Steiner14 Posted August 15, 2011 Share Posted August 15, 2011 In a recent battle i moved a "Stummel" (light armoured vehicle but with a 75mm HE) behind two enemy ATGs and although the guns were completely surprised and showing the rear and definately no threat for the light amoured car, it immediately retreated instead of engaging. I tried it to engage the guns several times, and every time the SdKfz preferred to retreat as fast as possible instead of knocking them out surely. Could it be, that the TacAI of vehicles does not take into account the aiming direction of potential threats? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share Posted August 16, 2011 Why does an observation of very unrealistical behaviour from precious and important units on the battlefield not cause any attention? Is the AI already way too good, that it doesn't need improvements? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wego McPbem Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Thats not good if true. Only observations I have to offer are that in a game I played with marders vs shermans the marders seemed to take facing into account. The marders would happily sit and shoot at the sides of them but as soon as the shermans pointed their turret at them they'd back off in a panic. Maybe it's an at gun thing? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Hmmm.. Not sure. I have managed to surprise and take out AT Guns with 20mm 234/1 ACs, so it's definitely not a universal behavior for light armor to back away from ATGs no matter what. But I haven't played with Stummels yet, so it could be a behavior problem unique to that vehicle. Or perhaps it's a variable behavior dependent on experience, morale, etc. It's definitely true that light armor in the game is pretty skittish, and often backs away fights of its own initiative, even fights might have a decent chance of winning. Mostly, I think this is a good thing, but there may be specific instances where the AI behavior needs tweaking. I'm pretty sure the game unit AI has at least some ability to sense enemy unit facing as I see evidence of this in the way AFVs react to spotted enemy AFVs. But It would take further testing to know for sure if the behavior WRT AT Guns (and specifically AT Guns facing the wrong way) needs to be tweaked. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broken Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 In a recent battle i moved a "Stummel" (light armoured vehicle but with a 75mm HE) behind two enemy ATGs and although the guns were completely surprised and showing the rear and definately no threat for the light amoured car, it immediately retreated instead of engaging. I tried it to engage the guns several times, and every time the SdKfz preferred to retreat as fast as possible instead of knocking them out surely. Could it be, that the TacAI of vehicles does not take into account the aiming direction of potential threats? What are the experience and motivation level for the Stummels? Are they in command? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nidan1 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Are there possibly other enemy units that the Stummel can see, that can also see him? Maybe he is not reacting to the AT guns, but to something else? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share Posted August 16, 2011 Good question. They were regular, nervous and in command. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share Posted August 16, 2011 Nidan1, there were only enemy infantry units as potential threats of the Stummel present. The retreatment path also was clearly out of sight of the ATGs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Simple thing to test. Recreate the scenario with only the three units involved so that all other variables are thrown out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Could it be, that the TacAI of vehicles does not take into account the aiming direction of potential threats? This is most definitely the case. CMx1 wasn't any different, BTW. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Just witnessed a single Stummel, emerging from the rear of a house, come up behind an AT gun facing the opposite direction. The gun followed by the crew were destroyed in successive blasts of HE. 200 or so from meters. The German vehicle was Regular with good morale. Steiner's Stummel (hehe) an outlier? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Purely conjecture here, but I suspect the difference has to do with Steiner's Stummel being of "Nervous" morale state. IME, unit in the Nervous condition basically look for an excuse to disengage, rather than fight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share Posted August 16, 2011 Childress, IMO your example doesn't allow to make conclusions if facing is taken into account. It only shows, that a one on one engagement did happen. And wouldn't that even made perfect sense, if the ATG were facing torwards the Stummel? That an engagement against two helpless ATGs was repeatedly denied, is a hint for me, that the facing (of ATGs) is not taken into account but that the identified units maybe simply accumulate to the amount of the perceived threat-level. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Childress Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 What don't you make a test? You could put one together in ten minutes. I think YankeeDog's explanation is the most plausible. It was their jittery morale. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steiner14 Posted August 16, 2011 Author Share Posted August 16, 2011 It's not the most plausible explanation, since a nervous state should not be equal to panicked state. And how many better chances do exist in the life of a crew, like two helpless ATGs presented on a silver tablet? Even a green crew only with a machine gun on their vehicle should be able to recognize this once in a lifetime chance and shoot. Every state better then panic must lead to an engagement in a 100% win situation. I find it strange how extremely unrealistical behaviour in a first reflex is defended. Yes, the girls were nervous, therefore they avoided to shoot their weapon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 Nidan1, there were only enemy infantry units as potential threats of the Stummel present. The retreatment path also was clearly out of sight of the ATGs. "Only" isn't an adjective armour seems to apply to infantry threats. If it knew about the infantry it might well scarper. Even 'proper tanks' can decide to run shrieking into the distance if they spot some infantry infringing on their personal space. I've seen StuGs and Shermans both beat a rapid retreat from the threat of infantry AT. And I've seen Panthers that ought to have cleared out rather than turning the turret to engage. Morale state, leadership, motivation and experience will all play a part in determining whether a unit will stand and coolly whack the ATGs that are looking the wrong way or decide to run before they turn round and geek the Stummel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted August 16, 2011 Share Posted August 16, 2011 What don't you make a test? You could put one together in ten minutes. I think YankeeDog's explanation is the most plausible. It was their jittery morale. Nervous isn't really jittery. I reckon most of my units spend 90% of their time at Nervous or worse. Once you start taking casualties, OK is a pipe dream, and Cautious a surprising exception. 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.