LOS is broken!

[Chibot Mk IX]

LOS is broken!

Well, this is a very frustrating experience. Soviets are advancing in the direction marked in red arrow. They are still 300m away from the woods.

With that intelligence I move my JPz IV into a prepared fire position.

I thought this is going to be a prefect ambush place. It has LOS cover the open field and the road out of the town. The woods blocks advancing Soviets’  LOS, forcing them either go through the open field and take the flank shot or get into the woods (which should trigger the early warning as I have a lot of infantry units watching that area).

 

The result? It just feel like that T-34/85 has thermal sight, one round of 85mm AP shot through dense vegetation, penetrated JPz IV through “Forward Bottom”? What the heck?

 

 

 

OK, review the pervious turn save file, maybe, just a maybe this magic AP round was shot through a tiny gap between woods. But how come it penetrated through the bottom when my JPz IV is in a hull down position?

 

 

Frustrating….

 

*******************************************************************************************************************************************************************

This is not a blame or a complaint that the game is broken.

I just want to speak out my frustration…..

Now I feel much better. Time to get back to my cockpit and resume my battle

 

 

[Grey_Fox]

The target tool isn't a LOS tool, and it's drawn from an arbitrary height as opposed to where the gun or commander is. The reason you can't target the ground is because from that arbitrary height (which I think is equivalent to the head height of a standing soldier but am open to correction on that) the patch of ground you are targeting isn't visible.

A tank is usually taller than that, so could probably see another tank.

[BornGinger]

On 11/3/2022 at 8:31 PM, Chibot Mk IX said:

LOS is broken!... The result? It just feel like that T-34/85 has thermal sight, one round... shot through dense vegetation

No ****, pomme frittes!

[George MC]

The JgPzIV really needs to be unbuttoned to spot well. Its low silhouette also poses issues as whilst the unbuttoned commander can see the gunner might not. As noted by GreyFox there are some limitations with the targeting tool. Also in this mission the Soviet tankers are generally pretty higher experience levels than the German AFV crews.

In this scenario I suggest trying to hit the Soviet from the flank - you'll have better luck with the JgdPzs that way. Head to head will be a tougher engagement.

Edited November 8, 2022 by George MC

[Erwin]

On 11/8/2022 at 9:32 AM, Grey_Fox said:

The reason you can't target the ground is because from that arbitrary height (which I think is equivalent to the head height of a standing soldier but am open to correction on that) the patch of ground you are targeting isn't visible.

A tank is usually taller than that, so could probably see another tank.

Exactly as Grey Fox says.  Hint:  If you want to know if a tank can see another tank on a piece of ground (when the ground itself cannot be targeted):  Put a tank waypoint on that location.  Select that waypoint and see if you have LOS back to your own tank.  

[Chibot Mk IX]

On 11/8/2022 at 11:42 AM, George MC said:

The JgPzIV really needs to be unbuttoned to spot well. Its low silhouette also poses issues as whilst the unbuttoned commander can see the gunner might not. As noted by GreyFox there are some limitations with the targeting tool. Also in this mission the Soviet tankers are generally pretty higher experience levels than the German AFV crews.

In this scenario I suggest trying to hit the Soviet from the flank - you'll have better luck with the JgdPzs that way. Head to head will be a tougher engagement.

Thanks for the tips George

That’s what I did for most part of the game, put infantry in the front to be the eyes and ears. Identify Soviets main thrust then share the information through radio network. Unbuttoned JPzIV station behind, keep looking for some good fire position, move in, wait for Soviets get into the ambush zone, take flank shot, then smoke out and maneuver to the next fire position.

In this PBEM game my JPzIVs took out 7x T-34/85s, only two penetrated through front, the other five were taken out by flank shots. However the imbalance of this scenario plu some pure bad luck and missteps smash my resistance ability pretty quickly. Now it is getting close to the end of the game, I guess it will end with German side minor to major defeat.

 

I want to also add some other tips, you got to find a hull down position for JPz IV. There are several problems of JPz IV.

First , it’s low silhouette doesn’t give it any concealment advantage in CM. I did couple tests in Mission Editor, looks like there is a very high chance T-34/85 will spot JPzIV first (they are setting at the same experience level, both keep at station, unbuttoned).

Then, Second, CM’s long range tank duel is very likely to ended with hits on low hull part. For JPzIV, that fatal possibilities seem to be very high. I have seen majority of 1000m duel ended with 1^st round 85mm fell short, then 2^nd round penetrate through low hull, kill everyone inside the JPzIV.

 

However, even assume JPzIV is in a hull down position, it is not immune to a quick, un-recoverable damage. It has fragile gun, anything hit the gun mantle will cause a damaged gun. In my experience, anything hit upper part will have 50% to damage the gun.  So for German player, you should avoid the exchange fire with Soviet tanks fleet. Fire couple shots, smoke out, retreat.

But that leads to another problem of JPzIV, poor mobility. It moves as slow as a snail. When you are still half-way to the next defense line, the T-34/85s have outflank your position already.

Edited November 9, 2022 by Chibot Mk IX

[weapon2010]

On 11/8/2022 at 11:32 AM, Grey_Fox said:

The target tool isn't a LOS tool, and it's drawn from an arbitrary height as opposed to where the gun or commander is. The reason you can't target the ground is because from that arbitrary height (which I think is equivalent to the head height of a standing soldier but am open to correction on that) the patch of ground you are targeting isn't visible.

A tank is usually taller than that, so could probably see another tank.

 100% correct and this is a game engine limitation that causes players to misinterpret what they are seeing and they say "LOS is broken". It isn't broken , but an engine wish-list would be to have one elevation lower, the current lowest level is 1, which is about tank gun level or the height of a normal soldier .A level 0 would be ground view or what a prone soldier can see, this level would cut out most of the "LOS is broken" chatter and would be really cool.

[Warts 'n' all]

On 11/10/2022 at 2:03 PM, weapon2010 said:

 A level 0 would be ground view or what a prone soldier can see, this level would cut out most of the "LOS is broken" chatter and would be really cool.

A Level 0 view would be good. I'd also like to be able to stop HQ and FOs from going prone when I want them to spot stuff.

[RockinHarry]

1 hour ago, Warts 'n' all said:

A Level 0 view would be good. I'd also like to be able to stop HQ and FOs from going prone when I want them to spot stuff.

Hm... that could be made possible by doing a simple and single animation file swap. Rename/replace "unarmed-idle-prone.ani" to "unarmed-idle-kneel.ani" would do this IIRC. Got to check again.....

Edit: No, it´s "unarmed-binoculars-prone.ani" to "unarmed-binoculars-kneel.ani" swap/rename... off course.

Edited November 12, 2022 by RockinHarry

[Chibot Mk IX]

On 11/8/2022 at 11:32 AM, Grey_Fox said:

The target tool isn't a LOS tool, and it's drawn from an arbitrary height as opposed to where the gun or commander is. The reason you can't target the ground is because from that arbitrary height (which I think is equivalent to the head height of a standing soldier but am open to correction on that) the patch of ground you are targeting isn't visible.

A tank is usually taller than that, so could probably see another tank.

 

On 11/10/2022 at 9:03 AM, weapon2010 said:

 100% correct and this is a game engine limitation that causes players to misinterpret what they are seeing and they say "LOS is broken". It isn't broken , but an engine wish-list would be to have one elevation lower, the current lowest level is 1, which is about tank gun level or the height of a normal soldier .A level 0 would be ground view or what a prone soldier can see, this level would cut out most of the "LOS is broken" chatter and would be really cool.

 

Yes, I am aware of that. And I hope the future engine can provide los tools based on different elevation level. 

Like I mentioned at the last part. After reviewing the save file, I believe this tragic event (to me) is caused by a small gap between the woods. The gap is no more than 1 action spot. See the pic below. 

Although it doesn't show a light blue los line, the "Reverse Slope - no aim point" line indicates a clear LOS can exists between two AFVs.

I haven't talked to my opponent, but from next few turns I believe he has 2 T-34/85 in that section, one of them just arrived in the spot circled in red. It stopped there, detected and destroyed my JPzIV in the same turn.

What a bad luck.....

 

 

Edited November 15, 2022 by Chibot Mk IX

[Bulletpoint]

On 11/3/2022 at 9:31 PM, Chibot Mk IX said:

But how come it penetrated through the bottom when my JPz IV is in a hull down position?

You were only in a partial hulldown position and it seems to be thanks to the hedge.

This makes the enemy tank adjust its aim upwards a little bit, but there's no guarantee that the shot will also hit high. There's still some inaccuracy built into aiming, so it probably just happened that it fired a bit low . The shot went through the hedge and impacted your vehicle.

As for why you didn't spot him and he spotted you first, that's down to the luck of the virtual dice. If you were moving into position as the enemy was advancing, that likely made him spot you, since moving vehicles (and infantry) are extremely likely to get spotted.

I think it could have gone the other way too.

[chuckdyke]

The engine generates LOS not your target tool. I wouldn't have it any other way. 

[Vanir Ausf B]

Years of playing CM have taught me that LOS through trees is less static than the LOS tool indicates. What trees in CM really seem to do is reduce spotting chances rather than prevent spotting altogether. When the tools says "no LOS" that is true at that moment but it could change at any time. I have had vehicles suddenly spot enemy vehicles through trees (and vice versa) when both vehicles have been stationary and out of LOS of each other (according to the target line) for several turns. You can't trust trees for concealment unless there are A LOT of them. It's kinda random and unpredictable but it's not a bug.

__________

The game does make some gross generalizations about foliage in order for it to work.  The big one is the same one that is pervasive throughout the game.  Specifically that LOS is not pixel by pixel, millisecond by millisecond.  There is no home computer on Earth that can do that and be a viable game.  Which means the LOS is determined by more-or-less the same sort of rules that one expects to see in a paper and dice game.  More sophisticated and nuanced, for sure, but inherently similar.

The way it works is the LOS line is "degraded" as it is drawn from point to point.  The more cumulative crap in the way the less strong the line becomes.  The quality of the spotter, the less restrictions on view, etc. give the line a higher starting value than a LOS line drawn from a unit with negative factors.  Some of the factors are specific (restrictions on range of view or height for example), others are general (optics of X type vs. eyeballs is the best example).  Each piece of terrain has ratings which determine how much the line is degraded when it comes to that piece.  At some point the line is so degraded that it is considered "blocked".

 

 

[Warts 'n' all]

A very fair assessment.

[chuckdyke]

I find the movetool far more useful. If you can see the highlighted white dot, you could be targeted. 

[callada]

On 11/24/2022 at 5:46 PM, Vanir Ausf B said:

Years of playing CM have taught me that LOS through trees is less static than the LOS tool indicates. What trees in CM really seem to do is reduce spotting chances rather than prevent spotting altogether. When the tools says "no LOS" that is true at that moment but it could change at any time. I have had vehicles suddenly spot enemy vehicles through trees (and vice versa) when both vehicles have been stationary and out of LOS of each other (according to the target line) for several turns. You can't trust trees for concealment unless there are A LOT of them. It's kinda random and unpredictable but it's not a bug.

__________

The game does make some gross generalizations about foliage in order for it to work.  The big one is the same one that is pervasive throughout the game.  Specifically that LOS is not pixel by pixel, millisecond by millisecond.  There is no home computer on Earth that can do that and be a viable game.  Which means the LOS is determined by more-or-less the same sort of rules that one expects to see in a paper and dice game.  More sophisticated and nuanced, for sure, but inherently similar.

The way it works is the LOS line is "degraded" as it is drawn from point to point.  The more cumulative crap in the way the less strong the line becomes.  The quality of the spotter, the less restrictions on view, etc. give the line a higher starting value than a LOS line drawn from a unit with negative factors.  Some of the factors are specific (restrictions on range of view or height for example), others are general (optics of X type vs. eyeballs is the best example).  Each piece of terrain has ratings which determine how much the line is degraded when it comes to that piece.  At some point the line is so degraded that it is considered "blocked".

 

 

I have noticed this, too.  These days, if I want to move undetected through a wooded/forested area -- which I have also noticed should be one that has a low or zero chance of any enemies hiding in it, because even a handful of them sitting motionless tends to go horribly wrong -- I still try to hide behind any terrain even if it's a bit out of the way.

[RockinHarry]

On 11/24/2022 at 11:46 PM, Vanir Ausf B said:

Years of playing CM have taught me that LOS through trees is less static than the LOS tool indicates. What trees in CM really seem to do is reduce spotting chances rather than prevent spotting altogether. When the tools says "no LOS" that is true at that moment but it could change at any time. I have had vehicles suddenly spot enemy vehicles through trees (and vice versa) when both vehicles have been stationary and out of LOS of each other (according to the target line) for several turns. You can't trust trees for concealment unless there are A LOT of them. It's kinda random and unpredictable but it's not a bug.

__________

The game does make some gross generalizations about foliage in order for it to work.  The big one is the same one that is pervasive throughout the game.  Specifically that LOS is not pixel by pixel, millisecond by millisecond.  There is no home computer on Earth that can do that and be a viable game.  Which means the LOS is determined by more-or-less the same sort of rules that one expects to see in a paper and dice game.  More sophisticated and nuanced, for sure, but inherently similar.

The way it works is the LOS line is "degraded" as it is drawn from point to point.  The more cumulative crap in the way the less strong the line becomes.  The quality of the spotter, the less restrictions on view, etc. give the line a higher starting value than a LOS line drawn from a unit with negative factors.  Some of the factors are specific (restrictions on range of view or height for example), others are general (optics of X type vs. eyeballs is the best example).  Each piece of terrain has ratings which determine how much the line is degraded when it comes to that piece.  At some point the line is so degraded that it is considered "blocked".

 

 

Ah...nice reminder to what Steve said about "LOS is not LOF" necessarily.