Bug? Losing LOS without moving

[Holman]

I've several times run into the following situation:

I move my troops up to a line of bocage so that they can see through it and target enemies in the fields beyond. When there, their targeting line beyond the bocage is blue and they can fire through the hedgerow. I carefully include a facing order so the troops know that I want them focused on what's beyond the bocage.

A couple of turns later, however, they can't fire because the targeting line is now dark. I haven't given any movement orders, and they are still in the same spot. They aren't panicking or cowering. Presumably the individual soldiers have just shifted in such a way as to make sight through the bocage impossible.

This is especially bad when it happens to a Forward Observer who loses LOS just as the spotting rounds are falling, or when he needs to give an adjust order.

Is this a known issue?

[Hukka]

Yes, I've seen similar things happening. It's quite annoying.

[bowlie]

it may be that they are all cowering? im not sure

[Holman]

it may be that they are all cowering? im not sure

No, I've definitely seen it with units in good morale.

[womble]

No, I've definitely seen it with units in good morale.

Units with good morale still cower when there's incoming. As do units with Hide orders.

[panzermartin]

LOS/LOF can be a nightmare sometimes. I still wish mechanics were more abstracted like CMX1 instead of having to calculate every tree and every gap in the bocage. You almost need to pay attention to little things like playing a first person shooter. Often these little details can prove great fun but its disappointing when a single tree can beat superior tactics.

[womble]

LOS/LOF can be a nightmare sometimes. I still wish mechanics were more abstracted like CMX1 instead of having to calculate every tree and every gap in the bocage. You almost need to pay attention to little things like playing a first person shooter. Often these little details can prove great fun but its disappointing when a single tree can beat superior tactics.

I hear what you're saying. I've suffered friendly-fire casualties, lost tanks and failed to hit when it was a dead cert, all from 'unfortunate flora'. I'd really like the targetting tool to be able to distinguish between LOS and LOF, and inform me, where appropriate, that what can be seen cannot be hit, so I don't feel the need to zoom along (almost) every 'Target' order I issue to heavy weapons to make sure it's doing what I expect.

[panzermartin]

Yes sometimes LOF and foliage makes for "retarded" results. I was playing a H2H battle with a friend and he somehow managed to achieve LOF between his M10 and my Tiger through 100m of dense foliage. He fired and fired and fired and all 5-6 rounds landed on the tree trunks. Then my tiger waked up and killed him with the first shot through the same trees Well, despite my relief it didnt feel quite right.

Maybe its the only game that balistics are so detailed and honestly its really fun to watch all the projectiles flying, ricocheting etc. But sometimes this "obsession" with balistics hinders the tactical side of things and the bigger picture that I guess should matter in a wargame.

[womble]

Yes sometimes LOF and foliage makes for "retarded" results. I was playing a H2H battle with a friend and he somehow managed to achieve LOF between his M10 and my Tiger through 100m of dense foliage. He fired and fired and fired and all 5-6 rounds landed on the tree trunks. Then my tiger waked up and killed him with the first shot through the same trees Well, despite my relief it didnt feel quite right.

Yeah, I've had my share of 'saved by the woodwork' moments, too, and you're right, it still doesn't feel right. In fact the ability to check for obstructions better than the AI could be seen to be (yet) another advantage of the human over the AI, fortunately balanced by the AI's ability to find holes in the cover that a human wouldn't even dream would offer LOS...

[LeeW]

I've seen this also. But in my case it was because the hide order had been given and they were laying down behind a wall. When they first moved up to the wall and the covered arc was given they has LOS. When the hide order was given and they had gotten down, they no longer had LOS.

Point being if your soldiers are no longer standing up behind the bocage, for instance, kneeling or laying down, then they can't see over the dirt berm. Those still standing still have LOS, but the rest no. This would make the targeting line gray now, indicating not all the troops have LOS. Or even if one or two were laying down, I'd assume the target line would be a different color, as not all the soldiers can see the area now.

Anyways that's what I think is happening.

[gunnergoz]

It's the old "do you want a game where you completely control everything?" vs "do you want a game that is realistic and sometimes is beyond your control?" debate all over again.

This game has so many little opportunities for anticipated unit behavior to go awry that for me it has the chaotic element of a real battlefield (or what I've read of them.) That may not be something that everyone enjoys, however.

[womble]

It's the old "do you want a game where you completely control everything?" vs "do you want a game that is realistic and sometimes is beyond your control?" debate all over again.

This game has so many little opportunities for anticipated unit behavior to go awry that for me it has the chaotic element of a real battlefield (or what I've read of them.) That may not be something that everyone enjoys, however.

I hear what you're saying. The "tree blocking LOF, even though LOS was fine" thing though, kinda straddles the line of anticipated control levels, in that you can micromanage it away. For game purposes, I see one of the functions of the TacAI as being there to reduce the need for micromanagement to, well, manageable levels. Information provided by the game engine is also there in some cases so you don't have to zoom in to every detail of every order you issue to check for SNAFUs. Within reason, obviously.

The last game I finished, it took me maybe 5 minutes of fiddling with orders to find the place where an ambushing Sherman could pop up for a flank shot on a Panther, because there was a combination of hull-down and tree to negotiate, so I had to repeatedly set waypoints to find just where the gun crested the rise, and then zoom along target orders from the waypoint to check the trajectory didn't intersect the terrain. The Sherman knew where the Panther was, having popped up once and blown the crap out of a tree before scooting, and its HQ had eyes-on from another direction, plus radio contact. If the Target tool considered LOF and reported it better, the chore of setting up the shot would have been considerably lessened.

[j.kehoe]

I agree with Womble. In the role of a company commander, I don't want to have to micromanage my individual AFVs or sections.

[Battlefront.com]

The tree problem has been discussed before and we've put in a fix for v1.01. The problem is related to the exactness of LOF from high velocity weapons in close proximity to trees when neither the shooter nor the target relocate. Put another way, if you are standing in front of a tree and you throw a punch, you'll hit the tree. If you change nothing and keep punching then you keen hitting the tree. Totally realistic. The issue is nobody would just sit there punching a tree time and time again So the gunner will now try to offset his LOF so he doesn't hit the tree again.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

It's the old "do you want a game where you completely control everything?" vs "do you want a game that is realistic and sometimes is beyond your control?" debate all over again.

This game has so many little opportunities for anticipated unit behavior to go awry that for me it has the chaotic element of a real battlefield (or what I've read of them.) That may not be something that everyone enjoys, however.

That's very well put. Unfortunately, nothing is perfect and/or appealing to all people equally.

I agree with Womble. In the role of a company commander, I don't want to have to micromanage my individual AFVs or sections.

That's a different game than what CM is. What you apparently are leaning more towards is a game that is maybe one or perhaps two levels of command higher up than what CM is. Because there is no way, none, for a game at this tactical level and fidelity to allow a player to give generalized direction to units and have even a prayer of them carrying out their actions with anything close to good results.

Unless...

...the entire game is "dumbed down". Not just LOS/LOF, but pretty much everything. It's the only way to match higher level control with lower level actions. And there's nothing wrong with that, either. It's just not what CM was ever about, even though the original CMx1 had far less fidelity and therefore the lower level action was less detailed.

This is not to say we can't improve the UI over time. I'm sure there are things we can do there. That's a goal compatible with CMx2. Dumbing down is obviously not

Steve