Yellow livered IS2's

[Nolloff]

Check this out. All the answers and more

IS2 from Russian Battlefield site

Multi-part loading (one shot consisted of two parts) and weight of shells might be the main points.

Nolloff

[Guest Mike]

I saw a Discovery prog on tanks the other night htat featured "in turret" shots of the loader man-handling 120mm APDS rounds about the place.

they ain't small bits of ammo, but all he had to do was move them a couple of feet horizontaly - the kind tank designers had thoughtfully arranged the ammo stowage in the turret rear so the rounds were pretty much in the breech already!!

Compare that to the internal layout diagrams for the IS-2 (and otehr WW2 tanks too!) and there's a bit of a difference!!

The "ready" rounds for WW2 tanks are often a long way from the breech and have to be lifted up from the turret ring or hull side.

[Cull]

Check this out. All the answers and more

IS2 from Russian Battlefield site

That's good stuff....especially the link to "details of that battle". Very interesting!

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Just to clarify the situation that I witnessed with my game, the 2 IS2's that backed away from an identified PzIVj were approximately 150 metres away i.e. point blank, with an elevation advantage firing advancing towards the Pz IV that had rotated its turret to fire at 2 T34/85's that were approaching from it 4 o'clock position. At this stage of the game, I had destroyed ALL the German armour (4 PzIVj's, 2 Halftracks a Stug & an SdKfz 10/4) apart from this lonely PzIV and most of their infantry was pinned so the German global morale must have been pretty low. On the contrary, I had only lost 1 green T34/85 to that point and some infantry in an armour heavy battle so my global morale level was not a problem.

Prior to this final showdown, I had witnessed my redoubtable IS2's retreating when facing the threat of a partially identified "Assault Gun" that was moving down a road at about 500 metres and was side on to the IS2's. Luckily I was able to reorder the heavy tanks to once again crest the ridge they were on to take out the "Assault Gun" (ended up being a Stug long 75) and it was surely destroyed. Just another example unfortunately of the "cowardliness" of my IS2's in this one game which prompted me to post the topic in the first place. Unfortunately there are no save files since it was a single player game against the AI.

Regards

Jim R.

[Redwolf]

OK, folks I found some savegames of my game where an ISU-122 backed off from identified Pz IV.

All savegames I have start are after I shot the Mk IVs up, but it will still tell you the situation. I don't have the opponents password so I doubt the savegames will be useul but whoever wants them can get them by mail.

So what do we see here?

1) The Mk IVs are correctly identified, and they were at the time of the clash. The ISU also correctly identified itself.

2) The ISU has now after the tank clash climbed the hill completely (to shoot up infantry next turn), but when it killed the two MK IVs it was hulldown.

In all attempts to shoot at the Mk IVs I only ordered the ISU to go hulldown to where the MK IVs were. This kinda worked, as the wrecks indicate.

But, and that is the issue of this thread, the ISU never stopped in hulldown, it retreated after getting into LOS. I do not remember whether it was always retreating but at least two times. It was getting shots off and it killed the MK IVs, but it was a major effort and required chasing the ISU back up into hulldown several times.

Also worth noting is that the smoke has been fired after the tank clash, there was no smoke during the critical turns.

[ November 26, 2002, 10:39 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

I know for sure that people will jump on me and claim I wasn't hulldown, so here is a shot from where the ISU was when it shot on the Mk IV. The camera is where the ISU was, the ISU itself is now obviously in the later position that it didn't have during the tank clash.

Other precautionary remarks:

1) Yes, I was hulldown. No, it wouldn't matter, since the ISU is the stronger combatant here, hulldown or not. Check kill chances in the editor if you don't believe me.

2) The movement I describe above would fit "shoot and shoot". I never used "shoot and scoot" so far, it is impossible that I accidentially gave "scoot and shoot" instead of "go hulldown" because I put the second waypoint on the Pz IV (for hulldown) and for I sure I didn't see the ISU go backwards down the hill.

3) Global morale Russians = 100%

4) ISU quality = regular, German Mk IV quality not spotted yet. I could look in the endsavegame what it was in case it matters. I cannot be better than regular, we were playing medium quality forces.

[ November 26, 2002, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I know for sure that people will jump on me and claim I wasn't hulldown.

-------------------------------------

That's what I want to say: Russian tankers are cowards in CMBB. I can agree that any single russian IS or ISU AFV COULD retreat facing Panther or Tiger (rather due to reputation earned by german elite crews than equipement qualities). But fear of PzIV is....

I think Battlefront should rethink self-preservation mechanisms for tanks. Present work well for fighting obvoiusly superior foe.

Have you read that link about IS2 destroying several KTs?

Not to confuse subjects, but there was also courage on battlefield and knowing that chances were high and position advantageous they did tried their luck, not always retreated.

You are are professional "disturber" redwolf, and I am simply a "Troll"

But I beg Battlefront: give all these things some thought.

And start worry when you have bootlickers only.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I don't have the opponents password so I doubt the savegames will be useul but whoever wants them can get them by mail.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=003135

Madmatt:

If you see this happen please try and get a save game of it and send it to me. I need a save game which will replicate the action though if its a single player game. If a PBEM then just send me the movie.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

That's what I want to say: Russian tankers are cowards in CMBB. I can agree that any single russian IS or ISU AFV COULD retreat facing Panther or Tiger (rather due to reputation earned by german elite crews than equipement qualities). But fear of PzIV is....

We had reports of this happening for German tanks as well, retreating when their were not clearly weaker. Didn't happen to me yet, though.

I think Battlefront should rethink self-preservation mechanisms for tanks. Present work well for fighting obvoiusly superior foe.

I honestly think there is a stupid little bug somewhere which make the tank compute its chances to hurt the opponent tank wrong, something like the computation of hit probablity screwed up under specific circumstances, or (crazy example) when it wanted to shoot at infantry a few moments before and then see the tank accidentially using the penetration stats for HE. Something like that.

As I said earlier, I did set up a test example of an ISU-122 shooting at Pz IV langs in pretty much exactly the situation as this actual battle. The isolated test case did not show the problem, the ISU moved into hulldown, stayed there and nailed the Pz IVs without moving a single inch.

I noticed this following: in the isolated test example the Pz IVs were poping smoke. In the real battle they did not. I wonder: is this behaviour of my ISU-122 somehow dependent (via a programming mistake) on what the Pz IV thinks I am?

You are are professional "disturber" redwolf, and I am simply a "Troll"

I wish I was professional enough to have the actual savegame of the actual retreating move

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

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

I don't have the opponents password so I doubt the savegames will be useul but whoever wants them can get them by mail.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=00313 5

Madmatt:

If you see this happen please try and get a save game of it and send it to me. I need a save game which will replicate the action though if its a single player game. If a PBEM then just send me the movie.

</font>

[rune]

You have a single tank attacking two. Why wouldn't it withdraw? Where is it's platoon commander? What was the original order? To go over the hill? Then the angle as it goes downhill shows the deck of the tank, and a top hit from a Panzer IVJ could kill it. This is why screen shots mean nothing, the save game has to be seen.

Guess asking these questions makes me a bootlicker...see how it works both ways guys?

Rune

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by rune:

You have a single tank attacking two. Why wouldn't it withdraw? Where is it's platoon commander? What was the original order? To go over the hill? Then the angle as it goes downhill shows the deck of the tank, and a top hit from a Panzer IVJ could kill it. This is why screen shots mean nothing, the save game has to be seen.

Guess asking these questions makes me a bootlicker...see how it works both ways guys?

Rune

You are a bootlicker only because almost all of the questions had been answered above.

Numbers of vehicles do not mean anything for the retreat dicision in CM, as it is obvious from behaviour and has been stated by Steve.

This ISU-122 was a single vehicle, no platton leader.

The order on the tank clash was "move to hulldown" with the endpoint where the right Mk IV (my view) was. It went into hulldown behind the small sub-hill as shown in my second screenshot, fired from hulldown and retreated (in an isolated test game it stayed under similar conditions).

Even if I ordered it down the hill and the armor slope would be reduced the ISU-122 still has an incredibly better kill chance on a MK IV lang than vice versa. From your text above, Rune, I think you don't know that a Mk IV long can kill the ISU-122 anyway, armor slope reduction or not. Still, the ISU has the better kill chance ("excellent" versus "fair").

I want to know who you are and what you did to the real rune.

[ November 27, 2002, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[rune]

Lone tank, no platoon.

You pick a hulldown for the one Panzer, were you hulldown to the other? That is the point. Cannot tell from screenshots, hence the MOVES are needed to see what is going on.

Yes, it could kill, but the point of two Panzer IVJs is that if BOTH were targetting the ISU, then yes, it knows there are two threats. You haven't addressed that...did both tanks target the ISU? If both did target the ISU, then perfectly logical to back away, hull down or not. Maybe the second Panzer had a better chance to do some damage, I just can't tell from screenshots.

As for knowing it could take out the ISU-122. Umm...I knew it could. The one thing about this game, it forces you to learn. I bought more Books and talked to more veterans since I started working on it then I care to remember. I even had maps sent to me from Warphead, and others in Russia.

I just don't say the modeling is wrong without some solid proof. Trust me, I broke CMBB more times then you can even imagine, and when I made my case, BFC listened and changed things. [Well, I couldn't convince them to add the Spanish Blue Division, much to their regret. ]

So, the real Rune here.

Rune

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by rune:

Lone tank, no platoon.

You pick a hulldown for the one Panzer, were you hulldown to the other? That is the point. Cannot tell from screenshots, hence the MOVES are needed to see what is going on.

I agree that the movies would be better. This is meant to offer what I have.

Hulldown or not does not matter since even hull-up the ISU-122 is the stronger AFV than any Pz IV.

Yes, it could kill, but the point of two Panzer IVJs is that if BOTH were targetting the ISU, then yes, it knows there are two threats. You haven't addressed that...did both tanks target the ISU? If both did target the ISU, then perfectly logical to back away, hull down or not. Maybe the second Panzer had a better chance to do some damage, I just can't tell from screenshots.

I agree that it would be logical to pull back for this reason, but this isn't in CM. I repeat, CM does not take the number of threats into account.

I had the ISU four or more times come into LOS of one Panzer IV. I do not remember each detail, however there is a pretty easy hint. Both are dead now and unless the ISU got both with one shot it is reasonably sure to assume there has been only one in LOS in the later clashes

The angles involved here also mean that even if both have LOS none of them would be enough to the side to get a shot at the thinner side armor. And as far as I know the retreat decision of CM does not take the own facing into account, only the enemy facing.

As for knowing it could take out the ISU-122. Umm...I knew it could. The one thing about this game, it forces you to learn. I bought more Books and talked to more veterans since I started working on it then I care to remember. I even had maps sent to me from Warphead, and others in Russia.

Errr, yes. Nobody doubts that. The only issue here is that tanks retreat from situations where they shouldn't accourding to the game's design.

The only reason I started posting this lame-ass screenshot thingy is that the earliest autosave I have is after the tank clashes, and I think it still contributed to clean up some thing, notiably terrain, conditions and opponents.

I know it isn't perfect but it certainly is better than nothing.

And I offered the actual savegames (starting from this situation) by mail.

[Redwolf]

So here is a question for somebody at BFC:

is it possible that the ISU retreats to reload?

In the real world it would make sense to retreat during the long reload phase of an ISU-122, facing a faster firing opponents. And I know real-world tankers from today are trained to do so, too. But I would be surprised if CM models this. Does it?

[Nolloff]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I repeat, CM does not take the number of threats into account.

[/QB]

Redwolf,

might be a stupid question but maybe I missed this point: I thought the number or units, friendlies or foes do not matter. Seems I missed the "number of threats doesn´t matter part" in this or earlier discussions. Could you point me at where this was said? I was under the impression that the number of direct threats to a unit does matter.

Thanks

Nolloff

[ November 27, 2002, 11:16 AM: Message edited by: Nolloff ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Nolloff:

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

I repeat, CM does not take the number of threats into account.

Redwolf,

might be a stupid question but maybe I missed this point: I thought the number or units, friendlies or foes do not matter. Seems I missed the "number of threats doesn´t matter part" in this or earlier discussions. Could you point me at where this was said? I was under the impression that the number of direct threats to a unit does matter.

Thanks

Nolloff[/QB]</font>

[Nolloff]

Thanks. I see. My understanding of what Steve said was that the number of units does not matter. A unitin sight is not automatically considered a threat. See for example my "test" where I ran the IS2s up on the ridge and getting targetted specifically was enough to make a difference between stay and shoot and retreat What I saw in my games seems to indicate that there is a distinction between number of enemy units and number of threats.

Eg. when seen from the perspective of a IS2 facing three or ten PzIVs or being accompanied by five or twenty IS2s does not matter.

But getting targetted by two out of the three PzIVs makes a difference compared to a situation where the IS2 is only targetted by one PzIV.

At least that´s how I thought it works.

Regards,

Nolloff

[rune]

Noloff is correct, the number of tanks does not matter. The threats from each tank are figured in. So, while the first Panzer IVJ may not have been considered a high threat, the second panzer IVJ may have had a side shot, and therefore a higher risk.

At this point all of us are only guessing. If you get the circumstances again, forward them to Matt, and copy me.

The thing is, there could have been a logical reason for what happened. Don't call for code change until we can prove a problem.

Rune

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by rune:

Noloff is correct, the number of tanks does not matter. The threats from each tank are figured in. So, while the first Panzer IVJ may not have been considered a high threat, the second panzer IVJ may have had a side shot, and therefore a higher risk.

No, there is no way the second one could get a side shot off at this angles involved.

And my isolated test case where the ISU didn't retreat had the same angles.

The thing is, there could have been a logical reason for what happened. Don't call for code change until we can prove a problem.

And I thought we were working on that here? Nobody seriously suggested any code change yet. We don't understand what happens nobody has a real savegame, so we do this communication thing to see whether there are similarities of my case with other cases.

[rune]

Not from you, but this quote:

"I think Battlefront should rethink self-preservation mechanisms for tanks. Present work well for fighting obvoiusly superior foe."

would require a code change. Again, unless a problem is defintiely determined, any code changes should not even be considered.

Rune

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by rune:

Again, unless a problem is defintiely determined, any code changes should not even be considered.

Rune, I'm really not sure why you even mention this. Of course not because there wouldn't be a change to make in first place.

We have a number of reports that there might be a problem somewhere, a complex one which doesn't show up in simple testcases, and we try to narrow it down by making our descriptions more precise, with the resources we have. If we succeed, then we will be able to either come up with an artificial test showing the behaviour, or somebody will look over this thread and say "hey, I had exactly this and here's my savegame".

I can never understand why people read threads they think are pointless and then add to the threads stating they are pointless, thereby making them less pointful.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

You need to get Treeburst155 to run one of his patented blue collar tests of 100 trials each involving several different AFV matchups.

[rune]

Quit putting words in my mouth. Twice Cpt states he things it is wrong and there should be a mechanism to check for these situations. All I am doing is saying the call for that is too soon, that more proof is needed one way or the other. If you read what I typed, I said if you get the situation to send to matt and copy me so I can present a case. Gee, that doesn't sounds like I am calling this pointless.

