Echo Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Are vehicle dugouts for defensive positions making it into the game? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kieme(ITA) Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I have not seen any reference to this feature. Can't be sure, but from what I understood nobody would sacrifice mobility over a hull down position, the modern battlefield does not approve the use of this method, which, if it ever had a sense, it was 70 years ago. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) I have not seen any reference to this feature. Can't be sure, but from what I understood nobody would sacrifice mobility over a hull down position, the modern battlefield does not approve the use of this method, which, if it ever had a sense, it was 70 years ago. It absolutely does approve of prepared positions (It varies obviously, the battlefield is a fickle beast!) for modern armor, every combat engineer formation (As far as I am concerned, and my friend who is an US army combat engineer) has specialists who can dig prepared hull-down positions like the one above. If I am not mistaken (Again, pnzrldr will probably come in here and tell me how stupid I am hehe) US armored formations also have specially equipped vehicles for entrenching tanks. The Russians on the other hand have there tanks designed in such a way to where they can dig in by themselves, its hard to describe, but its got something to do with the shape of the front of the vehicle. Edited January 7, 2015 by Raptorx7 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Na Vaske Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I'd assume they'd want to dig 2 tiered BPs: turret down - hull down. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) I don't know what the current practice for the Israeli army is, but at least as recently as the '73 war, they were assigning a bulldozer to each company of tanks so that they could dig in on the fly. This might amount to little more than pushing up a berm in the direction of the enemy, but I guess the thinking was that every little bit helped. BTW, I can't see how that would degrade mobility much. As far as moving in or out of a prepared position, that was quickly done. Actually preparing a position would of course take some time, but a simple berm for each tank would take only a few minutes each. Michael Edited January 7, 2015 by Michael Emrys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthsilent1 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Dude, anyone can dig. Why does it take engineers to do it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Not everyone can drive a bulldozer... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Shouldn't be hard to do by the scenario designer (landscaper) in the editor if they see the need for em. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthsilent1 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Not everyone can drive a bulldozer... i can, it's not that hard, you can learn in an hour. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Scenario designers can approximate them in the Editor using the ditch lock feature. See below: A 2m entrenchment, which provides full hull down at medium/long range and partial HD closer, but partially blocks LOS of the entrenched vehicle. Or A 1m entrenchment, which provides partial hulldown, but full LOS. The downside of this method is that your entrenchments are always visible on the map. So, your opponent knows where they are. However, if the map allows you to put a lot of them in, you could keep him guessing which ones you're actually using and in a modern environment, air recon would probably pick them out pretty quickly anyway. So the lack of FoW as to their location is more realistic than in a WWII setting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthsilent1 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Scenario designers can approximate them in the Editor using the ditch lock feature. See below: A 2m entrenchment, which provides full hull down at medium/long range and partial HD closer, but partially blocks LOS of the entrenched vehicle. Or A 1m entrenchment, which provides partial hulldown, but full LOS. The downside of this method is that your entrenchments are always visible on the map. So, your opponent knows where they are. However, if the map allows you to put a lot of them in, you could keep him guessing which ones you're actually using and in a modern environment, air recon would probably pick them out pretty quickly anyway. So the lack of FoW as to their location is more realistic than in a WWII setting.I still don't see the difference, why is number one only viewed partially? The guy can't see what's infrint of him? Or the tank gun can't shoot, but the commander can see. also. How do you quote multiple things at once? Also, just put the trenches in obvious places where.... No forget it. Id say they are useless 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I still don't see the difference, why is number one only viewed partially? The guy can't see what's infrint of him? Or the tank gun can't shoot, but the commander can see. also. How do you quote multiple things at once? Also, just put the trenches in obvious places where.... No forget it. Id say they are useless Probably, the gunner's site/gun is being partially obstructed. Each crew member can only see what their position allows them to see. The Commander is higher than the gunner. I would guess that vehicle height makes a difference. Perhaps modern vehicles have more clearance height, being taller? We'll see... Another thing to consider in scenario design. You could fake out your opponent for awhile with these. I haven't taken the time to figure out the new multi-quote system yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthsilent1 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Probably, the gunner's site/gun is being partially obstructed. Each crew member can only see what their position allows them to see. The Commander is higher than the gunner. I would guess that vehicle height makes a difference. Perhaps modern vehicles have more clearance height, being taller? We'll see... Another thing to consider in scenario design. You could fake out your opponent for awhile with these. I haven't taken the time to figure out the new multi-quote system yet.no you're right, faking out is a good tactic, that's a really good one. Let them bomb the tench, then put your tank in there for a minute, then put it somewhere else. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antaress73 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 An M1A2 is prepared positions is a serious obstacle. Unless you can call precision arty strikes on it fast. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthsilent1 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 An M1A2 is prepared positions is a serious obstacle. Unless you can call precision arty strikes on it fast.2 minutes for precision artillery. So you just pop in and out 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Quick note to folks new to the series: Foxholes and trenches for infantry must be spotted by your units to be seen. They do not change the terrain, but are denoted by graphics that appear on the map when they are spotted. The same goes for bunkers in the WWII titles. So, they are subject to full Fog of War, unlike the vehicle entrenchment "hack" we have been discussing for the last few posts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthsilent1 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Quick note to folks new to the series: Foxholes and trenches for infantry must be spotted by your units to be seen. They do not change the terrain, but are denoted by graphics that appear on the map when they are spotted. The same goes for bunkers in the WWII titles. So, they are subject to full Fog of War, unlike the vehicle entrenchment "hack" we have been discussing for the last few posts.no way, you're joking. That's a lot more useful then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) no way, you're joking. That's a lot more useful then. Yes, it's true. I meant to add that in my first post, but forgot. Same goes for sandbags and barbed wire. You've also got mines (can sometimes be spotted, but usually you find them the hard way) and Target Reference Points. Target reference points allow for arty missions without spotting rounds (SRs let your opponent know arty is on the way soon). So...your opponent doesn't know they're coming! Of course, he can't see where the TRPs are (they can never be spotted). Edited January 7, 2015 by Macisle 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthsilent1 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Yes, it's true. I meant to add that in my first post, but forgot. Same goes for sandbags and barbed wire. You've also got mines (can sometimes be spotted, but usually you find them the hard way) and Target Reference Points. Target reference points allow for arty missions without spotting rounds (SRs let your opponent know arty is on the way soon). So...your opponent doesn't know they're coming! Of course, he can't see where the TRPs are (they can never be spotted).dude I will use the hell out of barbed wire. It's so useful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Okay I can see the problem - the in the case of the T-34-85 is 2.45m tall - and the 1m takes it to the top of the tracks - then at 2m that is just above the gun height. What happens if you make a 2m dug in position two action squares long but make the front square 1m dip so the residing tank is sloping up hopefully allowing the gun to peak over the top. Things will differ depending on the vehicle and might need some adjustment i.e. M1A1 height 2.44m, T-90 2.22m etc.) Edited January 7, 2015 by Wicky 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stealthsilent1 Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 Or you can dig it so that there is a long trench for the gun nozzle so you protect the sides 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 If you guys want to check out what some of this stuff looks like (should be largely the same in CMBS, I imagine), watch the first few videos in the CMRT videos thread here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117317-the-cm-theater-thread-post-cinematic-rt-vids-here/ Enjoy! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Oh and when building in the Editor, terrain tiles are 8 x 8 m sqares and depth can be altered in increments of 1 m. That's for the "hack." Again, foxholes, trenches, barbed wire, sandbags, bunkers etc. are all independent items that appear on the map only when they are spotted by units. Edited January 7, 2015 by Macisle 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Okay, guys. I just put a King Tiger into a 2m deep "hack" trench and it had clear LOS, along with full hulldown status at medium/long range (partial HD at very close range). Here's a screenie: So, it looks like it's a question of how modern tanks will match up with the 1m depth increments, if you want to use the vehicle entrenchment hack idea. Edited January 7, 2015 by Macisle 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 (edited) Yup - the Tiggy Two is a tall beastie The M1A2 not so tall - more squat Edited January 7, 2015 by Wicky 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.