Matrix Games Forums

Deal of the Week Da Vinci's Art of WarCivil War II Patch 1.4 public BetaHappy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets Updated
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

TANKS - models and damage

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Panzer Command: Kharkov >> TANKS - models and damage Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
TANKS - models and damage - 3/25/2008 11:22:07 PM   
Mraah

 

Posts: 1084
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline
I decided to start a new thread so we can put all ideas and comments about tanks and afv's into one group.
Note that this thread has begun before Karkov was released.

The first question I'd like to ask Mobius ;

1. How far advanced is the damage model compared to the Panzer War rules?

I'm asking this because (to me) it seems tanks blow up too much in PCOWS.
I would have thought the (D) value for FIRE (front hull) should be D+1 or +2. If you're trying to roll the (D) or greater to explode, it seems backwards in panzer war since the rear shot shows D+1 when it sounds like it should be D-1.

Thanks for listening!

Rob
Post #: 1
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/26/2008 2:51:38 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 8845
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
The first question I'd like to ask Mobius ;
1. How far advanced is the damage model compared to the Panzer War rules?

I don't actually know.
There might be some differences because of the campaign nature - bonuses for kills from guys with lots of medals.

The D is not the die roll. It is the goal number needed to be scored by the die roll. Thus a higher D means harder to do.
In PW there is more chance of an fire/explosion from fighting compartment penetrations than engine compartment.



(in reply to Mraah)
Post #: 2
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/26/2008 5:35:34 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 12194
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
Pretty much the only tanks not recoverable from the battlefield were those captured by the enemy and those that caught fire.

In the campaign everything else should be pretty much recoverable. Unless you model major engine or transmission failures into the campaign.

Good Hunting.

MR

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 3
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/26/2008 6:05:36 AM   
Stridor


Posts: 5074
Joined: 9/8/2007
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian

Pretty much the only tanks not recoverable from the battlefield were those captured by the enemy and those that caught fire.

In the campaign everything else should be pretty much recoverable. Unless you model major engine or transmission failures into the campaign.

Good Hunting.

MR



There is a chance of recovery after the battle based on the amount of damage the vehicle sustained.

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 4
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/26/2008 7:07:29 AM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 12194
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
I guess that depends on teh timeframe between battles in your campaign. The Germans and Americans were both very good at recovering AFV's and putting them back into service. Only rarely would a German AFV be written off it hadn't caught fire.

Good Hunting.

MR

(in reply to Stridor)
Post #: 5
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/27/2008 7:39:24 AM   
Mraah

 

Posts: 1084
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
There might be some differences because of the campaign nature - bonuses for kills from guys with lots of medals.

The D is not the die roll. It is the goal number needed to be scored by the die roll. Thus a higher D means harder to do.
In PW there is more chance of an fire/explosion from fighting compartment penetrations than engine compartment.


I went back to a battle (PCOWS) and reviewed front hull shots and looking more at the damage I was mistaken. Yes, perhaps when I did see alot of explosions from front hull hits it may have been a lucky die roll. Maybe there is a 'drivers compartment' in place because I did notice alot of MOB hits prior to the explosion.

You mentioned 'fighting compartment'. I'm curious, in PW the fighting compartment is the turret. I know that the hull contains ammunitions towage outside of the turret and below the turret in the turret basket. Also, in PW you have a section regarding more detailed hull location damage (9.5.5) however it relates to the side hull being penetrated. Does Karkov or OWS have such detail?

Anyway, the more I play the more I appreciate how well the damage model is done. I'm not complaining and I hope that as PC develops that more detail could be added, ie collateral damage, however it's all fine and dandy right now!!

Thanks,
Rob



(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 6
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/27/2008 8:04:45 AM   
Mraah

 

Posts: 1084
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline

Mobius and all,

Two more questions and/or suggestions.

AIMED FIRE - In the PW rules (9.20) you have the optional rule for aimed fire, aim high/low. I know in TOW they have this but since PW has been around for almost 30 years the idea isn't new.

I'd like to add to this. Since Karkov will indicate when a shot falls short and hits a location protected from a hull down status I would think a cumulative modifier for each subsequent shot is needed to allow the A/I to 'walk' the shots upward to the turret area. So, basically, a +1 modifier for the second shot, +2 for the third, etc. All in reference to the hit location. If a hull down status was blocking location 1-4, you can see that by the 4th shot it's going to guarrentee a hit.

PRIMARY/SECONDARY WEAPONS - In OWS you have a choice between using your main gun or the MG against your target. Basically, you have one target to fire at using either weapon. Has there been any thought about having the Main Gun as the primary and the MG as a secondary which could allow two targets to be engaged?

I know the Multi-turret issue was a problem in PC as well as in CM but you were both only allowing one target to be selected. I mean, can it be as easy as dividing two weapons into a Primary and Secondary and allowing different fire selections for each? This would also pertain to infantry squads, a squad with a LMG could fire long range at one target (primary) and use the small arms against a closer secondary target.

Thanks,
Rob

< Message edited by Mraah -- 3/27/2008 8:06:39 AM >

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 7
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/27/2008 9:05:28 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 8845
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
PRIMARY/SECONDARY WEAPONS - In OWS you have a choice between using your main gun or the MG against your target. Basically, you have one target to fire at using either weapon. Has there been any thought about having the Main Gun as the primary and the MG as a secondary which could allow two targets to be engaged?

I know the Multi-turret issue was a problem in PC as well as in CM but you were both only allowing one target to be selected. I mean, can it be as easy as dividing two weapons into a Primary and Secondary and allowing different fire selections for each? This would also pertain to infantry squads, a squad with a LMG could fire long range at one target (primary) and use the small arms against a closer secondary target.
A long time ago someone said that when HE is fired the MGs are also fired if in range. I don't know if this is still in effect or if it even is happening. In real life tanks would not bother to fire the coax because it required a distracting control by the gunner.
One reason I don't think the coax may be fired is because when I tried to make a two gun tank the main gun of the primary (first listed) main gun would use its HE (or even AP) on infantry targets and not the best HE if the other gun had a better HE shell.

yes, I aways wanted the LMG in a rifle squad to be able to use their LMG separately from the rifle armed rest of the squad like in PW. But things don't work that way in PC. All squad killpower in PC is a combination of rifles and LMG.



< Message edited by Mobius -- 3/27/2008 9:23:07 AM >

(in reply to Mraah)
Post #: 8
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/27/2008 10:01:09 AM   
Mraah

 

Posts: 1084
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
A long time ago someone said that when HE is fired the MGs are also fired if in range. I don't know if this is still in effect or if it even is happening. In real life tanks would not bother to fire the coax because it required a distracting control by the gunner.
One reason I don't think the coax may be fired is because when I tried to make a two gun tank the main gun of the primary (first listed) main gun would use its HE (or even AP) on infantry targets and not the best HE if the other gun had a better HE shell.


I'm sorry, I was thinking the Bow mg as a secondary weapon. I forgot the mg in PC is the coax.
I see, it's a matter of correct ammo usage then. Hmm, I hope you're still going to work out the kinks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
yes, I aways wanted the LMG in a rifle squad to be able to use their LMG separately from the rifle armed rest of the squad like in PW. But things don't work that way in PC. All squad killpower in PC is a combination of rifles and LMG.


I hope later when you guys develop your urban fighting that maybe you can divide the killpower into primary/secondary factors. It might prove usefull. An LMG can focus on a distant threat while the rifles can take care of any threat that might appear along the flanks, close range.

Rob



(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 9
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/27/2008 2:46:03 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32560
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline
Hi Mraah,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
1. How far advanced is the damage model compared to the Panzer War rules?
I'm asking this because (to me) it seems tanks blow up too much in PCOWS.
I would have thought the (D) value for FIRE (front hull) should be D+1 or +2. If you're trying to roll the (D) or greater to explode, it seems backwards in panzer war since the rear shot shows D+1 when it sounds like it should be D-1.


It's very similar - Mobius explained how the D numbers work (so that D+1 actually makes the location harder to destroy), but you can have non-catastrophic damage and tanks are abandoned due to cumulative damage, etc.


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Mraah)
Post #: 10
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/27/2008 3:05:48 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32560
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Pretty much the only tanks not recoverable from the battlefield were those captured by the enemy and those that caught fire.
In the campaign everything else should be pretty much recoverable. Unless you model major engine or transmission failures into the campaign.


At the end of the battle, we look at the damage each vehicle has suffered. In general, if a tank was destroyed and caught fire, there's a very good chance it's permanently lost. Everything less than that has a good chance of recovery, though tanks with multiple damage types (i.e. gun damaged, crew killed, tracks and engine shot up) have a worse chance to be recovered. We try to model the recoverable tanks as those you could reasonably expect back in the near future from the local repair area. Anything beyond that is modeled by the points system as a replacement.

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 11
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/27/2008 3:07:15 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32560
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
You mentioned 'fighting compartment'. I'm curious, in PW the fighting compartment is the turret. I know that the hull contains ammunitions towage outside of the turret and below the turret in the turret basket. Also, in PW you have a section regarding more detailed hull location damage (9.5.5) however it relates to the side hull being penetrated. Does Karkov or OWS have such detail?


I believe we used all the Panzer-War damage rules, but I'd have to check back with my notes on the question of more detailed side damage.


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Mraah)
Post #: 12
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/27/2008 3:10:09 PM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32560
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
AIMED FIRE - In the PW rules (9.20) you have the optional rule for aimed fire, aim high/low. I know in TOW they have this but since PW has been around for almost 30 years the idea isn't new.

I'd like to add to this. Since Karkov will indicate when a shot falls short and hits a location protected from a hull down status I would think a cumulative modifier for each subsequent shot is needed to allow the A/I to 'walk' the shots upward to the turret area. So, basically, a +1 modifier for the second shot, +2 for the third, etc. All in reference to the hit location. If a hull down status was blocking location 1-4, you can see that by the 4th shot it's going to guarrentee a hit.


This kind of cumulative to hit modifier was actually planned to be in, but didn't quite make the cut for this release. I think it will likely work better on larger maps as well, so put it on the list for the next release.

quote:

PRIMARY/SECONDARY WEAPONS - In OWS you have a choice between using your main gun or the MG against your target. Basically, you have one target to fire at using either weapon. Has there been any thought about having the Main Gun as the primary and the MG as a secondary which could allow two targets to be engaged?


Separately, you mean? Yes, but we decided against that for now. That will be necessary in the future, but right now they fire separately. The only time they fire together is if you target a soft target (such as infantry) with HE, then the MGs will automatically engage the same target too.

quote:

I know the Multi-turret issue was a problem in PC as well as in CM but you were both only allowing one target to be selected. I mean, can it be as easy as dividing two weapons into a Primary and Secondary and allowing different fire selections for each? This would also pertain to infantry squads, a squad with a LMG could fire long range at one target (primary) and use the small arms against a closer secondary target.


It could be done.

The infantry idea has actually already been discussed as well, but no final decision made.

Regards,

- Erik

_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Mraah)
Post #: 13
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/27/2008 5:04:51 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 8845
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
AIMED FIRE - In the PW rules (9.20) you have the optional rule for aimed fire, aim high/low. I know in TOW they have this but since PW has been around for almost 30 years the idea isn't new.

Not as the rule is written. But, better, more experienced tank crews have to-hit bonuses. And I think some kind of penetration bonus. I was just reading a new book "Panzer Gunner" by Bruno Friesen who says that good German tank gunners could target weak spots like near a hatch or cast armor parts of a tank where they thought the armor was on average 15% weaker. So maybe the PCK method is an improvement over PW/TOW high/low aim model.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
I'd like to add to this. Since Karkov will indicate when a shot falls short and hits a location protected from a hull down status I would think a cumulative modifier for each subsequent shot is needed to allow the A/I to 'walk' the shots upward to the turret area. So, basically, a +1 modifier for the second shot, +2 for the third, etc. All in reference to the hit location. If a hull down status was blocking location 1-4, you can see that by the 4th shot it's going to guarrentee a hit.

That is the bracket method. Usually done by low velocity guns or those with poor sights. I don't know if the obscurance of dust from a lot of hits in front of the hulldown target wouldn't cancel out any aiming pluses.
Also, the tanks usually watched the tracer and not so much where hits were happening because of other friendlies firing on the same target.


< Message edited by Mobius -- 3/27/2008 5:15:06 PM >

(in reply to Mraah)
Post #: 14
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/27/2008 8:39:07 PM   
James Crowley

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 6/10/2003
From: Chichester UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
I'd like to add to this. Since Karkov will indicate when a shot falls short and hits a location protected from a hull down status I would think a cumulative modifier for each subsequent shot is needed to allow the A/I to 'walk' the shots upward to the turret area. So, basically, a +1 modifier for the second shot, +2 for the third, etc. All in reference to the hit location. If a hull down status was blocking location 1-4, you can see that by the 4th shot it's going to guarrentee a hit.

That is the bracket method. Usually done by low velocity guns or those with poor sights. I don't know if the obscurance of dust from a lot of hits in front of the hulldown target wouldn't cancel out any aiming pluses.
Also, the tanks usually watched the tracer and not so much where hits were happening because of other friendlies firing on the same target.




Hmmm. I had assumed that some form of cumulative shot bonus was already included in PCoWS. I'm very surprised that it isn't in PCK either.

Contrary to Mobius's thoughts on it, I think that the notion of correcting a missed shot, and that next shot being more accurate, is fairly fundamental to tank gunnery in general.

Using the PZKpfw IV in the demo for PCoWs as an example (veteran); at 900 metres it needs an 8 or better to get a hit. That is only a 30% chance, all other factors being equal.

Tests have indicated that the 75/L43 was capable of first round hits 99% of the time under ideal conditions, for targets at 1000 m. An adjusted second shot, in the event of a miss, had a 77% chance of a hit. The point here is that, in-game, the PZKpfw IV only ever has a 30% chance of a hit at 900m, irrespective of the number of shots taken whereas in reality an adjusted second or subsequent shot had a better chance of hitting.

Without wanting to belabour the point, and given that Erik stated that it was originally slated to have been included in PCK, I would suggest that the absence of a cumulative shot 'bonus' is a flaw rather than simply the absence of a feature (like 1:1 infantry , for example) and should be considered for a post-release patch rather than an inclusion in the next release. But, of course, that is just my opinion.

_____________________________

Cheers

Jim

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 15
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/27/2008 9:22:26 PM   
Rick

 

Posts: 11837
Joined: 4/20/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Crowley


Tests have indicated that the 75/L43 was capable of first round hits 99% of the time under ideal conditions, for targets at 1000 m. An adjusted second shot, in the event of a miss, had a 77% chance of a hit. The point here is that, in-game, the PZKpfw IV only ever has a 30% chance of a hit at 900m, irrespective of the number of shots taken whereas in reality an adjusted second or subsequent shot had a better chance of hitting.




I'm confused, if it has a 99% hit chance for the first hit, but only 77% chance for and "adjusted" 2nd shot, doesn't that indicate that it has a lower chance of a hit for shots after the first?

Rick

(in reply to James Crowley)
Post #: 16
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/27/2008 10:34:13 PM   
James Crowley

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 6/10/2003
From: Chichester UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rick


quote:

ORIGINAL: James Crowley


Tests have indicated that the 75/L43 was capable of first round hits 99% of the time under ideal conditions, for targets at 1000 m. An adjusted second shot, in the event of a miss, had a 77% chance of a hit. The point here is that, in-game, the PZKpfw IV only ever has a 30% chance of a hit at 900m, irrespective of the number of shots taken whereas in reality an adjusted second or subsequent shot had a better chance of hitting.




I'm confused, if it has a 99% hit chance for the first hit, but only 77% chance for and "adjusted" 2nd shot, doesn't that indicate that it has a lower chance of a hit for shots after the first?

Rick


Sorry, that is only part of the story and does seem rather contradictory.

I quote (from Doyle and Jentz: PzK IV G,H and J 1942-45):

"the first number shows the accuracy that was obtained from controlled test firing to determine the pattern of dispersion (99). the second number (which should be 71 not 77) was calculated by doubling the dispersion obtained from controlled test firing. the Germans considered that 'double dispersion' was a close approximation of the accuracy obtained by troops, if they remained calm, in combat"

As I understand it, "the gunner could achieve the accuracy shown (71%) after adjusting his fire onto the centre of the target - if he remained calm", means that carefully taken subsequent shots had a high chance of hitting.

Contrasted against a permanent 30% chance to hit at that range (as per in game data) then there may be a case for having a subsequent-shot bonus of some sort.




_____________________________

Cheers

Jim

(in reply to Rick)
Post #: 17
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/27/2008 11:12:01 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 8845
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
"the first number shows the accuracy that was obtained from controlled test firing to determine the pattern of dispersion (99). the second number (which should be 71 not 77) was calculated by doubling the dispersion obtained from controlled test firing. the Germans considered that 'double dispersion' was a close approximation of the accuracy obtained by troops, if they remained calm, in combat"

The leaping from dispersion tests to live fire by the Germans is the problem.

1. The dispersion on the 75mm/L70 is 97% @ 1000m.
Dispersion is a physical limitation. You cannot correct this as it is a result of
variations of shell and charge manufacture and gun tube variation.
2. Live fire of British 17pdr @ 1000yds tank size target is 46% hit first round, 94% on second round.

When one introduces 10% range errors along dispersion according to
World War II Ballistics Armor and Gunnery by Bird and Livingston
3. Maximum hit probability of 75mm/L48 @ 1000m is 60%.
Maximum hit probability of 75mm/L48 @ 1250m is 35%.
Maximum hit probability of 75mm/L48 @ 1500m is 20%.
and that is under ideal lighting and level ground.

Now we head from test data to the real world.
Results of combat in Korea a 1954 US Army report indicates
At ranges of 751-1150 Stationary tank targets were hit
50%+/-18% with first shot.
55% +/-9% with all shots.
(Over 1150 this drops to 12% and 18%.)

PCOW has compressed some of the data so 900 would be equivalent of 1350m.


< Message edited by Mobius -- 3/27/2008 11:16:38 PM >

(in reply to James Crowley)
Post #: 18
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/27/2008 11:57:06 PM   
James Crowley

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 6/10/2003
From: Chichester UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
"the first number shows the accuracy that was obtained from controlled test firing to determine the pattern of dispersion (99). the second number (which should be 71 not 77) was calculated by doubling the dispersion obtained from controlled test firing. the Germans considered that 'double dispersion' was a close approximation of the accuracy obtained by troops, if they remained calm, in combat"

The leaping from dispersion tests to live fire by the Germans is the problem.

1. The dispersion on the 75mm/L70 is 97% @ 1000m.
Dispersion is a physical limitation. You cannot correct this as it is a result of
variations of shell and charge manufacture and gun tube variation.
2. Live fire of British 17pdr @ 1000yds tank size target is 46% hit first round, 94% on second round.

When one introduces 10% range errors along dispersion according to
World War II Ballistics Armor and Gunnery by Bird and Livingston
3. Maximum hit probability of 75mm/L48 @ 1000m is 60%.
Maximum hit probability of 75mm/L48 @ 1250m is 35%.
Maximum hit probability of 75mm/L48 @ 1500m is 20%.
and that is under ideal lighting and level ground.

Now we head from test data to the real world.
Results of combat in Korea a 1954 US Army report indicates
At ranges of 751-1150 Stationary tank targets were hit
50%+/-18% with first shot.
55% +/-9% with all shots.
(Over 1150 this drops to 12% and 18%.)

PCOW has compressed some of the data so 900 would be equivalent of 1350m.



Hi Mobius

I agree that in combat conditions the first time hit percentage would likely be lower than that obtained under test conditions.

My point is that, averagely, adjusted fire should yield a better chance for a hit.

I have never fired a tank gun but I have done a fair amount of shooting with a rifle (a good while ago!). The basic principle, I would have thought, is the same; provided you spotted where the first shot landed, one or two adjustments would usually get you on target. As you say, it may be that the first shot is obscured in some way but generally that principle holds up.

Without some form of subsequent shot bonus in PC, the firing unit is doomed to shoot with ony a fixed percentage chance of a hit, shot after shot, after shot. That just basically 'feels' wrong.

"PCOW has compressed some of the data so 900 would be equivalent of 1350m." Why is that?

_____________________________

Cheers

Jim

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 19
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/28/2008 12:06:42 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32560
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
My point is that, averagely, adjusted fire should yield a better chance for a hit.


I agree - that modifier did not make it in for this release. There's a small chance it will be possible for a post-release update, but it will definitely be in the next release.

quote:

"PCOW has compressed some of the data so 900 would be equivalent of 1350m." Why is that?


That was a deliberate decision to "spread the maps out" a bit. It makes the extreme range shots on the 1km maps a bit less accurate without affecting the <500m shots much at all. The net result is that despite the 1km x 1km size, the maps feel a bit larger tactically in terms of the ability to maneuver at long range without being immediately destroyed.

That distortion only really affects the longer range weapons and will be gone once we move to 2kmx2km and larger maps.

Regards,

- Erik


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to James Crowley)
Post #: 20
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/28/2008 12:47:37 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 8845
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: James Crowley
My point is that, averagely, adjusted fire should yield a better chance for a hit.
I have never fired a tank gun but I have done a fair amount of shooting with a rifle (a good while ago!). The basic principle, I would have thought, is the same; provided you spotted where the first shot landed, one or two adjustments would usually get you on target. As you say, it may be that the first shot is obscured in some way but generally that principle holds up.

The Germans captured many French 75mm field cannons in 1940. They also had captured a great amount of Polish 75mm AP shells that could be used by these weapons. Unfortunately the Polish 75mm AP shells had no tracer. When in 1941 the Soviet T34 showed up the 75mm guns were pressed into anti-tank service. It was found that these had to fire an extraordinary number of shells to score any hits. It took 20 or more per to take out targets. The problem was they could not correct for lack of tracer. They only had the position of where the shell landed to go on.

That may feel wrong too but it happened.

< Message edited by Mobius -- 3/28/2008 12:48:20 AM >

(in reply to James Crowley)
Post #: 21
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/28/2008 1:41:10 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 8845
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
quote:

"PCOW has compressed some of the data so 900 would be equivalent of 1350m." Why is that?


That was a deliberate decision to "spread the maps out" a bit. It makes the extreme range shots on the 1km maps a bit less accurate without affecting the <500m shots much at all. The net result is that despite the 1km x 1km size, the maps feel a bit larger tactically in terms of the ability to maneuver at long range without being immediately destroyed.
Unfortunately even at that range a T-34 can still pick off my PZIIIG running for cover but he can't do anything but annoy the T-34.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 22
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/28/2008 2:08:48 AM   
James Crowley

 

Posts: 377
Joined: 6/10/2003
From: Chichester UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

The Germans captured many French 75mm field cannons in 1940. They also had captured a great amount of Polish 75mm AP shells that could be used by these weapons. Unfortunately the Polish 75mm AP shells had no tracer. When in 1941 the Soviet T34 showed up the 75mm guns were pressed into anti-tank service. It was found that these had to fire an extraordinary number of shells to score any hits. It took 20 or more per to take out targets. The problem was they could not correct for lack of tracer. They only had the position of where the shell landed to go on.

That may feel wrong too but it happened.



Indeed, the French mle 1897 barrels, mated with Pak 38 or 40 carriages, to create a stop gap AT gun were only barely adequate for the task. The lack of tracer in the Polish rounds and it's negative effect on obtaining hits is interesting, I've not seen that before.

That said, these were low velocity pieces with a maximum effective AT range of 1900, suffered instabilty when fired and a high failure rate of the carriage so perhaps their lack of effectiveness was only to be expected.

Most tank guns, certainly from 1942 onwards, were high velocity and for ranges under 1200m, German gunnery exercises emphasised observing the impact of the shot. For ranges in excess of 1200, then the tracer became the primary method for observing the shot.

So for the majority of shots in PC, well under 1000m, the impact would be the predominant factor, with even the first round fired for effect rather than for acquisition. If the range had been acurately estimated from the onset, only fairly minor corrections would be needed to obtain a hit.

Not sure if any of this proves anything much either way, but it's all interesting stuff and makes sure that my collection of WW2 books gets a bit of an airing.

_____________________________

Cheers

Jim

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 23
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/28/2008 2:34:11 AM   
Erik Rutins

 

Posts: 32560
Joined: 3/28/2000
From: Vermont, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
Unfortunately even at that range a T-34 can still pick off my PZIIIG running for cover but he can't do anything but annoy the T-34.


Use Smoke.


_____________________________

Erik Rutins
Director of Product Development


For official support, please use our Help Desk: http://www.matrixgames.com/helpdesk/

Freedom is not Free.

(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 24
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/28/2008 3:44:59 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 8845
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
Unfortunately even at that range a T-34 can still pick off my PZIIIG running for cover but he can't do anything but annoy the T-34.

Use Smoke.

In the random campaign the hunter can turn out to be the hunted.

(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 25
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/28/2008 8:06:56 AM   
Mraah

 

Posts: 1084
Joined: 2/20/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins
Use Smoke.


Speaking of smoke ... the dust and debris and smoke from firing could also obscure the location of the first shot. We know that the US 76mm gun on the Sherman had this problem until they installed a muzzle break.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius
The Germans captured many French 75mm field cannons in 1940. They also had captured a great amount of Polish 75mm AP shells that could be used by these weapons. Unfortunately the Polish 75mm AP shells had no tracer. When in 1941 the Soviet T34 showed up the 75mm guns were pressed into anti-tank service. It was found that these had to fire an extraordinary number of shells to score any hits. It took 20 or more per to take out targets. The problem was they could not correct for lack of tracer. They only had the position of where the shell landed to go on.


You know, I was going to add a little personal 'glow' effect to the heavy shell to make a tracer effect but in light of what you said I'll hold off. It would be nice to have an individual tracer effect for each ammo type, but it's all eye candy and not a big deal.

Considering all the effects of accuracy (tracer,skill, debris, etc) it seems the idea of creating a realistic modifier isn't as simple as I would have thought!!!

Thanks,
Rob


(in reply to Erik Rutins)
Post #: 26
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/28/2008 9:20:46 AM   
Mobius


Posts: 8845
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
Considering all the effects of accuracy (tracer,skill, debris, etc) it seems the idea of creating a realistic modifier isn't as simple as I would have thought!!!

You are right. A lot of this is more art than science.

(in reply to Mraah)
Post #: 27
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/29/2008 6:37:59 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 12194
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mraah
PRIMARY/SECONDARY WEAPONS - In OWS you have a choice between using your main gun or the MG against your target. Basically, you have one target to fire at using either weapon. Has there been any thought about having the Main Gun as the primary and the MG as a secondary which could allow two targets to be engaged?

I know the Multi-turret issue was a problem in PC as well as in CM but you were both only allowing one target to be selected. I mean, can it be as easy as dividing two weapons into a Primary and Secondary and allowing different fire selections for each? This would also pertain to infantry squads, a squad with a LMG could fire long range at one target (primary) and use the small arms against a closer secondary target.
A long time ago someone said that when HE is fired the MGs are also fired if in range. I don't know if this is still in effect or if it even is happening. In real life tanks would not bother to fire the coax because it required a distracting control by the gunner.
One reason I don't think the coax may be fired is because when I tried to make a two gun tank the main gun of the primary (first listed) main gun would use its HE (or even AP) on infantry targets and not the best HE if the other gun had a better HE shell.

yes, I aways wanted the LMG in a rifle squad to be able to use their LMG separately from the rifle armed rest of the squad like in PW. But things don't work that way in PC. All squad killpower in PC is a combination of rifles and LMG.




The coax was mostly used for targeting. You would fire the coax if you had to time to give yourself some kind of an idea where the main gun round would hit.

That sounds funny today when we have computers that can get 90% first round hits.

Any coax usage against infantry targets would be if the main gun for some reason wasn't going to be used instead.

Where you could have two separate targets for onboard weapons systems is when the main gun is engaging a target and the bow MG has to defend the tank against an infantry attack. Those situations should be rare but not completely unheard of. The reason it would be rare is if the threat is that dangerous the main gun will soon be involved in resolving it.

The multi-turreted AFV's of WWII were such a bad idea that none were made past 1940 that I know of. So while there were some out there and they were used. I'm not sure that they could effectively engage a handful of targets effectively. The tank commander is in charge of the actions of the vehicle and I can't see him trying to target 2 or 3 targets at a time as something that could be done normally.

Good Hunting.

MR


(in reply to Mobius)
Post #: 28
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/29/2008 6:44:52 PM   
Mad Russian


Posts: 12194
Joined: 3/16/2008
From: Texas
Status: offline
Something to consider is the attention factor.

Fire at something on a battlefield and for the most part you get noticed. You draw attention to yourself.

Tanks are attention magnets. They are also fire magnets. Most infantry doesn't want to be within 20 meters of  a tank because that big target is going to take alot of incoming fire when things start to get hot. Or they want to be within 3 feet of it because they deal death and destruction...it's a double edged sword.

As for infantry splitting fire. Most infantry units at squad level won't. Again how many targets can the leader direct fire against?

In modern combat with fireteams as the lowest operational unit things are different.

The more fire you put out the more you can expect to get back. The bigger the threat you become the harder the enemy will try to neutralize you.

That's why most combat takes place at very close ranges. In WWII tank engagements averaged 400 meters or less. The German SOP for infantry combat was not to open fire at ranges greater than 100 meters.

You want the enemy close so you can do maximum damage in the shortest amount of time.

Not fire on a dozen different targets all over the map.

Good Hunting.

MR

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 29
RE: TANKS - models and damage - 3/29/2008 9:41:15 PM   
Mobius


Posts: 8845
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: California
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The coax was mostly used for targeting. You would fire the coax if you had to time to give yourself some kind of an idea where the main gun round would hit.
The British tried this with some post WWII Centurion models using a .50cal ranging MG. It had the same ballistics as the maingun out to maybe 600m. I don't think any tank used the 7.62/7.92mm MG for ranging.

It was used by the Israelis too during some Arab/Isreali war. I heard there was a case where Arab tankers bailed when the MG bullets started plinking on their tank, expecting a main gun round to be shortly arriving.

_____________________________

All your Tanks are Belong to us!

(in reply to Mad Russian)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Panzer Command: Kharkov >> TANKS - models and damage Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.123