AT guns

AT guns (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Panzer Command: Ostfront

Message

john688 -> AT guns (6/20/2011 8:36:41 PM)
Hi, really enjoying the game. Anyway I'm trying to take out an AT gun with a 50mm mortar and I get a "poor kill chance". What is the best way to take it out ?, I read it's Armoured at the front and soft on the flanks, Will HE have any effect on the armour if fired from the front ? Does HE cause splash damage if it's a near miss Will I have a better chance of a kill if I area fire ? Thanks

junk2drive -> RE: AT guns (6/20/2011 8:39:36 PM)
50mm are not very powerful. That said, yes there is splash damage and area fire may work better than direct. I will probably take a while though.

john688 -> RE: AT guns (6/20/2011 8:46:56 PM)
So if I area fire will it be v Armour or soft ?

Mobius -> RE: AT guns (6/20/2011 10:43:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: john688 So if I area fire will it be v Armour or soft ? It will be against armor but you can score top hits and side hits which will kill. Direct fire will take the AT guns out faster but you have the danger of them seeing the mortar teams. You can use area fire and not actually see the AT guns or be seen by them. Just get them in your area fire box.

john688 -> RE: AT guns (6/21/2011 6:24:27 PM)
Thanks

ComradeP -> RE: AT guns (6/21/2011 9:56:08 PM)
As this thread is about AT guns: how is the shell trajectory calculated for area fire using AT guns/AA guns in the AT role? It doesn't seem to be flat. I've tried area firing at the exact location of a T-34 and it didn't score a single hit even though the shell's trajectory seemed to be pretty flat and looked as if it should've passed "through" the T-34 in order to hit the ground where it did. It seems that, unless you can see the target, area fire with flat trajectory weapons against armoured targets doesn't really do much, even if the shells look like they're hitting the target.

Mobius -> RE: AT guns (6/22/2011 7:09:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP As this thread is about AT guns: how is the shell trajectory calculated for area fire using AT guns/AA guns in the AT role? It doesn't seem to be flat. I've tried area firing at the exact location of a T-34 and it didn't score a single hit even though the shell's trajectory seemed to be pretty flat and looked as if it should've passed "through" the T-34 in order to hit the ground where it did. It seems that, unless you can see the target, area fire with flat trajectory weapons against armoured targets doesn't really do much, even if the shells look like they're hitting the target. Area fire is an abstract attack on all units within the area fire zone. Every armored unit in the area has a similar chance of being hit. Which is pretty low, like 2-3%. The ballistic trajectory isn't used. The animation is only a marker that an attack is taking place.

ComradeP -> RE: AT guns (6/23/2011 12:36:35 PM)
Pity, that makes what I was trying rather pointless. It was a bit weird to be able to hit a location, but not see the enemy unit on that location, usually it's the other way around at the start of a phase (usually it goes like: I could see the target in the previous phase, but at the first sighting check the target disappears and I can't target the precise spot with area fire either).

Mobius -> RE: AT guns (6/23/2011 1:33:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP Pity, that makes what I was trying rather pointless. It was a bit weird to be able to hit a location, but not see the enemy unit on that location, usually it's the other way around at the start of a phase (usually it goes like: I could see the target in the previous phase, but at the first sighting check the target disappears and I can't target the precise spot with area fire either). That would allow a cheat. When relative spotting your guns could no longer spot a tank but your Overmind could determine the exact spot on the map a tank was at and throw shells at that point and the ballistics would allow the trajectory to pass through the tank.

ComradeP -> RE: AT guns (6/23/2011 3:18:13 PM)
Like I said, it's a bit weird that a gun is able to hit a location, but not the vehicle on that location. That alone doesn't make much sense. That's also why I don't think it would be a cheat: it's direct fire, not indirect fire. If you can see the ground at a certain location, you should most certainly be able to see the T-34 on that patch of ground, but that's not the case. It could also be argued that someone that can see the target could give directions to it, which is in some ways modelled by a sighting bonus if other friendly units can spot the target. Again: you're firing directly at an area that you can see, not indirectly, which would be cheating. It was just a really odd situation. After the T-34 turned only slightly, it was suddenly completely visible to the FlaK 36 crew.

Mobius -> RE: AT guns (6/23/2011 5:22:37 PM)
How realistic would it be to target a pebble, blade of grass or dirt clod at 1000 meters? That is what you would be doing if your guns were going to shoot at a specific spot of ground. It is accepted that the lower meter of a tank is more often hidden by grass or small ground folds over 1000 meters. So trying to hit a spot under the tank is not likely. In a computer game you can hover right over the tank's exact location so it may seem plausible but it isn't.

ComradeP -> RE: AT guns (6/23/2011 6:07:41 PM)
quote: How realistic would it be to target a pebble, blade of grass or dirt clod at 1000 meters? How realistic it is to be able to target such a pebble, blade of grass or dirt clod but not the T-34 on it, which you can't even see from that position, even though you can see the pebble, blade of grass or dirt clod on the exact same location? That's the situation I'm talking about.

Mobius -> RE: AT guns (6/23/2011 6:23:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP quote: How realistic would it be to target a pebble, blade of grass or dirt clod at 1000 meters? How realistic it is to be able to target such a pebble, blade of grass or dirt clod but not the T-34 on it, which you can't even see from that position, even though you can see the pebble, blade of grass or dirt clod on the exact same location? That's the situation I'm talking about. You can't. There is no direct fire at something small like that. You can area fire at something centered at an exact location but the point you lock the area fire on isn't any more likely to be hit than at the corner of the area 50 meters away.

Erik Rutins -> RE: AT guns (6/23/2011 6:25:06 PM)
Hi ComradeP, The logic with area fire and targeting an area is that you don't need to be able to see an area very clearly to know that it's there. You can see that there are woods, without knowing if there is a tank or infantry in them, similarly you can see a field in the distance but not the foxholes or the camouflaged tank amid the brush, etc. There are some corner cases where units are at the edge of visibility where the transition can definitely seem odd. The idea is that if you know enough about the position of the enemy to target them directly, you can see them. If you can't see them in the game, then your unit does not know enough about their current position to target them directly. Area fire always affects an area, it's not a ballistic model but rather a probability / blast area model. Regards, - Erik

ComradeP -> RE: AT guns (6/23/2011 6:31:31 PM)
quote: You can't. There is no direct fire at something small like that. You can area fire at something centered at an exact location but the point you lock the area fire on isn't any more likely to be hit than at the corner of the area 50 meters away. Hmm, OK, that's good to know. I was under the impression that the gunner would try to hit the exact spot you clicked on, but you're saying that's not the case? With "direct fire" I mean: flat trajectory. It's not artillery. The gunner is firing at something he can see. quote: There are some corner cases where units are at the edge of visibility where the transition can definitely seem odd. Yeah, I guess I just had my fair share of those odd transitions. In this particular case, according to what it could see in the setup phase, the FlaK 36 crew could see the T-34. In the first orders phase, it dropped out of sight but the ground it was standing on was still visible. When it pivoted slightly, it was suddenly visible again.

Mobius -> RE: AT guns (6/23/2011 6:47:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP Yeah, I guess I just had my fair share of those odd transitions. In this particular case, according to what it could see in the setup phase, the FlaK 36 crew could see the T-34. In the first orders phase, it dropped out of sight but the ground it was standing on was still visible. When it pivoted slightly, it was suddenly visible again. I think the sighting might be tweaked a bit to keep things in sight if they are fixated on. What happens now is that if something is stationary and not sighted and fires its flash and smoke can be sighted so it can be targeted. If something is moving it is easier to spot. Once it stops the motion no longer helps it to be spotted. If a gun decides to acquire a target that was briefly spotted that should help it keep it in sight as the gun is fixated on that target rather than just scanning the terrain.

Erik Rutins -> RE: AT guns (6/23/2011 7:34:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ComradeP quote: There are some corner cases where units are at the edge of visibility where the transition can definitely seem odd. Yeah, I guess I just had my fair share of those odd transitions. In this particular case, according to what it could see in the setup phase, the FlaK 36 crew could see the T-34. In the first orders phase, it dropped out of sight but the ground it was standing on was still visible. When it pivoted slightly, it was suddenly visible again. FWIW, the goal is to make those transitions less abrupt and jarring to the player. If you have a save that shows this, I'll include it in our review. Regards, - Erik

ComradeP -> RE: AT guns (6/23/2011 10:44:16 PM)
I sadly don't have a save. It happened half a dozen battles ago, I thought of it as the fairly common "your units can see something at the start of a phase, but it disappears a split second after you run the phase" at the time, although in this case I could actually still target the terrain. It would be great if the sometimes rough transition between what's visible in the planning part of a phase and what is visible at the start of a phase could be ironed out a bit, perhaps with a between phases (directly after you end one phase and move on to the next) sighting check that sticks until a few seconds in the new phase.

Erik Rutins -> RE: AT guns (6/24/2011 2:01:19 AM)
Agreed on that. I don't think we'll get that into the first update (another public beta coming soon, by the way), but I'd like to see it in the second one. Regards, - Erik

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.484375