Ordering a unit not to fire...is it possible?

[76mm]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
I don't expect the Platoon Leader or the Humvee gunner to engage a Soviet tank with an M2HB 50cal. That's not smart and they will want to live longer than that. As the Brigade Commander I shouldn't have to tell them that and in real life wouldn't.

Well, while in game they might not be engaging with a 50cal, but I often see hummvees equipped with TOWs take on entire tank columns or flights of Hinds, which isn't much smarter. And morever, sometimes I would want them to take pot shots at a Sov column, and other times I'd want them to stay hidden to spot for artillery or airstrikes. As far as I know, as brigade commander I'd be telling my recon elements what I wanted them to do...

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The premise is still what I stated earlier. Everybody is expected to do their job. They trained for it, they know what it is, they are good at it. I shouldn't have to tell them what it is with every mouse click. And we won't go that direction.

I'll be curious to see if you come with an AI with much greater situational awareness than others I've seen. What a platoon or tank should do in one situation is very different from what it should do in other situations. Most games recognize the near impossibility of asking the computer to make this determination and therefore allow the player to do so.

[CapnDarwin]

We are looking a simple or overarching SOPs for a number of orders to help refine the AI for units. Right now a recon unit can be two grunts to a main battle tank so having a perfect AI response gets hard and you end up with some jeeps shooting at tanks when pressed instead of pulling out. .we need to give you as the commander a way to say you hide and scoot versus you stay and fight for certain orders and unit types. Now that won't stop the occasional units panic firing or scooting when you want them to hold. That's war and some troops do get creative at times.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: wodin

Mad Russian I do think SOP's would come in handy for those who want to use them..also games being games SOP's can give the friendly AI a helping hand. I see setting the SOP's not as if you have sent an order to the unit from a higher commnader but more as the unit itself working out his plan and following it.

The game currently allows for orders and SOP. (Quickly move here and then hold)

We intend on expanding on that system to include more options for the player.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

OK, since I was (and still am) getting my butt kicked playing the NATO side in the "Time to Dance" scenario, I decided to try the Soviet side ( WS_ AS scenario). I ordered one of my recon units to move adjacent to the southern blow bridge. About 1500 meters away (3 hexes) it spotted two NATO tank units across the river, adjacent to the bridge. Both tank units began firing at the recon unit. Instead of stopping and seeking some cover (at least stop for pete's sake) they continued on their merry way until they got to their objective (which was adjacent to both tank units). Naturally they were destroyed in short order. Would it be possible to some way incorporate some logic for recon units so they don't fire on tanks from cover with machine guns or, after spotting them 3 or 4 hexes away continue to move adjacent to them? BTW, I did win a decisive victory, but writing those condolence letters for my recon guys was depressing:)

Have you ever watched Greatest Tank Battles #10 - 73 Easting, where a Bradley engages a T-72, on front armor, with his 25mm chaingun? I know that's bigger than a M2HB machinegun but the results were the same. Just because it doesn't make absolute sense doesn't mean it's not done.

I'll be curious to see if you come with an AI with much greater situational awareness than others I've seen. What a platoon or tank should do in one situation is very different from what it should do in other situations. Most games recognize the near impossibility of asking the computer to make this determination and therefore allow the player to do so.

Now, about where we want to go, we are still tweaking the orders/SOP listings. So, all your comments are very valid and could get things added to the list. I would say that being gamers that have been in the service we see most of these issues long before you guys do and they have our red flags up too. Not to say we are perfect and catch everything and the more discussion something gets the more weight it has as an issue that could get changed.

This AI already does a tremendous job. It handles both your forces and the enemy forces and plays well enough to at least make you THINK before you beat it. I would put this AI up against any on the market. Having said that, there are more tweaks being made to it all the time.

So, again, thanks for all the comments and discussion. While there are tradeoffs, justifications, abstractions for everything in FPC there are few things that are written in stone. And right now especially, we have hammer and chisel out reworking some of that stone.[8D]

Good Hunting.

MR

[genehaynes]

MR,
Thanks for your reply. Make no mistake, you guys have created an outstanding game. It's challenging, addictive, and a lot of fun. In a way you're a victim the excellent job you've done designing this game. In other words there aren't many things to complain about. But as you said "there's always room for improvement". IMO, because the game is so good, things like bizarre Recon (I know bizarre behavior is subjective)tend to stand out. You guys know a lot more about real world combat tactics / behavior than I do. I just think there should be some way to order Recon type units to do recon and basically avoid combat unless absolutely necessary. During the WS_AS scenario it was really cool to see my recon guys reveal NATO units across the river. I'd just like to see them scoot / reverse to cover when they come under fire. I would think if you're the driver of one of these vehicles you wouldn't need an order from HQ to get out of harms way. Anyway, back to "A Time to Dance" as NATO. I WILL win this scenario somehow:)

[pzgndr]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The game currently allows for orders and SOP. (Quickly move here and then hold)
We intend on expanding on that system to include more options for the player.

Until a more robust SOP feature is implemented, perhaps a couple more options besides the Screen order will suffice. Yeah, we leave it to the platoon leaders to perform their missions, but we (player/commander) should still get to decide what missions they are to do. So a more aggressive Ambush order (take a good shot, then scoot) and a more passive LP/OP order (observe only, then scoot) would help span the current Screen order, which has a certain combat engagement implication. And for that Screen order, yes the platoon leader(s) on the ground would execute as they thought best, which may or may not be exactly as the commander really expected. So be it; that's fine. But something more along the lines of an Ambush and LP/OP order is needed.

[IronMikeGolf]

I think part of our challenge is the need to abstract and simplify to make the game "runnable". For example, there's orders, then there's orders. ANd then again there's orders. What do I mean?

First you have what in the US Army we call OPORDs (Operation Order). These are detailed and rehearsed. They take time to craft, reproduce (in this timeframe, by a private first class with a hand crank mimeograph machine). It takes time to assemble leaders from subordinate elements to brief and rehearse. These are what is simulated in the game when you give a unit a movement order and posture to assume upon completion of the move. The current engine lets you do operations of a single phase. You can not currently do a single order that says "road march to that bridge, then assault that town".

Then you have FRAGOs (Fragmentary Orders). These are much like an audible in football. The most often adjustments to the OPORD, given while executing the OPORD. But not always. In the game, this might be adjusting a waypoint. What we can't do is FRAGO a road march to one destination to morph to a tactical move to another destination, nor can we change the posture to be assumed at completion of the move.

The last category I am talking about is maneuver control orders. This is things like "hold what you got, mortars are not in position yet" or "push further left". We can do this in a limited fashion by adjusting waypoints. I need to do some testing, but it feels like if you mess with waypoint delay on a moving unit, it kicks in oreder delay. Along with these types of orders is the sort that tells a unit to execute something they are prepared to do already. So, a battalion OPORD might say something like "On order, A Co secures bridge at grid NB123456." The A Co Cdr decides how to do that and his OPORD to his company has those details. Might be a platoon, might be more. It take two radio calls to set that in motion: Bn to Co and Co to Plt(s).

Our challenge is differentiating among these types of orders. Right now, the AI can't realistically model leaders below Bn level. Players have to handle that. The challenge come with orders delay. If you have a Scout section performing a Screen (the mission, not the posture in the game), there's going to be movement orders. A goodly amount of them, given only 3 waypoints and the need/desire to properly use cover and concealment.

Forgive my wordiness here. I think resolving these issues would be a huge step for this game.

[IronMikeGolf]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr
Until a more robust SOP feature is implemented, perhaps a couple more options besides the Screen order will suffice. Yeah, we leave it to the platoon leaders to perform their missions, but we (player/commander) should still get to decide what missions they are to do. So a more aggressive Ambush order (take a good shot, then scoot) and a more passive LP/OP order (observe only, then scoot) would help span the current Screen order, which has a certain combat engagement implication. And for that Screen order, yes the platoon leader(s) on the ground would execute as they thought best, which may or may not be exactly as the commander really expected. So be it; that's fine. But something more along the lines of an Ambush and LP/OP order is needed.

Maybe something like this:

1. Rename "Screen" to "Occupy", with current behavior.
2. Add "Observe" posture. Does not initiate fire. Breaks contact (move to no LOS terrain) upon being shot at.
3. Add "Delay". Has normal movement waypoints. Begin moving after firing. No delay to the movement, once the normal order delay passes upon issueing the order. Moves like an Assault order, not a Hasty Move order. Maybe have a casualty trigger for moving if receiving indirect, but not having direct fire targets. This would enable units to displace before routing. This could also be used for survivability moves: last waypoint of the Delay order is the original position. You can dance all over the BP that way.

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: genehaynes

During the WS_AS scenario it was really cool to see my recon guys reveal NATO units across the river.

The WS_AS is Warsaw Pact/Small_American/Soviet. Which means it's best played as the Warsaw Pact, is a small scenario and pits Soviet against American forces. The name of the scenario comes after that.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: pzgndr

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
The game currently allows for orders and SOP. (Quickly move here and then hold)
We intend on expanding on that system to include more options for the player.

Until a more robust SOP feature is implemented, perhaps a couple more options besides the Screen order will suffice. Yeah, we leave it to the platoon leaders to perform their missions, but we (player/commander) should still get to decide what missions they are to do. So a more aggressive Ambush order (take a good shot, then scoot) and a more passive LP/OP order (observe only, then scoot) would help span the current Screen order, which has a certain combat engagement implication. And for that Screen order, yes the platoon leader(s) on the ground would execute as they thought best, which may or may not be exactly as the commander really expected. So be it; that's fine. But something more along the lines of an Ambush and LP/OP order is needed.

The longer we stay in Red Storm the longer it will be before you guys get the reworked Order-SOP system that comes out with Southern Storm. It's why we are continually trying to move forward.

Good Hunting.

MR

[IronMikeGolf]

There is a practical side of a Hummer or Brad, etc engaging a tank with a weapon that can't kill it. If you want to break contact, shooting 50 cal, 14.5mm, 20mm, 25mm, etc will make the TC button up. That drastically decreases situational awareness and target acquisition. Heavy MG or small cal HE will also rattle the crew for a bit. Real world, that gives you precious seconds to furiously seek defilade.

[CapnDarwin]

Thinking out loud, I think for most orders, there are two SOP settings. The first is Engaging. A slider from Passive (hide, no shooting) to Agressive (engage targets at max effective range). The second is Tolerance. Another selection that sets the units tolerance to being engaged by the enemy. We could go from spotted to hold at all cost. This would govern when a unit plans to scoot. Of course other factors can sway the outcome.

[Jakerson]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
Have you ever watched Greatest Tank Battles #10 - 73 Easting, where a Bradley engages a T-72, on front armor, with his 25mm chaingun? I know that's bigger than a M2HB machinegun but the results were the same. Just because it doesn't make absolute sense doesn't mean it's not done.

Well you cannot penetrate T-72 front armor with 25mm gun but if you are lucky it could damange T-72 targetting sights and laser systems witch are not armored that well and then tank is blind before that T-72 cracks that bradley like pop corn with 125mm gun.

If targetting systems and laser gets damaged then it is much harder for that T-72 hit that bradley especially if bradley moves.

This is reason why shooting with 25mm is better than not shooting as it might damage those systems that reduce that T-72 battle effiency. But generally Bradley vs T-72 is not great idea unless you use ATGM.

[Werewolf13]

The longer we stay in Red Storm the longer it will be before you guys get the reworked Order-SOP system that comes out with Southern Storm. It's why we are continually trying to move forward.

MR

One imagines that any work done on Red Storm to make it better will easily be transfered Southern Storm.

[CapnDarwin]

Werewolf, true, but we are not looking to add SOPs now into the Red Storm system. It will take some time to recode and test and we have a ton of other features to integrate. We are happy to crush bugs now, since we won't have to deal with them later. That saves time.