Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Discontinued Games] >> Command Ops Series >> The War Room



Message


260DET -> Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (12/18/2010 7:21:53 AM)

I normally play sharp end games like Combat Mission and am finding it difficult to understand the reality of this game, particularly when defending and locating the enemy. In attack it seems OK but in defence there is no provision to take up any particular defensive mode, like splitting the unit, it justs sits there like a blob. Then there is recce or the lack of it. Enemy forces can slip by at no great distance and you have no means to cover a wider area than whats allocated to whatever standard has been built into the game. Or am I missing something?

Then there is the lack of German AT guns. I have not examined the German OOB but it seems peculiar that in the entire force involved there is not a single AT gun, which makes defending against tanks somewhat problematical to say the least.
Not sure about this game, the AI is good if a bit too God like sometimes but unless I'm missing something it seems like its made for Americans to show those pesky Germans how its done :)




tukker -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (12/18/2010 9:34:20 AM)

quote:

In attack it seems OK but in defence there is no provision to take up any particular defensive mode, like splitting the unit, it justs sits there like a blob.


While it may be a good idea to 'sit tight' if you're units are entrenched or dug in, you can assign a wider or narrower sector to battalions and regiments by adjusting the 'footprint' of their defend order. You can also check or uncheck the 'Retake position' and 'Ambush' boxes, and adjust the Aggro, ROF and Losses. All of these will influence the way the troops on defence will behave.
BFTB is an operational game. In defence, the biggest challenge is to decide when and where to commit your reserves, and when to order your troops to fall back.

quote:

Then there is the lack of German AT guns. I have not examined the German OOB but it seems peculiar that in the entire force involved there is not a single AT gun, which makes defending against tanks somewhat problematical to say the least.


Welcome to the harsh reality of being the commander of a Grenadier Regiment in 1945 [:)]
The OOB in this scenario is historical. (I know that Richard Simonitch, who designed it, did a fair amount of research to get it right). You'll have to make do with the Panzerschrecks and Panzerfauste in the infantry coys. Fortunately, you have the FGB as a mechanized reserve.[;)]


Pieter




Huib -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (12/18/2010 3:25:37 PM)

79th VGD had 8 towed AT guns between 24 Dec 1944 and 16 January 1945, according to Trevor Dupuy. 352 VGD went from 4 towed AT guns to none in that period, however its number of Jagdpanzer (Hetzer) rose from 2 on 24 dec to 10 on Jan. 16. (at the start of this scn there were 2 with GR915)

Btw for this scenario you can't rely on Hugh Cole's Greenbook. There is a lot of wrong information in there about these events and particularly about the positions of an entire German regiment. It is better to use Roland Gaul's info in his 2 books. I think the maker had those as well as they are on the literature list of the game.


edit: I just looked it up. It was GR914 that was hard hit in Michelbouch on 22/23 Dec. 1944, so the designer overlooked this regiment as well (which I also did at first when I made a similar scn for another game).
Huib




simovitch -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (12/19/2010 3:41:55 AM)

Huib, Most of Gaul's accounts that I read about have GR914 stumbling along around Ettlebruck and Diekirch on the 21-22nd. I just don't think they ever gained Michelbouch or anywhere near it, although they may have attacked toward it. Those accounts that mention fighting around Michelbouch may be confusing it with Michelau. That was my take on it anyway.




260DET -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (12/19/2010 4:43:09 AM)

Thanks for the tips fellas, prompted me to actually read bits of the manual [:)] Recce, or lack of it, problem remains. Fairly important to know where the enemy is or is not but apparently you can't, and the AI won't, utilise any of the suitable vehicles that are available to do anything. As it is I have sent an entire company off to do a recce, somthing I'm sure I will regret but sitting in a static position doing nothing does not make military sense.




Huib -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (12/19/2010 11:04:53 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: simovitch

Huib, Most of Gaul's accounts that I read about have GR914 stumbling along around Ettlebruck and Diekirch on the 21-22nd. I just don't think they ever gained Michelbouch or anywhere near it, although they may have attacked toward it. Those accounts that mention fighting around Michelbouch may be confusing it with Michelau. That was my take on it anyway.


They did really and it is certainly not confused with Michelau. In my CS scenario "Einsatz der Fuehrer Grenadier Brigade" I initially made the same mistake as you did in this scenario. I wondered about the positions of the 914th and started to get suspicious when I visited the area looking for the positions of GR 915 near Grosbous and Mertzig. Michelbouch would be a very obvious place as the 914th marched on the left flank. When I looked in Gaul, I noticed that in the officers listing, so many officers of the 914th where captured or killed at Michelbouch. My thoughts were later confirmed when I read accounts in I think it was Terry Janes' "Patton's Troubleshooters" which is a history of the 80th US ID. Did this research some years ago, but I'm 100% sure the 914th Regiment was a separate column marching on the road from Ettelbrueck towards Michelbouch and was defeated there. There are also still signs of battle in the woods near Michelbouch. I will ask my brother if he still knows where we exactly found those in 2003. I didn't have a GPS in 2003, otherwise I would have marked them.

edit: I want to know it myself now. It doesn't seem to be in Patton's Troubleshooters, just checked. However I remember I had evidence from 2 sides that caused me to change my own CS scenario. I wouldn't have done that if I hadn't been sure. I'll let you know when I find it again :)... I wish I always could remember where I read all the things I read...

Huib




simovitch -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (12/19/2010 1:13:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Huib

... I wish I always could remember where I read all the things I read...


Yep, you made me put down my wine glass last night and re-read Gaul.[;)]

I looked a bit more into the American side and I still think that 3rd Bn 109th IR held that ridge until relieved by the 80th ID, but I agree that GR914 attacked out of Ettelbruck toward Michelbouch but I don't think they gained the ridge - and retreated west back through Ettelbruck by the 23rd. Technically they could be represented in this scenario on the ridge west of Michelbouch, but I think it would mess with the mechanics of the scenario for a small gain in historical setup.

Please email me if you uncover anything else. Thanks!




simovitch -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (12/19/2010 1:17:17 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 260DET

Thanks for the tips fellas, prompted me to actually read bits of the manual [:)] Recce, or lack of it, problem remains. Fairly important to know where the enemy is or is not but apparently you can't, and the AI won't, utilise any of the suitable vehicles that are available to do anything. As it is I have sent an entire company off to do a recce, somthing I'm sure I will regret but sitting in a static position doing nothing does not make military sense.


I find that I do a lot more micromanaging of individual Companies on the defense than on the attack. Read up on the delay and withdraw commands - you can really upset the US timetable if you use these wisely in this scenario.




260DET -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (12/23/2010 8:46:54 AM)

Yes S that seems to be the only way to defend in any sort of organised way, when motorised US units can arrive in the night undetected at a village occupied by several German units it gets a bit difficult to do much else. It all has a contrived feel to it, like the US are going to kick your arse unless you play this game the way its designed to play so don't bother trying anything else [:-]




tukker -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (12/23/2010 9:47:29 AM)

quote:

It all has a contrived feel to it, like the US are going to kick your arse unless you play this game the way its designed to play so don't bother trying anything else


There's no scripting in the game, the only way the scenario designer can contrive anything is by placing and activating the objectives. How you actually play the game is up to you: micromanage all you want, or just give a few orders at regimental level.[;)]

Having said that, playing a scenario where you have to hold a static line with few reserve may not be the best way to get acquainted with the engine. If you want to play as Axis, you might want to give one of the scenarios with the Germans on the offensive a try.

Pieter




Pergite! -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (12/23/2010 4:06:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 260DET
...Recce, or lack of it, problem remains. Fairly important to know where the enemy is or is not but apparently you can't, and the AI won't, utilise any of the suitable vehicles that are available to do anything. As it is I have sent an entire company off to do a recce, somthing I'm sure I will regret but sitting in a static position doing nothing does not make military sense.


I tend to regard recce elements as organic in the companies and AFAIK abstracted, in that they are the companies eyes and ears. If a bn would send recce elements far away he would loose comms and not be able to get anything useful reported, not in time anyway. The recce platoons hence stay close to their manoeuvre formations where they belong. The intel coming in to you as a overall commander originates from a multitude of sensors as well here AFAIK totally abstracted. Autonomous long range recce elements are and where fairly exclusive assets.

I belive the scale of things often creates problems concerning the level of detail in this game. If you are a Bde commander it is important to understand that you command companies. It is then the company commander (computer AI) that tasks his platoons (abstracted) do solve the task he is ordered to do. The commander does nothing, besides follow up and asses when the order has been given.





260DET -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (12/24/2010 9:04:35 AM)

The problem I have, and its quite simple, is that when playing defensive you have a very restricted view of what is happening whereas the AI gives the offensive the apparent knowledge of a God. I prefer to play a defensive situation because it is usually more challenging, don't care if my forces are German or Mongolian, its the challenge that matters. Its nonsense that motorised units can at night move right up to a defensive position without being detected apparently because darkness has rendered them invisible, that in simple terms is the basic problem and it seems an obvious one to me.

The overall problem I guess is that this is an operational war game, and basically a very good one at that, which to play realistically has to also get the tactical aspect right as well, particularly when micro management is not available to the player eg he cannot send out patrols, establish observation posts, etc. This tactical aspect is of course relevant to the operatioinal aspect in that it it affects the disposition of units and their possible combinations in defense. That is the crucial sticking point.




Pergite! -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (12/25/2010 5:32:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 260DET

The problem I have, and its quite simple, is that when playing defensive you have a very restricted view of what is happening whereas the AI gives the offensive the apparent knowledge of a God.


The defensive positions furthest out is the edge of your situational awareness, while the attacker better can chose what to observe and what part of his forces should be detected.
Modern doctrines often stipulates the use of a safety zone ahead of your defensive positions in order to somewhat counter this clear initiative for the attacker and get a better picture of what is happening. With a static defence you will otherwise always be at a disadvantage regarding what just lies beyond your field of view.


quote:


I prefer to play a defensive situation because it is usually more challenging, don't care if my forces are German or Mongolian, its the challenge that matters. Its nonsense that motorised units can at night move right up to a defensive position without being detected apparently because darkness has rendered them invisible, that in simple terms is the basic problem and it seems an obvious one to me.

The overall problem I guess is that this is an operational war game, and basically a very good one at that, which to play realistically has to also get the tactical aspect right as well, particularly when micro management is not available to the player eg he cannot send out patrols, establish observation posts, etc. This tactical aspect is of course relevant to the operational aspect in that it it affects the disposition of units and their possible combinations in defence. That is the crucial sticking point.


I agree that the intel and information part certainly could be expanded but I still feel that the abstraction that is being made today works pretty well. If the game would be more detailed it would no longer be what it currently is. In my opinion the command structure of Command Ops is one of the things that makes it stand out from everything else. The game actually creates a manageable situation where you can command a realistic number of manoeuvre elements. If the game would also allow the player to go down and deploy fire-teams the game would imho break. On s bn seized scenario it would certainly be doable, but beyond that I just believe it would be a mess. There is a reason why the military command level structure looks like it does, and it comes from many years of trial and error.

I believe that it just comes down to accepting that the AI officers commanding the companies knows what they are doing / accepting the abstraction of that there are patrols being conducted inside the deployed company yellow footprint map marker.
Given what actually happened during the "Bulge" battle, iirc there where a lot of surprises and whole divisions where lost on the situational maps, just to later appear out of nowhere.

Have a merry Christmas!






260DET -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (12/31/2010 9:09:20 AM)

The point is that a motorised unit or two can arrive arrive undetected at a defended location, apparently, simply because it is dark and the LOS which is the sole means provided to the defences to detect approaching enemy forces has adjusted to the darkness and effectively rendered them blind. That is simply unrealistic nonsense. It makes no difference if a game is operational or not, to have creditability all the elements of a game must play realistically, otherwise what is the point?

In effect, whether by design or not, this game is biased towards the attacking forces and handicaps and restricts the implementation of defensive choices.




Pergite! -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (12/31/2010 1:28:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: 260DET

The point is that a motorised unit or two can arrive arrive undetected at a defended location, apparently, simply because it is dark and the LOS which is the sole means provided to the defences to detect approaching enemy forces has adjusted to the darkness and effectively rendered them blind. That is simply unrealistic nonsense. It makes no difference if a game is operational or not, to have creditability all the elements of a game must play realistically, otherwise what is the point?

In effect, whether by design or not, this game is biased towards the attacking forces and handicaps and restricts the implementation of defensive choices.


What would you suggest? A message from units that tells you that they hear the sounds of motors?

Given the premises that there are no fighting or own movement in the area, that would be the best accuracy of reporting expected until contact has been made. In the cover of night it is then even more difficult to make any sense of what is happening or what kind of opposition that is being encountered. It is usually hard to see in the dark, call that "unrealistic nonsense" if you like.

Besides, that sort of raw intel would be filtered through S2 and G2 intel staff officers and (just as it does now) result in a enemy symbol on the situation map.

I still retain my opinion that you need to have a depth in your defence in order to expect a heads up on advancing units and intel on their disposition. If you feel that this restricts your defensive choices somehow then so be it.

About the bias-part...
Clausewitz is usually misquoted about how defence is a stronger form of warfare than offence. The whole truth is that offence is an integrated part of what Clausewitz calls defence, and that being on the defence does actually handicaps your tactical choices. In this context I can not see how this game manages to bias anything when it actually tries to reflect the reality of warfare?

Have a Happy New Year!!




260DET -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (1/4/2011 3:12:07 AM)

Maybe the game needs a LOH (line of hearing) at night [:)] But seriously, any defensive force which sits on its bum and does not send out patrols and have forward listening posts at night deserves to be surprised. For example, when defending an important road junction it would be quite sensible to have a recce vehicle sitting well down each road for a start.

I agree completely with the defence in depth concept, part of which as far as I'm concerned includes the above. There is the situation in the subject scenario of a lack of German AT guns which complicates things and sometimes means units have to be grouped to avoid being picked off one by one and to be able to provide mutual support. If the leapfrog defence provided for in the game is used it means that mutual support may be lost, fatigue increased, effectiveness will depend to some degree on the unit's mobility, the advantage of fixed defences will be lost, the enemy may get in behind you and so on. Besides, thats only one way to defend and that is the essence of my complaint.

How to fix it? Assume that units with the appropriate recce resources will use them appropriately and be aware of approaching enemy forces at night. The degree of awareness could be modified to take into account various relevant factors. Not hard to do at all I would have thought. Yeh OK, happy new year gamers [8D]




Haiku -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (1/5/2011 2:32:53 PM)

Contrary to the OP I really like defending in this game. Even the situation may seems more passive first, it's not really the case. You still need to be proactive, choose where and when commit your troops, withdraw when odds are against you, sacrifice some troops for delaying the enemy, find a better time and place to defend, disrupt enemy support troops (artillery, supplies, HQ, Base, ...), gather some intelligence, setup ambush with an hit and run approach, etc..

Try to always leave some troops in reserve, to react quickly. As the game goes on, it's harder to maintain such a reserve as your troops get committed over time. Don't hesitate to withdraw to the backline a force already committed. You will certainly lose some map control but gain overall power doing so.

I agree there is some room for improvement about the reccon aspect of the game, but overall I find the defending side as fun to play as the offensive side. And especially as the IA won't use the same plan on each game run, which is a huge plus here !




Arjuna -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (1/5/2011 10:52:00 PM)

Re Better modelling of Defenceive tactics - ie patrolling. We've given serious consideration to this issue. The most realistic method is to allow for recon units of say section/squad strength to be hived off from a unit and move them along a patrol route or setup a static position. However, this was disgarded for performance reasons it could easily double the number of units in a scenario if only half of them were defending and each put out one mobile and one static patrol. An alternative option is to model it abstractly with units on the defence committing a certain percentage of their strength to patrolling. We could then manage the patrol by events with a route calced and say every five minutes doing a detection test from the location along the route that we deem it to be at. However, this still requires a significant amount of processing to generate the routes and to do the LOS checks. A further more abstract option is to simply extend a patrol zone out from the unit and provide a percentage chance of detection against any enemy unit entering that zone. This would be economical from a processing perspective but would be fairly abstract.

Another related issue is how to model the situations when patrolls are forced back into the perimeter due to enemy activity. Is this just a simple withdrawal of patrols upon enemy within X range? And another issue is how do we model the engagement of a patrol with an incoming enemy force and the resulting casualties? Food for thought. [:)]




Haiku -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (1/5/2011 11:32:39 PM)

I don't want to derail that thread but since I consider intel and reccon to be a very important part of a wargame, let me step in.

I find the FoW already implemented as a great achievement of the engine. I agree an improvement should remains simple enough both for the player and the engine. I could see two implementations here:

1) A automatic routine, such as the entranchement one, that provides a detection bonus to the unit. The more it stay in a place, the more it could see around. Like a floating bonus (-20% when moving, 0 when deployed, +10% when dug in and +20% when entrenched for instance).

2) A option in the order settings: Do you want to keep a compact and ready to fight group, or allocate some resources to the reccon task by reducing the cohesion of the force ?

In any case I think adding a vision circle to is a great idea. This will allow the player to have units with different sight range depending on their equipement, giving him the opportunity to allocate these units to the right mission.

One could even say that in an ideal world, the current formation (right echelon), facing (south), the role (rear guard) and the state (routed) should also be considered when calculating a unit vision [:)]




Haiku -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (1/5/2011 11:45:09 PM)

(Talking about adding features, as a side note for the next iteration, I suggest you separate basic options (such as formation) from advance ones (such as basing). This way newcomers or light players won't be overwhelmed by the UI and the grognards could still tuned up the details in an advanced panel. I have plenty of idea here, so if it sounds like a good idea to you aswell, I'll be glad to share them around)




AKCLIMBER -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (1/6/2011 12:07:22 AM)

What about adding a "Level of Patrol" option that would allow the player to choose none, low, medium, high where each option corresponds to a certain percentage of one's force and where the higher the level chosen, the greater one's percentage chance of locating the enemy? Of course, there'd have to be sort of downside to choosing higher levels - perhaps (1) loss of parent unit cohesion and (2) possibility of losing that percentage of your force if the patrols are engaged. I agree tho that modeling engagements between the already abstract patrols and the enemy may be difficult and may add an unwanted level of abstraction. I think I'd be OK with it tho.

Also, have you guys thought about adding an air recon option? Randomly make air recon mission available as per air stirkes? Perhaps the player could choose to direct the plane's flight path or simply designate an area of interest to explore. That said, I've no idea how "real time" WW2 air recon was so the delays between the flights and the observations may be frustaringly long...

Cheers & thanks for a great game!




260DET -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (1/6/2011 3:31:00 AM)

My suggestions would start with the game reality that with an advancing unit its the entire unit which is involved, for the purpose of the game thats what happens, eg there are no individual scouts who could infiltrate a defensive position. So its seems realistic to say that an entire unit will be spotted before it can reach the defender's forward positions. Question is, how close can it get before realistically being spotted? Consider the type of units involved, the situation and the locality as being relevant to that question. I'll give just one example of each to illustrate.

Unit Type. An infantry unit will spot an advancing enemy before an artillery unit will because normally it will have the resources etc to recce.

Situation. A fresh unit will spot an advancing enemy better than one which has suffered heavy losses.

Locality. A defending unit that has poor LOS to an advancing unit will have more difficulty in spotting it than if the LOS is good. Even at night.

Plus throw in just a bit of chance eg recce vehicle radio stops working and there you go. Basically anything that prevents an entire unit from arriving undetected at the front door will be an improvement, it has to be.





nicwb -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (1/6/2011 5:19:09 AM)

260DET,

that's all true but don't you also have to factor in things like spotter aircraft? Both the US and Germans made use of these.




johndoesecond -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (1/6/2011 1:00:21 PM)

Hi all,

I also think the whole visibility/LOS/recon modelling and doctrine is worth being discussed, and is an area of the game which may be improved.


1. For one thing, I think that some level of abstraction is needed, and I believe that it would be in the spirit of the game to implement it by employing the same "BftB uncertainty principle" (i.e. you see the unit icon, you know its footprint which is dynamic, but you don't know where exactly individual sub-coy entities (soldiers and vehicles) are).

So, therefore, my proposal would be: how about having a second footprint for recon and visibility/LOS calculations?

Just as the current footprint, the size (and facing) of that footprint would be dynamic, and could, say, extend (concentrically or facing-wise) bigger the longer units stay in defending position (or just applying entrrenchment levels).

This looks to me viable also in terms of not having to overwhelm the player with additional recon units or options to control and micro-management, and may be done at a reasonable computational costs (which rightly worries Dave).



2. In the same time, it would be very useful to know how exactly these things worked in the real world and doctrine-wise. So, yes, all this is "food for thought" as Dave says, but it's also food for historical research. Does anyone have some idea or references about this?


3. I also like the idea of air recon. Again, to get and model it right, it would be very useful to learn how it worked in the real (frequency, covered areas, time delay from actual spotting to intel being passed to the commanders on the ground, precision, reliability, etc.)


4. Oh, one question for Dave: currently, does the LOS/visibility calculations take into account unit's footprint, or is it simply calculated from the precise spot the unit's icon? Or is it irrelevant, given the 100m fidelity of the underlying map grid?

Thank you for your attention.




Haiku -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (1/6/2011 2:36:19 PM)

During my career, I learned that when you want a problem solved it's always better to describe to the competent people the actual problem you are facing than to ask them for a specific solution. "Don't come with a solution, but rather with a problem."

So as an annex to my previous post where I was jumping directly to the possible solutions, I guess I need in the first place to describe the problem I'm facing when playing the game:

1) When an enemy unit is spotted on the map, I don't really know why, or more precisely, because of which unit I can see it. Thus I can't really tell when I'm moving my engineer back for some rest, will I still have vision on this enemy artillery next to the village ?

2) When there is no enemy chits in the bunker on other side of the river, I can't tell for sure if it's because I can't see the unit, or because there there is just nobody. I understand (and love) uncertainty in intel, but as in real life, you should be able to tell at some point with some confidence, than there is no one in the bunker. For sure I could (and I do) use the LOS tools, but it's pretty tedious to do. For instance in the following picture, is there enemy unit in the green zones that I'm may not be aware of, or are they "safe" zones ?

3) Ok, with the LOS tool, I know there is a hypothetic LOS from point A to point B. But does it means my HQ unit will be able to see from A to B ?. It may have a much shorter sight range, than only allows him to see halfway.

I don't want precise stuff specially, like a real-time fog of war. But just be able to have a good approximation of what zones I currently "control" or "see" and the zone I just don't know about. If I need to pause the game, and wait for 1 minute, it's fine with me. If I just have static purple "max sight range circles" around my units it's also fine with me. It's still an improvement.

To paraphrase some famous quote: "There are known knowns. There are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns. that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. but there are also unknown unknowns, the ones we don't know we don't know". It will be a blast to know in which above category falls the village next to the bridge [:)]




Haiku -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (1/6/2011 2:42:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: johndoesecond
4. Oh, one question for Dave: currently, does the LOS/visibility calculations take into account unit's footprint, or is it simply calculated from the precise spot the unit's icon? Or is it irrelevant, given the 100m fidelity of the underlying map grid?


I agree I don't know neither, and it's some kind of the root problem for me when evaluating the LOS capability of my army ("Could I be confident there is nobody there?", "Is the zone under sight control?"). I have the impression a LOS tool that could reveal what a unit (instead of a 'map point') actually see will solve a lot to me.

Another question, is the LOS concept reversible ? I mean, If I can see the top of the mountain from this village, does it means that I also can see the village from the top of the mountain ? If so, then it's a huge things for me. It means than when I want to have a unit watching a bridge, instead of clicking quite randomly on the forest hill to check if this position is good enough, I could just do the opposite and click on the bridge, and then choose an highlighted spot, which is much more simple and quicker. And then, LOS combination/overlap (with shift or control), in which you could click on this village and this bridge to see if there is a spot on the map from which you could see both will be paradise to me [8D]




Arjuna -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (1/7/2011 12:42:20 AM)

RE LOS checks. These are based on the actual footprint of the unit at the time of the check. Three LOS checks are done per unit for each unit sighting it. One goes from clostest edge to clostest edge, another from centre to centre and a third from farthest to farthest edge.

Re reciprocal LOS. No just because you can see X doesn't mean X can see you. For instance you may be able to see a tank unit moving in the open at 2000m but they can't see your infantry dug in on the edge of the wood line 2000m away.




johndoesecond -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (1/7/2011 2:08:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arjuna

RE LOS checks. These are based on the actual footprint of the unit at the time of the check. Three LOS checks are done per unit for each unit sighting it. One goes from clostest edge to clostest edge, another from centre to centre and a third from farthest to farthest edge.



Dave, there is one crucial word in your wording that is not clear: "edge". Is it a point or one whole side of the footprint?

If it is only the point, and if I understand well whay you're saying, then the facing seems to be very important here, since you don't use the left and right flanks (or stripes) of the footprint to determine the visibility. For example, if the left side of the footprint sits on top of a hill (while the rest of it is further downhill), that fact wouldn't be used for seeing thing around (since you use only front, centre and rear point).

Is that so?

Another thing, when you say "Three LOS checks are done per unit for each unit sighting it", does this mean that you already determined in some other way that the unit is sighted by the enemy unit in question? And if that is so, how is that determined then?

Thanks.




Arjuna -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (1/8/2011 11:10:23 PM)

For LOS checks we take two points and trace a line between them and check along that line at each 100m. When determining LOS between units we trace a line between the unit centres, extend that line past the furthest edge of each unit's occupied area. Where that line interesects the forward and rear edges, we use those points for the nearest and furthest LOS checks. Is that clear?

Each minute each unit checks its LOS with all enemy units. There's a bit of filtering done to exclude units that would be beyond the max visibility range. Also if we have an excellent current report on an enemy unit, then we don't bother doing LOS checks on it from other friendly units if they cannot possibly get a better quality report. The reason for this filtering is to reduce processor load and remember we only have one intel database per side ( not per unit ).




johndoesecond -> RE: Advance to the Sure - defending and....... (1/9/2011 8:15:00 PM)

Hi Dave,

Thank you for your reply.

Three things.

1. Yes, I believe I understood it now.

However, that brings about exactly the issue I was talking about.

I've drawn a little scheme so that we can understand each other better.

[image]local://upfiles/35781/AC2876CFB76E4919843418E70D7E95B2.jpg[/image]

There are two units whose white footprints you can see on an irregular terrain (the colours more or less respect BftB scheme, so dark brown is high, light brown is intermediate and green is low terrain)

If I got it correctly, to establish if the southern unit can see the northern one, what the Command Ops engine does is to draw the line from center to center (segment BE), then extend that line further to obtain all the other points A, C, D and F which are used to calculate the degree of visibility.

Now, my point is that according to your algorithm, the two units do not "see" each other due to the little hill lying between them. But look at the hilltop G! The southern unit sits on it, and there IS a theoretical LOS between the point G and some area of the northern unit's footprint. So, there actually should be some visibility between the two.

I understand that it's OK that there have to be degrees of abstraction, approximation and randomness, but isn't that too rough?

2. This brings me to my second point. The things I was proposing about a second footprint for recon purposes would I believe work very well if the LOS check between units was done using footprints with the sort of fidelty I am suggesting.

3. Finally, one little last thing. You wrote: "Also if we have an excellent current report on an enemy unit, then we don't bother doing LOS checks on it from other friendly units if they cannot possibly get a better quality report."

Alright for the intel report, that's understandable, but don't you need to know exactly who sees who to determine who can shoot at who?


Sorry for bothering, and thank you for your attention.

Cheers.





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125