Are hill crests cover?

[Shandorf]

I also think this is a serious issue. In my PBEMs I rely heavily on the terrain I am fighting in, and if I have to distrust all hills for cover for my infantry then this severly limits my attack avenues and over strategy.

Jeff

[DaKilnGuy]

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

Just hoping BTS is not "noticing" and deciding not to comment.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True!

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

Hot enough for ya'?

DaKilnGuy

[willmontgomery]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by James Ling:

Hang on, Steve & Charles have got just about everything else covered - surely they must have looked at this issue, mayby there is some programming problem which prevents it from being done? Like wreaked viechals not blocking los issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wrecks don't block LOS? Didn't know that. Anyone have any luck walking infantry behind tanks? I mean friendly infantry, using the tank as a moving shield to cross open ground.

[chrisl]

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

Wrecks don't block LOS? Didn't know that. Anyone have any luck walking infantry behind tanks? I mean friendly infantry, using the tank as a moving shield to cross open ground.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The only vehicles that block LOS are the ones that are on fire. Walking behind a tank doesn't provide any cover.

[Moon]

Hey guys,

first, units in foxholes on a crest will rarely leave their foxholes, since foxholes already provide pretty good cover against anything incoming.

Second, the "problem" with hill crests is limited to infantry in the open. It is true that the game does not recognize a "hull down" status for infantry. But then, when you think about it - would it make sense? When was the last time you saw 12 men in a squad lie in open ground in a line, fire at an enemy on the other side, and consider themselves in good cover?

Please do not forget that the squad in CM is abstracted. The three guys you see are really 12 and the "hull down" tactics (on crests or around house edges) are a good squad level tactic, but do not really apply to whole squads.

Third, lines of sight are bending slightly around elevation for a good reason - to allow "gently rolling hills". Do not forget that the elevation changes in CM are 2.5m "embankments" at least - if you made a rolling hill with such elevation changes and start treating LOS as 100% true LOS, you would end up having a "staircase" hill with a lot of holes for LOS. Would you like to have a unit in commanding position on top of that hill look down and the enemy could hide his units every 20m in a LOS "hole"?

However, the bending is certainly not around 10m elevations changes. A unit on the far side of such a height will not be able to target a unit on the near side. If it did (as somebody further up implies), then it is a bug and should be submitted with a file to fix it.

Fourth, yes - infantry sometimes does stupid things when under fire, e.g. run forward for cover and into the enemy or down the wrong side of the hill. This is the TacAI taking a bad decision. This sort of stuff happens, in the game and in real life, and you should take it as FUBAR. You can, however, plan around it and aid the TacAI in its decisions. Simply make sure that you have some nice cover BEHIND you. In military terms: watch out that your retreat is covered.

Just my thoughts to this,

Martin

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

"An hour has 60 minutes, each minute in action has a thousand dangers."

- Karl-Heinz Gauch, CO 1st Panzerspähkompanie, 12th SS Panzerdivision

[M Hofbauer]

Martin,

I would like to voice some disagreeing comments.

I have the impression your statements, in general, seem to refer to small hills/elevations. But we are talking crests here, steep elevations with crests on top.

"When was the last time you saw 12 men in a squad lie in open ground in a line, fire at an enemy on the other side, and consider themselves in good cover?"

is that question serious? taking cover behind a crest or elevation is SOP, has always been, will always be. can you say "rice paddy dike" in NAM?

again, we are not talking "lie in the open", we are talking "lie on the reverse slope of a steep elevation". Their heads and weapons might look over the top of the crest, and if they receive fire they withdraw it. In effect, for the discussion at hand it works the same way that trenches/foxholes do.

"However, the bending is certainly not around 10m elevations changes. A unit on the far side of such a height will not be able to target a unit on the near side. If it did (as somebody further up implies), then it is a bug and should be submitted with a file to fix it."

exactly. but that original post was not about the squad being at the foot of that elevation, remember we are talking the crest here. Not sure what your Standpunkt is, Martin, on one hand you say LOS should wrap around the edge, but then you say if it is steep enough an elevation then it shouldn't..or did I misunderstand something?

"Would you like to have a unit in commanding position on top of that hill look down and the enemy could hide his units every 20m in a LOS "hole"?"

not sure. yes and no. what I really want is a game to be true to it's display, WYSIWYG. I loved the original Amiga/Atari M1A1 TP because although it had flat ground and pyramid hills you could work with them, you could depend upon them to block sight etc.

I hate all this fuzziness. Might be there, might not, might see it, might not. I place a squad behind a house but then the enemy shoots through the edge of the house etc. pp.

also, in RealLife, there _are_ LOS - holes all over the place. small depressions etc. Currently they are implemented in the regular, big tiles as an abstracted cover value that means you have it even for totally flat (as it appears) grass area.

so, to return to your question, in conclusion I am amazed to say that yes, I'ld rather have the game LOS engine stick to what I am shown, instead of some fudging of LOS that I can't predict or trust (that's just my opinion but you asked for it).

a last question: does CM model unit height? I mean, is LOS calculated to the baseplate of the abstracted graphic inf squad representation, or does it take into account different heights for prone, kneeling, erect (walking/running) like cc does for calculating LOS? because that might be part of the problem. If LOS is calculated to a ground zero baseplate with no height then I see why you need all this LOS wrapping etc., because inf would be in LOS holes very fast. But then the real problem is another one, that of team height.

everybody have a nice day,

M.Hofbauer

btw: I didn't know Gauch had such an excellent command of the english language

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

"Do want a game that works???" (CPT Stransky)

[iggi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You can, however, plan around it and aid the TacAI in its decisions. Simply make sure that you have some nice cover BEHIND you. In military terms: watch out that your retreat is covered.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good tip.

[James Ling]

Yes, its a good tip, but I would prefer the infantry to behave realistically.

I know the game engine probally can't be tweaked with a patch on this one. Still, there's always CM2!

[Los]

Actually I have to step in here and point out a fairly obvious thing to anyone who's actually been in the infantry. There is a difference between the actual crest of a hill, and the "military crest" which is where you would actually deploy your forces. No one in their right mind sets up on the actual crest of a hill and assumes this mythical "hull down position" for infantry that people are kicking around here as some great flaw in the programming. Any idiot foolish enough to actually set up on the crest of the hill is skylining himself and making himself easier to spot and hit, not harder.

The military crest of a hill is actually the area below the crest, where, if you set up your forces or choose a route of movement, you will not be highlighting or skylining yourself.

SO deploying yourself as described a few posts up "(we are talking "lie on the reverse

slope of a steep elevation". Their heads and weapons might look over the top of the crest, and if they receive fire they withdraw it.)" it is not done if you want practice sound tactics. Nor is that to be confused with a squad hiding behind a wall and sticking their heads up to fire.

Also a reverse slope defense is not a situation where a soldier lies on the reverse slope of a crest (that is the one meter directly on the opposite side of the crest) and peers over the top to take pot shots at opponents. A reverse slope defense is where you set up well down on the reverse slope. This way, no one approaching the hill from the opposite side sees you or knows you are there. Then as they crest the hill (Or bypass it on eth side) you surprise them by firing up at them from mid way or all the way down the slope on the opposite side.

For anyone who hasn't seen this in practice in the field, you can pick up any five and dime book on tactics and read these explanations for yourself.

Cheers...

Los

[James Ling]

Sure this a sound tactic, an SOP. But it doesn't mean that no squad in WW2 ever used a hill crest in a firefight?

[David Aitken]

James Ling wrote:

> But it doesn't mean that no squad in WW2 ever used a hill crest in a firefight?

What Los is saying is, if they did, they wouldn't have the advantage of cover that one might imagine them to have.

Personally, when I first saw people talking about hill crest bugs, I was imagining squads hiding behind crests (as Los is saying), as opposed to using the crest as a firing position. The former tactic both surprises and skylines the enemy, whereas the latter offers no surprise and skylines yourself.

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."

[Los]

I would also point out that a simple walk in any hilly terrain (of the 100 meter height variety common to CM) would rapidly divest one of the idea that the crest of the hill or ridge is some easily definable spot where you can lie down as if at the point of mount Everest and half your body is safe on one side and you can pop caps at the enemy on the other side.

Los

[IntelWeenie]

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

Actually I have to step in here and point out a fairly obvious thing to anyone who's actually been in the infantry. There is a difference between the actual crest of a hill, and the "military crest" which is where you would actually deploy your forces. No one in their right mind sets up on the actual crest of a hill and assumes this mythical "hull down position" for infantry that people are kicking around here as some great flaw in the programming. Any idiot foolish enough to actually set up on the crest of the hill is skylining himself and making himself easier to spot and hit, not harder.

The military crest of a hill is actually the area below the crest, where, if you set up your forces or choose a route of movement, you will not be highlighting or skylining yourself. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Points well taken, Los. But I would suggest that the crests in question do not necessarily need to be the topmost part of the hill. We could certainly consider the military crest when talking about this issue. (BTW, most of the hills I see in CM the geographic crest is the military crest, too.)

Point of (differing?) semantics: I've always considered the military crest to be the spot which affords the best LOS to the approaches to the hill, minimizing dead spots (like behind the seawalls at Normandy. Sorry, most obvious example I could quickly think of ).

Personally, I don't think it's a great flaw, but rather something that could hopefully be implemented to more accurately model the effects of surrounding terrain on incoming DF.

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

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

-Dudley Do-right

[James Ling]

OK - useing a hill crest as cover may not be SOP. But in battle you'd use any sort of cover when the bullets are flying! A hill crest, despite being skylined, is better cover than running into the incoming for some scattered trees. If cover can be used in reality then it should be simulated in CM.

As it stands now it seems that the CM engine would have to be rebuilt to simulate the effects of terrian elevations on incoming direct fire . Ok, accepted.

But to reduce the problemb could not the tac-AI be tweaked so squads on hill tops run in the OPPOSITE direction to the incoming taking themselfs out of los and out of danger? It seems the realistic alternative to going over the top of the hill and into greater danger.

Tanks withdraw out los when facing a threat. Can't the same mechanics be used for infantry when the Tac-AI considers its options?

[This message has been edited by James Ling (edited 09-13-2000).]

[Los]

The military crest is actual just a term (meaning don't set up or walk on top of the hill where youa re sillouetted) it does not actualy refer to a real crest. Hills or higher elevations do not necessarily infer any particular defensive benefit in and of themsleves It all depends on what kind of terrain is on this hill. The advantage of the hill is LOS benefit.

RE: Hills sorry for reposting this again from somewhere else but since we just ahd virtually this same conversation:

RE: Height advanatage, it IS the LOS advantage that makes occupying a hill worth while and infers advantage to the owning player. That's the whole point to occupying a hill. There's nothing inherently much easier or harder to hitting someone standing on a hill as standing in flat terrain (Yes I am aware of certain common aiming errors people make when shooting downhill and whatnot) so there should not necessarily be an inherent "modifier" to a target just for being on a hill or higher elevation than the shooter. What matters is what is his disposition (Standing, moving, prone, hiding, hull down) and more importantly what terrain is he in, wooded, rough, foxholes, trenches, buildings,

etc.

You take the hill because you can see farther, it controls enemy avenues of approach and can interdict areas all around it, something that you can't do from hanging out in the valley. You take the hill because it is much harder for the enemy to get at you, makes for slower movement on his part. Thus exposing him to longer durations of your own fires. If you are just sitting on a bald hill sillouetted against the sky, the hill will confer upon you no inherent defensive

benefits. IN fact if you can see them, they can see you, (maybe not automatically as there are many variables such as training, fatigue, environmental conditions, and surprise involved), but LOS works two ways,

theoretically, and that must be kept in one's mind constantly.

"A hill crest, despite being skylined, is better cover than running into the incoming for some scattered trees. If cover can be

used in reality then it should be simulated in CM."

If that is the only defensive benefit that you can eek out of the terrain on a hilltop then you need to vacate that spot immediately since you will be dead shortly. Also youa re always bale to:

A: Move your squad back a few steps out of te line of fire.

or B: If it comes under fire as soon as it "crests" a hill it will duck and take itself out of LOS. Buta smart defender will allow them to become fully exposed first.

Cheers...

Los

Perhaps an actual crest terrain tile might do the trick?

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 09-13-2000).]