willmontgomery Posted April 3, 2001 Author Share Posted April 3, 2001 Originally posted by Homba: What do you think about the above? I agree that there is little practical difference if we limit discussion to the realm of what our goal is, but I also believe that there is a world of difference if we don't limit the discusion and instead look at all the consequences of what would be possible under your proposal. Case in point: I should not be able to know what my opponent can see just by plotting a movement order over there (one that I have no intention of actually carrying out) and then checking out LOS. As for whether my proposal would be harder to program... I am a programmer, and all that tells me is that I am not nearly well-enough informed about the gory details of CMBO's source code to have any idea which one would be harder. The slowing-down issue you raise strikes me as just another advantage of my proposal. If you want hull-down, give a slow order so you don't overshoot, while if you just want to see over that hill ASAP, give a fast order and accept the consequences of possibly overshooting when the driver has to stop suddenly. The slower approach would take more time, but that's Real Life . Nothing prevents you from giving a fast order part way and then switching to slow for the last few meters to avoid overshooting. Plus mine is easier in terms of gameplay. I don't have to plot a move, check out LOS from there, move the waypoint a little bit, check out LOS from there, etc. The order itself is more natural and therefore more immersive. Just my opinion. I don't hate your proposal; I just like mine better ------------------ "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willmontgomery Posted April 3, 2001 Author Share Posted April 3, 2001 I feel a promotion coming on... ------------------ "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willmontgomery Posted April 3, 2001 Author Share Posted April 3, 2001 Originally posted by willmontgomery: I feel a promotion coming on... That was my 30th post and yet I am still junior...what's up with that? I swear that came up junior on my screen before...well, whatever, I am finally a big boy too. ------------------ "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre." [This message has been edited by willmontgomery (edited 04-02-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted April 3, 2001 Share Posted April 3, 2001 There have been many post on the desire to have a 'Hull Down' command implemented, and this thread really falls into that category. I see a couple of problems: 1) Hull down with respect to what? You might be hull down to one terrain feature but not to another. 2) How would you specify the command in a user-friendly fashion that is not overly complex? 3) In real life a tanker slowly edges his tank up to the crest of the hill to achieve a hull down position. He doesn't simply automagically move into the perfect hull down position. In the current game system you move your tank to just behind the crest and then hunt forward to where you * think * you might achieve a hull down position. This seems pretty realistic to me. [This message has been edited by Keith (edited 04-03-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homba Posted April 3, 2001 Share Posted April 3, 2001 On second thought the whole slow-down issue is just smoke- i think the Halt command will stop you dead in the middle of a fast move, so it is a non-issue. (I think this is true...) Your example of abusing seeing what the enemy can see was good. You've won me over- your way is more playable as you explained. It may not be *quite* as easy to get a hull-down stop as with my method, but still better than what we've got now, and would eliminate a good bit of catastrophic tank driving. Homba Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willmontgomery Posted April 4, 2001 Author Share Posted April 4, 2001 Originally posted by Keith: There have been many post on the desire to have a 'Hull Down' command implemented, and this thread really falls into that category.B] As the original author of the thread, I must disagree. Making it easier to get hull-down would merely be a nice side-effect of the command proposed at the beginning. What this thread is really about is proposing a command that makes it easier to order units to go where you want them to go. You point them in the right direction and they decide when to stop according to their ability to see a particular reference point. Both "problems" (1 & 2) you identify are (I think) addressed quite well by the originally proposed command. May I respectfully suggest that you review the first post on this thread and see if you do not agree (if not with the proposal itself, then at least that the command does not suffer from the two problems you mention)? ------------------ "C'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homba Posted April 4, 2001 Share Posted April 4, 2001 Well, I did the experiment I talked about on page 1 of this thread. My hypothesis (that you'd be a tougher target if you showed less turret) was dead wrong. Turns out no matter how much of a tank's turret is sticking up above a ridge, the chance to hit a head-on shot is the same! I lined up 4 tigers on a ridge, in echelon staggered back down the ridge's reverse slope. My hidden AT guns could see the turrets peeking over the ridge like stairsteps. All targets were "Hull Down"- but my AT guns' chance to hit the tanks was 26% for each and every tank, even though there was a very distinct difference in the amount of turret/upper hull protruding between the first and last tank. So apparently the amount of (front) exposure in the case of a "hull down" target is not modeled in CM. This strikes me as incredible since everything else IS modeled. For example, (as you'd expect) the Tiger at each further-back position had to draw LOS further out into the field before they could see the ground over the rise they were hull-down behind. Also, if you turn one of the tanks a little to the side, your chance to hit it improves, because you can see more surface area. My estimate on the hull-down "window" is about a 2 meter strip that you have to stop your tank on, but this was probably unique to the slope of the hill i was using. Conclusions: It IS (arguably) difficult to stop your tank in hull down- if by difficult you mean within the 2m window. There is, however, no reason to worry about how much of your turret/upper hull is exposed: If you're hull-down, youre hull down! I think due to the difficulty of getting Hull-down, there is a need for some system with which to make this as easy for the player as it would be for a tanker IRL. Willmontgomery's idea (does it have a name?) would serve well in this role. (I had some cool screneshots of this test, then realised it was a little more difficult than I thought to post them here!) Homba [This message has been edited by Homba (edited 04-04-2001).] [This message has been edited by Homba (edited 04-04-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts