Guest *Captain Foobar* Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 OK, I just finished the villers-bocage operation, no spoilers. Playing as Germans, I was continually frustrated, and confounded by a combination of control issues in CM. When you are playing CM and possess superior armor, it is common for your enemy to drop smoke, commanded by the tac ai. It is also common for your tank to change targets to routed crews, etc. while his dueling partner is hiding behind a brief cloud of smoke. Unfortunately while you are playing with some helpless crewmen, the smoke drops, your dueling buddy takes a potshot at you, and immediately drops smoke again, by orders of the tac ai. Now dont you think a tank commander would be a little more concerned with what is behind that fleeting cloud of smoke, than a group of wounded noncombatants? Unfortunately, there is rarely time for return fire in this brief moment of AI bravery by shooting at you and seconds later cowardice. I hope I am not the only person to experience this, and it does not seem to be a true to life tactic, especially at the frequency it will occur when attacking with armor, and encountering the wounded along the way as distractions. What I would like to see implemented is either a target lock, which allows you to fixate on an important enemy, or the ability to shoot rounds into that smoke cloud, which is only concealment, not cover. As it stands, tankers seem to get amnesia every 60 seconds, and forget what is crucial around them. We need the means to "think" for them. I hope someone else can attest to this also, as I had it happen 15 times in 1 operation today. This is all constructive criticism, I am not bagging on cm whatsoever. oh yeah, and cm rules..... thanks for listening, what do you think? ------------------ Life is tough...Its even tougher if you're stupid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 I too have been infuriated by the TacAI's target choices. I wish you could set an "Ignore non-dangerous targets" tab for your armor. Perhaps "ignore targets of opprotunity" or something. I don't know about your smoke issue. Popping smoke is a very important tactic. When I was a tanker we used ALOT of smoke. It was SOP. Zamo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 Are you guys using v1.01? It helped fix the target "distraction" issue. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MantaRay Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 Yep 1.01 is what i am playing and especially bad is when AFV's start trying to target say Armored carriers. I notice the AI will for example move fast vehicles in front of a Tiger and use its speed to make the say Tiger chase it. And the Tigers turrent doesnt turn very fast so by the time he gets a good shot, the AI moves a real threat into LOS and the Tiger retargets. Then the threat pops smoke and by the time the Tiger gets his gun turned, it smoke is discharged and it was all for nothing. But no biggie as I now understand it. Ray ------------------ When asked, "How many moves do you see ahead?", CAPABLANCA replied: "One move - the best one." MantaRays 5 Pages Hardcore Gamers Daily Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 Charlse said: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Are you guys using v1.01? It helped fix the target "distraction" issue.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I have 1.01 and I have similar problems, but they mostly concern the most experienced troops. Somebody else posted this a few days ago but I only saw the problem myself now. Say I have an elite unit. It gets distracted by EVERYTHING. As a result, it hardly ever fires a shot. It's always switching from target to target as new enemy units appear during the turn, and before it can aim and fire at anything, something new pops up that it thinks is more worth shooting. As a result, it frequently gets killed without firing at all. ------------------ -Bullethead It was a common custom at that time, in the more romantic females, to see their soldier husbands and sweethearts as Greek heroes, instead of the whoremongering, drunken clowns most of them were. However, the Greek heroes were probably no better, so it was not so far off the mark--Flashman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zamo Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 V1.01 here too. This morning I had a really annoying game of Katze und Mous with a half-track running around a building while being chased by my Hetzer. I don't think it was a bug, and it was kind of funny. But there were other targets that hetzer should have been engaging! Zmao Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schrullenhaft Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 I heartily agree with Captain Foobar's suggestions. I'd like to see a "Target Lock" menu option so you could target an AFV that popped smoke. This would then either allow you to keep your main gun on the AFV (or whatever high priority threat) for when the smoke clears or attempt to fire at the last known location of the target. Hence it could either be a waste of ammo or you would spank an AFV that wasn't smart enough to maneuver after popping smoke. As it stands now the popping of smoke has a slight "gamey" feel to it that prevents the TacAI from properly engaging targets that would normally pose the highest risk (at least in the player's mind). It would also be nice to give those Veteran and above crews a bit more "selectiveness" in selecting their targets without getting overloaded with possible targets, which normally results in complete indecision to take any action. A Regular or below crew could possibly suffer indecision as the system is now, but Veteran and above crews should be more familiar with their weapon and its limitations and be more selective with their targets when presented with a "shooting gallery". That is the advantage I'd like to see in crew quality that would work for me in applying any of these items. Admittedly this will probably be hard to program into the TacAI and still allow it to handle the possibility of threats arising during the 60 seconds it is control. Charles mentioned this when he programmed in the "stickiness" of targets for the v. 1.01 patch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kump Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 How about a choice of setting the main tank gun to... Main gun target Hard targets only and when this is off, its target Hard and Soft targets. Won't stop all the target switching, but it would reduce it. At least your Tiger will use its machineguns on infantry and keep AP loaded and not turret rotate until something "hard" shows up. If you think the environment is 'safe', you could then turn it off and start shooting at anything that moves, crawls, or cowering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Zamo: I wish you could set an "Ignore non-dangerous targets" tab for your armor. Zamo<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ditto. The only problem would be defining a "dangerous target". (How do you KNOW that German squad doesn't have a 'faust or two?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dar Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 Poor Charles! His work is never done... Several of us had discussed something similar to this in the thread about "Slow Turret" tanks. I would certainly like to be able to assign a sector or rotate only the turret to cover an area, forcing the vehicle to concentrate on those areas and ignore others--unless it sees what it considers a dire threat. I've been playing those same Villers-Bocage scenario and operation with the Tigers, and it's been quite frustrating to watch the Tiger rotate away from several tanks in the 12 and 2 o'clock positions that popped smoke to engage a routed 2 in. mortar crew in the 8 o'clock, only to be popped with a side turret hit when the smoke clears. It seems the problem isn't the target "stickiness" as fixed in 1.01. The problem seems to be the Tac AI rotating from target to target after the player-designated target is killed or has popped smoke--and in a target-rich environment like the Villers-Bocage scenarios, those Tiger turrets could double as fans if they had the speed! Dar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kump: Main gun target Hard targets only<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I like this idea. Simple, elegant, and it would alleviate many of the targetting issues. It may require more coding than it's worth, though. Until we clone Charles, we'll need to maintain reasonable expectations. Tweaking of the current acquisition algorithm seems like it might do the trick, especially if the targetting 'stickiness' value can be (or already is) linked to the >perceived< target threat level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 I've also cursed my units' targeting schizophrenia, but I can see some pitfalls that will have to be avoided in any correction of this. If BTS does install a "target hard lock," then for every person who is currently cursing their tanks for switching targets and getting popped in the process, there will be somebody cursing his tanks for continuing to point at a smoke-hidden target while a threat comes up and pops it. On the other hand, the level of AI acuity required to correctly judge whether a target will be coming back into LOS or not is probably VERY hard to program. This kind of "intuition" is one of the things that probably distinguishes the alive tankers from the dead: "stick or move" is very important. Take this scenario: your Tiger is traversing to track/fire at a fast-moving vehicle. Just before it can fire, the vehicle moves behind a house/hill or something else big enough to provide shelter but small enough that the target could dodge out the other side/end 5 seconds later. Now, how long should the Tiger wait for that target to reappear before deciding to hell with it and looking for something else to shoot? What if that target doesn't come out from behind the house at all? A "target hard-lock" would make the Tiger sit, dumbly pointing its turret in the direction of the target, until a Stuart runs up and pops it. And, if we ask for AI refinement, the ability to judge, case-by-case, whether it's worth it for this Tiger to stick with the current target and hope it comes back into LOS or not, is very tricky. I just hope nobody uninstalls the game over this issue. If it can be fixed, or at least remediated, then I'm sure Charles will do his best to make it so. Just my $.02 DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted June 28, 2000 Share Posted June 28, 2000 Also, if you have a "hard targets only" switch, what happens when a previously totally undetected bazooka/PS team pops up 70m from the flank of your tank and draws a bead? There'd be a "hard targets only override" right? Well, at what threat-level will the TacAI override the "hard targets only" setting? I personally will try to work on my tactics to keep my tanks, esp. slow-turret ones, out of situations in which they face potent threats from many angles. This should help me overall, as keeping the asset:threat ration as high as possible is always a good idea. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted June 29, 2000 Share Posted June 29, 2000 Jeez, I'm full of ideas (or something else) today. Something that I don't think has been mentioned yet is UNturreted vehicles. These things should have a MUCH higher target stickiness (I am in agreement here with the "increase target stickiness a lot" opinion) Nobody wants to have their Hetzer/whatever playing Sit n Spin while the TC scratches his head over which target he should engage. All in all, this problem is sure to have many, many levels. I'm just leery of any heavy-handed, across the board AI changes that might make things worse. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 29, 2000 Share Posted June 29, 2000 Schrullenhaft, if you target the tank you want to 'lock' onto, even if it's out of LOS, your unit will be more likely NOT to target other units, even while the 'intended' target remains out of LOS. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If BTS does install a "target hard lock," then for every person who is currently cursing their tanks for switching targets and getting popped in the process, there will be somebody cursing his tanks for continuing to point at a smoke-hidden target while a threat comes up and pops it. On the other hand, the level of AI acuity required to correctly judge whether a target will be coming back into LOS or not is probably VERY hard to program.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> *sigh*... exactly. Currently the TacAI looks at 'time to bear': i.e. how long it will take to rotate turret (or whatever) to engage a new target. The longer this time, the less 'attractive' the new target is, and may not be chosen. I think I will just weight this value more heavily and see what that does. Charles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dar Posted June 29, 2000 Share Posted June 29, 2000 We love you, Charles! If for nothing else, for tolerating us so well. Dar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard III Posted June 29, 2000 Share Posted June 29, 2000 Thanks, Charles! Hopefully that will go a ways towards solving this problem... I do think that tanks need to realize that turning their turrets beyond 90 degrees to either side is dangerous -- I lost several Tigers in this scenario that insisted on turning their turrets fully aft to engage far off infantry. Needless to say, an enemy vehicle quickly took them out with a rear turret penetration. Training the turret fully aft should only happen in exceptional circumstances. Thus I think vehicles should not engage targets without AT weapons in its rear hemisphere unles they are very close indeed. Thanks for listening! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Oberly Posted June 29, 2000 Share Posted June 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I think I will just weight this value more heavily and see what that does.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Charles-just play the Villers-Bocage operation,or (especially) the scenario,just to get an idea what people are talking about.The target rich/threat rich enviroment is a problem.One of the few problems with the game. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Captain Foobar* Posted June 29, 2000 Share Posted June 29, 2000 Charles, if you are looking for an example of this situation, I have found that it is most common for armor that is advancing through the wreckage of the first line of defense. There are always plenty of shattered crews, routed squad remnants that distract the tanker. And rightly so, it would be very distracting to move through this chaos. But, when enemy AFV's, who say 200m behind this first line of defense drop smoke, they end up woth an unexpected advantage. They have nothing else to aim at, and are content to wait for the smoke to clear. The advancing armor will be seen picking off tank wounded men, when the smoke clears, and by the time they have retargeted the 2nd line defenders, smoke has dropped again, and they are back to their old pattern. It is very common in a confined approach situation, as Villers-Bocage, but perhaps less so in open terrain. We will certainly trust you guys on this one, as you are the designers, but I wanted to bring this to your attention. It was said earlier to load up villers bocage, as that would be a good example. Have you experianced this? What is your take on it? By the way, BTS thank you very much for listening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomasj Posted June 29, 2000 Share Posted June 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by kump: How about a choice of setting the main tank gun to... Main gun target Hard targets only and when this is off, its target Hard and Soft targets. Won't stop all the target switching, but it would reduce it. At least your Tiger will use its machineguns on infantry and keep AP loaded and not turret rotate until something "hard" shows up. If you think the environment is 'safe', you could then turn it off and start shooting at anything that moves, crawls, or cowering.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I like the hard target idea, at least then your tank would be able to target another hard target if the one you are trying to kill stays out of LOS and another one tries to get around on you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bertram Posted June 29, 2000 Share Posted June 29, 2000 I like the 'hard target only' option also. But the objection that a nearby infantery team with pantserfaust should not be ignored is very valid. I understand from Charles posts that there is a threath value and a stickyness value involved. Maybe there could be an option to order your tank commander to concentrate more on threats, giving hard targets and targets with AT capabilty a + modifier to threath value? Also, could it be an option to make 'stickyness' and 'threath value' dependend? This would mean that a higher threath would automatically get a higher 'stickyness'. Of course I don't know how this is implemented, so maybe the first option isn't possible, and the second is already done . Bertram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikeydz Posted June 29, 2000 Share Posted June 29, 2000 *BTS* <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Schrullenhaft, if you target the tank you want to 'lock' onto, even if it's out of LOS, your unit will be more likely NOT to target other units, even while the 'intended' target remains out of LOS.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> So are you saying that if the TacAI targets a vehicle, the target pops smoke or otherwise causes a loss of LOS, then the AI will target other threats in LOS as normal. But if the player manually targets an enemy unit, then the TacAI will be less likely to retarget when LOS is temporarily lost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giftig Posted June 29, 2000 Share Posted June 29, 2000 Could this also be finessed by requiring that a vehicle which pops smoke must reverse to cover, or otherwise take some additional action to secure their safety? Or perhaps they should be forced to re-acquire after the smoke clears, lengthening the time between smoke discharges? My thinking here is that if a situation warrants the use of a hasty smoke screen, it would presumably be used to cover a move, not just to allow the tank to sit there waiting for something to happen. In real life, if someone pops smoke and doesn't move, I suspect I could whang a shell into them with dispatch, just by firing at the center of the screen. Is there a valid tactical reason for a tank to advance into fire, pop smoke and just sit there? Doesn't seem so to me, but then I'm not a professional... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soliloquy Posted June 29, 2000 Share Posted June 29, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: I think I will just weight this value more heavily and see what that does. Charles<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You da man, Charles! Personally, I think that the best (in terms of opportunity cost, ie Charles time) solution will be to tweak the current values just a bit rather than adding new orders (and associated TacAI). Especially as it becomes clear that the targeting TacAI is already taking a multitude of factors into consideration. Does the targeting TacAI currently take into account how long the current target has been targeted? If the 'stickiness' increases (up to some ceiling value) based on targeted duration, it could possibly help alleviate the sit-n-spin phenomenon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papa Khann Posted June 29, 2000 Share Posted June 29, 2000 Lots of good suggestions here, the 2nd best one probably being from Charles himself; to simply tweak the parameters he has already constructed. The best suggestion of all, however, is from Soliloquy... <hr> quote: originally posted by Soliloquy... (snip)Until we clone Charles... (more snippage) <hr> Papa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts