zinzan

I finally got around to extracting this battle from the campaign file.  I certainly have learnt a bit more about this battle/map and the effect of weather/night conditions  and their effect on visibility as a consequence by opening it up in the Scenario Editor and doing some tests.
 
Much to my surprise, it appears that this battle was designed with scenario parameter conditions that effectively result in units not being able to spot each other unless they physically occupy the same AS (ie, are touching each other) or are able to trace unblocked LOS to an AS occupied by a unit which is firing it's weapon within the "apparent" maximum visibility range of 40m.
 
In other words, non combat visibility is actually reduced to effectively 0 m!
 
For those of you who have not played around with the Scenario Editor before or are not fully aware of all the parameters that contribute to visibility behavior in a CM battle (I wasn't), here are the full range of setting for this battle:
 
 

 
The main factors here affecting visibility appear to be the time of day (of course), the date/year (I think I recall someone mentioning CM actually does simulate moon phases/sunset/sunrise cycles) and the weather. Given all these factors somehow probably interact and most likely determine the actual turn-by-turn LOS mechanics, I would really like to know if the affect of each of these weather conditions on visibility at any given date at any given time is even fully quantifiably understood by BFC, let alone players.  Nothing of the sort is mentioned in the manual.
 
I would never have thought a CM scenario would have ever been created to have these incredibly extreme in game conditions.  For many reasons I shouldn't have to point out, unless somehow certain death was the other option, I can't think of any other circumstances that would compel any combat unit to be mobile and engage the enemy when effective visibility has been reduced to zero.  If anyone else can provide any examples to the contrary, I would be interested to hear them (no illumination assistance at all).  If indeed a pitch black battle is what one really does want to simulate in CM, I would say that doing so would result int he most unrealistic simulation of battle you could get in CM and that is not even considering combat LOS issues like ones mentioned in this thread.
 
It seems that perhaps what is more unrealistic and more to the point here is the fact that we are assessing a scenario/situation where units are trying to engage each other in what I would consider unrealistic conditions.
 
Because I try to avoid these kind of night time battles for the reasons mentioned, I never was sure if the graphical night time illumination effects from burning wrecks actually affected the LOS/illumination/spotting of other units around it or whether it was just cosmetic.  As I kind of expected, I have now confirmed to myself that it is indeed just cosmetic. I understand how complex it would be to model otherwise. CM has a long way to go if it ever wants to seriously model low visibility/dark combat.  My suggestion, don't bother.

You were discussing things in what seemed to be more subjective and general terms without revealing further insight in to the situation.  When using the LOS tool, it was established that 40m appeared to be the max visibility range, which, despite being considerably low and "extreme" compared to a dawn/day battle, is still not as extreme as a 30m, 20m, 10m or even 0m night battle.. Yes, technically the 40m max visibility range for that scenario was correct, but it was only later revealed that it was only for spotting units that are firing their weapons. Never was this rather important bit of information ever mentioned anywhere.  Neither was the fact that indeed the effective non-combat spotting range was actually 0m (or close enough to it).
 
I get what you were trying to say, I hope you understand why it was making no sense without shedding more light (excuse the pun) on what actually was going on with that scenario.
 
PS: I must add that in the above scenario in question, spotting range to non-firing infantry was also 0m.
 
This discussion definitely has revealed a little bit more about how the CM LOS mechanics must work, how the scenario parameters can affect things and to the fact that it all is rather very poorly documented and understood by players at least.
 
I have already mentioned my surprise at the variety of weather conditions that can be selected for a battle.  There are 13 for CMRT and CMBN, and 17 for CMFI (it has 4 extra relating to snow conditions).
 
Now one can imagine that somehow, each one of these conditions could have their own unique way of affecting the LOS/spotting mechanics in the game.  Perhaps there are more than one parameter relating to each condition (eg. max range spotting moving infantry, max range spotting infantry firing etc).  At this stage here, only an exhaustive test would be able to reveal quantitatively how each one of these conditions may affect the LOS/spotting mechanics.  Either way, the more conditions and the more parameters associated to each condition there are, the more complex things get, especially when these all then need to interact with the time of day/date conditions.
 
It seems clear that the game treats firing and non-firing units differently as far as maximum spotting range goes.  According to this scenarios conditions, the maximum spotting range as reported by the LOS tool seemed to be only applicable to units that were firing.  Only when actually playing the scenario would a player ever know the range at which they could actually spot a non-firing unit, which really makes no sense/is totally unhelpful from a scenario designing point of view.  To save us all from further exhaustive testing, it would be good to know from BFC under what conditions the LOS tool can be used to indicate maximum spotting range of no-firing units as opposed to firing units.  I think all/most of us thought it was for non-firing units.
 
We also know that the game treats moving and non-moving units differently as far as spotting, as well as the different types (sizes etc) of units.  However in this scenario under these conditions none of those things seemed to matter.  Spotting range of moving non-firing units of all types was 0m.
 
I can be certain of this: given all the condition variables and possible combinations of these with the time of day/date settings, it is not surprising that some of the more "exotic"/less common combinations result in bizarre/unexpected/undesirable LOS/spotting behavior, which is what might still be happening here (if in fact IanL says a bug of some kind might have been discovered).
 
Has anyone done any of the exhaustive LOS/spotting testing needed to fully understand what difference each of the 17 weather variables has on say the maximum range to which the light blue firing line extends out along flat open ground during midday of say 1st May 1944 in Sicily?  Or the average time it takes to spot a Sherman tank in open ground at this maximum range? etc???
 
PS:  I have just noticed that under the Description tab in the Scenario Editor, there is a field that can be manually selected called "Daylight" with options Day, Night, Dusk, Dawn.  I think however that these are independent to the actually Year/Month/Day/Hour/ Minute settings under the Data tab.  Ideally the "Daylight" parameter should be driven by the time of day in the Data tab and not be independent, otherwise it is possible to make a scenario that may be described as a Night battle when in fact it is a day battle.

see post # 30 
 
So again 40m is the absolute most you can do anything. If I were to area fire at a point 10 m in front of your position and was 40 m from that spot you could not return fire, that is how dark your scenario is. If you want to set parameters so extreme as that and play a scenario, have at it. Just please don't start a spotting debate as you are already setting up an extreme condition. No you can not see out to 40 meters, that is not what I said. I said, under the BEST of conditions in your scenario you can see to 40 m. Those best conditions include the unit you are trying to spot firing
 
I can lead ya to water, but I can't make you read.
 
 
somehow I even garnered a negative point for explaining that.  Hmm boy that really encourages me to test  for issues like this.  I get dinged because the description of the conditions.  Perhaps I should just ignore the public forum.  Thanks Phantom

You can clearly see that the quality graphics setting for those Bulge screenshots are set at about balanced or lower, it looks nothing like what a final product would ala Battle for Normandy or Black Sea.

Meh, no, I disagree.
If the model is complex, but shows somewhat unrealistic results under extreme conditions ( Spotting is perhaps too difficult in mist, at night ), I'll still take that rather than a dumbing down of the complexity.
 
( I'm not even personally convinced that the result is off anyway - I've been out in the wilderness 200+km from any light pollution and at night it is very very dark. Add mist and I can buy that you wouldn't see a tank right in front of you. Just my opinion ).

It's really cool being able to flow back and forth depending on what your interests dictate at any moment. Between CM and Total War I have just about all my historical warfare/history interests covered...all that's really missing for me now is Nam and Korea. I think this is the best time I've ever seen in PC wargaming. I really dig having all these choices. I've said it many, many times but it's really cool being able to read a book, or watch a documentary and then jump straight into a game and interact with the subject matter so intimately.
 
Although CM and Total War are completely different games, I am finding TW scratches the same itch Combat Mission does. I didn't think I'd like TW (only ever played Shogun I) but I am really taken with it. I have managed to pick up Rome II, Shogun II, Medieval II, Empires and Napoleon (with all the DLCs) since December through 75% off sales. TW fills in the gaps CM couldn't, and now thanks to both, I am in history heaven.
 
As an example of what I was saying in the first paragraph, I was watching Turned on Netflix the other day, so I decided to start a game of Empires (using Darth Mod). I picked Britain for my campaign so I could eventually act out the Revolution. Last night the Huron and Iroquois declared war on me. A massive force of Huron ended up over running a small trading post I had on the Hudson Bay (my only British foothold on the continent at the moment). They killed everyone to the last man. I already had a ship with troops inbound, figuring the Indians would be attacking there, and wanted to bolster the defenses but it was too late. When my guys landed they tried besieging the captured post but the Huron counter attacked. When it was all over 54 out of 500+ of the Crown's men were all that remained. The survivors ended up fleeing north west along the bay, deeper into the wilds, in the middle of winter. A couple turns later France declared war on me after I attacked the Cherokee. Thus began my version of the French Indian War.
 
THAT is why I love these games! CM and TW both draw you in (albeit in different ways), involve you, surround you with their history and provide the vehicle to tell your own stories. And for me, in particular, that is the main draw. It really doesn't get much better than that. And the Bulge will be one more setting to add to the mix—one more stage to showcase the drama.
 
 
Mord.

Lol, no idea what horizon I have, I'll have to check. Could be from Italy for all I know! I'll have to grab Aris' mod, if I don't already have it. Does it include an Amsterdam Hash Bar?

Yes, it's juju's UI mod.

I agree, looks like Tim Whatshisname. He also looks like the new bad guy in Season 2 of Broadchurch...can't think of his name, but looks sort of like a cross between Timothy Hutton and Anthony Perkins.

Heinrich, you might be on to something regarding Zonderz's ID tag!

I think I said this somewhere but anyway...I am almost done rewriting the scenario as axis vs British AI and Ian has agreed to playtest it. Then I will fix any issues and upload to GaJ and provide a link back here...

Good show Ken.  I'm glad its over.. now I can get back to work.  

Nope, I was a reservist for a while. I experienced that one first hand.

buahahahaha...did your Dad tell you that one?  Oh I remember those issues..so long ago

Go read Harry Turtledove's world at war series. Alien tech at about 2000 against WW2 stuff

That was well done! Thanks for the laugh. Now, because of your post, I will send a battalion across an enemy controlled bridge.

Well I was quick enough to copy the message before Ken deleted it - it's not pretty reading I'm afraid.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Pitiful if you ask me.
 
P

Poorly!

In Single Player, I mostly ragequit and try again later. In PBEM, I discuss how fun the mission was, with my partner. Somehow, taking casualties from a real opponent feels more "fair".
 
What I've found myself doing every time - analyzing, learning from my own mistakes. The enemy is your greatest teacher, cuz he can show you your weaknesses.  Knowing that every loss makes me better obviously helps.

I remember why i joined the navy instead of the army   Cause I can't lead a thirsty horse to a stream and they are not shooting at the horse either

Bravo...
 
Saved me a bunch of typing.

Huh, what a coincidence. Chris was just telling me he was waiting for some guy to finish purchasing MG before he hit the button to release CMBS.

so here is the deal - and I am not quoting to not single anyone out, this is just a general perspective
 
1. BF has told pre orders that they are getting early access and they should not announce it as it simply causes a flood on the servers (this goes back a long way before their current service)
 
2. The forum goes nuts with F5 monkeys refreshing as if having the game today versus tomorrow is somehow going to fundamentally change our lives
 
3. BF has a cloud service that takes time for the installer to be distributed to the cloud servic e to make the cloud actually function as intended.
 
4. The pre orders that get the email immediately announce they are downloading
 
5 the non pre orders start complaining about how their lives are being ruined and they should have the game now!!!
 
6. Chris announces fine, they are opening it up
 
7.  Everyone starts downloading and as was probably predictable it causes issues.
 
8 It is BFs fault for announcing late
 
9. It is BF's fault for announcing early
 
 
C'mon guys, lighten up and chill a little bit.  The game is released, you'll be playing it soon enough and yeah you are damn funny to listen to.

Just had to recommend this battle. It is small but intricate. You start out with one Para HQ and two small squads and a generous set up area. Go secure that bridge and guard house. The neat thing from a design standpoint is that despite small squads they can be split up in several teams, so you end up with several tactical element comprised of just one or two men. This adds an interesting dimension to it. And a stunning map. I always feel the game looks it best in light fog/cloudy weather.
 
Who designed this gem? Highly recommended, especially if you're into tiny/small battles.

Put down the pipe, hippie.. marijuana is not a combat drug

Working on another CMBS scenario for you guys.
 
 
Have a rest  - nah not really !
 
 
P

The developers really really want it finished. But the game seems to be conspiring against us at this point. One tiny thing after another (like trying to find someone wielding the 9mm Marakov pistol so you can check the texture  ). Its become a test of wills at this point. Still, its coming together like a dream compared to one or two other titles I can think of. There's an old Chinese homeowners proverb: "The house is finally completed. Time to die now."