Claymore Posted March 24, 2011 Share Posted March 24, 2011 In the CMx1 days there were many times when a gun or tank would be engaging an opposing tank and just momentarily break LOS (e.g. going behind a building etc...) just for a second or two. Unfortunately in CMx1 this would reset the "range finding clock" for the gun and when the target reappeared the range finding process would recommence from the beginning with no memory of shorts or longs. At longer ranges (>700m) this became useful tactic for players who wanted to make a dash across open terrain. Is this addressed in CMBN? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted March 25, 2011 Share Posted March 25, 2011 Units in CMSF have a "memory" where a particular unit is, so it could very well be, although someone of BFC should clear this out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymore Posted March 27, 2011 Author Share Posted March 27, 2011 Shameless bump 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted March 28, 2011 Share Posted March 28, 2011 This annoyed me too and it wasn't necessarily a moving a target as smoke, arty dust etc did the same thing. The tank would target something rotate fire, then lose LOS, start to rotate back to their facing but then immediately reacquire and start the process again. You would think that unless another serious threat was spotted the tank would not rotate it's turret so quickly thus not resetting it's "to hit" percentage. CMSF has no "to hit %" and also the systems are so much more accurate it is difficult to appreciate a difference between multiple shots. Not sure how it might apply to vehicles but infantry in CMSF DO continue to shoot at a location where infantry is spotted for 5 to 15 seconds (? never timed it) after LOS is lost. No idea how this translate to the CMSF vehicles under CMx2. Frankly if you take a shot at something and don't hit it you should be moving the firing unit to safety. Only Battlefront can answer how this works and what can reset a units benefit of taking multiple shots at a single target. The Sherman v PIV engagement may have had some instances of this as the Shermans did seem to pop smoke a lot so it is possible that the PIVs would have done a lot of switching between targets popping in and out of LOS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted March 30, 2011 Share Posted March 30, 2011 Curious bump. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymore Posted April 4, 2011 Author Share Posted April 4, 2011 A bump to keep it off page 3. I'm persistent if nothing else 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted April 4, 2011 Share Posted April 4, 2011 team effort. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymore Posted April 5, 2011 Author Share Posted April 5, 2011 Getting a touch lonely here... It seems I have the knack of starting threads that BFC doesn't respond to. Dialing Mr.Peabody's way-back machine back to 2002, I had the exact same question for BFC with regards to the CMx1 engine... I said: SOP platoon formations of AFVs extended over fairly short distances. AAR's from the Ostfront mirror just this effect. A few rounds required to strike the first target and then consumptions verging on a single round per successive target. Steve said: Yes, and this makes sense. Unfortunately, each unit does not remember the range and relative positions of everything it shoots. Accuracy does improve vs. a single target with successive shots, but once contact with that unit is broken the benefit ends. Why is this significant factor not simulated? The simple reason is that it is a lot more complex than it might appear. At least from a simulation standpoint. Charles looked into coding up such behavior and found it to be very difficult to do with the existing engine (even back in CMBO development). Therefore he passed on doing more with this. Thankfully most situations would not benefit from this information retention. Range estimations are next to useless (in practical terms) if the situation changes even slightly. The most favorable situation is one stationary shooter vs. several closely spaced, stationary targets all within LOS. This situation does not come up that often in regular games, and therefore is (by and large) not an issue. However, that is not an excuse to say this is an unimportant feature. Quite the contrary, we regret not having it coded into the game, even if we still feel it was the right decision to make. And that means this will very likely (almost certainly) simulated with the engine rewrite along with a much more detailed accounting of gunner issues instead of the more abstracted factors we have in there now. Back to 2011 now... "and this means this will very likely (almost certainly) simulated with the engine rewrite" Has the rewrite addressed this issue? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted April 5, 2011 Share Posted April 5, 2011 I think you triggered your ambush too soon ... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I am not concerned at all about getting benefits from multiple shots at a single target but a tank that shifts it turret about unnecessarily is sometimes a bit jarring. I am pretty sure I have seen this happen in CMSF but the problem isn't as acute because taking multiple shots from one spot is not a good idea and modern tank rotation time helps camouflage it happening. I see this as a problem in the TAC AI behaviour. I don't think that if a tank crew spotted something worth shooting at that they would immediately (almost?) rotate the turret away from the threat if they lost sight of it, unless of course something nastier appearred or they could see the threat got zapped. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymore Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 I am pretty sure I have seen this happen in CMSF but the problem isn't as acute because taking multiple shots from one spot is not a good idea and modern tank rotation time helps camouflage it happening. . I think that the lethality and accuracy of CMSF weapons platforms masks the issue more completely. The "stuttering turret" syndrome you described earlier is one of the warning signs. When I read through the CMx2 AARs I can see many times when multiple hits are scored without the target being killed. Unfortunately the screen captures don't give you the dynamics and nobody from BFC has yet replied. :cool: Question: Have any of the beta play testers seen this effect? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 Deathly silence. We will see for ourselves soon and we will be able to complain or congratulate with correct conviction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 It should be in, no? Since units retain "memory" of enemy locations. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted April 6, 2011 Share Posted April 6, 2011 I think that the lethality and accuracy of CMSF weapons platforms masks the issue more completely. The "stuttering turret" syndrome you described earlier is one of the warning signs. When I read through the CMx2 AARs I can see many times when multiple hits are scored without the target being killed. Unfortunately the screen captures don't give you the dynamics and nobody from BFC has yet replied. :cool: Question: Have any of the beta play testers seen this effect? Claymore, I saw none of the "stuttering turret" syndrome you mention, when playing out the game in my AAR... units popped in and out of view because of the smoke buildup and the turrets did not slew off target after they lost contact, unless another juicy target came into view. What are the dynamics you are looking for in the quote above? I tried to give you as much information as possible in that AAR with every engagement. If there is something I can add please be specific and I'll see what I can do. Bil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymore Posted April 6, 2011 Author Share Posted April 6, 2011 Claymore, I saw none of the "stuttering turret" syndrome you mention, when playing out the game in my AAR... units popped in and out of view because of the smoke buildup and the turrets did not slew off target after they lost contact, unless another juicy target came into view. What are the dynamics you are looking for in the quote above? I tried to give you as much information as possible in that AAR with every engagement. If there is something I can add please be specific and I'll see what I can do. Bil Bil, You did a great job with the AARsl. No worries. Mucho gratias. "Stuttering turret" referred to Peregrin's earlier comment regarding CMx1 dynamics. Since we have not seen CMx2 I can't speak to what happens with the new engine but it's very heartening to hear that in your game there was no "stuttering turret" observed. I believe I have a reference somewhere around that stated that the "average" engagement distance in ETO was about 750 yards (tank v tank / tank v gun) and a little less for the Normandy campaign. At these ranges the necessity for the firing tank or gun to have some kind of memory is I think a valid argument. If you look at some engagements (e.g. Goodwood) then an array of guns/tanks required some number of initial rounds to "find the range" and then had consumption rates at nearly 1 round/hit on any targets in the nearby vicinity. Can you give any insight if the "chance to hit" clock was being reset whenever a gun loses LOS to a target, however momentarily that might be? Cheers MRD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peregrine Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Nice that you didn't see it. And the way there were clumps of Shermans all popping smoke is the classic scenario where it would rear it's ugly head. No TAC AI will ever be perfect but to me this was the most annoying and seemingly most fixable problems in CMBB/CMAK. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Gonna bump this sucker right up, because I'm curious. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 The problem with trying to respond to "CMx1 vs CM:BN" questions is a lot of us have frankly not touched CMx1 for so long we can't recall! We've got two newer CMx2 titles under our belts and three full scale modules. That's a lot of water under the bridge since good old CMBO. A lot of these issues were resolved way back in in CMSF patch 1.7, or something like that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 The problem with trying to respond to "CMx1 vs CM:BN" questions is a lot of us have frankly not touched CMx1 for so long we can't recall! We've got two newer CMx2 titles under our belts and three full scale modules. That's a lot of water under the bridge since good old CMBO. A lot of these issues were resolved way back in in CMSF patch 1.7, or something like that. Well in CMBB the range estimate to a target gets getter with each shot. However, if the target disappear from view even for a fraction of a second, the range estimate is reset. Do tanks in CMx2 remember these ranges? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymore Posted April 11, 2011 Author Share Posted April 11, 2011 Bump...before it slides into the nether reaches of 4th page oblivion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.