Non-Combatants and PK

[Deltapooh]

I'm trying to add some non-combatants on the battlefield. My problem rest solely in the PK stats. They should be exposed to blue and/or red weapons. I'll set them to neutral in the scenario. One thought I had was just to set them to be killed by artillery only. However, that doesn't punish those rambos out there who think ROEs are a joke.

Any help will be appreciated.

[Don Maddox]

Is there any kind of "event editor" built in similar to that found in TOAW? If not, that might be something that bears looking at for a future version.

[kbluck]

I'd set them more or less equal to a dismount or soft vehicle, depending on the civilian you are making up. Or, if you want them to be particularly delicate, set them to 100% on pretty much everything. In that way, they can simulate "crowds" where almost any weapons impact is sure to blow up somebody.

One issue: since direct fire never kills yellow spots, there is really no sanction against hosing down any yellow you see on suppress. If they become IDed as neutral, blues will immediately stop firing and avoid killing them. Another reason I think it should be possible to kill yellows just the same, perhaps with a minor penalty to pH. The truth is, the range, speed, and accuracy of modern weapons has greatly outstripped the abilities of their human masters to identify their targets.

On the other hand, I think reds will go ahead and kill them once spotted. So, you might want to zero out red weapons if that is the case.

Definitely set their view ranges to the minimum possible to avoid burdening the system. They don't need to see anything.

A fine use for these would be to scatter them liberally throughout urban areas, so that players who decide to bombard towns with heavy artillery are pretty much guaranteed of killing the poor saps and thereby losing.

--- Kevin

[Deltapooh]

Is there any kind of "event editor" built in similar to that found in TOAW? If not, that might be something that bears looking at for a future version.

It has an event editor like TOAW. Looking at my old TOAW II manual, I believe ATF lacks the depthness. We have a number of trigger and effect options. However, employing them effectively can be quite complicated. The best technique is to employ as few triggers and effects as possible.

I would like to see an option added to the editor that allows you to establish conditions for using multiple different battle plans. For example: If a player establishes a breach, the red force aborts it's original plan in favor of a new battle plan scripted to simulate a fighting withdrawal.

Of course, that would really complicate the scripting process, but would be nice.

I'd set them more or less equal to a dismount or soft vehicle, depending on the civilian you are making up. Or, if you want them to be particularly delicate, set them to 100% on pretty much everything. In that way, they can simulate "crowds" where almost any weapons impact is sure to blow up somebody.

One issue: since direct fire never kills yellow spots, there is really no sanction against hosing down any yellow you see on suppress. If they become IDed as neutral, blues will immediately stop firing and avoid killing them. Another reason I think it should be possible to kill yellows just the same, perhaps with a minor penalty to pH. The truth is, the range, speed, and accuracy of modern weapons has greatly outstripped the abilities of their human masters to identify their targets.

On the other hand, I think reds will go ahead and kill them once spotted. So, you might want to zero out red weapons if that is the case.

Definitely set their view ranges to the minimum possible to avoid burdening the system. They don't need to see anything.

A fine use for these would be to scatter them liberally throughout urban areas, so that players who decide to bombard towns with heavy artillery are pretty much guaranteed of killing the poor saps and thereby losing.

As always, thanks for your advice. I'll do some playtesting to see about what to do with red force's pk. I want to do somekind of NEO type scenario.

I also agree about killing unidentified targets. Of course, we might require better ROE options.

I'll have to remember to ask CPT. Proctor about civilians in the game. I know that was one feature that was abandoned in ATF. I have a feeling it might have impacted the decision on killing unidentified vehicles.

[Pat Proctor]

Kb pretty much hit the civilian issue on the head. The bottom line is that the level of detail available in ATF does not lend itself to the reality of modern warfare (1 civiallian death = media disaster). I would say that even successfuly suppressing unidentified civilians replicates that. But I do conceed that the lack of the ability to destroy unidentified targets prevents most forms of fratricide.

As part of the current engine upgrade for Raging Tiger, we have contemplated an optional rule to allow scenario editors to change this. But it opens so many cans of worms (blue on blue deaths due to inadvertent suppression, etc.) that I can currently make no promises.

[kbluck]

Blue on blue kills really happen, especially with "danger close" fire support. I personally wouldn't view that as a problem with the engine, but rather with the player's fire control measures. Unless, of course, you forsesee the engine exacerbating such situations even when reasonable care is being taken by the player to avoid it.

I think the NK special ops would be delighted if they so confused the situation that they had ROKs shooting each other.

--- Kevin

[Deltapooh]

I'm a little worried about the can of worms myself. Fractricide is always a danger. Commanders depend on a number of tools to avoid it, but the most important is the soldier firing the weapon. In the game, this fact could force players to micromanage.

It is a nice option that needs to explored thoroughly with the engine, to see what happens.

[KG_Norad]

Certain battles in history, North Africa comes to mind during WWII, at times had so much dust on the battlefield that often times air support and ground reinforcements would refuse to engage. So the default parameter in ATF that refuses to use direct fire on unidentified targets works well enough I suppose.

I always thought that having a "Fire on Command" order to override this safty measure would be particularly interesting. Let's face it the way the stock scenarios are written if you can't identify it, you know it's an enemy and you would not want to use the command for fear of upsetting the game balance. However building in the command would allow scenarios to be designed with civilians roaming around and you would need to be very sure before you open fired willy nilly.

The way I envision this to work would be as follows. Leave the default parameter in place. Add the fire order to overide the default. Perhaps add an option to disable or enable this fire order for multiplayer. Finally make sure the AAR tracks civilian deaths. Thats it.

You would not have to build an event editor..though it would be cool. The scenario designer could document the negative results of civilian casualties in the briefing. So you kill women and childeren...you lose. Sure it's not fancy but I think it would work to add this element into the game with out too much tinkering with events and such. What do you guys think. Am I thinking about this too simplisticly?

Michael.

[Pat Proctor]

The "Suppress" order is intended to be the "Fire on Command" function you describe. It is powerful in that it will force units to fire on unidentified forces. It is limited in that you can only suppress a specific area, defined in size by the type of weapons used. It is also limited by the fact that, if civilians or allied forces are defined by "neutral" (green) units, and you do not maintain contact and know where they are, you can, potentially, accidentally suppress them.

The rule we are considering adding (scenario specific, set by designer) would allow unidentified vehicles to be destroyed by suppressive fire. The result would be that, if those green units or civilians are in your suppress circle, you might accidentally destroy them (fratricide).

I can not imagine a mechanism where blue units would fire on blue units. I know it happens, but there is no practical mechanism I can envision that would make this feasible in ATF. I think the rule we are considering would give the same effect.