Jump to content

Pak 40 gun glitch - mysterious crew casualties and subsequent abandoning of guns


Recommended Posts

I was recently playing the CMFI battle, "Alvano Anvil", with a friend.  Two of my Pak40's were out of sight and spread far apart from each other.  They were suffering no incoming fire, indirect or otherwise, and my friend confirmed that they were not targeted.

At the EXACT same second of the same turn, both crews experienced a mysterious casualty and subsequently abandoned their guns. Their ammo bearers also panicked and ran at the same time although they did not suffer the mysterious casualty.  I can only assume this is a glitch of some sort.  In any case, I have kept the file.

Has this ever happened to any of you?

Cheers

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ithikial_AU said:

Good old ricochet. :) Proof:

 

This doesn't show a ricochet actually hitting the guy.

What happens is that the enemy shell hits the tiger and ricochets into the ground immediately in front of the tank. If you watch closely, you can see the explosion.

In the old engine, such ricochets would explode on contact, and the explosion would be strangely powerful compared to the size of the shell. I often noticed soldiers falling down though they were far from the point of impact.

13 minutes ago, c3k said:

1. I think it's pretty awesome that this type of frag damage is simulated.

Well, it's not any more. It was later changed so that AP shell ricochets would not explode on hitting the ground.

Later, the bug reappeared and was again fixed in the first CMFB patch.

In short, I don't think this has anything to do with the issue of the original poster :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, IanL said:

Well that didn't work - system says " ChappyCanuck cannot receive messages. " PM me your email unless you already have it - I think we were on the same side of a multi player battle if memory serves.

Hmmm not sure how to fix the "cannot receive messages"  I just went through all of the account settings to no avail

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

This doesn't show a ricochet actually hitting the guy.

What happens is that the enemy shell hits the tiger and ricochets into the ground immediately in front of the tank. If you watch closely, you can see the explosion.

In the old engine, such ricochets would explode on contact, and the explosion would be strangely powerful compared to the size of the shell. I often noticed soldiers falling down though they were far from the point of impact.

Well, it's not any more. It was later changed so that AP shell ricochets would not explode on hitting the ground.

Later, the bug reappeared and was again fixed in the first CMFB patch.

In short, I don't think this has anything to do with the issue of the original poster :)

 

Yeah, that's why I said "fragment". The AP shell exploded, based on the visual, and a guy got hit. As to the earlier issue with APHE being too powerful, well, as were others, I was a big part of the solution to that. Totally "read in" on it.

This? This looks legit, to me. An energetic piece of metal hits an immovable object, there's gonna be chunks flying around.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, c3k said:

This? This looks legit, to me. An energetic piece of metal hits an immovable object, there's gonna be chunks flying around.

Legit or not, it was fixed recently :)

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=350&Itemid=612

"* APHE ricochets should not explode when they hit the ground again."

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

This doesn't show a ricochet actually hitting the guy.

What happens is that the enemy shell hits the tiger and ricochets into the ground immediately in front of the tank. If you watch closely, you can see the explosion.

In the old engine, such ricochets would explode on contact, and the explosion would be strangely powerful compared to the size of the shell. I often noticed soldiers falling down though they were far from the point of impact.

Well, it's not any more. It was later changed so that AP shell ricochets would not explode on hitting the ground.

Later, the bug reappeared and was again fixed in the first CMFB patch.

In short, I don't think this has anything to do with the issue of the original poster :)

 

Fragments from a ricochet then... meh it was a laugh when it happened. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From previous discussions, I think the way that CM models fragmentation is that the explosion draws a number of ray-traces from the explosion point, in random directions. I assume that this number depends on the size or how fragmentary the round is supposed to be.

Assuming these are just straight line traces (an assumption with no firm basis), this could produce some really weird results in the occasional edge-case scenario - hurting people across the map, and so forth, assuming there happened to be nothing in the way. I know I've certainly seen people get injured unexpectedly from incoming rounds, so that might be what's happening here. It would certainly explain the simultaneous losses.

As a rule of thumb, "Danger close" is always further than you expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, domfluff said:

From previous discussions, I think the way that CM models fragmentation is that the explosion draws a number of ray-traces from the explosion point, in random directions. I assume that this number depends on the size or how fragmentary the round is supposed to be.

Assuming these are just straight line traces (an assumption with no firm basis), this could produce some really weird results in the occasional edge-case scenario - hurting people across the map, and so forth, assuming there happened to be nothing in the way. I know I've certainly seen people get injured unexpectedly from incoming rounds, so that might be what's happening here. It would certainly explain the simultaneous losses.

As a rule of thumb, "Danger close" is always further than you expect.

There's a distance limit. From what I've seen, the maximum casualty distance from an explosion in metres is roughly equivalent to the size of the shell in millimetres. 75mm HE = 75m danger range. 

(actually a bit more, but it's a useful rule of thumb)

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, domfluff said:

Yeah, I expect there's a limit. It's definitely more than calibre-in-metres though.

Doctrinal danger close is something like 200m for a US 60mm mortar (IIRC), although sensibly that would include scatter from incoming rounds, etc.

My rule of thumb was just based on what I see in the game. I'm not an expert or even a military man, but here's a quote from a guy who says he was:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that's lethal range - that's the range you expect people to die, rather than the range that they could get hit. An important distinction if they're your own guys :)

From the current US Infantry Manual (there's little difference in basic HE mortar effects from WW2 to now, so the values are still valid)

MSD = Minimum safe distance

PI = Percentage of incapacitation. 0.1 is one in a thousand soldiers will be incapacitated at this range, in expectation. 10 PI is one in ten (i.e., you expect to cause casualties with a mortar round at this distance).

N6Ykjq4.png


Below the above table there's: "WARNING REDs are for combat use and do not represent the maximum fragmentation envelopes of the weapons listed. REDs are not minimum safe distances for peacetime training use."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, domfluff said:

N6Ykjq4.png

Interesting table.  Thanks for posting this. +1 

It also shows that @Bulletpoint rule of thumb is fairly accurate if you compare it to the right column (10 PI).   As a player I know I probably push the pixeltroopen more than I would if they were real soldiers.  So that 10 PI column and Bulletpoint's rule of thumb work well for game purposes.    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

It also shows that @Bulletpoint rule of thumb is fairly accurate if you compare it to the right column (10 PI).   As a player I know I probably push the pixeltroopen more than I would if they were real soldiers.  So that 10 PI column and Bulletpoint's rule of thumb work well for game purposes.    

Yeah I think it matches pretty well too. At least for a basic guide to stick to. Seems the game got the max distances pretty much right..

I'm quite surprised to see there's still a tiny risk of getting hit at 175m though, for the 60m mortar. I'd assume any fragment would be stopped by air resistance at that range.

Not doubting the army findings of course. I'm pretty sure they know what they're talking about - I'm just surprised.

Edited by Bulletpoint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder what the "certain death" ranges are for the various shells against prone infantry. I'm playing a game right now where I had two guys prone - one took a nearly direct hit from what seemed to be a 105mm... he died but the other guy was fine 2 metres away from the crater.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...