Unexpected behavior in Final Push

[WABAC]

I have run this turn five times. Each time the M901 unit gets an SOP standoff displacement order. And each time the unit dashes downhill towards the Soviets, and ends up shot to pieces in hex 1725. I had hoped that the unit would back up into the woods on the same level behind it.

The second peculiarity is that the Cobra unit will arrive to hex 1526, and stop firing with typically 83% of ammunition still available. Seems like the unit should have excellent visibility to multiple targets.

Four out of five times that I ran the scenario, the Soviets dedicated ADA did not fire at the helos, although other units did. Perhaps they can't fire when moving? They finally nailed the unit the fifth time around.

20221211104111_FCSS.png (275.44 KiB) Viewed 1490 times

This should be the right game save:

Saved.zip

(792.68 KiB) Downloaded 16 times

[TarkError]

I've had problems with helicopters if their SOP resupply threshold remains at the default 25%. Did the Cobras expend all of their rockets or not? How many TOWs remaining?

[WABAC]

I've had problems with helicopters if their SOP resupply threshold remains at the default 25%. Did the Cobras expend all of their rockets or not? How many TOWs remaining?

Excellent question. Thanks.

Fired all the TOWs. Not firing any of the rockets despite available soft targets like dismounted infantry. SOP is designer's default.

BTW. The M901 did the same mad dash on this sixth run through of the turn.

edited for spelling

[byzantine1990]

I've had problems with helicopters if their SOP resupply threshold remains at the default 25%. Did the Cobras expend all of their rockets or not? How many TOWs remaining?

Excellent qustion. Thanks.

Fired all the TOWs. Not firing any of the rockets despite available soft targets like dismounted infantry. SOP is designer's default.

BTW. The M901 did the same mad dash on this sixth run through of the turn.

I've had the same issue with helicopters. There will be a platoon of tanks sitting there, spotted , 1-2 hexes away. Full ammo and the helicopters do nothing but get shot by the tanks.

[cbelva]

WABAC, can you post your saved game so that we can look at it. We want to see all examples of bad behavior. The saved game is gold to us. We really can't tell anything without out. Thanks

[WABAC]

WABAC, can you post your saved game so that we can look at it. We want to see all examples of bad behavior. The saved game is gold to us. We really can't tell anything without out. Thanks

It should be there at the bottom of the OP.

[CapnDarwin]

It is. Thanks. We will work on the scooting/standoff logic over the next several weeks. So look for improvements in future updates.

[WABAC]

It is. Thanks. We will work on the scooting/standoff logic over the next several weeks. So look for improvements in future updates.

You guys are the best.

Is it my imagination that in Red Storm there was a bias for the unit to move towards the HQ? Heck. Maybe it was TOAW. So long ago.

And helos not firing rockets, is that due to a lack of suitable targets?

[CapnDarwin]

As for rockets, yes. Depending on the type, HE or AT, they need a target they can affect.

[cbelva]

@WABAC, This post got some lively discussion at OTS headquarters . The bottom line is that the logic that the program used in selecting the hex to scoot too was correct, however, the logic it used to get there was not. Pathing logic, especially for scooting/relocating is something we will need to work on going forward.

That being said, this could have been avoided by a changing the default SOP. The default SOP was set to Tactical Initiative: Slight, Acceptable Losses: Minimal, Preferred Stand-off Range: 5, Relocate When: After receiving any fire. If the default standoff was set to 2 or 3, it would not have any reason to relocate. When the unit went to rearm, its SOP with to the default.

However, please forward any other issues such as this (especially illogical scooting pathing) that you find.

[WABAC]

@WABAC, This post got some lively discussion at OTS headquarters . The bottom line is that the logic that the program used in selecting the hex to scoot too was correct, however, the logic it used to get there was not. Pathing logic, especially for scooting/relocating is something we will need to work on going forward.

That being said, this could have been avoided by a changing the default SOP. The default SOP was set to Tactical Initiative: Slight, Acceptable Losses: Minimal, Preferred Stand-off Range: 5, Relocate When: After receiving any fire. If the default standoff was set to 2 or 3, it would not have any reason to relocate. When the unit went to rearm, its SOP with to the default.

However, please forward any other issues such as this (especially illogical scooting pathing) that you find.

Nice to hear I haven't completely lost my touch from my working days.

My thinking with a light skinned vehicle, like the M901, in that visibility situation is that it would run out of ammo about the time the OPFOR got that close. At that distance the chances of spotting, and incoming fire, becomes greater. So I don't want the unit resupplying on the visible crest.

The message popups I saw were that the movement was due to relocation due to stand off, and not due to running out of ammo. So far, so good according to my plan. If the unit had backed out of visibility, then I would have given the order to rest and resupply. And after that, it could have been redeployed with a different standoff tolerance depending on the situation.

I haven't read the documentation on SOP. Is it out yet? Absent that education, my mind drifts to whether tactical initiative controls whether a unit backs out of sight into the woods, or charges headlong into the enemy with empty chambers and naught but a saber, and a dagger in its teeth.

[WABAC]

I'm wondering if I can expect any changes around this behavior in the next patch?

[WildCatNL]

I'm wondering if I can expect any changes around this behavior in the next patch?

Affirmative. We analyzed relocating / stand-off behavior and corresponding problem reports, and improved how unit relocate.

Looking forward to your feedback,

William

[WABAC]

I'm wondering if I can expect any changes around this behavior in the next patch?

Affirmative. We analyzed relocating / stand-off behavior and corresponding problem reports, and improved how unit relocate.

Looking forward to your feedback,

William

You guys are the best.

[WABAC]

So far, so good. Not quite sure why it chose to go way over there. But I can edit the waypoint to drop one hex back and resupply. So that's good.

20230201165907_fccs.png (331.24 KiB) Viewed 1077 times

[WABAC]

Here we see a unit bugging out from the smoke screen into the open during a long turn resolution. So there was no chance for the user to correct the choice.

Saved game attached.

[WildCatNL]

WABAC, thanks for the examples:

The first one (the A Final Push scenario):
The M901 moving further than you expected. I'm speculating, but the M901 might have seen hostiles to the east (outside of your screen grab) and trying to achieve stand-off with these. It takes into account spotted hostiles and recently lost hostile contacts.

The second one (Abrams tank platoon):
The screen grab shows the situation after the withdrawal, so not the necessarily the situation earlier when the Abrams platoon made the decision to draw back this way. But even now, withdrawing via the lower valley fully hides/protects the Abrams from any known threats. It probably preferred using the valley over withdrawing south through the forest, vineyard and town because that second option would bring it to the destination later.

William

[WABAC]

WABAC, thanks for the examples:

The first one (the A Final Push scenario):
The M901 moving further than you expected. I'm speculating, but the M901 might have seen hostiles to the east (outside of your screen grab) and trying to achieve stand-off with these. It takes into account spotted hostiles and recently lost hostile contacts.

The second one (Abrams tank platoon):
The screen grab shows the situation after the withdrawal, so not the necessarily the situation earlier when the Abrams platoon made the decision to draw back this way. But even now, withdrawing via the lower valley fully hides/protects the Abrams from any known threats. It probably preferred using the valley over withdrawing south through the forest, vineyard and town because that second option would bring it to the destination later.

William

Thanks for the insight William. I think if I had a better handle on what is trying to be achieved I might provide better feedback.

Your first case makes sense if the unit is trying to maintain standoff. Except that at the end of the move the unit will then be four hexes away from the Soviet cavalry unity.

I don't understand what is driving the decision in the second case where all the unit has to do is back one hex out of sight. I think it is set to move after taking losses.

I'll be sure to provide bigger screenshots in the future.

[WABAC]

This is a super scoot from Cross Checking scenario. Once the mortar unit decided to take off for a trip around and through the near victory hex I ordered the other units to move in support.

20230214051839_fccs.png (2.1 MiB) Viewed 969 times

[WildCatNL]

Hi, thanks for the example. That's a long route for a two hex scoot from 6720.

If we ignore the duration/expected length of the move, the path chosen is not incorrect given the situation:
- the whole path is out of sight of all of the known hostiles (and presumably recently lost contacts)
- the whole path is under friendly influence (friendly forces having line-of-sight and being able to project more fire in to those locations than known and recently lost contacts)
- the alternative is to move through the forest 6720-6620-6521, but 6620 is under hostile observation.

Still, it feels like a trade-off gone wrong.

William