Separate Hull down command

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by tss:

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

What on earth are you talking about? Several hundred meters away? Obviously you're trying to be insulting, but you're not even making sense. The point never seems to sink in, but I'll say it one more time just for fun:

The tanker IS on the spot, therefore he CAN determine LOS and hull down position.

There seems to be standard discussions that get repeated here. Maybe we could streamline these conversations by getting the basic patterns out in the open. If you like to imagine a better, brighter CM, and you're thinking of making a modest suggestion, prepare for the following:

Proposal: CM would be more fun if you could do X.

Criticism: That wouldn't be realistic. Real company commanders couldn't do X.

Answer: Yes, but CM simulates much more than the company commander's job.

Criticism: You can more or less accomplish the same thing already.

Answer: Irrelevant. The question is whether CM would be a better game with the feature, not whether there's some awkward workaround available.

Criticism: CM is already a perfect game, and any attempt to change it in any way is sure to bring doom on us all.

Answer: Stopping the development of CM with that attitude is a sure way to make CM obsolete in a few years.

Criticism: You're obviously unskilled, a wimp, or a newbie if you think that CM should be improved. All the inconveniences in CM are actually carefully crafted challenges that demonstrate skill and build character.

Answer: Personally I suspect that BTS would prefer to sell fun games that make money rather than sell pointlessly tedious and irritating games that satisfy some extreme notion of realism. And if you would like to see CM3 and CM4, you might like for BTS to stay solvent, too.

Criticism: This was proposed and rejected on this forum six months ago. Quit wasting our time.

Answer: Just because some previous group of people discussed and rejected an idea shouldn't prevent me from suggesting it. I didn't participate in that conversation. Why should an idea be squelched forever just because the first person to propose it was overwhelmed by criticism, or failed to defend it properly?

[Jeff Duquette]

Weapons trajectory modeling and 3D terrain modeling…the majority of the engine required to make hull-down work is already under the hood.

Why is a hull-down position such a fundamental aspect of tank crew training? Because it reduces the vehicle silhouette…makes a tank harder to see, and makes it harder to get hit. Real World ™ trajectory modeling keeps rounds from hitting hulls when those hulls are behind numerous feet of soil. It also reduces the silhouette of the vehicle…less area to be potentially spotted…less area to be potentially hit

Terrain dictates tactics, especially at this level of tactical simulation. It’s not micro-management to have a tank crew perform what they have been trained to do and follow the most basic principals of tactical doctrine. If the AI can’t make tank crews perform the most fundamental of covering routines and take advantage of terrain – i.e. dropping into a hull down position -- than players should be allowed to “micro-manage” the conduct of their tank crews in this regard.

We’re already micro-managing the **** out of this game as it is. Why does allowing players the ability to command a tank to take cover anymore or less micro-management than a company commander (or even battalion commander for that matter) ordering a sniper to fire on a specific enemy target?

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

[:USERNAME:]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

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).]

You miss the point. You assume that there is a target that will stop your tank/SP/whatever from moving too far. Many people want to be HD to an area. Why not read the previous threads and decide?

If nothing else, the fact that a defender cant setup units HD or make some sort of check is unrealistic.

The arguments against giving HD orders to areas further away miss the point also. Its the game that allows you to micromanage ad infinitum the amount of moves even into future turns. The TC will be at the area and is making the move at that point. The commander is just abstracting that dynamic.

As most fans of the board know, the game does not model multiple POV from a vehicle. It also does not model levels of HD. You are or you arent by some formula. This needs to be addressed for CM2. The issue of gun depression is also major and I hope BTS either can model it well or do a decnt abstraction.

Lewis

PS. Old Blundering Butt (Thats Maximess yall). Are you still playing Chance? Cause when I played it , it was a demo. Back then, there was a definite HD status issue. You couldnt tell what was HD. Are you sure you were HD? Hmmmm.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by tss:

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.

Neither do I. Some people who have recently posted on this subject in this thread and others appear to believe that everything in WW II happened perfectly, instantly, and magically. It would be closer to say that WW II was Murphy's heyday. Remember that this was the generation that invented the term SNAFU...and meant it.

Michael

[:USERNAME:]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

Criticism: This was proposed and rejected on this forum six months ago. Quit wasting our time.

Answer: Just because some previous group of people discussed and rejected an idea shouldn't prevent me from suggesting it. I didn't participate in that conversation. Why should an idea be squelched forever just because the first person to propose it was overwhelmed by criticism, or failed to defend it properly?

Hey Jack, you better not be talking about me there. I put alot into the threads about HD and it doesnt bother me a bit if there are trolls here that like to crawl around trying to pretend they can ascertain the TCs POV when it isnt even there. Most are probably at the wrong scale and flattering themselves. Thats fine by me.

I am hoping to get BTS to realize the issues and not get caught up in reactionary reasoning/pissing contests. I never get overwhelmed and defended everything I said rather well. The bottom line is the game engine came up short. Maybe you should go back and do some homework.

Lewis

[Tiger]

no offense to anyone but I kind of like having to move my tanks around into hull-down spots to certain angles. Sometimes it works, sometimes not. Oh well.

John

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by :USERNAME::

Hey Jack, you better not be talking about me there.

I wasn't. I was thinking of other threads with that comment.

[Guy w/gun]

Whether manuevering a tank into hull down is fun or not, I feel it would be much more condusive to battle to just order the TC to do so. He has a brain and at least a few hours of tank expirience. Let him figure it out. Your the company/battalion commander. Yor job isn't to baby sit every shmuck on the field by taking direct control of the reins.

I honestly thought more people would agree with me. Everyone here seems to be anti-mico management and pro-realism. IMHO the idea of simply telling a TC to take his tank into HD status is both.

If you are expecting an enemy advance from, lets assume, the west. It makes perfect sense in preparing your defenses to find HD spots and order your tanks into HD towards the general direction of west.

It seems to me it make even more sense to order a tank into HD (if it's near HD friendly terrain) if the TC has the thing out in the open ready to get clobbered.

If this is truly not possible due to tech restraints, I understand completely (although I'd like to have BTS tell me that, not anyone else). If it is possible, I think it should be considered, at least by you wonderful guys (and gals) on the forum.

[Tiger]

"although I'd like to have BTS tell me that, not anyone else"

BTS has posted on this before and their answer was it was not possible with the current game engine, IIRC. Of course I don't work for BTS....

John

[Jeff Duquette]

I honestly thought more people would agree with me.

hmmm...I thought I was agreeing with your point.

[Biff]

I have to agree with those folks for a "hull down" command. I also think it should somewhere between a hunt and move command. The command should allow the user to give a direction and length to the HD command and if the tank commander determines that they have a HD position while traveling in the assigned direction they should stop there but like a move command they should not stop and return fire but continue to move until they have HD (in the direction given by the command). However this doesn't mean they shouldn't return fire, they just should not stop moving until they either find HD or the length of the HD command is reached at which point the tank would either stop there or follow the next waypoint command. How hard can it be for the program to basically say, at this point can this tank fire over the crest of this hill in the direction of the HD command?

Note that the experience level of the TC could be accounted for in either the time it takes to find HD or perhaps some % success rate in achieving HD. So an elite TC would find HD faster than a regular TC.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

I honestly thought more people would agree with me. Everyone here seems to be anti-micro management and pro-realism.

I think everyone is pro-realism, but they don't agree on what realism is.

The most common assumption is that 'realism' means making the player experience what a particular individual (such as a company or battalion commander) would experience in a battle. The trouble is that a company commander sim would be a really boring game, because each individual involved in a battle has little or no perspective on the overall picture, and a narrow range of decision-making power.

Another problem with a company commander sim is that it wouldn't create realistic battles, because current AI isn't capable of imitating human decisionmaking at the unit level. So a one person company commander sim could only show what it would be like to be company commander over a bunch of really stupid people, which I see as completely unrealistic.

CM is not a company commander sim. Instead, it puts the player in 'God mode' and allows some degree of player decisionmaking all the way down to each individual squad and tank. So to the extent that the player can control the units, you get realism in their actions.

But player control or 'micromanagement' brings its own loss of realism. The trouble is that there's just one of you. In a real battle there are many different commanders all trying to work together, and that produces fascinating problems in communication and coordination that have a big effect on battle. But there is no way to replicate this communication/coordination problem in a one player game. If the player makes decisions for each individual unit (to save them from AI stupidity), then those units will necessarily be much more coordinated than they would realistically be.

So the realism problem is not a technological problem, nor is it something that can simply be fixed by BTS trying harder. The problem is that 1) AI technology is still too primitive to make realistic unit-level decisions, and 2) CM is only a one- or two-player game. If you let the player control the units, then the units are too smart and too coordinated. If you don't let the player control the units, then they are too stupid.

The only solutions I can imagine are 1) a radical revolution in AI technology, or 2) a massive online version of CM (some 10-15 years in the future) in which each tank, squad and team is actually controlled by a separate human being.

Right now, CM splits the difference between the two. It leans towards letting the player make most unit-level decisions. But in some areas (particularly tanks) the player's control is limited, and he must rely on the TacAI to do the right thing.

Personally, I find AI stupidity to be more unrealistic than perfect information flow.

And more importantly, a game based on unrealistically perfect information flow is more fun and will sell better than a game based on unrealistically stupid units. This is why I always advocate more detailed commands to substitute human judgment for AI decisions.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

I think everyone is pro-realism, but they don't agree on what realism is.

The most common assumption is that 'realism' means making the player experience what a particular individual (such as a company or battalion commander) would experience in a battle. The trouble is that a company commander sim would be a really boring game, because each individual involved in a battle has little or no perspective on the overall picture, and a narrow range of decision-making power.

Another problem with a company commander sim is that it wouldn't create realistic battles, because current AI isn't capable of imitating human decisionmaking at the unit level. So a one person company commander sim could only show what it would be like to be company commander over a bunch of really stupid people, which I see as completely unrealistic.

Agreed.

CM is not a company commander sim. Instead, it puts the player in 'God mode' and allows some degree of player decisionmaking all the way down to each individual squad and tank. So to the extent that the player can control the units, you get realism in their actions.

Actually, a better description would be "constrained god mode". You can see only those enemy units that your units can see, but you can see all that any of them can see. You can give fairly precise orders to all of your units, but there is no absolute guarantee that they will even attempt to carry them out, though usually they will try.

Most of us find this a workable compromise for now. We all entertain hopes that one way or another things will get even better, but for now this seems to get as good as it gets.

But player control or 'micromanagement' brings its own loss of realism. The trouble is that there's just one of you. In a real battle there are many different commanders all trying to work together, and that produces fascinating problems in communication and coordination that have a big effect on battle. But there is no way to replicate this communication/coordination problem in a one player game. If the player makes decisions for each individual unit (to save them from AI stupidity), then those units will necessarily be much more coordinated than they would realistically be.

Profoundly true.

So the realism problem is not a technological problem, nor is it something that can simply be fixed by BTS trying harder. The problem is that 1) AI technology is still too primitive to make realistic unit-level decisions, and 2) CM is only a one- or two-player game. If you let the player control the units, then the units are too smart and too coordinated. If you don't let the player control the units, then they are too stupid.

Sort of true, but you are IMO painting a black and white picture here while neglecting that there is a considerable grey area which CM is successfully exploiting.

The only solutions I can imagine are 1) a radical revolution in AI technology...

Something I have been praying for for years. I have often said that what AI needs but has not yet found is its Einstein, someone who can redefine the issues in a way that will lead to entirely new types of solutions. Work in other areas far from wargaming (robotics for instance) shows promise, but improvements in wargaming AI certainly have been incremental.

...or 2) a massive online version of CM (some 10-15 years in the future) in which each tank, squad and team is actually controlled by a separate human being.

Actually this may come much sooner than you predict. WW2OL looks to be headed in that direction, if I've got their story straight.

But as I see it, that approach is not without its own problems. For one, trying to get several dozen, let alone several hundred, people online at the same time and functioning together is a distinctly non-trivial problem. There is an international group that plays TacOps in CPX and MBX mode every few months and the problems they have encountered just doing what they do are instructive. What you are suggesting is at least one (and probably two) orders of magnitude more difficult to pull off. No doubt somebody will try it and some people will actually get it to work for them, but it may always be beyond the grasp of the great bulk of players.

Right now, CM splits the difference between the two. It leans towards letting the player make most unit-level decisions. But in some areas (particularly tanks) the player's control is limited, and he must rely on the TacAI to do the right thing.

That's part of the grey area of compromise I described earlier.

Personally, I find AI stupidity to be more unrealistic than perfect information flow.

And more importantly, a game based on unrealistically perfect information flow is more fun and will sell better than a game based on unrealistically stupid units. This is why I always advocate more detailed commands to substitute human judgment for AI decisions.

You're entitled to your opinion. Personally, I don't find the AI all that stupid. Agreed there is certainly room for improvement, which we may or may not see any time soon. But from reading hundreds, if not thousands, of posts on this board, it seems to me that the only people who are truly anguished over the state of the AI are people who give the definite impression of being in the grip of highly unrealistic expectations of what WW II combat was like and therefore how the game should play.

Michael

edited for spelling and flow

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 03-10-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 03-10-2001).]

[Guy w/gun]

hmmm...I thought I was agreeing with your point.

Ahhh! Sorry Jeff! Didn't mean to insult you. Thank you for agreeing and backing me up! I just thought more people might. But since this has been discussed before, everyone has probably reached they're own conclusions already.

[This message has been edited by Guy w/gun (edited 03-10-2001).]

[Biff]

I would like to make one other point concerning this topic. Although CM is a great improvement in 3D representation of a battlefield it isn't perfect by a long shot. So instead of seeing exactly what a TC would see, we get a crude approximation which requires use of the LOS command to see if it has the appropriate bend over a crest or selecting a enemy unit that has the tank targeted to see if the tank is hull down.

Personally, I find this detracts from the battle immersion that the game purports to achieve. Having a HD command would be a step in the immersion direction.

[Guy w/gun]

Bump!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest Andrew Hedges]

Well, if there is a separate HD command, it should at least be realistic. I.e., step one, the tank Moves to a likely HD location. Step 2, the TC dismounts and spends 3-5 minutes directing the tank into the appropriate position. Step 3, the TC climbs back into the tank.

Mostly, though, I'd rather there not be a HD command because it would be too unrealistic. I've read plenty of accounts of tanks firing from HD positions, and plenty of accounts of TCs getting out of their tanks to investigate firing positions, but I've never read an account of a tank just driving into a (non-prepared) HD position).

Although I wouldn't object if the LOS tool allowed you to be HD to terrain (so if you wanted to cover a particular road, you could, even if it took a couple of minutes to perfect your HD position. This might be especially useful for QB setups, too.

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

WOOT!

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Mostly, though, I'd rather there not be a HD command because it would be too unrealistic. I've read plenty of accounts of tanks firing from HD positions, and plenty of accounts of TCs getting out of their tanks to investigate firing positions, but I've never read an account of a tank just driving into a (non-prepared) HD position).

Odd... in both Bradleys and Hummers we are able to drive into hull down positions without the TC dismounting. Hell, we try and find one everytime you stop (not always possible, mind you).

BTW, why are people against a HD command command but not against the auto use of cover that the infantry have or their ability to seek out cover?

[Jeff Duquette]

Scout Said: Odd... in both Bradleys and Hummers we are able to drive into hull down positions without the TC dismounting. Hell, we try and find one everytime you stop (not always possible, mind you).

Gots’ to agree. I don’t recall any TC ever dismounting for the purpose of ground guiding a tank into a hull down position either. Quite the contrary. A TC would typically have the driver advance to a crest line until the gunner can see through his gun sight over the crest line. A good driver will typically be looking around for cover and taking advantage of terrain as he moves. I think there seems to be a lot of misunderstanding as to what even constitutes a hull-down position. But than I was only in the Guard, perhaps regular army tankers had much more energy for such activities

Cav Said: BTW, why are people against a HD command command but not against the auto use of cover that the infantry have or their ability to seek out cover?

Dunno. Seems odd in my mind that some folks seem to think a hull-down command is micro-management, but commands that tell an infantry squad to sneak, run, move or hide is not micro-management. I still say model exterior ballistics accurately and you wont need a hull down command...the whole concept will take care of itself. But in lieu of an inability or unwillingness to code in this regard, than provide a hull down command. In my mind it’s not any different than the infantry “Hide” command.

[:USERNAME:]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Well, if there is a separate HD command, it should at least be realistic. I.e., step one, the tank Moves to a likely HD location. Step 2, the TC dismounts and spends 3-5 minutes directing the tank into the appropriate position. Step 3, the TC climbs back into the tank.

LOL!!!

That would realisticly model the worst crew I can think of!!! Do you really think the TC has to get out and ground guide the tank into position under combat conditions?

[Guest Captitalistdoginchina]

I have a few things to say here - i rarely get involved in any contraversial issues....but here goes....

If we let the AI control so many things like finding hull down positions for us we may as well code it so you just buy your units, give orders to go seek the enemy, then just watch a long movie play out the whole battle and let the AI take care of everything that happens in between. Following some arguments here the TC's are trained in the art of tank warfare right? So why do we plebs need to do anything? Just point them in the right direction and hit go!

I like the challenge of finding hull down positions, sure i get it wrong sometimes, or an enemy tank pops up halfway through my move order on my right flank - It works fine as it is in my humble opinion.

