Infantry firing small arms at tanks is still an issue.

[noob]

I have just finished testing the "infantry firing at tanks" problem to see if the patch has fixed it and it hasn't

In the patch description the chances of infantry firing at tanks was meant to be reduced but it's the same as it used to be far as i can see.

I set up three US Infantry squads on a flat map , one behind a wall, one behind a hedge and one behind low bocage, i split off the AT elements and hid them with tiny cover arcs to stop them firing at the tanks.

I then placed three Pz 4s at various distances from the US infantry, one tank 150 mtrs, one tank 175 mtrs and one tank 200 mtrs with the all the commanders unbuttoned.

As soon as i ran it the infantry started to fire small arms ineffectually at all the tank commanders, then continued firing small arms ineffectually at all the tanks once the commanders had buttoned up.

I think that rather than "reducing" the chances of this happening, infantry should not fire small arms at unbuttoned tank crews or buttoned tanks at all unless ordered to by the player as within the mechanics of the game its pointless and just exposes the infantry to long range HE fire for little or no reward, and i would be quite happy to miss out on the chance to kill a tank crew member if i knew i could successfully conceal my infantry from tanks.

I think this should also be applied to AT guns as well to make it so they only fire at infantry when ordered to by the player, that would go a long way to rectifying the absence of an armored only target arc, it wouldn't be perfect but i think its better to err on the side of missing out on some infantry kills than having AT guns expose themselves prematurely by firing at infantry when it isn't desired.

[ketonur]

so this aspect is still ****ty... I think that this is one of the biggest issues in CMBN... Why they didnt fix it?

[MarkEzra]

“There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” Herbert Spencer

I would urge players to play the game and not jump to quick conclusions. The question of Infantry firing at a TC and then continuing fire after the tank buttons up was looked at carefully. BFC made Changes. BUT (there's always a but) Infantry continuing to fire after a target is out of site is a very good feature that should not be lost. What I'm talking about is a unit ability to fire for awhile after a target has taken cover or popped smoke. This feature should be kept in mind when considering infantry continuing to shoot after the TC buttons up. So now it becomes an issue of just how long a unit should be capable of firing when the target is out of site. BFC made changes. Are they enough? Play it for awhile and then tell them how it feels.

[noob]

What I'm talking about is a unit ability to fire for awhile after a target has taken cover or popped smoke. This feature should be kept in mind when considering infantry continuing to shoot after the TC buttons up. So now it becomes an issue of just how long a unit should be capable of firing when the target is out of site. BFC made changes. Are they enough? Play it for awhile and then tell them how it feels.

My problem isn't with the length of time the infantry squad fires "after" the tank crewman has buttoned up, it's with the with infantry squad firing at the unbuttoned tank crewman at all without a direct order from the player, its such a low percentage play with huge risks that are far out of proportion to any expected reward.

[akd]

My problem isn't with the length of time the infantry squad fires "after" the tank crewman has buttoned up, it's with the with infantry squad firing at the unbuttoned tank crewman at all without a direct order from the player, its such a low percentage play with huge risks that are far out of proportion to any expected reward.

Not sure if I'm happy with the current behavior, but this would not work as a default behavior either. It would cripple the AI, allowing you to drive around unbuttoned with impunity when playing single player.

[noob]

I would urge players to play the game and not jump to quick conclusions.

If your comment is aimed at me i can assure you i have run this test ad nauseum and always see the infantry squads alert the tanks by taking unnecessary shots at the exposed crewmen with predictable results, if it was just the sniper in the team that took a shot with the aim of killing or buttoning up the tank i could understand that because i doubt the whole squads location would be exposed by a single shot or two, but three or four Garands firing away just seems like a suicidal tactic for no substantial reward given the whole squad becomes compromised by the act.

[noob]

Not sure if I'm happy with the current behavior, but this would not work as a default behavior either. It would cripple the AI, allowing human players to drive around unbuttoned with impunity when playing single player.

I see your point, i never play the AI so i overlooked that potential situation, the only compromise that i can think of would be to reduce the range that infantry squads will engage unbuttoned tank crewmen to a 100 meters or less or whatever range gives the rifleman a reasonable chance of a kill.

[JonS]

infantry squad firing at the unbuttoned tank crewman at all without a direct order from the player, its such a low percentage play with huge risks that are far out of proportion to any expected reward.

ORLY?

{padding}

[Offshoot]

Remember that this change goes hand in hand with the other recorded change that the spotting ability of buttoned tanks has been reduced.

For the purposes of the game and the relative risk of firing at a tank, I don't think it is completely valid to check just that infantry are firing at tanks - you also need to check what the tanks' responses are; i.e., does firing at a tank invite automatic destruction or do the tanks have a hard time locating the unit firing on them?

If the latter, I think it might work well and would make a good argument for proper combined arms tactics.

[LemuelG]

I have no problem with my infantry firing on TCs foolish enough to expose themselves to small-arms fire, good show chaps. I see it as perfectly desirable and realistic... why the heck would they wait until it was within 100m? That would be madness. If there was a problem it was with an almost super-natural infantry-spotting ability of buttoned tanks, something apparently adjusted in the patch.

If you don't want your guys to fire upon a tank, or be fired upon by a tank you should get them out of harm's way, or hide.

[Battlefront.com]

Range was reduced based on weapons and also just based on range. IIRC even rifles won't open up over 250m. This was not the case in v1.00. On top of that, the infantry behavior according to the motto of "if there are no good options, at least do something". Which means putting infantry out on a billiard table test with poor options, the infantry will more likely fire because anything else is likely a WORSE option.

As AKD pointed out, allowing vehicles to drive around unbuttoned (which is a huge benefit) is extremely unwise. Coupled with the new spotting tweaks for buttoned vehicles, combined further with terrain conditions and other battlefield distractions, the behavior in v1.01 is quite different than v1.0. Simplistic tests are very unlikely to give a good picture of the changes.

Steve

[sburke]

If your comment is aimed at me i can assure you i have run this test ad nauseum and always see the infantry squads alert the tanks by taking unnecessary shots at the exposed crewmen with predictable results, if it was just the sniper in the team that took a shot with the aim of killing or buttoning up the tank i could understand that because i doubt the whole squads location would be exposed by a single shot or two, but three or four Garands firing away just seems like a suicidal tactic for no substantial reward given the whole squad becomes compromised by the act.

Until of course the tank buttons up and loses it's capability to see where that PF/Bazooka is firing from that eventually kills him. Combined arms, it's way too cool when you can make it work. Getting that tank to button up goes a long way towards setting him up for the kill. The point is NOT to kill the TC (though that would be nice, just not likely), but to render them blind to other threats on the battlefield. Now if you have no other threats, well that is when your infantry should be looking to bail out of dodge.

[noob]

Remember that this change goes hand in hand with the other recorded change that the spotting ability of buttoned tanks has been reduced.

For the purposes of the game and the relative risk of firing at a tank, I don't think it is completely valid to check just that infantry are firing at tanks - you also need to check what the tanks' responses are; i.e., does firing at a tank invite automatic destruction or do the tanks have a hard time locating the unit firing on them?

If the latter, I think it might work well and would make a good argument for proper combined arms tactics.

Good point, i should of mentioned in my original post that the newly buttoned tanks located the firing units quickly enough to allow them to administer a lethal dose of HE before the turn ran out

[womble]

Firing at exposed TCs is still risky when it lets your team get spotted by an element belonging to a human player (usually not the tank). The tank will generally have LoS to the shooters' location and will be rapidly tasked with flinging HE at that location if there aren't any other threats. Sure, if the tank is on its own, buttoning it is important for the survival of the infantry, but if it has any little friends (as it darn well should! ) letting rip with the entire squad is often (very often, IME) suicidal. Waiting til 100m and letting rip with the ATR is more survivable, and I mean 100m, not starting the engagement with a 250m "Hail Mary" Shreck shot with its giveaway "Pwoosh" and cloud of smoke. If the cover and concealment isn't enough to let the tank get that close without spotting you, you shouldn't be hanging around, whether the tank is buttoned or no.

I have to say, though, that I've not seen much firing of infantry on buttoned-up tanks, contrary to my first impressions. Perhaps that behaviour, trying to scrub off optics and such, only kicks in at close range (which I try and keep my tanks out of).

[noob]

Until of course the tank buttons up and loses it's capability to see where that PF/Bazooka is firing from that eventually kills him. Combined arms, it's way too cool when you can make it work. Getting that tank to button up goes a long way towards setting him up for the kill. The point is NOT to kill the TC (though that would be nice, just not likely), but to render them blind to other threats on the battlefield. Now if you have no other threats, well that is when your infantry should be looking to bail out of dodge.

If the tanks had taken longer to spot the firing units allowing them the chance to relocate the next turn that would of been an improvement, but maybe thats one of the penalties of playing WEGO over real time and as Steve has said it would be more informative to see how the fixes perform in a proper game rather than laboratory conditions

[noob]

Range was reduced based on weapons and also just based on range. IIRC even rifles won't open up over 250m. This was not the case in v1.00. On top of that, the infantry behavior according to the motto of "if there are no good options, at least do something". Which means putting infantry out on a billiard table test with poor options, the infantry will more likely fire because anything else is likely a WORSE option.

As AKD pointed out, allowing vehicles to drive around unbuttoned (which is a huge benefit) is extremely unwise. Coupled with the new spotting tweaks for buttoned vehicles, combined further with terrain conditions and other battlefield distractions, the behavior in v1.01 is quite different than v1.0. Simplistic tests are very unlikely to give a good picture of the changes.

Steve

I would say one good option for squads would be to keep concealed if tanks are prowling around outside efective bazooka range but i agree with your position about observing how the fixes work in proper game conditions and not in the lab so i will reserve judgement until i start new games using the patch.

[hoolaman]

Remember that this change goes hand in hand with the other recorded change that the spotting ability of buttoned tanks has been reduced.

Yes, as has already been mentioned this issue was examined fairly closely, though nobody would claim that it is now perfect.

Part of the equation is that there is now intended to be a bigger payoff both for killing a TC and buttoning the tank.

* Vehicles that lose an unbuttoned crewman to small-arms fire are more likely to pop smoke and/or retreat like they typically do when the vehicle itself takes a hit.

[Vark]

Would it be possible, in the future to have two animations for an unbuttoned TC? The first half in half out offering better SA but reduced protection, the second, head peeking out offering reduced SA but increased protection. Currently, if a commander acted like the animations and an infantry unit was within 2-300m he would be KO'd in short order, especially if his vehicle was stationary.

[Georgie]

What I have noticed is that it takes a lot of hits from small arms,even machine guns, to get the TC to button up. Only after a "penetrating" hit have I observed the TC to button up. The "penetrating" hit I would imagine is a hit on the rim of the hatch which ricochets into the open hatch. It seems to me that a TC would button up as soon as the first volley hit his tank.

[Battlefront.com]

The relative position of the TC's head isn't likely all that important for most CM purposes. In real life it helped the TC navigate travel conditions because higher up meant better visibility of the area immediately around the tank. Distant viewing would not benefit from a mere 1 or 2 feet of vertical difference. Therefore, why not just have the TCs positioned for minimal exposure, as would be expected behavior almost all the time in a CM type battle anyway?

One thing we did way back in Beta was to only have the TC unbutton instead of the whole crew. Doing the latter offered no practical benefits to the vehicle, yet greatly increased crew vulnerability.

Crews should be pretty easily buttoned, though it can depend on circumstances such as crew Experience, volume of fire, calibre of rounds, etc. And correct, a "Penetration" indicator means the small arms ricocheted into the vehicle through an open hatch.

Steve

[Vark]

Fair point Steve, but the IDF instructed its commanders to stand as tall as possible because they did think that extra 2-3 feet made a difference. Do vehicles suffer reductions in speed if they are buttoned, especially cross country and in difficult going?

[Battlefront.com]

As I said, it makes a very big difference in terms of the TC's ability to have the Driver navigate terrain. So my guess is that's why the IDF recommended standing tall in the turret. But there's no way it makes a difference for anything at a distance. You can see this for yourself if you go outside and get on top of a car. Kneel and that's probably about where our guys in CM are at. Then stand up. That's where the IDF guys would be. Notice how you don't get any new information except for the area right around the car.

The chance of Bogging goes up with the speed, and of course speed varies by terrain type. These simulate, as best we can, the difficulties of negotiating terrain with speed. If we really did things right we'd have all kinds of unexpected behaviors happen, which would cause people to inform us, with strong conviction, that our game is completely broken and unplayable

Steve

[Vark]

IDF commanders adopted to standing posture at great risk to themselves and the casualty rate was so high it was unofficially and then officially discontinued (also more advanced optics on the Merkava allowed a more secure TC posture with little or no loss of SA). I've seen photos from 73, of Centurions firing from prepared ramps with the commanders bolt upright, scanning for targets.

The question about buttoned tanks was, is their speed reduced to simulate the commander and drivers greatly reduced visibility, especially in difficult or uneven terrain, or is the chance of bogging increased? Forcing players of buttoned tanks to slow down, compared to their unbuttoned bretheren.

[sburke]

You can see this for yourself if you go outside and get on top of a car. Kneel and that's probably about where our guys in CM are at. Then stand up. That's where the IDF guys would be. Notice how you don't get any new information except for the area right around the car.

Steve

Damn you Steve. I decided to try this and went right through my wife's convertible roof. (spoken in Alto voice as I was straddling the roof support) Wonder if insurance will cover that "what were you doing at the time of the accident? Um I was getting a TC's view to verify what is being said about this cool new game I bought."

Back on topic - There actually is a second more exposed position manning the .50. Although both times I have seen an enemy TC has use this, they paid the price. Once from an AT gun, the other from an MG.

[YankeeDog]

Back on topic - There actually is a second more exposed position manning the .50. Although both times I have seen an enemy TC has use this, they paid the price. Once from an AT gun, the other from an MG.

Yeah; while that extra firepower is great, I sometimes cringe when my TC pops up to man the .50. I've had several get capped that way.