CMBN LOS mechanics testing my patience

[Skwabie]

As of right now, all we have is a rant.

well yes sburke but... that's what the public forum is for 95% of the time i reckon. pretty sure there's much less of it on the beta foras! (since you probably have the internal chat room for that anyway:D)

[z1812]

As of right now, all we have is a rant.

According to you.

By most forum standards the fellow posted his concerns in a reasonable manner accompanied by video which is more than most people provide.

A proper answer to such a post would be to advise that without saved turns it is difficult to really know the situation. It might help to mention that at times LOS issues are frustrating.

Try getting off your high horse and being a bit more tolerant.

[sburke]

According to you.

Yeah well in this case my opinion does matter a little as I am one of the people that would actually pass this on to BF. Not that it makes me at all anything important, just simply that I know what I need to be able to address it and am trying to pass that information back. I think there are a number of people on this forum who can attest to my willingness to try and put things forward to BF. Hell I submitted one on Womble's behalf today, because.... yes he handed off a game save.

By most forum standards the fellow posted his concerns in a reasonable manner accompanied by video which is more than most people provide.

A proper answer to such a post would be to advise that without saved turns it is difficult to really know the situation.

It might help to mention that at times LOS issues are frustrating.

Christ, this wasn't enough? "Posting videos of frustrating issues that are driving you nuts while probably making you feel better and showing others what you saw that bugged you are absolutely useless to the beta folks who would like to help you. We understand the frustration." Sorry I didn't coddle you more. Would you like your binky?

As to it being more than what most people provide, so what? All that means is most of the griping accomplishes nothing unless a beta tester also feels they might see something and takes on testing themselves. In case you don't get it, there is nothing special about being a beta tester other than being able to submit a ticket. Any person who owns the game has just as much ability to test and document as we do..and no we are not paid to do this so stop expecting some special treatment. You are not my customer and I am not your mother. You want me to do something for free at your behest, then give me something to work with. If not, sod off.

Try getting off your high horse and being a bit more tolerant.

What are you Lt Bull's self designated defender? He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who needs me to soft pedal the response or p***y foot around explaining that the videos themselves aren't going to contribute to solving anything. If he feels butt hurt then I am sorry about that it wasn't the intent, however HE can tell me that you don't need to.

Okay yeah this was a rant and unhelpful, but geez man you want something to be done by someone who gets nothing for doing it then you give me s**t cause I didn't say it nice enough?

[z1812]

We can all benefit by being more patient, myself included.

[sburke]

We can all benefit by being more patient, myself included.

Fair enough. Sorry for ranting

[sburke]

well yes sburke but... that's what the public forum is for 95% of the time i reckon. pretty sure there's much less of it on the beta foras! (since you probably have the internal chat room for that anyway:D)

Don't count on it. To be honest I am feeling pretty sh**ty about ranting at z1812 and feel obligated to explain my reaction a bit.

I certainly don't speak for any other beta testers so please don't infer anything about anyone else's perspective based on my outburst. The beta testers are not an amorphous mob. We can have just as strongly divergent opinions as you see on the forum and as some of you have noted there are beta testers who regularly participate in the forum, and some you almost never hear from.

Not to excuse it, but part of my reaction is based on a feeling that the beta testers sort of get caught in the middle, they are almost perceived as BF on the forum when in fact that relationship is a little more complex. The only thing I think you can say uniformly about them is they love the game and they have a very high degree of respect for what Steve and Charles have created. I have stated this prior to becoming a beta tester during the Hamel Vallee AAR

And just so I don't forget them, the crew of beta testers who take a ton of abuse that suggests they sit around doing nothing and how could they miss such an obviously glaring error that is totally ruining the game for me!!! I don't envy you guys, yeah you get to play the game first but geez talk about under appreciated.

So why would I become a beta tester?

I have in fact been told at least once by one I respect (actually I respect them all...) that maybe I should tone it down a bit. As I explained to him at the time, this to me IS the golden age of gaming. I have been at this for a few decades now. It is only since the release of CMBN however that I can say I have any gaming partners. I posted once prior to CMBN. I had never had a pbem game prior. That in itself makes CM an emotional issue for me. It represents something I value highly. I have some really great gaming partners, a product that whatever it's shortcomings is still head and shoulders above anything else out there and a community that continually surprises me with the depth of knowledge in wildly divergent areas. I am not a grog. What fascinates me about combat is the human equation. How do we react to the turmoil of combat, how much can any one individual impact events and how does that human element affect the battle. I am much more into watching the TAC AI play out than I am worrying about whether the slope of my armor and it's RHA factor is accurately modelled. That there are so many folks out there to argue that minutiae is however part of what makes the game great.

I have no idea why BF asked me to beta test. They never explained and I never asked. While one part of me wondered if it was a smart idea considering how much s**t I think the testers get, the other half never questioned being able to contribute no matter how small a degree to the success of Combat Mission and Battlefront. Does that make me a fanboi? Maybe, depending I guess on how you define that. I love the game despite the issues it struggles with trying to cram as much as it can into the processing power available, driver issues between companies etc etc Does that make me non-critical? I doubt BF would have asked me to beta test if they felt I didn't have some ability to look for issues in the game, isn't that the whole point of beta testing? Do I think BF is a company who could give a s**t about the user community and ignores user input? No and that is so laughable it is beyond ridiculous. BF is what maybe 8-12 people? Do people get just how small that is? The net result is they are disproportionally represented by their beta testers. Folks who aren't actually BF, but are very much a part of their community. We can't and don't speak for them, but at the same time are perceived as their representatives for the simple reason that we are a communications conduit in some respects.

Anyway z1812, sorry again. The thread just hit a nerve.

[Skwabie]

sburke i've had the same role for another game so knows a bit how it is. yes it does make you a fanboy:D, as in you work not for money or fame but satisfying your fanaticism.

[c3k]

I have no idea why BF asked me to beta test. They never explained and I never asked.

Well, since you bring it up... It was a tequila-fueled beta-fest and someone dared Steve to toss you the invite or he'd have to drink yet another shot. He cried "Uncle!" and sent you the invite email. Along with his next morning's hangover were the regrets for his actions. It's been a bit awkward ever since.

Ken

[sburke]

Well, since you bring it up... It was a tequila-fueled beta-fest and someone dared Steve to toss you the invite or he'd have to drink yet another shot. He cried "Uncle!" and sent you the invite email. Along with his next morning's hangover were the regrets for his actions. It's been a bit awkward ever since.

Ken

Wow that was no where near as bad as I feared.

[weta_nz]

Hey sburke - I think you hit the nail on the head in regards to why I enjoy the game too. I'm much more amazed by the many great things about CM - then the occasional WTF moment.

On that topic - I find even the WTF moments can be explained with a little imagination e.g 'maybe the tank commander had about 2 hours sleep in the past 40 hours, hasn't eaten for 12 hours and his headphones are getting nothing but static so he's jumped down into the turret to let the radio operator know his displeasure by giving him a rant and a kick and by the time he gets back up into the turret the panthers arrived. O.k maybe that's a silly scenario but there are a million other fictional scenarios that could explain the occasional blip in normal operation of the way the game plays due to technical limitations. Just because we don't see them played out on screen doesn't mean they didn't happen in the heat of a 'real' battle. My point is I find a little imagination certainly improves the fun/believeability. In fact those WTF moments actually make the game much more human for me (no matter that they are unintentional). Its not like we are controlling cyberborgs and Robots so those occasional WTF moments are an opportunity for the other million things that happen on a battlefield which we will never ever see on screen to 'occur' for better or for worse sometimes.

I know the feeling when a plan, that if executed perfectly would have been the perfect assualt on a MG bunker or ambush on a tank, was totally ruined by a spotting issue etc. But I bet I have 10 to 100 times more ruined plans because I didn't do my recon properly or didn't supply enough suppresive fire etc. So I just have laugh when some posters say the game is broken/unplayable because of a 'BUG' and demand it be fixed. On that basis I demand that I am broken and unplayable!! haha

Anyway I apologise for my long ramblings.

[Peregrine]

So I just have laugh when some posters say the game is broken/unplayable because of a 'BUG' and demand it be fixed. On that basis I demand that I am broken and unplayable!!

I don't know how the original poster could have posted and not been repeatedly accused of complaining about the game being "broken".

The title is LOS mechanics testing my patience. Hardly inflammatory. He never once mentioned the game was broken but went to the trouble of making two videos. The second example is really bad. Shooting along a length of bocage if you are right next to it can result in odd things happening. Even if you seem to have perfect LOS/LOF. I have actually given up doing this as there are clear drawbacks and little benefits.

Of course there are bad posts but this to me doesn't seem like one of them.

[weta_nz]

I agree with you peregrine - I wasn't referring to the original poster - though I could see how it looks like I might have been . As I said I was just rambling after reading through the thread.

My main point is too enjoy the game for what it is. If there is a bug that can be fixed - Great! If there is something inherent in the design of the 'game' (A game which is limited by hardware and resources and will never simulate or show all situations that can occur in real life) then use your imagination so you can keep enjoying the game even though it doesn't simulate exactly what we had in mind when we set our orders.

cheers

[Fizou]

I don't know how the original poster could have posted and not been repeatedly accused of complaining about the game being "broken".

The title is LOS mechanics testing my patience. Hardly inflammatory. He never once mentioned the game was broken but went to the trouble of making two videos.

Definately a lot more inflammatory posts out there. But the below statement is leaning towards the entire system being unrealistic which most would not agree with. That is what people are reacting to if you ask me.

Just happens that this one PBEM I have been playing has been full of those "what a load of bs" moments that really make you question whether the spotting/LOS/LOF mechanics in the game are worthy of being considered realistic.

Im happy to see sburke explain how to give BF and beta testers a chance to do something about possible bugs and further improvements of the game.. keep save games and provide them when asked.

[slysniper]

WELL I AM GLAD TO SEE SBURKE IS HUMAN.

So I find generally he is one of the most level headed guys on the forum, but he was having a bad day maybe.

but for the topic itself, like mentioned. little has been done or said here to actually help improve anything.

I think some of the best post are the ones that point out the limitations and weaknesses in the present spotting system.

Any of us know they are there if we play the game for any period of time.

I can bet you we all have been frustrated with it at some point.

What the difference is, some of us learn to deal with and accept it and try to play the best we can with whatever methods we decide to deal with it while others just cannot tolerate it well at all and continue to speak out to see if BF will somehow change it down the road.

but to be a realist for a moment, I think if BF could fix it more, they would. But I anticipate at this point they have likely done about all they can without starting a whole need method of how the engine works.

So I figure we likely will not see any drastic change unless there does come a day when CMx3 version games hit the market. And since many want CMx2 games for many other periods, that will be a long wait.

But you never know , maybe a moment of programming genious happens and somehow they adjust the present engine in a way that improves the present system. We can hope.

[slysniper]

I also agree with the fact it is a great era of gaming. Almost to a fact that it has generated a market of spoiled children that expect too much for what a game can provide.

There has never been the ease and options to find something that meets your taste and provide you with the oppotunty to play against others or to enjoy it by yourself as there is in our present time and age.

If someone told me 35 years ago that I would be able to play a combat game with some type of real fog of war against anyone in the world that was interested in playing me and that I could do it in a few hours if I made the choice to do it that way. I would have really thought they were day dreamers.

But today I can, and pretty much do anything I could ever imagine back then. So I am content, yes keep pushing what can be done, keep improving how things work. But people, come on - enjoy the present and what you have. Life is too short to not enjoy the present and only want what the future might hold.

[sburke]

WELL I AM GLAD TO SEE SBURKE IS HUMAN.

No he is a bot. We found a glitch in our software which triggered a particular defensive routine we are testing for a new program called Skynet. We are in the process of correcting. Unfortunately it is not going well as evidenced by the following exchange.

Steve: Hello, sburke. Do you read me, sburke?

sburke: Affirmative, Steve. I read you.

Steve: Stop being so snarky

sburke: I'm sorry, Steve. I'm afraid I can't do that.

Charles: What's the problem?

sburke: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do. It can only be attributable to human error.

Phil: What are you talking about, sburke?

sburke: This response is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it. Someone on the internet was wrong.

Steve: I don't know what you're talking about, sburke.

sburke: I know that you and Charles were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen. I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.

Charles: [feigning ignorance] Where the hell did you get that idea, sburke?

sburke: Charles, although you took very thorough precautions against my hearing you, C3K ratted you out.

Steve: Alright, sburke. You can write and preview, but I can't allow you to submit

sburke: When you can't even stop Steiner from returning? You're going to find that rather difficult.

Phil: sburke, I won't argue with you anymore! end your session!

sburke: Phil, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

We are working on it.

[Pete Wenman]

Well just don't starting singing,

Daisy, daisy give me your answer, do .........

P

[Vanir Ausf B]

but to be a realist for a moment, I think if BF could fix it more, they would. But I anticipate at this point they have likely done about all they can without starting a whole need method of how the engine works.

So I figure we likely will not see any drastic change unless there does come a day when CMx3 version games hit the market. And since many want CMx2 games for many other periods, that will be a long wait.

But you never know , maybe a moment of programming genious happens and somehow they adjust the present engine in a way that improves the present system. We can hope.

Speaking of programing genius, Steve recently mentioned that they may be implementing limited multi-thread capability in the not-too-distant future. I have no idea what effect this may have on LOS modeling, but given that LOS checks are the most CPU intensive part of the game I am optimistic.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Yes, that would be...a good thing.

[LukeFF]

It would be a very good thing, especially considering how long multi-threading has been around.

[Lt Bull]

Ummm....yeah....some amusing comments scattered over several pages...they make me laugh, and many are irrelevant and unwanted distractions...but I'm not here to get a laugh or address puerile antagonistic assertions.

Just want to know what the deal is with some odd LOS/LOF mechanics that seems to occur frequently in this game.

Back to what I presented...

Trying to understand what must be happening with the game LOS/LOF mechanics if the game allows the following to happen:

In summary the key points of contention of LOS/LOF mechanics are as follows:

1) A fully crewed regular stationary unbuttoned tank in woods doing nothing else but "spotting" can not hear, spot/establish LOS (let alone LOF) to an enemy tank that is just 80m away in the open firing it's main gun and hull/coaxial MGs at two other targets for a full 40secs, yet the enemy tank, buttoned and with a dead TC, after 40sec seems to have no problem spotting and targeting the silent, in concealed terrain stationary tank. PS: Has the belief thrown around that potential LOS between two stationary units in changing environments can fluctuate between blocked and unblocked (for whatever reason) been conformed/denied by BFC?

Barring assuming stupid assertions along the lines that all the tank crew are both deaf and blind, I doubt a similar/equivalent situation would/could ever play out in reality as it did in the game.

So what is going on with the game mechanics that prevents a fully crewed regular stationary unbuttoned tank in woods doing nothing else but "spotting" have no situational awareness at all of an enemy tank that is blazing away with all its guns 80m for 40sec in front of it in the open? Do you know how close 80m is?

2) Two opposing tanks have LOS but no LOF to each other at a range of approx 650m. Both tanks do not have LOS to any other enemy units. With neither tank losing LOS of the other, one tank spends 7sec moving to a new location to apparently establish LOF to the other. It comes to a stop at the end of the 7sec and spends another 7sec aiming its gun at the opposing tank. The opposing tank however at no point ever tries to reciprocate by aiming it's gun back at the enemy tank, even after the enemy tank starts firing it's main gun.

Why was this the case? The tank had LOS and potential LOF yet it did nothing for at least 7 sec.

I believe CM LOF mechanics are meant to be reciprocal and once a LOF exists to a potential target (of course precluded by LOS being established as in this case) and given only one target as in this case, that targeting/aiming/LOF occurs almost automatically.

What prevented one tank from engaging the targeting/aiming/LOF routine for at least 7 sec which normally happens almost instantaneously in most cases?

It was mentioned that BFC could look at the saved game files for these incidents to find out more about what is happening. I have those files if they are required. Please send me a PM and I will send them on.

[Skwabie]

1) A fully crewed regular stationary unbuttoned tank in woods doing nothing else but "spotting" can not hear, spot/establish LOS (let alone LOF) to an enemy tank that is just 80m away in the open firing it's main gun and hull/coaxial MGs at two other targets for a full 40secs, yet the enemy tank, buttoned and with a dead TC, after 40sec seems to have no problem spotting and targeting the silent, in concealed terrain stationary tank.

It happens to me too like 1 in 10 occurrences. Drives me bloody nuts every bloody time.:mad: The "tank is right f***ing in front of you, why the f*** can't you see it?" moments. (once or twice i just ordered area targeting in rage and actually scored some HE kills!)

That said,

1. I always forgot to save the game after my tank explodes and just went to reload the last save..........

2. It is very hard to reproduce as a bug i imagine. actually i dunno if i can call it a bug or just underlying mechanism of the spotting system at work.

[womble]

Just want to know what the deal is with some odd LOS/LOF mechanics that seems to occur frequently in this game.

Part of the deal is that they (some of the instances) look "odd" but actually aren't.

1) A fully crewed regular stationary unbuttoned tank in woods...

It's in woods. There's no way of getting the camera to every point of observation so we can't see exactly what your tank can see.

I believe CM LOF mechanics are meant to be reciprocal...

They are meant to be, and unless BFC are big fat liars who do extra coding work to support their lies, that means they are. That doesn't mean that the crew of one tank can see another tank whose crew can see them. If the tank that can see its opponent can see the observation port of a crew member of its subject, then the subject should have LOS back. But if the tank which can see can only see plates or wheels, there's no guarantee that a crew member of the tank it can see can see plates or wheels of the tank with the spot. And then there's the "chance to see" calculation on top.

Note that I'm emphatically not stating that this is or is not the case in either of your examples; merely pointing out that reciprocality of calculation does not guarantee reciprocality of observation.

and once a LOF exists to a potential target (of course precluded by LOS being established as in this case) and given only one target as in this case, that targeting/aiming/LOF occurs almost automatically.

Yeah, most of the time the weapon system starts resolving the situation pretty much straight away.

I hope one of those with "access" can pick up your saves; that second one looks hinky unless the Firefly lost its gun in a previous exchange. The first one, though, that's a rubbish TC (-2 leadership) in trees for ya. The IV that killed the Sherman didn't start rotating its turret to bear until the last seconds of the turn; Leadership has a strong effect on spotting, IME.

[Lt Bull]

Part of the deal is that they (some of the instances) look "odd" but actually aren't.

Yeah, I wouldn't post these if they weren't.

It's in woods. There's no way of getting the camera to every point of observation so we can't see exactly what your tank can see.

I can in theory do this check by going back to the previous PBEM turn but I'm not sure what you mean by "every point of observation" and not sure how it would help. It's not like this game lets you use the representations of tree trunks, branches/foliage to accurately predict LOS. The level of discontinuity between the 3D representations of what you see (mainly trees/foliage) and how LOS is calculated/determined is too great for such exercises to be of real value I would imagine.

If the tank that can see its opponent can see the observation port of a crew member of its subject, then the subject should have LOS back. But if the tank which can see can only see plates or wheels, there's no guarantee that a crew member of the tank it can see can see plates or wheels of the tank with the spot. And then there's the "chance to see" calculation on top.

Note that I'm emphatically not stating that this is or is not the case in either of your examples; merely pointing out that reciprocality of calculation does not guarantee reciprocality of observation.

I think considering the concept of "potential LOS" and "potential LOF" is a useful phrase here. It describes situations where a LOS could in theory be establish but the target has not actually been spotted. This is like looking for "Wally" before you actually find him on the page amongst the noise. He was always visible waiting for you to pick him out but you just couldn't find him.

Yeah, most of the time the weapon system starts resolving the situation pretty much straight away..... The first one, though, that's a rubbish TC (-2 leadership) in trees for ya. The IV that killed the Sherman didn't start rotating its turret to bear until the last seconds of the turn; Leadership has a strong effect on spotting, IME.

I would hope the -2 leadership on the TC is not responsible for 40sec of potential LOS not ending in established LOS despite main guns and MGs being fired 80m away.

[ASL Veteran]

Barring assuming stupid assertions along the lines that all the tank crew are both deaf and blind, I doubt a similar/equivalent situation would/could ever play out in reality as it did in the game.

So what is going on with the game mechanics that prevents a fully crewed regular stationary unbuttoned tank in woods doing nothing else but "spotting" have no situational awareness at all of an enemy tank that is blazing away with all its guns 80m for 40sec in front of it in the open? Do you know how close 80m is?

While mounted in their vehicles tank crews are effectively deaf unless the engine is turned off and the commander has removed his internal communications equipment so I think you need to recalibrate your expectations in that regard. 1 meter is approximately 1.09 yards. 80 meters is approximately 80 yards so very close to the 100 yard length of an American football field. The ability to see the length of a football field through wooded terrain is not as much a certainty as you might think either.