Hitpointsystem on Subsystems

[Redwolf]

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.

That's not a hitpoint system the way I describe hit points.

It is binary alive/dead (not hit points) after a certain probability is applied to incoming shot to determine whether they hit this subsystem. If you think the composite probability is too high then you need to look at either the amount of shots coming in (in reality would Shermans fire than much on a Tiger) and at the probability applied to hitting the optics subsystem.

There have been previous threads suggestion that CMBN treats the whole turret front on Panthers and Tigers as a mantlet, and that the game always (for all tanks) treats hits on gun mantlets as hits affecting the optics subsystem. Since the probability to hit the mantlet is much higher if you simply treat the whole turret front as a mantlet, and then still treat all mantlet hits on all tanks regardless of whether they have a small or full-front mantlet, then the resulting probability over time shoots up sharply. If things were that simple the Germans wouldn't have done this construction.

[siffo998]

That's not a hitpoint system the way I describe hit points.

It is binary alive/dead (not hit points) after a certain probability is applied to incoming shot to determine whether they hit this subsystem. If you think the composite probability is too high then you need to look at either the amount of shots coming in (in reality would Shermans fire than much on a Tiger) and at the probability applied to hitting the optics subsystem.

There have been previous threads suggestion that CMBN treats the whole turret front on Panthers and Tigers as a mantlet, and that the game always (for all tanks) treats hits on gun mantlets as hits affecting the optics subsystem. Since the probability to hit the mantlet is much higher if you simply treat the whole turret front as a mantlet, and then still treat all mantlet hits on all tanks regardless of whether they have a small or full-front mantlet, then the resulting probability over time shoots up sharply. If things were that simple the Germans wouldn't have done this construction.

i dont know if i get your post right but do you want to say that there is so much optics damage from non penetrating hits because the game engine sees the turret front as the mantlet and therefore the probability of a hit against the optics area is much higher ?

because actually the tests in this thread cleary showed that optics damaged is accumulated from hits all over the tank (even armor skirts, lower frontal hull, and track hits).

actually it would be nice (i dream of that) if of all non penetrating hits only mantlet hits could cause optics damage but the experiences with the game and the tests posted in this thread clearly shows something different ! right now like i already said even a hit against the side hull can cause optics damage. we have even experienced track damage from a weapon hit during a test ! and this feels really wrong especially when you know that optics damage directly affects the spotting and aiming ability. due to that your tank breaks apart and gets useless just (for example) by non penetrating/riocheting hull hits.

[Statisoris]

heres the editable file, sorry i have already overwritten the tiger test but this is the panther test and he showed the same back up behaviour !

http://www.2shared.com/file/sh9h29BD/test.html

I am already wondering why bfc hasnt posted till now...after all we have over 1000 views and around 70 posts and we have even brought up some sources and tests. would be really interesting to hear the designers perspective and to finally get an answer to what this optics damage really refers. Periscope ? Vision Blocks ? Aiming Sights ? All things together ?

Battlefront (Steve) has not posted since 9 days ago (Sept 21st) in this forum. They either are all busy as hell and haven't had time to write a single post in 9 days or either don't rate involvement with their fanbase as a high priority. I'm going to hope it's the busy one, but the grumpy pessimistic side of me thinks otherwise when they go this long without posting on such big threads.

[ChrisND]

You wont get an Official Answer. And if you get one they will say one of two things:

1. We take a look at it (and nothing happens)

This is utterly false. BFC fixes plenty of things pointed out by customers. If you're going to be bitter and grind an axe, at least be correct about it.

[c3k]

Another explanation could be that Steve can finally retire on the proceeds...and has done just that! Or, Taki's post was the straw that broke the camel's back and he is now living in the wilderness of Maine.

On topic: My understanding is that some impacts, even though not on or near the optics, could shake them out of alignment. I'd have to look at Jentz et al. and see if I can find some sort of report stating that as having happened.

IF, and that's a capital "IF", optics should be sensitive to hits on the tank, other than right on or near the optics, then we can start getting data about the energy levels needed to affect the alignment. E.g., should a 75mm Sherman firing at 1,200m and hitting the turret side be able to affect the optics? Does it do so in the game?

Barring that level of knowledge, what kind of interpolation should be used? Should a Priest's 105mm HE hitting the mantlet on the OTHER side of the barrel from the optics have NO effect on the sighting system? (Personally, relying on memory of the various reports/books, that impact would be problematic.)

