Jeff Heidman Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 I don't want to get into more arguments about whether these things *should* be adressed, I am just curious as to whether they have been or not: 1. Turret rotation speed of the Panther/Tiger. Any change? 2. German optics, and whether or not they were "better". 3. The overwhelming superiority of sub-machine gun armed units compared to rifle. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Hi Jeff, Here's what John Kettler wrote in the SO Cal preview thread: Optics They're in and make a huge difference, especially when the LOS can be upwards of 3 kms. in length and you have high grade crews to maximize the gunnery benefits good optics convey. Armor and guns now have optics ratings. Welcome to the world in which things like 88s and the Nashorn are actually useful, and the Tiger comes into its own. I played an engagement in which German armor went up against dug-in Russians. Every time a gun opened up, it was met with a hail of accurate return fire, usually either smashing the gun outright or putting so much HE and MG fire on the crew that the crew broke and ran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: 1. Turret rotation speed of the Panther/Tiger. Any change? I didn't spot any mention of this. BTW, I think the problem is only with the Panther. This Tiger's turret was very slow. But it could ratate the hull very abrupt, within a limited angle. What is missing for a fair treatment of the Tiger turn rate in comparision to Shermans and the like is the different treatment of hull turn rates respectivly the ability to turn in place. I find it irritating that the turret speed has been modeled so over-strict and the hull speed so lax. 2. German optics, and whether or not they were "better". Seems in. Read the california preview report. 3. The overwhelming superiority of sub-machine gun armed units compared to rifle. Fully solved with new movement policies, fairer ammo treatment for rifle squads and fixed MGs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jeff Heidman: 1. Turret rotation speed of the Panther/Tiger. Any change? I didn't spot any mention of this. BTW, I think the problem is only with the Panther. This Tiger's turret was very slow. But it could ratate the hull very abrupt, within a limited angle.</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted July 22, 2002 Share Posted July 22, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: the ability to turn in place If vehicles that couldn't rotate in place were to be modelled that way in CM, then the engine would have to get a LOT better at plotting movement around obstacles. Rotating allows the rather chintzy move-plot algorithm to usually get itself out of trouble. [ July 22, 2002, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: CMplayer ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Originally posted by CMplayer: If vehicles that couldn't rotate in place were to be modelled that way in CM, then the engine would have to get a LOT better at plotting movement around obstacles. Rotating allows the rather chintzy move-plot algorithm to usually get itself out of trouble.Slowing down the hull rotation for vehicles that can't turn in place and possibly raising the rotation speed for vehicles that can turn in place would be a much easier solution. Dschugaschwili Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: Slowing down the hull rotation for vehicles that can't turn in place ... would be a much easier solution.But not a very good one. Prime example would be wheeled vehicles moving fast down a paved road. Realistic they'd move at speed and shouldn't stop at all to turn. With a slowed turn the trip would be slowed down considerably... Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Saunders Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 Originally posted by Olle Petersson: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Dschugaschwili: Slowing down the hull rotation for vehicles that can't turn in place ... would be a much easier solution.But not a very good one. Prime example would be wheeled vehicles moving fast down a paved road. Realistic they'd move at speed and shouldn't stop at all to turn. With a slowed turn the trip would be slowed down considerably... Cheers Olle</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 It's called pivot or neutral steering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 23, 2002 Share Posted July 23, 2002 I am aware of all the issues with modeling rotate ability. My point is, the realistic modeling of the turret speed makes slow-turret tanks appear unrealistically weak. For two reasons: - not enough player control over the turret facing - insufficient model of hull turn rate factors As long as you cannot realistically model these two, you should not model turret speeds completely realistic. Because in sum it is less realistic when it comes to combat results. The turret speeds should be made more equal, that means slow-turret tanks get a medium one. This is bull**** in itself, but it offsets the missing other models and make the end result more realistic. That is for the real slow-turret tanks like the Tiger. Now, main-engine assisted turrets like on the Panther shouldn't default to the slowest speed to start from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Originally posted by Sarge Saunders: I think he means turning in place. As in: not moving. Turning on the move is an entirely different thing to code. If I understand you correctly.It's another thing to code, and not done in CM. All turning in CM is pivoting and all movement is straight. Moving down a winding road means; go straight, stop, pivot, go straight, stop, pivot, ... That's why slowing down the rotating speed of vehicles that in real life can't pivot will hamper their regular movement speed. If there were a different way to handle turning on the move, then the suggested change in turn speed would be relevant. Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Originally posted by Olle Petersson: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sarge Saunders: I think he means turning in place. As in: not moving. Turning on the move is an entirely different thing to code. If I understand you correctly.It's another thing to code, and not done in CM. All turning in CM is pivoting and all movement is straight. Moving down a winding road means; go straight, stop, pivot, go straight, stop, pivot, ... That's why slowing down the rotating speed of vehicles that in real life can't pivot will hamper their regular movement speed. If there were a different way to handle turning on the move, then the suggested change in turn speed would be relevant. Cheers Olle</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 24, 2002 Share Posted July 24, 2002 Turning on the move is already modeled. You can turn at full movement speed if you dont do too big angles in the turn. Two or three smaller turns per 90 degrees is enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts