Jump to content

LOS Woes


Recommended Posts

...you can either sit there, bang your head against the wall, and get angry and frustrated about it or you can adapt to what the game can and can't do and play around it.  

This isn't a binary choice!  I get angry and frustrated and bang my head against the wall while ALSO trying to adapt to the game and enjoying it the vast majority of the time.  It's the full gamut.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made a fault with my last test setup. I didn´t notice the building had no doors and windows at the front side, so there weren´t any holes for bullets to enter the building and underlying AS. With door and windows added, the normal 1 AS size level 8 building allowed enough bullets to penetrate from the target area fire in front of the building, so that the US units quickly gathered lots of suppression, like in the diagonal building setup. The screenshot shows a number of US pixeltroopers cowering and one squad (did choose a standard regular, normal morale Inf. Plt. this time) already about to relocate (evade) from the suppression effects.

Some conclusions here:

If you can´t target a building directly with (small arms) area fire for lack of proper LOS, then targeting an outside lying AS just in front of that building yields considerable suppression effects to units in that building up to floor/level 4.

The more doors and windows a building has, the more stray bullets may enter the building and cause suppression effects.

If bullets can´t enter a building through closed walls (no windows and doors), suppression to units behind that wall is just very light or none.

Other tests could include small calibre arms with bits of pentrating power like the 50cal.

Test2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If bullets can´t enter a building through closed walls (no windows and doors), suppression to units behind that wall is just very light or none.

 

 

Interesting, because you're shooting an MG42 from 127 metres distance.. I assumed many bullets would pass through the walls at that distance.

So basically, your testing shows that buildings with fewer windows are better to defend from, since they have fewer openings through which bullets can enter and cause suppression?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, because you're shooting an MG42 from 127 metres distance.. I assumed many bullets would pass through the walls at that distance.

So basically, your testing shows that buildings with fewer windows are better to defend from, since they have fewer openings through which bullets can enter and cause suppression?

I think yes to a certain extent.  Two windows on a given wall are probably better than four because of the lower suppression while still allowing you to shoot out of the building. However a completely blank wall (on the ground floor or against another building) is an invitation for an attacker to approach and use demo charges.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think yes to a certain extent.  Two windows on a given wall are probably better than four because of the lower suppression while still allowing you to shoot out of the building. However a completely blank wall (on the ground floor or against another building) is an invitation for an attacker to approach and use demo charges.   

Wouldn't the optimum configuration be just 1 window, at least for German squads that rely mostly on their MG for firepower?

Of course the flip side would be that the most important guy would attract all the enemy fire, but once he goes down, another could pick up the weapon, and you'd potentially be able to man the position for a lot longer than if you had 2, 3, or more windows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, because you're shooting an MG42 from 127 metres distance.. I assumed many bullets would pass through the walls at that distance.

So basically, your testing shows that buildings with fewer windows are better to defend from, since they have fewer openings through which bullets can enter and cause suppression?

I couldn´t observe penetration effects from the HMG42 and it seemed there weren´t any pentrations through the closed walls initially (the faulty test setup). In RL only accurate high volume point fire on a very small area would allow small arms (machine guns) to penetrate walls with the normal heavy point 7.92mm ammo. That´s the ammo type the HMG42 uses in the game, unlike MG´s in pillboxes which IIRC have a number of armor piercing rounds available.

Wouldn´t say the less windows/openings, the better. Depends on volume of fire through any opening.

At last this was all to show that effective suppression delivery through indirect fire approach in an urban environment  is possible. Not an all around solution and always applicable, but something to keep in mind when there´s difficult LOS/LOF situations in a battle. I also didn´t know before, that supression effects distribute to a larger amount vertically up within a building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

At last this was all to show that effective suppression delivery through indirect fire approach in an urban environment  is possible. Not an all around solution and always applicable, but something to keep in mind when there´s difficult LOS/LOF situations in a battle. I also didn´t know before, that supression effects distribute to a larger amount vertically up within a building.

Yes, I learnt something new also. And I did some tests with this today too, confirming your results. Interesting and a bit stupid that aiming in front of the building causes more supression than aiming at the actual facade...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I learnt something new also. And I did some tests with this today too, confirming your results. Interesting and a bit stupid that aiming in front of the building causes more supression than aiming at the actual facade...

I just repeated the test with the same setup, but this time I was able to area fire target the facade in level 5 of that level 8 building (levels 1 to 4 were obstructed from the next building to the right, likely the same basic situation von Luck had in his example). Strong suppression effects again were distributed vertically in that building, from the targeted level 5 down to level 1, where there are US units on each level. So it seems it´s not a matter what exact place you aim target area fire at, but rather volume of fire that penetrates the interior of the building. Aiming at the AS just in front of the building yields the same result, cause area fire distributes a majority of bullets high (over shooting), thus hitting the wall behind, with rather few bullets actually hitting the targeted AS. I´d already figured this to be a good area fire tactic for long range fires, where one gets more bullets into the intended target area, when actually aiming short (1 to 10 AS in front of intended target area).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I´d already figured this to be a good area fire tactic for long range fires, where one gets more bullets into the intended target area, when actually aiming short (1 to 10 AS in front of intended target area).

I've also found this technique to work with bocage and other sight limiting terrain, although I must admit that I am staggered to learn that it can be as many as 10 AS in front.

:huh:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've also found this technique to work with bocage and other sight limiting terrain, although I must admit that I am staggered to learn that it can be as many as 10 AS in front.

:huh:

Michael

Up to 10 AS would be in those (rare) situations with long fields of fire (~1000m) and mostly flat terrain, where area fire dispersal is increased (in width and depth) and over shooting the target AS makes a majority of bullets missing the desired target. So moving the target area fire AS away (closer to the shooter) oftentimes gets more bullets into actual target area (lowering the area fire cone). Example is best suited for burst fire weapons obviosuly (machine guns), which I´m refering to. It´s a trial and error affair anyway and beside range highly depends on relative positions of shooter and target, as well as target size.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Up to 10 AS would be in those (rare) situations with long fields of fire (~1000m) and mostly flat terrain, where area fire dispersal is increased (in width and depth) and over shooting the target AS makes a majority of bullets missing the desired target. So moving the target area fire AS away (closer to the shooter) oftentimes gets more bullets into actual target area (lowering the area fire cone). Example is best suited for burst fire weapons obviosuly (machine guns), which I´m refering to. It´s a trial and error affair anyway and beside range highly depends on relative positions of shooter and target, as well as target size.

Excellent disquisition on the subject. Thanks!

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here´s bits of a different description of that area fire concept with HMG´s (example HMG42 vs. a squad size infantry target, 3 AS width, i.e 3 teams from a US squad):

Assuming the map is mostly flat terrain, no obstacles and objects, with target, as well as shooter on same height, the approach is more like from an artillery observer adjusting fall of shot. In this case the fall of machine guns bursts onto the ground.

At medium range (~500m) where the trajectory of individual bullets from a burst is yet fairly flat, the aiming point for target area fire can be up to 80 - 100m in front of the intended target area (the desired beaten zone).

At around 750m the aiming point could be around 50m in front of the intended target area.

At 1000m and up aiming point is around 0 to 20m in front of intended target area, as the HMG bursts now get down on target as plunging fire more or less, like mortar shots.

This method adjusts the target area fire suppression effect more towards a destructive fire effect, with more bullets actually hitting a target, which in this case is not the AS targeted for area fire. The targeted AS is more a pointer towards the target area where most the bullets of a burst should hit the ground and hopefully an enemy soldier.

The figures above work well with a HMG42 and in mentioned conditions, but could be different for other HMG´s (not tested). That likely depends on individual guns ballistical properties and whether the dispersal of bullets in bursts is modelled the same for all guns or not.

For evaluation of a machine guns burst and dispersal pattern, the following method works well for me:

At the gun (HMG) position, make a zoom (10-20x) towards the target area and rise the camera somewhat up (with the mouse wheel), so that the cam view roughly coincides with the red target line (of target area fire command). This way the tracers and fall of shot can be observed the best in the combat phase. Also in zoom view corrections can be made if necessary by shifting the target area fire AS in steps of ~10m sidewards or in range towards intended beaten area. This is very similar to a FO adjusting spotting rounds so to say.

It´s just a basic idea and maps are usually too complex for getting that to work oftenly, but it helps to achieve better results from the target area fire command, or with regard to original topic, get area fire effects to some place where you think you can´t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Infantry spotting a buttoned Jagdpanther is different from a buttoned Jagdpanther spotting infantry. A squad is twelve pairs of eyeballs all looking out to spot something. An infantry company on the map is on the order of 170 pairs of eyeballs. Plus the higher the experience rating the better they are at spotting stuff. That's where that phrase about the infantryman's 'thousand yard stare' comes from. If a tank is in a position to be spotted it'll probably get spotted by someone, especially facing the array of infantry represented by all those icons. A line of intervening brush won't interfere if there a measly 1 meter dip in the terrain allowing troops to peer over it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<Snip>  it´s not a matter what exact place you aim target area fire at, but rather volume of fire that penetrates the interior of the building. Aiming at the AS just in front of the building yields the same result, cause area fire distributes a majority of bullets high (over shooting), thus hitting the wall behind, with rather few bullets actually hitting the targeted AS. I´d already figured this to be a good area fire tactic for long range fires, where one gets more bullets into the intended target area, when actually aiming short (1 to 10 AS in front of intended target area).

I don't know how you find the time to do all these tests but thank you for doing them.  Excellent job.  I just used this vertical suppression on a diagonal placed building in a PBEM and it seems to be working.  Another cool TACSOP in the tool box. :)    

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny because last few years I haven't really run into these area fire problems (reverse slope no aim point & blocked center of AS). Remember that it bugged me a lot more when I first started playing CMSF. Like others stated it is often possible to find another AS where area fire is allowed that also suppresses the intended AS. I guess I have learned to recognize and workaround such area's in the game. Another thing is that I have found out that it depending on terrain it can be very difficult to notice slight terrain undulations that are having impact on LOS.

With regards to your cornfield massacre: If you try to mentallly 'unsee' the corns there could be some sort of a crest in the terrain that is blocking area fire but allowing fire on units? In that case the bonus concealment offered by the hedge cover is a sort of multiplier. Another explanation could be that your units are effectively sticking their heads over a gradual crest which is limiting the distance upon which the hedge is visible (or better the bit of it that is needed for area fire) from ground or waist level and that the corn is concealing that fact. Although your taller vehicles should have the option to area fire from further away than your (cowering) infantry. 

Finally: it would obviously be great if grazing fire like the soldier having a go at the 'cornbuds' ;) in your video would be possible ingame, but I imagine such changes will have impact on the inner workings of the engine core and are therefor not very practical. Generally I have learned to live with these limitations and have been enjoying the game since 2007, although they can obviously be at times very frustrating, especially when personal honor is at stake in a PBEM ;-P. 

Edited by Lethaface
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I never realized this.  Good to know.  It explains a lot.  Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...