"Un-hittable Gun" Game Bug?

[BadgerDog]

Just my two cents....

I don't know what causes it, but I have experienced a lot more of these "hit the ground in front" instead of the target area anomalies with v1.02, then I ever remember with previous versions.

I've also experienced a similar anomaly with AT guns dug-in behind a concrete wall with 0% exposure. With two Panthers and two 20mm vehicles, plus a 50mm Puma and three HMG's all firing at him, he's able to stand up and return fire without a scratch, presumably because of his 0% exposure. I'm not sure how one can be 0% exposed and yet be exposed enough to effectively fire over hundreds of meters? In fact I have exactly that situation going on in a PBEM right now, as well as several instances of the terrain blocking problem, even though the LOS indicator is locked on red and says it's a clear shot. I've also dropped down to the vehicle level view (target and attacker) to check LOS and I'm able to clearly see the master weapon to the target LOS (and vice versa) without the intervening hill.

Regards,

Badger

ps: If I can help by providing movies showing these effects, I'd be happy to send them to anyone who'd like to view them.

[TheCrow]

I´m agree BadgerDog. I has the same problem game after game, in different positions. It can be reduced to the guns can destroy the target and target can´t destroy theirs. :confused:

[Soddball]

Originally posted by TheCrow:

I´m agree BadgerDog. I has the same problem game after game, in different positions. It can be reduced to the guns can destroy the target and target can´t destroy theirs. :confused:

So where, exactly, are your mortars?

[xerxes]

This is not a bug. It's reality. The direct fire HE would LITERALLY have to contact the exposed portion of the AT gun, not the ground around it. This just isn't going to happen.

That said, I can understand how frustrating the situation is because it SEEMS so unfair.

But, just like in reality there are ways to deal with an AT gun set up in an expertly chosen position (which this is).

Let me count the ways:

1. This position is vulnerable to MG fire, get close enough to the gun and mass your mgs.

2. mortars, mortars, mortars

3. Low velocity HE. Low velocity HE have much more arc, and yes this is modelled. They can, particularly at longer ranges, arc into a target. Your might want to area fire slightly in front of the target and wait for a slight overshoot to take out the gun.

4. Arty FO

5. Smoke

6. Move fast to the large "shadow of the crest" that exists in front of the AT gun.

7. Just avoid any reverse slope LOS to the gun. The reverse slope positioning has a limited area in which the reverse slope works. Avoid those areas.

[ March 03, 2003, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: xerxes ]

[YankeeDog]

I think there are two things going on here.

First of all, as Fionn and others have pointed out, placing a gun (or any other unit for that matter) on the 'fighting crest' of a rise tends to protect it VERY well from DF HE, and especially if the DF HE is from a relatively high-velocity, flat trajectory gun.

If you read tactical manuals and AAR from the time, you can find numerous examples of this tactic being used very successfully IRL. If the game engine accurately models this, it is certainly NOT a bug.

HOWEVER, as others have also pointed out, there is certainly evidence that there is something of a bug with DF HE targetting in CMBB. The most extreme examples of this were in v 1.01 and earlier, where a tanks would sometimes send round after around into a small rise just in front of the tank and shells wouldn't get anywhere near the target.

While this bug seems to have been partially fixed in v 1.02, there is still evidence that there are problems with DF HE targetting. See the above referenced threads for details.

So my guess is that what's going on here is a combination of (1) good tactics and (2) the DF HE 'bug'. I have taken out ATGs placed on the 'fighting crest' with DF HE in CMBB, so if there is a bug, it doesn't always manifest, or it doesn't make the gun invulnerable. However, Roughroad's example seems pretty extreme.

It's impossible to say for sure without looking at the movie file, but my guess is that Roughroad's good tactical placement was further reinforced by both the AI's stupidity (unwillingness to reposition tanks to get a better angle) and perhaps the 'bug' as well.

So, the results RoughRoad describes are maybe partially, but certainly not exclusively, due to a bug. A gun with fighting crest positioning should be very hard to hit, but sooner or later a tank should get lucky and score a direct hit on the gun itself, which has to be at least partially exposed if it can target the tank.

Cheers,

YD

[SonBae]

I have experienced the same problem that Badgerdog and TheCrow mention here. It is not so much "good tactics" as to the placement of the gun, but could be a LOS "glitch" of some type.

T34 moves up a hill....receives fire from a AT Gun on the other side....stops and shoots....EVERY round over several turns slams smack dab into the top of the hill, while the AT gun sends round after round into the tank or the ground nearby. The situation is almost identical to the Crest-bug that version 1.02 corrected.

In my case the T34 was on Hunt orders and I was using version 1.02.

Now to throw a wrinkle into the mix, is this an intended result to reflect the min/max depression and elevation of different guns as opposed to "good placement" of the AT guns?

[ March 03, 2003, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: SonBae ]

[BadgerDog]

Originally posted by Soddball:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TheCrow:

I´m agree BadgerDog. I has the same problem game after game, in different positions. It can be reduced to the guns can destroy the target and target can´t destroy theirs. :confused:

So where, exactly, are your mortars? </font>

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Stalin's Organ:

I think you'll find that 105mm HE is perfectly capable of ripping the guts out of a T34!!

Maybe the early '40-'41 models (sorry, didn't notice first that this was an early war battle).

As for the rest of the thread, I'll align myself with the anti-whiners: what do you expect, charging face first a powerful, dug-in field gun positioned at a perfect vantage point?

[Soddball]

Originally posted by BadgerDog:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Soddball:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by TheCrow:

I´m agree BadgerDog. I has the same problem game after game, in different positions. It can be reduced to the guns can destroy the target and target can´t destroy theirs. :confused:

So where, exactly, are your mortars? </font>

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by xerxes:

This is not a bug. It's reality. The direct fire HE would LITERALLY have to contact the exposed portion of the AT gun, not the ground around it. This just isn't going to happen.

That said, I can understand how frustrating the situation is because it SEEMS so unfair.

But, just like in reality there are ways to deal with an AT gun set up in an expertly chosen position (which this is).

I still have to disagree here. What about the example where the AT gun is emplaced behind a wall with the resulatant 0% exposure feedback. Is it reasonable that an AT gun emplaced just behind a wall and being fired on by direct HE would not suffer from chips of stone, flying rocks etc, when explosions are occuring all around it and against the intervening wall? I think a reality check is needed here with this proposition.

Others are saying that if you use combined arms then the problem can be solved. That's fine if you have some choice in the force purchase within the artificial confines of a Quick Battle but what do you do in a pre-made scenario when all you're given are tanks, infantry and some halftracks on a narrow map with little room for flanking? Basically you're pretty much screwed due to the invincibility of well placed AT guns.

Don't get me wrong, I believe there should be some sort of defensive bonus for well emplaced guns but to make them next to invincible is pretty far fetched. What should be happenning IMHO is that the crew should be getting gradually attritted from the nearby explosions and as each crew member is lost the efficiency of the gun deteriorates to the point where it is abandoned due to the morale hit. Would that not be a reasonable outcome for an encounter where 13 tanks for example take on the one AT gun, albeit a well emplaced AT gun?

Regards

Jim R.

[BadgerDog]

Originally posted by xerxes:

This is not a bug. It's reality. The direct fire HE would LITERALLY have to contact the exposed portion of the AT gun, not the ground around it. This just isn't going to happen.

Huh? :eek:

With all due respect, I've had 105mm's go off at about 100 yards in front of my FOP in real life. I guarantee you, HE is not a "contact sport".

Perhaps I misunderstood your point, but the kill radius of any HE type round hitting anywhere around the sides or rear of exposed gun crews (even entrenched) is going to minimally rattle their dentures and give them a good reason to put in a career path transfer to another trade spec. For whatever reason, it doesn't seem to be bothering the little fellas in front of me during this particular PBEM.

In our game adventure, I think that HE fire from two 75mm Panthers and an 81mm mortar at less then 300-400 meters away, supplemented by 20mm and HMG direct fire should be causing more damage then it is?

Just my opinion folks....

Thanks for listening....

Regards,

Badger

[BadgerDog]

Originally posted by Soddball:

It could be that in this one case you're battling (for example) a veteran, fanatic crew with a +2 combat and +2 morale bonus. The best thing to do with what you believe to be an issue such as this is to set up multiple tests through the scenario editor and see whether you are able to generate a sufficiently significant outcome.

Excellent point, that's possible.

I hadn't really thought about the +2 issue as I was more thinking about the how can he fire if 0% Exposed thing, plus tolerate some pretty oppressive HE proximity fire.

I guess I should spend some more time learning the game (it is a game.. ), before I wade into these type discussions.

BTW, it's a fabulous game and I enjoy it tremendously, plus I've met some great people through PBEM.

Regards,

Badger

[ March 03, 2003, 11:14 AM: Message edited by: BadgerDog ]

[V]

Has anyone heard rumors of a possible 1.03?

I know there was one issue, with the being able to open 1.02 PBEM files with 1.01 and vice-versa.

Has BFC's silence been an indication that they might have 1.03 in the pipeline?

[RoughRoad]

To add some more info to the original post...

* I'm running v1.02

* The Scenario is "Katukov Strikes Back" (WWB) with my Germans playing against the AI.

* My artillery piece is regular quality and under command of +1 morale leader. Don't think it's fanatic. No German shell has landed w/i 8 meters of the gun (which makes some sense since, due to the gentle slope, that's about the distance the gun is from the crest)

* A neighboring gun (with less defilade) was taken out in one turn by the Russians-- the same Russians who can't seem to touch this guy.

I really think this is a bug, a possibility that was hinted at in an earlier thread. With all due respect to Fionn and others, this thing has been shelled for 13 turns! by lots of bad guys. I could see good tactical placement buying it a turn or two against that kind of fire, but 13? Counting shell holes, there must be between 150-200 misses, with 0 hits.

My humble, non-Battlefront-insider, could-be-all-wet theory is this (also hinted at by another poster):

1) to score a true "hit" on a gun, the incoming shell needs to land at the gun's "base", even though the gun's own outgoing fire is figured from the gun's muzzle height.

2) in certain "hull-down-like" postions like the one here, the gun's base is totally out of the enemies LOF (effectively protecting the gun from a hit) even though the enemy is within the gun's elevated LOF-- allowing the gun to blaze away.

My interest in determining if this is a bug is not to whine at Battlefront-- the fact that a game on CMBB's scale has so remarkably few bugs is amazing to me and a testimony to their outstanding work. But if this is a bug, it would be helpful to know so that I can avoid creating future situations where my guns are unrealistically invincible.

[TheCrow]

one example.

[Wolfe]

I haven't seen anything that seemed really out of the ordinary WRT this problem, so I don't know if it's really a bug or not. But even if it is, you can often get better (and quicker supression) of an enemy gun by using your tank's MGs. As Xerxes mentioned, MGs are extremely powerful in CMBB. Your tanks often carry more than one (and their ammo usually lasts longer than the HE does). When I can I like to target enemy infantry units with only one or two tanks firing HE with the rest using MG-only for supression. Works like a charm for me. HE isn't the end-all and be-all of AFVs. A roving MG platform can be a helluva asset. Just a thought.

- Chris

[ March 03, 2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by BadgerDog:

I'm not sure how one can be 0% exposed and yet be exposed enough to effectively fire over hundreds of meters?

This is absolutely possible and a well known useage of AT-guns.

You even can target units without any direct LOS from the gun to the target, only due to the trajectory of the projectile.

LOS is completely straight, while the projectile follows a parable.

If you know the distance of the target and it's direction, you don't need to see it.

Furthermore any gun is never aiming exactly at the target. Only the visor does, cause it corrects the mistake of the trajectory.

I think it's possible, that CM uses real trajectory calculations instead of simple straight LOS and distance calculations.

I would call this realistic calculations and following real physics instead of calling a bug.

[ March 03, 2003, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[TheCrow]

If you say Mg bullets can pinned defilade antitanks crew , but lots of HE rounds not, I´m sure, we have a problem with defilade.

If i can hit a small t-34 Hulldown turret, with direct fire weapons, but We can´t hit defilade antitank guns with lots of normal direct fire,Something is wrong.... meanwhile theirs destroy yours tanks easly, and remain impervious to your fire cause of the poor perfomance of yours tankgunners unable to hit o near hit the A/T. Something smell like a terrible bug.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by TheCrow:

If i can hit a small t-34 Hulldown turret, with direct fire weapons, but We can´t hit defilade antitank guns with lots of normal direct fire,Something is wrong....

Maybe it's a bug due to other reasons, but not due to the described ones.

It's the trajectory that decides.

In reality it works, too.

What's so hard to understand?

Say you're standing a few meters behind a wall.

Can you shoot over the wall and hit someone far away behind it?

Ofcourse.

Will he be able to hit you?

Not directly.

[ March 03, 2003, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[TheCrow]

"I think it's possible, that CM uses real trajectory calculations instead of simple straight LOS and distance calculations".

Why doesn´t apply to the tankgunners fire, too?

Couldn´t this tankgunners adjust fire of HE rounds to hit a defilade A/T gun?

it´s impossible to hit a defilade A/T gun en real combat?

Sometimes in CMBB v1.o2 seems impossible to hit a defilade A/T gun (meanwhile it can destroy you). I can´t thougth that it´s a correct feature of the game.

[Boo Radley]

I've had this happen to me with AT guns and last night it happened again, but with an MG. He's sitting there in a little dip of land, protected by a tiny hump of land in front of him, merrily blasting away at my men and one of my T-34's is up aways on a hill and every stinking round either impacts in front on the hump or behind the MG.

It's no bug, it's just a very well dug in defender.

[TheCrow]

jajaja Schoerner try to stand behind a stone wall... with your head visible. I think that´s it´s possible put one "direct hit" in your forehead.

I´m sorry .

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by TheCrow:

it´s impossible to hit a defilade A/T gun en real combat?

Not always, but ofcourse it is possible, that the gun is physically behind a ridge and all you see are maybe the helmets of it's crew and the smoke.

I don't know how often this was practiced, but i know that it was. What's necessary ofcourse someone telling the creww where the impact is.

With tanks that's much more complicated, 'cause the turret is higher than the gun itself. I don't know if they ever were used that way.

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by TheCrow:

jajaja Schoerner try to stand behind a stone wall... with your head visible. I think that´s it´s possible put one "direct hit" in your forehead.

I´m sorry .

Is the trajectory of a projectile really that hard to understand?

[White Phosphorus]

If it isn't a bug, then why isn't the TacAI aware of it, or the game engine, or the computer AI. The game thinks, and tells you that everything is fine when it isn't. I mean it gives you LOS and good exposure ratings, virtual tankers don't mind being blown up repeatedly even though they run for the hills when facing enemy armor in a bad situation, the computer doesn't attempt to do anything to prevent it's tanks from being destroyed, it continues to waste ammo.