Refining the Ambush command

[willmontgomery]

I've got a tank that would like to ambush an enemy tank. Some enemy infantry are going to cross the ambush point before the tank does, but I'm not particularly interested in ambushing the infantry. Just like the current Ambush command asks about using the main gun, I think it would be swell if the command asked about whether the ambush should trigger on infantry only, armor only, or both. Obviously there are more categories into which potential targets could be divided, but if BTS were to decide that this notion had merit, I would have every confidence in their decision about how many categories to use.

To anyone inclined to chant the dreaded all-purpose mantra, "Micro-management": I agree, it would give the battlefield commander an unrealistic degree of control over the actions of individual combatants. But the whole game does that; every order does that. And since the game works that way, it requires micro-management to have realistic results. I am fine if the ambushing unit (depending on quality) doesn't always do what it's told. But I'd like a way to tell it, because at present the AI will not handle this matter for me.

Note that I am not complaining about the game, just about those people who cannot keep from chiming in about micro-management every time someone asks for a finer degree of control. I frankly don't see how anyone with such a major thing about micro-management can stand to play a game where every single unit has to be told where to go -- has to be told exactly to the meter where to stand. When the game is able to support orders like, "Take your platoon up that hill, find a good position, and prepare an ambush" then we can talk about micro-management. Until then micro-management is forced upon us, so we might as well stop using it as an all-purpose mechanism to belittle the ideas of others and just make the best of it.

In the same battle, I have an AT team waiting to ambush the same tank. The same enemy infantry have already crossed the ambush point for this unit, which actually triggered the AT team to stand up from their hiding pose, although they didn't shoot. The AI is smart enough not to shoot a LATW at infantry, so why stop hiding and risk getting spotted?

I'm just throwing out ideas here. Maybe they're too hard to implement. Maybe they'll never make it far enough up the priority list ever to be implemented. Maybe they would even offer a degree of control which would cause a problem in terms of gameplay. But to anyone other than BTS who wants to claim this last: please show me the respect to make a case for your viewpoint, perhaps with an example. Don't just blow me off with a reply that says nothing more substantive than "Micro-management."

[willmontgomery]

Micro-management!

[Stixx]

ROFL.

But as the man said we already have micro-management. The game doesn't simulate "You" as a battalion comander it simulates you having Total control on Every unit.

Why not have more options to give every unit?

I'm all for all of these improvments.

[Olle Petersson]

For your specific dilemma I'd cancel the Ambush command and Hide the tank instead, until the enemy is in a favourable position to get hit...

Cheers

Olle

[willmontgomery]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Olle Petersson:

For your specific dilemma I'd cancel the Ambush command and Hide the tank instead, until the enemy is in a favourable position to get hit...

Cheers

Olle<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's what I did...we'll see how it works out.

[Michael Emrys]

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

But as the man said we already have micro-management. The game doesn't simulate "You" as a battalion comander it simulates you having Total control on Every unit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So the answer for too much micromanagement is to add more micromanagement? I've come across this argument before, and the only way I can think of for its proponents to avoid its obvious illogic is that they are blinded by being heavily prejudiced in favor of micromanagement to begin with.

But that is contrary to the spirit and philosophy that CM is based on. It seems to me that the only solution consistent with CM's purpose is to improve the AI so that it doesn't do egregiously stupid things. For instance, a lot of different problems would be solved if the AI had an instruction along the lines of: "If there is a known high-threat or high-value target in the vicinity, withhold fire on lower threat or lower value targets". Granted that might not be exactly a snap to program and debug, but something along those lines would go a long way towards answering a number of complaints. A lot of other complaints, like the hull down question should be handled in the same way.

Michael

[Banshee]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

So the answer for too much micromanagement is to add more micromanagement? I've come across this argument before, and the only way I can think of for its proponents to avoid its obvious illogic is that they are blinded by being heavily prejudiced in favor of micromanagement to begin with.

But that is contrary to the spirit and philosophy that CM is based on. It seems to me that the only solution consistent with CM's purpose is to improve the AI so that it doesn't do egregiously stupid things. For instance, a lot of different problems would be solved if the AI had an instruction along the lines of: "If there is a known high-threat or high-value target in the vicinity, withhold fire on lower threat or lower value targets". Granted that might not be exactly a snap to program and debug, but something along those lines would go a long way towards answering a number of complaints. A lot of other complaints, like the hull down question should be handled in the same way.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't agree that the better AI will preclude the need for micro-management. How do I tell the AI my strategy? I regularly use my AFV's as a screening force for my MLR, trying to seperate the enemy AFV's from the infantry . No AI in the world would know this is my strategy. Adding finer detailed commands would allow me to implement my tactics. IMHO what should be done is give finer detailed commands, but the default behavior would let the AI work it's magic.

I envision a menu system exactly as it is set up now. Small exception you would see a little arrow next to the command which would give you other options (think of Start->Programs->Accessories->etc in windows, sorry mac im not sure how it works on your systems)

Example menu item:

AMBUSH->Infantry

AFV's

TARGET-> x number of rounds

SMOKE->X number of rounds

MOVE->Until Enemy is spotted

Until Fired upon

So I could click AMBUSH and it would be the default ambush behavior, or fine tune it for Infantry or AFV's.

Too much micromanagement answer is not more micromanagement. AI deficiencies (both in game and ones where AI doesn't know your tactics (e.g. You can't "brief" the AI on what you want to do)) answer is more micromanagement. AI will never be very good (it is VERY hard to code) I have seen very few games where AI has been noteable. Plus it would be MUCH faster to write the above commands than a perfect the AI. The AI would still have to be modified to accomodate some changes (ex. A tank with Ambush->AFV command sees a zook coming within firing range might tend to break ambush command earlier, but a gun wouldnt)

Also experience level would affect how well a unit follows your commands (adding to realism). You may micromanage the heck out of your units, doesn't mean they will do it right.

I always wondered what BTS's thoughts on this type of stuff was.. maybe they will read this thread.

[ 04-10-2001: Message edited by: Banshee ]

[Gyrene]

Anyone who does not want micro-management should give up CM and go play a Strategic war game instead.

We already have micro-management in the fact that you can tell you units to run 30m, crawl 10, sneak 20 and walk 5 in the same turn. NO Battalion commander would issue orders like that, but a Squad Leader WOULD.

We all have to remember that in CM we do not assume the role of a Lt. Colonel only, but also act as Lieutenants and Sargents, and having specific orders like "Skip the infantry and shoot the tank" would be very realistic, just like the real life practice of shooting the first and last vehicle in an ambush.

The list of commands in CM is brief and to the point, it's not like we're asking to be able to issue "Shoot the NCO, then shoot the tankers sights, have lunch and run back for more ammo" orders.

There's lot of room for other useful commands to be added to CM2 and they can only add to the realism and enjoyment of the game

Gyrene

[ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: Gyrene ]

[Sig]

Hello,

I'm not *at all* a micromanagement fan (at least in CMBO), but I think the idea for specific ambush triggers is a good one. No big change, just three: "ambush only armor", "ambush only soft", "ambush all".

The big advantage would be for scenario designers who would be able to create more challenging ambushes and help the AI-guided defense to become more dangerous. Just my opinion.

Sig

[Vanir Ausf B]

Will, I'm with you all the way on this, for all the good it will do. What you are really asking for are SOPs (standard operating proceedures) ala TacOps. We're not likely to get them, but let's see what CM2 has to offer and then we can bitch

[Banshee]

Just wondering if anyone knows why the ambush command is limited to 300 meters, this may make sense for infantry, but makes no sense for armor and guns. It would make sense maybe to not give them as much of a first chance hit bonus at longer ranges, but the ability to set a point at which you want to ambush shouldnt be limited by range.

[Gyrene]

The Ambush command is limited to 300m, because, by definition and ambush is a close up/violent surprise attack, allowing little or no escape options for your opponent, ideally into another ambush.

Hard to do a ranges greater than 300 m.

You'd be better off parking your tank/gun or issuing a MOVE (NOT a Hunt command, as it will stop and shoot at the first target it spots) and issuing a target command to the vehicle you want to kill even if out of LOS. Odds are the AI will keep tracking the opposing unit an shoot at it when it has a clear shot.

Gyrene