Infantry spotting

[Clavicula_Nox]

I just had something really weird happen. I have some Stryker infantry clearing a trench using the Hunt command. As they're moving, one of the overwatch teams spots an enemy in the trench that the guys who are, literally, inches away from him can't see. What are the variables in play? It is early morning, 0420, guys are on Hunt. The Overwatch team is over 100m away.

This is without the team selected:

With the team selected:

I am still on pause and wondering if I should have that team Area Fire (light), or tell them to stop movement and have the Overwatch. If I have that team fire, I don't want the 203 gunner to let loose (which has happened...idiot), and I don't want my guys to start hurling grenades at their own feet.

It took them 15 seconds, but they spotted the guy and it resolved itself. Still, it was very strange. What can I do to enhance their chances of spotting?

[YankeeDog]

Odd. Only think I can think of that should consistently create a situation like this would be if the overwatch team had some kind of night vision equipment that the close contact squad did not, such as a CLU giving them IR vision. Since you don't mention anything like this, I assume this is not the case.

Before going too far into more complicated theories, one possibility is that it's simply a statistical fluke. That is, if the game gives the overwatch team a 1%/second vs. the close squad a 20%/second chance of spotting the enemy, the close squad will spot first the vast majority of the time, but there is still a small chance that overwatch team will spot first. If you have a saved game from shortly before, it would be interesting to replay the situation several times, and see if the results end up more or less the same.

But it does seem kind of funky. I can believe the enemy soldier being hard to spot, even for the close squad (could be playing possum amongst the dead bodies, for example). But this doesn't explain why the overwatch team should spot first.

[para]

Wrong thread i know but is it possible to purchase CMSF and Brit Forces as a bundle?

cheers guys

[Noltyboy]

Wrong thread i know but is it possible to purchase CMSF and Brit Forces as a bundle?

cheers guys

Random, and yes you can

[Clavicula_Nox]

Odd. Only think I can think of that should consistently create a situation like this would be if the overwatch team had some kind of night vision equipment that the close contact squad did not, such as a CLU giving them IR vision. Since you don't mention anything like this, I assume this is not the case.

Before going too far into more complicated theories, one possibility is that it's simply a statistical fluke. That is, if the game gives the overwatch team a 1%/second vs. the close squad a 20%/second chance of spotting the enemy, the close squad will spot first the vast majority of the time, but there is still a small chance that overwatch team will spot first. If you have a saved game from shortly before, it would be interesting to replay the situation several times, and see if the results end up more or less the same.

But it does seem kind of funky. I can believe the enemy soldier being hard to spot, even for the close squad (could be playing possum amongst the dead bodies, for example). But this doesn't explain why the overwatch team should spot first.

No CLUs on the Overwatch team. I was thinking it was just a statistical anomaly, but I wanted to post to see if there were any similar issues.

[Chops]

I have also encountered a lack of spotting by blue units.

I had a Marine squad advance to a stone wall using Hunt. The Syrians behind the wall tossed a grenade which wounded a Marine. However, the Marines did not spot the Syrians or toss grenades over the wall. It took several turns before the Marines finally spotted the Syrians and dispatched them.

Edit: To clarify, the Syrians tossed a grenade as the Marines were approaching the wall. When the Marines were next to the wall as in the screenshot, it took 3 or 4 turns before the Marines spotted them.

Below - Marine Squad and Syrian having a chat:

[YankeeDog]

I have also encountered a lack of spotting by blue units.

I had a Marine squad advance to a stone wall using Hunt. The Syrians behind the wall tossed a grenade which wounded a Marine. However, the Marines did not spot the Syrians or toss grenades over the wall. It took several turns before the Marines finally spotted the Syrians and dispatched them.

If all the Syrians did initially was throw a single grenade, I don't think that's necessarily unrealistic. If you read small-unit accounts of close combat throughout the modern era, from Stalingrad to Fallujah, you'll find numerous accounts of an enemy grenade suddenly dropping out of nowhere, causing casualties, and no one knowing *exactly* where it came from. Indeed, this is part of the value of grenades in close combat ambushes -- if used properly, they don't necessarily reveal your position.

I think you have to view the actual soldier poses in CMSF with a certain amount of abstraction. With 1:1 representation, etc., things have gotten a lot more detailed than it was in CMx1, but it's still not an *exact* representation of real life formation and position. I don't think two enemies separated by just a few meters, staring each other in the eye across a low wall is literally what is happening as far as the game's spotting routines are concerned. For starters, IRL soldiers would make better use of the cover/concealment that the wall offers, but in the game they're limited to 4-5 "stock" poses. I would imagine both the Marines and the Syrians units hugging the wall, occasionally peeking over, and trying figure where the hell the enemy is.

Cheers,

YD

[Homo ferricus]

I think you have to view the actual soldier poses in CMSF with a certain amount of abstraction. With 1:1 representation, etc., things have gotten a lot more detailed than it was in CMx1, but it's still not an *exact* representation of real life formation and position. I don't think two enemies separated by just a few meters, staring each other in the eye across a low wall is literally what is happening as far as the game's spotting routines are concerned.

Considering the fidelity of ballistic calculations in CMSF, and the fact that a round visually passing through the physical representation of the soldier is what counts as a hit, there would seem to be a conflict here. Meaning that, if this were true, spotting is based on abstractions presuming that the unit is taking advantage of the available cover in ways that the soldier's model does not portray, yet, when resolving hits and misses and ballistic calculations, the soldiers is treated as being exactly where his graphical representation is.

[Alan8325]

Considering the fidelity of ballistic calculations in CMSF, and the fact that a round visually passing through the physical representation of the soldier is what counts as a hit, there would seem to be a conflict here. Meaning that, if this were true, spotting is based on abstractions presuming that the unit is using advantage of the available cover in ways that the soldier's model does not portray, yet, when resolving hits and misses and ballistic calculations, the soldiers is treated as being exactly where his graphical representation is.

Yeah, I don't remember all the details, but LOS and LOF are NOT the same in CMx2. It's something like LOF is drawn using ballistics and rounds passing through visual representations while LOS is more abstracted and takes into account lighting conditions, type of cover, etc. and always starts from the middle of the spotting unit, not the optics suite such as that on recon strykers or at the top of a TOW launcher.

[YankeeDog]

@HF:

To 2nd what Alan said; yes. If I understand Steve's past comments on the matter correctly, in some ways LOS and spotting is actually somewhat more abstracted than LOF in CMSF; it's not simply a matter of if you can draw a straight line from eyeball to target, then the soldier can see the target.

It's also worth noting that I don't think even the LOF and hit calculations are *completely* WYISIYG; Steve has intimated in the past that the engine does add some sort of abstract "cover bonus" for stuff like rocky ground, even though rocky ground this isn't represented in the game as an actual 3D obstacle. But I have absolutely no idea how this works mechanically.

[Homo ferricus]

and always starts from the middle of the spotting unit, not the optics suite such as that on recon strykers or at the top of a TOW launcher.

That would be something great to fix, by the way.

About LOF/LOS being treated differently--I was mindful of that when I posted. I myself have forgotten many of the differences and reasons for them, but now that I think about it, it doesn't seem right to partially abstract spotting while going full 1:1 with ballistics calculations. But then again, it doesn't seem right that a T90 can shoot straight up from an intersection into the 9th floor of an apartment on the corner of said intersection, or calculating LOS from the center of a unit rather than from its visual detection apparatus, etc.

As with any game, or anything in life, really--you can't and don't always get everything you want, and thankfully, these are acceptable limitations of the game. But for some reason it's still bugging me that LOS and LOF are on such different plains, apparently. Makes me think, "my unit can't see squat because the spotting system is abstracting that they're hugging the ground and trying to use cover, but they got shot because their graphical representations are just kinda hanging out there... My units are blind without the supposed advantage of being any more shielded from gunfire.

I think that might be the issue here--that the squad was somehow awkwardly spread out in a way that when the system tries to draw LOS from the center of the unit, it can't see what the tip of the spear sees because it's being drawn from the center. Perhaps the squad was only half in the trench, and LOS was drawn from an awkward slope, etc.

[Clavicula_Nox]

That would be something great to fix, by the way.

About LOF/LOS being treated differently--I was mindful of that when I posted. I myself have forgotten many of the differences and reasons for them, but now that I think about it, it doesn't seem right to partially abstract spotting while going full 1:1 with ballistics calculations. But then again, it doesn't seem right that a T90 can shoot straight up from an intersection into the 9th floor of an apartment on the corner of said intersection, or calculating LOS from the center of a unit rather than from its visual detection apparatus, etc.

As with any game, or anything in life, really--you can't and don't always get everything you want, and thankfully, these are acceptable limitations of the game. But for some reason it's still bugging me that LOS and LOF are on such different plains, apparently. Makes me think, "my unit can't see squat because the spotting system is abstracting that they're hugging the ground and trying to use cover, but they got shot because their graphical representations are just kinda hanging out there... My units are blind without the supposed advantage of being any more shielded from gunfire.

I think that might be the issue here--that the squad was somehow awkwardly spread out in a way that when the system tries to draw LOS from the center of the unit, it can't see what the tip of the spear sees because it's being drawn from the center. Perhaps the squad was only half in the trench, and LOS was drawn from an awkward slope, etc.

Well, the overwatch team was from a different squad completely, the screen shot is actually taken from the Overwatch team's POV, just zoomed into the trench. I said they were 100m away, but I think the actual distance was between 130-150m. I usually play with all of my squads split. Ordinarily, I would use an Assault command, but you can't Assault with just a fire team :\.

[Battlefront.com]

YankeeDog is correct. There are also two other factors at work here:

1. Soldiers do not spot every milisecond or even every second. That would cripple the CPU. So there are small gaps of time (5 seconds or so) when a unit is basically blind to new units coming into view. Likewise the other units are also blind for periods of time. CMx1 suffered from the same limitations relative to the hardware of the day even though it had a far less sophisticated LOS/Spotting system.

2. Randomness. When all factors are swirled together you can get "outliers" like posted above. They are so noticeable because graphically they make no sense, so they are pretty apparent. In CMx1 the same situations happened roughly as frequently, but the lack of a detailed graphical model made it a little harder to notice. Still, I remember having these types of situations pointed out quite frequently.

In short... no bugs here, just a reminder that computers are still not powerful enough to do everything we want them to do

Steve

[Mord]

On a positive note, I had a sniper spot only one guy on a grenade launcher team last night...I thought that was kinda cool. In the old days they'd have seen the whole team.

Mord.

[Alan8325]

On a positive note, I had a sniper spot only one guy on a grenade launcher team last night...I thought that was kinda cool. In the old days they'd have seen the whole team.

Mord.

And it's always gratifying when a sniper spots the actual gunner of a grenade launcher or recoilless rifle team and takes him out, forcing someone else to move into position to re-man the weapon.

[Mord]

Heh, yeah, if he isn't pinned first and has his security blown to hell and back...That stinkin' grenade team has caused me no small amount of cussing (wiped out two of my vics and severely wounded one of my NCOs along with the security team)...I can't wait until I can redirect some attention to them...nice and personal like.

Mord.

[Battlefront.com]

Homo Ferricus,

About LOF/LOS being treated differently--I was mindful of that when I posted. I myself have forgotten many of the differences and reasons for them, but now that I think about it, it doesn't seem right to partially abstract spotting while going full 1:1 with ballistics calculations. But then again, it doesn't seem right that a T90 can shoot straight up from an intersection into the 9th floor of an apartment on the corner of said intersection, or calculating LOS from the center of a unit rather than from its visual detection apparatus, etc.

As with any game, or anything in life, really--you can't and don't always get everything you want, and thankfully, these are acceptable limitations of the game. But for some reason it's still bugging me that LOS and LOF are on such different plains, apparently. Makes me think, "my unit can't see squat because the spotting system is abstracting that they're hugging the ground and trying to use cover, but they got shot because their graphical representations are just kinda hanging out there... My units are blind without the supposed advantage of being any more shielded from gunfire.

There's a ton of detailed discussions here about why there's no actual game disconnect between LOS and LOF, just perceived differences. There is no such thing as guys being able to be targeted without the ability to target back, for example. The system *must* work two ways or the whole game would fall apart. Which means minor outlier issues, when they do crop up, are because of something other than some sort of divergence between LOS and LOF. Even in version 1.0 this was the case, though bugs and limitations of the old single height system did produce far more oddball results than people see today. Bug fixes and Enhanced LOS have fixed most of those rough edges.

To give a more specific example of where perception departs from reality...

I think that might be the issue here--that the squad was somehow awkwardly spread out in a way that when the system tries to draw LOS from the center of the unit, it can't see what the tip of the spear sees because it's being drawn from the center. Perhaps the squad was only half in the trench, and LOS was drawn from an awkward slope, etc.

I think I should explain how the system works again because you've got it wrong in your description.

LOS checks from the center of an Action Spot to the center of all other Action Spots. There are certain exceptions for things like buildings which do not necessarily conform to the underlying grid, but basically this is the way it is almost all of the time. If two Action Spots can see each other then IN THEORY LOS/LOF can be established between those two Action Spots. This method saves massive amounts of RAM and CPU time. The game would not be able to run without it.

Each friendly soldier (or vehicle) within seeks to establish LOS with each enemy soldier (or vehicle) that is within the Action Spots it has theoretical LOS/LOF to. This is where Spotting, an entirely separate concept from LOS/LOF, comes into play. The system decides, based on the exact and specific conditions (including unit based stuff like terrain, Experience, Morale, equipment, speed, etc.) if a soldier (or vehicle) can see some or all of the enemy in a particular "authorized" enemy occupied Action Spot.

Unlike LOS/LOF, Spotting is *not* automatically two ways. Just because you spot something doesn't mean the enemy spots you back. Often that is the case, but it's never a sure thing, unlike LOS/LOF. The guy in cover has a better chance of not being spotted vs. the enemy walking out in the open. The guy with NVGs at night is more likely to spot the enemy vs. the enemy with no NVGs spotting him back. That sort of stuff.

If the spotting system gives that particular soldier (or vehicle) a green light, then some level of spotting information is revealed. Once that happens the soldier (or vehicle) tries to establish LOF to the specific spotted enemy. If he is successful, then he decides if he should shoot and what he should shoot or how he should shoot. Single shot with carbine? M203 grenade? Rapid bursts? That sort of thing. If the enemy has also successfully spotted the guy shooting, then LOF from enemy to friendly is 100% guaranteed. The ability to actually shoot is, however, circumstantial (Morale, range, etc.).

Hopefully that helps

Steve

[dan/california]

It is apparently becoming possible to do general calculations on graphics cards, with dozens of parallel cores. Will that help things like LOS calculations as much as I think it will when it finally trickles all the way down to the CM world?

[Gen. J-sun]

I chalk up the missed spot to him hiding among the bodies (although he's standing).

[Battlefront.com]

CPU power is one of the big factors, yes. So the more CPU power we have at our disposal, in theory the better. However, there are three limitations:

1. The more we code to specific hardware configurations the more limited our customer base becomes to the degree the hardware is standard in the market.

2. RAM and other hardware components can also be bottlenecks. Just because the processor can handle something doesn't mean the other systems can without affecting framerate.

3. Programming point of diminishing return. For example, let's say that most people's computers could handle LOS from a specified polygon (like an eye or a view port) instead of a pre determined height. In theory this is GREAT, right? Well, it probably wouldn't work so well without a ton of other coding changes. These all have to be tested and debugged, and that sometimes takes many times longer to do than it does to code the feature. So it might be that we purposefully avoid a higher fidelity even if the computer can handle it simply because overall it's beyond a point of diminishing returns to you, the players.

Steve

[Chops]

Steve,

Thanks for the clarification on these issues. The technical details, coding skill, and pure brain power that you guys have put into CM:SF/CMX2 is very impressive.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Steve,

could you clarify spotting from vehicles? Who is doing the spotting, from where and with what? I thought spotting was done from the individual vehicle stations with the appropriate equipment for that station.

[GSX]

I think often the consusion here arises from the fact that weve gone 1-1 visually but as stated before the program doesnt really see the infantry as 1-1. I know that Steve has explained all this before and I fully accept the reasoning why it is the case. But it still leads to confusion as my brain wants to shout out that one of my soldiers can see the fecker in front of him, while my CPU is saying no.

One day we may have true 1-1 with each individual soldier being tracked as you see it and no need for the action spots!!!!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

You do realize the action spot is only for the rough initial calculations and that the actual spotting is in fact true 1:1?

[GSX]

You do realize the action spot is only for the rough initial calculations and that the actual spotting is in fact true 1:1?

Not according to Steve, he very firmly told me that the 1-1 is actually abstracted and that the infantry arent necesarily where I see them on screen. With infantry Im led to believe therefore that its not true 1-1.

It it were then the current way we use infantry in the game is fundamentally flawed. Why? Well real life infantry use formations and tactics, CMSF infantry dont come near this.