Improvement proposal I - OP fire draining

[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

[Pepper]

DRG said:
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 that before

Don

This is great news! If it works it may put an end to a very annoying exploit. Of course, on the other hand, it may simply birth new forms of exploits to take advantage of an imperfect AI .... but hey - thats always a risk, right?

[narwan]

Hi, good news indeed from Don cáuse I was going to reply with something similar myself. Artur, sofar you've been focusing on categorising the targets, but wouldn't it be easier to categorize the units doing the OP fire?
What I'm thinking is adding a variable determining the order in which units take their fire. If a jeep appears, the mg's shoud open fire first. If they miss, then the IFV's open fire, if the jeep still lives the tanks open up, if the jeep still lives the AT units open fire. Note that this is all in one OP fire instant. In other words the first hex the jeep is targeted. If the jeep still lives to enter a second hex the whole cycle starts anew.
There would be no addition to the user interface, the player has no extra selection to do. What would be needed is mechanism to determine the order in which units of certain categories open fire at certain types of targets. That could be something like combining both the ratio and the absolute difference between HE kill capacity and AP kill capacity of a unit. The bigger the difference in favor of HE, the higher on the fire priority list vs unarmored targets (and lower vs armored targets), the bigger the difference in favor of AP the lower on the list vs unarmored targets (and higher vs armored targets). Something like that.
You could also add special restrictions on dedicated units like AT and AA (preventing SP ATGM's from firing with mg's on a jeep and wasting their one shot with the missiles for example). You could also make it depended on a unit skill roll to see if they keep their proper place in the firing order.

I'm just 'brainfarting' here btw, spewing ideas that may or may not be of use.

Narwan

[Artur]

DRG said:
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

Don,

Well every improvement is welcome. There is a big problem with OP fire automatization though. Let me give an example.
Is it ok to fire with a MG at a jeep? Most liekly you say yes, but there are cases when you have a few MGs and you would rather keep them to fitre at the advancing infantry and let the ATRs aor bazookas deal with it. And the story goes on there are several examples written in this thread.

It always and always depends on the current situation which can only be judged by the player, or if we are talking about AI than the scenario designer. (Or maybe there can be made some automated target type choices if needed for a generated battle or campaign.)

A picture is worth a thousand words I edited the unit info screen picture from the manual. There are 6 groups
Armor (Tanks maybe IFVs)
Light Armor (APCS ACs maybe IFVs)
Soft vehicles
Infantry
Guns (ATG AA)
Air

You can select what to shoot at like you select the weapons. By default all are selected and the unit will fire at everything. If something is excluded then the units of thet type will not be fired at.

Artur.

[Cameronius]

I agree that the op-fire phase needs some improvement, like tasking AA units only to fire at air targets and MBTs and ATGMS only on armoured targets. However a certain amount of unpredictabity is realistic. The Lt. Colonel in command of the combat team is not going to be standing behind every MMG and Rifle Squad directing their fire. Squadies will shoot at what they perceive to be the biggest threat. I say leave the micro-managing of fire for your turn.