c3k Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Gents, I've run a test of infantry movement in v1.04 and I'd like to get BF.C's response regarding this issue, specifically if it's going to be tweaked in v1.05 or if it'll be on the list for a future patch. Or, perhaps if it's just a "that's the way it'll be" kind of issue. I set up a small scenario, 200 meters x 350 meters. The Syrians have 3 small houses at the West edge and 1 platoon of reserves, typical levels (2 squads, 1 Hq). The U.S. sets up on the East edge, one platoon of stryker infantry minus vehicles (3 squads, 2 mmg teams, 1 Hq). The terrain is "T" grass. Running North to South, between the opposing sides is a raised dirt road. Elevation 22 meters. Adjacent to the road the elevation is 21 meters. All other elevation is 20 meters. All 21 and 22 meter terrain has "brush" as well as grass "T". I order the U.S. to move up to, but short of, the intervening raised road, using "hunt". No unit is placed above ground level (20 meter). Dear God, it was a slaughter. One MMG team ignored the "hunt" order and remained fixed. One squad ignored the "hunt" order and remained fixed. As soon as the 2 squads, 1 MMG team, and Hq element moved, the Syrians fired on them... THROUGH THE INTERVENING 2 METER HIGH DIRT BERM!!! Tracers burrowed through. (I know that's a known issue...) The U.S. had, after 60 seconds, 18 casualties (all but 2 red), and 18 "green" men. Most of those, 15, were comprised of the 3 man MMG team and 12 man squad which refused to move. At no point did any U.S. unit leave terrain with an elevation of 20 meters. HOW DID THE SYRIANS SPOT THE U.S. THROUGH THE DIRT??? My next test will be to tweak the intervening berm higher and thicker until I am able to block the Syrian LOS/LOF. More later.... 1.05, Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 oops [ December 11, 2007, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
76mm Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Now that Battlefront has resurfaced, these are the types of questions I'd really like to see answered...I mean, c'mon, what's going on here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted December 11, 2007 Author Share Posted December 11, 2007 aka_tom_w, My profile's email is wrong. Oooops. Thanks, Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 wrong thread [ December 11, 2007, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis50 Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 are we passing top secret info about 1.05 via e-mail tom ? Regards, Gunz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 gone dark [ December 11, 2007, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted December 11, 2007 Author Share Posted December 11, 2007 akatomw, Woohoo! That NEW patch is AWESOME. Ha! Too bad for all the losers who'll never see it. I'm glad I've been included in the "in" group. It serves those complaining losers right that Steve and everyone else are keeping this patch secret. Yeah! (edited to explain that THIS POST WAS IN JEST! Despite my best attempts, aka_tom_w has NOT given me the secrets to the next patch. Sigh.) Thanks, Ken [ December 11, 2007, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: c3k ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted December 11, 2007 Author Share Posted December 11, 2007 Crest update. First version: s=syrian, #=terrain height, U=U.S. s-20-20-20-20-20-etc-20-21-22-21-20-etc-20-U The Syrians have free LOS to U.S. Second version s-20-20-etc-20-22-23-22-20-etc-20-U No LOS until the U.S. moves "upslope" a bit. MUCH more realistic. (Note: the usual issues of unit deployment/lack of return fire/ignoring incoming fire apply) v1.05, Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 There is a VERY fine line, unfortunately, between making the LOS/LOF too strict or too liberal. For the vast majority of situations things are fine, but for certain specific situations the calcs may be too tough or lax. In some other examples the exact opposite is the case, so either the system has to be weighted to favor one or the other. Sometimes Charles can put in a "hack" to massage the calcs for a particular situation. The problem is that if the situation isn't readily identifiable (like a wall end, building corner, etc) it might not be possible to put in a fix specifically for that situation. We had these same problems in CMx1, but they were very much rarer due to the dramatically rougher terrain modeling and lack of 1:1 simulation. Plus, the player was unlikely to notice things going wrong in CMx1 since the visuals weren't tied to the underlying simulation hardly at all. Meaning, there was a lot less possibilities in the extreme ends of CMx1 to go wrong, and when they did people generally didn't notice them. That's one of the downsides of the greater power of CMx2... more can go wrong and it's easier for the player to spot. Not to worry, though. As hardware improves Charles can increase the fidelity of certain calcs so that the extremes become fewer and less relevant when they do happen. The beauty of the new game engine is that these improvements are "relatively" easy to add compared to CMx1. As I've said thousands of times before, getting rid of the CMx1 codebase was the most obvious thing for us to do and every day we are thankful for not being blind to it. I'd rather be stuffing bags at the local grocery store checkout than work with the CMx1 codebase ever again Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claymore Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 In CMx1 engine there was no "blast shielding" advantage gained by having troops on the opposite side of a hill of an explosion occurred (HE, bombs, etc...). Only the slant distance between the explosion and the squad was considered in the modeling, not the interposing terrain. Question: Outside of the current difficulties with firing passing directly through terrain, does the CMx2 engine now consider the intervening terrain in the calculations? Cheers MRD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 It seems that we're having two nearly identical conversations at once, so I'm closing this one up and directing things over to the other: Does different terrain add... Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts