units aware of "enemy" vs "safe" zones?

[David Chapuis]

Was playing a CMAK game recently where I lost two HTs to an MG42 on the side. One of the HTs was KOd, the other abandoned - but neither had a crew loss. The way I interpret that is that one of the HTs was damaged, where in the other one the crew just got scared so they just jumped out of the vehicle.

Now I can understand a crew jumping out of an amored vehicle because they dont feel very safe. But it doesnt make sense to do it in the middle of an open field with enemy units approx 50m away to the right and left, especially when it would make much more sense to keep the pedal to the metal for another 15 seconds where the crew could abandon in the safety of an empty house or behind some trees.

So I was wondering if CMx2 was going to try to give units some sort of awareness of enemy vs safe positions when the TacAI/PanicAI takes over. There are lots of examples in CMx1 where improvement could be seen:

</font>

• Vehicles trying to escape Indirect fire - nothing quite as frustrating as the SP Gun trying to avoid a tenative death and driving to within 10m of a few enemy infantry units when it could have reversed and been completely safe from both.</font>
• routed troops running towards the enemy</font>
• troops doing the 180 degree belly dance when fire comes from opposite directions</font>

I havent tried to think of any guiding principles that would actually allow a game to model this correctly, but was curious if this was a problem that is being addressed.

[hoolaman]

This is a pretty good point. I am not sure in CM that either level of AI really knows where its opponent is unless it actually sees it.

More important would be for the AI to recognise areas of likely enemy activity so it can come up with a cohesive battle plan.

A human player will extrapolate what they see into into blobs of possible enemy activity even based on an infantry sound contact. If the AI "thinks" in these terms, it might make a lot of stuff work better, including the problems with a lack of unit spotting memory

[John_d]

There is (to a degree) a certain realism to the PanicAI. Firstly, troops don't always know where the best place to run is. They may run into an enemy position that they could not see whilst trying to get away. Or possibly just don't think about it rationally and do something stupid. Secondly, a vehicle crew is a smaller and less inviting target than a tank. Plenty of times in CMx1 you see tank crews wiped out b/c they can't get out fast enough. But, by the same token, vehicle crews don't often get directly targeted unless there is nothing better to shoot at. How many times have you seen a tank crew wander for miles throught a fire-fight unharmed, or sit out a battle under a tree? Happens alot.

Having said that, its not perfect and stupid AI flaws (like automatically crawling towards the nearest piece of cover which happens to be where the fire is coming from) are annoying. It would be good if the AI had a few 'tricks' built into it, like feint attacks and stuff. And also knew how to counter some common tricks itself

[Cpl Steiner]

The assumption stated by the original poster was that the crew just panicked, because the vehicle was identified as "abandoned" rather than "knocked out".

Is this the only interpretation? I think not. To my mind, "abandoned" could mean that the vehicle has stopped working (perhaps it took a bullet through a fuel line) but can be brought back into service after the battle with some minor field repairs. In such a situation, the crew would have to bail out, as otherwise they would be sitting ducks for a grenade or anti-tank round.

Hopefully in the next game such interpretations will not be necessary, as we will know for sure if a vehicle is unable to move or if the crew have simply panicked. In the latter case, then they should drive like mad for suitable cover and not just bail in the middle of a field.

[SteveP]

I have a couple of thoughts that I think are related to this. Whenever you are playing a scenario (not a QB) and see units routing toward the enemy (truly routing, not just in cover panic -- i.e., sneaking or advancing while in a pinned state), there is from my experience a fair probability of an error in the scenario parameters. You can open the scenario in the Editor and check on the second page of parameters for the setting for Side Friendly To. You will likely find that the unit is routing toward a side that these parameters say is friendly to it's army. This may, in fact, be where the enemy is located.

On the question of the TacAI targeting tank crews when other targets are available, I have a theory that one of the "rules" guiding AI behavior is to maximize victory points. Man for man, tank crews are worth more points than infantry, for example. Don't know if this theory is correct, but it has made me think twice about overruling the TacAI when I see it doing this.

[MikeyD]

Ah, I had forgot about the abandoned vs destroyed distinction in CMx1. That only comes into play during Operations when an abandoned vehicle can be retrieved and brought back to the fight. Something I haven't had to think about since i haven't played an Operation for a dog's age.

As for the logic of jumping from a vehicle into an open field under fire, I recall an eastern-front anecdote that had T34s attacking across an open field into the teeth if withering fire. Though none of the rounds penetrated (from 37-50mm AT guns?) each bash against the turret wall was a potential moment of death for the crew. With visions of being burned alive at each impact, crews would sometimes have panic ractions and prefer leaving the vehicle to certain death rather than enduring that torture. Plus, if you read U.S. WWII combat accounts crews of lost Shermans seem to be constantly scampering to safety across open fields!