Face vs Target Arc

[Whiterider]

Why target arcs are cancelled when an unit receive a face order?

 

Is it a bug?

 

Thanks in advance

[A Canadian Cat]

Not a bug, they are mutually exclusive. You can give a unit a target order, a face command or a target arc. Only one of the three.

Edited to fix typo, thanks @JasonC

Edited August 2, 2015 by IanL

[JasonC]

Whiterider - units with a target arc turn to face the center of the arc. And yes, that is an engine limitation and doesn't always reflect tactical realities. It is the biggest deal with guns, which change facing so slowly. (IanL meant a fire command as his third facing specifier). Sometimes you would like a weapon to cover this whole field, but to be especially ready for a tank breaking cover from the left - in those cases you have to choose. If the chance of distraction is low you might pick face. But usually it will be better to set a covered arc that may include more than you'd like, just to get that arcs center facing the right way.

Edited August 2, 2015 by JasonC

[womble]

Note that TA behaviour for units with turrets is slightly different, in that only the turret will turn to face the midpoint of an assigned TA.

 

As I understand it, from my observations, the facing of a unit given a Target Arc bisects the angle of its TA. So you can give a near-180 degree target arc. It also doesn't matter how long the right and left radii are, it's the angle that matters. There are, IME, very few situations where a TA cannot serve as well as a Face, since it's very rare that you want a unit to address itself to cover, concealment and firing opportunities in one direction, but be ready to fire in the opposite direction (unless you're the TacAI ). Also, it's worth noting that once a unit has assumed a facing, whether directed by a Face or a TA command, they will retain that orientation until you tell them to assume a different one, so you can cancel or replace (with a 360-whole-map Target Armour Arc, say) that TA at the earliest opportunity, so the longest they'll be "vulnerable" to surprises from the rear would be a minute. And surprises from the rear ought to be rare...

[JasonC]

womble - it isn't the 180 degree bit that is a limitation.  Its priority and readiness for specific threats.

 

An ATG is deployed in a half sided "keyhole" set up that blocks LOS to the western half of the compass.  Its assigned fire sector ranges from due north, 0 degrees, to 120 degrees.  There is no danger from anything left / west of 0 because LOS blockages cover that area.  The gun expects an enemy AFV to break cover - coming over a ridgeline, say - at about 20 degrees right of north, so it wants its covered arc to be centered there.  It still wants to cover its assigned sector, if the enemy tank doesn't crest the hill.

 

A face command could be used, with no arc, at the 20 degree bearing.  On the plus side this gives correct orientation to the highest value, biggest threat.  On the other hand, without an armored arc, the ATG might open fire at *infantry* at 100 degree orientation, in its field of view.  It would then be facing very much the wrong way if the enemy tank crests, would not be able to traverse back in time, and would likely die to this "distraction tag team".  

 

So we want an armored arc, for target type discrimination.  If a 120 degree armored covered arc is used over the whole sector 0 to 120, the gun will be oriented 40 degrees to the right of the likely cresting enemy tank.  That isn't quite as dangerous as the previous, but may still be enough to lose it the first shot advantage in a dual with the tank.  

 

So we want the armored arc to be centered on the 20 degree orientation.  If we use an arc with that orientation that is limited the gun's actual planned left-limited field of fire, it would only be 40 degrees wide, from 0 to 40 degrees.  This leaves the gun vulnerable to any other armored vehicle in the rightward 2/3rds of its assigned sector.

 

So we can use the max 180 degree arc, but orient its center on 20 degrees.  This would "waste" the leftmost 70 degrees of the covered arc on ground the gun can't actually see and doesn't need to cover (or scan visually, etc), and cover all but the last 10 degrees on the right.  But it does leave that 10 degree sliver at the right of the gun's desired arc uncovered.  And if there are any actual peepholes on the mostly obstructed left half of the compass, true wackiness could ensue, as the gun might traverse left chasing a fleeting glimpse of an enemy halftrack through a bunch of trees, and leave itself out of position for its actual intended target.

  

Using an arc narrower than 180 but wider than 40, centered on the 20 degree direction, is as good as we can do, trading off lost coverage on the right side of the intended field of fire, for less arc in which the wacky distraction in completely unintended areas can happen.

 

But why do we face these constraints?  There is nothing remotely inconsistent in wanting the gun to (1) face the 20 degree direction (2) only engage armor and (3) rotate vs an armored target of opportunity, only, exclusively in the arc 0 to 120 degrees.  The reason we can't do that is the designers didn't understand we'd want to, and made all of the face influencing orders mutually exclusive.  In tactical reality they are not mutually exclusive.

 

This isn't a big issue, in the sense that normally one can get a performance close to what one wants.  But every time one has to compromise and gets "burned" by the Tac AI then doing the dumb thing one was forced to tell it to do, it still grates.

 

FWIW.

Edited August 2, 2015 by JasonC

[womble]

womble - it isn't the 180 degree bit that is a limitation.  Its priority and readiness for specific threats.

 

An ATG is deployed in a half sided "keyhole" set up that blocks LOS to the western half of the compass.  Its assigned fire sector ranges from due north, 0 degrees, to 120 degrees. 

That's not really a keyhole is it? A gun that has to slew that distance is running at a disadvantage from the start.

 

Congratulations, you managed to conceive of a particular set of angles and conditions that does, indeed, mean an TA isn't ideal. It's a pretty tight set of specifications, though, and as I say, it's not a frequent occurrence, IME, that such specific circumstances apply which might have some detrimental effects. Most of the time, 

 

Using an arc narrower than 180 but wider than 40, centered on the 20 degree direction, is as good as we can do, trading off lost coverage on the right side of the intended field of fire, for less arc in which the wacky distraction in completely unintended areas can happen.

 

 

 works out just fine. Especially if you make the (left) half of your TA that contains the "dead" ground very short ranged so that the area it covers where wacky stuff could go on is smaller than if it reached out as far as the side where you're slicing a few degrees off the coverage.

[Erwin]

What still puzzles me is why BF did away with the easy click 180 degree arc of CM1.  If you play with armor, one needs to constantly have the turret facing one direction while the vehicle moves in another direction.  Currently, it's a major PITA to have to do 180 degree arcs in order to achieve this.

[CarlWAW]

+10

A shortcut for a 180 degree CA would be extremely helpful.

[Bulletpoint]

Or just give the ability to set one facing for the hull, and another for the turret. Seems like the nice and simple way to do it.

[Blazing 88's]

What still puzzles me is why BF did away with the easy click 180 degree arc of CM1.  If you play with armor, one needs to constantly have the turret facing one direction while the vehicle moves in another direction.  Currently, it's a major PITA to have to do 180 degree arcs in order to achieve this.

 

+10

A shortcut for a 180 degree CA would be extremely helpful.

 

+20...  For hollow cover arc's as well.  Loved that in the CMx1 series.  It is really annoying in CMx2 and hard coded unfortunately.

Edited August 9, 2015 by Blazing 88's