Bone_Vulture Posted March 8, 2003 Share Posted March 8, 2003 Now that the "hull down over the hill" AT gun bug/exploit/tragedy has been discussed thoroughly, I'd like to point out an another suspicious feature. I've noticed that light guns with high ROF and accuracy - namely flaks and some tiny AT guns - are murderous against pillboxes. This is due to an almost constant flurry of firing slit penetrations after several "aiming" rounds. I can hoist a tiny 20mm flak to the edge of a forest patch, lure the pillbox into revealing it's position with infantry maneuvers and then have the bunker demolished in less than sixty seconds with salvos of hot flak ammo. Realistic or not? :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 This is exactly why i don't buy pillboxes in defense anymore like i did in cmbo. Although im figuring that it is realistic. Imagine after the sighting shots by the small caliber shells start flying into the firing slits bouncing around in there. Maybe take a few casualities or not, but id sure as hell abandoned it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 This 'bug' has been around a long time. You'll see it in CMBO, too. IMHO this 'bug' is more due to the fact that Pillbox crew (and, indeed other types of crews) can't abandon and then remann their weapons. I suspect high ROF, accurate, small caliber weapons would be fairly effective at driving pillbox crews away from the firing slit. However, they probably wouldn't cause many casualties, so the crew would most likely just hunker down away from the firing slit for a while (most plans for WWII era pillboxes that I've seen show several rooms), and then reman the gun once the light caliber gun stopped firing. With pillboxes, it might be possible to tinker a bit with the ability of light caliber guns to Pin or Panic pillbox crews (vs. actually cause casualties), but for real modeling of abandoning and remanning weapons, we'll have to wait for the engine rewrite. . . Cheers, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Three_Oh_Eight Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: Realistic or not? :confused: Much as I'm liking the new game (new to me!), I suspect it's not realistic. Why? Optics and bunker design. To trace rounds into a small opening with WWII optics doesn't seem realistic, obscured as vision would be by the crap in the air of a battlefield. If nothing else the stuff kicked up by impacting rounds on the bunker itself would do a fine job. So it's a case of spray and pray. Inefficient and more importantly usually ineffective at actually hitting what one is aiming at. Second, aren’t the openings into a bunker designed to take fire by having sloped sides? Meaning that if a round does manage to make it into the opening it must travel straight in to enter; if it hits a sloped side of the opening then the richocette won’t make it in, being deflected to the other side (L/R, Top/Bottom) of the opening instead of into the interior. It’s how I’d design one. Lastly, would a non-explosive round that did make it in bounce around inside? Seems easy enough to make the interior non deflecting (wood panel, ‘softer’ concrete, whatever) so that the bullet wouldn’t play jumping bean inside. Again, it’s how I’d design it. Of course, a 20mm round (not to mention a ‘small’ 30mm or 45mm round) isn’t a little deal, and perhaps the above would simply be defeated by the size/power of such. Dunno. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted March 9, 2003 Author Share Posted March 9, 2003 Originally posted by YankeeDog: With pillboxes, it might be possible to tinker a bit with the ability of light caliber guns to Pin or Panic pillbox crews (vs. actually cause casualties), but for real modeling of abandoning and remanning weapons, we'll have to wait for the engine rewrite. . . I still find it hard to understand why the remanning of abandoned guns/vehicles hasn't been modeled: it was possible in Steel Panthers: World At War, and hell - maybe even in the original SP? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 9, 2003 Share Posted March 9, 2003 Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: I still find it hard to understand why the remanning of abandoned guns/vehicles hasn't been modeled: it was possible in Steel Panthers: World At War, and hell - maybe even in the original SP? The reason BFC has stated is that it would encourage gamey behaviour, ie. rallied crews rushed towards their abandoned vehicles/guns during battles. The excuse is understandable (now we don't want gamey tactics, do we), but I'd rather have my men re-man their guns than have them sit there idle next to it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted March 9, 2003 Author Share Posted March 9, 2003 Originally posted by Sergei: The reason BFC has stated is that it would encourage gamey behaviour, ie. rallied crews rushed towards their abandoned vehicles/guns during battles.What is so gamey about that? :confused: "Comrade Sergei, the great communist party doctrine and my Tokarev both order you to reman the field gun that you abandoned in a most immoral, bourgeois manner!" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarquon Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 You could say that being pinned/panicked simulates the crew keeping their heads down or moving away from the gun for a short time, even if it not shown in the game. The effect is nearly the same, i.e. they don't fire and they are harder to hit. For pillboxes, the ratio of firing slit hits is *far* too high. In a recent QB I bought 3 AT gun bunkers. All of them were silenced after 29 seconds by about 10 light tanks and armored cars at a range of 700-800m. We know the chances of hitting an immobile tank (6-8 feet high) in CM. Now the height of a firing slit should be around two feet, maybe even less. It should be 3-4 times harder to hit than a tank at the same range, I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarquon Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 (double post) [ March 27, 2003, 03:09 PM: Message edited by: Zarquon ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 27, 2003 Share Posted March 27, 2003 Your pillboxes silenced by 10(!) automatic cannons targeting all at once doesn't sound like a bug! That's a VERY high (you could almost say gamey) volume of fire. How often in the war do you think 10 automatic cannons were able to target the same spot? I've found pillboxes to be relatively effective when you limit the line of fire (keyholing) to restrict the enemy's line iof advance, and you provide some sort of crossfire potential. Like if you know an enemy tank will have to move up to point X to engage the bunker you place a hidden weapon (like and anti-tank rifle) to engage from the side. Pillboxes work (or at least survive for a few more turns) when you incorporate them into a combined arms battle. Has anyone had luck 'digging in' outdated tanks to operate as less vulnerable pillboxes? Try digging in a couple Hotchkiss's well into a clump of scattered trees. [ March 27, 2003, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Phosphorus Posted March 28, 2003 Share Posted March 28, 2003 Originally posted by Bone_Vulture: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sergei: The reason BFC has stated is that it would encourage gamey behaviour, ie. rallied crews rushed towards their abandoned vehicles/guns during battles.What is so gamey about that? :confused: "Comrade Sergei, the great communist party doctrine and my Tokarev both order you to reman the field gun that you abandoned in a most immoral, bourgeois manner!" </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bone_Vulture Posted March 28, 2003 Author Share Posted March 28, 2003 Uh, and the lesson behind the story is...? 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.