Jump to content

Is CM:SF fundamentally flawed ??


Manx

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

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

What I still do not understand is how you can design a simulation at this level of detail and have diverging spotting and firing lines.

Actually, this makes a lot of sense, since spotting does not kill, but firing does!</font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 156
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

IIRC Steve once said that CMx1 wasnt designed to be fun but fun accidentally emerged on the way. Well now, they did manage to not have this accident happen again but the result is a more restricted and

less entertaining game, despite the impressive engine. Its concept is just more complex than an average game should be and fun was lost while pursuing ultimate realism. We got an almost perfect 1:1 simulation, weapons model, morale model but a soulless game, if you can say something like that for a piece of software. Maybe some more lively infantry or improved QBs would make it a much better experience. Time will tell, I personaly count a lot on the WW2 title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sirocco:

How does he re-adjust his position to get a shot if positioning is done on a LOS basis, given the group already has LOS?

This is a different question, and a very important one at that! Unfortunately, I do not know the answer! I just know that this problem (aquiring target out of, well, LOF) has surfaced again and again in different wargames, so CM:SF is not alone with these issues.

Best regards,

Thomm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thought, though: If CM:SF (=Charles) found ways to let soldiers interact with windows and doors in a sensible manner (and that part of CM:SF works pretty well), perhaps he can apply some similar logic to building corners!!! That way, guys peeking (and shooting) around the corners would perhaps prevent unnecessary casualties.

Best regards,

Thomm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

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

What I still do not understand is how you can design a simulation at this level of detail and have diverging spotting and firing lines.

Actually, this makes a lot of sense, since spotting does not kill, but firing does!

The correct question, IMHO, is: if LOF is indeed traced individually, why do shots through terrain occur? Hopefully, because it is a bug that will be fixed in 1.04.

Best regards,

Thomm </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is something that I posted in the targetting thread: It lays out my thoughts:

Garm, I have been asking that question off and on for weeks now. There is a thread right next to this one that is, in some ways, asking the same thing. I understand that spotting may play a role. In other words, just because someone is shooting at you, doesn't mean you can see them. I am guessing that what may be happening here is a team is shooting at your guy, but most of the team is behind a hill. One or two guys are at the top. One of two things may be happening:

1) LOS is traced to the center of the enemy squad/action point so you can't shoot back, even though you can be shot.

2) You haven't truly "spotted" the enemy unit. You may have LOS, but some random spotting factor is keeping your guy from actually acquiring the enemy.

I am hoping its #2, but am concerned its #1. #2 is a leap forward in tactical 3D wargaming (Even though POA2 has been doing it for years in 2D). #1 is a fatal design decision.

To understand what I am saying, you have make sure you can look at the difference between LOS and actually spotting a target. LOF is also in here somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by thewood:

What I still do not understand is how you can design a simulation at this level of detail and have diverging spotting and firing lines.

I vaguely remember this being talked about early on. It's because "can I see it" has to be asked every moment, by every unit, towards every other unit. "Can I shoot it" on the other hand only is asked when called for. (you or AI give targeting order) The way I understand it the "can I see it" is asked so frequently that it is asked twice. A first CPU friendly ballpark estimate of whether or not you can see it on a grid basis, and if yes, the LOS check will be more fine grained.

Aside from that issue another reason why the LOS and LOF diverge is ofcourse that calculations of the straight LOS is different then the ballistic arc for LOF.

The worst of the LOS/LOF problems you are seeing are probably bugs and are being and/or have been addressed. But I think there will always be some fudging involved, I'm afraid.

It may be worth pointing out that even in it's flawed state it's still better then CMx1. Remember the 15cm round smack in the middle of a squad not killing anyone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry EB but you are wrong - in my opinion it is NOT better (more realistic, less frustrating) than CM1, and that is the whole problem.

It is much, much worse on nearly everything (LOS, LOF, AI, pathfinding, QBs, terrain area usable, unit types available) except graphic representation, an improved editor, and a slightly better artillery interface (which does not work properly).

It's also much less fun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sandy,

Much less fun, maybe (for you BTW, that's a personal matter).

Saying CMx2 is just better in "graphic representation, an improved editor, and a slightly better artillery interface" is bull****, and these are not minor things anyway.

AI need more tunning, but is mroe complex than CMx1. Pathfinding the same. As for LOF/LOS, most weird stuff is due to bugs, and the times issues happen due toengine are minor, however, is more detailed than CMx1 (grids were 20x20m if I recall right, and do I have to remember you that infantry firing was totally abstracted?!).

It's more realistic and hence more frustrating, but frustation comes along sometimes due to ugs and not polished stuff (infantry model, tacAI), that's right; we're not there yet, this game was released prematurelly. I hold my statement than in 6 months since the release (IMO which should had been the release date), this should be good enough (and defo, at least the engine, much better than CMx1).

Seriouslly, you people should try battles in eviorenments were bugs are not highlighted, try ie. Red on Red in a big map with moderate-small forces maps with not intensive-MOUT enviorenment (more like country/mountain/etc.).

thewood,

LOS is checked both ways, if one unit in an action spot and can see the other, the other way around is true too.

here were my answers to your question in the other thread in case you missed.

I think the anwers may be:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> We can expect area fire to snap to the action point regardless of LOS to a portion of the 8 x 8 grid?

Yes, don't have much of a problem with this as long as we don't see weird stuff like shooting through berns or whatever. Any ground or object feature should stop the fire if it's between center of action spot and LOF.

We can expect fire to deviate from staright line to hit the action point?
No, shouldn't happen, if so is a bug (I suppose you are refeering to area fire cause in ALL other instances LOF is tracked directly, not to the center of the action spot). Units can or can't fire to an action spot, if they CAN they fire to the center of the spot. If some object denies LOF to the center of action spot then they will shoot agains the object (ie. a wall)

We can expect that squad members can be shot without any possibility of LOS to the enemy?
Again, NO. If there is no LOS, there is no LOF. LOF is tracked per each unit (per soldier in temas/squads). Some bizarre behaviour may happen in case in squads which are split , I don't mean split on teams, squads which are moving and occupe various positions, you may refeer to this case maybe? In this case you can observe the icon is in the middle of the line you can trace from one extrem of the squad to the other, that's the action spot as per game LOS calculations, but as each element of the squad is one or other action spot, they can get fire from the enemy even if as per game mechancis they don't have LOS from action spot to action spot.

Here is from where most of this weird stuff come IMO, one possible way toa void this is use teams as much as you can, this is split squads. This is a pain in the ass, as adds unnecessary micro and sometimes reduces firepower, effectiviness or whatever. But in MOUT or envioremnments with narrow LOS places, the weirdness may be exponential, so using teams, in current state, is not a bad idea at all.</font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, if blue can see red, red can see blue, based on these action spots. But if only one member of blue has LOF and all members of red have LOF, red will gang up on blue while the rest of the blue squad won't adjust it's position as they already have LOS as a group, unless the engine adjusts individual positions based on a combination of LOS and LOF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Elmar Bijlsma:

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

What I still do not understand is how you can design a simulation at this level of detail and have diverging spotting and firing lines.

I vaguely remember this being talked about early on. It's because "can I see it" has to be asked every moment, by every unit, towards every other unit. "Can I shoot it" on the other hand only is asked when called for. (you or AI give targeting order) The way I understand it the "can I see it" is asked so frequently that it is asked twice. A first CPU friendly ballpark estimate of whether or not you can see it on a grid basis, and if yes, the LOS check will be more fine grained.

Aside from that issue another reason why the LOS and LOF diverge is ofcourse that calculations of the straight LOS is different then the ballistic arc for LOF.

The worst of the LOS/LOF problems you are seeing are probably bugs and are being and/or have been addressed. But I think there will always be some fudging involved, I'm afraid.

It may be worth pointing out that even in it's flawed state it's still better then CMx1. Remember the 15cm round smack in the middle of a squad not killing anyone? </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by SlowMotion:

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

An individual can be facing in the right direction but not have LOF.

And not necessarily even LOS. Think about night battles or smoke. One unit may have night vision equipment and see opponent from a long distance. The other side with worse equipment can't. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BTW, to talk back about CMSF core engine.

Think about what would happen if CMSF is built around, say, a 2 metres LOS map?

First, the CMX2 engine has to manage 1:1 representation. This implies there is LOS/LOF information in 8*8 metres grid than calculating 20*20 metres homogenous LOS/LOF information with degradation resolution up to 1 metre because LOF information are independent with a greater resolution in CMX2, not in CMX1.

Secondly, in order to have a 2*2 metres LOS checking resolution in a 1:1 environment (which is close to CMX1 resolution checking), you increase by 4 the CPU calculation needed.

Since CMSF is still slow with the best rigs, even the magical blue bar won't accomplish the calculation in reasonable time (IMO longer than solving a turn of a huge CMX1 operation with actual PCs. And keep in mind the CMX1 engine is 8 years old, so imagine how long would be to solve a such turn 8 years ago!).

So, even if BFC would have built the engine for WEGO mode only, they still have to stick to 8*8 grid or maybe 4*4 metres (which is still insufficient I guess for some people).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you are seeing most of the time is closer to a realistic tactical situation then you realise. Commanders have always been trying to figure out how to get more weapon systems on the enemy then the enemy has on him. If you are not seeing all your men shooting at the same time due to each man not being perfectly lined up then just watch a roof to roof firefight. Everyone is in perfect lines therefore all weapon systems can come to bare. Stick those same units on the ground and the minor changes in the terrain can prevent all of them from firing not necessarily from seeing each other. Big differenc in seeing and knowing where the enemy is then in actually everyone having clean lines of fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...