Improvement proposal I - OP fire draining

[Artur]

Man how good it is to read this . I could not agree more .
Thanks Thexder!

Artur.

PS: (It has been said before that jeeps do not drain Op fire but the cheap ACs and APCs do...)

[Mobhack]

That is because the game is set up to ignore unarmed unloaded soft vehicles except at ultra short distance, especially if the potential firer is currently undetected by the enemy. A few hexes further if he is known about.

Put an MG on the soft vehicle - it becomes an item of interest, ditto if loaded with passengers.

That has been in the code for over a year(?) now, so the original trick you could play of "teasing out" opfire with cheap unarmed trucks and jeeps is less valid.

The new more sophisticated opfire filter we are testing now looks promising, as does the more sophisticated AI target alocation in the normal AI phase, when it determines what target of those currently available to a unit is best to shoot at.

Cheers
Andy

[Artur]

Andy,

With all respect if you cannot add an interface for the players to decide I suggest not to change the OP fire mechanism. Simply I cannot see how one can define an algorithm valid for even most of the situations. There are cases when it is appropriate to fire even at an unarmed jeep, and sometimes it is appropriate to fire only at the heavies. It always depends on the situation that is why user interaction would be so important...

Artur.

[Thexder]

Artur, thanks for your kind words

But I wouldn't condemn the upgrades just yet even if they don't include interface for the players. I agree it's quite difficult to come up with an algoritm that applies to most cases but these guys seem to be pros and the fact that they're even considering this and trying new things sounds very promising to me. I've read these topics and found out that these guys are very quick to shoot down any proposed improvements that are either unrealistic or unmanagable within the context of the code. This time they're putting a lot of effort to an aspect of game that is one it's biggest weaknessess and hard to improve. At least I'm happy for their efforts and anxious to see the results.

Let's keep our fingers crossed!
And thank you Artur to for bringing this issue into discussion.

Cheers,
Jukka

[Cameronius]

narwan said:


And as to the level of control, it's because of the detailed, god-like, control you have during your own turn that is is such a great addition to have only limited control during the opponents turn. It offsets the very unrealistic amount of control to some degree and introduces some randomness, uncertainty and murphyism that any game which strives to be a realistic simulation of combat needs. That's my view at least.

Narwan

AGREED!

[Cameronius]

Bulletmagnet said:
Cameronius,

SO what your saying there trooper is that its a good thing the Iraqies didnt have a lot of Bmp's and jeeps at 73East or we would have had alot of dead M1A1's ? Hardly.

Bulletmagnet,
Where did I say this? What is your point here?

[Double_Deuce]

Bulletmagnet said:
SO what your saying there trooper is that its a good thing the Iraqies didnt have a lot of Bmp's and jeeps at 73East or we would have had alot of dead M1A1's ? Hardly.

It is true IF you take it in the context of the game. Virtual soldiers show no fear, and don't hesitate to have their vehicles driven straight into enemy line of fire, even after watching 30 of their comrades destroyed one after the other.

However, what if the iraqi crewman were all suicide bombers and had 100(+) Jeeps/Bmps all loaded with the equivalent of 1000lbs of TNT and rigged to explode on contact with our vehicles? Could have been a different outcome.

[Double_Deuce]

Artur said:
With all respect if you cannot add an interface for the players to decide I suggest not to change the OP fire mechanism. Simply I cannot see how one can define an algorithm valid for even most of the situations. There are cases when it is appropriate to fire even at an unarmed jeep, and sometimes it is appropriate to fire only at the heavies. It always depends on the situation that is why user interaction would be so important...

A user inferface would be ideal but I think the majority would not use it (myself included). I would support any enhancement that refines this aspect of the game so long as its not gonna add code that will cause other issues and degrade another part of the game. I just don't wanna see a WinSPMBT 8.3, 5 years down the road, with 3 different Mods and changes still being made. We'll end up with several versions and players getting turned off from Pbem due to the problem of trying to figure out who is playing what version and having to have numerous installs on their PC.

[Bulletmagnet]

Cameronius said:
Artur,
Your efforts and persuasiveness are admirable, however I think that the kind of control over opfire you are advocating simply does not exsist in a real battlefeild situation. Even a tank platoon commander has a limited number of decisions that he can make in the span of two minutes. He most likely cannot use the company radio net freely because of radio discipline proceedures. If he can, he still has his tank to command and a different line of sight from the rest of the platoon. If a tank platoon commander has some chance of exercising this control, the company commander and the combat team commander have none. What about units that are out of contact? And MG teams and AT teams that don't even have a radio? How can they get orders to change target priority? How can the combat team commander know that the AT teams are smoke blind when all he is hearing on the net is contacts from tanks. From my experience a typical combat team only has two radio nets. One for the artillery and one for everyone else. In a Canadian combat team under contact the armour units dominate the net and other units can't get a word in edgewise. I assume other countries are the same. Modern burst transmitters can send more messages across the same net in less time but must still be received and understood. Two minutes is not enough time for the CO to make all of these decisions. In reality any commander trains his troops as best he can, lays down standard operating proceedures and goes into battle relying on his troops training and common sense, making only crucial decisions at key times hoping that they filter down in time to make a difference.
Another interesting aspect of this topic is how training and experience will effect a units opfiring. An inexperienced unit can be likely to fire at anything that moves or not fire at anything at all. A more experienced unit will be more selective about their targets but may opt to ignore an order from over the radio bc they know their CO does not have eyes on target and they believe the order to be wrong. I'd rather be alive and court marshalled than buried with the VC.
I for one think that only a small change is required or even none at all.

Uh, its a M1 there are no inexperienced commanders, zat least anymore..
you seem to be implying that op draing is ok because of radio net problems. It dosnt take a rocket scientist to look through the scope and see a jeep and and t72 and figure out which is more dangerous...
I think you are on to something though which is that experience should equal smarter target aquistion I can see a green undertrained guy blowing his proverbial load at the first thing he sees but not someone fully trained and or having battle experience.

[pdoktar]

Maybe true realism is achieved only under real conditions..

It´s a simulation, and could be considered as kind of combat chess, with added features, and a god-eye.

But I agree with the op-fire draining in principle (and practise).