aka_tom_w Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 OK...... I have read alot about a conspiracy in the other thread. But can someone just tell me if in fact there actually is a hull problem in v1.05. As suggested in the conspiracy thread. I have not seen it? But I have really looked for it either? Can anyone else verify if swamp is correct when he states: "let me explain further, a tank that is fully exposed to a hulldown enemy tank is also given hulldown status even though its fully exposed the only exception involves a _wall_" I read a great deal about a conspiracy in the other thread and a whole lot of name calling but I still can't figure out if this really is an issue with the latest v1.05 patch? Any one? comments (flame retardent suit at the ready? ) -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 I am looking into this right now. Madmatt ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! Combat Mission HQ CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission CMHQ-Annex Host of the Combat Mission WebRing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted September 4, 2000 Author Share Posted September 4, 2000 Thanks Matt -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 Supposedly, there is a bug where if you are hull-down when attacking a target, the target gets the bonus as if it was hull-down also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 And in another thread, Steve (or Charles) noted it and said he'd look into it, that it might be a bug they accidently introduced. some conspiracy -johnS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted September 4, 2000 Author Share Posted September 4, 2000 Thanks again Matt Just another bump -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Following are opinions (very abridged because of the size of this post) of members of the 66th and 67th Armored Regiments and 2nd Armored Division: The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories. Superior Flotation. Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome. The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no telltale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate. The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. If HVAP ammunition becomes available, it will improve the performance of both the 76-mm and 90-mm guns. German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy. German tanks have better sloped armor and a better silhouette than the American tanks. The M24 tank has not been available long, but has created a very favorable impression. The M4 has been proven inferior to the German Mark VI in Africa before the invasion of Sicily, 10 July 1943. " -Brigadier General J. H. Collier, Commanding Combat Command "A" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted September 4, 2000 Author Share Posted September 4, 2000 what is the status on this allegded issue (bug?) problem hull down thing anyway? I ahve tried (sort of) to take a look at it but I have not seen any evidence of it? Anyone else confirm or deny if it is a real problem as suggested? thanks -tom w no sig file this time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ataru *~ Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 It's real; I noticed it quite some time ago actually, but was firmly locked in lurking status at the time. Ataru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted September 11, 2000 Author Share Posted September 11, 2000 Thanks Any other new "news" on this issue? just to revisit a new current "undocumented feature" -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ataru *~: It's real; I noticed it quite some time ago actually, but was firmly locked in lurking status at the time. Ataru <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pillar Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 I've seen it too. I didn't think about it until now. Good eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 I've been thinking about this "bug", and my guess is that Hull down is defined by LOS, and that the viewpoint origins from the centre of vehicles(?). If this is the case, then one vehicle can't be hull down to another, unless the other is also hull down. LOS shouldn't be everything, but; - The easiest solution I can come up with is to raise the viewpoint to somewhere close to the top of the vehicle. - A more elaborate approach, in addition to the previous, is to also require that the obstacle providing hull down cover is within a scertain distance, and no further than half way to the spotter. Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted September 11, 2000 Author Share Posted September 11, 2000 is this the same issue or problem as the issue of infantry and the crest of hills not beig used as cover at all. Are these two "undocumented features" related or the same or of the same coding origin? just wondering out loud? -tom w ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Following are opinions (very abridged because of the size of this post) of members of the 66th and 67th Armored Regiments and 2nd Armored Division: The consensus of opinion of all personnel in the 66th Armored Regiment is that the German tank and anti-tank weapons are far superior to the American in the following categories. Superior Flotation. Greater mobility. This is directly contrary to the popular opinion that the heavy tank is slow and cumbersome. The German guns have a much higher muzzle velocity and no telltale flash. The resulting flat trajectory gives great penetration and is very accurate. The 90-mm, although an improvement, is not as good as either the 75 or 88. If HVAP ammunition becomes available, it will improve the performance of both the 76-mm and 90-mm guns. German tank sights are definitely superior to American sights. These, combined with the flat trajectory of the guns, give great accuracy. German tanks have better sloped armor and a better silhouette than the American tanks. The M24 tank has not been available long, but has created a very favorable impression. The M4 has been proven inferior to the German Mark VI in Africa before the invasion of Sicily, 10 July 1943. " -Brigadier General J. H. Collier, Commanding Combat Command "A" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 Tried a little test and the results were variable to the point that I can't draw any comclusions from them. Not only did I note the now-infamous "double-HD" effect, but it seems like HD status was totally unaffected by vehicle silhouette! I tried this with several vehicle of differing height (Daimler AC up to M4A3E8 vs. Hetzer up to King Tiger). I don't think terrain played any part as it was a billiard-table map, all vehicles on each side spaced 5m apart and the Allied tanks 6-7m (had to move some to get any HD status) from the front edge of a hilltop (level 10). The Jerries were ranged 175m away. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w: is this the same issue or problem as the issue of infantry and the crest of hills not beig used as cover at all. Are these two "undocumented features" related or the same or of the same coding origin? just wondering out loud? -tom w <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Not sure how they could be Tom, Veh are single entity within the game whereas Infantry units are a relatively abstracted representation of several physical entities e.g. 6 men in a British HMG team. Therefore subject to different rules within the game insofar as it is imposable for the infantry in the game to achieve the equivalent of hull down positions that the veh can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted September 12, 2000 Author Share Posted September 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bastables: Not sure how they could be Tom, Veh are single entity within the game whereas Infantry units are a relatively abstracted representation of several physical entities e.g. 6 men in a British HMG team. Therefore subject to different rules within the game insofar as it is imposable for the infantry in the game to achieve the equivalent of hull down positions that the veh can.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> OK It was just a thought they both seemed to have to do with LOS on or around or over crests of hills so I thought well maybe.... but I can see you are right I was just thinking out loud Maybe next time I'll just whisper to myself -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts