Is there a button to reveal all units LOS ?

[Cirrus]

Of course it does! You say our attitude is "stupid" so I asked you to explain how a company with a "stupid" attitude could be around for 15 years with a market leading product. I then pointed out the obvious question, if we're so "stupid" then where is all the competition from the "smart" guys? I can tell you... not making wargames of any sort

I really fail to see analysis of you competitors of any relevance here. Maybe your competitors are even more stupid. Or maybe you have killer idea, but flawed execution so that you could be still better. And like you later agree, you could be better.

Sure our games can always be better, which is why CMRT doesn't look like CMBO. The problem you seem to be having is thinking that your pet feature request would make the game better and get us more customers. I don't mind you having an opinion of what would make the game better for you personally, but you have no basis for forming an opinion beyond that. We do because a) this is what we do for a living and we've got a track record of success that few game companies have.

I have no such delusion and I do. Every single of my requests would make the game better for me. But like you also say that you cannot be everything for everyone. But if something is requested enough then it's different story and I did base my argument on that.

Talking about this specific feature you said that it requested rarely, so I definitely won't expect it in game.

This does not conform to reality. Which is why I'm going to take a wild guess that you don't run your own company, nor that you take something from drawing table to market. Because otherwise you'd understand where this theory of yours breaks down.

This is bit funny. I am co-owner of company. I have three other partners. Not a software business though. And this really conforms to reality in many many types of business. You never ever treat customers as stupid.

Sure, but catering to the wrong crowd by diverting resources and complicating the game can also cost customers.

In this specific case of a feature we were talking about simplifying the game for some.

We do that already. WeGo and RealTime are totally different ways to play the game. We also try hard to make a game that is both detailed and historically accurate, yet also fun and visually exciting to play. But we can not be all things to all people all the time. So there are limits.

Sure there is limits. You also could be simpler or anything else that enough of your customers want.

This is not a feature that we feel fits in with our philosophy so it's already in a losing war against other feature requests that are. The fact that there are technical challenges pretty much kills the idea. I suppose I could have just used the technical challenges as an excuse, but I have this really annoying habit of being honest and forthright with our customers. I think our customers deserve such treatment, but since you find our philosophy "stupid" in other ways perhaps you disagree with this too.

Yes, but games that lose their focus lose their identity. Those that lose their identity do not survive. We can not be all things to all people. Trying to be that is a recipe for disaster. Which means, by definition, we have to pick and choose what we do and do not include very carefully. By definition there will be someone who disagrees. As long as we, the people putting our arses on the line, are comfortable with the results of our choices then all is about as good as good can be.

And this is basically the part I find your philosophy flawed. You seem to think your own opinions are the right ones always, not customers.

Regarding to your original answer you did not include the fact that it's rarely requested. On the contrary writing that it has been requested since 1999 made think that it could be much asked feature and gave me incentive to write an answer. First thing that came your mind (or actually in your post) is that it does not suit you, not the fact that it's not actually wanted. I would definitely answer other way around. First that customers do not want it so it's not viable use of resources then I could add that I don't want it either. I do not treat customers stupid.

Also I do not agree with the identity. Losing identity would mean something that you start remove something that bunch of your current fans like. Adding things that do not remove or prevent anything old is not such things.

P.S. I feel that there might not be anything more to gain here by arguing this matter. Feel free to reply, but I think I cannot add any more substance to the matter.

[Battlefront.com]

Talking about this specific feature you said that it requested rarely, so I definitely won't expect it in game.

Excellent.

This is bit funny. I am co-owner of company. I have three other partners. Not a software business though.

Depending on what type of business you run, it might not effectively be different. It depends if your company is involved with a mass market creative product which puts you in contact with your customers directly. Because until you've had thousands of people say, or imply, that they know how to do your job better than you, then it's not a similar experience.

And this really conforms to reality in many many types of business. You never ever treat customers as stupid.

Absolutely, which is why I am respectfully debating you instead of calling you a moron. It helps that I honestly don't think you're a moron I just think you're wrong that we should not have a philosophy that works for the majority and stick to it instead of bending whichever way the wind puffs.

In this specific case of a feature we were talking about simplifying the game for some.

That is how you envision it. As a game designer that is not the way I see it. Even more importantly, as THIS game's designer that's not the way I see it.

And this is basically the part I find your philosophy flawed. You seem to think your own opinions are the right ones always, not customers.

Nonsense. My own opinions matter more than any single customer because I have to take into consideration thousands of customers' wants and desires. I also have to manage the resources that go into making those things reality. More importantly, if you think there is any one opinion on any one feature on any one day you're not paying attention. Therefore, someone has to sort them out and that person is (primarily) me. And that means, like it or not, my opinion DOES matter more than any one single customers'. It has to.

As a check and balance to that, if my opinions are off base then we (Battlefront) will get punished by the marketplace. A corolary of that is if the market place is rewarding us (Battlefront) then we are AT A MINIMUM doing more right than wrong. In a market place that has a history of brutally kicking game developers and publishers to the curb (even billion Dollar ones), the simple fact that we are still around is a very strong indicator that we DO listen to our customers and we DO make the right calls more often than not. The fact that we've expanded over the years seems to indicate we're doing even better than just OK.

Regarding to your original answer you did not include the fact that it's rarely requested. On the contrary writing that it has been requested since 1999 made think that it could be much asked feature and gave me incentive to write an answer. First thing that came your mind (or actually in your post) is that it does not suit you, not the fact that it's not actually wanted. I would definitely answer other way around. First that customers do not want it so it's not viable use of resources then I could add that I don't want it either. I do not treat customers stupid.

Where are you getting this stupid stuff from? I disagree with the need for a feature. How does that translate to calling the customer stupid?

As for how I handle discussions with customers I have a simple philosophy... I am honest and I treat them with respect to the degree they show respect for others. That means I do not hide behind convenient excuses and I do not coddle people so they can feel good about themselves. Nor do I blow smoke up their behinds. Now, if you would prefer to have that sort of interaction with me, I can oblige. Here's what I think you're expecting:

Dear customer,

Thank you for inquiring about a LOS feature anywhere. We here at Battlefront value your opinion and understand you have your choice of wargame vendors. Because we value your opinion so highly we have given your request careful consideration. Unfortunately, at this time, our engineering staff doesn't feel that your request fits within acceptable performance guidelines necessary for the game to perform to reasonable customer expectations. Therefore, we are sorry to say that this feature will not be present in any Combat Mission in the near future. However, we will keep it in mind and someday it is possible that it may be possible to provide this functionality to you.

Sincerely,

Battlefront.com

Also I do not agree with the identity. Losing identity would mean something that you start remove something that bunch of your current fans like. Adding things that do not remove or prevent anything old is not such things.

You would not make a very good game developer. Note that I'm not calling you stupid, just not well informed. Because adding stuff can absolutely cause a game to lose it's identity. There's plenty of examples. Heck, there's more than a few that think CMx2 lost it's identity because it offers too much detail compared to the original. I think they're wrong in this case, but mostly because the marketplace has sided with us. It could have gone the other way.

P.S. I feel that there might not be anything more to gain here by arguing this matter. Feel free to reply, but I think I cannot add any more substance to the matter.

I enjoy these debates from time to time because it helps remind people who we are and why we do what we do. It also reminds individual customers, like yourself, that they are being listened to even if disagreed with. And whether you see it or not, listened to respectfully.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I think the reason why the 'extra commands' (like LOS button) crowd don't see BFC's reluctance (absolute refusal on occasion) to implement these 'option things that people don't have to use' is that they really do not get a couple of things:

Those two things as well as not really understanding that cumulative "pet features" added, without checking against a central philosophy, is most likely going to deliver a game that makes nobody happy.

I haven't mentioned it in a while, but the best example of this is a Simpson's episode where Homer is put in charge of designing a car. He puts every single feature "a real man" would want. In the end nobody bought the car because it sucked. Even Homer didn't want it. It's a funny but accurate warning about why design filters are absolutely necessary:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0701191/

I doubt there is a single WEGO player on this forum who does not use the target tool from waypoints to achieve what the OP originally asked for.

I doubt that. Though for sure more WeGoers are going to do that than RealTimers.

So the information is available, but it can be time consuming to gather it.

Does effective use of that tool make you a good tactical wargamer, or patient with the interface?

Neither. It makes you an effective micromanager who is patient with the interface. How it affects your skill as a tactician is totally separate from that.

Anything that decreases fighting the UI and allows more time for the tactics is an improvement IMO.

The alternative is to not fight the UI and play the game more intuitively. You may find out you're tactical skills improve as a result.

To be honest if a simple LOS check is against the CM credo I don't understand why you can check targeting information from waypoints at all.

I explained this in another thread just this week, oddly enough. Because without it you wouldn't be able to plot Area Fire Commands since the UI will not allow you to nail down a Target Line without having LOS. I suppose we could change that so you get no LOS information from the Targeting line and instead have a stand alone LOS tool that only works from the unit's current position. It's a bit more realistic than what we have in the game now, but too draconian IMHO. So the current system is a bit of a compromise between giving people too much and too little info.

Indeed Battlefront's reasons for not wanting it - that you don't need to micro for successful play - are quite at odds with those who don't want it because they feel it makes the game more hardcore than other tactical wargames.

Quite the opposite! The more the game highlights the need to micromanage things, the more turned off non-micromangement types get. Making players feel like they MUST have this information all the time, instead of just intuitively playing, is the quickest way to turn them off from playing at all.

Checking LOS from each waypoint is not necessary for playing successfully. Insisting that it is necessary is part of the problem. RealTime CM players don't need this info to win, which underscores my point quite nicely.

Because the latter are definitely checking what they can and can't see and from where using the targeting tool - what PBEMer in their right mind is going to move units only to find out 24 hours later that their ambushing tanks can't see the road from the waypoints they plotted?

You've proven my micromanagement argument quite nicely I've played plenty of PBEM games in my lifetime. In CMx1 I would only play with someone if we used the 30 second or 1 minute timer option. Why? Because I'm not a micromanager and I don't want to play against someone who is.

I'll say this again and again and again... people prone to micromanagement tend to believe they need to micromanage in order to get the highest level of satisfaction from the game. Therefore they request more ways to micromanage and then get frustrated that it's still not allowing them to play the game easily. So instead of adjusting the style of play to suit the environment, they continue down a path of trying to get the environment to suit their style of play.

On the opposite side of the spectrum are the "command control" types who don't want to engage in hardly any details at all. For them the ultimate way to play the game would be to say to an entire Platoon "go forth and be fruitful" then sit back and watch how the AI handles their request.

We have to strike a balance between these two extremes because there's no way we can give each what they want. Mostly because what they say they want is not what they actually want

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

I just realized it's a zen thing. Some of our customers are only focused on choosing a path to get to a specific end destination. Others are much more interested in knowing the details of the path and to weigh the choices within against the choices in other paths. Others want to choose a path, enjoy their time on it, and don't really care where the wind up.

These are three totally different and largely incompatible ways of playing a game. That's because the game's very core, and soul, needs to be tailored to just one of these groups. We've chosen the latter.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

And even with the targeting tool I still can't be guaranteed my tanks will have the LOF I might think they'd have before they moved nor that once there they won't be spotted first. I have learned the hard way, there are no absolutes in this game. You plan for what you think you can do and to optimize your chances. Then you hit the Red Button of Fate and start praying you were right. Kind of like a RL commander.

I use the targeting tool, but not all the time. Most of the time when I want to check a potential LOS I simply put the camera on the spot and set it to level 1. Then I take a look around to see what I can see. That doesn't necessarily give me totally accurate information, but it is already more than an RL commander would have. If I really need to know, I move a unit to the point and then check with the targeting tool. I might have to shift the unit around a little to get the LOF I want, but gee whattaya know, just like real life.

Michael

[Battlefront.com]

I'm even less detailed than that. I generally gauge my firing opportunities from camera angle 3 or 4. Most of the time that's sufficient to get my units into acceptable firing positions. For the more tricky spots with more tricky units trying to do more tricky things, that's when I go to ground level and give it a check.

Then again, I play RealTime so I have little choice but to play this way But when I do play WeGo (mostly for testing purposes) I apply the same methodology and have similarly good results because, inherently, there is no difference between the two in terms of game mechanics. If I can spot a good firing position from Camera 4 in RT then I can spot one from Camera 4 in WeGo just as easily.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

I only play WEGO and do not often use the LOS tool as is, I use it more regularly for testing.

I usually stay at level 1 and use the mousewheel to just peek over my AFV/troops. The 3D is accurate enough that you can easily estimate LOS/LOF without any tools.

[Skwabie]

Was playing CMSF recently. There were a few buildings surrounded by tall stone walls. Some syrian squad hides within. I drove up a bradley to the edge of the wall, dismounts the assault squad, blew a hole in the wall and the platoon proceeded through to clear the buildings.

The Bradley sat there nicely for sometime. I even got some 5.56 ammo and 2 javelins from it in between. But suddenly it exploded. Further investigations discovered a Syrian T-72 all the way across the map, that saw the Bradley through the hole in the wall, and blew it to smithereens....

I could say that a 360 deg "LOS reveal" tool would have saved the Bradley. I was busy managing the squads to clear the buildings, and simply didn't have the ...stamina, to navigate the plethora of camera controls to check the Bradley's surroundings, so I just left it there. I think at that point, my brain's concentration level just neared its maximum threshold. Had a LOS disc tool been present, so instead of operating the plethora of camera controls, a single click would suffice, I would've probably checked it and backed the Bradley outta there.

However... if it's too much of a strain on frame rates, then forget it. No one wants his game to be a slide show for sure.

[warrenpeace]

I would like a line of sight tool. I play we-go and it would speed up game play quite a bit.

[Endymion]

I find this discussion interesting as some of the views presented, go totally against my whole experience playing PBEM's, talking to other players etc. I specifically mean playing using intuition only and not using tools at your disposal like using "target" to check LOS.

The problem is that there are often situations when theoretically you should have LOS on something but you don't. Or it seems you are covered and there should be none between you and danger but there is and your troops die in horrible and unexpected ways. In both these cases the LOS tool proves invaluable.

Of course nobody uses it all the time, especially for normal movement, but I can hardly believe some people don't use it at all, at least in WEGO (as it's not really possible in Real time)...

Take these situations for example:

- if you move an AFV into what you think is a nice hull down position or want to move just slightly from behind cover then don't you check what exactly can the AFV see from there, make sure you are hull down and if the line is blue or grey from the destination waypoint to other areas?

- if you move your infantry to the edge of the forest for example don't you check with LOS tool if you're moving just far enough so that the trees don't block your sight but you still benefit from concealment? Or when you move infantry into a building, don't you check what they can see from there, what arc of fire is possible?

- you want to move a valuable unit (a tank for example) through dangerous ground and want to minimize the unit's exposition to enemy fire, do you not check at particular waypoints if there's los from the waypoints to known or suspected enemy positions?

- don't you ever check with LOS tool what the enemy unit can see by setting a waypoint of one of your units to where the enemy is and using "target" at that waypoint and checking this way?

Don't get me wrong, playing intuitively is often nice and all but it just does not work in too many situations or does not provide sufficient information and can lead to disastrous decisions, especially with expensive or fragilie assets. And in H2H you often don't get a second chance to correct your AFV position by one square next turn because, ooops, you moved it too far.

It's not my intention to attack anyone but I find it really hard to believe that anyone playing this game even semi-seriously would not use the LOS tool in at least some of the above situations. I really don't believe that only die-hard micromanagers bother with it at all...

[Battlefront.com]

I could say that a 360 deg "LOS reveal" tool would have saved the Bradley. I was busy managing the squads to clear the buildings, and simply didn't have the ...stamina, to navigate the plethora of camera controls to check the Bradley's surroundings, so I just left it there. I think at that point, my brain's concentration level just neared its maximum threshold. Had a LOS disc tool been present, so instead of operating the plethora of camera controls, a single click would suffice, I would've probably checked it and backed the Bradley outta there.

Question... in real life do units get surprised by things they did not expect to happen, or every time they move and position themselves they know everything and therefore are never surprised? What do you think the answer is? I'll give you a hint... surprise is probably one of the biggest and most reliable aspects of warfare. Oops, I answered my own question

Seriously though, this is EXACTLY why we do not want to give the player even MORE information than they have because they already have TOO MUCH information. Further reducing surprise makes the game more predictable and that means the results less realistic. That is not a good thing for Combat Mission.

Put another way, the more we tailor the game to making sure that everything goes perfectly for the player, the less realistic the game becomes. Less challenging too, since dealing with surprise is a significant challenge.

Related, to the degree game mechanics work unrealistically is to the degree that unrealistic tactics/strategies become more viable than realistic ones. This is a case in point.

In real life it is a very bad idea for vehicles to stay exposed to potential enemy fire for prolonged periods of time. The ability to keep vehicles out of such situations requires good judgement, not precise knowledge. In the above situation it should have been obvious that keeping the Brad parked in the wall's gap presented the enemy with a targeting opportunity of some sort. I don't need an LOS anywhere tool to know that. Hell, I can make that statement without even looking at a save from that game It's elementary.

What the LOS anywhere tool in this case does is unreasonably and unrealistically manage player risk. In real life the TC of the Brad does not have assurances that he's checked out every nook and cranny of the battlefield and therefore is going to be understandably hesitant to remain exposed unless there's a really good reason for doing so. Given the player such unreasonably accurate reassurances is definitely not a good thing.

The bottom line is that the player already has an unreasonably large amount of certain and near certain information at his fingertips without even having to struggle with the UI. Someone who wants to eek out even more refined unrealistic information can do so, but we won't do anything to make it easier to do. That sets CM down the wrong path.

However... if it's too much of a strain on frame rates, then forget it. No one wants his game to be a slide show for sure.

Absolutely not But this is why I don't argue a technical issue first when I don't agree with the feature request to begin with. Even if there were no technical complications from this feature, no significant investment in programming, and little issues predicted down the road... I'd still be against this feature. It quite simply is not good for what CM is all about.

Steve

[Frankster65]

I've got to say I am glad BF does not give us this tool. I for one like the "fog of war" aspect of the game, the surprises that come along with it, making for much more exciting gameplay IMHO.

[Battlefront.com]

Here's a fun analogy. Well, at least I think it's fun We all know the movie Aliens (#2 in the series), yes? OK, think of when Ripley and the Marines were making their last stand in the lab area. They had access to detailed schematics of the area. They had the ability and motivation to carefully check that against the actual environment. There weren't a lot of points of entry so they were able to quickly concentrate on them to make sure they were sealed. They closed themselves in and were ready to defend what they thought was a sealed perimeter.

Then they saw the blips of the oncoming Aliens. The blips approached and then passed the perimeter. Turns out they found an airduct or something that was not in their plans and the scary bastards were in the ceiling above them. And drama ensued

The request for a LOS anywhere tool is akin to having one of them pressed a button on the display table and have all the areas in the building that had a potential for infiltration light up on both the 2D schematics and in the real 3D environment. If that had been available to them they would have seen the weakness in their plan and adapted accordingly. The characters would have been much safer, but the movie would have been a lot less interesting.

Steve

[Frankster65]

Here's a fun analogy. Well, at least I think it's fun We all know the movie Aliens (#2 in the series), yes? OK, think of when Ripley and the Marines were making their last stand in the lab area. They had access to detailed schematics of the area. They had the ability and motivation to carefully check that against the actual environment. There weren't a lot of points of entry so they were able to quickly concentrate on them to make sure they were sealed. They closed themselves in and were ready to defend what they thought was a sealed perimeter.

Then they saw the blips of the oncoming Aliens. The blips approached and then passed the perimeter. Turns out they found an airduct or something that was not in their plans and the scary bastards were in the ceiling above them. And drama ensued

The request for a LOS anywhere tool is akin to having one of them pressed a button on the display table and have all the areas in the building that had a potential for infiltration light up on both the 2D schematics and in the real 3D environment. If that had been available to them they would have seen the weakness in their plan and adapted accordingly. The characters would have been much safer, but the movie would have been a lot less interesting.

Steve

LOL...well said. I haven't watched that movie for quite some time. Maybe it is time.

[Skwabie]

Question... in real life do units get surprised by things they did not expect to happen, or every time they move and position themselves they know everything and therefore are never surprised? What do you think the answer is? I'll give you a hint... surprise is probably one of the biggest and most reliable aspects of warfare. Oops, I answered my own question

Seriously though, this is EXACTLY why we do not want to give the player even MORE information than they have because they already have TOO MUCH information. Further reducing surprise makes the game more predictable and that means the results less realistic. That is not a good thing for Combat Mission.

Put another way, the more we tailor the game to making sure that everything goes perfectly for the player, the less realistic the game becomes. Less challenging too, since dealing with surprise is a significant challenge.

Related, to the degree game mechanics work unrealistically is to the degree that unrealistic tactics/strategies become more viable than realistic ones. This is a case in point.

In real life it is a very bad idea for vehicles to stay exposed to potential enemy fire for prolonged periods of time. The ability to keep vehicles out of such situations requires good judgement, not precise knowledge. In the above situation it should have been obvious that keeping the Brad parked in the wall's gap presented the enemy with a targeting opportunity of some sort. I don't need an LOS anywhere tool to know that. Hell, I can make that statement without even looking at a save from that game It's elementary.

What the LOS anywhere tool in this case does is unreasonably and unrealistically manage player risk. In real life the TC of the Brad does not have assurances that he's checked out every nook and cranny of the battlefield and therefore is going to be understandably hesitant to remain exposed unless there's a really good reason for doing so. Given the player such unreasonably accurate reassurances is definitely not a good thing.

The bottom line is that the player already has an unreasonably large amount of certain and near certain information at his fingertips without even having to struggle with the UI. Someone who wants to eek out even more refined unrealistic information can do so, but we won't do anything to make it easier to do. That sets CM down the wrong path.

Right, Steve, I am probably saying a different thing. Of course in Real Life the Bradley's TC will back off his track. If I'm the Bradley's TC, I will probably also back off my track (I might suck and still get hit but... that ain't the point:rolleyes:). But in CM, I'm the commander of every single unit on the map. I find myself spread thin, having to control everyone of them. Instead of fighting this specific Bradley with my full effort, in this case checking where it can and cannot see, I could only maybe give it 50% because there're many other units to worry about. Most importantly, it's a little hard to check a unit's LOS, where you sometimes have to navigate yourself to the TC's view position, scan around with camera controls and use the zooms. Therefore, some arbitrary tool come in and help.

On the other hand I do get your point. Such a specific LOS tool would perhaps make the game too simplistic/arcadish. I think this specific suggestion among many others are made with the good intent of making the UI more user friendly. I understand the reason that this one doesn't click though. Mayhaps the end result we strive for is a Matrix portal where we plug in and direct all controls with our minds, instead of clicking mouses and pressing buttons.

Edit Edit: Just an explanation of how to check a tank's Line of Fire.

1. Select the tank and press tab to go to unit lock.

2. Mouse scroll wheel down all the way to the ground.

3. Mouse scroll wheel up, 1 click only, where usually your POV is at the height of the tank's main gun.

4. Tilt the POV up, so that your screen center is pointed at the horizon.

5. Move the POV forward a tiny bit, so that your view is not obstructed by the tank's 3D model.

6. Pan around the map. Tilt POV to adjust for terrain elevations. Use zoom when the view is blurry.

...Probably need to rinse and repeat for some other tanks or new waypoints. Which is indeed quite a lotta controls input for me...

[A Canadian Cat]

- if you move an AFV into what you think is a nice hull down position or want to move just slightly from behind cover then don't you check what exactly can the AFV see from there, make sure you are hull down and if the line is blue or grey from the destination waypoint to other areas?

- if you move your infantry to the edge of the forest for example don't you check with LOS tool if you're moving just far enough so that the trees don't block your sight but you still benefit from concealment? Or when you move infantry into a building, don't you check what they can see from there, what arc of fire is possible?

- you want to move a valuable unit (a tank for example) through dangerous ground and want to minimize the unit's exposition to enemy fire, do you not check at particular waypoints if there's los from the waypoints to known or suspected enemy positions?

- don't you ever check with LOS tool what the enemy unit can see by setting a waypoint of one of your units to where the enemy is and using "target" at that waypoint and checking this way?

That is pretty much my list of uses for the tool. You even have it in order of most common to least common - for me any way. In fact those last two might not even happen in many games.

[Childress]

Frankly, the player's ability to track LOS from a waypoint node might well be described as gamey. That's an aid any army of the period would die for.

[poesel]

So now movies do count as valid proof for and against game features? Hmm, I need to remember that...

Joke aside: I once thought a 'LOS field' would be necessary but after a while you don't miss. Sure it would help but it would spoil the game for the reasons mentioned above.

Still the target tool could be better. For one it could draw the &$&%$& line from the waypoint I'm measuring from (I mean: really!).

Then it could better convey what blocks LOS at what height. And how high would something have to be to be spotted on that AS. That is sometimes really hard to find out.

[womble]

Frankly, the player's ability to track LOS from a waypoint node might well be described as gamey. That's an aid any army of the period would die for.

Indeed, but the alternative is to pretend that units can't look about them as they move and take advantage of good firing spots whilst ignoring those that don't offer firing solutions, which would be even more artefactual.

[jhmorneau]

Still the target tool could be better. For one it could draw the &$&%$& line from the waypoint I'm measuring from (I mean: really!).

+ 1 million (I mean: really!)

[Childress]

...which would be even more artefactual.

Huh? Is that like counterfactual? For example, what if a southern sympathizer travels trough a time warp and provides Robert E. Lee's army with modern assault rifles. Does he win the Battle of Gettysburg? Or, if Cleopatra had been ugly as an asp, would she have bedded Julius Caesar AND Marc Antony, the two most prominent stud muffins of the Republic? If the Academy of Fine Arts Vienna hadn't rejected the young Hitler twice and crushed his artistic aspirations? We're talking about a minor literary sub-genre here.

[PhilM]

So now movies do count as valid proof for and against game features? Hmm, I need to remember that...

Joke aside: I once thought a 'LOS field' would be necessary but after a while you don't miss. Sure it would help but it would spoil the game for the reasons mentioned above.

Still the target tool could be better. For one it could draw the &$&%$& line from the waypoint I'm measuring from (I mean: really!).

Then it could better convey what blocks LOS at what height. And how high would something have to be to be spotted on that AS. That is sometimes really hard to find out.

Agree with this! Given that the LOS is being calculated, and the result shown, from the waypoint and not the current location, it seems almost harder (game engine wise) to show the line from where the LOS is NOT being calculated from (current location) than where it IS being calculated from (waypoint)?

I don't know the history, but if LOS from waypoints was an addition to the game, then the LOS check - and the resultant line display - from the current location was the original basis of what we see, hence the line was drawn from the current location. But now waypoint calculations and results are being done, it doesn't seem too hard (??) to feed the waypoint location co-ordinates into the line drawing calculation, so that we see this result on screen?

I tend towards the "intuitive" approach to playing the game generally, and to this LOS issue - i.e. not to want "too much" (in my opinion, of course ... ) in the way of LOS tools. But one argument FOR them is that in many cases what I WANT to do is not what we have to do now:

- give an order to my guys to go precisely to point XY and look, say, east to see what they can see;

- but rather to order them to go to the vicinity of point XY (say, within a specified grid of AS?) and then position themselves to get LOS to point AZ, if they can.

So what I want (!) is some sort of "moderated LOS to" type command, rather than "LOS from".

Based on absolutely no practical experience of mine at all, it just seems more like the kind of actual order you would give in practice? Where you look from is (very) important, to avoid both taking casualties yourself, if possible, and giving away your own position. But the most crucial factor of all is where you want LOS of, not where you want LOS from? LOS from is the means; LOS to is the end.

I have no idea how that could work (or, more likely, not) in the game engine at the moment; but it seems to me to be a more realistic approach to the order, and in its absence a justification for some of the "unrealistic" LOS benefits we may have at the moment.

[Battlefront.com]

Indeed, but the alternative is to pretend that units can't look about them as they move and take advantage of good firing spots whilst ignoring those that don't offer firing solutions, which would be even more artefactual.

Yup. In a perfect world you'd not be able to draw LOS from a Waypoint at all since it's ridiculously unrealistic when nothing else is taken into consideration. But this isn't a perfect world and therefore we do have to take other things into consideration

The main problem is that FOR EXCEPTIONALLY GOOD REASONS units are generally not able to relocate themselves to achieve better LOS/LOF. This means when a tank trundles up to it's supposedly hull down position, finds that it needs to move 2m back or 2m forward it can not do so on it's own. In WeGo this is a problem because it generally means the tank waits around until the end of the turn, which could be 10s of seconds longer than it should be. In RealTime this is a problem because the player's practical ability to effectively micromanage units results in similar problem to WeGo.

For a game design to be balanced we have to be reasonable about where we draw the line between playability and functionality (in our case realism being a big part of that). As is often the case in life, a compromise must be reached for an overall acceptable outcome.

The LOS anywhere feature unbalances things too much.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

But in CM, I'm the commander of every single unit on the map. I find myself spread thin, having to control everyone of them. Instead of fighting this specific Bradley with my full effort, in this case checking where it can and cannot see, I could only maybe give it 50% because there're many other units to worry about. Most importantly, it's a little hard to check a unit's LOS, where you sometimes have to navigate yourself to the TC's view position, scan around with camera controls and use the zooms. Therefore, some arbitrary tool come in and help.

I definitely hear what you're saying. Players having too much to manage is a difficult thing to account for because there's so much variability! Small games by expert players in WeGo are totally different than large games by noobs in RT, for example. Some players can't handle more than two dozen units, others can handle a 100 and be happy as clams. And then there's the issue that the management strain varies from turn to turn, is more noticeable in some types of maps (Urban vs. open), or what the force mix is (some units are easier to manage than others).

The lack of a straight forward answer to the question of "how many units is too many" means a host of other issues can't be answered cleanly and easily. We have to muddle through it both as players and game designers. We add aids when we can, we limit them when necessary.

On the other hand I do get your point. Such a specific LOS tool would perhaps make the game too simplistic/arcadish. I think this specific suggestion among many others are made with the good intent of making the UI more user friendly.

Yup. We've been chipping away at the rough edges for 15+ years, but there's always more we can do. CMRT will showcase some nice improvements. Some of them are in the camera control arena, though how useful people find them to be is dependent on play style. We definitely should, and can, do more improvements over time.

Steve

[Canada Guy]

I am a bit of a micro-manager but that is one of the reasons that I like some of the control taken out of my hands. I like that I cannot split Italian squads and one of the reasons I always liked the command delay. Yes, I know when a unit can move but there is nothing I can do about it and no amount of action on my part would change the situation. It required careful planning on my side to prevent a conscript unit to both be effective and not to get into too much trouble.

Having not played CMRT yet, I am not sure how much restrictions have been placed on split Soviet troops. I would have liked them not to split but can understand that they needed to get onto tanks.

Someone mentioned a while ago that one option would be to take some control out of your hands at times to reflect this. It appeals to me as it both reflects reality somewhat closer and again I have to plan further in advance but then the TacAI may have to be more efficient and that may be a while yet.

This is all one big balancing act amongst different groups of customers. (Though I am very happy to see the command lines back again)