just a thought.....

[iandavidsmith]

i wondered if some sort of reaction fire range level might be a good idea.
i have seen where some units fire at mine from long range , i fire back a few times , even though
my unit has no hope of damaging the enemy, exhaust my reaction fire. Then an
enemy unit comes directly up to me in the open and destroys me without my unit firing
at all.

maybe something like don't fire (already got) , close fire and long range ?

just a thought....

Cheers
Ian

[budd]

Agree 100% would be real nice to have

[pipfromslitherine]

There is already logic in there which means they won't fire without at least a reasonable chance of effect. It would be possible to add reaction fire functionality in the same vein as hold fire, but might over-complicate the UI for newer players?

Cheers

Pip

[Merr]

There is already logic in there which means they won't fire without at least a reasonable chance of effect.

Pip,

I've looked at reaction fire and there's one piece of logic that appears to override what you said above ...
Just before that logic (they won't fire without at least a reasonable chance of effect) ... it will return an openFire value of 1 if the unit (target) has a chanceToKill me of greater than 10% ...... Meaning, if a Panther appears, the Sherman will open fire because mostly likely the Panther can kill the Sherman, not vise-versa.

I made a little modification to that specific logic using the same logic from the "me" code just after that. Basically, it looks at the rbMultiplier (instead of a flat 10%) when deciding if openFire should return 1. The whole change looks like this ;

Code: Select all

				if( (GetTileLOS(x,y,side) ==1 ) && ( GetAttrib(me, "ArmourType") == 1 ) )
				{
					// what is there chance of killing me currently?
					chanceToHit = CalculateChanceToHitAP(unit, me, 0, 0) ;
					chanceToPenetrate = CalculateChanceToKillAP(unit, me, 0) ;
					chanceToKill = chanceToHit * chanceToPenetrate ; 
					chanceToKill /= 100 ; 
					
					if( distance < 3 )
					{
						// always fire if 2 or less tiles away and can be seen
						openFire = 1 ;
					}
					
					rangeBracket = GetRangeBracket (distance) ;
					rbMultiplier = rangeBracket * 5 ;					
										
					if ( chanceToKill >= rbMultiplier )	
					{
						openFire = 1 ;
					}			
				}

It doesn't solve the problem altogether, but it minimizes it at ranges beyond 4 (increases threshold)...
at ranges of 5 and 6 (bracket=3) the threshold = 15.
at range 7+, the threshold = 20.

It would be possible to add reaction fire functionality in the same vein as hold fire, but might over-complicate the UI for newer players?

I've done this too!! ... A simply "OpFire" button that will mulitply the threshold value for me.
How it works ....
New attribute ... "OpFire" ... default value 1 (no change).
Value of 2 = double's the rbMultiplier value.
Value of 3 = triple's the rbMultiplier value.

Works like the "HoldFire" ... each time you click on it, it will cycle a "range" text in this order ... Long/Medium/Short, then back to Long.
Long Range is the default (no change to games current openFire logic).

Now, using the term "range" is questionable because I'm not really setting a specific range(in tiles), but simply mulitplying the threshold.
I'm testing this to see if the values for medium and long should be 3 and 5 respectively.
So, it will be (1,3,5) instead of (1,2,3).

Works pretty good and I can make a variant to my QuickBattles if anyone wanted to try it.

- Merr

[morge4]

Merr,

I'd be willing to test this out for you. Sounds like an interesting modification.

[pipfromslitherine]

The override is there because we had a thread where people were upset that their units were not opening fire . Which I think is fair enough - I would MUCH rather the units open fire prematurely than sit there and get creamed by a Panther.

Perhaps it might be good to have an 'Advanced' toggle in the options, which only shows up some orders when it is activated. This would allow us to keep the UI approachable, but give the hardcore players more control. Although then one has to make sure that not using the advanced settings doesn't mean you get pounded in MP...

Or, as you say Merr, we can fold it into specific campaigns or expansions. This kind of thing would be perfect for global overrides, but I am not sure how to allow for global script overrides that won't blow up if there are changes to the base scripting (and I don't want to get into having to version check scripts etc).

Cheers

Pip

[Merr]

The override is there because we had a thread where people were upset that their units were not opening fire . Which I think is fair enough - I would MUCH rather the units open fire prematurely than sit there and get creamed by a Panther.

True, but firing back with a wasted shot isn't the answer, although it might lower the Panthers morale by 10 points ... might.

My intention would be to override your override . Last year the porage was too cold, and this year it's too hot. By allowing the player to set the temperature based on the situation could help ... Besides, if the player sets the porage too cold it's their fault!!

Anyway, I'll create a demo of the whole thing with a variant and see if anyone likes the "idea". At the very least, it might spark some more ideas on your end .

Oh, I do have another solution for the Sherman getting pounded by the Panther ... Reaction_Move ... Instead of sitting their waiting to break morale, the Sherman simply moves a tile (preferably out of LOS). With certain restrictions for the conditions, it might work. This was something I was looking at for Infantry that get pounded, which is pretty much all the time. In that case, the Infantry would "seek cover" before it breaks, if it can.

-Merr

[Rosseau]

That reaction-move idea sounds pretty darn interesting. If I manage to survive the Panther's attack, I reverse next turn. Which is more realistic?

[Merr]

That reaction-move idea sounds pretty darn interesting. If I manage to survive the Panther's attack, I reverse next turn. Which is more realistic?

Well ... I'm looking at self-preservation instead of waiting next turn to reverse, or watching the tank get pounded to the breaking point.

One problem I see with morale is that a Golden Elite Sherman (3-stripe) would take more punishment (morale drops) before retreating, thus he's more likely to get destroyed. Whereas, a Sherman with no experience will likely break and run sooner, thus surviving the Panthers wrath before next turn. I would think a more experience unit might be better off adjusting it's position if it knows the odds are against him.

Of course, if the odds are good, by all means stay and fight it out!

The reaction-move was something I was looking at for the AI during it's normal move. If the AI tank came under fire with horrible odds, it would be the AI's best interest to duck behind cover (change destination) instead of getting pounded.

The move is just something running around my head and I haven't written anything or tested. I did, however, write a simply "shoot-n-scoot" for the AI tanks that was pretty interesting ... That was nothing more than forcing a "retreat-to-cover" with an "about-face" (face front toward enemy) after it exhausted all it's shots. More of like a delaying action than anything.

- Merr

[Rosseau]

My post wasn't clear enough. I agree with your concept. What tank commander would wait until "next turn" to back out?

[Merr]

My post wasn't clear enough. I agree with your concept. What tank commander would wait until "next turn" to back out?

Ok ... cool. We're on the same wave length. It's an interesting idea but perhaps it's something that a player can activate like the Op Fire adjustment, instead of relying on an automatic reaction move. I think giving the player more control over a unit's reaction during his opponents turn would help ... It bends the rules a little bit but "house-rules" are what keep games more interesting!

- Merr

[Merr]

Pip,

Can you look at something wrt Reaction fire ...

The "reactionChance" appears to only look at conditions if the initial reactionChance wasn't 100.

So, if a unit appears to my front (or turret front), it won't look at the other conditions to modify the reactionChance.

The conditions (when chance isn't 100) are ;

(1) at short range increase reaction chance.
(2) is target sneaking and has not fired yet make it less likely to react.
(3) if target sneaking is an elite tank hunter reduce chance to react (if it has not fired yet this turn).
(4) if reacting unit moved and is not sneaking reduce chance to react.

Bascially ... As long as a unit stay's out of the reacting units front arc (or turret arc if not same), it has a better chance of not having it reacted upon ... correct?

Was this by design?

I would have thought that those modifiers should apply all the time ... irregardless of facing.

Thoughts anyone?

-Merr

[pipfromslitherine]

I think Iain would have to answer whether it was by design. I would guess so - if you are directly in front of a unit, then the chance to be reacted to should be pretty high.

Cheers

Pip

[Merr]

I think Iain would have to answer whether it was by design. I would guess so - if you are directly in front of a unit, then the chance to be reacted to should be pretty high.

The reason why I was wondering ... If you look at the reaction for HE fire, the conditions to reduce the reaction % are considered regardless of facing. So, if I simply allow the conditions in the AP fire, it will revert back to "chance" ... which, by itself has a natural reduction in Op fire.

Anyway, it's nothing really. I've been playing with ideas on how the player can control a unit's Op Fire ... There are so many reasons as to why a unit should fire it's not even funny anymore !!

You know ... I even had this crazy idea that only works in SP scenarios ;
- Just before the player's unit pulls the trigger, a PopUp appears showing the same tooltip info for direct fire. The player can either allow it (click yes), or prevent the unit from firing (click no). That's total control !!!

Too bad it won't work for MP games

- Merr