Sitting Duck Posted August 19, 2000 Share Posted August 19, 2000 Hello CM Pros! Been testing CM v1.04, specifically trying to see the results of this part of the readme: * Tanks are less likely to target a new, not-highly-threating unit which, to engage, would require significant turret or hull rotation away from a recent, important threat. Can anyone give a little more detail on the changes made to tank targeting priorities? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted August 19, 2000 Share Posted August 19, 2000 This specific change was made to reduce instances of tanks losing track of their opponents, and then spinning around idly taking potshots and bailed crews and such, while their opponents jockey for a shot. I haven't had much experience of this behaviour myself, but them's the facts. David ------------------ There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sitting Duck Posted August 20, 2000 Author Share Posted August 20, 2000 Thanks David. I was wondering more about the detail (bold): * Tanks are less likely to target a new, not-highly-threating unit which, to engage, would require significant turret or hull rotation away from a recent, important threat. I didn't find any difference between CM v1.03 and v1.04 in the tests I ran. My tests involved a scenario where I've noticed it happen a lot and a very simple scenario I designed myself (meaning not likely to be seen in a game). So perhaps I'm pushing the new targeting model further than it was designed. That's why the questions. I know you may not have the answers, but I'll be more specific below...maybe you or another game pro could give me a pointer on this... less likely Does this mean that there is an actual calculation involved to determine whether or not the tank follows the new targeting rules? Is experience a factor? Example: If there are multiple targets and all else being equal, there's a chance that my Tank will swing it's barrel to follow any given target, regardless of the new targeting rules? new, not-highly-threatening So an old Not-Highly-Threatening unit will not trigger the new targeting rules? How is 'not-highly-threatening' determined? By unit type or are situational factors considered? A PIAT to the rear can be threatening...unless it's in panic or 500+ meters away. significant turret or hull rotation away How much rotation is significant? (OT: I had a case where a Tiger spotted a Firefly and was attempting to bring both the main gun and hull toward the target. Unfortunately, the turret rotated in the opposite direction as the hull...resulting in the barrel staying stationary. Bad Luck for Dead Tiger.) recent, important threat How recent? How important? The thing that seems to get me the most on this issue is the combination of Targeting Priority and Evasive Maneuver when playing with German AFV's. The situation I'm describing is classic (for me) and has been the topic of numerous threads: Sherman appears to the front Tiger brings barrel to bear (slowly) Sherman pops smoke and reverses out of LOS Tiger finds new, interesting (but non-threatening) things to kill (like crews and out of position infantry) Smoke clears Sherman gets side/rear turret shot on Tiger Test Setup I created a simple scenario in CM v1.03 pitting 1 Tiger tank against 4 shermans and 1 platoon, no fog of war. I placed the single Elite Tiger into a position where it was presented with a variety of targets both forward and behind (Hull & Main Gun lined up). The AVF's (threatening) were forward 300 meters (in line with main gun and hull) and the infantry (non-high-threat) were 200 meters rearward. Like this: 4Shermans->___300_Meters___<-1Tiger___200_Meters___<-Infantry Expected Result I expected that on opening, the Tiger would exchange a volley or 2 or 3 with the 4 Shermans and that the Shermans would pop smoke and reverse to lose contact with the Tiger. Then the Tiger would wait some amount of time, then swing the barrel around to target the infantry. I was interested in measuring the time that the Tiger would wait before it began swinging the barrel around. I expected that the Tiger running CM v1.04 might wait a bit longer to begin swinging the barrel. I was careful during testing to make sure that none of the tank crews were injured in the opening volleys. I didn't want loose crews ruining the test. Sometimes the Tiger would kill 1 or more Shermans (once the Tiger was killed, once it suffered a casualty). If this happened, I promptly started the scenario over. Again, I did NOT want fleeing or shocked Sherman crews factoring into the test. It took quite a many trys to get this to happen! In any case, the Tiger running CM v1.03 and v1.04 was faced with a recent threat forward (now out of LOS behind smoke) and a non-high-threat infantry target rearward. What do I expect next? I expect that at some point in time after losing contact with the Shermans, the Tiger will swing it's barrel to attack the non-high-threat infantry to the rear. The issue is one of timing: How long will the Tiger wait to retarget non-high-threat infantry 180 degrees away from a threat? After all, the TacAI cannot wait forever for the Shermans to reappear from behind the smoke or for the smoke to dissapate. But how long would they wait? Measurement I was measuring the time between loss of the Tiger's target line to the Shermans and the beginning of Turrent Rotation to the infantry. Results In every case, the Tiger would swing its turret to bear on the infantry 12-15 seconds after losing contact with the Shermans. It didn't matter whether I used CM v1.03 or CM v1.04, or whether the Tiger had an elite crew or not. In fact, if the Tiger had an elite crew, it would tend to start targeting the non-high-threat infantry sooner! Conclusion This all started when I tested with the VBT scenario and didn't notice any difference between CM v1.03 and v1.04. So that's why I set up this test...Clearly I'm doing something wrong and not testing this correctly. Thanks in advance for any tips! [This message has been edited by Sitting Duck (edited 08-19-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrPeng Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 much less likey to target a ditting suck...or ring kitchard...or a speverand rooner. no not pallindromes, spoonerisms. and if you're going to hit splairs i'm going to iss poff! Peng or in igpay atinlay Engpay ------------------ A Journey of a thousand miles starts with a single gunshot wound to the foot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted August 20, 2000 Share Posted August 20, 2000 Your test misses out on two points though. Infantry behind a tank are not exactly NON-Threatning. In that 12-15 seconds the infantry COULD have gotten within close assault or rifle grenade range. The second thing that you didn't test (or report on at least) was how long the Tiger would HOLD the targeting of the infantry once the Shermans re-appeared. That is an area that seems to have bee tweaked the greatest. In my testing of this very same aspect I noticed that tanks would still target an infantry or Hq unit from time to time but once a armored threat appeared they more than willing to dump the soft target and engage the new threat. The tweak that you are talking about seems to be really focusing on targeting of bailed out crews (new non-threatning targets, NEW since they werent there a second ago and NON-THREATNING since they cant close assault) and not so much just regular infantry. I used Wild Bills Villers Bocage scenario (I am not sure if this is same one that was on the CD) with Wittmann and his Tiger and due to the changes in 104 was able to get much better results than i was ever able to reproduce with 103. Armored threats always took precedence over soft targets and re-targeting of high threat units was very quick. Once I get my systems back up a little more we can discuss this more at lenght as I did a great deal of targeted testing over this very same issue. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sitting Duck Posted August 21, 2000 Author Share Posted August 21, 2000 MrPeng said- "..." Actually, I don't know what he said. But that's not important, it's how he says it that so enjoyable. Please keep up the good work! I can't tell you how many times I have read your posts and had the best laugh. <-For you, Sir. maddmatt said- "Infantry behind a tank are not exactly NON-Threatning. In that 12-15 seconds the infantry COULD have gotten within close assault or rifle grenade range." Yes, that's very true. I was concentrating on "not-highly-threatening." The infantry were sitting there in their foxholes and had made no move or attack on the Tiger. Not sure if the TacAI has that refined idea of situational awareness. What if I increased the distance to 500+ meters? What if I ordered the infantry to pause 30 seconds, then withdraw AWAY from the Tiger? madmatt said- "The second thing that you didn't test (or report on at least) was how long the Tiger would HOLD the targeting of the infantry once the Shermans re-appeared...In my testing of this very same aspect I noticed that tanks would still target an infantry or Hq unit from time to time but once a armored threat appeared they more than willing to dump the soft target and engage the new threat." Yes. When the Sherman smoke clears and the Shermans appear, the Tiger does attempt to rotate back to the Shermans. In most of the cases: Dead Tiger. It takes the Tiger so long to rotate it's turret 180^ that the Shermans can get off about 12 shots (4 shermans)... When I tried the VBT scenario, I got the same results as my test: dead Tiger. But, I was intentially placing the Tiger in a position where there were AVF's in front and infantry 200+ meters behind (usually running away). In VBT testing I also ran into the "Tank sissor bug" (my name) on occasion. This is where the tank rotates both the hull and the turret at the same time, usually in response to a threat. But the combination of hull and turret rotation keeps the turret gun 'stationary' relative to the threat. Doesn't happen often. Lewis has a thread going that's in a similar vein. I'm traveling for the next few days (hope my laptop doesn't disintegrate like MrPeng's) and won't be able to test for awhile. Would like to discuss when you get your system back up (sorry to hear about that by the way - if you want send me private email, I'm in the business). Perhaps I can send you my test scenario? You could set one up pretty quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts