High ground advantage

[Koenig]

Is the advantage for firing from higher ground modelled in CMAK?

It is clearly so as far as HE is concerned, as direct fire just a little long will go over the ridge without doing any harm.

But I have the impression that men firing from high ground to others in a lower position in the same terrain are exactly in the same situation. High ground should work much like being behind a Wall, as units fired from above should generally be more exposed (a little more in Woods or Buildings, much more in Rough).

Also, hand grenades range should be greatly affected.

I'm concerned by this as I don't see high ground as a major factor of defense in CMAK; actually it is more an invitation to set up a reverse slope defence. With all due respect to the proponents of the latter tactic, attacking higher ground has always been considered a tough job.

Koenig

[Le Tondu]

The higher you are, the more of the enemy you see and hence can take out. Now that, is quite an advantage in my book.

[birdstrike]

AFAIK, you do get some advantages for firing from higher ground in CMAK, besides the extended LOS. Infantry behind walls, for example will get no defense bonus when fired from above, same goes for units, hiding behind small bumps, like guns or tanks in otherwise hull-down positions. Finally, firing at armored units from above will use the respective angle to calculate a possible penetration.

But there's no general advantage for firing at infantry units from higher ground. Not sure if attacking infantry will get exhausted quicker when charging uphill, though. (In desigining scenarios, one could use difficult terrain on the attacker's hillside, to simulate this.)

In CM and real terms, I think high ground is not automatically granting you an advantage over your enemy. Shooting at a lot of enemies is one thing, being shot at from a lot of enemies is another. Putting a tank or an artillery piece on top of an open hill will enable you to see quite a lot, but you're also an easy target for enemy counter-fire. Just think of air strikes or artillery barrages.

[Dave H]

The one incident I've had with CMAK higher ground that left a bad impression on me was in a PBEM. I set up as the defender and placed an infantry squad in a foxhole behind a stone wall on a ridge overlooking a steep slope down to a road. I figured the significant terrain elevation, plus the wall, would prevent my hiding men from being spotted. I was planning to ambush American infantry moving down the road. Unfortunately, the first American unit to appear on the road spotted my infantry. Apparently they saw through the ground and spotted my men hiding in their holes. They were methodically shot to pieces by a Sherman. :mad: :mad:

[arax3]

I have had the same experience as Dave. On the other hand, I had a flamethrower hide in woods adjacent to a bridge which was the only way for Axis to advance in this scenario. I waited until two Tigers crossed the bridge and toasted them!! They were hosed and my guys were not spotted until it was too late for the Tigers. Ha!! That was fun. A3

[Koenig]

Originally posted by birdstrike:

AFAIK, you do get some advantages for firing from higher ground in CMAK, besides the extended LOS. Infantry behind walls, for example will get no defense bonus when fired from above, same goes for units, hiding behind small bumps, like guns or tanks in otherwise hull-down positions. Finally, firing at armored units from above will use the respective angle to calculate a possible penetration.

But there's no general advantage for firing at infantry units from higher ground. Not sure if attacking infantry will get exhausted quicker when charging uphill, though. (In desigining scenarios, one could use difficult terrain on the attacker's hillside, to simulate this.)

In CM and real terms, I think high ground is not automatically granting you an advantage over your enemy. Shooting at a lot of enemies is one thing, being shot at from a lot of enemies is another. Putting a tank or an artillery piece on top of an open hill will enable you to see quite a lot, but you're also an easy target for enemy counter-fire. Just think of air strikes or artillery barrages.

I agree with you Birdstrike.

High ground is without doubt a double edged weapon.

What specifically concerns me is the fact that infantry fired from above doesn't seem to suffer addictional exposure, as when fired from the flanks.

The problem came to my mind after reading accounts of the battle of Keren, where charging up-hill in Rough ground was a nightmare.

In CMAK one would just move forward under decent cover...

Best Regards

Koenig

[Tarkus]

AFAIK, from the defender standpoint, being higher mostly involve less vulnerability to direct fire. Although I am unsure as to how CM represents this.

The relative angle of your position in relation with the terrain often prevent direct fire support like flat trajectory shell and MG to actually hit your assets, a bit like a reverse slope position. In other words, shells fall short or travel far beyond your units. I can recall several occasions where my opponent did carefully place ATG to take advantage of this.

But apparently, it is not always the case, as Dave mentionned. I must admit that the cover and concealment factor provided by walls in CM is something that remains obscure for me... :confused:

And of course, as with anything else in CM, there are ways around this. In this particular case, mortars worth their weight in gold in these circumstances, not to mention the mortar carriers, especially in BB/AK where you can carefully hide them and direct their fire with HQs.

In addition, I suppose the other way around is also true, i.e. direct fire from above on troops is proportionally more effective since the area covered by fire is clearly defined and the dead zone more focused. More bullets on the enemy = more chance to hurt someone.

My two cents

[sand digger]

Good question Koenig, I wondered about that too because those I play against don't seem to regard high ground as a priority. Whereas I do, and still get beat, well when playing British in their sans HE era

[stikkypixie]

Can't you just test this by checking the firepower rating?

As for grenades, i think they are abstracted a lot so, you can't really say.

[Other Means]

Grenades definately travel further down hill.