BF, please give us shoot-and-scoop command.

[exsonic01]

Current TAC-AI cannot perform several tactical approach or tactical moves, which requires very elaborate control. So sometimes I feels like 1 minute for a single turn is too long.

One good example is shoot-and-scoop behavior. Sometimes I really wish my ATGM teams or RPG teams to move fast to the building or woods behind immediately after the first engagement from the ambush. But it is unable to make them perform such chain of actions from ambush position, because we can't. Pause-and-run (with target arc) technique can follow something similar, but it would never be the perfect since we never know exactly when and where the contact will be made. Plus, the units require some time to detect and identify as well, and we would never know when they will identify and engage. You can't command forced attack by target briefly or target command to unidentified vehicle by RPG or ATGM teams from ambush position. It is very dangerous and stupid. I wish to command them to fall back behind right after the identification and the first shot, but it is impossible to do that.  

Same thing also happens when I play with tanks. From the hull down position or any other situation, sometimes I wish my tanks to reverse or hide behind the building right after identify and shoot the first shot to the target. But simply, it is unable to perform such actions under current 1 minute turn. 

One can say "enjoy real time" But that cannot be the answer. Most of the H2H contents in CMx2 is played via PBEM, rather than TCP/IP because PBEM has its own merits. 

ARMA3, Warthunder, Wargame RD, and Steel Beasts PE, one can perform such actions very easily in all of those games. I know all of them are real time contents, and some of them are FPS rather than RTS, so it might be unfair to compare this game with them. However, still, shoot-and-scoop is very essential tactical movement from WW2 to modern era. I think this movement can be categorized as one of the screening action, right? This command would boost the usability of recons/recon vehicles, AT teams, and tanks, and make those units more flexible than before. 

I bet almost all CM players once thought about this idea at least once. Maybe this post is one of the another redundant. 

How about introduce "shoot-and-scoop" arc? Same as the current target arc, but when the unit identify and shoot, fall back 50m (or designated distance) behind or reverse behind to nearby cover. I believe there would be other idea for shoot and scoop action under the current CMx2 system. 

It would be far better if you can provide more elaborate version of this command, by separating "kill-and-scoop" (engage until penetrate/kill the target and reverse) and "shoot-and-scoop" (reverse right after the first shot) or "2/3-shoot-and-scoop (reverse right after second or third shot) 

 

Edited May 17, 2017 by exsonic01

[Michael Emrys]

BFC introduced a shoot-and-scoot command in CMBB but could never get it to work really satisfactorily. I've heard nothing about them being willing to try it again.

Michael

[exsonic01]

36 minutes ago, Michael Emrys said:

BFC introduced a shoot-and-scoot command in CMBB but could never get it to work really satisfactorily. I've heard nothing about them being willing to try it again.

Michael

You mean "barbarossa to berlin"? But that is old engine... Reducing turn time might be an option, but that will bring another side effects and headaches, so I think best choice would be the new "Shoot and scoop" command. I wish to hear some good news regarding TACAI and new commands.

Edited May 17, 2017 by exsonic01

[Amizaur]

Shoot-and-scoot should be fairly easy to code. Just another conditional order. Move to one waypoint and activate "shoot&scoot there (or stay here where you are and activate it) and then when contact is made and first shot launched, reverse (for vehicles) or run (for soldiers) to the next designated waypoint. Sounds simple.

Would be great also for AT guns. And if we could also specify number of shots, for example two shots and then reverse....

Well such tactical move is a kind of fundamental for armored vehicles - it is used in real life and every sim game, and currently can't be done effectively in CM. Tanks in CM can  only stay where they are and "duel" each other, or reverse only when facing stronger enemy (sometimes even before they make any shooting).... If I don't know when enemy appears, I can't even plan "shoot for 15 seconds and then reverse" logic.... Only conditional order can do that. And the time (or number of shots) should be counted from the first shot made.

 

Can't remember why similar order didn't work well in CMBB, I suppose it's realisation was not optimal (there was something like "move here, stay for 10 seconds and move back" and that's it. Nothing conditional.  IIRC of course. It was long ago. Sometimes it even happened that after moving to fire position, detecting the target and aiming took so long that the shot was made while already reversing.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Amizaur

[CarlWAW]

@exsonic01

Good point. For example it was the reason why I stopped playing and buying new releases, because it's not possible to use recon vehicles and other lightly armored vehicles in a realistic way. If my vehicles behave like tanks and I have no possibility to make them "shy" and reverse, I had asked myself more and more often, why I should micromanage that single, much less powerful infantry unit.

Edited May 17, 2017 by CarlWAW

[HerrTom]

Can't you make your units "shy" by giving them a reverse command after a hunt? The hunt cancels on contact and moves to the remaining commands? Or am I mistaken?

[A Canadian Cat]

9 hours ago, exsonic01 said:

How about introduce "shoot-and-scoop" arc? Same as the current target arc, but when the unit identify and shoot, fall back 50m (or designated distance) behind or reverse behind to nearby cover. I believe there would be other idea for shoot and scoop action under the current CMx2 system.

I really like that idea actually. Forget about an automatic fall back instead create a shoot and scoot arc that will then execute the next order once triggered. That way you decide where the fall back location is. That way you can set it for a stationary unit to create - sit in ambush here and fall back to this location after you engage a target. As well as setting it for a unit that is moving so you can create - move to this location and look for targets, once you find one and shoot at it then withdraw to this location.

[A Canadian Cat]

3 minutes ago, HerrTom said:

Can't you make your units "shy" by giving them a reverse command after a hunt? The hunt cancels on contact and moves to the remaining commands? Or am I mistaken?

Yeah once the hunt is cancelled on contact all following order go out the window as well. So, not possible to do what you hoped or what @CarlWAW wants.

[HerrTom]

Maybe that was a different game then haha.

I support the scoot arc. You could also do it as a waypoint like hull down, where the waypoint is where it goes after firing, arc or not.

[CarlWAW]

IMO the game has already enough commands. And I didn't want to micromanage even more. I'd prefer a solution that uses what we have already and feels more "intelligent".

For example: the HIDE command for a vehicle makes the vehicle "shy" during movement (quite intuitive, isn't it?).

The vehicle reverses for example until it's AI determines the "threat" is gone (i.e. loses LOS).

If the HIDE command is activated and the vehicle is on the move, and a PAUSE order at the next waypoint exists, the PAUSE command would not be discarded but used to determine how long the vehicle stops, before reversing.

Now if this all would be combined with the already existing cover arcs, a very powerful, totally intuitively retreat with/without shooting would exist. It even could be programmed for all vehicles, so even lighly armored tanks against big ones would benefit from it.

 

But the question is, how difficult is it for Battlefront to check if the HIDE command has been activated?

Edited May 17, 2017 by CarlWAW

[Kinophile]

Sorry, but HIDE causes vehicles to reverse from contact? 

And HUNT causes them to stop & engage on contact? 

I was aware of the latter. Is the former correct? 

[A Canadian Cat]

3 hours ago, kinophile said:

Sorry, but HIDE causes vehicles to reverse from contact? 

And HUNT causes them to stop & engage on contact? 

I was aware of the latter. Is the former correct? 

Not now. I believe that was his "implement this feature like this" elevator pitch. Thankfully Steve doesn't ride an elevator to his office

[exsonic01]

15 hours ago, HerrTom said:

You could also do it as a waypoint like hull down, where the waypoint is where it goes after firing, arc or not.

 

22 hours ago, Amizaur said:

reverse (for vehicles) or run (for soldiers) to the next designated waypoint

Great idea, waypoint-method has an advantage that the players can designate the destination of reverse / move after shot. 

Edited May 18, 2017 by exsonic01

[Kaunitz]

I support this idea! A conditional command would be very useful. Something along the lines of "stop pause if having fired (1,2 times)" and "bail out and stop pause ..." (for crew-served weapons respectively). Such a command would work quite well, since you could combine it with target-arc-commands (light, AT), and you would be able to plan the evasion-move (and even subsequent moves) yourself. 

The underlying problem seems to be that in many situations, the turn-interval of 1 minute is uncomfortably large. As reducing the interval would drag out reconnaissance-phases in H2H games even more and probably require a major programing-effort, I think that additional commands that offer us a bit more control over the (re)actions of our troops would be nice and much-needed in order to produce more plausible behaviour. I also want to stress that I'd like to have such an option not only for vehicles, but also for special weapons. If the crew of a recoilless gun notices that the tank they're firing at takes aim at them, then surely they wouldn't keep reloading but "bail out" and run for cover instead.

Since it is also related to the problem of turn-intervals, I'd like to point out the need for chaining together several target-briefly commands in one turn. I think that being allowed to assign only 1 area target per minute (unless you do that back-and-forth waypoint-mambo work-around) is an unreasonable restriction.

As for the increase in micro-management: I personally don't think that this is an issue. I see Combat Mission games as very detailed simulations and any scenario above company-level is a no-go for me anyways. But of course, that's my personal preference. 

Once we have the proper means to ambush our opponents (without eating all the return fire), all that's missing for CM to become the ultimate game-series is a major overhaul of fortifications.  (vehicle-parapets, proper foxholes, revamp of protection and recon-values, point costs per engagement-type, etc.). I wouldn't care too much about the visual/eye-candy aspects as long as fortifications stay hidden from the enemy's sight (stuff sinking into the ground...). With some camouflage and branches and twigs added, plus a gentle slope, I think that the uglyness-factor of foxholes that are built "on top" of the ground-mesh (rather than dug down into it) is not that bad? Especially considering that fortifications should be a major game aspect. 

 

PS: And a way to prevent troops from proning/kneeling. FO-teams that decide to go prone and lose LOS on their target can be quite a game-breaker.

 

 

 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Kaunitz

[CarlWAW]

CM is already quite unattractive to most people, because of it's complexity and the necessary micromanaging. Wishes of even more control and more micromanaging will definately lead to even less customers. Reducing the 60 seconds? Are you insane? Double the turns in PBEM, even more time for micromanaging?

Who wants to play that?

Edited May 18, 2017 by CarlWAW

[Thewood1]

Actually, it can lead to less micromanagement.  Now, you have to do a lot of fiddling to time things around turn timing.  In Steel Beasts, there a bunch of SOPs that give you bundled orders for how to react to enemy contact.  Tanks automatically find hull down to fire from a spot, back up to turret down for reload, then go back to hull down.  Recon units can be set to stop on contact and observe only or retreat back to a specific spot and call in arty.  It is incredibly flexible and easy to use.

I have always hoped that BFC would eventually put something like that in.  We saw some of it in CM1 with hull down, shoot and scoot, move to contact, and hunt.  Combining those could give you good flexibility in how units react.  Alas, we have only recently seen some movement in bringing them back.

[Erwin]

I stopped plying SB precisely cos of the complexity of programming in all those orders.  One spent more time programming turns than in playing the game.  And IIRC SB features far fewer units than CM2. If you want that level of control, why not play SB?

[Thewood1]

How long has it been since you played SB?  There are a number of scenarios that have a huge number of units.  And they aren't unrealistically crammed on a 2 km by 2 km map.  If just play scenarios, there is no programming.  You set a series of ways points.  Set the SOP on none, one, or all.  You can copy and paste orders.  You can give general orders, like stay on roads.  Even if you don't give orders, you can set SOP and units move forward to shoot, then back to reload, or even retreat on their own.  I have yet to do any programming or play inside a tank.  Have been playing that way for a couple years.

If programming is what is turning you off SB, then you are doing something wrong.  Granted, its not a jump in and start executing right away like CM, it does require a lot of planning up front.  You can plan on individual units/teams, or give broader orders with SOPs.  Its kind of what you make of it.  If you are building scenarios, then that is different.  There is some if-then-else scripting you might have to do, but again, only if you choose to.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Thewood1

[Erwin]

It's true my sojourn with SB was decades ago with the original version.  I need to try the new SB version.

[Amizaur]

There is no obligation to use the shoot&scoot command for people who don't want/need it. For me, some conditional commands (like this idea, which is much needed and usefull) would move the game "goodness" to another level and actually make me playing it again :).

[Thewood1]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

It's true my sojourn with SB was decades ago with the original version.  I need to try the new SB version.

One thing to keep in mind...

If you want to completely pre-plan your units and offer alternative actions as the enemy responds, you can go to town scripting left and right.  But if you play it more as a wargame where you potentially drop orders on all units throughout the game, it can be very much like CM, in real time.  I have played both ways and it's fun to see how the plan plays out and if you can account for major changes that you didn't foresee.

[Amizaur]

(Off topic warning! ) What version of SB are you talking about ? I become interested

The version of SB I played was dated 2001 . It was absolutely great then -  playing it was simultaneously exciting and frustrating. I discovered I wouldn't want to be a real tank commander during war time - it takes great skills to do it well, and life could be very short anyway (especially was for me) :). Unfortunately I didn't try later versions of SB.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Amizaur

[Thewood1]

4.019.  While still focused on training tankers, its added a lot of features to make it more wargame-like.  Making any judgement on SB from 2001 is like judging all CM based on CMSF 1.0.  There are good things and bad things about it, but overall, I play it more than CM right now, by far.

Edited May 18, 2017 by Thewood1

[CarlWAW]

3 hours ago, Amizaur said:

There is no obligation to use the shoot&scoot command for people who don't want/need it.

 

But that's only valid for playing against the AI. Playing against humans you are forced to use all tools available.

[Kinophile]

2 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

4.019.  While still focused on training tankers, its added a lot of features to make it more wargame-like.  Making any judgement on SB from 2001 is like judging all CM based on CMSF 1.0.  There are good things and bad things about it, but overall, I play it more than CM right now, by far.

Hmm, @TheForwardObserver has been poking me to try SB. It is intriguing. I'm currently on the fence because CM seems to offer a tighter integration and appreciation of infantry combat. 

Is there a grozny/fallujah style SB map?