Something Very Wrong with LOS Through Trees

[c3k]

That may be. However, I have yet to see a source that proves either of my statements being incorrect.

As to trees, that may be an internal beta discusssion, it may be totally false, it may be the results of a test. Kind of like how I know that a tank in game stays upright. I don't have a source for that information either. It just is. Now, I may be wrong. Shrug.

Meantime, since I'm away from my library...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_Me_262

In mid-1943, Adolf Hitler envisioned the Me 262 as a ground-attack/bomber aircraft rather than a defensive interceptor. The configuration of a high-speed, light-payload Schnellbomber ("fast bomber") was intended to penetrate enemy airspace during the expected Allied invasion of France. His edict resulted in the development of (and concentration on) the Sturmvogel variant. It is debatable to what extent Hitler's interference extended the delay in bringing the Schwalbe into operation;^[20][21] it appears engine vibration issues were at least as costly, if not more so.^[15] Albert Speer, then Minister of Armaments and War Production, claimed in his memoirs that Hitler originally had blocked mass production of the Me 262 before agreeing in early 1944. He rejected arguments that the aircraft would be more effective as a fighter against the Allied bombers that were destroying large parts of Germany, and wanted it as a bomber for revenge attacks. According to Speer, Hitler felt its superior speed compared to other fighters of the era meant it could not be attacked, and so preferred it for high altitude straight flying.^[22]

 

 

Yeah, Wikipedia. But also...

From: http://chris-intel-corner.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/wwii-myths-me262-jet-fighter-and-dumb_3969.html

It has become part of the accepted wisdom about the Luftwaffe that Hitler's decision was instrumental in preventing the large-scale deployment of the Me 262 in the fighter force. In fact his edict was not the main reason, or even a major reason, for the failure to deploy the fighter in the hoped-for numbers. Not until August 1944 was the average running life of the 004 jet engine raised to 25hr; that was still a very low figure, but it meant that the design could be frozen and mass production could begin. In September Hitler rescinded his order that all new Me 262s be delivered as fighter-bombers. By then more than a hundred fighter airframes were sitting around without engines, and as soon as 004s became available these aircraft were completed and delivered to the Luftwaffe. In fact Hitler's order delayed the introduction of the Me 262 into service in the fighter role by only about three weeks. For the real reason for the failure to deploy the fighter in large numbers, we must look elsewhere

 Those are two opposing quotes. However, even the "non disrupted "myth"" states that it caused a 3 week delay. So there.

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

Trees in close proximity to vehicles do not block outbound munitions for sure, and I don't think they block LOS either. I'm not sure what the radius is, but I would guess 30 meters at least. I had assumed the same is true for all unit types but I am less sure.

[Baneman]

Trees in close proximity to vehicles do not block outbound munitions for sure, and I don't think they block LOS either. I'm not sure what the radius is, but I would guess 30 meters at least. I had assumed the same is true for all unit types but I am less sure.

Definitely less than 30m - as my infantry have just discovered to their cost - Stummel fired HE at distant target, hit tree roughly 2 AS in front, scragged 2 infantrymen in foxholes under tree

[c3k]

Trees in close proximity to vehicles do not block outbound munitions for sure, and I don't think they block LOS either. I'm not sure what the radius is, but I would guess 30 meters at least. I had assumed the same is true for all unit types but I am less sure.

Emrys wants your source.

Hey, c'mon: that's funny! (All this is in good nature, since it is a forum for a GAME.) 

There's a lot of good reason for the non-blocking of close items. Since action spots are rather large, and the player cannot position units precisely within that block, it makes sense to give a unit a bit of credit to micro-position itself in a more advantageous manner. Again, it is my understanding (aiui = "as I understand it") this is how it works. If it doesn't, it should.

Interesting how VaB and I both arrived at the same conclusion.

[sburke]

He is just trying to get time with your intern. Shameless, but understandable. 

[c3k]

Sigh. If only that were possible. She complains that her 120 hour work week is too long to allow for social activities. I have pointed out to her, repeatedly, that I am being quite gracious by allowing her to use the washer and dryer to do my laundry. That courtesy gives her a lot extra time in her week. 

[Michael Emrys]

Again, it is my understanding (aiui = "as I understand it") this is how it works. If it doesn't, it should.

Well, that pretty well covers the bases.

Michael

[c3k]

Well, that pretty well covers the bases.

Michael

Exactly! A test may be able to suss it out, one way or the other.

(See what I just did there? Again?)

:)

[LukeFF]

Those are two opposing quotes. However, even the "non disrupted "myth"" states that it caused a 3 week delay. So there.

Three weeks is about what it was, yes.

Lonnnnng post I wrote about this a while ago: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/112726-was-lend-lease-essential-in-securing-a-soviet-victory/?do=findComment&comment=1585481

Edited January 31, 2016 by LukeFF

[c3k]

Cool. Thanks for the link.

[Melchior]

I actually lean towards what JasonC is saying in that if anything spotting in the game seems too good in places. Especially against stopped vehicles. The human eye has a tendency to focus on moving objects but it's not very good at picking up details on objects showing no relative movement. Especially with low ambient light. 

That said, this all more or less a minor issue to me. Fixation on how lucky/unlucky my single Panzer IV got last mission is fixation on minutiae. My mind is on the overall plan usually, with the performance of individual units maybe modifying details of it here and there. 

Edited February 1, 2016 by CaptHawkeye

[Bulletpoint]

I actually lean towards what JasonC is saying in that if anything spotting in the game seems too good in places. Especially against stopped vehicles. The human eye has a tendency to focus on moving objects but it's not very good at picking up details on objects showing no relative movement. Especially with low ambient light. 

That said, this all more or less a minor issue to me. Fixation on how lucky/unlucky my single Panzer IV got last mission is fixation on minutiae. My mind is on the overall plan usually, with the performance of individual units maybe modifying details of it here and there. 

Maybe you usually play larger missions then, where small spotting issues average out. In smaller scenarios, one unit can decide the whole game.

[Melchior]

Yeah I do, the larger the better with me in fact. The German Campaign in Red Thunder was the best campaign in any of the games to me. I can see how on the smaller missions the missteps of individual units can basically make or break the whole scenario. 

But then that's generally why i'm disinterested in the smaller scenarios. 

[Boomkow]

I like the way Theatre of War handled LOS. It was quick and efficient. Perhaps simplifying the LOS/LOF could avoid a lot of the quirks of the current system and be a little bit more uniform.  If it takes thousands of programming hours and tons of computing power then other options should be considered. I know there are many variables to calculate to achieve perfect, simulated LOS/LOF but this is a game. I'd like to play the game knowing some of these awkward variables won't affect my gameplay.

[A Canadian Cat]

I like the way Theatre of War handled LOS. It was quick and efficient.

Are you talking about spotting or LOS? 

I really really really do *not* want spotting to be dumbed down.  Just because a unit has LOS to a location does *not* mean they should automatically spot something that happens to be there.  That distinction is key to this game.  We, as war gamers, are far to used to LOS = spotted = LOF.  The fact that CM has broken the link and modelled the possibility of humans to not notice something is such a good thing in this game. I'll grant you that sometimes we hit some situations that are hard to square - especially at close ranges but I'll take those happening to me five times a day before I would want that feature dumbed down.

[mjkerner]

We, as war gamers, are far to used to LOS = spotted = LOF.  The fact that CM has broken the link and modelled the possibility of humans to not notice something is such a good thing in this game. I'll grant you that sometimes we hit some situations that are hard to square - especially at close ranges but I'll take those happening to me five times a day before I would want that feature dumbed down.

That's a really key point to keep in mind in these LOS discussions, Ian. I agree 100% with your take on it.

[A Canadian Cat]

Yeah this and a discussion on theBlitz suddenly solidified it in my mind.  I always got what was going on in CM but I finally realized why so many people have trouble with it - aside from people hate to get their asses handed to them - that we are so used to hex games where if your unit has LOS to the enemy your unit can see the enemy and can fire on the enemy.  Thanks to @Panzer Lehr for putting up the graphic that made it all fall into place in my head and @weapon2010 for doing a better job than I did at expressing it (over at the blitz).

[JasonC]

 

IanL - "used to hex games where if your unit has LOS to the enemy your unit can see the enemy and can fire on the enemy"

Ever played Jim Day's "Panzer"?  Hex games have come a long way.  Let's just say that perception of them is a bit out of date...

[A Canadian Cat]

Cool I had a quick look at a couple of reviews and it does look better than any hex game I ever played.  I abandoned them a long time ago.  So, sure my supposition as to why people are having trouble getting *it* could be wrong.  Yep, could happen.  Then either those players having trouble with spotting might have also never played such a great hex game or they think those games have it wrong too. Either way it does not change the fact that some people have trouble accepting how the game is designed.  That's there prerogative no worries.  It is also not news either.  I suppose (oh man I did it again I am supposing all over the place) half the threads here are either people confused because they don't understand what just happened to them and are looking for answers or people who are confused because they don't understand what just happened to them and they just think the game is just wrong and BFC should redesign the game to suit them - like yesterday.

[womble]

WRG micro armour rules had 'acquisition' rolls back in the 80s. Couldn't shoot at a Target you hadn't succeeded in acquiring. Acquired == CM's 'spotted'.

[Panzer Lehr]

Yeah this and a discussion on theBlitz suddenly solidified it in my mind.  I always got what was going on in CM but I finally realized why so many people have trouble with it - aside from people hate to get their asses handed to them - that we are so used to hex games where if your unit has LOS to the enemy your unit can see the enemy and can fire on the enemy.  Thanks to @Panzer Lehr for putting up the graphic that made it all fall into place in my head and @weapon2010 for doing a better job than I did at expressing it (over at the blitz).

Welcome!

[JasonC]

IanL - I'd say roughly 90% of threads around here consist of new or old players making legitimate comments about aspects of the game that could be improved, then for their pains getting abused and insulted at length by experienced players who do nothing to improve it, nor for that matter to improve the neighborhood.  That BTS occasionally listens anyway is entirely to their credit.  If the peanut gallery decided, we'd all still have the CMBO cartoonishly invulnerable infantry we started with 15 years ago.

[sburke]

IanL - I'd say roughly 90% of threads around here consist of new or old players making legitimate comments about aspects of the game that could be improved, then for their pains getting abused and insulted at length by experienced players who do nothing to improve it, nor for that matter to improve the neighborhood.  That BTS occasionally listens anyway is entirely to their credit.  If the peanut gallery decided, we'd all still have the CMBO cartoonishly invulnerable infantry we started with 15 years ago.

Hyperbole much?

[JoMac]

WRG micro armour rules had 'acquisition' rolls back in the 80s. Couldn't shoot at a Target you hadn't succeeded in acquiring. Acquired == CM's 'spotted'.

Ah Yes, WRG WWII Rules ( and similar ) from the 80's...Those were the Good Ole Days of Micro Armor & HO. 

Joe

Edited February 22, 2016 by JoMc67

[A Canadian Cat]

IanL - I'd say roughly 90% of threads around here consist of new or old players making legitimate comments about aspects of the game that could be improved, then for their pains getting abused and insulted at length by experienced players who do nothing to improve it, nor for that matter to improve the neighborhood.

LOL I would totally disagree with that, I see lots of people here trying to help other players understand the game and why it is the way it is, testing new and old features, tirelessly investigating issues and corner cases. And just in case I am accused of hubris like you were just of hyperbole I am most certainly *not* talking about myself.