Feature Request: Point Line-of-Site

[Dr Dan]

Hi all! Before getting into the "flaming stew", I would like to say that CM is the best computer game I have ever played. Actually, it may be the best piece of computer software I have ever seen. Certainly, BTS employs the finest customer service model around. Yes, I have been assimilated.

Frustrated, he comes out of Lurker Mode. I DID perform a search on this topic, noting some discussion pro and con, but I'd like to revisit it anyway. I would like to have a point-line-of-sight capability added to the game - i.e. the ability to click at a place on the map and extend the line-of-sight "line" (analogous to the way sight lines are checked from units). I realize that such capability is considered by some to be too "God-like," offering the player more information than a real commander would have. I would agree except for the "unreality" that necessarily exists in the world of the game due to the limitations of current computing power. To wit:

1. The 3D Map is NOT WYSIWYG. Thus, for example, I cannot set my view to "1"

and look around the way a real-world commander might and expect to see what is

really there. How can I know that the "woods" that I can clearly see through to that enemy tank, make it impossible for my units to target it? On maps with lots

of trees it can be enormously frustrating trying to determine proper position.

2. The AI can see perfectly because it uses the true map in abstract mathematical form. Actually, this may be as close to "cheating" as the AI comes. It has quite an advantage over a human player. Just watch for a few minutes as the AI finds that tiny bit of land that your 10 carefully placed, cross-targeted units cannot reach.

Note: The AI SHOULD be so capable; I merely want some help trying to catch-up.

I am finding it increasingly tedious to play certain scenarios/operations, especially those with numerous areas of woods/tall trees/scattered trees, as well as lots of little terrain "bumps" etc. If large numbers of units must be directed, we must either have very long turns or make lots of guesses which need subsequent correction (if the units are still alive).

You did a beautiful job fixing the Tank AI targeting issues. Cursing due to errant Tiger Turret Swivel is way down. Now, can you please help us see better too? Yep, its definitely a vision thing.

P.S. Sorry for the fatigue induced error - I want better SIGHT, not better SITES (most of which are actually very nice)

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dr Dan (edited 09-01-2000).]

[This message has been edited by Dr Dan (edited 09-01-2000).]

[Dr Dan]

Rotate. Or is nobody interested in this topic?

[Bastables]

Its been talked about before, you should try a search.

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

I cannot eat these eggs, they are of completely different sizes.

[Phoenix]

Not gonna happen. You say you already searched this so you have seen BTS's explanation as to why it's not in, and won't be added.

It's completely unrealistic to be able to go and prescout a LOS before you move the unit there. I for one would not want it added. For setting up a scenerio yes, it makes sense. But once the battle is going no. It would also make multiplayer games take even longer than they already do. Some guys would spend forever scouting for perfect locations to move their guys. Come on, this is chaos, battle, MOVE OUT men. Get over to those trees! No way in hell a commander knows exactly what the LOS is from a site they haven't been to yet.

As to the AI being able to find "perfect spots". I find I get the PC in cross fires all the time so it's obviously not that good at it.

Anyway, it's not going to be added, and I for one am happy with that.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Anyway, it's not going to be added, and I for one am happy with that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen to that. I actually quite enjoy the uncertainty inherent in the system.

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

Andreas

[KiloIndiaAlpha]

Imagine I select a unit and zoom in with the '1 key', I get to see what the unit can see? yes?

If so does the same apply if a piece of ground is 'selected'. i.e will the '1 key' allow you to see what a unit would see if it was in that position?

[IntelWeenie]

Why not amend this request to include a bit more TacAI input when moving units? I find the TacAI to be quite proficient at finding "that perfect spot", but player's units will slavishly adhere to the player's orders (unless the TacAI takes over, which is not all the time). Why not let the TacAI adjust a unit's movement if it "sees" a better position (within a very few meters of a movement waypoint, say 1-5)?

I know lots of players like having absolute control over their troops and might worry about the TacAI making choices they would not. How many of you feel this way? BTS & beta testers, do you have any comments about this compared to the level of TacAI input already in the game?

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Dr Dan]

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

It's completely unrealistic to be able to go and prescout a LOS before you move the unit there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But don't we all prescout locations, using whatever methods are available - e.g. different views, etc. You don't just move your units at random, you select locations to respond to threats, advance toward objectives, and so on. There is a plan, with destinations ALWAYS PRESCOUTED. (An exception would be games played entirely using the '1' view - that IS realistic)

I completely understand the desire for realism and uncertainty; however, as good as CM is at simulating the "real world" it still is an approximation with compromises to make it playable. One of the limitations is that what you appear to see looking across a map does not correspond to what you actually should see. The feature I am asking for allows the player to "see" what the true terrain respresents. This is actually quite realistic; eyes which deceive are replaced with "eyes" that see in a manner better suited to CM's current world.

I like this game a lot. I'm merely trying to find a way to deal with an issue which limits that enjoyment, much as the tank targeting problem drove many of us to the edge . Maybe somebody can suggest an alternative.

I know, how about special glasses that translate from the abstract mathematical domain of the AI to human vision! Charles do you do hardware?

Dan

[David Aitken]

I think the way the game currently works makes a lot of sense. Sure you pre-scout locations before you move your men, but as you've said, what you see is not necessarily what you get. This is a good representation of having a map of the terrain - knowing rougly what the layout is, but not exactly. In order to get exact feedback, you need to have your men in the appropriate location. There is no logic in allowing you, godlike, to get exact information about any aspect of the map you wish.

Sure, in reality, you wouldn't get nearly as good a feel for terrain you haven't visited as you do in CM. But this is a compromise for the sake of gameplay, and a lot of what you see is still a matter of opinion. You should certainly not be able to take a tape measure to the map as though it were a model in front of you.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[David Aitken]

IntelWeenie wrote:

> Why not let the TacAI adjust a unit's movement if it "sees" a better position (within a very few meters of a movement waypoint, say 1-5)?

I reckon this would cause more problems than it solves. Take two examples:

1) The casual player. This kind of player would most benefit from a bit of assistance from the TacAI when relocating units. However, if they're not concerned about precisely where their units end up, they can afford to make sure they move their units well into cover. The TacAI would never kick in, because units would usually be directed to the middle of a terrain tile.

2) The fanatical player. This kind of player must position their units exactly. They would freak out of the TacAI overrode their movement orders. Instead of just moving units into woods or a building, this kind of player must move them to the very edge of the woods, or the very corner of the building, or just behind a wall. It's these kinds of borderline positions where the TacAI would kick in, but also where it would be least welcome. If there's any doubt about where a unit is, chances are it's meant to be exactly there.

I hope this conveys my point.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[IntelWeenie]

Points well taken, David.

1) Had not considered an increase in laziness when plotting movement. However, might it not also help show novice players where better to locate their troops' positions?

2) Yes, I fear this is the killer for my idea. But if it's a good position to begin with, the TacAI should not adjust it, shouldn't it?

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

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[Dr Dan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

Sure, in reality, you wouldn't get nearly as good a feel for terrain you haven't visited as you do in CM. But this is a compromise for the sake of gameplay, and a lot of what you see is still a matter of opinion. You should certainly not be able to take a tape measure to the map as though it were a model in front of you.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess it all comes down to compromise with BTS having the final say in how the CM world is constructed. However, bearing in mind that it IS still a game and an approximation of something real, what is wrong with making scouting a little easier - i.e. making a different compromise to enhance gameplay? Is it really any less realistic than the other compromises made? Besides, isn't the goal to have fun?

Dan

[Phoenix]

=========================

But don't we all prescout locations, using whatever methods are available - e.g. different views, etc. You don't just move your units at random, you select locations to respond to threats, advance toward objectives, and so on.

=========================

Actually, I rarely do a lot of pre-scouting before I move units. Yeah, I "take a look" at a slope for hull down moves etc. But not too often for infantry. I prefer to play the game in a "fluid" fashion. Not spending large amounts of time figuring out possible LOS issues before moving. It must be working too, I haven't lost to the AI in at least 20 battles.

==========================

One of the limitations is that what you appear to see looking across a map does not correspond to what you actually should see.

==========================

And I think that's part of the key to the fun of the game. You don't know exactly what position is "perfect" and exactly what the terrain is. I think it *adds* to the realism. Adding the feature you suggest would detract from it, and from the fun IMHO.

=========================

The feature I am asking for allows the player to "see" what the true terrain respresents. This is actually quite realistic; eyes which deceive are replaced with "eyes" that see in a manner better suited to CM's current world.

======================

I don't see how it's more realistic. To be able to prescout a position with 100% perfection (using the LOS tool) does not sound realistic to me.

============================

I like this game a lot. I'm merely trying to find a way to deal with an issue which limits that enjoyment, much as the tank targeting problem drove many of us to the edge . Maybe somebody can suggest an alternative.

=============================

You need to rephase that to read:

"which limits MY enjoyment."

Remember, you're not speaking for the majority of the people playing the game. If this was an issue that people were really hot about you'd see constant posts on it. Like the targeting issue was. The fact is that most people do like how LOS works right now.

A key point here -

The tank targeting issue was a *problem*. This LOS issue is a deliberate game design decision from BTS. Just as the WEGO system is a game design decision. Some people may not

like it, but it's the way it is because it's how BTS wanted it. The tank/crew targeting issue was not something BTS designed into the game.

Anyway, enough of my rambling. The bottom line is yerrr just gonna have to get used to it Im afraid.

[Seanachai]

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

2) Yes, I fear this is the killer for my idea. But if it's a good position to begin with, the TacAI should not adjust it, shouldn't it?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're asking the TacAI to 'judge' what is a good position, but good for what? Being in cover? Getting the right angle to shoot at another unit? Cover an area against enemy movement? You know why you are putting a unit where you do, and what you're attempting to do with it. The TacAI cannot know this. If you give it permission to move your units to what it thinks is the best position, be prepared to spend a lot of time screaming: Not there! Not there! What are you thinking!!! I don't think this is simply an issue of not wanting to give up control over units, but a more significant one of how would the TacAI know what it is you're trying to achieve.

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

After witnessing exceptional bravery from his Celtic mercenaries, Alexander the Great called them to him and asked if there was anything they feared. They told him nothing, except that the sky might fall on their heads.

[This message has been edited by Seanachai (edited 09-01-2000).]

[David Aitken]

Dr Dan wrote:

> Is it really any less realistic than the other compromises made?

The compromise I'm talking about, is the fact that the game does not prevent you from placing the camera in a position where you have no troops. This is something that would simply be impractical to remove.

What you're talking about is adding a feature which has no rational basis. This is not a compromise.

> Besides, isn't the goal to have fun?

I agree, but the fun comes from the challenge of a realistic simulation, not from having lots of bells and whistles to play with. =)

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Ron]

You can 'see' exactly what your units see from their present location with the LOS tool, always. There is no compromise or approximation to this. To suggest you as the player should be able to see with certainty all points on the map before any of your units got there is unrealistic to say the least.

Sure scouting a map beforehand for safe avenues of approach etc. is done, but until your troops are there, you won't know with 100% certainty if it was truly covered or not. The 3D terrain gives a very good rough approximation of this, it shouldn't be more than that IMO. To make it an exact thing as you suggest would take away a lot of the flavour of the game.

Ron

[weasel]

I don't expect it to happen, but I just want to mention that Dr. Dan isn't alone; I too would very much like this feature.

The disjunction between the on-screen world and the underlying model is an irritant to me. The "point LOS" tool would go a long way toward fixing that.

Of course, the best solution would be a complete photo-realistic on-screen world, but I don't think we're going to get that anytime soon...

[Giftig]

"However, bearing in mind that it IS still a game and an approximation of something real, what is wrong with making scouting a little easier - i.e. making a different compromise to enhance gameplay?"

In all this discussion, and reading of the others, I think you miss an essential point. The only "pre-scouting" info the planning guys get before-hand will be second-hand at best: from maps, from reports made by someone who has been there, etc. And once on the scene, it's hard to judge from several hundred meters away, or over a hill, or inside a building, whether you want to put guys 15 meters inside the tree line, or only 5.

I feel that the "1" and "2" views give you an approximation that is accurate *to* *this* *level*. When you allow point-to-point exact assessment of LOS, you literally exceed any reasonable real world foreknowledge available. In effect, you would have to run someone out to each point with a radio and a clear goal just to *gather* that info, before or during the game. It really exceeds even arguable realism and moves into the realm of impossible knowledge. The only exception I can see is for a prepared defense, where the command elements can literally walk the battlefield; this kind of set-piece encounter is probably the least likely for a WWII conflict, assuming as it does days or more of undisturbed access to the position and the mapping of every little terrain obstruction, with terrain cards for every fixed weapon and the ranges all mapped out.

The time it takes to settle into a position usefully is also a reflection of the skill of the commander. "Okay, Lt. Jones, take your men and set up in the treeline over there. I want you to prepare an ambush on the road; we might have bad people coming through there in

a few minutes." If Lt. Jones eyeballs it and sends troops in, then finds out that he's got them too close to the road and hence visible, he's now got a tactical problem to deal with - just like in real life. But with Magic LOS String, this would never happen, not even in a night airdrop, or on a rainy day with limited visibility...

It just ain't right...And furthermore, I don't think it would be as much *fun*...

[David Aitken]

weasel wrote:

> The disjunction between the on-screen world and the underlying model is an irritant to me. The "point LOS" tool would go a long way toward fixing that.

A long way? The ability to trace exact LOS from point A to point B would go a long way towards compensating for the game's graphical inaccuracy? Obviously my definition of a 'long way' differs greatly from yours.

You can already get right down into the scenery, to any point you're about to send your troops, to see what they might be able to see when they get there. Why would an LOS tool make such a difference?

The most complicated situation that comes to mind, is where you're wondering whether you have LOS through trees, or over trees to something, say a building, beyond. It is safe to assume that you can't see through more than a tile or two of trees, and if you're looking over trees, the game's modelling, though inherently inaccurate, gives you as good an idea as you'd need.

The fact is, if you find you've got LOS between point A and point B, and you send your men to point A, they won't end up at precisely the spot from which you traced LOS. If they're just a couple of metres away from point A, they might lose LOS to point B. The only relevant LOS is what your men can see from their current positions.

And anyway (Dr Dan), I don't buy the argument for being allowed an LOS tool. In the realism stakes, the way it is makes perfect sense. In reality, a commander would not be able to look and see what is really there on the battlefield, because he wouldn't be there. He would look at his map, order his men to a given location, and hope they could see their objective. If they reported back that they didn't have LOS, he would order them to a new position and try again.

The only credible argument is that the AI effectively has an LOS tool. I don't know whether it maneuvres on the basis of LOS or not. But considering the skills of the AI, this wouldn't be an unfair advantage. Even if it does use accurate LOS calculations, it doesn't have the human power of intuition, so it needs all the help it can get.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[weasel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

weasel wrote:

> The disjunction between the on-screen world and the underlying model is an irritant to me. The "point LOS" tool would go a long way toward fixing that.

A long way? The ability to trace exact LOS from point A to point B would go a long way towards compensating for the game's graphical inaccuracy? Obviously my definition of a 'long way' differs greatly from yours.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Apparently so.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

You can already get right down into the scenery, to any point you're about to send your troops, to see what they might be able to see when they get there. Why would an LOS tool make such a difference?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you can indeed see what they might be able to see, but you certainly can't see what they will be able to see, for various well-known reasons (trees/smoke/buildings that aren't the size they appear/vehicles that don't affect LOS).

Is a magic string realistic? Probably not, but then neither is the ability to zoom about the map at will. And that's fine by me. I would like, and use, a magic string anyway.

It appears I'm in a minority here, and I have no expectation that BTS will either add a magic string or address any of the various other LOS issues (I've ranted about this before). And that's fine by me too; it certainly won't keep me from playing this fine game.

Mostly, since the thread seemed to have a large component of "jump on Dr. Dan", I wanted to point out that he's not alone.

[David Aitken]

weasel wrote:

> Well, you can indeed see what they might be able to see, but you certainly can't see what they will be able to see, for various well-known reasons

The point I'm making is, you can already see far more than you would in reality. The inaccuracy of what you see is comparable to the inaccuracy of a printed map, but what you see is much more informative than a map - so in being inaccurate it makes perfect sense, and if anything it should be less accurate.

> Is a magic string realistic? Probably not, but then neither is the ability to zoom about the map at will.

As I've said to Dr Dan, it would be impractical to prevent you from zooming around a map. This is a necessary compromise. Adding an LOS tool would be a new feature, and one which has no basis in reality.

In other words, you're looking at information the game gives you which you shouldn't really get at all, and requesting that you be allowed to measure it more accurately. Flawed argument, I'm afraid.

I wouldn't endorse inaccuracy, but there is actually a 'terrain fog of war' function in the game, something some people have been requesting. You're allowed to see the whole map in detail, which is unrealistic - but it's not entirely accurate. You only get accurate feedback from your men, which makes a lot of sense. This is why the LOS tool should be restricted to your units.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[weasel]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

As I've said to Dr Dan, it would be impractical to prevent you from zooming around a map. This is a necessary compromise. Adding an LOS tool would be a new feature, and one which has no basis in reality.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's by no means impractical; it would be entirely possible to restrict your viewpoints to the "locked over the shoulder" (TAB) view from your in-command units. This would mean that you couldn't order your units to move to a point out of LOS of all your units with the current orders interface, but I'm sure that an interface allowing orders of the form "move 100 yards NNE" could easily be devised.

This would, IMHO, be much more realistic than the current God's-eye-view system. It would also be almost completely unplayable (at least for me), and I'm glad that BTS made the decision to allow me access to information which would not be available to a real commander in the field.

But please note that it is a design decision, not a consequence of any other part of the game, nor a "necessary compromise". It was done purely to make the game more playable.

So it would indeed be a new feature with no basis in reality. But we already have at least one huge feature with no basis in reality, which was included for no reason other than the player's convienience.

Thus, why not add another?

[David Aitken]

weasel wrote:

> But we already have at least one huge feature with no basis in reality, which was included for no reason other than the player's convienience.

You can't compare camera movement with an LOS tool. Camera movement is hardly a self-contained 'feature' like an LOS tool - it's one of the most fundamental aspects of the game. As you say, the alternative - locking the view at 'shoulder' level - would make the game practically unplayable.

An LOS tool serves one purpose only, and a purpose which (1) is not at all necessary, (2) would create an anomaly in the game's concept, and (3) has no basis in reality.

The basic design concept of Combat Mission is obviously unrealistic, in order to make it an enjoyable game. But the details within this structure are as realistic and rational as possible. An LOS tool is a detail, and one which has no place in the game.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Dr Dan]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

As I've said to Dr Dan, it would be impractical to prevent you from zooming around a map. This is a necessary compromise. Adding an LOS tool would be a new feature, and one which has no basis in reality.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why is it impractical to prevent you from zooming around the map? Currently, it is possible to play completely in '1' view, switching between units using keyboard shortcuts. Well, that's not realisic either is it, since you shouldn't be able to even SEE some of your units?

You readily accept one compromise in the interest of gameplay, but just as readily reject another. Neither has a basis in reality, both exist to make the world of the game more accessible.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

In other words, you're looking at information the game gives you which you shouldn't really get at all, and requesting that you be allowed to measure it more accurately. Flawed argument, I'm afraid.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Flawed in what way? This is a GAME. It exists in a virtual world that already makes numerous compromises (of reality) in order to be playable, as well as function on current computer hardware. I am not asking that the world be altered in any way; I am simply requesting a tool that would for many, I believe, make the game more fun/easier to play. One MIGHT argue that having ANY LOS tool, even from your own units, is flawed and yields too much information. Further, why should we be allowed to give precise movement orders to our units? And, what commander tells his troops EXACTLY whom to target?

It really boils down to which compromises you are willing to accept. I appreciate your desire for the most realistic experience possible, although I'm not sure taking on the role of a true commander in the field would be much fun. This tool that some of us would like is simply an additional compromise, one that aids us in interpreting this unique world know as Combat Mission.

Even if such a tool were added to the game, you wouldn't be required to use it. I am not trying to ruin your game, just seeking to enhance the one I play.

Hey Weasel, others, I KNOW I am not alone in requesting this -- I think the division is between those seeking the purest possible approximation of reality (very slippery slope!) and those who want to play and don't mind having some extra "tools" in the game.

Thanks for jumping in.

By the way, IMHO, the things that make CM so attractive to the average gamer (no offense intended to the grognards) are its infinite variety and its accessibility. Strict realism, without ease of use, would render the game too esoteric. Of course, that's why CM has such an simple, yet elegant interface

already.

Dan

[This message has been edited by Dr Dan (edited 09-01-2000).]

[Guest Germanboy]

Does one of you three guys know how many angels fit on the pin of a needle while dancing perchance? I would be quite interested.

You may know return to your regularly scheduled discussion...

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

Andreas