Anti tank land combat phase?

Please post here for questions and discussion about scenario design, art and sound modding and the game editor for WITP Admiral's Edition.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by Dili »

I am checking the database and AT guns have all 2 for range. So does range not matter for land combat in direct fire? Or was this done to prevent AT guns bombardemnt action?
wdolson
Posts: 7648
Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Near Portland, OR

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by wdolson »

It was done to prevent them from bombarding. There also is no separate phase for anti-tank, it's rolled in with all the units firing on one another.

Bill
WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer
Image
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Dili

I am checking the database and AT guns have all 2 for range. So does range not matter for land combat in direct fire? Or was this done to prevent AT guns bombardemnt action?

As wdolson pointed out it is deliberate to prevent AT guns from participating in bombardment and counterbattery fire. Read my post in this thread

tm.asp?m=3701981&mpage=1&key=bombardment&#3702249

to get the specific details.

In addition to my post, you should also pay close attention to the posts made by Symon in that thread as they will provide the background information why US87891 gave you very correct advice in your other recent thread about joining into a single slot similar "land" and naval devices. When it comes to understanding how the code operates US87891 has had in the past direct access to the devs so whenever he contradicts anyone else's advice you should always adopt whatever US87891 recommends and completely reject the alternative advice.

Alfred
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by Dili »

Thank you both and for the link. Like i suspected. There is still reducing the soft effect to below 5.

Any idea of what are the pitfalls of changing AT guns device type from army weapon to squad, the objective is have more range differences?
US87891
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:31 pm

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by US87891 »

ORIGINAL: Dili
Thank you both and for the link. Like i suspected. There is still reducing the soft effect to below 5.

Any idea of what are the pitfalls of changing AT guns device type from army weapon to squad, the objective is have more range differences?
The pitfalls are many and they are fatal to anything running on the game system.

You seem to wish you can do all the things that the internet and internet historians suggest you can do. But this is a game system. It has its own rules and abstractions that make it work. You must understand the rules and abstractions and ignore the internet historico-irrelevancies.

If you can't deal with that, you shouldn't be asking open ended questions here. Either you want answers that help develop your mod, or you just want to trade historical factoids with others that are irrelevant to the game system.

In the first case, we can help you. In the second, I suggest one of the War-II forums out there.

Matt
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by Dili »

If i want to make an high speed AT gun have more range than AFVs with medium velocity gun i need to make it have more range than said AFV, that implies a range value of 3. Now i don't know if the game is granular at that level so i have to ask.

Is my question so offensive?



User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by Yaab »

Dili, here is some info from Symon, though I cannot locate the thread for it.

"First off, pretty much yes to kbf and moose. The “shooting” part of the combat algorithm takes place at a minimum of the magical 200 yard paradigm. It is there to for the express purpose of “conditioning” the assaulting force before it crosses “the last 200 yards” to hard contact; which is modeled in the “assault” phase. So there are no Molotov cocktails, sticky mines, suicide dogs, or suicide Toshi’s; just as there are no grenades, trench guns, K-bars, or C-4 (except for engineers).

This is an operational scale game. If one cannot deal with that on its own terms, then yes, one should go play Squad Leader or some FPS thing.

AT has not evolved much since the Grigsby original in UV. It has always been a bit strained but not susceptible to code manipulation – it’s too deeply embedded. But there is a bit of light on the horizon for them that might wish to use a mod.

Babes has a better Anti-Armor value for early squads predicated on the availability of AT rifles, like the Boys or the T-97. Some squads get better, over time, because of the Piat and Bazooka, other squads pretty much stay where they are. I’ll let you guess who does what.

One of the first things we did was normalize AT gun penetration stats to standard ranges. The bigger guns got penn rated at 1000 yards (or meters), the smaller ones at 500 yards (or meters). I believe our data was incorporated into the last comprehensive Stock update of 1108r9, but if not, it’s in AndyMacs updates and in all Babes scenarios.

But then there are the tanks themselves. GG used the largest value of frontal armor as the “armor” number for each of his AFVs. This value was propagated throughout all the subsequent versions of the game, including AE. Not all that goodnik when taken in conjunction with the 1000m/500m penn data.

Mike Osterhaut (some of you may remember MO) did a nice Device file for our personal games that addresses this issue. He has a tank armor algorithm that looks at front, side, side, back and comes up with a value that has been working for us for several years. We have also been aggregating certain Lt tanks, A/Cs, and ‘other’ AFVs into pairs in the data process. We also do not use HTs, Matadors, or other things like that. Our guns have LCs that intregally include their PMs. Extraneous vehicles do nothing but add to Sup cost and soak up fire. Sorry, Andy, but useless.

We could do this for the BabesLite scenarios, if you wish. What say you?"
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by Dili »

Thanks , i heve been looking at Babes, it has all AT guns have range 2 except one russian 45mm and one of the 2pdrs have range 1, others 2 pdr have 2 range too.

On AFVs i see range from 0-3, 3 is for Russian hvy assault guns and M36 Jackson Tank destroyer, so it was felt that a 90mm high velocity gun warranted a 3 range. Then there are AFV in all range brackets 2 range (M4 etc), 1 range (M3) and 0 range for some armored cars. This leads me to believe that range matters in AFV combat or at least between AFV's. The combat between army weapon and AFV is not so clear.
In stock for example there are AT guns in 3 range and with >5 anti soft so they do bombardement. If they are employed in bombardment phase they probably loose Op points and are not fresh in so called "shooting" phase.

Either way the problem is the soft combat. So i'll probably just degrade the anti soft to <5 and have 0-3 range like AFV's

If i have a Tiger tank with 3 range comparable to a M36 a 17 pdr AT should get a 3 range also, unless there are things we don't know.


el cid again
Posts: 16980
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by el cid again »

There is some evidence range does matter in combat between tanks. [I mean test data indicates
it matters in terms of AE program execution, whatever programmers may think. Even well organized
code often does not behave as expected by those who write it. Undocumented and poorly organized
code is even less likely to work the way a person who didn't write it thinks it does when simply
reading it - because of how it may interact with other parts of code not obvious to the reader.
I started at machine level, where this is even more of a problem than with high level code, and
trust me - it is SOP.] However, remember range is
in thousands of yards. As late as the 1973 Arab Israeli War tanks much more modern then those of
the WW2 era could (on the Arab side) were doctrinally limited to firing at 2000 yards. The IDF
was able to engage a gigantic force on the Golan with a single active duty tank brigade, consistently
firing to 3000 yards using a very simple 'fire control procedure' - point and shoot. A 2700 fps
(more or less) tank round is never more than about a foot above or below the line of sight out
to 3000 yards - so they aim as if all targets are right where you see them (no compensation, no need
to calculate elevation) - and simply don't shoot at greater ranges. This indicates that tank
combat really is generally in the 1 - 2 range area - particularly in the WWII time frame.



ORIGINAL: Dili

Thanks , i heve been looking at Babes, it has all AT guns have range 2 except one russian 45mm and one of the 2pdrs have range 1, others 2 pdr have 2 range too.

On AFVs i see range from 0-3, 3 is for Russian hvy assault guns and M36 Jackson Tank destroyer, so it was felt that a 90mm high velocity gun warranted a 3 range. Then there are AFV in all range brackets 2 range (M4 etc), 1 range (M3) and 0 range for some armored cars. This leads me to believe that range matters in AFV combat or at least between AFV's. The combat between army weapon and AFV is not so clear.
In stock for example there are AT guns in 3 range and with >5 anti soft so they do bombardement. If they are employed in bombardment phase they probably loose Op points and are not fresh in so called "shooting" phase.

Either way the problem is the soft combat. So i'll probably just degrade the anti soft to <5 and have 0-3 range like AFV's

If i have a Tiger tank with 3 range comparable to a M36 a 17 pdr AT should get a 3 range also, unless there are things we don't know.


Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Dili, here is some info from Symon, though I cannot locate the thread for it.

"First off, pretty much yes to kbf and moose. The “shooting” part of the combat algorithm takes place at a minimum of the magical 200 yard paradigm. It is there to for the express purpose of “conditioning” the assaulting force before it crosses “the last 200 yards” to hard contact; which is modeled in the “assault” phase. So there are no Molotov cocktails, sticky mines, suicide dogs, or suicide Toshi’s; just as there are no grenades, trench guns, K-bars, or C-4 (except for engineers).

This is an operational scale game. If one cannot deal with that on its own terms, then yes, one should go play Squad Leader or some FPS thing.

AT has not evolved much since the Grigsby original in UV. It has always been a bit strained but not susceptible to code manipulation – it’s too deeply embedded. But there is a bit of light on the horizon for them that might wish to use a mod.

Babes has a better Anti-Armor value for early squads predicated on the availability of AT rifles, like the Boys or the T-97. Some squads get better, over time, because of the Piat and Bazooka, other squads pretty much stay where they are. I’ll let you guess who does what.

One of the first things we did was normalize AT gun penetration stats to standard ranges. The bigger guns got penn rated at 1000 yards (or meters), the smaller ones at 500 yards (or meters). I believe our data was incorporated into the last comprehensive Stock update of 1108r9, but if not, it’s in AndyMacs updates and in all Babes scenarios.

But then there are the tanks themselves. GG used the largest value of frontal armor as the “armor” number for each of his AFVs. This value was propagated throughout all the subsequent versions of the game, including AE. Not all that goodnik when taken in conjunction with the 1000m/500m penn data.

Mike Osterhaut (some of you may remember MO) did a nice Device file for our personal games that addresses this issue. He has a tank armor algorithm that looks at front, side, side, back and comes up with a value that has been working for us for several years. We have also been aggregating certain Lt tanks, A/Cs, and ‘other’ AFVs into pairs in the data process. We also do not use HTs, Matadors, or other things like that. Our guns have LCs that intregally include their PMs. Extraneous vehicles do nothing but add to Sup cost and soak up fire. Sorry, Andy, but useless.

We could do this for the BabesLite scenarios, if you wish. What say you?"

The quote is post#72 in this 2014 thread.

tm.asp?m=3613543&mpage=3&key=Molotov&#3615957

The full thread should be read to put the quote into its proper context.

Alfred
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by Dili »

Thanks Alfred
US87891
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:31 pm

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by US87891 »

ORIGINAL: Dili

Thanks , i heve been looking at Babes, it has all AT guns have range 2 except one russian 45mm and one of the 2pdrs have range 1, others 2 pdr have 2 range too.

On AFVs i see range from 0-3, 3 is for Russian hvy assault guns and M36 Jackson Tank destroyer, so it was felt that a 90mm high velocity gun warranted a 3 range. Then there are AFV in all range brackets 2 range (M4 etc), 1 range (M3) and 0 range for some armored cars. This leads me to believe that range matters in AFV combat or at least between AFV's. The combat between army weapon and AFV is not so clear.
In stock for example there are AT guns in 3 range and with >5 anti soft so they do bombardement. If they are employed in bombardment phase they probably loose Op points and are not fresh in so called "shooting" phase.

Either way the problem is the soft combat. So i'll probably just degrade the anti soft to <5 and have 0-3 range like AFV's

If i have a Tiger tank with 3 range comparable to a M36 a 17 pdr AT should get a 3 range also, unless there are things we don't know.

Range does not matter in the direct fire sequence of the combat calculations. That bears repeating - range is irrelevant for direct fire in the AE game system. This is a hard and fast rule based on the code.

Whether AFV or AT, the range in the data field should be less than 3 so they are incapable of bombardment phase combat. If you see a range of 3, it is either an old data base, an old, unused, device, someone else's mod, or an error. So change it to 2. Immaterial if it's 1 or 2, since the field is not consulted other than to determine eligibility for bombardment. Once in direct fire phase, it just doesn't matter, as it all happens at once anyway.

Matt
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by Dili »

Thanks, but AFV range data i posted above is not an old database, it is daBabes database, so it was reviewed. Since it was done by persons that know more i was expecting it was correct.
It is easier to paste a 2 in range column in a spreadsheet than wasting time putting 3,2,1,0 ranges and choosing what receives what value.

Also always i have read here that to have bombardment there was need of 3 range and 5 soft damage. Can you confirm that 3 range only is enough for bombardment?

US87891
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Jan 02, 2011 1:31 pm

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by US87891 »

Babes had to deal with tens of thousands of individual data fields for ships, guns, squads, everything. Slipping up here and there is somewhat normal.

Bombardment is range 3 or greater, AND anti-soft greater than 5 (or maybe 5 or greater, I forget). But please don't screw with anti-soft values in order to play with your subjective anti-armor values. Anti-armor and anti-soft inform two separate combat calculations that have no relation to one another. Messing with one to fit the other will totally screw up the one while getting no real benefit for the other.

Tanks had MGs and that is the basis of their anti-soft. You can maybe (probably not) shoot a corporal with a 75 or 88. Rather you use the MGs and take down the 'squad'. Some of the smaller AT guns had very useful anti-personnel rounds and the doctrine to use them. This is the basis for some very nice anti-soft numbers for some. For the rest, they couldn't bombard, they couldn't realistically defend themselves against motivated infantry, and since range is an irrelevant parameter in this particular game combat calculation system, who cares what the range is? Why jerk one thing out of proportion just to have pretty numbers in a database, for another thing, that are ignored by the game code?

We have seen this so often. Please, please, don't make the mistake of thinking that personal belief, or subjective or objective reality from the internet (or research), has any bearing on how the game operates. The game model is as it is, and ever shall be, world without end. One must operate within it, or suffer the consequences.

Matt
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by Dili »

My insistence is because the game has almost 10 years, all this time it has been edited by developers, by people with code knowledge and then you after 8 years say the one of the game field data does not matter for direct fire land combat when everyone until now says it does or acted like it does because all databases have different ranges. Where am i to believe?

For range to matter there isn't need to have some elaborate combat phase, it might just need a modifier that gives more or less odds of an hit. I am sure that the game does that for artillery fire and counter bombardment fire. Unless range does not matter for artillery too?

My anti soft playing - decreasing its value less then 5 - was just to have 3 range and not have bombardment. It would happen to guns 75mm and over.
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by Alfred »

Dili,
&nbsp;
You aren't reading closely enough what US87891 is telling you.&nbsp; Nor for that matter are you absorbing what I said before.
&nbsp;
There is no inconsistency in what is being said.&nbsp; I don't see inconsistency with the DaBabes data you mentioned.&nbsp; The 90mm gun did not merit a 3 value because it is high velocity or because it might be employed against enemy tanks.&nbsp; It merited it simply because the scenario designer wanted it to participate in bombardment (provided it isn't classified as a DP in the game as the range threshold is then 15), assuming of course it isn't a mistake.
&nbsp;
You need to pay attention to who actually posts.&nbsp; You can largely disregard what most people post.&nbsp; Devs are always consistent but their replies are often somewhat casual and phrased in response to a particular question, thus you have to be careful in reading them (I refer to your other current issue re aircraft endurance) to not misinterpret them.&nbsp; Below the devs there are a few who carefully research dev comments and extract the principles contained in the dev comments; these people you can follow.&nbsp; As for the rest one has to be suspicious as to their value of their comments and how their mods cope with the AE game algorithms.
&nbsp;
Look at the type of device you want to appear and the role it plays within the game engine.&nbsp; As I understand what you are trying to accomplish, to a large degree it is irrelevant whether a tank has a 47, 75, 88, 105 or whatever gun size.&nbsp; What is important is that it is an AFV.&nbsp; All AFVs are used in the same context which is not bombardment.&nbsp; This is why your micromanagement is beyond what the game engine does.
&nbsp;
Alfred
Dili
Posts: 4713
Joined: Fri Sep 10, 2004 4:33 pm

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by Dili »

Ok but how it explains the consistent attributed ranges of 0km(tankettes and recon cars), 1km(M3 tank and other light medium to small tanks), 2km(M4 Sherman and other medium tanks) in other AFV's?
I suppose those that developed AE and daBabes know the land combat model.

Now the information regarding 90mm guns in daBabes, they are:
90mm M2 classified as DP with 16km range, 16 anti soft. So it bombards.
90mm M1 classified as AA with 4km range and 11 anti soft, so it bombards unless AA guns do not bombard.
The 90mm in M36 Jackson classified as AFV has 3km range and 21 anti soft. bombards unless AFV do no bombard.

M7 Priest and other armored SP artillery are not classified as AFV's in daBabes but as Army Weapon. Instead in stock they are classified as AFV.
el cid again
Posts: 16980
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 4:40 pm

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by el cid again »

It bears repeating that a sincere belief by someone reading code, or even by someone who wrote and/or
modified code, isn't always correct. In particular in the case of AE and its ancestors. But it is ALWAYS
true even with properly organized and "fully documented" code. The axiom of the senior programmer is
'test, test, test' to which sometimes he adds 'test again.' There are multiple reasons this can be the
case.

That said, I would not be surprised if what is asserted here is true - that range does not matter. It is
disappointing if true, and poor modeling. But it is a very simple model in most routines. However, it would
also not surprise me if it is NOT true. Possibly the data entry person was confused? Surely I assumed it
mattered - in part for Dili's reason - the database indicates it does. Also because it really does matter
and SHOULD have been in the code that way.
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Dili

Ok but how it explains the consistent attributed ranges of 0km(tankettes and recon cars), 1km(M3 tank and other light medium to small tanks), 2km(M4 Sherman and other medium tanks) in other AFV's?
I suppose those that developed AE and daBabes know the land combat model.

Now the information regarding 90mm guns in daBabes, they are:
90mm M2 classified as DP with 16km range, 16 anti soft. So it bombards.
90mm M1 classified as AA with 4km range and 11 anti soft, so it bombards unless AA guns do not bombard.
The 90mm in M36 Jackson classified as AFV has 3km range and 21 anti soft. bombards unless AFV do no bombard.

M7 Priest and other armored SP artillery are not classified as AFV's in daBabes but as Army Weapon. Instead in stock they are classified as AFV.

You are still not understanding what I posted in the linked thread and in this thread.[:)]

You need to forget about all this micro detail and just concentrate on what type of device it is. Do that and everything then becomes much easier.

1. Only artillery devices bombard. Only artillery devices counter-bombard. Reread my post in the linked thread and it specifically refers to artillery when providing the details re range and anti-soft values.

2. In AE, the artillery device is not written as artillery but as Army Weapon (or Army Gun).

3. In AE, the DP device combines both artillery and AAA characteristics. A DP device will operate as artillery if its specifications meet the conditions I listed in the linked thread and the situation brings into play artillery.

4. No other device is artillery.

(a) The M36 Jackson is AFV. It is not artillery so it does not participate in bombardments irrespective of what range or anti-soft value you give it. But if you try to assign it values to allow it to participate, or not participate, in bombardment you achieve nothing re bombardment BUT you will unbalance the other inputs into the combat algorithms.

(b) The 90mm M1 is AA. It is not artillery so it does not participate in bombardments irrespective of what range or anti-soft value it has. But if you try to assign it values to allow it to participate in bombardment you achieve nothing re bombardment BUT you will unbalance the other inputs into the combat algorithms.

(c) The 90mm M2 is DP. Does it have the values which I listed in the linked thread? The answer is yes and therefore in a situation where artillery is in play, this particular DP would unleash its artillery characteristics into the bombardment algorithms. But if either its range or anti-soft value was below the threshold values I listed, it would not be seen by the code as having artillery characteristics and therefore does not bombard.

5. Differences in values between devices of the same device type, represent qualitative characteristics of those devices within the same type, essentially engaging in combat with each other. The devs have access to the code and know how those qualitative differences can be represented to a limited extent in AE.

The quote from Symon, which I warned needed to be read in the context of that thread link I provided goes to this issue. Now if that is not good enough for you then tough and the points raised in his various posts in this thread by US87891 make it clear you will be producing something not compatible with the algorithms. Your mod will then produce unhistorical results. After all, just how many weapons are you planning to incorporate in your mod which are not already found in the AE official or DaBabes scenarios. To change the values for weapons already found in those scenarios, values determined by the devs with full knowledge of the game, risks unbalancing your mod

Alfred
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: Anti tank land combat phase?

Post by Yaab »

Alfred, great analysis.

I would add point 2b saying that for an Army Gun/Weapon to bombard it has to have range 3 and anti-soft rating of 5. Many mortars are Army Guns/Weapons but do not have the range to effect bombardment.
Post Reply

Return to “Scenario Design and Modding”