The Archer Tank Destroyer, why wont it destroy tanks?

[Panzer76]

Ok, played a TCP game today, had 3 Archers lined up on a hill waiting for the gerries.

And sure enough, one PzIV popped up and started shooting, all 3 Archers targeted him and a duel ensued, range approx 1.2 km, good range for the german but with 3 vs 1 in odds I was pretty confident in victory.

What I didnt count on was that some of my Archers started running away?! The PzIV (it was also IDed as such) was a Reg and my 3 Archers was Regs.

1 died pretty fast, one tried to run away and one stod fast trading shots. End of story, 2 KOed Archers, 1 ran away after reciving a penetration.

So, why on earth does a Archer (unhurt) run away when it targets a Tank which it has excellent odds of destroying it. I mean, I could have understtod it if the axis tank had excellent and mine had Low or something like that, but the 17 punder would have sliced through that baby.

So, instead of concentrated fire from 3 TDs, it just fizzled away almost making it 1 vs 1 engagements 3 times in a row.

Whats the logic behind a TD running away from it's prey? Huh?

[Redwolf]

You called? smile.gif

Retreating monster tanks revealed!

You had it facing the right way, did you?

[dugfromthearth]

allied tank destroyers doctrine was shoot and scoot, not trade shots with enemy tanks.

so it was technically following doctrine if not what you wanted it to do.

You might test the situation with different qualities of crew - green, veteran, elite, etc - and see if that makes a difference.

[Salkin]

Panzer...try setting a cover arc.
It MIGHT help. I'm not sure though...

//Salkin

[MikeyD]

This remnds me of that old (and greatly chewed-on) bone of contention over retreating IS-2s in CMBB. I've found that pretty much any vehicle will retreat when faced with a gun that can hole it. The thin-skinned vehicles seem more likely to retreat than others for this reason. An Archer's only got 20mm upper hull armor, less than half the armor of a Staghound turret front.

[Panzer76]

Oh yes, it was facing the right way ;) AND had armour cover arcs.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by dugfromthearth:
so it was technically following doctrine if not what you wanted it to do.
Hehe, dont over estimate the TacAI smile.gif They arent programmed to follow any kind of national doctrine.

[phil stanbridge]

I did actually notice this in a battle myself, (one in particular) I had at least a dozen smallish early war tanks targetting a couple of PZIV's. My tanks were definitely capable of ruining Fritz's day in force - but all of them decided to reverse out of harms way. Within a few turns four of my fellas were burning and the rest were equally useless deciding not to venture out into the firing line no matter what I asked them to do. I didn't honestly notice this in CMBB to the same degree. Its a tricky one, because you would of thought that 12 against 2 is good odds, and even if you were to get a few ricochets it *might* be enough for gun damage or crew disablement.

[TexasJeff]

I would say that is pretty life like. How does each tank know that there are a dozen of them instead of just his one small tank against 2 larger ones? Now if they have a flank shot or the IV's are shooting at someone else, you would hope they would engage.

[CMplayer]

In this case, each individual archer reacts with it's timid little archer tac-AI, unaware that together with its archer friends it gets 3-1 odds and its surivivability is much higher than if it were alone.

That's why CM needs an "!" with which you can tag orders. This would increase the chance of the unit doing like you tell it to. It amounts to the commander shouting at the archer crews 'you will stand your ground and fight' or somesuch.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by TexasJeff:
I would say that is pretty life like. I wouldn't.

Just because you can picture someone doing one of the TacAIs many bizarre blunders, doesn't make it a feature or triumph of the code. It just shows that life is stranger than fiction.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by TexasJeff:
I would say that is pretty life like. How does each tank know that there are a dozen of them instead of just his one small tank against 2 larger ones? Because they are 3 m apart maybe? ;)

[MikeyD]

"That's why CM needs an "!" with which you can tag orders. "

That's an interesting suggestion! Sort of a "You ordered me to do this so you suffer the consequences" command. Maybe losses suffered while under "!" commands would be twice as costly point-wise? :D

[btm]

Bump!

Having encountered the same thing, I'm interested in hearing what the official position is.

[MikeyD]

It's an interesting suggestion, but we've got to realize the chance on a 0-to-100 scale of BFC ever putting a new command into CMAK is approximately -.0032.

Maybe, if this topic is at all applicable to the new game engine (it may not be), they'll consider a 'strict orders' modifier.

[Redwolf]

The armor of the shooter doesn't matter, otherwise all thin TDs would be useless in CM.

In the CMBB flamefest the excuse was that the ISU-122 has too slow rate of fire and is hence retreating from the faster shooter (the bug being that it retreats before the first shot).

So what is the excuse this time for the Archer that doesn't apply to Nashorn or Marder?

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by redwolf:
In the CMBB flamefest the excuse was that the ISU-122 has too slow rate of fire and is hence retreating from the faster shooter (the bug being that it retreats before the first shot).
Ah yes, I have seen many a time the Hetzer (with his slow ROF) backing off from a firefight with allied armour. Oh wait, no I havent, not once.. hmm...

[Elmar Bijlsma]

What's being simulated, wether by design or error is that if you and two other Archer friends face a PzIV, you'd always think the PzIV was there to kill YOU. That's human nature for you. No weighing up the odds, only:'Oh, ****, oh ****, that tanks going to kill me!' You'd never stop to think that it might nail the other guy instead.

[Treeburst155]

Maybe the best way to use units like the Archer is to do a little shoot & scoot. Maybe they'll stick around long enough to get off a round if they know they already have orders to retreat. :D

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:
Maybe the best way to use units like the Archer is to do a little shoot & scoot. Maybe they'll stick around long enough to get off a round if they know they already have orders to retreat. :D Has anybody actually tried this?

Michael

[Gordon]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Treeburst155:
Maybe the best way to use units like the Archer is to do a little shoot & scoot. Maybe they'll stick around long enough to get off a round if they know they already have orders to retreat. :D Has anybody actually tried this?

Michael </font>[/QUOTE]DON'T smile.gif Any movement order by Archers towards the enemy (e.g. presumably the direction their gun is pointing) will cause them to turn around (very slowly) and then execute the move).

Seek hull down, shoot and scoot, etc., will all result in your Archers moving to the designated point normally, and they're dead meat. You can only use them from an established ambush position and hope that they kill their target before they get cold feet (tracks?).

Gordon

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Gordon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Treeburst155:
Maybe the best way to use units like the Archer is to do a little shoot & scoot. Maybe they'll stick around long enough to get off a round if they know they already have orders to retreat. :D Has anybody actually tried this?

Michael </font>[/QUOTE]DON'T smile.gif Any movement order by Archers towards the enemy (e.g. presumably the direction their gun is pointing) will cause them to turn around (very slowly) and then execute the move).</font>[/QUOTE]Y'know, I thought about that right after I sent off my question. Not a good idea, huh? Okay, back to the drawing board. I thought BFC had promised a fix for this several months back, but maybe I'm confusing the wish for the fact.

Michael

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by MikeyD:
"That's why CM needs an "!" with which you can tag orders. "

That's an interesting suggestion! Sort of a "You ordered me to do this so you suffer the consequences" command. Maybe losses suffered while under "!" commands would be twice as costly point-wise? :D Or morale penalties for other friendly unit in range would be applied - to simulate the troops not liking what they are seeing...

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Gordon:

Seek hull down, shoot and scoot, etc., will all result in your Archers moving to the designated point normally, and they're dead meat. You can only use them from an established ambush position and hope that they kill their target before they get cold feet (tracks?).
BFC didn't think of that and allow for shoot n scoot etc to be executed in reverse? (at least for archers) Jeez what a clunky piece of code. It would have been better to leave the archer out altogether.

[ December 19, 2003, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: CMplayer ]

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by MikeyD:
"That's why CM needs an "!" with which you can tag orders. "

That's an interesting suggestion! Sort of a "You ordered me to do this so you suffer the consequences" command. Maybe losses suffered while under "!" commands would be twice as costly point-wise? :D Or morale penalties for other friendly unit in range would be applied - to simulate the troops not liking what they are seeing... </font>[/QUOTE]The point of the '!' isn't actually to simulate a screaming, frothing at the mouth commander, but rather to give the player a chance to influence the TacAI a little bit. It's sort of a SOPs-lite.

[First Mate Detrius]

Finally I can make a contribution! smile.gif
I have been looking forward to trying the Archers...and OBOY do I love them!

What I have found is that "hull down", "shoot and Scoot" dont work with them...wich is fine, I like controling this for my self either way.

Please remember to "REVERSE" when in a hostile inviroment! Do NOT use "MOVE" or "FAST" commands!! ..because then you'll be fascinated wathing your archers doing tiny piruettes and getting nailed by puny enemy tankers.

In a battle against a friend here the other day I had 5 Firefly, 5 other late shermans and 4 archers.
I must admin this wasnt my best day with the shermans, but hey....
The end result was 10 dead shermans because I thught I could use 'em hull down against panthers, tigers and Hetzers....I was wrong :D
Now I only had 4 archers left against 4 tigers, 4 hetzers and 8 panthers (VD).
Fortunalty I held all victory locations, so my opponent had to advance.
I used them as inteded...mobile AT guns. Narrow shot windows where the opponent hopefully had to expose his flank.
To make a long story short. My Archers minced them up! All (4) Tigers destroyed, 2 Hetzers (the 2 left had no guns) and 6 Panthers!
I had some help from my ATs here, but not much.
The Archers won the day!
Remember guys: "REVERSE"! and if turn to...turn to OPPOSITE from enemy!

...am I only being obvious here...? smile.gif

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by CMplayer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gordon:

Seek hull down, shoot and scoot, etc., will all result in your Archers moving to the designated point normally, and they're dead meat. You can only use them from an established ambush position and hope that they kill their target before they get cold feet (tracks?).
BFC didn't think of that and allow for shoot n scoot etc to be executed in reverse? (at least for archers) Jeez what a clunky piece of code. It would have been better to leave the archer out altogether. </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, how about this (I think someone suggested it several months ago): Give the Archer a reverse order up to a point where it looks like it will be hulldown but still have a shot at whatever you wish to target. Try to time it so that it arrives just a few seconds before the end of the turn. At the beginning of the next turn, give it a haul ass order out of there and if necessary a pause so it has at least ten seconds to get off a shot or two. Of course all this requires more skill and timing (and a fair helping of luck) than just using S&S, but there it is.

Michael

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
Okay, how about this (I think someone suggested it several months ago): Give the Archer a reverse order up to a point where it looks like it will be hulldown but still have a shot at whatever you wish to target. Try to time it so that it arrives just a few seconds before the end of the turn. At the beginning of the next turn, give it a haul ass order out of there and if necessary a pause so it has at least ten seconds to get off a shot or two. Of course all this requires more skill and timing (and a fair helping of luck) than just using S&S, but there it is.
Yes. That's how we all did shoot 'n scoot in CMBO.

[Michael Emrys]

Ooops! FMD beat me to it. Well, I said someone had suggested it...

;)

Michael

[Soddball]

I'm certainly finding that units like the Deacon and the Portee stink like sewage. No matter how often you tell them "Look, reverse up the slope, wait until you spot a tank, shove off an AT round and run like buggery" they go "reverse, fine, I can do that." Then as the enemy unit rumbles into my covered arc the driver bellows "Holy cow! A halftrack! Run away! Run away!" whilst the six-man gun crew cling on for dear life.

Eventually the unit is abandoned, not I suspect from damage but because the gun crew lynch the driver for being such a wet and a weed. :mad:

[Gordon]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CMplayer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gordon:

Seek hull down, shoot and scoot, etc., will all result in your Archers moving to the designated point normally, and they're dead meat. You can only use them from an established ambush position and hope that they kill their target before they get cold feet (tracks?).
BFC didn't think of that and allow for shoot n scoot etc to be executed in reverse? (at least for archers) Jeez what a clunky piece of code. It would have been better to leave the archer out altogether. </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, how about this (I think someone suggested it several months ago): Give the Archer a reverse order up to a point where it looks like it will be hulldown but still have a shot at whatever you wish to target. Try to time it so that it arrives just a few seconds before the end of the turn. At the beginning of the next turn, give it a haul ass order out of there and if necessary a pause so it has at least ten seconds to get off a shot or two. Of course all this requires more skill and timing (and a fair helping of luck) than just using S&S, but there it is.

Michael </font>[/QUOTE]Well, "Reverse to hull down" and "Reverse shoot & scoot" were requested during testing. Reverse shoot & scoot" was rejected as being unrealistic due to the driver being at the front of the vehicle and not having good visibility to the rear (although another crewman could be acting as a guide) and due to the fact that the gun couldn't be fired without decapitating the driver.
Reverse to hull down was also rejected for the first reason above.

Note that one BIG problem with using reverse to approach a firing position is that the TacAI prioritizes reaching the reverse waypoint over firing at a target (wisely in the case of most vehicles as you are probably running away), so if you mis-plot that puppy your Archer is going to be exposed and not get off a shot.

Actually, it's implied in the Encyclopedia of British and American Armor that Archers went to NWE only. Can anyone confirm?

Gordon

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Gordon:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CMplayer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Gordon:

Seek hull down, shoot and scoot, etc., will all result in your Archers moving to the designated point normally, and they're dead meat. You can only use them from an established ambush position and hope that they kill their target before they get cold feet (tracks?).
BFC didn't think of that and allow for shoot n scoot etc to be executed in reverse? (at least for archers) Jeez what a clunky piece of code. It would have been better to leave the archer out altogether. </font>[/QUOTE]Okay, how about this (I think someone suggested it several months ago): Give the Archer a reverse order up to a point where it looks like it will be hulldown but still have a shot at whatever you wish to target. Try to time it so that it arrives just a few seconds before the end of the turn. At the beginning of the next turn, give it a haul ass order out of there and if necessary a pause so it has at least ten seconds to get off a shot or two. Of course all this requires more skill and timing (and a fair helping of luck) than just using S&S, but there it is.

Michael </font>[/QUOTE]Well, "Reverse to hull down" and "Reverse shoot & scoot" were requested during testing. Reverse shoot & scoot" was rejected as being unrealistic due to the driver being at the front of the vehicle and not having good visibility to the rear (although another crewman could be acting as a guide) and due to the fact that the gun couldn't be fired without decapitating the driver.
Reverse to hull down was also rejected for the first reason above. </font>[/QUOTE]Those reasons don't hold much water. They sound more like excuses to avoid doing the work.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by First Mate Detrius:

Remember guys: "REVERSE"! and if turn to...turn to OPPOSITE from enemy!

...am I only being obvious here...? smile.gif Yes: smile.gif

[Redwolf]

I think we shouldn't mix up two different issues:

1) lack for inverted commands for "backwards" vehicles

2) Archers chickening out from Pz IVs, analogous to the IS-2/ISU-122 but this time without ROF disadvantage


For me, 1) is fine apart from the excuse, they don't want to extend the old engine and this would be a fair amount of work.

IMHO, 2) is a serious issue.

I tried to reproduce it but couldn't. This it not surprising since the ISU-122 situation could also could not be reproduced in an artificial scenario. Panzer76, can you make the map and situation available? Was it a Quckickbattle? Where the Archers standing or coming with with "seek-hulldown"?

[Ron]

Originally posted by Gordon:

Note that one BIG problem with using reverse to approach a firing position is that the TacAI prioritizes reaching the reverse waypoint over firing at a target (wisely in the case of most vehicles as you are probably running away), so if you mis-plot that puppy your Archer is going to be exposed and not get off a shot.

Gordon You know I think the fact the TacAI prioritizes Reverse over shooting may be related to the issue Panzer76 described. I am *guessing* so bear with me.

I can recall two instances of this behavior, once in CMBB and now in a current CMAK Pbem. In the current game I had maneuvered a Marder III(r) but had overshot the mark so reversed it into a hulldown position. Almost as the Marder reached its destination, two Stuarts crested the hill in front of it. Instead of stopping at the final waypoint, the Marder continued reversing away then broadside(!) to the Stuarts. Lucky for the Marder it had a couple friendlies nearby to cover for its *mistake*. IIRC that was the same sort of situation with a T-34 in CMBB.

Now that may be something reproduceable with the editor and worth looking into. Personally it has only happened twice for me in many, many games so isn't really a big deal.


Ron

[ December 19, 2003, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: Ron ]

[flamingknives]

I don't think that the Archer is a good choice to go hunting around with anyway, as the driver has to be out of position in order to fire the gun. I'd view it as an ATG that can run away. Trouble is it's very hard to hide vehicles in CM.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Gordon:
Reverse to hull down was also rejected for the first reason above.This strikes me as odd, since the practice was that the gunner looking through his sight called the stop.

:confused:

Michael

[CombinedArms]

I confess I haven't used the Archer in CMAK but I had great luck with them in CMBO. I think the key is to use them as an ambush vehicle. Set them up covering a keyholed area BEFORE the enemy AFV's arrive. Then blaze away as they come into view. The Archer's lethal, accurate gun is its main protection, but after one turn of firing, the jig may be up. So FAST move out of there and set up in a new ambush position.
I don't think reversing into firing position while in LOS of enemy AFVs is going to work too well, OTOH

[stikkypixie]

small question, i always had the impression that soldiers fight better in groups because they felt more secure than alone, so why can't those archers think "hmm alone i won't stand a chance but with my buddies i can take them on!"
Is this true, and if so can't they make the TacAi be aware of frienlies in the area who might actually help?

[Michael Emrys]

I don't know. On the one hand, morale definitely improves in a group. On the other, what if everybody decides "I don't want to be the one the bad guys kill!"?

Michael

[Other Means]

i think the code would have to do a backwards LOS lookup. so if a unit A is in LOS of n units that can harm it, those n units then get a moral bonus proportional to n to counter cower, while A recieves a morale drop in proportion to the threat. that would work (...i think) for many on many situations.

and there is ---><--- this much chance of it happening in CMAK.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by flamingknives:
I don't think that the Archer is a good choice to go hunting around with anyway, as the driver has to be out of position in order to fire the gun. If the crews and their commanders had any sense they would train the maneuver. The driver backs up, jumps to the ground, they fire x-number of times, the driver gets back into his seat very quickly (having practiced it) and they drive away. Sure this is just speculation, but it's just as much speculation as the so called 'reasons' which Gorden related BFC as having given.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
I don't know. On the one hand, morale definitely improves in a group. On the other, what if everybody decides "I don't want to be the one the bad guys kill!"?
That's why soldiers train and have officers that give them orders. That's why there are little red heart icons on leaders in CM. That's why there should be a "!" tag for orders.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by stikkypixie:
small question, i always had the impression that soldiers fight better in groups because they felt more secure than alone, so why can't those archers think "hmm alone i won't stand a chance but with my buddies i can take them on!"
Is this true, and if so can't they make the TacAi be aware of frienlies in the area who might actually help? The problem with this, and the TacAI in general, is that we're talking about EXTREMELY ADVANCED algorithms. No matter how good of a programmer Charles might or might not be, no single person in a garage startup is going to solve all those problems. That's why I think the game should have a lot of SOPs to let the player tweak the TacAI. What the AI can't satisfactorily handle needs to be left up to the player. Covered arcs are a good example of this sort of command, but a full blown SOP screen, like in TacOps would be even better.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by redwolf:
Panzer76, can you make the map and situation available? Was it a Quckickbattle? Where the Archers standing or coming with with "seek-hulldown"? I used them as others pointed out, they should be used. It was a QB map, medium hills and med trees, Italy March 45. The Archers crested a hill in hull down position and with covered armour arcs over the roads. SO, they were in pos and waiting for it's prey. I dont know if it's worth mentioning but the Archer that chickend out didnt reverse, but fast moved forward. Of cos, that meant it exposed himself to other potential threats. It didnt matter though, I cancled his fast move order and targeted the PzIV, it died half a min later.

[Lawyer]

Originally posted by CMplayer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
I don't know. On the one hand, morale definitely improves in a group. On the other, what if everybody decides "I don't want to be the one the bad guys kill!"?
That's why soldiers train and have officers that give them orders. That's why there are little red heart icons on leaders in CM. That's why there should be a "!" tag for orders. </font>[/QUOTE]I agree with CMPlayer. The whole purpose of military discipline, command structure, and training is to control and re-direct the normal human nature and fears of indidvidual soldiers. Having read a fair amount of history dealing with U.S., German, and Soviet forces, I believe a common thread is that oftentimes men were ordered to undertake combat tasks they believed (rightly or wrongly) were suicide missions. Nonetheless, troops with seemingly normal training and discipline followed these orders. Many times they were successful, other times not. But the point is they followed the original tactical command as given. Any retreat in the face of fire typically came after they had suffered grievous losses.

In CM, we are the tactical commanders, and should be able to expect normally trained and experienced troops to follow our orders as given. If we give bad orders and they perish, then it is up to us to write those sad letters back home to their pixelated parents. So the responsibility of giving good orders lies heavy on our shoulders. Individual AI unit mutiny should be rare.

Variance in the discipline of troops taking orders should be handled with the different unit morale and experience levels. I thought that was already the case in CM games. Hmmmm... Maybe CM needs a whole new court martial mod to handle these discipline failures... :cool:

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Panzer76:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:
Panzer76, can you make the map and situation available? Was it a Quckickbattle? Where the Archers standing or coming with with "seek-hulldown"? I used them as others pointed out, they should be used. It was a QB map, medium hills and med trees, Italy March 45. The Archers crested a hill in hull down position and with covered armour arcs over the roads. SO, they were in pos and waiting for it's prey. I dont know if it's worth mentioning but the Archer that chickend out didnt reverse, but fast moved forward. Of cos, that meant it exposed himself to other potential threats. It didnt matter though, I cancled his fast move order and targeted the PzIV, it died half a min later. </font>[/QUOTE]To have any hope of reprodcing this behaviour you need to make the map and a very precise description opf the sitation available.

[Panzer76]

Originally posted by redwolf:
[QUOTE]To have any hope of reprodcing this behaviour you need to make the map and a very precise description opf the sitation available. The map is forever lost, but the main thing here is that you have a hill where the Archers can be placed, and a PzIV 1.2 km away coming over a small hill with the hunt command.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Panzer76:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by redwolf:
To have any hope of reprodcing this behaviour you need to make the map and a very precise description opf the sitation available. The map is forever lost, but the main thing here is that you have a hill where the Archers can be placed, and a PzIV 1.2 km away coming over a small hill with the hunt command. </font>I did that and the Archers stayed put.

That's why I say we need the exact map. The same thing happend with the ISU-122 in the monster tank thread: the behaviour could not be reproduced with a plain test map just having the same distances and hills and approximate positions. I had to re-important the map in question into a new quickbattle and reproduce it from there.

Not that it was worth the time...

[Sirocco]

This thread touches on one of what are, to me at least, two of the main issues with the CM engine. At the moment, units have little situational awareness.

In this example, the Archer knows *it* can spot the Pz.Kpfw IV, and it knows *the Pz.Kpfw IV* can spot it. What it can't take into consideration, with the current code, is that other friendly units are also targetting that particular target.

Were it to have that situational awareness, it would be much more likely to stand and fight, although, of course, it might still panic and withdraw, depending on the circumstances.

And that shortfall in the code isn't limited to armour. You see it most often with infantry. If you're advancing a squad over open ground, with the rest of the platoon overwatching, unless those overwatching squads have a good solution to any targets that engage the maneuvering squad, they won't fire.

Along with borg spotting, this is one of the two issues I'm expecting to be resolved in the next engine.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

Along with borg spotting, this is one of the two issues I'm expecting to be resolved in the next engine. You're asking for a miracle. Basically, each unit would have to have an own internal 'map' of its surroundings, and make threat evaluations. This is how simulations are really done by consultancy firms, but to expect BFC to do it is a pipe dream. Unless they bring in outside help.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by CMplayer:
...a full blown SOP screen, like in TacOps would be even better. Historical note and self-administered pat on the back: I began advocating exactly that five years ago.

To BFC: I told you so!

tongue.gif ;) :D

Michael

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by CMplayer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:

Along with borg spotting, this is one of the two issues I'm expecting to be resolved in the next engine. You're asking for a miracle. Basically, each unit would have to have an own internal 'map' of its surroundings, and make threat evaluations. This is how simulations are really done by consultancy firms, but to expect BFC to do it is a pipe dream. Unless they bring in outside help. </font>[/QUOTE]No, it wouldn't require that, borg spotting will be dealt with, there's no question about that, and situational awareness and threat assessment can be viewed as part of that coding process.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Sirocco:
...borg spotting will be dealt with...You sound more positive than BFC has in its public pronouncements on the subject. So far, all I've seen them say is that they will try to deal with borg spotting. I am confident that it will improve, but it is possible that some lingering problems will persist. It isn't a simple issue to address or it would never have arisen in the first place.

Michael

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by Michael Emrys:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:
...borg spotting will be dealt with...You sound more positive than BFC has in its public pronouncements on the subject. So far, all I've seen them say is that they will try to deal with borg spotting. I am confident that it will improve, but it is possible that some lingering problems will persist. It isn't a simple issue to address or it would never have arisen in the first place.

Michael </font>[/QUOTE]If we were talking about RTS, then that might be the case, but with wego you have more time to handle LOS calculations. We're also talking about more powerful PC's than were around at the time of CMBO to calculate it. These are natural progressions from one engine to the next. The fruit of experience gained from coding CM.

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Sirocco:
No, it wouldn't require that, borg spotting will be dealt with, there's no question about that, and situational awareness and threat assessment can be viewed as part of that coding process. Mind expanding on that a bit? Just exactly how do you see that working? Plz submit flowchart monday morning, 8:00 AM.

[Sirocco]

Originally posted by CMplayer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:
No, it wouldn't require that, borg spotting will be dealt with, there's no question about that, and situational awareness and threat assessment can be viewed as part of that coding process. Mind expanding on that a bit? Just exactly how do you see that working? Plz submit flowchart monday morning, 8:00 AM. </font>[/QUOTE]I have no idea how BTS have coded the AI, so any detailed comments I might have on how they can handle it are worthless. I wouldn't be so presumptious as to attempt to write the code for them. But having worked on identical AI problems in the past I know how I'd approach it.

[Shades]

Concerning the borg spotting, how about some type of varying sight delay for tanks that are not directly facing a spotted unit. Nothing worse when a you send your tank out to attack another and every gun that has LOS instantly sees that unit and fires away.

[zukkov]

how bout this idea for borg spotting. let's say every unit has a default covered arc, which would be invisible as long as the player doesn't actually set an arc. every so many seconds the arc would switch to a different angle, etc. that way the tank would only engage targets inside it's current arc, and would not automatically begin shooting at a newly discovered target until the arc moved on to that target's position. i know it's not perfect, but might require much less coding than true spotting would. naturally if a player set an arc, that would take priority over the invisible one. of course, how big the arc is and how long it stays in on position before changing angle would be left up to the designers. they might also take unit movement into account, ie moving units would have a narrower arc than stationary ones, which means it would take more time for a moving unit to pick up new targets. also, unit experience could be affected.

sorry guys, it's late. i'm too tired to think, too keyed up to sleep. you get crazy ideas at times like these...

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Sirocco:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by CMplayer:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sirocco:
No, it wouldn't require that, borg spotting will be dealt with, there's no question about that, and situational awareness and threat assessment can be viewed as part of that coding process. Mind expanding on that a bit? Just exactly how do you see that working? Plz submit flowchart monday morning, 8:00 AM. </font>[/QUOTE]I have no idea how BTS have coded the AI, so any detailed comments I might have on how they can handle it are worthless. I wouldn't be so presumptious as to attempt to write the code for them. But having worked on identical AI problems in the past I know how I'd approach it. </font>[/QUOTE]That's good enough. Forget BFC, and just tell us how you'd approach it.

[Redwolf]

The only thing Steve said they would do is remove the automatic transportation of spotting events from one unit to another (which it seems is partly done in CMAK via a delay to reporting who is shooting on what, BTW).

I don't remember an BFC person ever saying they do something which is proof to the player using area fire or magically more towards a unit identified elsewhere.