LOS Question

[Victoria]

So a warrior has a vision of 2 tiles but a settler has a vision of 3 tiles (along with a Spy, Naturalist, Varu Conquistador Observation balloon, helicopter, Rocket Artillery, Uboat, Ironclad and missile Cruiser).
I know my settler and any other unit can normally see higher objects an additional tile away.

In this picture below the mountain on the left is in fact visible by the warrior, If I move the warrior visibility of it goes. Also the warrior cannot see the tiles in front of the mountain because it is not on a hill and so is being blocked. However the two tiles in front of the mountain are hills and I would expect my settler to be able to see the upper one of the two if visibility is tile centre to tile centre.

When my settler founds the city it loses its extra visibility as a city can only see two tiles, however it is now raised by a level and so the white square tiles are marked that it can now see and tiles 3 away it can no longer see.

Here is a screenshot just showing all terrain so you can see the tiles in front of the mountain. I would have thought the settler could see the one marked as a centre to centre line does not cross another tile they cannot see over.

Additionally, why can an ironclad see 3 tiles but a battleship or destroyer only see 2?

 

[Leyrann]

I believe Settler vision is also limited to 1 range if there's hills in front.

 

[Victoria]

I believe Settler vision is also limited to 1 range if there's hills in front.

You may believe what you want but if you look at the top picture of the settler (on hills) and the hills to their lower left with stone on, they can see 2 additional tiles over them.... so no Christmas present for you.
I also have tested a settler can look straight across 3 hills in front of them if they are on a hill...

If they are at sea level they can see hills 4 tiles away as some extra possible point of interest.

 

[King Rad]

does the fact that there are trees on the hills affect the settlers ability to see over them. it obviously sees over the lower level trees or rain forest but apparently doesn't see over the hill with forest.

 

[beestar]

Can you help me understand why the city can see those white-marked tileswhile the settler cannot?

I would have thought the settler was already "standing on the hill" on that tile - but the jungle on that tile reduces visibility?

The mechanics are really bizarre and I'm glad you're digging into it

 

[WillowBrook]

Can you help me understand why the city can see those white-marked tileswhile the settler cannot?

I would have thought the settler was already "standing on the hill" on that tile - but the jungle on that tile reduces visibility?

The mechanics are really bizarre and I'm glad you're digging into it

I can't answer Victoria's puzzle, but I'm pretty sure that the city can see those tiles because they are adjacent to a tile owned by the city - you can always see the tiles immediately adjacent to a tile your own.

 

[Aristos]

OK, here is my understanding of the rules:

1. The "white square" tiles became visible because you can see anything one tile out of your borders, period. No extra LOS rules apply there.

2. When you are in a forested tile, you can only look "over" a hill if it is not forested AND it is directly next to your tile. In the case of the Settler, that's why it can look over the hill with the Stone, but not over the hill to the South-West (two tiles away). If you try to "rationalize" it to the real world, it makes somewhat sense... just imagine the situation if you are climbing to a tree on top of a hill, and there is another deforested hill immediately close to your hill, and another farther away... would you be able to see beyond the farthest hill? Nope.

 

[chazzycat]

Isn't it the case that the "sees high objects 1 hex beyond normal range" phenomenon only applies if the "high object" is higher than the objects in between it and you? Like the reason you see the mountain in screenshot 1 is because mountains are taller than hills. But hills are (obviously) not taller than hills, so you don't see the hill in screenshot #3. But if those tiles in between the settler and the hill were flat land, then, you would see the hill.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

So the first question that comes to my mind is does the game (a) use a generalized set of line of sight rules, or (b) apply a series of specific rules, or (c) use a hybrid of the two.

For example, the visibility of Mountains in the distance: (a) do they appear based on some combination of their height, the visibility range of the spotting unit, the height of the tile the spotting unit is in, and the height of the intervening tiles, or (b) is there a rule that a Mountain that is 3 tiles away from a unit is visible to that unit?

In the case of (a), there should be some generalized formula that may be discoverable through a series of observations. In the case (b), we'll end up with a checklist of situations.

I lean towards (b) being the case because I think (and I may be wrong), that I have never noticed a difference between the visibility of a distant Hill without trees and a distant Hill with trees. Assuming a Hill w/ Woods or Jungle has a higher height that a bare Hill and there is an underlying formula as per (a), then we should be able to find situations where a Hill w/ Woods or Jungle can be seen when a bare Hill can't be seen. If there aren't any such situations, then we are likely dealing with a specific rule as per (b) where Woods or Jungle generally block Line of Sight unless other circumstances apply.

 

[Victoria]

Can you help me understand why the city can see those white-marked tileswhile the settler cannot?

An archer on a hill with a settler cannot shoot over a hill with trees next door. However the settler becomes a city one would expect it could because of the additional height but it seems not valid for hills!
A city can always see the first row of tiles around its borders, the peasants are working the land so can see that tile and you must have border patrols. However, if we look at what an archer can look at it is clearer. It can only shoot the two with no trees in the way.

Here the archer in the city can shoot the barb but the one outside cannot

So with regard to cities shooting over trees, it appears you can only do it on flat gound, not hills

#### Back to my original issue ###############

To me the question is... is visibility based on hex centre or connecting corners, both are used in different games. My observation above indicates connecting corners.

The example at the top is a very good example if you look at thye different terrain involved. It also makes you appreciate that Varu can see more than scouts and a spy can see 3 tiles for directing artillery (this works) Just why an ironclas can see further than a destroyer I have no idea.

2. When you are in a forested tile, you can only look "over" a hill if it is not forested AND it is directly next to your tile.

But there is no non adjacent wooded hill blocking LOS to that hill 3 tiles away, certainly not using center to center rules (try it on a clean hex grid). There is if you match corners but not the centre.

I would have hoped Firaxis would have such a basic rule clarified, surely it is their duty to

But if those tiles in between the settler and the hill were flat land, then, you would see the hill.

Here @chazzycat the mercury is flat land but my settler can see to the hill 3 tiles away

Hmmm, I used firetuner to replace some mines with woods and same effect as I am getting

If I cut either wood down I can see the tile

Perhaps I can only see a tile if I have clear visibility to an entire hex side from my centre?

 

[TomKQT]

Perhaps I can only see a tile if I have clear visibility to an entire hex side from my centre?

Yea, it seems so. We can either word it like you did, or you can simply imagine that the game doesn't test visibility using a straight line (like the yellow line on your picture) and it even doesn't test visibility (in 3-tile range) going through the tiles in an "S" shape (that would be mine and industrial zone tile on your images), but in an "L" shape - and it seems to be trying both variants (mine - north forest or south forest - industrial zone).

 

[Victoria]

Here is an interesting one, my biplane can see 4 tiles and can see over this hill and trees

I guess it makes sense for biplanes not to see over very high things

But if I deploy a jet fighter (vis 5 tiles) on flat ground 1 tile back, it cannot see over hills... this is pretty weird and rubbish.

I just checked the terrain files, here are the results, a little off subject but I was not aware of an Antiquity priority which is interesting... but the terrain "influence" ... I am wondering if it is to do with loyalty or helping AI choice.

 

[Zuizgond]

Maybe Firaxis thought we would consider it fun to try to guess the rules of the game.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

To me the question is... is visibility based on hex centre or connecting corners, both are used in different games. My observation above indicates connecting corners.

<snip>

Perhaps I can only see a tile if I have clear visibility to an entire hex side from my centre?

Either of these three approaches implies a generalized formula for Line of Sight, what I described as (a) in my prior musing. That is how most games would approach the problem. Civ 6 is not most games.

Yea, it seems so. We can either word it like you did, or you can simply imagine that the game doesn't test visibility using a straight line (like the yellow line on your picture) and it even doesn't test visibility (in 3-tile range) going through the tiles in an "S" shape (that would be mine and industrial zone tile on your images), but in an "L" shape - and it seems to be trying both variants (mine - north forest or south forest - industrial zone).

This is more what I expected. A whole bunch of "if or" tests. Something along the lines like:
(i) calculate the minimum number of tiles between spotting unit and target hex (min path)
(ii) check all possible paths of no longer than min path from spotting unit to target hex: if all of them pass through any of
(a) Woods / Jungle (unless Woods / Jungle visibility promotion) or
(b) a Hill (unless either spotting unit or target is also on a Hill)
(c) a Mountain
then line of sight is broken, unless:
(iii) if target hex is a Mountain and min path is no greater than 3, then Mountain is visible.

 

[Victoria]

Maybe Firaxis thought we would consider it fun to try to guess the rules of the game.

This is more what I expected. A whole bunch of "if or" tests. Something along the lines like:

This game needs a sign on the box

it should be a legal requirement of any game
.. but then they do not bother wit the box, the rules, the PR.... just churn it out as cost effectively as they can get away with and a salesy team to build up hype.

They could sell Civ VII as an utter rubbish game and it would still be bought by a million players that will never play it. A bit like Stuff Central in the DNA cowboys books.

 

[chazzycat]

I just checked the terrain files, here are the results, a little off subject but I was not aware of an Antiquity priority which is interesting... but the terrain "influence" ... I am wondering if it is to do with loyalty or helping AI choice.
View attachment 507250

It seems likely that the "sight" and "sight through" values explain this

"Sight through" is causing the confusion IMO...it seems like a misnomer - mountains have the highest value (2) and you can NOT "see through" them. A better name would be "sight block" if this theory is correct...

Forest has a value of 1 for "sight through", meaning (I think) it also has the power to block sight from adjacent tiles if the sight value of those tiles is lower...And explains why removing the forest had the effect of improving visibility.

 

[beestar]

They could sell Civ VII as an utter rubbish game and it would still be bought by a million players that will never play it. A bit like Stuff Central in the DNA cowboys books.

I thought I was the only one who had heard of (or read) that series by Mick Farren!

You're obviously older than you look in your profile pic, ha ha

 

[CPWimmer]

Here is an interesting one, my biplane can see 4 tiles and can see over this hill and trees

But if I deploy a jet fighter (vis 5 tiles) on flat ground 1 tile back, it cannot see over hills... this is pretty weird and rubbish.

For the most parts the LoS rules make sense to me (at least in general) with hills, mountains, forest, forest ON hills, etc. But the fact that these rules seem to apply to aircraft flying above those geographic features in the exact same way always upset me.

 

[Victoria]

.And explains why removing the forest had the effect of improving visibility.

Not quite, its about what precisely are the LOS rules, certainly they do not seem to be center to center

I thought I was the only one who had heard of (or read) that series by Mick Farren!

The books I feel are so awesome for concept and but written badly....Otherwise they would have been very populatr, thats what you get when a music critic writes a book. The concept to this day still sweeps me off my feet.

 

[Karmah]

Can't bother to read everything but my intution goes for some kind of 'vision cost' in the same fashion as a movement cost for a tile. At some point your vision would stop. So two hills would be more that one and if you have 3 tile visions , you'd see over one hill but not two something like this. Pure intuition , I haven't made tests of any kind.