BTS PLEASE COMMENT ON TOPIC "ARE HILL CREASTS COVER"

[James Ling]

Dear Charles & Steve

A few days ago I started up a topic about hill creast cover and it has had lots of agreement. For days now people have asked for your comments because the subject does need it - straight from the horses mouth so to speak.

[Bastables]

Do a search, this has been asked before. But how about a short version for the lazy? the 3 man Section represents the center of the unit, men can be 10 metres from this point. Therefore if one places the 3/1 men very close to a ridge, some of the men are going to be on the front slope.

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

I cannot eat these eggs, they are of completely different sizes.

[James Ling]

Bastables - A quick recap of the topic for the lazy: Men shooting from the crest of a well defined hill have their legs&bodies out of los of incoming direct fire - when under fire they can duck behind the skyline for total cover. Unfortunatly the game doesnt recognise this commanding position as cover and infantry so placed tend to run towards the incoming to any flimsy cover adandoning what in reality is a solid position.

Why not go to your nearest hill top, lay down at the crest and imagine your fireing

down at enemies below. If its a sunny day you may get a nice sun tan!

[David Aitken]

Bastables's reply seemed relevant to me.

David

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

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[jshandorf]

Well, it doesn't to me.

Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?

Infantry squad leader: "Okay, guys, we are at the top of the hill now. Since we are spread out over 20 meters Bob, Larry, Mike and I have to be positioned on the other side of the hill where the enemy is. You guys stay on this side where there is cover."

Yeah, that makes ALOT of sense.

Until the issue is addressed I will just keep my guys VERY far on the back sides of hills.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-11-2000).]

[IntelWeenie]

I had an off-line discussion with an old CM-er and this is what came out of it:

Currently, CM does not take into account cover given by hill crests, it treats all open terrain the same. To do so would necessitate coding the amount of cover based on the direction and angle of incoming fire, which could get pretty complex. Plus, there is an additional issue of changing AI behaviour when so protected (not running for cover when taking fire in 'open' terrain).

I think one of the reasons using hills as cover works for tanks (hull down) but not infantry is because (IIRC) tanks have two points that LOS is calculated to/from (hull and turret), while infantry has only one. With tanks, a comparison of LOS between the two shows whether or not HD status exists, but no comparison is possible with infantry.

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

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[iggi]

Are units moving along hill crests easier to spot because of thier outline with the sky?<img src=http://smilecwm.tripod.com/net3/king.gif>

[M Hofbauer]

"To do so would necessitate coding the amount of cover based on the direction and angle of

incoming fire, which could get pretty complex."

excuse me but wasn't this what our fabled CM was supposed to be all about?

it works fine for tanks - tanks behind a house edge (nobody mentioned house edges here which "work" similarly to the crest thingie) or a fold in terrain are fine. Infantry isn't, it seems.

"Plus, there is an additional issue of changing AI behaviour when so protected (not running for cover when taking fire in 'open' terrain)."

not an issue because if this is rectified the squad will not be taking fire. simple.

"I think one of the reasons using hills as cover works for tanks (hull down) but not infantry is because (IIRC) tanks have two points that LOS is calculated to/from (hull and turret), while infantry has only one. "

that shouldn't be the problem. if infantry has only one point of reference, fine, just let that point of reference be behind cover. finito.

- all this just my 2 eurocents and in good-natured spirit of discussion -

yours sincerely,

M.Hofbauer

[David Aitken]

I'm not very clear on exactly what is being discussed here. It's not like hill crests are a terrain object - they're just ground. Either ground blocks fire, or it doesn't. If a squad behind a hill crest is taking fire, that's fine - it makes no difference whether they're behind a hill crest or not. But the problem seems to be that fire can wrap over the hill crest, and hit units who should be concealed on the reverse slope.

David

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

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

I'm not very clear on exactly what is being discussed here. It's not like hill crests are a terrain object - they're just ground. Either ground blocks fire, or it doesn't. If a squad behind a hill crest is taking fire, that's fine - it makes no difference whether they're behind a hill crest or not. But the problem seems to be that fire can wrap over the hill crest, and hit units who should be concealed on the reverse slope.

David

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your exactly right.

Jeff

[Cueball]

Perhaps BTS could make the infantry effectively "Hull Down"?

[ASL Veteran]

I think that Intelweenie has probably hit the nail on the head. More than likely those are the reasons for the crests as cover issues. While there are good reasons that have been put forth as to why crests should give a cover benefit, strident demands are not likely to get a 'positive' reaction from BTS.

State your case, assume that BTS has taken notice (because either they, or a beta tester, probably have), take a deep breath and move on. If this one issue makes the game unplayable for some individuals, then stick to scenarios with no crest lines - or don't play anymore. Strident demands for change will accomplish very little and will only cause the eruption of flame wars that nobody benefits from. For now, just adapt your tactics to match the way the game does crest lines until a correction is made (if one is made).

[jshandorf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

I think that Intelweenie has probably hit the nail on the head. More than likely those are the reasons for the crests as cover issues. While there are good reasons that have been put forth as to why crests should give a cover benefit, strident demands are not likely to get a 'positive' reaction from BTS.

State your case, assume that BTS has taken notice (because either they, or a beta tester, probably have), take a deep breath and move on. If this one issue makes the game unplayable for some individuals, then stick to scenarios with no crest lines - or don't play anymore. Strident demands for change will accomplish very little and will only cause the eruption of flame wars that nobody benefits from. For now, just adapt your tactics to match the way the game does crest lines until a correction is made (if one is made). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It only took one game for me to figure that out, unfortunately it was with Fionn. Needless to say he devastated those troops.

From now on the hills are for the tanks.

Jeff

[This message has been edited by jshandorf (edited 09-11-2000).]

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

"To do so would necessitate coding the amount of cover based on the direction and angle of

incoming fire, which could get pretty complex."

excuse me but wasn't this what our fabled CM was supposed to be all about?

it works fine for tanks - tanks behind a house edge (nobody mentioned house edges here which "work" similarly to the crest thingie) or a fold in terrain are fine. Infantry isn't, it seems.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think some of this is because the LOS calcs seem to be pretty deterministic compared to the rest of the game. Either you have LOS or you don't. Same thing for AFVs creeping around buildings. You can't shoot the tracks off the front end of a tank before the turret is visible because you don't have LOS to its center mass. With infantry on a crest, if you have LOS to them, you can shoot them. The game engine then calculates the effect based on the terrain the infantry is in. It doesn't take into account the angles/elevations involved to compute % of cover.

Is this a bug? No.

Is this a shortcoming? Yes.

Can it be fixed? Given time and effort, I don't see why not.

Is fixing it worth the effort? I would definitely say yes, but that's really up to Steve & Charles.

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

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[SF]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

"excuse me but wasn't this what our fabled CM was supposed to be all about, it works fine for tanks - tanks behind a house edge (nobody mentioned house edges here which "work" similarly to the crest thingie) or a fold in terrain are fine. Infantry isn't, it seems."

Doesn't seem to work fine for tanks any more either.....If you're hull down vs another AFV,your enemy AFV is always hull down also.

This is another area thats need's attention asap.

[David Aitken]

ASL Veteran wrote:

> I think that Intelweenie has probably hit the nail on the head.

I'm not so sure about that. The problem here is not that units behind a hill crest, when being shot at, don't seem to afford enough cover. If they are being shot at, they are, by definition, not affording any cover from the hill crest.

The problem seems to be that fire can actually go through the crest of a hill and hit units behind. We're not talking about the cover afforded by units under fire, we're talking about the fact that these units are under fire in the first place, when they should be out of LOS.

However, I think what Bastables has said may be the answer. If your squad is very near the crest of the hill, in the eyes of the game engine, members of that squad are going to be visible from the other side, even if what you see in the game doesn't indicate this. The targetting line looks like it's wrapping over the hill, but in effect it's aiming at the frontmost members of the squad.

I think the solution would be to simply not put your men too close to a hill crest. People are talking about guys being able to fire over the crest, and then duck into cover, but that won't work in CM - it's just too detailed. In order for men to have cover behind a crest, they need to be well back - if they can fire on the enemy, the enemy can fire back.

There is most definitely a degree of inaccuracy in the game, but it's not a major flaw - you just need to take it into account when positioning your units.

David

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

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

But the problem seems to be that fire can wrap over the hill crest, and hit units who should be concealed on the reverse slope.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know others have said this is because infantry is considered to occupy an area and therefore there is some fudge factor when computing LOS to infantry. This is the reason why people want to see 'crested' infantry receive some cover from fire, since not all the unit may be within LOS of the firer.

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

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[David Aitken]

Okay, I think I've got the hang of this now. Do we all agree that the 'fire wrapping over hills' issue is due to the larger-than-apparent area occupied by a squad? Is the tweak that everyone is asking for, to vary the effectiveness of incoming fire by angle, so that a squad shooting from (as opposed to hiding behind) a hill crest will afford better protection?

I have to say that this would be an interesting feature. I've never mounted any defences from a hill crest, but if my men were shooting down from a hill, I'd be a bit miffed if they were regarded by the game engine as being in open ground, and therefore in very little cover.

However, I know this would be a big change to the game's code, so I wouldn't be expecting it as a tweak to CM - but it would be good to have in CM2, if that were possible.

David

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

They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach."

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Okay, I think I've got the hang of this now. Do we all agree that the 'fire wrapping over hills' issue is due to the larger-than-apparent area occupied by a squad? Is the tweak that everyone is asking for, to vary the effectiveness of incoming fire by angle, so that a squad shooting from (as opposed to hiding behind) a hill crest will afford better protection?

I have to say that this would be an interesting feature. I've never mounted any defences from a hill crest, but if my men were shooting down from a hill, I'd be a bit miffed if they were regarded by the game engine as being in open ground, and therefore in very little cover.

However, I know this would be a big change to the game's code, so I wouldn't be expecting it as a tweak to CM - but it would be good to have in CM2, if that were possible.

David

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes on all counts!

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

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[Ted]

Just something I’d like to clarify, it’s not so much to do with hill crests but more like a ridge crest, a sharp rise in elevation (e.g. a river bank). I know this isn’t Squad Leader but in that game Infantry that was fired on within the “covered arc” of the bank was afforded the same protection as a foxhole. What I conclude here is that Battlefront has not coded the game so as to detect the direction of fire on Infantry. Is that correct?

[James Ling]

Yes, you've got the hang of it David mate!

All you blokes have given some excellent views on the subject.

But back to the original aim of my topic: Could BTS please comment on this important issue!

[This message has been edited by James Ling (edited 09-11-2000).]

[This message has been edited by James Ling (edited 09-11-2000).]

[Guest Offwhite]

David's point is well-made (and taken), but maybe it helps to look at it from the other direction - I think it's just as likely that the terrain is abstracted, not the squad's location. The elevation changes in the game are necessarily unnatural to some degree, for example the stair-stepping of hills rather than a continuous slope. The terrain can get pretty jagged around crest lines, instead of the smoother transitions normally seen in the real world (a place I visit only occasionally since receiving CM). Given that infantry actions were not generally fought in gigantic unpaved skateboard parks, it's reasonable enough that the game will do some rounding-off and allow LOS to seemingly wrap over a hill.

At any rate, as David said, if you recognize what the game does (whatever the reason; mine's probably wrong), you can plan for it.

[IntelWeenie]

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

Just something I’d like to clarify, it’s not so much to do with hill crests but more like a ridge crest, a sharp rise in elevation (e.g. a river bank). I know this isn’t Squad Leader but in that game Infantry that was fired on within the “covered arc” of the bank was afforded the same protection as a foxhole. What I conclude here is that Battlefront has not coded the game so as to detect the direction of fire on Infantry. Is that correct? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm, sort of. In ASL, it would be similar to the infantry crest status (like in sunken roads) or the old 'infantry height advantage'.

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

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[jshandorf]

So basically there is a descrepency between what we can "see" in the game and what is there. Therefore, more than not you can get burned when trying to use terrain as cover.

Right?

Jeff

[Seanachai]

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

Doesn't seem to work fine for tanks any more either.....If you're hull down vs another AFV,your enemy AFV is always hull down also.

This is another area thats need's attention asap.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There may well be a problem with the hull down thing, but your statement is not completely accurate. I have had a number of incidents lately where one tank was hull down, while the other was not. Hull down status is not always occurring with both shooter and target.

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.