LOS issues resolved in CMN?

[noxnoctum]

I just reinstalled CMSF+Marines a few weeks ago after being tempted by a couple very nice looking user made campaigns, and though I'm having a good time I'm a bit miffed by some LOS issues... several times a small bush or very skinny tree blocked, for example, one of my BMPs from firing at a T-72 at almost point blank range (60 meters). And it wasn't an issue of minimum range either, because as soon as the T-72 moved a tiny bit forward my BMP fired and killed it.

I noticed this quite a bit actually, very sparse foliage blocking huge tanks from being seen :confused: VERY frustrating. In CMx1 I always could tell when my tanks would have a firing solution prior to moving them into position. It seems to me that CMx2 is indecisively hovering between abstract LOS and non-abstract, and ends up being a lot worse than it could be as a result. If Battlefront is unable or doesn't have the resources to fix this I think they'd be better off making the LOS abstract again as far as trees/bushes go. In other words, if it's a couple meters worth of "tree area" it would be visible, if it's a certain depth than it wouldn't. Right now you're basically just guessing.

I really hope this is resolved, along with a few nagging interface issues (such as not being able to move waypoints)... if these are fixed I have no doubt CMN will at least be the equal of CMBB/CMAK, and perhaps even better. If not... it won't .

[MeatEtr]

Pretty much every battle I play I see wonky LOS issues, especially when targeting buildings. I thought about starting a new thread with a bunch of pics but figured why bother, everybody knows about it and there would be a ton of pics to post.

[Jonny(FGM)]

I must say i've never really noticed any dodgy LOS issues in the game other than the targeting buildings issue.

However i did have a tree stop a 120mm APFSDS round which displeased me greatly

[noxnoctum]

Pretty much every battle I play I see wonky LOS issues, especially when targeting buildings. I thought about starting a new thread with a bunch of pics but figured why bother, everybody knows about it and there would be a ton of pics to post.

Yeah, it's the #1 issue that needs to be fixed IMO. Honestly I'd rather have BFC release the game without any scenarios or campaign than to see this not be resolved. Core gameplay stuff like this can't be ignored.

I might start a thread, I've got a few screenies already of the aforementioned incident. The more attention that's drawn to this the better. It's an absolute gamebreaker, nearly as critical as the horrible pathfinding the game shipped with.

Maybe I'm cynical, but I doubt it'll be fixed

[Moon]

several times a small bush or very skinny tree blocked, for example, one of my BMPs from firing at a T-72 at almost point blank range (60 meters).

Keep in mind: Way more goes into LOS calculations than just figuring out if there is a bush or tree within the line of sight. Just because something can be theoretically seen (i.e. you can trace a LOS) doesn't mean that it automatically will be. As you well know, tanks and vehicles do not have 360 degree instant-vision all the time (in fact, not even infantry has).

In the game, fuzzy logic determines if something is spotted or not in addition to plain LOS checks. And the logic includes all sorts of things, such as buttoned up limited visibility, or even state of the crew etc.

[MikeyD]

Gee, a computer game that doesn't exactly mimic real life in every detail. Bummer dude. It seems every issue that gets dredged up has to be labeled a 'game-breaker'.

[noxnoctum]

@moon That's not what I'm talking about. This was a tank directly in front of my BMP literally sixty meters ahead that my BMP would not fire at because a bush half the height of the T-72 was supposedly blocking visibility (and the bush was directly in front of the tank not my BMP, so the viewport was not blocked). I triple checked by positioning my camera right where the BMP was, there is no reason it should not have been spotted. My crews were veteran, and unbuttoned.

In another situation I had 3 BMPs 200 meters away from an entire platoon of T-72 in a vineyard. The BMPs were up on a hill positioned above and directly facing the enemy tank platoon, which were travelling through the vineyard full of vines again, about half the height of the T-72s. They couldn't even see them.

Sorry but I find this absolutely hard to fathom. I can understand they can't see the entire vehicle, but we're talking about not being able to see anything from a 7 and a half foot 40 ton vehicle traveling through... a vineyard! (not exactly the densest foliage).

The first example I mentioned where it was pointblank is especially without explanation. It seems to me the LOS system is based on some kind of specific point on the vehicle and if that point is not seen then it's like the whole thing is invisible.

[flamingknives]

Shouldn't this be LOF rather than LOS?

The examples above cite firing at and being unable to hit an enemy vehicle, not being unable to see it.

[noxnoctum]

Gee, a computer game that doesn't exactly mimic real life in every detail. Bummer dude. It seems every issue that gets dredged up has to be labeled a 'game-breaker'.

Oh cmon, I'm not asking for the moon here, just a system that works as decently as CMx1's. You don't have to be flippant.

It IS a gamebreaker. This is supposed to be a realistic war game right? If I can't tell half the time whether my troops will be able to even see, much less fire at an enemy then that's a gamebreaker. Something like the moving waypoints thing is not a gamebreaker. It's irritating, especially since it was in CMx1 (odd to go backwards), but you can live without it, especially in wego where you have all the time you want.

The people who defend this game blindly as you do are just hurting it by not holding it to even the standards of an 8 year old game! While we're at it why don't we just toss any concerns over pathfinding to the wind too? Because hey, we all know they can't mimic reality PERFECTLY right . (kudos to BFC for largely resolving those issues since launch btw, it could be better, but as long as you issue precise orders there are no problems anymore )

It's just bad programming. I know BFC doesn't have a ton of resources, so I think like I said perhaps reverting to a semi-abstract format like CMx1's "dense forest" and "light forest" or whatever it was called would be better.

[noxnoctum]

Shouldn't this be LOF rather than LOS?

The examples above cite firing at and being unable to hit an enemy vehicle, not being unable to see it.

Both actually in this case though I have had a couple situations where I could see but not fire.

That's what particularly irks me, these tanks just up and disappeared once they went into the 3 foot tall vines :eek: And again, my vehicles were above and behind and facing the enemy, perfect spotting position.

Anyways I'll post some screenies to show what I'm talking about when I get the time.

[Thomm]

Gee, a computer game that doesn't exactly mimic real life in every detail. Bummer dude. It seems every issue that gets dredged up has to be labeled a 'game-breaker'.

It would be cool if you could stop 'thinking aloud' as long as you wear the Beta Tester tag.

Best regards,

Thomm

[stikkypixie]

My cents is that it's not the way LOS or LOF is calculated that is a problem, but the limited resolution of the height of the terrain tiles. For me it's not really a game breaker as it only affects specific situations. Having said that, I would definitely put it high on the priority list.

[Steiner14]

IMO the discussion shows clearly, where some of the problems are and what the big difference to CMx1 is:

In CMx1 the outcome had priority. How does the player receive, what is presented? Only the result mattered. That it was achieved with not so beautifully engineered software, often enough with hacks, made it ugly for the developers over the time. But what counts for the customer is the result, not what's going on behind the hood.

In CMx2 they lost this focus, due to the much superior engine they created. Now they pay much more attention to the technical internals of the game. So their focus moved from the pure result, the outcome, to the internals.

The outcome you describe cannot be that bad, since we use such an advanced model...

If the player notices a strange behaviour, he exaggerates the problem, because he doesn't honor the engine enough. Now the player has the wrong focus.

While in CMx1, due to the abstraction, player's fantasy had to compensate game limitations, this no longer is the case in CMx2. Here you see all details and if you notice that something simply doesn't work as the representation suggests, there is no room to explain the problem with fantasy.

As a player, who is interested in the tactics, not the individual soldiers, I think it was not a good decision to give up the abstraction concept. How much energy and development time have the problems due to the 1:1 visualization consumed, that could have been spent on tactical depth? On gameplay issues? And additionally it destroyed the magic of CMx1: the players fantasy automaticallyy kicked in and compensated for the visuals, that were NOT shown.

CMx1 was a beautiful woman in a bikini - while CMx2 is a porn actrice.

[Sgt Joch]

Steiner14, there is no need to dump the entire CMx2 engine just yet.

We are always willing to look at issues or improvements to the game. Noxnectum said he would post screenies which will give us a clue as to whether there is a problem or it falls within the normal game parameters.

We have all played the game extensively and I can't say I have noticed many odd issues about LOS/LOF, other than the ones mentioned earlier round buildings.

If there is a problem here, we will look into it.

[stikkypixie]

Jeez, only 13 posts far and there are already two drama queens. For what it's worth, yes CMSF has some flaws, but unlike the CMx1 where you couldn't fix anything without a tremendous amount of effort and most likely breaking working things as well, the new, more flexible engine does allow for easier implementation of improvements.

[Dietrich]

Numerous times I've come up against instances where a unit of mine can't target or can see but not target an enemy unit or a building or what have you. But when this happens, I don't think "there must be something wrong with the game"; I think "there must be more going on than meets the eye", and either I make whatever miniscule correction is needed or I just shrug and continue playing.

[MeatEtr]

Numerous times I've come up against instances where a unit of mine can't target or can see but not target an enemy unit or a building or what have you. But when this happens, I don't think "there must be something wrong with the game"; I think "there must be more going on than meets the eye", and either I make whatever miniscule correction is needed or I just shrug and continue playing.

The words lost in translation come to mind.

[Dietrich]

When LOS/LOF seems wonky, I don't worry about it.

[Michael Emrys]

The words lost in translation come to mind.

Eh? Where? I'm not trying to pull your chain, I am sincerely curious. Dietrich's post seemed perfectly clear to me, so I am wondering what you are seeing that I missed.

Michael

[Wodin]

Seemed clear to me aswell.

[MeatEtr]

I was just describing his post, by referring to what happens in the game engine in relation to what the player sees. As Dietrich pointed out, he doesn't mind when this doesn't translate properly.

I usually don't mind too, which is why this is not a game-breaker. But there are plenty of times this is a real problem, especially around buildings.

[DaveDash]

I gotta say in earlier versions of the game, LOF was an issue and there were moments I was tearing my hair out. However, the game has come a long way and it's something I barely notice - apart from the odd annoyance with vehicles.

The only issue really is not LOF but LOS with some blatantly obvious things like red tanks not seeing each other 200m up the road (in no cover). Mostly if there is some strangeness it takes a minor adjustment to fix, but yes I can see that being annoying in WEGO however RT it has minimal impact.

With the new 'grey line' system and most LOF/LOS issues being resolved I am mostly happy with how the game works.

Id rather they worked on an improved action spot system which would fix some small remaining LOF issues AND improve survivability of troops at the same time. Two birds with one stone.

[Steiner14]

BF is convinced, that more realism transforms into a better game. IMO that is not true and is one of the core mistakes of their development decision for 1:1 representation. I will try to support this with facts:

The human player is not a machine, but a human with feelings - and IMO most importantly - fantasy. So a good game is much more about the impression being created on the player's mind, and less if there is pure realism delivered on the screen (or board, or something else).

I don't know what all the details are, that have taken the magic away. But i'm quite sure, it has to do with the player's fantasy not being activated that much anymore. Therefore i think the, not perfect, 1:1 representation has a lot to do with it. Why?

I suspect it's better, before you show something that doesn't really look sound and realistic, it's better not to show it at all and instead offer something to the player, that his fantasy will be forced to fill the gap in a natural way. But even if you can deliver something that looks very good and realistic, it still could be better, NOT to show it.

Very educational in that regard are movies and the process of their creation. What can stay in the script, and what must be taken out? Even the very best scenes often enough fall victim to the cutter. Directors can love them and actors be proud of them. But if i.e. the rhythm or the speed is negatively influenced, they are deleted.

That's why most sucessors of movies can't reach the first part, since they are an extrapolation of what worked in the first part: increase the dose of what people liked in the first movie. Increase the budget for more blood, increase the action, increase the dose of sex. And the result is nevertheless - worse.

Back to games: The magic is - even more than in movies - not happening on the screen, but on the players mind.

And when CMx1 was developed, they had to aim - because of available computer power and no alternatives - all the time at the imagination on the players mind! Maybe they tried to create realism, but in fact they created a magically working abstraction! BF was FORCED by the technical conditions, to develop something abstract, that will activate player's fantasy. So their focus was (maybe subconsciously) much more about the impression in players mind, and not about realism behind the hood of game mechanics, than they have been realizing.

Therefore i'm extremely sceptical, that the ever increasing processing power, will ever translate into a "better" CM-series. In fact i think the available processing power will lead the development away from what made CMx1 such an incredible game. The magic will never come back, as long as they don't recognize, the magic of CMx1 did not come from it's realism, but from the impression it created on the player's mind.

And there is another extremely important psychological human aspect, they should be aware of: A extremely well working nice fantasy creates always the will, to increase the impression of it. That's natural.

If the abstraction of soldiers just works in a magical way, like it did in CMx1, it's natural and logical, that the player wants more of that "realism" and also for the developer, if he wants to be a realistic as possible and if the thinks, that was the key of the original's success. It's similiar to a beautiful women in a bikini. It's the impression in the head, that makes you wanna see more. But it's key, not to deliver the demand...

What is the most common and natural conclusion with abstracted soldiers in a magically working game? More realism, more details, less abstraction! Put that bikini off! That's what the crowd wanted. That's what BF wanted, because their target is as much realism as possible. Because they don't know, that the magic of CMx1 was not it's unprecedented realism of tactical warfare. It's definately no shame not to recognize that and it too me very long to recognize it, too. Most authors and developers fail to recognize what was the real key of their original sucess.

The natural answer was: Reduce the abstraction, deliver more on the screen, make everything "more realistic".

Humans are not machines. I'm sure games do not work because of realism, but because of what they create on the player's mind. Therefore, if you deliver more details, you can nevertheless destroy the magic of the much more simple original. And IMO that happened with CMx2. And as long as they don't recognize that psychological key factors, CMxY will fail even more, since the increasing processor power, let's them put more and more "realism" into the game. And the magic will never come back, because, as i tried to explain in this much too long and time consuming post, it was not there because of the action or realism, but because of that, what wasn't shown.

[Ryujin]

Well, you seem to bring up two conflicts in the CMx2 development.

People who want a "board game" vs people who want a sim. What made the first one successful is subjective, while you may have liked the abstraction and imagining what was going on, I found it to be too "gamey". That you could always calculate everything out from hit percentages to exactly how much woods you could see through. I believe someone once called it "battlefield chess" and that seems to be the best description of it.

By the same argument, I find the 1:1 representation and increased realism creates a better experience for me. I find it overall to be more fluid, more natural feeling to combat that isn't as predictable or simplified.

I in principle agree with what your saying, except I don't think that showing more is inherently a bad thing and undermines the player's "fantasy", you could go back to a top down map and counters, but I don't think it would be better than CMx1 by showing less. I find that CMx2 is just as engaging for me (I'm sure it pretty subjective).

So I would argue that the abstraction was holding back the gameplay (I'm not for a board game feel) in some regards and that the removal of that abstraction didn't hurt my fantasy while playing the game. In fact it may have made it easier to become engaged in the game. Does going to a higher level of realism and 1:1 have it's quirks and bugs? sure. But I think they've been mostly fixed and that the benefits outweigh them.

[Homo ferricus]

I can agree--to an extent--that CMX1 hit a "sweet-spot" between abstraction and simulation that produced convincingly realistic outcomes on the battlefield. A balance was achieved between explicitly indicating to the player what was happening on the graphical interface, and leaving other aspects of the combat to the player's imagination, i.e. troop dispersion, close combat, house-to-house fighting, etc. The early Combat Mission games walked a line at a near-perfect threshold between the player and the game, IMO.

Now that many of those things are explicitly modeled (everything form troop dispersion to the physical area of individual trees vs. "forest tiles"), I do in fact sometimes get the sensation that CMX2 has wandered part-way into the "uncanny valley"; trying so hard to be realistic that it ends up being less convincing than CMX1, but as other posters have mentioned:

A) Some of the errors that explicit 1:1 representation produces nonetheless adds to the complexity and unpredictability of combat in CMX2 which helps to add tension and excitement (and, admittedly in many cases, frustration)

It is not a game-breaker, it just takes the right attitude; many will balk at this statement, outraged that the end-user must compensate for the perceived failings of the engine with their imaginations and whatnot, but seriously--this is a game! These frustrating issues exist, and the only way to bypass them is to consider them one more tactical challenge.

In any case, that's probably why many CMX1 lovers can't stand CMX2; they used to imagine their Airborne squad busting into the house and methodically sweeping through rooms, having dramatic doorway to doorway exchanges, diving behind flipped tables and couches, hugging walls for cover and drawing their Kabars. That mental simulation is stolen from them now that they watch their pixeltruppen tactlessly running into a house and having awkward and not very convincingly realistic 1:1 struggles against the house's occupiers.

For some people, the "magic" is gone, others can enjoy CMX2 and praise its leaps and bounds forward from the old system.