Possible Tank TacAI improvement

[weta_nz]

Hi,

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before - my apologies if it has and I could be completely wrong on this as I'm new to the CM2 engine but here is something I just noticed in CMFI. Here is the scenario:

One of the things I remember in CM1 was I'd have my tiger tank (cherry picked of course, but hey, the AI never complained ) nicely positioned to take on the hoards of medium tanks but I remember been disappointed by how few shots I could actually fire, because the TAC AI had a great survival mechanism - where the lighter/medium tanks would automatically shoot smoke at the tiger tank while on the move. (My guesss is they did it if it was unlikely they could penetrate the opposing tanks armour at range). By blinding the tank it gave the allies a great way of flanking the tiger tank. This TACAI algorithm is quite different to pop smoke and reverse as it means the medium tanks could actually advance rather then just retreat/defend. I don't know if it is unrealistic, or something that is hard to program or maybe it is coded but I haven't seen it yet. I did try a test scenario - and the shermans did not fire smoke only popped smoke and reversed. I had good results when I commanded the same shermans and manually fired smoke so it can be done and the tactic works.

Would be great to hear from BF or someone with more experience of the new engine but no big deal just thought I'd mention it. Maybe the Eastern front with potentially long flat plains it would be handy for the TACAI to do something automatically like this.

By the way the CMFI game looks fantastic - I reloaded CMAK (after cleaning 3 or 4 years of dust off the CD!) to check that i wasn't imagining the old TACAI behaviour and was amazed at how hard it was to move around after getting used to the CM2 engine. If any other CMBO demo veterans are still lurking and haven't bought the CMBN or CMFI game because they have only tried the CMBN demo v1.0 and couldn't get used to it. Get the latest CMBN demo TAKE AT LEAST 3-4 HOURS maybe even 2 or 3 sessions to get used to the controls and learn how to use arty etc- it's definately worth it!!

[Erwin]

CM1 and CM2 games look similar with similar UI's etc. But, new players should approach CM2 as a new game system not an evolution of CM1, or great frustration may result.

Tactics that worked in CM1 often don't work in CM2 and vice versa. CM1 is armor-centric and great for combined arms maneuver scenarios, CM2 is more infantry-centric, and its scenarios seem to depict frontal assaults more often on maps that don't allow for speedy maneuver. Hence one can still enjoy both game systems for different reasons.

[Vanir Ausf B]

CM2 is more armor-centric from a unit performance POV. Infantry are more interesting in CM2 (and thank goodness for that) and more "fun" to use, but armor is the dominant arm of the CM2 ground forces in a way it was not in CM1.

[sburke]

tastes great! less filling!

LOL I love the disparity of opinion about whether is is more infantry or armor centric. I suspect it really comes down to how you play the game, but defining even what we mean by those terms is probabaly not as simple as it might appear.

I personally view it as more infantry centric, but at least a part of that is simply how I approach the game rather than any actual dynamic. I love watching individual infantry engagements. I have 2 PBEMS going both of which involve armor and infantry. I spend more of my time at the infantry level deciding very exactly where I want to be and when etc I think partly because my infantry is more vulnerable to being randomly hit. Not that I don't pay attention to the armor aspect, but I am simply not required to babysit them as much. Those spotting rounds have much more importance to my squishy units.

[womble]

While it's true that some CM1 tactics and war tricks won't work out so well in CM2, it certainly sounds like it's a good idea to whang some smoke at a target that you can't hurt at extended ranges, to allow you to get closer. I'm sure it would work better in CM1 because the borg spotting model would allow even a tank that hadn't spotted the Nemesis lying in wait for it to accurately fire obscurants at it, whereas the AI can't (won't) do gamey things like area-firing smoke in front of where some other unit has spotted said Nemesis. In fact, it's been said that the TacAI won't area fire, at all, so adding it into the tank's response selection might be tricky. I would guess the problem with making it part of the TacAI's SOP is the difficulty of assessing penetration chance in CMx2. In x1, there was pretty much an "effect table", that you could see penetration chances on. I don't believe that's available to the AI or the player in CMx2, so the decision to fire smoke or AP at a spotted tank is "too hard" for the AI to make.

At least that's my guess as to why it's not automatic. As a player-initiated thing, it sounds like a fine tactic if you're not already burning

[weta_nz]

Hey Womble thanks for your reply- I agree with what you said regarding the borg spotting and the AI not area firing probably been good reasons for the different outcome in cm2. But in the interest of keeping the discussion ongoing - If a unit can decide to pop smoke and reverse - why not shoot smoke at the tiger(not even area fire)?. Very simplistic I know but this would be especially useful if the sherman tank is already moving quick or fast IMHO

[theFightingSeabee]

I also think this would be cool if used as a probability. What I mean is that the TacAI would have _% likelihood of using that tactic, where _% would pop smoke and get outta Dodge.

In a show I saw recently (I think Greatest Tank Battles), Sherman crews that were interviewed said they often fired smoke at German tanks to blind them without being blinded themselves. This allowed them to either bug out, start firing, or maneuver into a better firing position.

[weta_nz]

Yeah I agree behaviour like that should be probability based as this ensures more variety of AI behaviour (which as long as the different options are realistic) gives the game a more dynamic flavour.

Great to hear this tactic was used WW2 - I'm sure like almost all my knowledge I heard about this tactic from the CMBO forum days which was like 10-12 years ago now!!!?? so I wasn't sure if it was valid or not.

Without a detailed knowledge (which only BF have of course) of how units react to different threats this is all just an interesting discussion (nothing wrong with that!) - but I would like to see in future progressions of the game more specific TAC AI and things like triggers for the strategic AI plans been programmed in to make for a better single player experience.

cheers

[Bil Hardenberger]

So... weta_nz, how are those Hobbit movies coming along?

[weta_nz]

I'm not sure - I haven't talked to Peter Jackson for a while maybe I'll take a walk over to Hobbiton to find out

[LongLeftFlank]

And if we see a Royal Tiger (with Fuser's mod) fleetingly appear during the Battle of the Five Armies, we'll know who to thank....

[Bil Hardenberger]

I'm not sure - I haven't talked to Peter Jackson for a while maybe I'll take a walk over to Hobbiton to find out

Tell him to stop by... I still have a bone to pick with him about how he screwed up The Two Towers.

[weta_nz]

oh no PJ better watch out - A grog has some issues with the orc warrior tactics!

Just to get this back on topic. Does anyone else, besides myself and womble, think it might be good to have the TAcAI not only pop smoke and reverse, when confronted with a tank with armour it is unlikely to penetrate, but possibly shoot smoke at the threat (especially when on the move)? If not maybe explain why it could be bad for gameplay.

Don't worry I'm not asking if it can be done (only BF can answer that!) - I'm just wondering if there is anymore discussion to wring out of this topic? Obviously RT Head to head players can manually perform this action, but single player vs AI or turn based commanders might be more interested in this.