Height advantages?

[Der Kuenstler]

I would like to see some discussion from you veterans on this please. Does the CM engine take into account differences in height? For example: All things (includig LOS) being equal, does a platoon near the top of a slope fire down at greater efficiency than the platoon firing up the slope? Same for tanks - if one is higher than the other, does he have an advantage? Is it more efficient to fire from the second story of a building than the first?

[GS_Guderian]

Why would there be a difference other then LOS?

Of course a steep hill could provide for enough height difference to hit the top of a tank, rather then it´s front/side, which in most cases will be better. (As long as your tank can actually aim enough into negative ° with it´s cannon, could be hard with turretless vehicles)

But a soldier won´t shoot "better" just because he sits higher. He will propably have a better result because he SEES more, and thus is aple to bring some good shots on the enemy.

[YankeeDog]

Actually, IRL, elevation does confer advantage, even for small arms.

In general, height reduces the effectiveness of available cover. In the most extreme example, consider a soldier in a foxhole. Now imagine an enemy soldier shooting at him from a 2nd story window nearby -- the height advantage allows the shooter to actually shoot down into the foxhole.

Obviously, most RL examples are less extreme than this, but the effects, however subtle, do exist.

Unfortunately, AFAIK, in CM, height advantages do not exist for small arms, albiet with a few very limited exceptions. For example, elevation does eliminate the cover advantage of stone walls in CM.

For larger caliber weapons, CM does model the effects of elevation in more detail. IMHO, perhaps the most important effect is the reduction of armor slope -- if a shooter has elevation advantage over a target, the projectile will hit the target with a negative slope, which can make sloped armor easier to penetrate. This can be especially important in certain armor matchups. For example, the US 76mm gun is much more likely to penetrate a Panther's front Glacis with some height advantage.

Cheers,

YD

[GS_Guderian]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Actually, IRL, elevation does confer advantage, even for small arms.

In general, height reduces the effectiveness of available cover.

Cover blocks LOS. LOS wasn´t questioned, or rather excluded. I don´t think that is what he asked for.

Again, height might help in medieval battles when you roll bolders downhill or throw stones down a wall, rather then up.

But a K98 bullet won´t do more harm just because it was fired from an elevated postition.

[imported_no_one]

GS_Guderian,

Could you maybe explain your position on this topic a little better?

I agree with what YankeeDog said.And while the CMx1 engine may not perfectly model this,it tries.I would also imagine that the CMx2 engine will do it better.And I know,without a shadow of a doubt,that in RL,height advantage made/makes a difference.

Look at this example:

A tiger is defending,and is simply sitting on a hill.Now,it has no business being hulldown to anything on the map.There is nothing in front of it,and it isn't on the reverse slope of the hill.However,there is a t-34 at the base of the hill.Both AFV's have LOS to one another.They are hull down!Why is that?Because the land litterally prevents any rounds from finding the front lower hull on either vehicles.Now,apply the same to infantry in foxholes.

If the infantry on the hill,in the foxhole,take cover or hide,it should be all but impossible to hurt them with small arms fire(In RL anyhow).On the other hand,the infantry at the base of the hill,also in a foxhole,will have to take cover/hide in the forward aspect of the foxhole,or else.If you try and go prone in the foxhole,your legs may be exposed.The defenders on the hill will never have any more than their heads,and upper chest exposed.Truthfully,in this situation,the defenders should have an exposure(to the enemy at the base of the hill)similar to that of infantry in a trench(like 9%)and the attackers should have the defense rating of a foxhole,but reduced.

You see what I am saying.

I also seem to recall a discussion on whether or not a HMG will be more effective/modeled correctly,when firing down on vehicles from a second story building.Like if all the armor of the vehicle was too thick for the HMG to penetrate,but the armor on top wasn't,kind of thing.IIRC,the answer was yes.

[Zveroboy]

Can't you throw grenades farther downhill?

[Vixen]

Originally posted by Zveroboy:

Can't you throw grenades farther downhill?

And large rocks...and logs....and...

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Zveroboy:

Can't you throw grenades farther downhill?

In real life? yep. In this game? nope.

[GS_Guderian]

Originally posted by no_one:

GS_Guderian,

Could you maybe explain your position on this topic a little better?

I´ll try.

...If you try and go prone in the foxhole,your legs may be exposed...

Being exposed because of the better view angle top-down, no? Again, that is a LOS advantage!

I know what you guys mean, but I since the Artist asked vey precisly to NOT inlcude LOS in the efficiency comparision I won´t use any advantages that derrive from the vision advantage.

Tanks "may" have advantages other then LOS derrived ones, when sitting on top of a hill. Like Yankee and me described.

For Infantry I can´t see any.

PS: The Handgrenade range is a good point, but CM propably doesn´t model a difference in this case.

[Cpt Willard]

(Hi all! I bought this game this weekend after fruitlessly trying to find my old favourite but long lost Close Combat. -- I'm very happy I did not find that one, since it led me to Combat Mission instead. I'm very impressed by it.)

Anyhow, let me throw in my two cents into this debate.

As a matter of fact, gunshot wounds in the legs of soldiers lying down are common in firefights. This is especially true of course, when shot at from an elevated position, and one reason why an elevated position is an advantage in a situation when two groups open fire at each other. There're no place the downhill group can cover their bodies (if in the flat open).

This is also the reason why we during military service was taught to lie with both legs to one side (not spread as you would normally do), and actually have the feets 'round each other, so to speak, to minimize the risk of taking one in the leg. Was told that the legs are the parts of your body which is most likely to get hit -- yes, even while lying down. Not been to actual combat though -- thank God -- but that's what I've been told.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by GS_Guderian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

...If you try and go prone in the foxhole,your legs may be exposed...

Being exposed because of the better view angle top-down, no? Again, that is a LOS advantage!

I know what you guys mean, but I since the Artist asked vey precisly to NOT inlcude LOS in the efficiency comparision I won´t use any advantages that derrive from the vision advantage.

[/QB]</font>

[Guest Mike]

Height gives an advantage - you are more likely to get top hits on thinner armour - or even no armour for some AFV's - making them much more vulnerable to infantry and MG fire.

[Redwolf]

In BB and AK the vetical armor angle is also reduced if you fire from above. Not in BO.

[Code13]

Height advantage is sought by infanty in all theatres of war, always, for many reasons. But I will just deal with more modern reasoning.

1. Attacking uphil is much harder than attacking downhill, much, much harder.

2. Shooting upwards is also more difficult than shooting down at something.

3. If you are higher than your opponant your shots are more likely to strike the upper body, arms, head and neck than normal - if they are stood up.

4. In foxholes you negate the cover for the trench and effectivly have them bracited in their hole.

There are other advantages but they are less definate and more ephemeral, but if height isnt important, then why have soldiers being trying to get the higher ground since the flood?

[GS_Guderian]

Guys, nobody ever questioned the imortance of high ground. Nobody ever questioned the better performance from high grounds vs. lower grounds.

BUT the author of the threat asked IF Combat Mission models an efficiency difference for two platoons of Inf shooting at each other, one from above, one from below. For this setup he asked to have ALL other circumstances equal, thus no weapon differences, no number adavantages, no moral or experience bonus. AND he wrote that LOS (Line-of-Sight) should be equal, therefore those things should be neglected in the answers.

Now it is nice to know and surely true, that it is harder to attack uphill, than downhill, but that wasn´t asked.

It is also true, that you can see more from above and thus negate any cover since the view angle changed. But this concerns LOS, and is not the answer.

Code 13 has the idea that shooting down is easier than shooting upwards. I don´t know where he derrives that from, but I never experinced that. At least not with modern assault Rifles. It makes no difference. Unless you are talking about shooting streight up or streight down, it´s all rather the same.

I don´t know, why my shots are more likely to strike upper body parts, when I am elevated either. I have a chance to strike any part I see. Since LOS was asked to be equal, this can´t be a solution. Both platoons are seeing the same. If not, your platoons do not fit in the question.

Personally I said that I think this question is rather awkward from the first post, since the only big difference that comes with elevated Infantry positions is concerning LOS. And I think it´s funny to exclude it in the performance question.

[Code13]

If LOS are equal then neither side has height advantage....the LOS have to be different if any height advantage exists, it is fundamentally impossible to be otherwise, what I think the author is talking about is no fog, weather or optical equipment being taken into account, i.e. the mk1 eyeball.

As for shooting up or down, its personal experience really that makes me think it is harder to shoot uphill.

Hiting the upper torso is more likely purely and simply because when above someone that is the largest target, you are right in saying you hit what you can see, but most of what you see is now the head, shoulders and upper arms.

But you are right, the question was if it is modeled in CM. I have never done any tests but I have always laboured and manouvered my infantry on the assumption that it is better to be up than down...

[JasonC]

For infantry, the answer is no, height doesn't matter in CM. Should it, yes it should, in the form of grazing LOS acting as a sort of cover, rather than absolute height.

In CM, this occurs for flat trajectory on map fire, tracked shell by shell - more even than is actually warranted, due to limits in the HE shell model. (Hits on the fly not modeled for HE against a gun etc). But not for infantry fire. There is no "crestline cover" % exposure effect.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by no_one:

Look at this example:

...Both AFV's have LOS to one another. They are hull down! Why is that? Because the land litterally prevents any rounds from finding the front lower hull on either vehicles. ...

Ehh... nope. It's because LOS is blocked to their lower parts, not the LOF.

What the others have forgotten to mention is that CM model one other aspect of height; the target size (silhouette).

Tall vehicles present a much easier target than low ones, since you don't need that much accuracy in range estimation to hit them.

Height of the vehicle is a more important factor than length and width when determining "target size".

Cheers

Olle

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by no_one:

Look at this example:

...Both AFV's have LOS to one another. They are hull down! Why is that? Because the land litterally prevents any rounds from finding the front lower hull on either vehicles. ...

Ehh... nope. It's because LOS is blocked to their lower parts, not the LOF.

What the others have forgotten to mention is that CM model one other aspect of height; the target size (silhouette).

Tall vehicles present a much easier target than low ones, since you don't need that much accuracy in range estimation to hit them.

Height of the vehicle is a more important factor than length and width when determining "target size".

Cheers

Olle </font>

[Dawg Bonz]

YD, Good distinction re: "LOS" - Line of Sight, and LOF - Line of Fire.

I have recurrently desired a CM hot key that would project a colored area of LOS & LOF around the unit in question. This craving springs from not wanting to spend inordinate time plotting with the current LOS tool. One single line imparts very limited information. If a covered arc like option would project a colored area of LOS & a different colored area of LOF, 180 degrees from the unit in question, the game plotting would be quicker, IMO.

"Grasshopper, Be like a 1000 wheat stalks, at ground level and the 9mms will gently whistle warnings but not upset balance."

Dawg… woofing for a Lazy LOS/LOF hotkey.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

... In most contexts I have seen, "Hull Down" means the hull of the AFV is *covered*, not just *concealed*.

The exceptions I've seen is when the "cover" is way off in front of the unit.

Example: Two tanks in a wide, flat field, ~1km apart. Between them, in the middle of the field, is a low ridge and/or stone wall (cover equivalent) that impact the LOS.

Here it's very possible that both tanks are hull down, while any projectile fired can easily drop an extra metre to hit the lower part of the target (out of sight to the shooter).

Cheers

Olle