Hunt Command suggestion

[Vinnart]

Definitely not the first time for a “Hunt” thread. I prefer the two distinctive commands as in Cmx1.

“Move to contact” (current HUNT command). Unit stops once contact is made.

Cmx1 HUNT= Unit stops, and engages if contact is made; once threat is no longer a threat unit continues to move to the next waypoint, and will stop again to engage if another threat appears.

[JonS]

Do you really think it is a good decision to take the Hunt command and nerf it so that vehicles stop and don't move any further once they catch sight of any enemy troops, no matter how far away?

Since your example is flawed, can we assume your premise is too?

Give a unit a hunt order in conjuction with a covered arc, and they will NOT "stop once they catch sight of any enemy troops no matter how far away".

[HarryB]

Since your example is flawed, can we assume your premise is too?

Give a unit a hunt order in conjuction with a covered arc, and they will NOT "stop once they catch sight of any enemy troops no matter how far away".

You say my example is flawed and yet you don't say how. Why should I have to give my unit a covered arc? I want it to be able to react to any threat that appears. If the arc is too small, he may ignore something that he shouldn't, if it is too big then there isn't any point to setting it in the first place. What I am arguing for is very simple, let a unit issued a Hunt command continue on its path after losing contact with an enemy that caused it to stop.

As has been said earlier in this thread, the Hunt command at this point is really just a 'Move to Contact' order.

[JonS]

Why should I have to give my unit a covered arc?

uhh ... seriously?

Ok, seriously.

In Combat Mission you, as the player/commander, must give your units orders. Left to themselves units will not move anywhere or do anything, except under the impetus of enemy action. Combat Mission includes a large number of distinct orders which can be used individually or in combination to have your units perform a vast array of actions. Simple orders will result in simple results. More complex orders will result in more complex behaviour.

You 'have' give your unit a CA for the same reason you 'have' to give it different kinds of movement or targetting orders. That is; you want your unit to /do/ something, and do it in a particular way.

But if you don't want to use a CA then; fine. Don't. I don't care, and neither does the game. But you can't reasonably choose that /and/ choose to whine about the game not doing what you wanted.

[HarryB]

uhh ... seriously?

Ok, seriously.

In Combat Mission you, as the player/commander, must give your units orders. Left to themselves units will not move anywhere or do anything, except under the impetus of enemy action. Combat Mission includes a large number of distinct orders which can be used individually or in combination to have your units perform a vast array of actions. Simple orders will result in simple results. More complex orders will result in more complex behaviour.

You 'have' give your unit a CA for the same reason you 'have' to give it different kinds of movement or targetting orders. That is; you want your unit to /do/ something, and do it in a particular way.

But if you don't want to use a CA then; fine. Don't. I don't care, and neither does the game. But you can't reasonably choose that /and/ choose to whine about the game not doing what you wanted.

I do so love condescension.

Without the benefit of your wisdom I never would have figured out that Combat Mission required me to give orders. I just thought I launched the game and it played itself. That must be what I've been doing wrong all this time; no matter how much I yell at the screen my units refuse to move! Thanks buddy, I get it now! From the over 8,000 posts you have made on this board I gather you have it up and running 16 hours a day, and I'm sure it would be 24 if it wasn't for that pesky thing called sleep. As a result, I'm sure you know everything there is to know about all things CM; heck, I bet the guys at BFC even call you when they have a question. From now on I will consider it a privilege to bask in the glow of your vast store of knowledge every time I take a look at this board in the future. I defer to you, oh wise one.

I also like sarcasm

[JonS]

*shrug*

Contrary to that old saw, you've just proved there are, in fact, stupid questions.

[HarryB]

*shrug*

Contrary to that old saw, you've just proved there are, in fact, stupid questions.

dumb answers too

[sburke]

sarcasm, check. condescencion, check. okay I'd say that's a wrap. We've hit bottom in 4 pages. Not a record, but not bad. With a little practice I'm sure we can drop a page or two.

In his own teddy bear lovable way, JonS was trying to point out the same thing I tried towards the beginning of this thread. We can keep wishing for a command from CMx1 (which may not actually quite work out how you'd like in CMx2) or we can try to understand the depth of what is in CMx2 to come up with a different solution.

Personally I am not one for b**ch sessions about how I wish things could be. BFC has heard this enough times they are surely aware there are folks who'd like it implemented in CMx2. What would be more helpful is to figure out how to make things work in the existing command structure. I am sure that would benefit far more players than just repeating "cause that is how it was in CMx1".

Funny how sick some people are of hearing, "but that is how it was in CMSF", that bothers me far less than hearing "that was how it was in CMx1". CMAK is almost 10 years ago people. Different game, different engine etc etc. It's time to let it go, change is good. Change is your friend.

[HarryB]

sarcasm, check. condescencion, check. okay I'd say that's a wrap. We've hit bottom in 4 pages. Not a record, but not bad. With a little practice I'm sure we can drop a page or two.

LOL. Hey man, all I am doing is trying to get my units to do what I want them to do. I don't think giving them a cover arc is ideal because my guys might miss a threat that way; either that or the arc is so huge that it becomes irrelevant. I will try using the 'Slow' command and see how that works. If it doesn't do the job, don't be surprised to hear me bitching again

[TheVulture]

In his own teddy bear lovable way, JonS was trying to point out the same thing I tried towards the beginning of this thread. We can keep wishing for a command from CMx1 (which may not actually quite work out how you'd like in CMx2) or we can try to understand the depth of what is in CMx2 to come up with a different solution.

Personally I am not one for b**ch sessions about how I wish things could be. BFC has heard this enough times they are surely aware there are folks who'd like it implemented in CMx2. What would be more helpful is to figure out how to make things work in the existing command structure. I am sure that would benefit far more players than just repeating "cause that is how it was in CMx1".

Funny how sick some people are of hearing, "but that is how it was in CMSF", that bothers me far less than hearing "that was how it was in CMx1". CMAK is almost 10 years ago people. Different game, different engine etc etc. It's time to let it go, change is good. Change is your friend.

It's not about change. It's about having a set of available orders that, for some people, are too limited and interfere with their enjoyment of the game. Not for everyone: everyone has different play styles and different ways of constructing orders - and different tolerances for the tacAI doing things on its own initiative. I've seen people complain about things that don't affect me in the slightest. That doesn't mean they are inventing a problem; it means that my playstyle doesn't bump in to that particular limitation, while theirs does.

(As an aisde, witness the bogging controversy that was fixed in the last patch. Some people complained about huge amounts of bogging. Others rarely saw it. The problem was there (and is fixed now), but it was just that some people happened to move their units in ways that never triggered the bugged situation).

So, some people find the currently available set of commands less than ideal. They look around for ways to let them give the commands they want. Unsurprisingly, for people who played CMx1, that is the most directly applicable source of ideas for possible improvements - I could look to World of Warcraft, but little of the user interface seems relevant to CMBN somehow. While it is easy to see a feature in CMx1 and say that it can therefore be implemented in CMBN, that might not be the case. The subtle (and not so subtle) differences interfere in various unexpected ways.

Actually, the CMBN 'hunt' command is a case in point. Whether or not you like the intended functionality, the fact is that it breaks in some situations regardless, due to the enhanced LoS system. Try hunting infantry through long grass or wheat. You want them to advance to the point where they can see a known enemy position. You give them a hunt command in that direction - just the kind of thing it ought to be ideal for. They advance until they see the enemy. Then they go prone, and lose line of sight in the long grass. The only way to get them to advance to a position where they can fire prone is to eyeball it and place a normal waypoint.

Another example I've seen once or twice: tank advances on move to contact. It spots an enemy over a ridge / wall / hedge (delete as applicable). It stops, and refuses to fire. Why? because the tank commander can see the target from his seat in the cupola, but the gunner, lower down, can't. (In that particular case you may be able to work the problem by buttoning the tank so the spotting height is the same as the firing height - at risk of decreased spotting).

Some people will never see those problems, because the actions being attempted are something they just never do. N.B. The CMx1 version of the hunt command wouldn't help here either. It is a purely CMx2 problem due to both enhanced LoS and LoS / LoF not being the same.

It is all part of the ongoing battle between functionality and usuability. The 'solution' is to be able to specify move to spotting vs move to firing position. And specifying the action to be taken upon contact (stop and fire, advance quickly to the end of the path, return to the start of the path, stop and hide, break off into nearby cover). And being able to specify that independently of movement speed. And having different reactions for receiving incoming fire vs spotting a target we can kill vs spotting a target we can't kill. It should be fairly obvious that such a system would be nigh on unplayable - certainly in real time, and probably aggravating to the point of unplayability in WeGo.

All that having been said, I'd still like the old hunt command and cover armour arcs back. For me they pass the test of adding greatly desirable functionality that I currently notice the lack of, and do so without overburdening the UI (I'd even swap CMx1 hunt for CMx2 hunt, rather than having both, if that was necessary to keep the UI streamlined, since I'd use it so much more than I ever use the Cmx2 hunt command, which is almost never). There may be better ways of covering the same hole in functionality, but I've not really thought about it in depth yet. There are plenty of worse ways however...

[Baneman]

Have to agree with HarryB here - although I've used the cover arc method espoused by JonS - and, while it can work, I vividly recall an occasion when the enemy appeared literally 1 millimetre ( or pixel ) outside the cover arc.

What did my men do ?

You guessed it.

N.o.t.h.i.n.g.

Did they ignore the cover arc after taking a hit ?

er .. no.

After the 2nd hit ?

No.

After the 3rd ?

Well, the 3rd KO'd them, about a second before the end of the replay, so there wasn't anything that could be done.

At least with the old Hunt, they might have tried to shoot back.

[sburke]

It's not about change. It's about having a set of available orders that, for some people, are too limited and interfere with their enjoyment of the game. Not for everyone: everyone has different play styles and different ways of constructing orders - and different tolerances for the tacAI doing things on its own initiative. I've seen people complain about things that don't affect me in the slightest. That doesn't mean they are inventing a problem; it means that my playstyle doesn't bump in to that particular limitation, while theirs does.

So, some people find the currently available set of commands less than ideal. They look around for ways to let them give the commands they want. Unsurprisingly, for people who played CMx1. While it is easy to see a feature in CMx1 and say that it can therefore be implemented in CMBN, that might not be the case. The subtle (and not so subtle) differences interfere in various unexpected ways.

Actually, the CMBN 'hunt' command is a case in point. Whether or not you like the intended functionality, the fact is that it breaks in some situations regardless, due to the enhanced LoS system. Try hunting infantry through long grass or wheat. You want them to advance to the point where they can see a known enemy position. You give them a hunt command in that direction - just the kind of thing it ought to be ideal for. They advance until they see the enemy. Then they go prone, and lose line of sight in the long grass. The only way to get them to advance to a position where they can fire prone is to eyeball it and place a normal waypoint.

Another example I've seen once or twice: tank advances on move to contact. It spots an enemy over a ridge / wall / hedge (delete as applicable). It stops, and refuses to fire. Why? because the tank commander can see the target from his seat in the cupola, but the gunner, lower down, can't. (In that particular case you may be able to work the problem by buttoning the tank so the spotting height is the same as the firing height - at risk of decreased spotting).

All that having been said, I'd still like the old hunt command and cover armour arcs back. For me they pass the test of adding greatly desirable functionality that I currently notice the lack of, and do so without overburdening the UI (I'd even swap CMx1 hunt for CMx2 hunt, rather than having both, if that was necessary to keep the UI streamlined, since I'd use it so much more than I ever use the Cmx2 hunt command, which is almost never). There may be better ways of covering the same hole in functionality, but I've not really thought about it in depth yet. There are plenty of worse ways however...

Thanks Vulture, this is actually how I was hoping the discussion would go. I'd also like the armored cover arc for more effective AT ambushes for WeGo so I can relate to looking for more effective commands in the UI. Your points on the impact of certain commands with LOS/LOF functioning the way it does and terrain impacts is spot on. As you'd noted above if our infantry followed that behavior pattern, they'd be popping up and down in that wheatfield like playing whack a mole. I see the enemy, go prone...I don't see the enemy, keep moving , oh wait there's the enemy go prone!

In debating the hunt command previously BFC had been pretty explicit about what and how they can model stuff in CMx1 vs CMx2 and they got into the whole question of, are vehicles really moving and firing or not, what is the model showing or not etc. What I took away from that is graphically the visuals aren't always representing the action 100%. There are some things they just have to do under the hood. Hence I tend to use slow versus hunt in some situations for my armor. As you'd noted as soon as ANY of the crew spot something, hunting stops. That may or may not be a good thing depending on terrain. So for example I might use slow to get to a hull down position on a hill as hunt may stop me just prior to being able to fire the gun. In addition if I want to try and replicate the old shoot and scoot, it will fail with hunt. A slow command followed by a pause followed by a reverse will do the trick handily. I am very wary of cover arcs. I do use them a lot, but primarily 360 degree arcs for my infantry to prevent them from giving away positions etc. I rarely use them to confine my fire in one direction especially with my armor. About the only time I even consider it is if I want to move from point a to point b quickly and I know my only possible threats are from a flank, in that case I'd use em to keep the turret aligned to the potential threat.

My feeling is the UI actually has quite a few tools in it that I am still learning how to use to get the behavior I desire. To be totally frank (and I know this will turn some people off) I find that to really get the best out of my troops, micro managing them is almost a requirement. They do what I tell them to do (generally) so if I am not explicit, they are liable to get it wrong...kind of like real troops. Does it work all the time, nope, but often enough that I spend more of my time planning on killing the enemy pixeltruppen than worrying about whether the TAC AI will fail me.

[Vanir Ausf B]

About the only thing I use the Hunt command for is infantry moving through close terrain, such as forest, where I'm ok with them stopping anywhere along the movement path. I don't use it for vehicles any more at all.

[sburke]

LOL. Hey man, all I am doing is trying to get my units to do what I want them to do. I don't think giving them a cover arc is ideal because my guys might miss a threat that way; either that or the arc is so huge that it becomes irrelevant. I will try using the 'Slow' command and see how that works. If it doesn't do the job, don't be surprised to hear me bitching again

LOL I hear ya.

There are additional items at work here that make the old hunt command work not as well in CMx2. Borg spotting in Cmx1 allowed your armor to be aware of ANY known threats, not just what it can see. So while not having that old hunt command can perhaps be considered a weakness for Cmx2, the trick is to figure out what the strengths are in CMx2. One of the primary ones being the way you can detail commands at varying way points. In that sense, CMx1 was actually less flexible than CMx2 and needed to have commands like hunt or shoot and scoot.

I know folks are probably gonna roll their eyes at this one considering the number of commands to do what they presume you could do if we had the old hunt style, but here's some things you may want to try.

Assuming your previous scenario of infantry behind an obstacle that you want to go around and hit them, but be wary of other threats.

Start out with a quick or fast command that gets your armor into position from where you think you can hit the infantry, give them a covered arc in that direction. At the end point of that move cancel the covered arc, put in a pause and then reverse to your previous position.

The effect is you race into position with your gun focused on the intended target, at that point the arc is released allowing the tank to respond to any previously unknown threats and then backing away to remove itself from any possible retaliation move by the end of the turn. Granted that won't help if it turns out there is an AT unit on the direct opposite flank, but if you are that unsure of what threats exist beyond the one you are aware of, racing your armor out there is likely a bad move to begin with. Also be prepared to lose your TC if they aren't buttoned up. If you do the TAC AI will take over and lord knows where your armor will go.

I'd even suggest giving them a target light order on the terrain the infantry occupies so even if they don't spot them immediately, they will be laying down MG fire to suppress. You can do that by simply marking a way point that has LOS to where the infantry are situated. So your tank roars around the corner and at the moment it hits your desired point it is already spitting lead even if it hasn't identified the target. That should cause the infantry to go to ground long enough for the next set of commands you have set in motion.

You couldn't do that in CMx1.

The point is to be creative. The UI is actually really really flexible. Imagine your opponent thinking they are gonna have a moment to fire off an AT round and getting suppressed before they can even get a shot off. I suspect they will be the ones posting next time about the unfairness of armor spotting. (Don't tell em you didn't see them when you killed them. It willl only rub salt into the wounds.)

[HarryB]

Good ideas, but they are all workarounds for the decreased functionalily of Hunt command that nobody seems to be able to give a good reason as to why it was changed. The Hunt command used to be very useful in CMx1; in fact, I used it all the time, which is why I miss it's old functionality now. In RT it isn't a big deal, but when you are playing WeGo it is a big deal because you could be sitting there for close to 60 seconds doing nothing before new orders can be issued.

The killer is that once a unit loses sight of an enemy, that enemy doesn't exist to it anymore. If you look into the bushes and see a German soldier, even if he ducks out of sight you intuitively know he is still there and still a potential threat, so you can start using area fire immediately to try to take him out. In CMx2, once your unit loses sight of the enemy, not only will it not continue along its assigned path, but it does not perceive the previously spotted enemy to be a threat and will just sit there whistling Dixie whilst holding a sign saying 'I'm oblivious, please shoot me'.

I just wish someone at BFC would answer the question as to why the command was changed, that way we would all know.

[cool breeze]

HarryB, you ignored or missed my response the first time so here it is again.

I think they changed it to better fit the new system. Even in the scenario described in the first post the new behavior is better. The tanked stayed put to try to see and engage the enemy infantry instead of, as some of you suggest, continuing toward the enemy with reduced spotting ability and busy crewmen. The tank didn't just drive past the infantry exposing its back because the enemy was ducking. Old hunt worked in CMx1 because you usually wouldn't lose sight of an enemy until it was out of action. Its doesn't work anymore because spotting is more realistic. There are already commands that cause units to stop to fire but continue moving. Infantry even stops to fire while moving quick.

I mean Im not from BFC but Id think its come up enough that us forum goers can give it a good answer

[Amizaur]

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.

[JonS]

We plot orders and have no way to current them or micromanage units for a whole minute

A whole minute eh? That's such a long time. But, you know, some people see that part as a definite advantage.

It seems to me that some folk expect perfection; their pixeltruppen should perform perfectly in all circumstances, almost regardless of the orders they give them (and, not coincidentally, there's probably a reason why they are called "orders" and not "suggestions"). If the player gives a dud order, then they expect that The System should be smart enough to override that order. Not only that, but the orders should only be overridden sometimes, when the outcome is undesirable, for some definition of undesirable. Baneman; I'm looking at you here. Your example of 'one millimetre outside the covered arc’? So what? Assume they /did/ target outside the CA ... for starters; why bother having a CA at all if you want them to ignore it, and secondly; lets say they ignored the CA to target a scout team 'just one millimetre' outside the CA ... and so missed engaging the anti tank gun that appeared /inside/ the CA? You'd whine about that, then, too.

These are entirely unreasonable expectations.

You should not expect perfection. And remember, your opponent is struggling with the same kinds of things. Whoever can manage the chaos better should win, and that's the way it should be.

You should not expect the AI to read your mind, and track your revised decisions. If you decide that the primary threat is from [that] direction and give a CA in [that] direction, then the unit will attempt to follow those orders until you TELL IT to do something else. If you realise part way through a turn that the threat is actually from [this] direction, and change your mind about which way the CA should have been then tough luck. The AI can't read your mind, and doesn't know you've changed it. You'll just have to suck up your bad decision until you get a chance to correct it. That, too, is the way it should be.

Decisions without consequences would make for an exceptionally poor game. I think it's misguided to expect the AI to make up for your bad play.

To those people who're complaining that 'there aren't enough orders' ... where does it end? I could, without trying very hard, come up with probably a hundred commands that are 'missing' from CM. Where are the <monkey crawl> and <tiger crawl> orders for infantry? Where is the <peek> and <sneak> commands? Why can't I pause for 6 seconds, or 33 seconds? But that misses the point. There are already 8(?) movement commands, 6 or 7 target commands, plus a few special commands which can be combined with either of those. The combinatorial complexity is already very high. I can /already/ do practically everything I want. The few things I can't do, or satisfactorily approximate; my opponent can't do them either.

It seems that some players try to get too much done in a turn, with a whole bunch of assumed and nested IF statements embedded "ok, I want this scout team to hunt across this field and stop and engage any real threats but not any transitory sightings* and then when it gets to the hedge on the far side move across to the right then through the gap expect if it sees something* then into the building except if it sees something*, then upstairs unless there's some enemy downstairs then engage that enemy I already know abut over there." Phew. That's a lot to get done in just 60 seconds, and I'd be astonished if that actually worked rather than annoyed when it doesn't. Slow it down, break it into discrete legs with modest objectives (1: cross the field. 2: move along hedge. 3: clear building. 4: engage known enemy position), and see how that works.

I further think that players expect each of their units to be little armies unto themselves, dealing with everything that happens to them without assistance. You KNOW what the <hunt> and <move> commands work in CMBN, even if you wish they worked differently. Amplify the actual strengths and mitigate the actual weaknesses of each by, for example, moving your units in concert rather than independently. Instead of hunting across that first field, try using <quick> to minimise exposure duration, but couple that decision with other units in overwatch so if something happens there'll be some immediate support. But, again; !perfection. Sometimes it'll work, and sometimes it won't. And that's what makes the game interesting.

And remember; sometimes the opposing player is just better than you. Sometimes your plan won't work, and your pixeltruppen will die and your tanks will become smoking wrecks. That's not really the game's fault. It's yours. Be generous and credit the opposition for coming up with a better plan, rather than blaming the game for ruining yours.

Jon

* of course ... neither you nor the AI know whether a sighting is going to be permanent or transitory till /after/ the fact, so quite how it's supposed to make a determination to continue hunting remains an interesting philosophical question.

[HarryB]

HarryB, you ignored or missed my response the first time so here it is again.

I think they changed it to better fit the new system. Even in the scenario described in the first post the new behavior is better. The tanked stayed put to try to see and engage the enemy infantry instead of, as some of you suggest, continuing toward the enemy with reduced spotting ability and busy crewmen. The tank didn't just drive past the infantry exposing its back because the enemy was ducking. Old hunt worked in CMx1 because you usually wouldn't lose sight of an enemy until it was out of action. Its doesn't work anymore because spotting is more realistic. There are already commands that cause units to stop to fire but continue moving. Infantry even stops to fire while moving quick.

I mean Im not from BFC but Id think its come up enough that us forum goers can give it a good answer

The thing is, in the example I gave at the beginning of the thread, my tank was driving around some bocage and spotted enemy infantry I'll guess about 20 meters to its left. It then instantly lost sight of them and came to a complete halt, just sitting there doing nothing. About 30 seconds later he exploded, most likely from a panzerfaust. I knew the enemy was there before the Hunt command was issued, and the path I had set was to enable my tank to get a clear line of sight to them so he could take them out. By stopping, he put himself if much more danger than if he would have continued along his assigned path. If he continued, he would have had a good chance to regain sight of the infantry, but, sitting where he was, his chances were slim.

In the post after yours, Amizaur pretty much says what I have been saying. It is true that sometimes continuing along its assigned path will put the tank in greater danger, but most of the time that is preferable to just stopping and sitting where it is the second it sees an enemy.

[Sixxkiller]

I do so love condescension.

From the over 8,000 posts you have made on this board I gather you have it up and running 16 hours a day, and I'm sure it would be 24 if it wasn't for that pesky thing called sleep. As a result, I'm sure you know everything there is to know about all things CM; heck, I bet the guys at BFC even call you when they have a question. From now on I will consider it a privilege to bask in the glow of your vast store of knowledge every time I take a look at this board in the future. I defer to you, oh wise one.

I also like sarcasm

You should, he works very hard to help make this game better for people like you. Not sure if he plays 16 hours a day, but I bet he misses some sleep.

[JonS]

The thing is, in the example I gave at the beginning of the thread, my tank was driving around some bocage and spotted enemy infantry I'll guess about 20 meters to its left. It then instantly lost sight of them and came to a complete halt, just sitting there doing nothing.

Of course ... neither you nor the AI knew whether that sighting was going to be permanent or transitory till /after/ the fact, so quite how the AI is supposed to make a determination to cease or continue hunting remains an interesting philosophical question.

I knew the enemy was there before the Hunt command was issued, and the path I had set was to enable my tank to get a clear line of sight to them so he could take them out.

Sometimes you get the bear, sometimes the bear gets you.

You deliberately gave an order which you knew could cause your unit to halt at any point. You deliberately moved your tank close to an enemy unit possessing an antitank capability.

Tell me again why it's the game's fault this turned out badly for you and excellently for your opponent?

[HarryB]

This is beginning to get amusing. The topic of this thread is very simple: Allow units issued the Hunt command to continue moving forward after they have spotted an enemy and lost sight of said enemy. It is not about adding a hundred new commands to allow players to cover every possible situation, it is not about having the AI read my mind, nor is it about tactics. It is about a command that I and others perceive to have decreased functionality from CMx1. Nowhere in this thread have I heard a good explanation as to why adding this little bit of functionality back into the command would be a bad thing, just a bunch of workarounds and defensiveness.

As I have said earlier, if someone from BFC would simply say why that change was made, we would at least know the reason.

[JonS]

This is beginning to get amusing. The topic of this thread is very simple: Allow units issued the Hunt command to continue moving forward after they have spotted an enemy and lost sight of said enemy.

Neither you nor the AI know whether a sighting is going to be permanent or transitory till /after/ the fact, so quite how it's supposed to make a determination to continue hunting remains an interesting philosophical question.

Let's remember that you WANTED your tank to halt when it saw the enemy unit. And that's what it did. You then changed your mind - in the middle of the turn - when your realised that, actually, stopping probably wasn't a good idea. So, yes, you did expect the AI to read your mind.

Your plan was worse than your oppoenents, and he benefitted from that. That is as it should be. The game shouldn't protect you from your bad decisions at the expense of your opponents better plan.

a command that I perceive to have decreased functionality from CMx1.

Perception is a funny thing.

just a bunch of workarounds and defensiveness

My perception is that the command works fine. My perception is that there's practically nothing I can't do, so the additon of new orders, or changing existing orders, would be a waste of BFCs time, and a waste of my time too since I'd need to then reorient myself on how to use it.

My perception is that you are approaching the game in general, and this command in particular, with unreasonable expectations. My perception is that until you grok that CMx2 is not just CMx1 in drag then you'll continue to experience frustration. My perception is that dismissing everything written as 'just a bunch of workarounds and defensiveness' isn't likely to help you much.

Nowhere in this thread have I heard a good explanation as to why adding this little bit of functionality back into the command would be a bad thing

Looks like you wasted your time too, cool breeze.

