Los

[Albe Pavo]

I find placing AT guns VERY difficult.

They're often very "low on ground" and so their LOS if very easily blocked, but i think that they still can see tanks also if without a clear LOS to the ground upon which the tank stands.

For example: there is a wall about 100 m away from my AT gun. In set up i have no LOS behind that wall, but i have it to the house further behind (in fact i'm not aiming at the groung upon which the house stands, but on the house walls, that are taller than the low wall blocking my LOS to the ground behind it), so i think i could shot also to any tank behind that wall, even if i've no LOS to the ground behind that wall.

It is VERY difficult to place those AT guns because LOS could be very tricky and you have to "read" it. But it is also possibile that you "read" it badly and in battle you cannot at all fire where you think you could! I think that that problem have to be solved.

I suggest to have a new tool to see "LOS with elevation", so really you can place well your AT guns.

What do you think about it?

[Vanir Ausf B]

I suggest to have a new tool to see "LOS with elevation", so really you can place well your AT guns.

What do you think about it?

I think there already is. The current target tool will tell you if your unit has LOS to the area above the ground even if you do not have LOS to the ground itself. Look for the tooltip to say "reverse slope - no aimpoint". If an enemy vehicle moves into that area you are almost certain to have LOS to it. Only when it says "no line of sight" is there no chance of LOS.

[GJR144]

I think a more clear feedback to the player about the LOF condition would be nice.

Would I have LOF to a tank? Would I still have LOF to standing or moving infantry? LOF down to the ground?

[Albe Pavo]

That's exactly what i mean.

[Lt Bull]

I think that my biggest disconnect and frustration with this game occurs when I am trying determine LOS.

I totally sympathise with the the OP and the issues with placing AT guns and trying to work out what is and isn't in LOS and why sometimes stuff that should be obviously in LOS isn't and vice versa.

Part of the problem is interpreting the LOS tool (that is all we have) and understanding exactly what is does and doesn't tell you.

Vanir did mention something I certainly didn't know; that when it says "reverse slope - no aimpoint" then you "probably" could see a tank at that spot. Is this out of the manual or from experience? (PS: I probably should check to see what the manual says anyway, but I doubt it would go in to too much detail).

The problem I have with the LOS tool is that I have no idea if it is as smart as I would hope/want it to be for the job it is meant to do. I am quite sure it isn't. For starters, regardless of unit, does the LOS tool always just check LOS from a point on the ground between the feet/tracks of the unit to another point on the ground somewhere else, totally ignoring the actual "eye height above groud" of the unit checking LOS? I am quite sure the the target point is always some point on the ground (ie the mouse hugs the ground). If it did take in to consideration spotter eye height above ground at least for infantry, then I would expect this to be affected by the unit posture for infantry for example (eg. standing or prone), something players don't control directly.

This has always been my understanding of how the LOS tool works, and consequently has been of limited value given the in game combat LOS between units does actually take in to consideration the spotters eye height above ground and the height of the unit being spotted.

The biggest dilemmas when I dealt with the LOS tool occur when I am dealing with long grass/wheatfields.

What actually is the condition for the LOS tool to say LOS exists?

The ideal LOS tool would give you control over the height above ground of the start and target point.

Can anyone be certain as to exactly how the LOS tool works? For me at least this discussion has been well overdue.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Vanir did mention something I certainly didn't know; that when it says "reverse slope - no aimpoint" then you "probably" could see a tank at that spot. Is this out of the manual or from experience? (PS: I probably should check to see what the manual says anyway, but I doubt it would go in to too much detail).

It's not in the manual, oddly enough given it's importance. I figured it out by testing it.

For starters, regardless of unit, does the LOS tool always just check LOS from a point on the ground between the feet/tracks of the unit to another point on the ground somewhere else, totally ignoring the actual "eye height above groud" of the unit checking LOS? I am quite sure the the target point is always some point on the ground (ie the mouse hugs the ground). If it did take in to consideration spotter eye height above ground at least for infantry, then I would expect this to be affected by the unit posture for infantry for example (eg. standing or prone), something players don't control directly.

LOS is always checked from the height of the checking unit's eyeballs at the moment of the check. So yes, the if the unit is infantry it's current posture is what is used for the check.

What actually is the condition for the LOS tool to say LOS exists?

If you are checking LOS to an enemy unit it is your unit's current eyeball height to the enemy unit. If checking to terrain it is the unit's present eyeball height to the center point of the targeted action spot at ground level, IIRC.

Note that for heavy weapons teams such as machine guns and mortars, and almost certainly towed AT gun teams as well, the LOS is checked specifically from the perspective of the gunner if the weapon is deployed.

[ChappyCanuck]

Two things.

1. I added a thread called "Bocage Problem" where I properly sited AT guns/MGs behind bocage. I had great lines of site. Then, when I hid them and started the battle, they had zero line of site. ?????

2. I was playing the battle called "A Delaying Action" as the defending Germans. My AT guns were sited and hidden. A troop of four "invisible" Shermans moved along behind the berm in that scenario, paralleling the buildings and road. They then proceeded to shoot up and destroy 4 of my hidden AT guns as well as my infantry soldiers hiding in those buildings. NONE of my soldiers could see these tanks, let alone return fire. It was amazingly stupid. I just sat there while the invisible Shermans shot up everything. There is definitely something wrong there

[Erwin]

It's frustrating that we still have LOS problems when "What You See Is What You Get" has always been the watchword for CM2.

[Michael Emrys]

The problem arrises from your hiding the units. Units hiding have their faces in the dirt. Although a member of the crew may stick his head up to look around from time to time, they aren't really engaged in spotting. A case can be made that this behavior is exaggerated. For instance, your guys should have had a sound contact on the Shermans that should have alerted them to take a peek. However, programming the correct behavior in this situation is not as straightforward as you might think. Your best bet for now is to have a unit or two placed somewhere where they don't need to hide to remain unspotted and can keep watch over the area where you expect the enemy to show up. Then unhide your ambushing units in time for them to do their thing.

Michael

[Erwin]

I thought the issue is that one can test a LOS before setting a unit down, but once set down one finds that LOS doesn't exist.

It's coupled with the other (and one of the last few remaining) irritating CM2 issues - that while the 3rd ammo carrier may have LOS to a target, one cannot move the MG or gun a few inches so that it can shoot at the target.

[Michael Emrys]

I thought the issue is that one can test a LOS before setting a unit down, but once set down one finds that LOS doesn't exist.

It's coupled with the other (and one of the last few remaining) irritating CM2 issues - that while the 3rd ammo carrier may have LOS to a target, one cannot move the MG or gun a few inches so that it can shoot at the target.

Those too. But I think the primary problem in Chappy's case was as I described. At least it is the one I would try to eliminate first, as it is something he can actually do something about.

Michael

[ChappyCanuck]

Thanks guys. I was under the assumption that being hidden and having a covered arc worked the same as in the CM1 games: the gun crew is placed with good LOS, gun crew hides, gun crew is given an armour covered arc, gun crew unhides by itself and engages any armour that comes within the covered arc. So this is not the case anymore?

[Redwolf]

Your best bet for now is to have a unit or two placed somewhere where they don't need to hide to remain unspotted [...]

Not that there is a clear way to find out where that is either

[Erwin]

"assumption that being hidden and having a covered arc worked the same as in the CM1 games"

Wish it did, but it doesn't... Now you can have a hiding unit with a covered arc, and an enemy can literally walk right over your unit and shoot your guys as they lie there hiding. The other issue is that a hiding AT unit in "ambush" (say) behind a wall will not know there is a noisy tank on the other side to ambush.

[Michael Emrys]

Not that there is a clear way to find out where that is either

If you have any experience with the game you can make pretty good guesses. Some locations are obvious fails and you can avoid those. It's all about improving your odds. If you are the kind of neurotic character that has to have absolute certainty, this is not the game for you. In fact, I can't think of any wargame I have played over the last 50 years that would be.

Michael

[Childress]

Now you can have a hiding unit with a covered arc, and an enemy can literally walk right over your unit and shoot your guys as they lie there hiding.

Yes, if the men are behind a wall. But not if the unit has LOS. But you're right, the command is not as useful as before. I wish having a single unhidden unit, like a HQ or a scouting team, would trigger its affiliated or even nearby unaffiliated squad once the arc is breached. As is, a successful ambush often depends on proper timing within the turn phase.

[Erwin]

Supposedly, the current CM2 default stance with Covered Arc is akin to the old CM1 "Hide with Covered Arc" while the CM2 "Hide with Covered Arc" is literally everyone buries their faces in the dirt and they have virtually no situational awareness, esp behind a wall. I think this is too extreme.

[akd]

"assumption that being hidden and having a covered arc worked the same as in the CM1 games"

Wish it did, but it doesn't... Now you can have a hiding unit with a covered arc, and an enemy can literally walk right over your unit and shoot your guys as they lie there hiding.

That could happen, but it is not typical. Units can stop hiding on their own if they feel threatened by a nearby enemy.

[Erwin]

Nonetheless many have commented on how hard it is now to execute an ambush. Doing something sensible like hiding behind a wall while an oblivous enemy is on the other side and is a sitting duck for an ambush doesn't seem to work well. Currently, units ordered to Hide are a bit too unaware. And if they are not hiding they seem to be rather too easy to spot.

Having said that, the current workaround having tanks have a long delay before they can fire at infantry units close by was a good idea to make urban locations much more dangerous for armor.

[ChappyCanuck]

well thanks for the clarification guys....I am glad I am not alone on this issue. Sometimes an improvement is not an improvement at all! Hopefully the powers that be will fix this so that soldiers that are hidden with covered arcs will engage without being told to do so. Cheers

[Michael Emrys]

Steve has already mentioned that improvements to make ambush more workable are on the list.

Michael

[StkNRdr]

I have a question that might fit here. If my assumptions of the game reactions are incorrect, please correct me, but this is the way is see it going down.

I set an arch and two enemy units approach, one a two man scout and the other an 8 or 9 man unit. The two units separated by 20-50 meters. My crew has LOS on both enemy units. The two man unit crosses into the arch. My crew opens up on the two man unit. The other enemy unit is still outside the arch and therefore are not fired on although in view in the open. They return fire. In the next turn I must change things so my crew fires on the second more threatening team, after surprise is lost.

If this is correct would an adjustment to the arch command be in order or a separate ambush command similar to an arch be of value where once my unit begins to fire the threats are evaluated at any distance and fire adjusted?

[A Canadian Cat]

The other enemy unit is still outside the arch and therefore are not fired on although in view in the open. They return fire. In the next turn I must change things so my crew fires on the second more threatening team, after surprise is lost.

Correct if the enemy is outside your cover arch your guys are not likely to fire at it. They might but don't count on it.

If this is correct would an adjustment to the arch command be in order or a separate ambush command similar to an arch be of value where once my unit begins to fire the threats are evaluated at any distance and fire adjusted?

I would suggest that once the element of surprise is lost just remove any covered arcs and let you guys go weapons free.

[StkNRdr]

I would suggest that once the element of surprise is lost just remove any covered arcs and let you guys go weapons free.

I agree and that is what I have to do but I think this should happen automatically in game and not have to wait until the next turn to adjust the arch or remove it. A lot can happen in that minute. Since keeping the current arch and it's fire restrictions may also be of value, I suggest a separate "Ambush" arch that adjusts fire automatically.

[womble]

Arc. It's Cover Arc. Not Arch...

The problem with having "another" type of "arc" is defining the threat level at which the unit switches to "not the unit that triggered the fire". What's a threat to you might not merit target to me. At the moment, using the current "threat assessment" algorithm, if there's an unbuttoned armour anywhere in sight when the "scout team" triggers the ambush, that will be the first threat dealt with, not your putative "rest of the squad". The results of what you're suggesting risk being so arbitrary as to be largely useless. Not to mention that calling it "Ambush" means you can't use that name for other "types" of ambush (like dropping a Hide order when a CA gets triggered).