Sirocco

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley: Your mother was a hamster. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, it's nice to see we're open to some reasoned debate on this forum... The problem is this: Hull down doesn't work correctly in CM because the visual map doesn't completely match up with the game data, and tanks will sail past hull down positions when their left on their own. The compromises I've seen here always seem fine for the defender, but not for the attacker. That's why I proposed using Rotate as a workable solution - not perfect, by any means - but, as there's no support for that here, I'll leave you guys to work out the minutae of your "small solution"...

Wouldn't Rotate be the ideal candidate for an upgrade to hull down/LOS check..? Am I missing something..?

I think this solution would work while on the defensive, but, like the "inching forward" approach, it doesn't really work on the offensive. In another thread I proposed using Rotate to check LOS *and* hull down. I don't think that automates the process as you still have to find a good spot on the map. And we shouldn't be too defensive about discussing this. It has been discussed at length already, yes, but hull down is something CM doesn't handle as well as it might, in my humble opinion, and I'm sure BTS value our input.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by grunto: Yes I was thinking about the reverse moves I've seen the AI make, but still it would be cool to sometimes see the driver forget everything and move fast, somewhere, anywhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But those guys can reverse fast! I think we just need some new sounds - crunching gears and swearing, perhaps..?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PatAWilson: If I had two tanks firing AT rounds at a fairly thin armored vehicle that is returning HE I would hang around too. The odds are all in his favor. That doesn't guarantee a win but IMHO you have to play the odds.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think the unidentified tanks have to be taken into consideration. Whatever the current threat is you always have to assume something bigger and better is about to appear. Kill it and/or maneouver.

Well, I had a Sherman reverse as soon as he spotted a JagdPanzer IV - not fast enough, I might add - and I have often seen vehicles attempt to reverse into cover. I think generally this is handled quite well in the game. And, although you may have spotted the threat it's always possible the crew haven't...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME:: Sir Occo You seem obsessed by simplicity. You made some goofy posts stressing it in the other thread.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Lewis, I'm a programmer - with AI experience - not a wise-ass. I look for simple solutions because those are the ones that can be implemented.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker: I won't flame you too badly but please do a search and you'll see that this has already been talked about ad nauseum (including in a resurrected post just last week).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have done a search, and I've participated in that very discussion, but I haven't found this particular solution mentioned before. I opened a new thread because the one you mentioned is now five pages long...

While I was positioning a Sherman in the Mortain operation - spoiler alert? - I went to Rotate it and then thought "What's the purpose of the colour change on the line..." Then, after looking through the manual, and finding nothing to explain it, I thought "Why isn't that used to check LOS and hull down instead?" I'll give an example: You're considering moving a Sherman into a hull down position, and choose the Hunt command. You position the marker in a good spot, and then choose Rotate. As you move the marker around the map you're given LOS feedback through the colour of the line - as with the LOS command - and also hull down feedback in text. The only problem I can see is in the amount of CPU time to calculate whether you're hull down to a particular spot, but then only BTS have the answer to that... Well, ok, shoot my idea down in flames, why don't you...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV: The simplest solution, and the one which seems most in keeping with the spirit of the game, is the selectable POV. Toggle between the main gun's POV and the approximate driver's location, perhaps an abstracted 1-meter lower, or infantry, POV. If the gun sees the intended point, and the "driver" sees dirt, you're hull down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I personally don't think that's the simplest solution, but it's certainly simpler than others that have been mentioned. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hunt doesn't do a thing for you if there is no enemy unit in the desired location.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I think it does. A tank can still be hull down in a direction, rather than location, although, of course, it won't be a perfect hull down position, but it would be a good start. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Toggled POVs would: - allow the human to use judgement in selecting the location, without automating the process. - more closely approximate the capabilities of a human crew to do something so patently simple. - seem to take advantage of capabilities which are already in the game (and BTS has the ONLY legitimate perspective on this). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I personally don't think having the computer "fine tune" and hull down position does automate the process. The player still has to examine the map closely to find hull down positions before placing vehicles in them. I'm looking at it from a CO's perspective, and that does colour my judgement, perhaps others are looking at it differently, as perhaps the leader of each individual vehicle or squad..?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MERC: I do wonder if the AI is programed to try and to get into a hull down position? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> In Chance Encounter (1.02d) I had a Sherman crest a perfect hull down position, even when it had been given Hunt orders in the exact direction of one of the StuG's. I have yet to upgrade to 1.03 - I'm playing a 20 turn PBEM and we have both agreed to "play it safe" and not install the patch until afterwards - but it seems to me the vehicle crew AI needs improving, not by the addition of new commands, but by the ability of the crews to "fine tune" their position. I also believe the argument about multiple targets is a red herring. The TC has the AI data to choose the most threatening target as it is, and that's the target he should be hull down to - if he's not hull down to other targets then either they're not threatening enough, or the player or AI shouldn't have put it there in the first place...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MERC: If this is your argument then where do you stop? What about your "God's" eye view of the world -- real life commander didn't have that(at least in WWII)? What about your ability to incluence every squad, every vehicle every 60 seconds in the game? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, perhaps we have to define "micromanagement" before we continue with this discussion..? The bottom line is the visual map just doesn't have sufficient data to position tanks hull down consistently, again, in my experience, and believe me, I have tried... That being the case the AI needs to handle the "fine tuning" of hull down moves. The only question that remains, it seems to me, is how to implement that.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MERC: I also believe that some of the difficulties that some are experiencing in getting hull-down in the game is the similiar to the difficulty you would face in real life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> But if it was real life the crew would handle hull down themselves - their commander wouldn't personally supervise each and every hull down move, not in the midst of combat, anyway.

I think the whole debate about hull down positions has become far too complicated. The simplest solution is always the best, and it would seem to me that a Hunt order, followed by a Rotate order, should make the crew find a good hull down position themselves. I think some credit has to be given to vehicle crews; they're not dumb automatons, and they're in a much better position to identify hull down positions. The Hunt command does not, in my experience, achieve the expected result, as tanks tend to either be too far back, or worse still they crest the slope and expose their front completely. I'm sure BTS are working on a solution, but the solution they'll implement will be the simplest.

Deleted. [This message has been edited by Sirocco (edited 08-11-2000).]

This is a difficult, but important issue, and it's one that I hope BTS will address in a later update. A crucial factor is the level of "automation" in the game; no-one wants it to "autoplay". But nevertheless crews do need an improvement in AI, as the tendency now is to overshoot a hull down position, or to not have an LOS whatsoever over the crest at all. I think the crews have enough information on targets to choose which target to be hull down to, and with that information there should be no need for a new orders option - the player would simply need to move them just behind the crest, and the crew would work the rest out for themselves. The fact is that only BTS have the detailed knowledge of the AI to know just what's practicable in programming terms, but this is a serious issue that needs fixing, either in an update, or in CM2... [This message has been edited by Sirocco (edited 08-11-2000).]

My apologies. I posted this last night and it didn't appear at the time, so I tried again... [This message has been edited by Sirocco (edited 08-11-2000).]

This is a difficult, but important issue, and it's one that I hope BTS will address in a later update. A crucial factor is the level of "automation" in the game; no-one wants it to "autoplay". But nevertheless crews do need an improvement in AI, as the tendency now is to overshoot a hull down position, or to not have an LOS whatsoever over the crest at all. I think the crews have enough information on targets to choose which target to be hull down to, and with that information there should be no need for a new orders option - the player would simply need to move them just behind the crest, and the crew would work the rest out for themselves. The fact is that only BTS have the detailed knowledge of the AI to know just what's practicable in programming terms, but this is a serious issue that needs fixing, either in an update, or in CM2...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn: all US gyrostabiliser-equipped tanks are presumed to have them on and working in CM<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The Osprey Military New Vanguard Title, "Sherman : Medium Tank, 1942-45", has an interesting passage on the use of gyro-stabilisers: "...most veterans claiming it was worthless, and was generally left turned off... Some tankers who had better luck with it insist that it was rarely used because it took care to keep it in adjustment and thorough training to use properly. As a result, most firing was done from a halt." I wonder whether that's the acccepted historical view on their use..?

As I understand it, Waffen-SS units would have been wearing a variety of different camouflage patterns, which includes Italian camouflage, in full uniforms and smocks. And there were even differences within squads. I don't know how BTS could handle that with complete accuracy...