Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, c3k said:

If there is a MARKED path through a minefield, the most rational course of action would NOT be to go 20m left or right of it and assume there is no minefield there. The safest course of action would be to go through the marked path...about 10m behind the guy ahead of you, and in his footprints

Hmm. I'm not convinced that's a good idea. Sure; in the Real World(tm) it is safe and wise to assume that the minefield is bigger than the little bit you just stumbled into. However in game terms I believe that skirting around known fields - even MARKED ones - on the assumption that the player hasn't 'wasted' mine units on plain open ground is generally safer than continuing to move through a known bad area. Players and designers generally do not create realistic minefields, so in the game it is safer and wiser to assume the opposite of what holds true in the Real World(tm).

Consider this the other way; assume Charles has recoded the game so that once a minefield has been MARKED units will preferentially move through that tile rather than the ones either side. Do you think players will be happy with that? I don't, and can see the complaints now.

What I think is required is a method to force or encourage units to move through a known bad tile (i.e., a MARKED tile) when you - the player - suspect that there might be worse tiles on either side of it. And we already have that: put a waypoint on each tile, one-by-one, until you're through the depth of the suspected field. Sure it's a bit fiddly, but moving through complex terrain such as bocage, built up areas, etc., is always fiddly precisely because you want or need to control exactly where the guys go.

Edited by JonS
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JonS said:

What I think is required is a method to force or encourage units to move through a known bad tile (i.e., a MARKED tile) when you - the player - suspect that there might be worse tiles on either side of it.

I think the best thing would just be to make it dependent on the type of move order. If giving a QUICK move order, the game should assume the player doesn't want to go through places with marked mines. But if given a HUNT or SLOW order, the game should assume the player is fine with moving through the marked mines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, JonS said:

Players and designers generally do not create realistic minefields...

Maybe the game should encourage the placement of more realistic minefields. For instance, making it cheaper to buy entire sections of minefield rather than just individual AS-sized emplacements. The individual style would still be available for such uses as hasty mining of roads, etc., but the larger fields would be both handier to emplace and more realistic when intended to model serious integrated defense lines that have had enough time to be developed.

Michael

Edited by Michael Emrys
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but you're inferring or assuming too much I, and not enough A.

Forget the minefield for a second. You're trying to cross a street. That's the 'what'. Now, 'how' do you want to cross the road? Crawling? Running? Walking? Alert? Since you've decided to conflate the 'what' with the 'how' you only get one choice, and it's going to apply to every battle from here on out.

What's it going to be?

Edited by JonS
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JonS said:

Yes,  but you're inferring or assuming too much I,  and not enough A.

Forget the mine field for a second. You're trying to cross a street.  that's the 'what'. Now,  'how' do you want to cross the road? Crawling? Running? Walking? Alert? Since you've decided to conflate the 'what" with the 'how' you only get one choice,  and it's going to apply to every battle from here on out.

What's it going to be?

A for Autonomy?

 

Great post @JonS - I will be using that example the next time I am teaching.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎13‎/‎2017 at 7:20 PM, JonS said:

Consider this the other way; assume Charles has recoded the game so that once a minefield has been MARKED units will preferentially move through that tile rather than the ones either side. Do you think players will be happy with that? I don't, and can see the complaints now.

Yes, but Jon there is a very big difference between 'marked' minefields (green sign) and 'cleared' minefields (green sign with white X).

The minefields in question were not marked, they were cleared as in, "There are no mines in this spot, guaranteed or your money back!"

The TacAI needs to be instructed as to the difference between the two, and treat 'cleared' minefield as a zero-threat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many on here probably laugh  at boardgames but if a minefield is cleared there, it is cleared. Just don't understand people defending something that is not working in a reasonable way. Surely the way forward for the games is to have cleared minefields work as such so that the player that tactically decided to clear them can now use them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, GerryCMBB said:

Many on here probably laugh  at boardgames but if a minefield is cleared there, it is cleared. Just don't understand people defending something that is not working in a reasonable way. Surely the way forward for the games is to have cleared minefields work as such so that the player that tactically decided to clear them can now use them.

Well you can, given the procedures I outlined.  (Yes, they are onerous, but let's let not pretend it can't be done.)

-break all squads into teams with one exception detailed below.

-give explicit waypoints on each tile immediately before, immediately after, and within the gap itself.

-a perpendicular minefield (e.g. E-W) with a 1-tile wide gap can be crossed safely by individual teams. A 3-tile wide gap can be crossed safely by multi-team squads.

-a diagonal minefield (e.g. NE-SW) with a 3-tile wide gap can be crossed safely by individual teams.  Width necessary for multi-team squads is uncertain and probably best avoided.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, GerryCMBB said:

Many on here probably laugh  at boardgames but if a minefield is cleared there, it is cleared. Just don't understand people defending something that is not working in a reasonable way. Surely the way forward for the games is to have cleared minefields work as such so that the player that tactically decided to clear them can now use them.

Personally I have a different attitude.  I don't think in the time span of my average CM game that my troops could reliably clear a space of all mines in an 8 meter square space.  I just avoid them if at all possible and if I can't I expect casualties.  Just my own view.  Not really worth the lint in my pocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 9 months later...

I just experienced this bug on the "Merveilles a Merville" scenario, basically the paras just ignore the marked minefield and just use a wide formation that triggers the mines, killing everyone around, then they panic and the tacAI sends them off the path and its just massacre. http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battles-for-normandy/merveilles-a-merville-assault-on-merville-battery/

P.S: im on engine 4

Edited by Miller786
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Miller786 said:

I just experienced this bug on the "Merveilles a Merville" scenario, basically the paras just ignore the marked minefield and just use a wide formation that triggers the mines, killing everyone around, then they panic and the tacAI sends them off the path and its just massacre. http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battles-for-normandy/merveilles-a-merville-assault-on-merville-battery/

P.S: im on engine 4

As far as I know, this issue has been nailed down, but there's been no fix yet.
Just be extremely careful around any type of mines, whether marked or cleared.

Steve has said TacAI fixes are high priority, I just hope the minefield behavior comes along with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed this issue in CM:FI, so I now make a point of splitting infantry squads into their component sections, manoeuvring them past the mines using multiple waypoints before reforming the squad, just as I would if I were manoeuvring them through a complex MOUT map to a firing position, or as @SLIM put it:

15 hours ago, SLIM said:

Just be extremely careful around any type of mines, whether marked or cleared.

 

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...