Quote:
serg3d said:
I'm wondering - if AI code could be modified so hull-down position could be implemented ? The tank in hull-down position, on the edge of the slope could have it's size reduced, and hit into hull blocked, and have the same area of visibility as tank on top. The more difficult thing would be to make AI to choose those position. Though may be not so difficult - in the attack tank stop as soon as it see the target - that is exactly in hull-down position, and in the defense deployement it should be moved forward or back until it is hull-down.
|
There are limitations to this given that each hex represents 50 metres and half a football field is a big area. However, if you run a test you will find that a tank on a ridge is given a lower to-hit chance than one and at the same range and on the same level as the firing unit so what you are asking for is already simulated in the game.
In the test I just ran ( so I could provide you with the exact numbers ) a Challenger 2+ firing at a size 5 tank at 350 metres range with that target tank on the same level as the firing unit was given a 99% to hit chance and when firing at a target tank on a ridge one level higher than the firing unit that to-hit chance dropped to 84% ( range was also 350 metres )
When the range was set to 600 metres, the tank on the same level as the firing unit was given an 89% to-hit chance and the one on the ridge at 600 metres was given an 80% chance. Note that the to-hit percentages are narrowing as the tank is further away and the angle it's firing upward decreases. In the 350 metre test it was 15% difference, in the 600 metre test the difference is down to a 9% difference. When the firing unit is 850 metres away from the target at the same level the to-hit drops to 55% and the target on the level 1 ridge is 55 % as well.
All test were ran with standardized crew and leader ratings for the firing units so variations in crew and leader ability are not a factor in the testing as they would be if they are not standardized
Don