Richard III Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 Just came from playing, a certain scenario with a certain Elite Tiger commander in it. Everyone knows about the German strategy to make up for slow turrets -- rotate the hull in the same direction the turret is rotating. Well I watched my elite Tiger crew repeatedly rotate the hull in the direction OPPOSITE to that in which the turret was turning, so that it took twice as long to lay the main armament on target! Moreover, my tigers were taken out right and left by side/rear turret penetrations as they turned their turrets away from known enemy tanks hidden by smoke to fire at a routed 2in mortar 150m away. I think some tweaking is in order here -- I once passed through a column of halftracks and bren carriers with a tiger scoring NO kills. The commander would spot a far off light tank, rotate the turret 90 degrees. The light tank hides, so the commander rotates the turret 180 degrees to fire at something else, spots the light tank again, swings the turret back through 180 degrees, etc. etc. never firing a shot. Lest I sound like a big grumbler or such like, let me point out that I still think CM is the best wargame I have ever played. I just think something needs to be addressed here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phandaal Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 Were you using the new patch? I'm assuming you were. I had a bit of trouble on that senario with the Elite tiger crew. I seems like they noticed too much and were like infantry..no..no..carrier...hey look, light tank...even better some infantry there...ect.. ect.. Muhahaha, we are awesKABOOOOOOOOMMMM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard III Posted June 26, 2000 Author Share Posted June 26, 2000 Yep, version 1.01. I know tanks can lay ambushes, but it is hard to make that work when they are moving... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 Sounds like the same problem afflicting the famous gun in a certain demo scenario Slow traversing weapons should really be going after the target they can hit soonest. Not the closest, furthest, most threatening or whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 I just wanted to second this one. I was playing the elite-tiger scenario, and had the same problem. They would target an armor threat (which was good) the threat would pop smoke, and the the tiger would procede to swing the turret 90+ degrees to some non-threatining infantry 300 m off. I tried setting an ambush marker, but the Tiger would retarget the observable threat. I know it's hard to program it so that the armor 'remembers' the bigger threat, but it made the scenario much more difficult. it'd be nice if there were some way to make tanks and what not ignore minor threats, if there was a big threat just out of LOS... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeAcH Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 I'll "third" it! TeAcH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 Count me in! Something I found myself wishing for during that scenario, was the ability to face the turret in a direction wholey independant of the hull. A seperate Command, maybe called "Rotate Turret", that would work like the existing "Rotate" command. As it is, you can only aim the tank hull, and then the turret points wherever it wants --- this makes it hard (as was pointed out) to "aim the tank" at a target you really need to engage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Screaming Demon Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 Yep! Good point! Back to the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroth Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 Top... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kuroth Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 Top.. I hope BTS will address this... Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 You have to realize there are limitations on the AI, a target overload environment only heightens this. BTS has tweaked 'target stickiness' in the patch but it is a balance I think and there is a danger of going too far resulting in a unit becoming fixated on one target. Not being confrontational, but perhaps a change of tactics is in order. An elite Tiger is a badass but it still can only eat the pie one bite at a time, not all at once. Putting it in a situation where it is surrounded by the enemy is begging for disaster. If you limit the area of engagement you may get better results. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage2 Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 Perhaps some kind of user-definable flag that can be set on a per-tank basis which significantly increases the stickiness for Armor targets for this tank. In otherwords, user clicks box, hits key combo. Doing this turns the flag on and off. When the flag is on, it means that stickiness for armor targets is very, very much so increased. The tank will not rotate to target infantry targets (either at all, or unless they are extremely close/threatening). I believe this would actually be realistic because I believe a lot of tanks in WW2 were created/divided in terms of "Infantry Support/Break Through" and "Anti-Tank". The tank would not provide much infantry support (other than an occasional burst of MG fire), but would stay focused on armored targets. I think this would solve part of this gripe. Sage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Clinton Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>You have to realize there are limitations on the AI...perhaps a change of tactics is in order.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I understand what you are saying, but I strongly disagree. Since the very first day I heard about the simulations turn sequencing in Combat Mission (2+ years ago) the tactical AI has been my main 'concern'. Tactical AI can make-or-break a game using simultaneous turn sequencing like no other. Now that we have all played the game (at least demo) we all know how VERY important the tactical AI is in CM. We also know how lame AI can be in other games. From what I have seen in CM's demo (sorry don't have full game yet) the tactical AI is the best in any PC game I have ever seen. But, because of Combat Mission's system the AI must be the best around. Anything less than the best would, IMHO, make CM nothing but a frustration to play (imagine playing CM with Close Combat's tactical AI! No thank you!). Thankfully from what little I have seen of the demo, CM's tactical AI is very good. However, with the overwhelming burden placed on the tactical AI, I sincerely hope that the tactical AI is one area that BTS will NEVER stop improving, and I am sure it is. ------------------ Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ari Maenpaa Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 There's also the point that the way TacAI works may favour fast turreted american tanks more than is adequate. At least in close combat situations. I'm too waiting for my full version (order is on the way) so I can only speak about what can be seen in the demoes. "Premature target switching" was an issue only occassionally and I have played much. Of course when it happens it's VERY frustrating. I agree with Scott C. that TacAI is the heart of this game. The better it is the better the whole game is. Anyway I have no doubt CM has all it takes to be the wargame of the year. Thanks for your fine piece of work BTS. I'll be waiting for CM2. Ari Maenpaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Lucke Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 What I had in mind isn't a change in the AI, so much as the addition of a Command that would result in more flexibility on the battlefield. Specfically: I'm Southbound on a lane bracketed by trees (or houses) with many gaps in between (or I'm coming up on a crossroads) --- I'd like to have the turret pointed East (or West) to fire through the gaps, or have it already pointed down one of the intersecting lanes when I reach the crossroads. As it stands, to achieve this effect, I'd have to area target something (and probably end up wasting ammo) in order to traverse the turret perpendicular to my line of advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Heidman Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 Does the TacAI remember targets that have dissappeared from their sight at all? If so, then it would seem to be relatively simple to put a routine in that will not engage a new, non-threatening target for some period of time. Maybe even better would be the ability to define a threat axis, the direction of which a vehicle would try very hard to keep its best armor facing. I just had an American 57mm AT gun kill a Panther with a shot to the side. Not so unlikely really, but the AT gun first killed a Puma, and then, an entire two turns later, the Panther drove in front of the wreck of the Puma with its side armor exposed to the 57mm. Needless to say, this resulted in a dead Panther. Not real bright, but then, what do you expect from the comp AI? Different issue actually, but it just addresses that AIs are usually pretty memory limited. In this case, the Panther "forgot" that the 57 was there, and as the 57 missed the first shot, the Panther tried to rotate, but it was too late. The 2nd shot killed it. Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kai Posted June 26, 2000 Share Posted June 26, 2000 And that's why I play Panzer ELite instead of getting furious at the dumb ai behavior. Take the matters into my own hands, load up PzGrt39/40 and let it fly towards some ronson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G4A Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 I don't have the game yet, but I thought this was supposed to be improved in the patch. Like Jeff said, the problem isn't so much sticking on a target, but remembering where the threats are. I guess it's hard to make an AI do that.. kai, nice website you have in your profile... ------------------ "Oh, German! I'm sorry, I thought there was something wrong with you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreasyPig Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 How about a "hunt/target zone" kinda like the target area command. The tank would always face its turret and hunt inside this cone taking on threats in the order most dangerous. INSIDE this cone only. GreasyPig just a though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard III Posted June 27, 2000 Author Share Posted June 27, 2000 Well, here is what I think needs to be done: 1) Tanks should have a small "radius of engagement" in the rear 180 degrees. That is, they will not engage distant non-threatening targets in the rear hemisphere. 2) If a threat should appear in the rear hemisphere worthy of the vehicle's attention, the hull will also rotate to face the threat, bringing the target to bear more quickly. 3) Tanks will not rotate their turret in the direction opposite to that in which the hull is turning. 4) Turret speed will be factored into the tank's targeting priority. That is, a tank will prefer targets closer to the vehicle's front. 5) Some memory of a known threat that moves out of LOS should stay with the tank. I played a silly game of "ring-around the rosie" with a Stuart in this scenario. The Stuart hid behind a burning halftrack literally 1 yard behind my Tiger. I backed the Tiger up to unmask the Stuart. Meanwhile, the turret rotes 180 degrees away from the Stuart to shoot at a squad cowing in some trees 200 yards away. The tiger backs up, pushing the halftrack aside, and revealing the Stuart. The turret starts to swing back again to face the Stuart. The Stuart speeds around, hiding again behind the halftrack. My turret instantly swings away back toward the squad. Repeat for two turns until I finally pushed the wreck far enough back so that the Stuart couldn't hide there anymore. At no time was the Stuart more than two or three yards from my Tiger, but the gun would not stay pointed in its general direction. I would have expected the Tiger to ‘know” the Stuart was behind the halftrack and not swing its turret away. Once again, let me state that I think CM is an outstanding game – I just think we have an issue here which needs attention. I played this scenario half a dozen times before giving up in frustration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dar Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 I'm in agreement with much of what's being said here. It would be great to have that ability to lock a tank's turret into a certain direction and have it "stick" much like a user-designated target does with the recently revised targetting AI. This would make it possible to do platoon-sized formations, such as wedge, vee, echelon left/right, and column, more realistically, and allow tanks to cover assigned sectors on the move. Perhaps we can manage to get a separate "Turret Rotate" or some such command in CM2 or--fingers crossed--a patch! Dar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ron: Putting it in a situation where it is surrounded by the enemy is begging for disaster. If you limit the area of engagement you may get better results. Ron<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sometimes a unit can find itself in such a situation without being "put" there. In those cases I need some assurance that the unit is going to strike out at what it can, when it can, and not sit there with its thumb up its arse deciding what to shoot at. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G4A Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 I don't think you can solve something like this with more micro-management or adding rules for special cases. It's simply a matter of giving the TacAI a better understanding of threats. (Well, it's easy to say. Maybe coding takes more effort. ) ------------------ "Oh, German! I'm sorry, I thought there was something wrong with you." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coe Posted June 27, 2000 Share Posted June 27, 2000 I don't suppose if your tank (Panther against the AT gun) comes across the 57mm at point blank it will try to run over the gun. Howabout instead of targeting infantry close by the tank slams in reverse trying to get away from it (i.e. close assaulting) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts