Jump to content

Retreating Monster Tanks revealed (monster pictures)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 316
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by Dschugaschwili:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

It is clear that the most desirable course of action for the ISU-122 in this situation is to fire a single shot at the Mk IV while stationary, then retreat. The problem is using the wrong command. Using the Shoot and Scoot order I have been able to get the ISU-122 to do this 100% of the time so far in my tests (using isuretreat6.cme). Of course, this means you have to eyeball the hulldown position like in CMBO instead of having the TacAI do it for you. It would be nice if the functionality of the Hulldown and Shoot & Scoot orders could be combined...

I'd rather like to see the functionality of Hunt and Shoot and Scoot combined: Move forward until you spot a valid target for Hunt (enemy armor or gun), fire once and retreat after that. Does anybody know why Battlefront chose Fast as the first movement type?

Dschugaschwili</font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

Food for thought-Check out Guderian's "Panzer Leader" where he says how he complimented a Waffen-SS commander on the excellent performance of his men,but had to point out that their fearless aggressiveness in combat meant they were taking far too many casualties...

What possible relevence does this

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

More food for thought-As we all know,Russian tankers at the Battle of Kursk actually rammed German tanks in their eagerness to get to close quarters. So no backing off there then...!

or this have to the subject at hand? Were ISUs ramming Mark IVs? I didn't thinks so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't believe a few things about this thread.

1. I can't believe it's gotten to 13 pages over an "issue" that by the topic-starter's admission happens only 20% of the time, and only in a specific scenario he created. I personally can't recreate the same problem, the ISUs I put into a QB behaved fine. I thought they were a bit TOO aggressive.

2. I can't believe Steve actually feeds the trolls like Licensed Fool and others. Ignore them and they'll go back to GI Combat or Civ III.

Personally, after spending 8 hours of large-scale (for the game) armor duels yesterday, I am EXTREMELY IMPRESSED with the AI's behavior. Green troops are far more likely to be hesitant in the face of fire, while my few examples of Crack and Elite, punched a hole right through vicious AT and T34 defence and it looked damn impressive too (losing only 1 tank). I've never seen a game where the difference between Green and Crack troops was so readily seen.

I get the impression that some people want a version of chess that uses tanks. "I will move my ISU two spots, then shoot. Then I will have it move to this spot. Then shoot", etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Terrapin:

Personally, after spending 8 hours of large-scale (for the game) armor duels yesterday, I am EXTREMELY IMPRESSED with the AI's behavior. Green troops are far more likely to be hesitant in the face of fire, while my few examples of Crack and Elite, punched a hole right through vicious AT and T34 defence and it looked damn impressive too (losing only 1 tank). I've never seen a game where the difference between Green and Crack troops was so readily seen.

I get the impression that some people want a version of chess that uses tanks. "I will move my ISU two spots, then shoot. Then I will have it move to this spot. Then shoot", etc.

" I am EXTREMELY IMPRESSED with the AI's behavior. Green troops are far more likely to be hesitant in the face of fire, while my few examples of Crack and Elite, punched a hole right through vicious AT and T34 defence and it looked damn impressive too (losing only 1 tank). I've never seen a game where the difference between Green and Crack troops was so readily seen."

I agree completely!

smile.gif

-tom w

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

Of these 280 replies,69 are pro-Redwolf,89 are pro-Steve,and 122 are neutral or digressional.

You must be including the posts by yourself and Redwolf as the "69" "Pro-Redwolf" contingent. ;)

If you count the number of POSTERS and not POSTS who come out for or against Redwolf, it's more like 4 Pro-Redwolf, 18 Pro-Steve. In fact, outside of Kloss, you and RedWolf, I don't think I've seen more than one or two other posters support RedWolf.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

More food for thought-As we all know,Russian tankers at the Battle of Kursk actually rammed German tanks in their eagerness to get to close quarters. So no backing off there then...!

Ignoring the fact that this has a very tenuous link to the argument that the ISU tacAI versus PIVs at sub 500metres decisions is “buggy”. aka a red herring argument.

Prokhorovka where ramming is said to have occurred. 12 July to 16 July. II SS PZ Korps total losses from 5 to 23 July = 36 tanks/assault guns 19 of which were lost before the clash a Prokhorovka. III Pz Korps lost 37 from 11 to 20 July.

5th Guards Tank army reported it had lost 222 T-34, 89 T-70, 12 Churchill and 11 assault guns up to 16 July during Prokhorovka. (Zetterling 2000).

334 destroyed Soviet AFV versus the loss of at most 54 German AFVs, losses six times higher. After the 16 July II SS PzKorps continued planning for a renwed offiencive, elements of 5 Guards Tank army on the other hand were pulled out of the line due to horrific losses (2nd Guards tank corps). A real successful tactic this running up to an enemy to negate their superior firepower.

With the Battle Von Lachurte (sp?) you can replay this staggeringly ineffective tactic of rushing T-34s onto long-range lethal 7,5cm fire. (to make it a close match to Prokhorovka replace the Panthers with PIVs)

[ December 03, 2002, 10:43 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

You really know you're stuff Bastables and are a credit to the forum,but my posting was meant to illustrate the valour of Russian tankers seeking to ram,without a thought of backing off. I offered it purely as food for thought...!

And again this “tactic/valor” is achievable with t-34s in game even verus the much more lethal Panthers with much the same results as Prokhorovka= dead Soviets and T-34s

[ December 03, 2002, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: Bastables ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I kindly suggest we wait until I answer Steve's detailed question when I go home?

This spinning out of control serves no purpose.

And yes, shoot and scoot is not the correct command to use here. In the sitiation we have here a stop at contact is required, and the seek-hulldown command does that, the shoot-and-scoot will continue to the ordered point, and -as documented- it will wait for a few seconds at that point. This is no good here. The only good use of the ISU, if you choose to take on the Pz IV is getting into LOS in hulldown, stop, get a shot off and then retreat. This works perfectly fine with the "seek hulldown" command, except that the retreat happens, in 30% of the cases in my test scenario, before the shot.

Andreas, can you elaborate on why you think it is a good idea to have an optional automatic retreat in seek hulldown, but not in shoot-and-shoot? Is this really in the game? Why should seek-hulldown have code in it to override player's orders with a retreat and shoot-and-shoot not?

[ December 03, 2002, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For my part,I apologised in a post way back for sounding disrespectful,and I also said I'd taken on board Steve's excellent explanation of A.I. routines and would be testing his and other peoples suggestions re the backing off aspect,and that I was already drifting from Redwolf towards Steve on this. This seems a logical course of action for me,but if I'd have dug in and refused to bend or see another guys point of view,I'd fully deserve to be called a fool!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by redwolf:

Andreas, can you elaborate on why you think it is a good idea to have an optional automatic retreat in seek hulldown, but not in shoot-and-shoot? Is this really in the game? Why should seek-hulldown have code in it to override player's orders with a retreat and shoot-and-shoot not?

It is my understanding there is no specific code in it. I'll elaborate tonight or tomorrow on my thinking about this (it may well be flawed).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by redwolf:

And yes, shoot and scoot is not the correct command to use here. In the sitiation we have here a stop at contact is required, and the seek-hulldown command does that, the shoot-and-scoot will continue to the ordered point, and -as documented- it will wait for a few seconds at that point. This is no good here. The only good use of the ISU, if you choose to take on the Pz IV is getting into LOS in hulldown, stop, get a shot off and then retreat. This works perfectly fine with the "seek hulldown" command, except that the retreat happens, in 30% of the cases in my test scenario, before the shot.

I completely disagree.

You say "The only good use of the ISU, if you choose to take on the Pz IV is getting into LOS in hulldown, stop, get a shot off and then retreat", which is exactly what the Shoot & Scoot command does. This situation is what Shoot & Scoot was made for. If it's not appropriate here, it's not appropriate anywhere.

You also ignore the fact that if you use Seek Hulldown the ISU-122 is more likely to stand and shoot it out to the death than retreat after one shot, which has been demonstrated to result in a dead ISU more often than a dead Mk IV.

It would be nice if the first move in a Shoot & Scoot order was Hunt instead of Fast, but even as-is it gives the ISU it's best chance of beating the Mk IV. I would use it without hesitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, we have a long standing rule here about threads in excess of the 300 replies mark. They tend to slow down the forum and can also lead to database corruption. As such am I going to lock this one down but feel free to continue this issue (if you must) in a new thread. Just call it the same thing if you want and add *Part 2* to it so people will know that its a continuation.

Thank you!

Madmatt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...