Monster Tanks Retreating #2 And Steve's List of Why the Tac AI tells tanks to retreat

[Battlefront.com]

Tom,

Just hold on Steve

Oh, I saw that. I was just giving Redwolf another option. Some felt my first offer was a bit vindictive. I disagree, but there is more than one way to get what I feel is owed. And that is an admission that much ado was made about nothing. I don't want to see another one of these threads any time soon. Unfortunately, there is a chance this one won't turn out different than the last.

Redwolf,

If the TacAI overrides the command anyway before reaching the waypoint and retreats, what difference does it make which command it originally was?

Because, as others have pointed out, the TacAI does not override Scoot and Shoot. So yeah, it makes a difference which one you use.

What Steve said above is vague and mixes up situations where the command actually gets executed to the end and where it is not.

I don't see what is vague about it or what is mixed up. Everything is clear as a bell as far as I can see. Or do you have something specific you want to have clarified?

If there is a different probablity of the TacAI overriding the player command while executing the two different commands, then I would like to know why that is.

Simple. With Scoot and Shoot you are specifically instructing the unit to go to a position, fire at a target, and withdraw. That is the only thing you are asking the unit to do. The only thing that I can think of that would cause this order to derail is if the unit was shot at WHILE in the process of moving to the S&S location. But without testing I can't say for sure. Logically this could happen though since the TacAI is allowed to override any action, even its own, if it feels it must.

Now, with Hull Down you are leaving everything up to the TacAI after it reaches Hull Down, just like it is up to the TacAI what to do at the end of any other move order. In effect, the TacAI is not overriding anything other than poor positing by the player. It doesn't matter if you got to that hull down position by accident using Fast, for example. The fact is it doesn't like the position and might withdraw from it. Afterall, the order is "Seek Hull Down", not "Establish Hull Down and Stay There Until I Tell You Otherwise Or You Are Dead".

Misc Notes...

There is another reason the manual doesn't cover stuff like this in depth... size! We would have to ship a 3" thick manual to cover all these things in the kind of depth I am doing here. Obviously that is just not practical. Therefore, the manual is there simply to tell you the basics and give you some direction. The rest should be determinable from playing the game or, at least, talking with someone else who has played the game.

Easy on the Troll stuff. I actually thought Licensed Fool was making a joke, not a slam. At least that is the way I want to take it.

Licensed Fool,

Now at last we're getting to the nitty-gritty of this long debate! No disrespect to our Russian tank crews,but historically their level of education was not too hot,and I can't therefore see them being able to assess an enemy tanks threat capability as quickly as they do in the game.

This is not the heart of the issue. Redwolf a) thought the ISU-122 was über tank destroyers, that the TacAI was *wrong* to withdraw, and c) that vehicles in general are mishandled by the TacAI. Those were the issues I was discussing at least, along with some nonsense here and theere.

Crew Experience is a huge factor. Regular Soviet tankers are equal to Regular German tankers. The difference is their equipment. I'd rather be a Green Geman crew in a Panther with a cupola than a Regular Soviet crew in an earlier T-34/76.

The ISU-122 in Redwolf's example was Regular. They should know what they are doing. Still, perhaps they are a bit too quick to pull back SOME of the times, but the decision is still the correct one to do. And a Regular crew should be able to determine this.

In an earlier posting I presented my "credentials" that I think show I'm something of an authority on the Eastern Front 1941-45,and was called a liar by at least one immature subsequent poster.I hoped that my postings would give Battlefront and the more sensible fellow gamers some valuable and interesting feedback on how I see CMBB, but if I'm to be howled down every time,why should I bother?

Indeed. Why should you bother posting snipes with nothing to back them up with? Or tidbits that are irrelevant? Note the difference between your postings and someone like Tarqulene or PondScum's above yours. They are actually contributing to the discussion, even if they are largely offering opinions. Telling people they should read some abstract that said SS troops in France had horrible casualty rates offers nothing. Why? Because it is irrelevant to this discussion (yes, I know what you were implying, but it is still incorrect and irrelevant to this discussion).

Now, I am not saying that you are incapable of making valuable posts, just that you have pretty much done the opposite thus far. I think Dorosh put it quite elegently, for a Canadian :

Respect on the forum doesn't come from "credentials" it comes from what you post.

I could answer people's questions by saying "I have been designing games for 12 years now and have worked for the biggest game company in the world at several different senior positions. I have been studying warfare for 17 years, 4 of which were getting a degee in history. And I also codesigned CMBO and CMBB. This means I don't need to back up my answers or even have them, or my answers, be relevant. I have credentials."

Everything I said about myself above is true (except ro the last bit, obviously ). But it is in and of itself irrelevant to discussions. If I make a point or challenge someone, I have to make a convincing argument if I want my point/question to have value. My credentials might help me do that, but in and of themselves they don't mean squat.

Steve

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by General Panic:

The ISU-122 isn't likely to hit the PzKwIV with one shot, because it doesn't have the chance to bracket the target before it either retreats or gets clobbered by the tank with the faster ROF.

Obviously, it is the right thing to do to use the 27% chance of the first hit. The "investment" on your part is that you retreat 1-3 seconds later (if the ISU first starts retreating and then shoots there are only 13 seconds tdifference in my test savegame).

By retreating you don't solve the tactical problem. Somebody else will then go and kill that Pz IV now. Or you will have to move into LOS again, in which cause you could as well have shot the first time.

Thus, squeezing off a quick shot before retreating is a just a waste of ammo and the AI's behavior is correct.

No, it gets you a 27% chance of a hit with "excellent" chance to kill. That is obviously worth trying if the added danger to you is minimal.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by General Panic:

Thus, squeezing off a quick shot before retreating is a just a waste of ammo and the AI's behavior is correct.

I disagree. It is true that the ISU-122 is unlikely to hit with one shot, but the same is true of the Mk IV. The Mk IV's big advantage is its ROF. If you reduce the contest to a series of one shot engagements, you nullify the Mk IVs advantage and tip the odds in the ISU's favor because of its greater lethality on a hit.

[ December 03, 2002, 06:02 PM: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Again: If you want a tank to fire a single shot while stationary and then retreat, use Shoot & Scoot. This is what it's there for. The tool you need to do what you are asking for is there. You just have to use it. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

Again, we are talking about a case where the TacAI overwrites the player's commands anyway, before it completes the player's moves.

Do you say the shoot-and-scoot command is less likely to be overwritten by the TacAI than "seek-hulldown"? I have no indication that this is the case in CMBB.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by redwolf:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Thus, squeezing off a quick shot before retreating is a just a waste of ammo and the AI's behavior is correct.

No, it gets you a 27% chance of a hit with "excellent" chance to kill. That is obviously worth trying if the added danger to you is minimal.</font>

[Tarquelne]

Obviously the right thing for the ISU is to always wait until the first shot gets off while standing and then start doing whatever the TacAI wants.

I take issue with describing it as "obvious". AFAICanTell, while taking the shot is worthwhile, the degree to which it improves the ISU's odds of survival are not at all dramatic. You found the crew "screws up", what, 20% of the time? That doesn't seem unrealistic to me.

As for screw ups not occuring with other situations, vehicles: That is an inconsistancy, if true, but I'd rather all crews occasionally screwed up. Ie - the ISU is where they got it right, and the PzIV always knowing it's not worth it's while to attempt retreating is the problematical. (I don't know, though, what sort of training tankers received for this, how good they were at calculating such things.)

Also: Do we know that the ISU's virtual crew is really making any sort of decision? Is the digital gunner in communication with the driver/commander? It wouldn't suprise me if the ISU is always trying to fire ASAP in the tests, it's just that sometimes the driver happens to back up the ISU before the shot is taken, somtimes after. No "decision", just chance.

Thus, squeezing off a quick shot before retreating is a just a waste of ammo and the AI's behavior is correct.

I'll just note here that the above is contrary to both my experience and my calculations. But I'd really welcome more tests or different calculations. Just follow the the directions Steve gave, but also note when the ISU fires before retreating, and the results.

[Redwolf]

OK,

I am testing whether the shoot-and-scoot command will cause the ISU not to retreat before the first shot. If it does, I'll shut up forever on the issue.

I would appreciate it if people could hold comments on this specific issue of "seek-hulldown" versus "shoot-and-scoot" until I post results (or gather own results for comparision). I think this thread should be kept low on speculation and I think nobody knows for sure right now.

I also think I gave you plenty of other stuff you can jump on for a few hours

[Guest PondScum]

(Dang, he beat me to it )

[ December 03, 2002, 06:12 PM: Message edited by: PondScum ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

You found the crew "screws up", what, 20% of the time? That doesn't seem unrealistic to me.

Actually I agree, I wouldn't mind if CM had a generic model of AFV crews screwing up occasionally.

But this screwup in CMBB now is too limited to very few vehicles. To make it a useful game feature you would have to give every vehicle a chance to screw up in similar ways - and the Mk IV surely doesn't.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Again, we are talking about a case where the TacAI overwrites the player's commands anyway, before it completes the player's moves.

The misunderstanding here is that the TacAI is not overriding the player's commands. When the tank finishes its Seek Hulldown move it no longer has any orders. So it makes up its own. This is not overriding. This is the third time this has been said in the last 2 pages.

Do you say the shoot-and-scoot command is less likely to be overwritten by the TacAI than "seek-hulldown"? I have no indication that this is the case in CMBB.

Since I am not seeing either command overriden by the TacAI I can't say.

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

1. Do you now admit that the ISU-122 is a vehicle designed not as a

Tank Destroyer but as an Assault Gun (i.e. infantry support, not AT

duty)? If you say "no", please cite historical refferences to refute

Zaloga and Valera's websites (the two sources used here).

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

Yes.

Good. At least you learned more about the ISU-122 than you started off assuming you knew. Several other people learned a lot more about these vehicles too, perhaps unlearning the way other games have treated them. For example, Steel Panthers didn't simulate RoF in a meaningful way, this it probably over modeled these beasts.

As far as I understand the CM system, there is no special coding for a vehicle "you are an assault gun and now behave like one", correct? Everything the TacAI comes up with is purely based on real data, like vehicle characteristics, range and terrain, correct?

Correct. This means it is up to the player to figure out how each weapon is best used. I don't know how it could be any different than that without the player being booted from the game altogether. But don't expect the TacAI to let you suicide it. Very few crews in the real world would allow this even if their commander put them in a bad tactical situation. The TacAI is only removing unreasonable and unrealistic player control.

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

2. Do you now admit that the ISU-122 has some serious shortcomings vs.

a PzIV at short range (600m or less)? Before answering this recheck

all the various test files, including your own, and add up how many

times the ISU-122 triumphs and how many times it is defeated. If you

say "no", please show us something, ANYTHING, that shows that the

ISU-122 should not fear a PzIV at this short range.

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

It has shortcomings.

Started off good...

However the TacAI you programmed makes them worse, not better. It ruins its own chances to kill the opponent with the one shot it likely has by often wasting it by firing while retreating, or getting out of LOS without shooting at all, which obviously wasted the already invested "danger time"...

Prove it or drop it. The data in the previous thread clearly shows that this is not true. Plus, the TacAI is not programmed to be "perfect", so even if it does make the occasional bad decision... that is totally realistic.

...and opens the problem that *somebody* has to kill that Pz IV sooner or later.

Sure, but how can a dead ISU-122 acheive that? What you still don't understand is that the TacAI is trying, very hard, to give you the option of doing the right thing to kill that PzIV. The only way to do that is to live through the turn. Staying put did not offer up much hope of that.

Obviously the right thing for the ISU is to always wait until the first shot gets off while standing and then start doing whatever the TacAI wants.

This runs contrary to the data or, at best, has not been proven to be in favor of your argument. Plus, you can use the Shoot and Scoot order the next turn, and the turn after that, etc. if you want. It's not as if the TacAI saving your vehicle from a pretty good chance of death means that it no longer can perform another order for the rest of the game.

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

3. Do you now admit that there is not rampant running away problem of

"über tanks"?

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

I don't use the phrase Uebertanks for Soviets, but otherwise yes, it is not rampant running away. It is an annoying detail and I wasn't the first to notice at.

This "annoying detail" saved your ISU's ass because you incorrectly utlized it. Now that you know the ISU-122 isn't as tough as you thought, you can use better tactics. I'm sorry if you find improving your skills "annoying", but CM is not designed to coddle bad decisions.

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

Before you answer this, make sure you fully understand

and grasp the various tests conducted using various different

vehicles, ranges, and conditions. For example, my tests on Page 1, and

plenty of others after. If you answer "no" to this, please provide

files which show various problems that are inexplicable according to

what you have read here.

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

We have plenty of files of the TacAI retreating before getting the first shot off. This is not desireable to have in a tactical wargame. It is a "soft factor", as as people noted it can very well model a "screwup" on part of the crew.

Prove that the model is incorrectly behaving or drop it. You have stated, yet again, that the TacAI should be doing something that it isn't, yet I have seen no evidence to suggest that there is any grounds to make that statement.

However, while it might desireable to have crew screwups in the game mechanics in theory, in practice CMBB only has them for a very limited set of units, so far we have only seen slow-firing assault guns.

Proof of this statement? I haven't even seen this discussed thus far. I think it is bunk. The TacAI is no more or less prone to "screwing things up" for slow RoF vehicles than any other vehicle in any other situation.

If you model "crew screwup", then you would have to have the Panzer crew screw up occasionally as well. If you don't model "crew screwup", then don't ever let them do a moronic thing like shooting one second after beginning to retreat.

Obviously CM is not designed, nor capable of, making 100% of the decisions correct 100% of the time. Nor should it. Real life is all about screwing up, so too should units. The problem is that you are obsessed with this one, tiny possibility and wish to impose its lesson onto the rest of the game. You have no data nor authority to do that.

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

4. Do you now admit that there is no "bug" with the TacAI pulling back

without firing a shot? [reminder skipped]

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

You condived me that it shouldn't be labeld bug. It is an inappropriate model of soft factors. The model is inappropriate because this kind of soft factors happens for a too minited set of units.

sigh... could you please back up at least this ONE unsubstantiated claim? You do realize that everytime you make a claim that is shot down you toss up yet another one? This is called "throwing shit against a wall" Throw enough of it and hopefully some it will stick. It is a very poor way to present an argument and it, rightly so, pisses off everybody trying to conduct a rational discussion. The reason? You alone can invent unsubstantiated reasons faster than a group of people can shoot them down.

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

5. Do you now admit that the TacAI is behaving in the best interest of

the player by moving a friendly vehicle out of harm's way *before* it

is *likely* to be killed? Again, if you answer "no" please so some

sort of statistical sampling from a provided file that supports your

claim that the TacAI is robbing the player of victory.

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

No. The TacAI should always wait for the first shot to come off and then start reversing, if at all. That is in the best interest of the player.

Again, prove it. And even if you are correct (which you are not), what about ammo management? What about the crew making the wrong call? What about the "oh crap!" factor? The TacAI is not supposed to simulate your Iron Will, but instead what a reasonable crew would do in that same situation. Don't confuse the two.

We are talking about 1-3 seconds more exposure here, that is the time that would be required to wait for the shot to get off.

Again, prove it. Target aquisition and gun alignment usually takes longer than that. And as my tests showed, the 10 seconds so this takes often is enough for the PzIV to score a hit. The one shot, however, generally doesn't do squat.

Ok... well, some progress here. But unfortunately, I the patient is not cured He still refuses to grasp the central point of the previous thread... and that is he is wrong or, at best, has an issue of microscopic importance because it is hooked to this one specific circumstance.

Redwolf, you have had your chance. Either back up your new set of claims or drop it.

For the Doubting Thomases from the previous thread... do you see why I asked these questions to Redwolf?

Steve

[General Panic]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Thus, squeezing off a quick shot before retreating is a just a waste of ammo and the AI's behavior is correct.

I'll just note here that the above is contrary to both my experience and my calculations. But I'd really welcome more tests or different calculations. Just follow the the directions Steve gave, but also note when the ISU fires before retreating, and the results.</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Mike,

Opinions are not like facts - you cannot prove an opinion right or wrong,

Incorrect. Some opinions are wrong and can be proven wrong.

"I am of the opinion that President Bush is really just a big muppet controlled by John Ashcroft. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it"

Now... I could be right, but since my opinion runs contrary to generally established facts, and can in fact be disproven or proven, then the responsibility is upon me to come up with even a WEAK case to back up my opinion.

It is also possible to make an opinion that is perhaps correct, but incorrectly phrased. Further fact checking can straighten that out.

Person 1 - "The sky is blue"

Person 2 - "The sky is black you nitwit. In fact, I can't see my hand in front of my face"

Person 1 - "I was talking about where I am now. Mexico at noon on a cloudless day. What are you a moron?

Person 2 - "No, I am Finnish. ( ) Here in Lapland and it is night and dark without stars or moon. In fact I won't see sun for another couple of months"

Therefore, after closer examination both appear to be true as far as we know, but as originally presented this could not be determined. This means that initially the opinions stated weren't of much value because they lacked context.

and opininos can co-exist alongside each other, even conflicting ones, without actually requiring any argument.

They can only coexist peacefully to the degree they do not directly contradict each other:

Person 1 "This rock is redish"

Person 2 "I think that rock is more orange than red."

Person 3 "I am colorblind so it looks grey to me".

Person 4 "I think the rock is neon green"

Opinions 1, 2, and 3 appear to be capable of coexisting with each other. However, Opinion 4 is likely to be factually incorrect and therefore at complete odds with the other 3. If one is trying to present their findings to a geologist, being more or less accurate is important. Therefore Opinion 4 needs to be discarded or proven correct. No other option exists.

Alas I think that fine point has been lost by both "sides" here

Speaking for myself, I never forget this. Redwolf's "opinions" are not factually based and are at odds with things that can be proven different than he asserts. If his opinion was "I am having problems learning how to deal with the TacAI and I don't think it is me", I would not say he is wrong to hold this opinion. Instead, I would try and help him change his opinion through discussion of how the game works. "I think this game is broken" is not an opinion I am willing to let stand about.

Steve

[Redwolf]

The "scoot and shoot" command never shows the "chicken out" behaviour.

I ran 20 tests, in all of them the ISU shot and then retreated. No vehicle was killed in these 20 clashes. There had been about 6 hits on the ISU and some penetrations, but none of them killed or even shocked it (the PZ IV gun doesn't have enough overpenetration).

Using the scoot and shoot command instead of seek hulldown has an obvious disadvantage: you don't know where exactly the hulldown position is (this is why the hulldown command was introduced in first place). When I ran my test scenario with scoot and shoot I first had the scoot point too far in front.

If the scoot point is too far in front, then the vehicle will continue to that point even after it spotted the enemy, it will not stop on contact. In my runs with the test scenario where I made this mistake I got 8 tries with no kills, one dead Pz IVs, three dead ISUs. A little mistake here is deadly, if you want to go hunting in the ISU you better be precise, I guess Steve won't argue that

If you want to run my test with the seek hulldown command exchanged for shoot and shoot, then you might consider looking at this savegame, which has the endpoint of the scoot where there is a true hulldown position (figured from previous screenshots). Don't scoot too far and then complain to me the Pz IV bites you.

http://65.96.131.208/tmp/isu-no-longer-coward/isuretreat6s.cme

[ December 03, 2002, 08:02 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Licensed Fool]

Why didn't my tiny Russian 25mm flak guns crew abandon it and run like crazy when my pbem opponents Panther turned up at close range,instead of sticking with their gun for a short-lived one-sided shootout and dying in the process?

[The_Capt]

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

YES STEVE! I fully agree with you on point 6 of your TacAI posting where you say-"If there is criticism to be made about the TacAI decisions,it isn't that they're wrong...but that they are too correct.It could be that the TacAI is too smart compared to a real life crew in the same situation." Now at last we're getting to the nitty-gritty of this long debate! No disrespect to our Russian tank crews,but historically their level of education was not too hot,and I can't therefore see them being able to assess an enemy tanks threat capability as quickly as they do in the game.In an earlier posting I presented my "credentials" that I think show I'm something of an authority on the Eastern Front 1941-45,and was called a liar by at least one immature subsequent poster.I hoped that my postings would give Battlefront and the more sensible fellow gamers some valuable and interesting feedback on how I see CMBB, but if I'm to be howled down every time,why should I bother?

