Skip to Content

Line of Sight?

Login or register to post comments

33 replies [Last post]

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 00:17

phpbbadmin

Offline

Joined: 04/23/2013

Folks,

I'm currently designing a lite, beer & pretzels type miniatures war game (eclectic I know). I've never really designed a 'war' game (if this could indeed be called a wargame), so I'm really at a loss as how to implement a line of sight mechanic. The game is fairly simple. It is currently played on a square grid (I don't want to mess with hexes), and I'd like for 'units' to be able to hid behind cover, hence the need for line of sight. Anyone have any good ideas for how to implement this without using some sort of mechanical device?

Thanks in advance,
-Darke

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 00:42

#1

GeminiWeb

Offline

Joined: 07/31/2008

Line of Sight?

Darkehorse wrote:

Quote:

Anyone have any good ideas for how to implement this without using some sort of mechanical device?

I take it that this includes a piece of string? If not that seems to open up your options significantly! For example, you might want to look at the rules for Dungeons and Dragons minatures (which I can't remember off the top of my head), which incidentally has separate rules for line of sight and cover. (Line of sight is required to target something while cover gives a defensive bonus).

The following comes from the Wixards of the Coast site:

Quote:

Q. Can you clarify how Line of Sight is determined?

A. Line of Sight (LoS) works in the skirmish game exactly as it does in the D&D role-playing rules. The basic rule falls into two parts. First, a LoS exists if the attacking player can draw a line from any corner of the attacker's square to any corner of the defender's square without crossing a blocking square. Second, the defender has cover if the defending player can draw a line from that same corner of the attacker's square to any part of the target's square so that the line does cross an obstructing square. Obstructing squares contain walls, statues, or other figures. Blocking squares contain walls.

Two important exceptions need to be noted. First, a Large or larger creature doesn't have cover against a melee attack if a clear LoS can be drawn to any single square that the figure occupies -- ranged attacks against large or larger creatures follow the standard cover rule. Second (and this is the only really tricky part), tracing LoS along the length of an obstructed square or merely touching the corner of an obstructed square doesn't block LoS if any other clear line exists. If no other clear line exists, however, then touching a corner or running along an edge is enough to block the LoS.

Also, depends on how easy you want cover to be. Could consider something like 'are any of the shortest paths between the two units affected by cover' or 'are all of the shortest paths between the two units affected by cover'. When determining shortest paths though you might want a rule for diagonals (e.g. Dungeons and Dragons minatures makes eveyr 2nd diagonal count as 2 squares). This is imprtant to avoid situations of lines of sight which might attempt to 'weave' their way around obstacles.

There's a bit to get the discussion going ...

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 09:32

#2

RookieDesign

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Line of Sight?

I just replay an old WWII game called Sniper.

It's LOS and cover idea is pretty simple. You go through every hex from you to the target.

Each hex (Square in your case) has a defensive value. Example Clear is 1, light wood is 2, heavy wood is 4. The way to calculate the defensive value of the target, you multiply each hex you go through. Let's say you have 3 light wood, 2 clear and one heavy, the defensive value will be 2*2*2*1*1*4 = 32.

This has two fonctions. The first one is: If the defense value is above 100 you can't see the target.

The second one is that you use this number as a defensive indicator. In the case of Sniper you use this number as divisor. Example a rifle has a value of 15. 15/32 is less than 1. A machine gun have a 50 offensive value. 50/32 is between 1 and 2. The machine gun will roll on a higher damage table.

Hope this help a bit. I like this because it's simple.

Have a good day.

RookieDesign.

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 10:07

#3

phpbbadmin

Offline

Joined: 04/23/2013

Line of Sight?

RookieDesign wrote:

I just replay an old WWII game called Sniper.

It's LOS and cover idea is pretty simple. You go through every hex from you to the target.

Each hex (Square in your case) has a defensive value. Example Clear is 1, light wood is 2, heavy wood is 4. The way to calculate the defensive value of the target, you multiply each hex you go through. Let's say you have 3 light wood, 2 clear and one heavy, the defensive value will be 2*2*2*1*1*4 = 32.

This has two fonctions. The first one is: If the defense value is above 100 you can't see the target....

Actually I was looking for something even more simple than that. Technically this game could be considered a war game, but it's leaning more towards a paper miniatures game. In other words, it is *very* simple.

GeminiWeb wrote:

Also, depends on how easy you want cover to be. Could consider something like 'are any of the shortest paths between the two units affected by cover' or 'are all of the shortest paths between the two units affected by cover'. When determining shortest paths though you might want a rule for diagonals (e.g. Dungeons and Dragons minatures makes eveyr 2nd diagonal count as 2 squares). This is imprtant to avoid situations of lines of sight which might attempt to 'weave' their way around obstacles

Yes! That's the sort of info I was looking for. I'm not sure I grasp why every second diagonal would be considered 2 squares. It seems to me like going at something diagonally is actually a shorter path than taking the same trip orthagonally. So basically I was thinking that if the shortest path to your target went through a square that was considered cover, then the target was considered to get the benefits of that cover. Now, is there an easy way to calculate shortest path? And by easy I mean EASY. Kids need to be able to calculate this fairly easily.

-Darke

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 10:19

#4

Brykovian

Brykovian's picture

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Line of Sight?

Darkehorse wrote:

I'm not sure I grasp why every second diagonal would be considered 2 squares. It seems to me like going at something diagonally is actually a shorter path than taking the same trip orthagonally.

It is shorter to move diagonally. Move 1 square diagonally, it costs 1 point ... moving 2 squares costs 3 points (1 for the first one, 2 for the second one). If you tried to get to that same square moving orthogonally, you'd have moved 4 squares.

I've actually given diagonals a distance value of 1.5, which works out to about the same thing. (Technically, diagonals should be the square root of 2, which is ~1.44 ... but 1.5 is close enough and easy enough to add.)

Back to your original question, darke ... What kind of attack distance do the units have? Shorter distances obviously simplify things for doing a empty-handed calc based upon board positions. However, a piece of string and/or straight edged item (stick, strip of cardboard, etc.) might still be the easiest way to go.

-Bryk

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 10:27

#5

Brykovian

Brykovian's picture

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Line of Sight?

This may be totally unhelpful, but I thought I'd link it here anyway, in the odd chance that you'd glean something good from it.

There is an article by Andy McFadden on how the old text-based computer adventure games (Rogue, Hack, Moria, etc.) did line-of-sight calcs for vision and lighting: http://www.fadden.com/techmisc/fast-los.html

While this obviously gets into some detailed routines for letting the computer do the work, there are some examples along the way which might help you approach doing this on a square-grid board game.

-Bryk

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 12:38

#6

phpbbadmin

Offline

Joined: 04/23/2013

A thought

The board size is uncertain... But I am currently leaning towards 20 X 20. The maximum range for an attack will probably be 12 squares....

Here's what I've come up with and I'm not sure it will work (to calculate shortest distance).

Count the number of squares away from your target both horizontally and vertically.. Suppose I'm trying to hit your guy and he's 7 squares up and 3 squares over..

You divide up the larger length by the shorter length evenly. Now with this result you move towards the target lengthwise that number of squares, then you move over one square, move that number of squares towards it again, then over, etc until you reach the target (any remainder left over from the intial division would be added to the last 'leg' of the calculation)'. So in my calculation I would move 2 towards you, then 1 over, then two towards, then 1 over, then 3 towards at which point it would be at the target. So if there were any cover in that path the target would be considered 'under cover'.

This is by far the easiest way I could think of to do it but it is still too complex for comfort. Also I just checked 'manually' with a ruler and it's it's not giving me the results I'd like. There has got to be an easy way to do this... =[

-Darke

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 12:42

#7

Brykovian

Brykovian's picture

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Line of Sight?

The routine you came up with seems perfectly fine as far as easy-enough to calc and carry out. But if it's not giving the results you want, then that's not a good thing. ;)

Can you give a diagram of the example ... the results of your method ... and how a true straight line gives different results?

-Bryk

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 13:51

#8

OldScratch

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Line of Sight?

It seems like a few games are already using the "corner to corner" mechanism. That what I'm using in my game, as well.

The absolute simplest way to figure out distance is by using a ruler, really. In Frag, you just count all the squares in a line between you and your target. Sure, this doesn't fall into realism because shooting diagonally is shorter, but so is moving diagonally, so it kinda evens out (as long as you bar diagonal movement). We never had a problem with this way of doing range and line of sight, and it didn't impede the game at all.

Especially if targeted at kids, I would leave all math, especially division, out of any kind of calculation. Make it something that you don't need to use a rulebook to check. Your line of sight procedure can be (and this is for a simple game): 1. Make sure you can draw a straight line from any corner of the attacker's square, to any corner of the defender's square. If you've got a clear line, then: 2. Count the squares in a straight a line as possible between the attacker and defender. The number of squares could be like the difficulty of hitting the target. So, a distance of 10 would require a 10 or more (on however many dice you plan to use).

Just remember throughout your whole process that it needs to be simple. Sometimes people will go in with the intentions of making a simple game, and they end up going a different way altogether.

What is the rest of the game like? How long will a game normally take to play? Play time can let you know what kind of mechanism you'll want to use, too. If it's a game that's supposed to take hours (which I doubt), I think people would be more inclined to check charts and whatnot for range and difficulty, but as a beer&pretzels kinda think, I'd just like to go in there and be able to play a whole game without even looking at the rule book.

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 15:16

#9

phpbbadmin

Offline

Joined: 04/23/2013

...

OldScratch wrote:

It seems like a few games are already using the "corner to corner" mechanism. That what I'm using in my game, as well.

Someone recommended this already, and I don't really think it fits my needs.

OldScratch wrote:

The absolute simplest way to figure out distance is by using a ruler, really. In Frag, you just count all the squares in a line between you and your target. Sure, this doesn't fall into realism because shooting diagonally is shorter, but so is moving diagonally, so it kinda evens out (as long as you bar diagonal movement). We never had a problem with this way of doing range and line of sight, and it didn't impede the game at all.

I absolutely will not tolerate strings or rulers... Sorry. :)

OldScratch wrote:

Especially if targeted at kids, I would leave all math, especially division, out of any kind of calculation. Make it something that you don't need to use a rulebook to check. Your line of sight procedure can be (and this is for a simple game): 1. Make sure you can draw a straight line from any corner of the attacker's square, to any corner of the defender's square. If you've got a clear line, then: 2. Count the squares in a straight a line as possible between the attacker and defender. The number of squares could be like the difficulty of hitting the target. So, a distance of 10 would require a 10 or more (on however many dice you plan to use).

Yes, I agree math is bad, especially division. As for range and resolution, I have that figured figured out already. I really need to figure out LOS in order to implement a cover mechanic. What I need is a rule or mechanic to generate the 'line as straight as possible between attack and defender' without it being a judgement call. If the square providing possible cover falls within this line, then there is sufficient cover. Make sense?

OldScratch wrote:

Just remember throughout your whole process that it needs to be simple. Sometimes people will go in with the intentions of making a simple game, and they end up going a different way altogether.

You're preaching to the choir here as I believe it is one of the fundamentals of game design. It was my goal from the beginning (and still is).

OldScratch wrote:

What is the rest of the game like? How long will a game normally take to play? Play time can let you know what kind of mechanism you'll want to use, too. If it's a game that's supposed to take hours (which I doubt), I think people would be more inclined to check charts and whatnot for range and difficulty, but as a beer&pretzels kinda think, I'd just like to go in there and be able to play a whole game without even looking at the rule book.

The game might take an hour to play, possibly longer with 3 or 4 players. Most likely I will incorporate an end game trigger to keep the game at an acceptable length. My intention is to be able to play the game thoroughly with only one reading of the rule book and to be able to play if proficiently after only a few turns.

-Darke

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 15:44

#10

TruMobius

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Line of Sight?

no rulers or string.... hmm

your use of squares is the kicker in this if you used hexes it would make this much more easier
not sure if that would ruin your whole planes but I would go with hexes in alomost any case over squares.

short of that you could have extra peices that are LOS arcs that you could place at the base of a peice and if it falls into the arc LOS is a positive....for cover its either you have some or don't don want ot bother with partial cover in a light game expecially a beer and pretzles.

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 16:06

#11

OldScratch

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Re: ...

Darkehorse wrote:

I absolutely will not tolerate strings or rulers... Sorry. :)

Sorry if I misunderstand but are you saying you won't use strings or rulers just for measuring distance, or altogether, even to form a straight line between two units?

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 16:08

#12

phpbbadmin

Offline

Joined: 04/23/2013

Re: ...

OldScratch wrote:

Darkehorse wrote:

I absolutely will not tolerate strings or rulers... Sorry. :)

Sorry if I misunderstand but are you saying you won't use strings or rulers just for measuring distance, or altogether, even to form a straight line between two units?

Right I won't use them. Let me rephrase. I may be forced to use string to calculate line of sight until something better can be implemented. If I were to take this game to market, then I would absolutely need to find something other than string.

-Darke

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 16:58

#13

Anonymous

Sounds like accuracy may have to be sacrificied...

Is the game 2D or 3D? If you are using miniatures, are the methods of cover also in 3D?

Because as simple as it gets without rulers is to be literal, get down low and use your eye.

Now there could be a problem if you have something blocking ones line of sight in the first place...

Is the board layout going to change at all from game to game? Because if it is fixed, you could label the X axis 1-20 and then the Y axis 1-20) and then create a chart where you take the one value and the other and look it up (because you'd already have premeasured with string or whatever really complex mathematical formula ahead of time for every space).
It's very simple for one to find 2 numbers and see where they cross on a chart, no counting, no math, and no string.

Just some thoughts.

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 17:21

#14

phpbbadmin

Offline

Joined: 04/23/2013

Re: Sounds like accuracy may have to be sacrificied...

jjacy1 wrote:

Is the game 2D or 3D? If you are using miniatures, are the methods of cover also in 3D?

Because as simple as it gets without rulers is to be literal, get down low and use your eye.

Now there could be a problem if you have something blocking ones line of sight in the first place...

Is the board layout going to change at all from game to game? Because if it is fixed, you could label the X axis 1-20 and then the Y axis 1-20) and then create a chart where you take the one value and the other and look it up (because you'd already have premeasured with string or whatever really complex mathematical formula ahead of time for every space).
It's very simple for one to find 2 numbers and see where they cross on a chart, no counting, no math, and no string.

Just some thoughts.

It is a 2D game... Although I may spice it up a tad and use fold over paper miniatures. What would that be considered? 2&1/2D? LOL. The board layout won't change in size, but the objects on the board may. I like your idea of a chart. It might be a good way to go. How would I implement such a chart to determine if an object lay between the line of sight of two other objects (which would affectively determine if cover was provided by the middle object)?

-Darke

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 17:50

#15

OldScratch

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Line of Sight?

Okay, so probably the best way to do it would be to use the squares. There's a few things you can do, which will keep the game really simple. You can have units only be able to fire from either their sides, or diagonally. This way you'd have to line up your units against your enemies' units, or else you won't be able to fire at them. This goes far beyond being unrealistic, but it's simple.

So you can make it so that everyone only has 8 directions of fire to choose from. You can make the diagonals only fire up to 8 spaces, and it'll make your fire radius more or less equal in all directions. Or you can keep it at 12 just for simplicity's sake. Here's a quick graphic that shows how you could do it. The unit is the green square. The orange squares are where he can fire horizontally or vertically. The blue squares are where he can fire diagonally.

Now, with a system like this, there's a cool side effect that you can use. You can make units with limited firing points, so maybe a certain type of unit can only fire vertically or horizontally, and another only diagonally, and dozens of other combinations. This would also make facing important. Here's an example.

The infantry dude on the bottom is only allowed to attack in front of him, and the two diagonals in front of him.

The tank on the left can shoot on all sides because of it's turret.

The tank on the right can only shoot to its sides and the diagonals because of it's two side-mounted turrets.

Please excuse the crappy artwork, it's embarassing. :)

Simple, easy to understand, and some cool perks. Of course it could be completely different than what you need/want. But, with set line of sight paths, you can easily tell if cover is obstructing a target or not.

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 18:17

#16

Brykovian

Brykovian's picture

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Line of Sight?

I was doing IM chat with darkehorse and mentioned the same idea, OldScratch ... :D ... The other interesting thing this allows (and you kinda touched on it a little) then is using the "blind spot" between a unit's vertical/horizontal and diagonal directions as a way to advance against an enemy even without cover.

Of course, hiding behind a tree is always the better option! ;)

-Bryk

Wed, 08/18/2004 - 18:54

#17

GeminiWeb

Offline

Joined: 07/31/2008

Line of Sight?

All that since I made my last reply? You guys really need to make things easier for me and log in at weird hours to match up with Oz time zones!

And now back to the topic ...

For my 2 cents, I suggest something like ...

(1) count the squares with diagonals counting as 1.5
(2) if any of the paths which add to the shortest distance include an obstacle, there is cover

... and ...

(3) if all of these shortest paths include a 'sight-blocking; obstacle, there is no line of sight.

Note:

(A) the shortest distance is generally fairly easy to calculate by just following a roughly straight line
(B) equal shortest paths don't take that long to work out in reality. I suggest getting the defender to verify cover ... if they can work out a shortest path which includes an obstacle, then there is cover.

- GeminiWeb

Thu, 08/19/2004 - 17:44

#18

Anonymous

on the chart

Not sure if I can explain what a chart would look like if the cover moves around, but here goes.

If each side of the board is labeled (x axis with numbers, y with letters- people do this for chess, right?) you can then locate one piece 3J and the piece it would be firing at 6L.

Now a chart would have the combo of 3J/6L and tell you if there is something blocking the way on it or not. The chart would know because you'd have already used string or whatever ahead of time, for each space going to each space. Which now that I think about it, it might be a pretty large chart if it's 20x20 (not sure on the math but the chart might be so big you'd need to break it up in some logical manner), but then again if the maximum range is 12 this would eliminate a few.

This of course would be a huge pain to do once, but once you had the charts you'd never have to measure again, just look it up. If the cover pieces can be placed anywhere it'd be way too tedious and unrealistic to use this method, unless maybe you made it so there were say 4 starting configurations of the board, then you'd have to make 1 chart for each board configuration.

Here's another alternative if you don't like string; a laser pointer. If you have a small one it will give you a perfect line of sight, but not the distance (but would be really cool to use in say a sci-fi game) so maybe that's not so useful in your case. And of course the other disadvantage being I have no idea how much a laser pointer costs.

Sat, 08/21/2004 - 04:58

#19

Anonymous

Are you hexaphobic?

Why don't you want to mess with hexes? Just curious, since they would make everything much easier.
You might read Ambush!, a reasonably simple wargame with fairly simple LOS rules.
In my experience playing primarily wargames, LOS is fairly obvious just by eyeballing it in 9 of 10 cases. Without a chart of some sort, players will have to occasionally use a straight edge of some sort (whether you want them to or not).
It would definitely be easier to use a "center to center" LOS rule--that is, the LOS is drawn from the center of the sighting hex (or square) to the center of the target hex (or square).
If LOS passes through any part of a hex/square containing blocking terrain, LOS generally is considered blocked, thus NO firing permitted along that LOS path. Terrain in a hex/square is considered to completely fill the entire hex/square.
Only terrain in the target hex/square would give a defensive bonus. Thus, blocking terrain prevents fire through it, covering terrain protects units in it. Tracing a LOS through covering terrain would have no effect on fire.
From a wargame perspective, this is about as simple as you can make it. Of course, if you add different elevations, then that becomes the most complex of all.
Good luck.

Sat, 08/21/2004 - 15:03

#20

phpbbadmin

Offline

Joined: 04/23/2013

Re: Are you hexaphobic?

mistermarino wrote:

Why don't you want to mess with hexes? Just curious, since they would make everything much easier.
You might read Ambush!, a reasonably simple wargame with fairly simple LOS rules.
In my experience playing primarily wargames, LOS is fairly obvious just by eyeballing it in 9 of 10 cases. Without a chart of some sort, players will have to occasionally use a straight edge of some sort (whether you want them to or not).
It would definitely be easier to use a "center to center" LOS rule--that is, the LOS is drawn from the center of the sighting hex (or square) to the center of the target hex (or square).
If LOS passes through any part of a hex/square containing blocking terrain, LOS generally is considered blocked, thus NO firing permitted along that LOS path. Terrain in a hex/square is considered to completely fill the entire hex/square.
Only terrain in the target hex/square would give a defensive bonus. Thus, blocking terrain prevents fire through it, covering terrain protects units in it. Tracing a LOS through covering terrain would have no effect on fire.
From a wargame perspective, this is about as simple as you can make it. Of course, if you add different elevations, then that becomes the most complex of all.
Good luck.

Well because Hexes = wargame.. And even though this game will sort of be a wargame, I don't want to scare people off people who dislike wargames. I guess no one can really offer me the solution I'm looking for. Perhaps it doesn't exist. I'm going to keep working on it though.
-Darke

Sat, 08/21/2004 - 15:14

#21

phpbbadmin

Offline

Joined: 04/23/2013

Hmmm

I think I'm going to use a gimmicked (but themey) mechanic to determine line of sight and range... It should be pretty cool... I know, I know, I sold out.. Especially after I said no rulers and strings (since this will be pretty much functionally equivalent).....

-Darke

Sat, 08/21/2004 - 19:19

#22

Anonymous

Line of Sight?

You could just skip the whole LOS business and have squares that make it so other models cant shoot whatever is in that square. Like hiding in a bush or in trees. this is if you did not want any kind of models blocking LOS, which I suppose could be done if you had a model that would make adjacent models untargetable. It wouldn’t always make since but it would provide nearly the same effect. As far as attack ranges go some games don’t even need to limit them (diceland for example). However range limits can be useful and a good way to distinguish one type of troop from another. Plenty of games have “the you can shoot further diagonally” thing and most people aren’t bothered by it expaechaly if this is a light B+P wargame.

Also if you want to use "hexes" with out using hexagons simply lay your squares out in a staggered brick wall pattern. It’s what they used in battle ball and I’m sure in many other games as well.

Sat, 08/21/2004 - 22:00

#23

phpbbadmin

Offline

Joined: 04/23/2013

Great tip!

super wrote:

You could just skip the whole LOS biasness and have squares that make it so other models cant shoot whatever is in that square. Like hiding in a bush or in trees. this is if you did not want any kind of models blocking LOS, which I suppose could be done if you had a model that would make adjacent models untargetable. It wouldn’t always make since but it would provide nearly the same effect. As far as attack ranges go some games don’t even need to limit them (diceland for example). However range limits can be useful and a good way to distinguish one type of troop from another. Plenty of games have “the you can shoot further diagonally” thing and most people aren’t bothered by it expaechaly if this is a light B+P wargame.

Also if you want to use "hexes" with out using hexagons simply lay your squares out in a staggered brick wall pattern. It’s what they used in battle ball and I’m sure in many other games as well.

I've thought about the staggered square pattern... It still seems like it's kind of 'funky'. I'm not sure if I want to stray away from a straight square pattern. I really like your idea about targets hiding 'in' terrain tiles.. It may be the simplest yet! I had considered using both partial cover (where the person receiving the partial cover got a bonus to dodge but did not receive a 'to hit' penalty) and 'full cover' (neither defender nor attacker could shoot through the 'cover square'), but I'm not even sure I want 'full cover' terrain... If I didn't use full cover I could implement your idea and it would solve my problem. Thanks for the great idea!

-Darke

Sat, 08/21/2004 - 22:12

#24

OldScratch

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Line of Sight?

You could use full cover in areas designated as buildings. If a unit is in there, they can't fire out and can't be fired at.

I think it's a good idea too.

Sun, 08/22/2004 - 14:28

#25

phpbbadmin

Offline

Joined: 04/23/2013

Line of Sight?

OldScratch wrote:

You could use full cover in areas designated as buildings. If a unit is in there, they can't fire out and can't be fired at.

I think it's a good idea too.

That's all well and good, but what about units behind the building? Then you're stuck again with the same line of sight problem.

-Darke

Sun, 08/22/2004 - 15:30

#26

OldScratch

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Line of Sight?

Right, but that applies to this entire type of cover. His system basically says if someone is inside the trees square, they get the benefits of cover. But, if someone's anywhere behind that square, they don't get the benefits of cover. Having a penalty for shooting into a bunch of trees but none for shooting through them is the same thing as having a bunker where you can't shoot into but you can shoot through. You were trying to avoid line of sight, and that's what his system did. My suggestion of adding full cover doesn't change anything at all. It's still the same unrealistic system, but it's great at getting rid of line of sight. I'm just saying you don't have to rule total cover out of Super's idea here. If you're using partially covering terrain, might as well use full covering terrain if you want it.

However, it seems you've moved to using a sort of ruler system, so you won't be using this anyway.

Thu, 09/02/2004 - 16:30

#27

Anonymous

Charts?

A chart would have to be enormous to account for all the possible options (especially if the pieces of cover are not fixed for every game). You would have to track the location of every piece of cover, and allow for movement of pieces. The combinations are pretty large, even with a small board say 5x5. This would probably make the game harder to play than simply using a very low tech solution like string, or "eye-balling" it.

I would say if you want simple rules for line-of-sight, that don't involve a string, or other objects, then simplify how you can "see". Only allow line of sight horizontally, verically and diagonally. Then you can trace the path, and see it you have an object in the way.

Other than that, I've got nothing.

Wed, 05/11/2005 - 03:44

#28

Anonymous

Line of Sight?

"To determine if there is a clear line of fire, draw an imaginary line from the center of the attacker’s square to the center of the target’s square. Line of fire is blocked and the attack cannot be made if the imaginary line passes through a square that contains a character other than the attacker or the target, or if the line of fire crosses blocking terrain. A line of fire that passes between two adjacent characters, even on an exact diagonal, is blocked. If the attacker has a clear line of fire, then count the shortest route to the target in squares using the imaginary line as a guide. Do not count the square the attacker is standing in for purposes of determining range."

Wed, 05/11/2005 - 03:55

#29

sedjtroll

sedjtroll's picture

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Re: Line of Sight?

Darkehorse wrote:

I'd like for 'units' to be able to hide behind cover, hence the need for line of sight. Anyone have any good ideas for how to implement this without using some sort of mechanical device?

Another way to impliment Line of Sight without using a string or anything is to say that a tree only obscures you if you are RIGHT next to it (i.e. hiding behind it)- otherwise it's not in the way enough. Then standing next to a tree gives you some positive defensive modifier (or gives THEM a NEGATIVE offensive modifier).

The oddity of 'hiding behind a tree' when both units are on the same side of the tree can be explained away by saying that the kids (this is for Snow Day, right?) are really running around, and their placement next to a tree is representative - if they're right next to a tree they can effectively duck around the other side...

- Seth

Wed, 05/11/2005 - 09:59

#30

phpbbadmin

Offline

Joined: 04/23/2013

Re: Line of Sight?

sedjtroll wrote:

Darkehorse wrote:
I'd like for 'units' to be able to hide behind cover, hence the need for line of sight. Anyone have any good ideas for how to implement this without using some sort of mechanical device?

Another way to impliment Line of Sight without using a string or anything is to say that a tree only obscures you if you are RIGHT next to it (i.e. hiding behind it)- otherwise it's not in the way enough. Then standing next to a tree gives you some positive defensive modifier (or gives THEM a NEGATIVE offensive modifier).

The oddity of 'hiding behind a tree' when both units are on the same side of the tree can be explained away by saying that the kids (this is for Snow Day, right?) are really running around, and their placement next to a tree is representative - if they're right next to a tree they can effectively duck around the other side...

- Seth

I've actually done away with line of sight altogether and gone with a similar solution as the one you just proposed. Kids get coverage bonus only if they are actually in the square giving cover. It's the simplest solution I could come up with and I think it fits the style of the game quite nicely.

-Darke

Login or register to post comments

forum | by Dr. Radut