Turning hull towards biggest danger

[RSColonel_131st]

Something I found quite a problem in some recent quick battles...

If you have a tank on the map, and you know there's another tank around, then it's quite prudent to rotate or give a fire arc for your tank, into the general direction of the enemy.

Obviously you want your strongest armor to face the enemy gun.

BUT with some recent games, in addition to enemy tanks there also was some enemy infantry closer. I wanted my tank to fire at them alright, but even with a covered arc, it not only turned it's turret but also turned it's hull towards the infantry (which never got a shot off, anyway).

Then comes the other tank in sight and nails my tank with a side penetration on the hull. Hurray.

In short, I'm questioning the wisdom of our tanks always rotating their hulls towards the nearest targets, even if for some infantry it shouldn't make much of a difference from which angle they attack. Obviously this is needed to get the Bow Mg into firing position, but I want an option to "lock" my hull facing towards the area I expect the next TANK to show up.

[MikeyD]

Believe me, if your CM experience went back to CMBO v1.0 you'd be MORE than content with how hull rotation works now!

BFC did struggle mightly to get as many bugs out of hull rotation as they could and usuallly the AI doesn't go too far astray in that regard. One thing about hull rotation in a WWII setting, most of the time we're contending with bow mgs that might be trying to get into the action. Plus, even from infantry a tank's more vulnerable from the side.

A short duraion AI over-ride function like a 'keep buttoned' command might be useful to limit hull rotation. But its use might go down after your tank gets a few unexpected side penetrations from the 'lesser' treat you didn't rotate to face.

[juan_gigante]

I don't think that this applies while in combat, but when at rest and just kicking it, if you give a tank a rotate in one direction and a cover arc in another, the turret will point to the covered arc, and the hull rotates to the rotate point. I'll bet, though, that the Tac AI would break those rules when shells start flying.

[Bamse]

I suspect that this wont be a problem once the "Borg Spotting" is a thing of the past.

Commander: -infantry, gunner engage. Driver turn hull towards threat.......wait driver turn hull SSE. I sense a tank is aproaching since one of our radioless MMG teams spotted the same. Me and the loader in that teams is twins so we have a psykic bond.

BANG

Side Turret penetration. Abandon tank.

MUHAHAHAHA!!!

BjörnE

[Vanir Ausf B]

oops

[juan_gigante]

Yeah, there should be a pretty big rarity hit on the psychic TCs.

Still, this is something I'd like to see. I think it goes on the long list of little things (like ready racks, IMO) that would be cool and good to have, but I wouldn't want at the expense of fundamental gameplay quality.

[Zalgiris 1410]

As this might be slightly relevent here I would like to both see and have it count in protecting tanks the inclusion of having road wheels and spare tracks mounted on the front hulls of tanks as it was often done in practice. :cool:

[Battlefront.com]

As this might be slightly relevent here I would like to both see and have it count in protecting tanks the inclusion of having road wheels and spare tracks mounted on the front hulls of tanks as it was often done in practice.

A topic much discussed on these Forums to death. Then dug up again, discussed more over the rotting corpse, burried again only to be unearthed for more fun

This sort of window dressing on tanks was indeed very common. However, evidence and physics suggests it was of very little practical value. It was done, mostly, to make the crews feel like they had done something to make themselves safer. Sometimes all they did was just overload their vehicle and cause it to break down. Patton actually issued orders for his tankers to cut it out because of all the breakdowns, yet no noticable shortage of tanks with holes in them.

One of the most likely worst modifications, also discussed to death, was the sandbags on the hull sides to protect against Panzerfausts. Physics seems to indicate that this actually increased the PF/PS penetrating ability, thanks to optimizing the standoff range and providing a perfect substance (sand) to funnel the plasma jet straight at the armor. So if anything we should include this stuff just to make a tank weaker

Steve

P.S. Yeah, Relative Spotting will change hull rotation behavior this a whole bunch.

[Battlefront.com]

Also note that there was another reason for all those spare roadwheels and track links that has nothing to do with attempts to increase armor protection.... and that is SPARE PARTS. Mines, other battle damage, and general mechanical failure. When you are out in the middle of a battle, the last thing you want to find yourself doing is trying to hitch a ride back to HQ. A single AT mine could blow off 2-3 roadwheels and about 4-6 feet of track (depending on type of tank, mine, luck, etc.). So if you are driving around in a tank without this many spares on you at once, you're hosed if you run over so much as a single mine. You might be hosed anyway, like damage to an axle or drive sprocket, but at least if you have some spare roadwheels and track you stand a chance.

Steve

[Zalgiris 1410]

I did say that they where spare parts Steve, I'm not an idiot.

[Hpt. Lisse]

Along this discussion topic, I'd like to see the "rotate" command effect the turret when the chassis itself is immobilized.

[Zalgiris 1410]

AFAIK Hauptmann Lisse the turretts on immobilized tanks and armoured cars do rotate I think and you can still give them covered arcs as well. (I'll do some tests to check.)

That said, I would like to make the turretts rotate where ever while the AFV's hull remains in place while it is stationary.

[Hpt. Lisse]

With immobilized AFV's, I'd like the rotate command to control the turret in lieu of the chassis - that means I turn it 75 degrees and it stays there. It doesn't work this way currently.

[Zalgiris 1410]

I think that you can use covered arcs to make it stay pointing in the direction you want, though that said I take your point Hautmann Lisse.

[RSColonel_131st]

As for "physic" tank commanders, this is not just for borg-spotting.

I had enemy tanks move in and out of visible range, and I knew where they were. Then my Tiger turns 90° left to attack some basic infantry, the other tank comes into LOS again and scores a side penetration.

That kind of thing is what I mean to avoid with a "lock hull to this direction" command.

[ParaBellum]

What I would like to see is tanks actually NOT rotating directly towards the biggest danger...

I'm thinking about the Tigerfibel and the famous "Mahlzeiten"-positions where the tank positioned its front in an angle towards the enemy to maximize armour protection.

[J Ruddy]

"Oh My! There's a Stug III, let me rotate my turret and then my hull - ok , now I'll shoot! Damn I missed - oh well it's gone behind the building, I think I'll rotate my hull another 120 degrees so that I can shoot at this infantry - oops! The Stug is back and he looks p!$$&d off, I think I'll rotate my turret and then my hull hull back to (*Boom*)"

Please fix this in CMX2 - it drives me nuts!

[Battlefront.com]

That is targeting memory. In short, CMx1 didn't have it and CMx2 does. The main reason CMx1 didn't have it was memory usage. Once we realized how bad it was in practice, and how cheap RAM became, it was too late to fix this. It was yet another reason for trashing the old code and starting fresh.

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by ParaBellum:

What I would like to see is tanks actually NOT rotating directly towards the biggest danger...

I'm thinking about the Tigerfibel and the famous "Mahlzeiten"-positions where the tank positioned its front in an angle towards the enemy to maximize armour protection.

I remember people asking for this when CMBO was released.

[Buck Private Lisse]

Continuing to rotate with a locked-up chassis has oft been a problem for Hpt. Lisse.

However, given his steady contribution of rational suggestions to these forums over the years, we put forward that he be promoted to Commandant.

Commandant Lassard, that is.

[Buck Private Lisse]

[Buck Private Lisse]

[RSColonel_131st]

Good to hear this will be fixed.

Also agree with Para - though I'm not sure if that method wasn't very specific to the Tiger due to it's square build.

[Jack Carr]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

That is targeting memory. In short, CMx1 didn't have it and CMx2 does. The main reason CMx1 didn't have it was memory usage. Once we realized how bad it was in practice, and how cheap RAM became, it was too late to fix this. It was yet another reason for trashing the old code and starting fresh.

Steve

This will be a great improvement. And I just bought another 512MB of RAM for a whopping 1.5GB's total. YEAH!

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by RSColonel_131st:

Good to hear this will be fixed.

Also agree with Para - though I'm not sure if that method wasn't very specific to the Tiger due to it's square build.

I'm pretty sure that was specific to the Tiger, primarily due to its unusually thick side armor (80mm IIRC).