Black Five Posted September 17, 2000 Share Posted September 17, 2000 After reading some of the articles on the subject of tank turret facing and such, I offer the following: It would add a great deal of realism without adding an unrealistic level of control to be able to tell the tank commander what the most likely direction of contact is. It is totally natural for a tank to “pie-off” a corner in a MOUT environment. By allowing tanks and other turreted vehicles to have a direction of travel and a direction of most likely contact Combat Mission will increase the value of armor support. A tank commander would keep his main gun pointing in the direction of last contact when adjusting his position whenever feasible. The ability of our armored brethren to travel in one direction while covering another is paramount to their usefulness. When setting in a defensive position there are times when you want your hull facing one way and your turret another so that you can fire and depart, this is especially true in a delay and defend scenario. A tank driver in most tanks cannot see behind him. Therefore it is a very slow and labor-intensive process to back up in rough terrain. So it can very useful to have the driver already facing in the direction that you wish to depart and main gun facing toward the enemy. As long as you’re not showing your grill doors to the enemy that is Regardless of what the SOP of the time dictated, a good tanker would do whatever it took to survive. If that means rotating his hull to “increase” his turret rotation or pointing his gun off to the left because that is where the enemy is believed to be, then that is what a good crew would do during WWII. On the Abrams we do many things that are not SOP to increase our survivability. For example, we’ve experimented with pointing the .50 over the back deck in mount so that if a BMP slips in behind us we can bring fires to bear on the enemy even if the main gun cannot be traversed. On another note: A common problem in warfare can best be illustrated by the phrase, “Is it dead?” It can be extremely difficult to tell if an armored vehicle is destroyed after a hit or is shook up, immobilized (but the main gun still works, argh) or is just playing dead. Combat damage assessment could be a skill, based on a unit’s experience, for any unit spotting a vehicle that just received an impact. This would increase the fog of war and push in a little more realism. ----------------------------- If you are unwilling to bite, do not bare your teeth. ----------------------------- [This message has been edited by Black Five (edited 09-17-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted September 17, 2000 Share Posted September 17, 2000 The game has been modified so that if a tank is tracking a target which momentarily disappears from view, it will continue to cover that area instead of returning the turret forward. As yet there is no way to tell a crew to point the tank one way and the turret another, although this could be labelled as micromanagement, something which BTS strictly avoid. There has been a fair bit of discussion about how easy it is to identify a dead enemy tank, but the general consensus is that it wouldn't be too difficult. 'Playing dead' is not accounted for in the game. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted September 17, 2000 Share Posted September 17, 2000 BTW if you are an ex tanker hopefully you have checked out the new and outstanding Steel Beasts at www.shrapnelgames.com Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Posted September 17, 2000 Share Posted September 17, 2000 You can target an enemy tank or unit and then issue a movement order even though the enemy is out of sight. This should keep the turret pointed in the right direction while the tank moves. ------------------ Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted September 18, 2000 Share Posted September 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>It can be extremely difficult to tell if an armored vehicle is destroyed after a hit or is shook up, immobilized (but the main gun still works, argh) or is just playing dead.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I absolutely agree with this. At the moment knowledge is too instantaneous allowing the tank/gun to instantly switch to a new target. I think some variable delay should occur unless of course the damage is catastrophic. The suggestion that allowance be made for crew experience in this is also a good one. The more FOW the better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noba Posted September 18, 2000 Share Posted September 18, 2000 Gentlemen, I think Black Five wants to be able to move to contact in a configuration that will alloy him to point a weapon towards an 'anticipated threat' i.e. from a direction he thinks it will come from.As an example, as he moves down a road through trees with a gap coming up on his left..have the turret already in that direction. Could be the difference of survival or not in an ambush situation. I like the idea. Would also be good to be placed in a start position with turret/body in different facings. Another good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted September 18, 2000 Share Posted September 18, 2000 I absolutely agree. Hell, the entire POINT of having a turreted vehicle is so you can point the gun in a direction off the axis of advance. I find it odd that someone would claim that the ability to point your gun in some direction is micromanagement. David, do you feel it is micromanagement to point your gun in some direction in a non-turreted vehicle? How about an AT gun? Or are you just saying that you think BTS would find it to be micromanaging? Jeff Heidman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj. Bosco Posted September 18, 2000 Share Posted September 18, 2000 I totally agree there should be some command like "Watch to your left". If it isn't a command at least the TacAI could be modified a little. My TC's appear to have ADD. They'll see a unit, fire at it, then it'll run behind a building and they'll forget all about it... until it panzerfausts them or chucks a gammon bomb in the treads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted September 18, 2000 Share Posted September 18, 2000 OK I usually issue the area target or target area command to keep the turret pointed in the "right" direction. The down side is that you are wasting what could be vaulable rounds shooting at nothing really and hoping that something more important will show up in that general direction. I have found if you area target something like grass or scattered trees are woods or a hedge or something non-descript like that ANYTHING else that shows up will be targeted instead, which works pretty good. If you area target a building the targeting seems to be a bit more sticky on the building which is the way it the game is now programed as I understand it. This will let you move the tank and keep the gun trained in the direction you want but it costs a few extra wasted rounds to do so. Any comments? Any one else try this? -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 18, 2000 Share Posted September 18, 2000 Well, honestly this topic has been discussed to death (no offense to Black Five). We know what the realistic behavior should be, and 1.05 is a lot better in this regard than 1.0, but adding a manual order to the mix is not likely to happen. The value of each and every order must be huge in terms of gameplay return before it gets added. This where the game designer bit overrides the game player's desire to have everything including the kitchen sink. Otherwise there would be an orders list going down to your feet. If we put in every order people have asked for this would in fact be the case and the game would suffer on the whole. So we are still not convinced that this is something that should be added. With all the conditions that pop up in a turn it is also not necessarily all that usefull. As for knowing if an enemy tank hit is the final say on the matter, this is tricky because there is no relative spotting (i.e. one unit only knowing what it can see). So say you whack that Panther with a Sherman at 300m. Well, your bazooka team at 50m would most likely know it was knocked out or not. So if we fog of war the damage then, the way it works in CM, the bazooka would open up on it as if it were alive. Then we would get poeple yelling about wasted ammo in situations where the unit really shouldn't have fired. But your point is valid. There is just no good way of making it work. In the next version of the CM engine (i.e. CM II and not CM 2) we do plan on having relative spotting. But it is such a huge undertaking it is not going to happen sooner than that. Thanks, Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-18-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted September 18, 2000 Share Posted September 18, 2000 Here's a link to an older discussion on the matter. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000319.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted September 18, 2000 Share Posted September 18, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The value of each and every order must be huge in terms of gameplay return before it gets added.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think this might be one of those issues that meets this qualification. As Jeff said, this is the whole point of having a turreted vehicle. I can think of numberous situations where it could be an important factor during a 60 second span. some examples: Moving tanks past a potential AT ambush. (say, a corner in the road) The "tophat/lowsky" maneuver, when targets are known to be to the flank. Better coverage of infantry threats to both sides of the tank (BMG covers one flank, CMG the other). If not for CM, please consider it for CM2. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But your point is valid. There is just no good way of making it work. In the next version of the CM engine (i.e. CM II and not CM 2) we do plan on having relative spotting. But it is such a huge undertaking it is not going to happen sooner than that.(Steve) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yeah yeah, I know all that and as you know I'm a proponent for relative spotting and more FoW. But what about a bit more delay at the moment it seems just about instantaneous which is only realistic if the thing explodes. Even with the Sherman this is some delay before it burns profusely or the crew bale out. Anyway I can cite plenty of instances of 'dead' tanks being engaged or rounds being pumped into them long after they are out of action. So people can bleat as much as they like about wasting a few rounds, I reckon it would be more fun that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 Simon is correct about ammo wastage. The US was particullary trigger happy in this regard. Mainly because they EXPECTED that their hits didn't do the job They also weren't in the mood to take chances when a good shot was available. They called this "kncoking to see if anybody is home". I have pictures of a Panther in the Bulge that had been shot at close range from the left side. There was 3 penetrating hits. However, inspection of the vehicle had shown that the tank had been knocked out already (or broken down) and there was litterally nobody home Oh, and a bunch of the King Tigers that were "knocked out" in the Bulge were actually shot up after they were abandoned for mechanical or fuel reasons. Simon... there is some coding reason why the retargeting is, in many cases, far too quick. It is something we can fix in the future, but I don't think it can happen short term. If it could, I think it would have been in 1.0. I'll still mention it to Charles again just in case Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elementalwarre Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 um. here's a suggestion i made in http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010611.html watch direction. aim at and observe that direction, plus of course an arc to each side. works much like rotate. click is watch direction, control-click is watch the area control-clicked. this lets scouts, flankers, and columns observe and react as part of a group vs everyone watching the direction they're moving in. units with slower turrets aren't penalized for a limitation in the command set. this also approximates assigned fields of fire. this also cuts down on having recon units reveal EVERY enemy unit that's not hiding the length of the bar from the unit to the pointer could tell how much arc to watch. shorter bar, more arc. longer bar, less arc. as always, if TacAI can make a reasonable decision about arc, forget this note watch direction is for all units, not tanks only. although given what's been said here, perhaps for turreted vehicles this would not align the turret when they're moving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ianc Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the next version of the CM engine (i.e. CM II and not CM 2) we do plan on having relative spotting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Steve, This makes me curious; what is the distinction between CM II and CM 2? Will the engine be redone for the Russian Front version (CM II, or CM 2)? Thanks for any insight, ianc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 Well, IMO if any order is going to be added to CM I would much rather have an infantry "MOVE TO CONTACT" order than a "ROTATE TURRET" order. I think the former would have a much larger and beneficial effect on the game. Just my two cents. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePrivate Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hi Steve, This makes me curious; what is the distinction between CM II and CM 2? Will the engine be redone for the Russian Front version (CM II, or CM 2)? Thanks for any insight, ianc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> AFAIK CMI will include CM1(BO), CM2-Russian Front, CM3-Med and CM4-Early Years. CMII will be based on a new/reworked engine and will include...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 19, 2000 Share Posted September 19, 2000 Joe is correct. Generally, games that use a Arabic number in their title are a direct sequel, like the Eastern Front version of CM (i.e. CM2). When the game is significantly overhauled generally Roman numbers are used (i.e. CMII). Think of Panzer General. Not a hard and fast rule, but one that applies to us What will CMII be like? We haven't a clue We just know that the existing engine will have to be rewritten at some point to catch up with various design and hardware changes progressing now and in the future. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Five Posted September 21, 2000 Author Share Posted September 21, 2000 All- To everyone who took the time to reply to my post, I thank you. In response to one of the earlier posts, Yes, I am currently a tanker in the USMC. I am glad to here that most of you agree that asking a tank to watch his left and the like is not micromanagement. It is utterly VITAL to the survival of a tank on the battlefield to keep his turret pointed toward the enemy. My version of a contact report to my CO is “BOOM,” and then a quick radio call. Speed in target acquisition, identification and destruction is one of the keys to survival for any armored vehicle and you can’t do the last two if your gun is pointed the wrong way. I will continue to enjoy CM regardless of whether turret control is implemented or not. The reason why I brought up this debate again, even though it is like flogging a dead horse is because I feel very strongly that the lack of turret control and knowing whether a target is dead or not is unrealistic. After all realism is what CM is all about. Black Five ------------------ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 again... The work around for lack of turret control is to aim using the "area target" command in the general direction you want the turret to face. I believe when the situation calls for it, it is preferable to waste a few rounds of HE and be prepared, then waste the tank because the turret was pointing in the other (wrong) direction. I guess I have just figured that to make the turret point in the direction you want it to you have to waste a few rounds now and then to get it to stay where you want it. Sure you shouldn't have to do it this way but it does work. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: ... existing engine will have to be rewritten at some point to catch up with ... hardware changes progressing now and in the future.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I haven't found my hardware to change much. Only that the BIOS backup battery has died... Each new version of software seems to be a downgrade from the previous, running slower and taking up more space on the harddrive. For those that want to know what real software upgrade means, take a look at programs for the Vic/Commodore 64; the early programs were dull and slow, while the latest software run smooth and colourful on the same hardware . That's what I call improvement . I know that new hardware is faster and generally have more resources, but everybody doesn't spend $1,000 or more each year to keep their computer up-to-date. IMO a software should be designed to run smoothly on a computer that was considered average two years before the software is released, and be possible to run on a computer that's another year old... Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted September 21, 2000 Share Posted September 21, 2000 Coming from someone who did not upgrade his PC for three years, I cannot disagree more. Write gaming software aimed at a two year old PC? You have got to be kidding. Any company that did that would be out of business quickly, because their competitors would be taking advantage of the quadrupling of processing power that you are refusing to address. Software companies should simply aim for the largest market segment possible. Appeal to as many potential customers as possible, and that means writing software that can take advantage of the relatively current technology. Aim for the average PC owned by your target audience (in the case of gamers that is significantly more capable than the overall population). Who cares how much space it takes up on my hard drive? Disk space is dirt cheap, and re-useable. Bigger is not necessarily a bad thing. Jeff Heidman [This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 09-21-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elementalwarre Posted September 22, 2000 Share Posted September 22, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The value of each and every order must be huge in terms of gameplay return before it gets added. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> --- watch direction/watch area. aim at and observe that direction, plus an arc to each side. works much like rotate. click is watch direction, control-click is watch the area control-clicked. the length of the bar from the unit to the pointer tells how much arc to watch or how large an area. shorter bar, more arc/larger area. longer bar, less arc/smaller area this lets scouts, flankers, and columns observe and react as part of a group vs only watching the direction they're moving in units with slower turrets aren't penalized for a limitation in the command set this approximates assigned fields of fire this cuts down on having recon units reveal EVERY enemy unit that's not hiding --- i've been suggesting this since IMHO it may solve several problems, fits reasonably well in CM's command style, has multiple uses, is usable by all units... yet so far there's very little comment. although, thanks michael emrys and bullethead for your comments! i realize the problems have been discussed repeatedly but i haven't seen a suggestion quite like this. what am i doing wrong? shall i flame instead? just kidding, but i am puzzled as for area fire, well...yes, it keeps someone aimed. it also uses ammo, gives away location, and possibly limits your own side's movement. as a workaround, saying i dislike it is an understatement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts