"HOLD" extra weapons

[c3k]

Gents,

A thought occurred during the replay of a WEGO turn. First, the situation: I had a U.S. squad equipped as an anti-armor overwatch unit. I'd taken the Javelin launcher and the 2 or 3 spare missiles as well as 4 or 5 AT4's. The squad was up on the sixth or seventh floor of a building. They gained LOS to a T-62 in motion around 600 meters away. Perfect. I targeted the T-62; they let rip with everything - including all the AT-4's. Everything missed. Ach.

Here's where my thought came in. I would never have wanted them to use the AT-4's. The range was too far and the target was moving. I would think the odds of hitting would've been very low. The Javelin was the preferred weapon. The T-62 never targeted my squad. Hence, there was no threat to them. The raining of AT-4's was fun to watch, but quite a waste.

I would like to be able to designate certain weapons as "HOLD", so they will not be fired.

I am not speaking about organic weapons (M4's, M240's, M249's, M203's, etc.) but the extra weapons added into the slots next to the command status area.

Ignoring the coding complexities, I'd think hovering the cursor over the weapon loadout portion of the user interface could open an option: HOLD or RELEASED. By default all additional weapons are RELEASED. Also, I'd think as HOLD would only become an option AFTER selecting TARGET. As soon as TARGET goes away (either through elimination or CLEAR TARGET or pinning or selection of a different target) all weapons are RELEASED.

TacAI retains discretion in event of a threat to the unit.

The most common circumstances would involve infantry units with many various engagements. If I am equipped with rockets of whatever form but don't want to have them wasted on area TARGET firing, I cannot withold them now. If I TARGET an enemy in a building, often every single Javelin goes "whoooshing" in. Whether I want them to or not. The only way to keep infantry from firing rocket weapons is to use TARGET LIGHT, yet that witholds a significant portion of small arms fire.

HOLD would let me TARGET instead of TARGET LIGHT any enemy unit or suspected position.

If I only wanted one Javelin to nail a bunker, I could HOLD the remaining missiles. That would prevent the Javelin equipped unit from exhausting its supply on a non-armor TARGET.

On the other hand, by not specifying HOLD when I TARGET an enemy, that would allow the AI to fire whatever it deems correct. That would allow the game to play as it is right now. So, if anyone thinks it's a "control-freak" issue, they would be free not to use it.

In-game I am the squad leader. I choose its path. I choose its target. I choose whether it rearms, hides, loads a vehicle, etc. In real life wouldn't a squad leader have just a little bit of input into whether or not a Javelin or AT-4 gets fired?

I'm sure there would be lots of other circumstances which others have faced where the indiscriminant AI use of the squads add-on assets has resulted in sub-optimal outcomes.

Thoughts?

Thanks,

Ken

[M1A1TC]

Great idea

[Huntarr]

Suggestion. If you had not manually used TARGET, the TACAI would have fired your JAV's for you and only your JAV's, saving you the expenditure of the other ordinance.

[Drusus]

Isn't it a logical thing to use "target" in this situation from user perspective? Or what if you have two tanks and you want for some reason to select which one to attack...

This "hold" idea has come up before, see this thread. I hope Battlefront is still considering implementing something to solve this problem.

[c3k]

Huntarr,

I disagree. The TacAI may or may not have fired at the non-threat T-62. However, _I_ wanted the infantry to fire on the T-62, not some of the small teams scurrying around a little closer to my squad. My squad was supposed to expend ordnance on the T-62. The rain of AT-4's was bit of an unintended consequence.

TARGET is the only way I have to explicity engage a specific target with AT weapons.

Refining my user interface idea, right clicking over the extra weapons would enable HOLD, signified by a red box around the item and a bold red "HOLD" across the icon. Obviously left clicking is reserved to bring up the icon's stats, such as penetration, range, weight, etc.

Thanks,

Ken

[c3k]

Drusus,

I checked the thread you linked; thanks. My idea is subtly different. I would not want any user control over organic weapons - the ones indicated in the user interface as green or yellow, depending on the individual's status. I'm only interested in gaining a stop command on the EXTRA weapons.

Regards,

Ken

[c3k]

Gents,

Having looked at the online manual, page 48, bold red 12, shows the area I'm talking about as being "Special Equipment".

If the player selects HOLD on an item of Special Equipment, the TacAI could just act as if that particular piece of kit is missing (excepting the penalty for its weight). The ability to HOLD Special Equipment would be limited to expendable munitions. This would obviate any complexities associated with having a Javelin, but the CLU is on HOLD. Extend as needed for Red equipment.

Thanks,

Ken

[Lethaface]

I like the idea of having more control in certain situations over what kind of weapon is fired at a given target (and/or which not), given it has been targeted by the user. This also goes for expendable rarer weapons like the TOW's on Bradleys, etc.

Since TOW's are organic to Bradleys unfortunately your idea wouldn't fully work for similar rare organic weapons.

Wouldn't be an extra 'special weapons / munitions' command be more easy?

In that way the current TAC-AI behaviour when targeting by itself, or when given a target or target light command wouldn't have to change (much). For example in this case, you could have given the order 'fire Javelin' at the enemy tank. The amount of clicks needed to perform the same task would be (far) less (in certain cases).

Moreover, I would imagine players trusting the TAC-AI more to do its own firing. I think Huntarr was right that, if you wouldn't have given the target command, the TAC-AI would have probably only fired a javelin missile. However I totally agree with you to target the 'mofo' manually

I think there are many of us who just don't trust ANY AI enough for not manually given that target order. Most 'must shoot heaviest weapon' targets that appear in my games, are given the target command by me explicitly. Just to be sure...

A 'Fire Javelin' / 'TOW' / 'AT-5' / 'AT-12' / etc command would let me comfy about leaving the TAC-AI alone untill I really need to be sure about 1 thing: that target needs to receive the heaviest ordnance available, and it needs it now. Click 'Special Weapons', designate, boom.

Of course even in this case there is still debate over what is a special weapon and for example; how to fire a Bradley Coax? Which is a problem that probably is going to be fixed with the same solution, I think.

I'm sure the best solution possible will be found and eventually implemented. I sniffed something somewhere about this bradley coax thing, that it would work 'like it should' in 1.1. Maybe we should just wait a bit till 1.1 comes out (?!). Or perhaps Steve or associates could give a lil' hint ?

[c3k]

Lethaface,

What really got me thinking about this is the situation where you have a contace in a building. Your infantry squad has, say, 2 Javelins. You want to suppress the contact so another element can manuever into the building. If you TARGET, the TacAI will fire all weapons, including BOTH Javelins. If you TARGET LIGHT the amount of small arms fire will be half (approximately) of what TARGET would give. Therefore the contact will be less suppressed. I _want_ to TARGET the building with the contact, but under no circumstances do I want the squad to fire off both Javelins.

As long as TARGET is locked onto the building with the contact, if I have HOLD on both Javelins, all is good. If an enemy tank appears, the TacAI can do its thing. If it determines the squad should break TARGET from the building and instead engage the tank, the HOLD disappears. This allows the TacAI to engage the tank with any and all Javelins. (Of course, the TacAI would need to know that the Javelins are available. Mere coding.)

Now, assume a situation where you want to fire ONE Javeline, or AT-4, or whatnot, at a target. Maybe it's a bunker, or a building that MAY have enemy in it. There's no way to do so. You cannot un-acquire special equipment. You'd need to have the right amount of ordnance on hand in the squad. Your only solution would be to have an un-equipped squad mount a vehicle, wait a turn to acquire the one weapon, then come up to the firing point and TARGET the desired, err, target.

Your solution could work. I'm just extrapolating out to conditions where ONE round will not destroy the target, yet would yield the results you want.

Thanks,

Ken

[Mikkey]

For suppress fire you're right, if I can suppress fire on building and I have Bradley with TOW, so Bradley fire first his all TOWs instead coax...

Would be good also selection between Main Gun/Second gun/TOW for vehicles and Machine gun(carabine)/Javelin(RPG) for infantry. Something like in old CMBtB/AK.

[CogNative]

c3k: "In-game I am the squad leader. I choose its path. I choose its target. I choose whether it rearms, hides, loads a vehicle, etc. In real life wouldn't a squad leader have just a little bit of input into whether or not a Javelin or AT-4 gets fired?".... "The most common circumstances would involve infantry units ..."

You have a reasonable addition petition Ken. Wouldn't limiting the improvement to "infantry units" decrease the coding conundrum for BFC?

Lethaface: "I like the idea of having more control in certain situations over what kind of weapon is fired at a given target (and/or which not), given it has been targeted by the user...Click 'Special Weapons', designate, boom."

That works for me and my squad.

CogNative

Ken, Thanks for the heads up on "Special Equipment" page 48, bold red 12.

[Combatintman]

I must admit I'm not a big fan of controlling everything but in the circumstance above there either needs to be this type of command available to the player or the AI needs a tweak. A shot at an AFV by an AT-4 or any similar weapon at 600m is optimistic at best. Ballpark ranges for this sort of kit are 500m for a static target and 300m for a moving target.

[Lethaface]

Unfortunely lost my post will typing...

Ken,

For WEGO indeed there are extra difficulties to implement some type of ordnance control, since I play mostly RT I overlooked it completely For RT you could just fire of one Javelin for example and shoot another one as you see fit (or disengage if the implementation is to keep firing those 'special' weapons untill target destroyed).

However as I keep thinking there will still be a problem with for example only using coax or targeting heavy without any javs or at-4's being fired (or one like you said). Putting weapons on hold might provide extra control, but is quite 'click heavy'. And in WEGO it is still impossible to shoot one more Javelin if you decided to hold all but one, if the first missed and your looking in the eye of a nice lil AT-14 KORNET-E...

I saw another post with some interesting use of the blast command. Dont remember who posted it though. He suggested something as to use the Blast command as a sort of target heavy, so we could have one more level, i.e. target light, medium and heavy.

That again wont be enough for a BMP-3 with it's array of weapons. Perhaps total control is just not practical. For me the most important things are:

- Being sure a BMP-1/2 or Bradley fires its ATGM instead of the 25/30/75mm (frustrating to have them lose their lives over wasting time by firing anything else then their strongest weapon). Even the 'target' command doesn't give any guarantee.

- Possibility to lay down heavy suppressive small arms fire from infantry without having to shoot any Javs, RPG's, etc.

- Possibility to shoot 1 Javelin without any other ordnance being fired, for example AT-14's or another pair of javs.

While it would be nice to be able to fire coax with a bradley before its 25mm run out, it isn't really that high on my list. There is plenty of 25mm ammo and it works similar but better then 7,62mm.

Lets hope marines brings some nice tweaks on this subject..

[theFightingSeabee]

Ken, you're on the right track. All we need is to be able to click any weapon and hold it. I have wasted so much ammo without this.

Weapons locations:

1. Infantry. Click a small H button on the little picture with the rifle... and he holds fire.

2. Extra weapons. Click a small H button on the picture of the extra weapon, say a javelin... and that weapon will not be used.

3. Vehicle info box. Click, for example, tow missiles or big tank gun... and that weapon will not be fired.

Benefits:

A) Light fire will be just 50% volume of fire from eligible (not Held) units. ex: I want to snipe the opposition. I am able to without all the guys with m4 spraying away.

We will be able to assign heavy fire with any weapon or number of weapons that we want. Including just firing one javelin or at4. ex: I don't shoot all of my at4s at a single moving target 500m away, just to get blown away by the same tank at close range later on.

C) We will conserve our weapons for the next time we need it.

D) It will add to further enhance tactical situations. ex: You see the enemy poking out of a trench. About to surprise them with a javelin sandwich, Pvt Shmuckatelli fires some shots over their head and they dive for cover before the javeling can lock on. Later on, I advance on the position. Shmuckatelli is shot dead. <-- This won't happen.

E) It will be more fun. ex: I can spend more time playing and less time bitching about details.

While we're at it, for God's sake, make the "HUGE RED BUTTON" a pause button during realtime play. And kill sheets for each unit. And movable waypoints. And a get all option for getting ammo. And be able to distribute ammo freely.

[Cpl Steiner]

You could borrow from the "Sims 2" and use a little padlock icon over the weapon. If you click the weapon, it toggles the padlock icon on and off. When the padlock icon is on, the weapon (AT-4, RPG, Javelin or whatever) is not used in subsequent "Target" commands.

My only problem with this is that it kind of reduces the relevance of "Target Light" and would require yet more changes to the manual. I don't see BFC buying into the idea.

[c3k]

These are all great ideas.

With my style of play it would be important to auto-unlock any weapons very soon. That's why I suggested that any change or loss of the original TARGET command would auto-unlock. I could see coming up with a reason to block the squad from using a weapon and then forgetting about for several turns. That would be an ooops. Kinda like the lieutenant in Aliens 2 taking all the weapon keys.

The relevance of TARGET LIGHT: In a previous thread I asked, and was answered by Steve, about the difference between TARGET and TARGET LIGHT. I also ran some tests. The prime difference, other than firing Special Equipment with TARGET, was the ammo usage rate. TARGET fires twice as fast. TARGET LIGHT is better aimed.

I don't know if BF.C will buy into this idea. There are 3 issues. First, it will take coding time and resources. Second, BF.C does not like to let players have any more control over their units than what BF.C deems appropriate, and based on what we have now BF.C did not think controlling Special Equipment is a player function. Third, and finally, I always sense BF.C has a bit of inertia to any outside idea (cheap reverse psychology ploy!).

Regards,

Ken

[Paper Tiger]

Maybe I missed something Ken and if I did, I apologise. But I'm curious to know why you didn't just create an ATGM team from that squad and that would have solved most of your problems.

[c3k]

Paper Tiger,

Good point. My purpose for that specific squad was to spot rooftop targets, report on movements, and engage any intermediate distance armor threatening my other troops. I may be wrong, but I thought split squads are more susceptible to adverse morale effects. Splitting off the AT team would weaken both elements of the squad. Additionally, the loss of 2 out of 9 trigger-pullers would lessen any suppressive firepower to engage enemy infantry trying to gain rooftops. In all, I thought the benefits of keeping the squad together outweighed any drawbacks. What are those drawbacks? Oh, the inability to withold inappropriate weapon use. Even if I had split off the Javelin team, the rifle team would still have retained several (at least) AT-4's. In that case, any TARGET command against contacts would result in them firing the AT-4's; that would go against my desire to hold them for armor targets. Hence, breaking off the AT team would have let me use only them to target the T-62 which started this. However, the rest of the squad probably would've squandered their AT-4's on other targets.

Now, I'm not saying the game is unplayable. There are workarounds. Paper Tiger touched on one of them; splitting off AT teams whenever an ATGM Special Equipment is attached to a squad. Another workaround is never, ever, ever TARGET if you don't want Special Equipment ordnance to be expended; only use TARGET LIGHT. Another workaround is never ACQUIRE any kind of Special Equipment until you locate a target for that Special Equipment. Then, get a unit back to the vehicle carrying the gear and go through the acquisition process, move, gain LOS, and engage the enemy. Oh, only acquire the exact number of rounds of Special Equipment ordnance that you want expended. That way, for example, you won't fire 3 Javelins into a building when you only wanted 1.

This is not a bug report, nor am I claiming the game is broken. I am trying to balance playability with realistic levels of fire discipline. As I have stated before, one of the strengths of this game is the ability for the player to act at several levels of command simultaneously: I am the vehicle commander, the team leader, the squad leader, the platoon leader, the company commander, the battalion arty FO, the battalion commander, all separately and all combined.

I can dig down into which gear to drive a vehicle: SLOW, MOVE, REVERSE, etc. I can choose how many tubes of arty will fire when I call a fire mission. I can tell my squads to occupy the 6th floor of a building and look to the North. I can tell my tank to fire machinegun only at a target. I can move a team over to some casualties to begin first aid. But, I CANNOT keep my men from firing off every piece of Special Equipment ordnance they carry; I can either restrict them totally, or totally let them loose.

There's got to be way of limiting this. I don't believe this is only desirable from a "control-freak" point of view. I feel this is a basic element of squad leadership, if not platoon level. The control of special ordnance when engaging targets.

I am curious of any currently serving members have anything to say on this subject. If there is absolutely no command and control over Javelins and AT-4's during an engagement, then kudos to BF.C. If, however, it is expected that the weapon user defer to the squad leader in whether and when to use such a weapon if there is no immediate threat to the squad, then perhaps a tweak is not out of line.

Regards,

Ken

[Combatintman]

c3K,

There should always be command and control - that is what the Section Commander (or Squad Leader if you prefer) is there for. The main mediums are through target indication and a simple fire control order.

[c3k]

Combatintman,

Yeah, I'm sure the squad/team leader has the responsibility of releasing those weapons. I'm just POSITIVE about it.

In a similar vein, I certainly do NOT want the added complexity of, say, ordering single fire vice auto fire. Nor would I want to have to order each grenade throw. I do think these exceptional squad/team assets should require exceptional player interaction. I think in most cases the TacAI that BF.C has created does a reasonably good job. In the case of special equipment there is room for improvement.

Thanks,

Ken

[theFightingSeabee]

Combatintman,

Yeah, I'm sure the squad/team leader has the responsibility of releasing those weapons. I'm just POSITIVE about it.

In a similar vein, I certainly do NOT want the added complexity of, say, ordering single fire vice auto fire. Nor would I want to have to order each grenade throw. I do think these exceptional squad/team assets should require exceptional player interaction. I think in most cases the TacAI that BF.C has created does a reasonably good job. In the case of special equipment there is room for improvement.

Thanks,

Ken

Well, as a former squad member/leader, you are exactly right. The way were were trained (although highly unlikely in the heat of battle) the squad leader was the man. Ofcourse, he takes orders from the platoon commander who takes orders from the company commander and so on. The squad leader, in a fight, would communicate to the squad exactly who will do what. For example, a squad of infantry being approached by a fireteam of infantry... The squad leader will call out fireteams or the whole squad (who), the actions to take (what), the weapons to use (how), how many rounds to expend (how much), where to shoot (where) and finally how they are to be fired (single, auto, final protective fire, etc.). Obviously, this doesn't happen. But with enough training, the squad should perform without this babysitting.

So yes, more control over a squad is essential to tactical realism.

[c3k]

tFS,

Thanks for sharing real squad leader experience.

Ken

[Cpl Steiner]

I've just had another experience of a situation in which it would be very useful to allow certain weapons to fire and others to be held back, so I thought I'd post it here.

My Bradley Mech platoon had dismounted its Javelin-armed infantry and was coming under fire from AT-3 "Sagger" positions a long way away. The Sagger positions were revealed each time they fired, but only for a few seconds. I decided to try to take them out using Javelin.

The problem I had was that the Javelin team could not be detached from the rest of the men (the unit was already a half-squad IIRC). Consequently, whenever I used Target on a revealed Sagger position, the team's LMG would open up first, suppressing the Sagger position. Being suppressed, the Sagger position very soon changed to an "Unknown" position (question mark icon) thus causing my Javelin soldier to lose track of the target.

Basically, if you are trying to take out enemy troops using Javelin, the last thing you want is for one of your buddies to get their heads down with a burst of MG!

[c3k]

Yeah, that's another possibility - that TARGET will fire something which negates the effect you wanted. That would require holding fire on an organic weapon, which is different than Special Equipment.

In another thread I've got an M249 gunner who apparently picked up an M4A1 while conducting buddy aid. Although a standard issue carbine is NOT Special Equipment, it would be nice to've seen it listed on that menu. If a HOLD command is ever considered by BF.C I could HOLD the M4, forcing the M249 to be used.

If we can HOLD organic weapons, that would force some interestin behavior.

In your case, let's say there were 4 soldiers, one of which had a Javelin. If you put HOLD on 3 of them and only allowed the Javelin to be free then placed the TARGET, it would seem that only the Javelin would be fired. All is good...

However, you're a sloppy player. (Hey! I'm not making this up. Everyone in the Peng agrees. ) Because you're sloppy, you inadvertently placed HOLD on all 4 men, THEN placed the TARGET command. Now what'll happen? Will the TacAI withhold all fire from the organic weapons? Would that lead to a charge with knives and brass knuckles?

I'm sure there'd be a lot more testing/coding/unintended consequences from HOLDING organic weapons. I'd love to see BF.C start with coding a HOLD on Special Equipment.

Just some food for thought.

Thanks,

Ken

[cabal23]

Ok so first split your groups, have them reenter the Stryker and arm up with the Javelins. If you are on a roof of a tall building morale shouldn't be an issue. Once all rockets are expended join back up with the squad. I always keep a split squad with Javs on overwatch from the highest point on the board. The AI will see things way before you do. I really do trust the AI with Jav's. They have seldom if ever let me down. I know it was covered but the postives way outweigh the negatives.