• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

The tank combat is outrageous.

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#121
Sgt.Rock said:
The reason why all the lettering is whited out is because you have Anti Aliasing forced on. I sometimes leave mine on.


Infantry combat may not be on a single unit basis, but its definantly there and important.

Its not turned based either. Yes there is a period when everything is stopped and it lets you give orders, but theres also 60 seconds of unpredictable and uncontrollable combat in real time.

I would definantly say that CM's armour system is extremely more in depth than RO's.


On topic. The fact is, the average engagement ranges in RO are small enough that even if a T34 angles, its armor is to weak (45mm is very thin) to keep rounds from penetrating. Angle me at your 11, I should be able to put a round into your front side, angle me at a 45, I should be able to put a round through your side.

The IS2's should be able to be penetrated in the front turret easier. Anything in the center and lower should penetrate because of its shot trap.

Immobilization should occur much more, tracks are not the only thing that can be hit to cause immobilization. Roadwheels, suspenion, anything that has to do with the engine. If I put an HE round anywhere down there, something is bound to blow off, and if I put an AP round down there, Its going to penetrate and tear through enough to stop the tank.
Click to expand...

The Sarge here makes a good point about engagement ranges. They are VERY close in RO. Closer than you think. For proof of this, try playing on Mormengil's tank range or play a few rounds of Orel and adjust your tank gun's sights. You'll start to learn where the 500m mark is, where 750-800 is, and the vaunted "OMG!! I GOT A 1000m KILL!!" mark is. 1000m is very very VERY far. I don't even think the TW original tank maps (barashka, Bondarevo, Arad) are actually 1000m long. Certainly they don't have even 700m visible ranges.


What this raises is the issue of TRULY realistic penetration. Trust me, on a map like Arad or Barashka where your max effective range is gonna be maybe 600-700m at most, you do NOT want realistic penetration. It'll just be hammers vs. eggshells and it won't be fun at all.

Bottom line: if you want truly realistic tank combat, you need truly realistic tank MAPS first. If all they did was change the penetration values, people would truly hate tank maps made by TW.
 
Upvote 0
#122
Solo4114 said:
Bottom line: if you want truly realistic tank combat, you need truly realistic tank MAPS first. If all they did was change the penetration values, people would truly hate tank maps made by TW.
Click to expand...

that's a good point. what CMBB and CMAK have to offer is realistic ranges that tanks engaged at. heck, and Prochorovka, the Germans started wasting soviet tanks at 1800 meters!

as far as capturing WWII combat accurrately, I think the CM series has RO:O beat by a long margin. however, as many others have said (best said by OfficerMeatBeef) the games are very different in terms of what they are trying to achieve.

strangely enough, I found myself playing way more CM this past weekend than RO. not sure why. RO is still fun though, and the TWI guys have sure come a long way with adding tanks to a infantry FPS world. :)
 
Upvote 0
#123
I was actually reading this topic just out of interest in tank combat behaviour. I always thought that at the short ranges as in RO nearly any hit would be a kill. Especially larger guns would literally shoot through anything opposing them no matter what angle or slope.

I am amazed by some of the comments of people about CM. Especially by those who do not know what they are talking about.
As a CM scenario designer I can tell that RO can learn a lot from both CM armor modelling and maps. CM is capable of hyper realistic historical combat simulation. I use original era WW topo maps and physically visit the areas I picked for my scn design. I have hardly come across any limitations in CM to get those scns historical.
It would be great to see some of these maps recreated as RO maps, as then one could literally step into an historical setting. however the scale of RO is probably too small. CM maps are several square miles with units up to company or even batallion size. Nevertheless some smaller scns could well be suited. Unfortunately my own scns are all Western Front based, but some CMBB scns would make an interesting source.

Uffz_Huib
 
Upvote 0
#125
Letum said:
I Have never had any problem with the armor system apart from the tracks never blowing off.

I allways angle my tank at ~45* to the enemy and around 60% of the shells bounce off - its the way it should be and it encourages players to think insted of just pointing and clicking:)

I allmost allways get penetration at ~90* or ~270* (i.e. the sides!)
Click to expand...


I am no tank expert. But I think what the gentleman is refering is that a hit on the flank at an angle seems to make the tank invulnerable or at least more so than a hit directly head on against the frontal armor which is suppose to be the strongest armor on a tank.

I played Arad last night and could not penetrate a flank on a tiger that was angled. But give me a head on shot I killed three tigers last night with a t34 - and was very surprised by this.

I do not complain, the game is the game and I just try to do the best I can with what the game provides.

But it does make me question how realistic this is for the angled shots to the flank to be stronger than shots head on to the frontal and strongest armor on the tank.

But again, I am not a tank expert nor claim to be.
 
Upvote 0
#126
I do like RO:OST because it's re-awakened my interest in WWII and it is just plain fun. I get to turn infanty into red soup with my StuG or SU-76. But what I did not expect was a 100% accurate simulation. The main reason is that I don't think anyone has ever created a 100% accurate model of armour penetration, that has been rigorously proven.

From different threads on these forums, I have discovered about the d/T ratio, which I understand came about from post-war testing. I've learnt about how the Ballistic Cap actually helps to defeat sloped armour. I've read about how quality of armour production varied over the period of the was, resulting in different "strengths" of armour for the same hulls. And how modern tank armour and anti-tank projectilles use a different area of material science. We know a hell of a lot more about material science now than we did in the 40s or 50s.

All this and more just makes me more convinced that no model will be 100% accurate. And that ever if it were, we would never know it. :p

I've been looking at some of data on at www.tarrif.net/ (WWII Online:BE) for the T34/76. The APBC will defeat upto 67mm of armour at 100m. And the StuG F has 50mm + 30mm of armour (and the RO:OST manual gives it as 80mm). This seems to back up the CM model. :eek:
And doesn't this mean that a T34/76 has to get to 100m of less and has to hit the lower hull on the side? :(
I know that in RO:OST a T34/76 can kill a StuG with 1 straight line, head-on shot at 300m+, and sometimes the "same" shot bounces off. :confused:
I know that a PzIII can kill an IS-2 at 750m with a single APCR round, which seems unbelievable, but possible according to WWII Online:BE. :eek:

Beyond having to know when I should get my StuG out of there, and when I can blaze away, I hate to admit it, but I don't really care.:eek::D
I do know that I don't want it too realistic, or else I wouldn't be able to stop my StuG while it was tilted sideways on a slope, and get a first time hit on a T-34 at 800m+ in under 5 seconds. I'm sure that it wouldn't have been that easy IRL. :D

EDIT: And Lonestar, the WWIIOL:BE data says that a T34/85 will start to go through the front armour of a Tiger at some point below 500m, when using APBC. My guess would be 300m. Depending on how you play, most engagment ranges in Arad are 300m or less. The T-34/85 was developed, after Kursk, in response to the Tiger. But 300m is still very close to get to a Tiger. An APCR shell (which we don't use in RO:OST) should extend that range out to 700m. But how will we even know for sure??
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#129
There is one big difference between RO and CM, and this is the Control of the Units, and their quality. In CM every Unit is controlled by the AI which determines if it can hit under the specific Condition (Range, LOS, Elevation, Visibility etc.), while in Ostfront its the Player's Skill deciding that, and since every Player can learn out of their Erros (cause you "live" more than once). Players tend (well you can, but some never grasp it) to get a lot better than the AI in CM.
A good Crew in RO can hit a standing target, on the first Shot on 1,000 Meters (where targets are actually on half the Size as they would be in RL, due to screen compression, which makes this actually a 2,000m Shot from the difficulty), while a very good one can do that on a moving Target.


And since angling improves upon the Defensive Profile, you see it more often in Ostfront than CM, since the AI ain't programmed to angle. Angling helps in CM too, try it if you want.


P.S.
The max engagement Range on Arad is between 800 to 900m
CM has T34/76s that can't penetrate the Flank of a Tiger and RO has bouncing Tiger shots of a T34 on 100m, so both Systems have their kinks, the only difference is that RO is the first Retail Game of Tripwire, while CM:AK is one of several Releases...
 
Upvote 0
#130
Different tactics on different enemy.

Light tanks, must never duel.. they must avoid getting any hit at all. Thus it needs to go hull down and use its speed to flank the stronger opponents.

Heavy tanks may duel but not with its tracks exposed:
If you combine angleing with your tracks hidden from enemy Line of Fire (partial hull down) You are at your strongest (next to full hull down)

If you are stuck in open terrain against a stronger opponent you have no other choise than to angle...

Think, RL, if you are the enemy tiger facing an IS-2.. what would you hit first?
a) his tracks
b) trying to KO him?

Hitting the tracks calls for 2 shots.. one to immobilze, which give the enemy the initiative to KO you on his first shot... This is a risky gambit unless you KNOW that he will miss... (which I would NOT bet on)

Its a gambit, and you have to make the right choise.

Sometimes its best to go for a KO.. sometimes you have to Untrack the enemy depending on the situation.

RO atm needs make Track damage more easy, so one can have the choise one should have in RL.
 
Upvote 0
#132
Thought I'd pipe in here as the armour combat is what is going to sell me on this game.

Realism, IMO you can't have total realism, the german armour will slaughter the russian armour everytime. You would not have a chance in hell of winning as the russians, the only reason the russians beat the germans was with overwhelming numbers. The german armour outclassed its opponents in every way but speed, in a one to one situation like it is in the game world it would be extremly unbalanced. When I first played a few days ago my first thought was WTF the tiger is way to weak, then I thought well if the tiger was authentic then it would totaly own the maps so it was ok to me that it was weakend to even out the game.

Some other ideas bantered here I totaly disagree with, ie track damage, killing peeps in a tank ect are bad ideas IMO. Some folks have suggested all these ideas that disable a tank yet leave the crew alive, think that idea through to gameplay, in 5 min all tanks but one are disabled and you have a bunch of crews running around with pistols. Think about that, your armour battle map after 5min has turned into a bunch of people running around with pistols. Personally I would prefer death so I can respawn and get me another tank rather then be stuck out in the boonies with a pistol and a 15min walk back to spawn for another tank, and I would prefer it if my driver\gunner died with me so I have somebody to team up with again.

The deflection issue, well I do have one major complaint about that. A deflection on a rear end hit is BS, I have many times got behind a tank shot it in the ass only to have it bounce off. NO way in any way should a tank survive a rear hit. Frontal deflections I have no problem with, though I must say I have never been in a point blank range shootout so I have no opinion on that issue.
 
Upvote 0
#133
Heh I did want to relate a game battle story regarding the tiger and range.

On the map arad? the one with two villages and fields. I ended up at spawn by myself so I jumped in a tiger and not having a crewmate I just thought I would find a good place to park and shoot. I found a place to the right of spawn overlooking south field and north village, just so happens that this area also left me with just turret up. Well from that position in a tiger I was death incarnate, any tank showed itself in north village was dead. I was one shot killing tanks according to the tiger sights (which I think are off by 100-200 meters) at 900+ meters. I am not sure about the distance, but from axis spawn I got kills of tanks just clearing the hill by thier spawn. Of course after half a dozen kills somebody on the other side got wise and dropped arty on my head, ah that was great fun :)
 
Upvote 0
#134
German Armor Angling Tanks

German Armor Angling Tanks

It is historically correct that the Wehrmacht taught their tankers to angle their "hulls" at approximately either 33 degrees and/or 327 degrees from the "anticipated" enemy direction of 360 degrees (turret then pointed directly over the angled hull at the 33 or 327 d, direct at the threat). In this way the strong frontal armor had angle, the side had better penetration resistance and the strongest part of the tank, the mantlet, were all facing the threat. Why?

This system was put into play after meeting the T-34 in the first phases of Barbarossa Summer '41. The Germans immediately recognized that the T-34 sloped armor provided significantly better protection for its thickness. But their tanks were not designed to have sloped armor until the Panther ('43). Even the Tiger I had flat non sloped armor. So Wehrmacht tankers tried to "induce slope" in their armor (that was really flat and not angled from the perspective of the ground) by angling the sides towards the enemy. It only partially worked.

In the case of the T-34 when the T-34 was angled in the same way, the armor has the effect of sloped armour from the perspective of the ground as well as from the perspective of the incoming round. There is an even better increase in armor effectiveness for the soviets in this regard. (This does not apply to running gear. Knockout the running gear and the tank is a duck to be outmaneuvered. A favorite Wehrmacht trick.) I don't know enough about RO yet. But this is what you might be encountering if RO is accurate.

The T-34 was a severe shock to the Wehrmacht. The only way for them to knock it out in the beginning of Barbarossa ('41) was to get a direct, straight shot in its rear (hence first hit the running gear). Even its side armor was impervious to PZ III 50mm short barrel and PZ IV 75mm short barrel at short range (even though these weapons could take out the tracks.) They literally rolled 88 mm anti aircraft guns up to take them out at 2000 meters (beyond the range of the T-34/76 guns effective range).

The T-34 also did not have radios. German Tanks all had radios (another problem in RO. Any Wehrmacht AFV could call in artillery.) So the Wehrmacht usually just knocked out the tracks, circled around them as they wallowed about (buttoned up they had almost no vision. The commander was also the gunner in the T-34, another major handicap.) They were usually sightless and simply did not have combined arms training for infantry to guard their flanks. Thats why they tactically lost big in the first two years even with great tanks like the T-34 and KV-1

Hope you all enjoyed the info.

Regards,

Von Siro
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#135
TWo experiences that told me the armor penetration calculations are way off.

1) Fire at a t-34/85 from approx 500m at right angle to him ( he was shooting at someone else) from a panther. 1 into side of turrent, 2 into lower hull. No damage as far as i could tell.

2) firing from PzIV (long barreled version) it su-76 head on at about 200m. 3 hits , lower and upper glacis and gun shield. no damage.

Its great to play a game that actually tries to model armor penetrations realistically. I think that makes it even more frustraiting when it is so off. Feels like somewhere in the angle calculations there is a mosplaced decimal place.
 
Upvote 0
#137
PiTiFUL said:
Realism, IMO you can't have total realism, the german armour will slaughter the russian armour everytime. You would not have a chance in hell of winning as the russians, the only reason the russians beat the germans was with overwhelming numbers. The german armour outclassed its opponents in every way but speed, in a one to one situation like it is in the game world it would be extremly unbalanced. When I first played a few days ago my first thought was WTF the tiger is way to weak, then I thought well if the tiger was authentic then it would totaly own the maps so it was ok to me that it was weakend to even out the game.
Click to expand...

This is an old one that I've commented on many times before... based on the old German post-war propoganda. The T-34 was, in many ways, well ahead of its day - shame about the 2-man turret. And the Tiger has its fearsome rep from when it was first introduced late 42 and into 43. By 44, the Soviets had up-gunned and could take it on far more easily. The main reason for Westerners to have such views is that we didn't up-gun as much as the Soviets did during the war - we relied on pure numbers even more than they did. Even at the end of the war, the vast bulk of western tanks were still cannon-fodder to the Tiger, still primarily armed with 76mm weapons!
 
Upvote 0
#139
Let's check up a level of local tank experts . What is not correct at this T-34?

cckr3.png
 
Upvote 0
#140
I still wonder if we can actually disable or blow up tanks' engines. Numerous times, the fire on the engine has no effect on anything and damaged engine doesn't limit their movement at all..

Yesterday at Orel, I shot T34 (if i recall correctly) three times to it's engine in a straight angle from it's side. Well, all were direct hits but the tank just went going on, even it was burning and letting the smoke out.. Best thing about this is that a teammate from a different angle also shot that tank after us from a different angle, direct hit again but eh, still kept going. :|
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu