Gun elevation

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

Today my friends from tank 131 died... How this happen? Bad story, rebel T-55MV moved slowly above small hill and stopped short before the top... Sitting in the trench and feeling quite safe i have seen through binoculars how his gun rotated direction our tank 131... Boys there were busy shooting another rebel jeeps from right flank. So he can see our beast, but his elevation don't allow to shoot, that's for sure... Our tank is safe! I picked up radio to tell them to forget these stupid jeeps and check this bigger target when the miracle has happen!!! And believe me or not it was very sad miracle! Enemy gunner shoot with gun elevated to the sun! But they learned me, that low turret profile prevents this tank from depressing main gun by more than 5° (the average for Western tanks is 10°), which limits the ability to cover terrain by fire from a hull-down position on a reverse slope!!! I have to speak with the instructor, because all this field manuals are pieces of crap! In CMSF reality they can shoot you elevating to the sun without problems!!! So my pixelkameraden from T-72M1 are dead... The explosion was huge and when i scrape out from all sand around me the rebel T-55 was in front of me luckily pointing with his massive gun somewhere above me... But as i have seen before, now i am not sure anymore, because when miracles starts, they can repeat everytime and everywhere

Maybe bug or something weird with this elevation... Have you similar experiences too?

[Thomm]

Gun elevation restrictions are non-existant in CM:SF.

You can shoot straight up into the 8th floor of a building while standing next to it with your tank.

I guess this cannot even be called a "bug", because apparently there has not been an attempt to even model such restrictions so far.

Do not ask me why, because I do not know. For me such a restriction appears to be trivial to implement, but apparently it is not.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

Thax Thomm,

i didn't know that these restrictions are non-existant, i was think exactly oposite is true

Tell the true it's not very nice at all!!! This sim is close to reality in many factors but not in this huge one???

Viva la Vienna by the way Practically you are my neighbour

[TheVulture]

Gun elevation restrictions are non-existant in CM:SF.

You can shoot straight up into the 8th floor of a building while standing next to it with your tank.

I guess this cannot even be called a "bug", because apparently there has not been an attempt to even model such restrictions so far.

Do not ask me why, because I do not know. For me such a restriction appears to be trivial to implement, but apparently it is not.

Best regards,

Thomm

Imposing the restriction no doubt would be pretty trivial. But there's always more to it than that when making games. Firstly, you'd really want to find some way of making that information available to the user in a relevant way. Just saying in a manual that the maximum elevation of the main gun on such and such a tank is 37 degrees and imposing that in game, doesn't really cut it. The first thing you would see would be many 'bug' reports of situations where the tank has a clear LoS to a target but can't target it and the user hasn't noticed that they've run up against the elevation limit. And the same limit doesn't apply to some of the MGs on the tank. There is also the issue of plotting future moves and having no easy way of telling whether from point X the main gun can fire at target Y.

Many of the same issues crop up for hull down positioning too, which maybe illustrates that there is more to it than simply slapping the limits on. And look how often people complain about the difficulty of finding hull-down positions, particuarly in WeGo.

But the biggie is the AI also has to know about it. It can't stick its tank somewhere and open fire - it has to also take into account how the elevation limits affect its effective field of fire too (and this becomes much more of an issue when a vehicle is sideways on a slope).

None of these are insurmountable I suspect. But designing a smooth interface and making the AI aware of the limits both take time, turning it from a 10 minute 'code the limits' job to possibly a several day effort. Which means it has to fight with all the other stuff on the wish list for a slot in the schedule, and I dare say we could think of a year's worth of stuff we'd like to see in before this was addressed, given how often it actually comes in to play.

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

You are of course right TheVulture

but sometimes the solution is more simple then we think - when more code is needed - why not to hire more code makers? The Battlefront team did HUGE job, but at the moment they are running lot of projects in same time. Don't tell me they cannot pay it, i don't mind to spend +100% more for their games, because it's MUST already... If the list is huge and less and less time to do it...

But of course it's not my decision and i am satisfied with CMSF very much - but will be more when more RED equipment we will get to play

[akd]

It's a pretty significant limitation, making AFVs far more powerful in the game than they are in reality. Remember also that it is not just max elevation that is ignored, but min elevation as well. Tanks in CM have no dead space surrounding them. Once infantry close assault returns to CM, this will make a huge difference, eliminating one of the principal vulnerabilities of AFVs in close terrain.

[hcrof]

I think that at least some restrictions should be put on tank guns - maybe not realistic restrictions but something to stop those MOUT situations where, as Thomm says, a tank can shoot the 8th floor from 10m away. It would really add something to MOUT by making tanks more vulnerable.

If the player finds it more difficult to find hull down positions then thats just realism isn't it? It will make the game more fluid as you will avoid those hull down v hull down slugging matches.

[Sergei]

No, it's micro management. And don't forget the AI.

[Holman]

The granularity of the terrain engine would pose unrealistic problems if gun elevation were fully modeled. The real world is much more curved and less angular than all but the most gentle slopes in CM. (This is a limitation of computing power, I'm sure--the engine just can't render and account for all the angles that would be necessary for real topography.)

You see this when you try to achieve a hull-down position and find your tank looking more at the sky than you would like. If gun elevation limits were modeled completely, it would often be impossible to go hull-down (especially for the AI).

In fact, here's a serious question--does a "nose-up" hull down position like we often see in CMSF actually expose your bottom armor (a la Bocage)?

[Dietrich]

The granularity of the terrain engine would pose unrealistic problems if gun elevation were fully modeled. The real world is much more curved and less angular than all but the most gentle slopes in CM. (This is a limitation of computing power, I'm sure--the engine just can't render and account for all the angles that would be necessary for real topography.)

You see this when you try to achieve a hull-down position and find your tank looking more at the sky than you would like. If gun elevation limits were modeled completely, it would often be impossible to go hull-down (especially for the AI).

In CM:SF -- and, I suppose, in the real world -- "hull-down" isn't necessarily what it seems to be...or what it's cracked up to be.

In an optimal situation, at the top of a hill would be a steep-sided five-feet-tall berm which the tank could hunker down behind and have LOS/LOF to the opposite hill as well as to most of the valley below. In CM:SF, at least, the slope leading to any given crest is long enough and shallow enough that to have LOS/LOF to any area lower in elevation than perhaps an opposite crest, a tank must move far enough forward that its hull is exposed, thus making its position not actually hull-down.

I actually think that the problems resultant from full modelling of gun elevation limitations would not be all that unrealistic. Is any given crest or hill suited to furnishing a hull-down position for a tank?

In fact, here's a serious question--does a "nose-up" hull down position like we often see in CMSF actually expose your bottom armor (a la Bocage)?

I would say yes.

To cite a particular tactical situation, the first few times I played "Crossroad at El Derjine", I moved my Abrams forward from cover into what I thought were hull-down positions so they could engage the onrushing Syrian MBTs and BMPs. Within 20 seconds of moving into "hull-down position", two of the Abrams took hits from AT-14s which penetrated the lower front hull and wounded/killed the drivers. The Abrams' orientation relative to the horizontal was not so steep as to expose the "ventral" armor, but in this case what I thought would be a tactical advantage was actually a disadvantage. (Taking an ATGM hit on the turret front would, I reckon, be at least slightly less dangerous than a hit to the lower hull.) Had the slope been steeper and had I moved my Abrams farther up the slope, their belly armor may have been exposed.

I would also say that nose-up hull-down isn't really hull-down, since the hull is exposed. When the terrain makes it so that you don't have LOS/LOF to the enemy without the hull being exposed, then you just can't get hull-down. Better to avoid cresting the rise and go around to either find a spot which will afford actual hull-down or just flank the enemy.

On a related note, is turret-down simulated? (I admit, I have not done any testing to see if this is already modelled in CM:SF.) Turret-down position would be handy for spotting before moving into hull-down position or otherwise exposing the tank; and such would provide even better protection against ATGMs, since the missle would be even more likely to hit the terrain in front of the tank.

[Fūrinkazan]

I few days ago, i was reading a detailed article about the T62 tank. The minimum range for the main gun is 20 meters and 19 meters for the coax mg.

A part of the problem may be solved by having a minimum range for tanks just like we have for missiles. This would be more realistic, and would also simulate the problems that tanks have to use their guns, rotate turret etc... in mout combat. Yesterday, in a quick battle, i was defending with infantry against a tank attack in a small village. One tank was a few meters from a house where i had an rpg team. They were on the third floor but they were killed by the coax mg of the tank. This would be impossible in real life and i think that with minimum range would solve this problem.

When i was looking for minimum range for other tanks than the T62 i found an article about the war in Lebanon in 2006. It details the tactics of israeli troops in urban combat. You can see pictures of the town of Jenine before and after the attack. They used a lot of air support and arty and the result is the destruction of 140 houses and 200 houses uninhabitable.

Here is the link for those who would like to take a look (sorry, it's in french)http://liban2006.site.voila.fr/stratego/stratego.tactique.combat_zone_urbaine.htm

In the game, you can put a tank near a house and kill the defenders too much easily, especilly in narrow streets. I think that if that was so easy in real life, that's what israeli troops would have done in the battle of Jenine.

I think it would be great to have gun elevation in the game because it can be use as a tactics for infantry to kill tanks or for tanks to kill another by a belly shot. I saw this tactic in a U.S. field manual. You use a tank wall or tank berm and you can shoot the attacker in the belly while is climbing and unable to return fire.

On one of the first battles i fought with cmsf, on of my M1 was killed by an old T55 in is frontal arc. I'm not sure but when i took a close look to the position of my tank i believe that it was a belly shot.I was trying to find a hull down position but i exposed the lower hull of my tank. I must say that i think that in this position, in real life, my tank wouldn't be able to return fire.

I think it would be great to have those two aspects simulated. It would balance the fight against tanks, especially with insurgent, and would force the player to use combined forces to win in mout.

[stikkypixie]

Minimum distance for tanks sounds like a good idea. Can't think of any disadvantages. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

[Sergei]

I few days ago, i was reading a detailed article about the T62 tank. The minimum range for the main gun is 20 meters and 19 meters for the coax mg.

A part of the problem may be solved by having a minimum range for tanks just like we have for missiles.

That would hardly work. If there's a wall one meter away from the tank, why shouldn't the tank be able to target it? It's got nothing to do with absolute distance, unless the place is completely flat. Since it seldom is so, even in desert, a tank is usually tilted to one direction or the other. The tank might also be in a dip, lower than the surface surrounding it. Or the opposite.

How could gun elevations even work in turn based mode? You move your Abrams to a spot, then realize that it can't target the spot that you intended. How would you know where to move to get a proper angle? If you'd have to do it by trial and error, you'd waste several turns just to get a lousy shot off. Meanwhile AI tanks would become non-functional. How would any of that improve the simulation?

[akd]

Minimum distance for tanks sounds like a good idea. Can't think of any disadvantages. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.

Well, one of the reasons given for not having elevation limits is that the AI cannot handle them. What does the AI do if a threat appears within the minimum range?

[Thomm]

How could gun elevations even work in turn based mode? You move your Abrams to a spot, then realize that it can't target the spot that you intended. How would you know where to move to get a proper angle? If you'd have to do it by trial and error, you'd waste several turns just to get a lousy shot off. Meanwhile AI tanks would become non-functional. How would any of that improve the simulation?

Not convincing enough. If the player is unable to find the right spot, well, tough luck.

At the very least, the gun elevation should be limited to prevent those incredible ballistic shots to the upper floors of buildings.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Fūrinkazan]

I think it would improve the simulation in urban combat. If a tank is in a narrow street, and infantry hidden in a house beside the tank, in the game, the tank turns its turret and kills the infantry. If we have a minimum range, in that case, the tank cannot shoot the guys in the house because it's too close, and, with the length of the gun it cannot rotate its turret. If the infantry is on the roof of the house, it can shoot the tank and the tank cannot return fire.

For the AI, it is the same as for missiles. If it's too close, it can change the tank position, and just like in real life, sometimes the tank simply cannot shoot when is too close. I think that infantry would be less vulnerable this way when defending a city.

It si certainly more difficult for gun elevation. I only play in real time and i do not have the problems of the turn based mode but i can understand that it is more difficult in that case. Maybe if we had a tool to check the line of sight like in the cmx1 serie this would solve a part of the problem. I don't know if the AI can be changed to handle this, but i guess that there are situation where it must change the position of a tank to shoot another if there is an obstacle between them. So maybe it's possible to do the same when the tank is to close. If you look at old anti tank missiles, in some case they are useless and cannot shoot because of the 500m minimum range. This does not mean that they are always useless.

Tanks are too powerful in some case in urban fighting because they can shoot without restriction. When infantry doesn't have good anti tank weapons

you can just put one tank close to a house to clean it without problems.

Israeli troops used anti aircraft vehicles for urban combat because tanks have to much dead angles.

There would be also advantages for vehicles like bmp and bradley or for tanks equiped with a remote mg.

[Holman]

Not convincing enough. If the player is unable to find the right spot, well, tough luck.

That just adds to the unrealism of WEGO play. In real life, the driver would scoot up or back to get the sweet spot, as the player can at least try to do in real time. In WEGO, the driver sits for sixty seconds waiting for the next tiny scoot order.

I generally find my good positions (in real time) by giving a longer move order than necessary, watching over the shoulder of the tank as it moves, and then canceling the move as soon as the tank reaches a good position. This is of course impossible in WEGO.

[hcrof]

Like Thomm says - don't allow stupid elevations that allow tanks to shoot the tops off skyscrapers.

You can allow a little more depression than is reallistic but put some limits on it. Then you can get into most hull down positions and i honestly think that players will quickly learn what is and isn't too steep just by looking at it. If the AI can't make a shot just make it reverse!

Finally a 2-3m minimum range for the guns can simulate the gun not being able to traverse into a building - have seen tank barrels actually inside a house when it fired. And you are never going to get that close to another vehicle!

[Other Means]

In WEGO you place a waypoint and see if you can target from it.

Not arguing for or against either way. Just noting tools are available to counter the WEGO argument.

[TheVulture]

Well, one of the reasons given for not having elevation limits is that the AI cannot handle them.

Can't currently hadle them - I was mostly pointing out that putting something like that in isn't just a question is putting the elevation limits in, there is also other work that has to be done (such as how the AI handles it) that turn it from a trivial job to one that will take an appreciable amount of time. I dare say the AI could learn to handle it, but it still takes time to code and debug.

What does the AI do if a threat appears within the minimum range?

I'm tempted to suggest that it explodes... or ignores it if the 'threat' can't harm it

BTW do minimum range for tank main guns apply for APFSDS rounds too? I can see it for HE-related rounds where the round doesn't arm until X meters out of the barrel, but a solid kump of metal doesn't need to arm (and I don't imagine that the sabot casing not being fully separated would be much of a problem either).

And the MG having a minimum range?? What's with that?

[TheVulture]

In WEGO you place a waypoint and see if you can target from it.

Not arguing for or against either way. Just noting tools are available to counter the WEGO argument.

True, but it is pretty user hostile already just with LoS / hull down positions, and can take a fair amount of trial and error to find a good spot. Throw in elevation limits, and it becomes even worse. If you are checking LoS to a single point, fair enough. But if you want to know what areas are in your blind spot from a given point it gets a lot more time consuming.

Anyway, maybe we're all playing the game differently. I've never yet had reason to have a tank fire at more than 30 degrees - my tanks don't go anywhere near buildings until the infantry have wandered through them first. They certainly don't go around parking underneath 8 story buildings that might have RPGs on the roof :S

[Thomm]

TheVulture,

Please think of the unlucky guys who choose to play the defender in city scenarios. They could be immune from tank fire if the engine took the elevation limitations into account, forcing the attacker to clear high buildings with infantry only.

I, for one, would really enjoy playing such a scenario (from both sides.)

Best regards,

Thomm

[Sergei]

Not convincing enough. If the player is unable to find the right spot, well, tough luck.

So we just throw AI and playability out of the window for one minor feature?

[Sergei]

In WEGO you place a waypoint and see if you can target from it.

Not arguing for or against either way. Just noting tools are available to counter the WEGO argument.

That's not a particularly good option. If gun elevations were in the game, you'd have to use that all the time, at every waypoint. Who would want to play like that? And that still wouldn't help the AI.

[Thomm]

So we just throw AI and playability out of the window for one minor feature?

It is becoming quite obvious that we do not agree, so lets not drag this out for too long.

My opinion is that vehicles without gun elevation restrictions do not fit well into an environment that allows for multi-storey buildings, leading to highly unrealistic results.

I do not see the impact on playability or AI either.

Best regards,

Thomm