Shouldn't LOS be a two way street

[sluggo337]

In order to fire at my units an enemy unit must have LOS, correct? And wouldn't it hold that if a unit can see me, I should be able to see it if it has just fired at me? My frustration is that I have had several instances of incoming fire that I have no idea of what's firing and only a vague idea of where it's coming from. Seems like there should at least be a ? In the general area.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Not really. There are many, many accounts of unseen shooters, from small arms to rather large cannons getting off multiple shots without revealing their position.

[dan/california]

LOS from action spot to action spot is fully reciprocal, but that just means both units check their spotting possibilities. Facing, suppression, optics, and probably 20 other things go into calculating if a unit DOES see something that it theoretically has LOS too.

This really shows in CMSF, units with thermals can slaughter units without them almost at will in certain conditions. The guys without have almost no idea what is killing them. Nothing in WW2 has quite that level of black and white simplicity but it illustrates the concept quite well.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, LOS and LOF are both "two way", but Spotting is completely separate. Given good circumstances and/or enough time you will see what's shooting at you. The problem, as is in real life, is not having enough time to figure things out before bad things happen. This is why it's sometimes better to put 3 or 4 tanks forward in a line. An AT Gun might get one, but hopefully the others will see it and take it down fast. But I've seen this theory run into problems, like the AT Gun kills 2 tanks and the other 2 pop smoke and pull back. History books are full of accounts like this so it's quite realistic.

Steve

[Mattias]

In my experience (one year of conscription + half a life time of interest) the NOT seeing who is shooting is the rule, not the exception. It´s one of the hall marks of a veteran unit to be able to stay calm and actually properly observe under difficult circumstances, and not get shot in the process.

So far it seems Battlefront has been able to find a very playable level of abstraction, if anything you might even see too much of the enemy.

In the end, isn´t the lack of certainty one of the most important aspects of an enjoyable wargame

M.

[Baneman]

I have come across a few LOS oddities though - eg. in a PBEM at the moment, I have a squad with a detached AT team in an open field.

An enemy tank comes out from behind a building and rumbles into the field, approx. 50-60m from the infantry.

The infantry can see it, the schreck team cannot. Thinking the field has a bit of a hump, I run the AT guys to the same action spot as the rest of the infantry ( their original squad ).

They get there and .... still can't see the £$%&^$%ing big tank sitting in an open field 50m in front of them. And their buddies are going " There ! THERE ! Shoot it ! "

That I don't understand - they only had to run 8m ( 1 action spot to the next ), information on the target was clearly available - 7 guys they'd trained with telling them exactly where it is and the sheer size of a tank in the open on flat ground ( an open field, there wasn't even a flavour object between the two ).

[Blackcat]

I have come across a few LOS oddities though - eg. in a PBEM at the moment, I have a squad with a detached AT team in an open field.

An enemy tank comes out from behind a building and rumbles into the field, approx. 50-60m from the infantry.

The infantry can see it, the schreck team cannot. Thinking the field has a bit of a hump, I run the AT guys to the same action spot as the rest of the infantry ( their original squad ).

They get there and .... still can't see the £$%&^$%ing big tank sitting in an open field 50m in front of them. And their buddies are going " There ! THERE ! Shoot it ! "

That I don't understand - they only had to run 8m ( 1 action spot to the next ), information on the target was clearly available - 7 guys they'd trained with telling them exactly where it is and the sheer size of a tank in the open on flat ground ( an open field, there wasn't even a flavour object between the two ).

Beautifully written!

I have had a few similar experiences in CMSF but not, yet, in CMBN. I once had a Javelin team standing in the middle of a squad. The squad had a clear, bright blue line to an enemy tank 200 yards away, but not the weapons to engage it. The Javelin Team, who could destroy it easily, had a clear blue line to the very spot the tank was on but couldn't actually see the damn thing. For five minutes I tried everything I could think of, but the team never did see the tank (I took it out with a 155mm artillery strike in the end - then they could see the burning wreck).

I hate calling "bug", but sometimes I wonder if there is not some deep issue with realtive spotting that in some rare circumstances manifests itself and results in what you experienced. Do you have a saved game that you could send in?

[Reaver]

I have been playtesting a scenario for a friend of mine and encountered something similar with a bunker.

An infantry squad could see the action spot the bunker was placed in, could area target the action spot the bunker was placed in, could see the muzzle flashes of the guys firing from the bunker, but the bunker was still 'hidden' and couldnt be targetted directly. They could also see the German infantry squads to the rear and side of the bunker... Now whilst I can see how this may be the case when attempting to target an infantry contact (camouflaged men against a grass background and just muzzle flashes can be seen) I struggle with the idea that the chaps can see the action spot, see everything around it, target the spot for area fire but not see the whacking great bunker.

However, I still LOVE this game.

[Baneman]

...I hate calling "bug", but sometimes I wonder if there is not some deep issue with realtive spotting that in some rare circumstances manifests itself and results in what you experienced. Do you have a saved game that you could send in?

Yes, I have both saves - the one where the tank arrives and the AT team are in a different spot, and the one after where they run to the same Action Spot as their squad.

Also, in both positions, the AT guys have a clear blue targetting line to the position of the tank. Can send them to someone if they want to have a look into it.

"Hans !"

"Ja Feldwebel ?"

"Give the schreck to Klaus 'Eagle-eye' Winkelreid and report to the Kommandant for latrine duty. Oh and you wont need your glasses for that."

[c3k]

Here are the LOS/LOF lessons I've learned from CMSF and CMBN. Any mistake in what I write and how it REALLY work is fully my own mistake.

The game looks at EVERY action spot at the battle start up. It creates a table denoting possible LOS for each action spot TO each action spot. (During the game the LOS may degrade - smoke, vehicles, etc., but it will not IMPROVE. An exception could be LOS through a tall building. If the building collapses, then an LOS could exist. I _believe_ this LOS through a building is part of the possible LOS table.)

Now the game "knows" what action spot can see which action spot. These are done to and from action spot center points. (An 8m x 8m grid is far better than CMx1's 20m x 20m grid. A 1m x 1m grid would be better, but not as good as a 10cm x 10cm grid. Etc. Read the full BF.C threads on why waiting 2 weeks for your CPU to process the LOS grid is a bad idea.)

Now, all this happens while the loading bar is moving across your start screen.

During the game, let's say you have an AT team, an Infantry team, and an enemy tank. The game looks at the action spot your Infantry team is in, it looks at the action spot the enemy tank is in. It takes that pair and looks at the LOS table. If an LOS is NOT possible, say a hill is in the way, the LOS check is over and the units cannot see each other.

If the the two actions spots have a possible LOS, then the game looks a bit more deeply at the situation. Is there smoke? Are the members of the infantry team hiding, or ducking down behind a wall? Etc. It looks at the tank - specifically at the exact location of the tank - and checks LOS to the infantry unit. If LOS exists, it is two way.

It then checks Line of Fire (LOF). It checks LOF for each infantryman from his specific location. This is how you get the grey target line: some have LOF, some don't.

If your AT team is in the same action spot as the infantry team, but the AT team has no LOF while the infantry team does, it's because their location within the action spot is not good enough. Use a FACE command to move them within the action spot. Or, move the AT team to a different action spot.

LOF to an enemy unit is drawn from each shooter directly at each enemy unit. LOF for area targets is drawn from each shooter to the center of the action spot. This can cause an issue in some very specific cases. If an enemy unit occupies a building, the enemy will disperse within the action spot and use the windows. If there is an end window AND the rest of the windows/that action spot center point are blocked by an intervening obstacle (say, another building corner), then a minor issue pops up. As long as the enemy is VISIBLE in the window, he can be shot. If he ducks down, then you can only use area target. However, the area target is drawn to the action spot center point. That point is blocked by the intervening building. The enemy cannot be suppressed. Remember, for him to fire at you, he IS exposed to your return fire. (If you don't understand this, that's okay. It's a very specific set of circumstances.)

The only other case I can think of involves vehicle wrecks. LOS goes THROUGH wrecks. However, LOF is BLOCKED for certain cases. There are good reasons for this.

I hope this helps.

[Baneman]

...

If the the two actions spots have a possible LOS, then the game looks a bit more deeply at the situation. Is there smoke? Are the members of the infantry team hiding, or ducking down behind a wall? Etc. It looks at the tank - specifically at the exact location of the tank - and checks LOS to the infantry unit. If LOS exists, it is two way.

It then checks Line of Fire (LOF). It checks LOF for each infantryman from his specific location. This is how you get the grey target line: some have LOF, some don't.

If your AT team is in the same action spot as the infantry team, but the AT team has no LOF while the infantry team does, it's because their location within the action spot is not good enough. Use a FACE command to move them within the action spot. Or, move the AT team to a different action spot.

...

Thanks, that's one of the best descriptions I've read about how it all works.

Yet ... How can any position in an 8x8m Action Spot that is perfectly flat and open not be good enough to have LOS to another perfectly flat and open 8x8m Action Spot with nothing between them but perfectly flat and open terrain ?

Both the AT guys have LOF ( blue line ) and all their buddies have LOF ( blue line ). There's no smoke, no dust. And the target is 2.5m high. And 6 odd metres long ( being side on ). So it's occupying almost all of its own Action Spot.

It's as though the AT squad's LOS is not being referenced to that action spot per the pre-calculated table. Perhaps there's some bug with split squad elements not being accurately located or something - just trying to make logical guesses here.

[c3k]

Baneman,

If your description is accurate (and I have no reason to doubt it), then it sounds wrong. Do you have a screenshot? Or, better, a savegame? Post it/them here or check my profile and email me.

Thanks,

Ken

Edited to add: There is another possibility. LOS is drawn from various elevations within the action spot. A standing soldier has a higher LOS than one kneeling or who is prone. (This is the enhanced LOS (eLOS) as described in many CMSF threads. Go to that forum and search for more detailed information.) The possibility is that some members of the team are prone, so cannot fire their weapons - no eLOS/LOF, whereas others are kneeling or standing and therefore do have LOF due to the eLOS.

[Sgt Joch]

to add to what C3K wrote, there are, AFAIR, 5 elevation levels in CMx2 to determine LOS, they are, if I recall correctly: lying down, kneeling, standing up, commander of an AFV, on top of a building.

Therefore, if you have a squad lying prone and a squad kneeling in the same AP, the ones kneeling could have LOS because of the higher elevation while the ones who are lying prone do not.

By comparison, CMx1 has just 1 elevation level, but the game uses various tricks to make it seem as though there are many. After you have played CMx2 for a while and you fire up CMx1, these visual tricks are pretty obvious.

[Baneman]

Ok, here's a combined screenshot showing the situation - I've marked the 2 guys of the AT team, the one circled in yellow is the one carrying the actual schreck.

It seems I misremembered in that they are fairly widely separated ( I guess that thing's heavy ), nevertheless, there is still absolutely no intervening terrain/smoke/dust/object between them and the M10.

Apologies for ranting about a situation that wasn't quite the way I remembered it. Combat reports eh ? Can't trust 'em !

[Battlefront.com]

Everybody needs to be very, very clear that there is a big difference between LOS and Spotting. LOS is always 2 way. We've been using this game engine now for close to 5 years in its current form. We've never had an instances of LOS being broken. I highly doubt there's a problem with it now. So if there is a problem, and I'm not sure there is, it would be with Spotting. C3K did a good job describing the mechanics as to why these two are separate concepts, so I won't repeat it.

Besides the variability of Enhanced LOS spotting heights, there's two other factors working here:

1. Random. While it is true that you, the player, knows the enemy is "right there!!" it is not for sure clear that the unit would. There's all kinds of things happening on a battlefield and it's presumptuous to assume that every pair of eyes is looking exactly where you think they should be. Or better known as "Borg" behavior. Therefore, the chance of spotting something is just that... a chance. It's weighted and logically applied, but with thousands of spotting within even a small battle it's quite possible that you'll find something that doesn't seem "right". Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. That's more a matter of opinion and it's impossible to say for sure what would have happened in a real battle under those exact circumstances.

2. There are only so many times that Spotting can be checked before your computer would grind to a halt. Spotting checks, even with the speed tricks inherent with the Action Spot grid system, are extremely CPU and memory intensive. So they have to be used as frequently as necessary, but as infrequently as possible. Sometimes this leads to situations where the timing is just "off". In this case, for example, the AT Team checked for spotting just before entering that Action Spot and therefore has to wait a few more seconds before spotting again. Combined with the randomness described above, really bad luck could have the next spotting attempt randomly fail. Which would mean waiting for another spotting chance.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

It seems I misremembered in that they are fairly widely separated ( I guess that thing's heavy ), nevertheless, there is still absolutely no intervening terrain/smoke/dust/object between them and the M10.

Ah, well, twice the range is important. The terrain is also not "flat". That's plowed fields you are on. Shouldn't be too much of a factor for such a big target like that, but it's not zero effect either. I also see that the unit DOES have some idea there's something on that spot, as evidenced by the US star icon. So it's not completely unaware something is there, but isn't quite sure what it is. At 73m that's not unreasonable, IMHO, to the naked eye of a unit on the run.

What happens if you let the AT Team just sit there. You know, cancel it's movement and not move at all. I suspect the M-10 will be spotted within a fairly short order.

Steve

[Baneman]

Thanks for the clarification Steve, your point (2) makes sense in the context of that situation.

I have to add that I am having an absolute ball with this game, I hope that my posting of what seem to me to be potential anomalies does not give the opposite impression.

[c3k]

Thanks for the screenie.

Steve hit the highpoints, but I'll chime in since my ego has overwhelmed my id.

The screenshot shows the range differences between the two units, 46m vs 73m. It also shows BOTH units have LOS. The lines are blue. Before we go on, let's look at one more issue: the start location of the LOS lines.

Your AT team has two members, helpfully circled in yellow and purple. Notice how their icon is hovering over their average location? That is where the LOS starts. While units move, the individual elements can occupy different action spots. However, for LOS purposes, it is only calculated to be in the one, average, location. (An important distinction: TEAMS are the sub-unit being looked at. If a squad has 2 or 3 teams, each team is looked at separately. Your AT team seems to be spread over 2 action spots.) Once a unit stops, it gathers eact team into one action spot.

Enough on that...

The screenshot shows LOS exists. The AT team has not spotted the M-10. 73 meters away, perhaps they should. That's a debate for a later time. However, if you were running, in combat, under fire, ACROSS a friggin' plowed field while carrying a bulky 'schreck launcher and ammo, I suggest that you may be devoting a LOT of your attention to where you're placing your feet.

I'm willing to bet that the AT team - which knows something is over there (look at the icon) - will very shortly ID the M-10, includind facing, etc. It may be while they're running, it may be within a few seconds of stopping.

The spread of information up - and across - the chain of command (and communications) is an entire sub-set of the game. A good spotter who is in comms can ease your entire force's advance.

I hope this helps clarify some more of what it looks like is happening.

Ken

[Baneman]

It's great that you guys take the time to write up these detailed explanations. Some may call that sort of thing "wall of text", but I call it good information and it's most appreciated.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the clarification Steve, your point (2) makes sense in the context of that situation.

I have to add that I am having an absolute ball with this game, I hope that my posting of what seem to me to be potential anomalies does not give the opposite impression.

99% of the time people post issues like this because they care about the game. There's no better complement a game designer can ask for. The opposite, a Forum with crickets chirping days after a release, is a problem I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy.

I think you now see that there's a lot of variables which the game considers, as well as some practical limitations as to what your 'puter can handle. In this case, though, I think it's more about the circumstances than the spotting cycle issue. Another point to consider...

You are using FAST for the Schreck team? I suspect that because of the animation and the fact that the two men have separated. If so, know that FAST has reduced spotting capabilities. Why? Well, it's like C3K said... running soldiers have to use tunnel vision or they're going to wind up taking a tumble for sure. What you show appears to be correct for this situation. Guy is running, he has an awareness of the M-10, but can't devote the internal Human resources to more than that under the circumstances of his running.

QUICK also reduces Spotting, though not nearly as much as FAST. MOVE is the best of all because the soldiers are upright and are supposed to be paying attention to their surroundings more than moving. When you walk you can take quick looks down and spend the rest of the time sight seeing.

Steve

[Baneman]

They were on Quick

I generally only use Fast for "let's get the hell out of here" situations like fleeing from incoming HE

[sluggo337]

Thanks to everyone for the feedback. I wasn't trying to say that something was broken. I was just trying to understand. I'm new to the concept of spotting vs LOS. Guess I'll just have to play more CMBN to get more familiar with it. : )

[Fetchez la Vache]

Besides the variability of Enhanced LOS spotting heights, there's two other factors working here:

1. Random. While it is true that you, the player, knows the enemy is "right there!!" it is not for sure clear that the unit would. There's all kinds of things happening on a battlefield and it's presumptuous to assume that every pair of eyes is looking exactly where you think they should be. Or better known as "Borg" behavior. Therefore, the chance of spotting something is just that... a chance. It's weighted and logically applied, but with thousands of spotting within even a small battle it's quite possible that you'll find something that doesn't seem "right". Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. That's more a matter of opinion and it's impossible to say for sure what would have happened in a real battle under those exact circumstances.

2. There are only so many times that Spotting can be checked before your computer would grind to a halt. Spotting checks, even with the speed tricks inherent with the Action Spot grid system, are extremely CPU and memory intensive. So they have to be used as frequently as necessary, but as infrequently as possible. Sometimes this leads to situations where the timing is just "off". In this case, for example, the AT Team checked for spotting just before entering that Action Spot and therefore has to wait a few more seconds before spotting again. Combined with the randomness described above, really bad luck could have the next spotting attempt randomly fail. Which would mean waiting for another spotting chance.

Thank you for this clarification Steve! I was about to start a thread asking about time-spotting. Basically I wanted to know if leaving my scouts 'spotting' for an extra turn could make any difference in trying to spot enemy lurking (unmoving) on the other of the hedgerow. It seems the answer is "yes". Super stuff!

[Drescher]

QUICK also reduces Spotting, though not nearly as much as FAST. MOVE is the best of all because the soldiers are upright and are supposed to be paying attention to their surroundings more than moving. When you walk you can take quick looks down and spend the rest of the time sight seeing.

Steve

Interesting. Its been a while since ive read the manual for SF but judging from the animations i had always assumed that HUNT would be the movement of choice for spotting.

What would they be doing while hunting then?

[Blackcat]

"What would they be doing while hunting then?"

Walking about three yards then hunkering down because they have heard something go bang half a mile away, if my experience is anything to go by. The Good Book says that soldiers moving on hunt will stop if they see the enemy or are fired upon. My lot seem to interpret that last clause somewhat liberally, they also get very tired if asked to move in hunt mode for more than a few metres.