Idea to solve LoS guessing problems

[Townes]

Recently I have read a few complaints about finding LoS and how difficult it can be at times.

I have an idea for a new tool that could be implemented in new engines: Instead of simply drawing a line, the game can just highlight EVERY AVAILABLE spot that can be seen from that point. There can be colors based on if it is a reverse slope target and some other conditions. Then for real fine detail, one can actually use the archaic line drawing LoS tool. Wouldn't it save so much tedium of checking locations if one button could just display all of the data for you? The only thing you would have to do now is set several waypoints and hit the at them button to find the kind of spot you want.

[stikkypixie]

Recently I have read a few complaints about finding LoS and how difficult it can be at times.

I have an idea for a new tool that could be implemented in new engines: Instead of simply drawing a line, the game can just highlight EVERY AVAILABLE spot that can be seen from that point. There can be colors based on if it is a reverse slope target and some other conditions. Then for real fine detail, one can actually use the archaic line drawing LoS tool. Wouldn't it save so much tedium of checking locations if one button could just display all of the data for you? The only thing you would have to do now is set several waypoints and hit the at them button to find the kind of spot you want.

If I remember correctly the two main reasons for not having this feature is a) technical reasons it's not realistic. I don't know the details for a) but the reasons for are more clear to me. The player as it is, already has way more information than in real life (you can check the LOS from every corner from the map). Having this tool in would be over the top in terms of information.

Maybe the UI can be simplified by a LOS tool where you don't need to make a waypoint, but honestly I don't know if it's worth it.

Any way my two cents.

[poesel]

Problem with a) is that you have to consider the height of the spotter and of the target. Looking out of the turret of a tank lets you see more things than lying prone in high grass. Also tanks should (in theory) be easier to spot than the mentioned guy in the gras.

The current 'what if' system (what if this unit would be at this waypoint? Could it see the ground in this place?) is ok-ish. It works most of the time but its main wart is the drawing of the target line from the original waypoint. This really should be fixed. It confuses everyone.

Some more information about target height would be nice. Because you often get a no-LOS when its just a small dent or a bushel of grass that prevents you to see the ground in this place.

[Redwolf]

Steel Beasts has this kind of LOS display. Seems to work well and SB isn't exactly regarded an unrealistic game.

[Erwin]

Even though (IIRC) CM2 takes into account height of objects, it would still be very useful and a HUGE timesaver to instantly see all the terrain that can be seen from a particular location/waypoint.

[Redwolf]

Even though (IIRC) CM2 takes into account height of objects, it would still be very useful and a HUGE timesaver to instantly see all the terrain that can be seen from a particular location/waypoint.

Not to mention that a lot of time LOS to the ground matter in CMx2 even if the unit has (or should have) a height.

[Townes]

Well the way I see it, you don't have to remove the line tool, but it just gives you a quick reference button that works better than fidgeting with the line forever. Then you can use the line for critical information (some information will be color coded.)

As for the mention of height, it should be on a way point basis, so the height should already be factored in and things color coded to help know if there is a reverse slope, blocked LoS, and such. Yeah it isn't going to be perfect but it'll save a lot of time.

As for realism and "over the top" complaints, there is a LOT of things that are abstracted in this game. If you like pure line LoS, you could just turn it off or perhaps choose a difficult setting (like Iron I think it was where spotting included your own squads) which will automatically strip this tool.

With a new engine or engine enhancements, they could try to bypass the old technical limitations if they put their mind to it I think.

[Rake]

Just my $0.02, but I tend to feel that the LOS display is fine just the way it is... once BFC fixes the display to initiate from the waypoint. The way it is now, you rarely have any idea what may be blocking LOS between the waypoint and the target because the lt. blue/dk. blue/red line doesn't give a decent indication of the blockage from the waypoint

Now, I'm going to contradict myself a bit by agreeing with the point that you never know exactly what can be seen from a point until you visit that point. If LOS from a specific point is that critical, send somebody there to check it out. If they can't see it while prone and hiding, have 'em stand up and look around.

I've stopped depending upon the LOS tool for critical views. If I need to be certain a FOO can see a spot for an arty call, I'll send someone else there first to make sure the spot is good.

[Pak40]

Now, I'm going to contradict myself a bit by agreeing with the point that you never know exactly what can be seen from a point until you visit that point. If LOS from a specific point is that critical, send somebody there to check it out. If they can't see it while prone and hiding, have 'em stand up and look around.

+1 to this. The last thing we humans need vs the AI is yet another tool that will give us a bigger advantage.

This reminds me of when I used to play paintball in the woods. I'd move to a new flanking spot thinking that it would give me a better LOS to my target. Sometimes it worked but sometimes I still wouldn't have a good shot, however I never knew whether it was good or not until I got to the new spot.

[LongLeftFlank]

I can live with the existing LOS tool while playing, but I would just love to have some kind of tool -- shademap or not -- to use while scenario building. Right now it's a total PITA to set up defensive positions and establish fields of fire. Not least because the Target tool frequently shows LOS blocked to locations when in reality an enemy unit moving into the location (unless it's crawling on the ground) will be perfectly visible.

The fix might be as "simple" as making friendly units Targetable during unit setup mode only, so you can put out test "surveyor" units. Or at least making their floating icons light up while in the editor (as enemy unit icons do while playing the game in Elite+ mode) to show they're in LOS of the selected unit.

[TheVulture]

+1 to this. The last thing we humans need vs the AI is yet another tool that will give us a bigger advantage.

This reminds me of when I used to play paintball in the woods. I'd move to a new flanking spot thinking that it would give me a better LOS to my target. Sometimes it worked but sometimes I still wouldn't have a good shot, however I never knew whether it was good or not until I got to the new spot.

The flip side to that is that if you moved to your flanking position, and found it was good apart from the fact that there was a tree directly in your line of sight, you'd peek around the tree and fire. Rather than standing there for a minute, and then moving 8 meters to your left to discover that a different tree was blocking your fire there too.

We have some artificial advantages courtesy of the LoS tools,a nd some artificial limitations due to the impracticality of the AI shuffling units around slightly to account for small blockages to LoS, and the limitations of turn based orders (for those who don't play RealTime. which introduces its own set of artificial limitations). The hope is that it all more or less balances out into something fun to play.

[GerryCMBB]

Massive +1 to this.

We already have the workaround of creating waypoints to an area and checking LOS from there. This would just make the game less hard work.

Gerry

Even though (IIRC) CM2 takes into account height of objects, it would still be very useful and a HUGE timesaver to instantly see all the terrain that can be seen from a particular location/waypoint.

[Pak40]

Yes, it would be a HUGE time saver. It would also be cheating when playing vs the AI. You'd be playing against an already inferior opponent that cannot check the LOS of any spot on the map to any other spot. So now you're probably saying to yourself "well, BF can even the playing field by adding LOS checking to the AI code." Now you just opened up a whole can of worms to reprogram the way the AI behaves and it would probably take up massive CPU cycles in the process. Massive disaster.

The only logical and fair implementation of this would be to allow it for online/pbem only, but make it OPTIONAL for those of us who don't like to cheat or who like the realism of the game the way it is.

[c3k]

FWIW, trees are ignored as LOS blocks if they are close to the firing unit. AIUI. Test it. So, that strawman can be pulled in half by the flying monkeys.

That same tree WILL block incoming fire.

This is an asymmetry. It has a bit of logic behind it. Play the "duck back behind the tree after I shoot" game to get a sense of it. This gives a benefit to the defender without having to go through the game-torture, described upstream, of wasting turn after turn trying to shoot from next to a tree.

[GerryCMBB]

Not interested in cheating anything or anyone. Your first sentence says basically what it would achieve. Making LOS a bit easier to figure out. (If BFC were worried about cheating they wouldn't allow us to plot a waypoint and check LOS from there btw).

As players we are trying to see a 3-D space through a 2-D screen. As has been said, in RL the soldiers would be able to find a good location with LOS as they can use their judgement to move over a few feet. We cannot do that.

It's about making it less hard work. Not about cheating. The need to implement good tactics and an overall plan would still be there.

Gerry

Yes, it would be a HUGE time saver. It would also be cheating when playing vs the AI. You'd be playing against an already inferior opponent that cannot check the LOS of any spot on the map to any other spot. So now you're probably saying to yourself "well, BF can even the playing field by adding LOS checking to the AI code." Now you just opened up a whole can of worms to reprogram the way the AI behaves and it would probably take up massive CPU cycles in the process. Massive disaster.

The only logical and fair implementation of this would be to allow it for online/pbem only, but make it OPTIONAL for those of us who don't like to cheat or who like the realism of the game the way it is.

[stikkypixie]

Not interested in cheating anything or anyone. Your first sentence says basically what it would achieve. Making LOS a bit easier to figure out. (If BFC were worried about cheating they wouldn't allow us to plot a waypoint and check LOS from there btw).

As players we are trying to see a 3-D space through a 2-D screen. As has been said, in RL the soldiers would be able to find a good location with LOS as they can use their judgement to move over a few feet. We cannot do that.

It's about making it less hard work. Not about cheating. The need to implement good tactics and an overall plan would still be there.

Gerry

Just out of curiosity, do you actually check the LOS the every possible location?

If I recall correctly the whole point of only have a waypoint checking tool is not to give perfect intel. That there is always the off chance that you might be spotted from somewhere you didn't think of looking.

I see it as a compensation for the fact that units cannot adjust their position to get better LOS to a target. I guess it comes down to a style of playing.

[GerryCMBB]

Definitely not. That would be way too much work for me. To the best of my tactical knowledge I try and understand the map and see where I want to place MGs, AT Guns, etc. So I am choosing the general location from a tactical perspective. Then I would like to be able to find out if that unit has the field of fire, I think they will have, from that area. So many times I have moved units somewhere that seems good tactically and their LOS/LOF is nothing like I imagine from looking at the map.

I am probably not spending enough time on defense actually. IIRC the guy that did those videos at Armchair General spent 1.5 hours setting up a defense. For me that is more work than fun. I do try to do a good setup but I cannot spend that long.

Gerry

Just out of curiosity, do you actually check the LOS the every possible location? ....

[Erwin]

"So many times I have moved units somewhere that seems good tactically and their LOS/LOF is nothing like I imagine from looking at the map."

Well yes, this is THE problem. That's why to play "well" one has to look at LOS from every waypoint, even setting waypoints at possible enemy locations to see what they may be able to see. And even after all that, you may not have a good LOS picture. This process is 90% of the game imo. Fighting in this way vs the game system certainly takes most of my gameplay time. The tactics are the easy part since they won't matter if you do not have a handle on the game system and how it handles LOS and spotting, and how units are likely to react in certain situations.

[stikkypixie]

Definitely not. That would be way too much work for me. To the best of my tactical knowledge I try and understand the map and see where I want to place MGs, AT Guns, etc. So I am choosing the general location from a tactical perspective. Then I would like to be able to find out if that unit has the field of fire, I think they will have, from that area. So many times I have moved units somewhere that seems good tactically and their LOS/LOF is nothing like I imagine from looking at the map.

I am probably not spending enough time on defense actually. IIRC the guy that did those videos at Armchair General spent 1.5 hours setting up a defense. For me that is more work than fun. I do try to do a good setup but I cannot spend that long.

Gerry

Me I've gotten into the habit to go to preset view 1 so gauge the LOS from a location (basically what I used to do in the old CM games). It's surprising sometimes to see that what looks like a perfect vantage point from up high, is actually pretty bad at closer inspection. Now I only use the target tool for very specific target I want to kill

[LongLeftFlank]

But when you're a scenario designer setting up a fortified position, or a player deploying forces in a setup zone, it would be very useful, even if it's too calc intensive to be usable during play.

[Peregrine]

It does need to be remembered that Battlefront didn't intrinsically include an LOS tool.

It is more that the target/target light command can be used like an LOS tool from where a unit is or where it is about to be via waypoint selection or more exploitively where a unit may move to based on a LOS result or may never be at all based on spurious waypoint use.

[GerryCMBB]

This would be a great help.

Gerry

But when you're a scenario designer setting up a fortified position, or a player deploying forces in a setup zone, it would be very useful, even if it's too calc intensive to be usable during play.

[Pak40]

Not interested in cheating anything or anyone. Your first sentence says basically what it would achieve. Making LOS a bit easier to figure out. (If BFC were worried about cheating they wouldn't allow us to plot a waypoint and check LOS from there btw).

As players we are trying to see a 3-D space through a 2-D screen. As has been said, in RL the soldiers would be able to find a good location with LOS as they can use their judgement to move over a few feet. We cannot do that.

It's about making it less hard work. Not about cheating. The need to implement good tactics and an overall plan would still be there.

Gerry

Regardless of your intentions, it's still cheating, or if you'd rather phrase it this way, an unfair advantage. If I was playing a game versus you and you had a LOS checking tool and I did not, that's an unfair advantage.

It's kind like a chess match between two humans but one of them has access to IMB's Deep Blue.

As mentioned by others, humans already have this basic ability when setting waypoints, which gives us an unfair advantage - it's just cumbersome to use. Now what Townes(and others before him) is suggesting will make it it easier for the player to have an unfair advantage.

[Redwolf]

"So many times I have moved units somewhere that seems good tactically and their LOS/LOF is nothing like I imagine from looking at the map."

Well yes, this is THE problem. That's why to play "well" one has to look at LOS from every waypoint, even setting waypoints at possible enemy locations to see what they may be able to see. And even after all that, you may not have a good LOS picture. This process is 90% of the game imo. Fighting in this way vs the game system certainly takes most of my gameplay time. The tactics are the easy part since they won't matter if you do not have a handle on the game system and how it handles LOS and spotting, and how units are likely to react in certain situations.

I have never seen a post summing up the problem with having fun in CMx2 so well.

There might be other realism problems but they don't subtract from play fun except if you are bothered by the lack of realism itself. This stupidity requiring a PhD in action spot mechanisms and the herding cats syndrome with the half-assed move to 1:1 representation (1:1 on map but not 1:1 to the player and then doing automatic placement in an environment where 3D objects supposedly matter for cover and concealment) is what really detracts from the gameplay.

You can bitch and whine about fortifications being too weak all day long and is the spotting obviously broken? Sure. Could you still have fun with these on board? Sure, still better than the competition out there. Do you want to use your brain for tactics and not for game mechanics second-guessing? Yes, most of us want that, unless we have an obsession with researching game mechanics as such.

And from what I see in the CMFI demo all that BFC changes was make the interface worse. Really not the way to go.

[George MC]

I reckon this boils down to old men who are control freaks wanting to know everything about everything before they even plot a move.

Oh and I'll fess up. I'm 49 but I've never felt the need for this. Like others have stated if positioning is so crucial I get down in the weeds and check it out. Reckon this is donw to total control freakery vs ah what the **** let's see what happ...