Imagine giving the new command = Move forward (50meters) and seek hull down, but the nearest small rise is another 15 meters ahead - but an enemy tank turns up at 60 degrees to your right halfway to the hull down position and a bazzoka pops up from hiding in the bushes on your left. Now what happens next? Whatever the AI decides it will be wrong in some peoples eyes. There will be so many complaints from players who do not like what action the AI decides and shout at how a real commander would have slammed into reverse and looked for an alternative hull down position (cuz thats what you told him to do right? seek hull down) relative to the new threat whilst at the same time firing back at the enemy tank with the main gun and shooting the Mg at the bazooka team hiding in the bushes on the left - and of course a real TC would have buttoned at the first sign of the enemy and so on.

In our search for excellence we could end up spoiling a damn good game, sure CM is not perfect, and we should seek perfection. But i for one hope BTS do not give more and more control to the AI for CM2.

In combat mission one of the differences between a good player and a bad player is one who manages the terrain to his advantage, if we give that control to the AI what would determine a good player from a bad? The one who makes the best purchase? Boring.

CDIC

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

"Death solves all problems - no man no problem"

J.V.Stalin, 1918

[Skorpion]

Originally posted by Captitalistdoginchina:

I like the challenge of finding hull down positions, sure i get it wrong sometimes, or an enemy tank pops up halfway through my move order on my right flank - It works fine as it is in my humble opinion.

I think you're missing the point here slightly.

The hull down command as I would like to see it would basically take three parts:

i) Drive the tank parallel to the ridge you which to go hull down to.

ii) Turn towards the ridge so that you are facing the direction you wish to be hull down in.

iii) Issue 'move until hull down' command.

The driver then slowly moves up the hill until the gunner says 'I can see over the hill now'.

Thus your tank is hull-down to the area that you want it to be.

Simple.

And much easier than rotating through every angle under the sun and using a myriad of move/reverse orders just ot ensure that one tank is hull down to a particular region from a particular hill.

Imagine giving the new command = Move forward (50meters) and seek hull down, but the nearest small rise is another 15 meters ahead - but an enemy tank turns up at 60 degrees to your right halfway to the hull down position and a bazzoka pops up from hiding in the bushes on your left. Now what happens next?

Using my definition of the command this will never happen, as the 'hull down' command can only be given while the vehicle is in defilade and facing a ridge line. Thus the tank will stop when it is hull down to the nearest crest.

In combat mission one of the differences between a good player and a bad player is one who manages the terrain to his advantage, if we give that control to the AI what would determine a good player from a bad? The one who makes the best purchase? Boring.

CDIC

As I said above, the player still has to decide where to go hull down. All the new command would do is make sure that the tank actually *is* hull down, and not showing its underbelly because you couldn't click accurately enough/can't see from the gunner's position properly.

Personally, I think a hull down command is *essential* for tank ambushes to work properly.

Skorpion

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Guy w/gun:

Whether manuevering a tank into hull down is fun or not, I feel it would be much more condusive to battle to just order the TC to do so. He has a brain and at least a few hours of tank expirience. Let him figure it out.

Therein lies the rub; the TacAI probably isn't capable of determining hull-down status any better than it currently can with the Hunt command. As others have stated, hull down status is very relative. You might be hull down to a particular part of the battlefield in one position, but move forward 10 feet and you're suddenly no longer hull-down to that location. I can't envision how any additional command can do this better than Hunt already does.

You asked a "real" tanker's opinion, so here it is:

IRL, we acheived hull down as follows:

TC: "Driver move out"

Gunner, looking through his sights, waits until the target becomes visible over the hill/obstruction/berm/etc. Once in view: "Identified! Driver stop!"

That's it...nothing more to it. Using Hunt does JUST this.

No need for another command IMO.

[Skorpion]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

You asked a "real" tanker's opinion, so here it is:

IRL, we acheived hull down as follows:

TC: "Driver move out"

Gunner, looking through his sights, waits until the target becomes visible over the hill/obstruction/berm/etc. Once in view: "Identified! Driver stop!"

That's it...nothing more to it. Using Hunt does JUST this.

No need for another command IMO.

Except you can't use hunt when there is no target, but you want to set up a hull down defensive position. And that's what a lot of people are finding most annoying, IMHO.

Skorp

[GeoffP]

I don't agree at all with the concept of "being hull down vs. one target is useless because you're not hull down to another".

Isn't there a value to placing a unit hull-down vs a patch of ground where you expect the enemy to be & which you need to cover?

The hull-down command that I envision would have you create a target like an ambush marker, then a movement path; the unit would move along that path until it was hull down to the first spot.

If you were so worried about multiple targets, it seems like it would be easy to pick the one that would allow you to be at least hull down to one, and not exposed to the other.