zahl Posted March 16, 2001 Share Posted March 16, 2001 Originally posted by Philistine: 2. The engine does a calcluation of the time of flight which would be velocity of the shell divided by the distance to the target (to be most accurate you would have the velocity reduced by wind resistance--I would think the velocity of the target can be safely disregarded in considering flight time because it is so much less than shell velocity). Don't you mean flight time = distance / velocity. Distance would be the distance between the shooter and the target at the moment of firing? So if the flight time is calculated to be eg. 1.75 seconds, the engine would check the location of the target (and possibly facing, etc.) 1.75 seconds after firing and use this info to determine the end point of the second check? I'm not sure how big a deal this really is. I've never actually seen it happen in a game I was playing (at least to a degree that made me notice it Steve's estimate that it happens maybe once out of a couple hundred shots sounds valid to me. Extreme case yes, but I play a lot and see it every now and then. Easy to overlook for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted March 16, 2001 Share Posted March 16, 2001 But I do play this game to get my tanks into these positions knowing FULL well I can shoot straight thru buildings (ALL kinds of buildings) and get the first shot off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 16, 2001 Share Posted March 16, 2001 Originally posted by CavScout: The really big buildings you have to hunt up to the corners to make it work, see my previous pics. Never tried a church though. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePrivate Posted March 16, 2001 Share Posted March 16, 2001 Originally posted by CavScout: I don't think it's an issue worth worrying about too much, just realize if your AFV is right next to a small building then it's possible it can have a LOS out of it. It seems to work more often from the 'rear' of the building, from the sides and front it seemed more quirky when I checked in the editor. It is a similar issue to the bocage one raised a few weeks ago where if you placed the unit right next to the bocage you would be able to 'see' farther. I don't know how well it would work in-game because to drive that close the AFV may just back off, I will have to check when the opportunity next arises. Either way there is no advantage to be gained, apart from an opponent who is unaware of that aspect, because in CM the LOS/LOF works both ways and being behind the building reduces the HC for both the firer and target. Hope that helps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philistine Posted March 16, 2001 Share Posted March 16, 2001 Originally posted by zahl: Don't you mean flight time = distance / velocity. Distance would be the distance between the shooter and the target at the moment of firing? So if the flight time is calculated to be eg. 1.75 seconds, the engine would check the location of the target (and possibly facing, etc.) 1.75 seconds after firing and use this info to determine the end point of the second check? He, he...Yep. Steve's estimate that it happens maybe once out of a couple hundred shots sounds valid to me. Extreme case yes, but I play a lot and see it every now and then. Easy to overlook for sure. I think we agree. I'd like to see it if it doesn't take much work. If it would involve a large expenditure of effort, I think there are probably more important things to be done. --Philistine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 16, 2001 Share Posted March 16, 2001 Originally posted by JoePrivate: I don't think it's an issue worth worrying about too much, just realize if your AFV is right next to a small building then it's possible it can have a LOS out of it. It seems to work more often from the 'rear' of the building, from the sides and front it seemed more quirky when I checked in the editor. It is a similar issue to the bocage one raised a few weeks ago where if you placed the unit right next to the bocage you would be able to 'see' farther. I don't know how well it would work in-game because to drive that close the AFV may just back off, I will have to check when the opportunity next arises. Either way there is no advantage to be gained, apart from an opponent who is unaware of that aspect, because in CM the LOS/LOF works both ways and being behind the building reduces the HC for both the firer and target. Hope that helps... I should not keep chirping on about this, BUT in my experience with hunting AFV's halfway into 2 story buildings (the small ones) both light and heavy, I believe they acquire LOS and fire first before they are spotted by the enemy AFV they are targeting. Try it against the AI. The trick is to get into the LOS shadow of the building, then hunt forward into the building while targeting your intended prey. My experience is you will get the first shot off and maybe the second before the target returns fire, in most cases these two shots maybe the difference between life and death. If the target does not look "juicy" enough just position your AVF a few meters back in the LOS shadow of the building, this "LOS thru the building trick" only works when you are VERY close, if not half way into, the building. -tom w (THERE! now everyone knows the secret of shooting thru buildings!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePrivate Posted March 16, 2001 Share Posted March 16, 2001 Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I should not keep chirping on about this, BUT in my experience with hunting AFV's halfway into 2 story buildings (the small ones) both light and heavy, I believe they acquire LOS and fire first before they are spotted by the enemy AFV they are targeting. Try it against the AI. The trick is to get into the LOS shadow of the building, then hunt forward into the building while targeting your intended prey. My experience is you will get the first shot off and maybe the second before the target returns fire, in most cases these two shots maybe the difference between life and death. If the target does not look "juicy" enough just position your AVF a few meters back in the LOS shadow of the building, this "LOS thru the building trick" only works when you are VERY close, if not half way into, the building. -tom w (THERE! now everyone knows the secret of shooting thru buildings!) Well tom_w, in the interests of truth I set up a little hotseat test. I had 5 MkIVHs(out of LOS at start) hunt up to small light buildings to engage 5 stationary M4A3s through the buildings, each separated by bocage, range about 550m, all unbuttoned and Regular. I ran it 6 times for a total of 30 engagements. 14 times the M4A3 spotted the enemy first, 16 times the hunting MKIVH did. Only 4 times did a tank get a shot off first before being spotted(3xMKIVH/1xM4A3), usually the initial spotting was followed immediately by the other. These are 'clinical' tests so in game there could be other variables going on that would change that occurance. [This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 03-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 16, 2001 Share Posted March 16, 2001 Philistine wrote: Rather than checking the shell in flight for intervening objects, would it be possible (easier) to have a 2nd LOS check on the target after an amount of time equal to the shell flight-time has passed? If there is no longer a LOS (target is behind cover) it is treated as a miss. Otherwise the normal hit procedure is followed. Well... I didn't mention that we thought of this about a month ago and it is on The List for possible inclusion in CM2. The reason I didn't mention it is because we aren't sure if it can be done using a reasonable amount of time and coding. I mention it now because it looks bad if we don't respond to a good idea that we (me... ) already came up with a while ago Kudos to Philistine for thinking of it though! IF we can do it, most problems will go away. But NOT all. The only way to ensure that firing results are 100% accurate is to trace the flight path of a smartly aimed shot (i.e. simulating gunnery and results to the nth degree). There is no computer in any player's posession that could hack that, not to mention the coding time it would take. So the 100% option is completely out of the question. But this second check idea might get us to 100% accurate results 98% of the time. Dunno how much it will improve things, really, but it potentially should definitely get rid of the most obvious inaccuracies currently allowed for. Overall, we still don't see this as a HUGE problem. Again, check out how many shots you disagree with over a long period of time and using a great variety of maps. It simply is not common, and therefore doesn't register as a HUGE problem. It is a significant one, though, and if we can do something somewhat painlessly we will certainly do so. The future engine rewrite will be a much better system for sure, so things will be improved at some point. I also agree with Joe Private that although Tom tries to use this tactic as often as possible, I for one don't think he is automatically getting some sort of one-sided bonus regullarly enough to make this a viable "cheating" tactic. Hunting the way Tom describes and hunting in general work the same way. Does he get an edge sometimes? Maybe, but probably no more than if he was using hunt in some other situation. And there are drawbacks to getting up close and personal to a building. For example, in my tests I found that you can only look STRAIGHT through the building, and of course only if you drive right up to it. If something were to flank the vehicle in question it would be at a disadvantage compared to if it had been a few meters back and toward the edge of the building. Just one example of why this tactic of Tom's isn't necessarily as great as it might look. Still, we are looking into how we might be able to fix this problem since it shouldn't be allowed at all. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 03-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 16, 2001 Share Posted March 16, 2001 Originally posted by JoePrivate: Well tom_w, in the interests of truth I set up a little hotseat test. I had 5 MkIVHs(out of LOS at start) hunt up to small light buildings to engage 5 stationary M4A3s through the buildings, each separated by bocage, range about 550m, all unbuttoned and Regular. I ran it 6 times for a total of 30 engagements. 14 times the M4A3 spotted the enemy first, 16 times the hunting MKIVH did. Only 4 times did a tank get a shot off first before being spotted(3xMKIVH/1xM4A3), usually the initial spotting was followed immediately by the other. These are 'clinical' tests so in game there could be other variables going on that would change that occurance. [This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 03-16-2001).] Thanks JoePrivate "in the interests of truth" I would never question that truth is the most important principle. It could be I have just been lucky, or actaully not paying attention to the details of these encounters, as I have "believed" all along there was an advantage to hunting into buildings. I would say your test is alot more like real evidence or proof as opposed to my anecdotal "feelings" that it "works" to my advantage. Perhaps I have just been lucky in the past when I have tried this. If you are correct and the target tank gets LOS as fast or faster to the tank in the building then this is REALLY fair to both sides as you suggest and I would not dispute that, as that is the way it should be for fairness. BUT I would really rather believe the tank in the building gets some camoflauge first shot LOS bonus for hunting into the building, but I am not surprised that there is no advantage or bonus. Of Course I think there should be one to reward this tactic as "maximum use of available resources" and just plain good thinking, but I will agree it is much more likely that it is fair and the chance to spot and get los is the SAME for both the tank in the building and tank in the open. Thanks for running the tests. Very interesting result, had you not run that test I you would never have convinced me before hand as I was sure that the tank half way into the building had a first shot advantage, and spotting advantage. but no ..... Doh! -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoePrivate Posted March 16, 2001 Share Posted March 16, 2001 Well tom_w I wouldn't completely discard the tactic. Before running the test I was more than half convinced the stationary tank would get the drop on the hunting one because of the reduced spotting ability of moving AFVs. I was a little suprised myself to see it so even. Of course the big advantage for AFVs in CM is having infantry spot for your tank versus an enemy tank spotting on its own. [This message has been edited by JoePrivate (edited 03-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 16, 2001 Share Posted March 16, 2001 Originally posted by Big Time Software: I also agree with Joe Private that although Tom tries to use this tactic as often as possible, I for one don't think he is automatically getting some sort of one-sided bonus regullarly enough to make this a viable "cheating" tactic. Hunting the way Tom describes and hunting in general work the same way. Does he get an edge sometimes? Maybe, but probably no more than if he was using hunt in some other situation. And there are drawbacks to getting up close and personal to a building. For example, in my tests I found that you can only look STRAIGHT through the building, and of course only if you drive right up to it. If something were to flank the vehicle in question it would be at a disadvantage compared to if it had been a few meters back and toward the edge of the building. Just one example of why this tactic of Tom's isn't necessarily as great as it might look. Still, we are looking into how we might be able to fix this problem since it shouldn't be allowed at all. Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 03-16-2001).] Hi Did Steve Just call me a cheater? "to make this a viable "cheating" tactic"?? All I was trying to do was win the "Gamey Bastard of the year award" and prove you could shoot straight through buildings (because you can) and look at the thanks here??? "to make this a viable "cheating" tactic" Oh Please! Viable cheating tactic my A$$! I am demostrating a sound military principle, just trying to get the first shot off and camoflauge my AFVs so I can see the enemy before he sees me! And look now they want to fix this, I waited until I was SURE v1.12 was final Like REALLY FINAL before I went public with this little jewel and now what?! Whatdya mean fix it?! I thought v1.12 was FINAL? (All the above posted in the VERY Best of Humour, I'm quite sure Steve knows me well enough by now to know that I'm ALWAYS looking for loopholes to gain the edge! ) Anyway Steve is correct: "I found that you can only look STRAIGHT through the building, and of course only if you drive right up to it" Thats the only way it works. And sure you are vulnerable to the flanks and there is no LOS through the corners of the building if the tank is parked half way into the side of the building in the middle ONLY straight ahead. But you can shoot throuhg the corners somethime if your tank is at the corner facing across it. I liked this comment best though: "Seahawk-vfa201 aka, can't you see what you have done? You have showed all of us that tanks and buildings are even more realistically reproduced than ever thought it possible. Your tank has just entered the far wall of the building and set its gun to fire through a breach, a window, a hole of the ruined building and hide itself from easy spotting. It was happening all the time during war and we thought instead that in CM buildings were unrealistically made of extraterrestrial unpenetrable matter!!!! It is even more realistic this way!!! A bit of a kidding but not so far from truth if you stop and think of it for a sec " Thanks Seahawk, thats EXACTLY the way I feel about it! I did not accidently discover this thing, I have been hunting tanks as far into buildings as I can get them to go, every since I received the full game, I always just figured there was some advantage to be had by shooting through a house and using it as a screen for both LOS and incoming rounds. I'm saddened to realize it is not as advantageous a position as I thought it was. Oh well Again MANY thanks to Steve for his prompt and imformative reply, Good luck with the LOS/LOF check at the instant of impact I'm thrilled that you folks have already discussed and considered it! Keep up the good work! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted March 17, 2001 Share Posted March 17, 2001 Dear Mr. Tom Cheater The problem with thinking of this as "realistic" is that CM's buildings are too abstracted for such justification. In the real world a house is made up of exterior and interior walls. So even if you poked your gun through a window you would still be looking at a wall. At least for a rather standard house that was probably 40% or more intact. Now... if a common house lost two or more walls (two exterior or one interior and one exterior) it might be possible to fire "through" the building provided that the rubble was not blocking LOS/LOF. Currently this is what "rubble" in CM simulates. The building is wrecked enough that you can, to some extent, fire through what used to be a structure. It is an abstraction, for sure, but that is the main difference between a standing building and rubble. When we rewrite the CM engine we will have far more detailed building damage. Unfortunately, it is just too much for CM2. However, we are making some improvements to buildings (don't ask what though ). Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 17, 2001 Share Posted March 17, 2001 Originally posted by Big Time Software: Dear Mr. Tom Cheater snip.. When we rewrite the CM engine we will have far more detailed building damage. Unfortunately, it is just too much for CM2. However, we are making some improvements to buildings (don't ask what though ). Steve Dear Mr Historical Combat Simulator Designer , The attention to detail and ongoing vigilence with which you pursue every opporunity to increase and enhance the this game's ability to model and simulate the reality and and historical accuracy of all forms of combat in the ETO in WWII is TRULY awe inspiring to many of us here! Again THANK-YOU! We are of course looking forward to all the new and exciting improvements in CM2 and many of us hope you will not forget your expressed desire (Was that an actual committmant?) to make all of the improvements and new features in CM2 backward compatible for CM1. I am of course hoping that any "secondary LOS/LOF check at the time of impact" can be made retroactive to CMBO and of course it would be wonderful to see a patch to CMBO that would incorporate all your new improvements to building damage determination and modeling. (maybe 3D building rubble in several states of decay???? ) And of course I am hoping you will not let my recent announcement of tanks shooting right thru buildings prevent you from even a minute's time spend on the development of CM2. Sure you are obliged to fix it for CM2 (I guess ?), but for CMBO, I am of the opinion the game is GREAT just the way it is. (even with the hard to kill HT's,(from Close assualt only of course) makes them now actually rather useful now ) Full Steam ahead on CM2! Keep up the good work, and if you really feel I have discovered something unseen before, perhaps you will feel free to let me help in the Beta Test process for CM2 as I now have a proven ability to seek out every last gamey "cheater", exploitable loophole! (seriously) Thanks for your informative reply. Hope you are enjoying every minute of your new found success! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-17-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts