Was Panzerschreck accuracy boosted recently?

[John Kettler]

Vanir Ausf B,

Ouch! Believe I'll attack with infantry instead. Interesting results, though statistically speaking, useless.

Regards,

John Kettler

[user1000]

I understand you OP. I don't think the game knows when an object is moving opposed to a stationary object. In real life it would be very hard to hit a moving tank with a faust or shrek over a certain distance, if it is still or you are right up on it then yes but not moving. Why do I say this, well I have had mp-40s take out my tank commanders in a moving tank from far away. This should not happen, the rounds should be spread out more instead they are like a laser all hitting the tanker or tank hatch while never hitting the hull anywhere. Now in real life if shot an mp-40 at a hatch at those ranges in real life your going to be hitting EVERYWHERE but the guy sticking out of the tank. It's a spray and pray weapon I agree too many laser beam like weapons in game.

Edited April 26, 2016 by user1000

[Bulletpoint]

8 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I just did a quick test in Red Thunder v1.03.

10 panzerschreck teams shooting at 10 T-34/85s at about 195 meters. I ran the test only one time.

First shot hits: 3

Second shot hits: 4

Third shot hits: 1

Fourth shot hits: 1

The last schreck fired all 6 rounds without hitting.

Thanks for helping test this. So, the probability of getting a hit on first or second shot at max range seems to be 70 percent? (I know the sample size is still limited) Seems like I need to change my SOP. No more trying to bait antitank teams to reveal themselves by firing at long range.

Also, accuracy seems enormously varied, from getting first shot hits to firing six times without a hit.

What experience level and soft factors did the AT team have in your test?

 

Edited April 26, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[Vanir Ausf B]

24 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

Thanks for helping test this. So, the probability of getting a hit on first or second shot at max range seems to be 70 percent?

The sample size is far too small to place a number on it. But obtaining a similar result to your anecdotal evidence on the first test iteration reinforced my feeling that I don't need to spend any more time on this.

24 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

What experience level and soft factors did the AT team have in your test?

Regular, Normal, +0, all teams out of C2.

[Larsen]

What is the consensus? Do panzerschreckz hit consistently at 200 meters? 

I also noticed that panzerschreck teams don't have any problem shooting from inside the building. I always thought that they should have problems with firing from buildings due to fire blast from the back side of the tube. 

[A Canadian Cat]

5 minutes ago, Larsen said:

What is the consensus? Do panzerschreckz hit consistently at 200 meters? 

No problem with hits at 200m when your tank is the target.  No chance of a hit if your guys are the ones shooting.   Just like it has always been.

Kidding aside 200m hits are possible but not likely.  I tend to think of them as being quite good at 125m and sometimes worth taking the risk at 150m or so.  I do not find them taking 200m shots on their own very frequently and I often actually limit them to 125m or so.  I just don't want them giving their positions away for low percentage shots.

 

5 minutes ago, Larsen said:

I also noticed that panzerschreck teams don't have any problem shooting from inside the building. I always thought that they should have problems with firing from buildings due to fire blast from the back side of the tube. 

I am not sure what you are seeing but firing from inside definitely has downside risk.  In medium sized and small buildings they routinely suppress any other team in on the floor with them.  My SOP is to make sure they are the only ones in the room.  Even then they effect themselves too.  I have a platoon that has seen some action but they are doing OK except every time the tube guy (actually it is the loader who buddy aided the Shrek from his team mate) takes a shot he ends up suppressed then shaken followed by running from the room.  Good thing his shots have been at under 100m so far.

Even worse had a Shrek team kill them selves once.  I had them setup in a small shed (the smallest barn) as the enemy tanks started getting close I noticed from on high that I took a casualty.  When I zoomed in for a closer look I could not see anything near by and the enemy tanks seemed oblivious.  Then, as I was watching,  the Shrek team fired and the second guy went down.  I rewound the turn and found the team had done it to themselves.  The loader became a heavily wounded casualty after the first shot and the gunner because a heavily wounded casualty after the second shot.  They hit nothing.

Note to self make sure the Shrek team is the only team on a floor and that floor is not one of the little sheds.

[Larsen]

What I see is that the panzerschreckz teams happily fire from the second stores of two story building from the distance of up to 300 meters and hitting consistently from 200 meters. And they don't get suppressed when firing from inside he buildings. 

And since you can't really choose to target the second floor specifically if the LOS to the center of the building is blocked (by hedge for example) then you can't even fire back at them unless they pop up in the window. I really hate how LOS works at CMx2. 

[A Canadian Cat]

50 minutes ago, Larsen said:

And since you can't really choose to target the second floor specifically if the LOS to the center of the building is blocked (by hedge for example) then you can't even fire back at them unless they pop up in the window.

Oh you are not alone in that.  I still hold out hope that someday this can be improved upon.

[Lethaface]

3 hours ago, IanL said:

Oh you are not alone in that.  I still hold out hope that someday this can be improved upon.

Somewhat of a workaround is machinegunning a spot on the ground right in front of, or next to, the building. Usually this helps suppressing and allowing maneuver for effective fire. 

[Bulletpoint]

3 hours ago, Lethaface said:

Somewhat of a workaround is machinegunning a spot on the ground right in front of, or next to, the building. Usually this helps suppressing and allowing maneuver for effective fire. 

Problem is that you need to hit the exact floor where the enemy is to suppress them. Firing on first floor won't do much to enemies on the second floor. It would be so nice to just be able to spray the whole facade of the building with fire. And realistic too, I reckon.

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Problem is that you need to hit the exact floor where the enemy is to suppress them. Firing on first floor won't do much to enemies on the second floor. It would be so nice to just be able to spray the whole facade of the building with fire. And realistic too, I reckon.

I think it was @RockinHarry that did tests with vertical suppression.  I also replicated the results on my test map.  The results follow:

When the Action Spot in front of a building is targeted the OpFor units on floors one through three will cower & be heavily suppressed and pinned.  The floors must have at least one window facing the incoming fire to be affected. 

I think you and I participated in that thread.

[Bulletpoint]

18 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said:

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Problem is that you need to hit the exact floor where the enemy is to suppress them. Firing on first floor won't do much to enemies on the second floor. It would be so nice to just be able to spray the whole facade of the building with fire. And realistic too, I reckon.

I think it was @RockinHarry that did tests with vertical suppression.  I also replicated the results on my test map.  The results follow:

When the Action Spot in front of a building is targeted the OpFor units on floors one through three will cower & be heavily suppressed and pinned.  The floors must have at least one window facing the incoming fire to be affected. 

I think you and I participated in that thread.

I remembered it wrong then, because I thought that thread was about ways to shoot at diagonal buildings that are at an angle behind other buildings, so you cannot target them directly. That's how I filed it mentally. Sorry to spread confusion, and thanks for clearing that up.

I could have sworn I've seen instances of one floor being suppressed while the others keep calm though.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[MOS:96B2P]

3 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

<Snip> thanks for clearing that up.

No problem, my friend.  Probably the only reason I remembered it was because I did a follow up test and then included it in my TACSOPs.  

[Bulletpoint]

1 minute ago, MOS:96B2P said:

No problem, my friend.  Probably the only reason I remembered it was because I did a follow up test and then included it in my TACSOPs.  

I should have done the same, but for some reason I forgot about this very useful trick. Might come in handy for the campaign I'm currently playing though.

[DasMorbo]

Back to the accuracy topic:

I too have the impression that at some stage in the recent past, BF must have changed something about the Panzerschreck (PzSch) Accuracy. I am playing the "Courage Conquers" Campaign of CMFB right now and have suffered 6 first-shot hits from PzSch at 170m+ ranges in just three missions. Plus I killed two enemy tanks with PzSch-first shots at 180m + in a single PBEM. I never experienced something like that before, in all allied campaigns I played up till then combined I didn't take so many Hits. My SOP said: "getting within 100m of a PzSch is no serious threat to tanks" and "Panzerschreck is useless above 50m".

Yeah, I know, I know just anecdotal, no statistical base and so on. But still, experience of years is suddenly totally reversed. That is odd.

I already wondered if this is a bug.

[A Canadian Cat]

Perhaps it is time to create a test and generate some stats.

Take a crack at it and share your test setup and results. Don't do too many runs right away just get some feedback on the test methodology first.

[slysniper]

I hate to say it but I also just finished a game with plenty of Panzerschreck 's and It does appear they seem a little more accurate at long range than they should be.

But there is the question of what should they be performing at? And then the question of what the game is doing.

And since I am judging it on my experience  in gaming, it does lack some real knowledge.

 

But at the moment I assume they are getting a high percentage of hits above 150 meters.

 

At one time I would never let them fire at that range since they missed a lot, so something has changed.

 

But I also have to question when I made that rule for myself. (Likely back in CMX1 days) So maybe in CMX2 they have always been like they are at the moment.

 

But I will agree with the statement, they need reviewed and they seem too accurate at the moment.

 

[DasMorbo]

On 10.7.2016 at 6:01 AM, slysniper said:

I hate to say it but I also just finished a game with plenty of Panzerschreck 's and It does appear they seem a little more accurate at long range than they should be.

 

Why do you "hate" to agree with me, I ask myself...

To answer your question if your experience derived from CMx1 or CMx2: it is very likely it derived from CMx2. I had roughly the same experience as you - Panzerschrecks used to be very inaccurate, hitting anything above 100m never happened to me and even over 50m was risky business. My SOP used to be: never shoot Panzerschrecks at more than 70m

By the way, just finished a Scenario in which I used Panzerschrecks. Two teams destroyed 5 Churchills with 0 (that reads zero!) misses (out of seven shots). All but one at 150m +. Two tanks were one-shot'ed at 190m.

Guys dust off your Schrecks, they work phenomenally well all of a sudden!

 

Cheers

Edited July 22, 2016 by DasMorbo

[Vanir Ausf B]

10 panzerschreck teams -- Regular, Normal, +0 -- vs 10 Panther A at about 155 meters. First shots only.

Kneeling behind wall, 150 shots

10 hits, 140 misses

Prone

13 hits, 137 misses

https://www.dropbox.com/s/crnfc5289lyjaq1/Panzerschreck accuracy prone 001.bts?dl=0

Consider the issue looked into.

[c3k]

LOL...

Some thoughts.

The panzerschreck was not horribly inaccurate. Hitting the broadside of a barn, or a stationary tank, at 100m should not be considered difficult. I would think it would get harder, as we all "feel" that it should, out to 200m. However, I have no idea what the "proper" hit percentage at 200m should be, nor how rapidly accuracy should degrade from 100m to 200m.

Are different targets harder to hit, in-game, than others? Is a Panhard the same as a Jeep the same as a Panther the same as an IS-2?

Does the game use the same targeting/accuracy algorithm for all rocket-propelled projectiles? At 50% effective range, does the bazooka's accuracy equal the 'schreck equal the 'faust? Is there a reason why it should be different? (Meaning, if 'faust has max effective range of 100m, is its 50m accuracy the same as the 'schreck's 100m (max effective 200m)?)

Are all iron-sight weapons treated the same with regard to range estimation errors? Is there a credit for higher muzzle velocity (less drop, and therefore less sensitivity to range errors)? Is there a credit for a ranging stadia on the weapon? Is there a credit for a dedicated anti-tank soldier to be using the weapon?

 

I would contend that the first issue would be to come up with some sort of baseline, real-world, accuracy at 100m, 150m, and 200m.

Ken "gasoline on the fire"

[Michael Emrys]

4 hours ago, c3k said:

Some thoughts.

The panzerschreck was not horribly inaccurate. Hitting the broadside of a barn, or a stationary tank, at 100m should not be considered difficult. I would think it would get harder, as we all "feel" that it should, out to 200m. However, I have no idea what the "proper" hit percentage at 200m should be, nor how rapidly accuracy should degrade from 100m to 200m.

Are different targets harder to hit, in-game, than others? Is a Panhard the same as a Jeep the same as a Panther the same as an IS-2?

Does the game use the same targeting/accuracy algorithm for all rocket-propelled projectiles? At 50% effective range, does the bazooka's accuracy equal the 'schreck equal the 'faust? Is there a reason why it should be different? (Meaning, if 'faust has max effective range of 100m, is its 50m accuracy the same as the 'schreck's 100m (max effective 200m)?)

Are all iron-sight weapons treated the same with regard to range estimation errors? Is there a credit for higher muzzle velocity (less drop, and therefore less sensitivity to range errors)? Is there a credit for a ranging stadia on the weapon? Is there a credit for a dedicated anti-tank soldier to be using the weapon?

 

I would contend that the first issue would be to come up with some sort of baseline, real-world, accuracy at 100m, 150m, and 200m.

Very good points all. My sense (admittedly a pretty vague one that is open to correction) is that the 'faust's accuracy was unimpressive—to put it mildly—beyond 20 meters even for the later, longer-ranged models. 'Schrecks and bazookas were pretty good out to 100 meters, but probably fell off pretty sharply after that. PIAT seems to have been pretty good within its effective range.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

I have not tested bazooka accuracy but I do remember that in CM1 the 'schreck had better accuracy on account of its higher velocity and I assume that has been carried forward into CM2

[womble]

12 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

I have not tested bazooka accuracy but I do remember that in CM1 the 'schreck had better accuracy on account of its higher velocity and I assume that has been carried forward into CM2

This seems a reasonable assumption, given that the ballistics of the shot are modelled as best the engine can manage them, based on the best information about muzzle velocity and ballistic properties of the projectiles involved.

[slysniper]

On ‎7‎/‎22‎/‎2016 at 9:36 PM, Vanir Ausf B said:

10 panzerschreck teams -- Regular, Normal, +0 -- vs 10 Panther A at about 155 meters. First shots only.

Kneeling behind wall, 150 shots

10 hits, 140 misses

Prone

13 hits, 137 misses

https://www.dropbox.com/s/crnfc5289lyjaq1/Panzerschreck accuracy prone 001.bts?dl=0

Consider the issue looked into.

Well, these numbers look correct to what I personally think would be correct.  So per that small test sample, things appear to be acting correctly.

 

But it is hard to believe that  these numbers could happen in his game with such odds.

"By the way, just finished a Scenario in which I used Panzerschrecks. Two teams destroyed 5 Churchills with 0 (that reads zero!) misses (out of seven shots). All but one at 150m +. Two tanks were one-shot'ed at 190m. "

If he is having that kind of luck, I want it to be used in a gambling hall and I will put the money up and split the winnings with him. (Because that event is somewhere between 1 in 10,000 to 1 in a 100,000 odds.

Then add the fact that this thread has other reports with similar odds that are not likely

So I still wonder if somehow the game is not functioning correctly in some situations. " maybe there is even a install bug that is only showing up on some machines.

DasMorbo  needs to run some controlled test on his machine similar to your and see what he is getting as results - then maybe there would be some knowledge as to if there is a issue or not.

[ASL Veteran]

Generally speaking, players tend to have 'selective memory' on most things game related.