Maximus Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 I ask this with also a question about what makes a dead AFV solid?? If the correct physics can be applied to dead AFVs, why not live ones? ------------------ "The greatest risk...is not taking one." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcarey Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 Live ones move. Dead ones don't. I think that's the prob - doing LOS blockage dynamically. - Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freyland Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 Dead AFV's don't wear Plaid Freyland ------------------ You said wet shirt no break, not piss-shirt bend bars! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 IIRC, normal dead ones don't block LOS either (and I got a recently KO Panther to PROVE IT, damn you Kwazydog!) its the BREWED UP AND BURNING ones that block LOS due to the smoke and fire... And it's not fixed since it aint broke! This was a conscience design consideration due to many factors which have been gone over time and time again... Perhaps in the future... ------------------ If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ! CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission Combat Mission HQ CMHQ-Annex Proud members of the Combat Mission WebRing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted June 11, 2000 Author Share Posted June 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Madmatt: And it's not fixed since it aint broke! This was a conscience design consideration due to many factors which have been gone over time and time again...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ohh, OK. A design decision. Good enough for me. Let's carry on.... ------------------ "The greatest risk...is not taking one." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aka PanzerLeader Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Ohh, OK. A design decision. Good enough for me. Let's carry on....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, if I remember well BTS said that it would use too much computer power to have the live ones block LOS. And also Charles added that the Tactical AI might have trouble with it. However, it still remains the only major flaw in the game. No one can argue about that. Realistically, it is a horrible problem...It's got to be fixed sooner or later, when we get better computers(or it can be left as an option, why not??) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted June 11, 2000 Share Posted June 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>However, it still remains the only major flaw in the game. No one can argue about that. Realistically, it is a horrible problem...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Bet me, hell I can argue about anything. Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion, but frankly I don't see it as either a "major flaw" or a "horrible problem". At worst it's a minor flaw in the search for perfect accuracy, which of course will never be realized. Joe ------------------ "I don't want them brave, I want them dead!" Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 12, 2000 Share Posted June 12, 2000 I agree with Joe. The test is to see how many situations in how many games that this would actually make a difference. In all my playing I can think of very few situations where it would have. And that is all that is important. Remember, just because something isn't totally correct doesn't automatically mean it has a fundamentally negative effect on the realism of the game. In a single situation, perhaps, but individual situations are just that; one specific instance. Drawing broad conlcusions from such a thing is simply bad science Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted June 12, 2000 Share Posted June 12, 2000 I agree with Panzerleader when he states it is the only major flaw in the game. I say this because I would expect an AFV to give at least some kind of LOF/LOS protection to units behind it. When a column of AFV's travels down a road I would not expect that the enemy should not be able to get LOS straight the leading AFV to target those vehicles behind it. Infantry should be able to advance behind an AFV and (to some degree) gain LOF and LOS protection behind it. I understand that the code was designed to be like this and that due to cpu limitations. I understand the turns would take a great deal longer to crunch/calculate if the movement of live vehicles was taken into account in LOS checks during the turn. So I agree with PanzerLeader when he suggests it could be an option like fog of war so that a feature like "most accurate LOS model (longer crunch time) " could be toggled on by the player prior to set up. -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka PanzerLeader: However, it still remains the only major flaw in the game. No one can argue about that. Realistically, it is a horrible problem...It's got to be fixed sooner or later, when we get better computers(or it can be left as an option, why not??)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 12, 2000 Share Posted June 12, 2000 The reason we can't make this LOS per vehicle optional is the AI. Teaching the AI to handle the myriad of cases where LOS is blocked by live vehicles is not as simple as you may think. In fact, it would likely lead to the TacAI doing 'dumb' things that would upset you far more than the system we have in there right now. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted June 12, 2000 Share Posted June 12, 2000 Tom, the point I was making was that the issue was not a MAJOR flaw and it wasn't a HORRIBLE problem. In a perfect world (and a perfect game) AFVs should block LOS and LOF, but in CM they don't because BTS chose not to make it so for design reasons. To call it a major flaw or a horrible problem is to suggest, at least to my mind, that it comes close to making the game unplayable. I don't think anyone on this board would suggest that. Finally, I suspect (though I don't know) that the coding required to make this happen would be substantially non-trivial. This would delay the game (major flaw/horrible problem) at best and slow it down to unplayable levels (major flaw/horrible problem) at worst. So why can't BTS work on the minor problem for a patch? Maybe they will, but I'd prefer them to spend the time on CM2 personally. I'll just try to remember that AFVs don't block LOS/LOF. Joe ------------------ "I don't want them brave, I want them dead!" Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted June 12, 2000 Share Posted June 12, 2000 I understand the AI LOS per vehicle issue as you have posted it. Would it be possible to allow or code LOS per live vehicles for games between two human players or in your opinion does this also affect the Tac AI of each unit in a two human player game? I don't really care about LOS through live vehicles in games vs the AI, because I figure that is just practice for live human opponents anyway. just a thought -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: The reason we can't make this LOS per vehicle optional is the AI. Teaching the AI to handle the myriad of cases where LOS is blocked by live vehicles is not as simple as you may think. In fact, it would likely lead to the TacAI doing 'dumb' things that would upset you far more than the system we have in there right now. Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flix Posted June 12, 2000 Share Posted June 12, 2000 I hear where your coming from aka, it would be cool to advance units behind Shermans towards the enemy line. However, I agree also with Joe in that its really not a "horrible problem" or a "major flaw". Maybe down the road after technology as evolved some more, which in the computer world it does with a rapid pace, it will be feasible. I certainly would welcome the prospect of using vehicles for cover. What kind of exposure would soldiers get from taking cover UNDERNEATH a tank. The possibilities of enhancements are limitless through the evolution of computer gaming through time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 12, 2000 Share Posted June 12, 2000 Tom, nothing in the game is coded up to work one way for human vs. human and another for human vs. AI. The changes necessary would also impact the TacAI, which of course works for human as well as the computer players. It would also slow down turn computation. Again... this is *not* a major problem. It is a minor one. The reason is, as I stated above, because the impact on the average situation in the average game is nil. Therefore, there are other more important issues to tackle first and that this situation is not important enough to go screwing up all the stuff that works. An important rule of simulation creation is to not screw up the 90% that does what it is supposed to in order to get 1% more realism. It is an important rule to understand. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted June 13, 2000 Share Posted June 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: An important rule of simulation creation is to not screw up the 90% that does what it is supposed to in order to get 1% more realism. It is an important rule to understand.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> "Better" is the enemy of "good enough." ------------------ Leland J. Tankersley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted June 13, 2000 Share Posted June 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley: "Better" is the enemy of "good enough." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Here today, gone tomorrow... Please note that all smilies on this iBook were beaten to a pulp by football hooligans not allowed into Holland. ------------------ Andreas The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaffertape Posted June 13, 2000 Share Posted June 13, 2000 Question: In the case of the PBEM I'm currently playing, I rolled my 76 Sherman up behind and to the right of a dead (but not burning) 75 Sherman for cover. What you all have described illustrates to me why my 76 Sherman now has a neat 75 hole in its mantlett courtesy of a Panther. Now, are you saying that if the tank I tried to use for cover had been fully 'brewed up', I would have gained some cover due to the smoke? GAFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted June 13, 2000 Share Posted June 13, 2000 Gaff, you'd have gotten some concealment from the smoke, but no cover. A small distinction but one that's important. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted June 13, 2000 Share Posted June 13, 2000 "Now, are you saying that if the tank I tried to use for cover had been fully 'brewed up', I would have gained some cover due to the smoke?" Simple answer YES! Everyone needs to know this. If it is a vehicle and it is NOT smokeing it does not provide ANY cover! Every person who plays this game to win will really need to know this to play competitivly against anyone who knows this already. So Can I target my own ko'd vehicles to brew them up and make them smoke so I can use them (when they are smoking) to hide behind? Great Idea you say , well NO, that sounds "gamey" to me and I tried it already and you cannot traget your own KO'd vehicles to shoot at them to brew them up, so you can hide behind them. It is the Biggest single thing that is NOT like real world military tactics. I think that it is not at all unreasonable for Gaff to have "expected" that his sherm would have had the benifit of cover by pulling up behind his own KO'd sherm, but no, LOS and LOF goes right through anything that is not smoking and his second Sherm bites the dust. So I would suggest or propose that at the very least non-moving ko'd vehicles that are not smoking could be "tweaked" to provide LOS and LOF cover, could the LOS check not be "fooled" into beleiving that these stationary non-burning KO'd vehicles are smoking, (maybe just use, invisible smoke for all KO'd vehciles, or smoke with transparency at 1% or all ko'd vehicles to simulate block LOS?). Again I love this game and I'm sure by now Steve and Charles have had enough of me posting about this one single issue. As they already know, I think it is a problem. oh well, Like Everyone else I can't wait to get my hands on that scenario designer! -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by gaffertape: Question: In the case of the PBEM I'm currently playing, I rolled my 76 Sherman up behind and to the right of a dead (but not burning) 75 Sherman for cover. What you all have described illustrates to me why my 76 Sherman now has a neat 75 hole in its mantlett courtesy of a Panther. Now, are you saying that if the tank I tried to use for cover had been fully 'brewed up', I would have gained some cover due to the smoke? GAFF<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> ------------------ <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaffertape Posted June 13, 2000 Share Posted June 13, 2000 Thanks, tom w for the quick response. GAFF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aka PanzerLeader Posted June 13, 2000 Share Posted June 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tom, the point I was making was that the issue was not a MAJOR flaw and it wasn't a HORRIBLE problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmmm, if you have say a column of 10 Shermans on a straight road, and then a Tiger shows up(columns are a very frequent occasion) in front of them, the Tiger should be able to cause serious havoc by killing the first Sherman, and because the other Shermans would have to manoeuver around to get LOS to the Tiger. It would be total panic and thus columns are made very vulnerable just as they were in real life. However in CM, no such time would occur, as I understand it. The 10 Shermans would all shoot through each other, and no more Tiger after one minute, and no panic...For the loss of maybe one or two Shermans, the Allies continue their advance almost unscathed... Makes a difference doesn't it? Not to mention combined arms attacks, when infantry should be able to get cover from adavancing AFVs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted June 13, 2000 Share Posted June 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka PanzerLeader: Makes a difference doesn't it? Not to mention combined arms attacks, when infantry should be able to get cover from adavancing AFVs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I don't know - I think if you manage to run into an ambush like that you don't deserve any better. Also, there will be few occasions where it is a matter of straight head-on shots. Much more often the ambush will be set to get flanking shots, and there the problem simply does not exist. As for infantry sheltering behind tanks - yes it would be nice, but since I know about the issue, I find somewhere else to hide them. I really don't think it is that big a problem. I think what Tom is saying is right - everybody should be aware of it. It is a game, there are limitations, this is one. As long as everybody knows it, I don't have a problem with it. In none of the games I have played so far I have been tempted to hide my infantry behind tanks. If it comes down to Charles spending times on this or on a problem like target stickyness or improving the AI, I know where my vote would go. ------------------ Andreas The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Shaw Posted June 13, 2000 Share Posted June 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Makes a difference doesn't it? Not to mention combined arms attacks, when infantry should be able to get cover from adavancing AFVs.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> {sigh} OK, let me preface this by saying that I think it would be peachy keen if BTS COULD configure the engine to recognize that AFVs block LOS/LOF. However, since they in their wisdom have determined that it would be difficult to impossible to do this, I'm willing to abide by their decision (they know a hell of a lot more about it than I do) AND I don't consider it to be a big deal. I'm further not completely certain what you're after. The game's complete after all (YEAAAAA!) and the only possiblities, therefore, are a later patch or a change in the programming for later versions. I'm sure, with BTS's track record for listening to us, that they will look at the possibilities and do what they can. It is apparently not, however, something that they've already figured out how to do but chose not to implement. It's going to require, from what they say, a significant amount of work to make it happen IF it can happen at all given today's processors. With that out of the way, let's look at your specific situation, aka PL, and consider it. IF the situation developed as you postulate, it would create an unrealistic result ... probably. But in order for it to happen the way you suggest the following would have to occur: 1. The Tiger MUST approach the column almost head on, any approach at even a slight angle means the "problem" is decreased. 2. The column must be on a straight road and on the same level. Any other situation means the "problem" is decreased. 3. There must be no intervening obstacles to the LOS, any other situation means the "problem" is decreased. Now obviously, if even one Sherman can fire through another the result will be unrealistic to a degree, but my contention is now and likely will continue to be ... IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. It's certainly not a major flaw and it's not a horrible problem. Others may, of course, disagree, but I rely upon BTS to do the best they can and I'm gonna play the hell out the game when I get it ... blocked LOS or not. Joe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest aka PanzerLeader Posted June 13, 2000 Share Posted June 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>{sigh} OK, let me preface this by saying that I think it would be peachy keen if BTS COULD configure the engine to recognize that AFVs block LOS/LOF. However, since they in their wisdom have determined that it would be difficult to impossible to do this, I'm willing to abide by their decision (they know a hell of a lot more about it than I do) AND I don't consider it to be a big deal. I'm further not completely certain what you're after. The game's complete after all (YEAAAAA!) and the only possiblities, therefore, are a later patch or a change in the programming for later versions. I'm sure, with BTS's track record for listening to us, that they will look at the possibilities and do what they can. It is apparently not, however, something that they've already figured out how to do but chose not to implement. It's going to require, from what they say, a significant amount of work to make it happen IF it can happen at all given today's processors. With that out of the way, let's look at your specific situation, aka PL, and consider it. IF the situation developed as you postulate, it would create an unrealistic result ... probably. But in order for it to happen the way you suggest the following would have to occur: 1. The Tiger MUST approach the column almost head on, any approach at even a slight angle means the "problem" is decreased. 2. The column must be on a straight road and on the same level. Any other situation means the "problem" is decreased. 3. There must be no intervening obstacles to the LOS, any other situation means the "problem" is decreased. Now obviously, if even one Sherman can fire through another the result will be unrealistic to a degree, but my contention is now and likely will continue to be ... IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL. It's certainly not a major flaw and it's not a horrible problem. Others may, of course, disagree, but I rely upon BTS to do the best they can and I'm gonna play the hell out the game when I get it ... blocked LOS or not. Joe<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hey its all right Joe no need to sigh!! I too am very happy with BTS' work and all they have done for us. It is absolutely amazing, BTS have brought the realism of this game to a point where the *only* flaw is LOS through AFVs. And that is an achievement, a great one. If they didn't change anything I'd be happy allright, no problem. However they could leave my suggestion as an option if they want to. That wouldn't hurt anybody. Some like me would be happier and others could turn it off. Like a bonus. That would be in a patch or even CM2(we wargamers are a patient breed). I sincerely hope you didn't take my posts as an insult to BTS. Like all others here I have to be a sycophant. And finally, you say, and this seems very important to you, "IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL". Wargamers years ago must have thought the same about hexes... We've come a long way since then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted June 13, 2000 Share Posted June 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka PanzerLeader: However they could leave my suggestion as an option if they want to. That wouldn't hurt anybody. Some like me would be happier and others could turn it off. Like a bonus. That would be in a patch or even CM2(we wargamers are a patient breed). I sincerely hope you didn't take my posts as an insult to BTS. Like all others here I have to be a sycophant. And finally, you say, and this seems very important to you, "IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL". Wargamers years ago must have thought the same about hexes... We've come a long way since then.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, first of all I think Hexes and this problem are of a different order of magnitude. Second, you can not do it as an option b/c it affects game-play. All the current options to toggle on or off do not, they affect eye-candy. I can turn them on or off at my leisure, regardless of whether my PBEM opponent is doing so. If you want to have them as an option, you will have to agree with your opponent on whether to turn them on or off. You will not be able to ply with the option on against somebody having a low-end machine at all. This is fundamentally different from turning high-res smoke on or off. I have not thought about the implications for PBEM very long, but it could well be that it introduces more problems than it solves. ------------------ Andreas The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts