LOS Tools

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Mannheim Tanker:

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!

Edit: I'm not saying that a LOS can't be created - it can (I make them frequently in my line of work). They just take TIME to create, and I'm willing to bet that most players wouldn't use this feature due to the waiting factor. Unless its use will be widespread, it's probably not worth BTS time to include this feature.

It's a great idea, however. In fact, I'd personally use it!

[Guest Germanboy]

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.

If that's the way you feel about it, then that's the way you feel about it *shrug*. I think it is a totally unfair description of CMBO though, seeing the way the AI behaves.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[JoePrivate]

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.

There are no 'trees' in CM just areas that progressively hinder LOS. IMO, all of your *problems* are non-existent after a few games and you begin to get a feel for how CM does things. There is no 'guessing' lol. For your benefit or anyone elses, here's (approx.) how much certain terrain features degrade and/or block LOS in CM.

Scattered Trees - 52m, Winter - 130m

Woods - 26m, Winter - 65m

Tall Pines - 26m

Brush - 156m

Summer Wheat - 95m, Fall Wheat - 232m

Hope that helps...

[aka_tom_w]

I think this is the needle in the Hay stack quote we have been looking for.

I remember reading this one some time ago.

From BTS Posted by Steve

"Big Time Software

Moderator

posted 09-01-2000 10:02 PM

OK, I guess I should pipe in here...

As one can expect from previous discussions... we are not going to put in an "anywhere LOS tool".

Trying to argue that we should add an unrealistic feature because there is something else realistic in

the game is flawed thinking. I mean, why not have space aliens as well Just a bit of joke to stress

the point.

And that point is certain things MUST be included for there to be a game worth playing. As David has

put it so well, the "God's Eye view" is a manditory part of the game. Realistic or not, the lack of such a

feature would make the game totally unplayable for the vast majority of people. Not having such a view

point also causes realism problems (yup!).

For game reasons you need to plot your guy's movement for 60 seconds. Now... in real life a tank or

squad would adjust its movement as it went along in order to reach its opjective. Right? Well, try

locking yourself into a unit in dense terrain, or behind a hill, and plot a realistic 60 second's worth of

movement. Can't do it. Why? Because if you can't see the terrain you can't click down a movement

point. So once a unit gets behind a hill, it would NEVER be able to get over it. So the notion that the

God's Eye thing is inherently unnecessary is, for a least this reason alone, incorrect.

The LOS from any point feature is, as David has also correctly described, an added feature. It has no

other purpose than to give you extra information that you realistically should not be able to obtain.

Ooops... you ordered your men are in the wrong spot? Realistic. Go out into the woods (a mountain

side is best) and see how easy it is to choose where you can get a good line of site for something. Or

stand in a hilly field and try to get to a good position to "fire" at something far away in another

direction. It isn't easy to do, and that is a big part of the experience of CM.

Now the argument about the AI knowing the best mathematical spots is true to some extent. But as

someone else pointed out, the AI utterly lacks human intuition and anything else that humans possess

to dynamically take advantage/adjust to new and complex situations. So while the AI can put x unit in

the PERFECT spot to see y location, the chances of it figuring out that x should go in y is FAR lower

than the chance a human would do so. In other words, the AI is already so handicapped that this does

not give it a general advantage. If the numbers happen to come up with a "brilliant" choice for the AI...

well... even the AI can get lucky sometimes

I'll leave this discussion open for now, but it needs to be stressed again that a anywhere LOS tool will

not be introduced for ingame use. PERHAPS for setting up and in the Editor, but NOT for use during

the game. So all discussion that follows here is just shooting the breaze

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-01-2000).] "

I think that sums up their official position and is specific and relevant to the original inquiry.

-tom w

[Dalton]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

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.

A rebuttal I haven't heard yet is this:

How does your unit know that they are supposed to go into a hull down position, instead of stop behind the slope & wait for other units to move into position?

Having the AI move units out of thier designated position would be REALLY annoying!

Trees blocking LOS of a FO - suck it up and move him closer to the objective with your original move order. If you are trying to place your units within 2-3m to optimize your LOS & minimize opfors LOS - you're playing the wrong game. (IMO)

My suggestion is to use the existing LOS tool to get a feel for how fast LOS degrades in various terrain types.

To do this:

Select a unit in the terrain type.

Check LOS.

Where the LOS line goes red is your maximum LOS - into or out of that terrain type.

Cheers,

...Dalton

[Ksak]

Interesting article from Armor Magazine about micromaninging the digital battlefield in the information age. Sounds a lot like the bitching and moaning about the TacAI you hear on this forum.

http://147.238.100.101/dtdd/armormag/jf96/1auftrag96.pdf

As a trolling bonus there is a reference to Lind and "Maneuver Warfare."

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Dalton:

How does your unit know that they are supposed to go into a hull down position, instead of stop behind the slope & wait for other units to move into position?

Because real tanks aren't told to move to precise coordinates. The real orders to the tank would be "move forward bearing 017 and engage enemy armor." The tankers themselves, wanting to stay alive, would figure out that in doing so they should try to stay hull down.

Y'see, CM is already far from a simulation of the company commander's job. The player is already making many of the decisions that tank commanders and platoon commanders already make: Exactly where to fire and on whom to fire. Exactly where to move the squads as the platoon advances through the town. The company commander doesn't decide any of that. So the CM player is doing the job of each tank and platoon commander, but he does it without any of the control or precision that the actual commander would have.

New question: What if infantry units had LOS judged from several points in a small area around the unit, to reflect the fact that those units can scoot around a little to get LOS? Having squads judged as if the men are all at one point produces some awkward results.

For example, suppose I'm defending a town. I've got three squads at the front, one to a house, and the platoon commander behind them. If I move the squads forward in the houses, they lose LOS to the HQ and go out of command. But if I move them back in the houses, they lose LOS in the direction of the attack. Wouldn't a real squad fill the house, and be able to look out of all the windows at once?

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

Having squads judged as if the men are all at one point produces some awkward results.

For example, suppose I'm defending a town. I've got three squads at the front, one to a house, and the platoon commander behind them. If I move the squads forward in the houses, they lose LOS to the HQ and go out of command. But if I move them back in the houses, they lose LOS in the direction of the attack. Wouldn't a real squad fill the house, and be able to look out of all the windows at once?

Not necessarily. IRL, the men are walking in some formation (wedge, column, etc). If they're keeping proper spacing, they'll never lose contact with HQ. Messages get passed back and forth through the formation (IE psstt...pass it on) either by word of mouth or through hand signals. This works around corners and in rough terrain (woods, etc) as well as in a straight line The TacAI simulates this through your contact lines with the HQ - unless you string your units out too far. Pretty realstic already if you ask me...

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

[Speedbump]

I have played the game for 6 months now, so I feel that I can comment to some degree on playability.

I absolutely agree that a LOS tool "from any point" is unrealistic, bordering on gamey. However, I would like to see a tool that would be easier to use similar to the EF series. I understand that processing requirements may prevent an all encompassing shadow map, but how about widening the current line to a cone of 30-45%? Would this address the processing power issue?

The main reason this is an issue for me is the first turn of a game. How many times have you thought you checked out all LOS from you starting positions, only to find out you missed that one area, which coincidentely is where the AI or your opponent placed his AT or armor? I have lost more than my share of units without them ever moving.

Is this my fault, absolutely. However, I do not consider it enjoyable to spend a tremendous amount of time checking ever single spot on the map.

My thought is that this functionality would speed up some parts of the game without giving the player extra capabilities. Of course, it would need to be balanced with the technical restrictions.

My $.02.

Speedbump

[David Aitken]

Speedbump wrote:

How many times have you thought you checked out all LOS from you starting positions, only to find out you missed that one area, which coincidentely is where the AI or your opponent placed his AT or armor? I have lost more than my share of units without them ever moving.

Are you suggesting this is unrealistic?

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

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

[Speedbump]

I am suggesting that my intention was to place a unit (often a Priest or comparable unit), which I don't plan on moving immediately, completely undercover. My concern is because the tool is linear, you would need to check up to 180 degrees at various distances to assure that it is out of sight. In real life, this would take but a moment to survey the location, but in the game can take much longer. This is magnified by the number of units being reviewed.

Speedbump

[David Aitken]

Speedbump wrote:

my intention was to place a unit (often a Priest or comparable unit), which I don't plan on moving immediately, completely undercover.

And in reality, how would you know your unit is completely under cover? Furthermore, how would it have got under cover in the first place? Did you stash it there before battle commenced, or did you ask the enemy to ignore it while it drove up?

What I'm saying is, you never have any guarantee that the enemy can't see you, can't shoot you, or isn't going to shoot you before you have the chance to shoot back. That's war.

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

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by JunoReactor:

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.

Agreed. But I don't know what it will take to fix this. More sophisticated graphics engine? Bigger 3D cards? Out of my LOS...

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by 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.

Agreed.

Michael

[Guest Michael emrys]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

Y'see, CM is already far from a simulation of the company commander's job. The player is already making many of the decisions that tank commanders and platoon commanders already make: Exactly where to fire and on whom to fire. Exactly where to move the squads as the platoon advances through the town. The company commander doesn't decide any of that.

True to a degree, and this was brought up for consideration IIRC years before the game even came out. Basically the problem is the limit on how sophisticated an AI a game designer can write...and also how well existing computers can run such a program. The player ends up doing a lot of chores such as you describe simply because there is no practical way around it yet.

So the CM player is doing the job of each tank and platoon commander, but he does it without any of the control or precision that the actual commander would have.

You have alluded several times to the comparative inefficiency of the troops as represented in the game relative to live troops. My reading of the historical record is that they aren't called "grunts" for nothing. Even people of normal intelligence, unless given an extraordinary degree of very realistic training, thrust into a combat situation for the first time are subject to an enormous amount of disorientation. They don't know what to expect, they don't know what to look for, and they don't really know how to react. If they survive that first contact with the enemy, they will gradually acquire battlefield smarts, but there is always something new to learn and many of them never do. That's why they are privates and have NCOs and officers to shepherd them around.

I think all in all, CM's representation of them is very fair. My cybernetic soldiers are often a lot shrewder than I have any right to expect. And when they hopelessly screw up...well, they are at least no worse than most of the live people I've met on this planet.

Michael

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Leonidas:

So the CM player is doing the job of each tank and platoon commander, but he does it without any of the control or precision that the actual commander would have.

Having been in a real tank unit, I'd actually argue that the player in CM has a lot more control over his units than a real commander does. As has been said above, the commander really only gives fairly general orders (IE "Advance to Phase Line Apple, move out! 32, speed it up, you're lagging behind!")

The player simulates several layers of command, but in the end, it's best to leave some of the freedom to the TacAI, as it is best equipped to simulate the split second decisions made by the TC or squad leader. I experience enough micromanagement at work

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

[Vanir]

Originally posted by JunoReactor:

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?

I agree that would be very nice, but it looks like it wont happen until the engine rewrite according to BTS.

The current CM terrain graphics are composed of 20mx20m square blocks. Reducing the size of these blocks would do the trick, but as usual, hardware limitations will prevent it for now. Cutting the size in half to 10x10 would quadruple the number of terrain polygons on a map. When you consider that the maps in CM2 will be larger than CM1 already you can see why BTS wont do it now.

BTW I really like the idea of using the LOS tool during playback. There are times when tanks see, engage, and destroy each other all in the course of a single turn and there in no way of knowing if any were hull down.

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

What a bunch of horsecrap. -Steve

[Mannheim Tanker]

Originally posted by Vanir:

BTW I really like the idea of using the LOS tool during playback. There are times when tanks see, engage, and destroy each other all in the course of a single turn and there in no way of knowing if any were hull down.

I agree...that's one of the few things I'd change about the interface. BTW: Love your sig!

[Guest Blackthorne]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

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).]

I agree Michael. How would you know what the line of sight from any particular point on your field would be unless you actually were there? You can guess from the current perspective that you're holding, which is just what the game allows by us being able to get in perspective 1 on any point on the map.

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

Blackthorne

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Blackthorne:

How would you know what the line of sight from any particular point on your field would be unless you actually were there?

(sigh) But you ARE there, because you're not just the company commander. You are also doing the job of every platoon commander and tank commander, except that you aren't given the tools with which to do that job well. A real platoon commander can move around a little and find LOS.

What about a command to tell the unit to search around a little until it finds LOS to a given target? Or what about the ability to check LOS from any point in a 20m radius around each unit? Would these be 'unrealistic' as well, despite the fact that they're exactly what a real unit would do?

[This message has been edited by Leonidas (edited 03-09-2001).]