1.1 Hull Turning Thing--See for Yourself

[Bullethead]

Apparently like many others, I didn't get the beta patches because I felt there were already enough better-qualified people stirring that pot. So I come in here tonight with the intention of getting the final 1.1 patch and am immediately confronted with a huge thread saying how tanks are acting crazy now.

Hmm, thinks I, I'd better read this before I install 1.1. But after plowing through it all, it became obvious that it was pretty much unsubstantiated paranoia. I mean, BTS's official testers have been doing a good job all along, so I couldn't see them letting something this major slip by. However, I could see the possibility for maybe a little gamey exploitability, so I decided to see for myself just what was happening.

In the course of this experiment (which I by no means offer as definitive but at least it's more data than some of the Chicken Littles have) it appeared to me that there is little, if any, real cause for alarm. Provided, that is, you don't do put or leave your tanks in stupid positions to begin with.

By a stupid position, I mean a position in which you have enemies simultaneously on your front and flank. IOW, you are the victim of an L-shaped ambush. When you are in this position, you are offering your flank to somebody regardless of which way you're facing and will usually die. Which is why real soldiers go to great lengths to create L-shaped ambushes and lure enemies into them--they are very effective. Knowing this, it's stupid to walk into such a trap. If you do, you have only youself to blame.

What people seem to be fearing with 1.1 is which leg of the L kills them. They are concerned that their tanks will face to the flank and die from the enemy to the front. But how is that any different from dying to the enemy originally on your flank? Oh, but you say the units on my flank aren't AT weapons. Really? How do you know, until the game is over? And if you can't tell, how is your TC suppose to know?

Now consider the more rational cases. Here, your tank is somewhat to the rear providing long-range covering fire support to your advancing grunts. Your grunts are not only ahead but also somewhat to the flanks. They clear flanking ambush positions before you move your tank forward. Thus, your tank only ever has enemies to its frontal arc.

It is true that your tank's hull will rotate to face its target, no matter what that target is. However, if all targets are in the frontal arc, this rotation keeps the front armor facing them all. Thus, no problem. It is only when ranges are very short (say 200-300m or less) that such a rotation will reveal a flank to one of these enemies. But why is your tank that close to the enemy if it's daylight? That's getting into infantry AT weapon range. IOW, any bad effect of this feature can be mitigated by using proper tactics.

Enough generalities, time for specifics. In my test, I made a 300m long hill. On the hill were US grunts, behind the hill were M4A3(75)s. 300m in front of the hill was a depression with Panthers in it. The Panthers began the game hull down but I later moved them up into the open. I was playing this hotseat so I could properly orchestrate it.

I was indeed able to get flank shot kills on the Panthers. I did this by getting them fixated on the grunts, which I had charge forward towards the US left flank of the Panthers and then, once the Panthers had turned to face them, sending Shermans around the US right end of the hill to shoot them broadside-on. Getting the Panthers turned far enough took several turns, enough to allow the surviving grunts to advance about 400m diagonally to arrive more or less at the longitude of the Panthers but on the opposite side as the Shermans would appear.

All this time, the grunts were within 200m of the Panthers, in the open, getting shelled and MG'd to death, but not heading directly for the Panthers. It took 2 full platoons to get a handful of shattered remnants into the proper position, forming a 90^ angle with the Panthers and the Shermans. It also took me allowing the Panthers to sit there in this stupid position and shoot at them. Is any of this going to happen in a real game? Not just no, but HELL NO! So it's not something I'd worry about at all.

The only thing I saw in my brief test that gives even a little support to the Chicken Littles is the well-known AI philosophy of "out of sight, out of mind". If a threat disappears, after a while the AI will stop worrying about it and go on with other things.

Early in my experiment, I popped a Sherman up before the Panthers had turned much. Seeing Panthers almost facing it still, the Sherman did its usual disappearing act back out of sight. But it was up long enough for the Panthers to turn and face it. Then when it didn't reappear, one by one the Panthers turned back to the grunts. However, the Panther that had had the best line on the Sherman kept looking for it well into the next turn, like it was overwatching for its partners who were busy killing grunts. Thus, it was 2 turns before I showed the Sherman's face again. By that time, the grunts had moved far enough for the Panthers to be fully rotated. But don't forget, that only happened because I was doing the stupid thing of keeping them in place. If you can't react to a situation in 2 turns, you should expect to die.

Another little tidbit: shocked tanks don't seem to rotate their hulls but only their turrets. So if you're still scared about this, just shoot your TCs

Hope this allays the fears of the Chicken Littles. But if you still have your doubts, test it yourself. Try to find a case where hull rotation kills you and your tank was in a tactically sound position and being given tactically sound orders when it happened. I don't think you can.

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Treeburst155]

Hehehe...

That's tellin' em. I agree completely. Good post, Bullethead.

Treeburst155

[Dschugaschwili]

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

Another little tidbit: shocked tanks don't seem to rotate their hulls but only their turrets. So if you're still scared about this, just shoot your TCs

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now that's a great tactic! I guess from now on I will take a small gun with area fire to kill my TCs during the first turn before driving my tanks into combat.

Dschugaschwili

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks BH for the no BS post

Steve

[Guest JonS]

Hey, BH

Does that previous post from Steve make you a queasy pachyderm?

Jon

[LuckyStrike]

A good showcase of the new armor TacAI is the Wild Bill Villers-Bocage scenario, where Wittman's tiger must survive alone for quite some time. I've played this scenario a great many times and there is no question that in 1.1b24/1.1 Wittman is both more survivable and making many more kills than in 1.05.

[aka_tom_w]

See for your self is the relevant phrase here!

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-11-2001).]

[Mr. Clark]

Good post BH.

I think what some people fail to realize is that there is absolutely no way to make the TACAI react "perfectly" in everyone's eyes.

Someone somewhere is always going to be pissed that their tank is not acting the way they want it to. What BTS instead has to shoot for is the "best TACAI possible", which I think they have come very close to by now.

It's like the troops in damaged buildings arguments...

1) My troops ran out of the building as it was being dmamged and got slaughtered! I'm angry!

2) Hey! My troops stayed in the building as it got damaged and got slaughtered! I'm angry!

Can't win with everybody.

[Doug Beman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I guess from now on I will take a small gun with area fire to kill my TCs during the first turn before driving my tanks into combat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A little like the guys who rode elephants into combat with Hannibal. They carried stakes and mallets; if the elephant freaked and starting attacking friendly troops, the riders would drive the stakes into the beasts' brains.

DjB

[Mr. Clark]

Heh... kinda like an ancient self-destruct mechanism.

[Maximus]

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

A good showcase of the new armor TacAI is the Wild Bill Villers-Bocage scenario, where Wittman's tiger must survive alone for quite some time. I've played this scenario a great many times and there is no question that in 1.1b24/1.1 Wittman is both more survivable and making many more kills than in 1.05.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. Whittman is definately more survivable in these patches than he was. It was in v1.05 where the slow turret got himself killed more often than not.

[Guy w/gun]

This hull rotating improvement is also a life saver in the Le Loray scenario.

[Bruno Weiss]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thanks BH for the no BS post

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes BH, by all means lets label people with name calling, as longs as it's not sarcastic against BTS it's perfectly acceptable. Certainly those with a concern should be ashamed for having one. You may trust the party poop will certainly try all this 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)

[aka_tom_w]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

Yes BH, by all means lets label people with name calling, as longs as it's not sarcastic against BTS it's perfectly acceptable. Certainly those with a concern should be ashamed for having one. You may trust the party poop will certainly try all this out.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Bruno

I'm still a little concerned as well, about this issue.

He may have refered to my posts as well in the "Chicken Little" comments, but its not that big a deal is it?

Maybe I was alarmist?

Maybe I made a mistake?

Oh well

I'm not sure why I feel compelled to suggest the phrase "Don't sweat the small stuff"

but it somehow seems appropriate here.

And here's a little hint:

(its all small stuff )

I'm sure we can happy to have done our "alarmist" job and clearly focused attention on this issue. As game players and participants and beta testers of the Release version of v1.1, What MORE can we actually DO?

I screamed blue Murder LONG and hard over superior german gunnnery optics, but thats a dead issue and the range finder is now sort of modeled and accuracy bonus is only in the game for dug in feild guns and anti-tank guns. So there was some noticable effect on that one.

Lets tone down the rhetoric and see how this one develops.

We can be SURE every one and their brother and SISTER are looking at this issue now.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-11-2001).]

[Bruno Weiss]

No Tom, it's not a big deal, I don't take it to heart. I can argue with you now, laugh with you later. Some can, some can't. All in good sport to me. And, like most everyone else, I get all full of myself periodically. I was never the one making a big deal out of being wounded.

I agree with you. The entire issue is as Steve indirectly pointed out, is just too complicated and dependent upon too many variables to go making absolute statements about it as I was originally, or wipe off the chalk board with a swipe as others might want to do. It's truly going to take time, and in that vein Kwazydog was surely right. Play the thing, see how it goes. Probably for a while.

Somebody else pointed out, BTS has always maintained a constant vigilance seeking improvement, and I've always seen that demonstrated.

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

"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)

[Bullethead]

Steve said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thanks BH for the no BS post<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem

I do however have a few little detail questions about this hull rotation thingy:

1. Rotating when Hull Down

I'm talking about cases where after rotation the tank is still hull down to both the target it turned to face and to stuff it was originally facing. In such a case, why would it rotate? The BMG is still blocked, so is it because there's still enough of the hull showing to make a difference?

I'm curious because I think rotating the hull makes the tank easier to spot than just turning the turret. If so, then it seems to me that hull rotation is disadvantageous in this case. It provides no more firepower in the new direction and armor facing is largely if not totally irrelevant, but it increases the odds of the enemy reacting to the tank before it gets its shot off.

OTOH, if the enemy movement outflanked my cover so that I wasn't hull down to it now, I'd for sure want to rotate to face it.

2. Facing Targets Squarely

I've read in a number of secondary sources that the Germans, at least, were trained not to face directly at the enemy but to remain slightly at an angle to them. This was so their armor would gain a "sideways slope" benefit, which I know CM's penetration model takes into account. But it seems to me that tanks are turning to face the target squarely. If it then moves a little bit somewhat later, they just turn the turret slightly to track it, so they get a bit of angled armor that way. But they don't create this angle initially themselves. Should it be that way?

Thanks.

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Bullethead]

Stalin said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Now that's a great tactic! I guess from now on I will take a small gun with area fire to kill my TCs during the first turn before driving my tanks into combat<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not so simple. Shock wears off in a turn or 2, after which the tank goes back to turning its hull along with the turret. So you have to time your TC assassinations carefully. Do it too soon and you lose the "benefit" before you need to use it

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Bastables]

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

Steve said:

No problem

2. Facing Targets Squarely

I've read in a number of secondary sources that the Germans, at least, were trained not to face directly at the enemy but to remain slightly at an angle to them. This was so their armor would gain a "sideways slope" benefit, which I know CM's penetration model takes into account. But it seems to me that tanks are turning to face the target squarely. If it then moves a little bit somewhat later, they just turn the turret slightly to track it, so they get a bit of angled armor that way. But they don't create this angle initially themselves. Should it be that way?

Thanks.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fionn and I debated for this version of oblique facing of the hull to be included during the beta demo. Arguments vs was that we only had British after action reports and the fibels to indicate that it was practiced and that this did not constitute overwhelming evidence. Also another point was that the Tac AI would go close combat when met with several threats. Also that it would seem too robotic to have German crews insure a perfect 30 deg off angle.

:coo: search this has been discussed before

[Bullethead]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>He may have refered to my posts as well in the "Chicken Little" comments, but its not that big a deal is it?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom and Bruno-

Sorry if I offended either of you with that "Chicken Little" stuff. I have nothing to say in my own defense except that at that time of night, it seemed to me an appropriate description for the sheer number of strident of posts, none of them based on personal observation, that I was seeing in that thread. As you can see, describing such posts takes a lot of words, so my tired and booze-soaked brain searched for some shorter way of saying it and settled on "Chicken Little". Now, refreshed and sober, I could perhaps think of a less offensive term, but because the situation no longer seems to require it, I won't bother

In any case, as Tom says, I think you accomplished your primary mission of focusing the CM community's attention on this issue very well. You certainly caused me enough concern to lose some sleep putting it to an immediate test and then writing up a big post of observations. So far, and as expected given BTS's track record so far, observations indicate no real problems and, in fact, some improvements.

But that doesn't mean that problems won't become evident later, or won't arise from other changes in the future. Drawing attention to them, or their possible potential, is a good thing. So don't stop doing it. Maybe just in the future don't do it so loudly

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[This message has been edited by Bullethead (edited 01-11-2001).]

[aka_tom_w]

No offense taken ever really...

but in my own humble and limited self defence I would like to remind the viewing audience I was "just reporting" the swivel hull danceing and twitching that I had observed in the first game I played in v1.1

But I think things have calmed down now and we can take a step back and continue to look at this issue.

Thanks for the apology, but no need

VERY good evalutation of issue BTW

Fair and unbiased based on observation from experience.

We will all be taking a look at how this hull rotation issue changes the way we look at tactics in CM I think.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-11-2001).]

[Dschugaschwili]

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

Stalin said:

It's not so simple. Shock wears off in a turn or 2, after which the tank goes back to turning its hull along with the turret. So you have to time your TC assassinations carefully. Do it too soon and you lose the "benefit" before you need to use it

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know. And the additional problem is how to kill your TC without possibly damaging the entire vehicle. Any ideas?

Dschugaschwili

[Bruno Weiss]

Ah schucks Bullethead (looking downward and toeing the dirt with my shoe), no offense taken my good fellow. We all get on here and tooth nash, and chest thump occasionally. I'm a bit long in the tooth, so my hide is pretty thick. It was aptly pointed out, that I was being substantially unfair in my attitude in another thread, to wit and in review of it I could only agree. So I lowered my screens and allowed the incoming photon torpedos to hit home. It was only fair. I'm the sort that can have a knock down drag out with you over something in the morning, and then go out and have a brewski with you and laugh about it after work. Some can do that, some can't.

I believe Tom was right about our raising the issue to a particular level of concern. Though this messenger forgot to bring the finger bowls. The Apache's had a way of doing that, not pretty to look at, but one couldn't help but notice the smoke signals. Anyway, your initiative and rapid response of specific tests help alleviate some of the more immediate concerns. That was commendable and I appreciate it for my part. Your reputation for integrity made it all the more valuable at that point in time. I believe it is now an issue of longer term observation during battlefield practice as to how it all pans out. Time only will dictate that. But thank you very much Bullethead for your concern over any lost fur. No need to fret it.

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

"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 01-12-2001).]