Vehicles won't turn to target when given a move order

[SenorBeef]

Heres the situation:

The enemy has a greyhound 120 meters off on the left flank of my hetzer. He also has an m10 and an m4 200 meters in front of the hetzer, but behind a hill so that theres no visibility.

I know his plan is to attack with both the greyhound and the tanks/TDs. He'll distract my hetzer by first attacking it from the left with the greyhound, and then, in mid turn, bring the m4 and m10 over the hill to engage the turned-hetzer.

Theres no real cover to back into, so my own choice is to engage and destroy the greyhound, then turn to face the m10/m4 when they pop over the hill.

Simply ordering the hetzer to target the greyhound would cause it to rotate and engage the greyhound. However, it will still be turned 90 degrees to the left when the m10 and m4 pop over the hill, giving them an easy kill.

So, to solve this, I order this:

I gave the hetzer a targetting order of the greyhound (in LOS), and also an order to reverse slightly so that it will have to face forward (towards the m4/m10), and give that a pause delay of 28 seconds.

So the expected result is that the hetzer will turn, engage the greyhound, and after 28 seconds, back up a bit so its facing 'forward', where it started the turn, again, to engage the m4/m10.

Actual result:

Hetzer sits forward. Targets nothing. Greyhound pings away at it from the side. Hetzer just sits there.. for 25 seconds. Greyhound pings away at the hetzer front armor (its about 75 degrees to the hetzers left, so it can still hit the front plate, but barely), and after the 4th or 5th shot, the greyhound gets a side shot and kills it.

Anyway... I'm assuming the reason this happened is that vehicles won't rotate when given move orders (even when paused). The way that this is set up will completely prevent manuevers like that which I tried to perform.. which don't happen every day, but they're not terribly uncommon.

So for CM2, if you could please allow vehicles to move to engage their targets (or specifically ordered/engaged targets only, if you wish), during the time before the actual movement order begins, it'd fix that little dilemma. A small tweak for a small problem.

[KiwiJoe]

Yeah this comes under the whole issue of "micromanagement". Personally I'd like full control... pause delays from 1-59 secs, available both at the beginning AND during other movement orders. But I think you'll find most people are happy witht he way it is and feel its more realistic for this type of game that you under have "some" control over your units orders, and they (the TAC AI), are responsable for the rest.

[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: KiwiJoe ]

[SenorBeef]

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

Yeah this comes under the whole issue of "micromanagement". Personally I'd like full control... pause delays from 1-59 secs, available both at the beginning AND during other movement orders. But I think you'll find most people are happy witht he way it is and feel its more realistic for this type of game that you under have "some" control over your units orders, and they (the TAC AI), are responsable for the rest.

[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: KiwiJoe ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, this is more a suggested tweak for the TacAI. Currently, if you issue a move order, the TacAI decides "Well, as long as I have a move order, I won't turn to engage any targets".. Its not a micromanagement issue, I'm not asking for a new command to do stuff, I'm asking for an existing command to work with a TacAI flaw. I want the tacAI 'rules' to say that it can turn to engage its designated target while it has a movement order.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>SenorBeef:

So for CM2, if you could please allow vehicles to move to engage their targets (or specifically ordered/engaged targets only, if you wish), during the time before the actual movement order begins, it'd fix that little dilemma. A small tweak for a small problem.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you can do this already.

Here's how I would have done it:

Target the Greyhound as you did, but then give the Hetzer a short Hunt order towards the other enemy vehicles. No delay. Vehicles will turn to target when executing a hunt order. As soon as the Greyhound had died, the Hetzer would have executed the short hunt movement, bringing it to face the M10.

[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Jarmo]

Even with hunt, the hetzer would not have turned to

face the hound until after the initial delay.

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Actually, you can do this already.

Here's how I would have done it:

Target the Greyhound as you did, but then give the Hetzer a short Hunt order towards the other enemy vehicles. No delay. Vehicles will turn to target when executing a hunt order. As soon as the Greyhound had died, the Hetzer would have executed the short hunt movement, bringing it to face the M10.

[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good idea, thanks. It would give it 13 seconds of delay for the greyhound to kill me that target wouldn't... but its better than nothing.

[von Lucke]

Actually, yr problem was with the Pause portion of the order. I've found that giving a unit a Pause countermands all other orders --- even if it means not shooting to save yr life!

The short of it is, never issue a Pause if you expect to have to fire on something sometime during that turn.

[Mattias]

Actually this is a fault in the way turretless vehicles are modelled in CM.

It is not a matter of micro management, it is a matter of the CM engine cutting a few corners of reality.

Any turreted vehicle would immediately turn it’s turret to engage the targeted enemy and then, after the normal or extra pause delay, execute the move order.

Realistically the turretless vehicles would act in the same manner, only turning the chassis instead of the turret.

As it is now it is a bug or a missing feature or weakness in the game engine, take your pick. But no matter what it should not be there.

M.

[Maximus]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Target the Greyhound as you did, but then give the Hetzer a short Hunt order towards the other enemy vehicles. No delay. Vehicles will turn to target when executing a hunt order. As soon as the Greyhound had died, the Hetzer would have executed the short hunt movement, bringing it to face the M10.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're exactly right. The fact of the matter is, is that most of the complaints of this order can already be done given that the person knows how each command works.

In this case, the Hunt order would have done everything (except the extra pause, which in this case I don't even think was necessary) that SenorBeef wanted to do. Because as Vanir just said, here's what would have happened:

You give the targeting order to fire at the Greyhound. You then give the Hetzer a Hunt command to move in the direction of the hill crest you wanted to face forward on to face the Sherman and M10. You could have plotted any length of Hunt you wanted to. However, even a Rotate would have worked depending on initial angle. But I'm not sure if that would have worked though as a Rotate is actually one of the first things the AI does if not given a regular Move order. I'd have to do some tests to verify that. But anyway, here's what would have happened. The Hetzer would have turned to engage the Greyhound. If the Hetzer would have destroyed it, then it would have then started following its Hunt order. However, with the Hetzer's extremely low RoF, you would have been lucky to do all that if the Hetzer did not connect on the first shot. Hetzers are really not good at engaging multiple targets quickly. They are good stand-off AT-guns that can pick off targets as they come into view.

Of course trying to do all this with a non-turreted vehicle to begin with, was not a very good idea anyway.

But anyway, the moral of the story is: to know how the commands work and use them properly. It may seem gamey at times, but then it is a game that depends on its Tac-AI to do most of the thinking. But just try playing CM without Tac-AI. BTS commented on that once before where trying to play it before they programmed the Tac-AI. They said it was attrocious.

[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: Maximus ]

[Mattias]

As long as it is not possible to begin rotation of the main gun with zero delay when a movement order has been given , which is the case with turreted vehicles, the turretless weapon platforms will continue to operate at a considerable disadvantage.

Nuff said.

M.

[jshandorf]

I'm just always amazed when I here people talking about how this tank was only 100 meters from his tank, or how his tank is surrounded by 2-3 vehicles only 100-200 meters away and then complains when the tank dies.. sheesh.. come on.

Jef

[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: jshandorf ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

As long as it is not possible to begin rotation of the main gun with zero delay when a movement order has been given , which is the case with turreted vehicles, the turretless weapon platforms will continue to operate at a considerable disadvantage.

Nuff said.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm... Something you may want to consider: most turretless vehicles in WW2 (Hetzer included) could not "rotate" at all! They would have had to back up and move forward again to change facing.

Now, it is true that most tanks could not do this either, and all vehicles in CM are allowed to because getting the TacAI to do all this intelligently was too hard. But this limitation did not affect turreted tanks as much for obvious reasons. So the fact that all vehicles are allowed to do this in CM gives turretless vehicles in general less of a disadvantage vs. tanks than they had in real life.

The fact that turretless vehicles in CM are at a disadvantage is fine by me. If anything, they should be at even more of a disadvantage than they already are.

[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Mattias]

True Vanir.

But two wrongs do not make a right.

It’s all details of course but what makes this “problem” less appealing is that it is, as far as I can see, not a game design feature, an abstraction implemented to reflect a weakness inherent in certain vehicles.

It is simply a flaw in the game engine.

I am all for including the real world weaknesses you mention, but I don’t see any merit what so ever in sticking to the currently limitations imposed by CM’s design.

It detracts from the real world situation rather than bring us any closer.

M.

[Vanir Ausf B]

I don't really see how making turretless vehicles even more unrealisticly effective than they already are would bring us any closer either.

I agree that the best solution would be proper modeling of unit functions, but some level of abstraction is unavoidable in any war sim. The current system is a compromise that we will likely have to live with for a while until Charles can invent a more advanced TacAI (easy for us to say ).

[Mattias]

Vanir..

This is not abstraction, this is a bug.

This bug prevents turretless vehicles to engage targets outside their arc of fire if they have been given a movement order.

It’s not a feature so why would you want it in?

Are you accepting an error in the design that has no foundation in real life, simply because it makes a turretless vehicle less flexible?

Adding neutral steering etc would make things better..

Fixing the bug currently present would make things better..

To me it seems the logical path to root out all obvious errors and anomalies in the game engine first, then set upon the task of truly redesigning the engine.

M

[Vanir Ausf B]

I look at it this way: The 13 second delay you are forced to wait for the Hetzer to start turning simulates the time it would have taken a real Hetzer to back up then pull forward to change facing. 13 seconds is probably rather generous. An imperfect abstraction to be sure, but more realistic than no delay at all IMO.

A bug is an unintentional mistake in the game. Only BTS would know if this is intentional or not, but it is so obvious I rather suspect that it is quite intentional and therefore not a bug.

[Mattias]

Half full or half empty

I for one do not think this was intentional from BTS’s side, it seems too clumsy an abstraction to have been intentional. My guess is the development stopped at this point, good enough.

For now it’s just there.

M.

[SenorBeef]

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

I'm just always amazed when I here people talking about how this tank was only 100 meters from his tank, or how his tank is surrounded by 2-3 vehicles only 100-200 meters away and then complains when the tank dies.. sheesh.. come on.

Jef

[ 05-31-2001: Message edited by: jshandorf ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At no point did I complain that my tank died. I DID however, complain, that a flaw in the tacAI made my hetzer simply sit there, pointing at NOTHING, targetting NOTHING, doing NOTHING until it was killed.

If it had turned to engage one tank and got killed by one on the flank, then I chalk it up to losing a tank in a desperate situation. However, when the tank sits there and DOES NOT DO ANYTHING AT ALL because theres a flaw regarding the tacAI and movement orders, then I think theres a case for improvement.

Alter the situation so that I've got a tank 1000 and 1200 meters off my flank. Now its not such a desperate situation - but if I gave the same orders, my tank would've done the same thing and simply sat there until something blew it up.

You can't excuse a flawed TacAI to desperate situations or tactical disadvantage.

[SenorBeef]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

I look at it this way: The 13 second delay you are forced to wait for the Hetzer to start turning simulates the time it would have taken a real Hetzer to back up then pull forward to change facing. 13 seconds is probably rather generous. An imperfect abstraction to be sure, but more realistic than no delay at all IMO.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't get the orders I intended to convey. I wanted to engage one target to my left for thirty seconds, then turn to my right to face more targets. The idea is to ideally destroy the vehicle on my left, then turn to engage those on the right.

I have 2 choices in this situation.

I can target the left vehicle, and thats it. The hetzer will turn to its left, and engage that vehicle. If it destroys the vehicle, it sits there, with its ass and sides exposed to the threat I know is just over the hill to the right.

Or, I can issue a paused movement order and a target order. If it targets and destroys the target on the left, and then, on pause, 30 seconds later, turns to engage the tanks on the right, it will attempt its only real chance at survival.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

A bug is an unintentional mistake in the game. Only BTS would know if this is intentional or not, but it is so obvious I rather suspect that it is quite intentional and therefore not a bug.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is almost certainly an oversight. Maybe not a 'bug', but simply there isn't enough detail in the code regarding targetting while given movement orders. There is no intentional reason that BTS would simply make a hetzer sit there and do absolutely nothing to protect itself, completely ignore a target order.

The movement order is 'overriding' in some ways that makes the TacAI function oddly. Just recently I made a post about how units automatically unhide when given a movement order, rather than when they actually start moving - a flaw (over oversight, if you wish) that caused me to lose 2 whole platoons in one game. This is another such case of movement orders overriding previous orders at the time they're given, rather than at the time they're executed.

Pause is supposed to mean 'wait until X time to begin movement order', rather than 'sit there and do absolutely nothing as the tank I told you to target pecks away at your side armor...'

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Or, I can issue a paused movement order and a target order. If it targets and destroys the target on the left, and then, on pause, 30 seconds later, turns to engage the tanks on the right, it will attempt its only real chance at survival.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the one you use, except as I stated earlier, you do not use a paused movement order. You use an unpaused hunt order, so the delay is 13 seconds, not 30.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>There is no intentional reason that BTS would simply make a hetzer sit there and do absolutely nothing to protect itself, completely ignore a target order.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I will repeat myself: The 13 second delay you are forced to wait for the Hetzer to start turning simulates the time it would have taken a real Hetzer to back up then pull forward to change facing. An imperfect abstraction to be sure, but more realistic than no delay at all IMO.

I don't know how to say it any more clearly.

[ 06-01-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[jshandorf]

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

At no point did I complain that my tank died. I DID however, complain, that a flaw in the tacAI made my hetzer simply sit there, pointing at NOTHING, targetting NOTHING, doing NOTHING until it was killed.

If it had turned to engage one tank and got killed by one on the flank, then I chalk it up to losing a tank in a desperate situation. However, when the tank sits there and DOES NOT DO ANYTHING AT ALL because theres a flaw regarding the tacAI and movement orders, then I think theres a case for improvement.

Alter the situation so that I've got a tank 1000 and 1200 meters off my flank. Now its not such a desperate situation - but if I gave the same orders, my tank would've done the same thing and simply sat there until something blew it up.

You can't excuse a flawed TacAI to desperate situations or tactical disadvantage.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would call it more of a flaw in the user then the engine.

Jeff