Brain-dead TacAI?

[GreenAsJade]

It would be good to have some tests of inf rather than snipers, and "interesting" spotting conditions, like oppo moving behind bocage or through trees.

In the game I'm playing, I have a guy with an arc not spotting these (no contact icons even showing for him) wheras a guy with out an arc sees the oppo from time to time and shows contact icons the rest of the time.

It was interesting that you had one unit who consitently failed to spot. I wonder if my guy is like that. What would this be? Just a long series of 6's?

GaJ

[womble]

The bonus for spotting within the arc isn't huge, therefore the penalty for spotting things outside of the arc isn't huge either. If you're noticing something significant I am going to suggest CAs are not responsible for it. Controlled tests are the only way to prove or disprove that theory, BTW, since anecdotal stuff inherently means no apples to apples comparisons.

The solution to what you just asked about is easy... just make the arc longer (deeper).

Steve

The problem with extending the radius of the arc is that you then will risk engagement. for me, the apparent solution might be, if you want to be able to look into the distance, set a small radius 360 arc. The bonus for spotting within the arc is small to vanishing, so the penalty for spotting outside it should be too.

[Battlefront.com]

That works very well, of course. I was commenting on people who didn't want engagement hindered.

Spotting is ALWAYS mostly influenced by who is doing the spotting. A 12 man Infantry Squad with good visuals 360 degrees is probably going to spot more things, quicker, in more directions than any AFV will. Even an unbuttoned one. Experience, Morale, Condition, etc. also play into things. An Elite Sniper Team, without any negative influences, will spot stuff all over the place because one guy has binoculars and the other a scope on his rifle. These guys are optimized for spotting, compared to a 4 man Ammo Bearer unit (for example).

Steve

[Erwin]

I have always used 180 degree arcs (a real PITA when you need to change the arc's direction during movement) on all my units set in the direction I wanted them to look on the assumption that this would improve spotting in that direction.

I always thought it logical/realistic that a scout team of two guys would be more effective if their attention was focused on the direction of threat rather than 360 degrees around them. (Esp. when all their buddies are a few dozen yards behind them, so their rear would be safe.)

So, it's very interesting to find out that setting arcs for LOS is unnecessary.

[JonS]

So, it's very interesting to find out that setting arcs for LOS is unnecessary.

It does improve spotting, but not hugely.

[Georgie]

I'm kinda confused. Take a given formation, say a squad, and give them a CA and take the same squad and don't give them a CA. Which one has the best spotting ability?:confused:

[winkelried]

So, it's very interesting to find out that setting arcs for LOS is unnecessary.

i often use them with very short range with scouts just to prevent them to give themselves away by firing at any target.

[womble]

I have always used 180 degree arcs (a real PITA when you need to change the arc's direction during movement) on all my units set in the direction I wanted them to look on the assumption that this would improve spotting in that direction.

I think from what Steven's said, you've been assuming right, but only by a marginal amount. Face might well be a very acceptable "usability" vs "spotting efficiency" tradeoff, I reckon

So, it's very interesting to find out that setting arcs for LOS is unnecessary.

Unnecessary, yes, but not (entirely) irrelevant.

I'm kinda confused. Take a given formation, say a squad, and give them a CA and take the same squad and don't give them a CA. Which one has the best spotting ability?:confused:

It depends a) where the spotable is and how big your CA is compared to the natural restrictions on the squad's field of view. And it's not a large effect, more an 'edge'.

[GreenAsJade]

The problem with extending the radius of the arc is that you then will risk engagement. for me, the apparent solution might be, if you want to be able to look into the distance, set a small radius 360 arc. The bonus for spotting within the arc is small to vanishing, so the penalty for spotting outside it should be too.

Why do you say that the bonus is small and the penalty is small.

If you set a small 360 degree arc, my understanding is that you will be spending lots of your spotting time in this small circle, so the bonus for spotting and corresponding penalty should be at its highest.

Is this understanding wrong?

GaJ

[Erwin]

"i often use them with very short range with scouts just to prevent them to give themselves away by firing at any target."

Same here. But it is hard to do 180 degree arcs and easy to do 360 degree "arcs". So, if the difference re spotting is minimal I will be thrilled to give everyone I don't want to shoot a quick 10m 360 degree arc. It will probably save me hours of irritation over the course of a campaign

But, I would really like to know what "minimal" is defined as.

GAJ: Steve said earlier: "The bonus for spotting within the arc isn't huge, therefore the penalty for spotting things outside of the arc isn't huge either. If you're noticing something significant I am going to suggest CAs are not responsible for it. Controlled tests are the only way to prove or disprove that theory, BTW, since anecdotal stuff inherently means no apples to apples comparisons."

[winkelried]

But, I would really like to know what "minimal" is defined as.

depends - sometimes 5 meters sometimes 10 meters or such.

[Erwin]

In this case "minimal" refers to the differences in % probability of spotting with or without a CA.

[GreenAsJade]

GAJ: Steve said earlier: "The bonus for spotting within the arc isn't huge, therefore the penalty for spotting things outside of the arc isn't huge either. If you're noticing something significant I am going to suggest CAs are not responsible for it. Controlled tests are the only way to prove or disprove that theory, BTW, since anecdotal stuff inherently means no apples to apples comparisons."

He did, but he also said "the larger the CA the less significant the bonus (and penalty)".

We also have the implication that a directed CA faces the units in the right direction to spot in the distance (how else do you face a unit with a CA, since there is no Face order when CA is in action? and we have learned that Face is most important for spotting...)

These two things tell us that a small circular arc is surely the worst thing for spotting in the distance in a particular direction.

Is this logic flawed?

GaJ

Note: we haven't been told how the bonus really works. We were told that its an effect of spending more time spotting in the covered arc. This tallies with the idea that the smaller the arc the more the bonus (as as effect of spending more time in a smaller and smaller area) and hence also with the idea that a small arc worsens things for the distance.

It would be great to hear more about how it really works. In the absence of that, I guess we have to discuss, test, deduce, as we are doing...

[JonS]

It would be great to hear more about how it really works.

True, but if you haven't been able to deduce what the effect is from play, then it's probably reasonable to deduce that it is - as stated - 'subtle'.

[GreenAsJade]

But this thing thing: I _am_ experiencing effects in play.

I'm frustrated by "why are some of my guys, who are supposed to be lookouts, not spotting the enemy advance?"

And because it's complex, as everyone says all the time, this is a hard question to figure out. When you have a complex system it can take lots and lots and lots of experience and/or testing to find out what works. Or - someone who knows could tell you.

GaJ

[aleader]

You asked for Real Life examples of troops sitting stolidly under fire. I gave a specific tank-based one, and a more general one involving infantry.

You chose to ignore them so ... whatevs.

Didn't ignore them at all actually. I asked for real world examples of tankers sitting in their tanks when being directly fired on. You brought infantry/arty into it, not me. Artillery is indirect fire, and I'm pretty sure those soldiers did not stand up and pour some tea while the barrage fell all around them. They likely headed for cover\foxholes, whether they knew what type of arty was falling or not. I can also think of several instances of soldiers staying put under continual arty fire due to orders not to retreat (i.e. the Hurtgen forest), but it's not relevant to our discussion.

[Battlefront.com]

There's actually lots of examples of tanks getting hit and not losing focus on whatever it was they were doing. Of course most of these are from heavier German tanks or from tanks taking small arms fire.

As an aside, I just so happen to be rewatching Arrested Development. Tonight I saw an episode from 1st Season that I somehow missed before! Rare treat to see something "new" from the Bluth family

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

OK, I poked Charles into giving me some more details about how things work under the hood. Turns out I got this same info from him back in May and posted it here (somewhere). Guess I should post it again:

The spotting is not tied directly to the arc. However spotting success is related to your facing. You spot stuff to the front much better than to the rear. And when you have a target arc, you face right down the center of it, putting the arc in your "best front angle". So you will spot things better there than outside of the arc. The arc itself isn't the driving force though -- it's the spotter's facing. But the target arc enforces facing discipline so you can be sure your men are looking right where you want them to look.

So the "bonus" is, as I mostly remembered correctly, primarily due to the Facing of the unit and not a special bonus artificially assigned. This should clear up all questions being asked in the past page or two. Specifically:

1. The primary spotting advantage of a CA is to keep the unit from shifting it's Facing due to other tactical distractions. Meaning, if you absolutely want to make sure you keep a narrow portion of the battlefield under observation, CAs work better than non-CAs in theory. But reality means it comes down to distractions because...

2. A unit looking in the same exact direction in the same exact situation will spot exactly the same whether it has a CA or no CA (and not Hiding, obviously).

3. Units that have a 360 deg CA don't see any benefit from it other than limiting engagement range.

4. As I've said several times now, the "bonus" isn't that big of a deal. People trying to "game the system" by using CAs to increase spotting chances are wasting their time and possibly causing themselves some harm.

Hope that helps.

Steve

[womble]

Why do you say that the bonus is small and the penalty is small.

I think it was because I had gotten it into my head that the range of the arc doesn't matter, just the angle of it.

These two things tell us that a small circular arc is surely the worst thing for spotting in the distance in a particular direction.

I use short circular cover arcs all the time to control my engagements. As Steve keeps saying, the 'spotting bonus' and reciprocal 'penalty' is small, and it seems small enough that having the pTruppen staring mostly at each others' boots ( ) doesn't seem to hamper their spotting; adjacent teams with different arcs but similar FoV seem to spot things at the same time.

To be precise about my intention, I wasn't considering a particular direction, hence the circular arc. I was imagining that the unit was Faced in an appropriate direction though.

So the "bonus" is, as I mostly remembered correctly, primarily due to the Facing of the unit and not a special bonus artificially assigned.

Hope that helps.

Steve

Helps a lot, Steve, and thanks for spending so much time dealing with our obsession! The last thing we need to know to be able to finish our cognitive framework of how spotting and CAs interact is whether any azimuth component of facing affects where the truppen direct their gaze. Do short-range arcs mean the troops spend more time looking at things close to than far away?

[GreenAsJade]

Thanks Steve: that's all perfectly cleared up now.

I think the answer to womble's question is implied: the only thing the CA is doing for spotting is controlling facing. That's what I took from it anyhow.

So the idea that there's a "bonus" inside the arc and a penalty outside the arc is really a mistaken one. There is no "inside" and "outside" the arc for spotting, there's just facing. Right?

I'll have to look somewhere else to understand why my guys aren't seeing stuff.

One thing I'm wondering about is that they keep lying down. They're in the edge of a forest looking out over the approach route of the oppo. I wish they'd stand up and prop their binoculars on a tree or something

GaJ

[womble]

Thanks Steve: that's all perfectly cleared up now.

I think the answer to womble's question is implied: the only thing the CA is doing for spotting is controlling facing. That's what I took from it anyhow.

I think you're probably right. I just wanted to make sure, since it has been noticed that you can set a Face command to look at a particular floor of a building, and that suggests that there's a 'vertical angle' component to the direction troops are looking.

One thing I'm wondering about is that they keep lying down. They're in the edge of a forest looking out over the approach route of the oppo. I wish they'd stand up and prop their binoculars on a tree or something

GaJ

It's also been noted that if troops have a Face command to a particular element, they'll shuffle their position (within the AS) and stance to get the best available view of their target. Perhaps a Face command (maybe targeted where a LOF would break) would persuade your lookouts to keep their eyes high enough to see past cover?

[GreenAsJade]

Wow, you can Face a particular building floor? I had no idea!

Meanwhile: I just noticed the guys who are "not spotting" are Mortar Ammo Bearers.

Do they have some spotting penalty?

GaJ

[slysniper]

I think you're probably right. I just wanted to make sure, since it has been noticed that you can set a Face command to look at a particular floor of a building, and that suggests that there's a 'vertical angle' component to the direction troops are looking.

It's also been noted that if troops have a Face command to a particular element, they'll shuffle their position (within the AS) and stance to get the best available view of their target. Perhaps a Face command (maybe targeted where a LOF would break) would persuade your lookouts to keep their eyes high enough to see past cover?

The face command is great, but keep in mind, they might open up on what they see. So cover arc is the way to try and prevent that.

That was a interesting response from Battlefront, I had already drawn a conclusion that cover arcs as for me is just trying to control where I want units to focus on firing within. You can help keep a unit focused on what you want them too, beyond that. You need to play the game anticipating what AI does, you no longer have the ability to override it with commands as well as in the old days. Unless RT of course and you sit there and micromanage one or a few units.

[RockinHarry]

The effect of the FACE vertical or 3D element is most noticeable in the games unit setup phase (and editor, Units/Deploy), where actions can be observed imediately. I´ve experimented with infantry only units, so vehicle units might use somewhat different rules. Can´t tell yet.

During game play I figured both for stationary infantry and endpoint for movement orders, that a FACE (click) on a particular AS will move individual soldiers to positions, that enables them to have both, LOF, as well as cover vs. this particular AS. An always successfull individual positioning is not guaranteed though, as one can self test in the setup/deploy phase.

Once the FACE command is set in effect, one can subsequently set a CA, though not during game play, since only one can be activated at the same time.

FACE "sticks" on action spots (ground tile), 3D objects (+vertical), enemy units, including their floating icons and beyond the map boundaries. The blue face marker line is always shown 2D though.

I´ve not yet tested, if it makes a difference to Face click the second story wall of a building, residing a spotted enemy unit, OR the enemy unit itself, by Face clicking its floating icon.

It´s also interesting to observe AI driven units use of Face. It looks like if enemy units haven´t been encountered yet (by individual unit), that a Face will be applied either to the enemy friendly direction (Mission/Data), or possibly towards an AS in the next movement zone in the queue.

In combat, AI driven units mostly Face towards an enemy unit, that they received effective fire from. This oftentimes can also be observed from friendly units that routed (panicked) and thus were out of players hands for the duration.

So my "interpretation" for Face currently is: Seek cover vs. particular AS/enemy unit, preserve or gain LOF, as well as focus on observation. This is for infantry type units as said.

[Georgie]

Does a CA have a "face" component included? In other words do all the troops find a position that allows them to see in the direction of the CA just as they would if they were ordered to "face" in the same direction? If that is so then it stands to reason that the spotting ability for the troops is the same for a face command as it is for a CA command.