Treeburst155

Prepare for assimilation dude. Where is the CM Borg anyway? Treeburst155

I'm 43. My wife says I'll grow up someday. I certainly hope not. I love being a kid. I just wish I would have had this game 30 years ago. Treeburst155

Vanir, That was a very enlightening post! I do believe you are absolutely right. Thanks for sharing that. Treeburst155

Threads like this illustrate just how really good CM is. I would much rather debate the wisdom of a hull down position with certain units at certain ranges in certain situations than have to get on here and gripe about my tanks driving off bridges, etc.. Ya know what I mean, fellas? Treeburst155

I think summmer wheat provides more concealment (not cover) but your vehicles are more likely to get stuck. Treeburst155

My latest test with the subject tank returning fire supports the "Hull Down Can Be Bad" argument too. I put a Comet armed with Tungsten only against a KT Porsche at 1000 meters. This choice was carefully selected. The Comet (with Tungsten) can easily penetrate a Porsche turret, but should have real problems against the hull at 1000 meters. KT Porsche fully exposed: Knocked out or abandoned- 40% Immobilized, Gun Hit, Shock- 5% No Damage- 55% Lower Hull Penetrations accounted for 4 KOs above. I was not too surprised, but I was hoping for a completely impervious hull. I knew it would be close with the lower hull. KT Porsche Hull down: Knocked out or abandoned- 50% Immobilized, Gun Hit, Shock- 0% No Damage-50% With this particular combination of units, at this range, it does indeed appear that the KT was a little better off fighting in the open. If the lower hull had been just a little thicker, or sloped a little bit more the no damage stat could have gone as high as 59%. I'm willing to give the victory on this to Rex, Hofbauer, and friends. I don't however, think there is anything wrong with the way CM handles hull down vehicles. I'd be willing to bet that in real life it was sometimes better for certain vehicles to avoid hull down positions when facing certain enemy guns at closer ranges. In order to make a good decision though, the TC would have to know what guns he was up against, what ammo was being used against him, the penetration statistics for the gun/ammo combination, and the armor thickness/slope of his own tank. There is also the overall situation to consider. A weak turreted vehicle may still want to be hull down to minimize the chance of being spotted or to provide a quick escape from enemy LOS if things start looking real bad. Having said all that I will admit that I will now think twice before assuming a hull down position with thin turreted vehicles with good hull armor in "stand and fight" situations at less than 1,000 meters. I vote the game is fine like it is. Edit: I still think it would be nice to add a few seconds to rate of fire against hull down (small) targets. This would probably not eliminate "hull down is bad" situations, and it shouldn't. It would however close the gap some and bring us even closer to reality, IMO. Treeburst155 [This message has been edited by Treeburst155 (edited 12-16-2000).]

Hehehe.... So this thread is still going. I'm somewhat amazed. I feel certain I understand what Rex means. I also feel certain he's missing the importance of allowing the subject tank to fire back. Soooo.. JUST for Rex I'm going to run my test again using the best combination of vehicles I can find in the database that fit what Rex wants to see tested. I will be looking at a subject vehicle whose upper and lower hull are substantially more resistant to penetration than it's turret. I will pit this vehicle against a gun that can easily penetrate the turret of our subject, but not the upper or lower hull. The subject will be allowed to fire back as this only makes sense to me. You don't take up a hull down position to an enemy just to see how many shots it takes him to kill you while you swill beer. You go hull down to fight! I'm off to the test lab. This will take quite awhile. I'll post results here by early tomorrow morning(GMT-6). Treeburst155

If you are close enough to the enemy, such that your turret alone presents a fat target then I would say being hull down is not so much of an advantage. He will hit you anyway, and it will be in the turret. This is assuming you cannot back out of sight completely utilizing the same terrain that allowed you to go hull down. (This is a very important benefit of being hull down IMO. You can often escape!) At close range I think it is safe to say First Shot=First Kill in most instances whether one of the combatants is hull down or not. I think it may very well be possible in reality that in some cases with certain units going against certain other units at shorter ranges being hull down is of dubious advantage IF you don't consider the fact that the hull down unit could often back out of sight completely in a very short time. Also, it seems to me that when you conduct a test that does not let the vehicle in question fire back you are negating one of the primary advantages of being hull down. The hull down vehicle presents a smaller target and is more likely to be missed. Every miss buys TIME for the hull down guy to kill the enemy. I cannot overemphasize the importance of TIME. Being hull down will usually buy you time. By castrating the vehicle in question you deny it the ability to take advantage of the time gained due to missed shots by the enemy. EDIT: Theron beat me to it and expressed it better. I'm with him. Treeburst155 [This message has been edited by Treeburst155 (edited 12-15-2000).]

My pleasure Steve. I enjoy running tests like that. I'll be keeping my eyes open for threads that might justify more tests on various aspects of the game. Treeburst155

OK, I've run a large test on this just for the fun of it. Ten firing lanes on the map separated by woods just to isolate the dueling units. Ten Pz IVG regulars against ten M4 Sherman regulars at 912 meters. Depressions on each side to provide hull down positions for both sides. Both sides were given targetting orders (hotseat). The status of the units was checked and tallied at the end of the movie. Hull down status was verified for both sides while issuing target orders. I ran the scenario ten times for a total of 100 individual tank duels. I then elevated the depression under the Pz IVs and did the whole thing ten more times for 100 duels where the Pz IVGs were not hull down. In both tests the German's had a 19% chance to hit. While the Germans were hull down the American M4s had a 15% chance to hit. When the Germans were elevated the American chance went to 25%. Here's the results: Hull down Pz IVG: 28 KO, 8 Abandoned, 10 buttoned (1 in shock), O gun damage, 54 OK Fully exposed Pz IVG: 47 KO, 12 Abandoned, 3 buttoned (they were all immmobilized and 2 were in shock), 1 Gun Damage, 37 OK I have the Sherman stats too if anyone is interested but that wasn't the purpose of the test and I'm lazy so I won't get into it. I'm convinced it is definitely better to be hull down even when your turret armor is weaker than your hull armor. I saw lot's of hull penetrations in the second test. Case closed for me. Treeburst155

Jarmo, If hit probability is based on a perfectly aimed gun then it should have no relation to the speed at which the gunner achieves perfect aim (RofF). Does hit probability involve the gunners work or does it involve the hardware itself such as the sights, the gun, the nature of the round, etc., or does it involve both? Perhaps Chance to Hit is based solely on range? How do moving targets figure in? We would have to know what goes into hit probability before we can determine whether RofF should be tied to it in some way. Luckily we have Charles to deal with these sorts of questions. This whole RofF issue is very minor IMO, but it is interesting. Rex I'm going to run extensive tests with the Sherman 75 against PzIV at 1000 meters tonight just out of curiosity. I will post results here very late tonight. Treeburst155

In reality, variations in rate of fire occur from round to round due to the fact that gunners and loaders are not machines. To have the computer constantly calculate rate of fire for each targetting situation just wouldn't add that much to the game in terms of realism IMO. Maybe dividing targets into small, medium, and large categories and adjusting the rate of fire based on that might make sense, but I still don't think it would add much in the way of noticeable realism to the game for the effort. Singling out hull down vehicles for special treatment regarding R of F does make sense to me in order to enhance the benefits of being hull down. BTW I have edited my previous post to suggest "a few" seconds be added rather than "a couple". IIRC it was often quite a tedious task to lay the gun accurately on a small target. Here's something else to consider. At the ranges prevalent in CM I'm not sure I would classify ANY target as small unless it were hull down. Treeburst155

Hi Tom, I think adding a few 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 few 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 [This message has been edited by Treeburst155 (edited 12-14-2000).]

As a former gunner on an M60 tank in the early '70s I can say that it does take a precious little bit longer to accurately lay the gun on a small target. Also, the gun moves after every shot and must be adjusted each time. The smaller the target the longer this takes on the average. A good gunner tries to be ready to fire before the loader can get another round loaded. Sometimes he is successful in this, thereby making the loader the RofF determiner. With small and/or moving targets the job of laying the gun gets more time consuming and the loader is often ready first. Making fine adjustments of the gun/turret is necessary to accurately lay the gun on small targets. When making these fine adjustments it is very easy to "over-adjust"; especially when you're in a hurry, which you always are. The traverse and elevation controls are only so sensitive. Fine adjustment takes TIME. For a good taste of what it's like to be a gunner I recommend Steel Beasts. Even with modern equipment you will find it takes more time to engage small targets accurately. Try it with the stabilizer disabled and watch what happens when you fire. In answer to another question. We were trained to aim at the center of visible mass. However, when presented with a large target, taking the precious time to lay the gun on the exact center is stupid. Speed is of the essence. Think of the center of visible mass not as a point but as a circular region. With small targets this circular region becomes very small indeed, thus requiring pinpoint laying of the gun for an accurate shot. I think Steve has successfully defended the way CM treats hull down vehicles. He said he would mention the RoF issue to Charles. This is not really that big of a deal as far as enjoyment of the game is concerned IMO, but it would be nice if it could be implemented. More realism is always nice. Treeburst155

I've been looking for some Jagdpanzer IV mods. I didn't see any on CMHQ. Did I miss them? If not, where are they posted? Thanks, Treeburst155

Another advantage to presenting a smaller target to the enemy gunner is that of TIME. It takes longer to lay the gun accurately on a smaller target thereby decreasing a tanks rate of fire. Seconds count in tank gunnery. I'm not sure this is modeled in CM. If not, I think rate of fire should be adjusted down some against hull down targets. This would help to alleviate the fact that it is probably sometimes better not to be hull down to an enemy gunner for reasons explained by Steve above. As far as chance to hit is concerned, the rectangle/screen example makes sense to me. Here's another way to look at it that may be more clear. Suppose I have a 100% chance of dropping a marble into a 12" diameter bucket from one foot above the bucket rim. If I reduce the bucket diameter by 50% I would still have a 100% chance of hitting the bucket. Eventually, as bucket diameter is reduced further I would begin to miss, but the chance to hit will not go down in proportion to the bucket diameter. It would be some sort of curve I think, dropping off slowly at first and then getting steeper. I say CM has everything right except the TIME factor involved in engaging smaller targets. If this were to be modelled through reduced rate of fire against hull down targets then perhaps it would no longer be preferable to remain in the open with some vehicles. Reality would be better simulated. Treeburst155

Bruno, What did they do to Silent Hunter II that you disapprove of? Is it the lack of a dynamic campaign that bothers you? Treeburst155

VERY interesting thread!! I'll have to try it out. Treeburst155

Magua, I'm heartened by the fact you have not disappeared. Please continue your CM work between bombing runs. I love what you do! Treeburst155 ------------------ I wish tall pines and woods did not use the same treebase .bmp

Great site, Kump! I enjoy being able to check out the different mods so easily. Treeburst155 ------------------ I wish tall pines and woods did not use the same treebase .bmp

Thanks Panther 131! Just one click away at all times now. Treeburst155

This one is great fun and not very easy to win. It is small so you can play it several times in an evening. I had to play it four times to get a Major Victory with no extra troops for the computer and no experience bonuses. It's a tricky one. Treeburst155

Benchmark comparisons at Anandtech.com don't look too good for the P4 against the high end Athlons. ------------------ I wish tall pines and woods did not use the same treebase .bmp

Since you are using the Panther 76 Rule, you probably should buy Panthers so your tanks have a chance against his stuff. ------------------ I wish tall pines and woods did not use the same treebase .bmp