Alternative ATR thread

[flamingknives]

Leaving the Halftrack bug thread to it's own devices....

ATRs.

The most common examples (PTRS/PTRD, PzB39) will not target infantry or soft vehicles.

Why? Simple. They are exclusively equipped with tungsten (T) rounds, and the TacAI will not use these "rare" projectiles against soft targets.

AT rifles using AP rounds will happily target trucks and the like, and rapidly turn them into mincemeat (try using the Solothurm or whatever it is)

With the exception of the Finnish 20mm effort, no ATR equipped with 'T' type rounds have any other ammunition type.

Question: Is there any point in these rounds being labelled as 'T', when it would make no difference (as far as I can see) to call them AP instead, allowing the AI to target soft vehicles and infantry?

[PeterX]

Flamingknives, that's a stretch with your Tungsten theory. Let's see what BFC says on the subject- if anything. Anyway, to get the ball rolling on the important ATR matter here's a repost from Rex Bellator's jealously guarded thread:

James Crowley posted:

AT rifles were obviously designed to fire at tanks but why wouldn't they target almost anything else if there are no tanks around.

I can verify they shoot at infantry with something, presumably their sidearms. Several AT teams showed infantry kills in one computer generated QB I played. Still, they should use their rifles on infantry if no armor threats present themselves. At least that seems logical. They carry 50-75 shells, for G*d's sake.

OTOH, with a blast value of '1' one wonders how decisive their value would be in a city fight.

[flamingknives]

I haven't tried the tungsten theory out on infantry yet, but I've tried to no avail to get pure 'T' ATRs to target soft vehicles - will try again later.

Incidently the Solthurm kicks arse at killing trucks.

[James Crowley]

The Soviet AT rifles were certainly used extensively in street fighting, partisan warfare and against wooden bunkers and dugouts.

As well as against light tanks and vehicles, of course.

Unfortunately, as things stand in CMBB, if there are no hard-targets for them to shoot at, they are basically useless. They will not target, nor can they be targetted on, soft vehicles or infantry in any circumstancs.

This will probably apply more to QB's, especially those with a high percentage of randomness, where you may encounter a tankless opponent. Scenario designers will no doubt factor them out if there are no tanks; but by the same token if you get AT rifles in a designed scenario then you can bet your boots that the oppostion is going to have tanks of some sort.

Question is; can anything be done to alleviate the problem?

[akdavis]

Originally posted by James Crowley:

This will probably apply more to QB's, especially those with a high percentage of randomness, where you may encounter a tankless opponent. Scenario designers will no doubt factor them out if there are no tanks; but by the same token if you get AT rifles in a designed scenario then you can bet your boots that the oppostion is going to have tanks of some sort.

You'd think that, but try the scenario "Sapristi."

[Renaud]

Sounds like they just need to make a minor adjustment which will allow you to fire any ATR at any target. Course it might not have any effect depending on the target, but let the chips fall where they may. 'nuff said

Ren

[PeterX]

Question is; can anything be done to alleviate the problem?

The problem with the ATR teams is the most serious bug so far unacknowledged officially by BFC, IMO. And they're a very common unit, much loved by the computer when it autoselects. I hope the solution won't run into any coding obstacles. Also, I think they should also look into the over-robustness of trucks in the face of fire.

In retrospect, these two factors made that partisan scenario- where the Germans have to exit trucks- into a very weird affair.

Still, CMBO when trough 12 patches and the current build of CMBB seems to offer a lot less potential for gamey abuse than CM1 1.0.

[ October 29, 2002, 07:07 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by PeterX:

Flamingknives, that's a stretch with your Tungsten theory. Let's see what BFC says on the subject- if anything.

Actually, judging from the CMBO AI's much discussed inability to fire on soft-targets with AP, I'd say it's right on.

Originally posted by PeterX:

I can verify they shoot at infantry with something, presumably their sidearms. Several AT teams showed infantry kills in one computer generated QB I played.

AT rifles that kill AFV crew and passengers will record the casualties as Infantry Kills. Load up a few SPW 250/1's and start pot-shotting them: You'll soon notice the German panzergrenadier squads will be short a few men. Evidently infantry targets are only legit when seperated from the ATR buy a mm of steel.

[ October 30, 2002, 05:27 AM: Message edited by: von Lucke ]

[flamingknives]

Did another test.

PTRS/PTRD will not go for soft targets, vehicles or infantry, neither will the Lahiti with a purely 'T' load out. I may put 'BUG' in the thread title soon to see if I can attract attention to this.

As ATRs with AP ammo will go after soft targets, I don't see why PTRD/PzB39 etc can't be given all AP ammo, since the 'T' type seems only to be there to differentiate between standard AP and special.

[Renaud]

I would say being packed in a halftrack hit by ATR slugs is far more dangerous for the squad than being fired at while deployed on the ground. Think of the slug penetrating and bouncing around inside a cramped compartment packed with men. The ATR vs deployed infantry is going to be less effective than a sharpshooter with a regular bolt-action rifle I would think. And sharpshooters don't exactly mow them down.

I'd like to be able to TARGET anything though.

Ren

edit: and the infantry inside the halftrack is not the target. The halftrack is. When it gets penetrated the passengers are often injured in addition to the crew.

[ October 30, 2002, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

[Madmatt]

Charles is going to look over some of these ATR issues soon.

Madmatt

[Von Viniga]

ATR's will not fire at wooden bunkers (I assume the same for concrete ones).

There are scenarios released with the game, where one side is given ATR's and the enemy does not have armour, but does have fortifications.

I assumed that I could engage these with my ATR's.....oh well.

[James Crowley]

Originally posted by PeterX:

I can verify they shoot at infantry with something, presumably their sidearms. Several AT teams showed infantry kills in one computer generated QB I played. Still, they should use their rifles on infantry if no armor threats present themselves. At least that seems logical. They carry 50-75 shells, for G*d's sake.

OTOH, with a blast value of '1' one wonders how decisive their value would be in a city fight.[/QB]

[futureman]

"I can verify they shoot at infantry with something, presumably their sidearms."

Yes, I have witnessed it. An ATR team that I had hiding came across a platoon of PZ IV's...I ordered them to get the hell out of there, but in the pause before they moved, they definitely shot something other than the AT rifle at the tanks - sounds like pistols - wasnt the usual 'thud' of the AT rifles. At least 6 or 8 shots in the 12 seconds before they moved.

[flamingknives]

Charles is going to look over some of these ATR issues soon.

Madmatt

Ah, Good. No need to deploy the bug bomb.

[Madmatt]

ATR were added very late in the design and coding of CMBB. As such there are some limitations to their use.

They will NOT engage- Infantry or Wooden Bunkers with their AT-Rifles, they will however employ their sidearms and defend themselves if the need arises.

Charles says this will NOT be changed in CMBB as it would require too much re-coding.

Madmatt

[PeterX]

Madmatt posted:

They will NOT engage- Infantry or Wooden Bunkers with their AT-Rifles

And trucks?

This wasn't unexpected; the problem with the flak vehicles couldn't be resolved in CMBO due to coding restraints. Unfortunately, I feel this is a significant negative in CMBB given the numerical prominence of ATR teams in scenarios and QBs. I'll try to think of them henceforth as dedicated Halftrack Button-Uppers.

OTOH, if they have binoculars (I'll check) we can use them as gamey recon units. Or leave them in the setup zone....

[ October 31, 2002, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[demoss]

The Lahti will engage bunkers - until the T is all that's left.

[PeterX]

What about re-arming the ATR teams with standard AP ammo in the patch? I think we'd all survive knowing that they REALLY used Tungsten shells. At least they'd contribute some play value. As is, this bug deforms a number of scenarios on the CD, including 'A Deadly Affair', which is now revealed as a joke.

I'm not asserting this is a game killer. But it's close.

[ October 31, 2002, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[PeterX]

Bump.

This is of the utmost importance.

[von Lucke]

Originally posted by PeterX:

What about re-arming the ATR teams with standard AP ammo in the patch? I think we'd all survive knowing that they REALLY used Tungsten shells.

While I agree with you this might be a work-around, it would still involve re-coding the ATR penetration abilities. So, for that reason alone, I don't think it will happen.

[Tero]

What about ATR in AA role ? Haven't witnessed any occurances yet so I assume it is not possible.

At least the PTRD/PTRS and the Lahti were used to shoot at (and occasionally they actually brought down) ground attack planes.

[PeterX]

While I agree with you this might be a work-around, it would still involve re-coding the ATR penetration abilities. So, for that reason alone, I don't think it will happen.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I imagine this would merely entail changing the 'x' value designating their weapon load.

When we receive a half dozen of these things in a QB- as has happened- what do we do? March them off a friendly map edge? Their point value as units in determining the final score has to exceed any conceivable contribution they could make as currently configured.

If this can't be fixed I favor removing them from the game. Or maybe BFC could add the AT rifle to the Russian squad's weapon load out, like rifle grenades or molotov cocktails.

[ November 01, 2002, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Soddball]

Remove them from the game? :eek:

I hate to say it,but that's mad papers of doom. Even a partly-working ATR is better than none at all, particularly when you consider their importance on the eastern front. I can live without ATRs firing on soft targets, but I would howl and wail if anyone actually thought about taking them out.

[PeterX]

Final bump....