How I check visibility while plotting move orders

[A Canadian Cat]

There have been a few recent discussions about determining visibility plus I met a couple of friends for lunch the other day and we talked about their frustrations with determining visibility in game. I told them what I did but figured a video might help clarify it better than describing it. Here it is - comments welcome:

This is my recording of me setting the movement orders for a Stug in the game documented here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105660

PS. Yes, I know the trees are set to trunks only and I say "turn on trees". Bit of an oops I know. When I did the dry run to test out the movement plotting I did turn on trees and then I turned them back off again and forgot to turn them on while actually recording. I did not notice my mistake until a couple of days later. In this particular case they matter very little. The target Churchill is not obscured by trees at tall and the Churchill I am trying to avoid is behind trees with foliage that is very high up. Really only the trunks are protecting the Stug.

[noob]

Why don't you just use the Target function from a selected waypoint to give you a specific reading for LOS, you can also place waypoints where the enemy tanks are, to get their perspective, and also, it's quicker to let the Stug sidle round the tree than make it back up and aim for a space, and you only need one move order line.

[A Canadian Cat]

Thanks for the comments.

The target line (which I did not record me checking) says that the area under the target Churchill is on a reverse slope and is not target-able. From my experience that means either there will be nothing of the enemy tank visible or almost all of it might be visible. The only way to know is to look - IMHO - YMMV.

As for the reverse followed by movement orders I respectfully disagree. Asking tanks to move off in a direction to their side is asking to watch half a turn go by with them turning in place to face the new direction. I probably could have gone forward and then direct him across the field but I chose what I consider to be the faster way. Again based on my experience YMMV.

[noob]

From my experience that means either there will be nothing of the enemy tank visible or almost all of it might be visible. The only way to know is to look - IMHO - YMMV.

On the contrary, if the target line from a tank says "Reverse Slope - No Aim Point", the target line turns dark blue, which, in my experience, means it cannot target the ground, but it can target anything higher than the ground, it is only when it says "No Line of Sight", that you know it will see nothing, irrespective of height.

[noob]

As for the reverse followed by movement orders I respectfully disagree. Asking tanks to move off in a direction to their side is asking to watch half a turn go by with them turning in place to face the new direction. I probably could have gone forward and then direct him across the field but I chose what I consider to be the faster way. Again based on my experience YMMV.

I just tested setting up a unbroken 8 tile strip of type A trees using a three tree to a tile print, and then placing a Stug tight to them at a right angle, then i set one fast move order line at a right angle to the Stug to make it move through the trees, it drove through the tree trunks like they weren't there.

[A Canadian Cat]

"Reverse Slope - No Aim Point", the target line turns dark blue, which, in my experience, means it cannot target the ground, but it can target anything higher than the ground,

Right but you cannot tell how much of the enemy you can see located there. It could be almost to the wheels or just a sliver of the turret. That is why I recommend looking with the camera. Of course that does not help much if there is no enemy vehicles to look at.

[A Canadian Cat]

it drove through the tree trunks like they weren't there.

No, it is not the trees that I am trying t avoid. It is the sharp turn I was evening out. Sharp in place turns tend to take a long time for vehicles to execute. At least that is what it feels like to me.

[noob]

Right but you cannot tell how much of the enemy you can see located there. It could be almost to the wheels or just a sliver of the turret. That is why I recommend looking with the camera. Of course that does not help much if there is no enemy vehicles to look at.

Myself, i just need to know that i can get a shot at a vehicle and i'm good to go, but maybe i will try your method to see if the view corresponds to the targets visually exposed parts when hits are registered.

[noob]

No, it is not the trees that I am trying t avoid. It is the sharp turn I was evening out. Sharp in place turns tend to take a long time for vehicles to execute. At least that is what it feels like to me.

I used a Stug III, and it turned really fast, however, i cannot, at this moment in time, speak for any other vehicle.

[A Canadian Cat]

I used a Stug III, and it turned really fast, however, i cannot, at this moment in time, speak for any other vehicle.

Perhaps I was being overly cautious. Half tracks seem to be particularly awkward in this regard. I tend to just do that for all vehicles as my SOP.

Perhaps a test - a race is in order:-)

[noob]

Perhaps a test - a race is in order:-)

Set it up, make a video, call it Ben Herr :-)

[A Canadian Cat]

Set it up, make a video, call it Ben Herr :-)

LOL, no promises but I do agree it warrants investigation.