Odd AI Behavior

[DRG]

1, 2 and 3..... when you get a save game everyone can look at, do post it

4. That's your experience. Other will say without the pivot their tank would have taken a side shot. This is not going to change.

Don

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by DRG

1, 2 and 3..... when you get a save game everyone can look at, do post it

I have attached a .ZIP file with a save in it. Background information is listed below to try to help understand what was occurring at the time. The game was a save for an ongoing campaign.

With respect to item #2, at locations (70,70), (70,71), (70,72) and (70,73), the AI had four British Valentine III tanks positioned. Those bolted out heading West. One can still be seen heading West at location (59,71). At locations (70,49), (70,51) and (72,49), the AI had three British Grant I tanks positioned. They started out briefly Southwest and then also turned West. One of those Grant I tanks can be see heading West at location (64,54). Numerous infantry positions also appear to have been abandoned by units heading west.

This all started after my units engaged two 40mm Bofors in the enemy rear area. The Valentines started moving when I attacked the first AA gun. Then the Grants started to move.

Additionally, it might be possible to validate item #1. As mentioned, the Valentine tanks headed West. The one tank still visible to me might have passed through a mine field to get to it's present location at (59,71). It is West of a mine hex at (61,72). I can't tell if the line of mines continued North and was consequently in the path of the Valentines, but you might be able to.

4. That's your experience. Other will say without the pivot their tank would have taken a side shot. This is not going to change.

Don

It probably varies with tactics employed. I try to be respectful of the AI guns and engage at a distance, which makes most shots against some frontal aspect of the target. With stronger tanks mixing with the enemy at close range, flank shots are more likely. Since it depends on tactics and equipment used, I can understand not changing it.

[RERomine]

Just to see what would happen, I pretty much holed up my force where they were in the enemy rear and zipped through the remaining turns of the battle.

In the post battle review, I found the most of the AI tanks milling around in what would have been my rear area if I had any units back there. Some were literally three hexes from the back edge of my side. Most of the AI infantry moved out as well. Only ATGs(4), AA(1), mortars(1) and bunkers(3) were around the objectives. Everything that moved abandoned the objectives. I had my whole battalion close by but could have taken the objectives with a platoon.

As a follow-up on item #1, the that mine field hex I mentioned was the Northern most in that line, so the Valentines don't appear to have passed through them.

[PopskiPPA]

Regarding auto pivot
How about teaching the AI not to present 12 o'clock but 11 or 01?
Just like the drivers of a Tiger were taught, show the corner, not the front (for Tigers it was 10:30 and 01:30).
This adds 15% to the front armor and doubles the side armor. It protects the front and all hits to the side should glance off.

Maybe a check could be implemented if the front armor is a lot stronger than the side armor (e.g. Panther) and then decided if it's better to present the front or the corner.

[gila]

Originally Posted by PopskiPPA

Regarding auto pivot
How about teaching the AI not to present 12 o'clock but 11 or 01?
Just like the drivers of a Tiger were taught, show the corner, not the front (for Tigers it was 10:30 and 01:30).
This adds 15% to the front armor and doubles the side armor. It protects the front and all hits to the side should glance off.

Maybe a check could be implemented if the front armor is a lot stronger than the side armor (e.g. Panther) and then decided if it's better to present the front or the corner.

Would any tank crew under fire have time to adjust to optimum angle?I think panic and self preservation would be the first reaction(knowing the 2nd or 3rd could be a kill shot) and they would quick move to frontal position, and pray!

[PopskiPPA]

Originally Posted by gila

Would any tank crew under fire have time to adjust to optimum angle?I think panic and self preservation would be the first reaction(knowing the 2nd or 3rd could be a kill shot) and they would quick move to frontal position, and pray!

At least that's what written in the manual of the Tiger and the Panther (Tigerfibel, page 84 and following, Pantherfibel, page 5 and following, readily available on the net).

The manual of the Tiger teaches the driver to present the corners (10:30 or 01:30). This makes the hull invulnerable even against 15,2cm (says the manual).

The manual of the Panther teaches the driver to present the front (12). Actually any angle between 11 and 01 makes the Panther invulnerable (says the manual).

If the enemy is located more than 30° (Panther) or 45° (Tiger) off, then it's faster to present a corner. Most German tanks were able to turn on the spot (all the late ones I think).

So we have the Tiger with an almost even armor distribution and the Panther as example for a very uneven distribution. The Tiger hugely benefits, the Panther is not more vulnerable from showing the corner (hits on the Panther side should ricochet and the line of sight thickness of the armor is doubled).

That's why I proposed 11 and 01 (Panther) and not 10:30 and 01:30 (Tiger) as a simple solution, it should be better for all kinds of armor distribution.

The actual armor distribution is in the database, so it should be no big problem to calculate the "perfect" angle for each tank. That angle should be taught to the (real life) crew during training, in my opinion.

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by gila

Would any tank crew under fire have time to adjust to optimum angle?I think panic and self preservation would be the first reaction(knowing the 2nd or 3rd could be a kill shot) and they would quick move to frontal position, and pray!

That's where training comes into play. Under pressure, trained troops will generally react instinctively to their training, suppressing self presevation. Generally militia units tended to run when trained units would hold fast when faced with the same risks.

As for angling Tigers when engaging the enemy, I had heard that before. That's why I started looking at it in the game since I knew it did take into account engagement angles when calculating armor penetration.

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by PopskiPPA

Regarding auto pivot
How about teaching the AI not to present 12 o'clock but 11 or 01?
Just like the drivers of a Tiger were taught, show the corner, not the front (for Tigers it was 10:30 and 01:30).
This adds 15% to the front armor and doubles the side armor. It protects the front and all hits to the side should glance off.

Maybe a check could be implemented if the front armor is a lot stronger than the side armor (e.g. Panther) and then decided if it's better to present the front or the corner.

From a programming perspective, it opens a can of worms to try to code specifically for one type of tank. As Don mentioned, what I was seeing was based on my experience. I'm playing a German campaign and am currently in North Africa. I did some test firing against of a British 2pdr against a Pzkw IIIe. At a 30 degree angle, 61% of hits deflected, while at a 0 degree angle 26% of hits deflected. Hits that didn't deflect penetrated doing damage or killing the target. So what I was seeing is true.

But lets look at the tank I tested. It has hull armor of 3 all around and the turret front is 5 and sides and rear 3. With a tank like that, it benefits from the artificial slope my 30 degree angle created. That's because the hull armor on the front and side are the same. Odds are, the turret will be turned toward the enemy so that's not a factor.

Now, lets look at a tank like the Panther A. It has front hull armor of 14 with sides and rear of 5. Without doing the math, I have to believe that my 30 degree angle is not going to generate a ballistic thickness for the side that occurs with the frontal armor and it's normal slope at a 0 degree angle.

With that, there is one instance where the angle helps and one where it doesn't. More than likely, considering tank design focused on making frontal armor significantly thicker than side and rear armor as the war went on, the auto pivot helps more than it hurts. It's a matter of knowing your equipment and doing what you can with it. As long as I have tanks with armor on the front, sides and rear that are close, I will impart the angle before I take my shots. When the frontal armor starts being significantly thicker than my side and rear armor, then I will face my enemy straight on before I fire. And all of this only matters if you are trading shots with one enemy tank. When there are dozens returning shots at you, auto pivot or manually setting the angle won't matter. Someone is going to get a sweet shot at you.

[PopskiPPA]

Originally Posted by RERomine

[snip] As Don mentioned, what I was seeing was based on my experience. I'm playing a German campaign and am currently in North Africa. I did some test firing against of a British 2pdr against a Pzkw IIIe. At a 30 degree angle, 61% of hits deflected, while at a 0 degree angle 26% of hits deflected. Hits that didn't deflect penetrated doing damage or killing the target. So what I was seeing is true.

[snip]

Now, lets look at a tank like the Panther A. It has front hull armor of 14 with sides and rear of 5. Without doing the math, I have to believe that my 30 degree angle is not going to generate a ballistic thickness for the side that occurs with the frontal armor and it's normal slope at a 0 degree angle.

A 30° angle (towards enemy) adds 2 to the front armor of 14 and doubles the side armor from 5 to 10. Side hits come in at an angle of 60° and should ricochet very often, as you experienced (just like me).

I would (and I do in the game) angle my tank and pray that the auto pivot does not kick in, especially when the range is such that the enemy round is just barely able to penetrate the armor. On the other hand I'm praying for my opponent to present the full front, which is the stupidest thing to do for that crew...

The probability of a side hit should be very small compared to a frontal hit as there is only a little bit of the side visible, so I'm taking the chance (and counting on ricochets). I hope the game takes this into account when determining if it's a front hit or a side hit.

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by PopskiPPA

A 30° angle (towards enemy) adds 2 to the front armor of 14 and doubles the side armor from 5 to 10. Side hits come in at an angle of 60° and should ricochet very often, as you experienced (just like me).

I would (and I do in the game) angle my tank and pray that the auto pivot does not kick in, especially when the range is such that the enemy round is just barely able to penetrate the armor. On the other hand I'm praying for my opponent to present the full front, which is the stupidest thing to do for that crew.

The shot coming from marginal penetration range is what makes the angling work for the tanks I'm using. If the ranges is too close or the enemy's gun is so big it doesn't matter, the angle isn't going to help and in reality would hurt. In reality, an angled tank presents a larger visible target to be hit and should be hit more often. A 0 degree angle presents the smallest possible target to the firing unit.

The probability of a side hit should be very small compared to a frontal hit as there is only a little bit of the side visible, so I'm taking the chance (and counting on ricochets). I hope the game takes this into account when determining if it's a front hit or a side hit.

Hit probability on the side is going to depend on the angle you set. With the Pzkw IIIe tanks I tested, assuming 0 degree armor sloping (not sure what it really is), a 45 degree angle to target should be best as it will create a ballistic armor balance between the side and the front since both are 3. In that case, the side should be hit more often than the front simply because there is more side to a tank than front.

As far where hits actually landed, I didn't get into those kind of details when I ran my test. I set the range and angle of the target and fired. Tracked were if the shots deflected or penetrated. On the angled tank, I didn't check to see where the deflected shots actually hit (front or side, turret or hull). Also, I didn't check to see how many shots missed as that can be influenced by the gun firing and the crew experience. It would be possible to check to see if an angled tank gets hit more often, but that was more than I was looking to see. In the case of the Pzkw IIIe, even if shots hit twice as often, it still would have had a better survival rate than taking shots straight on. That's just this one tank, however. It will vary with different tanks as will the optimum angle. That's where it becomes a programming nightmare to figure out and I wouldn't bother with it.

One thing that did seem to occur and this may be more perception than reality was, during a firing sequence, kills seemed to be more frequent after a damage penetrating hit occurred. In reality, if a tank is penetrated, the overall armor integrity would be compromised. Armor fractures, weakening it. If it's welded as opposed to cast, seams break. A kill would be more likely on subsequent hits. I didn't track it, however. It just seemed that way and I don't know if that aspect is incorporated into the game. If it's not, I'm not asking for it. It was just my perception.