Targeting options/priorities

[Anthony P.]

9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

In this case I don't see an obvious problem.

After watching the video I think the Sherman on the right was plinking the AC while it got ready to fire its main gun.  The AC was unbuttoned and you can see that it caused a crew casualty.  However, the AC got a shot off and whacked the Sherman.  This delayed the Sherman's reaction to respond with its main gun, which was quickly remedied by the second Sherman getting into position.  It cracked off a shot and blew up the AC no problemo.  So we don't really know what the first Sherman would have done if the second one hadn't shown up in the right spot at the right time.

Which is a reminder why it's always best to have buddies able to help each other out

Steve

 

I would argue that the problem is that by using the co-ax instead of main gun, it allowed the scout car to return fire with its 75mm, which as you can see in the status tab at the bottom destroyed both its 76mm and co-ax. So I'm fairly certain it'd just have kept pecking away at the car with its bow gun until hitting the gunner, or until the crew would have to bail due to more hits.

In addition, the car wasn't unbuttoned. Had it been, I'd have understood why they would spray it with a little MG fire, as it tends to kill commanders very quickly. In this case though, some infantrymen had already been shooting at it, causing it to button up to the extent it could. When this particular vehicle is unbuttoned, the commander will sit quite high up on the right side. In this case, only the top of the gunner's head is exposed on the left, which is normal even when buttoned up.

Neither tank had recently fired their cannons when they detected the car, so there was no lack of a loaded shell. And as pointed out, the second Sherman also opted for using its co-ax until the gunner had been killed, instead of using the cannon against the vehicle itself.

 

I'd be happy to test this more times in CM:BN and report back on it if some statistical certainty is desired.

Edited April 6, 2016 by Anthony P.

[mbarbaric]

i have to back this up as i've experienced the same lack of cannon use despite having few tanks going against that supercar.

[RockinHarry]

Only other plausible reason for engaging a half track/AC with small calibre MG could be FOW, where the enemy vehicle was incorrectly identified as non armored/truck. Otherwise and when in doubt, there should always be a spare HE round for any such case, unless you´re late in the game and most gun ammo is already expended. 

[Anthony P.]

It was my understanding that there is no such thing as misidentifying vehicles since CMx2? Anyway, Sherman #1 is selected at the start, showing its ammo state, the gunner switching to co-ax, as well as identifying the scout car.

[Michael Emrys]

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

Is this issue due to a change to AI logic? Because I don't remember ever seeing a similar situation. In my experience, tanks will normally use their main cannon to kill anything that moves, even jeeps. I've never seen a tank "save ammo" by using its machinegun against lightly armoured targets before,

Affirmative. I have at times—many times—gotten quite irritated when one of my tanks used its main gun to take out a single soldier when its MGs could have done the job quite well.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

Perhaps the right tweak is to base the decision on using the main gun on the significance of the threat they are firing at.  Using the MG on a truck or a light AC or even the 20mm AAA might be just fine since they do not pose an existential threat to the Sherman.  But a 75mm armed AC *does* pose a serious threat. 

[Anthony P.]

I'd really say anything with a heavy weapon. A 20mm might not seem threatening since there's just no way it will penetrate a Sherman, but you'll probably change your mind about that when the 20mm strips the tank of optics, radio, .50 cal, etc. because the tank was too far away for the gunner to hit individual crew members quick enough with his co-ax. The tank will still be alive of course, but completely useless against anything but infantry well outside handheld AT range.

[Battlefront.com]

5 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

 

I would argue that the problem is that by using the co-ax instead of main gun, it allowed the scout car to return fire with its 75mm, which as you can see in the status tab at the bottom destroyed both its 76mm and co-ax. So I'm fairly certain it'd just have kept pecking away at the car with its bow gun until hitting the gunner, or until the crew would have to bail due to more hits.

See previous comment that the main gun might not have been ready to fire yet so it let loose with what was available.  Look at the video again and you'll see that all this happened in a split second or two.  Players' expectations of what should/shouldn't happen in such tiny slices of time on a battlefield are often out of alignment with what really happens.  If this duel went on for 30-40 seconds then I'd be suspicious of a problem.  But not the way it happened.

5 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

In addition, the car wasn't unbuttoned.

An open topped vehicle from this angle is, effectively, unbuttoned. 

5 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

Had it been, I'd have understood why they would spray it with a little MG fire, as it tends to kill commanders very quickly.

Remember the MG fire killed a crew member which proves, conclusively, that shooting the coax at the vehicle was not a dumb thing to do.  It's just the overall outcome wasn't "optimal", which is not uncommon on the battlefield.

5 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

Neither tank had recently fired their cannons when they detected the car, so there was no lack of a loaded shell. And as pointed out, the second Sherman also opted for using its co-ax until the gunner had been killed, instead of using the cannon against the vehicle itself.

All vehicles are always assumed to have "one up the spout" (a round ready) at all times.  However, the gunner still needs to acquire the target, adjust for range, and make the decision to fire.  This takes a few seconds to do.  And a few seconds is all we're talking about in both instances.

5 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

 

I'd be happy to test this more times in CM:BN and report back on it if some statistical certainty is desired.

Statistical certainly is definitely needed before we investigate anything, otherwise we'd be spending all of our time chasing down one-offs as there are lots of one-offs like this to chase down   However, I personally wouldn't bother.  This seems to be a case of "stuff happens" and there's enough evidence in hand to cast doubt on there being a logic problem that needs addressing.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

3 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

Affirmative. I have at times—many times—gotten quite irritated when one of my tanks used its main gun to take out a single soldier when its MGs could have done the job quite well.

Michael

See this next comment...

2 hours ago, IanL said:

Perhaps the right tweak is to base the decision on using the main gun on the significance of the threat they are firing at.  Using the MG on a truck or a light AC or even the 20mm AAA might be just fine since they do not pose an existential threat to the Sherman.  But a 75mm armed AC *does* pose a serious threat. 

This is in fact happening, though of course there's always cases where things don't line up that way for some reason or another.  Close in infantry is considered a high threat and basically the tanks are allowed to unload anything and everything without hesitation.  Same infantry unit 500m away the tank weighs its options more by looking at HE count.  Shermans have an unusually high amount of HE at their disposal so they do tend to use it more frequently than other tanks.

Steve

[Anthony P.]

Surely a heavily armed scout car should be considered as big a threat as close up infantry though, and "at least" warrant a HE shot (I imagine this would have a better effect on such a target than a 76mm AP shot)?

I see what you mean about exposed crew and picking weapons though. I still suspect that there is a tendency for tanks to pick off exposed crew members before engaging the vehicle, which would certainly be stupid in the case of anything with more than an MG, so I'll try it out a few times. Worst case scenario, I learn that there's no issue.

[Michael Emrys]

49 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

50 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Shermans have an unusually high amount of HE at their disposal so they do tend to use it more frequently than other tanks.

 

Then this may in fact be what I am seeing. But it is annoying to see them fire HE at single soldiers who are fleeing for their lives and thus pose no immediate threat.

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

53 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

See this next comment...

This is in fact happening, though of course there's always cases where things don't line up that way for some reason or another.  Close in infantry is considered a high threat and basically the tanks are allowed to unload anything and everything without hesitation.  Same infantry unit 500m away the tank weighs its options more by looking at HE count.  Shermans have an unusually high amount of HE at their disposal so they do tend to use it more frequently than other tanks.

Steve

OK so it sounds like it would be worth looking at 75mm armed ACs then to see if the TC is making the right call.  The anecdotal reports from the demo seem like perhaps they are not in this case.  I'll try to find some time to have a look and report back.

[MikeyD]

Awhile ago ago BFC had adjusted tank guns so that if the target is outside of the gun's normal elevation limits its would take a pretty big hit on firing times. It was something of a compromise to the elevation limits thing, simulating jockeying for position to fire on a difficult target. Much of the time that affects elevated shooting (buildings) but I think it also affects depressed shooting as well.

There's something else in the game, I believe the tank crew spots individually, so you can have a commander spotting a target the gunner doesn't see, or bow gunner firing on a target the gunner hasn't acquired yet.

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Anthony P. said:

Surely a heavily armed scout car should be considered as big a threat as close up infantry though, and "at least" warrant a HE shot (I imagine this would have a better effect on such a target than a 76mm AP shot)?

Absolutely, which is why the second Sherman pounded it with an AP shot (or maybe HE) very quickly.  This is the point you seem to be continually overlooking when you evaluate the situation.  Both Shermans use the same logic when making their targeting decisions, therefore the theory that the first Sherman deliberately withheld main gun fire doesn't hold up.  If that theory were true then the second Sherman would have only used MG fire.  Therefore, something else is at work here and I've made multiple suggestions as to the likely suspects.

Quote

I see what you mean about exposed crew and picking weapons though. I still suspect that there is a tendency for tanks to pick off exposed crew members before engaging the vehicle, which would certainly be stupid in the case of anything with more than an MG, so I'll try it out a few times. Worst case scenario, I learn that there's no issue.

The difference you're seeing is that a tank wouldn't bother wasting it's MG ammo on something it couldn't likely harm, for example a King Tiger.  Probably even a Puma wouldn't get hosed with MG fire.  Which is why it's very important to not confuse apples with oranges.  So this isn't about whether the target is an armored car or not, but whether it is an open topped armored car or not.  The fact that the first Sherman did cause a crew casualty vindicates the TacAI's decision to hose it down with MG.  The fact that the main gun wasn't used is most likely due to bad timing, bad luck, or a combo of both.  Which fits into the "stuff happens" part of warfare.

1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

Then this may in fact be what I am seeing. But it is annoying to see them fire HE at single soldiers who are fleeing for their lives and thus pose no immediate threat.

Michael

The TacAI goes on the "where there's one there's probably more" concept.  Maybe the TacAI is a little too liberal with HE usage when there's a lot of it available, but generally the decision making is pretty sound.

Steve

[Andrew H.]

1 hour ago, Michael Emrys said:

Then this may in fact be what I am seeing. But it is annoying to see them fire HE at single soldiers who are fleeing for their lives and thus pose no immediate threat.

Michael

I find this kind of satisfying.  

[Agua]

34 minutes ago, Andrew H. said:

I find this kind of satisfying.  

Love it, too! "No one gets out alive!"

Edited April 6, 2016 by Agua

[weta_nz]

10 hours ago, IanL said:

One thing to check is if the mortar is deployed. Special command tab first one in the upper left. 

I have forgotten that more times than I care to admit. In fact just this morning I noticed I had done it again.

 

Bit off topic now but...

Hi IanL,  yup the mortar was definitely deployed.  I was able to re-create the problem when I restarted the scenario (turn based this time) and when I positioned the mortar in the same place I got the same result e.g. The mortar would hold it's target line but no aiming or firing occurred.  When I moved it a few meters forward - the soldiers aimed and fired the mortar correctly. So I've concluded it's not a bug - just a weird sighting issue where some of the mortar team could target the scout car but the soldier who aims and fires the mortar could not. 

[Wicky]

Were trees toggled on or off? As a tree or even a building in front could block them from firing though they might be able to view the intended target.

Have you a screenshot or save file you could share?

Edited April 6, 2016 by Wicky

[Anthony P.]

Trees toggled on. Did not think to save it I'm afraid, so will try revisiting this specific to see if there's an issue or just bad luck once I've exhausted myself on Final Blitzkrieg (expect this to be roughly this side of Q3).

[Battlefront.com]

1 hour ago, Anthony P. said:

Trees toggled on. Did not think to save it I'm afraid, so will try revisiting this specific to see if there's an issue or just bad luck once I've exhausted myself on Final Blitzkrieg (expect this to be roughly this side of Q3).

Heh... a man with a plan!  Excellent

Steve

[sttp]

5 hours ago, Wicky said:

Were trees toggled on or off? As a tree or even a building in front could block them from firing though they might be able to view the intended target.

I'm pretty sure that whether trees are toggled on or off won't make a difference, since it's only the tree visual model that's being turned off with the ALT-T shortcut. For lines of sight, lines of fire, etc., I believe the code always considers them to be "on."

 

[womble]

2 hours ago, sttp said:

I'm pretty sure that whether trees are toggled on or off won't make a difference, since it's only the tree visual model that's being turned off with the ALT-T shortcut. For lines of sight, lines of fire, etc., I believe the code always considers them to be "on."

 

However, the lack of visual cue for the user might mean that the don't realise the congested overhead is what's stopping the mortar shooting.

[weta_nz]

2 hours ago, womble said:

However, the lack of visual cue for the user might mean that the don't realise the congested overhead is what's stopping the mortar shooting.

Hi Womble - for my mortar problem, yes trees were overhead. However the mortar seemed to be able to shoot from that position as I was able to area fire around the scout car but not directly at the scout car.

Edited April 7, 2016 by weta_nz

[Wicky]

Then it could have been an overhanging tree branch in that precise direction blocking them firing. The small aiming adjustment to either side of your target then bypassed the obstruction?

[MikeyD]

Depression limit on a (real world) Sherman is -10 or -12 degrees, depending on gun type.  If that Sherman on the ridge needs to depress the gun more than -10 degrees the game will delay its main gun being fired, I believe. Basically firing uphill is easier than firing downhill. The difference between +25 elevation and -10 depression.