Steve/Charles, has the LOS through live AFVs been fixed???

[Lee]

First off, I agree with Steve and Charles that this is a very minor

issue and that it won't have an impact on probably 98% of battles.

And I understand the reason for not doing los obstructions on moving vehicles

from both an AI and CPU-demand point of view.

But Tom W. seems to have brought up a good idea. How about providing los

obstruction for not only burning vehicles but for ones that are ko'd

or immobilized? These vehicles will never again move during the battle,

so there are no special concerns about the AI or CPU having any problems

with it. And I would guess it would be way easier to do that than

to try to apply it to moving vehicles.

The only remaining question would be do you make the los block of a

ko'd or immobilized vehicle the same as for a burning one, or since there

is no smoke from a non-burning vehicle, do you use the actual silhouette

value of the vehicle in CM to determine how large of an area of los

it blocks from any given angle? Whether the smoke or silhouette model

is used for los check is no big deal at all, either one would be a big

improvement over no los block at all for ko'd and immobile vehicles.

What do you think, Steve? Would something like that be much easier

to do than for moving vehicles and without any of the AI problems that

moving vehicles would cause?

Either way, this is a very minor concern. But if a solution is to be

attempted, I think Tom's idea is the simplest and best. I can live without

los block from moving vehicles, that is even *less* of a problem than los

block from ko'd and immobile vehicles.

[Dschugaschwili]

So what about bunkers/pillboxes? They don't block LOS either, and I didn't find it very funny that the crew taking cover behind its knocked out pillbox still was fired on by the tank that had knocked out the pillbox. Bunkers don't move after all, do they?

Dschugaschwili

[Jeff Heidman]

I guess I am rather surprised that things like KOed tanks and pillboxes and such do not block LOS. That seems pretty obvious to me.

The moving vehicle bit I could understand, if only because a moving vehicle, if it blocks LOS at all, is only going to block it very momentarily.

But the fact that a KOed tank is apparently invisible is quite surprising. I would expect more. Certainly taking cover behind a knocked out tank was not uncommon. For example, at Normnady, knocked out Shermans were just about the only cover to be had on some of the beaches!

Jeff

Jeff Heidman

[Guest grunto]

would it be possible to put in some minimally coded fuzzy logic with the live tanks and their los blockage... something simple that would make the game "feel" more realistic even if from a coding or cpu standpoint it were fairly trivial?

andy

[Guest grunto]

also some of us may be comparing combat mission to the old squad leader series and in that avalon hill game perhaps the afvs gave too much los/lof protection.

andy

[Guest Big Time Software]

Andy is correct to a degree. ASL didn't have the fidelity of LOS that CM does and therefore it should probably be a lot easier to hit units hiding behind vehicles. Also remember that a squad is often 9-12 men, which means there is probably always a guy that can get shot. If you are hiding behind something, then you aren't shooting and vice versa.

My understanding of why dead vehicles and pillboxes don't block LOS has to do with the fact that they are both treated as vehicles, even after dead. This is a code thing which has nothing to with anything except how computers think. So when a vehicle is immobilized it isn't a totally different case. It is just a vehicle with movement of ZERO. When it is brewed up it still is like this, but the smoke has the inherent LOS blocking capability which is why burning vehicles *do* block LOS and non-burning knocked out ones don't.

It is a minor issue, but one we would like to address in the future when we are able to. But there are far more important things to tackle first due to the time requirements.

Anybody that thinks this is a major issue is, in our opinion, a whiner since it is certainly not. Important enough to be on our wish list, true, but CM can't simulate 100% of reality 100% correctly 100% no matter how hard anybody wishes.

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Another quick thought...

There are all sorts of abstractions in CM. There are even a few gaps or "holes" in its mesh of simulated reality. As I said just above, this is a function of there not being enough hours in a day, days in a week, etc. to get everyting right. And in any case, it is futile because nobody will ever get things 100%. So a certain level of abstraction should not only be expected, but kept inside its proper perspective vs. the game's reality level as a whole.

One can go into the editor and set up a perfect situation to show why vehicle LOS blocking is important. PL described just such a situation. But as was quickly pointed out, the situation as described is "clincal" in that it cases out the worst possible collision of thousands of variables to produce this text book example. I mean "thousands" because games don't start out with a column of Shermans facing a Tiger bang on. In fact, many scenarios have no vehicles at all. So to have such a situation crop up in a randomly slected battle would require so many uncountable things to happen to allow such a situation that it makes the example pretty irrelevant in that it doesn't have any true reflection on the "real world" situations of a scenario.

In most battles vehicles are few and spread out. How many times have you played VoT? How many times did you see a Panther shoot through a Sherman to hit another, or vice versa? One person seeing this one time in one game means nothing statistically. Even a few instances mean nothing statistically when talking about the numbers of repetitions and players. So my point is that just because CM has an abstraction/limitation doesn't mean that it is a significant problem. If it was Charles and I would have figured out a way of doing something as we have for dozens of other kinds of problems.

OK, just a few more cents worth

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-14-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

The Tiger facing a column of Shermans example is also problematic for another reason:

If dead vehicles totally blocked LOS, then the Tiger would be prohibited from doing something that it could do it real life (at least a King Tiger could): literally shoot through the first Sherman in the line - I mean actually penetrate both the front and rear armor - and still hit and penetrate the one behind it. It wouldn't work in every case, and of course this sort of thing is extremely rare (just like the setup of the column advancing on the Tiger in the first place) but this technique would be prohibited by having a tank wreck block LOS completely even though it is physically possible.

So it's not as cut and dry as it first seems, eh? But there's more.

Consider this: Should a KOed halftrack, with its paper-thin armor, block LOS and LOF? Currently CM says "no". If you say "yes", can you now imagine the gamey tactics that would develop? It would become a game of "hide behind the dead halftrack shield". What about a massive Jagdtiger hiding behind that wrecked halftrack, less than half its size? What happens then? Anything? Where do you draw the line? If it's a light Stuart tank hiding back there, still bigger than the halftrack but not by quite as much, is that any better? I can think of more examples that would "break" such a system if you like.

The current system is an abstraction, but it's not as "unrealistic" as you may think.

Charles

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-14-2000).]

[Guest Scott Clinton]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What about a massive Jagdtiger hiding behind that wrecked halftrack, less than half its size? What happens then?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ahhhhh...now you enter the area of my 'wish list': 'Partial Sighting'.

Where if you park a Sherman behind a house...almost and only the part of the front sponson is showing but none of the turret, the enemy can see, and hit the Sherman ONLY in the exposed area. All the while the Sherman can not return fire at all because its turret is fully hidden behind the house.

But, I beleive this will have to wait until a sequel to CM. (and just to clarify, I DON'T mean CM2, CM3, ect.)

------------------

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 06-14-2000).]

[Guest aka PanzerLeader]

Obviously the Tiger vs. a column of Shermans situation that I described is a prototype. Obviously one will never get that situation perfectly, with all 10 Shermans lined up, with no terrain obstructions, etc.

What I described wasn't meant to be realistic, it was meant to give the general idea that columns are happier in the game than in real life.

But I seem to be pretty much on my own, not much support fire to help me

PanzerLeader was daydreaming in front of his computer, forget all that he said

[chaos]

Steve/Charles,

While I fully accept your explanation/reasoning on this issue, I do think that relevant instances might crop up more than you think. In one of my first games of CE, a Sherman was knocked out by a shreck in the clearing between the church and the German woods. I advanced another Sherman up to the wreck, thinking that I was covered from the AT team, and began merrily blasting away at the church. Much to my surprise, Sherman 2 was wasted by the same shreck (this was before I knew that los was not blocked). What I had attempted to do had seemed very intuitive at the time. Perhaps this tactic would be considered gamey? I don’t know, but it seems similar situations could arise quite often.

chaos

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chaos:

Steve/Charles,

Perhaps this tactic would be considered gamey? I don’t know, but it seems similar situations could arise quite often.

chaos<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Chaos, as an opponent in a PBEM I would not find that gamey at all, it is quite intuitive and legitimate, IMO. Unfortunately it does not work for the reasons explained. So this harks back to Tom W's comment. Everybody should know about it, and I guess it will be featured highly in the LOS section of the manual. Once you know it, you won't make the same assumption again, problem solved. If you PBEM against someone who did not follow the board or did not read the manual, they will learn it the hard way, as you did (and I, when I tried to hide an SMG squad behind a knocked out Stug...)

------------------

Andreas

The powers of accurate perception are often called cynicism by those who do not possess them. (forgot who said it)

[aka_tom_w]

I don't know this as I have not tested it myself

BUT if, as suggested in this thread, Pillboxes don't block LOS or LOF I think there is a problem there.

I'm with you Panzerleader and now we are whiners....

But that's ok the game will be here soon and we can all get down to playing it for "real" and then we'll all see you is the BIGGEST whiner and the most celebrated Combat Mission Double Blind Victor!

I plan to play the hell out of this game, (while I continue my education campaign to make sure all who are new to this game KNOW all about the LOS through Live AFV's issue) I will play for fun and Play in the ladders and I will read the manual inside and out and I WILL enjoy EVERY minute of designing new scenario's and yes I will still post about LOS through KO'd vehciles. Although I have to admit Charles DOES indeed bring up a VERY good point about how 88s' could and did shoot right through KO'd AFV's to nail the one on the other side. I must admit I did not think of that issue.

AND above all else I should just be quiet because I just can't wait to BLOW something up with that New COOL castrophic secondary explosion!

For now I'm just reduced to being addicted to this board and waiting, waiting, and waiting for that damn package with my game in it to arrive.

Thanks for putting up with all of us BTS!

Its a Great Game and it does get better every time I read up on the new changes in the 1.01 patch.

Great work Charles!

BUT remember EVERYONE should know exactly how LOS and LOF works through Live vehciles or LEARN the Hard way....

Well that is certainly keeping with the theme, intention and spirit of this game. Some of these things can only be learned the HARD way and I think that is one of the BEST things about this game is it almost Demands that you must learn it by playing it and by experience!

(some times that means a loss the HARD way)

Nice Work BTS!

Thanks also for all the posts on this topic Steve and Charles.

-tom w

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 06-14-2000).]

[DanE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chaos:

I advanced another Sherman up to the wreck, thinking that I was covered from the AT team, and began merrily blasting away at the church. Much to my surprise, Sherman 2 was wasted by the same shreck (this was before I knew that los was not blocked).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another thing we need to think about is the size of these objects we are trying to hide.

I would think it would be very difficult to line up my second tank behind the knocked out tank to gain complete concealment from the AT team. For starters, you would need to know the location of the enemy to within a few feet, not just "in that house".

Once you know that info, it would probably take several attempts to get lined up just right so that no part of your vehicle was in LOS to the enemy.

And then you are only gaining concealment from one specific direction.

When I first heard about this "problem", I thought it was something that needed to be fixed right away. After playing both demos several times, I no longer feel that way.

If BTS can figure out a way to have dead/ko'ed vehicles block a portion of LOS, that will be fine. If they don't, no problem.

I have a feeling that we would be surprised to see how little cover/concealment an AFV would actually get from a dead tank.

------------------

Dan

[aka_tom_w]

If you were planning on using abandoned concrete pillboxes for cover, forget it.

In VoT once those pillboxes are abandoned you can crawl all over them and the game treats them as if they are not even there. Yes that means any unit can trace LOS and LOF straight through a bunker. Even before the bunker was abandoned German infantry units crawling behind the bunker could be targeted straight through the bunker. Other than the fact it shoots out the front, the structure its self offered no cover or LOF block.

So like AFV's, hideing behind bunkers and pillboxes for cover is not a good idea.

Again, every one should know this because those structures appear on the map and they sure look like they might provide cover but LOS and LOF goes straight through them.

Check it out for your self if you don't believe me.

-tom w

(Feel free to ignore this post as I'm just another whiner who is planning to buy the game and play it to death )

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Lorak]

idea... and please don't laugh to hard.

** please note**

I agree with BTS and think the system thats in place is fine.

**

My idea is this. In the future(who knows when) would it be possible to code an abandoned or imobilized AFV as it had a small smoke shell on it? Not the large knocked out plume, but the small white ones.

If you could code it so that the LOS values of a small smoke shell is placed on the AFV, but without the graphic, it seems that would be perfect. you have a small LOS blockage, but not the size of an entire AFV.

Of course I'm not a programer and this could be impossible for 1000's of reasons, but I thought I'd toss it out there.

Lorak

------------------

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

Lorak's FTX for CM <--Proud member of the Combat Mission Webring

[Ben Galanti]

Ok, first off, I've never really thought this was a problem. Steve and Charles very well may be right that 'fixing' it would cause more problems then it would solve (and they have a heck of a lot more game design experience then a majority of people on this board, I suspect). I agree it could be a rude suprise if someone is unaware of it, though.

That being said, I had a question for Charles and/or Steve. Could dead AFVs (and Pillboxes) give 'cover' like walls do? Quick quote from another thread:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Walls don't literally block LOS in CM because that would effectively enforce a blanket LOS block even against large things behind the wall - like tanks!

Instead, walls provide cover bonuses for units behind them (and hull down status for tanks). Infantry that is hiding/prone gets even more protection.

Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

While you could still see and shoot through dead AFVs, they'd at least help a little bit. Now, I suspect teaching the AI to use this would be a serious pain, since it wouldn't see a dead AFV as a map element like a wall. And I'm sure there are other issues that I can't think of I just thought I'd throw it out. Any comments?

Ben

[This message has been edited by Ben Galanti (edited 06-15-2000).]

[aka_tom_w]

Ben that is a great idea.....

Why aren't Pillboxes and ko'd (non-burning) AFVs treated as VERY short walls, providing just a bit more cover.

right now a bunker or Pillbox provides (from my experience shooting right through the things) absolutely no cover for ANY unit other than the crew inside the structure that came with when it was deployed, after it has been abandoned enemy units can walk right through it and shoot right through it as though it was not even there.

Why not just code it as a very shot square cube like wall?, same for Ko'd AFVs, maybe they could have transparnent (to us, BUT LOS blocking ) smoke coming out of them, or they could be coded to also be Like small cubic walls for the purpose of cover.

-tom w

I Still CAN'T wait to get my game and Play lots of Double Blind PBEM games with all you folks here.....

------------------

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Have you thanked BTS by buying your SECOND copy of CM yet?" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>