AFV and LOS

[SpineRipper]

I was just wondering why it was decided not to allow AFV's to block LOS.

I feel this takes away from the game. For example you have some infantry moving and they come under lmg,hmg,mmg fire(any small amrs fire for that matter). A quick fix would be to move an AFV out to block fire and move the infantry behind the AFV untill other cover can be found.

Or another point would be, your trying to move some AFVs across a narrow lane of fire. You move your heavy AFV into the fire lane to block fire since it has a higher chance of surviving, and then quickly move your lighter AFV's across. Unfortunatelt this dose not work as of now. Enemy AFV's on the same plane or lower can just bypass the blocked LOS and engage the targets behind, even if the 1st AFV's get's ko'ed, and that follow could be considerd to have a modified hull down, since in most cases the enemy would have to shoot though the 1st AFV to hit the following ones.

Yes I do understand that AFV's and MG's ect on higher planes would beable to target behind LOS blocking AFV's.

Just some random thought's to see what other people think.

[nevermind]

I dont think this was a decision,it was a code or hardware issue.Something about the added load on your cpu to calculate every round in the game or something.Remeber,CMBB has a reworked CMBO engine,and as a result has limitations.Ive read so many posts about all this that its kinnda blurred now,but i think this is going to be addressed in CMII(or is it CMIII?,i dunno,whatever the next game is called).Im sure that if they could/can do it,they would/will.

[Three_Oh_Eight]

While the concept is appealing (as a user of Armored Assault movement from ASL), I wonder if it's actually applicable.

Just how much cover does walking/running/slinking behind a moving AFV afford 12 guys? Seems to me it would become a jostle fest... "no let ME get in the middle!" to stay directly behind it. Not to mention the 'magnet effect' of the AFV as every Klaus, Fritz and Sasha loosed a few rounds at it, to no effect but just filling the air around it with whizzing bullets and ricochets.

As well, a stationary vehicle would supply some cover, but to actually block LOS? Doesn't seem applicable just because there's not that much space to hide in, especially if you want to fire out yourself.

In short I might see some kind of cover offered by a vehicle, but if it was going to actually block LOS I'd need to be convinced that it's realistic.

[SpineRipper]

Give a few hours, when I get home today i'll do some drawings to show how much C&C even a small AFV can provide at 100 meters.

Heres a thought though, stand 100 meters in front of an SUV of some type, then have someone(frinds, kids ect) stand behind it, and see how spread out then can get before you could shoot at them effectively.

[Moon]

Nevermind is correct, it was a technical/coding issue which made us leave out the effect of cover. It has to do with dynamically calculating LOS and cover for a moving vehicle on the fly, but also with correctly simulate such cover. Do you totally block LOS? Or just give a squad a very low exposure rating? What if the vehicle moves a little? There are many issues which became too involving to code up for the (comparatively) little gain they add to the simulation. Thing is that at the level CM simulates with squads being the smallest units, the cover gained by a single vehicle is not all that crucial.

Martin

[MikeyD]

Spineripper writes:

"...then have someone(frinds, kids ect) stand behind it, and see how spread out then can get before you could shoot at them effectively."

It's just a guess, but most municipalities in the U.S. frown upon shooting at people standing in your front yard, even if they are huddled behind a SUV ...Except maybe in the Ozarks or South Central L.A.

[SpineRipper]

Ok here we go, I drew everything up, at 60 scale (I dont know how to post the pic), and a 6m by 12m AFV (conservitave and small) would provide a 26 meter dead zone, when positioned at 90 degrees to a enemy position. Now I know that's not a huge area, but when it cuts exposure time down, that is a good thing.

Also the same AFV at 30 degrees to target at 150 meters would provide a 15 meter dead zone, to infantry following at least 5 meters behind. Again not a huge area, but it should cut down on incoming fire. No one wants to be shot at, but if it happens I think you would learn to use all the cover you have.

And lastly, the Same AFV at 150 meters facing the target would provide a 7.5 meter dead zone.

I like the game as is, but it provied some spice and new uses of AFV (esspecially gun damaged ones). And could give infantry more options to.

it would also allow smaller AFV's to hide behind lager ones if the option's were avalible. Throw some on purpose sacrafice into the game (more than allready exsits), like I need to get across this street but that KT keeps pugging away, you throw a lamb out into the street to get plugged to take up los lane space to give thows following a better chance.

Just some more thoughts.

[SpineRipper]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Spineripper writes:

"...then have someone(frinds, kids ect) stand behind it, and see how spread out then can get before you could shoot at them effectively."

It's just a guess, but most municipalities in the U.S. frown upon shooting at people standing in your front yard, even if they are huddled behind a SUV ...Except maybe in the Ozarks or South Central L.A.

You mean it's not a normal part of life(south Central), shoting your way out of your hood to goto work, and then having to assult your way back in.