Follow my orders!

[DasBaron]

Has it happened to anyone when the troops just will not listen?

I think it's a slight bug. I know that it is intended for troops to have a sort of AI where they will think for themselves to some degree, but then there are the times where their choices are simply ridiculous.

For example:

There have been numerous times where I have been advancing and doing a sort of leap frog with my tanks. Infantry is close behind. Well suddenly enemy infantry pop up near the tank and behind. So what does the tank do? Turn around and fire at them while leaving its tail in the direction of enemy tanks. 1st of all, there is no way a tank crew is going to expose itself like that for real, second, how exactly did this buttoned tank see enemy infantry behind it? third, even if it did see the infantry, it would let the friendly infantry which is close by deal with the situation while it responded to orders (which in this case was to watch a sector in which enemy tanks were going to appear.)

And this was a veteran Tiger crew!

I have lost tanks because of this.

There should be a command where the unit will try to stick out the command to the letter. As in the example above, if this command were available, that tank would have ignored the enemy infantry and stuck to the more important task of destroying enemy armor.

Perhaps this strict command would be involved within the rotate command. If I tell armor to rotate to face a certain area, it should stay in that arc until either moved or changed.

Exceptions might be of course...direct threats that may force the unit to disengage the strict order and conduct actions of immediate self preservation.

Another example..AI side.

I'm advancing with Churchills. Suddenly I am slammed by a Pak 20 some distance away. With its rapid rate of fire, it hits me about 4 times within the 60 seconds. Each shot bounces off of the front turret.

Next turn, the pak keeps firing with the same result.

It's obvious that the weapon is not going to penetrate the armor...so why fire? Shouldn't the AI have the Pak get into better coverage or have had it wait for less armored targets.

or have it calculate that at its distance, it's weapon was no good directed at the front of the advancing armor?

What was weird was that none of my tanks could target this AT gun which sat in an open field. Not even a Firefly could target it for some reason. And it shot through the bridge (i.e. at my tank on the other side of the bridge where it was completely out of LOS.)

The AI is pretty smart....backing up when faced with a larger threat, trying to flank armor, using smoke, but other times, it simply seems foolishly heroic.

Das Baron

[Mr. Johnson--]

How about 140mm arty airbursting above your troops in the woods, and they leave their foxholes and run home to momma, I hate that.

[mensch]

I don't know prob. nothing will be done.. why.. there was not one DO SOMEFINK in either posts...

bts do SOMEFINK!

[lcm1947]

Yeah, happens too often to me. It's normally one of my tanks choosing to shoot at infantry rather then the enemy tanks that's about to cap his behind - front for that matter. If I recall this was discussed before and somebody said to think of it like the tank isn't seeing the other tank so it's handling the threat it sees. I can live with that but I just hate saying all those bad words. Upsets my wife.

[Cull]

Yeah! Do SOMEFINK and write somebody some new jokes!

Actually, I've pondering that very subject as well, and I think I've worked out a algorithym that will make CM an absolutely and totally FLAWLESS representation of WWII combat reality! Here it is.....

Oh DAMMIT! I must've gotten it all mixed up with my cure-for-cancer formula! Now I'll have to start all over! Oh JEEPERS!

[Pak40]

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

Infantry is close behind.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's your first problem. If your tanks are in front of your infantry then your just begging for your tanks to die. Try putting your tanks at least 50m behind your infantry.

That way, both enemy infantry AND enemy tanks are in the same general direction and your tank's turret doesn't have to travese very far to switch between inf. and tanks.

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

Well suddenly enemy infantry pop up near the tank and behind. So what does the tank do? Turn around and fire at them while leaving its tail in the direction of enemy tanks. 1st of all, there is no way a tank crew is going to expose itself like that for real, second, how exactly did this buttoned tank see enemy infantry behind it? third, even if it did see the infantry, it would let the friendly infantry which is close by deal with the situation while it responded to orders <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know exactly what happened. At the exact time your tank decided to target the enemy infantry, it did not have a clear LOS to any enemy tank. You may have seen a tank yourself because another unit spotted it but your Tiger did not see it, therefore it did the most logical thing, fire at the closest visiable threat. If you had put your tank behind your infantry, this wouldn't have happened(you tank still would have targeted the infantry but it wouldn't have had to turn around to engage them). BTW, Tigers have vision slits and periscopes that allow it to see in all directions. Also, sound would alert the crew to infantry behind it.

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

I have lost tanks because of this.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doesn't surprise me at all.

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

There should be a command where the unit will try to stick out the command to the letter. As in the example above, if this command were available, that tank would have ignored the enemy infantry and stuck to the more important task of destroying enemy armor.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The TARGET command does just that.

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

Perhaps this strict command would be involved within the rotate command. If I tell armor to rotate to face a certain area, it should stay in that arc until either moved or changed.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They've added this command to CM:BTB but I think it's used in a defensive context. It's supposed to be the command that replaces the AMBUSH command.

[ 07-01-2001: Message edited by: Pak40 ]

[Guest Babra]

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

There should be a command where the unit will try to stick out the command to the letter. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If such a feature is ever added, then there ought to be a very strict limit on just how many times in a one-minute turn a player is allowed to give such an order. I would say no more than ONCE.

Otherwise, players will use it for EVERY move, ALL the time, which is just plain ahistorical.

[David Aitken]

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

There should be a command where the unit will try to stick out the command to the letter.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then people would start complaining when their units disregard what they see as an obvious threat. It is up to you to get your units into a position to fight from, but your units will do the fighting. You need to allow for this, and not expect your units you carry out complex orders exactly as you imagine. The alternative is called micromanagement, which BTS intentionally avoids. For this reason we are unlikely to see a "don't think for yourselves" command.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What was weird was that none of my tanks could target this AT gun which sat in an open field.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are sure of the type of gun, I assume it wasn't just a Sound Contact. Did you have LOS? If the 'field' was a wheat field, this will block LOS in summer.

[Guest Babra]

Micromanagement isn't so bad as long as it's limited. A commander can't be everywhere, but he sure as hell can be somewhere. There is no physical limitation to a commander taking a hand in the goings-on.

I think an inherent ability to issue one micromanagement order per turn would work quite well.

[David Aitken]

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

A commander can't be everywhere, but he sure as hell can be somewhere.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But in CM you play the role of every commander from battalion or above, down to platoon. I'm not sure it would make sense to have a function in the game which simulates your 'presence' or attention at one specific point on the battlefield, because 'you' are not just one person. If you can do micromanagement at all, it would have to be global. Limiting this would also be frustratingly inconsistent. And what exactly would you define as a 'micromanagement order'?

[Guest Babra]

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

And what exactly would you define as a 'micromanagement order'?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The ability, as mentioned a dozen times in this thread, to order a unit to obey the order you give it at the expense of what it perceives to be common sense or self preservation. The ability to say to a tank, "I don't CARE what's behind you, eyes front and cover that road, dammit!"

This is not only logical, but I'm sure people can find hundreds of references to back it up. The problem is, if there are too many such orders in the game, then every unit ends up getting such orders because players want obedience from their units, and that's just not historical. So any such function in the game has to be limited.

Remember also that we're dealing with A/I and the programmers MUST recognize that no A/I is perfect. So to deny this ability to the players is in effect saying, "We can program the units to behave better than you can order them to behave," and THAT'S just not right either.

There has to be a compromise that will allow players a very limited but necessary amount of micromanagement without upsetting game play.

[David Aitken]

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

The ability, as mentioned a dozen times in this thread, to order a unit to obey the order you give it at the expense of what it perceives to be common sense or self preservation.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, just that. I got the impression you were speaking in more general terms.

[CMplayer]

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

There has to be a compromise that will allow players a very limited but necessary amount of micromanagement without upsetting game play.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also, if you look at the game, the player

already micromanages very much. Take tank

movement for example; you have to find

hull down positions yourself. Do you think

any battalion commander says, "drive forward

73.54 metres so that you are hull down"?

There are tons of things like this in

the game.

Introducing good changes, such as a "!" which

can be added to any command, and makes

it less likely that the unit will override

the order, can help compensate for weaknesses

in the tac AI. The issue of 'micromanagement'

is just a bogeyman here.

As for the question of people using the

"!" too much, well, if they can win that

way, all it shows is that the tac AI is

deficient. However I think that overusing

"!" on targetting orders would lead to

defeats, for the very reasons that BTS

explained at the outset. Using it sparingly,

though, with a good understanding of

how the TacAI functions, could be very

useful.

--Rett

[Guest Babra]

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

However I think that overusing

"!" on targetting orders would lead to

defeats, for the very reasons that BTS

explained at the outset<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. If all your units are on "rigid" orders that leave them no room to use their own targetting initiatives, they will get blown away. Another reason this should be a sparing command.

It's a tough call really. I recall one game where I had issued an ambush order to an armoured car which I had detailed to cover my flank. An enemy tank appeared well off the ambush line and commenced to plink away at the armoured car -- missing every shot. However the AC did not reverse or take any evasive action (when the ambush command is in place, only a ricochet will break it, which is unlikely at best). Eventually, after almost a full turn, the AC went up in a ball of fire.

So I can see if BTS allowed such "!" orders, the same thing would occur very frequently and people would cry foul, even though they had themselves over-ridden the A/I's self preservation instincts.