BTS: The Hull Down Move

[Mark IV]

If you don't move, it is NOT a relative issue in the examples given above.

Hull-down to a piece of real estate (i.e., a road, or a gap) will not change unless you move. Period. It is hull-down to an absolute point in space. Other vehicles do not matter.

Armored crewmen practice doing this. It is second nature when establishing a defensive position or setting up and ambush. You are anticipating where the enemy will appear.

If you do move, of course it changes.

If enemies appear elsewhere, you are not necessarily hull-down to them.

It is not relative to enemies at all, but to the point you drew your line to. That is all.

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MERC:

I fully understand what everybody is saying. I just don't think getting hull-down is a precise black/white issue. Its a relative issue and will be constantly changing throughout the turn and game. What is hull-down at this second may not be 10 seconds from now.

I also believe that some of the difficulties that some are experiencing in getting hull-down in the game is the similiar to the difficulty you would face in real life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL

You may or may not understand what everyone else is saying but I am at a loss as to what you are saying here.

I think others grasp my point that being "hull down" is relative to a piece of real estate somewhere to your front. Now the real estate shouldnt move but you will to attain "hull down" status to it. Once you achieve it, you stop moving.

Ive driven armor and it is not a difficult task or concept. I think its so much more easier in real life than in the game. Sorry but you make me laugh and I dont want this to flare up so Ill just leave it alone with you.

Lewis

[MERC]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

I think others grasp my point that being "hull down" is relative to a piece of real estate somewhere to your front. Now the real estate shouldnt move but you will to attain "hull down" status to it. Once you achieve it, you stop moving.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your laughter is of ignorance.

Your fallacy here is your forgetting that the ultimate goal is to be hull down to the enemy armour not a piece of real estate. Depending on where the enemy armour is located (relative to your position) that will define whether your hull down.

I would refer you to the following discussion on the issue.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000453.html

BTS stance on the issue is not much different than mine, though they probably expressed it more eloquently.

[:USERNAME:]

More like experience.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it does it make a sound? If a tank is hull down to a position and there is no enemy armor there, is it really hull down..?

[Guest KwazyDog]

Actually I can see the merit in such a command and I imagine from a programming point of view it wouldnt be impossable (not the first time Ive been wrong there though, hehe ). Basically it would be using the same concepts as the current hunt command but focusing on a point of land and once that point is visable the vehicle would stop immediately (though maybe green crews wouldnt be so good at this?).

Currently the hunt command can do this based on a vehicle, but the downside is that if the target vehicle destroys the target, he continues to hunt out of its previous hull down position. This leaves you with basically guessing where the hull down point is. In reality I imagine the crew would be able to determine very easily where this point is, and would be very careful to use it to their fullest advantage.

Thats my take on it, anyways

[Ricky]

"Currently the hunt command can do this based on a vehicle, but the downside is that if the target vehicle destroys the target, he continues to hunt out of its previous hull down position"

Yes, and if you use the HUNT command to point to a particular location and no enemy is present at that location, the vehicle will continue to hunt until it reaches the waypoint. It doesn't simply stop when it comes into LOS of the waypoint as some have suggested.

[Dave]

The "hunt" move is used when the enemy is near (or you think they are) so that when they appear your unit will attack. If you come over a ridge, using "hunt", then your unit would attack IF there was a enemy unit. You would probably be in a hull down position.

BUT what happens if you're coming over that ridge, using "hunt", and there's no enemy? Your unit keeps moving to the end of its movement.

If we had a "hull down" move, then with the same example your unit would stop, before cresting the ridge, once it has a LOS to the "hull down" target point. This would be like the TC stopping his tank when it had a clear shot to the target point. Another use would be coming around a building JUST enough to have a clear shot.

With the present method, you can't do this in one turn. You can move the unit one turn, THEN check the LOS the next turn. A lot of time can pass, time that might result in your unit getting smoked.

[Hakko Ichiu]

I see what Lewis is saying wrt a "hull down to a point" command. As someone who has trouble reading terrain (red-green color blind), I'd love to have it in. That being said, and I'm no programming wiz, I see a couple of problems implementing it in the game:

1) What is hull down? It is a continuous variable (range 0-1) rather than a binary (0/1). What is hull down enough? Sure, I'd like to be invisible below my gun tube, but I'd take a 20% reduction in exposure against a target in full view -- every little bit helps. How is the AI to decide that it has indeed reached "hull-down"?

2) What if there is no effective hull-down position? Does your tank just keep rolling until it reaches its target point? That could ruin your TC's day.

As it is, the Hunt command is pretty good at finding hull-down positions along a line of advance toward known targets, while the defender has a much greater ability to figure out his fields of fire and defilades in the setup routine, which is much as it should be.

I've a suspicion that's about as good as it'll get. I just wish BTS would release some textures for the 20% of males w/Red-Green color blindness, a la Firaxis with SMAC.

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Dave]

"Hull down" position should be easy to determine. Select a target (by "target" I don't mean a enemy unit, but a spot on the ground) and your unit moves until it has LOS from the gun barrel, not the TC. Of course, if you set the target point hundreds of meters away you run the risk of something accidently interferring with it and you moving too far. However, if you do the same foolish thing with the "hunt" command you run risks also.

[TargetDrone]

Dave:

Sure thing.. that way you can determin IF you ARE in a hull down postition... the problem is, if you are not, you have to spend another turn with minimal movement to try to get there.... the tank moves maybe 10secs, and you have to waste the rest of the turn just to see in your next command phase IF you have obtained a hull down postition.... if not, well another turn is wasted... not the most economical way of finding a hull down position.... if you tried to lay an ambush the convoy you wanted to target may already have passed you, with the drivers of the convoy laughing about that dumb tank commander that runs his tank forward and back to get into an ideal ambush position.....

------------------

TargetDrone

who has a heart for smilies

and will defend their rights ....

even if the cost is bloody....

[Bamse]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cueball:

If I understand this correctly, it's essentially a "Move until target point visible".

B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes ! I want that button in the menu !

[Demangel]

Merc I would just like to know what your credentials on the subject are? I mean have you ever driven a tank or even seen one in real life...

Merc... No offense... But I just don't think you get it... you keep arguing even when we all tell you repeatedly what we're talking about... I bet your one of those rules mongers when you play table top games arn't you? The kind of person who bitches or finds fault in every thing an oponent does cuz if you don't you can't win by sheer skill alone...

Hmmm does this ring a bell?

"Hey you rolled that wrong you have to swish your hand three times first before throwing the dice!"

Well maybe I'm exagerating but the stuff you argue with Lewis about is not really any different... arguing with him over how he stated something when I'm sure you damn well know what he means...

Let me guess you'r gonna pick on my spelling or something arn't you... or maybe my grammer, or maybe just how Use a lot of ...'s

Well whatever man...

to each his own...

[:USERNAME:]

Demangel

I think theres three HD threads going and no BTS input (Vacation/Patch?) so lets just keep it cool. Theres always people that embrace the new and theres others that defend the old. Its all part of a process in any endeavor.

Now leave MERC alone.. hes from Kansas and there isnt a hull down position in that whole state. Hes hull down challenged. Not too many downhill skiers come from Kansas either..

Lewis

[R-Man]

Hey! Is that really you Lewis, calling for cooler heads to prevail? Now we're making some real progress! An intelligent debate with little or no flaming.

As for MERC's point regarding tanks "dancing" to find that hull down position, I find that a very real possibility. Having played as much CC3 and CC4 as anybody, there is nothing more infuriating than having your tanks show their backsides while hunting around for a waypoint. I've witnessed it on more than one occasion in CM, as well.

Don't get me wrong, I would love a simple "hunt hull-down to target-point" command, but I can also see some problems with it. What happens when your tank crests the hill, hunting for hull-down, but ends up with some obstruction to the target point? Wouldn't that tank just keep rolling into the open? Or would it jockey back and forth, doing a little Close Combat dance-of-death? It may be more difficult to code than we imagine, and I would very much like to hear BTS's opinion of its feasibility.

Finally (and this is not a flame), after as much time as we all have spent playing this game, you guys still don't know how to get into hull-down on the first try? Sure, it's not perfect, but simply moving the front edge of your tank to the reverse-slope edge of the plateau or crest in front of you will pretty much do it every time (relative to the same elevation on the opposite ridge, which is the most likely location of the enemy). If you don't get it on the first try, you should get it on the second.

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by R-Man:

Hey! Is that really you Lewis

Don't get me wrong, I would love a simple "hunt hull-down to target-point" command, but I can also see some problems with it. What happens when your tank crests the hill, hunting for hull-down, but ends up with some obstruction to the target point? .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes that was brought up by someone else I think.

Just to be clear I think I will list the ideas brought up:

1. have a command so that you extend a line designating a target/position that your vehicle will attempt to move forward to find a HD position in relation to the target/position.

2. Have a way of drawing a LOS from the "hunt" command point. You use the "hunt" command normally and get to examine the LOS or LOF from that hunt point.

3. The "Hull Down" command is two part: first designate target/position, then designate the maximum move forward to area. A two string command.

4. Designate an "ambush" marker (out of LOS obviously) and the hunt command is used and the unit will move forward till it just spots the ambush marker.

But I would like BTS to comment on the modeling for LOS and LOF and other issues brought up.

Lewis

[MERC]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Demangel:

Merc I would just like to know what your credentials on the subject are? I mean have you ever driven a tank or even seen one in real life... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What are yours? If you or anybody want to make this a discusion of credentials, then post your first (or send me e-mail).

I do think your missing the point of this board - discussion. If one can't disagree then what is the use, and if you require one to have relevant experience to discuss a subject -- then you will eliminate quite a few from the conversation that could possible add something of value regardless of their age or experience.

I will say this:

Essaysons - Always First/Sapper Steel

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I bet your one of those...... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would you say any of this? I have never did any of this in the past? In fact if you compare my threads compared to Lewis's, you'll find I'm a Angel.

I see the disagreement between me and Lewis to be a matter of perspective and our own expectations of the game. Some may disagree/agree with our relative positions, but like I said before that what this board is for.

I think there could be some improvements in the problems that Mark IV pointed out with the view dropping down from your TC to the ground if you try and change your view perspective. It would seem to me that there really needs to be additional view level - TC. This I think might help alot of people.

As far as adding a additional command, I don't see the need, but if there are enough people that want it and can articulate a well thought position, then I'm sure BTS will listen - as they have in the past.

[Demangel]

Heh Sorry Lewis I didn't mean to blow my top, It's just that He was insulting you, and trying to act like he knew everything from the true name of god to the number of licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop... He's put out a few good ideas before... so maybe I should just leave him alone... But it's just that you have made some DAMN good points... and know what your talking about...

I agree with you 99% on the idea of putting in some kind of hunt till you find a hull down, thing as you put it in your previous posts... So long as they make it so that it is an imperfect thing (ie sometimes with inexperienced TC's or gunners they expose themselves too much, or not quite enough...) I heard in WWII at one point tank crew where so scarce they trained normal troops on the field to be tank crews... The training consisted of letting them drive it around for a little while and firing the Gun ONCE!

So I would say Green crew or whatever would be horrid at finding hull down compared to veteran or even regulars... I dunno... Maybe for tank crews they should add another experience class that is in keeping with the training some normal soldiers got to drive the tanks...

Ok Thats all I gotta say...

[Demangel]

Merc I am sorry for blowing my top... It's just When people start throwing comments around like people being ignorant... It sets me off... I forget the post but it was on the first page I think and you said that Lewis's LOL was in indication of his ignorance...

It's not that I mind your opinnion... I agree that is what a Message board is for...

But try not to go around calling people ignorant... BTS will have the final say nontheless... and to be honest if they add a hull down thing or not matters little to me since I can find one on my own most if not all the time... But it does require some micromanagement of the tank sometimes... sometimes it detracts from the joy of the game, when you know that in the real thing when a tank isn't being fired on it should not have such a hard time finding a hull down position relative to something... (by this I mean totaly Relatively...Ie hull down to one thing is not hull down to another...)

But sometimes it is frustarating to truely think you are hull down, only to have your tank to high or low and watch your infantry waiting in ambush getting nailed by tanks you can't hit because you missed the hull down spot by a few feet!

Again I apologize for blowing my top... But like I said when people start tossing insults I join in... Maybe you didn't intend it as in insult, but it sounded that way to me...

Also as for credentials, My credentials wheren't on trial due to the fact that My opinion was based on your methods of replying to posts... vs Lewis's...

(heh plus I was a bit drunk last night... and well we all know what that does...)

So no hard feelings all around... lets just be careful, not of what we say... but how we say it ok people... That goes for me as well.

I will trouble you all no more...

[:USERNAME:]

No big whoop peoples.

Hey look at it this way. If BTS WERE to put something new in, the good old "hunt" command is there for people to do it the old fasioned way.

Heres an analogy. Suppose the game made the onboard indirect mortar rules as follows:

You only get one shot at placing the line from the mortar. You get to draw LOS from the HQ unit all you want but only one chance to stick down a line from the mortar.

Its pretty dumb of course but it would have "great" players crawling all over the board and trying a thousand views and lines and LOS's from the HQs. These same great players would be aghast at anyone changing it from the way it is because of a percieved realism and/or personal talent they possess.

Its stupid and thats kind of how I see the hunt command being used for hull down. This isnt about me vs. merk but something alot of people feel is needed and Im sure BTS will have something to say.

I suggest everyone read Manheim tankers posts. He obviously has alot of tankers experience and I am not making this stuff up off the top of my head either. I am a Motion Engineer (BSEE), Army Veteran (Engineer) and have worked with modern armor as an engineer. I think as more junior members get on board and contribute we will see more tankers reactions.

I wont contribute to any flame fest (well not till BTS comments that is).

Lewis

[MERC]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

I am a Motion Engineer (BSEE), Army Veteran (Engineer) and have worked with modern armor as an engineer. I think as more junior members get on board and contribute we will see more tankers reactions.

I wont contribute to any flame fest (well not till BTS comments that is).

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I see Lewis our experiences are similiar. I am aero engineer (MSAE) - Kansas: General Aviation Capital of the world, Army Veteran (Engineer) and have worked with modern armor as a engineer - CMTC, NTC.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Busy here... I'm gonna have to make this brief...

I see what Lewis is saying. I do think there are some problems with the idea of a Hull Down command though.

Either you have one "target point" and then the vehicle has to move directly toward that point, hoping to find a hull-down position relative to it, but of course only right along that axis of movement (quite restrictive, and potentially disastrous if no hull-down location exists and the vehicle just keeps moving on and on), or allow two points to be designated: a movement target, and a hull-down-reference, so the vehicle moves toward the movement target, but looks for hull down relative to the 'reference' (this would 'work' but would be pretty awkward, and it would, IMO, make automatic something that personally I like to leave up to the skill of the player - spotting hull down positions).

I'm not saying the current implementation is perfect. But I'm not sure I like the new idea either. I'm listening to what you guys say though.

Charles

[killmore]

Here is my opinion:

Select target. Move toward the target until you get it into LOS. (No promise of hull-down)

Pseudo code:

Target = Selected target;

While(thereIsNoLOS(Target))

{

...if(AnotherThreatInLOS())

......Target = new threat;

......exit while loop;

...Sneak toward target.

}

Stop.

Fire at target; //Can be selected one or new threat

If there is hull down position on the path to target above code will get it. Otherwise it wont. Also above code may potentially get vehicle into hull-down with respect to new threat that just appeared.

(I hope I did not post it before)

[This message has been edited by killmore (edited 07-11-2000).]

[Lorak]

Just my 2 cents here.

I think the ambush marker, so far, is the best.

Place the marker and then hunt up the crest until you have LOS to it. Might be Hull-down..Might not be hull down. It's up to the player to decide a good place to put it and use a good slope that afords some protection.

As a side note. I don't see really any problem with the way the game is now. I just hide my AFV behind the crest. Best ambush position is an unseen one. Then when an enemy unit comes in to range target and then hunt for hull down. Since you can see all anyway, you can see the enemy coming even though your AVF is out of LOS of the target.

Lorak

------------------

"someone you trust is one of us"..........the illuminati

*

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

Lorak's FTX for CM <--Proud member of the Combat Mission Webring

[Seahawk-vfa201]

Hi there,

after having read all posts it looks like the controversy turns around two separate distinct issues: getting to Hull Down position and advancing untill gettin a LOS on a specific position.

Mixing the two is not necessary and probably even wrong.

The new command would not be as the HUNT in that this one makes the unit advance till the waypoint or till it acxquires a target, whichever comes first.

The new movetoLOS command would instead allow to select a point in the terrain and have the vehicle stop as soon as it reaches LOS to the specified point. In this respect there would be no waypoint but only a direction specified. The units moves automatically until it reaches LOS of the <put here your preferred>.

Does not sound unrealisti or gamey: even with no LOS units have a map and know if after a crest there will be a ridge or something.

My suggestion would then be to limit the command to areas which could reasonably be on the map: the fringe of a wood area, a bridge, another crest, a road, an intersection, etc etc.

[Tyro]

I can't even get torso down, I have an infantry unit crawl to the top of what I see as a ridge and the next thing I know GOD and everybody can see me and I'm getting my tail blown off. I am having a hard time wending my way through the 3D universe, so going hull down with a tank is a major undertaking, but, damn I'm having fun!!!!!! This has got to be the best strategy/sim/wargame/rpg, you name it, game there is!!!!!