Question about ammo

[Endyamon]

Hi all

I've searched the forum for an answer but I didn't find it.

My question is simple. Is it possible to choose what type of ammo use in vehicles? I mean, can I choose to shoot an atgm with the t72/t90 or a tow with the bradley? Or it's all up to the AI?

Thanks

[Anthony P.]

You guessed it, it's an AI decision. Sometimes it could've been fun being allowed to tell them what ammo to use I suppose. Once I'd used up all the HE in an Abrams, at which point I told it to fire at a barn it was parked perpendicular to. On the other side stood a T-90. Seeing the Abrams shoot it through the barn, magnificent!

Overall though, telling the AI what ammo to use would be very much micromanagement.

[A Canadian Cat]

@Anthony P. has the answer.  We players have issues with the Tac AI's choice of ammo now and then.  In the Modern game it is more frequent since there are more choices for the same unit.  In the WW2 titles there is very little complaint about ammo choice but it occurs much more frequently in CMBS.  This has been hashed around a lot.  BFC has stated their preference for improving the decisions the Tac AI make for two reasons: 1) that way the AI player gets the same improvement and 2) to keep the number of commands down to control the amount of micro managing needed.

Nearly every one agrees that #1 is a good goal - we all want the AI to be better.  There is lots of is agreement about #2 though.  There are plenty of people who vocally say they want more control.

[Nefron]

I don't really buy the micromanagement argument. 

The biggest problem is that the AI has no real authority in movement: you have to position your units manually, you cannot order them to say take up positions on that ridge. Now, the terrain is so detailed that you frequently have to get down to eye level of your units, and position them in an exact square to achieve what you want. 

Now, there is nothing more frustrating than having that Javelin team that is supposed to be in overwatch just throw themselves on the ground in tall grass, or stare at a rock. The same thing applies with an IFV firing the gun instead of an ATGM, an ATGM team engaging a building with their rifles etc. 

When it gets like that, I don't feel like the engine is protecting me from micromanaging. It feels like I just can't communicate my intentions. 

 

[Jammersix]

Then this might not be the game for you.

[Anthony P.]

2 hours ago, Nefron said:

The biggest problem is that the AI has no real authority in movement: you have to position your units manually, you cannot order them to say take up positions on that ridge. Now, the terrain is so detailed that you frequently have to get down to eye level of your units, and position them in an exact square to achieve what you want.

You say that as if it's a bad thing?

[Nefron]

1 hour ago, Jammersix said:

Then this might not be the game for you.

I'm certainly having fun, but there are things that can be improved, and they shouldn't even be that hard to do. 

I don't understand the people defending these shortcomings as saying that they don't want micromanagement, when in fact there is very much micromanagement in the game as it is, you can, and frequently have to manually position units very precisely. I don't see how giving them an order to use or not to use certain weapons would be any different. 

 

Just now, Anthony P. said:

You say that as if it's a bad thing?

No, I'm putting that as an argument that there is already a ****load of micromanaging to be done, and that I can't see how somebody could argue against giving the player more control by saying that they don't want to micromanage. 

[Anthony P.]

Giving your vehicles detailed instructions about where to position themselves as it can depend on a multitude of different aspects you've thought of and planned around that can not possibly be correctly guessed by an AI isn't what I would call micromanaging. At best I could say that maybe it'd be better to have some of move/target command that made the AI ensure they were in Hull Down/Partial Hull Down positions, but other than that, no, I'd much rather retain control of where my vehicles go than have even the best AI in the world attempt to interpret my intentions.

[Nefron]

8 minutes ago, Anthony P. said:

Giving your vehicles detailed instructions about where to position themselves as it can depend on a multitude of different aspects you've thought of and planned around that can not possibly be correctly guessed by an AI isn't what I would call micromanaging. At best I could say that maybe it'd be better to have some of move/target command that made the AI ensure they were in Hull Down/Partial Hull Down positions, but other than that, no, I'd much rather retain control of where my vehicles go than have even the best AI in the world attempt to interpret my intentions.

Sure, I agree. 

My point is, we are not giving high level orders in regards to movement, so why would we be restricted in orders for weapons employment? 

The game is already detailed enough that a Javelin team being prone or crouched can make a difference between having a great firing position and being completely useless, and that's great. What isn't great is that the game takes that out of my hands for no apparent reason, and at times that can be really frustrating.

I just think it's silly that I can position an ATGM team in an exact spot, tell them which way to face, whether to break out the tripod etc. but I can't tell them not to shoot that building with their rifles, or not to lie down in the tall grass. 

Edited July 1, 2016 by Nefron

[Jammersix]

20 minutes ago, Nefron said:

I'm certainly having fun, but there are things that can be improved, and they shouldn't even be that hard to do. 

So far, a lot of what you call "improvement" isn't improvement in my opinion.

There is another facet to this, and that is Battlefront's limits. Battlefront has shown that they are limited in very specific ways, and while whether or not your suggestions are improvements, merely changes or detrimental, every change requires resources.

Battlefront has always operated at the limits of their resources, and they have many areas that need attention before changes to things that many of us view as acceptable are assigned resources.

[Nefron]

17 minutes ago, Jammersix said:

So far, a lot of what you call "improvement" isn't improvement in my opinion.

I simply do not see how adding stances and weapons control wouldn't improve things. For example, two situations that I remember happening to me: 

1. I have US infantry advancing across some tall grass, and some units are on overwatch, including a two man Javelin team. A BMP gets spotted by a squad next to them, and they would have a clear line of sight to the enemy if they weren't prone, but I have no way to change that. So, I had to do this little dance using the hunt command, and at some point they stayed crouched long enough to fire a missile. 

2. I have a Russian Metis team, and I want them to fire their missile at a Ukrainian AGS position. I order them to attack, they start shooting with their rifles, receive return fire, get suppressed, and finally they decide to fire a missile, missing of course. 

These are all engine limitations, which prevented me from telling the units under my control what I wanted them to do, and I simply can't see a valid reason for this to be defended. It's not completely game breaking or anything, but it is frustrating for no good reason. 

I see no situation in which giving additional control to player over things that matter is going to be detrimental. 

17 minutes ago, Jammersix said:

Battlefront has always operated at the limits of their resources, and they have many areas that need attention before changes to things that many of us view as acceptable are assigned resources.

Their limitations aren't really my concern, and they don't factor into my opinion of the game's features or the lack of thereof. I think this needs attention more than a new WW2 game. You, and Battlefront are of course free to think otherwise. 

Edited July 1, 2016 by Nefron

[Jammersix]

40 minutes ago, Nefron said:

I simply do not see how adding stances and weapons control wouldn't improve things.

I believe you.

[Jammersix]

45 minutes ago, Nefron said:

Their limitations aren't really my concern, and they don't factor into my opinion of the game's features or the lack of thereof.

They will, if you stay long enough.

[Kinophile]

Technically, it's not so much an engine issue as it is an interface issue. The engine could easily handle another command, the AI is only being told to do/not do rather than Figure It Out Buddy,  and the in-game interface can easily handle another button. 

Nor do I agree with the argument that 'yet another command would be a command too far'.

We do already micromanage to a almost ridiculous degree: go back/forwards a meter, look HERE, setting exact firing arcs HERE to HERE, move HERE exactly this far, Wait this EXACT amount of time,  etc.  Crucially that detail is immensely satisfying and as I'm sure we can all agree, is a primary attraction of the CM games. We tend to snigger at less exacting and 'hard core'  games, even if we truly like them. They just don't compare in the level of command detail. 

Setting the perfect T90, ambush on an Abrams is just a joy. Constructing interlocking defense fires before an enemy assault and seeing it all work is also very satisfying. Building a complex set of orders for the first 5-10 minutes of a RT game for ten different units, incorporating bounding movement, OW positions, troop drop off, vehicle keyholing and suppressive mortar fires is just....well..just perfect. It's what I've always wanted in a war game, that level of control. It's why I play this nutty game. 

So it's very, very maddening to watch BMPs/Brads/BTRs lose first strike against tanks with their pea guns, when they have nice useful ATGMs sitting RIGHT THERE,  BESIDE THE GODDAMN GUNNER. 

It's like seeing a murderer and throwing pebbles at him while holding a loaded shotgun in your other hand. 

WTGF is the point of the shotgun if I don't use it? 

If the AI cannot make the correct decision, then I want the option make it for him. Hell, that's why we are able to micro position our units on the first place - because BFC knows that the AI could never match the tactical awareness and sneakiness of a Human player,  or our ability to preplan fires.  

Suggestion:

Re which round to shoot, I'm firmly on the side of adding a "SHELL/ATGM" option, either as a single button or two separates. 

1) Unless pressed, AI does as it likes.

2) Press SHELL it'll only fire SHELL.  

3) Press ATGM it'll only fire goddamn ATGM and no other goddamn thing out its goddamn barrel until ATGM is goddamn  released, or SHELL is pressed. 

That is not as complex as say, the Assault command, or Target Brief. It's just a boolean yes/no switch. It would take little space and it already fits in to the concept of the player's control of individual units/vehicles fire plan. 

Example Scenario:

Ideally, I should be able to keyhole place my BTR-4, set a Target Armor arc, set ATGM, set PAUSE with a stand by Reverse move to next position. 

T90 comes into arc,  2Km away,  BTR fires it's ATGM and NOTHING else. MBT hit, damaged but still alive and very pissed until second ATGM comes in and instantly  resolves all of life's questions for the crew. By the 2nd missile firing I'm hopefully aware of what's happening,  see the kill and UN-PAUSE the BTR. It backs away to its next position, job done. 

That is how it should be. 

Clicking SHELL/ATGM is nowhere more complex an operation or more detailed a command than that specifically placing the BTR,  it's fire arc or how long to wait. 

Hell maybe this mightevrn resolve the BMP2s and their nonfiring of  ATGMs :-)

Edited July 1, 2016 by kinophile

[Erwin]

The LOS issues continue to be one of the most frustrating issues left with the CM2 engine. This was supposed to be WYSIWYG, but the reality is that it is actually very hard to figure out what a unit can or cannot see, until the unit is in position. 

Yes, a player can get down and eyeball the terrain for LOS from any position.  Yes, the player can put a waypoint at that spot and double check LOS.  However, a frustrating high % of the time, when you get a unit to that location/waypoint - that unit cannot see what you just wasted time checking and double-checking.

A related issue is the phenomenon with support weapons where perhaps the 3rd ammo loader can see the target, but the main weapon gunner cannot.  There is no way to have that gunner move his (say) MG a few inches so he can get LOS. 

 

[A Canadian Cat]

Sounds like we found more people who are ok with more commands and choices in the UI. That is great. I didn't mean to start a whole discussion about that but that is ok too. My main point is that giving more commands to us only solves our frustrations it does not make the game better. Yes, I know *you* would feel like it is better.

The issue is the Tac AI needs to make those decisions not us. That would make the game better. The discussion about too many commands is a red herring. If the Tac AI cannot decide between using the ATM and the pea shooter or between going prone and kneeling and we give control to us we actually make the game worse. 

We players already have lots of advantages over the AI, giving us more is not the solution IMHO. We need the Tac AI to learn to fire on ? contacts, move more when loosing the fire fight, notice spotting rounds and react, make better decisions about posture so they can see and make better weapons choices when there is more than two options available (just a list of highlights off the top of my head). That would make the game better. 

In short adding commands is a bandaid that would make us feel better but I would consider would actually make the game worse.

[Ghost of Charlemagne]

Simply copi the simplistic weapon control from the Wargame-series. Click on a weapon to deactivate it, re-click to activate it.

Edited July 1, 2016 by AtheistDane

[BTR]

The preferred path for me would be to improve TacAI instead of feeding player's god complex. 

[BTR]

9 minutes ago, AtheistDane said:

Simply copi the simplistic weapon control from the Wargame-series. Click on a weapon to deactivate it, re-click to activate it.

A game that started on operation level that allowed you micromanage individual unit weapon usage. No thank you :). 

[Nefron]

2 hours ago, IanL said:

In short adding commands is a bandaid that would make us feel better but I would consider would actually make the game worse.

I don't think it would, in its current state. I guess it comes down to a disagreement of what the game should be, and how it should feel like. 

For example, Flashpoint campaigns, another game that I like very much, is based around forcing the player take a step back, and act as a higher level commander. You are forced to plan out your moves in advance, and changing things up on the fly is punished. 

However, that only works when combat is abstracted on such a level. I place my units on a hex that's supposed to be 500 or so meters in diagonal, and they duke it out with the enemy. The commands aren't much more detailed than "attack there", and it works. 

CMBS on the other hand is so much more detailed. I cannot just send an ATGM team on to a ridge, I need to manually check if a tree won't block their LOS. I don't think it is feasible to expect such decisions to be made by the TacAI. 

 

23 minutes ago, BTR said:

A game that started on operation level that allowed you micromanage individual unit weapon usage. No thank you :). 

 

Combat Mission allows you to tell individual tank commanders to peak out of their hatch, to fire at an exact spot, to move to an exact spot etc. I don't see how allowing the player to toggle individual weapons is any different. We already need to do things that range from battalion commander's responsibilities, to something that a tank or squad commander does. 

Same thing with infantry. We can chose if they sprint, jog, walk or crawl. Why shouldn't we be able to choose if they crouch or lie prone when they get to their destination? 

I feel that there is a disconnect here between the level of micro the game requires from you, and the set of actions it allows you to do, and it feels completely arbitrary. 

It's already very detailed and micro heavy, and I say embrace it. As it stands now, these feel like missing features, rather than something that goes against the spirit of the game. 

Edited July 1, 2016 by Nefron

[BTR]

Everything concerning positioning and pace is controllable, everything concerning actual engagement is TacAI dependent. Sounds pretty consistent to me. 

[Nefron]

21 minutes ago, BTR said:

 

Everything concerning positioning and pace is controllable

 

 

Except telling the units to stay crouched or prone. 

21 minutes ago, BTR said:

everything concerning actual engagement is TacAI dependent.

Except being able to fire at an exact spot, fire light, fire heavy, fire till the end of the turn, fire briefly, pop smoke etc. 

I don't really understand why there is so much resistance to this.

I'd get it if the purpose of the game was to take a step back, and act as a higher level commander, watching your subordinates execute the actions and make the decisions that they are responsible for. 

However, the way it is now, if I get a battalion to command, I don't feel like a battalion commander, and I can't give out orders like a battalion commander would. The game forces me to get to the eye level of my troops to move them and position them, down to deciding if a tank is buttoned up. But apparently telling a BMP to use an ATGM is crossing some line, and invading the TacAIs space. 

The distinction seems artificial and silly to me, like having only anal sex to stay a virgin. 

[A Canadian Cat]

I see that you find it arbitrary and I guess it is. No comment about sex

I just want to see that Tac AI do more of the low level squad commander type work so I can spend more time being the platoon through battalion commander. That would make fights against the AI better too. Adding more control for us does not make the overall game better even if it would make some people happier, including me from time to time.

[Nefron]

The thing is, at no point do I feel like a battalion or company commander, when I have to micro all those units not to stare into trees. I spend a lot of time planning a one minute turn, so it gets weird when people talk about not wanting to micro. And don't get me wrong, I actually like it. 

I also have nothing against improvements to the AI itself, but that's a lot harder to get right than adding a couple of toggle buttons. And I'd let the AI do its thing in the majority of cases, but when it doesn't, and it's important that gets frustrating. Same as popping smoke, I rarely do it manually, but I like that I can. 

Edited July 1, 2016 by Nefron

[Jotte]

As mentioned elsewere I'd personally like a Steel Patheresc kind of weapons system control/thoggeling for units but then there are the quesion of prioritys. The saying "the straw that broke the camels back" comes to mind when discussing where to draw the line on micro managment, in regard to Battlefronts resources to implement features and "feature creeps". I hope it might change but I'm not holding my breath.