FIX THIS CREW TARGET THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[:USERNAME:]

BTS

Played the Villers again (arent you glad you included this scenario in the game?) and NOW the tigers are still engaging damn crew remains and keeping and eye on them AFTER they have gone out of SIGHT!!!!!

It was such a tense stand off game and I wanted to hang on to the first flag and had my two remaining Tigers stashed away in supporting hull down positions. As the brits came up the road parade style LO and BEHOLD a crew remainder appeared off to the left and my tiger is cranking its turret over there! He fires and the crew high tails it. BUT THE TIGER KEEPS ITS TURRET POINTED OVER TO THE LEFT!!! A sherman pops the other tiger in a lucky point blank shoot out and then nails the other crew obsessed tiger before it can crank its turret back. I HAD AN AMBUSH MARKER WHERE THE SHERMAN APPEARED FROM MR OBSESSED TIGER!!!!!

Gotta fix this please.

Lewis

[Guest Madmatt]

It's not that he was crew obsessed and that same behavior is what many people have asked for all along. Tanks will now keep the turret pointed at the last target while the vehicle is staionary. This helps cure an issue where a tank would crank the turret at a target that was only in LOS for a few seconds. After the target would disapear the tanks would crank the turrets back toward the front. What would often happen is that a target would again pop up in the same area and the turret would need to track all over again and usually (if it was a Slow German Turret) get whacked.

In 104 the Turrets will keep looking in the direction of the last target until the vehicle rotates or begins to move. This behavior will allow a tank to better keep an eye on a area of perceived threat. This is big imporvement in close in tank vs. tank combat as units arent constantly moving their turrets from the front and back to the side. It isn't perfect but its better than a blind obiedence to facing the turret front which we had before.

Were the crews the only exposed targets available when the Tiger engaged?

Were the Sherman's spotted ahead of time or did they just pop up on the flank?

If the Tigers are ignoring a valid Ambush marker than that could be a problem to be looked at. Were the Ambush markers still on the ground once the Shermans popped up or did they disapear? Also did you have the Ambush marker targeted by the Tiger in question?

You wouldn't happen to have an autosave would you? I would very much like to have a look as I have been using this same battle to do my testing and I have found the new bahavior to allow for much more realistic results. But I will also say that it could still use some more tweaking but this is the first we have seen of units displaying a little more 'memory' of targets than before. I expect this to be a bit of unit behavior that is going to be continually looked at and modified to account for various situations.

Madmatt

------------------

If it's in Combat Mission, it's on Combat Mission HQ!

CMHQ-Annex, The Alternative side of Combat Mission

Combat Mission HQ

CMHQ-Annex

Proud members of the Combat Mission WebRing

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 08-20-2000).]

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

I played Villers Bocage as soon as I got 1.04 installed. I think it has been GREATLY improved. I did attempt some ambush points that were ignored, or overriden by other targets, but that wasnt too big a deal.

Much improved. Further improvements are always appreciated, but I want to thank you for making Villers Bocage playable, and dealing a severe blow to "wittman syndrome".

(Lewis, I am worried about you. You usually can contain your bile for at least the first 2 posts...are you feeling ok?)

[:USERNAME:]

Were the crews the only exposed targets available when the Tiger engaged?

It was a 2 man crew and it was the only target that got visable to the tiger that put the ambush marker down. It was also identified as such by the tiger. My infantry were not in LOS of it.

Were the Sherman's spotted ahead of time or did they just pop up on the flank?

Both Tigers were out of LOS of any unit and both had put ambush markers on the road to the flag.

If the Tigers are ignoring a valid Ambush marker than that could be a problem to be looked at. Were the Ambush markers still on the ground once the Shermans popped up or did they disapear? Also did you have the Ambush marker targeted by the Tiger in question?

I dont follow you perhaps. The tigers put their own Ambush Marker down. They should target them Id think. I remember that I had the tiger in question "highlighted" and so he was targeting the AM. Next thing I know he breaks off and targets the crew that was hundreds of yards away. The thing is, why did that crew move? There was a dead turn where not much of anything happened and I was all set up to make the last stand. I know he could have been on a long retreat or something but it seemed sneaky to me.

I too use this game as a bench mark. And with 104, still have problems charging down the road because Whittmans tiger will crank the turret around to past 4 or 8 oclock to get infantry behind him.

Lewis

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 08-20-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*:

(Lewis, I am worried about you. You usually can contain your bile for at least the first 2 posts...are you feeling ok?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look Captain

You arent a Combat Mission celebrity like me and Madmatt so screw off.

Lewis

[iggi]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Tanks will now keep the turret pointed at the last target while the vehicle is staionary<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shouldn't that last target not apply to positively identified crews? If there are crews in the area, there's a good chance other tanks are nearby.

That logic really should be applied to tanks or close zooks.

[This message has been edited by iggi (edited 08-20-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by iggi:

Shouldn't that last target not apply to positively identified crews? If there are crews in the area, there's a good chance other tanks are nearby.

That logic really should be applied to tanks or close zooks.

[This message has been edited by iggi (edited 08-20-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Im sorry what Logic? This tank had just busted a cap in a shermans turret two turns ago on the same road. There were 5 plumes on this same road from other burning churchills, etc. That a tank could identify a crew that was moving at that distance is illogical. My putting a ambush marker down on the road should have added to the logic of defending said road.

What do you want to apply to zooks now?

Lewis

[iggi]

If a close zook was positively identified, I think that the tank can disobey your order and keep it's turret pointed in the last spot it saw the zook. You should then retreat the tank to another position to reset it's priorities.

If a crew was not positively identified and you placed an ambush marker, the tank SHOULD *obey* your order.

The tank should not followed the logic of keeping its turret pointed at the crew. However if a zook or another tank appeared, the turret should stay in that direction(unless you moved your tank).

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Look Captain

You arent a Combat Mission celebrity like me and Madmatt so screw off.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whoa there, you old curmudgeon, just try to settle down a little bit. You are mildly entertaining when you post slack-ass half-hearted research on bouncing timed HE Stug smartbombs, but this straightforward, blunt rudeness does not become you at all. I bet you dont treat that girl who supports you this way. You would certainly not be so pudgy, as she would stop feeding you (assuming she had any self-respect.) So possibly you turn to invisible targets to act boorish towards. But I am certain that if you relied on me for Ho-Hos, you would be the picture of decency and charm.

I enjoy just witnessing the lewis phenomenon, when you can at least keep some level of wit to your evil, but without the sinister lying in wait, you are just boring, and sad. You are the diet coke of evil.....

[:USERNAME:]

Iggi

Thats clear but I think the game needs to prioritize targets/range. A zook at 250 meters is not much of a threat and the ambush marker should take priority. If the tank has a burning need to fire at inf at that range then kindly return the turret to the ambush marker. The AI isnt using its "I" and it needs a threat direction indicator. If other tanks can see a enemy tank then it should (assuming they have communications) think about that tank.

Lewis

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

You are doing something wrong. I just played out villers-bocage, and it is working fine.

[Henri]

Two things (well, three actually):

1) concluding that the game is broken from a single incident is really a bit much ; if (as was the case in the original version) units are seen to regularly act in an unrealistic manner, then it should be fixed, but a single incident should be considered anecdotal evidence which is not admitted in court :

In the case mentioned, there were no enemy threats visible, and apparently enough time had gone by to allow the tank to decide that it could rotate its turret to engage the infantry. I don't find this unrealistic. On the other hand, the "rule" for tanks to stay pointed at the last target for a certain amount of time should not apply to crews (but it SHOULD apply to bazookas...).

It has been clearly explained by Charles earlier that the historical run up the road by Wittman cannopt be modeled well in the game because in the historical situation, many of the crews were away from their vehicles, which is impossible to model in CM, and surprise can only be modeled by making the crews green. So anyone charging up the road with the halftracks in the Wittmann scenario should expect to have his butt kicked, and should be happy to see that the game does what it is supposed to do within its parameters

Henri

[Guest Michael emrys]

To enlarge slightly on Henri's excellent post, Wittman got lucky that day and caught the British with their pants down. Some time later, his luck ran out and he bought the farm.

Since CM does permit exceptional things to happen, I suppose that given enough trials a player could get lucky too. But expecting that kind of rare luck as a matter of course is a bit too much.

Lastly, I have been wondering for a while if it was really such a good idea to have included that battle on the disk, since it seems to have inspired so many unrealistic hopes.

Michael

[:USERNAME:]

Actually Whittman wasnt just lucky. He jumped on an opportunity that presented itself that CANT be modeled in the game. The halftracks were all nose to tail and his experience told him to just charge them. He was able to defeat that column in detail because they were in each others way. Its a classic military manuver, engage the enemy "piecemeal" and limit their LOS to yourself.

Perhaps the scenario should begin with the halftrack column destroyed and the infantry routed?

I dont like the tone here of NOT including a scenario because it makes the game look bad.

Lewis

[Ben Galanti]

Has anyone had luck with the ambush markers when there are ANY other targets in view? Playing Villers, I'd often set an ambush target where I knew there were tanks. Everytime the TacAI would drop the ambush target within 2 or 3 second, and start going after something else in LOS. While, these were somewhat legit targets (some of the HTs, though often it was just random infantry squads). I was much more worried about the tank around the corner, and would have prefered that the ambush marker would have stayed selected. The only time I've seen this work is when there were no other targets in view. In Villers, since there is always a nearby target, the ambush point never stays selected.... I thought the point of giving tanks the ability to set ambush markers was so that you could force them to focus where you wanted..

Ben

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

I dont like the tone here of NOT including a scenario because it makes the game look bad.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think it makes the game look bad. I would agree that it *might* have been better to not include it, since the circumstances of the battle were quite unusual. Besides, what about the other 49 scenarios on the CD? Do you see this same problem when playing them? (You do play them, don't you? )

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Actually Whittman wasnt just lucky. He jumped on an opportunity that presented itself that CANT be modeled in the game. The halftracks were all nose to tail and his experience told him to just charge them.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There, you said it yourself. The Villers battle CAN'T be modeled in CM!

[DEF BUNGIS]

Hmmmmmm.....

Playing a PBEM QB right now, half way thru the action phase my sheramn jumbo disregaurds my area building fire command to target a crew from a knocked out tiger about 200 meters away.

???Hmmmm.

I guess it could be realistic if the jumbo thought it was running infantry.

[Guest Michael emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

I dont like the tone here of NOT including a scenario because it makes the game look bad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then don't misread my comments that way. I was not saying that the scenario makes the game look bad. I'm saying that some players can't seem to realize that the historical event was a unique and extraordinary event that *they* will not likely be able to reproduce, short of running the scenario dozens of times. Then they make a big fuss over that fact.

What's the fixation on this one particular battle? There are lots of other scenarios in the game.

One thing I am finding out is that for one reason or another, CM is not too hot at reproducing historical battles. A discussion of why that is might be very interesting if you ever want to take it up. What it is very good at is at illustrating what WW II combat was like in a general way. That's why I fight QBs and generally give "historical" scenarios a wide berth.

Michael

[IntelWeenie]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

One thing I am finding out is that for one reason or another, CM is not too hot at reproducing historical battles. A discussion of why that is might be very interesting if you ever want to take it up. What it is very good at is at illustrating what WW II combat was like in a general way. That's why I fight QBs and generally give "historical" scenarios a wide berth.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think we may have one of the answers to that right here. Many of the more rememberable or interesting historical battles contained some circumstance or event that was unusual and not easily modeled in a(ny) computer game.

------------------

"Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb

[:USERNAME:]

If the game modeled LIVE vehicles blocking LOS/realistic veeehicle turn radius'/physically blocking each other, THEN CMBO could easily model the first part of the battle. The coax MG on the tiger also was tearing the halftracks apart at this close range. Whittman was able to dispatch the HTs post haste.

If the game allowed you to realistically command the vehicles to ignore infantry THEN the game could model the tank battle better.

Its not about 'historical' but rather realism. BTS is pushing their fuzzywojic 'heck thats life' attitude too far and this scenario especially shows the games foibles. Infantry are secondary targets and should be handled by the bow MG in the vehicles covered arc. Infantrys ability to get a main guns attentions should fall off VERY sharply after 100 yards. Its been discussed before and the ability to give a UNIT a global mission priority (in this case destroy armor!!!) needs doin.

Lewis

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 08-22-2000).]

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

I can't wait until YOUR game comes out Lewis. With all of the bright ideas you have, and your critical thinking abilities, it should be spectacular.

[DanE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by :USERNAME::

If the game modeled LIVE vehicles blocking LOS/realistic veeehicle turn radius'/physically blocking each other, THEN CMBO could easily model the first part of the battle. The coax MG on the tiger also was tearing the halftracks apart at this close range. Whittman was able to dispatch the HTs post haste.

If the game allowed you to realistically command the vehicles to ignore infantry THEN the game could model the tank battle better.

Its not about 'historical' but rather realism. BTS is pushing their fuzzywojic 'heck thats life' attitude too far and this scenario especially shows the games foibles.

Lewis

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Say Lewis, how much longer before you finish your game? I remember you mentioning something about the status a while back, I have no idea what thread it was under. I really am looking forward to the release of said game since it will clearly blow CM away. What with your superior knowledge and programming abilities. Please let us know when it is finished so we can give it a try.

------------------

Dan

[DanE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*:

I can't wait until YOUR game comes out Lewis. With all of the bright ideas you have, and your critical thinking abilities, it should be spectacular.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dang it Captain, you beat me by a few minutes.

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

you gotta be quick around here....hehe

[Henri]

May contain SPOILERS.....

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Since Viller-bocage is one of my favorite scenarios, after I downloaded the 1.04 patch, I tried it again to see the difference. After about 15 moves, I had Wittmann positioned on the left-to right road at the entrance of town, had destroyed about 15 enemy vehicles, routed the infantry, and had my 3 other Tigers positioned near the woods ready to advance towards the town once enough enemies had been dispatched.

I was beginning to think that this scenario was now too easy, since as yet I had no tank crew casualties except for my Pz4, who as uaual had been destroyed as soon as it appeared, since it is located right on the main road in plain view of some AT and British tanks.There had been no untoward shooting at crews.

The a Cromwell appeared to the front left of Wittmann's tank and quickly disappeared behind some houses; I ordered him to hunt up the road a bit, since when the Cromwell appeared his flank would be exposed to Wittmann from less than 50 meters. As Wittmann advanced, he rotated his turret backward to fire at some halftracks in the distance to the right rear. When he cleared the houses, there was the side of the Cromwell right in front of him, but Wittmann's turret was pointed to the rear! I ordered him to reverse, because it was clear that the Cromwell'turret could traverse 60 degrees faster than the Tiger could traverse 120 degrees . Wittmann reversed, but the Crfomwell caught him before he couls back up out of sight. At the same time, one of my other Tigers was immobilized.

I decided it was time to advance my two remaining Tigers in order to capture the flag in the town before the game ended, but as they began to advance, both were killed within seconds by two Shermans that were probably the last remaining British tanks . The easy victory had turned into a total disaster, I was out of tanks and out of luck.

Although Wittmann's turret reversing was perhaps not prudent, I don't think that it can be classified into the "crew-pinging" category. There is no way that the game can be made intelligent enough to decide when to ignore visible targets of opportunity and not rotate their turrets. If tanks were programmed to keep their turrets towards the front when advancing, it is not difficult to imagine cases where this would not be appropriate. The only solution is "standard operating procedures", but this is not feasible in a patch.

I figure that I was just unlucky and that is the way the mop flops... . I don't agree that the game is still broken.

Henri

PS: After writing this, I played the Viller-Bocage four times in a row , and I have to say that I think that once in a while, I found that the tanks DO tend to shoot at crews more than is comfortable, especially when the turret must be rotated away from the direction of danger -less than before, but still too much . So I think that this may be tweaked a bit more AGAINST turret rotations to shoot at units definitely identified as crews from disabled vehicles. Would it be difficult to program in a rule by which tanks would not traverse more than a certain number of degrees away from the main direction of battle (in this scenario, the town) in order to shoot at crews. A function decreasing the probability with angle would be great, but it may be asking for too much...

[This message has been edited by Henri (edited 08-22-2000).]