Why won't my JagdPanzer fire its machine gun?

[CM1fan]

I'm playing the German against the Brits in a Quick Battle in which my forces are defending five locations against about two companies of attacking Brit infantry. My force has a JagdPanzer IV and two Wespes for direct HE fire against the oncoming Brits.

The JP carries around 50 rounds for its main gun and many hundreds of rounds of machine gun ammo. Unfortunately, it relies primarily on its main gun to pick off individual Brit soldiers and seldom fires its machine gun.

After three or four minutes of shooting about a dozen rounds of main gun HE and averaging about one Brit soldier for every other shot, I gave up on just facing the JP and letting its crew decide how best to engage the Brits it saw. For the next minute, I ordered to JP to light target a particular Brit unit about 25 meters away. The JP crew ignored the order and instead fired two more HE rounds, one at the close Brit unit and the other at another Brit unit further away. The JP got its standard result -- one Brit soldier for two HE rounds fired.

Does the JP have to fire off all its main gun ammo before it will rely on its machine gun?

I recall reading that the 8th US army during the Korean War ordered its infantry units to request artillery fire only on groups of more than four enemy troops. I wish there was some way to make my JP perform similarly.

[phil stanbridge]

How far away were the infantry when you asked the JP to engage? Isn't the JP classed as a tank destroyer? It's not an infantry tank per se. I'm guessing the infantry were a reasonable distance, in which case the crew would always prefer to use the HE rather than MG rounds.

[YankeeDog]

It's also possible that the MG did not have LOF to the enemy -- the Jagdpanther does not have a coaxial MG to the main gun, and the only MG is a hull MG mounted to the right of the main gun, operated by the Asst. Driver/Radio Operator. So the LOS/LOF is different for the two weapons.

Depending on range and visual conditions, the radio operator might also have trouble spotting the target even if he does technically have LOF. The main gun has lots of fancy optics with good magnification, but the hull MG basically has iron sights peeking through a small hole cut in the armor. In many conditions, it's easy to see how the gunner would have an easier time spotting targets than the radio operator/bow MG gunner (not to mention the fact that the radio operator presumably has to sometimes focus his attention on, you know, operating the radio...)

[womble]

It's down to the TacAI's weapon system selection algorithms, and it's the same, IME, with every tank. Any weapon system with HE will fire it off at any infantry targets it can get LOF to, when left to its own devices. Usually, it'll fire off any MGs it has, too, but that's not as obvious, always from all angles, and generally doesn't kill as many men per minute as HE, even when the HE is fired at individual soldiers. There's another thread about this. On the front page of the forum.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=104597

[Pak40]

This seems like one of those cases where the AI needs to be tweaked a bit. Regardless of whether the machine gunner had true LOS to the target, the main gunner and /or commander DID have LOS to the target and should be able to communicate that to the machine gunner that "hey, there's some Tommies in the shrubs over there, shoot them to hell".

[Vanir Ausf B]

Odd that it would ignore a Target Light order. When you targeted the infantry was the target line blue or grey?

EDITED to add: There is also a bug that crops up from time to time where a soldier or tank gunner will go into a continuous spotting-firing-waiting loop that will effectively cause it to freeze up and not shoot. You can see if this is happening on the left side of the screen.

[CM1fan]

This seems like one of those cases where the AI needs to be tweaked a bit. Regardless of whether the machine gunner had true LOS to the target, the main gunner and /or commander DID have LOS to the target and should be able to communicate that to the machine gunner that "hey, there's some Tommies in the shrubs over there, shoot them to hell".

I agree. The members of an AFV crew should be able to yell to each other about what they can see, with nearby enemy troops being a likely topic of conversation. The crew member spotting the "Tommies in the shrubs" would probably also say something like "about 25 meters to the right." The radio operator would then say "I've got 'em" and fire his MG or say "can't see 'em. Back up and give me a shot."

If one of the spotted men seems to be aiming an AT weapon, I'd have no problem with the AFV commander or the gunner firing an HE round at the man. However, if the spotted men are just aiming rifles and posing a negligible threat to the AFV, why not move the JP and use its machine gun.

I accept that mistakes are easy to make in the pressure of combat, but this crew has made (what I consider) the same mistake more than a dozen times in six minutes.

[JonS]

You want the AI to spontaneously move your armoured vehicle so it can engage a target that poses no threat to you?

Uh, yeah. Good luck with getting BFC to buy in to that terrible, terrible idea. Can you imagine the shreiks of outrage from all the players who lose their tanks because the "AI moved my tank, and I didn't want it to!"

[Baneman]

You want the AI to spontaneously move your armoured vehicle so it can engage a target that poses no threat to you?

Uh, yeah. Good luck with getting BFC to buy in to that terrible, terrible idea. Can you imagine the shreiks of outrage from all the players who lose their tanks because the "AI moved my tank, and I didn't want it to!"

No, he's saying that ideally the MG gunner should be able to shoot at something he personally may not have spotted, but the commander has ( IF, in fact, this is why the AFV isn't shooting its MG at the infantry in question ). His example strayed into over-egging the solution, but there's no need to focus on that alone.

Also, it would be helpful if the AI were tweaked to not be quite as HE-happy of its own accord.

[JonS]

But the gunner can, with area fire.

[CM1fan]

You want the AI to spontaneously move your armoured vehicle so it can engage a target that poses no threat to you?

Uh, yeah. Good luck with getting BFC to buy in to that terrible, terrible idea. Can you imagine the shreiks of outrage from all the players who lose their tanks because the "AI moved my tank, and I didn't want it to!"

Where did you get the idea I want the AI to spontaneously move my AFV to engage a target that poses no threat? In the situation I described, the Brit soldier did pose a threat. That's why I ordered him soft targeted. I wanted him eliminated by MG fire rather than dismembered by an HE round. (And the AI ignored my choice and instead dismembered a different Brit who was aiming a rifle and, in my view, a negligible threat to the AFV.)

We already accept the AI disregarding our orders -- and moving tanks we didn't order to move. I'm just asking the AI to be more intelligent when doing so.

[Erwin]

Regrettably, good AI is probably the most difficult and expensive aspect of developing a game. Hence the rise of multiplayer... substituting the rare. expensive good AI with common, inexpensive and stupid people.

[JonS]

Where did you get the idea I want the AI to spontaneously move my AFV to engage a target that poses no threat?

Probably from your post.

We already accept the AI disregarding our orders -- and moving tanks we didn't order to move.

Bet with self: won!

Yes, panic and other large morale hits, or recognised mortal peril, will cause a tank to try and move to a safe location (with varying degrees of success). I had hoped, though, that the difference between the AI moving a tank that's had a substantial morale hit, and one that's hunky dory, was obvious enough to pass without elaboration.

I'm just asking the AI to be more intelligent when doing so.

I think we'd all like that. The problem is that the AI - any AI - has to work from a set of weighted rules that give acceptable results for general cases, but is generally pretty poor at parsing edge cases. Folk often notice 'wrong' things that happen infrequently, and pay them more attention, rather than all the times the AI works as expected. In the same way most folk are completely oblivious to the hundred thousand cars they see driving on the right sidde of the road but by god do they remember that one red Model T that was driving the wrong way down Main St at quarter past nine yesterday morning.

Changing the weightings of the various AI rules is - I suppose - relatively trivial. And changing the weighting might well completely fix the rare Model T problem. But when fixing the red Model T problem means that all white Toyota Corollas now drive backwards all the time, overall you are in a worse stuation. Or if completely fixing the rare red Model T problem means that there's no time to include anything from Hyundai, you may think you're better off, but actually you aren't.

[Crushingleeek]

Regrettably, good AI is probably the most difficult and expensive aspect of developing a game. Hence the rise of multiplayer... substituting the rare. expensive good AI with common, inexpensive and stupid people.

diverging from OP and context, but "triggers," my friend. Triggers.

[Paper Tiger]

While reading up on Operation Epsom, I remember reading that tanks on both sides would use their MGs to fire on infantry targets, usually to great effect. Yet in the game, AI-controlled tanks prefer to squander their HE against infantry targets as small as one or two men, lying prone in the middle of a field. Anyone who has played 'Hansel and Gretel' will have seen this. The AI doesn't seem to be programmed to tell the difference between a soft target and a hard target. If it were able to, perhaps it wouldn't be too hard to tell it to use its MGs, if any, against a soft target and its main gun against a hard target. But would infantry in a building be a hard target?

A human player can offset this bias by giving his own tanks Target Light commands but the poor AI opponent is stuck with this behaviour.

[JonS]

Huh? HE is intended for use against soft targets. There's not much point firing 17-pr HE at a Panther, or using 75mm/L48 HE against a Churchill.

The StuG III ausf. A thru E (and most of the Fs) didn't even have an MG, but they certainly weren't intended for engaging tanks (except the F, which was ).

HE is for soft targets, and infantry is a soft target. Firing HE at soft targets is not, ipso facto, a bad thing.

[Crushingleeek]

I think paper tiger is trying to say though that HE shell fired at one, even two troops is not common. that's an MG job.

HE as you state is primarily for soft targets, but perhaps more commonly fired at a larger group of infantry, mg nests, buildings, and yes, actually at armor too.

HE can be effective against certain parts of tanks, such as sprockets. instantly immobilize a tank. John Irwin describes his use of a 76mm HE to do this when he was unable to penetrate the armor of a late-war German tank in "Another River, Another Town."

[akd]

How is the AI supposed to know (aside from cheating) that 1 or 2 men are truly isolated and alone, and not 1 or 2 men visible at that moment that are part of a group of 10? This is asking for a very complex understanding of context on behalf of the AI.

[JonS]

[off topic]

HE can be effective against certain parts of tanks, such as sprockets. instantly immobilize a tank. John Irwin describes his use of a 76mm HE to do this when he was unable to penetrate the armor of a late-war German tank in "Another River, Another Town."

Funnily enough, I had exactly that happen in a recent PBEM. A Churchill got into a good flanking positon against a Tiger and poked a 75mm AP round at it, which apparently did nothing. So the next round fired was an HE which immobilised the Tiger.

I only realised when I noticed that the second round had a very different impact plume. I went back and watched the entire turn, paying careful attention to the expenditure of ammn.

I thought that was a pretty neat sequence.[/off topic]

I know HE /can/ be effective, but that generally isn't why it's carried. Smoke and even

rounds can be effective against enemy armour, but they aren't carried as anti-tank rounds.

[Paper Tiger]

How is the AI supposed to know (aside from cheating) that 1 or 2 men are truly isolated and alone, and not 1 or 2 men visible at that moment that are part of a group of 10? This is asking for a very complex understanding of context on behalf of the AI.

The point is not that there are only one or two men but that the tank's Tac AI routines are telling it to use its main gun from time to time to fire at a soft target in the open when we know that it would be more realistic if it were to use its MGs. (I am thinking primarily of Daglish's account of Seigel's stand on the Salbey where his tanks sprayed the oncoming infantry with their coaxial MGs. The Churchills also sprayed potential targets liberally with their MGs) I don't think the AI is able to make these kinds of decisions and that's different from I know that it can't. I don't know. If it WERE able to, then there might be a solution on the horizon and we'd see tanks only use its main gun armament against hard targets. If it's not, then there's nothing to see or do here

[altipueri]

Paint, as for the AI:

"I only play these games man. I don't know what makes 'em work."

Or some such.

[womble]

HE is for soft targets, and infantry is a soft target. Firing HE at soft targets is not, ipso facto, a bad thing.

Not in itself, no. But firing off one of a limited number of rounds at receding low value targets is sub-optimal when your vehicle has an almost limitless supply of MG ammo. As has been pointed out, the difficulty is in getting the AI to recognise "receding" and "low value". HE is much more valuable against soft targets grouped in hard settings.