Hitpointsystem on Subsystems

[Taki]

Last QB i played against Human oponnent.

Drove a Tiger ~200m to Shermans. Position of them well known to the Infantry.

Tiger gots hit First Time Front Turret or Upper front (dont matter) and The optics Subsystem starts to Suffer. He got paniced (veteran Crew in a Beast gets headless beacause of 1 SHerman AP Shell Hits the Frontturret) but didnt retreat. PBEM and i couldnt pull him back. So the Shermans didnt retreat and kept Firing their UBER 75mm AP of Death against the Tank killing his Subsystems Optics. From there on (after 10 Shots or so) the Tiger was Theethless and blind.

Yes i know i know there are Reports of Tigertanks got hit by Loads of AP Ammo and lost some subsystems. But loosing some Hitpoints (and it definatly IS a Hitpoint System) on Optics with every shot the Tiger takes is just plain gamey and dont reflect those 1:200 Encounters or some extraordinary Reports of that happened in Real Life.

[sburke]

Last QB i played against Human oponnent.

Drove a Tiger ~200m to Shermans. Position of them well known to the Infantry.

Tiger gots hit First Time Front Turret or Upper front (dont matter) and The optics Subsystem starts to Suffer. He got paniced (veteran Crew in a Beast gets headless beacause of 1 SHerman AP Shell Hits the Frontturret) but didnt retreat. PBEM and i couldnt pull him back. So the Shermans didnt retreat and kept Firing their UBER 75mm AP of Death against the Tank killing his Subsystems Optics. From there on (after 10 Shots or so) the Tiger was Theethless and blind.

Yes i know i know there are Reports of Tigertanks got hit by Loads of AP Ammo and lost some subsystems. But loosing some Hitpoints (and it definatly IS a Hitpoint System) on Optics with every shot the Tiger takes is just plain gamey and dont reflect those 1:200 Encounters or some extraordinary Reports of that happened in Real Life.

I'll leave it to BFC to respond about "hit points". That is a technical discussion about the game engine. However are you saying this couldn't possibly have happened or are you just pissed cause it happened to you? I know I'd be pissed but I'd also accept that this is war and sometimes s**t happens. 200 meters is damn close and I wouldn't drive anything right up against any tank expecting I was invulnerable. There is a reason the tiger has a long range gun.

[siffo998]

@taki: i can totally feel with you ! dont get me wrong i absolutely like the new cm but these tank subsystem damage system seems a bit wierd to me too. from my own experience i can say that it seems not to be a hitpoint system. the optics for example get damaged when a big caliber ap shell (he shell is more likely to do more damage but this seems realistic) hits the tank and a certain amount of energy is transferred directly into the tank. i`ve seen for example hits against the panthers upper frontal hull where no subsystem was damaged because the shell bounced off and a lot of energy was transferred from the impact away from the tank (shell bounces off in a steep angle). on the other hand especially ap shells which do not penetrate but explode on the outside (flat tiger armor) or do not bounce of properly add to the subsystems damage. i`ve done some testing and used a 75mm sherman to fire at a tiger at 1000m distance (20 tests) and the result was that after 10-16 hits the tiger was blind.

personally i doubt since the demo times that a ap shell which is fired against the upper or lower frontal hull and does not penetrate will damage the optics of the tank at all. the aiming sights are rubber mounted in a small hole inside the turret ! I`ve also posted a thread mentioning this but alot of people said that even bounced of shots transfer a lot of energy inside the tank and damage subsystems. even though no one has ever posted any sources that proove that subsystems like the optics were damaged in a ww2 tank by a bounced of hit against the hull. so i still doubt that and think that bfc should tweak those hyper sensible subsystem damage in the future.

dont get me wrong i totally agree that optics should be damageable but only when a ap shell hits the area at the TURRET were the optics are located or when a he shell explodes in the turret area near the sights hole ! and not because a ap shell bounces of the frontal hull. after all these things are tanks designed to take some pounding (the tiger for example was designed as a break through tank !) and not pussy wagons...

think about a tank in ww2 reality were after each battle the aiming sights (very expensive) have to be removed and new ones put in because he received 1-2 bounced of hits against the hull (ridiculous). I`ve even posted a video were a german tank commander stated that one of tiger he knew at the eastern front took about 30 hits and were still in working order ! (not possible with the game damage system by now !)

[Taki]

I dont think that it shouldnt happen at all and there should be Damage on Subsystems but not as it is actual in the Game because it leads to "Gamey" Results.

When a Shot AP/He Lands near Turret there should be some % Chance of doing Damage to Subsystems but not on every Shot that hits the Turret.

The other critic about that Situation is that not only the Subsystem hitpoints Situation is depicting the Tiger as a pussy Wagon but also the Crew Behavior.

There shouldnt be 2-3 Hits on the Turretfront and the Optics go Broke and a Crew rans around in his Tiger screaming "we all gonna die!" and do NOTHING.

But as the Iraqi Minister of Defense they will say:"Nope its all well modelled"

I dont have ANY hopes they will fix it. Maybe i should do more 1.000.000 Testing before i can make that statement etc.

I just want to hear what other customers got to say about that.

[sburke]

I dont think that it shouldnt happen at all and there should be Damage on Subsystems but not as it is actual in the Game because it leads to "Gamey" Results.

I just want to hear what other customers got to say about that.

NP, you got my two cents (worth probably considerably less) that getting hit at 200 meters is a heck of a lot different than siffo998's test at 1000 meters and it isn't making you rethink it. Anybody else want to throw in a hopefully more valuable two cents?

[siffo998]

i agree with you that only a small % of non penetrating shots against the turret should result in actual aiming sights damage. because the chance to actually hit the area were the aiming sights are located is small.

to crew behaviour: i think it is fine that such a broad band of possible crew behaviour is modelled... because like sburke said... **** happens...in war and in real life ! for example one of the first tigers that got "destroyed" in the war (i think it was the first, at least i can remember it from a docu i saw) was in the africa campaign. a matilda tank hit the tiger with a lucky shot exactly between turret and chassis. the shot could not penetrate (of course) but it jammed the turret. the tiger crew panicked and left the tank. you can still see the tiger turret in a british museum today (with the scratch from the shell) that leads from the barrel upwards to the area were the turret hits the chassis.

but i am also interested what the community thinks about the subsystem damage.

[hoolaman]

Sub-system damage never made any sense to me in CMSF or this game. There are some indications it is hit-point based, but it never makes enough sense for me to work it out.

You can get cumulative track damage from turret hits. You could have a HEAT shell explode on the pintle mounted MG and have it still work. The radio seems to get destroyed instantly every time anything hits anywhere.

Not to mention I've seen plenty of times sub-systems completely destroyed that don't seem to degrade the performance of the tank one bit.

[GreenAsJade]

It makes sense that the radio is destroyed often: it takes almost nothing at all to blow the antenna off, right?

I can suggest an "explanation" for why the game hit the optics every time in this case. Presumably the game engine is aiming at some point in the middle of the tank. It's probably the case that the intersection of the line from Taki's Sherm to the middle of the tank met the optics. Since Taki was so close, there's little variation in the path of the sherm's round, so it hits the optics every time.

I think this sounds like a realistic simulation of "a Tiger is not invulnerable to Sherms at 200m". The details matter less: the outcome sounds correct.

GaJ

[Michael Emrys]

It makes sense that the radio is destroyed often: it takes almost nothing at all to blow the antenna off, right?

Plus those old tube radios were far from shock proof.

Michael

[Vark]

From my understanding, non-penetrating hits more often or not damaged equipment that was close to the point of impact (makes sense) or ones highly vulnerable to shock (makes even more sense). So Tigers were vulnerable to having their electric traverse knocked out, their hydraulic and oil lines ruptured, and their tranmissions damaged. I don't think I have read of optics being damaged, save for the sights being shaken out of alignment by carpet bombing, though Russian AT gunners would try, at close range, to hit the optics of the driver, commander and gunner.

As for the Tiger that survived 20-30 hits, first, working order might not mean combat capable just that it could retire under its own power. Secondly, I doubt most of those hits were above 45mm.

I think the radios being easily knocked out is less to do with the antenna being stripped and more to do with the vulnerability of the sets (even firing the main gun in some tanks could damage or retune the set). Wonder what is going to happen when the SU's 152mm shell fails to penetrate a Tiger in the long awaited Bagration game? Two years plus before we see anything on that Front, I fear.

Is the damage model applied to all vehicles uniformly, or is it different for each AFV?

[siffo998]

personally i have stopped discussing radio damage because i can understand from my own experience how fragile those tubes are (making music with tube amplifiers )

but i do not think that the subsystem optics damage at the moment has anything to do with the point where the shell hit. for example i`ve positioned a tiger during a test in a mealtime position (45% to the enemy) and constantly all shells from the m10 bounced of that tiger from front and side hull. but every hit (front and side hit) degraded the optics. while track damage seems only to happen when the area of the tracks are hit... optic damage seems allways to happen when the tank is hit with a big enough shell and not enough force is transferred away from the tank (extreme steep angle bounce of).

for example i`ve tested ap shells from a 37mm m5a1 gun against the tiger and the panther and all around those 35-40 shells bounced of or could not penetrate. and they did no damage at all or in worst cases the radio and optics damage increased the first stage from dark green rectancgle to light green rectangle. but as soon as the 37mm fired he shells the optics damage increased steadily.

[LJFHutch]

It does seem a little strange to me, it's like every hit does damage to something despite many areas of the tank having no systems on them. Wouldn't it make more sense that optic damage be much more rare yet be catastrophic when it occurs?

[Michael Emrys]

Wouldn't it make more sense that optic damage be much more rare yet be catastrophic when it occurs?

Yes.

Michael

[siffo998]

Wouldn't it make more sense that optic damage be much more rare yet be catastrophic when it occurs?

i totaly agree with that ! especially when optic damage can only happen when the frontal turret area (where the optics hole is located) is hit.

[Michael Emrys]

I do wonder however how vulnerable optics are to being knocked out of alignment even when not damaged. This might be what is represented by progressive accumulation of damage.

Michael

[winkelried]

I work currently on the source to get a firm view. But I found a first remark that sPzAbt 506 in 1943 received 45 Tiger I (on the Eastern Front). After one week they had 6 total losses and 39 under repair - all secondary damage "mostly optics, tracks and weaponry".

[winkelried]

Another indication, that the optics were vulnerable indeed. It seems that the armour of the turret front was increased in the area of the optics during production. trying to fix this (source and when this occurred).

[siffo998]

I work currently on the source to get a firm view. But I found a first remark that sPzAbt 506 in 1943 received 45 Tiger I (on the Eastern Front). After one week they had 6 total losses and 39 under repair - all secondary damage "mostly optics, tracks and weaponry".

i do not doubt that tank optics were something that gets damaged constantly (especially when you think about that the front turret was a area that was hit constantly) but this cummulative subsystem damage in the game still seems wrong.

as far as i can see your source says nothing about how many of those tanks in repair are there with optic damage in relation to the ones with track damage or weaponry. if only two of 39 are under repair with optics damage then this would be a rather low quote. also optics damage can also relate to commanders vision blocks or the periscope etc.

another problem till now is that nobody can say for sure what optics damage is really reffering to in the game. is the periscope included ? the commanders vision blocks ? does it really reffer to the aiming sights ?

from what i`ve seen in the game and testing: when a tank gets fully damaged optics he can aim far less accurately (a lot of misses especially at long ranges) and it is nearly impossible to spot anything at longer ranges when buttoned up.

@michael: if those cummulative damage is really reffering to misallignement of the optics than it would not explain why you cannot spot another tank

at longer ranges when the optics go to red x damage. because you can still spot an enemy even at long ranges with a misaligned optics. it would only explain that it is much harder to hit something.

[winkelried]

another problem till now is that nobody can say for sure what optics damage is really reffering to in the game. is the periscope included ? the commanders vision blocks ? does it really reffer to the aiming sights ?

This is a key point. Hope my source spits out something on this (besides the %-age on the total # of damaged vehicles). But it seems to be a significant number to be listed at all (there is still this "mostly" in the sentence which points to other - lesser causes - of damage).

[siffo998]

i`ve found some interesting quotes from an operational report from von lauchert in the book "germanys panther tank" from thomas jentz.

page 133:

"In general the brackets for the gun sight have held up. In only one case was it reported that the bracket was bent. A wiper for the front optics is absolutely necessary, since it takes too long to retract the gun sight during combat."

page 138:

Problems with Weapons:

"The telescopes of the TZF.12 gun sights break apart as a result of hits on the GUN MANTLET. The expenditure of protective lenses for the TZF 12 is very high"

The second quote out of the report from von Lauchert clearly indicates that only hits to the area where the TZF is mounted (gun mantlet in case of the panther) result in damage. and not hits to the side or frontal hull like in game.

[Taki]

It does seem a little strange to me, it's like every hit does damage to something despite many areas of the tank having no systems on them. Wouldn't it make more sense that optic damage be much more rare yet be catastrophic when it occurs?

Thats what im really about! We dont need culumlative Damage on Subsystems. I tought that it was actually in the Game (wich Subsystem is Hit by Bulletpath going trough the Tank) but it seems its not.

Last Time i Hit a Priest from Left Side with a 105mm StuH42 HEAT Round exactly where that Ammocases are on the Left Side and i did NOTHING.

So how are the Damages on Tanks calculated? I tought it was like in World War 2 Online but in fakt it doesnt look like.

[winkelried]

We dont need culumlative Damage on Subsystems.

I am not sure about this. There are subsystems where cumulative damage makes sense (e.g. tracks where damage can cumulate to a breaking point or to make them even more vulnerable) and others where cumulating damage doesn't make sense (maybe optics).

[Vark]

It does seem a little odd that BF seem to have constructed a highy accurate ballistics model, to determine if a shell hits, but then have resorted to a generic system to record damage. I, like Taki was under the impression that the damage to a vehicle would be calculated by modeling which components would be in the path of the shell and damage accrued as a result. Is this the case? Do non-penetrating hits mirror penetrating hits, or is damage reminiscient of the Star Fleet Battles tables (generic, attrition oriented, random but based on the aspect struck)

[Statisoris]

I would also be very interested to know the facts on this. We should keep this close to the top until official word clears it up.

-

[Statisoris]

... I, like Taki was under the impression that the damage to a vehicle would be calculated by modeling which components would be in the path of the shell and damage accrued as a result. Is this the case? Do non-penetrating hits mirror penetrating hits, or is damage reminiscient of the Star Fleet Battles tables (generic, attrition oriented, random but based on the aspect struck)

I would also be very interested to know the facts on this. We should keep this close to the top until official word clears it up.

-