CMBB Command Needed: Assault Vehicle

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Phantom Rocker:

It has been stated by BTS in mid December that the game is already 95% completed. Now we know for sure that the game will not show up before March. They needed 'only' 1 year for 95%, now they ave 2 additional month. This sounds to me like a enough time to include several new features.<hr></blockquote>

You must be an expert in project management, and coding new features into games?

Apart from that, as you can see from the discussion, there seem to be a few people here who don't think the feature is necessary at all, so why spend the time on more important stuff if it is indeed there?

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

Not all soldiers are heroes, in fact, most of them are not. They just want to go home alive.<hr></blockquote>

This is of course correct, but now it's me to asked you: what would be different?

a) I order my squad to shoot the PF on the tank. The tank dies, the squad lives.

...the PF misses, the tank target the squad, the squad dies.

c) I can not not give the order. I can only order to stop hidding. The engine set the target priority on a Bazooka 150m away and decides that the PF will not be used. The tank noticed the squad and target it, the squad dies.

d) I don't order to stop hidding. The tank moves on and destroy some of my vehicels or guns. The squad lives...

Mmhh...

[Andreas]

Puff, to be honest, it sounds to me like the TacAI decided that using the PF was not worth it, for any number of reasons. It would still have that decision capability, even if you had ordered it to use it, so even with the order it would probably not have used it. Unless you suddenly want the order to override the TacAI, which would probably open a nice can of worms, and take out the (by some) much-valued uncertainty inherent in the system.

[Phantom Rocker]

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

You must be an expert in project management, and coding new features into games?<hr></blockquote>

Why that? Some people here think that 'only' an exciting feature (from the target command for tanks) must be added to an exciting command.

And the realase date can't be before March, because the model contest ends at February 28.

I'm not an expert, I can read

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

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

... it sounds to me like the TacAI decided that using the PF was not worth it, for any number of reasons...<hr></blockquote>

oh, one I have fogotten

e) ...the PF is fired, but misses. The squad dies.

Well, I guess we can talk to whole night long without changing positions.

I just prefer to know that I have ordered the **** that happens. You don't want to be made responsible and blame the TacAI for the **** that happens. Two worlds collide

[Andreas]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Puff the Magic Dragon:

I just prefer to know that I have ordered the **** that happens. You don't want to be made responsible and blame the TacAI for the **** that happens. Two worlds collide <hr></blockquote>

Hehe yes you are right. Someone has the classic sigline here 'A scapegoat is almost as welcome as a solution to the problem.' As Kip could tell you, I blame the game for either winning or losing, and I like to keep it that way.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I think though that when you send your squad to attack an enemy vehicle that they need to know whether to button it up with gunfire or to physically assault it my climbing on top of it. <hr></blockquote>

I don't see the point. The way things work now, they will automatically attempt to close assaust the vehicle if it is in range, and they are not too suppressed. There is no need for a choice of "button it up with gunfire" or "close assault" because close assaulting will cause the vehicle to button anyway.

Also, in real life any commander who ordered his men to charge a tank would be lucky not to get shot in the back.

[Vinci]

Whether ineffective or not, I assume everyone agrees that during WWII infantry did try and take on armor with close range weapons.

I find it more palatable if this command can actually be given instead of trying to make the same thing happen by attempting to run the squad out to a spot near the tank and hope they will get the general idea by the time they get to the spot.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

Whether ineffective or not, I assume everyone agrees that during WWII infantry did try and take on armor with close range weapons.<hr></blockquote>

Yes, but they didn't do it like some are trying to do it in the game i.e. rushing a platoon at a tank. Usually the tank moved too close to some hiding enemy infantry.

[ASL Veteran]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>originally posted by somebody

Situation:

The infantry moves towards the vehicle.

Option 1: The vehicle does not spot the infantry and stays, and dies.

Option 2: The vehicle does spot the infantry, moves off, the infantry sits there gets shot at, and dies.

Future (after a 'follow vehicle' command has been coded in)

Situation:

The infantry moves towards the vehicle

Option 1: The vehicle does not spot the infantry, stays and dies

Option 2: The vehicle spots the infantry, moves off, stops after, say, 20m. The infantry follows. The vehicle observes the movement (remember, it has spotted the threat last round) and moves off another 20m. The infantry follows (in the meantime everyone and their second cousin has seen the infantry and is busy killing it a lot). The infantry dies.

<hr></blockquote>

There is actually a third option which is being overlooked:

Option 3: Vehicle does not spot the infantry, but the player controlling the vehicle plots a move of 20 meters in length - in which case, the infantry stand in the open where the tank used to be, all the while looking stupid (and probably spotted by some artillery spotter from halfway across the board - which then allows the player controlling the tank to target the infantry standing in the open in the following orders phase).

[ASL Veteran]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

Yes, but they didn't do it like some are trying to do it in the game i.e. rushing a platoon at a tank. Usually the tank moved too close to some hiding enemy infantry.<hr></blockquote>

I don't know for sure, but that sounds like a broad sweeping statement to me. Not to get too bogged down into semantics, but tank assaults are going to involve somebody rushing to get close to the vehicle (unless it is physically running you over - and then you have other things to worry about). The difference is what distance is "too far" and what distance is deemed "appropriate". Of all the documentation I've seen, the actual distance that Lt Kraut or Private Ivan have to travel before assaulting said vehicle is generally not recorded.

Going back to the assault vehicle command - perhaps the command could be automatically aborted if the vehicle moves away - or doesn't move slowly? At least that way your infantry wouldn't still continue to run out there and stand stupidly in the open when there is nothing to do there anymore.

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]</p>

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

I don't know for sure, but that sounds like a broad sweeping statement to me. <hr></blockquote>

You're right. It is a broad sweeping statement. That doesn't mean it isn't true at least in the vast majority of cases.

CM seems to assume the max assault distance to be 10m IIRC.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Option 3: Vehicle does not spot the infantry, but the player controlling the vehicle plots a move of 20 meters in length - in which case, the infantry stand in the open where the tank used to be, all the while looking stupid<hr></blockquote>

I think it extremely unlikely that the infantry running "in the open" would be unspotted at those distances. That sort of thing is hard to miss.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Going back to the assault vehicle command - perhaps the command could be automatically aborted if the vehicle moves away - or doesn't move slowly? At least that way your infantry wouldn't still continue to run out there and stand stupidly in the open when there is nothing to do there anymore.<hr></blockquote>

But that's just the point. Even if the opposing player does not order the tank to move away, the TacAI will automatically retreat it when the infantry get close. So it's going to move one way are another unless it is immobilized. So, then the assault order is aborted and your men are left to stand stupidly in the open anyway. Or, if it is a slow tank they can give chase and try to run it down (probably while being shot at the whole time).

[ASL Veteran]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

But that's just the point. Even if the opposing player does not order the tank to move away, the TacAI will automatically retreat it when the infantry get close. So it's going to move one way are another unless it is immobilized.<hr></blockquote>

I believe that is a false statement. I have never seen the Tac AI automatically move a vehicle away from enemy infantry.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr> So, then the assault order is aborted and your men are left to stand stupidly in the open anyway. Or, if it is a slow tank they can give chase and try to run it down (probably while being shot at the whole time).<hr></blockquote>

No, the abort would occur as soon as the vehicle began its move away. To expand on that: let's assume both the vehicle and the infantry have a 13 second delay before movement begins. At the 13 second mark the vehicle begins to move and the infantry begin to move. At that point, the Tac AI for the infantry can then determine that the vehicle is moving and abort the command. Infantry remain cozy in their trees or building and tank moves off. Everyone is happy.

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

I think it extremely unlikely that the infantry running "in the open" would be unspotted at those distances. That sort of thing is hard to miss.

<hr></blockquote>

Uh huh, well even if we assume that a buttoned tank (how about shocked too?) will spot enemy infantry moving in the open behind it 100% of the time - this sort of thing can happen in covered terrain too.

Let's say a buttoned tank is sitting on a tree lined causeway pointed to the north and you have one infantry squad in the trees along the causeway 15 meters to the south of the tank. Let us say that in our hypothetical we run the infantry through the trees exactly 15 meters so that we are directly behind said enemy tank and can presumably assault it. Let us also say that the player controlling the tank decided to move it 15 meters further north (without any knowledge of the presence of said infantry). Wouldn't it be nice if the squad could figure out what you are trying to accomplish and move the extra ten meters or so that is necessary to assault that tank on its own?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>taken out of order:

You're right. It is a broad sweeping statement. That doesn't mean it isn't true at least in the vast majority of cases.

<hr></blockquote>

So I take it that you have access to thousands of accounts of close assaults vs armor (both successful and unsuccessful) where the precise number of troops assaulting and the exact distance covered is detailed - thus validating your broad sweeping statement? Or are you just assuming facts that don't necessarily exist in order to support your argument because you don't like the 'assault vehicle' command?

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: ASL Veteran ]</p>

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

So I take it that you have access to thousands of accounts of close assaults vs armor (both successful and unsuccessful) where the precise number of troops assaulting and the exact distance covered is detailed - thus validating your broad sweeping statement? Or are you just assuming facts that don't necessarily exist in order to support your argument because you don't like the 'assault vehicle' command?<hr></blockquote>

Don't be silly. You know as well as I do that such stats don't exist. I'm basing my statement on the fact that I have never heard of infantry chasing down a moving tank to close assault it beyond the 10m or so CM allows.

I never claimed it never happenened even once in the history of WW2, I only claim that it was exceedingly rare at best and not something infantry would typically attempt. I stand by that. If you can dig up anecdotal evidence that this was done I would reconsider my position.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I believe that is a false statement. I have never seen the Tac AI automatically move a vehicle away from enemy infantry.<hr></blockquote>

I did some tests. The TacAI did not move tanks, but it did move SP guns and halftracks.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>No, the abort would occur as soon as the vehicle began its move away.<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Let us also say that the player controlling the tank decided to move it 15 meters further north (without any knowledge of the presence of said infantry). Wouldn't it be nice if the squad could figure out what you are trying to accomplish and move the extra ten meters or so that is necessary to assault that tank on its own?<hr></blockquote>

You appear to be argueing in favor of 2 mutually exclusive features. Either the order is aborted if the vehicles move, or it is not. Either they chase after the vehicle or they don't. It can't be both.

For the record, I think an order that aborted the attack if the vehicle moves isn't a bad idea, but that is quite different than what has been proposed to date.

[ASL Veteran]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Don't be silly. You know as well as I do that such stats don't exist. I'm basing my statement on the fact that I have never heard of infantry chasing down a moving tank to close assault it beyond the 10m or so CM allows.<hr></blockquote>

Nice try, but still not sufficient because, in fact, there probably aren't stats for an approach to an assault at any distance. Not for 10 meters, nor 5, nor 15. And who determines what distance is appropriate? Are you implying that the only time an infantry assault occurred during WW2 is when a tank happened to park itself within ten meters of a stationary infantry unit? At what point did the infantry have the germ of an idea that they were going to take out a tank using close assault and move toward said vehicle in an effort to carry out that plan? That could be any distance wouldn't you agree? Now certainly the actual assault itself should be done within ten meters of the target (I mean, we are talking about placing a bomb of some kind physically onto a tank), but the approach to the target (which is what the current problem is) can happen from any distance.

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

You appear to be argueing in favor of 2 mutually exclusive features. Either the order is aborted if the vehicles move, or it is not. Either they chase after the vehicle or they don't. It can't be both.

<hr></blockquote>

Well, actually it can be both ... and I'm so happy you mentioned that too . Damn I like it when I can have my cake and eat it too! Okay, let's say we have an "assault vehicle" command in the game - an order that would only be available when your infantry squad is within - say thirty meters of the target (I pick 30 meters as a reasonable arbitrary distance for the 'final approach' of a theoretical tank hunter team). You use the command to target a nearby tank. Once the tank is targeted the infantry will move toward the vehicle with the intent to assault it. If the vehicle moves such that the distance between the assaulting squad and the targeted vehicle increases or remains the same then the command would automatically abort and the squad would cease their assault / movement. If the enemy vehicle moved in such a manner so that the distance between it and the squad decreased (possibly reversing in their direction etc), then the squad would continue their effort to assault the target vehicle. Simple, elegant, effective. The only discussion would revolve around what the 'final approach' distance would be. You certainly wouldn't want to be using this command 100 meters away :eek: . However, ten meters will not be far enough out to make the command useful since you would have to be assaulting the tank already in order to use the command.

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Nice try, but still not sufficient because, in fact, there probably aren't stats for an approach to an assault at any distance. Not for 10 meters, nor 5, nor 15. And who determines what distance is appropriate? Are you implying that the only time an infantry assault occurred during WW2 is when a tank happened to park itself within ten meters of a stationary infantry unit? <hr></blockquote>

No, I already stated that I was not saying that it never ever happened otherwise. Almost anything physically possible has happened at least once. I have now said this 3 times and I'm not going to repeat it again.

My point, as it has been from the beginning, is that troops did not go charging at moving tanks over open fields across hither and yon like a bunch of Rambos. I seriously doubt you believe otherwise yourself. You're just trying to score points off of the fact that my position on this cannot be proven. The absense of proof of a thing is not evidence that its opposite is true. Nice try, but as you say, not sufficient.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>At what point did the infantry have the germ of an idea that they were going to take out a tank using close assault and move toward said vehicle in an effort to carry out that plan? That could be any distance wouldn't you agree?<hr></blockquote>

Of course. But you don't need a new command to run them towards the vehicle. You can do that now. The question has been do we need a new command to have them chase after the tank if it drives off. However, it would seem to be a moot point now as your latest version of this idea is quite different.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Okay, let's say we have an "assault vehicle" command in the game - an order that would only be available when your infantry squad is within - say thirty meters of the target (I pick 30 meters as a reasonable arbitrary distance for the 'final approach' of a theoretical tank hunter team). You use the command to target a nearby tank. Once the tank is targeted the infantry will move toward the vehicle with the intent to assault it. If the vehicle moves such that the distance between the assaulting squad and the targeted vehicle increases or remains the same then the command would automatically abort and the squad would cease their assault / movement. If the enemy vehicle moved in such a manner so that the distance between it and the squad decreased (possibly reversing in their direction etc), then the squad would continue their effort to assault the target vehicle.<hr></blockquote>

This is reasonable because it does not increase the ability of the player to issue Rambo tactic orders beyond what he can already do in the game. It also would not cause the silly sight of squads running after a retreating tank like a bunch of schoolboys who just missed the bus.

It does have a few problems. The most obvious is that if the vehicle moves away and the assault is aborted there is a good chance they will be caught in the open "looking stupid" same as before. A marginal improvement at best.

However, I have taken the liberty of thinking of a solution. Perhaps if the assault is aborted the squad(s) could automatically move to the nearest cover, same as if they were under arty attack. That would seem a logical thing to do and wouldn't require new AI routines.

After that, the problem becomes one of programing it. Currently it is not possible to target a unit with a movement command. Only Charles would know how hard or easy it would be to get around this.

Anywho, as it currently stands I have no objection to this proposal. I would probably never use it because I have never run infantry over open ground to try to close assault a vehicle (except for tests). That seems like a last ditch suicide tactic to me, but maybe that's just me. It would provide a modest impovement on the current method for those who do that sort of thing. Now all you have to do is convince Steve. Good luck

[Caesar]

I have had the situation happen to me where the other player plotted a short move for the tank I wanted to assault. My men were charging a short distance from woods to the back of a buttoned tank. Had they simply cut the corner (the tank did not move directly away from them) they would have had a decent chance of killing the tank.

The assault vehicle command would have solved this issue. After all the men would have known that they were attacking the tank - not simply going for a short run.

To solve all the problems of ridiculous ahistorical charges you could simply give the command a maximum range and perhaps load up the morale level required for the command to be obeyed and continued. Being able to tell the unit to target the tank and have them use their anti-tank weapons would be nice too.

However, this should definitly be left for a patch unless it will not delay the release at all. I don't think it is worth delays - it's not that important.

[Andreas]

No matter how much ASL Vet likes to think that somehow or other running towards tanks happened often enough to warrant modelling, a look into the Panzerknacker manual (German only), which I think we can all agree was most likely the last word regarding men against tanks in the war, should disabuse anyone of this notion.

Some selected quotes:

- You run, you die.

- Stalk the tank. (this is repeated ad nauseam in the manual)

- Let the tank roll over you.

- Be absolutely certain that there is no infantry around.

- channel the tanks through mining (real or fake) and dig Panzerdeckungsloecher (special one-man trenches that one man can you use to be rolled over).

- Use all available cover.

- The good thing about the PF/PS is that you no longer have to get close.

Nowhere in the manual does it suggest: 'run towards the tank for 30m and then attack it'. Could that be connected to the 'you run, you die' instruction? I think we should be told.

[Andreas]

Oh, and I forgot. The manual mentions 'over 10,000' badges were awarded, but the war was still in merry progress then. A website I found with an article about tank-hunter teams in ASL claimed 14,000 badges were awarded throughout the war. This included destruction by PF and PS though. I think we can safely assume that the vast majority of kills would have been through either of these two, and not through HAWADs (Heroic Arians With A Deathwish) charging tanks on hills.