Login

russian armor

CoH 3 Concepts: Truesight 2.0/ Size dependent spotting

20 Jan 2020, 21:47 PM
#1
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

Good evening all!

I’ve been putting a lot of thought into what I’d like to see in future CoH games and how they might be implemented.

I was playing a bit of an “oldie, but a goodie” RTS, namely 2004’s Star Wars: Empire at War, and was really enjoying its take on unit vision and thought a similar system would work well in CoH3, whenever it comes out.

The idea is that unit vision is actually two things, environmental vision and unit detection. The first part is like how CoH2 works, with different units having different vision ranges and that sets how far a unit can “see” into the fog of war in the game world. The second part is how far away a unit can detect enemy units. This second part is determined by how well your unit can see, checked against how big the target is and any detection modifiers applied to it such as in cover, or moving or on a road or if the unit is set up with a camouflaged position ability.

What this means is that if a unit is very large and in an exposed position, it will show up at longer distances and be noticed sooner than units that are closer, but smaller and in cover. A good example might be a Tiger I or IS-2 parked in the middle of the road on crossing in the woods vs the infantry in the bushes in front of the tank. It’s pretty obvious that in real life that we’d all see the tank much farther away on the approach even though the tank is farther away than the infantry.

If implemented well, CoH 3 could have no silly “invisibility” abilities on units. Ambush units would simply have very small detection sizes and high detection vision compared to the units they are supposed to ambush when stationary or in cover. This applies perfectly to tank destroyers, examples being a stationary Stug III would be harder to detect than a moving Sherman, allowing the Stug to ambush it. However the Stug can’t just “go invisible” like the current JP4 or cloaked AT Guns. Additionally, as soon as the Stug starts to move around, it would be almost as easy to be spotted by the Sherman. US tank destroyers would have very good vision allowing them to detect and ambush enemy tanks thanks to having open topped turrets and long range guns, but not be as easily concealable due to being taller and being generally bigger than the smaller German TDs like the Stug and JP4.

Infantry play would also be greatly changed for the more strategic allowing players to use ambush and stealthy tactics with regular infantry just by putting them in cover and not moving them around. “Ambush” or “stealth” oriented units could still be better at this by having better detection reducing values when stationary, but no longer be able to run around while cloaked like current commandos and storm troopers. Larger ambush type units might have an activated ability to “camouflage the gun/tank” which only works while stationary, but also doesn’t make the gun actually invisible and maybe only affects detection by certain target types. A camouflaged AT gun might be hard to spot for a tank crew, but infantry could still see it at almost the same range as they normally would. By combining these modifiers you also prevent silly things like invisible AT guns in the middle of a road.
20 Jan 2020, 21:49 PM
#2
avatar of T.R. Stormjäger

Posts: 3588 | Subs: 3

I like Steel Division’s system even better.
20 Jan 2020, 21:53 PM
#3
avatar of gunther09
Donator 22

Posts: 538

interesting concept
I will not read my book today in bed but rather think about your idea a little bit. Thanks!
20 Jan 2020, 23:03 PM
#4
avatar of Hannibal
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3112 | Subs: 2

To be honest you should probably try the Steel Division/Wargame series. They have exactly this implemented.

Implementing this feature would mean that vision is greatly increased as well, since all units should see further than they detect enemies. This would drastically change the core of CoH though, since much bigger maps were required.
20 Jan 2020, 23:10 PM
#5
avatar of Doomlord52

Posts: 960

Implementing this feature would mean that vision is greatly increased as well, since all units should see further than they detect enemies. This would drastically change the core of CoH though, since much bigger maps were required.


This was pretty much my initial impression, too.

Additionally, this would make the game much more campy and slow paced, since the defenders would always see the attackers first (since it would be stationary vs. moving). This would give a massive advantage to long range units, such as snipers or TDs, which many people don't enjoy that much with the current (lower) vision system.

It could be interesting if OP's suggestion was applied to all units as "detection range", as an additional system on top of the existing vision system. Detection could give information on the mini-map only; that way the 'detected unit' info could be somewhat useful, but wouldn't allow for direct targeting.

/edit

As a side-note, I would also point out that drastic changes to systems can be very hit-or-miss. True-sight worked out well in CoH2, but 'cold tech' (blizzards, snow/mud) wasn't very well received in competitive multiplayer.
21 Jan 2020, 01:00 AM
#6
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

To be honest you should probably try the Steel Division/Wargame series. They have exactly this implemented.

Implementing this feature would mean that vision is greatly increased as well, since all units should see further than they detect enemies. This would drastically change the core of CoH though, since much bigger maps were required.


I will definitely look into the suggested games, but I don’t think the vision changes would require larger maps. True sight would still apply, so you’d still be able to hide tanks behind hedges and buildings, and the difference between detection range and vision wouldn’t need to be very much for most units. Infantry would still be able to see about as far as they can shoot, and not see that far. Their detection of “big” units would be primarily from the negative bonuses applied to the bigger units themselves.

Th detection vs sight range could work both ways too. Big units show up even in the fog of war if they are doing highly visible things, such as a king ginger crossing a road, so in this case a unit with average sight like infantry would “see” the king tiger outside of their normal vision range but they might not see the enemy infantry hiding in the bushes inside of their nominal sight range that is revealing the fog of war.
21 Jan 2020, 01:48 AM
#7
21 Jan 2020, 08:15 AM
#8
avatar of Sander93

Posts: 3166 | Subs: 6

This is basically how vision works in the Wargame and Steel Division series, which works great for those as they are meant to be slower and more strategic / realistic games. It wouldn't really work for CoH's much higher paced arcadish and action packed gameplay, as it gives a big advantage to the defender (who usually sees the attacker first) and requires careful and slow use of scout units and step-by-step advances.

I think the vision system in CoH2 generally works fine and serves the gameplay, although personally I wouldn't mind seeing greater distinction in sight range between regular units and recon units, to make reconnaissance a more integral part of gameplay. But other than that, and some QoL fixes to TrueSight, I don't think it needs drastic changes.
22 Jan 2020, 01:24 AM
#9
avatar of sluzbenik

Posts: 878

The game's already too much about who gets to the green cover first.

Assaulting positions is too punishing as it is without more camo.
22 Jan 2020, 01:42 AM
#10
avatar of C3 TOOTH

Posts: 176

Infantry invisible system is already good in Coh2, that they have to stay in cover.

Though I agree with vehicle, "slowly" moving in open field like Jadpz4 or ATgun is stupid. For me, they have to stand still and setup Ambush position like Soviet tank hunter. As the enemy will see a bush instead of a tank until they fire.
25 Jan 2020, 06:41 AM
#11
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

Infantry invisible system is already good in Coh2, that they have to stay in cover.

Though I agree with vehicle, "slowly" moving in open field like Jadpz4 or ATgun is stupid. For me, they have to stand still and setup Ambush position like Soviet tank hunter. As the enemy will see a bush instead of a tank until they fire.


The problem I have with the current form of infantry cloaking is how once the map has been cratered the units that can move while in cover now have pretty much free reign to move and remain in craters.

This is most apparent with stormtroopers and commandos. They should be very strong ambush units yes, but I have yet to meet the man who can sprint forward while remaining invisible like he just picked up a power up in Halo.
25 Jan 2020, 06:45 AM
#12
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1

The game's already too much about who gets to the green cover first.

Assaulting positions is too punishing as it is without more camo.


It could be done so that green cover doesn’t give any camouflaged bonuses, while yellow cover does.

What makes the CoH series so appealing to me is the dynamic that cover brings to the table when compared to C&C type games where you just stand in the open and shoot each other unless someone happens to find a garrison to sit in.
25 Jan 2020, 08:07 AM
#13
avatar of Mazianni

Posts: 785



It could be done so that green cover doesn’t give any camouflaged bonuses, while yellow cover does.



This doesn't make any sense. A stone wall is going to provide just as much if not more concealment as a bush or a crater.

If anything any new CoH needs even more emphasis on cover; things like smoke or frag grenades (which should be a no-brainer anti-cover weapon - for some reason they are actually worse vs infantry in cover in CoH2) or pure numbers should be required to push out a squad in cover, not simply moving a squad of high-dps infantry into point blank range to drive them off.

I'd also like if combat ranges were longer, maps were bigger, and vehicle but especially tank combat was not so arcadey. Part the hopelessness in balancing this game is the HP pools involved with tanks and their nigh invulnerability to infantry; instead of running into enemy infantry at point blank with a tank being a danger because of 'snares', running into enemy infantry at point blank with a tank should be dangerous because a panzerfaust or a bazooka team could destroy it single-handedly.

At the same time, however, tank MGs should actually be worth a damn, and the source of most vehicle AI firepower rather than cannons.

Just more realism in general would be nice.
25 Jan 2020, 08:29 AM
#14
avatar of C3 TOOTH

Posts: 176



The problem I have with the current form of infantry cloaking is how once the map has been cratered the units that can move while in cover now have pretty much free reign to move and remain in craters.

This is most apparent with stormtroopers and commandos. They should be very strong ambush units yes, but I have yet to meet the man who can sprint forward while remaining invisible like he just picked up a power up in Halo.


There is a time countdown "out of cover camo" for each unit. Except Pathfinder can only camo while Stationary in cover. Most Camo units can move from cover to cover.

Sprint while remaining Camo, is it Fallschrim with For the Father Land? They have at least 3sec of Camo while out of cover.
26 Jan 2020, 21:57 PM
#15
avatar of GI John 412

Posts: 495 | Subs: 1



This doesn't make any sense. A stone wall is going to provide just as much if not more concealment as a bush or a crater.

If anything any new CoH needs even more emphasis on cover; things like smoke or frag grenades (which should be a no-brainer anti-cover weapon - for some reason they are actually worse vs infantry in cover in CoH2) or pure numbers should be required to push out a squad in cover, not simply moving a squad of high-dps infantry into point blank range to drive them off.

I'd also like if combat ranges were longer, maps were bigger, and vehicle but especially tank combat was not so arcadey. Part the hopelessness in balancing this game is the HP pools involved with tanks and their nigh invulnerability to infantry; instead of running into enemy infantry at point blank with a tank being a danger because of 'snares', running into enemy infantry at point blank with a tank should be dangerous because a panzerfaust or a bazooka team could destroy it single-handedly.

At the same time, however, tank MGs should actually be worth a damn, and the source of most vehicle AI firepower rather than cannons.

Just more realism in general would be nice.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

341 users are online: 341 guests
6 posts in the last 24h
36 posts in the last week
66 posts in the last month
Registered members: 46236
Welcome our newest member, carboncreditsalberta
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM