Static defenses

[emccabe]

I know this was a topic before bs came out but anyone have any luck

[Thewood1]

I am not sure what you are talking about..static defenses?  Fighting them?  Fighting in them?  Placing them?  Effectiveness?

[emccabe]

I meant putting in tanks or other armor vehicles into positions made using the ditch feature in the editor

[Stagler]

2S7 > all static defences

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

2S7 <pack of howler monkeys with bombs strapped to them

 

I'm sort of curious why we don't have tank fighting positions.  I guess the coding would be tricky but it'd be a welcome addition

[White2Golf]

Fighting positions would be nice but I imagine the "LOS is calculated from the center of the object" issue would be a problem.   When the vehicle is in the position, it would not be able to see much.   We would also have to simulate the ACE crew who stole all your pogey bait while you were sleeping while they were digging.   LOL

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

Or the M9 that dumped all its hydraulics fluids because LOL I AM AN ACE.  

 

Valid point though.

[womble]

Fighting positions would be nice but I imagine the "LOS is calculated from the center of the object" issue would be a problem.

Not how LOS works. LOS is calculated from eyeballs. There's a "rough" LOSMap that has precalculated "is it ever ever ever possible" LOS solutions between centres of AS.

[White2Golf]

Not how LOS works. LOS is calculated from eyeballs. There's a "rough" LOSMap that has precalculated "is it ever ever ever possible" LOS solutions between centres of AS.

 

I stand happily corrected.   So the general grumblings I recall in my head of "hull down" being difficult to attain are just those damn voices again?    

[A Canadian Cat]

Fighting positions would be nice but I imagine the "LOS is calculated from the center of the object" issue would be a problem.   When the vehicle is in the position, it would not be able to see much.   We would also have to simulate the ACE crew who stole all your pogey bait while you were sleeping while they were digging.   LOL

 

I swear I read someone's post on how to create a dug in tank position but I cannot find it.  More faulty memory - perhaps.

 

But it could be done and LOS is calculated from the various vision ports / sensor arrays not from the centre of the object.  And LOF is calculated from the gun too.  So if you can use the terrain to get a tank into a hull down position relative to a kill zone then you can build a dug in position in the scenario editor too.

[Vanir Ausf B]

This is why they're not in the game:
 

Improved vehicle positions sound like they'd fall into the same pitfall as 3D foxholes would. We can't make them 3D because there would be no fog of war. Say hello to the Russian player dropping a turn 1 artillery strike on every one of those positions.

 

Edited March 12, 2015 by Vanir Ausf B

[womble]

I stand happily corrected.   So the general grumblings I recall in my head of "hull down" being difficult to attain are just those damn voices again?  

Nah, "Hull down" is difficult to attain because it requires you be in a pretty narrow strip/patch of ground. Would be much easier if there were ditchlocked tank emplacements But they'd be visible from game start, being part of the terrain mesh and not under FoW restrictions. I think making a "Tank Foxhole" the same way trenches and foxholes are fudged in for infantry so they can be hidden in FoW would, indeed, be tricky to do right and provide the hulldown benefit.

[Michael Emrys]

Or...you could make ditchlocked tank positions all over your part of the map and let your opponent try to figure out which ones have tanks in them.

 

 

Michael

[agusto]

Digging fake trenches to deceive the enemy is actually a common military tactic. Speaking of deception, maybe we could get dummy tanks in a future module:

 

 

Imagine you bring that thing to a pool party! The ultimate airbed!

Edited March 13, 2015 by agusto

[Michael Emrys]

There are reasons to prepare surplus fieldworks if enough time, labor, and materials are available. One is, as you say, for deception. Another is to have alternate firing positions.

 

Michael

[jtsjc1]

Digging fake trenches to deceive the enemy is actually a common military tactic. Speaking of deception, maybe we could get dummy tanks in a future module:

 

 

Imagine you bring that thing to a pool party! The ultimate airbed!

In Bulge maybe!

[agusto]

There are reasons to prepare surplus fieldworks if enough time, labor, and materials are available. One is, as you say, for deception. Another is to have alternate firing positions.

 

Michael

 

How goes that saying again? Every drop of sweat used for preparing fieldworks is one drop of blood less lost during the battle. I find that there are few things more satisfying than watching a human opponent waste his precious artillery on an empty trench line.

Edited March 13, 2015 by agusto

[Sulman]

I heard the inflatable T-72 was a bit of a letdown

[womble]

How goes that saying again? Every drop of sweat used for preparing fieldworks is one drop of blood less lost during the battle. I find that there are few things more satisfying than watching a human opponent waste his precious artillery on an empty trench line.

 "Dig hard, fight easy"?

 

I heard the inflatable T-72 was a bit of a letdown

What did the inflatable sergeant say to the inflatable private who brought a pin to the inflatable tank decoy park?

[Michael Emrys]

What did the inflatable sergeant say to the inflatable private who brought a pin to the inflatable tank decoy park?

 

"Stick it where it'll do the most good." And we all know where that is.

 

Michael

[agusto]

I heard the inflatable T-72 was a bit of a letdown

 

 

 

"Its alrigth honey, we can try it again later"

Edited March 13, 2015 by agusto

[womble]

 "Dig hard, fight easy"?

 

What did the inflatable sergeant say to the inflatable private who brought a pin to the inflatable tank decoy park?

 

 

"Stick it where it'll do the most good." And we all know where that is.

 

Michael

Nope:

 

"You've let me down, you've let yourself down, but worst of all, you've let the company down."

Edited March 13, 2015 by womble

[A Canadian Cat]

OK I went and did some experimenting.  Here is a scenario with four different prepared tank positions on each side one is T90s vs M1s and one is T90s vs Bradleys.  Lot of fun even if it is not realistic.  The idea was just to show how a tank position might be made using the editor.

 

Prepaired Tank Positions.zip

 

Here is a screen shot of one M1 just before it sustained mission kill damage.  As you can see it has survived a few hits already.

 

Here is the how they are made diagrams.  I created four slightly different positions.  One two AS wide - I think that one is too wide.  One super long which I think looks silly but anyway you be the judge.  The long ones can have a lower section that allows the tank to totally hide.  During the battle when tanks withdraw after a laser warning they will stop when they reach cover.  A few times the tank in the position with the extra low section actually stopped there and therefore stayed in the prepared position most of the time they actually retreated back below the hill.  So, if you do create positions like these think about what tanks will do if they pop smoke and withdraw - do they have a safe place to go?

 

 

 

[A Canadian Cat]

Continued.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

That'll certainly do it for building a scenario. 

 

For folks building said scenerios, at least in US Armyland:

 

You have the following flavors of fighting positions:

 

1. Primary.  This is where it is optimal for you to shoot the heck out of the enemy and where you would like to fight from.

2. Alternate. Still focused on the same engagement area as primary, but in a different position.  Usually intended as where the tank displaces to once the enemy identifies the primary position

3. Supplementary. If there's two avenues of approach, the primary will focus on the most likely of the two, while a supplementary position will be available if the enemy does the unexpected

4. Subsequent. This is where the tank goes to once the first set of positions is threatened, or conditions are met to merit moving back.  Often part of a defense in depth (so the enemy gets attritted to some degree, company withdraws to a subsequent position while the enemy is disrupted, crosslevels ammo and then gets ready to do it again).

 

This can take a LOT of engineering work and time, so in practice not all of these are full on fighting positions, like the Primary position might be a hull down position, while the alternate is simply a handy berm, with the supplementary is some low ground that offers cover, or might be fighting positions to different degrees (primary is turret down, alternate is merely hull, supplementary is a simply a scrape made by the company's M88)

 

All the same just an idea if you want to do it right, and it'll leave a convincing number of positions scattered around the map as effectively decoys.