Keith Posted June 8, 1999 Share Posted June 8, 1999 I see how in your game system's LOS rules that a hull down vehicle would present a smaller target, but will this reflect in a smaller "to hit" probability? Second question is, do you model the disadvantages of tanks firing while moving? All tanks but the Sherman lacked a gun stabalizer, and the Sherman's stabalizer was VERY rough (almost useless). Finally, are the German MGs higher rate of fire (but slightly less accuracy) modeled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 9, 1999 Share Posted June 9, 1999 Yes. Yes. Yes. How is that Seriously, take every question you just came up with it, heap on about 10 sub questions for each, and I will still answer "yes" to all of them. Combat Mission models more stuff than any game ever made. And does each better. The only thing we haven't put in quite yet is Hull Down. This will hopefully go in soon. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted June 9, 1999 Author Share Posted June 9, 1999 Thanks for answering my questions. I am looking forward to the release. With regard to trenches, if you guys ever do an East Front game trenches should be on the list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 9, 1999 Share Posted June 9, 1999 Eastern Front is next, and that is why they are on the list Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted June 9, 1999 Share Posted June 9, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> The only thing we haven't put in quite yet is Hull Down <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hehe, must be a tricky one ! I wonder if you can avoid all the geometry calculations involved ! Puhh, I really cannot imagine how you could abstract THIS one ! On the other hand, if you already calculate LOS between two points in space then you could define two points on the tank (top of turret, top of hull) to check if the hull is visible or not. Same goes for the inverse problem: If the tank commander can see the enemy, but the driver cannot, then your tank is obviously hull down. Poor AI programmer ! Regards, Thomm ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted June 9, 1999 Share Posted June 9, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Same goes for the inverse problem: If the tank commander can see the enemy, but the driver cannot, then your tank is obviously hull down<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You could also be turret down in that situation. It is possible for the tank commander to see over a hill without unmasking the turret. I suppose you could designate 3 points hull top, turret top and main gun and use those to determine the posture of the tank. However it works I'm sure the math would give me a bad headache. Good thing Grants and Lees weren't in Normandy. ------------------ If something cannot be fixed by hitting it or by swearing at it, it wasn't worth saving anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 9, 1999 Share Posted June 9, 1999 I'm looking forward to a game that models hull down well. My favorite tactic is to place a small unit of AFVs with excellent long range firepower, in a position where they are hull down to most potential threats and can see the operating areas of my other units. Then, I have my other units carry out their missions under the watchful eyes of the afore-mentioned AFVs. It gets me pretty angry when I find a perfect location for this tactic and then my tank is destroyed by a hit to the hull because the game models hull down situations poorly or not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted June 9, 1999 Share Posted June 9, 1999 Maybe I'm missing something here, but with CM's 3D model I'd think this would be (relatively) easy to put in. Since the actual shell trajectories are tracked, the shell-hitting-dirt-instead-of-tank bit will automatically happen. The only tricky bit seems to be programming the tank to move to a hull down position. It seems to me that if you have the tank calculate LOS from turret to target you're halfway there. Essentially all you need to specify after that is for the tank to adjust position to take maximum advantage of the terrain (ie trace LOS with barrel sighting as low above intervening ground as possible). So the tricky thing seems not to be the physics so much as the AI - telling the driver how to identify and move to hull down positions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted June 9, 1999 Share Posted June 9, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Since the actual shell trajectories are tracked, the shell-hitting-dirt-instead-of-tank bit will automatically happen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, IF they track the shell trajectories in this fashion (I personally doubt it, because I think they track the shells only AFTER they missed their primary target). But even if the probability of a hit is reduced in this fashion the whole tank still enters the kill probability equation because the program would still not be aware of the fact that the tank is hull down ! Lets see how BTS handles this ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted June 9, 1999 Share Posted June 9, 1999 Hmm... Good thread. Kinda brings up another question. My personal favorite tactic is to go "reverse slope" and wait for the other poor bugger to pop over the crest, nicely sihlouetted (spelling anyone?). Here's the question. Does/will CM accurately model the gun elevation and depression capabilities of different AFVs? Nothing worse that the old "I can see 'em, but I can't shoot 'em" due to elevation differences in either positive or negative plane. [This message has been edited by Herr Oberst (edited 06-09-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 9, 1999 Share Posted June 9, 1999 Reverse slope is a good one too, I like to use it when I have few to no AFVs. On games that model the guns elevation/depression range accurately, it becomes an important factor. Learned from tank simulators, which I don't enjoy nearly as much as turned based games. I guess we'll find out but I imagine CM will model this, not much that they have told us it won't model Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 9, 1999 Share Posted June 9, 1999 Herr Oberst and Rick, CM already models this stuff. Plus, in non-turreted vehicles we have the correct L/R movement as well. And these values are rarely the same, with one side having a greater degree of movement than the other. Right now we have a Hetzer, Jagdpanther, and Priest that do this. Check out the QT movies to see the Priest's gun in action. It is very cool to watch Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted June 9, 1999 Share Posted June 9, 1999 Have you defined how a vehicle will assume a hull down position. I think it should be relatively easy to do when you set up your forces but how will you do this once vehicles begin to move. Will I have to set a stopping point near the crest of a hill that I hope is hull down or will I be able to issue a seek hull down command? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 10, 1999 Share Posted June 10, 1999 CM is a 3D world, with lots of different viewing options. It is farily easy to spot where hull down will work and order a vehicle to take up positions there. You might get it a bit wrong the first try, but so do real tank commanders I just saw 4 Panthers in hull down positions on a big ridge. No problem getting them to do this. Unfortunately the hull down rules are in yet so there was no advantage to this (yet). Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 10, 1999 Share Posted June 10, 1999 I seem to rememeber that the Hetzer's gun has far less movement to one side than the other, is this true? I've seen vastly contradicting reports about the Hetzer, some say it was great in defense because it was hard to see, hard to hit, and very maneuverable. Others say it sucked. So which is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 10, 1999 Share Posted June 10, 1999 Yes Rick, the mantlet was off centered and that meant that it was very restricted when aiming to the left. Don't have the numbers in front of me. The Hetzer was both a great tank and a terrible one It was inexpensive to produce, small, fast, heavily armed, and had great frontal armor. But it was light on side/rear armor, had limited MG fire, crew comparment was CRAMPED, and probably a bunch of other things I can't remember. I think the German crews respected it, but really had no love for the vehicle. Allies probably loved it even less! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst2 Posted June 10, 1999 Share Posted June 10, 1999 Small, fast, heavily armed. A good panzertruppen commander would make use of those facts and limit the liabilities. A deadly little bugger indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted June 10, 1999 Share Posted June 10, 1999 I am interested in this vehicle because one of the thing I've always wanted to do in a game like this is plan an ambush for an armor column using two Hetzers and a bunch of infantry. Problem is the Hetzer is another vehicle, like the Sherman, which most games don't model its virtues well. So, I've resorted to using Jpz IV/70s instead. It works great, but it's too easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 10, 1999 Share Posted June 10, 1999 Well, if you are THAT interested in Hetzers you can still find one or two for sale. After the war something like 100 of them were shipped off to Sweeden and Switzerland from Czechoslovakia. Some parts were left over from incomplete tanks when the war ended, others were post-war modifications (notably the gun). There are quite a few here in the US. The other thing that is big is the Czech OT-810, which is a vehicle based on the SdKfz 251/D. For about $18k you can get one already retrofitted to be like the WWII version. Mind you, I have heard that everybody who owns one complains about the horrible diesel engines they have Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Deans Posted June 10, 1999 Share Posted June 10, 1999 A question about drills and SOPs that the conversation about reverse slopes brought to mind. A tactic, certainly of modern tank forces, is to jockey. That is to approach a crest with the view to engage a target. Once the target is aquired and engaged, the vehicle moves back off the crest and then left or right and does the same again. This minimizes the time spent exposed to enemy fire. I realize that the complete movement is a bit too complicated but to have a routine whereby the tank is set behind the crest and given order to "jockey". The tank will run up, aquire and fire, then retire to cover to reload. The left or right movement would be handled by the player. This seems as though it would fit into the 1 minute execution phase. Just a thought..... Rob Deans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 10, 1999 Share Posted June 10, 1999 Rob, you can have even finer control of such a move in CM. Example... 3 Shermans behind a ridge at the beginning of a turn. Order Sherman 1 (Center) to move to firing position right away. Take Shermans 2 and 3 and give them a 30 second Pause order. They will then go up to firing positions and aquire probably right as the turn is about to end. Next turn order Sherman 1 back down the hill, then do the same for Shermans 2 and 3, again using Pause orders. This will keep each tank in firing position for about 30 seconds or so. Enough to aquire and shoot, but not much time to get shot at. And if you do, and the tank isn't happy about the attention, it will back itself down the hill. Ah, provided it isn't KNOCKED back down the hill Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts