Panzer76 Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Ok, this is a spawn off the impossible to hit thread. Someone mentioned there that they recived a hull hit even though they were in a hull down pos, and after it happend to me also in a PBEM I thought I would run a little test on it. Scenario: KV1 m42 in a hull down pos behind a small hill. PzIII, 66 m away. The Pz has to shot *upwards* as the pz is on elevation 7, and the KV on approx 9. Using realistic models, one can only see the turret, and NOTHING of the hull when looking from the Pz up to the KV. There is absolutly no "drop" of the round as its so close and has to fire upwards. Result: Fired 32 shots Turret hits: 22 Upper hull hits: 7 Gun hits: 3 So, 1 in every 4 shots hit the upper hull, which should be phically impossible! [ March 06, 2003, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakstooy Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 ya gotta give it to ol' GW, he may be the most quotable prez we've had in a while...only thats not such a good thing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakstooy Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 but to actually add to this thread... that does seem to happen, i can only guess that since there are limitations to how detailed the physical relationships can be calculated, that there is an estimation for exposure when in hull-down and so what you see when zooming down, may not be what the computer "sees". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 Picture with realistic models: A WWII tactics game that cant handle hull down... not good! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Saunders Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Ummm, That looks like an upper hull hit which can happen when hull-down. Had it been a lower hull hit I would be worried... -Sarge 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 But you're not actually 'hull down' to it, are you? The turret seems to be facing away and the side of the tank has been hit. So you're not 'hull down' to the tank that's firing at you, you're hull down to some threat off on the left. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevermind Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by Soddball: But you're not actually 'hull down' to it, are you? The turret seems to be facing away and the side of the tank has been hit. So you're not 'hull down' to the tank that's firing at you, you're hull down to some threat off on the left. That makes no sense,both tanks are "hull down" to each other.It doesnt matter which way the KV is facing as long as its hull is "hull down".Meaning that both tanks hulls' arent visible to the other. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 I just love all these explinations! Originally posted by Soddball: But you're not actually 'hull down' to it, are you? The turret seems to be facing away and the side of the tank has been hit. So you're not 'hull down' to the tank that's firing at you, you're hull down to some threat off on the left. Soddball, if you had *bothered* to *read* the post, you wouldnt have made such an idiotic comment. Regarding not hull down, not only cant u read, but u are apparntly blind as well. And, whatever side the AFV is facing has *nothing* to do with this! You could place it on the head and you would have gotten the same results. How can anybody with eyes in their skull dismiss this? "Ummm, That looks like an upper hull hit which can happen when hull-down. Had it been a lower hull hit I would be worried..." Well, you should be worried now also cos this should be impossible to do! [ March 06, 2003, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Panzer76 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thin Red Line Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Upper hull hits only. Obviously part of your hull is reachable. Try to get a better hull down and rerun the test. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by Thin Red Line: Upper hull hits only. Obviously part of your hull is reachable. Try to get a better hull down and rerun the test. Did you *look* at the pic? This *is* the bug! WHENEVER you are hull down, the upper hull can be hit, no matter *how* "hull down" you are. This is the most hull down you can be before you dont have a LOS! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 I thought it was explained to us that "Hull Down" ONLY means the "Lower Hull" is behind the rise. Like you can be Hull Down behind a stone wall even if it is only a few feet high this means ONLY the lower hull is covered. I thought Hull Down meant the upper hull AND turret were exposed? no :confused: ? -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I thought Hull Down meant the upper hull AND turret were exposed? Can you see any hull in the pic? No, still, it's hull down. So my question is, is it then INTENTIONAL that whenever the AFV is "hull down" AND there is no way the upper nor lower hull can be hit, the CM engine discards the physics and enable the round to hit the upper hull also? In which case, I would be a bit disappoited, I thought the CM engine was better than that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thin Red Line Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by Panzer76: Did you *look* at the pic? This *is* the bug! WHENEVER you are hull down, the upper hull can be hit, no matter *how* "hull down" you are. This is the most hull down you can be before you dont have a LOS! It's a graphical representation of reality. Do you think the actual terrain is perfectly flat and green with grey squares drawn on it ? Plese retry with more shots and a different position before to call it a bug. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by Thin Red Line: It's a graphical representation of reality. Do you think the actual terrain is perfectly flat and green with grey squares drawn on it ? Plese retry with more shots and a different position before to call it a bug. Ah, yes, the it's all an abstraction argument. No, I do not belive it's perfectly flat, but I do belive there is a hill there, and I do belive the other PZ can only see the top of the KV turret. Do some test yourself and you'll see it also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakstooy Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 i don't think this is a bug, it sounds like there are limitations to the game engine, and its definition of hull-down is one of them. the game can't reasonably calculate every cubic inch of space and its relation to every other. if the code only has one definition of hull-down that it sees as mostly turret and a wee-spot of upper hull, then whatcha goona do ya know? and if this bothers you, then does the fact that the code only has 10 faces on a vehicle to calculate armor thickness and angle? one could argue that their shot hit the thin armor on the bottom of tiger as it crested that hill or on that higher angled plate on the right bottom quadrant of the t-34 turret (example i made up) i mean, c'mon now, there has to be generalizations. [ March 06, 2003, 11:48 AM: Message edited by: hakstooy ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevermind Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 The real question,does CM currently model partial "hull down"?In real life there are varying degree's of hull down(or hull obscurity),i even saw a pic posted in these forums somewhere,that showed a tank with nothing but it turret visible from over a ridge(complete hull down).I know BB is using a revived BO engine,so it has its limits,but does it do this,or does it just assume that if a tank isnt completely hull down,then it isnt at all? To me the term "hull down" should indicate a complete defilade of the tanks hull.My guess is that a partial hull down in CM isnt currently possible.That being said,in the next CM,i think this should be an added feature.Varying degrees of hull down,it would take alot of coding,and my not even be possible.However,if you want to obtain that unobtainable goal of the perfect war game simulation,i would think that this would be a step in that direction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by hakstooy: i mean, c'mon now, there has to be generalizations. Yep, there is bound to be generalizations, but I didnt think this would be one of them. I mean, being hull down and still being hit in the hull.. But, I would like to hear if this is indeed the way it is supposed to bee, as an limitation of the CM engine, or if this is a bug. If this is the way it should be, then I and a whole lot of otheres would be surprised. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 this is not new Hulldown Status is Binary: BLACK AND WHITE ... ON or OFF 1 or 0 ! Seriously if the tank is hull down, ONLY the lower hull is not exposed the rest is exposed. its is that simple. Hull down status only offers protection to the lower hull it was that way in CMBO and I don't think much has changed in CMBB. Can any other CMBO veterans help me out here? :confused: -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 lets talk about a StuG vs as Sherm BOTH can be hull down.... But the only advantage that gives them (both) is that their lower hull is protected. Thats it. (OK the hull down StuG "should" be harder to hit than the Hull down Sherm granted, but both their upper hull aspects are exposed) Hull down is a generaliztion so that both the upper hull of the Stugg (where the gun is) and the Upper hull of the Sherm are exposed. Hulldown only covers the lower hull. -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakstooy Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 well, you're right, it would be nice to know. and it would be nice if this is a bug that could be fixed. it does seem that this was a simplification though. it makes it easier on the programmers and gamers alike. if i'm fighting some battle i don't want to have micro-move some tank on a hill to try and keep nothing but his gun showing. if the game tells me hull-down, then i'm gonna know he's better off than if he were in the open. it just seems to make sense to me that they took the "average" hull down position and made it the across the board hull down. i imagine that hull down doesn't mean 100% hull under the hill cause many of the real world situations (unless dug-in) weren't like that. the commander had to estimate when he was in position to fire yet still being behind cover, then tell his driver to stop. it makes sense to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Hulldown only covers the lower hull. Dissapointing when the upper hull should be impossible (as in this example) to hit. Oh well, have to wait for the rewrite I guess. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakstooy Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 actually, thinking about it, i've had plenty instances where i had something targeting a vehicle as it tried to retreat behind cover. as soon as the center of it went behind the target was lost, even though the front half was still out in the open. in other cases its just the end situation of this. where you can obviously see part of a vehicle (or building) but not the particular part that the game needs to "lock-on." is this a shortcoming? yeah, but i don't really care, this game is badass enough, and as long as its the same way for my opponent, then it doesn't matter that much. what tantalizes me is that if these games BO and BB are this good, whats a whole new engine gonna be like? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevermind Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 hakstooy, Read aka_tom_ws' sig.In the last part you will see how BTS/BFC views this game.Unless i am wrong,and i dont like making assumtions,"badass enough",isnt enough.As to your other point of micro management,if i could(even if it took hours)get a tank into a perfect hull down with nothing but its turret showing,you had better believe i would.I put alot of time and planning into PBEM's and if it were possible,i would love it.Come to think of it,after awhile,its the planning that is the most rewarding.Sure its great fun to slug it out,but watching an enemy platoon march blindly into a well thought out,well planned ambush is even more so Oh how those little dudes run as you are cutting them down :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by Panzer76: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Hulldown only covers the lower hull. Dissapointing when the upper hull should be impossible (as in this example) to hit. Oh well, have to wait for the rewrite I guess. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakstooy Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 yeah nevermind, it is really refreshing to know that the people making the game actually care about it. so much so, in fact, that they state they will never be perfectly content with it, but continue to improve. not much out there today with that king of commitment. makes me wanna cry... and as long as they continue to make products of such quality, i'll continue recommending them to as many people as i can. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.