James Crowley Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 In a current PBEM (pre-patch) a crew from a brewed-up Sherman, located on the second floor of a town building, decided to open up on a Panther in the street, one hundred yards away, with their pistols! I'm all for a bit of John Wayne gung-ho heroics, provided it is in context, or even have crews defend themselves against other nearby enemy infantry but this action borders on the insane. At the same time, another of my bailed-out crews went from panicked to merely nervous and it is, thus, within my power to use them as a regular infantry unit to gather intel etc. which is completely unrealistic. I think bailed crews should be treated in a similar fashion to surrendering troops; after a few minutes they should 'disappear'. If there are no enemy units nearby it would be as if they had exited the map. If there are enemy units in close proximity then they are treated as captured. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wego McPbem Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Making them disappear wouldn't work because you need to be able to re-crew bailed out vehicles sometimes. They do seem a bit too aggressive sometimes though, like your panther example. It does make me wonder if their ai is still in some way acting like they were in a tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 They do seem a bit too aggressive sometimes though, like your panther example. It does make me wonder if their ai is still in some way acting like they were in a tank. Good point - the crew in question did say something like 'enemy tank!' which is what they say when in their own tank. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunnergoz Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I thought this was being looked at for the first patch, which is now out. So it wasn't? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 In a current PBEM (pre-patch) a crew from a brewed-up Sherman, located on the second floor of a town building, decided to open up on a Panther in the street, one hundred yards away, with their pistols! I'm all for a bit of John Wayne gung-ho heroics, provided it is in context, or even have crews defend themselves against other nearby enemy infantry but this action borders on the insane. At the same time, another of my bailed-out crews went from panicked to merely nervous and it is, thus, within my power to use them as a regular infantry unit to gather intel etc. which is completely unrealistic. I think bailed crews should be treated in a similar fashion to surrendering troops; after a few minutes they should 'disappear'. If there are no enemy units nearby it would be as if they had exited the map. If there are enemy units in close proximity then they are treated as captured. You need to start giving your troops covered arcs and stop wishing the game to get it right. The only way to really hold fire is to order them to hold fire. I do not like it either, because having the arc on can cause issues at times also. But I take the risk as long as I am convertable that no enemy units are going to jump me outside of the arc area. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankster65 Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 You need to start giving your troops covered arcs and stop wishing the game to get it right. The only way to really hold fire is to order them to hold fire. I do not like it either, because having the arc on can cause issues at times also. But I take the risk as long as I am convertable that no enemy units are going to jump me outside of the arc area. Good post slysniper. This is why it is a game. The game requires human input. You as player (commander) must pay attention to what your troops are doing and what orders need to be enforced. If you fail and they get themselves killed due to no cover arc etc, then it is the player-commanders onus. I consider it part of the fun factor. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Crowley Posted July 21, 2011 Author Share Posted July 21, 2011 You need to start giving your troops covered arcs and stop wishing the game to get it right. The only way to really hold fire is to order them to hold fire. I do not like it either, because having the arc on can cause issues at times also. But I take the risk as long as I am convertable that no enemy units are going to jump me outside of the arc area. Good post slysniper. This is why it is a game. The game requires human input. You as player (commander) must pay attention to what your troops are doing and what orders need to be enforced. If you fail and they get themselves killed due to no cover arc etc, then it is the player-commanders onus. I consider it part of the fun factor. But bailed-out crews cannot really be treated as 'troops' as such. They were not trained to fight as infantry and should not be able to do so, other than in a very limited self preservation situation. Nor should players be able to use them as such, which was the other point of my post. Use of the target arc is not a bad idea but bailed crews (that is trained AFV personnel) are worth more than cannon fodder and should be keeping out of harms way and exiting the battlefield asap, as they did in real life. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHO Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Good post slysniper. This is why it is a game. The game requires human input. You as player (commander) must pay attention to what your troops are doing and what orders need to be enforced. If you fail and they get themselves killed due to no cover arc etc, then it is the player-commanders onus. I consider it part of the fun factor. This is actually a very interesting point to argue. The whole concept of CMxX is based on the the idea that a human player takes care of a higher-level command and TacAI is busy making minute choices for the grunts. That makes the game appealing to the player (you may get rid of click-fest). But it only works if you push TacAI intelligence standards to near-human. And that's enormously difficult though BFC is clearly extremely successful at that. But at tactical level you've got so many details that are easy to grasp for the human and so bloody resource consuming to code and even more so to test/bug-fix. So unless you've got an Avatar's budget you inevitably end up having crews shooting at Panthers. My humble opinion is that CM games are slowly moving from the initial concept to the design where human takes care of most of the things. It would be really interesting if BFC could give their thoughts on that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 My humble opinion is that CM games are slowly moving from the initial concept to the design where human takes care of most of the things. Actually, that was the initial concept and still is. It was always intended that the player would assume the role of the leader of each individual unit as opposed to a single higher-level commander, although a surprising number of people seem to be unaware of this. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IMHO Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Actually, that was the initial concept and still is. It was always intended that the player would assume the role of the leader of each individual unit as opposed to a single higher-level commander, although a surprising number of people seem to be unaware of this. Oh that's clear. I'm rather speaking about the balance of decision making - how many decisions are made by TacAI and how many by humans. So 1. The command structure is getting more and more complex (I'm actually all for it ). You can call it a more clear communication of user intent to the TacAI. Or you can call it putting more constraints on how TacAI behaves. 2. We have real-time now. I bet if you compare user behavior in CMx1 and CMx2 - players are using real-time to go deeper into the tactical level. I don't mean to criticize - just it's very interesting how a unique concept evolves over time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 But bailed-out crews cannot really be treated as 'troops' as such. They were not trained to fight as infantry and should not be able to do so, other than in a very limited self preservation situation. Nor should players be able to use them as such, which was the other point of my post. Use of the target arc is not a bad idea but bailed crews (that is trained AFV personnel) are worth more than cannon fodder and should be keeping out of harms way and exiting the battlefield asap, as they did in real life. Then do it, I do not know if their value is more than plain infantry, but in the game they should be valued much higher so than when they get gunned down, they are of more value to the enemy that ordinary troops, which they might be. For me I just try to get them out of harms way, very seldom do I let them fight unless they have the misfortune of being caught among the enemy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I thought this was being looked at for the first patch, which is now out. So it wasn't? This crew behavior is too aggressive. Having said that, would you have preferred the patch to have waited? That's the conundrum. A better game now, or wait longer for a game even more improved without any interim fixes. I don't think v1.01 will be the final version. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.