Brain-dead TacAI?

[76mm]

I am long time CMx1 player and after buying CMBN a few months ago have finally sat down to start to play. I am still struggling to get used to the camera controls, how to track units, etc., and will presumably get used to that, but some of the targeting issues with the TacAI I'm not sure will grow on me...

I've just finished a turn in WEGO mode in which I had two Pumas overwatching a particular field of fire, one with a covered arc, one without. An M-8 zipped into the field of fire, stopped, and here's what happened:

--the Puma with no covered arc seemed to see the M8, which had stopped broadside to the Puma, and slowly traversed its turret towards it...meanwhile the M8 spotted the Puma, traversed, fired and got two hits (penetrations) on the Puma before the Puma fired even once; this Puma then retreated; and

--the Puma with a covered arc watched as the M8 quickly traversed the covered arc and stopped just outside of it. It did not fire on the M8 as it crossed the covered arc or after it exited; it tracked it briefly until it left its covered arc, and then traversed to cover the center of the covered arc. Meanwhile the M8, which had stopped in plain view of this second Puma albeit just outside its covered arc, started firing on the first Puma as described above, with no reaction from the second Puma. When the first Puma retreated and the M8 turned its attention to the second Puma, the M8 got off a few shots (and hits) before the second Puma reacted at all; it only reacted after it had been penetrated a couple of times and then started to retreat.

It is hard for me to understand how an M8 could simply zip up, spot both Pumas and pump several shots into both of them before either of them fired even once? I have to stay that stuff like this is rather disappointing at this stage of development of the CMx2 engine, so I kind of hope that someone can offer some rational explanation for what is going on here? And please don't suggest playing real-time, because that doesn't interest me...

[TheVulture]

Well the covered arc is working as intended by the sound of it. Vehicle outside is ignored until it enters the covered arc. Gunner starts to track the target, but it leaves the arc before he gets a shot off, so he goes back to ignoring it. Expecting the tac AI to be able to anticipate a unit entering its covered arc and having the shot lined up the moment it enters the arc is a bit much - such things are rather hard to program reliably. (I suspect the cover arc would have been ignored had the vehicle been considered a serious threat, since that seems to happen in other cases - and usually causes complaints when it does.

The non-arc puma non getting a shot off is a bit annoying - such things annoy the hell out of me when they happen too. BTW you can see whether the puma can actually see the M8 by clicking on either unit - click on the puma to see what units is can spot (and it may not have spotted the M8) - or click on the M8 and any units of yours that have spotted it will be highlighted.

No idea whether you just got unlucky or not though - extreme random weirdness does happen both in real life and in game more often than you'd expect (because our intuitive expectations about randomness are generally badly wong). You'd have to set up a test scenario replicating this to see what 'typical' results are.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It sounds from the description like the Pumas' slow turret traverse speed allowed the M8 to get off shots and then move out of the covered arc area.

As for covered arcs: be very careful of when and how you use them. Units in CMBN, at least vehicles, will NEVER disregard a covered arc command (if they do I have never seen it), even when an enemy unit outside the arc is plugging AP rounds into it. The main purpose of a covered arc command for a vehicle is to keep the turret pointed in a particular direction. When I give a vehicle a covered arc command I typically make them huge 180 degree arcs, often covering the entire portion of the map in front of the vehicle.

[LJFHutch]

Yeah it would be nice to have some more feeling in the AI, I'd like to see it panic more and just fire off at anything it could see to try and survive. They seem to do that in SF, units really close to one another will open up and expend ammo really fast to try and survive, not sure about covered arcs though.

Edit: I just tested this out and can confirm that units are incredibly strict about following target arcs. I had a tiger sitting 20m behind an M10 and it refused to fire a few degrees to the left of it's arc even though the M10 was slowly rotating it's turret, it fired and immobilized the tiger which still refused to do anything, the second shot destroyed it. It does seem a little unrealistic that they would follow their orders so strictly, I'm sure a real crew would disregard their orders to save their own lives in a situation like that.

[GreenAsJade]

I didn't know that: I thought that coming under fire effectively cancelled the arc.

Its really ... um, how to say it without being hysterical

.... it strikes me as a Bad Thing if units really do not return fire from outside a covered arc.

GaJ

[TheVulture]

It's a no-win situation fo BFC though. We already have compaints about units (e.g. bazooka teams) ignoring arcs and taking shots at units outside the arc (wasting ammo), and complaints about units not ignoring arcs. Which suggests that no matter what you make the behaviour, someone is going to be unhappy with it.

Part of the problem, as always in these games, is that what the user intends by the arc isn't always the same, and the desired behaviour changes with that intention. Sometimes you might set an arc telling a tank to cover a specific area - but then ideally you want the tank to react to events outside the arc such as taking a side shot at a panther that has paused in an exposed position while there are no targets within the arc. Other times you want to use the arc to set an ambush and want it to mean "absolutely no firing at anything outside the arc under any circumstances". Or you might set an arc specifically to exclude a particular target since you have something else dealing with that and set the arc to be ready for another unit you know is coming around the corner. In all three cases a unit just outside the arc would be treate differently according to the player's intention, but are identical in terms of the comamnds given. And the game is of course completely unaware of the players intention (this incidentally is the same problem that crops up with area fire - whether it is gamey or not depends on the players intention in context, something the game simply doesn't know).

[Chris Ferrous]

As regards, not managing to get off a shot, and the randomness of real life in battle, I'll quote the following example from an interview with a British tanker who was at Villers-Bocage when Wittmanns' Tiger went on the rampage:-

I believe the tank was a Firefly which definitely had a chance of hurting the Tiger. The tank was parked in a yard beside and to the rear of a house aside the main street into town. The crew heard the fire and commotion and then the Tiger went straight past the opening of the yard presenting its flank as it did so. The Firefly never fired. Why?

Because the gun-layer had stepped out of the tank to take a piss!

[ChrisND]

It is hard for me to understand how an M8 could simply zip up, spot both Pumas and pump several shots into both of them before either of them fired even once? I have to stay that stuff like this is rather disappointing at this stage of development of the CMx2 engine, so I kind of hope that someone can offer some rational explanation for what is going on here? And please don't suggest playing real-time, because that doesn't interest me...

Don't use a covered arc if you might get flanked. You gave your unit an order and it followed it. If it was the other way and units felt free to ignore their covered arcs when they deemed necessary, we'd have a sister post where someone objects to the Tac AI ignoring it's cover arc to fire on frivolous targets. This is one of those occasions where a given behavior could work well or badly depending on the specific situation.

[womble]

One reason the first Puma might've failed to get a shot off is the combination of the slow traverse of its turret plus the automated turning of the hull towards a threat to present thickest armour. It's a flaw at the moment, I believe, that the turret cannot rotate widdershins while the hull is moving turnwise (and, of course, vice versa). So the turret points at the target, then the driver alters the hull facing a bit, which points the gun away from the target, so the driver stops turning and gives the turret chance to rotate, but not enough chance to actually lay the sights on the target, until finally either the target gets away or kills the rotating shooter or the driver is happy with the vehicle's facing and lets the gunner have attitude control of his weapon for long enough to fire.

It's something I'd hope can be cleaned up for a later release.

[RockinHarry]

Generally I feel with you, but...

...to get a proper evaluation for the described situation, I´d like to know Puma & M8 crew experience & morale/suppression levels, leader ratings, C2 situation, possible vehicle damages, (radio, optics ok?) weather, time of day, as well as terrain in and between all vehicles concerned. Maybe also knowing playmode (Warrior, Elite,...) might be interesting.

First ideas and when purely comparing with a RL situation, were:

1. German mechanized reccon units usually can be considered at least "regulars", as this was more of specialized branch, thus receiving more of training and such.

2. Main feature for german mechanized units was proper handling of C2, which means in the described situation, Pumas should radio a target sighting within seconds to each other and act accordingly.

3. Turret traverse. Might be of concern for an immobilized vehicle, but if things have to happen quickly, an AFV commander would order to rotate the hull first, thus speeding up turret aligning on target. I´d say, Pumas were quite agile in this regard.

[Chris Ferrous]

Womble: that's actually a very good point.

In fact doesn't a covered arc instigate the turning of the hull in that direction in any case? Even before a target appears.

[Vanir Ausf B]

No. Absent a target, a vehicle will keep its turret centered in a covered arc, but the hull facing is unaffected.

[Michael Emrys]

Part of the problem, as always in these games, is that what the user intends by the arc isn't always the same, and the desired behaviour changes with that intention. Sometimes you might set an arc telling a tank to cover a specific area - but then ideally you want the tank to react to events outside the arc such as taking a side shot at a panther that has paused in an exposed position while there are no targets within the arc. Other times you want to use the arc to set an ambush and want it to mean "absolutely no firing at anything outside the arc under any circumstances". Or you might set an arc specifically to exclude a particular target since you have something else dealing with that and set the arc to be ready for another unit you know is coming around the corner. In all three cases a unit just outside the arc would be treate differently according to the player's intention, but are identical in terms of the comamnds given. And the game is of course completely unaware of the players intention (this incidentally is the same problem that crops up with area fire - whether it is gamey or not depends on the players intention in context, something the game simply doesn't know).

I find myself wondering if it would be possible for the game software to accept different user-set degrees of strictness in how a covered arc is to be applied. For instance, a target arc might be set to fire at any enemy unit entering it; or any enemy vehicle; or just enemy armored vehicles. That's one set of possible options. Another would be that the target arc would be over-ridden if an enemy unit with the capability of damaging/destroying the friendly unit appears outside the arc; or only if such a unit appeared within an established range, etc. In other words, without going crazy with options, add enough to make TAs more flexible and useful to the player.

Michael

[Sgt Schultz]

To the OP. As RH stated above, uber mega variables could be affecting your outcome. Save all pre-calculation files, and run 'em again for testing purposes when something wonky this way comes.

-------------

I was considering options as well, but one should also consider UI space and complexity. The UI is already daunting for a good many non-veterans.

My choices would be ...

INF, ARMR, BOTH - obvious.

Then you go with either

Strict - Holds hull position, ignores out of arc fire that is no danger(ie small arms against tank).

Loose - Returns all out of arc fire, and rotates hull towards largest perceived threat.

----

With our LOS/LOF code, I think some hull rotations are taking things out of LOS/LOF jusssst long enough to blow the shot. Tank is buttoned and sees target. Rotates hull and loses target. Re-acquires, then process starts anew.

[c3k]

76mm:

I agree, both issues need work.

Issue 1: Spotting by vehicles. You'd think stationary vehicles in overwatch would spot a vehicle entering the kill zone first. (If you played vs. AI, you won't know when the M8 spotted the Puma/s.) The fact that the M8 got off the first shot may be a factor from spotting behavior. If not an aspect of the spotting routines, then an explanation of the Puma's delay in firing needs to be sought.

Issue 2: Covered arcs. If the Puma was holding fire for a reason (ambush, get the battalion Hq, etc.) you would've complained if it had fired at the M8 after it left the covered arc. If the enemy area targets into your unit's zone, recon by fire, that shouldn't "break" the adherence to the covered arc. Etc. Right now covered arcs are very "tight". (I use excessively large covered arcs to ensure I cover the area I want.) It sounds like the covered arc was executed exactly as you ordered it. But, yeah, you'd think it would've fired at the M8, regardless, after the M8 aimed and fired at it.

Do you have any savegames?

Ken

[76mm]

Well thanks for the feedback everyone. I'm not going to recount every last statistic about the Pumas, but basically it was in Turn 2 of the "Cats Chasing Dogs" scenario; in any event, no shots had been fired before this, so the Pumas were not suppressed.

One thing that I did mention before is that all of the M8's shots were hits, it was really kind of remarkable: it drove full speed into the middle of a field, spotted both Pumas, fired two shots at one, hit with both, turned to the other Puma and gave it the same treatment, all before either Puma got off a single shot. I guess both gunners had shared a bad meal and were indisposed?

About covered arcs: actually at this point in the engine, I would expect that a vehicle taking fire, or even spotting a vehicle pointing at it, would forget the covered arc. I should also emphasize that this M8 drove through the entire covered arc and then stopped just past it, so I would say that if a vehicle has a covered arc but can't get off a shot in time, it should not simply absolutely forget about the potential target, to the extent of not even returning fire as the M8 peppers it with shot. I thought that CMBN was supposed to be all sophisticated, and this kind of simple black/white rule (outside of covered arc, no way, no chance will unit fire) seems way far too rudimentary to be included in this generation of tactical simulation.

Maybe this is a fluke, but when it happens in one of your first games it makes quite an impression, a negative one... I'll replay the scenario, see what happens, hopefully the next iteration will seem a bit more realistic.

[hoolaman]

You fail to address the point many posters above mentioned, the black and white is arguably desirable more often than not. How far out of a carefully laid web of ambush arcs should your hidden AT guns to start ignoring their orders?

[womble]

About covered arcs: actually at this point in the engine, I would expect that a vehicle taking fire, or even spotting a vehicle pointing at it, would forget the covered arc.

It's possible that there may need to be some tweaking with the 'self preservation' characteristics of vehicles. I've seen the same thing happen when a Tank has been given an area fire order, and then spotted an actual target, which could have been a threat, yet adhered to its area fire order rather than engaging the opposing armour with AP. I agree that it's not unreasonable for the Puma in the given situation to respond to the clear and present danger, especially given how close the threat was to the edge of the arc. With infantry, there seems to be some function relating to the distance outside/relative to the size of the arc: it seeems to me that a team with a 10m circular arc won't fire at a "threatening" target 100m away, whereas one with a 90m circular arc will. I'd sort of expect vehicles to behave in a similar fashion, but they do seem more tightly bound to their orders.

You fail to address the point many posters above mentioned, the black and white is arguably desirable more often than not. How far out of a carefully laid web of ambush arcs should your hidden AT guns to start ignoring their orders?

The edges of infantry CAs are 'softer' than the edges of vehicle ones, IME. Perhaps because they feel more need for 'self preservation' than vehicle crews. Some variation on that theme would be tolerable.

[GreenAsJade]

It's quite black and white when a unit should ignore a covered arc: it's when it comes under fire.

The compaints about bazookas ignoring covered arc where not "under fire" situtaions. It used to be the case that bazookas would ignore covered arcs for no good reason at all.

Thats completely different to a unit coming under fire: in this case, the unit should "drop" the covered arc and return fire.

GaJ

[MOSwas71331]

It's a flaw at the moment, I believe, that the turret cannot rotate widdershins while the hull is moving turnwise (and, of course, vice versa).

I had to look "widdershins" up on-line. wid·der·shins (wdr-shnz) or with·er·shins (w-)

adv.

In a contrary or counterclockwise direction.

Is that word now commonly used in Blighty? (For that matter, is Blighty still commonly used?) I lived in Surbiton from 1955 to 1958, and I can't recall ever hearing that word.

Blighty - a slang term for Great Britain used by British troops serving abroad. That word I did hear, I think in war movies, and its meaning was easy to deduce in context.

[womble]

I had to look "widdershins" up on-line...

Is that word now commonly used in Blighty?...

No, it's not. I just like using archaic words

...For that matter, is Blighty still commonly used?...

Not, I expect, outside those who're members of the WW1/WW2 gaming/historical community

[76mm]

You fail to address the point many posters above mentioned, the black and white is arguably desirable more often than not. How far out of a carefully laid web of ambush arcs should your hidden AT guns to start ignoring their orders?

I don't agree that a "carefully laid web of ambush arcs" that would be spoiled if an intelligent TacAI ignored the covered arc UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES is a situation that arises "more often" vs a simple plain vanilla overwatch situation where a covered arc is given in the apparently false hope that the vehicle would respond more quickly to threats that emerge within the covered arc.

I guess I just shouldn't use the covered arc unless used in conjunction witha "carefully laid web" in an ambush in which there is NO WAY that a target could appear outside the covered arc and threaten the overwatching unit? To me anyway, such a command will be of very limited utility.

[Michael Emrys]

You'd think stationary vehicles in overwatch would spot a vehicle entering the kill zone first. (If you played vs. AI, you won't know when the M8 spotted the Puma/s.) The fact that the M8 got off the first shot may be a factor from spotting behavior. If not an aspect of the spotting routines, then an explanation of the Puma's delay in firing needs to be sought.

One thing that hasn't been considered yet is possible differences in experience/leadership/motivation of the three vehicles.

Michael

[76mm]

I've checked the scenario and was surprised that both of the relevant Pumas were green, which is presumably part of the problem, although I don't know how experienced the M8 was. Unless it was elite, I still find it strange that it could get off five shots--all hits--without either Puma getting off a single shot.

[Michael Emrys]

I've checked the scenario and was surprised that both of the relevant Pumas were green, which is presumably part of the problem...

Indeed. That might be the whole thing right there. Green units by design don't perform as well. If someone who has already played this scenario could load it as the Americans and check the experience level of the M8 that would give us a further clue.

Michael