Hunt order (or am i missing something?)

[ClarkWGriswold]

+1 to the idea of tweaking AFV accuracy so they can't so easily hit targets on the move.

But in WEGO you can definitely order AFV's to stop, fire, and continue if you use a series of move waypoints with 5 sec. pauses, and assign separate "target," or "target light" commands at each one. I often use tanks to lay down smoke cover or suppressive area fire this way along successive spots along an enemy front, and it works perfectly.

But you can only do that if you know exactly where the enemy units are (or that there are enemy units there at all). With the old CMx1 Hunt functionality, you could ensure that your tank stopped as soon as it spotted the enemy, fired, then continued on its way. Often, this would allow you to get off the first shot before the enemy could target you. If you try to do that with waypoints and pauses you very well might pull right into the line of enemy fire, then stop, making your AFV a prime target.

[Broadsword56]

Yes, I see what you mean. It's less versatile now.

[cool breeze]

Hi Y'all! RTer here, though I'd pitch in as requested. I love the new hunt and use it often with my AFVs. Now I'm not saying having the old hunt in addition all the move orders we have now wouldn't be nice. Id be happy to have it as extra. But I think the ones we have now are better for the newer higher fidelity environment. With spotting based on each guy instead of each abstract squad it wouldn't work as well. Its about how you spot better when your not moving. If you are advancing with some AFVs towards an enemy infantry position you'll probably want to use hunt with the afvs that are moving. If they see some dude you dont really want them to stop, shoot until the infantry duck out of sight, then keep going until they see someone else. cause while your moving your not spotting as well, and your already in a good spot, if you stay put looking around youll kill the next dude as he pops his head up. if you keep going like the old hunt command by the time you see em again your too close and hes already aimed his bazooka at you. Similar think in a vehicle vs vehicle fight, but the thing here is that once your guy spots first enemy and kills em its probably a good time to stay still and wait for his buddies to be seen rather than keep chargin forward as soon as he doesnt see anything right now. as for trying to make a determined forward moving stopping and killing as you go but keeping going as soon as you dont see anything, old hunt style, attack. Well with the tools available the way you do that kinda thing is with non hunt movement orders combined with pauses and potentially area fires and or cover arcs. I think it works better this way than it did with the old hunt. this way the overwatch tanks are staying still spotting and killing while the other ones move rinse and repeat. this way the fighting tanks are fighting better cause they arnt moving, and the moving tanks are probably moving better cause you gave em the proper move.

Oh and the new hunt isn't move to contact, cause they are being extra cautious.

And when did BF say not to use covered arcs?

But your guys are right old hut would be nice to get back. But not if it replaced anything. it would be also nice to get something almost just like new hunt but that wouldn't cancel all orders, and maybe went a little slower than hunt, it would be nice sometimes to like be able to hunt up towards a crest but then reverse as soon as you see anything. or like hunt forward but have it pop smoke as soon as you see something.... but tac ai kinda already does that stuff where appropriate..... any way if ya read all this i appreciate the interest. let me know your thoughts Oh and one more thing I was thinking about making a thread but that seems a little much, so nows my chance.

Does anybody else think that reversing with the 2 mg US half tracks is the way to go so you get both guns on target? like you give a cover arc towards the bad guys, and then you reverse to your position towards the bad guys, then you shoot em hard. Man I love those half tracks its so sweet how everybody just jumps out of em in lie .5 seconds and they can even shoot their rifles from inside. Too bad we dont have any of those 4 or more MG halftracks. Please BFC add them some day

[mrpwase]

....and lose the one excellent wego feature which CM has which is not emulated anywhere---many of us do not like the clickfest fast reaction sim but the more thoughtful ,reflective decision making process and the chance to view the outcomes and action in detail and breadth.

There should be opps for both approaches within the game The absence of the old "Hunt" feature as is explained above, causes a real problem for the "wego" exponents with the current CMBN.

Hey hey woah there, I was just pointing out that this problem is solved by playing RT and pausing frequently. It's how I play, and I rarely miss the replay function. Most of the time I can absorb all the information I need from watching events as they unfold, and on the rare occasion that I miss something I chalk it up to the commander not knowing every little detail of the battle.

I definitely don't play RT as a 'clickfest fast reaction sim', I do go through a 'thoughtful, reflective decision making process' every time I pause to give orders, and in addition I don't have troops sitting there doing nothing for 1 minute because I forgot to give them orders or because something cropped up on the first second of the turn.

[Wengart]

Playing Real-time doesn't solve his problem in a satisfactory manner. Hell that shouldn't even be brought up as a "solution".

[mrpwase]

I don't see why not...? Tank moves towards area, spots target. Player orders tank to halt and target enemy. Once enemy is suppressed or destroyed to player's satisfaction, player orders tank to move again.

[LemuelG]

I don't see why not...? Tank moves towards area, spots target. Player orders tank to halt and target enemy. Once enemy is suppressed or destroyed to player's satisfaction, player orders tank to move again.

It seems obvious, until you realize OP's 'problem' is that he just wishes it were more like CMx1.

Suppose BFC did change 'hunt' back, what then? It would be a load of threads complaining: "my hunting tank engaged a zook team, who cowered and vanished, the tank moved on, but the zook rallied and shot my tank in the rear"; "my hunting tank engaged an enemy ATG and wounded some of the crew, the contact vanished in the shrouding smoke and the tank moved on, but some of the crew survived, rallied and shot my tank through the smoke, fix it now!". I doubt BFC made this design change without reason, I think it is appropriate.

Why not work harder to find targets and firing positions before you move, is that not wise? You can even dismount crews to scout for themselves when there is no friendly infantry around, hardly an unrealistic tactic.

As it stands 'hunt' has good value as move-to-contact, and 'slow' works great as an old-style 'hunt' for infantry. Infantry must halt to fire, and when tanks are 'fixed' to do the same, 'slow' should work for them too.

[Vinnart]

This topic seems to pop up every now and then. I personanly would prefer the two seperate orders; "hunt', and "move to contact" since both are distinctive in behavior. I have found that I use "move" instead of "hunt" if I want to make sure they do not stop unless I am looking for them to "move to contact" (hunt). Move gives better awarness than quick, but often when the shooting starts they will stop walking, and start running "quick".

I like:

"Move to contact" = Unit STOPS then moves no further when contact is made.

"Hunt" = unit stops, engages, then moves on if threat is killed.

"Move" = Units keep moving toward destination and is the most AI flexible. The unit can decide to move quick, fast, assault, or slow.

All are distinct behaviors, and add to flexible command.

[gunnergoz]

Not to mention the fact that the game designers have basically said that using covered arcs should almost never be necessary, and that we're better off not using them and allowing the TacAI to do its job.

Reference please?

The reason I ask: I commented in another thread a few days ago that I had almost stopped using cover arcs except to limit the fire of scouts and HQ's...and also that I found that letting the Tac AI select the targets seemed to work best for me. I did not espouse this for anyone else, was simply commenting on the limitations I found inherent in the Tac AI in its current state of development. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1283752#post1283752 see post #43 - that was me, not BFC.

I have yet to see Steve or anyone else representing BFC in any way promulgate the idea that the covered arc command in the game should almost never be necessary. Rather, I recall Steve saying that the covered arc was being looked at for improvements, not replacement or deletion.

Here's the last comment I could find from Steve on the issue: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1284643#post1284643

What I do perceive is a certain amount of - lets say - strange hysteria coming from a few posters on the issue of player control and with it a totally unjustified fear that BFC is somehow dumbing down the game or its controls. The contrary is true. It very much reminds me of the rumor mongering over the "Lepage Glue Gun" in Catch-22.

It is a good idea to backtrack a bit before making certain claims.

[Bruce Robert]

This topic seems to pop up every now and then. I personanly would prefer the two seperate orders; "hunt', and "move to contact" since both are distinctive in behavior. I have found that I use "move" instead of "hunt" if I want to make sure they do not stop unless I am looking for them to "move to contact" (hunt). Move gives better awarness than quick, but often when the shooting starts they will stop walking, and start running "quick".

I like:

"Move to contact" = Unit STOPS then moves no further when contact is made.

"Hunt" = unit stops, engages, then moves on if threat is killed.

"Move" = Units keep moving toward destination and is the most AI flexible. The unit can decide to move quick, fast, assault, or slow.

All are distinct behaviors, and add to flexible command.

I like this idea very much. I think the problem is in the distinction between rt an wego. Both interesting, and both quite different. Wego needs Vinnart's ideas. Perhaps BT has more permanently moved into the rt mode, and has wego as an afterthought? I think both are fun to play, but rt seems more thought out.

The "problem with pausing in rt is that you are now micromanaging in a way that is not realistic. Commanders would not have had that kind of control. It seems more gamey rather than adding more realism. One reason why I still like wego. But, I do do enjoy both styles.

Bruce

Bruce

[Vinnart]

I like this idea very much. I think the problem is in the distinction between rt an wego. Both interesting, and both quite different. Wego needs Vinnart's ideas. Perhaps BT has more permanently moved into the rt mode, and has wego as an afterthought? I think both are fun to play, but rt seems more thought out.

The "problem with pausing in rt is that you are now micromanaging in a way that is not realistic. Commanders would not have had that kind of control. It seems more gamey rather than adding more realism. One reason why I still like wego. But, I do do enjoy both styles.

Bruce

Bruce

Wish i could take credit, but these are all things that were in CMx1.

[LemuelG]

The "problem with pausing in rt is that you are now micromanaging in a way that is not realistic. Commanders would not have had that kind of control. It seems more gamey rather than adding more realism. One reason why I still like wego. But, I do do enjoy both styles.

Bruce

In real life your guys can navigate around a tricky corner without needing to have their hands held. I certainly don't see how WeGo is any more 'realistic' than pausable RT... because a potentially indefinite break in the action every sixty seconds is a totally authentic command environment?

[ClarkWGriswold]

Reference please?

The reason I ask: I commented in another thread a few days ago that I had almost stopped using cover arcs except to limit the fire of scouts and HQ's...and also that I found that letting the Tac AI select the targets seemed to work best for me. I did not espouse this for anyone else, was simply commenting on the limitations I found inherent in the Tac AI in its current state of development. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1283752#post1283752 see post #43 - that was me, not BFC.

My bad. That is the post I was thinking of, but I was almost certain it was Steve who said it. Apologies for the confusion.

[gunnergoz]

My bad. That is the post I was thinking of, but I was almost certain it was Steve who said it. Apologies for the confusion.

NP Clark, a lot of flak flying around in this one topic. Hope that cleared it up for you on that score at least.

[Fetchez la Vache]

I would personally love to see some sort of unit "attitude" or "stance" selection - e.g. defensive, agressive, neutral, etc - with which the player could use in combination with the standard move command.

For example:

1) Slow & Agressive: unit moves slowly and engages first enemy target seen until it is destroyed or moves out of sight.

2) Move & Neutral: unit moves and does not stop if sighting enemy, although may engage on move if TacAI desides it is necessary.

3) Fast & Defensive: unit moves quickly and stops when enemy sighted.

You could also included some sort of fire level as well to determine whether the unit opens up at anything it sees, only provides return fire, or else keeps quiet. Even a slector to determine whether to ignore certain enemy types (e.g. AT guns ignore infantry).

None of this is new, it's all in the Men At War series or other similar of RT games. I think this sort of addition would add a lot to Combat Mission. Why add a separate command for everything when you could simply 'stack' commands and stances to provide a selection of effectively different commands?