Anticipating v.1.12

[c3k]

SlapHappy,

Steve has responded to my earlier threads on this (search under my username and "HOLD"), so I'm not trying to belabor this point or try to beat up on BF.C, but here is a brief recap of my idea.

Each time YOU, the player, select a target command you have the option of adding a HOLD to each weapon system.

If it's an infantry squad, say you select a building as target and you have a CLU, 3 Javelins, and 5 AT-4's.

If you use TARGET, you can then use HOLD on, say, 2 of the Javelins and 3 of the AT-4's. (Right click over the item and toggle HOLD.) Your squad will only be able to use, subject to normal TacAI discretion, 1 Javelin and 2 AT-4's - AND THAT RESTRICTION IS ONLY FOR THAT TARGET.

If, while you're area firing with TARGET as I just stipulated, and an enemy tank hoves into view, the TacAI will compute the normal targeting priority. In most cases it will assign the tank as the new target. As soon as a new target is selected, all HOLDs get erased. The HOLDs are only in effect for the duration of that specific targeting command. Therefore, the TacAI will have available every weapon system the unit possesses whenever the TacAI overrides the player's targeting command.

The process would be similar for a tank.

You, the player, do NOT need to micromanage in anything in the vast majority of cases. If something unexpected occurs, signified by the TacAI swapping targets away from what you selected, all the limits get removed. The benefit? When you want to limit the type or number of special ordnance fired, you can do so.

There is no need to program the many iterations of firepower combinations as a drop down menu. If I don't want the M242 to fire, or the TOW's, but I do want a heavy use of the 7.62 coax for a Bradley, I select TARGET and then HOLD the M242 and HOLD the TOW launcher.

This was longer than I meant to post. However, with no understanding of how hard it is to code things, I think this idea merits review.

(It's a compliment to the fidelity of the TacAI that I think it can be entrusted to properly resolve any unexpected targets which pop up. Well done, BF.C.)

Regards,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

There is no perfect solution There are ways to give player perfect control, but as I've already outlined... that doesn't mean it's a viable solution. So we all have to keep in mind that there is zero way to have the TacAI cut out of the equation. And SlapHappy illustrates that point quite well.

The problem with the TacAI is that players curse at it when it does something they don't like. Even if that something makes sense and perhaps some other player would have done it that way. But what about the majority of times when the TacAI gets it right? No thanks go to the little virtual graycells This is typical of gamers of all stripes... the things that go wrong are highlighted and the things that go right are taken for granted. It's normal and we expect it.

What we have to do is see how we can minimize, not eliminate, the ares of complaint. However, we have to do this within the context of the game as a whole because some "obvious" options are unworkable. C3K's "HOLD" concept is one of them, sorry to say Ken

The UI, at least as you outlined it, would be extremely tedious to use. It would also require, still, the existing TacAI to figure out when to break the user's instructions and do what the player would probably want done. For example, what happens if you put a HOLD on all the Javelins for a unit and a T-90 comes into full view? I don't think people would be too happy to have their Squad Leader telling the AT Expert "Henderson, don't fire that!! The Boss said he doesn't want it used". Then, of course, you spot the problem you rush over to the unit and find that the T-90 is out of view. Well, now poor Henderson looks like a dope in your eyes because he didn't use the thing. Poor Henderson!

This gets us to the larger problem of why SOPs don't work. We've had this discussion like a billion times since CMBO came out and the general conclusion generally winds up that we're better off with the TacAI than SOPs. Primarily because SOPs tend to not work any better than the TacAI, but require a lot more micromanagement to work. I've repeatedly asked for games where there are complex SOPs that people are happy with and they can picture working with CM. To the best of my knowledge nobody's come up with a suggestion. My feeling is because it's not really feasible.

Steve

[SlapHappy]

I guess it's kind of important to point out that my example with the pesky T-90 mentioned above was not a case of AI-chosen weapons systems. I was targeting the building manually. It was more a case of AI-chosen munitions in direct fire mode. Normally, the HEAT round would have been the obvious choice in this situation, but not for this particular application. To solve the above problem you would have to have override on choice of munitions used.

Which opens up another can of worms.......

[Battlefront.com]

Now, that being said... I already mentioned that we have some ideas on how to give the player a little more control over weapons without getting bogged down in complicated, brittle instruction sets that have the potential of making things worse rather than better.

There appears to be two primary issues players have with the TacAI.

1. Preservation of ammo for whatever reason. Special tank rounds, AT-4s, Javelins, etc. can be used for many different purposes. If you, the player, have some reason to suspect that you'll need them for a specific purpose then you don't want them being used for some other purpose.

2. Avoiding tactical implications associated with the use of a particular weapon. For example, if you want to shoot and scoot quickly, using a wire guided ATGM is a bad idea. If you want to suppress an enemy unit in a building while someone else Assaults, you don't want a Javelin flying even if you don't care about ammo.

Although the issues are rather easy to define, the circumstances which cause people to say "the TacAI has failed me!" are far too specific and, to some extent, personal to the player that no straightforward way around the problem exists.

TARGET and TARGET LIGHT, with additional "thinking" by the TacAI, generally takes care of things to the player's satisfaction. The problem players have, and I sympathize with, is that a single incident of the TacAI screwing up can be a game changing moment for that particular scenario.

Now, to some extent we feel that players should expect things to go wrong. That as in real life, there is very little chance that everybody under your command would do exactly what you wanted all the time every time. Any real world commander who expected this to be the case would probably be relieved of command pretty quickly after getting most of his guys killed on bad assumptions

Currently the TacAI is hard coded to have certain weapons at its disposal depending on whether TARGET or TARGET LIGHT are in use. The TacAI is already programmed to override things if necessary. What I'm hoping to do is to change the way ammo/weapons are "authorized" for use by the TacAI. Specifically, making specific types of ammo/weapons "off limits" under normal circumstances unless the player specifically instructs the TacAI that it can use them as it deems necessary. I'll use a US Rifle Squad as an example.

By default a US Rifle Squad, with AT-4s and Javelins in hand, would not use any of them unless one of two things happens:

1. A specific target type, like a tank, becomes the unit's target. Whether the tank is targeted by the player or the TacAI doesn't matter. For example, Tank = automatic authorization of AT weapon as practical to employ. This is the default behavior and it is a more conservative version (i.e. limited) of the TacAI currently in the game.

2. The player specifically instructs the unit to use the ammo/weapon as it pleases. Basically, endorse the use of the TacAI logic in the game right now.

This means that by default a US Rifle Squad marching around in a MOUT environment will use its AT-4s, and possibly Javelins, against bunkers, tanks, and other hard targets to the extent that the unit is able and/or willing to do so. What it won't do is use it's AT-4s and Javelins to engage infantry in the streets, in trenches, in treelines, and even in buildings. In order to do that the player has to "authorize" the Rifle Squad to use the weapons at its discretion.

What does this do? Well, it means that if you are largely fighting house to house and you don't care about ammo or damage to structures, then you can authorize your squads to shoot up the works. But unless you do that, they won't. Of course you can de-authorize the unit as well, so that you can be assured that a unit can use all of its small arms and M203s to suppress a target while you close assault without worrying about a Javelin letting fly and do damage to friendlies.

With vehicles it's the same thing. For a BMP, for example, the AT-3 system would be used when the TacAI thinks it is a good idea to do so. But for all other situations you have to specifically tell the BMP that it is allowed to use the AT-3. For example, a Bradley would not use a TOW to take out a bunker or enemy concentration in a building even if you use TARGET. To do that you need to authorize it. But if there is a tank coming the TOW will be used if conditions warrant it.

This concept SHOULD address the majority of the issues people have with use of specific ammo/weapons without introducing complex UI and/or getting your units stuck without the ability to use them when the situations clearly call for it. This shouldn't be prohibitively difficult to code, but there are some UI changes that have to be made. That's what I'm hoping we can do sooner rather than later, but it's not a sure bet at this very minute.

Steve

P.S. I have to duck out of this discussion for a few days, probably, but I will get back to it when I can.

[Flanker15]

I love shooting tanks through buildings, I used to think that sabot rounds didn't work that way in SF (after they were stopped by bushes, is that a bug since it happens allot to me). If the enemy has tanks and I don't need my HEAT shells, I just dump them all into the ground and use pure SABOT. The SABOT on the M1A2 will go through a maps worth of buildings and still kill a tank at the other end, came in real handy on the last mission in the Marines campaign (if you've played it you'll remember the enemy tank I'm thinking of)!

As for 1.2 I'm hoping for some improvments on the way SF loads and release data for medium-large senarios. At the moment if you load a large senario you have to exit the game and reset the system memory before you start another senario otherwise you get reduced performance. You also can't load a save on a large senario twice without restarting the game in between, it will just sit on 2% loading forever if you don't.

[Peter Panzer]

Steve:

Well, I reckon it's a BFC world, I just live in it.

What I'm hoping to do is to change the way ammo/weapons are "authorized" for use by the TacAI. Specifically, making specific types of ammo/weapons "off limits" under normal circumstances unless the player specifically instructs the TacAI that it can use them as it deems necessary.

...

That's what I'm hoping we can do sooner rather than later, but it's not a sure bet at this very minute.

No teasing, now.

At first glance, I'll take that. Is this something we might see in CMSF as a potential piece of v1.2? If so, C3k, akd and myself will be glad to shovel the snow in your drive for the remainder of the winter. I have strong legs and very pretty lips for a guy.

If things are going to remain as they presently are for CMSF, you will at least want to look at the routines for the BMP-1 as they seem to be out of whack with even the v.1.11 manner of doing things.

Specifically, the coax is used for "Target" and "Target Light" area fire. If strict uniformity is the goal, the 73mm should be employed in these circumstances so it mirrors the weapon selection of all other IFV's.

I hope some of the other items in my initial post also get a look-see, especially the invisible infantry in buildings/rooftops (there's another can of worms) and the M707's lack of in-game access to the LOS tool.

Please pardon my persistance on these issues. I have been waiting for someone to make a game like this for a very long time. What's more, I am plagued by a most unwholesome fetish for light armor/recon units. Consequently, the issues I am reporting get pushed to the fore each time I try to play/enjoy the game.

My thanks for all of the time you have put into this discussion.

Other Means:

...you could achieve what you want with a waypoint with a target command on it, a tiny reverse and advance and a "target light" on the final waypoint.

Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try to play ball.

Question:

How do I prevent an AFV from firing for the duration of an entire turn in WEGO if I want it to engage targets in the first half of the turn only?

When I string together this...

• "Target Light" directed at target "1," "Pause" 15 seconds
  
• "Move" to waypoint "1," "Target Light" directed at target "2," "Pause" 15 seconds
  
• Reverse to waypoint "2," "Clear Target"

This happens...

• AFV blasts away at target "1" for 15 seconds and continues to do so in transit to waypoint "1."
  
• AFV halts at waypoint "1," transitions to target "2" and opens fire for 15 seconds.
  
• AFV reverses still firing at target "2" while in transit, halts at waypoint "2" and fires for the remaining duration of the turn.

Does something need to be corrected within the game or am I doing something wrong?

[stikkypixie]

Small things I hope to see:

- A timer that indicates when something is going to be breached

- When acquiring weapons, that the popup window stays open, instead of closing each time I select something.

[c3k]

Steve,

I appreciate the your continuing engagement with us. Here's part of your response...

There is no perfect solution

Steve

Well, I think we BOTH agree an that! However, you also wrote...

So we all have to keep in mind that there is zero way to have the TacAI cut out of the equation. And SlapHappy illustrates that point quite well.

Errr, nothing I said cuts the TacAI out. In fact, I specifically mentioned that the TacAI gets total control, just as it does right now, whenever it spots a target which takes higher priority over the player's selected target.

The UI, at least as you outlined it, would be extremely tedious to use. It would also require, still, the existing TacAI to figure out when to break the user's instructions and do what the player would probably want done. For example, what happens if you put a HOLD on all the Javelins for a unit and a T-90 comes into full view?

First, let me address the "tedious" portion of your quote, above. There is NOTHING I've suggested that would add a single step or change how the game is played right now, UNLESS the player wants to. Right now if you want to fire on a target you select TARGET or TARGET LIGHT and left click on the target. Then you go on and do something else.

My idea has you do the SAME EXACT THING. However, if you do not want the TacAI to have total control over all your weapons/ordnance, then you can take an additional step and limit what the TacAI can use by implementing a HOLD.

Example: My US squad wants to area target a building. I select TARGET LIGHT. See? It's the same. Now, I want my US squad to nail that building. I select TARGET. Yeah, baby! They light it up! Rapid fire, Javelines, AT-4's! You go! The same as it is right now. Oh, wait! I want them to light it up, but I really want to keep 2 Javelins in my hip pocket for later. So, I select TARGET...then I take the additional step for this specific target of HOLD on two of the Javelins. Yes, that's the extra step, but it's only because I want it for that target.

Steve, you posit,

For example, what happens if you put a HOLD on all the Javelins for a unit and a T-90 comes into full view?

Well, let me try to explain it again. I select target A and I use a HOLD to restrict all Javelins. Now, I can only use HOLD AFTER I've selected a target. Next, your T-90 comes into view. The TacAI is still operating. It chooses the T-90 as the higher priority target. That wipes out the target A which I'd selected. As soon as that target A is deselected, all HOLDs get erased.

The instant the TacAI assigns a new target, there are no HOLDs!

So, you asked what happens? The same thing that happens right now. Except, my squad will have some Javelins left to fire at the T-90 instead of wasting them on that empty building they were firing at just before the T-90 emerged.

To emphasize: TacAI assigned targets NEVER have a HOLD.

There are no extra steps for the vast majority of player interactions. However, you CAN add a step to limit what ammo/weapons are available to the TacAI for the target you have chosen. So, if YOU don't click TARGET or TARGET LIGHT, there are no HOLDs.

Internally I envisage the HOLD as simulating an out of ammo condition for that specific weapon/ammo. That way the TacAI retains control of the unit and what it shoots at. As soon as the TacAI spots a threat/target which has higher priority (or should be shot at), it snaps a TARGET or TARGET LIGHT (just like it does now) on the new threat and that erases all HOLDs.

Thanks,

Ken

[c3k]

I love shooting tanks through buildings, I used to think that sabot rounds didn't work that way in SF (after they were stopped by bushes, is that a bug since it happens allot to me). If the enemy has tanks and I don't need my HEAT shells, I just dump them all into the ground and use pure SABOT. The SABOT on the M1A2 will go through a maps worth of buildings and still kill a tank at the other end, came in real handy on the last mission in the Marines campaign (if you've played it you'll remember the enemy tank I'm thinking of)!

As for 1.2 I'm hoping for some improvments on the way SF loads and release data for medium-large senarios. At the moment if you load a large senario you have to exit the game and reset the system memory before you start another senario otherwise you get reduced performance. You also can't load a save on a large senario twice without restarting the game in between, it will just sit on 2% loading forever if you don't.

With HOLD on your HEAT rounds you would be able to do that without having to dump all those HEATs into the ground.

See how HOLD fixes everything?

Ken

[c3k]

Steve,

It sounds like we're trying for the same goal. Any hints how you're thinking about implementing this?

Thanks,

Ken

Now, that being said... I already mentioned that we have some ideas on how to give the player a little more control over weapons without getting bogged down in complicated, brittle instruction sets that have the potential of making things worse rather than better.

There appears to be two primary issues players have with the TacAI.

1. Preservation of ammo for whatever reason. Special tank rounds, AT-4s, Javelins, etc. can be used for many different purposes. If you, the player, have some reason to suspect that you'll need them for a specific purpose then you don't want them being used for some other purpose.

2. Avoiding tactical implications associated with the use of a particular weapon. For example, if you want to shoot and scoot quickly, using a wire guided ATGM is a bad idea. If you want to suppress an enemy unit in a building while someone else Assaults, you don't want a Javelin flying even if you don't care about ammo.

Although the issues are rather easy to define, the circumstances which cause people to say "the TacAI has failed me!" are far too specific and, to some extent, personal to the player that no straightforward way around the problem exists.

TARGET and TARGET LIGHT, with additional "thinking" by the TacAI, generally takes care of things to the player's satisfaction. The problem players have, and I sympathize with, is that a single incident of the TacAI screwing up can be a game changing moment for that particular scenario.

Now, to some extent we feel that players should expect things to go wrong. That as in real life, there is very little chance that everybody under your command would do exactly what you wanted all the time every time. Any real world commander who expected this to be the case would probably be relieved of command pretty quickly after getting most of his guys killed on bad assumptions

Currently the TacAI is hard coded to have certain weapons at its disposal depending on whether TARGET or TARGET LIGHT are in use. The TacAI is already programmed to override things if necessary. What I'm hoping to do is to change the way ammo/weapons are "authorized" for use by the TacAI. Specifically, making specific types of ammo/weapons "off limits" under normal circumstances unless the player specifically instructs the TacAI that it can use them as it deems necessary. I'll use a US Rifle Squad as an example.

By default a US Rifle Squad, with AT-4s and Javelins in hand, would not use any of them unless one of two things happens:

1. A specific target type, like a tank, becomes the unit's target. Whether the tank is targeted by the player or the TacAI doesn't matter. For example, Tank = automatic authorization of AT weapon as practical to employ. This is the default behavior and it is a more conservative version (i.e. limited) of the TacAI currently in the game.

2. The player specifically instructs the unit to use the ammo/weapon as it pleases. Basically, endorse the use of the TacAI logic in the game right now.

This means that by default a US Rifle Squad marching around in a MOUT environment will use its AT-4s, and possibly Javelins, against bunkers, tanks, and other hard targets to the extent that the unit is able and/or willing to do so. What it won't do is use it's AT-4s and Javelins to engage infantry in the streets, in trenches, in treelines, and even in buildings. In order to do that the player has to "authorize" the Rifle Squad to use the weapons at its discretion.

What does this do? Well, it means that if you are largely fighting house to house and you don't care about ammo or damage to structures, then you can authorize your squads to shoot up the works. But unless you do that, they won't. Of course you can de-authorize the unit as well, so that you can be assured that a unit can use all of its small arms and M203s to suppress a target while you close assault without worrying about a Javelin letting fly and do damage to friendlies.

With vehicles it's the same thing. For a BMP, for example, the AT-3 system would be used when the TacAI thinks it is a good idea to do so. But for all other situations you have to specifically tell the BMP that it is allowed to use the AT-3. For example, a Bradley would not use a TOW to take out a bunker or enemy concentration in a building even if you use TARGET. To do that you need to authorize it. But if there is a tank coming the TOW will be used if conditions warrant it.

This concept SHOULD address the majority of the issues people have with use of specific ammo/weapons without introducing complex UI and/or getting your units stuck without the ability to use them when the situations clearly call for it. This shouldn't be prohibitively difficult to code, but there are some UI changes that have to be made. That's what I'm hoping we can do sooner rather than later, but it's not a sure bet at this very minute.

Steve

P.S. I have to duck out of this discussion for a few days, probably, but I will get back to it when I can.

[Battlefront.com]

c3k,

I only have a few secs available, but I wanted to point out:

There is NOTHING I've suggested that would add a single step or change how the game is played right now, UNLESS the player wants to...

My idea has you do the SAME EXACT THING. However, if you do not want the TacAI to have total control over all your weapons/ordnance, then you can take an additional step and limit what the TacAI can use by implementing a HOLD.

That's what I mean by tedious Having a feature that isn't smoothly implemented is not much better than leaving it out completely. So we have to focus on the smoothest way possible to get something put in. You've suggested a way that is clunky. Commands are not the way to achieve the goals we are all trying to achieve here. At least not the way you described.

Gotta run now, but remember that very often a UI design that sounds good in theory sucks. In fact, I'd say that 99 out of 100 suggestions fit that description It difficult enough for us to get right, and we do it for a living. Therefore, no offense was intended. I'm just pointing out, as I often do, that you guys should stick to identifying the needs and we'll worry about how to make it happen if possible. It works better that way. Just like it usually works better for me to tell Charles how I want something to work conceptually instead of trying to figure out how he should organize the code

Steve

[c3k]

Steve,

No offense taken; just the opposite. I appreciate your patience.

As for my HOLD idea, just to show I'm trying to help, I've done a little coding. Here's a little piece of that code you can pass on to Charles: 00101100

Thanks,

Ken

[Alex]

Some ideas for the future patch:

1. For infantry divisions to enter a new command "to fill up ammo" - units being in vehicles in which there is ammunition will fill up to initial level as with cartridges and hand-grenades and 40мм an ammunition for М203. Such command can be convenient, since it is not always clear, how many an ammunition is necessary for division for replenishment of a unit ammunition.

2. POP smoke - at return to infantry division of such command, it would be desirable a smoke, that units saved, having smoke pomegranates, instead of threw all of them at once.

3. The command to "entrench oneself" - at return of such command infantry divisions dig out individual entrenchments. Probably this command should work at arrangement of units before fight.

Sorry for bad English.