AI Targeting vs Assigning Targets

[MOS:96B2P]

This was mentioned in a different thread by @PhilM.  I come across this dilemma in almost every mission: Is it best to let the AI pick the targets or should I assign the targets. Both seem to have advantages and disadvantages. Often the AI will identify and engage OpFor troops until those troops duck for cover.  Then the AI will stop shooting.  The OpFor troops will recover from the suppression pop back up and start shooting again probably causing some friendly casualties or suppression.  The AI will reacquire the OpFor unit, engage and the cycle starts over again.  

If I assign a unit to area fire on an OpFor unit (not target directly) the unit will keep up the area fire on the OpFor as long as I specify (and ammo allows) usually keeping the OpFor suppressed.  So no problems from that OpFor unit.  The downside is if another target appears the friendly unit will most times ignore the new target which may be a better/more dangerous target than the one originally assigned.  Sometimes with bad consequences.

As a result, when possible I have used Target Briefly so a unit has part of the WEGO minute to choose targets after it is done area firing.  Also try to put some units on area fire and some left to AI target however there is often not the luxury of having enough units to do all the jobs required at the height of a fire fight. 

I was curious how other players handle this dilemma and the tactics they employ.       

[Bulletpoint]

When I started playing, I always assigned manual targets. Now I nearly always let troops pick their own.

As you say, there's a cycle of enemies popping up, firing, taking return fire, ducking down, etc. But that's the kind of firefight that actually kills the enemies. The trick is to have fire superiority so that while the enemies are up, they take lots more fire than they are able to deal out themselves.

If you just suppress them, they will often just stay down. Then if you have no assault team to flank and kill them, you're not gaining much for your spent ammo (of course if they are green or unmotivated, the enemies might be forced to fall back and take a morale hit, but you can't depend on that happening).

I usually only do suppressing fire if I have a purpose with it. Such as moving troops across an open area or flanking. And it's rare that I suppress by squads without machineguns. Rifle fire is not very suppressive on its own, unless you have a full squad of fast-firing American rifles.

With tanks, I sometimes do a manual targeting order if the tank has several targets in view. Just to make sure it doesn't decide to fire at a halftrack and ignores an enemy tank. Sometimes I will manually target a specifically dangerous tank to make sure it gets attention first.

[PhilM]

I think what was in my mind when I made that reference concerning the benefits of leaving the pixel guys to pick there own targets was "threat appreciation" ... as in that is what they seem to do better than me ...

Sure, that HMG needs taking out ... so I target it. But actually, a bigger threat is a - lesser-armed - squad in a different location ... perhaps subject to better LoS / LoF from your guys, and can thus be taken out / forced to move ...

Leave them to their own devices, and most of the time they *seem* to make a better job of dealing first with what will "make the most difference" to their and your other guys' prospects ...

My job is to get them in the right place(s) to be able to do that ...

Edited October 17, 2016 by PhilM

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

When I started playing, I always assigned manual targets. Now I nearly always let troops pick their own.

Yep, same here - mostly.

2 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

As a result, when possible I have used Target Briefly so a unit has part of the WEGO minute to choose targets after it is done area firing.

Now when I feel like I want to tell my troops what to shoot at I usually use the target briefly for that exact reason.

The one big exception is if I really do want to suppress some enemy troops while I have other teams manoeuvre to assault them.  Then I do direct targeting and usually area targeting.

[Wodin]

Very rarely issue a target order,  though  as mentioned above, unless I need to suppress a certain area. When I'll usually try target briefly and usually try not to use tank rounds but  small arms\MG's.

 

So if looking at a typical scree of mine whilst playing you'll prob see a lot of target lines where I'm supressing windows\buildings whilst moving troops forward..rather than a lot of target lines ot specific units.

Edited October 17, 2016 by Wodin

[MOS:96B2P]

 

4 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

<Snip> As you say, there's a cycle of enemies popping up, firing, taking return fire, ducking down, etc. But that's the kind of firefight that actually kills the enemies. The trick is to have fire superiority so that while the enemies are up, they take lots more fire than they are able to deal out themselves.  If you just suppress them, they will often just stay down. Then if you have no assault team to flank and kill them, you're not gaining much for your spent ammo <Snip> 

Hmmm, I hadn't thought of it this way.  When the OpFor pops up to shoot that is an opportunity to shoot them.  Now if I can make that work correctly.     

 

4 hours ago, PhilM said:

<Snip>  Leave them to their own devices, and most of the time they *seem* to make a better job of dealing first with what will "make the most difference" to their and your other guys' prospects ... My job is to get them in the right place(s) to be able to do that ...

Probably less micromanagement this way but just like RL you have to trust your subordinates .  I think I will try to move in this direction and see how it turns out. 

  

2 hours ago, IanL said:

<Snip>  if I really do want to suppress some enemy troops while I have other teams manoeuvre to assault them.  Then I do direct targeting and usually area targeting.

So both direct and area fire.  The best of both worlds.   

 

1 hour ago, Wodin said:

<Snip> you'll prob see a lot of target lines where I'm suppressing windows\buildings whilst moving troops forward..rather than a lot of target lines at specific units.

This is useful.  I don't remember if you were part of the discussion at the time but @RockinHarry discovered if you area fire at the action spot just in front of the building you can usually suppress floors 1-3.   

[Sailor Malan2]

I most often use manual targets when there is a danger of an enemy squad being left untargetted. Say if 3 units can see 1 enemy, but only one of them can see the second, further away. I will manually target the further enemy, to make sure they don't all 3 go for the nearest. Also, i do it for critical targets - the MG that has coverage to the ground someone else is about to move over...

[MOS:96B2P]

3 hours ago, Sailor Malan2 said:

<Snip>  for critical targets <Snip>

I often do the same.

[JoMac]

I only play Turn-Based against Computer AI or Human Opponent (PBEM), and my 'House Rules' are as Follows:

Against the Computer AI ...I don't use Direct Area-Fire, or use the Target Order (let the AI do the targeting). No Call-In Arty Barrages on First-Turn of Meeting. I also don't move on the First Turn of a Meeting Engagement, and only move on even turns (and only after all my Units have finished their current Way points). Once a Friendly Unit checks LOS at a certain Way-Point, then Unit must keep that Way-Point. 

Against Human Opponent...if my Friendly Unit can see any type of Enemy Icon, then Area-Fire can be conducted within One-Action Spot of said Icon. All Direct-Fire will be conducted by the AI (I use Firing-Arcs to help persuade the AI to fire at certain targets). Once a Friendly Unit checks LOS at a certain Way-Point, then Unit must keep that Way-Point. No Call-In Arty Barrages on First-Turn of Meeting. I only allow purchase of Green Troops w/certain Leadership & Motivation Levels to represent actual quality of Troops.

Oops, Sorry, but got carried away...You were only asking about AI vs Player Targeting :-/

Joe

 

Edited October 18, 2016 by JoMc67

[MOS:96B2P]

19 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

<Snip> my 'House Rules' are as Follows:

Against the Computer AI ...I don't use Direct Area-Fire, or use the Target Order (let the AI do the targeting). <Snip>

only move on even turns (and only after all my Units have finished their current Way points). <Snip> 

So your vote seems to be for the AI doing the targeting.  I am going to try this more often.

I like this house rule when playing against the AI of only moving on even turns.  It is like a simple and easy to remember command delay system.   

[Bulletpoint]

20 hours ago, JoMc67 said:

All Direct-Fire will be conducted by the AI (I use Firing-Arcs to help persuade the AI to fire at certain targets).

Just out of friendly curiosity, isn't that basically the same as giving a direct fire order? I mean, if there are 5 potential targets and you only place your target arc on one of them, your unit will likely fire at that enemy unit.

I'm reminded of that chapter in "The Little Prince" where he meets the king who orders everybody around, but only ever gives them orders to do the things they were about to do anyway...

Edited October 19, 2016 by Bulletpoint

[JoMac]

2 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

So your vote seems to be for the AI doing the targeting.  I am going to try this more often.

I like this house rule when playing against the AI of only moving on even turns.  It is like a simple and easy to remember command delay system.   

Yeah, using Even Turns to make new Way-points, (starting on Turn 2), especially on Meetings, because the AI takes forever (if not never) to reach any Objectives...And, you can also think of it as Command Delays. 

Edited October 19, 2016 by JoMc67

[JoMac]

1 hour ago, Bulletpoint said:

Just out of friendly curiosity, isn't that basically the same as giving a direct fire order? I mean, if there are 5 potential targets and you only place your target arc on one of them, your unit will likely fire at that enemy unit.

That's why I use different size Firing-Arcs depending on potential Battlefield threats that turn (normally I use a 360 degree Arc anyways)...Even, BF, mentioned that there is no reason to use the 'Direct-Fire Order as the AI will pick-out the most potential threat. 

[mbarbaric]

3 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

I'm reminded of that chapter in "The Little Prince" where he meets the king who orders everybody around, but only ever gives them orders to do the things they were about to do anyway...

thanks for reminding me of this... such tender thoughts in that book.

[sburke]

About the only time I give direct orders is to support a specific maneuver.  If I am going to take a building for example that I know (or suspect) is occupied.  I'll suppress with a unit on target brief to keep the occupants head down while my assault unit gets up into position.  Don't try and enter the building, just get next to it and in the time that it takes the occupants to stop cowering hopefully my guys will spot and eliminate.

In non urban situations I may do the same to allow a unit to cross exposed ground by suppressing the units that are capable of taking them under fire.

Beyond that I find the less I interfere wit the AI generally the happier I am with the results.

 

[MG TOW]

When it comes to the quick draw you are probably better off giving a direct target assignment to a tank. The can suffer a little ADD and start waving their barrel around. I give it a direct target to fire at, and the tank's barrel quickly locks in and launches. I'm sure if i sat back it would have been nailed.

[Bulletpoint]

9 hours ago, gundolf said:

When it comes to the quick draw you are probably better off giving a direct target assignment to a tank. The can suffer a little ADD and start waving their barrel around.

This is true, also tanks really like to shoot at close-by infantry, even choosing to do that over firing at nearby tanks. I've even seen tanks turn their backs to (clearly spotted) enemy tanks in order to fire at infantry.

[MG TOW]

I should add, I don't have a problem with this, sometimes I figure the crews' limited POV from the viewing ports, and perhaps their experience or morale, plus the distraction of nearby activity, troops, ordnance going off may have them distracted. It happens for a reason. Then I, the all seeing eye of the battlefield swoops down, wacks the helmet of the TC and gives him a direct fire order on the Nashorn sitting in the distance to his 3 o'clock.

[Ted]

Just wondering, if there are multiple targets what determines which target the AI will fire at?

Is it the unit it will be the most effective against? Closest? Largest threat?

[A Canadian Cat]

Actually if you let the tac AI pick it's targets it will often fire on multiple targets. The decision is being made based on those and likely other considerations that you mentioned plus individual soldiers factor in. So if some of the squad do not have LOF to a target they can shoot at something else.

[Bulletpoint]

11 hours ago, Ted said:

Just wondering, if there are multiple targets what determines which target the AI will fire at?

Is it the unit it will be the most effective against? Closest? Largest threat?

It definitely seems the most dangerous targets get priority. Or maybe it's based on who puts out more lead (and attracts more attention). Machinegunners for example will often get hit first, in my experience.