V1.1 A MAJOR BUG ???

[Guest Scott Clinton]

Its AI guys. And in this game it has been tweaked and tweaked and worked on for months.

I have a real news flash: CM has the hands down best TACAI in any game ever made that I have seen or played or even heard of. PERIOD. BTS is pushing the envelope in AI and that is a fact.

IF it is really as bad as some seem to think, it is only a matter of time before it gets tweaked again. If not, then perhaps some people just need to get used to the way the game works now (in many ways more historically accurate as has been mentioned above).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So, you don't agree with BTS and what, the hit team comes out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? You new around here or something?

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

Please note: The above is solely the opinion of 'The Grumbling Grognard' and reflects no one else's views but his own.

[Guest Madmatt]

Let me just weigh in here even though Kwazydog has been doing a good job trying to explain this to someone who seems unwilling to actually try it out in more than one isolated example and who appears to be growing more and more insulting in his posts.

First of all this not a new feature and was not put in to make the Slow Turret camp (whomever the hell that is supposed to represent) as Bruno indicated earlier. This behavior was coded from the very start to act this way but due to a bug that was only recently fixed the TacAi wasn't doing it properly.

This is not some sort of feature that was thrown in without thought, it was always meant to be in, but it wasn't working correctly. To ask if this product was beta tested properly or to declare that people did not do their jobs correctly is not only insulting to me but to the other beta testers and people that took time to play through the various beta versions and give us their opinions on what they saw.

The behavior is meant to aid a turret to get on target quicker, that's all. To do this the hull will rotate in the direction of the threat that the gun is currently targeting, and in turn also help to bring the thicker front armor to bear as well as the Bow MG. This, by the way, IS a normal procedure for armored vehicles and was more common place than you might be aware.

Michael Wittmann often did not slew the turret at all in his Tiger and had his driver rotate the hull to face whatever threat he indicated. Such "firing from the hip" was even more common on the East Front from what I have read.

Some have said they don't think rotating the hull to face a soft target makes sense. Why not? It's the quickest way to not only bring the main gun to bear but to also utilize the bow MG and increase the chance of eliminating that threat quickly. Bringing the maximum ammount of firepower to bear on a soft target makes sense to me and from what I have seen is VERY effective now.

In all the testing I have done since this fix was implemented I am not seeing any sort of behavior which indicates to me that this will open up some sort of Pandora's Box to be exploited. Tanks are not spinning around in place constantly, they do so when the target is out of a specific arc. One thing you are forgetting is that the TacAi was STILL going to engage whatever enemy unit it has targeted.

So in v1.05 maybe the hull wouldn't rotate but the turret would still do so and take a much greater time to do it. This means more opportunity for the enemy to fire on the vehicle in question and a greater delay in the vehicle to ever get a shot off.

You really need to play a few more games (or a lot more games for that matter) before you start to proclaim things as broken or needing to be fixed or worrying about potential exploitation situations that don't even exist.

We really don't ask for much from people here except to give us a modicum of courtesy and to be informed when they post on a topic. I am seeing less and less of either from you Bruno.

Madmatt

[This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 01-11-2001).]

[StellarRat]

Just to add my two cents worth. I much rather have my tank turn towards a "real" threat than worry about a possible threat coming over the horizon. Some of the posters have complained that this might allow someone to distract the tank with non-threatening unit; well that seems pretty realistic to me. Infantry units can be a deadly threat and the TC may not be able to see what they're armed with so he should treat all of them as potentially dangerous. If your tank is in a "target rich" environment (meaning he's going to be outflanked) it won't make much difference which way he faces. Someone is going to get a flank shot, so better to turn towards the target and try to dispatch it quickly then you can deal with the other targets.

[OGSF]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bruno Weiss:

.. this is the problem I have with the hull turnings:

Hi,

I just perform my first battle with V1.1 against the AI when something strange happend. I have two Churchill tanks on a bridge. Enemy forces are in front of me but I see no possible target for my tank.

During the turn's resolution a german crew is spotted at 60 meters at nine o'clock by my tanks. And I see both my tanks turning their turret AND THEIR HULL in direction of the german crew to fire on him .So now, both tanks exposed their side to the major enemy location!

Which the Churchills were not aware of!! :^)

So I perform the same test with 1.05 and 1.1.

With 1.05 you can keep your hull in a dirction and engage enemy with weapons in the turret on another direction. But this seems not to be possible with 1.1 When you give a target to your tank. It always rotates in direction of the target (like a Self propelled gun)!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And if you guys can't figure out the problem with that, then by all means line up to be an opponent of mine. Please...

I would further add, that this did not get to be the game it is, based upon changes made to provide pleasant effects which alter historic aspects.

It seemed to me from the original post in this thread, requoted above, that the player can see the enemy units in front, but the two Churchills cannot. The Churchills see a threat to one side, could be an AT team as far as the TC knows, and the tanks rotate to face the only threat they are aware of. I cannot see a problem with this. It's not like it turned away from an armoured threat it knew about to face down a crew. Only the omnipotent player was aware of the enemy ahead. Which part of that is not historically correct?

I would prefer my armour to face the threat it is aware of, even if it screws up sometimes and faces a crew, exposing it's flanks to potential danger. If you are flanked, you are flanked - doesn't matter which way the tank is facing.

Maybe the issue here is really one of AFVs' using the main gun on crews, or not being able to evaluate threats 100% accuarately 100% of the time. I think that was called Fog of War and was also "historical".

If I play an opponent who uses crews or trucks to fake out my armour, I likely would thank them for the game and not play them again. That sort of tactic has always been bad form in my book. Having armour use their rotation to assist in coming on target, and the AI getting confused by deliberate use of sacrificial decoys, are not the same thing. One is a problem, the other is not.

As far as this change being an ahistorical tweak to satisfy the gamers, I think not. The tanks are not doing anything they were not physically capable of. If it is an effective tactic in CM, then it was likely an effective tactic in "real life". Certainly the reverse is usually true!

If a tank appears to be "dithering" and changing it's mind when trying to target multiple threats, I put this down to one of the limitations of the game. Whether the hull rotates or not, the turret would be waffling about - so I don't reckon this problem is unique to the new version. Sometimes the luck runs against you, sometimes it's the opponents tanks which cannot make up their mind. But I haven't seen this enough to even consider it as a factor I need to allow for, and I have played CM practically every day since May last year.

I like the change. And I like BTS. I also like logical, researched arguments.

OGSF

[This message has been edited by OGSF (edited 01-11-2001).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Bruno wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Oh, okay Kwazydog, yes I admit I've been absolutely unreasonable in not just agreeing with you and sticking to what I believe and just tore you completely apart. Unmerciful. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sheesh... are you sure know how this BBS works? You appear to think that we only respond when people are insulting, belittling, disrespectful, whiney, absolutely uncooperative, and non-constructive. If you are the opposite of all these things you are being an ass kisser and not trying to advance the state of the game at all. Have I understood your comprehension of how things work around here?

Bruno, you might have a point, you might not. But I can tell you one thing... reading only a few of your posts has convinced me to not waste even one more minute of my time reading your messages. If you can't behave like an adult in a civilized society, I don't see why I should value your opinions. If you would like to be a part of improving Combat Mission, start by improving your rotten attitude.

Steve

[Guest Madmatt]

Good point Stellar! On the battlefield, other than a abandoned crew or unarmed vehicles there are NO non-threatening units. Every infantry unit including HQ's have the ability to kill ANY tank. How are those NOT threatening?

A tanks greatest enemy is not another tank behind a hill, but a infantry squad to its rear and flank.

Test it out someday and see how long your armor lives. These units are not meant to operate in a vacuum. A tank out alone with out an infantry screen is very very vulnerable. When put in such a situation that is so out of its normal operating element, the TacAI acts according. It covers it butt and persecutes any enemy unit it targets with utmost prejudice.

Madmatt

[KiwiJoe]

The reason I personally havent tried 1.1 to see if this hull rotating thing is good or bad is I dont want it to (possabably) lose me any games. I will however create some battles and play agianst the AI to see if its a problem. I really hope it doesnt cause problems. Gah... I'm far to passionate about this game

[Guest Big Time Software]

A concept that might or might not have been pushed out by someone thus far...

Tanks should NOT be put into situations where there are potential threats on more than one direction. This is tactically unsound and against doctrine. Tanks are supposed to fix on one target, face it, and defeat it. Then fix on another and do the same, so on and so on. A tank is not supposed to drive into the middle of hostile territory and engage in some all around shoot out at the OK Coral. They weren't meant to do this, and often were knocked out when they did by circumstance wind up in such positions.

And in general... each situtation is unique. To expect CM to adapt itself perfectly, in hindsight, to each and every situation is utterly impossible. If someone can not accept that reality, might I suggest finding a different game that can rise to this challenge. Just hope you don't die of old age waiting for that "perfect" game because there are none on the horizon anytime soon...

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 01-11-2001).]

[Mr. Hankey]

Well, I have done a bit of arguing on this topic, probably from the point of view of my own ignorance of tank operating procedures and armament. I'll give it a good go and see how it comes out.

[Guest Big Time Software]

KiwiJoe:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The reason I personally havent tried 1.1 to see if this hull rotating thing is good or bad is I dont want it to (possabably) lose me any games<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is really blowing things out of all proportion. This change, historical/ahistorical, good/bad, is not major enough to cause anybody to lose even one game they would have otherwise won using sound tactics. Speculation that it can lead to disaster is just that -> speculation. Mostly by someone who has not even played it. So please... don't let the baseless alarmists frighten you.

And in any case... people will eventually have to upgrade to 1.1. Even if the dozens of improvements, fixes, and TCP/IP isn't enough to entice you, you will find it impossible to play against another human within a few days.

Steve

[KiwiJoe]

Ok done some testing with 1.1. Panthers vs 57mm AT guns at various angles. In this testing things worked sweet as. The panthers rotated hulls and engaged the guns faster than if they just used turrets without exposing thier side armour to any other guns.

Next round i'll include infantry to 1 side and at guns to the other.

[KiwiJoe]

Put infantry on 1 side , at guns on the other. Panthers worked sweet! glad to see them using HE on infantry without having to be told. They didnt rotate thier sides to the guns, instead they seemed to rotate just a small about whislt rotating their main gun as well. This speeded up the engagment of infantry whislt still keeping the front hull to the AT guns. So far I'm impressed and withdraw my 1st "negative" comment that I made before actually testing it out

[Seahawk-vfa201]

From what I have seen in betas and 1.1 the rotating hull has been very effective. The only problem I see is whether the AI could get confusede on equal threats on its left and right flanks and swivel around without engaging. I have NOT seen this yet but I guess it would be disconcerting to see.

To a case like this I would like to see the AI engage one threat and trying to move out of the second threat if there is a near cover instead of swiveling back and forth.

Again, I have not seen this yet although the original post implies it has happened.

I guess a TC would decide to fully engage one threat and get out of the way from the second ASAP. Is that reasonable and a reasonable AI behavior?

[DEF BUNGIS]

I just finished playing 4 combined arms and 3 armor scenarios with various settings and troop level expirience.

I don't really understand the debate of this thread. 1.1 runs fine, hull rotation and all.

Nice work, very well done.

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

The counter-revolution,

people smilling through their tears.

Who can give them back their lives, and all those wasted years.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Thanks guys for the INFORMED opinions We don't ask they they be flattering, only fair. And fair means trying it out before criticising us. And of course, biting our heads off with or without an informed opinion is equally useless

Seahawk wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I guess a TC would decide to fully engage one threat and get out of the way from the second ASAP. Is that reasonable and a reasonable AI behavior?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. This is how the TacAI has been coded since the Alpha stage. Since then we have strengthened it a bit, but not too much. A vehicle will still disengage primary target to a secondary target, before firing at primary, only in the most dire circumstances (i.e. to wait any longer would mean near certain death). The chances of a back and forth, back and forth action is very low, and certainly no greater with 1.1

Thanks,

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Bullethead, who has no affiliation with us and has been very outspoken about whatever changes he feels CM should embrace, has written up this nice "little" post after taking a good look at how hull/turret rotation works with 1.1:

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/014813.html

Hopefully this will further reassure folks that 1.1 is not only an improvement overall, but also in terms of TacAI behavior.

Steve

[Cameron]

I wanted to add my two cents to this discussion. I have not played v 1.1 (although I have downloaded it) so I will not add anything about how it effects the game. I would like to add a little bit about tank tactics as pulled from the modern US Army FM 17-15 Chapter 3:

"Action drill with enemy contact. Following a contact report alerting the platoon that enemy contact involves antitank weapon systems, the platoon leader can direct an action drill to orient his platoon's frontal armor toward the antitank fire while moving to cover and concealment. If the platoon cannot reach a covered and concealed position or achieve weapon standoff, the platoon leader directs 36 through 3-38, illustrate examples of action drills in reaction to enemy contact."

The following illustrations show each platoon element orienting their hulls directly on line with the perceived threat. Clearly the best protection for any tank is the frontal armor. Although I am not a tanker, I would think that it would be better to orient my frontal armor to the perceived threat than to orient to the possible threat that might be downrange in the enemy area, even though I know the general area the enemy is coming from.

If its good enough for the Modern US Army I'm pretty confident that the Germans could figure it out in WWII.

I can also imagine what it must have been like as a German (or allied) gunner to spot one target and have the TC screaming at me (or kicking me as often was the case) telling me that he now sees another target. I'm sure they waffled in the heat of battle trying to decide what target was the greater threat.

Lastly, is thier any possibility in CBM2 to have platoons of tanks and have those platoons be issued formation orders for movement, ie a wedge formation would have tank 1 turreted faced to the left 45 degrees tank 2 and 3 would be straight on and tank 4 would be turreted faced to the right 45 degrees (assuming we are counting from left to right)??? (mb that is another topic)

Great game and thanks for the hours of fun.

[Slyss]

Imagine yourself in a tiger tank carefully driving down a well blasted up road through a rubbled to hell and back town. It could be main street for all you know.

When all of a sudden...

10 naked guys run around yelling "Boookie Boookie Booo". In your panic you turn your hull to face the guys that might just pee on your hull. Just then a rocket penetrates your side hull from straight down the road.

REALITY CHECK

Happened to me last night. Not quite as dramatic, but my tank rotated when i didnt want it too. I WANTED my tank to point down the road. I didnt want it to rotate the hull towards the buildings and such.

Isn't there supposed to be a rotate hull button?

Why do tanks have turrets then might I ask? The hole point it to bring the firepower to bear quickly. You don't have to defend against something that you blasted as soon as you could swivel the gun. Turning the hull is a defensive manuever that you save for the right moments. Like an anti-tank gun.

Also, why even go hull down then? You are just exposing the turret anyway. I havent seen any comments on that on this post.

I say BAH. This is just gonna lead to more cheap gamey tactics.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

Why do tanks have turrets then might I ask? The hole point it to bring the firepower to bear quickly. You don't have to defend against something that you blasted as soon as you could swivel the gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

REALITY CHECK

Some tanks have slow turrets and turning their hull enables them to bring fire onto the target faster.

This is actually great WRT hull-down. Since you are hull-down in the direction of an expected threat, you have max protection there. If another threat pops up from a different direction (remember, hull-down is only against one direction, by definition, unless you dig the tank in), you will also have max protection against that threat, without losing the benefit of hull-down.

So what was the problem?

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[Xavier]

Hi again

Just read all the post...

To Maximus:

I really would like to have the time to play more and test the 1.1 beta... I think this board is not only for 'hardcore' gamer no? And I'm not crying about this change, I just want to understand So, cease fire please.

I must admit I may be start this topic a little early but when I play my first 1.1 it was obviously strange to see this feature.

As Kwazydog wisely suggest, I'll perform some test tonight(I don't have CM at work, what a shame ).

But, I may be wrong but before 1.1 I've never read or heard a lot of people strongly willing this change.

If you guys, think, the game runs better and is more historical like this, so it'll be ok for me too But I still regret loosing a little control upon my tanks.

[Xavier]

I'm 100% with you Slyss

It's exactly what I'm talking about(but with my bad english )

[Slyss]

Hmmm. Just finished with another game. With good results I might add. My turret responded more quickly to threats and was able to, in general, function more efficiently. Very very interesting this game is, which I bought just a couple days back.

Well ok there are some drawbacks because its easy to blame AI for your mistakes. At least this game has AI, more then what I can say for most games today.

I like the hull turning in general, I just gotta be more careful getting flanked. I kinda take my last post back, even though it does make for some comical relief. Err. hehe.

[Quenaelin]

This hull rotation thing was very offen requested feature, and now people are wandering is it good or bad. I don't understand that. I think it is best feature of all time. If you are moving your tank, turret allways rotates, but when stationary it is obvious that hull can be moved to help acquire targets and keep it to position of threat. If your tank doesn't know which threat is more dangerous, you have to decide that in next turn.

It is scarefull situation when you have so many targets and you have to sviwel your turret side to side, so you mess your targeting and expose your side to enemy. I allways try to position my tanks so that I have my back covered and not so many targets from any side.

My opinion is that this should be option for every tank you are controlling, so you could change rotate hull to acquire targets on or off.

[Guest ciks]

After reading this thread back and forth, i decided to go for a QT (Quick Test, not Quick Time).

I had an L shaped woodline, where at one end of L were Jeep, and at the other - Elite Hellcat. Tiger was between them in the open (facing Hellcat), but at the start it could not see allied vehicles.

So i drove the jeep out of cover, for tiger to engage and turn hull to. And after 15 seconds, Hellcat poped around woodline and...

...Tiger got brand new 76 mm hole in the upper hull.

My opinion is, that new hull-rotation is improvement in general, however it opens up some *gamey* ways to deal with aromur. Some kind of target selection shoud be applied. Maybe.

Otherwise, good job guys.

[aka_tom_w]

When I first reported the "twitching Panther Sybdrome" I did so because it was the very first game I played in v1.1 and I was a little alarmed to see that computer controled enemy Panther "twitch" between a non- threat HT on the road and possible threat infantry in the woods on its left flank.

I since it was my first game on v1.1 I admit I was sort of a little alarmed. But that twitch behaviour is VERY difficult to replicate.

I was just reporting an observed behaviour and I hope I was not percieved as overly critical.

I think we should all PLAY more and freak out less and post less. Lets give it a week. See what happens as it is adopted and played by many more players this weekend.

We all know that if it is REALLY a problem Steve and Charles will look at it again, after all they have been known to fix this game ONLY about 7 or 8 times including 2 public beta's since its release 7 months ago!

Thats an admiral track record in this business!

-tom w

[This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 01-11-2001).]