LOS and LOF warning

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, but I think the real solution is the one that doesn't rely upon micro managing the camera position. As someone that usually plays fairly high up from the field I can appreciate not wanting to switch views around to double check something like this. Which is why I don't and use intuition

Steve

[Georgie]

Good news indeed Steve. I know that when I first started playing CMBN the LOS vs LOF issue gave me a lot of trouble. I finally learned how to cope with it most of the time and since I was already hooked on CM I took the time to do it. Some players that are new to CM and are trying out the demo might not take the time to figure out how to cope with it and and give up on an already difficult game. Very good news.

[Battlefront.com]

Unfortunately this is the age old problem of doing something that is outside of the norm. The standard LOS method is to have one fixed height for everything. This is the way CMx1 did it, as did CMSF until v1.05. Visually it is a lot easier to portray.

However, it doesn't make the game any easier or any less frustrating. At least when the environment isn't absurdly abstract, as was the case in CMx1 and is the case in 2D wargames.

Instead of a few situations where people complain visuals and the LOS results are confusing, players regularly experience conditions where something can't shoot at what it can "see" and can shoot at what it can't "see". It also makes realistic, believable spotting more difficult to obtain because spotting that doesn't explicitly deal with different heights has to rely solely on abstractions. I can promise you that doesn't work out nearly as well

I can say this for sure because CMSF originally had a CMx1 type LOS system. It mostly worked most of the time, but caused a ton of frustration. Which is why we explored the possibility of the Enhanced LOS system and then adopted it. The problems previously noted by players melted away to almost nothing.

Which is to say... if you're frustrated by the way it is now, you'd have hated it the way it was before

Steve

[Vanir Ausf B]

To clear something up. BLUE line does not mean everybody in the unit can see that particular point. As was pointed out, the loader in a tank isn't even looking in the direction the gun is facing. What means is the unit is able to effectively take that space under fire. If a key part of the unit, such as the gunner, can't see that spot then the line goes GRAY.

Interesting. That suggests that the line signifies different things for vehicles than for infantry. I have seen infantry get a grey line if just one guy is still belly crawling when I target.

[Battlefront.com]

That's because infantry has no central focused weapon. It requires different thinking than 12 guys out in the open. For example, when the player clicks on a tank he's almost certainly thinking "can I use my main gun", not "can I use my bow MG". When you click on an Infantry Gun the thought is most likely "I need to know if the 3rd ammo bearer can crack off a shot with his rifle yet". Therefore the feedback is tweaked to be contextually meaningful since that's what the player expects.

I'd have to triple check, but I'm pretty sure that you will see a BLUE line for infantry even if a couple guys can't see.

Steve

[Lt Belenko]

Some times the targeting line is blue with a tiny bit of red at the end. So I adjust the line a little closer to the shooter and the line remains blue with a tiny red segment at the end. Do this a few more times till its finally blue, but the line is too short even for area fire. Shouldn't shortening the targeting path initial red segment amount cause it to go all blue?

[ForwardObserver]

When you click on an Infantry Gun the thought is most likely "I need to know if the 3rd ammo bearer can crack off a shot with his rifle yet".

That strikes me as a very peculiar way of assessing the utility of IGs

[Michael Emrys]

That strikes me as a very peculiar way of assessing the utility of IGs

Yeah, that one brought me up short as well.

:confused:

Michael

[agusto]

I think he meant:

When you click on an Infantry Gun the thought is most likely not "I need to know if the 3rd ammo bearer can crack off a shot with his rifle yet".

[Battlefront.com]

Agusto has it correct, of course Missed a negative in my statement.

Steve

[Broadsword56]

Yes, but I think the real solution is the one that doesn't rely upon micro managing the camera position. As someone that usually plays fairly high up from the field I can appreciate not wanting to switch views around to double check something like this. Which is why I don't and use intuition

Steve

Best solution IMHO would be a "show LOS" toggle that would let the player click on any AS on the map and get a translucent overlay showing all AS that are visible and not visible from that AS. Imagine the red setup zone color covering the nonvisible areas, and clear or highlighted areas showing what can be seen. This would be LOS and not LOF, of course, but it would be a huge help in visualizing terrain and smoother planning without having to drag a lot of LOS lines around or plot fake order points.

(Panther Games implemented that type of tool very well in Conquest of the Aegean and Battles from the Bulge. But those were 2D wargames on a computer, not 3D with the physics and 1:1 modeling that we have in CMx2)

Of course, it would probably demand so much from computers that only some future generation of hardware would be able to handle it. The system we have works fine for me, I'm just dreaming of something that would be ideal.

[Michael Emrys]

Best solution IMHO would be a "show LOS" toggle that would let the player click on any AS on the map and get a translucent overlay showing all AS that are visible and not visible from that AS. Imagine the red setup zone color covering the nonvisible areas, and clear or highlighted areas showing what can be seen.

As has been explained here more than once, this won't work satisfactorily due to the fact that LOS is dependent on the eye level of the unit in the AS, and that can vary dramatically with effects on whether the LOS is go or no-go.

Michael

[Tarquelne]

As has been explained here more than once, this won't work satisfactorily due to the fact that LOS is dependent on the eye level of the unit in the AS, and that can vary dramatically with effects on whether the LOS is go or no-go.

If there's room for more than one toggle button - or something strange like a cycling button - we could have LOS overlays for several levels, a topo map, and a nearest-eatery or landmark guide.

What might be cool is, rather than the more-gamyg LOS overlay or even line, is an "adopt POV" mode. Here's what the gunner sees.... Here's what the commander sees... Here's what the third assistant ammo bearer sees...

People have suggested playing CM only from view level one. I can see the attraction but, personally: Nah. But "only from unit POVs" - that sounds like fun.

[Erwin]

"What might be cool is, rather than the more-gamyg LOS overlay or even line, is an "adopt POV" mode. Here's what the gunner sees.... Here's what the commander sees... Here's what the third assistant ammo bearer sees... "

But this is rather silly if the player cannot DO anything about getting the MG or gun or whatever to move so that it can shoot at what the "third assistant ammo bearer sees".

Since the object of placing a crew weapon in any location is to shoot at a target or an area, ideally the AI should move the weapon so that it/the gunner CAN see and shoot at that area or target.

Too many times we struggle to get a weapon system to a location from which it should have good LOS and LOF, only to find that only the third assistant can see. Who cares what the third assistant ammo bearer sees or can shoot at, if the main weapon is useless? I can understand it being hard for a tank or heavy gun. But, surely a MG can easily be moved a couple inches so that it can see and fire.

[Michael Emrys]

BTW, when trying to suss out potential LOS/LOF for vehicular units, I usually go to view 2. I don't claim that it is foolproof (which is what some people seem to be demanding), but it does give me a pretty good approximation.

Michael