1:1 Representation; What WILL be 1:1?

[dalem]

Originally posted by Soddball:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by dalem:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Somebody shoot me

Must...not...respond...

Fighting...urge...losing...battle...

-dale </font>

[Wartgamer]

What mode are you in Dale?

[Wartgamer]

Another characteristic modeled in CM1 is being rattled. This is when a squad has a red dot assigned to it and it effects the squad adversely. This was brought up in another thread.

Will this also be a 1:1 characteristic? can this spread from NCO to non-coms?

[Sergei]

If it's not Username, then I'm not Rambo.

errr... wait, the other way around...

<font color="grey">(phew, I almost revealed myself!)</font>

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

I am one of the hopeful, and my confidence is high, BUT if there is NO 1:1 LOS and LOF and you have your squads spread out real thin so arty won't get them ALL with one round then what other spotting or firepower advantages will this squad realize when you have them spread out for their own protection?

you still have very valuable data such as:

1. knowledge of the formation the squad is on

2. knowledge of the role of each man in the squad

3. knowledge of what kind of terrain (cover) each man is on

4. knowledge of what's their distance to the LOS point holder person of the squad

5. what's their distance to a given enemy unit

6. knowledge of some recent successful LOS checks to certain locations

these will allow you to have spread squads without 1:1 LOS and not screw up the 1:1 representation and modelling (for most situations).

key issues are: knowledge of which man holds the squad's LOS point (decided based on formation and each man's role in the given formation), the ability to calculate the spread of received fire within the squad (based on things like distance and simple terrain type based cover value) and the ability for the AI to change squad's formation (and thus LOS holder) based on events. theoretically you could even calculate LOS holder changes without changing squad's formation, because you know the point the firing enemy unit just had LOS to and the position of each member of the receiving squad, but it may get tricky if the squad is receiving fire from numerous units.

i don't have time to explain this deeper right now, but spread squads are 100% doable with the given system. you should be able to figure it out with the above points. the tricky part is having each man receive cover from buildings and objects like tanks, because the cover is not based on distance calculations & terrain type the man is on, but on a LOS block and thus you can't simply calculate how enemy fire is spread within the squad - you need LOS checks. however without objects blocking LOS the system is relatively simple to code and doesn't require heavy calculations.

most of it is simple vector maths + terrain cover variables.

tho you need to store some recent & succesful LOS checks to make the firing unit maintain LOS to their target even in a situation in which the LOS holder of the target squad is already in concealment. you could do it even without storing some succesful LOS check locations, but it would in my opinion get too abstracted especially if the target unit is receiving fire from multiple locations.

but i really need to go, so bye for now.

[DrD]

Originally posted by DrD:

If a squad is spread out, and some of it has LOS to the enemy and opens fire, it can be assumed (and this very point has been brought up under threads regarding borg spotting) that the other elements of the squad that don't have LOS will see and hear their buddies shooting, and will shoot their weapons in the same general direction. This will add to the overall suppressive effect of such fire, even if the fire does not actually have LOS.

I'm sure Steve and Charles will think of a clever way around this. I can't wait to see it!

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

I dont think you understand the implications. If a squad is spread out and you claim that some of it has LOS, that means that LOS is being done on a 1:1 scale.

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

No no, what I mean is that the LOS will be calculated from some central point of the squad (presumably the same point used for movement.) However, you the player may see that one of the soldier graphics, based on his position, should not have LOS IF it was calculated seperately. But in the game it does. I was offering a way that one could justify this seeming disparity, given that alot of the game is abstract anyway.

[Wartgamer]

Its almost impossible to stop thinking about the 1:1 LOS/LOF. Please let me add some more.

The concept of update rate, database and proximity weigh heavily on this.

By update rate, I mean the actual time in between LOS 'checks' that any unit, 1 man or a squad performs this function.

Database is the actual list of spotted units. As it is now, its a shared database for all. As it is now Anyone with an LOS to a spotted unit on the spotted list gets to share the info. The new database may actually also be modeled at the squad level or lower, more on this later.

Proximity is actual distance from the spotter to the spottees.

When doing 1:1 spotting/database, the update rate may not be as fast as some may think. For a soldier with no spotted units in his database, it may actually be every second or so. If the same soldier has already 'filled' his database (more on this later), he may actually NOT do any LOS checks, ESPECIALLY if he is firing (target fixated).

How the soldier 'scans' for enemy might best be handled by a concentric function that has ever increasing diameter. Closer units being spotted first and databased in that priority. The database may actually be as low as 8 or 16 enemy units. The database limit could be variable, more for better soldiers, but models the fact that a soldier can not process that many units.

So the actual crunch time for CPUs may not be as bad as thought but will be considerable or at least much greater than for the present system.

[ February 21, 2005, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I agree 100% with Steve on Dupuy. I have a big bunch of books by him. Plus, a Hero “full” addition of TM 30-430, Handbook on USSR Military Forces November 1945. (Only full addition I have come across.)

However, one must take account of his limited resources, especially with regard to the Soviets. He just did not have the figures for Soviets.

Very interesting books but use them alongside with other sources. In my view.

