Shooting both weapons (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Hornet -> Shooting both weapons (8/15/2000 9:46:00 PM)

I know this topic has been already posted, but I could not find it. I think it's stupid that for example MG teams shoot both their MG and their rifles. Will this be changed in version 3?



Larry Holt -> (8/15/2000 10:04:00 PM)

Yes, its been posted before and yes its still unrealistic that crews shoot both weapons. Its also unrealistic that tanks fire their main gun and MGs at all targets within range. The main gun should be for hard targets at any range and soft targets alt long ranges and the MGs for close soft targets. It makes little sense for a tank to fire its MGs at tanks or use its main gun up close (IRL there are minimum ranges, it couldn't shoot it main gun at troops up close to itself) Right now the answer seems to be to disable unwanted weapons in the unit data screen. Unfortunately this requires right clicking on the unit then clicking on a weapon to toggle it on and off. Perhaps a hot key could be in place (1, 2, 3 & 4 keys on the keyboard) to toggle weapons on and off. This would enhance realism and speed up game play yet only require a change to the interface and not to the feature set as the toggle on/off feature is already there. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.



Paul Vebber -> (8/15/2000 10:58:00 PM)

The issue of multiple weapon firing for tanks is just the way the game has been set up since SP1. You can use the "select weapon" hot key if you want to only fire one weapon on a tank. OR shut it off, the hot key idea is a good one, but is too late to get in this version :-) We are limited in many ways by the AI , as we don't want different rules for human and AI, so incorporating some "easy fixes" for human vs human play get hard beacuase the AI has to be programmed to know how to use it too. THats been a problem with complicating teh OPfire "doctrines" - the concepts have to be taught to the AI! Crewed weapons no longer have secondary armament. If you run out of shells or need to fight close enemies, you have to "bail" and abandon the gun. then re-crew it after the threat has been heroically delat with. MG and other "team" weapons are a problem becasue they don't "bail". We are still experimenting with the best way to do MGs and Team weps... So its being addressed, the jury is still out on what the "address" will be.



Owl -> (8/16/2000 12:13:00 AM)

Does that mean that there will be opportunity to choose when your crew bails with the decision up to the player? For example if I want my gun crew to bail and shoot rifles before they take enough suppression and or hits for the AI to "make" them do it? This is a sore spot to me on tanks/vehicles/guns in campaigns when I would rather the crew run for it than stay put. I know they're "toast" but they seem to want to fight to the last. Once again I suppose "teaching" the AI to do it prohibits adding this "tweak" but I'd sure like to be able to order my crews out at times. (JSII blows tracks of Lynx in opportunity fire, I know next Soviet turn that Lynx is toasted kitty, the crew however doesn't seem to see their lives flashing before their eyes and stays put). ------------------ (.) (.) ...V...



Larry Holt -> (8/16/2000 12:14:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Paul Vebber: ...We are limited in many ways by the AI , as we don't want different rules for human and AI, so incorporating some "easy fixes" for human vs human play get hard because the AI has to be programmed to know how to use it too. That's been a problem with complicating the OPfire "doctrines" - the concepts have to be taught to the AI! ...
Its good to see that you are focusing on the AIP as a player that must fight by realistic rules and not putting in cheats to work around the limitations of artificial intelligence. I know that some game developers are heavily into adaptive intelligence as it simulates human thinking patterns better than rules based designs but IRL humans don't make every decision from scratch. The whole concept of tactics is that we have a prepared situation/response database. We train our troops to be innovative but with in strict limits of tactics, organization, doctrine, etc. We want initiative, not innovation in our tactical leaders. It seems to me that green troops are much like the AIP. Although since they are humans they can make leaps of knowledge, almagmating disparate known facts into new knowledge and decisions, they don't know enough facts to come up with good tactical judgments. Because of this SOPS, battle drills, tactics, etc. are established to minimize the thinking required to obtain quick, functional action in combat. I don't just willy nilly randomly choose which target to fire at. Instead I consider can the potential target kill me, can I kill it, etc. I make a rank ordered list of criteria that easily translates into a list of cases for making decisions. Its kind of like preparing business logic or an access control list for a router, most restrictive cases first then more general with a final default case. Loop through all the targets and see if any meet the logic criteria. E.G IRL the immediate action drill for ambush of a dismounted force is: if the ambush is less than grenade throwing range ( a close ambush), turn into it and assault through it, turn around and attack the ambushers from the rear. If the ambush is beyond grenade throwing range, take cover and maneuver against it. This might not be the 100% best action in all cases (in a close ambush if only a small part of the force is caught in the killing zone but assaults the ambushers, the larger part can not effectively fire on the ambushers for fear of friendly fire) but its good enough that the world's strongest military uses it. This would easily convert into programming language logic (if range < 1 hex do ... else do ...). I can see that other battle drills can readily be developed for the AIP. Then again I didn't design the most awesome tactical game out there while Matrix did so whatever is going on under the hood, keep it up! ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.



BA Evans -> (8/16/2000 12:18:00 AM)

Machine Guns don't need to be fixed. Most machine guns are crewed by four soldiers. One soldier aims and shoots the gun, a second guy assists, the other two guys just carry extra ammo. As soon as the bullets fly, these two guys don't have much to do, except use their rifles. Is there a reason these guys shouldn't be using their rifles? I agree that (Anti-Tank, Anti-Aircraft, Infatry Gun) Gun crews are all occupied with the gun's operation. If the gun is shooting, they are probably busy. Currently, about the only damage these units can inflict is with their rifles. The 'main' gun is almost worthless against infantry. If you remove the rifles, will these units have any value vs. Infantry? This is a catch-22. If you remove the rifles the unit can't hurt infantry, but if you keep the rifles the rifles do way more damage than the 'main' gun. Sounds like the 'main' gun needs to be a little more effective vs. infantry. This is especially true with Infantry Guns, weren't they designed to kill infantry? BA Evans



Larry Holt -> (8/16/2000 12:37:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by Owl: Does that mean that there will be opportunity to choose when your crew bails with the decision up to the player?..
Have you tried the "9" key? It causes the crew to bail. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.



Larry Holt -> (8/16/2000 12:55:00 AM)

quote:

Originally posted by BA Evans: Machine Guns don't need to be fixed. Most machine guns are crewed by four soldiers. One soldier aims and shoots the gun, a second guy assists, the other two guys just carry extra ammo. As soon as the bullets fly, these two guys don't have much to do, except use their rifles. Is there a reason these guys shouldn't be using their rifles?...BA Evans
I suppose it depends upon the army in question. A MG team is there to use fully automatic fire. The ammo bearers would use their weapons but really only for local defense of the team. They would be on the radio, watching their platoon leader for instructions, unbundling ammo, etc. Of course they might fire at the enemy also but then again they might be busy with the other tasks I've mentioned and not fire. It seems to me that it would be more realistic not to have them fire. This would focus the player on employing them in the role of a fully automatic support weapon and not in a role that exploits any incidential rifle shots that they might fire. Then again, what's a few extra rifle shots in the grand scheme of things? Its silly but not a major issue. I'd rather see a reverse gear for vehicles programed rather than "fixing" MGs. ------------------ An old soldier but not yet a faded one. OK, maybe just a bit faded.



Nikademus -> (8/16/2000 1:23:00 AM)

actually its a bigger deal then it seems! first and formost, its due to the AI, which does'nt have to ability to withdrawl key units even when their position becomes precarious (not including suppression induced 'rout/retreat) In defensive type battles the AI's only recourse is to remain hidden for as long as possible. Once spotted its usually fairly easy for a human player to focus sufficient firepower on the hex to kill the unit. Firing off the secondary weapons of AT and MG units only increases the chances of the AI unit being spotted. 2nd issue is that though the topic has been hashed and hashed and hashed (anyone hungry?) about what % to hit chances 'really' mean. Anyway the short is, if i had a dime for every time the singular bolt action rifle (of an AT or an MG unit, even at long range) fire scored a casualty, i'd be a General! That was always my one big beef with the (ex)SP-III engine, those frequent 'lucky' and/or low probabilty hits. a full squad i can understand since one has multiple #'s of the primary weapon firing, but to see the secondary weapon preforming almost as well if not better than the main weapon always seems wierd to me. but thats beating a very dead horse. we'll see what ver 3 does for that. The main thing is maximizing the AI's chances for their positions staying unsighted by firing the main weapon only. Makes for a far more challenging game that way. I'd been reducing all the loadouts for the secondary weapons of these units anyway. [This message has been edited by Nikademus (edited August 15, 2000).]



troopie -> (8/16/2000 7:42:00 AM)

Machine gun crews and light infantry mortars 81mm and less, should retain their rifles! They are infantrymen, not artillerymen. BA Evans is right. Of every machine gun crew, one man fires the weapon, one man points out targets and guides the feed belt. The rest carry ammunition, water, if it's a water cooled gun like a Maxim or a Vickers, spare barrels if it's an air cooled gun with a barrel change capacity, and rifles or smgs for close in defence. They will take over the weapon if one of the operators is incapacitated. When the gun is moved, one man will carry the gun, one the tripod, and the rest the water and ammunition. But all will have their rifles. They will use them if necessary. Mortars can, in a pinch, be crewed by one man. But the usual minimum is two. One man to adjust the gun, one to drop in the rocket. One man carries the radio. The rest have their rifles for close defence. When the mortar is moved, one man carries the tube, one the bipod and plate, and the rest the ammunition. All have their rifles for use while moving and if the mortar runs out of rockets. Some crews have as many as ten men for one weapon. Surely eight of them aren't sitting around smoking and playing cards while the battle is going on. troopie ------------------ Pamwe Chete



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.5625