Why are tanks turning so slow?

[BlackVoid]

In the game tanks and generally vehicles are turning very slowly. I have seen tanks, in fact been sitting in a T55-AM for a year and they turn pretty darn fast. I dont think the basics have changed this much in that 10 years.

Other vehicles are turning even worse. I hade one HT that spent 3 whole turns turning around. It was green, but even then, this is a bit too much.

[flamingknives]

Many WWII era tanks could not neutral steer, that is run both tracks in opposite directions. Instead, they braked one track whilst running the other - this slows things down quite a bit.

The Tiger (PzKw VI) is notable as being the first that could.

[MikeyD]

I've found 'move-and-turn' instead of 'pivot-in-place' goes more smoothly.

Last night to counter a threat from the rear I told my Panther to fast-move in a moderate-size semi-circle, and even with the command delays for multiple waypoints it was STILL quicker than sitting there and pivoting!

[Mattias]

Speaking of which, has anybody else had problems with vehicles starting to ”overturn” after being give a short last waypoint?

To clarify. Often, very much so in fact, when I give my units a string of waypoints that end with a short change of direction, for example, a long straight move followed by a short move ”dogleg” to make it face, say, 45 degrees right from the original direction travelled, the unit will begin to rotate in the direction it was turning, seemingly standing on the last waypoint. And it just goes on rotating, if it’s fast enough it will be standing with it’s rear facing the enemy by the end of the turn…

In fact they usually end up standing 180 degrees beyond, or exactly opposite, of the direction intended in the ”long move, short direction change move” sequence, as if they have somehow driven beyond the last waypoint and decide to turn back.

I would be surprised if this hasn’t been discussed already but I couldn’t find anything on the matter. It is definitely an annoyance when you, like me, like to move around at full speed and I don’t recall this being an issue in CM:BO.

So, a bug.. Has it been reported?

Cheers

M.

[Redwolf]

Mattias, it is not a bug.

On turns in fast speed the TacAI automatically rewrites the movement path to have more radius. So you end up with different waypoints that you plotted.

The new waypoints are for a wider radius for you fast turn, so you vehicle is far more outside than you thought. If your next short waypath was facing -say- north from your previous plotted waypoint, then that previous waypoint way have ended up far more north than you plotted it. Now your last waypoint may be south of the second-to-last although you plotted it north of the second-to-last.

This is one of the major reasons why I gave up on CMBB until the 1.03 patch. Not only do I find the vehicle turn rates to be inappropriately low, the new turn scheme also required BFC to introduce a new place for the TacAI rewriting user's paths. I hate that automatic rewriting, if anything the number of such cases should be reduced, not increased.

[Patrick Moore]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Mattias, it is not a bug.

On turns in fast speed the TacAI automatically rewrites the movement path to have more radius. So you end up with different waypoints that you plotted.

The new waypoints are for a wider radius for you fast turn, so you vehicle is far more outside than you thought. If your next short waypath was facing -say- north from your previous plotted waypoint, then that previous waypoint way have ended up far more north than you plotted it. Now your last waypoint may be south of the second-to-last although you plotted it north of the second-to-last.

Thanks for the explanation. I've seen this "overturning" behaviour a few times and thought, "man, is jerry drinking too much schnapps to drive the tank?!"

[Mattias]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Mattias, it is not a bug.

Thanks for replying Red! Though the problem is not a show stopper for me, it does feels a little odd to constantly have to remind oneself to think about it (as the consequences can be quite "fatal").

M

[Dschugaschwili]

You just have to remember to make the last movement leg long enough. Anything over 20m is usually sufficient.

Dschugaschwili

[Sergei]

Or then, make it "move" or "hunt" instead of "fast" - btw. has anyone tried if this happens when the turn is fast->fast, or does it also afflict when it is move->fast or fast->move?

What I'd like seeing is an indicator on the vehicle turn rate just like there is one for turret turn rate.

[Redwolf]

But the rewriting of the path has other problems as well.

It goes off roads into the ground besides it (bad in mud and snow), it causes traffic jams, it may break or get LOS unintentionally, may go nearer to minefields (your own) than you want etc.

In doubt, don't rewrite the user's path.

[dieseltaylor]

If I recall correctly the game was never envisged to be in the micro-management school so I think the game works fine in that respect. It would seem from the postings that a 20mtr last leg is fine for the AI to work with. Also that if you are not travelling fast the AI is OK.

All in all I think the game delivers.

[BadgerDog]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Many WWII era tanks could not neutral steer, that is run both tracks in opposite directions. Instead, they braked one track whilst running the other - this slows things down quite a bit. The Tiger (PzKw VI) is notable as being the first that could.

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I've found 'move-and-turn' instead of 'pivot-in-place' goes more smoothly.

Originally posted by redwolf:

Mattias, it is not a bug. On turns in fast speed the TacAI automatically rewrites the movement path to have more radius. So you end up with different waypoints that you plotted.

These are good observations. The Sherman (M4A2E8) had no "pivot turn" or as some call it "neutral turn" capability. As a Sherman driver, I'd have to perform a move forward followed by a hard tiller bar action (left or right) to get her to turn. It wasn't a turn in place, but rather an actual turn while moving forward or backward, so there was always a displacement of the position you were in to get the Sherman pointed in a different direction. It was very slow if all the Crew Commander wanted me to do was turn 90 degrees, but stay in the same spot as a fire position. It was a damn pain in the A&& to have to rock forward and backward over at least a minute or more, just to get the bow around.

When moving at high speeds and cranking the tiller bar for a hard left or right, it was much faster, but the turn radius was wide and often there was an overshoot, which really ticked off some Crew Commanders because frequently he'd end up in a fire position that wasn't what he wanted. So, he'd have to get the driver to start "jockeying" (see above stationary turn) into the correct facing position.

Don't know of this helps, but I do find CMBB's turning code pretty close to real life.

Regards,

Badger

[Vergeltungswaffe]

BadgerDog,

Thanks for a great description from "Someone who actually knows what they're talking about".

Lots of debate on the seemingly slow pivoting of vehicles, and I think your post deserves a bump, to keep this from slipping away yet.

[BadgerDog]

Originally posted by Vergeltungswaffe:

Thanks for a great description......

You're welcome...

I'm glad somebody actually reads my ramblings....

One other point came to mind as I was day dreaming and reaching back for some 40 year old memories. I distinctly remember that it was an SOP that high speed turns were to be avoided unless absolutely necessary for purposes of avoiding enemy fire, or taking up a fire position. The reason was that it was very easy to "throw" a track pad connector link, thus spew a track if you locked up a tiller bar during a high speed turn.

I remember throwing at least two tracks (they actually curled up into the air in front of the drive sprocket) during one high speed turn, plus another during a ditch crossing. The ditch was too wide for the specified ditch crossing distance in the manual, so I ended up getting in deep ca ca from the Sergeant Major over that one. The high speed track toss was simply one of those turns at too high a speed that exceeded the lateral strength of the track in order for it to stay on the drive sprocket teeth, so... she gave way. Fortunately, the Crew Commander had ordered a "driver.. hard right" command on that one, after spotting an AT gun during a defile drill. I remember us staying up all night having to change the track and be ready to go for the next morning. Everyone else went to the "field mess" for a beer while we worked by "black out" lighting to winch the track back on and secure the connect links.

Anyway, as I said, I think whether by accident or design, the CMBB code is pretty good in this department, although I've never thrown a track yet.

By the way, CMBB has crew quality as a factor. That was also true for real Sherman tank drivers. A driver that was very physically strong in the arms tended to be much better and sought after by Crew Commanders. The reason was that the Sherman's tiller bars had to be really man handled and held hard in various positions when turning tight (ie: stationary) or performing manoeuvring at most speeds. One's arms actually would be aching by the end of the day. I assume our "crack" CMBB crews have arm muscles like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Regards,

Badger

Edit: Track Tensioning and checking was a mandatory part of a vehicle "first parade", "halt parade" and "last parade". If the track tension was loose and the track was floppy against bogey wheels, it was easy to throw a track even doing a stationary slow turn, let alone a fast turn... so it was a critical crew inspection element.

[ April 09, 2003, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]