Annoying building LOS issues

[JasonC]

Now you are all just telling me that I should not believe my lying eyes.

No sale.

The "map selection" part of the briefing reads "Small City Water Assault - 051.btt"

Since it was selected automatically, that is all I have to give you. It features a city region of mostly wooden structures, mixed 1 and (mostly) 2 story, most of them small houses with a few larger "wooden apartment block" style, larger buildings. There is a stream about 60% of the board width toward the attacker's side, with one bridge and one ford, center of the right half and nearly centered / slightly left respectively, from the defender's orientation. A church on the far side, a few masonry houses, and concrete apartment blocks on the attacker's side of the city (dissuading far forward defenses). Most of the houses are surrounded by fences with some hedge or brush, gardens around everything, basically. Some scattered trees but no heavy forested areas. River is low lying, and there is another long gully, 2/3rds of map width, in front of the church (and mostly dead ground to it).

If you want to locate the particular building that prompted the thread, it is approximately center line of the map from left to right in the defender's orientation (facing river), slightly left of it and basically aligned with the lone ford. It is a masonry building, and several blocks back from the river shore, a little over 200 yards from it. The long axis of this house is parallel to the river, so it has 3 windows on the side facing the river. There aren't many on the map that are (1) masonry rather than wood (2) 2 story to see over all the garden walls, (3) oriented with windows rather than blank walls facing the river. It should not be hard to pick out, from those criteria, if you are looking at the right map. The HMG position I was first trying to select is on the left side of that house when facing the river, corner closest to the road down to the ford, and the desired LOS / LOF is toward the ford. Especially important is the coverage of the open ground up at street level on both the far and the near side of the ford - the ford itself will be too low to see from that far back. It is also important to see the wooden building immediately across the ford, and *not* to see too many (preferably, *any*) other 2 story buildings on the far side of the river.

The effects desired are (1) that the HMG can deny crossing of the ford to leg infantry until it is suppressed or KOed, (2) that replacement shooters can be funneled up to the spot from shelter on the ground floor or the rear of the building, outside of it (in its shadow toward the river), (3) that the lone spot the enemy can duel effectively from is a wooden upper story (quite vulnerable to MG42 full caliber fire), (4) that the spot be beyond effective SMG range from anything not yet across the river (plus masonry walls to stop such fire effectively, as cover not just concealment), (5) that the building the enemy would select to duel from is also the one he would want to "stage" into, around, or through to get troops to the ford and the low ground around it, because (6) a TRP for 81mm mortars will be placed right on the corner of that building that is "in line" with the ford. Additional benefit is that (7) the same house should be able to put a LOS / LOF onto the bridge, out of the right front window rather than the left front one, at range.

So if what one I saw were really what I got, that house would be perfect and I'd build a core concept of the whole defense around it.

Other areas on the same map giving me trouble, for those interested...

A - I want flanking fire on the crossing sites from ground as low as the crossings. The natural spot in the clump of woods on the right edge close to the water, near side of the river. I have foxholes for such a position. It can see the bridge and one wood building on the other side nearest the bridge crossing, while being low enough to avoid LOS from most of the other good cover on the enemy side of the river. The problem is, checking the the LOS tool those locations do not appear to be able to see past the bridge, pretty much at all. It is only a narrow defensive position, therefore, good for fighting a bridge crossing but little else. That means only squad infantry with LMGs could go there, since they would need to relocate if the enemy just doesn't try to force a crossing at the bridge.

B - I considered trying to make the gully area ahead of the church on the far side of the river a forward threat zone. That requires enfilade fire from the left, not guys in the church, since the latter can't see the dead ground of the gully area. All the second story buildings left of the gully with upper stories that might see into it are wood. And most fail to see into it, either at all or to any great coverage, due to grazing fences and the like nearer to the spotting building. The next thing I tried for that was a corner of a garden with hedge / brush not just fencing, sticking out nearest the drop off into the gully. I could put a foxhole there for an OP half squad to cover the gully, I thought. But checking with the tool, I find the slope of the ground makes practically the entire gully dead not swept ground from that "street level" position. Basically, if not on a second story I'd have to be *in* the gully to see anything in it. Note that if I can't sweep the gully from a practical position, the church is a death trap, with south facing windows, only room for one fire team, and lots of good enemy cover that "bears" on it.

C - my force structure is 2 smaller platoons of 2 squads each, 2 LMG varieties, meant to operate split into single LMG fire teams, 4 to an HQ. Plus a weapons platoon with 4 similar sized teams with HMGs rather than LMGs. One company HQ and 81mm support off map. Thus, I want to find positions for typically 3-4 firing positions near each other for command purposes, and to find at least 3 such and perhaps 4. They need to interlock their threat cones, and not readily be "rolled" by expected superior enemy numbers, especially at SMG ranges. That means avoiding straight up everyone sees each other firefights between similar building cover at 80 yards or less especially, and I'd prefer 150 yard engagement ranges as much as possible, to maximize the edge of an MG42 over an PPsH. This is all one problem, "C", because joint positions for 4 shooters at a time seem to conflict, on this map, with avoiding front windows of wooden buildings right along the river. Obviously I still need to contest passage of the river, because otherwise numbers and SMGs in town fighting are strong, and their need to expose themselves at bottlenecks is my strongest single card.

Any substantive comments on any or all of the above, welcome. "It always just works on fine for me", not welcome.

[cool breeze]

Where did I say that and what am I selling?

[JasonC]

SeinfieldRules wrote - "as soon as you give a targeting order that they will reshuffle and place themselves in a position where both can fire at the target."

Bollocks.

Continued - "The 4 story house you mentioned in your second example, I placed a PzGren squad in one, and though the LMGs both started in the middle of the top floor with no physical LOF, I had good LOS with the rest of the squad out the windows (with blind spots on the sides with no windows), and the LMGs immediately moved to the windows as soon as I gave a targeting order."

Bollocks.

CoolBreeze - spotting is mostly what you see is what you get.

Bollocks.

Continued - "if you have come up with a defence scheme that looks good as far as WYSIWYG, but doesn't seems good via the targetting line, it MIGHT still be good."

Bollocks.

You guys are selling me the line of utter horsefeathers that there is nothing wrong here. And I am not buying one word of it. I will believe my own lying eyes, thank you very much.

[sburke]

Just an FYI if you want to give an exact location, in the editor if you hold your cursor over a spot it will give you an x,y coordinate. Saves time trying to ID a location. I realize you may want to avoid getting intel in a battle, but as long as you don't touch the units tab you will get no info on the opposition.

[SeinfeldRules]

Is this correct house/the positioning you are trying to achieve?

The 3 men on the left are the gunner, assistant gunner and leader:

Area fire across the ford.

These Russians are hiding in the dead ground right below the crest of the little rise leading up from the ford. I have the HMG area firing right over their heads resulting in them alternating between rattled and fully pinned:

I have plenty of blue lines using the targeting tool on both the near and far sides of the ford. I can target the wooden 1 story house and hedge line immediately on the far side of the river as well.

[JasonC]

First, yes that is tbe right map and the right house. Second, as I already stated, yes I can get a LOS to the ford area after using the tips first provided to msnipulate the MG position within the house.

Now scan with the LOS tool the whole area of open ground up at street level on the near side of the ford. I find very narrow coverage. I find the LOS blocked just right of where you have the line, for instance. Similarly, scan the full open area on the far side of the river, from that wooden house down to the ford. The full garden area around that house, all the open approaches to the ford, the ford proper..

From the positions where that leftmost window is visible, I exoect to be able to cover that whole area. Not just some bits of it, all of it. A Russian should not be abke to get to the ford without being shot. If there, should not be able to get out of the ford without being shot. In the low ground, if they are heads down, the fire should be over their heads, but that should be the only spot not covered. The tactical role is not accomplished by overhead fire scaring someone in the ford. Nor is it accomplished if there are some select routes to the ford or out of it that cpukd draw HMG fire. Instead, the test question is, can the HMG see every man entering the ford, and every man leaving it?

