Tank main gun elevation/depression limits not modelled?

[Lt Bull]

For some reason I thought they were in this game engine (I know modelling this in CM had been discussed at some point)

They definitely are not as I have discovered.

[hm_stanley]

I watched it.. and then I fired up Pink Floyd's "The Wall" and then it made sense to me...

They are firing upside down at an gun elevation that allows them to hit the Shermans? I'm not sure I understand? Are you saying that the Shermans should fire back?

[MikeyD]

AT weapons have elevation depression limits (you'll find that out when you place your gun on a high ridge). That was relatively easy for them to code as AT guns don't drive up and down hills and perch at odd angle on mountainsides. Depression limits on vehicles is more of a challenge to code, I can't say why its not in the game. Perhaps its still on their 'to do' list, or perhaps they judged the function would simply eat up too much processor time for too little benefit. A cool feature isn't a cool feature if your framerate drops like a rock.

[Lt Bull]

I watched it.. and then I fired up Pink Floyd's "The Wall" and then it made sense to me...

LOL...tripper!

They are firing upside down at an gun elevation that allows them to hit the Shermans? I'm not sure I understand? Are you saying that the Shermans should fire back?

Ah forgot to mention (may not be obvious)...the Shermans have covered arcs that prevent them from engaging the PzIVs. If you remove the Sherman covered arcs you will see that they can also hit the PzIVs. It's just not as obvious they too are going well beyond their theoretical gun elevation limit.

[JonS]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1194181&highlight=elevation+limits#post1194181

and especially

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1194005&postcount=91

[Alan8325]

I remember a few discussions about this in CM:SF. The main reason it is not currently modeled for vehicles is because the tac-AI wouldn't know how to position vehicles to take advantage/avoid the limitations of elevation and depression limits.

[Lt Bull]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1194181&highlight=elevation+limits#post1194181

and especially

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1194005&postcount=91

Fair enough no biggie, just an observation, but...

...restrict[ing] gun deflection limitations ....the amount of times in a REAL battle that this matters is extremely small

My experience just from playing tank simulators that model these limitations makes me think otherwise, especially when it comes to trying to find suitable hull down positions, or when trying to target anything while moving (or coming to stop) over undulating/rough terrain. Awareness of your tanks orientation plane relative to the terrain around you and the limitations it places on being able to train your gun on any potential targets around you is critical.

[Major SNAFU]

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1194181&highlight=elevation+limits#post1194181

and especially

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1194005&postcount=91

I just wish that these things (the second link) were all summarized by BF in a FAQ so it was all concise and transparent to players.

I have been guilty of asking many questions both in CMSF and CMBN, not because I want it to be like anything else, but because I want to understand what it is I am working with here.

I find it strange that the users have to be the ones to figure out the firing rates, etc when this should all be readily available so that one can concentrate on forming and executing a plan and not on learning what may or may not be modeled (and how) in a particular engine. This is not where I derive "fun". Does and artillery officer go into battle without being instructed on what his weapons can and cannot do and how best to implement them?

There have been a few comparisons to CMBN to chess on the forum that I have run across. As a person with an avid interest in chess I always find comparisons interesting. I would say it is and it isn't.

CMBN is like playing a type of chess where the player has been educated in the rules of standard chess (i.e. like people who are educated in real-life military tactics), and who then sits down and plays for an open position with the plan of maximizing the long-range potential of the bishops, only to spend/invest time and mental effort to reach this position and *then* be informed that in *this* game of chess the bishops can only move 3 squares maximum in a single move - thus making the whole implementation of the open position worthless and the time and mental energy expanded thus far a waste. This does not mean in any way that this game of chess is not good or fun, it just means that the rules were not clearly communicated before play began.

I think CMBN is great, and I think BF does a great job with the development. I wouldn't own most of the CM products if I didn't. But I do wish that there was greater details on the rules in a concise and written form and transparency on what is and isn't implemented.

Note that I haven't once mentioned "why". I don't care at this point why or why not BF implemented, included or occluded any particular thing. I trust that they know how to make the tradeoffs necessary to make the engine and the game viable, fun, and as realistic as possible and still playable. I just would like for the tradeoffs to be listed up-front, in detail, so that I can concentrate on playing the game (FUN) and not on figuring out the minutia of the engine (seriously NOT FUN - for me).

To me, one good place to start (there are many) is to think about all of the assumptions that a person trained in military tactics might make concerning weapons employment, movement, etc. and then straightforward explain where the engine will require a re-think of those assumptions.

This would, I think, eliminate a huge amount of the questions that come up on the forums again and again.