Jump to content

More unrealistic tank progamming ugggh...


Recommended Posts

I have the file if you want me to email it...

A Tiger is moving WIDE OPEN and is engaged by a Sherman 105 with heat... Sherman hits (no effect), Tiger keeps charging.... Tiger fires, misses (as to be expsected, there is NO POSSIBLE way a WW2 non-gyrostabilized main armament is gonna hit jack-sh*t at any range while running full speed down a slope.

Sherman fires again... HIT, but no effect again... mind you this is only about 300 meters and using 105mm HEAT. OK.... whatever... possible...

Then it happens.... Tiger fires again (still running at full blast) and guess what HIT/Destroys Sherman...

This is NOT possible, a 1 in a 1000 shot.... this is based on YEARS of WW2 miniature and board wargaming (ASL, Flames of War, Blitzkrieg Commander, etc...) , and 5 years in the Army as a tanker. When we shutdown the gyros on a Abrams there was NO POSSIBLE way to hit anything.. Even at ranges off less then a football field we would miss BUILDINGS!

Programmers..... PLEASE FIX THIS.....

Tanks just did not fire on the move in WW2, for goodness sake do some research.... :-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might want to do a search on this; this has been discussed in detail already.

Briefly, BFC has decided to allow tanks somewhat better accuracy when firing on the move, as a way of compensating for the fact that there is no "firing halt" behavior in the game. That is, when a tank acquires a target on the move, the Unit AI for the tank doesn't "know" that it should stop, fire a shot, and then start moving again.

Conceptually, I guess we're all supposed to imagine the tank stopping for a few seconds when it shoots.

As far as 105mm HEAT vs. a Tiger I front glacis, range has no effect on penetration with heat, and this is definitely not a sure kill. They're pretty evenly matched, actually, so things like the actual angle at which the shell strikes the glacis should matter a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Briefly, BFC has decided to allow tanks somewhat better accuracy when firing on the move, as a way of compensating for the fact that there is no "firing halt" behavior in the game. That is, when a tank acquires a target on the move, the Unit AI for the tank doesn't "know" that it should stop, fire a shot, and then start moving again.

Conceptually, I guess we're all supposed to imagine the tank stopping for a few seconds when it shoots.

I am pretty sure Steve said they were going to address this in some future iteration--changing the TacAI code to allow firing halts while still operating under a movement order.

...this is based on YEARS of WW2 miniature and board wargaming (ASL, Flames of War, Blitzkrieg Commander, etc...)

I've been doing that for about 50 years now, but I wouldn't put alot of stock in it.

...and 5 years in the Army as a tanker. When we shutdown the gyros on a Abrams there was NO POSSIBLE way to hit anything.. Even at ranges off less then a football field we would miss BUILDINGS!

Now this, I'd put alot of stock in! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am pretty sure Steve said they were going to address this in some future iteration--changing the TacAI code to allow firing halts while still operating under a movement order.

Yes; though to be clear I'm pretty sure he meant next game family or later when he said this (i.e, we won't see this change until at least CM:Battle of the Bulge), and this is not something that we'll see in a patch or module update to CMBN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes; though to be clear I'm pretty sure he meant next game family or later when he said this (i.e, we won't see this change until at least CM:Battle of the Bulge), and this is not something that we'll see in a patch or module update to CMBN.

I sincerely hope that is not the case. It's pretty disappointing to go from CMBB to CMBN and have much less control and much less realistic behavior when it comes to tanks and their capabilities of firing on the move. You would think that 10 years worth of progress would make this a non-issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope that is not the case. It's pretty disappointing to go from CMBB to CMBN and have much less control and much less realistic behavior when it comes to tanks and their capabilities of firing on the move. You would think that 10 years worth of progress would make this a non-issue.

*Shrug* Then I suspect you're going to be disappointed.

Overall, I think tank behavior in CMx2 over all is far more realistic, and controlled in a far more realistic manner than in CMx1, but to each their own. Not that there aren't still areas for improvement (such as firing halts), but overall I think things have taken many more steps forward than they've taken back. After all, CMx1 didn't really have firing halts, either. It had a different Hunt command implementation, and it had the Shoot and Scoot command, but IMHO neither of these commands actually modeled a true firing halt any better than the orders and AI behavior in CMBN do now.

But this has all been covered before... in the interest of avoiding continued blows upon the carcass of a deceased equine, if you want to read what's been said already, including a number of comments from the horse's mouth, so to speak, here ya go:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98346&page=5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope that is not the case. It's pretty disappointing to go from CMBB to CMBN and have much less control and much less realistic behavior when it comes to tanks and their capabilities of firing on the move. You would think that 10 years worth of progress would make this a non-issue.

It's just to get used to it. IMHO (after a long career in CMx1) a huge step forward. The issue is probably, that you have to erase your CMx1 memory and to restart at zero (a bit like Arnie ;)).

I'll never go back :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After all, CMx1 didn't really have firing halts, either. It had a different Hunt command implementation, and it had the Shoot and Scoot command, but IMHO neither of these commands actually modeled a true firing halt any better than the orders and AI behavior in CMBN do now.

Yeah, actually, they did. EVERY single one of the people I know who played CMBB and now plays CMBN thinks that player control of tank behavior is a huge step backwards. It really needs to be addressed or threads like these are going to keep popping up (or worse, they won't be created at all because people will shelve the game).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, actually, they did. EVERY single one of the people I know who played CMBB and now plays CMBN thinks that player control of tank behavior is a huge step backwards. It really needs to be addressed or threads like these are going to keep popping up (or worse, they won't be created at all because people will shelve the game).

Read the thread if you haven't already. Steve goes into an in-depth discussion of the differences between the armor unit AI and command UI in CMx1 vs. CMx2. Since he's the guy who developed it, he should know.

I'm sure some people will shelve the game; some already have. And others will pick it up. Things change. If you don't like today's music, you can always go back in listen to the classics.

You and "every one of the people [you] know who played CMBB" are entitled to your opinions. As am I and the "Many people I know who play and like CMBN." And if you want to have a reasonable discussion about game mechanics and the relative merits of different systems, I'm all for that.

But kindly spare me the histrionics and sweeping generalizations based on your personal impressions; it is neither becoming nor convincing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the thread if you haven't already.
I read and participated in that thread. Given the number of people who are complaining about this issue, it sure seems to me that it's a fairly widespread concern.

I'm sure some people will shelve the game; some already have. And others will pick it up. Things change.
In this particular instance, many of us feel that things have not changed for the better. BFC is well withing their rights and abilities to say "tough cookies" and let us leave (or stay and be disgruntled), but I sure hope that's not their solution.

You and "every one of the people [you] know who played CMBB" are entitled to your opinions. As am I and the "Many people I know who play and like CMBN." And if you want to have a reasonable discussion about game mechanics and the relative merits of different systems, I'm all for that.
You think the new system is great. Fine. Fixing it so that the rest of us are satisfied would not take anything away from that, and would not have any negative impact on your enjoyment at all. So, addressing the issue is a win-win for everyone. The only "loss" is the time and effort it takes to fix.

But kindly spare me the histrionics and sweeping generalizations based on your personal impressions; it is neither becoming nor convincing.
<insert big, impressive words here>

Here's the deal: Right now tanks shoot on the move. This behavior flies in the face of everything we know about WWII tank warfare. Firing on the move was done only in the most extreme of circumstances or the closest of ranges because of the astronomically low odds of actually getting a hit while moving. To cover up for this behavior tanks are given much better odds of hitting while moving. In real life (and in CMx1) you could pretty much count on a couple of things: 1) if you remained still and were shooting at a still target, you'd probably hit on the first shot or, at worst, the second. 2) If you remained still and were shooting at a moving target, you'd have a pretty fair chance of hitting and the enemy would have a very low chance of hitting you. 3) If you shot while moving you were virtually guaranteed to miss.

Now what we have is a totally different situation. 1) still holds true, but 2 and 3 are crap shoots. Will your tank miss when firing on the move because it's moving, or will it hit because the firing has been "tweaked" to make up for the fact that tanks aren't smart enough to pause, then fire? There's no way to know, and you can't alter the behavior at all.

In CMx1 you had a variety of ways to control your armor so that you could decide between halting (Move to Contact), pausing to engage (Hunt), and moving/firing at the same time (Move, Fast). In CMx2 you have no such choice. You can Hunt, which will cause your tank to stop and shoot, and that's the ONLY choice. Every other movement order will cause your tank to shoot on the move with unknown chances of whether or not it will hit. And if you DO use the Hunt command, your tank is going to stop as soon as it engages anything (even a single soldier with a pistol), and it won't continue on for the entire rest of the turn. You can't even work around this behavior by using Quick, Pause, Quick because there's no way to prevent your tank from firing during the "quick" phase, then sitting there with a giant target on it's back, reloading during the "pause" phase.

How can anyone think that this new behavior is an improvement? We've got far less control over how vehicles behave, now. All it would take to fix this issue is to make Hunt work like it used to and have a Move to Contact option like CMx1 (or leave Hunt as it is, but make Slow work like Hunt did in CMx1). Making this change would allow you to do everything that you can do now, PLUS have more control over the behavior of armor and vehicles (and men too!). Heck, even making the Fast command prevent the tank from firing would be an improvement. At least that way you could Fast, Pause (fire), Fast and know that you aren't going to shoot on the move, giving away your position and triggering a long reload during which you'll be vulnerable.

In short, we have far less control now than we did in the game that was made 10 years ago, and there seems to be no real good reason why. While you, personally, might be fine with the way things work now, many of us are unhappy with the results and would appreciate a change. I don't know the extent or difficulty of making such a change, but I suspect that there are workarounds that would not be that difficult to implement. If the programmers at Battlefront can create this entire world and make such a complex AI, surely they can make some small, very helpful changes to the moving/firing behavior without much trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's actually your call if it's that big a deal for you.

Not my game bud, if it was everything else would be on hold until this is fixed. I would not try to nickle-and-dime folk for new units etc when the mechanics are currently broken (yes, broken - unable to adequately SIM what it is supposed to), while saying "any changes to the current mechanics will have to wait for the next 'full' title", yeah right - I hope they come to their senses, as I do really like this game aside from the broken-ass tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have the file if you want me to email it...

A Tiger is moving WIDE OPEN and is engaged by a Sherman 105 with heat... Sherman hits (no effect), Tiger keeps charging.... Tiger fires, misses (as to be expsected, there is NO POSSIBLE way a WW2 non-gyrostabilized main armament is gonna hit jack-sh*t at any range while running full speed down a slope.

Sherman fires again... HIT, but no effect again... mind you this is only about 300 meters and using 105mm HEAT. OK.... whatever... possible...

Then it happens.... Tiger fires again (still running at full blast) and guess what HIT/Destroys Sherman...

This is NOT possible, a 1 in a 1000 shot.... this is based on YEARS of WW2 miniature and board wargaming (ASL, Flames of War, Blitzkrieg Commander, etc...) , and 5 years in the Army as a tanker. When we shutdown the gyros on a Abrams there was NO POSSIBLE way to hit anything.. Even at ranges off less then a football field we would miss BUILDINGS!

Programmers..... PLEASE FIX THIS.....

Tanks just did not fire on the move in WW2, for goodness sake do some research.... :-(

I thought you'd gone back to play CMAK because this game is 'pitiful' and 'broken'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not my game bud, if it was everything else would be on hold until this is fixed. I would not try to nickle-and-dime folk for new units etc when the mechanics are currently broken (yes, broken - unable to adequately SIM what it is supposed to), while saying "any changes to the current mechanics will have to wait for the next 'full' title", yeah right - I hope they come to their senses, as I do really like this game aside from the broken-ass tanks.

It's your call how you spend your cash mate, if the game's that broken that it dosen't even 'adequately SIM what it is supposed to' then I suggest you look elsewhere for your gaming needs until everything gets put on hold for this game breaking priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's your call how you spend your cash mate, if the game's that broken that it dosen't even 'adequately SIM what it is supposed to' then I suggest you look elsewhere for your gaming needs until everything gets put on hold for this game breaking priority.

Thanks for the utterly patronizing and worthless advice. For what it's worth, Deus Ex: Human Revolution is serving my 'gaming needs' quite well at the moment - Battlefield 3 is out soon... there's plenty of stuff out there making a play for my money, another WWII RT tac-sim coming out etc - if BFC shares your bogus attitude, then woe is them.

We all know this 'feature' sucks and is wrong, we all would like a fix (I have seen Steve say as much). Better sooner, I say - I didn't start the thread, but I'll add my 5c while it's going.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's your call how you spend your cash mate, if the game's that broken that it dosen't even 'adequately SIM what it is supposed to' then I suggest you look elsewhere for your gaming needs until everything gets put on hold for this game breaking priority.

Can we all just take it down a notch? We don't need to be just trashing one another in an already frustrating thread.

Personally I haven't had that many issues, but I think that largely comes from the scenarios one plays and how you play them as to how evident behavioral issues are. My opponents and I spend a lot more time slowly reconning etc rather than charging assaults. Those however who play more wide open armor engagements may be having to face the compromises that have had to be included and I can see how they could be getting frustrated.

My only suggestion for folks that are finding this frustrating and yet still want to play the game is look for some alternatives that limit the effect. I know that may be a sucky answer, but it can at least reduce some of the frustration temporarily while allowing things time to develop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read and participated in that thread. Given the number of people who are complaining about this issue, it sure seems to me that it's a fairly widespread concern.

In this particular instance, many of us feel that things have not changed for the better. BFC is well withing their rights and abilities to say "tough cookies" and let us leave (or stay and be disgruntled), but I sure hope that's not their solution.

You think the new system is great. Fine. Fixing it so that the rest of us are satisfied would not take anything away from that, and would not have any negative impact on your enjoyment at all. So, addressing the issue is a win-win for everyone. The only "loss" is the time and effort it takes to fix.

<insert big, impressive words here>

Here's the deal: Right now tanks shoot on the move. This behavior flies in the face of everything we know about WWII tank warfare. Firing on the move was done only in the most extreme of circumstances or the closest of ranges because of the astronomically low odds of actually getting a hit while moving. To cover up for this behavior tanks are given much better odds of hitting while moving. In real life (and in CMx1) you could pretty much count on a couple of things: 1) if you remained still and were shooting at a still target, you'd probably hit on the first shot or, at worst, the second. 2) If you remained still and were shooting at a moving target, you'd have a pretty fair chance of hitting and the enemy would have a very low chance of hitting you. 3) If you shot while moving you were virtually guaranteed to miss.

Now what we have is a totally different situation. 1) still holds true, but 2 and 3 are crap shoots. Will your tank miss when firing on the move because it's moving, or will it hit because the firing has been "tweaked" to make up for the fact that tanks aren't smart enough to pause, then fire? There's no way to know, and you can't alter the behavior at all.

In CMx1 you had a variety of ways to control your armor so that you could decide between halting (Move to Contact), pausing to engage (Hunt), and moving/firing at the same time (Move, Fast). In CMx2 you have no such choice. You can Hunt, which will cause your tank to stop and shoot, and that's the ONLY choice. Every other movement order will cause your tank to shoot on the move with unknown chances of whether or not it will hit. And if you DO use the Hunt command, your tank is going to stop as soon as it engages anything (even a single soldier with a pistol), and it won't continue on for the entire rest of the turn. You can't even work around this behavior by using Quick, Pause, Quick because there's no way to prevent your tank from firing during the "quick" phase, then sitting there with a giant target on it's back, reloading during the "pause" phase.

How can anyone think that this new behavior is an improvement? We've got far less control over how vehicles behave, now. All it would take to fix this issue is to make Hunt work like it used to and have a Move to Contact option like CMx1 (or leave Hunt as it is, but make Slow work like Hunt did in CMx1). Making this change would allow you to do everything that you can do now, PLUS have more control over the behavior of armor and vehicles (and men too!). Heck, even making the Fast command prevent the tank from firing would be an improvement. At least that way you could Fast, Pause (fire), Fast and know that you aren't going to shoot on the move, giving away your position and triggering a long reload during which you'll be vulnerable.

In short, we have far less control now than we did in the game that was made 10 years ago, and there seems to be no real good reason why. While you, personally, might be fine with the way things work now, many of us are unhappy with the results and would appreciate a change. I don't know the extent or difficulty of making such a change, but I suspect that there are workarounds that would not be that difficult to implement. If the programmers at Battlefront can create this entire world and make such a complex AI, surely they can make some small, very helpful changes to the moving/firing behavior without much trouble.

I only quote you so everyone else can read your ON TARGET post.... :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought you'd gone back to play CMAK because this game is 'pitiful' and 'broken'?

Nope... I am stubborn... I said "may"...

I aint done bitching and moaning yet.. Heck, I paid for this steaming pile of crap and I am gonna stay on the ship till the game company confirms they don't care how bad this game stinks and at that point I will jump off and swim back to CMAK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope that is not the case. It's pretty disappointing to go from CMBB to CMBN and have much less control and much less realistic behavior when it comes to tanks and their capabilities of firing on the move. You would think that 10 years worth of progress would make this a non-issue.

Yeah, actually, they did. EVERY single one of the people I know who played CMBB and now plays CMBN thinks that player control of tank behavior is a huge step backwards. It really needs to be addressed or threads like these are going to keep popping up (or worse, they won't be created at all because people will shelve the game).

Here's the deal: Right now tanks shoot on the move. This behavior flies in the face of everything we know about WWII tank warfare. Firing on the move was done only in the most extreme of circumstances or the closest of ranges because of the astronomically low odds of actually getting a hit while moving. To cover up for this behavior tanks are given much better odds of hitting while moving. In real life (and in CMx1) you could pretty much count on a couple of things: 1) if you remained still and were shooting at a still target, you'd probably hit on the first shot or, at worst, the second. 2) If you remained still and were shooting at a moving target, you'd have a pretty fair chance of hitting and the enemy would have a very low chance of hitting you. 3) If you shot while moving you were virtually guaranteed to miss.

Now what we have is a totally different situation. 1) still holds true, but 2 and 3 are crap shoots. Will your tank miss when firing on the move because it's moving, or will it hit because the firing has been "tweaked" to make up for the fact that tanks aren't smart enough to pause, then fire? There's no way to know, and you can't alter the behavior at all.

In CMx1 you had a variety of ways to control your armor so that you could decide between halting (Move to Contact), pausing to engage (Hunt), and moving/firing at the same time (Move, Fast). In CMx2 you have no such choice. You can Hunt, which will cause your tank to stop and shoot, and that's the ONLY choice. Every other movement order will cause your tank to shoot on the move with unknown chances of whether or not it will hit. And if you DO use the Hunt command, your tank is going to stop as soon as it engages anything (even a single soldier with a pistol), and it won't continue on for the entire rest of the turn. You can't even work around this behavior by using Quick, Pause, Quick because there's no way to prevent your tank from firing during the "quick" phase, then sitting there with a giant target on it's back, reloading during the "pause" phase.

How can anyone think that this new behavior is an improvement? We've got far less control over how vehicles behave, now. All it would take to fix this issue is to make Hunt work like it used to and have a Move to Contact option like CMx1 (or leave Hunt as it is, but make Slow work like Hunt did in CMx1). Making this change would allow you to do everything that you can do now, PLUS have more control over the behavior of armor and vehicles (and men too!). Heck, even making the Fast command prevent the tank from firing would be an improvement. At least that way you could Fast, Pause (fire), Fast and know that you aren't going to shoot on the move, giving away your position and triggering a long reload during which you'll be vulnerable.

In short, we have far less control now than we did in the game that was made 10 years ago, and there seems to be no real good reason why. While you, personally, might be fine with the way things work now, many of us are unhappy with the results and would appreciate a change. I don't know the extent or difficulty of making such a change, but I suspect that there are workarounds that would not be that difficult to implement. If the programmers at Battlefront can create this entire world and make such a complex AI, surely they can make some small, very helpful changes to the moving/firing behavior without much trouble.

Could not have said it better myself. Being that i enjoy my armour battles more so than infantry battles... this is a big Big BIG issue for this "simulation" called CMBN.

CMx1 (CMAK, CMBB) takes care of that issue for me though.

On another note, i am enjoying the experience with the rest of what CMBN has to offer. A patch or two more and it can only get to be a better experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve has stated very clearly that this is a problem that none of us at BFC are happy with, but that a proper fix (and you want a proper fix, believe me) would be very hard to make. That doesn't rule it out, but it also doesn't mean it's going to happen without a lot of work and testing - in other words, time.

Tread Head, it's fine to vent. We all do it sometimes. But calling the game a "steaming pile of crap" or insinuating that we don't care about the game (after how many patches to this engine?) is going to garner far more negative posts that don't help your cause at all, than it will thoughtful responses that help drive the conversation forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, what's the current thinking on what is a "proper fix"?

FWIW, I find the trivial detail of the tanks driving like first-timers on the clutch more of an ongoing irritation than the occasional "hang on, he couldn't really have taken that shot".

Any chance of teaching the drivers to use the clutch sooner than solving firing stops?

GaJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, what's the current thinking on what is a "proper fix"?

FWIW, I find the trivial detail of the tanks driving like first-timers on the clutch more of an ongoing irritation than the occasional "hang on, he couldn't really have taken that shot".

Any chance of teaching the drivers to use the clutch sooner than solving firing stops?

GaJ

Hey you aren't criticizng the Tankers guide to aggressive driving manual are you? Reminds me of a reference I heard at one point about German armor and movement that in summary said, drive fast. Going slow isn't going to improve your ability to fire and just keeps you out there as a target longer. Maybe all CMBN tank drivers have that as required reading. The gunners on the other hand....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fact... CMx1 did not have firing from short halts. Any argument that continues on about how great CMx1 is vs. CMx2, within this context, has zero credibility. Trying to pretend that CMx1 had such behavior, when clearly it does not (the AI certainly never tried to do it), is simply an argument of connivence and not fact. Paragraphs of whining, ill tempered tripe doesn't change that any.

Let me restate what has been stated many times already...

Those of you who want to see this age old problem solved, we're on your side. We want to get it fixed as well. And it will. But not right away. If that's not an acceptable answer, then put the game down and move onto some other high quality 3D wargame (or any other game, or no game for that matter) until we have it fixed. It's a free world and it's your choice to exercise. Coming here and flaming us, the game, or each other is also a choice. A choice that, like all choices, has ramifications. In this case banishment from this Forum. Constructive criticism is always welcome, childish ranting is not. Check the Forum rules for further clarification if necessary.

Thread closed because there's nothing new to be said and certainly the way it's being said here is unacceptable.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...