Improved Anti-tank gun behavior in CM2

[rexford]

And then there is smokeless powder. Read where Brits on hill were fighting German tanks camouflaged in woods, and Brits could not see where tank guns were due to no tell-tale clouds. Brits took a pounding.

Only give-a-way was when trees and brush on tanks moved due to weapon blast effects.

[SlowMotion]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Germanboy:

Scenarios are best designed from scratch, based on historic knowledge and events. The weapons used in the Soviet-German war were so different from those used on the Western Front (except for the 11 months following D-Day) that I don't think that there would be any value in having that. YMMV.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do understand your point about historical scenarios. Still, many of the scenarios I've played most, were not historical, just fun. Like the two demo ones that got me buying the game at first place. From the little scenario design I've done, I've noticed that making a good map takes time and I'd like to try those new CMBB features, not from scratch, but using existing maps.

I assume that such converter wouldn't take that long to write, since most of the stuff has already been implemented. If it took more than some days, then I'm sure there are more important things to use the effort for.

Maybe after you've read enough grog books, the fictional stuff doesn't feel good anymore? Fictional vs Historical becomes like comparing CMBO to SuddenStrike?

[Andreas]

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

Maybe after you've read enough grog books, the fictional stuff doesn't feel good anymore? Fictional vs Historical becomes like comparing CMBO to SuddenStrike? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if I may say so (yeah right, who is going to stop me...) I think my best scenarios are semi-historical ones, where I used my fairly decent knowledge about Commonwealth OOBs, tactics etc. to produce a non-historical 'Anyday August 44' scenario. Because they are based on the tactics (which are again based on the material) of the Commonwealth in most cases, I would not expect them to work in CMBB. So I have started brushing up on my knowledge ofn that theatre.

[Uedel]

Here is my thinking about this Theme,

I dont know exactly how the spoting in CM is realized. My way about closing at this would be the following.

Tank heads unbuttoned in SE direction, the Commander in the Top of the Cupola looks in driving direction of the Tank with an arc of view of 60° (sharp and intense view is only about 30° but in an overall watch u can estimate 60°) there u can estimate a 90% chance of exploring an unhidden and uncovered untit (percentage gets down with size and light conditions), the driver has also a view of 60° to the front of the Tank but in general a light insufficient spotchance then the Commander due the non optimal sightconditions from his place.

Now a Shoot falls and draws attention of the Commander (the driver is still busy with driving), the humam ear is perfect in resolution where a sound comes from and the commander sleve his view arround to the accoustik contact.

Now we take a similar look to the ATG --> it fires and smoke and dust and a flash light gets up in front of the barrel (also a heavy sound) now we can calculate the duration of dust and smoke and for how long under what range it can be viewed. If the Commander now is able to spot that cloud in the time it is there he gets a 80%chance that he is able to fix the gun emplacements, if the time is over he has only a 15% chance of finding that emplacement. for this u also got to calculate a little time for scanning the aerea before recon the dust.

Now if he spots the enemy gun there also should be a delay of X seconds before others know what he has recovered (depending if he has radio, he is in C&C and status of training and surpression) so when he gets killed before he could report, no other unit gets a info update on that gun, This means also that Units out of C&C and without Radio will become a radio update on new enemys very late or overall not. To protect it by overriding the non-informed unit by the player, the Player can order them to fire at the Target but if the unit database has no info on that enemy-unit and has not spottet it(while no LOS or while it hasnt realy spotet and is out of C&C) the Fire of the unit becomes the status of aerea fire and is decently inefektiv.

In a buttoned tank u can reduce the Arc-Angel of the Commander to 30° (due sight districtions) wich will result in a way more realistic behavior of tanks in battle.

Inf couldnt be buttoned and has a way better chance of spotting things even to the rear (has virtualy a 360° FOV with a higher chance to spot in 180° to the facing of that unit).

so to summarize:

- Spotting % goes up in general BUT only in an View-arc to simulate a Tankcommander spotting in a specific direction

- Changing the FOV for the commander takes a little time (scanning 360° could so take up to 5-10 sec)

- if the commander (or any other unit) doesnt spot the dust in the time it is visible, he gets no aditional bonus for spotting that unit even if it has fired before (no dust/smoke no tip where the gun is)

- buttoned up Tanks have a way reduced FOV

- Infantry is MUCH better to recon something then Tanks are (due virtual 360° FOV because some men of a squad allways securing the rear, at least in a trainned unit)

This way it could also be possible to "draw" attention (and with this FOV of specific units) to some side and give a knock-out from the opposite.

Also due the Report and Recieve delay for different statuses of C&C / Radio this would result in a way more realisatic art of spotting and recon (u can spot what u want but if u unable to report it to your neighbor he never will know until he sees it self), also this would result in different spotting levels (Unit spottet unknown by other units and HQ; Unit Spottet known by HQ but not by other units; Units spottet and reconed/known by allmost all)

[Uedel]

punt

[PzKpfw 1]

Steve, will we be able to buy Destroyer Brigades as the Soviets?, or will we be forced to build the Destroyer TOE individualy? like we have to buy AT assests now in CM.

Regards, John Waters

[Gregory Deych]

Steve,

I'd like to put in another request for "dummy" ATG units, which would give concealment bonuses to other units of that same type. Also...would it be possible to NOT reveal units as killed with 100% certainty?

[bojangles]

can someone explain to me " buying units" Unless ur talking about the scenario maker

[PzKpfw 1]

As a point of intrest on AT gun performance.

An Soviet statistical study on the effectiveness of their AT guns done in 1944, listed the number of enemy tanks the AT guns were able to knock out, before the guns were destroyed/lost no type of tank etc was identified nor is the 85mm gun included:

45mm - 0.25 tanks

57mm - 2.00 tanks

76mm - 2.50

122mm Howitzer - 3.00

Regards, John Waters

[Username]

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

Here is my thinking about this Theme,

Tank heads unbuttoned in SE direction, the Commander in the Top of the Cupola looks in driving direction of the Tank with an arc of view of 60° (sharp and intense view is only about 30° but in an overall watch u can estimate 60°) there u can estimate a 90% chance of exploring an unhidden and uncovered untit (percentage gets down with size and light conditions), the driver has also a view of 60° to the front of the Tank but in general a light insufficient spotchance then the Commander due the non optimal sightconditions from his place.

Now a Shoot falls and draws attention of the Commander (the driver is still busy with driving), the humam ear is perfect in resolution where a sound comes from and the commander sleve his view arround to the accoustik contact.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Though I think your hearing appreciation is not based in reality, theres a germ of an idea in your thread. I have been in tanks with motor on and helmet and earphones, etc, hearing aint perfect. Someone described being in tanks as being vision dependant except for the voices in your head (earphones).

I like the idea of spotting/IDing being based on covered arc though.

Lewis

[Ben Galanti]

I'm pretty sure that spotting is not the same 360 degrees in the game currently. Units (both vehicles and infantry) spot much better to their front then behind them. Now, what the specific angles and what not are and what exactly 'much better' is, I can't say...

Ben

[Hanns]

One subject that I haven't seen covered (OK, I haven't read all the posts) is that when a vehicle is "killed" in a non catastrophic manner the crew firing automatically knows it's "dead" and stops firing at it. To a PaK50 crew what are the obvious external differances between a "kill" shot and a "turret hit, internal flaking" shot? Until the gun crew sees the panicked crewmen bailing out of the vehicle I believe they should keep firing until they (the gun crew) think the vehicle is dead. It should be much easier for the gun crew to target the tank (or whatever) as they've already hit it so all they need to do is pull the cord again to fire an almost guaranteed hit. Also I took interest in the abandoned crew thread. I'd like to see an "Audy Murphy" type scenario where a lone member of a squad mounts a knocked out tank and utilizes the M2 HMG as a weapon. It shouldn't work well obviously but it should be possible in those very rare (Congressional Medal of Honor) one in a million odds chances It would also be interesting to be able to scavange weapons from dead squads or crews. Having your outgunned and decimated platoon leader group grab a StG44 and a couple of Panzerfausts off their dead comrades to make a heroic last stand against the Ami's would be welcome. Anyways, thanks for actually listening to my rambling posts. It's almost unheard of for a prominent game designer to even consider reading the posts of a SSN

[Tero]

>Until the gun crew sees the panicked crewmen

>bailing out of the vehicle I believe they

>should keep firing until they (the gun crew)

>think the vehicle is dead.

Even beyond that until the tank goes up in flames can be consiered beyond repair. A KO'd and abandoned tank that did not brew up can come back to haunt you the next day.

On the subject of repeated fire from AT guns: A recent book on Finnish AT during WWII stated that it sometimes took the PAK38 (and even the PAK 40) 10 rounds to shoot a single T-34/85 dead. The sub-caliber round was in short supply so they had to use the regular AP shot.

>It should be much easier for the gun crew to

>target the tank (or whatever) as they've

>already hit it so all they need to do is

>pull the cord again to fire an almost

>guaranteed hit.

Not necessarily. The recoil may move the gun to disrupt the aim.

>It would also be interesting to be able to

>scavange weapons from dead squads or crews.

Even from the enemy.

[PzKpfw 1]

Steve, can ya'll run a few tests with AT guns & mixed targets Ie, Inf & armor. The reason I ask is I have been playing alot of Inf vs combined arms QBs lately.

& I am seeing AT guns lost repeatedly to dumb targeting choices Ie, tank 600m Inf 350 who do you shoot? my Reg & Vet PAK 40 crew shoot the Inf, Tank at 150m Inf at 200m who do you shoot, guess what my Vet reg AT guns picked .

It's the same with tanks TD's etc as well I lost a Super Pershing today that decided to kill an retreating Ge tank crew, it rotated its hull to the crew at 300m & exposed the rear hull to a Tiger E which promptly blasted the SP into a burning hulk with a rear hull penetration. And we have the tanks picking non lethal targets as well while enemy armor gets free shots at turret side armor that has been rotated to an non lethal threat.

Regards, John Waters

[ 07-05-2001: Message edited by: PzKpfw 1 ]

[Uedel]

got to agree that it is very loud in tanks, or at least under the Tanks.......

Was rolled over on a training court in the German Army from a Leopard I and it was frigging loud and scaring

[Battlefront.com]

Hi John,

We have tested targeting decisions to death some months ago during the process of patching CMBO. At the moment we haven't made any targeting logic changes as far as I know, so there won't be anything different than what you can do in 1.12.

What I suspect you have happening is that at the fraction of a second when the unit was looking for a target it decided upon the "wrong" enemy unit. Perhaps one milisecond later the targeting logic would have selected the "correct" unit.

Until certain things happen the friendly unit is not likely to change targets. This is, obviously, by design so units aren't scatter brained and constantly switching targets.

Basically, we are asking the computer to perform an impossible task. And that is to both avoid target fixation while at the same time avoiding target distraction. Trying to get the targeting logic to be able to perfectly know when to stick and when to move is impossible. All we can do is get the balance of the decisions to be "correct". We feel that is the case now and aren't sure we should go mucking around with the code any more. Trust me, we could make things MUCH worse than they are now

Steve

[PzKpfw 1]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Hi John,

We have tested targeting decisions to death some months ago during the process of patching CMBO. At the moment we haven't made any targeting logic changes as far as I know, so there won't be anything different than what you can do in 1.12.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Drats , Thanks for the reply Steve It's just frustrateing to have the AI make such an loust choice in targets.

Personaly I'd like to see a drop down menu for AT guns & tanks where you could assign their priority targets Ie, Tanks, AFVs, Inf, and they only engage the selected target type, unless the player changes them back to TAC AI control with the hunt command etc.

Regards, John Waters

[Battlefront.com]

Hi John,

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Thanks for the reply Steve It's just frustrateing to have the AI make such an loust choice in targets. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We agree, which is why we spent a LOT of time tweaking and coding new behavior. Hehe... you never saw the Alpha so you have nooooo idea how far the targeting system has come

Like I said, the problem is that it is just impossible to get the TacAI to make the right decision all the time. That means that sometimes it will blow it. A portion of these mistakes could be explained away as "stuff happens", but certainly others can not be described as anything but a shortcoming in the simulation's ability to make the right targeting decision all the time.

As I said, this is a rather impossible task for a computer as what we are basically trying to code up is very complex human rationalization of a fluid and dynamic set of situations. Even if CM were more rock, paper, scisors like RTS games, we would still have a tough task ahead of us. But with the variety of weapons and their abilities present in CM, with all sorts of things like weather and terrain tossed, we are really in a tough spot

The only way to be more assured of the kinds of behavior you want to see is to have SOP menus. This is not possible for CMBB as it also requires a near total rewrite of the TacAI. Logically it is pretty easy to implement, but there is just no support for it in the code at the moment. We do intend on putting SOPs into the engine rewrite. However, even those will be imperfect as situations will develop where a unit will stick or switch when it should/shouldn't.

Steve