cover arcs problem

[kappa]

the idea of cover arcs are great, but there is one big problem; why do the two points that one places on the battlefield, to create the arc, not stay where they are when the vehicle is moving? If you want to cover, say, a gap in a wooded area from armour, while your vehicle is driving by, you have to make a huge arc so that this one gap stayes covered, because the arc moves WITH the vehicle, which is absolutly unlogical.

So I just wanted to know what you guys think about this.

:confused:

cheers

[Captain Wacky]

If you do it that way we lose the ability we have now to keep a tank's turret rotated at X degrees while it drives.

[rune]

Because you are covering an arc, not a piece of terrain. You want the tank in formation to cover the left side, hence the covered arc.

Rune

[Michael Emrys]

If you feel you absolutely have to cover a specific piece of terrain, have one of your tanks halt to cover it. Then, when it's time to move that tank, have another tank or some other kind of unit halt to cover the terrain. Best of all, move some infantry up to clear the terrain. There is also recon by fire. Lob a few shells and some MG fire into the area and see what bobs up.

Michael

[Eden Smallwood]

Kappa, I'm with you on this; the replies you've gotten say that it is useful to for moving vehicles to have an arc which is relative to the vehicle...

OK, but that's not the only case we're interested in, right? Clearly it would be just as useful, just as much of the time, to be able to cover a region of the field which is *not* relative to the unit, but is absolute to the field.

Arcs are fine- people here seem to love them, so although I have as yet not really found them useful, (except for a few things), well so be it.

But I agree with you that I'd like to cover a closed region of the field. After all, does it not seem more natural to say, "Private, give me area fire on that hill/gap/valley/thing!" than it does to say "Private, cover all enemies appearing between zero Pi and Pi over eight radians!"

So maybe this would be a good RewriteWish...?

Eden

[kappa]

thanks eden, that is exactly what i mean. As for the other comments, what you said about a tank covering your left flank for example, he can still do that if you give him exactly the two points that you consider your left flank!

plus, as i said before, you can cover a spacific area from which you might expect enemy armor to come from, obviously even areas that you cannot see yet (so you cannot order another tank to cover it for the others)

thanks for the comments

cheers

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

Kappa, I'm with you on this; the replies you've gotten say that it is useful to for moving vehicles to have an arc which is relative to the vehicle...

[snips]

But I agree with you that I'd like to cover a closed region of the field. After all, does it not seem more natural to say, "Private, give me area fire on that hill/gap/valley/thing!" than it does to say "Private, cover all enemies appearing between zero Pi and Pi over eight radians!"

I think both treatments of arcs, relative to the observer or relative to the terrain, are entirely reasonable. You may have different ideas about what constitutes "natural" language, but I would have thought "Left of arc, small cottage, right of arc, bushy-topped tree" and "Watch half-left" would be more like the way the commands would be given in the field.

However, from my TA experience, I am used to having arcs assigned in defence (and you go into all-round defence every time you halt), and being told to watch in a particular direction while on the move (watching behind is the one that people msot often forget). So, while it might be nice to have both ways of specifying arcs, if you have to make the choice between one way or the other, I would say that the current way is the one I find more convincing.

All the best,

John.

[imported_Wildman]

The crewman watches a section of the "clock" around the tank, and not a particular piece of terrain.

The driver watches the front 90 degrees. The gunner watcher 90 degrees from the gun. (This is the area simulated by covered arcs). The loader watches from 10 o'clock to 6 o'clock. The TC watches from 10 o'clock around the right side to 5 o'clock.

Platoons rotate their guns in different directions when they move to cover different arcs. Search for an army site that will have the Field Manual about this.

So given the covered arcs basis in doctrine and theory, I believe that it is correct.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

I think both treatments of arcs, relative to the observer or relative to the terrain, are entirely reasonable.

Great! Then we seem to all agree! (Wait- is this the CMBB forum? Where the heck am I?)

You may have different ideas about what constitutes "natural" language, but I would have thought "Left of arc, small cottage, right of arc, bushy-topped tree" and "Watch half-left" would be more like the way the commands would be given in the field.

Oh, man! You've really gone and done it now!!! Of course my language example was a bit silly, but if you'll notice... In your example there, with the cottage defining one edge and the tree defining the other, if that unit MOVES... You see? Even when you just dream up an example to rectify my silly language you come up with something which is more truthfully absolute to the field. SCORE!

However, from my TA experience

Provide Civilian-Decoding, please, or I will think you are a Teacher's Assistant...?

Perfect example of what you describe, (oops, already snipped it, sorry- the example of needing relative arcs when advancing), in Citadel, at least one of the Axis tanks seems to be keeping an extremely good eye on the previous horizon as they advance... I found out the hard way!

So, while it might be nice to have both ways of specifying arcs, if you have to make the choice between one way or the other, I would say that the current way is the one I find more convincing.

I for one certainly defer to you on that question; as I say, just seems like something which would be nice for the rewrite..? Anyhow,

Eden

[aka_tom_w]

you might waste some ammo

BUT... maybe you need to give an "Area Target" fire order for the place to want covered? :confused:

Cover Arc is relative to the tank BUT area target will fire at one spot on the map even if the tank moves. BUT do you want the tank moving and firing?

NO? maybe you need a Hunt order and an Area Targe fire order in the direction of where you want it to cover that part of the map.

AS it is my (uninformed) opinion that they are not at all likely to change this aspect of the game in any way we should look at a work around solution that works with the tools they have given us.

TOOLS:

Shoot and Scoot

Hunt

Cover Arc Armour

Area Target

Move

Fast

Mix and Match and use the ones you need to get the job done

What about just Shoot and Scoot and an Area Target Fire order?

Or Hunt and A Cover Arc?

Or Hunt and an Area Target?

Does that help?

-tom w

[kappa]

I am sorry to say, but my opinion (and eden's) still makes more sense. All the things mentioned by you guys can still be done with the arc having two fixed points!

Why would any one want to cover a area that is constantly changing when the tank is moving, say like 8 to 12 o'clock? Before you start to move your tank there will be a spacific area that you want to cover, damm it!, and that is not possible because the arc always moves with the tank!

cheers

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Captain Wacky:

If you do it that way we lose the ability we have now to keep a tank's turret rotated at X degrees while it drives.

and that suggestion/comment is the MAIN reason why the cover arc works the way it does....

IN CMBO there was a great deal of noise about the fact that there was no way to "keep a tank's turret rotated at X degrees while it drives" ... hence the new cover arc tool implemented this way.

-tom w

[kappa]

OK, but why do you want to have the turrent a x degrees, one always assumes the threat will come from a certain area. You dont alway change your mind when you move, which would be the case with a fixed turrent!

[gibsonm]

Normally when you move AFV's (Armoured Fighting Vehicles - Tanks, Assualt guns, Tank Destroyers, Halftracks, Armoured Personnel Carriers etc) (BTW: TA - Territorial Army; the collective name given to part time units of the British Army) around the battlefield you don't travel alone.

Even Uber vehicles (KT, IS-III, ISU-152, etc) have weak flanks or rear that provide vulnerable areas if exposed, esp on the wide open steppe.

As a result you usually move vehicles in Troop/Platoon (4-5 vehicles) sized groups or at worst, pairs.

If there is a piece of ground that concerns you, then you normally keep part of your Troop static (on a piece of ground called a "bound") and allocate them a covered arc that includes the suspect area. You then move the other part of the Troop forward to the next bound.

If they are fired on the static part of the Troop engages the threat whilst the moving portion pushes on or adopts a suitable fire position (remember we are talking about the 1940's when by and large, firing on the move was useless) Today with modern stabilized platforms, you can fire on the move but static is still best.

This technique is called "overwatch" (it comes in a few different forms - here in Australia we use Leap Frog [each part "leap frogs" past the other - faster but less secure] and Caterpillar [ the front group goes forward to the new position, then the back group catches up, then the front group moves forward again - slower but more secure].

What does this have to do with your post?

If you need to cover a set area, you normally do it from a static position. so in our example of a suspect location, the overwatch group would have a covered arc covering it. However if you need to move the Troop as a group at speed (sacrificing security) then the Troop usually has arcs allocated witihin it. The lead vehicle may initially have responsibility for it, but once it goes past (and there is usually a small amount of overlap) it hands off that task to a vehicle behind it and returns it's concentration to the area to the immediate front.

So in CMBB terms (lets assume you have 5 vehicles travelling in a wedge formation) the lead vehicle may have 10 O'clock to 2 O'clock, the 2nd vehicle on the left 8 to 11, the third vehicle 5 to 9 (with the right hand side vehicles having 1 to 4 and 7 to 3 respectively).

If your suspect area is at 11:30 to the lead vehicle, it will be its responsibility when the Troop moves off. As the Troop passes the suspect area (to the Troop's left lets say) the responsibility for covering it will be passed to the 2nd and 3rd vehicles on the left hand side of the wedge as the Troop moves past.

That way it will always be under observation and as the Troop moves into new ground you wont end up with the vehicles advancing but with their turrets traversed over their rear decks in an attempt to maintain observation of the initial suspect area (not very tactically sound).

Sorry to be long winded but this is what is taught at Fort Knox, Salisbury Plain and Puckapunyal because it has worked since Cambrai and it even works in CMBB.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

As a result you usually move vehicles in Troop/Platoon (4-5 vehicles) sized groups or at worst, pairs.

Now that you mention it, (sorta), is it strange that the Axis tanks in Citadel don't approach their goal in some kind of formation? It seems like they individually are on their own little trip alot of the time, wanting to stop and sniff at the trees and whatnot...? Possibly the AI just can't go that far, but that seems like the perfect example of where the method you describe would be useful, n'est-ce pas?

Leap Frog [each part "leap frogs" past the other - faster but less secure] and Caterpillar [ the front group goes forward to the new position, then the back group catches up, then the front group moves forward again - slower but more secure].

Please tell: why is the Caterpillar considered more secure?

Sorry to be long winded but this is what is taught at Fort Knox, Salisbury Plain and Puckapunyal because it has worked since Cambrai and it even works in CMBB.

