infantry casualties from AP ricochets

[Kommissar]

I appreciate that this post is anecdotal and not based on testing (although this would be extremely difficult to test) but I'm finding that infantry are extremely vulnerable to shots that ricochet off a nearby tank.  To be clear, what I'm talking about is a situation where an AP shot from, e.g. a Sherman, bounces off the frontal armour of, e.g. a Stug, and then flies up in the air and lands near some infantry.  I'm consistently taking casualties from AP shells landing 20-30 m away.  I understand that there might be random shrapnel and that there is an explosive charge even in AP, but the lethality seems off to me.  In the Chaumont 2nd round scenario, for instance, I lost 6 guys from 3 ricochets. 

[mjkerner]

This used to happen when CMBN first came out.  It was fixed along the way, but seems to have re-appeared in FB. It's been reported recently, IIRC, and perhaps will be addressed in the 1.01 patch.  

[Bulletpoint]

Apparently they did some kind of mistake, because it seems several old fixed bugs are reappearing. The other one off the top of my head being the one about small British mortars.

[Kommissar]

Ah OK.  Sorry for the redundancy if this is a known issue already being worked on.

[Michael Emrys]

9 hours ago, Kommissar said:

I understand that there might be random shrapnel and that there is an explosive charge even in AP, but the lethality seems off to me.

In any event, it strikes me that the explosive charge should be set off almost instantly after the ricochet, not after traveling some distance and then hitting the ground. And yes, the explosive charge in AP shot was small, usually somewhere ~1 oz I think. Exploding in a confined space inside an AFV it didn't need to be large.

Michael

[Erwin]

So, CMFB features a high level of friendly fire casualties?  It feels that way to me.  But, that can be deceptive.

[A Canadian Cat]

7 hours ago, Erwin said:

So, CMFB features a high level of friendly fire casualties?  It feels that way to me.  But, that can be deceptive.

Not any more than the other titles - with the exception of the AP shells exploding when they hit the ground as the OP said.  Those casualties were always pretty rare really.

[Kommissar]

14 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

In any event, it strikes me that the explosive charge should be set off almost instantly after the ricochet,

Good point.  If the force of hitting the AFV at full steam wasn't enough to trigger the charge, how could hitting the ground after the ricochet cause it to explode?

[womble]

Which is exactly why BFC took the "terminal explosion" out for ricocheting APHE. It's a SNAFU that it's back in, and it'll doubtless be gotten rid of in FB 1.01

[Sublime]

Yes. It shudnt be there and doubt it will.much longer

[DasMorbo]

Maybe I have noticed another case of 'old bug reapearing'...

I just had an instance whith two Shermans. One Sherman was area firíng a hill 500 meters away with his wingman, a second Sherman, in overwatch. Suddenly the firing Sherman spotted some German Infys just 180 meters away from him in a copse. Instead of switching targets automatically to the direct contact and threat, the Sherman kept area firing. This gave the Germans ample time to aim with a Panzerschreck and destroy his wingman which hadn't spotted them.

I had two or three instances so far, where units stubbornly kept area firing even though they had spotted direct threats to them. I didn't notice this behaviour in the late CMBN.

What do you guys say to this, have you noticed similar things? Does Battlefront know this and do they want to do something about it? Or should I write a ticket on the matter?

 

Comments appreciated.

[Warts 'n' all]

I think it is a case of swings and roundabouts. When I played the demo one of my Shermans disobeyed my orders and took out an ATgun before I'd even spotted a sound contact on screen. I think this kind of human behaviour has always happened in CMx2. We cheer when it goes in our favour, and rant and rave when it goes against us.

 

 

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, DasMorbo said:

<Snip> I had two or three instances so far, where units stubbornly kept area firing even though they had spotted direct threats to them. I didn't notice this behaviour in the late CMBN. <Snip>

I sometimes see this in all the CM titles however I usually come to the conclusion that it was due to the soft factors of the unit.  IMO motivation greater than "normal" = less initiative.  The higher the motivation the more likely the unit is to stick to the task at hand.  Combine a high motivation level with a low experience level and I think you can see this behavior fairly often. So I would be curious about the soft factors first.  That would be my first guess ............ 

[womble]

3 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

I sometimes see this in all the CM titles however I usually come to the conclusion that it was due to the soft factors of the unit.  IMO motivation greater than "normal" = less initiative.  The higher the motivation the more likely the unit is to stick to the task at hand.  Combine a high motivation level with a low experience level and I think you can see this behavior fairly often. So I would be curious about the soft factors first.  That would be my first guess ............ 

Your opinion is completely founded on fact in this case. Fanatic troops will continue doing what you order them to, to a suicidal extent. Using troops with greater than High motivation can be a gamble. It's a good guess. It's also pretty long range for a Shreck; if it had popped up at closer range, you might have seen a different reaction.

[A Canadian Cat]

Yep, what they said.  One thing you can do is use target briefly more often.  It means you don't get as much area fire but it also means your targeting teams spend at least some of their time open to new targets.

[Bulletpoint]

Shouldn't motivation mean "motivation to stay and fight as best you can", rather than "motivation to follow orders mindlessly like a robot"?

[Michael Emrys]

23 minutes ago, IanL said:

Yep, what they said.  One thing you can do is use target briefly more often.  It means you don't get as much area fire but it also means your targeting teams spend at least some of their time open to new targets.

Yeah, I realized a few months ago that this could be a really good idea. Instead of sending round after round into a position where the target was already suppressed, and likely dead, Target Briefly to send a round or two and them move on to other targets.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

1 minute ago, Bulletpoint said:

Shouldn't motivation mean "motivation to stay and fight as best you can", rather than "motivation to follow orders mindlessly like a robot"?

Well, it has to be something that works within the framework of the code. In terms of code, just what does "fight as best you can" mean? I thought all the pixel soldiers were already fighting as best they could within whatever limitations the soft factors established for them.

Michael

[Sublime]

Emrys - just so and I use it in all games. For example lets picture a sherman.  Ill give it a target briefly on bldg A 2nd floor. And a pause order for 15 sec. Then ill order it to fast move like a teency bit forward or back target briefly bottom floor another 15 sec pause, then reverse to original position and set a reg target order frm that waypoint on a nest of foxholes or say building B. Once you get used to it you can really spray a lot of lead and HE at a bunch of different targets in one min with a few tanks.

Also for say the Abrams or say the Churchill with 9k rounds of ammo I dont care what it is the tanks are on target light the entire time machine gunnong something unless theyre tryinf to be sneaky or there far enough back they cant see any part of anywhere the enemy could be.

Of course this is ahistorical - irl you cant spray bullets around so much when u may really need them 6 hrs later or tomorrow. More so with high caliber shells.

[womble]

My most common application of this for AFV is to Target Briefly for 15s, Pause for the same length of time, displace slightly and switch to Target Light. Initial HE gets suppression on quickly, and a couple of MGs keeps their heads nailed down, usually.

[DasMorbo]

On 14.5.2016 at 4:04 PM, Sublime said:

...

Also for say the Abrams or say the Churchill with 9k rounds of ammo I dont care what it is the tanks are on target light the entire time machine gunnong something unless theyre tryinf to be sneaky or there far enough back they cant see any part of anywhere the enemy could be.

Of course this is ahistorical - irl you cant spray bullets around so much when u may really need them 6 hrs later or tomorrow. More so with high caliber shells.

It's not ahistorical at all - in Lt.Col. Abrams 37th Tank Battalion this was SOP! It was common behaviour to spray every suspicious looking copse or brush with MG ammo when in enemy-held area IIRC.

 

About my griefings: I normally use 'Target Briefly', too. But in this case it is the American ardennes campaign (Lt.Col. Abrams again...) in which I have to conserve HE-ammo as good as I can! 'Target Briefly' wastes HE shells, and target light which would be the perfect suppression-solution is dangerous. I would love to see BF include an 'override area-fire for direct contacts'-routine in the AI.

Depends on the effort necessary, of course.

[womble]

3 hours ago, DasMorbo said:

I would love to see BF include an 'override area-fire for direct contacts'-routine in the AI.

Depends on the effort necessary, of course.

As has been said: this already exists. To a certain extent.

If your unit detects a "sufficient" threat, which it can usefully engage, it will target that spotted element. The level of the threat required to cancel your direct order varies.

If your unit detects a target "near" the place it's area firing, it will often engage that target. Again, the likelihood of that occurrence depends on soft factors and target situation.

[DasMorbo]

Ah okay!

 

From what I've seen it looked like this never happened. Haven't seen it in a substantial period of time. By now I am fearful of using area fire for more than 30 seconds as I had numerous occasions where my units left first-rate (in the open and running infantry) targets unscathed and took casualties themselves.

All in CMFB, I have no such problems in CMBN. I will take some time with this to see, if it was more bad luck and subjectivity than fact.

 

Cheers

Morbo

[Sublime]

No Das you.re right to a degree. US units entering towns in Germany ( key point recon by fire was discouraged outsude of Germany ) that werent festooned with white clothes hanging from windows.

However this spray al the twidows and houses was done wih MGs Im.pretty sure and even then I doubt to the extent we see in  CM. CMs sandbox nature means it doesnt matter if you have NO more MG ammo for what lies beyond that map edge. In real life it.d be folly to do so.

Also I doubt HE was tossed about so liberally  in direct fire unless enemy positions were known or strongly suspected.

 

Off topic but interestingly I was reading about the m12 GMC that has the 155mm. I played with one once in a PBEM. One shot one dead Panther. An HE ko.d a Pz IV, whilst iirc the Pather used the one AP shell. Lotsa fun to play with that toy, and if CM had a real life equivalent damage model that panthers turret would hace been a mile away. But whats interesting was apparently only abiut 60 were made. That makes them one of the rarest CM vehicles along with the Brit ww2 Challenger.

Also interestingly the m12 is on an m3 chassis. Maybe that.d help BFC down the road..