Should AFV's hidden at start have a Concealment Bonus

[engy]

Ok. I've been thinking about this for awhile and two stories in other threads (one of which I read today in the Panther/T-34 thread about a T-34 ambush of Panthers) have prompted this proposal.

As a defender in a probe/attack/assault, it does not seem to matter what terrain I put a Tank or TD in -- as soon as anything has LOS to it, it gets spotted. The only way I have found to currently hide an AFV is to be behind some obstacle and move out from behind it, or to be in a depression so that the OPFOR vehicles only spot it as they crest the hill.

However, these stories suggest that it is possible to camouflage an AFV sufficiently that it can spring a successful ambush. The camouflage, I'm assuming, is a carefully prepared combination of netting, branches, leaves, grass, etc.

So, here's the proposal: should AFV's in suitable terrain (brush, scattered trees) be given a concealment bonus if they start the game hidden, which they would lose once they move (to represent loss of the prepared cover)?

A couple of thoughts before I turn this over to the ravenous dogs to rip me to shreds:

1. NO, I DIDN'T DO A SEARCH. But, I've been watching this board pretty faithfully for almost a year now and I don't remember the issue being brought up.

2. I'm not talking about AT guns and infantry, which are able to spring ambushes from extremely close distances.

3. I'm not sure of the programming involved, so feel free to tell me that it's a ridiculously time-consuming request that won't make it into the code until CM IV: The Spanish Civil War.

Thanks much.

[Mr. Johnson--]

I have not tested it, but is a dug in tank in scattered trees hiding harder to spot than a none dug in tank in scattered trees?

[Stacheldraht]

Tanks were camouflaged in all sorts of clever ways in addition to the ones you mention. I've seen pictures and read accounts of tanks being hidden in barns or bombed out buildings, tanks (intentionally covered) with debris in bombed cities to look like piles of rubble from a distance, metal plates and new paint jobs added to tanks to make them look like an enemy model, and so forth. The Germans also dug-in tanks in a sense, by bulldozing a small slope down into the ground that let a tank take a hull-down position and then back out as needed.

You'd think these sorts of things would confer a concealment bonus.

On the Western Front, btw, the Germans often built AT pillboxes into the bottoms of what appeared to be houses. The gun would stick out of what looked from afar to be a grille or something similar near the ground on the wall. Too bad that's not modeled in CM. It would make assaulting towns quite an endeavour.

[ClayJ]

I just posted soemthing about cammo and concealment actually.

Suffice to say yes, I absolutely think that tanks should be able to hide when deployed defensively in trees (building idea is good too).

As I understand it, this is what the StuG was all about on the western front, I mean why did they bother to name the three tone scheme 'ambush' anyway?

[Vanir Ausf B]

It's an excellent idea, one which I have proposed myself recently.

[WWB]

This is one of the best ideas I have had in a long time. While we are at it, pillboxes and especially bunkers should get some kind of bonus here too. Especially bunkers, which were made to look as if a piece of forest themselves.

WWB

[Michael Emrys]

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

1. NO, I DIDN'T DO A SEARCH. But, I've been watching this board pretty faithfully for almost a year now and I don't remember the issue being brought up.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it has come up a few times in recent weeks, but that's okay. Contrary to what some posters may maintain, reopening an important topic is not a capital crime. I think your suggestion (and similar ones by other posters) is a broadly reasonable one. Of course the important votes on this belong to BTS, but they do listen and try to be responsive to reasonable requests. I wouldn't expect to see this added to CM immediately however. My impression is that the game engine for CM2 is pretty well frozen at this point and they are just trying to get it all to work together with all the new vehicles, units, etc.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

I'm going to shame myself and bump this.

[Subvet]

I've wanted this for a long time as well. I was disappointed the first time I hid an AFV in some woods at set-up and had it spotted from over 1000m away on the first turn. I'd really like to see this in CM2. I don't know of a valid reason to NOT do this other than time to program it. I'm not a programmer, but it doesn't seem like it would be that hard to put in or take that much time to do. I hope BTS considers it.

[Ezmartini]

I'm also wondering about the same thing Mr. Johnson is: Are tanks and troops less noticeable in scattered trees when in or not in foxholes?

Matt M.

[ArmchairKIA]

BUMP (Ouch!)

I too have read/heard accounts of vehicles being very difficult to spot.

[Banshee]

It would also have the added bonus of decreasing the chance that aircraft will spot them. Right now in CM aircraft pretty much acquire a target 100% of the time.

[Michael Dorosh]

Do we know that this bonus doesn't already exist as part of the game's spotting program?

[abuhabib]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> On the Western Front, btw, the Germans often built AT pillboxes into the bottoms of what appeared to be houses. The gun would stick out of what looked from afar to be a grille or something similar near the ground on the wall. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

like the hotel at ouistreham in "the longest day"? btw, what's with all the "bumps"?

[Jarmo]

I guess everybody agrees this bonus should only go for the defender?

In addition, I'd like to be able to dig in tanks in quick battles.

And have the kind of dug-in settings that you can reverse out of.

And have really dug-in vehicles. So that only the turret is visible, not the (upper) hull too.

And have an accuracy bonus for an unmoved ambush tank. They'd have usually had good time to measure distances to ambush points.

[Andreas]

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

On the Western Front, btw, the Germans often built AT pillboxes into the bottoms of what appeared to be houses. The gun would stick out of what looked from afar to be a grille or something similar near the ground on the wall. Too bad that's not modeled in CM. It would make assaulting towns quite an endeavour.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a scenario designer, you can put guns and bunkers/pillboxes into houses, by placing them on the map first, and then putting the house on top of them. I have done that in scenarios for guns, not for fortifications yet though. I have no idea how that would impact on chances to spot.

[Stacheldraht]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As a scenario designer, you can put guns and bunkers/pillboxes into houses, by placing them on the map first, and then putting the house on top of them. I have done that in scenarios for guns, not for fortifications yet though. I have no idea how that would impact on chances to spot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very cool--I didn't know that was an option, as I've never seen it done before. From what I've read, the Allies ran into this sort of disguised gun emplacement repeatedly as they advanced from the Normandy beaches toward Germany.

[Tero]

Remotely related with this subject:

Should the vehicles be allowed to advance some distance into the thicker forests and not just into the scattered tree forests ?

I think they should.

A WWII era army, which shall remain nameless to spare the innocent, deployed its armour in places their co-belligerent army hesitated to deploy. And this armys adversary started to deploy its armour in similar fashion in similar terrain later in the war and this change gave this unnamed army some nasty surprises.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: tero ]

[Andreas]

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

Remotely related with this subject:

Should the vehicles be allowed to advance some distance into the thicker forests and not just into the scattered tree forests ?

I think they should.

A WWII era army, which shall remain nameless to spare the innocent, deployed its armour in places their co-belligerent army hesitated to deploy. And this armys adversary started to deploy its armour in similar fashion in similar terrain later in the war and this change gave this unnamed army some nasty surprises.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: tero ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Churchills fought inside the Reichswald (opposite Nijmegen, Goch Kalkar area) in the battles in February 1945, when the west-bank of the Rhine was cleared (BLOCKBUSTER??). I have seen accounts of them knocking over 60cm diameter trees. I have also seen lots of accounts of them getting bogged. But the use of the tanks was critical in clearing the forest. The Reichswald certainly is not scattered trees (I have been there), but again, I think it comes down more to scenario design. Intersperse woods with clearings, rough, brush etc terrain, and logging roads, and you get somewhere realistic.

[Tero]

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

Churchills fought inside the Reichswald (opposite Nijmegen, Goch Kalkar area) in the battles in February 1945, when the west-bank of the Rhine was cleared (BLOCKBUSTER??). I have seen accounts of them knocking over 60cm diameter trees. I have also seen lots of accounts of them getting bogged. But the use of the tanks was critical in clearing the forest. The Reichswald certainly is not scattered trees (I have been there), but again, I think it comes down more to scenario design. Intersperse woods with clearings, rough, brush etc terrain, and logging roads, and you get somewhere realistic.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thinking more along the lines of gaining cover and concealment bonuses without any trickery. Perhaps a 10meter zone at the edge of the thick forest.

[Redwolf]

Maybe it would be a good idea that you can buy a camouflage set for an AFV in unit selection? Make it 30 points or so and it gives the vehicle the spottability of a gun before firing, a bit more when firing and none after moving.

It opens the usual TacAI can of worms, though, since you will be upset when the tank moves just a few meter to back off behind its own smoke or when a turretless tank hunter turns.

[Tero]

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

Maybe it would be a good idea that you can buy a camouflage set for an AFV in unit selection? Make it 30 points or so and it gives the vehicle the spottability of a gun before firing, a bit more when firing and none after moving.

It opens the usual TacAI can of worms, though, since you will be upset when the tank moves just a few meter to back off behind its own smoke or when a turretless tank hunter turns.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the vehicles could go some distance inside the dense forest there would be none of that. Or at least it would not be so pronounced. Add-on camo has it advantages but the LOS disruption given by the terrain is better.

And the camo set should not be a use-and-lose feature. It should kick in everytime TacAI loses its track (LOS is broken) of the camoed vehicle and it remains still in suitable terrain for, say, two turns.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Do we know that this bonus doesn't already exist as part of the game's spotting program?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

One other thing I would like to see is German tanks being somewhat more difficult to spot once they start firing (during the day) because of their use of smokeless powder.

[ 06-29-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Sirocco]

I posted this suggestion about a year ago, and the response then was that it was probably already a part of the code, although that wasn't official.