aka_tom_w

Just posted it on my site. http://home.online.no/~joaruu/Recordings.html (Edited 'cause I forgot to put the URL...)</font>

Yup. For the most part, this is exactly what the TacAI does and should do. In real life AFVs did not like to engage each other when they felt there was a decent chance of not making it. Tanks are not robots. They are manned by Humans and, unlike the tank itself, the Humans care if they survive. However, it doesn't always mean the vehicle pulls back. The ISU tests and an overly unconcerned armored car in a battle I recently played showed. I wish my AC had been a bit more biased towards self preservation Steve</font>

Steve Says: " The bottom line is that the ISU correctly is skittish about being in this specific location vs the specific target. The results clearly show that it has very, VERY good reason to be unhappy about this position. Therefore, pulling back does not show a "bug" but very sensible assessment of the situation." Now that sounds like the Tac AI is erring (if it is in fact, in error??) on the side of Self Preservation to me. :confused: Redwolf, Why can't you admit that the Russian ISU in your example is in an untenable situation and KNOWS it, , sometimes it wins and sometimes it loses. Somehow it knows it can be killed and wants to back out of that situation, sometimes it is braver than other times BUT (this is the BIG one) it would seem that most of the tests by you and Steve indicate that when it is brave it gets hit and penetrated thus (logically, ala Mr Spock) implying that in that situation it should retreat because when it does not it usually loses the dual it would seem. Thus the %20-%30 of the behavior you call a bug when it retreats is in fact its best move because it could stay and get knocked out if it is hit in that situation. Am I confused by the logic that suggests that there is a bug because a unit that could get knocked out if it is brave and stays to dual instead chooses to invoke its self preseravtion sub routine and instead retreats to save its hide???? :confused: :confused: -tom w [ December 01, 2002, 03:43 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hi Refwolf Is it really a bug if %80 of the time the TAC AI behaviour if acceptable? But by random choice %20 of the time the tac AI behaviour favours self preservation, but is irrational from your point of view? Is that really a bug in your opinion? I'm just askin' -tom w

Steve writes: "Tom, quote: The question is can the CMBB engine accomodate a tweak or change to the Tac AI to acount for the "caught with the pants down" factor? The TacAI already has this available to it. See my comments about the Stuart test. A tank looks at the chances it can kill another tank based on its CURRENT situation. If the situation is that an otherwise crappy tank is facing the rear armor of a big brute, it will likely take a shot or two (or five or six in my example). This is even after the big baddy puts a target line on it. In fact, I would argue that the TacAI should have moved my Stuarts before they all got brewed up." Ok Thanks Steve Since I tested it with Redwolf's example I found the Russian tanks it not back away, at all, from rear shots at Mk IV's and were not scared of them. Thanks for the clarification. Here's hoping you actually get some "time off" on the weekend sometime -tom w [ December 01, 2002, 12:31 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

So who gets to stick their tongue to something frozen now !! -tom w

OK lets try this Lets use an extreme example In Redwolfs scenario have the PzKw Mk IV's reverse into LOS of the Russian tanks. Lets set up the German tanks with cover arcs to their frontal aspect (away from the Russian tanks) then have the russian tanks hunt into LOS of the Panzers, Now Facing the rear aspect of the Panzers do the russian tanks back away?? :confused: :confused: any takers on what the result is here. I have a few spare minutes now and I plan try it out. OK that was FUN the reversing Mk IV's did not have a chance the ALL the russian tanks hunted forward NEVER retreated and K-Killed all the Mk IV's. Interesting the german tanks never stopped reversing and backed into certian death even when unbuttoned. It was very rewarding to see that all the Russian tanks did NOT back off or retreat from the reversing Mk IV's That must suggest the SU's did not feel "threatened" by the rear aspect of the Mk IV's and "knew" they were not targeted. -tom w [ November 30, 2002, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I have seen this I do not think it is a bug (in fact I think it is a COOL new ultra realistic feature ) If Steve (of BFC) played the scenario Redwolf posted in the Retreating Monster tanks thread, he probably saw it too. It would appear that this is just another form of "miss" the gun was laid too low (in error) and the round plowed into the ground, in the same way that a target on the horizion can be fired at and the round went "high" and flew off into the nether world of the endless horizion, (same thing, here its just a miss). If your tank that is firing into the ground in front of it, it "should" adjust fire and maybe send one over the top of the target, then maybe on the third or forth round it might hit it. I would say watch for this but don't move the tank, the round that plowed into the ground (short) was just a miss, a few more shots should be adjusted accordingly. IMHO -tom w [ November 30, 2002, 10:07 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

OK That is STILL funny he he -tom w

Beat me to it Its true you can't. -tom w

I concur! We agree completely on this one Jim. The question is can the CMBB engine accomodate a tweak or change to the Tac AI to acount for the "caught with the pants down" factor? -tom w

"So Steve, can you comment on the "pants down" factor? Is is possible to code the tac AI in CMBB with the ability to "think": "Oh OH! Juicy Flank/Rear shot on turretless AFV MUST NOT BACK AWAY, (invoke nerves of Steel modifier AND) Take shot to K-KILL enemy AFV!" ???? " I mention this because it would seem (at least to my simple way of looking at this) that any gun or AFV that has the opportunity to take a shot at the rear or flank of any AFV should be OVERJOYED (Tac AI wise) with the chance to get a shot into any aspect of the enemy AFV that has a greater chance to penetrate than a frontal shot. Can the CMBB engine accomodate a TAC AI modifier to account for the "caught the turretless AFV with his pants down" factor?? -tom w

Hi Jim You are more than welcome , I tested it last night in an all armour hotseat (I played both sides) QB featuring turreted and non turreted tanks on both sides. I found that mostly the Russian tanks backed away from the German tanks, but the german tanks did not fear the Russian tanks in this example. I should figure out how to post the scenario save game files. If any one is interested I can email the save game start file out to you. It is not a conclusive test by anymeans, the parameter and the test vehicles were good but NOT ideal to test out this issue. So Steve, can you comment on the "pants down" factor? Is is possible to code the tac AI in CMBB with the ability to "think": "Oh OH! Juicy Flank/Rear shot on turretless AFV MUST NOT BACK AWAY, (invoke nerves of Steel modifier AND) Take shot to K-KILL enemy AFV!" ???? -tom w

First off.. Happy Turkey Day (and NFL) to the YANKS! This comment has been largely overlooked: "One other thing. I have a sneaking suspiscion that Redwolfs example may well have seen the ISU122 reverse even if it had caught out a Stug III F/G where the Pz IV was. Based on my experience with the IS 2's, reversing behaviour seemed to occur even if you catch an enemy Assault Gun with its proverbial pants down with a flank shot. It seems the computer code acknowledges that the gun on the Stug III can kill it even if it will take a month of Sundays for the enemy Assault Gun to be able to traverse first to get a shot off. If you can confirm this is not the case & the game engine allows for catching out enemy "fixed gun" AFV's then I'll accept that. Unfortunately I have no proof so I acknowledge that it's hardly going to convince anyone that the code should be changed but I'd love to hear from anyone that may have experienced similar behaviour, especially when ambushing enemy Assault Guns. Regards Jim R." I would say this point is Crucial the Tac AI "should" take into account which plate or aspect of the opposing tank they are firing at, not just the size of the main weapon it is packing. (oooh its got a BIG gun, aaah Run Away!) I should test this but I have not, (however) (I justed tested this and found that an ISU122 will back away from a "clean" StuG flank shot even when the StuG is engaged with another target, in my limited experience) if this is true...... "Based on my experience with the IS 2's, reversing behaviour seemed to occur even if you catch an enemy Assault Gun with its proverbial pants down with a flank shot." Then the tacAI is not, or cannot "think" or account for or "be brave" and take the shot when confronted with the flank shot againt armour it "knows" it can defeat but instead the TAc AI says "Oh CRAP! that AFV is packing a BIG gun and it can kill me... I gotta pop smoke and back outa here ASAP!" If the tac AI cannot take into account the aspect of the opposing tank that it is firing into and cannot determine that a turretless AFV is NOT a threat from the flank aspect (OK, I know that can turn on a dime, but hell if you catch one buttoned with its "pants down" while it is engaged with another friendly tank you "should" be able to get at least a few shots off) then perhaps we can put this Tac AI behaviour on the wish list for the CM II re-write.? So how about a tweak on the list for v1.02 that allows the tac AI to take into acount the "pants down factor" when catching turretless AFV's with a shot to the flank or rear? Again Enjoy the Turkey! In Canada we have to wait until Dec 25 for our next fix -tom w [ November 28, 2002, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Wow this is the first time I have seen a web banner for CMBB. found ithere this is what is looks like : good work nice to see CMBB being advertised at a MAC site -tom w

bump

does this need to be reviewed and perhaps tweaked before they release v1.02??? :confused: just curious? -tom w

Is this "The Song That Never Ends" or is it just "The Thread That Never Dies"? lol -tom w

I have not seen any "infantry heroes" in v1.01 like the infamous infantry heroes from CMBO! I like the infantry model in v1.01 much better, they are still a little "brittle" but no uselessly brittle. -tom w

this way point delay system is "sort of" the same for each side is it not? Does it create an unfair advantage for one player over the other? It is my opinion that "something" had to be done to simulate Russian tanks without radios and conscript infantry. So the new delay waypoint system is sort of an approximation or a compromise. I think it slows down the game and like the more "brittle" infantry model if you play a few games of CMBB you can get used to it and accomodate. The way point delay system sort of does what they intended and makes movement more complicated. less predictable and more difficult to co-ordinate, I think this is a good attempt to simulate poor co-ordination in command-communication and control systems on the Eastern Front. This aspect of the game does not bother me all that much really. -tom w

any more news on this one??? -tom w

any more news on this one??? -tom w

Just a guess? Is that the 2 man turret crew problem ( i.e. lack of dedicated loader?) Is the ammo so heavy they load it slowly? I'm just guessing -tom w

You got that RIGHT! Now the next big Challenge is Mac OSX and getting the BEST wargame of all time to run on that! :confused: -tom w

Hey Jeff Welcome! Thanks for Posting here! I hope you are enjoying CMBB and have time for a few PBEM with some of the dedicated fans over here. It is a SPECIAL game to be sure! It DID indeed deserve a %94 because of all the attention to detail and the customer support and the v1.01 patch and of course the EVEN better upcoming v1.02 patch! Thanks again! -tom w