mav1 Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Infantry would be harder to hit if most of their body is behind a hill shooting, laying down(like a hull down for tanks). This dosn't seem to be reprosented in cm? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 No. Unfortunately infantry can't use "hull down" tactics in CM. Even worse, the infantry doesn't even recognize a reverse slope as "safe ground". When under fire on (the enemy side of) a hill the infantry will rather crawl 50m forward towards the enemy to the next patch of trees than 10m back over the crest of the hill. It's a known problem with CMx1, won't be fixed. Hope for CMx2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hensworth Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Even worse, the beaten zone of small arms fire (particularly MGs) wraps around over the top of a hill, so you need to be about 20m back from the very top to be absolutely safe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Funnily enough I noticed this very issue yesterday when I had a few units in foxholes well down on the reverse slope of a hill. They still had LOS to the bottom of the blind side. How did the devs manage to make such a pig's ear of this? It's pretty off, not being able to trust distinctive terrain features to protect one's men and equipment. :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 How far from the ridge is "well down"? Keep in mind that a group of soldiers in CM are not exactly on the spot where the 3D-model is, but rather spread out over a larger area around that model. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darkmath Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Exactly, an area fire could suppress a squad located 20 metres away from the target point. A CMX1 squad is spread over a circle of 20 metres radius. The representation of the squad in CMX1 engine correspond to a "gravity centre" of the squad. This gravity centre is located on a sub-grid made of 2 metres squares. The "hull down" is somewhat abstraced by a decreased LOS. As for the foxholes, the 10 men in a same big hole as we see in CM is a misrepresentation; here also, it is an abstraction of 1 to 3 mans foxhole dug around a 20 metres radius circle. However, the units seeking the wrong way to take a better cover is still a problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly: Even worse, the beaten zone of small arms fire (particularly MGs) wraps around over the top of a hill, so you need to be about 20m back from the very top to be absolutely safe. I never knew that, cheers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tactical Command Posted August 31, 2006 Share Posted August 31, 2006 Imo, lack of "situational awareness" in Combat Mission is a HUGE problem. I understand that Battlefront is a very small company and didn't have the resources to do everything they wanted to do with the CMx1 games; however, I don't understand why they never implemented something like a "stand fast" command to compensate for this problem (and for the incomplete tank cowering routine that they implemented). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly: Even worse, the beaten zone of small arms fire (particularly MGs) wraps around over the top of a hill, so you need to be about 20m back from the very top to be absolutely safe. I'd always assumed this to be because the CM terrain grid is only an abstract representation of real world terrain. The model creates unnaturally angular ridges and crest "lines" that LOOK like they should provide cover. But such sharp angles aren't common in real topography owing to the erosion effects of wind and water. Try walking over a hill sometime, and you'll see what I mean: barring some other terrain feature such as trees, rocks or a gully, there isn't (normally) some natural parapet on the crest line that offers you good cover from all shooters below you. Any given point on the hilltop might offer cover from some, but not others. The CMx2 engine is talking about a 1 meter terrain grid and 1mm height gradients, which will allow far more realistic topography. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigrun Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Originally posted by ParaBellum: How far from the ridge is "well down"? Keep in mind that a group of soldiers in CM are not exactly on the spot where the 3D-model is, but rather spread out over a larger area around that model. Well, I brought the camera in behind them and all they could see was sky. The problem is, how is one supposed to know when one has positioned one's men safely? I started the battle and they were immediately spotted and drew fire...so next time I'll have to place them half way down the slope? It's a rather hap-hazard way of doing business and somewhat negates the point of analyzing the terrain in any meaningful way. Still, it's what we've got, unless they regain their sanity and decide to do a WW2 game with the new engine (yeah, like I'm busting to get my hands on Syria vs the UN ). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kineas Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Originally posted by Sgt_Kelly: Even worse, the beaten zone of small arms fire (particularly MGs) wraps around over the top of a hill, so you need to be about 20m back from the very top to be absolutely safe. Hi, I'm wondering if this is because of bullet trajectories. From a long distance small arms fire has a rather high flight path, maybe this is included in the game model? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParaBellum Posted September 1, 2006 Share Posted September 1, 2006 Originally posted by Sigrun: Still, it's what we've got, unless they regain their sanity and decide to do a WW2 game with the new engine (yeah, like I'm busting to get my hands on Syria vs the UN ). Hehe... If feel for you. Do what we all do: look at CM:SF as a beta for the WW2 version to iron out all bugs and problems with the new engine. 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.