Los...might be improved? Please.....just the global overview improvment

[robinzx@inwind.it]

Currently to check if a unit has a los you have to click on the unit and draw the line from the unit to the place you want to have your unit to look at.

The result is that often we move the unit to a place discovering later your unit doesn't have los or the other way round.

Wouldn't be possible just to click on a unit and automatically see a semi arch originating from the unit( with the obscured segment of the arch locked by obstacles)?

It would accellerate the playability of the game and the enjoyability of the game (imagine the current situation... Click on each unit and move the los line over the terrain......... Plenty of time...... Compared to the single click and the global semiarch appearance of the los....).

The game is very well developed but..... Minor alteration would make it just perfect

Robinzx

[Chainsaw]

well a small tip that will solve your problem

do the routing to the place you want to go. click on the last waypoint so its highlighted, then try a target command from there. The Target line will show the LOS from the highlighted waypoint. So in other words you can check a units LOS to a certain area on every place you have set a waypoint.

I use this allot to find a perfect hull down position for tanks etc.

[Ranger33]

What Chainsaw said. I do wish that LOS line from the selected waypoint would actually originate from said waypoint (visually), it takes a bit a mental leap to see exactly what's going on sometimes.

Another thing is to make liberal use of the "Face" command. This will cause the individual troopers to seek cover vs that direction as well as LOS.

[robinzx@inwind.it]

Thank you guys for your advice

Well....i tried

[Erwin]

"do the routing to the place you want to go. click on the last waypoint so its highlighted, then try a target command from there. The Target line will show the LOS from the highlighted waypoint. So in other words you can check a units LOS to a certain area on every place you have set a waypoint."

This is true in theory, but MANY times one can check LOS this way but when the unit gets there you only then discover there is still a LOS problem.

imo the problem is that the CM system is getting too complicated and "tricky" for its own good. You'll get LOS to a target by someone like the "5th gun-layer" which does one absolutely no good if the gun can fire at the target etc.

Trying to be a poor man's tactical simulation software rather than trying to be a successor to the terrific entertainment game that CM1 still is.

[Mord]

Well it's a trade off...I'll take that frustration over the hundred times in CMX1 where I thought I was safe behind a building until some tank shot straight through it and blew me up.

Mord.

[Wreck]

click on the last waypoint so its highlighted, then try a target command from there.

Does anyone know what height is used for this check?

I have seen this problem even without waypoints. I was moving a heavy machinegun across a wheatfield to fire on some buildings. While moving, I checked LOS -- it existed. So, not wanting to be any closer than necessary (in case the Germans were there), I stopped and deployed the unit, planning my area fire next turn. Except -- no LOS. My guess is that when moving, the unit's LOS was being checked from eye level -- 5-6 feet or so. Above the wheat. Once they stopped, eye level was kneeling -- 3 feet. Then the wheat blocked.

I am not sure what can be done about this. I do think that perhaps adding another color code or two to the target line might help, and/or texts similar to the "hull down" ones we already get.

For a tank, they might add a text "AA MG only", say. This would be displayed with the normal grey line.

For infantry, there should be no blue line based on being standing, only on kneeling, unless the unit can fire standing. But certainly not for a heavy MG. A grey line, at most, for standing-only LOS (except mortars).

Also: I've added LOS at the wiki. http://combatmission.wikia.com/wiki/Line_of_sight

[Erwin]

"Well it's a trade off...I'll take that frustration over the hundred times in CMX1 where I thought I was safe behind a building until some tank shot straight through it and blew me up."

The problem is that in ALL the CM series games a large part of the time you are playing vs the GAME SYSTEM and you have to know how the engine works etc. Nothing to do with reality, it simply comes with experience of what the system will do in certain circumstances, and that's why imo CM2 is not more realistic than CM1. Just more detailed. But, detail and complexity are not the same as realistic. And the frustrations of CM2 make the game a lot more irritating and longer to play. I still enjoy it, but not as much as CM1 as a fun entertainment interlude.

[Pak40]

I find it funny that this is supposed to be a "realistic" combat simulation yet all of you are asking for this completely unrealistic feature. A unit could not possibly know if there was LOS from point A to point B unless it was actually at point A. But for some reason, most of you want this magical feature implemented in the game. You already have the ability to zoom down to eye level and make a judgement call, something that real world units don't have the ability to do.

[ClarkWGriswold]

I find it funny that this is supposed to be a "realistic" combat simulation yet all of you are asking for this completely unrealistic feature. A unit could not possibly know if there was LOS from point A to point B unless it was actually at point A. But for some reason, most of you want this magical feature implemented in the game. You already have the ability to zoom down to eye level and make a judgement call, something that real world units don't have the ability to do.

As soon as CM has AI that's on par with a real human then I'll concede that we don't need to know exactly who can see what. But as long as I have to micromanage my men, I don't think it's too much to ask for the game to do a better job of conveying who can see what. This is obviously a problem or we wouldn't constantly have threads about men who can't see things they look like they should be able to, tanks seeing things you wouldn't think they'd be able to, tank commanders seeing a threat but the gunners not seeing it, etc., etc., etc. It's way, way too easy to move a unit someplace where, by all rights, you should have a great view, only to find out you can't see squat. And it's equally easy to move somewhere you think you've got cover only to find out that you had cover from some point on the ground but not from an enemy unit in that very same spot.

[flamingknives]

If you'll permit me to be the devil's advocate:

As soon as CM has AI that's on par with a real human then I'll concede that we don't need to know exactly who can see what. But as long as I have to micromanage my men, I don't think it's too much to ask for the game to do a better job of conveying who can see what. This is obviously a problem or we wouldn't constantly have threads about men who can't see things they look like they should be able to

However, might this be a realistic feature of combat and the threads are only generated by people's unrealistic assumptions and experience from other, unrealistic games?

, tanks seeing things you wouldn't think they'd be able to,

Which never happens in war? I would have thought that many military disasters have come about because an enemy unit could see something that no-one thought he could see.

tank commanders seeing a threat but the gunners not seeing it, etc., etc., etc.

That has to be very common. Have you ever tried to talk someone onto see something that you can see when they are standing next to you? It's surely worse when you are in different places looking through different, narrow-field optics. This is why the hunter-killer system for AFVs was developed.

It's way, way too easy to move a unit someplace where, by all rights, you should have a great view, only to find out you can't see squat.

And does that not also happen in real life? But by which rights should you have a good view?

And it's equally easy to move somewhere you think you've got cover only to find out that you had cover from some point on the ground but not from an enemy unit in that very same spot.

That has to happen so often in real life that it should be a wholly expected occurrence.

[Praetori]

Not that LOS couldn't be improved but it's pretty decent as it is.

I usually use detached scouts or, when preparing a position, HQ units for testing LOS and cover before the units arrive.

That way I can deploy the fighting units in better positions than I could with guesswork. Sometimes I dismount tank crews just below a ridge or forest and have them stalk forward a few meters to check LOS and targets, Wittmann style, before mounting up for victory (or death).

I do miss a LOS function for the cover arcs though as well as better arty spotting (Seeing the target-ground is NOT necessary when calling in arty, seeing where the spotting rounds land is, and it's quite possible even when obscured by forest or houses). But I guess you can't have everything.

[Pak40]

Clark,

As soon as CM has AI that's on par with a real human then I'll concede that we don't need to know exactly who can see what

Precisely, why make it easier for humans to win when they already have an advantage over the AI? The AI wont have the ability to do this unrealistic spotting, so why should humans have it?

But as long as I have to micromanage my men, I don't think it's too much to ask for the game to do a better job of conveying who can see what.

The game already tells you exactly who can see what. Now people are asking to know what there units can see before they actually arrive at a place on the map. It's completely gamey!

tanks seeing things you wouldn't think they'd be able to, tank commanders seeing a threat but the gunners not seeing it, etc., etc., etc. It's way, way too easy to move a unit someplace where, by all rights, you should have a great view, only to find out you can't see squat. And it's equally easy to move somewhere you think you've got cover only to find out that you had cover from some point on the ground but not from an enemy unit in that very same spot.

I completely agree with flamingknives. All those things you mention were and are still common problems in combat. If in real life we had a little genie that would tell us what we could see from another vantage point, then I'd agree with you. Until then, I consider it a gamey & cheating feature.

[GerryCMBB]

"The game already tells you exactly who can see what."

I am not sure that is true. I had an ATG highlighted as a I watched a replay of how they went to meet their maker. A Stuart came into view (? icon changed to tank icon), and for the next 20 secs, the ATG did nothing even though it seems they see the tank.

The buttoned-up Stuart blew them to kingdom come. It is possible the gun barrel was stuck in the bocage and couldn't move. I cannot be sure.

Gerry

[Mord]

As for what you thought you could see and what you can see when you get there...well I worked on a surveying crew for a quite a few years and I can tell you after running many, many traverse points that something will always get in the way no matter how scoped out the spot we picked to put the nail.

Mord.

[hoolaman]

Does anyone know what height is used for this check?

I have seen this problem even without waypoints. I was moving a heavy machinegun across a wheatfield to fire on some buildings. While moving, I checked LOS -- it existed. So, not wanting to be any closer than necessary (in case the Germans were there), I stopped and deployed the unit, planning my area fire next turn. Except -- no LOS. My guess is that when moving, the unit's LOS was being checked from eye level -- 5-6 feet or so. Above the wheat. Once they stopped, eye level was kneeling -- 3 feet. Then the wheat blocked.

I am not sure what can be done about this. I do think that perhaps adding another color code or two to the target line might help, and/or texts similar to the "hull down" ones we already get.

For a tank, they might add a text "AA MG only", say. This would be displayed with the normal grey line.

For infantry, there should be no blue line based on being standing, only on kneeling, unless the unit can fire standing. But certainly not for a heavy MG. A grey line, at most, for standing-only LOS (except mortars).

Also: I've added LOS at the wiki. http://combatmission.wikia.com/wiki/Line_of_sight

Yes your guess is correct, when you check LOS from a future waypoint it is based on the CURRENT height of your units. So a marching unit will check LOS from the standing height but then when they go prone at their destination their LOS is not clear.

It is very easy to check this with walls, a team that is currently prone will show no LOS through a wall from a future waypoint, but a standing team will.

This is one very important point that is not well understood.

[Erwin]

We go around this old "realism" argument. If you want realism, either go play a multi-zillion dollar DoD sim, or go to a real war - I can guarantee you that neither will be fun.

Generally, if one wants an entertaining time one buys an entertainment product that eliminates the irritating, boring, annoying aspects of RL, and focuses on the "fun" bits. Otherwise, you're plainly masochistic lol.

[Pak40]

Generally, if one wants an entertaining time one buys an entertainment product that eliminates the irritating, boring, annoying aspects of RL, and focuses on the "fun" bits.

Yes, that's precisely the game design theory that has lead to all RTS games until CM came along.

[noob]

I was very surprised when I first played CMSF that BF had introduced a waypoint / target function allowing the accurate representation of the LOS from any point on the map, I thought this was extremely gamey and it added considerably to the labour intensiveness of the game, it was never an issue with the old version of CM so I was at a loss to understand why it was introduced, so I for one would not complain if it was removed altogether and we reverted back to making judgement calls on the LOS from positions other than the units themselves.

[Cymru]

It brings back memories of graphing LOS on topographic maps. With a line between two points you would then plot distance/elevation between them. If none of the intervening points were higher than the straight line between the two end points, then you had LOS. Hah! As many have pointed out, and as the game emulates, vegetation, structures and your posture all play a key role in the final outcome. I doubt if half of the cases where I expected LOS actually provided it when you got to the hilltop.

[stikkypixie]

I was very surprised when I first played CMSF that BF had introduced a waypoint / target function allowing the accurate representation of the LOS from any point on the map, I thought this was extremely gamey and it added considerably to the labour intensiveness of the game, it was never an issue with the old version of CM so I was at a loss to understand why it was introduced, so I for one would not complain if it was removed altogether and we reverted back to making judgement calls on the LOS from positions other than the units themselves.

Because

a) The information isn't precise, i.e. it is dependent on the stance of your troops and if that changes LOS might change. Also unless you are very very diligent, the tool only gives you specific information. No-one is going to check ALL possible LOS for all his/her units.

The tool can in theory give you a full map of the LOS, but it is not the same thing as getting the full map of the LOS.

When playing WEGO it is impossible to issue an order like "move there and stop until you can see that house", you can lose several minutes fine-tuning an order which is clear and simple. So until the AI gets smart enough, this will have to do

c) LOS != LOF or spotting

[ClarkWGriswold]

When playing WEGO it is impossible to issue an order like "move there and stop until you can see that house", you can lose several minutes fine-tuning an order which is clear and simple. So until the AI gets smart enough, this will have to do

This.

The reason we need an accurate, usable LOS tool is because these computer units are stupid. They can't make decisions for themselves. A real commander would say "go to that house and lay down fire on the men behind that wall". You can't do that in CMBN because men stop in action spots, don't peek around corners, don't squat to fire under trees, etc. It's quite easy to be in a spot where you SHOULD have LOS but NOT have it simply because someone is kneeling rather than standing, or standing rather than prone. Until the AI can make intelligent decisions to work around these issues, we as human commanders need to at least have a decent idea of who can see what when giving orders.

It's similar to the problem in 1.0 where tanks would sit there shooting at trees that were in the LOF until ordered to move. That's a problem that would never occur in the real world (at least, not repeatedly for a full minute) because the commander would hit the tree once then realize the issue and move the tank 2 feet before trying again. But the issue affected the game greatly because of the relative lack of intelligence of the units and the relative lack of control of the commander.