Idea to solve LoS guessing problems

[newlife]

I play CM only for the PBEM, so I personally don't care about the Strategic AI and much more about the game interface. When I do play solo it's mostly campaign or scenarios where the computer is on defense and a human set up the game to be balanced. QB AI is already so bad that arguments based on limiting the player so the AI can compete is like worrying about strict enforcement of pass interference when a high school team plays versus an NFL team. We know who is winning, let's not extend things with needless hang ups. Just give me a good interface that reduces frustration, not one that limits me for balance against something I overmatch anyway.

[Redwolf]

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.

CMx1 did, too, at least for vehicles. Infantry didn't have smoke grenades so those didn't.

[sburke]

There are a ton of things I'd like the AI to do as I am sure BF would as well. They are after all the ones who keep saying most of their audience plays only against the AI. Not being a programmer I have no idea of how much effort it takes to get right (and that "right" portion is the really hard part), but I assume from them not doing it that it is damned hard. I can accept that, the game is a work in progress and I am sure the AI actions will improve over time.

As to all the discussion of LOS. We keep saying a team in RL that is told go to that hilltop and gain LOS on objective x would just go do it as if in RL it is just that simple. Go to a spot that is really obvious, gives you good cover AND gives you good observatron. Frankly I am not convinced even in real life it is that simple. Observation maybe, good cover maybe, good LOF maybe, all three....hmmmm that may be harder to manage. As to LOS tools. I think no matter how many BF gives us, the reality is they will actually tell us nowhere near as much as we might hope. Case in point. I have a PBEM right now where a Churchill rolls past a hedge that I have a team behind engaged in a firefight with some Infantry in a nearby building. The team and the tank are in clear LOS of one another...and dang close - how close I will make clear in a minute. The team definitely spots the Churchill no question. They have a PF and they are withing range...and I start counting the seconds of their life expectancy waiting for them to fire the PF or die... and I keep counting. The Churchill meanwhile has engaged another team and doesn't seem to realize the danger. Time runs out and the Churchill opens up taking out 2 of the 4 men who have kept firing non stop at the infantry in the building. Of course one of them is the guy with the PF. I guess the round exploding next to them finally woke them up to the threat as the what remains of the team turns and immobilizes the Churchill with grenades, which proceeds to mow them down in indignant rage.

The point of all that is, a LOS tool would have told me the Churchill's AS could be seen from the AS my team was in, but not necessarily every location in the AS. My guess is the PF guy was mashed right up against the hedgerow and actually couldn't see it. It isn't the first time I have had a team that LOS would tell me they can see a tank, but the guy with the AT weapon has his direct LOF blocked. So what is a LOS tool really going to tell me - that it is possible for me to see X location, but it won't necessarily tell me I will definitely be able to nor will it tell me I can actually fire on that location. The suggestion that the guy should move to get a clear LOF has been mentioned, but honestly I don't know how well that would really work - how much overhead would it take for the TAC AI to figure that out and decide, and whether it is smart. Maybe I don't want my guys moving, movement gets spotted and spotted gets dead. Maybe I had better leave them in place able to take the shot if they get it. It is one of those issues where I can see both sides as possible and I have seen the second work often enough.

[Erwin]

"it is possible for me to see X location, but it won't necessarily tell me I will definitely be able to nor will it tell me I can actually fire on that location."

This is the crux of the LOS issue. As I have mentioned before, there is no point in a game having the 3rd ammo donkey able to see a target if it's impossible to get a weapon to fire at it. When your buddy, a few inches away, can see a nearby target it is nothing but frustrating that one can't get a weapon to move a few inches so it can fire at it. And this is what happens a lot, not just once in a blue moon.

Whether you consider CM is primarily a simulation or an entertainment product, this is one of the greatest challenges.

[Jock Tamson]

As to LOS tools. I think no matter how many BF gives us, the reality is they will actually tell us nowhere near as much as we might hope.

I think this is ok. Most players realise that a LOS from a given waypoint at the moment is not a guarantee of perfect LOS, replacing the place waypoints/check line of sight fandango with a single key press (perhaps only available during pauses or turns) is a UI improvement as much as anything, which would free up time to enjoy the other aspects of the game.

[LongLeftFlank]

Yeah, good points. As Erwin says we wouldn't be craving a better LOS micromanagement tool if the men would do a better job on their own. I recall a Makin test where a Scout team lined up against a hedgerow wouldn't shoot an obvious sniper team 3 squares away. I rotated them 45deg left and voila! they all opened up. OTOH as SBurke suggests, guys constantly squirming around or prairiedogging tend to get seen and shot.

Re the "oblivious to the nearby Churchill" thing so many have complained about, one hack might be to make operational vehicles emit an occasional (inaudible) "pulse" that alerts enemy infantry within a certain radius (say 30m) as if they'd been shot at, though with no damage effect. That "wake up! time to die" alert would remove some of the most egregious "Tiger? What Tiger?" incidents, although it would need to be combined with the long-sought reduction in AFV ability to spot infantry or the "alerted" infantry might give away their position as they turned to react.