Battlefront do something! (T34,IS2, KT)

[Madmatt]

The only two people that can really comment on this issue with a deep enough understanding of how things are currently calculated in the game are Steve and Charles and neither, unfortunately, have the time to do so at the moment.

This thread has been pointed out to them though.

Madmatt

[Guest Sgt. Emren]

Sorry if 'm a bit dense...

If I understand this problem correctly, the actual chance to score a "Front Turret" hit (not to be confused with simply scoring a turret hit) is the same for every tank, regardless of the actual, physical size of the turret. Is this correct, i.e. can either BFC or the beta testers confirm this?

If this is not correct, could someone please explain it a little better?

In the case that my description IS correct, it seems like a rather significant ...hmm... flaw, when some tanks have weaker (but smaller) turret fronts than others.

[Henri]

While we're at it, aren't there too many gun hits? I remember reading that it had been toned down compared to CMBO, but it seems to me that there are still too many (I would guess one out of five "kills". Scuza me if this has been discussed before, but with a full page of new messages every hour...

Henri

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Henri:

your math are a bit off: if the relative area goes down from 30% to 25%, the hit probability goes from 33% down to 25%, which is a difference of 8% and not 5%...

It's quite possible my math was off, but I'm not sure that I understand your math well enough to tell. So I'll rephrase what I was trying to say (with the caveat that my understanding of how this works may simply be wrong) and if my math still seems wrong to you, I will concede that it is.

As I understand things, CM calculates a "to hit" probability based on a bunch of different attributes, including the size of the tank (i.e., the silhouette value). After determining that a tank has been hit, the game "rolls a die" to determine what part of the tank has been hit, based on several factors, including the tank's facing. Assuming that the tank is facing forward, a "roll" of 1-30 would indicate a turret hit. (I know that the game also keeps track of the mantlet armor as separate from the turret armor, and even different parts of the mantlet armor, as well as the mantlet curvature, but I don't know that this is relevant.) Anyway, I think the way that this would change would be that on a T-34, say, the turret would be hit on a roll of 1-25, with a correspondingly greater chance that the upper hull (or whatever) would be hit instead of the turret.

If this means that the reduced chance of hitting the turret is 8% rather than 5%, I can live with that.

And I presume that when you speak of a 75mm gun, you mean a high-speed one? Is this the gun (the Panther gun) that the PZIV had? I don,t know, I'm just asking.

henri

Actually, I'm not sure what gun they were talking about. I had assumed that they were talking about the gun on the PzIV (not as good as the Panther gun) because there was a bit talking about a fight between StuGs, Tiger I's, and IS-2s just before the quote from the scientific center. But there's not necessarily any connection between the scientific report and the StuG/Tiger/IS-2 fight (other than proximity on the web site), so they may well have been talking about the Panther's gun.

[Holien]

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly comes to mind when reading this thread.

Thank you to the "Good" who have enhanced my knowledge.

H

[Priest]

Well time for me to become one of the Ugly.

"Have you ever seen a KT" - Kloss

(Looks at KT model sitting on desk, looks on wall at limited edition KT sketch from Battlefront, and then at the stack of WWII tank books)

Nope never seen one

[Broken]

Actually, in terms of the math, reducing the turret hit chance from 30% to 25% decreases the kill chance by 16%, not 5% or 8%, if the percent of turret hits that kill remains the same. The old turret hit chance is 30%. The proposed new turret hit chance is 25%. 25/30 is 83%, or a reduction of 16%.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Sgt. Emren:

If I understand this problem correctly, the actual chance to score a "Front Turret" hit (not to be confused with simply scoring a turret hit) is the same for every tank, regardless of the actual, physical size of the turret. Is this correct, i.e. can either BFC or the beta testers confirm this?

Yes.

As I pointed out earlier my actual tests were in CMBO, but I have never seen a notice that CMBB would have introduced a concept of undersize turrets, and I am sure somebody would have. (I don't count the random comment earlier in this thread).

In the case that my description IS correct, it seems like a rather significant ...hmm... flaw, when some tanks have weaker (but smaller) turret fronts than others.

Yes. As those with the math gotten right pointed out the chance to lose a thin-turret tank will actually drop by quite a margin even for minor shifts in turret versus hull size. The reduction is not as small as it sounds on first sight.

A simple view at the Pz IV front will show that the turret front (at least the part not heavily angled and not covered by the mantlet) is in fact substancially smaller compared to the hull size than in most other tanks. There are several other tanks with similar proportions, as has been pointed out in this thread, at least T-34/76.

Needless to say, T-34 and Pz IV are not the least important vehicles to get right for an eastern front game with lots of 37-50mm weapons, it is not that we are fighting about the models for exotics here.

[Henri]

Originally posted by Broken!:

Actually, in terms of the math, reducing the turret hit chance from 30% to 25% decreases the kill chance by 16%, not 5% or 8%, if the percent of turret hits that kill remains the same. The old turret hit chance is 30%. The proposed new turret hit chance is 25%. 25/30 is 83%, or a reduction of 16%.

Oops you're right, MY math is off by a factor of two! Gawd, I hope none of my students are reading this thread...

Henri

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Scipio:

I think the problem - if there is any - is not the unmodeled(?) size of the turret, but the 'curved' armor. I have the impression that curved armor is easier to penetrate - is this realistic? I don't know.

I think you mistake the effect of curved armor.

Consider a tank with this front:

- turret 45mm curved

- upper hull 45mm at 60 degrees

- lower hull 45mm at 0 degrees

Let us look at the hull first: obviously the lower hull totally sucks, 45mm at zero degrees is nothing.

The upper hull looks very good in comparision, because of the angle.

Now, "curved" means that the turret can be as thin as the crappy lower hull (45mm at zero degrees) if you are unlucky. Or it can be practially endlessly think (more specific: angled) the luckier you get, up to and bejond the strong upper hull of this tank.

[ October 29, 2002, 09:28 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

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.

[Redwolf]

Regarding the effort for coding and research:

I think it would be a fine fix not to make a complete list of relative turret size for each vehicle.

Instead, a single attribute "small turret" for a few tanks would do, and the chance is then lower for those by a constant factor, lets say 30% to 25% or 23%.

Remember that this fix is not strickly needed for all tanks with undersize turrets. Needed in a gameplay sense it is only for tanks with less turret than hull armor. For example, I wouldn't neccessarily bother to measure the King Tiger turret at it has almost the same armor as the hull anyway, so the "small turret" attribute is purely academic and serves no real purpose.

The T-34 and Pz IV are entirely different matters, though - common, weak turret, small turret front.

[ October 29, 2002, 09:42 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Regarding the effort for coding and research:

I think it would be a fine fix not to make a complete list of relative turret size for each vehicle.

Instead, a single attribute "small turret" for a few tanks would do, and the chance is then lower for those by a constant factor, lets say 30% to 25% or 23%.

Remember that this fix is not strickly needed for all tanks with undersize turrets. Needed in a gameplay sense it is only for tanks with less turret than hull armor. For example, I wouldn't neccessarily bother to measure the King Tiger turret at it has almost the same armor as the hull anyway, so the "small turret" attribute is purely academic and serves no real purpose.

The T-34 and Pz IV are entirely different matters, though - common, weak turret, small turret front.

Now that makes more sense than anything else I have read so far in this thread.

Quote:

"Instead, a single attribute "small turret" for a few tanks would do, and the chance is then lower for those by a constant factor, lets say 30% to 25% or 23%.

Remember that this fix is not strickly needed for all tanks with undersize turrets. Needed in a gameplay sense it is only for tanks with less turret than hull armor. For example, I wouldn't neccessarily bother to measure the King Tiger turret at it has almost the same armor as the hull anyway, so the "small turret" attribute is purely academic and serves no real purpose.

The T-34 and Pz IV are entirely different matters, though - common, weak turret, small turret front."

I think that would help...

And not sure I can suggest this with any degree of confidence BUT maybe it "could" be done in a patch?? maybe v1.2?

-tom w

[ October 29, 2002, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Treeburst155]

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!

Treeburst155 out.

[Ben Galanti]

Originally posted by Henri:

While we're at it, aren't there too many gun hits? I remember reading that it had been toned down compared to CMBO, but it seems to me that there are still too many (I would guess one out of five "kills". Scuza me if this has been discussed before, but with a full page of new messages every hour...

Henri

Well, I think in CM terms, "gun hit" includes all sorts of things that would make the gun unusable. The turret jamming, partial penetrations mucking up the elevation mechanism, maybe even optics being wiped out. It's more then just the barrel getting dinged.

That being said, I have no idea whether this happens to much in CMBB. It does seem toned down to me from CMBO, but I would think figuring out what a "realistic" number for this is would be difficult...

Ben

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by Ben Galanti:

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

While we're at it, aren't there too many gun hits? I remember reading that it had been toned down compared to CMBO, but it seems to me that there are still too many (I would guess one out of five "kills". Scuza me if this has been discussed before, but with a full page of new messages every hour...

Henri

Well, I think in CM terms, "gun hit" includes all sorts of things that would make the gun unusable. The turret jamming, partial penetrations mucking up the elevation mechanism, maybe even optics being wiped out. It's more then just the barrel getting dinged.

That being said, I have no idea whether this happens to much in CMBB. It does seem toned down to me from CMBO, but I would think figuring out what a "realistic" number for this is would be difficult...

Ben</font>

[Lindan]

Niveau in this thread started to improve dramatically when Kloss' stopped posting.

regards,

a worthless beta-tester.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Remember that this fix is not strickly needed for all tanks with undersize turrets. Needed in a gameplay sense it is only for tanks with less turret than hull armor. For example, I wouldn't neccessarily bother to measure the King Tiger turret at it has almost the same armor as the hull anyway, so the "small turret" attribute is purely academic and serves no real purpose.

The T-34 and Pz IV are entirely different matters, though - common, weak turret, small turret front."

I think that would help...

And not sure I can suggest this with any degree of confidence BUT maybe it "could" be done in a patch?? maybe v1.2?

-tom w

Except that the original poster was speaking of the area of the turret face not the size of the entire turret. King Tigers have a massive turret in profile. But from the front, the aspect is rather small --- and a good part of that is covered by the gun mantlet.

So, maybe something like the "Reinforced Turret Front" coded into Tiger I's. Call it "Small Turret Front", and reduce the % chance of a Front Turret hit.

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Lindan:

Niveau in this thread started to improve dramatically when Kloss' stopped posting.

regards,

a worthless beta-tester.

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

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

May I have my own opinnion?

[rune]

Kloss,

You have NO idea what was brought up and what wasn't during beta testing. You have no idea what was tested, what was changed, or what bugs we found before release. In other words, you are speaking of stuff you do NOT know about.

Let us look what was said:

Steve has said previously that the universal turret size will not change until the engine rewrite.

So, obviously Steve knew about the turret. Obviously it was not addressed. Therefore, it is not a bug but the way the game is designed. Since it will be addressed in the engine re-write, why would beta testers say it is a bug?

Rune

[Andreas]

Rune, what's the point? Just leave him revel in the thought that he was the first to bring up this mind-blowing contribution to the game. Some people are just not worth spending time on.

[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.

[ October 30, 2002, 05:18 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

[Guest 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?

[von Lucke]

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.

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.

[Tanaka]

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