact that the files are so secure that the cheating you see in so many other computer games does not exist here. Well that era might be coming to a end.

Sorry if I do not say thanks you might see why.

 

 

Now of course, if the change affected both sides, it would not be a problem at all. But I am assuming that is not the case. especially with the armor . since that for sure only affects the tanks desired.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I'm curious if the change is one-sided. In a WeGo environment, only one side processes the turns. It may be that whichever computer processes the turns, you'd get a different outcome:

1. Skwabie processes: both sides have lowered TCs and invulnerable mantlets

2. Other Guy processes: both sides have normal TCs and vulnerable mantlets.

Or, a third result which has an asymmetry which would be unfair:

3. No matter who processes, only Skwabie has lowered TCs and invulnerable mantles.

I'm curious...

 

Since this "hack" is something that CAN be done, I'm glad Skwabie took the effort to post about it, here. If BFC thinks this is an exploit which should be closed, they are now aware of it.

 

Meantime, I'm more focused on the possible mantlet issue. Since, if it is an issue with the King Tiger (or Tiger II, call it what you will), then it stands to reason that it's an issue with all vehicles. Those with larger mantlets would be more "susceptible": Panthers, Shermans, etc. Their mantlets cover more of their turret front than the Tiger II's.

Ken

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not that I want to be so negative. What he is looking into is all good points. But unless the results is something that makes it into a official game version update. Then it really is something that should not be promoted to others. That is all I am pointing out.

I am actually very impress that he has the skills to tweak the game. But not impressed he is passing it out like it is a good fix. because its not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its not that I want to be so negative. What he is looking into is all good points. But unless the results is something that makes it into a official game version update. Then it really is something that should not be promoted to others. That is all I am pointing out.

I am actually very impress that he has the skills to tweak the game. But not impressed he is passing it out like it is a good fix. because its not.

Basically I agree with this POV, yet if you find something that improves your personal enjoyment of the game and is not basically an option in the stock game, I think one should try that out in practice, not just in mind. It also (at first) saves BFC some time, as a number of tweaks&hacks can be tried in practice by a larger number of community members and then figured if there arises any number of problems. It´s similar to my infantry animation stance hack (although it´s just simple file renaming), that I didn´t release in full yet. Trying that out and get some experiences in practice, saves pages of meaningless discussions on the board, if any such "ideas" just remain plain theory. I also prefer if possible the way of before asking BFC to do something, that I do it myself first, as long as it´s doable and doesn´t basically break the game. There´s also lots to learn about the inner workings of the game which leads to benefits like ability to make better missions. Personally I don´t care H2H play at the moment, as my focus is on mission making vs. an AIP. If any unfair exploitations can be made with any such hacks, then IMO it rather tells you of the worthiness of a particular opponent in H2H play and less about the quality of the hack. In order to give the opportunity to learn about your opponents, it´s the best way to make the hacks public and not share them in secret.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whereas I'm not part of the Battlefront team, I am a beta tester. My participation is indicative of  BFC being made aware of this thread. Now, that does NOT mean that there is agreement that Skwabie's supposition that the Tiger II turret front, mantlet, or armor behind the mantlet is either too weak, missing, or otherwise mis-modeled. It does mean that there is interest to look into it. Hence my desire to find out how he performed his tests. Of interest would be the Soviet tests performed on Tiger II's, which link has been graciously provided upstream by Alchenar. The Soviet 122mm tank gun in the IS2 was quite capable of knocking out Tiger II's. The issue, to me, revolves solely upon whether the armor (and trunnion, gun, and other big pieces of metal) behind the mantlet is modeled correctly.

 

The first step would be to get real-world data on when the mantlet would be penetrated (all the way into the fighting compartment) and when it wouldn't. And then perform the same tests in-game. This will take time.

 

I do think that removing the gun hit-box gives a large advantage (too large). Weapons were hit and rendered inoperative. Hacking that out of the game process removes the one way outmatched opponents could harm the Tiger II. IMO.

 

Ken

 

EnsignExpendable (the guy who writes the blog I linked) is really good for this stuff.  He's got access to a lot of archive material nobody else has, mainly because it's his job to research and translate the stuff.  I really recommend getting in touch with him.  

He's also really used to the usual grognard forums arguments, from 'no, the KT was not an unstoppable uber-tank' to 'here is why German and Soviet armour penetration tables have different values' (hint: the Soviet ones are the right ones to use).

Edited by Alchenar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I'm curious if the change is one-sided. In a WeGo environment, only one side processes the turns. It may be that whichever computer processes the turns, you'd get a different outcome:

1. Skwabie processes: both sides have lowered TCs and invulnerable mantlets

2. Other Guy processes: both sides have normal TCs and vulnerable mantlets.

Or, a third result which has an asymmetry which would be unfair:

3. No matter who processes, only Skwabie has lowered TCs and invulnerable mantles.

Its either 1 or 2. 

If the processing player wants to cheat he would of course only change his sides tanks. So of course all KTs in the battle would be 'fixed' but only one side can buy them.

It is, unfortunately, a path to cheating

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm well aware of what the Soviet testing showed, but why do they have no evidence of any frontal penetration in actual combat of a KT during the war?

Maybe because so few King Tigers were made, and so few of those saw actual combat - instead of running out of gas, getting bogged, running over mines, getting blown up by airplanes, breaking down due to mechanical problems, etc?

I'm no grognard or historian, just guessing the sample size might be too small.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm well aware of what the Soviet testing showed, but why do they have no evidence of any frontal penetration in actual combat of a KT during the war?

Because there weren't very many of them and the battlefield isn't exactly a controlled environment?  It's just statistically unlikely to expect this evidence to be available when only 500 of the things were ever made, only a certain proportion of those went to the Eastern Front, and a hilariously large proportion had to be abandoned or destroyed by their own crews before they even got into combat because the engine broke or they ran out of fuel.  And then we get down to the chance that a KT that actually gets into combat is actually on the same battlefield as an IS2. So the sample size isn't exactly huge, you know?

We have the evidence we have, which is that in test conditions at 2.5km an AP hit from an IS2 can penetrate right through a KT turret.  

Note also that the tests with the D-5 85mm gun showed it could penetrate the front hull at 1km: http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/03/soviet-85-mm-guns-vs-tigers.html

 

So if the KT couldn't be penetrated from the front in combat, one is left with the puzzling issue of why Soviet testing showed it could be, and why the Soviet tactics manuals for fighting Tigers say 'you should be able to penetrate it from the front from 1km away'.  

Finally as a side-note to the issue of penetration, one should not forget that a huge proportion of non-penetrating hits in testing caused spalling sufficient to eviscerate most of the crew and knock the tank out anyway.

 

 

Edited by Alchenar
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been locked down pretty tight at work time wise and web access wise so can't check the open net quite often. I have disabled the downloads on my mediafire account. It seems the idea of modding is still too... radical for this community.

Personally I strongly believe each single player gamer should have a free choice, to play the game he likes the way he likes it, and not subject to the universal/collective rules set by the original game. It is his own time and his own fun. Time and time again there are 20 page forum threads going on, simply because someone doesn't like the existing way the game is set. Hence if such a choice is presented to me, I feel quite obligated to share it with everyone. Secondly, power users can use it to better understand game engine mechanisms, to better test, spot and fix bugs that official fixes may or may not come, a long time later.

However, such an action disturbs the multiplayer community, compounded by the fact that CM HvH is strictly competitive, and not cooperative, and probably the fact that the CM community has never had a data/behavior modding culture. I can understand that. It is a pity, but OK. There are enough games out there that I can edit to my heart's content.

 

 

As for TigerII's armor, my own opinion is that very late war German steel quality is extremely bad and riddled with defects. You can almost hit the tank with a big hammer, and there will be armor spalling and cracking on the other side. Although I never place much credit on the soviet tests, they are known to understate captured german hardware performances even against the western test reports. But hey, that's just me.

Edited by Skwabie
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to start paying attention to that Blogspot, Alchenar, as that statement below refers to the T1 Front Armor Penetration and T2 Side Penetration (not front) by the D-5 85mm Gun...Since this Thread is in regards to the T2.

Note also that the tests with the D-5 85mm gun showed it could penetrate the front hull at 1km: http://tankarchives.blogspot.ca/2013/03/soviet-85-mm-guns-vs-tigers.html

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by JoMc67
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Yes, the German Steel Quality has started to show its defects late....However, it was still a little better then the Soviet Armor Quality ( which started to improve by wars end ), but that's another story. 

As for TigerII's armor, my own opinion is that very late war German steel quality is extremely bad and riddled with defects. You can almost hit the tank with a big hammer, and there will be armor spalling and cracking on the other side. Although I never place much credit on the soviet tests, they are known to understate captured german hardware performances even against the western test reports. But hey, that's just me.

 

Edited by JoMc67
Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to start paying attention to that Blogspot, Alchenar, as that statement below refers to the T1 Front Armor Penetration and T2 Side Penetration (not front) by the D-5 85mm Gun...Since this Thread is in regards to the T2.

 

Oops, my bad.  But still, there's no reason an IS2 should have any trouble knocking out a KT from any range up to around 2.5-3km, even a non-penetrating hit to the turret will cause enough spalling and internal damage to take it out of the fight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for TigerII's armor, my own opinion is that very late war German steel quality is extremely bad and riddled with defects. You can almost hit the tank with a big hammer, and there will be armor spalling and cracking on the other side.

Otto Carius, who used Jagdpanthers at the very end, does not mention any problems with bad armor quality in his book Tigers In The Mud. In fact he mentions the opposite: that their German steel was soft because it was rolled and not cast steel.

Edited by CarlWAW
reference added
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oops, my bad.  But still, there's no reason an IS2 should have any trouble knocking out a KT from any range up to around 2.5-3km, even a non-penetrating hit to the turret will cause enough spalling and internal damage to take it out of the fight.

Yes, and for the most part I'm probably in agreement with you ( my own post above reflects this as well ). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Otto Carius, who used Jagdpanthers at the very end, does not mention any problems with bad armor quality in his book Tigers In The Mud. In fact he mentions the opposite: that their German steel was soft because it was rolled and not cast steel.

Yes...However, Otto and most other Battlefield Combatants don't relies the slow downgrade effects of their Armor Quality due to Manufacturing issues as the war progresses...As far as he is concerned the German Armor Quality is good ( and he's right to a degree ) compared to Allied Armor.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

But still, there's no reason an IS2 should have any trouble knocking out a KT from any range up to around 2.5-3km, even a non-penetrating hit to the turret will cause enough spalling and internal damage to take it out of the fight.

That Soviet test needs to be viewed within the context of the conditions under which the plates were tested. Not only were the plates struck a multitude of times but the Soviets ran the tests after removing the gun mantlet which would have significantly reduced the front turret plate resistance due to edge effects.

The amount of spalling any hit would have produced is debatable but it is highly improbable that an IS-2 could frontally penetrate a KT at 2.5-3km. At 2500 meters Soviet 122mm APBC penetrates 118mm of RHA, That is about equivalent to Soviet 85mm at 600 meters, US 76mm at 500 meters and US 90mm at 1750 meters.

None of this says much about the mantlet. My rough guess calculations puts the mantlet resistance at about 260mm after armor quality modifiers. No Soviet projectile could penetrate that at any range, although hits on the side of the mantlet on the portion covering the cannon may go through as could British 17 pdr APDS and US 90mm HVAP.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue, to me, revolves solely upon whether the armor (and trunnion, gun, and other big pieces of metal) behind the mantlet is modeled correctly.

 

The first step would be to get real-world data on when the mantlet would be penetrated (all the way into the fighting compartment) and when it wouldn't. And then perform the same tests in-game. This will take time.

 

Wouldn't the obvious first step simply be for a programmer to take a look at the code, to see if Skwabie's theory is correct about the game only taking the mantle armour into effect?

Basically he's saying the game only checks for penetration of one layer of armour, when it should be checking for two layers. Then after the code is fixed, we can grog it out with Soviet armour penetration tables.. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the obvious first step simply be for a programmer to take a look at the code, to see if Skwabie's theory is correct about the game only taking the mantle armour into effect?

Yep, and I strongly suspect that is what will happen. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...