Bounding

[Krasny]

I gave a bound order to a infantry platoon, where one squad had been killed.

Both the remaining squads moved forward.

[Erik Rutins]

I have seen that one happen occasionally - it shouldn't, but I have seen it. What happened the next turn and what happend if you re-issued the order?

[Krasny]

I presume they would have carried on their merry way, had I not intervened and gave orders to stop and kill the Russian squad.

Which should NOT be necessary, because:

1. Even a half arsed tactical AI squad should have stopped moving and started shooting at the enemy squad once it had got near.

2. Melee combat should have comenced once they were reasonably close.

So this is a very silly situation and it breaks the basic verisimilitude of the game badly.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Krasny
I presume they would have carried on their merry way, had I not intervened and gave orders to stop and kill the Russian squad.
Which should NOT be necessary, because:
1. Even a half arsed tactical AI squad should have stopped moving and started shooting at the enemy squad once it had got near.
2. Melee combat should have comenced once they were reasonably close.
So this is a very silly situation and it breaks the basic verisimilitude of the game badly.

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite up to speed on the new situation you report above. Your bounding squads bounded into the enemy? I think it's important to realize that it was a design choice on our part to leave planning and reactions in the player's hands for the player's side. Normally, if your bound had worked properly one squad would have been ready to do covering fire on any enemy that showed up. Then in the reaction phase you could tell both your squads to stop moving and target the enemy.

It would be relatively easy for us to have the AI automate these choices and take them away from the player, but we felt the game was more fun with the player making these decisions.

Note that the firepower ratings for 0-30m assume hand to hand combat, grenades, etc. which is why they are generally pretty high. We do not have a melee/close combat animation though, so they animate as if they are firing. This is an area I would definitely like to improve in the next release as far as how it's displayed.

Regards,

- Erik

[Krasny]

I think it's important to realize that it was a design choice on our part to leave planning and reactions in the player's hands for the player's side. Normally, if your bound had worked properly one squad would have been ready to do covering fire on any enemy that showed up. Then in the reaction phase you could tell both your squads to stop moving and target the enemy.

If it were a real time game it could be a valid design decision. Since the player can only issue orders once per 40 seconds of game time, it makes for silly situations for one's units doing silly things like moving through an enemy squad, or moving whilst the enemy is firing at you nearby.

It would be relatively easy for us to have the AI automate these choices and take them away from the player, but we felt the game was more fun with the player making these decisions.

Automating AI during the 40 second turn is the only way of avoiding silly situations like those listed above. Player skill does not come into it since the player is merely a spectator.

This isn't rocket science, Combat Mission did it over five years ago.

People simply aren't going to play a game where units behave like zombies.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Krasny
1. Even a half arsed tactical AI squad should have stopped moving and started shooting at the enemy squad once it had got near.
2. Melee combat should have comenced once they were reasonably close.
So this is a very silly situation and it breaks the basic verisimilitude of the game badly.

But how would units ever overrun anyone?
This has to be really thought through or else other silly things could happen.

One small team or a skirmish line of teams could be thrown out to hold up a multitude, another Thermopylae.

[Krasny]

What the AI did would depend on the orders issued.

If the order was 'Charge!' the squad should close to close combat and engage in melee.

If the order was 'Advance' the the squad should seek cover and return fire.

If the order was 'Scout' then the squad should withdraw from contact.

Again to quote myself, it's not rocket science.

But apparently it's WAD.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Krasny
If it were a real time game it could be a valid design decision. Since the player can only issue orders once per 40 seconds of game time, it makes for silly situations for one's units doing silly things like moving through an enemy squad, or moving whilst the enemy is firing at you nearby.

Our thinking was that infantry in particular doesn't normally move very far in 40 seconds, so the player would generally be planning for close range combat well before it happened.

Automating AI during the 40 second turn is the only way of avoiding silly situations like those listed above. Player skill does not come into it since the player is merely a spectator.
This isn't rocket science, Combat Mission did it over five years ago.
People simply aren't going to play a game where units behave like zombies.

I think we're talking past each other a bit. Your infantry can normally spot other infantry, even in cover, from farther away than they can move in a single 40 second phase. Part of Panzer Command's design choice is that at the start of every 80 second full turn, you have to plan your platoon orders for the next 80 seconds (not a very long time) and then get one chance 40 second in to react if things go differently from what you planned.

I guess I don't see the reason why we should take control away from you and have your unit do something that could have been planned and decided by you. I agree in the case of the AI's units, but I don't see that TacAI is really the answer as it limits player choice. When you play a board wargame, your units don't do things automatically nor does your alter ego in a FPS shoot something if you don't aim and pull the trigger.

I think it may be helpful if you give us some more details on the exact case you ran into. It maybe that we've missed something in our design decision that created a very annoying and unrealistic "corner case" that you found. I'm saying that our general design choice makes sense to me, but I certainly accept that it may need some tweaking or fine-tuning to work as well as users expect in all cases.

Can you give us some more detail on this or perhaps post or e-mail a save file that shows what happened? I don't want players to be frustrated, but I'd like to be sure I really understand and see what's going on here since the info above is somewhat difficult to really understand without seeing what all the units were doing.

Regards,

- Erik

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Krasny
If the order was 'Charge!' the squad should close to close combat and engage in melee.

Well, there's no "Charge" order. There is a "Rush" order and if you plot that to stop right in front of the enemy positions, then your units when done rushing will automatically switch to Defend orders and start fighting.

If the order was 'Advance' the the squad should seek cover and return fire.

Well, Advance means they are moving but moving slowly and firing as they go. That's exactly what happens in the game and it definitely provides more cover than "Rush".

Bound is a mix, with some squads moving at normal speed and not firing and others taking cover and firing while the first half moves.

If the order was 'Scout' then the squad should withdraw from contact.

There is no "Scout" order, but there is a Withdraw order that's available every phase. I guess I'm not clear on why we need new orders instead of using the existing ones?

Again to quote myself, it's not rocket science.
But apparently it's WAD.

I think there's a basic misunderstanding here. If we wanted to, we could implement CM's full TacAI and have all units react on their own as they do in CM. Instead, we wanted to put more control in the player's hands. To me this is a design choice that makes sense, I accept that it does not seem to be your favorite, but I hope you at least understand how it changes the player's interaction with the game and why the CM method isn't the only way this can be done.

Regards,

- Erik

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Krasny
If the order was 'Charge!' the squad should close to close combat and engage in melee.
If the order was 'Advance' the the squad should seek cover and return fire.
If the order was 'Scout' then the squad should withdraw from contact.
Again to quote myself, it's not rocket science.
But apparently it's WAD.

Advance means go foward and return fire to me. Seek cover would be a different type order.

Scout the way you describe seems a gamey order to me. Combining too much intelligence with a reaction to it. If it just meant “hold up your advance up on sighting any enemy” it would be more like an actual order given troops. But not platoons of troops in any case.

One thing that could be added is a type of rush or advance. Rush to (Contact) or rush through. That might be a choice. There are times when you don't want to stop like a deer in the headlights. When running across a field or a street to get to safety.

Once the enemy was contacted the platoon leader would decide what next to do. Any order not quickly given by hand, flag or by a few words just seems too complicated to be realistic. In fact you don’t want each command to sound like rocket science to the squadies.