Tank Firing Logic

[weapon2010]

Seems that it still needs to be tweaked.I have a crack M10 that just put 5 into the dirt no where near the target.The command was to area target a building.If it can't target it then why put them in the dirt and waste precious he ammo.Make the decision not to fire, or give me a blocked los from my action spot los check.Doesn't the crack crew no better?

[Blackcat]

I have seen similar things, most seem to be down to slight crests. A couple of days ago I sat watching as one of my Shermans kept pumping rounds into the ground even though there was a bright blue line from the tank to the target. Shouting variations of, "Lift the point of aim, you %*&"!" at the screen had no effect.

I think there might be an issue where the Tank Commander can see the target but the gunner just can't quite. It gets reported as full LOS/LOF where actually it should get a grey line. That said I am fairly certain that most of my tank gunners are three parts pissed or just totally incompetent at their job; nothing else can explain how they can fire short, then over, then go back to the original short spot and so on.

[Michael Emrys]

I have seen similar things, most seem to be down to slight crests.

Same here. This had unhappy consequences in one game where a short round exploded near some of my own men, causing casualties. Short rounds did happen in the real war, but this doesn't seem to be the way they happened. A tank gunner should have a pretty good idea of whether his LOS to the target is blocked by high ground or not.

I suggest that AFV LOS routines need to be made more sophisticated to differentiate between what the TC can see with his head out the hatch and what the gunner can see. In the former case, the TC would be able to fire any weapon under his direct control, but if the gunner didn't have LOS, he simply wouldn't fire. Some report to that effect would also be nice.

Michael

[weapon2010]

Yes it was a crest,and I am not asking for perfection.The unpredictability of commanding men in a battle is alot of what I love about the game.But something is off when a crack crew fires 4 into the crest, knowing it has very little he to spare.I might expect this from a conscript or green crew.

[zmoney]

Same thing happens with MGs deployed on a crest they just keep firing into the crest in front of them.

[Blackcat]

"I suggest that AFV LOS routines need to be made more sophisticated to differentiate between what the TC can see with his head out the hatch and what the gunner can see. In the former case, the TC would be able to fire any weapon under his direct control, but if the gunner didn't have LOS, he simply wouldn't fire. Some report to that effect would also be nice."

Mr. Emrys,

What you ask for should already be in the game, i.e. the grey line - not all weapons from this unit/vehicle can fire on the nominated target. It appears that in certain circumstances this doesn't work and what should be presented in grey is, for whatever reason, shown in glorious bright blue.

However, to prove this one way or another will require setting up tricky tests which will take up tens of hours of my time. Frankly, I can't be bothered with all that, so I'll just pretend that my tank gunners are drunk, mentally deficient or visually challenged.

[Michael Emrys]

What you ask for should already be in the game, i.e. the grey line - not all weapons from this unit/vehicle can fire on the nominated target. It appears that in certain circumstances this doesn't work and what should be presented in grey is, for whatever reason, shown in glorious bright blue.

And even if it did, in the event that I had reference to, the tank self-targetted. Furthermore, I could not keep it from repeating the same mistake in the next turn. Finally, I gave it a facing order 180° from the unit it had attempted to shoot at. I suppose a covered arc would have achieved the same result, but I was afraid that it might still use the hull MG.

Michael

[Amizaur]

I did some test firing of tanks vs tanks lately, and seen a veteran Tiger crew missing a Sherman turret 6 times times in a row from 200m . It couldn't hit it once during the entire turn.

The Sherman was hull-down, in a little depression and beside a wall, so only upper 2/3 of the Sherman's turret was visible for the Tiger's gunner. Ok, only 2/3 of a turret, but come on, it was only 200m !!! Missing such a target 6 times ? And there would be probably more misses, in the next turn.

The save is available.

[Blackcat]

I have recived an email from an old mate of mine. He is a lurker on this forum and an ex 17/21st Lancer. Here is what he said:

What Ho mate

I've just been reading your latest post on the forum re your Sherman pumping rounds into the dirt.

I was watching Patton 360 on the Military channel the other day when a tank commander was talking about this very situation. The reason this happens is in part exactly what you say, i.e. the height of the commander is the highest position in the tank and as such sees things the gunner can't. Obvious as you well know.

Probably what isn't quite so well known is the relationship between the gunners sight and the gun barrel. The actual sight is a distance from the barrel therefore the gunner can see the target but if you were to look through the barrel you can't see the target. Once the gunner fires the projectile will hit the ground and throw up all sorts of **** at extreme close range. Because of the lack of flight time the gunner will not be able to observe the fall of shot and therefore can't correct. The commander with a better view should see this and order the driver to advance a few feet and try again. The same could happen again and so the process must be repeated.

Now in the game it is the gamer who orders the movement and is therefore the tank commander and you have to order the tank forward, but in the scope of the game you can only order the tank forward a square, hex or whatever the increments are, therefore by trying to inch forward you could totally expose your tank rather than put it into a hull down position which makes the whole task somewhat hit and miss.

If you are in a prepared defensive position the gunner will drop the breach and look through the barrel to make sure he has a line of sight. Again as you well know this is bore sighting which is not possible during a battle.

I hope this helps explain why your little pixeltruppen do what they do and it's not because they are pissed they just haven't got a particularly good tank commander which I presume must be yourself.

Ah well never send an infantryman to do a tank commanders job.

Speak to ya soon

So apparently the problem is all down to me and because I was in the infantry I don't undertsand it. Makes sense.

[akd]

Makes sense, but you can order vehicle movement in more discreet increments than a full action spot (8m). Not a huge help in turn-based play, of course.

[Peregrine]

This is one of the reasons I completely prefer realtime play. You do miss stuff occassionally but for the most part you can micromanage your may around the more annoying aspects of TAC AI behaviour.

[Michael Emrys]

There are apparently advantages and disadvantages to both systems of play. At this point I guess it comes down to personal preferences.

Michael

[John1966]

Just had two tanks with apparent LOS to enemy SPG. Targetted it. But despite red lines, they spent two minutes doing nothing. Gunner went "Aiming, Firing, Aiming, Firing..." etc, etc but without firing a shot. Meanwhile the SPG (who they had a rear shot on) managed to rotate and start firing at them. Moved the tanks a bit and they started firing.

I'm guessing this was a situation where the TC could see the target but not the rest of the crew. Who knows...?

[akd]

Just had two tanks with apparent LOS to enemy SPG. Targetted it. But despite red lines, they spent two minutes doing nothing. Gunner went "Aiming, Firing, Aiming, Firing..." etc, etc but without firing a shot. Meanwhile the SPG (who they had a rear shot on) managed to rotate and start firing at them. Moved the tanks a bit and they started firing.

I'm guessing this was a situation where the TC could see the target but not the rest of the crew. Who knows...?

Were the tanks facing the SPG when you issued the target order?

[GreenAsJade]

However, to prove this one way or another will require setting up tricky tests which will take up tens of hours of my time. Frankly, I can't be bothered with all that, so I'll just pretend that my tank gunners are drunk, mentally deficient or visually challenged.

I've had this. I submitted a save file, never heard back.

Note that a grey line if this is going to happen is not the solution: if one or more of the unit's weapons can't see the target then said unit should not fire said weapons...

GaJ

[Michael Emrys]

Note that a grey line if this is going to happen is not the solution: if one or more of the unit's weapons can't see the target then said unit should not fire said weapons...

I always thought the grey line just meant that the hull MG was blocked. But then I saw it when I was trying to target some inf. units, which puzzled me. I guess that means some men in the unit can fire but others cannot.

Michael

[John1966]

Were the tanks facing the SPG when you issued the target order?

Yes. Slap, bang in front of them.

I'd only issued the target order because they had failed to fire for part of the previous turn despite apparently seeing the SPG. Not only was the SPG visible when I "clicked" on each tank, I even heard both crews say "enemy armour spotted".

Then they both got stuck in this "aiming, firing..." (but not actually firing) loop.

They were both behind bocage at the time which is why I'm wondering if this is sometihng to do with the TC seeing them there actually not really being a LOS for the weapon, or the MA at least. IIRC then one did fire an MG (which was what caused the SPG to button-up and rotate). Hmmm, if the co-ax has a LOS, surely the MA should also?

Whatever, very frustrating. If the MA can't fire on the target, surely their should be some indicator of this? And why does the gunner say "aiming" if he can't see the target and "firing" if he isn't? (Both tanks did this, including the one that did not fire its MG, so firing the MG can't be the explantion for "firing").

[majormauser2]

Happened with my 50 Cals firing into the crest of a hill. They had to me micromanaged about to reposition themselves 1mm and then all was ok. It seems to me they should be intelligent enough to at least reposition themselves. Does happen with Tanks as well

[c3k]

Happened with my 50 Cals firing into the crest of a hill. They had to me micromanaged about to reposition themselves 1mm and then all was ok. It seems to me they should be intelligent enough to at least reposition themselves. Does happen with Tanks as well

What if you were assiduously trying to position that .50 to avoid exposure to some enemy weapon on the top of that hill? How would you feel if, after placing it where the .50 was safe, it autonomously moved so it was able to see the top of the hill? I think there'd be screams of angst.

At least, based on what you posted, you were able to get the .50 right where you wanted, albeit with more time and effort than desired.

Ken

[c3k]

I've had this. I submitted a save file, never heard back.

Note that a grey line if this is going to happen is not the solution: if one or more of the unit's weapons can't see the target then said unit should not fire said weapons...

GaJ

PM me (my profile).

Ken

[majormauser2]

What if you were assiduously trying to position that .50 to avoid exposure to some enemy weapon on the top of that hill? How would you feel if, after placing it where the .50 was safe, it autonomously moved so it was able to see the top of the hill? I think there'd be screams of angst.

At least, based on what you posted, you were able to get the .50 right where you wanted, albeit with more time and effort than desired.

Ken

Yes what you say totally makes sense .... but why would they fire and waste ammo if they can't hit anything but the rear of the hill?

[Michael Emrys]

...but why would they fire and waste ammo if they can't hit anything but the rear of the hill?

This should be fixed.

Michael

[c3k]

Yes what you say totally makes sense .... but why would they fire and waste ammo if they can't hit anything but the rear of the hill?

Ahh, that is part I didn't get from reading your first post.

If the AI is causing that, then, indeed, it should be fixed. If it was you who ordered it, well there are reasons why you should always be allowed to TARGET any space you'd like.