BTS: The Hull Down Move

[Mark IV]

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

Are you proposing an LOS check with variable height to a remote location that you WANT to move to? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am proposing a variable height LOS check from any AFV at any time (LOS from muzzle, LOS from hull). A classic compromise, in that it will probably please no one. BUT...

It will tell you whether you are hull-down at the current snapshot in time with reference to a certain point.

It will not automate anything- purists will be pleased. It's just more information that a real unit would have anyway.

It will not really solve the problem of the TacAI understanding what a human crew readily groks, which is how to move into a protected ambush point before the bad guys get to the target location.

It will solve the problem of knowing whether or not you are in hull-down, once you trial-and-error your way there (I know that's the part you don't like, I just don't see any other solution within the mechanics of the game). And the lower/higher view would be somewhat of an aid in selecting the destination point, prior to issuing the move order.

I suggest it because the necessary mechanics seem to be there already.

Sirocco: The AFV crew will look at it from an individual unit's point of view. The company commander says "set up an ambush on that ridge". He expects the crew to be able to do that.

The crew will know that the most likely way for enemy AFVs to exit the woods opposite (or a saddle in a ridge) is to emerge on the road, or in a clearing, or in the saddle. So they will pick a spot for their AFV that is hull-down relative to the anticipated appearance of the enemy, before the enemy is there.

That is why Hunt doesn't help with this. The only differences between Hunt and Move are that:

1) Hunt is a little faster (Medium speed vs. Walking speed), and

2) Hunt means the AFV will "stop when enemy target spotted and engage enemy until..." and if there's no enemy there yet, it's just a slightly faster Move command.

I can't think of any other 2-step commands in the interface and it would be weird to have one for a single function.

I like the ambush-marker approach, but then you have to tell the unit when to quit advancing in case a HD is never found, PLUS you have to define an LOS to a marker location you probably can't see in the first place ('cause it's over the ridge). Clunky and/or gamey.

[Wilhammer]

What we need is the "Hulldown LOS check" command suggested earlier. Or perhaps a different color for hulldown LOS when we trace LOS.

We only get hulldown confirmation when we target a vehicle. It would be nice to get this info when we Area Target or do an LOS check.

I like the Hulldown/Ambush marker idea as well.

[This message has been edited by Wilhammer (edited 08-12-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

I am proposing a variable height LOS check from any AFV at any time (LOS from muzzle, LOS from hull). A classic compromise, in that it will probably please no one. BUT...

It will tell you whether you are hull-down at the current snapshot in time with reference to a certain point.

It will not automate anything- purists will be pleased. It's just more information that a real unit would have anyway.

It will not really solve the problem of the TacAI understanding what a human crew readily groks, which is how to move into a protected ambush point before the bad guys get to the target location.

It will solve the problem of knowing whether or not you are in hull-down, once you trial-and-error your way there (I know that's the part you don't like, I just don't see any other solution within the mechanics of the game). And the lower/higher view would be somewhat of an aid in selecting the destination point, prior to issuing the move order.

I suggest it because the necessary mechanics seem to be there already.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then youve lost me completely.

Lets use a little reality. Click on unit, check LOS see that it is blocked. As the game is now, its blocked from the gunners POV and obviously the driver. If we use your "system", we would see that the two proposed POVs are blocked. Duh.

So now we use some sort of Move command and our unit has gone forward, obviously towards the offending interfereing terrain which is so obviously blocking from the the color change of the line. We have to wait till after hes completed his move to check the LOS's? What good is that? Its the same as before with units bypassing HD opportunitys.

I dont get the point.

Lewis

[Mark IV]

It will solve the problem of knowing whether you are hull down vs. a reference point. Right now, you only guess, due to scaling issues and inexactitudes in the terrain modeling.

Geier, back on page 3, raised the issue that is bothering me, and I haven't seen it dealt with directly yet:

How can the TC designate a remote point (the HD marker) to which he does not currently have LOS?

Even to designate an ambush point in the current game, the platoon leader must have LOS to the location.

If the AFV is down behind a ridge, which obstructs LOS to the desired ambush point (HD marker) on the other side of the ridge, what kind of prescience is required to designate an exact point on terrain the guy hasn't seen yet?

This makes the possible solution a little fuzzier. Somebody in authority and communications would need an LOS to the potential target location, to designate the HD marker for the AFV to seek.

[Philistine]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark IV:

Geier, back on page 3, raised the issue that is bothering me, and I haven't seen it dealt with directly yet:

How can the TC designate a remote point (the HD marker) to which he does not currently have LOS?

Even to designate an ambush point in the current game, the platoon leader must have LOS to the location.

If the AFV is down behind a ridge, which obstructs LOS to the desired ambush point (HD marker) on the other side of the ridge, what kind of prescience is required to designate an exact point on terrain the guy hasn't seen yet?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would think that they would use a map.

I would assume that each tank would have a map showing major terrain features. The TC would look at the map, and determine he wants to cover a certain feature (road, house, open patch of ground) on the other side of a ridge.

--Philistine

[aka_tom_w]

There are still a few problems with this game (easy things like spotting rounds not being counted and that .50 cal being suggested to be too leathal).

BUT I really don't mind the way hull down positioning is modeled. I don't think that the Hull down position or getting into one is the be all and end all of AFV armour combat and the way the game is modeled with the LOS and LOF from the center of mass or mid point of EVERY AFV and vehicle, works farily well (About a MILLION times better than ANY board game you have ever played!) at least the odds or disadvantages of this system are the SAME for ALL vehicles and both the Allies and the Axis units are equally compromised by this system.

I have read here about alot of complicated suggestions and highly theoretical proposals to fix what is suggested to be a REALLY big problem.

I think the current hunt command and current Hull down position locating method (mostly luck and trial and error), models the real experience of tank commanders in WWII quite well, IMHO.

If its not broke, don't fix it.

(I think it works very well the way it is currently handled)

-tom w

[Geier]

1. The TC (separate LOS entity) has LOS of area he wants to be hulldown to.

2. TC puts an Ambush (similar) marker on this area.

3. A direction of travel is plotted. Cannot extend more than x meters.

4. When Gunner (separate LOS entity) sees the marker, continous Driver LOS checks begin.

5. When Gunner has LOS to marker and Driver hasn't the vehicle stops and rotates toward marker.

6. If no such position (Gunner=YES+Driver=NO hehe)is found along the line of travel the vehicle stops at the end point and rotates toward marker.

7. During Defensive setup, Hulldown info is displayed on-screen and the command can be used to "place" the vehicle in a hulldown pos relative to marker.

Possible oh-****s:

High priority target shows up and nails the vehicle because the TC, gunner and driver are busy looking at/for marker. Reaction time is long.

Position is found but the gun cannot be "pointed down" (I know there is a term for this, opposed to elevated) enough to target the area.

Probably several others.

This is probably complicated as hell but might please the no-automatic-commands proponents and possibly others. You still have an element of skill involved, there are dangers to using the command and it would appear to be, imo, in line with BTS vision. Seems like an awful lot of work though, but I'm certainly no coder.

Philistine, I am doubtful that every TC in every engagement had access to maps during WW2. I don't know this, but it seems unlikely to me.

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

Johan

"The succesful execution of a well devised plan often looks like luck to saps."

Dashiell Hammett

[This message has been edited by Geier (edited 08-14-2000).]

[R-Man]

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

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like this idea. The tank moves into HD position relative to a target point, or stops to fire on targets of opportunity on the way. That is, as long as the "movement" command is "hunt."

[This message has been edited by R-Man (edited 08-14-2000).]

[Philistine]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Philistine, I am doubtful that every TC in every engagement had access to maps during WW2. I don't know this, but it seems unlikely to me.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Undoubtedly true. I was being a bit flip. To be more accurate, the tank platoon or company leader at least would most likely have a map (and depending on the circumstances of the particular battle, the tank crews may be familiar with the territory) and/or the tanks would have reports from recon elements prior to or during battle. All in all, I would hazard to say (with no basis whatsoever) that in more cases than not, a TC has general knowledge of gross terrain features.

The rationale is really explanation for an abstraction. Although the suggestion allows the placement of a "hull down marker" out of LOS, this is no different than what is happening now--i.e. players are manually picking their hull down positions in many cases with respect to territory over which they had no LOS.

I guess the better answer would have been that the proposed "hull down order" as I see it is really more something to speed up tank manuevering problems that are caused by a turn scale that is too coarse for fine manuvering.

Of course the same LOS problems exist for movement waypoints into out of LOS areas and FO's calling down fire on out of LOS targets (albeit at reduced effectiveness).

Just my $.02

--Philistine

[XPav]

But as someone pointed out, going hull down in real life is much easier. The current system is analagous to the company or battalion commander individually walking (or flying via jetpack) to each individual tank, inspecting the position, telling them to move forward or back, and inspecting the terrain themselves.

In real life, even fairly inexperienced tank crews, given a "position to get hull down to" can get hull down fairly quickly, and without the guidance of a senior officer.

Since Combat Mission blurs all the lines of various commands (i'm a battalion commander AND tank commander AND squad commander), it becomes very hard to figure out what role the player plays at different points in the game.

Certain people are arguing that the player's at the tank commander level, and should be responsible for getting the tank hull down by looking at the terrain. I think that the main problem with that point is that one doesn't have all the information that a tank commander would have, and is forced to rely on experience with the Combat Mission terrain system.

Other people argue that the player is playing the role of a company commander, and should just be able to say "hey you, drive over here and try and get hulldown relative to this position."

I'm going with the latter approach, because we already have commands that give the TacAI most of the control over the tank (the Hunt command comes to mind), and because as I've said in another thread (the interface thread), once battles become very large, they tend to be extremely weighted in favor of those who micromanage all their units.

[Geier]

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

The rationale is really explanation for an abstraction. Although the suggestion allows the placement of a "hull down marker" out of LOS, this is no different than what is happening now--i.e. players are manually picking their hull down positions in many cases with respect to territory over which they had no LOS...

--Philistine<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand your reasoning and partly agree. However, I feel that the move to an actual hulldown position vs an area is potentially very beneficial. It should be.

In fact, I think it is so beneficial that it can be compared to the FO LOS issue. Ie no accuracy if no LOS. A hulldown move requires accuracy imo or we should do what we do now, that is approximate a hulldown position from the graphical representaion. With lesser overall accuracy as a result.

To be clear, I´m fine with the way it works now. But I can see the use of this command to raise the level of accuracy in this simulation, esp for the East Front. I am certainly not claiming to be the keeper of BTS vision, this is an issue that they will decide to do or not to do. I think it would make the sim even more accurate and reward those with sound tactical knowledge a little, tiny bit more.

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

Johan

"The succesful execution of a well devised plan often looks like luck to saps."

Dashiell Hammett

[Mark IV]

I am certainly not claiming to be the keeper of BTS vision, this is an issue that they will decide to do or not to do.

Right! The thread(s) on this subject have certainly raised some good questions, and BTS' awareness that at least some of us are interested in further development along these lines.

I'm sure whatever they come up with, if they decide to address it, will be better than anything we are going to suggest here.

It seems talked-out.