Erwin Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 That assumes that WYSIWYG is true, and am not sure if it is in all circumstances. There are visuals like the one you mentioned that are purely for graphical effects. With CM2, so much of how the engine and AI actually "see" the world is kept hidden from players. Phenomena like this require extensive testing before one can trust one's eyes. I do agree that units ordered to HIDE are capable of spotting enemy units dozens, perhaps hundreds of meters away. So, something has changed from the way HIDE used to work. I recall that one used to be able to walk right over an enemy unit on HIDE and shoot em in the back. Also, that ambush by a HIDING unit was almost impossible. Hopefully that has changed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Erwin said: That assumes that WYSIWYG is true, and am not sure if it is in all circumstances. There are visuals like the one you mentioned that are purely for graphical effects. With CM2, so much of how the engine and AI actually "see" the world is kept hidden from players. Phenomena like this require extensive testing before one can trust one's eyes. I am talking about the green soldier status text, not any 3D animation. Hiding units cycle between "hiding" and "spotting." There is no animation associated with this. Anyways, in the past I tested it in a situation where it is fairly straightforward to prove the effect: units "hiding" in foxholes can still spot to some degree, and take casualties from offset ground-burst HE, although logically a unit truly hiding down in a foxhole should be blind except to aircraft flying overhead. But I haven't checked that recently. Edit: checked and this is the case, although there may be no direct connection between taking casualties while hiding in foxholes and the "spotting" status in the green text. It may just be a prone vs. kneeling protection modifier, with prone providing hugely increased, but not absolute, protection (in exchange for still having observation out of the foxholes). Edited November 24, 2016 by akd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 "I am talking about the green soldier status text, not any 3D animation." Ok, got it. Are we sure that actually/accurately represents the troop's actions (or just a mathematical approximation is what I mean)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 25 minutes ago, Erwin said: "I am talking about the green soldier status text, not any 3D animation." Ok, got it. Are we sure that actually/accurately represents the troop's actions I don't think so, since when you order engineers to blast an obstacle, their status will cycle between "spotting" and "hiding", when really it should say "blasting" to represent what's going on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said: I don't think so, since when you order engineers to blast an obstacle, their status will cycle between "spotting" and "hiding", when really it should say "blasting" to represent what's going on. That doesn't mean that isn't what they are doing. Why should it say "blasting"? The command given isn't a direct relationship to the status indicator. Taking a one off example as a proof that the status indicator is incorrect is not a very good case. You guys spend way too much time trying to prove things using very little data. Kind of entertaining to watch though. Probably a result of your bacon getting taken away. Edited November 25, 2016 by sburke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 (edited) Double post Edited November 25, 2016 by sburke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Just now, sburke said: That doesn't mean that isn't what they are doing. What should it say "blasting"? Taking a one off example as a proof that the status indicator is incorrect is not a very good case. You guys spend way too much time trying to prove things using very little data. Kind of entertaining to watch though. Probably a result of your bacon getting taken away. Yeah I can't think clearly without my daily dose of smoked crunchy goodness. But I was actually just trying to give an example that we shouldn't take things too literally in the game always. I'm perfectly fine with that, but I can see how some new players might get confused at times. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 5 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said: Yeah I can't think clearly without my daily dose of smoked crunchy goodness. But I was actually just trying to give an example that we shouldn't take things too literally in the game always. I'm perfectly fine with that, but I can see how some new players might get confused at times. Heh there are so many things to confuse new players. Hell I learn new things about the game on a regular basis and I don't mean new features. Even old ones I didn't fully understand. I've stopped worrying about whether I can do exactly what I think I want to and come to peace with the order phase just being an expression of intent with my pixeltruppen deciding what they really want to do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 53 minutes ago, sburke said: I've stopped worrying about whether I can do exactly what I think I want to and come to peace with the order phase just being an expression of intent with my pixeltruppen deciding what they really want to do. [cue oriental sage] Ah, my son, you have taken the first step on the path to true wisdom! [/oriental sage] Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markshot Posted November 25, 2016 Author Share Posted November 25, 2016 I have this most amazing video of difference of intent (mine vs AI). I send this single soldier to the side of a house with HUNT to see if he hears anything. He does. Next turn, rather than staying put and letting his buds shoot it out with the enemy, he stands up all straight and erect with a bolt action rifle. He rounds the corner. Begins to fire and advance, fire and advance upon a group of four enemy very close shooting out a window. This continues for 20 seconds without a shred of fear until, they return fire and down he goes. It was amazing! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOS:96B2P Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 The following are screenshots of an experiment I did on my CMBN test map in July 2015. Troops, in foxholes, are placed on Hide with a Target Arc. When OpFor entered the Target Arc the troops un-Hid on their own and opened fire. After the OpFor entered the Target Arc and became a verified contact (Troops won't un-Hide for tentative contacts) the troops un-Hid and opened fire. Hide + Target Arc = Ambush. Beware of LOS restrictions in the Target Arc. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 22 minutes ago, MOS:96B2P said: Hide + Target Arc = Ambush. Beware of LOS restrictions in the Target Arc. Thanks for testing it out. Quite interesting how troops hiding in the bottom of foxholes are able to spot the enemy entering the target arc, but troops hiding behind a low wall or hedgerow are completely blind and the enemy can walk right up to them... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 33 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said: Thanks for testing it out. Quite interesting how troops hiding in the bottom of foxholes are able to spot the enemy entering the target arc, but troops hiding behind a low wall or hedgerow are completely blind and the enemy can walk right up to them... Not really. Foxholes have always been a fuzzy matter and not fixed just straight to being in a foxhole directly. A foxhole has 4 units in an AS as opposed to a team that can have up to 6 members in an AS. The wall on the other hand is an actual representation and blocks LOF and LOS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 IIRC foxholes (and presumably trenches) are regarded by the system as "buildings" that sit on top on the ground. So, I think that the troops are regarded as on top of the ground, but the ground itself where the foxhole/trench is located is regarded as having better cover and maybe concealment(?) The above ambush example makes sense re not having LOS blocked. A wall is a "building" (that you cannot occupy of course) so just like a house building, it blocks LOS. This is just one of very many interesting foibles of the game that nobody explains to us mere mortals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 (edited) So foxholes don't block LOS because they are "buildings" but walls do because they are also "buildings? Hmph, you mortals... Edited November 25, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Am simply trying to recall how foxholes function from very old posts when CM2 first came out in order to help understand their limitations in the game. In the game they sit on top of the ground and are not flush with the ground like they should be. It's (yet) another WYSIWYG "exception". The way LOS works in CM2 is a hornets nest of weirdness. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WynnterGreen Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 On 25/11/2016 at 5:11 AM, akd said: If you watch the invidual soldier status, you will see that even in hiding units, soldiers occasionally switch to "spotting." I believe this results in some level of observation from all locations except low walls / hedge / bocage, where observation to far side is blocked completely. Just tested this. The exception is hedge and low boacge. Units spot through them while hidden very quickly and easily, right out to at least 150m, my test limit. Units will spot enemy units traversing along the opposite side of a low wall, hedge, low bocage out to a reasonable distance. Tall bocage the enemy has to be nearly on top of them before they spot. Unit's hidden behind low walls get a [Sound - Infantry ?] contact from quick traverse moving enemy at about 70m in empty terrain [but never spot] after about one minute. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 (edited) Hadn't checked that recently, so seems it has changed, or I was testing at longer ranges. Edited November 26, 2016 by akd 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markshot Posted November 26, 2016 Author Share Posted November 26, 2016 Special Relativity as per Battlefront Thanks for all the useful tips! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 Seems like a bug or design flaw. If you can do an effective ambush from behind a low wall, surely you can do the same from behind tall bocage, which offers better cover and concealment. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 (edited) You can't ambush from behind low walls. Edited November 26, 2016 by Vanir Ausf B 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 On 11/26/2016 at 3:14 PM, Vanir Ausf B said: You can't ambush from behind low walls. I didn't think so either, but I thought I was wrong when I read this: On 11/26/2016 at 1:05 AM, WynnterGreen said: Units will spot enemy units traversing along the opposite side of a low wall, hedge, low bocage out to a reasonable distance. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WynnterGreen Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 1 minute ago, Bulletpoint said: I didn't think so either, but I thought I was wrong when I read this: Read 'opposite side of the wall' as in the same action square as the wall, if the'ye further back, they wont be spotted. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletpoint Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 1 hour ago, WynnterGreen said: Read 'opposite side of the wall' as in the same action square as the wall, if the'ye further back, they wont be spotted. I think I just misread your post then. Thanks for clarifying. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.