Death Clock for AT guns?

[Watson & Crick]

I love the "death clock" for tanks. Is there any chance that a similar clock could exist for spotted AT guns? Currently, if an AT gun is spotted, as soon as it either hides or stops firing, your tanks quit firing. It is rather irritating when your tank starts targeting infantry 200 m away when it untargets an area fire command at an AT gun that it actually spotted. Its even more irritating when it then gets waxed by the "forgotten" AT gun a few seconds later.

Would it be possible to at least have some area fire continue to the end of a turn or you "unlock" the tank's area fire at the AT gun at the end of a turn? I'm tired of my tanks getting waxed unnecessarily in an unrealistic manner. I'm sure that there were no tankers in WWII with early onset alzheimers. Please fix or do sumfink!

[karch]

I actually really like the idea of a death clock for guns. It would probably be much shorter than on tanks, given you would be able to see the crew much easier, and what they are doing, than a tank's crew.

As for the game "remembering" guns, tanks, troops. It would be great, but isn't going to happen. It's been mentioned before that the game engine just doesn't have the capability to remember things like that. It's too bad, but that will have to wait until the engine rewrite.

[Leeo]

This makes sense to me.

[Peterk]

Alternate area fire and direct fire on AT guns until they are gone. You definitely don't want to take the chance of having one ignored, unless you know it is harmless. I usually try to double up on them - one tank fires directly and I know he might leave the target if the AT hides, but I try to have another tank pumping area fire right at it at the same time - and he's not going to stop unless something drastic appears - often the area fire tank knocks the gun out. It seems to work very well - but I know having 2 tanks to do this is a luxury I won't always have.

[Watson & Crick]

Originally posted by Peterk:
Alternate area fire and direct fire on AT guns until they are gone. You definitely don't want to take the chance of having one ignored, unless you know it is harmless. I usually try to double up on them - one tank fires directly and I know he might leave the target if the AT hides, but I try to have another tank pumping area fire right at it at the same time - and he's not going to stop unless something drastic appears - often the area fire tank knocks the gun out. It seems to work very well - but I know having 2 tanks to do this is a luxury I won't always have.The problem is when tanks stop area firing and then pick another non-lethal target. This happens in nearly every game I play.

Why can't this be coded like the death clock for tanks?

[killmore]

YES! PLEASE!
I mentioned this before.
Current death clock on tanks only gives Tanks too much advantage over ATG.

[Sabrewolf]

sticks to area fire on guns, if the crew is pinned most likely they will disappear and your tank will target something else and then a few sec later the gun will kill your tank

[Michael Emrys]

I thought area fire stuck until retargetted by the owner. Has that been changed in BB?

Michael

[ October 13, 2002, 04:25 AM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Watson & Crick]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:
I thought area fire stuck until retargetted by the owner. Has that been changed in BB?

MichaelIt has not in most of my games. t appears to me that retargeting by the TacAI is worse in CMBB than CMBO. I would guess that this is due to added "features" of extreme fog of war. I have yet to play CMBB under "CMBO" i.e. normal fog of war. Has anyone?

Sometimes area fire stays "locked," but often it does not. Some of the targeting lapses can be attributed to what type of unit (ie vet, reg etc). It would be nice if area targeting ceases only under circumstances where

1) an enemy tank appears

2) anti tank infantry (or regular infantry) less than 50 meters appears.

I know that these two items could be tweaked to work. I believe BFC did a tweak in one of the CMBO patches regarding tanks retargeting infantry.

I realize that asking a tank to "remember" the location of a gun is asking too much. But it is unhistoric to not have tanks blast an area known to have AT guns. I would rather have the TacAI not take over retargetting so easily. Please do sumfink.


I

[akdavis]

What I don't understand is the concept of a spotted AT gun hiding. Once an AT gun is spotted, it should not be able to "hide" again. The crew might hide or run away, but the gun isn't going anywhere. It's not like gun itself ducks inside a foxhole. Maybe the problem is that the AI actually targets the crew, not the gun, thus causing it to lose target when the crew ducks.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by akdavis:
What I don't understand is the concept of a spotted AT gun hiding. Once an AT gun is spotted, it should not be able to "hide" again.What about the case of a gun that is well-hidden in concealing terrain. It fires and the muzzle flash is spotted but not the gun itself. If it ceases fire, someone looking for it will not see it, but if it fires again, they will be able to see the muzzle flash again. Since you know the approximate area from which it fired, you can still do area fire on that location, which might be deadly enough to put the gun out, but you can't do direct fire on a target you can't see.

Michael

[killmore]

I finally have a proof that AT guns are spotted way too easily!!!

Rain, Digger in AT 45mm in the forest, spotted 10 seconds after they opened fire.
Distance is 100m.
All tanks are buttoned and with their backs toward the Guns.
There is NO WAY both guns would be spotted in 10 seconds!!!

http://home.san.rr.com/apiotrow/ATGunSpotting.jpg

This feels like a serious debalancer.

[ October 13, 2002, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: killmore ]

[killmore]

Another proof:
This time Rain and FOG.
Distance 130 meters.
ATG 45mm dug in in the forrest.
Spotted 10 seconds after it opened fire by buttoned tanks with their back to ATG.

http://home.san.rr.com/apiotrow/RainFogATG.jpg

[Watson & Crick]

It appears that we not only have problems w/ tanks targeting & retargeting, but also picking up a target sooner than expected. Of course, those tanks will simple "forget" about that gun when it stops firing :eek:

I know that there were some problems regarding some types of terrain and LOS. Is this the same problem?

[akdavis]

Originally posted by Michael emrys:
What about the case of a gun that is well-hidden in concealing terrain. It fires and the muzzle flash is spotted but not the gun itself. If it ceases fire, someone looking for it will not see it, but if it fires again, they will be able to see the muzzle flash again. Since you know the approximate area from which it fired, you can still do area fire on that location, which might be deadly enough to put the gun out, but you can't do direct fire on a target you can't see.

Michael[/QB]Well, in that case the gun would not actually be spotted but would be a "AT Gun?" sound contact (which I think would include a glimpsed muzzle flash) indicating an approximate location. My problem is when you can actually target an AT gun, which means you know exactly where it is, but then you lose the target because the AT gun "hides." Once an AT gun is definitely spotted, I don't think it should be able to hide unless its location is changed. You didn't spot the gun because of its crew, you spotted it because you saw the gun firing. So why should you lose the target when the crew ducks into its foxhole?

As far as AT guns being too easy to spot, I have not had this experience, at least under EFOW. In some cases, I've had light AT guns fire at my tanks repeatedly only to receive sound contacts for many turns.

[Watson & Crick]

Originally posted by akdavis:

Michael[/QB]Well, in that case the gun would not actually be spotted but would be a "AT Gun?" sound contact (which I think would include a glimpsed muzzle flash) indicating an approximate location. My problem is when you can actually target an AT gun, which means you know exactly where it is, but then you lose the target because the AT gun "hides." Once an AT gun is definitely spotted, I don't think it should be able to hide unless its location is changed. You didn't spot the gun because of its crew, you spotted it because you saw the gun firing. So why should you lose the target when the crew ducks into its foxhole?
[/QB][/QUOTE]

This is exactly what I have a problem with. Can this be fixed?

[JRRRT]

[the AI actually targets the crew, not the gun, thus causing it to lose target when the crew ducks.[/QB][/QUOTE]

[JRRRT]

In practice, guns were often sited in rather shallow pits, with a ramp-like opening to the front. Even fairly heavy guns could be pushed forward to bear, fired, then withdrawn. The Soviets had lots of man (and woman) power to do this with almost all fairly light stuff. Also, HE fire on an area will probably not destroy a gun unless a direct hit is scored...so...if the crew hunkers under cover, when fire stops they ought to be able to nip out and get off a shot or two. Soviets used two or three guns "in echelon", which works pretty well if you are willing to sacrifice the firast crew.

[Madmatt]

The problem with your test is that you have set it to a very unrealistically short range and are also apprantly using German vehicles that have cupolas which vastly enhance a units 360 degree spotting ability. You also used a lot of targets which increases how many pairs of eyes are able to spot a enemy bunker.

I also conducted some tests at a more reasonable
range of 500 meters against 3 tank platoon of buttoned T-34's (also with their rears to the enemy to model your example) and the AT Bunker was able to pump multiple rounds into the targets and also slip in out of detection. Being detected only briefly as it fired and then the targets would loose contact. It took two turns before the TacAi's T-34's were able to accurately locate the bunker and engage.

That seems reasonable to us.

Madmatt

[Watson & Crick]

Madmatt,

What about instances where area fire on an AT gun disengages when the TacAI decides to take over. Can the TacAI be "weakened" so that it will not cancel area fire orders so readily?

Also, what about when a spotted AT gun reloads and then the tank stops firing. The AT gun once reloaded then proceeds to kill the tank. Can this be fixed or tweaked?

[Lt. Kije]

Well, other, wiser, heads, have reported on more than one previous occasion that entire pillboxes/bunkers are able to hide after firing (and being spotted/identified). I've seen this as well, and not all that rarely. I bet most of us have seen it. I'm surprised nobody has brought it up here by now.

It is, of course, absurd. Please don't try to justify it. "It fired repeatedly until you noticed it and targeted it and fired at it, but then it just got real quiet and closed its eyes and suddenly you could not see it anymore." Instead, please join me in enjoying this magnificent absurdity. It is as though a great hulking Zeppelin is above us but for some reason we cannot "see" it. Human psychology is full of such things. Don't fight it.

Ever tried to see you own eyes move by looking in a mirror? Try it.

-- Lt. Kije

Life is a tragedy to those who feel, a comedy to those who think.

[illo]

Yes I think this (tank losing sight of reloading AT-gun) should be adressed.

[ October 14, 2002, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: illo ]

[killmore]

Wait a sec!
You should not be able to spot ATGun in under 10 seconds after it fires!
Specially when buttoned, in rain and fog and being backwards to the gun.
AT Gun is dug in and in the forest too.

This is just not realistic.
No way the crew can scan 360 degrees in under 10 secs.
Besides 3 tanks were already dead but did not yet bailed. That leaves only 2 tanks being able to look.

If I want to fire a single shot then hide how would I do it in CMBB?

[Renaud]

If even one of the TC's happens to be looking backwards from his cupola toward the AT gun position when it fires, then he will almost certainly see the flash/smoke. It would then be spotted instantly, not just in 10 seconds. Alternately, perhaps all the TC's are looking somewhere else entirely. In that case it might take 30 seconds or even 3 minutes...who can really say with authority? Stating that this or that outcome is 'impossible' makes no sense given the wide range of possibilities implicit in any real-life situation. The CM engine has to abstract these infinite possibilities into various fixed values or ranges in the interest of code manageability. It's also important to remember that the spotting and concealment values in the game represent the authors concepts, which may or may not be in line with your own imagination. These examples could be taken as an argument for a more extreme randomization of spotting delays.

In the case of bunkers/guns disappearing to the AI 'brain' when they cease firing, this is a limitation of the AI as already stated. It is up to you the player to target the area during your orders phase. Clearly this makes life difficult for your exposed men/tanks as the AI doesn't know how to 'area fire'. On the other hand if you failed to area-target the likely area before the enemy even opens fire perhaps you just need more ammo. smile.gif

Ren

[Watson & Crick]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Renaud:
[qb]
In the case of bunkers/guns disappearing to the AI 'brain' when they cease firing, this is a limitation of the AI as already stated. It is up to you the player to target the area during your orders phase. Clearly this makes life difficult for your exposed men/tanks as the AI doesn't know how to 'area fire'. On the other hand if you failed to area-target the likely area before the enemy even opens fire perhaps you just need more ammo. smile.gif

One of my problems is that when I do have an area fire command at an AT gun, the TacAI decides that another target is more important. I'm sorry, but I would prefer if the TacAI would not decide alternate targets once I have a tank locked into an area fire unless a truly lethal threat appears (e.g. a tank or assaulting infantry). I think that this is a great game, but this should be fixed. BFC?

[ October 14, 2002, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: Watson & Crick ]

[Lt. Kije]

There are two quite separate issues with things being better hidden than one would expect. First is the issue of the TacAI maintaining (or failing to maintain) some degree of focus on a threat that has hidden. Second is the issue of what can be seen at any moment, what can choose on its own to hide, and whether this can be understood by the human player.

The one biggest problem I have had with CM is trying to understand what can and cannot be seen and why.

If the esteemed Colonel Renaud, with +2 morale, command, stealth and combat bonuses can be seen and identified by the computer even when he is in a buttoned halftrack, and then this halftrack out of your total of five is the only one targeted by all the computer's AT guns, this is a violation of the illusion of reality. You think to yourself, "I certainly cannot tell what is in my computer-opponent's halftracks. Surely he should not be able to tell what is in mine." If your conjecture turns out to be wrong and the computer appears to see things you cannot, you will lose faith that you really understand what is going on. The illusion of reality slips. You, the user, get confused and perhaps a bit dispirited.

Same thing with disappearing/reappearing pillbox/bunkers. Has nothing to do with the TacAI's maintaining focus on a temporarily disappeared threat. It has everything to do with what can be seen and what cannot. The pillbox/bunker should not have disappeared. And when you cannot see something that should be clearly visible, the illusion of reality slips.

The AT gun controversy here is more slippery since we can envision someone sliding a gun forward or back a little or maybe throwing a few more branches over the opening in the trees after firing. That's why the pillbox/bunker version of the argument is a clearer ground for discussion. Some things, once seen and targeted, should not be able to simply close their eyes and say they are hiding.

I hasten to add, all this is no deal breaker. CM is just swell the way it is and it is amazing that we have the luxury of quibbling over arcana such as this.

As for the contrapositive situation, in which buttoned tanks spot almost instantly your AT gun to their rear, well.... in my mind that makes no sense at all given my experience of taking multiple rounds of incoming AT fire, while unbuttoned, from the front, without being able to see the attacking AT gun.

For me, the only thing I would ask is some mild approximation of consistency. If the computer's AT guns are hard to spot and can quickly re-hide, then let my AT guns also be hard to spot and let them quickly re-hide. Or do it the other way, where my AT guns get spotted almost instantly, but make the computer's AT guns also easily spottable. I am troubled by the apparent inconsistency in what can be seen and why, and this detracts from my enjoyment of the game.

Time and time again I find myself puzzled why my guys can't seem to tie their own shoelaces while the computer's guys seem to posess eerily effective abilities. But then I'm puzzled by most things, most of the time, so I'm used to it.

-- Lt. Kije
Through a glass, darkly

[killmore]

Originally posted by Renaud:
If even one of the TC's happens to be looking backwards from his cupola toward the AT gun position when it fires, then he will almost certainly see the flash/smoke. It would then be spotted instantly, not just in 10 seconds.
RenSure but this means that sometimes guns would be spotted and sometimes not.
But guns are spotted every time in 9 to 12 seconds after 1st shot.

Thats what changes odds in favour of Tanks.

[Renaud]

Originally posted by Lt. Kije:
For me, the only thing I would ask is some mild approximation of consistency. If the computer's AT guns are hard to spot and can quickly re-hide, then let my AT guns also be hard to spot and let them quickly re-hide. Or do it the other way, where my AT guns get spotted almost instantly, but make the computer's AT guns also easily spottable. I am troubled by the apparent inconsistency in what can be seen and why, and this detracts from my enjoyment of the game.I have seen no difference between the abilities of computer AT guns and human AT guns and i've been playing a LOT. The AI guns are disappearing not because they are re-hiding, but because they stopped firing briefly due to suppression. Yours will do the same thing to the comp OR another human player. Also, the smaller and farther the AT gun the easier it is to actively alternate 'hide' and 'fire' periods, to avoid detection or significant return fire. The human player has a big advantage here in that he can voluntarily cease fire and hide to prevent detection, then open fire later.

All-in-all I find the human player has a huge advantage over the AI in every department. Cemetary Hill is a good example of how a human player can beat the AI in an attack even with roughly equal or even inferior force. When you can beat that one you can win ANY scenario on the disk vs AI I think.

Ren

[Watson & Crick]

Any chance of a fix or tweak BFC?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Watson & Crick:
One of my problems is that when I do have an area fire command at an AT gun, the TacAI decides that another target is more important. I'm sorry, but I would prefer if the TacAI would not decide alternate targets once I have a tank locked into an area fire unless a truly lethal threat appears (e.g. a tank or assaulting infantry). I think that this is a great game, but this should be fixed. BFC?This is easier said than done. The situations that arise in a game like CM are so complex and variable that programming AI to cover even a majority is no easy task. Things that appear simple and obvious to the human brain often turn out to be almost impossibly difficult for an electronic computer. This is a case in point, I think.

The question of "target stickiness"—when should a unit stay with its assigned target and when should it switch to a new one—has been kicked around and around ever since CMBO was first released. So far, the perfect solution has not presented itself. It's been tweaked and retweaked and still some people will complain that it is too sticky and others that it isn't sticky enough...at one and the same time.

Life is hard sometimes, even life on a CRT.

Michael

[TSword]

My tanks always stick to area fire (unless maybe they are in immediate danger by another source ??). Also most of the time while returning fire, when the crew goes prone the gun becomes an icon, so one has to use area fire (best: use 5cm mortars), many times the icon will remain the same and one has no direct indication whether the gun is actually out of action, quite neat i think. Only with good LOS one has immediate confirmation.
However would welcome a dedicated death clock which is dependent on quality of LOS and range.
Not a big issue in my eyes however. BFC better invest their time for better editor tools (especially to guide the poor attacking AI to enable a bit more complex battles, the biggest shortcoming in CMBB IME).

Greets
Daniel