Request: "NScoot" command..

[Banshee]

When using vehicles and setting up ambushes I was noticing a distinct weakness for certain thin skinned vehicles. The issue is they would get off a first shot in an ambush but I would have to wait till the turn end (and then the command delay for the next turn) in order to get them to unass and find a new firing spot. With thin skinned vehicles this is often fatal (especially facing high ROF vehicles).

So I propose the following a new type of ambush command ("NScoot") which holds a unit in place until the ambush is triggered (meaning the main gun fires a round) and then the unit will follow any previously given movement commands (allowing for "Shoot n' scoot" tactics). Or you could change the current ambush command to work like that (where movement wont happen until the ambush is triggered and units fire). And it would be made even better if the PAUSE command allowed for X number of seconds of fire before the people leave.

I hope I explained this idea well, and hope for some constructive feedback. Since I really would like to use thin skinned vehicles in a more effective manner. If I need to explain it better please ask questions.

Thanks,

Chris

p.s. I think it would make a good command for infantry units as well.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Terence]

_I_ think it would be a cute command.

[Wolfpack]

I think it would be a good idea. I can occasionally get my units to do it properly , but only in very limited circumstances. What I do now is if I know that a unit will be in my ambush area in the next turn, I'll guesstimate how long it will take him to get there, pause, then give move fast orders. Sometimes it works, then there are times when I'm relegated to watching the movie screaming, "NO YOU BASTARD MOVE IT!" Like the M10 driver and commander couldn't realize that, "Hey, if we sit here long enough for that KT to turn around, he can kill us" It would be more realistic and allow us to use units better, specifically units that generally are good in ambushes such as infantry AT weapons and TDs. Course, there are times you want that unit to fire more than once, so there would have to be some way for the unit to bug out when it had to, and not just after it fired it's first shot. That would probably be the tricky part.

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

It is nearly always better to be beaten and learn, rather than to win and take no new knowledge from that victory.

[Banshee]

Originally posted by Wolfpack:

Course, there are times you want that unit to fire more than once, so there would have to be some way for the unit to bug out when it had to, and not just after it fired it's first shot. That would probably be the tricky part.

If done right the pause command would allow them to fire more than one shot. It would work like this:

Set Ambush/nscoot command

hit pause 1 time (15 second delay)

set simple movement command (reverse)

When the ambush spot is triggered and after the unit has fired one shot the pause would have them sit in place (hopefully firing another shot) before reversing out of sight. If you want more shooting, then add more pauses.

Thanks for the feedback, any more?

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Tiger]

An attempt at too much micro-management of your units in my humble opinion. One of the great things about Combat Mission is that you do not have too much control over every situation and you get a number of variable "behaivours" out of the tacai.

-Tiger

[This message has been edited by Tiger (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Banshee]

Originally posted by Tiger:

An attempt at too much micro-management of your units in my humble opinion. One of the great things about Combat Mission is that you do not have too much control over every situation and you get a number of variable "behaivours" out of the tacai.

-Tiger

I completely disagree. It is no different than giving firing orders to a specific unit ("I want this tank to target this particular machine gun instead of the other target it had chosen", THAT is micro management, but is allowed in CM). It may be that the "pause" command would be too much micromanagement. This command is simply addressing the deficiency in CM which makes vehicles and men overly vulnerable to return fire. I think vehicles like the Marder III would be a lot more useful with ability to back away from counter fire. But they never do. It is a simple command. Shoot once, and go. It is also a standard delaying tactic. And makes it easier to keep contact with the front of enemy formations without exposing your forces to counterfire.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Tiger]

I dunno. What happens when your unit shoots and scoots into the sights of something else that kills it? Then you'll want "smart" scoot ai that won't let this happen. Then you'll get into "well it was a good shoot and scoot move in this instance but not in that instance". What happens when your unit shoots and scoots away, but you'd rather have had them stay and keep firing. Then you'll be screaming "no don't back away! Stay and kill them!". Support your ambushes properly and this shouldn't be too much of a problem.

-Tiger

[Banshee]

Originally posted by Tiger:

I dunno. What happens when your unit shoots and scoots into the sights of something else that kills it? Then you'll want "smart" scoot ai that won't let this happen. Then you'll get into "well it was a good shoot and scoot move in this instance but not in that instance". What happens when your unit shoots and scoots away, but you'd rather have had them stay and keep firing. Then you'll be screaming "no don't back away! Stay and kill them!".

This is called a "Straw Man" in the rhetorical world. You can distort my argument all you want, but I asked for none of the above. All I asked was for a simple command that shoots when targets come into sight and then follows a movement path after it has done so. By following your logic above if CM only had a walk command, and I asked for a run command, you would dismiss it because "then I would just want a smarter run command" if I used it wrong...

If it can't be done in CM1 then that is something (and not something you can reply to but BTS can). But the above argument is meaningless.

Originally posted by Tiger:

Support your ambushes properly and this shouldn't be too much of a problem.

-Tiger

I'm sure you know this, but not all ambushes are to hold ground. Some you use just to attrit the enemy on the way to him engaging your MLR. I would love to use vehicles like the Marder III and the M8 Greyhound to do so, but they are so vulnerable to counter fire that I simply do not purchase those type of units even if the situation calls for them.

The above command (though badly named! hehe) would add another level to the game and I think would be a powerful addition to defensive battles (allowing some of the weaker units to be more effectivley deployed). Programmatically (btw I am a programmer) I was trying to balance the logic from existing commands in the game, this command is almost a combination of Ambush and Hunt (if that makes any sense), with the Hunt logic triggering the movement path after firing.

Again this isnt a criticism of CM, merely a feature request.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[SirOscar]

I don't know, I would not call a simple order to a unit "as soon as anything crosses your field, fire and retreat" as micro managing. In fact setting up an ambush means I should make sure I make clear to the troops what I want them to do. I love the ambush command but I don't have near enough control over it. As a leader I should be able to set some basic tasks for an ambush, like "let the first unit to enter, go by, then hit the next unit" etc. Seems real basic to me and not micro management.

[Tiger]

It's not a straw man Banshee. I opine there would be problems implementing this; I gave some possibilities that I think are likely, not made up just to be negative. Maybe something like this could be done for the next CM engine/AI upgrade to where it would work well. I do not think it would in the current system; I could be wrong. Nothing wrong with discussing it on a discussion forum is there? "Ambush, shoot x number of times, then move as I've previously detailed"....seems like micromanagement to me. All this in 60 seconds.

I think would be a powerful addition to defensive battles

And I think it would be perhaps too powerful an addtion to defensive battles. You'd have to make it so it is useable both ways. If ambushed then shoot x then follow my previous set up move routine(s).

I won't say what you write is meaningless Banshee, cuz I think all discussion and input is meaningful, even if we don't agree.

Labeling someone's remarks meaningless simply implies that you won't accept anything other than your point of view, and you don't want to discuss it anymore.

-Tiger

[Chupacabra]

This is already implemented as a tacAI decision.

In a PBEM game I'm playing against Berlichtingen at the moment, I ambushed (more or less) a Churchill VII with a Tiger. Tiger took a shot, then started to reverse out of LOS.

Seems to me there's no reason to implement an order to do something which is already happening.

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

Soy super bien soy super super bien soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super

[Banshee]

Originally posted by Chupacabra:

This is already implemented as a tacAI decision.

In a PBEM game I'm playing against Berlichtingen at the moment, I ambushed (more or less) a Churchill VII with a Tiger. Tiger took a shot, then started to reverse out of LOS.

Seems to me there's no reason to implement an order to do something which is already happening.

Sure wish I could get my Marder's doing that

Is there a way to reproduce this behavior so that I can replicate it on a reliable basis. Because I have seen units back up on their own (usually Shermans getting out of the way of a Panther!) but it is hardly something I can count on. If there is a kludge or workaround that would be great.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Col Deadmarsh]

So I propose the following a new type of ambush command ("NScoot")

I like the idea of this command since I'm always in favor of more micromanagement but can we give it a different name so it doesn't sound like a gay boy band?

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Banshee]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

I like the idea of this command since I'm always in favor of more micromanagement but can we give it a different name so it doesn't sound like a gay boy band?

Doh!

Well the alternate name is now going to be the "Britney Spears" command.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[SirOscar]

Colonel

I don't know why some think this is micro management. I give a command to a squad leader or tank commander by way of runner, radio or verbal. It says "Hide in place, when the enemy enters a certain area blast it!"

So instead the order says "Hide in place, when the enemy enters a certain area blast it! Then get the HE double hockey sticks out of there!!" I just do NOT see the big difference in such a basic command and is a valid tactic for fighting withdraws.

Now maybe as some have said "let them work on CM2 and stop asking for new stuff for CM"

FINE!!! When they open a CM2 board we all can go there and post our ideas, but until then I see nothing wrong with posting valid suggestions to make a very fine game, no let me say a GREAT game, better. 'Steps off his soapbox'

[Col Deadmarsh]

SirOscar,

I would agree with you in the sense that a command like this isn't any different than telling my infantry to move to a certain spot on the map. In fact the latter, which is already in the game, is totally controlled by me. I can have any unit march to a certain spot on the map or wait 15 seconds before firing at the enemy squad in front of me and it's not called micromanagement. But when somebody asks for something like this, it's just being picky and there's too much micromanangement involved.

I look at something like this and see a way to bring out the skill factor a bit more instead of relying on the TAC AI to get you out of there when it deems necessary.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Peter White]

My personal opinion is that NScoot would be micromanagement.

I think a more appropriate order would a 'Defensive' order. "Get out of there if you are outgunned!" The net effect would be to modestly increase the probability the tacai retreats a unit when in danger.

[Banshee]

Originally posted by Peter White:

My personal opinion is that NScoot would be micromanagement.

I think a more appropriate order would a 'Defensive' order. "Get out of there if you are outgunned!" The net effect would be to modestly increase the probability the tacai retreats a unit when in danger.

Thanks for the reply!

I am just curious how this command would be anymore micromanagement vs a MOVE,RUN, AMBUSH, HIDE, or TARGET?

Also wondering if BTS is reading this?

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 01-24-2001).]

[Banshee]

Originally posted by SirOscar:

Now maybe as some have said "let them work on CM2 and stop asking for new stuff for CM"

FINE!!! When they open a CM2 board we all can go there and post our ideas, but until then I see nothing wrong with posting valid suggestions to make a very fine game, no let me say a GREAT game, better. 'Steps off his soapbox'

Thanks for weighing in, I agree, I hope BTS reads this and weighs just to see what their reaction is.. since after all it is their baby and they have the control over requests like this, the more debate on the such gives them user feedback as to wether or not it is a desireable item. So far we have a 50%-50% split over the "micromanagement" vs "I would like to have this feature".

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Sgt. Beavis]

I understand the desire behind a new command like this. However...

I think that a new command isn't needed, and perhaps the TacAI just needs to be tweaked a little. For example, let's say I have 2 M8s in an ambush position. This will be the "control," so to say. Now, there will be two possibilites in this scenario...

1) They encounter a Tiger

2) They encounter a group of German HTs, Spw 351, or whatever.

In the case of 1, the TacAI should instruct the M8s to fire a round, and then drive as fast as they can in the opposite direction. This still serves one of the purposes of an ambush, as it will slow down the advance of the enemy.

In the case of 2, the TacAI should instruct the M8s to continue firing after the first round, as there is not yet an immediate threat to their existence.

I believe that in real life most commanders of the M8s would withdraw anyway after a few rounds in situation 2, despite the apparent lack of a threat. One would not press his luck, and would probably withdraw to safety. Of course, experience and morale could affect this decision to a great extent.

I believe the AI does something similar to this. I have had some situations though where my vehicle(s) in question took more time than I think would be reasonable to withdraw. Sometimes the AI does a good job, sometimes not, but then again in real life some people did a good job, and others did not

[Guest aka PanzerLeader]

If it can be done by the TacAI, then all the better. If not, I'm certainly willing to take the failing TacAI's position and give appropriate orders myself!

[This message has been edited by aka PanzerLeader (edited 01-25-2001).]

[SirOscar]

Sgt. Beavis

I have no problem with the way the AI handles the ambush as it stands now. However there are times that I have an over all strategy and I need them to do things that I just can't give orders for now. Lets give an example.

