Andorski Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 Apparently vehicles don't block LOS. So infantry walking behind an advancing tank gets no cover, and tanks can shoot "through" other tanks? Isn't this something which REALLY needs to be addressed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andorski: Apparently vehicles don't block LOS. So infantry walking behind an advancing tank gets no cover, and tanks can shoot "through" other tanks? Isn't this something which REALLY needs to be addressed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hi, it has to do with current CPU power (ie, there is not enough in PCs or Macs). Do a search on LOS and vehicles or something like that. It has been discussed extensively before. ------------------ Andreas It is amazing what you can learn from a good book... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikester Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 Try doing a search. There was quite an extensive discussion on this not too long ago if I'm remembering correctly. Mikester out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer-Leader Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Isn't this something which REALLY needs to be addressed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yup, even CloseCombat gets it right there! Seriously, something that needs to be adressed but that was pretty much ignored by everybody is the fact that LOS from vehicles is too low. It is thus impossible to achieve a perfect hull-down position 'cos your blind TC won't see anything across the ridge...Even the gunner won't shoot sometimes because he is blind or his eyes were ripped off and put a bit lower on the vehicle... But we'll have to wait for a patch or maybe CM2 for all these "details". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 yup this one has been coverd too death Steve and Charles and BTS know all about this and we have been told it was a conscious decision based on the inability of consumer level cpu to accruataly keep track of LOS of and LOF of units that are moving during the minute of the turn in a 3D environment. and yes it should be addressed -tom w <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Andorski: Apparently vehicles don't block LOS. So infantry walking behind an advancing tank gets no cover, and tanks can shoot "through" other tanks? Isn't this something which REALLY needs to be addressed?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 Indeed, vehicle-blocking LOS is a CPU issue. However it goes deeper than that. It's also an AI issue. What should a tank do when its LOS to a target is suddenly blocked by a friendly? Should it move? Where? What if it might move into a spot where a new enemy gets a shot at it? Is it worth it? What if it doesn't even know about an enemy that has an LOS to the new location, but you as the player suspect that one is out there? Then is it worth moving? Should it move off the road and maybe get bogged down? Is that worth it? Should it wait until the friendly obstructor moves out of the way? But what if the obstructor ends up not moving after all, because of damage or some other reason, and the time spent waiting is wasted? And of course all this doesn't even touch the issue of "but my tank gun is higher than the sihouette of the nonturreted vehicle in front of it, so can't I get a hull-down status firing over the heads of my StuG buddies?" Which is then countered by people who want to be able to shoot through that StuG to get at the tank behind it, and maybe kill both in one shot, and other assorted minutiae. In short, we'd be putting a heavy burden on the TacAI to "handle the situation intelligently" and I can promise you one thing: gamers will bitch and moan if the TacAI handles this even one percent less than perfectly. And yet, being an AI, of course it cannot handle it perfectly. So given the fact that it could potentially be a CPU hog, and that the solution would be less than perfect anyway, we decided not to have (nonburning) vehicles block LOS. Panzer-Leader - I don't know what you're referring to. Hull-down works perfectly well in CM. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer-Leader Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Panzer-Leader - I don't know what you're referring to. Hull-down works perfectly well in CM.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Charles, what I'm talking about is that LOS sometimes isn't right from the TC's perspective. I don't know where LOS is calculated from in a vehicle but certainly it isn't calculated from the TC's head...I've got a very obvious picture about this that I sent to CEO. He agreed. I don't know why, somehow this issue has never been discussed on this board(did an extensive search...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 PL - it's calculated (roughly) from the level of a vehicle's main gun. Otherwise you'd get situations where you could see but not shoot. The proper term for this is "turret down" (not "hull down") and is not simulated in CM. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer-Leader Posted May 31, 2000 Share Posted May 31, 2000 Thanks for clarifying this, Charles. It's been worrying me for way too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk-vfa201 Posted June 1, 2000 Share Posted June 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: PL - it's calculated (roughly) from the level of a vehicle's main gun. Otherwise you'd get situations where you could see but not shoot. Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well this is confusing. If the shooting arc is unobstructed, even if there is no direct LOS from the main gun I should be able to shoot if my TC has LOS to a target. It still looks like being a compromise but being able to see the target and unable to shoot is very unlikely. What is the picture you have in mind? projectiles do follow ballistic trajectories, certainly I do not need to have LOS from the main gun to be able to shoot a target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KwazyDog Posted June 1, 2000 Share Posted June 1, 2000 Ummmmmmmm, BUT you gunner wont be able to see the target with his optics if its behind a hill??? So what you are suggesting is that tanks should be able to indirect fire using the TC as the spotter? This is something that was actually discussed some time ago, but it was considered a fairly uncommon practice from all accounts I believe..... [This message has been edited by KwazyDog (edited 05-31-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawk-vfa201 Posted June 1, 2000 Share Posted June 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KwazyDog: So what you are suggesting is that tanks should be able to indirect fire using the TC as the spotter? ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Indeed, at least for Area Target. I do not expect pinpoint precision as the gunner has no optics available for the shot but the TC could provide angle and distance. I am no expert on this but I do not see why not, especially against fortifications/buildings, or barrage fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 1, 2000 Share Posted June 1, 2000 Seahawk, PanzerLeader was referring to a term known as "turret down" where a tank is almost totally shielded from view by a terrain feature. Only the very top of the turret, or sometimes only the commander standing up in the turret, is visible to the enemy. This allows the tank to spot enemies, but (for the most part) not be fired upon. Of course, its own gun is blocked by the same terrain feature so it really can't fire back from this position (a couple of degrees of angle, at most, won't allow lobbing shells over the obstruction - at least not for direct fire). The more common position is "hull down", where the body (hull) of the tank is obstructed from view and fire, but the turret and gun are high up enough to be "clear". This means the turret can be hit by enemy fire, but the tank is able to shoot, and its silhouette is much smaller than usual since the hull is protected. You can do this in Combat Mission. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CEO Posted June 1, 2000 Share Posted June 1, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Seahawk, PanzerLeader was referring to a term known as "turret down" where a tank is almost totally shielded from view by a terrain feature. Only the very top of the turret, or sometimes only the commander standing up in the turret, is visible to the enemy. This allows the tank to spot enemies, but (for the most part) not be fired upon. Of course, its own gun is blocked by the same terrain feature so it really can't fire back from this position (a couple of degrees of angle, at most, won't allow lobbing shells over the obstruction - at least not for direct fire). The more common position is "hull down", where the body (hull) of the tank is obstructed from view and fire, but the turret and gun are high up enough to be "clear". This means the turret can be hit by enemy fire, but the tank is able to shoot, and its silhouette is much smaller than usual since the hull is protected. You can do this in Combat Mission. Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I guess having a LOS for the TC and a LOS for the gunner would tax the CPU alot (okay folks, we just doubled ALL AFV LOS calculations). That would also affect the AI also I would guess. The AI would have to determine if it wants to creep up the hill and risk being shot, etc. Maybe when everyone has dual CPU's running at 2 GHz, then EVERYTHING (kitchen sink included) will be there. PS: My prediction is that CM will be THE greatest game released this year, bar none. It will take all awards from all places. Anxiously (wow did I spell that! ) waiting for CM to appear in the mail. Erick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts