True LOS - Realistic Battle Distances

[RebBugler]

It appears that a higher number brings the units closer together, Not farther apart!

Nope, not for me, that's why I had to reduce row and column distances by half. At 60 units are spread 2x.

[Davinci]

Nope, not for me, that's why I had to reduce row and column distances by half. At 60 units are spread 2x.

I have provided a Picture of what I am seeing, but I still need to test this some more.

This is from a Saved Game - by changing the value from 30 to 60 - multiple times, same results.

The value 30 - enemy units don't appear on map.

The value 60 - enemy units do appear on map.

The attachment 1_2019-07-29.jpg is no longer available

I probably will not get the time to test this until the weekend, but it "Appears" that the value will have to be lower than the default value, say ( 15 ) to achieve the correct results. This sort of appears that "We" are giving the game a bigger footprint, when it should be a smaller one.

But, I could be Wrong!

davinci

[RebBugler]

Hey Davinci

With 60 yds the LOS is longer, so that example makes sense. Or I should say, the LOS reading is the same, but the distance is longer, just like engagement ranges with this mod.

[Davinci]

With 60 yds the LOS is longer, so that example makes sense. Or I should say, the LOS reading is the same, but the distance is longer, just like engagement ranges with this mod.

OK, So this setting does Not change the positions of the units Flag-bearer - Only spreads out the units in the formation.

To compensate for that you then "Rearrange" the formations ( Drills ) to bring the units back closer together.

So the viewing distance is increased but the units footprint is the same as it was with the default settings, once you adjust the drills file.

So, in "Theory" the size of the Maps wouldn't have to be adjusted, nor would the size of the units since the only thing that has changed is the viewing distance.

Now, considering that the Artillery has a greater-LOS than the Infantry, this might cause a problem if there is a lot of artillery on the field.

If, I am understanding this correctly.

davinci

[Marching Thru Georgia]

Your statement earlier that the map.ini change shrinks the map size by half just doesn't compute by my observations. If that's the case why aren't the sprites and map objects twice as large when this mod is enabled? The map.ini change only affects scripted distances, row and column distances in formations, engagement distances, etc., as far as I can tell.

Everything placed on the map, buildings, vegetation, units, etc. use pixel values for their positions, not yards. When you change the value of UnitPerYard, you change how many pixels equals one yard. The number of pixels on the map stays the same, you are not changing that. You are changing the number of pixels in a unit of distance. So now the distance in yards between, say, Gettysburg and LRT is half the distance in the original game. It also means that units will seemingly cross the map twice as fast as before. It will take a unit half the time to move between G'burg and LRT with your mod than the original game. That's because speeds are given in mph, or 1760 yards per hour.

The biggest problem that I remember was that even with the smaller sprites, the game would still read 40yds as if the sprites were the default value.

I'm not sure I understand this. Making the sprites smaller is just a way to make them look like what you'd expect them to look like when they are 100 yd. apart. Right now they look too big because they are 12 feet high. It won't affect engagement ranges. It should affect the bunching up and overlap that has always plagued the game. This would just makes the units occupy half the space they used to. You mod just increases the number of pixels between units. It's the same thing since the game uses yards for spacing and moving units around.

It appears that a higher number brings the units closer together, Not farther apart!

No, Reb is right. See my explanation above. With the mod, you can see twice as far as before because there are now twice as many pixels in a yard. So things that are invisible in the original game because they are too far away are now in plain sight with the mod.

[RebBugler]

With 60 yds the LOS is longer, so that example makes sense. Or I should say, the LOS reading is the same, but the distance is longer, just like engagement ranges with this mod.

OK, So this setting does Not change the positions of the units Flag-bearer - Only spreads out the units in the formation.

To compensate for that you then "Rearrange" the formations ( Drills ) to bring the units back closer together.

So the viewing distance is increased but the units footprint is the same as it was with the default settings, once you adjust the drills file.

So, in "Theory" the size of the Maps wouldn't have to be adjusted, nor would the size of the units since the only thing that has changed is the viewing distance.

Now, considering that the Artillery has a greater-LOS than the Infantry, this might cause a problem if there is a lot of artillery on the field.

If, I am understanding this correctly.

davinci

Yeah, you're getting it now. Now, with the last post by Kevin I get it now too. Following up your "in Theory" statement, with this mod the map doesn't need adjustments because this mod just establishes true LOS distances, it doesn't address true map distances. For SR1 play the map distances would have to be adjusted to "true" also, that is, being enlarged, keeping the sprites and the map objects scaling as is.

Note, my quote above is wrong. With Kevin's enlightenment we, or at least I, know that that number should read 60 pixels, not 60 yards.

Concerning artillery, its LOS or engaged range is greater than infantry regardless. It's just that with this mod it is more lethal at greater map distances. I'm guessing that's what you meant.

[Davinci]

Yeah, I had to abandon this idea, even if I do find it interesting!

I have always played this Game at extremely low "FPS" and have grew to accept them as normal.

It has never really bothered Me playing like that since it was well.....Normal!

But, changing the ( 30 ) too ( 60 ) has caused My Computer to freeze up multiple times, and in ten plus years of Playing, that has never happened.

Have to give "Norb" credit, his game just doesn't Crash unless the Player makes it Crash, it didn't really crash, just freezes up for about ten plus seconds before resuming .

It might have something to do with playing on a 12 Mile Map, thousands upon thousands of fences, 100,000 plus men in each Army, etc...

I think that that was just the tipping point, when too much becomes a little bit too much!

Either Way, Continue On, as for Me, going back to the old way of 5 FPS and Happy!

davinci

[RebBugler]

Yeah, I had to abandon this idea, even if I do find it interesting!

I have always played this Game at extremely low "FPS" and have grew to accept them as normal.

It has never really bothered Me playing like that since it was well.....Normal!

But, changing the ( 30 ) too ( 60 ) has caused My Computer to freeze up multiple times, and in ten plus years of Playing, that has never happened.

Have to give "Norb" credit, his game just doesn't Crash unless the Player makes it Crash, it didn't really crash, just freezes up for about ten plus seconds before resuming .

It might have something to do with playing on a 12 Mile Map, thousands upon thousands of fences, 100,000 plus men in each Army, etc...

I think that that was just the tipping point, when too much becomes a little bit too much!

Either Way, Continue On, as for Me, going back to the old way of 5 FPS and Happy!

davinci

Yeah, Norb balked at allowing modifications like this to protect his 'crash free game coder' reputation. Still, myself, especially myself, and other team members were able to convince Norb to allow potential game destabilizing modifications for the sake of the game's longevity potential. The more the merrier has worked fine for this game as far as I'm concerned. It's just like capitalism: if the product or service doesn't work, the company goes bankrupt; if a mod crashes the game, folks don't use it. A negative connotation doesn't reflect upon the game or designers' reputation, just the guilty modder's.

Too bad you can't run this mod, I think you would enjoy the true distances, they would be especially advantageous for your BIG army gameplay settings. Have you tried adjusting 'Max Terrain Draw Distance' to a lower level in 'Options', page 2? So you can at least maintain your 5 FPS ( :woohoo: YIKES :woohoo: ) rate, that makes you happy.

[Davinci]

Too bad you can't run this mod, I think you would enjoy the true distances, they would be especially advantageous for your BIG army gameplay settings. Have you tried adjusting 'Max Terrain Draw Distance' to a lower level in 'Options', page 2? So you can at least maintain your 5 FPS ( :woohoo: YIKES :woohoo: ) rate, that makes you happy.

I think that basically we are doing the same thing only using different settings to achieve roughly the same results.

I only Play the "Open Play" game, and have designed it to always have at least a six to ten mile battle-line.

So, all muskets start firing at 500yds to give the "AI" the time to start forming their battle-line, and spread out either left or right of the fighting.

It works out fairly well considering that I have removed all running, all melee, and all of the Cavalry from the game.

So, both sides can maintain a solid battle-line for 12 plus hours, after that I sort of get bored with that particular fight and start another game.

I have actually never Won a single battle considering that the AI has roughly 40,000 more men, and Infantry to Infantry fighting makes it all but impossible to destroy a larger force.

System : I-7 3770, Windows 7 Pro - Geforce 720 , 20 GB Ram - System is a bit to Old to push any Game.

Question - So does One Pixel equal One Yard?

I thought that in the old days of TC2M - One man was three feet wide and one man stood for 1 yard of distance, so each man represented 10 men, so is that where the ( 30 ) originated from?

davinci

[RebBugler]

Your statement earlier that the map.ini change shrinks the map size by half just doesn't compute by my observations. If that's the case why aren't the sprites and map objects twice as large when this mod is enabled? The map.ini change only affects scripted distances, row and column distances in formations, engagement distances, etc., as far as I can tell.

Everything placed on the map, buildings, vegetation, units, etc. use pixel values for their positions, not yards. When you change the value of UnitPerYard, you change how many pixels equals one yard. The number of pixels on the map stays the same, you are not changing that. You are changing the number of pixels in a unit of distance. So now the distance in yards between, say, Gettysburg and LRT is half the distance in the original game. It also means that units will seemingly cross the map twice as fast as before. It will take a unit half the time to move between G'burg and LRT with your mod than the original game. That's because speeds are given in mph, or 1760 yards per hour.

Alright MTG, thanks to you not only do I know what this mod does, I know NOW how it does it!

I'm pretty sure I've got the 'Walk' speed set correctly for true distances at 3 miles per hour, as explained in the first post. I know that this is not adjusted for our present historically based maps that are scaled for SOW play, because that's not the purpose of this mod. This mod is about true battle distances, not true battleground distances. IOW, if the walk speeds are adjusted to the scaled battlefield distances, they won't comply with true battle distances. Only when new maps enlarged to true scale proportionate to sprite and map objects will a 'True Battlefield' emerge using this mod's criteria, with command hierarchy beginning at the company level, and every soldier represented.

Or, as you suggested, the other option for a 'True Battlefield', scale down the sprites and map objects, and redesign the present maps as discussed, i.e., narrower roads, additional fencing and wall segments, etc., not a small task.

Much Appreciated Discussion, you seem to always bail me out with stuff like this...Mr Enlightenment I dub you