Frustrating discrepancy between LOS tool and 3D environment?

[Gurra]

Here´s an example of an issue I would like to bring it up, since it occures quite often.

My tank sat on a spot with elevation 25 (even possibly 26) (checked it in the editor). The road I wanted to guard had elevation 18. The wheat field in between, at it´s highest point, had elevation 22 and from there on slowly levelled off to 20.

Now, I don´t know what these levels of elevations represents (1 meter = 1 point of elevation?) but let´s say the wheat grows to a meter in length, and as a gunner in a tank, you sit approx 1 - 2 meter above ground. So these circumstances negate each other.

From pic 1 I think most people would judge that they would be able to see beyond the wheat field. The point of interest is the distant spot in front of the Puma.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/16/tankposition.jpg/

In pic 2 however, the LOS tool shows it a no go.

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/39/lostool.jpg/

I accept the fact that a rise can create a blind zone behind it, but judging from the first pic, this very rise should not be able to interfere with my LOS, as it seems. You can even see the lowest part of the trees in the area of interest, and that from a lower perspective than the tank´s. This, is something I very often experience, presenting me with nasty surprises in the heat of the battle. Ok, you could say "that unit couldn´t properly judge it until they arrived at the spot, since not having the player´s Argus eye, so it is only realistic". But I think here is where the game aspect actually comes in. It´s like sabotage to me. I scout the terrain, check out good positions, and then a position that seemed to be perfect, judging from the 3d environment, actually is not good.

Let me just say that this is supposed to be constructive criticism, but as a player, what am I supposed to judge terrain by? Should I totally dismiss the 3D environment and put my trust only in the algoritms of LOS? But then, CMx1 would suffice with it´s "a tree you see in-game is actually just a presentation of abstracted terrain". Does anyone have the same experience as I do? Or do you think I overreact ? (yep, I lost the battle) As a last note, what is it with wheat fields in CMBN overall? Why do they obscure LOS to such a degree, even when absolutely flat? I have virtually grown up at the side of dozens of wheat fields, so I know fairly well how they interact with your vision - everything from the waist and up is visible when standing, and pretty far to. A dark spot, like a vehicle rising above the height of the actual wheat, would show quite well. Yet, in the game, they obscure LOS incredibly.

[Moon]

If you point the LOS tool on the ground (and not an enemy unit), then it's tracking the LOS to the ground. Since you are pointing the LOS tool inside a wheat field in the screenshot you have taken, and it's not possible for your unit to see what is lying on the ground inside the wheat, the LOS tool shows the LOS as blocked. That's correct.

This has nothing to do with being able to see a UNIT that is BEHIND the wheat field. Notice also that the LOS tool is not pointing to the spot you are indicating in your first screenshot at all, but to a wheat field way behind and downslope (as far as I can make out in the screens).

Martin

[Pak40]

I just plotted these measurements in my CAD software. I put the target height at 18m and the gun height at 28 meters(about 600 meters apart). It looks to me from your screen shot that the field is close to the target and you said that it's max height is 22m. I put the 22m high point about 180 meters from the target. The LOS goes through the ground, your target is in defilade, but just barely. When you add the wheat field then that would obstruct LOS even further.

Even though the ground is in defilade you might still be able to target a vehicle were it to appear at the target spot. It should rise above the wheat, just barely.

[Gurra]

Martin, I know it is difficult to tell from the screenshot, but if you click the pic to upsize it, you can see that the LOS tool is actually pointing to the area I am referring to. I would never doubt the possible inability to see something amongst the wheat.

Pak40, thanks for that little investigation. Interesting. Yeah, I am sure it´s a narrow pass.

The weight of my point was actually not just to point out this specific example, but rather use it as a typical example of something that I am frustrated with regularly, and that being the 3D environment either fools me , or the LOS tool/Targetting is 'tweaked' towards the 'lower edge', so that proper LOS is slightly more difficult to achieve, for realistic/contextual/simulator reasons.

[GreenAsJade]

I experience the same general frustration: lines that look like they should give LOS often don't.

One thing I've found in particular is that it seems like the LOS for an inf unit is always from the guy who's standing behind a tree. So you plot an inf unit to move to a place where there is plenty of LOS to another place, but when the guys get there none of them are willing to take a look - they all (according to the LOS tool) must be standing behind trees. An opposite bad problem happens for mortars. They will report that they can see, from where they are standing in light forest, to a place, but when it comes time for the turn, they decide that they can't see afterall, and do a little dance apparently trying to arrange themselves so that they _can_ see the thing they took an order to fire at... but every time the music stops and they sit down, the unit apparently can't see the target...

GaJ

[Killkess]

They will report that they can see, from where they are standing in light forest...

GaJ

I know it is kinda offtopic but i recent learned that mortars are able to shoot inside of woods. Is this possible in RL? When do the shells get fused/armed?

[Gurra]

After thinking about what actually is the core issue here, I suppose it is that LOS seems unpredictable. Now, one can discuss whether that´s bad or good from different angles, but if it in fact is unpredictable and not so by intention, I´d say it´s bad from a user perspective, because it conveys the feeling of being treated unfair by the game. I would be interesting to hear whether Battlefront themselves thinks the implementation of LOS is reliable, or if they perhaps are planning to go over it for the future.

[Wodin]

I think we have to take into account abstraction. CMBN can't and doesn't represent a real life environment thats pixel perfect. I doubt there is a wargame that does, they all have levels of abstraction especially in the graphics department. When I play CMBN and cone across things like this I put it down tp abstraction like I did for things in CMx1. I suppose now we have 1:1 representation we feel that abstraction is a thing of the past, well I very much doubt it is.

I'm not someone who craves total pin point control from a tactical wargame (I don't want to much abstraction either say like in Squad battles) so it doesn't bother me when things like this happen, I just think well he\they can't see it even though I can so something is going on I can't see...

Again I think it's about how much control your after depends on how frustrating you find this game. For me I give the general orders then leave it upto my soldiers to carry it out. As AI gets better so will this play style, at the moment my troops need a bit helping hand and are a little blind and deaf (Except the tankers who have superb hearing\sight)

[GreenAsJade]

I think we have to take into account abstraction. CMBN can't and doesn't represent a real life environment thats pixel perfect.

... and yet we have been told that "what you see is what you get"....

GaJ

[stikkypixie]

... and yet we have been told that "what you see is what you get"....

GaJ

CMx2 leans much more to that approach than it does to the abstractions of CMx1. In the majority of situations viewing the game like this will give you the best result. Shades of grey and all that.

[GreenAsJade]

But LOS is black and white, no grey

GaJ

[hoolaman]

Martin, I know it is difficult to tell from the screenshot, but if you click the pic to upsize it, you can see that the LOS tool is actually pointing to the area I am referring to. I would never doubt the possible inability to see something amongst the wheat.

I still am not very clear on exactly where your tank is trying to see. Is it the road beyond the wheat or before the wheat? It sure looks to me like your LOS line goes right into the middle of the field.

As for your general point, the LOS tool is not really a LOS tool at all and should more accurately be called an "area fire tool" when used on terrain. BFC claimed that the LOS tool was redundant but there are plenty of ways that the two functions differ (unarmed vehicles is a big one).

When you trace a line with it the game is trying to shoot at the ground and any obstruction such as wheat or a fence or whatever that blocks your view of the ground below/beyond will show a blocked LOS. BUT, if a tall unit appears in those squares, it is like adding one or two elevation heights and this unit might be visible where the ground underneath is not, so it becomes rather complicated.

There are times when a tile somewhere in the middle blocks LOS when it appears it shouldn't but these are few and far between for me.

It's worth mentioning again, you can test LOS from a future waypoint by selecting the waypoint and using the target tool.

[Pak40]

After thinking about what actually is the core issue here, I suppose it is that LOS seems unpredictable. Now, one can discuss whether that´s bad or good from different angles, but if it in fact is unpredictable and not so by intention, I´d say it´s bad from a user perspective, because it conveys the feeling of being treated unfair by the game. I would be interesting to hear whether Battlefront themselves thinks the implementation of LOS is reliable, or if they perhaps are planning to go over it for the future.

LOS itself is predictable. In other words, if you replayed that battle 100 times and put that tank exactly in the same spot and ordered it to fire beyond that wheat field at the exact same spot(as in your screen shots), you would get no LOS 100% of the time.

[Holien]

... because it conveys the feeling of being treated unfair by the game.

A recent game just completed and LOS in two different ways has nailed me. It looked like I should get LOS but tool said no.

1st A small stand of trees a wall and then a road, I thought I would be able to see German AC on the road but I could not target it and hence I had to move zooka squad to wall by road.

As they moved out and stood up the zooka man now saw the AC and fired and then ran to wall to die under hail of fire. The hail of fire went past man and nailed other running men in wood area beyond the wall.

I live with it but the LOS tool said no see, yet clearly the AC could kill me despite this and also the AC could not target the trees yet he could see the trees.

This lead to a feeling of being cheated but I have to rise above this and accept it as a game feature.

Another more general situation is that you can not target height, So lets say a low wall blocks your LOS to the land beyond it but you know you want to keep the heads down of enemy beyond you can not fire HMG at a height level unless they can see a higher bit of land beyond.

Again perhaps too much to expect for the game as the modelling would be too hard but we are moving closer to a perfect 3d world and these issues are things that make players feel cheated. One of the often heard complaints from a fellow player is the LOS issues and not understanding how things "work".

A tough design decision as I guess the current tech can not get us to that perfect 3d world and make it easy for us players to feel happy with...

[akd]

I know it is kinda offtopic but i recent learned that mortars are able to shoot inside of woods. Is this possible in RL? When do the shells get fused/armed?

The AI is given some leeway in firing nearby foliage obstructions, otherwise they would either slaughter themselves or never ever fire when positioned anywhere near foliage. In reality, locations would be chosen where there were openings in obstructions, or openings made as needed.

[Erwin]

It's really pointless to provide the player with LOS from an irrelevant person in a unit - like the third gunlayer.

The player needs to know if the GUN has LOS to the target.

That would alleviate much frustration that players have with the CM2 system.

[Gurra]

I still am not very clear on exactly where your tank is trying to see. Is it the road beyond the wheat or before the wheat? It sure looks to me like your LOS line goes right into the middle of the field.

Yeah, well the LOS line changes color just where it looks like it ends, but I think a tiny tiny bit of the pinkish line is visible, pointing at/on the road BEYOND the wheat field. However, it does stretch all the way - fact. Take my word for it. I was right in the heat of the battle and just grabbed those screenies thinking I had to bring this issue up on the forums. They could definitely have been better, I agree.

As for your general point, the LOS tool is not really a LOS tool at all and should more accurately be called an "area fire tool" when used on terrain. BFC claimed that the LOS tool was redundant but there are plenty of ways that the two functions differ (unarmed vehicles is a big one).

Which reminds of my wishing they implement a proper LOS tool, unafflicted by such things.

It's worth mentioning again, you can test LOS from a future waypoint by selecting the waypoint and using the target tool.

That is true and something I had forgotten about. Still, it suffers from the same problem as above discussed.

LOS itself is predictable. In other words, if you replayed that battle 100 times and put that tank exactly in the same spot and ordered it to fire beyond that wheat field at the exact same spot(as in your screen shots), you would get no LOS 100% of the time.

Oh, definitely. I was vague there. I referred to the discrepancy(?) again and the general problem of correctly judging terrain and probable LOS.

It's really pointless to provide the player with LOS from an irrelevant person in a unit - like the third gunlayer.

When I have seen this, I have always thought it was just a mere graphical coincidence that the LOS line was drawn from, let´s say third gunlayer, or a third team member manning an AT gun. If that is actually happening, I agree it´s irrelevant.

Moreover and as part of this topic, I often get baffled by non reciprocal LOS...

I live with it but the LOS tool said no see, yet clearly the AC could kill me despite this and also the AC could not target the trees yet he could see the trees

...I have had several occasions similar to what Holien mentions here. I never get any wiser as to what is the matter in those situations. Unless someone is hiding cleverly in foliage or something, shouldn´t LOS always be reciprocal?

Again I think it's about how much control your after depends on how frustrating you find this game. For me I give the general orders then leave it upto my soldiers to carry it out. As AI gets better so will this play style, at the moment my troops need a bit helping hand and are a little blind and deaf (Except the tankers who have superb hearing\sight)

Well, it does lead to defeat, I have found out, and units doing stupid things. So yes, I prefer more control. It´s my opinion that when I have time to micro manage and channel the events, this game usually is deeply rewarding and superior to anything I know out there, but left to their own devices, units sometimes makes me wanna assign them to the first penalty battalion off to Russia.

[Pak40]

I referred to the discrepancy(?) again and the general problem of correctly judging terrain and probable LOS.

I agree there is a problem judging terrain but it's hardly a CM issue. This was a real life issue. How many billions of instances were there where a soldier thought he would have clear LOS to a target if he moved to a different vantage point only to find that once he moved there, he still had no LOS to his target?

The truth is that a soldier will never know if Point A has clear LOS to Point B until he actually moves to point A. Until then, it's purely a judgement call.

[Erwin]

Of course in RL the guy who has LOS can call over his buddy with the sniper rifle or whatever, and that guy can prang the target. That is not possible in CMBN.

Therefore it would be much more sensible and a better simulation of RL if the LOS is from the Primary Weapon rather than the 3rd gunlayer or the guy with the pistol.

[Gurra]

You are right, but then again, it is also a question of preferences - as a player in control, as was brought up earlier in the thread. But, heck, I am not claiming that LOS in CMBN is frequently off or anything like that, just that it might be coded to be too restricted at certain times. Or not. It´s difficult to tell. It could also be as simple as

- LOS in CMBN does not behave like I am used to (CMx1 anyone )

- it doesn´t fully meet my expectations (which probably has less to do with absolute reality when it comes to it, than the system used to calculate it)

Still, the example I brought up was conspicous to me.

[Pak40]

I can relate. Many times, when I first started playing CMBN, I would get frustrated that my infantry could not put area fire on the next hedgerow. In truth the LOS from my infantry to the ground at the target hedgerow was probably blocked by crops or small difference in height. However, it defies all logic and physics that my infantry could not put area fire on a clearly visible hedgerow. Maybe CMBN needs an area fire command that can target the hedgrow itself much like you can area fire on a building facade.

[Gurra]

Maybe CMBN needs an area fire command that can target the hedgrow itself much like you can area fire on a building facade.

Absolutely. I can see the limitation of LOS being dependant on a spot of ground from a programming view, but I guess it does limit ability to fire in a more realistic way. I have been wishing that my units would be able to do more of a sort of anticipative firing, meaning that if even if they don´t see the actual spot because of bushes or a tree blocking LOS, they could area fire through it (blindly) because they anticipate the enemy is there. That should be only right behind stuff that´s penetrable. That would also solve the situation where a tank might get info from another unit on an enemy tank´s whereabouts, so they could put some rounds into the general area. I have no idea though, whether this was done in reality. I remember a scene from BoB, where the Airborne tells a british tanker to shoot into a cover where there is a german tank hiding. The tanker responds something like "I can´t bloody shoot what I can´t see, can I?" But if someone directed his shooting, sure he could do that?

[GreenAsJade]

It's really pointless to provide the player with LOS from an irrelevant person in a unit - like the third gunlayer.

The player needs to know if the GUN has LOS to the target.

That would alleviate much frustration that players have with the CM2 system.

^^^ yoo hoo BFC: this man has it nailed.

GaJ

[hoolaman]

YThat is true and something I had forgotten about. Still, it suffers from the same problem as above discussed.

But you can use this to move your tanks to a point where the game grants you LOS to the place you want. Don't fight the game, use the tools available to get the result you want.

It's really pointless to provide the player with LOS from an irrelevant person in a unit - like the third gunlayer.

The player needs to know if the GUN has LOS to the target.

That would alleviate much frustration that players have with the CM2 system.

That's just not how it works.

The coarse LOS checks in the game are actually very simple. LOS can be traced from only a few heights and only in pretty simple ways. The LOS heights are roughly 0m (ground), 0.5m (prone), 1m (kneeling), 2m (standing + jeeps etc.), 3m (tanks) and I think there is a higher one used by some tall trucks in CMSF. LOS is only ever from a whole action spot to another action spot.

Imagine a pole stuck in the middle of every tile with these height lines marked on it and that is the LOS grid.

Infantry teams trace LOS from the HIGHEST MAN whether prone, kneeling or standing. So your gun team takes its LOS from the action spot and the highest man, not the gun. Guns don't have eyes.

A tank trying to check LOS on the ground will always take its LOS from ~3m to 0m. If a wall or some tall grass or some wheat gets in the way your LOS will be denied. If another tank appears on the exact same tile, suddenly the LOS will trace from 3m to 3m.

If LOS is granted there are some finer checks that take place that I don't understand very well. If LOS is not granted, that is the end of the story.

Best to make peace with the fact that the target/LOS tool has some limitations and works in a particular way.

Moreover and as part of this topic, I often get baffled by non reciprocal LOS......I have had several occasions similar to what Holien mentions here. I never get any wiser as to what is the matter in those situations. Unless someone is hiding cleverly in foliage or something, shouldn´t LOS always be reciprocal?

I have never seen non-reciprocal LOS, and due to the simplicity of the system I don't think it can happen. However it is very possible to not SPOT something that you could theoretically have LOS to.

[Erwin]

Probably most of us understand how the current system work, Hoolaman. The problem is that (in his instance at least) it's silly. It leads to much frustration to the player.

Once someone actually has eyes on a target, it would be better if the "system" would automatically get the primary weapon to the LOS position (if possible) so that it could take a shot.

Maybe a Command that says (paraphrasing): "Find a way to shoot at this target."