Pascal DI FOLCO Posted October 2, 2000 Share Posted October 2, 2000 I mean allowing players to give « Rules of Engagement » orders. Numerous threads complained about « my tank/gun is engaging fleeing crews 500m away, but there’s a Tiger hidden at 100 meters ! ! The AI is crap ! ! !». Lastly I had this kind of problem with some Sherms against a killer PzIV that already bagged two of them : I ordered my tanks to hunt « it », but they saw before some fleeing crews and infantry, rotated and fired at them, when the Panzer came up he fired first and bagged another two ! Stupid, as they should have known they was a Panzer there ! ! BTS did what it could to make tanks choose more cleverly their targets, but I really think there can be no « good » AI answer. A good choice can only be made with view of the overall situation in mind, by a human player… I remind HPS’TotP/PitS system : it was also a « WEGO » system, but allowed players to set max firing range and priority target type (armor/Vehicles/guns/infantry). Could it be possible to add these choices to CM order system ? In order to not clutter/ruin the interface, engagement range could be defined by drawing a line of the wanted distance (as when targeting, but without regard to the direction), and target types could be added in the order list. These should be reserved to « gunned » vehicles – and as other orders, subject to TacAI overriding if troops feel threatened at 100m by a Schreck and are ordered to fire at 50m on armor only… Idea for CM2 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mannheim Tanker Posted October 2, 2000 Share Posted October 2, 2000 Cool idea... One comment: BTS has stated that CM isn't currently programmed to "remember" vehicles that have moved to cover from one turn to the next. I'm too lazy to search for the thread, but I know that it was discussed less than a month ago.. MT ------------------ "The real groundbreaker of CM isn't the 3D modeling, it's the 'holy crap! what the heck was THAT' factor." - Dalem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahauschild Posted October 2, 2000 Share Posted October 2, 2000 I kinda like the priority of the armor versus soft targets. I could imagine in a briefing the commanding officers telling his tankers, "Ok, we will have to concentrate on suspected enemy armor, only engage soft targets if they are within 150 or less meters." I think i would be a bit more worried about a possible Allied tank i saw 600 meters away duck behind the building then the MG team thats poping rounds 300 meters away on the left side of my flank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frag Posted October 2, 2000 Share Posted October 2, 2000 A simple command "Forget this target" can help to. It's chilling to see your tank rotating the turrent to fire to a fleing crew, when you have a sound contact of an ennemi tank coming directly ahead. I can tell you something "Those little crew boy can run home is they want to! I will never show my flank to a tank for it!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted October 4, 2000 Author Share Posted October 4, 2000 Bump myself, I think it should deserve more discussion... CM really lack some control on targeting, I find it the very first issue to address in fact ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrapGame Posted October 4, 2000 Share Posted October 4, 2000 I do agree. Last night I was playing a scenario with a few Tigers versus an assortment of Allied armor and personnel, and the TacAI kept rotating the Turrets of my nice Hull-down Tigers to their rears to attack some rifle squads that were 200m away! I wanted to kill them as a number of Fireflies, some Cromwells and what appeared to be a Hellcat kept coming from their front and flanks! - So Annoying to watch your elite Tiger get taken out by a Cromwell that walked up to within 50m unmolested, and then put some AP into the rear of the turret. ------------------ CrapGame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted October 4, 2000 Author Share Posted October 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CrapGame: I do agree. Last night I was playing a scenario with a few Tigers versus an assortment of Allied armor and personnel, and the TacAI kept rotating the Turrets of my nice Hull-down Tigers to their rears to attack some rifle squads that were 200m away! I wanted to kill them as a number of Fireflies, some Cromwells and what appeared to be a Hellcat kept coming from their front and flanks! - So Annoying to watch your elite Tiger get taken out by a Cromwell that walked up to within 50m unmolested, and then put some AP into the rear of the turret. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ah ah, playing Villers-Bocage too ?... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 4, 2000 Share Posted October 4, 2000 Yes Rules of Engagement would be nice Perhaps just three options: (4 with the no RoE Default) tanks and weapons and vehicles could be ordered to target/engage: 1 only armour 2 only soft skinned vehicles 3 only infantry 4 default, No RoE selected (standard AI) In the Orders menu window the an RoE order could be added and when you select it a little submenu pops out the side with 4 choices,(see above) 1,2,3 or 4 (no RoE default) the standard orders menu would have the words No RoE on that button's place, once the user selected on of the other three options that button would show there so you can see the last RoE order you gave the unit, to change it back to defualt just click that button and go down to "No RoE" then that will show up in the orders menu. (I wonder if that is do-able). I like the idea but it should be made as light and easy to program into the game as possible. Keep it simple and maybe we might see it in the future. -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dirkd1976 Posted October 4, 2000 Share Posted October 4, 2000 I completely agree with aka_tom's idea. It isn't so much of a problem with the allied tanks because of their fast turrets. The germans on the other hand are very frustrating with their SLOW turrets. The turret turns halfway around to engage a soft target when there is an allied tank behind some trees 200 meters away. The allied tank comes out from cover and I find myself screaming at my german tank as I watch its turret swing around in slow motion. Very annoying. I think that a ROE option would be a very nice addition to CM. Just my 2 cents. The more people that complain about this, the better chance it has of being included in CM2. So if this bothers you, jump in and say something!!! ------------------ Never mistake motion for action - Ernest Hemingway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith Posted October 4, 2000 Share Posted October 4, 2000 There already exist a partial solution to your problem. You can select your tanks, which are out of LOS to the enemy panzer, to target the enemy panzer. Even though your tanks cannot currently see the enemy panzer they will immediately engage the panzer when they have LOS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrapGame Posted October 4, 2000 Share Posted October 4, 2000 Pascal - Please edit out the name of the scenario so others can still use it in double-blind games. That's why I didn't use its name ------------------ CrapGame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 4, 2000 Share Posted October 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CrapGame: Pascal - Please edit out the name of the scenario so others can still use it in double-blind games. That's why I didn't use its name <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I aggree with the idea accept that particular scenario would really suck if played doble blind by the allies but yes it "should" have been left unnamed for to folks new to the game who might want to try it double blind, we have been trying to not advertise that kind of spoiler information here in the past -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted October 4, 2000 Share Posted October 4, 2000 has anyone noticed that BTS doesnt reply very often anymore? wonder why??? ------------------ Wof, wof, wof, wof... Thats my other dog imitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kmead Posted October 4, 2000 Share Posted October 4, 2000 In reference to tac ai performance I think too many of us try to micromanage individual units to a degree that is really outside the scope of this game. We give the general orders to advance (retreat) fire in general at a given target. It is the reponsibility of the AI to carry out those orders to the best of its ability, just as any second louie or squad leader would. They are responding to the local threat as they see it, and a tanker in particular has a very narrow focus ( not to mention a very limited view) of what is threatening. They are fighting the battle they see, we in our omnipotent all seeing overview of the battle really would like to force them to apply their force more efficiently to win. In regards to sound contacts and so on, I can assure you that no tanker would ever hear what your cowering infantry can hear. A tank is a very noisy thing, and they almost always have their engine running, at the very least at idle and often higher to run the turret drive or so that the vehicle can bug out quickly. (picture a tank commander yelling at his driver "start the engine, I hear a tiger coming over the rise! I can't sir, its flooded...). I think we all have somewhwat unreasonable expectations for individual unit performance because we can see al the intel of what is occuring over the whole battlefield. Imagine what the ai must think of us for putting it in the position it finds itself in: that stupid human, he knew there was a tiger coming over the rise and all I have is this puny 75 and smoke to save myself and I can't even drive to safety because this is a culdesac... In regards to responses by our kind hosts what would you rather they do, respond to a point that has been hashed and rehashed many times (and will likely continue to be) or work on the next patch that may contain tcpip support or some other substantive issue. Added to that is the shear volume of back and forth that goes on. I could spend all day here (on the board) to stay up with everything that gets written, which would be nice but for the fact I need to redesign a product for my employer... My 2 cents. Karl Mead [This message has been edited by kmead (edited 10-04-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted October 4, 2000 Share Posted October 4, 2000 BTS has made it clear that programming SOP (standard Operation Procedures) for this vrsion of CM would be just too much to ask, and they are probably right. However, I certainly hope that it will be done for the next version. TacOps has shown how it can be implemented, and in my view that implementation is almost flawless and should serve as a model.for example, you can tell a tank to stop and pop smoke if fired upon, or to run away, or to stop and hold, whatever. The one-minute pauses between orders leaving the AI to improvise is probably the greatest cause of lack of realism in CM right now, although a heroic effort has been made by the programmers to make the AI as smart as possible. Let's face it, no AI can use the overall information in a complex situation to make a smart decision the way a human can, because the BIG weakness of AI in ANY kind of endeavor is its inability to properly take context into account.This means that behavior that is quite proper in a given context is atrociously stupid in another. some may object that the human, having information from all units, has an unrealistic amount of information, and the answer to that is that the game can be programmed so that the units will not always follow the SOP, depending on morale and such things. Just don't expect all this in a patch... Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oddball_E8 Posted October 4, 2000 Share Posted October 4, 2000 I didnt mean this post specifically... they just dont seem to be "around" as much anymore... and they were working a lot when they were around before so y not now? ------------------ Wof, wof, wof, wof... Thats my other dog imitation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted October 4, 2000 Share Posted October 4, 2000 BTS is still around here. Steve is just busy arguing about gamey stuff and optics. (sorry) Charles is supposedly down to his ears in TCP/IP. The tanks now remember a lost target for a short while. Was it 1.05 that added this? Probably. I'd like a "only soft", "only vehicles" and such options. Maybe for CM2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Four Stringer Posted October 4, 2000 Share Posted October 4, 2000 I agree that the lack of ROE type orders can be frustrating . . . especially when that Tiger you were about to ambush blasts your trusty 'ol Sherman because it decided to rotate and shoot at squirrels (not hamsters). However, I don't get too bent out of shape about these type of things because I think the game balances out well in the end (and that's why I think its the best Tac level wargame yet). Yeah, your units may do "stupid" things like the examples mentioned above (and elsewhere), but how many WWII commanders had the luxury of pausing the action every 60 seconds, or were able to levitate a up in the air and get a God's-Eye overview of the battlefield, or slide over to the enemy POV and make sure you don't blunder into poor ground? For an interesting game, play one EXCLUSIVELY from the 1st person ground level view, and try only to "look" from where your units are located. It's tough. ------------------ I used to have a life, now I have CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RudeLover Posted October 4, 2000 Share Posted October 4, 2000 Some sort of ROE/SOP could be very useful if done right. Two comments, though, on how easy it would be to do right... 1. The Strategic/Operational AI would have to be taught to use these ROE, or else the human player would have a tool that the AI does not (or maybe I should say another tool). I believe it would be pretty tough to program that, though certainly units could have semi-default ROE (TDs wait for armor targets, MGs concentrate on infantry). I think this could be a real wrench in playing the computer opponent, which is already at a disadvantage vs. humans. 2. The threat level posed by a unit is variable. If I give a tank an ROE/SOP to target armor only, there has to be an override of this order when a schreck or PIAT gets close, or when engineers get real close. They're a bigger threat than a PSW 234/1 or Lynx at 1000m. This threat assessment brings us back to the current AI, so there would have to be some interplay between TacAI and the SOP. I don't know how easy that is to manage codewise. Though it's frustrating, your troops are still going to make decisions about threats that you don't agree with. Welcome to command... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pascal DI FOLCO Posted October 5, 2000 Author Share Posted October 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by RudeLover: Some sort of ROE/SOP could be very useful if done right. Two comments, though, on how easy it would be to do right... 1. The Strategic/Operational AI would have to be taught to use these ROE, or else the human player would have a tool that the AI does not (or maybe I should say another tool). I believe it would be pretty tough to program that, though certainly units could have semi-default ROE (TDs wait for armor targets, MGs concentrate on infantry). I think this could be a real wrench in playing the computer opponent, which is already at a disadvantage vs. humans. 2. The threat level posed by a unit is variable. If I give a tank an ROE/SOP to target armor only, there has to be an override of this order when a schreck or PIAT gets close, or when engineers get real close. They're a bigger threat than a PSW 234/1 or Lynx at 1000m. This threat assessment brings us back to the current AI, so there would have to be some interplay between TacAI and the SOP. I don't know how easy that is to manage codewise. Though it's frustrating, your troops are still going to make decisions about threats that you don't agree with. Welcome to command...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I do agree, it's just not a "simple" addition to the interface, I've already stressed that the "orders" must be overriden by the TacAi. And indeed the "Operational AI" must use them, but this would be a good thing, as you wrote units will frequently have "default" orders according to their type, and this would in fact reinforce the AI. But all this means a fairly long work to implement, I only hope it can be put in CM2. BTS, what do you think of it (if there's someone from BTS here...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maj. Bosco Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 I could do with just a little tweak to the AI. It'd be nice to have a bunch of drop down menus so that I could give ROE's to all my stuff but it'd be impracticle to implement programming-wise and it'd be a nightmare trying to get all those ROE's straight in big games. All BTS has to do is change the way tanks view threats. For example, the following are NOT threats: Crew Small Caliber Mortar Teams Snipers (Okay, they can button a tank but they're not going to knock it out) Machine Gunners Threats at under 50 meters: Infantry Flamethrowers PIATs, zooks, shrecks (technically longer range but what's the chance to hit? 2%?) Threats at over 50 meters: ANYTHING WITH A MAIN GUN (The bigger the badder) Here's how the AI works. Unless there is absolutely nothing else to fire at or the player tells it to specifically the AI isn't going to bother with crew, snipers, etc... They don't even have grenades. They can't hurt a tank. Until the under 50m get under 50 meters they're ignored if there's anything with a big gun anywhere near the tank. If there's more than one thing with a big gun the AI goes with: A) Whatever the player told it to shoot at (with some fudging for experience and moral levels) Whatever has the biggest gun or best chance of killing it. Then to tie the whole thing together you add a little more memory to the tanks. They did it in 1.05 so I'm assuming they can do it again. Truthfully this last part could probably solve most of the problems people have with tanks. $0.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olle Petersson Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Maj. Bosco: ... All BTS has to do is change the way tanks view threats. For example, the following are NOT threats: Crew Small Caliber Mortar Teams Snipers ... Machine Gunners <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Then we have open topped TDs and SPGs, to whom mortars are most definately a threat. Then there are armoured cars, that should be (are?) vulnerable to small arms fire for movement (and possibly armour penetration). Ends up with quite a bit of programming... Cheers Olle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randy Mauldin Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 But you're not taking into acount identification. How does that tank know for sure those infantrymen are a "Small Caliber Mortar Team"? They might have a Bazooka nearby or something. I would think that with no other targets in sight, anybody with a different colored uniform on would be considered a threat. ------------------ It wasn't MY company..It was the Armys' or so they told me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted October 5, 2000 Share Posted October 5, 2000 I must basically agree with Maj. Bosco since that's pretty much the same point I make every time this subject comes up. BUT: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Randy Mauldin: But you're not taking into acount identification. How does that tank know for sure those infantrymen are a "Small Caliber Mortar Team"? They might have a Bazooka nearby or something. I would think that with no other targets in sight, anybody with a different colored uniform on would be considered a threat.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is so. The cure is not to program the tank to *ignore* anything, but just to put a higher priority on known threats. Demonstrably, for this to work, tanks are going to have to begin to remember what is in the area from one turn to the next and all turns following. Lastly, some posters to this thread seem to have forgotten about AT guns, which should have an equal priority to gun-armed armor. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts