c3k

Obviously, giving grass a value of .0325 deserves a thread of its own. Ken

I think of the jostling and stopping as simulating passing of orders...or cigarettes...or ipods.... Of course, during the assault on an occupied building, I then think of it as untangling some web gear...tying a shoelace...hesitating while looking for a target... Ken

1:1 has added a huge dimension to my gameplay. I find I am unable to leave wounded men; that has tactical implications which CMx1 didn't touch. When my fully loaded AAV's get hit by ATGM's and I see a veritable cloud of red crosses appear, well, my reaction is certainly different than what I had when CMx1 units took big hits. Regards, Ken

Steve, Just back in town. Thank you for taking the time for answering in such detail. Sounds good. (But, you KNOW I'm going to be throwing men prone into crest positions as soon as I get 1.20!!) Thanks, Ken

Steve, Again, thanks for taking the time and exercising such patience with your explanations. I imagine with v1.20/CMUK right around the corner, your time must be precious. However.... .... although I'm starting to understand what you're saying a bit more clearly, I think you're missing a small part of the question. Okay, taking what you said, above; "The height is based on roughly where the head would be for such a stance." That's the key question! When I can SEE the head of the guy sticking up from the ground (be it a slope, a crest, or a ditch), THAT guy, the head-sticking-up-guy, cannot SEE out. The blocked LOF (which is all a player can see) seems to start from his belly - which is behind dirt and out of sight. So, it's not an issue of "individual polygons", but, rather, the essential part of the human body which sights things - the eyeballs located in the neck-mounted head. Why does the blocked LOS not take the head location into account. Again, this is a specific issue to prone soldiers with dirt between their bodies and the enemy, but their heads exposed. However, EVERY soldier likes this kind of position over the more exposed ones! Hence, this specific condition does occur more frequently than one would suppose. The above statement draws two responses from me. First, I'm aware of the non-recipricol LOF condition. Specifically, if unit A positions a member in a buildings action spot near a window, it can fire on unit B which is in the open. However, unit B traces it's LOS to the action spot center, which is blocked. Since unit A has a member AWAY from the blocked center of the action spot, A can fire on B, but B cannot fire on A. The second response is more of a question than a statement. Since the prone soldier's LOF isn't even checked (or applied) if the LOS is blocked, shouldn't the LOS be checked from the same spot as the LOF? I'm not saying the LOS should FOLLOW the LOF (indirect fire, ballistics, etc., account for differences). I'm saying the LOS should be checked from the head/shoulder. The confusion here is borne out by your next statement... Let's take your 90/10% splits. This is where a misunderstanding may be occurring. If soldier A has a rifle and is prone behind a crest line/slope/ditch/etc., and his head is up, rifle is up, and he is looking to his front, I think we can agree that he only has 10% exposure, yet he also has 100% firing and spotting ability. His offensive capability does not care whether or not his left foot has LOS to the enemy. Nor his belt buckle. I DON'T CARE what enemy soldier B has exposed. If B has LOS towards A, then A's lack of exposure should be a factor keeping him from being spotted. (It's harder to spot a head sticking out from a ridgeline compared to an entire torso/body.) You state that, "the way of getting around this limitation is to have spotting to polygons, which as I explained is technically impossible..." Um, why does it HAVE to be "spotting to polygons"? You say that, "Having center mass be the location makes the average results superior." For many situations, STARTING the LOS FROM center of mass and adjusting the height (through ELOS) to roughly head elevation, works. But that's because most humans keep their heads roughly over their center of mass for any position - OTHER than being prone. Since LOF is calculated from head/shoulder, why not LOS? This is NOT asking for polygon checks on eyeball locations! (Although, that would be cool!) That's the FROM portion of LOS. Earlier you stated that the INBOUND portion breaks the body into distinct portions. That's great. Really. This is all about the guy whose head is sticking up, and what he can see. Again, you state "the problem with this is if your soldier spots 90% of an exposed soldier, but the 10% of that exposed soldier is the head, then you won't spot that soldier". Why not? Why does MY LOS TO the enemy have to touch the enemy's head???? It doesn't work that way now, nor is anyone asking to change that. It's the reverse which can be tweaked; if I have 10% exposed, why can't THAT 10% do the spotting? Especially if it's the 10% with eyes and brain? Finally.... Yeah, we're focusing on a small portion where the current system doesn't work. BUT, it's an important portion. A lot of guys under fire try to hide their bodies and only expose their head and weapon. Right now, if there's a SLIGHT elevation difference intervening between belt-buckle and enemy, the guy with his head up cannot see or shoot. Center of mass as a start point for LOS is flawed; this is masked in many situations, but gets highlighted for prone soldiers with their bodies hidden in an elevation difference from the enemy. Thanks for your time! Regards, Ken

This is great! Does this mean that I will no longer see "crop circles" centered beneath me whenever I move the camera above the battle? That trees/shrubs won't dance and face the center point? If so, awesome! Thanks, Ken

Steve, Not trying to beat a dead horse, just seeking clarification. LOS FROM an individual soldier - does it start from the map coordinates corresponding to his center of mass, with height adjusted for stance? Or, does it start from the map coordinates corresponding to his head, with height adjusted for stance? I recognize that the LOF starts from the head/shoulder area. My understanding is also that the LOS check for the individual is something like the third step in the LOS checking routine. (First step; after map creation a table a LOS is created - 3 categories: LOS exists, LOS cannot exist, LOS may exist. Second step; during game, from action spot to action spot a check is made and adjusted based on unit's activities. Third step; individual LOS check.) My question: since you stated that LOF is calculated from head/shoulder, why can't LOS be calculated that way? (Obviously at the third, final, step.) I read your answers and didn't see if you addressed the underlying question; why does it seem that prone men with their heads exposed cannot gain LOS based on where their heads are? Thanks, Ken Addendum: I've just read through all I've missed in the thread on the Brits Manual. I see there that Steve mentions that v1.20 has some tweaks for LOS crossing sharp crest lines. This may well address, adjust, or correct the LOS from a prone position near a crest. Thanks.

Paper Tiger, Are you sure that's how LOS works? If my man (yes, MY man ) is on a slope, prone in a ditch, or tilting the frame of reference, prone on a plain with a crest ahead of him followed by a downslope, his head and midriff are at different heights. The LOS seems to be drawn from the midriff; the terrain blocks LOS, therefore no LOF check. Yet, his head is visible to the enemy, so LOS checks positive, thereby followed by LOF.... followed by suppressed, dead, or wounded men. In short, the midriff vs. head height is the issue. This all presupposes that I am correct in stating that the LOS is drawn from the man's center of mass/midriff, NOT from the head. If the man is standing, the height for LOS purposes is a STANDING height, but the map location used is directly beneath the center of mass. For a standing individual, that will be between the feet. The head is also located between the feet, albeit at a different elevation. Hence, for many circumstances, using the center of mass (or midriff) to locate the start of the LOS will work quite well. It fails in the cases where the individual's center of mass and head do not occupy the same ground location. Prone is the obvious condition; leaning around a corner is another. This is exacerbated in the conditions I mentioned above, where the prone individual exposes a part of the body to spot/fire. (Oh, MANY thanks for your scenarios!!!) Regards, Ken

(Totally parenthetical comment: I include this only to respond to Piecekeeper. The original thread contained that request - that icons flash if the unit gains suppression levels. I am sure there are good reasons for not expanding the flash to occur with other actions. I have not seen v1.20, so I am unqualified to make ANY judgments on the flashing icon implementation. However, I am sure it was not a trivial decision, and I can suppose that it took some work to make happen. Of course, in my dream world, the flashing icon would change based on what happens; the worse the hit the unit takes, the higher the imperative flash. Regardless, I am VERY pleased to read that this has been done!!!)

Steve et al., Thanks for including that! Yeah, the flashing icon for friendly units which sustain a casualty. That's a huge boon. I will, of course, link to this: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=87427&highlight=what+just+happened Thanks for listening.... and working, testing, etc. (Applause for the Beta Testers.) Regards, Ken

Video? Nice. Voice over? Umm, good. But "applique" is NOT pronounced "ah-pleak". Please fix or somefink.... Ken

Hmmm, admittedly I have not read the manual recently, but I was under the (mis-)impression that flavor objects had NO effect on gameplay. If I'm wrong, cool. If they provide cover based on their size/shape/material, that's another feather in BF.C's cap. Thanks, Ken

My thoughts; it seems that LOS is from center of mass (ish), and adjusted for elevation of the soldier. Prone has LOS from ground level; kneeling from about 1 meter, etc. Here's where the LOS/LOF falls apart.... If my guy is standing, his center of mass is pretty much OVER his feet. If CMSF elevates that point by 1.5 meters, that point in space is pretty darn close to his chest/shoulder. About where his weapon is held. That's excellent. That's for outbound fire. Now, for INBOUND fire, anywhere on his "mesh" that an incoming round hits, it gets accounted for. Again, that also seems to work. However, if my guy is prone, his center of mass is NOT beneath his feet. It is under his belt buckle. That is NOWHERE near his weapon, head, eyes, etc. Yet, his head can (and will be) hit by incoming fire. He cannot spot the enemy, but the enemy can see him. This is only true for prone positions. Of course, your guys go prone when they approach the edge of a piece of cover. That's exactly the time you'd like the LOF/LOS to be accurately drawn from where their eyes and weapons would be. I think the fix is to shift the center of mass (or however the game engine determines the LOS/LOF start point) to the point of ground where the HEAD is located over, rather than the belt buckle. This would be a HUGE improvement.... Anyone agree or disagree? Thanks, Ken

hcrof, excellent test! I wonder if OTHER flavor items have unexpected characteristics as well? Thanks, Ken

Same for me, regarding recon strykers. The weapons are NOT remote capable, so you need a gunner up to fire them. The gunners don't last long.... Even with no move orders for several turns, and a target order, the driver never leaves his position. Weapon (whether a Mk19 or a .50) had ammo and was undamaged. This just adds data to the thought that the AI weighs mobility as more important than firepower. Regards, Ken

Hmm, as far as interior room modelling goes, I like the abstraction better than an interior blueprint. (Yes, there are issues: balconies; cracks between wall sections; doors on one side of interior walls; etc.) When I'm manuevering a battalion (or heavily reinforced company), I don't want to have to tell a team NOT to go into the bathroom, but take the LIVING room. I want to direct them to watch THAT direction; the specific room doesn't matter to me. Once we go down the road of interior rooms, then there'll be a bunch of other issues that'd crop up. Just my .02.... Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, personally, Steve, your statement leaves me confused, amazed, and hurt. The ONLY way to salvage anything at all would be for you to personally email me a pre-release copy of version 1.2 (plus a free copy of CMAFGHANISTAN! and CMUK). Really, that's the only way to make up for it.... Thanks for the detailed explanations. Ken

The more clues you guys drop, the better this patch is sounding. It seems like a major overhaul, encompassing a lot of the minor issues which have been lurking around. Just as a small bone, Martin, can you tell us what you think is the most significant change included in v1.2? Thanks, Ken

Moon, very nice. Now, how much time do you have to change your plans? You know, until release? Ken

Oooh, that wall jumping animation alone seems to be worth the wait. As long as the wait will be short! Oh, nice license plates on the Brit vehicles! Thanks, Ken

Steve, Very nice! Not to be a greedy, grasping, "always asking for more", but any word on hand grenade reloads? Actually, I have a lot of other questions about reloads. Tell you what; send me a link so I can download 1.2, and I'll answer them myself and spare you the trouble! Sounds good to me... Thanks, Ken

Yeah, any floor with a balcony is a death trap. I only put men there if I've already cleared out all the nearby (100-200m) areas. Otherwise, I'll only enter a building with balconies if the balconies are facing AWAY from the enemy. As you noted, even being 90 degrees off will still lure men out there. Ken

Yes, but what about for the Recon variant of the Stryker? The squads have 7.62 weapons, but no ammo in the vehicle. There are other, admittedly minor, issues as well. The M136; the inability to reload a .50 sniper rifle; no grenades; etc. The default loadout of the Stryker (ICV) seems like a pretty good compromise. The loadout of the Recon variant seems like it may be missing some ammo. A tweak to the vehicle loadout defaults would be nice. Regardless, having an option in the editor which allows the scenario builder to modify the defaults would be a boon. I envision, in my codeless world of imagination, the ability to change each vehicle's ammo loadout in the purchase screen. Right click on a vehicle and see a grid of possible ammo "hooks"; have a series of ammo types beneath; simply drag and drop the ammo you want onto the empty squares representing the ammo carrying capability of the vehicle. See? It's easy in my head... Or, have a system similar to CMx1. A little clunkier, but it'd get the job done. Ken

Hmm, some 7.62 would be nice. Playing with some recce units, the 5 man scout squad includes an M240. Their organic Stryker RV has Javelins and 5.56, but no 7.62. I'd like to see the ability to add extra ammo (to include 40mm, all rifle calibers (.50 cal?), and hand grenades) in the editor. Ken

The Coyote is actually quite well designed for its intended function: promoting better hygiene in the field. First get your muddy, smelly, grimy squaddies and pile 'em in. Next, get that thing up to about 60mph. Keep driving until you hit a rain shower (thunderstorm if they're REALLY dirty). Drive through the rain until everyone's thoroughly wetted down. Finally, drive OUT of the rain at high speed until everyone's dry. See? In a similar vein, you could use a dust storm to nicely camouflage everyone, easily and quickly. Obviously, it can also be used to clear up the pasty, oily, somewhat pimply complexions of our brethren from the British Isles. Just load 'em up in the desert and patrol for several hours. They'll be pinked up in no time! Oh, and what's with the "designer effect" side windows on that armored car? WTF? Does it look good on the sales brochure? I'm sure it's nice not to see outside, what with the bright sun and all.... Ken