Retreating Monster Tanks revealed (monster pictures)

[rune]

See my post on what the Russians thought of the IS2...in the original thread. It was designed to be used as a breakthrough tank. They were supported by tanks and tank destroyers if they met up with enemy tanks.

http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_2.html

and the other sections on the IS2 tell the story. Only occasionally did the JS-2 fight with Tigers and Panthers, or King Tigers.

Rune

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Cpt.Kloss:

Armoured warfare beta-ork expert, tell me please

why Russsian tanks left their starting positions

during battle of Kursk, why their desparately closed distance and even rammed german tanks?

Using CMBB logic it would be impossible.

They would simply run away.

Tank crews in CMBB facing even sligtly stronger enemy know only one emotion: fear - therefore they are cowards. Where is even a f...slight bit of courage? Self-preservation? What kind of self preservation gives you russian rulette? - none, but people did play this.

Do you really think that none was willing to take a risk? - I do not say about overwhelming

odds of course.

You mistake your own orkish - CMBB ways with

real world's history...

Le'see... at Kursk, the majority of the tanks would be... le'me think... T-34s. T-34s do not suffer from the issue being discussed because they do not have a rate of fire vastly inferior to their opponents. I have played several games in which T-34s have charged gallantly forward (usually leaving a trail of burned out hulks) without any retreat problems. What we are seeing is slow firing tanks ducking for cover when faced by tanks that have superior accuracy, superior rate of fire and a very real possibility of punching holes in them. You seem to be confusing courage with suicidal stupidity. Clint Eastwood might eload in the middle of the street during a gun fight, but real people duck for cover first.

[Terrapin]

This thread makes baby Jesus cry.

[Battlefront.com]

Nolloff,

IS2 = heavy breakthrough tank. Understood, as well as the role of the ISUs. But what would a Soviet commander then send into tank combat, assuming that he knows what he´s up to and had the choice. I know this is womewhat theorectical and unrealistic.

You actually pretty much figured out the answer...

Would he rather have T34/85 and TDs lead the charge and leave the IS2 and heavy assault guns behind?

Yes, for the most part the T-34/85, SU-85, and SU-100s were the vehicles of choice for engaging enemy armor. They were also more numberous and the T-34/85 was produced long after IS-2 production stopped. It was only officially replaced by the T-54. The heavy breakthrough tank, on the other hand, was effectively abandoned after the disapointment of thee IS-3.

Think about it... if the IS was designed to be a replacement for the T-34, then why did the T-34/85 outlast the IS family? And when the T-34/85 was replaced, why was it replaced by something more like a T-34 than an IS-2? If you look at Zaloga's statements about IS/ISU development, I think you can easily see the reasons for this. Looking at Soviet armor doctrine clintches it.

Denizen,

The IS-2 has had perhaps the largest amount of conflicting information written about it than any other vehicle of its day.

Hmmm... I am not aware of there being much controversy on its intended role. Do you have sources that state that it was designed for tank deuls?

I find it interesting that Steve uses Zaloga's views of IS-2 use but the game does not use Zaloga's data on the IS-2.

Nah, not interesting at all. We have not used stuff from Ian Hogg, Chamberlain and Doyle, and Jentz too. These guys aren't gods. They make mistakes with details sometimes. But I have yet to see any of these guys get "big stuff" wrong.

I don't think that BFC will ultimately be able to resolve this issue by argument or action, more likley it will take some more scholarly study of the history of the vehicle before the situation is resolved.

Well, I for one see the wisdom in not having these heavies engage in short range tank slug matches. In this case CMBB and Zaloga line up perfectly on this issue. And it isn't like we somehow coded the ISU and IS vehicles to behave differently than they otherwise should. We simply plugged in the data and the behavior developed from that.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Folks,

I will try and sum up what is going on within the game.

1. The TacAI's Prime Directive is to prevent harm from coming to the vehicle under its command. However, the TacAI fully understands that it is in command of a war machine which in a setting that is not risk free. Therefore, the TacAI often errs on the side of slugging it out instead of buggering off if the risk is more or less marginally equal between killing something and dying in the process of attempting such a kill. The TacAI is also modified heavily by Experience and random "luck". Sometimes a crappy unit will do something "brave", other times a really good unit will do something "cowardly". But in all cases the TacAI is making a logically based assessment of the situation without the bais of what the player expects of it.

2. The TacAI is less concerned with what damage it can cause vs. a particular target than it is what kind of damage can be done against it by that target. For example, a Nashorn can eliminate practically any vehicle on the map. But at 200m even small arms can take it out of action. Should the TacAI ignore this fact and just drive around the map wherever the player dictates, thinking "I'm king of the world baby!"? No. It is more concerned with its own survival, as it rightly should be. Otherwise the player probably wouldn't have any AFVs left after the first turn of enemy contact.

3. It is the player's "responsibility" to understand and respect the TacAI's behavior. You don't need to agree with it, any more than a battlefield commander would, but understand that it is far more informed than the player is. A good player, however, understands this and LEARNS from the TacAI instead of fighting it. A good player needs no more feedback from the game beside what is already provided.

4. The TacAI's primary directive is at least initially overridable by the Human player. This means the Human can put a vehicle into a near suicidal position without the TacAI having a say about it. This is mostly becaue the TacAI lacks situational awareness and therefore is ignorant of potential threats the Human is exposing it to until they actually materialize. Even if we could program in some sort of situational awareness, we wouldn't because that would pretty much remove the player from the game. In short, the player is allowed to screw things up to a large degree. However, once the TacAI is presented with a direct "what do I do now?" situation, it will ignore the player's intentions (actually, it most often doesn't even know what they are to begin with) and follow its Prime DIrective. If the Prime Directive decides that a shoot out has a decent chance of a positive outcome, it stays and shoots. If the TacAI instead decides that the situation is unfavorable, then it scoots.

5. The chance of actually causing damage to another vehicle has a lot to do with RoF. If at X range it takes roughly Y shots to score a hit, and I shoot 3 times as fast as my opponant, who is more likely to score a hit first? Simple math shows that I am. The other tank is better off not engaging at all in that specific situation. Instead it should seek an alternative means of causing me harm. The TacAI gives the player that chance by retreating instead of being brewed up on the spot.

6. If there is criticism to be made about the TacAI's decisions, it isn't that they are wrong (or buggy as Redwolf would claim), 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. However, this is something that we can argue about forever. Perhaps more randomness needs to be injected, but I can promise you all that if we did this we would see far more threads complaining about "the stupid AI didn't back up" than we have seen of "the stupid AI backed up". But this is a whole 'nother discussion to have and I don't want to get it confused with this one.

Well... that is about all I can think of to say at this point. I guess I could comb through this thread and point out (for the 100th time) why Redwolf's example is functioning correctly, but since he is pretty much the only one that needs to be convinced of this... I'll pass. He hasn't listened so far.

Steve

THANKS Steve!

I think that is a GREAT post and it should be enshrined in history with its very own thread.

What would be a good title for the thread of which this would be the very first post.

"Steve's TAC AI FAQ Thread"

"How the TAC AI Works"

"What Makes an AFV In CMBB Retreat"

Anyone else think that post deserves its very own thread?

-tom w

[dalem]

redwolf-

I may think you're a big poopiepants (and I do) but I actually thought the same thing as you did for a while after playing BB (different vehicles but same essential situation and results).

Then I relaxed and discussed it with people and decided that it was something about the game that was still somehow wrong, but that I could live with.

Then I stumbled onto your little thread here and have plowed through the majority of it and the light has finally gone on inside my head and I realize that my conclusions were in error and the game is doing, not only "what it is coded to do", but exactly what I want it to do.

[choir]

Hallelujah!

[/choir]

Thanks for causing all these nice people to clear my head and break me out of the Rock-Paper-Scissors mode that I didn't even realize I was in.

Now you can stop. Thank you and much appreciate it.

-dale

[Redwolf]

So what do people think about this summary?

In CMBB, the ISU-122 is not supposed to be used to attack Pz IV lang from distances around 500-600m. Doing so may often be successful, but it is considered abuse of the ISU and the ISU's TacAI is free to pull back out of LOS of the Pz IV against the players will. It is still considered abuse when the ISU is hulldown, and the pullback may happen before the ISU gets a single shot off, the ISU may not shoot at all or does its only shoot on the (backwards) move. Similar restrictions will apply to other vehicle pairs in that often assumed to be stronger vehicles will prefer to pull back in similar manners.

That way I can claim that CMBB does not model the ISU-122 as I would like it to have. And you can claim I don't use the ISU like CMBB's model requires it to be used. Both of us will forever claim that our view of this vehicle is historically more precise.

Does that sound like an agreeable summary?

[ December 02, 2002, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

In CMBB, the ISU-122 is not supposed to be used to attack Pz IV lang from distances around 500-600m.

Correct. Just like a Panther is not supposed to dance with Shermans at 500-600m. The is a standoff weapon that wasn't even supposed to engage armor as its prime target of choice.

Doing so may often be successful, but it is considered abuse of the ISU...

Wrong. First of all, tests by everybody (including you) show that the PzIV is far more likely to be successful than the ISU when the ISU does not pull back. Also, the TacAI has no concept of what an ISU is or is not supposed to do. It only knows that at 500m it doesn't want to be moving into position against a PzIV. And the tests show that this is a wise decision.

...and the ISU's TacAI is free to pull back out of LOS of the Pz IV against the players will.

Oh boy... where have I heard a statement like this before? Well, you call it what you want, but when I am locked out from changing unit orders for 60 seconds, and I have a vehicle that is about to get popped because it is in a bad situation, I would not scream like Hitler to his generals about withdrawing against my will. I will instead thank the TacAI for saving my ass and find some other way to use the vehicle to better effect.

It is still considered abuse when the ISU is hulldown, and the pullback may happen before the ISU gets a single shot off, the ISU may not shoot at all or does its only shoot on the (backwards) move.

Again, the TacAI has know understanding of what the ISU is other than through its raw stats. It usually decides that the precious seconds required to fire off a shot are instead better spent withdrawing. And the tests that everybody, including you, did with your save file prove the wisdom of this. One shot is almost certainly going to be a miss, but the PzIV gets off 2-3 and doesn't likely miss.

Similar restrictions will apply to other vehicle pairs in that often assumed to be stronger vehicles will prefer to pull back in similar manners.

Yes. When a vehicle feels that it has a better than good chance of dying, and a not so good chance of killing, it will pull back. The TacAI does not consult with the player to see how informed or misinformed he is about how 'über' the vehicle is.

That way I can claim that CMBB does not model the ISU-122 as I would like it to have.

OK, I'll give you this one. You can "claim that CMBB does not model the ISU-122 as I would like it to" vs a PzIV at 500m just like all those that "claim that CMBO does not model the Tiger as I would like it to" versus Shermans at 500m. You really want to think that? Go for it. Just kindly refrain from ever discussing anything like this with me again.

You know, I really wish I could make a special version of the game just for you that would turn the TacAI off. Then I would challenge you to a game and bet $1000 that I would smack your silly forces all over the map

And you can claim I don't use the ISU like CMBB's model requires it to be used.

Sorta correct. I can claim, I think with pretty good reason, that you are using the ISU incorrectly vis a vis its capabilities and its real world intended purpose. I can also claim that the TacAI is obviously smarter than you because it plays the situation according to the facts, not in difference to them.

Both of us will forever claim that our view of this vehicle is historically more precise.

Well, it would do your side some good if you actually showed even a scrap of evidence about how you are playing it historically "precise". The tests of your file and others show that the ISU is at a serious disadvantage against a PzIV at close range, with the opposite being true at longer range. Therefore the ISUs aren't cowards, they are smart. Also, you dodged historical evidence that shows that the ISU is not supposed to be used as a tank destroyer.

I'll put it more bluntly... if you disagree with the historical evidence presented thus far, why? What evidence do you have to refute our position other than "I don't like it so I will just tell myself I am right"?

Does that sound like an agreeable summary?

Nope, because you want to walk away pretending that you are still somehow "right" when you have so obviously done nothing to prove anything of the sort. So far you have only proved that you argue to win, not argue to understand, which makes a discussion with you nearly impossible to conduct in a productive manner.

I do agree with Dale that this was a productive discussion for other reasons. Others who might initially have thought along Redwolf's lines might think differently now, even if he and Kloss do not. The bottom line is that when your TacAI does something to override your commands, pay heed. It probably knows more than you do, at least at that moment for that specific circumstance. However, the more you examine why the TacAI might have done something, the less likely you will be to get the unit in such a bad spot the next time. And that will make you a much better player.

Steve

[ December 02, 2002, 06:09 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by redwolf:

/snip/Similar restrictions will apply to other vehicle pairs in that often assumed to be stronger vehicles will prefer to pull back in similar manners./snip/

I think that's the problem here (see bolding above).

[ December 02, 2002, 06:18 PM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[Licensed Fool]

When I got CMBB a few weeks ago I thought WOWEE this is great stuff,but then I started noticing tanks reversing at the sight of an enemy tank,and I thought NAH that can't be right ! It happens so often that it completely RUINS the game for me and I've hardly any more enthusiasm for CMBB until Battlefront fix it. WATCH MY LIPS--IT'S A SERIOUS GAME-DESIGN FLAW! Which part of that don't you kiddies understand?

[-Havermeyer-]

Haven't seen your issues, Mr. LFool.

I must say Steve is right about paying attention to what the TacAI does against your commands. I lost three AFVs in 1 turn thinking I knew how the battle should go against what I thought was a pushover AFV with exposed flank.

Fortunately, the TacAI pulled the another three AFVs well out of LOS of the offending vehicle and preserved at least the semblence of my right flank.

[General Panic]

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

Which part of that don't you kiddies understand?

What part of the last nine pages don't you understand?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

Are Redwolf and me and a few others the only sighted dudes in this forum of the blind?

I could tell you what I think you are, but I have to check with my lawyers first if it could be construed as slander </font>

[rune]

Gentlemen,

Just comes on, 4 posts, all on this thread trying to stir up a problem that doesn't exist except in his mind. Gentlemen, I present to you LFOOL the Troll.

Rune

[Battlefront.com]

Licensed Fool,

When I got CMBB a few weeks ago I thought WOWEE this is great stuff,but then I started noticing tanks reversing at the sight of an enemy tank,and I thought NAH that can't be right ! It happens so often that it completely RUINS the game for me

Then learn how to play the game better. This is the same sort of thing that cropped up initially about infantry retreating in Panic. After empassioned, and baseless claims, like yours... most people stopped whining and started reading. They realized that the game is doing things right, they were doing things wrong. A simple adjustment of tactics and BINGO... POOF... problem gone.

I don't have my vehicles chickening out on me. I guess I am playing it wrong, eh?

I've hardly any more enthusiasm for CMBB until Battlefront fix it.

We can not fix what is not broken. We also can't fix what is broken if that "it" is the player's tactics.

WATCH MY LIPS--IT'S A SERIOUS GAME-DESIGN FLAW! Which part of that don't you kiddies understand?

WATCH MY LIPS... grow up quickly or you won't be seen on this Forum again. You have every right to be critical of the game, but you have no right to be disrespectful. Especially after I have wasted yet another dozen or so hours arguing with someone who absolutely doesn't want to hear an opposing viewpoint.

Apparently you have only read Redwolf's postings here. Might I suggest taking a Chill Pill and reading what others have said. Then, play a game and TRY to play things differently. Or better yet, cruise on over to our book section and buy some of our tactics books. The true test of CMBB is that correctly implemented real life tactics work and poorly implemented ones fail.

Don't believe me? That is your choice. But it is also your choice to look at CMBB as offering you a choice to grow as a player or to simply dig in your heels and see it as source of frustration. Do what you want, I don't care.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

I'm also puzzled why the PzKpfw IV doesn't even rotate it's hull to face the ISU.

Isn't it hulldown? It looked that way to me in Redwolf's screenshot. If so, it has nothing to gain by rotating its hull.

Michael

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by Licensed Fool:

WATCH MY LIPS--IT'S A SERIOUS GAME-DESIGN FLAW! Which part of that don't you kiddies understand?

I can't speak for BFC, but the bit that *I* don't understand is why you think that rational, reasonable, *and* historical behavior on the part of units in the game constitutes a game design flaw, or, as you put it a "GAME-DESIGN FLAW!"

This thread is full of evidence showing exactly why this is not a game-design flaw; perhaps you should actually read the thread.

[Tarquelne]

20 trials in which the ISU-122 fired _before_ it started to Reverse, or didn't Reverse at all. The ISU KOed or disabled the PzIV 7 times, and was itself KOed or disabled only 3 times.

In 20 trials in which the ISU Reversed before firing (or Reversed and never fired) it was destroyed 4 times.

In 10 trials in which the ISU _didn't_ Reverse at all lead to the ISU being destroyed or disabled 1/2 the time.

[ December 02, 2002, 09:07 PM: Message edited by: Tarqulene ]

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

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

I'm also puzzled why the PzKpfw IV doesn't even rotate it's hull to face the ISU.

Isn't it hulldown? It looked that way to me in Redwolf's screenshot. If so, it has nothing to gain by rotating its hull.

Michael</font>

[The_Capt]

Well I think we have just about beat this one to death but I think it is a clear case of not knowing your equipment and making some BIG assumptions.

For those who doubt the ferocity of the Russian armour, take 4 T34/85 and have em face off against 4 PzIVs at about 850ms. The PzIV can quite easily kill the T-34 but in the three trials I just ran the russkies backed up twice (that is two seperate tanks once apiece) and one had his gun blown off.

Obviously the TacAI think the T-34/85s high ROF will make it worth going toe to toe where "uber tanks" back off.

I think we should all be greatful for this little debate..it has taught me a heck of a lot about soviet armour and which tank to buy and where to employ it.

For those who think there is still a bug..well I suspect it is one you will have to live with. Hell, I won't weep for you though, as I lived for two years with puny MGs and somehow made do.

[Cpt.Kloss]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Cpt.Kloss,

First off, a formal warning. You have contributed nothing to any thread I have seen you in except for personal attacks and questionable (at best) observations.

Steve

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

Steve,

You wanted to say "personal defence"? And I will remind you that YOU actually made it personal by insulting me (and your favourite beta followed) and you are quite responsible for warming up this discussion. You seem to forget where is a difference between us: you are Battlefront and I am your client (anyway appreciating

your product).If you continue to behalf in this way none will give you a sincere feedback.

After giving me a warning please think about giving a warning to yourself (I suppose no one else can do this)and stop be aggresive wheter I deserve this or not - learn patience towards guys like me or redwolf.

And who appart from redwolf "contributed" to THIS thread? This is redwolf-battlefront discussion. We say that self-preservation mechanism is too harsh and usually affects only one side (even if other is seriously threatened also)and see that as a problemm.We do not talk about established war doctrines (american TD's were designed to fight tanks but mainly supported infantry). Regardless of doctrine all available assets were used according to situations and needs.

"OK let's get back we have sligtly worse penetration data" is a misunderstanding.Correct statement would be "do not engage enemy tanks unless situation requires". And who if not commander /human player/ is to decide wheter situation requires using asset in a bit different role or not?

Of course what I write is worthless BUT if you give it one more thought -without prejudice - I will consider I achieved what I wanted. Anyway

you decided to decrease 37mm gun eficiency in patch

despite 101 andreases claiming it was not necessary.

regardless, I DO respect your hard work and your presence here.

regards

Troll

[Treeburst155]

It's obvious that the SMARTEST thing for the ISU to do in the Redwolf situation is to fire the round in the gun before retreating IF the TC feels he has the time to fire AND retreat before the PzIV can get off a round.

This is quite a judgment call that must be made very quickly. It is understandable that the TC might not always make a decision that is to the player's liking. It is also quite understandable that the TC would even make the outright wrong decision on occasion.

Treeburst155 out.

[Mikeydz]

:redwolf:

Folks, the bug is retreat before fire. Please do not post appearences of retreat for reload as examples of inappropriate retreats. I think we all agree that the 122mm armed Russians can rightly retreat for reload.

Just to point out that way back on the first page (near the bottom), you said... "It is totally obvious that the ISU should not retreat in this situation. In my first movie it didn't get a shot off at all, in the second it shot while retreating, getting lower hit probablity from being on the move." So your original gripe was that it retreated period, not that it didn't fire at least1 shot before retreating. I'll grant that you have modified your position on what the "bug" is.

As for the test case with 102 tests, I am afraid I can only accept runs of my test scenario as sample data on how likely it is that the ISU or the MK IV are killed.

I'll try and hold back the tears from you outright rejecting my test data. My test wasn't intended to directly address the issue of should the ISU fire off a round before retreating, but to address your contention (which you still seem to hold) that the ISU is the superior tank under this set of circumstances. My tests (which prevented any chance of a retreat for the ISU) was only meant to show that at 500m, head to head, the ISU is not even close to superior. I hoped that if you saw the abysmal performance head to head against the PzIV, you would realize that the issue that you should be arguing against isn't that the Tac-AI is buggy, but that you believe the ISU is modeled incorrectly. (of which I also disagree with you on, but that's another issue).

1) the isolated test never shots (shows?) the ISU retreat before firing, so the situation *is* different somehow...

3) don't forget all are hulldown there

That is because it is different. Since only you an I have seen my test scenario, I'll explain it for all the other followers of this thread that might be interested. I set up the ISUs to the rear and sides completely by water. That way the could not retreat behind any type of cover. I also left out the elevation from your save gave, so there was not hull down position. I had to remove the hulldown position to remove the ability to retreat behind the elevated terrain causing the hulldown bonus. The only other terrain I placed was a row of tall pine directly in front of the PzIVs and a row of scattered trees about halfway between the 2 tanks, to lower the "hit probs" to about where they were in redwolfs save file. So with no options to retreat, it forces the ISU to slug it out. And in most cases, if the ISU didn't get a 1st shot kill, the superior ROF from the PzIV wins out. In otherword, the ISU died ALOT.

3) Steve keeps claiming this very situation in my scenario is so special that it places the ISU in some magically difficult situation, despite favourable kill and hit probablity display.

Steve never claimed that your scenario was an incredible set of circumstances which caused this fluke retreating action. In my opinon, he's argued that in any situation that the ISU meets the PzIV at 500m, if there is a avenue of retreat available to it, the Tac-AI would probably favor that option, though not to the total exclusion of fighting it out once in a while. And even in your save file, you didn't have a favorable hit prob with the ISU. Your pictures (page 4, bottom 1/5 of the page) give a hit prob of 29% for the PzIV vs 27% for the ISU. A virtual dead heat. The ISU does enjoy a better kill chance though, assuming it lives long enough to get a hit.

4) the patch of woods in front of the Mk IV makes the hit probablity low, so effectively the hit probablity is the same as in a much longer range duel. If you just use the same range without woods you get higher hit probability. If you use longer range, you might not see the TacAI magic ability to realize of optimal engagement range

The tall pines are the same as the trees right in front of the PzIv in your save file. The hit proababilities are comparable in my test file to your save file. My test hit probs averages are a shade lower, but the hit prob figures are a rough guide. Now if I left out the trees and allowed the higher hit probabilities, then it would help the ISU a bit more in the head to head fight because if would get a few more 1st shot hits (and probable kills) to make up for it's lack of ROF in comparrison to the PzIV. But once again, my goal was to simulate your confrontation as close as possible, while removing any escape routes for the ISU.

[ December 02, 2002, 08:50 PM: Message edited by: Mikeydz ]

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:

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

I'm also puzzled why the PzKpfw IV doesn't even rotate it's hull to face the ISU.

Isn't it hulldown? It looked that way to me in Redwolf's screenshot. If so, it has nothing to gain by rotating its hull.

Michael</font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

It's obvious that the SMARTEST thing for the ISU to do in the Redwolf situation is to fire the round in the gun before retreating IF the TC feels he has the time to fire AND retreat before the PzIV can get off a round.

This is quite a judgment call that must be made very quickly. It is understandable that the TC might not always make a decision that is to the player's liking. It is also quite understandable that the TC would even make the outright wrong decision on occasion.

Treeburst155 out.

"This is quite a judgment call that must be made very quickly. It is understandable that the TC might not always make a decision that is to the player's liking. It is also quite understandable that the TC would even make the outright wrong decision on occasion. "

AND most importantly this shows us VARIATION in the range of responses a REAL TC might make in that situation

AND in the tests we have seen there is variation and there is randomness. THIS makes the game and the response of the tank unpredicatable and variable and introduces the aspect of luck! I think this great! Compare this to a board game, ok that's not really fair the SL and ASL board games are now Light Years behind CMBO and CMBB.

The thing that is NOT broken about this ISU retreating issue is that there is variation in the AI behaviour. This variation and randomness must not be compromised by some folks here who may be expecting the introduction of the totally correct ALWAYS predictable paradigm in the model that suggests in this situation the ISU should never retreat. Sometimes it makes what some here consider the correct move and sometimes it makes what some here consider the least favourable choice, to withdraw, (or stay and duel it out depending on what side of the fence you are sitting on ).

The apect of luck and variation and randomness has been handcrafted (the computer code thanks to Charles) into the game in such an entertaining way that we should really be celebrating it (the TAC AI and the luck element) and not dissecting it as though we were small children plucking the wings off a fly or peeling an onion layer by layer to see whats inside. IMHO

Its been a LONG thread, almost like a battle or fire fight in someplaces, but the best of it has been entertaining and perhaps we should all go back to enjoying the game. I am sure this issue will be tweaked at all in v1.02 unless Steve makes good on his threat to make that self preservation "Prime Directive" even more effective in all tanks thus meaning even more Tac AI retreats from questionable or unknown enemy threats.

Given the tone of this thread I would not be surprised to see v1.02 introduce an even healthier self preservation mode "Prime Directive" in TAC AI tank retreating behaviour.

But we'll see

-tom w

[ December 02, 2002, 09:25 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]