Sven Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 The "My friends told me where the enemy tank is and I just saw it, and aimed at it, but since I can't see it anymore, I'm going to keep my turret aimed right forward even though it just might pop into my sights again when I'm around that corner" bug. Hate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 I have read your sentence five times now and still cannot figure out what you mean! That's quite cool! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 This is a bug? Sounds familiar to anyone who's gone rabbit hunting! Just ask Elmer Fudd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_Hiram Sedai Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Originally posted by Sven: The "My friends told me where the enemy tank is and I just saw it, and aimed at it, but since I can't see it anymore, I'm going to keep my turret aimed right forward even though it just might pop into my sights again when I'm around that corner" bug. Hate it.I understand what you mean but I never really thought of it as a bug. I always thought of it as the tank orienting itself so that the cannon is facing forward...like a default position. It it had stayed with the cannon facing where the first target was and another target pops up approx 180 degrees from the first, the tank will take longer to acquire that target. It won't be able to defend itself quickly. There's my oh so very humble and not very groglike opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sven Posted March 22, 2002 Author Share Posted March 22, 2002 No it's not really a bug, but it's an error in the game engine. What I mean is that tanks, when they can't actually see the enemy, always aim their turret forward in the driving direction. However, often, you, and the tank crew, know that there's an enemy tank around the corner. The tank SHOULD therefore keep it's turret aimed that way despite it not actually seeing the tank at that very moment. (so that it can fire immediately when turning the corner, instead of having to wait for the turret to turn around, and possibly get shot at first.)At least it should be possible for you to order it to, don't you agree? [ March 22, 2002, 12:42 PM: Message edited by: Sven ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wacky Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Place an ambush marker close to the spot. The turret will continue to face there while you move, and once you see the tank the TacAI will take over and retarget on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Ooohh, THAT'S what you meant! I recall CM had done a patch to keep the turret pointing 'that-a-way' for a short while after the target disappeared, and a patch to have the hull rotate to face the enemy to minimize exposing it's sides. I liked the result, but BTS got so many complaints on the board that on the following patch those two features were substantially toned-down again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Sven, in CMBB you'll be able to give a "cover arc" command to the tank and it will keep its turret facing right down the middle of that arc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sven Posted March 22, 2002 Author Share Posted March 22, 2002 OK - thanks. Captain Wicky: Smart, that i'd never have fond out myself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordfluffers Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Yep those clever people at BTs are gonna sort that little problem out... or so Ive heard... (P.S. I need another bone... Madmatt???... Anyone???) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silvio Manuel Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 I think you might also be able to give the tank a Rotate command towards the targeted tank to keep it facing that way even if it moves out of LOS. I have a feeling that using the Ambush marker MIGHT result in your tank not engaging an enemy tank that appears elsewhere- 180 degrees away for example. Beware of giving the Rotate command to Turret-less tanks, since if an enemy tank appears outside of your StuG/Marder/whatever's Firing Arc, your tank will wait for its command delay to expire before turning to face the threatening tank on its flank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zweibel Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 For me, this problem of one's tank crew "forgetting" about an enemy AFV that briefly passes out of line-of-sight is invariably accompanied by my crew pivoting 180 degrees to engage an non-threat mortar crew. As soon as the enemy AFV rolls past the small building obstructing a shot, the generous presentation of my tank's exhaust pipes to the enemy yields unsurprising, spectacular death. I suppose the upcoming game's option to prioritize hard targets will discourage this unhappy phenomenon [ March 22, 2002, 03:28 PM: Message edited by: zweibel ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Originally posted by Moon: Sven, in CMBB you'll be able to give a "cover arc" command to the tank and it will keep its turret facing right down the middle of that arc.Cool! Is the covered arc oriented towards a particular spot on the map, as it would be with an ambush marker, toward a compass bearing, or to an angle off the bow? Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Originally posted by zweibel: For me, this problem of one's tank crew "forgetting" about an enemy AFV that briefly passes out of line-of-sight is invariably accompanied by my crew pivoting 180 degrees to engage an non-threat mortar crew. As soon as the enemy AFV rolls past the small building obstructing a shot, the generous presentation of my tank's exhaust pipes to the enemy yields unsurprising, spectacular death. I suppose the upcoming game's option to prioritize hard targets will discourage this unhappy phenomenonYes, but the real answer for CMBO is not to get your tank surrounded, much less your turretless AFVs. People frequently overlook two things when they say that TacAI tanks should continue to face a threat that just disappeared. The TacAI does that, just not for long. 1) The threat may very well reappear somewhere else, having crossed a long line of cover in the meantime. In that case you have an inactive tank for no gain. 2) Your TacAI tank feels it is its duty to engage as many targets as possible. Inactivity on part of the tank is bad, very bad. You want it to shoot at the best target that is in reach. Most games between experienced CMBOers see a strong infantry battle, not tank battle. You need your AFVs to engage continuously to get rid of all the masses of infantry. That is an entirely different situation from a tank-heavy game where the point is to have the last tank on the battlefield. Even worse, if the TacAI would freeze facing the spot where an enemy AFVs just disappeared, that would be exploited in gamey tactics that would deliberately move an AFV or AT team into cover, hypnotizing the enemy tank. Best done while another AT unit flanks it. All this bitching about the TacAI is missing concrete suggestions about what to do when, excetly, by the second, the degree, the meter. If you make such suggestions other people can point out what the drawbacks of the new behaviour are. But for now people just suggest putting the equivalent of a relaxed human into the tank. To get that you have to play Steel Beasts. In CMBO we have to life with a TacAI of some kind so far I didn't see any convincing concrete ideas how to improve it. [ March 22, 2002, 03:56 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Michael, imagine placing two "waypoint" on the map. The area in between these two points is the arc you want the unit to cover (and turn the turret to). This arc can be as long and as wide (up to 180 degrees) as you want, and you can specify if you want a regular "cover arc" (ie. engage all targets) or "cover armor" (ie. engage armor). In this way you can get a tank to face and concentrate on a certain threat or order units to hold fire until the enemy crosses a certain line etc. This order doesn't come without its drawbacks, though, as units will rarely engage other targets outside of the arc, so you better know what you're doing before issuing the order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Originally posted by Moon: Michael, imagine placing two "waypoint" on the map. The area in between these two points is the arc you want the unit to cover (and turn the turret to). This arc can be as long and as wide (up to 180 degrees) as you want[...] Hm, if that are two points in terrain, and not relative to the tank, then what happens if you set a cover arc that results in 177 degrees and then move forward? Will be arc become bigger than 180 grees or will the waypoints move on the map to keep the angle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Good question, Redwolf. I guess using "waypoints" as a help to visualise this wasn't a good choice anyway. What happens is that every "covered arc", once set, is moving along with the unit, so indeed it's "relative to the tank". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Originally posted by Moon: Michael, imagine placing two "waypoint" on the map. The area in between these two points is the arc you want the unit to cover (and turn the turret to). This arc can be as long and as wide (up to 180 degrees) as you want, and you can specify if you want a regular "cover arc" (ie. engage all targets) or "cover armor" (ie. engage armor). In this way you can get a tank to face and concentrate on a certain threat or order units to hold fire until the enemy crosses a certain line etc. This order doesn't come without its drawbacks, though, as units will rarely engage other targets outside of the arc, so you better know what you're doing before issuing the order Sorry, Moon, but this doesn't address my question. Better read it again and then check redwolf's post. Michael (still wondering) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Originally posted by Moon: Good question, Redwolf. I guess using "waypoints" as a help to visualise this wasn't a good choice anyway. What happens is that every "covered arc", once set, is moving along with the unit, so indeed it's "relative to the tank".Okay, got it now. Thanks for taking the time to clear this up. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Originally posted by Moon: Good question, Redwolf. I guess using "waypoints" as a help to visualise this wasn't a good choice anyway. What happens is that every "covered arc", once set, is moving along with the unit, so indeed it's "relative to the tank".Cool stuff, thanks for the reply.x One more question: if the tank drives a curve of say 30 degrees, will the cover arc turn by 30 degrees as well or will it keep its original facing (it will keep its facing somehow, but in map terms or in the tank's perspective)? Note that I'm talking just facing of the covered area, I understand the position will in any case move with the tank. [ March 22, 2002, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: redwolf ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Originally posted by redwolf: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Moon: Good question, Redwolf. I guess using "waypoints" as a help to visualise this wasn't a good choice anyway. What happens is that every "covered arc", once set, is moving along with the unit, so indeed it's "relative to the tank".Cool stuff, thanks for the reply.x One more question: if the tank drives a curve of say 30 degrees, will the cover arc turn by 30 degrees as well or will it keep its original facing (it will keep its facing somehow, but in map terms or in the tank's perspective)?</font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 In order to avoid further confusion, I suggest that we avoid using the word 'waypoints' when describing the turret covered arc and instead use something like 'arc limits'. Just trying to be helpful. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
L.Tankersley Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Originally posted by Moon: Good question, Redwolf. I guess using "waypoints" as a help to visualise this wasn't a good choice anyway. What happens is that every "covered arc", once set, is moving along with the unit, so indeed it's "relative to the tank".Does the orientation of the arc change as the unit moves, or just the position? That is, if you issue an arc to the left side of the tank, and during the turn the tank turns 90 degrees to the left, is the tank now covering the area in front of it, or has the arc shifted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wodasini88 Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 well lets think about this, would any human tank command just sit there and start shooting infantry while theres obviously a tank somewhere in that vicinity looking to nail him from the rear? No. What would be nice is if your tanks would hold on to the target the same as they do now with the same length of time. But if they didn't pop out, reverse into cover(maybe drop smoke like when a pvIV is going against a churchill). and then target other units. Just an idea to at least simulate actions a tank might take in that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted March 22, 2002 Share Posted March 22, 2002 Sheesh, a guy comes to the board and just wants to quickly answer an innocent question, and you guys take out the shovel and axepick and start digging But then, guess I should have known better and just shut up (sigh) Leland was thinking along the correct line - only the position of the "arc limits" (thanks Michael) is moving along with the tank, but the orientation remains the same. In Lelands example, the arc would be to the front of the tank after the turn. And it would remain in front of the tank even if the tank would move forward after the turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts