BTS: The Hull Down Move

[Henri]

I may be wrong, but it seems to me that Ianc is the only one who has clearly pointed out one problem with the "player skill" argument, and that is that the mnap does not accurately represent the underlying terrain, as has been pointed out by Fionn a number of times in arguments relating to the not-always bilateral nature of line-of-sight.

What this means is that independently of player skill, one will sometime place his tank in a positin that seems clearly hull-down only to receive a shot through the front armor . But the PO, who uses the "real" data, should always get the "real" hull down position. If the computer can do it for the PO, I don't know why it should be so complicated for the computer to help the human do it

This is exacerbated by the fact that the game does not allow to measure line of sight from places where there is no unit. If this were possible as in Steel panthers (as I remember, or was it some other game?), it might make it a bit easier to find a hull down position.

Henri

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

[Rattus]

Sod's law.

Nope - don't quite follow you there, yep read the thread,

Don't recall saying you wanted automatically to find ..... (maybe you're not responding to my post!

Point was, instead setting a path along which AI might hunt (god know's what length)until it found good spot, To let player use his skill at reading the the 3D map to find that spot that will potentiallty givee good HD positions. If he has picked a really crappy spot then the AI could only do so much.

Love your style!

[Rattus]

Henri, obviously my posts are out of sinc.

I agree enitrely that my Tk should be able to achieve the HD position - the commander /gun can see the real terrain. I/m all in favour of a HD command. What I don't want to see is some kind of too flexible search along the loong line till you find a nice spot type command for lazy players. By making the HD nomination point a small area I wanted the player to commit the Tk to trying to find that HD position. If there is one there, then I would expect (unless green crws maybe), my Tk to geacheive that posn (if possibel) 'cos they can see the real terrain.

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

[aka_tom_w]

I would like to add...

First I ask myself "exactly what is wrong with the system now"

I thought if you ordered a tank to "hunt" over the crest of a hill, it would in fact automatically hunt its selve into a hull down position in relation to a known target which it will have LOS to and engage once it approaches the crest of the hill.

Am I wrong?

The only problem I see in this whole picture is the The LOS of the TC is not modeled, the LOS of the main gunner sighter seems to be the only one modeled and the LOS of the Machine gunner and driver are not modeled.

SO my question is...

Is it realistic to expect that these three different points of view came all be modeled.

I think it would be VERY nice if the LOS perspective of the unbuttoned TC was modeled so that the entire tank could be hull down and only the unbuttoned TC would be able to see over the hill.

In my practical expeirence of playing the game I have SEEN from view point camera 1 just the head of an unbuttoned TC of an opposing tank beyond a hill and been able to target his tank but not fire at it or him, as it was out of LOF. My machine gunner in the bow gun of the tank) was not able to fire at the TC as the game "saw" no valid target as the LOS went from ( I presume ) the center of My AFV to the center (below the ridge ) of the enemy AFV.

This is the way the game is modeled.

I think it would be nice to see TC in unbuttoned tanks, be targetable even if the rest of the tank is not. And those Same unbuttoned TC's should have a LOS from their lofty perspective modeled so the player (you the commander) can then move the tank in a hull down position.

I think there still needs to be only one or at the most 2 spotting perspectives from a tank, one from the main gun and one from the TC (unbuttoned).

Did that make any sense?

-tom w

[Rattus]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

Is it realistic to expect that these three different points of view came all be modeled.

Tom - probably not! I would like a Commander's view (a real pivoting one) too & a gunner' view. Whilst you could manage the HD positioning this way it would be tricky given the way you have to issue the move command to the tank - areal fine control problem here. (Itself an issue for some - & fair enough it's a game). Your idea would mean less mods to the GUI though. I can live with it either way but obviously I have a preference for the last fiddly bit to be done by the AI.

BTW I always find my Tk's & Stug's to be lousy at finding a good HD position using HUNT (course maybe my skill in choosing the terrain they have to HUNT over is sadly lacking )- even if that is what the AI is trying to acheive now!

[Tiger]

"Dear Tiger

I never suggested to highlight the nearest AT teams."

I don't remember naming you or anyone the person who suggested this, however someone did mention they'd like the nearest teams highlighted, so they could know which AT to use. I don't know if it was you, didn't mention your name.

"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."

The soldier figures are distinguishable, each one carries a different modelled weapon and if you play at a realistic scale you would notice this. Realistic being at scale 1 down on the map. However if you play with tiny units and use a large overhead map, what did you expect? Instead you infer "that's how I play and I don't like the resizing of units, so change it".

"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!"

Many people don't have this problem. I personally have NO TROUBLE IDENTIFYING MY OWN UNITS in a reasonable fashion! That's ok because not everyone is the same.

"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."

This is a game feature put in by the designers to give people different unit views to play with along with the different map view aspects, without automating the process of having it done for you by being able to highlight certain unit types. Many people have no trouble remembering where all their units are. You say you don't want to toggle through 4 settings to go back to original size, but you'd rather toggle a hot-key on and off, which takes the same amount of effort. Obviously the designers left it this way for a reason and have stated such in a clear fashion with good reasoning. You have an opinion, so does everyone else. You have some hang-up about toggling unit size, that's ok. Some people have no problem with it.

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

Why would this make me happy and why should you care? You've got a huge chip on the 'ol shoulder my friend. This is a discussion forum. When someone posts something it's not mandatory to have to agree with them.

"I am REALLY sorry, if these suggestions cause you that much pain!

Your suggestions cause me no pain at all. However if the only way you'll post something is if no-one disagrees with you, well...Don't post on a forum, send e-mail to Big Time instead. You're offering bait and I'd rather not take it thank you.

"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!"

Many people have no trouble identifying their units quickly and easily. One of the main features of this new game format is to have to get down on the field and actually do things rather than rely on short-cuts and time-savers. It's what the designers wanted and Combat Mission would be a whole lot less without it, imho. And there IS a certain amount of hide-and-seek within the game (though I suspect you're referring to trying to find your own units, and I disagree in this too...it should be possible to overlook something), there's even a "hide" command. Being able to remain unseen and having to detect unseen enemies is a big part of tactical combat.

"Regards, Thomm

P.S.: Sorry for the shouting"

Sorry for shouting? You used it to emphasize your point of no tolerance for others' opinions. It's a tactic in debating to attempt to silence any opposition with volume. Thomm, I see your point about highlighting units but I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

-Tiger

"When in doubt,

run in circles,

scream and shout"

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

[DanE]

How about this: (I sure hope this hasn't been brought up before)

Have a "Hull Down" order. This order would be much like the rotate order. You issue your movement orders to the tank and at the end you give it the "Hull Down" order which will prompt you to pick a direction (just like rotate to).

When the tank arrives at the end of its movement path, it will seek a hull down position. The AI would be allowed a very small adjustment range, say 5 meters or so, to correct a misjudgement by the player. That is, the AI will move your tank no more than 5 meters from your final movement point to achieve a hull down position.

This would still make the player find a good hull down position, but would get the desired effect even if the player was a little (5 meters or less) off in the placement of the movement marker. This could represent the actual forward/reverse movements that were used to get a real tank into a HD position.

I think this is what most people are looking for. But then again, I could be wrong.

I have no idea how hard it would be to put something like this in the game.

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

Dan

[:USERNAME:]

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

How about this: (I sure hope this hasn't been brought up before)

Have a "Hull Down" order. This order would be much like the rotate order. You issue your movement orders to the tank and at the end you give it the "Hull Down" order which will prompt you to pick a direction (just like rotate to).

When the tank arrives at the end of its movement path, it will seek a hull down position. The AI would be allowed a very small adjustment range, say 5 meters or so, to correct a misjudgement by the player. That is, the AI will move your tank no more than 5 meters from your final movement point to achieve a hull down position.

This would still make the player find a good hull down position, but would get the desired effect even if the player was a little (5 meters or less) off in the placement of the movement marker. This could represent the actual forward/reverse movements that were used to get a real tank into a HD position.

I think this is what most people are looking for. But then again, I could be wrong.

I have no idea how hard it would be to put something like this in the game.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A position is only hull down to another position. Its been covered before and why not read this thread?

Lewis

[DanE]

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

A position is only hull down to another position. Its been covered before and why not read this thread?

Lewis

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Damn, you don't say. Lewis, thanks for clearing that up for me.

Lewis, this thread started on July 9 and is over 80 posts long. I have been reading this thread from the start, so pardon me for not going back and rereading all 80+ posts before I posted. This is a disadvantage of reading the BBS will at work.

After rereading my post, I saw where I left out a point. You posted before I could correct it, so I will put the edited statement here:

Have a "Hull Down" order. This order would be much like the rotate order. You issue your movement orders to the tank and at the end you give it the "Hull Down" order which will prompt you to pick a direction AND LOCATION that you want to become HD to.

I hope that clears up my point. Either way, I am sorry I have troubled you with my lowly suggestion.

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

Dan

[Rattus]

Originally posted by DanE:

Have a "Hull Down" order. This order would be much like the rotate order. You issue your movement orders to the tank and at the end you give it the "Hull Down" order which will prompt you to pick a direction AND LOCATION that you want to become HD to.

Dan - Perfect. I noted directon assuming (I'll have to be moe explicit in future) commander would pick position so as to be HD from as many threat (positions) coming from that direction as possible. This would in retrospect be too much AI work.

Your wa is better whilst retaining that small location area I wanted. Now if we can just convince BTS...!

[aka_tom_w]

ok This is the best post so far (I think)

(see below)

The game is good the way it is (mostly)

Now I understand the difference between the hunt command with enemy unit beyond the ridge to target and WITHOUT an enemy unit beyond the hill to target.

This is what some here are requesting It seems.

It makes sense except why not just use good old "player skill" to put that tank in the right position in the absense of the enemy unit, just get down into camera 1 and hunt the tank to a location BEFORE the crest of the hill. you can't reallKNOW if your tank is actually hull down, until you can target and engage the enemy and actauly see if the game tells you your tank is in a hull dwon position.

You can go to camera level 1 at the location you are attempting to target and look at back at the tank you are trying to place hull down and actually see how much if it is showing? if just the TC is visible over the ridge is it my experience that th enemy will not be able to fire at him as he is part of the tank that you can't get LOS to.

I suspect (I'm not sure of this one, I should test it) that a sharp shooter on the ground, Would NOT be able to target an unbuttoned TC over a ridge as he cannot "see" the middle of the tank which the game thinks he need to acquire a valid target.

Am I wrong about this?

I must test that

-tom w

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

MERC,

The difference between the proposed command and the hunt command is the presence of an enemy unit. When using hunt to find a hull down position your tank rolls forward & then stops when it has LOS on an enemy. Great. But what if you want to be in a hull-down position before an enemy arrives, (to set up an ambush or something?), THEN a seperate command would be quite useful. The command would be exactly like hunt except your tank would roll forward until it has LOS on a given point instead of an enemy.

Also, I think such a command would be quite realistic. Having a tank roll up a hill until the commander has LOS over it isn't gamey or unnatural. It irritates me to have to fiddle with my tanks turn after turn, playing with all sorts of camera angles as I micromanage my armor trying to get them properly hull-down when the crew should be able to do it on it's own. I'm not a veteran or anything, so this is all just speculation, but it seems reasonable to assume that a tank commander knows how to find a hull down position.

The idea seems fairly realistic and would cut-down on the micro-managment of armor to increase the "fun" factor of the game.

Just my $.02

-Adam-

Either way, CM is still an amazing game!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[DanE]

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

It makes sense except why not just use good old "player skill" to put that tank in the right position in the absense of the enemy unit, just get down into camera 1 and hunt the tank to a location BEFORE the crest of the hill. you can't reallKNOW if your tank is actually hull down, until you can target and engage the enemy and actauly see if the game tells you your tank is in a hull dwon position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can get in View 1 now and spend several turns trying to get into a HD position. However, the only way to know if you are HD is to wait until the enemy appears. Without the enemy being present, as a player, you can not tell if you are in a HD position.

I am not looking for something that will make my tank HD to the enemy, as this is varible and always changing. I would like the ability to put my tank in a HD position to a specific location on the battlefield. This location is fixed and the tank crew should be able to get into a good HD position based on it.

A tank commander should be able to determine if his tank is HD to a specific spot. Of course, then we can get into crew experience. The better the crew, the better the chance of getting into a perfect HD position. Green crews would probably have a harder time getting into a 100% HD position.

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

Dan

[Guest Rollstoy]

Dear Tiger, in your words I used capital letters to emphasize my point of no tolerance for others' opinions.. May I remind you how you expressed your opinion about another guy's suggestion:God help us.Yes, I must say that you are a real example! This is really polite and tolerant! Apart from this I can heartfully agree that we disagree completely. But this is not the subject of this thread so I better zip it now ...

[:USERNAME:]

Well I just reread the whole thread and would like people to vote for 'hull down move':

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 designated.

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

(Remember: If BTS WERE to put something new in, the good old "hunt" command is there for people to do it the old fasioned way.)

[Sirocco]

I think the whole debate about hull down positions has become far too complicated. The simplest solution is always the best, and it would seem to me that a Hunt order, followed by a Rotate order, should make the crew find a good hull down position themselves. I think some credit has to be given to vehicle crews; they're not dumb automatons, and they're in a much better position to identify hull down positions. The Hunt command does not, in my experience, achieve the expected result, as tanks tend to either be too far back, or worse still they crest the slope and expose their front completely. I'm sure BTS are working on a solution, but the solution they'll implement will be the simplest.

[Philistine]

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

Well I just reread the whole thread and would like people to vote for 'hull down move':<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll try it. Though, as some have pointed out, it's not just a "hull down" move really, as it is a move until you see a certain point in your LOS. (I.e. you can use it to nose around houses, forests, etc., not just over hills).

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

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 designated.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably the easiest to implement, but I don't like it because (as Charles noted) you can only advance directly towards the point. This may not necessarily be a bad thing (particularly for hills) because what it in effect means is that the best use of this will be to drive up nearly to where you want to be and then use the new command to "fine-tune" your position--rather than the back & forth you have to do now.

Using it for long (or even medium) length movements could cause problems I'd imagine.

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

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

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Personally, I don't like this, as I think it gives too much freedom and incentive to use the command to "scope out" the terrain. Also, it may be somewhat hard to maintain FOW with the present coding as LOS generally corresponds with visability--but not too sure on that.

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

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>

Don't really like this one either. It has all of the problems with the first one (except preventing excessive moves if you can't get LOS) but the extra "effort" of an additional command.

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

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.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I like this one the best, I think. As I understand it, you designate an area, and then designate your movement path using "hunt" or a new commmand and it will follow the movement path (not necessarily a straight line to the marker) until it hit LOS with the marker, at which point it would stop & any remaining movement path would be cancelled.

One issue--is this a "hunt" command or a seperate. The issue being, what happens if during the course of movement, enemies come into view. My understanding of "hunt" is that the vehicle will stop and engage any enemy (assuming you haven't targetted the out of LOS unit).

Maybe NOT have it be a "hunt" command, so that it will ignore enemies that come into LOS. The purpose being to discourage over-use of the command. The rationale being that the TC is concentrating on a certain piece of terrain and so won't react to enemies who become visible. (Just a thought)

Anyway--interesting thread. No idea how much coding this would cause (i.e. is it a patch or is it CM2?)

--Philistine

[Sirocco]

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

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>

But if it was real life the crew would handle hull down themselves - their commander wouldn't personally supervise each and every hull down move, not in the midst of combat, anyway.

[MERC]

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

But if it was real life the crew would handle hull down themselves - their commander wouldn't personally supervise each and every hull down move, not in the midst of combat, anyway.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this is your argument then where do you stop? What about your "God's" eye view of the world -- real life commander didn't have that(at least in WWII)? What about your ability to incluence every squad, every vehicle every 60 seconds in the game?

The best option that I have put together in my own mind to deal with the hull down situation is to add a command called HULL DOWN LOS.

This would be a LOS command that would allow you to check hull down LOS from say position A on the map to any other position on the map. It could even change color if it was hull down. Here are the difficulties that I would see:

1. You would have to make some assumption of what height above the ground your conducting your LOS check over.

2. I think it would take away from the FOW and would have the ability to be used for other things.

You could also have a INFANTRY LOS command where you could do the similiar thing -- just at the infantry level.

The other option is do try and do something with the ground textures that would help in judging the terrain.

[Sirocco]

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

If this is your argument then where do you stop? What about your "God's" eye view of the world -- real life commander didn't have that(at least in WWII)? What about your ability to incluence every squad, every vehicle every 60 seconds in the game?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, perhaps we have to define "micromanagement" before we continue with this discussion..?

The bottom line is the visual map just doesn't have sufficient data to position tanks hull down consistently, again, in my experience, and believe me, I have tried... That being the case the AI needs to handle the "fine tuning" of hull down moves. The only question that remains, it seems to me, is how to implement that.

[MERC]

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

The bottom line is the visual map just doesn't have sufficient data to position tanks hull down consistently, again, in my experience, and believe me, I have tried... That being the case the AI needs to handle the "fine tuning" of hull down moves. The only question that remains, it seems to me, is how to implement that.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with your "visual cues" argument. Thats why we have seen the emergence of different terrain mods to try and help - unfortanetly they have been a mixed success.

I do wonder if the AI is programed to try and to get into a hull down position?

[Sirocco]

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

I do wonder if the AI is programed to try and to get into a hull down position? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In Chance Encounter (1.02d) I had a Sherman crest a perfect hull down position, even when it had been given Hunt orders in the exact direction of one of the StuG's. I have yet to upgrade to 1.03 - I'm playing a 20 turn PBEM and we have both agreed to "play it safe" and not install the patch until afterwards - but it seems to me the vehicle crew AI needs improving, not by the addition of new commands, but by the ability of the crews to "fine tune" their position.

I also believe the argument about multiple targets is a red herring. The TC has the AI data to choose the most threatening target as it is, and that's the target he should be hull down to - if he's not hull down to other targets then either they're not threatening enough, or the player or AI shouldn't have put it there in the first place...

[Mark IV]

The simplest solution, and the one which seems most in keeping with the spirit of the game, is the selectable POV.

Toggle between the main gun's POV and the approximate driver's location, perhaps an abstracted 1-meter lower, or infantry, POV. If the gun sees the intended point, and the "driver" sees dirt, you're hull down.

The TC's POV is too high, as he is well above the bore of the gun on most AFVs. He could see the target location even though the main gun could not. He is not modeled as a separate entity in the game now, anyway. What if you are buttoned?

Hunt doesn't do a thing for you if there is no enemy unit in the desired location.

Toggled POVs would:

- allow the human to use judgement in selecting the location, without automating the process.

- more closely approximate the capabilities of a human crew to do something so patently simple.

- seem to take advantage of capabilities which are already in the game (and BTS has the ONLY legitimate perspective on this).

So, that's my "vote".

[Sitting Duck]

I think that I like Lewis's suggestion #2 or possible variant:

Quote:

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

I have 4 alternatives to suggest:

Method1: Way-Point LOS Tool

Create your movement way-points normally. At each way-point you can invoke a new LOS "tool" that uses the normal colors to indicate the quality of LOS between the selected way-point and the current position of the cursor. The color of the way-point or cursor would change depending on relative "Hull Down-ness" of way-point and cursor position.

Could this be mis-used? For instance, a player could simply place movement way-points anywhere on the map in an attempt to locate Hull Down positions.

Is there another method?

Method2: Map LOS Tool

Another option would be to just create a special LOS tool that would allow the player to select any 2 points on the map. Point 1 is the spotter (~way-point, in Method1 above) and a second point (or cursor) is the target. You could move the spotter point and cursor around the map at will. The line between the points would use the current color scheme for LOS quality, but each point (spotter and cursor) would indicate whether it was "Hull Down" relative to the other point. Too gamey?

I personally find the current LOS tool to be, somewhat tedious. The LOS tool in CM now is necessary to give "god's eye" camera positions (i.e., positions >1), the ability to know what's visible by a unit (camera position 1). Method1 and Method2 merely make more-or-less minor changes to the current LOS tool.

So, how about another way?

Method3: Unit LOS Map Display

There was one game that I played once (forget the name), where you could select a unit, then press a button, and the map would change to show the player every place on the map that the selected unit could see and lightly "grey out" map positions that the selected unit could not see. The point of view in that other game was satellite (camera position 7 or 8 in CM). You can obtain nearly the same information in CM from camera position 1 (Key sequence: select unit, tab, 1, rotate)...I just find it hard to interpret because of the somewhat abstracted nature of the graphics in CM (from any camera angle - no dig intended).

In CM, the player could select a unit and then have the option to see exactly what that unit could see from ANY camera position. Basically, this takes the information in camera position 1 and allows you to see the same thing from other camera angles rather than the nearly "god's eye" view we currently have from anything above camera position 1. This option would clearly not allow you to "plan" a Hull Down Move in advance (but see below). It would help overcome some of the "awkwardness" of a LOS Tool or potential complexity of a Hull Down Move (see Charles' previous post).

CM could use shades of grey to indicate relative visibility, maybe some other hue to show relative "Hull Down-ness" between the unit and the position on the map. Maybe some translucent colors overlaying the terrain to show the quality of visibility: not visible (dark grey), relative obstruction, Observer Hull Down to position, Target Hull Down to position, Observer & Target Both Hull Down.

Method4: Position LOS Map Display

If you really wanted a way to plan or look for Hull Down positions, you could toggle the option in Method3 after selecting any point on the map, not just after selecting a unit.

This method would allow a player to select an ambush spot, toggle the map, find the places on the map that are Hull Down relative to the ambush target, where the target is NOT Hull Down to the ambush position, and then place/move units to the ambush position.

Too gamey?

I like Method3 and Method4 the best...but perhaps Method4 only for attack/defend scenarios and Method3 for meeting engagements. Maybe Method4 only for setup and Method3 for during the game?

Lee

[Sirocco]

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

The simplest solution, and the one which seems most in keeping with the spirit of the game, is the selectable POV.

Toggle between the main gun's POV and the approximate driver's location, perhaps an abstracted 1-meter lower, or infantry, POV. If the gun sees the intended point, and the "driver" sees dirt, you're hull down.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I personally don't think that's the simplest solution, but it's certainly simpler than others that have been mentioned.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Hunt doesn't do a thing for you if there is no enemy unit in the desired location.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think it does. A tank can still be hull down in a direction, rather than location, although, of course, it won't be a perfect hull down position, but it would be a good start.

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

Toggled POVs would:

- allow the human to use judgement in selecting the location, without automating the process.

- more closely approximate the capabilities of a human crew to do something so patently simple.

- seem to take advantage of capabilities which are already in the game (and BTS has the ONLY legitimate perspective on this).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I personally don't think having the computer "fine tune" and hull down position does automate the process. The player still has to examine the map closely to find hull down positions before placing vehicles in them. I'm looking at it from a CO's perspective, and that does colour my judgement, perhaps others are looking at it differently, as perhaps the leader of each individual vehicle or squad..?

[:USERNAME:]

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

The simplest solution, and the one which seems most in keeping with the spirit of the game, is the selectable POV.

Toggle between the main gun's POV and the approximate driver's location, perhaps an abstracted 1-meter lower, or infantry, POV. If the gun sees the intended point, and the "driver" sees dirt, you're hull down.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dont quite follow. Are you proposing an LOS check with variable height to a remote location that you WANT to move to? Or just from the unit?

Lewis