Improvement proposal I - OP fire draining

[Artur]

narwan said:
You make the same mistake in your posts above that I pointed out above. For one, tanks will want to take care of APC's BEFORE they unload their infantry. The statement of 'machine guns will take care of unloading infantry' is gaming the system (or trying to) not to mention the fact that mg's will often fail to do any damage to unloading infantry.

Yes, that is true. You have to try to destroy the infantry while they are in APCs. Now if they get close they are destroyed by the M136s. If they uload the infantry they are pinned by the MGs to an extrent that they will not move.
Setting to fire on a specific unit always depends on the situation. You have to have good recon anyway. If the majority of the force is APCs with infantry then you allow your tanks to fire at everything while you give your ATGMs to fire at the tanks if you have a few. If the big majority is tanks you set them to attack tanks etc.

narwan said:
Secondly your assumption that infantry can't hurt tanks at 2000m range is also 'gaming the system'. In the game you can see the difference between a squad and an atgm team. In real life the tankers would just see soldiers in the woods line. They can't know, or at least can't be sure, that they don't carry atgm's. If they're wrong that could be a very costly mistake. Suppressing them with (gun)fire untill the arty arrives would be the prudent thing, which the game mimics. And there are of course squads who actually do have atgm's with a 2000m range as part of their weapons load.

Well you have a point here, the game works like this you know who is on the other side. Of course the commandes have some effective googles . You have a point here if we stick to realism .

narwan said:
How will you differentiate between those and others (code wise)? Or between a dragon team (range 1000m) and a TOW team (range over 3000m)? Will tanks use OP fire against only the second at 2000m range? Or neither? Or both?
How about a TOW II team in overwatch and a Ferret approaches. Using the TOW will be a huge overkill, but if the Ferret is allowed to close, it could be deadly to the TOW team. How will you deal with that (code wise)?

Very good question.
They can use the unit classes grouped into a few groups like: Heavy/medium armor, Light armor&APCs and armoured cars, infantry like normal infantyr squads + AT squads, light vehicles, guns, air, AND all types is still an option. Maybe AT inf would be a different group.

Regarding the ferret it is advised tio have an inf squad near the ATGM, or an RPG squad. They have some short range AT weapons to deal with the Ferret. And if only the Ferret approaches the ATGM squad will not give away it's position for a cheap armoured car .

narwan said:

You suggest a certain ideal situation in which your suggestions would work and seem like an improvement. But turn it around, make it much less suitable and see if it still works. Delete the mg's or M136's. How will your suggestions effect the outcome then? What additional work would it entail to get an optimal solution then? Now delete both, what would be needed then. Now delete the tanks and replace them with heavy SP-ATGM's. How would it work then, etc, etc.

You get the point here. This improvement will help those who apply combined arms. If one a capability of a force is gone (like you proposed delete the MGs or the M386s ) then of course you have to shoot with the remaining forces at everything. This feature is not to be used in every situation of course. But it really gives an edge to a player who applies combined arms and his force has every different capability needed for the mission. That is what it is all about!!! Of course there are many cases when the current way of operating is the best solution. But IMO there are also a lot of cases where this improvement could help a LOT and could disable a lot of gamey tactics.

narwan said:
So between the assumption of unrealistic knowledge on the part of the units in overwatch and the complications your suggestions bring along (with all the possibilities of players finding ways to exploit those) I don't see them being a significant improvement, at least not yet. And since I don't consider the OP fire draining issue broken I'd prefer it as is.

I accept your opinion, it looks like we can't convince each other. Such is life .

For the rest I suggest to try the scenarios above. I'm just like that .

Artur.

[narwan]

The point is that as a player you have no on the spot control over the OP fire as it is resolved (assuming we're talking about PBEM suitability here). Which means that whatever system you come up with to resolve this has to carried out and decided upon by the AI, and NOT by the player.
That brings a whole additional set of questions into the equation. For example, when are the different types of units mutually supporting? For a player it may be easy to see and decide upon but try translating that into code. I'll give you a few examples:
The tanks are in position but the mg's and light AT units are still moving up (1 hex away from final position). How is the AI to know that these close by units are not in position yet? The different units will not occupy the same hexes so they'll have different fields of fire. What happens if only some units can see the potential target?
If you elect to use a system in which you set these parameters as a player during your turn imagine this:
at the end of your turn the artillery and/or air strikes neutralise one of your elements (for example all light AT) either by suppression, smoke or outright kills. Now the tanks are the only units with AT capability but they won't fire since you set them for heavy opponents only.
The complications go on and on. In my view to the point that the disadvantages, both in-game and coding wise outstrip the potential benefits of changes by a wide margin.

Another problem, you suggest dividing units into categories but how do you distinguish? A T34/85 will be a MBT in some circumstances (depending on year and/or nations involved) and a bulky light tank in others (in relation to other available units). When does it stop being an MBT and become a light tank? What are the parameters? Repeat for scores of others units in many different year-nations set-ups. Imagine having to keep track of it as a player.
If you don't distinguish, in other words, a T34/85 remains an MBT throughout the whole array of years and nations available in the game, you could end up with Abrams that do fire at a T34 but not at a bmp2, or centauro, or amx10rc.

As an alternative solution, go outside the code. Determine and define the exact procedures you find questionable and/or gamey. Let your opponent know and agree not to use these procedures. It won't solve all your issues with Op fire but will adress some of them.

Narwan

[Artur]

narwan said:
The point is that as a player you have no on the spot control over the OP fire as it is resolved (assuming we're talking about PBEM suitability here). Which means that whatever system you come up with to resolve this has to carried out and decided upon by the AI, and NOT by the player.

Yes actually it IS pretty good that the AI makes some decidions. But of course you can give more specific guidance. Imagine an inf company combat group with a section of ATGs and a platoon of ATRs, infantry with bazookas, and a section of Jacksons. You are the captain in charge. You cannnot tell each unit to fire on a specific unit coming against you during the battle. But you can give orders like: "We have to defend this area. Platoon x defends against everything at close range of 2 hexes at position alpha. Platoon y,z defends in other places range also set to 2 and engages everything but does not reveal themselves unless they are ar close range.
The MGs fire at long range but only at inf. The ATRs fire only at light armor at close range as well. They do not revele themselves to heavy armor or infantry.
The Jacksons and the ATGs stay a little behind and engage only MBTs. You may want to assign one ATG to the lights and have 3 guns for the heavies. In real life you can brief your platoon/section leaders about this before the battle or from time to time on radio. Now you can set ranges to the units. Besides that you will be able to set a unit type group as well. That is all.

narwan said:
That brings a whole additional set of questions into the equation. For example, when are the different types of units mutually supporting? For a player it may be easy to see and decide upon but try translating that into code. I'll give you a few examples:
The tanks are in position but the mg's and light AT units are still moving up (1 hex away from final position). How is the AI to know that these close by units are not in position yet? The different units will not occupy the same hexes so they'll have different fields of fire. What happens if only some units can see the potential target?
If you elect to use a system in which you set these parameters as a player during your turn imagine this:
at the end of your turn the artillery and/or air strikes neutralise one of your elements (for example all light AT) either by suppression, smoke or outright kills. Now the tanks are the only units with AT capability but they won't fire since you set them for heavy opponents only.
The complications go on and on. In my view to the point that the disadvantages, both in-game and coding wise outstrip the potential benefits of changes by a wide margin.

This would work very much simpler than you think. Now a unit fires if
1.has just spotted a unit or a unit within LOS is moving
2.the unit is within allowed range
With this improvement it will have a 3rd criteria that the spotted unit in range belongs to the unit type you set. If you set to fire on everything as in some cases is the best solution it will fire of course.
That is all. jut one criteria more.

Now if an air strike will neutralize one capability of your combat group then you are in trouble. You will set the target types when you get the turn next time.

If you are smoked you reset target types in the next turn. Of course you also may want to move to a better position etc.

If the running up support units can see forward you set thenm the target type. MGs can shoot right away. If they are not within LOS enough and the tank is alone for a turn you will set to fire at everything of course.

narwan said:
Another problem, you suggest dividing units into categories but how do you distinguish? A T34/85 will be a MBT in some circumstances (depending on year and/or nations involved) and a bulky light tank in others (in relation to other available units). When does it stop being an MBT and become a light tank? What are the parameters? Repeat for scores of others units in many different year-nations set-ups. Imagine having to keep track of it as a player.
If you don't distinguish, in other words, a T34/85 remains an MBT throughout the whole array of years and nations available in the game, you could end up with Abrams that do fire at a T34 but not at a bmp2, or centauro, or amx10rc.

That is a true problem. If it is classified as MBT throughout the timeline I have no proposal to it. I also think this should be kept simple. Remember it is only one more OP fire constraint that is all.

narwan said:
As an alternative solution, go outside the code. Determine and define the exact procedures you find questionable and/or gamey. Let your opponent know and agree not to use these procedures. It won't solve all your issues with Op fire but will adress some of them.

Narwan

True, you always have to make the rules clear. BUT usually house rules are made to somehow handle the shortcomings and errors of a gaming system. and these shortcomings have to be fixed within the code then you do not need house rules.

Artur.

[narwan]

How many categories would that take? I suspect a lot more than you think or you'd end up with units not firing at potential threats to themselves. A jeep with an mg is not a threat to a tank, one with a RR is. So you'd have to distinguish between those. A BMP2 on the move (no atgm shot) isn't a threat to a M60 but a moving BMP1 is (73mm gun). But if you set it to fire at APC's, you'll also fire at BTR-152's. So you'll have to distinguish between types of APC's. Etc.

How would you categorize a centauro? The upgraded version has ERA which would protect it from most missiles fired at it so you'd want to fire at it with tanks, but the basic version lacks ERA so would be more a target for light antitank weapons and HEAT weapons. So you might have to distinguish between types of the same vehicle.

Of course you can keep it very simple and use broad categories, accepting that it will lead to some 'problems'. The question then is whether the new situation is less prone to exploitation by players and IF so (which I very much doubt personally) is the improvement worth the amount of work involved (which will still be huge)?

[Artur]

narwan said:
How many categories would that take? I suspect a lot more than you think or you'd end up with units not firing at potential threats to themselves. A jeep with an mg is not a threat to a tank, one with a RR is. So you'd have to distinguish between those. A BMP2 on the move (no atgm shot) isn't a threat to a M60 but a moving BMP1 is (73mm gun). But if you set it to fire at APC's, you'll also fire at BTR-152's. So you'll have to distinguish between types of APC's. Etc.

How would you categorize a centauro? The upgraded version has ERA which would protect it from most missiles fired at it so you'd want to fire at it with tanks, but the basic version lacks ERA so would be more a target for light antitank weapons and HEAT weapons. So you might have to distinguish between types of the same vehicle.

Of course you can keep it very simple and use broad categories, accepting that it will lead to some 'problems'. The question then is whether the new situation is less prone to exploitation by players and IF so (which I very much doubt personally) is the improvement worth the amount of work involved (which will still be huge)?

Wel he categories would be.

1. Armor (the MBTs medium and heavy and including self propelled AT guns)
2. Light armor (light tanks IFVs) Centauros and BMPs here while they pose a great threat they can be taken out by lighter weapons and that is what counts.
3. Armoured vehicles(APC and AC)
4. Soft vehicles (trucks, jeeps)
5. Infantry
6. guns (ATG, AA)
7. air (helos&planes)
8. everything

There could be a broader list
1. Armor (the MBTs medium and heavy and including self propelled AT guns)
2. Light armor (light tanks IFVs, APCs, Armoured cars)
3. Armoured vehicles(APC and AC)
4. Soft vehicles (trucks, jeeps)
5. Infantry
6. AT Infantry (SPATGM and RPG bazooka Schrecks etc)
7. guns (ATG)
8. guns (AA)
9. air (helos&planes)
10. everything

The coded unit calsses would be used. That may cause some annomalies, but I would use this feature if it would be available.

The extent of the work is known only by Don and Andy. If the code would not have been old it would not be a big deal I guess they could confirm that. (I am also a software engineer.) But the code is old and a C code spaghetti is not a nice thing to maintain and modify. I would say it would be still worth it but they know this the best. My only intention is to see how much interest would be for this improvement within the community. I very much believe this would add great value to the game that is why I answer and lobby so intensively .

Artur.

[Artur]

There could aslo be a simplified list

1. Armor. (All tanks +IFvs) (they are too expensive for OP fire draining) Good point on IFVs!
2. Light vehicles (trucks, jeeps, APCs ACs)
3. Infantry and guns
4. air
5. everything.

It has to be one of the 3 lists depending on the implementation cost and what people like the most.

Artur.

[DRG]

We are looking into the issue and are running experiments with some ideas of our own that would let opfire remain automatic but would more efficiently assign opfire based on unit capability. The result, if experiements pan out, will mean game play will not change but when in the opfire phase the units that return fire will be more selective than before

Don