Buzzer Posted November 23, 2000 Share Posted November 23, 2000 I know the TacAI is supposed to decide what targets to engage. But it has some limited intelligence imho. Example. Playing "LaGlieze" PBEM, where Im advancing along a road(lets say to the N) on the left side of the map with several Shermans. They are to secure an area further North as their main objective. Far to the East, abt 1000m away, they spot a Tiger. Due to the distance, armor penetration etc, I dont want these tanks to engege the Tiger, as they simply cannot take it out (unless Im lucky to hit gun, or they use tungsten(?)...which they never do anyway). But anyhow, ALL my advancing Shermans, for some reason HAVE to engege this Tiger, wasting ammo, time and exposing themselves for a longer time than necessary to this threat. I just want em to go fast Northbound...but no way...even with the 'fast' command they are engaging. Tried to put some smoke in front of the Tiger..but TacAI overruled that and fired AP instead!... With an 'ignore target' command this could have been prevented. Shouldnt a tank commander know that engaging a Tiger head-on 1km away with 75mm is a waste of time, and that it would be safer to advance fast to the North and get out of sights? Another example is tanks engaging bailed-crews, turning their turret away from the real (upcomming) threat (like a tank further up the road). If I could put an ignore on the crew and advance my tank without the turret beeing turned 180degrees away from the real threat... --------------------------------------------- BTW- Seen a few tanks fire (and hit) while moving....was that really possible in WW2. Been playing PanzerElite, and hitting anything there while moving is imppssible... Anyway- CM is one GREAT game!! Now back to work... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boris Balaban Posted November 23, 2000 Share Posted November 23, 2000 I to have had several bad targeting targets. One was my tank was driving down the road and I know of an enemy tank just ahead but with rain could not target it but he had infantry on the side so my tank targeted them with turret turned about 200 degrees and guess what, the enemy tank pops up in front of me just like I knew they would, now I lost my tank. It would be nice to have some influence on the targeting target, not 100% influence. ------------------ Boris Balaban WORK bbalaban@rim.net HOME b.balaban@home.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordfluffers Posted November 23, 2000 Share Posted November 23, 2000 It would be nice to be able to order units such as heavy tanks to ignore the tank crew to the left and keep that slowly rotating turret facing forwards... here's hoping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus Posted November 23, 2000 Share Posted November 23, 2000 The "targeting target"? What's that? [This message has been edited by Maximus (edited 11-23-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rwcanuck Posted November 23, 2000 Share Posted November 23, 2000 I had an Immoblized Jackson use indirect fire on an area I thought the enemy would appear and in the susequent movie a Panther appeared on the horizon. It shot once at the Jackson and missed and taking then better aim did not miss on the second round. All this time the Jackson continued to indirect fire. The Tac AI should you think over-rule the indirect fire command when there is now a definite threat to your unit. RW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzer Posted November 24, 2000 Author Share Posted November 24, 2000 (punt) Cant belive the rest of u are happy with TacAI in this matter................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coralsaw Posted November 24, 2000 Share Posted November 24, 2000 Having played most of the computer wargames in the last ten years, I am happy with the TacAI. It is still dumb, AI standing for Artificial Incompetence, but it kicks my ass from time to time. And I enjoy it. To be honest, I think the Ignore Target command would be useful, but would lead to too much micromanagement. Come to think about it, even the Target command is a bit too much, but it solves many problems, so it's OK. The next thing people would want after the Ignore Target command would be a switch to always ignore all infantry, and then maybe a switch to ignore all infantry but elite, ad nauseum. Not mean to be confrontational or anything, based on my experience with CM, I can live with a dumb AI thing in every 10 games, without a need for any changes to the code. My .02. ------------------ My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted November 24, 2000 Share Posted November 24, 2000 Buzzer, here's a workaround for this: give those Shermans an ambush command on an area near where they're going. They should completely ignore the Tiger and drive straight on. My only contention is: wouldn't you rather have your guys firing away in the hopes that they'll get lucky? Or at least make the Tiger pop smoke, back up, whatever? As they say "better to do anything right now than the correct thing too late." DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted November 24, 2000 Share Posted November 24, 2000 Normally when somebody questions a basic game-engine aspect I ask if they've searched yet. But this is an area where a SEARCH on "ignore target" would reveal much interesting discussion but no hard/fast answer from BTS about this. Charles HAS said that adding a new command is very difficult and is a last resort, since every part of the game has some interaction with every other part, and putting another wrench on the bolt might well cause it to break, rather than tighten down just right. DjB [This message has been edited by Doug Beman (edited 11-24-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compassion Posted November 24, 2000 Share Posted November 24, 2000 Buzzer- It's not that we are all "happy" about the AI targeting situation, but these questions have been asked many times before and BTS has written at length about the design decisions and about how this really is the best way. I hate to say it, but if you do some searching, you will see some breakdowns on why the current system was put in place and what the pitfalls of some of the other targeting concepts were. Clay- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted November 24, 2000 Share Posted November 24, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Buzzer: (punt) Cant belive the rest of u are happy with TacAI in this matter...................<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Buzzer, I agree with the others in saying that it is not necessarily being happy, but acepting that this is about as good as it seems to get at the moment. I seem to recall a post by one of the beta testers saying that there was a tweak made beyond what is currently in 1.5, but it crossed a fine line, and lead to very screwed AI behaviour. Maybe I am phantasising again, but that's what I recall. ------------------ Andreas <a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a> Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Adder Posted November 25, 2000 Share Posted November 25, 2000 Buzzer, I agree with you on the matter of ignoring targets. One could imagine an automatic "ignore" if the tank commander knew that he wouldn't be able to knock the target out. However, that decision has to be made on the info he is currently possessing. As you have seen, enemy tanks may change designation several times before they are properly and correctly identified by your troops. Thus, an "ignore" command must then only be available/activated for correctly identified targets. On the other hand, and I guess this is your main concern, you should be able to ignore targets whether you know exactly what it is or not, and whether you are able to take them out or not. I can't understand why that should pose problems neither "technically" nor "historically". On the battle field, even in W.W.II and with "fog of war", there is a certain amount of communication between units; and especially between tanks (at least in CM, the Russians used a different system which we may see in CM2?). This is in fact the whole basis for CM, and explains why we as commanders can see all the enemy units spotted by our men. Finally, I think it is important to bring up such debates as this, even though it has been discussed before. If we don't discuss what we find important with regard to CM, we'll all end up in the Peng-thread. Best regards, The Adder ------------------ "The Germans are such a cruel and inhuman race; they have no word for fluffy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzer Posted November 25, 2000 Author Share Posted November 25, 2000 No I admit I didnt search on this subject, cause I havent seen this matter discussed, ie a command to 'fix' TacAI during the 4(?) months I have been on this board. But I have seen similar discussions...yes. Like forcing turret to face in a certain direction by using MG-ground fire etc. So I very sorry for those of u board-veterans i offended by bringing up an over-discussed-theme. Guess its better we all post BS in "another thread" rather than discussing game matters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Adder Posted November 26, 2000 Share Posted November 26, 2000 Buzzer, Post an OT thread and you will get lot's of good answers. Post a thread on an important topic that was discussed during the beta testing, and you get the wonderful "do-a-search" comment. Thank you for your willingness to bring up important subjects! Best regards, The Adder CM-OKW ------------------ "The Germans are such a cruel and inhuman race; they have no word for fluffy" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts