Why not 'set range' insted of ambush markers??

[Wolf^]

Yeah, I was wondering why CM has ambush markers instead of 'set range' command a'la Steel Panthers? This would be very good for AT-guns and ambushing infantry. Now you just hope that tank far away will cross your AT-gun's ambush marker..

[CavScout]

Range or an "ambush marker" that was sizable.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by CavScout:

Range or an "ambush marker" that was sizable.

Yes, and while you're at it, 'ambush

infantry only' and 'ambush armor only'

would be good. In fact, even 'ambush

armor but ignore halftracks' would

be good. In short, SOP's.

regards,

--Rett

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

Originally posted by Wolf^:

Yeah, I was wondering why CM has ambush markers instead of 'set range' command a'la Steel Panthers? This would be very good for AT-guns and ambushing infantry. Now you just hope that tank far away will cross your AT-gun's ambush marker..

oh yes, I wonder too on this and quite support you !

[Major Tom]

Everyone says this now, but, what if something that you didn't assume would be driving through this ambush marker actually did, and broke through, caused a lot of havoc, then you will be ranting at why your ambush team didn't target it! What if a bunch of Halftracks zoomed through your ambush area, and killed off your rear arty and command HQ's. What if a wack of infantry strolled past and did the same thing?

The problem with ambushes, is, that people make them too inflexable. I have rarely ever read about an ambush being solely devised to take out one form of military formation, with being incapable of countering other types. This usually only occurred in desperate situations where the defenders did not have the equipment to kill what was coming. Instead of just putting 1-2 AT guns in a position, put some HMG's and Squads there along with the guns, so that if Halftracks come by, or Infantry, they can be dealt with.

Ambushes only really work if your opponent cooperates with your plan. Wrecklessly sending armour without adequate Infantry support is what usually results in successful ambushes. And if there are infantry there, then they will be preoccupied by your infantry, leaving the AT guns to concentrate on their AFV's.

Setting up successful ambushes is difficult, as was in reality. Place your AT guns covering areas where you see the best chance of enemy armour going through. If he is short on time you might be able to catch something without adequate support. Also, ambushes aren't meant to last the entire game. Once they are discovered, they will be destroyed.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

Yes, and while you're at it, 'ambush

infantry only' and 'ambush armor only'

would be good. In fact, even 'ambush

armor but ignore halftracks' would

be good. In short, SOP's.

--Rett

Three cheers for SOP's! I would like to see a lot of them in CM2. If a real AT gunner gave away his position firing at enemy infantry in the ambush zone (without a direct order to do so), I expect he would be killed on the spot by his commander and hung from the nearest tree as an example for the others.

OTOH, I think there is something useful about Ambush zones instead of (or in addition to) firing radii. An ambush zone should carry with it an attack and defense bonus if the men have had time to find good positions and carefully gauge ranges.

So I would have ambush zones, where the men get some bonuses if the ambush proceeds and planned. But then I would also have some sort of mechanism like a firing radius to tell the men how close they should let the enemy come before giving away their position.

[Freak]

I dont think a complexity of ambush option is good as was offered above. But I think the ambush command needs to be more flexible, as does possibly the hide command with tanks. The hide command with tanks is annoying becouse if I hide a tank this means that he lowers his rpm's to make less noise, making him less evident to enemy. Not hiding himself in a tank blocking LOS. So, if I hide a tank and an enemy tank is in approach with a clear (or even not so clear) LOS from my tank (as well as his), I think my tank should engage this unit alot faster then it does. This is just from an observation of behavior I have seen in CM. I plan to conduct some tests with this, but we shall see. I dont know about you, but if a tank is "hiding" it should still have full site and ability to have receptive LOS just as quick as not being in hide. I hate it when an enemy tank shoots his first shot before me when I am just sitting there waiting for him to come to me. Me sitting there should give me the advantage in getting the first shot off. And it should give me LOS capable advantage as well. This in hide command of course. My idea is based on, in hide command for a tank the tank commander is not closing his eyes, so he cannot see as well, nor is he face down in his turret.

[This message has been edited by Freak (edited 02-14-2001).]

[This message has been edited by Freak (edited 02-14-2001).]

[CavScout]

Originally posted by CMplayer:

Yes, and while you're at it, 'ambush

infantry only' and 'ambush armor only'

would be good. In fact, even 'ambush

armor but ignore halftracks' would

be good. In short, SOP's.

I'd love a "HUNT: armor" or "HUNT: Infantry" command.

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Major Tom:

Everyone says this now, but, what if something that you didn't assume would be driving through this ambush marker actually did, and broke through, caused a lot of havoc, then you will be ranting at why your ambush team didn't target it! What if a bunch of Halftracks zoomed through your ambush area, and killed off your rear arty and command HQ's. What if a wack of infantry strolled past and did the same thing?

The problem with ambushes, is, that people make them too inflexable. I have rarely ever read about an ambush being solely devised to take out one form of military formation, with being incapable of countering other types. This usually only occurred in desperate situations where the defenders did not have the equipment to kill what was coming. Instead of just putting 1-2 AT guns in a position, put some HMG's and Squads there along with the guns, so that if Halftracks come by, or Infantry, they can be dealt with.

Ambushes only really work if your opponent cooperates with your plan. Wrecklessly sending armour without adequate Infantry support is what usually results in successful ambushes. And if there are infantry there, then they will be preoccupied by your infantry, leaving the AT guns to concentrate on their AFV's.

Setting up successful ambushes is difficult, as was in reality. Place your AT guns covering areas where you see the best chance of enemy armour going through. If he is short on time you might be able to catch something without adequate support. Also, ambushes aren't meant to last the entire game. Once they are discovered, they will be destroyed.

Perhaps but one's ambush of advancing HTs shouldn't be triggered because your PBEM opponent has decided to lead the HTs with his HQ.

Ambushes can have specific targets. We would never trigger an ambush just because the first guy (point) wander into our ambush point. We would wait for our taget, be it the main body, the command element or certain vehicles.

[Sgt Fred]

I would like to see some method of assigning directional "fields of fire" or "overwatch zones", particularly for AFVs. Perhaps some system for this could adapted from the Ambush command in CM2. In real life the units of an infantry squad or a tank platoon are assigned sectors of responsibility so that threats from different directions can be protected against. In CM, it seems that when a threat appears from the right all the units orient to that direction making them vulnerable to attack from other directions. Here's an idea of what I'd like to see using a tank platoon on the move for example.

Direction of travel ^

....|

....0

..\..../

..0...0

-0.....0-

Sorry about the lame graphic representation, but you get the idea. Some will say this is micro-management, and it is I suppose, but assigning fields of fire is a platoon or company level process, so it's not really individual unit micro-management.

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

Later, Dave

[This message has been edited by Sgt Fred (edited 02-14-2001).]

[Guest JAZZA]

An option to "ambush wide"or similar,or CavScout's idea of a sizeable marker would be good to see.

[Sig]

I believe ambush *sectors* (limited in size and form) would be good, and would prevent too much player micromanagement. Add to this a distinction between "armour ambush sector" and "infantry/soft skinned vehicles ambush sector" and you have good enough (IMO) flexibility, ESPECIALLY for scenario designers.

Sig

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Major Tom:

Ambushes only really work if your opponent cooperates with your plan.

Just because I use an ambush marker,

doesn't mean that, tactically speaking,

I have set up an 'ambush' position, in the

sense of waiting around and hoping the

enemy stumbles onto me. If I have

already observed the enemy forces

moving towards an area, I often toss out

an ambush marker to try to prevent my

men from opening fire too early. It

would be excellent to be able to give

more detailed targetting orders, and using

the ambush marker is one way to do that

within the present game engine.

Let me provide another example. I recently

had a 57mm AT gun target an infantry squad.

The enemy squad was putting the heat on

some of my boys who I really wanted to keep alive, so I wanted to try to get some suppression. This 57mm gun burned off its

three remaining HE rounds, and then

continued at its high rate of fire to shoot

precious AP rounds at the enemy. That is a

stupid behavior, and in a good game, such

things will eventually be ironed out in

later versions.

So if targetting orders could optionally pop

up another menu with SOP type orders, in

this case 'use HE only', we could give much

better orders to our units. And this is

_not_ micromanaging.

I have rarely ever read about an ambush being solely devised to take out one form of military formation, with being incapable of countering other types.

Sure, but if I want to be able to ambush

whatever might come through an area I can

give one ambush marker to the LMG's with

the SOP 'target infantry only', one marker

to the 50 cals, 'target infantry or soft

skinned vehicles' and one to the AT gun,

'target heavy armored vehicles only'.

The point is, the choice is up to the

player. Again, this is not micro-management,

it is just a way to get the virtual soldiers

to behave like they've had some training.

regards,

--Rett

[This message has been edited by CMplayer (edited 02-15-2001).]

[nedlam]

I once had an ambush set up on a road where basically I knew my opponent had to bring his column of armor through. My men waited and the ambush was set. I managed to let the 1st tank pass by me without firing by rotating my men 180 degrees away from the road. By the time they finished the order the tank had gone by (I had a AT gun further down to take care of it anyway. About a turn later the main group rolled on by. I attacked the column for two turns, then bugged out calling in artillery (I had already done so as the 1st tank went by). By the time my men got away the artty started to fall laying waste to the remaider of the armor and breaking up the column. In all I got 7 vehicles with that ambush (trucks and HT's included) Not to mention some several infantry casualties cause with the artillery barrage (almost lost my own men they where so close and it was rockets so they where falling everywhere). It's the ONLY time an ambush has ever worked for me and it would have been a lot easier if I could have told what targets where okay to shoot at etc.

[Major Tom]

The arguments posted here are only discussing half of the argument. You might think that an AT gun firing off its AP ammo at advancing infantry is stupid, however, since the Infantry are seen as a direct threat, wouldn't it be stupid to just ignore them?

There are many ways in which you can get your units to fire when your enemy are close, or when your enemy is passing you by. Just like the example above, you could creatively turn your troops, hide them, limit their LOS so that they could only fire at close units anyway.

Tampering with commands, giving them more detail, will detract from the model that BTS created for each individual unit. Each individual unit's priority is to survive. If they deem firing at long range is better than waiting until the enemy is close, it is their choice. If firing AP at charging Infantry is seen as a good idea, then it is their choice. What if that AT gun didn't fire that AP? Maybe it would have made the entire situation much worse? Possibly your troops couldn't hold the front without the extra disruption? Maybe they would have collapsed more completely, or faster? Possibly the Ambush was just not set up correctly?

[CavScout]

Originally posted by Major Tom:

The arguments posted here are only discussing half of the argument. You might think that an AT gun firing off its AP ammo at advancing infantry is stupid, however, since the Infantry are seen as a direct threat, wouldn't it be stupid to just ignore them?

Unless you are about to be over-run, perhaps it is stupid to fire on them. This is really no different than when in earlier versions of the game tanks would engage infantry and sometimes getting themselves killed by real targets.

There are many ways in which you can get your units to fire when your enemy are close, or when your enemy is passing you by. Just like the example above, you could creatively turn your troops, hide them, limit their LOS so that they could only fire at close units anyway.

One shouldn't have to "trick" their units into not firing.

Tampering with commands, giving them more detail, will detract from the model that BTS created for each individual unit. Each individual unit's priority is to survive. If they deem firing at long range is better than waiting until the enemy is close, it is their choice. If firing AP at charging Infantry is seen as a good idea, then it is their choice.

Only if the code is programmed correctly.

What if that AT gun didn't fire that AP? Maybe it would have made the entire situation much worse? Possibly your troops couldn't hold the front without the extra disruption? Maybe they would have collapsed more completely, or faster? Possibly the Ambush was just not set up correctly?

Would've, should've and could've. What if, what if and what if. This same line of thinking could have been used to prevent the "correction" of tanks selecting infantry targets in earlier game versions.

[Leonidas]

Originally posted by Major Tom:

The arguments posted here are only discussing half of the argument. You might think that an AT gun firing off its AP ammo at advancing infantry is stupid, however, since the Infantry are seen as a direct threat, wouldn't it be stupid to just ignore them?

Real soldiers are not expected to make critical decisions based on whatever they happen to perceive at the moment. They understand that they don't have enough information to act on their own. That's why they are trained to follow orders. If they don't follow orders, they are either courtmartialed or killed on the spot. That's how a real army works, contrary to the 'Army of One' commercials.

There are many ways in which you can get your units to fire when your enemy are close, or when your enemy is passing you by. Just like the example above, you could creatively turn your troops, hide them, limit their LOS so that they could only fire at close units anyway.

Those approaches are both gamey and dangerous.

Tampering with commands, giving them more detail, will detract from the model that BTS created for each individual unit. Each individual unit's priority is to survive. If they deem firing at long range is better than waiting until the enemy is close, it is their choice. If firing AP at charging Infantry is seen as a good idea, then it is their choice.

Real soldiers aren't given these choices. They are expected to follow orders. Of course, those orders always contain an element of autonomy appropriate to the situation.

An AT gun on defense is an awfully low autonomy situation. The AT gunner isn't reading the intelligence report on whether enemy armor is expected. His commander reads those reports, and gives the order. If the gunner is told to hold his fire for AFVs of a certain size or larger, then that's what he will do. If he's told to hold fire until at least three appropriate targets present themselves, that's what he will do.

The time for autonomy comes when the plan breaks down, as it always does. But on defense, the soldiers in a real army have very detailed initial orders, and they follow them.

[CMplayer]

The arguments posted here are only discussing half of the argument. You might think that an AT gun firing off its AP ammo at advancing infantry is stupid, however, since the Infantry are seen as a direct threat, wouldn't it be stupid to just ignore them?

Try reading what I wrote, and then taking

time to understand it before responding.

Also, try understanding the game mechanics

as well. 1- the infantry was not advancing

on the gun, and was certainly not a direct

threat to it, at 500 meters. 2- 57mm AP

ammo has no effect on infantry, except in

the extremely rare case where a shell

actually takes someone's head off. AP

ammo _must_ be save for armored targets,

period.

There are many ways in which you can get your units to fire when your enemy are close, or when your enemy is passing you by. Just like the example above, you could creatively turn your troops, hide them, limit their LOS so that they could only fire at close units anyway.

Those were interesting suggestions, but

they are very strained and unnatural

techniques. BTS's express goal is to

create a wargaming environment with a

natural feel. 'just try things that

would work in real life'. Rotating guys

away 180 degrees in order to affect the

timing so that you can let the lead

element pass the kill zone, does not fit

the bill (that said, I may try it).

Tampering with commands, giving them more detail, will detract from the model that BTS created for each individual unit.

Umm, BTS created the commands and the model.

It is _all_ a result of tampering. As things

are now, it is far from ideal. Combat Mission

is a pioneering game, no doubt about that,

but there are about 1,000,000 unsatisfactory

things about it. There is no way it could

be otherwise. That is why we point out

suggestions and observations. It doesn't

mean that we don't think they have done

a fantastic job in the time frame they

have had to work.

Each individual unit's priority is to survive. If they deem firing at long range is better than waiting until the enemy is close, it is their choice.

Ever heard that phrase 'don't fire till you

see the whites of their eyes!' Battle of

Bunker hill. The American commander

specifically dictated an engagement range

to his troops. This is completely standard

practice. If the troops f*** it up, fine,

that can be a realistic simulation. But it

ought to be at least possible to give the

order.

If firing AP at charging Infantry is seen as a good idea, then it is their choice. What if that AT gun didn't fire that AP? Maybe it would have made the entire situation much worse? Possibly your troops couldn't hold the front without the extra disruption? Maybe they would have collapsed more completely, or faster? Possibly the Ambush was just not set up correctly?

[Sig]

Asking for more control on ambush can be percieved as asking for more micromanagement.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't want too much micromanagement in CMBO (I like it in other games though), *but* in my opinion ambush managment should be improved for scenario design.

Let me explain what I mean: a player is *far* more efficient than the AI with ambushes (by ambushes, I mean a *hidden* unit waiting for good target, even without the proper ambush marker). Why? Simply because he can *choose* the right moment when to unhide, and this is the *critical* point. The AI cannot do that, except at short distance (if no ambush marker).

Scenario design and ambush. As a designer, it is difficult to create a flexible ambush, because the AI does *not* know when to unhide. Imagine this AT gun at 500m from the road, hidden in woods. Ambush marker targetted. Your clever scouting has shown you that the ennemy (2 AFVs and some infantry) will come right down this road. Now, the opposing player, being also a clever guy will scout ahead of his armour. The ambushing player (you) will hold his AT ambush, remain hidden, wait for the AFV to appear and (hopefully) score. The AI in the same situation would see the scouting infantry passing on the ambush marker, the AT gun will open fire with HE, and next thing would be arty falling on its position...dead.

This is in my opinion the main drawback of the system. This leads to less challenge from the defending AI in canned scenarios and gives an additionnal advantage to the player.

But as far as I'm concerned in a player against player situation, this is not a major problem.

Sig

[Wolf^]

Who plays agains AI anyway? I win it all the time.

Setting ambush range insted of ambush markerks would not definetly be micromanagement!

[Leonidas]

Micromanagement is an ambiguous term.

On the one hand, it can mean treating soldiers as mindless robots that always obey orders and have no regard for their own safety.

On the other hand, it can mean giving detailed orders instead of simple ones. If this is what 'micromanagement' means, then I'm all in favor of it. It's realistic, it gives the game more depth, and it takes pressure off the TacAI. The only reason I can think of to limit micromanagement is that too much complexity could make the game too slow and tedious to play. But in the world of computer wargames, CM is far, far from being tedious.