Page 6 of 7
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:22 am
by wodin
Sorry Arjuna..I can't be bothered to defend myself here...I'm just a nutcase who posts threads full of slings and arrows(notice no link)..it's a sad day for me
Hope the game improves as I will be playing it happly and shall buy the others...and sorry for being a little senstive...christ I wish I wa strong enough to to log on and feel I have to reply...but this is it...good luck Panther Games
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:22 am
by Arjuna
[:D] koontz that was cheap shot...I like it! [:)]
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:30 am
by Arjuna
Part of the issue here will be alleviated with the fix I have just made to the sighting rules. I had added some code for BFTB that tried optimise the number of sightings made. It did this by testing to see if there were enemyThreats within 3000m and only testing for these if either the enemy had moved, the sighter had moved or the viz state had changed. All well and good but alas I was using the intel location and not the real unit location for the hasMoved test. The result of this foobar was that even when the enemy had moved within 3000m he was not being picked up and hence not being fired upon until he got to withyin the assured SightingRange - ie 50m in daylight. Now this works for both the attacker and defender. It means that attacking tansk won't bve engaging enemy units between 3000 and 50m unless there was a valid pre existing sighting for them. SImilarly the defender would more often lose the sighting at long range and not get another opportunity to fire until they were virtually on top of them. In much of the close country of the Ardennes where detection ranges are short anyway and especially at night this won't have such an effect but in so many other situations it will.
We'll endeavour to get a pacth out asap to redress this.
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:33 am
by CptWaspLuca
This is fantastic, thank you.
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:18 am
by MajFrankBurns
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
ORIGINAL: Sheytan
Even without dedicated AT weapons the infantry should have a close assault AT value. Lack thereof is a serious ommision. Many tanks in WW2 fell prey to improvised AT weapons like the molotov cocktail especially in urban or built up areas.
I very much doubt this. I'd be interested to see your sources.
You never saw Saving Pvt Ryan? Those guys took out tiger tanks with socks!! Blew the tracks off of them. Also Audey Murphy jumped up on a tank opened the hatch and threw a grenade down into it while it was moving!! You really should research your infantry assault vs tanks more deeply. [:-]
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:25 am
by CptWaspLuca
ORIGINAL: MajFrankBurns
You never saw Saving Pvt Ryan? Those guys took out tiger tanks with socks!! Blew the tracks off of them. Also Audey Murphy jumped up on a tank opened the hatch and threw a grenade down into it while it was moving!! You really should research your infantry assault vs tanks more deeply. [:-]
I don't think that an Hollywood movie is a good source in the average, but the socks bomb was really used at Arnhem with some success (surprisingly).
Tanks were normally buttoned up in restricted terrain, specially without infantry support. But the field of view and the field of fire were restricted, so it was a terrible situation for tankers.
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 9:29 am
by CptWaspLuca
Arjuna, I have a question for you.
It would be possible for your engine to have some kind of penalty for tank armor and tank morale in restricted terrain ONLY when friendly infantry is not close?
If yes I would like a lot to experiment the modification, I think it would make the simulation even more realistic!
Thank you in advance
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:22 am
by Arjuna
Cpt Wasp,
I'll have a look and see what we can do simply. If it looks like I need to make extensive changes to affect that, then it will have to wait for another title.
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:26 am
by CptWaspLuca
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Cpt Wasp,
I'll have a look and see what we can do simply. If it looks like I need to make extensive changes to affect that, then it will have to wait for another title.
I will cross my fingers then!
Let we know, thank you.
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:36 pm
by Obsolete
Those guys took out tiger tanks with...
Oh yes, I forgot about the most credible source of ww2 information. American made war-movies! Hollywood has reminded me of a few gem facts, and one in particular that comes to mind is how the best tank destroyer weapon is a slow rolling barrel of gasoline. I think it was the Battle of the Buldge movie (?) where after beaten and battered, the Americans finally decided to bring out their #1 tank destroyer weapon (a barrel of gasoline). After rolling barrels down a small hill, and having those Tiger tanks foolishly keep bumping into them, then blowing up sky high, it seems the tanks never clued into the fact not to do that.
Boy, why didn't those Americans just order a few more barrels during the war, it could have ended much sooner. One lesson to be learned here, is Americans are just STOOOPID! And don't even get me on those Germans who kept bumping into those barrels that kept blowing up their 74+ ton tanks. They were just as STOOOPID as the Americans were.
Now, we just have to wait for some 12 year old to set up a wikipedia site to further make this BARREL weapon into a known fact.
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:19 pm
by wodin
can't wait for the patch....I do find playing the bigger scenarios I don't notice these things as much because Im looking at the bigger picture...but in the smaller scenarios it becomes more noticable becuase Im analysing it tactically more.
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:28 pm
by Henri
ORIGINAL: Obsolete
Those guys took out tiger tanks with...
Oh yes, I forgot about the most credible source of ww2 information. American made war-movies! Hollywood has reminded me of a few gem facts, and one in particular that comes to mind is how the best tank destroyer weapon is a slow rolling barrel of gasoline. I think it was the Battle of the Buldge movie (?) where after beaten and battered, the Americans finally decided to bring out their #1 tank destroyer weapon (a barrel of gasoline). After rolling barrels down a small hill, and having those Tiger tanks foolishly keep bumping into them, then blowing up sky high, it seems the tanks never clued into the fact not to do that.
Yes, but it doesn't seem so unrealistic when one remembers that in that movie, the Germans were driving American tanks! [X(]
Henri
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:47 pm
by ulisin
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Part of the issue here will be alleviated with the fix I have just made to the sighting rules. I had added some code for BFTB that tried optimise the number of sightings made. It did this by testing to see if there were enemyThreats within 3000m and only testing for these if either the enemy had moved, the sighter had moved or the viz state had changed. All well and good but alas I was using the intel location and not the real unit location for the hasMoved test. The result of this foobar was that even when the enemy had moved within 3000m he was not being picked up and hence not being fired upon until he got to withyin the assured SightingRange - ie 50m in daylight. Now this works for both the attacker and defender. It means that attacking tansk won't bve engaging enemy units between 3000 and 50m unless there was a valid pre existing sighting for them. SImilarly the defender would more often lose the sighting at long range and not get another opportunity to fire until they were virtually on top of them. In much of the close country of the Ardennes where detection ranges are short anyway and especially at night this won't have such an effect but in so many other situations it will.
We'll endeavour to get a pacth out asap to redress this.
in italiano:
grazie a Arjuna! e mille grazie a CptWasp!
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Wed Jun 16, 2010 5:53 pm
by Tophat1815
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Part of the issue here will be alleviated with the fix I have just made to the sighting rules. I had added some code for BFTB that tried optimise the number of sightings made. It did this by testing to see if there were enemyThreats within 3000m and only testing for these if either the enemy had moved, the sighter had moved or the viz state had changed. All well and good but alas I was using the intel location and not the real unit location for the hasMoved test. The result of this foobar was that even when the enemy had moved within 3000m he was not being picked up and hence not being fired upon until he got to withyin the assured SightingRange - ie 50m in daylight. Now this works for both the attacker and defender. It means that attacking tansk won't bve engaging enemy units between 3000 and 50m unless there was a valid pre existing sighting for them. SImilarly the defender would more often lose the sighting at long range and not get another opportunity to fire until they were virtually on top of them. In much of the close country of the Ardennes where detection ranges are short anyway and especially at night this won't have such an effect but in so many other situations it will.
We'll endeavour to get a pacth out asap to redress this.
So let me see if i understand this correctly,(I probably do not),but unless a tank/AFV/Vehicle was already sighted these vehicles if just appearing 3000-50m away from other units are in effect not visible targets? So no AFV's are taking losses within this range band unless it was previously sighted?
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:33 am
by Arjuna
It's a little more complicated than that but that will suffice.
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:54 am
by Tophat1815
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
It's a little more complicated than that but that will suffice.
Alright,guess I did pay attention between all the verbal nonsense in the rest of the thread.I knew we were in trouble when the Kelly's Hero's quotes came out,wish I hadn't helped with that one...Doh!!!
By the way while you are fixing this visual sighting issue could you correct the US recon troop so it has the proper number of carbines,garands and other infantry weapons?
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 5:05 am
by CptWaspLuca
ORIGINAL: Arjuna
Part of the issue here will be alleviated with the fix I have just made to the sighting rules. I had added some code for BFTB that tried optimise the number of sightings made. It did this by testing to see if there were enemyThreats within 3000m and only testing for these if either the enemy had moved, the sighter had moved or the viz state had changed. All well and good but alas I was using the intel location and not the real unit location for the hasMoved test. The result of this foobar was that even when the enemy had moved within 3000m he was not being picked up and hence not being fired upon until he got to withyin the assured SightingRange - ie 50m in daylight. Now this works for both the attacker and defender. It means that attacking tansk won't bve engaging enemy units between 3000 and 50m unless there was a valid pre existing sighting for them. SImilarly the defender would more often lose the sighting at long range and not get another opportunity to fire until they were virtually on top of them. In much of the close country of the Ardennes where detection ranges are short anyway and especially at night this won't have such an effect but in so many other situations it will.
We'll endeavour to get a pacth out asap to redress this.
Simovitch: I downloaded your saved game and I'm taking a look. That AT coy does seem to be built hell-for-stoudt. I need to look at it with the debug tools to really see what's going on. I'll be back.
Arjuna:
Now I have more time for writing.
I think that the bug that you have found can explain for sure the M5 problem at the start of my thread, and maybe the panther platoon passing through the infantry in one of my save games, but I think they were VERY close and they exchange some fire, so I don't know. But it doesn't explain the AT Coy problem of the other save game, the one that Simovitch should be debugging.
Simovitch:
News about that?
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 12:24 pm
by simovitch
CptWasp, I played through several hours of your saved game and observed those US AT guns and Rifle Coy's seeing a lot of action but not taking much in the way of casualties, but I'm still not sure of the cause. The Germans FJ and VG are very inexperienced troops and that may have something to do with it. Other GI's are getting roughed up in other places so it's not totally consistent.
I'm working on a few things right now (estabs, mainly) for the patch but we will continue to look at anomalies like these.
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Thu Jun 17, 2010 6:26 pm
by DanOppenheim
I've just become the happy owner of
Infantry Tactics of the Second World War, which has a big section on an anti-tank infantry tactics. I'll report back when I've read a bit more, but a quick skim suggests that infantry did best against armour in urban and mountainous terrain.
RE: Major concern: Armor
Posted: Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:13 pm
by SwampYankee68
ORIGINAL: NewBobolix
my two cents...yesterday night I was reading a Normandy book...US parà from the 101° were holding Carentan when some german tanks (alone without infantry) tried to counterattack in the bocage...
a good sergent took a man with a bazooka trying to stop the tanks knowing that it was very important to hold that position...
the sergent waited until the first tank of the line was quite close and shooted:
the first shot hit the turret and bounce away; at that point the other soldier would run away and retire but the "brave" sergent held him there...the tank has to climb over the bocage to advance and will have the unarmored part exposed to the bazooka so the sergent decide to have a coin flip situation: try a second shot to destroy the tank or die
the second shot hit the unarmored part of the tank while he was climbing the bocage and the tank is destroyed...the other 4 tanks decided to stop and retreat as they did not know how many bazookas were out there...
what if a platoon of germans were together with the tanks ?
take your conclusions...
Stephen Ambrose's Band of Brothers? If so that scene is in the miniseries and was unbelievable [:)]