Jump to content

Trouble setting up vehicle emplacements


Recommended Posts

Happy New Year!

I created a 21km square map from one of the Heidlelbug (sp?) maps in the download area. I changed the terrain by adding trees, new roads, buildings etc in the map editor. I then started a scenario with the map. But, I noticed that when I tried to set up vehicle emplacements they were about 6 inches deep and useless.

I saw this in other scenarios I used to lean but didn't think much of it since I was able to get useable emplacements elsewhere on the map. But, in this current case I can't get a decent emplacement anywhere. I went into the map editor and changed the 'hardness' values for most of the terrain types, but that didn't work. Any ideas on what I need to do to get emplacements that are deep enough? i suspect it's something easy that I don't know about yet.

Thanks,

EMiner

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I matched the emplacement type with the vehicle. But, the problem is that no natter what vehicle it is for the emplacement is far too shallow to be useful. Any ideas on how I can deal with this?

Thanks

Use a two tier emplacement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There can be rare cases where the emplacements don't work as intended. you can try and save the scenario, then exit the editor, and open the mission again to see if it changes anything. If it doesn't work, I'd be interested in the scenario (please mark the emplacement in question with a map overlay, ideally a big red arrow. ;) ) so we can analyze the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I matched the emplacement type with the vehicle. But, the problem is that no natter what vehicle it is for the emplacement is far too shallow to be useful. Any ideas on how I can deal with this?

Thanks

So what a M1 and M1 two tier emplacement "should" look like:

Outside

8334645407_7858698a5a_c.jpg

Rear, lower, tier

8334645105_2b18083f9e_c.jpg

Front, "fighting step", tier

8335699658_6b1536a149_c.jpg

No chance that while positioning the emplacement (moving, rotating, etc.) that you may have accidentally resized it so the vehicle no longer fits or something?

Also when you say "too shallow" what do you mean?

Using the above as a "baseline" does your position expose the roadwheels in the same side on view or is the vehicle not concealed at all (i.e. the tracks are visible or somesuch)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I matched the emplacement type with the vehicle. But, the problem is that no natter what vehicle it is for the emplacement is far too shallow to be useful. Any ideas on how I can deal with this?

Thanks

Also, positioning emplacements along ridge lines or hill crests will cause them to be very shallow. They are best used in relatively flat terrain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Marko - yes, I used the two tier default emplacement.

Ssnake - I set up a number of emplacements for various vehicles on various types of terrain. I checked them all and they all showed the same problem. I saved the mission, exited, shut down SBPro, restarted it and opened the mission again...same problem. Where would you like me to send the files?

Gibsonm - Thanks for the illustrations. I can't remember seeing an emplacement that I've created as deep as that. I tend to 'drag' them out (making them longer) could that effect them in ways other than just making them longer?

Eisenschwein - Sir, with all due respect. I indicated that I wasn't sure of the spelling and I obviously made a typo by omitting the r but I don't think that merits a comment or a cartoon. I suspect we've all made little mistakes such as this.

Thanks All,

EMiner

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gibsonm - Thanks for the illustrations. I can't remember seeing an emplacement that I've created as deep as that. I tend to 'drag' them out (making them longer) could that effect them in ways other than just making them longer?

Thanks All,

EMiner

Perhaps.

I guess try "stretched" vs "non stretched" (esp. if stretching them moves them over a crest or a 5m contour line say)?

I don't make them any larger than the standard size as in RL I'd be happy to get that before the Engineer would say it was finished and move onto the next one.

If you have finite Engineer resources then for a given period of time I'd prefer to get 10 normal ones compared to 6 stretched, esp. as I'm unsure what the extra length provides you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Eisenschwein - Sir, with all due respect. I indicated that I wasn't sure of the spelling and I obviously made a typo by omitting the r but I don't think that merits a comment or a cartoon. I suspect we've all made little mistakes such as this.

Thanks All,

EMiner

For what its worth I think he was just making a joke about the name and linking it to a possible "bug", not about your typing (or spelling abilities [or possible lack thereof]). :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ssnake - I set up a number of emplacements for various vehicles on various types of terrain. I checked them all and they all showed the same problem. I saved the mission, exited, shut down SBPro, restarted it and opened the mission again...same problem. Where would you like me to send the files?

My forum name @ eSimGames.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the same problem and never even realized it. See attached scenario.

Leo 2 emplacement 2 tier: Check out the emplacements for the red side on the hill where the large tower north of the town center map is located.

There are emplacements all around it and all are no more than a foot or even inches deep in appearance.

I've tried removing and replacing them. removing and saving the scenario then closing the editor, reopening it and replacing with no luck.

I gave up working on this scenario months ago because it was just too easy to kill the tanks on the hill and it never occured to me that the reason was the red units might as well have been sitting out in the open because the emplacements were just inches deep. Tried messing around with it a while back with no further luck.

Maybe I'm getting senile and am missing something really simple.

NewBuild-A1_rar.970931bff7908ec66a20c6ac

NewBuild-A1.rar

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'd be tempted to say that putting the scrapes on the forward slope of the hill probably doesn't help too much as the main aspect of the target visible to Blue would be the top of the Red hull and turret (refer the middle picture for a rough approximation).

You still see the whole length of the vehicle from the Blue side whereas a "standard" position (on the back slope or flat terrain) still presents only the front, and less of it since its buried.

The whole idea is to use the hole to help replicate "hull down".

But from "NewBuild-A1", I picked a red tank on the hill:

8341122506_c81b812cb9_c.jpg

Map view - Tank in question circled

Here is the view (admittedly looking up hill) of the rear step:

8341142240_142db2b46d_c.jpg

Part inside the red "arc" can be targetted by Blue

Front step:

8340063777_1fe36d1e42_c.jpg

This looks shallower but I'd suspect that has something to do with the downhill slope the scrape is on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

E miner, you are correct, the vehicle fighting positions need to be redone. They are too shallow and have an pile of spoil, which should be dispersed, piled in front of the vehicle. How much ballistic protection does a pile of loose dirt provide? Even though there are those here who would tell you the emplacements are fine, these emplacements are not to standard by the Field Manual that covers these things for the US Army. Besides not being deep enough, they are painfully obvious when viewed from the front. They dont function properly on terrain that isnt flat. That is the reason they usually arent even bothered with when included in a multiplayer scenario, even when they are included by the designer.

If a two tiered position is made up of a hull down portion and a turret down portion, than it should use these dimensions. The minimum dimensions for turret defilade for an M1 series tank is 32 ft length 18 ft wide and 9 ft deep. The roof of a M-1 tank is 7.79 or basically 8 ft deep. So there shouldnt be much M-1 visible in the deep part of a two tiered position if you ask me.

I understand that in real life there is never enough engineer support nor time to get perfect positions dug, but if this is a training tool, why not use items that are depicted as being "to standard"? I only say this as the "training tool" argument is used when I ask about the M240 jamming or failing as quickly as it does when in real life it will happily fire until the cows come home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the spoil doesn't provide any ballistic protection (either here or in RL).

However, properly sited and using the camouflaged option the emplacements (not just the spoil) provide the enhanced cover and concealment that they should.

The main thing to remember is that the should be sited at least with the exit/entry point in dead ground so as you move from one to another you remain concealed.

Staying in one only is as about as good as remaining in one static hull down position - you will die eventually (either from direct or indirect fire) if you don't move.

I wont get into the point about them not complying with FM-Whatever as I suspect they never will unless the US Army actually starts to use the Sim and pays eSim to make them FM-X compliant. :)

Certainly they work fine for us in the ADF and we use the same vehicle.

And I gather the other "professional" user countries are also happy with the specs for their particular vehicle type.

Having said all that of course you can lengthen and widen them if you want, just not adjust the depth.

Edited by Gibsonm
For clarity hopefully
Link to post
Share on other sites
Well the spoil doesn't provide any ballistic protection (either here or in RL).

I think that was his point.

Properly sited and using the camouflaged option they provide the enhanced cover and concealment that they should.

Cover is protection, isnt it?

...Staying in one only is as about as good as remaining in one static hull down position - you will die eventually (either from direct or indirect fire) if you don't move.

I dont think anyone advocates staying in one for very long. especially when you have about 2:30 after you shoot before incredibly accurate arty hits you...

I wont get into the point about them not complying with FM-Whatever as I suspect they never will unless the US Army actually starts to use the Sim and pays eSim to make them FM-X compliant. :)

Certainly they work fine for us in the ADF and we use the same vehicle.

And I gather the other "professional" user countries are also happy with the specs for their particular vehicle type.

In this era of tight budgets its no small wonder to me that countries arent willing to spend money for improving these scrapes in the dirt. I dont for a second believe that that means universal satisfaction with them.

Having said all that of course you can lengthen and widen them if you want, just not adjust the depth.

I think his point is that the depth is most of the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cover is protection, isnt it?

Yes, but I don't quite understand what you mean by your comment here?

I dont think anyone advocates staying in one for very long. especially when you have about 2:30 after you shoot before incredibly accurate arty hits you...

Well I know a few who think they should be impervious to hits once there (as if they were something from the Maginot Line). :)

Aside: Sorry but I really wish the forum easily allowed for nesting quotes, so you could keep the context.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just saying in one sentence you said that spoil provides no real protection and in the next (perhaps not connected?) sentence you said that properly sighted and camoed it provides cover and concealment, creating confusion for me, at least.

Anyway, I dont have a dog in this fight. I just think the positions could be a bit deeper and less conspicuous.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was just saying in one sentence you said that spoil provides no real protection and in the next (perhaps not connected?) sentence you said that properly sighted and camoed it provides cover and concealment, creating confusion for me, at least.

Anyway, I dont have a dog in this fight. I just think the positions could be a bit deeper and less conspicuous.

No sorry. I meant the "spoil" component provides no protection.

The second comment related to the rest of the "scrape" (the hole part if you like).

I've edited my post and hopefully its clearer now.

I think there's also some issue with "deformable mess" or some other graphics / software term and that's why the emplacements and bunkers aren't perhaps as good as they should be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...