Some nagging gameplay issues

[hcrof]

Well I certainly like the way that the game has got to the point where we don't get many of these threads these days but I have a number of minor issues that could be looked at. None of these warrent a thread of their own but now that I have 4 of them I thought I might as well raise the issues!

- 73mm HE fired by BMP-1s has very strange behaviour. It is devistating against troops in buildings but not at all lethal against troops in the open. In one case it took 5 rounds at point blank range to take out 1 guy!

In comparison, the 51mm mortar fires a smaller round that is much more lethal. I am beginning to think that the game thinks that the 73mm HE round is HEAT and the explosive power is reduced accordingly.

- HE fired from tanks explodes when hitting trees. Every time. It seems that even the smallest shrub can cause premature detonation of the round. These rounds don't explode in the violent conditions inside the gun barrel yet a leaf manages to trigger detonation! Savegame available (v1.20 I'm afraid)

- Simerlarly and in the same savegame I have a Stryker firing .50cal though a tree. Or rather it would be had the rounds not began to explode on the tree. The target was destroyed eventually but far too many rounds were stopped by the foliage.

- This one never got followed up. I should have bumped it a long time ago

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86976

[taccovert4]

Ok, I'm not going to address gameplay, but I will address the RL issues noted:

73mm HE shells should be marginally more effective on troops in light buildings. The HE would cause heat, blast overpressure, and larger amounts of splinters due to the building walls contributing to the shrapnel. So I would expect maybe 20-40% more casualties from an HE hit on a light building wall, based on the experience of the target unit (more experienced troops are less likely to press against the wall, and are more likely to keep interval and stay low even when inside a "cover" building). However, you're right that it should not take 5 rounds to take out a single guy.

It is possible for leaves and twigs to detonate HE shells. The reason the shell doesn't detonate inside the barrel has to due with the arming mechanisms. IIRC 40mm grenades don't arm for the first 30ft of travel outside the barrel. It takes a certain number of revolutions before the fuse is armed. There are HE shells with a quick fuse, which is extremely sensitive, and can be detonated by even things as small as large twigs. These are useful when taking on troops in wooded areas, as they cause treebursts, or on the edge of a wood, where the trees will detonate the shells directly on top of the entrenchments. There are also longer fused shells which do not detonate as easily, however, which I admit aren't modelled as effectively, possibly due to the game not differentiating between the two HE types.

As for the .50 cal, I have no good reason why .50 cal rounds should be detonating at all, much less detonating on leaves and twigs. Maybe you meant 40mm grenades (check the variant of LAV/Stryker that you are referring to, the GL versions will have 40mm and a much reduced ammo loadout). If they are .50 cal rounds, they should be punching straight through leaves, and twigs should only cause a slight reduction in accuracy.

[c3k]

hcrof,

Trees and shrubberies giving too much cover has been addressed. See my Entmoot thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=74625&highlight=trees

I believe v1.21 corrected some of that behavior. Ahh, here it is....

Terrain

•Roads are smoother when traversing rough ground or steep slopes.

•Large rocks (flavor objects) are more of a deterrent to navigate over.

•Flavor objects tilt to fit slopes when necessary.

•Trees are less resistant to damage from heavy artillery.

So, that does NOT show a correction to HE fired from vehicles. Nor does it address heavy machingun/autocannon rounds.

Shrug.

Hopefully CM:N will have trees and shrubberies which are much more easily destroyed. (I'd love to be able to have a platoon of halftracks shred a small copse of trees with their .50's, leaves and branches flying, gradually increasing their LOS deeper into the woods.)

Ken

[hcrof]

...Bump.

[Lanzfeld]

Well I hope they address the BRDM-2 issue.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Well I hope they address the BRDM-2 issue.

And what would that be?

[Lanzfeld]

And what would that be?

See the link in the OP.

I have not yet tested this myself but I intend to as soon as I get home from work. A BRDM-2 with AT missles should not back away from a tank 3000 meters away that is not facing the BRDM-2.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Doh, missed that link.

Actually, it's not clear from that post if the T-62 was facing the BRDM or not. Nor is the BDRM out of range of the T-62 at 3.000m. It's long range to hit but pretty much any round fired would KO a BRDM on a hit.

Never used the BRDMs much, but TOW Strykers are none too happy about squaring off with MBTs. Nor should they! At CMSF ranges their behaviour doesn't seem excessive.

I reserve judgement about this being a bug or not. If they never fire because they always flee, that's a problem. Otherwise, it might be reasonable behaviour.

[Alan8325]

Right now I tend not to like scenarios with ATGM vehicles at all in CMSF, primarily for 2 reasons. First, LOS cannot be drawn from the optics suite at the top of the ATGM launcher, thus taking away the vehicle's biggest advantage which is to have only the launcher exposed to the enemy. LOS is always drawn from the center of vehicles in CMSF.

Second, as Elmar mentioned, CMSF ranges generally give the MBT the advantage because each side is so close together that it is difficult not to be spotted, even by an MBT, and a round from the main gun will close the distance much faster than an ATGM.

I have a feeling that ATGM vehicles will be more useful in the future as the CMx2 engine improves, such as with bigger maps and improved LOS calculations.

[MikeyD]

An alternate theory on problems with ATGM vehicles in the game is that ATGM vehicles are crappy warfighting vehicles!

I agree, CMSF does not offer ideal cirsumstances for their deployment. Conversely, CMSF doesn't model half the real-world problems associated with Hammerhead TOW launcher. From what I hear Hammerhead TOW is roundly despised. I recall NATO allies who'd gratefully accept any U.S. equipment categorically refused to field Hammerhead TOW. Sometimes a weapon system plays like crap because it is crap.

[slug88]

Right now I tend not to like scenarios with ATGM vehicles at all in CMSF, primarily for 2 reasons. First, LOS cannot be drawn from the optics suite at the top of the ATGM launcher, thus taking away the vehicle's biggest advantage which is to have only the launcher exposed to the enemy. LOS is always drawn from the center of vehicles in CMSF.

I would have agreed with you until a few patches ago, but as of v1.21 I completely disagree. At least as far as LAV-AT's, TOW Humvees, and TOW Strykers go, LOS most definitely *can* be drawn from the optics suite. I haven't had a chance to test this with any red vehicles. With blue vehicles however, if you take great care, you can successfully engage enemy armor by exposing just the ATGM launcher. I am completely sure of this as I do it on a regular basis.

In fact I recently played a quick battle in which my only anti-armor assets were a few TOW Humvees from a Marine recon platoon, and I used them to destroy an entire company of BMP-2's, taking shots mostly at ranges of .8-1.2km. Through the course of the battle the Humvees took fire from several of the BMP's, but due to their hull down position the only damage was the loss of a few of the TOW launchers, however Humvees and all crewmen were still functional.

[slug88]

Furthermore, regarding the ATGM vehicle issue in the OP, I believe this has also been fixed as of 1.21 or an earlier patch. At least, it is definately not an issue with blue ATGM vehicles, though I haven't tested the BRDM launcher for a while. I'm referring to the bug-out behavior, and I am certain that blue ATGM vehicles won't bug out before launching their weapon, even at relatively close ranges, and even facing enemy MBT's. Ever since the LOS issue with ATGM vehicles was fixed, I have killed a very large number of T-72's, T-90's, etc, with Stryker and LAV ATGM's. Of course, I am always very careful to ensure that the vehicles are fully hull down when they engage enemy armor, and perhaps that's why I haven't seen this premature bug-out behavior any time recently.

[bodkin]

I'd like to see some refinement of targeting when knocked out vehicles are in the line of fire. I just watched a squad firing at target 100m away but because there was a KO'd vehicle in the line of fire about 20m away they wasted most of their precious ammo firing into the dead hull.

[Battlefront.com]

ATGM vehicles are generally only viable when they are pre-placed and/or positioned while outside of enemy LOS. Trying to move an ATGM vehicle around in the open, or at least in view of the enemy, is an invite to destruction. The primary reason is that the ATGM vehicle can not fire on the move, yet is broadcasting its position. Worse, they are pegged as serious threats and therefore are likely being tracked before they even have a chance to lay sights on the enemy.

And once an ATGM vehicle lets loose... it should scoot.

I doubt range will help matters that much. It's more a function of adequate cover and the usage of it. In a temperate environment it's unlikely that you'd get a clear shot for more than a couple hundred meters, or perhaps a thousand or two. But that would be because of really good cover being abundant. In desert setting cover is not all that plentiful or ranges are very short because the terrain is urban or otherwise not conducive to long range targeting.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

Another thing to remember when using fragile items like ATGM vehicles is the way spotting works in CMSF. Vehicles which are moving are spotted much more quickly than vehicles which are stationary, so if your ATGM stryker is positioned behind a crest and a T-72 pops up from behind another ridge, chances are the Styker will be able to get off 1-2 shots and possibly kill the tank before it is spotted. Of course the reverse is also true. Because of this, ATGM vehicles are most effective when used to provide overwatch along likely enemy approach routes.

[Piecekeeper]

-I've seen Challengers targeting a building from five metres away and shot goes through the building and explode on the other side, dont know if this is happening to Abrams too.

[hcrof]

Well the vehicles were hull down and pretty well conceiled, the tanks were moving towards them at a distance of 3km so I expected the the BRDMs to take a shot. I didn't test with laterally moving tanks though but unfortunately I now don't have the time.

Any word on vegitation or 73mm rounds? I just had 7.62 appear to be stopped by trees now. It is quite hard to tell whether it is just the tracer disappearing (and an explosion on the tree) but the bullet is still calculated as moving forward or whether the tree stops the rounds completely.

[Lethaface]

I think the BRDM AT-5 does suffer from too much reversing, it is almost impossible to get a shot off with. I din't have any problems with Blue ATGM vehicles, the Hummer TOW worked fine for me and took out plenty of enemy tanks and BMP's in the Marine campaign. However it is still a 'car' and it can't take fire. The BRDM AT-5 seems more scared then a Hummer TOW and that is slightly strange IMO.

It could all just be the effect of 'variables' ofcourse