I am on the defense against a much stronger force, the enemy has to come down a long road with woods on both sides, I need to slow them down so I can prepare stronger defenses at the end of the road. What I do is I set say 3 or 4 squads on both sides of the road 30 or 40 yds apart. I set each ambush point up the road from where the enemy is coming from. Now when the first squad sets off the ambush I do NOT want them to stay and fight, I want them retreat through the woods back to the my prepared strong point. This will achieve two things, it will slow the aggressors down and cause casualties, hopefully more to the enemy. Then when the enemy hits the next ambush point repeat. As it stands now I can't give that order to withdraw until the next turn, at which point my squad will have to suffer two rounds of fire instead of one. It may take heavy casualties, get pinned, routed etc.

It just seems such a basic order, hold until contact, lay down a covering fire and get out, it's called a fighting withdraw. Now I do NOT expect the order to be carried out no matter what, in fact this is one of the things I love about this game(and had to get used to) is the way your troops don't always carry out your orders.

What is the difference between:

1) Move to this place then hide.

2) Shoot at this place then move.

Both of these are simple sequenced orders, the problem is that in game I can issue order number one but I can't issue order number two.

[Banshee]

Originally posted by Sgt. Beavis:

I understand the desire behind a new command like this. However...

I think that a new command isn't needed, and perhaps the TacAI just needs to be tweaked a little. For example, let's say I have 2 M8s in an ambush position. This will be the "control," so to say. Now, there will be two possibilites in this scenario...

1) They encounter a Tiger

2) They encounter a group of German HTs, Spw 351, or whatever.

In the case of 1, the TacAI should instruct the M8s to fire a round, and then drive as fast as they can in the opposite direction. This still serves one of the purposes of an ambush, as it will slow down the advance of the enemy.

In the case of 2, the TacAI should instruct the M8s to continue firing after the first round, as there is not yet an immediate threat to their existence.

I believe that in real life most commanders of the M8s would withdraw anyway after a few rounds in situation 2, despite the apparent lack of a threat. One would not press his luck, and would probably withdraw to safety. Of course, experience and morale could affect this decision to a great extent.

I believe the AI does something similar to this. I have had some situations though where my vehicle(s) in question took more time than I think would be reasonable to withdraw. Sometimes the AI does a good job, sometimes not, but then again in real life some people did a good job, and others did not

Just something to add to SirOscars excellent reply to your post. It is also a failing that the AI would only backup to a "random" place. Clearly we as commanders are setting up indications where we want our troops to go (thus the move, run, sneak commands). I just think that ability to direct where a unit should go should be refined a little. I was thinking a bit more on this last night and I think the AMBUSH command could easily accomadate this change. If you have an ambush command , and add movemement orders, the movement orders wont go into effect until after the ambush has been triggered. The one ability that it would take away from (as opposed to a seperate command) is the ability to move out with an ambush point set. But (IMHO) I think it is more useful with the ability to reposition after an ambush (rather than reposition before).

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Tiger]

I'd say that it is possibly an AI tweak but not a command modification or new needed command. It seems this is an attempt to get around the command delays that are part of the system. What's really being asked for here is a scripted AI method of doing detailed unit manuevers all at once with no command delay in between.

If you're going to implement scripted-type AI commmands for ambushes you should go ahead and do them for all the various commands.

-Tiger

[Banshee]

Originally posted by Tiger:

I'd say that it is possibly an AI tweak but not a command modification or new needed command. It seems this is an attempt to get around the command delays that are part of the system. What's really being asked for here is a scripted AI method of doing detailed unit manuevers all at once with no command delay in between.

If you're going to implement scripted-type AI commmands for ambushes you should go ahead and do them for all the various commands.

-Tiger

It isnt trying to get around command delay, If the ambush is triggered before the command delay is done then the unit waits before moving (until command delay is finished).

As for the "scripted" issue, it is no more scripting than, Move here, then sneak here, then ambush this spot (all in one command,which is currently possible). All I am asking for is basically the reverse (which is more useful) Ambush here, then move there,etc.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 01-25-2001).]