alexaus wrote:what kinda degree of looking up do they get
Right he raises a important point I was about to mention myself. These emplacements need to be balanced a little in regard to maximum depression and maximum elevation. As some of you already know the current emplacements whether they be high calibre machine guns or ground to air missile emplacements. All suffer to some extent on the maximum depresson they can obtain. This means that if you deploy assets on a hill they cannot use the added height generated by the terrain to there advantage.
So instead of having a well placed weapon with a great open area below on which you can rain suppressive or accurate fire. You instead have a weapon emplacement which suffers because it cannot depress the elevation of the weapons barrel far enough to bring it to bear. Now obviously in real life you would simply move the weapon if such a problem occurred or ideally you would have set up the weapon so it would never create this problem in the first place. Granted you might decrease your maximum elevation in favour of ensuring that your maximum depression will leave no area uncovered by the weapon. Further more you might have any area uncovered by one weapon covered by another, mined, obstructed or observed by accompanying infantry. We however do not have those luxury's since bases are often constructed quickly without allot of forethought nor tact in game and are under manned compared to real life.
Right if your at a lose as to what I mean I will show you. You will have to excuse my image as I'm in a rush and I'm being hounded to go off to a NYE party.
In this image I have created a visual representation of what the current system is like. We have created a entrenched position on a hill overlooking a valley and directly onto another hill. Ideally in doing so we would create a strong position that would allow use to control all of the valley below, the side of the hill directly opposite all of the way up until the crest where we lose visibility.
However as you can see the effective field of fire the weapon currently has does not allow use to cover the valley. It instead creates a large area of defilade which the enemy will use to get close to the base and easily remove all threat it posed.
Now the second image shows something more like it should be. Granted it may not always be 100% correct to the values that all of the emplaced weapons we current have in PR are attributed in real life. It will however have a dramatic effect on the games balancing. Giving fire bases a much better opportunity of being defended especially from vehicles once the ATGM's are added. Also note the defilade still exists but it is exaggerated because of the height of the hills. Many of such height and slope can be found in the current PR maps.
One thing to note however the AA is the complete opposite of the picture it needs to have greater maximum elevation and less maximum depression to prevent it being used as an annoyance by silly gamers who are bored.
Hope that gets a few gears turning in some of your heads guys. Even if something like this is not implemented you need to think about where and how your place your weapon emplacements based on what they can actually take aim at. Due to there depression and elevation constraints.
Finally I would not add to much elevation to the ATGM's although they are often slated to be capable of use against slow moving air assets it would not be great for game balancing if they are too effective.
Project Reality: Dutch Armed Forces on facebook
