Area Fire and the Iron Man AI

[Paper Tiger]

How often do you do this? You’re playing a mission in Real Time and some of your troops run into some serious opposition and are taking a pasting. You have a tank or some heavy infantry support vehicle, Stryker MGS for example, sitting somewhere with LoS to that enemy position but they’re as yet unaware of the trouble. The game’s C2 system doesn’t allow you to share information between units that they wouldn’t realistically have. Nevertheless, you target that building with the main gun and wham, the opposition gets taken out. The same applies with any support weapons or other units that have LoS to that building but as yet are unaware of the presence of enemy troops that you use to area fire on that position.

Now, I do this very often when I’m playing and I guess that you could call this cheating. Why? Because I’m taking advantage of my omnicience to artificially react to the enemy outside of the game’s C2 system. Okay, but we’re using area fire and that’s not an unreasonable cheat. But what about the AI player? Can it do this? Of course not. And that’s yet another handicap that the computer opponent labours under that it’s human opponent doesn’t. The computer has to play strictly by the rules, indeed by ‘Iron Man’ rules. It isn’t programmed to take advantage of it’s own omnicience in the same way the human player does.

The AI’s inability to use area fire like this puts it at yet another disadvantage against a Real Time opponent. WEGo players are playing under similar restrictions to their computer opponent only within the span of a single turn and as soon as that turn ends, they too can take advantage of their knowledge to remedy this situation. Personally, I’d be happy to ‘allow’ the computer to cheat and speculatively put down area fire on a building, or even position, that at least one other of it’s units has ‘?’ level info on. This seems reasonable to me because I suspect that we, the human players, ALL do this when we can. If you’re playing any PbeM games against a human opponent, you’ll definitely see him doing this to you too. It would definitely boost the computer player’s ability to give us a bloody nose more often.

Of course, a second, and probably more acceptable, solution for most of the community would be to introduce a more challenging, fourth way of playing the game with some kind of Iron Man rules so that only those of us who want to play it under these gruelling circumstances would have to do so.

[missinginreality]

That's a good point PT; I think that allowing the opposing AI to use area/covering fire would be a worthy thing to do and even the balance somewhat.

[theFightingSeabee]

To me, it's just a matter of my squad asking the commander (me) for fire on X. Then I grant the fire request and Boom.

It would be cool if the ai could do that as well.

[slug88]

Perhaps this imbalance could be resolved in another way, by limiting the human player's ability to immediately lay down suppressive fire. How about a command delay, a la CMx1 games, for area fire orders? On the other hand, 'question marks' should be targetable in the same way as visible enemies and without a delay. Therefore, human 'cheating' would largely be eliminated, while the importance of C2 would be greatly emphasized.

[Paper Tiger]

One major problem that I can see with doing this would be that it would fundamentally alter the entire game experience for all of us. So much so that you could argue against the inclusion of the current C2 system as it would become less meaningful. However, I would like to see some system that would allow the AI to use area fire within the game. Perhaps it could be introduced as part of BFC's new Iron Man play style so that AI units with LoS to a Friendly position that is known to one or more of its units, (perhaps depending on the overall experience level of the computer units i.e. 1 unit for Elite, 2 for Crack, 3 for Veteran etc) were able to area fire upon that position.

BTW, sorry about the large type in my original post but I typed it up on a word processor and the script lookde fine when I pasted it into the Thread box.

[Other Means]

I think this is an excellent idea. So much so I made the suggestion myself in January this year:

Suggestion:

Area fire should have a delay and weight dependent on tactical situation + C&C (up to a maximum value).

Issue to be addressed:

The players ability to support with fire anywhere, given their “God like” ability to be everywhere on the battlefield.

Associated issues:

• Lack of player feedback causing an involved area fire process stemming from the unit spotting system.
  
• Command delays in movement orders.

I’d like to discuss these separately to not diffuse this discussion.

Improvement in game-play change would bring

• The C&C framework would assume proper, realistic importance.
  
• The level of planning the player would have to make to play the game well would increase.
  
• The tactical decisions would mirror those made by a commander in the field in sighting overwatch, ensuring C&C etc.
  
• Ambushes, hit and run tactics, fighting withdrawals, etc would all be more useful as less instant firepower could be brought against them.
  
• Unrealistic “lone sniper” recce where the sniper is out of C&C would become less useful.

I feel all these add to the tactical depth of CM - and that’s what I’m playing the game for.

Description

I believe we play CM at 3 distinct levels:

• Squad leader - we tell each squad where to go
  
• Company commander – we form the plan that the units conform to
  
• God – we can see everywhere and have access to all info our units have and can give instantaneous orders to them

The player sees all and knows all, so can act as God. So I think it might be an idea to start limiting his powers.

One of the innovations that CM1 brought us was command delays. I really liked these as I think they illustrated the command net and brought a level of planning to CM. I’d like to see them re-introduced but I won’t argue that here.

What I would like through is similar delays when ordering area fire.

In the situation above, the unit with the thick red line has LOS to the enemy unit, but the MG on the right has no knowledge of it. How would it know to fire on it? In the game he can fire straight away, so what does this do to our tactics?

• We can advance a squad anywhere out of C&C and not suffer penalties to the way they integrate with the rest of the company.
  
• We can leave support weapons anywhere and rely on them being able to instantaneously support an advance.

Our tactics are changed because we suffer no penalties for unrealistic play.

Proposed solution

Model the command net in the calling of area fire, the main way the player acts as the central nexus of information. Give area fire a delay and weighting attached to it dependant on the firing units perception of the enemy positions, either via the C&C network or self spotting (all figures etc TBD):

• If the unit can see the enemy - no delay, maximum fire density
  
• If the area fire is within ~100m of the unit (dependent on training, suppression etc) - no delay, maximum fire density
  
• If the unit has a sound contact - minimal delay, 90% fire density
  
• If the unit has a tentative contact - medium delay, 70% fire density
  
• If the unit has no sight of the enemy, the shortest communications delay between any unit that can, via CoC, OR some upper limit (more for WWII), to simulate ad-hoc contact, 40% fire density
  
• If there is no enemy unit visible to any unit, maximum delay and light “recon by fire” 20% fire density

Thoughts?

---

It's not something BFC are interested in doing - Steve thinks it'll create it's own problems.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Paper Tiger]

It's not something BFC are interested in doing - Steve thinks it'll create it's own problems.

If you don't want to upset your realism, don't cheat.

Yup, it's just something to do while I'm waiting for the Marines module to arrive. I have ZERO expectation that BFC will change the game in the way I've described because I agree that it probably create more problems than it would solve.

As to not cheating, well, I'd prefer it if there was some game mechanism that forced me to play more by the rules than it does currently, for example like the Iron Man rules. I DO try to play by the rules but sometimes it's just too easy to slap down that enemy position with a round or two from a T-62 than to 'do it' properly. The beauty of having a higher, more restricting method of playing would be that it would only restrict those of us who wanted to play it and wouldn't be forced down everyone's throats.

[TheVulture]

It's not something BFC are interested in doing - Steve thinks it'll create it's own problems.

If you don't want to upset your realism, don't cheat.

Yup, it's just something to do while I'm waiting for the Marines module to arrive. I have ZERO expectation that BFC will change the game in the way I've described because I agree that it probably create more problems than it would solve.

Not least it prevents perfectly legitimate uses of area fire on potential or suspected enemy positions while advancing. Any time you want to cover an advance by shooting up the few areas where enemy units might be waiting for you, you are suddenly slapped with long delays and ineffective fire.

As a rule, you don't want to go around blocking legitimate tactics to prevent occasional misuse.

As to not cheating, well, I'd prefer it if there was some game mechanism that forced me to play more by the rules than it does currently, for example like the Iron Man rules. I DO try to play by the rules but sometimes it's just too easy to slap down that enemy position with a round or two from a T-62 than to 'do it' properly. The beauty of having a higher, more restricting method of playing would be that it would only restrict those of us who wanted to play it and wouldn't be forced down everyone's throats.

While that would be no bad thing, BFC do seem to have a general policy of making us all play the same game as far as possible, on the basis that the more options you allow the player, the more you fragment the head-to-head player base who have their own favourite rule sets, which in turn reduces your number of potential PBEM / TCPIP opponents and arguably hurts the appeal of the game for people who enjoy playing human opponents. Or I gather that is more or less the reason. (c.f. Civilization multiplayer games which are usually preceeded by extended wrangling over which of the many, many rules options in the games are turned on, never mind which player-created rules mods are to be used).

For all that it is nice to be able to customise a game to play how you want it to, the multiplayer community benefit greatly from everyone having to play by the same ruleset all the time.

(Maybe there is a system that would work which everyone will like, but I don't personally think that penalising area fire depending on what the area-firing unit knows relative to what some other unit knows is the way to go. I find it is far too common that I want to shoot the hell out of a few buildings just to be safe, whether or not some stray AT team happens to have picked up a sound contact in the area).

[Secondbrooks]

If computer is given ability to micromanage it's firepower then i quess it would gain edge over human players, because of calculative powers? It can calculate how to get most firepower on player's troops, and then it can issue like 100 orders in one tenth of second. i usually ignore use of area fire as i'm so damn lazy (i micromanage only things which says big BOOM, like javs and > 100mm HE).

You could say that i'm just poor player. Which i probably am. Is it then real spirit of CMx2 to win battles by micromanaging fire? As that is the way i see current CMSF... right now it's favoring player, if AI gets area-fire-micromanaging-possibility then i can see that game starts to favor computer (or players who pauses game for every second and go thru all their troops, issue new area fire orders etc)

I would like to area fire to be automated, or maybe semi-automated (how easily to open fire and should they use heavy fire etc.). That would cut half of micromanaging off, basically i would now only need to keep attention on how and where squads should move. That would improve CMx2 greatly in my eyes, make difference between player and computer smaller. Yup, it is probably just wish-thinking and daydreaming.

[missinginreality]

Maybe it would not be so much as a time penalty as an accuracy penalty then? For instance, a general suppressing fire would I guess be by and large "unaimed" except in the rough direction of building/copse/treeline etc. Thus the chance of actually hitting anything hiding there if not spotted by anyone would be a bit random.

However, say C2 is used to request an MG team to put suppressing fire on a building from an advancing unit that has LOS to an opfor in said building.Now THAT area fire from the MG would surely have a higher percentage chance of suppression?

Thus the penalty would be a negative on accuracy for "unspotted" area fire and unpenalised for "spotted".

In computation terms at all times the program knows that in a certain building there is either a spotted unit or not? Thus area fire into a "spotted" zone would carry a higher chance of suppression than area fire into an "unspotted" zone

I perceive this would have the following effect:

Retaining effectiveness of random unspotted area fire but possible reducing its suppression/effectiveness

Increasing effectiveness of C2 called area fire.

Obviusly there would need to be some kind of check internally that the unit providing suprression is actually in C2 with a unit that has LOS to the target. This is where a possible delay could come into play. Delay = increased effectiveness

[RSColonel_131st]

Sounds like a better solution than delays. If the unit in LOS can transmit targets as "third window from left, second floor" then that's better than peppering the whole building with supressive fire.

I'm pretty new to CM:SF - what surprised me is that contacts seem to go easier out of LOS than with CMBB, which means more area fire... and at the same time, area fire is much more deadly (totally killed two Syrian MG crews with a Bradley just firing blind, in a 20 minute scenario). In CMBB, area fire way annoying and supressing, but below 100mm HE hardly ever killing.

[Other Means]

Not least it prevents perfectly legitimate uses of area fire on potential or suspected enemy positions while advancing. Any time you want to cover an advance by shooting up the few areas where enemy units might be waiting for you, you are suddenly slapped with long delays and ineffective fire.

No - that's exactly what you DO want. Under the rules I stated if you want the advancing unit to area fire at something ~100m (arbitrary figure BTW. Maybe 200m would be better) away you can do so with no delay. However if you want to suppress with a support weapon then there’s a delay. And there should be a delay – after all you have to go up and down the chain of command to talk to the supporting units and get them to area fire. Units 300m away won’t spontaneously shoot up a patch of trees you’re moving towards. At that distance they’re probably unsure if friendlies are in it anyway.

If however the support unit is within shouting distance of the unit asking for support then there’s no delay.

It makes you plan your advance two minutes into the future – and making plans is what the game is all about.

Sorry for picking on this snippet I’m in work. Will do the rest tonight.

[Paper Tiger]

Not least it prevents perfectly legitimate uses of area fire on potential or suspected enemy positions while advancing. Any time you want to cover an advance by shooting up the few areas where enemy units might be waiting for you, you are suddenly slapped with long delays and ineffective fire.

As a rule, you don't want to go around blocking legitimate tactics to prevent occasional misuse.

I have no problem with the legitimate use of area fire at all. It's simply that it is a one sided feature inasmuch as the computer player is incapable of using it. It's the gamey use of area fire that I'm discussing as detailed in my first post.

As to fragmenting the PBeM community, I don't think it would have that big an effect. I would imagine that the vast majority of the games being played just now are either Veteran or Elite. And when the new elite mode comes along, most folks will probably opt to play Elite rather than Veteran. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if a more restricting Iron Man style wouldn't become the most popular style for PBeM players as it would prevent both sides from using these gamey exploits.

BTW, I'm most certainly NOT advocating the introduction of delays to area fire and I know that my own suggestions are pretty worthless to BFC as well. But I am hoping that BFC will bear this imbalance in mind when they are making plans for extra features for the new Iron Man mode, which, at the moment, is simply the new name for the current Elite mode. I am all in favour of any system that keeps the player honest rather than introduce whole new game systems that allow the computer to cheat like we do. the game already has C2 coded into it. Let's see if we can find ways to make it a more meaningful concept in the game.