Separate Hull down command

[Guy w/gun]

Has anyone discussed this before? I hope I'm not beating the proverbial dead horse.

In CM2 It would be nice to have a separate command for hull down. Steel Beasts has it, so does TacOps. Why shouldn't CM?

It doesn't seem to hard to imagine a commander ordering a tank to move somewhere and telling it to try it's best to achieve hull down status. It could be issued like the hide command, at the end of a movement order.

The only problem with this is what would happen if there was no terrain near by that allowed the tank to go HD. Maybe in that case the text would be "grayed out" indicating that going HD isn't possible. After all you would probably look for HD terrain before moving you tank. In addition, maybe there could be a "demo" button if HD is possible to show you where your tank will end up.

Further more, maybe this demo mode would allow you to choose one of several HD positions if they are available.

Easier said than done no doubt. I am not terribly unsatisfied with the way it is now. But a separate HD command would allow you to order the tank into HD friendly terrain, and eliminate guess work by letting the TC to go hull down himself.

[Jagdcarcajou]

Hey,

This would be kind of impossible given the 3D aspect of CMs engine. "Hull Down" from one position might be "exposed ass" from another. Hull Down is completely relative to shooter and target. It may be possible to present yourself hull-down to a rather large section of the battlefield, but coding what you intended might be difficult. One could add way points similar to Rogue Spear where you can designate a field of fire to adjust exposure to, but I think that kinda takes some of the fun of CM away. Inching up and finding that sweet spot is part of being a good player. To a large extent, the Hunt command already provides a pretty effective "cheat" causing the tank to stop as soon as it spots an enemy, which usually renders the moving unit hull down if it is cresting a hill.

Chris

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

What the hell is a Jagdcarcajou?

CM Recon

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Jagdcarcajou:

This would be kind of impossible given the 3D aspect of CMs engine. "Hull Down" from one position might be "exposed ass" from another. Hull Down is completely relative to shooter and target.

I was going to explain this same thing, but you've obviosly got all the bases covered.

Guy w/gun, could you please explain how these hull down commands work?

BTW, there is a "dig in" command for vehicles in the setup of some scenarios (an option that the scenario designer can specify). This will make that vehicle hull down for the entire scenario although he can't move.

[Guy w/gun]

Originally posted by Pak 40:

Guy w/gun, could you please explain how these hull down commands work?

In Steel Beasts, you simply give the command. The driver will attempt to find hull down terrain relative to the direction the tank was facing when you issued the command. It's assumed that you, being a half intelligent TC, are already near HD friendly terrain. I didn't play the game long enough to find out just how far your driver would go to find HD terrain.

In TacOps, after giving an order, you press the "Defilade" button (making sure to rotate it in the direction you want the unit to face after the move). This represents hull down for AFVs and going prone for infantry.

In CM, a "go hull down order" could be assumed to be in the direction that the tank is facing if it's stationary. If moving, it would be issued at the end of the waypoints, just like hide.

This would allow for some pretty interesting manuevering. Ordering a tank to move fast, then giving a "rotate to go hull down" command.

[Maximus]

Well this *has* been discussed before and in fact you are beating a dead horse. And the basic reasoning why it was never incorporated was because of what all Jadcarcajou said. IIRC, from just my limited attempt at playing the Steel Beasts demo, the ground wasn't all that hilly, so to have such a command probably wouldn't be that difficult to implement. However with CM and its drastically changing elevations there could be dozens of hull down positions in any general 20m x 20m tile. But then again, going Hull Down is only relative to the unit in question and the target. A Sherman may be hull down to say that Panther at the bottom of the hill, but that Marder II over on its left flank has a clear shot on its hull side.

As for TacOps, that's a hex-based game is it not? Well, that would probably be the easiest to do anyway. So that game really doesn't count does it?

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

"Upon my signal, unleash Hell."--General Maximus, Gladiator

"Aim small, miss small."--Mel Gibson, The Patriot

"I do what I likes, and I likes what I do."--Darrell Hammond (portraying Bill Clinton), SNL

[Guy w/gun]

Actually TacOps is more like CM, based on a sort of intangible grid instead of hexes. A 1000x1000m grid to be exact. All the grid does is show distance.

The terrain in Steel Beasts can get quite hilly, just as much as CM if not more. I remeber screwing around with the editor and putting T-80's in very deep ravines and assaulting them from above.

I understand that "hull down" is relative to the unit and the target. But it also seems reasonable that in real life, tanks would go hull down all the time with out targeting anything-like in ambushes or overwatch.

In real life you can't ask an enemy tank crew if you are hull down to them, so I'd suspect that Tank crews just wing it. They'd Pick a general direction where the enemy is suspected and hide the hull from LOS in that general direction.

I remember in Steel Beasts there was a training scenario where you had to ambush some armor coming up a road. In this scenario I learned the value of going hull down before the armor arrived. In reality, I probably wasn't hull down to *all* the enemy's units, but enough so that I was adequetly covered from most of them.

I hate to feel as if I'm talking out my ass, so I'd appreciate a REAL tanker's info on hull down!

[Beltfed]

Sorry to intrude but I feel while it may be beyond the scope of CM right now a hulldown command is not a bad idea. As was stated the unit would go hull down in the direction it was facing or ended up facing. You might use the 'rotate to' command coupled with hull down order. It may not be easy to implement but if possible I think it's a good idea. Maybe if using an LOS command with an armored vehicle you might get a message the same way you do now if the los is blocked. Or when positioning yer vehicle there would be a command the would indicate "hull down from here" ('here' being where your curser was) in the direction yer facing.

[chrisl]

Originally posted by Beltfed:

Or when positioning yer vehicle there would be a command the would indicate "hull down from here" ('here' being where your curser was) in the direction yer facing.

I think the only way such a feature could work would be as a command similar to rotate to, where it would create a line to a point and bring your tank "hull down with respect to the point at the end of this line".

(edit)

I realize suddenly the major problem with this-- if you give such an order i.e. "move until you are HD with respect to a point (say a crossroads), and there is no point on that line for which you could be hulldown, your tank will just keep driving until it gets to the crossroads (or gets blown to bits because it's driving foolishly into LOS of 10^4 enemy AT guns).

(end edit)

I generally find that it's not too much of a problem-- I plot a "Hunt" a bit past where I think hull down is, and then the tank stops at hull down, and leaves a little tail of a hunt order. If I need to back out in the next turn, I change the hunt to a reverse, and drag it back behind the tank, allowing it to reverse without a delay.

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

"If you can taste the difference between caviar on a cracker and ketchup on a Kit-Kat while blindfolded, you have not had enough aquavit to be ready for lutefisk." (stolen from some web page about lutefisk)

[This message has been edited by chrisl (edited 03-09-2001).]

[Jeff Duquette]

As terrain is already 3D, if weapon trajectories and vehicle heights were modeled correctly, hull-down takes care of itself. That is why Steel Beasts works so elegantly in this regard. There is no need for a special command...the player simply eyes the terrain in ground level view, and places his vehicle appropriately.

[Vanir]

Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

Has anyone discussed this before? I hope I'm not beating the proverbial dead horse.

HERE is the mother of all hull down command discussions. There are a few other smaller ones. Do a search for "hull down" in the thread title only to find them.

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

What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 03-09-2001).]

[:USERNAME:]

Originally posted by Vanir:

HERE is the mother of all hull down command discussions. There are a few other smaller ones. Do a search for "hull down" in the thread title only to find them.

From that thread....Suggestions

"1. have a command so that you extend a line designating a target/position that your vehicle will attempt to move forward to find a HD position in relation to the target/position designated.

2. Have a way of drawing a LOS from the "hunt" commanded-to point. You use the "hunt" command normally and get to examine the LOS or LOF from that 'hunt-to point'. {like the rotate string,}

3. The "Hull Down" command is two part: first designate target/position, then designate the maximum move forward to area. A two string command.

4. Designate an "ambush" marker (out of LOS obviously) and the hunt command is used and the unit will move forward till it just spots the ambush marker."

(Was all this really last july?)

It occurs to me that vehicles like the stug would be able to get into hull down positions quickly because of the position of the driver in relation to the gun. He was at almost the same level. So a stug could get HD and quickly get the drop on someone. A HD stug shows only its best armor and typically less area/height than a turreted HD vehicle. But thats another mother of a thread between me and Steve. Anyone remember that?

Lewis

[Leonidas]

I favor detailed commands generally in CM, on the theory that actual low-level commanders in WWII were not idiots, like most players seem to think they were. Surely a real WWII tank commander was capable of finding a hull down position relative to a given point. Ergo, CM2 should allow the player to order the tank commander to do so.

[tss]

Leonidas wrote:

Surely a real WWII tank commander was capable of finding a hull down position relative to a given point.

And surely a real WWII tank commander had a really detailed map that allowed him to choose the hull down position from several hundred meters away and drive there unerringly at the first try.

- Tommi

[bebbetufs]

I second this request. I believe a "hull down" command implemented the way : USERNAME suggests will enhance the game by removing an element of frustration.

This will not IMO lower the skill level requierd to find good hull down positions since hull down will be relative to a peace of ground.

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

Visit http://home.c2i.net/bebenum for som tips on(flight)sim immersion hardware

[Darstand]

I have never seen where being hull down really matters. A vast majority of hits seem to occure to the turret anyway. Very few seem to hit the hull. Ofcourse I play smaller battles, on medium sized maps where the average engagement range is about 400 or less yards.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by tss:

Leonidas wrote:

Surely a real WWII tank commander was capable of finding a hull down position relative to a given point.

And surely a real WWII tank commander had a really detailed map that allowed him to choose the hull down position from several hundred meters away and drive there unerringly at the first try.

- Tommi

Sorry?

are you serious or sarcastic here?

(honest I'm not sure ? )

"And surely a real WWII tank commander had a really detailed map that allowed him to choose the hull down position from several hundred meters away and drive there unerringly at the first try."

I'm guessing you are very sarcastic as it would seem that they did not usually have very good maps at all and that I think you are suggesting it took a great deal of trial and error to get a good hull down location.

correct?

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Darstand:

I have never seen where being hull down really matters. A vast majority of hits seem to occure to the turret anyway. Very few seem to hit the hull. Ofcourse I play smaller battles, on medium sized maps where the average engagement range is about 400 or less yards.

I think most folks who play here feel strongly that a VERY good hull down position can be quite advantagous against an oncoming opfor AFV that is NOT hull down.

I try VERY hard to locate and get into a good hull down position with my tanks when and where ever I can.

I think being in a very tactically significant location in a hull down posture is very important to the success of winning AFV duals in this game.

-tom w

[Maximus]

Originally posted by :USERNAME::

It occurs to me that vehicles like the stug would be able to get into hull down positions quickly because of the position of the driver in relation to the gun. He was at almost the same level. So a stug could get HD and quickly get the drop on someone. A HD stug shows only its best armor and typically less area/height than a turreted HD vehicle. But thats another mother of a thread between me and Steve. Anyone remember that?

Lewis, I don't know about the thread, but I do know that in numerous instances in playing Chance Encounter that it was fairly easy to get the StuGs in hull down and they could take numerous hits which resulted in ricochets. So yeah, a StuG is a great vehicle for achieving hull down status. In fact, I believe StuGs were used in this sort od situation exclusively.

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

"Upon my signal, unleash Hell."--General Maximus, Gladiator

"Aim small, miss small."--Mel Gibson, The Patriot

"I do what I likes, and I likes what I do."--Darrell Hammond (portraying Bill Clinton), SNL

[Croda]

I'd like to voice my opinion to not include this command in any version of CM. I see no reason to take somthing that works well as is, and change it. The essence of this request takes all the difficulty out of finding a Hull Down position, and thus all the fun.

To quote Tom Hanks character from A League of Their Own: "If it wasn't hard everyone would be doing it. It's the hard that makes it fun."

Being able to find a good HD position makes a player a better player and I'd hate to see this advantage taken away by a command that instantly makes everyone better at the game.

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

Woot! - Maximus2k

The New CessPool

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Croda:

I'd like to voice my opinion to not include this command in any version of CM. I see no reason to take somthing that works well as is, and change it. The essence of this request takes all the difficulty out of finding a Hull Down position, and thus all the fun.

To quote Tom Hanks character from A League of Their Own: "If it wasn't hard everyone would be doing it. It's the hard that makes it fun."

Being able to find a good HD position makes a player a better player and I'd hate to see this advantage taken away by a command that instantly makes everyone better at the game.

I agree with this completely!

The hunt command when used effectively up the side of a hill will almost always stop the tank in a good hull down position.

Good point Croda!

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-09-2001).]

[tss]

aka_tom_w wrote:

are you serious or sarcastic here?

(honest I'm not sure ? )

Being sarcastic.

I think you are suggesting it took a great deal of trial and error to get a good hull down location.

No, I'm not suggesting that, since when on a spot that allowed hull-down positions, it would be relatively simple to get the vehicle hull-down. What I'm suggesting is that no platoon leader could say that "Hey, there's a nice hull-down position just beside that large rock and those two trees that are 500 meters in that direction behind that small forest. Drive there and take that position".

I think that the orders "drive to that ridge (relatively far away) and get a good position" and "drive slowly forward until the gunner sees the target (so that the tank is hull-down relative to it)" would be realistic to have, but combining them into "drive to that far-away ridge to that specific location so you are hull-down" would be unrealistic.

I don't see anything strange in that a tank has to spend a minute or two finding the hull-down position after moving several hundreds of meters.

- Tommi

[This message has been edited by tss (edited 03-09-2001).]

[Pak40]

Guy w/ gun,

I'm sorry,

I still don't see how this command is possible and if it were it would gobble up tons of processor power.

Hypothetically, let's say you could order an AFV to go hull down. You would HAVE to specify a target relative to your AFV. If you didn't specify a target, the AI would be confused. It would probably drive your tank around the map until if found a "hull down" spot that was relative to all visible targets. Then you'd have a lot of pissed off CM players complaining that their tanks are being killed while looking for the perfect "hull down" spot.

Not to mention that the command is totally unrealistic. In real life there is no way to determine that location A is hull down relative to location B, unless you are phyically at location A. And since you are asking the the computer to find a hull down location before your unit actually travels to it, then you are, in effect, cheating.

The best way to find a hull down position in CM is to get down and dirty: go to level 1 and examine your target from suspected "hull down" locations AND examine your suspected "hull down" location from your target's vantage point. These are two excellent methods for dertermining hull down locations that any WWII tank commander would have loved to have had.

[lassner.1]

I have to agree with Croda. For me its not the issue of "the tank commander would be able to do x, y, or z" but, rather, a matter of the skill of the player.

In short, I don't support a "hull down" command even if it were able to be implemented.

[Guy w/gun]

Thanks to all who have responded thus far.

To quote Tom Hanks character from A League of Their Own: "If it wasn't hard everyone would be doing it. It's the hard that makes it fun."

Being able to find a good HD position makes a player a better player and I'd hate to see this advantage taken away by a command that instantly makes everyone better at the game.

Point taken Tom. But I feel that it is the responsibility of the TC, not the commander, to judge HD. I doubt a commander would give an order anymore complex than "Go around to the enemy's left flank. See that hill? Find a good HD position there and let'em have it!!! It would then be the TC's responsibility to find the proper spot.

Not to mention that the command is totally unrealistic. In real life there is no way to determine that location A is hull down relative to location B, unless you are phyically at location A. And since you are asking the the computer to find a hull down location before your unit actually travels to it, then you are, in effect, cheating.

Another good point Pak. You are right. But as I said before, a real TC would probably just wing it. And to that effect, I guess the player can too. By looking at the unit from the vantage point you want to be hull down to and adjusting accordingly.

I just wish there was a way to become HD before the enemy comes into LOS, like in an ambush.

But then again, HD varies not only with direction, but with distance and heigth. Being HD to the enemy 400m away may not be HD at 1000m away. Also, a unit on a hill can effectively nullify your HD advantage.

I guess all I meant was that since terms such as "Defilade" and "hull down" are common tactical jargon, I would like to see a command for HD because it would take some control out of your hands and leave it up to the TC to find a HD position. I feel that this is more realistic.

[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-09-2001).]

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Croda:

I'd like to voice my opinion to not include this command in any version of CM. I see no reason to take somthing that works well as is, and change it. The essence of this request takes all the difficulty out of finding a Hull Down position, and thus all the fun.

An aim with CM has always seemed to be to avoid micro-managment. In fact, this is the argument against a better ambush system or a more flexiable pause command. Yet, there is such demand for micro-managment here. I don't get it.

[This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 03-09-2001).]