Beware the Hunt Command

[markshot]

I am not so sure I am troubled by the current behavior of HUNT.  Why?

A battlefield engagement has begun.  There are 3 type of zones from your command perspective:

*NO GO:  death awaits you

* ACCEPTABLE RISK:  it is under observation and enemy will be shooting, but not very effectively

* SAFE:  unobserved

Well, most deployment areas and some distance beyond are SAFE.  Most routes into combat tend to be ACCEPTABLE RISK.  The last thing you want to do is plan a large crossing of a NO GO.

I think HUNT is making the distinction (now) between ACCEPTABLE RISK and NO GO.  Previously, it was doing SAFE and ACCEPTABLE RISK/NO GO.

So, I am using HUNT interspersed with QUICK with facing, hide, and pauses.  Say like 80-90% QUICK and reach cover (clump of trees), the hunt one action square.  All way points have facing, and HUNT terminus have a 15 second pause before hide kicks in.  Hopefully, if the scouts feel, it is NO GO, they will break the chain at one of the HUNT segments.

So far, I am happy with this approach.  All HUNT is too slow and tiring for the pace the scenario designers set.  Also, the previous semantics of HUNT was a problem, because what I want to know is can I cross ground or am I going to be going to ground.

That's my take on this.

[Bulletpoint]

1 hour ago, markshot said:

Hopefully, if the scouts feel, it is NO GO, they will break the chain at one of the HUNT segments.

Problem being that the scouts will think the area is safe even when under fire because the HUNT command doesn't work as it should.

[markshot]

Bulletpoint,

So, are you saying that change in semantics breaks the conditional logic of scenarios for the scripted AI or are you saying it breaks the human player's ability to do a good recon of the battlefield?

I find it workable, and no scenarios seem to emphasize that you need to get in and out undetected.  Like the game Dangerous Waters (Sonalysts) which was once sold by BFC, and plenty of missions require you to do something covert and be undetected.  There, a very rigorous definition of contact is important for play.

PS:  I know very little about CMx2v4 scenario design.

Edited September 27, 2020 by markshot

[Bulletpoint]

8 hours ago, markshot said:

Bulletpoint,

So, are you saying that change in semantics breaks the conditional logic of scenarios for the scripted AI or are you saying it breaks the human player's ability to do a good recon of the battlefield?

I find it workable, and no scenarios seem to emphasize that you need to get in and out undetected.  Like the game Dangerous Waters (Sonalysts) which was once sold by BFC, and plenty of missions require you to do something covert and be undetected.  There, a very rigorous definition of contact is important for play.

PS:  I know very little about CMx2v4 scenario design.

It's not about scenario design. It's about the movement order the human player gives.

And it's not about going in and out undetected.

t's about soldiers reacting to incoming fire or not when given the order to advance carefully.