Fix the game pls ...

[Marc Anton]

Another module is coming with new soldiers and some bridges ... nice, will buy it anyways ... but PLEASE BF, take your time and fix the main game mechanics like the whole LOS system.

Here´s a screen which made me angry because this happens every f.... time. The stupid laser-pointer/thermal view mounted on every unit is absolutely unrealistic.

Over and Over again the player can see that CM:BN is just a Shock-Force derivate.

Its foggy, its 500m away, its behind dozends of trees and brushes but the stug hit with the second shot ....

http://s14.directupload.net/images/130920/baomdcqp.jpg' alt='baomdcqp.jpg'>

You never know where to place an AT-gun because you cant fu... tell: does it see anything, can it shoot anything, does it have good cover ...

[weapon2010]

While I don't agree with everything Marc Anton has said here, "Jedi-Night" spotting is still an occasional issue.

[womble]

Its foggy, its 500m away...

500m isn't that far. It's "short range" for a 75/L48.

...its behind dozends of trees and brushes...

Looks to me from that screenie like the LOS actually passes above the vast majority of those "dozens", only intersecting with the one bit of foliage.

Run the turn (or the previous one, if that was when the spotting, as opposed to shooting, occurred) through a few dozen times and see how often this happens. Much more useful and likely to generate a response than a "fix or do sumfink" post.

You never know where to place an AT-gun because you cant fu... tell: does it see anything, can it shoot anything, does it have good cover ...

[shrug] That's a skill you'll need to develop. I don't seem to have much problem in BN with 57mm guns, or up to 75mm German ones.

[Michael Emrys]

Looks to me from that screenie like the LOS actually passes above the vast majority of those "dozens", only intersecting with the one bit of foliage.

It's hard to tell for sure with that camera angle, but it does look to me like the LOS passes through at least one mature tree with its full complement of leaves. I would normally expect that to make a clear shot at least extremely improbable if not outright impossible. But, as I say, one cannot be sure just from looking at the picture.

Michael

[Holien]

It does not look like a clear shot, but again would need closer look at the trees further away.

The LOS can be a pain, but not sure there is any real miracle fix as if there was it would have been done, as the guys in the know are pretty experienced at this...

But maybe with some constructive discussion some one will have a eureka moment...

[YankeeDog]

I can recall reading a Cold War era U.S. tanker manual which specifically warned about the dangers of using treelines and foliage for concealment for exactly this reason.

As any hunter will tell you, LOS through foliage is quite variable can change radically with a change in perspective of just a few feet. Even in dense woods, if you get lucky, you may stumble into keyhole shot on a buck over 100m away. Or there could be a deer 20m away that you can’t see at all because of a dense thicket blocking the view.

IME, it’s pretty much the same in CM right now. Trying to predict LOS through foliage is notoriously difficult and unpredictable. Sometimes, just a couple of trees seem to be a total LOS block. Other times, you seem to get a lucky keyhole view of an enemy through an entire stand of trees.

Frustrating? Yes. Unrealistic? I’m not so sure.

[Marc Anton]

500m isn't that far. It's "short range" for a 75/L48.

Not for the barrel, for the human eye its far away, especialy when there are so many trees, hedgerows and FOG ....

Besides that, we dont see with our eyes its the brain which creates the pictures.

But anyway i dont like it how all this affect the gameplay negatively.

Frustrating is the right word

[Darknight (DC)]

Frustrating? Yes. Unrealistic? I’m not so sure.

I'd have to agree here....it is terribly frustrating....'curse the screen' frustrating at times....but probably a good approximation of the variance of spotting in a similar real-world situation.

I am experiencing this effect with great frequency in a recce engagement between Mord and myself.

[sburke]

Not for the barrel, for the human eye its far away, especialy when there are so many trees, hedgerows and FOG ....

Besides that, we dont see with our eyes its the brain which creates the pictures.

But anyway i dont like it how all this affect the gameplay negatively.

Frustrating is the right word

What level of fog? When checking this out for GL I found a very wide range depending on time of day and fog setting. In playing around with an urban setting I even have it that you can barely see across a narrow street. Some settings appear to have a negligible impact. It's is really hard to visually tell, only using the LOS tool can give you some perspective. If that vehicle was visible at 500m I expect your fog setting is really light.

[Pak40]

Another module is coming with new soldiers and some bridges ... nice, will buy it anyways ... but PLEASE BF, take your time and fix the main game mechanics like the whole LOS system.

I don't know about the rest of you guys but I'm sick and tired of people telling BF to "fix" or "add" features when the damn game is already on it's way to the press. You should have voiced your concern months ago.

[Brindlewolf]

Don't take anything as gospel as far as trees are concerned in the game.I think they are more an abstraction of woods and foliage rather than what you see is what you get.

An example is infantry in woods,yup you can see a unit in the woods but no LOS then again is it a sound you've heard.To be on the safe side i blind fire anyway.I do the same with tanks in bocage or woods i get a glimpse or sound of something i fire anyway.The AI no doubt does the same at times.Sometimes you land lucky othertimes it's you who gets it,as you've gave your position away.

And just to add.One thing i've learnt from Bill Hs AARs is,i don't move vehicles until i know exactly what they'll be facing.I'd rather lose a few scouts than any armour.If you get surprised on the battlefield,you've already lost the initiative.You can't blame LOS because of bad scouting.That's not to say the LOS is perfect in the game.I've had my own frustrating issues with it but it can be worked around.

[Battlefront.com]

We have not found any bugs in the LOS system for several years now. Every single time someone has reported one it turns out to be "user error". At the very worst it could be the result of the UI not giving specific enough information in a specific instance. Especially in WeGo games where the last milisecond determined a blockage which, if the game progressed a few seconds more, would have changed.

With all the people playing the game, in both Italy and Normandy settings, if there were problems we'd know about them. In a big way So we can't fix what isn't broken.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I don't know about the rest of you guys but I'm sick and tired of people telling BF to "fix" or "add" features when the damn game is already on it's way to the press. You should have voiced your concern months ago.

Actually, we like to hear about problems whenever they are discovered. If it's too late for something we're about to release, it's not too late for whatever is coming after it. But we can't fix something that isn't broken.

Adding to what I just said above, LOS is fundamental to every single unit in every single game all the time every time. If there were problems there would be 200 post threads pretty much all the time. Wargamers LOVE to complain, so there's no reason why any would hold back on such a critical topic. And when we did have LOS problems in the past, we did see such discussions. I have confidence that you guys haven't lowered your standards

If there is a bug (and it's always possible) then it must be an extremely rare and exceptionally specific one. No one player could possibly have it all the time. Just doesn't work that way.

Which brings me back to what I said above. Is establishing clear LOS anytime anywhere a simple and never fraught with difficulty experience? Certainly not. But such is true in real life. We're in the habit of simulating the real world, not dumbing it down to first person shooter levels.

Steve

[GerryCMBB]

Hello Steve:

What about the LOS issue in the "Death of a Firefly" thread? Where someone can see but the gunner cannot. Will BF be doing something about this?

Thanks,

Gerry

[A Canadian Cat]

And by

Will BF be doing something about this?

you mean help us determine when that happens in game - right?

[GerryCMBB]

Ian, it could be that or could be LOS shows only when the gunner can see the target.

But this issue also applies to ATGs as in Erwin's example of the 3rd loader can see the target but the gunner cannot and the AI cannot move it a smidgin to be able to fire at the target.

I assume there are players that have no, or very little, problem with the way it is right now? To me this is getting way beyond a game. I do not mind some work when I am playing. I played tournament chess for years so I know pain and suffering in the gaming world.

I could be in the minority of course but if stays like this I will not be purchasing any more CMx2 products. There is already so much micro-management (work) in the game and I do not need these extra challenges. To me it is more like a FPS when these issues arise (not in general of course) rather than a player making a tactical decision to move a tank to location X for reason Y.

Gerry

[Pak40]

Actually, we like to hear about problems whenever they are discovered. If it's too late for something we're about to release, it's not too late for whatever is coming after it. But we can't fix something that isn't broken.

Adding to what I just said above, LOS is fundamental to every single unit in every single game all the time every time. If there were problems there would be 200 post threads pretty much all the time. Wargamers LOVE to complain, so there's no reason why any would hold back on such a critical topic. And when we did have LOS problems in the past, we did see such discussions. I have confidence that you guys haven't lowered your standards

If there is a bug (and it's always possible) then it must be an extremely rare and exceptionally specific one. No one player could possibly have it all the time. Just doesn't work that way.

Which brings me back to what I said above. Is establishing clear LOS anytime anywhere a simple and never fraught with difficulty experience? Certainly not. But such is true in real life. We're in the habit of simulating the real world, not dumbing it down to first person shooter levels.

Steve

I certainly agree with you Steve but it's just all too often that people post literally days before a major release and expect you guys "fix" something in that time, that's my point. I'm all for improving the game for both bug fixes and feature improvements but it's just not realistic to expect that to happen even within 1 or 2 months before a major release like the CMOMG (not to mention a mere few days before the release).

[Battlefront.com]

Hello Steve:

What about the LOS issue in the "Death of a Firefly" thread? Where someone can see but the gunner cannot. Will BF be doing something about this?

Not familiar with this thread, but if the gunner can't see a target then there is no LOS/LOF that is relevant. However, you can still attempt to target the vehicle and if LOS/LOF changes engagement should happen unless a different target got it's attention in the meantime.

This is a major difference between CMx1 and CMx2. In CMx1 if you couldn't target something that second, say the 60th second of the previous turn, then you couldn't effectively target because there was no "unit memory". In short, the unit would not remember the player's instructions if not immediately relevant. Similarly, if a target came into view and then went out of view it was as if it no longer existed.

CMx2 works as one would actually expect in that the gunner remembers what he was instructed to shoot at even if he can't see it right away. Effectively this is the unit's commander saying something like "shoot that Panther" and the gunner saying "I can't see it right now" but then saying "now I can!" and letting a round loose.

Granted, it would be nice to have the UI be a bit more informative when this situation exists. Something like "Gunner Blocked" or "Temporarily Blocked". I do hope we can do that at some point, but the game behavior itself isn't going to change.

I certainly agree with you Steve but it's just all too often that people post literally days before a major release and expect you guys "fix" something in that time, that's my point. I'm all for improving the game for both bug fixes and feature improvements but it's just not realistic to expect that to happen even within 1 or 2 months before a major release like the CMOMG (not to mention a mere few days before the release).

Yeah, over the past 14 years or so I've seen this sort of thing more than once I've seen even more calls for us to fix something that is supposedly horribly broken when in fact it isn't.

Having said all of that, there are bugs found from time to time that have NOTHING to do with LOS/LOF itself. During testing with Market Garden there was a data error with a particular vehicle, for example, which meant it couldn't engage targets it had clear LOS/LOF to. But it was related to an error in the code specific to that vehicle, not to the system. Remember the old saying about data... garbage in, garbage out. Which is why we have testers reporting bugs they've found or that have been brought up here.

Steve

[Amizaur]

I believe that there are no bugs in LOS system that could be fixed. The system works as intended. I would rather say, that the design of the LOS system is far from perfect.

Sometimes there may me - technically - a LOS through the in-game objects (tree models, buildings, etc). The game finds it and units spot one another or take shots (if the gunner happens to have a LOS too).

But as someone said, the "seeing" is happeing in the brain. Being able to _technically_ (by game engine means) SEE (trace to) for few seconds small part of something (a tank, a soldier) - from few hundred meters, trough only a small narrow gap in view-blocking map objects (like tree foliage), in foggy weather or against the sun, for few seconds - doesn't mean this thing would be spotted, identified and attacked by a soldier on a battlefield. It COULD happen sometimes, but rarely, in specific situations. The eye has to look in the right direction and the right moment. The brain has to recognise the (partialy seen) pattern from the clutter. It's much less probable than just "having a technical LOS" because there is a 1 meter gap for viewing (enough for a narrow laser beam to reach the target).

I wonder, how the spotting mechanics works. How many "spotting points" a vehicle has, and how many of those points has to be "seen" for the unit to be spotted and identified depending on range, visibility, cover. If only a single "spotting point" has to be "seen" trough small narrow gap in a game 3D world, for the object to be spotted, identified and attacked, then this is not the optimal solution IMO. The probability of detection and IDENTIFICATION should depend on many factors, including "how big part of an object am I seeing" one. Does it work this way ?

[LongLeftFlank]

Deathstar tank spotting is an old old issue that has been pointed out again and again and again. Whether or not it is an LOS bug per se, it remains a major game imbalancer, especially of tanks vs infantry.

[Battlefront.com]

I believe that there are no bugs in LOS system that could be fixed. The system works as intended. I would rather say, that the design of the LOS system is far from perfect.

I would agree that it isn't perfect, but I disagree that it is "far" from perfect. CM has probably the most complex LOS/LOF and spotting systems of any game out there at all. Of any type. It works very well in most every situation almost all the time, so much so that people take all those thousands of "correct" situations they experience for granted. And yet games with vastly inferior systems don't seem to be "perfect" either. At best the fidelity/importance of LOS/LOF to a particular game is relative to game play's demands.

Sometimes there may me - technically - a LOS through the in-game objects (tree models, buildings, etc). The game finds it and units spot one another or take shots (if the gunner happens to have a LOS too).

But as someone said, the "seeing" is happeing in the brain. Being able to _technically_ (by game engine means) SEE (trace to) for few seconds small part of something (a tank, a soldier) - from few hundred meters, trough only a small narrow gap in view-blocking map objects (like tree foliage), in foggy weather or against the sun, for few seconds - doesn't mean this thing would be spotted, identified and attacked by a soldier on a battlefield.

Absolutely. And that's a problem of the LOS/LOF system working too well, not well enough. In other words, we've spent quite a bit of time "dumbing down" the system over the past few releases because it actually works too well from a technical standpoint. Believe it or not, dumbing down a system correctly is difficult and tricky work. Because it is very, very, very easy to make Situation A not work as well and have Situation B also not work as well. But there wasn't ever an issue with Situation B so now the game takes one step forward and another back. This sort of "see-saw" behavior change is not what you guys want to see. The old saying of "better the devil you know than one you don't".

I wonder, how the spotting mechanics works. How many "spotting points" a vehicle has, and how many of those points has to be "seen" for the unit to be spotted and identified depending on range, visibility, cover. If only a single "spotting point" has to be "seen" trough small narrow gap in a game 3D world, for the object to be spotted, identified and attacked, then this is not the optimal solution IMO. The probability of detection and IDENTIFICATION should depend on many factors, including "how big part of an object am I seeing" one. Does it work this way ?

It's a very complicated process and it has a lot to do with things like optics, number of eyes spotting, general state of the spotter, quality of the vehicle's viewing options (when applicable), etc.

Deathstar tank spotting is an old old issue that has been pointed out again and again and again. Whether or not it is an LOS bug per se, it remains a major game imbalancer, especially of tanks vs infantry.

First of all, remember there is a big difference between LOS/LOF, Spotting, and Targeting. They are all completely separate and different concepts in real life as they are in the code. They all work together, obviously, but they should not be confused with each other. What you're talking about is Spotting and that has nothing inherently to do with LOS/LOF.

It's also not a game "imbalancer" because it affects all sides equally, though obviously any sort of situation can be more or less a problem for any specific engagement that is selectively examined. People tend to say "imbalanced" because they only care when they come out on the negative side of the engagement. This is the old "your tank hit me with 1 shot, that's a bug. But if my tank hits you with 1 shot then it's correct" line of thinking and it's never correct.

OK, so what's being done with overly sensitive Spottings game effects? Well, we've done several things that you'll find in Market Garden and beyond. Some tweaks to spotting have been made recently. But even more important, there are certain conditions which increase targeting time cycles. That means Tank A can technically see Tank B through a massive clutter of things, and maybe even spot it, but it's reaction time cycle has been lengthened due to those circumstances. That means if Tank B moves quickly out of LOS/LOF targeting won't have enough time to get a shot off, but if Tank B sits around in LOS/LOF then it will.

We've done all kinds of things like this in the past. So if the current state is "Deathstar Spotting" then the older versions of the game must have been whatever is worse than a Deathstar

Steve

[altipueri]

Ok so is this the difference:

LOS/LOF is physical - i.e. it is or is not possible to see or hit

Spotting is whether you have spotted something?

I find I can't even go for a walk in the countryside these days without looking at a clump of trees and trying to work out if I could spot anything hiding there. In fact as I write this I'm looking out the window at some trees and buildings about a 1000 yards away - they are in LOS/LOF - but I'm buggered if I would have time to react to anything moving in and out of sight. There's just too many trees and buildings!

[LongLeftFlank]

OK, so what's being done with overly sensitive Spottings game effects? Well, we've done several things that you'll find in Market Garden and beyond. Some tweaks to spotting have been made recently. But even more important, there are certain conditions which increase targeting time cycles. That means Tank A can technically see Tank B through a massive clutter of things, and maybe even spot it, but it's reaction time cycle has been lengthened due to those circumstances. That means if Tank B moves quickly out of LOS/LOF targeting won't have enough time to get a shot off, but if Tank B sits around in LOS/LOF then it will.

We've done all kinds of things like this in the past. So if the current state is "Deathstar Spotting" then the older versions of the game must have been whatever is worse than a Deathstar

Great to hear, Steve, but based on this episode from C3K's AAR vs Bil, some additional tweaks may be needed. Sure the PIAT team is exposed out on a sand dune but the Panther has a dead TC. This is typical, even expected, behavior....

44.00 to 43.00

Dune Piat Team, cont...

Well.

Time to send in more men.

And I'm someone who has never cared who wins, just about historically reasonable results. So spare me the "whose ox is being gored" argument. Tanks spot infantry far too readily under all conditions. Consequently they enjoy a battlefield dominance in combined arms engagements they have never enjoyed in RL, up to the present day. Full stop.

[LongLeftFlank]

Oh, and let me apologize in advance for posting from an AAR still in progress.... Doh! Mind you, the turn in question is long past but poor protocol nonetheless....

[ZPB II]

When a TC is hit, once the body is out of the way the crew members shuffle locations, AFAIK a common way is that the gunner becomes commander, loader becomes gunner, assistant driver becomes loader...So even with one crew member missing, there will be someone peeking through those visors. If the optics are damaged, then it's different.

Also do note that it is a BETA AAR. Work in progress. And the AAR was started a while ago, I assume they are playing with an older version.

It looks to me like that team is in a sort of frontal vision cone from the turret. They're also silouetted against the sky on a sand dune. Seems like a case of plausible spotting.