Light Terrain and LOS

[Broken]

Light terrain (Brush, Wheatfields, Rough, etc) doesn't block LOS anymore!

In CMBO, a hundred meters of tall grain or brush would be enough to block LOS, at least in flat terrain. In CMBB, 4000 meters of brush, steppe, summer wheat, rough, rocky, marsh, or cemetary has absolutely no effect on LOS. I don't believe this is intentional, since the LOS-blocking distances of woods, pines and scattered trees are very similar to CMBO.

On a similar note, infantry can now run or move through woods and pines at the same speed as in clear terrain. Quite a difference from CMBO. Is this intentional?

Gus

[Broken]

Bump

Maybe I should have posted this a title like "BUG!Fix this!"

[Panzer Leader]

Is this all true? I guess I should check...

[tabpub]

well, regarding the tall pines, the manual states that due to lack of underbrush, movement and LOS will be increased as compared to CMBO.

Re the woods, that does not sound correct.

Los - was that done by inf, armor, or both?

Haven't noticed my self, but haven't been looking either.

[Broken]

In terms of the LOS not being blocked, I tested this with both infantry and armor doing the spotting. No LOS blockage over 4000m of bushes, wheat, rough, etc.

Yeah, I can see running being as fast in pines as in clear, but hard to believe in woods with underbrush. Other terrain seems to work like in CMBO.

[Cameroon]

Well, I just thought I'd give it a shot. ~700 meters of brush did not block LOS at all. The LOS line didn't even shade darker at all.

[Broken]

Yep, that's what I noticed. Looks like a bug to me.

[Treeburst155]

I have confirmed Broken's concerns. Indeed troops can run through woods, scattered trees, and pines at the same speed as open terrain.

Also, brush, grain, steppe appear to have no effect on LOS. IOW, LOS does not degrade even over very long distances. Hmmm...I didn't check open terrain for degradation over distance.

Treeburst155 out.

[Chad Harrison]

Interestingly enough, I had my LOS blocked by level terrain. No dips or small hills, and my LOS was blocked after about 300 or so meters in clear weather. The manual says that this should be the way it is. I have noticed that brush and what not do not block LOS. But, I dont know if this is a bug.

Chad

[tabpub]

I agree that the running thru the open being the same as brush, woods, etc. seems concerning, but do you notice the level of exhaustion going up quicker in the heavier terrain? That may be the answer (I hope). The rationale (if this is the case) is that you can run thru the woods about as well as open ground, you will just tire a lot quicker.

As to the LOS, were you merely using the terrain tool, or were you looking at something? As in, you can see over the wheat fine, but wouldn't be able to see infantry stationary in the middle of the field?

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by Chad Harrison:

Interestingly enough, I had my LOS blocked by level terrain. No dips or small hills, and my LOS was blocked after about 300 or so meters in clear weather. The manual says that this should be the way it is. I have noticed that brush and what not do not block LOS. But, I dont know if this is a bug.

Chad

Ironically, the manual states that brush provides good concealment and restricts LOS.

Maybe there is something we're missing, but it seems to me that 700 meteres of brush would restrict LOS pretty well. Have we tried having the troops hiding and then checking LOS? I mean, maybe it is just that our troops are taller than the brush and so it does not affect LOS when they are "standing"?

Yes, that seems like reaching to me, but I'm going to find out before I jump on the bug bandwagon completely.

[AUSSIEJEFF]

Well, I just set up this test.

4 strips of terrain, from left to right Brush, Rough, Wheat and Steppe.

With no fog of war, units can be spotted and targetted through all light terrain types whether standing, lying, hiding or dug in.

With extreme fog of war, units can't be spotted, but area targetting works just the same as if there was no fog of war. ie: even lying in dense bushes, inf units can area target brush up to 485 metres away with no problems. Seems a bit odd to me. If you can't theoretically see through a "wall" of dense bushes, how can you accurately area target through that? Unless of course firing directly up into the air to fall 485 metres away with the assistanc of Inf FO's has been modelled!!

Maybe someone from BFC can comment on this quirk?

AJ

[ October 04, 2002, 07:00 AM: Message edited by: AussieJeff ]

[UPCdave]

This is definitely worthy of a bump.

Surely LOS must be affected?

[Myles Keogh]

I've noticed this too. Wheatfields do not block LOS in CMBB, which is disconcerting considering that an extensive wheatfield would eventually block LOS in CMBO.

If the LOS engine truly is broken then a fix for it should be PRIORITY for any future patch.

[TSword]

First, To me the new solution is a far better one then before. One has LOS in a grain field (targetting possible for area fire), but concealment is largely improved, so units lying on the ground are concealed very efficiently, whereas that KV-2-tank may be spotted and targeted no matter what. I think it is a good tradeoff. A unit has a concealment value in a certain terrain tile, while LOS only reflects the principal possibility to target something.

In the real world a target 3 m in Height won't be concealed by a grainy field no matter what distance of grainfield lies between it and the shooter, same goes for brush (maybe to a lesser extent) and rough.

I was perfectly able to sneak an enemy unit in th e open within 30 m trhough a grain field in July, without being spotted in a scenario (No way in CMBO).

CMBB for a very good reason has decoupled LOS and Concealment. Of course the perfect solution would be to really calculate the percentage of concealment of a given terrain type to any dimensioned target -> (Dog, prone Inf, Standing Inf, PzI or KV-2). But then again the LOS line would have to be dynamic (e.g. Bright blue for a KV-2 but black for prone Inf), but that's simply not possible yet without severe performance impacts.

Nothing to worry about in my eyes.

CMBB is the better CM in every respect.

Greets

Daniel

[Shep]

Thinking through this one. Sounds at first like a bug to me, but...

It depends on what is being grown in the "grainfield," and when. Sunflowers, corn, and other tall crops may completely block an LOS in August. Early in the season they would not, but in both cases they would provide ample concealment.

As for rough and brush terrain types, I think they're modelling foliage and rocks that are 3 or 4 feet tall. You can see over that for quite some distance...

But... you would have to stand to engage a target through it. MGs would be ruled out entirely, and shooting in the standing position isn't exactly the most comfortable or accurate way to fire. And besides, enemy infantry has an annoying habit of hitting the ground when fired at (and thus becoming entirely concealed). Infantry using Move and Fast Move commands should be visible... assault and advance less so... sneak hardly at all.

Steppe is supposed to represent tall grass, and should be about the same as rough and brush.

[Liebchen]

Originally posted by AussieJeff:

With extreme fog of war, units can't be spotted, but area targetting works just the same as if there was no fog of war. ie: even lying in dense bushes, inf units can area target brush up to 485 metres away with no problems. Seems a bit odd to me. If you can't theoretically see through a "wall" of dense bushes, how can you accurately area target through that? Unless of course firing directly up into the air to fall 485 metres away with the assistanc of Inf FO's has been modelled!!

Could it be that the firing troops are firing their rifles blindly through the barleyfields? It <u>is</u> area fire, after all, and has a greatly diminished accuracy. I can imagine that many, if not most, rounds would not be hindered too much by passing among the grainstalks, but would generally make their way down the field.

I can imagine being the target unit hiding in a prone position in the grainfield, with bullets whizzing overhead. I may not be getting hit, but I certainly would think twice before standing up. :eek:

Overall, it makes sense to me that there is "LOS" through the grainfields. Think of it as "LOF" instead, if you must -- line of fire. Any person who stands up in them gets seen, any person who remains hidden does not get seen, and the bullets just keep flying in any event, either accurately or randomly.

Has anyone tested to see if units hiding in grainfields have reduced LOS? I suspect that the answer will be in the affirmative...

[ October 04, 2002, 01:46 PM: Message edited by: Liebchen ]

[Redwolf]

Damn communists can't even grow a decent brush...

[Treeburst155]

I think you guys are confusing the issue. Forget about spotting for now. LOS does not degrade over distance like in CMBO. IOW, the LOS line does not darken over the brush-like terrain as you increase the distance.

In CMBO you can see 155 meters through brush on a clear day. As you move toward that distance the LOS line darkens. The quality of your LOS steadily drops, and I assume the liklihood of spotting something also drops. In CMBB the LOS line does not become darker with distance. The player cannot determine the quality of his LOS because of this. He can't say, "I can barely see that area." In fact, feedback from the LOS line shows that brush, steppe, etc. is effectively clear terrain. Either there is a bug, or something major has been changed with the LOS line.

EDIT: TabPub, that's an interesting idea concerning the running speed. You may be right about them tiring quicker in heavier terrain. Still, the entire running thing is different than CMBO, and undocumented too as far as I'm aware.

Treeburst155 out.

[ October 04, 2002, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[AUSSIEJEFF]

Ok. Test session #2 completed.

This time I set up various machine guns and AT/INF guns on the flat testing ground to see if lying / sitting / crouching units could also area target unhindered through the same light terrain types.

I found that all these non-standing unit types can indeed accurately area target up to their maximum range through light terrain. I had the range set at 2000m and a kneeling 37mm Russian AA gun area fired very accurately and knocked out an MG hiding in brush at that distance! All the heavy MG's area targetted accurately out to their maximum ranges. I haven't had the time to test this further, but presumably longer range guns can accurately area target out to the 4000metres max range of the CMBB scenario editor through brush / wheat / rough / steppe.

Of course, when I say "accurately" read that as "more accurate at close ranges and a bit less accurate at max ranges". Some scatter at max ranges is quite the norm.

Any more ideas on this?

AJ

[ October 04, 2002, 08:14 PM: Message edited by: AussieJeff ]

[AUSSIEJEFF]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

TabPub, that's an interesting idea concerning the running speed. You may be right about them tiring quicker in heavier terrain. Still, the entire running thing is different than CMBO, and undocumented too as far as I'm aware.

Treeburst155 out.

I also just ran a flat ground quick test with regular fit GERMAN and SOVIET inf rifle units starting line abreast in Steppe, Brush, Wheat, Scattered Trees, Tall Pines and Rough, then all given the "RUN" command for 100m.

All units start out at the same speed. After about 40m the Rough Ground inf units start slowing appreciably and soon show a "tiring" status. The rest keep running pretty well unhindered up to about 80 metres, then the Brush units start to slow. The Tall Pines, Scattered Trees, Steppe and Wheat units seemed to cope with the 100m dash no problem at all and almost at the same time, without displaying any tiring status.

Of course, this was a flat test as slopes would affect all these results significantly one way or the other. It only gives an indication. I think more in-depth and thorough testing would be the go before drawing any more conclusions from this. I'll let someone else do it since I wanna GET BACK TO THE GAME

AJ

[Treeburst155]

Yeah, the running thing is a non-issue IMO. I've been experimenting with it. The LOS line is a different story. Apparently, it only darkens when tracing LOS through some type of trees. No other terrain degrades LOS, judging by the LOS line.

From page 201 of the manual (italics are mine):

"The brighter the blue line color, the better the LOS, i.e the less obstructed the view to that particular location. Notice that LOS deteriorates even across open terrain."

This LOS deterioration does not happen except when tracking LOS through trees. This is a bug IMO.

Treeburst155 out.

Treeburst155 out.

[AUSSIEJEFF]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Yeah, the running thing is a non-issue IMO. I've been experimenting with it.

I agree that this seems a minor quibble at best. The modelling of tiring/weariness etc seems pretty good to me.

The LOS line is a different story. Apparently, it only darkens when tracing LOS through some type of trees. No other terrain degrades LOS, judging by the LOS line.

Yeah. I noticed that too in the testing. Only types of trees have any effect on the LOS or effective range.

From page 201 of the manual (italics are mine):

"The brighter the blue line color, the better the LOS, i.e the less obstructed the view to that particular location. Notice that LOS deteriorates even across open terrain."

This LOS deterioration does not happen except when tracking LOS through trees. This is a bug IMO.

Treeburst155 out.

Treeburst155 out.

Given that the manual actually states this, yet from what we've seen and tested so far this does NOT appear to be the case for Brush, Steppe, Wheat or Rough terrain {ie: that does NOT contain trees}, I'd agree that this does seem to be a significant? bug.

AJ

[ October 04, 2002, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: AussieJeff ]

[Treeburst155]

This bug is only significant on maps with a fair amount of brush, grain, steppe, or open terrain.

IF brush is supposed to have the same LOS blocking characteristics as in CMBO, then brush can often be a significant terrain feature when there are fairly large patches of it (LOS in CMBO brush is 155).

Maybe the LOS line is not working, but the actual calculations are. This would be even worse than the brush, grain, etc. being treated as open terrain by the program, because the LOS tool would be misleading us.

Is the LOS line telling us the truth? If so, light terrain features are simply open terrain. There is no brush, grain, etc.. Yes, we have a significant bug here.

BTW, foxholes in brush, summer grain, and open terrain appear at the same distance to infantry. It would seem to me that a foxhole in a summer wheatfield would be much more difficult to spot than a foxhole in open terrain. For this reason I believe the LOS tool is telling us the truth, and the program does not recognize the lighter terrain features as far as LOS is concerned.

Treeburst155 out.

[ October 04, 2002, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Kwacker]

Deserves a bump to see if BFC will respond.