 |
|
Defensive Fire (lack of) - Sigh... - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +--- Thread: Defensive Fire (lack of) - Sigh... (/showthread.php?tid=59417) |
RE: Defensive Fire (lack of) - Sigh... - Mr Grumpy - 07-25-2011 (07-25-2011, 11:34 AM)Marquo Wrote: Where is the Tillercon this year? I believe it is planned to be in the same place as last time (Nashville?), but not until 2012. RE: Defensive Fire (lack of) - Sigh... - raizer - 07-25-2011 alt indirect fire rule should help with those stacks and no set up! RE: Defensive Fire (lack of) - Sigh... - Mr Grumpy - 07-26-2011 (07-25-2011, 11:40 PM)raizer Wrote: alt indirect fire rule should help with those stacks and no set up!No "star wars" stacks in F14 ! Once your opponent has taken 300-500 men off your four battalions stacked in the same hex in three shots you have to quickly unlearn everything you used to do in PzC ! :eek1: Arty really hurts as well........:conf: RE: Defensive Fire (lack of) - Sigh... - Ricky B - 07-26-2011 Can't argue with Foul on that, no massing units until it is time to assault, very realistically. RE: Defensive Fire (lack of) - Sigh... - jonnymacbrown - 07-27-2011 (07-26-2011, 06:55 AM)Ricky B Wrote: Can't argue with Foul on that, no massing units until it is time to assault, very realistically. Might as well get my 2 cents in: I cannot understand why it is not programmed that direct fire weapons should always fire at the adjacent hex? It is maddening in F 14 to see MG sections and direct fire arty shooting at an officer miles away while 2000 angry infantry are in the adjacent hex. Luckily I am playing against opponents who don't "game" this; but it's pretty easy to divert 75mm and 77mm direct fire guns to fire at useless targets while the enemy is in close. Still: it is normal to have a preliminary barrage and, damn it, 1914 artillery batteries were not going to engage in counter-battery fire with a few 77's four miles away when 2000 men are in sight and fixing bayonets to charge. I know we've been over this and I'm not expecting a reply; just venting. :conf: RE: Defensive Fire (lack of) - Sigh... - Glenn Saunders - 07-28-2011 (07-24-2011, 01:26 PM)Marquo Wrote: Why can't the game engine be programmed to fire on attackers just like I would if using MDF? There are lot of reasons and I won't go into them here. That said, like you I too would assume you would get a shot off at least. Now if you care to set up a small test scn which mirrors this exact same situation that you are looking at - your STACK of 45 tanks with X# of units in a hex of a given type and a same or similar stack of enemy units (type size ect) which moves along a certain path near your stack then I can promise you it will be looked at. I could try and setup something for you but I would be guessing at many of the variables. If the game engine doesn't get a shot off or If the game engine fails say 8 of of 10 tries than who knows, it might be a AI flaw. And Flaws once defined are fixed. Glenn RE: Defensive Fire (lack of) - Sigh... - jonnymacbrown - 07-28-2011 (07-28-2011, 03:30 AM)Glenn Saunders Wrote:(07-24-2011, 01:26 PM)Marquo Wrote: Why can't the game engine be programmed to fire on attackers just like I would if using MDF? Well gee why not tell us a few? Not trying to be antagonistic, just wondering. jonny :conf: RE: Defensive Fire (lack of) - Sigh... - Ricky B - 07-28-2011 I already tried listing reasons why MDF can't be programmed into the AI usage of defensive fire, but removed them as the entire post except for one point was ignored. More than happy to post that again, but not if they are ignored. I guess to sum it up, however, the AI can't fire similar to MDF in a normal PBEM game as it requires moving, then defensive fire, to replicate MDF firing - and that is already available, with AI firing the MDF, by using phased play. RE: Defensive Fire (lack of) - Sigh... - Volcano Man - 07-28-2011 (07-28-2011, 04:24 AM)jonnymacbrown Wrote:(07-28-2011, 03:30 AM)Glenn Saunders Wrote:(07-24-2011, 01:26 PM)Marquo Wrote: Why can't the game engine be programmed to fire on attackers just like I would if using MDF? Trying to make the AI "smart" in this situation is impossible -- given all the conditions and variables involved in a situation where opportunity fire is finite. The current non-phased mode opportunity fire is actually trying to be intelligent: it does NOT shoot at everything despite the exaggerations. Naturally it is hit or miss, but it is usually pretty good about saving a shot. Some examples: I was moving some field guns around to a higher position the other day and my opponent's field guns, which were 4 hexes or so away mind you, fired on my guns and knocked out one of them. I moved them again and the same result happened. Why restrict such fire? I personally would fire on such a unit in travel mode. Another instance was where I had a stack of two gun units in a single hex, firing on the enemy and, to my amazement, they returned fire and killed two of my guns. Rhetorical question: Why would you restrict such firing when it can be effective at times? However, it is true that sometimes the AI's selection of said fire will make you scratch your head in bewilderment, but I for one would not want to play F14 if the guns and MGs never fired back unless the enemy moved up to assault them. A lot of times the units moving up to fire or assault are disrupted by distant field guns -- it has happened to be quite a bit lately. :( Stopping the assault or depleting it to the point that not so many units can participate as the attacker likes (thereby ending up very bloody for him), is just as important as saving all opportunity fire to use point blank into the enemy. The reason for that is, field guns and MGs often stop assaults on other hexes or in places where the enemy is only forming up to assault. Often times my assaults, going on across the valley for example, are getting harassed by field guns and occasional disruptions are breaking up the attack or the constant fire is usually knocking me into the next fatigue level, which also brings down the quality of the entire assault. This is good. The same can be true in PzC and MC as well. As I already said, my personal view on the matter is that I am fine with current behavior because it goes both ways. Say the enemy saps fire with movement and moves in to assault, you have the ability to do the same thing; it is not one sided. As a matter of fact, arguably the game is more mobile with the current behavior because if the AI's behavior was such that it refrained from firing field guns/MGs until the enemy was point blank, then I seriously doubt there would be any forward progress at all in the places were the units are located. I also do not see why sapping fire is not something that would not occur in real life; on the contrary, it DOES occur in real life. The Army phrase I so often heard "move out and draw fire" comes to mind here. The only way I see a change ever happening here is if there was an optional rule to allow the ACW infinite, albeit reduced strength, opportunity fire with full strength one time fire before getting assaulted. Other than that, nothing will change with non-phased play, we have phased play with ADF on if it really bothers someone. That is all that really can be said on the matter without repeating everyone's same views again and again. RE: Defensive Fire (lack of) - Sigh... - jonnymacbrown - 07-28-2011 (07-28-2011, 07:15 AM)Volcano Man Wrote:(07-28-2011, 04:24 AM)jonnymacbrown Wrote:(07-28-2011, 03:30 AM)Glenn Saunders Wrote:(07-24-2011, 01:26 PM)Marquo Wrote: Why can't the game engine be programmed to fire on attackers just like I would if using MDF? |
){kind=link}