Cover arc frustrations

[Lethaface]

See the video .

Since it was during a PBEM battle, anyone can easily understand my frustration in this case. My ingenious flanking move became a total failure because I had set a too narrow cover arc:

I guess I'll have to use much wider arcs. Still I think the T-90 should have engaged in this situation!

[Sivodsi]

I'm totally with you on this one. In CMX2 you have to be very careful about how you use covered arcs because your soldiers are idiots who will ignore everything outside of it!

If a dangerous threat appears outside the covered arc the AI should prioritize that, drop the covered arc and engage the new target.

Sounds easy enough, and I seem to recall CMX1 being able to do this, so what is different in CMX2 that does not allow this feature?

I suppose the fact that even infantry are capable of knocking out MBTs might have something to do with it - but still perhaps the tank's AI can distinguish those toting javelins or anti-tank missile crews from troops with 'mere' RPGs?

Edit to Add: BFT re-introduced 'cowering' of lesser units upon the appearance of superior enemy (eg in a recent example warriors from the appearance of T62s) , might not the same code be adapted to the covered arc situation?

[Battlefront.com]

Arcs are a double edged sword. They are there to limit your unit's distractions so it can focus on something very specific. For something general Arcs are a bad idea and should be avoided. The best use for Arcs are for defensive purposes or small scale, somewhat predictable assaults. Especially in urban areas. For a wide ranging tank maneuver it might be difficult to use Arcs effectively.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Sivodsi,

Sounds easy enough, and I seem to recall CMX1 being able to do this, so what is different in CMX2 that does not allow this feature?

Nothing's different... it can do it The problem is that in order for the unit to feel it should completely, and utterly, disobey VERY specific orders from the player, it must have a damned good reason. Simply spotting something is not a good enough reason. Arcs would be completely and utterly useless if that were the case.

In Lethaface's situation the first time the T-90SA had real reason to fear the threat outside its arc was the same time it got brewed up. If it had survived a direct hit, or perhaps close call, it probably would have ignored the arc.

As I said above, Arcs are intended to *limit* the unit's distractions. Therefore, and rightly so, it is purposefully reluctant to target things out of its Arc. Which is why I rarely use Arcs. When I do it's as described as above... defensive purposes and coordinated assaults, not general maneuvering. The TacAI is very good at prioritizing targets on its own so an Arc for a fast moving tank is unnecessary and, as can be seen in this example, counter productive.

Steve

[panzermartin]

I usually use wide angled arcs(almost 180) because of this. Just big enough to make sure your tank is looking at the right general direction.

[Lanzfeld]

I usually use wide angled arcs(almost 180) because of this. Just big enough to make sure your tank is looking at the right general direction.

This is, to me, the most usefull part of arcs. To point that gun in the correct direction and get the jump on bad guys.

This is also why we need the "instant" 180 degree arc command from CMBB back! Making a 180 degree arc with current interface is clunky and frustrating.

[Lethaface]

Thanks for all the comments and explanations

I normally play RT and never had real reason to use cover arcs (no time for the micro management), apart from scouting or defending reasons. In this particular move there was a Challenger waiting to be flanked but I had to approach it from an angle which was not 100% facing it. Since it was a PBEM I couldn't control my tanks movement for a full minute. So I guessed I'll use the arc to help the crew looking in the right direction and already turning the barrel for them, in case the Challenger popped up before I expected it.

A painful guess that was!

I can understand the logic behind the reason of this. Actually the only thing I wanted to say is 'expect the enemy somewhere there'. That is not how the command works. Well a painful lesson is a good one!

However one more question, can a target arc be cancelled in a consecutive movement order point? Apart from giving it another target, i'm not sure it the 'clear target' command was available. Because at the way point it was destroyed, the T-90 no longer had any specific target orders IIRC.

EDIT: Forgot to mention I would like a command which I can use to turn a tanks turret without any targeting arc given. For Blue tanks this is less important since they generally spot first, for Red tanks it is the 0.0001 second that counts!

[Dietrich]

I use cover arcs a lot, mainly to keep my infantry from opening fire prematurely or at the limits of effective range (and secondarily to conserve ammo for when it's needed most), but also to help ensure that my vehicles and tanks spot the enemy first and get the first shot off.

Assigning close-range (handgrenade-range) cover arcs to recon infantry (as opposed to vehicles) is key to ensuring that they survive long enough to do their job because it ensures that they keep a low profile and open fire only on nearby threats.

one more question, can a target arc be cancelled in a consecutive movement order point?

Click on the appropriate waypoint, then give a Face order; that will cancel the cover arc.

I would like a command which I can use to turn a tanks turret without any targeting arc given.

Try assigning a cover arc that is very wide and ranged out to beyond the opposite map edge. That keeps the turret pointed in the right direction and will not inadvertently overlook enemy units that appear.

[Vinnart]

I think the best way to set arcs is 180 degrees at max range to get the turret to point the way you want without worrying to much about the unit ignoring something. I miss the quick 180 degree hotkeys from Cmx1 for this. BF please bring this back to make doing this much easier!