Jump to content

[bug]infantry doesn't calculate wreckage into line of fire


Recommended Posts

  • 5 months later...
31 minutes ago, BornGinger said:

I suggest that you mention which game you're playing so people know whether it's worth the time to download your save and try to open it.

If its not obvious from the screenshot: Black Sea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's a bug, just something that they never added into the game in the first place. Vehicles, destroyed or not, will block bullets and shells, but not LOS. I think vehicles will even block shrapnel from explosions, but units can still see through them, and thus try to shoot through them as well. I'm guessing it was either not a priority for the devs to take the time to implement, or it was too much trouble for the game to constantly be updating LOS calculations for every unit with a ton of moving vehicles all over the place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This issue is probably related to the one where a gun will repeatedly fire at a target repeatedly hitting a tree or obstacle in front of the target until it runs out of ammo.  The AI does not make allowances for this sort of thing and cannot change position to get a better line of fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting... the obstructiveness of destroyed vehicles isn't simulated quite right. Here's another thread where tank-rounds are going through the destroyed vehicles:

 

As far as the soldiers themselves, this can happen sans-vehicle. The AI will sometimes do this with the attached grenade launchers so they do seem rather cavalier at times with their explosive content.

Example:

https://streamable.com/pthird

 

I'm assuming they ran out of ammo and the AI prioritizes the target over reloading and ends up blasting a grenade round at pointblank. (IMO, the bigger point here is they need melee combat back in there...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Khalerick said:

As far as the soldiers themselves, this can happen sans-vehicle. The AI will sometimes do this with the attached grenade launchers so they do seem rather cavalier at times with their explosive content.

Example:

https://streamable.com/pthird

 

I'm assuming they ran out of ammo and the AI prioritizes the target over reloading and ends up blasting a grenade round at pointblank. (IMO, the bigger point here is they need melee combat back in there...)

The tactical decision is one thing. The real problem here is that 40mm rifle grenades have an arming distance of 10-20 m (depending on the model). This is to make sure that the user won't accidentally hurt himself. So in that example, that grenade shouldn't even explode. Also this is not simulated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a bug. It's a rare and unfortunate consequence of the Combat MIssion LOS/LOF rules regarding vehicles, number 4 specifically in this case.

  1. Friendly vehicles never block LOS/LOF for other friendly vehicles.
  2. Operable enemy vehicles block LOF, but not LOS, from friendly vehicles.
  3. Non-smoking KO'd vehicles do not block LOS/LOF for friendly or enemy vehicles.
  4. Non-smoking KO'd vehicles block LOF, but not LOS, from any unit as long as the targeted unit is not a vehicle (ie: tank shooting at infantry or infantry shooting at infantry)
  5. Smoking vehicles block LOS and LOF.
  6. "Vehicles" means tanks, SP guns, and AT/Anti-personnel guns.
Edited by Vanir Ausf B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

Not a bug. It's a rare and unfortunate consequence of the Combat MIssion LOS/LOF rules regarding vehicles, number 4 specifically in this case.

  1. Friendly vehicles never block LOS/LOF for other friendly vehicles.
  2. Operable enemy vehicles block LOF, but not LOS, from friendly vehicles.
  3. Non-smoking KO'd vehicles do not block LOS/LOF for friendly or enemy vehicles.
  4. Non-smoking KO'd vehicles block LOF, but not LOS, from any unit as long as the targeted unit is not a vehicle (ie: tank shooting at infantry or infantry shooting at infantry)
  5. Smoking vehicles block LOS and LOF.
  6. "Vehicles" means tanks, SP guns, and AT/Anti-personnel guns.

Thanks. Is this from the manual? I must have missed it.

So, I guess in Bufo's example, the non-smoking wreck blocks LOF because the target is infantry?

Maybe it would be better if wrecks also blocked LOS in this case, so we wouldn't get cases like this where troops are stubbornly shooting into the side of a vehicle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Bufo said:

Better than nothing for sure. But how many more secrets exist?

Lots, probably. I think I read somewhere that they intentionally want to keep the inner workings of the game as secret as possible. Which makes sense I guess. But frustrating for those of us who want to know everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

But frustrating for those of us who want to know everything.

Its not that I want to know everything, just that they keep a lot of details that are not simulated / simulated in a wrong way a secret, then they sell us the product as a military-grade-simulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They aren’t selling these as military grade sims. They have made versions for the military, but I don’t recall BFC ever saying or advertising it as anything more than a very good tactical wargame. I assume there are tons of internal rules for programming behavior in the game. They are supposed to tell us everyone? Why? If you think something is a bug, let them know, like you did on this one. Then they can tell us if it’s a bug or not( in which case some sort of programming rule obviously covers it).

@chuckdyke was it in a foxhole or trench? Also, could just be luck.  My brother’s  squad was resting under the only tree on a hilltop in the Central Highlands (Vietnam) and an arty battery of (they assumed) 105s were sending shells over the hill into some target or other. Then BAM, a shell hit the tree top, pretty much taking out the tree. The squad had been laying down under or sitting up against the tree. No one was hit or otherwise injured; shaken and stunned for a while of course, and those whose undies hadn’t already rotted off might have needed to change them. One guy’s helmet lying next to him had a 7in splinter pinning it to the ground. That was the extent of damage. So, you just never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mjkerner said:

They aren’t selling these as military grade sims.

I quote: "First of all, I don't know of many developers our size that have a military grade simulation running in 3D on two platforms with more than a dozen releases to support on hardware and software that can go back 10 years.  And other stuff that I can't talk about :)  When comparing us to others, please remember we are NOT like others. 

LINK

 

Edited by Bufo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mjkerner said:

was it in a foxhole or trench?

The 17-pounder was hiding behind a hedge. I know the 105mm has a killing radius of close to 30 meters. The conditions were dry and the Germans didn't have a proximity fuse. It shows once again not to take the artillery for granted. In this game it was effective they inflicted 25% of the Canadian casualties. Thanks for your interest and attention. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Bufo said:

It is absolutely not in the manual. Looks like BFs little secret that we are forbidden from knowing.

While I agree the information should be in the manual it has been discussed publicly before, albeit a long lime ago.

Edited by Vanir Ausf B
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/26/2021 at 2:11 PM, Vanir Ausf B said:

While I agree the information should be in the manual it has been discussed publicly before, albeit a long lime ago.

And we always come back to this.  The game is built for people who have been playing CM games for 20 years and scour the forums for every tidbit of information.  It has been requested ad nauseum to have a FAQ section where little pieces of info can be collected.  It would seem to be a common sense approach if its too resource intensive to keep updating a manual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...