"Run to mamma and get killed" bug still not fixed in v1.1 ?

[Col Deadmarsh]

Germanboy said:

Hmm, I just knew this behaviour would create more problems than it solves. The old rule again - don't put anyone in houses.

Why do you and these other knuckleheads keep using "don't hide in houses" as your defense? What if your troops are in a patch of woods? How would this differ from a house when a tank is shooting at you?

If my tank is shooting at your squad in the woods, do you want them to remain there or get out? You'd want them to move away from danger, provided that they don't run out into the open, correct?

I seriously think it's crazy to argue for BTS not to let the TAC AI get the men out of danger when they are being shot at by a tank--no matter where they are, houses, woods, etc.

Arguing for BTS to go back to an older version just because the new one has a few kinks is like arguing for the world to get rid of all computers because they can pose a security risk. The answer is to fix the problem, not to go back into the dark ages to get rid of the problem.

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

Youth is wasted on the young.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Colonel_Deadmarsh wrote:

The answer is to fix the problem, not to go back into the dark ages to get rid of the problem.

In theory, yes. In practice it will remain as it is now. Pehaps we can tweak out a very specific, and common, behavior if someone pins one down, but otherwise we are going to make no real improvements to the system as is. In theory, we could but it would take a LOT of programming and the CPU would be overtaxed. Although we think we have the best AI of any war type game out there, we also realize that there are limits to what we can do. And we have largely hit them with this kind of behavior.

So is it better now than it was before? Yes. Could it be better than it is now? Yes. Can we make it better? In theory, yes. Can we PRACTIALLY make it better? Not really.

That is the reality of things.

Steve

[Guest tero]

>This was the whole point of the gyrostablizers.

No argument there. But how extensively were they actually used during WWII ? Just because they were installed does not mean they were well liked and used in 98,99% of the cases.

>For more information, including some veteran reports from M18 tankers, use the Search to

look for "gyros" or something like that.

Will do. But can you direct me to sources outside this forum ? And how do M18 tankers experiences relate to M4 tankers experiences ?

>Not true. Soviets fired on the move for disrruptive effect, even though they had little chance of hitting anything.

By doing so they broadcasted their entrance VERY loudly. They gave away their position to enemy assets they had not seen. And that was detrimental to your health in a two man turret vehicle. It worked well on infantry terrified of tanks but for example during Winter War that tactics was a waste of ammo as they had to concestrate on loading the gun on the move more than spotting actual targets.

>Allied tankers did fire on the move, but the general method for EFFECTIVE firing was to stop and fire stationary.

How much better were they in hitting something on the move than the Soviets were ?

>The Germans had a SOP of only firing while stationary.

I am aware of this.

>Note that we did tone down accuracy for Allied vehicles firing on the move. I think that was in 1.1, but perhas it is in the yet to be released 1.12.

Looking forward to seeing that.

>This is a factor of spotting, nothing more. The same exact thing happens for the Allies.

Not in my experience. Or then there is something fishy in the sequence things are done when a target is spotted.

>But since this is a largely random/circumstantial type of a thing, you can form different opinions based on selective sampling.

Please sample an elite Stug against a regular Sherman in a hilly, wooded terrain doing the dance of death and observe both spot each other simultaneously in their flank while moving from A to B under Hunt orders.

>But I can tell you for sure that there is absolutely NOTHING that hinders the Germans in this regard any more than the Allies. So in short, I am saying your observations are flawed and that your point is not valid.

What I have seen in CM is contrary to what you say here. You say that under Hunt orders ALL AFV's act under the same rules. Yet I have seen unbuttoned elite German vehicles spot a target and still completing their assigned Hunt movement order before they attempt to engage the target. In similar circumstances rookie Allied tanks have started the engagement sequence and the only real difference I can see is the fact that the Allied tank has a stabilizer. That would indicate, at least to me, that the fact that the TacAI assumes (or factores in) the presence of a stabilizer the German vehicle without it defaults to moving when it should default to engageing the target. In other words the TC does not order "Target tank- 10o'clock-DRIVER VEER LEFT (or DRIVER HALT)-load AP-fire at will" as he should. Instead he orders "Target tank- (...no instructions to the driver....)tank stops......-10o'clock-load AP-fire at will.

My personal work around for this "feature" is to plot VERY short Hunt movements if contact is imminent. But at times even this does not work properly.

>That is why we have different orders for Move, Hunt, and Fast. You are instructing the TacAI which is more important -> firing or moving.

Which gets priority inside the Hunt order, movement or firing ?

>This assumes that it is possible to define the conditions that would logically (realistically) have a vehicle halt its movement against orders and perhaps good sense.

If I order Hunt and I do not preselect a specific target I do wish the vehicle to engage targets of opportunity more than to complete its movement. And if it stops and engages a target only to spot a new threat emerge from a different quarter I do expect the TacAI take whatever action necessary to preserve itself.

>If you want your vehicle to move around in a combat zone and stop to fire, use Hunt. It is that simple.

If only it WOULD stop the vehicles consistently. Even between waypoints.

>With the existing game engine, no. What you are asking for is some sort of SOP behavior, determined by the player and exectuted by the TacAI. That is far too complicated to implement at the moment (i.e. until we rewrite the game engine).

OK

>I am not sure I understand what you are asking for.

Sort of turning the vehicle over to TacAI command. It could (for example) move and follow way points set but at its own TacAI determined pace and route. Or in defence it could be assigned a sector and it would pick a position that the TacAI would determine to be the best.

>Using Pause, Cancel, and Hunt I see the same

behavior. So either I am missing your point or you are looking for control that is already in there.

I have seen TacAI do some pretty neat shoot and scoot antics (advance to a hull down position, loose a few rounds, perhaps blow some smoke and pull back) which I can not dublicate with the same precision. The manual Hunt move takes the vehicle too far forward, the Pause command steps are 15secs which can be way too long, there is no way to order smoke to be released AFTER firing a few HE or AP rounds and Reversing back to cover can leave the vehicle exposed. If all that was done under TacAI it would be more controlled. Say, I preselect a target currently out of LOS to the vehicle and order "Free Hunt" the TacAI would determine the most advantageous route and way to engage it and the execute accordingly. That would lessen the micro management aspect too.

[Guest Germanboy]

Originally posted by Colonel_Deadmarsh:

Germanboy said:

Why do you and these other knuckleheads keep using "don't hide in houses" as your defense? What if your troops are in a patch of woods? How would this differ from a house when a tank is shooting at you?

Woods - Houses. Hmm, yeah you are right, they appear to be the same.

Woods don't implode and are less likely to catch fire, last time I checked. BTS did a code tweak to make units leave houses because of their different characteristics, regardless of whether the unit has a poor morale state. Any other position will only be abandoned due to poor morale. So there is a wee bit of a difference.

Edit: tero is right, no good posting before I have my first coffee.

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

Andreas

Der Kessel

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

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 02-01-2001).]

[Guest tero]

Colonel_Deathmarsh

Germanboy

Guys !

I do not want to butt in on your name calling but I think the fundamental issue is leaving the positions, whereever they may be, in a fashion that is less than realistic.

I agree with Germanboy, troops should most definitively vacate the premicies if they pose a danger to life and limb of the troops.

I agree with the Colonel that the units should be a bit more intelligent in choosing the direction they haul ass.

>Any other position will only be abandoned due to poor morale. So there is a wee bit of a difference.

Not when in both cases (house vs woods) the troops are liable to commit mass suicide by running to a direction that is most definitively the wrong direction. Individuals panicing is one thing, whole units doing a chain gang escape to their death is something else.

I have personally been trapped in an overturned car with gas fumes and the possibility of the car catching fire making me panic and the only way to get out was to force myself to sit still and think. That is when I realised I had only to open the door and force it open some more to be able to squeeze myself out. Before that I had tried to kick out the windowns.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

This was the whole point of the gyrostablizers.

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

"He belongs to a race which has coloured the map red, and all he wants are the green fields of England..."

- Joe Illingworth, Yorkshire Post War Correspondent

[Dogface]

Originally posted by tero:

Before that I had tried to kick out the windowns.

doesnt work like it does in the movies huh?

[Tiger]

I have to agree with Tero about the German tanks when using hunt not stopping to engage targets, but instead they continue hunting, often rotating the turrent to a rear-wards direction as they keep going forward to engage a target instead of stopping and engaging. No idea why BTS won't acknowledge this problem. Looking forward to see what patch 1.12 will do for this.

*Tiger*

[Guest tero]

>doesnt work like it does in the movies huh?

I'll say.

But I did have one of those detached look down on yourself experiences. It was like my super ego was looking down on my id feeling sorry for the poor soul.

An other instance when life most definitively did not imitate art was in 1995 when we were digging trenches to lay in the plumbing to our house and I fell 2 meters flat on my back breaking a vertebra. I was millimeters from being paralyzed, I was hostpitalized for two weeks and I had to wear a support girder for 2 months. During that 2 months we went to see Lethal Weapon 3(?) where the heroes fall some 30 meters from the bridge on some metal containers on a ship. A few Ooohs, Aaahs and Outches, they dust themselves and carry on as nothing happened. Needless to say I felt that was a bit on the unrealistic side.