Battle Breaker Bugs and Such

[womble]

Given this is a computer program and there are numbers programmed in for everything, should there not be a relatively simple calculation regarding firepower at x range, taking into account y cover and z target type, and calculate whether it's worth firing.

The unit that's supposed to be making the decision has no idea about "firepower" and how it interacts with cover. It fires bullets on trajectories and they either intersect with cover or not (and then there may or may not be a terrain save). While numbers are used to calculate the eventual outcome, they're not simple matrices that can be multiplied together to provide a statistical table of probable results.

[Michael Emrys]

We track and use a huge amount of data for each weapon we model. No need to worry about us needing to do work to add data in - if you're talking about it, we've probably got it.

The idea that there's some hard within-a-meter "effective range" that applies in-game for a particular weapon in all situations is spurious at best, though. It varies, based on experience of the firer, intent of the fire, and weather conditions, just to name a few of the relevant variables, and that's just for *effectiveness*. There are also a heap of soft factors that might make a soldier shoot with little regard for the precise optimal range for his weapon.

These calculations, therefore, are necessarily fuzzy in the engine. There's no one hard number for "effective range", because no one hard number exists that takes into account all these variables, and we wouldn't be simulating warfare very well if we attempted to impose one. We can certainly take a look at reported issues, though.

Understood and quite reasonably put. However...a lot of players are seeing SMGs running out of ammo early in the game due to firing at ranges where they would have a slim chance of hitting anything. Such fire might or might not be useful for keeping the enemy's heads down. But not if one runs out of ammo. So what I'm wondering is whether ammo conservation is one of the variables that is being factored in, and if it is, is it being given enough weight?

Michael

[Redwolf]

Not knowing which building to occupy. Hear we go again, in CM1 a building was labeled "light" or "heavy" so you stayed out of the light ones and made a bee line to the heavy ones. Can't do that in CMBN, yet-maybe.

Actually that doesn't have anything to do with buildings. It's in the same complex of cover and concealment that relies too much on 3D and not on abstraction. A "heavy" building with bulletproof walls is treated more like a coverless shot pit.

I put that into the same complex that I put various issues around towed guns in. They don't have to do with towed gun, they have to do with cover and concealment, especially with regards to special terrain types such as foxholes and trenches that should offer both. But in the case of guns they often don't.

[Erwin]

Since my primary degree and research is psychology and I was ico paying people obscene amounts of govt money to attempt to create a "realistic" AI, you have my sympathies, Phil.

Our conclusions were that one can fudge and fake this stuff to appear to be realistic altho' it was not based on much. "Game AI" may often consist of a half-dozen rules of thumb, or heuristics, that are just enough to give a good gameplay experience."

I hope you are you certain that you are not over-complicating things leading to even more problems than the ones you are attempting to solve?

[Guest]

I'd say based on the problems BFC is trying to solve, no, they haven't over-complicated things.

I spent the decade prior to joining BFC working as an AI R&D engineer. I know plenty and more about the problems of creating "realistic" AI, so I definitely understand where you're coming from, and I did my due diligence when I got here. Frankly I think CM's TacAI, for all of its limitations, is a work of genius. Charles doesn't have 20+ years of creating great games under his belt for nothing.

[Erwin]

I am rooting for you guys...

(While you're at it, perhaps you could enable MG's at least to automatically move so that the MG gunner can see and shoot rather than just the 3rd ammo bearer? Puhleeze...)

[Guest]

I am rooting for you guys...

Cheers, thanks Erwin.

(While you're at it, perhaps you could enable MG's at least to automatically move so that the MG gunner can see and shoot rather than just the 3rd ammo bearer? Puhleeze...)

Hmmm. Seems like a lot of potential edge cases there. What do you want the MG gunner to see and shoot? How would you designate it? Would it only work with target orders? Should he move if the unit is already deployed? What if they spot a new threat? What if they spot a new threat during an existing target order? Those are just off the top of my head, if you think it's a problem for the TacAI to solve.

Or is it a control problem - an issue with the way LOS is checked for target orders? Is it that the 3rd ammo bearer's ability to see doesn't mean the unit's primary weapon can see?

[Baneman]

...

Or is it a control problem - an issue with the way LOS is checked for target orders? Is it that the 3rd ammo bearer's ability to see doesn't mean the unit's primary weapon can see?

This is what he's talking about - if the primary weapon has an extra large leaf or something in its face it should be able to be shifted a foot to the right or left ( ie. within the AS and without having to be packed up and redeployed ) so that it can shoot at what was a "Blue Line" LOS target.

[Doug Williams]

I imagine things were much simpler back in the CM1 days when Moe, Larry, and Curly as well and the effects of being in buildings or trees were much more abstracted.

[Erwin]

As Baneman said, it's USUALLY (90+%) that you want to shoot at what the 3rd ammo bearer can see, but the MG gunner can't.

It's horribly frustrating that the MG can't be automatically moved a few inches so that the gun can also "see" and more importantly shoot at the desired target. Calls for a "fudge" imo.

I appreciate that the height issues with AFV's etc makes their LOS/LOF problems a bit trickier.

[Georgie]

Cheers, thanks Erwin.

Hmmm. Seems like a lot of potential edge cases there. What do you want the MG gunner to see and shoot? How would you designate it? Would it only work with target orders? Should he move if the unit is already deployed? What if they spot a new threat? What if they spot a new threat during an existing target order? Those are just off the top of my head, if you think it's a problem for the TacAI to solve.

Or is it a control problem - an issue with the way LOS is checked for target orders? Is it that the 3rd ammo bearer's ability to see doesn't mean the unit's primary weapon can see?

Hi Phil, In the set up move if you give a MG a face command, even if it is in the same direction, the gunner will shift position, then if your repeat the face command the gunner will shift back to his original position. The face command acts like a toggle if it is used in this manner. If this action were available for the face command for the rest of the moves in the battle it would allow the gunner to be shifted slightly without packing up, this would also be handy if it were available for the AT guns.

[John Kettler]

Phil,

Regarding Charles, you're absolutely right. He has the finest artisan produced, handcrafted brain jar the world has ever seen. And well he should!

On a more topical note, it's my understanding that building hardness, in CMBN and similar, is a function of building size. It's trivial, though, to produce pics of small stone buildings from the region. Such buildings were found in CMx1 and were tough nuts to crack. If I understand the scheme being used correctly, I don't understand the underlying logic at all. Please explain this seemingly counterintuitive target modeling decision.

Regards,

John Kettler

[poesel]

It would help in some of the 'can't target' cases if a unit would be allowed to target light on sound contacts. The fire would be very inaccurate but it wouldn't be necessary to be able to target the ground of the AS the contact emanates from.

Would IMHO also make perfect sense from a realism point of view.

[womble]

It would help in some of the 'can't target' cases if a unit would be allowed to target light on sound contacts. The fire would be very inaccurate but it wouldn't be necessary to be able to target the ground of the AS the contact emanates from.

Would IMHO also make perfect sense from a realism point of view.

You can "sort of" do this, in many cases. If you area target the last action spot you can actually "draw a bead on" before the contact, or the first area you can after it, much of the fire will be "grazing" and pass through or near the contact's AS. Uses more ammo than a no-heavy-weapons Target Light, but it's a way of getting at untargetable AS's

[poesel]

Yes, I know this. But especially if the target is on a very slight reverse slope or behind a wall you loose sight as soon as the enemy ducks. If that happens before the turn ends you have no chance to create suppressing fire although you and your troops know exactly where the enemy is.

Or you have a sound contact in heavy woods and you want to tree burst it with mortars. You can't because you will never get LOS to the corresponding AS.

[womble]

Yes, I know this. But especially if the target is on a very slight reverse slope or behind a wall you loose sight as soon as the enemy ducks. If that happens before the turn ends you have no chance to create suppressing fire although you and your troops know exactly where the enemy is.

Or you have a sound contact in heavy woods and you want to tree burst it with mortars. You can't because you will never get LOS to the corresponding AS.

The slight reverse slope is an example of where you can land some suppression without a direct LOS. Personally, I'd be lary of shooting off precious mortar ammo at "?" markers. They're "tentative" for a reason, often that they're moving, and even direct lay mortars take a minute or two to come in. Obviously, there are times when you might think harder about it, but on the whole, you're only very occasionally going to get any use out of that kind of blind fire with mortars.

[John Kettler]

womble,

You're referring to the "1 AS in" situation, right?

Regards,

John Kettler