What!!!! (Hull rotating Bug?) - IT IS A BUG!!!!!

[aka_tom_w]

that is a good graphic to show the situation

Can the T34/85 fire while on the FAST move?

if so it should have fired while moving WITH the turret facing

the target while the turret was not rotating

in your grahic if the T34/85 was on the fast move it should have kept going fast and fired on the move until the end of its fast move order ? :confused: no?

I do not believe guns should fire while turrets are rotating

back in the bad old days of CMBO the Greyhound and the M18 would

race all over the battlefield scoring hits EASILY while on the FAST move

this was VERY problematic and GAMEY in my opinion and I posted more than a few RANTS about how bad I thought that problem was.

NOW in CMBB the chance to hit while on the move has been dramatically reduced and this is a GOOD thing.

I'm sure there are folks here who know WAY more than I do about this issue BUT it makes sense to me the turret should only rotate when NOT firing the main weapon. I am guessing you can Reload and rotate AND to can rotate the hull and rotate the turret at the same time but if the turret has to rotate how can the gunner aquire the target. I know this does NOT count here (but I will mention it anyways) you can get a REAL good sense of this playing Panzer Elite, you can make it almost completely realistic (except you can't make it account for the travel time of the round to target) and do all the gunnery aiming your self, if you want you can try to look through the gunnery site and aim and fire while the tank is moving THIS IS VERY HARD.

You can can also try to aim and fire while the turret is rotating, but I assure you the chance you can hit a distant tank while aiming and firing from a rotating turret is so close to ZERO you may as well NOT waste the round.

BUT that is just my own (NEVER been in tank in my life) opinion

FWIW

-tom w

[ February 27, 2003, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Pud]

Tree mod Yeh its my super hires mod, available from all good mod databases.

Tom. Yep a fast move certainly can shoot. The trees blocked my T34 LOS until very close to the end of the move. I fast moved because I wanted a side shot before he realised my T34 was there and rotated to meet it, just that the rotate command started thus preventing the shot from actually occuring.

I agree firing on the move is hard, and should perhaps be made a little harder as it seems a little to easy to hit something, but to prohibit a gun firing just because a hull is rotating is still illogical.

I still believe that it must be some coding restriction on turretless vehicles which is manifesting itself with turreted AFV's.

BFC, still no comment?

[bbaker]

I'm having trouble seeing your point, Tom. I agree that it might be likely that a tank should not shoot while rotating it's turret, but that implies that, while you're moving past a target, the gunner must be stopping his turret rotation and waiting for the movement of the tank to line up his shot. Otherwise the turret would have to be in constant motion to adjust for the forward movement of its own hull.

By the same token, why can't a gunner in a tank that is stationary other than a rotating hull use the rotation of hull to line up the shot?

I think the issue is simply that the AI isn't allowing the tank to fire while the hull is rotating. The AI will not, apparently, override the rotate or reverse commands to allow for a shot.

I'd be interested to hear whether this is a bug in the TacAI or a conscious decision on the part of Battlefront to make the rotate and reverse commands non-overridable. (I'm not criticizing any decision, just curious if it's a bug or not)

I'm not sure what "bad tactical decisions exposing your flank or rear" has to do with anything. The tactical decisions that led up to the situation where your rotating/reversing tank is presented with a threat have nothing to do with how a tank would respond (in the real world) in the situation.

In the game, this is probably a difficult AI problem: I'd imagine you'd have to consider at the very least the (mis)identification of the enemy vehicle by the crew involved, the experience of the crew, the armor plating, facings, and weapons involved. Yikes! If I were in the KT facing the T34 I'd likely put more effort into rotating the hull and holding my shots if I had to, but if I were in a Pz IV, you bet I'd be cancelling the rotate and shooting.

[ February 27, 2003, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: bbaker ]

[JonS]

Originally posted by Pud:

Had I not rotated to reverse he would be dead, plain and simple. I died becuase of the bug, nothing to do with bad tactics. yes there is a tone here. Im willing to take defeat through stupidity or bad luck but not when there is an apparent problem with the game.

That you were unaware of it, doesn't make it a bug. Now you do know about it. Therefore, the chance that you (or anyone else who stumbles across this thread) will be caught out by it again is greatly reduced.

What could you do to prevent it? Well, you could have;

a) hunted instead of fast moved, or

used a less complex movement order (i.e., just the fast move bit, no reverse at the end), or

c) used a more complex movement order (i.e., instead of coming across in a straight line, come across in an curve so that your frontal armour is more-or-less facing the enemy when you come into LOS), or

d) used another vehicle or gun to take out the Marder, or

e) ignore the Marder because it wasn't interferring with your tactical plan, or

f) ... (insert other ideas here).

BadgerDog and others have pointed out several times why this behaviour is realistic. Stamping your feet and repeatedly declaring it a bug doesn't make it so. If I were you, I wouldn't hold your breath until BFC changes this behaviour.

Have fun

JonS

P.S. BadgerDog, thank you for freely sharing your experiences. Fascinating stuff :cool:

[ February 27, 2003, 10:00 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Pud]

[Pud]

Originally posted by JonS:

you could have;

a) hunted instead of fast moved, or

used a less complex movement order (i.e., just the fast move bit, no reverse at the end), or

c) used a more complex movement order (i.e., instead of coming across in a straight line, come across in an curve so that your frontal armour is more-or-less facing the enemy when you come into LOS), or

d) used another vehicle or gun to take out the Marder, or

e) ignore the Marder because it wasn't interferring with your tactical plan, or

f) ... (insert other ideas here).

BadgerDog and others have pointed out several times why this behaviour is realistic. Stamping your feet and repeatedly declaring it a bug doesn't make it so. If I were you, I wouldn't hold your breath until BFC changes this behaviour.

a)I didnt want to hunt as there was infantry very near and I wanted to basically shoot and scoot.

Complex move???? Sorry whats complex about Move forard and reverse??????

c)curve, not possible because of trees and opposing infantry.

d)another vehicle, if there was one that could do the job but why?? this would have worked had the gun not stopped working because of a simple rotate order.

e) NA

Badgerdog has given great examples but they are also with stabilised guns but not why it would be impossible, hard yes, to fire a gun rotating at 3mph.

There no stamping at all, thats the cold internet thing happening again. I did object to my tactics questioned considering they are valid and only didnt work because of gun not firing because of hull rotation. I ask you, given my plan and had this hull rotating thing not become known would you have thought the plan would have worked? Im sure most would say yes.

And please no high horse attitudes needed here, they achieve nothing. Bugs need to be explored and the situation discussed to ascertain if there is a bug. It doesnt help that BFC havent commented as to if this is a bug, deliberate coding to make side shots more effective, to stop game fast move attacks working, a residual code from turretless vehicles or whatever.

[edit - typo]

[ February 27, 2003, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: Pud ]

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I think the bottom line here Pud is that BFC are probably not going to rewrite their AFV logic code when there is a work around the problem. The problem as I see it & have experienced myself is that when ordering a tank to either move or reverse these orders override everything and the AFV does not fire. If you had simply given the fast move order with a final order to rotate towards the target I'm very confident the TacAI would have carried out your orders, momentarily pausing the rotation of the tank while the tank fires then continuing with its rotation in between shots.

Bottom line, adjust your tactics a smidgen and you should get the results you're after even if it's not a perfect workaround. Few things in this world are perfect unfortunately.

Regards

Jim R.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Pud:

Complex move???? Sorry whats complex about Move forard and reverse??????

The emphasis was on the 'less' rather than on the 'complex'. Your order had two steps in it. The one I suggested had one step in it. Ask yourself, which is less complex. Then ask yourself which would have resulted in a dead Marder rather than a dead T-34.

c)curve, not possible because of trees and opposing infantry.

I meant a curve out to the left. Still, if that weren't possible, it was but one of six options.

d)another vehicle, if there was one that could do the job but why?? this would have worked had the gun not stopped working because of a simple rotate order.

Why? Because there was risk associated with the order you gave. That's why. You knew there was, which is why you gave the orders you did (which turned out to be the wrong thing to do anyway, but that's another matter).

Badgerdog has given great examples but they are also with stabilised guns but not why it would be impossible, hard yes, to fire a gun rotating at 3mph.

I'm pretty sure he said they practised both with and without the stabiliser.

There no stamping at all, thats the cold internet thing happening again.

Well, I see multiple "!"s and "?"s, coupled with rolling eyes, repeated statements, "tone", ignorance of both realworld and ingame explanations, and repeated demands of BFC. You call it what you want, I'll call it stamping your feet.

I did object to my tactics questioned considering they are valid and only didnt work because of gun not firing because of hull rotation.

Yes, well. You say they were valid, but ... they didn't work. In my mind that makes them invalid.

I ask you, given my plan and had this hull rotating thing not become known would you have thought the plan would have worked? Im sure most would say yes.

I'd say "maybe". That's mainly because I've noticed that tanks don't fire when rotating from previous play. Also, I tend not to rely on my tanks to shoot when moving at all.

But you know what? If you were to set up that _exact_ situation again, and run it through 20 or so repititions it probably would work (if only because the Marder was even slower to react). That is the beauty of this game. Dumb things sometimes work.

be cool

JonS

[ February 27, 2003, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[Pud]

Thanks Jim, you are right. It does tend to make shoot and scoot type of approach pointless if the scoot part is at a too great an angle, the scoot can effectivel cancel the shoot. It also means only ever approach front on, dont come at an agle and hope to turn onto an unsuspecting target, it wont work.

Poke me in the eye and call me blind but I still find it hard to believe that a tank cant (not just badly but not at all) fire while rotating (only when stationary).

[Pud]

Originally posted by JonS:

But you know what? If you were to set up that _exact_ situation again, and run it through 20 or so repititions it probably would work (if only because the Marder was even slower to react). That is the beauty of this game. Dumb things sometimes work.

JonS

If I ran the same turn orders but did anything except reverse which in turn made the hull rotate, I am sure it would have worked. Had I known that for some reason rotating hulls prevent any gun from firing I certainly never would not have put in any command that would cause any rotation.

Be that as it may, BFC why? This does have implications to shoot and scoot.

Cool, sure. :cool:

[edit - FYI, im in contact with Matt, stay tuned.]

[ February 28, 2003, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Pud ]

[Lt Bull]

An interesting issue Pud, and one which perhaps might be a bit more complex than it looks. Yes I too have fallen prey to this bug?/feature?. Your "bug" dangerously manifests itself when combined with another dubious feature, that of tank turning discussed in depth and with animated examples HERE.

We should remember that Pud's T34-Marder example is relatively no different to a situation where his T-34 remained still and the Marder tracked across his LOS. Relative to the hull, the turret would need to rotate at the same speed relative to the hull to track and target the Marder. Given this equivalent but relatively reversed situation, then we should similarly expect that the T-34 should not be able to fire at the Marder. We know though that in this case in CM it is possible for a stationary tank to track a target and fire off a shot. So it does seem unusual and inconsistent that the T-34 in Pud's example does not (should not) get of a shot. Actually, perhaps you could even argue the vertical corrections to the gun aim while the hull is rotating on the spot is smoother than the vertical correction required if the enemy tank was moving laterally across less than flat terrain and bobbing up and down in the gunners sights as it move up and down a dip in the terrain or behind some trees etc.

We need to also remind ourselves that generally speaking the situation that would present itself as the most challenging/most difficult situation for targeting a moving tank exists when BOTH firer and target are moving. Pud's T-34/Marder case is not one of these yet moving tanks in CM do target and fire at moving targets.

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I do not believe guns should fire while turrets are rotating.....it makes sense to me the turret should only rotate when NOT firing the main weapon.

As bbaker has already pointed out, this statement needs at least some discussion.

A few things might help this discussion.

1) Did tanks like the T-34 have a variable turret speed rotation control? Keeping a moving target in your sights without this feature would make targeting any moving target much more difficult.

2) What was the doctrine for tank gun crews for targeting moving objects with regards to turret rotation? Did they try to swing the crosshairs on their guns using turret rotation until they found a spot ahead of the moving target, stop their turret rotation and wait (and hope) the target moved into the crosshairs? Or did they literally track the target the entire time firing at the target with the turret literally still in rotation? The later would be very hard to do without a control on the turret rotation speed.

Off the bat, I think Pud may have identified a less than desirable "feature".

Lt Bull

[ February 28, 2003, 05:36 AM: Message edited by: Lt Bull ]

[mchlstrt]

I just read the entire Thread to this point, & I'm a bit confused. Is this right?

Move- Tank will continue movement, will not fire at Target.

Fast- Tank will continue movement, will fire at Target.

Reverse- Tank will continue movement, will fire at Target.

Hunt- Tank will interrupt movement to fire at Target.

Rotate- Tank will interrupt movement to fire at Target.

Rotation to execute any above Order- Tank will continue movement, will not fire at Target.

If this is right, it seems wrong. Or is it that only Rotation as part of Hunt or Fast allows TacI to interrupt movement to fire at Target. The problem with this is that it leaves out any backward movement in a firefight, & the big problem with that is how it affects Shoot&Scoot, which it seems might be the case from raeding other Threads & my experience.

Or is it some other combination?

strt

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by mchlstrt:

I just read the entire Thread to this point, & I'm a bit confused. Is this right?

Move- Tank will continue movement, will not fire at Target.

Fast- Tank will continue movement, will fire at Target.

Reverse- Tank will continue movement, will fire at Target.

Hunt- Tank will interrupt movement to fire at Target.

Rotate- Tank will interrupt movement to fire at Target.

Rotation to execute any above Order- Tank will continue movement, will not fire at Target.

If this is right, it seems wrong. Or is it that only Rotation as part of Hunt or Fast allows TacI to interrupt movement to fire at Target. The problem with this is that it leaves out any backward movement in a firefight, & the big problem with that is how it affects Shoot&Scoot, which it seems might be the case from raeding other Threads & my experience.

Or is it some other combination?

strt

I think that tanks using "move" will fire on the move, but continue movement.

Also, a rotate at the start of a movement order should behave like the order itself, so your tank shoud stop to engage if you are using "hunt". Can't test it now though, but I'm quite convinced of it.

As for the rest of this discussion:

I don't think this is a bug. Apparently no tank in CMBB will fire while rotating its hull. As BadgerDog told us from his experience with WWII era tanks, this is realistic because laying the gun on the target is almost impossible while the tank is rotating.

So the question is: How do you get your tanks to stop rotating if they spot a target so they can engage? It seems that there are two situations in which CMBB tanks do this automatically:

1. The tank is "hunt"ing.

2. The tank is "rotate"ing (the command, not while trying to follow another movement order)

I always thought it was common sense that you should not be using "move" or "fast" if you want to hit anything anyway. Use "hunt" (or "move to contact") instead whenever you expect enemy contact you want to react to.

As for "reverse", you will usually want to use it to get out of trouble, and you don't want your tank to stop to engage in these situations. So I can't really see why you wanted to use "reverse" here.

Another thing: It is a quite well known CMBB fact that tanks rotate faster while moving. So if you insist on reversing away from an enemy on your flank, you should use two "reverse" orders: the first one a few meters backwards so no rotation is required, the second one in the direction you want to reverse. That way your tank will drive a curve, thus getting the rotation done faster.

Dschugaschwili

[ February 28, 2003, 05:07 AM: Message edited by: Dschugaschwili ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by mchlstrt:

I just read the entire Thread to this point, & I'm a bit confused. Is this right?

Move- Tank will continue movement, will not fire at Target.

Fast- Tank will continue movement, will fire at Target.

Reverse- Tank will continue movement, will fire at Target.

Hunt- Tank will interrupt movement to fire at Target.

Rotate- Tank will interrupt movement to fire at Target.

Rotation to execute any above Order- Tank will continue movement, will not fire at Target.

If this is right, it seems wrong. Or is it that only Rotation as part of Hunt or Fast allows TacI to interrupt movement to fire at Target. The problem with this is that it leaves out any backward movement in a firefight, & the big problem with that is how it affects Shoot&Scoot, which it seems might be the case from raeding other Threads & my experience.

Or is it some other combination?

strt

My understanding of the issue is that when the hull rotates AND you want to fire, the turret MUST rotate ((unless the hull is rotating and the turret NOT rotating to track a moving vehicle, BUT this is unlikely) BUT in the event of stationary target the IF the hull rotates the turret MUST counter rotate to stay on the target. In Puds case his turret started out in the correct orientation because he had a GOOD cover arc. BUT when the hull was required to reverse and rotate toward the target the turret then became NO longer in the correct orientation and had to rotate back toward the target to compensate.

NOW it is my opinion that when the turret and hull are both rotating in opposite directions to acquire the target, (in Pud's Case) NO shot should be possible or taken while the tank and turret are in motion (rotating) THAT said it is my experience in the pic I posted about the Pz Mrk IV that given a target a a rotate order where the hull and turret rotate in opposite directions to maintain the target lock the tank WILL "jig" 3-4 degrees and fire then jig again, meaning a small hull and turret rotation will take place and then BOTH will stop and the tank will fire. This was a Veteran crew and it was a JOY to watch the this brave act. They got off about 3-4 shots while rotating and STOPPING rotating to fire.

I believe the issue here is that in the game, when the turret rotates one way and the hull rotates the OTHER way (so hull and turret are both trying to face the threat while rotating in opposite directions) the game will NOT let the tank fire. It is my opinion that this is EXACTLY correct TAC AI behaviour. My reasoning is that the Gunner cannot AIM and Fire while he is trying to rotate the turret BACK to the thread while trying to accomondate for the fact the hull is rotating toward the threat (mean the turret is now wandering AWAY from the thread, in this case NO shot should be possible, until both hull and turret stop rotating which the game WILL do in small increments if you have a more experienced crew!)

IMHO

-tom w

[Hurricane]

Very good observation, Pud! And a good explanation by Dschugaschwili. I wouldn't call this a bug, but I can see two big problems with this "feature".

First the fact that a reversing tank only can fire at targets at 0 degrees angle to its hull front. I get the feeling that the reverse command is more like a withdraw command for tanks than a "move backwards". I think a "reverse hunt" would make much sense. The shoot and scoot command would of course use the reverse hunt command after scooting.

My main gripe, however, is that this is an undocumented "feature". If no firing while rotating while reversing is the desired behaviour, I think the manual should say so clearly. I only read this forum sporadically, and I don't think you should be forced to do so just to get to understand how the main commands in the game work. If a tank will stop to fire while doing a "rotate" command I expect it to do the same while rotating as a part of any other command. UNLESS it is documented otherwise, which it is not. Pud could have solved his situation by using a 'fast move'-'rotate'-'reverse' combo to kill the marder, but by using the more simple 'fast move'-'reverse' he killed himself. Since the manual at several places encourages you not to micromanage your moves this is a problem.

[ February 28, 2003, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Hurricane ]

[Wolfe]

Originally posted by mchlstrt:

I just read the entire Thread to this point, & I'm a bit confused. Is this right?

A tank will fire during Move, Fast Move, and Reverse. It will stop to engage only during Hunt or Move To Contact. If its hull is rotating it will turn its turret to engage but will not fire until the rotation is complete.

If you gave a Shoot-n-Scoot order and after firing your tank has to rotate the hull in order to escape the gun will not fire during the rotation, only once the reverse movement has begun. So for turreted tanks be sure to plot your Scoot move directly over top of the Shoot part so it can reverse only, and not have to rotate the hull. For tanks without a turret, plot the Scoot move directly away from the target so your tank doesn't have to rotate before beginning its reverse move.

Hull rotation speed in CMBB is positively abysmal compared to that of CMBO.

One other thing to remember is if you have a turretless vehicle that is not facing a threat and has been given a move order of any kind (even Hunt) it will attempt to point the gun barrel at the target but will not rotate the hull towards the threat to allow the tank to fire. It will wait to execute the movement order first. Even if you gave it a Hunt order pointed directly at the threat!

- Chris

[Bruno Weiss]

I just never did agree with the whole idea of mandated hull rotations in the first place so I guess all I can say is "see!"

[Patrick Moore]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

NOW it is my opinion that when the turret and hull are both rotating in opposite directions to acquire the target, (in Pud's Case) NO shot should be possible or taken while the tank and turret are in motion (rotating) THAT said it is my experience in the pic I posted about the Pz Mrk IV that given a target a a rotate order where the hull and turret rotate in opposite directions to maintain the target lock the tank WILL "jig" 3-4 degrees and fire then jig again, meaning a small hull and turret rotation will take place and then BOTH will stop and the tank will fire. This was a Veteran crew and it was a JOY to watch the this brave act. They got off about 3-4 shots while rotating and STOPPING rotating to fire.

-tom w [/QB]

Nice post, tom w! This exact event happened to my Panzer IV in a QB. However, my Panzer IV was lost with a side shot to it's hull! Alas, my "regular" crew did not have the skill or experience to stop and fire and ended up being destroyed by a side hull shot. At least I am glad to hear that some crews (your veteran crew) will stop and fire under these circumstances!

[Pud]

If it turns out to be a "feature" it certainly would be nice to have known it . I just think the rotate between movement commands should be like the rotate command itself, ie if a valid target appears, vehicle will stop engage and then continue on with rotate and any plotted move (which has caused the rotation).

This change wouldnt stop the reverse command being a "retreat" command as reverse is still best used if plotted directly backwards as a change in angle would delay the actual reverse (since vehicle would rotate), something you wouldnt want if you were retreating.

[edit - Tom - your example of the rotate is exactly the sort of rotate that should occur bewteen moves, that is also what I would have expected to occur in my situation]

[ February 28, 2003, 06:03 PM: Message edited by: Pud ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Patrick Moore:

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

NOW it is my opinion that when the turret and hull are both rotating in opposite directions to acquire the target, (in Pud's Case) NO shot should be possible or taken while the tank and turret are in motion (rotating) THAT said it is my experience in the pic I posted about the Pz Mrk IV that given a target a a rotate order where the hull and turret rotate in opposite directions to maintain the target lock the tank WILL "jig" 3-4 degrees and fire then jig again, meaning a small hull and turret rotation will take place and then BOTH will stop and the tank will fire. This was a Veteran crew and it was a JOY to watch the this brave act. They got off about 3-4 shots while rotating and STOPPING rotating to fire.

-tom w

Nice post, tom w! This exact event happened to my Panzer IV in a QB. However, my Panzer IV was lost with a side shot to it's hull! Alas, my "regular" crew did not have the skill or experience to stop and fire and ended up being destroyed by a side hull shot. At least I am glad to hear that some crews (your veteran crew) will stop and fire under these circumstances! [/QB]</font>

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Originally posted by Hurricane:

Pud could have solved his situation by using a 'fast move'-'rotate'-'reverse' combo to kill the marder, but by using the more simple 'fast move'-'reverse' he killed himself. Since the manual at several places encourages you not to micromanage your moves this is a problem.

The only trouble with that order combination is that it is impossible to do! You can't plot a rotate order in between movement orders as the movement order after the rotate command automatically cancels it. You can only have a rotate order at the end of all movement. Pity really, as it would have solved Puds problem.

Regards

Jim R.

[aka_tom_w]

what?!

how did my favourite thread fall off the first page :confused:

-tom w

[Pud]

Despite medical advice I was busy holding my breathe for a response from BFC, been in a coma for the last few hours. I was only recently revived by someone waving a beer under my nose.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Pud:

Despite medical advice I was busy holding my breathe for a response from BFC, been in a coma for the last few hours. I was only recently revived by someone waving a beer under my nose.

LOL

-tom w

[tar]

Although I usually agree with Tom W on most issues, I will have to disagree with his assessment on this one.

I don't really see how the direction of the hull rotation relative to turret rotation can really make a big difference. In either case, the gunner is having to counteract a tank motion that is not under his control. The same thing really applies to firing on the move with unstablized guns. About the only issue is that one may need to rotate a bit faster (depending on rotation speeds and range to target), but since this is really dependent on a number of other variables, it isn't a convincing justification for a total prohibition.

My gut feeling is that moving tanks shoot a bit too well anyway. I would like to see a bit more of an advantage to firing from a halt -- even for gyrostabilzed guns. Although not statistically sound, I'm often amazed at how my tanks will often fire several shots from a halt, only to finally hit once they start backing away from the enemy. (I know that this can be explained by the ability to range in, but still I think there should be a bigger "firing on the move" penalty.)