Setup phase LOS problems

[c3k]

Gents,

Here's an issue that's kicked around a bit, but I don't think BF.C has addressed yet. (Could be, but with the signal to noise ratio being what it is, I'll just try again.)

In a WEGO game, the first turn is a hybrid setup/orders turn. In CMx1 (I know, I know, apples and oranges) you choose where setup your units. While doing so you have no intel on the location of the enemy. Nor should you, since their location is UNKNOWN to the computer until they've been setup. Simple. Then the setup phase ends.

Instantly, you gain intel on the enemy. If they're in LOS, they're known. For example, a German squad in the open 40 meters away from my Russian bunker becomes visible. A German squad set back in some thick pines would NOT be known. Then, knowing this, I select my orders for the first turn.

As the German, seeing a line of bunkers and rows of barbed wire stretching from one side of the map to the other, I would tend NOT to order a frontal "RUN".

This is elementary to CMx1 veterans.

In CMx2 there is, er, not a "problem", but a strange programming convention.

The setup and order phase is the same for the first turn. I know NOTHING of the enemy when I setup. I place my units, give them orders, click "go" and THEN I see that they are only 20 meters away from the 1st Republican Guards Division. Ooops.

So, I've done a test. (Hey, has ANYONE read this far?)

I setup a US Stryker platoon, minus their vehicles, on a tiny map, 208m x 320m. All brush and grass "T". I selected a single map tile in the CENTER of the US platoon and made it a Syrian setup zone. I placed a Syrian T-72 right there. Yep, 20 meters to 40 meters away from every element of a US platoon.

What happened?

The US player has NO IDEA there is a TANK in its midst until AFTER you click "go". Shred the crunchies.

So, I tweaked some of the scenario editor parameters.

Mission -> Data -> Early Intel and -> Intel Level (?) had been "none" and "none".

I changed it to "Blue" - so Blue gets Early Intel, and selected Intel Level (that may not be name) to "Full".

This produced an anomolous change.

Opening the scenario, the brush gets "drawn" into being, starting at the camera location and extending into the distance. As the "drawing front" moved over the tank location, the T-72 became visible. MOMENTARILY. Poof, it was gone again.

So, bug, error, anomoly, user ineptitude?

Why did the tank appear and disappear? Why isn't it visible?

How can this setup problem be resolved?

BF.C?

1.05,

Ken

[thewood]

The issues with the combined 1st turn and setup phase was brought up before. Your detail makes the issue a lot clearer. At the time it was brought up before, I saw no response. It would seem we weren't yelling loud enough to get anyone's attention.

[c3k]

thewood,

Thanks. I'm not sure "yelling" before, or now, will garner any attention. But, in the absence of positive reinforcement...

BF.C, anything?

Regardless of the setup/orders first turn issue, what is the function of the menu items "Early Intel" and "Intel Level"? How are they supposed to work? Are they placeholders for a function to be implemented later?

Do you want me to send you the scenario?

Would it help if anyone else sees the tank appear momentarily, prior to setup, then disappear if the intel is set to "blue" and "full"?

helloooo.....

1.05,

Ken

[c3k]

If there's anyone interested (hint, hint, BF.C) I've run this with the early intel, full options several times. The level of difficulty makes a difference.

At all 3 levels of difficulty the tank is visible UNTIL the "drawing front" passes it. It then disappears. At "Basic" level, it stays invisible. At both "Veteran" and "Elite" the tank is replaced with a "?" icon.

That seems odd, no?

Any interest?

1.05,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

Well, I agree with you that the combined deploy/orders phase has a drawback for WeGo play (not so with RealTime). I don't know if Charles can force an extra (fake) turn into the WeGo system to make it behave more like CMx1. It's certainly worth considering.

As for the FOW stuff, I can't comment effectively since it's highly situationally dependent. So many things going on there... even if there was a problem, I've got now way of guessing as to what might be going wrong. That's the main problem with making games that aren't rocks, paper, scissors. Some days I actually do wish I made the RTS some early CMers accused us of making. Life would be so much easier

Steve

[DaveDash]

Ive fiddled around with early intel before and it seems it puts red question marks over suspected enemy units. The higher the %, the more question marks there seem to be,

[c3k]

Steve; Thanks for the look and reply. As far as being "situationally dependent" the tank is sitting in brush 20 meters aways. You've touched on the deploy/orders issue (make the "fake" turn a zero time turn in duration - that would keep any action from occuring).

What seems VERY odd is the differences in intel between Basic, Veteran, and Elite. Additionally, the "glitch" which results in the tank being drawn, in toto, BEFORE either disappearing or being replaced with a "?". That lets me SEE the enemy unit momentarily.

I'd be more than happy to send you the scenario.

Let me know.

DaveDash; I only toggled intel to "Full". With just one enemy unit, there is only the one "?". Once I get a solid grip at the simplest level (which I do NOT), then I'll try more and more units with varying levels of intel.

1.05,

Ken

[DaveDash]

Yeah what I meant was I think 30% intel shows you 30% of the enemy units picked at random as ?'s. Will be interesting to see if this is correct.

[SgtMuhammed]

Related to this issue, designers please, stop putting enemy troops in the middle of the friendly setup zones to make some sort of ambush. It's cheap and gamey and there are better ways to do it.

[Battlefront.com]

The "ambush" scenarios like that are fine IMHO. We had plenty of them in CMx1. The thing is the designer should make it clear that is what the scenario is all about. You know, "Captain Skrutm didn't listen to his NCOs and now you find yourself in the middle of a turd sandwich. Deal with it!"

Steve

[SgtMuhammed]

I am not against the "ambush" itself but when a company of enemy troops beams into your assembly area it is just a cheap way to get some free shots in. There are many ways to do a good ambush that don't rely on editor tricks.

[c3k]

Steve,

A direct question: are you aware of the drawing in problem of enemy units?

If not, I assume it's due to the volume of traffic on the forum and your busy schedule. I've outlined it, above.

If you'd like to see a scenario which reliably replicates it, let me know. aka_tom_w has my current email.

Regards,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

The "drawing in" problem isn't something I am aware of except as a side effect of hardware speed and scenario size. Is that scenario you're pointing to a big one and is your hardware moderate?

Steve

[c3k]

Steve,

Quite the opposite. Scenario size is "tiny" or "small". The map is 208 meters x 350 meters. It is flat with all squares being Grass "T" AND Brush.

The units are 1 stryker platoon, minus vehicles (3 squads, 2 MMG teams, 1 Hq element), and a lone T-72.

That's it.

My game system: q6600 (clocked at 3.2 Ghz vice 2.4 standard), Nvidia 8800GTX, 8 Gig of Ram, Vista64 Ultimate. Is that considered moderate by you guys?

So, tiny map, minimum number of units, non-complex terrain, good machine: I can reliably replicate this issue.

Let me know.

Thanks,

Ken

[Aacooper]

I think the bigger problem is that scenario designers shouldn't make scenarios where the defender starts blasting away from the attacker from the word 'go'. The campaign especially seems to have a lot, and frankly it's no fun when there's a scenario like that. The attacker should always (maybe there's some exceptions) be out of LOS to the defender, so the attacker can advance in the manner he sees fit.

[M1A1TC]

^ Agreed

[Battlefront.com]

C3K,

I'm at a loss as to understand what the problem is because we aren't aware of a general "drawing in" issue. Certainly your system is fast, even faster than most of our testers', and the map is VERY small, so I dunno what it is you're seeing and why none of us are. Oh, one guess though it isn't all that good. Charles found a drawing inefficiency with Elite. Are you playing Elite or do you notice a change when using different settings?

Steve

[Meach]

Sorry but I don't understand what you mean by "drawing in".

[Battlefront.com]

Neither do I

What I took C3K's comments about "drawing front" to mean is something that (as I said) is performance related. When a map is first drawn the game system makes several passes over the terrain to draw and refine the 3D representation to best suit the person's particular hardware configuration. Normally this is over before it is noticed, or over within a second or so. It would appear that C3K is talking about this BUT that it is taking significantly longer AND on a system that shouldn't be seeing anything but a brief (if any) visual signs of "drawing" taking place.

Steve

[c3k]

Steve,

Your understanding seems correct. It _is_ only taking a second or so to layer in all the graphics. The "glitch" is that the enemy tank is drawn in during that span, then disappears.

I'll play with the new patch (congratulations and thanks for 1.05) and continue this thread afterwards.

Thanks,

Ken

[c3k]

Steve et al.,

Okay, I've played with v1.05 and the "glitch" is still there.

At start, at the beginning of the setup phase, the Syrian tank is visible for about a second and then, depending on difficulty and intel levels, is replaced with a "?" icon or disappears. Yet, IT IS TOTALLY VISIBLE FOR THE FIRST SECOND.

Has anyone else noticed this?

8800GTX with 169.09 driver.

Vista64 Ultimate.

Thanks,

Ken

[c3k]

A bump because this would be great to have fixed in the next patch.

1.06,

Ken