Tank gun elevation

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

I just would like to know if we will have gun elevation restriction in Normandy finally, because in CMSF my BMP-2 could fire into the trench positioned 2 meters to the right. Also tank blindnes is not working correctly i think.

Official report was NO, but as i know you produce simulations as close to the reality as you can, but without gun elevation restricion we have and we will still get unrealistic situation.... What dou you think?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm going to file the gun elevation under "do a search", I fear. It was pretty thouroughly gone over not very long ago.

As for tank blindness, it'd be more helpful to know what you think is wrong with it. Personally, I think it's somewhat erratic in regards to big vehicles right in the open at close ranges (<200m away), taking what seems like ages to spot those at times. Even in a Chally 2, not only Red stuff.

[Damian90]

Well, for tanks with FCS gun is auto elevated to +5 degrees or a bit more when turret is rotating to the rear and gun will be over engine deck.

Also Challenger 2 gun is auto elevated to +10 degrees to loading position after firing, same with Leo2 and Russian tanks such as T-62 or T-72 series. Whel it will be somwething between +5 and +10 degrees.

In M1 tanks gun will be always aligned with Gunner Primary Sight, or if Loader want he can just push a button and stabilisation is disabled, then gun will back to 0 degrees elevation, Loader than can easy load a round in to the breach and after pushing the button gun will again be aligned with GPS.

In western (or similiar design) tanks with mechanical loader in turret bustle, gun after each shot is elevated to 0 degrees loading position.

I think if it will be possible, such addition is a nice, one step ahead to realism. :-)

[Thomm]

Damian90,

Not sure if the posters in this thread talk about the same thing.

The topic is the ability of tanks to fire their main guns at angles that would make a mortar pale from envy. The program does not put any restriction on gun elevation, resulting in tanks to be able to engage infantry right next to them on the top floors of high building.

Kinda kills MOUT with tank scenarios. I would love to see scenarios where the attacker has tanks in a city, but cannot use them at all due to the infantry being out of its reach. Not going to happen.

Best regards,

Thomm

[Marwek77 aka Red Reporter]

About tank gun elevation:

As we all know we have ELOS now. The problem is that the projectile is coming directly from the point where is the ELOS checking what it can see or not. In normal enviroment its ok, because it looks like its coming from gun... But try to go over the small hill and the tank will fire from top to the down in unrealistic positions! Soviet tanks like T-55 have +5 to +10 degree elevation... Please check official Marines T-90 tank trailer and you will see 3 tanks firing from top of the hill... but gun is pointing to the sky and round is flying down hill... I dont know how to code it, but this feature is quite big part of realism...

About tank blindness:

Fully buttoned tank has aproximately 20m area around where the crew has no idea whats going on... So brave soldier hidden in trench has the possibily to crawl to the tank inside this area without to be spotted. We need this in Normandy to send Deutschen Heroes to set some Shermans in fire

[Damian90]

@Thomm.

Yes I know, but restrictions with gun elevation + gun elevation at all is also what I'm talking about. So why not to implement complex system for all that stuff that makes game more realistic.

[Sgt Joch]

At last discussions, no there will not be any change in CMN. This issue has always existed back to CMBO. As I understand it, the amount of coding involved, not only putting in min/max elevations for each AFV, but also coding the AI to be "aware" of the restriction and not to be unduly penalized by it vs a human player, is not worthwhile considering the few times where this is an issue.

[Sergei]

Also there is the matter of gameplay and interface. How would you know at what degree angle a target is to your vehicle? If your tank gun can elevate to 69º, how do you know when the target is at 68º degrees instead of 70º? There would need to be some sort of user interface tool to help the player with this, and I just cannot imagine how it'd work. Meanwhile the player may often intuitively see good spots for his vehicles and guns, but the AI coding required to do the same on a complex map would be astronomical.

However, a BMP firing at a trench at 2 meters away does seem like something that could be corrected more easily. Most vehicles should have a safe area around them, couple of meters or more, where their main weapons cannot reach. There might need to be some exceptions, like if the vehicle was in a hull down position so the turret was at ground level, or when firing at buildings or walls.

[Sergei]

This is weird. I just tested what happens when you try to area fire with a BMP close to itself. A BMP-1 wouldn't fire its gun and despite targetting ground very close to it the machineguns only hit ground about 10 meters away. There definitely was some sort of minimum angle in it, because it depended on the angle of the vehicle as well - if it was tilted on a road side slope, the machineguns would hit ground at 20 meters away. But then I tried a BMP-2. I could target the ground beneath it, and it would fire its main gun at its own tracks damaging them! I think this is a bug, but at least the BMP-1 shows how it's supposed to work.

[Thomm]

Sergei,

You are on to something!

Now all you have to do is to post this in the right forum ...

Best regards,

Thomm

[Sergei]

Done that already, what did you expect?

[Thomm]

Done that already, what did you expect?

Only the best, my friend, only the best ...

Regards,

Thomm

[Lanzfeld]

Sergei,

Does this have something to do with action spots associated with area fire?

FWIW: I would like something/anything added to restrict ALL tank guns from shooting troops above them in high buildings (the MOUT issue) and also prevent them from blasting troops 2 meters wawy in a trench. I just dont know how to program it.

[Battlefront.com]

This is one of those problems which is more theoretical than actual. Not to say that it never comes up, but it doesn't come up nearly as frequently as one might think. That's because other factors have a natural dampening effect on the extremes.

The lack of elevation restrictions has been with CM since 1997 and will likely continue long into the future. The reason is that fixing the problem is extremely complicated and very involved from the user's standpoint. Because the problem doesn't come up too often we feel we can "get away" without spending the considerable time it would take to overcome. If it were a common experience we would trash a couple dozen other improvements and focus instead on getting elevation restrictions in. Given the choice between fixing this and putting in lots of other things people want... the choice is clear that we should not do the elevation restrictions.

Steve

[Lanzfeld]

How about a "universal" min range for tanks of, say, 10 meters where they cannot shoot a target due to very limited LOS and angles (thinking CM:N here). Maybe if a target is detected in this range then the tac AI self preservation takes over and the tank backs away from the area ASAP?

[gibsonm]

How about a "universal" min range for tanks of, say, 10 meters where they cannot shoot a target due to very limited LOS and angles (thinking CM:N here). Maybe if a target is detected in this range then the tac AI self preservation takes over and the tank backs away from the area ASAP?

Except that then prevents the tank from firing Canister and other natures if carried, that can be set for "muzzle Action" (i.e. they explode as the round exits the barrel).

These are designed specifically for the anti personnel role.

If that doesn't work you certainly would "pop smoke" which screens the tank from the Infantry and inflicts casualties on them (except of course in CM:SF that has no effect on Infantry - Blue or Red).

[Fūrinkazan]

This subject was already in this thread :

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86637

It seems it's difficult to code this feature especially for the AI.

I had datas about T-62 tanks and they have a minimum range of 20 m for the main gun and 19 m for the mg.

I think that in the old CM series we didn't care about gun elevation because the environment was more abstracted.

But now it can be a problem especially in mout.

In CMBO some guns had restrictions : I'm thinking about stugs en SU . They were limited on the right and left forcing the vehicle to move if the targets is out of field of fire of the gun. So maybe this could be reproduced in CMSF.

I think that minimum range could be easier to put in the game and would avoid some frustrating problems when fighting in cities.

In narrow streets, tanks can't shoot the buildings on the flank because there is not enough space for the turret to turn.

When playing with Syians i had the case when an M1 destroyed my infantry at point blank range in a narrow street, (this happens with the US troops or the Brits too...) while in real life , the tank would not have the possibilty to shoot with is main gun. Or, you have your infantry on the roof of a building and they get killed by a tank Which is at 1 m of the building's wall.

I feel this is frustrating for the player and minimum range may solve a large part of those situations. I'm not asking for exact real datas for each vehicule, but maybe 20m for tanks (just like T-62) should be a minimum.

For Gun elevation, sometimes tanks shoot in positions where they would be unable to open fire in real life. And this can bring the same frustrating situations.

I had a tank down a hill where it could target the belly of an M1 and the M1 shot first, with is gun pointing up in the air, and destroy my tank. In this case i think the M1 wouldn't have the possibility too shoot or even see my tank in real life.

I really enjoy playing CMSF and i can't wait to see new features of Normandy. I'm amazed and surprised even after month of playing of all the details of this game.

I think that with a few details like gun elevation, and a few modifications with the behavior of our soldiers when under fire the game would be better.

(About infantry behavior, I was able to destroy an entire company of syrians

with british troops at more than 350 m. They stood bravely, and stupidly under fire without moving. I think that in the old CM series my soldiers were smarter and had a better sense of self preservation. It's certainly hard to code but this would also improve greatly the game. Vehicules targeted by artillery don't move, and i remember half-tracks moving when under fire in CM. When I started to play with CMSF i was disappointed. Syrians, when under fire simply died without moving or running away. Now that they panic, they survive and they are harder opponent. I encourage BFC team to work on this, and i'm sure that they will make our soldiers smarter and more human.

They did a very good job in CM and i loved panicking soldiers, prisoners etc.

I would like to see troops fighting until the last men or surrending at the first shot, crews panicking and leaving their tank.

Please give us back heroes and cowards, and make our men more human.)

[gibsonm]

This subject was already in this thread :

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86637

It seems it's difficult to code this feature especially for the AI.

I had datas about T-62 tanks and they have a minimum range of 20 m for the main gun and 19 m for the mg.

When playing with Syians i had the case when an M1 destroyed my infantry at point blank range in a narrow street, (this happens with the US troops or the Brits too...) while in real life , the tank would not have the possibilty to shoot with is main gun.

Parts snipped:

Both Russian and Western tanks have a Anti Personnel round called "Canister" (different countries use different terms but that's the generic one).

This is a round that makes the main gun into a 120mm or 125mm shot gun.

The round consists of thousands of pieces of steel reinforcing rod usually about 6cm or so long.

Just like a shot gun, these thousands of pellets come out of the muzzle (which is a lot closer than 20m in front of the hull) when the round is fired and will devastate any infantry directly in front of the gun when its fired.

This sort of thing:

and

I agree that narrow streets will limit the ability to traverse and certainly if the street is narrower that the width of the tank with the barrel over one side, it shouldn't be able to engage targets to it's side.

However if Infantry approach the tank from the front (probably a daft thing to do anyway) then the tank should be able to demolish them.

Especially given my earlier comments about the MBSGD dispensed smoke currently being useless.

[Secondbrooks]

I don't know... My Marine squad met BMP-2 from close range. They were having 4-10 meters distance between each of other, happening in forest. BMP-2 killed good half of squad, before hand grenades and probably 40mm took it out... Problem here is that this isn't not new thing, but happens very commonly. Minimum range for vehicles would be required in my opinion.

Or maybe counter that with fact that minimum range would be taken away from AT-launchers which very commonly by my experience is problem, they don't use their launchers while vehicles are able to kill everything next to their tracks/tires. I've had "fun" moments with forexample Stryker which took out half of my Marine platoon as i was forced to assault it from all sides with hand grenades.

But for longer ranges i don't think restricting minimum or maximum elevation would work for gameplay reasons. TacAI doesn't seem to understand that slope is slope, and it's probably not so easy to code in that. Which is okay as i wouldn't probably understand either... And coding myself to pay more attention to get tanks is such positions that they can engage freely their targets... Well I find it hard to find such positions for my vehicle even in vehicle simulators sometimes

[gibsonm]

I don't know... My Marine squad met BMP-2 from close range. They were having 4-10 meters distance between each of other, happening in forest. BMP-2 killed good half of squad, before hand grenades and probably 40mm took it out... Problem here is that this isn't not new thing, but happens very commonly. Minimum range for vehicles would be required in my opinion.

Or maybe counter that with fact that minimum range would be taken away from AT-launchers which very commonly by my experience is problem, they don't use their launchers while vehicles are able to kill everything next to their tracks/tires. I've had "fun" moments with forexample Stryker which took out half of my Marine platoon as i was forced to assault it from all sides with hand grenades.

But for longer ranges i don't think restricting minimum or maximum elevation would work for gameplay reasons. TacAI doesn't seem to understand that slope is slope, and it's probably not so easy to code in that. Which is okay as i wouldn't probably understand either... And coding myself to pay more attention to get tanks is such positions that they can engage freely their targets... Well I find it hard to find such positions for my vehicle even in vehicle simulators sometimes

Yes, I agree that there should be both elevation and depression limits on vehicle guns.

Unfortunately using a "minimum range limit" as a work around to achieve a similar result, without actually fixing the underlying problem, results in a worse situation where all the AFV's close in weapon systems are made ineffective.

[stikkypixie]

How about reducing spotting abilities really close around the vehicle?

[gibsonm]

That would work for AI engagements but I guess it doesn't help the player who manually selects a piece of dirt right beside the vehicle and selects it for "Area Fire".

In that case it doesn't matter if its spotted or not, the gun will just fire at that spot.

The "shoot myself in the foot" option.

Now if the player is a bit more cunning, they could use that to "Area Fire" on a sport right beside an enemy unit and the balst etc. would effect the unit without targeting it directly.

Overall though depending on what "really close" was determined to be (maybe 10 - 15m?) and this couldn't be applied as an even circle around the tank (the view to the front is better so the "really close" value for there would have to drop to say 3 - 5m?), it might be a good work around.

[Lanzfeld]

A min range (10 meters) would not have anything to do with a close in weapons system. It also would not effect the use of canister. I do not see a problem with a min range. To use canister you still have to point the main gun at a target and that isnt going to happen within a 5 to 10 meter ring around the tank. Use the canister when you have squishies 20-50 meters away.

The close in weapons system can be linked to self preservation Tac AI. Like I said before, once the tank detects a threat in the min range it can trigger the close in weapons system (if it has one) and then back away.

This would really be a good work around for tanks killing troops at 2 meters in a trench with almost no down side.

I have no solution to max gun angle but I agree with Steve in that is doesnt happen often enough to justify the time to fix. Min range is another story. Happens quite a bit.

[gibsonm]

A min range (10 meters) would not have anything to do with a close in weapons system.

Well actually that hasn't been specified.

All people have suggested so far is that the tank "wont fire" at targets within 10m (I haven't seen anyone say "only the main gun" or "MGs are exempt", etc.).

How about a "universal" min range for tanks of, say, 10 meters where they cannot shoot a target due to very limited LOS and angles (thinking CM:N here). Maybe if a target is detected in this range then the tac AI self preservation takes over and the tank backs away from the area ASAP?

Certainly "universal" (your term) implies to me "all encompassing", rather than "selective".

It also would not effect the use of canister. I do not see a problem with a min range. To use canister you still have to point the main gun at a target and that isnt going to happen within a 5 to 10 meter ring around the tank. Use the canister when you have squishies 20-50 meters away.

And what happens if the gun is pointed somewhere else and by the time you bring it to bear they are within 10m but still not closer than the muzzle?

Assuming you will see them 20-50m away probably works in open ground but severly limits your options in MOUT.

The close in weapons system can be linked to self preservation Tac AI. Like I said before, once the tank detects a threat in the min range it can trigger the close in weapons system (if it has one) and then back away.

That's great if:

1. The enemy is only on one flank. What happens if they are on say three? The vehicle backs up, gets within 10m of the guys behind, it drives forward again, ... the vehicle would become useless as it spent all its time moving "away" from threats it can't shoot at.

2. The close in weapons systems actually worked.

In CMSF at least, the WP from the tank's mutli barreled smoke grenade dischargers has no impact on troops (indeed people seem to use it to screen their own Infantry advancing).

I think the reduced spotting distance is a neater solution (if it can be worked out with better spotting to the front compared to the flanks).

[Lanzfeld]

Universal in that all tanks are subject to the restriction. Not all weapons on tank. I should have made that clear.

Severly limits options in MOUT? Yes, that is why having tanks in MOUT is not a good idea.

Also remember I have said if a tank DETECTS a bad guy in the 10 meter ring then it triggers tac ai. When these tanks back up they seem to go quite a long ways away before they stop so I doubt they would end up in another group of bad guys. If they do, A) they have to detect them again and B)So what...war is hell.

If the close in weapon works then the tank will no longer detect a bad guy and not have to back away or go ahead and back away ANYWAY because there may be more bad guys.

Not a perfect solution but way better then what we have now and maybe not too ddifficult to program?