Cover behind armour

[gashford]

A quick question, about armoured cover given to infantry.

In much archived photographs and footage of the second world war in combined armour infantry advances to combat, groups of infantry can be seen, bent, finding cover behind or around an advancing piece or armour. THey are not merely hiding behind the armour using it to block an enemies potential line of sight but are actively seeking cover behind them, often in a column, in one picture I have seen up to ten men cowering about pressed against one another and back of the tank as they advance to combat.

In CM, you can try and get men to walk behind the armour as it advances, but does anyone know whether this is as efficient as the portrayl above or does it simply block some line of sight from the enemy? Could there be room for a future 'cover' button for advancing groups around armour or should things be pretty much left alone?

Also in most of the pictures that I can recall haviing seen this, the people tend to be Germas seeking cover, was this primarily a German tactic as pioneers of combined armour-infantry tactics or just that I haven't seen many equivalient allied pictures?

Any thoughts would be appreciated, particularly in line with CM as I am mostly looking to improve my game.

Gashford

[aka_tom_w]

All the rest of you would be answers to this post step aside, step aside.....

Hi Gashford

This is one of my favourite topics and pet peeves about this game.

Oh and BTW Welcome to our wonderful world of the addiction to Combat Mission

So here's part of the answer.....

(there's plenty more below, check out the official answer from Steve about Method 1 vs. Method 2)

notice, I did not say "Do a search"

"BDW

Member

posted 07-26-2000 10:28 PM

I realize there has been much discussion on this topic (that dead AFVs do NOT provide cover

or block LOS).

My question is, will this be adressed in 1.03?

If not, I have a suggestion. Steve says that it was a design choice to not have dead

(unsmoking) vehicles block LOS, and he justifies it as an abstraction. So why can't the

abstraction include a lesser chance to hit a unit trying to hide behind a dead AFV? It seems to

me this would be a happy medium.

The reason why I post this is becuase I was really annoyed with a situation where I had

knocked out 6 enemy vehicles on one end of a bridge. These dead vehicles would have

provided some great cover for my units.

I understand that calculating LOS through the vehicles would use up too much CPU. That is

why I suggest a simple reduction in the chance to hit units behind dead vehicles. At least that

way there would be SOME use to dead armor, other than pretty graphics.

IP: Logged

Fuse

Junior Member

posted 07-27-2000 12:44 PM

That sounds like a reasonable request. I remember reading somewhere, not particularly sure

but possibly on the BTS CM FAQ (hmmm, 3 acronym's...NICE!) that although dead soldiers

bodies were not left where they had fallen, that AFV would be because of the fact that they

blocked line of sight and provided cover. I might have been drawing false conclusions out of

this statement, but I think not.

IP: Logged

aka_tom_w

Member

posted 07-27-2000 12:50 PM

quote:

Originally posted by Fuse:

That sounds like a reasonable request. I remember reading somewhere,

not particularly sure but possibly on the BTS CM FAQ (hmmm, 3

acronym's...NICE!) that although dead soldiers bodies were not left where

they had fallen, that AFV would be because of the fact that they blocked

line of sight and provided cover. I might have been drawing false

conclusions out of this statement, but I think not.

Hi

It has been made VERY clear that only vehicles burning and belching smoke will block LOS.

For that matter knocked out pillboxes and bunkers also do NOT block LOS as they are

treated as vehicles. This has been dicussed to death here. But for now, everyone who plays

this game, should just know that unless it is a smoking wreck you are trying to hide behind,

it won't provide ANY cover and it won't block LOS. Steve and Charles know all about it and

have commented sufficiently that it is not really feasible (technically) to fix or and it is not a

small tweak that can be patched at this time.

-tom w

"

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

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

[aka_tom_w]

try also

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/005568.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008989.html

and here it is everything you ever wanted to know about LOS through live vehicles but were afraid to ask:

"

Here it is..

The MotherLoad with comments by BTS .....

Read the posts closely about Method 1 vs Method 2.

This game was abstracted from ideas and tank battle simulations like in the old Avalon Hill

game Tobruk.

Due to CPU limitations we are told that live AFV's cannot block LOS, this is not news.

Here are the relevant threads:

All new players to this game should read them:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004083.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004572.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004048.html

-tom w

quote:

Originally posted by Pak40:

Thanks for the update guys. For some reason I hadn't seen anything

about this in the discussion board.

I can't believe that dynamic LOS is too hard to keep track. Heck, they

could at least abstract it and have only vehicles check dynamic LOS. It's

not so important with troops, but vehicles it is.

IP: Logged

aka_tom_w

Member

posted 08-15-2000 11:04 AM

The official answer from Steve:

"Big Time

Software

Moderator

posted 04-29-2000 02:17 PM

I see what Lt. Bull is asking. Easily cleared up (I hope )...

There are two ways, in theory, that we could simulate a round leaving a

gun, its eventual path, and where it lands:

1. Use a whole bunch of variables (like weapon accuracy, guner

training, suppression, etc) to determine a trajectory to the target. The

trajectory would then be "traced" and wherever the shell hit damage

would be done. If the hit whacked a vehicle then CM would go through

all the armor pentration stuff to figure out what the impact did.

2. The trajectory itself is only a binary LOS calculation. Either the

shooter can, in theory, get a round from the gun to the target or it

can't. A whole bunch of constant and situationally unique variables (like

LOS quality, weapon accuracy, guner training, suppression, etc) to

determine the chance of the target being hit. If it is a hit then various

equations determine where and HOW (angles) the shell strikes its

target. Then damage is calculated based on the physics for the

particular situation (HE blast near infantry, AP shot hitting sloped

armor, etc). If the round is a miss there are equations to determine

how badly the shooter missed based on several variables (i.e. a bad

unit will miss by a LOT greater margin than a good one). Then the shell

trajectory is calculated to the predetermined location (either the hit or

miss one). Colateral damage is calculated based on the detonation of

the round where it hits. Terrain is checked along a "miss" vector to see

if it strikes something along the way. Hits don't need to check because

they have already been calculated to be hits based on a clear line of

fire.

WOOOOO!! That took a little longer to explain than I thought

OK, now what are the real world difference between the two...

Method 1 -> as real as you can get! Unfortunately, it is also a CPU

cruncher from Hell. If we had one or two vehicles shooting in more

sterile conditions it wouldn't be a problem. But when you have letterally

dozens of shots being made on a somewhat average turn, this

becomes a HUGE problem.

Method 2 -> On average will come up with the same results as Method

1, but only spews out a realistic number of calculations on the CPU to

crunch. What you lose is the ability for the shell to accidentally strike

something between A and B other than terrain. As the link Iggi gave

will explain a bit more. Thankfully, the cases where this matters are few

and far inbetween.

So there you have it Method 1 and 2 yield pretty much the same

results, with the exception of variable blockage (i.e. vehicles). Oh, well,

the other difference is that Method 1 would make CM tedious to play

and Method 2 works just fine.

(tom w opines: I interpret this to mean that Steve is saying that CM was designed to use

Method 2 to save time to process or "crunch" the result of the round being fired, hence it

does not, and cannot account for live or dead vehicles which are not smoking and burning in

between the shooter and the target. It should also be noted that Pillboxes and bunkers are

treated as vehicles and do not offer any form of cover and do not block LOS or LOF).

When you get CM take a dozen vehicles for each side, plop them on

opposite sides of a level battlefield and see how slow the turns

calculate. Now do that until one side is wiped out and you will notice

how much faster each turn becomes with the elimination of each

vehicle. Then remember that this is using Method 2 in sterile conditions

with no blocking terrain or vehicles (especially not ones in motion!!) to

bog down the LOS calculations.

Steve

P.S. Grazing fire for MGs is in fact simulated. Charles found that the

math to simulate just this one feature wasn't too horrible for the CPU

to deal with.

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited

04-29-2000).]

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-15-2000).]

IP: Logged

aka_tom_w

Member

posted 08-15-2000 11:12 AM

This is Iggi's post Steve previously refered to:

The Answer to Can vehicles Block LOS is here:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/002266.html

Its old but it is still relevant.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 08-15-2000).]"

[BeWary]

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I had a thought/suggestion come to mind. For CM2 LOS calculations, perhaps they (BTS) could treat vehicles as a type of moveable "terrain". They could simply move around the map, altering the "terrain" as they moved. Of course the vehicles would need to have a height and width associated to them. I guess I'm imagining little "hills" moving around the map.

This idea is meant to be applied to the actual programming of the game, not how the user interacts with it.

The tricky part would be trying to model whether a shot goes over the tracks (next to the turret), but that sort of thing could probably be left out without much of a realism hit.

BeWary

P.S. I realize this would require a complete re-working of the code, which is why it is not feasible for CMBO, but might be for CM2.

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

"Liberty or Death?" Make it "Victory or Pretty Damned Badly Wounded", and I'm yours. - a prospective recruit during the American Revolution.

[Maj. Bosco]

Couldn't you also have the same effect beneath every knocked out or abandoned vehicle that you have with a smoke feild? Aren't smoke feilds doing essentially the same thing as a knocked out vehicle would do?

[Mark IV]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maj. Bosco:

Aren't smoke feilds doing essentially the same thing as a knocked out vehicle would do?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not really- smoke provides concealment only. Dead vehicles provide both cover and concealment (they stop bullets).

[aka_tom_w]

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

Not really- smoke provides concealment only. Dead vehicles provide both cover and concealment (they stop bullets).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi

Mark IV has been around here for longer than I have so now I'm confused...

Mark IV, do your mean " Dead vehicles 'SHOULD' provide both cover and concealment (they stop bullets)."?

Or are you suggesting in CM that the DO provide cover and concealment (they stop bullets)?

As I understand the LOS system in CM smoke blocks LOS but not bullets, and any vehicle including pillboxes and bunkers do not block LOS or LOF ever, dead or alive. Its only the smoke, if they are burning that blocks LOS.

Are we talking about the same things here?

-tom w

[Mikeydz]

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

Hi

Mark IV has been around here for longer than I have so now I'm confused...

Mark IV, do your mean " Dead vehicles 'SHOULD' provide both cover and concealment (they stop bullets)."?

Or are you suggesting in CM that the DO provide cover and concealment (they stop bullets)?

As I understand the LOS system in CM smoke blocks LOS but not bullets, and any vehicle including pillboxes and bunkers do not block LOS or LOF ever, dead or alive. Its only the smoke, if they are burning that blocks LOS.

Are we talking about the same things here?

-tom w

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AFAIK, Dead vehicles do not provide any concealment or cover effects. Burning vehicles do provide concealmeant because the smoke does block LOS. But if your Sherman isn't imitating a zippo lighter, then don't expect any protection from it.

[M. Bates]

Is everyone who answered gashford's question on drugs? Why hasn't anyone answered the question??

Gashford, I don't think that tanks etc provide any cover for infantry. Before I have been in situations where I presumed that it would, but apparently this isn't the case, maybe because Combat Mission isn't a "true 3D game" - for example, you can't go under bridges, and in two storey houses, men of each floor are not *really* above each other.

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

[This message has been edited by an international conspiracy of Euro-Anarchists.]

[Tiger]

Hiding behind a tank is definitely NOT a good idea. According to Jean Restayn in his book "Tiger I on the Eastern front", "...This was in fact dangerous as the tanks attracted concentrated fire from the enemy."

Add to this tanks are not going to remain static. If they do they're as good as dead.

Infantry trying to take cover behind/beside an active tank would be in greater peril than in their own cover.

