Fix the game pls ...

[ASL Veteran]

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.

That's what happens 'in game' but don't even get me started on what happens 'in reality' when a tank crew member is killed or injured. No, I'm not going to discuss this out here, but suffice to say that there would be a lot of wailing, gnashing of teeth, and howls of protest if tank behavior was modelled to reflect what tank crews really did in WW2 under combat conditions. I'll just say that the WW2 reality diverges significantly from a player's (or even a modern tanker's) hopes or expectations.

[Chops]

I would imagine that if a crew member is killed or wounded the first thing that would happen is that the tank reverses out of contact. Having a 160 lb mass or so, of blood and gore in a very small confined space is definitely going to affect the other crew members and their ability to move around and switch positions. Where do you a store a dead body in a tank? Additionally the emotional shock of having that situation with a colleague and or friend dead or badly wounded basically right on top of the other crew. Seems to me that spotting and the ability of a tank crew to function at a high level needs to be dialed down a bit in this situation.

[Pak40]

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....

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.

I don't care if the TC is dead or not. A running man in a completely open space will be easily spotted. The gunner is look directly at him for Christ sake! I'm not sure what you're argument is here. In fact, if the gunner didn't spot and fire I'm sure a lot of people would be complaining that the LOS system is broke.

[GerryCMBB]

And don't moving tanks still spot better than stationary tanks? Or has that changed? This is huge as it takes away a normal advantage stationary tanks had over moving ones in a tactical sense.

Gerry

[A Canadian Cat]

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

Sure, we need some way of telling what is happening since the actual TC would get feedback from his gunner and could then make a decision to withdraw or reposition. We just want that same kind of opportunity.

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?

Yeah, those kinds of things are very annoying and it would be nice to see it sorted out.

<snip>

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.

Good to hear some detail on how things work.

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.

Thank you for considering making some tweaks to the way the information is presented to us.

[Nidan1]

Remember what determining LOS was like playing, say "Panzer Leader"?. I'm sure a lot of you do. Back then fisticuffs could result, this computer generated results environment is like heaven compared to laying a piece of carboard on a flat mapboard and checking the elevations and intervening blockages. All without disturbing the counters.

Quitcherbellyaching, and appreciate how all these complex tasks have been, for the most part, taken over without difficulty by a set of solid state circuits, and some zeroes and ones.

[GerryCMBB]

If you don't want the game changed in any way you don't have to complain. So LOS doesn't bother you. And yet you seem to start quite a few threads yourself complaining about the game or predicting a horror show re MG.

Gerry

[Nidan1]

If you don't want the game changed in any way you don't have to complain. So LOS doesn't bother you. And yet you seem to start quite a few threads yourself complaining about the game or predicting a horror show re MG.

Gerry

If you are referring to me, can't tell since you didn't quote anyone specific. The issue that I started ONE thread about had to do with waypoints on or near bridges and is still out there if you're not extremely careful when plotting your movement.

So what's your point?

[GerryCMBB]

You were bellyaching. But really what we are all trying to do is to suggest improvements.

Gerry

[Nidan1]

I guess you didn't get the fact that I was trying to be a bit humerous in that post. If it went over your head I'm sorry.

However, are not my concerns about bridge movement as valid as yours about LOS? You were getting personal with your post. I was just being generally inane, which I tend to do at times.

[GerryCMBB]

My apologies. The "issues" of any player with the game are all valid. However, many people come on to these threads and try to make little in some way of a complaint. I thought you were doing that.

Gerry

[ASL Veteran]

The "issues" of any player with the game are all valid.

In the perception of the player who brings the issue up, and in the context of what the player thinks is correct or what results that player wishes the game to reflect. Whether that player's perception or expected result is actually valid is another question entirely.

In the case of placing waypoints by a bridge - that's purely a technical issue with respect to how the player interfaces with the game itself. It has very little to do with how things interact with each other within the game itself.

[Nidan1]

In the perception of the player who brings the issue up, and in the context of what the player thinks is correct or what results that player wishes the game to reflect. Whether that player's perception or expected result is actually valid is another question entirely.

In the case of placing waypoints by a bridge - that's purely a technical issue with respect to how the player interfaces with the game itself. It has very little to do with how things interact with each other within the game itself.

How of pompous of you ASL Vet, but I guess your observations are valid as well.

[Michael Emrys]

None of you are valid. Go sit in the corner under a dunce cap.

Michael

[Tarquelne]

Back then fisticuffs could result, this computer generated results environment is like heaven compared to laying a piece of carboard on a flat mapboard and checking the elevations and intervening blockages.

It might be an improvement if we could express our displeasure with the game's ruling on a LOS with a little two-fisted persuasion. Perhaps a fighting mini-game?

With cardboard you could try hammering something to become a little shorter/flatter when necessary. To clarify an issue.

[LongLeftFlank]

None of you are valid. Go sit in the corner under a dunce cap.

Michael

[Tearfully] I believe!

He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

[Amizaur]

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. (..)

Steve

Thanks for the reply. I have to agree that "far from perfect" was too hard word.

"Good but not perfect and having strange issues sometimes" - would be more fortunate.

I hope you will continue work on improving it and eliminating those rare, strange cases, which frustrate many of us .

Especially I would love to see that units waiting in "ambush" - sitting still and watching carefully some road turn or top of a hill, at least those with an cover arc, would have MUCH higher chances of spotting first and firing first on something that shows up in center of their cover arc, than that poor moving unit which shows up on this watched road or crosses that watched hill top.

CHANCES is the keyword here - I don't expect that ambushers would always be first, just that that have an advantage and USUALLY spot first.

Currently in my experience ambushes - sitting still and expecting that the enemy will show in some place, with guns directed - do not give much advantage over a moving unit. Very often this is the moving unit that spots first, fires first and kills the ambusher.

I would also love to see that units (like tanks) that are surprised by a fire from the side, take a bit longer to spot the shooter - and do not start responding to the fire after few miliseconds from taking it, as I experience now. Flanking and attacking from the side doesn't seem to give so much advantage as in real life - after the first shot, the attacked tanks in CMBN seem to instantly spot the shooter, they quickly rotate their turrets and - if they were not killed by the first shot, which is rare - they manage to face the enemy and exchange next salvos on equal terms.

In real life tanks attacked from the flank would be USUALLY blind and disoriented for several seconds - many formations of tanks that were attacked from the side (in Normandy, too) died never realising what killed them and where the threat was. Especially green and regular units should usually need several seconds to even locate the enemy, and then to respond to the fire. Sharing that info between tanks in formation should not be instant, too.

This is what bothers me personally most, in the spotting system.

Regards

[Erwin]

I think many of us experience a significant frustration over the LOS/LOF issues. It is extremely common that a MG behind a hedge has LOS to an enemy unit but cannot fire at it. And there seems to be no way to move it a couple of inches so that it can.

In these instances it's unclear what is the point in game terms of having the 3rd ammo bearer being able to see an enemy unit, but having no way of moving a gun to shoot at it, when in RL it would be easy.

[sfhand]

While there have been frustrating events with spotting from time to time my experience of this aspect of the game has been good. However, and this is only tangentially on topic, where I have consistently had problems with the game's LOS/LOF mechanics is with MGs, ATGs, and bocage. My big complaint is I will plot a movement order to a firing position and check LOS from that position prior to committing to moving the unit there. Once the MG is deployed it will frequently have no LOS/LOF, this is a problem for me since I moved the unit there only after the game reported LOS/LOF was available at that position.

ATG's have revealed an even worse (in my opinion) situation. I have set up ATG's behind bocage with blue (not gray) LOS/LOF lines to a stationary target (think overwatching stug) only to have it refuse to fire (I waited several turns and gave the turn to a beta).

As far as the Firefly incident goes, I was playing a scenario with shermans behind a wall with firing slots in it. One spotted a German tank and had to slew the turret for a shot which it wouldn't take. A close inspection showed that when the turret slewed it rotated the main gun optics behind the wall so that while the gun barrel was clear to fire through the slot the optics were blocked, i.e., the gunner no longer could see the target through the gunsight.

I'm not suggesting there is necessarily a problem, mechanically, with the game based on the anecdotes above, but I think the definite problem for me is the lack of feedback allowing me to understand what is happening so that I can figure out a response to these situations or perhaps avoid them all together (other than quit playing).

[Erwin]

My question is "What is gained by having a MG crewmember spot a target when it's almost always impossible to move the MG a couple of inches so it can shoot at the target? How does this make the game more enjoyable, playable, or even realistic?"

The current LOS/LOF system does not result in many desirable game outcomes, but does guarantee many undesirable outcomes.

[sfhand]

For me the problem is the game reports LOS/LOF is available when it is not (since this report happens before I move the unit to the no-LOS position it is a problem, I would have no problem with no-LOS if the game had indicated there would be no LOS, in other words, I don't expect to have LOS where ever I want it).

[Vanir Ausf B]

It is extremely common that a MG behind a hedge has LOS to an enemy unit but cannot fire at it. And there seems to be no way to move it a couple of inches so that it can.

What happens is that the members of the MG team not manning the machine gun will have LOS, but the MG itself does not. This is usually not a difference of inches but of meters since the problem is caused by the MG setting up on the back side of the action spot rather than up at the bocage like everyone else in the team.

[Baneman]

...since the problem is caused by the MG setting up on the back side of the action spot rather than up at the bocage like everyone else in the team.

Isn't this a known bug ( and hopefully, an "addressed" bug ) ?

It's been around for a while now, was shown up in horrific detail during my AAR, but I'd assume that it has been looked at/into by now.

Re. the feedback for player - wouldn't a workaround be to make Blue LoS/LoF lines ONLY if the Gunner/Gun position can see the target and use Grey for other team members' LoS ? At least for crew served weapons it should work.

Although it would be better if the gun could be adjusted within the AS to get the LoS that everyone else in the team is excitedly talking about. Since that's what you're trying to achieve.

[sfhand]

...

Re. the feedback for player - wouldn't a workaround be to make Blue LoS/LoF lines ONLY if the Gunner/Gun position can see the target and use Grey for other team members' LoS ? At least for crew served weapons it should work.

...

I agree that if a position showed a gray line I wouldn't expect the MG or ATG to have LOS/LOF from there which means my level of disappointment would be much lower - the blue line raises my level of expectation. I have been reading that MG's take longer to deploy in buildings now but eventually deploy with the idea being it takes longer to create as stable firing position in buildings. I would be very happy if ATG's and MG's took longer to setup behind bocage (because of the time it takes to prepare a firing position there) if it resulted in them having a usable firing position with the same LOS the waypoint had.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Isn't this a known bug ( and hopefully, an "addressed" bug ) ?

If by known you mean known by BFC, I don't know. I think it likely, but I don't assume anything until I see it in the patch notes or BFC at least says something about it.