"Shoot & Scoot" vs "Hunt & Scoot" - a new order for CMAK?

[Little_Black_Devil]

I was playing some CMBB today, (TCP/IP) with a buddy of mine and it prompted some questions regarding the "Shoot and Scoot" order.

Currently, I've had mixed success with shoot and scoot myself. I don't want to complain about its overall effectiveness, but rather suggest an alternative command which I'd like to see added to the command repetiore.

To put this all into some context, I'm going to try and give you the short version of what happened in my most recent game which has prompted this.

I was playing Soviet, as my buddy was playing the Germans in a 20 Turn (fixed) Quick Battle, where the Soviets were attacking.

We were playing on a medium map, with undulating ground - and essentially, there was one piece of high ground in the centre of the map which his defensive was sited behind.

Most noted of his assets were 4 PzIIIH tanks. One of them was sited in defilade so as to cover the approach towards the bottom of the hill on his left flank. From this position, this particular tank could cover a substantial degree of low ground angling towards my end of the map.

However, the closer I got to the hill he was on - the more dead ground there was which he couldn't cover.

I chose this dead ground to push one of my armoured cars through - to see what I could see and stir the pot up more than anything.

Anyhow, I was able to decetect his tank on the side of the hill, partially behind it - but had no LOS to it at all, just sound caontacts revealing its position.

He too - knew I was there, but didn't want to move out of his defilade position and expose himself to one of my anti-tank guns that he had just recently discovered was covering his hill.

Anyhow - in an effort to get rid of my eyes and ears probbing a little to close for his comfort - he advanced his PzIIIH down the hill, and on a slight angle - in order to remain in defilade to my anti-tank gun, but increase his view of the dead ground at the base of his hill as much as possible - so as to get LOS on my scout car.

Well - he utilized the shoot and scoot order, to move his tank down, and partially around the base of the hill.

Upon execution of the shoot and scoot order, his tank easily advanced to the point where he had LOS on my scout car - which was now moving obliquely to him at top notch speed in an effort to get out of dodge.

His tank fired while on the move, 3 times - and missed all three times.

His tank continued to move, because it had yet to complete the first leg of its "shoot" order, before it could fall back and "scoot".

As such - when he did have LOS on my scout car - his tank was moving, and firing on the move - so inaccuracy was to be expected.

However - it was the tanks apparent "determination: to carry on towards its waypoint, which cost him that kill.

Had his tank stopped, or even stopped a few seconds after he spotted my scount car while enroute - he would have been able to shoot, while stationary, and would have quite likely brewed up my little scout car.

What I don't understand, is why - if the "Shoot and scoot" order is "move towards this waypoint quickly - when you get there look for a target, shoot at it, once MAYBE twice, and then fall back" - why then, enroute - the tank didn't stop.

I mean - the tank commander, is being presented with the opportunity he was ordered to create or look for - only its happening a little earlier than anticipated.

Why then, can the tank not stop upon the discovery of an enemy unit in the middle of the "shoot" portion of shoot and scoot - fire, and then fall back from this position (which is obviously short of the actual waypoint?)

What I propose is a "Contact and Scoot" order - which would be akin to sending your tank in its first "shoot/contact" leg of the order - to move to a waypoint - BUT - engage anything along the way. Most importantly - if anything along the way can be engaged, then the actual issued waypoint is eliminated, as the tank comes to a grinding halt - fires - and then pursues from its current location the "scoot" phase of its movement, as it then reverses course.

This way, you can issue this command so as to get your tank to boogie up to "point A" - engage something - and then boogie back towards "point B" - knowing, that if he runs into anything BEFORE he reaches his "shoot/contact" waypoint - that he'll stop to properly deal with it, instead of continuing to fire ineffectively on the move.

I believe that the current "shoot and scoot" order still has its place - especially as a good tool for attracting someones attention as part of some sort of feint. Its also good if you want to move a tank into a specific location to accomplish your goals (albeit briefly).

However, I believe that an order like "contact and scoot" might better suit the purpose of advancing towards a point of ground with the primary objective being the engagement of the enemy over the secondary objective of completing a leg of movement/reaching a waypoint.

Essentially their difference is intent.

"Shoot and scoot", intends the waypoint to be considered most important, leaving the engagement of the enemy as of secondary impotance.

"Contact and scoot", intends the engagement of the enemy to be of primary importance, which makes the absolute necessity to reach a waypoint very much a secondary objective.

Sorry for all the babble to spit this all out. I'm just wondering if others see merit in this, or - if there are ways to make better use of the existing shoot and scoot order - OR if I'm just making something out of nothing.

Thanks

[ August 10, 2003, 09:54 PM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]

[Michael Emrys]

I think you have a good idea, but I strongly suggest that you change the name to Hunt & Scoot as I think that better conveys the meaning of the order.

See, to my mind Contact & Scoot would be the order you would give to your scout car to advance until it spotted the enemy, and then withdraw without engaging. That, by the way, might also be a handy order to have.

Michael

[ August 10, 2003, 04:52 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[Other Means]

i've been thinking about this myself. with the "hunt" order the AFV will advance to the waypoint stopping to engage any threats it sees.

now, i've got an idea that if you give it a "hunt - reverse" order it may do what you want it to.

i.e. the reverse order will engage after it's attained a contact and before the waypoint.

i haven't got time now but i'll set up a test next week.

[Auggy]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:

I think you have a good idea, but I strongly suggest that you change the name to Hunt & Scoot as I think that better conveys the meaning of the order.

See, to my mind Contact & Scoot would be the order you would give to your scout car to advance until it spotted the enemy, and then withdraw without engaging. That, by the way, might also be a handy order to have.

Michael

I was thinking of something along those lines as well. More of a "Probe" or "Recon" move. Once the unit comes under fire, it'd fall back into the previous waypoint that would have better cover. I think this would work good if a unit is attacking from a group of trees into another one, yet does not know enemys is there/ or if where it is. So he starts out on the attack, if no contact is made, he proceeds to the trees. If he takes fire, he can run back to the previous waypoint, in a pinned status. That way he won't become routed, or seriously injured in a move that you think there's a chance of enemy coming out of the woodwork.

[Little_Black_Devil]

Hey - good points!

"Hunt & Scoot" does make more sense Michael - and I dare say is more descriptive as to the intent of the movement order.

I also think you're idea for "Contact & Scoot" (with regards to scout cars) would prove pretty handy too. Thats exactly the type of thing that would help me cut down on my recce unit losses.

I have myself, attempted in the past to use the combined orders for "hunt" and "reverse", but because they are two different movement orders, and depending on what unit they are being issued to (if it has a command element or not), I find there are longer delays myself (in executing the order).

I have also found that again, the computer is more concerned with moving your unit from "Point A" to "Point B" than it is with your intent - i.e. - engaging units as you see them, and then falling back to safety (hopefully )

In all, I find the orders "Hunt" and "Reverse" to work, but they are together rudimentary and clunky, often casusing me grief because the unit is more wrapped up in the mechanics of the game and those seperate orders (which usually has the result of leaving my ass hanging in the breeze).

The existing "Shoot & Scoot" - is in my opinion, still a usefull order.

This is apparent considering its current manifestation/performance. It will race your unit of choice to "Point A" to look for something to shoot at - give it time to look around, and possibly shoot, and then promptly move back to "Point B" once it has accomplished this. Aside from its use in creating feints (in conjunction with pauses for instance - best used towards the end of a turn), it does allow you to put a given unit on a given piece of terrain for a brief amount of time in an effort to engage any enemies it comes up against enroute or when it reaches "Point A".

Its the focus on waypoints, which I'am making use of in "Shoot & Scoot", as I can depend on the vehicle to make its waypoints - but not to engage the enemy in the manner I'am attempting to foster.

However, as an order that should promptly your unit to move towards a given position with the intent of engaging the first enemy unit it sees, and then falling back under cover - the current "shoot & scoot" order is kind of lacking, as its too wrapped up in getting your unit to the objective/waypoint - "Point A", during the first leg of the movement order.

Obviously - something akin to "Hunt & Scoot" would be more desireable to use, in order to run up your tanks to engage the enemy and fall back under cover, without the dangerous or dibilitating blind sighted determination of the computer to move your unit towards the waypoint at all coats - which inherently works against yours, the "commander's intent".

I'm curious to see if you come to some of the same conclusions Other Means, as I'm still receptive to the idea - that HOW I'am using "Shoot & Scoot" may be improper, or that HOW I have been using the "Hunt" and "Reverse" orders together simply hasn't been done in such as way so as to produce results more along the lines of what I'm looking for.

Perhaps I'm altogehter wrong, or could be doing something in a slightly better way - but I think a movment order like "Hunt & Scoot" would be very desireable for the reasons I've covered above.

Thanks again for the feedback.

[Little_Black_Devil]

Sir Augustus,

I like that too.

I'm begining to see that there could be a myriad of different offshoot orders for "Shoot & Scoot" - with their own intent attributed to each.

Some of what I think we're covering here, is a means to give an order to a unit - which best accomplishes your intent and also to partially overcome some of the mechanics of the game/orders system.

I also think that we could partially be discussing standard operating procedures (SOPs).

Now - this isn't to say that some of the "intents" we're discussing, are all "standard" operating procedures persay, for all nations armies - but rather "unit" oriented SOPs that allow the player to inject some common sense into his units on the battlefield.

Obviously - the reality is, that the tank commander, or squadron commander is going to have christened the ground for his tank or the rest of his unit respectively, communication facilities permitting. As such - I think some of these "Shoot & Scoot" offshoot ideas, are a way of fixing your "actions on contact" (SOPs) to your units in the game, through a simple movment order (or hybrid thereof).

I'm not sure if its necessarily feasible for BTS to implement all of these types of offshoot ideas of the "Shoot & Scoot" order - or if its possible to somehow modify the "Shoot & Scoot" order so it can be tailored to accomodate these different "intents".

Hmmmm, food for thought.

[ August 10, 2003, 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Little_Black_Devil ]

[Michael Emrys]

BFC have already anounced their intent to implement some form of SOP orders for the players to set, but how they intend to do this and how much will be included they have not yet revealed. Hopefully some time after the beginning of next year we will start hearing more about this.

Michael

[ August 10, 2003, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: Michael Emrys ]

[tools4fools]

The only problem with the "hunt&scoot" order I see is that using hunt the tank will engage enemy target until it is destroyed. It will not start moving after a shot or two.

Therefore it should be "contact, shoot & scoot".

The only problem I can see here is the scoot command. Let's say you order your vehicle to contact 150m ahead. Then reverse behind a building which is 120m ahaed from the tanks current position.

That means if there is a contact at 50m ahead, your tank will shoot at it and then continue moving forward to the building...

Maybe we should have an additional command which is

"contact, shoot, reverse out of LOS"

But such an order might be overused then.

Same a "contact & reverse out of LOS" for AC. Give your vehicle such an order across the whole map. As soon as it spots enemy tank it reverses. Tank got most likely no time to get a shot off. Great. But I like to PLAY this game and not have an autopilot. If I want to scout I put a move order until a point I want to peek around the corner. Then reverse order. If I screw up because before I reach that point the enemy has LOS on my vehicle (and blows it to CM heaven) I found that perfectly OK. Beceause I screwed up. I don't want the game to fix my screw up - less interesting game.

What you guys think?

Marcus

****

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by tools4fools:

I don't want the game to fix my screw up - less interesting game.

What you guys think?

I won't speak for anybody else, but what I want is for the game to replicate real world behavior in my units as closely as can be done. This includes a certain amount of common sense and self-preservation. Coding common sense is probably the hardest programming task there is, so we have to be patient on this score, but it's worth keeping the pressure on by asking for it. As long as we do it in a nice way.

Michael

[Little_Black_Devil]

Exactly Michael,

Tools for Fools, if I have explained part of this idea to suggest that there should be some facet in the game to compensate for a blunder on the players behalf - then I appologize, this isn't what I've been attempting to convey.

Like Michael, what I'm after is a reasonable means with which to give "orders" to my units so they can conduct themselves with competence on the battlefield.

As I mentioned above - modification of the "shoot & scoot" order is with the idea of injecting a little more common sense intop my tank/vehicle crews - particularly the leadership units.

Of course, this "common sense" has to be abstracted - but I think the best way to do this, is to build it into the orders system, so as to permit the flexability in orders that allow the player to in essence issue anticipatory orders.

In real life - a commander, christens the ground - which is to say, that he identifies key features of the ground ahead of himself and his unit. This is a constantly ongoing process, whereby prominent features are identified to the crew/formation. The idea behind this, is that as the commander is christening the ground, he is also telling his troops/crew what their actions upon contact will be.

Within the game - I think this type of SOP can successfully be "abstracted" by issuing these types of variation orders of "shoot & scoot" to accomodate the intent of the commander (player).

The bottom line is what equates to the appearence of more common sense on the behalf of your units in action. Well...hopefully anyways.

Upon further reflection - I think the shoot & scoot order is only an example of the type of "orders" or "orders system" I'm after.

What I think is really at the heart of these ideas - is the combination of orders to produce a specific result, which currently - isn't as flexible as it could be.

As can be seen in thie thread there are what, 3 or 4 examples of different ways to utilize "variations" of the shoot & scoot order?

Some of these are generic, and could be used for all units, where others are more unit specific. I think the shoot & scoot order stands out from al the others - and is being discussed here - because it is a two part order - a combination.

Essentially - combination orders inject some degree of flexibility into the unit - via these types of orders, with either focus on intent or specific actions (like driving to waypoints at all costs for instance).

What these orders would do - in essence, is take away some of the mechanical aspects of the current orders system, and augment them with additional, more precise/flexible orders that don't concern themsvles so much with waypoints and mechanics - but rather adpot the intent of the commander.

I think this is possible, by either adding a number of different versions of the "shoot & scoot" order, OR by providing some means for the player to create "order combinations".

I kind of liken it to playing something like "Mortal Kombat"

Right now - we can only kick and punch. I'm just asking for a few "special moves", combos and maybe a nice "fatality" or two.

The REAL question is - how practical is this for BTS to model in CMAK/CMX?

I don't know jack about coding etc. - so from a lamen's perspective, I don't have a clue as to how involved these changes might be.

Hopefully, they aren't too involved - and we might see orders like these in CMAK/CMX.

...Hopefully

[Michael Emrys]

Frankly, I don't expect to see any changes incorporated in CMAK at all as it appears to be something of a "quicky" spinoff to hold us until the big work of the engine rewrite can be accomplished. BFC has made that pretty clear in a number of their announcements.

As far as what we are asking for being "not too involved", I think that is a forlorn hope. As I stated earlier, trying to program "common sense" is one of the hardest tasks there is, because "common sense" turns out to be one of the most complicated things in the universe. It took something like 2 billion years of evolution to produce a brain that may learn some after several decades of training and experience. Don't expect relatively young and unsophisticated computers to replicate the trick overnight.

The problem is to write the program for a command that will work in many different situations. Invariably, some player will find a situation in which the command will produce aberrant behavior that was not caught during playtest. Sometimes patches can correct that, but often BFC simply runs out of time to devote to producing patches. And sometimes it becomes necessary to rewrite the whole engine from the ground up because the patches begin interferring with each other.

Michael

[Moon]

Additional to what Michael said, the task is not really made any easier by the fact that individual unit behaviour is only one part of the equation. The other part is to make a whole battle or series of battles roughly reflect what one would expect from a real world clash of companies or battalions.

The human player, given too many tools to use, would be able to have a whole regiment behave like a SWAT team, with perfectly timed attacks, split-second appearances to nail an enemy tank juuust when it turned its flank for 2 seconds fom way across the entire map, follow an artillery barrage 1 second after the last drop of a shell, and so on, and so forth. Doesn't sound like WWII to me

So we'll always need to strike a balance between "common sense" of the individual, and the big picture, even with CMX2, with real SOPs or without, with "shoot&scoot" as well as with "hunt-reverse-shoot-shoot-and-win-the-battle-for-me".

Martin

[Little_Black_Devil]

Well, I guess what both of you are saying makes sense.

Hopefully though, in one of CMs many add-ons and sequels to come - we'll see a bit more of this "common sense" injected into the game, without compromising the "reality factor" - which Moon touched on, and I wholeheartedly agree with.

Thanks for the rounded perspective and engaging discussion.

[eichenbaum]

Originally posted by Moon:

...The human player, given too many tools to use, would be able to have a whole regiment behave like a SWAT team, with perfectly timed attacks, split-second appearances to nail an enemy tank juuust when it turned its flank for 2 seconds fom way across the entire map, follow an artillery barrage 1 second after the last drop of a shell, and so on, and so forth. Doesn't sound like WWII to me ...

There's a difference between playing against the AI or against a human opponent.

I have been playing the Blitzkrieg operation against a human player by e-mail. We both were applying micro management on almost everything on the frontline. "Time planning" with seconds and "thinking over" by days. We both enjoyed this kind of warfare where the mind comes first.

On the other hand, I've been designing huge maps & battlefields of 9km2. A true blitzkrieg attack comes in huge numbers. With a 10000 unit points for 4 x 40 battles you can't fall back to micro management. This would result in months work instead of days. Such huge maps forces you to select whole company's at once an order a move. It a bit more in a General's position then an all-round field officer. However, these scenarios are made for playing human vs. AI.

[ August 11, 2003, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: eichenbaum ]

[Andrew H.]

Here's a suggestion for simulating a hunt and scoot command:

Turn one - give the tank 4 delay commands followed by a Hunt command to whatever point you want it to be at; Turn 2 - give the tank a reverse order.

Assuming that the tank doesn't have to travel very far to get a shot off, it will travel a bit, stop when it sees the enemy tank, fire a couple of shots...and then the turn will end, allowing you to give the tank a new order, such as reverse. Timing matters a lot, but if done correctly (and the tank is in command), the tank should get maybe 3 shots off before it starts reversing.

[Joachim]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

Here's a suggestion for simulating a hunt and scoot command:

Turn one - give the tank 4 delay commands followed by a Hunt command to whatever point you want it to be at; Turn 2 - give the tank a reverse order.

Assuming that the tank doesn't have to travel very far to get a shot off, it will travel a bit, stop when it sees the enemy tank, fire a couple of shots...and then the turn will end, allowing you to give the tank a new order, such as reverse. Timing matters a lot, but if done correctly (and the tank is in command), the tank should get maybe 3 shots off before it starts reversing.

That's what I do, too. But during turns borg spotting has its full effect. At the begining of your turn 2, the enemy will react to your threats.

If you crest the hill earlier in the turn and reverse during the turn, you can shoot at the flanks - without them turning around.

Gruß

Joachim

[Mr. Tittles]

How about 'Shoot'n'hide'? This would be useful for ATGs and light armor SP so that they would just take a shot, preferably at a lone unsuspeting target, and then just hide after. Might also be good for snipers, mortors (ultimate ammo saver). I would like to see this be used with a covered arc command also. So a covered arc is designated for the hiding ATG/SP/whatever. If a suitable target walks into the CA, then a shot is made and the unit goes back to hiding (covered arc is cancelled also).

I think the covered arc should be expanded to having an 'Ambush-ARC'. This is a CA that works the same as now, but disappears once an enemy unit is fired upon. I find the present covered arc to be a real pain because of its robotic nature.