LOS Woes

[von Luck]

Why is spotting and LOS so poorly represented in this?  I have repeatedly played games where targets in plain sight fail to draw LOS to a target.  I would not be as concerned about this if it didn't happen every single game I play.  From LOS changing after mapped out at the pre-game deployment to men being unable to spot or fire on a hedge row (the terrain piece not the men behind it) a mere 100 meters away.  The game consistently falls short of even reasonable representations of LOS. 

Then, my favorite, defending assets are impossibly difficult to actually hide from an opponent.  ranging from PaK 40's, Bunkers, and SiG33's to tanks buried in woods the attacker never fails to spot what should have been a well camouflaged surprise.  I have tried any number of work a round's from hiding behind hills to combining hills and tree's however my opponent never fails to ferret out a gun with a 600 meter spot from infantry advancing across a field. 

I understand this is not necessarily simple nor are the maps exact representations of terrain however I feel the current state of spotting and LOS is miserable and does no justice to what could otherwise be engaging maps and games.

 

von Luck

 

[weapon2010]

Why is spotting and LOS so poorly represented in this?

Its not. It might be your perception of what spotting and LOS should be.I have very few issues.

Edited January 24, 2016 by weapon2010

[von Luck]

I'm afraid I have a very different opinion than you. 

Edited January 24, 2016 by von Luck

[von Luck]

From another angle.  This MG could only fire on enemies inside the building after it had spotted them.  It could not provide suppressing fire to great determent of all units attempting to navigate the area.

Edited January 24, 2016 by von Luck

[von Luck]

Or how about spotting a stationary KT buried in the middle of the woods from 742 Meters away.  Pretty sharp eyes on that commie if you ask me.  And before you blow me up for Binoculars being present I would remind you that this tank was buried in the rear of my deployment zone.  Infantry casually walking to the front are not likely to survey something like that.  If the observer is stationary it should be possible but it would require some time to take in the battlefield. 

Edited January 24, 2016 by von Luck

[AttorneyAtWar]

From another angle.  This MG could only fire on enemies inside the building after it had spotted them.  It could not provide suppressing fire to great determent of all units attempting to navigate the area.

Yeah I hate when that happens with buildings, I guess its because it can't see the right side of the building completely.

[von Luck]

This is a picture from a game I could not complete.  I chose to advance through a planted field which prior to the game I had mapped LOS from the near hedge row to the enemy hedge row.  With this in mind I placed HMG's in advantageous positions to cover my advance.  Once the game started and my men began to advance the plan of action was the first casualty - not surprising at all.  However I found that no matter where my men were in the field or behind it they could not fire upon the enemy hedge row.  It wasn't until advancing to within 100 meters of the hedge row could they even lay suppressing fire on the obstacle.  This proved to be an impossible task which quickly resulted in the loss of a company of men struggling to reach a position to even fire.  Its worth mentioning that during this time the enemy had unobstructed fields of fire and put down very effective fire on my men.  Struggling to right this situation I called upon a Panther and a Flakpanzer38(t) to provide fire support.  Despite this they suffered from the same inability to even lay suppressing fire on the hedge row until they were 150 meters away. 

[weapon2010]

From another angle.  This MG could only fire on enemies inside the building after it had spotted them.  It could not provide suppressing fire to great determent of all units attempting to navigate the area.

you wont get an argument from me in this case that not being able to area fire on that building is an engine limitation,however that doesn't mean  enemy within that building wont be suppressed by your unit  once spotted, but I still disagree with your original comment ,"Why is spotting and LOS so poorly represented in this?".I truly do not believe that is the case.We forget all the times the los/spotting works as expected.Is it perfect?No.

 

[von Luck]

you wont get an argument from me in this case that not being able to area fire on that building is an engine limitation,however that doesn't mean  enemy within that building wont be suppressed by your unit  once spotted, but I still disagree with your original comment ,"Why is spotting and LOS so poorly represented in this?".I truly do not believe that is the case.We forget all the times the los/spotting works as expected.Is it perfect?No.

 

Perfection is not my goal.  I do feel that LOS and spotting could be better though.  I cannot play a game without an issue in concerns to this.  As I posted above some of these issues can be more damaging than others.

 

von Luck

[weapon2010]

May I ask how long have you had the game?

[von Luck]

I have a long history with battlefronts products.  I have owned and played many of the CMX1 titles and I purchased CMX2 titles very close to their release.  You could say I have been at this awhile.  I have fond memories of playing Barbarossa to Berlin during my 2010 tour to Iraq.   Each game has its unique quirks and character.  CMX2 seems to sport more issues with LOS, spotting mechanics and strangely minefields.  I cannot get minefields to work no matter how dense.  I am fairly certain the mines are moved once the deployment is sent to the host. 

von Luck

[weapon2010]

Perfection is not my goal

Nor should it be, nor can it be

 I do feel that LOS and spotting could be better though.

I agree with that and im sure BF would as well.

I cannot play a game without an issue in concerns to this.

 I can, and so can thousands of others.The positives so far out weight the negatives.Try to find another game on the market with a spotting/los sophistications that this has?You cant.

[von Luck]

The point of my posting this here, Weapon2010, was to express my righteous indignation over several games some of which could not be completed because of the absurdity of the LOS mechanics.  I would like to remind people that while this game has many fun aspects - I have a long standing love/hate relationship with Battlefront - there is room for improvement.  Some of these shortcomings are egregious enough to end games prematurely.  Losing a company of men to what ended up being a depleted platoon of Americans because of poor LOS mapping is most certainly NOT entertaining.  At the end of the day there is room to improve and there should be impetus to do so.  When every game features an issue with LOS it might be worth looking into. 

 

von Luck

[weapon2010]

Losing a company of men to what ended up being a depleted platoon of Americans because of poor LOS mapping

 That's where you lose credibility with me,losing a company of men is way more then "your" los issues with the game.You may want to brush up on your basic tactics.I too have been playing since 2000, and never had "such a loss of men" due to los.

several games some of which could not be completed because of the absurdity of the LOS mechanics. 

Never, once could I not complete a game due to the LOS mechanics. 

the absurdity of the LOS mechanics

If this were the case, there would be hundreds of complaints about it, including me,  but there are not hundreds of complaints, your blowing this out of proportion,

[von Luck]

 That's where you lose credibility with me,losing a company of men is way more then "your" los issues with the game.You may want to brush up on your basic tactics.I too have been playing since 2000, and never had "such a loss of men" due to los.

Never, once could I not complete a game due to the LOS mechanics. 

If this were the case, there would be hundreds of complaints about it, including me,  but there are not hundreds of complaints, your blowing this out of proportion,

I had mapped LOS prior to game start after which it had changed dramatically altering my plan without much forewarning.  As for credibility there is precious little I can say in a thread that will change most opinions in this forum.  That said I'm here to report that LOS is a frequent issue I confront with varied affects in game.  The fact stands that the field in that map is completely broken in terms of LOS allowing the defender free reign to fire on targets without ANY reply.  That was by far the worst situation I had experienced where LOS had hamstrung what should have been a powerful offensive force by preventing suppressing fire on a hedge row in clear view.  Tell me that you can stand 150 meters from a hedge row on a flat field and be unable to fire on it.  Then tell me that a tank and a SPAAG cant support the troops from the same field.

I encounter an LOS issue every single game I play.  I'm not saying that every LOS issue is as substantive as the one aforementioned however I am saying that there is room to improve and I would like to see it change.  I have made this post to report my displeasure and call upon others to recognize there is indeed room for improvement. 

I know I am not alone in this as the 6 players in my clique who have played these games have all had frustrating LOS experiences.  Every single game has a reverse slope no aim point moment which when closely inspected should not exist.  If half of these were fixed the game would be that much better for the effort.

 

von Luck

Edited January 24, 2016 by von Luck

[RockinHarry]

In the last case there´s a number of variables to consider.

"reverse slope target" is somewhat misleading as it simply means that you can´t target the action spot (ground mesh) beyond a certain distance into the LOS obstructing wheat field. What you can not see, you can not shoot at.

The bocage positions, if they´re all the same terrain height (..say 20m default) do not give the required height advantage to shoot across a wheat field of similar, or slightly more height. You still can shoot into the wheat field up to a certain distance, but beyond that range you can not see nor target action spots, if they´re not on higher terrain, so that the LOS/LOF is not obstructed from the high wheat (or crops, bushes, high grass ect.)

If the spotter is in a bocage AS just 1m higher than the target bocage AS and the wheatfiled between remains on flat terrain (no further bumps or rises), the extra 1m gives enough of a height advantage, so that the formerly obstructing wheat/crops, won´t effectively block LOS/LOF to opposing bocage anymore.

Using the target/LOS tool from an infantry unit currently on the move, is not the same as when it´s just stopped and deployed in an AS. Upright walking soldiers obviously see more than soldiers prepared to shoot at something from kneeling and prone stance, when finally deployed. There´s no shooting while moving capability for infantry in the game, so the "targeting" tool just can be used for its main purpose (targeting, not evaluating LOS), when a unit has stopped and is deployed.

Using the targeting tool is sometimes tricky when applied from long ranges and just from POV of the targeting unit. One oftentimes can find a snapping point (for target area fire) if the camera is moved very close to the to be targeted AS. A few millimeters of mouse movement might make the difference of "reverse slope target" and blue targeting line.

[von Luck]

In the last case there´s a number of variables to consider

...

Using the targeting tool is sometimes tricky when applied from long ranges and just from POV of the targeting unit. One oftentimes can find a snapping point (for target area fire) if the camera is moved very close to the to be targeted AS. A few millimeters of mouse movement might make the difference of "reverse slope target" and blue targeting line.

One of my concerns with moving my target point away from the location of known enemy opposition is a significant decrease in the affect of suppressing fires.  If I wand my LOS across the hedge and the LOS I achieve is far enough away from the spotted enemy I will try to close to find a better spot.  This was certainly what I was attempting to achieve in the scenario I played out.  When 1st PLT became bogged I was hopeful that spreading a second PLT across the field would reward me with usable positions to fire on the hedge.  Unfortunately this was not the case.  It was not until my men had closed to under 60 meters that they could even engage any useful location on the bocage.  Thinking the obstacle to my success was the simulated crop I decided I needed to move armor up to provide an elevated platform with which to suppress from.  This proved not to be true. 

as for mapping infantry on the move or stationary I tend to map from the terminus of an order to judge the value of the move and the visual from its destination.  What frustrated me most about this was that my men were under very effective fire the entire trek across the field yet they could not offer ANY resistance.  

 

von Luck

[MikeyD]

I believe the clutter of urban environments is abstracted somewhat. What the player sees as a clear LOS is really (abstractly) cluttered with street signs, mail boxes, the detritus of city streets. Units on the street have an increased concealment value that they wouldn't have laying on bare dirt out in the open. I don't know by what %. As to losing LOS in the middle of a wheat field, That example looks like he trying to spot someone lying prone on the far side of a distant hedgerow. So yeh. The camera position looks about 8 feet up, take it down to 5 ft 8 and you'd probably find yourself trying to peer through the waving wheat trying to see that distant prone enemy.

[Bulletpoint]

From another angle.  This MG could only fire on enemies inside the building after it had spotted them.  It could not provide suppressing fire to great determent of all units attempting to navigate the area.

The problem here is an engine limitation - when you don't have a contact marker in an action square, LOS checks between squares are done from centre to centre. The line from your square to the middle of the house passes through another house.

However, when you have a contact marker, the game will begin to track LOS/LOF between individual soldiers, so it's very likely that you would get LOF to any enemy troops appearing in the windows of that house. You would still be unable to do area fire though.

Edited January 24, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[von Luck]

Here's a great spot from my last game.  Advancing US soldier spots Jagdpanther from 750 meters away through 3 hedge rows and two forests.  A little fishy no?

[von Luck]

The problem here is an engine limitation - when you don't have a contact marker in an action square, LOS checks between squares are done from centre to centre. The line from your square to the middle of the house passes through another house.

However, when you have a contact marker, the game will begin to track LOS/LOF between individual soldiers, so it's very likely that you would get LOF to any enemy troops appearing in the windows of that house. You would still be unable to do area fire though.

So would you not agree that this could be made better?

von Luck

[AttorneyAtWar]

Here's a great spot from my last game.  Advancing US soldier spots Jagdpanther from 750 meters away through 3 hedge rows and two forests.  A little fishy no?

 

Those bushes aren't hedgerows, if they were your units would definitely not be able to spot the Jagdpanther.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Raptorx7

[von Luck]

I believe the clutter of urban environments is abstracted somewhat. What the player sees as a clear LOS is really (abstractly) cluttered with street signs, mail boxes, the detritus of city streets. Units on the street have an increased concealment value that they wouldn't have laying on bare dirt out in the open. I don't know by what %. As to losing LOS in the middle of a wheat field, That example looks like he trying to spot someone lying prone on the far side of a distant hedgerow. So yeh. The camera position looks about 8 feet up, take it down to 5 ft 8 and you'd probably find yourself trying to peer through the waving wheat trying to see that distant prone enemy.

Abstracted environments is all this game creates.  That being said it would be nice to have some clearer concept of what is happening within the abstraction.  When I hide a unit in a woodline and it cannot see out I would expect the same for units looking in.  That is not, however, what happens.  It would be better if it were more transparent as to what exactly was happening.

von Luck 

[Michael Emrys]

Here's a great spot from my last game.  Advancing US soldier spots Jagdpanther from 750 meters away through 3 hedge rows and two forests.  A little fishy no?

Now here I have to agree with you. A number of times in various scenarios my troops have gotten shot up by enemies who I seriously doubt could have enjoyed that good a spot or any spot at all. Does not happen all the time, or even very often in my experience, but often enough to be annoying. The spotting protocol could use some refinement.

Michael

[von Luck]

Those bushes aren't hedgerows, if they were your units would definitely not be able to spot the Jagdpanther.

To clarify I am not counting the bushes as hedge's.  What you cannot see is the vast space beyond the immediate area of the Jagdpanther which is indeed occupied by actual wooded hedge rows. 

 

von Luck