LOS question

[Dschugaschwili]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Fionn posted on CMHQ:

NOTHING is so threatening to an experienced player as a seemingly empty treeline.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is there a good rule of thumb for estimating the line of sight from one point to another without having a unit in this place. It seems I can't position mortars, MGs, ... correctly on the first (and sometimes second or third) try. Most of the time they just can't shoot at anything.

On the other hand, if I prepare for an assault I always draw fire before I even start charging forward.

By the way, if anyone is willing to play a PBEM game with me, let me know.

Warning: Such a game can take a long time because I'm somewhat limited in my internet access (only at the university, so don't expect more than one email per day, and no mails at the weekend ) because I'm still not willing to pay for a private internet access (pretty expensive in Germany )

Dschugaschwili

[This message has been edited by Dschugaschwili (edited 01-19-2000).]

[Thomm]

Big problem, difficult to solve !

There should be some "movement to visual contact" order. But maybe this is implicitly contained in one of the existing orders as the interest in engaging the enemy. So if you set up the path such that the last movement order will cause the unit to engage the first target it sees, then this could be a work-around. On the other hand, I sometimes just want to set up a well-concealed fire base and not start shooting right away. How could I do this except with LOS experience and a move/hide command combo.

I still vote for the possibility to use the LOS tool from waypoints. This was objected because of fog-of-war considerations, but I do not accept this reasoning as long as it is possible to move the camera around freely across the map.

LOS tool from waypoints !

Think about the possibilities !

Regards, Thomm

[Moon]

Thomm, with all respect, what you're saying is "why not make an unrealistic feature even more unrealistic", and that's something I personally wouldn't accept. Moving around the 3D battlefield indeed provides too much intel for the player, but how do you want to prevent this? No wargame in existance that I know of is able to do this. Some wargames I know, on the other hand, allow you to check LOS from every hex on the map, and I find that extremely questionable.

CM allows you to look around, but you cannot spot the perfect ambush spot or jump off point ahead of your position. You're restricted to best judgement, and IMO that is as good as it gets and a big advantage over most other wargames.

If you want to move to set-up a concealed firebase ("well concealed" would take much more time than available in the average CM battle I guess), make sure your approached is out of LOS of enemy units and CRAWL the last part. The LOS tool tells you where the LOS is obstructed (at the point where the red and black line merge), and you can use this to pinpoint pretty exactly where you need to be juuusst to get within LOS.

Example: you check the LOS of a unit in woods. After selecting the LOS tool, you mov the cursor towards the edge of the woods. You get a range display (say, 50m). You see also that the LOS line is black for approx. the last 10 meters. In other words, what you need to do is move 10 meters forward towards the edge of the woods and you'll be able to look outside. Simple and effective once you know how to do it, IMO.

[Dschugaschwili]

So that means the LOS system works about like this:

Certain terrain types (like scattered trees, woods, heavy woods, houses, ...) reduce the visibility along a line running through them by a certain amount per meter, and when visibility reachees zero, the LOS along that line is blocked from that point on.

In that case your method would work correctly, however, if the calculation is more complex, you would have to move more carefully.

Anyways, I would really like to have a feature like "hunt" for infantry, telling them to move until they have LOS to a certain spot on the map. That would really help when setting up MGs, mortars, ...

Dschugaschwili

[Thomm]

Dear Moon !

You wrote: "Moving around the 3D battlefield indeed provides too much intel for the player, but how do you want to prevent this?"

Well, months ago I have suggested a solution for this: Just make the camera level depend on the closest friendly unit, i.e. in enemy territory just allow view level >= 4 whereas close to a friendly unit allow view levels down to 1. The former would correspond to the "map view" I suppose every commander had. Even back in WW II.

You wrote: "You're restricted to best judgement"

Yes, but this restriction comes from the abstraction of the terrain and the available commands. A "Movement to visual contact" command would solve my problem. On the other hand if there was ANY graphical representation or information about how the terrain is abstracted it would also give me the knowledge you suggest I should aquire with experience. Actually I could do this myself: place a unit in different kinds of woods and see how far they can see. Could be included in the manual, as well.

