Some thoughts from a long-time lurker; questions to Devs

[TymK]

I have to admit that my overall impressions of the game (as a long-time CM player) are very good (well, who am I kidding, I’m hooked). However, I would like to address a few issues which I find to be detracting from the overall game experience, as constructively as I can. Also, I would like to ask if members of the dev/publishing team could refer to the specific points and indicate whether such issues are on the fix list and are ‘patchable.’

LOS/LOF issues

With respect to LOS, I am aware of certain simplifications/approximations which are necessary with current hardware. In fact, I am used to them as a CM player, but a mistake on BFC’s part, in my view, has been that these issues have not been explained properly. Please comment on whether my understanding of the issue is correct.

A point that many seem to be missing is that while a target may be completely ‘obstructed’ by a tree, for example, it will still be visible through branches and foliage (this is LOS, not LOF I’m referring to, and whether it can be shot at is another issue). However, no matter how detailed alpha textures you use to simulate tree branches, foliage, bushes, etc., they will still become solid and opaque at a certain distance, hence you cannot ‘see’ the object in the game, whereas you would see it IRL.

Regarding LOF, the hottest issue is where you explicitly target a vehicle which you can see and which can fire at you, and you still get the “no clear line of fire” message. From my limited experience, in involves hull-down targets in most cases. Generally, it helps to manually adjust the unit’s aim ‘high’ to target the turret explicitly. While this can get very annoying, it seems that what many see as a fundamental flaw in LOF calculations is in fact a bug in the friendly AI. It appears that gunners cannot deal with partially obscured and explicitly designated targets (they do seem to fire at them when no specific orders are given). So, my question to the dev team is whether this can be fixed by simply updating the gunner AI to automatically adjust their aim to the specific part of the enemy vehicle which they can see (you really shouldn’t be forced to micromanage aiming unless you want to).

Vehicle movement/movement orders

The first issue, and one already discussed, is the pathfinding. Without waypoints, plotting a correct route is almost impossible, and the AI does nothing to speed up movement by sticking to roads or avoiding obstacles such as trees. While falling trees may look spectacular, they slow down the advance considerably. If the AI can be programmed to avoid buildings, can it be upgraded to avoid trees, walls, etc. unless explicitly ordered to move through them?

Another issue is that when you order a vehicle to move to a specific point, it sometimes stops on the way without any reason (it does not engage enemies, and the issue remains if you set it to hold fire), then starts moving again. As a result, rapid, coordinated armor movement is not possible in many cases.

Also, vehicles always stop when you adjust the destination. While I do understand command delay considerations, the vehicle should nevertheless continue on its previous course until ‘receiving’ the order and only then adjust movement to the new destination. Can this be fixed by a patch?

Target prioritization

This issue is most visible if you are engaging armor and infantry at the same time, where tanks have to be explicitly ordered to fire at individual soldiers who are approaching them and should be dealt with as a priority.

I had an extreme example in the “Heart of Resistance” mission of the French campaign. At some point, a small group of German armor and infantry flanked my units, but was quickly dealt with (one tank destroyed, the other immobilized and ‘degunned’). At the same time, a large number of enemy infantry stormed my trench line, so I sent an S35 and a B1 to deal with them. However, instead of gunning down the swarms of infantry 30 meters in front, they kept turning their backs at them to engage the damaged tank at the rear, hundreds of meters away. Hold position, set direction, nothing. I had to target individual infantrymen, and what was even worse, the B1 refused to deploy its coax MG. So, can target priorities be adjusted in to deal with immediate threats first?

Hiding

The last issue would be the ability of the infantry to hide, or at least keep down when ordered to. This is particularly problematic with entrenched units, as you may order them to hold position, hold fire and go prone, and they will still pop their heads out of the trench. Not a good idea during barrage or under heavy MG fire...

Well, this post got much longer than I expected it to... I hope both devs and other gamers you may provide some comments on the issues, and please let’s try to keep it constructive.

[SoaN]

Originally posted by TymK:

I have to admit that my overall impressions of the game (as a long-time CM player) are very good (well, who am I kidding, I’m hooked). However, I would like to address a few issues which I find to be detracting from the overall game experience, as constructively as I can. Also, I would like to ask if members of the dev/publishing team could refer to the specific points and indicate whether such issues are on the fix list and are ‘patchable.’

Thanks a lot for these words and for entire post. It is always useful to read constructive critics. I’ll try to answer your questions as full as I can.

Originally posted by TymK:

LOS/LOF issues

With respect to LOS, I am aware of certain simplifications/approximations which are necessary with current hardware. In fact, I am used to them as a CM player, but a mistake on BFC’s part, in my view, has been that these issues have not been explained properly. Please comment on whether my understanding of the issue is correct.

A point that many seem to be missing is that while a target may be completely ‘obstructed’ by a tree, for example, it will still be visible through branches and foliage (this is LOS, not LOF I’m referring to, and whether it can be shot at is another issue). However, no matter how detailed alpha textures you use to simulate tree branches, foliage, bushes, etc., they will still become solid and opaque at a certain distance, hence you cannot ‘see’ the object in the game, whereas you would see it IRL.

Regarding LOF, the hottest issue is where you explicitly target a vehicle which you can see and which can fire at you, and you still get the “no clear line of fire” message. From my limited experience, in involves hull-down targets in most cases. Generally, it helps to manually adjust the unit’s aim ‘high’ to target the turret explicitly. While this can get very annoying, it seems that what many see as a fundamental flaw in LOF calculations is in fact a bug in the friendly AI. It appears that gunners cannot deal with partially obscured and explicitly designated targets (they do seem to fire at them when no specific orders are given). So, my question to the dev team is whether this can be fixed by simply updating the gunner AI to automatically adjust their aim to the specific part of the enemy vehicle which they can see (you really shouldn’t be forced to micromanage aiming unless you want to).

We are planning to make some changes in LOS/LOF systems. That’s all I can say bye now.

Originally posted by TymK:

Vehicle movement/movement orders

The first issue, and one already discussed, is the pathfinding. Without waypoints, plotting a correct route is almost impossible, and the AI does nothing to speed up movement by sticking to roads or avoiding obstacles such as trees. While falling trees may look spectacular, they slow down the advance considerably. If the AI can be programmed to avoid buildings, can it be upgraded to avoid trees, walls, etc. unless explicitly ordered to move through them?

Another issue is that when you order a vehicle to move to a specific point, it sometimes stops on the way without any reason (it does not engage enemies, and the issue remains if you set it to hold fire), then starts moving again. As a result, rapid, coordinated armor movement is not possible in many cases.

Also, vehicles always stop when you adjust the destination. While I do understand command delay considerations, the vehicle should nevertheless continue on its previous course until ‘receiving’ the order and only then adjust movement to the new destination. Can this be fixed by a patch?

Let’s imagine such situation. Some armored car is moving on its max speed towards the trenches. For example 60 km/h. On the half of its way it gets an order to move in opposite direction. It will be reasonable to stop the car before it will turn back. You must stop before gear shifting to reverse. It was decided to make it in such way in game for avoiding “strange” situations.

As for waypoints - there are planed some changes.

Originally posted by TymK:

Target prioritization

This issue is most visible if you are engaging armor and infantry at the same time, where tanks have to be explicitly ordered to fire at individual soldiers who are approaching them and should be dealt with as a priority.

I had an extreme example in the “Heart of Resistance” mission of the French campaign. At some point, a small group of German armor and infantry flanked my units, but was quickly dealt with (one tank destroyed, the other immobilized and ‘degunned’). At the same time, a large number of enemy infantry stormed my trench line, so I sent an S35 and a B1 to deal with them. However, instead of gunning down the swarms of infantry 30 meters in front, they kept turning their backs at them to engage the damaged tank at the rear, hundreds of meters away. Hold position, set direction, nothing. I had to target individual infantrymen, and what was even worse, the B1 refused to deploy its coax MG. So, can target priorities be adjusted in to deal with immediate threats first?

You can make tanks use ONLY coax MG by clicking at it once. It’ll become lightened. In such way tank will fire only from MG, so infantry will become his main target.

[TymK]

Thank you for your answers I do have a few more questions though.

Originally posted by SoaN:

We are planning to make some changes in LOS/LOF systems. That’s all I can say bye now.

That's good to know, please keep us posted when you can disclose some more details.

Originally posted by SoaN:

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

[...]Another issue is that when you order a vehicle to move to a specific point, it sometimes stops on the way without any reason (it does not engage enemies, and the issue remains if you set it to hold fire), then starts moving again. As a result, rapid, coordinated armor movement is not possible in many cases.

</font>

[SoaN]

Originally posted by TymK:

Thank you for your answers I do have a few more questions though.

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

[...]Another issue is that when you order a vehicle to move to a specific point, it sometimes stops on the way without any reason (it does not engage enemies, and the issue remains if you set it to hold fire), then starts moving again. As a result, rapid, coordinated armor movement is not possible in many cases.

I would still like to know if this issue can be eliminated, or if I am doing something wrong. </font>

[flintlock]

Great thread!

SoaN, in a post by BDHX (quoted below), he mentioned that the team is currently working on an upcoming patch that will make the LoF visible, as a tool to assist those that misunderstand the current system.

Other possible tweaks to LoS/LoF notwithstanding, do you know whether the change to LoF (to make LoF visible) will be implemented as an option that may be disabled via the menu? I ask as I enjoy and appreciate the current effort and don't wish to have any artificial indicators.

I asked this question in BDHX's thread, though since it was hijacked he likely, and understandably, didn't bother to follow the thread.

I appreciate any light you may be able to shed on this.

Originally posted by BDHX:

Calculation algorithm

Aiming at target’s outlines standing out of an obstacle is quite a labor-intensive. Our FPS makes it unviable. That’s why the game uses a simplified aiming pattern. You aim at certain points that may be blocked by real obstacles. It makes a target which should be visible to the player vanish. Visibility is calculated by ray tracing.

Visibility algorithm errors are caused by ray tracing to preset points that may be either blocked by obstacles or, alternatively, visible, although this is not the case with the player (i.e. the player sees the target not being blocked by obstacles).

However, weapon guidance algorithm (a different one) in 50% of cases produces a ‘line of fire not available’ message due to realistic gun elevation angles. Besides there is a 30% chance of failure due to uneven terrain and some

15-20% cases failure is caused by aiming at preset points.

The initial design of the game targeted developing a model being as close to reality as possible, with no additional artificial indicators (like drawing LOF). Basically, the idea is still good and interesting and it is a shame not everybody would like to get used to it.

Cheers,

flintlock

[crazylegsmurphy]

Let’s imagine such situation. Some armored car is moving on its max speed towards the trenches. For example 60 km/h. On the half of its way it gets an order to move in opposite direction. It will be reasonable to stop the car before it will turn back. You must stop before gear shifting to reverse. It was decided to make it in such way in game for avoiding “strange” situations.

This totally makes sense. When I am driving on the highway, or to the local Burger King, and someone calls me on my cell phone and asks me if I want to come over and hang out, the FIRST thing I do it slam on the breaks!

I used to try actually just turning the steering wheel, slowing my car down, and turning casually, but I found that just wasted gas, and you know how expensive gas can be.

In this game, it only makes perfect sense. When you are driving a truck through a situation where you are getting shot at, and someone gives you a new order, the first thing they did in WWII was yell, "WOAH, stop the truck, we have a new order!"

They would then sit there and wait for the order, and only then would they move. I mean, I think it's a rule of war or something where once a vehicle stops, it's considered "home free" until it starts moving again.

[whaco]

Originally posted by crazylegsmurphy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Let’s imagine such situation. Some armored car is moving on its max speed towards the trenches. For example 60 km/h. On the half of its way it gets an order to move in opposite direction. It will be reasonable to stop the car before it will turn back. You must stop before gear shifting to reverse. It was decided to make it in such way in game for avoiding “strange” situations.

This totally makes sense. When I am driving on the highway, or to the local Burger King, and someone calls me on my cell phone and asks me if I want to come over and hang out, the FIRST thing I do it slam on the breaks!

I used to try actually just turning the steering wheel, slowing my car down, and turning casually, but I found that just wasted gas, and you know how expensive gas can be.

In this game, it only makes perfect sense. When you are driving a truck through a situation where you are getting shot at, and someone gives you a new order, the first thing they did in WWII was yell, "WOAH, stop the truck, we have a new order!"

They would then sit there and wait for the order, and only then would they move. I mean, I think it's a rule of war or something where once a vehicle stops, it's considered "home free" until it starts moving again. </font>

[SoaN]

Originally posted by flintlock:

Great thread!

SoaN, in a post by BDHX (quoted below), he mentioned that the team is currently working on an upcoming patch that will make the LoF visible, as a tool to assist those that misunderstand the current system.

Other possible tweaks to LoS/LoF notwithstanding, do you know whether the change to LoF (to make LoF visible) will be implemented as an option that may be disabled via the menu? I ask as I enjoy and appreciate the current effort and don't wish to have any artificial indicators.

BDHX was a little too fast in his words. We are making some researches and looking for the solutions for the way how we can add this feature. It is planned to make this in patch or in addon if we cant find the fast solution.

Originally posted by flintlock:

I appreciate any light you may be able to shed on this.

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

Calculation algorithm

Aiming at target’s outlines standing out of an obstacle is quite a labor-intensive. Our FPS makes it unviable. That’s why the game uses a simplified aiming pattern. You aim at certain points that may be blocked by real obstacles. It makes a target which should be visible to the player vanish. Visibility is calculated by ray tracing.

Visibility algorithm errors are caused by ray tracing to preset points that may be either blocked by obstacles or, alternatively, visible, although this is not the case with the player (i.e. the player sees the target not being blocked by obstacles).

However, weapon guidance algorithm (a different one) in 50% of cases produces a ‘line of fire not available’ message due to realistic gun elevation angles. Besides there is a 30% chance of failure due to uneven terrain and some

15-20% cases failure is caused by aiming at preset points.

The initial design of the game targeted developing a model being as close to reality as possible, with no additional artificial indicators (like drawing LOF). Basically, the idea is still good and interesting and it is a shame not everybody would like to get used to it.

Cheers,

flintlock </font>

[flintlock]

Originally posted by SoaN:

It is planned to make this in patch or in addon if we cant find the fast solution.

Fair enough.

I hope that’ll help you to understand his post.

Indeed it does. Thank you for taking the time to respond, it's much appreciated.