Bug: Field Guns In Indirect Fire Mode: Shooting Into The Ground

[Lanzfeld]

I just used a few 75mm on board guns in a scenario I have been playing and I find that if you set them up in an open field (if the map has one) then they work really well on a fairly flat map.

[ASL Veteran]

So the game offers indirect fire for on map guns, it gives the player a wrong information during the setup phase about a clear LOF, but since this is not a "common CM battlefield situation" this is not worth being corrected? :eek:

Yes, that's what he said. Even if he said that they would adjust it today though it wouldn't help you in your current situation anyway. Your game would likely have been played to completion by the time it was 'adjusted' so it would only help you the next time this happened to you. Just out of curiosity how many times has this happened to you prior to just now? Also, now that you know this situation exists do you think you might be able to adjust your playing style a bit to account for this 'situation'? Just asking.

[akd]

So the game offers indirect fire for on map guns, it gives the player a wrong information during the setup phase about a clear LOF, but since this is not a "common CM battlefield situation" this is not worth being corrected? :eek:

Obviously that is not a correct general statement, as I am yet to have a problem with the targeting cursor saying there is line of fire where it is clearly (not marginally) blocked by intervening terrain. If there is a mountain in the way, I get the "no line of fire" message. Please post a save of the problem you are having, since it might be a bug with a specific situation.

[Steiner14]

Also, now that you know this situation exists do you think you might be able to adjust your playing style a bit to account for this 'situation'? Just asking.

And how should i "adjust my playing style"? Placing the guns on forward slopes maybe because they are so well protected in trenches anyway? :mad:

I find it strange that a customer should excuse himself for expecting that a game feature should work as claimed.

[Steiner14]

Please post a save of the problem you are having, since it might be a bug with a specific situation.

We have learned, that this is no bug and so unusual on the CM battlefield, that there was no need to make any changes and you dare to write such things afterwards? You will not receive the fanboi medal with such an ignorant behaviour.

Btw, I find this unwilligness quite strange, because a simple tool would already be of great help for the player: if the gun's parabolic trajectory would be displayed during the setup phase, the player could decide on his own, if obstacles were in the way or could be too close.

[Steiner14]

Obviously that is not a correct general statement, as I am yet to have a problem with the targeting cursor saying there is line of fire where it is clearly (not marginally) blocked by intervening terrain. If there is a mountain in the way, I get the "no line of fire" message.

The problem are not obstacles clearly blocking the trajectory. The problem seems to occur on the border of blocked LOF to clear LOF, where the projectile is getting close to the ridge/terrain: the engine tells the player that there was still a clear LOF, while the trajectory already could be too flat and already hitting the terrain.

Showing the curve with a certain confidence error would solve that.

[ASL Veteran]

And how should i "adjust my playing style"? Placing the guns on forward slopes maybe because they are so well protected in trenches anyway? :mad:

I find it strange that a customer should excuse himself for expecting that a game feature should work as claimed.

I understand your frustration - sometimes things in games don't work the way you expect and stuff happens to affect your chances of victory in a negative way. No need to excuse yourself. You identified an issue and Steve addressed your post about the issue. You have recommended a solution - maybe he'll take a look at that proposed solution and see if it can be implemented some day in the future.

[herr_oberst]

Re. Gun elevation on AFVs - Steve answers that question about once a year

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86637&page=4

Yeah, way way back there was some spirited discussion on this issue.

You issue a hunt forward to a ridge line.

TC sees an enemy AFV at a lower elevation before the gun crests the hill.

What does the AI do?

a. Halt, and not get a shot off because your AFV has crappy gun depression? The TC can see it, but the gunner can't?

b. Advance over the ridge (because your AFV has crappy gun depression) to take a shot, but misses, and exposes its upper hull to counter-fire, and gets smoked.

Or you're at the lower elevation, and an enemy AFV crests the ridge, but your AFV has crappy gun elevation. What does the AI do?

a. Flee backwards for cover, or until the angle reduces to where it can fire?

b. Go forwards because there is a small rise in front of you which will bring the gun to bear if the AFV survives long enough?

Sticky wickets all.

[Battlefront.com]

Btw, I find this unwilligness quite strange, because a simple tool would already be of great help for the player: if the gun's parabolic trajectory would be displayed during the setup phase, the player could decide on his own, if obstacles were in the way or could be too close.

What "unwillingness" are you talking about? I would love to get this addressed today if I could snap my fingers and make it happen. But given the other things we have to do, this doesn't even rank close to being important enough to drop everything and pursue.

As I've said, this is not a common problem for gamers to experience. The conditions that must exist for this to be a problem are very specific and rarely seen. We can not run around like our hair is on fire every single time a player experiences something he doesn't like. And if we did, then this issue would still take a while to get to because I can promise you there are a LOT more issues people would rank higher up than this.

BTW, the LOS line gives you absolutely accurate information. The gun should be able to hit what the LOS line says you can hit. But under specific circumstances that may not be possible. Spending time breaking the LOS tool to show you bad information that shouldn't be there in the first place is a dumb thing to do. It would probably take less time to get the AI to use propellent charges correctly.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, way way back there was some spirited discussion on this issue.

You issue a hunt forward to a ridge line.

TC sees an enemy AFV at a lower elevation before the gun crests the hill.

What does the AI do?

a. Halt, and not get a shot off because your AFV has crappy gun depression? The TC can see it, but the gunner can't?

b. Advance over the ridge (because your AFV has crappy gun depression) to take a shot, but misses, and exposes its upper hull to counter-fire, and gets smoked.

Or you're at the lower elevation, and an enemy AFV crests the ridge, but your AFV has crappy gun elevation. What does the AI do?

a. Flee backwards for cover, or until the angle reduces to where it can fire?

b. Go forwards because there is a small rise in front of you which will bring the gun to bear if the AFV survives long enough?

Sticky wickets all.

Yup, all of that and a LOT more. Gamers in general have an under appreciation for gameplay ramifications when they make suggestions. Sometimes even we do, and we know far better than most what is going on

Generally what happens is we "suffer" through a shortcoming until we find that it comes up too frequently to keep the status quo. The more problems overlap the more likely this will happen sooner. For example, back in CMSF days we had a host of really odd LOS/LOF behavior that was extremely frustrating to people. Didn't just happen a little bit here and there, but pretty much at least once a game for most players most of the time. And when it happened it usually mattered. This caused a general suspicion about LOS/LOF that was overblown, though not fundamentally incorrect.

The solution was the Enhanced LOS system which took variable heights of shooter and target into account. Took us several MONTHS to get this implemented correctly. Plus, we had to make other performance improvements to free up the CPU cycles and RAM needed to make it work. But it was well worth it. The variety of problems we had before were solved and gameplay greatly improved.

Steve

[MikeyD]

I find it interesting how gamers, who usually insist on micromanaging every detail, in this case want the AI to auto-correct their targetting mistakes for them. You thought your howitzer's round would clear intervening obstructions but you were wrong. Shouldn't there be some sort of penalty for being an incompetent player? An experienced player would have some notion of what he can and can't get away with.

[Steiner14]

I find it interesting how gamers, who usually insist on micromanaging every detail, in this case want the AI to auto-correct their targetting mistakes for them. You thought your howitzer's round would clear intervening obstructions but you were wrong.

MikeyD, why don't you stay quiet, if you don't understand what the problem is?

[Sublime]

MikeyD, why don't you stay quiet, if you don't understand what the problem is?

don't be an @$$hole

[Redwolf]

Well, in Steiner's defense I think Mickey knew exactly what he was doing there

None of us can reject the temptation of pushing buttons all the time.

[dieseltaylor]

I was also offended by MikeyD's post but refrained from posting my written response. It was an unhelpful aspersion on the community.

And Sublime should be familiar with forum rules about name calling and abuse and abide by them.

[Sublime]

Well I wasn't offended by MikeyD's post. You're gonna need a thicker skin than that for the internet. You guys are talking about someone who always tries to help people and has done more for the CM community than most. I stand by my statement.

[dieseltaylor]

"Statement" ?

Rather a grandiose term for name-calling. And I assume that also means that you feel you are free of forum guidelines.

[dieseltaylor]

On the question as to whether the game engine or the player should be responsible for aborting stupid firing I side with the player. The game engine if played RT is not really going to allow players time to observe all the activities of all the units and even in PBEM if you are rushing a return file I do not wish to cycle through every unit.

BF obviously have more urgent priorities which is fair enough. The concept that the unit AI is so dumb as to continually fire and hit intervening terrain without stopping is not very encouraging and it would be good that it is fixed.

[Ron]

Well I think MikeyD has a valid point also. It is a game with limitations, sometimes it doesn't do what you expect. Once known, you adjust. I do find it interesting someone would expect the game AI to be smarter than them.

[dieseltaylor]

Ron. Working within limitations of the game system is a given but surely the whole ethos of BF games has been improvement of what is on offer.

As design philosophy I think what makes a game easier to play is generally good. For instance early computer wargaming crushed war boardgaming as it did all the calculations, die rolling, and provided hidden forces. Not impossible in boardgaming but tedious to set-up and run.

Now a common tedious job is getting columns of vehicles to follow along roads. Nobody likes doing it and I defy you to say it is a good use of players time. I would hope that eventually shells exploding very much closer to the gun than the nominated target area might force a logic check and get the AI to cease firing - whether this is possible .........

[c3k]

What is most interesting to me is that a clear limitation with the game engine has been identified.

The game's developer has agreed that it is a limitation. He stated that it is something that should be fixed, however, more pressing problems are taking priority over attempting to implement a solution.

This is a somewhat rare problem. (Variable, depending on your play style.)

Then the thread goes into pure vitriole mode. (Okay, a bit of an exaggeration, but still...)

Ken.

[sburke]

C'mon admit it, you are just checking to see that flares still take precedence.

[Sublime]

"Statement" ?

Rather a grandiose term for name-calling. And I assume that also means that you feel you are free of forum guidelines.

I never said I did or did not feel free of the forum rules. However I do feel free of needing to explain myself to someone whose designated themselves as forum police when they are in fact not.

[Battlefront.com]

I came back to this thread thinking that maybe someone was saying something interesting. Alas, it is not so.

What people don't understand is that computers are inherently no smarter than the Earth minerals they are made out of. EVERY SINGLE BEHAVIOR has to be specifically programmed, tested, adjusted, and almost always expanded beyond it's original intended scope due to unintended consequences. If we were to divert our attentions to only AI issues we would have a game that was so devoid of game features that nobody would want to play.

Things like this do get improved over time. But any one thing has to be kept in perspective of the whole. I'm sure people will be much happier we spent our time improving MG effects and not spending the same time trying to prevent a specific weapon in a specific situation used in a specific way from automatically ceasing fire.

Steve

[Steiner14]

Steve,

with that argument probably every problem can be ridiculed because there will always be an aspect, that is more important.

And secondly, a potential solution to the problem, without the need to improve the AI, was presented, too.