How strong were each tank's sights mounted? Recognizing that the sights could be removed from inside the turret, usually using mounting/set screws. Pulling the primary sight out and replacing it with a spare would mean that the spare and the gun are not aligned. In game I would imagine that could be represented by good spotting ability but poor accuracy.

Did some tanks not have crew replaceable optics? Which ones?

Are random small arm round hits on the protective lense modelled? As quoted upstream, they could be replaced; how many spares were carried, how long did it take to replace, did it involve removing the sight and losing zero?

Now, this is not to say that a 37mm hit to the rear of a Tiger should damage the sight. But it does mean that far more WORK has to be done to quantify what the reality was, what the game does, and thereby showing how they differ.

Ken

[sburke]

Battlefront (Steve) has not posted since 9 days ago (Sept 21st) in this forum. They either are all busy as hell and haven't had time to write a single post in 9 days or either don't rate involvement with their fanbase as a high priority. I'm going to hope it's the busy one, but the grumpy pessimistic side of me thinks otherwise when they go this long without posting on such big threads.

If it is a choice of hearing their cheery voices on the forum, or driving em like slaves to release the next module... back to work you gutter born vermin!!!!!

Keep in mind BFC has a lot more at stake in continuing to produce - it is their company and income at stake. For us it is purely our own addiction. If we aren't hearing from them, the odds that they are all snoozing in the backroom is pretty slim.

[Redwolf]

i dont know if i get your post right but do you want to say that there is so much optics damage from non penetrating hits because the game engine sees the turret front as the mantlet and therefore the probability of a hit against the optics area is much higher ?

because actually the tests in this thread cleary showed that optics damaged is accumulated from hits all over the tank (even armor skirts, lower frontal hull, and track hits).

actually it would be nice (i dream of that) if of all non penetrating hits only mantlet hits could cause optics damage but the experiences with the game and the tests posted in this thread clearly shows something different ! right now like i already said even a hit against the side hull can cause optics damage. we have even experienced track damage from a weapon hit during a test ! and this feels really wrong especially when you know that optics damage directly affects the spotting and aiming ability. due to that your tank breaks apart and gets useless just (for example) by non penetrating/riocheting hull hits.

OK, here is an example with number:

Tank fire at a "normal" tank with a mantlet not covering the whole turret front:

• After flight path computation change to hit the tank at all: 25% (example).
  
• Chance to hit the turret: say 1/3 of that => 8% total.
  
• Mantlet covers 1/4 of the turret front => 2% change to hit the mantlet.
  
• Now, pay attention: BFC must have picked a chance that optics get damaged when hitting the mantlet. Let's say they picked a 10% chance, on mantlet hit. So after a 2% chance to hit the mantlet you end up with a 0.2% of optics damage for each shot
  
• So if you shoot 20 times at the tank you get a total change of 4% to knock out the optics.
  

Following me so far?

Now, if Tiger and Panther are assumed to have all the turret front to be the gun mantlet, and there is still a 10% chance on mantlet hit (which now equals turret hit) to knock out the optics it looks like this:

• After flight path computation change to hit the tank at all: 25% (example)
  
• Chance to hit the turret: say 1/3 of that => 8% total.
  
• Mantlet covers all of the turret front => 8% change to hit the mantlet.
  
• Every mantlet hit has a 10% chance to damage the options -> 0.8% chance to damage options, for each shot.
  
• So if you shoot 20 times at the tank you get a total change of 15.4% to knock out the optics on the Tiger or Panther, all other parameters the same. Compared to a 4% chance when firing the same 20 shots at a tank with 1/4 of the turret front being the mantlet.
  

Now, things get even messier if you take into account rate of fire. Smaller guns tend to have a higher rate of fire. So out going fire from a Tiger tends to trigger this conditions slower than outgoing fire from smaller guns.

Hope this wasn't too obscure. But that was basically what I understood the situation to be last time it was discussed.

Note that the 10% chance to damage optics on mantlet hit is something I picked for this example, BFC does not confirm these things anymore. But if you put in a different number then nothing fundamental changes about the way you screw Tiger and Panther.

[siffo998]

@c3k... which sources do you use ? i haven`t found a single direct statement that aiming sights were mislaigned by non penetrating/riocheting hits. the only thing i`ve found is out of germanys panther tank from jentz. a operational report from von lauchert about the panther. i`ve already posted the two statements out of the report that are relevant. he says that a lot of protective lenses (armored glass lenses that protect the aiming sights from damage) were broken by hits against the MANTLET. You can replace these after battle as far as i know. He further says that the brackets which held up the aiming sights were in most cases in place. only in one case a bracket was bend. (you can read up the whole statements a few pages ago !)

@redwolf: youre example might be right but i still cannot see how your example explaines why the optics get damaged by riocheting/non penetrating hits when for example the lower hull is hit or the side hull or the armor skirt or the upper frontal hull... etc.

i`ve did a test with 20 runs where i put a tiger against a sherman 75mm against each other at 1000m distance. the tigers optics were taken out after 10-16 hits. no more no less. (kept the tiger from firing back by cover arc) The damage from these non penetrating hits was always cumulative not in a single case it was catastrophic (one hit leads to the red X) and the increasing damage came from hits all over the tank not only turret and mantlet hits (only very few were actually turret or mantlet hits). the test was repeatable with a panther.

I think the biggest problem right now is (like i`ve already said) that nobody actually knows to what the optics damage ingame is really related. for example it would make much more sense that the optics damage increase so often from non penetrating hits if it relates not only to the aiming sights but also to the vision blocks and the periscope. but the only one who knows for sure about that is steve or someone else from the crew !

Maybe "optics" damage doesnt relate at all to the aiming sights and only "Weapon controls" relates to it. but from test runs i`ve done i can say that a red X optics system clearly reduces the accuracy (if you can spot the enemy at all) so i think that optics relate to the aiming sights and maybe also other vision systems.

[siffo998]

i`ve found another interesting statement out of von laucherts operational report: (book: thomas jentz, germanys panther tank, timeframe for the report is the kursk offensive...the first battle experiences with the panther)

"The Panther is basically invulnerable to artillery fire. However, direct hits by calibers of over 150mm of the roof of the hull and the turret had the effect of deforming the armor and causing internal damage. Hits by lighter caliber shells hitting the commanders cupola (where a lot of vision blocks are mounted) and the roof armor showed no effect."

So much for people that said in another thread i have posted that mortar (artillery) fire even when it not penetrates is effective against tanks because it can cause internal damage.

I havent tested it ingame till now if shells of caliber under 150mm can cause optics damage but i certainly will !

Another thing i`ve found in the same report:

"Almost all of the Panthers in the Abteilung have received frontal hits from 76mm without any ill effect on the operation of the Panther."

Doesnt sound like hits against the frontal hull have caused any significant damage to the internal subsystems...ingame hits against the panther frontal hull will cause step by step damage of optics and radio !

[siffo998]

Ok i`ve done a quick test that relates to my last post.

i`ve put up two us medium mortar squads (81mm) at 500m distance against a panther a mid with covver arc (panther was buttoned). The mortars were shooting for 4 minutes at the panthers position.

according to von laucherts report (see last post of me) the panther should take no internal damage.

In 4 minutes the Panther received:

Rear Top Hull Hit:

1 X Tracks, Optics, Radio damage

1 X no damage

1 X Tracks

Hits close to the Panther:

2 X Tracks

the panther was fully immobilized after the 4 minutes

While i can maybe understand (with a lot of good will and both eyes shut) that the panther has received track damage by 81 mm HE mortar shells that explode near him (even when von laucherts statements says something different) but i cannot understand how a 81mm HE shell that hits the rear top hull (and does not penetrate nor is there any spalling reported) damages the Optics (no Optics are located in the rear of the tank) or the tracks (tracks are under the tank and not mounted on top ). Radio damage might be due to the antenna which is mounted on the rear. The damage from hits near the tank are debateable (even they are very strange) but the rear top hull hit with optics and track damage is simply ridiculous. Von Laucherts Combat report of the performance of the panther at the kursk offensive definitely says something different and why should he lie at all or make false statements in a operational report about a tanks performance ? I dont think so.

From all that i`ve seen during this testing i`ve done in this thread i would say that subsystem damage in this game (at least for Radio, Optics and Track damage) is highly random. I like the game but this should be fixed as far as i can see!

[Taki]

*bump* *bump*

Wth is Steve?

[sburke]

Farmville, trying to rebuild the barn he destroyed while trying to program fire.

[Statisoris]

*bump* *bump*

Wth is Steve?

Last post on this side of the forum was still on 09-21-2011, 09:49 PM, almost 15 days ago. Must have something really time consuming going on. I remember once back in the CMSF days BF stopped posting for a really long time with little or no explanation as to what was going on. I guess they don't owe and explanation to anyone, but it sure is inconvenient for those of us who enjoy hearing from the creators of the product for which we gave our hard earned money.

[c3k]

Back on topic: Jentz, Panther, lists the production modifications for the D, A, and G models both while in series production, and between models. The D gained a stronger gunsight mount. The A, while using the original TzF12, had a modified mount. (He doesn't state what was modified.) Later the A swapped over to the TzF12a (monocular sight vs. the TzF12's binocular); that introduced a new mount as well.

[siffo998]

yes thats true the later panther modells used monocular gunsights.

i`ve done some further testing and it seems that when optics goes to red X the tank is not completely blind in buttoned mode. my first tests were at high ranges (1000-2500 m) but if you repeat the same thing at ranges from 500-1000m the chance to spot a enemy tank with red x optics isnt that bad. it seems to be escpecially much easier for tanks which use a periscope like the tiger late or the panther g. these tanks were also able to easily kill their enemys (two sherman m4a3 75mm in my test scenario) at least when their gun wasnt destroyed.

my guess is that optics damage refers to the gunshight and maybe the vision blocks. bfc tried to modell with that cumulative damage system how the protective lenses (armored glass) breaks more and more and therefore limit the vision and the probability to spot another tank.

just for explanation heres a video with a short example how it may look like when the protective lense which is mounted in front of the gunshight start to break from high caliber hits which hit the area. Its taken out of the excelent tank sim steel fury from graviteam. the same is possible for vision blocks if they are hit.

(look at 0:14 when the lense starts to break this should explain my thoughts)

its possible to break the lenses in different degrees in some cases the spider web is so dense that its nearly impossible to spot anything far away.

maybe bfc tried to modell the same thing with their cumulative optics damage. von lauchert also reported (i`ve posted the statement a few pages ago) that the replacement of protective lenses in panther tanks was very high from MANTLET hits.

In steel fury I`ve also only encountered a breaking of the lenses when the mantlet/gun area is hit.

i think the problem in CMBN right now is: the optics damage is caused far to easily. my tests showed that non penetrative/riocheting hits against the hull (front and side), also armor skirts, tracks and the top of the tank (with 81mm mortars) caused optics damage. but in reality only hits from high caliber shells which hit near the gunsight/vision blocks (MANTLET or in case of the vision blocks the commanders cupola) would MAYBE cause a breaking of the protective lenses.

i think the damage modelling for optics and also tracks need some further fine tuning by bfc because the tanks (i`ve showed the problems with track damage in my other posts) ingame are far more vulnerable than their counterparts in reality. this finetuning would make out of cmbn (great game) a really classic game !

[sburke]

i`ve found another interesting statement out of von laucherts operational report: (book: thomas jentz, germanys panther tank, timeframe for the report is the kursk offensive...the first battle experiences with the panther)

"The Panther is basically invulnerable to artillery fire. However, direct hits by calibers of over 150mm of the roof of the hull and the turret had the effect of deforming the armor and causing internal damage. Hits by lighter caliber shells hitting the commanders cupola (where a lot of vision blocks are mounted) and the roof armor showed no effect."

So much for people that said in another thread i have posted that mortar (artillery) fire even when it not penetrates is effective against tanks because it can cause internal damage.

I havent tested it ingame till now if shells of caliber under 150mm can cause optics damage but i certainly will !

Another thing i`ve found in the same report:

"Almost all of the Panthers in the Abteilung have received frontal hits from 76mm without any ill effect on the operation of the Panther."

Doesnt sound like hits against the frontal hull have caused any significant damage to the internal subsystems...ingame hits against the panther frontal hull will cause step by step damage of optics and radio !

That one begins to make me doubt the source. I find it really hard to believe that the Panther was this hardened fighting vehicle whose engine that could catch fire on it's own initially with no help from artillery was now proof against rounds exploding on the deck. Track damage as well seems to be somehow impossible to this guy? I am not sure I can buy this as an unquestionably valid source. If this is the one source we are gonna use to countermand a lot of what else has been said about armor and artillery effects I am gonna have to take this one with some salt.

[c3k]

Jentz, Panther, p138 states that the TzF12 (binocular) sight has significant survivability issues in combat. The protective lenses get destroyed at a high rate of usage (numbers not given), and the tubes get crushed. That AAR could've been the impetus behind the redesign of the mount in the middle of series D production.

