Kim Jong ill wrote:I completely understand where you coming from in regard to stacking objects under the feet of the tripod. But I still think I have a valid point when it comes to adjusting the legs of the tripod in order to manipulate the default level of elevation.
The feet of the tripod are designed to operate effectively at different angles, as to allow the raising and lowering of the whole assemble to facilitate different required heights, correct? One could assume from what we know that by adjusting the length and angle of the front leg you would not be compromising the performance of the front spade?
This I'm genuinely interested in, because I assume the same principle would be applied when employing the tripod on angled terrain in order to produce a level firing platform.
I understand your frustration, the only reason I'm pushing this avenue is that I'd like to know if you have any first hand experience in this specific application.
The problem that I'm seeing with this suggestion though is that it would only be needed if a player is placing their fighting position in a location that a real soldier would not find practical or tactically sound.
If you are on a slope face that is steep enough to require you to adjust your tripod's elevation outside of "normal" limits, then you are in my opinion on a slope that you shouldn't be. In most cases, slopes of that level of steepness present many tactical dangers.
I spent a minute in photoshop to draw up some very simple diagrams to explain a point.
1) In the image above, you see the HMG emplacement on a lightly-sloping hill, along with lines representing the up/down elevation limits. As you can see, the weapon is generally capable of covering the entire sector with minimal dead space, not really enough to permit an enemy soldier to move under.
In most cases, especially on flat terrain, this is how your HMG emplacements will be situated.
2) In the image above, we now have a much steeper hill, and here you can see the weapon system is no longer capable of covering the terrain below.
This is the situation it appears people are concerned with and the reason for this topic.
3) This image is of the same terrain slope as in the #2 image, but the gun crew has been repositioned on the forward edge of the slope. As you can see, their weapon is now able to cover the terrain below, but the gun emplacement is at an odd angle in order to achieve that coverage.
Yet this is how people are currently suggesting the HMG's be changed, to permit emplacements to be positioned on slopes that are extremely steep angles.
As a soldier myself, I would never position my own gun crew onto a slope as shown in diagram #3. Not only would your fighting position need to be angled as well, but you have now placed yourself in a very dangerous spot. At that point, you are now susceptible to objects rolling downhill from above, and your rear is going to be very difficult to secure. You are also making yourself a much easier target for anyone in front of you that isn't directly below your position.
You will also need to rely much more on some kind of overhead protection in addition to your frontal protection, and will be incapable of defending against aircraft or firing at long-distance targets.
Considering the same terrain as #2, I'd keep my position along the top of the ridge (pulling it back slightly for security) and just cover the dead zone with indirect fire and/or overlap it with other positions.
The key point being that you are always aware of any limitations in your weapon systems. If you are unable to cover a specific portion of terrain, you'll need to determine another location from which you can position yourself or how to employ other weapons/positions to cover that area.
Personally, I'd rather position myself further back from any slope too steep to cover with my own HMG, and shoot the enemy as they crest the hill. If the terrain is that steep, they'll be tired as hell by the time you light em up, and they'll be easy pickins.
