Battlefront do something! (T34,IS2, KT)

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Bastables:

All of this ignores that the percentages for turret vs. hull hits are an in game abstraction. In real life gunners have aim points. The Germans especially recognising that the turret was a weak point on Soviet designs (3,7cm Pak gunners firing on T-34 turret rings etc) and correspondingly aimed at the turret. Therefore the percentages rise in hitting the centre of the turret versus hitting the upper/lower hull.

BTS used to have weakest armour aim point pre beta demo (Do a search!) but this apparently gave un historical outcomes as well (Sherman 76 always shooting at Panther lower hull etc), which is why we have the current system.

I'm not sure how messing with an abstraction will give a more realistic outcome.

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

And that is a very good point. I read about Russian tank crews who where easily able to hit gun of moving tank from a distance of 300m.

I know how difficult it is to model real tank firefight, but I think all should strive to do this as close to history as possible. And -contrary to some posts - I believe that forontline experience should also be taken into account.

if a man whose people destroyed a lot of T34 says they didn't do anything against IS2 (spring 45)it is hard to believe that 1/3 of their shots did not hit a turret and -as it is in CM - destroyed a tank.

Maybe armor thickness and quality data are worth investigating again, maybe something is wrong with a shell quality? I do not know. What I am sure is that something is wrong here and I do not accept explanation like: look at game data, if its in CM it was in real history (what many people try to do).

To some other guys: no one forces you to reply to my posts. Just take your own advice and do not reply if this is the only thing you want to say.

Anyway I am glad several people came with issue -oriented posts (not person -oriented)and those I would like to thank.

To betatesters. I didn't want to offend anyone I just stated I evaluate your work as a poor one. Good betatesting is not what you believe it to be, but what client believes it to be. And frankly I do not care whether Steve stated this or that,because apparently - look some posts above - there are means of improvement within engine limitations (as it was done with Tiger I fornt armor).And you should have said: "ok Steve, let's think how to do this because its a major issue" intead "Steve says its impossible"

regards

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Tanaka:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

...I drew attention to a serious game problem (which you did not as a betatester).

May I have my own opinnion?

This is typical selfish crap of "I know you don't" coming out of you... How can you possibly know what he or any other did/didn't do during beta test? I honestly hoped that after you cool down your attitude would change, but in the bottom, it didn’t

It has been told in this and other topics, the engine uses a 30% chance of a front turret hit once a hit has been scored.

Ok, it is a limitation, but at least for CMBO the variations in turret size weren't that "important". Obviously now (in CMBB), at the limits of this variation interval, (Panzer IV, T-34 and KV-2 for instance), problems will show up. In my view the problem can be solved with some kind of "bonus" given to vehicles in this situations. Obviously it isn't for me to decided if the bonus should be applied or not, I don't have the full data and I also don't know if the investment needed to put a correct bonus in compensates the effort.

I tell you, there are other "important" game engine limitations, which somehow in very particular (or not that particular) situations reproduce a distorted reality... I will not tell wish ones are, as you seam to me to be the "know all" type, and for sure you already must have noticed them </font>

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by von Lucke:

D'oh! Actually, it never occured to me to think of aimed fire when considering the in-game hit percentages --- I was thinking of random % based on target aspect alone.

Aim seams to be only used for the overall "to hit" chance, that’s why the chance goes up after each shot and with the expertise level of the crew.

At a first look, aim is not used for "where to hit" chance, but... it can be, how did BTS come about with a 30% chance for a turret hit? Maybe this number, instead of using a regular average of all turret hull ratios, has in itself an increased chance for a turret hit, since at short distance (at least), it is where the average gunner will be aiming (same level shot the aim is done to the upper upper hull and turret).

I know that some particular aiming points were issued to gunners of vehicles and guns (in likes of the 3,7cm Pak vs. T-34).

In the heat of the battles these things where hard to keep in mind, ok an expert crew, should be able to remember them, but… we never know

PS- I kind of see a 2nd ww gunnery confrontation has I see 2nd ww plane dogfights, both of them have a lot of instinct and adrenaline going on. By contrast, in a nowadays confrontation,(in most cases), we have professional crews together with a lot of computation behind each aim. Ok, I know adrenaline still is there, but its share of the "things" has been “tuned” down, as for instinct, lets let the computer do that

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by redwolf:

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

The anomoly with the 37mm PaK is striking. I have found that flank shots have a much lower chance of penetrating a 1941 T34 than head-on shots. The flank shots bounce off, as I'd expect, while frontal shots routinely penetrate the turret front. :confused:

Only the lower side hull is weak on the sides and the hit chance for the lower hull is pretty small.

The front turret has "curved" armor of 45mm, which means it can (and often will) be 45mm at zero degrees. 45mm at zero degrees is nothing.

This is all correct, however, the chance to hit the turret in first place should be reduced for tanks like this one and the Pz IV.</font>

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Tanaka:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by von Lucke:

D'oh! Actually, it never occured to me to think of aimed fire when considering the in-game hit percentages --- I was thinking of random % based on target aspect alone.

Aim seams to be only used for the overall "to hit" chance, that’s why the chance goes up after each shot and with the expertise level of the crew.

I know that some particular aiming points were issued to gunners of vehicles and guns (in likes of the 3,7cm Pak vs. T-34).

In the heat of the battles these things where hard to keep in mind, ok an expert crew, should be able to remember them, but… we never know

</font>

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

maybe I'm a little off, but the anecdote is worth mentioning IMHO :

In France 40 campaign, the French Char B1-Bis was an overarmoured monster normally able to withstand all german guns, except 88mm.

When De Gaulle attacked with them at Arras, the Germans had a tough time holding them off, but even before the 88s were setup they managed to KO several B1s with 37mm Paks !!

How did they do that ?? They aimed for a weakly armored panel on the side (that opened to some engine part IIRC).

Was a similar tactics possible against T-34s ? Dunno... But I'm not very upset by the fact that it's possible for a 37mm to *sometimes* get a T-34...

[Andreas]

Pascal, German AT gunners were trained to use the 37mm gun against weak spots, i.e. aim for the turret ring, if they could not defeat the armour. I talked to the father of a friend who was an AT gunner in a Panzergrenadier division in Italy and France and he told me that when I specifically asked him why they still bothered with the 37mm in 1943. He also said they got very good at it, and could quite reliably achieve that hit. A turret ring hit is at least a combat effectiveness kill, since the tank will no longer be able to bring the main armament to bear without traversing the hull.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Pascal DI FOLCO:

I'm not very upset by the fact that it's possible for a 37mm to *sometimes* get a T-34...

I don't doubt it was sometimes possible to score a front turret penetration on a T34 with a 37mm PaK, but it seems to happen too frequently in my experience.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Sgt. Emren:

I for one would have liked if the manual had mentioned these percentages. I like reading about how the in-game calculations are made, and I'm sure many of you guys do too. Anyone know if this sort of stuff is available to us?

No, it's not.

One thing I think should be pointed out. The source for the 30% figure is... me, based on a test I ran many many moons ago for CMBO. Which means do not take it as an exact figure, but a close approximation. BFC has never said what the exact hit distribution is for the CM engine except for the lower hull (which is exactly 12% BTW, unless it has chanced since CMBO).

Treeburst 155:

Yeah, Redwolf gets the prize for this thread, with Vanir taking second for pointing out the Rexford threads and the earlier BFC statements relating to this. Thanks guys!

If I'd known it was a contest I could have written a lot more.

[Tanaka]

Originally posted by Bastables:

...Sure we do, the Russians continued to up armour the turret of the T-34 all they way up to the T34-85 9cm armour because of continued losses due to frontal turret penetrations by German guns. Hell you see it in game, buy every T34 sub type and compare the armour for the turret and the “date of service”.

Ok, in principle I agree with you, but perhaps it is too much reading into it to state that this was because 37mm gun loses.

I think 75Lx guns are more within the reasons why the frontal turret armour was upgraded. (Take out the L70 one… nothing they could do about this one at close/medium distances)

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Tanaka:

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

...Sure we do, the Russians continued to up armour the turret of the T-34 all they way up to the T34-85 9cm armour because of continued losses due to frontal turret penetrations by German guns. Hell you see it in game, buy every T34 sub type and compare the armour for the turret and the “date of service”.

Ok, in principle I agree with you, but perhaps it is too much reading into it to state that this was because 37mm gun loses.

I think 75Lx guns are more within the reasons why the frontal turret armour was upgraded. (Take out the L70 one… nothing they could do about this one at close/medium distances)</font>

[Tanaka]

Do I have a chance to say something with the 75L24?

And the slope, did the 60º slope work ... even if it was a lilet bit, please, give me a chance here :cool:

[Amedeo]

Still wondering why my old thread on this very same topic (look here )had less success that this one.

Too polite?

Regards,

Amedeo

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Originally posted by Amedeo:

Still wondering why my old thread on this very same topic (look here )had less success that this one.

Too polite?

Regards,

Amedeo

Yes, it's just that, here as well than IRL : if you don't bitch/rant/yell/insult you get nada, if you do you're flamed as well but at least draw attention :eek: !

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Amedeo:

Still wondering why my old thread on this very same topic (look here )had less success that this one.

Too polite?

Regards,

Amedeo

I'm not sure it had less success, it was still 4 pages long and had plenty of posts and interesting info and good debate in it

:confused: .

Hey Kloss! you should read that thread as well!

look here )

-tom w

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Amedeo:

Still wondering why my old thread on this very same topic (look here )had less success that this one.

Too polite?

Regards,

Amedeo

Then again you're not reviled by the beta testers. And have a working stock with the rest of the board.

[ October 30, 2002, 08:09 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[desertrat1943]

Can anybody sum up this discussion? Besideds the occasional personal bitching, there have been some constructive ideas that BTS might want to consider, and summing them up in a bullet-point list will help them greately.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by desertrat1943:

Can anybody sum up this discussion? Besideds the occasional personal bitching, there have been some constructive ideas that BTS might want to consider, and summing them up in a bullet-point list will help them greately.

Short version.

A guy finds a flaw in the game engine. When he posts about the flaw in the game engine he fails to show proper respect to the betatesters.

Next thing you know, hordes of fanbois appear as if by magic to flame him. The guy apologizes, but it is too late, he now has a bad reputation on these boards, and no one wants to debate the game engine flaw.

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by desertrat1943:

Can anybody sum up this discussion? Besideds the occasional personal bitching, there have been some constructive ideas that BTS might want to consider, and summing them up in a bullet-point list will help them greately.

Short version.

A guy finds a flaw in the game engine. When he posts about the flaw in the game engine he fails to show proper respect to the betatesters.

Next thing you know, hordes of fanbois appear as if by magic to flame him. The guy apologizes, but it is too late, he now has a bad reputation on these boards, and no one wants to debate the game engine flaw.</font>

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

[QB]Yeah, Redwolf gets the prize for this thread, with Vanir taking second for pointing out the Rexford threads and the earlier BFC statements relating to this. Thanks guys!

Sorry, I don't see any BFC statements in Vanir's links. Could somebody point me to the thread in question?

Thanks

[Lindan]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Short version.

A guy finds a flaw in the game engine. When he posts about the flaw in the game engine he fails to show proper respect to the betatesters.

Next thing you know, hordes of fanbois appear as if by magic to flame him. The guy apologizes, but it is too late, he now has a bad reputation on these boards, and no one wants to debate the game engine flaw.

My short version:

Somebody is pissed because something doesn't work as he thought it would. He makes a statement about the observed flaw. Without knowing the reason or the mechanics behind the flaw he blames a group of people for not doing their job properly.

I have no intention to state again what several other posters already pointed out about the turret issue.

I hate people who are unable to discuss a topic without throwing insults around. The bolded part at the end is a reminder for Mr. Hortlund to actually read the threads he replies to, as several people already adressed the raised issue.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

a flaw in the game engine. When he posts about the flaw in the game engine he fails to show proper respect to the betatesters.

It has nothing to do with showing proper respect, it was a plain old insult. Garnished with wrong statements about scenarios and rubbish tests. You get what you ask for, and he certainly did.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Short version.

A guy finds a flaw in the game engine. When he posts about the flaw in the game engine he fails to show proper respect to the betatesters.

Next thing you know, hordes of fanbois appear as if by magic to flame him. The guy apologizes, but it is too late, he now has a bad reputation on these boards, and no one wants to debate the game engine flaw.

Did you even read this thread? Guy shows up and points out well known game engine flaw and flames beta testers in very rude manner. Posters with varying math skills explain how they believe the game engine works; no one defends how the game engine works now. Flamed beta testers flame back.

And you, apparently unable to make any rational argument or positive contribution to the forum, make a vague, unsubstantiated ad hominem attack ("fanbois") on anyone who disagrees with initial poster.

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

I don't see any BFC statements in Vanir's links

Yes, some official input would be appreciated at this point, I think. It seems noone here is actually qualified to properly explain how the game behaves in this area, except Steve. We have lots of educated guesses based on experience, but no hard facts (chance to score hits on various areas of the target).

The thread is pretty interesting, as is the other link on a very similar topic.

Please don't feed the troll.

[Jack Carr]

I ran a few tests using a 1977 Ford F150 pickup truck and a six pack of Budweiser. Nine out of ten times I was unable to avoid obstacles while driving the truck at high speed through neighbors yards. Which got me thinking about this post. Were German tankers heavy drinkers? If they can consistently hit the front part of an enemy tanks turret than my test results would prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that playing "Combat Mission" for too long can make you lose your grip on reality.