Jump to content

How to - Recon with AFV's?


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

Its already been mentioned, but recon in CM doesn't work because the recon/scout unit has only a limited scope of reactions.  Its either keep driving or stop when fired on.  Of course die is also an option.  There should be a scout order that lets a unit either reverse or seek cover immediately.  In steel beasts, the scout SOP allows the unit several options, including reverse along the path just used, take a different pre-planned path, return fire, or move forward to cover.  You can also set the orders to stay on the road or go off road.

CM should have at least a scout order.  Its been asked for a few times, but its considered a low priority.

Good to know its at least been put on the radar and acknowledged then. Yeh, the current orders don't really do the job. Thanks for the insight though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simplest solution would be a binary option based on some sort of qualifier: either stand and fight (like at present) or retreat to a predefined place, executing a move command.  Such a reaction shouldn't necessarily be limited to scouts though, as equally any other unit without AT weapons may wish to retreat, so we're really just looking at a more developed reaction to a Hunt encounter.

What could complicate that is a 'glass cannon' nature where a unit may indeed be able to combat a tank - if it gets in the first shot - but lacks defence so thereafter would withdraw quickly.  Such a situation would be similar to the 'shoot-and-scoot' idea of taking a shot and then relocating, the only difference being that isn't the result of a Hunt command.

Also, this reaction shouldn't necessarily be limited to tanks, e.g. a walking scout team encounters a larger infantry force so withdrawal is the best response.  It sounds like we need a configurable threat response based on several factors, activated during a Hunt or simply being stationary.

Which then implies that a 'React' instruction may be the solution, requiring choice of a few parameters, which may be triggered whatever the unit is doing.  If the instruction conditions are set up then a Hunting unit could, say, stand and fight, take a single shot then relocate, or relocate (flee) immediately.  A stationary unit could do similar, e.g. an ATGM team would take the shot and then relocate.

As Hunt reaction and Shoot-and-Scoot both seem to be sought after, this would kill two birds with one stone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jabble said:

The simplest solution would be a binary option based on some sort of qualifier: either stand and fight (like at present) or retreat to a predefined place, executing a move command.  Such a reaction shouldn't necessarily be limited to scouts though, as equally any other unit without AT weapons may wish to retreat, so we're really just looking at a more developed reaction to a Hunt encounter.

What could complicate that is a 'glass cannon' nature where a unit may indeed be able to combat a tank - if it gets in the first shot - but lacks defence so thereafter would withdraw quickly.  Such a situation would be similar to the 'shoot-and-scoot' idea of taking a shot and then relocating, the only difference being that isn't the result of a Hunt command.

Also, this reaction shouldn't necessarily be limited to tanks, e.g. a walking scout team encounters a larger infantry force so withdrawal is the best response.  It sounds like we need a configurable threat response based on several factors, activated during a Hunt or simply being stationary.

Which then implies that a 'React' instruction may be the solution, requiring choice of a few parameters, which may be triggered whatever the unit is doing.  If the instruction conditions are set up then a Hunting unit could, say, stand and fight, take a single shot then relocate, or relocate (flee) immediately.  A stationary unit could do similar, e.g. an ATGM team would take the shot and then relocate.

As Hunt reaction and Shoot-and-Scoot both seem to be sought after, this would kill two birds with one stone.

One other suggestion I'd make for the Hunt order, is for the unit to continue to the original end of the path if contact is lost, because that's often where I'd like them to end up as long as it's not at the expense of getting hit!

Also, to that end, there used to be an 'Adv to Contact' order which the Hunt command replaced, but I think those are two different parameters:

If I have a unit hunting, then I would normally want them to continue the advance to the end of their assigned path if there's no contact, but if just Advancing to Contact, then they stop at that point and proceed to lay down as much fire as they can without any further consideration for movement. This is how the Hunt command operates now; HOWEVER, this due to the quirks of LoS, sometimes trying to figure out where to position a unit to where it can, finally see its intended target can take time and frustration. Whereas, if I could just issue such an order, the AI would manoeuver along the assigned path as needed to bring the target into view without my having to micro-manage the movement! If contact were not made, then the AI could be given some flexibility (as it is now) to position within a small radius of the end of that path sop as to bring the target into sight. That would be a HUGE help; although, perhaps a programmer's nightmare!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, RMM said:

One other suggestion I'd make for the Hunt order, is for the unit to continue to the original end of the path if contact is lost, because that's often where I'd like them to end up as long as it's not at the expense of getting hit!

...

That would be nice, at least for a painstakingly created sequence of moves, arcs and postures to not simply be lost.  Within the timescale of a WEGO minute it's probably not realistic to automatically continue it, but it would be good if continuation was available during the next command phase.

However that may depend on the nature of the reaction - if a withdrawal follows a multi-step move, the unit may end up some distance from the original path - in which case to which waypoint would 'continue' lead?  That's where it can get complicated and I suspect it would be simpler just to issue a new set of steps.

To solve the LOS problem I'd hope for a new tool which would work on the geography.  As you say it can be hard to tell LOS because of the nature of the graphics, but a tool would presumably use the same logic as currently exists internally.  It wouldn't have to be a complete 'radial survey map' like in Steel Beasts or Armored Brigade, but a simple 'from-to' line would reveal if a patch of ground is visible from another patch of ground.  An enhancement to that would be factoring in altitude of POV/target, e.g. if a hypothetical 3m pole were visible from the top of a 2m pole at those two locations.  That should provide enough info for better placement of waypoints without resorting to an undoubtedly difficult AI solution.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Jabble said:

That would be nice, at least for a painstakingly created sequence of moves, arcs and postures to not simply be lost.  Within the timescale of a WEGO minute it's probably not realistic to automatically continue it, but it would be good if continuation was available during the next command phase.

Hopefully it would actually make such complicated move orders much more simple

43 minutes ago, Jabble said:

However that may depend on the nature of the reaction - if a withdrawal follows a multi-step move, the unit may end up some distance from the original path - in which case to which waypoint would 'continue' lead?  That's where it can get complicated and I suspect it would be simpler just to issue a new set of steps.

One would certainly have to set a limit beyond the original command path where it would be cancelled or put on hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RMM said:

Hopefully it would actually make such complicated move orders much more simple

One would certainly have to set a limit beyond the original command path where it would be cancelled or put on hold.

As the reaction would happen at a particular waypoint, that could be the 'continue' waypoint no matter where the relocation went, i.e. the new path would start at the relocation point, next the 'continuation' point and then the rest of the original route.  If they player decides they don't like that path any more because there's a huge tank in the way, just delete and make a new path.  But no automatic following of the path should happen without an explicit instruction, so effectively they're permanently 'paused' at the relocation until told otherwise.  That way if you forget issue instructions they won't just wander back into that danger area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jabble said:

As the reaction would happen at a particular waypoint, that could be the 'continue' waypoint no matter where the relocation went, i.e. the new path would start at the relocation point, next the 'continuation' point and then the rest of the original route.  If they player decides they don't like that path any more because there's a huge tank in the way, just delete and make a new path.  But no automatic following of the path should happen without an explicit instruction, so effectively they're permanently 'paused' at the relocation until told otherwise.  That way if you forget issue instructions they won't just wander back into that danger area.

Well again, I think an automatic pause at the relocation point would take of that. The flip side is that I may (and do) want units to move forward in Hunt mode, taking their time to pay attention to their surroundings, but then, if they keep stopping every time they see a unit, regardless of it's later disappearing, I would want them to continue unless it were of a significant enough threat that the game already factors that into unit reactions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, RMM said:

Well again, I think an automatic pause at the relocation point would take of that. The flip side is that I may (and do) want units to move forward in Hunt mode, taking their time to pay attention to their surroundings, but then, if they keep stopping every time they see a unit, regardless of it's later disappearing, I would want them to continue unless it were of a significant enough threat that the game already factors that into unit reactions.

A 'react' command should be configurable, so if a Hunting team spot something that's not an immediate threat they could just continue.  It's only if a 'withdraw' reaction is triggered that they'd relocate, presumably because they encountered a significant threat.  The trick will be how to add such configurability to decide that reaction.

I suspect that once a withdrawal has occurred, it's less likely that the player would want to continue the original route & postures.  In which case it wouldn't be worth the devs' efforts to implement preserving that, especially if they could be working on something else we value more.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A new command is a good idea.  I would like the ability to order a unit to move (at whatever speed one desires) but then if fired upon to reverse backwards at the fastest speed possible.  The German 8 wheel Rad vehicles were designed to do that with a 2nd (rear-facing) driver and the same gears forward or reverse.

Another version of that would be the option to order RECON MOVEMENT where the vehicle moves FAST and can ZIG ZAG at high speed - immediately changing course like inf does now - ideally skidding as it corners. IIRC that is what recon vehicles practiced doing in order to be harder to hit.  Saw a video of a recon Bren Carrier driven that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Erwin said:

A new command is a good idea...

The more I think about it, I reckon it should be a new posture rather than a command, though it would have response-based commands/instructions associated with it.

An example: say we decide on 3 threat levels for any one unit - low, med & high.  A scout unit is hunting along a track, the last waypoint (and hence current leg) has posture defined as "Ignore low threat", "Stop and fight med threat", "Relocate from high threat".  A relocate path/destination has been set, associated with that waypoint.

So, it first spots an enemy scout unit some way off-  low threat, so carries on.  Next it spots an infantry unit a bit closer - that's a medium threat so he stops moving and starts shooting.  Then a tank appears, triggering the scout to relocate along that predefined path.

Another example: an ATGM team is stationary at a location.  It has posture "Ignore low threat", "Relocate on med threat", "Fire and relocate on high threat".  It sees enemy scouts, so ignores.  It then sees an enemy tank appear within range, so it fires an ATGM and immediately relocates along its predefined path.

If such threat levels can be established then one of several responses could be pre-assigned to each of them, associated with a waypoint or current location.  Hence it wouldn't be limited to any one type of movement, rather like how arcs are used at the moment.  Hunting would just become a 'careful' movement with quicker awareness/response to threats than other types.

 

It'll be a little more complex with respect to primary weapon & target types, in that an ATGM team would only shoot-n-scoot on armour, whereas it may run away from approaching infantry without firing.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RMM said:

One other suggestion I'd make for the Hunt order, is for the unit to continue to the original end of the path if contact is lost, because that's often where I'd like them to end up as long as it's not at the expense of getting hit!

When you make contact on hunt all your orders are automatically canceled. Shoot and scoot can easily be edited in all the other move orders. It all has to do with timing and experience. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

When you make contact on hunt all your orders are automatically canceled. Shoot and scoot can easily be edited in all the other move orders. It all has to do with timing and experience. 

Right, and I think we've lost something there from the previous Adv. to Contact order. Jabble makes some really good suggestions above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:

@RMM We have WeGo and RTS. They could have something in between. The game pauses but you can only edit the units which were on hunt. Making suggestions is easy to rewrite the engine is not. Happy gaming ☺

Agreed. At the end of the day, one can but make requests and suggestions in the hopes that some may take hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chuckdyke said:

@RMM We have WeGo and RTS. They could have something in between. The game pauses but you can only edit the units which were on hunt. Making suggestions is easy to rewrite the engine is not. Happy gaming ☺

There's a request thread for the next version of the engine, so you never know.  Before throwing in some ideas I thought it might be worth fleshing them out here a little.

That pause & edit is interesting, but it might become too laborious or distracting if it happens a lot, whereas if some things can be abstracted and automated it would preserve the free-flowing WEGO mechanism.  I don't play RTS so not sure of implications there, though.

I don't see that reaction should be limited to hunt, e.g. that case of the  stationary ATGM team waiting patiently.  IRL units moving normally would still react to encounters too.  Hunt should give some real advantages though, such as faster detection of enemies and reaction time, something that could make all the difference in some cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jabble Hunt because it is one mode in which the AI gets too silly for words sometimes. In Red Thunder the T34 stops because it spots a Tiger, all its passengers sit on the engine-deck as nothing is happening. The other reason with 'Hunt' you appreciate there is a risk factor. Hunt can become available if the Unit has a contact icon it encourages you to be honest with the C2 network. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed.  I suppose I think of hunt as 'move but keep your eyes peeled and be careful'.  Adding sensible reactions would surely improve the behaviour of encounters during any type of move, but if it's during a hunt the unit should be in a better position to carry out its consequent actions as it's not being caught by surprise.  All sorts of modifiers could apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Jabble said:

There's a request thread for the next version of the engine, so you never know.  Before throwing in some ideas I thought it might be worth fleshing them out here a little.

That pause & edit is interesting, but it might become too laborious or distracting if it happens a lot, whereas if some things can be abstracted and automated it would preserve the free-flowing WEGO mechanism.  I don't play RTS so not sure of implications there, though.

I don't see that reaction should be limited to hunt, e.g. that case of the  stationary ATGM team waiting patiently.  IRL units moving normally would still react to encounters too.  Hunt should give some real advantages though, such as faster detection of enemies and reaction time, something that could make all the difference in some cases.

What's that thread please, because I've been posting these 'Feature Request' strings, since I couldn't find one. I'll start posting such things there too, but yes, it's fun to debate them here too.

I don't know that pause and edit really would become laborious to be honest, certainly not as long as one were to also incorporate the automated reactions we've discussing herein. I don't play RTS either, least not since Total War games, but there a real, definite need for proper automated reactions in that for sure!

I agree that the current Hunt command doesn't seem to really spot or hunt all that well when it comes to vehicles. As I mentioned previously, vehicles move at the same speed in that as the Quick command, which is quite different from how infantry do it. I get the impression that vehicles don't really hunt any differently than normal, Quick movement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

How do you create these tags? I've tried just writing '@...'  or adding the hyperlink to it afterwards, but I suspect you're doing something else, more simple!

8 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

The other reason with 'Hunt' you appreciate there is a risk factor. Hunt can become available if the Unit has a contact icon it encourages you to be honest with the C2 network. 

Not sure I follow what you're saying here? The frustration I posted originally was that I would like them to continue on to the end of the path if they lose contact, certainly if it's as a result of the unit's own fire. Jabble referred to a potential, annoying situation of pause and edit, but that's what's 'irritating' me about the current Hunt command; I have to go back and reorder them forward, but if I want them to do it cautiously (ie. Hunt), then they might immediately stop again ... in other words they can get stuck, and my only other option is to use another, less cautious move order. On the other hand, maybe using Move or Slow are inherently more cautious and likely to spot and shoot? I don't know. insights?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, chuckdyke said:

@Jabble Hunt because it is one mode in which the AI gets too silly for words sometimes. In Red Thunder the T34 stops because it spots a Tiger, all its passengers sit on the engine-deck as nothing is happening.

You always give the infantry a move order in that situation so that if the tank stops, they jump off and move away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RMM said:

How do you create these tags? I've tried just writing '@...'  or adding the hyperlink to it afterwards, but I suspect you're doing something else, more simple!

 

Type @ and then start to spell the username of the person and the forum will pop up any names like that and you can click on the particular one you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Type @ and then start to spell the username of the person and the forum will pop up any names like that and you can click on the particular one you want.

Well, I tried that previously, but nothing happened ... 'course, now I try, and sure enough! 😳😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

Just like putting USB cords in. Never works the first time. You flip it and it still doesn't work. You flip it back and badaboom, badabing, it goes right in.

Quite right 😁!  I would say whoever designed the things should be vigorously whipped with one for not making them work both ways.  Think of the thousands of hours and counting they've wasted because of it.

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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...