Aimed AT fire in the future?

[Ace Pilot]

Does anyone think there needs to be an option allowing aimed anti-tank fire? This thought occurred to me while playing the CMBB demo and repeatedly seeing antitank gun and rifle rounds ping harmlessly off their targets. I kept thinking that rather than bouncing shells off the thick armor, maybe these guys should try hitting the treads and at least immobilizing their target. I’ve read that many of the crews of these weapons were trained to aim for specific spots (view slits, turret ring, treads, etc.). It probably couldn’t be done until the engine rewrite, but I thought it would be interesting to give these weapons the option of specific aiming points in exchange for lower to hit chances and/or reduced rates of fire.

Was this considered for CMBB?

Any chance it could make it into the engine rewrite?

[dalem]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

Does anyone think there needs to be an option allowing aimed anti-tank fire? This thought occurred to me while playing the CMBB demo and repeatedly seeing antitank gun and rifle rounds ping harmlessly off their targets. I kept thinking that rather than bouncing shells off the thick armor, maybe these guys should try hitting the treads and at least immobilizing their target. I’ve read that many of the crews of these weapons were trained to aim for specific spots (view slits, turret ring, treads, etc.). It probably couldn’t be done until the engine rewrite, but I thought it would be interesting to give these weapons the option of specific aiming points in exchange for lower to hit chances and/or reduced rates of fire.

Was this considered for CMBB?

Any chance it could make it into the engine rewrite?

Maybe they are aiming.

-dale

[Prinz Eugen]

Yea, as if CMBB as it is doesn't have enough new features, you just keep asking for more...

DUH !

[gunnergoz]

Seeing as the guys at BTS have taken pretty much everything (that I ever thought of, anyway) into account in their fire algorithms, I would have thought that the results we see include crew competence and the likelihood of hits on any specific spot on the tank.

But, now that I think about it, your question raises an interesting point about the AI's ability/inclination to target specific weak points on the target...something easier to do the closer one is, obviously.

This would apply especially to the AT rifles, which are best used specifically against weak points, not to mention the fact that gunners were trained and drilled to aim for those specific spots.

So far, the impression I garnered from the posts here is that the AI works out the places most likely to be hit on the tank, based upon a statistical model that in turn was devised from historical hit data.

Presumably, if the underlying data was rich and differentiated enough, it would by default factor in the results of such aimed fire.

If on the other hand the algorithm models only surface area percentages, it would be an entirely different matter.

I'm sure that this has been hashed about before...anyone up to pointing out a thread from the archives?

[Hensworth]

Post deleted because of disorientation.

[ September 09, 2002, 12:24 PM: Message edited by: Sgt_Kelly ]

[Cameroon]

Actually something similar to this came up in the CMBO days. During development they had crews automatically targetting the known "soft spots" on AFVs. Problem was, it was way too good at taking out vehicles. Perhaps with the improved penetration algorithms in CMBB this would be different, no way to know without being told though.

So then they changed it such that the crew aims at the center of mass of the vehicle. From there, any deviation is due to the inclusion of randomness. After all, it'd be kind of silly if crews hit exactly whatever they aimed at all the time

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

So far, the impression I garnered from the posts here is that the AI works out the places most likely to be hit on the tank, based upon a statistical model that in turn was devised from historical hit data.

Presumably, if the underlying data was rich and differentiated enough, it would by default factor in the results of such aimed fire.

That makes sense for modeling the hitting of the weak spots that result in a vehicle knock out, so the option of aiming at selected weak points is probably redundant. But that still leaves out attempts at deliberate immobilization, a tactic that I would assume was relied upon when faced with an enemy armor your weapons couldn’t penetrate. The following logic also applies to fire aimed at the enemy’s gun.

I’d be very surprised (but pleasantly so) if the data BTS is using differentiated between vehicle “knock out” attempts and “immobilization” attempts. I’m assuming that the hit location probabilities, which are based on historical hit data as you mentioned above, incorporate deliberate immobilization attempts, by default. If this is the case, it would seem that the chances for immobilization could be improved with aimed fire. For example, let’s assume an AT rifle team has a 50% chance to hit a halftrack. Let’s further assume that any such hit has a 40% chance of knocking out the vehicle and a 10% chance of immobilizing it. Now, replace the halftrack with a Tiger 1. You have a better chance of hitting (since the target is bigger), but no chance of knocking it out. You still have a 10% chance of immobilizing it. With aimed fire, your chance to hit might drop to 30%, but any such hit would have a much higher chance of immobilization than the random 10% chance.

Having assumed that there isn’t historical data to support the changes in the to hit calculation, I would think it could be done on an exposed surface area basis, as you suggested, gunnergoz.

[gunnergoz]

True, we couldn't have gunners hitting exactly where they aim...

But at the same time, there could be some consideration to the competence of the crew increasing the likelihood that the targeted spot was indeed hit.

This would mostly be of value to the low-rated weapons like AT rifles, enabling them to get useful hits more often.

The more powerful AT weapons are just more likely to get kills.

I suspect that the guys at BTS have thrashed this about already, as they seem to have covered everything pretty well to date. They have a reasoned response to most such issues, after all. My guess is that the existing system best models reality within reasonable limits as perhaps delineated by programming budget and research material available.

I do see an awful lot of "gun hits" in the demo scenarios, especially in Citadel...anyone else notice this?

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by gunnergoz:

I do see an awful lot of "gun hits" in the demo scenarios, especially in Citadel...anyone else notice this?

Really? I'd be on the opposite side saying how few I'd seen (compared to CMBO). Given the number of hits against those panzers in Citadel it surprises me not at all that some hit the guns. Fifteen tanks, maybe 7 hits per tank (on average, but maybe that's just my luck ) is just about 2% ... doesn't seem too bad to me. And none of those actually damaged the gun.

Actually, immobilizations were the thing that plagued me the last time I played Citadel as the Germans. None from bogging, but 4 (5?) from AT shots. Still won though

[jeffsmith]

I have noticed an increase of gun hits too

but then citadel is the first scenario I've played

with 15 tanks moving in the same direction with little cover

[Chad Harrison]

I agree with the above and have noticed more accurate shots to vulnerable locations. If anything, I would like to see a 'deliberate immobilization' command. That would be nice, atleast it was in SL.

Chad

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

I agree with the above and have noticed more accurate shots to vulnerable locations. If anything, I would like to see a 'deliberate immobilization' command. That would be nice, atleast it was in SL.

Chad

Excellent idea, Chad. I was thinking of a menu choice (similar to choosing whether to fire your main gun at infantry), but a separate "Immobilize" command would probably be a better interface.