Detmining LOS from Terrain WITHOUT a Unit

[OGF Keller]

OK, I have been playing CMBO for about a year now, and the thing that REALLY bugs me is my inability to determine true line of site from MY observation -- in other words, withOUT having a unit "test" the LOS.

For example, I drop down to the lowest ground level view, look ahead, and think, "Gee this stand of trees and rolling meadow above keeps me in defilade." But then I move a tank there, and WHAM!! toasted by an opponent 400 yards away, in the direction I was looking!!

A company commander may not have topographical maps, and the same may be true for a battalion commander, but as a player I WANT THEM!! Or, in other words, I want to know that that position "over there" is in defilade, so if I get there, I can feel relatively secure about it.

Oh well, any tips out there for determining LOS from a vantage position WITHIN the game, but without a unit THERE to do it for you? (Often, when it's too late).

[ November 05, 2002, 10:09 PM: Message edited by: OGF Keller ]

[Knaust]

pick a unit, trace a move order to the point from where you want to determine LOS...then trace a rotate order up to the target point...then examine the rotate line on the terrain...you will get useful info

[Dook]

A terrain mod with a grid overlay might also help.

[Sgt. Schultz]

Remember that a tank will be seen in a lot of places an infantry unit will not be. A little dip in the ground may hide a squad but a tank will be in plain view. Trees as cover or LOS breakers are the same. Tanks will be seen through trees that would cover a squad.

War is risk too. You take your chances and deal with the fact that sometimes no matter what... you are going to make a mistake and lose units to bad decisions or incorrect assumptions. There is no such thing as playing a perfect game. Trying to make sure that everyone is covered all the time will lead to an ulcer when they get pasted anyway.

The grid idea is good to, although I don't use them.

[OGF Keller]

Originally posted by Knaust:

pick a unit, trace a move order to the point from where you want to determine LOS...then trace a rotate order up to the target point...then examine the rotate line on the terrain...you will get useful info

OK, I tried this, first selecting a position with an infantry unit that I thought was in defilade, tracing a move, and then a rotate. Well, the rotate only turned red at a VERY far depression -- it was purple out for hundreds of yards. I then hit go, had my unit move to that position, and then did an LOS. Low and behold, it WAS in defilade as I had thought.

So while it seems to me that it provides SOME information, it doesn't provide the whole picture -- and in this case, a misleading picture.

[Woofers]

Correct me if I'm wrong (as if anyone needs an invitation ), but I was under the impression that the rotate line turning red is purely to do with what terrain your mouse pointer is sitting on top of. The line turns red if the pointer is on impassable terrain for that unit ie if you're plotting a rotate order for a vehicle and put the mouse on woods, the rotate line turns red.

In short, I don't think the redness of the line is anything to do with LOS.

[Knaust]

What I wanted to mean is the following (yes…I know that my English is very poor ):

the move order is merely virtual…it is necessary to establish the initial location of observation (you don’t have to move really to that point!)

then you have to trace the rotate order line just up to the target location

the rotate line is a true line of observation (you need to examine the relation between the line and the terrain clicking the zoom 1 key)

i.e. 1)the rotate line follows the terrain contour if you don’t have LOS to the target

2)the rotate line doesn’t follow the terrain contour if a LOS exists (it is a straight line treced over the terrain)

3)you can even state if the LOS isn’t impaired by obstacles like trees,buildings etc.

[miragex]

When your troop saw a covered area (e.g. wood), you think that it will be a good cover place, but the only way to find out is actually move into that place. In fact, that location may not be as safe as you think. That's the way of life in battlefield. I think there is no problem for that, and you may take your risk to expose your troop in order to move them to (supposed to be) safe place.

[TSword]

Knaust,

Thx, learnt something !

Greets

Daniel

[OGF Keller]

Originally posted by miragex:

When your troop saw a covered area (e.g. wood), you think that it will be a good cover place, but the only way to find out is actually move into that place. In fact, that location may not be as safe as you think. That's the way of life in battlefield. I think there is no problem for that, and you may take your risk to expose your troop in order to move them to (supposed to be) safe place.

Conceptually, I have no problem with the concept that you take risks by taking up ANY position.

Yet at the same time, there should be SOME probability, and occasionally a very good one, that CERTAIN positions are going to be defilade.

For example, I just finished playing Danube Blues (a nice scenario) in CMBB; I eeked out a minor victory. At one point, I moved one of my T34/85s behind a single story heavy building -- and then, WHAM!! a shot from a Tiger, 200 yards away. So where is this Tiger? Well, you can trace the target line THOUGH the building I am presumably behind AND through ANOTHER building in FRONT of the Tiger!!!

I am sorry, but this makes no sense.

And the other day, I played the British in CMBO scenario, Coldstream Guards. I move my infantry into a wooded area, it's at least 20 to 30 yards from the edge of the woods as defined by the map. Guess what THEN? My infantry starts taking DIRECT, and pretty devastating, machine guy fire from a position across the river, and EQUALLY deep in a DIFFERENT section of woods!! Of course, I can return fire, and we slug it out, but, again, this makes no sense.

Again, there are always risks, but sometimes it seems that even the reasonably calculated risks come back to bite you when they shouldn't.

[Knaust]

TSword....hehe...you got it!...despite my poor English!

[Massattack]

I am fully in agreement with OGF on this. Regardless of the arguments about risk in real life, as a gaming tool a proper line of sight tool would be extremely useful, and enhance gameplay considerably. After all, this is not a FPS game, and we have the ability to freeze action to ponder our next move for as long as we like. Those of you who do not want to use it need not, but a simple tool whereby you click on any point on the map, and stretch the line anywhere to see what the los is from that position. OK so los may be different for infantry or vehicles, but still not a difficult idea to implement. This one is definitely on my wishlist.

Regards

Massattack

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by OGF Keller:

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

When your troop saw a covered area (e.g. wood), you think that it will be a good cover place, but the only way to find out is actually move into that place. In fact, that location may not be as safe as you think. That's the way of life in battlefield. I think there is no problem for that, and you may take your risk to expose your troop in order to move them to (supposed to be) safe place.

Conceptually, I have no problem with the concept that you take risks by taking up ANY position.

Yet at the same time, there should be SOME probability, and occasionally a very good one, that CERTAIN positions are going to be defilade.

For example, I just finished playing Danube Blues (a nice scenario) in CMBB; I eeked out a minor victory. At one point, I moved one of my T34/85s behind a single story heavy building -- and then, WHAM!! a shot from a Tiger, 200 yards away. So where is this Tiger? Well, you can trace the target line THOUGH the building I am presumably behind AND through ANOTHER building in FRONT of the Tiger!!!

I am sorry, but this makes no sense.

</font>

[Silvio Manuel]

Another note:

If I recall correctly, the manual specifically states that BFC's *intent* was that while you can "fly" around the map like a bird to see the *map* you can't do this to magically do LOS checks like a god... since that would be too unrealistic and they are realism-freaks as much as possible.

[OGF Keller]

Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

With all due respect, the problem is that you are not realizing that the things you are seeing on the CM virtual battlefield are **abstracted**. Tanks don't generally see *through* bldgs (tho sometimes they do). Imagine the enemy TC seeing the rear half of your tank, but you tank crew can't see any of the enemy tank...understand?

This is also easily illustrated for infantry doing a "close assault" vs. a tank or even "close/hand to hand combat" vs. other inf.units. IT may look stupid when you see your squad throw a demo charge about 40 or 50m, but really your squad is abstracted to occupy 1 tile or maybe 20m x 20m, not just that one point in space. So 1 guy is at the "forward edge of the squad 'tile' " and doing his thing while other guys are maybe 20m away but still "inside" that squad, laying down LMG fire to cover him.

It's all in the abstraction...[Kuato voice]open your mind...open your mind[end Kuato voice]

Kevin

Ok, I suppose I can understand this with infantry, but with a tank?

I can't tell you how frustrating it is to put a waypoint for an AFV directly behind a building -- which, in the real world, is not all that hard to expect, you know, "Get behind the building so anyone directly in front of it can't see you" -- and then after you get there, you have an opponent pop a ponetrating round into it from the very position this you're trying to shield yourself from!! That Waypoint was BEHIND the building, but the "abstraction" you tolerate has left me with my zipper down.

I am not talking about peeking around corners here either.

It seems to me a game that strives for realism should tend to eschew the abstraction you talk about here, and go for the the realistic. Just like my original post, where, as a commander with a topographical map, I know that THIS position, but not THAT position, is in defilade relative to THAT map coordinate. THAT's the real world, it seems to me.

[ November 08, 2002, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: OGF Keller ]

[Holien]

Knaust,

No wonder you take so long with your turns, you gamey so and so!!!

Thxs I have learnt something too...

H

[Knaust]

Hey Holien...nice to see you again!...

damn...my secret is no more a secret ...moreover it didn't work with you, as I used to lose to you

[Holien]

You taught me all I know...

Now we have cmbb do you fancy a game for old time sakes?

H

[OGF Keller]

Oh, Knaust, by the way, thanks for your idea and explanation. I have been using it and it has been quite helpful.

[ November 08, 2002, 09:55 AM: Message edited by: OGF Keller ]

[Knaust]

thx OGF...

hey Holien..waiting for cmbb in retail shops here in Italy...only cmbb demo to play for now :mad:

[Holien]

Sorry to hear that, I await your e-mail when you want to play.

I have been busy with renovation and now it is winter my gaming time is back on the agenda.

H

[Cameroon]

Originally posted by OGF Keller:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

With all due respect, the problem is that you are not realizing that the things you are seeing on the CM virtual battlefield are **abstracted**. Tanks don't generally see *through* bldgs (tho sometimes they do). Imagine the enemy TC seeing the rear half of your tank, but you tank crew can't see any of the enemy tank...understand?

This is also easily illustrated for infantry doing a "close assault" vs. a tank or even "close/hand to hand combat" vs. other inf.units. IT may look stupid when you see your squad throw a demo charge about 40 or 50m, but really your squad is abstracted to occupy 1 tile or maybe 20m x 20m, not just that one point in space. So 1 guy is at the "forward edge of the squad 'tile' " and doing his thing while other guys are maybe 20m away but still "inside" that squad, laying down LMG fire to cover him.

It's all in the abstraction...[Kuato voice]open your mind...open your mind[end Kuato voice]

Kevin

Ok, I suppose I can understand this with infantry, but with a tank?

I can't tell you how frustrating it is to put a waypoint for an AFV directly behind a building -- which, in the real world, is not all that hard to expect, you know, "Get behind the building so anyone directly in front of it can't see you" -- and then after you get there, you have an opponent pop a ponetrating round into it from the very position this you're trying to shield yourself from!! That Waypoint was BEHIND the building, but the "abstraction" you tolerate has left me with my zipper down.

I am not talking about peeking around corners here either.

It seems to me a game that strives for realism should tend to eschew the abstraction you talk about here, and go for the the realistic. Just like my original post, where, as a commander with a topographical map, I know that THIS position, but not THAT position, is in defilade relative to THAT map coordinate. THAT's the real world, it seems to me.</font>

[Silvio Manuel]

Cameroon,

Yup the "seeing/shooting thru windows" thing can really take you by surprise. I got a draw instead of a win in my 1st PBEM b/c of that, I lost two Shermans b/c my house "shield" turned out to be kinda transparent. Live and learn...