V4.0 Hull Down question

[MOS:96B2P]

18 hours ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

<Snip> I know Charles has said it doesn't give any spotting advantage.  <Snip>  

I think narrow Target Arcs may give a speed advantage.  The turret is already turned and almost on target.  Especially if the Target Arc order was given the waypoint prior to the shoot waypoint.  The friendly crew does not spot the OpFor vehicle any faster but the turret turning/adjustment time is probably reduced.  

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Well, they're pretty (especially when you have one set at every waypoint, for everything and 'show all moves/targets' turned on) and I like them, so I'm sticking with them! 

Edited July 22, 2017 by Sgt.Squarehead

[domfluff]

Targeted arcs certainly help, since they keep the eyes and weapons pointed towards that direction - not having to wait for a turret to traverse can be crucial in a tank duel. My assumption is that this is the only effect that it has, but that seems to be enough.

The thing I still haven't mastered is using them whilst moving - keeping a turret pointed sideways whilst I roll up to a corner, or whatever.

On the original topic. the new Hull Down command is very powerful. It's absolutely a move command, and not a fighting one. Using it effectively does require some LOS estimations and correctly choosing a decent position for the armour, but it gives the tac AI the tools to do the fine control for you - if you find a good spot, you can let the ai find the best defensive position.

It's had a remarkable effect so far - I lose many more MG's from Shermans that I did before  

Below are a couple of shots of the same Sherman from a CMFI battle, illustrating the point. That tank is actually hull down to a slightly lower spot. so it's exposing more of itself than it needs to for the camera angle.

[domfluff]

The above was achieved by spotting the likely position, then placing a "Hull Down" command on or just over the ridge of that hill.

The waypoint had a Target command drawn from it to the ground action square just in front of the tower (the one with a massive hole in the side, where the greyed-out contact is in the first screenshot), where there were suspected armour contacts incoming..

The second screenshot is a zoomed in shot, from the hole in the side of the tower, where an MG team used to be. That's from two storeys up, so the actual hull down position was a little more covered.

Choosing the first waypoint is important, because if you misjudge the position, the tank will move until it can see the target, or completes the move - it's therefore important to keep the Hull Down waypoint relatively short or controlled, since mistakes can be costly.

[domfluff]

This is the same shot as the second, without zooming in.

Sherman is in the centre of the picture - this silver of armour is what enemy AT rounds are being aimed at...

[slysniper]

This is where I need visuals of what you are doing with the command. 

I am just not getting how the command works to get the hull down position I want.

I might be dumb as a rock with this command, but I really need a step by step clear example of how to get it to work. 

Written descriptions are not doing it for me.

[domfluff]

Will do.

l'll try to throw some together later, will be a number of hours before I'll be in front of a PC with CM installed

 

Edited July 24, 2017 by domfluff

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, domfluff said:

Targeted arcs certainly help, since they keep the eyes and weapons pointed towards that direction - not having to wait for a turret to traverse can be crucial in a tank duel. My assumption is that this is the only effect that it has, but that seems to be enough.

Oh for sure already pointing the right way does matter. My concern is, as always, it's what you don't know that will kill you. For example when you have your narrow arc covering that particular intersection where you know the enemy tank is just around the corner. Then, surprise, a new tank shows up to the left at another location and you tank crew happily sits there holding their fire, cause you told them to, waiting to die.

Clearly if you can be sure that a sudden surprise is impossible because you have good visibility and additional protection then sure go for it.

My preference is instead to make sure the tank ends it movement pointing to the place I "know" the enemy is coming and then I do not give them a covered arc so when the surprise comes they are allowed to react.

[domfluff]

Like this, basically.

Small ridge, Hull down command on or past the ridge, then a target command for where you want to look at.

You might want or need to put that target command closer to you, since the LOS seems to be from the tank commander, and that might be a little high.

 

[domfluff]

End result from the building's point of view

 

[Erwin]

"You might want or need to put that target command closer to you, since the LOS seems to be from the tank commander, and that might be a little high."

This is important.  I found that when I tried this auto hull-down system and I targeted where I expected an enemy to be, the tank always halted before the main gun could get LOS or shoot at the target.  So, I had to manually adjust the placement. 

Of course if you have to manually adjust the placement, then you may as well eyeball the hulldown position manually in the first place. 

[slysniper]

29 minutes ago, Erwin said:

"You might want or need to put that target command closer to you, since the LOS seems to be from the tank commander, and that might be a little high."

This is important.  I found that when I tried this auto hull-down system and I targeted where I expected an enemy to be, the tank always halted before the main gun could get LOS or shoot at the target.  So, I had to manually adjust the placement. 

Of course if you have to manually adjust the placement, then you may as well eyeball the hulldown position manually in the first place. 

This is where I gave up on the command.  I had units not getting to hull down position at all. Stopping short.

I also recall them not stopping in time and cresting the area I wanted them to use for hull down positions.

So I went back to doing it the old school way and knowing I was getting what I expected.

 

If the command was working correctly in my mind. Then the gunner should be able to see the indicated hex as pointed to. And from how others are explaining it here. That mean at mid tank elevation, not ground.

I could live with that, but I don't even think it does that. If the commander is unbuttoned, it seems to stop for his view. Anyway, it sure seems to not be  refined correctly.

[MikeyD]

During the Betas the hulldown command was initially to the terrain spot but testers complained that the tank wasn't achieving a true hull-down position, it was exposing too much of itself. That's when targeting was adjusted up off the ground to vehicle height. It was done per user feedback. The tank is now in proper hulldown position but sacrifices good LOS on the 2-3 feet beneath the imagined target vehicle center. that they're aiming for.

One real world consequence of hulldown is you loose the extra eyeballs of the hull crew who can no longer look forward and assist in the spotting. It seems to make a difference for Sherman which has 2 sets of eyeballs looking out, less so for IS2 which only loses one set of eyeballs.

[Michael Emrys]

4 hours ago, IanL said:

My concern is, as always, it's what you don't know that will kill you. For example when you have your narrow arc covering that particular intersection where you know the enemy tank is just around the corner. Then, surprise, a new tank shows up to the left at another location and you tank crew happily sits there holding their fire, cause you told them to, waiting to die.

My solution to that is to give them a fairly wide CA, 45°-180°. That way, they are pointed in the right direction to not only cover what I expect to be out there, but also any "surprises".

Michael

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, domfluff said:

Like this, basically.

Small ridge, Hull down command on or past the ridge, then a target command for where you want to look at.

Nice - a picture is worth a thousand words...

 

2 hours ago, domfluff said:

You might want or need to put that target command closer to you, since the LOS seems to be from the tank commander, and that might be a little high.

Humm I don't seem to need to do this. I'm not sure what is up here.

 

2 hours ago, domfluff said:

In this example I would have set the end way point just on my side of the ridge. Basically at a point just on my side of the ridge with a clear LOS to the target. It is a subtle difference and one that usually will not matter - because the hull down position is found before getting over the ridge. But I do it just in case. Keeping the way point on my side of the ridge if things go wrong the worst that can happen is my tank ends up in a partial hull down position as opposed to being totally over the ridge line.

[A Canadian Cat]

Just now, Michael Emrys said:

My solution to that is to give them a fairly wide CA, 45°-180°. That way, they are pointed in the right direction to not only cover what I expect to be out there, but also any "surprises".

A good compromise.

[slysniper]

Well, thanks for the example. I might have to mess with it again and see if I can get more confidence in it and how to use it.

it would be nice to not have to think about it so much., and just have the game stop the tank when the hull down position is obtained.

[Erwin]

3 hours ago, IanL said:

Nice - a picture is worth a thousand words...

 

Humm I don't seem to need to do this. I'm not sure what is up here.

 

In this example I would have set the end way point just on my side of the ridge. Basically at a point just on my side of the ridge with a clear LOS to the target. It is a subtle difference and one that usually will not matter - because the hull down position is found before getting over the ridge. But I do it just in case. Keeping the way point on my side of the ridge if things go wrong the worst that can happen is my tank ends up in a partial hull down position as opposed to being totally over the ridge line.

So now we have to eyeball and estimate where on the correct side of the hill to place the waypoint so that the tank can achieve hulldown???  Seems to waste the whole point of automating the process.  Not impressed...

[A Canadian Cat]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

 

4 hours ago, IanL said:

Basically at a point just on my side of the ridge with a clear LOS to the target. It is a subtle difference and one that usually will not matter - because the hull down position is found before getting over the ridge.

So now we have to eyeball and estimate where on the correct side of the hill to place the waypoint so that the tank can achieve hulldown???  Seems to waste the whole point of automating the process.  Not impressed...

WTH man are you hard of reading? My bold up there is *not* eyeballing anything. It is *not* manually picking a hull down location for the hull down command.

It is simply picking a spot just short of the top of the ridge. That location is nearly fully exposed to the other side.

I am genuinely sorry to hear that you and anyone else are having trouble getting good results from the Hull down command. Myself, I am getting really, really good results. Way better than I expected to be honest and I was getting pretty good at manually getting a good spot. It seems like @domfluff is having success too. We just want to help everyone else get good results too.

[domfluff]

Yup, it's a really useful, and very powerful tool. Much better than just doing it by eye.

As with most CM commands, a lot of it is understanding the consequences of the commands - "Slow" isn't just slow movement, it actually means "crawl", "Hide" isn't "Ambush" it's "get down and stay there, whilst one guy occasionally pops up to spot", etc.

It's tough to choose the right level of automation, especially since CM covers quite a few different scales. Battalion sized battles can and should have different concerns to Company and Platoon scale fights, and CM caters for them with the same degree of fidelity - since there are interesting decisions to make on the level of a single *squad*, commanding an entire battalion can be a laborious process.

This command forces you to read the ground, find a good location to site the armour and engage sensibly. Armour tactics, basically. What the automation *does* is it allows a well chosen spot to be used properly by the AI - it lets them take advantage of the micro-terrain in a way that is difficult or impossible for a player, especially one confined to 8m action spots. I certainly couldn't have reliably estimated the correct position to place the tank in the above example, by eye.

Obviously, you don't have to use it. Personally, I think it's a superb addition to the game.

[gnarly]

5 hours ago, IanL said:

In this example I would have set the end way point just on my side of the ridge. Basically at a point just on my side of the ridge with a clear LOS to the target. It is a subtle difference and one that usually will not matter - because the hull down position is found before getting over the ridge. But I do it just in case. Keeping the way point on my side of the ridge if things go wrong the worst that can happen is my tank ends up in a partial hull down position as opposed to being totally over the ridge line.

Good pic &  post @domfluff

I'll agree with @IanL's approach as well; I always put my hull-down point on my side of the ridge (but past where I expect the full hull-down position to be), because as Ian indicates, at least if something goes wrong (you inadvertently forget to put in the target command, or target the wrong spot), your tank will always still stop on your side of the ridge, in some level of partial hull-down.

Edited July 25, 2017 by gnarly

[sburke]

41 minutes ago, IanL said:

WTH man are you hard of reading? My bold up there is *not* eyeballing anything. It is *not* manually picking a hull down location for the hull down command.

It is simply picking a spot just short of the top of the ridge. That location is nearly fully exposed to the other side.

I am genuinely sorry to hear that you and anyone else are having trouble getting good results from the Hull down command. Myself, I am getting really, really good results. Way better than I expected to be honest and I was getting pretty good at manually getting a good spot. It seems like @domfluff is having success too. We just want to help everyone else get good results too.

LOL you are letting him get to you too much.  You should know by now what he wants - CM should intuitively know exactly what he wants to do with a single mouse click.  All scenarios should be 10,000 sq km maps with recon phases and he should be able to get a total victory while still being challenged by an AI more powerful than Deep Mind. Simple.  Why are you getting so worked up?

[Erwin]

precisely...      

Edited July 25, 2017 by Erwin

[sburke]

55 minutes ago, Erwin said:

precisely...      

 

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, sburke said:

LOL you are letting him get to you too much.  You should know by now what he wants - CM should intuitively know exactly what he wants to do with a single mouse click.  All scenarios should be 10,000 sq km maps with recon phases and he should be able to get a total victory while still being challenged by an AI more powerful than Deep Mind. Simple.  Why are you getting so worked up?

Isn't that what we all want? When is BFC going to stop ripping us off and give us the game we know they play among themselves on the QT?

Michael