Low visibility missions

[PEB14]

Hi,

Am I the only one to be frustrated by low visibility scenarios?

The associated game mechanics is not the issue, even though it can lead to some weird situation (in the last Scottish Corridor night mission, I had a squad unable to see a moving Sturmgeschütz in an adjacent tile, that's less than 12 meters away, while it could area target that tree line 100 meters away?!!.... It looks like the game makes it easier for vehicles to sneak into enemy lines in the dark than for foot soldiers, which is really not realistic).

My main concern is the visual rendering of the lower visibility, which IMHO really hampers playability.

If I'm not mistaken, the game engine always shows ALL TERRAIN FEATURES attached to the map itself, whatever the actual visibility. Wherever you put the camera, you'll always see that house 500 m away, even when visibility is reduced to 200 meters. At least for me, it makes playing very difficult, because I always struggle to estimate what terrain pixeltrüppen actually can cover or not. Agreed, you still have the LOS tool; but in close terrain you always have a doubt wether blocked LOS is caused by some obstacle or by reduced visibility. Ans situation gets worse when it comes to visibility changes: dawn, dusk, etc. Nothing changes visually in the game !!! You have to test and guess every turn to check wether visibility has changes or not...

Presently, when you click on an unit, you can see exactly what is sees in terms of enemy units and fortifications. I'd really, really enjoy the extension of that to terrain features: anything beyond visibility range would disappear when you click on an unit. THAT really would make up for great low visibility scenarios, don't you think?

[Brille]

I feel you there.

And it is sad because the old CMx1 games Had this one covered.

First you saw visually when it was foggy and not just read it in the "conditions" tab and second the target line had much more facets in colors.

Now you have either a grey line (Not all troopers can see that target), a blue line (all can see it) or a pink/violett line (No LOS/LOF). So roughly it only tells you If you can fire there or not, not how good they could actually see.

In the old games you started from bright blue to very dark blue till almost violett which would change rapidly the worse the LOS got.

So If you had foggy weather the Line would start with bright blue for the first few meters and would get less and less bright the further you would go from the troopers position.

And it was not just determined by weather or sunlight. Vegetation would worsen the LOS tool too.

This way you somewhat could estimate on how bad the visuals to a point were roughly. Sure in these games you definetely had a max LOS/LOF in fog and night battles opposed to the new system where you could see even further when your troops see muzzleflashes. But I would wish that this features would return to the CMx2 games.

 

I play night battles/battles with low visibility very rarely and I have to get accustomed to it everytime again. This was a lot easier to just hop in in the older Games in my opinion.

Edited February 16 by Brille

[George MC]

I thought the lack of 'fog' in CMX2 was to do with something re fog tables in OpenGL not being implemented? But could be I'm mixing issues with CMX1 up with CMX2.

But in CMX2 there is a visual of 'fog' also the LOS tool indicates how far you can spot to - note spotting does mean seeing! But does give an indication of how far out units can 'see'.

 

 

[Vanir Ausf B]

The LOS tool tells you how far you can see well enough to plot area fire. In dense fog or other severe weather the distance at which units can be spotted will be similar, but on a clear moonless night those two distances will be different by hundreds of meters.

[PEB14]

2 minutes ago, Vanir Ausf B said:

The LOS tool tells you how far you can see well enough to plot area fire. In dense fog or other severe weather the distance at which units can be spotted will be similar, but on a clear moonless night those two distances will be different by hundreds of meters.

I know that very well. But I find it most disturbing when at ground level I can see things that I shouldn't.

[Chibot Mk IX]

Yes, spotting in low visibility scenario can be very tricky. Please note on one hand the low visibility will reduce the LOS range, on the other hand, LOS =/= effective spotting range.

a dense fog will reduce the LOS to 1000m, but the enemy tank can still sneak into a 200m range without been spotted.

And, here is the most important part. If the enemy tank open fire, the muzzle flash will reveal his position, and he could attract return fire from all your units in 1000m range.

 

  

[jtsjc1]

15 hours ago, Brille said:

I feel you there.

And it is sad because the old CMx1 games Had this one covered.

First you saw visually when it was foggy and not just read it in the "conditions" tab and second the target line had much more facets in colors.

Now you have either a grey line (Not all troopers can see that target), a blue line (all can see it) or a pink/violett line (No LOS/LOF). So roughly it only tells you If you can fire there or not, not how good they could actually see.

In the old games you started from bright blue to very dark blue till almost violett which would change rapidly the worse the LOS got.

So If you had foggy weather the Line would start with bright blue for the first few meters and would get less and less bright the further you would go from the troopers position.

And it was not just determined by weather or sunlight. Vegetation would worsen the LOS tool too.

This way you somewhat could estimate on how bad the visuals to a point were roughly. Sure in these games you definetely had a max LOS/LOF in fog and night battles opposed to the new system where you could see even further when your troops see muzzleflashes. But I would wish that this features would return to the CMx2 games.

 

I play night battles/battles with low visibility very rarely and I have to get accustomed to it everytime again. This was a lot easier to just hop in in the older Games in my opinion.

I completely agree about the target line. The colors in CMx1 were very helpful in showing LOS. I wish they'd bring it back.

[Thewood1]

"I wish they'd bring it back."

Ahhh, the mantra for long-term players in the transition from CM1 to CM2.  In the first couple of years of CMSF probably half the threads were based on that phrase.  For anyone that played CM1 and then skipped the first few years of CMSF, you'd be amazed at what was considered missing then was brought back in patches to CMSF.  There were some dark times for a bit.

[Lieutenant Ash]

When CMSF was first released (2007?) I played the first couple of missions, then put the game back on the shelf, where it remained until the marines module was released. The game seemed very different to CM1, almost 'bare bones' in lacking features which were standard in the older games, also it was 'buggy'. I decided to give it another try when 'marines' was released and I loved it, there had obviously been a lot of post release development going on between the two releases, and it has only got better over the years since (there are still a few things that CM1 did better in my opinion). But onwards and upwards to CM3!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brille]

On 2/17/2024 at 1:19 PM, Thewood1 said:

"I wish they'd bring it back."

Ahhh, the mantra for long-term players in the transition from CM1 to CM2.  In the first couple of years of CMSF probably half the threads were based on that phrase.  For anyone that played CM1 and then skipped the first few years of CMSF, you'd be amazed at what was considered missing then was brought back in patches to CMSF.  There were some dark times for a bit.

While my CMx2 career started very late due to studies and low on money, I often read here on the forums on the progression of the games. So I noticed that changes were made and old features returned, at least to some degree.

However there are still things that I miss but I know they will probably never return.

Including the random map generator (even when those maps looked a little odd at times), command delay and the good old hunt command, which in the CMx2 games is just a simple "Move to contact" order which also existed in the CMx1 games on top.

But enough of the old man blabbering (and Im only 36  ).

[wolfgang500]

I started with CMBO back in the day and got hooked immideatly because this game was very close to reality for its time and still offered tactical insight (in contrary to the shooter games which I hate). I acqired all CM games and played them frequently as time and work allowed, transitioning to CM2 right through until today. Of course I too had to accomodate myself with the new features as CM2 came up and my thoughts were similar to these expressed above in this thread.
But I think, while legitimatly discussing it, we should not overlook one thing: Most people here in the forums are seasoned players, often with profound military background out of their (former) profession - including myself. But we are only a minority within the target group these games are aiming at. The average player, let´s say mid thirties men (sorry girls), playful with a hobbylike sense to military, but no military training whatsoever, has to find the game he just bought playabel, meaning not too difficult in a military professional way. I think that is what CM2 offered.
What we ex-army people want is fairly well incorporated, as excellently explained above, although in somewhat "automatic" mode. Units take on a formation roughly suited to the orders they have and the terrain they encounter, both infantery and armor. Subtleties and refined things have to be brought in by hand; but remember this is what we had to do in real life, too! And as for low visibility: I never got out without a map, so I was aware what kind  of terrain features were to be expected, even when there was still no LOS. That is what the game represents. But don´t get me wrong - I am glady open for improvements which hopefully will arrive in future!

Edited February 19 by wolfgang500
Typo

[MikeyD]

A metaphor: CMx1 is your first high school girlfriend. We eventually grow up, date other women, become jaded and cynical over time. But the memory of that first girlfriend remains untarnished. Of course if you were to look back dispassionately you'd see she was just a gangly 16 year old not much different from any of the other girls in town. Just because she was special to you doesn't mean she's some paragon to compare all subsequent relationships against. A reminder, this was a CM game engine metaphor. 

[Brille]

1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

A metaphor: CMx1 is your first high school girlfriend. We eventually grow up, date other women, become jaded and cynical over time. But the memory of that first girlfriend remains untarnished. Of course if you were to look back dispassionately you'd see she was just a gangly 16 year old not much different from any of the other girls in town. Just because she was special to you doesn't mean she's some paragon to compare all subsequent relationships against. A reminder, this was a CM game engine metaphor. 

Since I havent touched any CMx1 games as I started with CMx2 it shows that Im more attracted to it despite some things missing.

I know that it is moving forward and sometimes in a direction that isnt 100% in sync with me.

So I'm over her now...it ! IT !

 

Edited February 19 by Brille

[Thewood1]

While there is always some rose-colored glasses perspective, the launch of CMSF was kind of a mess.  Just read the archives around 2007/2008.  It took years to get some basic features back the CM2 players take for granted today.  And those weren't features that were just nice to have.  They are basic game features we take for granted today that were cut out in the transition from CM1 to CM2.

[Sakai007]

I bought the paradox physical box version of CMSF, and I enjoyed it but I had never played the CMx1 titles at that time. I then realized I had them from an anthology I picked up at Electronics Boutique (remember that chain?!? so long ago) and started playing. I became instantly hooked, and didn't pick CMSF back up until modules started being released. Now I couldn't dream of going back to CMx1 long term, but I will fire up CMAK from time to time to get that early war desert fix. 

[Centurian52]

I started with CMSF in 2009, but then went on to discover the CM1 games years later. Which I think qualifies me to pass judgement on CM1 without the "first high school girlfriend" effect mentioned by @MikeyD. I think CM1 is an excellent game engine. It is definitely still the second best game engine in the world for realistic tactical ground warfare. But, CM2 is clearly better overall (especially in its current state). CM1 already had tank/anti-tank combat pretty much nailed down, and I think it may have even done a slightly better job of representing air support/anti-air (still no visual model, but my AA guns seem to be tracking moving air targets across the sky rather than shooting at an apparently fixed point). But CM2 is definitely a huge leap in infantry combat, spotting, and artillery.

I have noticed the occasional feature in CM1 that would actually be really nice to have in CM2. The 'move to contact' order would be useful. The 'hunt' order tires out my pixeltruppen if I use it too much, so what I really want is to tell my men to 'move, but stop moving if you get shot at'. I think CM2 was right to ditch CM1's orders delay system though. My view is that the point of an orders delay system is to represent the time it takes for an order to travel from its point of origin (a commander) to its destination (a subordinate). A game can only calculate the correct delay if the orders have a single point of origin, meaning the player has to be a single officer on the battlefield. But since that isn't how CM games work (the player is every officer and NCO on the battlefield, not just one of them) an orders delay system really isn't a good fit for Combat Mission.

Overall I can very highly recommend CMAK and CMBB (never bothered picking up CMBO since I assume it's been pretty much completely superseded by CMBN and CMFB at this point) to anyone itching for some early-war combat who can't wait for CM2 or a potential new engine to get around to covering the early-war.

[Centurian52]

I actually don't mind low-visibility missions. They are certainly different. Night tactics have to be different from day tactics in the pre-night vision era, and the same goes for fighting in thick fog in the pre-thermals era. Learning how to fight effectively at night, when you're used to fighting effectively in the day, is certainly a challenge. Night and thick fog make defense more difficult. Areas that would be covered by fire from one or more positions during clear daytime conditions suddenly become gaps in the line during low visibility conditions. Low visibility also makes attack more difficult. Supporting heavy-weapons that would be able to provide cover for your advancing troops during clear conditions become isolated and unable to help. The system for how to fight in clear daytime conditions breaks down, and you have to learn an almost entirely new tactical system. It's a challenge, and I don't think I've quite got it figured out yet, but I know I'm up to the challenge.

[PEB14]

19 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

I actually don't mind low-visibility missions. They are certainly different. Night tactics have to be different from day tactics in the pre-night vision era, and the same goes for fighting in thick fog in the pre-thermals era. Learning how to fight effectively at night, when you're used to fighting effectively in the day, is certainly a challenge. Night and thick fog make defense more difficult. Areas that would be covered by fire from one or more positions during clear daytime conditions suddenly become gaps in the line during low visibility conditions. Low visibility also makes attack more difficult. Supporting heavy-weapons that would be able to provide cover for your advancing troops during clear conditions become isolated and unable to help. The system for how to fight in clear daytime conditions breaks down, and you have to learn an almost entirely new tactical system. It's a challenge, and I don't think I've quite got it figured out yet, but I know I'm up to the challenge.

I sure agree with you, but my point was, to quote myself:

On 2/16/2024 at 8:07 AM, PEB14 said:

My main concern is the visual rendering of the lower visibility, which IMHO really hampers playability.

(...)

Presently, when you click on an unit, you can see exactly what is sees in terms of enemy units and fortifications. I'd really, really enjoy the extension of that to terrain features: anything beyond visibility range would disappear when you click on an unit. THAT really would make up for great low visibility scenarios, don't you think?

In other words, I would find these scenarios a lot more enjoyable and immersive if you really could see what your units actually see !