Eridani Posted January 6, 2000 Share Posted January 6, 2000 Something has been bugging me about American Shermans for a while and I finnally figured out what... You can't hulldown a Sherman... Now to explain what I mean I have some screenshots from a game I was playing against the computer... Here is a German Stug III on a hill, in the distance you can see just the turret of the Sherman... The turret of that sherman as a CLEAR shot right at the Stug <A HREF = "http://users.erols.com/scragg/Hulldown1.jpg"> Overview </A> <A HREF = "http://users.erols.com/scragg/Hulldown2.jpg"> Sherman's View </A> Unfortunately, the LOS tracking point on the Sherman seems to be in the hull, not on the turret (like I would imagine it would be... so even though this is a PERFECT hulldown position for the Sherman, the Sherman cannot fire at the Stug because it supposedly doesn't not have LOS. If the LOS was modeled from the turret (like I'd imagine it should be) this would be the most vicious hulldown position available, look at the tiny target presented to the German Stug- But note, the entire turret, and most importantly the barrel of the gun, is fully visible to the German Tank. <A HREF = "http://users.erols.com/scragg/Hulldown3.jpg"> Ground-Level view from Stug To Sherman </A> As a prodomnently American Commander, I have run into this problem ALOT... a Sherman CANNOT hulldown properly, when it does, it does not have LOS, in order to attain LOS the sherman must pull out un-realistically far to a point where it is extremely vulnerable to enemy fire (weather the computer calls it "hulldown" or not). I'd love to hear input on this... I'm hoping its been fixed in the final game. (It provides a MAJOR unrealistic tactical Disadvantage to the Americans by not letting them Hulldown their tanks properly IMHO)I notice that the Stug doesn't seem to have similar problems because its gun is so near the center of mass of the tank (where it appears you are doing your LOS calculations), so therefore if you can see the barrel of the STUG, for the most part the stug can shoot you... As it should be with all vehicles (within reason)... If I'm wrong on this I'd love to hear why, god knows it wouldn't be the first time -EridanMan [This message has been edited by Eridani (edited 01-05-2000).] [This message has been edited by Eridani (edited 01-05-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted January 6, 2000 Share Posted January 6, 2000 Eridani, I'm only seeing half of the pictures when I click on your links? Are they really all there Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted January 6, 2000 Author Share Posted January 6, 2000 Somethings Funky with the images, I've played around with them so you can at least see my point... (still load slow... crappy server) -EridanMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonS Posted January 6, 2000 Share Posted January 6, 2000 Obvious question: is the scaling etc all set to 'realistic' for the photos? Jon ------------------ Ubique Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted January 6, 2000 Author Share Posted January 6, 2000 Yes it is at realistic Scaling (I only play at realistic, but I just checked to make sure) -EridanMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted January 6, 2000 Author Share Posted January 6, 2000 doublepost [This message has been edited by Eridani (edited 01-05-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Berlichtingen Posted January 6, 2000 Share Posted January 6, 2000 I just looked at the picture (Sherman view) and it doesn't look like you have the scale set to realistic. The StuG looks rather large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcarey Posted January 6, 2000 Share Posted January 6, 2000 Actually (I just talked to scott on the phone) I think he is zoomed in alot with the "]" key to get a good picture. I don't think it is the scaling. Look how huge the house is and it dosen't scale with shift-c - bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted January 6, 2000 Author Share Posted January 6, 2000 I zoomed... trust me, the scaling is realistic... -EridanMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted January 6, 2000 Share Posted January 6, 2000 Hi Eridani, hm, it's difficult to say what the problem is from looking at the screenshots only. Do you happen to have a saved game from the moment you took those screenshots? If you have, please email it to me, then I can have a detailed look at it using the full beta version. I suspect so far that what you are seeing has something to do with the beta demo version. I have tried to recreate a similar situation, and it's no problem to get the Sherman hull-down. The StuG is two elevation levels higher than the Sherman, too. Have a look at this: What is not quite clear to me in your example, does the StuG have a LOS but the Sherman has none? Or do both have no LOS? If the latter is true, what might have happened is that the camera position you have chose to take the pictures is "too high", i.e. higher than the head of the StuG commander. I'm just guessing, can't say more unfortunately without the save game file. [This message has been edited by Moon (edited 01-06-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted January 6, 2000 Author Share Posted January 6, 2000 It is very Possible to get the computer to SAY that a Sherman is hulldown, unfortunately to do so you must expose far more of the Sherman than one would expect you would need to to "hulldown" the Sherman (I.E, you need to expose a significant area of the hull in order fire a shot while hulldown, as opposed to simply exposing the turret like I'd expect)... niether tank has LOS. I have lost plenty of Shermans who's Turrets have been exposed and who could clearly see the opponent, but because the LOS calculation location on the Sherman is in the belly, did not "Officially" have LOS, therefore could not fire. The only way to get them to shoot was to inch them forward, a tactic that usually gets them killed. I have the file, but I'm afraid I left it at home... I'll see if I can get it too you. Also, I'd love to see a picture of that file from the Stug's POV looking at the Sherman. -EridanMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TZEENCH Posted January 7, 2000 Share Posted January 7, 2000 Does anyone know the FOV on the sermans and Stugs in CE, I had a perfect ambush spot and the serman drove into it the stug targeted it the sherman turned its turret and caped the stug as if it knew it was there all along. now i have played a few games of ce and the germans have bad postion to start out with, if i cant get into a ambush post and utilize it whats the point of the armour? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted January 7, 2000 Share Posted January 7, 2000 Moon- I think what Eridani is saying is that for some reason the game treats the Sherman as having its "eyeballs" mounted in the hull instead of the turret. Thus, if only the Sherman's turret is exposed, the enemy can shoot the Sherman but the Sherman cannot see to shoot back at the enemy because its "eyes" are below the hill crest. If the Sherman is to shoot back, then it has to have enough hull exposed for its "eyes" to see over the crest. This puts the Sherman at a disadvantage because it cannot take full advantage of hull down conditions. Eridani, is that what you mean? -Bullethead Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted January 7, 2000 Share Posted January 7, 2000 Yeah, I got that after his reply. Sorry about that, the doc warned me that cigarettes and alcohol will kill all those little brain cells eventually and make me slooowwww Anyway, here is the view from the StuG's point of view: You're right, Eridani, the Sherman seems to be visually slightly higher than necessary to achieve hull-down status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eridani Posted January 7, 2000 Author Share Posted January 7, 2000 precisely what I mean... Moon, I'm sending you the turn, could you see if the LOS works in the Beta Version? -EridanMan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BFCElvis Posted January 7, 2000 Share Posted January 7, 2000 I just had the same thing happen to me. I have it saved. Moon, I'll send it to ya if you want....and Torque if you're reading this count yourself very lucky [This message has been edited by Elvis (edited 01-06-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowWraith Posted January 7, 2000 Share Posted January 7, 2000 This is an ignorant person talking here but might the hull down LOS issue be due to the fact that the man who targets the sherman's main gun is sitting below the turret such that he cannot actually see the stug unless more of the front of the sherman is exposed to the enemy? If i am completely wrong please say so, it would most definitely not be the first time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Tom Posted January 7, 2000 Share Posted January 7, 2000 The little guy whose head is popping up through the turret hatch is the tank commander. His job is to dictate where the tank should go and what to shoot at. If the tank gets buttoned up he just shuts the hatch and looks through an armoured visor in the turret. Those in the hull are only the Driver and the Machine Gun operator/Reserve Driver/Radio Man(?). Of course, this depends on what tank type it is. Some tank's have no turret, or such a tiny one they can only fit a gunner/commander. For the Sherman and most other tanks, I can be pretty sure that they would want the highest possible view. PS. Eridani, your Sherman's seem to be having a pretty easy time chewing up my poor Stugs. [This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited 01-07-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted January 7, 2000 Share Posted January 7, 2000 Look at the second picture posted. Just to one side of the where the gun sticks out is the opening for the gunner's sight mechanism (you can't actually see it but that's where it is in the vehicle) THAT is what determines LOS; the gunner will watch through that while coaching the driver, and holler "stop" as soon as he can see the target in the main gun sight. As long as the second picture was taken from the PoV of the StuG that was the intended target, the Sherman should have stopped HUNTing forward about the time the head of the hull crewman in the Sherman came up over the hilltop; at that point the main gun sight should have had LOS to the target. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted January 8, 2000 Share Posted January 8, 2000 >It is very Possible to get the computer to SAY that a Sherman is hulldown, >unfortunately to do so you must expose far more of the Sherman than one >would expect you would need to to "hulldown" the Sherman (I.E, you need to >expose a significant area of the hull in order fire a shot while hulldown, >as opposed to simply exposing the turret like I'd expect)... There's no need to be concerned about a Sherman looking like it's fractionally more exposed if it reads out as hull-down. In Combat Mission you're either fully hull-down, or you're not hull down at all. So if it says you're hull down, then you're not being penalized for, perhaps, a fractional difference in "extra" hull being visible. This is a result of the fact that the game plays out in 1-minute turns (as opposed to a continuous-time "sim" game) and so the player can't make continuous positioning adjustments to hide or show a few inches of upper hull on a second-by-second basis. With this in mind, Combat Mission intentionally keeps things a bit simpler by saying you're either hull down or not, but there's no "partly" hull down. This is to keep things clear and playable and avoid states like "71% hull down". If CM were a sim, and you were controlling a tank (and just one tank, not five or ten or twenty) then it would make sense to measure states like hull down in fractions, because you'd have a method of controlling it and it would be appropriate to the game scale and timing. But in a turn-based game where you're commanding as much as a reinforced battalion (rather than a single tank) it makes more sense to treat hull-down as either fully "on" or "off". Sorry to be so long-winded. The simple answer is that your Shermans - if labeled as hull-down - are not being penalized for looking like there's a little extra upper-hull showing. Your Sherman is not "more" exposed in any way. (NOTE: There was a bug in the beta demo which applied the "normal" target silhouette even when a target is hull-down, and this would adversely affect the Sherman since it's a fairly "tall" tank. This has recently been fixed in the code.) Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts