ToW2 LOS mechanics...fail?

[Lt Bull]

I was going to post a general review of the game, but I think I might just narrow things down as I have seen some other people have picked up on and questioned some fundamental mechanics of the game that I too have an issue with, so maybe I get this "deal breaker" sorted first.

Just some background, I originally played the first ToW demo, was disappointed (the LOS system was one item) and never bothered looking at it again, but a recent cheap Steam sale, some disposable income and curiosity made me buy the full ToW/ToW2 pack with all the DLC incl Caen. How far has the game come since that first demo?

I read this recent user review post and this post in another thread that both question the LOS mechanics in ToW2 Caen the same way I do. I have highlighted the key parts of what they are saying.

The second thing that's not intuitive are the maps...There's one thing seriously missing on the Normandy maps in the Caen-expansion: hedgerows! Right now, the maps do have a Normandy "feel" over them, with the lines of trees visually representing hedgerows. However, only my own LOS is blocked. My virtual soldiers have a completely different view. Their LOS is only blocked by the occasional tree-trunk. Enemy fire can come from everywhere; there's no logic in the way the map is represented to me, to find out where I have to look for the enemy. They could be hiding in the next line of trees, they could as well be two lines of trees further down the road.

A good map should be easy for the player to "read": especially on LOS and (visual) cover. Than the focus can be on tactics instead of on the need to constantly check the LOS of units.

and this one:

caen los ridiculous

Is it just me, or does there seem to be no LOS operational in Caen - at least as far as trees go? This may be the case for all TOW games - I'm not sure. I've noticed it immediately in Caen, and it's made it not worth playing. Going down to vehicle level to check LOS is a waste of time because I can't see through tree foliage, but the enemy AI clearly can. My AI can too, if I direct it what to attack, but it won't attack targets behind trees of its own accord, even when those targets are pouring fire into it. It's easy to spot this from even the first battle. Just drive something into one of the fields, keeping behind trees. Go down and check LOS to the line of 88s that always seems to be deployed in the tree line just below Cheux. You won't be able to see them, but they'll pick you off no problem. This means you have to really micro manage movement in order to keep tanks behind ground obstructions. It's tedious, and very unrealistic. The AI should not be able to spot through multiple lines of trees at a mile distant.

and this

I'm just curious - could you confirm for me that tree foliage (such as very definitely confounds a Mark 1 human eyeball such as mine) is not coded to impede LOS for the AI in this game? I mean, can you confirm that the AI can actually see through trees, even multiple lines of trees? Just so as I know what I have to deal with.

So it isn't just me who thinks something (STILL) just isn't right with the LOS mechanics.

Here are just a few examples that in my honest opinion, demonstrates the clear discrepant between what is represented graphically to the user and what the game actually sees.

Here is a Stuart tank in the middle of a long straight flat stretch of dirt road. How could ANYONE expect that there would be anything but an unobstructed clear LOS along that road from the Stuart tank? The green line should indicate a clear area with unobstructed line of sight where the flora does not hinder fire. But as you can see this green line does not extend any further than 30m before it turns red indicating that LOS exists but it is "obstructed"

What the? What flora could possibly be obstructing the LOS here in any way? In fact, for some reason, no matter how hard I try I have yet to find a case which allows the green "unobstructed" LOS line to extend further than 30m from it's source.

Here are more screenshots at different angles of the same "obstructed" view clearly showing this odd behaviour:

[Lt Bull]

Now lets look at another example. Here is an Achilles I have placed behind what seems to be thick, dense foliage that is approximately twice a deep as the length of the tank.

First a top down view, a side on view, and a view directly opposite the foiage lookign back at the tank:

Now here is what the game shows you as the view from the tank:

[Lt Bull]

I don't know about you, but based on what is reprepresented/shown on the map itslef (I mean does a player have anything else to go on?), it apepars that all LOS should be blocked THROUGH that vegetation.

But what do we find?

!!! The tank apparently can find LOS to an area some 320m away not only through the immediate intervening vegetation but through some other addition intervenning vegetation (looks like an orchard)!!!

Here is the approximate view looking back at the tank from that same area 320m distant.

What is more disturbing is that I believe the LOS mechanics is symmetrical, so a unit at this location could see back along the LOS line through the orchard and through the brush/tree and spot the Achilles.

How is anyone supposed to play this game and intelligently be able to use the terrain when you have things like this happeneing? And these are just one of MANY examples I could demonstrate.

Just one more example, here is a rough short video I made to show a similar case with a Churchill looking through what you could only say is dense thick tree/scrub too thick to see through. Yet again the game proves the player must be an idiot becasue the LOS tool shows that the Chuchill can see through the intervening folliage.

http://www.mediafire.com/?98a1juzcvttuddx

I can not tell you how disappointing these findings are. The otherwise awesome looking battlefield representation in the game seems to come at the price of essentially an independantly working broken LOS mechanic that varies considerably from what the player might expect/from what is actually graphically reprsented in game.

It is very unfortunate that there is such a huge disparity between the LOS engine and what is shown on the battlefield. Players almost seem better of ignoring all the pretty graphics on the map because they are just so misleading. I would prefer an ugly honest map than a pretty map that lies.

I have read the post by developer Sneaksie explaining some of the LOS mechanics:

Tree foliage blocks LOS, but i'll explain how visibility raytracing is done.

1) First of all, a simplified tree model is used to calculate whether tree blocks a passing LOS ray or not, otherwise even a single tree would hamper performance significantly. So if a unit is covered just by 'edge' of a tree crown it may be considered clearly visible.

2) Tree crowns are lifted above the ground, obviously, so they won't cover a unit right next to it and tree trunks can hardly cover anything. On the other hand, bushes are much more useful for hiding infantrymen or guns, but you'll hardly conceal a several meters high tank behind them.

So if we analyse a simplified case of two hostile units on a leveled terrain, trees (unless there are really many of them between the units) wont block LOS between them at all. All would change if the ground is uneven - one unit would be lifted and a crown of a single tree could conceal it completely from the view of that enemy unit.

Visibility system takes many other factors into account. For example, angle size of target is calculated and compared to angle values a human eye can theoretically see, moving units are much more visible (while their vision is impaired). In addition, each AFV crewman uses authentic view angles and optical sights (if any) with different capabilities (for example, a tank driver will look forward most of the time, but will look to the side using that view slit as well from time to time, main gun operator usually has an extremely narrow FOV, but he would see almost anything not blocked inside it and so on).

A tank with only driver left alive would be a terrible recon unit, obviously, and even a fully crewed one on the move would be worse than an infantryman (no optical sights benefits). However, a gunner and commander in a stationary tank (most models) are able to detect enemies far away.

This doesn't give make me feel any better about the LOS system for the reasons I have exemplified. We may as well be talking about two separate maps/games here. One is the map/3D world that the player sees on the screen, and the other is the one the LOS engine sees, and as far as I am concerned, the LOS mechanics might be absolutely FANTASTIC at calculating precise LOS in the world IT SEES, but it is all for nothing if the world as seen by the LOS engine is vastly different top the world seen by the player.

I actually do even question exactly how the LOS mechanics/modelling does it's ray tracing calculations as I can certainly point out how it can result in very unrealistic results if handled in a certain way, even though based simply on the Stuart LOS example it just seems fundamentally broken. Is it based on a single point ray or a bunch or rays? Are those rays parallel or a cone? Have the fundamental implications of using what seems to be a symmetrical/bi-directional LOS modelling system really be thought through properly? I will leave it here for the moment and see feedback this thread gets.

[MG TOW]

I saw your pics and vid. Seems two separate LOS issues are at play here.

1. Graphical representations of trees are not matching the way the grid is coded, or the other way around. Comments from sneaksie I think go along with that. Trees are coded as an obstructed single grid surrounded by a semi obstructed ring if I understand correctly. But the graphic portrays a thick, densley branched tree more than a single grid, not a high crowned tree.

2. The second issue are these blockages in line of site on a clear path. Could there be coding for an object on that grid that was removed and not re-rendered. I dunno maybe I'm way off.

[phil stanbridge]

Nice post. I think there may also be some 1:1 representational problems to deal with here. As touched upon above, trees maybe represented in a different way to other foliage, so one tree top might block LOS but another (which looks identical to the human eye) might not.

I think 'triggers' might have something to do with LOS as well, unless what I saw was a bug. As soon as one unit crosses a trigger, the LOS may change even in a minor way to reflect the new units position. For example, I couldn't see a line of dug-in 88's, until one of my men enabled the trigger. I couldn't use indirect fire at a position in this tree line UNTIL the trigger had activated.

[sand digger]

Ascertaining LOS has always been a problem with Kursk but one you could sort of get round because of the nature of the fighting and the terrain there. But here where use of cover and spotting is so crucial its shortcomings are apparently much more obvious.

One solution would be to have a overall LOS viewer, click on any part of the map to see what parts of the map from that particular position are visible from a certain viewing height. LOS is a potential problem with any game of this type because the player does not have a real world view of the terrain, I recall that CMAK was pretty awful in this regard because of the poor ground representing graphics. To make up for this lack of a real world view a player needs compensating aids in addition to good terrain representing graphics. You particularly need them in order to plan and make movement decisions when advancing, thats a crucial part of the game.

As it stands, the only thing I can suggest is to micro manage scouts and infantry well forward of the armour. How long they would last in that role is another question.

[Lt Bull]

One solution would be to have a overall LOS viewer, click on any part of the map to see what parts of the map from that particular position are visible from a certain viewing height. LOS is a potential problem with any game of this type because the player does not have a real world view of the terrain

There is a game that I think does exactly that. Made by one guy and it's free. Armored Brigade, Google it, download it for free (only 20mb) and check out the LOS tool. It would be great is a similar tool could exist in a bunch of other games. Yes it's a top down view game but the concept of how the LOS tool works and it's implementation is simply fantastic (imagine if CC or SP had this). Note that the game differentiates what potentially is in LOS and what is actually spotted of course. Units can remain hidden despite being in LOS.

Here is a short video I made of it so you can get the idea.

File here.

I recall that CMAK was pretty awful in this regard because of the poor ground representing graphics.

Awful? Serious? :confused: As a matter of fact, I categorically place the LOS modelling in a game like CMAK (which I still play PBEM today) way ahead of what you get in ToW2. I certainly would not have continued to play CMAK for as long as I have if I felt that something so critical to gameplay such as LOS mechanics was less than acceptable, reliable and consistent.

I believe CMAK uses a very different LOS system/mechanic (more abstract yet functional, the use of discreet terrain tiles being the obvious one) than what is used in ToW2, and thus removes itself from the burden associated with trying to live up to the expectations of a game world where it seems every last detailed is being modelled and represented 1:1. I kind of feel that the LOS CMAK mechanics work almost like they do in a game like SL/ASL, where there is discrete terrain and discrete things that can block/hinder LOS in a mechanistic clear cut kind of way, mixed in with a bit of randoness to account for the random nature of some of the abstracted terrain tiles. Ultimately, the LOS modelling just feels right and predictable. Sure there are times where the CMAK LOS/lack of LOS might shock you but never in a way that seems so out of place or inconsistent like the ToW2 examples above I have shown.

To make up for this lack of a real world view a player needs compensating aids in addition to good terrain representing graphics. You particularly need them in order to plan and make movement decisions when advancing, thats a crucial part of the game.

Graphics is all about communicating information. In the case of a game like ToW2, there is a virtual world that needs to be communicated the player so he can intelligently operate within it as you say. If this visual communication is misleading or ineffective or deficient compared to what the game mechanics actually sees and calculates things on, then the player literally may as well be in another world.

As it stands, the only thing I can suggest is to micro manage scouts and infantry well forward of the armour. How long they would last in that role is another question.

Funny you mention this because that is what I have found myself doing anyway and is related to this discussion on the LOS/spotting mechanics. I have found that even still, the ability of the AI to see a single sniper crawling in grass several hundred metres away through intervening rows of vegetation seems somewhat unreal. I might post an example up.

[sand digger]

I was not criticising CMAK LOS as such but the graphic representation of the terrain, particularly the desert. Used to get eyestrain trying to work out the general lie of the land. Agree with you absolutely that the graphics should represent what affects the LOS, particularly when there is no other aid to evaluating terrain and visibility. Its crucial to the gameplay experience.

[duckEfuzz]

Hi all. I'm really pleased to have found this thread becasue i really thought i must be doing something wrong or hadn't found the LOS secret.

For me the really annoying bit was when i sneaked my sniper with 76 scout ability upto (100m)of a tree line where enemy panzers were hull down. My elite sniper could not see a thing or hear any engines, so i decided to raise him to a kneeling posistion behind a tree, and was then gunned down by the enemy in short order!! At no time did he spot or hear anything!!! grrrrrr.

On another occasion i sent a suicide officer in to crawl upto said tank dug out and had to be within touching distance to see the tank, within 5m would lose sight intermittently.

I love the game, but the LOS is driving me potty?!?!

Well thats my two-penneth, nice thread though Lt Bull. thx.

[duckEfuzz]

And just to follow on, was again messing arround running troops right upto tanks, in this case a panther on the river map. My men had real trouble keeping that tank visible, one guy was lying down 2m away and lost all sight every 5 secs.

And even better i had another guy running arround where i knew the tank was and the only time i saw it appear was after it ran my poor private over!! shame on him he should have kept his eyes open ( yes he was running not lying down hehe).

still good fun though.

[MG TOW]

Must be Romulan tanks.

[Sneaksie]

Lt Bull, i understand why you think so, but red color of LOS line is NORMAL, it is not obstructed. If LOS is obstructed, it turns black.

Green - here LOS line completely ignores foliage

Red - LOS is unobstructed

Black/Grey - here LOS is obstructed and unit can't see what's there

Don't ask me why it is color-coded in such a way, i don't know, lead artist thought it would look great probably.

[Knokke]

I still can't see what the problem is after looking at Lt.Bull pics and vids. The vid shows that the tank as no line of sight through the foliage (as seems to be normal to me). the first pic shows a tanks having line of sight and line of fire up to 320m (if i'm not mistaken) No surprise to me here, as the ground seems to be uneven. The next pic with the line of fire closer to the tank can be a bit more open to debate. But if you keep in mind that the sight from the gunner eye sight is very narrow, it could start to make sense. The point is aiming at could be outside the field of view of the gunner looking through is sight.

I believe the problem that peoples have with the LOS in the game comes from the difference of what they're expecting to see, and what the game engine "really" see.

For obvious reasons, the game engine can't calculate the obstruction of every single leaf in a tree or bush. The g

[Lt Bull]

Lt Bull, i understand why you think so, but red color of LOS line is NORMAL, it is not obstructed. If LOS is obstructed, it turns black.

Green - here LOS line completely ignores foliage

Red - LOS is unobstructed

Black/Grey - here LOS is obstructed and unit can't see what's there

Don't ask me why it is color-coded in such a way, i don't know, lead artist thought it would look great probably.

My mistake then. Even though I did refer to the manual I must've just misread it and based it on intuition (yes the choice of colours is definitely confusing and not very intuitive). I would edit and remove the examples referencing the Stuart in my original posts but seems like I can not edit it.

I believe my other examples still require some explanation though.

[sand digger]

........................................................................

.

I believe the problem that peoples have with the LOS in the game comes from the difference of what they're expecting to see, and what the game engine "really" see.

For obvious reasons, the game engine can't calculate the obstruction of every single leaf in a tree or bush. The g

But thats the point. The only thing you have to go on is what you can see on a screen which is vastly inferior to a real life view so you are in this game relying completely on the graphics. This is particularly relevant when planning a move, you are relying completely on the graphics to estimate what your exposure and LOS will be once the move begins.

[WaltM]

First of all rarely will I ever discount another persons opinion on things ,everybody is entitled to there opinions and I learned long ago with these games things can appear differently to one person compared to another. That said what I am finding in regards to the LOS in Battle for Caen specifically is largely what I would have expected and hoped for. That not so say its perfect because it isn't ,I have encountered on a couple of occasions issues with my troops unable to locate objects that were very close by and required additional small movement orders to locate them as others have reported .

Why do I like the LOS in game ? LOS in the bocage country of Normandy was hedgerow to hedgerow with few exceptions. The vast majority of information being supplied to commanders in the field came via recon patrols and was sketchy at best at times.We as players are not the tank commanders and riflemen in the field,we are the commanders that are dependent on those TC's and grunts to provide that information. The fact that I can't see through that line of trees doesn't bother me in the least as my troops in the field tasked with that job can.I enjoy micro managing which perhaps is where the difference lies between me and others that have posted in this thread. I believe that extensive recon is vital to success with this title just as it was in real life.

Its my opinion with the exception of some of the issues mentioned above that LOS in Battle for Caen is at least consistent with the capabilities and circumstances of the era.

Whether this was done intentionally or by accident makes no difference to me.