Decisions, decisions--targeting, that is!

[Pfalz XII]

Okay. First, I think Combat Mission is an awesome game which has set the standard for virtually all wargames to come. It is even more impressive as a first time effort and is quite a testament to both Steve and Charles’ vision, skill, and commitment to historical accuracy, all while making a game that is not only impressive to look at and see, but also to play. Furthermore, I don’t think any of us can truly appreciate how enormously difficult it must have been for Steve and Charles to pull this off—making a product with such a “WOW” factor with so few problems. In addition to this level of commitment, they have been extremely responsive to the requests and comments of us, their adoring fans.

However, there is one problem (of course)which has continued to bug me, from the original demo up to the current version (1.01): the nasty and annoying habit that armor units have of rotating away from enemy armor threats to engage low priority vehicle crews. As I see it, there are three or four possible solutions to this problem. Here they are, roughly in order of priority:

1) A separate targeting command for AFV's/AT units called, "Target AFV/ATG Only." This command would apply only to the main gun of an armored unit or to AT guns, forcing them to ignore crews and infantry units with their main gun, allowing the tactical AI to concentrate on any armored threats or AT guns that are out there but which are temporarily out of LOS.

While this will not eliminate the problem of rotating the turret more than 90 degrees away from an armored threat that has popped smoke, it will limit the number of targets of opportunity (to enemy armor and AT guns) so that your armored unit has a better chance of engaging the enemy AFV when it comes back into LOS. It also seems to be more in line with the main purpose of armor units--to engage and destroy other armored units. Of course, this command would be selectable by the player, to be used in those situations when you are stalking (or are being stalked) by enemy armor and aren't as interested in killing troops. When not selected, your unit would behave normally, targeting any target of opportunity.

While BTS's solution of increasing target stickiness has helped, I don't think it addresses the main problem: armored units get easily overwhelmed by having too many juicy targets to choose from. This problem becomes much more apparent in the mid to late stages of scenarios involving lots of armor, e.g. Villars-Bocage, where after a few turns, there are lots of 4 or 5 man crews running around. Furthermore, these crews are often out in the open, where they are easily spotted.

Finally, when an enemy unit goes out of LOS for more than a few seconds, its threat value is reduced to zero (out of sight, out of mind). In this situation, the tactical AI gets too easily distracted by the units it can see. With my idea, even though your tank can see the crew, it ignores it with its main gun so it can concentrate on the more important armored unit or ATG's.

I like this idea because it gives you some control, but not too much control. In essence, you are emphasizing to your TC that his main job is to engage enemy armor, when the situation calls for it. Sure, there will be times when your AFV will not find any enemy armor to shoot at and will sit there for a turn not shooting anything with its main gun. However, it will still be able to use its machine guns. And, if that enemy armored unit appears, you will have a better chance of taking it out because you are not being distracted by that pesky, but low threat, bailed out crew.

To re-emphasize, I don't think the main problem is one of target "stickiness." Instead, it's that AFV's have too many targets to choose from—more specifically, crews. In contrast to other units which have more limited roles, and because of their unique combination of protection, mobility, and firepower, AFV's are asked to do a lot of things. Usually, this is a good thing. However, there are also times when you only want them to do just one thing--kill that Tiger, Sherman, etc. The problem with crews are that they are sort of like viruses—they quickly spread and are difficult to get rid of. In large scenarios, as enemy armor units are destroyed, they quickly overwhelm the ability of AFV’s to select the most important target. The target "filter" simply increases the chances that your AFV will perform its historical role of killing other armored units.

2) Instead of a "Target AFV/ATG Only” or a “Disregard Infantry” order, another option (assuming the game engine would support it) would be to prevent AFV’s from using their main gun against crews. Of course, they would still be allowed to use their MG’s against vehicle crews. An even more drastic alternative would be to prevent AFV’s from targeting crews at all, but this is probably not a very desirable option for most.

3) Another option (which BTS has already tinkered with, I believe), would be to reduce the “point” or “threat” value of vehicle crews to make them less attractive targets to AFV’s. The problem with this method is that it assumes the AFV has a selection of armored and infantry targets to choose from, and that it will choose the highest priority target. However, this frequently does not work because the enemy armor unit has popped smoke or has otherwise temporarily moved out of LOS. In this case, the AFV has a selection between a target with a value of “0” (because it is out of LOS) and a target with a value of “0 + X” In this case, the AFV will always rotate to engage the target with the value of “0 + X.” By the time the higher priority enemy armor unit comes back into view, your AFV has already rotated to engage the low priority crew. This problem is even more aggravating because it gives an unfair advantage to lower quality armor units which can’t slug it out “toe to toe” with enemy armor and which have to instead rely on stealth to survive (and so are frequently moving into and out of LOS). IMO, this also gives an unfair advantage to Allied tanks, because they tend to rely on speed and stealth, while Axis tanks, while powerful and well protected, are slow and have slow turret speeds.

Phew! Glad I got that off my chest! Hopefully, this post didn’t come across as a bitch-fest, but simply as some constructive criticism and some suggestions for dealing with a problem that has bothered me and several other fans of CM. Again, I don’t consider this problem to be a game-breaker, but if fixed, would add a lot to both my own, and others, enjoyment of the game. Comments and criticisms are welcome.

We now return to your regularly scheduled program....

[Guest Michael emrys]

While I can see that the "involuntary" retargeting issue is a cause for real concern, so far I haven't heard a suggested cure that doesn't introduce its own problems.

#1 ignores the problem of manpack AT weapons like Schrecks and Fausts, and even ordinary squads are a threat if allowed to get close enough. Of course, a skilled commander will try to have escorting infantry to deal with that threat, but you don't always have them around. You can't just ignore those threats.

#2 forgets that if a tank is permitted to use its MGs, it will use its coax (denying it that would be unrealistic), which gets us back into the turret rotation problem.

#3 comes closest to a workable solution, IMHO, but I think it needs to be coupled with a tendency for the tank crew to keep enhanced watch in a direction where an unkilled major threat just disappeared for some period of time before it will retarget (on a low-threat target, that is), say 30-60 seconds. This is a lot more flexible than an absolute prohibition against firing on infantry-type targets, yet still puts the quietus on some of the turret spinning behavior.

Comments?

Michael

[This message has been edited by Michael emrys (edited 07-09-2000).]

[kump]

Michael emrys,

Your #1 counter point is at issue. The main gun/coaxial can still fire at AT units such as PIATs, etc. All "AT" threats are treated as high priority. Crews will be IGNORED and distant infanty squads would be ignored.

When normal infantry squads approach to within a certain pre-defined distance in LOS of the AFV on orders to "main gun on AT threat only", then the TacAI could include those infantry units as AT threats of a high priority also, finally using main gun on infantry squads.

THE BIGGEST problem is the number of crews for knocked out AFVs that can appear on the battle field. Its a pity that the slow turreted vehicles continuously turn to waste ammunition and put themselves into a tactical disadvantage due to these non-threatening targets. There seems to be too much duck shooting going on. Small groups of men running in the other direction don't deserve my Tiger I's dedicated attention, and throwing shells their way is grounds for a severe repremand.

I love the game, and its a joy as is. Playing with slow turreted vehicles are a lot of fun when playing against the fast turreted vehicles. Lots of suspense and excitement. But losing slow turreted AFVs due to turret fixation on scampering crews and ignoring temporarily out of sight AFVs is not exciting, its aggrevating.

There are currently two smoke screens in the game. The first is your normal smoke screen to deny LOS. The second is from your destroyed AFVs, which issue a human smoke screen, effectively providing a target rich environment to the detrement of slow turreted vehicles.

[Pfalz XII]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#1 ignores the problem of manpack AT weapons like Schrecks and Fausts, and even ordinary squads are a threat if allowed to get close enough. Of course, a skilled commander will try to have escorting infantry to deal with that threat, but you don't always have them around. You can't just ignore those threats.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I'm not ignoring this threat, believe me. First, as you say, a good commander will not usually let his armored units get close enough to these teams without adequate infantry support in the first place. Second, one reason why individual AT teams were so effective in WWII was because TC's sometimes became fixated on engaging enemy armor units, allowing these teams to sneak up on the otherwise engaged armor unit. This was particularly likely when buttoned. Third, under my approach, once these teams are identified as AT, they are treated by the TacAI as high priority threats and dealt with appropriately. Finally, since the "Target AFV/ATG Only" command is selectable by the player and is not the default command, you don't have to use it if you are concerned about getting clocked by an AT team. IMO, my approach (if it can be coded) is more realistic than having your turret needlessly rotate to engage fleeing vehicle crews which are no threat to you.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>#2 forgets that if a tank is permitted to use its MGs, it will use its coax (denying it that would be unrealistic), which gets us back into the turret rotation problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, using your coax mg is a tactical decision that has to be made by the TC. In my view, if you are engaging enemy armor (even if temporarily out of LOS), you will NOT rotate your turret 90 degrees to engage low priority infantry targets. Most AFV's have 1 or even 2 other mg's to use against such targets, which they can use to great effect (suppress now, kill later). In this situation, the TC has bigger fish to fry.

Although I agree in principle with what you said about #3, for the reasons stated in my above post, I don't see tweaking the point values of crews as being the most desirable solution. As Kump pointed out, the main problem is the TacAI gets overwhelmed by the sheer number of crews running around the battlefield. A target filter would help to reduce this confusion, IMO and lead to more realistic results.

[Pfalz XII]

I saw from a post by Fionn on uselessnet that BTS has tweaked this in version 1.03 so that AFV's are less likely to target crews. However, he gave no details as to what may have been done to fix this.

Since Steve and Charles have been on vacation and haven't responded to this thread, I was wondering what changes may have been made to help alleviate this problem. Since increasing target stickiness and adjusting the point values of vehicle crews have proven to be less than optimal solutions, I was hoping that maybe a new approach might have been used.

[RMC]

Excellent thread. Too bad BTS hasn't been able to respond yet. I do't go to usenet, hopefully Fionn can repost here what tweaks are in store for V1.03.

Villers Bocage is a real eye-opener for this problem. I guess in your average scenario there are always plenty of more valuable targets around. Watching Wittmann slowly rotating his turret to get the bailed Stuart crew is truly frustrating when you know there are still two Shermans down the road behind that puff of smoke.

One thing that worked out for me was to rush Wittmann down the road to get him away from all the "gnats" he wanted to swat. It was dangerous but moving further down the road (using "Hunt" which seems to tell him to look for a threat in the direction of travel)cut off his vision to the flanks and let him focus more on what was in front.

I like solution #3 with crews having a threat value of ZERO. But I also like the option of requiring armor to engage only armored targets.

[Guest Big Time Software]

I've added some more smarts to the v1.03 TacAI which hopefully will solve this problem without having to add new order types.

v1.03 is in the works now....

Charles

[Pfalz XII]

Thank you, Charles. Um, you wouldn't mind emailing me to let me know what changes have been made to increase the TacAI "smarts," now would you?

Seriously, the step-by-step approach that you are taking to this problem is probably the wisest course at this point. Also, Villars-Bocage is probably an extreme case, so fixing targeting so it works in this scenario might futz up something somewhere else. Still, I have to say that I think a new targeting command is still the best solution.

Any guesses as to the first scenario I will fire up after downloading the 1.03 patch?