Infantry TAC AI - trying not to rant

[Pete Wenman]

Ken - I guess your halftrack is half full !

 

P

[nik mond]

Assault Command with very short waypoints is your friend when assaulting a team partially concealed in woods.

Couple this with an area target on the sound contact icon by the same assaulting squad. Works.

Even looks like an old school contact drill taking place. (very short way points)

[Melchior]

Even Quick works fine with lots of way points. I had it wrong for years but that's really how you go about those final crucial steps advancing on a position. Their really isn't much the player can do beyond this for CQC because the game is not a shooter. Sure you can do really elaborate stuff like pre-plan arcs of fire and frequent pause stops, but in my experience all that goes out the window if something unexpected happens. In which case the AI becomes handcuffed by the player's minutiae control and desire to adhere to a strict plan. Then you get folks coming on the forum whining "nerf this" and "buff that". 

 

I think gamers have just been spoiled by years of mega-cheese games like Total War. 

[sburke]

I am not so sure if it is other games or not, but player expectation seems to be that there should be some means where you can apply a set of tactics that would likely guarantee success.  I can't find the specific post but there was one that mentioned having 3-1 odds with a professional force etc etc.

 

MOUT fighting is hard even with overwhelming superiority.  The US forces suffered 95 dead and 560 wounded in Fallujah.  Those were well trained troops, prepared in advance for a specific fight.  There is no magic answer.

[Melchior]

Exactly. What players want is a "correct answer". Their is none. Just look at the countless 'how do i clear the buildings with zero cas guys" topics. They don't want to feel challenged, they want to feel right. 

[Pelican Pal]

Yea, having the AI exposed in a LUA format or something would be sweet.

 

If I recall the original automatic firearms are weak discussion. It specifically had to do with MGs not doing enough to suppress the enemy. To the point where a squad could just run up on the gun and kill the crew, no questions asked.

 

The one that I suspect is on question here isn't a question of suppression, rather one of lethality.

 

CM squads are unrealistically clumped, but there isn't any real rationalization of that in how shooting is modeled. Explosives are weakened, but bursts of automatic fire aren't.  So you have these situations where a single shooter can mow down half a squad in a single burst.

 

I'm sure you;ve all seen it. That conga line of men right in a row. The lead man takes a burst and the fire also mows down everyone behind him.

 

 

I am not so sure if it is other games or not, but player expectation seems to be that there should be some means where you can apply a set of tactics that would likely guarantee success.  I can't find the specific post but there was one that mentioned having 3-1 odds with a professional force etc etc.

 

I think it is mostly a result of the 1:1 attempt that BFC made. We are in the center of the uncanny valley which causes the complete lack of MOUT super obvious. When your men are supposedly veteran American troops who fought in Afghanistan and are now fighting the Russians in Ukraine it seems a little absurd when your breach team runs into the building with absolutely no caution.

 

its a limitation of the game, but it is part and parcel when you enter the uncanny valley. These look like real men doing real fighting so every mistake is incredibly obvious. Back in CMx1 you just had the 3 stiff dudes run into a building, you watched some numbers tick down, and someone came out ahead in the breach.

 

In CMx1 your abstracted squad ran into the house and you could imagine this was happening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gmSYoBoOXvw#t=901

 

In CMx2 its just 4 dudes running in right after another to be shot by the guy at the far end of the house.

 

Especially when a scene like this in CMx2 looks decently similar:

Edited February 15, 2015 by Pelican Pal

[Ardem]

Played a hell a lot of CMx1. CMx1 due to abstraction was far easier in MOUT and wooded fights. In many ways I found them more realistic outcomes. And perhaps this is where my fault lies, I think in terms of MOUT and wooded combat CMx1 was far superior, as it does not rely on inferior TACAI but abstraction to achieve expected results.

 

For example a platoon in line, could overwhelm a single squad on contact in cmx1, in cmx2 a single squad could take out a platoon in line cause they take too long to fire back or react.

 

I think some the comment taking from defenders of the TAC AI, saying the tools are at hand use them are very helpful, it is almost blind elitism by some. I am using the tools, I still however feel BF need to invest in better 'contact management' with the TAC AI, if it going to achieve a more realistic outcome that CMx1 was able to achieve.

 

There are times my tactics a flawed and I make mistakes and I full acknowledge those, there are times where luck is not on my side, and there is time when I shake my head at the idiotic behavior of my troops (due to engine inefficiency) that get them killed in whole squads. The last one is the most frustrating as the decision are not of a simple soldier being illogical a whole squad can be lemmings, actual sometime lemmings are smarter.

 

Your movies above are just that movies, the likelihood in a huge field the Halftrack happened to be in the perfect ambush range between two groups of soldiers I always find amusing.

Edited February 20, 2015 by Ardem

[Wiggum15]

You are totally right about that. I wish there was more abstraction in close comabt and infantry combat in general. That would lead to much more realistic outcomes.

You have the conga line.

You have the "single shooter kills my squad"

You have the insanely deadly automatic rifle fire

You have a TacAI that hates buildings (for some reason)

Edited February 20, 2015 by Wiggum15

[A Canadian Cat]

I do agree that there are improvements to be made. The conga line and plowing ahead after disaster leap to mind.

We agree there.

I do however see a problem with your characterization that fighting in the woods a platoon should beat a squad. Sorry but that is just one dimensional thinking. My dad used to tell a story about umpiring a Nato exercise where one force had a choke point we'll covered by a handful of guns and the advancing force complained that they should win because they had a battalion of tanks against a platoon. Pointing out that just throwing everything down the road wound lead to one or two tanks at a time against the platoon didn't seem to help

The situation you describe in the woods is exactly where CM2 gets it much better than CM1. If you stick to describing incidents of bad behaviour I'll agree with you more not that you need to care able that

[Ardem]

I did not say a choke point, I said a platoon in line. Its a pretty obvious read, what your talking about in you example is completely off base.

 

If you do it in CMx1 the squad opens up and one squad is suppressed the other two squads are firing which route or kill the squad.

 

CMx2 the OPFor squad opens up, all three squads move to the closes way point crawl around for 10 secs while they get into positions, perhaps you see a few shots fired. By the 10 second mark the original squad is wiped out of 80% dead. The defending squad moves onto the next squad while the two other squads come in and out of spotting and fire ever now and then.

 

CMx1 is far superior in this type of combat you cannot tell me any differently.

 

Again no chokepoints or terrain advantages just a straight up line formation of a platoon against a squad.

 

Now if you take CMx2 CMRT people are now telling players if your german and got a company and there is a couple of squads of Russians with SMG go around the woods do not enter them because you will lose. There is something wrong. I can point to several posts around that. To me they are not realistic outcomes. 

[AttorneyAtWar]

I did not say a choke point, I said a platoon in line. Its a pretty obvious read, what your talking about in you example is completely off base.

 

If you do it in CMx1 the squad opens up and one squad is suppressed the other two squads are firing which route or kill the squad.

 

CMx2 the OPFor squad opens up, all three squads move to the closes way point crawl around for 10 secs while they get into positions, perhaps you see a few shots fired. By the 10 second mark the original squad is wiped out of 80% dead. The defending squad moves onto the next squad while the two other squads come in and out of spotting and fire ever now and then.

 

CMx1 is far superior in this type of combat you cannot tell me any differently.

 

Again no chokepoints or terrain advantages just a straight up line formation of a platoon against a squad.

 

Now if you take CMx2 CMRT people are now telling players if your german and got a company and there is a couple of squads of Russians with SMG go around the woods do not enter them because you will lose. There is something wrong. I can point to several posts around that. To me they are not realistic outcomes. 

 

The posts regarding Russian squads in forests make perfect sense, if you don't have a 3:1 advantage against SMG armed Russian troops in thick forests, go around them if you can. German infantry are not well equipped to deal with situations like that and avoiding that situation entirely is completely rational, however if it has to be done the best tactic is area firing and mass fire power employment after scouts find enemy positions. Both of those solutions are listed in threads pertaining to Russian infantry in forests, and one of those threads I made myself.

[sburke]

 

CMx1 is far superior in this type of combat you cannot tell me any differently.

I can and I do.   Seriously though, I respect your opinion on the subject.  I just disagree absolutely with it.

[BTR]

Currently full infantry squads occupy two tiles which leads to over-cramped cover, conga lines and so on. What if squads were spread between three tiles? That would eliminate a couple of problems associated with over-grouping, would look visually better, and create more meaningful use for "assault" command. 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

CMSF is more like this; US units (and Syrian paratroopers) are resilient under fire, for the most part.

This changed with CMBN for me. I was surprised to see platoons getting suppressed and then taking significant casualties from fire a few hundred metres away.

The only thing I would disagree with it is not just US troops. I'm doing the Russian campaign and it's making me very tentative in my attacks as infantry cower even under modest fire when they dash. A few times I've had to rescue them with the supporting APC, which they are meant to be screening!

I feel the small arms modelling could be dialled down a little bit.

 

Hmm I have seen plenty of individual cowererers. Firepower has two effects. First and most obviously it has physical effects killing, wounding and breaking thinks.Secondly the psychlogical impact. Troops come under fire and they start to take cover as one actually would. You cannot expect your squads and platoons to be as brave (or stupid) as you in real life  You come under what you feel is pretty heavy fire and Sir wants you to advance over that open field, No Sir, we aren't doing that.

 

You want your troops to advance? You are going to have to give them some help. Such as coverng fire to suppress the enemy fire (i.e. keep their heads down so they don't fire as effectively as they were.

 

In other words Fire and Movement tactics. The most basic infantry drill since the First World War!

[A Canadian Cat]

I did not say a choke point, I said a platoon in line. Its a pretty obvious read, what your talking about in you example is completely off base.

No it is not off base I just was not clear enough in my explanation. You are right it is not a choke point. But the point I was trying to make was that you are assuming that the whole platoon will be able to bring weapons to bear on the single squad. They will not.

Since the platoon is inline and when they make contact at best they will have a squad and a half that can actually bring effective fire on the enemy squad. Since the enemy squad is there waiting for them the first fire fight will most likely end badly for the moving platoon members. Now the attacker has a mauled squad and two other squads that are out of position (relative to the enemy because they were searching in line). The defender will in all likely hood pull back a big to a new ambush position. The attacker now has an idea of where the enemy is an will no doubt attempt to pursue. But the next time they make contact it might be 1:1 again depending on who moves where. And 1:1 against a waiting force usually favours the stationary waiting force.

That was my point your scenario will likely generate multiple encounters that favour the defender at least some of the time. So it is very similar to my example just not exactly the same.

[dan/california]

I am reiterating a point made by several people.  If you have to advance against defenders in a low visibility, and/or complicated LOS situation you will take casualties.  The only way to reduce these casualties beyond an unpleasantly high minimum is to use massive amounts of suppressive fire support.  If you don't have that support assaulting certain kinds of positions is nearly suicide. If you have the arty just shell the relevant bits and avoid them if you possibly can.  leave a team to greet anyone who moves to the edge of whatever it is.

[sburke]

Currently full infantry squads occupy two tiles which leads to over-cramped cover, conga lines and so on. What if squads were spread between three tiles? That would eliminate a couple of problems associated with over-grouping, would look visually better, and create more meaningful use for "assault" command.

The construction of squads into teams is part of the ToE structure and also the determining factor as to how many AS a squad takes up. In other CM titles there are 3 team squads which will occupy 3 AS. This is not a simple matter to change, it is the foundation point for how a lot of things work. Want to spread out your squads? Split them. Trying to have it done via the game does not appear to be an option. BF does not tend to do work on items if the tools already exist to handle it.