Panzer76 Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Ok, played a TCP game today, had 3 Archers lined up on a hill waiting for the gerries. And sure enough, one PzIV popped up and started shooting, all 3 Archers targeted him and a duel ensued, range approx 1.2 km, good range for the german but with 3 vs 1 in odds I was pretty confident in victory. What I didnt count on was that some of my Archers started running away?! The PzIV (it was also IDed as such) was a Reg and my 3 Archers was Regs. 1 died pretty fast, one tried to run away and one stod fast trading shots. End of story, 2 KOed Archers, 1 ran away after reciving a penetration. So, why on earth does a Archer (unhurt) run away when it targets a Tank which it has excellent odds of destroying it. I mean, I could have understtod it if the axis tank had excellent and mine had Low or something like that, but the 17 punder would have sliced through that baby. So, instead of concentrated fire from 3 TDs, it just fizzled away almost making it 1 vs 1 engagements 3 times in a row. Whats the logic behind a TD running away from it's prey? Huh? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 You called? Retreating monster tanks revealed! You had it facing the right way, did you? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dugfromthearth Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 allied tank destroyers doctrine was shoot and scoot, not trade shots with enemy tanks. so it was technically following doctrine if not what you wanted it to do. You might test the situation with different qualities of crew - green, veteran, elite, etc - and see if that makes a difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Salkin Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Panzer...try setting a cover arc. It MIGHT help. I'm not sure though... //Salkin 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 This remnds me of that old (and greatly chewed-on) bone of contention over retreating IS-2s in CMBB. I've found that pretty much any vehicle will retreat when faced with a gun that can hole it. The thin-skinned vehicles seem more likely to retreat than others for this reason. An Archer's only got 20mm upper hull armor, less than half the armor of a Staghound turret front. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted December 18, 2003 Author Share Posted December 18, 2003 Oh yes, it was facing the right way AND had armour cover arcs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted December 18, 2003 Author Share Posted December 18, 2003 Originally posted by dugfromthearth: so it was technically following doctrine if not what you wanted it to do. Hehe, dont over estimate the TacAI They arent programmed to follow any kind of national doctrine. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phil stanbridge Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 I did actually notice this in a battle myself, (one in particular) I had at least a dozen smallish early war tanks targetting a couple of PZIV's. My tanks were definitely capable of ruining Fritz's day in force - but all of them decided to reverse out of harms way. Within a few turns four of my fellas were burning and the rest were equally useless deciding not to venture out into the firing line no matter what I asked them to do. I didn't honestly notice this in CMBB to the same degree. Its a tricky one, because you would of thought that 12 against 2 is good odds, and even if you were to get a few ricochets it *might* be enough for gun damage or crew disablement. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasJeff Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 I would say that is pretty life like. How does each tank know that there are a dozen of them instead of just his one small tank against 2 larger ones? Now if they have a flank shot or the IV's are shooting at someone else, you would hope they would engage. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 In this case, each individual archer reacts with it's timid little archer tac-AI, unaware that together with its archer friends it gets 3-1 odds and its surivivability is much higher than if it were alone. That's why CM needs an "!" with which you can tag orders. This would increase the chance of the unit doing like you tell it to. It amounts to the commander shouting at the archer crews 'you will stand your ground and fight' or somesuch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Originally posted by TexasJeff: I would say that is pretty life like. I wouldn't. Just because you can picture someone doing one of the TacAIs many bizarre blunders, doesn't make it a feature or triumph of the code. It just shows that life is stranger than fiction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted December 18, 2003 Author Share Posted December 18, 2003 Originally posted by TexasJeff: I would say that is pretty life like. How does each tank know that there are a dozen of them instead of just his one small tank against 2 larger ones? Because they are 3 m apart maybe? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 "That's why CM needs an "!" with which you can tag orders. " That's an interesting suggestion! Sort of a "You ordered me to do this so you suffer the consequences" command. Maybe losses suffered while under "!" commands would be twice as costly point-wise? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
btm Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 Bump! Having encountered the same thing, I'm interested in hearing what the official position is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 It's an interesting suggestion, but we've got to realize the chance on a 0-to-100 scale of BFC ever putting a new command into CMAK is approximately -.0032. Maybe, if this topic is at all applicable to the new game engine (it may not be), they'll consider a 'strict orders' modifier. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted December 18, 2003 Share Posted December 18, 2003 The armor of the shooter doesn't matter, otherwise all thin TDs would be useless in CM. In the CMBB flamefest the excuse was that the ISU-122 has too slow rate of fire and is hence retreating from the faster shooter (the bug being that it retreats before the first shot). So what is the excuse this time for the Archer that doesn't apply to Nashorn or Marder? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted December 19, 2003 Author Share Posted December 19, 2003 Originally posted by redwolf: In the CMBB flamefest the excuse was that the ISU-122 has too slow rate of fire and is hence retreating from the faster shooter (the bug being that it retreats before the first shot). Ah yes, I have seen many a time the Hetzer (with his slow ROF) backing off from a firefight with allied armour. Oh wait, no I havent, not once.. hmm... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 What's being simulated, wether by design or error is that if you and two other Archer friends face a PzIV, you'd always think the PzIV was there to kill YOU. That's human nature for you. No weighing up the odds, only:'Oh, ****, oh ****, that tanks going to kill me!' You'd never stop to think that it might nail the other guy instead. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Maybe the best way to use units like the Archer is to do a little shoot & scoot. Maybe they'll stick around long enough to get off a round if they know they already have orders to retreat. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Originally posted by Treeburst155: Maybe the best way to use units like the Archer is to do a little shoot & scoot. Maybe they'll stick around long enough to get off a round if they know they already have orders to retreat. Has anybody actually tried this? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Treeburst155: Maybe the best way to use units like the Archer is to do a little shoot & scoot. Maybe they'll stick around long enough to get off a round if they know they already have orders to retreat. Has anybody actually tried this? Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Originally posted by Gordon: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Treeburst155: Maybe the best way to use units like the Archer is to do a little shoot & scoot. Maybe they'll stick around long enough to get off a round if they know they already have orders to retreat. Has anybody actually tried this? Michael </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Originally posted by MikeyD: "That's why CM needs an "!" with which you can tag orders. " That's an interesting suggestion! Sort of a "You ordered me to do this so you suffer the consequences" command. Maybe losses suffered while under "!" commands would be twice as costly point-wise? Or morale penalties for other friendly unit in range would be applied - to simulate the troops not liking what they are seeing... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Originally posted by Gordon: Seek hull down, shoot and scoot, etc., will all result in your Archers moving to the designated point normally, and they're dead meat. You can only use them from an established ambush position and hope that they kill their target before they get cold feet (tracks?). BFC didn't think of that and allow for shoot n scoot etc to be executed in reverse? (at least for archers) Jeez what a clunky piece of code. It would have been better to leave the archer out altogether. [ December 19, 2003, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted December 19, 2003 Share Posted December 19, 2003 Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD: "That's why CM needs an "!" with which you can tag orders. " That's an interesting suggestion! Sort of a "You ordered me to do this so you suffer the consequences" command. Maybe losses suffered while under "!" commands would be twice as costly point-wise? Or morale penalties for other friendly unit in range would be applied - to simulate the troops not liking what they are seeing... </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.