Jump to content

Pericles

Members
  • Content Count

    156
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Pericles last won the day on October 26

Pericles had the most liked content!

About Pericles

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The team withdrew on its own. There were no orders for that team on that turn.
  2. In the particular case of the video below, I don't see how the unit is thinking only of itself based on the knowledge it has available to it when it runs back toward the enemy a second time instead of down the road or behind the wall. It simply doesn't make any sense given the in-game situation (e.g. the unit is aware of enemy contacts North). Would you agree, or am I missing something? Battlefront wrote: "However, we have been at a point now, for a while, where it's getting harder and harder to find reproducible, addressable corner cases. That's good." Agreed. And the discussions in this thread may have contributed to the identification of a reproducible corner case in the Wilcox scenario. If it's not sufficiently addressable, then that's not good, but only mildly not good. I realize that expecting a video game like this to be completely free of errors is not realistic. As a customer and proponent of the CM franchise I will continue to poke and prod with evidence, reason, and an open mind in an attempt to contribute to the improvement of the game experience.
  3. sburke - I didn't realize TacAI problem identification was so complicated. I thought that identifying TacAI problems in the most current engine version 4.0 was all that was relevant in improving the engine. The developers would take your ticket submission regarding an identified TacAI problem and make changes to the most current engine version 4.0. If you are correct, and it is actually relevant to know whether or not TacAI problems identified in the current engine version were also present in the previous engine versions, then my belief that your question is not relevant to the discussion is wrong. That being said, it would have been constructive if you would have given your opinion on the topic of the post, which is TacAI problems with the Shock Force 2 demo. You've had a chance to look at the videos and to experiment with the demo. What do you think?
  4. sburke, I don't believe your question is relevant to the discussion. The issue here is identifying problems with TacAI in engine 4.0. Clearly, the engines before 4.0 were imperfect (that's why we have continued engine development), and one would expect to see problems with TacAI behavior in those versions as well. I seem to recall TacAI problems before 4.0 came around. Shock Force 2 demo TacAI problems do not happen a lot. But the fact is they happen (I was able to provide three examples from one play-through of the Wilcox scenario) and many of us would like to contribute to their solution.
  5. If my writings in this thread are "aggressive", I would say the same about IanL and others. I am writing these things in the interest of furthering a reasonable conversation about known issues. And as an aside, I have great respect for IanL as a Combat Mission veteran and tester - his work has advanced the development of the CM engine through the years. I just disagree with him in terms of how he has approached reasoning about the issue of TacAI problems in this particular thread.
  6. ncc1701e - Great. So it seems you have replicated the problem that I identified in those three videos I posted. This is what I would call a "TacAI problem". I read you loud and clear the first time. I understand the fact that pixel soldiers do not make good choices all the time. It is a very obvious point to make. However, I don't believe the observed behavior - as documented in my three videos, as replicated by ncc1701e, and as confirmed in writing by others in this thread - can be explained in terms of bad decisions. And I don't believe that you can look at those videos and honestly say "The soldiers just made bad decisions. This is not a problem that could be solved (an aspect of the TacAI that could be improved)." The fact is, this game is about simulation, believability, and realism. It is simply not believable that soldiers would run towards an enemy when panicking rather than running away. That is why the TacAI is programmed as it is (run away from direction of enemy). This is what happens most of the time. But when soldiers panic and run towards the enemy stupidly, having known contacts in the area, there is a significant loss of believability and realism because no one would do this in real life without some sort of aneurysm or suicidal wish. The TacAI will not be perfect. There will be coding problems, like with any game. This is something you seem to be incapable of admitting.
  7. Perhaps your reluctance to affirm that this is a problem boils down to semantics. Instead of using the term "bug", I will just use the word "TacAI problem" from now on. A "TacAI problem" in the context of Combat Mission might be defined as follows: A behavior by a unit that is not believable or realistic in the context of real-life human decision-making. With this definition in mind, an example of a TacAI problem is as follows: A pixeltruppen panics and runs toward the enemy without being ordered to. Now, I will concede that it is believable that a solider in real life might do this. For example, if he didn't know the enemy was there, or if he sustained a traumatic brain injury, or if he was suicidal. But if these conditions do not hold, it is not believable that someone would do this. So, if this happens in-game, it can be identified as a "TacAI problem". Now, if you are to watch the videos I posted, and if you are to believe what I am saying in terms of the orders I had given each of the units before commencing the real-time computation of the turn, then you will agree that this is a "TacAI problem".
  8. IanL - I explained where the men I was unhappy with were going: North. Simply read what I wrote. Also, try looking at the compass in the videos. I have described - in great detail in this thread - what the orders were corresponding to the videos.
  9. On my first try, my orders were to run FAST into the courtyard 2-3 action spots away. They ran North instead. On my second try (the second video), I cancelled all orders for the soldiers in an attempt to have them stay put at least. They ran North instead, outside of the courtyard complex, and then South a little bit down the road. And then, remarkably, they turned around and ran North again into enemy fire. The Blue Friendly Direction parameter for this scenario must be South - that is where your U.S. forces start the mission.
  10. The "Evade" button (and related buttons) in the command panel might only solve the identified problem in Turn-based mode if the unit panics shortly before the end of the turn: p.62 of Game Engine Manual Version 4.00 states: "Instant Commands can be used both in Real-Time mode as well as Turn-based mode. In Real-time mode they are executed immediately, in Turn-based mode they are executed immediately after the start of the next turn." In all the examples I give in the thread below (in Turn-based mode), the "Evade" button and other buttons would do nothing to stop the unrealistic behavior of running towards enemies after panicking, because the panicking does not occur near the end of the turn.
  11. I don't see that button. Please explain. Anybody else care to discuss this issue constructively?
  12. I have uploaded three videos to Youtube regarding the pathfinding problems. Links are pasted below. I have also started a thread that might get us some idea as to whether there is actually a coding solution to this problem.
  13. I have been witnessing all kinds of irrational panic behavior in the SF2 demo Wilcox scenario, where panicking pixeltruppen run towards the enemy rather than away. I am in the process of uploading three examples to Youtube that conclusively prove that this is the case. Generally, others in the forum have agreed that there is a pathfinding "problem" with the SF2 demo. If we are to accept that there is a problem when panicking units commonly run towards the enemy, how can this be solved by changing the code? I have never seen any suggestions by the developers as to how this might be improved. I have a suggestion that I thought I'd share, perhaps it has been recommended before: another movement command option called "Flee" (or something like that). What it would allow you to do is to plot a point to where a squad or fire team is to run if they panic. It seems like the obvious solution. When the squad/fire team panics, it will run to the panic waypoint, no matter what. If the squad/fire team does not end up panicking during the turn, the "Panic" waypoint will not take effect. My guess is that this sort of feature is not possible given how the game is coded. Thoughts?
  14. IanL - Do you have a response to my question? I asked whether you agree that this is a bug now that I provided video evidence. I'm interested to know your thoughts on this given your experience with CM (e.g. you have over 12,000 posts on the forum).
  15. No, I only witnessed the unrealistic behavior once. I re-played the turn and the fire team did not take a casualty and so I accepted it and moved on. In the scenario, your forces start in the South and attack Northwards. When the fire team panicked, they ran North (towards enemy forces) not South (towards friendly forces). Luckily I made a video of the behavior I witnessed, in the event that my description was not enough. Please have a look at the video below (I will delete it in 24 hours). Given that the fire team in question was ordered to "Hunt" one action spot away, to the outside of the door , and given that there were no other commands issued for that fire team, and given that they chose to run towards the enemy forces/unexplored area of the map/North when they panicked, this is conclusively a bug. IanL - Would you agree that this is a bug?
×