Heh, actually I called you a "really really bad liar" OR the worst authority uber grog, wargame expert on the Eastern Front..etc..so forth and so on.

Ok let's bring this one out because you are so much fun.

So your stance is that the Russian tank crewman was too brave to be doing what you are seeing in CMBB. You have listed some really extreme examples to support this thesis, tank ramming, Wittman hunting Cromwells etc.

So just to be straight, the idea of Russian tank crews standing firm regardless of the fact they probably will not survive, is so universally proven and accepted that BFC should make them more aggressive?

Should BFC model the TacAI "taking the wheel" and ramming even though I told them to stay put. Or perhaps my T-26s should charge en masse when I told them to try and flank..because they are so full of bloodlust of course.

I have no doubt the Russian soldier fought bravely. In fact they were noted by the Germans as being incredibly tough.

I do think however you are going to have to provide more than "credentials" (what you provided was a brief background on yourself, credentials would consist of educational degrees, published papers/book/wargames, testimonials from people who have actually used your "expertise" and the like..but of course you knew that)

Anyway, you are going to have to provide some links and some reputable studies which prove your point. Remember you are not proving it happened once, twice or even a dozen times BUT it happened so universally that BFC should remodel the game. In fact you should show that retreating under fire (we are talking behind a hill here, not off the battlefield) was in fact such an rare occurance that it was noted. Papers on Russian tank doctrine which show that crews were trained to ignore certain death would also help.

You come back here with all that and if it passes by the grogs on this forum, I am sure Steve et al will listen to you.

Until you do that, all these teenage "Well they were brave, I know they were..I just know it" is not going to get you anywhere. Why? Well first of all there are a lot of real grogs and history buffs here who will want to see proof.

And of course there are more than a few warhorses like myself that have served with tanks (Armoured Engineers..CHIMO!!) in professional militaries that know your statements are in fact total and utter crap.

The only crew I would even consider behaving like you have stated are conscripts. Because they simply wouldn't know any better. A trained proffessional crewman will not let his tank die unless there is one hell of a good reason. He will ensure he gets a chance at another shot and will do his level best to ensure his vehicle lives to fight another day. In extreme circumstances he will sacrifice his vehicle (and most likely himself) but these are very few and far between and normally are followed by posthumous MoHs/VC/Knights Crosses etc.

[The_Capt]

Damn..the dreaded double post.

[ December 03, 2002, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: The_Capt ]

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

"I am of the opinion that President Bush is really just a big muppet controlled by John Ashcroft. This is my opinion and I am entitled to it"

Thank you, Steve. For the first time in almost a year, the American political scene suddenly makes sense to me! I never realized when I began playing CM that this Forum would provide incites into day to day phenomena that trouble me deeply. You are a credit to your species.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Person 1 "This rock is redish"

Person 2 "I think that rock is more orange than red."

Person 3 "I am colorblind so it looks grey to me".

Person 4 "I think the rock is neon green"

Steve

Actually, I know the guy with opinion four; don't worry about it. He's quite right, from his perspective, but the rock will some more red-orangy to him in about 6 hours. Make sure he doesn't pick up anything more penetrattive than those round-nosed kids scissors, though.

Redwolf, we of the Peng Challenge are deeply concerned about you. You just never seem to be having any fun, lad!

You didn't, by chance, ingest the black acid that we were all warned away from?

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Seanachai:

Redwolf, we of the Peng Challenge are deeply concerned about you. You just never seem to be having any fun, lad!

But it is your fault!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

When the whole thing started in the sneaker thread I asked the peng thread what this "fun" thing is that everybody talks about - and everything I got was taunting.

You didn't, by chance, ingest the black acid that we were all warned away from?

Where can I get more and how much does it cost? Can I pay in slightly used forum postings?

[Tarquelne]

It ruins its own chances to kill the opponent with the one shot it likely has by often wasting it by firing while retreating, or getting out of LOS without shooting at all, which obviously wasted the already invested "danger time"...

Prove it or drop it. The data in the previous thread clearly shows that this is not true.

I fine redwolf 10 Tarquelne points for using the word "obviously" again.

I fine Steve 10 Tarqulne points for stateing that the "data in the previous thread etc." "clearly shows" that redwolf's "obvious" thing is incorrect.

One of the reasons the thread went on for so long, guys, is that the ISU's optimal tactic in redwolf's test is neither obvious nor clear. (And I present my tests as evidence.)

Prove that the model is incorrectly behaving or drop it. You have stated, yet again, that the TacAI should be doing something that it isn't, yet I have seen no evidence to suggest that there is any grounds to make that statement.

First - In both redowlf's posts and Steve's (or really, it's the combination of the two) it's not clear just what "incorectly behaving" refers to. Is it refering to the TacAI behaving unrealistically, or the TacAI not choosing the optimal strategy.

I _think_ that redwolf believes it's not optimal, but that it is realistic. Looking back over other posts, there isn't a whole lot of disagreement on that.

As for "proving it" (that retreating before firing isn't the optimal strategy) I point you to my 50 total trial test that DOES show that the firing then retreating is indeed the best strategy. AFAIK no one has presented any evidence to the contrary.

And, I guess I should go over this again: We KNOW the ISU isn't always doing the right thing. Once it sees the PzIV in the test it can

a) Immedietly retreat

Fire then retreat

c) Retreat and fire

d) Hold and fire.

Sometimes it does one thing, sometimes it does another. Even without knowing which of those choices is best we can be certain that the AI does indeed fail to always choose correctly, because, even given exactly the same situation sometimes it does one thing, sometimes another.

Further more, and maybe this is the important part, IIRC no one - not even redwolf - thinks this is a bad thing. Real crews don't always choose the optimal tactic. CMBB crews don't always choose the optimal tactic.

Looking at redwolf's reply again. He did, yet again, state that the TacAI isn't always doing the best thing. We know that's true, even if there's no agreement about what the "best" thing is. However, he did _not_ say "And this is a bad thing for the game." or "And this is a good thing for the game." You were probably fishing for an admission, Steve, and took redwolf's lack of one as evidence of further heresy. But - using the traditional "innocent untill proven guilty" viewpoint, you'll just have to ask for that admission directly. redwolf's, like weasels and haggis, don't always make the sound you want when you squeeze 'em hard.

Crew screwups:

Obviously CM is not designed, nor capable of, making 100% of the decisions correct 100% of the time. Nor should it. Real life is all about screwing up, so too should units. The problem is that you are obsessed with this one,

I don't think redwolf's point came accross. He doesn't think the AI behavior is wrong, but that it's inconsistent, in that a class of vehicles are showing significantly more screwups than others.

No. The TacAI should always wait for the first shot to come off and then start reversing, if at all. That is in the best interest of the player.

Again, prove it. And even if you are correct (which you are not), what about ammo management?

GUYS! redwolf is trying to move on, and both of you really should. The data for what the optimal strategy is not only inconclusive (look at the tests again, fellows!) but it DOESN'T MATTER. "Not a bug." That's an admission of error on the main issue, the "clear" and "obvious" one. redwolf has moved on to arguing that this behavior, while realistic, is inconsistent with the rest of the TacAI.

What about the crew making the wrong call? What about the "oh crap!" factor? The TacAI is not supposed to simulate your Iron Will, but instead what a reasonable crew would do in that same situation. Don't confuse the two.

Right! _That's_ where, IMO, you can still (de?)constructively argue.

Ok... well, some progress here. But unfortunately, I the patient is not cured He still refuses to grasp the central point of the previous thread...

Which is...? Steve, you - possibly even more so than redwolf, keep writing as if the previous thread clearly and obviously _proved_ something about what the best tactic for the ISU is. Prove it! 'cause I just don't see any such proof.

For the Doubting Thomases from the previous thread... do you see why I asked these questions to Redwolf?

Yes.

I believe, though, that at this point you two aren't capable of discussing some of these issues without Bogging. redwolf has admitted, either tacitly or explictly, that he's been wrong on a number of points. However, from my POV there's some difficutly currently in seperating those issues from the current concerns. In the interests of preventing Immobilization, I suggest wwe focus on the Now.

I can't see the "inconsistent screw ups" thing lasting very long, and maybe after it we can have a clam bake and redwolf-penance party.

[ December 03, 2002, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Licensed Fool]

CMBB isn't bugged regarding the AFV-retreat thing, it's just that Steve and his colleagues gave the crews AI an over-developed sense of self preservation,its as simple as that, just as Steve himself half-admitted! Other members besides myself therefore feel a tweak is needed to set things right. In all my years of studying WW2 armoured warfare I've never come across any consistent examples of AFVs slamming into reverse as often as they do in CMBB.I know this is a new game so I can only assume that you've pedestalised it to such an extent that you can't or won't acknowledge it may have a foible or two,and that people like me are blasphemous heretics! I've been playing tac-level East Front boardgames for 30 years for heavens sake,and know the subject inside out! Perhaps thats what my immature critics can't handle? No wonder Vet Gamer and Scatterbrain Kid turned their backs on this baying kindergarten and walked out in disgust.Hey guys wait for me..!

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

CMBB isn't bugged regarding the AFV-retreat thing, it's just that Steve and his colleagues gave the crews AI an over-developed sense of self preservation,its as simple as that, just as Steve himself half-admitted! Other members besides myself therefore feel a tweak is needed to set things right. In all my years of studying WW2 armoured warfare I've never come across any consistent examples of AFVs slamming into reverse as often as they do in CMBB.I know this is a new game so I can only assume that you've pedestalised it to such an extent that you can't or won't acknowledge it may have a foible or two,and that people like me are blasphemous heretics! I've been playing tac-level East Front boardgames for 30 years for heavens sake,and know the subject inside out! Perhaps thats what my immature critics can't handle? No wonder Vet Gamer and Scatterbrain Kid turned their backs on this baying kindergarten and walked out in disgust.Hey guys wait for me..!

Wow, thanks for those historical examples - the handwriting in the Russian tanker's journal was a bit hard to read, but I especially liked the part about "I know I am right dammit and the fact that I studied this for 30 years makes me smarter than you." I can't wait to read your published works.

As for Seanachai - heehee, you said "inciteful" instead of "insightful" but I think you were exactly right!

[Tarquelne]

Not wanting to get left behind, I'll jump on the band wagon too.

just as Steve himself half-admitted!

I take it that we should read "half-admitted" as "well, actually, didn't admit."?

[Panzer Leader]

Liscensed Fool:

1.) The average age group of this game (based on two unofficial but very thourough polls) is around 34, which means a great deal of the members are above that age and most of us show a certain level of maturity.

2.) Many of us cut our teeth on the old board-wargames of the past, in fact I would bet that your own "citations" are pretty much the norm around here.

3.) I can name 3-4 members who are published authors on the minutia of military history and groggishness. We are not all amateurs.

4.) Unsubstantiated genalizations and stero-typical claims such as "The Russians were uneducated!" or "They had hearts of stone!" are the worst thing for a serious student of warfare, or well, really anything. If you have a claim to make, either back it up with evidence or fact, or please keep your prejudices to yourself.

Now I, or I'm sure everyone here, has little against you, other than being put-off by your brusque tone and air of foppishness, so I would like to welcome you to this forum and give you some friendly advice: Please stop talking out of your ass.

Thanx!

[Tarquelne]

Either action is logically defensible.

Hey! I agree 100% with this post. I'm so happy.

Also - I'm spending far more time here than I'd really like. I've learned as much as a care to (and, I suspect, can) on this issue. And I've had my say, at appalling length, so I'm buggering off.

(BTW - I hereby freely admit that what I said might be incorrect, and if you can demonstrate this, you have my thanks. OTOH, consider me to be making complicated and obscene gestures while shouting "Get a life" in the direction of anyone saying "That's not fair, you're not giving me a chance to argue with you.", "Can't stand the heat, huh?", or something similar.)