Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

LOS question

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Age of Muskets] >> Horse and Musket: Volume I, Frederick the Great >> LOS question Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
LOS question - 8/5/2005 3:30:57 AM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Tim,
I don't remember seeing this when I reviewed the old DSD board.

Will be be able to only see LOS from the units under our control? Or will we be able to see LOS from anywhere, like our opponent's units or blank hexes?

Thanks.
Rick


_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!
Post #: 1
RE: LOS question - 10/23/2005 3:03:38 AM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		This is an important question.

Will we have satellite view Line of Sight or will we have LOS from only our units. We really shouldn't be able to have LOS from empty hexes because there isn't anyone there to see.

I ask only because of it's historical implications and because of the satellite LOS already present in Brand X.

Cheers,
Rick

< Message edited by Le Tondu -- 10/23/2005 3:05:17 AM >

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Le Tondu)
Post #: 2
RE: LOS question - 10/23/2005 3:32:18 AM   
rich

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline 		Ideally LOS should be more complex than in typical wargames and enemy units shouldn't necessarily be automatically visible just because they're in LOS. Relevant factor should include:

Terrain - eg. units in woods, etc, should be harder to detect than in the open. In woods it might often be difficult to tell friend from foe, especially if approaching from an unexpected direction or if it's misty or if the uniforms might be mistaken (eg. Swiss and British). So "friendly fire" may occur or enemy units may be mistaken for friends and will not be shot at by the troops until this mistake is rectified.

Unit size and formation - eg. an 800+ strong battalion should be much easier to spot than a company of skirmishers in open order.

Distance - beyond a certain distance it should only be possible to detect large formations and it might be hard to distinguish friend from foe. This may mean that a small group of skirmishers may notice enemy units yet remain undetected for several turns. (Testing for LOS should occur on a turnly basis for each unit, but ideally also whenever units move)

Weather - this too needs to be factored in for an accurate and realistic LOS.

Movement - stationary units should be harder to spot.

Firing - if a unit fires it should normally be instantly detected, but skirmishers in woods, rough or village hexes might have a chance of remaining undetected. The player will of course realize his troops are being shot at but might not be able to tell straight away from which hex.

Multiple LOS - since each unit would test for LOS, the more units that are within LOS of an enemy unit the more likely that unit will be detected.

(in reply to Le Tondu)
Post #: 3
RE: LOS question - 10/23/2005 6:52:48 PM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

Ideally LOS should be more complex than in typical wargames and enemy units shouldn't necessarily be automatically visible just because they're in LOS...................


rich,
Your statements beg for clarification.

LOS = Line of Sight.

Taking any and all of your factors into account, if a unit is in LOS, that means it is visible and can be seen. If the unit can seen, there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be displayed.

Likewise, if any of your listed factors prevent a unit from being seen, then it cannot be in LOS and therefore should not be displayed.

Does that make sense?

Cheers,
Rick


_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 4
RE: LOS question - 10/23/2005 8:44:56 PM   
Tim Coakley

 

Posts: 457
Joined: 1/28/2005
Status: offline 		I am torn by the LOS issue. On one hand, I completely understand not wanting to allow the user to see from unoccupied hexes...this is realistic. However, the LOS tool is a PLAYER aid in my book. I could count up the modifiers and do it manually, but it would take longer. Unless we go with completely limited LOS, this may only annoy the user.

By completetly limited LOS, I mean only showing the portions of the map that a players units have seen. Dense woods (several hexes deep) would be blacked out until a unit enters...fords are not shown...this would require a "planning map" for the player along the lines of a jump map. Hmmm.

Some great points about when a unit should be visible (size, distance, weather, movemment). All filed away for consideration.


Right now, the player can use LOS from any hex...but I made a note to make an option in the future (most likely after release).


(in reply to Le Tondu)
Post #: 5
RE: LOS question - 10/23/2005 10:53:18 PM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		LOS from an empty hex or a hex containing an opposing unit is NOT a player aid. IMHO, it is a player crutch.

I understand the need for sales and I will stand down.

Actually, in a we-go game, it may not be all that big an issue as it is in a turn based game.

Only thing. When it comes up as an option in the future, please label it as "Realistic LOS."

Who knows. Maybe old habits can die.

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Tim Coakley)
Post #: 6
RE: LOS question - 10/24/2005 1:34:20 AM   
rich

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline 		Limited LOS is probably best incorporated as an optional rule - it's always better if players have the choice, since restricting LOS is surely something that will appeal only to some gamers and will be hated by others.

(in reply to Le Tondu)
Post #: 7
RE: LOS question - 10/24/2005 10:33:43 AM   
lancerunolfsson

 

Posts: 257
Joined: 2/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

If the unit can seen, there is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be displayed.


I think there is some confusion in this discusion in the diferences between LOS and Target aquisition. It is quite possible to have a piece of teraine under observation and not be able to see enemy present there. BUT I think this is more a case for situations were the enemy is not large close order formations of troops in colorful uniforms;^) But it can be argued that in blackpowder battles after a few minutes of fire lacking a good breeze even very close targets might not be easey to see. (not that I particularly would like to see that modeled in a game)

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 8
RE: LOS question - 10/24/2005 3:00:42 PM   
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar


Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline 		I would like LOS to be something not important by itself, but in the context of the game system. For instance, it should allow the players to cover reinforcements behind front lines, or to use reverse slope to shelter from artillery, etc, but I am not unduly worried about the exact LOS from one hex or another, rather the general effect

(in reply to lancerunolfsson)
Post #: 9
RE: LOS question - 10/24/2005 6:59:23 PM   
rich

 

Posts: 15
Joined: 5/4/2005
Status: offline 		The local visibility effects of blackpowder smoke weaponry, wind speed and direction are pretty essential if attempting to recreate warfare of this era. No point in getting the maps, oobs and deployment accurate if this aspect of combat is left out. Otherwise, we might as well be pretending that the troops are armed with bows & arrows or smokeless 20th century weaponry instead of muskets. So it's essential to simulate the effects of blackpowder weaponry.

My recommended solution to this smoke issue would be computer controlled smoke counters that build up automatically as a unit fires (eg. there could be say 3 or more strengths of smoke counters, that gradually limit visibility from that hex) and then move about the map or disperse according to wind direction & strength and other weather related factors such as early morning mist.

(in reply to Le Tondu)
Post #: 10
RE: LOS question - 10/24/2005 7:27:36 PM   
Tim Coakley

 

Posts: 457
Joined: 1/28/2005
Status: offline 		Rich,
I think you will like what I have...4 levels of obscuration shown on the map, and the actual % effecting LOS. Smoke drifts and dissipates in the direction of the wind.

It also builds fast...just a few turns, and the hex is obscured completely.

Tim

(in reply to rich)
Post #: 11
RE: LOS question - 10/25/2005 3:08:39 AM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Tim,

We're discussing this LOS issue at the Rhine Tavern and John Corbin came up with a very nice idea that may be a very good compromise. :

"......1 - Do not allow View hexs where the hex is occupied by an enemy unit or at least have the logic include an error in view.

You click on a hex that has enemy arty on it to get an idea of what area it can see. When the program displays the "visible hexs" there are errors. Hexs that are shown as safe are in fact not and vis versa.. or a hex is not marked in away at all......"

Perhaps, it might be a fit here?

Cheers,
Rick

< Message edited by Le Tondu -- 10/25/2005 3:13:16 AM >

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Le Tondu)
Post #: 12
RE: LOS question - 10/25/2005 9:22:12 AM   
lancerunolfsson

 

Posts: 257
Joined: 2/7/2005
Status: offline 		I may missunderstand what is being said above but my reaction to the way I interpret it is as follows. You should always get acurate LOS info from a hex that a freindly unit occupies. From a game stand point you should always get acurate information as to what the los is from and in to any hex on the map (though you should not see enemy units that you have not spotted with freindlies). The reason for this is that it is easey enough (though time consuming) for a compettitve player to learn correct LOS information simply by opening a map in a scenario editor or opening the scenario out side of the game in progress.Or merely by calculating correct Los looking at the map and aplying the rules mentaly. Having inacurate LOS ever dislayed is simply bad game design that creates areas open to exploitation by Super Competitors while placing others at a needless disadvantage. I can kind of see how someone might think not having accurate LOS displays is More accurate or fun. But as a game mechanisim for most people this would just suck.

< Message edited by lancerunolfsson -- 10/25/2005 9:38:29 AM >

(in reply to Le Tondu)
Post #: 13
RE: LOS question - 10/25/2005 4:49:08 PM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Yes, I believe you are misunderstanding John's great idea.

When you have LOS from friendly units, it is always correct. When you try to do something absolutely impossible (physically speaking) like get LOS from an enemy unit or an empty hex, what is displayed will show a margin of error.

The only reason that it would suck is that you are used to having something that exists in the realm of science fiction in a Napoleonic game.

Those opposed to Realistic LOS or Historical LOS cannot escape that fact.

John Tiller made that mistake years ago and it is hard for people to accept anything else. The point is, if Realistic LOS had existed from the very beginning like it exists with many wargames, people wouldn't be against it like they are.

< Message edited by Le Tondu -- 10/25/2005 5:33:25 PM >

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to lancerunolfsson)
Post #: 14
RE: LOS question - 10/25/2005 9:52:01 PM   
Iñaki Harrizabalagatar


Posts: 825
Joined: 12/11/2001
Status: offline 		Wouldn´t be easier only to display LOS from units instead of hexes, and only from friendly units?

(in reply to Le Tondu)
Post #: 15
RE: LOS question - 10/25/2005 11:58:43 PM   
lancerunolfsson

 

Posts: 257
Joined: 2/7/2005
Status: offline 		Oh Ok Now I see I understood perfectly what what you were saying Tondou. What you are failing to see is that wargames are warGAMES and that wargames are inherently unrealistic. Functions such as you are describing just make it inconvienient to check lines of sight. AS a player can always Open up the same scenario when he starts playing PBEM or Online or whatever a second time as a hot seat game and just move units of either side to hexes that he wants to know the true LOS from and thus determine them. Personaly I would not bother most of the time because I like to get a turn done in about 15 minutes. But there are plenty of people that would consider it from a competitive stand point important enough to do. Sadly many people who are too lazy to run a shadow scenario to determine critical LOS information will be at a disadvantage and consider running a shadow scenario to be cheating or underhanded. So Though I understand what you are trying to achieve it is a case where the cure is much worse than the problem because it leads to players having suspicions of each other. Not to mention a guy can determine correct LOS just by looking at the map so let the computer do things that the computer is good at like determining LOS correctly and fast. In the end you gain nothing from what you are describing. And you open up a possibility of creating ill will between players. You will also create frustration for the majority of the people that play against the AI only. You also slow play needlesly which is never a good thing. At any rate I do not think it likely that any programer is going to take the extra time to create two diferent algoythms for determining los as in the end it is probably a good way to create Bugs in the program.

(in reply to Iñaki Harrizabalagatar)
Post #: 16
RE: LOS question - 10/26/2005 5:49:32 PM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Iñaki Harrizabalagatar,
That is exactly what I have been advocating from the start. Thank you.

lancerunolfsson,
There are many ways to cheat. Running a shadow scenario like you point out is one of them. Onother way is to play your turn and move your units to their extent all over the map just to find your opponen's units and then exit the scenario only to restart it and play it "for real." Personally, I never do that. There are other ways as well.

The suspiscions will still be there with Realistic LOS or not as they are already exist with the current LOS model.

The best way is to never play for competition. Play for fun and re-enacting Napoleonic history.

Celebrate History and play against folks that you trust. Play for the pure joy of it.

As for this game, I really do not think that it will be all that big of a problem in the end. We-go is a great equalizer. Sure, you can scope out a hex's LOS, but will your unit be the first to get there? I've been playing COMBAT MISSION for years and with we-go, you can't always be sure. With we-go, much of the cheating will go as well, IMO. Its only with the turn based Brand X that the current LOS model is embarrassingly silly.

Cheers,
Rick

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to lancerunolfsson)
Post #: 17
RE: LOS question - 10/26/2005 9:10:26 PM   
Sumter

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 10/19/2005
Status: offline 		I know I'm revealing ignorance, but what exactly is wego. How does it work in a turn-based game? Thanks.

(in reply to Le Tondu)
Post #: 18
RE: LOS question - 10/26/2005 9:42:57 PM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline 		Sumter,

First you have I-GO-U-GO games. These are also called turn-based games. First you move, then I move, then you shoot, etc.... This type of game has been around forever. We know it well. Chess is a famous example.

We-go is seperate from turn-based games. Some say it is a compromise between turn-based games and those clickfests called "realtime" strategy games. I say it is a fair compromise indeed.

At the end of the last century, a truly ground breaking game for the computer came out called COMBAT MISSION. This game presented a 3D World War II battlefield that uses what the designers called we-go. See more about it here http://www.battlefront.com/index.htm

It has been noted elswhere that some table top boardgames used something similar for their gameplay.

We-go on the outside looks and acts like all the units are moving at the same time when technically speaking they aren't. What both players do is plot their units moves and actions. (Mortar teams aim and then fire mortars. Infantry run, walk, assault, etc... Tanks button up aim at another tank or area fire, etc...) When the players are done they then hit something called the "GO" button and watch on their own computer the results of their efforts and plannings. During this time, the game operates similar to a real-time game for a set amount of time that both players get to watch. No input into the gameplay is possible when this happens. You just watch the replay of the turn. The replay for CM played for a minute. This game (BoN) will replay for 15 minutes I believe.

Each unit and each action perfomed by each unit happens in tiny increments called impulses. A poor example : Tank A moves a tiny bit and then tank B moves and then tank Z moves and when a unit spots an enemy unit, it fires upon it --if it can. The plotted actions continue until the end of the set time period where you can replot, retarget, etc.... --or rewatch the replay. Naturally, the plotting of actions by units must be very flexible and comprehensive.

There are different levels of the game's AI that control the different things like targeting, meleeing, etc....

Opposing units meet where they meet and one is not always sure where that will happen --like in real life. On appearances no one side gets to move without the other side moving as well --also like in real life. Fog of War and Line of Sight can have various levels that the players get to pick.

Thanks to the advances in computer hardware and software this is all possible.

I highly recommend downloading a Demo of one of the three COMBAT MISSION games that you can reach via " DOWNLOADS" button at the above page. It will give you the best opportunity to really understand what we-go is all about.

Enjoy.
Rick

< Message edited by Le Tondu -- 10/26/2005 9:47:17 PM >

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Sumter)
Post #: 19
RE: LOS question - 10/26/2005 11:56:19 PM   
lancerunolfsson

 

Posts: 257
Joined: 2/7/2005
Status: offline
quote:

At the end of the last century

Rick We Go has been around for a long time some of the first PC wargames (Atomic 360 and others) in the 80's were We Go. Board and Miniature gamers have been writing orders for some games for simultaneous exicution since at least the 1960's.

(in reply to Le Tondu)
Post #: 20
RE: LOS question - 10/27/2005 3:06:18 AM   
Le Tondu


Posts: 564
Joined: 10/2/2001
From: Seattle, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Le Tondu

.....At the end of the last century, a truly ground breaking game for the computer came out called COMBAT MISSION. This game presented a 3D World War II battlefield that uses what the designers called we-go. See more about it here http://www.battlefront.com/index.htm

It has been noted elsewhere that some table top boardgames used something similar for their gameplay............



lancerrunolfsson,
You quoted me out of context my friend. In that paragraph (please see above,) I was only talking about COMBAT MISSION being the truly ground breaking game for the computer that came out at the end of the last century. You know. The 1900s. I used CM as an example to answer the gentleman's request to know how it worked. Please let us know if any of those earlier games have downloadable demos for him to try out.

With all due respect, I doubt that any of the earlier we-go computer games can even compare with CM. How many of them combined a 3D battlefield with the depth of gameplay that CM does?

Cheers,
Rick

< Message edited by Le Tondu -- 10/27/2005 3:07:51 AM >

_____________________________

Vive l'Empereur!

(in reply to Le Tondu)
Post #: 21
RE: LOS question - 10/27/2005 3:17:14 AM   
lancerunolfsson

 

Posts: 257
Joined: 2/7/2005
Status: offline 		I see Rick 10-4

(in reply to Le Tondu)
Post #: 22
RE: LOS question - 10/27/2005 7:56:52 PM   
Sumter

 

Posts: 62
Joined: 10/19/2005
Status: offline 		Thanks. I had an idea it was something like that. I played a Civil War board game from Game Designers Workshop years a go that used a similar system. Again, thanks.

(in reply to lancerunolfsson)
Post #: 23
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [Age of Muskets] >> Horse and Musket: Volume I, Frederick the Great >> LOS question Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.297