BTS: The Hull Down Move

[MERC]

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

Okay time for a SHAMELESS plug....

Steel Beasts has this very feature but it is a modern sim, not something along the lines of CM.

Check it out:

www.shrapnelgames.com/esim

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What was your approach?

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Charles

I understand you are busy and maybe havent been following the few threads going on that are discussing this. In regards to the 'robotically' moving forward not finding a HD. I would like to compare and contrast what a player does and what a tank would.

In the game this whole affair comes about because a player usually draws a LOS or TARGET command line and finds it blocked. It APPEARS to be a 'black'n'white' affair with the offending interfering terrain somewhat obvious to the player. The player then will go down to the lowest camera levels and direct his vehicle in a move or hunt mode so that it approaches a terrain feature that is obviously blocking his units LOS/LOF to the 'target'. So, ANY player can obviously identify a POSSIBLE hull down location from this information.

In reality, a TC would not 'see' through terrain. He would be very aware that terrain to his front is blocking his LOS. Lets take an example of relatively flat terrain where there is a small hill in front of our real life TC. What he would do is slowly approach the hill on as gentle a slope as he can see and manuver so that HE, the TC, can JUST see over the terrain. This 'turret down' position would allow the TC to see targets and have his vehicle protected. He would then advise the gunner of targets range, position, etc ("T34, 1 o'clock, 400 meters!) and tell the driver to advance slowly. The gunner would depress his gun as much as he dares (dont wanna scoop up dirt..another good thing about the muzzle brake is that it can keep out dirt!) and hopes to have the target 'rise' off the terrain at which point he yells 'halt'. A TC will intervene if its obvious they are going over and the gun barrel is clearly 'tilted up'. A driver will immediately reverse if he starts to see a target.

So the way the game is now, the cart is in front of the horse. I believe the game does NOT model TC LOS different from Gunner LOS/LOF so that is a major part of the problem. Example: There should be cases where the 'Unit' can see places he cant target..

I would like to pontificate on getting a hull down (HD) FIRING position in real life.

To get a HD, a MAJOR plus is gun depression. It allows positions that would be useless for other tanks to be a GREAT position for your tank. Example: KV1 Soviet tank (-4 degrees) compared to most german armor that can depress their main gun usually 8-10 degrees or so (Of course this also sets the minimum distance that a tank can hit the ground in front of it). Another MAJOR plus is vehicle height. The smaller you are, the greater the chance you will find suitable terrain that will hide your lower regions. Put them together and you are in hull down heaven. Note: A shorter vehicle can get away with less depression angle. Mannheim Tanker in another thread testified to this. You sometimes get a pretty good HD location (NOTE! You ARE HD) but you cant get your gun to depress enough to engage targets.

So:

It doesnt take alot of training to get a hull down position

Its a 'turkey' crew that goes over the top

It takes a little talent to get a hull down FIRING position

It helps to have a gun that can be depressed and to be short in vehicle stature

Crew experience can contribute to/offset any of the above and should be a major factor in the game

I think HD status should be in stages:

none

track down (hull mgs usefull)

hull down (no hull weapons)

turret down (no weapons except AA MG)

Out of LOS

I dont advocate anything being 'automatic' nor do I think its a player skill issue like being a mouse wiz is in CC. It should be based on the player recognizing that there is a HD POSSIBILITY but whether the 5 above listed states gets achieved and IF they are actually a HD -->FIRING <-- position should mostly be a function of crew experience and weapons performance.

I dont think Charles commented on the 'Check LOS from the HUNT commanded position'. I believe its workable and captures what I am proposing above. You would get to check LOS but perhaps gun depression would NOT allow targeting. I think crew experience allowing greater powers of observation might intervene and halt movement even before you get to the commanded to point (It is a HUNT command afterall). I propose that IF you do check LOS from the HUNT point, THEN thats the only command for that turn for that unit. You can iterate and cancel the command and try several HUNT positions. But stringing together fast moves, reverses etc would be prohibited with the above scheme.

Comments?

Lewis

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 07-12-2000).]

[TargetDrone]

Hmm... I already wondered what happened to this thread (have been on vaccation for 3 weeks now....

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>BTS Charles wrote ...

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<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

During my Time in Italy I met 2 TankVets (one TC and one Gunner) from Germany.... I couldnt resist but bring the matter to them... we had a lot of discussion, with the baseline being, that it is no problem for the TC and the Gunner to reach a HullDown position relative towards a point of interest... They explained to me that this was a rather simple task (of course, they were only hull down to that specific point, but that is exactly what I asked for the whole time...).

They told me that the TC pointed out the exact target location to the Gunner, which told the Driver to reverse slowly back behind the ridge they have just passed... the moment he lost the target because the ridged showed up in his optics he told the driver to stop, and then advance slowly, until he was able to have a clear targetsight again.... he then commanded to stop and presto... they were in a good ambush situation....

they were then able to take out 3 tank that advanced on the road, with only the 3rd one even returning fire... and that shot hit the dirt in front of them....

so... if it is that easy like they told me, why am i not allowed to have this happen automatically.... (i guess Lewis suggestion about the 2line command where you have to point out the target reference and the maximal movement would fit in for this task nicely...) I mean...its a hell of a pain in the ass to find that position manually... especially if you are low on time to manouver around endlessly... and even if i know where i could obtain that position, getting my tank exacly there is another matter.... and i hate it if i have to spend 5 turns or more just to get that exact position... most of the time my tank is toast, long before it succeeded....

Sorry for cooking up this old thread, but for me that is a rather important matter... and I hope there are more out there that support this ....

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

TargetDrone

who has a heart for smilies

and will defend their rights ....

even if the cost is bloody....

[Croaker]

I could understand what Charles is saying about leaving this to the skill of the player, but the problem is that unfortunately, CM's graphic representation of los is not perfect - it may look like you have a perfect hull down position, but that isn't necessarily the case. This leads to constant checking and rechecking with the los tool and moving forward and back ad nauseum until you finally have it - not particularly realistic or enjoyable IMO. Just a minor issue though.

[ianc]

I'm inclined to agree. I'm not sure on the skill thing of finding a hull down position. They (to me) don't seem to be all that difficult to spot from the 1 or 2 view, and you should always be looking for them. Perhaps spotting them is the reward you get for even using the 1 or 2 view...

The trouble is that once you have found a likely spot for one, it's hell getting your vehicle maneuvered into exactly the right position to be able to take advantage of it.

If you hunt just up to the crest, due to the fact that (as croaker points out) the graphical representation in CM is not an actual representation of the terrain, you'll often find that you're not far enough up on the crest to get the shot you desire. Boom, wasted turn; try again next time and probably missed ambush...

If you hunt over the top of the crest and the target hasn't appeared yet (ambush), well, you're over the crest. If the target is there and you destroy it then, again, you're continuing over the crest.

Not suggesting any solutions here, just noting that things perhaps don't work as well as they might in the current implementation. Take care,

ianc

[Sirocco]

This is a difficult, but important issue, and it's one that I hope BTS will address in a later update. A crucial factor is the level of "automation" in the game; no-one wants it to "autoplay". But nevertheless crews do need an improvement in AI, as the tendency now is to overshoot a hull down position, or to not have an LOS whatsoever over the crest at all. I think the crews have enough information on targets to choose which target to be hull down to, and with that information there should be no need for a new orders option - the player would simply need to move them just behind the crest, and the crew would work the rest out for themselves. The fact is that only BTS have the detailed knowledge of the AI to know just what's practicable in programming terms, but this is a serious issue that needs fixing, either in an update, or in CM2...

[Sirocco]

My apologies. I posted this last night and it didn't appear at the time, so I tried again...

[This message has been edited by Sirocco (edited 08-11-2000).]

[Sirocco]

This is a difficult, but important issue, and it's one that I hope BTS will address in a later update. A crucial factor is the level of "automation" in the game; no-one wants it to "autoplay". But nevertheless crews do need an improvement in AI, as the tendency now is to overshoot a hull down position, or to not have an LOS whatsoever over the crest at all. I think the crews have enough information on targets to choose which target to be hull down to, and with that information there should be no need for a new orders option - the player would simply need to move them just behind the crest, and the crew would work the rest out for themselves. The fact is that only BTS have the detailed knowledge of the AI to know just what's practicable in programming terms, but this is a serious issue that needs fixing, either in an update, or in CM2...

[This message has been edited by Sirocco (edited 08-11-2000).]

[Sirocco]

Deleted.

[This message has been edited by Sirocco (edited 08-11-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

I put alot of thought into this thread. Shame the game doesnt model the critical height difference/LOS.

Personally I think limiting the vehicle to a single hulldown/hunt command AND being able to check LOS from that commanded to location is a good abstraction. Dont know how hard it would be to code though.

Lewis

[PatAWilson]

How's this for an AI algorith:

Command is to go hull down on a nearby terrain location.

AI approaches targeted point in a sort of "Hunt" mode until either the vehicle has LOS of n or more meters or the end of the movement point has been reached.

Some slop is factored in based on crew quality.

The idea is to keep the algorithm simple. This combines two things that the game already knows about, hunt mode and LOS. What it does not do is ask the AI to make subjective decisions as to the suitability of terrain.

[Sitting Duck]

Hello Lewis-

Great idea. Seems much more 'real world' than the HUNT command alone.

What game mechanics would you propose for this move? By this I mean, how would you propose for a player to issue The Hull Down Move. From my understanding of the desired effect, it would need to consist of both a movement command (~HUNT) with waypoints and a target command (~AMBUSH).

How would you accomplish this using the existing GUI?

Lee

[TargetDrone]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Sitting Duck wrote ...

Hello Lewis-

Great idea. Seems much more 'real world' than the HUNT command alone.

What game mechanics would you propose for this move? By this I mean, how would you propose for a player to issue The Hull Down Move. From my understanding of the desired effect, it would need to consist of both a movement command (~HUNT) with waypoints and a target command (~AMBUSH).

How would you accomplish this using the existing GUI?

Lee<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Im not Lewis whom you asked, but I will try to explain how I understand this should work...

you have this command (lets call it "Hulldown ambush") and now you have to draw a line of advance (basically the line on which the crew seeks for a hulldown position..). After you drawed the line you are expected to click on the point you wish to go hull down relative to.

It is already possible to issue a move command and a target command to a tank at the same time if you like.. so this 2line command shouldn't be too much of a problem either i guess...

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

TargetDrone

Commander of the Smiley Liberation Force

who will fight for all Smilies' Rights!

[Geier]

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

I put alot of thought into this thread. Shame the game doesnt model the critical height difference/LOS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The location that you want to be hull down to, must it be in LOS (of TC) when you issue the order? To order a vehicle to "move to hull down position relative to a previously set ambush point" would be a nice feature, definately. I would be hesitant to a feature that would allow moving to a hull down position relative to a position that you do not have any LOS to when you issue the order. I know that that is not what Lewis is suggesting but if this goes through and put in CM2 I really hope that a combination of Ambush and Hunt (like Pat suggested) could be used. I have no idea how hard that would be to code, I don't, however see that it goes against what I´ve read about BTS vision of how the game should be.

As for the critical height difference/LOS, I was trained on a (outdated) weapon system where the idea was to hide the totally unprotected vehicle and then hydraulically raise the recoilless gun into LOS. The ultimate hulldown vehicle with survivability zero.

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

Johan

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

Dashiell Hammett

[Tiger]

"I think would be revolutionary is the "hull down move". It would consist of a move type order on the menu that would extend a line like a fire move. The player would then "stick" the line to a point in the frontal arc of the vehicle that is obviously out of the LOS of the vehicle. The vehicle would then get into hunt mode and advance till it gets an LOS to the designated point.

This command would allow the player the needed steath that TDs/stugs/etc exploited in real combat."

The player gets the needed stealth from his own individual skill in manuevering his units on the 3-d map himself.

The 3-d aspect of the game is revolutionary as it is now. I wouldn't support any dumbing down of the game with automatic commands. That's why it's in 3-d; you're supposed to do it yourself. Kind of like the idea that the game should automatically highlight the nearest AT teams when an enemy tank rolls up so he'll know which one to use, someone suggested somewhere. God help us. The heart of the game is manuevering each of your units with as little automation as possible and it's a good system, albeit with minor quirks.

An automatic hull-down command would also be impossible to program to a degree which would be satisfactory, without having to reprogram many other aspects of the game.

-Tiger

"Luke, use the Force..."

[Geier]

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

I wouldn't support any dumbing down of the game with automatic commands. That's why it's in 3-d; you're supposed to do it yourself. Kind of like the idea that the game should automatically highlight the nearest AT teams. The heart of the game is manuevering each of your units with as little automation as possible and it's a good system, albeit with minor quirks...

An automatic hull-down command would also be impossible to program to a degree which would be satisfactory, without having to reprogram many other aspects of the game.

Tiger<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

1. You would be "doing it yourself". You would tell the unit to get into a good position towards a point on the map along this line of travel. I find an order of this type to be in line with an accurate combat simulation. No one is forcing BTS to adopt it either.

2. Comparing this suggestion to the auto-AT-feature is plain ignorant.

3. What minor quirks?

4. No one has suggested that the hull down move automatically must be successful.

5. You're saying that it would be impossible to program. How do you know this?

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

Johan

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

Dashiell Hammett

[Guest Rollstoy]

Dear Tiger!

I never suggested to highlight the nearest AT teams.

I suggested to add a hotkey to highlight selected 'special' teams (AT, HQ, FO, Mortar ...) because they all have ONE soldier figure and are UNDISDINGUISHABLE FROM A DISTANCE. Especially when playing at realistic scale, which I prefer.

I, personally, do not want to have to click through all units to find the right one! And I, personally, do not know how the gameplay benefits from me being UNABLE TO IDENTIFY MY OWN UNITS in a reasonable fashion!

And, no, I, personally, DO NOT want to blow my soldiers up to GIANT SIZE! Especially because I do not want to toggle through 4 settings to go back to the original size afterwards.

And, if it makes you happy, I have dropped the highlight suggestion for symbols textured on the unit bases. Optional, what else.

I am REALLY sorry, if these suggestions cause you that much pain! But I, personally, want to identify my units quickly and easily, because the aim of the game is not being a hide-and-seek simulation, but tactical combat!

Regards, Thomm

P.S.: Sorry for the shouting!

[Henri]

Seems to me that the basic problem is that in real life, seeking am hull-down position is an iterative process, whereas the one-minute turns of CM make an iterative searching for a hull-down position a very risky endeavor indeed . If one makes a mistake and doesn't move far enough, the enemy tank remains out of sight, but if one moves too far, he will have to stay in full view of the enemy tank for a full minute, which is plenty of time to be blown to kingdom come.

Now I agree that it is SOMETIMES possible to get the hull-down position on the first try; I did it yesterday in my first pbem game -little good it did me as the damm Panther put a shell through my turret with his first shot ...

Henri

[:USERNAME:]

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

[b

The player gets the needed stealth from his own individual skill in manuevering his units on the 3-d map himself.

The 3-d aspect of the game is revolutionary as it is now. I wouldn't support any dumbing down of the game with automatic commands. That's why it's in 3-d; you're supposed to do it yourself

The heart of the game is manuevering each of your units with as little automation as possible and it's a good system, albeit with minor quirks.

An automatic hull-down command would also be impossible to program to a degree which would be satisfactory, without having to reprogram many other aspects of the game.

-Tiger

"Luke, use the Force..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you read through this thread, you would know that it isnt automatic. I am not proposing that.

The way the game is now, with vehicles overshooting positions like raw recruits, is quirky.

Alot of people feel a proper abstraction is needed to offset the nonmodeling of TC having a different LOS than gunners/other crew members. Also the nonmodeling of gun depression should be abstracted somehow.

I would like BTS to comment on this. Is this going to be addressed in CM2?

Lewis

[R-Man]

It seems that most of the reasoning behind Charles' reluctance to add the Hunt/Hull-down command is its effect on play-balance. Particularly, the fact that automating such a maneuver rewards less competent players. However, I think that there are a few arguments for the command that may have been missed in this discussion.

First, we already have the Hunt command. Duh, I know, but this is certainly comparable in "automation" to any Hunt/Hull-down command. The only difference is that Hunt targets units (generally resulting in placing your tank in the near-best possible hull-down position relative to the first unit spotted), while a Hunt/Hull-down command targets a point on the map. What's the difference?

Second, for those of us that play the TacAI, it can be rather frustrating knowing that the computer opponent ALWAYS has the Hunt/Hull-down capability. The computer doesn't have to screw around with positioning, it just moves right to the spot, or sets up in that position at the beginning of the scenario. I realize that the AI needs some advantages to make it competitive, but this is relevant to the debate.

Third, as stated by TargetDrone above, the reality was that all but the greenest crews knew how to find a hull-down position relative to a point of interest, i.e. ambush point.

Here is how I would implement the command: The Hunt/Hull-down line, looking much like the LOS line does now, could be drawn to a map point beyond the rise and clicked. The tank would then move at hunt speed towards the marker until it has a clear line of site, and then travel a few meters further. In order to reflect reality, the tank would then reverse until it was in hull-down relative to that point. If the tank cannot find a clear LOS due to other obstructions within, say, 30 meters, it would halt. This would avoid the possibility of that tank continuing to the marker in a never-ending quest for hull-down. If the tank gets blown to pieces by an unseen enemy in the process, so be it.

[ianc]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Particularly, the fact that automating such a maneuver rewards less competent players<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's where I'm lost. I've read many times in this and other threads that making this an automatic function will remove an element of player skill which is required to do this manually. I've read more than once that a 'skilled' or 'experienced' player can more easily spot and attain a hull down position.

Can someone explain to me what skill is required here? It's not difficult (to me) to spot the position at all; in fact it's cake. The difficulty is maneuvering into it effectively. Since the graphics don't correspond exactly to the reality of the situation, I'd like to submit that taking up a hulldown position is nothing more than a hit or miss proposition; there is NO player-acquired skill or experience level that will make this easier to accomplish. The ONLY place where skill\experience might enter into it is in spotting the position to beging with. You either guess the right place to hunt to, or you don't; it's that simple.

Automating it would remove this guesswork and allow the player to effectively employ the position that he's spotted.

Or am I missing something?

ianc

[R-Man]

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

Can someone explain to me what skill is required here? It's not difficult (to me) to spot the position at all; in fact it's cake. The difficulty is maneuvering into it effectively.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you've answered your own question. The skill is in the determination of where that Hunt command should terminate relative to the intended target area. A "skilled" player knows where to click. An "unskilled" player either comes up short or over-shoots the spot.

You are right regarding the hit-or-miss aspect. Often there are other obstructions or rises which interfere with LOS even after the initial rise has been successfully maneuvered. That's why I think the tank's Hunt/Hull-down movement should be terminated after 30 meters (or less) if no clear LOS can be drawn to the intended hull-down target.

[JoePrivate]

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

Here's where I'm lost. I've read many times in this and other threads that making this an automatic function will remove an element of player skill which is required to do this manually. I've read more than once that a 'skilled' or 'experienced' player can more easily spot and attain a hull down position.

Can someone explain to me what skill is required here? It's not difficult (to me) to spot the position at all; in fact it's cake. The difficulty is maneuvering into it effectively. Since the graphics don't correspond exactly to the reality of the situation, I'd like to submit that taking up a hulldown position is nothing more than a hit or miss proposition; there is NO player-acquired skill or experience level that will make this easier to accomplish. The ONLY place where skill\experience might enter into it is in spotting the position to beging with. You either guess the right place to hunt to, or you don't; it's that simple.

Automating it would remove this guesswork and allow the player to effectively employ the position that he's spotted.

Or am I missing something?

ianc<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A simple suggestion, fire up the editor, make some suitable terrain, add a few vehicles and play around for awhile to check out LOS and positioning from whatever view you prefer.

When I first played the Beta I thought the same thing about including a hulldown command. However after a few games it became quite easy to get my vehicles in that position on the first or second try, now after many games it is second nature. You are right, it isn't rocket science, just a bit of practice. Hope that helps.

[Rattus]

Here's a compromise between those who don't want the AI to do all the searching for good HD spots & those who are sick of stuffing around trying to achieve an actual HD position in a potentially good location they have picked.

Nominate the point at which, within some limited (short) distance you want the Tk to take up the HD position & direction from which you want to be HD. Your tactical/game skill identifies the likely spot. The AI then manouevres the Tk to the actual HD postion along the line of fire within a (short) limiting radius inbuilt to the AI. The quality of the HD position could be a function of quality/Tk design whatever. This is the AI doing its bit to save the inching back & forth etc. (unrealistically in some sense in that all our crews, regardless of quality) are then uniformly as good or bad as the player.)

Nice balance or satisfies neither? (sod's law its the latter )

[:USERNAME:]

I must be making some unbelievably subtle points or some people here havent read the thread all the way through or they are..(nevermind).

1. Since gun depression isnt modeled (you could fire down the edge of Maddmatts dam), where does the players 'skill' come into finding HD positions that WORK? As I have ALREADY pointed out, in real life, with real tanks, (Im a vet) you can get a hull down position that WILL NOT allow you to use your main gun. Its all a matter of gun depression and the more the better. Its all a matter of UNIT EXPERIENCE (which I believe is the heart of the game) also.

2. It isnt alot of skill to identify these positions. Dont act like taking advantage of an unrealistic situation makes YOU good, it makes the game BAD.

3. I never wanted anything automatic. Read the thread!

4. Since the game is usually not played at the smallest visual scale (I forget, is smallest the real size in relation to the terrain?), its a pain to constantly shrink unit size and cludge around the 3D interface and not even get the TC perspective. I can do it BTW, but am not fascinated by the waste of time like other people.

5. BTS may be busy but I will say this (again). I dont think that CM2 will be very realistic with the way things are now. I wouldnt buy it. There is such a big advantage enjoyed by most german vehicles gun depression over the russians that to ignore it will make the german side completely unbelievable. In CMBO, I can accept it since the US and German gun depressions were about equal. But I believe the HD status needs to be adressed.

6. Read the thread before jumping in and rehashing the same old crap.

Lewis