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

[thewood]

I am addicted to this thread just like the sneaking thread. This one is a great sequel. I am wiating to see what "bug" Redwolf finds next. It's been like drinkin' bad whiskey; it makes me feel great and terrible at the same time.

Seriously, anyone attempting to pass judgement on Steve's responses here should look at the sneaking thread, which seems to have finally died. It's also interesting to note that some of the people from these two threads are using similar tactics in other threads.

The sneaking thread is interesting because of the paralles to this thread in types of comments and participants. Redwolf started out making generalizations and Steve's reaction was to ask someone to give some hard evidence that justified touching the code. The responses to Steve were generally not caustic, but, IMO, completely superficisl, repetitive, and disrespectful.

I think Steve used this thread to try to put in place some individuals who have a tendency to declare the sky is falling when something happens against their expectations. We saw similar, but usually less antagonistic, threads regarding MG effectiveness and armor penetrations in the CMBO forums. In CMBO, guys like JasonC brought numbers ad nauseum to bolster their view. IIRC, BFC made some adjustments in patches and incorporated more in CMBB because of the discussions. If anyone wants to see how to get BFC to "tweak" CM, go back to those threads and learn.

No one should forget that Steve is THE resident expert on CMBB. Making "tweaks" should never be done lightly. Without hard and repeatable evidence, I hope that BFC would not make changes. It is all well and good to have an opinion, but once Steve lays out his reasoning and what tests need to run to counter that reasoning, it is the complainer's responsibility to bring the evidence to the table. Repeating the complaint or throwing smoke in front of it will only get BFC in an uproar, as evidenced here.

Also, think about the approach you take to presenting the issue. If you are at a party with your baby and a friend walks up and says your baby's ears make him look really ugly, you may say that some people like ears like that. Now that friend follows you around your house for the next four hours telling you and everyone else how ugly the ears make your baby. This is what Steve has had to listen to for the last 500 posts between this and the sneaking thread.

I don't prestend to be a BFC spokesman, but I felt it was time to step up and try to show certain people that they can have an opinion, express it, and get a satisfactory answer. The difference is how you present your information and then what you do with the response.

[ December 03, 2002, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: thewood ]

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

No wonder Vet Gamer and Scatterbrain Kid turned their backs on this baying kindergarten and walked out in disgust.Hey guys wait for me..!

Let's report this guy to the FBI, he's so anti-BFC.

[Guest Mike]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Mike,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Opinions are not like facts - you cannot prove an opinion right or wrong,

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

</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Silvio Manuel:

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

No wonder Vet Gamer and Scatterbrain Kid turned their backs on this baying kindergarten and walked out in disgust.Hey guys wait for me..!

Let's report this guy to the FBI, he's so anti-BFC.

How many times is Maximus going to show up here, anyway?

thewood stated very well what is going on - and used a great analogy to boot. A post worthy of framing.

[thewood]

Was it an analogy or a metaphor? I just had to say something to satisfy my addiction and bump this. I hope they never expand the number of posts allowed. I would never leave this thread.

[ December 03, 2002, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: thewood ]

[Mikeydz]

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?

I think one of the problems with Redwolf is evident in the quotes above.. Why does the Tac-AI "always" have to wait for the 1st shot. Time and time again, Redwolf makes these broad claims. It's almost like he lives in a black and white world where somethihg should always happen, or should never happen. But CM is awash in grey. It's been pretty well established IMHO, that the ISU isn't going to fare well on average in his scenario file, but in CM, there are 4 different observed results. Retreat with no fire, fire then retreat, fire while retreating, and stand and fight. And with the random factors, you as a player really don't know quite what's going to happen. Now redwolf and BFC can debate what the "optimal" tactic would be all day long, but if I had to choose between Redwolfs set-in-stone programed response vs. the Tac-Ai variable response, I'll choose the Tac-AI every time.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

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..!

For the record, I believe that Scatterbrain Kid left because there were too many "pinkos" on the forum; I'm not sure what reason Vet Gamer had - but neither of them left for any groggy reason.

You may have a vast knowledge of WWII armored combat - but you haven't shown any of it to anyone, which is why people are reacting so skeptically. I've played squad leader for 20 years (not so much recently, though), and it told me nothing about shatter gap or imperfectly quenched armor. I played Tobruk, but it didn't explain anything about the DeMarre equation.

I am sure - absolutely sure - that if you produced any sort of historical evidence recounting a duel between an ISU 122 and a Pz IV at 500 meters, people would be highly interested in what happened. But just saying that it seems wrong because it's inconsistent with what seemed to happen in other games isn't any kind of evidence at all...particularly when those games are board games; I mean, the Tac AI in SL was kind of brain dead - I never once saw a counter move on its own.

I don't know as much about the Eastern Front as I know about the Western Front - but on the Western Front, tankers were *constantly* reversing out of contact when they were outmatched. I see no reason to believe that tankers on the east front were any different.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andrew Hedges:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

No wonder Vet Gamer and Scatterbrain Kid turned their backs

For the record, I believe that Scatterbrain Kid left because there were too many "pinkos" on the forum; I'm not sure what reason Vet Gamer had - but neither of them left for any groggy reason..</font>

[Redwolf]

[double post]

[ December 03, 2002, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Mikeydz:

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

I think one of the problems with Redwolf is evident in the quotes above.. Why does the Tac-AI "always" have to wait for the 1st shot. Time and time again, Redwolf makes these broad claims. It's almost like he lives in a black and white world where somethihg should always happen, or should never happen. But CM is awash in grey. It's been pretty well established IMHO, that the ISU isn't going to fare well on average in his scenario file, but in CM, there are 4 different observed results. Retreat with no fire, fire then retreat, fire while retreating, and stand and fight. And with the random factors, you as a player really don't know quite what's going to happen. Now redwolf and BFC can debate what the "optimal" tactic would be all day long, but if I had to choose between Redwolfs set-in-stone programed response vs. the Tac-Ai variable response, I'll choose the Tac-AI every time.</font>

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by Tarqulene:

This would be the thing to try to prove. Problem one here might be deciding which vehicles in CMBB, if any, would be in the same "class" as the ISU. We need a vehicle with very similar armor (not just thickness), slow ROF, and a big gun with very similar characteristics (accuracy, penetration, etc.) to the ISU. Does such a vehicle exist in CMBB? If so, identical tests should be run with this AFV and the vehicle in question. The tests should be run hundreds of times too.

EDIT: On second thought, what would this prove? Suppose the two vehicles showed the same behavior? That just tells us that the ISU behaves like similar vehicles.

If the tests show different behaviour, what have we proved? We've proved nothing, but we've opened up some doubt as to which vehicle is exhibiting the "proper" behaviour for its "class".

Treeburst155 out.

[ December 03, 2002, 11:34 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Andrew, do you seriously doubt we are talking about more than one person here? LF/VG/SK all refer to one another as if no one else on the forum exists....2+2=??

Hmm...and they're all...from...England. DOH!!

thewood: I think your comparison is a simile because it's a comparison using "like" or "as." A metaphor would be, "This thread is bad whiskey..."

I think that all similes and all metaphors are analogies.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Mikeydz:

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

I think one of the problems with Redwolf is evident in the quotes above.. Why does the Tac-AI "always" have to wait for the 1st shot. Time and time again, Redwolf makes these broad claims. It's almost like he lives in a black and white world where somethihg should always happen, or should never happen. But CM is awash in grey. It's been pretty well established IMHO, that the ISU isn't going to fare well on average in his scenario file, but in CM, there are 4 different observed results. Retreat with no fire, fire then retreat, fire while retreating, and stand and fight. And with the random factors, you as a player really don't know quite what's going to happen. Now redwolf and BFC can debate what the "optimal" tactic would be all day long, but if I had to choose between Redwolfs set-in-stone programed response vs. the Tac-Ai variable response, I'll choose the Tac-AI every time.</font>

[Treeburst155]

The fact that the ISU, and maybe its' "class" behave differently in a situation than a PzIV means nothing. We cannot say one "class" of vehicles exhibits bad TacAI behaviour by comparing that behaviour to another class of vehicles.

EDIT: Inconsistent TacAI behaviour from vehicle class to vehicle class is to be expected. Inconsistent behaviour among vehicles of very similar characteristics (the same class) might mean something.

Treeburst155 out.

[ December 03, 2002, 11:53 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Battlefront.com]

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

Because no gun crew runs away in panic unless it is already being shot at (and almost always has taken a casualty or more). This is a limitation of heavy weapons crew coding held over from the early days of CMBO Alpha. We were trying to avoid the (then) infamous Steel Panthers problem of remanning guns. Unfortunately we went a bit overboard and couldn't change it by the time we figured that out.

Tarqulene,

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.

Damn you! Of course you are right The thing is that the onus is upon Redwolf to prove that the game is functioning incorrectly in a specific way, not for us to prove that it is working correctly. So my challenge should just have been "state your case, back it up, and let the jury decide. Or, walk away".

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.

I started to retest this using my suggested methodology prior to dinner tonight. I stopped at 12 tests. The results for one turn were as follows:

9 x Retreat without firing shot or being shot at

Survival rate = 100% for both sides

2 x Retreat after firing one shot and shot at one time

Survial rate = 100% for both sides

1 x Retreat while firing first (and only shot)

Survival rate = 100% for both sides

So through my limited testing, I think the only thing that can be conlcuded is that retreating means the vehicle survives. Doesn't matter what kind of retreating.

Just more food for thought

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.

Problem is that nobody has done tests to show this. In the examples from Page 1 of the 2nd thread I did another test with the ISU in a different position. It did rather well. Same vehicle "class", no problems. I must have missed the other comprehensive tests that show that the ISU type vehicle is being unfairly punished compared to other vehicles of different classes. Unless, of course, you mean that higher RoF vehicles don't necessarily behave the same way. But that is a deadend argument because the difference is based on logic that has not been proven incorrect. Therefore, the treatment MIGHT be different, but not "unfair".

GUYS! redwolf is trying to move on, and both of you really should.

He can't move on if he introduces a new charge, which apparently is that the ISU type vehicle is singled out for incorrect TacAI behavior.

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.

I agree. But he still is hanging onto SOMETHING to "prove", to himself at least, that all his arguing was somehow justified. In his admission he introduced at least one new(ish) line of reasoning that still claims the TacAI is not behaving right. As you pointed out, it is difficult to know exactly what Redwolf expects it to do, as his statements do appear to condradict one another.

[edit] but it looks like Redwolf has dropped this last objection to the TacAI?

Steve

[ December 03, 2002, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Tarqulene:

This would be the thing to try to prove. Problem one here might be deciding which vehicles in CMBB, if any, would be in the same "class" as the ISU. We need a vehicle with very similar armor (not just thickness), slow ROF, and a big gun with very similar characteristics (accuracy, penetration, etc.) to the ISU.</font>

I was fiddling with the idea to put a Nashorn against a BT-5 or a similar high-ROF small-gun shooter at 500m. Looks pretty much like the pair we have here with regards to "preferred" range, kill chance of SP change on tank and ROF relative to each other. Only the kill chance back to the Nashorn is better.

I prefer to stay out of such tests now, but it would be interesting to know.

If somebody actually wants to run such a test, please keep in mind that it was pretty hard to reproduce the retreating ISU-122 to start from. It didn't work at all in an isolated test scenario, there it just stayed in hulldown and shot several Pz IV up. I had to come up with the re-imported actual map to show the autoretreat. As Steve says, the situations are much more complex than distance and hulldown yes/no.

[ December 03, 2002, 11:57 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Emrys is drunk again.

[ December 04, 2002, 02:08 AM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Seanachai]

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..!

I wandered in because I, as a member of the Cesspool, was deeply concerned about redwolf and whether he was having fun or not.

Of course, there was also that element of checking to see if everything I was hearing in other places was true, and whether you are, in fact, a gibbering, opinionated, arrogant, piss-artist who'd rather gabble about how 'others simply don't realize my genius' than actually contribute anything new, interesting, or even 'on target' to a discussion.

I have to say, as a simple, fore-lock pulling peasant who hesitates to intrude on the discussions of his betters, that you seem like a puffed-up, clueless f'ing git.

And not an interesting puffed-up, clueless f'ing git.

No.

You seem far longer on posturing and public displays of some supposed 'Grog Knowledge' than on actual contributions.

You also seem big on flinging off tangents of 'let me mention something that doesn't apply here' and 'ooh, look, you're failing to acknowledge my obvious failure to contribute'.

I think you're a bloody humbug, and that your 'credentials' are nothing more than so much ****e.

Spelled S-H-I-T-E.

Personally, I think you're enjoying posturing, pissing about, and behaving like people should treat you with a certain respect, when you're nothing more than an annoying bead merchant who's aggressively waving your privates in everyone else's face, and hoping that no one notices and comments comprehensively on how 'small' your contribution is.

But then, I'm just a Cesspooler. Although I like to think that I recognize an annoying, posturing humbug when I see one.

[Battlefront.com]

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!

Nope, that is nothing at all what I said. I said that if anything the TacAI does the right thing too quickly. Meaning it should still pull back, but that perhaps it does it too fast. Different thing, and perhaps only related to Regular crews. The simple truth is I don't know. Each situation is unique so what is perhaps too fast here is not fast enough in another situation. I just lost a StuG today because it was not, IMHO, fast enough figuring out that it was in trouble. Tweak things and it could be made worse.

Other members besides myself...

Whoa there... you're only a Junior Memeber

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.

That must be because the books you read say that all Soviet tank crews were crap and that they never retreated in battle. Or some such thing. Personally, I don't think American Heritage's "World War Two" book is a good to get a deep understanding of the Eastern Front.

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!

Not at all. People who post like children (hint... you) are treated as such. You present no evidence only halfbaked and factually questionable statements. And we are supposed to do what with such tripe?

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?

Well, if your critics are immature, you must be still born or somefink I've seen 14 year olds on this forum that have conducted themselves with more maturity, dignity, and learned observations than you have thus far.

No wonder Vet Gamer and Scatterbrain Kid turned their backs on this baying kindergarten and walked out in disgust.Hey guys wait for me..!

You remind me of a "master chess player" who goes to his first Chess Tourny. He sits down opposite his first player and proceedes to tell his oponant how great he is.

When the game starts this great player moves his Pawn (which he calls a Prawn) ahead and takes out the other guy's Pawn. The opponant is too shocked to say anything.

The newbie/master says "now I get another turn! HAHAHA!! I'll take my Horsey and... lets see... move him into this tray here so you can't get him."

"WHAT THE HECK ARE YOU DOING?!?!" The shocked opponant yells

"I am exercising the Scotty Beam Up Option. Duh! Don't you know anything? I've been playing Chess for 30 years, so I know this inside and out. And you buddy... you obviously don't know squat! Plus, you are a big meanie to boot for yelling at me like that. In fact, I am leaving now. I declare myself winner and you can just kiss my butt. PHHHHHHTHTHTHTHTHTH!"

I've seen this all too frequently here. People who couldn't argue their way out of a paper bag describe anybody with enough braincells to eek out even a single critical thought as some sort of intellectual nemisis. I also note that they never address concrete issues, just keep thumpping their chests and saying how great they are.

Licenesed Fool... if you are truely out of here, I thank you and the Forum thanks you. You have shown yourself to be nothing but a laughable distraction.

Oh... and I also applied to be a Licensed Fool. My application got turned down. Apparently one has to be a REAL fool to get such a License. I should have figured.

Steve

P.S. Speaking of Licensed Fool types... who here remembers the German reenactor who knew "everything" about German infantry but thought MG42s in Squads always had tripods and there was no such thing as Volksgrenadiers because Davis' Handbook on German Forces didn't mention them? This was the same book he told me that I should read so I could "learn something" Then he confused Volksgrenadiers with Volkssturm and really got the crowd going And yes, I have a copy of Davis' book and found it a good third source of info. Too many mistakes and holes to be more than that. Still, some good info in there if you know what to discard or adjust for.

[ December 04, 2002, 12:23 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Treeburst155]

Redwolf,

So you're saying the situation is difficult to reproduce; but happens often enough in-game for it to be an issue. Hmmmm...

I recently had a Russian AA gun fire at a StuG while the gun was pointed up at a plane overhead. Not until several rounds hit the StuG did the gun lower to aim at it. This would be very difficult to reproduce. It also won't happen very often.

If I can reproduce the ISU behaviour discussed in these threads with my own scenario, I will then try different (but very similar) vehicles in the exact same situation. I will test hundreds of times too.

If I can't reproduce the questionable ISU behaviour after seriously trying to do so, I will treat it like the AA gun example above. IOW, nothing worth spending more time on.

Treeburst155 out.

[Guest PondScum]

Seanachai, you garrulous fool, stop bothering the natives and get back in the 'pool before you get banned.

Oh, and sending a turn wouldn't hurt either.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled bitch-fest.

[OGSF]

Ah haid a tank thing retreat once....as that bad? Noo, wait a minute....tha were a "shoot an' scoot".

Ne'er meend.

[Battlefront.com]

A preemptive strike against the usual one or two people that find fault with me losing my civility towards someone who has clearly "asked for it".

A society, even a virtual such as this Forum, needs to have certain social controls in place to deal with those who abuse and misuse the privilege of being a part of that society. Yes, I say privilege. This might be an open forum to any age, sex, nationality, race, religion, or political belief, but that does not mean "anything goes".

If someone can not abide by rather simple rules, which the majority of this Forum agree are acceptable, then that person should modify his/her behavior or leave. One way or another. The problem is that some of these abusers do not wish to leave, like Gunny Bunny, I Got Milk, Username, Maximus (and his other multiple personalities), etc. That only leaves us two options:

Ridicule them, within reason, so that the either improve their behavior or go away.

Ban them, which obviously does not give the person a second (or third, or forth, etc.) chance to wise up.

Licensed Fool was one that was so waaaaaaaaaaay out there that one could only laugh at him after it became crystal clear what he was all about. Or I could have banned him I suppose. However, I like to save that as a last resort.

I think society in general is too skittish to punish, even mildly, unsociable behavior in any meaningful way. That only compounds society's problems. I can't cure the world, but I do have a say in how things work here.

And anybody that isn't an ass doesn't have a thing to worry about

Steve

[xerxes]

I just finished a turn in which I had two vet Nashorns, hull down, just out of the Soviet field of view. In strolls one those BT 47mm "tanks". I think, woa, I've got the drop on that little bugger. Whaddya know but my nash's both miss at 300m, the BT rotates his turret, :bang", :bang:, 2 very dead nashorns.

Question: Why didn't the damn TacAI retreat my lil nashes when the nashes were so clearly outclassed?

I did learn a hard lesson about ROF.

[Mikeydz]

Originally posted by redwolf:

Your description of the four states of ISU behaviour is correct, but you fail to realize that the Mk IV only has one. In all the tests I ran I never had the Mk IV driver take off while the gunner was trying to target.[/QB]

Actually, I did realize this. In my opinion the Tac-AI has decided it really likes this match-up on the part of the PzIV. It also might be deciding that the current location (behind the tall pines) is better than any other spot that it could reach quickly. I just took a real cursory glace again at your save file and didn't see any other positions close by that would protect the PzIV better. So with this in mind, the Tac-AI looks like it's deciding that a good match-up combined with a decent position rules out a need for a retreat.

BTW, I just created a test where the PzIV does exhibit the the retreat action. It's pretty rough, so I don't have any rough %s of how often wit retreats, but let's just say our seemingly "fearless" PzIVs don't like SU-85s or SU-100s.