So you've got a mobile, active tank manuevering around, backing up into cover after shooting, moving around for a better shot, while concentrated enemy fire converges on the tank from any part of the field that can target it.

Those pictures of infantry hiding behind a tank are usually pics of units in route to the battlefield/form-up points.

-jmtcw

-johnS

[Maj. Bosco]

It occurs to me that it would make sense for a tank to be cover and not concealment. Since units can't fire at your units unless they have line of sight the tank provides cover from one angle. If they're using HE rounds or mortars then a vehicle, unlike woods or a house, would be virtually no protection against the shrapnel. There might be a few minor discrepencies that would could become persistent preludes to the "Do a search" chorus but it would be a fairly effective quick and dirty solution. Of course on the other hand BTS is in the business of quality programming and probably look down their nose at that kind of thinking. Thank god.

[Maj. Bosco]

Tiger, I don't think his problem is as much with the inability to hide units behind active tanks as it is with the non-existance of cover provided by abandoned or knocked out tanks that aren't smoking and burning.

[Tiger]

He didn't mention knocked out or abandoned tanks but infantry taking cover behind advancing tanks. All I am saying is that this is unlikely when the combat actually starts for the reasons I stated above. When I quoted "hiding is definitely not a good idea", this was a quote by another author, and is referring to trying to obtain extra protection from being beside/behind a tank, not trying to actually remain unseen, which is quite impossible for an entire squad.

-johnS

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

Hiding behind a tank is definitely NOT a good idea.

[snip]

So you've got a mobile, active tank manuevering around, backing up into cover after shooting, moving around for a better shot...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had a rather grisly lesson in this several years ago. I was watching some WW II footage on tv. A Sherman had stopped on a road (I think it may have been in Italy, but no matter...). Some wounded guys on litters had been placed on the road behind the tank for cover until they could be evacuated out. Shortly after the filming started, the tank began receiving small-arms fire. The driver, not being informed of the litter cases behind him, did the natural thing and threw it into reverse and started backing up. Before the shouts of the nearby infantry got through and compelled the driver to stop, he had run over two of the litter cases. Bummer.

Michael

[Guest Lord General MB]

Soldeirs,

Mabye not moving armour, to acount for the shooting, moving ect. but why not imobile? (i.e once a tank becomes immobile, it counts as light cover. Once its destroyed [i.e no shooting and being a good target], it becomes better cover.

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

Cheers,

Lord General Mr. Bill,

1st Army

[aka_tom_w]

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

Is everyone who answered gashford's question on drugs? Why hasn't anyone answered the question??

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

M. Bates

What part of

"BDW

Member

posted 07-26-2000 10:28 PM

I realize there has been much discussion on this topic (that dead AFVs do NOT provide cover or block LOS). "

that answer, makes you suspect I'm on drugs??

If you care to read everything that I posted it would be abundantly clear from Steve's disertation re: Method 1 vs. Method 2 that in fact LOF and LOS are never blocked, and were never designed to be blocked, by any vehicle that is not KO'd dead and smoking. So logically if the vehicle is not KO'd and not smoking and infantry are seeking cover behind it, it will provide none because the LOS and LOF goes right thought live vehicles, dead vehicles (non-smoking), bunkers, pillboxes and roadblocks, none of these things provide any cover what so ever and quite honestly I thought that was very clear in my reply to the original inquiry.

-tom w

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

[gashford]

Thanks one and all for your comments, they have been useful. When I posted the question I meant more in lines with advancing to contact using the tank as a cover, I see now that this may not be such a good idea in both real life or the game because of the fire it can attract.

Thanks for the secondary answers about LOS and tank hulks, this has answered the question as well just from a different angle.

Thanks all.

Gashford.

[Cary]

Useful to know: i'd always worried about friendly fire from tanks or troops: evidently this is only an issue with arty and etc, (or, evidently, MG grazing fire, however that works..)