Guest PeterNZ Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 reagarding targetting. I can see your point, but generally i find that when you loose the ability to control the targetting you don't WANT to be controling it anyway! Let me explain. Was playing yeserday, and had some guys hidding. I was all set to have them ambush some folks, but then my plan went AWOL somewhere and i end up nigh-surrounded by bad guys. In this situation, i don't see the point of targetting each unit, never did the same in CC series either. Units will take the best shots they can on a continuing basis throughout the turn, and frankly, hte best shots is what i want, not my .0001% chance shot i think they should be taking! Another point, targeting is usefull for setting up ambushes, targets at the end of a move order and so on, infact i think theres a lot of complexity here. Rgards to moving being the game. Well actually, i rather like that aspect of it. The fact that moving hte troops is very important. Movement and timming are the key, not pointing the guns hehe. To go away totally from the genre, this is what bores me to tears about the Mech games. You just clomp around like a small bld. then stop or slowly circle your opponent shooting till he's dead! Where's the game there? I know lots of people loved it... but fighting one other bot on large flat plain was about as exciting as playing where's the nose goblin. PeterNZ, mostly irrelevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 I'm not about to get hugely involved in the fray again ( F1 Grand Prix will start soon) but about the troops etc. 1. These comments show how other games have given people unrealistic expectations about troop fire discipline etc.. Basically once the firing starts your troops fire at what they want. Personally I have VERY few occasions when troops retarget. Probably that is because due to my experience with the game I am allocating the most effective targets to my troops and so they don't see any point in re-targetting. If you are having a lot of trouble with your troops re-targetting I suggest you look at what they are retargetting to and ask yourself what you can LEARN from this Basically, I usually manage to button all 3 German tanks with MG fire. I do this because I target them extensively PRIOR to the infantry vs infantry fight.. Then, when the infantry vs infantry fight begins my MGs are ready to fire on infantry. I have a feeling some people are trying to target tanks while German infantry are purposefully advancing on their positions and therefore the MGs are saying "screw that, we're killing the infantry who are coming right for us".. Usually if CM re-assigns targeting then you were targeting incorrectly anyways. When I first had the beta I had a lot of problems with it retargeting but by this stage I rarely have it retarget my fire. YOU have got to choose pretty good targets for it or it will retarget though (it protects you from yourself ) ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Bill- "I have played two times now. Under another topic I asked why my troops ignored my targeting commands and fired at other units. I got the answered I expected. The troops make a decision to fire at what they perceive as a more immediate danger. If that happens all the time, why bother to have the option to select a target for your troops. Doesn't game play come down to ordering your troops to go to a certain spot where they will then decide what to do?" DOES it happen all of the time? As far as choosing a target for your troops and them getting a different idea, what is their experience level, their morale, what kind of target did you choose for them, what did they switch to, what was the distances to the targets? If you tell a rifle squad to target a Tiger 100 meters away and a German squad is only 20 meters away, don't you expect (and want) them to switch targets? Would a "veteran" squad be more likely to stay on target that a "green"? Kraut- What did the MG switch to from the tank? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraut Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Well fionn, i gotta disagree with this whole idea/post. I know my MG has a 28% hit chance on that infantry 300 meters away which is running in the open. But i want to suppress/kill the infantry squad in the woods 80 meters away, on which i have a 25% hit-cahnce, because it's more important at that time ! I want to eliminate THAT attacker, on THAT flank, not some other infantry squad at the other end of the map. The more i play, the more i see this "feature" as something really bad for gameplay, realistic or not. It surely takes away some of the fun for me. The game is basically saying "hey, you might WANT to target that squad over there, but this one over here has a higher hit-chance, so screw you, i'm targeting it for you now !" ... really not pleasent. MK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 I really hate to jump into this but... I think Hagen has a valid point you guys have entirely missed. (Hagen) "If the only way I am going to know that my mortar team is hitting that advancing enemy squad is by zooming in close to the enemy team and listening for the paper dolls to go 'ouch' and 'medic' then something is wrong.(I can't do this is real life, can I?)" I must say I agree. In this example if I spend the possibly huge amount of time to sit with each of the enemy's units and mine during the replay in an busy turn in "view 1" I would have enough info to predict with some certainty how many enemy infantry were hit by the number of "ouch" and "medic" calls I got. This is a loss in FOW. It might not be exact but it is definitely good intel. to have. BUT, if I don't spend the time to sit in first person, in a place were I should not be anyway (an ENEMY unit!), I do not gain this information. How can this be a good thing? If the information is in the game to be used should CM force the gamer to dig so hard to get it? And in this situation from what I am reading as responses you guys are saying this information should not even be there...if so that's great! Take it out. If not then give me a turn over-view or add it to the units "kills" as "probables" or something. Do you really want your opponent to have an advantage in PBEM because he can spend three hours per turn in first person with each an every unit, taking notes? This is not a game-killer or anything. I just feel the man has a valid point and you guys are acting a little like piranhas (Fionn: Oscar is gone, lighten up okay? ) Perhaps this is an issue for the V1.2 patch or CM2. As for the graphics thing, they look great to me. Best I have ever seen in a 3d wargame. As always just my 2 cents. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard [This message has been edited by Scott Clinton (edited 10-30-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PeterNZ Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 FIONN: "therefore the MGs are saying "screw that, we're killing the infantry who are coming right for us".. " Anyone else hear southpark voices at that line? PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 MK, I must admit that without an autosave or a screenshot I can't give much more reasoning behind this. I have only seen retargetting occur when the %s were MUCH greater than a 25%-28% split. I love this feature but you guys hate it.. I think maybe you just need to get used to it some more. No offence meant there at all. I;'m just trying to tell it like I see it... In time I'm sure you'll see the reason why retargeting is good ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 (SC) I think Hagen has a valid point you guys have entirely missed. (Hagen) "If the only way I am going to know that my mortar team is hitting that advancing enemy squad is by zooming in close to the enemy team and listening for the paper dolls to go 'ouch' and 'medic' then something is wrong.(I can't do this is real life, can I?)" (SC) I must say I agree. In this example if I spend the possibly huge amount of time to sit with each of the enemy's units and mine during the replay in an busy turn in "view 1" I would have enough info to predict with some certainty how many enemy infantry were hit by the number of "ouch" and "medic" calls I got. This is a loss in FOW. It might not be exact but it is definitely good intel. to have. BUT, if I don't spend the time to sit in first person, in a place were I should not be anyway (an ENEMY unit!), I do not gain this information. --------------------------------------------- My question is this. I think its kinda of gamey to do this, but to prevent this would you have them add floating % labels showing damage which occured to a unit? You already get a kill count on units that are nearby, and on distant units, you get a rough idea of casualty figures by counting if there are 1, 2 or 3 "men" shown for the unit. I can't imagine that from 100+ meters, that you can tell if a unit is broken, panic, or just turning tail and redeploying away from your unit in real life while under fire, so why should you get info like that in this game. I tend to agree with Fionn and BTS that players have grown accustomed to the info give by other games while under FOW, and it's taking a bit of effort to get used to making decisions based on having little hard, or even accurate (in some cases) intel on your enemy. Mikey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Mikey: "...would you have them add floating % labels showing damage..." No, nothing of the sort has been suggested. "You already get a kill...a rough idea..." True, but you can get a much less 'rough idea' but using the 1st person view and a pencil and paper to jot down the enemy's crys when hit. And for the record if the unit has NO graphic (just a cross or star) then you get zero information about hits otherwise. "I can't imagine that from 100+ meters, that you can tell if a unit is broken, panic, or just turning tail and redeploying away from your unit in real life while under fire, so why should you get info like that in this game. I tend to agree with Fionn and BTS that players have grown accustomed to the info give by other games while under FOW, and it's taking a bit of effort to get used to making decisions based on having little hard, or even accurate (in some cases) intel on your enemy." You make MY case for me very well. If this is so then why can I zoom in and count the number of hits by listening? Perhaps this should be removed altogether? I would be all for that. ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Mikey: "...would you have them add floating % labels showing damage..." SC: "No, nothing of the sort has been suggested." That's the problem, what would Hagen suggest be added that would provide the information he wants while not taking away from the FOW. Mikey: "You already get a kill...a rough idea..." SC: "True, but you can get a much less 'rough idea' but using the 1st person view and a pencil and paper to jot down the enemy's crys when hit. And for the record if the unit has NO graphic (just a cross or star) then you get zero information about hits otherwise." What BTS should do, as long as it does not delay the final much if any, is to change the sound volume to be based on the location of the nearest enemy unit that can hear, and not in relation to the distance of the "camera". If a .50 cal opens up on a GER infantry at 500 meters, then you should not hear anything from that squad if you hit, even if you put the camera right on top. but if that squad happens to be 50 meters away from a hidden US 1/2 squad hiding in nearby woods when that distant .50 opens up, then you should hear. And on the star/cross thing... I'm not aware that you could target those things, but even if you could, remember that those are not unidentified unit icons, but enemy unit location markers for enemies that you no longer have a LOS or any other info on. There may no longer be anything at that spot, since it's just the last known location, so you shouldn't get any info at all. Mikey: "I can't imagine that from 100+ meters, that you can tell if a unit is broken, panic, or just turning tail and redeploying away from your unit in real life while under fire, so why should you get info like that in this game. I tend to agree with Fionn and BTS that players have grown accustomed to the info give by other games while under FOW, and it's taking a bit of effort to get used to making decisions based on having little hard, or even accurate (in some cases) intel on your enemy." SC: You make MY case for me very well. If this is so then why can I zoom in and count the number of hits by listening? Perhaps this should be removed altogether? I would be all for that. So we agree... like I said above, and since BTS replied that it's being looked into, that if this means a loss of a feature to get in or a decent delay in releasing the game... then leave it be. If it can be changed easily, maybe like I outlined above, then I'm all for rooting out another gamey aspect. BTW, if none of the beta testers had pointed this out before this thread appeared, maybe I suggest two candidates for the CM2 beta? Sound good to you SC? Mikey [This message has been edited by Mikeydz (edited 10-31-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSY Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 I'm with Hagen and Scott on the lack of information issue. I think Tim's comment that CM is really a "Tactical Combat Simulator" is dead on. The problem is, I don't want a tactical combat simulator I want a tactical level wargame. I understand CM's approach to fog of war, and I think it's a good one. I certainly don't have a problem with generic units, or no information on enemy casualties, if that information cannot be gotten in any other way. However, if I'm supposed to be getting the information by scrolling the map and replaying the turn over and over again so I can hear the "ouch" and "medic" calls, that's just nuts. I really feel like the interface is getting in the way of my playing the game and that's really annoying. Perhaps, I'm just not used to the game, but I find that I have to play the turns over and over again while searching for information on what's happening, and I don't enjoy that. So hear's a question for the CM experts--how many times do you typically replay the turn, and what are your strategies for getting the most information with the least number of replays? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraut Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Fionn, "lord of the CM realm", lol, i'll be sure to get a few screenshots of what i feel is no-good retargeting in the next games i play. I posted this reply about the retargeting during an actual PBEM (or more like PBICQ) game, so my memory is quite fresh. I can swear that i targeted a SS squad at 80m with an exposure of 25%, with my MMG. I needed to suppress this team because a position even closer to that enemy team was being overrun. So it was damn important ... Well, the MMG only fired once (not sure if it fired once or not at all, but i'll assume now, it fired once) at my assigned target, then turned some 60% to fire at a target which had 28% exposure at around 300m(granted the exposure was measured by myself after the 60 secs were over, but since the squad was coming closer in open ground, i assume the exposure couldn't have been much more or less than 28% during the 60 secs of action). Basically, all i'm trying to tell you folks is that i don't like it when my men don't do hat i say (sound kinda stupid huh?). I do enjoy it when they "misbehave" occasionally, but not regualarly and as a given. I am the commander, i want to make decisions, and i say: "Soldier, shoot up that target!", or maybe i'll say: "Fire at anything from 11 to 1 o'clock, don't mind about anything else!". I like to think that a game is about making interesting decisions. So if a game takes decisions away from you on a regular basis, even if it's more advantageous for your forces, then i the game is lacking. MK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 I think there's a misunderstanding here about how often troops will retarget away from what the player has ordered. They don't do it because they think another target is 1% better. Or even 10 or 20% better. If it's a lot better, or an immediate threat, then they may retarget. They give a heavy weight to the unit the player has selected and only switch away when there is a significant reason for doing so (which can also be something as simple as the original target going out of LOS). About the "having to zoom in on the target and count the screams" thing: we're not going to put in little text labels and such which show information no battlefield commander would ever have. However, we might take *out* the little casualty animations/sound effects for enemy units that have not been fully spotted. That way there's no advantage for zooming in on them. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 If your guys are CONSTANTLY retargeting, then I would put forward the opinion that it is player error, not the game's. I only say this because I have been playing CM for 2 years, and have seen the improvements over time to the targeting priorities. It isn't perfect, but it is not as scatterbrained as you seem to think it is. I almost never have my units retarget, even when the situation gets really dicey. If I can do it, so can you. The game doesn't treat me any differently than any of you out there. BTW, if your guys DIDN'T target on their own Combat Mission would suck and all of you would be complaining that targeting is stupid. I can say this for sure because there was a time when there was little to no retargeting code written. Your guys would happily plug away at whatever you pointed them at and totally ignore surprises and looming doom. So, either the game retargets or you get your ass handed to you in the most unrealistic, unfair way imaginable (or the opposite, i.e. you win unrealistically). I really don't see the choice here Combat Mission is all about movement and deployment, tactics and strategy. It is not about targeting orders being a slave to user whims. The old IGOUGO system was more about targeting rather than movement IMHO. I found movement in Steel Panthers to be particullarly dull and unrealistic (VERY unrealistic). Close Combat did a much better job, but the lack of waypoints for the first two made it clicking the most important aspect of the game. There are also many historical flaws that directly affect the realism level too. CM emphasises movement and tactics above all else. Therefore, some of the things that WERE the heart of other games are not as important in Combat Mission. Some of you will get used to it, others will cling to old learned ways. We can't help that, so whatever happens happens. Breaking the mold is always difficult, and you never take everybody with you. We have known this for 2 years, so it comes as NO surprise to us now. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingtiger Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Charles, We all knew that they didn't retarget all the time. However, some of us war gamers are still mentally frozen within hex based war games and the very simple "If-Then" rules that drive them. With "If-Then" mentalities common misconceptions include: "If I saw a couple units retargeting then it must be based on a simple if-then rule and occur all the time". Richard Kalajian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 PSY, I would be curious to hear what is the difference between a "tactical simulation" and a "tactical wargame". If you mean that one is realistic and the other is just a game, well then Combat Mission probably wasn't designed for you (no offense intended here). However, if you simply don't want the level of realism and detail that the Fog of War brings, not to mention the challenges it presents, turn Fog of War off. Pretty simple fix. I generally replay a turn about 2-3 times, but as few as once and as many as 6 (the latter is more for "cool" factors than info). I generally use Camera 3 and 4 for the most part. I never, ever use cameras 5-8. I see no point in them other than for initial deployment. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 BTW.. About the retargeting.. I presume you guys are aware that the squad you select to target CAN pop out of view for a few seconds and cause the MG to retarget to a visible enemy squad? I've heard some evidence of that happening and being mistaken for "stupid unecessary AI targeting" LOL... The AI here is pretty solid. If it seems to do something stupid REALLY look into it before assuming it made a major error. Very often there's a very reasonable explanation. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSY Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> PSY, I would be curious to hear what is the difference between a "tactical simulation" and a "tactical wargame". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> A simulation tries to make the player feel as if he is there. It uses sights and sounds to increase immersion. In a true simulation of a infantry company commander, we would try to simulate the confusion found in the battlefield by reducing the information to what a true company commander would know about. Note that this isn't the same as what his troops know, it's specifically what the commander knows. I've seen several comments on this thread that suggest that many people think that that's what CM is aiming for. For example Preacher says "How do i know if my fire is suppressing the enemy? Watch him. Does he go to ground? Does he reduce his volume of fire?" Kingtiger notes: "watch the soldiers closely, they will provide other clues about being hit. An example is head will bob backwards. Another example is the arghh sound made immediately after being hit. My favorite is when the soldier cries "MEDIC". " Now obviously CM isn't a completely accurate Company Commander simulation , but it's headed in that direction. What do I see as a Tactical Wargame. Well, it's more of a "game". Not in the sense that it's inaccurate and "gamey", but more in the sense that it's at a higher level of abstraction. It's a intellectual excercise done either for military training or for fun. It doesn't assume that we know any more than the total sum of what our troops know, but it does assume that anything that our troops do know we also know. It may also assume that information has been processed for us by our staff. For example, those head bobs which we see in CM indicate that casualties have been taken. If our troops see that the enemy has had some casualties, this can be processed and filtered back to the company commander as "our troops report that the enemy in the big stone house are taking casualties and the volume of their fire has been reduced". I don't have to go watch the troops in the stone house and see them take hits. I don't have to watch each individual enemy unit to see if their volume of fire is slacking off. Instead the information is passed to me and has already been processed and evaulated. Note that I'm not suggesting that our "Tactical Wargame" provides more information than CM already presents to me, I'm just saying that the information is presented to us in a clear and lucid format. I think this last part is really the crux of what I find problematic about CM. I don't see the information known to my troops presented to me in a clear and cohesive manner. Instead the interface is designed to provide an immersive experience, but as a result, the information is harder to find. Yes, I can find out information on troop casualties by listening for screams and calls for medic. I can estimate the effect my troops are having on the enemy by carefully watching each unit's drop in firing volume. Yes, I can determine my own troop status by clicking on each of them. But there is no quick and easy way to tell what's going on. We could present the information known by adding a Table of Organization for our troops, by adding casualty and moral indicators for our own troops, and perhaps some indicator of enemy troop status as far as is known given FOW. This would make it much easier for a player to see exactly what was going on. It would also make the experience less immersive. Of course that's a game design decision, and if you want to keep it immersive at the cost of making information harder to find, that's your call. But that's why I think Tim was correct when he suggested CM is a "tactical combat simulator". It's really kind of a wargame/simulator hybrid. Personally, I would have prefered just a wargame. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> However, if you simply don't want the level of realism and detail that the Fog of War brings, not to mention the challenges it presents, turn Fog of War off. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I certainly don't have a problem with the FOW. I like the way CM handles FOW. The generic units are great. Dropping down to insignia's for last known positions is great. The "infantry sounds" markers are nice. Presenting information in a different more accessible format, such as the addition of TOE lists of units or morale or casualty bar indicators (on friendly units) does not change the information presented. It just makes it faster to access (admittedly at the potential cost of making the game look like "playing a spreadsheet"). Simply having a list of all my units along with current morale and strength levels and an indication of current order status would help out a lot IMHO. A list of enemy units would also be helpful. As you noted in another thread, enemy units do pop in and out, but I would like some indication of how many new enemy units have been spotted in the turn. I don't want to miss some new threat on my flank, simply because I didn't do a replay with the camera angle in the appropriate position. Please note that I'm not saying CM is a bad game. I'm having fun with it and I certainly expect to buy it. But if you can add additional features to make information more readily accessible, I think CM will be the better for it. [This message has been edited by PSY (edited 10-31-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sten Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Charles, I think it would be a good idea to take out the sounds/visuals when unspotted units get hit. Maybe you could have some sort of probability for a unit to show damage. 100% if the unit is fully spotted, down to 60% if I know what type of infantry, 40% if I know it is infantry, 20% ........ etc., etc. For immersion it might be an idea to keep the reactions every time a 'figure' is lost. It is probably realistic even from far away that the shooter would somehow notice if more than 1/3 of his target went down. Sten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think it would be a good idea to take out the sounds/visuals when unspotted units get hit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You have convinced us, and we will do this. How's that for "corporate" responsiveness? (Actually I think you meant to say "not fully identified" units, not "unspotted" since right now you don't get any visual or aural effect if a truly unspotted unit somehow gets hit). Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 "You have convinced us, and we will do this. How's that for "corporate" responsiveness? " Thanks! This takes about about one-third of my reasons for haveing an overall unit veiw screen! Now at least I don't have to track 'not-fully-spotted' enemy units. :| Thanks again! ------------------ The Grumbling Grognard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraut Posted October 31, 1999 Share Posted October 31, 1999 Charles, Steve and Fionn ... Well, if the creators say it's so, then it must be so. Unless you're lying to me ... lol It *could* be that the enemy went out of LOS for a moment and my MG retargeted. This would explain a lot. Now, to "solve" this problem, how about putting in some code so the MG will retarget the original target when it pops up again ? If the enemy dissapears for a split second, the MG *should* be able to retarget it when it reapears. This would be a nice thing IMO. MK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 1, 1999 Share Posted November 1, 1999 MK, Welcome to game design 101. I'm going to tell you exactly why you would HATE that piece of code and want it removed if you saw it in action. In cityfighting a unit which you targetted which was moving laterally across your positions at a distance of say 100 metres would dynamically pass into and out of view.. Every time it was obscured the MG would retarget on a better target BUT every time it re-appeared the MG team would swing their MG around (taking precious seconds) and attempt to re-engage BUT by that time the enemy unit would probably be behind another building SO the MG team would swing their gun around to engage a better target (taking seconds) by which time the previously targeted unit would re-appear AND the MG would try to re-target... Basically in any sort of broken terrain with lots of LOS obstructions what you are suggesting would probably result in a lot of unit which simply spent an entire turn re-targeting. If you saw NONE of your units fire for an entire turn I bet you'd be pissed off and complain . With game design as with life things are rarely as simple as they appear and a tweak which can appear simple and obvious on the outside might simply not work if implemented. IMO your tweak would work most of the time BUT in a number of specific types of battles and components of battles (which are going to be pretty common) it would severely hurt the game. Good suggestion by the way MK but its a complicated business and any tweak needs a lot of thought and balancing. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zackary Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Kraut, it may not be a perfect solution, but try "target area." I know as the attacking Germans in Last Defense, the unit in the building that is closest to the German left, the U.S. infantry unit kept going in and out of my LOS, interfering with my unit targeting. I was using targeting commands with several different units in an attempt to suppress the unit to allow a squad of Panzergrenadiers close assault the house, only to find them retargeting a few moments into the action phase because the (suppressed?) U.S. infantry unit ducked out of site. I resolved this by telling my units to "target area" on the house. I *think* you can do this with other areas, as well. Note: This will probably work in Fionn's example of the city-fighting. Basically, it is not that you want your MG or squad to target a PARTICULAR unit, but ANY unit that approaches from that location/angle. Have the unit area fire in that direction (of course, this is an ammo heavy use, I guess, because then you are constant firing on a spot). Perhaps an ambush command would also work. This solution will probably NOT work in the example mentioned above where the player was trying to use his MMG to provide relief to a forward position that was under threat of being overrun. BTS: Can you implement a "guard" or "overwatch" command whereby a unit could be given a first priority targeting command? In other words, if enemy appears here "X," fire at it, if not, do whatever you think is best. This would be a GREAT feature. As to the debate about re-targeting, I LIKE retargeting as long as it is realistic. I question whether it is realistic for a unit to disregard a targeting command unless (a) the unit itself is under attack, or ( the unit observes a friendly position under heavy attack and in desperate need of support. I can't imagine a squad leader (conscript or green excepted) disregarding his officer's targeting instructions in other circumstances. It doesn't matter that the soldier *thinks* that it would be a better idea to attack the squad in plain view 125 meters away running across an open field. He was ordered to suppress the squad holed up in the stone house 100 meters away. ------------------ Zackary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kraut Posted November 2, 1999 Share Posted November 2, 1999 Fionn, welcome to advanced game design 261 .You're talking about extreme cases here. I'm talking about a unit that *I* ordered a fire-command on which i can see will most likely move into an area that is open. I predicted this move, so i tell my gun to target it. Well, it happens that i overlooked a small patch of trees halfway between the starting and ending point of the path the unit will take. Well, for a short instance the unit is out of LOS. But as i predicted, the unit walked further and headed to the ending point. My MG didn't do anything to stop or pin the enemy. Bummer ... I do see your point with the constant retargeting. However, you can work around it. For instance, the MG shouldn't retarget to a new unit in the instant the first unit is out of LOS. Maybe pause a few seconds, then look for a new target. This would eliminate the constant retargeting issue (for short-time 'out of los' cases). *Maybe* you can have a different fire-order that would force the MG to shoot only at the unit you specified, and if it goes out of LOS, it would stay focused at the area where it lost contact. If the unit pops up again, it could continue firing. This might not be the best thing to do, but something has to be done about this constant re-targeting. Like i said many times (and probably too often already), it is annoying greatly when a computer does things for me, that i enjoy to do. Let the computer crunch numbers, i'll do the "thinking" MK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts