Cheating TAC AI, sort of

[Pandur]

ok befor you guys get the flamethrower ready, listen up!

the TAC AI behaviour i mean was most likely introduced with a verry early patch wich made vehicles turn towards a threat by themselfs.

now this created some odd situations wich where defenitely not planed that way, however its no real cheat

ok look;

 NORTH to enemy



    XXX

A   XXX

    XXX   B



      C


 SOUTH friendly direction

A, my tank looking towards NORTH

B, enemy tank, looking SOUTH

C, my infantry squad

X, the area filled with X is a house, or any LOS block

now, what happens is easylie explained. when my infantry© spotts the enemy tank(, my tank(A) will under certain circumstances rotate towards the enemy tanks, although it can not see it, will never see it thorugh the house, and this makes it totaly ignore the actual enemy direction.

the constelation i pictured here can be any, instead of the house, you can put 500m of wooded ground, a mountain, whatever... any LOS block.

happens to AI controlled and human controlled vehicles.

this has the most negative consequences for scouts, as these possibly bypass enemy vehicles wich are still spotted by youre main body. this will be a big problem for the scout vehicles as the will turn their back to the enemy they are supposed to scout and face the bypassed element of the eny quiet regulary.

[JonS]

"covered arc"

[Pandur]

ok i knew this was comming.

when i define the facing of a unit, cover arc isnt available for a full minute. and in this time i see this happen.

normaly i keep my vehicles with a 360° cover arc over the whole map, as most people do i guess.

also there is no way to give the AI vehicles cover arcs other then bakeing scenarios, and nothing says they keep it up the whole game. one ATGM shot with a BMP and the cover arc is gone.

[JonS]

Yes. Quite. Single solutions do not suit all convievable circumstances.

It's handy to know that this happens, and why, but for all practical purposes it's up to the player to manage it.

The AI? *shrug* It's artificial. It'll often get things wrong.

Wait ...

When I define the facing of a unit, cover arc isnt available for a full minute.

What? Covered Arc and Facing is an either/or proposition. When you set a CA the unit will pivot so that it's facing is down the centre of the CA. There is no need to set the facing AND the CA, since facing is automagically part of the CA.

[Pandur]

When you set a CA the unit will pivot so that it's facing is down the centre of the CA.

actually, no, when i set a CA the units "turret" is facing the center of the CA. the hull is not moved at all.

to move the hull, i need "face"(or a 90° slow waypoint left or right of the unit while CA is issued). when i did this the unit is facing the direction i told it for at least some seconds or longer, but after that it is free to spin around to where ever it likes as i cant set a CA for the rest of the turn.

thank god, or BFC , that the vehicle does not pivot when i issue a CA but only the turret. this would be most horrible, and we had this in verry early game versions when the CA was issued to the end of a waypoint string.

[JonS]

Actually; yes, for all units except those with a turret

As for the rest ... *meh* I can't say that I have encountered a problem with it (and despite your attempt to portray it as the general case, the necessary circumstances are actually quite specific). YMOV.

[Pandur]

Actually; yes, for all units except those with a turret

ah, ok now i see well i didnt talked about inf units, i only saw this with vehicles, wich all come with a turret or a weapon mount wich can move independent from the hull in CMSF.

As for the rest ... *meh* I can't say that I have encountered a problem with it (and despite your attempt to portray it as the general case, the necessary circumstances are actually quite specific). YMOV.

i cant think of any part i exaggerated too much. if i want to make it look like its the general case it looks different

anyways, point behind this is, that this form of rotateing serves "no" purpose. the only times it comes into play it "is" a hinderance or annoyance. now at least I didnt saw it doing any good so far.

the "good" form of rotating is a vehicles rotating towards a threat it can see, but rotateing towards any threat on the battlefield, regardless where it is and what the current tasks are, is simply no good.

not to mention that this, in a way, forces the player to issue some sort of CA to every vehicle unit the player has, "if" he wants to make sure this does not happen. this can be quiet a lot of work if its a large scenario with many vehicles.

so i go to bed now, i check back in here in the morning.

[JonS]

... this, in a way, forces the player to issue some sort of CA to every vehicle unit the player has, "if" he wants to make sure this does not happen. this can be quiet a lot of work if its a large scenario with many vehicles.

See this bit? [emphasis added]

This is where you try to make it out to be the general case.

[Pandur]

gah, youre fast replying

you missed the "in a way" and "if".

and it is a fact, "if" you dont like this, you are forced "in a way" to do it.

probably you read; "...this, ... , forces the player to issue some sort of CA to every vehicle unit the player has. this is quiet a lot of work if its a large scenario with many vehicles."

thats how i would make it sound to make it a general case

[Pandur]

anyways, lets not get into an argument how this "sounds". maybe you can give me an example of how this works in a positive way. maybe you can come up with one as easy as i can give you the negative example.

time, at least a few houers, im off to bed now...again