Vehicle behind Wreck?

[weapon2010]

 I thought a vehicle could hide behind  a wreck and use that wreck as a shield of sorts, much like house? But i guess that only applies to non wrecked vehicles?

[Frenchy56]

What do you mean? What happened?

[weapon2010]

i had a panzer 3 behind a Tiger wreck, the Sherman shells went straight through the tiger wreck and destroyed the pz3.

[ncc1701e]

This is strange because I do not have the same experience. Playing CMSF2, my US troops destroy a taxi. And, then, they use the wreck to obtain protection from small arms firing. This is the kid of whaou moment I like...

[Sgt.Squarehead]

38 minutes ago, ncc1701e said:

This is strange because I do not have the same experience. Playing CMSF2, my US troops destroy a taxi. And, then, they use the wreck to obtain protection from small arms firing. This is the kid of whaou moment I like...

I was going to say the same.....Dead vehicles definitely appear to (and certainly sound like) they provide cover in CM:SF2. 

 

[weapon2010]

yes I think troops absolutley gain the cover benefit from  dead tanks, but i dont think vehicles do

[ncc1701e]

1 hour ago, weapon2010 said:

yes I think troops absolutley gain the cover benefit from  dead tanks, but i dont think vehicles do

Shame I am not in front of my computer for the weekend. But, the best would be to open the editor. Create a tank on one side. Two tank on the other side, one of them destroyed. Then you can play around the scenario to try to reproduce what you are seeing.

Are you able to do this? Otherwise, I will try once I am back in town.

[Falaise]

I think I remember reading in the manual that wrecks can only protect infantry, not vehicles

[Kalibri]

A very similar situation happened to me, while playing the CMRT. I put T-4 behind the light infantry vehicle, Sd.Kfz hoping to reduce the energy or trajectory of a projectile of a T-34. This did not happen, after replaying this five times. The projectile went thru the Sd.Kfz  five times without changing the trajectory or reducing energy and every time it went thru my T-4 completely destroying it. The only explanation I find is that the thickness of the side is 14,5 mm and even thou the projectile had to go thru two of these side walls, it did not reduce much of each energy. But it is still questionable how come there is no change of trajectory after going thru 29 mm of armor. I think this is one of the game limitations.

 

[Michael Emrys]

6 hours ago, Kalibri said:

But it is still questionable how come there is no change of trajectory after going thru 29 mm of armor. I think this is one of the game limitations.

I think you are probably right. There is so much packed into CM that we often react with surprise and dismay when something that we expect to find is instead absent from the game.

Michael

[Falaise]

page 53 of the manual:
"The only exception to this rule is that vehicles are not protected by hiding behind stunned armored vehicles ..."
so even behind a destroyed tiger, 2 tigers, 3 tigers etc ....

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Good find.....Matches my own experiences. 

[Ghost of Charlemagne]

I know Falaise correctly pointed to it, but here it is directly from the manual:

From CM Engine Manual v4.00, page 53:
"Note: Virtually every bullet in CMx2 is tracked from muzzle to target. This applies to both small arms as well as heavy calibers. The principle of “what you see is what you get” applies: if only part of a vehicle is visible (e.g. behind a wall or partially concealed by a slope in the terrain) then only that part can be hit by direct fire. The only exception to this is that vehicles are NOT shielded by hiding behind knocked-out armored vehicles; however, infantry does gain cover in this situation. In fact, infantry also receives a blast protection bonus when an armored vehicle (live or knocked out) is between them and a very large explosion."

But why is this? Why wouldn't knocked-out vehicles provide cover for other vehicles?

[sburke]

If my recollection is right (and it certainly might not be) it had to do with some extremely gamey tactics. 

[A Canadian Cat]

It has to do with the AI's inability to manoeuvre for the shot. Similarly, AI controlled vehicles cannot pull back to hit high targets that the gun cannot elevate to target, so they are allowed to shoot at targets to high for the gun.  They also cannot make minor adjustments - backup some and move forward so they are 10m to the left - in order to get at enemy vehicles behind already wrecked vehicles.

So, limitation for a reason.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

That makes a lot of sense.....Sadly the gun elevation thing really throws a spanner into the works for Mujahidin in Afghanistan & Chechnya. 

[A Canadian Cat]

Yeah it would be nice to allow for the ability to escape by going up and thus forcing the enemy to relocate or find a different solution. We just have to design around that in scenarios.

[weapon2010]

7 hours ago, sburke said:

If my recollection is right (and it certainly might not be) it had to do with some extremely gamey tactics. 

those extremely gamey tactics  your refering to still can be used with "live" tanks.

[Frenchy56]

21 minutes ago, weapon2010 said:

those extremely gamey tactics  your refering to still can be used with "live" tanks.

Well, as said earlier the AI is not programmed to, or in other words is too stupid to counter those.

Edited April 23, 2019 by Frenchy56

[sburke]

1 hour ago, weapon2010 said:

those extremely gamey tactics  your referring to still can be used with "live" tanks.

we may not be referring to the same gamey tactics.  I'll see if I can dig up the reference

[Vanir Ausf B]

1) Friendly vehicles never block LOS/LOF for other friendly vehicles.

2) Operable enemy vehicles block LOF, but not LOS, from friendly vehicles.

3) Non-smoking KO'd vehicles do not block LOS/LOF for friendly or enemy vehicles.

4) Non-smoking KO'd vehicles block LOF, but not LOS, from any unit as long as the targeted unit is not a vehicle (ie: tank shooting at infantry or infantry shooting at infantry)

5) Smoking vehicles block LOS and LOF.

6) "Vehicles" means tanks, SP guns, and AT/Anti-personnel guns.

Edited April 24, 2019 by Vanir Ausf B

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

1) Friendly vehicles never block LOS/LOF for other friendly vehicles.

2) Operable enemy vehicles block LOF, but not LOS, from friendly vehicles.

3) Non-smoking KO'd vehicles do not block LOS/LOF for friendly or enemy vehicles.

4) Non-smoking KO'd vehicles block LOF, but not LOS, from any unit as long as the targeted unit is not a vehicle (ie: tank shooting at infantry or infantry shooting at infantry)

5) Smoking vehicles block LOS and LOF.

6) "Vehicles" means tanks, SP guns, and AT/Anti-personnel guns.

+1  Good info.  Thanks.