Penetration KT vs M-18 - some strange conclusions

[russellmz]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Then the round would not be able to travel THROUGH Live and dead AFV's that are not burning.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

i thought any knocked out afv's were able to be used as cover

------------------

russellmz,

Self-Proclaimed Keeper for Life of the Sacred Unofficial FAQ.

"They had their chance- they have not lead!" - GW Bush

"They had mechanical pencils- they have not...lead?" - Jon Stewart on The Daily Show

[Pak40]

I'm not a statistacal major or anything but I think you guys are confusing "Aimed chance to hit" with "Random chance to hit" - I use these terms with lack of the proper statistical terms to use.

Here's what I mean by Random:

Let's say you have a sqaure drawn on your computer screen and it takes up the entire screen. You program the computer to pick a random point on the screen. It has a 100% chance of getting it within the square. Now shrink that box to half the screen size and the computer now has a 50% to hit the sqaure.

Here's what I mean by Aimed:

Picture the same square occupying the entire screen. Stand two feet away from the screen and throw paper balls at the screen. You will probably hit every time (unless you are phyically challenged). Now, picture the sqaure taking up half of the screen. Throw paper balls at the screen again while aiming for the center. You're success will not drop by 50% just because the square is 50% smaller. You are aiming for the center, therefore most of your shots will fall within the square, maybe a few will miss.

CONCLUSION: Just because a Hull down tank's sillouette is 50% smaller doesn't mean that it will be 50% harder to hit.

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by russellmz:

i thought any knocked out afv's were able to be used as cover

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ONLY if they are burning and smoking!

It is the Smoke that blocks the LOS, NOT the vehicle its self.

Test it out and see for your self.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-12-2000).]

[azazyel]

Does that apply to functioning AFV's? Can my platoon HQ watch his men from behind my Panther? And why are knowcked out AFV's not considered cover?

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by azazyel:

Does that apply to functioning AFV's? Can my platoon HQ watch his men from behind my Panther? And why are knowcked out AFV's not considered cover?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the WORST kept secret of the game...

If the AFV or any vehicle is NOT buring, it will provide NO cover, it will not block LOS and it Will not block LOF. That goes the SAME for live or Dead vehicles, just try it, you can trace a Line of Sight and Line of Fire right through the center mass of any AFV or vehicle,live or dead as long as it is not burning.

Bunkers, Pillboxes, and Raodblocks are treated by the game engine as immobile vehicles and they do not offer any cover either, they don't block LOS or LOF.

The ONLY thing that Blocks LOS (other than builings and terrain of course) is the smoke from burning vehicles and buildings.

Do not expect any cover behind ANY vehicle that is NOT burning.

This is NOT a bug, BTS knows about it and basically with out getting complicated about it, that's just the way it is.

There is long thread from about 8 - 9 months ago that refered to Method 1 and Method 2, and how the actual LOS determination works in the game engine. If you serach for Method 1 you will find the answer.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-12-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-12-2000).]

[Guest Rex_Bellator]

Pak40- Well explained and totally understood. However our bottom line problem with the Hull Down situation remains that many tanks are far more likely to be destroyed when Hull Down than when sat out in the open.

This clearly should never be the case, and as discussed seems due more to the way CM calculates hit locations rather than the actual chance to hit.

------------------

"We're not here to take it - We're here to give it"

General Morshead's response to the popular newspaper headline "Tobruk Can Take It"

[Iron Duke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However our bottom line problem with the Hull Down situation remains that many tanks are far more likely to be destroyed when Hull Down than when sat out in the open.

This clearly should never be the case, and as discussed seems due more to the way CM calculates hit locations rather than the actual chance to hit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you all that if a tank is hull down, this can never be detrimental to it. Perhaps the added chance to get killed stems from this: I'm sure you guys have noticed how the LOS line will "wrap" over a small hill crest, even though whatever is behind the hill seems to be lower than the straight LOS? That might (I have no idea, just guessing) be adding too much in terms of the upper hull/lower turret.

Or perhaps the gunner that is firing on the hull down tank needs a bigger "chance to overshoot" modifier? I mean, if any of you have ever shot on a military Rifle range you know that the easiest target to miss is the short, 85m 1/4 silhouette target, because the human eye "sees" more of the target than is actually showing, thus putting the Center of Mass aim a bit too high. (Where true Center of Mass is just above the ground) Therefore, if anything, the gunner firing on the hull down tank should by and large overshoot it.

------------------

One shot...One Kill

[Juardis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

[b}Bunkers, Pillboxes, and Raodblocks are treated by the game engine as immobile vehicles and they do not offer any cover either, they don't block LOS or LOF.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? You can certainly fire at a bunker or pillbox. So if you can hit it, why would it not block LOF? Same with a knocked out vehicle. You can certainly target it. I never have of course, but you can do it nonetheless. So, if you can hit them when firing at them, why would they not block LOF? Maybe in the case of a knocked out vehicle if you target it, it is treated as area fire. But certainly not the case for pillboxes and bunkers.

As for being hull down vs. not. I think like Jeff Heideman here. The overall chance to hit should be reduced if you're hull down since the target area is smaller. The overall chance to penetrate is based on the math (which is the same if the turret is hit regardless of hull down or not). The net result is that the overall chance to kill should be reduced if you're hull down and this should be reflected in the results.

I don't buy the argument about aiming. I know what you're saying, but I don't think the accuracy was that good back then. I mean, if the weak spot is always the turret, wouldn't you always be aiming for the turret? Of course you would, but you'd be happy to hit the hull if you missed the turret, right? Well, if the target is hull down that same miss would not hit the hull but would instead plow into the ground, and you're definitely aiming for the turret in that situation.

------------------

Jeff Abbott

[Ataru *~]

Hmm. Well, in a recent game I charged a Chaffee up into a group of Tigers from around a forest... it was killed very quickly by fire from one of them, but then one of the Tigers brewed up, to my confusion. Replaying the portion of the turn a couple times, I found that a far-off Panther had fired at my Chaffee and ended up hitting and taking out a Tiger between it and the Chaffee! I checked carefully; only the Panther and a Tiger fired; my Chaffee was blasted by a Tiger after bouncing one shot off another Tiger's front armor, and the only other things I had were other out of LOS Chaffees on the other side of the forest. (was just a weird test game) I tracked the Panther shot smack into the Tiger. Food for thought.

(possibly units can fire through friendly units, but if the shot *lands* on a friendly it is effective.)

[This message has been edited by Ataru *~ (edited 12-12-2000).]

[Elysian]

Test -- sorry !

[Theron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis:

Huh? You can certainly fire at a bunker or pillbox. So if you can hit it, why would it not block LOF? Same with a knocked out vehicle. You can certainly target it. I never have of course, but you can do it nonetheless. So, if you can hit them when firing at them, why would they not block LOF? Maybe in the case of a knocked out vehicle if you target it, it is treated as area fire. But certainly not the case for pillboxes and bunkers.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom is correct on this issue. Bunkers, pillboxes and vechicles do not block LOS. I have had tanks and troops shoot through other vehicles and pilboxes many times. Yes, you can target pilboxes, tanks, and knocked out tanks, but you can also shoot through them. Targeting something has nothing to do with being able to see through it.

If you don't want to do the search that Tom suggested, here is what I remember as the gist of answer from BTS. It is too computationally intensive to deal with moving obsticals that block LOS. It is also my understanding that the short cuts that BTS uses to compute the LOS make it difficult to deal with a moving object that blocks LOS. Also in the way that they have done the programming pilboxes and bunkers are just special cases of vehicles (speed =0mph), not special cases of buildings.

Theron

[Jeff Heidman]

Briefly, IIRC, the hit computation used in CM goes something like this:

Did the target get hit?

If yes, calculate effect on target.

If no, then where did the shell land?

Calculate effect on whatever happened to be were the shell landed.

So, yes, you can certainly take out a vehicle while aiming at another vehicle, but only if the 2nd vehicle is in the spot the shell lands.

At no point is the flight of the round tracked through the air.

And yes, it is true that non-burning, non-fixed objects (including fortifications) have no effect on LOS/LOF. This is a shortcoming in the system.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 12-12-2000).]

[THumpre]

Okay, Little tiny question, I had heard that both styles of KT turrets were in the game, but where? I can't seem to find any difference in any of the KTs I have used. Am I an idiot or is this an abstracted thing? thanks in advance

[Juardis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Theron:

Tom is correct on this issue. Bunkers, pillboxes and vechicles do not block LOS<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say LOS. I said LOF. To me, the two are different for the reason I outlined. Yes, knocked out vehicles do not block LOS. But you can target them. Which implies that you can shoot at them. Which implies that you can hit them. Which implies that they do indeed block LOF.

Same with pillboxes and bunkers (although I really think that you can hide behind a pillbox or bunker which means they block LOS to some extent). That is what I experienced in the Elsdorf scenario anyway.

------------------

Jeff Abbott

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis:

I didn't say LOS. I said LOF. To me, the two are different for the reason I outlined. Yes, knocked out vehicles do not block LOS. But you can target them. Which implies that you can shoot at them. Which implies that you can hit them. Which implies that they do indeed block LOF.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Great reasoning up until that last line. It is incorrect.

Jeff Heidman

[Theron]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis:

I didn't say LOS. I said LOF. To me, the two are different for the reason I outlined. Yes, knocked out vehicles do not block LOS. But you can target them. Which implies that you can shoot at them. Which implies that you can hit them. Which implies that they do indeed block LOF.

Same with pillboxes and bunkers (although I really think that you can hide behind a pillbox or bunker which means they block LOS to some extent). That is what I experienced in the Elsdorf scenario anyway.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have had my tanks shoot through an enemy tank and hit the tank behind it. Therefore the "magic" bullet passed through the lead tank. My own tanks have also shot through my lead tank to take out enemy tanks. In CM if you have LOS to something this is the same thing as being able to shoot it for all direct fire weapons i.e. LOS=LOF. I interpret Line of Fire (LOF) to mean that you can target/shoot the enemy troops. The only weapon system where LOS=LOF is not the case is artillery. Both onboard and off board artillery can fire without LOS. If the artillery is onboard then an HQ must provide the LOS.

I have not tried shooting through a working pillbox, but I remember reading that BTS models them like vehicles. I have had troops shot at through knocked out vehicles. Do a search on Method1 for discussions on how the shots are calculated. The following threads provide info for

LOS: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002266.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004083.html

Firing Calculations: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004048-2.html

The real in depth explanation from BTS is on the 2nd page of the firing Calculations thread.

Theron

[Guest Big Time Software]

Just to make things official...

Do check out the Method 1, Method 2 bits. They are the most detailed answers available on this subject from us. The upshot is that no vehicle blocks LOS *or* LOF. Pillboxes and bunkers are in fact vehicles as far as the code is concerned.

And yes, this is a limitation of the system. Untill we have CPUs that are disgustingly fast (i.e. a 1MHz chip can dream on!) this is the way it will remain for the most part. We might be able to tweak out a couple of the side effects, but not until we rewrite the game engine. Processors will certainly be much faster when we do that so another look will be taken at fixing this shortcoming.

The Porche turreted Tiger II (there were only 50 made) is indeed simulated. The graphical model might look like a standard Tiger II, but the underlying data is of the earlier model. We just didn't have time to make a seperate model for this rather rare vehicle.

Thanks,

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis:

Huh? You can certainly fire at a bunker or pillbox. So if you can hit it, why would it not block LOF? Same with a knocked out vehicle. You can certainly target it. I never have of course, but you can do it nonetheless. So, if you can hit them when firing at them, why would they not block LOF? Maybe in the case of a knocked out vehicle if you target it, it is treated as area fire. But certainly not the case for pillboxes and bunkers.

As for being hull down vs. not. I think like Jeff Heideman here. The overall chance to hit should be reduced if you're hull down since the target area is smaller. The overall chance to penetrate is based on the math (which is the same if the turret is hit regardless of hull down or not). The net result is that the overall chance to kill should be reduced if you're hull down and this should be reflected in the results.

I don't buy the argument about aiming. I know what you're saying, but I don't think the accuracy was that good back then. I mean, if the weak spot is always the turret, wouldn't you always be aiming for the turret? Of course you would, but you'd be happy to hit the hull if you missed the turret, right? Well, if the target is hull down that same miss would not hit the hull but would instead plow into the ground, and you're definitely aiming for the turret in that situation.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the way it works....

(don't doubt me, just test it your self)

You can target a pillbox, you CAN also target and get LOS straight thru it as though it was not there.

same for vehicles you can target them AND you can get LOS and LOF straight through them, dead or alive as long as they are not burning and smoking.

This is NOT news

read this thread and you will know how and why it is the way it is:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008989.html

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Steve has said previously:

IP: Logged

Big Time Software

Moderator

posted 04-29-2000 02:17 PM

I see what Lt. Bull is asking. Easily cleared up (I hope )...

There are two ways, in theory, that we could simulate a round leaving a gun, its eventual path, and where it lands:

1. Use a whole bunch of variables (like weapon accuracy, guner training, suppression, etc) to determine a trajectory to the target. The trajectory would then be "traced" and wherever the shell hit damage

would be done. If the hit whacked a vehicle then CM would go through all the armor pentration stuff to

figure out what the impact did.

2. The trajectory itself is only a binary LOS calculation. Either the shooter can, in theory, get a round

from the gun to the target or it can't. A whole bunch of constant and situationally unique variables (like

LOS quality, weapon accuracy, guner training, suppression, etc) to determine the chance of the target

being hit. If it is a hit then various equations determine where and HOW (angles) the shell strikes its

target. Then damage is calculated based on the physics for the particular situation (HE blast near

infantry, AP shot hitting sloped armor, etc). If the round is a miss there are equations to determine how

badly the shooter missed based on several variables (i.e. a bad unit will miss by a LOT greater margin

than a good one). Then the shell trajectory is calculated to the predetermined location (either the hit or

miss one). Colateral damage is calculated based on the detonation of the round where it hits. Terrain is

checked along a "miss" vector to see if it strikes something along the way. Hits don't need to check

because they have already been calculated to be hits based on a clear line of fire.

WOOOOO!! That took a little longer to explain than I thought

OK, now what are the real world difference between the two...

Method 1 -> as real as you can get! Unfortunately, it is also a CPU cruncher from Hell. If we had one or

two vehicles shooting in more sterile conditions it wouldn't be a problem. But when you have letterally

dozens of shots being made on a somewhat average turn, this becomes a HUGE problem.

Method 2 -> On average will come up with the same results as Method 1, but only spews out a realistic

number of calculations on the CPU to crunch. What you lose is the ability for the shell to accidentally

strike something between A and B other than terrain. As the link Iggi gave will explain a bit more.

Thankfully, the cases where this matters are few and far inbetween.

So there you have it Method 1 and 2 yield pretty much the same results, with the exception of

variable blockage (i.e. vehicles). Oh, well, the other difference is that Method 1 would make CM tedious

to play and Method 2 works just fine

When you get CM take a dozen vehicles for each side, plop them on opposite sides of a level battlefield

and see how slow the turns calculate. Now do that until one side is wiped out and you will notice how

much faster each turn becomes with the elimination of each vehicle. Then remember that this is using

Method 2 in sterile conditions with no blocking terrain or vehicles (especially not ones in motion!!) to

bog down the LOS calculations.

Steve

P.S. Grazing fire for MGs is in fact simulated. Charles found that the math to simulate just this one

feature wasn't too horrible for the CPU to deal with.

also check these threads

All new players to this game should read them:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004083.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004572.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004048.html

-tom w

[Simon Fox]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However our bottom line problem with the Hull Down situation remains that many tanks are far more likely to be destroyed when Hull Down than when sat out in the open.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually the bottom line problem is with the sat out in the open situation that many tanks are far less likely to be destroyed when out in the open than when hull down.

Think about it.

When faced with a vehicular target CMBO does not credit gunners with the ability or knowledge to aim at a particular part of the target, which in fact they did on both sides (eg Ken Tout). When they are hull down the gunner is "forced" to aim at the vulnerable part of some vehicles. Until CM assumes that well trained crews are going to aim at known vulnerabilities, or undergunned vehicles trying for track/running gear hits, or infantry/MGs actually aiming for vision slits/blocks/periscopes then the discrepancy will be there for some vehicles and nothing can be done about it.

[MichaelU]

Say Steve, any comments on the hull down issue?

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MichaelU:

Say Steve, any comments on the hull down issue?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

again?

Any BTS "official" comment on the seemingly excessive front turret penetration odds for tanks in the (now not so desirable) hull down (turret vulnerable) position?

Thanks

-tom w

[A Arabian]

NOOOO!!! BTS actually responded to the tangential thread in here without discussing the root issue. Damn.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is still an outstanding issue of hull down being more vulnerable than open for certain vehicles - is that so?

Incidentally, can this be generalized to any vehicle more vulnerable in the turret than hull? Or is it more specific than that?

[This message has been edited by A Arabian (edited 12-13-2000).]

[Mr. Clark]

I also noticed that there was no "official" reply about the hull down kill rate issue, but since no-one else was commenting I figured I must have missed something.

Steve? Steve-o? Steve-a-rama? The Steve-ster?

Any official "you guys are sooooo wrong, and here's why" info for us?

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A Arabian:

Incidentally, can this be generalized to any vehicle more vulnerable in the turret than hull? Or is it more specific than that?

[This message has been edited by A Arabian (edited 12-13-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question

It is my opinion that it CAN be generalized that MOST tanks (both sides) in most cases generally have less armour on the frontal turret aspect than on their frontal upper hull aspect and on the frontal lower hull aspect.

Also ONLY the turret is vulnerable to a "Gun Damaged" hit, if you are hull down you should not get a track hit, but if you are hull down the tank could take a Gun hit or front turret hit or upper hull hit or a upper hull weak point hit or a frontal turret weak point hit.

Of those hit locations the Gun Hit Is VERY destructive and the frontal turrent hit is more likely to penetrate as the armour there is generally less than the upper hull.

I think most of us here an agree on that generaliztion.

-tom w