[Lee_Vincent]

Was just playing the 'Huge Crack' scenario, large British advance as part of Operation Goodwood. All units given Hunt commands forward. Periodically a few would spot a contact, however briefly, and stop. Every turn, I have to go through and check which of the 100+ units have stopped because of these contacts and re-issue them further commands. Its incredibly tiresome. I tried giving them all Slow commands instead, with the result that they seem to get cut to pieces by defending assets.

Maintaining cohesion in a large advance, or even with a platoon of tanks in line abreast, is impossible given the present Hunt implementation. Unless you are playing RT, which is pretty much a waste of time with a huge scenario anyway.

[sburke]

This is beginning to get amusing. The topic of this thread is very simple: Allow units issued the Hunt command to continue moving forward after they have spotted an enemy and lost sight of said enemy. It is not about adding a hundred new commands to allow players to cover every possible situation, it is not about having the AI read my mind, nor is it about tactics. It is about a command that I and others perceive to have decreased functionality from CMx1. Nowhere in this thread have I heard a good explanation as to why adding this little bit of functionality back into the command would be a bad thing, just a bunch of workarounds and defensiveness.

As I have said earlier, if someone from BFC would simply say why that change was made, we would at least know the reason.

Beginning? I'd say we were way past that point.

The only issue with this request as I see it has to do, as JonS pointed out, to do with that word perceived. The problem I think underlying the perception is hunt in Cmx1 worked as it did because the entire environment was different. Borg spotting had a huge impact in the game and I think that is too easily forgotten in this perception. Your tank knew a helluva lot more in CMx1 than it is going to know in CMx2. It also had no variation between LOS and LOF. In your specific example, I think hunt really was the wrong command. As Vulture so aptly pointed out (sorry to repeat this post the 3rd time, but I think it really hit the nail on the head).

Actually, the CMBN 'hunt' command is a case in point. Whether or not you like the intended functionality, the fact is that it breaks in some situations regardless, due to the enhanced LoS system.

Another example I've seen once or twice: tank advances on move to contact. It spots an enemy over a ridge / wall / hedge (delete as applicable). It stops, and refuses to fire. Why? because the tank commander can see the target from his seat in the cupola, but the gunner, lower down, can't. (In that particular case you may be able to work the problem by buttoning the tank so the spotting height is the same as the firing height - at risk of decreased spotting).

Some people will never see those problems, because the actions being attempted are something they just never do. N.B. The CMx1 version of the hunt command wouldn't help here either. It is a purely CMx2 problem due to both enhanced LoS and LoS / LoF not being the same.

It is all part of the ongoing battle between functionality and usuability. The 'solution' is to be able to specify move to spotting vs move to firing position. And specifying the action to be taken upon contact (stop and fire, advance quickly to the end of the path, return to the start of the path, stop and hide, break off into nearby cover). And being able to specify that independently of movement speed. And having different reactions for receiving incoming fire vs spotting a target we can kill vs spotting a target we can't kill. It should be fairly obvious that such a system would be nigh on unplayable - certainly in real time, and probably aggravating to the point of unplayability in WeGo.

This isn't about making excuses, it is a recognition that the game has fundamentally changed in ways that make the former command nigh on impossible to emulate with a single UI command. As to asking BFC to reply, well they have actually on this forum probably several times. I think from their point of view, why should they stop and repeat themselves every time this comes up if we can't be bothered to review what they have already said. Their time answering literally is money (or more importantly time they can be working on whatever the big deal is they hinted at). It is like this guy I know at work. He has a 15 second rule. If it takes more than 15 seconds of his time, he'll just ask me. However long it takes me to find the answer is no cost to him. You can imagine some of the names I have for him.

@Lee_Vincent I would suggest hunt is also the wrong command in that situation. What makes more sense is having an overwatch section and a movement section and to advance in bounds. Use smoke to screen your movements etc. Hunt is just going to have you stop in a position where you are now the target. With relative spotting that could very well simply make you an easier target with no additional support to back you up.