Thin Red Line Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Definitely no bug here i believe. 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 Soddball: That'll be an apology, then. How about one for me too? You were needlessly rude, and wrong. You didnt have a clue about that, otherwise you would have pointed that out. No apology for you, you didnt bother reading my post before u wrote ur post and as a consequence, ur post was indeed silly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 I guess the whole "ur hull down, but not really" is because of the turret less AFVs. They are hull down when only the upper hull is visible, and I guess BTS couldnt manage to make a "differnt" hull down for AFVs with turrets. Therefor in the CM engine, when your are hull down with a AFV with a turret, you can be hit in the upper hull no matter if it's visible or not, cos in the engine, you are. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted March 6, 2003 Author Share Posted March 6, 2003 Ive searched the forums for an offical answer on this, but found none. As it is, it *can* be a bug, but I suspect it is a engine limitation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krazy Canuck Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by Panzer76: Ive searched the forums for an offical answer on this, but found none. As it is, it *can* be a bug, but I suspect it is a engine limitation. Hull down means only that the lower hull is out of harms way. AFV's often times had only time to get off a few rounds before they backed/moved away from the encounter, thus they targetted the largest and weakest part(the lower hull) of their adversary, especially at extreme ranges. This is not a bug. KC 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tecumseh Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by Panzer76: Ive searched the forums for an offical answer on this, but found none. As it is, it *can* be a bug, but I suspect it is a engine limitation. It's definately been posted before. All through CMBO "hulldown" meant lower hull only is protected. I think redwolf started a thread about it...maybe tips and tricks forum? Anyway, it is critical to playing the game well, as you have to look at the upper hull armour ratings very carefully. 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 Krazy Canuck: Hull down means only that the lower hull is out of harms way.Yes, it seems like that now, but it *should* be all of the hull for AFVs with turrets. Sadly, that seems not to be, of engine constraints, not because of game design I suspect. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Egbert Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by Panzer76: Picture with realistic models: A WWII tactics game that cant handle hull down... not good! The graphical representations are human aids only, the engine does not use the graphic to perform it's calculations. Also, note the game does not tell you when shots are upper hull hits due to ricochets that move down, shot traps, etc. Both players are equally affected by the same abstraction so not real affect on gameply as it does not imbalance. 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 Egbert: The graphical representations are human aids only, the engine does not use the graphic to perform it's calculations. Also, note the game does not tell you when shots are upper hull hits due to ricochets that move down, shot traps, etc. I think we all can admit that it *shouldnt* be able to hit the hull at all, unless it's the JFK magic bullet, so lets not go there. Originally posted by Egbert: Both players are equally affected by the same abstraction so not real affect on gameply as it does not imbalance. Yes, this is true. But it shouldt be as this at all. Also, it punishes people who use hull down as opposed to those who dont. How? Cos the hull down doesnt offer the protecteion it should to AFVs with turrets. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Panzer76, You didnt have a clue about that, otherwise you would have pointed that out. No apology for you, you didnt bother reading my post before u wrote ur post and as a consequence, ur post was indeed silly.Well I for one would like you to appologize to not only Sodball but pretty much everybody in this thread. You have been senselessly rude and agressive in a discussion that had absolutely no call for it. If someone doesn't read what you wrote, point it out without going on a childish tirade. I'd lock this thread up just because of your behavior alone if I didn't think there was some value in it. In short, knock the edge off your posts. Now, as others have pointed out: 1. Graphical representation is absolutely abstracted. Pointing to a picture and screaming that it doesn't look right has nothing to do with anything. The only determination of Hull Down is when the targeting/LOS line text says so. 2. Hull Down is very much binary. You either have it or you don't. Period. There is no computational way around this for the time being. Way too much work for the CPU to handle. Plus, with the abstraction in the terrain being what it is, it is actually harmful to have Hull Down be simulated too finely. It would throw off the delicate balance of abstractions throughout the game. The new engine will allow us finer terrain modeling which will allow for finer hull down modeling. 3. Hull Down in real life is not just having nothing but the turret exposed. Hull Down positions can absolutely be imprefect, and probably usually are, thus exposing upper hull. In fact, practically speaking it is very difficult to get the full hull hidden behind something to the degree that it can not be hit at all. Expecting PERFECT Hull Down conditions each and everytime you park a tank behind a hill is simply unrealistic. The problem with CM's abilities is that it can't simulate imperfection to differing degrees, so we have something in place that we feel is more or less representational of an average hull down position. 4. Neither side benefits or is penalized more than the other. Hull down is a beneficial position to be in for the most part, but like in real life it does have its inherent limitations. As it is there are less real world limitations on acheiving Hull Down in CM than there are in real life. For example, gun overhang problems, visual obstructions from vegitation, dust kicked up from blast, etc. All in all Hull Down works realistically in CM. Not perfectly, but in harmony with other abstractions that are not perfect. Steve 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 Battlefront.com: Panzer76, 2. Hull Down is very much binary. You either have it or you don't. Period. There is no computational way around this for the time being. Way too much work for the CPU to handle. So in short; the cm engine cant handle to differentiate weather the the afv with turret is hull down with just the turret or with the upper hull also. Originally posted by Battlefront.com: All in all Hull Down works realistically in CM. Not perfectly, but in harmony with other abstractions that are not perfect. Is this one of the things you will look into in the engine rewrite? As to the harsh posts, I should have formulated me in a more diplomatic tone, no matter how irritated I was. We all have out sour days, as Im sure you are aware of. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted March 6, 2003 Share Posted March 6, 2003 Originally posted by Panzer76: Hull Down ... Is this one of the things you will look into in the engine rewrite?Speaking of not reading peoples posts, Steve just said this in the post immediately before yours: The new engine will allow us finer terrain modeling which will allow for finer hull down modeling.Whether that answers your question is left as an exercise for the reader. Regards JonS 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 JonS: Speaking of not reading peoples posts, Steve just said this in the post immediately before yours: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The new engine will allow us finer terrain modeling which will allow for finer hull down modeling.Regards JonS </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illo Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Originally posted by nevermind: 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). You mean this? Nashorn with some 5/6 of its height profile behind ridge. Imagine how hard it would be to spot one from anything over 500m. Then how about hitting it? Theres not much room for range estimation error. I hope this can be simulated in next engine as binary system doesnt count sometimes HUGE advantages of hull down. I think this is question of who lives and who dies in battle, so its no place for big abstractions unless you want to get unrealistic results. [ March 06, 2003, 05:39 PM: Message edited by: illo ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted March 7, 2003 Author Share Posted March 7, 2003 Originally posted by illo: Nashorn with some 5/6 of its height profile behind ridge. That would be sweet! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hakstooy Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 i thought it made sense that hull down would be binary. thanks for the clarification steve...only why you gotta be teasing us with those cm3 tidbits...dastardly. panzer, i wonder why your test had 3/4 of the shots hitting the turret? is that a fluke percentage because of the low number of shots? is the turret just that much larger of a target? or is something else entirely causing the difference? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted March 7, 2003 Author Share Posted March 7, 2003 Originally posted by hakstooy: panzer, i wonder why your test had 3/4 of the shots hitting the turret? is that a fluke percentage because of the low number of shots? is the turret just that much larger of a target? or is something else entirely causing the difference? I think it is a consequence of what Steve said, they made a compremise, part of the compremise would be that its more likely to hit the turret. So, maybe something like 20-25% of the hits will hit the upper hull. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Originally posted by illo: I hope this can be simulated in next engine as binary system doesnt count sometimes HUGE advantages of hull down. I think this is question of who lives and who dies in battle, so its no place for big abstractions unless you want to get unrealistic results. As much as I agree that would improve realism, I wonder how it would fit the gameplay? In CMBO, you had to place tanks manually to hulldown positions. In CMBB, we got a new handy command for that instead, which I find is great. Usually you have more to think about than how many metres more you should move forward until your gun has a LOS over that ridge. But would a precise modelling work as handily? If you think of it, managing to place your tank "perfectly" would be great for keeping it alive, esp. with SP ATG's like Nashorn, so it would be necessary most of the time. But while you are perfectly hull down to one spot of the map, it might be more visible from other areas. One might think this would cause a lot of micro managing compared to a single hull-down variable. I don't like tedious micro managing in this kind of game. It's better to show things in a simplistic way (when needed) so that I can concentrate on lo... winning battles with my masterfully thought-out battle plans. But maybe there's a third way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted March 7, 2003 Author Share Posted March 7, 2003 Originally posted by Sergei: I don't like tedious micro managing in this kind of game. It's better to show things in aNeither do I, but I guess the "new" hull down command would just allow the turret over. When it comes to hull down from different angles, u already have this "problem" in CMBB, I cant see how it would differ with an improved hull down system. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevermind Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 illo, Great picture!I thought it was a tank with a turret,but i guess me mind is slippin. Originally posted by illo: Imagine how hard it would be to spot one from anything over 500m. Then how about hitting it? Theres not much room for range estimation error. I hope this can be simulated in next engine as binary system doesnt count sometimes HUGE advantages of hull down. I think this is question of who lives and who dies in battle, so its no place for big abstractions unless you want to get unrealistic results. I couldnt agree more,we have the great fire suppresion model,and realistic fatigue and such,now i hope this is the next step.If my cpu cant handle the calculations required to simulate varying degrees of hull down,then its time to upgrade I was wondering,did it say if that Nashorn was in a prepared position,or did the lucky bastards find the perfect lil hill?Along these lines,CMBB now lets you set fall back foxholes.In the next CM,i would like to be able to set up prepared fall back "hull down" postions.By "prepared",i mean dug out,smoothed out ground that a tank could drive into and then be almost completely hull down to certain areas on the map.Im not sure what that might be called,or is that simply what a tank being dug in means?Anyone know this?Anyone think this would be possible in the next CM,or worth the trouble? If the next CM is going to take place,atleast in part,in N.Africa,i would think this feature to be vital to the AFV engagements,since for the most part its a open,flat desert.I really would love to see this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snorri Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 well i havn`t rea all too closely, hope none has mentioned yet, what i tipe here: heh, this won`t solve (solve may only the engine, do) the problem itself.. but thinkabout: a projectille runs the air, directed at this nasty little TURRET(?)/partiall guns, troubling your own forces. well, the bullet misses the turret, damn, but not much, it just sliped over the "crest", and so, crushes right into the tank`s deck, er, ceiling, the place the driver sits, or not far more rear, into the maschinery-complex.. this supposed to call a: "upper-hull-hit" too, no? ..cm ain`t perfect, but getting close to it.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illo Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 <snip> [ March 06, 2003, 10:53 PM: Message edited by: illo ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Isn't a binary hull-down/not-hull-down decision on the one hand and a remaining risk of exposure on the other hand an unnecessary complication of matters inviting just the kind of complaints that fill this thread?? Trying to answer myself: No, because only considering perfect hull-down situations would probably be a too rigid restriction on awarding the hull-down status, that is, statistically, hull-down (meaning perfect hull-down) would appear much less?! On the other hand, one would expect that the same degree of random reduction of the cover of the hull could be applied to add to the cover of the turret/superstructure. Is this the case? Regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schoerner Posted March 7, 2003 Share Posted March 7, 2003 Originally posted by Panzer76: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by illo: Nashorn with some 5/6 of its height profile behind ridge. That would be sweet! </font> 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.