Human fodder for the omnipotent AI.

[HardRock]

Originally posted by HardRock:

The size of the icon has nothing to do with anything nor anything to do with birds eye view.

It is simply a tool Colored means you can see him. This takes into account other factors. read the manual.

Spotting is not done from birdseye view.

Furthermore you are looking from a naked eye and a graphic simulated one at that. They used magnification for LOF. You don't get that in the game because it's not a first person shooter.

[Krull]

Originally posted by Elvis:

maniac_mat, here is where you may be mistaken. A tank at 1000m when viewed from eye level in the game would appear very small if represented properly. A tank at that distance appearing the same size as one that is 200m away would not be at all accurate. However, if a tank is 1000m away or 200m away 1 tree would not blocks its LOS. It may appear very small on the viewable screen because it is 1000m away but 1 tree would no more block its LOS at that distance than it would at 10m. And as I said 10 trees wouldn't block it. As a matter of fact if it is 1000m away that explains the screenshot btter. If you had the same shot and said it was 100m away I would question why the enemy tank did not appear larger on the screen. As I said in a previuos post...If you live anywhere besides a city look out your neareest window and look at the trees. If there were a tank on the other side of the first 5, 10, 5 ,20 of the trees in your field of vision would you be able to see it? The answer is yes. If you can look out your window and see trees count he number of trees you can see through before a tank would be completely blocked from your vision. All this is not even taking into account what you can spot from hearing. I guess what I am saying is to look at the world around you when deciding if what the game is displaying matches the real world not preconceived notions based on other games. Again, it is not modeling "woods" it is modeling individual trees.

Why can the enemy fire on him then?

Why aren't they restricted by the same criteria?

Why is it all a one way street for the AI no matter how you try & dress it?

[Kharnvor]

I've been incredibly frustrated when my tanks and guns can't fire back at what's hitting them... "No clear line of fire" (Note they say fire, not line of sight).

So sometimes I wonder if the AI has a slight spotting bonus or better optics than my troops. Most tanks had at least 2x magnification on their main gun sights, some up to 5x, plus varying degrees of clarity for the sight itself, so if you factor that in, it might make more sense.

However, I've read that German optics on tanks were superior to most if not all Allied tank optics, so German armor should be able to spot enemy armor first, given equal crew skills. And better gun sights should result in better hit percentages too. Is this happening in the game? Hard to tell. Sometimes my tanks never get hit, other times they get destroyed in one shot, with or without my tanks having clear lines of fire. I haven't detected enough of a pattern yet to say for sure.

Keep in mind, though, the point of view in that screen shot is at least 1 meter above the gunsight, if not more, and at 1000 meters distant, that 1 meter can radically change your line of sight. Plus maybe the enemy tanks can only see your tracks between the hillls, bushes, and trees, but your gunner, at his gunsight, can't clearly make anything out because he's too high up and the tree blocks his sight picture too much. Maybe you can't shoot because it's a sound contact and thus not enough to target on. *shrug*

Not saying LOS/LOF is dead on, maybe there is a decimal in the wrong spot somewhere. Just saying that screen shot and limited experience isn't enough to make a concrete claim either way.

[whaco]

maniac_mat, it is pointless. Most who do not have issues with the LOS are like racehorses running with their blinders on. LOS is coded about as realistic as COH.

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by whaco:

maniac_mat, it is pointless. Most who do not have issues with the LOS are like racehorses running with their blinders on. LOS is coded about as realistic as COH.

It is indeed pointless, because those who do not like the game, and are able to well articulate their points, have been and are being culled. Either banned or threatened into silence by Moon, one of the most cowardly and dishonest admins it has ever been my displeasure to encounter.

Thank god there are plenty of other forums in which to spread the truth.

And, by god, it is now my mission to do exactly that.

Reap the whirlwind Moon, you shot yourself in the foot big time me old matey. Fact.

[BFCElvis]

maniac_mat, didn't mean to offend. I am just trying to explain clearly what you are seeing in the picture. You may not be happy about the answer but you asked for somebody to explain.

(intentionaly condesending to get a laugh out of you on)If you look at the graphic of the tree the leaves are on what we call the "top" part of the tree. Tanks, being very heavy are on what we call the "ground". The part of the tree connecting the ground to the "top" part is called a "trunk" Unless this battle was being fought among the redwoods the "trunks" are much much thinner than a tank. It is impossible to hide tank behind a tree "trunk" (or more accurately it is not an effective way). Spread 10 or 20 tree "trunks" across a 1000m and they have to be lined up just right to "completelY' block the LOS to a tank.(intentionaly condesending to get a laugh out of you off)

[sixb0nes]

Shouldn't optics be included in this whole discussion? Let's not forget the tanks aren't "seeing" the field the same way you are. With simulated optics, most of the discussion here is moot, no?

Taking my experience from WWIIOL, using my gunner's optics, I can see through many layers of trees and shrubbery. Without, I'd see what everyone is talking about here - not much!

[BFCElvis]

I just came up with the perfect way to illustrate what I am trying to say about maniac_mats screen shot if the "look out your window" experiment isn't working for people........

Try this experiment (most people very familiar won't even need to do the experiment after reading this). Create a map of open ground in any CM game at least 1000m across in each direction. Then through the middle of the map put a line of scattered tree tiles. Put tanks on each side of the line of trees. Do they have an LOS to each other? Are there more than 1 tree between the two units in those seperating scatter tree tiles? Then if you are into testing it further increase the depth of the scattered tree tiles until they are looking through 2 tiles to see each other and then try 3 tiles and so on until the LOS is finally broken. I am pretty sure that 4 tiles is what fianlly blocks the LOS. So when they are looking through 3 tiles how many trees do you think are between the 2 vehicles? Certainly more than 1. If I'm not mistaken I think you can even see through 1 tile of pine trees in CM which aren't scattered at all.

Again, your concern should be that heavier wooded areas aren't represented not that the current system is broken. It is no more broken than CM regarding scatter trees.

Does that express what I have been trying to say better?

[pwncake]

What i read here from some posters is that you cant hide a tiger behind 1 till 10 trees,

YIPPIE i agree ofcourse. And i also agree that i CAN be spotted from a mile or so.But what i CANNOT agree on is the same tiger cannot see the other one who is shooting at him. It will be a slugfest or nothing i hate it when they see you and you cannot see them EVEN if you have better optics etc. Now thats a bug.

This brings me to the question,

i know this is NOT CM but at least i get an option to put my commander with open or closed hatch. So i know closed hatches give you a limited view. (thats correct)

But all armor is closed exept the open tanks ofcourse like nashorn. Can you pls give us the option to ride with open hatch to see more and it looks also better and when you close your hatch your view will be much less.

tia

[Moon]

pwncake - "no line of fire" is not the same as "no line of sight". This is explained elsewhere in this forum as well as in the Tactics forum. Maybe that's what you're seeing (no pun intended)?

In which case it's a player interface issue more than a simulation/engine issue. Anyway, we'll be looking at this in more detail after getting the first "technical" patch out the door.

Martin

[pwncake]

Sorry Moon,

couldnt find the thread can you tell me what you mean?

I thought that i have to have a least a line of sight before the line of fire. Otherwise how can you shoot a something if you dont know where it is?

am i incorrect to asume that in a mission where there is a tiger and a t34.

you ride with your tiger dont see anything then get hit you look arround and dont see anything. and 10 secs later another hit still dont see anything. At that point pls tell me what i have to do????

Do i have to retreat because i cannot see it or do i have to rush forward to see it???

[Moon]

pwncake... first of all, spotting is not automatic. If you have a theoretical line of sight you might still not actually see the enemy (even though he might see you already) simply because your soldiers lack the scouting skill (and probably botched a few rolls). So if the enemy is well hidden, it might take a bit before you actually see the enemy.

Secondly, once you have a line of sight and actually spot the target, when you issue a general ATTACK order, you might get the message "no line of fire". This is because you are targetting a part of the enemy which is not in sight. In other words, you can see only part of the enemy (e.g. only the turret) but are trying to shoot at the hull.

Thirdly, to address your last question - it is usually not wise to rush forward if you don't know what is expecting you. That spells trouble. Withdrawing and trying to flank or sending forward a less valuable scout than a tank (use a sniper for example) might be a much better option.

Martin

[Tontoman]

Originally posted by Elvis:

I just came up with the perfect way to illustrate what I am trying to say about maniac_mats screen shot if the "look out your window" experiment isn't working for people........

Try this experiment (most people very familiar won't even need to do the experiment after reading this). Create a map of open ground in any CM game at least 1000m across in each direction. Then through the middle of the map put a line of scattered tree tiles. Put tanks on each side of the line of trees. Do they have an LOS to each other? Are there more than 1 tree between the two units in those seperating scatter tree tiles? Then if you are into testing it further increase the depth of the scattered tree tiles until they are looking through 2 tiles to see each other and then try 3 tiles and so on until the LOS is finally broken. I am pretty sure that 4 tiles is what fianlly blocks the LOS. So when they are looking through 3 tiles how many trees do you think are between the 2 vehicles? Certainly more than 1. If I'm not mistaken I think you can even see through 1 tile of pine trees in CM which aren't scattered at all.

Again, your concern should be that heavier wooded areas aren't represented not that the current system is broken. It is no more broken than CM regarding scatter trees.

Does that express what I have been trying to say better?

Yeah, I think the problem is ToW uses the same system as CM when it comes to LOS (just averaging the LOS blockage), but as it doesn't give you LOS tools, it relies on graphics that have NOTHING to do with LOS.

In CM your LOS would get degraded depending on how much cover you looked through (but you could still look through it), it even modeled different trees, coniferous being worst than decidious due to having more lower branches. But this was easy to determine with the LOS tool.

I'd bet ToW works the same way, it doesn't trace LOS using raytracing and taking into account every branch and leaf, it just has some formula that says so many bushes, so many trees, equals so much degrading of the LOS. The problem is as they made the whole game to be run using graphics (no LOS tools, first person camera angles), people are trying to use the graphics to determine LOS (as it's all they have) exactly as they see it, and it has nothing to do with what you see.

As in CM the trees and stuff are there for visual pleasure only, they don't actually exist as individial entites for LOS tracing. Remember in CM you could turn off trees altogether, it just went by tiles and depth. In CM you could drop the angle and maybe not see the target (never HAD to as you had the tools, but I would just for cool watching), but LOS tools would tell you that you had the shot.

In ToW you HAVE to as you have nothing else... but then it doesn't work that way anyway.

But it does mean the game is a bit borked, if you're going to rely on graphics only, trees and bushes and first person unit views to see LOS, then you have to make it a direct raytracing type of LOS. Otherwise as in CM you NEED a LOS tool if you can't rely on what you see is what you get from the camera. If you're going to design a game that stresses the graphic, first person view, individual units aspect of the game (quite different from the more birds eye view, unit groupings, tile based, and larger scale tactics of CM) you should have the engine work that way and not still the way of the more abstract CM method. It's like being shot behind a solid wall in any first person shooter game, only to find that the wall isn't really a wall but a visual representation of a wallish area that may or may not give you full cover. If it's first person based, have it work in the first person. So it is 'more broken' than CM as CM was always a birds eye view tactical game that had lots of abstraction, so abstract LOS doesn't see wrong for the game. TOW with all it's graphics and individual units, first person camera angles etc. shouldn't have this abstaction, it doesn't go together hence all the complaints.

T.

[ May 01, 2007, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Tontoman ]

[Son of Hamchuck]

i think Tontoman has summed up the issue quite well. I demo'd the game on my friends computer ( my puter's graphics aren't supported ), and experienced similiar issues as have been registered on this thread. Suffice to say I won't be needing to upgrade my graphics just yet.

[Cornfleek]

Good post Tontoman, spot on IMHO.

[Thomm]

I was driving for hours through Northern Italy lately and I tried to relate what I saw to ToW.

Fact is, that trees without foliage all the way down to the ground do not block LOS, because the trunk is simply too thin to degrade LOS significantly.

Also fact, however, is that rows of bushes are very common LOS dividers that totally shield field from each other. This form of vegetation seems to be absent in ToW (compare bocage).

I do not quite understand, why (1) trees are used without underscrub and bushes to give them meaningful LOS breaking properties, (2) LOS dividers are not used more often.

On the other hand, I have seen great feats from the LOS algos ... soldiers crawling around tanks to establish LOS, e.g. I think the technical basis is, therefore, in place.

I am sure increased LOS degradation and - later - perhaps user modified maps will solve the problem for good!

Best regards,

Thomm

[BFCElvis]

Tontoman you make excellent points and I would love it if when you clicked on a unit the area os the map they could see was highlighted more than the area they couldn't or some other LOS tool. Here is the (very minor) problem with that. This game also models spotting abilities. Which makes designing a tool like that even more difficult because you are then factoring in not just what can a person conceivably spot from a position but what does this specific unit see. If you create a game where you a possible LOS area is visable to the player but the AI of the unit doesn't spot something because of a low ability to spot there it will be flawed again with players believing the systems is broken because their friendly unit didn't spot an enemy unit within what should have been an open LOS. With that in mind the current system avaoids that by showing all spotted units a unit has with a solid icon. Unfortunately that doesn't tell you if a units has gone unspotted because of LOS or poor spotting skills.

And thank you for posting a thoughtful and nonagressive post to talk about LOS. It is SSSSOOOO welcome by me because I really have tried to explain things as I know them to have been concieved and not to cover for or protect anyone and sometimes it feels like that is how my comments are received.

[Tontoman]

No prob Elvis . A LOS tool could easily include the scouting ability but I don't think it really has too. And I don't think that most people will be annoyed if they don't find units even where they have LOS, any combat game vet is used to spotting being involved just as there was in CM, ATGs and inf being the most easily hidden (we all remember those Pfaust, bazooka teams ). Also used to reduced spotting if moving fast, if in a tank or inf under suppression... it's all old news. And if anything, it's the fact there is too much spotting, not too little. You've seen the 'can't do ambushes', 'how could I be shot behind that' comments. Well, some might and have been complaining about not spotting units in LOS, but they're rookies and will have to learn like we did for CM and other games.

Seeing cover effecting LOS with a tool should make people more happy. But still won't fix the disconnect between what you see in game and the LOS results which is a pity and my disappointment.

Cheers

T.

[ May 02, 2007, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Tontoman ]

[biggunsar]

I've watched two Tigers taken out by the British armoured cars (Daimler MkI), angled shots into the side. According to the encyclopedia the Daimler's 40mm cannon could penetrate 64mm of armor at 100m. The Tiger has over 80mm of side armor. Not to mention the quality of the alloy (best of any tank in the entire war, nickel-based with a Brinell rating of around 240 if my memory serves me correctly)./

HAHAHAHAH, exactly. But you got the fanbois defending this. But on that note, tehy will just hemm and haw and say nothing. Or give you an alternate senario that PROVES they are right. Jesus H christ....just admit it. Game is F L A W E D.

[ChrisND]

[MorgTzu]

There is a lot of DISAPPOINTMENT no matter how hard I try to "abstract" it.

1. It seems the AI is almost always tracking you as if they had radar. Just watch your own rotating and out of control units and you know whats going on with the AI. The enemy's accuracy in the midst of confusing battle with smoke, incoming, and all the other "stresses" is super human and breaks all suspension of disbelief.

2. Many being spoiled by the "abstracting" of CC and CM are flustered (including me). Either the engine needs to be tweaked to match the "abstraction" as is supposed will be in the patch or remove cover and concealment as it just doesn't work.

3. The AI flips between being super "cool under fire" laser guided killing machines or utterly stupid lemmings...revealing the experience shattering SCRIPTING which has ruined the gaming experience as a whole.

4. I registered right after this forum started and had high optimistic hopes for this engine..all my posts have been constructive and positive, but I just can't take this anymore..I am not going to play a game any more where tactics and cunning are slapped in the face by "bots" and "scripts" and there is almost always only one or two methods or sweet spots on the map to survive the onslought. I am not into "PUZZLE" games. That has gotten so old. I'm so sorry to pull the comparison cliche, but Im one of those oldies that cut my teeth on panzer leader - the board game, ardennes offensive, then CC, CM, etc. If we can't do better than Close Combat for an abstraction of reality, then Ill stick with the new mods for Invasion Normandy. Maybe ill check back much later. Still love you Moon.

[Gunslingr3]

It seems the AI is almost always tracking you as if they had radar. Just watch your own rotating and out of control units and you know whats going on with the AI.

I haven't witnessed that. I've had enemy tanks crest a ridge 50m away on my flank and neither my unit nor the AI were aiming at one another until after they could have spotted.

In fact, I've dealt with the opposite problem. Tanks will lose sight of an enemy unit in front of them and seem to lose all awareness of the remaining threat. The result is my tank usually starts turning away from the unseen (but still there and still menacing!) threat that broke line of sight looking to line up another target.

Here I think some tweaking of player unit AI can fix this. Make the hold position command actually meaningful. Perhaps only let the friendly unit AI override the hold position command for hull facing in the event they take fire from the flanks. Too often I find myself 'babysitting' the tanks so they'll face the axis of the threat instead of getting distracted by whatever is within LOS. Failure to do so usually leads to side and rear shots on my AFVs.

I registered right after this forum started and had high optimistic hopes for this engine..all my posts have been constructive and positive, but I just can't take this anymore..I am not going to play a game any more where tactics and cunning are slapped in the face by "bots" and "scripts"

Ummm, what did you used to think AI was?

I think it's established that the hiding value of infantry (and consequently I presume the accuracy of fire directed at them) are going to be adjusted by the first patch. That should affect the 'bot' aspect. With respect to 'scripts', that's what AI is. You get a glimpse of how staggering a challenge it is to code AI when you take a peep at the options and start to realize how they have to be treed and nested in order to provide a responsive, plausible, and tactically challenging opponent.

In my opinion the biggest knock I have for the game so far is the manner in which the missions were scripted. It does seem that the main tactic of the AI is weight of numbers. That's more an indictment of the mission's design than the game's.

I think with some user community input this game can shine, and I'm looking forward to MP when a few quirks in the activity of friendly unit AI is addressed.

[Lethaface]

MMMM offcourse the game has it's flaws, but i'm actually quite impressed with the lOS/LOF thingy... If you have ever looked through a camera lens, you would know that the human eye is not comparable to flat represenations of the reality.. Ur eyes dont work with pixels or 2x etc zoom...

U can never know what exactly does your soldiers / tanks see, from the screen alone... (like other also explained before )

The code that calculates this all does quite good calculation IMHO... Like tanks can sometimes see enemy's (with known position) from further away then inf (due to optics) but infantry are better general spotters... And bushes etc. do provide los cover...

However with an optic zoomed in into a bush where a ATG is hiding will probably show something (barrel, carriage sticking out/ seeing things THROUGH the bushes)... And therefore units in bushes are possible to be discovered. If a bush would work like a concrete wall, you'll never be able to hide inside it and especially fire trough it. Thats the funny thing... The chances of you BEING SEEN in the bush, however, are much lower then the chance u can see through the bush.. But it's never impossible...

I think that there could be some more bushes and denser forests, but we probably will need bigger maps. That's something I would love though, 8x8 or bigger maps for this game... Daydreaming here lol...

Conclusion: I enjoy it as it is a lot... It's not perfect, but hey what is perfect in this world...

Offcourse i't is possible you come into LOS & LOF of an enemy, and he shoots you to crap without u even noticing where it is from... Welcome to the world...

I've had these too, but the enemy was allways in a position that made this quite possible... Just scout scout scout and try to check out on this enemy through another route... And when he does come into los/lof, it's his demise

I never really played CM since it's turned based... I like turns in games like Total War but I need some sort of Real Time action for my pleasure... However been playing Sudden Strike (on of my fav's), to name one and with the use of logical tactics i'm playing at hardest level and progressing steady... Of course it's difficult now and then, it better be otherwise it would have been finished & deinstalled already ...

Have fun all, also the ones that aren't having any... Go find another game thats more of your liking; comments are good, positive criticism is good, but repeated same criticism with only flaming / spitting gal as purpose isn't usefull... We know your point (now), please go tell your dogg or write a book orso...

Out.

[Tequ9q]

Originally posted by MikoyanPT:

I think i am seeing a pattern here.

Most of the people that are more ferociously criticising the gameplay, are in fact frustrated for not being able to beat the AI.

War is not easy, isn´t it. The AI is though to crack but is beatable, just have to have the patience to develop superior tactics.

But that my friends takes time.

In my opinion you are wrong.. I easily beat the AI, BUt I still find it cheating.

They havent put down much fundings into this game.. atleast not to fix the AI.

Making 2000 units is not enough...

THis game just has too many setbacks at the moment...

If I ever gonna buy it I need to si:

1) LOS Tool

2) VISIBLE important weapons (like sinpers, MG, faust etc) so we dont have to search every where to find it.

3) Cover arcs.

4) Realistic MG simulation (area denial)

5) Move to contact ordre

6) Multiple waypoints

7) Sneak/noram/fast/assault orders

8) More vegetables and cover (too much open ground)

9) Be able to see the stats of dead soldiers

10) Fix the "hold" command (Stop tanks from turning)

11) Add a HIDE command.

Generally make it more like CMAK ....

Thank you!

[Pandur]

I haven't witnessed that. I've had enemy tanks crest a ridge 50m away on my flank and neither my unit nor the AI were aiming at one another until after they could have spotted.

well, that wont happen it seems when the enemy is just in front of you. try it out in the seelöwe mission(wasnt good to include this mission in demo).

wenn the enemy is comming from all sides OR you tell your vehicle manually to look somewhere else(in that case the bridge), they will turn to the enemy they cant see(behind hill or whatever)90% of the time. when i tell it to rotate back it turns back after it finished my command. hold position DOES NOT change anything there.

i man WTF!?

about the spotting;

again the seelöwe mission, i send 1(one) man on the highest point i can reach fast, this 1 guy sees ALL the enemys all the time there. no matter if they are 1200m away. i mean i took some moments to watch it, sometimes some soldiers drop out of los but well, this guy had scouting 5 of 100 or so...to good.

so there isnt a problem with enemy spoting but spotting generally.

but

i cant find the "super accuracy" in enemys wich some guys report.

mostly when i managed my gunners in the pre mission screen, i hit the enemy verry well but the enemy simply dont. i play seelöwe on veteran.

problem is when the enemy outnubers you single tank. than you got rapidly hit and destroyed and it looked like the AI is so uber, but you just forgott about keyholding or what oyu call it exactly.

i dont know, but to me it feels if theatre of war REALLY tries to do the dance on both, the CM like AND the RTS like party.

wich obviously doesnt work at all.

units doing something by themselfs whitout order(i dont talk about inf beeing shot at and go ing to cover, but like vehicles turning by themselfs) gives uber frustation while oyu try to manage an ambush or units somewhre else. ovcourse without rapidly pausing, noting to do here. fine with me, i like to micromanage and fidle around a bit, but i canbe too much. also acually some ppl thought its RTS game wich is more RTwP game.

as said here bevor by someone else you really have to fight the game/your own units over hte enemy sometimes.

greetings

EDIT:

i have to add that i acually realy like this game. i am still thinking if i get it or not.

not to belive i bash the game or so. but this things arent nice for sure!

maybe i see what patches are bringing.

[ May 31, 2007, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Pandur ]