AI's ability to handle mounted troops

[MikeyD]

Admiring CMSF's gorgeous BMP-1 wallpaper I started wondering, how will CMx2 be at handling mounted troops?

In CMx1 mounted troops - especially truck-mounted troops - were not exactly the AI's strong suit. Can I assume that when setting up a scenario we'll be able to advise the assaulting BMPs to 'go to this spot and debark'? Since the game's centered around a Stryker unit I assume there's going to be a LOT of AI thinking going on 'under the hood' in order to produce even moderately logical mounted troop behavior. Remember, in CMx1 AI-commanded troops usually wouldn't leave their truck until after it was ablaze.

[ December 28, 2006, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[hellfish]

I remembering having the opposite experience in CMx1 - the troops would dismount at the first sign of gunfire.

Setting up something relatively simple like a convoy ambush was an exercise in frustration.

[rudel.dietrich]

What is the doctrine in the US Army/Marines?

When we were truck mounted we were told to dismount at the first sign of gunfire.

When APC mounted we were to stay in the vehicle as long as it was small arms fire.

When other things started being added to the mix we were to dismount.

If we came under mortar or artillery fire we were to dismount ASAP

[hellfish]

Actually, we dismounted too whenever we were in humvees - but maybe I'm not making myself clear. I remember setting up a couple missions with infantry in trucks or half tracks and they'd often disembark at the very beginning of the mission or if firing occurred on the map 1000m away, they'd still disembark even if not in contact.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

Actually, we dismounted too whenever we were in humvees - but maybe I'm not making myself clear. I remember setting up a couple missions with infantry in trucks or half tracks and they'd often disembark at the very beginning of the mission or if firing occurred on the map 1000m away, they'd still disembark even if not in contact.

In my experience they would disembark as soon as fired upon.

The problem was that they would never re-embark and thus gain back the advantage of being mechanized.

The AI would also disembark in odd places like the middle of forests or in rocky terrain or a long ways away from a objective and then make the infantry walk.

Very odd behaviour

[Battlefront.com]

fytinghellfish,

Normally I think you're toting a full six pack, but in this case I think you're a few cans short The TacAI in CMx1 would not dismount troops unless fired at. The problem was, as Rudel said, that they would never embark again. Once they were peppered with small arms fire (there was a threshold, depending on lots of factors) the embarked units would hop out. That was SOP as far as we could tell. But unless fired upon they would remain embarked until the AI thought it was wise to disembark them. What I suspect you might remember is that the AI was often times a LOT more cautious than Human players and would disembark too soon in some cases.

I don't know how much better the AI will be in CM:SF in this regard. It's a very, very complicated set of behaviors to mimic in code.

Steve

[hellfish]

Yeah, I had to reformat my hard drive about a month or two ago, and I haven't reinstalled any CM games yet (or any games at all for that matter).

It's entirely possible that my less-than-functional brain is remembering things the wrong way.

Guess I'll have to install CMAK or CMBB this weekend to jog my memory again.

[MikeyD]

Truck-mounted troops were only good for target practice in 'surprise attack' scenarios anyway. Doctrine in WWII was for the troops to lose their trucks long before they were within range of enemy fire. The advantage of the M3 HT was that it could bring the troops up to within maybe a quarter mile of the objective before disembarking. Hey, 8mm of armor is still only 8mm of armor!

Theoretically, a slatted Stryker or reactive-armor Bradley can now transport their troops right up to the objective, (making BFC's job of coding more complex). But there's still that threat of being caught with everybody packed together into a vehicle when the AT round penetrates. So I'd expect to see the AI disembarking troops sooner rather than later . I can't see the poor old BMP being particularly efficient at infantry support. So if it can't safely transport troop to the objective and it's not good for infantry support what good will it be in the game? fun target practice for those .50 cal sniper rifles, I suppose.

I wonder if they're going to code the BMP's 73mm gun/launcher to defeat the slat cage or not. Eh, probably not, the round's little more than an old RPG projectile - but then again, a 73mm warhead diameter means it might just be able to sneak between the slat bars! Hmmm...

[Battlefront.com]

BMP-1s can toast a Stryker. This much I can already confirm

Steve

[hellfish]

Pictures or it didn't happen!

[rudel.dietrich]

The muzzle velocity of the 73mm BMP-1 cannon is pretty high, just on kinetic energy alone it can punch through a slat cage and impact the armour directly.

The problem will be hitting the target in the first place.

Those guns are essentialy RR with limited stabilization and poor optics.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, that 73mm gun does not lob spitballs. The Stryker's slats are not designed to combat such a round. The BMP-1 that shot me up was stationary *and* had the benefit of untweaked accuracy calculations. Meaning, it pretty much hit whatever it shot at. ouch.

Steve

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

BMP-1s can toast a Stryker. This much I can already confirm

Steve

In the game or in RealLife™?

curious

-tom w

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I wonder if they're going to code the BMP's 73mm gun/launcher to defeat the slat cage or not. Eh, probably not, the round's little more than an old RPG projectile - but then again, a 73mm warhead diameter means it might just be able to sneak between the slat bars! Hmmm...

Also Mikey, keep in mind that the Strykers slat armor isnt designed as stand of armor as such, but instead is designed to squish older RPG rounds which should damage their piezo-electric fuze, hopefully stopping a detonation. In fact, from what Ive read the stand off distance isnt enough to make considerable impact on the RPG's warhead, and penetration would still be possible if it was detonated (though considerable less catastrophic). Any rounds made post '79 arent affected by this though.

As such, slat armor should likely have little effect on the 73mm, and next to none on the At-3, particually the later models with significantly larger warheads.

[offtaskagain]

[

[ December 30, 2006, 08:11 AM: Message edited by: offtaskagain ]

[M1A1TC]

Why are you posting your SOP here? Forgetting about OPSEC? I hope your unit commander doesnt see this

[offtaskagain]

My bad. I guess that shows how well your brain functions after a 24 hour day.

[Battlefront.com]

My bad. I guess that shows how well your brain functions after a 24 hour day

Hey, I'm impressed that it even worked well enough to type

Steve

[M1A1TC]

Thank for taking that SOP offline...I am on deployment myself, I have plenty of stories, but make sure you think of OPSEC first before posting

[MikeyD]

"...As such, slat armor should likely have little effect on the 73mm"

I was wondering whether or not the BMP's HEAT round's fusing matches the older RPG fusing. Whether the slat cage can dent the outer shell and short out the fuse like the RPG. Its been so long since I've even thought about the BMP-1, is the 73mm round rocket-assisted like the RPG or is it simple a finned HEAT warhead like a Carl Gustav?

[EDITED] I dug up the info. The BMP's HEAT round is indeed rocket-assisted like the RPG. Leaves the barrel at 400ms and is then boosted up to 700ms. The fins make it quite unstabile firing through cross-winds. The PG-9 round Is said to be able to penetrate 300m armor. The basic RPG round, by comparison has a max velocity of approx 300ms and penetrates approx 330m.

[ January 02, 2007, 09:28 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]