The Commander Series Forum

An issue that has come up in both the games of CWC I've played to far has been the absence (as far as I can see) of the ability to go "hull down" behind a crest.

Am I right, by the way, or did I miss it?

I'm considering allowing vehicle elements just behind a crest line to claim cover if they have spent a Deploy action finding suitable firing positions. What do you think?

Richard C

The Hull down questions has come up before IIRC.

I think Pete said that you could go HD as an initiative action (regardless of enemy proximity?).

We allow them to go HD as an order in the command phase if they were touching the countour. This represents the difficulty in getting a proper HD position.

Also, we then say targets are hit on a 6. This might seem a bit too strong but head on the turret represents <1/2 of the target area AND the turret mantlet is normally the strongest armour.

We play it this way for BKC and CWC and it seems to work well.

Don't forget that units on a hill are already counted as being in soft or partial cover rather than in the open (with “partial cover” being a decent enough working definition of what a hull-down position is).

Agreed. The soft-cover categorisation for troops on a hill already builds the concept of crest lines, hull-down etc into it. So IMO there should be no reason to require separate house rules (and increase complexity) for hull-down. AFVs on hills are already harder to hit than those in the open.

cheers,

bish

Isn't there also the assumption made that units are already making the best possible use of available cover in whatever terrain they're located in?

I've not seen the thread Dr. Dave cites, so I'll be eager to hear Pete weigh in on this.

Oddly enough - I've never found that bit in the rules! Hence, if you're ona hill (and not hull down) you get NO cover - sollouetted against the sky etc...?

You're probably right though (when I can find it), particularly at the 1 model = 1 platoon level. I'd still be tempted to employ it in "skirmish" games at the 1=1 level.

What page is it on?

I've always assumed that the partial cover given by hills means that the troops are making bet use of the available terrain and that includes being hull down.

See the ‘Target Unit’ table towards the foot of page 20 for what level of cover is appropriate for units on a hill.

I too had missed the reference to hills as giving cover. I guess it wasn't what I was expecting to see so I didn't see it! We have a second playtest session coming up soon so we'll see what difference it makes.

It seems a little counter-intuitive to have units moving down the forward slope of a hill given the same cover value as the overwatching/opportunity firing units in hull-down positions shooting at them from the other side of the valley.

Richard C

I game hull down by only letting units partially behind the crest of the hill to claim the partial cover bonus offered by hills. I don’t see how units on kills but not hull down should gain any cover bonus

We play the '5 to hit' soft cover when vehicles are on a hill as 'Hull Down' only. Hull Down has has to be declared when moving into position and is relevant to the facing of own and enemy troops - i.e. if outflanked or fired at from a different direction the Hull Down may not apply. If vehicles are on the forward edge of a hill the '5 to hit' is withdrawn therefore not as in the rules and is then only based on terrain cover they are in i.e. scrub, woods, urban etc.

See page 20, Target unit.
Units in soft or partial cover (ie: hedges, scrub, woods, hills, dug-in... etc etc

I go with two themes here,
1. Simplicity
2. A hill is an area of uneven ground that is used to best advantage. I guess it already includes hull down.

But I would concede that guns (not missiles) could see vehicles crossing a crest line without hinderance using Oppotunity Fire.

just don't forget KISS

2p

Huey

Real life - it's a considerable skill to take up hull down positions. A British tankee told me he used one of three ways.

a) Creep up slowly until the gunner could just see through his sights.

b) Charge over the ridge and back up fast, till the driver couldn't see forward.

c) As b but much more cautiously.

So any element could engage.

ianS

Playing WoT is quite good (no sniggering at the back!) for showing you how awkward terrain can be - if there's a dip of about the right size and depth you can get a hull down even in "open" terrain, and hills are a pain - getting the hull down position can be a sod as Ian says.

Either you creep up slowly and hope you get it right in time, or you charge up and hope you don't overshoot...

With basic crew training, finding a hull down position is actually pretty easy with a Western tank. It takes only about 12 feet change in ground level to hide a tank. Moving into a hull down position from there is just a case of pulling forward until the gunner can see.

Ian, option b is a great way to tell the other guy "Here I am!" I doubt you will get a 2d chance to try it.

Read it carefully, it says hill crest lines. That's a whole lot different than just hill.

Cold Steel - yeah, WoT shows that nicely (for those of us who've never driven a real tank in anger!) - the much greater gun depression/elevation on western style vehicles is a major boost to finding hull down cover spots.

And yes, I'd always thought it was crest lines!

If you take a close look at tank designs, you will see Soviet tanks have almost no protection when in a position to shoot, while Western designs maximize the protection of being truly hull down. Guns must point down to enable firing from the reverse slope. Soviet/Russian turrets prohibit all but a token gun depression, so the tank must be almost fully exposed to fire. My old favorite, the M60A1/A3 has a turret specifically designed for firing from the reverse slope. The excellent gun depression enabled minimal exposure to reach a firing position. Once there, the only part of the tank exposed was the gun mantlet and a few inches of the heavily sloped turret roof and forward sides. I have seen tank shells skip off the turret front slope like a smooth stone skipping on water. Leaving out the absurd TC cupola, you would be hard pressed to find a better turret design for taking full advantage of the terrain.

Leo 1 is similar, and Chieftan is virtually lying down already - but not having driven all three in anger I'm not exactly in a great position to comment