Hunt Command suggestion

[noxnoctum]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I definitely wish a CMx1 style hunt command could be brought back. Right now "Hunt" = "Move to Contact" which is needed as well, but a Hunt command that makes units keep moving if they lose sight of an enemy contact would be really helpful.

I'm surprised this is so controversial and people are bickering over this so much. It's pretty simple, sometimes you want units to continue advancing after they lose sight of an enemy (i.e. during an assault), sometimes you want them to be extra cautious and stop the second they make contact. CMx1 offered both these functionalities (for armor at least) and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for it to be put back in the sequel. Ideally both infantry and armor could have a hunt command, which would be a step up from CMx1.

Ideally, maybe a third command could be added, "Scout" which only require any crewman to spot the enemy for the vehicle to stop, but "move to contact" (aka the current "Hunt") as well as a new "Hunt" would require that the main gunner see the enemy before stopping. This could avoid that nasty problem of a vehicle stopping when seeing an enemy but being unable to fire.

Neither you nor the AI know whether a sighting is going to be permanent or transitory till /after/ the fact, so quite how it's supposed to make a determination to continue hunting remains an interesting philosophical question.

If it turns into a "?" it's transitory if it doesn't it's not. The unit with "Hunt" would resume movement once the contact turned into a "?".

[sburke]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I definitely wish a CMx1 style hunt command could be brought back. Right now "Hunt" = "Move to Contact" which is needed as well, but a Hunt command that makes units keep moving if they lose sight of an enemy contact would be really helpful.

I'm surprised this is so controversial and people are bickering over this so much. It's pretty simple, sometimes you want units to continue advancing after they lose sight of an enemy (i.e. during an assault), sometimes you want them to be extra cautious and stop the second they make contact. CMx1 offered both these functionalities (for armor at least) and I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for it to be put back in the sequel. Ideally both infantry and armor could have a hunt command, which would be a step up from CMx1.

I would suggest then following the whole thread. I think it is actually a very good discussion and it isn't about bickering. CMx1 offered things because it was CMx1. Those same options don't apply in CMx2 as has been extensively noted in this thread with very good, sound, clear reasoning (and yes a little bickering). What I haven't seen from any of the proponents of the old style hunt command is how you'd expect to get past the differences in the game engine. It isn't that anyone is saying "no we don't want the hunt command to work like it did in CMx1". What we are trying to express is it won't work and giving some pretty good examples of why.

edit

Note in your own response you are already introducing additional commands and complexity to the decision making sequence. See it ain't so easy. What if the TC spots an AT asset the gunner can't see?

[noxnoctum]

Well I have now and I disagree with the people who think this is "too much" or asking the AI to "read your mind". This guy isn't asking for the world, it's pretty simple he just wants a command that resumes movement when a contact turns into a "?". I don't see why the engine couldn't handle that, that's just silly.

If the engine can handle the "Quick" order which causes units to sometimes stop and fire when enemies are spotted and then resume movement I don't see why it couldn't handle a more strict version of this. Strict in that it causes units to ALWAYS stop and fire when enemies are spotted (in the case of armor it would ignore infantry contacts unless they are identified as being AT) and then resume movement.

The current hunt is necessary and important, but it's mostly just for scouting and being super cautious with armor when you need to. But a different order is also necessary.

Removing that functionality is going backwards plain and simple just like not having an armor cover arc. You can work around it with "Slow" or with pauses along a movement path but that is still not ideal because your accuracy will suffer with Slow and it is still not the same as coming to a deadstop if the tank suddenly spots a whole enemy armor platoon.

Now where'd I agree with you about it being silly to ask for something just "because it was that way in CMx1" would be with spotting through forests which was easier to calculate in CMx1 but necessarily changed for a 1-1 engine.

[noxnoctum]

Note in your own response you are already introducing additional commands and complexity to the decision making sequence. See it ain't so easy. What if the TC spots an AT asset the gunner can't see?

It would make sense for a Hunt order to have it tied to what the gunner sees. For move to contact it would make sense to have it tied to what the TC sees even if the gunner does not. Or if BFC felt like it they could have "move to contact" tied to what the gunner sees and a 3rd order tied to what the TC sees though that would not really be necessary.

Just differentiating who's "eyes" are important between Hunt and Move to contact would be good enough.

It's not really much more complex, just a small difference.

[sburke]

Well I have now and I disagree with the people who think this is "too much" or asking the AI to "read your mind". This guy isn't asking for the world, it's pretty simple he just wants a command that resumes movement when a contact turns into a "?". I don't see why the engine couldn't handle that, that's just silly.

It could handle that, but it still wouldn't do what the CMx1 hunt command would do. Here's another example. Your tank is cruising along. The TC spots an AT team out of LOS/LOF of the gunner. The tank stops, it can't shoot and the AT team now has a stationary target.

Sure it is easy to put the command in (we'll just accept that contention for the sake of argument), but you aren't going to convince BFC to bother with it if you don't try to answer the issues of what if. They just aren't going to listen because when they do put it in and people realize, "oh crap that isn't what I'd intended", they have a whole other thread of "BFC do sumfink, I got what I asked for, but it isn't what I want!"

Like I said, it would make sense for a Hunt order to have it tied to what the gunner sees. For move to contact it would make sense to have it tied to what the TC sees even if the gunner does not.

It's not really much more complex, just a small difference.

So move to hunt gets your tank killed by the AT assest only the TC can see, or move to contact has it stop where the gunner can't see the threat?

[noxnoctum]

It could handle that, but it still wouldn't do what the CMx1 hunt command would do. Here's another example. Your tank is cruising along. The TC spots an AT team out of LOS/LOF of the gunner. The tank stops, it can't shoot and the AT team now has a stationary target.

Sure it is easy to put the command in (we'll just accept that contention for the sake of argument), but you aren't going to convince BFC to bother with it if you don't try to answer the issues of what if. They just aren't going to listen because when they do put it in and people realize, "oh crap that isn't what I'd intended", they have a whole other thread of "BFC do sumfink, I got what I asked for, but it isn't what I want!"

Yep, obviously you'll still have less than ideal situations. But throwing it all out just because those situations will still pop up seems weird to me.

It just depends on your priorities in a given situation and what you're willing to risk.

1) Do you want to stop the second an enemy is spotted even if your gunner does not see them? If yes, use move to contact.

2) Do you want to stop the second an enemy *that is a threat* is spotted and you are able to ENGAGE them with the main gun? If yes use hunt.

3) Do you want to continue to advance regardless engaging targets along the way? Use Slow.

Like I said, if BFC added a third "Scout" option differentiating between a "Soft" move to contact which requires only the TC (or any other crew member) to spot something before stopping, and a "Hard" version where the gunner must see it as well, that would be truly ideal, but if they implemented only two orders slaved to different spotting variables that would already be a huge step up. Right now it's hard to maintain a cohesive advance even with the workarounds.

So move to hunt gets your tank killed by AT assest only the TC can see, or move to contact has it stop where the gunner can't see the threat?

Move to hunt would only stop when the gunner saw it as well. Move to contact would stop regardless of whether the gunner saw it or not. I can envision situations where I would want one over the other and vice versa. So Hunt would be an order issued more for aggressive combat movement, whereas Move to contact would be pure scouting (along with all the risks associated with becoming stationary when enemy are spotted).

[HarryB]

Neither you nor the AI know whether a sighting is going to be permanent or transitory till /after/ the fact, so quite how it's supposed to make a determination to continue hunting remains an interesting philosophical question.

Let's remember that you WANTED your tank to halt when it saw the enemy unit. And that's what it did. You then changed your mind - in the middle of the turn - when your realised that, actually, stopping probably wasn't a good idea. So, yes, you did expect the AI to read your mind.

Your plan was worse than your oppoenents, and he benefitted from that. That is as it should be. The game shouldn't protect you from your bad decisions at the expense of your opponents better plan.

As noxnoctum pointed out, once the spotted unit changes from its unit symbol to a question mark there is no question about whether it will be transitory, it is transitory. At that point the tank continues along its assigned path.

Yes, I wanted it to halt once it spotted a unit, but I did not want it to stay put after it lost contact, so no, I did not change my mind, and at no time does the AI need to read my mind.

I'm not here to debate the soundness of my tactics; it is totally irrelevant to the conversation. I will say though, that there is a definite tone of arrogance and condescension in your writing. It has kind of a "I am the all knowing guru of all things CM, how dare these unwashed heathens question this game. It can never be perfect, but without question all design decisions that were made were correct, so I will defend the current build 'til my last breath" sort of vibe to it.

[Amizaur]

A whole minute eh? That's such a long time. But, you know, some people see that part as a definite advantage.

Yes, a minute is a long time in many cases, and the pixel truppen will not react accordingly, like a real soldiers do, rather continue with their orders.

The advantage is the type of play, where I have to foresome what could happen and plan for it. And can not micromanage. It's great, it used to give me lot's of satisfaction. It was great playing against real opponents, and if playing against AI - it was more "fair" because I could not micromanage. It was just two sets of orders and then action phase executing them - time where I was out of the loop and the "pixeltrupen" AI was identical for both sides.

But to do this succesfully, to play this kind of game with no frustration, personally I need some tools. The tools are a good set of orders.

You should not expect perfection.

I do not expect it. I expect reasonable "non-stupidity" (with some exeptions, that do happen in reality too).

To those people who're complaining that 'there aren't enough orders' ... where does it end?

So, let's reverse it. Why SO MANY orders ? Maybe we could get rid of some of them ? Maybe we are to far already ?

It does end - personally for me - when I'm are able to plan in WEGO mode some actions and behaviours that I think are important, used often, usefull. My list of "needed" improvements is quite short. And personally, I'm quite happy then about this game.

I could, without trying very hard, come up with probably a hundred commands that are 'missing' from CM.

Why to exaggerate ? Nobody is requesting hundreds of additional commands. Just some changes to existing ones, and maybe a FEW new ones. That's all.

Where are the <monkey crawl> and <tiger crawl> orders for infantry? Where is the <peek> and <sneak> commands?

I don't see multiple requests for such commands. You are using eristic exaggeration. Please stop.

There was also some "perfect solution fallacy" in this thread. That means rejecting any solution/improvement because it's not perfect.

The few things I can't do, or satisfactorily approximate; my opponent can't do them either.

Personally, I play mainly for pleasure, not for winning. So it doesn't comfort me that my opponent has the same problems and is just like irritated like me. But maybe it's just me...

"ok, I want this scout team to hunt across this field and stop and engage any real threats but not any transitory sightings* and then when it gets to the hedge on the far side move across to the right then through the gap expect if it sees something* then into the building except if it sees something*, then upstairs unless there's some enemy downstairs then engage that enemy I already know abut over there."

Again, some kind of "exaggeration fallacy". Nobody so far requested such complicated orders, so why do you worry about it already ?

You KNOW what the <hunt> and <move> commands work in CMBN, even if you wish they worked differently. Amplify the actual strengths and mitigate the actual weaknesses of each by, for example, moving your units in concert rather than independently..

As for using multiple units with different orders and supporting each other - it's the correct thing to do, REGARDLES of the available set of orders.

I'd like we discussed here a question of "maybe we should change the logic of the Hunt command or add new command that does what many players want! why not ?" and not "how to compensate shortcomings of current Hunt command mixing orders for multiple units".

In short, in above quotation, you advice me to... accept the shortcomings of the current system ? Because... ? Because there is no chance for it being improved, or it should not be improved because it's perfect, or because the shortcomings can be sometimes compensated partially by clever use of multiple units (and this is reason to not improve anything), or why ?

Well, the simple fact that I'm argumenting for improving it suggests that I'm not supposed to just accept that it's "as is" and nothing could be done. And "better learn to play this way" as you suggests.

Instead of hunting across that first field, try using <quick> to minimise exposure duration, but couple that decision with other units in overwatch so if something happens there'll be some immediate support.

Great advice. If there ARE other units. Sometimes there are NO other units for overwatch. Then in such cases I would prefer to have working "Hunt" command, than run blindly in "quick" or fire on the move with "slow" or barely move with existing "Hunt".

I would prefer.

I'm just expressing my personal opinion on this. So, please, don't tell me I should better play in a different way, or that I should accept like it is.

of course ... neither you nor the AI know whether a sighting is going to be permanent or transitory till /after/ the fact, so quite how it's supposed to make a determination to continue hunting remains an interesting philosophical question.

Nobody, especially not me, asked for the AI being able to determine if the contact is transitory or permanent. Just that the hunting unit continued to move on the route, if the contact disappeared. I believe it's quite simple algorithm, possible to code...

[Childress]

I believe it's quite simple algorithm, possible to code...

Simple? If so then there are only two possible explanations:

1- The BFC developers aren't very bright.

or

2- They didn't put <insert desired command> into CMBN just to frustrate you. To take your euros and p*** you off.

[JonS]

Yes, I wanted it to halt once it spotted a unit, but I did not want it to stay put after it lost contact

Then YOU used the wrong order. It's still your fault, and your opponent still had a better plan than you.

I'm not here to debate the soundness of my tactics; it is totally irrelevant to the conversation.

No it isn't. That's pretty much central to the conversation. You want the game to rescue you from yourself, and fix your mistakes.

[HarryB]

Simple? If so then there are only two possible explanations:

1- The BFC developers aren't very bright.

or

2- They didn't put <insert desired command> into CMBN just to frustrate you. To take your euros and p*** you off.

Come on, let's not get rediculous here. I don't think anybody is going to say that the people at BFC are not very bright; being bright is kind of a prerequisite for the job they do. Having said that, that doesn't preclude them from making decisions that may be less than optimal. As bright as they are, they are not perfect and I have no doubt that during the design process of CM:BN, there were decisions made that in hindsight they would change if they could, but choose not to based on the difficulty and expense of doing so. There is no need to get so defensive.

[noxnoctum]

Then YOU used the wrong order. It's still your fault, and your opponent still had a better plan than you.

No it isn't. That's pretty much central to the conversation. You want the game to rescue you from yourself, and fix your mistakes.

No he isn't man, you're misunderstanding him. There is no way to have a unit stop to engage, then resume its movement in the game atm if the contact goes to "?" (other than artificially doing it with pauses or getting lucky on a "Quick" command)

[Sixxkiller]

Guys, please stop trying to compare this game to CMx1. It's like comparing a horse and buggy to a Mercedes. They both are essentially made for the same purpose but they take different ways of getting to the same place. There are major advantages to both.

This game as JonS has pointed out, does much of the same thing as Hunt to Contact, you just have to do a little more to get there. In smaller scenarios, it works better and is easier to manage. This is much more of a learning curve type issue than it is with a limitation.

[JonS]

like a real soldiers do

I've seen soldiers, real soldiers, do some monumentally stupid things.

Why to exaggerate ? Nobody is requesting hundreds of additional commands. Just some changes to existing ones, and maybe a FEW new ones. That's all.

Right. That's all you want. Which is all that anyone wants - just some changes to existing orders, and maybe a FEW new ones. Except that the changes and additions you want are different to what Harry wants which is different to what Baneman wants which is different to ...

Pretty much every time someone sees something they don't understand, the reflex is "I want a new command so I can perfectly deal with my exact, albeit rare, situation."

YOU don't want hundreds of commands, but WE do.

(what's that saying? "None of us are as stupid as all of us")

There was also some "perfect solution fallacy" in this thread. That means rejecting any solution/improvement because it's not perfect.

Yes. Exactly. That's what I've been trying to tell you and Harry. The current solution isn't perfect, but yet you reject it.

Why is that?

Again, some kind of "exaggeration fallacy". Nobody so far requested such complicated orders, so why do you worry about it already?

No, you misunderstand. I don't mean a single command that does all that. I mean people try to string together long and arcane sequences of orders, then act surprised when their p.truppen don't perform like Olympic-class synchronised swimmers.

Great advice. If there ARE other units. Sometimes there are NO other units for overwatch. Then in such cases I would prefer to have working "Hunt" command, than run blindly in "quick" or fire on the move with "slow" or barely move with existing "Hunt".

Fair enough. Personally, in that situation, I'd either wait till there was some overwatch, find another route, or just accept that it's a huge risk and deal with it.

Nobody asked for the AI being able to determine if the contact is transitory or permanent.

You need to read more carefully then, because that's exactly what some people are asking for.

[JonS]

No he isn't man, you're misunderstanding him. There is no way to have a unit stop to engage, then remove its movement in the game atm (other than artificially doing it with pauses or getting lucky on a "Quick" command)

We're back to "The Army of One".

Stop trying to get your units to do everything by and for themselves. Start having them work together.

Stop trying to get exactly the same behaviour from two quite different games. Start solving tactical problems with the tools you have.

[noxnoctum]

Two different games one of which is a sequel and supposed to be an improvement on the other (which is is in most ways). I don't buy that it isn't possible in the engine given "Quick" 's behavior where units will stop to engage sometimes. (which is a very nice feature btw)

You guys aren't helping the game any by being opposed to any possible improvements to it. Pretty sure we all want the same thing.

Sure we could just cut the game down just to Quick orders and nix everything else and use various pauses to approximate behavior but no one wants that I think. Or just use facing instead of cover arcs but again it's not the same thing. It doesn't have anything to do with wanting the AI to "do all your work for you" or being tactically lazy.

The only thing to do right now is to issue multiple slow orders with pauses which is still not the same because your tank might fire on the move in between pauses or continue following slow orders even if they ran into an entire enemy armor company.

[JonS]

continue following orders even if they ran into an entire enemy armor company.

Yeah, well, worst case they'll only do it for 59 seconds. But that aside, if they run into a company of enemy armour then the orders you give them are as utterly irrelevant as whether they obey them or not.

[noxnoctum]

But I don't understand why you don't want more control over your units, especially the degree that was offered in a previous game (i.e. older, worse tech).

We could ditch the "slow" order effectively too and just use quick with massively long pauses to make units advance at a slower pace but it's silly if you can just use slow instead!

Likewise I can get around hidden AT guns firing at infantry too by issuing tiny cover arcs and only specifying targets myself, but an armor cover arc is clearly more ideal.

Again I don't see how it's asking the world here, when it was in a previous game.

Yes it would have to be modified a bit like I suggested since there's no longer borg spotting (thankfully), but I see it as an important addition. You don't, and that's cool, agree to disagree .

[sburke]

See what you started Harry? :eek:

Two different games one of which is a sequel and supposed to be an improvement on the other (which is is in most ways).

Not quite true in a direct sense. CMx2 is a new engine as BFC found the old engine was just not capable of being developed any further. It wasn't a matter of we really like this game and just want to build on it. It was more- grrrrrrr we could do so much better if.. oh hell let's just start from scratch and build it right. (right being their perception of what they wanted, not ours necessarily).

I don't buy that it isn't possible in the engine given "Quick" 's behavior where units will stop to engage sometimes. (which is a very nice feature btw)

Going way back in the thread I'd mentioned a BFC response at length on this very same topic which folks are more than welcome to search for if they want to read it rather than simply asking BFC to repeat themselves.. again. There was a long thread about armor and movement etc. My bet is they like the 15 second rule even less than I do.

You guys aren't helping the game any by being opposed to any possible improvements to it. Pretty sure we all want the same thing.

Who said we were not interested in improvements? We are simply trying very hard to point out that folks are asking for a feature modelled on CMx1 behavior and not taking into account how much different it will respond in CMx2. For example that infantry unit in quick that stops and fires can do so because LOS and LOF are the same thing for that unit. Just as in CMx1 a tank had LOS/LOF simultaneously. In CMx2 that is not the case. Programming that behavior is far more complicated for 5 pixeltruppen in a big metal box than you guys are willing to admit.

But I don't understand why you don't want more control over your units, especially the degree that was offered in a previous game (i.e. older, worse tech).

This is kind of the gap between perspectives. My feeling is Cmx2 gives me more control and more options. Are they exactly the same? Certainly not, but I haven't seen enough in the desire for a CMx1 modelled hunt command to desire it. Now an armored covered arc, that I would like.

[noxnoctum]

Yes it gives more options in some ways, like with the pauses you can issue at every movement order which is a (huge) addition. But why restrict your options in other ways just because it's harder to implement. I'm sure it'll take some work to make Bulge and the Bagration game, doesn't mean they shouldn't do it.

[JonS]

But I don't understand why you don't want more control over your units, especially the degree that was offered in a previous game (i.e. older, worse tech).

because I already have enough? Because I don't want to get bogged down with more combinatorial complexity? Because I'd rather BFC spend their time on other things?

The 15 second rule applies here, BTW. This question has been answered, including in this thread. I acknowledge that you were honest enough to point out you're too rude to bring yourself up to speed, but I'm not sure if that's better or worse.

[HarryB]

Well, after all that I still think it would be a good idea to modify the Hunt command to allow units to continue on their path after they have spotted an enemy unit, stopped and then lost sight of that unit.

I know I will never get the last word against the man of 8000 posts, so I will just leave it at that unless someone adds something interesting to this discussion that compels me to respond.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

The problem we have with the current game is that there are 2 sighting perspectives when dealing with an AFV, the commanders and the gunners. The decision to do this was, no doubt, to improve realism but the problem that now creates is that in a WEGO game with 60 second gaps before new orders can be issued, an AFV can currently hunt to a position and then just stop when only the commander spots something. If that something is an ATG then the ATG can fire away for up to 60 seconds without there being any possible retaliation since the gunner has no LOS.

In reality (and also if played realtime and spotted), the commander would immediately shout to the driver to either advance forward a bit to allow the gunner to fire back or immediately withdraw out of LOS of the enemy threat. It's the combination of more realistic spotting combined with WEGO play that's causing the problem here. In the circumstances I don't believe it's asking too much to query if a better movement order can be formulated for the game that ensures an AFV continues moving (in a hunt like situation) until it can actually fire its main armament at the spotted unit. At least it will have a chance in the circumstances described above.

Possibly the situation as it is at the moment is a case of introducing realism factors to the 'new' game that works well (and in theory) when the engine is optimised for realtime play but doesn't really work all that well when played in WEGO mode, thereby justifying the addition of an extra movement order to compensate for this problem.

My 2 cents worth.

Regards

KR

[JonS]

In reality the commander would immediately shout to the driver to either ...

I just love comments like this. Happily, we know it to be true because so few tanks were destroyed in WWII

[Kanonier Reichmann]

Well, I'm pretty sure in the situation I described the commander wouldn't simply sit there for up to a minute doing absolutely nothing once he had spotted a viable threat. That's what happens at the moment in the game when playing in WEGO mode in the circumstances described. Do you believe that's an appropriate reaction when using the hunt command?

Regards

KR