Tank gun elevation

[Battlefront.com]

The TacAI should already be "freaking out" if a threat is that close.

The problem with tank fire is that there are all kinds of real world restrictions on it that CM really can't simulate. The most important of which is the over pressure danger area around the front and sides of something like an Abrams. Again the problem here is programming sensible TacAI and giving players adequate info/control to plan accordingly.

A fairly short dead zone for the primary weapon around an AFV should be doable. At least it's a suggestion that's already been put forward internally

Steve

[gibsonm]

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

I agree about putting tanks in MOUT has challenges (been there, done that).

However this solution makes them more vulnerable than they (should be / are) and still doesn't fix the issue of being right next to a building and being able to fire the main gun at someone on the roof of that building.

[gibsonm]

A fairly short dead zone for the primary weapon around an AFV should be doable. At least it's a suggestion that's already been put forward internally

Steve

Well perhaps you can expand your comments on the issue on the "internal" thread?

[Wiggum]

The most important of which is the over pressure danger area around the front and sides of something like an Abrams.

That is interesting.

I know that it is no good idea to get to close to a MBT that fires his 120mm main gun, but can someone tell me how big this "danger area" is ?

[gibsonm]

Well if you want to include where the "sabots" from APFSDS fall off the penetrator its the best part of several hundred metres forward of the muzzle:

This is another issue on my list, as currently friendly Infantry can pretty much sit on the glacis plate, under the muzzle, watch the gun fire and have no ill effects. :eek:

[Lanzfeld]

I am thinking more of a WWII setting where I am sure we will be doing many more infantry assaults on tanks with nothing but grenades then we currently do in the modern setting (RPG's, LAWS, AT-4's, ect...).

[Secondbrooks]

For T-55 i recall it i 150 meters long and some 50 meters wide from muzzle, won't bother to check the data. It's about overpressure etc. However what is really dangerous range? Forexample safety regulations for M72 LAV's backblast area are ridiculously long, some 50 meters. One might get flying rock into his forehead, but backblast it self has lost it's effect long ago.

For IFVs empty cartridges flying from vehicle could be modelled as well, oh and backblasts from AT-launchers (my internal virtual-commander shivers from terror)

[gibsonm]

I am thinking more of a WWII setting where I am sure we will be doing many more infantry assaults on tanks with nothing but grenades then we currently do in the modern setting (RPG's, LAWS, AT-4's, ect...).

Fair enough, but again I continue to think that reducing the "spotting" distance is a nicer solution.

Certainly for Second World War you could reduce it further than in say CM:SF to reflect the reduced vision (no CITV type systems then) that that generation of vehicles had.

Anyway hopefully I can have a clearer conversation "internally" with Steve.

Hopefully whatever the "fix" works out to be, wont make other things worse.

[gibsonm]

However what is really dangerous range?

Well how about you come over here, stand beside my tank on the firing point, I'll fire a round and we'll find out?!

[Lanzfeld]

Anyway hopefully I can have a clearer conversation "internally" with Steve.

Must be nice. I wish I could test CM:N. I spend so much of my free time testing these little things anyway...

[Secondbrooks]

Well how about you come over here, stand beside my tank on the firing point, I'll fire a round and we'll find out?!

Hmm. This sound fishy to me. May i remind you that You, my dear sire, are part of Beta team.

Ps. I could fire the cannon. Multiple times even to get my name in credits.

[Battlefront.com]

Personally, I think the danger area around tanks is more important to simulate than the min/max elevation. The reason is the danger area comes up more frequently than the elevation issue, overall, from game to game. Unfortunately, it's even more difficult to do than min/max elevation. So... it's not going to happen any time soon.

Steve

[gibsonm]

Hmm. This sound fishy to me. May i remind you that You, my dear sire, are part of Beta team.

Except of course it's "my" tank.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

This is another issue on my list, as currently friendly Infantry can pretty much sit on the glacis plate, under the muzzle, watch the gun fire and have no ill effects. :eek:

And then there are people like me, who like to have fun while playing games.

[Battlefront.com]

If we could figure out a smooth way to implement the danger areas of tank fire I think it would add to the "fun" of the game, not detract from it. The problem is that anything short of an amazing and robust portrayal will likely take a big chunk out of the "fun". We have little interest, or incentive, in putting a lot of time into a feature has more potential to harm the game than help it. Especially for a feature that most people don't even know is missing, not to mention wanting

Steve

[Pablius]

For what is worth it, I vote in faver of the danger zone if possible, not only for vehicles but for Javelins and such, it adds a tactical problem to a tactical level wargame, it is what most of us want out of this games I guess...It´s not like adding the possibilty of the driver forgetting the keys of the tank, wich would put the game closer to "The Sims"

And I´m sure a simple switch could be added to disable it as an option...

[gibsonm]

Well its not quite that simple.

Javelin has an initial "soft launch" motor to move it clear of the CLU and surrounding Infantry before the main motor cuts in.

This is also why you can shoot it from inside a relatively closed area as the backblast is pretty minimal.

So you'd need to code it on a weapon by weapon basis.