Since you state "we" have a number of reports...where? You had a case where it may or may not have been a reason. No proof one way or the other.

That is twice you read into what I say, or resort to insults. Let us just deal with the facts at hand.

Rune

[ November 27, 2002, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: rune ]

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

Ok, let me get this straight... this ISU killed 2xPzIVs, yet it is cowardly and impossible to control in general? Hey, pretty good results from a whimp As for:

I know for sure that people will jump on me and claim I wasn't hulldown, so here...

I think the mouse text should be saying "Hull Down" if you in fact are. Remember, you can't rely upon your eye to determine Hull Down status.

Cpt.Kloss,

Russian tankers are cowards in CMBB.

Repeating something doesn't make it true. Just check out another popular thread to see evidence of that.

I think Battlefront should rethink self-preservation mechanisms for tanks.

When we see some save game files which we can identify specific behaviors that could use tweaking, sure. But accusing us of purposefully making the German tankers better than Soviet ones hardly adds anything positive to the discussion.

I beg Battlefront: give all these things some thought.

No begging necessary since we are always open to see what we can do to make improvements where needed and when possible. However, challenge you to give this some thought...

And start worry when you have bootlickers only.

I don't know why people like you confuse empty charges and insults with critical and potentially positive discussion. And I am not worried about just having bootlickers. We have plenty of critical thinkers on this forum. So far I do not include you in their ranks. The funny thing is that critical thinkers want bootlickers and empty whiners both to exit this Forum. Why? Because neither contribute to constructive critical discussions.

Redwolf,

is it possible that the ISU retreats to reload?

Sorta. If the vehicle feels that it is imediately threatened, and can not counter that threat fairly quickly, it might seek cover. I stress *might*. Depends on far too many factors, which is why I keep harpping on the uselessness of discussing the finer points and instead why I need to see save files.

The IS and ISU family have fairly poor reload times. This might be an issue getting involved here.

Nolloff,

My understanding of what Steve said was that the number of units does not matter. A unitin sight is not automatically considered a threat.

Just to echo Rune's answer... yes, this is correct. The AI can not coordinate relationships between all friends and foes on the field, but it is VERY aware of multipe threats to itself. This multiplies several of the defense factors above, such as taking non killing hits, feeling of insecurity, etc. And I trust the TacAI to be more aware of what constitutes a threat to itself than the player, if for no other reason than the player's feedback is much more generic than the real thing in the game.

Redwolf,

I can never understand why people read threads they think are pointless and then add to the threads stating they are pointless, thereby making them less pointful.

Because many of these threads don't have a point worth much to start with. I'm not saying this one is, but plenty of "gripe" threads turn out to be utter bunk. Someone has to debunk them because the original poster sometimes refuses to look any deeper than "this sucks". Plus, when someone starts repeating something as if it is established fact, and it is really not true, it can take on a life of its own. This then crops up in other discussions by more than the original people involved. This generally makes other discussions less productive. I won't take any examples from other threads, but things in this thread are examples:

"Sometimes I think that someone from Battlefront has a great love for german army to the extend of bending history"

"What's the conclussion? CMBB german are UBER. Get use to it."

"Numbers of vehicles do not mean anything for the retreat dicision in CM, as it is obvious from behaviour and has been stated by Steve."

And that is just from two posts by two members contained in 2 pages of a 4 page thread. These are statements that are made with authority they do not have. Contrast this with another statement from Page 1:

"And as far as I can tell, the crew quality does not influence CM's decision to back off of a tank clash."

This is as incorrect as the previous 3, but stated in the form of speculation. If I had been involved in the coversation earlier I would have pointed out that this was incorrect just to be helpful to the discussion rather than to nip some urban legand in the budd, like the other statements.

Just more food for thought.

Having said that, I am myself curious to know if there is perhaps some sort of "silly" bug as Redwolf put it. There might very well be. But figuring this out is difficult to do without a save file.

Steve