Idea to solve LoS guessing problems

[TheVulture]

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...

... or people who don't find it fun to spend 5 minutes trying to figure out what they can and can't see from any given point simple because the game doesn't give you a convenient way of accessing the information it is capable of presenting to you.

[ZPB II]

There are so many ways to play a game.

Yes, the UI could be better. Yes, the game mechanics could be better.

I still don't experience the kind of gameplay some people here say. I have bound hotkeys and use the camera controls (which seriously does not take very long to learn, but there are no tutorials on this) in such a fashion that if I feel the need to inspect LOS from a certain location quickly, I can do it with a few clicks and presses in the matter of seconds. Most of the time the terrain makes sense to me that I don't even need to check the LOS because I assume it works because hey, that's what it looks like on the map.

Heavily forested maps and urban maps are very tricky, I admit. Strangely, part of the charm might be that combat locales that are particularly hellish (say, bocage or urban) are reflected pretty well.

Sometimes there are jarring glitches, but I find that they happen rarely. I don't obsess over details, many times I simply let the pixeltruppen choose their own targets and force suppressive fires when gravely needed. When I start a scenario I fly over the map both high overhead and then glide over the most important bits of terrain. Then I give orders from a very high camera angle and magic happens. It works pretty well.

The strange thing is that I have had some control freak tendencies in computer games (UNLOCK ALL ACHIEVEMENTS, MAXIMUM DPS!!!) and one would think CMx2 would be poison.

Long story short, I don't think the action point system and LOS is as bad as some people make it out to be. I think it's somewhat easy to understand and does not require deep studies in action point black magic.

I've seen opinions from people who want Combat Mission to be more like Rainbow Six (the good R6s from days yonder, not the generic COD clones) where you can play through the entire campaign from the planning screen, simply making a plan with such precision timing and control that the enemy doesn't know what happened.

For me, playing CM doesn't feel like I have to exert tremendous amount of work to get around the system to actually play a game. I feel like I'm playing a pretty realistic game that depicts the random chaos of combat quite well.

I guess the spectrum goes from having an omniscient and omnipotent integrated combat controller robot thingamajick overseeing an entire company with precision timing to having 500 dices rolling around in a tumble dryer deciding if it's a win or a loss.

EDIT: This is actually a really interesting topic since there is quite a lot of chaos going on the games industry. Basically, put in the most black and white and exaggarated form, big game companies are going belly-up (rumour mill says EA and Activision-Blizzard are in trouble) because they've been producing games that require zero effort to play. And then come indie developers who sometimes make really hard games that take tremendous effort to succeed in. And it feels really rewarding. Games are primarily entertainment, but it seems like a fair share of consumers are bored of the current state.

And no, I'm not saying CMx2 should be arbitrarily kept a really hard game to play. Just that it might not be as bad as some make it out to be.

Also, hypothetically, if you select a squad or a vehicle and press the "Show LOS from this unit" button, does it work so you select a single soldier and it shows his LOS or does it give a rough estimate of the entire squad/vehicle LOS? I can see problems with both implementations. It would be a nice tool nevertheless.

[Pak40]

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.

Making a magical LOS tool will only be a band-aid to a TacAI problem. I think the real solution to the "herding cat syndrome" is to fine tune the TacAI so that individual soldiers actually seek and find better vantage points from which to fire from. But this has to be done so that soldiers or vehicles are not constantly moving from one spot to another until they finds a good spot.

And don't forget that the AI or human opponent has the exact same limitations, so it's not like we're at a disadvantage.

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

What exactly is the interface change problem that you're referring to?

[Vanir Ausf B]

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.

I think we've already crossed that Rubicon in more ways that one. The AI can't use covered arcs, and I don't think it can deliberately hide it's troops. So any time you use covered arcs or the hide command against the AI you are in a sense cheating

[Peregrine]

It is pretty difficult to have depth in a computer game without some form of complexity. The complexity usually comes in the form of bad user interface from a control perspective, information overload or conversely not enough information at an appropriate time if the action is happening to fast.

[GerryCMBB]

Ridiculous use of the word cheating. I don't play the AI. I play other players. Not trying to cheat them. Both would have the same tools. Just like both can choose to use vehicle CA now if they want.

Previously people would argue against a wish list item of a forum member by saying it would take too long to program and we would miss out on other stuff. Now we are labeling some wishes as cheating so they won't get added to the game.

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.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I wonder if a "Find LOS" command would help. The way I imagine it you could plot a target line from any unit to any point on the map. The TacAI would check if LOS is possible from the unit's current action spot. If LOS is possible it will adjust individual soldiers so that heavy weapons and scoped rifles are given LOF priority to the selected spot on the map. In the case of vehicles the TacAI would plot a short reverse then move forward to the proper position.

[stikkypixie]

... or people who don't find it fun to spend 5 minutes trying to figure out what they can and can't see from any given point simple because the game doesn't give you a convenient way of accessing the information it is capable of presenting to you.

How does it take five minutes? One trick you can do is simply place a waypoint on the target, and use the target tool to find a location that has LOS to it. The UI is clunky, but there are ways around it.

[Rake]

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.

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.

This I think is a reasonable request... for scenario design

Yes, it would be a HUGE time saver.

This is the only advantage that I can think of for implementing this... it's another quest for instant gratification, one thing I feel the world has enough of already. Once again, just my opinion... like everyone, I have one and some even tell me I am one :eek: It goes with my profession

It would also be cheating when playing vs the AI.

Now, I'm not quite ready to go this far... yes against the AI, it might be. Then again, it's possible the AI has access to this info, but I imagine only Charles knows for sure. But, without triggers. there's really no way for the AI to use the information.

Playing H2H, it can't be cheating if everyone has access to the same tools.

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.

No, you're correct, Gerry, we cannot. That's the reason for sending troops in to find out whether LOS is actually available from a given action square. If LOS is good for everyone in the square, we get a light blue line; if only some can see we get a grey line. Thing is, we don't know which one can see and which cannot. But. I've seen troops move around in an AS so that what was once a grey line has later turned light blue as other troops maneuvered to get LOS... sometimes it happens, sometimes not.

I just get down to level one and use the arrow keys to s..l..o..w..l..y move around and look at what may or may not be possible to see. But again, until I put boots on the ground, I'll never know for sure... and I don't believe that we, with our god's eye view of the overall situation, have a need for a definitive answer before we actually put those troops on the spot.

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.

Don't know how to answer this... I've spent the better parts of several hours long CM sessions deciding on setups before hitting "Go". I remember the first defensive mission I played (just against the AI) taking 6-8 hours for my setup. I spent four or so hours on my attack setup in the second KG Engel scenario. Unfortunately, I saved in between and lost it all due to the red button crash. When I played ASL, I'd have my oppo come by and do his setup and I'd call a few days later when I was done with mine. I'm just anal like this, I reckon... see my comments re: some even tell me I am one, above.

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

And I cannot be convinced that one is necessary. If I absolutely need to know what can be seen from a given action square, I simply have to select a squad, Hit "F8" and click "Scout Team". This is exactly what a squad, platoon or company leader would do in the field... except that we have access to the knowledge instantaneously without the need to send a runner back to report.

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.

But part of tactics is moving troops into places just to recon what can be seen or not from any particular vantage point.

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...

AMEN!, George.. At 58, I don't understand the need for this either. I spend a LOT of time with my setup, but once I hit "Go" the rest of the game is "ah what the **** let's see what happ..."

Too much cut and pasting and time awasting... I just think there are many other things I'd like to see happen with CM than spending time fixing something I don't feel is broken.

[c3k]

Gah! I'm of the "toss the counters on the map and play 'em as they land" school. If you can't deal with what fate hands you, then, um, something. Or other.

[Townes]

Some of you are using really lame name calling tactics, labeling us "cheaters" "control freaks" or claiming we want an "unfair advantage" if we want to have this tool, but remember this: This by and large played is as single player game. You do not have to use this tool when YOU play and you shouldn't suppress our desire to have it when we play. If you use machineguns, should I accuse you of being a cheater and wanting an unfair because they never jam in this game compared to CM1 titles?

I even suggested having this tool off by default in the highest difficulties where you have to worry about your spotting to your own units (that is unless you simply use macros to select around your squads on the field quickly. I might as well call you a cheater for using macros to quickly select squads at that point then if I am going to use lame name calling tactcs.) I am sure it could be agreed on by the PBEM host whether to use it or not.

I know some of you really get off on using the target tool and that is nice, but I want to enjoy other aspects of the game than just moving a line around and targeting. Can I enjoy it without this? yes, but it would save a lot of time for scenario developers and more casual players alike.

All in all, I am sorry if you get off on spending hours using the LoS checking tool then feel the need to make negative claims of others because you don't like how we want something that makes that become mostly time wasted and ability less important. Technology changes and options change.

[ZPB II]

Some of you are using really lame name calling tactics

<SNIP>

I know some of you really get off on

<SNAP>

All in all, I am sorry if you get off on

Cool, dude.

[Pak40]

Some of you are using really lame name calling tactics, labeling us "cheaters" "control freaks" or claiming we want an "unfair advantage" if we want to have this tool, but remember this: This by and large played is as single player game.

Well, first off, I never called you or anyone else a cheater. However, the tool you wish to implement is in fact a form of cheating. Since the AI doesn't have the ability to do this, and you would use this LOS tool knowing that it gives you an unfair advantage, then yes, I would consider that cheating.

You do not have to use this tool when YOU play and you shouldn't suppress our desire to have it when we play.

The problem is what you're suggesting is too easy and tempting for players, even players like me who are adamantly against it. Dangle an apple in front of someone and they're going to bite it eventually, it's human nature.

I even suggested having this tool off by default in the highest difficulties where you have to worry about your spotting to your own units (that is unless you simply use macros to select around your squads on the field quickly. I might as well call you a cheater for using macros to quickly select squads at that point then if I am going to use lame name calling tactcs.) I am sure it could be agreed on by the PBEM host whether to use it or not.

If it's ever implemented in single player it should be optional at all levels and forced off at the hardest grog level.

As I said before, if in MP both parties agree on it then it's not cheating. However, I still have an issue with an auto-LOS tool because it will fundamentally change the way the game is played. RAKE, has a very good point which sums up what I fear will happen:

And I cannot be convinced that one is necessary. If I absolutely need to know what can be seen from a given action square, I simply have to select a squad, Hit "F8" and click "Scout Team". This is exactly what a squad, platoon or company leader would do in the field... except that we have access to the knowledge instantaneously without the need to send a runner back to report....

But part of tactics is moving troops into places just to recon what can be seen or not from any particular vantage point.

Basically, what Rake is saying is that the role of scouting, which is an important part of combat tactics, will be greatly diminished because people will be using Auto-LOS tool instead. It will fundamentally change the way the game is played, diminishing the realism that BF is trying to simulate.

[Erwin]

"The problem is what you're suggesting is too easy and tempting for players, even players like me who are adamantly against it. Dangle an apple in front of someone and they're going to bite it eventually, it's human nature."

So basically alcohol, and ciggies, porn, strip clubs, short skirts, women's hair and all those other things that prey on certain peoples' weaknesses should also be unavailable? Am not being snide. It is a perfectly legitimate POV Pak. There's many folks who would agree with you that all such phenomena be unavailable.

[Pak40]

Heck no, I love my beer, porn, strip clubs, and short skirts. You can keep the ciggies.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Covered arcs = cheating

Hide command = cheating

[Mad Mike]

Well, first off, I never called you or anyone else a cheater. However, the tool you wish to implement is in fact a form of cheating. Since the AI doesn't have the ability to do this, and you would use this LOS tool knowing that it gives you an unfair advantage, then yes, I would consider that cheating.

So then you switch off your brain too when you're playing against the AI?

Seems to me that's the biggest cheat available to us.

But seeing some of the posts on this forum I have no difficulty believing that some people never cheat against the AI.

[Jock Tamson]

Either the current workaround for LOS should be removed (ie placing waypoints and checking LOS from them), or there should be a single key press quick check as suggested in the OP.

The former appeals to me - thus necessitating using scouts in their proper role - however at the moment it seems to me that most scenarios do not allow anough time for these sorts of actions. However, I would happily play the game like this.

If the current workaround remains available, then it makes no sense to me not to tidy that up into something that makes checking LOS less of a ball ache, as suggested. Because at the end of the day we already have a means of doing this, it is just not a very good one.

In real life, a platoon commander might order a machine gun team to take up a position where they had LOS to a hill top. In real life they would find a spot where the could see the hill top. In real life they would try and take a covered route to that spot...if they had the time.

In CM, half of the "danger" and planning is that you place them in a spot where they don't have LOS to where you want them to, which is a pretty artificial risk. The danger should really tactical, that you order them to a spot that your opponent already has a unit with LOS to, or that you order them to a spot that offers LOS to multiple points (and thus is also a riskier tactic), or that you place your tank in a spot where it is going to be under gunned to penetrate targets in the area you want it to watch.

Anything that makes the game world easier to comprehend and allows more time for tactical considerations is a good thing, IMHO.

Perhaps a combination of the two would be best - no checking LOS from waypoints, and a single key LOS check on Action Spots that are within, say, 200 metres of one of your units.

[c3k]

I have NO solution, only ideas.

I think banning certain game functions as "cheating" is counterproductive, both here in the forum/community and in the game. If _your_ belief is that a player should not have a certain function, then, by all means, don't avail yourself of that function. But let's not FORCE your play style on someone else. Tyranny, anyone? As well, bandying about the term "cheater" will only inflame emotions and this will sink further into the pit of namecalling and derogatory references.

I recall BFC stating that having an on-the-fly full LOS map available would be too processor intensive. (That's my memory of it. I'm ready to be proven wrong.) Having said that, I can see the utility of a PRE-GAME check LOS tool. Select a spot, toggle the "show me everything I can see" switch, and get a highlight of viewable (or, alternatively, UN-viewable) action spots/terrain.

Whatever the processor overhead, if it occurs as a separate, apart from gameplay, function during the setup phase, it can delay the game with no penalties.

Of course, I'm talking out of my arse when I say that. I have _no_ idea how much processing time it would take or what the ramifications would be to the game of providing this type of function.

Just my .02.

[Pak40]

So then you switch off your brain too when you're playing against the AI?

Seems to me that's the biggest cheat available to us.

Well, you've touched part of the point I was trying to make, i.e. we are already at a big advantage over the A.I. and an auto LOS tool will only make that advantage greater.

And fine, I recant the term "Cheat". But you have to admit it's a tool that will give us more of an unfair advantage against an AI that cannot nearly compete with a human's superior understanding of the battlefield.

And, for those of you saying that covered arcs and hiding are already something that gives us an advantage because the AI cannot perform these actions, well you're half correct. The scenario designer can program the AI to ambush at various distances and can have units hide at any given AI Plan, however, the computer AI cannot choose to do these on it's own.

[Rake]

Either the current workaround for LOS should be removed (ie placing waypoints and checking LOS from them), or there should be a single key press quick check as suggested in the OP.

The former appeals to me - thus necessitating using scouts in their proper role - however at the moment it seems to me that most scenarios do not allow anough time for these sorts of actions. However, I would happily play the game like this.

I would be all for this and also would happily play the game this way.. Particularly when combined with something like this...

... I can see the utility of a PRE-GAME check LOS tool. Select a spot, toggle the "show me everything I can see" switch, and get a highlight of viewable (or, alternatively, UN-viewable) action spots/terrain.

Not having the benefit of topographical mapping and pre-battle scouting reports (other than what the designer gives us - and I'm often disinclined to believe much of what I read in the briefings), a Pre-Game LOS check would give a player basically the info that a CO would have on the ground, i.e., an idea of where he might need to send troops to see what he thinks might need to seen.

I'm not going to lie and say that I never use the LOS tool/target command from any point that I don't have troops... but I do use it rarely, mostly to place a waypoint on a spotted enemy unit to see if I've got a snowball's chance of sprinting across open or minimally covered terrain. It is such a PITA to use from multiple, plotted waypoints as to be unusable to me. Besides not knowing exactly where the LOS interruption is, you don't know if you can see the ground or the units actually in the AS. It's basically useless except from a point currently occupied by troops... and that's the reason I use scouts to see what I need to see.

[sburke]

So then you switch off your brain too when you're playing against the AI?

Seems to me that's the biggest cheat available to us.

But seeing some of the posts on this forum I have no difficulty believing that some people never cheat against the AI.

Wait a minute, there's a way to turn it ON????

Wtf?!!

[Townes]

As I said before, if in MP both parties agree on it then it's not cheating. However, I still have an issue with an auto-LOS tool because it will fundamentally change the way the game is played. RAKE, has a very good point which sums up what I fear will happen:

Basically, what Rake is saying is that the role of scouting, which is an important part of combat tactics, will be greatly diminished because people will be using Auto-LOS tool instead. It will fundamentally change the way the game is played, diminishing the realism that BF is trying to simulate.

Alright, sorry for being a bit hostile and insulting in my own post. I understand your argument more clearly now. I do like the idea that Jock suggested. You only get the tool in specific circumstances, rather than from point to point. but overall it is good to get some ideas going on the LoS system.

Also with the processor intensive, I think that might just depend on how they do the engine if they make a new one, but that could also open another can of worms admittedly.

[Vanir Ausf B]

And, for those of you saying that covered arcs and hiding are already something that gives us an advantage because the AI cannot perform these actions, well you're half correct. The scenario designer can program the AI to ambush at various distances and can have units hide at any given AI Plan, however, the computer AI cannot choose to do these on it's own.

The AI can't use area fire either. And if AI infantry can pop smoke I have yet to see it.

I agree with Jock that if the information is available to the player it should be easily accessible. Unless I am misunderstanding the proposal, the LOS information is already available to the player, it just requires a lot of mouse clicking to get it. If there is a performance issue preventing that from being calculated all at once then so be it, but I like the idea of it being functional only during setup.

[Pak40]

The AI can't use area fire either. And if AI infantry can pop smoke I have yet to see it.

True, I'm not sure why these haven't been implemented for the AI yet. Even Steel Panthers had the AI pop smoke when units were retreating or under heavy fire, etc. Area fire is such a basic tactic, it's a shame it's not implemented.