Pshaw on "Sorry"- it was a great explanation, tell us everything!! I think we all get the concept, but how often will we have the luxury of advancing a crisp and clean formation in this game...? Thanks for expanding "TA" too.

Mark (}-;

Very Happy Ti PB user

X.II.I / 9.2.2

Oh yeah?

Eden

Utterly Nirvanic "Battle Blueberry" G3 iBook travelling at 300 MHz hacker

9.0 / Macsbug 6.6.3

[gibsonm]

SPOILER ALERT

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Originally posted by Eden Smallwood:

Now that you mention it, (sorta), is it strange that the Axis tanks in Citadel don't approach their goal in some kind of formation? It seems like they individually are on their own little trip alot of the time, wanting to stop and sniff at the trees and whatnot...? Possibly the AI just can't go that far, but that seems like the perfect example of where the method you describe would be useful, n'est-ce pas?

Just remember that the AI isn't a superb tactician. I've played Citadel where the AI mixes and matches vehicles into 3 hybrid groups of III's/IV's. A more sound approach is to have 2 Troops of III's and a Troop of IV's. I usually move the IV Troop up the centre to the first ridge and from there spt the III's as they advance on either flank.

The IV's are given covered arcs for the left hand ridge, the road and the right hand copse hill. That way when the 45mm AT guns or KV's open up its the IV's that return fire rather than the moving III's. When those positions are supressed the IV Troop moves forward again to the next position. During these moves the III's and IV's are given covered arcs within the their individual Troops as well (as per my first post) that way when potential Heroes of the Soviet Union try to attack a vehicle with a Molotov Cocktail at least one vehicle is ready for them.

Leap Frog [each part "leap frogs" past the other - faster but less secure] and Caterpillar [the front group goes forward to the new position, then the back group catches up, then the front group moves forward again - slower but more secure].

Please tell: why is the Caterpillar considered more secure?

Because with Caterpillar there is a pause during which everyone in the Troop observes the terrain (5 sets of binoculars) before the first group moves off and you can see where your group is going.

In Leap Frog only 2/3 (depending on which group you are in) can see the ground and if you are in the moving group you are briefed on the move about the ground ahead. The first time you see it for yourself (apart from looking at your map) is when you come around the feature or clear the crest (occupied by the other part of the Troop) at speed which can lead to some nasty surprises (sometimes people forget to tell you everything - like swampy ground or a cutting that isn't on the map etc).

I think we all get the concept, but how often will we have the luxury of advancing a crisp and clean formation in this game...?

The same rules apply to moving two vehicles, except that you as the commander have to make an assesment of the threat etc. Do you cover 9 to 3 observing all at the risk of a slow response time or do you focus on 11 to 1 and risk a target outside the covered arc you define?

That's why you are paid the big bucks and the AI just rolls along.

[Andrew H.]

Also, while not perfect, there is a way to use the covered arc command to cover a specific gap - you just make the covered arc large enough to cover the specific area throughout the move. It's not perfect because you're not covering *only* the gap, but it's workable.

90% of the time I use the covered arc with vehicles I have it set to 180 degrees and maximum; I'm mostly after the "shoot tanks and vehicles only" function. Even when I know that there is an enemy vehicle behind some trees that might attack me, I don't want to make my CA too narrow because there might be some other vehicle that I don't know about that would attack me as well.

For infantry CA, I mostly only use that with MGs; typically, I will set it at 180 degrees and adjust the distance to a point where the MG isn't wasting ammo on long range shots at infantry in cover. (Although I might wait until my MGs use up half of their ammo before setting the CA; especially against lower quality troops, there is still some benefit to 500 meter shots, even if the troops are in the woods). This is particularly important in those scenarios in which a greatly outnumbered force (typically German) is facing an attack across the open by a large number of lower quality allied troops).

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Wildman:

The crewman watches a section of the "clock" around the tank, and not a particular piece of terrain.

The driver watches the front 90 degrees. The gunner watcher 90 degrees from the gun. (This is the area simulated by covered arcs). The loader watches from 10 o'clock to 6 o'clock. The TC watches from 10 o'clock around the right side to 5 o'clock.

Platoons rotate their guns in different directions when they move to cover different arcs. Search for an army site that will have the Field Manual about this.

So given the covered arcs basis in doctrine and theory, I believe that it is correct.

That's about how I learned it as a tanker. The only time the arcs would be considered absolute is when stationary in the defense, but then again that's the same as a vehicle-relative arc, since the vehicle is stationary it gives you the illusion that the arc is absolute.

Eden, arcs are very useful in CMBB, so perhaps you're underutilizing them if you only have a "few" used for them. For starters, they force your units to watch their sectors of responsiblity, rather than having your leftmost tanks engaging targets far to their right...only to get bushwhacked by an AT gun in the sector that they were supposed to be watching. I use them all the time, and I've noticed a large improvement in my tank capabilities since CMBO.

[Chad Harrison]

Originally posted by rune:

Because you are covering an arc, not a piece of terrain. You want the tank in formation to cover the left side, hence the covered arc.

Rune

Thats my point also. When you move a platoon of T34's ahead, its nice to have one on the front, and one on each side. If you had to focus on terrain, this would not be possible.

Chad