Requested Feature: Ignore unit

[TeAcH]

Thanks all. And thanks Chris B and Mike for your comments made in rebuttal to those of Matt. Matt, I too totally disagree with you. Not a slam here, but how long have you played the game? You see, this is an obvious problem to me that doesn't happen in EVERY battle, but rears its ugly head in the most inopportune moments such as that described above. Anyone that has played CM for some time has witnessed this. Perhaps you have too but came to some other rationalization.

In light of what Ive read thus far under this topic, I agree that an "Ignore Unit" command is not the answer. Now then, what IS the answer? I personally think that a DEFEND ARC similar to the one in Close Combat (yeah, I know but it worked) would suffice. But it would have to be one part of a two part change.

Now, for those that are not familiar with how and DEFEND Arc would work, you would designate a direction of focus for the given unit, similar to a ROTATE command, except that instead of a line, you would get a funnel shapped arc. Once a threat appears in that arc, the unit or tank would track and fire. If the target left the arc, then the tank could continue to track it IF it was a threat.

I believe, you should also be allowed to set the size or width of the DEFEND arc so you could in essence order the unit to tighten its focus. (Ill post a "what if" picture below).

The notion that we have a GOD-like view able to see what a tank commander can't is not a sound argument in this case. Are we the Commander unit? Are we the "A-0" unit? See my point?

Some things have to be left to the AI, sure, but not here.

So let's say that a DEFEND Arc was available to me in my initial post. See the below picture

As you can see, I could tell the AI to face and focus on this direction, just like I can order it to FIRE, MOVE, HIDE, BUTTON, HUNT, etc. So, I do this and face my Tiger in the direction I want him to face. "Hey! You orders aren't to move. They are to stay here and DEFEND in THIS direction."

Now then, by ordering the Tiger to remain focused on this area (see above pic), I would be more ready to DEFEND myself against a known threat that THIS Crack Tiger not only saw, but other Crack Tigers saw (they know where they last saw him a few seconds ago at least and a firefly's gun aint too shabby! In other words, they better be ready to kill it as a high priority). But I digress. Continuing then, the crew emerges (as did happen) or it is sighted and outside of the arc. No problem, my Tiger ignores it. What if the crew emerges and is INSIDE the arc? The Tiger could begin to fire at it until it left the arc AND ignore it once a real threat or better target became available.

Here is another picture taken later in the battle.

A lot of my troops SEE a lot of enemy armor rolling down the main road towards the Tiger ambush. They come to help their beleagured comrades. i want to give them a welcoming party. I move a crack Tiger into position in the middle of the road and angle him to aid in deflecting hits against him. I know my Tiger's armor is adequete in this role and his gun is more than sufficient to pick off enemy armor at this great distance. What happens? As the Tiger sits and waits (Ambush not an option as enemy armor is 600+ meters out), it decides to turn its slow turret all the way around to target crew behind him. What does this mean? Well, it means that my Tiger is far from ready to fire at the real BIG threat coming down the road. What happens in the end? WHAMMO! Tiger dead. Turret hit in the rear or side (cant quite recall).

Now, I can hear some of you already. Well, you know it is a crew, but the tank crew doesn't. And they don't want to have unaddressed enemy soldiers behind it...who knows they may have gammon bombs. Well, maybe they have purple elephants in their pockets too. Whatever the case, the Tiger should either have fired off that Neverwegge-thinga-ma-bob or reversed out of the street getting ouf of KNOWN harms way.

Respectfully,

TeAcH

[Nevres]

holly $hit!!!! look at the size of that map, jesus!! (its obvious that i havent gotten cm)

heres what i belive, since you stated that there was a panther that had sighted the sherman before your tiger, that means that your tiger is aware of the sherman so you should target the sherman even if it is out of its LOS. my 2 cents

[TeAcH]

Okay. I appreciate the contribution and it is worth noting, however because this issue is somewhat complex and thus the posts are lengthy, I would encourage everyone to read them throughly (not just mine, but the whole thread) because I think someone (or two) touched on this.

Navri, Neither of my tanks (and both were Tigers not that it matters) had LOS to the Sherman Firefly before he appeared in the final shooting position as depicted above. The fly was creeping forward very slowly therefore he would be seen for a minute then vanish being replaced by a marker for his last known position. So there was no way to target him and have that targeting remain throughout the whole action phase.

And, if memory serves me right, that doesnt seem to work in the game anyway. Your tank keeps a lock only for a few seconds and then leaves it. Nor would that alone accomplish all that a DEFEND command would, IMO.

TeAcH

[This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 07-13-2000).]

[Bobbaro]

Your defend arc suggestion occured to me as well. It would have application beyond the situation described. I could tell units to defend an arc just as units are instructed on the battlefield, "This your sector --defend it well." The Tactical AI would only release in self defense, not to be potting at everything in sight. Unit experence would appropriately determine how well such units would stick to order just as it does in the case of ambushes. And just as in the case of movement orders, a delay could be effected for the order to become operational. This would simulate the time it takes a radio communication to take effect.

[fiftymicrolitres]

I haven't bought the game yet, but it seems to me as if one thing is missing in this discussion (and please feel free to correct me if I am wrong); namely that unless the Tac AI is coded to use specific ignore orders (or whatever solution people are proposing) it becomes dumber by default by virtue of a human player gaining that much extra control over the program.

In the Talonsoft games West/East Front and Rising Sun, an optional rule allowed the use of armour facings by human players, BUT the computer would tend to ignore this. Resulting in an apparently dumber AI.

I'd submit that no one would want Combat Mission to appear dumber.

Unless any proposed solution would affect the Tac AI AND the human player equally, I would say don't bother (again, keeping in mind that I do not have the game).

5m

[Smoker]

I like the idea of a "defend arc" and Bobbaro's take on it's implementation.

FiftyMicroliters brings up a very good point too. If the human can set up a defend arc then the computer should be able to do it too, if possible.

After many, many hours of play this targetting of non-threats in the face of known immediate danger, although not visible at the moment, is the only thing about this game I dislike. I cast my vote for a fix of some sort if at all possible, even if the computer side can't use the command.

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

Smoker out.

[TeAcH]

I hope this isnt asking much, but Id like to know BTS' thoughts on this thread.

Thanks

TeAcH

[Purple4Ever]

Yes!

I would very much like to see something implemented/changed.

When thinking of possible solutions, my immediate thought was of CC4 (didn't play CC2 or CC3)and the "defend arc" command.

However, a concern of mine would be that this would then "limit" the TacAI.

For example, what if an equally threating target (e.g., a previously undetected Firefly) appeared within LOS of the Tiger, BUT outside the "arc"?

Maybe implementation of the "arc" concept as well as some sort of refinement for target selection prioritisation?

This is something for the programmers to figure out.

Have at it....my $.02

[Demangel]

Yeah I just wanna add my two cents since I hope BTs fixes this, as it does seem to be a problem we have all encountered...

I have lost a few tanks because they attacked a machine gun across the map, or crew hiding under a rock when I wanted them to turn a corner and fire on something they knew was there a minute ago, but lost sight of...

So I think BTS has to include some kind of new command, be it an ignore unit comand (problematic) or the defend area command, or maybe an attack area command? Ie just like the defend area, but you will hunt as well... IE unless something big and nasty comes along or something small and nasty, your tank or infantry whatever, will advance along your waypoint thingy, keeping the area of interest toward what it should, unless it sees something truly dangerous... I mean your in a tank for gods sake... firing on infantry more than 100 m away when you know there is an enemy tank around the corner is stupid... ESPECIALY with radios, or if the tank saw the other tank...

PUT IN A FIX PLEASE!

[Henri]

The problem is not only tanks around acorner; in my battle yesterday, a jahdPanzer had just destroyed two of my tanks and was sitting at the end of the railroad in plain view 1 km away as it was engaged by the two tanks folowing behind. After firing a couple of shots, both of my tanks suddently traversed and began to shoot at an infantry squad 1/4 mile away!

Had to change my shorts again...

Henri

[Smoker]

After my latest game I felt the need to put this thread back on top. The subject of this thread really does need to be addressed IMO. It's the ONLY flaw in the game worth griping about. I'm hoping for a big change in 1.03.

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

Smoker out.

[Törni]

Good old trick from miniatures games: two order options 1)Ignore infantry 2) ignore vehicles opstions.

[PraetorianXXI]

Why dont we get a priority button!!

Depending if the unit has been in a conflict before or not he can by "experience" figure out what each threat carries Tcrew pistols maybe grenades - Tank cannon, and based upon this information can decide if it better to shoot at the tank or the trooper!!!

one catch would be that the units have to be visible which dont help too much

hmmmm...what if it prioritises the units within the defensive arc???

too top it all, i personally wouldnt have a one tank ambush standing still id try to flank 'em

[PvK]

Seems to me the issue isn't so much a need to ingore certain specified units or to engage only one arc as it is to not engage non-threat targets.

So, how about vehicle/inf engagement ranges as something a player can set, either for a whole force, a unit type, or specific units. Thus you could set the infantry engagement range to 100m or 50m or 0m, and ignore any infantry outside that range.

Same for the vehicle range, which could also be broken down into threatening and non-threat vehicles. E.g., engage threatening vehicles within 2000m, non-threat vehicles within 500m, and infantry within 100m.

I suppose threat/no-threat infantry could also be broken down. Thus crews could be set to 0m, but threat inf (e.g. bazooka) could be set to 250m, or whatever the player wanted.

If that's too much to ask for or too much to deal with, the TacAI's default engagement ranges could just be tuned to more reasonable levels, with attacks only being carried out outside them to return fire or if specifically ordered.

PvK

[Smoker]

Hey, could be a good idea there. Player controlled engagement ranges similar to TacOps. Standing orders passed to the troops before hostilities begin. How well the orders are obeyed could depend on unit experience. There would probably need to be several different unit types that the engagement range could be set for in order to solve the problem. That could get a little hairy for Charles. It might be worth exploring however. Are you there Charles?

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

Smoker out.

[Smoker]

If you want your slow turreted Tigers to keep their guns toward threatening enemy armor instead of traversing 180* to take out harmless, shaken crews of abandoned/knocked out vehicles you probably should post here. I will be putting this thread at the top once each night, if necessary, so you might as well post to it. There are only two ways this thread will ever disappear:

1) The problem is solved or at least greatly reduced.

2)BTS locks it up.

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

Smoker out.

[TeAcH]

Good for you Smoker (and us too). Someone mentioned this might be fixed in 1.03. Lets hope so.

IMO, Id rather not micromage the ranges of a unit. Id like to give it a defend arc. If a viable threat arrives in view and it is outside of the arc, then your tank could turn towards it, otherwise, the arc dicates its primary facing.

TeAcH

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Well i guess I'll add my two cents now I've waded through thee thread:

I feel a good solution to the problem would be a priority targetting addition with another implementation or subcoindition to address the type of engagement

for instance if I targeted the fly with a priority order and then implemented an aggresive stance with a secondary command.

likewise if I had a greyhound and that Tiger was about to roll up on me, I could prioritize the tiger with a defensive sub command - that way if the tiger did crest into view the greyhound would slam it in reverse or pop smoke

whatcha think guys>?

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 07-17-2000).]

[This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 07-17-2000).]

[Smoker]

I dunno PanzerLeader. I think something like that would be too involved to program. Either a defensive arc or an engagement range would probably be easier, although I'm no programmer.

They've got something for us in 1.03. Hopefully that will solve the problem. I just want to keep this up top until it's fixed because I really think the game would be significantly better than it already is if this issue was adequately addressed.

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

Smoker out.

[PvK]

Another good reason to have engagement range set-able is the situation I see in a long-range encounter I'm in now. My Panthers are down to under 20 AP rounds each now, and are still firing at Shermans at 1200m even when they are hull down and there's only a 10% hit chance. I'd like to be able to have my tankers save some ammo.

Also, some of my MG teams like to expose themselves to take pot-shots at enemies who are also about 1200m away. If I want them to fight (not hide) against closer enemies who may not always be in LOS, I have no way to keep them from wasting ammo and attention and exposing themselves by taking pot shots at long range.

Engagement range would be one way to get the desired control in these situations.

PvK

[Jarmo]

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

My Panthers are down to under 20 AP rounds each now, and are still firing at Shermans at 1200m even when they are hull down and there's only a 10% hit chance. I'd like to be able to have my tankers save some ammo.

Engagement range would be one way to get the desired control in these situations.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think the tank crew would be happy just hanging

around saving ammo. A lucky shot from a sherman could

kill them any time. With tungsten ammo, any hit would do.

And what if there was a tank destroyer with 90mm gun?

[Hunter]

Guys,

A most interesting thread and I appreciate that many of the suggestions are useful and could lead to the right kind of behaviour. I have also been unable to ignore silly behavious by my tanks in targetting non-threatening enemy forces, disadvantaging them.

Some of the suggestions to date are good in that they give the player "something to do" and "choices to make" but I think it is important to ensure that the kinds of decisions we are making as players are somewhat based on the kinds of decisions we could make as commanders.

For example, commandes definitely DO make decisions about priority of targets and preferred engagement ranges. They brief their troops about this before the battle, and expect that the troops will alter their behaviour based on those instructions. Commanders don't specifically have to point out retreatig tank crews and say "Don't bother shooting at that".

RMC notes that "The TacAI just can't maintain the kind of situational awareness that the player can."

I think that this underestimates what the TAC AI, in whatever 'next incarnation' Charles chooses, can do. Some of that situational awareness is exactly what I would want the AI to do for me, and I don't think it is beyond programming to improve the AI to make better choices.

This is my preferred approach as it would then allow the AI enemy to improve its performance alongside friendly troops; require less intervention by the player (in an unrealistic manner mostly); and also preserve the idea of the AI acting upon what it knows, rather than what the god-like commander knows, which would be allowed by some of the other mechanisms (ie: I know you can't see that tank coming down the lane, but a single squad without a radio can, so I am going to order you to watch for a threat from that direction).

I am not sure exactly what the complexity of the 'cognitive modelling' involved in the TAC AI is, but assuming that it has some kind of Belief : Desire : Intention model underpinning it, I see no reason why the AI cannot maintain a 'threat list' as part of its basic calculations or 'situational awareness' or 'current beliefs', thus allowing the crew to take better decisions about what to do.

<trying hard not to ramble needlessly here>

In summary, I think some of the proposed solutions are 'simple and elegant heuristics' BUT are too simple to really work well in all circumstances, and I would really like a much better solution involving the TAC AI.

<example>

The situation where a Tiger tank is defending and sees a Sherman Firefly in front of it. It turns it armor and gun to face, but the firefly continues its movement and is temporarily hidden behind a building. Heres where the AI goes wrong and tries to target something else. Then the firefly emerges from the other end of the building.

The Tiger seems quite surprised, 'fancy that? A firefly over there emerging at exactly the place that any two year old would expect it to if it had been the same one I saw disappear and re-emerge at the end of the house'. I will now think about changing my targetting back to that tank. Oops too late.

Instead, imagine that every enemy seen by the Tiger has a 'threat rating' or 'preferred target rating' (subtly different idea).

When a Tiger sees the Firefly, it suddenly gets a threat rating of 90 out of 100 (or whatever). A Stuart 1000m away might only rate a 50, and retreating tank crews about a 1. So the Tiger targets the tank, it disappears behind a house.

The threat value should diminish with time, say by 1 per second (again, or whatever). So for 40 seconds in this example, the 'hidden' threat from the firefly would constitute the greater threat and the Tiger would react to it as it's main target. This is plenty of time for the target to reemerge on the other side of the house, and for the Tiger to be still tracking it (although leading might be problematic). If it hasn't re-emerged in 40s, then go ahead and target the distant Stuart.

New emerging threats (Piat to flank, Sherman 76 within 300, whatever) would enter into calculations as they occurred, and the 'current target' would also need to have a 'bonus' of 10% or something in threat value so that the tank didn't oscillate between targets with slight changes in profile (The old problem of not being too smart and trying to find the absolute right target, shoot at something for goodness sake!).

If in the example above the firefly failed to emerge after a minute and a half, the retreating tank crew would indeed be the highest threat, and the tank may start pounding them. Even then, my gut reaction is to suggest that 'unspecified armor threats not yet detected' should probably rate a 5 just to keep the tank on overwatch rather than pounding the crews.

Ooh, I see I am rambling on quite a lot here.....

Just my AUS$0.02,

Bruce

ps: I have confidence that Charles will take our advice and frustration, analyse the problem and suggestions, and make an informed and enlightened decision about the best way forward; at least, that's what I have seen him do to date

[Smoker]

Great post, Hunter!

I hope you put your two cents into this forum on a regular basis. It is encouraging to read that you think even a better, more realistic fix is possible than the ones suggested in this thread.

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

Smoker out.

[Mace]

What a great idea!

One issue I would have is the way the TacAI would treat retreating troops.

IMHO, from a tanker's prospective it would be very hard to identify whether a non-vehicular unit (read infantry, tank crew, etc) are retreating, or just repositioning (especially when they are spotted from a buttoned up tank in the heat of battle).

Perhaps default threat rating for all trooper units viewed from a AFV should be the same (ie greater than 1), regardless of whether they ae retreating or not?

Not to detract from Bruce's idea, though!

"up here for thinking, mate"

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

<snipped at my discretion>

Instead, imagine that every enemy seen by the Tiger has a 'threat rating' or 'preferred target rating' (subtly different idea).

The threat value should diminish with time, say by 1 per second (again, or whatever).

New emerging threats (Piat to flank, Sherman 76 within 300, whatever) would enter into calculations as they occurred, and the 'current target' would also need to have a 'bonus' of 10% or something in threat value so that the tank didn't oscillate between targets with slight changes in profile (The old problem of not being too smart and trying to find the absolute right target, shoot at something for goodness sake!).

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[RMC]

Just got reminded of another facet to this problem: Tanks will not abandon their area targets. This is so very odd. Had a panther in Kommerscheidt firing at "infantry sounds" that had a little man to represent them. What happens? The panther continues to pour fire on THAT EXACT SPOT while the infantry gets spotted as it moves into a building. The tank doesn't fire on them because it doesn't know that it was supposed to be shooting at them. I can see that this can cut both ways cause there are times you want them to shoot at some spot NO MATTER WHAT. In this case I didn't want them to do that. Is there a way to have my cake and eat it too? Can there be a way to say "fire at this area until something better pops up in that area" and also when needed "shoot at that spot and DO NOT stop?"

[This message has been edited by RMC (edited 07-19-2000).]