One idea to deal with area fire that gets around relative spotting rules

[Redwolf]

This thread is taking a steep dive into stupidity and wishful thinking.

Steiner. One of your tank is already shooting at it, directly. How do you suppose we hide that info from the player? This isn't POA2.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Nah.

All that I suggest is making guns that are in gun emplacements to be harder to kill from fire that is coming from a unit that didn't see the gun.

That is entirely realistic.

Again, Area Fire is already "dumbed down". It was that way in CMx1 as well.

They already are harder to kill compared to targeted fire. If you are asking for a reduction to firepower in addition to the already present reduction in accuracy I would oppose that. A tank shell is going to explode with the same amount of force regardless of whether it was fired at a known target or a suspected target and that should not be messed with.

[silverstars]

I wonder how hard it would be to have enemies displayed only after:

A)The unit in question discovers the enemy

B)A time has elapsed to mimic the delay of information going from the involved unit back to the CO(you).

For example:

A Sherman tank rounds a corner and comes into an open area lined in forest. He is fired upon, but the incoming shell ricochets. The Sherman spots the offending ATG, and the Tac AI has the sherman start retaliating.

Now as the commander, all you see on your screen is your happy little Ronson drive around a corner and then all of a sudden come to a screeching halt, and then you see him fire off into the treeline.

Now once the period of time elapses that simulates the Sherman letting everyone know where the ATG is(which would hopefully take into account the quality of its current C2 link with command), THEN you would see the ATG appear on your display. If the Sherman was destroyed during this communication period, then you would then never see the ATG.

Now I'm not a programmer so I don't how taxing this would be on your CPU, nor how much of a headache it would be to program. Hell, I'm sure there is a major flaw in the idea that I am just not seeing at the moment. But please feel free to tell me!

[Steiner14]

This thread is taking a steep dive into stupidity and wishful thinking.

Steiner. One of your tank is already shooting at it, directly. How do you suppose we hide that info from the player? This isn't POA2.

I don't know what you are talking about.

[Battlefront.com]

Vanir Ausf B,

They already are harder to kill compared to targeted fire. If you are asking for a reduction to firepower in addition to the already present reduction in accuracy I would oppose that. A tank shell is going to explode with the same amount of force regardless of whether it was fired at a known target or a suspected target and that should not be messed with.

Exactly The basic problem, which is God Area Fire, is outside of our ability to really curb. So we can argue to death whether this or that penalty is strong enough, but in the end the problem will still exist. Make the penalty too strong and you start negatively impacting other portions of the game. For example...

Increasing blanket penalties for Area Fire effects when there are already serious penalties in place is out, just like blanket time delays on Area Fire are out. Too much impact on legitimate behavior to curb something that is inherently unfixable is a bad idea.

Steve

[panzermartin]

No need to make it complex really. ATGs were hard to spot and lethal enough in borg CMx1 already. Area fire should just be innacurate and ATGs tough to spot and knock out with direct HE. Unless you have a horde of tanks against a lone gun, the above rules would let it survive at least a minute or two. If we take the new fortifications effect into account there is a slight danger of even turning ATGs into a gamey asset. I remember almost banning ATGs in CMx1 QB meeting engagments, or at least forcing the player to buy a transport mean to increase the cost of a rather cheap method to knock out one or two expensive tanks.

On the other hand I'd like to see improved survibility of the 88 gun, that should almost mandatory come in camo'ed and fortified positions. In ranges over 1km, it should be almost immune to area fire from tanks, with their firing accuracy penalty multiplied.

[Battlefront.com]

Flak36? That thing is HUGE. Most tanks in this timeframe could hit it quite easily at 1000m. And because the gun shield is very thin, a hit would pretty much guarantee it would be destroyed. I don't think it should be all that hard to spot after firing a round or two due to the gun being rather large.

However, I do agree with your other point about ATGs in CMx1 sometimes being a bit unbalancing in QBs due to the point system. If you lose an ATG the biggest problem is a possible inability to kill the other guy's tanks, not the points lost. Tanks lost to ATG fire, on the other hand, could be a real problem from a point standpoint.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

He probably means the PaK 43 ATG version, not the FlaK 36. I certainly wouldn't call the Pak 43 small and stealthy, but it had a much lower profile than the FlaK version.

In any event, the German 88mm ATGs are complete overkill in Normandy; there's absolutely no need for that kind of penetrating power until Sherman Jumbos and Pershings (or IS-2s, on the East Front) begin rolling about.

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, Pak43 is like a small tank while he Flak 36 is like a big one Still, the fire signature of the Pak43 is probably worse than the Flak 36 due to its lower profile.

Steve

[panzermartin]

Well, I still have the CMx1 bad taste in my mouth about the 88s. They didnt last for more than 30 secs and didnt live up to my expectations, which of course could well had been a bit over optimistic. They are huge I know, I just hope crews will be a bit more stubborn this time, unless a direct hit takes them out. However I dont have a precise idea of their use or effectiveness in Normandy compared to the deserts of Africa and steppes of Ostfront so maybe I'm overstimating them just like the GIs back then

EDIT: On a quick search it seems 88s were more succesfull around Caen, on the British sector with the open fields and such. On the american sector 75s and 50s were the most common AT assets.

[kulik]

The Pak40 engages Sherman 1 coming down Road A. It takes a shot, misses, and alerts Sherman 1 that there is something shooting at it. The Pak40 fires again and Sherman 1 spots it, then gets knocked out seconds later. There are no witnesses except the player, because he's God and sees all

The attacking player selects Sherman 2 on Road A and Sherman 3 on Road B. Both are currently out of LOS/LOF, but can get it very quickly by moving a little bit forward. Neither one can saw the Pak40 engage Sherman 1, but they know that Sherman 1 was toasted. So realistically they are VERY aware that there is some form of deadly AT weapon in the area, but no idea what. The player, on the other hand, knows exactly what shot and exactly where it is. This, unfortunately, is where the problem lies and inherently there is no fix for this at all.

The attacking player orders Shermans 2 and 3 to Area Fire the gun's location, then tells them to both HUNT forward. They do this and as soon as they get within LOS/LOF they start firing their beefy 75s at the Pak40. This is, of course, unrealistic since neither Sherman would know exactly where to fire without some sort of confirmation by infantry or something else like that. Even then the accuracy of their shots would be highly conditional (quality of information, confusion of terrain, etc.).

OK, so the two Shermans advance and start wailing on the Pak40. Since Area Fire is inherently inaccurate, and the Pak40 is in a good position, it's possible that the Pak40 will survive and even take out both Shermans. But the Area Fire has unrealistically reduced that chance. What should happen, in real life, is the two Shermans would move forward and then have to ID the Pak40 first, which would likely result in at least one Sherman getting knocked out, decent chance of both getting knocked out.

What can be done about this?

Steve

In wego mode you could (after the turn is computed) simply in replay don't show spotted enemy units when your spotting unit its dead at the end of the turn.

In this case Sherman1 would be dead before the turn ends, so in the replay you would just see it getting killed, but you wouldn't see by what or from what direction.

...no gods eye there.

Edit: I would go so far that if infantry squad is pinned, the units seen by them won't show in replay too.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

From Steve…

The basic problem, which is God Area Fire, is outside of our ability to really curb.

Just so… it would be very easy to in someway break… or slightly damage the game without any real gain.

This brings me to my usual refrain on such issues…

Wait to fix it till we get a proper fix with the introduction of CoPlay or live team play as I think of it.

The specific example Steve uses may not in fact be addresses… all the action within the same platoon… unless in a “micro” team game when you had three or four players in the platoon..

But be in no doubt … the chaos and the FOW element caused by having separate infantry platoon commanders and tank platoon commanders in same game…added to the already present relative spotting… will entirely change the feel of the game in FOW terms. In all matters related to the God effect or single controlling mind effect.

If in a CoPlay game you had three different infantry platoon commanders, one tank platoon commander and a company commander.. played Real Time… it would be a completely different game from single player WEGO.

And in most situations problems such as the God Area Fire will have been realistically dealt with.

All good stuff,

All the best,

Kip.

[Battlefront.com]

Ah, so you were talking about Flak 36 Ali-Baba... I thought so, since Pak43 shouldn't be in Normandy anyway

The Flak 36's strength was long (1500-2000m) engagement. The terrain where the US units fought was, for the most part, not really good for such engagements. Caen, where it was more open, the desert, and much of the south/central Eastern Fronts are an entirely different ballgame! The development of the Pak 43 was, in large part, an effort to get a smaller profile out of the weapon (as well as simplify construction).

Kulik,

That's an interesting suggestion, but in practical terms I don't know that it would make much of a difference. It would also get quite confusing.

The better solution would be to make sure that marginal conditions for spotting don't result in the firing unit being spotted in the first place. This is, unfortunately, impractical to do because there is no way for the system to project forward and guess if the spotting unit isn't going to survive long enough to report the enemy's position. In my Sherman example, the system would need to know ahead of time that Sherman #1 was going to get killed very quickly after it spotted the Pak40, then eliminate the spotting information before it is shown.

Best we can do is the way it is done now... when a unit is spotted it only remains that way as long as someone is there to keep it spotted. That's what Relative Spotting allows us to do.

Kip,

Yup... I can already picture the chaos that CoPlay will bring to the battlefield Anybody that has tried to coordinate even simple actions in big multi-player games (i.e. player controls a single "unit") know how difficult it is to convey information in a way that allows for solid coordination. Plans need to be kept simple, that's for sure.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

Ah, so you were talking about Flak 36 Ali-Baba... I thought so, since Pak43 shouldn't be in Normandy anyway

Depends on how strictly you define the Normandy Campaign... if I recall, the German positions on Verrières Ridge during operation Totalize had Pak43s.

[kulik]

Kulik,

That's an interesting suggestion, but in practical terms I don't know that it would make much of a difference. It would also get quite confusing.

The better solution would be to make sure that marginal conditions for spotting don't result in the firing unit being spotted in the first place. This is, unfortunately, impractical to do because there is no way for the system to project forward and guess if the spotting unit isn't going to survive long enough to report the enemy's position. In my Sherman example, the system would need to know ahead of time that Sherman #1 was going to get killed very quickly after it spotted the Pak40, then eliminate the spotting information before it is shown.

Steve

I think it would be a BIG difference, in your case you would now just that your sherman is dead...nothing to fire on (no gamey area fire), just sending more troops or take another way...like the real thing. Confusing? I agree that you get limited intel on whats going on, but that is the point of gods eye problem- you know what you shouldn't know.

It would be problem without the blue bar, so you could miss the moment the tank gets killed. But thats not the case now. (what else its confusing? ...maybe i miss something.)

(Just mention it to the team, i think its a decent solution.)

Edit: It would be possible only in WEGO of course, just at the end of the round hide all enemies spotted by your dead units. (not seen by anything else)

[sfhand]

In wego mode you could (after the turn is computed) simply in replay don't show spotted enemy units when your spotting unit its dead at the end of the turn.

In this case Sherman1 would be dead before the turn ends, so in the replay you would just see it getting killed, but you wouldn't see by what or from what direction.

...no gods eye there.

Edit: I would go so far that if infantry squad is pinned, the units seen by them won't show in replay too.

This doesn't really address the issue either. If the Sherman doesn't die until second 1 of the next turn the godlike player would still be able to area target with Shermans 2 & 3, and RT players would still be able to pause and issue the area targeting orders as soon as the attacking unit is spotted.

As far as the infantry being pinned, isn't it possible that pinned soldiers know both what is pinning them and from where? If a tank drives infantry to cover and pins them isn't it reasonable to assume they will radio for backup and pass on as much information on the tank as they can?

[kulik]

This doesn't really address the issue either. If the Sherman doesn't die until second 1 of the next turn the godlike player would still be able to area target with Shermans 2 & 3, and RT players would still be able to pause and issue the area targeting orders as soon as the attacking unit is spotted.

No, in the replay you wont see what killed you. No matter if the tank dies in first 10 seconds or last 10 seconds. If its dead at the end of the turn, you wont see units spotted by him. ...nothing to area target. I mean you see the action after its computed, so after its computed the system hide all enemies seen only by your dead units. This works only in wego of course.

You right with the infantry, that was just a quick thought.

Edit:

Model situation:

Planning phase-move the tank 10 meters forward.

Computing phase- tank moving…gun aiming…gun firing… tank hit…gun spotted…gun firing…tank hit…tank destroyed…turn ends…checking…gun spotted by tank (status dead!)...hiding gun

Replay- Tank moves…tank gets hit…tank gets hit again…tank destroyed. (no gun shown-just sound contact)

Planning phase-wtf, where was the gun firing from?!

[sfhand]

No, in the replay you wont see what killed you. No matter if the tank dies in first 10 seconds or last 10 seconds. If its dead at the end of the turn, you wont see units spotted by him. ...nothing to area target. I mean you see the action after its computed, so after its computed the system hide all enemies seen only by your dead units. This works only in wego of course.

You right with the infantry, that was just a quick thought.

Edit:

Model situation:

Planning phase-move the tank 10 meters forward.

Computing phase- tank moving…gun aiming…gun firing… tank hit…gun spotted…gun firing…tank hit…tank destroyed…turn ends…checking…gun spotted by tank (status dead!)...hiding gun

Replay- Tank moves…tank gets hit…tank gets hit again…tank destroyed. (no gun shown-just sound contact)

Planning phase-wtf, where was the gun firing from?!

Let me try this again. I'm suggesting that if the tank doesn't die at the end of the turn but rather one second into the next turn, the player could still issue the god's eye area fire orders during the break between turns.

[kulik]

Let me try this again. I'm suggesting that if the tank doesn't die at the end of the turn but rather one second into the next turn, the player could still issue the god's eye area fire orders during the break between turns.

Oh, you mean that if the gun is spotted 0:55 and he dies 1:01! Now that's correct, when hes not dead at the end and he spottes something it will be seen and can be fired upon. (sorry english is not my native languish, so i sometimes misinterpret things)

But let's face it will that happen too often? We would cut down the cases of god's eye area fire to maybe 5-10%. I would call it a step forward.

[Redwolf]

I still don't get it.

What is supposed to be wrong with area fire being substantially less effective at killing guns that are in their gun emplacements (fortifications assumed to be strong) than direct fire?

[sfhand]

Oh, you mean that if the gun is spotted 0:55 and he dies 1:01! Now that's correct, when hes not dead at the end and he spottes something it will be seen and can be fired upon. (sorry english is not my native languish, so i sometimes misinterpret things)

But let's face it will that happen too often? We would cut down the cases of god's eye area fire to maybe 5-10%. I would call it a step forward.

Well, we're talking about a pretty small window of opportunity here, IMHO. If the tank is ambushed early enough in the turn the other tanks will enter the killzone prior to the player exercising godlike control. Frankly, I just don't see the issue happening all that much, then again, since I use armor in an overwatch capacity the chances of the killed tank being the only eyes on the ATG are pretty slim. I would hate to see cpu cycles used on this when they could be put to better use on AI routines or just running the game better.

On a tangetial note, in CMSF playing iron level I have noticed that even with all units in full C2 not every target is displayed for each unit, i.e. there seems to be a communication breakdown and some units don't get the ?'s. If anyone can point me to an explanation I'd appreciate it.

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

What is supposed to be wrong with area fire being substantially less effective at killing guns that are in their gun emplacements (fortifications assumed to be strong) than direct fire?

Well, I keep saying that CMx1 and CMx2 already do this. Since nobody, including me, has yet to see how WW2 type equipment will mesh with potentially gamey tactics, I don't see much point in arguing about if we've changed the equation enough, too much, or not enough

At best it might nibble a bit around the edge of the problem in some cases in some situations. However, as I've already pointed out that's all it does. We can't put a magic forcefield of protection around dug in units, so if we make it unrealistically difficult for a single HE chucker to do much damage, that's not going to do much good if the player uses two HE chuckers. If we optimize for 2 HE chuckers then 1 HE chucker will NEVER be able to kill something, no matter how much ammo he uses. That would be, er, rather indefensible.

So all we can do is give the defender a wee bit more of a chance to deal some death to the gamey bastich. Since we're talking about gamey behavior that we can't eliminate without eliminating Area Fire 100% of the time for any reason... nibbles are all we are left with.

I agree with sfhand. Really small improvements are simply not worth investigating. They take away development time from things which can provide better net results with less uncertainty as to their value. It is also true that little nips into core gameplay often turn out to be nothing but trouble in terms of unforeseen impacts on good stuff and not enough impact on the targeted behavior.

Which gets back to a point I made a long time ago in this discussion... there's no quick and easy fix. There are, at best, some thing we can do to possibly reduce the behavior by a tiny bit. Unless we're pretty sure the proposed feature is going to work as advertised, and offer a decent benefit to the game, it's not something we're going to pursue.

Personally, I think the primary abuse is from units which are out of LOS being given Area Fire Target Commands against things it couldn't possibly have known about to target in the first place. But my proposed idea has issues with it too and so I'm not going to propose that one to Charles, nor any of the others here. None of them would offer an overall positive impact on the game, or at least not for the time spent on trying them out.

Steve

[Steiner14]

Oh, you mean that if the gun is spotted 0:55 and he dies 1:01! Now that's correct, when hes not dead at the end and he spottes something it will be seen and can be fired upon. (sorry english is not my native languish, so i sometimes misinterpret things)

But let's face it will that happen too often? We would cut down the cases of god's eye area fire to maybe 5-10%. I would call it a step forward.

Kulik, your idea sounds fantastic to me. This could boost WEGO up another level.

[kulik]

Well, we're talking about a pretty small window of opportunity here, IMHO. If the tank is ambushed early enough in the turn the other tanks will enter the killzone prior to the player exercising godlike control. Frankly, I just don't see the issue happening all that much, then again, since I use armor in an overwatch capacity the chances of the killed tank being the only eyes on the ATG are pretty slim. I would hate to see cpu cycles used on this when they could be put to better use on AI routines or just running the game better.

If you move whole formation of tanks and they discover the gun, we would have to believe they passed the info and other units can area fire the target. ...we at the start of the problem.

I cant imagine solution for this kind of situation, but my idea was to get rid of the "scout with one tank" situation. If you scout with more units, you risk significantly more and you would not discover the ambush so cheap.

[Lanzfeld]

On a tangetial note, in CMSF playing iron level I have noticed that even with all units in full C2 not every target is displayed for each unit, i.e. there seems to be a communication breakdown and some units don't get the ?'s. If anyone can point me to an explanation I'd appreciate it.

I have had this as well. Even after 20 minutes of a team being in the green and having comms they would not update a unique "?" to anyone else. All I can say is if you have the file send it to BFC. I was playing RT so I could not.