If the answer is yes, that the role is accomplished, and I am abke to translate what I see and saw in selecting the position. If the answer is no, then an unsuppressed HMG in that house at that window does not "hold the ford". Which is what the envisioned defense needs it to do. If I get that, I can focus other assets (other MGs, a TRP for mortars etc) on making it hard for the attackers to get that suppression, and to give me targets when the enemy tries to position his forces to attempt it.

Clear enough?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Now scan with the LOS tool the whole area of open ground up at street level on the near side of the ford. I find very narrow coverage. I find the LOS blocked just right of where you have the line, for instance. Similarly, scan the full open area on the far side of the river, from that wooden house down to the ford. The full garden area around that house, all the open approaches to the ford, the ford proper..

From the positions where that leftmost window is visible, I exoect to be able to cover that whole area. Not just some bits of it, all of it.

LOS to the area right of the target line is blocked by the building directly in front of the house the machine gun team occupies.

The labeled house to the left of the ford blocks LOS in that direction, so yes, that is a somewhat narrow field of fire as I would expect it to be. Between those two structures most of the ground is in LOS with the notable exception of the dead ground near the ford -- which is quite a substantial area -- and a narrow band of ground blocked by a tree I have marked on the screenshot.

There are two houses fronting the ford on the other side of the stream that I have marked. Your machine gun has patchy LOS inside the "garden" area immediately surrounding these buildings due to intervening vegetation. You have good LOS to the house on the left. Unfortunately you cannot area fire on the house on the right because the center of the action spot it is on is out of LOS even though most of the rest of the building is in LOS. That is a much lamented game engine limitation. However, any infantry in that building that are kneeling or standing will likely be directly target-able once spotted for as long as they stay spotted.

[Vanir Ausf B]

One other thing. When mousing over the dead ground near the ford much of the area is identified by the tooltip text as "Reverse Slope - No Aim Point". This means that you have no LOS to the center of the action spot at that location, but do have LOS to the area above it at an undisclosed height (if you have no chance of LOS at all the tooltip says "No Line of Sight"). As with the house on the opposite bank, you can't area fire into these spots and won't see prone or crawling soldiers within them, but you may be able to spot and fire on troops walking or running through them (tall vehicles would almost certainly be in LOS). The bottom line is that the total area you will have LOS to is somewhat larger than what the color of the target line suggests.

[cool breeze]

I was also messing around with that map placing units and moving the LOS tool.

I think I have been over-emphasising the funkyness of the LOS tool. People who have been saying it can conditionally be relied upon to give accurate info are correct. I have given it less credence than it is due because of my long term habbit of conflating reverse-slope no target point, with no LOS. On the other hand those conditionals attached to using the LOS tool mean I will continue to mostly just eyeball it and use the target too mostly for targetting. I wouldnt use one HMG for both sides of the house hoping for it to switch, Id put one one hmg for one and a hmg or lmg for the other.

[JasonC]

Thanks guys, I have also received an offer from a playtester to look at a file, in which I position some of my teams in locations I've tried and explain some of the issues I see. Just busy with work this week, but hope to get to that by this weekend.

To Vanir specifically, yes you are seeing many of the same things I am seeing. By my mark I eyeball, that left window looks like it should be able to fully do the tactical job I described in my previous post, above. But after scouting it with the LOS tool, I have no confidence that it can actually do that job. Since for command reasons if I put an HMG back there and build the defense around it, I will rely on the position heavily, and must find others physically near it for additional forces, I am very reluctant at this point.

And this was about the best position I found on the map, for the tasks I need my defense scheme to accomplish. I am just finding it much harder, requiring much more MM work and "fiddly", to pick positions and to assess them reliably, that I am used to. I haven't had this degree of difficulty with non-urban CMRT terrain (some gauging the right depth into treelines, some details of grazing / reverse slope behaviors, but not this hard), and of course I had no problems like this at all in CMx1.

[YankeeDog]

The problem in CMx1 in this type of tactical situation was the opposite; if a unit could get LOS/LOF to any given point in CMx1, then *all* soldiers in that unit were automatically assumed to have LOS/LOF to that point, and firepower was calculated accordingly.

