Any chance of getting a vehicle "reverse" command in a future update?

[Bahger]

The lack of a "reverse" command for vehicles, and the absence of dug-in defenses, seem to me to be the two biggest omissions from the ME's tactical repertoire (not that I'm complaining, I believe the glass to be more than half-full). I'm sure nothing can/will be done about dug-in defences but a "reverse" command is AI rather than terrain-based and might be fairly easily implemented, no? As vehicle movement commands currently stand, a mobile, tactical defense is impossible to create.

[HiJack]

I think ED is already in over their head in fixing the currently broken things and after that there are a compatibility patch or two.

[Speed]

As vehicle movement commands currently stand, a mobile, tactical defense is impossible to create.

 

No it's not. I've created one in the latest mission I am working on. Units move forward, hold, then if they take too many losses, they can leave the front line and fall back to a second location, where they will turn around briefly to get them facing the direction the enemy is coming from, and then hold position- that is- if they haven't taken so many losses that I do not trigger the hold position command, and they do a full retreat all the way back.

 

It works alright, but they tend to take very heavy losses if they start retreating under fire, exposing their vulnerable rear armor, and turning their chasis so fast that the gunners cannot fire. IRL, they would use their reverse gear.

 

Definately, the biggest weakness of DCS is the AI which lacks so many IRL capabilities. So as you point out, they lack vital abilities such as driving backwards, the ability to switch to a different waypoint on a trigger, the ability to utilize dug-in positions, etc. Not to mention that the infantry simulation is very weak with the lack of Javelins and crew served weapons. They also get stuck easily, though thankfully, not nearly as easily as they did in Black Shark. People keep wanting a dynamic campaign, but I tell you, that's utterly impossible so long as ground unit AI keeps getting permenently stuck for various random reasons, and air unit AI has... difficulties... to put it lightly.

Edited April 27, 2011 by Speed

[Bahger]

It works alright, but they tend to take very heavy losses if they start retreating under fire, exposing their vulnerable rear armor, and turning their chasis so fast that the gunners cannot fire. IRL, they would use their reverse gear.

Thus I stand behind my initial point, which is that "as vehicle movement commands currently stand, a mobile, tactical defense is impossible to create".

[Speed]

Thus I stand behind my initial point, which is that "as vehicle movement commands currently stand, a mobile, tactical defense is impossible to create".

 

Is there some official definition of "mobile tactical defense" I should be aware of, or are we just differing in what we personally think the definition of "mobile tactical defense" is?

 

BTW, a script that detects a relatively safe time to withdraw is possible too. I could potentially change the mission so that the remaining friendly units withdraw only when they detect there are significantly fewer (or no) enemy tanks within firing range of them. But that would be alot of work for comparatively little gain.

[Grimes]

Now, like all great plans, my strategy is so simple an idiot could have devised it. On my command all ships will line up and file directly into the alien death cannons, clogging them with wreckage.

 

This quote adequately describes the common tactics at use by the AI. At any rate to say that the AI are "on rails" is putting it lightly. One can hope that DCS: CF-18 resolves these issues as I doubt anything short of the next module will attempt to correct many of the issues at play.

[Bahger]

Is there some official definition of "mobile tactical defense" I should be aware of, or are we just differing in what we personally think the definition of "mobile tactical defense" is?

Well a common sense definition is not one in which a "tactical" withdrawal under fire is accomplished by presenting the thinly-armored backsides of defending vehicles to an approaching offense! Reversing into prepared positions is a tactical withdrawal. Turning about-face and driving away from the threat is a rout.

 

I realise that what you are talking about is something different, not a defensive maneuver in battle but a redeployment of defensive units that are not being engaged by the enemy. Your script sounds pretty impressive, and you have the skills to make it work well, but I want to create a simple, mobile set-piece defense under fire (like Israeli tanks performed when heavily outnumbered in the Golan Heights in '73). This kind of mobile defense in depth is the only option available to a commander with no prepared (dug-in) positions, facing a determined offense, if he does not want to squander his forces by defending statically without revetments for his armor. However, with no reverse gear for defending vehicles, defensive scenarios in the ME will always be attritional, a slugfest favoring the offense, rather than tactical, i.e. maneuver-based, because whereas the offense can maneuver to its advantage, the defense cannot move without disengaging and turning tail -- a disaster -- and then doing another 180 in order to re-engage. It makes no sense, and highlights the difference between "move" and "maneuver".

 

It's unlikely to happen but I'd love to see some kind of prepared defensive positions in the ME, a tool to calculate line-of-sight, the ability to position vehicles in defilade with some precision, mortars and, simplest of all, a reverse gear for armor and AI that could use it to withdraw tactically when under fire. Defilade is no good unless vehicles can back up when enemy artillery draws a bead on them. Dream on!

Edited April 28, 2011 by Bahger

[Speed]

Well a common sense definition is not one in which a "tactical" withdrawal under fire is accomplished by presenting the thinly-armored backsides of defending vehicles to an approaching offense! Reversing into prepared positions is a tactical withdrawal. Turning about-face and driving away from the threat is a rout.

 

I realise that what you are talking about is something different, not a defensive maneuver in battle but a redeployment of defensive units that are not being engaged by the enemy. Your script sounds pretty impressive, and you have the skills to make it work well, but I want to create a simple, mobile set-piece defense under fire (like Israeli tanks performed when heavily outnumbered in the Golan Heights in '73). This kind of mobile defense in depth is the only option available to a commander with no prepared (dug-in) positions, facing a determined offense, if he does not want to squander his forces by defending statically without revetments for his armor. However, with no reverse gear for defending vehicles, defensive scenarios in the ME will always be attritional, a slugfest favoring the offense, rather than tactical, i.e. maneuver-based, because whereas the offense can maneuver to its advantage, the defense cannot move without disengaging and turning tail -- a disaster -- and then doing another 180 in order to re-engage. It makes no sense, and highlights the difference between "move" and "maneuver".

 

It's unlikely to happen but I'd love to see some kind of prepared defensive positions in the ME, a tool to calculate line-of-sight, the ability to position vehicles in defilade with some precision, mortars and, simplest of all, a reverse gear for armor and AI that could use it to withdraw tactically when under fire. Defilade is no good unless vehicles can back up when enemy artillery draws a bead on them. Dream on!

 

BTW, the fallback logic and implementation is all through ME triggers and triggered actions, not scripting.

 

In practice, using a reverse gear feature could be very easy if ED implemented it as an "AI OPTION". Things like "dispersal under fire" are already there. Add a "drive in reverse" AI option. Activate the option, and the AI will follow the waypoints, and maintain formation, but maintain a the same formation and chasis heading as if they were driving forward in the opposition direction. It would be easy and straight-forward for mission makers to use, but who knows how much extra coding would be required by ED?

 

To me though, when I think "mobile tactical defense", then I would think that ground forces that responded to battlefield conditions and deliberately fell back to pre-defined locations as they took losses would count. There are two groups of M1s defending different roads leading to the same town in a hilly region. If one group of M1s is annihilated, then the other group will be attacked in the flank/rear and annihilated as a result of that. Thus, when falling back, they are responding tactically to avoid a flank/rear attack. The defense is also mobile, because the units doing the defense do it in two different spots if necessary. Thus, my definition of "mobile tactical defense" is fulfilled. I would love it if units could drive in reverse though... would be a definate improvement. It would be a bigger improvement if we could give ground units a "switch waypoint" action and if they didn't get stuck and stupid so easily.