I've been intending to run a series of tests on this sort of thing myself; troops in the open, troops in foxholes, troops in forest, troops in forest in foxholes, etc.
I've been intending to run a series of tests on this sort of thing myself; troops in the open, troops in foxholes, troops in forest, troops in forest in foxholes, etc.
One thing I've been wanting to test out for ages is what the best way of stalking an enemy tank is. It's a situation that keeps coming up in nearly all battles: You know where an enemy tank is, but how is the best way to spot it and take it out without getting spotted in return?
You obviously need to give your tank the enemy contact and to unbutton. But should you approach in hull-down? Does it matter with what speed you drive up to the crest of the hill? Is it better to use HUNT or FAST? Does it help to give a covered arc?
It seems the game gives a massive spotting bonus VS moving vehicles. The spotting bonus for firing tanks seems smaller. This means that in some cases, expecially at long range, your tank moving into position is easily spotted but can't spot the enemy tank firing on it.
You obviously need to give your tank the enemy contact and to unbutton. But should you approach in hull-down? Does it matter with what speed you drive up to the crest of the hill? Is it better to use HUNT or FAST? Does it help to give a covered arc?
It seems the game gives a massive spotting bonus VS moving vehicles. The spotting bonus for firing tanks seems smaller. This means that in some cases, expecially at long range, your tank moving into position is easily spotted but can't spot the enemy tank firing on it.
Plenty of things we don't know...
Like you say c2 and unbutton are most important. Without any actual testing done, just from ingame observation over the years (and reading), I'd say hunt + covered arc. Not sure how much the movement commands matter, but I am quite sure that the faster the movement, the faster you are noticed.
Use cover and concealment if available (hull down, bushes, trees, buildings).
There is no guarantee you will not be spotted first, but with a narrow covered you will have increased chances to spot quicker.
Another important factor to scoot after a while. Especially after firing, but I'd usually also scoot if I didn't fire.
Edit: also, use your tanks in pairs at minimum.
This is one of the things I'd like to test..
I used to swear this had no effect, but I have started to believe it actually works... Still, not sure if I'm just imagining things.
Problem being that if you didn't spot yet, you're just back to where you started - but if you then want to go up the crest again, you'll have to "roll the dice" again for being spotted while moving.
One thing I can say is the 'hull down' command is a tricky beast, especially if you use it where sight lines may be obscured by trees or shrubs, I've told tanks to peek over a rise only to have them happily motor forward far further than I had intended.
Yea by a wide margin. At least as far as protecting infantry is concerned. I would assume that trenches are a bit better at protecting atgs from direct he fire because it puts a physical barrier in front of the atg.
Basically foxholes represent some of the best cover infantry can get. IIRC on map stonewalls provide equal cover against direct fire but obviously not against indirect and buildings are comparable with the large churches possibly being better.
The difficult thing to test spotting good enough to actually make a solid case is that there is quite some randomness involved as well. This would have to be offset by the number of tests. There are formula for how much tests one would need to get a representative result, but I've not been into that kind of stuff for over a decade.
I believe it works, but there are other negatives to arcs so I don't use m that much.
True, there is a lot of variable variables going on and randomness as well. So every action has up- and downsides. I think this means that there is no golden rule for all contexts.
However; if you have the c2 contact, you still know where the enemy is so that isn't lost. And yes, you'd have to move again. But in between you weren't spottable at all and have broken any potential spots the enemy had.
Maybe something changed in recent years, because I used to always find them really poor cover. I'd rank them below pretty much any other alternative, apart from basic garden hedges. Actually until Drifter Man tested them out methodically, I suspected they might not even give any cover at all against direct fire.I thought they were meant to only protect against artillery.
And I'm still not sure how good they actually are. The tests show they are better than having no cover at all... but how much better are they than, say a low wall or a building?
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/130RTbJ8HABwYqp4rTvsBU4NASTWebO3K4igNDxL1W28/edit#gid=0
I tested regular american infantry platoons against each other at around 200m.
they easily beat stonewalls and forests and loose to buildings while in the open. However if they are inside a dense forest (heavy forest tile and max trees) they are about equal.
edit doc should be visible now
Last edited:
Thanks for sharing - the file needs access permission though?
This also tells us another interesting thing - that foxholes provide cover in addition to the underlying terrain, not replacing it.
I could imagine that foxholes are getting a revival now that troops are more likely to stay in them under fire.
After the first few tests i did with them ive regularly included them when defending.
In your tests, did they ever run away from their foxholes?
Also, when you tested against "forest", how many trees were in each square?
Also, when you tested against "forest", how many trees were in each square?
They never ran from the foxholes. The units in forest without foxholes crawled away and those at the wall ran away sometimes.
the forest was heavy forest tiles with 3 trees
In starting my tests for artillery effects on foxholed/non-foxholed troops I've had hiding elite/fanatic troops run out of their foxholes constantly while under a heavy 81mm mortar barrage.
As they won't stay in their holes I'll have to reset the test to a lighter barrage so they (hopefully) won't bail.
Here is the map and save file, no password - just press go. It's CMBN.
As they won't stay in their holes I'll have to reset the test to a lighter barrage so they (hopefully) won't bail.
Here is the map and save file, no password - just press go. It's CMBN.
Did you upgrade to latest version? This is supposed to have been fixed...
Yup, patch 4.03.
I'm surprised and disappointed to hear that. Did you report it on the official forum?