"The Charles" Has Spoken!

[aka_tom_w]

"Big Time Software

Moderator posted 08-16-2000 06:45 PM Archers and other rear-facing vehicle-mounted weapons are unsuitable for "hunting" maneuvers. In WW2, Archers were used as defensive weapons: almost exactly like antitank guns (except with no need for a separate vehicle to tow the gun) and not in the least like tanks. I think the best solution is to disallow the hunt move altogether for these vehicles. I will put this into v1.04.

Charles"

In response to a thread about Archers Charles responded with the post above.

This is the first official reference that I have seen regarding the possibility of a v1.04 patch on the horizion. He's working on it and it will include the above mentioned tweak.

Has anyone read any other posts that hint (by Steve or Charles) of other tweaks and fixes we might see in the now upcoming v1.04 patch?

thanks

-tom w

(P.S. I know there are several other threads with lots of requests and speculation for the v1.04 patch, but I'm wondering if I have missed any other posts or referneces by Steve or Charles to the v1.04 patch.)

[Hans]

Note I think another type of move a "Recce"

In the Move mode your vehicle or unit primary task is to get to where ever you have clicked on

In Hunt it is moving and searching for targets

In a "Recce" it would be moving to a point but immediately breaking contact on seeing an enemy unit or being fired at. I find my units sent forward on Recon using the move command get into gunfights

Hans

[WendellM]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Has anyone read any other posts that hint (by Steve or Charles) of other tweaks and fixes we might see in the now upcoming v1.04 patch?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, when I cut up a chicken to cook for dinner last night, the innards spelled out "1.04" (either that or "Carthage", I'm not sure). This must be a sign from the gods than the new patch is underway.

Seriously, thanks for the post. Pooling any official mentions of it in one place makes sense, since BTS is so busy with actually doing it that news of it (understandably) seems somewhat scarce.

[GriffinCheng+]

Hey, iirc there is another one on the Scenario board that 1.04 will fix problems with the placments of reinforcment.

Griffin.

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

"+" is just the beginning. Expect to see "GriffinCheng76", "GriffinCheng(105)" or "GriffinChengA3E8" more should Forum problems occur again

[WendellM]

Griffin,

I'd previously read what you referred to (I think) and found it again: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/008972.html

Though Fred may well be right, he's not an "official" source (what we're looking for are official statements - unless I found the wrong post). The best match for "official" in that thread was Fionn, who stated that "[the patch will contain] tweaks and fixes.."

Regards,

Wendell

[This message has been edited by WendellM (edited 08-17-2000).]

[Gotcha]

I would like to see an "SOP" option like in TacOps. Perhaps this is too much to ask for in a Patch. But would be nice to see in CM2.

[robo]

It'd be nice to see the save game feature fixed; crashes can corrupt the file ruining an entire game. This is easily the biggest bug I've seen.

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

Note I think another type of move a "Recce"

In the Move mode your vehicle or unit primary task is to get to where ever you have clicked on

In Hunt it is moving and searching for targets

In a "Recce" it would be moving to a point but immediately breaking contact on seeing an enemy unit or being fired at. I find my units sent forward on Recon using the move command get into gunfights

Hans<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I find this to be a *very* interesting suggestion. The only problem is that programming the behavior for "breaking off" could be seriously complicated. Simply reversing course wouldn't always suffice. Neither would heading for the nearest cover, as we have seen in the thread on routing. In short, you might have to have a whole list of prioritized instructions with exceptions. And as for guaranteeing that there wouldn't arise instances when units behaved in ways that were outrageously unrealistic...well, I wouldn't want that job.

All in all, it may be better to stick with what we have, which is that units seek cover when they come under fire. Then on the next turn, you can order them to do whatever you like. Sure, they will get shot up a bit more this way, but this happened in real life perhaps more than you realize.

As a possible solution to the problem you raise, you might arrange for your units to arrive at the point where they would be in sight of possible enemy positions at the very end of the turn. That would reduce the amount of time they would be exposed. You might also give them a sneak command for that portion of their movement, which should increase their alertness and reduce their reaction time, thus giving them a better chance to survive.

Michael

[David Aitken]

I think 'recce' is the kind of maneuvre that you should be planning yourself, not expecting the game to do for you. Don't sent your forces too far ahead in one go - move swiftly but carefully from cover to cover, so that you won't blunder into enemy fire. This is more of a tactical issue than a programming issue.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Sitting Duck]

David said,

"I think 'recce' is the kind of maneuvre that you should be planning yourself, not expecting the game to do for you..."

Do you feel the same way about the vehicle hunt command?

Why or why not?

[This message has been edited by Sitting Duck (edited 08-17-2000).]

[David Aitken]

Sitting Duck wrote:

> Do you feel the same way about the vehicle hunt command?

Nope. The hunt command simulates a simple 'advance to contact' order. A recce command, however, would be like 'advance to contact and then bug out', which isn't very realistic. If you want to sight the enemy but not fight them, you should be creeping forward using the commands which are currently available in the game.

Marching forward, letting the enemy see you and then withdrawing to cover would be an extremely bad idea, because - assuming you actually reach cover in one piece - the enemy knows where you are and can either shell you or hunt you down. I can't see a 'recce' command adding anything useful to the game.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Jeff Heidman]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

A recce command, however, would be like 'advance to contact and then bug out', which isn't very realistic. If you want to sight the enemy but not fight them, you should be creeping forward using the commands which are currently available in the game.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The second sentence does not even remotely follow from the first, and the first is just plain wrong. Needless to say, so is the 2nd. I think this is another example of "Dontchangeanythingitis".

"Advance to contact, but do not engage" is an extremely realistic order to give. Certainly as realistic as "advance to contact, then engage".

There are plenty of situations where you wish to locate the enemy but not engage. Your objections were only relevant in a limited context.

I find it kind of funny that David is suggesting that it is a bad idea to advance to contact and then pull back. Does he really think the tactically better idea is to advance to contact and then get blown away? Aren't we talking about recon units?

It is not always an option to creep forward slowly, not to mention that when you are spotted (and if you are scouting out a defending enemy it is likely that you will be the spotee before the spotter anyway) you will be moving nice and slow, making yourself an easy target. Of course, my example is also a limited example based on a certain set of circumstances. Sometimes it is better to go slow, sometimes fast. There would be nothing wrong with the game giving the player the same tool to decline an engagement that eh currently has to engage.

Jeff Heidman

[This message has been edited by Jeff Heidman (edited 08-17-2000).]

[David Aitken]

Jeff Heidman wrote:

> I find it kind of funny that David is suggesting that it is a bad idea to advance to contact and then pull back. Does he really think the tactically better idea is to advance to contact and then get blown away?

Who are you talking to here? Stop playing to the gallery.

In my first post I talked about moving from cover to cover. This is what I mean by creeping forward, and as such yes, my second sentence does 'follow from the first'. Again, you seem to be playing for laughs. I'm sorry, but I'm not part of your show.

Advancing to contact and then bugging out would rarely preserve your scout the way you assume it would. The 'hunt' command assumes the hunter is equipped to engage any units it spots, whereas the 'recce' command assumes it is not. However, the fact is that the proposed 'recce' command is still effectively 'hunt and bug out'. You're waiting until a vehicle runs into trouble, and then hoping it can get away before it gets wasted.

What I'm saying is, modifying the 'hunt' command and calling it 'recce' does not suddenly produce viable recce tactics. If you want to spot the enemy, but not engage them, you can't put your unit in an engagement position to start with, as the 'recce' command would - you've got to ensure the unit doesn't loiter in an exposed position, as part of your tactics.

What is the purpose of a recce? To spot enemy units which you can't yet see. We're not talking about getting a tank into a hull-down position, from which it can reverse into safety - we're talking about sending a scout car out under the enemy's gaze, and expecting it to spot the enemy before it gets blown away, and then retreat to safety before it gets blown away.

