Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On 6/26/2020 at 7:00 PM, Rinaldi said:

Oh look yet another 'hulldown is actually counter intuitive'  - this silliness is right up there with 'maps are too small'

You seem to confuse this game with reality. In reality, hull down is a good thing for any AFV. In this game, it's a bad thing for certain tanks. But play it your way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Well considering every military in history has trained to aim for center of mass, this seems like the nitpick of all nitpicks. If anything, its an indication the game is behaving correctly. Abs

You'll have to excuse the double post here, but I feel compelled to share this. I think some of the misconception about what is happening in the game is coming from the fact that the TacAI always

Tank gunners aim center mass because that is the only practical option. Aiming for specific parts of the tank is some gamey **** straight out of some arcade tank "sim" game like War Thunder, where

Posted Images

23 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

You seem to confuse this game with reality. In reality, hull down is a good thing for any AFV. In this game, it's a bad thing for certain tanks. But play it your way.

This is by far the stupidest thing I've read on the forums in a goddamned long time. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/26/2020 at 7:00 PM, Rinaldi said:

Oh look yet another 'hulldown is actually counter intuitive'  - this silliness is right up there with 'maps are too small'

Care to explain? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bufo said:

Care to explain? 

If you're talking about the reference to 'maps are too small,' then that is just a long standing joke about how some claim that the maps in CMx2 are much smaller than the maps were in CMx1.

If you're talking about the reference to hulldown supposedly being bad in the game, or counter intuitive, then I really don't know what to say. The argument that hulldown is bad is a complete fallacy. It is illogical to the extreme. There are those that will continue to disagree with reality and will nitpick this to death, and I frankly do not think it is worth the time to even bother explaining how laughable their opinions are. I'll end by restating what I stated earlier in this thread: "If you think standing in the open is more conducive to your own survival, then more power to you."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

a long standing joke about how some claim that the maps in CMx2 are much smaller than the maps were in CMx1.

That confuses me.  It was MUCH easier to run a scenario on a 4IKx8K map in CM1 with a REGIMENTAL task force on each side.  Try that in CM2.  I can't recall any CM2 map or scenario that large that would run on much less than a Kray.  CM2 maps are smaller cos of most folks' current consumer PC processing power limitations.

In the GAME there is evidence that being hulldown can be worse for some tanks due to the AI targeting routines than being exposed.  This is not about RL, it's the way it is in the GAME.  In order to play the GAME well, one needs to be aware of in-game phenomena like that.

Edited by Erwin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oooh boy this thread got petty for a bit.

RE: Scenario Size

Play in CMx2 tends to be smaller across the board. The maps themselves are smaller and the forces are also smaller. But this is almost certainly a direct trade-off between bigger scenario size and detail of the simulation. CMx1 had what... 20 meter Action Squares compared to CMx2's 8 meter Action squares. 2.5 times smaller so that a 2,000 meter stretch has gone from 100 squares to 250.

That increase in detail has a cost and while in most cases I think the cost has been worth it I do miss the larger scenarios (and the ease of creating them) in CMx1. I will also say that Modern titles take the brunt of the hit.

RE: Hull Down

The way the game does targeting makes it inadvisable for certain vehicles to remain in hull-down once they are spotted. Since a hull-down position will guarantee turret hits and if your turret armor is weaker than hull then you are setting yourself up to be penetrated. You also increase the odds of gun damage which is especially pernicious for tanks that are otherwise proof to enemy fire.

Effectively once a vehicle is spotted the shooter has perfect information regarding that vehicles so some of the benefit that hull down would grant you such as blending of turret with terrain and the inability for the shooter to accurately correct fires is lost. This in turn makes the decision whether to go hull down or not an actual one since you are trading away your hull-armor.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/6/2020 at 6:21 PM, com-intern said:

Oooh boy this thread got petty for a bit.

RE: Scenario Size

Play in CMx2 tends to be smaller across the board. The maps themselves are smaller and the forces are also smaller. But this is almost certainly a direct trade-off between bigger scenario size and detail of the simulation. CMx1 had what... 20 meter Action Squares compared to CMx2's 8 meter Action squares. 2.5 times smaller so that a 2,000 meter stretch has gone from 100 squares to 250.

That increase in detail has a cost and while in most cases I think the cost has been worth it I do miss the larger scenarios (and the ease of creating them) in CMx1. I will also say that Modern titles take the brunt of the hit.

RE: Hull Down

The way the game does targeting makes it inadvisable for certain vehicles to remain in hull-down once they are spotted. Since a hull-down position will guarantee turret hits and if your turret armor is weaker than hull then you are setting yourself up to be penetrated. You also increase the odds of gun damage which is especially pernicious for tanks that are otherwise proof to enemy fire.

Effectively once a vehicle is spotted the shooter has perfect information regarding that vehicles so some of the benefit that hull down would grant you such as blending of turret with terrain and the inability for the shooter to accurately correct fires is lost. This in turn makes the decision whether to go hull down or not an actual one since you are trading away your hull-armor.

Finally someone understands the hull down issue.

I'm in the progress of doing more "practical" tests with hull down and not. I'm using the panther as example here and so far it has twice success rate by standing in the open compared to hull down.

Edited by RobZ
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you put two tanks in the open and have a duel. Then your math showing how hull down or not hull down is likely perfect. And I agree, in that case, being exposed and not hull down might be safer since more enemy rounds will hit the hull.

So yes the game is not perfect.

But what you guys seem to forget is that when playing. I am not wanting to challenge the enemy in such a manor. I will be rolling my tank up on the enemy flank, in hopefully a hull down position. Wanting to get the spot and first shot off before they can spot me, then if they do spot me, I hope for the hulldown position to help in their first shot being a miss. In otherwards,  playing smart has nothing to do with where the enemy round hits and relying on my thickest armor to save my butt. That concept is for those that are focused too much on one aspect of the whole matter.

In my example, the imperfect targeting mechanics of the game does not impact the outcome nearly as much. What is a bigger factor in all this is how good is the game at representing getting a hit or a miss on target and how realistic is this in the game.

So I could sit and complain about first round hit and misses at different distances, but I dont. Why.

Because I am smart enough to understand that its a game, with many limitations and as a whole it does a good job of representing what is real. Could it do better, heck yes.

But I sure am not going to be a jerk and go on month after month, year after year about some of its short comings. Like that is helping the situation

I hope that when a engine 3 system does get developed, that it will be even better at these concepts, but until then, I can accept this game for what it is.

 

If you want to be of any value on this forum. Come up with data and calcs as to what the game should be trying to represent in different situations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, slysniper said:

But I sure am not going to be a jerk and go on month after month, year after year about some of its short comings.

How is having a calm discussion about how the game works "being a jerk"?

10 minutes ago, slysniper said:

Like that is helping the situation

Do you think anything will improve if nobody dares to discuss the game?

11 minutes ago, slysniper said:

If you want to be of any value on this forum. Come up with data and calcs as to what the game should be trying to represent in different situations. 

If you want to be of any value in this thread, try to read the many constructive posts made by RobZ and others, where they provide data from actual tests of what happens in various situations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, slysniper said:

 

You might be able to accept that the game has flaws, but some others here can't. Some people seem to defend the game to their grave and that you should just play differently or just "not get hit" in a war game. As you also point out that you want to end up on the enemy flank, that's fair cus that's the best case scenario. But not every game, plan or every unit composition is perfect so you will have scenarios where you can't do what you ideally want to, and this is where the game mechanics can play a huge part in the result.

Edited by RobZ
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just for the record, I'm fine with the game not being perfect. I'm just trying to help it improve. When I report bugs and discuss various issues, it is not an insult or attack on the developers or anyone on this forum.

I'm happy to be proven wrong - when I am in fact wrong - but it needs to be based on actual arguments, not just assuming I don't know how to play the game.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've said before if you base your tactics on the assumption that the enemy is not going to spot you, is going to be slow to respond, and is going to miss when he shoots at you its not the game's fault if your tactics fail. I'm reminded of those action movies where the hero comes charging in with a pistol in each hand shooting down all bad guys as the bullets wiz past. An alternate (and more likely) scene is the hero comes charging and the first bullet kills him. So maybe he should'a come up with a more viable plan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

What is getting confused in these posts is the question of whether the % of gun damage reflect RL accurately or not.  Yes, players can use tactics to overcome all sorts of shortcomings of the game (eg: Pathing, and LOS/LOF issues) and enjoy playing and winning.  However, overcoming CM2's shortcomings requires understanding and learning how to play and win against the game system.  

The hope is that every evolution of the CM system brings it closer to reflecting RL.  But, one has to first acknowledge the problems so that they can be addressed.

Edited by Erwin
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

I've said before if you base your tactics on the assumption that the enemy is not going to spot you, is going to be slow to respond, and is going to miss when he shoots at you its not the game's fault if your tactics fail.

Nobody here is assuming that, Mikey. Please read the thread instead of assuming basic incompetence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Because I'm bored, I've played around with this.

My set up

Two Panthers firing under AI control

Two Sherman fly, under my control, as targets. One in open ground, immediately behind a strip of light wood (no trees) the second hulldown behind a 2m high berm, which again has a strip of light wood on its top.

Range just over 1500m

I've run this test 5 times so far, which is nowhere near enough for a real analysis, but I'm getting a feel for the results.

Rather than worrying about hits and locations I'm counting AP shells fired in order to destroy the target,

                      AP Shells fired to destroy target

Try                        OG                                HD

1                            3                                    6

2                            5                                    9

3                            3                                   14

4                            2                                    6

5                            4                                    8    

So it took 17 shots to kill the five Firefly in open ground, against 43 to kill the five hull down tanks.

That's an average of one open ground kill every 3.4 shots, against 8.6 shots for the hull down target, and so on these numbers it takes over twice as many shots to kill a hulldown target than one in open ground.

Works for me, but you mileage may vary

P

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Pete Wenman said:

 

Because I'm bored, I've played around with this.

My set up

Two Panthers firing under AI control

Two Sherman fly, under my control, as targets. One in open ground, immediately behind a strip of light wood (no trees) the second hulldown behind a 2m high berm, which again has a strip of light wood on its top.

Range just over 1500m

I've run this test 5 times so far, which is nowhere near enough for a real analysis, but I'm getting a feel for the results.

Rather than worrying about hits and locations I'm counting AP shells fired in order to destroy the target,

                      AP Shells fired to destroy target

Try                        OG                                HD

1                            3                                    6

2                            5                                    9

3                            3                                   14

4                            2                                    6

5                            4                                    8    

So it took 17 shots to kill the five Firefly in open ground, against 43 to kill the five hull down tanks.

That's an average of one open ground kill every 3.4 shots, against 8.6 shots for the hull down target, and so on these numbers it takes over twice as many shots to kill a hulldown target than one in open ground.

Works for me, but you mileage may vary

P

 

Thats what i would assume to happen, in all my tests it always takes more shots against a hull down opponent. If the game didn't reflect this then that would be very worrying, but it does that just fine as you show yourself. The point im making with hull down beeing worse for certain tanks is that they have the armor to take hits on the hull, and the AI will aim for the hull when they are on open ground and thus it increases their survivability compared to hull down. Im doing some tests as we speak and will share results soon, it shows exactly what im talking about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hull down essentially is question of how reliably you think you know your opponents kit. If you know or suspect they have peer armor then it makes perfect sense to go hull down. Since any hit is going to be damaging. However, if you can reliably identify that they lack peer armor then it makes sense to fight in the open. The slightly more micro intensive option is to start the fight in a hull down position but move out of it once you start being engaged.

Essentially if you can ID that the enemy brought a platoon of Sherman 75s and you have 1 Tiger then you want to stay in the open ground. Outside of some freak circumstance they are not going to penetrate the hull but they will get your gun.

 

7 hours ago, slysniper said:

But what you guys seem to forget is that when playing. I am not wanting to challenge the enemy in such a manor.

I don't think anyone is forgetting this.
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Test results

Tests done in a more "natural" map instead of flat ground. Shermans are at 900,1030 and 1050m. All shermans are placed in light forest with trees. Shermans are of variant M4A3(76)W. Panther is of variant Panther G mid.

20 tests done with panther hull down, 20 tests with panther open ground. At test start the panther will drive to its correct position so it is not exposed at the start, all shermans stationary. Disregard the forward observers, they are behind terrain and does not see anything. At this range and angle the shermans can penetrate the lower glacis and the front turret, only the upper hull plate is immune.

Skill: regular, normal, 0 for all tanks

789187038_panthermap.thumb.jpg.05b7095d9036702267dac55c666756bf.jpg

The map.

1002781638_panthersidebyside.jpg.c43f3b2ea0c63fa73d288c26da20e790.jpg

Panther hull down/open from sherman's perspective (one of them).

1409602317_pantherperspective.thumb.jpg.96f966979fb4ad0b6d4d5201868c620f.jpg

Panthers perspective.

 

Results:

Panther in hull down position:

4/20 times success; 20% win rate

failures:

12 times by main gun destroyed: 4 times muzzle hit, 2 times barrel hit, rest are mantlet/weapon mount hits. Rest of failures is crew dismount and tank destroyed.

Panther on open ground:

11/20 times success; 55% win rate

1 success had the panther immobilized by lower glacis penetration, engine destroyed

failures:

4 times by main gun destroyed: 1 time muzzle hit, rest mantlet/weapon mount.

1 time destroyed after +50 hits, crew panicked earlier, but the tank was still operational

rest is lower glacis or weapon mount tank destroyed

 

So after all that i did another 10 tests in each position with shermans all beeing elite crew to see what happend

Panther in hull down position vs 3 elite shermans: 0% win rate

Panther on open ground vs 3 elite shermans: 40% win rate

 

I got many pictures from the different successes and failures, but i dont want to clutter the post, but in general this is why the panther wins open ground scenarios:

1689596205_pantherhullhits.thumb.jpg.faef8a36de158f73216bdd71662a1c1d.jpg

The AI will always aim for the upper hull plate, which is the only place they can't penetrate. This is the aiming issue im talking about, the AI aims for the exact same location every single shot and will never deviate at all unless terrain forces them to. Once they are zeroed in, there is almost no hits to the turret or lower glacis at all, these lower glacis hits was two of the first shots fired. The panther won in the scenario that picture is taken from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if the game did aim for what is the weaker location of the tank  when it is fully exposed.

But that brings up many questions as to how often should it do this.

Because if it did it all the time, then the results would be more like the hull down results, with all that grouping now on the turret.

 

But all gunners did not always aim for the perfect shot, so if the aiming should be adjusted, then to what.

What percentage of the shots should be aimed at the turret

what percentage at the tracks

What percentage at the turret ring

what percentage at center mass.

How should this be adjusted for the crew experience.

At what range should the crew be allowed to start targeting specific locations of the tank instead of center mass.

Should these factors be adjusted for each tank since optic and trajectory of round is going to make the gunner confident to aim at such things at different ranges depending on the tank he is in.

 

Ok, provide all that suggested data, then think about the work to put that all into the programming and to keep it accurate.

And you wonder why they just programmed center mass.  I dont.

 

Can the game be created to do this - Yes.

You have proven to some extent what the game does, well, that has been known for along time. So you show what the weaknesses of the game is.

 

What I am asking, is figure out how to answer all my questions and then suggestions as to how best to implement it.

Plus I am sure I have missed other factors that we should be implementing.

Like the fact  that the game does nothing to reflect viewing issues. Presently a tank on the skyline is as hard to spot as a tank in the shadows under a thick tree canopy.

There is no factor for any viewing issues other than a number added to make it harder to spot for certain terrain types that your line of sight passes through.

 

There is no adjustment to spotting for a target on the move compared to a non-moving target.

So if we are going to fix targeting. lets fix these items also.

So lets get a chart going for all the possible values there also that could impact the spotting numbers.

 

In otherwards, where do we draw the line at how much data to try to create and calc to represent this one feature in the game.

Personally, My answer would be very simple. Just have the game target the turret 40 percent of the time, hull 60 percent.

If the tracks are in view, then maybe aim for them 20% on a tank that has armor past your likely penetration ability.

 

But it would be a discussion of what the game should be doing, with the realization that the present game engine will not ever do that, but if the concepts are good, maybe it will impact the next game engine. I just think the focus needs to be helping to try to make the next engine better, than the concept that there is going to be programming changes to a present engine that it was not likely designed to do.

So providing realistic numbers on what we would like to see the game do would be a much better discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The point of hull down is that it forms a battle position. Its only one part of the formula of breaking an enemy targeting solution. The other one is time. Why should we take anything away from a 'test' that doesn't mimic a battlefield condition where a competent player repositions a tank in BP frequently? I also enjoy the casual ignoring of @Pete Wenman's results. It's okay Pete, the reasonable people see you. 

Edited by Rinaldi
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

This test is flawed. If you leave your tank either out in the open or in a hulldown position after it has been spotted to just keep getting shot at, of course it is eventually going to take damage/be destroyed. And the turret being more vulnerable than the hull is a product of real life. BFC did not make the hull armor on the panther thicker than the turret, the actual Germans did. In the modern titles tanks tend to have turret armor that is better than the hull, because that is how most modern battle tanks are designed. 

No one, and I mean no one, in a competent military is taught to stay in one place after the shooting has started, regardless of return fire. BP engagements are mobile. Tanks will come up to the hulldown position, fire a round or two, and then reverse back into cover. Rinse and repeat. Tank fighting positions are specifically designed for this. They have a built in platform to allow the tanks to reverse into cover. This principle is so fundamental that they teach engineers who drive the bulldozers who dig the fighting positions how to do this during the intro course. If you could put an M1A2 Abrams in a hulldown position and let any WWII AT vehicle fire at it indefinitely, it would likely kill the Abrams. Law of averages wins in the end.

Hell, there are real world examples of this principle too. Iraqi tanks in Desert Storm were dug in but did not move at all, nor were their fighting positions designed to allow them to move. They were supposed to stay in place, and they died very quickly, despite being in hulldown positions, because they just sat there. 

There are plenty of AARs on this forum, some even by myself, that show hulldown being effective. But I won't belabor this post with anecdotal evidence. Point is, it doesn't matter what tank/vehicle/asset you have. If you leave it in place and expect it to survive everything thrown at it, you're going to have a bad day. 

@Pete Wenman's test concurs what I and others I play CM with/against see all the time in game. I guess the moral of the story is, if you perceive hulldown to be bad, then stay in the open. 

Edit: Ninja'd by @Rinaldi

Edited by IICptMillerII
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tank gunners aim center mass because that is the only practical option.

Aiming for specific parts of the tank is some gamey **** straight out of some arcade tank "sim" game like War Thunder, where distances are compressed hilariously and engagement ranges are consequently stupidly short.
 

This is a modern thermal gunsight. That object at 0:12 that gets shot at? That's a T-55, skylined, in the open, on a hill, under 12x magnification.

Good luck finding let alone hitting comparatively tiny "weak spots" when the reticle is the same size as the entire damn target, with your WW2 daylight optics and fire control methods amounting to "estimate the range and then adjust by observing fall of shot".

Link to post
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
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...