T-34s running away....

[Lt. Beavis]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Here's the funny thing about this thread - BFC could go in and change the code so that the T34s would stand their ground, and within a day this board would be flooded with "T34s staying and dying..."

I don't think most people are arguing that the fear factor is a bad idea. The implementation is just a bit flawed, that's all.

If 5 tanks on a large hill, most of them hull down, is a bad situation, what would be the situation where they'd actually take at least one shot?

His T34s were in a textbook position, and they abandon it without even firing a shot? I don't think that's very sensible. And what exactly would they do, having left the hill? Hide behind it all during the game and do nothing?

[Redwolf]

Look up CMBB forum thread "Monster tanks retreating"

The problem is pretty universal, a ISU-122 backs away from a Pz IV which it can shred to pieces. While it has low ROF it starts retreating before the first shot, ruining its hit probability for the one shot you have.

More annoying are cases where the panic goes towards the enemy. While it usually not leads to extra exposure it still ruins your chances to hit, and in bad ground conditions it often makes the very AFV bog that you carefully nursed along the roads for the last 20 turns.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Lt. Beavis:

His T34s were in a textbook position, and they abandon it without even firing a shot? I don't think that's very sensible. And what exactly would they do, having left the hill? Hide behind it all during the game and do nothing?

Just ran 2 similar test with T34s. The first had 5 85s in 2 platoons, test #2 had the 76s, again in 2 platoons. In both tests the experience levels were regular, and both groups were placed atop a hill facing a gap in a tree line 900 meters away. All tanks were setup hull down to the gap.

On the German side a single Panther was ordered to hunt thru the tree gap.

In test #1 the 85s stood their ground and blasted away at the Panther. The only tank to retrest was the one which the Panther locked onto. By T-2 the Panther was KO'd, so I ended the test.

Test #2 showed the same results, with the 76s staying in place and bouncing shot after shot off the Panther. Again the only tank to retreat were the ones the Panther locked onto to. After 2 dead 76s I aborted the test.

I then reloaded test #2, but this time I bunched the 76s close together, hull down to the gap, and then sent the Panther thru. All the 76s got off one shot, but then all retreated once the Panther turned and locked onto one of the group.

I'm not sure if this is significant. Perhaps more tests are required.

Anyway, to answer your question Beavis about what the T34s should do after retreating, I played Jagermeister this morning against the axis AI. The IS-2s retreated once the caught sight of the cats, but when ordered back in they popped shots off, again retreating only when the cats would turn towards them.

I bagged 3 Tigers, 4 Panthers and 3 guns for the loss of 3 IS-2s and a SU-122.

[Redwolf]

The backing away is extremely position-depending. For my infamous thread I had to reuse the actual terrain of a quickbattle.

In isolated tests on test maps I have never been able to reproduce the worst TacAI screwups.

[JasonC]

I do think the tank tac AI behavior has improved. If anyone isn't fully patched up, become so, you will notice a difference. I've suggested my additions and they can use them or not as they see fit. I've told players how to deal with the system we have. It is better than it was in the first builds of BB, because they do listen to feedback. Just add, players should help out people coming to grips with the way it is, by being straight with them about it. That is all.

[GreenAsJade]

And also face the fact that it's a game.

Yes, it's fine to expect it to behave somewhat realistically, since this is what it sets out to do.

But moaning and groaning about it being ruined is over the top. Once you know how it works you play with it that way. It's not ruined, it just works differently than you expected at first.

[dieseltaylor]

If I remember correctly the T34 was notoriously bad for its ability to depress its gun .......... you mean BF factored it in!. Right result wrong reason?

And while we are on busted games I find chess is too predictable can they fix it or somfink. I mean also the morale rules are crap as men always do exactly as you tell them even if it means they will die immediatley - come on how realistic is THAT!

[ April 14, 2005, 12:06 AM: Message edited by: dieseltaylor ]

[Generaloberst Guderian]

If the T-34s had a top shot at the Panther, then I agree--they should have taken it. But if they did not have a top deck shot, then any other subroutine or heat of the moment response is just making the best of a bad situation, in my opinion. If you've ever played the "Golzow" scenario, in which a sizeable number of Panthers and Tigers engage 20+ Soviet tanks at point-blank range, you'll know that for whatever reason, Panthers seam to hold up surprisingly well against just about everything. I know that the topic of Soviet ammuntion and what not has all been debated before, but after having witnessed a Panther taking 3 shots from a JS-2 at 54m, I would not try to take on a Panther frontally even if I did have numerical superiority.

While I agree that alot of things could be improved, and the various modeling, as it stands now, is less than ideal, the only way to avoid inordinate losses in a situation such as the one described above, would be reposition your forces so as to attack from weaker angles.

[Andreas]

Oh well. Once everyone who thinks the game is broken has collected the pieces of heaven that just fell down on their heads, let's take a deep breath and test it instead of jumping up and down and complaining how badly broken the game is, shall we?

All units regular, no fanaticism, June 1944. Map computer generated with tweaks to create long LOS.

1) T34/76m43 in ambush position, Panther moves from left to right through its field of fire halfway through the turn at ca. 350-400m. T34 does not cower, knocks out Panther through lower side hull.

2) IS-2 in same position. Panther moves towards it. Crests hill at 350m facing IS2 frontally, IS2 in HD ambush position. Does not cower, fires, knocks out Panther.

3) T34/85 in ambush position, 10 Tungsten rounds. Panther moves towards it. Crests hill at 690m. T34 does not cower, fires. Short duel starts, T34 only using Tungsten rounds. Pumps two rounds into Panther, Panther dies at about 600m.

4) T34/85, no Tungsten this time, same setup as three. Panther comes into view at 690m, moving towards the T34, facing it. T34 does not cower. Fires, misses. Longer duel starts. Numerous misses on both sides, T34 hits four out of 8 all ricochet. No cowering. T34 morale falls to cautious, then shaken. Distance closed to 540m now, Panther goes into a hollow. Emerges at 450m, still moving towards the T34. T34 does not cower and pumps a round into the Panther. Lower hull penetration, knocked out.

Somehow I am having trouble recreating this terrible situation that breaks the game. Especially in my case 4) an argument could be made that the T34 should have run away. Had the Panther not missed numerous times, it would have been game over for Sergei and his little friends.

Email me if you want to see the map.

[Andreas]

Forgot to mention, the Panther is always buttoned in the examples. The Soviet tanks all have cover arcs on the area where it will appear, looking straight at the spot where it will turn up. So I just did:

5) Same as in 4), but for added kicks the Panther is unbuttoned, and the T34 has a cover arc that is ca. 20 degrees off the place where the Panther appears. T34 opens fire at 690m, no cowering. Duel ensues. T34 one miss, one ricochet, then at 640m lower hull penetration, no damage. Another T34hit follows ricochet with internal armour flaking, Panther shaken. The next Panther shot is the first to hit of five or so, and knocks out the T34.

[Xipe66]

My tests were done at 1000 m and always with the Panther coming sideways behind some forest and ASAP turning its front towards the "ambushers", and 70% of the T-34's cowered on the first turn on average (some times they all cowered, some only 40% on the first turn).

Never tried with having the Panther just move along as a nice sideways target (better Kill-chance) nor did I try out different experience levels for the Soviet crews.

This STILL echoes what's already been said IMHO - the tac AI doesn't take into account other friendly units, while the damage model is open for non penetrating hits that disable (gun damage and immobilize) -- I think that's the main peeve.

I.e. even if 100 T-34's face one single Panther at 1000 m - unless the Panther dies from the guys that don't cower on the first round - all T-34's will have cowered on the second round (this was true for 20 T-34's vs one Panther in the test I did).

It's a numbers' game.

BTW, I am guessing the T-34's have at least some chance of penetrating the big guy at 350 m?

[ April 14, 2005, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: Xipe66 ]

[Andreas]

Well, I notice the original poster has yet to tell us what kind of T34 they were, which makes it impossible to even discuss the situation that he describes properly.

After my round of testing I simply can not see the problem. In situations where the Russian tank will reliably kill the Panther it does so, without running away (1, 2). In a situation where it is a 50:50 chance (3), it stood its ground, and killed the Panther. In situations where the odds are clearly against it it stood its ground and once killed it and once got killed (4, 5).

So I will have a look at longer ranges, and a bit more experimentation with 76s tonight or tomorrow.

[Andreas]

Let's move on to T34/76s then, shall we?

6) Three T34/76m43 with Tungsten, regular, same set-up as 4) and 5) above. One T34 will get the Panther in its view earlier, the other two later. All three together in HD positions behind a small ridge. Now, for the first time, something odd. When the Panther appears no shots are fired except the MG to button him. Panther opens fire, T34 No.1 bugs out. Oh great, some cowering behaviour at last. But No.2 and 3 don't. End of turn, I order No.2 & 3 to open fire. No.1 is ordered to shoot&scoot into his old position. Next turn, they open fire (at 600+ m frontally), to no avail. No cowering. No.1 moves up, sees the Panther, buttons, fires, moves down. Panther closes. Morale of T34s plummets to 'cautious'. I continue with No.1 on S&S, every time he does it and fires. The other two keep up hail fire, no cowering. One of them knocked out. No.1 knocked out. Panther advances. Finally No.3 achieves a gun hit, gun damage. I break off the engagement.

7) Same as 4), 5), 6). T34/76, no Tungsten. Same procedure as before. same problem, no rounds fired until ordered. No. 1 cowers, but S&S is fine. However, when ordered to 'Hunt', he will move until he sees the Panther and then scurry without firing. No. 2 and 3 never cower, start by firing HE at 600+ m distance. Panther knocks out all three.

So, in conclusion there is something odd, namely the refusal to fire unless ordered. But the cowering in these situations does not seem a problem to me. Maybe my Soviet tankers are just braver?

I'll try with a Panzer IV and an IS-2, and with T34s at longer ranges later.

[Andreas]

8) Slightly extended map, engagement range now 1,000m. IS-2m44 regular vs. single Panzer IVH regular. Panzer IV bimbles along, IS-2 opens fire. Duel starts. At the end of turn two, Panzer IV decides it has an important engagement elsewhere (distance 985m) and starts to cower moving in the opposite direction as ordered. Turn 2, duel continues, Panzer IV achieves a hit, ricochet with armour flaking. IS-2 morale drops to 'alerted' Turn 3, Panzer IV ordered to S&S. End of turn 3, while Panzer IV tries to get back in cover, IS2 hits it - catastrophic explosion, no survivors.

"In reality, a Panzer IV had trouble with a W armor Sherman at ranges less than a kilometer. In BB, IS-2s cower from them. "

No they do not, as a general rule. There maybe specific situations where they do, but your generalisation is, to use your favourite term, 'horsefeathers'.

[Andreas]

9) IS-2 and 3 Panzer IVH. Panzer IV in ambush positions at 1,050m. IS-2 on hunt towards them, cresting a hill. Panzer IV open fire, are mis-IDd as Panther. IS-2 cowers. Finally IDs them correctly and takes up the fight, several partial front turret penetrations are panicking it. no hits on the Panzer IV. May not have cowered further because only limited map space.

10) Map has been extended behind IS-2. Same situation as 9). IS-2 IDs one Panzer III and two panzer IV, continues to hunt forward, no cowering. Numerous ricochets, morale plummets to cautious. Turn 2, I order it to stop, and fight. It fights, but a turret penetration at weak point knocks it out. During death clock another partial penetration knocks it out again.

[JasonC]

Sometimes they behave as one would expect, of course. Occasionally they don't, and people who play the Russians a lot notice them. You aren't going to match the sample size all our games represent in a few tests. But you are welcome to keep them up. I recommend a real testbed with 5-10 lanes at a time and 5-20 run throughs. You will see cowers. They are annoying.

When one happens that follows particularly good driving they are decidedly memorable. Like the T-34 that gets first LOS to a Tiger at 70m from 150 degrees off the bow by end-running its keyhole woods, and then won't pull the trigger. Or the IS-2 platoon advancing unexpectedly through scattered trees, that catches a Pz IV exposed on a forward slope at 1000m - only to reverse to break LOS, miss their first shots because they are moving, lose one to a turret hit and break contact with the other. Or the SU-152 doing top hat drills that reverses before firing several times, missing their chance to kill a distant Tiger as a result, finally dying at the crest when it happens to be pointed the right way at the right time, on the fourth try.

These things do not have to happen every time for you to remember them vividly, if you regularly play the Russians. The possibility of them happening modifies your play. Situations that ought to be confident executions of done deals become risks instead, to be weighed carefully. The only time I've experienced comparable problems with the Germans, was trying to get a platoon of Pz38s to take out a KV with hail fire. Which they eventually did, but after popping smoke and reversing numerous times.

[Andreas]

I am well aware that I am not going to match the sample sizes of all our games in any testing. Can you tell me the probability of it happening based on the sample size of all our games then? Or could it be just very few incidences that are blown out of proportion because they are so memorable? Or at least based on your own games? Does it happen every second game with IS2 tanks? Every tenth? Every 50th? Every 1000th? How much of a problem is it? The original poster can not even tell us what kind of T34 he is talking about, and I beg leave to doubt that they were really in such a great position as he claims they were too. Anyway, he could have overcome the problem by using shoot & scoot from the next turn onwards.

Redwolf says he can not recreate it. I can not recreate it, and could not in the original monster thread. I can remember one instance, pretty similar to the T34/Tiger incident you describe above, only that it involved a T34 and an Elefant. I have played a fair number of games, and most of them Soviet. It was annoying at the time, but it has not happened since then, and not before.

The only real problem I have found was that they did not in fact fire from their ambush position unless ordered, when they did not have a chance to penetrate, even when they had a vehicular cover arc. In none of the tests did that have an impact, but it is easy to see how it could have.

The real testbed is a nice idea for testing some things - not this one in my opinion, unless you happen to believe that 'all our games' are played on testing maps with 5-10 lanes. This cowering problem seems so heavily influenced by position, map and situation that I do not see much value in a firing lane test.

That it affects your gaming - okay, I can see how that is annoying. But so do other unpredictable things. Weak spot penetrations. Bogging. Chalk it up to bad luck, curse at the computer, threaten your tankers with the firing squad. Move on. If you don't want to, we get back to 'how much of a problem is it really?'.

[JasonC]

It is rare with things like IS-2s, not common enough that I worry about it. It is not rare with things like T-34/76s in 1943. With typical "eggshell with hammer" special AT shooters, it changes the orders I give but can be worked around. It is common enough that it changes my force selection and tactics.

I take Sturmoviks because ubertanks don't hit them and they don't cower. I take 57mm ATGs because they are stealthy and they don't cower. I use ranged "hammer" AT sniping rather than flank&close tactics because shoot and scoot gets rid of more of the problem for the former, than it does for a closing T-34. But they can't hunt. They can't get hull down positions by letting the AI pick the spot, I have to do it.

With things like T-34s taking out Tigers by flanking and closing, it is enough that I don't try it. It becomes a last resort, instead of a standard drill. The reliability of a tactic is an important part of the decision whether to use it, and it is drastically lower for things like this because of tank cower, than it would be if they just obeyed their orders.

I've long since moved on, and adapted my tactics to the existence of the cower routines. The guy who started the thread hasn't, because he was encountering it for the first time. Telling him he doesn't have a problem or it didn't happen to him or his set up must have sucked is not helpful to him and isn't true.

Plenty of Russian players try the tactics they've heard about historically first, expecting them to work. Tank cower in CM is one reason they sometimes don't (there are others, as you well know). They do not need apologetics they need to know how to adapt their tactics as the rest of us have. Ignoring the cower routines is not a good way to adapt to them.

[bigred]

Andreas;

"The original poster can not even tell us what kind of T34 he is talking about, and I beg leave to doubt that they were really in such a great position as he claims they were too."

As there is simply no way I can prove that what I stated in my original post is not a lie, then indeed feel free to discredit me in any way you see fit.

Enjoy....

[Andreas]

Well, if you could be bothered to state what kind of T34, and a general description of the situation other than 'they were on a hill', or give some more info regarding their ammunition (did they have Tungsten), whether they had cover arcs for the area etc. then yes, I am inclined to not take this so seriously.

Five tanks on a hill, two of them not even HD, facing an opponent that they are very unlikely to penetrate at a range where this opponent can make steak hache out of them in short order does not strike me as a great position. An ambush (which is what you claim it was) is emphatically not to hang around in full visibility with no cover, waiting for someone to shoot at. Especially not if that someone is vastly superior to you.

Let's have a look at what the dicitionary says:

"ambush: verb

to suddenly attack a person or a group of people after hiding and waiting for them"

"The act of lying in wait to attack by surprise.

1. A sudden attack made from a concealed position.

2. Those hiding in order to attack by surprise.

3. The hiding place used for this.

4. A hidden peril or trap."

You missed the 'hide' bit completely, and I am sure the Panther commander was mildly surprised to be faced by five suicidal T34s, but not otherwise.

Please also note that nowhere did I say that you lied, or stated my aim as being to discredit you, so quit making up stuff. From what you have written in your initial post, it appears as sound logic for me that the T34s disappear. It is very different from e.g. the instance that Jason reports about the T34 quitting when it faces a Tiger at 70m from the flank, ruining his flanking attempt. In your case. I'd thank the AI for it were it to happen to me, because it means they will live to fight another turn.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Oh well. Once everyone who thinks the game is broken has collected the pieces of heaven that just fell down on their heads, let's take a deep breath and test it instead of jumping up and down and complaining how badly broken the game is, shall we?

the game is not broken by this thing. it is just partially ruined by thingS like these. it is annoying to see these silly design decisions in this otherwise heavenly game.

i haven't made tests about this, nor am i really planning to, but i have seen my tanks more than enough not shoot or just back off (usually to fatal direction) while at the same time having light tanks charging at the same Nazi SuperPanzers with no second thoughts. it is an absurd situation. T-70 the Ultimate Tiger Killer.

it doesn't brake the game, it's just that annoying design flaws like these tend to brake the illusion of being there. it's just like having to remove the molotovs in scenario editor etc.

all that said, CM is an absolutely stunning game of its own level & i would buy it again any day even if it had ten times its current price.

[MikeyD]

"I would buy it again any day even if it had ten times its current price."

Which reminds me of the upcoming CMx2, which I'll need a replacement computer to run - at somewhat MORE than ten times the game's price!

:eek:

[MeatEtr]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Here's the funny thing about this thread - BFC could go in and change the code so that the T34s would stand their ground, and within a day this board would be flooded with "T34s staying and dying..."

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Seriously though, who cares, these AI routine decisions were made for CM back in what, like 98. When BFC was making CMBO.

Threads like this just make me look forward even more to CMx2.