You can't expect a 'recce' command to save units which you throw into suicidal situations - your tactics should ensure that they don't get too far into trouble in the first place.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Tiger]

I agree with Aitken on this. Use the features already in the game for recon. If your units get spotted, well that's life.

up next: -vent-

Also, Mr. Heidman seems to be intentionally going after Mr. Aitken, probably hurt feelings from other posts. Give it a break Jeff. It's getting g-d old. I have yet to see any of your "enlightened" posts contain anything but venom. Sorry, but this board has seen plenty of this and usually from the same peoples. Have you noticed that many of the new people have caught on to this and are posting in similiar vein everytime someone posts something? If you can't get along and post resonable opinions without the bs and innuendo, settle it in an e-mail or an e-mail game, then shut the hell up. That goes for everyone.

-end of vent-

ps g-d stands for "gosh-darned"

-johnS

[Guest Big Time Software]

I agree with David. Generally speaking, players often try to do TOO much in too short a period of time. Good recon involves a lot of stopping and looking around. This means using PAUSE, inherent C&C delays, or whole turns. When a unit is not moving it can detect far more than when it is, just like real life. You can do plenty with the orders already in the game if you use them correctly and do not try to have your units pack 10 minutes worth of scouting into 1 or 2 turns.

Steve

P.S. Yes... there is a mild patch, called 1.04, on the way. No estimate when it will be released, but sooner rather than later.

[Sitting Duck]

David said-

"If you want to sight the enemy but not fight them, you should be creeping forward using the commands which are currently available in the game."

I confess I haven't been playing CM nearly as long as you, David. What commands would you use in the game to approximate a 'recce?'

The only technique I have found is the following:

1. Plot a HUNT or MOVE command from a position out of LOS some distance forward to a position just in LOS.

2. Also plot the REVERSE back out of LOS.

3. Good distance and timing judgment is important (using PAUSE to ensure the end of the turn occurs when you expect to have LOS).

4. If you "pokes your nose out" and see nothing, you can cancel the REVERSE when you plot your next move, or

5. If your distance/timing judgment was off and your unit is not in LOS at the end of the turn, issue more PAUSE commands and extend the MOVE or HUNT command slightly (leave REVERSE alone)...

I just find this exercize to be more...contrived than it needs to be. Issuing PAUSE commands so as to delay anticipated LOS until just before the end of the turn. Ugh. It also has a tendancy to use up precious game time.

David Said-

"Marching forward, letting the enemy see you and then withdrawing to cover would be an extremely bad idea, because - assuming you actually reach cover in one piece - the enemy knows where you are and can either shell you or hunt you down..."

Unfortunately, even my somewhat tortured process for poking my nose around the corner (with pre-plotted REVERSE) can have the effect of getting me spotted and shelled/hunted/killed. Hmmm...I'm not sure that 'recce' (as I described) would necessarily mean the OPFOR would see your unit...? Of course, since the 'recce' unit is moving, it's more likely to be seen before it sees a stationary (hiding) OPFOR unit...

I once plotted a series of HUNT / REVERSE commands (about 7 in a row), between the same 2 spots in and out of LOS. I was on the back side of a hill so my "in LOS position" was HULL DOWN to OPFOR. It was pretty effective! I would say that it was as effective as the infamous "sherman popping smoke until my Tiger is distracted by a crew or other meaningless unit" technique the TacAI uses so well!

Jeff -

What about Michael emrys' concern - how to program the "break off?" What if your 'recce' unit doesn't see OPFOR until it's been ambushed...from behind? There is already code in the game to handle the "you're a bigger threat to me than I am to you." (TacAI behavior in Sherman vs. Tiger thread) Maybe that could be adapted to terminate the 'recce' command on contact?

<a href=http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/007977.html>http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/007977.html</a>

[Sitting Duck]

On this board it would probably be better to re-read the thread to check for more posts before posting your own reply.

[Jeff Heidman]

Hmmm, well it seems that David has found a friend to back him up. Which is sad, since as far as I can tell, David has done a fine job of taking care of himself.

First of all, I am not "playing" to anyone. I post what I think, and I am not going to stop because Tiger or anyone else feels a need to come after me because I had the bad manners to disagree with him on something totally unrelated. See, two can play at that game!

If Tiger had half a clue, he would see that there have been several posts where I have publicly agreed with David, so apparently your little theory about me is so much, well, we all know what it is. Indeed, given this:

If you can't get along and post resonable opinions without the bs and innuendo, settle it in an e-mail or an e-mail game, then shut the hell up. That goes for everyone.

I would suggest Tiger take his own advice, especially that last part about shutting the hell up.

Secondly, the "recce" command is not an attempt to keep the player from having to think. Like the "hunt" command, it is a tool to try to better simulate actual orders. The reality is that despite anyone intentions, sometimes things happen in the 60 second time frame that change what you want your unit to do. "Hunt" says "Move forward, but if you see something, stop moving forward and engage it." Currently, there is no way to tell a unit to move until it sees an enemy unit and then disengage. You simply have to rely on the tacAi to do so, which works some of the time, but certainly not all of the time.

So you have to artifiaclailly limit your orders in such a way that you try to mitigate the 60 second time frame as best you can. This works sometimes, and sometimes it does not.

As usual, this argument is already getting polarized. The proposed commad would no more be a guarantee of your unit surviving than the Hunt command is a guaranteee of your unit successfully killing a target. It just makes explicit what you want your unit to do in a given circumstance.

So David, please try to refrain from saying I said something that I did not. I never claimed that this command would save my unit, or be a viable way to keep units put into suicidal situations alive.

Jeff Heidman

[David Aitken]

Jeff Heidman wrote:

> the "recce" command is not an attempt to keep the player from having to think [...] it is a tool to try to better simulate actual orders.

> Currently, there is no way to tell a unit to move until it sees an enemy unit and then disengage.

> I never claimed that this command would save my unit, or be a viable way to keep units put into suicidal situations alive.

Hmmm... obviously our definitions of a 'suicidal situation' don't match up. You're talking about sending a unit forward, then if it notices enemy guns aiming at it, pull out - which seems pretty suicidal to me.

Consider issuing a 'recce' order. This would either be towards the next line of cover, or into the open - I'm getting the impression that we're talking more about the latter case here.

So, your scout car moves into the open. If it suddenly notices an enemy tank lining it up, it'll retreat. But if it doesn't, it'll stay where it is, out in the open - while any watching enemy guns take their time getting a bead on it. Don't forget about Fog Of War - someone can be shooting at your unit, but it won't react until it spots the firer.

If you were moving to the next line of cover, a 'recce' order would still be a liability. If someone lines you up - whether you see them or not - you're best to keep moving. The last thing you want to do is stop and reverse.

I maintain that a 'recce' command would be redundant in the course of proper tactical recon. I'm more and more getting the impression that you (and Sitting Duck) regard recon as peeking around the corner of buildings with scout cars. Move out, take a look around, move back.

Recon is about creeping, and looking. The way to find the enemy is to move forward slowly in cover, and take plenty of time to stop and look around. If you need to cross open ground, do it swiftly and decisively, and make sure there is safe cover at your destination.

You can't roll a scout car out and expect him to spot the enemy - he'll be dead in seconds. If you're spotting, you need to do it from cover. You can't expect your guys to stand in the open and pick out enemy units who are watching them from well-concealed positions.

As Steve says (and Steve should know, he was only one of the guys who made the game), maybe you're trying to do too much too quickly. Recon is inherently time consuming, whereas the kind of thing you're talking about - and requesting a 'recce' command for - is split-second maneuvreing. There is no special whizz-bang trick you can pull to perfect recon - all the commands you need are at your disposal, it's how you use them that you need to think about.

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[Sitting Duck]

David said -

"...I'm more and more getting the impression that...Sitting Duck...regard(s) recon as peeking around the corner of buildings with scout cars. Move out, take a look around, move back."

Thanks David, I'll give that last a try for recon! Say...split a squad and MOVE or SNEAK them on out there? Maybe in close proximity to cover? That's the ticket!

Do you have any tips for executing the 'peek' maneuver (perhaps 'peek' is a better word than 'recce?') I described in my post? The timing part is just killing me!

If I want to look 'round some obstacle, it needs to coincide with the end of the turn since I can't depend on the TacAI to play conservative with some of my MBT's. I need to make the decision about whether to back out with a REVERSE. The process I detailed above just seems too klunky...

If I "peek" with a clearly inferior vehicle (Jeep) and it spots a superior vehicle (Tiger), then the TacAI will have the sense to REVERSE the inferior vehicle out or take some other evasive move (smoke - Yea!). But if I'm trying the same move with a superior vehicle in a situationally poor circumstance...I'm probably dead w/o the pre-planned REVERSE since the TacAI will leave me there (see my previous post above for link to tank_41's TacAI system discussion), or command delay leave me hanging out there.

Oh well. It's no big deal. I can continue to plot the REVERSE. Or...no more 'peeking' with MBT's...they can just sit and wait for the grunts to catch up or tote them on the top.

Thanks for all the explanations, they really do help!

David said-

"As Steve says (and Steve should know, he was only one of the guys who made the game)..."

For real? What the...? How did you...?!

Really though...I think it's just great when the developers participate in forums (or newsgroups) where their products are being discussed by users. I must say that this was the best $50 I've ever spent on ANY piece of software. Bar none and frankly a bargain at twice the price. I hope these guys make a fortune on this product, they sure deserve it - not to mention that the success will spur them onward to CM2+!

[Sgt.Morgue]

Back on topic , Charles did state in an earlier thread , that a bug of rienforcements being place in terrain they can't move thought would be fixed in the next patch.

[Madpad]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

I maintain that a 'recce' command would be redundant in the course of proper tactical recon. I'm more and more getting the impression that you (and Sitting Duck) regard recon as peeking around the corner of buildings with scout cars. Move out, take a look around, move back.

Recon is about creeping, and looking. The way to find the enemy is to move forward slowly in cover, and take plenty of time to stop and look around. If you need to cross open ground, do it swiftly and decisively, and make sure there is safe cover at your destination.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely you are contradicting yourself here when you say recon is about creeping and looking and others think it is about peeking round corners of buildings. Also when you say "when you have to cross open ground do it swiftly" just after saying it is about creeping.

Personally if your going to creep everywhere to recce why bother with a recon vehicle as infantry can probably do it just as fast but much quieter. I usually only use recon vehicles in quick dashes to see if they can spot the enemy during this time. If you dash to cover then creep round/over an edge to see the enemy has probably seen your dash and is expecting you. Scratch one thinly armoured vehicle.

Also in some situations you don't have either the cover or the time to move slowly and have to move your recon vehicles flat out in an attempt to dodge any incoming fire they may attract.

[David Aitken]

Madpad wrote:

> Surely you are contradicting yourself here when you say recon is about creeping and looking and others think it is about peeking round corners of buildings.

I'm referring to the use of vehicles to drive out into the open, take a look around and drive back. Exposing yourself to the enemy while you try and spot something is a bizarre tactic which isn't likely to get you far.

> Also when you say "when you have to cross open ground do it swiftly" just after saying it is about creeping.

When you're under cover you creep. When you're in the open you move fast. This way, in each case, you have the least chance of being spotted and taken out. (Try moving quickly under cover or sneaking over open ground - won't work. Get my point?)

David

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

There's a splinter in your eye, and it reads REACT

[tailz]

Unlike Steel Panthers, I've usually found CM gives me ample time to accomplish my objectives. ie, plenty of turns to conduct 'moving recon' from cover to cover. 'Hunt' works fine for recon IMHO if done in short hops to good hull down points and tree lines. I've also found that slow moving infantry, if they come under fire in poor terrain, will fall back to better stuff (or run ahead into better stuff depending on the TacAI)... don't see a lot of standup shootouts in the open. The good thing about CM's 'elegant simplicity' of interface is that you can conduct recce without special commands.

my .02 (Canadian currency)

Tailz

[aka_tom_w]

Now I know this is a long shot but I was sort of hoping that this thread would be a central place for people to stay in touch and post any news or comments made in other threads by Charles or Steve or otehr folks in the know (seems there are a few of them) about what had been pubically commented on regarding fixes and tweaks in the now upcoming v1.04 patch.

That's all..

Just a thought...

now back to the recce move ranting I guess

-tom w

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

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> "Remember that no dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

G. S. Patton

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>