FO/LOS Line of Observation.

[semmesk]

I don't have LOS with a FO, so he cannot fire, but he can designate that tile as a target, so he has some kind of line of observation.

It would be good to be able to use that "code" (LofO) for MGs (specially HMGs, but ,actually, every unit, including ATs; as the AI is firing with them at everything, anyway). That would be a better use of suppressing fire and solve the "building issue": You see the house in front of you but cannot target the building because of a tree or because you cannot see the "right" part of the building.

[chuckdyke]

36 minutes ago, semmesk said:

You see the house in front of you but cannot target the building because of a tree or because you cannot see the "right" part of the building.

You still can-do area fire. The dark blue indicates where you have an LOS and the pink where it hides. It depends what you want, suppression is feasible but reduction in my opinion is not. You know there is concealed infantry behind a hedge you can target the hedge. concealment is not cover. 

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, semmesk said:

I don't have LOS with a FO, so he cannot fire, but he can designate that tile as a target, so he has some kind of line of observation.

Yep. They can call fire down at some distance past an obstacle. Since they can see the explosion kick up above the visual obstruction they can call there. The exact amount is abstracted so don't hurt your self trying to figure out the exact parameters.

You may already know that - that was just in case.

 

2 hours ago, semmesk said:

It would be good to be able to use that "code" (LofO) for MGs (specially HMGs, but ,actually, every unit, including ATs; as the AI is firing with them at everything, anyway). That would be a better use of suppressing fire

Indeed a sometimes asked for feature. Also note (again you already may know this but just in case) that if you cannot area target the ground your guys might be able to directly target an enemy that arrives in that spot and has their top half visible. The LOS tool reports something like "reverse slope no aim point" to help you see where the is likely to happen.

 

2 hours ago, semmesk said:

and solve the "building issue": You see the house in front of you but cannot target the building because of a tree or because you cannot see the "right" part of the building.

Yeah, frustrating at times. Reading up on the internals can help and is interesting. In the end though there are limitations that just are.

The issues with buildings: https://community.battlefront.com/topic/111851-its-got-to-go/page/2/#comment-1490888

 

The reality (or not) of trees: https://community.battlefront.com/topic/121832-something-very-wrong-with-los-through-trees/page/2/#comment-1652113

Both of the above links came from the FAQ - its a bit old but still valuable

 

https://community.battlefront.com/topic/125783-the-cm2-faq-thread/

 

[chuckdyke]

8 hours ago, semmesk said:

You see the house in front of you but cannot target the building because of a tree or because you cannot see the "right" part of the building.

The best way to deal with buildings is to draw fire. Like they did in Band of Brothers when private Bligh volunteered to approach a farmhouse and got wounded in the neck. On full contact in the game, you return fire. Buildings in my opinion are abstracted they have multiple rooms and even cellars. That the game says no LOS is not an issue for me. Area fire because of intel by borgspotting could be called a form of 'cheating'. 

[semmes]

I see a blurry icon, I saw the enemy there, I can call a fire mission but I cannot fire with a MG: not good.

 

In a H2H you will not draw fire chuckdyke, I will decide.

[Peregrine]

I can't comment with absolute authority on your exact scenario but a simple answer is this.

If you think you should be able to see an action square but can't area fire at it but can area fire at action spots along the LOS path at some point you can probably still fire at that square for good effect with bullets (obviously not HE). Especially if the distance between the two points <100m.

[chuckdyke]

2 hours ago, semmes said:

In a H2H you will not draw fire chuckdyke, I will decide.

We don't play H2H like that. Only AI generated contacts just to avoid borgspotting. Only tanks with visual contact with infantry who have direct contact can give supporting fires. 

[semmes]

2 hours ago, Peregrine said:

I can't comment with absolute authority on your exact scenario but a simple answer is this.

If you think you should be able to see an action square but can't area fire at it but can area fire at action spots along the LOS path at some point you can probably still fire at that square for good effect with bullets (obviously not HE). Especially if the distance between the two points <100m.

The FO can observe that tile, I don't think, I know.

Wheat and trees and you have no LOS but you can see the area. I was talking about MGs, a lot more than 100m; actually, I would understand that if under 100m (50m, probably) because you are "in" the wheat (or tall grass, prone) or the trees are right in front of you but you are not in the trees; unlike looking through a hedge but with your nose in the hedge.

[semmes]

2 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

We don't play H2H like that. Only AI generated contacts just to avoid borgspotting. Only tanks with visual contact with infantry who have direct contact can give supporting fires. 

We? 

Who is "we"? I cannot draw a fire arc? I cannot order my squads to hold their fire? I deploy my MGs behind me because I don't want them to support my advance? That HMG in a higher elevation is not going to cover my front because my MG is not going to fire where my squad is already firing or because my squad is not going to fire where the MG is firing? WW2, I see a lot of tracers hitting some area... and I (we?) cannot fire there?

You seem to avoid the point: I can observe that area but I cannot place direct fire into it. What kind of Recon by Fire can I do?

[chuckdyke]

5 hours ago, semmes said:

We? 

Who is "we"? I cannot draw a fire arc? I cannot order my squads to hold their fire? I deploy my MGs behind me because I don't want them to support my advance? That HMG in a higher elevation is not going to cover my front because my MG is not going to fire where my squad is already firing or because my squad is not going to fire where the MG is firing? WW2, I see a lot of tracers hitting some area... and I (we?) cannot fire there?

You seem to avoid the point: I can observe that area but I cannot place direct fire into it. What kind of Recon by Fire can I do?

We is me and the person I play with. You hold their fire with the hide command or cover arc. You can deploy your MGs behind you and you can do recon by fire. By doing a recon by fire you reveal your position and draw the enemy fire which in turn reveals their position. But a human player reads what you are up to and hides his units in defilade. So covering fire where you are advancing is perfectly fine. You can observe the area but if you can't observe the tile it is on the game doesn't give you a LOS. Only an enemy who reveals his position gives you an LOS. My experience with Road to Nijmegen first mission. From the Wheatfield I observe the two or three floor buildings. I can see the top floors but the ground floor was concealed by a hedge so the game doesn't let you fire at the upper floors too unless you get a full contact. But the .30 MG could but at a different position. You need to analyze the map and find out where to put your supporting fires. which I did in the road to Nijmegen. The Company CO was and in C2 with his platoon HQ. The Company HQ was in full visual with the .30 and the moment the paratroopers were in contact the browning .30 got tentative contacts and provided covering fire. I play the game the same way as the AI does when you play against the computer. my choice and obviously not yours. I wish you happy gaming.   

[Peregrine]

I didn't explain very well.

Point A is firing unit.

Point B is action square with LOS that can be targeted.

Point C is area you want impacted by fire.

This example in heavy forest:

Point A targets action square 40m away (max LOS) at point B then units out to point C 140m will still be impacted in a significant way.

I did the bulk of this testing trying to refine tactics when assaulting woods but use the same methods constantly in all situations.

Even if you can't draw a LOS effectively then firing at from point A out to B to impact C does work. I quoted 100m because that is the distance that I use a basis for some sandbox testing.

Obviously the weapon system matters ie firing a SMG squad at 200m to impact out to 300m isn't that same as firing a tripod MG42 at 400m to get to 500m.

[chuckdyke]

8 minutes ago, Peregrine said:

I didn't explain very well.

Point A is firing unit.

Point B is action square with LOS that can be targeted.

Point C is area you want impacted by fire.

This example in heavy forest:

Point A targets action square 40m away (max LOS) at point B then units out to point C 140m will still be impacted in a significant way.

I did the bulk of this testing trying to refine tactics when assaulting woods but use the same methods constantly in all situations.

Even if you can't draw a LOS effectively then firing at from point A out to B to impact C does work. I quoted 100m because that is the distance that I use a basis for some sandbox testing.

Obviously the weapon system matters ie firing a SMG squad at 200m to impact out to 300m isn't that same as firing a tripod MG42 at 400m to get to 500m.

Exactly if you can target a square some distance away from your desired LOS you will still suppress enemy units. 

[semmes]

Exactly: "if".

I, the FO, have an observed, analyzed, area (but not every tile in that area), but I cannot place observed,  direct, area-fire there. The code for that FO to have a LOO has been written, it's already in the game, but I cannot use it with a HMG; that is the point.

Yes, players try to improve a bad situation, it would be better to improve the situation (code).

[Erwin]

Have you taken into account that FO's and certain other units (IIRC like onmap mortars) can "see" further, and therefore target further than "normal" units?  

[Peregrine]

I get what you mean but when it comes to area fire you basically just need to shoot in the rough direction. I try to get it close but I don't think it matters at all.

If I am at rifle range and shoot at a target 150m and you are standing directly behind it at 250 to 300m with nothing else in between you won't be happy. If I have an MG or 9 friends doing the same thing you will be even less happy.

CM models the bullets and they fly until they hit something. Again most of my testing was close quarters forest problems but make no mistake those bullets fly a long way past where the target line finishes EVEN in close terrain when they have a higher chance of hitting things.

The vagaries of CM LOS (typically reverse slope type problems) shouldn't force you to limit area fire because you can't nail the exact action square.

Edited July 6 by Peregrine
Grammarz

[chuckdyke]

8 hours ago, Peregrine said:

The vagaries of CM LOS (typically reverse slope type problems) shouldn't force you to limit area fire because you can't nail the exact action square.

MGs on Tripods are not properly modelled in my opinion. Both the Vickers and MG42 had indirect fire sights. They should be as effective as the US 60 mm mortars on map. 

[Peregrine]

I think this was a WWI so nothing new. Hard to imagine using it in WWII or later in CM style combat.

[Meltpile]

1st Target "Tree.

[semmes]

19 hours ago, Erwin said:

Have you taken into account that FO's and certain other units (IIRC like onmap mortars) can "see" further, and therefore target further than "normal" units?  

One HMg at 690m, nothing fancy. I am not trying to deploy a MG Bn to deny an area 2km away.

[semmes]

18 hours ago, Peregrine said:

I get what you mean but when it comes to area fire you basically just need to shoot in the rough direction. I try to get it close but I don't think it matters at all.

If I am at rifle range and shoot at a target 150m and you are standing directly behind it at 250 to 300m with nothing else in between you won't be happy. If I have an MG or 9 friends doing the same thing you will be even less happy.

CM models the bullets and they fly until they hit something. Again most of my testing was close quarters forest problems but make no mistake those bullets fly a long way past where the target line finishes EVEN in close terrain when they have a higher chance of hitting things.

The vagaries of CM LOS (typically reverse slope type problems) shouldn't force you to limit area fire because you can't nail the exact action square.

And I know what you mean. In a wood, I can maneuver to get someone on that LOF; you don't keep redeploying the HMG (already in a vantage position), to catch a tile that you will never see.

I have a tree line (with bushes and tall grass) with a wheat field in front. The FO can call a mission almost all along the treeline and all over the wheat field; and in some spots past the treeline. The HMG can "see" the same but can fire at nothing.

The point, my question: Why the HMG is not using the code for the LOO of the FO?

[Peregrine]

Spotting of units is different than falling arty.

If I am standing at the edge of a wheat field I won't be able to see very far at all. The LOS tool should go blank pretty quickly. Same for a forest. But if I shoot at the edge of the wheatfield my bullets will still go a long way. A very long way if the terrain is flat. But no spotting.

If an arty shell falls in a wheat fall a professional should be able to tell how far away that is hence you can call arty into areas that you cannot see. Same with a forest but the range in a forest is very short from memory.

There are definitely oddities with LOS in CM and sometimes you can fire at units in an action square if units are spotted but never target the same square with area fire even though it looks like you should.

The good news is area fire is area fire so you don't need to be especially specific and I have yet to see a situation where firing at any intervening square isn't good enough.

Edited July 7 by Peregrine

[semmes]

Just when you don't have... any intervening square.