|
byron13 -> (11/16/2002 7:34:01 AM)
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jrcar
[B](years ago I read that the average engagement range in Western Europe was 500m?).
[/B][/QUOTE]
This figure is suspect. Today, I'm not bored but argumentative. I suppose if you sat down at a map and determined grid square by grid square what the engagement range would be in that grid square and then averaged all grid squares in Germany, it might come out to 500m. But the defender gets to select his defensive position and, therefore, his engagement ranges - or at least the initial engagement range. Even in the Frankenwald where we were, which would probably be broken terrain in a macro sense, we didn't settle for no stinkin' 500m shots. We (stop laughing, Sabre!) had M60s. They were twice as large as Soviet tanks and half as fast. If they ever got within 500 meters, we were decisively engaged and could not withdraw. We either killed them or they killed us. So we would give up a couple of kilometers of ground before we settled on a position that only had 500m shots. But, after I jabber all of this, the player has the same option. There will be great positions and lousy positions in the game and, as in real life, a player will look for the good positions that provide more than 500 m. So ignore all of this.
There are some places like the North German Plains where there are a lot of truly unobstructed, long-range shots. If you look on a 1:50,000 map, it looks like there are lots of 3000m shot wherever you go. When you get to that spot on a map, however, there are commonly numerous obstructions that, while individually immaterial, collectively add up to a degraded LOS/LOF. At Fort Knox, they drove this home by having everyone plan an assault over particular ground on the map, and then they would take you to the spot, and everyone would realize that their overwatch plans would not work because there were a billion trees and bushes that don't show on the map (the objective was to show that map recons were dangerous).
I guess this is all a way of saying that it is rare to find Kansas in Germany with a genuinely unobstructed shot. The best description in game terms that I can think of is that every 700 to 1000 meters or so, there is a linear obstruction of, say 3 meters in height. These would generally be some kind of hedge line that runs along a minor tractor trail that divides fields and would not show on a map. They are not trees and are not as high. If the terrain is perfectly flat, they obstruct your view. If you are any kind of a hill, they may obstruct the view to the base of the hill, but you would have unobstructed shots to other, even slightly raised areas. I'm not sure that you could put this into the game, and you certainly could not do it without indicating on the map that there is some obstruction there (e.g., a green squibbly line on the map) or giving the player some other indication that what appears to be an unobstructed view in fact is not. I don't know if you're using some kind of LOS/LOF indicator that will shade obstructed v. unobstructed views or not. But that is the reality and it did make positions that looked good on a map worthless in fact. I guess this is your mixed open category.
The thing is, though, that there is a real difference between (i) an LOS/LOF obstruction between you and the enemy and (ii) cover in at your own location that obstructs the enemy's view of you. You may be in the middle of a field with not a pebble or twig for cover in any direction for 500m. However, at 500m, there are hedges that completely surround you. So, while someone 1000m away may not be able to shoot you at all, there would be no defensive bonus whatsoever against artillery or someone shooting at you within 500m. Thus, there is a real distinction between cover at your location (which would provide a defensive bonus against both direct and indirect fire because a round of munition or shrapnel may pre-detonate, ricochet, be blocked, etc.) and an LOS/LOF obstruction that would only effect sighting and direct fire weapons. Given the effective range of modern direct fire weaponry, this is an important distinction. Again, not sure what you can do with this.
Would pictures of the German countryside help at all, or do you have a pretty good idea of what you're dealing with? Sabre's probably got some good shots from the air (even if only from 10 feet!), and us wingless types may be able to provide some other pictures that would help. There are very few spots in the U.S. that I think approximate European terrain. In my mind, Germany is either town, woods, or open fields with some kind of low crop. That's it. There isn't much that is in between that would be "broken" terrain. Over the millenia, they've cut down every tree in the fields and have left wood lines intact that have remained so for ages. I think there are fewer random obstructions in the middle of a field than we have in the U.S. I think this is because they have such limited land that they actively farm everything that isn't woods or town. There aren't any areas that were farmland fifty years ago but are now starting to grow over. You don't have houses in the middle of fields with a grouping of trees around them nor do you have shade trees for cattle sprinkled here and there. Every structure is within a well-defined town. Once you leave the last house in the town, you are in a field. There is a very distinct demarcation, and the fields go right up to the town perimeter. I also saw very few orchards where I was at, though hops grow very high and I guess vineyards might count.
|
|
|
|