[c3k]

The game: does optics refer SOLELY to the gun optics, or to every vision block and periscope on the tank, as well?

[siffo998]

The game: does optics refer SOLELY to the gun optics, or to every vision block and periscope on the tank, as well?

thats the problem nobody knows for sure except the designers themself !

like i said...i think that its reffering to vision blocks and gunsight.

[siffo998]

Jentz, Panther, p138 states that the TzF12 (binocular) sight has significant survivability issues in combat. The protective lenses get destroyed at a high rate of usage (numbers not given), and the tubes get crushed. That AAR could've been the impetus behind the redesign of the mount in the middle of series D production.

I`ve already posted the statement from page 138.

the exact statement is: "The telescopes of the TFZ12 break apart from hits against the gun mantlet.The expentiture of protective lenses for the TFZ12 is very high."

I do not clearly understand what he means with "telescopes" ? but it clearly indicates that it only happens when the MANTLET is hit. Ingame all kind of non-penetrating hits caused optics damage !

[Childress]

What about the impact, the jolt that compromises delicate systems within a tank even if the round arrives far from the critical zone? Last year my Toyota was rear ended by a senior lady and the cigarette lighter popped out. Explain that one....

[siffo998]

That one begins to make me doubt the source. I find it really hard to believe that the Panther was this hardened fighting vehicle whose engine that could catch fire on it's own initially with no help from artillery was now proof against rounds exploding on the deck. Track damage as well seems to be somehow impossible to this guy? I am not sure I can buy this as an unquestionably valid source. If this is the one source we are gonna use to countermand a lot of what else has been said about armor and artillery effects I am gonna have to take this one with some salt.

its a operational report about the performance of the panther tanks at the kursk offensive i think that makes it a really valid source because the full report also mentions a lot of weak spots of the tanks (to improve it).

also theirs a difference between the engine which is unable to carry the weight and therefore gets damaged and direct HE artillery hits. HE hasnt that much armor piercing capability. most damage from artillery comes from the shrapnells.

i`ve also thought that only 150mm and bigger shell cause damage might be a bit of a exagerration but its also strange that ingame hits with 81mm mortars

against the rear deck caused optics damage and track damage, like i said tracks are under the tank and there are no optics at the rear deck !

also he has never said that track damage seems impossible. i`ve found other statements out of the report that clearly indicate that explosions near the tank caused some track damage.

please dont get me wrong but the panther tank was only a example because its the only reliable source that i`ve found which states something about optics damage etc. i think that optics and track damage ingame happens much to easy with all tanks not only the german ones or the panther.

[c3k]

I`ve already posted the statement from page 138.

the exact statement is: "The telescopes of the TFZ12 break apart from hits against the gun mantlet.The expentiture of protective lenses for the TFZ12 is very high."

I do not clearly understand what he means with "telescopes" ? but it clearly indicates that it only happens when the MANTLET is hit. Ingame all kind of non-penetrating hits caused optics damage !

Jentz put in some cutaway drawings. Some of them show the TzF12 and TzF12a. They use very long tubes between the lenses. These must be the "telescopes". A long cylinder with glass lenses at either end used to look through and magnify the subject.

[siffo998]

What about the impact, the jolt that compromises delicate systems within a tank even if the round arrives far from the critical zone? Last year my Toyota was rear ended by a senior lady and the cigarette lighter popped out. Explain that one....

yeah i`ve already heard that thing. when i complained about the strange optics damage in demo times some people already said it might be due to the impact shock but i`ve never found any sources that things like that happened to a tank. also keep in mind that the gun sight is rubber mounted.

And please dont compare your toyota to a ww2 tank...

i`ve allways said if somebody finds a reliable source that cleary says that for example a riocheting hit against the glacis plate caused gunsight/optics damage i will be satisfied with it and stop posting. but till now nobody did.

and actually exactly thats what happening ingame: for example a panther gets hit at the glacis plate...the shot riochets off and the tank gets optics damage !? seems strange to me !

[siffo998]

Jentz put in some cutaway drawings. Some of them show the TzF12 and TzF12a. They use very long tubes between the lenses. These must be the "telescopes". A long cylinder with glass lenses at either end used to look through and magnify the subject.

the question is if he is really reffering to the cylinder or only to the protective lenses that start to break. because the next sentence says that the expenditure of protective lenses is very high.