It's got to go.

[womble]

It really has. Before we come to the wide open plains of the Rodina. What has to go? The requirement to be able to spot the ground plane at the centre of an AS before you can area fire on it.

The farcical consequences of being unable to shoot at the facade of a building that you can clearly see, just because adjacent buildings block your view of a back room have been apparent for some time. However, I've just come across the problem out in the open for the first time. A battle on flat, open fields of crops, wheat and long grass makes it impossible to:

[li]

[*]Shoot at walls or other linear obstacles (even tall ones) that the ground cover goes right up to the foot of, because you can't see the ground at their base;

[*]Shoot at the ground floor of buildings that the crop goes right up to for the same reason;

[*]Area fire pretty much anywhere

[*](and this is quite the most significant) you can't lay smoke where you'd want to because it uses the same rule.

[/li]

Now, I can live with not area firing into wheatfields; most of the time it's a waste of time and I can see how getting a precise groundhit through the obscuration ought to be problemmatical, but the crops getting in the way of shooting at walls, bocage and buildings is just silly. And stopping you targeting smoke on those things perhaps critically so. A Panzer IV 100m away from a 12' stone wall should be able to blow big holes in it. Some waist high wheat running up to the base of the wall shouldn't make the wall invulnerable.

When did buildings become "invalid smoke targets" too? Hopefully that will go away when fire gets sorted out...

[Collingwood]

Wholeheartedly agree, although I'm not sure there's any solution on the way.

It's frustrating to not be able to target with mortars a tall building simply because the spotter can't see the doorstep.

[Glubokii Boy]

I agree...

This has to be the biggest problem stopping the idea 'what you see is what you get'...

primarally in city fighting

Besides the situations you have mentioned it also makes the overall planning more difficult in my opinion...It sure would be a huge improvment if you could scan the map for good fireing possitions for the supporting weapons and actually be able to shoot at areas that you can clearly see from those locations. Currently that is not the case (i know i can place a waypoint anywhere i like and check line of sight from that location).

I would guess that the main reason for this is the requirement to be able to se the groundtile at that location...

edit...

When i say "be able to see"... I mean be able to see that pice of terrain using the number 1 hight level and not... being able to see according to the blue line of sight line...

[nachinus]

I agree. I've also suffered great pains experiencing how I can't order area fire to the tall bocage wall 60 meters in front of my MMG because there's a wheat field in the way. Of course, it's even more frustrating with mortars.

[Tank Hunter]

Agree, there must be a way to solve this. I have issues with this in more or less all games. Another thing is the inabillity to shoot with HMGs and other crew weapons since only one crew member can see the target and it's usually not the gunner.

[Erwin]

This LOS issue is IMO the last remaining seriously irritating problem with the CM2 game. Either there has to be a system where the AI will move the gun/HMG a few inches so that it can fire at the desired target that only the "3rd ammo carrier" can see... Or... the system needs to allow us to order the main crewed weapon to shoot at whatever any member of the crew can see.

[Mingan]

This has to be the biggest problem stopping the idea 'what you see is what you get'...

primarally in city fighting

Yes. Recently I have been often in a situation where "what I see is what I can't get". It is very frustrating.

[Doug Williams]

Agree. Good thread.

[Pak40]

I agree, this is one of the technical things about CMx2 that really bugs me. This is a 3D game yet we are confined to a 2D action spot whenever we want to target something other than a unit. I think the solution might be to make the action spots a cube instead of a square. If they give it a 3rd dimension then units will be able to area fire on the vertical planes of bocage, walls, fences, and buildings instead of having to rely on the visual of spotting the ground.

[A co]

Similarly, it would be nice to be able to fire on, or call for fire on, terrain such as a heavily forested hillside. Currently you can't do it because you can't see the ground under the trees.

[Mike Churchmoor]

What has to go? The requirement to be able to spot the ground plane at the centre of an AS before you can area fire on it.

Similarly, it would be nice to be able to fire on, or call for fire on, terrain such as a heavily forested hillside. Currently you can't do it because you can't see the ground under the trees.

These are two of my biggest immersion brakers in CMx2. I really like the game as its current state, but if these would get a fix or get better...That would indeed be awesome.

[z1812]

A solution to this problem would relieve quite a bit of frustration with spotting and targeting.

[MeatEtr]

Well as you can see you'll get no argument on this topic. Since pretty much everybody and their grandma wants this fixed/tweaked. If memory serves Steve said something along the lines that it's a limitation of the engine and that we'll most likely just have to live with it. And that to fix it would take serious time consuming effort.

[womble]

I'd contest that the serious effort needs to be put in. I think we're "only" talking about having the Target line algorithm (presumably used in slightly amended forms by Target Light/Briefly/Smoke) be able to detect the intersection of the line with terrain element planes/voxels as well as unit and smoke element planes. It's not like the calculation has to be assessed continuously for more than one element per player, and the target point isn't going to move (though it may go away, but "Target" already deals with that). Such intersection calculation occurs all the time: LOS to the Hiding/Cowering infantry element in that building is interrupted by the facade of the building, so the LOS tool is already doing that calculation routinely. I don't have any doubt that it's a chunk of work, but the concept of what's needed seems relatively straightforward and a lot of the tools look like they already exist for other tasks. Even if it only worked for specific terrain elements placed on the ground, and not for the ground itself, that would be a step change.

[PhilM]

I'd contest that the serious effort needs to be put in. I think we're "only" talking about having the Target line algorithm (presumably used in slightly amended forms by Target Light/Briefly/Smoke) be able to detect the intersection of the line with terrain element planes/voxels as well as unit and smoke element planes. It's not like the calculation has to be assessed continuously for more than one element per player, and the target point isn't going to move (though it may go away, but "Target" already deals with that). Such intersection calculation occurs all the time: LOS to the Hiding/Cowering infantry element in that building is interrupted by the facade of the building, so the LOS tool is already doing that calculation routinely. I don't have any doubt that it's a chunk of work, but the concept of what's needed seems relatively straightforward and a lot of the tools look like they already exist for other tasks. Even if it only worked for specific terrain elements placed on the ground, and not for the ground itself, that would be a step change.

Thanks for re-raising this: like the others who have posted, I agree entirely with your OP (this is one of - if not the - biggest barriers to the suspension of disbelief within the game), and the first point above that the effort does need to be put in to fix it.

I can remember my first encounter with this, as I minutely manoeuvred the view down the barrel and out of the muzzle brake of a StuG to prove to myself that the weapon was indeed pointing right at the side of a building on which I wanted to area fire from a few hundred metres away (with no intervening obstructions etc of course), only to be told there was no LOS!

But I'm curious: has BF ever said WHY this happens now? And as a consequence, what does actually need changing?

I wonder if it is as "simple" as (my bold) your intersection of targeting line and terrain element planes point, above? Because, if I understand your point correctly, you can already happily target an empty terrain AS - e.g. on the opposite, facing slope across a valley - if you can see into it? So the targeting line does already interact with empty terrain tiles in which ground level is visible?

But what you cannot do is (as I wanted to do with my StuG example!) is simply launch a shell off into the blue and see what it hits.

My mind has wandered to the point of asking: does this mean that the targeting calculation needs not only a point of origin from the weapon but also a KNOWN point of impact (which may or may not be the intended target), on which the results calculation is then performed?

So, if the target is a unit of some sort, this works. And also with empty terrain where ground level is visible.

But if ground level (nor a unit) is not visible, then the targeting calculation does not / cannot work because there is no known impact point, and so you have "no LOS"? This would explain why you cannot do what I wanted to do with the StuG and issue a "FFS, JFTFG" order: the targeting, and hence firing, calculation cannot work without a "known at the point of firing" impact point. (Taking into account in-turn movement, and so including things that become in LOS as the turn progresses.)

This may be rubbish! But if it is anything like right, then it is something more fundamental to the CMx2 game world that needs changing to e.g. allow you to area fire across a valley into wooded terrain when we can already happily target the empty terrain AS right next to it?

[JoMac]

I wonder if slightly raising the elevation of major areas in the editor work ( Buildings, Villages, etc ). This might allow you for example, to shoot over a Corn Field into the Building, Village, etc. Maybe a work around...Dunno.

Joe

[womble]

But I'm curious: has BF ever said WHY this happens now? And as a consequence, what does actually need changing?

I don't think so, in so many words. My guess would be that it's related to the "AS-to-AS" LOS map that's originally created.

I wonder if it is as "simple" as (my bold) your intersection of targeting line and terrain element planes point, above?

Oh, probably not. Almost certainly not, deep in the coding/mechanics, but it's a "statement of the priniciple" that might suffice to allow the behaviour to improve.

Because, if I understand your point correctly, you can already happily target an empty terrain AS - e.g. on the opposite, facing slope across a valley - if you can see into it?

Oh, indubitably. You can even target an AS on the same level as you if there's only tarmac/dirt/short grass between your location and the target spot.

So the targeting line does already interact with empty terrain tiles in which ground level is visible?

Yes. It's the other "terrain class" items that the line interacts with in an apparently "inconsistent" manner: why does a wall block LOS but not count as something you can aim at?

My mind has wandered to the point of asking: does this mean that the targeting calculation needs not only a point of origin from the weapon but also a KNOWN point of impact (which may or may not be the intended target), on which the results calculation is then performed?

If that's the case, the XYZ coordinates of the terminus of the target line (which does track across the plane of walls etc) would seem to be the "known" POI.

I wonder if slightly raising the elevation of major areas in the editor work ( Buildings, Villages, etc ). This might allow you for example, to shoot over a Corn Field into the Building, Village, etc. Maybe a work around...Dunno.

It's possibly a workaround, but I think it would look odd... And wouldn't help with tall LOS-blockers like buildings in a row.

[A Canadian Cat]

This LOS issue is IMO the last remaining seriously irritating problem with the CM2 game. Either there has to be a system where the AI will move the gun/HMG a few inches so that it can fire at the desired target that only the "3rd ammo carrier" can see... Or... the system needs to allow us to order the main crewed weapon to shoot at whatever any member of the crew can see.

I agree that the OP's issue is a serious issue. This crewed weapon LOS issue is a separate one thought. And while less serious than the building issue it is very irritating when it crops up too.

But I'm curious: has BF ever said WHY this happens now?

In a nut shell to target you need to have a target. If you can see an enemy then you can target them. If not then to area fire you need to target the centre of an action square.

This means that if you can spot an enemy in a building you can shoot at them and fire at the building your unit can see. But if you cannot see any enemy in the building then you must target the centre of the action square for area fire - which is often the centre of the building. However, as has been described, you often cannot see the centre of the action square because it is blocked by the building next door. This is where the silliness comes from. Some how we need the ability to target building faces and walls so that we can do sensible things like shoot at buildings down the street.

[PhilM]

...

In a nut shell to target you need to have a target. If you can see an enemy then you can target them. If not then to area fire you need to target the centre of an action square.

Mmm, sorry that my question must have been a bit too obtuse! I knew this bit (above) already (though thanks anyway for responding): but my question "why" still applies to this. You have to have a target to target (self evidently); but why do we have to have a target - of either a unit or the centre of an AS - to fire at all is what I meant.

BF have said (I think!) in threads like the Panther shot trap still not trapping, and half track gunners, that once a round is fired the outcome is purely down to "ballistics".

But if you want to "just in case" area fire into, say, woods across a valley on the slope facing you where you cannot see ground level because of the woods themselves, not because of the relative AS elevation itself, why does the engine not permit area fire at all?

You may be wasting time and ammo on an empty AS; or you may hit and kill a team, say, without ever knowing it unless and until you get LOS to the AS in question and find the bodies.

But if the engine is tracking and computing results for every round fired, wherever it goes, why can't we just fire and see - or not see! - what happens?

That was the thought process that led me to wonder if it is because the computations require a known impact point at the moment of firing (though that might not be the point aimed at, as rounds do miss, as I know to my cost ...).

So, a round cannot just be fired off into the distance because there is currently no computation of what might happen to it: the round's impact point - and effect - is worked out at the moment it is fired, and that effect can be known only in an AS with LOS?

As I said first time, that may be a surmise or two too far; but it seemed to me to provide one answer as to why this works the way it does now.

[gunnersman]

BF have said (I think!) in threads like the Panther shot trap still not trapping, and half track gunners, that once a round is fired the outcome is purely down to "ballistics".

You may be wasting time and ammo on an empty AS; or you may hit and kill a team, say, without ever knowing it unless and until you get LOS to the AS in question and find the bodies.

But if the engine is tracking and computing results for every round fired, wherever it goes, why can't we just fire and see - or not see! - what happens?

That was the thought process that led me to wonder if it is because the computations require a known impact point at the moment of firing (though that might not be the point aimed at, as rounds do miss, as I know to my cost ...).

So, a round cannot just be fired off into the distance because there is currently no computation of what might happen to it: the round's impact point - and effect - is worked out at the moment it is fired, and that effect can be known only in an AS with LOS?

As I said first time, that may be a surmise or two too far; but it seemed to me to provide one answer as to why this works the way it does now.

Let me take a crack at your question. Maybe it will steer the discussion in the right direction.

The short version, as I understand it, is that the Combat Mission x2 (CMSF, CM:Afghanistan, CMBN, CMFI) engine has it's own physics rules, and not just a bunch of tables with expected outcomes ("if this, then this" programing...I probably know enough of programing to get myself into deep trouble).

LOS is not tied directly to ballistics.

There is a whole lengthy discussion archived out there somewhere before CMBN published about the 'engineering', so to speak, of the engine.

If you notice, speed of sound is even modeled. You will hear an explosion with a longer delay after impact if you are 1000m away when compared to only 100m away. FYI

[PhilM]

Let me take a crack at your question. Maybe it will steer the discussion in the right direction.

The short version, as I understand it, is that the Combat Mission x2 (CMSF, CM:Afghanistan, CMBN, CMFI) engine has it's own physics rules, and not just a bunch of tables with expected outcomes ("if this, then this" programing...I probably know enough of programing to get myself into deep trouble).

LOS is not tied directly to ballistics.

There is a whole lengthy discussion archived out there somewhere before CMBN published about the 'engineering', so to speak, of the engine.

If you notice, speed of sound is even modeled. You will hear an explosion with a longer delay after impact if you are 1000m away when compared to only 100m away. FYI

Yep, I get that (my bold bit above); I don't think otherwise, and didn't think what I'd written implied that I did. But if I was unclear, apologies.

I'm running out of ways to frame the question; the simplest way I can think of to rephrase it is: why can we not fire (and have the resulting ballistic and physics calculations applied to) a shot that is aimed into an AS that we do not have ground level LOS into, because of a LOS obstruction, but could otherwise hit, as in the firing into woods example? Why does there have to be a target - be it a unit, or a ground level view AS, - available before a round can be fired?

Any clearer?

If it is simply a BF decision that this would be such an infrequent occurrence that they decided not to allow it, then fine: that's why it cannot happen in game. But this seems unlikely, for one thing because such a choice could presumably be reversed relatively easily coding-wise, and so not require a lot of work to do as has been mentioned?

But if the engine's ballistics and physics cannot cope with doing it, why not? This is what I don't understand ... and why I proposed the "known impact point" idea above.

In saying that the calculations MAY require a known impact point at the time of firing, I was not implying that the results are worked out by tables, etc. Ballistics and physics apply as the shot is fired and its effects calculated.

But the ballistics and physics are being applied only to a - large, admittedly - proportion of the total POSSIBLE firing options, with some options (no "target") excluded? It is this close-ending of the calculations that I am struggling to get to grips with ...

[A Canadian Cat]

I'm running out of ways to frame the question; the simplest way I can think of to rephrase it is: why can we not fire (and have the resulting ballistic and physics calculations applied to) a shot that is aimed into an AS that we do not have ground level LOS into, because of a LOS obstruction, but could otherwise hit, as in the firing into woods example? Why does there have to be a target - be it a unit, or a ground level view AS, - available before a round can be fired?

Ah, I see. Simply put - I have no idea.

I could speculate that it could be because, for targeting to work, the gunner needs something to aim at. They have a process for a gunner to aim his gun but "he" needs something to aim at. To do what you want they would have to allow the gunner to aim at 10 degrees to his left and 5 degrees elevation along some targeting line that you placed out in space. Sounds a lot more difficult to do than to have a solid thing the gunner is aiming at.

[womble]

I'm pretty sure any shooter (and this will almost certainly apply to every rifleman out there, as well as vehicle gunners) needs a notional "point of aim", for the initial calculations of weapon pointing, which the subsequent arbitrary deviation from the ideal of that based on circumstance (of skill, environmental factors affecting the shooter etc) will change. The ballistics calculation will then take the altered aim point and determine how that means the weapon has actually been laid, then add the weapon's dispersion factors to determine the initial trajectory, which will then be deterministically modelled within the probability constraints of the engine's trajectory modelling algorithm (does it include windage?). Why that notional initial aim point can't be the x,y,z coordinates of the terminus of the target line when the mouse is clicked, regardless of the LOS status of the centre of the AS is unknown to us mere mortals...

[gunnersman]

I always just assumed you could not area target or call in arty through trees on the side of a slope, hill, mountain, what have you, because there is no LOS to the ground. But I could understand why someone would come away incredulous that this is so. Its seems so simple to be able to do that in real life. I chalk it up to engine limitations. But, yes, whatever the case may be, not being able to get LOS through trees to call in artillery or CAS to the side of a hill definitely has GOT TO GO.

[poesel]

I'm pretty sure that CM as an engine can aim at anything on the battlefield. Proof for that is that the target pointer draws a line anywhere I like. There is no technical limitation.

But it wouldn't make much sense to allow that. The real gunner needs something to aim at (artillery being the exception). Why should he fire through a bush 800m across the board at something he cannot see? That would be pretty weird.

So BFC has put in the system we have - you need LOS before you can pull the trigger.

But our troopers also fire on their own and the engine needs to determine if A sees B. Since we don't have infinite CPU we have the action spot system in place. Now there are not infinite number of rays to trace from every point but but only one ray every 8m^2 to every other AS (even less with a pre-rendered look up table).

Good for CM, good for us because it's fast. But it has its problems. The ray is drawn from AS centre to AS centre at 1m height (IIRC)(excluding units from this example). If this ray gets blocked (by a wall or grass) there is no LOS. Similar with buildings - can't see the centre point, can't aim at the building.

It's a good solution because it works good most of the times. But when it doesn't - grrrr...

This is one of the problems where we humans excel and computers have a hard time. Or in this case: one human has a hard time teaching that to a computer. I'll hope he finds a good solution because this issue, when it comes up, drives me nuts as everyone else here.