Erwin.Rommel Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 First,I just use the editor to create a test to see the exact cover and conceal that the foxhole and trench can give my unit,when I put a German PAK40 ATG in a trench and keep them hide,there are four sherman at about 800m away from my ATG and the weather is clear.To my surprised,after a few seconds those Shermans spot my gun and begin to fire,I have never seen this happen in the CMX1,even in the CMSF the modern tank with a thermal device can not see the ATGM in a trench before it fire.So BFC,can you give us some explains about this? Second,when I put the ATG in a trench ,the crew of the gun can not place them at the right place,the keep moving and finally get out of the trench.Is this a bug? Third,During my test,it seems that the enemy tank at a hull down position can greatly decrease the accuracy of my tank's fire,however the weather conditions only affect the spotting ability of the tank,but not the accuracy of tank's fire,During my repeat tests,under those bad weathers(fog,mist,downpour),my panther takes a very long time to find their target that I put them at about 800m,but as long as my panther spot and identify them,it still can achieve a first shot hit(target is not hull down)most of the times,So am I right? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rokko Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Well, an ATG is much much bigger than a modern ATGM, yet this shouldn't happen I guess. Have you added some for cover around the trench, like some trees behind it? A completely uncovered ATG with only its crew hidden in a trench in completely open terrain might actually be easily spottable. What I have noticed is, that neiter foxholes nor trenches provide much cower, neither against mortars nor against small arms fire over 400m. I know their look is abstracted and we have to imagine that actually only the soldiers' heads are sticking out with the rest covered and concealed. Taking this into consideration casualties seem to high to me after a few tests. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin.Rommel Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 Well, an ATG is much much bigger than a modern ATGM, yet this shouldn't happen I guess. Have you added some for cover around the trench, like some trees behind it? A completely uncovered ATG with only its crew hidden in a trench in completely open terrain might actually be easily spottable. What I have noticed is, that neiter foxholes nor trenches provide much cower, neither against mortars nor against small arms fire over 400m. I know their look is abstracted and we have to imagine that actually only the soldiers' heads are sticking out with the rest covered and concealed. Taking this into consideration casualties seem to high to me after a few tests. Well I just try to compare the conceal and cover that the trench can give your unit between the CMX1 and CMX2,So I don't put any tree or other things to block the LOS between them,in CMX1 the tank can not find the ATG before you fire, but in CMX2 this is completely change I don't say this is a mistake or a bug,I just want some official explains about these differences. Ps: If you place some trees in front of the trench it do decrease the ememy's spotting ability 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 AT Guns don't get a benefit being in a Trench. They are considered fully exposed, though the crew might get some benefit. You need to put AT Guns in covering terrain, such as bushes or trees, to get some concealment benefit. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin.Rommel Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 AT Guns don't get a benefit being in a Trench. They are considered fully exposed, though the crew might get some benefit. You need to put AT Guns in covering terrain, such as bushes or trees, to get some concealment benefit. Steve Thank you for your reply steve,then about my third question,Does the weather condition affect the accaracy of the firepower? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Well, this is good to know ... explains why my ATG was waxed. Does this mean there is simply no way to entrench an ATG? If no, is that realistic? (this is not a rhetorical question: I simply have no clue about what really happened, I only have CMx1 as a reference, in which I _could_ entrench ATGas. Since CMx1 was a perfect represntation of reality, I've assumed that this is what happened in the war too :) ) GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Hang on - Steve said "you need to put them in covering terrain to get concealment". What about getting ... cover? Is the only option to place them behing a bocage embankment? GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 How about sandbag walls (although I guess that would protect only against small arms)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin.Rommel Posted May 24, 2011 Author Share Posted May 24, 2011 Hang on - Steve said "you need to put them in covering terrain to get concealment". What about getting ... cover? Is the only option to place them behing a bocage embankment? GaJ After some tests,I found that the trench can give the PAK40 style guns(the similar scale) some limited concealment,but for the FLAK36 style,trench can't give you any conceal benefit.The most ideal way is to place these guns behind the Bocage,this will make them very hard to be spotted by enemy tanks even after they fire many rounds.Trees,bushes also provide some good concealment,the rate of the concealment all depends on the height and the dense of the plants. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 If no, is that realistic? (this is not a rhetorical question: I simply have no clue about what really happened, I only have CMx1 as a reference, in which I _could_ entrench ATGas. Since CMx1 was a perfect represntation of reality, I've assumed that this is what happened in the war too :) ) GaJ You know Schweiß spart Blut (sweat saves blood). RKT Otto Riehs eliminated more than 9 T34 in 10 Minutes. Interestingly he was ordered to take position with his gun on a forward slope. Therefore the crew dug in the ATG completely to the barrel. No concealment was present, only very flat steppe. Only after a few shots had been fired it was spotted (the first two or three shots even were misses, since the gunner threw away his nerves, so Otto jumped out of his hole, jumped into the hole with the gun, threw the gunner out and did the job ). One or two of the tanks tried to ram the gun, so some of them must have driven quite close, without noticing it from further away. On good concealed positions or on reverse slopes, PAKs often were withdrawn after the firefight before the enemy could react to them and they were quickly moved to other preprepared positions (Stellungswechsel), often with the RSO (Raupenschlepper-Ost). It would be great, if that could be modeled before the Eastern Front release. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 AT Guns are BIG. Even the Pak 38, the smallest one in CM:BN, is quite large. The Pak 43 and Flak 36 are huge. This presents a lot of problems for gun crews in terms of cover. Which is why they have armored shields on them, I'm sure! What natural terrain can you use for cover (protection) besides Bocage? Besides using slopes, not much I can think of. Low Walls are not natural terrain, but they can help. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Macisle Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Now I know why my guys spotted an infantry gun in a trench right away in one of the battle scenarios the other night. I was surprised, as the trench had just appeared on the map and no other enemy units were yet spotted in the area. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Pak 43 and Flak 36 are very difficult to use because they are so huge. The Germans would set these things way back and let them deal out death at a range where Allied direct fire would be largely ineffective. Trying to use these things at targets 500m away is almost suicidal. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonar Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Don't know if it was Otto Riehs but I remember reading about an AT gun ace who said he deployed on the forward slope as he reckoned he was harder to spot, also he would have his crew lay their zeltban shelterhalves on the ground beneath the gun as this would reduce the dust kicked up by the gun when it fired. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reaver Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 By placing it on the forward slope you wouldn't get the silhouetting from being placed atop a ridge or hill which may, with proper camouflage, mean that your are harder to detect (depending on other factors such as environmental conditions, time of day, etc etc) However, once you are spotted, you loose any protection you would have had against incoming fire provided by a hull down position behind a ridgeline or rise in the ground. I suppose the ideal would be to find a position where your background is a large rise in the ground or hill to break up your silhouette with a small rise before the gun to get a hull down position. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tank Hunter Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Camouflage was essential for AT guns at all times. Unfortunately the only way to use this in the game is to place it close and or behind bush/trees. This makes it more difficult for TacAi to spot it. I wish there was a way to artificaially have them covered in camo and have them sometimes deployed more in open but still not visible until the first shots are fired. In Normandy the ATs can only be used for short range attacks due to bocage which limits their coverage, later on when we move out from bocage we may have more use of their range. Normally in WWII AT guns would be deployed and covered properly so enemy was not able to detect them before it was too late. Such deployement could sometimes be done at night providing an unpleasent surprise the next day. I've read accounts where Soviets would sneak AT guns close to German lines and have them covered. Then suddenly they would pull down the cover and fire couple of projectiles before covering up again. Before Germans were able to organize and find out where the fire came from the AT was covered again and the Germans were not able to spot it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MengJiao Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Camouflage was essential for AT guns at all times. Unfortunately the only way to use this in the game is to place it close and or behind bush/trees. I did a similar experiment using US 3-inch AT guns behind sandbag walls. 4 guns engaged tanks and halftracks at ranges of 2-400 meters for about half an hour as they emerged through some bocage openings. One gun was knocked out and the problem for the remaining 3 turned out to be running low on ammo, though it proved possible to run ammo up to them from behind another bocage line. Infantry and armored cars supprted the guns and probably occasionally distracted the attackers. The guns seemed to be spotting and firing much more quickly and effectively than the tanks that were moving through openings in the bocage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 CMAK had gun pits. Any plans to get weapon pits in future modules? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Does the trench fail to provide concealment only or does it fail to provide cover, too? Are foxholes any different? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Does the trench fail to provide concealment only or does it fail to provide cover, too? My understanding based on previous comments is that trench or foxhole can provide cover & concealment to an ATG *crew*, but not the gun itself. If you want to provide additional cover to an ATG or other large heavy weapon, apparently you're supposed to used the sandbag fortification. No idea how much concealment those provide; I haven't played with them yet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 My understanding based on previous comments is that trench or foxhole can provide cover & concealment to an ATG *crew*, but not the gun itself. If you want to provide additional cover to an ATG or other large heavy weapon, apparently you're supposed to used the sandbag fortification. No idea how much concealment those provide; I haven't played with them yet. But those aren't subject to fog of war. What about the foxholes? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 A large portion of the fan base wanted FOW trenches and foxholes. Well, their arguments won the day, and they got what they wanted. Unfortunately it seems there are some unintended consequences of having non-deformed terrain for defensive works. As far as I am concerned the trade-offs were possibly not worth achieving the FOW capability. But now we don't have the option to "paint" our trenches or holes in the ground with the elevation tools because the "brush" is too coarse for the job. I'm already looking for alternative improved positions I can create out of whatever flavor and landscape objects I can patch together. lesson: be careful what you wish for. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Polo Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Sorry SlapHappy, but I don't get your point: having the trenches with FOW does not necessarily imply they are not working... On my part, I agree the trenches are partly disfunctional: I don't think they are protecting enough from small arms. You just have to test the training campaign to be convinced of it, but I have had other examples of it. It appears hedges ("bocage") is almost like a supernatural protection, whereas trenches seem far less efficient. I hope they are more protective against mortar fire. Have you also go this impression? Polo 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Didn't say they weren't "working". But Steve has said a number of times that LOS in the game is real point to point line traced. If you look at the trench object in the game, you can see that the coverage area for a soldier is only about waist high and that's only if he is in the kneeling position. So without tweaking the numbers a bit for additional benefit, that's all the cover that those soldiers in trenches will enjoy. Which, of course, may be exactly what they did, but it's never been outlined by BFC (to my knowledge) how that works (tweaked or no). Remember, trenches and foxholes are simply objects on top of the terrain mesh - they do not in any way deform the terrain (to conform with the desire for FOW). Doing it this way solves the FOW problem, but may lead to some other undesired side effects, such as the anti-tank gun problem mentioned above...... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 A large portion of the fan base wanted FOW trenches and foxholes. Well, their arguments won the day, and they got what they wanted. Unfortunately it seems there are some unintended consequences of having non-deformed terrain for defensive works. As far as I am concerned the trade-offs were possibly not worth achieving the FOW capability. But now we don't have the option to "paint" our trenches or holes in the ground with the elevation tools because the "brush" is too coarse for the job. I'm already looking for alternative improved positions I can create out of whatever flavor and landscape objects I can patch together. lesson: be careful what you wish for. I don't see how giving us FoW on the placeable trenches and foxholes has made the cover situation any worse. If anything this looks like a limitation that sneaked in by "placeable", not by "subject to FoW". Still no word on concealment, or on gun cover from foxholes (any better than in trenches)? Can we have a table of units versus fortifications versus cover versus concealment. 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.