domfluff

I assume it's generalised - I don't know how the values are derived, but the intention is surely worst-case (since the point of it is "how not to get your own men killed") From vague memory of a discussion here, I believe the way CM models HE shrapnel is an explosive effect, followed by a number of randomly drawn straight-line traces, from the impact point. That inevitably will mean that in some scenarios it'll be better to be prone (they'll pass overhead in the y-axis), and in some scenarios it'll be better to be standing (if the path is grazing the ground, then being prone will create more x-axis targets to hit.

Yeah, that's lethal range - that's the range you expect people to die, rather than the range that they could get hit. An important distinction if they're your own guys From the current US Infantry Manual (there's little difference in basic HE mortar effects from WW2 to now, so the values are still valid) MSD = Minimum safe distance PI = Percentage of incapacitation. 0.1 is one in a thousand soldiers will be incapacitated at this range, in expectation. 10 PI is one in ten (i.e., you expect to cause casualties with a mortar round at this distance). Below the above table there's: "WARNING REDs are for combat use and do not represent the maximum fragmentation envelopes of the weapons listed. REDs are not minimum safe distances for peacetime training use."

Yeah, I expect there's a limit. It's definitely more than calibre-in-metres though. Doctrinal danger close is something like 200m for a US 60mm mortar (IIRC), although sensibly that would include scatter from incoming rounds, etc.

From previous discussions, I think the way that CM models fragmentation is that the explosion draws a number of ray-traces from the explosion point, in random directions. I assume that this number depends on the size or how fragmentary the round is supposed to be. Assuming these are just straight line traces (an assumption with no firm basis), this could produce some really weird results in the occasional edge-case scenario - hurting people across the map, and so forth, assuming there happened to be nothing in the way. I know I've certainly seen people get injured unexpectedly from incoming rounds, so that might be what's happening here. It would certainly explain the simultaneous losses. As a rule of thumb, "Danger close" is always further than you expect.

Panzer II crew decided to give up this whole war business, and form a spontaneous boy band.

"Some guy" was Steve commenting on how the game works Trees block LOF by their depicted trunks - exactly as if you turn the foliage off. That's why you can shoot trees. Cover, not concealment, if you like. Trees also block LOS through the trunks, if that's enough to block LOS. That could happen, if they were dense enough or far enough away, but often will not be. Then, there's an additional degradation of spotting through the terrain, that seems to be on a per-tile basis. This is the same way that this works in various hex-and-counter wargames, more notably Advanced Squad Leader (and less notably Combat Commander). There, buildings provide morale, essentially, since troops are degraded by their morale state, and the intervening terrain lessens the incoming fire (so is easier to resist). In CM, the only part of that which is true is the spotting cycle, which is clearly somewhat randomised, and degraded by a number of things, like suppression on the spotter, light conditions, and intervening tiles.

Yeah, I don't think there's a model for "more tanks = easier to spot", but there's definitely a percentage chance of seeing each tank individually, each spotting cycle. Three of them together make it more likely that one will be spotted. If one is spotted, the spotter will be looking directly at where the other two are, making it easier to spot those as well, especially when the fighting starts. The LOS/LOF for tanks creates these problems all the time. You'd have the same problem in reality, of course, but you'd hope that a decent real-life crew would sort this out amongst themselves. The Combat Mission TacAI (as in, choosing which weapon to use, how to react on an individual level) is really pretty great - it's rare that you see individual soldiers doing anything really odd, unlike on the larger scale. This is one of those edge cases where the sim breaks down a little, but it's far from fatal.

Something like that would be my assumption. Would be incredibly hard to recreate or prove, without some kind of LOS ray-trace visualiser though. Sherman has a periscope on the very top of the commander's hatch, does a Panther? It looks like it does, but I'm not sure. I don't think the foliage works quite that way. From what Steve has said earlier, LOS and LOF work in two different ways. The visual representation of foliage doesn't actually do anything, but the bare trunks do block LOS and LOF. The tree tiles then impede LOS spotting, in much the same way they do in Advanced Squad Leader or Combat Commander (i.e., each tile of impeding terrain adds an impediment).

If you're saying you can't replicate this on flat terrain, perhaps it's the commander's viewing point that's the difference? If the periscope on a Sherman is a little bit higher, for example, then maybe we're dealing with micro-terrain blocking the line of sight by a couple of inches?

I'd have thought the "suppress target first, bring up flamethrower to flush them out" strategy was accurate to reality, really - flamethrowers are really a kind of siege equipment, and therefore best used for finishing off bunkers or possibly in built-up terrain. The advantage they gain over a straight-up close assault is range and speed - you don't run the risk of having to then defend the assault from a newly exposed, or unexpectedly defended position (one chap with an SMG that suddenly decides to go rambo on the assault team, or an MG in a building behind the target, for example). Limited? Sure, but they do provide something you can't do otherwise.

Gah, have to hand in my Grog card! Sorry, was more concerned with finding the link

This is what I do, which works really well for me. The actual Hull Down-move waypoint is probably too far forward to be safe, but it's indicative really. When you target a grid square, it's getting LOS to a point somewhat *above* the square, so there's an offset. It won't do as good a job as the Abrams (ahem) in the photo above, but it'll do a good-enough job for CM, in my experience. The experiences of others seem to differ.

Does "One terrain feature behind" imply "out of line of sight" though? That's been my issue with the BMP - the squad needs to use it's firepower to support the advance, but the BMP needs to not get shot at. It's pretty great at the former, but terrible at the latter, so range seems to be a decent option. Clearly, anything outside of AT-4 (and equivalent) range would do, I suppose.

Using 203mm artillery to make foxholes seems like an awful idea to me, where the same (or better) protection could be supplied using far cheaper smoke assets, in CM or real life. Smoke-penetrating IR might make a huge difference to this calculation, but even in that situation I'm not sure that foxhole-by-artillery is viable. However, this is a starting point for a discussion. I don't feel like attacking ad hominem is useful at all here - you certainly don't need to be able to demonstrate practical use to teach well, since teaching and practice are often vastly different skills. It's certainly correct to debate the value of the advice, and you're free to counter with alternatives. To compare - two points that Olek has posted that I have found particularly interesting revolve around the use of BMP's to support an attack, and using a mixture of artillery assets on the same target. The former is important, since unlike the Stryker or an APC, the BMP is clearly a fighting vehicle, albeit not a terribly *good* one (at least in terms of survivability). That means that the platoon needs it's BMPs to be exposed and using it's fire support, but can't afford to expose them too much, since they'll just lose the asset. In his earlier post, the BMP's are dismounting about 1km away from their targets, and the infantry dismounts are proceeding on foot. I've been playing around with not dismounting the MG, sniper and HQ teams, keeping them to spot, and only advancing with the six man squads. That seems to work pretty well - the dismounts can't really deal with any incoming fire, but the BMPs certainly can from that distance. In that scheme, the other squads are mostly there for when the infantry are leading (in close terrain), or setting up a defensive position. The 1km dismount is a large distance, and the infantry take some time to cross it - there's plenty of time for a response to be generated here - but it's definitely a way to get more out of the BMP support. In that scheme of attack, the dismounts can begin to engage anyone left on the objective, but may have difficulty pushing through. This is when the BMPs can be brought up for closer support, or can flank the objective to get things moving.

"adding a 30-millimeter cannon it will only create a false sense of security and encourage commanders to do just that" I've never been convinced by this form of argument in military matters - even dating back to opposition to helmets in WW1 on the grounds of cowardice. I suspect it doesn't give people on the ground enough credit at all. Stryker is a bus. By most accounts it seems to be a pretty good bus, with decent networking capabilities. Wheels vs Tracks is a reasonable argument when talking about off-road buses, and you can argue about it's overall form (is it too large?/too tall?), but that's really about it.

The Devil's Descent is superb - a narrative campaign, based around a single company, so you can get to know individual units and officer names. That was the first campaign since the official CMSF one that I finished, and I think it shows the value of the campaign structure over individual missions - I'd love more small-unit campaigns like this.

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.

End result from the building's point of view

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.

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

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...

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.

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.

The situations where I've used the new Hull Down command most effectively have all been with an area target. You put a Hull Down waypoint slightly further than you think you'll need to go (so a mistake here won't cost you too much), then an area target from that waypoint to the area you want to be hull down to. The area target does *not* cause the tank to fire at that point, it's just used for the purposes of the hull down command as a reference point. I haven't experimented too much with chaining commands after this point, but in a one minute turn that is usually enough.

Try this one: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=2917