Battlefront do something! (T34,IS2, KT)

[jwxspoon]

I must admit that the author of this post lost me when I came to the beta tester slam section... I think that one can pick any similar game out there and find things they don't like about its interface, performance, vehicle specific issues, penetration algorithms, etc. Picking the issue that frosts you the most and getting emotional or insulting about it in your post does nothing to help make a change and simply turns off those that might be inclined to help make any necessary changes.

As one of the aforementioned playtesters I admit to the urge to flame this guy when I first read the post. I can say that we did the best job we could; put many weeks and months into testing & creating scenarios for everyone to play and finding and fixing bugs. Many times we tested with no graphics, often with no sound. A few of us pulled all-nighters as deadlines approached in order to finish the scenarios and briefings.

This fantastic, multifaceted game has intrigued, excited, frustrated and angered all of us at one point or another. I haven't seen any "game breaking" issues though, and hysterical postings without any scientific backing such as the one starting this thread do nothing but point out another troll.

jw

[PiggDogg]

Chad,

Perhaps hes gunny bunnys brother or somefink . . .

You know, Kloss probably or possibly "is" Gunny Bunny under a new pseudonym. :eek:

Despite it all, Kloss did bring up valid points. However, his rudeness is unnecessary, impolite, disrespectful, and classless.

Indeed, Kloss's propositions could have been the centerpiece (for the emteenth time) of a good thread. However, his rudeness was just to enticing.

Everyone, remember: polite, respectful, civilized. If one can't post in this manner, don't post.

Cheers, Richard

[Silvio Manuel]

I think the T-34 vs. 37mm ATG thing underscores the value of moving your tanks in oblique angles (or w/ turrets pointed obliquely w/ cover armor) to likely threats to increase an angle of impact, a la Tiger I doctrine.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by redwolf:

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

It was? Generally I think the new model works mostly okay. I tested the 37mm vs a T-34/41 and made 4 frontal turret hits of 20-30 shots, all penetrations (at 225m), but non of them lethal, IRRC the tank was not even shocked.

You did a statistical test with a sample size of 4?</font>

[Scipio]

Originally posted by redwolf:

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

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

This was once modeled in CMBO but was removed. Small guns deliberately picking vulnerable spots made too lethal killer bees (because a correct model of doing so would need to be balanced by other "soft" factors).

It was? Generally I think the new model works mostly okay. I tested the 37mm vs a T-34/41 and made 4 frontal turret hits of 20-30 shots, all penetrations (at 225m), but non of them lethal, IRRC the tank was not even shocked.</font>

[Madmatt]

Okay, apparently you guys missed my earlier post so here it goes again.

I WILL have Steve and Charles pop in here when they are able and shed some light on this issue.

NO ONE has any right to insult each other on this forum. That includes people insulting beta testers and they insulting back. I want that crap stopped RIGHT NOW!!!

I was the Beta Test Coordinator for CMBB and the testers busted their asses to help make CMBB the awesome game experience that it is. Until you have put in 80+ plus hours on a testing out thousands of permutations and in game situations then you have NO RIGHT to criticize the efforts of my beta testers. If you want to take some one to task on what they did the you do so with me, not them, as they were solely my responsibility and they have earned some respect which they aren't getting here.

I have been involved in many game tests and dozens of beta teams and the dedication and knowledge that the CMBB beta testers brought to the table was overwhelming. These guys gave of their time and skill to do the impossible and they succeeded.

To insult them is to insult Battlefront and we will NOT stand for that.

Tempers are running hot here (mine included) so every one needs to settle down some before posting further on this matter. I am going to lock this up for the time being but will open it back up once Steve or Charles can reply for you.

I am not saying one way or the other about the original issue brought up, and discussion on game elements is great but I don't have enough info on how these particular issues are handled to comment and that's why its best to wait for the big guns to come on in and comment.

One more thing, rudeness is rudeness regardless of someone's native language. I have never accepted that excuse for what someone says.

Madmatt

[Madmatt]

Charles looked over the gist of this thread and here is what he had to say:

They are largely correct - we don't account for the different turret sizes directly.

However, some notes:

1. Tanks with especially small turrets have a lower silhouette rating than they otherwise would (and large turrets make a larget silhouette rating) and this affects the *overall* chance of hitting the tank.

2. CM *does* track whether curved mantlets cover the entire turret front or not. For example, some early T-34s have small rounded mantlets, so

the shell might strike this curved part, or likely it won't (hitting the 'flat' part of the turret front instead).

3. I think I saw some people claiming that the IS-2, KV-I and King Tiger and maybe some other tanks have "small" turret fronts. I find this

puzzling. For example, the King Tiger turret front, even the flat part, is still quite large because the overall turret is *enormous*. So,

relative to the KT size overall, even just the turret front flat part is as large as a typical tank's turret front relative to the overall tank.

So even though we don't track it specifically, the difference here is far smaller than certain people appear to be claiming. The same is largely true for the IS-2, though it's curved side-to-side so you have to look at the area that's sloped less than, say, 25 degrees or so (and this total area is still pretty good-sized). The turret front of the KV-I is just

flat-out big no matter how you look at it, so I don't have any idea what people are complaining about on that one.

4. With all these things said, we're looking forward to the new engine where we'll track individual armor plates no matter where they're placed or angled, and this will simulate the issue much better than we can now.

I will leave this thread open for a bit...

[ October 31, 2002, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Madmatt ]

[MikeyD]

Customer support at its finest.

[CavalryMan]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Customer support at its finest.

And politely too. It never ceases to amaze me how supportive the team are at times.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Madmatt:

2. CM *does* track whether curved mantlets cover the entire turret front or not. For example, some early T-34s have small rounded mantlets, so

the shell might strike this curved part, or likely it won't (hitting the 'flat' part of the turret front instead).

But this, while in itself a correct abstraction, makes the problem of "everybody has the same turret size in comparion to its hull" worse. This item actually increases my desire to push for the feature we discussed here.

Is there a chance that a CMBB patch will include the "small turret" attribute for a few tanks if I:

- come up with high-quality-drawing (good books) based real numbers of relation of turret size to hull size

- the vehicle is common

- the vehicle has a weaker turret than hull

I have all the Spielberger books and a random other bunch which would allow me to do a concrete calculation not based on photos, but drawings (usually Doyle). If needed I can walk around with a folding rule in Panzermusuem Munster.

[ October 31, 2002, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Scipio]

Originally posted by redwolf:

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

2. CM *does* track whether curved mantlets cover the entire turret front or not. For example, some early T-34s have small rounded mantlets, so

the shell might strike this curved part, or likely it won't (hitting the 'flat' part of the turret front instead).

But this, while in itself a correct abstraction, makes the problem of "everybody has the same turret size in comparion to its hull" worse. This item actually increases my desire to push for the feature we discussed here.

Is there a chance that a CMBB patch will include the "small turret" attribute for a few tanks if I:

- come up with high-quality-drawing (good books) based real numbers of relation of turret size to hull size

- the vehicle is common

- the vehicle has a weaker turret than hull

I have all the Spielberger books and a random other bunch which would allow me to do a concrete calculation not based on photos, but drawings (usually Doyle). If needed I can walk around with a folding rule in Panzermusuem Munster.</font>

[Bastables]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

I think it is kinda unfair of some of you who say that this is an old and well known issue. I sure as he** did not have a clue about how the game engine worked when deciding where a shot hit, and I have played CMBO for over a year. Maybe it is an old and well known flaw for some of you, but it is not old and well known for all of us.

In fact this thread kinda answers an old question. Do you guys remember when the CMBB demo was released and all the surprised posts about how 37mm guns were able to take out T-34s from the front? link

Do you remember the kind of responses that was presented in that thread? You wont find any mention of a flawed game engine there. No, instead you get the usual defensive ramblings:

maybe the guns had tungsten rounds,

maybe it was poor quality armor,

maybe it's the combination of non penetrating hits and low crew morale,

bah 300-400 m front turret penetration is normal because it is "close range",

this is the T-34m-40 variant it is supposed to be crappy, the later T-34s are better,

This is obviously what is intended by BFC and not a mistake

No one said "oops" or "yeah, we know, it is an oversight in the game engine that give too high probability for rounds to hit vunerable spots"

.

All reasons why I and others went through a phase of "Do a search posts". Roundly criticised by a number of people as unproductive and fractious. Yet now because a "Do a frigging search post" was not seen some people it suddenly becomes a undiscussed problem necessitating a insulting post that was predicated by a second round of beta testers being clueless.

Kloss you reap what you sow, It's that simple.

[Scipio]

***forget it***

[ October 31, 2002, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Scipio:

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

[...]Is there a chance that a CMBB patch will include the "small turret" attribute for a few tanks if I:

- come up with high-quality-drawing (good books) based real numbers of relation of turret size to hull size

[...]

Well, which tanks in particular?[/QB]</font>

[RobVarak]

What staggers me about this thread is that anyone could consider this issue a "serious game problem." IMHO a serious problem would have a substantial impact on the enjoyment and playability of the game.

Having potentially ahistorical outcomes in a relatively small portion of the game just doesn't get close to rising to that level.

If these issues are gamebreakers for anyone, I have far more pity for them than resentment at BTS for the shortcomings of the engine.

[ianc]

3. I think I saw some people claiming that the IS-2, KV-I and King Tiger and maybe some other tanks have "small" turret fronts. I find this puzzling. For example, the King Tiger turret front, even the flat part, is still quite large because the overall turret is *enormous*. So,

relative to the KT size overall, even just the turret front flat part is as large as a typical tank's turret front relative to the overall tank.

I don't quite understand this bit. It's true that the KT's turret front is quite large. However, in comparison to the rest of the tank, it comprises a smaller percentage of available target area than other tanks. The absolute area of the turret front is not important; it's the ratio of the area of the turret front to that of the hull or the overall area that is.

ianc

[PJungnitsch]

One of the main design features of the T-34 that strikes me is how the turret overhangs the front glacis. Would strikes on the top half of the glacis plate (if they miss the huge drivers hatch) not tend to deflect up and into the bottom of the mantlet (at a desireable angle for penetration) or into the turret ring?

A Soviet document from 1941 would seem to back up the T-34 had problems with 37mm:

REPORT about THE COMBAT ACTIVITY of 10-1 TANK DIVISION AT THE FRONT OF FIGHT with THE GERMAN FASCISM FOR THE PERIOD with 22.6 IN 1.8.41 g.MAP/CHART/CARD 200000

IV the characteristic of tanks "KV" and "T -34" in essence tanks "KV" and "T -34" have good military characteristics: strong/firm armor and a good weapon. On the field of battle the tanks "KV" gave into the confusion the tanks of enemy and in all cases his tanks stepped back. Soldiers and division commanders about our tanks speak as about the very reliable machines. Together with these qualities of machine have the following defects:1. on the tank "KV" a) upon the entry/incidence of projectile and large-caliber bullets occurs the wedging of tower in the pursuit and the wedging of the armored caps/hoods. Engine- diesel has the small power reserve, in consequence of which the motor is overloaded/transferred and overheats. c) main and steering clutches go out of order.2. on the tank "T -34" a)armor of machines and housing from the distance of 300? 400 m is penetrated by 37- mm by armor-piercing shell. The perpendicular sheets of boards/edges break through by 20- mm by armor-piercing shell. During overcoming of ditches as a result of the low installation the machines are buried by nose, cohesion/coupling with the soil insufficient because of the relative smoothness of circuits. http://community.battlefront.com/uploads/emoticons/default_cool.png' alt='B)'> upon the direct entry/incidence of projectile falls through front/leading driver's hatch. c) the caterpillar of machine is weak? any projectile is taken. d) the main thing and steering clutches go out of order.In detail about all defects of tanks "KV" and "T -34" with the proposals was reported in the report to the chief for main armored control the lieutenant general of tank troops Fedorenko to the chief for the armored administration for southwestern Front the Major General of tank troops Morgunov.

From this site

[Priest]

Hmmm how about this as a working theory.

Lets take a KT turret. If you put that on a KT chassis and also put that on a PIV chassis (hypothetical only) the turret itself is just as easy to hit if that is what is aimed for.

What most of you seem to be talking about is that if I see a tank I fire at the center mass and that target in general. Everyone takes for granted that turrets and other parts of tanks were not aimed for intentionally.

Lets look at it this way. I want to hit a T-34. I see it out at 1000m and I am in a KT with pretty darn good optics. So I can aim at the center mass or I can go for something more stylish and shoot for the turret. What I do realistically do is aim for the turret and then "fudge" low so to speak so that if I miss I get the hull. Now over the next hill a T-26 shows up with a T-34 turret (again hypothetical) at 1000m. I do the same. My chances to hit the turret are the same, if anything my chance to miss completely increases but not the actual chance to hit the turret.

Hope that makes sense. It does to me at least if it realistic to expect that gunners aimed for more than just the center of mass.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by ianc:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />3. I think I saw some people claiming that the IS-2, KV-I and King Tiger and maybe some other tanks have "small" turret fronts. I find this puzzling. For example, the King Tiger turret front, even the flat part, is still quite large because the overall turret is *enormous*. So,

relative to the KT size overall, even just the turret front flat part is as large as a typical tank's turret front relative to the overall tank.

I don't quite understand this bit. It's true that the KT's turret front is quite large. However, in comparison to the rest of the tank, it comprises a smaller percentage of available target area than other tanks. The absolute area of the turret front is not important; it's the ratio of the area of the turret front to that of the hull or the overall area that is.

ianc</font>

[Richard Morgan]

A turret hit related question... How does the game record a "shot trap" kill? In real-life, the incoming shell hits the underside of the turret mantlet and is deflected downwards through the thin top armour near the driver's head!!! Does this count as a turret hit, a hull hit, or both? Or is it recorded as "shot trap" kill?

It strikes me that some of the tanks mentioned in this thread suffer from shot traps and that this might explain at least some of the frontal turret kills. I have no way of knowing: I play with the detailed armour hits turned off. This is because I reckon having this feature switched on would tell me more than I should know if I was a real-life commander on the ground!

I would be grateful if someone could give me an answer on this.

Cheers,

Richard.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by Richard Morgan:

Does this count as a turret hit, a hull hit, or both? Or is it recorded as "shot trap" kill?

AFAIK, and I could be wrong on this, shot traps are modeled simply as an increased chance of a weak point penetration. There is no "shot trap" message. Whether this increased chance of weak point penetration only occurs when the shot hits the turret front or anywhere on the tank I don't know, but I've always suspected it was anywhere on the tank.

[ November 01, 2002, 05:32 AM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Redwolf]

Shot trap is just an increased chance of weak spot penetration. Insofar shot trap hits are reported as "weak point penetrations".

Normally any hit has a 1% chance of weak spot penetration. If the tank has a shot trap, that chance is raised. Steve once said to 10%, but in my tests it was more like to 3-5%. The mismatch is probably that Steve mean that it is 10% for turret hits, which would translate to 3% on the whole front.

[Amedeo]

Originally posted by Paul Jungnitsch:

A Soviet document from 1941 would seem to back up the T-34 had problems with 37mm:

In fact I pointed to this very document in the other thread. The strange point is that, while the document is a proof that early T-34 has some protection problems even against small calibre guns, the point is that the author states that those problems are related to 37mm hits on the hull, 20mm hits on the vertical lower side hull plates and, occasionally, hits on the driver's hatch on the glacis. In CMBB the majority of 37mm kills vs. the T-34 is due to front turret penetrations, but in the document this kind of problem is not mentioned!

Regards,

Amedeo

[illo]

hmmm...i for one think there is VERY much difference in turret front sizes.

Is there someone who thinks this wouldnt affect relative turret hit changes at all???

In CMBB it does not.

[ November 01, 2002, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: illo ]

[VicKevlar]

Beta testers only find problems and make proposals, but BTS make the decission if something must be changed or not. So you should not put them in charge for a problem that they may have noticed and may have reported to BTS.

Wow....this sounds so familiar for some reason.