Line Of Sight Tool

[joethejet]

Another thing that would be great would be to be able to click on a spot, not a unit, and see what the LOS is from that place.

In addition, it would also be nice to be able to click on a place or unit and do an "Area" LOS. In other words, show me every place I can see, by making it dark where I can't see and light where I can. As my sight lines get weaker, have it get darker and darker until I can't see any longer.

This would make planning sooo much easier.

[Peter Cairns]

And just how would a commander do this in real life, have an out of body experience and have his soul float over to have a look around.

Relative spotting will give you a good idea of what you can see, and going to the units head height and doing a 360 lets you see what they see, as they would. It's no one elses fault if you can't translate that in to a plan.

You might want to stick to World of Warcraft if you like being a ghost....

Peter.

[joethejet]

Well, you have a lot better idea of what the terrain looks like when you're there than in CM AND, you sure as heck know what you could see when you were at a point that you just passed (and now are retreating to).

It would at least be useful during set up to be able to see what things looked like from in front of you. This would replicate advance scouts who have now pulled back to the start line.

The problem with what you describe is that, as been pointed out numerous times on the forums, terrain features (e.g. Trees) aren't exact and sometimes it looks like you can see something through the trees, but you can't (and vice versa!).

Even if you don't add the "pick a place" LOS, I still think the "area" LOS would be good. As it is right now, you have to do multiple LOS from a unit to try and determine what he can see and what can see him. It's error prone and time consuming. But hey, that's just my opinion.

Jet

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by joethejet:

Well, you have a lot better idea of what the terrain looks like when you're there than in CM...

I dispute that. It is possible in CM to walk the camera all over the map, including the enemy's side of the board, and see what everything looks like from any point of view. Granted that not everything you see is going to represent the exact LOS from a point, due to the abstraction and graphic representation of terrain, but it's still a hell of a lot more information than a real-life commander would be privy to.

Michael

[gibsonm]

Well actually these days with geospatial data you can do "intervisibility checks" of what you can see from point X without having to be there.

I've used these for siting Ground Surveillance Radars and other assets.

Even in the public domain products like "Google Earth" allow fly overs of ground that before was just 2D information on a map.

CM:SF is not set during the Second World War and its appropriate that it employs the various aspects of the “digitised battlespace” that are available in real life.

[Caesar]

The dynamic lighting that they have promised us will give a much better idea of the undulations in the terrain. I suspect that the LOS tool will actually be much less necessary than in CM1 as things will often be quite obvious.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Well actually these days with geospatial data you can do "intervisibility checks" of what you can see from point X without having to be there.

I've used these for siting Ground Surveillance Radars and other assets.

Even in the public domain products like "Google Earth" allow fly overs of ground that before was just 2D information on a map.

CM:SF is not set during the Second World War and its appropriate that it employs the various aspects of the “digitised battlespace” that are available in real life.

All true enough; but for a squad leader in a fifteen minute firefight - or worse, in an ambush - he will not have the ability to use that information, so giving a CM player the ability to do what the initial poster requests would still be rather unrealistic.

I could see allowing a player to do so in the set up phase, but only if the player's forces were identified by the scenario designer as having had time to do the kind of "3D map recce" you suggest (or else be familiar with the terrain due to defending native ground, being in position for a long time, etc.)

[Peter Cairns]

As Michael says it's about realism.

The precision this kind of tool gives you isn't realistic, even if it simulates digital maps or GPS.

As I've pointed out before,elsewhere, my house backs on to a field, which looks like a gentle slope from distance, and has few variations from that on a 1:25,000 map with a 10m VI for contours.

But when you walk across it you find that it is full of dips and bumps that can easily hide a squad if not a prone platoon.

Peter.

[gibsonm]

Okay, I agree that a squadie wont have this infor at his / her disposal during the battle (at least now) but certainly their OC would prior to the action starting.

This form of IPB (Intelligence Preparation of the Battlespace) would be part of the intial planning prior to H hr. They should certainly pass the salient information on to their subordinates.

Perhaps its a question of "granularity", with fine variations (e.g. positions that would conceal squads) not displayed but larger variations (e.g. sunken roads) displayed.

This would also reduce the CPU overhead of such a tool.

[Peter Cairns]

Are you people blind....

What you see from the various camera heights and angles, is pretty much what you would see if you were there, probably more, if you can't do it with that what do you want.

The answer seems to be some sort of magical capability that real life commanders just wouldn't have. Sure you can get all kinds of digital aids, but people don't rely on them. they make decisions on a mix of information and judgement, not slide rule calculations.

The game makes you do the same. Older, particularly map based, games have things like LOS checks (or rules in board games), because you can't see in 3D to make a judgement.

Hell why not go all the way and just make the game AI v AI and have everything done for you.

Planning an attack is a difficult and inprecise activity, get used to it, if you want to play a realistic simulation.

Peter.

[gibsonm]

No, not blind just saying that what was asked for is a possible option.

I'm quite happy with the present setup and use the mark one eyeball at level one and two when playing (no grids or high contrast tiles) but others may wish for such a tool.

Just like I can use "steam gunnery" when you loose the laser range finder and the ballistic computer in the tank, but am also quite happy with the solution it provides. Same goes with using a map compass and protractor or a GPS.

[ February 08, 2006, 11:01 AM: Message edited by: gibsonm ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Okay, I agree that a squadie wont have this infor at his / her disposal during the battle (at least now) but certainly their OC would prior to the action starting.

Depends on the action. In an ambush scenario, one would expect a recce to have been done of, say, a convoy route, but look what happened to those hapless American truckers in Iraq - going the wrong way.

Not trying to be argumentative, just pointing out there will always be some situations where the level of info you suggest will be available, but almost certainly there will be situations where it is not. OC is killed after doing his recce, an ambush on unfamiliar ground, a hasty redeployment by helicopter to meet some emergency, etc. etc.

Anyway, I think you were only suggesting that a certain level of knowledge is possible and realistic, so we are in agreement. I think if allowing something like that, though, it should be an option set by the scenario designer as not being applicable in all cases.

[gibsonm]

Yep happy for it to be an option available during only say the setup phase, not during the much more dynamic post H Hr.

Mind you the way things are going it wont be too long before section commanders will have this technology (just another bit of kit that needs a #%%$#^ battery - wouldn't be too bad if they all used the same size / type battery).

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

Yep happy for it to be an option available during only say the setup phase, not during the much more dynamic post H Hr.

Mind you the way things are going it wont be too long before section commanders will have this technology (just another bit of kit that needs a #%%$#^ battery - wouldn't be too bad if they all used the same size / type battery).

LOL. We just had this conversation at the armouries last week; one of the sergeant section commanders was mentioning it. It's too true.

[Peter Cairns]

If it is put in even as an option, then it should be able to give random, no warning false results.

That way every now and then when you move your Stryker to a concealed position it will take a side shot from a T-55 that wasn't supposed to be able to see it.

Which if nothing else will teach you not to become dependant on technology at the expense of the basics.

Peter.

[juan_gigante]

To be honest, I wouldn't mind being able to click a button and seeing shaded all the areas that the unit has LOS to. The other one is too much power on the player's part, though.

[joethejet]

The other one is too much power on the player's part, though.

Ok, I can buy that I guess, although, when moving through, say, woods, it would nice to know a little more precisely how far to plot the move such that you have the amount of visibility you want out w/o too much visibility in. That *would* be available to the troops on the ground and it hard to replicate at times in CM.

I wouldn't mind being able to click a button and seeing shaded all the areas that the unit has LOS to.

Maybe at least this is an option. It would make game play less time consuming IMHO.

Jet

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

CM:SF is not set during the Second World War and its appropriate that it employs the various aspects of the “digitised battlespace” that are available in real life.

That's a point. Do the Syrians get it too?

Anyway, I think Steve has nixed this one because it is far to cumbersome to code.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by juan_gigante:

To be honest, I wouldn't mind being able to click a button and seeing shaded all the areas that the unit has LOS to. The other one is too much power on the player's part, though.

This would be my preferred solution too.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by joethejet:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The other one is too much power on the player's part, though.

Ok, I can buy that I guess, although, when moving through, say, woods, it would nice to know a little more precisely how far to plot the move such that you have the amount of visibility you want out w/o too much visibility in. That *would* be available to the troops on the ground and it hard to replicate at times in CM.</font>

[Peter Cairns]

One way to achieve the stop on sight effect would be to introsuce "Site Points" (SP) like "way Points (WP).

When plotting a line of way points you could "control Click" or something on the last one to change it from a WP to a SP.

When you left the WP before the SP you would move as if you were heading towards a WP but instead of going all the way to it you would spot when it came in to site.

This way by placing a SP at the edge of the wood you would stop before you reached it, or by putting a SP on a building on the other side of a hill, your unit would stop just this side of the ridge, without you having to estimate it.

In terms of coding I think this would be an easier option to incorporate, though thats one for Steve.

As to making all you can't see dark, I think that would be a non starter, because it would mean doing a LOS calculation for very point in a 360deg arc, and that would use ahuge amount of calculation power.

Relative spotting for every unit, for every targey is hard enough, LOS for everywhere might slow the game to a standstill.

Peter.

[joethejet]

The sight point would be a good addition I would think.

As for the other, it's not like you have to do the calc all the time, only when requested. On some machines that might take a little time to do, but it's only upon request. Besides, machines are getting faster all the time!

Jet

[ERISS]

The lack of zone of sight is why I didn't play, since a long time, anymore CombatMission (It is utterly long to position the defense forces in order to find the good ambush position).

I was very disappointed that this sight was not included in CM3AK

This zone of sight was in the first old StealPanthers game. Please make it possible in a patch for ShockForce.

[Mud]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

Perhaps a frutiful approach to that problem would be to have a command "Advance along this line until you have LOS to that point then stop." Something like that already exists with the hulldown command for vehicles, except it needs to be made to work better.

And there's already code to select point / line / area on the map in CM:SF.

"The enemy is probably going to come down that road in the distance. Advance up this slope until you're in position to shoot at 'em when they do" seems to be a not implausible directive. It's not possible right now, because LOS is abstracted (sometimes through terrain). So unless you're willing to babysit one unit, constantly check LOF (which differs from LOS), and abort the move order ASAP (in WEGO?), while losing all awareness of the rest of the battlefield...

[thewood]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

If it is put in even as an option, then it should be able to give random, no warning false results.

That way every now and then when you move your Stryker to a concealed position it will take a side shot from a T-55 that wasn't supposed to be able to see it.

Which if nothing else will teach you not to become dependant on technology at the expense of the basics.

Peter.

Actually we kind of have that now with the random issues in LOS passing through solid objects.