RSColonel_131st Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 One thing that is a bit unhandy in CMBB is the tendency of a tank to always turn it's front armor towards the enemy. For those of you who have read the Tiger Manual online, you might have seen how the handbook descripes "Mahlzeiten" positions in details. Basically it means that Tiger crews, and quite possiple others as well, where instructed to show the enemy their 1.5 or 10.5 O'Clock corners, thus artifically increasing armor angle on the side and front. A Tiger standing frontal to a T-34 was actually easier to knock out as if the crew used that manouver. Since I'm sure the armor penetrating algorythms in CMBB could realize this advantage, it would be quite handy if the Tiger (and other tanks) wouldn't always insist on turning straight to the enemy. Maybe it could be an option somehow to disable this temporary for individual units? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brightblade Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 I support that. It would be much more realistic. Another good feature would be to allow the drivers of tanks with slow or very slow turrets to help the gunner, as it was done in real life. The driver turned the tank roughly in the direction of the target and the gunner would just have to do the fine adjustment. Where is the teamplay of tank crews in the game? There could also be differences depending on the experience... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Porajkl Posted February 2, 2003 Share Posted February 2, 2003 Tanks with slow turrets already turn in place to overcome low turning speed of turret. They did that in CMBO too, as a matter of fact. Watch more closely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeauCoupDinkyDau Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 Bug, it's a bug. CM is one giant, gamey bug. That's how they designed it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted February 3, 2003 Share Posted February 3, 2003 We had this argument in 1999. I don't think Steve has changed his stance on it. I have not been able to come up with any new info that would conclusivly prove oblique Panzers either. "Sorry Fionn and others, I am utterly UNCONVINCED that we should come up with some mathematically precise, right on the money, straight out of the training manual, do it right every single time, in every single instance behavior for the TacAI. It is utterly artificial and way, way, way too theoretical to say that this happened ALL the time, every time. You have GOT to remember that anecdotal evidence, and even training manuals, is not conclusive proof that something was done and/or worked more often than not. Remember our big discussion about sandbags and PF protection? Here we had the opposite problem. There was incontrovertible evidence to support the facts that sandbags were piled up on tanks in at least one US armored division, and probably others. There was obviously a concerted effort within these formations to use sandbags, so I am sure we could have round manuals if we dug hard enough specifying how to secure the bags (these would have been field printed, so not likely to be found in any case). So why doesn't CM simulate sandbags? Because from all accounts they didn't work, so why bother? What the sandbag thing shows is that science and frontline behavior don't necessarily go hand in hand. This angle thing is similar, but from the opposite way around. Some nerdy German scientist came up with the PERFECT mathematical equation and a tactic was created from it and printed up in the manual. I do not doubt that some tankers (veteran Tiger tankers in particular) followed this tactic in some cases. But I absolutely believe, with unshakeable faith, that this was not a tactic that was followed with robotic like precision in each and every case encountered on the battlefield. And that is what is being proposed here -> near perfect mathematical precision in all cases, all the time. Therefore, any suggestion that this should be built into the TacAI is falling on deaf ears. It is just too "lab room" perfect. As for the older tanks (PzIV), yes, moving the hull DRASTICALLY improves targeting response time since the turret's rotation speed was so crappy. I have never seen a PzIV training manual, but I will bet that it is mentioned in there for sure. Prior to even Fionn seeing the game (which was June) we had tanks doing parade ground perfect counter rotations to keep the gun on target. It worked great, so great that we cut back on the TacAI's counter rotation ability because it was, like the proposed 11 oclock feature, too mathematically precise. I am sure that doctrine would have told them to be that percise, but it was FAR too perfect. We screwed that up a bit to make it much more realistic. We also can not let a manual Rotate command override the TacAI. Rotate is not hull specific, and was not intended to being that way, so it isn't easy for us to seperate the user's desires here. Plus, since it is not a persistant order (like Hide/Ambush), there is no way for the player to tell that his tank is locked into a particular stance. So what are you going to do when something comes up from behind it and the tank doesn't rotate? Yell and scream at us for a stupid TacAI And something you guys are missing out on here... tanks do not *always* rotate their hulls. There is a range of threat and traverse distance that is factored in to any realignment of the hull. Therefore there is already a chance that the 11 oclock position will happen. It is possible to tweak this value internally to make it more likely to happen for Tigers, and we might do that. Steve" Search in CMBO 1999 under "Ammo management and other Q?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.