I've Been ROBBED !!

Real time World War II combat simulation
Andy Brown
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:30 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

I've Been ROBBED !!

Post by Andy Brown » Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:15 am

June 1941, "Mostly Tanks", I'm the Sovs defending against the Germans. I've got two T-26s, two 45mm ATGs, two conscript squads and a couple of other infantry units. The Germans are coming at me with five tanks of various types and about four squads.

The armour/anti-armour battle is short and to the point. I take out four attacking tanks but lose both T-26s. The remaining attacking tank gets through to the objective which is a barn sitting in the middle of a field. The HMG team in the barn legs it and the flag turns Nazi. My ATGs are trying to engage the enemy tank but it keeps ducking in and out of sight behind the barn and clear shots are hard to get. Meanwhile, my infantry and arty are engaging the German infantry and doing a bloody good job of pinning them down, holding them up and generally making it impossible for them to get anywhere near that barn.

Finally, one of my ATGs nails the German tank. I click on the HMG and am just about to move its marker back to the barn when wtf?!! the game ends, the Germans retain the objective and my superiors are NOT happy with my performance, despite the fact that I've got half a squad in good cover closer to the flag than any German. There's no way any of the surviving German infantry would have made it across the open field surrounding that barn. I've been robbed!! :x

OK, the issue (once again) is, of course, the tank rush. The way the AI's tanks head straight for the objective is, to say the least, a bit artificial. The logical anti-armour defence in a typical Firefight game, especially a tank-heavy one, is simply to site all anti-armour systems covering the objective. This usually wins the game but hardly reflects anyone's WW2 anti-armour doctrine.

I'd like to propose a couple of changes to fix this. I suggest:

1. Only infantry units and the HQ can "capture" the flag. This means that attackers can only win by getting infantry onto the objective. Armour only games almost always end with one side totally destroyed so it shouldn't be a problem for the surviving HQ to bimble up and secure the flag after the combat is done.

2. The tank AI is changed to ignore the objective and concentrate on engaging enemy units. This should force them to behave in a manner that is both effective and, within the scope of a Firefight battle, realistic. In Firefight, we're not dealing with slashing armoured breakthroughs or other operational level stuff. That is well outside the scale of the game. We're talking about the best use of AFVs in tactical battles that they have not been able or permitted to avoid by manoeuvre, the actual killing of the enemy which they don't do well by milling around some feature on a map just because a graphic artist has painted a flag there.

Any comments?

Note: Or maybe :idea: the issue isn't the tank rush. There might not have been a problem if the game functioned as its documentation says it should. The help file says that "The game is won when you capture the mission objective, either a village, farm or hill, and you hold it in enough strength to beat off any enemy counter attacks."

At the time my game ended, the objective had been captured (by the tank) but it wasn't held by anyone and certainly not by the attacker whose closest units were further away from it than the closest Sovs. The Sov infantry was in great shape and was about to move forward and reoccupy the objective in what presumably would have been a counter-attack not beaten off. If there's some sort of timimg mechanism involved (hold the objective for x minutes) or if there's some sort of radius around the objective that needs to be contested before the system recognises a potential counter-attack, then this was one battle where these criteria were clearly inappropriate.

Whatever the reason, and despite whatever mistakes I made (I did lose two tanks, after all), I feel I should have won this particular game!! :)

Cheers,

Andy Brown

User avatar
Andy
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: Edinburgh! (its le balls)

Re: I've Been ROBBED !!

Post by Andy » Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:45 am

Andy Brown wrote:Only infantry units and the HQ can "capture" the flag.
if you try and start a 'mostly tanks' game without any more than an HQ unit, you cant because you need infantry to secure the objective, but whilst playing you can take and hold it with an aroured unit.

incidentally what does AFV stand for?
________
no2 review
Last edited by Andy on Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

TheKangaroo
Posts: 492
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 11:07 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany

Post by TheKangaroo » Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:51 pm

what does AFV stand for?
Armoured Fighting Vehicle ( :arrow: Tank)

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1303
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Re: I've Been ROBBED !!

Post by Sean OConnor » Wed Jan 18, 2006 4:57 pm

Andy wrote: if you try and start a 'mostly tanks' game without any more than an HQ unit, you cant because you need infantry to secure the objective, but whilst playing you can take and hold it with an aroured unit.

incidentally what does AFV stand for?
Yes, for a while the rule was that you had to have infantry on the objective for it to be counted as owned by you, but when I added the ability to have "mostly tanks" you could end up with the situation where the enemy or you has no infantry.

User avatar
Andy
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: Edinburgh! (its le balls)

Post by Andy » Wed Jan 18, 2006 8:27 pm

TheKangaroo wrote:Armoured Fighting Vehicle ( :arrow: Tank)
damn i knew it would be ridiculously simple :oops:


Sean O'Conner wrote:...when I added the ability to have "mostly tanks" you could end up with the situation where the enemy or you has no infantry.
with the options with more tanks, this is better, but ive found it happening on tanks and infantry options
________
N45
Last edited by Andy on Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Andy Brown
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:30 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Post by Andy Brown » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:34 pm

For Andy,

In the same game, I finally got to see what you mean about tanks "stopping" when they come under fire.

It's usually not an issue with me because I always try to move my tanks out of enemy line-of-sight but, in this battle, I wanted to move one of the T-26s quickly from out on the flank where it had turned out the enemy wasn't into the centre where they were.

So here's this T-26, skedaddling through a field from one piece of cover to another one when "Hullo - what's this? Three enemy tanks, all of which are more than capable of taking me out!! I think I'll just stay out here in the middle of this wide open paddock and shoot at them". Say what? :shock: I'm sitting there, watching the screen, shouting "No, don't do it, go back, get out of there!!", then Boof! - no more T-26.

Note to self. Don't move tanks into line-of-sight of enemy tanks or anti-tank guns if I don't want them to stop and slug it out. The AI can't handle it. :x

Cheers,

Andy Brown

Andy Brown
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:30 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Re: I've Been ROBBED !!

Post by Andy Brown » Wed Jan 18, 2006 9:47 pm

Sean O'Connor wrote:Yes, for a while the rule was that you had to have infantry on the objective for it to be counted as owned by you, but when I added the ability to have "mostly tanks" you could end up with the situation where the enemy or you has no infantry.
But what is "On" the objective? Once I killed the last enemy tank, I had five guys 45-50 metres from the objective. The closest attacking infantryman was 90 metres from the objective. The objective was "owned" by the attacker because the (now dead) tank had been driving all around it but how close did I need to get someone before it reverted to my control and why didn't I have time to do this?

Cheers,

Andy Brown

Quitch
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:56 am

Re: I've Been ROBBED !!

Post by Quitch » Thu Feb 02, 2006 6:57 pm

Andy Brown wrote:1. Only infantry units and the HQ can "capture" the flag. This means that attackers can only win by getting infantry onto the objective. Armour only games almost always end with one side totally destroyed so it shouldn't be a problem for the surviving HQ to bimble up and secure the flag after the combat is done.
I agree.

I believe that tanks, in real life, can take an objective but are not known for their ability to hold it (or defend in general), at least during WWII anyway. This would seem to me to be a realistic change.

Personally, I think the real problem is having only one objective, it really reduces the depth of the game. In Close Combat there's a purpose to deploying a front line, having fall back positions etc. because there are multiple positions to hold. In Firefight you position everything with good lines of fire around the objective then sit back and watch the fire, maybe moving your tanks now and then.

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1303
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Thu Feb 02, 2006 8:47 pm

I wasn't keen on multiple objectives as I just don't think that would be realistic.

Quitch
Posts: 297
Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:56 am

Post by Quitch » Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:10 pm

I suppose, after posting that I somewhat disagreed with myself. I think it comes down to wanting to see more objectives than simply defend and assault.

User avatar
Fighter_Ace
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 4:36 am
Location: Sacramento, CA, United States of America - Also can be found somewhere in the land of 1's and 0's
Contact:

Post by Fighter_Ace » Thu Feb 02, 2006 11:18 pm

Quitch wrote:I suppose, after posting that I somewhat disagreed with myself. I think it comes down to wanting to see more objectives than simply defend and assault.
Yeah, it can get a wee bit boring attacking/defending all the time. I LOVE the new vehicles, however. I've always wanted half-tracks in the game and so has my little bro. I also remember awhile ago someone mentioning new ideas and objectives for Firefight. Think you'll ever add new objectives, Sean? Maybe I ought to just lay off the game for awhile. Heh heh, playing Firefight for hours does stuff to ya! *Thinks: 'More, more,... MORE!'*
My thanks and best regards to all my former submitters.

User avatar
Andy
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: Edinburgh! (its le balls)

Post by Andy » Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:45 am

Image

dont know how clear this is, ive been having a bit of trouble getting it online, but in the map section ive crossed where the objective is, circled where two enemy tanks are (almost sat on the objective), and my remaining tank is (8 o'clock from the objective). i had survivors from 10 destroyed tanks crawling near the objective, and its allowed me to win - i dont think the 3 guys who have mde it to the hill would be able to stop the tanks from rolling over them. it seems a bit of the reverse of what this topic started off at - i have an ill gotten win. bizzarely too, ive been given a 'very good', despite losing 10 tanks and 35/12 men killed/wounded against the russians 2 guns, 3 tanks and 23 men killed. something in the rules + scoring needs sorted, but i cant figure out what, anyone???
________
herbal shop
Last edited by Andy on Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fighter_Ace
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 4:36 am
Location: Sacramento, CA, United States of America - Also can be found somewhere in the land of 1's and 0's
Contact:

Post by Fighter_Ace » Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:57 am

Wow! How amazingly weird! I totally agree, three guys could NOT hold the flag, but you DID have a tank. Even then, that doesn't explain why you got such a good rating with all those losses :shock: .
My thanks and best regards to all my former submitters.

User avatar
Andy
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: Edinburgh! (its le balls)

Post by Andy » Wed Feb 08, 2006 7:20 pm

had a tiger, which at the range it was at, its shells were just bouncing off the T34s like pea shooters.

another problem i found on this game was with the same situation (tiger vs. 2 T34s, the tiger was shooting at the T34 facing straight at it, rather the one that was side on, having rolled up on some infantry, and now firing broadsides. i told it to attack this one repeatedly, but all that would happen would be for the gun to swivel one 'click', and then back to shooting the other tank, which it was crappy at shooting. ive had similar stuff happen with PAK/AT/FGs or whatever you want to call them. its a bit of an ass really.

incidentally i repeated the same mission, but choosing my own tanks rather than the defaults, and only lost 3 tanks (2 half-tracks) to enemy fire, destroying all of their positions.

quite literally, just this very minute, ive thought of something - when the game ended thing pops up, have an option to continue w/out scoring, or even better to continue to round up stragglers from the enemy force, and then having an option in the menus to end the game, a bit like in Civilisation scenarios, continuing to play after scoring. would stop anoyance at finishing the game when there are a few trapped enemy away from the objective, not giving a chance to have the illusive '0 survivors, 0 wounded' stat :D
________
easyvape vaporizer
Last edited by Andy on Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Fighter_Ace
Posts: 409
Joined: Mon Sep 06, 2004 4:36 am
Location: Sacramento, CA, United States of America - Also can be found somewhere in the land of 1's and 0's
Contact:

Post by Fighter_Ace » Wed Feb 08, 2006 7:55 pm

Gosh, I absolutely know what you mean, Andy. I HATE it when I tell my tanks to shoot a target and they only fire one shot in that direction then goes straight back to his own crazy ideas of which enemy to shoot at. Really annoying when you want to pin down an field gun.

A feature to keep playing to capture prisoners is also something to consider. It would let you try to earn more points, yet it could still be dangerous. Who knows, maybe he's got an extra bazooka out there. Maybe not. I see what you mean, though, how the game just abruptly stops and states "you win". Kinda a unexpected surprise if you want to keep fighting.
My thanks and best regards to all my former submitters.

Post Reply