Amizaur

The requirement of 360deg/60s for Tiger was really aboutn the rotation speed (no less than 6deg/s) than for time of 360deg rotation. It was just given this way. I agree with the rest of your post completly. I diidn't know that the 360deg/60s for Tiger has been demonstrated on 1500rpm . I knew it, technically, but it's good to know it has been proved . Currently the "time-to-target" is unrealistically reduced in the game, because of the istant rotation starting and stopping, and - usually (my persolnal feeling) a bit too short fine corrections/aiming time. The problem with turret dynamics, i.e. accelerating and slowing down it's rotation, could be fixed by simulating them Iin a simplified way) so it would actually move slower for small angles, and for larger rotations it would accelerate, rotate max speed and decelerate to give performance and feeling of real turrets. Or the "average speed for that rotation angle" could be calculated (again, with some simple formula assuming acceleration at stard and deceleration at end of turn) just before each rotation was commanded and the turret would just rotate with this average speed, starting instantly, rotating with less than max speed and stopping instantly. The feeling would still not be right, but the time-on-target, time required to point the turret, would be more realistic as not the max possible rotation speed would be used. Personally I would prefer to see turrets behaving more like real ones, also visually .

The angle of the hull (and turret) was taken into account in CMBB. I have played it for YEARS and would notice if there was no difference. I just tested it in CMBB to be sure. And it works. An angled Tiger is harder to kill than face-on Tiger. Just the difference is not easy to notice in CMBB, as Russian AP shells don't lose much of penetration for angles up to 30deg. But it can be noticed at large enough sample or carefully setting the range to make straight-on 0deg penetration possible and 30deg penetration impossible. It's also EASY to notice for side hull hits of 30-35deg angled Tigers. Side hull is virtually shell-proof then (giving around ~200mm effective protection).

WE NEED the flamethrowers NOW ! The game is useless without them !! ;(((

"How do you know how much coding it would take to add this. ????" I do not KNOW. But knowing a bit about coding, and how various games written in different languages work internally, I can suppose so. Usually changing some parameter of the working game code - like turret rotating speed, AT-gun setup/embarking time, length of the turn - is much more simple, than to make completly new vehicles, behaviours, orders, effects. Of course sometimes it's not that easy as changing a "60" number to "30" number somwhere in the code - there can be some dependances, some things can be optimised for 60s turns and MAYBE some additionals changes in code would have to be made. And an interface option for chosing 60 or 30s turns would have to be added, but adding new interface options (some yes/no requester or a window with two options to chose at start of scenario) is usually not that hard. On the other hand, coding something new - like a completly new order (new code depending on other code, for which maybe there is a lack of data passed to this part of code, so some arguments have to be added to various functions in differents parts of code, some maybe root ones - each one then tested troughly to be sure nothing was broken), or weapon (a flamethrower, again new code for units/AI to handle it, calculating damage done, graphics and effects, settings things on fire), a new tanks/vehicles (usually using existing code, but lot's of 3D and graphics, lot's of testing if they work properly, if the parameters are right) - it's usually much more work than some modifications of existing code. Here most of the time is spend on checking if the simple change done, didn't break something other and (one would thing) completly unrelated. To be honest, even a "simple" modification can sometimes require heavy modifications in much more fundamental parts of code, because some kind of data or information or parameter that would be needed, may be not available in the part of code that was to be enhanced. So other parts of code, functions, have to be modified, parameters added, working of everything troughly tested ect. On the other hand, if something is really needed, or should be fixed, the amount of work is not really excuse... Would be better to code everything right from the start, but it rarely happens and such enchancements just can't be avoided sometimes, if something is to be really corrected/done right. When I was working on some code I much preffered doing modifications and fine tunning to existing code and improving it, over coding completly new stuff but I'm a lazy person . For some others, coding the new stuff is exciting, and modyfing old, working one - boring . It was not making games, of course, only doing some minor modding work years ago (in games where with modding the code could be modified, things like actual unit behaviour, working of systems, parameters, not only GFX...). But I beliee even such simple modding work can give some understanding of how games/code work, and some general idea of what kind change/modification would be - probably - an easy and quick one, and what other kind of change/modification would probably require lot's of work, new coding and redoing of some things.

For sure it's different. But the CMx1 included some very well working and proven alghoritms, like some rules of unit behaviour, that could be used in CMx2 as a start point. If something didn't work good in CMx2 enviroment, it could be changed or improved then. Instead the alghoritms for CMx2 seem to be constructed from a scratch and lot's of them seem less optimal than the old CMx1 ones. What would be wrong if tanks after spotting an enemy behaved like in CMx1 ? So turned it's turret and hull twards the target, but the hull stopped for the time of aiming and shooting ? Is the rotating of the hull while the gunner is aiming realistic ? It would be impossible to hit anything this way. And it DOES make a problem in game also, sometimes. Tanks can't shoot because the aiming process is interrupted by the rotating hull dragging the barrel away from the target.

I'm sure you could explain us some of the difficulties of implementing an option for 30s turns? Yes, implementing and testing something like this is FOR SURE comparable in terms of required time and efforts to making a module... eh.... It's probably less effort than making a single vehicle for new module. I hate polls, but I guess most of the people playing WEGO would chose 30s turns if they could - it means more control on their troops, something one step closer to RT in terms of controlability, but still without the drawbacks of RT. [irony mode on] I would also suggest to abandon ANY improvements and just focus on the next modules. The game is definitely playable now. [irony mode off]. Ah yes, I see.... What is most important is the number of vehicles in the game... We are different kinds of players.

Because of time limit on the scenario ? Because something wrong or unexpected can happen at the beginning of the turn and you can't help your troops giving them different orders for a whole 60s (they can be dead after this time) and they are not smart enough, with their own AI, to react properly....? If one minute was so good and proper way to play then why bother with RT at all ? 60s was a compromise, but worked well for years. But we are not sure, if a different value like 30s would not work even better. The game became more complicated and faster in CMx2 incarnation, much more is happening, so maybe 30s turn time would be better suited ? We won't know for sure, until the betatesters try it and see if it makes a better gameplay, or maybe not much is gained (but also nothing lost). Well, if someone liked the 60s turns better, he could just click "go" making any orders after first 30s turn .

I'm supporting this idea with all my heart !! I'd love to see an option for 30s turns in WEGO. What is best, that should not be hard to impement. Just calculate 30s of play instead of 60s. Technically it would not be a problem to chose different time for every turn, for example start WEGO with 60s turns, and after first contact switch to 30s turns. Only the option to chose turn lenght would have to be added (coded).

Sherman turret rotation is probably (didn't meaasure this) about 3 times faster than Tiger turret rotation - so I would say the difference is big enough .

I would prefer to have AA guns and flamethrowers coded into the game rather, than "rpm dependant turret rotation speeds" ;P

And I have the opposite proble trying make use of At guns - a difficulity trying to get first shot against tanks (Panthers) from my 17pd AT guns. I just can't hide them efectively. Some Panthers are showing up at about 1000m range, frontally. My guns are not supposed to reliably hit and penetrate Panther's front at that range. I would prefer to wait untill Panthers close to about 500m before I order to open the fire, but it's impossible in the scenario I'm playing. My guns are detected by Panthers quickly from 1000m, engaged and destroyed. Maybe I would have some chance with some Forest of Heavy Forest tiles, but I cant' find any, and positioning them just under (and behind) trees (in some kind of park) or behing bushes doesen't work at all. They are detected easily. Guns seem to be simulated as bare, naked steel objects, not camuflaged at all, just a gun standing on grass between some tree trunks - even though I positioned them there at setup phase, so the game really COULD assume that the crews had time to camuflage them a bit. You know, dig-in them a bit, bring some branches with leaves and put them on the gun... Anything that would make it a little bit less recognisable from distance. I see various visual, graphical add-ons on tanks - like spare track links, sand bags ect. Couldn't AT guns positioned at setup phase with HIDE order - get some "stealthines" bonus, which would be visualised with some grass/bushes graphical add-on on put on the gun's shield ? After the gun fires first shot, the stealth bonus would be removed and the "camuflage" visual add-on would disappear too, leaving a "bare metal gun" apperance . This way, the "camuflage bonus" would be less abstracted, it would be visualised - you could see that there is some stuff on the gun (branches with leaves, tall grass) that makes it more difficult to spot. If it was not spotted, it would be understandable.

I wouldn't say it's wrong. Currently the game has one single turret rotation speed that has to reflect a reasonable, realistic AVERAGE turret rotation speed in various conditions. Additionaly, the turrets in game starts it's rotation INSTANTLY with the max speed, and stops also INSTANTLY on target - which decreases the time-to-target in comparison with real world turret dynamics (acceleration, rotation with max speed, slowing down close to target to not oversterr and then some fine corrections). Not easy to model, lot's of coding - as I guess there is no such thing as "engine RPM" currently in game . I would be happy with just reasonable average rotation speed, combined with simplified turret dynamics (no instant start/stop) and some time delay for fine corrections/precise aiming. Especially getting the elevation right - with hand crank - could take a second or two after rotating turret 90deg off. Yes it was designed to be, but it was only a partial success as we all know. And I would have to see some archival video or youtube video of restorated KT rotating it's HEAVY turret so fast, to believe in those rotation times.... I wonder if it was so fast in practice, as numbers say. As a side note: the widely regarded Tiger E turret maximum rotation speed is 360deg/60s so one minute for full turn. This is not true. Tiger turret rotation speed was also dependant on engine RPM and with max RPM it could rotate the turret faster, 360deg in about 45s at 2500 or 36s at 3000rmp IIRC. The 360deg/60s was the army requirement. The Porsche prototype used an electric turret drive, with the speed being exactly 360deg/60s as the army required. Same as in Panther D probably. The Henschel engineers wanted to use hydraulic RPM-dependant engine. But if rotating speed of their hydraulic turret drive was engine dependant, then at what RPM the required 360deg/60s should be achieved ? At min RPM ? At max RPM ? Engineers decided that it would be 360deg/60s at medium rpm, IIRC at about 1500 or 2000rpm, can't remember exact value now. This way, at max RPM the rotation was even a bit faster. All the authors and experts writing books about Tiger usually just quoted from each other this "one minute for full rotation" value, this - in fact - paper requirement - not wondering at all what this value really means, how it all worked, at what rpm was it, wouldn't 60s be a bit slow ?, and also why there are archival videos with Tigers rotating their turrets obviously faster than 6deg/s! Only in Spielberger books, where he describes the Tiger evolution, it's design and production process, how some of the mechanisms worked and what were the army requirements for them, one can find those informations.

Some additional results of tank turning tests: The tanks are turning with the same speed (deg/s) on every surface (even Light Forest, Mud and Rocky), with or without trees. The tank max speed seem to be same on every surface, with exeption of Mud and Light Forest. In Mud and Light Forest tank slows down. There is also much greater chance of bogging on those two. This also mean that max speed of tank moving on grass or plowed field is same as when moving on hard road or a highway. Didn't notice any change of max speed when a tank left a highway tiles and continued on ordinary "grass". The examples of turret rotation times are: ...................180deg...........360deg Panther.........14s..................28s Tiger E..........30s..................60s King Tiger......13s..................26s This means that the Tiger I has identical hull in-place turning speed as turret rotation speed (360deg/60s). If turning while moving it can rotate it's hull faster than turret (360deg/38s for hull). King Tiger has same speed of turret and "moving" hull rotating speed - 360deg/26s. Wonder if there are tanks that have their hulls faster than turret so the turret can't keep the aim properly with the driver trying to face front hull to the enemy . I had some other strange situation with a Firefly. The Firefly has a very fast turret, and much slower turning hull. One day my Firefly noticed a side-on buttoned Panther 100m away 80 deg to it's right side. The Firefly immediately started to rotate it's turret and in less than 3s it had the Panther in it's sights. The gunner went to "aiming" state. But simultaneously the driver started to rotate the tank in place to face the front hull to the enemy. It was rather slow in-place turning and it took ages. While turning the hull, it constantly "dragged" the barrel of the gun to the right, breaking the aiming process. When the the barrel was dragged more than 10-15deg off, Firefly gunner interrupted the aiming, went to rotating to point at the Panther again and returned to aiming. Before it finished with aiming, the barrel was again pointing 15deg to the right and again he had to rotate the turret and aim. Over and over, every few seconds. They did this for about 12s - tank turning in place to face the Panther, and the gunner constantly switching between rotating and aiming. In that time, the Panther managed to spot the Firefly, rotate the turret, aim and kill it right away . In general it's good that tanks are trying to face an enemy. Especially enemy tanks, I'm not sure they should rotate whole tank to face any single infantryman sen 100m away. But maybe the "computer driver" should get a "stop" command in the moment the turret is rotated to target and the gunner begins the aiming process. The aiming should have a priority over facing. After the gun was aimed and fired, the driver could resume the process of turning the tank to face the enemy - for the time or reloading. Then again stop it when the gunner is ready to shot. It would be also good if the tanks while trying to face the enemy were programmed to turn with the more efficient and faster way ("turning while moving method") instead of much slower "pivot turning".

I agree that it would help me a lot if the "buttoned" status was more easily recognised, than now.

The real "gun damage" after mantlet hits were happening, but I'm not sure how often and what kind of hit would it take (on average) to damage the elevation mechanism. The Bovington Tiger had elevation mechanism damaged after a boucing hit on the mantlet. I read an accout of Tiger in Russia having it's elevation mechanism damaged (one of the pivots, left or right, that the mantlet with the gun is mounted on, has broken) from a shock of 76mm shell hit on the mantlet. But I guess it was rather rare, as the Tiger was supposed to take a lot of punch from guns up to 76mm, if mantlet hits often caused damage, it would be redesigned probably. We all seen lot's of pictures of battered Tiger and Panther mantlets, with multiple medium-calliber hit marks. On the other hand, I can't remeber reading a lot of accounts of tanks being send back to this kind of repairs. Rather incidental ones. An optics damage or misalligment would be a lot more common. On the third hand , tanks in general rarely took a hevy pounding - most of tanks seen on pictures don't have any visible hit marks, because the tankers fought in a proper way - that they usually hit the enemy, not being hit themselves. The tank armor is to protect the crew from small callibers and from accidental hits of heavier callibers, that they couldn't avoid, not to be used as a medieval "shield". Only in Russia, where massive concentrations of AT-guns happened, tanks took a lot of hits, but those were mostly 45mm, some 76mm hits. The mantlets in those tanks were big, massive hunks of metal and probably were usually able to absorb the shock. But every such hit probably strained the pivots and the shock/vibrations made a fair chance of main gun optics being misalligned or even damaged. Now, taking a non-penetrating hit from higher calibers or higher energy weapons - like 17pd, 85mm, 122mm - is probably another story and the chance for damaging the mechanisms and optics are going up drastically. But that's not a big problem as chances for the tank surviving such hit, are going down even faster. As for the game, I think gun damage (excluding optics damage) happens too often in this game for some tanks. Aftyer reading a lot of tankers memoirs, I don't remember reading of tank guns being disabled that easy and often in combat. It should happen - sometimes. Just like an occasional vehicle breakdown. I remember tanks in CMx1 breaking on their own sometimes, even in the middle of the road - it was not too frequent, so rare that it wasn't breaking the game. On the other hand it was NOT so rare, to ignore it while buying tanks . After one or two games where our single, precious, uber tank (like Panter or Tiger) just broke down right after moving from setup zone , we were more cautions not to "put all the eggs to one basket" and rather spend our points on 2-3 inferior PzIVs than 1-2 uber Tigers/Panthers...

Yes it could. But only in favorable terrain, with a competent driver. If we are going to see in game tank turn rates decreased for heavier types of terrain (forest, sand, rocky, mud, ect) then I'm all for increasing the max turn speed possible on hard, FLAT surface. But as its it now, the turn speed reflects some average value in various circumstances so I do not think the tanks are maneuvering too slow currently. In most youtube videos real tanks are maneuvering slower than that, especially when the terrain is not as good (a flat compressed soil here, without any roughness, rocks, tree trunks). Not always there is an urgent need and possibility (flat hard surface) for "max performance turns". It would be done probably only when facing an enemy and terrain is favorable. Normal maneuvering, position changing, would be done slower, to not strain the running gear, to not provoke a breakdown or dropping of a track. Normal turning, if there is only a bit of place and time for that, would be done while moving, not with blocking one track completly -turning while moving is much less straining for the running gear and also usually faster.

So, did some simple testing and I'm not too happy with results. Seem for me that the maneuvering speed of a tank (how quickly it can turn) doesn't depend on: - crew experience - regulars rotating hteir tanks just as fast as elite - type of underlaying terrain - same turning speed and maneuvering performance measured on grass, plow, road, highway, forest. Only the speed seem to be different. - maneuvering in trees seem also not affect the speed of turning - type of movement order (slow, move, quick, fast, whatever - the tank turns the same, only the max speed is different). Now, the measured times for turning a tank 180deg The times were measured roughly, they may be ~1s off, do not take them as absolute. First number is turning a tank in place (by ordering a facing order to the rear) - a tank then slowly rotates in place, rotating one track forward and the other backwards. (in reality, there were only a few tanks that were capable of this type of turning in WW2) Second number, is a time of 180dg turn on the move - after ordering movement order directly to the rear - the tank then rotates much more quickly, not exactly turning in place, rather doing a very tight circle. Times of 180 deg turn for CMBN:CW tanks Tank......In place.........Moving Stuart.......38s..............24s M10..........44s..............28s Sherman....44s..............29s Cromwell....44s..............28s Churchil.....45s..............30s StugIII.......45s..............22s PzIVG.........57s..............25s PantherG.....57s..............25s Tiger E........60s.............20s King Tiger...168s.............13s No, it's not a typo. The King Tiger turns in place about 2-3 times slower than any other tank. After most of them completed their 180deg turn, the KT didn't even complete half of it. And the second strange number is also not a typo. While turning on the move, the KT is by far the fastest turning tank in the game ! It turns 180deg in 13s, and 90deg turn in half of that.... In any terrain. Be it road, pavement, grass, plow, even in trees (probably also in mud, sand and rocky - not 100% sure but can't remember seeing any difference, when driving and turning KT on various tiles) - it turns just as fast. I hope it's an error, a typo in data editing or something like that and will be corrected. Combine this KTs off-road maneuverability with very fast turret, most powerfull gun, very thick armor, speed and acceleration only a little worse than for PzIVG, combine this with too fast target aquision and aiming (common for all CMBN tanks) and we have a truly uber tank. A machine of death, quickly rotating it's gun and thick frontal armor to any detected target (even a target 90deg off, it takes only few seconds to rotate gun and little longer to rotate whole tank - especially in RT, using Move command), then aiming for maybe a second and killing it. Today's MBT is reacting, maneuvering and killing it's targets slower than this "prehistoric" beast... Off-topic P.S. Also, while running those test scenarios, when accidentally some Allied tanks got some LOS on German tanks or vice versa, I noticed than tanks after seeing a target in front of them, opened fire in about 3 seconds, not longer. This is time of reaction for CMBN tanks against targets detected in front of them. Tank spotted ! Rapid move of the fast turret, the shells is always in the chamber (and always the needed type), then less than a second of aiming (sometimes a bit longer) and a shot. Robotic !! Again, gunners in today's MBT can only dream for such performance... I'm not saying the accuracy is too good. No, I believe it's ok. Just that it all happens WAY too fast on many different stages of engagement (detection, identification, decision, orders (internal communications), crew executing orders, the aiming process. In game all this always happens as fast, as it's physically possible (if the tank was manned by cyborgs..) - and probably even faster. In real world it would only sometimes (with a very good crew and if in danger) be so fast, but usually slower, sometimes much slower in case of some communication problems or the crew having some difficulties manning the tank systems - not every man is fastest gunner on the planet... every time...). I hope that eventually BF will add some random delays for various stages of tank engagements, simulating actions of the commander and crewmembers and information flow between crewmembers). It should of course depend on crew experience, but still include random factors.

I meant, a kind of _underlain terrain_ tile. Nothing more. I can see the type and density of trees / bushes with my eyes. I'm only not sure about type of underlaying terrain tiles.

I think that after doing some "synthetic" tests, with as few variables as possible, and estabilishing some general results, the next step would be to try to recreate one of bizzare cases of strange spotting problems reported here in forums. Because it may be that the spotting mechanism is absolutely OK in general, but some details of terrain and geomtetry are causing unexpected glitches that only happen in specific situations (it may depend on terrain type, distance, angles, height, maybe light, or the way the spotting checks are calculated, who knows...). So after checking the spotting performance in general, I would try to set units and tanks in the very same places of the very same map as shown on pictures and try see if the same thing happens. If it happens, then I would try to investigate what specifically causes this, or send the save file to devs maybe they have better tools to analyse it. ---> poesel71: The "team A spotted team B but team B didn't spot team A at all" phenomena is strange, maybe should not happen in the game. But I think it's not completly unrealistic in terms of real-world. On edges of effective spotting distance, it could happen that member of team A using binocs accidetally spotted an almost-invisible team B member. After it spotted it, it knows where to look and it can maintain contact with it, while being very carefull to not be seen by him. Then it can observe guys from Team B for hours, and they - having very little chance and being less lucky - may not notice him. But I'm not sure something like that is and/or should be modelled in the game. Do you know maybe, if the light conditions - especially the sun direction - affects the spotting ? Is this "unequal spotting performance" direction-related or maybe random ? Are your teams positioned "equally" regarding the sun direction, I mean sun being from the side ?

Wouldn't it be usefull if the kind of terrain tile a unit is located in, was displayed somwhere in unit's data ? I remember.... No, I won't say that It would be just nice to know what kind of terrain my AT-gun is in, without remembering how every kind of tile looks like (and what mods that could change it's look I have installed...) Ok, I can buy it that there was an abstracted heavy foliage betwen the tank hunter team and the tank. They could in fact not see it. But the tank should not see them either. And when the distance decreases, as they are closing in carefully, then I believe that in 90% of cases they should have better chance spotting first a SHOOTING tank (that they know is there), than the shooting tank's chances to spot those tank-hunters trough all that bushes !! But from many of such reports there seem that when there is a difficult LOS, a buttoned tank has a better chance spotting soldiers trough bushes, than soldiers to spot a tank. And while I could try to understand difficulties with spotting a stationary, non-shooting, green-painted, quiet (with disabled engine) tank hidden in a forest - I believe it could sometimes spot a moving man first... then I can't understand numerous reported cases when soldiers can't "outspot" a roaring and shooting tank on a road - before it spots them.... Well, it 100% realistic game it could happen... but it should be so rare, that a single case could be described here in forums every year or so. To this moment I was not 100% sure that sound contacts are possible in CMBN at all... Never seen a contact that I was sure could be only estabilished by sound, for example a "?" mark behind a buliding where no one of my men could see... I'm glad they exist. I would add - impossible and happening A BIT too frequently .... Regards

That's maybe fine... The Panther had worse width/length ratio than the Tiger... on the other hand Panther was 10 tons lighter tank with same engine, it should give it a same or better turning capability, and ESPECIALLY better off-road. What makes me more upset is tha the overweighted KT seem to also have better turning (and maybe off-road, I didn't test yet) than the Panther !! The KT seem as nimble maneuvering off-road like today's best MBTs... Especially turning in place is very quick for KT. Wait, that was the impression from some games, now let me test it...

Well, those guys were in a tank - so I believe they coudln't hear the Tiger being so close, then. I dont' believe it would be possible in case of an infantry squad.... Unless they all had their eardrums damaged...

I'd like to clear something for Jon. The issue "if a tank should move to first contact by TC only, or move further untill it's main gun has LOS to the target" is a separate issue I didn't even touch. I was talking purely about another issue: "should the hunting tanks stop and cancel their route after seeing a target, or maybe better would be they countinued the hunt, if the target disappears and becomes a "?". The LOS issue is important too, but it's more complicated and harder to fix. Some decisions about wanted behaviour and much testing would be required. I don't touch it. I'd like to fix the "hunt route canceled by momentary contacts" issue which is MUCH more simple. I'd like correcting the "Hunt" command in a way, that if the tank stops after seeing a target, and the target disappears and becomes a "?", the tank can wait a moment but then it CONTINUES on it's route. That it doesn't stop for a rest of whole turn after seeing ANYTHING. If you feel the current "Hunt" logic is useful, the "new" Hunt logic could be made a separate new command, and the name of current one changed to "Move to contact" (or to "Go find something" if one doesn't like CMx1 names). Now Jon, tell me why would that be wrong ? To have the Hunt order working like that (better yet - while retaining the "Move to contact" logic in another command). How often would be the "continue" logic worse than "stop and stay" ? Let's see. First example, very frequent situation: As it is now: a tank moves and sees a distant infantry contact. It stops. After one second the infantry contact disappears and becomes a "?". The tank sits there for a rest of WEGO turn. New logic: a tank moves and sees a distant infantry contact. It stops. After one second the infantry contact disappears and becomes a "?". The tank waits 5-10s and continues hunting forward, on it's designated route. I like the second behaviour better. It's neded much more often than a "scouting" first one. I can scout with infantry better. Second example - a guess, a rather rare one: As it is now: a tank moves and sees an ATG gun, but only the TC spots it, the main gun has no LOS. Tank stops. It can not shoot at the AT gun, the AT gun maybe can and is shooting the top of it's turret. The tank is either killed, or doing nothing, or popping smoke and reversing after talking few hits. New logic: a tank moves and sees an ATG gun, but only the TC spots it, the main gun has no LOS. Tank stops. It can not shoot at the AT gun, the AT gun maybe can and is shooting the top of it's turret. The tank is either killed, or doing nothing, or popping smoke and reversing after talking few hits. Now, in the second example, including mentioned LOS problems - why would the new logic - "continue if the target is lost for more than 5 or 10 seconds" - be WORSE here ? The tank would be doing exactly the same things like now. Nothing improved here, but nothing broken either - regarding LOS problems. What I propose isn't a solution for LOS issues - it's solution for Hunt routes being "canceled" by momentary contacts. The LOS issues, the difference between spotting by TC and gunner is a separate issue I'm not even coming into. So please don't bring it as an argument against, if the tank behaviour in both cases would be exactly THE SAME. So not worse for sure. And if you, personally, don't want the tank to continue on the route after the target disappears, if you prefer it to stay there, well, then you could use the "Move to contact" order. And if there is no "Move to contact" order (because the new "Hunt" replaced old "Hunt" and no orders were added) then.... maybe you are expecting too much ? Maybe you could get this behaviour you need in some other way - for example using a combination of other orders, or - better - just spot the target with another unit (infantry) and then move the tank with ordinary movement order to that place ? Well, use your creativity. Just as you are suggesting to me. If I have to explain what a "perfect solution fallacy" is, then: it's not when someone "rejects the reality" - there is a differen word for that Jon - but when someone likes the current state of some things so IN A DISCUSSION he rejects any proposed improvement argumenting that "it's not perfect". Only perfect solution would please him. (But we know, they wouldn't - he just likes the things to stay as they are, and demand for perfect solution is for him just an argument against any imperfect changes, so - in reality - against ANY changes.... because there rarely are any perfect solutions...). Now, it doesn't really fits that situation, does it ?

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. I do not expect it. I expect reasonable "non-stupidity" (with some exeptions, that do happen in reality too). 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. 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. 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. 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... Again, some kind of "exaggeration fallacy". Nobody so far requested such complicated orders, so why do you worry about it already ? 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. 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. 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...

The most important thing for me about the Hunt command (correcting it's behaviour) would be one of two things: - after the spottet target disappears, the tank with "Hunt" command resumes it's route or - a tank with "Hunt" command ignores infantry threat Because most frustrating for me is when I plot a "Hunt" command for a tank in WEGO and 10 seconds into the turn it spots some infantry or just "something" for a milisecond, not a lasting but momentary contact that disappears leaving a "?" mark, and then... it just sits there for the rest of the minute. It's basically a logic of CMx1 "Move to contact" order. I can't advance tanks this way. Most of my "Hunt" commands are neutralised by some temporary infantry/other contacts that disappears instantly. Often those contacts disappears before the moving tank manages to stop! If I used a "Slow" command instead, then my tanks would NOT stop if a real threat, an enemy tank or AT gun, shows up. It would continue slow and fire on the move with poor accuracy. If I try to plot a quick-pause-quick-pause route, this is also not good - because my crews "are not trained" to fire from short stops. It would be just random if with quick-pause-quick-pause pattern, they fired the main gun on the move and reloaded while stopped, or fired while stationary and reloaded on the move. With the "old" CMx1 Hunt command, they would stop and engage, but if target disappeared - they would continue hunting. Contacts that show only for splits of second would not "cancel" the move and the tank would advance until a "solid" contact was found, which could be engaged. In case of enemy tank, it would stop and engage too. This would be not ideal solution, but WAY better than what the "Hunt" does now. Maybe SOMETIMES I would prefer the tank stopped and stayed in place where it first saw the enemy, even if the enemy contact disappeared later. But MUCH MORE OFTEN I'd prefer the tank continued to Hunt after the target disappears. So the argument that "something bad can happen if the tank continues" is not valid for me. Many bad things happen now - when my tanks are late, not advancing (because the Hunt orders are being neutralised by random contacts) or when I try to advance with other commands (slow, quick-pause) and get shot while on the move. I prefer my tanks to continue hunting, EVEN if SOMETIMES this would happen to be dangerous. If I'd HAVE TO chose one command to have, one logic only - a CMx1 "Move to contact" logic or CMx1 "Hunt" logic, I would prefer the "Hunt" one. The "Move to contact" logic would be lost, but new more usefull "Hunt and engage and if lost the target, continue to hunt" logic would be gained The best solution would be of course if I could choose - while plotting a "Hunt" waypoint - if it is sensitive for infantry or is ignoring them, and if the tank after seeing viable target stops and cancels the rest of the route, or stops to engage BUT resumes the route if the target disappears. But almost every command could be enchanced this way and I hope they will be). For example "Target" order could be enchanced with some options too - weapon to use (heavy wepons, light weapons) and - in case of main gun - how many shells to spend on target (maybe I only need 2-3 shells of area fire and not a barrage for a whole WEGO turn). I may want my AT-Gun to just fire once, or two shells, not for a whole turn. Cover arc order could be enchanced with separate sub-arcs for armored/not armored targets, or just "armor only" option. I have feeling that current orders base is optimised for RT playing. Orders for RT play have to be simple, because they have to be used quickly, there is no time to chose sub-options, you just want to click once. On the other hand, they can be simple, becase they can be changed in every moment. The cover arc can be removed in every moment, if I order an area fire in RT game, I can easily fire 2-3 shells only - after they are fired, I just cancel the are fire. The movement order can be canceled if a target shows up, the "hunt" order can be just repeated if some "mirage" momentary enemy contact "cancels" it. Unfortunately, we can't do all those things in WEGO mode. We plot orders and have no way to corrent them or micromanage units for a whole minute . Simple orders are not enough here. We need either more kinds of orders in WEGO mode, or some sub-options for the base orders. The time spend while plotting them is not the case in orders phase.