Just a spectator?

[Fred]

First of all I must say that this is a great game (and I pre-ordered 2 or 3 month ago). But there is one thing that has to be tweaked in the final release. The TacAi and how it handles "Target" orders.

Steve once said, that the AI is comitted to a players target order, as long as the target is valid, and there is not another "juicy" target (or a case of self defence).

Well, this is not what I experienced in the beta; usually the first thing the TacAi does (after just 2-5 seconds) is to switch my target orders for the units. Her is in example from the Riesdorf scenario:

A regular Volksgrenadier squad in good (rested) condition without any casualties (and in command) is hiding in a stone building. 40 meters away a US squad in direct LOS is on the move to enter the house. The US squad is in the open and no enemy squad is fring at my hidden VG squad.

I order it to un-hide and target the 40 m away US squad. Then I hit GO. Guess what happened. After 3 or 4 seconds (without even firing at the US squad) my VG squad switches target to an US squad some 175 m away in light woods!

The first US squad easily entered the house before my (now battered) VG squad retargetted it.

Another example from the same scenario:

1 ordered my 88 gun to target a sherman on the left flank, because I want to weaken the enemy assault on this flank. I hit GO.

Guess what happened. After 3-4 seconds without firing any shot, the 88 targets a sherman on the right flank (maybe because the to-hit % was 2 or 3 % higher. And no, the sherman was not firing at the 88).

This happens all the time. Why do I even bother to give target orders if the AI happily discards them after some seconds?.

In the Riesberg scenario as the defender there are mostly target orders to give, not this much movement orders (which the AI follows exactly). So there is this feeling of watching a war movie with very little influence of me, the player (and in this context the most important person in a game!).

No, I do not want god like control, but yes, it's not enough for me as a player to order units from position A to position B and then let the AI decide the outcome while I'm just a spectator. After all, CM is a game and I want to see results from the time consuming input I do in planning phase.

The same goes for a "Hold fire" order. I use the workaround of creating an ambush zone, let all units hide and target this ambush, not because I really want to ambush there, but to make sure that they don't fire their MP40 at 150 m enemies in woods and give away their positions. Soldiers usually obey orders (they were trained for this

So, for the final release, two things should be considered:

1. The AI should not change targets the player ordered (after all its he who plays the game) IF not

- target out of sight

- "juicy target" presents itself

- self defence (former unseen enemy unit comes around the corner in 20 m distance)

- failed morale (sorta "panic fire" at all that moves)

In all other cases the AI must shoot at the ordered target. It should really stick to the order.

2. Implement "Hold fire" order (which can be broken by circumstances). So there is no need for the above "workaround".

Maybe some get the impression, that I don't like the game. Wrong. I played the demo every free hour since release and I think it is the greatest wargame ever. But the player must have some more influence on the game and the behaviour of the units. If some call it "gamey", ok, it is a game after all

Fred

[Kraut]

Yup, i feel the same way. Fionn and the BF people tried to convince me that it might be because the LOS was broken to the unit i fired at, but reading your examples, and playing a few more games i am convinced that this is not always true.

The tacAI defninitely needs some tweaking on this one. I quite often feel like i have little or no control over my units. They basically just fire at what they want, ruining the planning i do between turns. Like i said before, this hurts gameplay quite a bit.

I also feel that my units fire at the enemy too soon. This *might* be because they are only "regular" troops (in the last defense battle), but i feel even then they should wait a little longer before they fire, if i have them in hiding status.

Just yesterday in a PBEM game, my bazooka started to fire at a stuG from over 120m with less than 20% hit chance. I don't like this at all because it ruined my planning. I wanted to spring the ambush much later so i had a higher chance of taking out the stuG and the infantry that were escorting it. As it happened, the zooka missed the first two rounds, and then took fire from about evenry enemy unit on the map. If the zook hadn't fired i could have dropped more infantry and taken out more armor than i did before the enemy tiger and other units started to fire back effectively. I wouldn't mind this happening occasionally, but this behaviour seems far too regular to me.

I too like this game very much, but these two issues really annoy me.

MK

[Guest aaronb]

The response from Battlefront is basically: the units self-preserve and shoot at things that are obvious threats to them.

Certainly, we want a unit to switch when it is in clear and present danger, and often when it see a high-effective opportunity (squad running across the road).

However: I may have strategic reasons for directing lots of low-effective fire at a unit: e.g., in the next 'turn', the unit will be close-assaulted. The firing units may not know this (and so switch targets), but the company commander sure does, and word goes down the line. The way it is now, coordinating suppression fire doesn't work too well.

IMHO, the player-directed target needs a little more priority in the targeting portion of the AI.

If someone who has seen actual combat (LOS?) will tell us that units readily dump fire orders to take on seemingly-juicy opportunity targets, then I'll go with it.

[Preacher]

I must concur. I've had SS PG units in the Last Defense scen open up on targets 200+ meters away when I had them targeting a squad 90m away. No broken LOS, no greater threat. I DO want the AI to determine in some cases to switch its fire to another target. However, it seems w/o any rhyme or reason at this point. (btw, i had the 88 thing happen, too, except in my case it fired at a mortar team and discouraged the Sherman - that was almost in LOS - from moving any farther)

It's not a game breaker for me (i love this game - unbelievably so). i would liek to see it addressed, however.

Preacher

P.S. sorry, i tend to be quite wordy on Sundays

[MERC]

Kraut,

Are you setting up ambush markers and then targeting them with you units?

From my experience there seem to be like 3 different types of rules of engagements

1) No command given - open up as soon as they see the enemy regargless of chance for success.

2) Give hide command - will wait until the enemy closes and they have a better opportunity to suppress or injure the enemy.

3) Give hide command and target ambush marker - units will stay hidden and only will open up once the ambush is triggered (unless your ambush is blown).

Generally I have not had much AI targeting problems though I'll admit, I don't do much micromanagement of targeting. I'm spend more of my time concerned with synchronising and massing my forces. If I have a good plan, the AI does a pretty good job of excuting that plan.

[This message has been edited by MERC (edited 10-31-99).]

[Dave]

When I order a unit to attack a certain unit, I expect it to follow my orders unless:

1. A more immediate threat develops

2. It loses LOS to the first unit

The morale rating, level of the unit's experience, how & how much it is threaten by others and it's level of support & in command are all factors in how well the unit follows my orders.

This is ONLY a beta demo. I'm sure that Steve & Charles are following the comments carefully and looking to their own testing and that of the beta testers, to see if the units switch too easily from one target to another.

Kraut

"Just yesterday in a PBEM game, my bazooka started to fire at a stuG from over 120m with less than 20% hit chance. I don't like this at all because it ruined my planning. I wanted to spring the ambush much later..." Did you actually have your bazooka team targeted to an ambush point? Right now I'm playing a LAST DEFENSE game and have a "regular" bazooka, since turn 1, targeted on a ambush point that is 75 meters away. Its turn 15 and a HT has been sitting for a few turns just 50 meters further out from the ambush point. The bazooka team has been sitting patiently waiting.

[Kraut]

aaron said :

"However: I may have strategic reasons for directing lots of low-effective fire at a unit: e.g., in the next 'turn', the unit will be close-assaulted. The firing units may not know this (and so switch targets), but the company commander sure does, and word goes down the line. The way it is now, coordinating suppression fire doesn't work too well.

IMHO, the player-directed target needs a little more priority in the targeting portion of the AI. "

-Yes, this must be done! If i need to use suppression-fire on a unit, then i need to do it, no matter how juicy a target 300m away is. The danger is here and now, and not over there!

"If someone who has seen actual combat (LOS?) will tell us that units readily dump fire orders to take on seemingly-juicy opportunity targets, then I'll go with it."

-Oh common, this is nuts! Just because "someone" who was in combat says that this is how it's done, doesn't make it any more enjoyable ... like i'm gonna sit there going: "damn this sucks, my MG fired at a target of it's choice eventhough i needed suppression fire over there, but hey, someone said this is how it's done, and HE was in combat ... uhh huuu ... " Gimmie a break

I just played a good deal of the riesberg scenario as germans, and i compiled some of the cases that REALLY annoyed me during that game. Maybe the BF people would like to comment on them. This issue about hiding infantry and disregarding fire-orders is becoming more and more apparent.

- Vet. Volksgrenadier opens fire at an unbuttoned sherman at 175m, eventhough i had him hiding in a house.

- Reg. VG squad ordered to shoot at a sherman from 70m with PF100. What does it do ? Well, it shoots at the freakin sherman with it's small arms, then turns around and fires the faust at infantry 50m away !!! ARRG !

- Green VG HMG42 opens up on infantry at 180m, eventhough i had him hiding in a house.

- I got the HMG to hide again, but then it opens fire on infantry 100m away. (sorta acceptable, but still not my plan)

-Reg. VG squad, hiding in a house, opens up on infantry 250m away. I wanted to use this squad to ambush a sherman coming down the main road. The tank got to a range of 70m, then it was killed by a faust from the squad. This wasn't a bad outcome, but still the tacAI took the decisions away from me! I wanted to let the tank come much closer, then wax it.

-Reg. Panzerschreck team shoots at sherman from a 2-story building at 170m. I had this team hiding also. This is unacceptable ! I need my AT assets to hide and hold out so i get let the armor come in close for a higher hit-chance.

-Reg. VG squad opens up on infantry in scattered trees at 210m. Two other green VG squads are nearby and do not open up. All were hiding. It appears that a team will open up on infantry when they have reached a certain "firepower" rating, since the reg VG has a rating of 74, while hte green teams had only 6 and 8.

-Again, reg. PS team shot at a sherman from a 2-story building at 200m. Nuts !

At this point i had to stop (about turn 12), since it was pissing me off too much. I wasn't losing, but it just seemed like i did very little to win, other than deploy my men at "the right" positions.

I do not wish to trash this game in any way. It's an excellent game, and good fun. However this disregarding of orders my men are doing makes me feel more and more like a spectator rather than their commander. The game is becoming more and more dull for me ... i do not want to control every little aspect of my men, but i DO want a considerable amount of control over them, so i can have some fun watching my orders and plans lead to success.

MK

[Kraut]

Dave -

No, i did not use ambush. I am aware this should be more effective, and keep my zooks from firing at a tank too soon. But this is not a good solution IMO. Why do i have to order an ambush just so my men keep their heads down and wait for a good time to shoot or, more importantly, for me to give them an order to fire ?! What would happen if that HT were to come from an entirely different direction? Can the zook still fire at it (that is, keep still until it gets closer, then fire, or get a fire-command form me)? If so, this might be a better way of doing things, but still not good enough IMO.

MK

[Fred]

Kraut,

you are right on both topics, and I adressed them in my first posting.

Using the "ambush method" just to issue an "Hold Fire" order is nothing more than a workaround.

Same goes for your examples of how the AI switches targets. I know all of them and if I (as the player or as the company commander, whatever) order the 88 gun to fire at a tank on one flank, it does not have to fire on an infantry squad, not even if it has a high kill percentage.

And if I made a mistake with my target order (because there are better ones around), this is ok.

Simply stated, to drop a players targeting or hold fire orders should be an rare exception, not the rule (conditions for switching are in my first post).

This has to be adressed for the final release.

Fred

[John Rainey]

Fred & Kraut,

First of all have you ever been under fire?? Even Simulated fire during a real world military exercise??? The commands you are giving are at company and battalion level, at least this is how I view it, how they are carried out at the squad and platoon level are effected by the AI. Crawling around on the ground and trying to direct my Squads (when I was a LT) and crawling or using my Comm equip. while I was a Company CO to direct my Plts I tell you Its not fun or easy. Individual sections and soldiers should be programmed to take action based on how they see it not on how the upper ecelon see's it.

In this game the units will react to how they perceive the situtaion to be, so when you order it to fire it is like a HIGH level order. If it doesn't fit reality by the time it reaches them it will be discarded by the troops on the line.

When you have work with real troops and if you have worked with them in " The Land Of The Two Way Rifle Range" you would know what point I am trying to get accross. I am sorry if this comes across as rather blunt.

John

Sappers Forward!!!!

[Fionn]

I think some people should realise that the majority of real soldiers who are psting are posting:

a) on behalf of FOW as it is,

are saying you already have way too much info

c) say that the targetting is fine as is.

Personally, and I'm not trying to put any of you down since I KNOW this is a new game system and you're not used to it but.., I think you MUST be doing something wrong with your targetting or are expecting unrealistic things from previous games.

If I had to choose between firing at guys in a house 50 metres away who weren't firing at me and firing at a guy 150 metres away in woods who was I'd fire at the guy in woods SIMPLY because :

a) he's in FAR worse cover than the guy in the house and

he's firing at me.

If you think:

a) cover levels and

IS IT A THREAT

then you'll see why the AI is firing at these units. Basically it is choosing to fire at threats which you can kill as opposed to most of you who want it to fire at nearby units which it can't kill (due to cover).

I know it is difficult to accept guys but honestly the AI usually does a more effective targetting job than you ever will UNTIL you learn what sorts of targets you should be firing at.

I learnt this and now I can say that roughly 90% of all targets I select are preserved by the AI for the full 60 seconds.. The 10% which aren't are switched frm simply because some AI unit will charge my position..

Hell, a lot of the time I let the AI do the targetting for me completely (especially on the attack) since it will be MUCH more effective than any targetting order I give.

Unrealistic expectations of real combat plus accomodation with other games= a lot of statements that what is happening in CM is wrong.

The military guys feel it is right... They know more than any of us non-military guys. perhaps we should listen to them?

[Fred]

John,

yes, I was in the army so I was in "under fire situations". But you misss the whole point. This game(!) is not called:

"Company Commander©; experience the sheer chaos of war in this simulation! Give commands nobody obeys! Just tell 'em to take that hill and watch how the AI NCOs fight it out. Be a company commander! Stay under cover and just watch!"

I am the player of this game, not a role playing style "Commander character" on the field. If I want this I would rejoin the army or do play a role playing game (like "Behind Enemy Lines").

Fionn,

sorry that I must disagree with you, because all your statements usually are well reasoned, but I do not believe what you said:

---------------

I know it is difficult to accept guys but honestly the AI usually does a more effective targetting job than you ever will UNTIL you learn what sorts of targets you should be firing at.

[...]

Hell, a lot of the time I let the AI do the targeting for me completely (especially on the attack) since it will be MUCH more effective than any targeting order I give.

---------------

We talk about a game that the player is supposed to play, aren't we? I'm not of the opinion that the AI does a more effective job than me. Remember, if I have a greater "overall plan" (call it strategy), how should the AI knows? Read my examples above...

And you think the AI should dictate me, what I have to target??? Sorry, I thought the game was designed to LET me decide (even if I make errors; sometimes commanders fail...) what will happen, not the AI...but I guess I'm wrong.

So why bothering with target orders, if the AI is always right? Just moving the troops to point A and then relax, sit back and watch?

This is a game , a challenge of the mind. And if I invest time in giving orders (even stupid ones) I want them to be carried out (most of the time), else where is the game in the game?

The word "realism" is not a good all-around weapon to counter all our concerns about gameplay, and gameplay it is what I talk about.

----------

"The military guys feel it is right... They know more than any of us non-military guys. perhaps we should listen to them?"

----------

No, because being in the military does not automatically qualify them to be right on gameplay issues (BTW, I was in the military).

I hope Steve or Charles will say something about the topics in my first post in this thread, because others are concerned about this issues too.

Sorry if this sounds hard, but I wanted to clearly state my point

Fred

[Fionn]

No worries Fred

I am ALL for stating your points strongly, defending them strongly and being open and honest . I've gotten into trouble for being open and honest and fortright before but hell, it's worth it

So, I have ZERO problem you disagree with my opinion. I disagree with yours too FWIW but as you know and I know. This ain't personal and so long as we simply keep it to the opinion that's cool

I do think that people are simply getting the targeting wrong and misunderstanding the AI.

If you see a stupid re-targetting send me the MOVIE of the turn or a picture and let me see it. So far I've had a few pictures and I've been able to point out exactly why the AI shifted fire in all of them..

e.g. A US unit went behind a house so the AI shifted fire.

2. A US unit dissapeared from LOS by hitting the dirt so the MG picked another target.

3. After pinning 1 squad of an advancing German platoon the AI decided it would make more sense to pin the other 3 than to simply keep firing at the hidden, pinned squad.

The AI retargeting stopped an entire platoon getting into this guy's position yet he was pissed off cause he figured firing at a prone squad in cover at 60 metres would be better than firing at squads charging over fields at 60 metres.

This is where I come from when I say I think people are getting it wrong. I understand why people are jumping on the bandwagon but I also think that most people are seeing easily explainable things and simply not thinking before they jump to conclusions.

FWIW the person whose MG stopped a platoon assault still does not agree with me that this MG should have switched fire to stop the entire platoon

See what I'm getting at?

BUT VERY IMPORTANTLY> your posts are welcome Fred.. I know you're just trying to understand the game better. Just keep an open mind and it'll be a better game for all of the discussion that goes on here.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Fionn]

Oh, BTW Fred, what qualifies a lot of the people who are saying it ain't necessary to some things on this board is that quite a few of them are beta testers and ahve the game.

A lot of the people posting against some of these ideas are testers and KNOW the game and what they are talking about

Funnily enough not a single tester has posted in support of some of the things people are pushing for.

All I'm saying is, if I have zero problem with the AI retargeting and find it very rarely retrgets me then maybe it's your style of play which is the problem or your expectations. That's all.

Frankly I was mystified when I saw these posts begin since testers hadn't really found this to be a problem but then again they didn't give some of the targeting orders I've heard about

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[pcelt]

I make this contribution with great trepidation because I am virtually new to this sim.

But I have been intrigued by this particular discussion and can fully see where both sides are coming from.

May i suggest a solution a little like the "fog of war" solution--- a choice solution.

i.e re"Targetting order only ---make 2 levels of order 1)Mandatory ---unit ordered to follow order to the letter.

2) Advisory (as now) unit may amend order if it sees fit and often will.

In this way each type of "player/commander" can adopt his/her order to suit their leadership style and particular situations. No one is compelled to adopt an approach they disapprove.

Apologies if i have missed matters of crucial significance or if such a solution would be impracticable from a programming standpoint

Dave

[Fred]

Fionn,

thanks for your reply, and even if we do not agree on this one it is always a pleasure to discuss with you

Now to business:

You name some examples but pls. take a (very close) look on mine and Krauts examples:

1. The VG squad in my first posting. The enemy was in LOS the whole time, it was an immediate threat and no other squad shoots at my VG squad.

I presumed the AI would target it anyway, but just to get sure I ordered it to "Target". The very first thing in the execution phase was the VG squad switching to a far away US squad in woods.

2. I stated it before but you did not answer it; its me who plays the game, not the AI and I'm prepared to issue some stupid orders (and I'm prepared to pay for it), but after all, its gameplay what a game should deliver. No AI should dictate me, what I have to do.

If I make a stupid move in a game of computer chess, I do not want that any AI "corrects" me; if I make an error I will learn it the hard way. This would end up that the AI plays the AI and me beingf a spectator. Realism, hmm maybe,...challenging gameplay...doubt it.

3. How should the AI knows about my "greater plan". Even if Feldwebel Hansel thinks that he knows better than me, he has no idea why I want (and ORDERED!) that this certain MG has to be obliterated. What is stupid in the eyes of the AI at this moment(!) could be a great thing for the whole battle. And I want to win the battle, not just killing the most "juicy target" the AI thinks it should fire on.

4. It all comes down to this; my job is it to move the units to the right position and then let the "superior" AI decide the fighting by happily targeting on their own. But if on the defense with all units deployed in good positions, what will be my role? Sitting and watching? Minor redeployments? That's definitely not enough for a game; enough for a simulation of a company commander, yes, but not enough play value for me. I want to see that my input in the games system makes a difference (for good of for bad).

A game system should not dictate a human player how to play or what style to use. It is not able to read my mind, so it has no idea why I'm ordering this or that.

It SHOULD switch targets in some circumstances (see my first posting) but not as easily as it does now.

Maybe you could tell me your opinion about these four topics.

Fred

[Fionn]

Dave,

I welcome the contribution and see exactly where you are coming from..

Unfortunately, in my opinion, it wouldn't work since the "mandatory" targeting would result in units being "locked in" to fire at an enemy unit 200 metres away.

What happens if suddenly more enemy infantry pop up on the right flank and charge the house from 50 metres?

Answer: Using mandatory firing.. the unit continues firing at an enemy 200 metres away and does no harm .. Using the AI the unit swivels and blasts the assault squad

Still, thanks for the intervention and it was a good one because it does show the downside of the mandatory targeting some people want .

Keep posting ok . Just cause it wasn't the perfect solution doesn't mean any of US have a perfect solution either

Always good to see a new face

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Fred]

Fionn,

you wrote to Dave

-----

Still, thanks for the intervention and it was a good one because it does show the downside of the mandatory targeting some people want

-----

I think we have a misunderstanding, please read my first post; I do not want a mandatory targeting; all I want is a (strong) tweak to the AI to give a players orders more weight!

I agree with you, that a strict mandatory targeting routine is something nobody wants!

But pls see my last posting; still four questions/statements I would like to see answered if you like to and if you find the time to do so...

But Charles and Steve are also welcome to this thread

Fred

[Moon]

Am I welcome, too?

1. Maybe other units were firing at your designated target already? Maybe the description you're giving is not 100% correct? Maybe there's a bug in the beta demo? I'm playing the game for a few months now and never had problems with re-targetting.

2. Uh... is that a question? If you think that the player is simply a spectator, how about not issuing ANY orders for the duration of the game? Try it - you'll lose...

3. Tha AI has no clue about your greater plan. The TacAI doesn't care a bit about it. Only thing it cares about is self-preservation - how to keep your guys alive. This is EXACTLY what real soldiers would do, no matter how loud you shout at them: TARGET HERE, YOU MORONS!

4. Minor redeployments? Sitting and watching? Hm... have you not played the game as attacker yet?

Overall, it seems to me that what you want is robots and not soldiers on the battlefield. It's not the game that bothers you because the game will let you do whatever you want. What bothers you is that you have to learn how to do things the real way (i.e. take the variables of war like morale, self-preservation, uncertainty, fog of war into consideration). But that's one of the things this game is about.

After re-reading what I wrote I might seem a little too personal maybe, but I trust that you understand that I do not mean this personal in any way! I am not attacking you - just trying to point out an issue that you might have overlooked.

[Fred]

You are welcome Moon, definitely!

I know you from your posts as a fair discussion partner, so I don't take it personally

To business:

Once again the "realism" gun was fired at my concerns.

I thought I made it clear; I just want the AI tweaked that way, that it is more weighted towards my orders as the player (no, I'm not the company commander on the field).

I do not want robots, I do not want mandatory targeting, but I do want a little more obedience from my units.

And believe me, I checked and double checked the examples I gave you. No, the unit was in LOS the whole time, no the other unit does not fire at my VG squad. And this assaulting US squad was by far the greatest threat around (and it happened what I have tried to prevent with my TARGET order, the enemy squad enters the stone building and close combat started).

The whole point comes down to this; I reason from a gaming standpoint, you reason with "realism" (or what you think is realism).

I said it once, and I say it again; this is a game. The most important part, for me, is a balance between gameplay and realism and how I can influence things. Hey, if I want to give a stupid order, my fault. But I do not follow you by saying "this guy always gives "wrong" (who decides?) orders, so the AI has to help him out".

-------------

" Tha AI has no clue about your greater plan. The TacAI doesn't care a bit about it."

--------------

That is what I said. So it is not able to decide, what isa wrong target and what is a right target.

And realism? If I radio to this 88 Gun "Anton" to fire at a tank on the right flank, Feldwebel Arglos should better listen to me, instead of saying "Forget it captain, juicy infantry out in the open..."

I guess my point of view is not this exotic, cause here are others who think the same.

Maybe an option "realistic" and "more sticky too players orders" could do the trick. Do not forget; people are different, gamers are different, and wargamers are really different...

And to make it clear; this game is great and I would rate it best wargame ever (with my one or two reservations).

Just one word about my person; wargamer since 20 years now (all kinds, all flavors, all topics, all complexities), was in the military (German Bundeswehr), now software support engineer.

Fred

[pcelt]

Fionn,

Thanks for your response.

Just a very swift follow up to make it clear that I am not in favour of Mandatory targetting as an alternative .

As you rightly point out --in many situations it might be suicidal and in most situations the current "advisory" targetting where units can make overriding decisions is much more judicious.

All I am suggesting is there might be odd occasions when ,as a result of an integrated plan and his reading of the situation a player/commander might decide on a mandatory targetting order for a unit in order to facilitate his plan. Of course it could well go horribly pear shaped and his squad get caught by an unexpected enemy sortie. Such an experience might be salutary.

All I am saying is that perhaps a mandatory targetting option,however risky,ill-advised and however rarely used might well be a possibility for those who want to occasionally adopt that sort of plan

[Fionn]

To Fred,

Fred, we had no misunderstanding.. I was replying to Dave's post only when I wrote what I wrote..

He mentioned mandatory targeting so that's what I dealt with. I understand fully where you're coming from though and know it isn't mandatory retargeting but a different weighting in values.

Dave,

Regarding mandatory targetting. I think it would be difficult to include mandatory targeting and selective targeting on a per unit basis. I think it would have to be more along the lines of "all units in this game will do mandatory targetting" or "all units are free to shoot." I'm no programmer though but it would not a GUI redesign also which is a pain in the neck.

Fred,

I was shooting zero guns in your direction. I was merely illustrating a point to Dave. Don't see targeting when it isn't occuring k?

And I read you loud and clear regarding Wargamers ...

Still, all I can say is that without any pictures or autosaves there's only so much I can do. I swear that if you send me some which show a CLEAR problem I'll be sure to address these issues as much as I can.

However, not a single person has sent me a single picture showing a true LOS or targeting problem yet...

Send it and I'll have a look though as AI targetting is something all the testers are looking at.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Fred]

Fionn,

---------

"I was shooting zero guns in your direction. I was merely illustrating a point to Dave. Don't see targeting when it isn't occuring k? "

---------

This was a reply to Moon, not to you

But sometimes I feel this "realism" argument is kinda overused...just a feeling

---

"Still, all I can say is that without any pictures or autosaves there's only so much I can do. I swear that if you send me some which show a CLEAR problem I'll be sure to address these issues as much as I can."

---

Deal! And thank you once again for being this responsive.

Is it possible to send you the replay of an execution phase? Is it the autosave.cmb you need?

Fred

[Fionn]

Well actually see if you can save it when the move is about to play..

If you send me the autosave then my computer will determine the combat results and they will be different than what you saw (the random factors etc).

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Los]

I have noticed the AI at times making all the kinds if fire decisions mentioned above which at times have puzzled me. However I have been playing so much CM (What about a month or more now?) that in the overall picture it hasn't been a major issue since "**** happens". Leading a unit in action is pretty much an endless colelction of chaotic events degrading your ability to control your men who are trying to follow your plan which itself started gong out the window BEFORE the first round was ever popped off. You make up for it with a solid initial plan, and reacting quickly (faster than the bad guys) with sound tactical decisions.

As a soldier and a beta tester I have not found any of these issues to be show stoppers probabbly becasue I expect this loss of control and confusion as part and parcel of the package, still I myself have been pretty sucsessful in my gameplay becuase teh majorty of my decisions and movements have put me in a place to overcome my knuckleheads at the squad level. (P.S> I have experienced the Bazooka guy popping off a round witha 2% hit porbability, though I should have ordered him to hold fire..I learned that lesson fast!)

I do perhaps think there perhaps should be another look at prioritizing player directed fire orders for two reasons:

1. A mention was made of an example like suppression, this is a good valid example. the positioning and management of your fire support/overwatch forces in the assault is arguable much more important than conducting the assault on a position itself, since if this phase of the oepration fails, then so will the assault. So directing suppresive fire on the target is key.

2. The point about player frustration and enjoyment versus realism (BTW that's what makes some of the HPS sims so annoying at times). Note the example below:

"At this point i had to stop (about turn 12), since it was pissing me off too much. I wasn't losing, but it just seemed like i did very little to win, other than deploy my men at "the right" positions."

BTW that is EXACTLY what company commanders and battalion commanders do, it's their job to see that there units are capable of performing their missions. In combat they deploy and manuever their forces into the "right positions" at the right time. They don't oversee individual squad fire orders to the level seen in CM, that's what Squad leaders, fire team leaders, and platoon leaders are for. That's realism. But on the flip side, it's no so much fun or satisfying. And CM is a game; most players are going to expect that their orders are carried out unless their are reasonable or at least quantifiable/identifiable reasons for them not doing so.

From a soldier standpoint I don't have a problem with the tactical AI. But then again I haven't played the beta demo only the other one.) I'm a part of the beta team and I look at thing from a soldier's perspective since it's a perspective the BFront guys would find most useful from me (as well as gameplayer). Also I have not played every scenatrio out there but have had numerous playing on just a few that I'm either writing or just testing for others.

But there are plenty of "non-soldier" gamers on the beta team and now with the demo and their opinion is arguably more important since this is a game after all not a west point training tool and their considerations have to be taken into effect. But those are decisions for BFS.

Los