"Un-hittable Gun" Game Bug?

[Industrializer]

testing testing, 1..2..

OK, I made a little test myself, this time to demonstrate the situation that a building can't be hit with AreaFire. I set up a little test scenario were the map is 100% flat (elevation 6) except for 1 spot were the elevation is 5 and a light building is sitting inside. The Axis has 6 PzIII with approx 50HE each that got set up at 270-280m distance to the light building from were they have good LOS and are ordered to area fire the building. 6 turns later, all 290HEs are spent, the building is still standing not being hit a single time. BUT some shells magically flew right through the building, impacting at the other side of the building.

Well ?? This is no almost invisible AT gun, this is a 3-4m high and equally wide not moving building! Impossible to hit ???

[Other Means]

ah yes. but i see you have accidentally used the russian early war stealth building.

manufactured by "comrade billskis best bouncy castle inc" they where used extensively by the russians in the early parts of the war to convince the german high command that their maps where inaccurate. a falacy which lingers to this day.

and before anyone accuses me of not adding to the discussion, i'm going to bed. goodnight.

[UberFunBunny]

Originally posted by Other Means:

ah yes. but i see you have accidentally used the russian early war stealth building.

manufactured by "comrade billskis best bouncy castle inc" they where used extensively by the russians in the early parts of the war to convince the german high command that their maps where inaccurate. a falacy which lingers to this day.

and before anyone accuses me of not adding to the discussion, i'm going to bed. goodnight.

LOL!

[UberFunBunny]

These 2 bugs (un-hittable units/un-hittable buildings), are they related? Or even one and the same bug?

Any comment BTS ??

[ March 04, 2003, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

[Sgian Dubh]

Eureka!!!

I've found at least a partial solution for this. I was thinking about rounds that miss and the issue of none of the rounds fell past the building. So I said to myself, what if we aim in front of the building, trusting that our gunners will miss everyso often. Those that overshoot will fall very close to the building, right?

Take the test I described, or the test that Uberfunbunny (sp?) described.

Now manually place an area fire just at the top of the 'crest'(I've tried at the top, just before and just after) of the berm/rise/whatever.

Now let that TNT fly!

I have wiped out the pesky gun about 50% of the time and pinned the gun 100% of the time. This is using Stugs with no MGs and a 105mm assault howitzer. The howitzer does a much better job.

In every test the building collapses after 2-3 rounds of firing in front of the gun as described above.

So now I am much less fearful of this placement of an AT gun because the is a 'feature' that allows me to still hit it with direct fire HE. hehehehehehehehehehe!

[PickleHead]

i was wondering when someone would use area fire

[Sgian Dubh]

It's not as simple as Area Fire, you have to pick a position near the top of the crest.

In my tests, if I chose area fire on the building behind the gun or on the ground just to each side of the gun, all of the round still impacted on the berm and the gun remained safe.

You have to 'shoot short' and eventually a round will nail the gun.

[YankeeDog]

A couple of responses:

First of all, I probably spoke to hastily. While I did some quick tests that suggested that the bug was connected to the "O% exposure" tag, I can't say for sure whether or not the bug manifests ONLY when the "0% exposure" tag shows up. From the sounds of Visiom's test, it actually is possible for the bug to manifest without the "0% exposure" also showing.

UberFunBunny:

Absolutely, just as 'fighting crest' positioning should be advantagous to just about any unit. I didn't mention this because I thought it was clear.

</font><blockquote>code:</font><hr /><pre style="font-size:x-small; font-family: monospace;">This is not correct. I can now plant my units in "HE free" positions quite easily.</pre>

As far as I can tell, this bug does not allow you to find "HE free" positions for a unit. What it does allow you to do is find position that are "HE free" for HE fire from certain specific area on the map. Not coincedentally, these locations from which you are "HE free" are exactly the same locations from which you *should* be "highly HE resistant", to coin a phrase. IOW, the bug is a bug only insofar as it makes a good tactic even better (admittedly, unrealistically so).

This last point is why I don't see this bug as serious as some other I've seen in the CM series. Basically, this bug makes what *should* be a smart and realistic tactic even better. Don't get be wrong, IMHO this is BAD and SHOULD be fixed. However, to my mind it's not as bad as, for example, the "invulnerable FlaK truck" bug in CMBO, which allowed players to implement a tactic (FlaK truck streaking across the backfield with no fear of retribution) that was COMPLETELY unrealistic.

It's all a matter of degree, I guess. I would really like to see some sort of fix applied to this bug, but since I wasn't planning on slugging it out frontally with ATGs mounted on fighting crests with my armor anyway, it doesn't really effect my gameplay much anyway, at least in this respect.

The building targetting issue is actually a bigger concern to me, as this does limit a tactic that I consider realistic.

Overall, I'd still like it best if it was *all* fixed, though.

Cheers,

YD

[UberFunBunny]

If you target the ground just in front of the building instead of the building itself, and this bit of ground you are targeting is still below the rise, the HE will not hit the building.

[Ace Pilot]

Industrializer,

Thanks for posting your test scenario. I just tried it and the building got leveled 47 seconds into the first turn. There wasn't a single round that landed on a level 6 tile.

I'm playing with v1.01. Did you run your test under v1.02?

Hoping to add another piece to this interesting puzzle,

Ace

[Sgian Dubh]

UberFunBunny:

Correct, you have to target the crest. Then you will often take out the house behind.

This isn't a sure thing, I would guess, you are counting on a stray round or two doing what you need to do. I am using 4 Stugs firing at once. That's a good deal of TNT to throw at an AT gun.

But this solution would work if you found yourself in a position where you just *had* to take out the gun, regardless of the expense.

[UberFunBunny]

YankeeDog:

this bug does not allow you to find "HE free" positions for a unit.

I've definitely found a few! It depends on the terrain, of course, but positions can be found that are practically invincible for a long time.

I actually think this makes HMGs more powerful because they may not be able to be suppressed by tanks (something I do a lot). AT guns, well, even a few seconds advantage for one of these is good, but whole minutes/entire games?

Just look for small crests! Even if they change due to the enemy moving, another small crest is often available.

[UberFunBunny]

Sgian Dubh:

But this solution would work if you found yourself in a position where you just *had* to take out the gun, regardless of the expense.

It will probably work more often than not against buildings, but I'm not so sure if it will work against enemy units not in buildings.

[ March 04, 2003, 08:57 PM: Message edited by: UberFunBunny ]

[Industrializer]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

Industrializer,

Thanks for posting your test scenario. I just tried it and the building got leveled 47 seconds into the first turn. There wasn't a single round that landed on a level 6 tile.

I'm playing with v1.01. Did you run your test under v1.02?

Hoping to add another piece to this interesting puzzle,

Ace

Ace Pilot, you got it !!!!

It's a 1.02 bug ! I rerun my test scenario (i've updated it a little bit so that the units are already set up correctly) with 1.01 and the building was leveled after 40-50 sec wit 90-90% hits, rerun it with 1.02, zero hits !!

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by UberFunBunny:

YankeeDog:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> this bug does not allow you to find "HE free" positions for a unit.

I've definitely found a few! It depends on the terrain, of course, but positions can be found that are practically invincible for a long time.

I actually think this makes HMGs more powerful because they may not be able to be suppressed by tanks (something I do a lot). AT guns, well, even a few seconds advantage for one of these is good, but whole minutes/entire games?

Just look for small crests! Even if they change due to the enemy moving, another small crest is often available. </font>

[UberFunBunny]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Yes, but this, at least is realistic. If you read accounts of fighting from the East Front and elsewhere, you will find that if was far from unique for a well placed ATG or MG on the 'fighting crest' to be targeted by all sorts of DF HE, and yet survive virutally unscathed.

If you get a favorable map, and can funnel or predict you opponent's movements, you *should* be able to occasionally find a 'fighting crest' postion for an MG or ATG that is *nearly* invulnerable to DF HE. The problem is that it appears in CMBB right now, that are (unrealistically) *completely* invulnerable to DF HE in certain situations.

IOW, a single ATG or MG positioned on a fighting crest against a platoon or so of tanks in the valley below should be pretty confident of protection from DF HE. Against a full company of tanks, though, sooner or later the fighting crest position should feel the weight of incoming fire.

The problem is, right now, it appears that the MG or ATG on the ridge is 100% invulnerable to the tanks in the valley below. This is unrealistic.

But the advantage of 'fighting crest' positioning shouldn't go away, it should just moderate somewhat.

Cheers,

YD

YankeeDog:

Thanks for your informative post.

I will be interested in seeing how powerful these fighting crests will be after any patch.

[Sgian Dubh]

Well, I spoke too soon it seems. If the berm is short in length, my solution has a good chance of working. If the berm is long (i

I drew it all the way across the map), then the fire at the crest no longer seems to work.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Industrializer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

Industrializer,

Thanks for posting your test scenario. I just tried it and the building got leveled 47 seconds into the first turn. There wasn't a single round that landed on a level 6 tile.

I'm playing with v1.01. Did you run your test under v1.02?

Hoping to add another piece to this interesting puzzle,

Ace

Ace Pilot, you got it !!!!

It's a 1.02 bug ! I rerun my test scenario (i've updated it a little bit so that the units are already set up correctly) with 1.01 and the building was leveled after 40-50 sec wit 90-90% hits, rerun it with 1.02, zero hits !! </font>

[RoughRoad]

Sgian Dubh writes:

Eureka!!!

I've found at least a partial solution for this...

This is a good work-around when you are the one attacking the gun. Of course the bug/limitation/quirk (whatever) can still totally spoil games when it's your gun vs. the AI's tanks-- the AI will still hold all its armor back and hopelessly pound away at your gun until the cows come in.

The required work-around when it's your gun vs. the AI (if you don't want to risk a wasted game) is to make sure to set up your guns OUT of defilade. At least then the AI has a chance to make things interesting.

Of course, this means that your choice is between invulnerability (in defilade) or very vulnerable (out of any type of defilade).

I know the BF crew is extremely busy with the new game engine and all that, but I do hope they can find the time to fix this.

[priitr001]

Well, nothing terribly new and/or interesting coming from me but i'll tell it anyway .

I just played "Cracking the Egg" as russians and i think i saw the same bug:

I had 4 ISU-152 and 2 ISU-122 advancing on russian

left flank, all were unbuttoned, had 'hunt' orders and 3 of them were targeting previously seen sound contact which was in reality 88mm PAK43 gun. So, to make sad story short, this gun killed within 3 turns all 6 assault guns from the distance of 200m. All of those had LOS to the gun and all russian shells landed approx. 100m short.

Doesn't seem to be very realistic, what do you think?

Priit

[Ex Bellator]

Priitr I think you should email the file to Madmatt, and same for everyone else who has game turns or tests where units are spudding HE into the floor. Quantity will get attention, and no offence to the guys on the forum, but you can spend days trying to prove your findings to them before they back down. I also think that BFC seem content to let others do the naysaying at the moment and hope you run out of steam, so go direct.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by Industrializer:

testing testing, 1..2..

6 turns later, all 290HEs are spent, the building is still standing not being hit a single time.

Oh, I would just LOVE to hear the "this is a feature" boys explain this. Oh, it seems thay all shut up now, wonder why...

[Schoerner]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I made this switch because the 75mm/L24 on the PzIVF has a significantly lower Mv (420m/s with HE) than the Russian 45mm ATG (820 m/s with AP). This means that there is NO doubt that the trajectory of the ATG is 'flatter' than the tank. Accordingly, if the ATG can hit the tank (or more specifically, it's gun), then the Tank should DEFINITELY be able to at least score a 'lucky' hit on the actual gun (or gun shield), even if it can't land a shell on the ground in the immediate vicinity of the gun.

This is NOT true.

How do you come to this conclusion?

Assuming the gun is 1m behind a crest and it's highest point only 5cm below it and the tank is even on same height as the gun.

Further assuming that the parabel of the trajectory can be linearized for a small distance of 100m, this makes already a necessary relative drop of the tank's projectile of 5 meters per 100m, to be able to hit the gun (5m/100m= 5cm/1m).

Obviously the projectile's velocity must be already extremely low, to fall that much and "fall behind the crest".

While the gun's projectile only needs to be shot with a minimum angle of 2.86 degree (alpha= acos (100/sqrt(100^2+5^2)) to get over the crest.

I don't have any trajectory charts, but assuming that the drop is only 1m/100m it's obvious, that after a few hundred meters the gun's projectile is already flying lower than the crest still with a flat trajectory and high velocity and therefore able to hit everything that is below the crest's level.

Summing up all the tests, the conclusions seem to go into the wrong direction:

I'm still in no way convinced, that the LOS/hit-calculations are wrong.

The only thing that should become solved is the TacAI's behaviour, to continue shooting although it's senseless and should know that the unit's are threatend, but can't shoot back themselfes.

I guess the TacAI should be able to do the rest automatically, once such a big threat is discovered.

In reality it's also not possible to be able to knock every gun (unit) behind a crest out with direct fire although it can shoot back.

If the TacAI knows about that and acts accordingly, i think we could live with that very good, take that as a good lesson in using combined arms and maybe the engine rewrite will offer more detailed calculations like the shrapnell-effect torwards the projectile's flying-direction.

[ March 05, 2003, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Schoerner:

This is NOT true.

How do you come to this conclusion?

Assuming the gun is 1m behind a crest and it's highest point only 5cm below it and the tank is even on same height as the gun.

Further assuming that the parabel of the trajectory can be linearized for a small distance of 100m, this makes already a necessary relative drop of the tank's projectile of 5 meters per 100m, to be able to hit the gun (5m/100m= 5cm/1m).

Obviously the projectile's velocity must be already extremely small, to fall that much and "fall behind the crest".

Maybe, but gun ballistics in CM are calculated in a much simpler way and this shouldn't be an issue. This bug came up in 1.02, as has been noted. Also, it is possible for the tanks to hit the gun, by targetting the crest with area fire. Then some of the shells will go too far, landing where the gun is. Of course the tank should be able to do this even when you're targetting the gun itself! It has absolutely nothing to do with projectiles falling too much to get over the crest! The gunner still thinks he's hitting the ATG while he should be aiming higher.

If you are so confident with your theorem, why don't you prove it to others with a test? Use guns and tank guns with different muzzle velocities.

[Schoerner]

First, i don't have the time for testing.

Second, i don't have to proove anything.

This is fundamental ballistics and no matter if CM uses simpler calculations, what counts is, that the effect showed by CM, can be understood and explained in reality.

And "unhittable" units can be explained very well.