aka_tom_w

I think its DEAD!

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Old Crow: If my parents were gone for the day there wouldn't be anything alive within 50 yards of my house.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ROTFLMOA!!!! I could not have said it better myself! I never got in REAL trouble for shooting birds, but squirrels and chipmunks were clearly off limits. Now when I got a little older, using the .22 to bag Ground Hogs (Goffers) and pesky racoons and even peskier Foxes was like REAL hunting on my farm. (fact: Foxes do, in REAL Life ™, actually eat hens that lay eggs, so foxes were MORE than fair game they were our sworn mortal enemy AND they RUN FAST!, my Dad nailed one once (knocked him flat over sideways, he rolled and did not get up) when it was running full speed about 50 meters out, across his field of fire in an open hay feild with the .22 without a scope,(he told me the British Army taught him how to shoot VERY well, because one day his life might depend on it, fortunately his life never did depend on his shooting skills, he entered WWII too late to have to ever see combat) Those were the Days! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-18-2000).]

As I understand it, hull odwn is either ON or OFF 1 or 0 no grey shades in between no fancy percentages. I suspect that the lower hull is not available to shoot at because if a tank is hull down because it NEVER gets hit in the lower hull, when in the hull down position. So some of the Upper Hull is available to take a hit and the turret is obviously available to take a hit. I'm GUESSING here, but its seems to me when a tank is deemed to be in a Hull down Position by the game engine, it is about 50% less visible and about 50% percent harder to hit with range as a variable to make that number not really a constant. (I think, mostly guess work here) One thing is for sure, Hull down is either ON or OFF like being pregnant, either you are or you are not, a hull down Tank either IS Hull down (about 50%) hidden below grade, or it is NOT Hull down, 100% fully exposed. Again I'm guessing on the 50% below, grade not exposed part, but it is something like that. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-18-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mace: We have air rifles in Oz, shoot small metal pellets which I assume is something like a BB rifle. Anyhow, we used to play combat with them in our early teens. You got hit, you'd definitely know about it! Geez we were idiots (hmm, come to think about it, still are)! Mace <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I'm glad I'm not the only one that played "combat" with bb guns, STRICT rules where followed about NO head shots, we were all VERY good shots, mostly we aimed for the legs and left small brusies if you got hit. I had a pellet rifle (M16 replica) my brother had one and 4 other guys I grew up with ALL had BB guns and or pellet rifles. If you think they are dangerous you should grow up with an apple orchard in your back on the farm, and have apple fights! A 14 year old kid throwing a green apple at your head as HARD has he could from 20 feet or so (some what like a baseball pitch, at you head) actually hurt more than a BB in the leg, I KNOW I've been hit by both and lived to tell about it. We also took our guns out in the back woods and hunted small birds, like sparrows and starlings and robins, and we did hit them and kill them. The BEST shot you could get was the now imfamous, "Ha JFK'd him!" shot that takes the top half of the skull cap of the bird clean off, the ONE shot kill was what we all aspired to. We grew bored with shooting at beer cans as target practice because they were too easy, so we set them on end and fired at there round bottoms, Soon this became too easy and we challenged each other to set the can lieing down with the open end towards the shooter, the object being the winner was the first one to place the round THROUGH the opening and leave a hole or dent in the back end of the can, NOW that's a challege. If you are wondering if we took this seriously, well YES we did, we all had cheap little 4x scopes on our guns, any one without a scope was VERY unlikly to get that "perfect" JFK one shot kill! OK, I grew up on a farm in the country, in Canada where gun laws prevent virutally EVERYONE except Cops, Military and other officials, from owning REAL guns, and no I did not turn out to be a juvenile delinquent. Amongst my brother and my six closest friends none of us every got in any legal or (other wise) trouble from the use of the bb/pellet guns. (Apple fights, however left bigger more obvious bruises and we all got major **** for those but they continued though out or high school teenage years anyway. ) Bottom line, if there is a SAFE place for the 14 year to shoot and target practice with the BB gun, by ALL means give him one, and YES the safety course is a good idea so that he will know the "head shots" are not allowed. (JOKING!) OK, now any one who reads this will KNOW I have absolutely no credibility left on this board . -tom w P.S. I do hope at least some of you ( the north american's anyway) were at least somewhat entertained and for the rest of you, please relax, it was all fun and games and no one ever got hurt or had to go to the hospital, (it was TOO far to drive anyway.) [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-18-2000).]

I don't think this request needs to be coded in. To do what you are asking just select any one of your units (I think ANY unit will do) and then give a move order or an LOS order and move the curser around, and the curser will tell you, Light building, woods, Scattered tree's or whatever ever,and give you the damage of buildings if any. It doesn't matter that you don't want to move there, or target that location, but the curser will tell you ALL about the location you move it to if you are attempting to move one of your units there. Is this not simple enough the way it is now? -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir: Thanx Matt. I still don't see why it has to be different from infantry. It is very convenient to just give the hide order at the end of the movement. That way I don't have to remember to go do it next turn. It's easy to forget if you have a lot of vehicles. [This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 12-18-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The logic on this one (from Charles perspective) if I may speculate, DOES make sense.... The advantage that "Hide" grants to vehicles is that their engines are quieter, so they don't cause sound contacts, NOW if the vehicle has moved for part of a 1 minute turn, Hide does not make sense, as the enemy may have already heard the sound contact, I agree that if a vehicle has moved in the turn it cannot END its turn with a hide order, because the noise of moving and the engine may have already alerted the enemy to a sound contact. This makes sense to me and I think because we are talking about idling the engine, if a vehicle that has already made the noise, it is different then just simply issuing a Hide order to infantry at the end of the turn, they don't make so much noise and can more easily just lie down and slip into thick cover and under brush, vehicles on the other hand can only idle their engines. This one makes sense to me, you can't hide a vehicle at the end of its turn if it moved, because the noise of it moving has ALREADY given away its location. Correct? -tom w

Hi Is v1.1b22 still the most current (latest patch,update), release? Just wondering? thanks -tom w

Hi Deanco (I'm still BLOWN away by your gunmetal/brown interface, I love it Thanks!) Anyway, with regard to your post, I ALWAYS play with units in the realistic size, and with unit bases on. Now, to get a good hull down position put one of your tnaks behind a hill or small rise, if there is something worth shooting at on the other side of the hill, then select your unit, and target the enemy unit, even thought it shoudl be out of sight nd you don't yet have los to it, TARGET it anyway, now your tank knows what you want it to shoot at, NOW just give your tank a HUNT order to the crest of the hill or rise, if all goes well and the other unit does not move away, your tank "SHOULD" slowly hunt up the back side of the hill until it can JUST get LOS to the unit you just targeted and them STOP in a hull down position and OPEN fire. its not really all the difficult, the TAC AI is VERY good at getting its self in a nice hull down position if you let it do its job and give it a few hints, (like Hunt up this hill, and target this unit on the other side) how's that try it out? -tom w

Well put Treeburst. It is a GREAT game, and now even since the latest patch they are still working on it and updating it once again. This is also a very informative thread, its even MORE interesting with postes here by Steve and Charles. Great work guys -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: To anyone who thinks that something is wrong with the way CM handles hull-down: please state how you would like to change things. Be very specific. I think this will help explain your points and should also help illustrate why CM is the way it is, and why we feel it's the best way. Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hull down targets should take longer to acquire, perhaps after that the RoF should also be slower when attempting to continue to fire at hull down targets. This TIME issue was mentioned earlier in this thread by Treeburst and I think it would grant the Hull Down tank ONE more slight advantage. That is specifically how I would change the CM code, I thought I would mention that since you asked for specific suggestions. So I would propose, if the target is hull down it takes longer to get the first shot off, and subsquent shots have a slower RoF to model the increased difficulty to aim at the smaller hull down target. Treeburst suggested this oringally and he spoke about the variable of TIME and I suspect he has REAL World ™ experience and I think the ONE additional advantage the Hull Down tanks should enjoy is the ability to the FIRST shot off, against a full exposed target, FASTER than the fully exposed (non H/D) Target can get the first shot off aginst the hull down taget. I would suggest that if the Hull down crew was conscript and the exposed tank crew was Elite (the widest range possible in crew experinence I think) then the conscript hull down crew should still get the first shot off at least a second or two before the Elite crew aiming at the Hull down conscript crew. (or perhaps more realistically, the two crews might fire simultaneously?) AND yes I completely agree that RANGE should be as large a variable, and play as large a role in determining the "chance to hit" percentage that it does, AND range should also be a variable in determining TIME to aim and acquire the (much smaller) hull down target at longer ranges. This is really one of Treeburst's points so I'm just agreeing with his earlier post. Yes I did read Steve's reply and I understand this is not do-able in the forseeable future. I think that's unfortunate because it would really confer ONE more significant advantage on the hull down tank, making the choice to seek a hull down position much more desirable, because you should then be almost guarranteed (from the hull down position) to get the first shot off against the NON-Hull down, exposed target. That fact might then help the hull down position outweigh the "Well, I don't want to leave my vulnerable turret is exposed" issue. Thanks again for V1.1b22 The TCP/IP pathc is GREAT and this game get's more and more addictive with every new patch and update. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-17-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanco: The 0 key for chat!!! YAY!!! On behalf of us overseas users, thanks loads for listening and responding so quickly. I'm in awe of you guys. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's HUGE!!!! WOW thanks for listening I hope no one will complain about the change "0" on the num pad to chat id just Freakin' fantastic I'm sure the rest of the changes in the Read Me that I have not read yet, (Hell I have not even downloaded the pathc yet,) are equally great fantastic and WOW thanks, wonderful! I really wasn't expecting the patch until later this week just in time for the Christmas break. Thanks again -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Treeburst155: Hi Tom, I think adding a couple seconds to the time between rounds would be sufficient for fire against hull down targets (or any small targets). Realize we are dealing with averages here. There is no exact answer. Also, we are defining hull down targets as being small by nature. A close hull down target may not be that small. A far away fully exposed target might be small. If we really wanted to get picky then the RofF should be calculated for each target individually based on apparent size of the visible target. This is going way overboard I think. You would rarely, if ever, notice the difference in gameplay. I only brought up rate of fire as a way to enhance the benefits of being hull down since some were questioning the wisdom of a hull down position in CM (myself included). Adding a couple seconds between rounds when engaging hull down targets would just add a little more accuracy to the game since generally speaking the hull down target will tend to be small. Treeburst155<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Wow Great response I woud disagree slightly with "If we really wanted to get picky then the RofF should be calculated for each target individually based on apparent size of the visible target. This is going way overboard I think." I think that is a GREAT idea, now I don't write computer game code and Steve and Charles always get ticked when some of us "laypeople" suggest something is easy to code, but risking their rath and getting flamed, I would say it should be pretty easy to say/write in code,.... (regarding time delay in RoF when targeting for Hull down tanks)...... if target hull down and less than 500 m then x time delay in ROF if target hull down and 501 - 750 m then x + y time delay in ROF if target hull down and 751 - 1000 m then x + y + z time delay in ROF if target hull down and 1001 - 2000 m then x + y + z + 1(?) time delay in ROF Treeburst, thanks for your insight, I think distance to the target, if it is hull down, may be a more significant factor than crew experience. Good Point! -tom w This of course would lead some of us to question if delays the RoF for in Non hull down tank targets should also be implemented based on distance from the shooter, so YES, now it is getting very complicated [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-15-2000).]

I would say that must have been an anomlous or unsual situation as I have seen tanks from both sides while directed by the AI and TAC AI do BOTH, swing the turret around and rotate in place to present the frontal armour. My response is to say, test that situation out a bit more and you will find (I think) that tanks usually rotate BOTH together to make the turret rotation "seem" faster. I have seen it happen that way may times in the game. -tom w

Ok Great Responses from Steve and Charles and Matt. Thanks for your attention and discusion here. Can we discuss (especially with Mr. Treeburst's experience in this area) HOW much the RoF should slow down to engage the hull down target? In this case it seems a VERY good arguement has been presented to slow the rate of fire against a hull down target. I may be wrong, but I think we all support that decision. Now the next step, Steve usually tells us is to "quantify" what is about to be changed or implemented. What reliable evidence can be found to suggest how the implementation of the slower rate of fire against the hull down target can be modeled and coded into the game. A highly uneducated guess would be to propose that the rate of fire be a certian percentage slower. If BTS wanted to make this complicated they could make the RoF a more slower percentage for Green crews and slower but less slow percentage for elite crews. (sorry, that was not very well written or explained, perhaps an example is better: .... ) Maybe RoF would 45-50% slower for conscript gunners against a Hull down target than against the same target not hull down? 40-45% slower for Green gunners against a Hull down target 35-40 % slower for Regular gunners against a Hull down target 25-35 % slower for Veteran gunners against a Hull down target 20-25 % slower for Crack gunners against a Hull down target AND 10-20 % slower for Elite gunners against a Hull down target Just a suggestion nothing more... -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-14-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jackal: What I would like to see as an option would be to have the crew pick the damn weapon up again!!! OR tell me the weapon is destroyed so I won't be so aggrevated at the crews. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have seen knocked out mortars in the game If your crew abandons a mortar, go down to view 1, look around on the ground, and click on the abadoned mortar, it may actually say "Knocked out mortar" I have seen the situation before where the weapon (ie. mortar) takes a hit and becomes in operative, then the crew will abandon it quite promptly. have you not seen this? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-14-2000).]

I doubt it is realistic to expect an abandon or bailout commend for CMBO BUT for CM2 it should seriously be considered YES I would like to see the ability to bail out of a tank, (in keeping with the style and philosophy of the game, the bail out MUST be ONE WAY meaning that you can NEVER re-crew abandonned weapons) and I would like to be able to abandon mortars a and Heavy MG's and withdraw and run away to save those crews and save the points. I would like to suggest that a Bail-out command and an abandon weapon command be available in CM2. Thanks -tom w

done

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Rex: It is, at least to the best abilities of the tank's armor. The MkIV going hull down does in fact reduce the chance that it will be hit. Therefore, all things being equal, hull down is an advantage. However... this does not change the charactoristics of the armor that is left facing a threat. Just because the tank is hull down doesn't mean that its armor is suddenly harder to penetrate. The chance of hitting is significantly reduced, therefore the chance of surviving an engagement is increased. However, if a hull down PzIV should be unlucky enough to be hit, its chances of surviving that hit are lower than if it had been out in the open since the only probable surface the enemy shell can strike is weaker than the surfaces hidden from LOF. This is realistic, so we don't understand why people still feel this is "wrong". What is "wrong" is the notion that hiding behind something increases the chance of surviving a hit. Also note that test situations like what has been conducted here are not very good indicators of in-game probability. I think that, on average, a hull down tank has a lot more going for it in a real game situation than on some test range. Also... note that 500m is rather close range so lethality and chance to hit are all quite high. Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi Steve Thanks also for weighing in on this one. I am not at all suggesting: "the notion that hiding behind something increases the chance of surviving a hit." not at all. But what I would humbly suggest is that it seems to me that " chance of hitting (a hull down tank) is significantly reduced" is not exactly what we seem to be experiencing in the game. If (BIG if), the chance to hit the hull down tank is 50% less than the chance to hit a non hull down tank then perhaps that would out weigh the higher risk of a front turret hit and likely penetration experienced by a hull down tank, but what we are finding is that the chance to hit the hull down tank, is NOT that ( 50% or more less chance to hit would be nice) "significantly reduced". Again this is only my opinion but the chance to hit a hull down vehicle "should" be less than 50% less than the chance to hit a fully exposed tank, simply because the frontal turret area is (usually) not as wide as the rest of the upper hull. What prompted this is that we are not seeing the chance to hit percentage for hull down tanks drop lower than 50% less than the chance to hit the same exposed tank. Perhaps I am mistaken and more testing and playing are required. More than anything thanks for listening, maybe I'm DEAD wrong on this one TOO ! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-13-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-13-2000).]

Charles writes: "Given that CM assumes that the Sherman crew does not know this, however, the Sherman will not take advantage of this fact when the Pz IV is out in the open. Only when the Pz IV is hull down will the Sherman do the "right thing" even though it's not aware of it. This is an intentional part of the design. Hi Charles, Thanks for your prompt and very informative reply. I agree, lets not beat a dead horse, BUT have we not just figured out here that the a Hull Down position is NOT the most desirable position to put your tanks in? We (some of us here), are coming to the conclusion that our tanks have a better rate of surviability if they are NOT hull down. This seems at odds with reality? If the tank has a better chance of surviving an upper hull or lower hull hit than a turret hit and if the tank has a better chance of getting hit in the upper hull or lower hull when NOT in a Hull Down position, is it not advisable to leave them out in the open and NOT hull Down? I think as a result of your last post and our own game play testing of this hull down surviablity issue, the conclusion some of us are coming to, is that the lower chance to hit percentage, of the hull down tank DOES NOT out weigh the higher liklyhood or odds of a Gun Hit or frontal turret hit and penetration? I am now no longer in favour of working hard to get my tanks into that "ideal" hull down position. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-13-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-13-2000).]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis: I concede on the LOS/LOF issue. I'll make my concession speech tonight right before Mr. Gore's . Sorry to sidetrack the real question (that being Hull down). Still like to hear BTS's position on that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK I think The LOS/LOF thru live vehicle issue is somthing all players should be aware of.. and BUMP... waiting for "official" BTS comment on the high turret vulnerablity of the hull down tank issue? -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A Arabian: Incidentally, can this be generalized to any vehicle more vulnerable in the turret than hull? Or is it more specific than that? [This message has been edited by A Arabian (edited 12-13-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Good question It is my opinion that it CAN be generalized that MOST tanks (both sides) in most cases generally have less armour on the frontal turret aspect than on their frontal upper hull aspect and on the frontal lower hull aspect. Also ONLY the turret is vulnerable to a "Gun Damaged" hit, if you are hull down you should not get a track hit, but if you are hull down the tank could take a Gun hit or front turret hit or upper hull hit or a upper hull weak point hit or a frontal turret weak point hit. Of those hit locations the Gun Hit Is VERY destructive and the frontal turrent hit is more likely to penetrate as the armour there is generally less than the upper hull. I think most of us here an agree on that generaliztion. -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MichaelU: Say Steve, any comments on the hull down issue?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> again? Any BTS "official" comment on the seemingly excessive front turret penetration odds for tanks in the (now not so desirable) hull down (turret vulnerable) position? Thanks -tom w

Steve has said previously: IP: Logged Big Time Software Moderator posted 04-29-2000 02:17 PM I see what Lt. Bull is asking. Easily cleared up (I hope )... There are two ways, in theory, that we could simulate a round leaving a gun, its eventual path, and where it lands: 1. Use a whole bunch of variables (like weapon accuracy, guner training, suppression, etc) to determine a trajectory to the target. The trajectory would then be "traced" and wherever the shell hit damage would be done. If the hit whacked a vehicle then CM would go through all the armor pentration stuff to figure out what the impact did. 2. The trajectory itself is only a binary LOS calculation. Either the shooter can, in theory, get a round from the gun to the target or it can't. A whole bunch of constant and situationally unique variables (like LOS quality, weapon accuracy, guner training, suppression, etc) to determine the chance of the target being hit. If it is a hit then various equations determine where and HOW (angles) the shell strikes its target. Then damage is calculated based on the physics for the particular situation (HE blast near infantry, AP shot hitting sloped armor, etc). If the round is a miss there are equations to determine how badly the shooter missed based on several variables (i.e. a bad unit will miss by a LOT greater margin than a good one). Then the shell trajectory is calculated to the predetermined location (either the hit or miss one). Colateral damage is calculated based on the detonation of the round where it hits. Terrain is checked along a "miss" vector to see if it strikes something along the way. Hits don't need to check because they have already been calculated to be hits based on a clear line of fire. WOOOOO!! That took a little longer to explain than I thought OK, now what are the real world difference between the two... Method 1 -> as real as you can get! Unfortunately, it is also a CPU cruncher from Hell. If we had one or two vehicles shooting in more sterile conditions it wouldn't be a problem. But when you have letterally dozens of shots being made on a somewhat average turn, this becomes a HUGE problem. Method 2 -> On average will come up with the same results as Method 1, but only spews out a realistic number of calculations on the CPU to crunch. What you lose is the ability for the shell to accidentally strike something between A and B other than terrain. As the link Iggi gave will explain a bit more. Thankfully, the cases where this matters are few and far inbetween. So there you have it Method 1 and 2 yield pretty much the same results, with the exception of variable blockage (i.e. vehicles). Oh, well, the other difference is that Method 1 would make CM tedious to play and Method 2 works just fine When you get CM take a dozen vehicles for each side, plop them on opposite sides of a level battlefield and see how slow the turns calculate. Now do that until one side is wiped out and you will notice how much faster each turn becomes with the elimination of each vehicle. Then remember that this is using Method 2 in sterile conditions with no blocking terrain or vehicles (especially not ones in motion!!) to bog down the LOS calculations. Steve P.S. Grazing fire for MGs is in fact simulated. Charles found that the math to simulate just this one feature wasn't too horrible for the CPU to deal with. also check these threads All new players to this game should read them: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004083.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004572.html http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004048.html -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Juardis: Huh? You can certainly fire at a bunker or pillbox. So if you can hit it, why would it not block LOF? Same with a knocked out vehicle. You can certainly target it. I never have of course, but you can do it nonetheless. So, if you can hit them when firing at them, why would they not block LOF? Maybe in the case of a knocked out vehicle if you target it, it is treated as area fire. But certainly not the case for pillboxes and bunkers. As for being hull down vs. not. I think like Jeff Heideman here. The overall chance to hit should be reduced if you're hull down since the target area is smaller. The overall chance to penetrate is based on the math (which is the same if the turret is hit regardless of hull down or not). The net result is that the overall chance to kill should be reduced if you're hull down and this should be reflected in the results. I don't buy the argument about aiming. I know what you're saying, but I don't think the accuracy was that good back then. I mean, if the weak spot is always the turret, wouldn't you always be aiming for the turret? Of course you would, but you'd be happy to hit the hull if you missed the turret, right? Well, if the target is hull down that same miss would not hit the hull but would instead plow into the ground, and you're definitely aiming for the turret in that situation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is the way it works.... (don't doubt me, just test it your self) You can target a pillbox, you CAN also target and get LOS straight thru it as though it was not there. same for vehicles you can target them AND you can get LOS and LOF straight through them, dead or alive as long as they are not burning and smoking. This is NOT news read this thread and you will know how and why it is the way it is: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008989.html -tom w

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by azazyel: Does that apply to functioning AFV's? Can my platoon HQ watch his men from behind my Panther? And why are knowcked out AFV's not considered cover?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is the WORST kept secret of the game... If the AFV or any vehicle is NOT buring, it will provide NO cover, it will not block LOS and it Will not block LOF. That goes the SAME for live or Dead vehicles, just try it, you can trace a Line of Sight and Line of Fire right through the center mass of any AFV or vehicle,live or dead as long as it is not burning. Bunkers, Pillboxes, and Raodblocks are treated by the game engine as immobile vehicles and they do not offer any cover either, they don't block LOS or LOF. The ONLY thing that Blocks LOS (other than builings and terrain of course) is the smoke from burning vehicles and buildings. Do not expect any cover behind ANY vehicle that is NOT burning. This is NOT a bug, BTS knows about it and basically with out getting complicated about it, that's just the way it is. There is long thread from about 8 - 9 months ago that refered to Method 1 and Method 2, and how the actual LOS determination works in the game engine. If you serach for Method 1 you will find the answer. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-12-2000).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 12-12-2000).]