tactics limitors ? Worst 3 in your opinion ?

[Topo]

Agree with Sergei, i think is better to avoid too much control (micromanagement risk);

refining AI is the best choice IMHO

A real hunt command can be useful.

[c3k]

To Sergei's complaint about forgetting to unlock weapons: In my posts, above, I have repeatedly mentioned that the HOLD command would immediately disappear as soon as the selected target changes.

The target selection could be changed by the player: actively by ceasing to fire; implied by selecting a different target. Automatically by the TacAI if a higher-priority threat/target comes into view (and it is not outside of a pre-selected covered arc); if it is of high enough priority that a covered arc does not matter; if the the LOS is broken; if the target is destroyed.

Hence, there IS NO WAY TO FORGET TO UNHOLD a weapon.

Agreed that a real hunt (vice the "hunt which is move to contact) would be useful.

Regards,

Ken

[Sergei]

But in that form it wouldn't be particularly useful, as I could only use the setting for targets that my unit sees during the orders phase. So it wouldn't work if I wanted a tank to spray machinegun fire to left and right but not use the main gun. And I can already tell my tank not to use the main gun against a target that I define, so I don't see any improvement.

[stoex]

Sergei, I think you are missing an important point here: your last post is actually not complaining about the limitations of Ken's postulated "HOLD" command, but rather about the limitations of WeGo play....

There will always be a number of things intrinsically unrealistic in CM (compared to RL) when you can only change your unit's orders once a minute...in RT, you can easily issue specific new HOLD orders to your units every time the threat situation changes (at least theoretically, if you are constantly watching that particular unit and ignoring your other Pixeltruppen. Which again has its drawbacks, obviously).

If what you are asking for are detailed and predefined standing orders for targetting, engagement, and ordnance conservation that are relevant to every situation a unit can encounter within a scenario - I'm going to have to say forget it...that is clearly well beyond the scope of a RT-based engine under the current technical limitations of hardware, unless you happen to be the owner of the oft-quoted NSA mainframe. And even in that case you'd have to code your own applications to make use of your awesome computing power. No PC can check so many values against so many parameters for so many entities in RT.

Therefore, a compromise is in order. And I think that Ken's idea would probably give us more possibilities than we have now, MAYBE without terminally bogging down the CMSF engine, which is why I like it . On the other hand, I have next to no feeling for the technical implications of that idea, so while I definitely also hope we will see some improvement in this respect in the future, as always I am content to rely on BF's good judgement as to what is possible and what is not.