BUG of IFV?

[ryan101]

It's a bug or a deliberate design?

[Ssnake]

More like a bug.

There seem to be some conflicting directives forming one or more behavior loops.

 

Unfortunately I can't see in the video which keys you pressed at which point in the test, so it'll be a bit difficult to replicate it with exactness. You seem to start the mission with just one TOW missile loaded, and the enemy vehicles seem to spawn a few seconds into the mission, correct?

 

Then, after the first missile the Bradley tries to reload the TOW launcher, but while they are doing so you give the command for a new Engage route.

Now, Chapter 8 describes the behavior on Engage routes, so that the vehicle stays put shouldn't come as a surprise. but the new command seems to have broken the missile reload process.

 

Then you seem to hop into the commander's position (which automatically changes the behavior from Engage to Assault, but while the rest of the vehicle crew is in some hard to define state.

[ryan101]

55 minutes ago, Ssnake said:

更像是个bug。

似乎有些冲突的指令形成一个或多个行为循环。

 

不幸的是，我在视频中看不到您在测试中的哪个点按了哪些键，因此很难准确地复制它。您似乎只装载一枚TOW导弹就开始了任务，敌方车辆似乎在任务中产生了几秒钟，对吗？

 

然后，在第一枚导弹发射后，布拉德利试图重新装填TOW发射器，但在这样做的同时，您可以给出一条新的“交战”路线的命令。

现在，第8章介绍了参与路线的行为，因此，车辆保持静止状态并不令人感到意外。但是新的命令似乎破坏了导弹的重新装填过程。

 

然后，您似乎跳到了指挥官的位置（这会自动将行为从“参与”更改为“突击”，但是其余的乘务员处于某种难以定义的状态。

I didn't make any key operations. The problem is that IFV will load missiles first, ignore other targets, and refuse any movement commands, unless the player switches to the main gun at the TC position. But the AI gunner still won't fire.

[Ssnake]

Well, Engage means, "move until you spot enemy. When you do, assume hull-down position, open fire. Once you see no more enemy, proceed"

 

So, from that perspective they largely behaved like they were supposed to. They first used the weapon that offered the greatest chance of success, then stopped any further advance until you made them. Why they didn't open fire with the 25mm gun is, of course, an open question (probably because they wanted to reload the missile and couldn't). 25mm APFSDS isn't the greatest ammo in the world, and at a distance of 2,500m in a frontal engagement - well, I'd say they made the right call. It would have been futile.

 

Now, we can of course discuss if they should have stepped on the gas to close the distance until the 25mm APFSDS had a decent chance of achieving anything (but that's not what "Engage" behavior says); at the same time, getting closer with no cover against a numerically superior force without a clear range advantage is not a brilliant tactical move to begin with.

The looping behavior clearly is a bug. Beyond that, I politely disagree that they should have behaved much differently. Even computer-controlled units should have some sense of self-preservation, even if we can implement it only with simple heuristics.