Jump to content

Do leaves not block LOS or is it a gltich/ not understanding something.


Recommended Posts

Not sure if I'm not understanding how spotting works or what, but it seems off. I consistently get ai that seems to see through trees and bushes, and the same for my guys. There are times when I swear that guys shouldn't be able to see something and they do. Example. My guys in the woods. The guy closer up is part of a different team and can't see the guy in question.0DB4FD37F33CDC2CD227BA3E53E584302429D372

The guy they can see. The camera is oriented towards him in the screenshot above.

B4B53B67024477311E880D41AAD8C74F3FA3BDCC

 Is there some extremely tiny gap in the leaves, or do leaves and bushes not block LOS?

Edit. Had another shot of the targeting line but it wont let me post three images.

Edited by Geckocalypse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect that the AI can spot thru a 1 pixel gap that only a computer can "see". 

However, the Ai needs all the help it can get to be challenging.  So, generally it's just demonstrates the arbitrariness or war - that you may think you are safe, and suddenly someone gets shot...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erwin,

My problem with the AI regarding sighting is that, unlike me, it never blinks, never slows down, never has mental fog or a mind that wanders. It never tires or forgets to check--ever. I was massacred by it in CMBN by fire coming, so help me, from the far side of dense woods, where all I could see were, well, trees! Totally ruined my attack and forced me to put enormous effort into dealing with a deadly flank threat which made not one, but a series of shots, each one of which turned a tank into a funeral pyre. Almost gave up on CMBN right then and there, because it seemed the computer was cheating. While it wasn't in the formal sense, for the reasons I outlined above, it was, I believe, de facto cheating, by being able to perform in an essentially super human way. The AI may well be able to fire down a one pixel width lane, but real tanks and ATGs need more room for such minor things as seeing the target and tracking it before firing. Keyhole positions are great things, but I expect you'd be hard pressed to sell one, say, three projectile widths wide to a real tanker in a real war. I've seen photos of US snipers using loopholes tens of projectile widths wide, so I see no reason why the same shouldn't obtain for the armor or ATG case. Would further observe the sniper position was firing down the length of a major street, too, and at such a range that the angle subtended was considerable, allowing fire to be placed on at least from sidewalk to sidewalk, turning the entire area into one big sniper kill zone.

Regards,

John Kettler

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Erwin said:

I suspect that the AI can spot thru a 1 pixel gap that only a computer can "see". 

Just to clarify - The AI has no advantage over you for spotting. The Tac AI doing the spotting is the same for your troops and the AI's troops.

 

13 hours ago, Erwin said:

However, the Ai needs all the help it can get to be challenging.  So, generally it's just demonstrates the arbitrariness or war - that you may think you are safe, and suddenly someone gets shot...

Yep, good way to think about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The AI has no advantage over you for spotting. The Tac AI doing the spotting is the same for your troops and the AI's troops."

I think we're not talking about friendly AI spotting but the fallacy of the CM2 WYSIWYG claims.  I too have regularly suffered by an enemy finding LOS to my unit when I cannot see anything no matter how hard I look.  I play WEGO so I can study a situation for as long as I can stand it, and there are many instances where it is impossible for the human eye to see a clear shot, but the AI can.  LOS in CM2 is flawed in that respect.  CM2 could be described as "The frustrating game of LOS determination challenges."

But, as I said, it depicts the arbitrariness of combat.  The most experienced and careful soldier can get shot and never know where the shot came from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Erwin said:

I think we're not talking about friendly AI spotting but the fallacy of the CM2 WYSIWYG claims.

Which claims were that, again?

On 1/27/2016 at 9:56 AM, Battlefront.com said:

The 3D graphics of the foliage plays absolutely no role in LOS drawing since that is simply impossible to do because the computers are totally not up for it.  This is the primary reason for potential disconnect between the visual representations in the game and the ability to spot.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Which claims were that, again?

The 3D graphics of the foliage plays absolutely no role in LOS drawing since that is simply impossible to do because the computers are totally not up for it.  This is the primary reason for potential disconnect between the visual representations in the game and the ability to spot.

Ok, thanks.  I didn't see that BF post.  Glad they said that as I recall bitter arguments where some folks wanted to argue to the end that the CM2 engine is "so realistic that everything is high fidelity and all you have to do is go to ground level and spot blah blah..."   No... going to ground level and attempting to see what the AI sees is an exercise in futility.  Mastering the intricacies of the CM2 LOS "system" (making allowances for it) is crucial to playing well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Erwin said:

Ok, thanks.  I didn't see that BF post.  Glad they said that as I recall bitter arguments where some folks wanted to argue to the end that the CM2 engine is "so realistic that everything is high fidelity and all you have to do is go to ground level and spot blah blah..."   No... going to ground level and attempting to see what the AI sees is an exercise in futility. 

I do not agree. Going to gun level is a good way to get an idea of what might your unit might see (not necessarily ground). Is it definitive? No, but the game does not have an "insta spot"(tm) feature anyway :D . Using the view form your units eye level just gives you an idea of what your unit might spot or how well it might see - see below... .

 

11 hours ago, Erwin said:

Mastering the intricacies of the CM2 LOS "system" (making allowances for it) is crucial to playing well.

Yes, agree.

The view from in the game is very useful and can give you an excellent idea of what your unit might be able to see form a certain location. You do have to take into account that foliage is not exactly WSYWIG, that is true. You also have to keep in mind that just because a unit has a clear LOS to an area that does not mean they will achieve "insta spot" (tm) if an enemy arrives at that location. This, from my reading of the forum, is actually the biggest problem - with players. Players, far to often, figure that if their Tank can see the ground at some location 1000m out that as soon as an enemy unit pulls up to that spot their tank will instantly see the enemy. That does not happen in real life and that does not happen in the game. Wishing for "insta spot" (tm) does not make it realistic or likely to arrive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is one-way spotting as well, no? (I could be wrong) For example seeing out of a clump of bushes at an enemy but he can't see into it or through it. If so maybe this occurs even a tile back from the cover. A unit in cover and behind cover seeing through it because he is in, or adjacent to it. But the enemy in the open looking back won't see dung.

Then there is the unit that moves, or shifts facing maybe and suddenly gets lit up like a christmas tree. I think stuff like this is all going on at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/24/2017 at 1:24 AM, John Kettler said:

Erwin,

My problem with the AI regarding sighting is that, unlike me, it never blinks, never slows down, never has mental fog or a mind that wanders. It never tires or forgets to check--ever. I was massacred by it in CMBN by fire coming, so help me, from the far side of dense woods, where all I could see were, well, trees! Totally ruined my attack and forced me to put enormous effort into dealing with a deadly flank threat which made not one, but a series of shots, each one of which turned a tank into a funeral pyre. [snip]

John Kettler

 

John, sounds like you did not conduct a thorough reconnaissance.

This might also be useful: http://battledrill.blogspot.com/2014/07/battle-techniques-woods-as-cover.html 

Bil

Edited by Bil Hardenberger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, gundolf said:

There is one-way spotting as well, no? (I could be wrong) For example seeing out of a clump of bushes at an enemy but he can't see into it or through it. If so maybe this occurs even a tile back from the cover. A unit in cover and behind cover seeing through it because he is in, or adjacent to it. But the enemy in the open looking back won't see dung.

Then there is the unit that moves, or shifts facing maybe and suddenly gets lit up like a christmas tree. I think stuff like this is all going on at the same time.

Yes, but hiding a vehicle in a clump of trees is not quite looking through a tiny knot hole with one eye. There is a lot more vehicle visible between the trees than a single solider. So "one way" might be a little to strong. Lets call it lopsided.

You are totally right, that vehicle in the trees will be harder to see than if the same vehicle was sitting in front of the trees. In fact I frequently re-position vehicles further and further back in the tress until just before the loose LOS to the place I want and then nudge them forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Appreciate the info, thank you. Although I'm not sure I completely understand. From what I gathered, the bushes with the exception of those really thick ones (like in the screenshot with the forward observer), and the leaves on the tress don't affect anything, only trunks block vision and fire. Is there more info on the spotting rules anywhere? I'm actually doing a PBEM with someone now and I would like to be able to make an educated guess as to if his tanks can see my guys. I would assume that tanks have shoddy vision ranges with the spotter dowm, but I know next to nothing about military hardware aside from some generalizations I learned from other games.

Edited by Geckocalypse
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Geckocalypse said:

Appreciate the info, thank you. Although I'm not sure I completely understand. From what I gathered, the bushes with the exception of those really thick ones (like in the screenshot with the forward observer), and the leaves on the tress don't affect anything, only trunks block vision and fire. Is there more info on the spotting rules anywhere?

No that's not quite right. Leaves do block LOS. From Steve's post linked above:

"The way it works is the LOS line is "degraded" as it is drawn from point to point.  The more cumulative crap in the way the less strong the line becomes.  The quality of the spotter, the less restrictions on view, etc. give the line a higher starting value than a LOS line drawn from a unit with negative factors.  Some of the factors are specific (restrictions on range of view or height for example), others are general (optics of X type vs. eyeballs is the best example).  Each piece of terrain has ratings which determine how much the line is degraded when it comes to that piece.  At some point the line is so degraded that it is considered "blocked". "

That means that enough leaves between two units the more likely that the LOS will be blocked.

Quote

I'm actually doing a PBEM with someone now and I would like to be able to make an educated guess as to if his tanks can see my guys. I would assume that tanks have shoddy vision ranges with the spotter dowm, but I know next to nothing about military hardware aside from some generalizations I learned from other games.

There really isn't any more written down that will help. My advice is to use a combination of the targeting tool and getting down at eye level to get a feel for what is possible. With experience you will get better. Your goal should be to give orders to you troops to put them in the best position possible, to give them their best chance. And then let them do their job. Just remember that sometimes it will work out in your favour and sometimes it will not. And that your opponent is trying to give his troops their best chance. So, even if you do nearly perfect and the odds are in your favour your troops can still come out battered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, IanL said:

No that's not quite right. Leaves do block LOS. From Steve's post linked above:

"The way it works is the LOS line is "degraded" as it is drawn from point to point.  The more cumulative crap in the way the less strong the line becomes.  The quality of the spotter, the less restrictions on view, etc. give the line a higher starting value than a LOS line drawn from a unit with negative factors.  Some of the factors are specific (restrictions on range of view or height for example), others are general (optics of X type vs. eyeballs is the best example).  Each piece of terrain has ratings which determine how much the line is degraded when it comes to that piece.  At some point the line is so degraded that it is considered "blocked". "

 

Yes, but it also says that the 3d graphics of the foilage isn't considered. I assumed that included the tree leaves.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Geckocalypse said:

Yes, but it also says that the 3d graphics of the foilage isn't considered. I assumed that included the tree leaves.

Correct. In effect what Steve's post says is that the leaves are not WYSIWIG but they do effect LOS. Not to far from what @Erwin posted above - I just disagree with him on the usefulness of looking from the point of view of your men in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a suggestion to make concealment work more reliably: 

 

If you - as a scenario desinger - use wall/fence-tiles in order to represent undergrowth, instead of foliage-tiles (trees, bushes) I find players have less troubles with spotting and foliage. Simply because you replace the unreliable foliage-concealment by consistent hedge/wall-concealment. Units positioned directly at a hedge can look through it pretty well, while towards the "outside", the hedge offers very good concealment unless you give away the position by firing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I imagine things are done, there is an invisible polyhedron roughly (key word) representing the volume of a tree's foliage. What a player sees depends on the Level Of Detail of a particular tree, distant trees tend to be amorphous blobs and completely opaque, while closer trees have distinct leaves and space between them. This space is purely eye-candy, it would otherwise be wayyyy too costly to calculate Line Of Sight. Instead, those 3D shapes act as a tinted window, degrading, but not blocking LOS. This degradation is quite small, but adds quickly as more and more trees are between a spotter and its target.

The problem I have with Combat Mission's trees is that, in my opinion, the amount of foliage shown to the player does not always accurately reflect the "opacity" of the tree in terms of LOS degradation. I'm no botanist, but  some species of trees have a naturally sparse foliage while some have so much it should be nearly impossible to see through them. Looking at a soldier's level does give you some insights into what the game actually takes into consideration, but you have to make some estimations - consider that it will be generally possible for your pixeltruppen to clearly see between trees, and that it will generally only be possible to see large/moving/loud objects through trees, regardless of if you can see clearly between their leaves (though as I said, some trees should,  in theory, degrade LOS more than others).

Edited by Xorg_Xalargsky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Kaunitz said:

Here is a suggestion to make concealment work more reliably: 

 

If you - as a scenario desinger - use wall/fence-tiles in order to represent undergrowth, instead of foliage-tiles (trees, bushes) I find players have less troubles with spotting and foliage. Simply because you replace the unreliable foliage-concealment by consistent hedge/wall-concealment. Units positioned directly at a hedge can look through it pretty well, while towards the "outside", the hedge offers very good concealment unless you give away the position by firing. 

Ah but I don't want concealment to work more reliably. Concealment especially of large vehicles in trees etc is problematic in RL and should be in the game. 

 

Edited by George MC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, George MC said:

Ah but I don't want concealment to work more reliably. Concealment especially of large vehicles in trees etc is problematic in RL and should be in the game. 

 

If you move a vehicle into the woodland-edge, it destroys the hedges that are placed there. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm reminded of a directive sent out by Patton to his tankers who were becoming increasingly unreliable as casualties mounted and under-trained green replacement crews arrived. (If I recall correctly) he chided them not to use a treeline as 'cover' because you're not as covered or concealed as you think you are. Get behind a terrain feature, not a bush! I'm paraphrasing of course.

Different CM tree types have different concealment characteristics. Some trees the leaves are high up the trunk well off the ground, some are low-hanging. Then there's rolling terrain that either raises you up above or drops you down into your potential concealment. Trying to hide behind a shrubbery line on the up-hill side of a reverse slope is not quite as effective a being on the downlill side of a forward slope.

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...