Death of A Firefly

[Michael Emrys]

Mr. Flaming Picky would like to point out that the LOS in the game works pretty well. Its the LOF that causes problems and frustration.

Maybe it's time the LOS and LOF were combined into one. Discuss.

Michael

[GerryCMBB]

Another vote for Erwin's idea.

Gerry

... A simpler LOS tool where if "the unit" can see the target, then "the unit prime weapon" can shoot at it would be so appreciated and make the game much more playable.

[Wodin]

OR the LOS tool tells you in text who has LOS i.e TC:Has LOS; Gunner:No LOS;Driver:Has LOS. This could be shown in text along the LOS line.

[YankeeDog]

Maybe it's time the LOS and LOF were combined into one. Discuss.

Michael

So, if LOS and LOF were made to be the same thing in the game, an unbuttoned tank that's "turret down" behind a berm would either (a) not have LOS over the berm, even though the TC (in his perch lookinf our od the commander's hatch) clearly *should* be able to see over the berm, or ( have LOF through the berm, even though the main gun should clearly be shooting directly into the berm.

Don't see either of these going over very well... fully exposed, hull down, turret down, and full defilade are different things, and depending on where the weapons systems are on a vehicle, they all offer differing LOS/LOF conditions. It's important that the game model this.

(Incidentally, if you analyze terrain carefully, it is possible to find and use turret down positions in CMx2; they're very good as scouting/OP positions in Armor vs. Armor fights).

[GerryCMBB]

If the commander has LOS then this could result in the enemy unit showing up on the map. So the commander's eyes would not be wasted?

Gerry

[James Crowley]

This is a good demonstration of the conflict between the 'gamer' type player - usually H2H - who prioritises winning strategies and wants as close to total control as possible and the ' simulation' type player, who more readily accepts less control in the name of 'stuff happens'

Of course neither is right or wrong but the only viable way to cater for both, without major programming, would be to go down the lines of Wodins suggestion since that is what we are led to believe is happening in the game engine anyway.

[John Kettler]

Michael Emrys,

If LOS and LOF were combined, you'd no longer have a tank sim or anything close to one. Why? Dealing with the difference between LOS and LOF is part of the real job of the TC, the gunner and the driver, working as a single unit. The TC operates from turret defilade (whole turret hidden, himself up and scanning for targets, likely with binos in hand). When he sees something, he orders the driver forward, during which the gunner's looking through the cannon's open bore (gun laid parallel to the ground) waiting for the cannon to completely clear mask. Only with that done can the TC issue issue his fire command, including ammo type, which the loader loads, meanwhile the TC's directing the gunner to the target. When the gunner sights the target, he notifies the TC, who then orders fire on command or fire at will. The tank can't shoot simply because the TC happens to see something. Part of fighting the tank in the defense means that in order to shoot, the tank must move from its best cover and concealment to the point where the main gun is clear of obstructions. This is hull down, and the few feet between the TC's eyeballs and the gunner's sight are critical to tank warfare.

And precisely those few feet and consequently what it takes to offset that height differential are the crux of this thread. I don't know how the LOS/LOF issue was handled in CMx1, but I'm convinced it needs to be discretely and separately modeled in CMx2. And it is. As it should be. I believe players need to learn to handle their armor accordingly. Either that, or BFC needs to somehow reintroduce the Hull Down command from CMx1. That, of course, would generate more squawks.

Regards,

John Kettler

[YankeeDog]

If the commander has LOS then this could result in the enemy unit showing up on the map. So the commander's eyes would not be wasted?

Gerry

Of course. This his how it works in the game right now. The question is what should the target line show when the player uses the Target command to check LOS/LOF to a point on the map which e.g., the commander can see, but the gunner can't.

Right now, the Target line can show you Blue "Full" LOS/LOF, Grey "Partial" LOS/LOF, and Purple-Red "No" LOS/LOF.

It's the Grey targeting line state that's really the issue -- in the case of AFVs and heavy weapons, it tells you at least one of the crew members doesn't have LOS/LOF to the target point, but it doesn't tell you *which* crew member. I think there is a good argument for some kind of "primary weapon no LOF" warning to the player in this case.

[Michael Emrys]

So, if LOS and LOF were made to be the same thing in the game, an unbuttoned tank that's "turret down" behind a berm would either (a) not have LOS over the berm, even though the TC (in his perch lookinf our od the commander's hatch) clearly *should* be able to see over the berm, or ( have LOF through the berm, even though the main gun should clearly be shooting directly into the berm.

I *knew* it couldn't be that simple. Well then, I guess we are back to either a written or graphic indication of who can see and who cannot.

Michael

[GerryCMBB]

Something like this or

Erwin's "A simpler LOS tool where if "the unit" can see the target, then "the unit prime weapon" can shoot at it " idea would make the game so much easier and enjoyable to play.

I think there is a good argument for some kind of "primary weapon no LOF" warning to the player in this case.

A related question. Say you are plotting a waypoint with a tank. You can use the Target command from the waypoint to check LOS. From whose/what perspective does it calculate this LOS?

Gerry

[Michael Emrys]

A related question. Say you are plotting a waypoint with a tank. You can use the Target command from the waypoint to check LOS. From whose/what perspective does it calculate this LOS?

That's what we don't know at the present time. Apparently if the targeting line is gray the target is not seen by the whole crew. But exactly who does not have an LOS is not given. Sometimes I think reasonable assumptions can be made. If the note says "Hull Down" or "Partial Hull Down" it is reasonable to assume that the driver and hull gunner are the ones missing LOS. But in a case where foliage might be involved that is not so clear.

Michael

[YankeeDog]

A related question. Say you are plotting a waypoint with a tank. You can use the Target command from the waypoint to check LOS. From whose/what perspective does it calculate this LOS?

AFAIK, BFC has never stated specifically, but from what I can tell, the information you get when you try to plot a target order from a waypoint seems to take into account the attributes and specifically the "eyeball height" of the unit currently selected. In other words, a target order plotted from the waypoint of a Sherman, which has a pair of eyes nearly 3m above the ground (TC at the top of the turret), shows a slightly different LOS/LOF than a target order plotted from exactly the same spot, but with an infantry unit selected, whose eyes would be only be a little more than 1.5m off the ground.

However, regardless of the unit type involved, the LOS/LOF shown from waypoints may not *exactly* match the LOS/LOF of the unit when it gets to that spot. The game tracks the exact location of eyeballs, viewports, etc. to quite a degree of fidelity, so once a unit reaches a destination, the LOS/LOF may be slightly different than the generic LOS/LOF shown by the waypoint TARGET order.

From what I can tell, it appears that the Target order is telling you whether the unit will be able to actually see the ground at the target point when it reaches the waypoint, or, in the case of the "Reverse Slope No Aim Point" alert, it's telling you that the unit won't be able to quite see the ground at that point, but the LOS/LOF is good enough that the unit will probably have LOF to e.g., an infantry unit at that location (since even a prone infantryman has some height and therefore may be visible, even if the ground he is lying on is not).

However, in the case of larger/taller enemies like AFVs, you can definitely end up getting LOS/LOF to an enemy at a location that a target line plotted from a waypoint indicates the unit won't be able to see at all. As noted above, some AFVs are about 3m tall, so they can be visible in locations where an infantryman standing completely erect would be in full defilade.