All the best,

Kip.

[Battlefront.com]

Don't worry guys... you won't have to wait a year to see how we tackle LOS/LOF. It is not the sort of thing we can throw in at the last minute, so it iwll be done well ahead of the relase date. When we have a system worked out, we'll let you know.

But all the talk about LOS/LOF is quite pointless from our point of view. So much so I'm not even reading it We know what to do, even if we don't know how to do it quite yet.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Dale, I'll take you up on that pizza bet We're pretty sure the recently banned CommonSense was Losername. That poster had the same sort of... uhm... how to put this nicely... unstable characteristic that has typified Lewis every time he has snuck onto this Forum.

Whether Wartgamer is a new poster or not is somethting I can't say. Hard to say if any of you are who you say you are But as long as he obeys the rules, and there is no direct evidence he is a previous banned poster, please leave him alone.

Thanks,

Steve

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Don't worry guys... you won't have to wait a year to see how we tackle LOS/LOF. It is not the sort of thing we can throw in at the last minute, so it iwll be done well ahead of the relase date. When we have a system worked out, we'll let you know.

But all the talk about LOS/LOF is quite pointless from our point of view. So much so I'm not even reading it We know what to do, even if we don't know how to do it quite yet.

Steve

The talk was about how it is implemented in the sense of "when a unit checks to see if it can see"

(during the "movie" or "execution" phase).

I've been wondering for some time about how you will revamp the way it is represented to the player during the "orders" phase.

Have you considered making it so that the player can only see what your units can actually see in the 3D views, and you should not be able to ask about LOS at all in the 2D ("map" or "looking down on top") views (assuming these have nice contours etc in them).

This would to two things:

1) Make LOS implicit in the way things are shown instead of an explicit "add on tool".

2) Go a long way towards making it more realistic: when looking through units' eyes, you see what the unit sees. When looking through the commander's eyes you see what he sees (a map with counters moving around on it).

'Forward!' he cried...

GaJ.

[DrD]

I've never understood this "absolute lines of sight" stuff. I for one want MORE LOS info, not less, like a shading tool that shows you ALL terrain in LOS of a unit.

To those who will invariably say "this is too much info" I submit the following: no matter how good graphics are, they are never as good as real life. When you are standing outside, you never have to think about whether a piece of ground is in your LOS!

In the game, though, even with its excellent graphics, it's not always easy to tell what's in LOS. Until we develop true 3-D graphics this will always be true as we will never have the depth perception that helps so much in RL.

Also, it requires a large amount of spinning around, which after a few drinks can be quite nauseating! I'd rather be able to use the overhead with shading.

[ February 21, 2005, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: DrD ]

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dale, I'll take you up on that pizza bet We're pretty sure the recently banned CommonSense was Losername. That poster had the same sort of... uhm... how to put this nicely... unstable characteristic that has typified Lewis every time he has snuck onto this Forum.

Whether Wartgamer is a new poster or not is somethting I can't say. Hard to say if any of you are who you say you are But as long as he obeys the rules, and there is no direct evidence he is a previous banned poster, please leave him alone.

Thanks,

Steve

Bet accepted, but your larger point is a good one. I will behave.

-dale

[GreenAsJade]

Drd: my proposal is that you would be able to see only what your unit can see, thereby removing the question of "can I see this or not".

GaJ.

[DrD]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

Drd: my proposal is that you would be able to see only what your unit can see, thereby removing the question of "can I see this or not".

GaJ.

But you also said "no LOS tool in the 2D map."

I agree with the relative spotting, Steve has said that relative spotting is in for CMx2, so presumably when a unit is selected only enemy units that are currently spotted by that unit will be shown.

I'm talking more about the use of LOS tools, and the opinion of many (although not necessarily you) that the Mark I eyeball is the only proper LOS tool.

However, I think LOS tools are needed to make up for graphics that will never (well, never say never) be as good as real life.

[Wartgamer]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Don't worry guys... you won't have to wait a year to see how we tackle LOS/LOF. It is not the sort of thing we can throw in at the last minute, so it iwll be done well ahead of the relase date. When we have a system worked out, we'll let you know.

But all the talk about LOS/LOF is quite pointless from our point of view. So much so I'm not even reading it We know what to do, even if we don't know how to do it quite yet.

Steve

It is OK that we discuss this amongst ourselves? I have read all the posts and there do seem to be people (not sure if they are Grogs to be honest) that certainly grasp the 1:1 implications/problems and some people seem to have some programming/systems engineering experience.

In many designs, its very difficult to go for an absolute feature especially when so many implications from using that feature have not been explored.

It can end up that the tail gets to wag the dog.

A major improvement in the overall game experience must be the Borg problem. How 1:1 representation factors into that will probably depend on LOS.

[Wartgamer]

Heres another anomaly.

A squad is spread out and the game determines that this squad is in LOS of a HMG (even though only 4 guys are actually in true LOS..the rest are over behind a hill in a trench).

The HMG fires and 8 guys are determined to be hit. So the HMG is shooting soldiers completely out of reach of the weapon.

I am assuming that the MG bullets are not being represented 1:1 of course

[ February 21, 2005, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by DrD:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

Drd: my proposal is that you would be able to see only what your unit can see, thereby removing the question of "can I see this or not".

GaJ.

But you also said "no LOS tool in the 2D map."

I agree with the relative spotting, Steve has said that relative spotting is in for CMx2, so presumably when a unit is selected only enemy units that are currently spotted by that unit will be shown.

I'm talking more about the use of LOS tools, and the opinion of many (although not necessarily you) that the Mark I eyeball is the only proper LOS tool.

However, I think LOS tools are needed to make up for graphics that will never (well, never say never) be as good as real life. </font>

[Philippe]

Realistic is the prime directive.

However, sometimes you have to go with the less realistic approach for other reasons.

I'm hoping that the interface for handling units in CMx2 is much improved over CMx1. The weaknesses in handling mechanics are what, for example, make Franko's wonderful rules impractical.

I love the idea that the 2-D map should be for viewing only.

Except...well, some people (and I'm not one of them) actually like to play that way, and sometimes to get the exact right positioning of that movement waypoint when you're micro-managing, you really need the overhead view to see what you're doing. As it stands, I wish there were a close-up version of the overhead so that I can be sure I told that squad to run across the road and dive into that foxhole.

So if there's a way to make the 3-D isometric view a little easier to use and navigate in, then fine, limit the 2-D to info only, and people who like to pretend they're playing Close Combat can lump it.

Otherwise...

Maybe what we need is a view commander's map command, that causes the screen to be momentarily replaced with a sketch map of the battle area that you can annotate. I'd much rather have TRP's on a commander's sketch map than on the actual battlefield.

[ February 21, 2005, 06:41 PM: Message edited by: Philippe ]

[Wartgamer]

The LOS tool, if any, will certainly not be 1:1 during the orders phase...or will it? I think we all are assuming that it belongs at the squad/vehicle/gun level?

For weapons like tanks, I certainly hope that there is some LOS tools so that I can make assesments of what it sees at least during the orders phase. This is because a tank is a concentrated weapons system.

But a squad with 12 seperate weapons systems is another matter.

[DrD]

Well, as I said, although your approach is very realistic, the graphics are not.

If we use a realistic approach, we wind up with LESS info than in real life because we're looking at a small monitor with 2-D graphics.

Go to a battlefield (as I'm sure you have) and study the terrain. Pretty easy to see what's in LOS, where the covered approaches are, etc. Try again in CM, alot different.

Thus my point is that limiting information because it's "realistic" is, well, unrealistic. How realistic is it that your squad is in LOS of a HMG becasue you misjudged the LOS? In RL you tell the squad "go to the edge of the woods but DON'T go so far you can see out." Even a bunch of simpletons could do it.

It's even dicier when one looks at fog/night, again in RL it's instantly apparent how far you can see, in the game it requires tools. Please don't take my tools away!

[DrD]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

Heres another anomaly.

A squad is spread out and the game determines that this squad is in LOS of a HMG (even though only 4 guys are actually in true LOS..the rest are over behind a hill in a trench).

The HMG fires and 8 guys are determined to be hit. So the HMG is shooting soldiers completely out of reach of the weapon.

I am assuming that the MG bullets are not being represented 1:1 of course

Well, how often do all 8 guys get killed at once? Anway, there's all sorts of ways it could be abstracted, for example:

4 guys get hit, the other 4 panic and are combat ineffective for the next hour. In the CMBO manual it was pointed out that casualties may be panicking rather than actually injured.

The real trick will be graphically how to show the soldiers in the trench as something other than actually hit by fire.

If cover is 1:1, then the above squad would have decent cover overall (4 in foxhole, 4 in OG) and not likely to have so many down from an MG burst. Again, though, how to show the uncovered troops as hit and the covered troops as some other kind of deal? I guess it depends on how detailed are the graphics, especially how detailed is the portrayal of a troop's actions.

It's this kind of contemplation that makes one realize how hard it is to design a game.

With my limited imagination I can not come up with a way to do 1:1 graphics without 1:1 LOS, but I know Charles and Steve will figure it out.

[Wartgamer]

I didnt say they were killed, just that they were hit.

And its an example that shows that MG fire, which probably will be abstracted and not tracked 1:1, can lead to some non-realistic results.

The squad, with its intentionally mixed cover states, is a very bad target to model. The minimum 'target' state may be a fireteam or less being the point.

A possible 'solution' is to try to apply the hits against the squad starting with the cover state modeled in the MG resolution. Guys out in the open being hit first, guys in the trench negating the results due to being out of true LOS.

But this just makes further LOS routines being generated being the bottom line.

[Wartgamer]

The point of 1:1 is to remove as many abstractions as possible. If it just generates more but different abstractions, and causes the game scale to fall into sub-company operations and the overall reality 'feels' about the same; Is it worth it?

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks Dale. As for talking about this stuff yourselves, knock yourself out. At the very least when I do come back to ya with a plan you'll all be edumicated about this sort of stuff and we can cut right to the chase

Steve