Of course, this isn't always true. Certain types of terrain, buildings being a very good example, limit on the number of eyes & muzzles that can can fire along a given vector. That is, a 12-man squad in a building might well not be able to fire all weapons down a certain street, because all 12 men can't simultaneously use the 1 or 2 windows of the building that look out upon that street.

Additionally, a unit like an HMG in a building in CMx1 could very quickly change its direction of fire. For example. an HMG in a building in CMx1 could fire down the street to the North, and then rapidly turn around and fire its next burst 15 seconds later down the street on the opposite side of the building to the South. For course, it doesn't really work this way IRL because the MG can only be set up on one window at a time; in order to change fire vectors like this, it would have to move within the building and set up on a new window, something that would almost certainly take more than 15 seconds.

CMx2's higher fidelity system solves these problems, putting more realistic restrictions on how units can apply firepower and change direction of engagement. Tracking the specific position of every soldier in a unit means that the game can track which weapons exactly are able to fire along any given vector, and how long it takes soldiers to reposition in order to fire in a new direction.

But I'll be the first to acknowledge that with the higher fidelity has come additional complexities, and there is definitely still room for improvement in CMx2.

Two steps forward, one step back. But forward progress, nevertheless.

[JasonC]

It is not higher fidelity. It is more MM for no gain in anything. The tac AI is too stupid to position the men correctly - not progress. In my rowhouse example, the men couldn't use the brick upper window outcroppings the way they actually would in real life - not progress. Attempting to get every detail of every man's position of every weapon right, down to every 15 second increment, is certainly more ambitious if you like, but it is only realism if you actually do. And the game doesn't get there, not with 8 meter action spots and crazy stacking up behaviors and overly concentrated positions and complete lack of tactics or intelligence on the part of the men you pretend you are individually modeling, but in fact cannot individually control, etc.

Not remotely sold that any of this is an improvement. And on the playability side, a week ago I wanted to start this QB with a friend, and he still doesn't have a set up, despite helpful comments here by several people more experienced with the game than I am. Anyone who pretends this is a win, is whistling dixie.

[AttorneyAtWar]

It is not higher fidelity. It is more MM for no gain in anything. The tac AI is too stupid to position the men correctly - not progress. In my rowhouse example, the men couldn't use the brick upper window outcroppings the way they actually would in real life - not progress. Attempting to get every detail of every man's position of every weapon right, down to every 15 second increment, is certainly more ambitious if you like, but it is only realism if you actually do. And the game doesn't get there, not with 8 meter action spots and crazy stacking up behaviors and overly concentrated positions and complete lack of tactics or intelligence on the part of the men you pretend you are individually modeling, but in fact cannot individually control, etc.

Not remotely sold that any of this is an improvement. And on the playability side, a week ago I wanted to start this QB with a friend, and he still doesn't have a set up, despite helpful comments here by several people more experienced with the game than I am. Anyone who pretends this is a win, is whistling dixie.

Anyone who thinks a machinegun team stacking up with 4 or 5 people in a window is a sign of "complete lack of tactics or intelligence on the part of the men you pretend you are individually modeling" is overreacting and frankly needs to get over the fact that that window has bad LOS and is abstracted. Its fine complaining about bad LOS, I have done it and many others, but going on to throw what I see as a tantrum over the AI and the rest of the game over it is just silly.

[JasonC]

Raptor - you are full of crap.

I am a highly experience CM gamer. If I am having trouble with this, so are lots of other people, even if they are less vocal about it, or less demanding. They are settling and putting up with crappy behavior, and the designers need to know that they have a problem. Telling me they don't is just a useless lie.

I am happy to take tips on how to handle the building LOS issues the game clearly has, to get past them as much as possible, and get back to playing the game. But when a 10 year veteran can't play your game for a week without assistance - fact - you have a problem. And no amount of smash mouth BS can change that.

[c3k]

It is not higher fidelity. It is more MM for no gain in anything. The tac AI is too stupid to position the men correctly - not progress. In my rowhouse example, the men couldn't use the brick upper window outcroppings the way they actually would in real life - not progress. Attempting to get every detail of every man's position of every weapon right, down to every 15 second increment, is certainly more ambitious if you like, but it is only realism if you actually do. And the game doesn't get there, not with 8 meter action spots and crazy stacking up behaviors and overly concentrated positions and complete lack of tactics or intelligence on the part of the men you pretend you are individually modeling, but in fact cannot individually control, etc.

Not remotely sold that any of this is an improvement. And on the playability side, a week ago I wanted to start this QB with a friend, and he still doesn't have a set up, despite helpful comments here by several people more experienced with the game than I am. Anyone who pretends this is a win, is whistling dixie.

I didn't just open the map: I went to the location, got permission from the owner, and went upstairs. The reason your men can't get to the window you want them position towards is that the owner has a friggin' stack of furniture and luggage blocking the way. If that weren't bad enough, the internal chimney flue further restricted access. Oh, the spiders were bad, too.

If your friend has the patience to wait a week for you to place one machinegun team, you've got a quality partner. Don't lose him.

Seriously: can LOS fidelity be better? Yes. Is your game broken? Well, you think so. Me? I'd take that map and have an adequate setup in about 15 minutes. Maybe your setup would have you win and mine would have me lose. Shrug. I would've gotten a week's worth of gaming in.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. (<-- No, they're not modeled, either.)

C'mon. Stop the Sandhurst solution and get into the field and find something that works.

If it's that important to have LOS/LOF from there, buy some demo men and blow up the intervening obstructions. It was done, you know. (Or mod the map and resubmit the qb to your buddy.)

Ken

[sburke]

Nov 1st. Patch comes out fixes placement issue

Nov 2nd set up turn sent

Nov 3rd 10 am first action turn received

Nov 3rd. 10:01:30 second mark smoke round falls on street in front of house

Nov 3rd. 10:01:40 am Rage quit

[Vanir Ausf B]

Getting a machine gun to man a particular window out of the 3 windows in that wall would indeed be a pain in the ass during game play since it appears to be semi-random as to which one the TacAI chooses whenever a new face order is issued. But it's not terribly difficult during setup where you can just keep repositioning until you get what you want. While messing around with it I was even able to get a proper keyhole position, which did not appear to negatively affect LOS towards the river.

[LukeFF]

Raptor - you are full of crap.

I am a highly experience CM gamer. If I am having trouble with this, so are lots of other people, even if they are less vocal about it, or less demanding. They are settling and putting up with crappy behavior, and the designers need to know that they have a problem. Telling me they don't is just a useless lie.

I am happy to take tips on how to handle the building LOS issues the game clearly has, to get past them as much as possible, and get back to playing the game. But when a 10 year veteran can't play your game for a week without assistance - fact - you have a problem. And no amount of smash mouth BS can change that.

Do you have this sort of lousy attitude with everyone you disagree with, face-to-face?

[wadepm]

I appreciate his honesty. And most of his posts I find very informative.

[sfhand]

I appreciate his honesty. And most of his posts I find very informative.

Appreciate this...

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1527262&postcount=39

[Rafter11]

I have read JasonC's posts for years. They have been helpful and informative. Like JasonC, I find myself frustrated with the increasing micro-mgt required. It would be nice if a player could assign platoons formations (wedge, vee, line, etc.) along with route and movement orders. I think such ability would greatly reduce micro-mgt.

[sfhand]

Maybe your solution lies here...

... I had no problems like this at all in CMx1.

[LukeFF]

I appreciate his honesty. And most of his posts I find very informative.

It's one thing to be honest and quite another to be insulting when disagreeing with someone else's opinion.

[Daroc]

I have an issue with the building sighting - work around by not putting the HMG/LMG in buildings. Two well ground placed crews can stop a company or two without blinking.

Put them on hide with very short target arcs - wait for it then open up ala ginzu slice and dice. Smoke and rinse repeat till no more army guys.

[wadepm]

Luke, you are easily insulted. This the Internet, I should think we all had Rhino hides by now...