Hulldown/Hunt Bug?

[Jaws]

Yep, seen the shoot in the ground often. B.t.w. the Hull Down order doesn’t works for me most of the time because it stops too early or it doesn’t stop at all.

[Nik]

I noticed that effect in 1.00 and 1.01 had an Tiger in hull down and was wondering why only every second shot reached target :mad: . I think that is an feature for the next patch

[Ultraman]

I've had same problem. Several T-34's seeking hull down position on ridge would get clear line of sight to enemy tanks at slightly lower elevations, and proceed to shoot 5 or 6 AP rounds into the ridge 5 meters in front of them.

[Egbert]

I have learned to send the tank into hull down with the hull down point just in front of or on the ground under the offending unit (target).

This gives me a good target every time. End of problem.

Alter the point at which you select to make your tank hull down.

[ December 27, 2002, 07:37 PM: Message edited by: Egbert ]

[manchildstein (ii)]

in the scenario, 'gef' ... er... 'fighting for info'... i ran the stug up to the roadblock and the los tool indicated that the stug had a clear los/lof to a machinegun on the far right. the stug turned and fired at the machinegun, but every round of HE landed in the open ground about halfway (~100 meters) between the stug and the target (~200 meters). at first i thought the stug would adjust its fire, but it never did... i had to leave the mg alone and turn the stug and fire at something else.. and the stug had not been hull down... so if what i saw is the same thing as other people here are seeing, it may be a problem with he fire in general and not always have to do with being hulldown.

i must have let that stug fire a good 8-10 times... and it always landed out in the open with no effect... 'trying to dig a ditch' indeed...

fwiw

[KursruK]

*bumpy* *bumpy*

Come on, how is a guy supposed to find any solution if all we do is talk about the problem. Is there anyone qualified that knows about this? It's not as if we're neglecting to do a "search" on it or something.

[Boo Radley]

Well, Egbert (unfortunate name, that) had a solution that I haven't had the opportunity to check out, but I wouldn't mind one of the BFC guys coming in and either saying we're all wet and should go back to Tiddly-winks and Crazy 8s, or saying it's something they planned on looking into.

[ December 28, 2002, 02:27 PM: Message edited by: Boo_Radley ]

[Determinant]

Pah! And you don't think that this is a problem in real life? If you're troubled about ground strikes then drive up onto the crest-line and take a pop from there. If you must skulk hull down then you have to expect to do a bit of gardening from time to time.

Hint: the top of the turret where the commander looks out from is higher than the gun. A commander's eye view may clear a crest but not necessarily the gunner's.

It's a fine line between being snugly hull-down and being accidentally turret-down. We are talking a matter of inches for a round to clear the crest. If you think that this should be easier then you probably don't do much shooting...

Toodle pip!

[KursruK]

Originally posted by Determinant:

Pah! And you don't think that this is a problem in real life? If you're troubled about ground strikes then drive up onto the crest-line and take a pop from there. If you must skulk hull down then you have to expect to do a bit of gardening from time to time.[/QB]

If you had bothered to um . .. read the thread in its entirity, you would see that no one here thinks that if it happens once in awhile there is a problem. It's when you target somefink with clear LOS and the "gardening" begins, that it continues for an entire turn. No one (not even the Poles) would fire endless HE rounds into the dirt 10 meters in front of them.

[Boo Radley]

Originally posted by Determinant:

Pah! And you don't think that this is a problem in real life? If you're troubled about ground strikes then drive up onto the crest-line and take a pop from there. If you must skulk hull down then you have to expect to do a bit of gardening from time to time.

Hint: the top of the turret where the commander looks out from is higher than the gun. A commander's eye view may clear a crest but not necessarily the gunner's.

It's a fine line between being snugly hull-down and being accidentally turret-down. We are talking a matter of inches for a round to clear the crest. If you think that this should be easier then you probably don't do much shooting...

Toodle pip!

Right back at ya, Sparky. The fact that the gun is slightly below the commander's view is not the point. What (I believe) concerns us is that the tank continues to fire rounds into the dirt for the whole minute. Don't you think that either the commander or the gunner, or a four year old child who was wandering by might say, "Hey! What's wrong with this picture?" And suggest ceasing fire?

[Egbert]

Originally posted by Boo_Radley :

Well, Egbert (unfortunate name, that) had a solution that I haven't had the opportunity to check out, but I wouldn't mind one of the BFC guys coming in and either saying we're all wet and should go back to Tiddly-winks and Crazy 8s, or saying it's something they planned on looking into.

I'll thank you to embolden my purposely-selected as unfortunate name you slanderous conniving twit. I offer the solution to the mysterious parallax error and you still run home to suckle the teat of the BFC gods.

Send me a setup of your choice and we'll settle it between your skirt wearin' confused gamey smelling prep school pips and my barechested in the winter, reaking of excess testosterone MEN.

Edited to emphasize I softened a bit as I forgot which thread I'm in.

[ December 28, 2002, 03:49 PM: Message edited by: Egbert ]

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Boo_Radley:

Right back at ya, Sparky. The fact that the gun is slightly below the commander's view is not the point. What (I believe) concerns us is that the tank continues to fire rounds into the dirt for the whole minute. Don't you think that either the commander or the gunner, or a four year old child who was wandering by might say, "Hey! What's wrong with this picture?" And suggest ceasing fire?[/QB]

I've seen men make a surprising series of deplorable mess-ups under pressure. And that wasn't even when they thought that they were about to die.

Did you never hear about the Musket picked up off Gettysburg field loaded over ten times and never actually fired?

Try to put yourself into the environment that the game is attempting to model. But then, you're right, it must just be a bug. Twit.

[ December 29, 2002, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: Determinant ]

[ianc]

I've seen men make a surprising series of deplorable ****-ups under pressure. And that wasn't even when they thought that they were about to die.

I would say these could probably be more safely regarded as the exception rather than the rule.

Did you never hear about the Musket picked up off Gettysburg field loaded over ten times and never actually fired?

No, but I did hear about the PZ II with exposed commander who fired 4 consecutive shots into the ground in front of it...

Try to put yourself into the environment that the game is attempting to model. But then, you're right, it must just be a bug. Twat.

I have, and for the commander to observe 4 consecutive shots hitting the ground directly in front of his vehicle without calling a correction is not something that SHOULD be modelled.

Insults are also not highly regarded here for gettng your point across. Just to let you know...

ianc

[Ultraman]

I realize people make mistakes in the heat of combat, but 3 of 5 of my T-34's were making the same mistake at the same time. All had been given the hunt command to the top of the ridge, and 3 of them stopped in hull down positions (2 targeting same target, 1 targeting another), and each put at least 4 rounds into the ground no more than 5 meters in front of their own tanks.

Now, compared to most other people on this forum I haven't done much reading on tank warfare, but from what I have read, this doesn't sound like it should be a common occurence.

[ December 28, 2002, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: Ultraman ]

[KursruK]

Originally posted by Determinant:

Did you never hear about the Musket picked up off Gettysburg field loaded over ten times and never actually fired?

Try to put yourself into the environment that the game is attempting to model. But then, you're right, it must just be a bug. Twat.

Ok wise-a*s, did you never hear of the word anomaly? The musket at Gettsyburg thing is absurd, just like a tank firing HE right into the ground in front of it for a whole turn. The difference is one an anomaly, and one happens repeatedly. That is the point of this thread.

And I assume by your patronizing comments that you fought in a WWII AFV vehicle during the war, and had the fine-tuned skills to fire endless rounds of HE into the ground in front of you. Thank you for your *profound* insight.

Get over yourself, and respect the rules of the forum . . . we don't use your naughty little vulgar bits in here.

[ December 28, 2002, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: tigger ]

[Determinant]

Originally posted by ianc:

I have, and for the commander to observe 4 consecutive shots hitting the ground directly in front of his vehicle without calling a correction is not something that SHOULD be modelled.

Insults are also not highly regarded here for gettng your point across. Just to let you know...

ianc

OK Boss. I promise to keep my insults fully cloaked. Even when referred to as <ughh> 'Sparky' which - let's face facts - is not even nearly right.

Now down to business. I have been invited to spot strike from an MMG fired from a vehicle that I was onboard, on a range, that was hitting the ground, ten metres or so from me and I missed it. There was no threat of me being under fire. I saw nothing.

The phenomenon of TCs not spotting where their rounds have gone does not strike me as unrealistic. They're looking exclusively at the target after all (wouldn't you?). Probably through binoculars with a narrow field of view. Those boys will probably just be shouting 'Miss' and kicking their gunner in the head each time.

All it takes is for the tank round to so much as graze the ground and it will probably go who knows where?

I'm confess that I'm ex-infantry, and know nothing about tanks except that they're large and smelly. But I know for the British infantry with the new SA-80 rifle (optical sight 2 inches or so above the line of the barrel) that firing into the ground when you have a clear line of sight is not uncommon.

So. Anectodal stuff out of period, and out of arm from me. But can you prove that TCs in contact trying to get the best hull-down position never hit or scraped the ground time after time? Bet you can't.

So this then raises the real point: Anti-armour engagements. WW2. Eastern Front. Tanks engaging targets from hull-down positions. Any statistics?

In the absence of any actual proof to the contrary I am perfectly comfortable believing that the Game models the usual cock-ups of tank gunnery perfectly realistically.

Toodle Pip!

[Krazy Canuck]

Originally posted by Boo_Radley:

Well, Egbert (unfortunate name, that) had a solution that I haven't had the opportunity to check out, but I wouldn't mind one of the BFC guys coming in and either saying we're all wet...

Egberts solution works if there is an actual target, not if your planning an ambush i.e. "o'k Mr. Tank commander go to that small ridge over there, get hull-down, and blast the first sumbitch that comes over that far rise". My dummies have dug many a trench.

KC

[Boo Radley]

Originally posted by Egbert:

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

Well, Egbert (unfortunate name, that) had a solution that I haven't had the opportunity to check out, but I wouldn't mind one of the BFC guys coming in and either saying we're all wet and should go back to Tiddly-winks and Crazy 8s, or saying it's something they planned on looking into.

I'll thank you to embolden my purposely-selected as unfortunate name you slanderous conniving twit. I offer the solution to the mysterious parallax error and you still run home to suckle the teat of the BFC gods.

Send me a setup of your choice and we'll settle it between your skirt wearin' confused gamey smelling prep school pips and my barechested in the winter, reaking of excess testosterone MEN.

Edited to emphasize I softened a bit as I forgot which thread I'm in.</font>

[L4Pilot]

To just screw up the discussion even more, my example with the IS-2 did not involve the "hull-down" command. As an old CMBO'er, I still like to place them myself. And once it was there, I had a clear line of sight to the point, in front of it, in back of it, to the left and to the right of it, with no obstructed lines of sight reported for multiple yards around. And still the ditch digging effect.

If this is an intentional part of the game, why doesn't the LOS indicator line report "Main Gun Blocked" like it does for the bow MG when that is the case?

And just a suggestion to anybody to whom it might apply: probably a good idea to edit any messages that contain derogatory slang terms for female genitalia before somebody bigger, badder and balder comes along and "edits" the poster.

[Determinant]

Originally posted by Boo_Radley:

Oh, and Determinant? I call everybody Sparky from time to time. It doesn't mean anything, but if you found it offensive, I apologise. But also forgive me if I have to say that Sparky and t**t aren't even close to being on the same level.[/QB]

Apologies - all my fault. I must try not to post when ver' ver' drunk. But that would leave so little time left. Post edited accordingly (but don't hold your breath)

[Bonxa]

I've seen this too and it's been ap as well as he. I'm against it as a undocumentet feature because I find it unrealistic.

Imagine yourself as the gunner in the tank. Now you would be looking through the sights parallel to the gun (where they?). If there was an obstacle 10 m infront of the gun, say a crest, you would make sure the gun cleared it. And aiming at that range can't so hard as to resulting in several rounds going into the crest. A little randomness at 100m or 1000m is fine with me but 10? :confused:

Just my opinion

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Determinant:

The phenomenon of TCs not spotting where their rounds have gone does not strike me as unrealistic. They're looking exclusively at the target after all (wouldn't you?). Probably through binoculars with a narrow field of view. Those boys will probably just be shouting 'Miss' and kicking their gunner in the head each time.

I would think the explosion in front of the tank would get his attention right quick, binoculars or not.

[Boo Radley]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

I would think the explosion in front of the tank would get his attention right quick, binoculars or not.

LOL! Yeah, unless the guy's a real nimrod and he thinks it's incoming fire.

"Hey guys, every time we fire, someone shoots back right in front of us! I think we should get out of here!"

Which would probably lead to yet another incarnation of the cowardly tanks thread and I don't think anyone wants that.

[aka_tom_w]

I believe this "issue" is a problem

I hope it will be addressed in v1.02

one round in the ground short of the target or into the hill or rise in front of your tank, on an occasional basis, is probably realistic BUT when they do it all the time and when they end up pouring round after round into the same hole in the ground directly in front of the tank on a predictable and ongoing basis I think we should be asking if there is not something questionable :confused: in the game code somewhere.

I think that question has been asked.

Lets leave it to Charles and BFC to do the right thing, I think they have an OUTSTANDING track record in that regard!

-tom w

[ December 29, 2002, 11:24 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Egbert]

Originally posted by L4Pilot:

To just screw up the discussion even more, my example with the IS-2 did not involve the "hull-down" command. As an old CMBO'er, I still like to place them myself. And once it was there, I had a clear line of sight to the point, in front of it, in back of it, to the left and to the right of it, with no obstructed lines of sight reported for multiple yards around. And still the ditch digging effect.

I have not seen this error on my games except where I manually target the nme tank. If the commander selects the target, I have not seen the tank to plowshares problem.

I wonder now that I am not close to a PC with CMBB on it. Can someone look and see if line of sight differ when buttoned or unbuttoned? In theory LOS when unbuttoned should be slightly different when buttoned due to the additional foot or so height advantage to the exposed commander.

Does it change the hull down stopping point?

BTW, as an old CMBO'er I also find I am rather good at manually selecting hull down but now find it less tedious with the command.

As far as moving the tanks into ambush position, I select where I think the base of the target tank to be, not the copula and find that except in rare instances, I am satisfied with the result. Barring that, manually place your units or use a combnination of hunt and move to contact.

Someone want to model what happens if you use a hunt then move to contact and see if it resolves the error instead of just a hunt?

I have not seen this error on my games except where I manually target the nme tank. If the commander selects the target, I have not seen the tansk to plowshares problem.

[ December 29, 2002, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Egbert ]