OGSF Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 I don't get out much, so I was wondering if this is being addressed by BTS in CMBB? Right now, if I give a tank the "hunt" order and it sees an enemy AFV, it will target that vehicle (and miss the first shot if my tank is a German tank, but I digress). But if my tank loses LOS for a few seconds and spots enemy infantry in the meantime, it will then target the infantry with it's main gun even if the enemy AFV come back into view. Which sucks a lot. Will CMBB have the option to tell a tank to ignore any units without AT capability? Or better still, only target it's main gun at AFVs' and reserve the MG for "soft" targets? Cos using the big gun on infantry when the TC "knows" there is an AFV right in front is bogus. I am thinking and hoping that this "issue" has been acknowledged already. I know there were some tweaks in the early patches (can we say "Wittman, don't target the bleedin' crews!"?). But will there be a more rigorous fix in CMBB , along the lines I described above? Will there? Huh? Will there? (Inquiring minds want to know). OberGruppenStompinFuhrer PS And whats up with troops running out into MG swept streets just to get into the building right next door? PPS Everything else is perfect, apart form the Bren tripod thing. PPPS Oh, and tanks missing several shots in a row. Like *that* ever happened. PPPPS I'm really only wanting to know about the targeting in hunt mode thing.... PPPPPS Hi Mum! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by OGSF: Cos using the big gun on infantry when the TC "knows" there is an AFV right in front is bogus.<hr></blockquote> Weeelllll, as I understand it (which may not be much at all), the program (like a good hippie) lives in the eternal now and has no memory of what was taking place just a second ago. So for it, that tank that just went around the corner has no existence in its universe. Not being a progrmmer, I don't know what it would take to give those TCs and gunners some memory. You might also consider this: if you did got some memory for those coots, that combined with absolute spotting might also produce some odd happenings. Just a thought. But I think this: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Will CMBB have the option to tell a tank to ignore any units without AT capability?<hr></blockquote> is a pretty good idea. Michael [ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OGSF Posted November 5, 2001 Author Share Posted November 5, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Wellllll, as I understand it (which may not be much at all), the program (like a good hippie) lives in the eternal now and has no memory of what was taking place just a second ago. So for it, that tank that just went around the corner has no existence in its universe Michael<hr></blockquote> Thanks Michael. I agree that the programming of the memory thing would be tricky. But just having the opportunity to specify a "hunt" command with the parameters of "main gun for AFVs', MG for squishy targets" would go a long way. I know this has been discussed to death before - but don't know if there was a decision made by BTS about the treatment in CMBB. OGSF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 There are new commands in place (Cover Arcs for one) which will take care of all the issues you mentioned. More info will be forthcoming but basically you can in essence designate a target bias for your units either soft targets or limited to Armor/Anti-Armor threats. You are just gonna have to wait to see precisely how this is accomplished though...It IS rather cool though I must say...and works wonderfully... Madmatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by OGSF: (and miss the first shot if my tank is a German tank, but I digress). <hr></blockquote> Hehe, and don't you then especially hate it when the American tank (commanded by the gallant Speedy) then gets a first shot gun hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dschugaschwili Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 Adding a memory to units would be easier if the relative spotting system was in place already. In that scenario, each unit has its own contact list including a set of "lost contact" markers. The game could then give each marker a threat value (like every other unit) that starts a little lower than the threat rating of the visible unit it represented and diminishes over time. When it comes to deciding what target to choose, the still moderately high threat value of a unit that has disappeared a short time ago can then prevent the targeting of low priority targets far away. Of course, the lost contact markers are global now, so at the moment there's not enough information available for each unit to implement this. Dschugaschwili Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by OGSF: Thanks Michael. I agree that the programming of the memory thing would be tricky. But just having the opportunity to specify a "hunt" command with the parameters of "main gun for AFVs', MG for squishy targets" would go a long way.<hr></blockquote> There is the additional problem that if you just specify "MG" that would include the coax, which would get your turret pointed in the wrong direction again. I think the distinction must be between hull and turret rather than gun and MG. You might want to place some prohibition aganst the vehicle changing its covered arc (to bring the hull MG to bear on a soft target) as well, since you wouldn't want to be giving that enemy tank a side shot at you when he reapppears, now would you? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 Hm. Double post. I don't think I did it this time. The board seems to have developed some funky behavior in the last couple of days. Michael [ 11-05-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Madmatt: There are new commands in place (Cover Arcs for one) which will take care of all the issues you mentioned. More info will be forthcoming but basically you can in essence designate a target bias for your units either soft targets or limited to Armor/Anti-Armor threats.<hr></blockquote> Neat-o! I will be happy to put this to a test. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Madmatt: There are new commands in place (Cover Arcs for one) which will take care of all the issues you mentioned. More info will be forthcoming but basically you can in essence designate a target bias for your units either soft targets or limited to Armor/Anti-Armor threats. You are just gonna have to wait to see precisely how this is accomplished though...It IS rather cool though I must say...and works wonderfully... Madmatt<hr></blockquote> Now thats a BREAKTHROUGH!! Totally COOL! I only wish we wouldn't have to wait another 2 years to see these improvements in CMBO. With all the new toys, tricks and COOL new features, options and improvements we will see in CMBB It is a REAL shame that we will be STUCK with CMBO as the "proto-type" of a COOL wargame in the ETO until the new game engine is re-written for the ETO and Med. BUMMER!!!! Any way ALL the news about CMBB sounds REALLY exciting, I wish I could get a little more excited about the Eastern front and tank combat on the frozen steppe of Russia. oh well Cool new improvements, thanks for the LEAK!! -tom w Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barticus Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Madmatt: You are just gonna have to wait to see precisely how this is accomplished though...It IS rather cool though I must say...and works wonderfully... Madmatt<hr></blockquote> Yah yah, go ahead and rub it in Matt, want some salt for the next time? B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted November 5, 2001 Share Posted November 5, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by OGSF: Will CMBB have the option to tell a tank to ignore any units without AT capability? <hr></blockquote> please please please please please add this option! ill never understand how a tiger finds a 2" mortar a larger threat than a greyhound or sherman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dragonwagon Posted November 6, 2001 Share Posted November 6, 2001 Just to add something on this subject , I think that this would be a good option , but it also starts to create a little bit of micro management. You cannot have complete control over everything , can you ? I mean if you want to play a game with that kind of control over u'r units then I think that you should be playing a tank sim instead of a more tactical one like combat mission. Sometimes the armour does do funky things but you've got to remember that sight from inside a WWII tank is very limited , they don't have the all seeing eye of you , the commander...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 6, 2001 Share Posted November 6, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by dragonwagon: Just to add something on this subject , I think that this would be a good option , but it also starts to create a little bit of micro management. You cannot have complete control over everything , can you ? I mean if you want to play a game with that kind of control over u'r units then I think that you should be playing a tank sim instead of a more tactical one like combat mission. Sometimes the armour does do funky things but you've got to remember that sight from inside a WWII tank is very limited , they don't have the all seeing eye of you , the commander......<hr></blockquote> A valid point. But I think the thing that irritates a lot of people is not that the guys in the tank screw up, but that they screw up in ahistorical ways. That seems a legitimate complaint. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted November 6, 2001 Share Posted November 6, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys: ... I think the thing that irritates a lot of people is not that the guys in the tank screw up, but that they screw up in ahistorical ways...<hr></blockquote> ... and, given the same circumstances, they will always screw up in the same way. Bad decisions from time to time are ok. Bad decisions all the time are a tad annoying. Regards Jon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biff Posted November 6, 2001 Share Posted November 6, 2001 Yes there are several times I've been irritated with the behavior of units distracted by non-threats. In my last battle I noticed a 105 Sherman that was approaching my infantry gun. I ordered the unit to fire smoke at the tank. While watching the playback I saw the gun turn away from the tank and target a infantry squad about 500 meters away. Of course the Sherman blew the gun away about 10 seconds later. So I say, if they can't program more smarts/memory into the Tac AI then at least give us more control over the behavior. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts