Combat Routines

Weasel · #1 July 21st, 2005, 06:52 PM

I was wondering how much the combat routines have been reworked in this version. The reason for asking are several oddities I have noted that have me scratching my head. The first was when I hit an M113 from the side with a Milan and it failed to penetrate? The second was when my SA-8, which had not moved from game setup, just sat there and watched a non SEAD aircraft fly right over him and kill one of the arty units he was suppose to be protecting. Third was once again an M113 that took mulitple hits on the top from an aircraft firing 57mm rockets with no effect. And lastly was a SPAAA unit that took two hits from a 125mm gun, each penetrating for over 70 points without doing any damage to the vehicle. The SPAAA that very same turn shot down my helo.

Just trying to determine if this is correct according to the new combat routines, or do I just have really crappy luck.

Pyros · #2 July 21st, 2005, 08:02 PM

Hi Chris,

Just a small question...

Did you experience these in a pbem or in a solitaire battle?

If you experienced these in a pbem then perhaps it isn't the fault of your "crappy" luck...

cheers,

Stirling · #3 July 21st, 2005, 09:10 PM

These things aren't new to this version of SP. There have always been combat results that are absurdly unrealistic due to the abstraction of the game (every computer game is an abstraction, at best--even simulations).

I quit playing SPWAW because I got sick and tired of 76mm rounds routinely bouncing off of halftracks. SPMBT and SPWW2 seem to be much better in this respect. If an outcome is especially egregious, I just assume something happened that the UI isn't refined enough to tell me (i.e. a missile was a dud when all the game can tell me is that it didn't penetrate).

Still, there are some results that I just have to hold my nose and try to ignore. Fortunately these are pretty rare.

Weasel · #4 July 21st, 2005, 09:14 PM

It was in PBEM. I am not *****ing about the game, I just know that after 250 games that in the DOS version the AAA would have fired, and the M113 would be long dead.

Thus the question, were the combat routines changed etc. I have noticed that some players are stating that the MBTs are not as tough in winMBT as in the DOS version, especially the M1. I have not noticed this yet myself but it does lend itself to my question.

DRG · #5 July 21st, 2005, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Weasel said:
I was wondering how much the combat routines have been reworked in this version. The reason for asking are several oddities I have noted that have me scratching my head. The first was when I hit an M113 from the side with a Milan and it failed to penetrate? The second was when my SA-8, which had not moved from game setup, just sat there and watched a non SEAD aircraft fly right over him and kill one of the arty units he was suppose to be protecting. Third was once again an M113 that took mulitple hits on the top from an aircraft firing 57mm rockets with no effect. And lastly was a SPAAA unit that took two hits from a 125mm gun, each penetrating for over 70 points without doing any damage to the vehicle. The SPAAA that very same turn shot down my helo.

Just trying to determine if this is correct according to the new combat routines, or do I just have really crappy luck.

Sometimes the random number generator (RNG) throws you odd results. Not becasue it is broken but becasue it just spit's out a string of high or low results ( i.e. "really crappy luck"). Call it one of the "quirks" of the game and we are aware of it and try to keep it under control which is why you don't see "76mm rounds routinely bouncing off of halftracks" in SPww2 and WinSPMBT

As for the "my SA-8, which had not moved from game setup, just sat there and watched a non SEAD aircraft fly right over him and kill one of the arty units he was suppose to be protecting." ....an SA-8 has a 30 hex MINIMUM range and if it doesn't see the aircraft until it's 29 hexes away it will sit there and do nothing becasue there wasn't enough time to lock onto the target and launch ( or in some cases that distance is required to arm the WH so it's more a function of time required rather than range needed but it ends up the same thing either way . Some of the large SAM's need even more than that to engage a target)

Don

Weasel · #6 July 22nd, 2005, 04:07 PM

I didn't know that about the SA-8, which sure as hell explains it. Thanks.

Marek_Tucan · #7 July 23rd, 2005, 05:02 AM

I have a similar question, I have noticed quite often that HEAT rounds get lower (in some cases much lower) penetration than is their OOB value (I have already seen 125mm HEAT hit with pen of 9)... In some cases the things go opposite, the HEAT would without being given the report of "weak point" get a higher pen... What is the mechanism behind this?

JaM · #8 July 23rd, 2005, 07:34 AM

My opinion is that they get low becouse sometimes HEAT warheadhas problems to detonate properly, so penetrating plasma is not so strong.
"Weak point" is very good idea. There is not a tank that has solid protection over complete frontal arc. There are allways some spots whitch are weaker - mantlet,upper front turret, lower hull etc... Game dont have mechanism to simulate those parts of tank profile.So there is allways good chance to hit something that is not so good armored than rest of the turret or hull.

Marek_Tucan · #9 July 24th, 2005, 09:08 AM

In one of my few PBEM games I got a pointblank combat between T-'s and it seemed that both sides have already depleted their HEAT stock... So it was purely a matter of weak points...

Got there one of my T's hit in the front turret by a mm AP (pen IIRC), that got another of weak point... The tank somehow managed to survive

But a bit suppressed