At night TLOS seems improbable

[davidx]

A unit is engaging and has TLOS on a unit that is way outside of LOS, as depicted in the figure. Unit 5.989 just finished engaging with the allied unit and does not have either LOS or TLOS. The rocket unit has been was stopped by the allied unit, but LOS would also seems to be problematic.

If it is not an issue, may it be followed up on what situations cause this. I am play version 4.4.263.

regards,

[davidx]

Likewise, the other rocket unit has TLOS, but nothing else. Both rocket units has TLOS but none of the other units do. Though linear LOS and area LOS tool show no LOS.

[davidx]

Upon further observation it appears that for the Nefers, TLOS is limited only by the range circles distances. Terrain and time of day do not appear to be taken into account for TLOS and shooting. In this state, nefers are extremely valuable in a totally unfair manner for the axis.

[skarp]

The unit is in column and has a footprint roughly corresponding with the white box. The enemy unit probably also has a bigger footprint than the icon - elements from both units will be within 100 meters of each other. As a rocket unit some weapons won't require LOS either.

[davidx]

Possibly, but that would not explain this figure. Also the units are not bombarding, at least there is not bombarding task. To bombard someone need LOS, and the Nefers are the only ones. They appears to be directly firing, with TLOS within their respective range circle.

[davidx]

and moving...

[skarp]

Well I'm not an expert on the game system, your unit is engaging and I notice 2 of the units on its right are also engaging (who I also suspect are strung out along the road in column) - I don't think they are so far off either but says nothing about the effectiveness or volume of the fire. The nearer units on the T junction to the left should also be in contact. Are they?

The latest version is a beta 4.564 and is available by signing up to the members section so that's worth trying too.

[Arjuna]

From what I can see I suspect there is not an issue here. You have to take into account the occupied areas of both units (ie the observer and target). Also the range for observation increases for vehicle units and gun units and markedly if the target is moving and even more if it is firing. Without all this information it is hard to draw a definitive conclusion.

[dazkaz15]

This is clearly an issue that is not going to be fixed in this release of the series, as it is an underlying limitation of the game engine.

The Werfer units you are moving are very large. 18 horse drawn artillery pieces, and around 500 personnel, all of which are moving in road column formation, as can be seen by the white outline of the unit footprint.
The problem with this release of the game engine is that the footprints do not follow the tracks, and roads as they should, but are abstracted into rigid straight lines.

This actually happens in all moves in road column formation, but you don't usually notice it because most of the line units are comparatively small.
What happens is when the unit turns a bend on the track the rigid line extends a long way of that track into the forest, where line of sight is picked up by nearby enemy units.
Line of sight appears to be calculated from the nearest 100m invisible grid square, that the unit footprint occupies, but the LOS tool is drawn from the middle of that unit, not from the point that has LOS on the enemy.
In a long column formation such as this that can be more that 500m away through dark impenetrable forest, thus the confusion.

What I would like to know from Dave is if the firepower of the 100m grid that has LOS is taken as a portion of the total firepower of the unit, in resolving this engagement or is the whole units firepower taken into account, even though 90% of the formation has no LOS?

Hopefully in future releases of the engine we will get fluid unit footprints that actually follow the tracks, and roads.
In the meantime you just have to ensure there is plenty of cleared space around the movement of such formations as these.

[Arjuna]

Yes I acknowledge this limitation about rigid road column formations. Having a flexible deployment along the route is definitely on the CO2 wish list. But it's not going to happen for CO1.
 
Re firepower from road column well this depend on where the enemy is encountered, but only a portion will fire. IIRc from the front it's 10 or 20%.

[dazkaz15]

Thanks for the reply Dave [:)]

[skarp]

I've just encountered a similar example of possible over optimistic LOS. In my case there's light fog too. Sturm coy 988 is under fire from Eng A9 but there's woods and village and maybe 300m between them. 988 is set to min aggression. No casualties. I can email a save if desired.

[Phoenix100]

Some of this I have always put down to the abstracted 'recon'. So I've always thought we were meant to imagine that that unit in the forest there might have some elements spread out doing recon, as it were. But I suppose if that's the case then it makes a mockery of the LOS tools, to a certain extent. Maybe not. The idea that the Allied unit could provide effective fire over the intervening obstacles is absurd, however (try going into a real forest and getting a chance of a shot, at night, at 300 metres distance...) . I've mentioned this before, in connection with the supply interdiction issue though - when units are being interdicted in heavy urban environments, for example, when there is ample opportunity for cover in the form of buildings that cannot be so easily shot through, I've often thought that the LOS calculation is generous. I thought this again when I was actually at Manhay (the real Manhay, I mean) recently. Real life LOS in the Ardennes seems very much more restricted to me than in the game, because there is an abundance of hedges and folds of land and trees and copses which don't appear on the map but which all block LOS. So we would have to accept that LOS is also abstracted somewhat, I think, and one way of rationalising this is by imagining that units have recon elements outside of their strict footprint (the footprint itself is abstracted, in any case).

[skarp]

the allied unit's footprint barely extends beyond the icon as far as I can see. As you say effective fire is unlikely and even though my unit retreated no damage was incurred and the move was just slowed. It's nearly always possible to rationalise an event. This is not just infantry moving, there are pesky horses and wagons plus noise to consider - a night move through woods is hardly likely to be stealthy. Anyway I posted this because while I could make such rationalisations fairly easily in davidx's case given the shown unit footprints, in this one I thought it less straightforward.

[Phoenix100]

It's always possible to rationalise, true. So you could also imagine there's a street runs straight and flat through the edge of that village, right up to the back end of the march column, allowing a clear shot.



Well, it couldn't be flat, from the contours, but you might get a glimpse of the column lumbering along. And shoot.

I think davidx's fourth example above is problematic. Would be hard to find a rationalisation for that. Spotting and shooting in the dark through half a kilometre of thick forest.