Wiggum15 Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Hi ! Is it just me or do the US troops in BS panic way to fast ? One would expect the the US soldiers would be the most battle hardened of all ingame (generally speaking) but 30sec of enemy fire from 300m away and one WIA and they Panic just like green Syrian conscripts in Shock Force did. Am i alone or did you notice that too ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Hi ! Is it just me or do the US troops in BS panic way to fast ? One would expect the the US soldiers would be the most battle hardened of all ingame (generally speaking) but 30sec of enemy fire from 300m away and one WIA and they Panic just like green Syrian conscripts in Shock Force did. Am i alone or did you notice that too ? I noticed they tend to be suppressed and cower, which is fine and realistic, but I haven't yet seen them sent into a 'panic' morale state from only one wounded and thirty seconds of fire. Unless it is like, a tank's main gun or BMP autocannon. Edited February 28, 2015 by Apocal 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 Just small arms fire, happened already a few times to me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LUCASWILLEN05 Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) I disagree. Tanks do reverse mre often due to laser threat warnings but infantry don't. I think you need to take a look underneath the bonnet and examine the experience and motivation settings as they were set by the scenario designer. And can you be specific regarding scenarios. Much willl also depend on the amount of incming fire. Given that we are talking about modern weaponry here 300m is pretty clse. If they are in he open and hey are taking a lot of fire that might cause them to panic particularlyif they are already nervous. Look at he triangle at the bottom left of the screen which starts off empty bu gradually fills s a unit becomes nore jittery. Maybe you culd take a screen print showing the status of the unit in question. Edited February 28, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Hi ! Is it just me or do the US troops in BS panic way to fast ? One would expect the the US soldiers would be the most battle hardened of all ingame (generally speaking) but 30sec of enemy fire from 300m away and one WIA and they Panic just like green Syrian conscripts in Shock Force did. Am i alone or did you notice that too ? Are you feeling specifically US troops, or troops in general? I would argue you should be seeing the same behavior within a degree from both sides. That behavior is based on the soft factors as set by the designer and is applicable to soldiers of any nationality. As to being battle hardened, as I noted in your other thread, that is an invalid assumption. There is nothing to indicate in the story line (and likely reality) to indicate that US troops should necessarily have any prior combat experience. Some leaders yes, your average grunt, probably not. Motivation should perhaps be high, fitness as well. Experience, maybe not so much. Now if you are suggesting troops in general behave wrong, that is a different discussion. There are some questions as to how the TAC AI responds to fire that reflects more WW 2 conscript experience rather than how well trained troops would respond. That however is equally applied to all sides. Edited February 28, 2015 by sburke 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Now if you are suggesting troops in general behave wrong, that is a different discussion. There are some questions as to how the TAC AI responds to fire that reflects more WW 2 conscript experience rather than how well trained troops would respond. That however is equally applied to all sides. ...and some would expect Battlefront to change that for their new shiny modern warfare game, but thats maybe asking to much for a 50$ game... Edited February 28, 2015 by Wiggum15 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AttorneyAtWar Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Getting shot at tends to have an interesting effect on human beings, usually they seek cover and try not to die. Could the tac ai do a bit better in seeking cover when taking fire before being pinned? sure, but I see no problem with someone "cowering" if they are taking fire, that's just human nature, I don't care if your Russian or American. Edited February 28, 2015 by Raptorx7 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 ...and some would expect Battlefront to change that for their new shiny modern warfare game, but thats maybe asking to much for a 50$ game... You really are a piece of work. I guess it is just beyond you to understand the inherent difficulties in creating a TAC AI. You want what you want when you want it and if you don';t get it you will have a hissy fit until mommy.. oops I mean BF caters to you. Yeah I am getting a bit more aggressive in response. Considering you have displayed the same attitude in both threads it is clear your eventual goal is to get banned by BF as you certainly have the level of negativity and nasty social behavior that typically ends there. Yes it IS asking a bit much for $50 if you had any inkling at all how difficult AI behavior is. But you don't and therefore feel that a $50 game should have a human response level AI. Feeling entitled is such an incredible thing to watch. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stagler Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Can it burke. Ain't nobody got time for your old man blather. Wiggum expects to get bugs looked at and fixed. He clearly means that he thinks the "ai" still is in red thunder configuration and still hasn't been changed in this iteration - maybe they are. Who knows. We are unable to look ourselves. His point is as valid as any of yours. Edited February 28, 2015 by Stagler 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVulture Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Can it burke. Ain't nobody got time for your old man blather. Wiggum expects to get bugs looked at and fixed. He clearly means that he thinks the "ai" still is in red thunder configuration and still hasn't been changed in this iteration - maybe they are. Who knows. We are unable to look ourselves. His point is as valid as any of yours. I can't see why it would be changed from CMBN, CMFI or CMRT. BFC had always had a policy of having e.g. regular troops having the same morale behaviour regardless of nationality. I doubt they'd change it for different time frames. A WW2 'regular' level troop is about the same level of training in CM terms as a modern 'regular' troop. It is up to scenario designers (for the most part) to set the experience levels of the troops to reflect the level of training and experience they have. If modern soldiers should all be well trained professionals, they should probably all be veteran or above, where 'typical' WW2 troops might well be green (or worse on some fronts). Also, don't forget that the incoming firepower troops are facing is considerably higher too. A modern platoon, with assault rifles and other goodies can probably put out more fire than a WW2 company, which has a somewhat higher suppressive effect. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 LOL sure call me geezer. I have tried to be a polite participant in the discussion, but the OP never addresses the actual points raised and can't even seem to provide a polite response. If that is your idea of a valid position, all power to you. The title of the thread says US soldiers. So what is his point? At no time in any of the responses has any question been answered or even included as a possible consideration. Examples between this and the other thread 1 What are the soft factors set for the unit 2. Is it US specific that he is critiquing or general unit behavior 3. US units being battle hardened is a questionable assumption. 4. How do you define "panicked" behavior The TAC AI is the same across all titles, that is the whole point BF has made about keeping all titles current. The only TAC AI adjusted has to do with specific weapons systems introduced for CMBS. TAC AI for infantry behavior has not for the simple reason BF has provided many times over. TAC AI is extremely difficult to get even approximately right. It will never be perfect and BF is very averse to trying to change it for one off or outlier issues unless someone can point out a behavior that is consistently uncharacteristic AND not something they player can adjust (by changing the soft factors for example) AND something they can actually address without a complete revamp of the TAC AI. As can be seen in both threads, there are a lot of opinions about the behavior of units. The behavior specifically cited in this post can be adjusted by altering the soft factors. If you disagree with the scenario designer, you can make your troops more resilient. That isn't necessarily a TAC AI issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 It really could be that.I expect them to seek cover and keep their heads down, what i did not expect is how fast they panic (especially while in vehicles)Again, we are talking about professional soldiers serving in a army with the most epic firepower available ever.That would not be such a issue if the panic behavior would be halfway decent. But with a complete random panic behavior that is more then often pure suicide this is really a issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) 4. How do you define "panicked" behaviorI would say its the behavior (movements/actions) od your guys while the Status = PANIC.And that is really flawed.I mean a Humvee driving aimlessly into the woods because the MG gunner got hit ?!Although those woods are in perfect LOS of the enemy ?!Although he just needs to stay on the road and finish my movement order to get into safety in less then 5sec ?!If they cant get the panic behavior right then maybe they should reduce the times it happens.I would not expect a regular US infantry squad to panic after a 2 minute firefight with one WIA while they are surrounded by US tanks and APC's and have CAS overhead...At least not the Battlefront version of panic where the troops show extreme stupid illogic and suicidal behavior. Edited February 28, 2015 by Wiggum15 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) What does professional.soldiers.in an.army with the most epic firepower ever have to do with you being.shot at at that moment.in the ukraine? The US was more or.less sole.posessor of nuclear weapons in 1950 ( yes i know the soviets tested one in 49, doesnt mean they had any meaningful numbers) and US forces panicked and.fled with certain exceptions during the initial NK invasion and again during the Chinese intervention. I imagine yoyr country being.the strongest in.the world.means.fu#k all when that power isnt on.the spot and you.re being hosed down.with half your platoon screaming in bloody agony or turning into red.mist. Also the OP seems almost like a troll. I dnt want marines.or nato modules. F everyone else give me what i want. US troops act like COWARDS.very inflammatory, above.other posters are correct.the game.for obvious reasons doesnt model different soldiers as having different national.characteristics. this would obviously cause bfc endless problems, especially from.countries with less than.stellar military histories or ones that seem to breed rabid hordes of trolls online (heres.looking at you Russia and.to a lesser extent Germany) declaring their countries are the supreme pinnacle.of.human evolution. Russian.stronk crush hato dogs. Nazi germany didnt.really start ww2 it was forced upon.them. ( yeah rlly read that last.nite by a.youtube user) Edited February 28, 2015 by Sublime 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philipp Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 I think the fact that in CM humvees who took a casualty DO NOT complete their order but instead do something human (i.e. stupid like full reverse) sets it apart from the zerg-rush crowd of other games. I love the CM games for how they simulate the chaos of combat and the feeling of having influence but not quite beeing in control. Sure, some chaos could be bug and there sure are some, but I usually don't see bugs, I see things that went terribly bad, sometimes without obvious reason. But wait, thats what grandpa said what war is like!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) Although he just needs to stay on the road and finish my movement order to get into safety in less then 5sec ?! Well, yeah, that can be frustrating. Something similar happened to me not long ago, so I know what the feeling is like. But this is also the kind of thing that is almost impossible to code for. Say you altered the code so that the unit would press on to what you regard as a safe location, but then it turns out that it drives right into an ambush. The code has to be written to work within a range of circumstances and conditions, but the behavior of the game overall is so complex and varied that it is for all intents and purposes impossible to foresee all the variables and provide an optimum response to each one. So inevitably these edge cases are going to turn up, and devoting time and effort to solving them might provoke additional problems in other cases. Computers and the code that runs them are still basically kinda dumb, which shouldn't come as much of a shock considering that they are created by human beings. Which brings me to my final point. The kind of situation you describe, whether to advance or retreat to get out of danger, is a judgement call, and in real life can be as ill-fortuned as what happens in the game. Michael Edited February 28, 2015 by Michael Emrys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 I think the fact that in CM humvees who took a casualty DO NOT complete their order but instead do something human (i.e. stupid like full reverse) sets it apart from the zerg-rush crowd of other games.And here i disagree, the response is not human at all most of the time.Sometimes they decide to drive into woods or into enemy LOS although just staying on the road for a few more seconds would get them into perfect cover.Sometimes they do not reverse although they took many hits and stay in position for a whole minute....thats another point by the way !The TacAI seems only to react with reverse or other "get out of here" after taking casualties, they not react to heavy enemy fire...they wait till somebody gets hit then change to panic behavior and go nuts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarre Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Wiggum do you realy want USA troops are like supersoldiers ? atlast its sounds that . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheVulture Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Sometimes they decide to drive into woods or into enemy LOS although just staying on the road for a few more seconds would get them into perfect cover. Unfortunately, while it may be obvious to you that it is perfect cover (assuming you're not wrong ) - that is exactly the kind of problem that is pretty hard for computers to analyse. Anything involving 2d image processing is something our brains have an absolutely massive amount of dedicated processing for, and such it is just 'obvious' to us, which really hides just how hard it actually is to create algorithms to process that kind of information. In short, the tac AI has basically no idea what is or is not cover, beyond the local properties of the terrain. In a building = in cover. In a forest with undergrowth = in cover. On a road = not in cover, even if it happens to be hidden in defilade and 100% behind your lines and out of all possible enemy LoS. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted February 28, 2015 Author Share Posted February 28, 2015 Maybe they should drop the panic behavior as it is and replace it with something else like a delay before following new orders. Or even better a SOP system where you could tell them how to behave if they take casualties or heavy fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agusto Posted February 28, 2015 Share Posted February 28, 2015 Personally i havent been able to observe the behaviour described by the OP yet. All my troops behave similar, skill and training seem to determine behaviour under fire, not nationality. ----------------------------------------- Wiggum do you realy want USA troops are like supersoldiers ? atlast its sounds that . They ARE supersoldiers. Here is a 1985 documentary on how the average US soldier behaves under fire: Notice the tactical importance of taking your shirt off - once you are half naked and the enemy can see your oiled up, sweaty muscles, the 'excitement' will throw his aim off and consequently render you invulnerable to enemy fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philipp Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Show me the soldiers who never freeze in place and always make perfect decisions about where to find the best cover. You can complain about bugs or bad AI. Or you can just take as what it simulates. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zveroboy1 Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Don't take this the wrong way, but maybe this is a case of watching too many Hollywood war movies if you expect soldiers under heavy fire to react like automatons. I am not saying the Tac AI is perfect, but it is imo symptomatic of this tendency of a category of players to be control freaks and balk at the thought of your pixel troops not blindly following orders in all circusmtances. War is chaotic, you can't control everything. I think this is what makes CM games so good. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiggum15 Posted March 1, 2015 Author Share Posted March 1, 2015 (edited) Its not about perfect or not, its about stupid,suicidal and completely illogic. @ Zveroboy1Sorry but thats just another way of defending a, in some aspects, broken and flawed TacAI. Edited March 1, 2015 by Wiggum15 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ASL Veteran Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 Well everyone is using the same broken and flawed TacAI so at least the playing field is level for everyone. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.