LOS Tools

[Leonidas]

I may get flamed for this, but I think CM2 should have improved LOS tools. Specifically, you should be able to get a map overlay that shows you a LOS map: every point on the map that the selected unit can see. Steel Panthers had this, IIRC. It's just a more useful version of the point-to-point tool we currently have. Why should we have to do boring work to turn the point-to-point tool into what we really want?

In addition (and more importantly), you should be able to calculate that LOS map for a given unit from any point on the map. I think it's foolish that we have to guess about what the LOS will be like at a particular point.

I expect that there are die-hards who enjoy figuring out (really guessing about) LOS on their own, but I find it a nuisance because it only emphasizes the stupidity of my troops.

Suppose you want to move your Arty FO onto a hill so he can get LOS to the enemy position. Or suppose that you want to get your tank into hull down position, looking down into a valley. Why should you have to guess whether your unit will be able to see from that particular point? Is your unit really so stupid that he can't move a few feet one way or another to get LOS to the target?

No offense to BTS here. CM's AI is as good as you'll find in any game. But game AI generally does a poor job of imitating humans. And when you're trying to imagine that these little figures are real men, it ruins the suspension of disbelief when your tank has no LOS for an entire turn because you misjudged the hull down position (due to poor LOS tools) and the tank commander can't fix it on his own.

I know what the counter-arguments will be: "Real company commanders didn't have perfect maps and perfect knowledge about LOS." That was probably true in most cases, but real company commanders also didn't have brain-dead units incapable of finding LOS on their own. Figuring out LOS is tedious, non-fun guesswork. Give us some real tools, BTS.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

I know what the counter-arguments will be: "Real company commanders didn't have perfect maps and perfect knowledge about LOS."

That's exactly the point. Too many games give the player omnipotent powers that totally distort the experience the game intends to portray. It was the announced intent of CM's designers to try to get things back into perspective.

That was probably true in most cases, but real company commanders also didn't have brain-dead units incapable of finding LOS on their own.

My reading of the historical record suggests that getting his troops properly disposed for battle was one of the major skills that a company grade officer had to manage. I wouldn't assume that it was something that troops did automatically. If highly experienced, they might tend to find good positions on their own if they understood what was going to be expected of them, but Murphy's Law holds that that would occur seldom more often than frequently. [Thank you, Kalish & Montague]

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 03-07-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 03-07-2001).]

[Leeo]

(restraining flamethrower)

I think CM's LOS tool is among the most realistic and useful available. How are you really going to know that a unit can see from a point unless you send a unit (either yourself, but a commander cannot be in all places at all times; or a subordinate unit)to that spot to "see what you (they) can see".

And as far as hull down, IIRC, that has been discussed myriad times in that a vehicle's hull down status is completely dependent on the position of other units. You can be hull down to some, but not others. If the others move, you will either be unable to see them anymore, or lose your hull down status. That's the beauty of full 3D modeling; There is no perfect "hull down" position. If you want to have your vehicle go hull down, you should use the hunt command in any case.

(putting flamethrower down and quietly walking away)

[JunoReactor]

I agree with Micheal on this one. Perfect knowledge would sanitize the game. Less place there is for intuition, less it looks like actual WWII and more like mathematics.

One minor gripe though: I wish CM2 will have "sharper" graphics to figure out the LOS intuitively. As it is, there are too many instances where the graphics engine shows that the LOS is blocked while it is actually not and vice versa.

I remember reading about this earlier on, but has this point been discussed in relevance to CM2?

[Leonidas]

But doesn't it seem a bit silly that you can't even get a LOS map? After all, that information is available to you, if you're willing to tediously check LOS to every point using the existing tool.

As for the requirement that we guess about LOS in a new position, I guess I'll keep having the same conversation with my FOs when I march them up the hill, into that little patch of woods for some concealment:

"FO Alpha, call in fire on the town, centered on the church."

"Negative command, we have no visual on the church."

"What can you see in the direction of the town from your position?"

"Just a tree sir."

"Please repeat."

"Just a tree, sir. We marched to exactly the spot you ordered, and there's a tree between us and the town."

"Understood FO Alpha. Your new orders are: STEP AROUND THE TREE and walk ten feet forward. Out."

You gotta love realism.

[JunoReactor]

Point taken. Perhaps this would be alleviated somewhat if you could actually scroll there and check if you could see the church from there or not. 3D trees and such....

[LongLeftFlank]

I kind of liked the "shadow" approach used by Talonsoft in East Front where when you click an "LOS filter", everything not in a designated unit's LOS appears in shadow.

But then, that game's graphics aren't as demanding as CM's. The current system works well enough....

While I too have experienced the annoyance of taking multiple turns to get a unit into an effective position, I just think of it as them being being slowed up by some random shots, or just the plain old pucker factor.

[ADAman]

I posted a question about contour lines about a week ago and got a response back that it was looked at but was more difficult to implement than one would first imagine. I share Leonidas' frustration in not being able to at least guesstimate the line of site from some hill to some other point. Contour lines would have allowed a rough approximatation in that it wouldn't have shown blockages by trees or buildings but I would certainly like it better than playing superman and zooming all over the battlefield. I don't want perfect insight but it would be nice to have the same one some yahoo with a map might have. Thinking about it though, when I was in ROTC summer camp at Ft. Riley and they gave me a map and told me to find the orienteering points, I got back after dark. Maybe I do want something better than a virtual map.

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

Air Defense: Shoot 'em down, sort 'em out on the ground (AKA - if it flies, it dies)

[Guest Germanboy]

Leonidas - may I suggest you try and dig out the official BTS response to this topic? It may take a bit of searching, but there is one. Maybe aka_tom_w can help you, I think he was involved in it in terms of discussions.

I believe the basic reasoning was that BTS would not provide a tool like this because it would give you powers that your troops would not possess, and maybe reinforce the already gamey problem of absolute spotting. If they considered any change, it would go towards the opposite and introduce relative spotting (not be fore CMII, the engine rewrite though). This is from memory, and it would probably be best to do a search on it.

I guess you are in a different camp of play than I am, judging from your post in the Hellcat thread. I feel no need for such a tool, and I think that the LOS tool as it stands is fine.

Enjoy the game.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Guest Martin Cracauer]

I agree that a circle LOS graphics for units would be nice. After all, you can get that now in the planning stage, just that you have to draw circles yourself. In my opinion, this is a case where the computer would just reduce unneeded work without changing to game.

An LOS tool for arbitrary locations would chance the game and I tend to say it would be a change for the worse.

However, I understand that some people find it unfair that they have to send units for at least one minite around while not having any LOS checking within these 60 seconds.

So, what about a compromise where you can check LOS for your units as they are *and* within a narrow circle around your units, for example 1/5 of what the units can move in a turn?

For example, a unit behind a slope. That way, you could check LOS for positions on the top of the slope and choose an appropriate one. As long as the unit has to be very near the slope, that would be an improvement, IMHO. Since in reality you could tell those folks "select a position with good sight on the slope". Currently, in CMBO you have them sit for 50 seconds or so in a non-selected location.

Martin

[This message has been edited by Martin Cracauer (edited 03-08-2001).]

[Mattias]

Incidentally the drang nach micro management and extended LOS tools was at it's wildest after the beta demo was out. At a point where no one had any experience with the game.

BTS implemented a few more LOS related items and started tweaking the tacAI and it was generally seen as sufficient.

As I recall, the last word on the LOS map overlay was that it was too processor intensive to implement.

I'll stick my neck out and say that once you get into the game you don't really need any of the extra options you request.

M.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

IMO a LOS tool should NOT be necessary in CM.. IF there were no "LOS aberrations" that unfortunately frequently occur...

The "Tree" example above is just one, but I've seen numerous other : for example a tower bell of a church is NOT a "visible" spot, just an "image".

Frequently, buildings and features that are clearly visible when looked from behind a unit "shoulder" at ground level ARE NOT IN LOS...

At Elsdorf, I'm desperately trying to make my Wespe destroy a *%¨£ building :

(TC) : Hans, shoot the building over here !

(Gunner) : what building ? Where ?

(TC) : This one, you blind ! Just in front of us, 300 m ahead !

(Gunner) : Nope, can't see it ! There's a 5m slope 100m ahead, it blocks LOS...

(TC) You moron ! Building is 10 m tall ! Shoot ahead, elevation 15°, 300 m !!

(Gunner) ; Nope, can't see !

(TC) AAAARRRGHH ! (Pistol shot sound)

[Jadayne]

whereas I'm pretty happy with the current LOS tool (thouh I also like the idea of a LOS shadow map), one thing I definitely would like to see -and I know it's been mentioned before -is the ability to use the current LOS tool during the playback stage. That way, I can keep track of things that come into view as I move. A moving TC, for example should be able to make note of things that come into view during the move (buildings, copses of trees, etc.). The current system, as has been stated over and over, basically means that, if I'm moving, I am basically blind for 60 seconds until the turn ends and I can use the tool again. A moving TC should be able to make note of things that come into view during the move. This would also alleviate the "am I in hulldown or not" problem.

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

"I'm the Quarterback. I make the plays. You back the plays I make." -Harvey Keitel to his adopted son in the movie "Dusk til Dawn" (about 3 hours before they're both ripped apart and eaten alive by vampires)

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Germanboy:

Leonidas - may I suggest you try and dig out the official BTS response to this topic? It may take a bit of searching, but there is one. Maybe aka_tom_w can help you, I think he was involved in it in terms of discussions.

I believe the basic reasoning was that BTS would not provide a tool like this because it would give you powers that your troops would not possess, and maybe reinforce the already gamey problem of absolute spotting. If they considered any change, it would go towards the opposite and introduce relative spotting (not be fore CMII, the engine rewrite though). This is from memory, and it would probably be best to do a search on it.

I guess you are in a different camp of play than I am, judging from your post in the Hellcat thread. I feel no need for such a tool, and I think that the LOS tool as it stands is fine.

Enjoy the game.

Hi

Thanks Andreas, I did participate in these discussions some time ago.

At that time I was thinking a FOW Shroud like Warcraft was a good idead but Fionn loaded BOTH barrels and blew me out of the water. He Said NO WAY this is not some Fancy pants RTS game, it a real combat simulator, (OK, tom bows out). I did also comment on, and request contour lines on a topo map.

I like the game JUST fine the way it is now, if you want LOS you have to WORK for it. ALSO, I'm not sure if anyone has commented on this but you can place your viewing camera at level 1 at ANY place on the map so you can ACTUALLY see what a unit from that perspective (level 1) at the exact spot "could" see if it was there. Thats good enough for me. ANd I think that is too much info, but it sort of replaces the same "feel" you coudl get from contour lines on a topo map.

This game is NOT Steel Panthers and I for one am GLAD of it. Its different and it works differently.

Sure I would like to see contour lines like on a REAL Topo map, I imagine moslty folks with Military experience are familiar with topo maps and know how to read them and of course I think the game would be more realistic if there was a topo map with Contour lines that you could toggle on and off. I would also like to see ALOT more Fog Of War.

BUT the CM I play NOW (v1.12) is as close to my IDEAL dream of what a Perfect war game should be, that I really can't complain at all!

-tom w

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

In addition (and more importantly), you should be able to calculate that LOS map for a given unit from any point on the map. I think it's foolish that we have to guess about what the LOS will be like at a particular point.

I expect that there are die-hards who enjoy figuring out (really guessing about) LOS on their own, but I find it a nuisance because it only emphasizes the stupidity of my troops.

This is not meant to be a flame, BUT I do disagree and would like to counter with that fact that when your units get to the point you want them to they "know" what they can see. Thye actively try to "spot" anything they can, (including listening for sound contacts) from where ever they irrespective of whether or not you as the commander know what their "Los Map" looks like.

"I expect that there are die-hards who enjoy figuring out (really guessing about) LOS on their own, but I find it a nuisance because it only emphasizes the stupidity of my troops."

I find this comment difficult to understand, because all the units I command seem to me to be VERY active in there attempts to locate and identify opfor units.

True, they (EDIT here), do not, move all by them selves to the optimal LOS position, BUT if you as the commander get down on the ground in level 1 with them (this practice is STRONGLY encouraged by BTS in the design thinking), you has the commander should have the ulitimate responsibility to make sure you place your units in the optimal location for your LOS purposes.

I will try to find my old posts about LOS and the Shroud and contour lines.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-08-2001).]

[aka_tom_w]

here are some relevant threads:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/000692.html

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004801.html

"Big Time Software

Moderator

posted 05-26-2000 02:16 AM

Topo lines would be cool, but oh so very hard to implement. I won't go into the whys exactly (since I

would have to ask Charles to refresh my memory since this was discussed about 2 years ago between

us ), but it certainly isn't something that can be tossed in.

Just to add my two bits here, I never use the overhead views (#5-8) when playing. I use #3 or #4 for

the most part and #1 and #2 for critical LOS checks.

Simon, I can pretty much promise you that there will be no topo lines in the Editor. The numbers aren't

that hard to get used to when you actually get in there and use the thing first hand.

Steve "

Andreas you have a VERY good memory

this one here may be the very thread you were refering to, I have reviewed it and yes I was VERY active and outspoken at that time about this issue.

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/003938.html

or this one

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/003974.html

The two threads above have some very interesting discussions sort of on the fringe of this topic.

I think that just about covers it for OLD threads about this one that Steve has commented on.

I know there has been a quote from Steve and/or Charles specifically about the "LOS map" specific to each unit and they said they were not interested in doing that, but I can't find the exact quote.

hope that helps

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-08-2001).]

[sluggo]

At first I was frustrated by the LOS tool and wanted something that would allow me to check LOS from any point on the map. I have come to realize this would give me too much power/control and now I like the game the way it is. I do have two points however.

If I have a unit it should be able to quickly look around it's current position and see what it can see. In CM I can technically use the LOS tool to do this myself. However, this takes a long time checking every point on the map. Having a tool to quickly tell me what I can already find out if I take the time with the current tool would not decrease the realism in my opinion. It would just save time for those of us who are lazy or in a hurry. Because of non-CM committments I may have only a half hour window to complete two or three PBEM turns. I don't take the time to check LOS sometimes when I should (of course this is not the only reason I'm losing most of my games ).

As for checking LOS from a non-occupied spot I agree we don't need this. However, it would be nice to have something similar to the Hunt command for infantry. That way you could tell a unit 'move toward this point but stop and shot once you can see that machine gun'. It doesn't make much sense to tell a unit to move somewhere and then they just get there and sit because they can't see anything. There should be some way to move until you can see something.

My 2 cents.

[aka_tom_w]

I know this is not specific or particularily relevant to this thread BUT...

"It doesn't make much sense to tell a unit to move somewhere and then they just get there and sit because they can't see anything. There should be some way to move until you can see something."

That is a good point.

for infantry is there a command that says "move until you see somthing and stop?"

I would like a specific "recon" command, for any gound unit it would do this:

"Sneak until you spot or hear somthing (sound contacts could make them halt and hide as well) and then at that momment HIDE!"

that would be nice to see.

I know I will be told we are NOT playing the fictious game "Recon Mission" but instead of "move to contact", (sneak sort of does that now) could we have a recon order that says sneak until opfor unit is spotted? (then hide)

Great suggestion.

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-08-2001).]

[Mannheim Tanker]

One more point that you might be missing is the computational power required to show a LOS map VERY QUICKLY with the click of the mouse. LOS with a line is a lot easier, since you only have to calculate the LOS along that line. I work with GIS/RS data all day long, and I often find myself waiting while the machine processes similar requests. I'm guessing that the feature you're requesting could take 10 seconds or longer (depending on your hardware) each time you click. The same goes with calculating topo lines, although that would only have to be done once, since the topography doesn't change during a game (unlike unit positions).

[Guest Germanboy]

Tom, excellent stuff, very helpful. I know I could stitch you up to do the search

Cheers.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[David Aitken]

I have a few links on various issues...

Leonidas wrote:

you should be able to calculate that LOS map for a given unit from any point on the map. I think it's foolish that we have to guess about what the LOS will be like at a particular point.

Discussed in this thread:

Feature Request: Point Line-of-Site

suppose that you want to get your tank into hull down position, looking down into a valley.

BTS: The Hull Down Move

Pascal DI FOLCO wrote:

Frequently, buildings and features that are clearly visible when looked from behind a unit "shoulder" at ground level ARE NOT IN LOS...

Go to this page and scroll to the bottom.

David

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

where's the BAR? – ColonelSquirrel

Where's the Bar? This is the most important and critical question I've ever seen on a thread – Rex_Bellator

[Leonidas]

This is pretty much the response I expected. I guess CM2 will be another brilliant simulation of what it would be like to be a WWII company/battalion commander with a really good map and complete idiots for subordinates.

BTW, none of the responses paid much attention to the big LOS problem, which is not elevation, but trees. Of course you can get down on the ground and see if LOS is blocked by elevation changes. But you can't do anything like that with trees. You can just put up the tree sprites and guess about whether the LOS is sufficiently blocked. It's worse for trees on hills, because you also have to guess whether the trees are tall enough, in addition to thick enough, to block LOS.

Another point: Shouldn't the defender in a PBEM get better LOS information than the attacker? Presumably he's had a few minutes to check these things out. Actually, in a PBEM game the defender already has an interesting kind of tool to predict LOS from any point on his side of the map. So I guess I'll keep on defending to avoid the frustration of talking to FOs standing behind trees.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

This is pretty much the response I expected. I guess CM2 will be another brilliant simulation of what it would be like to be a WWII company/battalion commander with a really good map and complete idiots for subordinates.

I would like to respond and suggest that I find that part of the beauty of this great game is that there is some exploration and recon involved. I like working with each unit with the LOS tool to find ot what it can and cannot see. I support the decision by BTS that they made not to tell us exactly how many meters of woods or scattered trees blocks LOS.

I think you should have to figure out LOS by your self. LOS through light buildings is a good example. You have to pul your tank right up almost into the building and then check to see of you have LOS through it.

I think the LOS map you are requesting a the click of a mouse for every unit as you click on it would be techincally difficult (ok maybe not difficult but surely TIME comsuming).

I figure the units themselves are always checking all the area of the map they have LOS to and there are constant "spotting" checks (math equation with odds and specific results) to see if anything was actually spotted. The system the way it is penalizes the defender a little more than is realisticaly necesary perhaps, but the current system of LOS is equal and fair for both sides.

It is a valid question to ask however.

Thanks David for those additional threads

-tom w

[David Aitken]

Leonidas wrote:

I guess I'll keep on defending to avoid the frustration of talking to FOs standing behind trees.

I know your 'standing behind trees' example is just a figure of speech, but I think you'll find that LOS in CM isn't quite as dodgy as this. LOS blocks in CM are areas, not objects. In woods, you don't need to worry about specific lines of sight, you just need to keep in mind the uniform degradation that CM models for LOS through trees. Also consider that the graphics in the game are just a representation. By this I do not mean yes, you should be allowed LOS tools because the graphics are unreliable – I mean that in the game you don't see woods, you just see a few trees, and might expect to have LOS when in reality you wouldn't – there is simply a limit to complex and accurate the game's modelling of terrain can be.

Have you considered that in reality, your FO might have no idea what you're talking about? Floating above the treetops, you can see that building a few hundred yards away – but down on the ground it's a different story. It's not simply a case of telling your FO to get LOS to the building. And even if he knows where it is, how does he know where he can get LOS from, and how long is it going to take him to find out? In CM it is rarely a matter of 'standing behind trees'. If you are used to the way terrain is modelled, you know where to put your men to get LOS.

David

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

where's the BAR? – ColonelSquirrel

Where's the Bar? This is the most important and critical question I've ever seen on a thread – Rex_Bellator

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

This is pretty much the response I expected. I guess CM2 will be another brilliant simulation of what it would be like to be a WWII company/battalion commander with a really good map and complete idiots for subordinates.

BTW, none of the responses paid much attention to the big LOS problem, which is not elevation, but trees. Of course you can get down on the ground and see if LOS is blocked by elevation changes. But you can't do anything like that with trees. You can just put up the tree sprites and guess about whether the LOS is sufficiently blocked. It's worse for trees on hills, because you also have to guess whether the trees are tall enough, in addition to thick enough, to block LOS.

Another point: Shouldn't the defender in a PBEM get better LOS information than the attacker? Presumably he's had a few minutes to check these things out. Actually, in a PBEM game the defender already has an interesting kind of tool to predict LOS from any point on his side of the map. So I guess I'll keep on defending to avoid the frustration of talking to FOs standing behind trees.

Again, I think you're ignoring the technical implications of providing a dynamic LOS map. Adding trees, vehicles, houses, fog, smoke, etc compounds the problem. A 3D map is much different than a single LOS line...I'd bet dollars to donuts that BTS made their decision based on technical reasons as much as on historical reasoning.

BTW: I'd hardly say that the subordinate commanders (AI) are idiots. I've seen them make better decisions than their (player) senior commanders from time to time!