Question about cover

[Battlefront.com]

Yikes, lots of things to cover here! I'll try to answer them as best I can before this thread gets even more unwieldy

Trees are now independent of the terrain they are on so it's up to the scenario designer to "color" the forested areas differently. In CMx1 it either was forest or it wasn't, so the underlying terrain tile was able to be unique compared to others.

What terrain your unit is in should be evident from looking at the visuals. There is a degree of abstraction similar to CMx1 where a certain amount of cover is assumed to be present in most terrain, but we can't show it simply because the polygons required are too much.

Showing the exact terrain you're on is not as easy as it was in CMx1. CMBB/AK had a little picture in the main UI that shows where the unit was, but that was possible because terrain was not very dynamic. It was also possible because a unit was either completely within a type of terrain or not. In CMx2 an infantry team can be spread out in very different terrain, therefore there is not necessarily one right answer. Flavor Terrain, within an Action Spot, usually is only accessible as cover for a few guys so that also complicates things.

Action Spots are used for a rough calculation to determine LOS between two spots. Once this has been established as valid more refined checks are used to determine specific LOF between individual elements. If LOF is not possible then shots can't be taken, regardless of LOS status of that Action Spot. That's the way the game has always been since it was first coded.

What's changed since Enhanced LOS is that there is now a "micro" LOS check from individual to individual after the Action Spot to Action Spot is checked out. This is a new stage that is inbetween the Action Spot LOS check and the individual LOF check. It helps reduce Borg Spotting a bit more by reducing automatic inter-unit information sharing.

There was a very detailed thread about the Enhanced LOS system that I posted when it was introduced. If someone could link to that I'm sure someone would find it interesting. I did find this one from January 28 (check a for my post a few posts down) which included some of the same people in this thread. I guess memories aren't what they used to be for some of you

Steve

[Secondbrooks]

Concerning foxholes for proneposition (dunno is this correct english term) which we can see atleast at start of mission for each man...

1. Does it get created everytime man goes lying to represent microdetail in terrain. I think i've seen it to be created quite fast to lying men. Then again i've seen some deep holes for men at start of mission.

2. Is there various deepnesslevels of these holes? I think i've seen swallow and deeper ones when playing. Is ground tile's type (rocky, sand, grass) having importance in this?

3. Does that hole get deeper by time or is it solid you get what you find bonus? Do men dig or other way improve cover value of their hole by time?

4.Other factors? Or have i eaten wrong kind mushrooms when seeing these holes?

[Childress]

Trees are now independent of the terrain they are on so it's up to the scenario designer to "color" the forested areas differently. In CMx1 it either was forest or it wasn't, so the underlying terrain tile was able to be unique compared to others.

A lot of scenarios are missing this. How about 1 new tile, just for forest/woods undergrowth? Some non-reactive (in game terms) terrain with, say branches, leaves, saplings, etc. Existing tiles can be less than satisfactory for this function. Just a thought...

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Childress]

We need the undergrowth for birds-eye planning even though, unlike CM1, a tree is a tree in CMSF. You either get the existing foliage which is opaque or spindly trunks. Some scenario makers have taken a stab at this and it's helpful.

[Secondbrooks]

I liked the idea of tall pines and woods and scatterer trees in Cmx1... Can't see why it couldn't be same atleast in 'CMx2 going Normandy'-module. Simple to understand and easy to read they were, yet cowering basic types of forest. Maybe add something truly intresting 'i can't see longer than 10 meters distance'-type of forest.

In CMSF there can be tens of combinations of mixed trees,bushes&brushes which gives no hard data about them, how they block LOS and LOF (which differs pretty much). If i station squad into forest and want it to have optimal position nearby, i need to do quite much "fireposition scouting":

-how it sees here and there

-is it too exposed to fire and spotting

-does it see&hear it's commander

And finally

-do my RPGs end up hitting trees 10 meters away from firing position (and damange my own squad by that).

Overall, as easily as i can get good results out of it i can also get bad results, where squad can't fire enemy effectively but enemy can fire it.

Then again is it reasonible to improve existing system? Is there going back to system CMx1 had with premade types of forest in any way? I create alot forest fights for CMSF and feel this question to be quite important, but to my understandment this ain't exactly the hottest terrain gamers wants to be involved.

[ April 27, 2008, 04:47 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

[c3k]

Large woods fighting seems to be part of WWII. However, right now it's hard to find troops in woods, both enemy and friendly. The on/off toggle for trees helps, but how about a new way of seeing through trees?

How about a transparency setting for trees? I'm thinking about a setting very similar to the way buildings work right now. If I have a force in woods, it's nice to see the rest of the woods and still focus on the troops. Perhaps a grid size, 8m x 8m, area (if occupied)? Currently it's all on or all off.

(Of course, all I've been doing lately is desert zone. If my memory is wrong, I apologize.)

Regards,

Ken