Ever seen this happen? Two for one kill?

[ElGuapo]

I am playing game right now (A scenario set near Bastogne) - and in the last seconds of a round, my Hellcat fired at a Pz IV. In the time it took the round to reach the target, another Pz IV cept up behind the first one. A second later, the round penetrates the first tank from the side turret and knocks out the second from the front.

Wow! Is this a common occurrance?

ElGuapo

[CMplayer]

I don't believe this is modelled, in fact I am certain there is another explanation. If I understand it, whether or not you get a hit is determined by a dice roll, so if you get a hit on a moving unit, and it moves behind a building while the shell is in flight, you will see the shell go through the building to hit the target. The actual trajectory is just for visuals, so the shell can't continue on to hit something else. (maybe a ricochet could, I dunno)

[lcm1947]

Interesting. I recently had a tank shoot at a tank that was moving behind a house and it flatten the house and I mean flatten it completely and then knocked out the tank almost at the exact second. It was one of the coolest things I'd very seen in this game and I replayed it several times just to watch it.

[Ellros]

Ricochets can hit other units. It something to watch out for, especially if you have infantry advancing alongside ubertanks like some of the German ones. A 75mm can bounce off the tank and wound nearby infantry.

IIRC, there was a screenshot of that somewhere in the CM advance pics on CMHQ. Not sure if it's still accessible though.

[ElGuapo]

Unfortunatly it looks like it blocked my pic of this, as proof. I'll post it again as a html link

http://brickfilms.topcities.com/two4one.jpg

or

Pic of two German tanks being knocked out

[ 10-06-2001: Message edited by: ElGuapo ]

[CMplayer]

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

as proof. /URL]

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That don't prove nuttin, Guaps. If you can trust me with the password, pls mail me the file. I'd really like to see that turn movie. Thx,

[Michael Emrys]

Not really the same thing I know, but I once took out a pair of German halftracks with a single 105mm arty shell. I thought that was pretty cool.

Michael

[Gen-x87H]

I was playing the other day and mortar team I was playing with got knocked out by a single shot from a Sharpshooter. He killed both guys in 1 shot. I was amazed.

Gen

[Lt Bull]

Never seen 2 tanks get KOed like that but I have seen an AT gun get KOed by an AP ricochet bouncing off a nearby Churchill. That really sucked but it is fair enough (possible).

BTW Gen-x87H, that sharshooter "shot" is not one "bullet". Infantry small arms ammo is not tracked bullet for bullet. Each time a sharpshooter "fires" it doesnt neccessarily mean they fire ONE bullet.

Lt Bull

[Redwolf]

This is pretty normal in CMBO.

The engine does not model vehicles giving cover (field-of-fire or line-of-side wise).

In reality this could be as well, BTW, a tungsteen round against a Pz IV turret is enough overkill to come out of the turret's real with enough energy to penetrate a second tank.

[Michael Emrys]

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

In reality this could be as well, BTW, a tungsteen round against a Pz IV turret is enough overkill to come out of the turret's real with enough energy to penetrate a second tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm. Color me sceptical on that. Yes, I suppose it could happen. 'Bout the same time the division of flying pigs dropped in...

Michael

[CMplayer]

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

BTW, a tungsteen round against a Pz IV turret is enough overkill to come out of the turret's real with enough energy to penetrate a second tank.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This might very well be possible, but from earlier discussions where BTS talked about how firing is modelled, it shouldn't be possible in the game, unless they have a separate routine after the initial combat resolution is over. (like the ricochet routine seems to be an add on) As we've been told several times, the flight path is not used as the basis for determining hits and misses (which would also be a requirement for vehicles providing cover).

Personally I feel that until vehicles DO block LOS, CM will still just be a teething toy. A very good one, of course, but so many important issues in vehicular deployment just aren't in the game.

[ElGuapo]

I would send you the file, but it was a game vs. the AI.

I PROMISE this was the only way these two could have been taken out though. Since I was the Allies, I could see everything shooting at these tanks, and I carefully looked to see if it was something else that killed them. The timing was just perfect that the shell hit the first tank and went through to hit the other.

So either it was something that really is modeled in the CM ballistics engine, or it was a one time bug that I cannto replicate. Either way, I was happy to get the kill.

Didn't think to look and see if it was a tungsten round, but if I recall correctly I did have some of those.

[aka_tom_w]

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

I would send you the file, but it was a game vs. the AI.

I PROMISE this was the only way these two could have been taken out though. Since I was the Allies, I could see everything shooting at these tanks, and I carefully looked to see if it was something else that killed them. The timing was just perfect that the shell hit the first tank and went through to hit the other.

So either it was something that really is modeled in the CM ballistics engine, or it was a one time bug that I cannto replicate. Either way, I was happy to get the kill.

Didn't think to look and see if it was a tungsten round, but if I recall correctly I did have some of those.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um...

as far as I know one AP or T round cannot kill two tanks or AFV's (in the game that is)

in the game the result of the impact of the round is determined when the round is fired during the turn crunch, hit either hits or it misses. (I assume it hit and penetrated the first tank it hit, end of story).

the only logical thing that i can think of is that the first tank that took round and was ko'd exploded and the explosion so close to the second tank ko'd it?

Is that a plausible explanation?

I hae been playing this game since the beta demo and I have seen some VERY cool things and some VERY rare events but I have never seen one round KO two afv's.

any other suggestions?

-tom w

[Silvio Manuel]

Someone here once said that one of their tanks (Tiger? can't remember) took a ricochet, and the AP shot bounced off and KO'd their Panthe thru the side. Tough luck.

[offtaskagain]

In the Gulf War there was an alleged example of an M1A1 putting a Silver Bullet through two T-72s or T-55s.

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by panzerwerfer42:

In the Gulf War there was an alleged example of an M1A1 putting a Silver Bullet through two T-72s or T-55s.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a bit different from saying that it could happen against well-armored targets in WW II though, you know.

Michael

[Andrew H.]

I'm pretty sure that double penetrations aren't modeled in CM. The range looks really close, to judge from the picture: I wonder if the .50 cal killed one tank through the side turret, and the tank gun killed the other one through the front. That would give the Hellcat credit for both kills, and would look like the Panzers were knocked out with one shot.

I don't have my game handy, though -- can a .50 cal penetrate Mk IV's turret from the side at point blank range?

[Gen-x87H]

BTW Gen-x87H, that sharshooter "shot" is not one "bullet". Infantry small arms ammo is not tracked bullet for bullet. Each time a sharpshooter "fires" it doesnt neccessarily mean they fire ONE bullet"

I can understand this for a sqaud but since a sharpshooter is 1 guy with a gun I would consider that each shot he takes is 1 bullet not necessarily the ammo reduction shown.

Unless you are telling me he got off 2 shots in less than 1 second.

Maybe there wasnt a second gunman on the grassy knoll

Gen

[Porajkl]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gen-x87H:

BTW Gen-x87H, that sharshooter "shot" is not one "bullet". Infantry small arms ammo is not tracked bullet for bullet. Each time a sharpshooter "fires" it doesnt neccessarily mean they fire ONE bullet"

I can understand this for a sqaud but since a sharpshooter is 1 guy with a gun I would consider that each shot he takes is 1 bullet not necessarily the ammo reduction shown.

Unless you are telling me he got off 2 shots in less than 1 second.

Maybe there wasnt a second gunman on the grassy knoll

Gen<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is called ABSTRACTION in CM.

[Herr Oberst]

Last night I had a KT getting pounded on by 4 AT guns and it looked like the fourth of July with ricochets flying every which way. I counted something like 17-20.

Loads of fun until one of them KO'ed a Puma who was hiding up the hill behind a building. The Puma had LOS to the KT, but not to the guns. Damned unlucky thing to have happen.

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

I'm pretty sure that double penetrations aren't modeled in CM. The range looks really close, to judge from the picture: I wonder if the .50 cal killed one tank through the side turret, and the tank gun killed the other one through the front. That would give the Hellcat credit for both kills, and would look like the Panzers were knocked out with one shot.

I don't have my game handy, though -- can a .50 cal penetrate Mk IV's turret from the side at point blank range?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

.50cal armour kills are not announced with a normal "blabla penetration at foobar" message, they are silent, message-wise. So that can't be it.

[CombinedArms]

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

the only logical thing that i can think of is that the first tank that took round and was ko'd exploded and the explosion so close to the second tank ko'd it?

Is that a plausible explanation?

-tom w<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I think it IS plausible and I'll cite another wierd occurance to explain why. I once fired with a Priest at some infantry in a very nearby building (less than 10m) and the backblast killed the Priest. (It listed itself as its own kill). A PzIV is better armored than a Priest, but I can believe that a really close explosion could cause its destruction. El Guapo, here are three things to check:

1) Was the 2nd PzIV "knocked out" or "abandoned". It seems to me a bit more likely that a nearby explosion like that might cause a crew to bail out of a tank than to actually kill it. What was the experience level of the crew? A green or conscript crew might be particularly ready to abandon under such circumstances?

2) Does your Allied tank list one PzIV kill or two? If it lists two, then it's possible your single round killed both. If it lists only one kill, then it may be that secondary explosion effect.

3) When the game is finished, check the kill info on the first PzIV. If it lists a PzIV as a kill, then it certainly was the explosion of the 1st PzIV that killed the 2nd PzIV.

Anyway, it's an intriguing situation.

[ElGuapo]

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

El Guapo, here are three things to check:

1) Was the 2nd PzIV "knocked out" or "abandoned". It seems to me a bit more likely that a nearby explosion like that might cause a crew to bail out of a tank than to actually kill it. What was the experience level of the crew? A green or conscript crew might be particularly ready to abandon under such circumstances?

2) Does your Allied tank list one PzIV kill or two? If it lists two, then it's possible your single round killed both. If it lists only one kill, then it may be that secondary explosion effect.

3) When the game is finished, check the kill info on the first PzIV. If it lists a PzIV as a kill, then it certainly was the explosion of the 1st PzIV that killed the 2nd PzIV.

Anyway, it's an intriguing situation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) Nope. Both of them were knocked out, neither exploded. If you look at the screenshot there is a pic of a tank burning, but that happened a few turns beforehand.

2) and 3) I'd like to say that it listed two kills on the info of the Allied TD, but I honestly don't remember. I don't remember, but it seems unlikely that the first tank "took out" the second one via explosion or shrapel, as it did not explode and I have never seen shrapnel modeled.

I would be interested in BTS solving this once and for all by simply saying whether the ability to take out two tanks with oen shot is modeled, i.e. do shells calculation stop when a hit is recorded, or can shells which hit tanks go past and kill other things. I've never seen anything behind armor I've shot explode, so I doubt it is modelled. It might have been some wierd bug.

[aka_tom_w]

we have been over this MANY times

try this link:

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

here are the details:

Topic: BTS - LOS error?

Pak40

Member

posted 08-15-2000 01:34 AM

Hi Steve,Charles and others,

I was playing one of your operations the other day when one of my Tiger tanks shot a round through

another Tiger to knock out a British tank. Just so people wouldn't say I was full of bull, I captured a

sequence of shots and posted them here:

http://www.members.home.net/jroland2/cmsnafu.htm

please check it out

Anyone else experience this?

IP: Logged

Maastrictian

Member

posted 08-15-2000 01:40 AM

This is an acknowledged "feature." Its too hard to keep track of dynamic LOS, so dead (unmoving)

vehicles block LOS but live ones do not. Only a minor problem IMO.

--Chris

IP: Logged

Supertanker

Member

posted 08-15-2000 06:01 AM

Another thing BTS has told us is that the graphics really are just representational, and the true LOS is

calculated within the game engine. You may see some LOS lines that look blocked, but the math shows

to be clear. Also, guessing based on those shots, it looks like you have unit scale set to +2. That LOS

like is pretty close to center on the other Tiger, so this may not make much difference, but have you

tried reducing the scale to Realistic and checking again?

IP: Logged

aka_tom_w

Member

posted 08-15-2000 07:24 AM

Live vehicles do not block LOS or LOF.

ONLY KO'd vehicles that are smoking will block LOS and LOF and provide cover.

I think its a bigger issue than most people here admit, too be sure they know about it, they programed

it that way and it is a DEAD issue.

-tom w

IP: Logged

Jarmo

Member

posted 08-15-2000 08:27 AM

quote:

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

ONLY KO'd vehicles that are smoking will block LOS and LOF and provide cover.

I think its a bigger issue than most people here admit

Yeah, hope it's fixed in later CM's. Although normally not a

big problem, it becomes one when you place a big tank in front

of a convoy, and your opponent decides to rather fire through

it and kill the small ones following behind.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

IP: Logged

Pak40

Member

posted 08-15-2000 09:48 AM

Thanks for the update guys. For some reason I hadn't seen anything about this in the discussion

board.

I can't believe that dynamic LOS is too hard to keep track. Heck, they could at least abstract it and have

only vehicles check dynamic LOS. It's not so important with troops, but vehicles it is.

IP: Logged

aka_tom_w

Member

posted 08-15-2000 10:43 AM

Here it is..

The MotherLoad with comments by BTS .....

Read the posts closely about Method 1 vs Method 2.

This game was abstracted from ideas and tank battle simulations like in the old Avalon Hill game Tobruk.

Due to CPU limitations we are told that live AFV's cannot block LOS, this is not news.

Here are the relevant 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

quote:

Originally posted by Pak40:

Thanks for the update guys. For some reason I hadn't seen anything about this in

the discussion board.

I can't believe that dynamic LOS is too hard to keep track. Heck, they could at least

abstract it and have only vehicles check dynamic LOS. It's not so important with

troops, but vehicles it is.

IP: Logged

aka_tom_w

Member

posted 08-15-2000 11:04 AM

The official answer from Steve:

"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.

(tom w opines: I interpret this to mean that Steve is saying that CM was designed to use Method 2 to

save time to process or "crunch" the result of the round being fired, hence it does not, and cannot

account for live or dead vehicles which are not smoking and burning in between the shooter and the

target. It should also be noted that Pillboxes and bunkers are treated as vehicles and do not offer any

form of cover and do not block LOS or LOF).

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.

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited

04-29-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-15-2000).]