Why won't Tanks smash through small walls....!!!!

[Charlie901]

Pretty funny watching the Tanks in this game zig zag through/between multiple rows of cinderblock walls (<6) foot and expose it's flank/rear when they know a enemy tank is on the other side just waiting. Kinda reminds me of the old PacMan game...LoL.

How do you get a tank to punch through a short/small wall and why won't the A.I. do the same!!!

[ August 30, 2007, 09:33 AM: Message edited by: Charlie901 ]

[Charlie901]

On a related note I saw and Enemy T-72 shoot it's cannon point blank into a wall at my squad, which was in front and on a 1 story rooftop, the tank kept exploding sheels into this wall when it could have punched a hole in the wall and had a clear field of fire, or reversed slightly and achieved proper elevation, on its Main Gun, to shoot over the wall into my squad.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

There's been a few tankers here and there who have already expressed an opinion of tanks driving through walls. The general consensus is that you'll risk throwing a thread and losing a thread sucks big time even when there is no enemy around.

In this case have been worth the risk. But that's asking a bit much of the AI if you expect it to make this decision. If you wanted to go through that wall you might want to try knocking it over with gunfire next time.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

On that second point: yes, this would be less then ideal. It's probably in part to blame on walls being weird/broken with LOF and LOS in particular. In 1.03 this may be better, as wall issues got addressed.

But knocking it over with a tank will I assume remain a no-no and backing up to engage will likely be beyond the AI's grasp.

[Charlie901]

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

There's been a few tankers here and there who have already expressed an opinion of tanks driving through walls. The general consensus is that you'll risk throwing a thread and losing a thread sucks big time even when there is no enemy around.

In this case have been worth the risk. But that's asking a bit much of the AI if you expect it to make this decision. If you wanted to go through that wall you might want to try knocking it over with gunfire next time.

It's a big cheat when you know the A.I. Tanks won't breach a small wall and you can pick them off one by one as they drive through this maze.

I'm not stating that we need Uber A.I. algorithims but shouldn't the A.I. at least be smart enough to prioritize, that an enemy Armor unit is on the other side of the wall, waiting for a flank shot, and instead the A.I. will find a direct path to engage the armor unit head on, without having to dive through this maze and expose it's flank like the last tank.

At least let a tank puch a hole in a wall without driving completely through it to open a clear LOS to a target.

[Bradley Dick]

You know what, we punched through walls all the time with Bradleys. Never threw track a single time. We had to clear bricks off the driver's hatch a few times, but never threw track.

[ChrisND]

Yeah, we did it more than a few times sometimes with humvees, to enter a compound...

[Hawkmek]

Funny you guys brought this up.

I am currently reading "We Were One" by Patrick K. O'Donnell(another recommendation from this fine forum).

page 73 states:

"...the engineers were to clear three lanes through a twelve-inch curb running down the center of a road perpendicular to the Marines' line of advance. The curb had to go since it would prevent even tracked vehicles fro entering the ciy."

Tracked vehicles cannot breach a foot high curb?

Or would it be an unnecessary risk of damaging your track/becoming immobilized?

[Bradley Dick]

Maybe he was just wrong. I've never heard of a 12 inch curb causing problems for a tracked vehicle. The opposite was always true, track vehicles causing major damage to curbs.

[Hawkmek]

I was too lazy to type the entire paragraph, so it does sound like a twelve inch curb halted the US military.

The Combat Engineers used MICLIC to remove the obstacles: a minefield and 3 railroad tracks

I would guess the curb was just an innocent victim. Wrong location type thing.

Who knows? But it seems the author would have been corrected by someone along the way about the curb.

[NCOIC]

Could expose the more vulnerable lower hull, but prevent a Bradly or Abram... no.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

Yeah, we did it more than a few times sometimes with humvees, to enter a compound...

Did they throw a track?

[tc237]

Yeah, knockin down a wall with an M1 can be tricky.

The front slope is low enough that some bricks/slabs might smash a drivers vision block or jam the turret.

If it was necessary then yeah, but I wouldn't do it just for fun.

Now backing into and knocking walls down in the FOB damn rookie driver

"Roger CSM, Roger CSM...."

[Battlefront.com]

I'm not sure if we will ever get it into the game, but in some conditions it is definitely possible for any heavy AFV to knock over a section of wall. I've seen video of Bradleys and Strykers doing this in Iraq. However, three things I noted:

1. There was more than a little coordination between grunts and VCs to make this happen. When nobody is shooting back, or it is just isolated small arms fire, such coordination is easier than in a CM environment.

2. Not all walls are equal. Some are nothing more than loosely piled up stones with little to no mortar. A civilian vehicle could probably push it over if it got a running start. Other walls, however, are quite well constructed and not so easily pushed over.

3. The vehicle wasn't trying to go through the wall, it was knocking it over so the infantry could get in easier. There is a big difference, in terms of safety to the vehicle, between knocking over something and then backing up as opposed to knocking it over and driving through it.

I'm curious you guys with Iraq experience think about these observations and how things would be in a full on confrontation vs. isolated threat conditions.

Steve

[Bradley Dick]

Driving through and over a wall is definitely more treacherous than just knocking it down. Smallish size rocks can throw track out of alignment pretty easily, so I don't see why driving through a pile of bricks wouldn't be as dangerous. We just slammed into the wall, and then backed up. Personally, I never did it on any really strong walls. It was mud, brick, or cinderblock houses. And we always planned for it, it was never something done on the fly. That's just in my experience though.

[Charlie901]

Steve,

At least give us the option to punch a hole in a small compound wall...

It would make sense to have a tank AFV do it, if under fire and a squad needs another entry/exit point and especially if the Tank/AVF needs the LOS for a clearer field of FIRE!!!

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I'm not sure if we will ever get it into the game, but in some conditions it is definitely possible for any heavy AFV to knock over a section of wall. I've seen video of Bradleys and Strykers doing this in Iraq. However, three things I noted:

1. There was more than a little coordination between grunts and VCs to make this happen. When nobody is shooting back, or it is just isolated small arms fire, such coordination is easier than in a CM environment.

2. Not all walls are equal. Some are nothing more than loosely piled up stones with little to no mortar. A civilian vehicle could probably push it over if it got a running start. Other walls, however, are quite well constructed and not so easily pushed over.

3. The vehicle wasn't trying to go through the wall, it was knocking it over so the infantry could get in easier. There is a big difference, in terms of safety to the vehicle, between knocking over something and then backing up as opposed to knocking it over and driving through it.

I'm curious you guys with Iraq experience think about these observations and how things would be in a full on confrontation vs. isolated threat conditions.

Steve

In my experience the vehicle would simply knock the wall down to enable access for infantry, definetely not drive over it. As you said, it has to be coordinated.

If the wall was too big/strong, a couple of times the vehicle was used to knock the gate down.

I never saw it happen in a full on firefight, just raids, but that's my limited experience in the matter.

[Michael Dorosh]

Isn't driving into a wall kind of dangerous if you have no idea what is on the other side of the wall? Granting vehicles the ability to simply drive through obstacles would grant an already omniscient player an advantage that a real life commander may or may not have in actuality, even with advanced technology and intelligence gathering capabilities. I refer both to the possibility of anti-tank weapons on the other side of the wall, but also something as goofy as there being, like, a building or ditch on the other side that would simply bog the vehicle down.

Even if a driver has the latest satellite imagery - he can get lost in the downtown of a foreign city. The player will always know to avoid that drainage ditch behind the wall; in real life, a scared 19 year old driver may always not.

And as Steve mentions - how do you tell how thick a wall is just by looking at it for the first time?

I'm not saying to prohibit it, or include it, simply that like with any game design element, many factors come into play when considering reality vs. playability. There are ways of satisfying both.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Isn't driving into a wall kind of dangerous if you have no idea what is on the other side of the wall?

Would it be any less dangerous going through the front/back door where they are expecting you to come?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Isn't driving into a wall kind of dangerous if you have no idea what is on the other side of the wall?

Would it be any less dangerous going through the front/back door where they are expecting you to come? </font>

[PeterLorre86]

So if knocking over a wall is too dangerous, why not just include a small chance of immobilization?

I would rather just be told it is too complex or too time consuming to be worth coding, instead of being told the risk of track damage excludes it from the game.

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Normal Dude:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Isn't driving into a wall kind of dangerous if you have no idea what is on the other side of the wall?

Would it be any less dangerous going through the front/back door where they are expecting you to come? </font>I understand that, I'm looking at it from a game design perspective, though. You're looking at a single situation, and I agree with you, in that particular instance. Go back and consider what could happen if you give players the ability to drive through any old wall they want, though - you're talking major changes to the way games are played with impacts on, ultimately, playability and realism. Just like the hedgerow rules in CM:BO where all US tanks were considered to have the Culin hedgerow device. It was an enormous advantage that US troops historically did not have, but it had to be simplified in order to get it into the game. One of those irritating but necessary tradeoffs. You can argue that walls in CM:SF are the same thing, I suppose, and make a good case, as indeed, you seem to have just done. </font>Fair enough. I agree that the vehicles should not be able to drive THROUGH the walls. That's pretty risky. But there's something to be said for creating access points for the infantry.

I don't think it's a big deal, since we can always just blow the wall in CM:SF.

[Mishga]

I dunno about driving thru walls.... I don't have a driving license!

But...risk vs reward...you want a big hole in the wall...great, smash your tank into the wall et voila a nice rockery for the garden back home.....but you pay the price in the higher %chance of bogging or imobilization. You pays your money and you takes your chance.

[Battlefront.com]

PeterLorree86,

I would rather just be told it is too complex or too time consuming to be worth coding, instead of being told the risk of track damage excludes it from the game.

The difficulty of programming it is only part of the equation. Anybody here remember the debates about various SL/ASL rules way back in early CMBO development days? Dorosh, I know you were there for that. In particular I'm thinking about the ability to purposefully start a fire in that game and not in CMBO...

In real life it is actually pretty easy to get something to burn, conditions depending of course. In some combat situations perhaps this might have been used, but 99.9% of the time in combat you'd never, ever see that. But if we allowed people to set fire, you'd see fires all over the place. This would then have an adverse effect on the reality of combat as it actually happened.

Vehicles knocking down walls is one of those things. Can it happen? Clearly they can. Do they in a Counter Insurgency environment? Cleary they do. Would they do it in a conventional fight? Possibly, but routinely? I don't know. I tend to doubt it, but it is possible.

So here we are with literally hundreds of things we can theoretically add to the game, each one of which takes time to do, test, and fix. Do we want to spend time on something that quite possibly isn't even realistic in CM's setting, or do we want to do other stuff? That's the sort of choices we have to make.

For now, knocking down walls with vehicles is not high up on our priority list. We might get to it at some point if we think it's more or less common for CM's environment, but until then we're going to spend our time on other things.

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

PeterLorree86,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I would rather just be told it is too complex or too time consuming to be worth coding, instead of being told the risk of track damage excludes it from the game.

The difficulty of programming it is only part of the equation. Anybody here remember the debates about various SL/ASL rules way back in early CMBO development days? Dorosh, I know you were there for that. In particular I'm thinking about the ability to purposefully start a fire in that game and not in CMBO...

In real life it is actually pretty easy to get something to burn, conditions depending of course. In some combat situations perhaps this might have been used, but 99.9% of the time in combat you'd never, ever see that. But if we allowed people to set fire, you'd see fires all over the place. This would then have an adverse effect on the reality of combat as it actually happened. </font>