Guest KwazyDog Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Guy, currently tanks do turn their hull towards enemy infantry in an attempt to bring their hull MG to bare. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kitty: =) Kitty <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> DO I take that to mean you play the Germans and like the slow heavy cat like tanks and are happy with this new hull turning development? there cat woman? -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Yes indeed KwazyDog, your correct some tanks do, so do Stugs and other non-turreted armor units. So, I generally purchase them knowing this, and also purchase turreted units knowing they don't have to. Problem is, we've now changed that protocol and must presume all armor will act in the like manner of a Stug? So fine, how long do we then wait until the next bright idea to fix the problem of tanks not using their turrets? ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-10-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Hankey Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: Guy, currently tanks do turn their hull towards enemy infantry in an attempt to bring their hull MG to bare. Dan<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, that's fine for tanks with HULL MG!!!! But not for every friggen tank! Hey, I already hate the fact that tanks engage crew with the main gun. To me this is just insult to injury. I do realize that some tanks will have to engage with the main gun. I don't have the specs and armament of every tank memorized, so what the heck. And you said earlier that you don't have your tanks near infantry. I don't think anyone intententionally drives their tanks trying to squish the infantry a la C&C, but hell, you have to see them sometime. You mean to tell me that in the late stages of a game, you've never encountered any infantry, or crews in your tank??? You must keep them stuck in a corner somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Ok, Re-reading all the post, I do understand what you guys are saying. Honestly though in the Games I sent out turns on today..and the lone scenario with the AI.. I saw no problems what so ever. I guess the only option (not sure how hard though), would be to leave the hull turning in. But only make the AI use it against AT threats. Other tanks, AT guns ect... Lorak ------------------ "Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats Cesspool Combatmissionclub Lorak's FTX and for Kitty's sake =^..^= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss: Kwazydog, I appreciate what your saying but it seems to me your missing a couple of points or not seeing the context of what is being pointed out. First, it should mainly be "your" option using the rotate button to change facings, or in the case of the AI initiating action on its own, done so that it makes tactical sense in the manner you speak to, not where it makes no sense at all in the manner described by the gentleman with the Churchills. Meaning, the AI ain't up to it. Secondly, you seem to overlook the exploitation factor that inevitably will occur where gamers will learn to anticipate this predictable AI response, and use any less quality unit to confuse the AI and take advantage of the armor exposing it's weaker sides when it goes to target. (To solve the problem of slow turrets on monster tanks which allows for flanking by faster tanks, we've taken to rewrite history, and pretend they really didn't have this problem, and now we have the monsters turn about in a predictable fashion, thus eliminating the need to flank them, so that all one need do is just toss out a truck and watch em turn, then pop em off with a well placed AT gun or the tank that might have had to at least undertake a flanking movement before all this). Fact is, if its well known the AI is stupid enough to expose an armor units weaker side when firing, and that gamers can count on that, you better believe your comfort level at having your armor always turn to face a target is in for quite a drop. I also appreciate your wanting to give v1.1 a fair shake, and I don't disagree at all. However, my original point was it was released as a final, not a beta to be tested. I'm not a beta tester, if I were we probably wouldn't debating this, but regardless I'm not so why do I want to do the testing in rated PBEM games. Not a cleaver thing to do IMO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I'm sure it was the intention of Charles to make this v1.1 the final version. I don't think for a minute they intended to release this version to be tested by us as another "public beta" What I have just read in other postings in other threads was Charles suggesting that he would like to fix the slope modifiers for HVAP and include the latest specs and data for the Jumbo, that he overlooked, nothing more, there has been no mention anywhere of trying to address the "hull rotated toward threat or non-threat soft target AND exposed the juicy flank to the anti tank threat" issue. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Tanks will turn their turret to engage if they are using the move or move fast command. If they are using the hunt command, they will stop, turn and engage a threat they feel could be a threat to them. If they are stationary, they will turn to engage targets as they see fit, using hull MG's against infantry. I cant understand why you dont want your tank to turn and engage a threat ASAP to be honest. Youd rather wait while it turn its turret to engage a defiante threat and leave its hull in a direction where it was last facing, and there may or may not be a threat. Yes, there may be a threat from that other direction, but the *is* a threat now from the utin they are engaging. I guess your still using the word *apparently* there Bruno becuase you still havnt even tried it? Im sure it wouldnt make a difference now as you have convinced yourself it is wrong, but I just wish you would try it so you can see first hand what you are arguing about. Im not being unreasonable here, and I do understand where you guys are coming from, but I also want you guys to give it a bit of a run first [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 01-10-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Thanks Lorak for re-reading. And I don't want to hog this, but I see so many not seeing the context. A multiple target rich environment. As it stands now, (Version 1.05) your armor unit might turn its turret and do nothing because the AI gets confused. However, you can count of the hull maintaining it's original position, and thus you can count of a certain degree of control. With Version 1.1, you no longer can count on these facts. If the AI now gets confused, as we know it will in a multiple target rich environment, it will then on top of everything else, swing the hull, potentially in several unpredicable directions, exposing its weaker sides to enemy fire. The only predicability it would seem is for the opponent who can count on the armor unit changing its facing when it perceives a threat, thus creating a fantastic window of opportunity for those cleaver little souls out there who will plan for that event. An old truism in the Halls of Congress is, when you monkey with one small thing for the best of reasons, and with the best of intentions, you have no idea what unforseen and undesired results will take place at the end of the domino pattern. ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-10-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: Tanks will turn their turret to engage if they are using the move or move fast command. If they are using the hunt command, they will stop, turn and engage a threat they feel could be a threat to them. If they are stationary, they will turn to engage targets as they see fit, using hull MG's against infantry. I cant understand why you dont want your tank to turn and engage a threat ASAP to be honest. Youd rather wait while it turn its turret to engage a defiante threat and leave its hull in a direction where it was last facing, and there may or may not be a threat. Yes, there may be a threat from that other direction, but the *is* a threat now from the utin they are engaging. I guess your still using the word *apparently* there Bruno becuase you still havnt even tried it? Im sure it wouldnt make a difference now as you have convinced yourself it is wrong, but I just wish you would try it so you can see first hand what you are arguing about. Im not being unreasonable here, and I do understand where you guys are coming from, but I also want you guys to give it a bit of a run first [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 01-10-2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think that's fair. The v1.1 is less than 24 hours old and we are jumping all over it. I agree with the suggestion that "if" the hull rotation toward a crew (ok "any clown with a gun" I like that one) is preditable, then it likely will be exploited by those "gamey" enough to realize that flanking shots can be had by sacrficing crews and other near valueless units so real tank killing threads can get flank shots when the unsuspecting tank is for sure going to turn its hull and engage the valueless unit. Lets see how it really works now. I'm sure that BTS has tested this and the Beta testers have been playing with it for at least a few days prior to its release. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-10-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Actualy Tom, I'm sure it has been tested for a while. If I am not mistaken the Hull turning has been in for the last one or two beta's.. At least I believe seeing a Hull turn a couple of times the last week or so. could be wrong though... Lorak ------------------ "Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats Cesspool Combatmissionclub Lorak's FTX and for Kitty's sake =^..^= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Thanks Tom, really thats all Im asking here, is to try it in a few games And remember, you guys were the beta testers on this one We released it to the public so that we could get feedback from more than just our handful of beta testers, and it works well we felt. The thing is that we havnt had this possible issue mentioned to us once in the weeks weve had the beta out there, though we did recieve many other reports. Either this means that all of the guys whom took the beta for a run didnt see this issue, or didnt have a problem with the deature. I admit that it is possible that something slipped through the net, but honeslty, chances are also against. This is why Im asking you guys to just give it a run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Sure KwazyDog, I will try it since it was released and labled as a final at least one opponent of mine has already loaded it, and so now I have to (test), this out in a rated game. I'm not a beta tester is my problem with that. And no, I didn't test it, because I don't want to do beta testing, I want to play historically accurate games, not experiment. Now, I might have missed it, but I don't remember ever see anyone come on the forum from BTS and say "Hey, lightening just struck and we got the best idea since sliced bread that to resolve the problem of monster tanks with slow turrets, we'd change all the tanks so that they'd face their targets as Stugs have to. What do ya'll think?" And, with similar curiosity neither do I understand why you would want all your armor turning indescriminately to face a perceived threat, whether it be another tank, AT gun, infantry, or a falling branch and thus exposing its weaker armor to the unknown elements in wide arcs of degrees all over the battlefield, not to mention providing a predeterminable action that an opponent can count on and plan for. And all of this, despite the fact that this "solution" if you will, is a mind creation to resolve what is perceived as a problem due to the historical accuracy of certain tanks being modeled too accurately and entirely as they were supposed to be, with slow turrets. I would then ask, how can you explain that this fits into the BTS stated desire to remain historically accurate, even down to not including things that everyone has some feeling are accurate, but BTS has stuck to only those things which were documented and verifiable? Where then is the mountain of documented and verifiable evidence that all armor units always turned to face their targets "in preference" to the use of their turrets? Now, everyone wants to play with the big tanks and shoot em ups fine, I'll stick with V1.05 and use that as a preference for opponent acceptance. Think this one through down the road, because I seriously doubt I might be the only one to arrive at that conclusion, so the question becomes. "How many versions of CM does it take to play a wargame? ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-10-2001).] [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-10-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 "I'm not a beta tester is my problem with that." No, I understand that Bruno...what I think you need to try to understand though is that out of all of our testers and all of the people that download the beta to help us test, not one of them had a problem with the way CM is playing. Just becuase there is *one* feature out of dozens in version 1.1 that you dont like, that dosnt make it a beta. The only person here whom is debating this issue with serious vigor has been you Bruno, and you havnt even played with version 1.1 yet. If you dont wish to upgrade to 1.1 that is your choice, but until you do I dont think you can really debate what you think may be a problem. On the other hand, if people start playing with 1.1 and can send us movies and give us descent descriptions of where there may be a problem we will listen, we always have in the past, havnt we ? [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 01-10-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lorak Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Bruno, First while agree with some of what your saying... I don't understand your historical problems with this. (first let me say I am not a german only player looking for a bonus, I know that is the first thing that usualy comes out.) But for example I am the TC in a panther and I spot a sherman approching from 8 o'clock. I see two options.. 1) move the turret on that sherman and just wait for the 30-45 seconds, allow shells to bang off my flank, and just say who cares? or 2) start turning the turret and the main hull towards the target at the same time. Sheman on target in about 15 seconds, maybe one shot on my flank, then when I am on target due to hull facing I am not dead if my gunner misses a shot or two. I'd always go for option 2. Unless of course you already have your hull facing another AT threat. In that case Your flank is exposed reguardless. I think the issue still falls back to tank AI using it's main gun on soft targets. Yes it can be a pain sometimes and I would prefer a target selector, or only allowing main gun shots at infantry with player orders. I don't see that happening. Now as one who has been using the beta's for a week or so. I also have to add that this "problem" hasn't really been one for me. Lorak ------------------ "Do not wait to strike till the iron is hot; but make it hot by striking."--William Butler Yeats Cesspool Combatmissionclub Lorak's FTX and for Kitty's sake =^..^= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Right Kwazydog, I'm the only one debating the issue with vigor. You want to count the hanging chads? I love it when declarations are made. Your the only one defending it with vigor. And I'm non-partisian, I don't work for, get nothing what so ever from, BTS. Fine folks, gee let's take her out for a spin so we can all declare it a grand success tucking aside what a good many otherwise feel is logical, sensible, or of potential concern. Okay. One good point though is that the version is only a day old, and this thread only five hours or so old, so it remains to be seen if the players are going to accept this or cough it up. As I've said before, BTS owns the copyright, not me. I just bought it is all. It didn't have any Klingon Birds of Prey. ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Note: I will write this is all BOLD because I'm getting a little sick of all the bitching, complaining, crying and whining about this feature that's been in since Beta 23! You all ask who beta tested this? The whole community did! That is for those that had the cohones to try the Beta patches. And for those that didn't, PISS ON YOU! You missed out on the opportunity to complain about this while it was in Beta. Personally I'm with Kwazydog on this. So quit your damn crying and try to play the game instead of doing all this speculating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Okay fine Lorak, it's late, I'm tired, and frankly BTS can do whatever they devil well please. To answer your question and take this thread literally full circle back to where it started, this is the problem I have with the hull turnings: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hi, I just perform my first battle with V1.1 against the AI when something strange happend. I have two Churchill tanks on a bridge. Enemy forces are in front of me but I see no possible target for my tank. During the turn's resolution a german crew is spotted at 60 meters at nine o'clock by my tanks. And I see both my tanks turning their turret AND THEIR HULL in direction of the german crew to fire on him .So now, both tanks exposed their side to the major enemy location! So I perform the same test with 1.05 and 1.1. With 1.05 you can keep your hull in a dirction and engage enemy with weapons in the turret on another direction. But this seems not to be possible with 1.1 When you give a target to your tank. It always rotates in direction of the target (like a Self propelled gun)!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> And if you guys can't figure out the problem with that, then by all means line up to be an opponent of mine. Please... I would further add, that this did not get to be the game it is, based upon changes made to provide pleasant effects which alter historic aspects. ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-10-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 For the Germans at least the inclining of the hull in order to bring the gun on target faster is realistic. British forces at least in Nth Africa would either fire on the move or be hull down making inclining the hull redundant, but then the British tanks including the early cruiser I and II had fast powered turret traverse based on the expectation of shooting on the move as SOP like land battleships. Fionn and I argued for a modified form of this during beta demo days, this is one of my dreams come true, next 8 25pdr guns as opposed to 4 with double ammo for 25pdr FOO . [This message has been edited by Bastables (edited 01-10-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 True Bruno, there have been others debating the issue, but at the least they have been willing to give it a go and discuss it reasonably. Maybe I should have said that you are the only one whom feels this issue warrents talking to me with sarcasm and disrespect, as unfortunaetly that would have probably been closer to the mark. Dan [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 01-10-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruno Weiss Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Oh, okay Kwazydog, yes I admit I've been absolutely unreasonable in not just agreeing with you and sticking to what I believe and just tore you completely apart. Unmerciful. I should have been more pleasant about it like Maximus. I suppose when all else fails, use personal attacks? Oh, and by all means Maximus. Restore order to this otherwise normally sane and pleasant board which rarely engages in any form of debates. We surely wouldn't want to tire you. So, you don't agree with BTS and what, the hit team comes out. ------------------ "Gentlemen, you may be sure that of the three courses open to the enemy, he will always choose the fourth." -Field Marshal Count Helmuth von Moltke, (1848-1916) [This message has been edited by Bruno Weiss (edited 01-10-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Good night I'm off to bed.... I really hope this thread does NOT have a lock on it when I wake up. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Bruno, I have been polite here with you since this very verbal debate first started, and all I ask for is the same in response. It is much easier to talk about a subject without have to read the real meaning of posts between the sarcasm. You can read my history on the forum Bruno, I have never given anything but the upmost respect to other posters here, Im not the type of person whom is unreasonable or attacks people unnecessarily. Simply because others disagree with you seems to make them wrong in your eyes, as noted my the last comment above. Its important to remember that sometimes others have input which is of use, too. I am sorry was have disagreed on this issue, but I honestly think it is one up for debate. That dosnt make me wrong. Dan [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 01-10-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Ok...this hull turning thing has been in since the betas? Boy that explains a lot. I had a nagging feeling that I had seen my tanks rotate their hulls toward targets more often since I had installed the beta patch. Well then, let me tell you this. The hull turning thing is great. Example: I played the Le Loray scenario. One of my Panthers was parked on a road. A halftrack came into LOS and my turret turned 90 degrees to target and fire. No sooner had I targeted the track, that a Sherman appeared at my opposite flank through some smoke. The Panther quickly dispatched the track. By this time the turn was over. I clicked on the Panther and saw that the Sherman was targeting the it. I ordered the Panther to target the sherman, although I figured it would do no good since the Sherman was less than 30m away and had a perfect flanck shot. I hit go expecting fire, smoke, and casualties. Thats exactly what I got. Only it was the Sherm that got plugged! Almost Immediately after the turn began, my Panther started rotating its hull and turret toward the Sherm. The Sherman did get a shot, but it bounced off. The Panther had rotated it's hull just enough so that the 75mm couldn't hit the flank. Well, to make this a lot shorter. The gun finally came around and absolutely destroyed the Sherman (who had managed to get off another futile shot). All I wonder is what would have happened if the Panther had not killed the halftrack so quickly. Maybe the reason for the Panther's decisiveness was because it's exp level was crack. [This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 01-11-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 Just a little follow-up on my big BOLD post above... I mean com'on fellas, the feature has been in since the v1.1b23 patch I believe, hell, it may have even been in since v1.1b22, I can't recall because IIRC the v1.1b23 patch didn't have an updated readme. If you all who are complaining about this feature would have tried the Beta patches, you would have known about this feature and then brought up the "so-called" problem then and not now after the final v1.1 patch has been released. I'm sorry lads, but your complaint is a bit late if you know what I mean. You had your opportunity to participate in the PUBLIC BETA TEST and you didn't. So who's fault is that? YOURS! BTS did a public beta for this very purpose--to get everyone's feedback on the new tweaks since v1.05 along with any bug reports. So to come on here and start complaining about something after the fact is a bit like complaing about a problem in Firestone tires after you've had a blow-out when you already know that there is a problem with them and you didn't take any measures to prevent the blow-out by buying or replacing your defective tires beforehand. ------------------ "Live by the sword, live a good LOOONG life!"-Minsc, BGII "Boo points, I punch."--Minsc, BGII Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted January 11, 2001 Share Posted January 11, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well, that's fine for tanks with HULL MG!!!! But not for every friggen tank!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Most tanks in CMBO have bow MG. Including the Panzer IV. All I meant was that you complained that your tank rotated it's turret to target inf while you were trying to ambush another tank. Just be glad it didnt turn it's hull and try to use it's bow MG. Besides...I think he's refering to the post previous to when I edited it to say "neverming" [This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 01-11-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts