c3k Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Madmatt, Testing the April 8th build of the 1.03 beta. I was only concerned with the "guns behind a hill" issue; I used a combination of early 45mm ATG's and 76.2mm/L16 (?) guns(to ensure low probability of damage) against Tigers and StuG IIIF's. 14 guns, evenly split, versus 10 AFV's - either all Tigers or all StuG's. All guns and AFV's were veteran. The latest results were much more in line with what one would expect. The Tigers did well, but were unable to hit 2-3 guns before their HE loadout was exhausted. One of these guns (a low velocity 76.2mm regimental infantry gun) knocked out a Tiger at 750 meters! (Hurrah for them.) This could well represent the difficulties of a flat trajectory weapon going up against an optimally sited high trajectory weapon. The same test with the 75mm/L43 StuG's resulted in all but one of the guns being eliminated. A more even field with regard to trajectories. In short, regarding the issue of un-hittable guns behind a crest, I am satisfied with the results obtained with this patch. I did not test for any other issues (tanks spinning in place?). Thanks for the work! Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Originally posted by LeeW: When plotting a fast move forward waypoint and then a 45 degree turn to the next waypoint 5 or so meters further on, many times the vehicle will overshoot one of the waypoints and make a 180 degree turn to go back to it. Often this leaves the rear of the vehicle facing the enemy. I posted the explanation here: http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=006762 The TacAI is rewriting your fast path, so your second-to-last waypoint ends up being elsewhere than you though. Your short move to the last waypoint will then turn it with the back towards that rewritten second-to-last point - which is usually an entirely different facing than what your human-plotted path would have gotten. See the other thread for more detail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeW Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Redwolf Yep, seen your post, but still believe it is an issue that needs to be fixed and wanted to make sure that it was posted in this thread as well. Vehicles aren't going to be running around in circles on the battlefield usually. I've seen this behavior often and it really messes up the timing of an attack. In one test I had 10 tracks run the pattern and all 10 of them turned 180 degress at the end of the move. This is not accecptable behavior to me. LeeW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Gents, Just tested the overturn behavior. One simple test with PzIVF's. It seems that the "bug" is dependent on several conditions: speed of the vehicle when it turns; the turn point is the LAST waypoint; the turn point is placed VERY close to the previous waypoint. In essence, it appears that the TacAI is endeavoring to get your tank to the location of the last waypoint, but the speed and turning radius and closeness of the waypoint prevents it. When the distance between the last and the next-to-last waypoint is great enough, the vehicle/TacAI is able to get to the endpoint with minimal oversteer. Is this consistent with the behavior others have noted? This behavior seems to be present in the April 8th beta build. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeW Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Using the 1.03b patch. The worst case I've seen was using a half track. Had two way points. Fast 30 meters or so to number 1 way point and then a 45 degree turn fast to number 2 waypoint about 8 meters or so. I took several minutes to perform this simple task. It over shot number 1 way point, turned around very slowly, came back to number 1 way point and then slowly turned again to line up with number 2 way point, then finished its move. So it seems that either way point can be over shot and require a 180 degree turn in place to go back. It does seem that the fast command will produce more of this type of behavior. LeeW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeW Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Also you can observe that the unit will just stop moving and won't do anything until the start of a new turn. Then it will start up again and try to finish its move. Sometimes it will take more than one turn before it decides to move again. LeeW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Originally posted by c3k: Just tested the overturn behavior. One simple test with PzIVF's. It seems that the "bug" is dependent on several conditions: speed of the vehicle when it turns; the turn point is the LAST waypoint; the turn point is placed VERY close to the previous waypoint. In essence, it appears that the TacAI is endeavoring to get your tank to the location of the last waypoint, but the speed and turning radius and closeness of the waypoint prevents it. When the distance between the last and the next-to-last waypoint is great enough, the vehicle/TacAI is able to get to the endpoint with minimal oversteer. Is this consistent with the behavior others have noted? Yes, that is it. It is not a bug, it is intended behaviour gone wrong. I would highly prefer if BFC could just remove this behaviour from the code (no TacAI rewriting of user's path no matter how sharp the turn is). The cure is worse than the problem here. Personally I'd like the slow turns reverterted to CMBO speeds up, too, this just doesn't seem right. Everytime I see a tank turn in history channel I weep because they are so much faster than mine. [ April 09, 2003, 07:21 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ex Bellator Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 HE Targetting Bug Is Fixed! Great job BFC - using the second (and latest AFAIK) ver of 1.03 Beta I set up a test to see if units behind ridges and on reverse slopes were still immune, and that HE firers still ploughed all their rounds into to the crest short of the target. 9 Stugs with max HE firing at various ranges against a Sov Inf Battalion and 9 AT guns (out of ammo). The map had two big 'steps' and I scattered the Soviets all over them, almost all were on top of or the reverse of the crests. Hopefully the screenie works and shows the situation. In no case was any kind of unit immune to HE fire, the Stugs got them all quite quickly. There were lots of 'overs' and 'shorts' but they were all simple misses, it seemed that half the shells at were bang on target immidiately. It looks like BFC nailed it, unless anyone else has found something contrary I am conviced it is sorted. [Edit] To try to get the infernal screenie up, (thanks Compassion). Also to add that I have run the test several times and have seen thousands of HE shots now. They will definitely kill their target every time eventually, and never repeatedly hit ridges or 'walk' to a target [ April 09, 2003, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: Rex Bellator ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tracer Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 I agree with Rex Bellator on the HE targeting bug issue being fixed. I ran a QB using the updated beta patch I noticed a BIG IMPROVEMENT without taking away from the "realisim" of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted April 9, 2003 Author Share Posted April 9, 2003 If someone could send me a save game (with orders issued) which clearly displays the waypoint/turn issue mentioned above I would appreciate it. Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackVoid Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Battlefront, please reduce the chance for wet terrain!!! It is wet all the time. Overcast should not neccessarily mean damp or wet. Also, vehicle turning speed should be looked at IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Originally posted by Rex Bellator: [QB] HE Targetting Bug Is Fixed! ...extra protocol statement removed from URL... here's Rex's screenie... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Alkema Posted April 9, 2003 Share Posted April 9, 2003 Does anyone notice a difference in lethality between high and low velocity shooters? I didn't take enough time to be thorough but I thought I noticed that there was less of a difference in the latest patch. Unfortunately, I think I overwrote the older patch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JP Jones Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 "... Overcast should not neccessarily mean damp or wet." I second that. Just because it is overcast there is no reason that it always has to be damp. Please change that if you have the time. Keep up the GREAT work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Originally posted by Madmatt: If someone could send me a save game (with orders issued) which clearly displays the waypoint/turn issue mentioned above I would appreciate it. Madmatt I cannot do playtesting before Sunday. I think one of the last threads about the issues had a savegame, but I'm not sure how to locate that thread. There's no clear keyword to search for. Anybody remembers the thread title by a chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 Another recent waypoint issue, when a (usually Russian) tank spots an enemy and decides to retreat, instead of backing straight-back I've seen several occassion where the AI plots 4-5 reverse waypoints that have the effect of giving the opponent a good 90 degree side shot. I can excuse this when the driver's paniced after an initial penetration and is acting stupid, but when a healthy veteran crew does it repeatedly it tends to get on my nerves. Maybe I'll be able to duplicate it for saving & emailing tonight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeW Posted April 10, 2003 Share Posted April 10, 2003 That reminds me of another waypoint related issue. You have wood tiles with a "Z" shaped path through them. Vehicles can pass through on this narrow area. For some reason there will be one vehicle that just can't seem to get through. The AI will either try and replot clear around the woods or you can manage to get part way through and the vehicle just stalls. Your waypoints are still there, but the vehicle acts like it is paused. There might be just a little finger of woods sticking out in between two waypoints and it won't go. Replot around that little finger just right and it will go. Several other vehicles had already passed through with no special tweaking. This happened twice in the same senario in two different woods and two different vehicles. lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CombinedArms Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Previously I posted about a test in which 8 Tigers took on 8 45mm atgs in "hulldown" positions behind a crest. 4 of the guns were killed. The other four survived over seven turns and showed no signs of ever being killed. The Tiger rounds vs. those guns were still hitting the hill. I decided to check out the claim that low velocity tank guns did better against the protected atgs. It might be true, though my sample is too small to be definitive. Again, I had 8 45mm guns behind a crest on separate tracks, this time against 8 StugIIIFs (L/43s, short 75). On the first turn, 3 guns were KOed (vs. 2 killed by Tigers). By turn 2, 5 guns total were KOed, again one better than the Tigers. AND, as with the Tigers, that's when the atg kills ended. If the tanks hadn't found the range by turn two, they never found it. I'm not sure quite what's going on here, but with this small sample it does seem to be a consistent pattern. Anyway, by turn five, the three remaining guns were all still alive and had gun damaged one Stug and immobilized the other two. It could be that we're in a good enough place, now. These tests suggest that the guns are certainly not unhittable, though some tank crews seem to be unable to find the range even over long periods. Is that a statisfactory resolution of the problem of atgs being either too easy (1.01) or too hard (1.02) to kill? Any other views? Is this a good enough solution, or does it need another small tweak? [ April 10, 2003, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeeW Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Tried 10 45mm AT guns against 10 Stugs. Map set at normal 2.5 meter contours. All set to level 7 except for level 8 ridge 560 meters from the tanks. By turn 3 all AT's were knocked out. Tried Tigers with same results. Lowered the plain in front of the AT ridge down to level 6. So tanks are now setting on level 6. Using Tigers, only 3 HE rounds actually hit on the reverse slope, knocking out a couple AT's. All the rest of the rounds hit on the front side of the ridge. The tanks were hull down to the AT guns. With the increased angle the tanks were unable to compensate and make a hit. Eight of the AT's showed 75% exposure with the LOS tool. Two showed 0% exposure with the blue LOS tool. Something doesn't seem just right yet I guess. Just a gun barrel sticking over a ridge would be pretty hard to hit. I tried 10 StuH42's Same result. Four hits behind the ridge. One item of interest though. Whenever they run out of HE and start firing smoke area fire they can lay it right in next to the AT guns. If they would do that with the HE they could knock them out. I tried to make them HE area fire, but since they had line of sight they would switch back to direct fire. I then tried targeting the smoke round on the AT guns. Now they plowed into the front of the ridge. Something still a little off. Used the 1.03b patch. lee [ April 10, 2003, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: LeeW ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mchlstrt Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 I'm still wondering about the Tank cower behavior. I'm a medium-at-best player & it's the one 'problem' I noticed myself before I saw anyone else mention it. I've never seen a response from BXX so I don't know if they consider it correct or aren't really aware of it or what. thanks strt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Apart from the 'HE bug', IMO the real issue with AT guns is they are still spotted too quickly/easily. From what I have read, AT guns weren't especially difficult to eliminate once identified, but the hard part was pinpointing them in the first place. Right now in CMBB AT guns get off 2-3 shots, or less, then are revealed as a targetable 'real unit'. MGs have been made to be especially difficult to spot, which is realistic, so it can be done. I realize an AT gun firing will leave a plume of smoke revealing its general location, but I think there is room for them to be tweaked a little more in the direction of 'harder to spot'. What are other's thoughts on this? Or am I out to lunch here? Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by Ron: Apart from the 'HE bug', IMO the real issue with AT guns is they are still spotted too quickly/easily. [...] What are other's thoughts on this? Or am I out to lunch here? I actually liked the CMBB 1.00 behaviour in this respect very much. Both the spotting of firing guns and the effort required to kill them exactly matched what I read in the past. The battlefield.ru site has several memories from russian gunners and all of them indicate that the gun is pretty much immediately spotted when it begins firing. The textbook I have (espacially those of Kursk) are along the same lines. CMBB felt better than CMBO for me in that regard. Disclaimer: almost all my play is with CMBB 1.00 I am uneasy with harder to fix other aspects of gun spotting, like the pretty predictable connection to the distance of the nearest enemy unit which allows for gamey exploit. And the spottablity of the small FlaK guns compared to other guns is way out of line, there is a too sharp, too big change in spottability. The 20mm, 23mm and the German 37mm are incredibly much harder to spot than the Russian 37mm and bigger guns, the difference is just too big. Again, this allows for gamey exploits. [ April 11, 2003, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 is anyone else still activily testing the latest v1.03b verison of the public beta patch release? just curious? :confused: -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbb Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: is anyone else still activily testing the latest v1.03b verison of the public beta patch release? just curious? :confused: -tom w I'm using v1.03b in the scenarios I have designed. I haven't had any problems with it. Though I have not attempted to set up specific tests of the HE/LOS issue, I haven't noticed it being a problem in the scenarios I have played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 11, 2003 Share Posted April 11, 2003 I'm certainly still playing hard... I mean testing. I've discovered some cool new features I hadn't noticed (new smoke shell behavior, mortars coming in at an angle, tweaked troop body movements, etc.). I haven't stumbled across any extra problems besides those already mentioned. As a matter of fact some of the 'bugs' in this thread I'm either not experiencing or I don't consider to be bugs! If they stop here (with a minor tweak ot two maybe) and pronounce CMBB to be a finished product I'll be content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts