Matrix Games Forums

I think the main issue around 'auto-turning' and the like is that the AI simply doesn't respond well. I posted somewhere a story about one of my tanks getting HIT from the side by a newly seen AT gun. It ignored the AT gun and dutifully plugged away at the target I had set. A great AI would respond at the platoon level by perhaps shifting fire/position of some units if the new threat was greater than the one being engaged. An ok AI would at least have that one unit make a decision.

ORIGINAL: mbtanker

I think the main issue around 'auto-turning' and the like is that the AI simply doesn't respond well. I posted somewhere a story about one of my tanks getting HIT from the side by a newly seen AT gun. It ignored the AT gun and dutifully plugged away at the target I had set. A great AI would respond at the platoon level by perhaps shifting fire/position of some units if the new threat was greater than the one being engaged. An ok AI would at least have that one unit make a decision.

I think you just hit the nail on the head.

The game *wants* you to command at the platoon level ... "Hey you Panzers advance over there and attack", but the Platoon level AI can't really do what *you* want, nor can it even achieve what a half decent Platoon commander could actually achieve "Well that is not exactly what I would have done, but hey you got the job done". This is not COTA. So to partially fix this problem you are given *some* squad level commands, but not enough to actually micro-manage effectively.

Here are two examples of this type of behaviour:

You are a commanding a platoon of 5 PZIV which are in an excellent defensive position with 3 T-60s all in range. Now there is a chance that each PZ would concentrate their fire on one T-60 and let the other 2 go. This is frustrating [:@] *SO* you have the option to individually target each T-60 to ensure none get through [:D]. Great! but now you are micro-managing on the squad level.

Now consider commanding a platoon of 2 PZ which are in a village. The leader just needs to creep foward to get a good clear shot on at T-70, but the wingman has come under new flank fire from a previously unseen ATG. The wingman needs to pull back and re-orientate. Now as I understand it I can't see any easy way to do this with the current movement orders. Please someone tell me a way! It seems you are prohibited from MM squad deployment but NOT fire control.

[font=arial]

ORIGINAL:  Laryngoscope
The game *wants* you to command at the platoon level ... "Hey you Panzers advance over there and attack", but the Platoon level AI can't really do what *you* want, nor can it even achieve what a half decent Platoon commander could actually achieve "Well that is not exactly what I would have done, but hey you got the job done". This is not COTA. So to partially fix this problem you are given *some* squad level commands, but not enough to actually micro-manage effectively.

[/font][font=arial]Seems right.
In the military the theory goes that the commander should monitor two chain-of-command levels down.  So as the game assumes you start at the company level.  Orders are issued to the platoons.  Whose elements are the squads (or tanks).  Since there is no one else playing these positions you have to do that job too. 
The trick is to give enough information and control to allow the squads to perform their tasks but not enough to give them all a hive-mind.  I[font=arial]ssuing orders then would be superfluous.[/font][/font][/align]

ORIGINAL: FNG

Pathfinding definitely needs a bit of help...

Everything else is looking good so far!

Most of the problem is caused by the vehicles being placed too close to each other in the first place. Doctrine called for a platoon's vehicles to be separated by 50 meters. That'd help avoid the cluster-**** depicted above. It would also dilute the effect of enemy HE and MG fire directed on the formation. Finally, friendly units wouldn't be as likely to block fire on an enemy.

PoE (aka Ivanmoe)

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl

Most of the problem is caused by the vehicles being placed too close to each other in the first place. Doctrine called for a platoon's vehicles to be separated by 50 meters. That'd help avoid the cluster-**** depicted above. It would also dilute the effect of enemy HE and MG fire directed on the formation. Finally, friendly units wouldn't be as likely to block fire on an enemy.

PoE (aka Ivanmoe)

That situation arose after I let two platoons 'find their own way' after giving them a long initial movement order. The panzers and half-tracks all bunched to get through a gap between two copses; at the same moment the half-tracks caught up with the panzers. There was plenty of space when the units were set-up. To be fair, I deliberately ordered the units to move into cluttered terrain to see how the pathfinding worked, as that was my first game.

Hence the cluster**** [:)]

Most of the problem is caused by the vehicles being placed too close to each other in the first place. Doctrine called for a platoon's vehicles to be separated by 50 meters. That'd help avoid the cluster-**** depicted above. It would also dilute the effect of enemy HE and MG fire directed on the formation. Finally, friendly units wouldn't be as likely to block fire on an enemy.

PoE (aka Ivanmoe)

I'm afraid I have to respectfully disagree with that premise because:

1) A single vehicle will get hung up on a single tree or building all out on its own. If you could set waypoints you could probably avoid this but since you can't you are at the mercy of the pathfinding routine.

2) Units simply HAVE to 'go by' or 'pass' other units at somepoint (again waypoints could help this but sometimes tactically you simply need to do this). ~50% of the time when two units come into proximity they collide.

3) Infantry HAVE to board/unboard their halftracks. I've had the troops/halftracks get caught up on each other far too much.

4) I believe, but am not sure, that the figure scale is a bit higher than the ground scale so units in the game will always appear closer than they actually are.

So spacing units even 100m apart really doesn't matter. Moreover, doctrine may recommend 50m between vehicles but that is going to go up and down as dictated by terrain.

Thanks for your comments, MBT.

Most of my understanding of WW2 German armoured doctrine comes from an article published in S&T magazine 35 years ago.

While it's far less detailed than the magazine article, this diagram helps illustrate the frontage/spacing considerations that I referenced:

http://www.hq.wwiionline.com/articles/attack_mech3.gif

It's worth noting that the vehicles in the diagram are not drawn to scale.

While I agree with you that battlefield conditions could dictate changes/modifications to the spacing, the concepts underlying the interval between units (that I briefly outlined above) remain. These vehicles fought as units with assigned stations, particularly when advancing. Visibility and the ability to communicate effectively were inversely proportional to the volume of enemy fire endured. Platoons that became intermeshed with one another in the heat of battle could quickly disintegrate into a jarring mass of disjointed elements as they sought to untangle.

I'd also like to share some thoughts with you as to how tankers relate to "obstacles" associated with either LOS or movement. A crew in a buttoned-up, WW2 AFV really couldn't see squat. They needed an unobstructed LOS to the target area, one from their overwatch/firing position at the terminus of the next bound. ANYTHING that interfered with that LOS, be it a tree, structure or wreck was anathema. Likewise, entering into an area with obstacles to movement was frought with danger because the vehicle would have to change it's facing and risk giving the enemy a shot at it's side or rear.

BTW, there's a school of thought that says that a large AFV can simply drive through all but the largest trees and structures, but a vehicle that does so risks throwing a track, or worse still, shearing a final drive, which is a disaster little short of being KIA when in combat. The affect is so prounounced that the preferred method of entering a heavily wooded area for concealment is to back-in, so that the vehicle can simply drive forward on the same path to exit. This allows the track to avoid having to turn, again at the risk of becoming a mobility casualty, and allows the main-guns traverse (which may well be blocked) to remain oriented to the hull front.

The upshot of all this is that AFV on the attack don't have much use for obstacles that they might encounter along their line of advance. While elevation cover from bound to bound is desireable, any concealment benefit from trees and such may well be outweighed by constricted movement and the tendency of formations to become unglued as they are funneled into choke-points, again trying to negotiate the obstacles.

In many respects, the game appears to model these problems nicely. The German side is presented with a nightmare scenario of having to advance out-gunned and under-armoured against the Soviet T34/KV1 host. The intervening woods and other "roadblocks" just make it that much more challenging. Concentrating friendlies in too tight a space, longitudinally or laterally will only make it more so.

PoE (aka Ivanmoe)

ORIGINAL: Laryngoscope
You are a commanding a platoon of 5 PZIV which are in an excellent defensive position with 3 T-60s all in range. Now there is a chance that each PZ would concentrate their fire on one T-60 and let the other 2 go. This is frustrating [:@] *SO* you have the option to individually target each T-60 to ensure none get through [:D]. Great! but now you are micro-managing on the squad level.

As far as I have seen, the auto-targeting will do its best to spread out fire amond multiple targets unless you tell it otherwise, so there shouldn't be a need to manually target if you're just trying to keep the AI from over-targeting.

Now consider commanding a platoon of 2 PZ which are in a village. The leader just needs to creep foward to get a good clear shot on at T-70, but the wingman has come under new flank fire from a previously unseen ATG. The wingman needs to pull back and re-orientate. Now as I understand it I can't see any easy way to do this with the current movement orders. Please someone tell me a way! It seems you are prohibited from MM squad deployment but NOT fire control.

Worst case scenario is that he can pull back within 80 seconds (Orders Phase) by changing to Withdraw platoon orders, probably significantly less than that. Assuming they are already on some kind of Advance order, you can let the platoon leader creep forward as far as necessary, have the Wingman Halt in Reaction, then withdraw the Wingman.

Panzer Command enforces a certain pace as far as the ability to change your orders. This is by design rather than an attempt to make your guys "dumb". The thing is that while you can see all spotted enemies and react instantly as a player, on the battlefield there's a lot more going on and getting a platoon to change their orders can take a short while.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
Most of the problem is caused by the vehicles being placed too close to each other in the first place. Doctrine called for a platoon's vehicles to be separated by 50 meters.

That's true - we decided to go closer than doctrine to fit better within the map sizes, but you are free to spread your guys out further if you want.

Regards,

- Erik

ORIGINAL: Prince of Eckmühl
In many respects, the game appears to model these problems nicely. The German side is presented with a nightmare scenario of having to advance out-gunned and under-armoured against the Soviet T34/KV1 host. The intervening woods and other "roadblocks" just make it that much more challenging. Concentrating friendlies in too tight a space, longitudinally or laterally will only make it more so.

This is true - I don't try to bunch my units together and try to maintain some distance and allow them priority in my orders. As a result, I see very few collision or pathing issues as a player. However, for testing we have a "traffic jam" map where we specifically try to run everyone together. This doesn't guarantee that we'll cover all situations, but it gives us a worst case scenario. Over the course of development, performance continually improved on the "traffic jam" and we'll continue to do our best to improve collision management.

Regards,

- Erik