movement and fortifications

[DRG]

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

[Siddhi]

good comments, thanks for them

i.) the "wood issue" is still a tricky one for me. putting mud as a base is a good solution, i tried it with swamp once but the problem remains that whatever base terrain you use (impassible, mud, swamp), infatry movement is cut drastically as well. given that one of the whole points of infantry is movement in broken terrain i find the "work arounds" not completly satisfactory. For instance, in our concept of a "delay defence" it is completly dependet on the ability of the infantry to emerge (or stay hidden) in a wood, fire, and evade into the wood before direct fire can be brough in. often in my case i have tanks/aifvs charge in after them (ok, fair play) and be able to match their foot speed (definetly not fair play) and gun them down.

also, i have problems "forcing" my AI units to stick to the roads and not try to cross broken terrain - and getting stuck in the process. setting waypoints for every platoon unit is a regiment+ scenario is a bit of a bore.

ii.) fair point on fortifcations - it would be easier to show with a scenario an example and see what the consensus was. one my issues was the armour ratios of bunkers, which are rather low in my view. the second problem, which might be a misunderstanding of the game dynamics, was the ratio of "turrent" to "hull" on he bunker side. Presumably "turrent" refers to the firing slit in an (embunkered) position, however it seems to have (based on the ease in which tanks can hit it in the game)on the actual Turrent/hull ratio of armoured units - obviously this ration more balanced then the firing slit/bunker wall ratio (WAG: 1:2.5 for a tank and 1:10 for a bunker). Thus critical "knock-out" happen much easier to a bunker then they should.

iii.) thanks for the lesson on vehicle size. didn't know, and i agree it probablly is sufficently calculated.

another question:
any suggestions how to force an AI unit to keep its squads mounted? my scenario requires them to remain so, but seem to dismount automatically at any fortified (mined, obstacle) line, even if it is already breached and overcome. i basically want the second wave to remain mounted and attack the second line, however they seem to dismount at the first line, even after breach.

[Listy]

Siddhi said:
good comments, thanks for them

i.) the "wood issue" is still a tricky one for me. putting mud as a base is a good solution, i tried it with swamp once but the problem remains that whatever base terrain you use (impassible, mud, swamp), infatry movement is cut drastically as well. given that one of the whole points of infantry is movement in broken terrain i find the "work arounds" not completly satisfactory. For instance, in our concept of a "delay defence" it is completly dependet on the ability of the infantry to emerge (or stay hidden) in a wood, fire, and evade into the wood before direct fire can be brough in. often in my case i have tanks/aifvs charge in after them (ok, fair play) and be able to match their foot speed (definetly not fair play) and gun them down.

If the tanks in dense terrian, force it to close up (slap some suppression on it) then close assault it, either from ambush or the flanks. That'll stop it following you, hopefully