iggi Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 Another thing that should be taken out is the ability to click on an enemy unit and see a yellow line extending from it. Reason I say this is cause I was shooting at a tiger, I thought I was going to get wacked cause like 5 shots kept bouncing off him. Anyways, all of a sudden, za tiger didn't vant to play anymore. He was stationary and didn't shoot back. If I clicked on him, a nice yellow line leads from him to my tank, meaning...he sees me. So why does he not shoot back? His gun must be damage. I should not know if he can see me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IntelWeenie: I had an off-line discussion with an old CM-er and this is what came out of it: Currently, CM does not take into account cover given by hill crests, it treats all open terrain the same. To do so would necessitate coding the amount of cover based on the direction and angle of incoming fire, which could get pretty complex. y. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I beg to differ on this point. I do believe it is in fact allready coded in. The 3d battlefield does indeed have an effect on an infantry unit's ability to be hit. The amount of cover provided by the lay of the land including hill crests is represented by a % of exposure. Standing out in the middle of flat terrain or running exposed uphill from the dirrection of fire will have a far greater % of exposure than being behind a hill crest. Target lines point to the base of a unit. When a target line wraps around an osticle but you still can target it, rest assured that although the base is below the line of sight, at least part of the target vissible. This is similar to being "hull down" but is expressed as a percent exposed instead of "hull down status". Just my two cents. ------------------ Pair-O-Dice "Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Ling Posted September 11, 2000 Author Share Posted September 11, 2000 Diceman-I've just done a quick test creating a battlefield of a ridge and placeing units below the crest, on it, on the exposed side and more inbetween. I got a reading of 75% exposure on all units except on those far down the reverse side which read out of los. Once the battle started the enemy of course abandoned the hill and got slaughtered moving towards the incoming fire to some scattered trees - whose exposure was 35%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaKilnGuy Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 Hey, I may have smoked too much over here but, maybe its like that magic bullet thing the government says killed JFK. ------------------ Hot enough for ya'? DaKilnGuy [This message has been edited by DaKilnGuy (edited 09-11-2000).] [This message has been edited by DaKilnGuy (edited 09-11-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diceman Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by James Ling: Diceman-I've just done a quick test creating a battlefield of a ridge and placeing units below the crest, on it, on the exposed side and more inbetween. I got a reading of 75% exposure on all units except on those far down the reverse side which read out of los. Once the battle started the enemy of course abandoned the hill and got slaughtered moving towards the incoming fire to some scattered trees - whose exposure was 35%.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Son b****, your right! I get the same result. There I go again working without proper tools - thinkin' again. I never noticed this problem before. Percent exposure seemed to work just fine, but this is either a problem or a serious limitation. It does explain why reverse slopes don't serve me as well as I expected! ------------------ Pair-O-Dice "Once a Diceman, Always a Diceman." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 I just tried a test, too! (Gee, I even came up with the same results. ) 75% exposure on open ground, no matter experience ratings or distance of infantry from the crest. I tried this placing infantry in 1m increments from the crest (enemy units about 150m away; same height to 2 levels lower) and the results are simply binary: either the infantry is in LOS and at 75% exposure or no LOS and no fire possible. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi: Another thing that should be taken out is the ability to click on an enemy unit and see a yellow line extending from it. Reason I say this is cause I was shooting at a tiger, I thought I was going to get wacked cause like 5 shots kept bouncing off him. Anyways, all of a sudden, za tiger didn't vant to play anymore. He was stationary and didn't shoot back. If I clicked on him, a nice yellow line leads from him to my tank, meaning...he sees me. So why does he not shoot back? His gun must be damage. I should not know if he can see me. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You have misinterpreted the meaning of the yellow line. A yellow line attached to the Tiger does not mean that he has spottted you (though in fact he may have). It only means that he is taking fire from you. When you see a red line coming from him, *that* means that he has not only spotted you, but intends to shoot at you. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Fox Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 This topic is a fairly well known 'feature' of the game which as a number of people have pointed out relates to two slightly seperate issues LOS mechanics and also some limitations of the tacAI vis a vis infantry and the 'lay of the land'. For the moment we are just going to have to play within those limitations. I am absolutely sure Steve is aware of it since I was bleating about it in the beta demo. I was especially concerned that when seeking cover the tacAI makes little use of 'dead' ground and often seeks the best terrain type cover sometimes with unpleasant consequences. I understand it has been tweaked a little but it is likely to require some substantial changes to both the mechanics of the game and the tacAI so I wouldn't hold your breath. ------------------ "I never saw such a dejected army, even the Italians carried themselves better in the old desert days. They were mostly Germans, but includede Poles, Russians, Mongols, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Frenchmen, even one American - all in Nazi uniforms." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 I see. ok then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj. Bosco Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 Seems to me even if they could get the coding in for LOS to specific parts of the infantrymen (I don't even want to think about that - I'm running on a 550 and I think my comp would melt if it tried to keep track of a reinforced battalion's arms and legs all at once...) it would require some micromanagement that runs counter to the game for the hillcrest thing to work. At the very least you'd get into Shogun style formation commands that could bulk up the menu pretty quickly. It is a little frustrating that you can't snipe from ridges and take complete advantage of the outside range on rifle 44 - 45 squads but you do still get the advantage of being able to see a lot more, even if a lot more can see you. Maybe they'll fix the TacAI and figure out some way to do this without getting too outragous but until then just set up reverse slope firebases. You've got to lure then enemy over but then they work pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bastables Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 As Simon as alluded to this is about the restrictions that the CM game engine has in dealing with infantry units. Again I ask that you do a search, it’s an old and venerable topic. BTS silence on the matter should be a clue that the recent threads upon the subject have not refuted their original statement on the matter. If you want a comment from the horse’s mouth go look for it. ------------------ From one of the Jeffs "Why don't we compare reality to the game like Bastables likes to do all the time?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shandorf Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 Looks like I got under that thick skin. I am now infamous. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts