Feature request: Eye-level view

[CMplayer]

I was rereading Duffer's Drift and especially enjoyed the puzzle where a commander set up a defensive postion without ever getting off his horse. When the attack came, the infantry had a severely restricted field of fire, since he had seen everything from horseback, but from the eye-level of a prone soldier much more of the approach to the area was masked by the curve of the ground.

The moral was always get down on the ground and look at the position from the point of view of the men who will be fighting it.

I'd love to be able to do this in CMBB, but the lowest camera view is still above the head of a standing soldier, much less a sitting or prone one.

It'd be great if the new engine, or even CMAK, would include a true ground level camera view (along with locking the camera to a projectile )

[MikeyD]

I agree with you... sorta.

It's been my impression that CMBO's eye-level view was closer to standard 5 foot 10 solidier height than CMBB. But the difference isn't that much, especially when you're following a soldier walking across flat terrain in lock-to-unit view. Once the soldier hits hills & slopes the lock-to-unit view can start pitching up and down like a horse on a merry-go-round, but still you can usually work yourself into a proper viewing position with a bit of work.

Maybe the next game engine will have a 'through-the-eyes' or 'through-the-gunsight' view. It would be appreciated.

[CMplayer]

Yes, but I mean it would even be nice with a true ground-level view, as in about 3" above the grass.

Of course camera angles should also be sticky (like zoom) at least as an option.

[Ace Pilot]

In addition to the view, will the new engine take into account a unit’s height for LOS? In other words, a unit that is crawling will have a shorter LOS than one that is standing, assuming both are in the same location?

[MikeyD]

Remember, for a 'unit' you're talking about up to twelve men! It's sort'a difficult to come up with an exact LOS for a number like that. Some things in the game are, by their nature, abstractions.

As to getting a view 3" off the deck, you can... sometimes... with a bit of work... over bumpy ground.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Remember, for a 'unit' you're talking about up to twelve men! It's sort'a difficult to come up with an exact LOS for a number like that. Some things in the game are, by their nature, abstractions.

Very true. However, there is nothing abstract about the unit when you order it to crawl - everybody has their face inches from the dirt. In such a case, I was wondering if the new engine would reflect the reduced LOS a unit would have. The current engine already recognizes that a unit hiding behind a wall has 0% exposure - but still allows unrestricted LOS over the wall.

In the same vein, I'm wondering if LOS will be detailed enough so that tanks can choose to go hull down or turret down behind a ridge. Also, will tanks have "better" LOS relative to an infantry unit in the same spot?

[CMplayer]

Ace Pilot, all excellent considerations IMO.

'Turret Down' tanks, where the TC can peek over the obstacle would be a really sweet feature.

About guys lying prone, or fighting from one knee or whatever, part of that is abstracted, if I understand correctly. Basically when they lie flat, it's just a symbol for them not returning fire, and when they sit up it means they're active and able to fire. But it doesn't mean every guy is in that exact bodily position.

[MikeyD]

And let's not underestimate the subtlety of the CM game engine. I wouldn't be at all suprised to find spotting ability significantly degraded when the soldiers are asked to crawl. I suspect a lot of detail of what's going on with those little soldiers during a battle is unpublished.

To paraphrase BFC on a thread where someone was ranting about how the AI should be made to work, 'but that's ALREADY how it works!'