Any Wreck Limit to Vision?

[jivemi]

Reason I ask is 'cuz there seems to be almost unlimited vision through wrecks. In this example (from Scenario 94 with visibility of 48) four wrecks do not block LOS between the R-35 and the T-34s at the intersection. Even further to the East (right) there is another wrecked T-34 along the road through which LOS is possible to an ATG about a kilometer away. That makes five wrecks!

Dunno about anybody else but it does seem a tad excessive. Once LOS is allowed through one wreck is there any limit to the number of wrecks along that LOS? Thanks.

OOPS. Can't upload due to file limit. Ah well, sorry about that.

[DRG]

This is ( roughly......)how 4 tanks fit into a hex in RL scale

[jivemi]

Fair enough. Yet it will take some getting used to. Imagine going from an environment where single wrecks block all unassisted LOS to where five wrecks in successive hexes may not block it at all. If that's more realistic fine, although such a radical change calls into question the veracity of LOS determination on wreck-strewn battlegrounds until now.

But if it serves the cause of Truth in combined-arms digital combat then better late than never, eh wot? The ghost of Liddell Hart nods :-).

[DRG]

We did say it would change the way the game is played......

That said, there may ( or not... ) need to be further refinements to that bit of code once the games have been played over a few months by more than just Andy and I and more feedback is received. There is far less chance now of wreck smoke obscuring LOS. Time will tell if the adjustments went too far the other way. I do know for certain that when we first made the change and tested some wreaks were still obscuring LOS but that change was made months ago and work after may have altered it somewhat. The code can have a bit of a "domino effect" at times creating unforseen " gotchas"

[DRG]

Look for the ones that show a substantial amount of flame graphic...those block LOS the others do not

[Mobhack]

And those that do produce flame will also produce smoke that drifts down wind as before, thus blocking more LOS - i.e. the original effect.

As Don said above - we may look into it after a while of player use and if needed tweak wrecks to produce more "flamers" if required. It could be based on the survival chance, or flame tanks may be more likely to burn etc. or it may simply be sufficient to leave it as-is. We will see what end user feedback is over time.

[Steves308]

I've found the new LOS rules an interesting change to the game. I think Don's graphic with the 4 wrecks in one hex is always how I thought the real world worked, and I hated that my enemies could maneuver behind a few knocked out recon vehicles and I could not fire on them (though I've used the tactic myself ;^). But no more throwing away some cheap jeeps to create a permanent smoke screen to maneuver or hide behind. I didn't realize that the higher the flames on the wreck, the more the LOS was blocked, so thanks for that clarification. I think the new rules make things more realistic and remove some of the tricks people have used.

Steves308

[Mobhack]

The new rule was precisely to remove the way that a few wrecked jeeps or whatever provided a "tree line" of tangled metal and fire. Unless its post war and you have "see all" thermal vision.

Now not all wrecks are flamers, its much more realistic IMHO. The rule may need a tweak, but I think its OK as-is mostly.

[jivemi]

Thanks guys. The "flaming wreck" icon clears up any ambiguity. None appeared in the WW2 scenario mentioned above but showed up in an ongoing MBT battle. Certainly not all, or even most tanks marked as "destroyed" for game purposes brew up or are damaged beyond repair. Nor should wrecked light vehicles obscure vision anywhere near as much as before.

So yeah, it seems the new rule is both more realistic and a legitimate game-changer. "If [Steel Panthers] be the food of love, play on, play on." Cheers.

[DRG]

The original Test game we ran, the one the screenshots used to illustrate the change were created from, were ( we realize now...) misleading as to the overall effect of the change. They show a lessening of obscuring smoke but the actual effect on the game is much greater. We needed a consistent example to see how the new code worked compared to the old so I built a test scenario on flat ground with high visibility and let the AI slug it out with itself for a few turns using the old code and then I made a screenshot showing the LOS through the wrecks and then saved the test game.

Then I loaded the same test game with the new code and checked the LOS and made the second screenshot I posted and as a " before and after" it was instructive but the logic was flawed. Andy's code change affected not only the overall effect of reducing the effect of wreak smoke but also ( the important bit...)..... the NUMBER of wrecks that created obscuring smoke.

The old code...the one the screenshots were based on ...generated more "flammers" than the new code so although the second screenshot was accurate for showing the overall reduction in wreck smoke effect it didn't show that there were now far fewer wrecks being generated that produced obscuring smoke.....BECAUSE it used the old code to produce the original test example.

Further tests on normal maps with varying terrain seemed to support the overall effect we were after and then we moved on. It was only after you mentioned multiple wrecks not obscuring LOS that I recreated the first test on a dead flat map with high visibility and let the AI slug it out with itself again did I realize how few wrecks actually obscured LOS now.

That said I still think this is better now than the way SP handled it in the past