AI Maximum Defensive Fire Option ?

[Krak]

It appears to be a common view held by experienced players that the attacker has the advantage while using the default method of play (that is computer controlled defensive fire). I would like to propose that consideration be made to strengthen the defensive fire response of the AI. Mostly defending stacks do not fire all their allowable shots. Its frustrating to see enemy stacks moving up to defenders and the defenders not firing all their shots or even worse not firing at all. All need be done to redress this imbalance is for the AI to fire all possible shots at adjacent attackers once the attacker hits the end phase button, if you like another AI phase is added where the AI concludes all its possible defensive fire shots. What I propose already occurs in the manual method of play as any human controlled defensive fire will fire of all his possible shots at the attacker, why not have the AI do this in the default method? It is a contradiction between the two methods of play as it stands. I think having the AI fire all eligible defensive shots would be a significant improvement over the current default sequence. It would certainly make the defence stronger and make attacking a more risky affair than it is now.

Glenn if this proposal were to gain support how difficult would it be to incorporate? Perhaps as an optional rule if some feel that it is not warranted e.g. Maximum AI Defensive Fire Option. Or a check box controlled by each player if his units are trying to conserve ammo.

What do you guys think?

[TET2]

I like the concept.

Although I am not aware of the priority sequence units go through when conducting defensive fire, I would hope that there would be some sort of a programming protocol in which armor and anti-tank weapons would target hard targets first (when possible which also represents the greatest hard attack factor) and soft targets attacking soft, and so on.

What say you Glenn, is this sort of change possible?

Tobias

[Dog Soldier]

I figure the ground commanders within the units determine when to fire. Captains, lieutenants, NCOs. A very mixed bag after contact and casualties. I would think as some would bang away while others could be paralyzed.

The program seems to take into account the difference in morale and fatigue when determining defensive fire. A morale units approached by C or D morale units will fire more defensive shots than if the roles were reversed. Some units will wait until the range is close, others will fire at long range. The units are in contact, but not necessarily centered in the hexes. The game engine simulates this aspect very well!

I would again attribute this to the unit leadership which in an operational game we can not and should not control. Some commanders, in A morale units will approach the defenders' positions in such a skillful way using the terrain in the hex to mask their approach and not offer the enemy any chance to fire on them effectively. The defenders are not asleep!
Unit fatigue also has an obvious effect on whether a unit will be able to direct its' fire effectively from a defensive position.
Combine morale and fatigue at different levels and a pattern will emerge. though do not count on the pattern always being there! The randomness of combat in the PzC/MC games helps reflect those odd situations that defy logic and win medals.

Then there are cases where I would prefer my units keep their powder dry and not fire. Take the case of a unit which just crossed a river by engineer ferry. I may wish to use them to assault the next turn. If they defensive maximum fire they could easily be low ammo, a big loss in combat potential, especially if the unit has an assault factor much larger than their direct soft fire. That is not an uncommon ratio in some units throughout the series. Another easy example is when a unit gets surrounded in the enmy turn it might have a better chance to break out in the friendly turn if it can assault without a low ammo result from DF.

Bottom line - I do not disagree with you guys considering the "game mechanism" as a game for your request for all DF to be shot every turn.
But I prefer the realism side of the game in this case, so the fact we can not get what we want from our units in terms of DF, is ok with me in the operational sense.

Dog Soldier

[Krak]

I agree with your ascertions. But I think it would be a nice option for those who desire it, especially to balance up a scenario ala Normandy or Kursk. I think in Kursk with this kind of option we would see the Germans take many more casualties in line with historical losses.

My pet peeve I guess is watching key positions fall because the defenders sit there and don't shoot back while they get the hit parade coming past and then get assaulted and pushed out way to easy for hardly any loss on the attacker. It just seems to happen a bit to often.

I cut my teeth in PzC with the manual method of play. With the move/defensive fire/offensive fire/assault sequence the defence becomes much more potent. Guess its just what one is used to.

[Volcano Man]

Another idea could be to have a selection in the A/I menu called "Set Defensive Fire Parameters"

This opens a dialog box where the user can set their preference on various things relating to defensive fire. Basically you would set the parameters to match how you would conduct your defensive fire if you were play phased play.

The dialog box could have a slider for:

Volume of fire
MIN -----------|----------- MAX
(where MIN is about half as much as they do already, the middle default is the standard amount there is now, and MAX is all units that can fire will fire when the opponent presses end turn)

Trigger point
MIN -----------|----------- MAX
(where MIN has all units wait until the enemy is adjacent to return fire, middle is default current behavior -- seemingly random, MAX is all units open fire at maximum range)

Concentrate direct fire
Soft Targets -----------|----------- Hard Targets
(where ST influences all units to concentrate fire on soft targets, middle is default current behavior -- seemingly random, HT influences all units to concentrate fire on hard targets)

Concentrate indirect fire
Soft Targets -----------|----------- Hard Targets
(where ST influences all units to concentrate fire on soft targets, middle is default current behavior -- seemingly random, HT influences all units to concentrate fire on hard targets)

On call artillery preference
Assault Defense -----------|----------- Target of Opportunity
(where AD influences all indirect fire to be saved and used only in response to enemy assaults, middle is default current behavior -- seemingly random, ToO influences all indirect fire to be used in response to enemy direct fire attacks)
....

Something like that. I just dropped down some off the top of my head and they may or may not be intelligent selections. The point is, I think it is a good idea to be able to set parameters on defensive fire to meet your tastes. It wouldn't be perfect but it could allow you tailor it as needed and from turn to turn if you wanted.

[Dog Soldier]

I can understand these ideas for the game as a game. I do not see them as doing anything for the simulation side of the series. That was the point of my first post in this thread.

Everyone has their own cup of tea. I think operational commanders did have to deal with units in key positions folding unexpectedly along with the ones who made heroic stands against unbelievable odds holding while their ground. (They must be using blinder grenades!)
I think the simulation by the AI does well in that case.

My pet peeve I guess is watching key positions fall because the defenders sit there and don't shoot back while they get the hit parade coming past and then get assaulted and pushed out way to easy for hardly any loss on the attacker. It just seems to happen a bit to often.

I disagree that this situation happens all too often. I found in my early days with the series, I asked too much of some units. Changing my tactics lead to better results in this situation.

Nothing technically wrong with what is proposed in this thread. It would make for a very different game which is what you seem to want.

Dog Soldier

[James Ward]

I think it's a pretty cool idea. It would give the defender some control over their units without adding gobs of clicks and hours of play time to the game.
On offense your units do exactly what you want them to do. They move where you want, fire where you want and assault where you want so giving the defender the option of firing every shot at someone doesn't seem to out of line.

[Dog Soldier]

A good point James.

The attacker does have far too much control. But that is an issue with all turn based game systems.

VM does have a creative idea. I would think it is a set and forget setting he is proposing. Set it once at the beginning of the scenario. The only down side I can see is the attacker would soon be able to discern the extreme settings and adjust tactics to take advantage of them since they are extreme.

If the controls were set by the defender at the beginning of their turn, then it would be locked in to prevent gamey play. By being able to change the settings every turn or let them ride, the defender could cause the attacker to be a bit off balance not knowing what setting to expect. There would be an illusion of control by the defender. The reason I think the player should set it at the beginning of their turn is to prevent making such a setting due to the outcome of their current move, (no planning required).
This would be a very short lived advantage. I think most players would figure out what the settings are in large or CG scenarios after making a few moves in their turn and adapt.

Personally, I view the potential defensive fire as a factor of how the enemy is setup in the position I want to take. Will soak off attacks be needed to draw fire before the main assault goes in? What is my estimate of the strength of the defense? Will more softening up of the defense be needed?
In some cases multiple assaults work far better than several turns of direct fire. It just depends on the situation.
Things that can be done by the strategic attacking player can also be done in your turn as defender. The best defensive tactics do not rely on how often the AI will shoot.

Dog Soldier

[Volcano Man]

I can understand these ideas for the game as a game. I do not see them as doing anything for the simulation side of the series. That was the point of my first post in this thread.

I see what you are saying but remember this:

Non phased play exists ONLY for the fact that most people do not want to tolerate sending > 1 emails for each turn, which is what phased play does. Non phased play attempts to combine all phases into one single turn to make it more PBEM friendly, it has nothing to do with simulating lack of control at the operational level. The Achilles heel of non phased play has always been that you give up control over defensive fire since it is being conducted on the opponents turn.

That said, giving some manner of control to the user to specify when and how his units should fire during the opponents turn merely attempts to close the gap and at least allow the user to give preferences to how the AI conducts defensive fire in a manner close to which how they would conduct defensive fire during phased play.

The fact remains, currently a user can sap defensive fire using an armored car, or by declaring and canceling assaults that they have no intent on executing. Gaming the game exists regardless of what is done, but giving some manner of control of what happens will at least allow the defender to blame their own defensive fire settings and change them to something else.

VM does have a creative idea. I would think it is a set and forget setting he is proposing. Set it once at the beginning of the scenario. The only down side I can see is the attacker would soon be able to discern the extreme settings and adjust tactics to take advantage of them since they are extreme.

It is NOT a set and forget idea, it is simply an option to specify how and when the AI should fire defensive fire which could be changed at any time during play as the situation changes. You could change the settings a thousand times during one turn but none of them matter until you end your turn, at which point the settings are saved for the opponents turn. It could be set from turn to turn if the enemy player is adapting to it or because the situation changes and you want maximum firepower directed to something. It would basically be exactly the same to an old John Tiller game series, Campaign Series, where the user can specify similar defensive fire parameters (although it had greater control allowing you to specify exact ranges to open fire, which makes sense for a tactical game).

Anyway, most people would leave the settings at default and it should play no different that it already does. It would also, by no means, give "total control" to what the AI does during defensive fire anyway so it really has nothing to do with the rationale that there should be some lack of control for the defense. As a matter of fact, it is illogical to grant total offensive control of units but have no control whatsoever over defending units. To properly "simulate" lack of control at the operational level then you should be playing automatic AI and just give AI orders to formations.

Oh well, it is not like anything would be done about it, unless it is brought up at the next Tillercon. ;)

[TET2]

VM,

That was some very creative "off the top of my head" options. I like it, I just wonder how much programming effort would be involved with that concept?

My greatest frustration with defensive fire occurs when my armored/AT units "waste their fire" on soft targets in those "soak-off" attacks and then my opponents armor waltzes up and hammers my armor/AT guns! Great fun.

Tobias