Does jinking help?

[ianc]

Hello Gentlemen,

I've just finished rereading "Panzer Aces" again. I couldn't believe it when I found it in paperback down at the local Borders for $8 or so.

Anyway, many of the accounts talk about the commanders zigzagging wildly over the field on their attack approaches and in the midst of battles to throw off the enemy's aim.

Will this tactic help to lessen the hit chances in CM? I haven't actually tested this myself, but I'm wondering if CM takes into account the proportional component of a target's motion that's perpendicular to the firer's LOS? It seems to me that if a target is moving straight towards you on flat terrain, the effect of its movement would be a negligible factor in the to-hit calculations, whereas if he's moving perpendicular to you, it would have considerable effect. I remember the old AH game Tobruk used to take this into account (I think with an optional rule) by forcing you to add 1 to the to-hit number required for every hex moved perpendicular to the LOS.

Conversely, if this effect is not accounted for and one attempts to zigzag, one could actually be making things worse by spending more time in LOS...

Any thoughts or observations?

ianc

[Cameroon]

You might want to read the thread (or threads, really) on targets being hit out of LOS. Basically, whether or not the target is hit is determined AT THE MOMENT OF FIRING. So, you can't drive out of the way of an oncoming shell.

On the other hand, jinking might decrease the to-hit odds. You might have to play around with it to find out.

[Michael Emrys]

I can't answer your question directly, ianc, but I have noticed that when Flak shoots at moving infantry, the shots tend to fall behind the target, suggesting that in CM the gunners don't know how to lead the target. Others may have the same or differing observations wrt moving vehicles. My sense of it though is that motion, and the faster the better, helps you survive. Zigging doesn't seem to help and may actually hinder in the game due to the fact that vehicles observably slow down to make a turn.

Michael

[Mikester]

I've probably seen a few cases where it did help.

However, you have to keep one basic tenet in mind. The shortest distance (and therefore minimum time exposed out in the open) between your start point and final point you want to get your unit to is a straight line. Any "jinking" simply increases your time of exposure in the open. Thus making you, on average, more exposed than you would be in trying to complete your move.

The kind of jinking I generally practice with some success is moving forward to peek out from behind edge of a hill (i.e. hull down), or between little openings between buildings, etc., and then in same plotted move, move back in reverse. I'll often sort of side step my way across the brow of a hill/ridge to move laterally doing this and looking for opportunitys to fire on enemy armor.

Hope this helps.

Mikester out.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Jinxing does not help in CM. All it does is keep the target in LOS longer so the shooter gets more shots.

[Walker]

Maybe it depends on who does the zigzagging, who tries to hit the zigzagger, the terrain and the range involved. I distinctly remember a scene some time ago when I had a kübelwagen zipping down a road with waypoints covering several hundred metres. It crested a hill and came face to face with a British Churchill VIII about 100 metres away, on the road between two hills. Luckily the turn ended almost the moment they saw each other, and I repositioned the waypoints so the kübelwagen would zigzag towards the tank, pass it and continue to zigzag over the next hill. Amazingly, the kübel followed orders and escaped unharmed! You could actually see the (buttoned) Churchill VIII's turret turn back and forth trying to get a shot off, then rotating the full 180° as the kübel shot past. And I've had some success with hellcats zigzagging towards slow-turreted German tanks, passing them and then shooting them in the side or rear.

[Michael Emrys]

But the unresolved question is whether it was jinking or the sheer speed of the vehicles in question that saved their bacon. Until somebody runs a series of comparison tests (straight line in fast, medium, and slow speeds vs. the same speeds zigging), I can't see any way to convincingly decide.

Michael

[ May 11, 2002, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[ianc]

Gents,

Yes, I searched on the topic here, but only got three unrelated or unresolved hits. It doesn't seem as though it's been mentioned before.

The descriptions of Boelter, Bix and Wittman's handling of their tanks seemed to suggest that this was a fairly successful technique for them.

The accounts also seemed to indicate that the more successful commanders on the attack were able to rapidly assess and simply 'drive into' a situation quickly enough to upset the Russian's plans and gain the initiative. I suppose the German radios were decisive for German company and platoon commanders in this process. I'm very anxious to see the effects on combat tactics resulting from CMBB's treatment of this difference.

Until somebody runs a series of comparison tests (straight line in fast, medium, and slow speeds vs. the same speeds zigging), I can't see any way to convincingly decide

At any rate, I believe you are right on the question Michael. The core of the issue is exactly how (or whether) the engine penalizes to-hit chances when the target's movement deviates from head-on to Firer's LOS.

I was thinking of the effectiveness of a fast zigzag sprint followed by a short firing halt versus a straight dash to the same place, and will try to devise some basic tests to determine the effectiveness of this.

ianc

[Michael Emrys]

It seems that there may be two issues here that have gotten confused and will need to be extricated. One is approaching a threat head-on vs. some other angle, say directly across his LOS. The second is whether there is any advantage in frequent changes of course.

In the latter case I don't expect to see any advantage. For there to be one, it would depend on gunners being able to predict a target's motion and pull lead on it. In that case, any change in direction and/or speed would throw off the gunner's aim. But I have yet to see any consistent proof that gunners in CM predict a target's motion and pull lead.

I will be interested to of hear any tests done. But remember, CM is very much a game of statistics and chance, so a fairly large sampling of trials will have to be conducted before one can speak with any real confindence on this as with many issues.

Michael

[Hensworth]

The only time I've used it successfully was when close-assaulting a gun (German 75mm AT in this case). When you run your squad at the gun in a straight line, there is a chance that the crew will get it turned in time and get off one shot, immediately suppressing the assaulting squad. You can kiss it goodbye then because they will start taking more shells before they get up again.

Running them at the gun in a zigzag line at short range will keep the gun turning but never actually let it get a shot off.

[ianc]

Well gents,

I've created and conducted a bit of a test. It consisted of 8 3200 meter long fire lanes separated by trees. At one end of each lane: a conscript MkIV G, dug in. At the other end, elite Stuarts with no ammo. I ran two series of three tests, one with the Stuarts starting at 3200 M, the other with them starting at 300 M. In each case, 4 of the Stuarts were given symmetrical 45 degree zigzag fast movement orders toward the MkIV's. The control group was just given straight fast movement orders.

In Each and every case, the Stuart making it closest to the MkIV was always the one having straight movement orders. It appears as though Vanir is correct, and that Jinking does no good; at least with armor. Infantry may be a different story.

This actually surprises me somewhat. If a target is moving absolutely straight at you, there's no need to correct for azimuth, you simply ram in the shells and fire as fast as you can. The other case requires constant azimuth correction and pulling lead.

Even given that the zigzagging Stuarts approached the targets more slowly, their constant changes of course were still insufficient to throw off even conscript gunner's aim to any degree. I must say that the Stuarts seemed to drop their speed to nearly nothing when negotiating even a 45 degree corner as well, and this probably contributed to their demise.

I'm not sure I like the results of this test. It just doesn't make intrinsic sense that a target moving straight toward you should last longer than one jinking wildly around while you're trying to aim.

What does anyone else think? Can you spot any hole in my testing theory that I may have overlooked?

ianc

[Sir Uber General]

In games like ww2o jinking certainly helps as I expect it would in real life. It would be nice if a) cm takes changes of target direction (which is really a change to target-lead distance) into account when gunning, and tank commanders would start jinking automatically if they felt it would be to their advantage to do so (in the same way they pop smoke if they think it will help)

[Andrew H.]

I would be interested to know whether jinking actually helped in real life - despite the fact that some tankers did it. It's one thing to jink using a highly maneuverable aircraft; it's quite another to do so using a 40 ton lumbering behemoth. Exactly what constitutes "jinking" in a Tiger, anyway? And wouldn't there be an increased chance of throwing a track?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by ianc:

This actually surprises me somewhat. If a target is moving absolutely straight at you, there's no need to correct for azimuth, you simply ram in the shells and fire as fast as you can. The other case requires constant azimuth correction and pulling lead.

But with low-trajectory guns, it was always harder to get the range correct than the azimuth. Take a look at the problems and practices of naval gunnery some time.

I must say that the Stuarts seemed to drop their speed to nearly nothing when negotiating even a 45 degree corner as well, and this probably contributed to their demise.

This is, as you may recall, as I predicted.

I'm not sure I like the results of this test. It just doesn't make intrinsic sense that a target moving straight toward you should last longer than one jinking wildly around while you're trying to aim.

This all gets back to what I said earlier about how gunners in CM do not predict the future motion and location of a moving target. They shoot where it is now, and the slower it moves, they more likely it is to be in approximately in the same position when the shot arrives and thus get hit.

What does anyone else think? Can you spot any hole in my testing theory that I may have overlooked?

Well, one objection that might be raised is that you don't have a convincingly large enough sampling. My hunch is though that even a much larger sampling is going to produce roughly the same results.

Michael

[Walker]

ianc, I ran a series of tests similar to yours. 800 m long corridors separated by trees with dug-in Pz IVGs at one end. Fast Shermans (M4A3) and Greyhounds zigzagging / straightlining towards them. All units regular. Direction changes were made with extra waypoints between the zigs and the zags to avoid slowdown. The AFVs entered Pz IV LOS from behind a woods at full speed. I ran the tests 10 times for each AFV type, i.e. 80 results for zigzagging vehicles and 80 results for straightlining ones.

The tests confirm your findings: a zigzag approach does not increase survival times. It would be a waste of time to include a table of times/distances at which the units were knocked out. Over the entire series, knock-out times were pretty constant for all AFVs, whether zigzagging or not. Consequently, the straightlining units got closer to the German tanks. No US AFV ever survived into the third minute.

Also, I tested various zigzag patterns, long/short legs between direction changes, etc., all with enough waypoints to avoid slowdown. The only difference I saw was that the less direct the approach the more side hits were recorded.

I share your concern over the results. Fast vehicles changing course every few seconds should be harder to hit. The enemy gunner has an extra variable to take into account.

And Michael, I agree that it has been established that you were right from the beginning. So please refrain from contributing another ‘I told you so’ post. Although I greatly appreciate being able to share in and benefit from the knowledge of experienced CM players like you, some things I just have to see with my own eyes…

Your thoughts on the following issue will be most welcome, in fact they are essential:

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

[QB

... about how gunners in CM do not predict the future motion and location of a moving target. They shoot where it is now, and the slower it moves, they more likely it is to be in approximately in the same position when the shot arrives and thus get hit.

Michael[/QB]

If CM gunners shoot at a target where it is NOW, does this mean that any hit on a moving target is actually a shot that missed the AFV in the spot it was THEN, and which serendipitously hits the vehicle at the spot THEN+distance travelled since the shot was fired? In other words, has it been conclusively established that CM gunners cannot factor in speed and angle of movement? Because if it has, it would mean that any longer-range hit on a target moving at a reasonable speed is pure luck…

[Ron]

Originally posted by Walker:

If CM gunners shoot at a target where it is NOW, does this mean that any hit on a moving target is actually a shot that missed the AFV in the spot it was THEN, and which serendipitously hits the vehicle at the spot THEN+distance travelled since the shot was fired? In other words, has it been conclusively established that CM gunners cannot factor in speed and angle of movement? Because if it has, it would mean that any longer-range hit on a target moving at a reasonable speed is pure luck…

It has been stated before on this board by BTS (good luck trying to find where! ) that the combat resolution of a firing shell is computed and resolved at the moment it is fired. What happens/changes during the time of the shell's flight is not factored in at all, the movie playback is the 'results' of the turn already calculated beforehand. Hence you will see on occasion an AFV get hit/KO'd in a position out of LOS from the source of fire.

Like others have stated, 'jinking' or any movement path that slows down the AFV, is actually counter-productive in CM. Best practice is short rushes in a 'straight' path from cover to cover. Hope that helps.

Ron

[ May 13, 2002, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Ron ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Walker:

snip

If CM gunners shoot at a target where it is NOW, does this mean that any hit on a moving target is actually a shot that missed the AFV in the spot it was THEN, and which serendipitously hits the vehicle at the spot THEN+distance travelled since the shot was fired? In other words, has it been conclusively established that CM gunners cannot factor in speed and angle of movement? Because if it has, it would mean that any longer-range hit on a target moving at a reasonable speed is pure luck…

here's the motherload:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=024726

I think this just about covers it :

I suspect the thread you are refering to is this one:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/013403.html

The other thread that is more relevant to the original post here is this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=017277

In this thread Steve quotes specifically about this very issue and the explanation is quite detailed!

Steve's quote appears on this page:

Steve's quote on hitting targets moving out of LOS

(it is easier to read on that page then here the way it was cut and pasted into this thread sorry)

Here is Steve's Quote from that Thread:

Big Time Software

Administrator

Member # 42

posted March 14, 2001 03:53 PM

Subvet wrote:

quote:

It would be nice if BTS would respond, even if it was a "yeah it's a bug, and you'll have to live with it

because we aren't

going to fix it."

We have said this a few times before. There are inherent limitations in the game engine that we can't

practically fix. it is NOT a

bug, rather a design limitation. We have answered this many times before, but for some reason our

repeated explanations don't

seem to be understood by everybody. The problem with this thread is that people are mashing things

all up, which is only

confusing people more. All sorts of different visual outcomes are being attributed to DIFFERENT

possible causes, when in fact it is

the same thing causing all of them. It is really simple so I don't understand why some people are

having such a hard time

grasping this...

In the real world a round leaves its gun and travels until it impacts upon SOMETHING. That

SOMETHING can be the target, a

building next to it, or anything that happens to be directly in the flight path. With me so far?

Now, Combat Mission has two different limitations that kick in to the above. The first is that when a

unit is shot at NO FLIGHT

PATH IS CALCULATED. Instead, probability of a hit is calculated using a vast number of factors

relevant at that particular

millisecond.

If the a "hit" is scored then the round is graphically shown to fly and whack the target. If the target

and/or the shooter are

moving, there is a graphical chance that it might be behind something at the time it is hit.

If a "miss" is determined, the engine semi-randomly assigns the round an impact location (think of it

as a "hit" defined above) and

the shell graphically hits that location. Just like with a "hit", the impact location can be in a place that

doesn't graphically make

sense. However, a "miss" will check out intermediate blocking terrain because it can not be assumed

that there is LOS/LOF to the

miss impact location, unlike with a "hit".

The other problem is that the flight path of the round is not looking for random elements that might

be in its way. This means

vehicles or units in general. It even includes knocked out vehicles. It does, however, take into

consideration static terrain like

buildings and ground (slopes). Set up your own test ranges and you will see rounds impacting on

these things all the time.

Basically, if the shot was determined to be a "hit", it is a "hit" regardless. Since LOS/LOF is requires

when the shot is taken, there

is no need to check intermediate terrain at all since by definition LOS/LOF rules out intermediate

terrain blockage. At least at the

second the shot is fired.

Zahl appears to understand this fairly well. Here is what he had to say above:

quote:

The most logical explanation is that CM determines hitting and missing at the instant of firing, based

on the conditions

that applied at that very moment. If it was a kill, whatever the target might be able to do during the

following seconds

can't save it. It might drive behind a hill, behind buildings or woods, but the shell travels mercilessly

through any

obstacles and kills the target, because this was predetermined.

This is no LOS issue. The shooter needs to have LOS at the moment of firing, but after that it is

irrelevant.

Correct.

quote:

Apparently projectile collision detection is already implemented since they can unintentionally hit

buildings when you

are trying to shoot something else.

True for misses, since hits require LOS/LOF which by definition means no blockage. But it really is just

a LOS/LOF check and

where the blockage happens the round hits instead of the intended targeted area.

quote:

Possibly the only way to fix this would be to calculate trajectories dynamically when the shell is in

flight.

Correct, but only part of the solution. There would also need to be a huge amount of TacAI work to

simulate compensating for

leading, wind, dropage, etc. Not only does the coding for this require a lot of time, but the CPU cycles

necessary to carry it out as

well. Too much to ask of us or the computer at this time.

quote:

If I remember, this was suggested before and BTS replied that it would make a difference only in

exceedingly rare

cases. Like when Tank A is firing at a distant B and some third vehicle intersects the trajectory just at

the most

inappropriate time.

This is correct. However, you can of course have situations where this is far more likely to happen

than in others. For example, a

dozen vehicles all mixed up on a level plane in close proximity to each other. But this is not something

that comes up very often,

so again the real chance of this being a factor in a game is low. It will happen, but the cure to fix the

problem would kill the game.

Shooting through building corners is also related to this topic. We had to put some "play" into it

because we do not track the

exact location of the gun barrel. So once again, graphical portrayal is not 100% exact. And again, the

limitation is on CPU

calculations necessary for a host of game aspects (notably the TacAI once again).

Now to answer a couple of individual questions:

Jeff Dunquette wrote:

quote:

I think modeling Real WorldTM exterior ballistics and Real WorldTM LOS could go along way toward

addressing some

of these game quirks.

As I stated above, partially correct. However, reducing the abstraction of this one element has a

cascading impact on the rest of

the game. This means we would also have to be a refinement of all sorts of other game aspects in

order for this to all work.

Unfortunately, the coding and CPU load are too much. So to get CM that last 2% realistic we would

have to drop everything and

work on nothing but this issue for weeks, if not months, along with upping the minimum system

requirements. Just not worth it.

quote:

Trajectory can be modeled with a function, so I don't get why this is such a big processor deal. Tank

sims ala Steel

Beasts already model Real WorldTM.

Trajectory is modeled in CM, but not on the fly for every shot. I have no idea what Al did with Steel

Beasts, but the two games

are different enough that it is a comparison of apples and oranges. For example, I think a game like

Quake III looks to have exact

trajectories done on the fly, but there are reasons why that is possible for Quake and still not for CM.

Each environment is asking

different things of the hardware, and therefore it is not possible to just say "this has it so why

doesn't that".

Subvet wrote:

quote:

That's all fine and good, but then they post this: There is a basic rule in CM -> "Nothing can shoot

through houses".

Put another way, in no way shape or form may any unit, regardless of what it is, shoot through

house. Never. Not

even in the strangest circumstances. LOS will not be calculated through a house.

So which is it? The two statements completely contradict each other. Also remember, we are talking

LOS as well as

LOF. It is one thing to talk about a round penetrating a wall, but it's another to talk about x-ray

vision. I'm just trying

to get a straight answer one way or another on this; with poor results unfortunately.

You are seeing conflict between my statement and the manual only because you are not looking at

the context of each

seperately. I said nothing can shoot through houses in the context of the discussion about LOS/LOF

in regards to moving

vehicles, the limitations of when hits/misses are determined, and then how they are resolved. My

statement was not meant to

have anything to do with rounds going through buildings, which as Tom W pointed out is specifically

mentioned in the manual.

Also, "through" a house was, in the context of the initial discussion, defined as LOS/LOF being

established through two or more

walls of a building. So there is NO conflict between my statement and the manual.

Now... the only INTERESTING thing I see in this thread is the picture posted by Tom W. A vehicle

should NOT be able to do that.

Judging by the location of the vehicle the proximity to the house is the reason. In other words, flush

up against the side of the

house. So I tried to reproduce this in the Editor. I set up a test scenario and had very, very hard time

reproducing it, but did in

fact manage to put a vehicle in a spot where it could look straight through a house. It is obviously

some sort of "sweet spot" as I

couldn't get other vehicles to do it no matter how many times I repositioned them. I am having

Charles take a look into it as this

should not happen. Note that this probable bug appears to be limited to the exact placement of a

vehicle flush up against a

house, and therefore is not relevant to the rest of this thread.

I hope this clears up the questions that are (still) lingering about this LOS/LOF issue.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 03-14-

2001).]

and

from this page:

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=017277;p=4

Big Time Software

Administrator

Member # 42

posted March 16, 2001 02:44 PM

Philistine wrote:

quote:

Rather than checking the shell in flight for intervening objects, would it be possible

(easier) to have a 2nd LOS check on the target after an amount of time equal to the shell

flight-time has passed? If there is no longer a LOS (target is behind cover) it is treated as

a miss. Otherwise the normal hit procedure is followed.

Well... I didn't mention that we thought of this about a month ago and it is on The List for possible

inclusion in CM2. The reason I didn't mention it is because we aren't sure if it can be done using a

reasonable amount of time and coding. I mention it now because it looks bad if we don't respond to a

good idea that we (me... ) already came up with a while ago Kudos to Philistine for thinking of it

though!

IF we can do it, most problems will go away. But NOT all. The only way to ensure that firing results

are 100% accurate is to trace the flight path of a smartly aimed shot (i.e. simulating gunnery and

results to the nth degree). There is no computer in any player's posession that could hack that, not

to mention the coding time it would take. So the 100% option is completely out of the question. But

this second check idea might get us to 100% accurate results 98% of the time. Dunno how much it

will improve things, really, but it potentially should definitely get rid of the most obvious inaccuracies

currently allowed for.

Overall, we still don't see this as a HUGE problem. Again, check out how many shots you disagree

with over a long period of time and using a great variety of maps. It simply is not common, and

therefore doesn't register as a HUGE problem. It is a significant one, though, and if we can do

something somewhat painlessly we will certainly do so. The future engine rewrite will be a much better

system for sure, so things will be improved at some point.

I also agree with Joe Private that although Tom tries to use this tactic as often as possible, I for one

don't think he is automatically getting some sort of one-sided bonus regullarly enough to make this a

viable "cheating" tactic. Hunting the way Tom describes and hunting in general work the same way.

Does he get an edge sometimes? Maybe, but probably no more than if he was using hunt in some

other situation. And there are drawbacks to getting up close and personal to a building.

For example, in my tests I found that you can only look STRAIGHT through the building, and of

course only if you drive right up to it. If something were to flank the vehicle in question it would be at

a disadvantage compared to if it had been a few meters back and toward the edge of the building.

Just one example of why this tactic of Tom's isn't necessarily as great as it might look. Still, we are

looking into how we might be able to fix this problem since it shouldn't be allowed at all.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 03-16-2001).]

[Thomm]

I find it hard to believe that the speed of the vehicle perpendicular to the line of fire does not influence the hit probability in a negative way, since this would mean that a tank running straight at a gun would be as easy to hit as a tank running across its field of view. No way!

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Walker:

And Michael, I agree that it has been established that you were right from the beginning. So please refrain from contributing another ‘I told you so’ post. Although I greatly appreciate being able to share in and benefit from the knowledge of experienced CM players like you, some things I just have to see with my own eyes…

Sorry, Walker. Nothing in my comments was intended to discourage hands-on experimentation, quite the opposite, and if it was taken that way I greatly regret it.

I suppose that I am a bit sensitive to the fact that in the heat of discussion, it is sometimes overlooked that what I was claiming from the outset has been ignored when the reinvention of the wheel is gloriously announced.

But again, the more tests and experiments (and their reporting here) the better. CM, as has been stated innumerable times, is a statistical game where unlikely things are permitted to happen. This fact is apt to distort the results of a small number of trials, or at least leave their conclusions open to question. Therefore, the more the merrier.

Michael

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

I find it hard to believe that the speed of the vehicle perpendicular to the line of fire does not influence the hit probability in a negative way, since this would mean that a tank running straight at a gun would be as easy to hit as a tank running across its field of view. No way!

Well, one issue that would affect this is that tanks are longer than they are wide - a Tiger is about 12 feet wide and 27 feet long. So there's a much bigger target from the side.

Another is that moving perpendicularly is not exactly "jinking." Jinking would imply moving perpendicularly (or diagonally), making a 90 degree or so turn, and then moving diagonally in the other direction. The result of this would be that the tank would spend much more time in the LOS of enemy guns...which I don't think is as safe as making a direct dash to cover.

[Walker]

Ron and aka_tom_w: thanks for taking the time to supply all that info. I'm still chewing on it. I guess that puts an end to the Great Jinking Debate. Although one question still remains unanswered: why do fast-moving vehicles get hit at all, if as Michael says '...gunners in CM do not predict the future motion and location of a moving target. They shoot where it is now...'??

Michael: Sorry too if I overreacted. It must have to do with childhood flashbacks of Mother (bless her) saying 'Christopher, I told you so!'

[zukkov]

whether or not jinking worked in real life i cannot say. the fact that some tank aces used this tactic obviously means they believed it did, and who am i to contradict those guys. although i don't understand why a tiger would ever need to jink. if he sees a target, he can hit and kill it. in my past experience with micro-armor though, there was no allowance on the "to hit" tables for jinking. you simply determined the range to target and speed of both the firing gun and target vehicle. it was broken down to 3 categories. slow, medium, and fast, with each higher speed giving you a lesser chance of a hit. i would be willing to guess that cm uses a similar "to hit" table in it's calculations as well. thus how a target moves relative to the firing gun makes no difference in the hit percentage, only the speed of the target, and range of course.

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by Walker:

one question still remains unanswered: why do fast-moving vehicles get hit at all, if as Michael says '...gunners in CM do not predict the future motion and location of a moving target. They shoot where it is now...'??

The way that I understand it (and it could be completely wrong, so take this with your preferred amount of salt), the program looks at the target at the moment of shooting and one of the things it assesses is the target's speed. I would imagine the degree of speed affects the shot, but the direction does not, since it is being considered only at the instant the gunner pulls the trigger. So a fast-moving target is a fast-moving target, no matter what direction he's going. The numbers are crunched, the program decides whether a hit or a miss has occurred, and then we see it in the movie.

Of course, that's only for AP shots. Guns firing HE do not lead their targets, as others have said.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

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

one question still remains unanswered: why do fast-moving vehicles get hit at all, if as Michael says '...gunners in CM do not predict the future motion and location of a moving target. They shoot where it is now...'??

The way that I understand it (and it could be completely wrong, so take this with your preferred amount of salt), the program looks at the target at the moment of shooting and one of the things it assesses is the target's speed. I would imagine the degree of speed affects the shot, but the direction does not, since it is being considered only at the instant the gunner pulls the trigger. So a fast-moving target is a fast-moving target, no matter what direction he's going. The numbers are crunched, the program decides whether a hit or a miss has occurred, and then we see it in the movie.

Of course, that's only for AP shots. Guns firing HE do not lead their targets, as others have said.</font>

[Walker]

I’ve re-read the ‘official’ statements above and the other relevant information from all the other posters. So this is how it works, as I now understand it:

a/ Shooter ‘sees’ target, program calculates hit probability applying a vast number of obvious and not-so-obvious variables. Program ‘decides’ whether or not it is a hit.

b/ Shooter shoots.

c/ Whatever happens in the time between the shot being fired and the shot hitting the target is irrelevant, i.e. if it’s a hit, it’s a hit.

d/ Speed is one of the variables that reduces the chance of getting hit.

e/ Jinking reduces speed and increases exposure time.

Conclusions:

f/ Therefore, jinking is no use at all except when it serves to prevent the shooter from getting a shot off at all.

g/ Mr emrys was right and I should have listened to him (sorry Michael I just couldn’t resist but please note the TWO smileys so you can’t get mad at me…anyway I suppose I really should have ).

Do I feel better now that I understand how it works? Yes and no. Yes because the idea of a Tiger ‘jinking’ across a damp field borders on the preposterous, and no because the image of a Greyhound zigzagging towards a Tiger, shells impacting left and right, like Glowworm taking on Hipper, is irresistible. Anyhow, thanks a lot to you all for humouring me in all my ignorance, and for taking the time to reply to my questions!

Chris Walker