Walls, Berms, LOS, grenades (good news and bad)

[Brent Pollock]

Okay,

I've spent the last couple of hours running some tests to get a handle on the bug/glitch/coding compromise/whatever that allows small arms fire and LOS to go through walls on their own tile.

I used the smallest map possible, no weird weather/lighting, and a platoon of US Cav Scouts and a platoon of Reserve Infantry (set to Regular ability). I divided the map by the high wall(s) and gave them each a small building.

The strangest thing I noticed was that the US units (all of them, including the lone-gunman HQ unit) could draw LOF 3m past the high wall (stone or brick), but the Syrian units couldn't, regardless of how close they were to the wall?!

The units could not be seen until they were close to the wall (I assume within the same tile; if both sides ran PT far enough away from the wall, they could hear one another, but no LOS occurred). Once spotted, they could be seen by anyone with LOS to that wall section, even units well away along the length of the wall, so it does seem like the computer treats them like they are on the opposite side, despite what you see on screen (none visibly crosses the wall). However, even though Syrian units could not draw a LOF to the other side, once close enough to the wall, they could spot and engage enemy units on the other side.

Now the semi-good news. My tests indicate that this LOS problem can have a bandage put on it by running a double high wall instead of just the visually pleasing single high wall (I only tested double high wall, not a combination of high and low). I ran both sides right next to their wall for 10' and no one fired a shot, despite being with hearing distance. If I feel up to it, I'll edit all the QB maps to have double walls and reinstate the originals if this ever gets patched.

...and I should add that the testing was infantry only - no vehicles.

Now, to the topic of grenades not going over high walls - actually, they can...sort of. If I had units of either side within grenade range of the wall and gave them Area Target orders either at (Syrian) or past (US) the wall, a few grenades, but not even half, would be tossed over the wall. Unfortunately, those that made it "over" the wall seemd to just barely get over, looking as if they were still restricted to the footprint of the wall tile.

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

Berm addition:

I have now run similar tests with:

1. Strykers and BMP-2s added

2. replacing the wall with a +6 level berm

3. making that berm two tiles wide.

Results:

1. no LOS benefit for the vehicles. They have to be close to the wall, just like the infantry, to mess things up. I was also able to replictae, for both sides, the "poke vehicle's ass through the wall and disgorge infantry to the other side, using slow, quick, hunt, etc.

2. No unit was able to place a move-type order anywhere on the slope. A seemingly very minor improvement. The berm is still permeable if the unit, vehicle or infantry, is close enough. However, there does seem to be some oblique restrictions to the LOS; if the unit was far enough along the berm, there was no LOS...or maybe I just didn't test enough.

3. No improvement. Even with a double tile berm, if one unit was close enough, LOS was permeable. It did not require both units to be flush with the perm and directly opposite. Also, infantry could now place move-type orders on the slope and top of the berm. I had trouble getting units onto the slope, but one Cav MG team managed it...and came tumbling down dead after "burrowing" their LOS through.

I have not tried steeper double berms...nor did I try any Area Target stuff to see if they would chuck grenades over the berm.

[ August 12, 2007, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Brent Pollock ]

[Spartan]

Some good work... I would like to help if I can. Can it be that the game is so realistic that the guys have modeled in that the Syrians are too short to see over the wall???

[kipanderson]

Brent, hi,

Good post… always helpful to know these things.

I may edit out some walls due to the problems.

Happily Steve has been quite open about the fact that CMSF was sent out the door prematurely. It was due to some contract they had to honour.

This fact reassured me a lot. Their standards have not slipped… they know CMSF as it is today should really be a beta.

Stunning game, when debugged will be all I hoped for.

All the best,

Kip.

[Khane]

On a map on which I was doing some tests with walls and small arms (a small map divided in two parts by a tall wall),I put a Stryker with an embarked platoon on one side of the wall/map and gave him a "reverse" order to the other side of the wall and it did not move, which is fine but when I gave him a second "reverse" order on his side of the wall but very close to the wall , the Stryker moved reverse and his backside then "crossed" through the tall wall. I though it was a graphical abstraction but when I ordered the squad to dismount with a "quick" order, the soldiers started to run on this other side the wall/map exactly like in the bug (?) where a vehicle makes a reverse move inside a building.

I understand that graphical abstractions are unavoidable and the backside of a vehicle going through walls, in spite of being graphically very unpleasant is an acceptable abstraction but a squad disembarking on the other side of the wall is not a graphical abstraction anymore. Is that something that could be fixed ?

Khane

[ August 12, 2007, 09:32 AM: Message edited by: Khane ]

[Huntarr]

Nice troubleshooting.

Original LOS / LOF thread

[Brent Pollock]

I have yet to get around to adding vehicles to the test. I didn't want to compromise it just in case their height negated the wall.

What you did reminds me of the bug/tactic in CMX1 wherein you could do the following:

- position the full squad right next to an impassable wall between two buildings;

- deploy it;

- lo and behold, sometimes a half squad would be on the other side of the wall.

Originally posted by Khane:

[snipped by Brent]...the Stryker moved reverse and his backside then "crossed" through the tall wall. I though it was a graphical abstraction but when I ordered the squad to dismount with a "quick" order, the soldiers started to run on this other side the wall/map exactly like in the bug (?) where a vehicle makes a reverse move inside a building. [snipped by Brent]

Khane

[ARRPEEGEE]

Another trouble spot worth looking into is buildings.

Troops inside buildings seem to be able to target through walls more steadily and often than those outside buildings...It's like they're given an LOS benefit for height, no matter which floor they're on.

[Cavtroop]

I just ran a test mission myself. I had a Tall Stone Wall running through the map, and had 4 units (two red, two blue) 100m away from the wall on either side. Neither could see each other.

I then told one unit from each red and blue to 'quick' towards the wall. At about the 50m point, the unit that did NOT move, could suddenly see the moving unit on the opposite side of the wall (remember, the terrain is perfectly flat, this should not happen). The stationary units then both opened fire, and the fire went right through the wall. By the time the moving units were at the wall, the stationary units had pretty much decimated them. Once the moving units reached the wall (about 5m from it), they started shooting at the stationary units. Through the wall.

At no time could the moving units see or fire at each other.

Something is very, very broken here, and this is another issue that makes the game both not fun, and unplayable.

[Cavtroop]

deleted - duplicate post

[ August 12, 2007, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Cavtroop ]

[Cavtroop]

deleted - triplicate post!

[ August 12, 2007, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: Cavtroop ]

[Brent Pollock]

[entire post removed to the first post for ease of reading by those new to the thread]

[ August 12, 2007, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Brent Pollock ]

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the info guys. We're trying to clean up PBEM right now (mostly done, I think) and we'll get to the LOS/LOF problem soon. Definitely for v1.03, which we have on a fast track like v1.02. This is a problem that needs to be fixed, but fortunately it is not a fundamental problem that can't be addressed. It's a bug, plain and simple. It will be fixed, plain and simple. And soon too

Steve

[Brent Pollock]

WOOHOO!

[Cavtroop]

great news, thanks for the update

[Splinty]

Sweet!

[Northman]

There are similar issues with connected buildings that are worth mentioning.

Issue 1: In the scenarios I have played so far, there are a lot of these connected buildings that have not been edited so that the inside walls do not have windows and doors so that they cannot be shot or seen through. So this is a scenario problem and not an engine problem.

Issue 2: Even if you do remove the windows and doors on the inside wall, you can still use area fire to put a great deal of fire thru the wall. To do this you have to move the target marker around a little to find a valid spot to make it "stick" to. I do not know if this also implies that there are certain spots that can also be traced to with LOS but it does not appear to be so.

Issue 3: When using area fire thru such walls you will often kill men in your own squad because most of the fire does not actually go through it. This is also the case if the wall has not had its windows and doors removed, like in issue 1.

[Renaud]

I suspect BF is working 7 day weeks and insane hours? Hats off to you guys. Too bad about that publishing agreement deadline, but I can sympathize.

Sometimes I do the same, but my job is not fun at all...would be nice to do something I actually give a flip about.

[Lee]

Well, *if* it was some kind of contract agreement that made BTS have to release CMII before it was ready (I knew something had to be up), then I strongly suggest that Steve and Charles never again sign such an agreement. Be like id, they release a game when it's done, and when it's done is when id decides it's done. Activision has nothing to say about it, they just wait until id is ready and sends them the finished game and then they publish it.

With the very strong sales of the CM games and BTS's low overhead (it's not like they have 80 guys on some huge game making team, that fill an entire floor of an office building that they need to rent, that need to be paid for 4 years to make the game), they should be able to finance the making of any new CM games themselves. And not taking any money from a publisher to pay to make the game means not having to answer to anyone about when the game is finished. You just tell the publisher when the game is finished and then they publish it. This avoids the problem of publishers more or less forcing game makers to release games before they are finished and fully tested.