.com.unity Forums

.com.unity Forums (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/index.php)
-   Campaigns, Scenarios & Maps (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/forumdisplay.php?f=106)
-   -   Scenario: AI Mechanized Infantry Assault - Dismounts (http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=50439)

shahadi August 23rd, 2014 05:09 PM

AI Mechanized Infantry Assault - Dismounts
 
Please share really good AI mech inf dismount ideas.


I have browsed the web searching for really creative ways to get AI mech inf to dismount. Creating WPs, one for the APC and another for the mech inf unit at the point of the dismount is not working well in my research. So, I put a single enemy unit with arms disabled, and movement set to 0 at a point just a few hexes from the planned dismount. Did not work!

I'm now thinking of having my dismount as part of the scenario. The mech inf force is already dismounted and backed by IFVs (the IFVs have carried the mech inf to the dismount point.) To overcome the problem of having the IFVs pickup mech inf units, I've set the carry capacity to 0, reduced the speed of the IFVs below that of the mech inf. Oh, the IFVs are purchased separately from the mech inf formations, not sure if this is necessary given the IFVs have a zero carry capacity.

I've also had to reduce speed of the supporting tanks as well. But on another issue, I've not gotten AI tanks to fire in support of an advance. As the force moves forward, the tanks do not fire at long range at the enemy units. They seem only to fire at threats against an individual tank.

Ideas, suggestions, hints, solutions

Hmm... just brewed a really awesome cup of Turkish coffee on my stove with cardamon as a spice. Any delicious suggestions for a really strong home brewed coffee?

Imp August 23rd, 2014 05:27 PM

Re: AI Mechanized Infantry Assault - Dismounts
 
Victory hexes normally cause dismount upon approach.
Use 2 or 3 waypoints in same or adjacent hexes to slow units down.

Quote:

They seem only to fire at threats against an individual tank.


If the unit moved that turn you would expect this, its not going to waste shots firing at more distant targets if they are not a threat & the hit chance is not great.

shahadi August 23rd, 2014 06:14 PM

Re: AI Mechanized Infantry Assault - Dismounts
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Imp (Post 826039)
Victory hexes normally cause dismount upon approach.
Use 2 or 3 waypoints in same or adjacent hexes to slow units down.

Quote:

They seem only to fire at threats against an individual tank.


If the unit moved that turn you would expect this, its not going to waste shots firing at more distant targets if they are not a threat & the hit chance is not great.

True. What I mean to say is that given no immediate threat to an individual tank, the AI does not use tanks to fire at distant threats to say the advancing mech inf units. So, I'm talking about tank fire in support of advancing units.

I'm thinking the issue is that the AI programs fire for arty and air but not sp arty or tanks.

Suhiir August 23rd, 2014 07:14 PM

Re: AI Mechanized Infantry Assault - Dismounts
 
Tank fire support may well be influenced by the type/amount of main gun ammo.
If all they have is AP/Sabot/HEAT they might not have anything to fire at infantry.
They will fire HEAT at infantry IF their supply of it is large enough (and don't ask me how many rounds "large enough" is) but some will always be reserved for armored threats.

I'm not sure if reducing the carry capacity of APC/IFVs will cause them to stop their eternal "pick up infantry - drop off infantry - never move an inch" ballet. I believe their unit class dictates this behavior and the carry capacity ONLY determines how much they can carry.

I've had a certain amount of luck with making infantry and vehicles separate formations. IF they dismount in sight/range of an unoccupied victory hex they'll act fairly reasonably IF you plot them to go in different directions after the dismount. But they still have the problem of moving about one turns worth of movement points, dismounting, then spending the rest of the scenario just sitting there doing the load/unload ballet IF they're to far (and no clue exactly how far that is, seems to be 20+ hexes) from an UNOCCUPIED victory hex.

I really wish you luck finding a way to deal with this I've been trying everything I can come up with and no luck.

scorpio_rocks August 23rd, 2014 11:44 PM

Re: AI Mechanized Infantry Assault - Dismounts
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 826043)
Tank fire support may well be influenced by the type/amount of main gun ammo.
If all they have is AP/Sabot/HEAT they might not have anything to fire at infantry.
They will fire HEAT at infantry IF their supply of it is large enough (and don't ask me how many rounds "large enough" is) but some will always be reserved for armored threats.

I believe they always save 4 rounds for armoured threats (even if they have ample AP available)

shahadi August 24th, 2014 12:59 PM

Re: AI Mechanized Infantry Assault - Dismounts
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 826043)
I believe their unit class dictates this behavior and the carry capacity ONLY determines how much they can carry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 589788)
Looking at the game manual I see :

UnitClass 217 : MRV APC - APC Clone but Mine Resistant

UnitClass 237 : MRV IFV - MRV APC Clone

My problem/question is that I'm trying to model TUSK tanks.
And one of the things they do is add more bottom armor to improve their resistance to mines and IED's. However in WinSPMBT there is no "belly" armor rating.

If I use one of these unit classes for them the game code will indeed make them somewhat more resistant to mines, all well and good.

BUT

I presume should the AI be running them they will act like APC's . . . move forward to a point near the battle-line, attempt to unload troops (that they won't have), then hang back a bit shooting at targets of opportunity --- rather then as tanks.

Any suggestions?

Unit Class is an important key. It drives unit behavior. In this case as the Unit Classes are APC clones, they do act like "bttle taxis." Shuiir was correct back in 2008.

The IFV is not an APC. It is designed to transport to the fight and engage with direct fires. The Marine LAV-25, the Light Armored Vehicle, and the Army's Bradley are two examples of an Infantry fighting Vehicle.

I tested APC class 25 and the Gun APC class 127 vehicles and they each acted precisely as an APC, when the shooting started they would stop and not engage in the fight.

So I had a T-62MV in support and it did follow the Mech Inf sections and provide direct fires.

I did not bother in this test phase to structure an IFV vehicle in Scenhack. So I modified the Unit Class in the OOB for the BMP-2 to Unit Class 59. And it supported the Mech Inf troops with direct fires.

So far, it appears that if we want IFVs then we need a way to identify the IFVs apart from the APCs.

The dismounting is the next piece of the puzzle.

The test scenario is attached.

Suggestions please.

shahadi June 12th, 2015 12:17 AM

Re: AI Mechanized Infantry Assault - Dismounts
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi (Post 826070)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 826043)
I believe their unit class dictates this behavior and the carry capacity ONLY determines how much they can carry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 589788)
Looking at the game manual I see :

UnitClass 217 : MRV APC - APC Clone but Mine Resistant

UnitClass 237 : MRV IFV - MRV APC Clone

My problem/question is that I'm trying to model TUSK tanks.
And one of the things they do is add more bottom armor to improve their resistance to mines and IED's. However in WinSPMBT there is no "belly" armor rating.

If I use one of these unit classes for them the game code will indeed make them somewhat more resistant to mines, all well and good.

BUT

I presume should the AI be running them they will act like APC's . . . move forward to a point near the battle-line, attempt to unload troops (that they won't have), then hang back a bit shooting at targets of opportunity --- rather then as tanks.

Any suggestions?

Unit Class is an important key. It drives unit behavior. In this case as the Unit Classes are APC clones, they do act like "bttle taxis." Shuiir was correct back in 2008.

The IFV is not an APC. It is designed to transport to the fight and engage with direct fires. The Marine LAV-25, the Light Armored Vehicle, and the Army's Bradley are two examples of an Infantry fighting Vehicle.

I tested APC class 25 and the Gun APC class 127 vehicles and they each acted precisely as an APC, when the shooting started they would stop and not engage in the fight.

So I had a T-62MV in support and it did follow the Mech Inf sections and provide direct fires.

I did not bother in this test phase to structure an IFV vehicle in Scenhack. So I modified the Unit Class in the OOB for the BMP-2 to Unit Class 59. And it supported the Mech Inf troops with direct fires.

So far, it appears that if we want IFVs then we need a way to identify the IFVs apart from the APCs.

The dismounting is the next piece of the puzzle.

The test scenario is attached.

Suggestions please.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shahadi (Post 826070)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 826043)
I believe their unit class dictates this behavior and the carry capacity ONLY determines how much they can carry.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Suhiir (Post 589788)
Looking at the game manual I see :

UnitClass 217 : MRV APC - APC Clone but Mine Resistant

UnitClass 237 : MRV IFV - MRV APC Clone

My problem/question is that I'm trying to model TUSK tanks.
And one of the things they do is add more bottom armor to improve their resistance to mines and IED's. However in WinSPMBT there is no "belly" armor rating.

If I use one of these unit classes for them the game code will indeed make them somewhat more resistant to mines, all well and good.

BUT

I presume should the AI be running them they will act like APC's . . . move forward to a point near the battle-line, attempt to unload troops (that they won't have), then hang back a bit shooting at targets of opportunity --- rather then as tanks.

Any suggestions?

Unit Class is an important key. It drives unit behavior. In this case as the Unit Classes are APC clones, they do act like "bttle taxis." Shuiir was correct back in 2008.

The IFV is not an APC. It is designed to transport to the fight and engage with direct fires. The Marine LAV-25, the Light Armored Vehicle, and the Army's Bradley are two examples of an Infantry fighting Vehicle.

I tested APC class 25 and the Gun APC class 127 vehicles and they each acted precisely as an APC, when the shooting started they would stop and not engage in the fight.

So I had a T-62MV in support and it did follow the Mech Inf sections and provide direct fires.

I did not bother in this test phase to structure an IFV vehicle in Scenhack. So I modified the Unit Class in the OOB for the BMP-2 to Unit Class 59. And it supported the Mech Inf troops with direct fires.

So far, it appears that if we want IFVs then we need a way to identify the IFVs apart from the APCs.

The dismounting is the next piece of the puzzle.

The test scenario is attached.

Suggestions please.

I would rather the APC under AI control advance to a pre-determined point on the map, dismount troops, and stay put providing suppression fires as the infantry advance. The APC ideally should dismount troops approximately 750 to 1km from target/objective.

So, what I've been playing with is how to get the AI to conduct a mech infantry assault. I took an LAI Plt (-) as designated in the version 9 OOB USMC: 3 fire teams, 1 sniper team, 1 smaw, and three LAV-25A2 the close support variety. I placed a single Russian RPG-29 team approximately at the point I want the Marines to dismount. Here is the twist, I set damage to 3, disabled all weapons, set cost to 1.

The Marines dismounted at the spot I wanted, although the LAI's did not engage the RPG team with suppression fires. Behind the RPG team I placed the force hq, with 2 rifle sections. I wanted the LAIs to lay down suppression fires on the rifle sections. They did not. I lost 3 Marines.

Although, in the second or third iteration, I removed the RPG's from the rifle sections loadouts, the LAIs did not engage the rifle sections, a serious let down. However, the mech inf dismounted at the desired spot.

So, this means, the Russian side does not loose anything really, the RPG team was merely placed to induce the AI to dismount. Although there remains work to do, the Marines dismounted where expected.

-----


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:10 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2024, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.