.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

BCT Commander- Save $8.00
winSPWW2- Save $5.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > The Camo Workshop > WinSPMBT > Campaigns, Scenarios & Maps
Notices


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 23rd, 2014, 05:09 PM
shahadi's Avatar

shahadi shahadi is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: I ain't in Kansas anymore, just north of where Dorothy clicked her heels is where you'll find me.
Posts: 878
Thanks: 584
Thanked 277 Times in 191 Posts
shahadi is on a distinguished road
Confused 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?
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to shahadi For This Useful Post:
  #2  
Old August 23rd, 2014, 05:27 PM
Imp's Avatar

Imp Imp is offline
General
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Uk
Posts: 3,308
Thanks: 98
Thanked 602 Times in 476 Posts
Imp is on a distinguished road
Default 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.
__________________
John
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old August 23rd, 2014, 06:14 PM
shahadi's Avatar

shahadi shahadi is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: I ain't in Kansas anymore, just north of where Dorothy clicked her heels is where you'll find me.
Posts: 878
Thanks: 584
Thanked 277 Times in 191 Posts
shahadi is on a distinguished road
Default Re: AI Mechanized Infantry Assault - Dismounts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imp View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old August 23rd, 2014, 07:14 PM
Suhiir's Avatar

Suhiir Suhiir is offline
Lieutenant General
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Salt Lake City, UT
Posts: 2,829
Thanks: 542
Thanked 792 Times in 600 Posts
Suhiir is on a distinguished road
Default 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.
__________________
Suhiir - Wargame Junkie

People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe." - Albert Einstein
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old August 23rd, 2014, 11:44 PM
scorpio_rocks's Avatar

scorpio_rocks scorpio_rocks is offline
Major
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 1,036
Thanks: 337
Thanked 432 Times in 311 Posts
scorpio_rocks is on a distinguished road
Default Re: AI Mechanized Infantry Assault - Dismounts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir View Post
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)
__________________

"Gentlemen, when the enemy is committed to a mistake - we must not interrupt him too soon."
Horatio Nelson.
SPMBT Roundel Objectives Mod
SPMBT Small ID Flags Mod
WW2 Roundel Objectives Mod
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old August 24th, 2014, 12:59 PM
shahadi's Avatar

shahadi shahadi is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: I ain't in Kansas anymore, just north of where Dorothy clicked her heels is where you'll find me.
Posts: 878
Thanks: 584
Thanked 277 Times in 191 Posts
shahadi is on a distinguished road
Default Re: AI Mechanized Infantry Assault - Dismounts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir View Post
I believe their unit class dictates this behavior and the carry capacity ONLY determines how much they can carry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir View Post
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.
Attached Files
File Type: zip AI_Mech_Inf_Assault.zip (30.7 KB, 201 views)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old June 12th, 2015, 12:17 AM
shahadi's Avatar

shahadi shahadi is offline
Captain
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: I ain't in Kansas anymore, just north of where Dorothy clicked her heels is where you'll find me.
Posts: 878
Thanks: 584
Thanked 277 Times in 191 Posts
shahadi is on a distinguished road
Default Re: AI Mechanized Infantry Assault - Dismounts

Quote:
Originally Posted by shahadi View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir View Post
I believe their unit class dictates this behavior and the carry capacity ONLY determines how much they can carry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir View Post
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 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir View Post
I believe their unit class dictates this behavior and the carry capacity ONLY determines how much they can carry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suhiir View Post
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.

-----
Attached Files
File Type: zip 374 AI Assault.zip (92.6 KB, 164 views)
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to shahadi For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:10 AM.


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