Brain-dead TacAI?

[GreenAsJade]

No no!

The point of a CA is to stop units firing at _spotted_ units outside the CA.

It is really hard to imagine how its not going to be ongoing frustration if units don't return fire.

This might make sense for inf covered arcs, but for AFVs, it seems like it will always be a disaster, and the opposite of what you would want. If a tank comes under fire from another tank, it needs to return fire, arc or not.

That's how it is in CMx1

GaJ

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yes. Otherwise; what's the point of a CA?

For infantry it's mainly a concealment tool, so they don't reveal themselves by taking pot shots at stuff 500m away they have little chance of hurting.

For vehicles, which can't be effectively concealed in most circumstances, the only point of a CA, IMO, is to keep the turret pointed in a direction different than the hull. This can be useful if the vehicle is on the move and the expected threat is from a different direction than the direction of travel, or to deliberately position the hull at an angle to increase effective front hull protection levels.

[GreenAsJade]

Nah, the point is also to prevent firing on an insignificant or out of range target for an AFV also.

IMHO a target becomes significant when it starts firing on the AFV, especially if it has the capability to damage the AFV.

I think that the OP has identified a real area of concern. I don't think saying "brain dead AI" serves any point, other than to get Steve into the thread defending the product instead of discussing the issue, which doesn't help anyone.

Clearly the AI is not brain-dead, but the usefulness of covered arcs, their intended purposes, and the remaining difficulties that players have as a result could definitely do with some exploration and explanation.

Probably this thread will go on arguing about it, but IMHO now that the main area of problem - how to control what AFVs will and will not fire on and when - has been identified., and players have said "this is a problem, we'd like better control here", this is one of those situations Steve identified: he said "don't tell us what the solution is, that's what we're good at. Tell us what the problem is".

So here it is: the problem is that we need to be able to rely on AFVs opening fire on other AFVs when clearly they need to do so, yet be able to have them hold fire in strategic situations.

It'd be great to hear BFC's thoughts/plans on this...

GaJ

[Vanir Ausf B]

Nah, the point is also to prevent firing on an insignificant or out of range target for an AFV also.

IMHO a target becomes significant when it starts firing on the AFV, especially if it has the capability to damage the AFV.

Depends on the AFV. In the case of medium and heavy tanks the effective range of the main cannon against most targets is larger than the maps.

We do need more control over what is considered a significant threat. That is the purpose of the much-requested Armor Covered Arc.

[c3k]

Two different outlooks on covered arc raison d'etre.

If the CA is "tight", it can be EXTREMELY useful to add definitive control over unit firing. Imagine setting up an ambush and having the hiding units open up whenever a round comes near them. The ambush would be useless. Hence, CA is "tight".

The other view has CA's being a "point over that way and fire whenever, um, it seems like you should". Can you DEFINE in EVERY case when is good and when is not good? No.

The only reasonable solution for CA is to keep it "tight". It's up to you, the commander, to set the CA appropriately.

Having said that, there is a case to be made for a NEW command which allows more "looseness".

[Vanir Ausf B]

I was just thinking about this.

I envision a little box that pops up every time you set a CA that asks

Incoming fire cancels?

YES

NO

I know that given Steve's aversion to SOPs it will never happen. So absent that what we really need is more intelligent, adaptable TacAI. For example, an AFV that is taking incoming cannon fire from a spotted enemy should be able to recognize that ignoring it is almost never a good idea.

Admittedly, infantry is a more complex issue. If you are setting up an ambush and the enemy is using recon by fire you may well prefer them to hold tight.

[GreenAsJade]

You're right Vanir. We do need the TacAI to handle this in a way that will deal with most situations well.

You've identified two situations that as players we need to have work properly:

- AFVs can be told to hold fire unless fired upon by canon fire.

- Inf can set ambushes that are not subject to recon by fire.

What about the OP's case? If a target goes into the covered arc, should it be permanently acquired, even if it leaves again? I think it should. If I say "don't fire unless some bastard comes into this arc" I don't mean "if he goes back out again, don't consider him anymore". I mean once he comes in, do what it takes to kill him.

What others? What gotcha scenarios are there that imply the exact opposite behaviour to these ones?

GaJ

[sburke]

The other infantry specific point for not returning fire is when your opponent is trying to recon by fire. If your units automatically return fire if fired upon, it certainly makes their job easier.

For a vehicle, that becomes a different issue. I tend not to assign covered arcs to my AFV but instead just have them facing the direction I want. I tend to give them more freedom in decision making.

[JonS]

What about the OP's case? If a target goes into the covered arc, should it be permanently acquired, even if it leaves again? I think it should. If I say "don't fire unless some bastard comes into this arc" I don't mean "if he goes back out again, don't consider him anymore". I mean once he comes in, do what it takes to kill him.

Sure, perhaps. But I guess it depends on how autonomous you expect your pixeltruppen to be.

When I give mine an order, I expect them to carry that out until I change the order. If I'm trying to conduct an ambush that means giving them a covered-arc + hide until the ambush is tripped. Once the ambush has been tripped - or if it's seconds away from being tripped - I /expect/ to have to change the orders of the units involved, which might mean cancelling their hides and/or adjusting their CAs and/or removing the CAs altogether.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The other infantry specific point for not returning fire is when your opponent is trying to recon by fire. If your units automatically return fire if fired upon, it certainly makes their job easier.

For a vehicle, that becomes a different issue. I tend not to assign covered arcs to my AFV but instead just have them facing the direction I want. I tend to give them more freedom in decision making.

I pointed out two cases in which it may be a good idea to keep a tank's turret pointed in a different direction than the hull. I agree that if you don't have any reason to do that you are almost always better off not assigning any CA to a vehicle. That calculus will change if/when we get a Armor Covered Arc.

What about the OP's case? If a target goes into the covered arc, should it be permanently acquired, even if it leaves again? I think it should. If I say "don't fire unless some bastard comes into this arc" I don't mean "if he goes back out again, don't consider him anymore". I mean once he comes in, do what it takes to kill him.

With regard to infantry it's debatable. What I would really love to see is a return of the CMBO Ambush command. That would allow the flexibility to have it either way, i.e. you could use a rigid CA command or a conditionally expiring Ambush command.

I've always missed the Ambush command.

In the specific case of the OP's Puma, ideally you would want it to recognize the M8 poses an immediate and mortal threat and react to it realistically. At a bare minimum the Puma should do this if the M8 is shooting at it. Whether it should react prior to taking fire or continue to track it once it leaves the CA is less clear. I would tend to say yes it should in most cases, but I'm sure people will think of situations where they would prefer it doesn't

[GreenAsJade]

For a vehicle, that becomes a different issue. I tend not to assign covered arcs to my AFV but instead just have them facing the direction I want. I tend to give them more freedom in decision making.

__________________

So ... doesn't this give you strife if you're wanting to wait till your oppos AFVs are found, and your AFV spots inf in the distance?

GaJ

[GreenAsJade]

Sure, perhaps. But I guess it depends on how autonomous you expect your pixeltruppen to be.

When I give mine an order, I expect them to carry that out until I change the order. If I'm trying to conduct an ambush that means giving them a covered-arc + hide until the ambush is tripped. Once the ambush has been tripped - or if it's seconds away from being tripped - I /expect/ to have to change the orders of the units involved, which might mean cancelling their hides and/or adjusting their CAs and/or removing the CAs altogether.

I agree with this. It's frustrating when units get too autonomous. We've had that before: it's like the zooks that open fire too soon.

This is why it's worth identifying different scenarios and seeing if BFC can have a solution that enables them all.

There are two different scenarios, already identified, that need to be catered for:

1) AFVs should return fire if they are under mortal threat from outside an arc

2) Inf should not return fire if they are set up for an ambush.

Then there's another question of "what should the order mean" .. in respect of a unit that enters then leaves the arc. It may have been simply assumed that in means in and out means out, but when you look at it this doesn't make sense. It's not a matter of more autonomy, it's a matter of what did the order mean. I think it is best if it means "when someone comes into this arc, do what it takes to eliminate them" rather than "only fire when someone is in this arc".

GaJ

[JonS]

It's not a matter of more autonomy, it's a matter of what did the order mean. I think it is best if it means "when someone comes into this arc, do what it takes to eliminate them" rather than "only fire when someone is in this arc".

Well, that's interesting. My training has always emphasised that covered arcs exist for a reason, and you - as someone with a CA - should assume that CAs from adjacent units will be overlapping and mutually supportting. You should also assume that the limits on your arc exist for a reason - usually because there's friendlies that you don't want to be shooting at. It is always acceptable to seek an extension or exception to a CA, but that's conceptually the same as issuing new orders in CM. Firing outside an ordered CA just because you want to is seldom encouraged.

[GreenAsJade]

Interesting point. Maybe this is the answer - to the OP. "Dude, if you wanted someone to be shooting at the M8 when it was located in that position, you needed to set someone up for that. The guy you gave a CA: he's not gunna disobey".

What if the CA unit has already opened fire? Should it stop when the unit exits the CA? That would feel wierd to me. If it hasn't started firing, this is one thing... stopping firing: that would be wierd.

usually because there's friendlies that you don't want to be shooting at

Whoa, that's from left field. It may be that in real life units get "CA"s for this reason, but that's not a consideration in game. Is it?

GaJ

[sburke]

So ... doesn't this give you strife if you're wanting to wait till your oppos AFVs are found, and your AFV spots inf in the distance?

GaJ

It hasn't yet, but that doesn't mean it won't. In most instances they will prioritize Armor targets, but I have had an StuG that reacted immediately to an infantry AT threat on it's flank and I was oh so happy it did. It survived the encounter and eliminated the AT threat. The AT unit had the misfortune of being rattled by other incoming fire I suspect and fired wide initially.

[JonS]

Whoa, that's from left field. It may be that in real life units get "CA"s for this reason, but that's not a consideration in game. Is it?

No, it's not a consideration in the game. But it does inform my thinking about CAs.

[76mm]

Well, I've found this discussion interesting, in particular about what a covered arc is supposed to mean. This being on of my first games, I used it as a type of "overwatch" command, so that the Puma would keep focus on where I expected the main threat from, rather than trying to engage some infantry that might appear far in the distance in some other direction. Rightly or wrongly, I expected that when I told the Puma to focus on a particular sector, it would have two results: (1) it would acquire targets and fire more quicky, because it was focused on a particular field of fire; and (2) if another unit started firing on it from outside the CA, it would disregard the CA to return fire.

In this thread I haven't seen anyone say that units with a CA aquire targets or fire any more quickly, so I guess that does not happen? As to not returning fire outside the CA, I don't this that this is right, although I'm curious if more experienced troops would have done so?

[poesel]

AFAIK vehicles with CA do acquire targets more quickly than without - not so with infantry. Also units do not return fire from outside their CA.

+1 from me for following targets that pass through a CA. Its what I would expect a unit to do.

[Vanir Ausf B]

If a tank's turret is facing a threat when it appears the time it takes to get the first shot off will certainly be less than if it is facing away, so CAs are useful for that. Tanks also presumably spot better in the direction(s) the hull and turret are facing. But I don't know that a tank facing directly towards a target without a CA will react any slower than one with a CA. That would be an interesting thing to test.

[black_prince]

IMHO, CAs should remain tight. Although the point about friendly fire may not be relevant to the game, JonS is right about the use of firing arcs in real life, even if few people use them this way in the game.

It might seem 'logical' for units to return fire if fired at but will the TacAI be able to to distinguish between incoming fire that is aimed at it and area fire (as mentioned) or rounds that were aimed at another unit but just happened to land nearby. Even if the TacAI knew telepathically when another unit was gunning for it, there are still situations when it makes sense for a unit not to return fire.

E.g. A spotter on a roof to comes under fire from an enemy sniper at long range. By returning fire, the spotter may actually expose itself to more enemy units and draw their fire without having any hope of suppressing the enemy sniper at long range.

If a unit is taking a shedload of incoming to the point where it is being sppressed and unit morale is being affected then it should lose its covered arc (this may happen already, I don't know) just as the TacAI already modifies its orders and behaviour in such situations.

With regard to the second point about a unit continuing to engage an enemy that has passed through the arc, this again might appear to be 'logical' behaviour. However, consider the following situation:

You have a unit or several units covering an ambush kill zone. An enemy unit passes rapidly through the killzone before you can engage it. Would you want your unit(s) to open fire, giving away their position and ruining the ambush which may still be able to catch other enemy units still moving into the are (even if you have to adjust the arcs a little to make the ambush effective)?

Some people might say that the above examples are not representative of typical gameplay situations (I wouldn't necessarily agree). However, my main concern is to keep covered arcs predictable.

A tight arc is predictable, a loose arc, which may lead to units opening fire in any number of given situations, is much less so and therefore less useful. If players have a good understanding of how units and covered arcs work and a bit of tactical savvy, then it is less likely that they will find themselves in frustrating situations such as having an enemy passing throught their covered arc before the can be engaged. It is much easier for us to use broader arcs in certain situations than for Steve & co to endlessly tinker with covered arcs and potentially open up a whole load of cans of worms along the way. As covered arcs currently exist, they are straightforward and predictable and allow the player to use more sophisticated tactics than would otherwise be possible, in other words 'it aint broke'.

[76mm]

If a tank's turret is facing a threat when it appears the time it takes to get the first shot off will certainly be less than if it is facing away, so CAs are useful for that. Tanks also presumably spot better in the direction(s) the hull and turret are facing. But I don't know that a tank facing directly towards a target without a CA will react any slower than one with a CA. That would be an interesting thing to test.

I would say that a unit with a CA should spot targets within the CA faster than a unit without a CA, because the CA unit can focus 100% of its attention on the sector, instead of looking all around like the other unit. In theory anyway...

[JonS]

Whoa, that's from left field. It may be that in real life units get "CA"s for this reason, but that's not a consideration in game. Is it?

It just occurred to me that there is a situation in the game where CAs can work this way; since HE is an equal opportunity employer you could give an HE chucker a CA to cover the flank of an assault (or defensive position) to minimise the chance of friendly-fire HE cas.

[Michael Emrys]

I would say that a unit with a CA should spot targets within the CA faster than a unit without a CA, because the CA unit can focus 100% of its attention on the sector, instead of looking all around like the other unit. In theory anyway...

Except that kind of behavior is discouraged in training. Which is not to say that it does not exist, but savvy troops will be "checking six" to ensure that someone isn't sneaking up on them from some direction outside the covered arc. In terms of an infantry squad, a member of the squad would be designated to maintain observation on a particular sector, to the left flank, right flank, or to the rear. The rest of the squad then might be concentrating on forward. Since the view from vehicles can be very restricted, it is mostly the TC's job to scan the flanks and rear now and then. If the loader has his head up, the two of them share the job. The gunner is looking wherever the turret is currently pointed. The driver and co-driver are looking forward if buttoned or if opened covering the frontal arc somewhat to the sides as well.

Bottom line, where someone is looking at the moment that an enemy unit appears is conditional. If it remains visible, chances are it will get spotted eventually, but not necessarily immediately.

Michael

[womble]

Firing outside an ordered CA just because you want to is seldom encouraged.

And yet in the game it certainly happens for infantry, but seem to happen less often for vehicles.

[c3k]

You're right Vanir. We do need the TacAI to handle this in a way that will deal with most situations well.

You've identified two situations that as players we need to have work properly:

- AFVs can be told to hold fire unless fired upon by canon fire.

- Inf can set ambushes that are not subject to recon by fire.

What about the OP's case? If a target goes into the covered arc, should it be permanently acquired, even if it leaves again? I think it should. If I say "don't fire unless some bastard comes into this arc" I don't mean "if he goes back out again, don't consider him anymore". I mean once he comes in, do what it takes to kill him.

What others? What gotcha scenarios are there that imply the exact opposite behaviour to these ones?

GaJ

Here's my counter: if a unit traversing a Covered Arc forces a "Target Lock" onto itself, even if it subsequently leaves the CA, then I'll simply flood half a dozen jeeps ahead of my tanks. My JeepSwarm © will act like a magnet, pulling every PaK and Panther's attention as the jeeps zip around, briefly in and out of LOS obstacles. Meanwhile, my Shermans will pick off every revealed gun and tank. (Hey, if I do this with amphibious Kubelwagens, it'll be a "SchwimSchwarm" (copyrighted).)

The exact tactical situation can have a profound effect on whether a tight arc or a loose arc is appropriate. On balance, I think the arguments would tend to favor a tight arc as being better in most situations.

Ken