Why are we firing rifles at tanks?

[Georgie]

In the scenario that I'm playing I have had two instances where a Sherman received penetrating hits to the turret front. The TC closed the hatch popped smoke and retreated in both instances. After close examination using replay I was able to determine that the fire in both instances appeared to come from a light machine gun. There does not appear to be any vision slits in the turret so the "penetrations must have been bullet ricochets from the hatch rim. Still not a good idea to fire on a tank with a rifle or machine gun but it did have an effect and more often than I thought it would. Now the machine gunner is targeted.

[dieseltaylor]

This is weird as in my limited playing I have had Stug III's take pnetrating hits from close range MG's. Is this a little excessive? I na ll my decades of reading accounts of armour battles I have never had tanks suffering MG penetrations.

[Bradley Dick]

Perhaps the "penetrating hit" is just a generalized message that indicates damage was done to the armored vehicle.

[dieseltaylor]

I agree that might be the case but would inmates know where hits were occurring in the general noise?

[MikeyD]

I recall a story where the Germans were compelled to unbolt the gunshields on their Ferdinands and remount them backwards to reduce the gap between the shield and hull because bullet splash was making its way through the gun mount opening into the fighting compartment. I suppose in-game that would be considered small arms 'penetrating hits' to 200mm of armor.

[Scipio]

It seems that we're throwing in a historical reality (infantry firing on TCs) without supplying the player other historically accurate options that effect this historically accurate action. ...

Yes, that's a good point. Okay, let's accept that it is realitsic that infantry opens fire on an unbuttoned tank. Surely not realitsic is that a whole squad is forced to stay within the area of 2 action spots, what means a relative small area of 6x12 meters, making them relativ vulnerable to heavy and automatic fire. This would cause a headache to any drill sergeant in the world. I assume a 'spread out' command - one of the most basic commands in 20th century military - needs a bit more programming time?

My idea would be a) different covered arcs for soft and hard targets or a switch in the combat menu to turn the option 'allow hard targets' on and off c) infantry opens small arms fire on tanks only if directly orderd to do so.

Any of this solutions would be of course a problem if buildings are - in programing terms - recognized as hard targets, too...

BTW, when does infantry start to throw grenades on a vehicel? In CMx1, vehicels were relativ easy to kill in close combat. I have no experience in CMBN with this yet.

[YankeeDog]

My $.02 on this whole subject is that I don't mind infantry opening up with small arms on tanks, but I think full squads especially and to a lesser extent MG teams do so with too much volume, which I think is what gets them spotted and killed quickly. Often, it looks like the entire squad opens up when a tank first comes into view.

But if you try splitting off a Scout team, hiding the rest of the squad, and having just the scout team take a few potshots with rifles at a distant tank, it's much more difficult for the tank to spot such a small team, even when firing. But even a couple of rifles plinking away will still manage to button up the tank after a little while (and maybe if you get lucky, they might still cap the TC).

IMHO, what might work best would be if infantry AI were adjusted to allow squads and teams to take only occasional carefully aimed shots/bursts at exposed TCs, which would still make it tank dangerous for the TC to keep his head out of the hatch, and occasionally get the TC, but allow the infantry unit to keep a lower profile.

Seems fairly realistic to me as well, based on what I've read about how infantry usually engaged tanks.

[Michael Emrys]

Surely not realitsic is that a whole squad is forced to stay within the area of 2 action spots, what means a relative small area of 6x12 meters, making them relativ vulnerable to heavy and automatic fire.

That would be 8X16 meters, would it not?

I assume a 'spread out' command - one of the most basic commands in 20th century military - needs a bit more programming time?

You can split the squad and separate the teams by as much distance as you like. That's actually a pretty good tactic for a number of reasons.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

But if you try splitting off a Scout team, hiding the rest of the squad, and having just the scout team take a few potshots with rifles at a distant tank, it's much more difficult for the tank to spot such a small team, even when firing. But even a couple of rifles plinking away will still manage to button up the tank after a little while (and maybe if you get lucky, they might still cap the TC).

And if you have the option to split off a sniper/sharpshooter/marksman team, so much the better.

Michael

[JonS]

So Jon your interpretation is helpfully not included.

So? There's a lot of things not in the manual, including a recipe for a really delicious fish pie.

You have a brain between your ears. You know what effect you want to achieve. You know - or should be able to figure out - what the various orders already extant do. The next step is simply using and combining the available orders in creative ways to acheive the effect you want. There are, what ... 20-30 odd separate orders? The combinatorial options there are quite staggering. Use you head. Solve your problems. That's the point of the game, surely?

Or, you can continue to demand that BFC 'fix' the AI so it solves your problems for you, and plays the game for you too.

[RockinHarry]

And if you have the option to split off a sniper/sharpshooter/marksman team, so much the better.

Michael

Exactly! While it would be desirable to have some inherent "squad tactics" implemented (maybe even with national doctrines considered), troop density alone forces one to split squads in most situations anyway. One of them is the "tank harassing" duty. While split off marksmen, somewhat seperated from the remaining squad members, may be allowed some "free shooting", the remaining guys are better set with a short covered arc, until it´s clear what the main targets will be, once they move into line of fire. Works ok for me, until BFC pulls off something better.

[womble]

That would be 8X16 meters, would it not?

Indeed it would. And if the squad is 2 teams of 4 men, they can be separated by 4m each, in all directions from the nearest trooper, on smooth terrain that doesn't encourage them to bunch up in the same cozy hollow. 4m is only 20% less than the 5m minimum separation, and HE bursts are nerfed to compensate somewhat for this game engine limitation.

You can split the squad and separate the teams by as much distance as you like. That's actually a pretty good tactic for a number of reasons.

The only problem with spreading out a lot that I keep bumping into is that if some indirect comes in, you're guaranteed that someone will get hit... :-/

[Wengart]

So? There's a lot of things not in the manual, including a recipe for a really delicious fish pie.

You have a brain between your ears. You know what effect you want to achieve. You know - or should be able to figure out - what the various orders already extant do. The next step is simply using and combining the available orders in creative ways to acheive the effect you want. There are, what ... 20-30 odd separate orders? The combinatorial options there are quite staggering. Use you head. Solve your problems. That's the point of the game, surely?

Or, you can continue to demand that BFC 'fix' the AI so it solves your problems for you, and plays the game for you too.

If your going to bother posting instead of being unhelpful and generally annoying by saying yes there is. You could explain to them how to do it.

That is already in the game.

Not helpful ^

You can use a short cover arc to prevent your unit from firing.

helpful^

Alternatively you could just not post a reply.

[JonS]

If your going to bother posting instead of being unhelpful and generally annoying by saying yes there is. You could explain to them how to do it.

There's an infinitely large number of similar questions that could be asked.

"Where is the run button? BFC, fix or do somefink!"

"Where is the walk button? BFC, fix or do somefink!"

"Where is the crawl button? BFC, fix or do somefink!"

"Where is the look button? BFC, fix or do somefink!"

"Where is the shoot button? BFC, fix or do somefink!"

"Where is the drive button? BFC, fix or do somefink!"

"Where is the go-over-there-and-look-that-way button? BFC, fix or do somefink!"

"Where is the see button? BFC, fix or do somefink!"

"Where is the jog button? BFC, fix or do somefink!"

"Where is the medic button? BFC, fix or do somefink!"

"Where is the go-upstairs button? BFC, fix or do somefink!"

"Where is the go-downstairs button? BFC, fix or do somefink!"

"Where is the turn button? BFC, fix or do somefink!"

"Where is the wait button? BFC, fix or do somefink!"

etc

My response answers all of them. Give a man a fish, etc.

[YankeeDog]

And if you have the option to split off a sniper/sharpshooter/marksman team, so much the better.

Michael

For the human player, splitting off a small team and using this team to engage in "harassing fire" on tanks or whatever usually works pretty well, IME. Based on my experience thus far, exactly which type of team to split off depends a bit on the specific squad composition. Usually, Scout is best. But sometimes it actually works better to spawn one or two assault teams (which will usually have the shorter ranged stuff), and then use the remaining team, which will usually have the SAW, as well as the scoped rifle (if any). But regardless, you can usually get a 2-3 man team with rifles and/or a SAW, if you try.

It's a bit more micromanaging than I would prefer, but only slightly, so it's not a major gripe for me.

The problem is, the AI isn't very good at this kind of sophisticated squad splitting tactic. So giving the squad AI some sort of harassing fire routine would help the computer player become a more credible opponent, with the added bonus of reducing micromanagement for the player.

A related, but slightly different issue is how HMGs fire on tanks, since you can't split these teams. I don't mind HMGs firing on unbuttoned tanks (in fact, usually, I want this). But they seem to fire with the same level of intensity as they do an infantry squad in the open. I would prefer to see more of a "stealthy fire" mode for HMGs firing upon unbuttoned TCs, wtih occasional carefully aimed, short bursts (until the TC buttons up, that is).

[sburke]

There's an infinitely large number of similar questions that could be asked.

"Where is the run button? BFC, fix or do somefink!"

My response answers all of them. Give a man a fish, etc.

heh heh, funny, but bound to get somebody's hackles up.

"Mr Charles have a da fish. The seabass is a very very nice." "I'd like the lobster." No? No one a fan of the Thin Man movies?

Jon's point (and one I humbly agree with) is there are a lot of options in the game. The ability to apply tactics to resolve a situation is what the game encourages. Yeah it can take some time and odds are some helpful suggestions from other folks (thanks Michael, I like that sniper team idea) will help increase one's learning curve. Instead there are innumerable threads to get the AI to take over more and more of those choices. This isn't to say all are bad (I'd love an armored covered arc for my AT assets), but the place to start is to ask what is possible instead of just throwing one's hands in the air and saying, "I know what I want to have happen, why can't the AI do it"? Granted that doesn't help the Computer apply those tactics, but how much programming time are folks expecting BFC to have to develop the AI?

I personally do make the effort to force the opposing TCs to button up. I have seen what it does to my own ability to observe and have seen the AI use it to good effect to prevent my Shermans from giving good fire support.

[LemuelG]

Out of curiosity I was having a read through my great-uncle's (Sherman commander, NZ 19th armoured reg) memoirs to see if he ever wrote of firing while moving, which he didn't (not counting the once point-blank at a screck-holding German), but I did see this passage:

"We had not been left to our own devices. German mortar-men, with uncanny accuracy, had seen to that and the frequent bursts of machine gun fire ensured we kept our heads down. A burst rustled through the cypress tree under which we had parked, then followed a more accurate and prolonged hail. I dropped through the turret hatchway onto the shoulders of my gunner in a shower of chopped-off foliage..."

For what it's worth

[RockinHarry]

A related, but slightly different issue is how HMGs fire on tanks, since you can't split these teams. I don't mind HMGs firing on unbuttoned tanks (in fact, usually, I want this). But they seem to fire with the same level of intensity as they do an infantry squad in the open. I would prefer to see more of a "stealthy fire" mode for HMGs firing upon unbuttoned TCs, wtih occasional carefully aimed, short bursts (until the TC buttons up, that is).

I too figured that, once I played 2 scens from the demo, german side (CtP & BtB). The german HMG teams are too big of a target and unrealistically deployed by the game engine. Realistically, you have 2-3 guys forward, operating the gun only, with the remaining (ammo bearers) guys kept rearward and in cover. I more than once wished to split the HMG squad into 2 components to get that happen. You can also keep unwanted shooters to the rear this way.

[Wengart]

heh heh, funny, but bound to get somebody's hackles up.

"Mr Charles have a da fish. The seabass is a very very nice." "I'd like the lobster." No? No one a fan of the Thin Man movies?

Jon's point (and one I humbly agree with) is there are a lot of options in the game. The ability to apply tactics to resolve a situation is what the game encourages. Yeah it can take some time and odds are some helpful suggestions from other folks (thanks Michael, I like that sniper team idea) will help increase one's learning curve. Instead there are innumerable threads to get the AI to take over more and more of those choices. This isn't to say all are bad (I'd love an armored covered arc for my AT assets), but the place to start is to ask what is possible instead of just throwing one's hands in the air and saying, "I know what I want to have happen, why can't the AI do it"? Granted that doesn't help the Computer apply those tactics, but how much programming time are folks expecting BFC to have to develop the AI?

I personally do make the effort to force the opposing TCs to button up. I have seen what it does to my own ability to observe and have seen the AI use it to good effect to prevent my Shermans from giving good fire support.

My point was if your going to bother replying in a vague unhelpful way don't reply at all. If you do decide to reply, reply in a way that is helpful and clear to the other party.

I'm not saying that there needs to be a "hold fire" command or anything. I'm saying tell them to use a cover arc.

Besides there's a difference between having the AI take care of tedious micromanagement for you and having it "play the game for you". Most, if not all, of the threads on AI I've seen are of the former.

[dieseltaylor]

Ah JonS. If only you had posted straigh the first time around how many entries would have been saved not to mention the ire. : )

It is interesting to see the workarounds and very helpful. Thanks for sharing. I particularly liked the diary info. I know BF say anecdote is not proof but it is good enough for me.

I have a IWM photo of a Churchill TC up showing with a plate welded behind the split cupola. So the split cupola is erect and the plate to the back giving him the best availabe cover from snipers. The comment about the Panthers cupola with excellent all-round vision away from the tank now seems so much more relevant.

[sand digger]

Deciding when the AI should come into play would be simplified if some sort of rule was applied.

An example of such a rule could be when an asset is threatened with severe damage it should react to defend itself by whatever means are available. But other than firing at a target where there is a good chance of at least inflicting significant damage, the offensive side of things could be left to the player. This could be further refined by taking into account the state or condition of the asset.

Now there are sure to be valid exceptions to any such rule but at least it would be a start.

[Michael Emrys]

The only problem with spreading out a lot that I keep bumping into is that if some indirect comes in, you're guaranteed that someone will get hit... :-/

Kinda depends on where the HE lands though, doesn't it? In any case, losing a team is better than losing a squad.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Besides there's a difference between having the AI take care of tedious micromanagement for you and having it "play the game for you". Most, if not all, of the threads on AI I've seen are of the former.

Where I stand on the issue, if anybody cares, is that I don't mind dealing with a complicated set of orders as long as that is a reasonably accurate representation of what an actual soldier/leader is faced with. I do mind having to deal with a complicated set of orders if it is just a case of the programmer's oversight in some area. Thankfully, there tend to be few of the latter in BFC products.

Michael