Hunt and Covered Arc is broken...

[c3k]

Gents,

Here's the situation: I am trying to move a squad without getting all my men killed. I have found that "Hunt" is better than "Quick" or "Move" ("Saunter"?) when the enemy may be nearby. Many dead pixel-troopers litter my path to this knowledge. Sorry men.

Unfortunately, "Hunt" will stop my guys in their tracks as soon as they see ANY enemy. Even one 1,000 meters away. Hey, that's cool. It's not what I wanted to do on that turn with that unit, but it's better than blindly advancing. So I tweaked my tactics.

Using my hard-won CMx1 knowledge, I used "Hunt" with a "Cover Arc" covering the area I suspected harbored an enemy unit. My guys stopped as soon as they saw an enemy unit...on the other side of the map; far, far outside the covered arc. Not good.

How do I keep my guys hunting forward despite far-off enemy units?

I am now using "Assault", but that is not an optimal solution, as it dilutes the immediately available firepower.

Thanks,

Ken

[CptWasp]

I agree that they should ignore enemies far away, if they aren't under fire or direct danger

[Exel]

At least they should ignore enemies beyond their weapons' reach. They should only stop when they engage or if pinned down (that's what getting pinned down means, after all).

[c3k]

I was thinking that cover arc would limit their sensed zone. Ach.

Regards,

Ken

[Combatintman]

I think that perhaps you're getting overstressed to be honest.

In real life you may be told to cover a particular arc but to maintain situational awareness you're always going to be looking around as a dismount if for no other reason than to see where your feet are going. Also the section/squad commander needs to look around just to check that he's going in the right direction and that all of the blokes in the section are following so there is at least one person who is covering 360 degree arcs.

Now I don't know if these are the factors that went into coding this game but to translate into real life that would be a reason why an enemy is spotted outside the game/player induced covered arc.

Next point is - so what if they stop? You lose a bit of time. Your plan should have enough flexibility and concurrent activity to cope with it. Given also that the basis of all tactics is fire and manoeuvre you should have something overwatching anyway - be it another section/squad or vehicles of some sort. That being the case they will engage enemies that pop up and means that you can reconsider what movement order type you give to the moving section/squad.

[YankeeDog]

I think Combatintman makes some very good points, but one of the problems with the Hunt command in this context is that the TacAI is usually not smart enough to continue a small move into nearby cover if it spots enemy while under the Hunt command.

For example, say a Syrian squad is passing through some intermittent trees, hunting forward. If the squad spots a Stryker 1000m distant on a hill while in the middle of a small clearing (where it has the best view and is most likely to spot a distant enemy), it doesn't have the sense on its own to either (a) back up 10m or so into the copse it just left, or ( press forward into the next clump of trees. It just stops right where it is, horribly exposed in the middle of the clearing. Unless the player intervenes, the Stryker will probably eventually spot the infantry unit and take it under fire.

Once the infantry comes under fire, they may try to move into better cover on their own. But by then it's often too late.

It's not a problem as long as you can micromanage -- you really need to keep close tabs on Hunting units to make sure they don't stop in a stupid place. But in WEGO, or in larger battles, you don't always have this luxury.

Or you can use lots of waypoints -- Hunt only through good cover, Quick or Fast through open areas where the unit shouldn't stop. This takes a lot of time and requires an awful lot of clicks, though.

I'm not sure of the best solution, but in an ideal world, we'd have a "move to contact, but don't stop anywhere stupid" command. This is probably a difficult programming challenge, though.

For now, I can live with it the way it is, but I do have to limit myself to one hunting unit at a time, so I can "ride herd" on it, and quickly order it into the nearest cover if it stops somewhere stupid.

Cheers,

YD

[c3k]

Combatintman,

To paraphrase what YankeeDog stated, there is a balance here which I think is not right. I understand what you're saying, and while I'm not overstressed about this game, I do think it could better simulate combat.

If I order my guys to HUNT into cover and they stop mid-way because of an enemy unit that just popped into their sight 1,000 meters away, that behavior may or may not be desirable. If the enemy unit is a tank and my HUNT guys are my scouts, yeah, stopping is fine...unless they are just short of cover. I can accept them not continuing into cover as a "freeze before the enemy sees us" kind of situation. Not great, but acceptable.

Now, if I give my HUNT unit a restriced cover arc, my intention is for them to continue to advance, using available cover, ignoring far off enemy units, but stopping if any enemy appears in that cover arc.

I try to use this combination to check out buildings I think are empty. I want them to stop if an enemy unit is in the building. This behavior was very useful in CMx1. (A different game, I know.)

So, it's not a matter of putting blinders on and ignoring what's going on around you, it's a matter of ignoring what's going on in a distant location and getting on with the job at hand, e.g., getting into that building without being mown down.

Regards,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

Combatintman does make a good point, however C3K's point is also good. This is one of the problems with TacAI programming... there are an infinite number of possibilities that each thing has to do and do "right" pretty much all the time.

I'm pretty sure Charles already made a tweak to Hunt's sensitivity in the v1.08 patch, but I'll run this by him just in case.

Steve

[c3k]

Steve,

Outstanding. I recognize your statement is NOT saying that you agree with my position, but looking at the situation is all I could hope for. Thanks.

Regards,

Ken