You wrote: "The LOS tool tells you where the LOS is obstructed"

Yes, but before you have to move a unit there. If they arrive in the first seconds of the new turn they will be standing around for almost one minute until I can perform the LOS check and waypoint adjustment you suggest.

You wrote: You see also that the LOS line is black for approx. the last 10 meters. In other words, what you need to do is move 10 meters forward towards the edge of the woods and you'll be able to look outside.

Okay ! And now I ask you the following: since the unit cannot see the edge of the wood, how should it know how far it has to advance ? Is this not exactly as gamey as the LOS-from-waypoint thing ? It is just a work-around for something that is missing, because the unit does not know of my intention to put it in a place where they can attack without being spotted or fired upon easily. This is such an essential element of moving around on the battlefield. It should not be left to guessing or "experience".

Regards,

Thomm

[Thomm]

I think I found a solution !

Why not allow the use of the LOS tool from waypoints, but <font size=+2>with a restricted range</font> ?!?

Let me explain: You want to move a forward observer to the edge of a "heavy wood", such that he can observe a target, but remain in the cover of the wood:

1. You place a waypoint in the wood.
2. You select the waypoint.
3. You press [L] for the LOS tool.
4. You can drag around the line-of-sight, but it is automatically truncated at, say, 30 meters.
5. You see that LOS is broken inside the forest.
6. You can adjust the waypoint.

By repeating this procedure you will find the optimum position for your MG or FO team, but you will not gain any LOS information other than in the close vicinity of the waypoint ! No long-range LOS checks would be possible so the same degree of uncertainty as in the current version would be retained, but you could position your teams more efficiently in woods, houses, ...

I think this may be an easy and elegant solution with a minimized amount of extra program code .

Thanks for reading,

Thomm

[Moon]

Hi Thomm!

You wrote: "Just make the camera level depend on the closest friendly unit, i.e. in enemy territory just allow view level >= 4 whereas close to a friendly unit allow view levels down to 1."

Hmm, what does that change? You can still see all the way to the other side of the map. And how close to a friendly unit would you allow view level 1? What if that unit is in open ground and has perfect view for 500 meters? You'd create many new problems for a small gain IMO.

"Yes, but this restriction comes from the abstraction of the terrain and the available commands."

Wherever it comes from, it realistically simulates the problems of a platoon leader or company CO to formulate a battle plan and have his guys execute it. CM is not Rainbow Six and your soldiers are not SWAT teams.

"Yes, but before you have to move a unit there. If they arrive in the first seconds of the new turn they will be standing around for almost one minute until I can perform the LOS check and waypoint adjustment you suggest."

Yep, exactly and this is very much intended so. Again, CM is not Rainbow Six - it takes time to coordinate 40+ soldiers of a platoon.

"since the unit cannot see the edge of the wood, how should it know how far it has to advance ? Is this not exactly as gamey as the LOS-from-waypoint thing ?"

Well, maybe, but there is a big difference - the current LOS system is in, the LOS-from-waypoint thing is not. So when the LOS-from-waypoint thing is only "just as gamey", BTS shouldn't spend time with it IMO. BTW, I think the LOS-from-waypoint solution is not gamey - it's just plain unrealistic. You need to be there to see what you can see. If you're not there, you can't see what you can see - clear?

"This is such an essential element of moving around on the battlefield. It should not be left to guessing or "experience"."

I have a contrary opinion - only when left to guessing and experience can some extremely essential elements of WWII battle be incorporated into the game in a realistic way. As soon as you have too much control, a battle of CM will play like an extremely well timed hostage rescue plan executed by SWAT teams. World War Two warfare is completely different from the latter, and the level of control the battlefield commander has is limited at best. The problem lies not with CM, it lies with the fact that sneaking up a platoon (40+ men) to the edge of woods and have them hide, hold their fire until the very second that you want them to open up - all during the course of a running battle - is unrealistic.

"Thomm I think I found a solution !

Why not allow the use of the LOS tool from waypoints, but with a restricted range ?!?"

I can achieve what you describe in your example with the current system already. But I can use your system to gain additional unrealistic advantages. NOTHING will change my opinion - you should be able to check LOS only when you're in that location. Anything else is gamey

[Thomm]

Dear Moon !

Thanks for your comments ! I am really disappointed that I cannot convince you with my idea, because I think it is a good one. But please allow me to make some comments:

With regard to view level restrictions you wrote: You can still see all the way to the other side of the map.

I do not consider this unrealistic, because somebody in my battalion is supposed to have a map of the battlefield. What I want to prevent with the height level restriction is that one checks LOS by moving around at eye-level with the camera. This is something we both oppose ! (Although this SWAT style planning is a quite fascinating aspect of the game as it is now).

You wrote: You need to be there to see what you can see.

But even when I am there I do not see what I see, because the woods/buildings are abstracted mathematically (homogenized we would call it). I need an extra tool to see what I can see. I ask for nothing more than a slight extension of the capabilities of this tool for visualization purposes !

You wrote: ...hold their fire until the very second that you want them to open up - all during the course of a running battle - is unrealistic.

I agree . Yet it is very well possible with the current system to do this with move/hide commands, isn't it ? But this does not touch the LOS problem .

In the same sentence you wrote: "sneaking up a platoon (40+ men) to the edge of woods and have them hide ... "

I, as a real-life commander, have the possibility to tell my unit: "Move to the edge of the woods and find a good spotting/firing position !". As a commander in Combat Mission, I only can order: "Move to that exact position in the wood and then we will see". Do you think this is more realistic compared to the first order ? If I was a FO and somebody ordered me to move to the center of a forest and then wait for somebody to tell me where I could see the enemy from, I would have severe doubts in his sanity !

You wrote: "I can achieve what you describe in your example with the current system already. But I can use your system to gain additional unrealistic advantages."

This is self-contradictory, in my opinion.

Thanks in advance for your comments

Regards, Thomm

[Moon]

Hi Thomm!

"Thanks for your comments ! I am really disappointed that I cannot convince you with my idea, because I think it is a good one."

Just want to make sure that you understand that what I am voicing is my opinion only - BTS might be listening and a "move to contact" order for infantry might be in tomorrow - you never know with these guys

Thanks, Thomm, also for this nice little discussion, doesn't happen to often on the net that you can do that, disagree and not end up in a flame war.

"What I want to prevent with the height level restriction is that one checks LOS by moving around at eye-level with the camera."

Isn't this already severely restricted by the limitation of "eyeballing" the map?

"But even when I am there I do not see what I see, because the woods/buildings are abstracted mathematically"

That's what the LOS tool is for. You can check the exact LOS with it AFTER you walked over there. In other words - you eyeball, you estimate, you walk over there and are proven right or wrong, then you adjust. Pretty realistic, isn't it?

"I agree. Yet it is very well possible with the current system to do this with move/hide commands, isn't it ? But this does not touch the LOS problem."

Yes, you can move and issue a hide command. But you will not be sure about the outcome, and you shouldn't IMO.

"I, as a real-life commander, have the possibility to tell my unit: "Move to the edge of the woods and find a good spotting/firing position !". As a commander in Combat Mission, I only can order: "Move to that exact position in the wood and then we will see"."

As a company commander you could also order a unit to "go and destroy that King Tiger!" But giving you such a command in CM would take away all the fun. It's the player's responsibility to do this and I wouldn't want the computer to take it away from me.

Besides, do not forget the tactical AI. It can re-position your units into better cover if needed.

"This is self-contradictory, in my opinion."

I don't see how. What I am saying is that the current system, while not perfectly realistic (nothing can be in a game) is better and more realistic than what you are suggesting (the LOS-from-waypoint solution).

I think we can go on and on about this without reaching an agreement other than to disagree. I can see where your suggestions are coming from - CM limits the ability of the player to control everything. This total control is a relict from the traditional I GO U GO games, I'd say, where as the player you were able to control every single aspect - where to move, when to move, checking LOS etc. Especially ASL has done more harm than good in this area IMO. Combat is not like that and Combat Mission is not trying to be like that - it deliberately takes away part of the control from the player. You are NOT able to do everything you'd like to do for a reason.

This, at least, is how I interpret the current CM engine with its possibilities and limitations. And after playing it for almost a year, I must say that I find it mixing well with the overall design concept of the game.

Thanks, Thomm, for listening to my comments for what they're worth Discussions like these are always a good reality-check and the suggestions of the board members (if incorporated or not) are the main reason why CM, IMO, will be such a good game.

[Thomm]

Dear Moon !

Our discussion has reached a stage where we are both running out of additional arguments and where we would need external input or opinions (BTS ?) to proceed. As it is, I do not share your concern about the violation of realism by my idea. But it is down to our personal opinions now, just as you wrote yourself. So why not make it optional ?!

You wrote: "Isn't this already severely restricted by the limitation of "eyeballing" the map?"

Is it possible that this is a feature which is in the full version but not in the demo ? In the demo I can move whereever I want at level 1, can't I ?

You wrote: "As a company commander you could also order a unit to "go and destroy that King Tiger!" But giving you such a command in CM would take away all the fun. It's the player's responsibility to do this and I wouldn't want the computer to take it away from me.

I do not understand this paragraph . What is the difference between "issuing a commando" and "being responsible" ?

I want to keep this post short and just re-state my standpoint:

I would appreciate the ability to use the LOS tool within a limited range (e.g. 20m) of a way-point as a substitute for a non-existing "Movement to visual contact" command in woods/buildings.

In any case, thanks for the discussion !

Regards, Thomm

P.S.: As far as "cost" of the implementation is concerned, have you read about the possibility of playing CM on two computers with one CD that BTS wants to add ?! Now that will take a bunch of new code ! My suggestion appears to be pretty minor compared to this programming/degugging task !

[Fionn]

Thomm,

The big difference is that spawning will result in a lot of extra sales since its a feature a lot of people look for...

This thing you discuss won't and at this stage its pretty much feature freeze time you know?

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Thomm]

Moon, help !!!

Fionn starts to flame me !!

[Neutral Party]

One of the points that was raised in this discussion struck a chord with me.

Thomm said "But even when I am there I do not see what I see, because the woods/buildings are abstracted mathematically"

Moon replied "That's what the LOS tool is for. You can check the exact LOS with it AFTER you walked over there. In other words - you eyeball, you estimate, you walk over there and are proven right or wrong, then you adjust. Pretty realistic, isn't it?"

I've got to agree with Thomm on this one. Several times I have had a AFV or squad at a gap in the treeline or at the edge of woods and I think OK I've got to nudge it a bit this way in order to see out or through the gap. I issue the order, a minute passes and then I still can't see out or through. The problem is that because the woods are abstracted mathematically, it is difficult to know how to optimally adjust position - what you see isn't what is there. I think a "hunt"-type command for infantry would help, but this is not precisely what is required. Ideally I would like to order this unit to move cautiously until it can see out of this wood then stop.

See what ? - I hear you ask. This is where the thing gets more complex and maybe becomes unworkable. Some enemy units may have already been spotted by other friendly units, some may be spotted by the "hunting" unit and some may remain hidden. The idea of calculating LOS to unseen units is a major no-no IMHO.

Joe

[Moon]

Hehe... I think you haven't seen what it looks like when Fionn really starts flaming Nah, no worries, he's a nice guy... usually

"So why not make it optional?"

That's not for me to decide.

"In the demo I can move whereever I want at level 1, can't I?"

Same is true for the full version. But as you said yourself, the level 1 view only gives you a limited amount of info due to SOME GRAPHICAL terrain abstractions.

"I do not understand this paragraph..."

What I tried to say is, that being able to order your troops to find the best possible ambush position all by themselves, would be similar to having an order "destroy that King Tiger". The player is responsible to issue orders so that his troops are in the best possible ambush positions and he is responsible for issuing a series of orders to make sure that the King Tiger is destroyed.

Opinion - counteropinion. Now let's rest the case and put it in the hands of the people to decide, BTS.

[Fionn]

LOL. Thomm is just pulling your leg Martin.

He knows me well enough to know I have not begun to flame him... YET !

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

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers