Revival of CMAK's Hunt as a workaround

[Kanonier Reichmann]

After reading the now closed thread on Tread Head's (& others) frustration with the current movement & fire routines for tanks in CM:BN I was wondering why it wasn't possible to bring back CMBB/CMAK's Hunt command? While I'm not suggesting it was perfect it certainly allowed tanks to move forward and halt when a threat was spotted so that it could be fired upon. Once the threat was dealt with then the tank continued its movement path until another threat was spotted.

This sort of behavior for tanks is pretty critical for players who like to play PBEM style where the turn runs for a whole minute whereas I can see it's not quite so critical for real time players as they can simply issue new orders on the fly should they be watching the relevant action at the time. With CM:BN as it is at the moment it's very difficult to advance on the battlefield with tanks where they will halt on spotting a threat but continue towards the ordered destination when the threat has disappered or otherwise dealt with. At the moment we have to simply order our advancing tanks to either move or move fast towards their destination hoping that they're able to hit enemy threats when they appear as they continue their inexorable move towards the end point.

As I said, a good compromise solution to this failure to halt while firing behaviour appears to be the old CMAK/CMBB hunt command to this layman but perhaps BFC can provide some sort of explanation why this can't be implemented with the current engine as a compromise solution?

Regards

KR

[GreenAsJade]

What's wrong with CMBN Hunt for this purpose?

AFAICS if you have a covered arc, then the tank continues forwards until

something intersects its arc, at which point it stops. That sounds like

the right thing. If you wish that it would continue again if the threat

does not materialise ... well, you wasted at most 59 seconds of advancement,

and probably learned that you need to set the arc closer in?

A geniune question: I haven't played enough tank-filled games to know if this has pitfalls, it seems to be working so far for me...

GaJ

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I am not sure what further explanation is needed other then that it is nice if tanks could move, stop to engage an encountered target and if target is destroyed or moves from view that movement is resumed. And if this is the default behaviour for AI tanks, it would make a lot of difference in the believability of tank encounters.

Steve might not like to read it but CMx1 tank engagement where enemies stopped to engage you looked a HELL of a lot better then CMBN's putting a round on target as they zip along.

I'm dismayed the discussion is even being held.

[GreenAsJade]

You're starting the hysterics again that closed the previous thead. "Dismayed".

Sure it would be nice if tanks on Hunt would start moving again if the threat goes away.

But for 30s the TC says "hold on boys....waiiit for it.... OK all clear, lets roll". Seems like a workable workaround, which is what was being asked for.

GaJ

[sburke]

I am not sure what further explanation is needed other then that it is nice if tanks could move, stop to engage an encountered target and if target is destroyed or moves from view that movement is resumed. And if this is the default behaviour for AI tanks, it would make a lot of difference in the believability of tank encounters.

Steve might not like to read it but CMx1 tank engagement where enemies stopped to engage you looked a HELL of a lot better then CMBN's putting a round on target as they zip along.

I'm dismayed the discussion is even being held.

I don't think Steve is disagreeing with anyone about wanting to correct the behavior. What he keeps pointing out, and no one seems to want to hear is he doesn't want to spend the effort on a (in his words) kludge fix that they used for CMx1 and try to apply that to CMx2. Their position is they want a real answer and will correct it as they develop it. The behavior that you feel looks easier on the eyes and more believable (assuming they could even apply the same logic in this engine) would require them to spend extra effort on something that they feel is not a good option and possibly create other issues for them as they try to come up with a better answer. They have limited resources and in that light I think the answer is valid. If they do figure it out and come up with a better solution I think we'd all be much happier. Any attempt to do anything else though will only slow down their ability to come up with that solution. That kludge fix could also impact other AI behavior and end up creating more of a mess than we started with.

Soooooo we can either wait for them to find an answer and apply it (and we've only had the product since May), or we can continue this discussion which isn't going to get any attention from them as they have already clearly stated they will not apply what they consider to be a broken alternative. If we want to continue it, I don't think he will care as long as we maintain some level of civility. The other thread was shut down because of the behavior, not the subject.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

You're starting the hysterics again that closed the previous thead. "Dismayed".

Sure it would be nice if tanks on Hunt would start moving again if the threat goes away.

But for 30s the TC says "hold on boys....waiiit for it.... OK all clear, lets roll". Seems like a workable workaround, which is what was being asked for.

GaJ

Hmm, yeah, did not really mean to re-start that thread, kinda slipped out as I typed as they are rather related subjects.

But hysterics? Really?! If you are going to call my behaviour hysterics then let me at least get a '**** You And Your Granny' in there. I think "dismayed" sets the bar a trifle low.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I don't think Steve is disagreeing with anyone about wanting to correct the behavior. What he keeps pointing out, and no one seems to want to hear is he doesn't want to spend the effort on a (in his words) kludge fix that they used for CMx1 and try to apply that to CMx2. Their position is they want a real answer and will correct it as they develop it. The behavior that you feel looks easier on the eyes and more believable (assuming they could even apply the same logic in this engine) would require them to spend extra effort on something that they feel is not a good option and possibly create other issues for them as they try to come up with a better answer. They have limited resources and in that light I think the answer is valid. If they do figure it out and come up with a better solution I think we'd all be much happier. Any attempt to do anything else though will only slow down their ability to come up with that solution. That kludge fix could also impact other AI behavior and end up creating more of a mess than we started with.

Soooooo we can either wait for them to find an answer and apply it (and we've only had the product since May), or we can continue this discussion which isn't going to get any attention from them as they have already clearly stated they will not apply what they consider to be a broken alternative. If we want to continue it, I don't think he will care as long as we maintain some level of civility. The other thread was shut down because of the behavior, not the subject.

I just don't know if I even understand all issues correctly because the status quo is so disagreeable to me I am truly surprised we are having this discussion at all.

Seems to me the Old Hunt behaviour is worth having in it's own right. Having it then be the default movement for AI (tank) movement would so vastly improve on the current behaviour I am hard pressed to see it as a kludge of any kind. I would rather have a good kludge then the current behaviour which just stands out like a sore thumb. In gameplay and realism it is just not good enough.

On various issues in the past I have had considerable sympathy for the priorities BFC are required to make. But BFC's limited means cannot be a Get Out of Jail Free card for every shortcoming. This basic behaviour strikes at the core of gameplay and credibility and needs to be improved. If not by the old hunt behaviour then by something else. And not in the next title.

[GreenAsJade]

What is so wrong with the current CMBN Hunt?

How often, really, do you encounter the enemy and then want the unit to move on without your interdiction?

Sure, it happens. But it's hardly every turn...

GaJ

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I

Soooooo we can either wait for them to find an answer and apply it (and we've only had the product since May), or we can continue this discussion which isn't going to get any attention from them as they have already clearly stated they will not apply what they consider to be a broken alternative.

I must admit I'm struggling to see how "broken" the previous CMBB/CMAK Hunt alternative was. Sure, it wasn't absolutely perfect, but it was a darn sight better than having tanks either stop dead 1 second into the turn on spotting an unarmed crew or carrying on blithely on its merry way as it moves (or moves fast) to its plotted destination while being fired on by a credible enemy threat while pretty accurately returning fire on the move. It's just not anywhere near what happened in reality from my reading of the period.

As for GAJ's question, it can be incredibly frustrating if you're trying to advance towards an objective and continually have your armour halt the moment it spots something... anything in its sights. Setting a covered arc is fraught with danger as you can be often guessing where credible enemy threats are and if you get it wrong you'll have a dead tank as it becomes a sitting duck to whatever fires at it while it doesn't fire back because of the incorrectly placed covered (everything) arc.

As I said, it would be nice to have some sort of insight into why the old hunt order couldn't be implemented with CM:BN.

Regards

KR

[GreenAsJade]

Usually the something that is a threat is only spotted when it fires upon the Hunting unit.

As soon as the hunting unit is fired upon, from outside it's covered arc, it forgets about the arc, stops moving, and returns fire (right??).

I agree it would be good PR for us to hear about the thinking process behind today's Hunt vs yesterday's.

I haven't yet experienced the problem you're describing (of tiresome advance). Doesn't mean it's not there, I just haven't experienced it. Any time I come to a stop under Covered-arc+Hunt, I've been fairly glad to be stopped...

GaJ

[Chris Ferrous]

As regards the movement aspects of this discussion I prefer it as it is now in CMBN, and I'm primarily a pbem we-go player.

Essentially, by choosing the correct movement command I can get the type of behaviour I want; in other words, advance slowly (move) with a reasonable chance of firing back (ideal against disorganised infantry at range); advance fast (fast) with a chance of getting to my next firing / overwatch position before the enemy can react and fire, or advance cautiously (hunt, with or without arc) so that an unforeseen enemy contact causes a halt and a reappraissal of the situation (by me) before recommencing the advance. I especially use the latter if my tank is emerging from concealment, so that it is likely to stop when it is either still near cover, or still partially concealed. I would be unlikely to use it in the open as my tank could stop anywhere and be over exposed, although I would expect the friendly AI to react if it were possible.

As regards shooting on the move, I agree wholeheartedly that CMBN seems to allow far too great a level of accuracy in comparison to CM1. I have seen some seemingly ridiculous situations which individually could be dismissed as the 'luck of the draw' but which collectively cause me some concern (or at times even dismay!).

Generally, tank gun accuracy seems much higher than CM1, which is maybe correct and an improvement, and when the firer is stationery I have no quibble with it. However, slow movement (move) seems to have minimal, if any, impact on accuracy, and even fast movement over undulating ground with trees and bushes around seems to make only a little difference. I say 'seems' because I have absolutely no statistics to back this up. It is an entirely subjective impression.

[Sublime]

Im surprised noone has mentioned that in CMAK the typical engagement ranges were a lot higher than in CMBN. That may account quite a bit for tank accuracy.

Everyone can complain all they want. its ridiculous. Everyone wants to complain because tanks are made slightly more accurate on the move - but you guys have NOOO problem going back to abstracted firepower ratings and abstracted individual soldiers as well in Cmx1.

Good luck. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence

[stikkypixie]

Im surprised noone has mentioned that in CMAK the typical engagement ranges were a lot higher than in CMBN. That may account quite a bit for tank accuracy.

Everyone can complain all they want. its ridiculous. Everyone wants to complain because tanks are made slightly more accurate on the move - but you guys have NOOO problem going back to abstracted firepower ratings and abstracted individual soldiers as well in Cmx1.

Good luck. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence

Erhm, complaining when done right can only make the game better or at least highlight the limitations of the game. The problem right now is that no-one has any objective data to back up their states. All we have now is anecdotes on whether something is broken or not. It takes a lot of patience to isolate the cause of the problems or to show that something is just a fluke. There are many many factors that can be overlooked. Also there is no evidence of what is realistic. Even if someone can show that moving tanks in CMBN hit x% of the time, no-one can tell what it should be in reality.

What I do is just play the game and enjoy it for what it is.

[z1812]

I liked the way the hunt command worked in CMX1. It was very useful for quickly finding hull down positions.

However there is so much improved in CMBN that I don't see myself playing CMX1 very often, if at all.

Sure there are some "odd behaviors" and there always will be. Nothing will be perfect unless you want to wait forever for a game to be ready.

As many of us know CMSF was less than perfect when released. Battlefront said they would make improvements and they did. In my view it turned out to be the best modern tactical wargame ever made.

For my money CMBN is already the best WW2 tactical wargame available. It will only get better.

[GreenAsJade]

To be fair, we have at least one person claiming to be a tanker and sharing his experience that you can't hit squat on the move.

Of course, we didn't follow up his creds But if he says then I believe him, I guess. So it's not "no-one can tell us" That said, I totally agree: play and enjoy. It is what it is. There were some rather broken things at the beginning, there's still one that I know of (dead FO team member) but other than that there's nothing debilitating.

GaJ

[Sublime]

Erhm, complaining when done right can only make the game better or at least highlight the limitations of the game. The problem right now is that no-one has any objective data to back up their states. All we have now is anecdotes on whether something is broken or not. It takes a lot of patience to isolate the cause of the problems or to show that something is just a fluke. There are many many factors that can be overlooked. Also there is no evidence of what is realistic. Even if someone can show that moving tanks in CMBN hit x% of the time, no-one can tell what it should be in reality.

What I do is just play the game and enjoy it for what it is.

You misunderstand my meaning. Im not advocating blind 'fanboy-ism'. But what good is it saying the game is a steaming pile of crap or throwing a web temper tantrum and saying you're going back to CMAK? It doesn't do any good at all. Throwing in your opinion, offering professional insights - thats all well and good. Getting mad and putting it on game designers is ridiculous, especially since out of all the game companies I've had the experience of dealing with since 1996, BTS is definitely the most customer friendly. I've also almost never seen game designers make so many modifications to games based on evidence that the players present on msg boards.

If anyone remembers several years ago when one of the Close Combat developers would troll here, and post under pen names, and generally act like a child. It was ridiculous.

Also the poster Im referring to went from someone whose posts I enjoyed reading, and took seriously, to someone I just ignore as much as possible. Michael Wittman could post on here, but if he started throwing tantrums and acting ridiculous I wouldn't give two sh*ts about his tanker experience. I can find plenty of sources that dont make me wonder how someone who supposedly has first hand experience on a tank from the 1940's could be so immature.

[BadgerDog]

To be fair, we have at least one person claiming to be a tanker and sharing his experience that you can't hit squat on the move.

I agree with whatever other member said that ...

I can also only speak as an old M4 tanker ...

You can't hit anything while moving unless you are employing the master weapon's gyro stabilizer system, or the enemy vehicle is close enough to literally see the whites of their eyes.

If that's the case, then you are probably in pretty deep doo doo anyway ...

You can't even keep you eye up to the rubber padding on the gunner's sighting telescope when moving, long enough to lay the reticule pattern onto the target unless you have gyros running.

Regards,

Doug

ps: I was about 70% or so accurate with first round hits on the move while employing gyro stabilizing on the Sherman M4 at under 1,000 yards, which is the zeroing range for the Sherman M4 using knitting thread taped as a cross on the master weapon bore crown.

Edit: by the way, I really don't care if they do fire and hit on the move in CMBN without gyros, because both sides can do it equally. I try to suspend my real life experience as much as possible and simply enjoy it as a highly entertaining game and worth every penny I paid for it . Well, enjoyment except for the part where George and Steve are constantly kicking my butt in our PBEM games.

[mjkerner]

Frustrating, but like some others here, I don't usually have fights with a lot of armor, mostly one or two in support of a infantry company. So I'm taking the long view that what we have by the time we get to Russia is going to be especially awesome because of the thought and development time that will have gone into these issues by then. I'm happy to play CMBN now, warts and all, rather than wait even longer for them to fix, since it sounds like a coding chore that would seriously delay the modules. But, that's a double-edged sword for sure.

[Tread Head]

To be fair, we have at least one person claiming to be a tanker and sharing his experience that you can't hit squat on the move.

Of course, we didn't follow up his creds But if he says then I believe him, I guess. So it's not "no-one can tell us" That said, I totally agree: play and enjoy. It is what it is. There were some rather broken things at the beginning, there's still one that I know of (dead FO team member) but other than that there's nothing debilitating.

GaJ

I was also a Tanker... on a M1A1 and without the gyro/computer there was noway you were going to hit anything on the move... I also know that in Advanced Squad Leader (the best and most researched WW2 boardgame, to hit a target on the move you basically have to roll snake-eyes on two dice then roll a 1 on a single die back to back to obtain a hit. And even then, depending on other factors (target size, terrain modifiers) you still may miss.

I use a lot of hyperbole and sarcasm in my threads and I think that got my last thread closed.... I don't really think this game is a "pile of poo" I am just frustrated with tanks...

Why not just increase the odds in the programming that if you fire on the move you only have a .001% chance of hitting? That seems like simple programming to an X-tanker/ current cop but if you did that it would force players to change tactics... As it is now, why ever use the Hunt command? I can just have me tanks move or go fast towards the enemy and blast away as they go....

[sburke]

I just don't know if I even understand all issues correctly because the status quo is so disagreeable to me I am truly surprised we are having this discussion at all.

Seems to me the Old Hunt behaviour is worth having in it's own right. Having it then be the default movement for AI (tank) movement would so vastly improve on the current behaviour I am hard pressed to see it as a kludge of any kind. I would rather have a good kludge then the current behaviour which just stands out like a sore thumb. In gameplay and realism it is just not good enough.

On various issues in the past I have had considerable sympathy for the priorities BFC are required to make. But BFC's limited means cannot be a Get Out of Jail Free card for every shortcoming. This basic behaviour strikes at the core of gameplay and credibility and needs to be improved. If not by the old hunt behaviour then by something else. And not in the next title.

Elmar I am not sure if I understand the above, but in short IMHO we are having this discussion because there is a group that seems to be more impacted by the AI behavior than others and they are fairly frustrated and vocal and impatient. The discussion isn't about whether the behavior needs to be changed, but how. This thread and many many comments all point to trying to go back to something else when that isn't an option on the table. Not being an AI programmer I have to rely on what BFC says is possible and what they want to do with the engine. So in the interests of keeping this on what BFC has actually said as opposed to us all just expressing how much we liked the behavior in another game I am going to extensively quote Steve's comments from the previous discusion. Please grant me some leeway here is much of this comes from a back and forth discussion of both the % of hits on the move and a discussion about trying to add commands to get the AI to present different behavior as well as alter the UI commands. I've bolded the comments specifically germaine to this thread. I hope this helps somewhat as I think we all need to go back and make sure we actually understand BFC's position as I think it is very frequently misstated.

One thing I would ask is if folks on both sides would stop trying to say who is speaking for the majority opinion. I don't think any of us really know and I for one am willing to be patient. From everything BFC has said, they do view it as an issue they would like to address and are trying to come to grips with how. That for me is very respectable response.

As AKD states, we are aware that firing on the move is not as inaccurate as it should be. Until we add a couple of Commands to the game and add the necessary TacAI, it is a problem that will remain for a while.

I will also note this issue exists for all three CMx1 games.

Sure, but that doesn't fundamentally address the problem that tanks should be "smart" enough to halt to take shots and then keep moving. For that we need new Commands so when a player wants a unit to get from A to B without firing he can do that reliably, but in other situations have the vehicle either stop completely (like Hunt does now) or fire a round or two and then continue to move.

That's not what I meant. I meant that in CMx1 tanks fire while on the move instead of coming to a halt. This is the fundamental problem the game, all CM games, have.

True, but without a "NASA" test to isolate the variables and quantify how much change is needed, then we might as well just change variables at random. That is never a good way to approach things.

There's probably not a single variable in CM:BN that is the same as CM:SF. There's also a ton of things in CM:SF that are disabled in the code, a ton of new stuff added. There can be something wrong in CM:BN without having anything to do with CM:SF.

Sorta, but is is VERY "kludgey". And, as you pointed out...

And if you don't know the enemy is there, or pick the wrong place to put the Pause, or Pause for the wrong amount of time, or the enemy is temporarily out of LOS/LOF while Paused, or... cripes, there are so many things that could go wrong. It really isn't a good work around.

RealTime has it's own problems. You can perfectly execute firing from short halts, but only if you're micromanaging the unit and not doing anything else (including micro managing other tanks). So it's not all that great in RealTime either, though it is better than WeGo in that it can be far more adaptive.

I don't agree. From a philosophical standpoint REQUIRING kludgey, very difficult to execute work arounds is not good enough.

That is a part of it. We are very leery of making behavioral changes that hobble the AI Player in some way.

It's there and I've not overstated it. CMx1's implementation of Hunt definitely gave players a less kludgey workarounds than CMx2 currently has, but fundamentally there was absolutely no support for firing at short halts.

Hunt, for example, would stop the tank and it would fire from a stopped position. However, if any viable target, including infantry, present itself then the tank won't continue on. This is not what a tank should be doing. It should be stopping, firing, maybe firing again, then leaving even if the target is not destroyed or other targets appear. Well, unless there's no real threat that is.

Move to Contact just stops the tank dead in its tracks like it does in CMx2. So on that count CMx1 and CMx2 are the same.

Absolutely the degree of accuracy is something separate from the abstraction of firing at short halts. We can tweak the accuracy and yet keep the same basic behavior. We're already doing our own tests to see how much and under what situations things should change.

I will say we internal types have always advocated a lower accuracy while firing on the move. But with hundreds of equally important things (in their own way) to get fixed up we couldn't remain fixated on this one thing too long.

Which is fine for you, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact -> there is no support for firing from short halts in CMx1. The Cover Arc, if used, won't keep your tank moving if there's more than one non-infantry target. It also isn't flexible to have your tank stop, firing one shot at an AT Gun if you had it set for Armor Arc. Etc. So while you may be generally pleased with the kludge work arounds in CMx1, they are still kludges. And that means the basic behavior is being worked around with tools which weren't intended to be used in that particular way, which in turn means the outcomes are not optimized to compensate for the missing behavior.

Put another way, one can pound screw into a wooden board using a hammer. But that doesn't mean the hammer is a the right tool for screws. A sledgehammer is

Again, both systems have automatic firing on the move behavior. Both have kludges to get a unit to stop and fire. Some players have more or less problems with either the automatic behavior or the kludge work arounds. But in all cases, no matter how you slice it, neither game system fundamentally supports firing from short halts

This has been at the core of our development philosophy since the very beginning. So obvious I agree 9 times out of 10. When I don't agree it is because a) the problem is significant enough to warrant a real solution and the kludges are either too annoying or too narrow. In this case...

The work arounds are both too annoying and too narrow We really need a better solution than what was in CMx1. The posts above this are good examples of why.

Steve

[Wodin]

This problem can be worked around currently...see the tactics thread in the CMSF forum.

[Battlefront.com]

But what good is it saying the game is a steaming pile of crap or throwing a web temper tantrum and saying you're going back to CMAK? It doesn't do any good at all. Throwing in your opinion, offering professional insights - thats all well and good. Getting mad and putting it on game designers is ridiculous, especially since out of all the game companies I've had the experience of dealing with since 1996, BTS is definitely the most customer friendly. I've also almost never seen game designers make so many modifications to games based on evidence that the players present on msg boards.

What he said, with bolded stuff for emphasis Anybody that has spent any time on this Forum knows that hyperbole, bullying, disproportionate comparisons, and other over-the-top behavior doesn't do anything but make us wonder why on Earth we bother to make wargames at all. We could get the same aggravation and make 10 times more money at it by making pretty much any other type of game.

A game is a collection of individual features. Within those features there will be some things that are, comparatively, better or worse than features in another game when compared to each other fairly and within context. Very, very, VERY often those comparisons are a matter of personal opinion and therefore the person making such a comparison must keep in mind others may genuinely disagree. Calling such people "fan boys" because they like the way it is better than another way is disrespectful and childish. If someone has to resort to name calling to get their point across, they need to go to someplace else where posting standards are significantly lower.

Be critical, by all means, but be reasonable. Since it's possible to be both critical and reasonable we feel fine insisting upon it.

Elmar I am not sure if I understand the above, but in short IMHO we are having this discussion because there is a group that seems to be more impacted by the AI behavior than others and they are fairly frustrated and vocal and impatient.

Yes. That and having rose colored glasses about what CMx1 was able to do.

The discussion isn't about whether the behavior needs to be changed, but how. This thread and many many comments all point to trying to go back to something else when that isn't an option on the table.

True that we're not going to rush something into place that is "comforting". We took a lot of flak for the CM:SF QuickBattle system and many wanted us to just ram in the old CMx1 system (which wouldn't have worked "as is" anyway). We insisted on not wasting our time and instead went back to the drawing board and came up with the system that is in CM:BN. A system which, by any objective measure, most customers feel is better than what was in either CMx1 or CM:SF/CM:A. Gamers often don't understand even the definition of "patience";), but with us at least we have a very good track record for not only fixing things but fixing them better than gamers thought possible.

However, that doesn't mean that the future changes won't look at all like CMx1. We're interested in addressing issues, so if something from CMx1 can be a part of that solution... great. But there still needs to be more than what CMx1 had so it can not be more than just a part of the solution.

So in the interests of keeping this on what BFC has actually said as opposed to us all just expressing how much we liked the behavior in another game I am going to extensively quote Steve's comments from the previous discusion.

Saves me a lot of typing or searching for what's already been said... thanks!

I hope this helps somewhat as I think we all need to go back and make sure we actually understand BFC's position as I think it is very frequently misstated.

It is very common for someone who isn't getting what they want, when they want it (always yesterday, BTW ), to misstate what we've said about the issue. Why? Because it's a lot harder to make a rant sound like a well reasoned complaint than an unreasonable tantrum when it's clear that the only people who can make the changes are a) listening "get it" already, and c) have outlined how it will be addressed.

Steve

[Guest]

Why not just increase the odds in the programming that if you fire on the move you only have a .001% chance of hitting? That seems like simple programming to an X-tanker/ current cop but if you did that it would force players to change tactics...

Because it would require the AI opponent to change tactics as well, and that is *not* simple programming. Making an AI capable of a set of tactics is difficult, exacting work that also requires a ton of planning and incalculable amounts of testing to get right. If they're even moderately complex tactics - and the decisions required for stop-and-shoot are, with a number of factors involved - it's even harder.

[Sublime]

The CMBB and CMAK nostalgia is funny anyways. I remember when CMBB came out many players decided it was completely unplayable because the T-34s were undermodelled as far as the guns, and a 'host of other game breaking issues'etc.

Im sure when CMx2 BB gets released everyone will claim that because of the way snow is modelled that the game is a total pile of crap and unplayable. And that they're storming off to play CMBN, which was done perfectly.

That is until Cmx3 BN comes out and then ... so on and so forth

[Tread Head]

I guess that was just my ignorance speaking...